Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

IAEA Board of Governors is 100% under control of collective West, Rosatom chief says

Press TV – June 7, 2025

Rosatom, Russia’s state atomic energy corporation, has voiced strong criticism over the subjective approach employed by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors in its nuclear-related reports, stating that the decision-making body’s impartiality is heavily influenced by Western interests.

Rosatom’s CEO Alexey Likhachev said on Friday that the corporation’s relations with the UN nuclear watchdog have not been trouble-free as its reports contain signs of “double standards.”

“Certainly, I must say that we do not have smooth relations with the IAEA on the whole, to put it mildly. Of course, we often see double standards among a number of IAEA documents,” Likhachev told journalists following talks with an IAEA delegation in Kaliningrad.

Stressing that there are “several camps” within the IAEA, Likhachev said only representatives from two European countries, Hungary and Switzerland, as well as IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, were being “objective” on nuclear issues.

“There is the Board of Governors, where the controlling stake, as we say, by almost 100% belongs to the collective West, and completely different opinions are expressed there. And therein lies the problem,” the Rosatom CEO said.

“Hungary and Switzerland assess the security situation objectively and say that strikes on nuclear infrastructure are inadmissible regardless of their origin. But the lion’s share of the board’s members criticize only purported strikes in the direction of Ukrainian facilities,” he added.

According to a report by the Russian news agency TASS, Iran’s nuclear program as well as ensuring the safety of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) amid ongoing Ukrainian shelling, and the work of the IAEA mission at the plant were the central topics at the talks between Grossi and Likhachev in Kaliningrad.

ZNPP, Europe’s largest power plant, has been controlled by Russian troops since late February 2022, after Moscow launched its special military operation in Ukraine partly to prevent NATO’s eastward expansion.

Since then, Ukraine has targeted the power plant using drones, heavy artillery, and multiple launch rocket systems, raising concerns of a potential Chernobyl-style nuclear incident.

Moscow has announced that it is ready to work with the IAEA to agree on “non-politicized” solutions to problems at the facility.

According to Likhachev, the situation regarding nuclear and radiation safety at the ZNPP remains “totally manageable and stable,” but the military threat is worsening as Ukraine has intensified its shelling of civilian infrastructure and provocations.

“Unfortunately, this has affected the situation at the Zaporozhye NPP and the city of Energodar. The power system has sustained damage literally every night over the last four days.”

The Rosatom CEO underlined that the presence of IAEA specialists at the ZNPP is crucial for keeping the international community informed about the situation.

Cooperation with Iran

Rosatom confirmed at the meeting its readiness to resolve any technical aspects of the Iranian nuclear issue provided that political decisions are made and multilateral agreements are reached.

Earlier this month, the IAEA claimed in a confidential report to member states that Iran had failed to report its nuclear activities at three undeclared locations and raised concerns about the country’s stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% purity.

The agency has over the past years levied multiple politically-tainted accusations against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear file despite its own reports that have on numerous occasions attested to the peacefulness of Tehran’s nuclear program.

Rosatom also said nuclear cooperation between Moscow and Tehran will continue in multiple areas, including the construction of nuclear power units and fuel supply for the first unit of the Bushehr plant.

It added that it was engaged in joint research and development with Iran in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

June 7, 2025 Posted by | Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Tucker Carlson warns: ‘Iran is not alone; attacking it risks world war, US defeat’

Press TV – June 5, 2025

Iran, backed by its allies, is not alone, an ex-Fox News host says, warning that any attack by the United States against the Islamic Republic risks a world war that would lead to the US defeat.

American political commentator and presenter Tucker Carlson sounded the alarm on Thursday, as Iran has stressed the inseparable nature of uranium enrichment activities to the nation’s nuclear program, dismissing calls by US President Donald Trump and other US officials for “zero-level” enrichment.

The provocative demand by the US administration has already sent shockwaves through the ongoing Oman-mediated negotiations between Tehran and Washington over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, leaving the future of the talks in limbo and raising the risk of military confrontation between the two.

In a post on his X account, Carlson argued that figures like Mark Levin are pushing for war with Iran under the pretense of stopping nuclear proliferation, stressing that there is no credible evidence that Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb, and the ongoing fear-mongering is a recycled narrative from decades past.

“It’s a lie. In fact, there is zero credible intelligence that suggests Iran is anywhere near building a bomb, or has plans to. None. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or dishonest. If the US government knew Iran was weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, we’d be at war already. Iran knows this, which is why they aren’t building one. Iran also knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely,” the ex-Fox News host said.

“So why is Mark Levin once again hyperventilating about weapons of mass destruction? To distract you from the real goal, which is regime change — young Americans heading back to the Middle East to topple yet another government. Virtually no one will say this out loud. America’s record of overthrowing foreign leaders is so embarrassingly counterproductive that regime change has become a synonym for disaster. Officially, no one supports it. So instead of telling the truth about their motives, they manufacture hysteria: ‘A country like Iran can never have the bomb! They’ll nuke Los Angeles! We have to act now!” added the conservative political commentator.

Carlson described Levin and like-minded ideologues in Washington as dishonest ideologues exploiting fear to trigger another disastrous conflict, warning that a war with the Islamic Republic would be catastrophic, far more dangerous than previous US interventions.

“And then there’s the question of the war itself. Iran may not have nukes, but it has a fearsome arsenal of ballistic missiles, many of which are aimed at US military installations in the [Persian] Gulf, as well as at our allies and at critical energy infrastructure. The first week of a war with Iran could easily kill thousands of Americans. It could also collapse our economy, as surging oil prices trigger unmanageable inflation. Consider the effects of $30 gasoline,” he warned.

An ardent advocate of Trump, Carlson emphasized that Iran has significant missile capabilities, strong allies like Russia and China through BRICS, and a vital role in global oil markets.

“But the second week of the war could be even worse. Iran isn’t Iraq or Libya, or even North Korea. While it’s often described as a rogue state, Iran has powerful allies. It’s now part of a global bloc called BRICS, which represents the majority of the world’s landmass, population, economy and military power. Iran has extensive military ties with Russia. It sells the overwhelming majority of its oil exports to China. Iran isn’t alone. An attack on Iran could very easily become a world war. We’d lose,” he stressed.

Carlson also slammed war advocates for intentionally pushing Iran toward conflict by making demands they know Tehran will reject, all to corner Trump into betraying his anti-war promises.

Iran and the US have so far held five rounds of indirect talks on a replacement for the 2015 nuclear deal. However, the talks have faced an obstacle over the US demand for Iran to stop enriching uranium under any new deal.

June 6, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

US reshuffle of pro-‘Israel’ officials alarms occupation

Al Mayadeen | June 3, 2025

Israeli officials are expressing growing concern over a series of unexpected personnel changes within the US administration, which have targeted figures long regarded as staunch supporters of “Israel”, Israeli news outlet Ynet reported.

The shake-up comes amid escalating tensions between US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over both the war on Gaza and a possible strike on Iran.

Among the most notable dismissals are Merav Ceren, a dual US-Israeli citizen who oversaw the Iran and “Israel” portfolio at the National Security Council, and Eric Trager, who led Middle East and North Africa policy. Both were appointed by former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, a strong supporter of “Israel”, who was removed by Trump.

Their removal was reportedly executed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Waltz’s successor.

Another high-profile figure expected to be removed is Morgan Ortagus, deputy to special envoy Steve Witkoff and in charge of the Lebanon file.

Ortagus’s leaving her post, although unfavorable for “Israel” due to her critical role in efforts to disarm Hezbollah, marks the departure of a controversial figure in Lebanon, with her statements, such as thanking “Israel” for what she claimed was defeating Hezbollah in the Presidential Palace in Baabda, inflaming tensions in the country, flouting proper protocol, and meddling in Lebanon’s internal affairs.

Her dismissal, which sources say was not voluntary, has shocked officials in “Israel”, where she was seen as a key ally. Ortagus is reportedly being reassigned to internal duties within the State Department and will have no further role in Middle East diplomacy.

According to Lebanese outlet al-Akhbar, Ortagus had sought a more senior regional role, aiming to take over the Syria portfolio. However, her responsibilities are now expected to be reassigned, possibly to Joel Rayburn or Thomas Barrack. The Lebanese file, sources noted, has been downgraded in US priorities, with attention shifting to Syria.

American sources confirmed to Lebanon’s MTV network that Ortagus had been dismissed due to internal professional issues unrelated to Lebanon. Her upcoming trip to Beirut has been canceled, and Rayburn is expected to assume oversight of the Lebanon file as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.

June 3, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran and Russia: Three steps into strategic convergence

By Hazal Yalin | The Cradle | June 2, 2025

As Iran prepares for an official state visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin, the political signal could not be clearer: Iran and Russia are intent on formalizing their deepening partnership amid a global order in flux.

Iranian officials have confirmed that preparations are underway, even if the Kremlin has yet to set the date. For both countries – under siege from western sanctions and entangled in regional flashpoints – this visit is more than a ceremony; it marks an intensifying convergence of strategic purpose.

Putin’s trip follows a string of high-level engagements with his Iranian counterpart, President Masoud Pezeshkian, who took office in July of last year. Since then, the two leaders have met three times: in Ashgabat in October, in Kazan at the BRICS summit, and in January in Moscow to ink a long-term defense agreement. In the post-Ukraine war calculus, few relationships carry the same weight as the Islamic Republic in Russia’s pivot eastward.

Economic convergence through the EAEU

Ties between Tehran and Moscow have never advanced in a straight line. Even in their most frictionless periods, progress required determined effort. Still, three crucial milestones passed over the past year suggest that their bilateral relationship is set to accelerate.

The first milestone came on 25 December 2024, when Iran joined the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as an observer member state. Initially seen as a post-Soviet mechanism to deepen regional economic ties, the bloc’s broader ambitions – particularly from Moscow’s perspective – quickly became clear. Iran’s accession had been a long-standing Russian objective since at least the mid-2010s.

The path to membership began in 2018 with a provisional agreement, but was drawn out by two key factors. The first was Israel’s negotiations with the bloc over free trade zones – launched despite a 2016 framework deal – which appeared designed to sabotage Iran’s entry. They largely succeeded.

The more substantive obstacle was internal. Under former Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, whose administration tilted westward, the EAEU was seen more as leverage in western talks than a genuine priority. By contrast, late Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, a strong advocate of Iran’s ‘Look East’ policy, placed higher strategic value on deepening ties with Russia, propelling Iran’s EAEU bid forward.

By 2023–2024, trade between Iran and EAEU states hovered around $3.5 billion. The new agreement slashed tariffs: Iranian duties on EAEU goods dropped to 4.5 percent, while the bloc’s tariffs on Iranian exports fell from 6.6 to 0.8 percent.

Within five to seven years, trade volume is projected to hit $18–20 billion – a substantial gain for a petro-economy whose $60 billion in exports are more than 80 percent oil and gas. The bloc may also serve as a conduit to third-country markets.

Iran’s membership holds political as well as economic value for Moscow. Chief among these is the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a 7,200-kilometer route connecting St. Petersburg to Mumbai via Iranian territory. Completion of the Chabahar–Mumbai leg depends on India-Iran ties; the corridor’s viability also requires modernizing the Caspian Sea route–a project that gained urgency post-2022.

BRICS … and a whopping strategic partnership

Politically, the Kremlin’s need to forge a multipolar alliance structure – not a full-fledged global bloc, but a web of regional coalitions – has grown as confrontation with the west intensifies.

In this context, Iran’s accession to BRICS on 1 January 2025 marked the second major milestone. BRICS remains politically disjointed – a union of unequals – but its economic logic is compelling. It enables preferential access to massive markets and encourages bilateral flexibility between members.

Though it may not directly shape Iran–Russia relations, BRICS allows both states to expand cooperation in media, culture, and tourism – deepening their ties beyond traditional economic or military frameworks.

But the most consequential event of the year was the signing of a comprehensive strategic cooperation agreement between Tehran and Moscow. As with Iran’s drawn-out EAEU accession, the talks revealed lingering distrust. Negotiations began after Russia’s February 2022 military intervention in Ukraine.

Russia’s motives were transparent: Boxed in by NATO, Moscow sought to strengthen military alliances with regional powers and reap associated economic benefits.

The model agreement was the “comprehensive strategic partnership” signed with North Korea, which included commitments to scale up trade and a mutual defense clause. If either party is attacked or drawn into war, the other pledges to assist “by all means.”

A similar clause was expected in the Iran–Russia agreement, but never materialized. Instead, the pact reads more like a memorandum of understanding than a military alliance. The gap between its title and substance suggests unresolved disagreements during talks.

Two issues caused the rift. First, Moscow demanded that any military assistance be predicated on Tehran’s position being legally airtight under international law – lest Russia be entangled in a nuclear conflict with Tel Aviv. The definition of “aggression” became a flashpoint: What Tehran labels a provocation, Moscow feared Tel Aviv could call a justified “response.”

Second, the scope of assistance – especially the categorical exclusion of nuclear weapons – sparked further discord.

Though a compromise may have been within reach, unconfirmed reports indicate Moscow proposed the transit of Russian personnel or military preparation on Iranian soil – something the deeply sovereign Tehran outright rejected. This categorical refusal ultimately ensured the deal would remain declaratory.

The weight of history

Historical and ideological factors underpin Iran’s caution. Since the Caucasus wars of the 19th century – especially the 1826–1828 conflict – securing Iran’s northern frontier has been a persistent concern.

That anxiety intensified under the Pahlavi dynasty’s staunch anti-communism, compounded in the 1940s by two events: Soviet occupation of northern Iran until 1946, and the Soviet-backed, Kurdish-secessionist Mahabad Republic, widely viewed as an attempt to partition the country.

Simultaneously, Soviet Azerbaijani territorial demands and communist agitation in Iranian Azerbaijan further soured ties. Though these events belong to a pre-revolutionary era, the Islamic Republic’s early years were no less wary of Moscow – fueled in part by Iranian communists’ strategic missteps. The USSR, much like in Turkiye, was branded the “lesser Satan,” and anti-communism fused with inherited Russophobia.

These sentiments persist and are fueled by pro-west propaganda outlets. Among Iranian elites, accusations that Russia has “stabbed Iran in the back” are a common rhetorical tool for western-aligned factions. In 2023, a diplomatic crisis erupted after the Russian Foreign Ministry’s equivocal stance on sovereignty over contested Persian Gulf islands and muddled comments about the waterway’s name.

This blunder – unfolding as Iran’s EAEU talks progressed – not only inflamed Iranian Russophobia but handed ammunition to domestic pro-west voices, reinforcing the trope of “colonial Russia” as an unreliable partner.

What lies ahead

Even so, the Iran–Russia strategic pact is far from toothless. Though it omits a mutual defense clause, it commits both states to deepen security and defense ties and explicitly pledges cooperation to counter external destabilizing forces in the Caspian, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and West Asia. The emphasis is timely – especially in the wake of Syria’s devastation.

Today, Tehran faces heightened threats. Analysts and officials alike debate whether Israel will launch direct strikes against Iran, whether the US will try – or even be able – to restrain such moves, and whether US forces will intervene if Tel Aviv provokes open conflict. No clear decisions have emerged.

This uncertainty may prompt caution in the short term. But in the long run, only the alliances forged today will determine whether Tehran can deter tomorrow’s wars.

June 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US terms for nuclear deal ‘out of touch with reality’ – Iranian source to RT

RT | June 2, 2025

The US proposal for a new nuclear agreement with Iran is unacceptable, an Iranian source familiar with the matter told RT. Washington recently outlined its terms in a letter to Iran after five rounds of talks mediated by Oman.

“Iran views the US written elements as extremely far from what could possibly be regarded as a fair and realistic basis for a likely compromise,” the source said.

“Iranians were dismayed to see such a fanciful, one-sided text that is so out of touch with reality,” the source added.

The White House said on Sunday that President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, sent “a detailed and acceptable proposal” to Tehran. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt reiterated Washington’s position that “Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the Islamic Republic would provide a response “in line with the principles, national interests, and rights of the people of Iran.”

Trump earlier insisted on a “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program, suggesting the country should not be allowed to enrich uranium even for civilian purposes. Araghchi rejected these terms, saying the US must lift all sanctions and “uphold Iran’s nuclear rights, including enrichment.”

During his first term in office, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 UN-backed nuclear deal, accusing Iran of secretly violating it. He then reimposed sanctions as part of his “maximum pressure” campaign. Tehran denied breaching the 2015 deal at the time but has since increased uranium enrichment.

June 1, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

US deputy envoy behind Hezbollah disarmament campaign to be replaced: Report

The Cradle | June 1, 2025

US Deputy Special Envoy to the region Morgan Ortagus, who has been in charge of Washington’s Lebanon policy, is soon to be removed from her position and reassigned to another role, according to US and Israeli reports.

Ortagus “will be leaving her position as Deputy Envoy in the Trump administration,” right-wing US journalist Laura Loomer reported on X on 1 June, citing White House sources.

“I’m told she will be cordially reassigned to another role in the Trump administration. She wanted to be the Special Envoy to Syria, but the position was instead given to Tom Barrack. Morgan’s replacement will be announced this week by Steve Witkoff,” she added.

Ortagus has been at the head of the US government’s campaign to pressure the Lebanese government into disarming Hezbollah and Palestinian resistance groups. In an interview with Al-Arabiya in April, Ortagus referred to the Lebanese resistance as a “cancer” that needs to be “cut out.”

During her first visit to Lebanon, she publicly thanked Israel for “defeating” Hezbollah at the presidential palace in Baabda.

Ortagus was scheduled to visit Beirut in the coming days to advance proposals regarding reforms, border demarcation, reconstruction, disarmament of Hezbollah, and normalization with Israel, according to Lebanese news outlet Al-Jadeed. “The US proposals will be presented with a firm tone, with a specific deadline for Lebanon to implement what gets agreed on or be held responsible” for the consequences, the report said.

Hezbollah has outright rejected disarmament, but says it is eventually willing to hold dialogue with the Lebanese government on a national defensive strategy that sees its weapons incorporated into the state for use in protecting the country from Israel.

According to a report by Israel’s Channel 14, National Security Council (NSC) officials Merav Ceren and Eric Trager have also been recently removed from their positions. Trager was overseeing Middle East and North Africa affairs at the NSC, while Ceren was the director for Iran.

Ceren previously worked at the Israeli Ministry of Defense and is affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a pro-Israel think tank based in Washington DC which has been described as “hawkish” and has been heavily pushing for the dismantlement of Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities as US President Donald Trump’s government holds nuclear talks with Tehran.

Channel 14 notes that the decision is part of an effort to restructure the NSC, reduce its influence, and transfer foreign policy to a limited group of “trusted officials.”

The outcome of these changes, including Ortagus’s departure from her current position, was described in the report as “not good for Israel.”

June 1, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran slams IAEA report as politically motivated, based on forged Israeli documents

The Cradle | June 1, 2025

Iran voiced its strong protest on 31 May against a report issued by the head of the UN nuclear watchdog regarding Tehran’s nuclear program, saying it was issued “with political objectives and through pressures,” is based in part on forged Israeli documents, and goes beyond the UN nuclear chief’s mandate.

Reuters reported Saturday that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report claiming that Iran was in non-compliance with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The report, provided by IAEA head Rafael Grossi to the Board of Governors, claimed that Iran carried out secret nuclear activities with material not declared to the UN nuclear watchdog at three locations decades ago.

Western diplomats plan to use the report to pressure Iran at the UN Security Council and in ongoing negotiations with the US over its nuclear program, Reuters added.

Another report issued by the IAEA claimed that Iran’s stock of uranium enriched to up to 60 percent purity had grown by roughly half, enough for nine nuclear weapons if further enriched to 90 percent purity.

In response, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) issued a joint statement on Saturday.

The statement said that the governments of the UK, France, Germany, and the US have repeatedly violated their commitments under former nuclear agreements with Iran, including the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and Security Council Resolution 2231, while simultaneously resorting to imposing illegal unilateral sanctions and pressures against the Islamic Republic in breach of international law.

The statement emphasized that Iran has continued to engage in extensive, good-faith cooperation with the IAEA and that the European Troika and the US “have spared no effort to use the agency for leverage in the ongoing political process.”

It added that the IAEA report does not accurately reflect the level of cooperation with the agency and relies extensively on forged documents provided by Israel, which recycle previous biased and unfounded accusations.

“The allegations leveled in the current report are based on a few claims about undeclared activities and locations from past decades. This is while Iran has repeatedly declared that it has had no undeclared nuclear sites or activities. At the same time, Iran has given the IAEA access to the alleged locations, allowing sampling, and providing detailed information and explanations on various occasions regarding the history of the alleged sites, providing the necessary cooperation with the agency,” the statement clarified.

The IAEA report also makes an improper distinction between obligations under the NPT and voluntary commitments under the JCPOA, presenting some of Iran’s voluntary actions as binding legal obligations.

Further, the report invokes “unreliable and misleading information provided by the Zionist regime as a non-NPT party possessing weapons of mass destruction and responsible for the most heinous crimes against humanity, including genocide, contradicts the professional verification principles of the IAEA.”

The Foreign Ministry and AEOI reiterated that nuclear weapons have no place in the nation’s defense doctrine, according to a religious ruling (fatwa) issued by former Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and that there is no prohibition under international law for any country to develop nuclear technology for producing energy.

The statement affirmed that Iran’s enrichment program is solely for peaceful purposes, is fully transparent, is under complete IAEA supervision, and is in accordance with the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement.

On Saturday, Iran said it received a proposal from the US, passed on by Oman, about a possible agreement over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the US proposal had been delivered by the Foreign Minister of Oman, Badr bin Hamad Al-Busaidi, and that it would be “appropriately responded to in line with the principles, national interests, and rights of the people of Iran.”

June 1, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Senators from Israel” Sabotaging Trump’s Iran Deal

By Kevin Barrett | American Free Press | May 27, 2025

Last month I warned in these pages that Donald Trump faces a stark choice regarding Iran: “Nuclear Deal II or World War III.” I pointed out that Iran is open to a deal, but that it won’t be much different from the JCPOA that Trump unilaterally canceled during his first term.

Failure to reach a nuclear agreement would make a catastrophic US war on Iran almost inevitable—not because Iran would quickly build nuclear weapons or threaten anyone, but because failed negotiations would embolden Israel to attack Iran, knowing that it would almost certainly be able to draw the US into the war. And if that happened, Iran could climb the escalation ladder by killing thousands of US soldiers, sinking US ships, and most importantly, destroying enough of the region’s oil production to completely collapse the global economy.

Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons, which are banned by a decades-old religious edict renewed by the current Supreme Leader. But a growing minority of Iranians want to rethink that edict. They believe that Iran’s lack of nuclear weapons has allowed nuclear-armed Israel to repeatedly attack it, murder its scientists, perhaps even (deniably) assassinate its president, and commit genocide and other crimes with impunity. So even though nukes are ungodly, the minority claims, there is a “necessity doctrine” that allows people to do things that are ordinarily forbidden if survival requires it.

Israel, for its part, wants to completely dominate the region. Zionist extremists, who now represent about half the Israeli public, are committed to building “Greater Israel.” That would require genocide at industrial scale to eliminate regional populations so Yahweh’s supposedly chosen people can steal all the land and resources between the Nile and Euphrates rivers.

An ever-expanding Israel that continues invading and occupying its neighbors, stealing their land and resources, and murdering and expelling their populations cannot dream of doing such things unless it is the only nuclear weapons state in the region. So the possibility that one day Iran might “go nuclear” worries Israeli hardliners. If Iran continues developing its civilian nuclear program, Israelis believe, someday its leaders might change their minds and decide to build nuclear weapons. The Israelis apparently don’t understand that it is their own reckless criminality that is driving more and more Iranians toward considering the necessity of developing nukes for self-defense.

A Trump nuclear agreement would, like its predecessor, keep Iran in a position of needing about a year of “breakout time” to build nuclear weapons—as opposed to months or even weeks without a deal. But that’s not good enough for Netanyahu and other Israeli hardliners. They want to lay waste to Iran, even if it requires blowing up the global economy and with it Trump’s presidency.

A group of “Senators from Israel” led by Tom Cotton (R-IS) and Lindsey Graham (R-IS) is trying to torpedo Trump’s nuclear negotiations with Iran. The treasonous Israeli-owned senators are pushing a resolution demanding that Iran completely dismantle its civilian nuclear program. That’s a non-starter. International law, beginning with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) specifically allows Iran (like other non-nuclear-weapons states including Japan, Brazil, and the Netherlands) to enrich up to 5%. Under the 2015 JCPOA Iran agreed to limit enrichment to 3.67%, a significant concession representing roughly the minimum enrichment required for nuclear power and research.

The “Senators from Israel” also want Iran to abandon its ballistic missiles—the core of its defense strategy—and stop cooperating with regional allies in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and above all, Palestine. Those demands, too, are non-starters. Their only purpose is to destroy the possibility of any agreement, thereby opening the door for Israel to drag the US into a disastrous war on Iran.

Will the Trump Administration break free from the malign influence of the Israel lobby and its extremist leader, Benzion Mileikowsky, that Polish-born internationally-wanted criminal who operates under the alias “Benjamin Netanyahu”? Will Trump take the advice I offered last month and “terminate Bibi’s command…with extreme prejudice if necessary?”

There are encouraging signs that Trump may jettison Netanyahu in order to avoid the war-on-Iran-for-Israel trap that Bibi has set for him. By striking a separate peace with Yemen’s Houthis that allows them to continue targeting Israel, then triumphally visiting the region’s Arab capitals (including Hamas-funding Qatar) Trump has done everything but order Israel to stop its genocide in Gaza.

Trump needs to give that order ASAP—not only for humanitarian reasons, but also to create a fait accompli that will help bring down Netanyahu and forestall the Israeli hardliners’ efforts to trick the US into yet another disastrous war for Israel. If the Trump Administration does not act decisively, Netanyahu’s bought-and-paid-for “US” senators will keep pushing Bibi’s war plans, with potentially catastrophic results.

May 27, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Right Approach to the US-Iran Nuclear Negotiations

By Glenn Diesen | May 27, 2025

I recently attended a media festival in Tehran and also had the opportunity to explore Iran’s weapon systems and one of its nuclear facilities. Iran’s nuclear program is cited as the main reason for Israel and the US to threaten war with Iran. Such a war would likely escalate into a disastrous regional conflict, and perhaps even pull in the other great powers in a world war. Israel obviously needs to bring America on board to attack Iran, so the discussions between the US and Iran are of great importance. What do the Americans and Iranians want, and is there common ground that can be reached?

If the only demand by the US was for Iran to abstain from developing nuclear weapons, then an agreement could be reached, as Iran claims it does not intend to develop nuclear weapons and has accepted that inspectors are there to ensure compliance. Indeed, Iran agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and honoured its obligations before the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement. The US now demands a renegotiation and demands the complete dismantlement of Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program, which it is entitled to have as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Furthermore, the US has linked its hegemonic policies in the region to the nuclear issue. The US demands that Iran limit the range of its ballistic missile program and also suspend its support for allies in the region – primarily Yemen, Lebanon and Hamas. From Tehran’s perspective, this represents a complete capitulation that would make its security dependent on the benign intentions of Israel and the US. This neglects that the US has had Iran in its crosshairs for the past 45 years, and Iran does have legitimate security concerns.

What can be considered a legitimate security concern by the US is that Iran has become a nuclear threshold state, with the knowledge and material to develop a nuclear weapon. Restricting the extent to which uranium is enriched and imposing strict inspections could possibly be negotiated.

However, threatening to bomb Iran would not eliminate its know-how or all of its material, and such an attack would only incentivise Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. Even US threats to attack Iran unless it complies with US demands must be making the political leadership in Iran consider acquiring a nuclear weapon. So far, Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, because doing so would encourage other states, such as Saudi Arabia, to also pursue nuclear weapons. Recognising the security competition, the result would not be greater security for Iran.

In my opinion, another approach to negotiations would be to do what is rarely done anymore in Western diplomacy: to recognise and mitigate the security concerns of the other side for the purpose of reducing the security competition. Threatening and bullying Iran into making unilateral concessions has become the new normal in the unipolar era. The US offer to remove sanctions on Iran is merely an offer to stop punishing Iran. The point of departure in any diplomatic approach should be to address mutual security concerns and explore where an agreement that enhances security for both sides can be found. Threatening Iran with capitulation and linking nuclear issues to unrelated matters will only ensure the failure to reach an agreement.

May 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Take the Deal, President Trump

By Ron Paul | May 26, 2025

Deal-making is said to be President Trump’s specialty, yet after five rounds of indirect talks with Iran – most recently just days ago – we seem as far away from an agreement as ever. The fifth round ended last Friday with no breakthrough, but at least no breakdown. However, each day that passes without a document signed on the table is another day for the neocons to maneuver the US president toward an attack on Iran.

One way the war party does this is to continuously move the goal posts and change the rules of the game. Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, under great pressure from the neocons, has himself signaled at least three position-shifts: from no enrichment at all, to low-level enrichment for civilian uses, back to no enrichment at all.

The neocons know that Iran will not give up its right to the civilian use of nuclear power and that is why they are applying maximum pressure to force Trump to officially adopt that position. They know if that becomes the US “red line” then they will win and they will get their war.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, in league with US neocons, has been warning us for 20 years that Iran is “months away” from a nuclear weapon – even though our own Intelligence Community recently re-affirmed that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon at all.

Of course this is the same Netanyahu who promised Congress in 2002 if the US would just invade Iraq, peace and prosperity would break out in the Middle East. “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime,” he told Congress in March of that year, “I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”

We know how that worked out.

Poll after poll shows that the American people are tired of intervention and tired of Middle East wars. President Trump himself recognized this in his scathing rebuke of neocons and interventionists during a recent speech in Saudi Arabia.

But rebuke in a speech is not enough. President Trump must actively turn away from the neocons – many of whom are prominent in his own administration.

The recent US debacle in Yemen – where billions were wasted, civilians killed, and US military equipment destroyed – is just a taste of what the US would be in for if the neocons get their way and take us to war with Iran.

The Iranian foreign minister laid down in the simplest terms how the impasse could be solved, posting on X that, “Zero nuclear weapons = we DO have a deal; Zero enrichment = we do NOT have a deal.

My own preference is non-intervention and I do not believe Iran has the desire or the ability to militarily harm the United States. I share President Trump’s view that it would be far better to re-establish relations with Iran and begin mutually beneficial trade with the country. But if a mutually acceptable nuclear deal is the best way to take the neocon war with Iran off the table, then a deal is worth supporting.

President Trump should make his position clear to his negotiators: no more waffling or contradictions, get this agreement signed and put one in the “win” column.

May 27, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Pakistan PM hails Iran’s diplomacy for regional peace ahead of visit

Press TV – May 26, 2025

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has hailed Iran’s peace diplomacy as commendable, underscoring his nation’s solidarity and support for the Islamic Republic.

Sharif, who will visit Tehran at the official invitation of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Monday, made the remarks in an interview with IRNA.

Sharif stated that the primary purpose of his visit to Tehran is to express gratitude to Iran for its support—specifically endorsing Iran’s peace-seeking positions in the region—during Pakistan’s recent tensions with India.

Tensions between India and Pakistan sharply escalated after the deadly Pahalgam attack. India blamed Pakistan for the attack, but Pakistan rejected the accusations.

“I wish to express gratitude to Iranian officials for their support of peace and their mediation proposal—which we accepted but India rejected,” he said, adding “I will also use this visit as an opportunity to discuss bilateral relations and matters of mutual interest.”

Sharif praised Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s diplomatic skill, saying the Iranian top diplomat has demonstrated true statesmanship and wisdom in managing significant challenges during an exceptionally complex geopolitical era.

Sharif also stated that Pakistan firmly supports Iran’s condemnation of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, which has caused severe humanitarian devastation and regional instability.

“Islamabad and Tehran will continue to support one another on issues concerning the Muslim Ummah and to advance regional cooperation,” Sharif added.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran draws red line as Europe threatens nuclear ‘snapback’

As indirect US–Iran nuclear talks inch forward, Europe’s fear of marginalization prompts a risky diplomatic maneuver in Istanbul.

By Vali Kaleji | The Cradle | May 26, 2025

In the backdrop of indirect nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington, Iranian Deputy Foreign Ministers Majid Takht-Ravanchi and Kazem Gharibabadi met with their European counterparts from France, Germany, and Britain – the so-called E3 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – on 16 May in Istanbul.

The meeting, held at Iran’s Consulate General and hosted by Turkiye, brought together EU Deputy Secretary-General for Political Affairs Enrique Mora and his colleague Olof Skoog, alongside Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Abdullah Celik. The discussions focused on the future of the 2015 nuclear agreement, the status of indirect Iran–US negotiations, and collective efforts to avert further escalation through diplomacy.

Although three earlier rounds of consultations between Tehran and the E3 occurred on 29 November 2024, 13 January, and 24 February 2025, the Istanbul session marked a pivotal moment: the first engagement since the revival of the Iran–US indirect dialogue.

Europe cut out of nuclear talks

Crucially, the EU, much like in the Ukraine peace process, found itself bypassed by Washington. This diplomatic exclusion has intensified Brussels’s urgency to reclaim relevance within the nuclear negotiations framework, apparently even if this means acting as spoiler.

At the heart of the Istanbul summit lies the snapback mechanism – an instrument embedded in the JCPOA allowing any signatory to reimpose all UN sanctions that existed before the 2015 agreement. The clause, originally intended as a safeguard, now threatens to become a geopolitical cudgel.

With the JCPOA’s expiration looming in October 2025, Tehran fears that the E3 may invoke the mechanism as early as this summer, citing Iran’s alleged enrichment beyond 60 percent and its growing stockpile of enriched uranium.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot minced no words during a 28 April address to the UN Security Council, stating that if European security interests are compromised, France “will not hesitate for a single second to reapply all the sanctions that were lifted 10 years ago.” His statement, which reverberated through diplomatic circles, was widely interpreted in Tehran as a stark ultimatum.

Iran’s permanent representative to the UN responded forcefully, accusing France of hypocrisy and warning that Paris’s own breaches of the agreement render any activation of the snapback legally indefensible.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi echoed this stance in an op-ed for Le Point, characterizing the Istanbul discussions as “a fragile but promising beginning” while cautioning that “time is running out.” He wrote:

“The decisions we make now will shape Iran–Europe relations in ways that go far beyond this agreement. Iran is prepared to move forward – we hope Europe is, too.”

Following the talks, Gharibabadi wrote on X: “We exchanged views and discussed the latest state of play on nuclear & sanctions lifting indirect negotiations. Iran and the E3 are determined to sustain and make best use of diplomacy. We will meet again, as appropriate, to continue our dialogue.”

British envoy Christian Turner echoed this sentiment, affirming the shared commitment to maintaining open channels of communication.

‘Trigger Plus’

Yet not all assessments of the Istanbul summit were diplomatic. Tehran-based daily Farhikhtegan, aligned with Iran’s conservative establishment, described the session as tense and combative.

According to its report, the E3 tabled severe threats, including a proposal for what they termed “trigger plus” – an augmentation of the original snapback mechanism that would allow preemptive punitive measures without requiring technical justification.

Iranian officials, the newspaper reported, dismissed this demand as not only illegal and baseless but also presented in an “inappropriate” tone. The Iranian side reiterated that while they remain open to EU participation in broader nuclear negotiations, any activation of the snapback mechanism would trigger an immediate Iranian withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Mohammad Ghaderi, former editor-in-chief of Nour News – a media outlet close to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council – summarized the stance bluntly on social media:

“In the tense talks with Iran on Friday, [the E3] while requesting to participate in Iran–US talks, made non-technical & illegal requests, calling it trigger plus. But Iran’s response: Emphasizing the activation of the Trigger Mechanism will lead to Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT.”

The Iranian Foreign Ministry, in characteristic fashion, neither confirmed nor denied these reports, opting for strategic ambiguity to maintain leverage over multiple negotiation tracks.

The October deadline: Strategic implications 

As the October 2025 expiration date draws closer, Iran has accelerated efforts to engage the remaining members of the 4+1 framework – China, Russia, France, Britain, and Germany. Trilateral meetings with Moscow and Beijing have underscored Tehran’s strategy of building a multilateral diplomatic buffer against US-European pressure.

However, the snapback clause remains the most potent lever in the E3’s arsenal. According to Article 36 of the JCPOA, any signatory can escalate a compliance dispute to the UN Security Council. Once initiated, this process does not require a vote or consensus, meaning that Russian and Chinese vetoes are nullified.

Should the snapback be triggered, all seven UN Security Council sanctions previously lifted would automatically be reinstated – a scenario with grave consequences for Iran’s economy and its broader regional strategy.

Analysts suggest the E3 may push for this mechanism’s activation as early as July or August, thereby maximizing diplomatic pressure while allowing time to shape global opinion. If that happens, Tehran’s recourse to NPT withdrawal – a threat repeatedly made since 2019 – would likely materialize.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi reinforced this red line in response to a recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution: “If Europe implements snapback, our answer is to withdraw from the NPT.”  As Araghchi, writing again in Le Point, stated unequivocally:

“Iran has officially warned all JCPOA signatories that abuse of the snapback mechanism will lead to consequences – not only the end of Europe’s role in the agreement but also an escalation of tensions that could become irreversible.”

Europe’s desperation for relevance 

Europe’s insistence on asserting itself in the JCPOA talks stems from its declining influence across global affairs. From the Ukraine war to the Persian Gulf, the EU has been reduced to a secondary actor. In the Iran file, this marginalization is especially stark.

While Washington and Tehran inch closer to a bilateral formula, Brussels finds itself largely ignored. Nosratollah Tajik, a former Iranian diplomat, argues:

“Europe’s main concern is that Iran and the United States will reach a bilateral agreement without considering European interests. Many of the Middle East [West Asian] crises spill over into Europe.”

The lack of a coordinated EU Iran policy only compounds this anxiety. Theo Nencini, an Iran expert at Sciences Po Grenoble and Paris Catholic University, concurs:

“The E3 countries have not yet managed to define a coherent and relevant ‘Iran policy.’ From Trump 1.0 to Biden, they have always been accustomed to flatly following American positions.”

Nencini believes that unexpected US–Iran direct talks caught Europeans off guard, prompting them to scramble to get involved in the negotiation process despite the fact that “they have always maintained a very strict attitude towards Iran.”

Diplomacy or detonation?

The Istanbul talks, despite their challenges, represent one of the few remaining diplomatic lifelines between Tehran and the E3.

Should these efforts collapse, the consequences would be profound: Iran could withdraw from the NPT, revise its nuclear doctrine, and prompt potential military escalation involving the US and Israel.

Such a scenario would spell the total disintegration of the JCPOA framework and shatter the fragile architecture of non-proliferation diplomacy built over the past two decades.

With less than five months to avert this trajectory, the onus lies on both parties to preserve what little remains of mutual trust. Yet the margin for error continues to shrink by the day.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »