We’ve Always Known the Truth of War w/Iran Lt Col Daniel Davis
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 8, 2026
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | June 10, 2026
Iran’s ballistic missile response to Israel’s attack on Beirut is a game-changer for the power dynamics of West Asian politics. The ‘Unity of Squares’ concept has officially led to a NATO-style defense pact developing between the members of the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to strike the southern suburbs of Beirut last Monday, the immediate threat issued by the leadership in Tehran forced him to take a step back. Ultimately, the US and Israel would delay the implementation of the decision to attack the Lebanese Capital, then suffering an overwhelming response that outperformed expectations.
The first detail to consider here is that the mere threat of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launching strikes on Israeli targets forced Tel Aviv and Washington to take a step back, meaning that both de facto admitted that Tehran maintains deterrence power. Then came the Israeli strike on the southern suburbs this Sunday, which was extremely limited and nothing of the nature of what Netanyahu had originally advertised.
A weak strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, which had no actual impact on Hezbollah whatsoever, indicates that the US-Israeli alliance acted in order to save face, seeking to test Iran’s resolve, but also to leave space for it to retreat from all-out war.
Following Iran’s missile waves, which struck Ramat David Airbase – according to satellite imagery evidence – the Israelis decided to launch an attack on Iran. Although they did target at least three radar sites and a petrochemical company, amongst other targets, it was clear that the Israeli attack was lackluster; designed primarily to give them the veneer of having risen to confront the IRGC. No Iranians were killed in the Israeli attack, and the majority of the sites hit were previously struck during the 40-day war earlier this year.
It was clear that the IRGC had prepared for the Israeli counter-strike, not only unleashing an attack of its own on Israeli companies and military sites in response but also coordinating its retaliatory action with Yemen’s Ansarallah.
As the Israelis were playing catch-up, the Iranians were implementing a carefully calibrated phase two of their promised retaliation to Israel’s attack on Beirut– that being the inclusion of new fronts. The IRGC had previously warned Tel Aviv that the war would expand to other fronts; the Yemeni Armed Forces achieved precisely this.
Ansarallah has declared that the Bab al-Mandab Strait is now closed to Israeli shipping, returning to the equation imposed in support of Gaza until October of 2025, when the ceasefire was signed. Yemen then went a step further and vowed to totally close Bab al-Mandab, should the war escalate further. This would represent an enormous economic blow to the global economy, considering the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
The concept of the ‘Unity of Squares’ was originally developed by former Secretary General of Lebanese Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, and before him Iran’s former IRGC Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani. In essence, it was the idea of linking all of the fronts of the Axis of Resistance so that none would stand alone. On October 8, 2023, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah put this into action by immediately intervening on the side of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza. Soon thereafter, Ansarallah would follow, and to a lesser extent, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq.
Israel had long bragged that its assassination of Nasrallah had broken this Unity of Squares dynamic, because Hezbollah was forced into accepting a less-than-favorable ceasefire in late 2024. It was because of Nasrallah’s refusal to abandon Gaza “no matter where it takes the region”, that Tel Aviv had decided to kill him. Therefore, it is accurate to say that the former Hezbollah leader quite literally gave his life for Gaza.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s quest to achieve “total victory” in his 7-front war has not proven successful, but one major step towards that was managing to break the idea of the Unity of Squares. Through Iran’s actions this Sunday, that “success” was just undone.
The IRGC has also recently been insisting that Gaza be included in their ceasefire agreement, something that a number of statements released by Hamas also appear to be indicating will be the case. If the Islamic Republic does impose its will on the US-Israeli alliance by setting in stone the equation that an attack on one is an attack on all, the Unity of Squares equation will be imposed fully, as it was originally intended. In the past, it was never fully implemented because of Iran’s absence as a front that could easily open.
The implications of this equation coming to life are that the Iranian-led Axis will undoubtedly be the most powerful alliance in the region. Not because they necessarily possess the most firepower and capabilities, but because they will together be able to cut off key international chokepoints, while battering their adversaries in a way that can achieve strategic deterrence.
It should be noted that this is a direct result of the US-Israeli failure in their war of aggression to achieve any of their goals. Instead of weakening Tehran, their reckless aggression and arrogance may have just undone the tactical victories they previously achieved, pushing Iran into the position that many previously argued it should have assumed sooner after October 7, 2023. Unless Tel Aviv and Washington find a way to reverse this, this will represent a major historic shift in regional power dynamics.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
Al Mayadeen | June 10, 2026
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has stated that Iran will not leave any attack or threat unanswered, stressing that the United States has chosen to test what he described as Iran’s resolve despite battlefield losses.
Araghchi affirmed in an X post that the Iranian armed forces would respond to any aggression, signaling a hardened stance amid rising regional tensions.
‘Leave our region if you want to be safe’
Addressing Washington directly, Araghchi warned the United States to withdraw from the region, saying: “Leave our region if you want to be safe.”
He added that the history of the Persian Gulf contains what he described as “dire fates” that befell foreign forces, framing foreign military presence as inherently risky.
The foreign minister’s statement comes after the US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that it had launched strikes on Iran, stating the operation was carried out under orders from the US military leadership and framed as a response to what the US claims is Iran’s downing of an Apache helicopter.
CENTCOM described the strikes as a “proportionate response” to what it called “unprovoked Iranian aggression,” linking the escalation to reports surrounding the incident. However, no independent verification has confirmed the claims.
Press TV – June 10, 2026
Iran’s Armed Forces have launched retaliatory operations against American military targets in the region after fresh American aggression struck several locations in the country’s southern Hormozgan Province.
On Wednesday, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) noted how the “warmongering American regime” had attacked several locations in Jask, Sirik, and Qeshm in the province earlier in the day under the “false pretext” of an American helicopter’s crash.
According to the IRGC, the American strikes had damaged a telecommunications tower in Sirik and destroyed two water reservoirs in the Bemani district of the county.
US Fifth Fleet, al-Azraq base hit in reprisal
The Corps said its Navy responded to the attacks by carrying out a retaliatory drone strike against the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.
The force later announced that it had also launched a missile strike against Washington’s al-Azraq base in Jordan.
According to another IRGC statement, four major targets, including F-35 warplane shelters and the command-and-control center of the “child-killing American army” at al-Azraq, were struck and destroyed.
An informed military source, meanwhile, said Iran used long-range solid-fuel Kheibar Shekan missiles to target the shelters housing the warplanes.
The IRGC added that, in total, 21 targets at American air and naval bases across the region were hit throughout the reprisal.
Army reports drone strikes
Additionally, the Iranian Army’s Public Relations Office said that, as part of operations aimed at countering the “hostile acts and harassment of the terrorist American army” against residents of southern Iran, the Army launched waves of drone operations against American bases and the radar systems of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.
IRGC says operations continue
The IRGC also described the Islamic Republic’s response to enemy aggression as ongoing amid reports that the American attacks were followed by additional blasts in Jask.
It added that, should the United States continue its actions, “heavier responses are on the way.”
Shortly after the latter comments, local sources reported more strikes against American outposts in Bahrain and Kuwait.
Joint command issues warning
Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, which coordinates the IRGC’s and the Army’s operations, described the overall counterstrikes as a “powerful [retaliatory] assault.”
The headquarters likewise warned that if the United States repeated any aggression against the Islamic Republic, “heavier and more extensive strikes” would be carried out against a predetermined list of targets across the region.
Iranian officials and military forces have denied any role in the helicopter crash, which was used by Washington to try to justify the attacks on Hormozgan.
They have sternly warned that any act of aggression against the country would not go without an answer.
MEMO | June 9, 2026
Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem said the movement highly valued the Iranian and Yemeni responses to what he described as escalating Israeli aggression against the Lebanese people, saying the stance represented a genuine model of solidarity among the region’s nations in confronting Israeli attacks.
In a press statement on Monday, Qassem said Hamas viewed the position as “the true form of solidarity that should prevail among all components of the nation”. He called on regional forces to regard this level of support and backing as a duty at this stage in support of the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples.
Qassem said Hamas had received repeated assurances from Iranian and Yemeni officials that they were seeking to end the war on all fronts, including the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip.
He added that Iran had provided the movement with political, military and financial support and continued to declare its backing for the Palestinian people and their right to resist, while also supporting efforts aimed at securing a ceasefire.
Qassem said Hamas hoped that the current state of solidarity and direct support would extend to Gaza and that the enclave would remain central to regional efforts linked to ending the war and halting the aggression.
The Cradle | June 9, 2026
A “significant number” of Israeli airstrikes against Iran were launched from Jordanian airspace, a military intelligence source revealed to Fars News Agency on 9 June.
The security source also said that Jordanian military helicopters assisted Israel by intercepting Iranian drones and missiles headed toward Israeli territory.
The coordination reportedly included operational and intelligence support from several western European nations operating within Jordan.
According to the source, Israeli jets utilized long-range air-to-surface munitions for these attacks in response to Iran’s recent rapid upgrades to its radar and air defense systems.
The report follows Iranian drone and missile strikes on Sunday and Monday targeting seven Israeli military and economic centers in response to repeated ceasefire violations across Lebanon.
The security source further asserted that the volume of successful Iranian missile impacts was “unprecedented,” despite the “extensive censorship” by Israeli authorities.
Jordan had been serving as a “key hub” for US military operations since before the war on Iran was launched, according to earlier reports by the New York Times (NYT).
Satellite images taken just days before the attacks on Iran were launched on 28 February showed a massive increase in the number of US warplanes, including F-35 fighter jets, as well as dozens of cargo planes, at the Muwaffaq Salti Base in central Jordan.
Satellite imagery analyzed during the US-Israeli war on Iran also showed that Iranian retaliatory strikes had destroyed a THAAD missile system and an early warning radar site that had been hosted in Jordanian territory.
Reports of Jordanian involvement come after earlier revelations that the UAE conducted dozens of covert airstrikes against Iran in collaboration with Israel and the US in the opening hours of the war on Iran.
According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), these secret operations, which continued past the April ceasefire, targeted Iranian energy infrastructure such as the Asaluyeh petrochemical complex and the Lavan island oil refinery, as well as strategic sites near the Strait of Hormuz.
The outlet, however, describes the UAE strikes as “largely symbolic” compared to the over 20,000 strikes carried out by the US and Israel.
The WSJ report says that Israel also deployed Iron Dome batteries and troops to the UAE, while high-ranking Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli army commander, and the head of the Mossad, secretly visited the UAE during the war to coordinate attacks and defense strategies.
In Azerbaijan, during the US-Israeli war on Iran, Israel had covertly deployed dozens of elite troops, including Mossad personnel and special operations units, to a secret base close to the Iranian border, sources told CNN on 5 June
These forces conducted drone operations and intelligence-gathering to provide Israel with a strategic “perch” over northern Iran.
Although Azeri officials have rejected these claims, reports suggest the operation was part of a regional network of secret sites, including locations in Somaliland, Iraq, and the UAE, initially intended for rescue missions but later expanded to extend military reach and surveillance.
Glenn Diesen | June 8, 2026
Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a former advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Prof. Marandi discusses Iran extending its deterrence to Lebanon, the subsequent strikes by Iran on Israel, and Israel’s retaliation against Iran that humiliated Trump, while Yemen bans access to the Red Sea for Israeli ships.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 8, 2026
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 8, 2026
Press TV | June 8, 2026
A draft resolution set to be tabled at the June 2026 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors – a copy of which is in the possession of the Press TV website – is another calculated attempt to weaponize the UN nuclear watchdog against Iran and its peaceful nuclear program.
The new resolution – like many other IAEA resolutions in the past – seeks to mount political pressure on Tehran over the unsubstantiated and long-discredited claim of “non-compliance” with ITS nuclear safeguards obligations.
The proposed resolution, titled “Implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of UNSC resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” does nothing more than recycle the same old accusations.
It alleges that Iran has failed to provide the IAEA with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple locations, ignoring the fact that three important Iranian nuclear sites were bombed by the United States and Israel.
Significantly, the draft text refers back to a June 2025 resolution that – without presenting any tangible evidence whatsoever – found Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute.
That politically driven resolution, history now records, paved the ground for direct and unprovoked Israeli military aggression against Iran days later. The IAEA, by pushing that resolution, effectively became complicit in aggression against a sovereign NPT signatory.
According to the current draft, Iran has failed over the past year to remedy those alleged concerns or provide the access and information requested by the agency. This is a claim Tehran categorically dismisses, pointing out – correctly – that the agency’s demands frequently exceed Iran’s legal obligations under the NPT.
The IAEA, under Western pressure, keeps moving the goalposts – demanding more than the law requires, encouraging Iran’s enemies to impose sanctions and wage wars, refusing to condemn attacks on nuclear facilities, and then dishing out new reports against Iran.
The latest resolution further cites the IAEA’s 2025 Safeguards Implementation Report and a subsequent report by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, which claimed that the agency remains unable to verify previously declared nuclear material in Iran, including a large quantity of highly enriched uranium (HEU).
What the resolution conveniently omits is the context: much of the IAEA’s so-called “lack of access” stems directly from the damage inflicted by US-Israeli military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities – strikes that Grossi-led agency has never once condemned.
The draft further expresses “grave concern” that the agency has lacked access for nearly a year to verify previously declared stocks of both highly enriched and low-enriched uranium, describing the delay as “long overdue according to standard safeguards practice” and warning that it constitutes both a proliferation concern and a compliance issue.
But here is what the resolution does not say: Iran lost access to its own facilities because those facilities were bombed by the same entities that dictate terms to Grossi and his team.
The text further reiterates that the IAEA is currently unable to verify that no safeguarded nuclear material in Iran has been diverted toward nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, invoking Article 19 of Iran’s safeguards agreement. This is an assertion Tehran has consistently rejected as factually incorrect and politically motivated.
In one of its strongest passages, the draft stresses that Iran’s safeguards obligations “cannot be unilaterally amended or suspended,” while reaffirming Tehran’s legal obligation to implement modified Code 3.1 of its subsidiary arrangements with the agency. That provision requires early notification and disclosure of nuclear facility design information.
Iran’s response is straightforward: Such demands must be viewed against the backdrop of two unprovoked wars of aggression on its territory, including direct attacks on nuclear sites.
No other NPT signatory has ever endured two full-scale military attacks while simultaneously being accused of non-compliance with its commitments. No other country has been bombed and then blamed for the consequences of those bombings.
The resolution also references earlier UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1737 adopted in 2006, which – very illogically and unreasonably – demanded that Iran suspend all peaceful enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development work, as well as heavy water-related projects.
The text calls on Grossi to provide another report on Iran’s implementation of the resolution ahead of the Board’s next regular session. Quite interestingly, the draft warns that the Board remains prepared to take “further action,” including steps related to reporting Iran’s case again to the United Nations Security Council under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute.
What is absurd is that the IAEA wants to report Iran to the Security Council, the very same Security Council whose permanent members were involved in the aggression against Iran.
This new and another politically-motivated draft resolution comes despite the fact that Iran has adhered to all its commitments under the NPT, despite being subjected to illegal sanctions and two unprovoked wars in less than a year.
The first act of unprovoked and illegal military aggression in June 2025 came merely days after the IAEA passed its previous resolution against Iran. Israeli fighter jets struck Iran’s central uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. Days later, the Arak nuclear reactor was also attacked. So, it was an IAEA resolution, followed by bombs.
Behrooz Kamalvandi, spokesperson for the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, at the time condemned the IAEA for its “dangerous and deliberate silence” regarding the aggression.
“We wrote multiple letters to Director-General Rafael Grossi warning of these threats, but they remained unanswered,” Kamalvandi said. The agency was forewarned, but it didn’t act.
In the subsequent days, Israel’s aggression intensified further, in flagrant violation of international law. On June 19, Israel carried out more strikes on multiple other sites, including the Natanz facility and the Khondab (Arak) heavy water reactor.
Just three days later, on June 22, American B-2 bombers breached Iranian airspace, targeting critical nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan in a coordinated US-Israeli assault.
In response to this aggression against peaceful nuclear facilities and the IAEA’s complicit silence, Iran’s parliament approved a bill in June last year to suspend Tehran’s cooperation with the agency. Lawmakers described the IAEA’s actions as a betrayal of its own charter and a direct enabler of aggression against a sovereign member of the NPT.
Iran still kept the window open for the UN nuclear agency, like a responsible state, allowing it to make amends, but the politicization of the agency continued.
Far from acting as a neutral arbiter, the UN atomic agency has repeatedly allowed itself to be wielded as a political instrument by the United States and the Israeli regime. Even as Iran continues to cooperate with the agency, it has remained utterly mute regarding Israel’s serial violations of international law, an illegitimate entity that has not even signed the NPT.
Its silence over the regime’s aerial and cyber attacks against Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities is nothing less than collusion by an international body sworn to impartiality.
Experts have long warned that this one-sided scrutiny has inflicted serious damage on the credibility of the international non-proliferation regime. It has created a two-tier system: one tier for Western-backed nuclear actors like Israel, which act with complete impunity, and another tier for sovereign and responsible non-nuclear states like Iran.
More recently, the US-Israeli war machine carried out yet another unprovoked military aggression against the Islamic Republic, and once again, the IAEA stood as a mute spectator.
By Trita Parsi | June 8, 2026
It remains unclear whether Iran’s effort to establish a new equation in the region has truly succeeded — an equation in which, for the first time, Iran would directly strike Israel if Israel attacks Lebanon.
What is clear is that recent events suggest the strategic landscape may be shifting. Israel chose to defy President Trump and carry out strikes against Iran. Yet according to both Iranian and American sources, those Israeli attacks appear to have been deliberately calibrated to inflict limited damage, perhaps reflecting U.S. pressure to avoid a broader escalation.
Iran, for its part, responded by striking Israel once more after the Israeli attacks. The full extent of the damage caused by Iran’s two rounds of attacks remains unknown, however, due to extensive Israeli military censorship. As a result, outside observers still lack a complete picture of the military and strategic consequences of these exchanges.
The real test of whether a new regional equation has emerged may not lie in what has already happened, but in what comes next. Specifically: Will Israel strike Beirut again?
Even if it does, Israeli decision-makers will now have to factor in a cost that did not previously exis — the likelihood of a direct Iranian response against Israel. For decades, Israel enjoyed near-complete freedom of maneuver in much of the region. It could bomb targets in Lebanon at will without facing meaningful costs imposed by third parties. That assumption may no longer hold.
At the same time, the United States has signaled clearly that it no longer intends to be an active participant in Israel’s confrontation with Iran. The White House has, for instance, stated that it did not partake in Israel’s defense this time around. This would be a first and a very alarming development for Israel, if true. Washington’s desire to avoid direct involvement has become increasingly evident, even as it continues to support Israel in other ways.
Taken together, these developments suggest that a new strategic reality may be in the making. The picture remains murky, and it is far too early to declare that a durable deterrence framework has been established. Much will depend on future Israeli actions, Iranian responses, and the degree to which both sides internalize the risks of escalation.
But if Israel now has to weigh the prospect of direct Iranian retaliation before striking Lebanon, then something important has changed. Whether that change proves temporary or enduring remains to be seen.
The next question is whether this emerging equation can be translated into renewed momentum for U.S.-Iran diplomacy.
The Iranians believe that their action demonstrated to the US that the value of the Memorandum is so low that Iran is willing to risk a complete collapse of diplomacy. The hope is that Trump yields on what appears to be the last sticking point in the talks, which is the release of $12 billion of Iranian frozen assets.
Trump, on the other hand, may calculate that the exchange of fire demonstrated both the cost to Iran if full-scale war were to break out again, as well as Trump’s ability to impose certain restraints on the Israelis. As a result, the Iranians should feel confident in Trump’s ability to deliver on his end of the bargain and not insist on the release of the assets at the outset of the MOU.
But neither side should be aware: If no movement is achieved in the next 72 hours, Netanyahu may once again feel emboldened to attempt another sabotage of the talks. How many flare-ups can this diplomatic process absorb before it collapses?
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
By Humaira Ahad | Press TV | June 8, 2026
When the lights went out inside the Shahid Naimi Sports Complex, Helma, a fourth grader, and Elham, a fifth grader, were still on the volleyball court.
According to teammates and relatives, the two schoolgirls had been training with the Lamerd youth volleyball team on the evening of February 28, 2026, in Lamerd, a county in the southern Iranian province of Fars.
Only moments earlier, the sports hall had echoed with the sharp blasts of whistles, the rhythm of running drills, and the thud of volleyballs striking the floor.
Then, a US-Israeli missile strike outside the complex plunged the facility into darkness. In the confusion, players, coaches, and children began making their way toward the exits. But they never made it out.
According to residents, hospital personnel, and family members, a second US-Israeli missile detonated above the sports hall moments later, tearing through the roof and unleashing thousands of high-velocity fragments across the court below.
Doctors said Elham was already dead before she reached the hospital. Helma, however, managed to walk to the ambulance on her own.
Eyewitnesses say there was not even a visible bloodstain on her body. Helma told her coach, “It feels like something went into my body.”
She lifted her shirt and showed what appeared to be a small, blade-like object. It did not appear to be a serious wound. Helma appeared to be the furthest from death. But according to her uncle, that small black fragment had penetrated her heart, and around 7:00 p.m. on the same day, the efforts of the medical staff failed to save her life.
Later, the hospital staff described cases in which external wounds appeared minor but internal damage was severe.
Iliya Khatami, a sixth-grade boy, and his coach, Mahmoud Najafi, who were playing football on a grass field nearby, were also killed by the same fragments released from the US missile.
Two-year-old Avina Barzegar has been the youngest casualty of this US-Israeli attack. According to her family, she was martyred in an operating room while still having a pacifier in her mouth.
However, the attacks did not end there. A third missile, launched by the United States and Israel, struck the Lamerd ring road, killing three workers.
Two were on duty at the time, one from Lamerd and another from Mamasani, a county in Iran’s Fars Province, while the third was an Afghan national.
The civilian death toll extended far beyond those workers. Among the dead was a homemaker who had been sitting outside her house when the missile struck.
Also killed were a grocery store clerk, a pedestrian visiting from Norway who happened to be inside a pharmacy, the deputy director of customs at the Lamerd Special Economic Zone, and several university students.
The head of the MRI department at Lamerd Hospital instinctively threw herself over her daughter after hearing the blast. Her daughter survived, but she did not.
The attack, carried out on the first day of the 40-day war of aggression against Iran, killed 24 innocent civilians and injured more than 130 others.
Among the injured was a female student who was left blind. One resident said the fragments entered his body “like blades” and, as in Helma’s case, shattered the bone in his leg even though the external wound appeared barely visible.
The tragedy continues to haunt surviving families. The brother of one of the university students killed in the attack suffered a spinal cord injury and has still not been informed of his sister’s death.
Based on the locations where the US-Israeli missiles detonated, it has been confirmed that they struck densely populated civilian areas with heavy daily foot traffic.
Did the US and Israel use new lethal weapon in these deadly strikes?
The walls, doors, and windows of the city are riddled with large and small pellet holes. Reports suggest that a new missile called the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) was tested for the first time over the people of Lamerd by the US-Israeli war machine.
The PrSM is a surface-to-surface weapon system capable of striking targets from 60 to 500 kilometres away, far beyond the range of any artillery or conventional missile system.
The missiles are rocket-powered, guided by a GPS-supported inertial navigation system.
PrSM is produced by Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control division, an American weapons manufacturer. The company describes PrSM as a “next-generation, long-range precision-strike missile.”
Sharing an image of text on X, Max Blumenthal, the editor and founder of The Grayzone website, wrote, “Lockheed Martin CEO Jim Taiclet tells investors the US-Israeli war on Iran and assaults across the region are a ‘golden opportunity’,” as “Lockheed tested its new Precision Strike Missile on a girl’s volleyball game in Lamerd, Iran, on Feb 28, killing and wounding dozens.”
Describing the lethal weapon, US Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Admiral Brad Cooper said that the PrSM provides the American military with “an unrivalled deep strike capability”.
Each PrSM missile carries 180,000 tungsten pellets. Four missiles mean 720,000 projectiles dispersed over just a small section of Lamerd, a city of only 30,000 people.
That’s the equivalent of 24 tungsten pellets for every man, woman, and child in the city, suggesting that a staggering concentration of firepower was unleashed by the US and Israel on a civilian area.
The first missile exploded over the residential neighbourhood of Isar, the second a little farther away in the residential area of Tolkhandaq, the third again over Isar, and the fourth above an elementary school and the Shahid Naeimi sports hall. The reported impact extended beyond the sheer volume of munitions used.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, stated that the “American forces fired PrSM at a residential neighbourhood in Lamerd, directly hitting a sports hall filled with civilians, including teenage volleyball players, women, men, and a helpless two-year-old girl.”
“There is no longer any doubt that this was not an accident, not ‘collateral damage,’ but a premeditated decision by the US regime to test its new weapon system on Iranian civilians in a residential area. Such a cold-blooded act constitutes a clear and despicable war crime,” he said in a social media post on May 25.
McKenzie Intelligence also said that Lamerd was “within the extended range” of the missile and “US Central Command has admitted to using PrSM in strikes from the desert of an unnamed Gulf country against Iran in the early phases of the conflict.”
Western media analysis of PrSM
Subsequent reporting and analyses, including by Western media outlets, have also identified the munition used in Lamerd as the PrSM. These findings have drawn further attention to the weapon’s deadly airburst design and its effects in populated civilian areas.
The Times, a British daily, ran an investigation stating that it verified videos of two strikes in Lamerd, as well as aftermath footage from the US-Israeli attacks.
The reporters of the daily and munitions experts found that the “weapon features, explosions and damage are consistent with a short-range PrSM ballistic missile, which is designed to detonate just above its target and blast small tungsten pellets outward.”
The New York Times reported that it examined video and satellite imagery from Lamerd and assessed the characteristics of the strikes.
The analysis concluded that a PrSM missile, an airburst capable weapon designed to detonate above its target and disperse tungsten fragments across a wide area, was “likely” used in Lamerd.
Post-strike imagery showed distributed pockmark patterns rather than large crater formation, a characteristic attributed in the analysis to fragmentation dispersal.
Separate video analysis by the Washington Post reviewed satellite imagery and ground-level footage, concluding that observed damage patterns were consistent with airburst detonation rather than direct-impact high-explosive warheads.
Mapping the targets of the US-Israeli attack
The Shahid Naimi Sports Complex was hosting routine evening training sessions on February 28, when multiple youth teams and school groups were present inside the facility.
According to residents, the indoor hall was being used by a girls’ volleyball team while a separate section of the complex and the adjacent open field were occupied by a boys’ football group.
At the time of the strike, the complex was hosting a girls’ volleyball practice session alongside a boys’ football training activity in adjacent areas of the facility.
Coaches and school staff were supervising regular pre-competition training activities for students preparing for provincial tournaments.
The facility, identified in local mapping platforms and municipal records as a civilian recreational and educational facility, was used regularly by school sports programs and youth training teams before the US-Israeli strike.
It was located within a broader residential zone of Lamerd, with pedestrian access routes connecting nearby homes, small commercial units, and a ring road within a short distance of the complex.
According to accounts from survivor testimonies, the first US-Israeli strike occurred in proximity to a nearby installation or open area outside the immediate sports hall structure.
This initial blast was described by witnesses as causing a sudden power disruption inside the gymnasium, resulting in immediate darkness and confusion among those present. Training activities were abruptly halted as athletes and coaches attempted to locate exits.
The second US-Israeli strike, which occurred shortly thereafter, is reported to have detonated above or immediately adjacent to the sports hall structure.
Eyewitness descriptions suggest an airburst pattern, with fragments dispersing across the roof and interior space of the facility. Panic ensued inside the hall, with children attempting to evacuate through limited exits in low-visibility conditions.
The speed of the sequence of US-Israeli strikes, according to residents, left almost no time for evacuation.
A third impact was reported in the Lamerd ring road area, approximately a short distance from the sports complex, affecting a separate cluster of civilian movement and vehicles.
This third US-Israeli strike has been described by eyewitnesses as having caused widespread destruction over a populated roadside zone.
Medical and municipal sources said the fragmentation injuries were so widespread that they affected individuals inside vehicles, outside shops, and within nearby residential courtyards.
After more than three months, the fragments of the US PrSM remain visible in shattered homes, perforated walls, and lives permanently altered by loss.
For the families of Helma, Elham, Avina, and the other victims, the United States and Israel killed their children in places where they should have been the safest, sports halls, neighbourhoods, and family spaces where ordinary life was unfolding.
The Cradle | June 8, 2026
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei denied reports alleging that Iran targeted Saudi Arabia on 8 June, cautioning that such claims could be linked to potential “false-flag operations” conducted in Iran’s name.
Baghaei stressed that Tehran publicly takes responsibility for any military action it carries out and noted that no statement had been issued by Iran confirming the reported incident.
He further said Iran has repeatedly warned about the possibility of false-flag operations, claiming that Israel and other actors have previously carried out similar actions, including during the most recent US-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic.
His comments came after missile alert sirens were activated in the Saudi city of Al-Kharj, home to Prince Sultan Air Base, a facility long used by US forces, just hours after Israel launched renewed strikes against Iran on Monday morning.
Since the US-Israeli war on Iran began in late February, Tehran has frequently argued that many of the strikes blamed on its forces were actually “false-flag” operations staged by its enemies, designed to draw Gulf states further into the war.
On 4 June, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) dismissed reports that it targeted the terminal at Kuwait International Airport, saying the alleged visual evidence was a “crude fabrication.”
While acknowledging midnight strikes on regional US bases, Iranian officials noted that footage of the airport explosion was recorded in daylight.
In April, the IRGC accused Israel of being behind the strike on a Kuwaiti desalination plant to incite regional tensions further.
This followed a similar denial regarding a 30 March attack on a Kuwaiti power facility, which Tehran also blamed on Israel.
On 4 April, the IRGC further rejected claims that it struck the US Embassy in Riyadh in the opening days of the war, asserting the drone attack was “certainly carried out by Zionists.”
Iran’s Foreign Ministry said on 15 March that the US and Israel were using “Lucas” drones – modeled after the cheap and effective Iranian Shahed – to conduct false-flag operations and attribute them to Tehran.
The IRGC military headquarters, Khatam al-Anbiya, stated that such “deceptions” included attacks in Turkiye and Iraq.
Earlier in March, Iranian military sources described a drone strike on the Ras Tanura refinery in Saudi Arabia as an Israeli false flag designed to distract from strikes inside Iran and draw the Gulf states into further hostilities against the Islamic Republic.
Tucker Carlson also claimed in March that Saudi Arabia and Qatar had detained Israeli agents who were planning bombings in their countries.
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – June 8, 2026
Donald Trump’s attempt to tie an Iran peace settlement to a mandatory expansion of the Abraham Accords reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how dramatically the Middle East has changed since the Gaza war and why old diplomatic formulas no longer work.
Donald Trump has a habit of mistaking the décor of diplomacy for its substance. His latest demand — that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, and others must “mandatorily” join the Abraham Accords as a condition for any Iran peace settlement — is not bold dealmaking. It is a category error dressed up as statecraft, one that conflates a 2020 diplomatic triumph with the profoundly different geopolitical realities of 2026. The silence that reportedly greeted Trump on his conference call with regional leaders was not awkward; it was diagnostic.
The Middle East Trump Remembers Does Not Exist
The original Abraham Accords of 2020 were a very significant development for several reasons. They emerged from a specific regional calculus: Gulf states, quietly terrified of Iranian expansionism, had come to view Israel as a strategic asset rather than an ideological liability. The Palestinian issue, while never abandoned rhetorically, had receded to the background of realpolitik. The formula worked precisely because it did not require Israel to make concessions and because the public cost of signing was, at the time, manageable. That calculus has been demolished by the Gaza war.
A Washington Institute for Near East Policy survey published in August 2025 found that 99% of Saudi respondents viewed normalization with Israel as a negative step. For context, in 2020, 41% had considered the Abraham Accords a positive development for the region. By 2025, that figure had collapsed to 13%. This is not marginal drift; it is a tectonic shift in public sentiment that no Arab leader, not even an absolute monarch, can afford to ignore. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly told US lawmakers in 2024 that his efforts to advance normalization had put his life at risk. That is not a man about to sign anything without ironclad political cover.
Saudi Arabia’s position is now unambiguous and unyielding: there will be no normalization without “an irreversible pathway” to Palestinian statehood. That pathway cannot be a vague promise or a roadmap but a concrete and verifiable process. Thus, Saudi Israeli normalization is not merely paused; it is contingent on developments in the Palestinian arena and shifts in how Israel is perceived regionally. Given the vastly changed regional scenario, Saudi efforts are geared less towards normalization with Israel than towards shaping a new regional agenda in which distancing from Israel serves both the Crown’s domestic legitimacy and its aspirations for broader Islamic leadership.
Pakistan’s refusal is even more visceral. Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif flatly stated that joining the Abraham Accords “clashes with our fundamental ideologies,” and pointedly noted that Pakistani passports do not even carry Israel’s name as a valid travel destination. This position stretches back to Pakistan’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s explicit rejection of the UN partition of Palestine in 1947. The question of recognizing Israel, therefore, is not a negotiating posture; it is a constitutional identity. Qatar, meanwhile, which absorbed an Israeli airstrike as recently as last September, was never a realistic candidate.
Bundling Two Crises into One Catastrophe
There is a second, more immediate danger in Trump’s gambit: it actively threatens the Iran negotiations themselves. As even reports in the mainstream US media noted, the idea of a massive expansion of the Abraham Accords at a moment when the US has not yet secured the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — let alone resolved Iran’s nuclear program — “seems almost absurd.” The Iran talks are already burdened with sticking points: Washington insists Iran must surrender its enriched uranium stockpile, while Tehran has insisted nuclear negotiations be deferred to later discussions and continues to demand sanctions relief and the release of frozen assets. Threading that needle is already the diplomatic equivalent of defusing a bomb blindfolded. Attaching an Israel-normalization condition to it hands Iran a ready-made argument for walking away or highlighting why the US cannot be trusted with any deal.
Not just Tehran, Iran’s neighbors — having watched Tehran survive American and Israeli airstrikes, endure a maritime blockade, and still inflict damage on global energy markets — are unlikely to respond positively to Trump’s appeal. There is a grudging, regionally shared respect for Iran’s resilience, and any demand that frames joining the Abraham Accords as a precondition will be read across the Islamic world not as American leverage but as American tone-deafness.
That said, Trump’s push might placate Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been deeply critical of US attempts to reach a peace agreement with Iran. If true, it means Trump is risking the entire Iran settlement — a genuinely consequential achievement — to manage Netanyahu’s domestic politics. That is a trade-off of staggering irresponsibility. And in a telling sign of how reality eventually wins, by Thursday this week, US sources confirmed that a tentative framework agreement with Iran was pending Trump’s approval, with the Abraham Accords entirely absent from it.
Where This Leads
Trump’s retreat from his “mandatory” demand has already begun. What comes next will reveal the structural fragility of his approach. A ceasefire framework with Iran, if finalized, will be celebrated as historic, and rightly so. But the moment that diplomatic high fades, the region it leaves behind will be considerably more resistant to the kind of top-down normalization that the Abraham Accords represented.
Instead, the explicit rejection of Trump’s demand shows that Israel now risks a form of diplomatic isolation it has not faced since before the Oslo era, as the binary division between a “moderate axis” including Israel and Gulf states gives way to more fluid alignments that no longer treat Iran as the primary regional threat and in which public identification with Israel is seen as illegitimate and potentially regime-threatening.
The harder question is whether the United States can build a durable Middle East architecture on the foundation of a deal that most of the region’s population views as illegitimate. Normalization imposed by American diktat, without justice for Palestinians and for the Iranians, will not hold. Agreements signed under duress — economic, diplomatic, or military — have a long history of unraveling, often at the worst possible moment. What the post-Gaza Middle East demands is not a grander version of the Abraham Accords. It demands a reckoning with why those accords, for all their genuine diplomatic ingenuity, failed to prevent the conditions that produced October 7 in the first place. Until Washington grasps that, its deal-making — however theatrical — will keep colliding with a region that has moved on.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
Press TV – June 7, 2026
Iran’s Foreign Ministry has declared that the Islamic Republic’s defensive strikes against military targets in the northern occupied territories were carried out within the framework of inherent self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, following repeated ceasefire violations by the Zionist regime.
In a statement released on Monday, the ministry said the strikes came in response to Israel’s persistent breaches of the April 8 ceasefire, including its collaboration with the US military in attacks on Iranian ships and targets in southern Iran over the past two weeks, as well as US‑backed maritime piracy against the Iranian nation.
Iran emphasized that the ceasefire in Lebanon is an inseparable part of the April 8 truce agreement, and that the United States bears direct responsibility for Israeli violations and any resulting escalation in the region.
The ministry warned that any malicious adventure by the Zionist regime against Lebanon or Iran will be met with a crushing and comprehensive response from Iran’s brave armed forces.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its nation’s serious determination to decisively defend its security and national interests wherever it deems necessary,” the statement read.
The April 8 ceasefire was brokered by Pakistan after 40 days of intense US‑Israeli war on Iran.
Despite the truce, Israel has continued its aggression against Lebanon and Gaza, while the US has maintained a naval blockade of Iranian ports.
Iran has consistently insisted that any final agreement must include a comprehensive halt to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon.
The latest Iranian strikes came after the Israeli regime committed a gross violation of the ceasefire by launching deadly attacks on the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday.
Iran had warned last week that it will target the occupied territories in case of an attack on Beirut and its sorroundings.