Seyed M. Marandi: America Attacks Iran – Retaliation is Coming
Glenn Diesen | June 22, 2025
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi discusses the US attack on Iran and why retaliation is unavoidable.
US Would Not Intervene If Israel Had Not Been on Brink of Defeat – Iranian Ex-Ambassador
Sputnik – 23.06.2025
The United States would not have intervened in the Middle East conflict if Israel had not been on the brink of defeat, former Iranian Ambassador to Germany Seyed Hossein Mousavian told RIA Novosti.
“Israel not only failed in its ten-day military operation against Iran but was on the verge of defeat. Had Israel not been in a crisis, the U.S. would not have intervened,” Mousavian said.
He pointed out that while Iran has suffered irreparable damage, the negative consequences of the US attack against it will also harm the United States and jeopardize regional peace and security.
“US President Donald Trump’s national security team either failed to properly assess the consequences of a U.S. military attack on Iran, or they were unable to dissuade the President—or perhaps the majority of them actually supported the decision. In any case, this event has further revealed the extent of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s influence over the White House,” he added.
The United States struck three Iranian nuclear sites in Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan on Sunday night. US President Donald Trump said that the strike aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities. He said Tehran must agree to “end this war” or face far more serious consequences.
Iran denies the military component of its nuclear project. As IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said on June 18, the agency’s inspectors have not seen concrete evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The US intelligence community, contrary to statements by President Donald Trump and Israel, believed that Iran was not seeking to create nuclear weapons, as reported by CNN. Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray told RIA Novosti that Iran had shown incredible patience and peacefulness over the past few years, despite Israel’s actions.
Moscow blasts US redo of ‘Iraqi weapons of mass destruction’ stunt
RT | June 22, 2025
Russia has sharply condemned the United States for its airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, calling the attacks “irresponsible, provocative and dangerous,” and warning they risk pushing the Middle East toward a large-scale war with potentially catastrophic nuclear consequences.
Speaking at an emergency session of the UN Security Council on Sunday, Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia accused Washington of violating the UN Charter, international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“The United States has opened a Pandora’s box, and no one knows what consequences may follow,” Nebenzia said, noting that by targeting IAEA-supervised nuclear sites, Washington has “once again demonstrated total disregard for the position of the international community.”
Nebenzia drew a pointed comparison to the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, when then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented false evidence to “justify the invasion of another sovereign state, only to plunge its people into chaos for decades and not find any weapons of mass destruction.”
“Many today feel a strong sense of déjà vu,” he said. “The current situation is essentially no different: we are once again being urged to believe in fairy tales in order to once again bring suffering to millions of people living in the Middle East.”
Russia argued that Tehran has not been proven to be pursuing a nuclear weapon, echoing earlier assessments by US intelligence that were dismissed by President Donald Trump as “wrong.” Nebenzia accused Washington of fabricating a narrative to justify the use of force and of undermining the decades-long diplomatic framework built around Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.
The Russian envoy also criticized what he described as the hypocrisy of Western nations that had for days called for “restraint” in the same Security Council chamber, yet failed to condemn Washington for joining Israeli strikes – and even blamed Iran for the escalation.
“We are witnessing an astonishing example of double standards,” he said. “Iran has been and remains one of the most thoroughly inspected states under the NPT, but instead of encouraging such an attitude, it receives bombardments of its territory and civilians by a state that refuses, in principle, to sign the NPT.”
Nebenzia warned that the US strikes undermine the authority of the IAEA and the global non-proliferation regime, and that continued escalation could return the world to an era of uncontrolled nuclear risk.
“This is an outrageous and cynical situation, and it is very strange that the Director General of the IAEA did not say a word about it. Neither has he ever called on Israel to join the NPT,” Nebenzia added.
Calling for urgent action, Russia – joined by China and Pakistan – submitted a draft Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and unconditional ceasefire and a return to diplomatic talks on Iran’s nuclear program.
Col. Jacques Baud: America Bombs Iran’s Nuclear Facilities
Glenn Diesen | June 22, 2025
Colonel Jacques Baud is a former military intelligence analyst in the Swiss Army and the author of many books. Colonel Baud discusses America’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and the deception surrounding this war of aggression. International law, treaties and institutions are all undermined in the effort to destroy Iran and restore American hegemony.
True Promise III: Iran launches multi-warhead Kheibar Shekan missile for first time
Press TV – June 22, 2025
Iran announced the first-ever launch of its multi-warhead Kheibar Shekan ballistic missile during the twentieth wave of Operation True Promise III in the early hours of Sunday.
In a statement, the public relations department of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said that this phase of the retaliatory operation marked the debut of the third-generation Kheibar Shekan ballistic missile, successfully striking its intended targets.
The twentieth wave came just hours after the United States claimed to have struck three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
According to the IRGC, a total of 40 solid- and liquid-fueled missiles were launched at strategic targets across the occupied Palestinian territories on Sunday.
“In this operation, for the first time, the IRGC Aerospace Force deployed the third-generation Kheibar Shekan multi-warhead ballistic missile, employing new and surprising tactics to achieve greater precision, destructive power, and effectiveness,” the statement said.
Main targets included Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, the regime’s biological research center, and alternative command-and-control sites.
The missiles employed maneuverable warheads capable of adjusting their trajectory during descent, maintaining guidance until impact, and delivering multiple high-explosive, highly destructive payloads.
Sirens reportedly went off only after the missiles scored direct hits, plunging the occupied territories into chaos, as witnessed in several previous waves of Operation True Promise III.
“We declare that the core capabilities of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran have yet to be activated in this sacred defense,” the IRGC statement concluded.
Iranian armed forces have carried out 20 phases of True Promise III so far, targeting strategic and sensitive military and intelligence sites in the occupied territories.
These operations are in response to the continued Israeli aggression that has claimed the lives of more than 400 Iranians since June 13, including military commanders, scientists, university professors, athletes, school students etc.
Trump aides pushed war on Iran with Mossad-fed intel, ignoring dissent
Al Mayadeen | June 22, 2025
The CIA and US Central Command are being used as tools by “Israel’s” Mossad to push the United States toward a full-scale war with Iran, a senior official in US President Donald Trump’s administration told The Grayzone.
According to the official, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and CENTCOM Commander Gen. Michael Kurilla regurgitated Israeli briefings, without disclosing their origin, to influence Trump directly.
The official described Ratcliffe as “Mossad’s stenographer”, arguing that Israeli intelligence shaped White House perceptions through intermediaries who bypass standard US intelligence vetting.
This manipulation completely sidelined dissenting voices, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and her deputy, Joe Kent, who have raised concerns about the consequences of escalation.
This April, The Grayzone published audio of AIPAC CEO Elliott Brandt boasting about his long-standing influence over Ratcliffe, calling him a “lifeline” inside the Trump administration. The recording detailed how AIPAC cultivated not only Ratcliffe but also Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, both later appointed to key national security posts.
Waltz, according to The Grayzone, was forced out of his NSC role in May after being exposed for secretly coordinating an Iran strike plan with Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Grayzone also revealed that Rubio, now serving as acting National Security Director, holds more influence over cabinet-level operations than any official since Henry Kissinger.
Push for regime change, assassination
The Trump official also emphasized that Mossad and Israeli military briefers are singularly focused on regime change, not nuclear diplomacy. During meetings, they reportedly lobbied for the assassination of Iran’s leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei.
The official added that Israeli briefings often emphasized apocalyptic scenarios, including unverified claims that Iran could hand off a nuclear weapon to Ansar Allah in under a week.
While Trump’s Iran envoy, Steve Witkoff, reportedly urged the president to maintain diplomatic channels, Israeli escalation strategies appeared calculated to collapse the negotiation process entirely, said The Grayzone.
Gabbard and Kent, both critical of unilateral military action, have reportedly been frozen out of meetings by Chief of Staff Suzie Wiles. Ratcliffe and Kurilla now dominate the president’s briefings. The CIA director has been accused of parroting Israeli memos, while Kurilla, dubbed “Israel’s” “favorite general”, has relentlessly made the case for direct US engagement in Iran.
As of June 13, Tel Aviv launched unilateral strikes on Iran, reportedly rushing to act before Kurilla’s retirement in July. Some former Pentagon officials suggested Kurilla’s presence was a deciding factor for Israeli timing.
Hiroshima-like horrors if US joins war
As reported by The Grayzone, at a June 8 Camp David meeting, Ratcliffe reportedly used a clumsy football metaphor to argue Iran was just “one yard away” from developing a nuclear bomb. Two days later, Gabbard released a video warning of Hiroshima-like horrors if warmongers pushed the US into conflict with an allegedly nuclear-capable state. Trump was said to be enraged.
By June 20, Gabbard publicly reaffirmed loyalty to Trump, though her assessment of Iran’s nuclear capability remained unchanged, claiming that while Iran could assemble a bomb in weeks or months, it had not yet done so.
Vice President JD Vance has reportedly held parallel Iran briefings, but Trump’s exposure remains largely confined to Fox News and advisors aligned with Israeli policy, according to The Grayzone.
According to former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, Fox has effectively become “a 24/7 commercial for war on Iran,” prompting him to call for a Foreign Agent Registration Act investigation.
As Trump returns to Washington, the former official told The Grayzone, “The party is on,” suggesting the president had already decided to act on Tel Aviv’s behalf, which, in fact, materialized early June 22, with the US conducting airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Iran warns of NPT withdrawal, Strait of Hormuz closure after US attack
Al Mayadeen | June 22, 2025
Following the United States’ airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, senior Iranian lawmakers have raised the possibility of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz in retaliation.
The warnings come after US President Donald Trump announced, in a post in Truth Social, on Sunday at dawn, that the United States carried out what he described as a “very successful attack” on three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
Esmail Kowsari, a prominent member of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee in Parliament, affirmed that the country had already implemented protective measures to safeguard its nuclear infrastructure. He dismissed allegations of severe damage to Iran’s nuclear program, calling them “baseless claims,” and insisted that “Tehran has accurate intelligence disproving such assertions.”
Kowsari revealed that authorities are actively weighing a possible exit from the NPT. “We are reviewing the option of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” he said, noting that the parliamentary committee would soon hold an emergency session to assess the American attack and formulate Iran’s official response.
Reiterating Iran’s commitment to Resistance, Kowsari warned that “our armed forces will certainly continue striking the Zionist entity,” adding, “US military bases across the region will not remain secure. Hitting them will be far easier than targeting the Israeli regime.”
He further cautioned that Iran is prepared to escalate militarily if necessary, stating, “The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is on the table. We will definitely implement it if the situation requires.”
‘Iran will respond decisively’
In a related comment, Sara Fallahi, another member of the parliamentary committee, told Tasnim News that a forceful response is inevitable. “Iran will respond decisively,” she said, adding that retaliation could involve “a full withdrawal from the NPT and closure of the Strait of Hormuz.”
Parliament’s Foreign Policy Committee head, Abbas Golroo, reinforced that position in a statement posted on X, asserting that “Iran has the legal right to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) based on its Article 10, following US strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities.”
Article 10 of the NPT provides that any member state has “the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.”
IAEA announces emergency meeting following US strikes
In response to the escalating crisis, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi announced an emergency session of the agency’s Board of Governors scheduled for Monday in Vienna.
“In light of the urgent situation in Iran, I am convening an emergency meeting of the @IAEAorg Board of Governors for tomorrow,” Grossi posted on X on Sunday.
Separately, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization sent a formal letter to the IAEA, demanding an independent investigation into the US aggression. Iranian officials have insisted that the targeted facilities were operating under full IAEA supervision and posed no nuclear threat.
US Strikes on Iran Reckless Breach of Sovereignty – Russian Foreign Ministry
Sputnik – 22.06.2025
MOSCOW – The Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites as a reckless move that violates the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty, international law and the UN Charter.
“The reckless decision to bomb the territory of a sovereign state, whatever the arguments, runs counter to international law, the UN Charter, the UN Security Council Resolution,” the ministry said.
It is of particular concern that the attack was carried out by a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the ministry said, adding that the UN’s core body had to interfere.
“The UN Security Council should naturally take action. Confrontational behavior of the US and Israel has to be rejected collectively,” the statement read.
“We call for an end of aggression and urge efforts that will create conditions for a return to a political and diplomatic path,” the statement said.
The ministry also called on Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report impartially on the Iran attacks at the UN atomic agency’s board of governors’ meeting on Monday.
‘The US Betrayed Diplomacy’ – Iran’s FM Araghchi
Sputnik – 22.06.2025
Iran will have to respond to US attacks against Iranian nuclear sites, and is going to do so for as long as needed, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.
The United States have “betrayed diplomacy”, Araghchi said at a press conference held in Istanbul on June 22, adding that Iran now has the right to defend itself in accordance with the UN Charter.
“The US government bears full responsibility for the serious consequences of this aggression,” Araghchi said.
In the wake of the US strikes, Iran has fewer reasons to trust the West, Tehran no longer understands who it should negotiate with, he pointed out.
According Araghchi, Iran is receiving messages from the US through various channels, and if necessary, it will respond through intermediaries.
Iran now calls upon the International Atomic Energy Agency to fulfill its legal duties in response to the dangerous attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities, Araghchi stated.
The UN and the IAEA must respond to the clear violation of international law by the United States, he said, further insisting that the UN Security Council should hold an emergency meeting and condemn the US attack.
Araghchi also said that he is going to Moscow to have “serious consultations” with President Putin on Monday, June 23.
Clash of Two World Orders: Fordow Is the Excuse, Sovereignty the Target
By Peiman Salehi | Aletho News | June 22, 2025
Hours after U.S. President Donald Trump ordered a direct military strike on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, the world stands on the edge of a dangerous precipice. This unprecedented attack, occurring in the early hours of last night, marks a significant escalation in the confrontation between Washington and Tehran, and has once again ignited fears of a broader regional—if not global—conflict.
According to Iranian state media, the American attack targeted the entrance of the Fordow nuclear enrichment site, located tens of meters underground. Despite the dramatic nature of the strike, the damage appears to be minimal. Iranian officials have called the assault a “symbolic operation” with limited strategic impact. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran is expected to issue a full technical statement, but preliminary reports indicate that key centrifuges had already been removed from the Fordow and Natanz sites prior to the attack. The Iranian government further emphasized that the deep-underground design of these facilities, the result of years of indigenous scientific expertise, had neutralized any attempt to deliver a crippling blow.
This act of aggression is not only a military miscalculation but a profound political one. The U.S. administration, under Trump’s leadership, appears to have lost its strategic bearings. By resorting to force, Washington has exposed its frustration and strategic deadlock. What this attack truly represents is a failure of diplomacy, a betrayal of international norms, and a dangerous gamble rooted in outdated imperial thinking. Trump, increasingly beholden to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has allowed the Zionist regime’s narrow interests to dictate a course that risks global war. The world is now witnessing how the ambitions of a declining empire can drag the international system into chaos.
The media landscape surrounding the strike further reveals a coordinated attempt to shape the narrative. Western outlets, including CNN and Reuters, have underreported or dismissed Iran’s defensive capabilities and the limited damage incurred. In contrast, resistance-aligned media such as Al Mayadeen, Press TV, and Tasnim News have provided footage, satellite analysis, and expert interviews, revealing the superficial nature of the attack. Israeli media, which initially broadcast images from Tel Aviv and Haifa, has since restricted coverage, a move analysts interpret as an attempt to hide the psychological and infrastructural damage inflicted by previous Iranian missile strikes.
More crucially, this moment exposes the deeper ideological battle at play. Washington and Tel Aviv are not merely targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—they are targeting the very notion of Iranian sovereignty, independence, and civilizational identity. For decades, the U.S. has tolerated or ignored nuclear weapons held by regimes like Israel, India, and others. Yet Iran, which has consistently emphasized the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and whose Supreme Leader has issued religious rulings against weapons of mass destruction, remains the subject of relentless pressure and threats.
This double standard reveals the real motive: not nonproliferation, but domination. Iran stands as a civilizational alternative to the liberal hegemony of the West, especially in the post-Cold War era. Its resistance model has inspired popular movements across West Asia and beyond. And today, despite the brutality of sanctions, sabotage, and assassination campaigns, Iran remains defiant—stronger, more resilient, and more unified.
Indeed, one of the unintended consequences of the American-Israeli aggression is the strengthening of Iran’s internal unity. Where once some questioned Iran’s regional alliances, now many recognize their strategic depth. It is clear why Iran built partnerships with Hezbollah, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and other resistance groups: to keep the battle outside its borders and to prepare for precisely this moment. Iran has yet to request support from these allies, has not activated its naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz, and has not called on China, Russia, or Pakistan for direct intervention. Yet all these options remain on the table. This calculated restraint underscores Iran’s confidence and its desire to prove that it can confront Israel independently.
However, should the U.S. persist in its aggression, it is likely that Iran’s allies will respond. A wider conflict could pull in China and Russia, both of whom have signaled support for Iran’s right to defend itself. Pakistan has openly declared that it will not stand idly by if Iran is attacked. What we are witnessing may very well be the beginning of a war that accelerates the decline of American unipolarity and ushers in a truly multipolar world.
This is not merely a battle between two states; it is a confrontation between two visions of world order. One rooted in hegemony and coercion. The other, in resistance, dignity, and sovereignty. And tonight, from the heart of Tehran, the voice of that resistance is being heard loud and clear.
Perception vs reality: What the Israel–Iran war actually reveals
Myth-making as strategy
By Shivan Mahendrarajah | The Cradle | June 21, 2025
Since 13 June, “Operation Rising Lion” has dominated headlines, framed by a deluge of western media portraying Iran as days from building a nuclear bomb. In response, Israel unleashed waves of airstrikes on Iranian territory, targeting military, nuclear, and civilian infrastructure. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu likened it to the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor – a strike of necessity to prevent annihilation.
But beneath the familiar tropes of “pre-emptive defense” lies an unmistakable imperial calculus. Over 200 Israeli aircraft participated in the opening barrage, with deep-penetration strikes and cyber warfare. Iranian air defense and radar installations were among the first to be hit. Mossad and allied forces used proxy agents to ignite internal sabotage, including drone and car bomb attacks in major cities.
This was not a “surgical strike” to stop a bomb. It was a declaration of war – a bid to decapitate the Islamic Republic.
Iran: Weak ‘regime’ or resilient state?
Western assessments insist Iran is tottering: its economy hollowed out by sanctions, its population seething, its leadership fractured. But these are fantasies. What has emerged since Israel’s 13 June assault is not a ‘regime’ in collapse, but a state adapting under fire – around which the majority of Iranians, irrespective of political affiliations, have united.
Contrary to the western narrative, the strikes that eliminated senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and nuclear scientists barely dented Iran’s strategic posture. Within hours, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reaffirmed Artesh (conventional military) control over national defense, elevating new commanders and activating pre-planned strike protocols. This signaled a transfer of initiative from cautious IRGC veterans – many shaped by the traumas of the 1980–1988 war with Iraq – to a more hawkish generation, willing to directly strike Israel.
Iran’s retaliatory attacks on 13, 14, and 15 June – the third instalment of Operation True Promise – struck Tel Aviv, Haifa, and three Israeli military bases. Online observers admired how quickly the Iranian military pivoted to war footing despite the assassination of high-ranking officers. One noted:
“I don’t think the American or Israeli military could have taken the losses of so many senior commanders and still struck back.”
Did Israel achieve air superiority?
Initial reports claimed Israeli dominance of Iranian airspace, based largely on footage of Israeli jets evading response and striking decoy targets. Yet after a 12-hour “silence,” Iranian air defense (AD) systems re-engaged with full force. The delay has been interpreted as either the effect of cyber warfare or a deliberate “rope-a-dope” strategy: feign weakness, draw in the enemy, make him over-confident, counterstrike.
Iran lost facilities it expected to lose, such as the outdated IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz. Underground sites with IR-6 [SM1] centrifuges at Fordow were unaffected. Mobile and fixed AD units resumed operations by nightfall, and there are unconfirmed reports of Israeli aircraft downed in later attempts to breach Iranian skies.
Israeli media touted “air superiority,” but most confirmed strikes targeted decoys. As military analyst Mike Mihajlovic explained, “more than three-quarters of the videos circulating are actually hits on the decoys.”
The illusion of dominance, broadcast by Tel Aviv, is cracking.
War by terror
Unable to sustain large-scale aerial assaults, Israel shifted tactics. Standoff missile strikes from Iraqi airspace waned. Instead, Mossad and its internal assets launched FPV drone attacks, car bombings, and anti-tank guided missile strikes. Five car bombs exploded in Tehran on 15 June alone. Civilian sites – hospitals, dormitories, and residential buildings – were hit.
These are not military operations. They are acts of terror. Still, the west echoes Tel Aviv’s narrative. The BBC and others describe these incidents as “strikes,” implying aerial precision, rather than the car bombings they are. This deliberate linguistic obfuscation dehumanizes Iranians while sanitizing Israeli aggression. Yet, this has galvanized Iranians and united them.
National unity reforged
Much like the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s 1980 invasion, Tel Aviv misread Iran’s internal contradictions as signs of collapse. Yet from 13 June onward, Iranians from across the political spectrum – including long-time dissidents – have rallied behind the state.
Political analyst Sadegh Zibakalam questioned:
“Which opposition figure has spoken and written as much as I have against this regime? But how can I join the enemy in this situation? Was it right for the MEK to join Saddam?”
Former political prisoner Ali Gholizadeh added, “Despite all my criticisms of the government, I stand fully behind the commander-in-chief of the Iranian Defense Forces and [Armed] Forces in defending the homeland.”
Even reformist voices, once critical of Iran’s nuclear policy, now demand a bomb. Journalist and editor Ali Nazary says, “Iran must acquire a nuclear bomb as soon as possible. Conducting a nuclear test is the biggest deterrent.”
On Iranian social media, images of civilians killed in Israeli attacks have gone viral. As of 15 June, 224 Iranians – 90 percent civilians – were reported killed, with over 1,200 injured.
Crumbling illusions
The occupation state claims it destroyed 120 missile launchers and 200 AD units. But Iranian units continue to fire in visible clusters – indicating low attrition and high confidence. Independent analysts mock Israeli claims as propaganda. Patarames, a known military observer, posted:
“IRGC missile crews still feel so confident and safe that their launchers are firing in clusters. So much for Israeli air superiority.”
In truth, Israeli AD systems are being degraded. Iranian missiles increasingly strike with little interception. The myth of omnipotent Israeli defense is unraveling.
Meanwhile, Tehran may be preparing its exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – according to a statement made by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei – and expelling International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitors. Parliament is fast-tracking bills. Crowds chant for a nuclear test. The west’s double standards on Israel’s arsenal and Tehran’s right to self-defense are fueling a shift in national strategy.
Global reactions: Hypocrisy laid bare
Washington’s rhetoric mirrors past duplicity. US President Donald Trump – who unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during his first term – posted on X triumphantly:
“I gave Iran 60 days to make a deal. Israel attacked on day 61.”
G7 governments mumble about de-escalation, but offer no condemnation of Israeli aggression. The so-called “rules-based order” is silent as civilians die.
Iranians are not surprised. In 2001, they condemned the 11 September attacks and supported the US so-called War on Terror. Today, they watch the same west excuse terrorism against them. Trust is gone. Nationalism is surging.
Israel’s strategic gamble is backfiring. Hamas remains entrenched in Gaza and is targeting occupation soldiers in greater numbers. Hezbollah watches closely. Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces are coordinating with Tehran. If Iraq’s resistance factions activate, US forces could be drawn in.
Meanwhile, Tel Aviv’s own population is rattled. Social media posts from Israelis hiding in bunkers – “they’re turning us into Gaza” – reflect growing fear. The psychological war, waged by Iran, is winning.
Across the Global South, sympathy lies with Tehran. As Australian journalist Caitlin Johnstone put it:
“Imagine being so evil and reviled that people love watching you get hit.”
A war of narratives and attrition
“Operation Rising Lion” was meant to decapitate Iran, destroy its nuclear program, and shatter its morale. Instead, it has united a fragmented polity, discredited western media, and exposed the hollowness of Israeli deterrence.
Iran’s leadership has hardened. Its people are defiant. Its enemies are scrambling to control the story.
This is not just a war of missiles. It is a war of narratives, sovereignty, and historical memory. The Axis of Resistance understands this. Tel Aviv, it seems, does not.
The Persian lion is not in a good mood.
Why BBC editors must one day stand trial for colluding in Israel’s genocide
Journalist Peter Oborne sets out six ways the state broadcaster has wilfully misled audiences on Israel’s destruction of Gaza
By Jonathan Cook | June 20, 2025
Veteran journalist Peter Oborne eviscerated the BBC this week over its shameful reporting of Gaza – and unusually, he managed to do so face-to-face with the BBC’s executive news editor, Richard Burgess, during a parliamentary meeting.
Oborne’s remarks relate to a new and damning report by the Centre for Media Monitoring, which analysed in detail the BBC’s Gaza coverage in the year following Hamas’ one-day attack on 7 October 2023. The report found a “pattern of bias, double standards and silencing of Palestinian voices.” These aren’t editorial slip-ups. They reveal a systematic, long-term skewing of editorial coverage in Israel’s favour.
Oborne was one of several journalists to confront Burgess.
Oborne makes a series of important points that illustrate why the BBC’s slanted, Israel-friendly news agenda amounts to genocide denial, and means executives like Burgess are directly complicit in Israeli war crimes:
1. The BBC has never mentioned the Hannibal directive, invoked by Israel on 7 October 2023, that green-lit the murder of Israeli soldiers and civilians, often by Apache helicopter fire, to prevent them being taken captive by Hamas. The Israeli media has extensively reported on the role of the Hannibal directive in the Israeli military’s response on 7 October, but that coverage has been completely ignored by the BBC and most UK media outlets.
Israel’s invocation of the Hannibal directive – essential context for understanding what happened on 7 October – explains much of the destruction that day in Israel usually attributed to Hamas “barbarism”, such as the graveyard of burnt-out, crumpled cars and the charred, crumbling remains of houses in communities near Gaza.
Hamas, with its light weapons, did not have the ability to inflict this kind of damage on Israel, and we know from Israeli witnesses, video footage and admissions from Israeli military officers that Israel was responsible for at least a share of the carnage that day. How much we will apparently never know because Israel is not willing to investigate itself, and media like the BBC are not doing any investigations themselves, or putting any pressure on Israel to do so.
2. The BBC has never mentioned Israel’s Dahiya doctrine, the basis of its “mowing the lawn” approach to Gaza over the past two decades, in which the Israeli military has intermittently destroyed large swaths of the tiny enclave. The official aim has been to push the population, in the words of Israeli generals, back to the “Stone Age”. The assumption is that, forced into survival mode, Palestinians will not have the energy or will to resist their brutal and illegal subjugation by Israel and that it will be easier for Israel to ethnically cleanse them from their homeland.
Because Israel has been implementing this military doctrine – a form of collective punishment and therefore indisputably a war crime – for at least 20 years, it is critically important in any analysis of the events that led up to 7 October, or of the genocidal campaign of destruction Israel launched subsequently.
The BBC’s refusal even to acknowledge the doctrine’s existence leaves audiences gravely misinformed about Israel’s historical abuses of Gaza, and deprived of context to interpret the campaign of destruction by Israel over the past 20 months.
3. The BBC has utterly failed to report the many dozens of genocidal statements from Israeli officials since 7 October – again vital context for audiences to understand Israel’s goals in Gaza.
Perhaps most egregiously, the BBC has not reported Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s biblically-inspired comparison of the Palestinians to “Amalek” – a people the Jews were instructed by God to wipe from the face of the earth. Netanyahu knew this clearly genocidal statement would have especial resonance with what now amounts to a majority of the combat soldiers in Gaza who belong to extreme religious communities that view the Bible as the literal truth.
The hardest thing to prove in genocide is intent. And yet the reason Israel’s violence in Gaza is so clearly genocidal is that every senior official from the prime minister down has repeatedly told us that genocide is their intent. The decision not to inform audiences of these public statements is not journalism. It is pro-Israel disinformation and genocide denial.
4. By contrast, as Oborne notes, on more than 100 occasions when guests have tried to refer to what is happening in Gaza as a genocide, BBC staff have immediately shut them down on air. As other investigations have shown, the BBC has strictly enforced a policy not only of banning the use of the term “genocide” by its own journalists in reference to Gaza but of depriving others – from Palestinians to western medical volunteers and international law experts – of the right to use the term as well. Again, this is pure genocide denial.
5. Oborne also points to the fact that the BBC has largely ignored Israel’s campaign of murdering Palestinian journalists in Gaza. A greater number have been killed by Israel in its war on the tiny enclave than the total number of journalists killed in all other major conflicts of the past 160 years combined.
The BBC has reported just 6 per cent of the more than 225 journalists killed by Israel in Gaza, compared to 62 per cent of the far smaller number of journalists killed in Ukraine. This is once again vital context for understanding that Israel’s goals are genocidal. It hopes to exterminate the main witnesses to its crimes.
6. Oborne adds a point of his own. He notes that the distinguished Israeli historian Avi Shlaim lives in the UK and teaches at Oxford University. Unlike the Israeli spokespeople familiar to BBC audiences, who are paid to muddy the waters and deny Israel’s genocide, Shlaim is both knowledgeable about the history of Israeli colonisation of Palestine and truly independent. He is in a position to dispassionately provide the context BBC audiences need to make judgments about what is going on and who is responsible for it.
And yet extraordinarily, Shlaim has never been invited on by the BBC. He is only too ready to do interviews. He has done them for Al Jazeera, for example. But he isn’t invited on because, it seems, he is “the wrong sort of Jew”. His research has led him to a series of highly critical conclusions about Israel’s historical and current treatment of the Palestinians. He calls what Israel is doing in Gaza a genocide. He is one of the prominent Israelis we are never allowed to hear from, because they are likely to make more credible and mainstream a narrative the BBC wishes to present as fringe, loopy and antisemitic. Again, what the BBC is doing – paid for by British taxpayers – isn’t journalism. It is propaganda for a foreign state.
Burgess’ answer is a long-winded shrugging of the shoulders, a BBC executive’s way of acting clueless – an equivalent of Manuel, the dim-witted Spanish waiter in the classic comedy show Fawlty Towers, saying: “I know nothing.”
Other lowlights from Burgess include his responding to a pointed question from Declassified journalist Hamza Yusuf on why the BBC has not given attention to British spy planes operating over Gaza from RAF base Akrotiri on Cyprus. “I don’t think we should overplay the UK’s contribution to what’s happening in Israel,” Burgess answers.
So the British state broadcaster has decided that its duty is not to investigate the nature of British state assistance to Israel in Gaza, even though most experts agree what Israel is doing there amounts to genocide. Burgess thinks scrutiny of British state complicity would be “overplaying” British collusion, even though the BBC has not actually investigated the extent or nature of that collusion to have reached a conclusion. This is the very antithesis of what journalism is there to do: monitor the centres of power, not exonerate such power-centres before they have even been scrutinised.
Labour MP Andy McDonald responded to Burgess: “To underplay the role of the UK is an error.”
It is more than that. It is journalistic complicity in British and Israeli state war crimes.
Here are a few key statistical findings from the Centre for Media Monitoring’s report on BBC coverage of Gaza over the year following 7 October 2023:
- The BBC ran more than 30 times more victim profiles of Israelis than Palestinians.
- The BBC interviewed more than twice as many Israelis as Palestinians.
- The BBC asked 38 of its guests to condemn Hamas. It asked no one to condemn Israel’s mass killing of civilians, or its attacks on hospitals and schools.
- Only 0.5% of BBC articles mentioned Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine.The BBC mentioned “occupation” – the essential context for understanding the relationship between Israel and Palestinians – only 14 times in news articles when providing context to the events of 7 October 2023. That amounted to 0.3% of articles. Additional context – decades of Israeli apartheid rule and Israel’s 17-year blockade of Gaza — were entirely missing from the coverage.
- The BBC described Israeli captives as “hostages”, while Palestinian detainees, including children held without charge, were called “prisoners”. During one major hostage exchange in which 90 Palestinians were swapped for three Israelis, 70% of BBC articles focused on those three Israelis.
- The BBC covered Ukraine with twice as many articles as Gaza in the time period, even though the Gaza story was newer and Israeli crimes even graver than Russia ones. The corporation was twice as likely to use sympathetic language for Ukrainian victims than it was for Palestinian victims.
- In coverage, Palestinians were usually described as having “died” or been “killed” in air strikes, without mention of who launched those strikes. Israeli victims, on the other hand, were “massacred”, “slaughtered” and “butchered” – and the author of the violence was named, even though, as we have seen, the Hannibal directive clouded the picture in at least some of those cases.
As is only too evident watching Burgess respond, he is not there to learn from the state broadcaster’s glaring mistakes – because systematic BBC pro-Israel bias isn’t a mistake. It’s precisely what the BBC is there to do.

