Al Mayadeen | September 19, 2025
The United Nations Security Council voted on Friday to reimpose nuclear sanctions on Iran, citing its alleged violations of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The move, driven by Britain, France, and Germany, has sparked sharp criticism from Russia, China, and Iran, highlighting deepening divisions within the international community over the future of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.
The three European signatories to the JCPOA called for the activation of the snapback mechanism, falsely claiming that Iran had breached commitments made under the 2015 deal, which was designed to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities.
The European powers alleged that Iran’s advancements in uranium enrichment and reduced cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) constitute material violations of the agreement.
Iran, Russia, and China push back
In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Tehran had presented a “fair and balanced” proposal to European nations aimed at preventing the reimposition of sanctions.
Russia’s UN Ambassador, Vasily Nebenzia, rejected the European-led move, saying, “There are no grounds for reinstating UN sanctions on Iran.” He emphasized that the E3’s push for snapback sanctions has no legal authority and affirmed that Moscow would not recognize it.
Russia also called on Security Council members to support a joint Russian-Chinese draft resolution on Iran, offering an alternative diplomatic track to avoid escalation.
China’s envoy emphasized that pressure on Iran must stop and urged Tehran to reaffirm the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, noting Iran’s declared willingness to cooperate.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program remains peaceful and has accused Western powers of double standards and bad faith. Chinese Ambassador to the UN echoed this stance, stating, “It was the United States that withdrew from the agreement, attacked Iran militarily, and disrupted negotiations.”
China’s envoy also called on the European trio to immediately withdraw their notifications to reinstate sanctions, stressing that “pressure is not the solution.”
Snapback could nullify Cairo agreement
Al Mayadeen’s sources warned on Thursday that activating the snapback sanctions mechanism would nullify the Cairo Agreement and end cooperation between the IAEA and Tehran.
This would prevent international inspectors from accessing sensitive facilities, escalating the standoff even further.
According to the sources, the diplomatic window with Iran remains open, but indicators point to the potential activation of the snapback sanctions mechanism. They argued this is largely because Washington is steering the European Troika in the talks.
The sources warned that Washington is expected to call on Tehran to resume negotiations after activating the snapback mechanism, aiming to impose its conditions from what it perceives as a position of strength. They described this approach as a serious miscalculation of Iran’s stance and the way Tehran would respond.
Press TV – September 16, 2025
Iran has clarified its stance on a joint statement from a Doha summit held in the wake of the Israeli regime’s assault on Qatar, rejecting the “two-state” solution concerning the Palestinian issue and and US’s self-proclaimed “peace” efforts.
The Foreign Ministry issued the remarks on Tuesday, distancing the Islamic Republic from references made in the statement to the so-called “two-state solution,” reiterating support for Palestinians’ right to resistance, and ruling out any prospect of recognition of the regime.
It also dismissed the existence of any genuine intention on the part of Washington to resolve the situation created by the regime’s barbarity throughout the West Asia region, including across the occupied Palestinian territories.
‘Two-state solution’ a non-starter
Reasserting the Islamic Republic’s continued unwavering support for the Palestinian cause of liberation from Israeli occupation and aggression, the ministry said the country would under no circumstances abandon its staunch belief that Palestinians were absolutely entitled to exercise their inherent right to self-determination.
Therefore, Tehran keeps holding fast to its principled position that the only “true and sustainable” solution to the Palestinian issue rests in the creation of a “unified democratic government” in the occupied territories.
Such a government should receive its mandate from the outcome of a referendum partaken by all Palestinians inside the territories as well as the Palestinian diaspora, and, hence, end up representing “all Palestinians,” the ministry said.
Therefore, it said, Tehran utterly dismisses the “two-state solution,” supported by the United States and its allies, and the concepts proposed as part of such “solution,” including those mentioned in the Doha statement.
It named one of those concepts as “establishment of the State of Palestine along the lines of June 4, 1967,” which ignores the vast Palestinian territories that the regime had already occupied in 1948 and continues to occupy.
Also, the Islamic Republic spurns the idea that Palestinians’ future capital should be confined to just the eastern part of the holy occupied city of al-Quds, the ministry added.
“The so-called ‘two-state’ solution would not resolve the Palestinian issue,” it specified.
‘Israeli barbarity necessitates resistance’
Iran, meanwhile, continues to uphold Palestinians’ entitlement to employ “whatever necessary vehicle” towards realizing their inalienable right to self-determination and ridding themselves of foreign colonialism, the ministry stated.
Those rights that are enjoyed by “any peaceable nation” include the right to resist, it noted, adding, “Given the barbarity exercised by the occupying regime’s forces, nothing should serve to restrict this right.”
“It is also our shared duty under international law to support this aspiration,” it said, and also repeated Tehran’s categorical rejection of any potential recognition of the regime.
‘US no ‘peace’ partner’
Finally, the ministry underlined that the policies and actions of the United States have contributed to the continuation and backing of the Israeli regime’s aggression against the Palestinian people, rather than subduing it.
“In light of this reality, the Islamic Republic holds that the United States cannot be recognized or regarded as a credible or impartial party in advancing a just and lasting peace in this conflict.”
“We request the summit’s secretariat to include the Iranian delegation’s reservations in its final report.”
The emergency Arab-Islamic summit was held in the Qatari capital on Monday to address the regime’s recent deadly attacks on the city, which targeted the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas’ leadership, among Tel Aviv’s other atrocities throughout the West Asia region.
By Fereshteh Sadeghi | The Cradle | September 15, 2025
Three months after the Israeli occupation state’s aerial assault on Iran, the Iranian government reached a new deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The agreement, and the fact that IAEA chief Rafael Grossi and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi offered conflicting interpretations of it, has outraged Iranian political circles and the public, many of whom view Grossi as a facilitator of Israeli aggression. Araghchi is now accused of concealing details of the agreement and repeating the mistakes of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal.
Iran signs surprise deal with IAEA after Israeli strikes
During a brief visit to Egypt on 12 September, Araghchi shook hands with Grossi as they announced a deal on the resumption of UN inspections of Iran’s nuclear program. The agreement was significant as Tehran had halted its cooperation with the IAEA in the wake of the Israeli aggression in June, and a parliamentary vote had suspended international inspections. The vote had been ratified after the cessation of the 12-day war between Iran and the occupation state in late June, amid accusations that the IAEA was sharing intelligence on their nuclear facilities and scientists with Israel and the US. Iranian officials claimed two IAEA inspectors smuggled classified documents on the Fordow nuclear site to Vienna. Iran revoked their licenses, but the agency took no punitive action. Fordow was later bombed by US B-52 bombers. Grossi’s 12 June report to the IAEA Board of Governors, which accused Iran of failing to meet its safeguards obligations, is widely seen as having paved the way for the 12-day Israel–Iran war that started one day after on 13 June. The agency’s refusal to condemn Tel Aviv’s attacks deepened Iranian distrust.
E3 pushes for sanctions as Iran tries to avoid snapback
As Iran withdrew from indirect nuclear talks with the US and halted cooperation with the IAEA, Germany, France, and Britain (the E3) announced their intention to reinstate UN sanctions. Those sanctions had been suspended under the 2015 JCPOA. The E3 said it would trigger the snapback mechanism before its expiry in mid-October, claiming that Iran had failed to uphold its commitments.
Seeking to avoid further sanctions, Iran agreed to engage the E3 in talks in late August. In exchange for Iranian cooperation with the IAEA, clarification on 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium stockpiled before the Israeli attack, and a return to US negotiations, the Europeans offered to extend the snapback deadline by six months. Iran rejected the offer. The E3 then launched the snapback process but gave Iran a 30-day deadline to comply with the UN atomic watchdog’s demands. A week later, IAEA inspectors were scheduled to visit Iran to supervise fuel replacement at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Araghchi reassured lawmakers that the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) had authorized the inspectors’ visit and insisted all cooperation would comply with the law banning extensive IAEA engagement. A source close to the Iranian Foreign Ministry tells The Cradle that inspectors had also planned to visit other facilities, including the Tehran Research Reactor, but those plans were quietly scrapped under parliamentary pressure. Then, without warning, the Araghchi–Grossi agreement in Cairo was revealed, shocking Iranian society. The deal guarantees renewed Iranian cooperation with the IAEA.
Parliament sidelined, backlash intensifies
One day before Araghchi’s Cairo trip on 9 September, parliamentarian Hussein-Ali Haji-Deligani warned that a new IAEA deal was imminent – one that violated Iranian law and did not protect national rights. He warned Araghchi against signing or risking impeachment. Once news of the agreement broke, reports surfaced that the Iranian legislature, the Majlis, would close for three weeks for lawmakers to visit their constituencies. Critics alleged this was a calculated move to shield the Cairo agreement from scrutiny.
While the Foreign Ministry and the SNSC remained silent, Grossi publicly elaborated:
“The technical document would include access to all facilities and installations in Iran and contemplates the required reporting on all the attacked facilities including the nuclear material present at those and that will open the way for respective inspections and access.”
That statement drew sharp rebuke. Tehran MP Amir-Hussein Sabeti said, “This passive and weak settlement to renew cooperation with the IAEA contradicts national interests, paves the way for new [Israeli] strikes, and clearly violates the law.”
In a televised debate, Araghchi attempted to allay the criticism, claiming the deal was approved by the SNSC. He dismissed Grossi’s remarks as “his own interpretation of the text”, adding, “from now on, the IAEA should request access to each nuclear site and the SNSC will review the requests case by case.”
The Iranian top diplomat stressed that “as long as Iran has not implemented environmental and safety measures at the attacked facilities, the IAEA will not be granted permission to visit them.” He insisted the agreement had nothing to do with the E3’s ultimatum; nevertheless, he contradicted himself by stating, “This settlement will be declared null and void if the Snapback mechanism goes into effect.”
Araghchi faces mounting calls for impeachment
Araghchi’s inconsistent justifications failed to quell the backlash. His repeated references to the SNSC did little to calm MPs. And in Iranian politics, it is an unprecedented event. Tehran’s Hamid Rasaei posted on X, “Ambiguities remain despite Araghchi’s explanations. Therefore, the Foreign Ministry must publish the text of the agreement.” He added sarcastically, “We usually kept deals secret for fear of the enemies. But since the other party is Grossi – the Israeli spy – there’s no reason to hide this deal from the public.” His colleague, Kamran Ghazanfari, went further to threaten Araghchi, “either deny Grossi’s remarks and share the signed document with lawmakers, or get prepared for your impeachment. We are not treating our national interests flippantly.”
Keyhan newspaper openly called the Cairo deal “invalid” because it does not meet the requirements of the Iranian law. Rajanews compared the Cairo document with Lausanne’s nuclear deal, adding, “Back in 2015, the government of Hassan Rouhani and then FM [Mohammad Javad] Zarif refused to publish the relevant fact sheet. Only later, Iranians found out the fact sheet had imposed unprecedented restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.”
As public scrutiny intensified, the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee summoned Araghchi for a closed-door session. He described the three-hour meeting as “very good and constructive” but revealed no details. According to reports, “Araghchi provided the committee with the text of the memorandum” and “it was decided that cooperation with the IAEA remain only in the framework of the law and its implementation depends on non-happening of the Snapback.” That reassurance did little to assuage critics. Rasaei summed up the mood with a blunt X post, “The three-hour session finished. It’s the JCPOA all over again.”
On 14 September, the SNSC issued a statement indicating that its Nuclear Committee had ratified the Cairo agreement, adding “the committee is backed by the SNSC whose decisions are confirmed by Iran’s leader [Ali Khamenei].” Yet, the statement also stressed that should any hostile action be taken against the Islamic Republic and its nuclear facilities, including the reinstatement of the terminated resolutions of the UN Security Council, the implementation of the arrangements would be suspended. So far, 90 lawmakers have asked Majlis Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf to convene a session on the Cairo memorandum. Ghalibaf has yet to comply.
In a country still reeling from the JCPOA’s consequences, lawmakers are increasingly determined to block another unilateral, opaque agreement made without parliamentary oversight.
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 16.09.2025
Iran, Russia, Belarus, China, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have submitted a draft resolution to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) calling for a ban on any attacks or threats against safeguarded nuclear sites.
The initiative of the six countries, titled Prohibition of all forms of attack and threats of attack against nuclear sites and facilities under IAEA safeguards, is meant to defend the integrity of the NPT, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei stated on X, in a reference to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The draft:
Stresses that all states have the right to peaceful nuclear energy and are entitled to guarantees against military threats;
*Reaffirms that no country should target another’s safeguarded nuclear facilities.
Baqaei urged the international community to act decisively, warning against the “normalization of lawlessness.”
Sputnik – 14.09.2025
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani urged Arab and Muslim nations to form a joint security force in response to Israel’s recent strikes in Gaza and Qatar.
He said Tuesday’s Israeli attack on Doha, which killed Hamas members and a Qatari officer, was a “shocking breach of international law” and a threat to regional security.
Sudani stressed that the Islamic world has “numerous levers” to deter Israel, warning that aggression “will not stop at Qatar.”
His remarks came ahead of the Arab-Islamic emergency summit in Doha on Sept 15–16, amid Israeli strikes on Qatar, where leaders are expected to discuss activating the long-proposed joint Arab military force.
Iranian Supreme National Security Council chairman Ali Larijani has also called on Islamic nations to create a “joint operations room” against Israel.
Egypt, meanwhile, is pushing for a NATO-style Arab military force for rapid defense in case of attacks, with Cairo seeking regional backing for the plan ahead of the summit.
The Israeli strike on Doha hit a residential compound where Hamas politburo members were meeting to discuss a US proposal to end the Gaza war, which has already claimed more than 64,800 Palestinian lives since October 2023.
The Cradle | September 10, 2025
Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officially agreed to resume cooperation on 9 September, following a suspension over Israel’s US-backed war against the country and its strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The meeting between IAEA chief Rafael Grossi and Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was hosted by Egypt.
“In Cairo today, I agreed with Iran’s Foreign Minister on practical modalities to resume inspection activities in Iran. This is an important step in the right direction,” Grossi said on X.
During a press conference between Grossi, Araghchi, and his Egyptian counterpart, the Iranian foreign minister said, “the development marks an important step in demonstrating the Islamic Republic’s goodwill and its commitment to resolving all issues related to its peaceful nuclear program through diplomacy and dialogue.”
“Iran has remained steadfast in defending its inalienable rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to peaceful nuclear energy, even while facing illegal and criminal attacks by the Israeli regime and the US, and has shown readiness to engage in meaningful dialogue for the implementation of its obligations,” he added.
US and Israeli strikes on the Islamic Republic have “fundamentally altered the conditions under which Iran had cooperated with the IAEA.”
As a result, a “new mechanism” has been reached after intensive talks between Iran and the IAEA recently, Araghchi said.
Unnamed diplomats cited by Reuters said “the devil was in the details, and neither Grossi nor Araghchi provided any.”
In early July, Tehran formally suspended cooperation with the IAEA. Talks between the two sides resumed the following month.
Iran stressed that it could not “completely end” its cooperation with the agency, but said “new conditions” would need to be reached.
The Iranian government had previously accused the agency of passing along sensitive information obtained from inspections over to Israel. It also said the agency paved the way for Israel’s war with its anti-Iran report in May and its resolution accusing Tehran of not fulfilling nuclear obligations, which was passed just one day before Tel Aviv attacked.
It also accused it of failing to properly condemn the attack on nuclear sites.
Officials even signaled potential legal action against Grossi himself, who was barred from entering the country in late June.
Sputnik – 10.09.2025
Iran has not yet given permission to IAEA inspectors to visit its nuclear facilities, despite an agreement to resume cooperation, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Wednesday.
“I should note that under this agreement, we are currently not giving access to IAEA inspectors,” Araghchi said on Telelgram.
By Peiman Salehi | Global Research | September 6, 2025
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s (SCO) summit in Beijing, marked by both symbolism and substance, underscored the slow erosion of Western financial dominance. While mainstream coverage focused on China’s military parade, the real significance lies in the economic agenda advanced by SCO members. Discussions of a potential SCO Development Bank, expanded use of local currencies, and closer coordination with BRICS initiatives point to a growing determination across Eurasia and the Global South to challenge the monopoly long exercised by the United States and its allies through the IMF, the World Bank, and the dollar system.
For decades, these Western-controlled institutions have functioned as instruments of geopolitical leverage. Structural adjustment programs dismantled social protections, imposed privatization, and locked countries into cycles of debt dependency.
The dollar, presented as a neutral global currency, has been repeatedly weaponized through sanctions, financial exclusion, and manipulation of international payment systems. In this context, the SCO’s economic discussions must be seen for what they are: not technical proposals, but acts of resistance. By seeking alternatives to dollar-based finance and conditional lending, SCO members are asserting that the age of Western financial coercion is no longer uncontested.
China and Russia, the central actors in this process, have both experienced the coercive use of Western financial power.
Sanctions on Russia and tariffs on China have reinforced the urgency of building parallel institutions. For smaller states, particularly in the Global South, the stakes are even higher. Access to credit that is not tied to Washington’s geopolitical priorities could mean the difference between austerity and investment, between dependency and sovereignty. The SCO’s proposals are embryonic, but they point toward a broader trend: the emergence of multipolar finance as a shield against unilateral domination.
Critics in the West have rushed to dismiss these efforts, portraying them as impractical or politically motivated. But such dismissals miss the point. The very fact that alternatives are being openly discussed and partially implemented signals the weakening of Western monopoly. The creation of the BRICS New Development Bank, the use of local currencies in trade between Russia, China, and India, and now the SCO’s initiatives all mark a shift from rhetoric to practice. Each new mechanism reduces the ability of the United States to dictate terms unilaterally.
This does not mean China or Russia will replace Washington as the new hegemons. Rather, it means that unipolarity is ending. The world is moving toward a multipolar order in which no single state can control the flows of finance, trade, and development. For Global South nations, this creates both opportunities and risks. It offers the possibility of diversifying partnerships and rejecting conditionality, but it also requires vigilance to avoid reproducing dependency under new patrons. Multipolarity is not a guarantee of justice, but it is a necessary precondition for breaking the cycle of Western domination.
The SCO summit should therefore be understood as part of a larger civilizational struggle over the architecture of world order. Western hegemony has rested not only on military alliances and cultural influence, but on financial coercion. By weaponizing the dollar, Washington has sought to enforce compliance far beyond its borders. The SCO’s economic agenda represents an attempt to reclaim sovereignty in the face of this coercion, to create breathing space for states that refuse to align with U.S. geopolitical priorities.
What emerges from Beijing is not a fully formed alternative, but a direction of travel. Multipolar institutions are being built step by step, challenging the illusion that Western institutions are eternal or indispensable. For countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, this is a call to action. It is an invitation to participate in the shaping of a world where development is not dictated from Washington or Brussels, but negotiated among equals.
The mainstream media will continue to focus on parades and symbols, but the real revolution is occurring in the realm of finance. The SCO summit was a reminder that the West’s monopoly on money and credit is cracking, and that the future of global order will be defined not by a single hegemon but by the collective efforts of states refusing to submit. For those seeking peace, justice, and sovereignty, this is a development to be welcomed, nurtured, and defended.
Peiman Salehi is a Political Analyst & Writer from Tehran, Iran.
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | September 2, 2025
It is unlikely that the anticipated continuation of the war on Iran, spearheaded by the Israelis but led by the United States, will be confined to a simple tit-for-tat missile trade-off as we saw earlier this year. The reason for this is simple: too much is at stake if this front again flares up.
Since the US-brokered ceasefire between “Israel” and Iran went into effect on June 29, the United States and the Zionist regime have scrambled to move around military equipment, engage in mass surveillance flights over Lebanon and the Persian Gulf. More recently, the US began an early withdrawal of its forces from the Ain al-Assad base and other installations inside Iraq.
The first point of entry to understanding what is currently brewing across West Asia is understanding the mentality at play on both sides of the divide.
On one side, we have the Zionist regime and its Western allies, who are the aggressors and believe themselves to be fighting what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls a “seven-front war”. Although the front in the Gaza Strip has pervaded public consciousness over the past 23 months, overshadowing the wars on Lebanon, seizure of territory in Syria, bombing of Yemen, and attack on Iran, it is very much part of this wider war.
From the Israeli-American perspective, their ongoing war carries the goal of eliminating what is known as the Axis of Resistance, the leader of which is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The thinking clearly is that this period in time has provided a unique opportunity to crush the regional resistance and with it, achieve regime change in Tehran.
In June, the Israelis clearly got ahead of themselves and believed that they could inflict a similar blow in Iran to the blow they inflicted on Lebanese Hezbollah back in September of 2024. In the first few hours of the Zionist Regime’s illegal attack on Iran, their media boasted of landing such a blow. However, to everyone’s surprise, within 15 hours, the Iranians were back on their feet and began firing bursts of ballistic missiles into central “Tel Aviv”.
Even the US strikes didn’t inflict any kind of kill blow that degraded Iran sufficiently, as it proved more than anything that their nuclear facilities could survive US strikes, even if they were badly damaged. The United States certainly poses a major threat to Iran, but the takeaway here is that the Zionist regime can’t take them on alone.
If there is another battle between Iran and the Israelis, the Zionist Entity is already low on interceptor missiles, and its arsenal would be severely drained within around a week or so. We also still do not know the extent of the damage inflicted by Iran’s ballistic missile strikes, due to Israeli military censorship. Simply put, they don’t even allow the public to know the true number of soldiers killed and wounded in Gaza, so forget the notion that they’d admit what Iran did to them.
Another major player here is Lebanese Hezbollah, which appears to be successfully rebuilding itself and is at an intelligence deficit compared to what they had built up over decades and utilized late last year. Yet, what the Israelis do understand is that in the event that a conflict with Iran arises where Hezbollah chooses to enter the fight on the ground, they may face an existential battle for their very survival.
If, and this evidently depends on varying factors, Hezbollah chooses to launch an all-out ground offensive as Iran fires ballistic missiles in bursts across occupied Palestine, it is plausible that the Lebanese party will inflict a total defeat on the Israeli ground forces and seize huge swaths of territory in the north of Palestine.
The Zionist regime is now claiming to be preparing for mission impossible in the Gaza Strip, amassing troops in order to try and occupy Gaza City, an operation that would take between two to five years to complete, according to Israeli military estimates. It would also be extremely costly for the Israeli ground forces and their military vehicles. If they do commit to this, it would leave them open on the northern front. There is, however, the possibility that this is all a bluff.
If the Israelis are bluffing, they could be preparing for an offensive against Lebanon instead. The thinking here would be to try and halt Hezbollah’s rebuilding process, setting it back even further, and could even involve a ground operation, likely using Syrian territory to invade the Bekaa Valley area.
Such a conflict would be existential for Hezbollah, especially as the US works with the Lebanese government to impose a seizure of its weapons. A repeat of what occurred a year ago would work only to advance the US-Israeli goal of seizing Hezbollah’s weapons, while a victory could at the very least liberate Lebanese territory and represent a massive blow to the disarmament agenda.
Therefore, if Iran is currently in the scope of the Zionists, it would make strategic sense for them to either attack Lebanon first or launch a major offensive at the same time it attacks Iran.
The US withdrawal of forces from Iraq is another major indicator of a regional escalation involving Iran, specifically because of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) and the potential they have to inflict enormous damage, given that they enter the fold of the war.
Iraq’s PMU is yet to be mobilized, and its role in the ongoing regional conflict has been minimal. The reason for this is that if some 230,000 men are mobilized, or even a portion of them, it is difficult to suddenly put a halt to their operations, and this will mean a dramatic regional escalation, the likes of which the United States will not be able to manage inside Iraq and will instead use their economic levers as a primary weapon of war.
Depending on how far such a conflict is going to go, there is even the possibility that it could go global. While there is currently no evidence to support this notion, there has been talk that the US naval deployment to the Caribbean, triggering a mass militia mobilization across Venezuela, could be connected. Additionally, China and Russia could use the opportunity of a major Iran-US war to carry out some of their long-desired goals, at a time when Washington has diverted its resources to West Asia.
There is again the possibility that another attack on Iran could look similar to what the world witnessed during what is dubbed the “12-day war”, yet the same stalemate outcome would only lead us back to square one again and beget yet another war. At some point, something will have to give.
The reason why the danger of an all-out regional conflagration appears high as of now is purely down to the Israeli-US refusal to end their genocide against Gaza, indicating that they seek total defeat of the Axis of Resistance and nothing less. Inevitably, one side must win and the other lose; there is currently no such thing as deterrence for either side, only who will triumph and carve out a new regional reality.
Glenn Diesen | August 31, 2025
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi argues that another Israeli/US attack is likely coming, and Iran has prepared itself by developing new and more powerful missiles. Prof. Marandi also argues that the only influence the EU had over Iran was the threat of using the snap-back sanctions, and Iran will no longer listen to the EU, as the decision has been made to impose these sanctions.
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | September 2, 2025
A top Iranian official said a deal with the US is still possible, but Washington must drop its demands to limit Tehran’s missile program. Talks between the US and Iran broke off in June when Israel launched an unprovoked war against the Islamic Republic.
On Tuesday, Ali Larijani posted a statement from the Iranian Supreme National Security Council on X. “The path for negotiations with the US is not closed; yet these are the Americans who only pay lip service to talks and do not come to the table; and they wrongfully blame Iran for it,” he wrote. “WE INDEED PURSUE RATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS. By raising unrealizable issues such as missile restrictions, they set a path which negates any talks.”
Since Donald Trump returned to office, the US and Iran engaged in five rounds of negotiations aimed at establishing a new nuclear agreement and lifting sanctions. A sixth round of talks was scheduled, but Israel attacked Iran, halting the diplomatic process. Iranian officials said the talks were progressing towards a deal before the attack.
The US participated in the Israeli war on Iran. Tehran has demanded that Washington give assurances that the US and Israel will not resume strikes on Iran while the talks are ongoing. However, Trump has not responded to Tehran’s demand and has threatened to attack Iran if Tehran restarts its nuclear enrichment program.
Trump has pressed Iran to agree to a new nuclear agreement after he scrapped the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during his first administration. The 2015 Iran Nuclear deal established a strict inspection regime and limitations on Tehran’s nuclear program.
After Trump broke the agreement and reimposed sanctions on Iran, Tehran exceeded the limits set in the nuclear deal. In response to a series of Israeli assassinations and sabotage attacks, Tehran enriched uranium to a higher level and established a stockpile of 60% enriched Uranium.
Tehran expelled international nuclear inspectors following Israel’s attack on Iran in June.
Sputnik – September 1, 2025
The SCO has condemned Israel and the US for their attack on Iran in June. In a joint statement, they said that such aggressive actions against civilian targets, including nuclear energy infrastructure, which resulted in civilian deaths, constitute a gross violation of the principles and norms of international law and infringe on Iran’s sovereignty.
The SCO’s condemnation of Israeli and US strikes on Iran marks a turning point, Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Tehran University professor and political analyst, told Sputnik. “This is what we should have seen from the United Nations. Instead, the SCO and BRICS are emerging as the real alternative.”
Key takeaways:
Marandi: “Thanks to the West’s own foolish behavior, the SCO is becoming a central pillar of peace, security, and prosperity across Asia—and beyond.”
By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | August 31, 2025
The Australian Prime Minister and his government are resorting to increasingly laughable measures to deflect public anger at their continued support for “Israel”.
A day after “Israel” had committed yet another massacre against journalists in Gaza, luring them with a strike on a hospital before eliminating them in a “double-tap” maneuver, the Labor government of Australia announced a major imminent foreign policy measure.
For a brief, fleeting moment, it appeared as though Anthony Albanese had listened to the demands of hundreds of thousands of protesters marching almost constantly throughout the country and was going to impose sanctions on the Israeli entity or even expel its ambassador over the Gaza slaughter.
Instead, the PM and his foreign minister, Penny Wong, engaged in a kind of public humiliation ritual, in which they asserted that Iran had “attacked” Australia by sponsoring the firebombing of a Melbourne synagogue and a Jewish delicatessen in Sydney through a convoluted web of criminal intermediaries.
Based on this “intelligence” provided by the national spy agency ASIO, the PM then announced the expulsion of the Iranian ambassador and his staff and the proscription of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, an institutional part of Iran’s political system, as a “terrorist organization”.
When questioned live on national television on the specifics of what he was claiming, Albanese cut the figure of a lying schoolboy caught in the act, refusing to disclose any level of detail beyond the assertions themselves.
Scarcely a day has gone by, and already members of the Israeli government are crowing that they were involved in pushing Australia to take this action. Whether the Mossad was a source of the “intelligence” provided to the Australian Prime Minister is unclear, but to this and almost every other query for the specifics of the claims underpinning this major foreign policy shift, Albanese has steadfastly refused to comment.
The public reaction to the government’s assertions, at least online, has been less than charitable. Elementary questions of why, amid the full spectrum of military, economic, and political pressure on the country, Iran’s leaders would choose to pay local vandals in Australia to firebomb a Melbourne synagogue and a Sydney deli, are curiously uninteresting to much of the country’s media, which is all too willing to accept the government’s assertions at face value.
What benefit would Tehran possibly achieve by doing this, in Australia, of all places? The only other country possibly more removed from the Islamic Republic’s circle of concern, at least physically, might be New Zealand.
Of course, many will, and already have, concluded that this charade has less to do with any actual facts than it does the government’s ham-fisted attempts to deflect growing public outrage at its obstinate refusal to impose sanctions on “Israel” or even censure it for its genocidal behavior.
For nearly two years, since Oct. 7, 2023, the foreign minister, Penny Wong, has made it a near-daily ritual that each successive Israeli atrocity, rather than being condemned, is deemed merely a source of “concern” to the government.
Albanese himself, when the question of sanctions against “Israel” is raised, clearly seems to resent even having to address the issue, at one point rhetorically questioning what sanctions Australia should impose, seeming blissfully ignorant of his obligations under the Genocide Convention.
The government’s total disengagement stands in marked contrast to the Australian public, which has kept up one of the most consistent routines of public protest in support of Gaza, anywhere in the world. Just weeks ago, despite attempts to ban it, a protest spanning the Sydney Harbour Bridge drew global media attention. Just the following week, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets around the country.
As of this week, tens of thousands of university students are voting in a nationwide referendum on whether to condemn the government for its inaction and to demand diplomatic expulsions and sanctions against Israel.
In May, the Australian Labor government was returned to power in a landslide election victory. The Liberal party, the official right-wing opposition, is widely considered unable to win back government even in the next election three years away, facing potentially as much as a decade in the wilderness.
Given its lack of any political rival, the government’s obstinate ignoring of public opposition to genocide hardly seems motivated by electoral calculations. In the face of an unstable Trump administration bringing the US alliance into question, it is more content to fall back on politicized narratives of “national security” written by the intelligence community rather than reacting dynamically to a changed world.
Whatever the real reasons for this government’s industrial-scale obfuscation, it speaks to a profound moral rot at the heart of its politics, rather than it needs to invent excuses to expel an ambassador, but cannot bring itself to expel that of an entity committing the defining slaughter of the century in real-time.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 