Most Americans Believe Israel Has Too Much Influence on US Policy – Poll
Sputnik – 27.06.2025
More than half of Americans believe Israel wields too much influence on US policy, a survey conducted by US research firm Tyson Group showed on Friday.
Specifically, 54% of respondents said that Israel’s influence is excessive, while 27% disagreed with this position, according to the survey.
Among Democrats, 62% agreed with the position, compared to 43% of Republicans and 44% of senior Americans aged 65 and over.
The majority of Americans, 54%, also believe recent US airstrikes significantly set back the development of Iran’s nuclear progam, including 19% who state that it was “completely obliterated,” the survey showed.
Meanwhile, 75% of respondents are concerned that the conflict could escalate into a larger war, while 67% believe that the US could launch new military action against Iran, according to the survey.
The survey was conducted from June 25-26 among 1,027 US adults, with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.
Ceasefire without terms: Iran’s strategic deterrence in shadow of 9,379 kg
By Amro Allan | Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2025
12 days of war between Iran and the Israeli-US alliance have ended, not with an agreement, treaty, or even mutual understanding, but with silence. US President Donald Trump announced a unilateral ceasefire following an Israeli request, and after consultation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet. Qatar, acting as an intermediary, passed on the message to Tehran, which acknowledged the mediation without committing to any terms. No documents were signed, no concessions were made, and no conditions agreed. What has emerged is a calm devoid of consensus, a tactical pause, not an end to the war.
Yet for all its fragility, this ceasefire reveals something critical: Iran endured, Iran responded, and most significantly, Iran preserved what it considers the cornerstone of its strategic deterrence, its nuclear capability and its sovereignty in the face of overwhelming pressure. And for a nation that has lived through decades of sanctions, threats, and assassinations, survival on its own terms is not defeat, it is a form of victory.
Victory without capitulation
From Tel Aviv and Washington, the war was framed as a swift punitive campaign meant to decapitate Iran’s nuclear programme and reassert Israeli regional dominance. Netanyahu boasted of air superiority, missile interception, and the assassination of key Iranian generals and nuclear scientists. He claimed “Israel” had “dismantled” Iran’s missile programme and brought its nuclear efforts to a halt.
But such triumphalism proved premature, and ultimately misleading. The final missiles fired before the ceasefire originated from Iranian launchers, employing a strategic class of weaponry deployed for the first time in this conflict. Strikes on Tel Aviv, Haifa, and strategic military targets pierced “Israel’s” multi-layered air defence systems and killed seven. These were not symbolic responses; they were calibrated strikes executed under pressure, revealing Tehran’s ability to absorb an attack and immediately retaliate.
From Iran’s perspective, the war did not end in surrender, nor even in compromise. Iranian officials confirmed that while key facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan were targeted, critical material, including an estimated 9,379 kilograms of enriched uranium, was relocated to fortified and undisclosed sites before the first missiles struck. Iran suffered damage, but not disarmament. Its ability to resume nuclear enrichment, or even accelerate it, remains fully intact.
The untouched core: 9,379 kilograms
The most recent IAEA report from May 2025 offers the most telling figures: Iran holds 9,379 kilograms of enriched uranium at various purities. Of these, 8,840 kilograms are enriched to 5% or less, usable for civilian reactors and medical isotopes. A further 130 kilograms of uranium exists in intermediate purity levels, mostly in scrap form.
The strategic concern, and Tehran’s most potent leverage, lies in the 408.6 kilograms enriched to 60%, a step away from weapons-grade 90% enrichment. According to nuclear experts, this stockpile could provide material for up to nine nuclear warheads if further refined. Iranian officials assert that none of this material was compromised during the bombing campaign and that their pre-emptive relocations prevented a nuclear or environmental catastrophe.
The IAEA has acknowledged that it detected no abnormal radiation levels post-strikes, suggesting no containment breach occurred. However, the Agency has not been granted access to the new locations, a move Tehran justifies as a response to what it sees as an illegitimate and unprovoked military assault on safeguarded civilian nuclear infrastructure.
In this light, Iran’s refusal to disclose further details is not simply about secrecy: it is an assertion of sovereignty. It underscores a consistent Iranian position that nuclear development, so long as it remains within NPT guidelines, is a right, not a bargaining chip.
Strategic deterrence and battlefield lessons
Iran’s response went beyond merely absorbing damage. It turned the battlefield into a proving ground for its missile, drone, and cyber capabilities. Iranian forces launched hypersonic missiles that bypassed Israeli defences entirely, signalling not just tactical innovation but strategic maturity. It demonstrated that its command-and-control structures remain functional under attack, and that its military doctrine has evolved to anticipate multi-domain warfare.
Equally important is the shift in psychological warfare. For the first time, Iran shattered the long-standing regional norm against directly striking Israeli territory with sustained, high-precision attacks. It was a message: the Islamic Republic is prepared to escalate if pushed, and escalation no longer means allies in Lebanon or Iraq—it means Tehran itself.
“Israel’s” sense of impunity has been challenged. Its air defense failures in intercepting Iranian salvos have exposed critical vulnerabilities, undermining Netanyahu’s claims of “total superiority.” What once was an asymmetric confrontation tilted in “Israel’s” favour has now grown more balanced. Iran may not match “Israel’s” military hardware or American support, but it has altered the rules of engagement and redefined the costs of war.
A Ceasefire or a Countdown?
Like most previous regional confrontations, this ceasefire was not a culmination, it was an intermission. There is no written document, no internationally recognised monitoring framework, and no agreed roadmap for de-escalation. From Tehran’s point of view, this suits “Israel” and the US, both of which sought a pause, not a solution.
US President Trump’s ceasefire announcement was timed more for electoral optics than for strategic clarity. It postponed a war that risked spiralling out of control, particularly if the United States was drawn deeper into an open-ended campaign. But in doing so, it handed Iran space: space to harden its facilities, mobilise internally, and potentially accelerate a shift from nuclear ambiguity to overt deterrence.
And while Washington may consider this a temporary win, in Tehran, it’s viewed as proof that Iran’s endurance forced a nuclear superpower to back down.
Tehran has since filed a complaint with the United Nations, accusing the US and “Israel” of violating international law by targeting nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Article II of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of sovereign states outside of self-defence or Security Council approval. Moreover, under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, attacks on safeguarded nuclear sites are explicitly prohibited due to the danger of radiological release and nuclear proliferation.
By failing to condemn the assault, Iran argues, the IAEA and its Director General, Rafael Grossi, risk setting a precedent that undermines the entire non-proliferation regime. The silence from international bodies has also eroded confidence in future cooperation and inspections. Why, Iranian officials ask, should Tehran continue to allow oversight if that oversight brings no protection?
The Unravelling of the JCPOA framework
With the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) already hanging by a thread since the US withdrawal in 2018, this latest episode may have finally sealed its fate. While Europe and Russia have called for renewed diplomacy, the military strikes have made a return to the previous deal politically toxic in Iran.
For many in Tehran, the JCPOA is now seen as a trap, one that offered transparency in exchange for economic relief that never came, and which left Iran’s strategic sites vulnerable to airstrikes and sabotage. In this view, returning to negotiations without structural guarantees would be naïve.
Indeed, many voices in Iran’s political establishment are calling for full withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) itself, a move that would legally unbind Iran from its current commitments and allow for open pursuit of a nuclear deterrent.
A shift toward strategic ambiguity
The consequences of the ceasefire extend far beyond Iran’s borders. In Arab capitals, there is quiet recognition that Iran has emerged more resilient and emboldened. In Tel Aviv, there is growing unease over the efficacy of existing defences. And in Washington, there is a dangerous temptation to view ambiguity as strategy.
But ambiguity, in this case, cuts both ways. Iran has preserved its right to develop nuclear technology while refusing to confirm its future intentions. Should it now cross the weaponisation threshold, it may do so without warning, rendering international diplomacy too slow to stop it. The 9,379 kilograms of enriched uranium now sit in the shadows, untouched, uninspected, and more symbolically potent than ever.
If the goal of the Israeli-American air campaign was to slow down Iran’s march toward nuclear capacity, it may have done the opposite. Tehran now has every justification to argue that deterrence, not diplomacy, is its only protection against existential threats.
The reality is stark: this ceasefire has changed nothing. It has only delayed the inevitable confrontation, whether on the battlefield or in the nuclear sphere. “Israel” will continue to press for economic isolation and sabotage operations. Iran will deepen its alliances, harden its defences, and invest in further nuclear and missile development.
In truth, both parties are positioning themselves for the next phase of confrontation.
The international community, meanwhile, remains largely paralysed. With diplomacy broken, legal frameworks ignored, and verification mechanisms sidelined, the world is flying blind. The stakes are no longer theoretical. A single miscalculation could trigger a chain reaction that extends far beyond the Middle East.
The rendezvous has only been postponed
What began as an undeclared war has concluded with an undeclared pause. Yet make no mistake, this is merely the beginning of a countdown.
Iran, having absorbed an extensive assault on its territory, has emerged defiant, intact, and strategically alert. “Israel”, despite its claims, has discovered its limits. And the US, though instrumental in halting the war, has revealed the fragility of its credibility as an honest broker.
The next act may begin with an enrichment announcement, a nuclear test, or another missile barrage. For now, Tehran waits in silence, but it waits on its own terms. The world, meanwhile, must decide whether to engage that silence diplomatically, or face its consequences militarily.
Either way, the rendezvous is coming.
Did US Really ‘Obliterate’ Fordow?
Sputnik – 27.06.2025
Pentagon and White House claims and intelligence and media reports about the US’s June 22 attack on Iran are turning into a confusing jumble of contradictory information. Sputnik asked veteran former Swedish Armed Forces officer Mikael Valtersson to sort through the falsehoods.
The Pentagon’s Claim: The DoD and White House say Fordow, Iran’s main, fortress-like mountain nuclear site, was obliterated based on evidence of concrete dust rising through its ventilation shafts after the US attack.
Expert Opinion: Valtersson points out that the concrete dust could be expected even with superficial damage, as the shafts themselves are made of concrete. “Even if you just hit the top of it, there will be concrete dust,” he explained.
“The ventilation shaft is made in such a way that it’s not just a hole down to it that you can drop a bomb into it. Exactly how they have built it, I don’t know. But it will not be possible just to drop it down to the facility if you hit it. [Otherwise] the Israelis could have done it.”
GBU-57 Bomb Details: Valtersson noted that the GBU-57 bomb is designed to penetrate up to 60 meters before exploding. But Fordow is built in rock, and buried under a mountain. The observer speculates that even if individual bombs hit the ventilation shafts, they would only penetrate 20 to 30 meters of rock before the blast occurred.
Built Fordow Tough: Valtersson assumes the Iranians likely designed Fordow to withstand a US attack, with shafts potentially built with caverns to divert blasts. He compared this to his experience with underground Swedish military facilities, constructed in a zigzag pattern for similar protection.
Seismic Considerations: Furthermore, Valtersson noted that Iran, mindful of potential attacks and earthquake risks, likely built Fordow on springs to absorb heavy shockwaves, ensuring its structural integrity. “They’re probably not just standing on the ground in a cavern,” he emphasized.
Attacking Iran is How You Get a Nuclear Iran
The debate over just how much damage US strikes did to Iran’s nuclear sites can only really be resolved on the ground, “big shovel” in hand, as frustrated DoD chief Pete Hegseth admitted to media after the leak of a preliminary intel assessment indicating that the attacks did not destroy the sites.
But “it’s not about whether they did or did not do damage,” says retired Russian Army colonel and military analyst Viktor Litovkin. “It’s about Trump bragging that the US had finally ‘closed’ the issue of Iran producing nuclear material. And leaks to press show that they did not conclusively do so.”
For one thing, “we don’t know whether Iran took its enriched uranium out of [Fordow] or not, and where this enriched uranium is now. Maybe it’s in Pakistan,” Litovkin quipped.
“One thing is clear. After what the US has done, Iran, which did not want to have the bomb before, will have it now. If not today, tomorrow. They understand that the only guarantee against such bombings is an atomic bomb,” the analyst said, citing the example of North Korea, who “no one touches” thanks to its nuclear capabilities.
Washington’s unprecedented political war on Europe
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – June 27, 2025
A dramatic U.S. political broadside against Europe signals not just strained transatlantic ties, but a deeper ideological rupture — one that could push the EU toward redefining itself as a fully autonomous global actor.
Notwithstanding tensions surrounding US tariffs on the EU, the future and role of NATO, and the conflict in Ukraine, US-EU tensions are escalating to an outright political and ideological rivalry. Washington’s political attacks on European states and their policies mark a significant shift towards the end of transatlantic unity and an opportunity for the EU to rediscover itself.
Washington’s political attacks on Europe
On May 27th, 2025, the US State Department published an essay that could go down in history as Washington’s charge sheet on Europe, expressing the depth of contention and resentment colouring the Trump administration’s ties with the continent currently. However, once set along this path of confrontation, there may not be a return to normal, transatlantic ties in the foreseeable future. The essay begins with narrating the history and depth of US-Europe ties. Immediately afterward, however, it shockingly mentions what was unthinkable until a few years ago. The US State Department sees Europe as a ‘different world’, different from what the US itself (supposedly) represents. To quote the letter: “What endures [in Europe] instead is an aggressive campaign against Western civilization itself. Across Europe, governments have weaponized political institutions against their own citizens and against our shared heritage. Far from strengthening democratic principles, Europe has devolved into a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, restrictions on religious freedom, and numerous other assaults on democratic self-governance”.
Liberalism is Bad
It is not just European politics facing Washington’s assault; it is also the underlying liberal political order of Europe itself. The letter accuses Europe of restricting political space and criminalising dissenting political voices. The reason is the failure of liberalism, according to the letter. “Our concerns are not partisan but principled. The suppression of speech, facilitation of mass migration, targeting of religious expression, and undermining of electoral choice threatens the very foundation of the transatlantic partnership. A Europe that replaces its spiritual and cultural roots, that treats traditional values as dangerous relics, and that centralizes power in unaccountable institutions is a Europe less capable of standing firm against external threats and internal decay. To this end, achieving peace in Europe and around the world requires not a rejection of our shared cultural heritage, but a renewal of it”, adds the letter.
This, according to the letter, is not a good sign for the future of US-European ties. It mentions Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is said to have made clear that “Europe’s democratic backsliding not only impacts European citizens but increasingly affects American security and economic ties, along with the free speech rights of American citizens and companies”.
Beyond Mistrust
This letter reveals many things. Most importantly, it reveals the level of mistrust and gap that now divides the transatlantic world. It is no longer mere tactical disagreements over petty issues. This mistrust has at its roots in the political thinking of the Trump administration. Donald Trump understands the EU as a political arrangement created to “screw” the US. He and his political advisers are now trying to unscrew this arrangement to ‘free’ the US from the decades-old political bonds.
For Europeans, this is a major challenge. A report in the UK-based Financial Times said that Europe “is quickly becoming the latest front in a culture war Trump has unleashed against the bastions of liberalism. Most of his targets — elite universities, government agencies such as USAID, public broadcasters — have been domestic. But the Samson essay shows Maga’s ambitions go much further, and the movement is now prepared to deploy far beyond America’s borders”. According to this report, it is not the EU, which is the real threat to the US, but the US is the biggest threat to Europe itself.
How will Europe respond to this attack, which now has both political and cultural underpinnings? There is little denying that Europe needs to grapple with prospects of a potential ‘de-coupling’ from the US. This de-coupling will create, at least in the immediate future, an urgent need for policy correction on several fronts. From negotiating the trade war with the US—which Europeans will understandably find hard to win—to shared security, the continent needs to change its direction fundamentally from seeking US compliance with the written and unwritten obligations of the transatlantic alliance to totally redefining—and changing—them.
This policy correction requires the EU to do a thorough reassessment of its ties not just with Washington but with Russia and China as well. It needs to reject notions—many of which were fanned out by the Biden administration most recently —of Russia being a security threat and/or Russian expansionism. Instead, it needs to realise that the Trump administration might be its best chance in the last seven decades or so since the end of the Second World War to come out of Washington’s shadow and become a truly autonomous player capable of both defining and defending its interests. In other words, instead of seeking to mend ties with the US to make them ‘normal’, it should further the ‘de-coupling’ and reinforce its continental interests as its own responsibility. There is arguably no alternative for Europe to survive this situation without losing its strength and standing internationally.
Araghchi outlines post-war nuclear diplomacy, warns against sanctions
Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2025
In a televised interview with Iranian broadcaster SNN TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asserted that both the United States and “Israel” had mobilized their nuclear capabilities and coercive strategies to force Iran into submission, but ultimately failed.
Araghchi praised the Iranian people’s steadfastness, describing it as a “historic symbol of resistance” during a critical national moment, emphasizing that despite years of sanctions, threats, and failed negotiations, the Iranian nation remained united in defense of its nuclear rights.
“Neither pressure nor diplomacy deprived us of our legitimate rights,” Araghchi declared.
The minister criticized US President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, describing it as marked by mixed messages, threats coupled with calls for dialogue.
While Iran rejected direct talks with Washington, Araghchi noted that Tehran was considering indirect negotiations under new conditions. After diplomatic efforts failed to impose US terms, Araghchi accused Washington of unleashing “the Zionist enemy to commit hostile acts,” which he described as a betrayal of diplomacy.
Addressing Iran’s retaliatory actions, he stated that Tehran’s missile attacks on US bases were a direct response to American threats and aggression, clarifying that no agreement had been reached to initiate new talks and that the outbreak of war had undermined Iran’s readiness to propose a balanced negotiation framework.
He revealed that this framework rested on three pillars: the continuation of uranium enrichment within Iran, the complete removal of sanctions, and a firm commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons.
“If these three conditions are met, an agreement is possible,” he said.
Iran’s response to military strikes and diplomatic breakdown
In his interview, Araghchi stressed that diplomacy following the recent war would differ sharply from previous efforts, warning that “Future international relations will reflect how each country behaved during the crisis.”
He noted that the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) is currently conducting technical assessments of damage caused by the strikes, describing them as “serious and extensive.” Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Ministry has tasked its international affairs division with identifying the aggressors and seeking compensation through the United Nations.
“Reparations are now a key component of Iranian diplomacy,” he added.
The minister urged European countries, particularly Germany and France, to uphold their stated commitment to international law, issuing a stark warning to France and the UK, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, against triggering the snapback mechanism that would reinstate UN sanctions on Iran.
He labeled such a move as “the most dangerous strategic error Europe could make,” warning that it would exclude them from any meaningful role in Iran’s nuclear dossier.
“Military strikes and snapback sanctions won’t weaken Iran—they will eliminate Europe’s place at the table,” he asserted.
No plans to host IAEA chief amid inspection concerns
The Foreign Minister confirmed that Iran currently has no plans to host IAEA Director Rafael Grossi, noting that the issue of inspector access is under careful legal and political review.
“With some facilities damaged, inspections could inadvertently reveal sensitive details about the extent of destruction,” he said, emphasizing that all decisions must comply with recent legislation passed by Iran’s Parliament.
Sen. Mike Lee Introduces Bill to Remove US From NATO
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | June 26, 2025
Senator Mike Lee introduced a bill to remove the US from the North Atlantic Alliance, arguing that the collective defence pact is not within US national security interests.
The legislation titled the ‘Not A Trusted Organization Act’ or the ‘NATO Act’ argues NATO expansion led to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. “The dissolution of both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union fundamentally altered the security environment in Europe and rendered NATO’s founding collective defense mission irrelevant,” the bill states. “Despite its waning relevance and prior assurances to the contrary, NATO began a profound eastward expansion in 1999, which, as of 2025, culminated in a land border with the Russian Federation that exceeds 1,500 miles and encircles the Baltic Sea.”
It adds, “The invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation in 2022 demonstrates the Russian Federation’s willingness to employ military action in response to perceived security threats.”
In 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Ukraine’s ascension into NATO would be a major national security risk for Moscow. Over the next decade and a half, the bloc would increasingly treat Kiev as a member, even if it would not grant Ukraine official membership in the alliance.
In 2021, the Kremlin sent a proposal to the White House that would have averted the war if NATO had agreed that Ukraine would not become a member. However, the Biden administration never seriously considered the offer, and NATO continued to express that the door to membership was open to Kiev.
In addition to starting a major war in Europe, Lee says membership in NATO is causing the US to pay for Europe’s defense. “Since the founding of NATO, the United States has shouldered the burden of what was characterized as a ‘collective’ security alliance, as the largest financial and hard power contributor,” the bill explains.
President Donald Trump is attempting to address the issue by mandating all alliance members to spend 5% of GDP on defense. However, Lee notes in the bill that nearly one-third of the bloc currently does not meet the current 2% minimum.
Lee argues that the current issues of the alliance create a situation where “Membership of the United States in NATO is inconsistent with the national security interests of the United States.”
Ian Proud: Was the Iran War a Strategic Blunder?
Glenn Diesen | June 25, 2025
Ian Proud was a member of His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. Ian was a senior officer at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019, at a time when UK-Russia relations were particularly tense. He performed a number of roles in Moscow, including as Head of Chancery, Economic Counsellor – in charge of advising UK Ministers on economic sanctions – Chair of the Crisis Committee, Director of the Diplomatic Academy for Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Vice Chair of the Board at the Anglo-American School.
Ian Proud’s Substack: https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
A Worrisome Pledge to Substantially Increase US ‘Defense’ Spending
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | June 26, 2025
Big news out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) meeting this week is member governments agreeing to a declaration stating they each “commit to invest 5 percent of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations.”
“Defence” is used, largely outside America, as an alternative spelling of “defense.”
Most the focus in media coverage of this development is on the increased spending that will be required to meet this goal by nations other than the US that was the primary pusher of the move. But, it should also be noted that the US government will have to direct much more spending to “defense” to meet the goal as well.
A NATO chart of member governments’ spending levels as of 2024 puts the US at 3.4 percent of GDP (gross domestic product) on this type of spending. That means meeting the goal would require that such spending gobble up roughly half again as much of GDP within the next ten years.
In April, I wrote about how it would be disastrous if the US government achieved this increased spending goal that was then being promoted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. You can read that post here.
INSANE Israel-First Admission
Glenn Greenwald | June 24, 2025
This is a clip from our show SYSTEM UPDATE, now airing every weeknight at 7pm ET on Rumble.
You can watch the full episode for FREE here: https://rumble.com/v6v828x-system-upd…
Now available as a podcast!
Find full episodes here: https://linktr.ee/systemupdate_
Join us LIVE on Rumble, weeknights at 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
Follow Glenn: Twitter: 
/ ggreenwald
Instagram: 
/ glenn.11.greenwald
Who Destroyed Four World Trade Center Buildings?
Tales of the American Empire | June 19, 2025
On September 11 2001, FOUR World Trade center buildings in New York were suddenly destroyed. We are told that no one could imagine that terrorists could knock down the two World Trade Center towers, even though Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu predicted this in his 1995 book. He warned the U.S. Congress this may happened unless the United States joined a war to expand Israel by destroying what he called terror states. Even before the smoke cleared on 9-11, the plotters blamed Osama bin Laden to block investigations into their weak official story.
Note: YouTube demonetized this video claiming “violence throughout”, even though there is no graphic violence, just some collapsing buildings often shown on television.
_____________________________________________________
“Bin Laden says he wasn’t behind attacks”; CNN; September 17, 2001; https://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16…
Related Tale: “The Empire’s Fake War on Terror”; 
• The Empire’s Fake War on Terror
Related Tale: “Osama Bin Laden WAS NOT Responsible for 9/11”; • Osama Bin Laden WAS NOT Responsible for 9/11
“U.S. Military Knows Israel Did 9/11 – Dr. Alan Sabrosky”; Augustus Berg; Bitchute; June 30, 2023; https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vsf4v1…
“9/9 and 9/11, 20 Years Later”; Pepe Escobar; Unz.com; September 9, 2021; https://www.unz.com/pescobar/9-9-and-…
Related Tale: “The 1993 FBI Bombing in New York; • The 1993 FBI Bombing in New York
“9/11 Conspiracy Theory Explained in 5 Minutes”; James Corbett; 2022; • 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Explained in 5 Minutes
“”The 9/11 Commission Was A FRAUD” – Curt Weldon EXPOSES CIA Cover-Up, Able Danger & Deleted Evidence”; PBD Podcast; YouTube; May 14, 2025; • “The 9/11 Commission Was A FRAUD” – Curt W…
“Rep. Curt Weldon: It’s Time to Finally Tell the Truth About 9-11”; Tucker Carlson; YouTube; April 14, 2025; • Rep. Curt Weldon: It’s Time to Finally Tel…
The Iran war is Trump’s unconditional surrender to Israel
Sidelining US intelligence, Trump and top principals rely on Israeli fabrications to promote war on Iran.
By Aaron Maté | June 21, 2025
[Note: this article has been updated following the US bombing of Iran]
Since his election in 2016, Donald Trump’s political opponents have portrayed him as a dangerous, unstable fabulist doing the bidding of a malign, nuclear-armed foreign power.
Having returned to the White House this year, Trump is proving his detractors correct on all counts but one: the location on the map. The rogue state that he’s colluding with — at great peril to the planet — is not Russia, as his most vocal detractors alleged, but Israel.
Israel’s June 13th attack on Iran sabotaged the then-ongoing talks on a new nuclear deal with the United States, and Trump has gone to unprecedented lengths to support its aggression. Trump undercut his own Secretary of State’s claim that Israel had undertaken “unilateral action” by acknowledging that “we knew everything” in advance of what he called a “very successful attack.” Administration officials then disclosed that Trump had previously authorized giving Israel intelligence support for the bombing. Trump then called on Tehran’s 9.8 million residents to evacuate, mused about killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and declared that “we” – meaning Israel – “have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.”
After Iran rejected his demand for “unconditional surrender”, Trump imposed a new deadline of two weeks, only to break it three days later by ordering a US military attack on three Iranian nuclear energy sites, including the deeply buried mountain complex Fordo, which he quickly hailed as a “great success.” Just as with Trump’s diplomacy with Iran, his two-week deadline turns out to have been a ruse whose “goal was to create a situation when everyone wasn’t expecting it,” a senior administration official said.
To wage war on Iran, Trump and his allies have employed the traditional Iraq WMD playbook of ignoring or manipulating the available evidence to fear-monger about a foreign state marked for regime change. Unlike the Iraq war, where the fraudulent case for invading was mostly concocted in-house, Trump has outsourced the job to Israel, while not even pretending to care about public opinion or Congressional approval.
Back in March, the US intelligence community assessed that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon” and “has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program… suspended in 2003.” According to US officials who spoke to the New York Times, “[t]hat assessment has not changed.” Moreover, the US has found that “not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, it was also up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one,” CNN reports, citing four sources.
Whereas Dick Cheney and company went through the trouble of nudging subordinates to fabricate intelligence, including via torture, Trump does not care about seeking their imprimatur. “[M]y intelligence community is wrong,” Trump told reporters on Friday. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted that “Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon,” and, if authorized by Ayatollah Khamenei, “it would take a couple weeks to complete the production of that weapon.” In White House meetings, CIA chief John Ratcliffe has argued that Iran is close to a nuclear bomb and that claiming otherwise “would be similar to saying football players who have fought their way to the one-yard line don’t want to score a touchdown,” according to one US official who spoke to CBS News. (After the Iraq war, a “Slam dunk” basketball analogy is no longer available).
If Trump’s intelligence community is “wrong,” who does he think is right? As US officials told the New York Times, the claims from Trump and his circle “echoed material provided by Mossad,” Israel’s intelligence agency. And whereas some in the government, undoubtedly those close to Trump, “find the Israeli estimate credible”, others believe that “Israeli assessments have been colored by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire to gain American support for his military campaign against Iran.” Moreover, according to multiple officials, “[n]one of the new assessments on the timeline to get a bomb are based on newly collected intelligence,” but instead on “new analysis of existing work.” In other words, Trump is sidelining his own intelligence community to trust a “new analysis” that is based on no new information, just the manipulation of a foreign government.
Trump’s disdain for his own agencies is a particular slight to intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard. “I don’t care what she said,” Trump said this week, referring to Gabbard’s presentation of the US intelligence consensus on Iran in March. “I think they [Iran] were very close to having it.”
Rather than defend the agencies she oversees – and the record she earned challenging previous US-driven regime change deceptions — Gabbard has bent the knee to Trump, and Israel by extension. In a social media post, Gabbard chided “the dishonest media” for taking her March testimony “out of context.” The US, Gabbard now claimed, “has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly.” Gabbard also shared video of that March testimony, without addressing the contradictory fact that it does not include any mention of her newfound claim that Iran has the capability to produce a nuclear bomb “within weeks to months.”
Gabbard is engaging in disingenuous wordplay. If Israel tells America that Iran “can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks”, then yes, American intelligence now “has” that intelligence. That doesn’t mean it is true, or that American intelligence believes it, which it does not. A US official familiar with the available record on Iran tells me that there is no US intelligence assessment concluding that Iran is “weeks” away from building a nuclear weapon. Gabbard is only saying, therefore, that the US intelligence community has received “intelligence” from Israel, without mentioning that the IC does not actually endorse it.
Moreover, pretend for a moment that the Israeli claim is correct. Gabbard’s caveat of “if they decide to finalize” is an acknowledgment that Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon. That’s because Iran has said it does not want one, and is willing to commit to that in a binding agreement — the one they were negotiating with the US until Trump and Israel sabotaged it, and not for the first time. In fact, as US intelligence officials have also predicted, Trump’s bombing now increases the likelihood that Iran will pursue the nuclear bomb that it has long foresworn. Iran claims to have moved enriched uranium stockpiles prior to the US bombing, which preserves its capacity to weaponize.
Trump and Israel insisted, in the president’s words, on “unconditional surrender”: capitulation to maximalist US-Israeli demands that Iran end its uranium enrichment program, which it is entitled to have under the Non-Proliferation Treaty; and that it limit its arsenal of missiles. In other words, Trump and Netanyahu demanded that Iran agree to abandon its sovereignty and right to self-defense just as it is under attack from US-backed Israeli aggression; and all while US-backed Israeli mass murder in Gaza and annexation of the West Bank continues unimpeded.
Iranian officials did not surrender. Trump, by contrast, cannot say the same. By enabling its bombing campaign, parroting its deceptions, and now going to war against Iran on its behalf, Trump has already offered an unconditional surrender to Israel — a betrayal that grows more dangerous by the day.
Featured Video
AIDS Inc. by Gary Null (2007)
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Clash of Civilization, Iran Part II
By Jamal Kanj – Intifada-Palestine.com – January 14, 2011
Israel’s survival kit is: perpetuate conflict, insecurity to rationalize collective hate and finally playing victim.
Devoid of conflict, Israel implodes internally; without hate, Zionism loses its justification; and playing eternal victim to continue blackmailing the West. Absence of this holy trinity, Israel ceases to exist.
From its inception, the house of Zion has mastered exploiting adversarial powers to advance Israel’s cause. For instance, their influence over the Democratic Party in the US began with President Truman’s bid for 2nd term election in 1948.
Responding to strong opposition from Secretary of State General George Marshall and Department experts urging against recognition of Israel, President Truman replied: “I’m sorry gentlemen but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands [Jewish voters] who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of [voting] Arabs among my constituents”
Zionists influence over liberal American politics was matched with the doctrinal school of Conservative theoreticians aligning the Republican Party’s platform with Israel’s objectives. The Neoconservative Zionists, coined Zioncons, invented the “Clash of Civilization” concept to fight Israel’s wars. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- From Unipolar Universalism to Multipolar Civilizational Distinctiveness
- RSF military group defects, joins Sudanese army: State media
- Ireland goalkeeper refuses to play ‘Israel’ as squad weighs boycott
- China pushes back against US on Cuba, Iran
- Ukrainian Soldiers, Potential Mercenaries: Have Gun, Will Travel!
- Burnham’s UN debut… A masterclass in British disinformation
- Iran flights continue despite US aviation sanctions
- Global Tipping Points Lead the World Into a State of Entropy
- The day-after at the White House: USA and Xi Jinping
- The Geopolitical Balance in the Red Sea: The UAE Being Displaced by New Players
- If Americans Knew
- Deconstructing Netanyahu’s pants-on-fire UN rant – Daily Update
- Trump betrayed voters with his campaign lies and prioritized a foreign country once he took office
- Netanyahu calls Israel’s war in Gaza ‘opposite of genocide’ in UN speech to near-empty hall
- Settler Kidnappings: Torture, Sexual Abuse and Terrorisation of Palestinian Abductees as Israel Deepens Annexation of West Bank
- Gaza winter nears as 162,000 tents become unusable, raising fears of humanitarian crisis
- Netanyahu says, “It’s the opposite of genocide”; UN says Gaza economy is world’s ‘most severe crisis on record’ – Daily Update
- Israel’s US-Backed Assault on Gaza Has Created the ‘World’s Most Severe Economic Crisis on Record’: UN
- ‘Protecting U.S. Citizens’… From Israel
- ‘This is where I live now, the back of a truck’: a day in the life of a grandmother in Gaza
- In UN Speech, Iran’s President Displays Pictures of Children Killed by US, Brings Attention to Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
