Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iranian Victory – Gulf States Creating ‘Regional Security Framework’ With Iran

By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | June 24, 2026

The failed U.S./Israeli war on Iran was not only a major loss for the United States and Israel and an Iranian victory, but it has also helped Iran’s status as a serious regional power.

This is best underscored by the fact that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states,-after facing Iranian retaliatory strikes against U.S. bases and assets during the war, is no longer relying on the United States for protection and is looking to form a security alliance with Iran.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, the Prime Minister of Qatar, told the Financial Times that “Part of what we are doing now, as regional countries, is to create this regional security framework between us and Iran, that will hopefully have economic co-operation in the future between all of us — to bring the region back to stability”.

He similarly told Al Jazeera, “Iran is a neighbouring country, and dialogue with it remains necessary to guarantee the security and stability of the region”.

This shows that the GCC no longer trust the United States to protect them, given that “Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar host US military bases and were attacked by Iran during the war. Washington struggled to supply its Gulf allies with enough interceptors to defend against Iranian missile attacks,” as journalist Kyle Anzalone noted.

As a result, the GCC states are seemingly deciding to stop relying on the United States for defence and make a security agreement with Iran, which has cemented itself as a serious regional power.

“They have to deal with Iran because it is not going anywhere”, Gawdat Bahgat, a professor of national security affairs at Washington’s National Defense University said referring to the Gulf nations new approach to Iran.

“Even while Iran attacked them, they kept diplomatic channels open because the day after, they and Iran have no choice but to live together” he noted.

“Our aim is that Iran flourishes and their economy grows; and our investment basically has always been purely on commercial decisions”, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani told the Financial Times.

This destroys the U.S./Israeli goal of isolating Iran, instead causing regional countries to forge closer ties to Iran for their own national security interests.

This is yet another way the U.S/Israeli war on Iran was a loss for the U.S. empire and a win for Iran and its influence as a serious regional power.

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Iranian Victory – Gulf States Creating ‘Regional Security Framework’ With Iran

Seyed M. Marandi: Trump Lost the Iran War – Must Sell It as a Victory

Glenn Diesen | June 24, 2026

Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a former advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

June 24, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Seyed M. Marandi: Trump Lost the Iran War – Must Sell It as a Victory

Iran, Saudi FMs hold phone talks as Persian Gulf states rethink US ties

Press TV – June 24, 2026

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Saudi counterpart Prince Faisal bin Farhan have held a phone call to discuss regional developments, as Persian Gulf Arab states recalibrate their approach toward Tehran in the wake of the US-Israeli war that exposed the limits of American power.

Araghchi on Wednesday briefed the Saudi minister on the latest progress in implementing bilateral agreements and the ongoing negotiations following the US-Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed on June 18.

The two top diplomats underscored the importance of maintaining diplomatic channels, strengthening joint cooperation to support regional stability, and achieving positive and sustainable outcomes.

The call came as French news agency AFP said Saudi Arabia is expected to host talks aimed at repairing relations between Iran and Persian Gulf countries following the US-Israeli war on Iran.

It cited a diplomat familiar with the arrangements as saying Wednesday that a regional summit was being planned in Riyadh and could also include other neighboring countries, but no date had yet been set.

The meetings would be separate from the ongoing negotiations between Iran and the United States, the diplomat added.

CNN, citing a senior Persian Gulf diplomat, reported that leaders are increasingly contemplating a future in which the US plays a much smaller role in the regional security architecture, with a possible framework involving a regional non-aggression pact with Iran.

According to Hasan Alhasan, senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “From the Arab states’ perspective, the Iran war is a disastrous turning point for the regional security order.”

The war, which began on February 28, exposed vulnerabilities in the Persian Gulf states’ security model, which is heavily dependent on the nearly 40,000 US troops stationed in the region and American-made air defense systems.

“The US security guarantee is no longer reliable in the way they thought it was,” one analyst at Chatham House told The New York Times.

Washington’s approach is increasingly perceived as selective and heavily centered on Israel’s security interest.

A classified CIA analysis found that US allies in the Persian Gulf are divided over their approach to Iran. According to the assessment, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain prefer continued pressure on Tehran, while Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait now support negotiations.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, noted that the UAE and Bahrain “made themselves frontline states against Iran” through the Abraham Accords and “now they’re in too deep and cannot extract themselves out of it”.

The Saudis, Parsi added, “were at the highest levels pushing for this war. They have come to regret it”.

Adding another layer of complexity is a widening gap between Arab governments and Arab public opinion over Iran.

According to a report by The Economist cited by DID Press, growing anger toward Israel and dissatisfaction with US policies have fueled increasing sympathy for Tehran across parts of the Arab world.

Despite sustained efforts by several Arab governments to reinforce anti-Iran narratives, recent developments have altered perceptions among sections of Arab society.

The report identifies two major drivers behind this shift: anger toward Israel, as many Arabs increasingly view Iranian actions against Israel as a legitimate response to regional military operations, and religious and cultural ties, particularly among Shia communities across the Persian Gulf.

The report concludes that sectarian narratives no longer resonate as strongly as in previous years, and that many Arabs increasingly view Iran as more assertive and resilient than several Arab governments.

Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani traveled to Muscat on Wednesday to initiate talks between Iran, Persian Gulf states, and Iraq on the future operation of the Strait of Hormuz.

The discussions aim to implement a provision of the MoU requiring Iran and Oman to hold talks with other Persian Gulf states on the future management of navigation and maritime services.

Earlier on Wednesday, Oman announced two temporary routes north and south of the existing shipping lane to facilitate safe passage of vessels departing the region, in coordination with the International Maritime Organization.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas normally transits, was heavily disrupted after the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 28.

June 24, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran, Saudi FMs hold phone talks as Persian Gulf states rethink US ties

AIPAC-backed candidates lose New York primaries as voters reject pro-genocide lobby

The Cradle | June 24, 2026

Progressive candidates in New York secured significant victories on 23 June, defeating pro-Israel incumbents in congressional primaries that marked a “huge hit” for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Brad Lander, a former city comptroller, unseated Rep. Dan Goldman in a contest defined by disagreements over Israel’s military actions. Lander, describing himself as a so-called “liberal Zionist,” rebukes Goldman for his refusal to label the Israeli assault on Gaza as a genocide or support measures blocking arms sales to Israel.

The progressive surge continued as democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier toppled Rep. Adriano Espaillat.

Her campaign focused on Espaillat’s acceptance of donations from the pro-Israel lobbying group, AIPAC.

Meanwhile, state lawmaker Claire Valdez is poised to replace retiring Rep. Nydia Velazquez after criticizing her opponent’s delay in using the term “genocide” and highlighting ties to AIPAC-affiliated groups.

These victories, bolstered by the influence of Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the first Muslim mayor of New York City, suggest that a critical stance against Israel and its influence over US local and international politics is now a political asset in itself.

Accepting AIPAC funds has increasingly become a litmus test for US voters weighing a candidate’s loyalty to the US over a foreign lobby.

Longtime strategist Jon Paul Lupo told POLITICO that voters opposing the Gaza war held a “massive political advantage” this cycle.

In his victory speech, Lander condemned the former US president Joe Biden’s “hug Bibi” strategy, calling it a “catastrophic mistake.” He stated, “I believe it made us complicit in genocide. Bombs we paid for killed more than 70,000 Palestinians – most of them women and children.”

Though AIPAC-funded candidates have found success elsewhere – such as when republican lawmaker Thomas Massie was defeated on 19 May by AIPAC-funded Ed Gallrein following the most expensive primary elections in history – US sentiment towards Israel has been on a sharp downturn since the genocide in Gaza was launched.

A poll by the Pew Research Center released in April reveals that 60 percent of US citizens now view Israel unfavorably, with “very unfavorable” sentiment nearly tripling since 2022.

A separate poll by Gallup in February found that, for the first time in US history, more US citizens sympathize with Palestinians (41 percent) than with Israelis (36 percent), a shift that occurred after years of witnessing Israeli war crimes and ongoing genocide in Gaza.

June 24, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on AIPAC-backed candidates lose New York primaries as voters reject pro-genocide lobby

The West’s Post-Soviet ‘Democracy’ Playbook

By Patrick Pillow | The Libertarian | June 24, 2026

Envision the following scenario: it is the 2008 U.S. presidential election between Senator John McCain (R-AR) and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL). As the results begin pouring in, a senator from another country writes to The New York Times and warns that if the elections don’t go a certain way, there could be “profound implications.” 

We don’t have to imagine this scenario for long, because something very similar actually happened during Ukraine’s 2004 election. After the first round of voting, McCain released a statement to The Ukrainian Weekly, describing the election as “marred by widespread balloting irregularities.” He argued Ukraine’s November 21 run-off represented “a final opportunity to choose democracy,” that the world was watching closely, and that the outcome could carry “profound implications.” 

This publication alone highlighted a running theme during regime changes during the 2000s. American politicians, NGOs, and media organizations consistently played an active role in the domestic politics of countries thousands of miles from the Mainland.  

Ukraine provided an early example. Through the International Renaissance Foundation, approximately $300,000 was secured to fund Ukraine’s first independent radio station focused on social and political issues. The foundation also supported journalists connected to former Soviet-Georgia’s opposition press. This included reporters from 24 Hours and Rezonance, who produced articles ahead of Ukraine’s elections. 

Grants to journalists and independent media outlets don’t, on their own, stand out as especially significant. But in the early 2000s, these were rarely isolated acts, and perhaps no example illustrates this better than Kyrgyzstan. 

 In a 2005 Wall Street Journal article, as well as the documentary from Manon Loizeau entitled USA: The Conquest of the East, Freedom House official Mike Stone voiced his support for opposition media. During this time, Stone had provided assistance for the opposition newspaper Moya Stolitsa Novosti (MSN) and had distributed copies of Gene Sharp’s From Dictatorship to Democracy, a handbook on nonviolent resistance that became influential among Twenty First Century protest movements starting in Serbia during the 2000 Bulldozer Revolution. 

The effort extended beyond newspapers themselves. Freedom House established an independent printing press designed to provide opposition and independent publications with an alternative to state-controlled printing facilities. Not everyone welcomed the project. Some newspaper managers complained about the high costs and poor print quality, with one editor describing the bill as “astounding” and the printing as “very mediocre.” Stone dismissed the criticism, arguing that editors were merely attempting to negotiate lower rates. 

Loizeau’s documentary details the level of American power behind Freedom House and Mike Stone’s activities. Days before Kyrgyzstan’s parliamentary elections in 2005, the state cut off power to the biggest independent (and Freedom House-funded) printing press. Subsequently, Stone hosted a meeting with Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Askar Aitmatov. During that discussion, McCain phoned in to express outrage over the shutdown, and Aitmatov apologized for the situation. 

Kyrgyzstan was also subjected to the propaganda cartoon Beshtentek. Broadcast weekly on national television, the show placed a heavy focus on corruption and political accountability. Promotional material shared by the U.S. Embassy in Bishkek prominently featured USAID branding alongside the program. 

Former Soviet Georgia received similar treatment. Throughout the 2000s, organizations such as the International Research & Exchanges Board funded investigative journalism and local reporting. The Soros Foundation supported media outlets such as the independent weekly Liberali. During its early years, the television station Rustavi-2 received assistance from the Open Society Foundations, which later described the station as having received “significant financial and moral support from international donors including OSF and the U.S. government.” 

Rustavi-2 would become one of the country’s most influential stations. Widely viewed as favorable to Mikheil Saakashvili, the channel repeatedly aired Bringing Down a Dictator, a documentary about the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević during Serbia’s Bulldozer Revolution. It also broadcast exit polling data during Georgia’s disputed 2003 election, helping shape public perceptions during an escalating political crisis. 

None of this is to suggest that the political grievances in Ukraine, Georgia, or Kyrgyzstan weren’t real. Accusations of corruption, contested elections, economic instability, and frustration with ruling elites all played a major role in driving events on the ground. But as Libertarian Institute Director Scott Horton would put it, the people had more than agency. They had The Agency; America’s CIA. 

Likewise, opposition media in itself is not an issue. The question is what it means when foreign governments and organizations begin to play a significant role in the media environment during moments of political turmoil—through funding, infrastructure, and messaging? 

As McCain put it at the time, there remained “a final opportunity to choose democracy”—a line directed abroad but rarely reflected toward U.S. foreign policy itself. 

June 24, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Comments Off on The West’s Post-Soviet ‘Democracy’ Playbook

BEN-GVIR: “ALL OF LEBANON MUST BURN” — w/ Mouin Rabbani

Mario Nawfal | June 23, 2026

Col Douglas Macgregor: Pressure to REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE Growing

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 23, 2026

Europe/US/Ukraine Barreling To War w/Russia

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 23, 2026

June 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on BEN-GVIR: “ALL OF LEBANON MUST BURN” — w/ Mouin Rabbani

Is there a future for the U.S. strategy in the Arctic?

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 23, 2026

The Arctic has been one of the main critical points of Donald Trump’s strategy since his rise to power. The increase in American presence (military and civilian) in the region is part of Trump’s broader strategy to “control the Western Hemisphere.” The main challenge for the U.S. is to try to overcome Russia’s long-standing presence in the region – as well as China’s growing presence. Many analysts doubt the American capacity to neutralize the advance of its geopolitical rivals in Arctic technology.

Recently, the U.S. has made Arctic affairs a strategic priority in its foreign and defense policy. Several of Trump’s supposedly “irrational” actions (such as his obsessive pursuit of annexing Greenland) are based on a relentless effort to expand American influence in the Arctic region. This is consistent with Trump’s hemispheric strategy, which can be summarized as reducing U.S. global presence (tacitly accepting a multipolar reality), while compensating for this retreat by strengthening positions in the western half of the world.

Obviously, several recent events have undermined Trump’s original hemispheric strategy. His illegitimate and anti-strategic decision to go to war in the Middle East, for example, was one of the greatest violations of MAGA principles in foreign and defense policy. On the other hand, a substantial part of the original strategy persists, as can be seen, for example, in interventions in Latin America (Venezuela, Cuba) and in the Arctic. Trump seeks to consolidate an exclusive American sphere of influence in the western half of the planet, and a large Arctic portion clearly “belongs” to that half.

Among the main U.S. measures to expand its presence in the Arctic is the increase in military activity. Washington sees deterrence capability as a central element in its containment strategy of the “Russian-Chinese presence” in the region, which is why there has been a gradual escalation of NATO military activity in the Arctic. In recent times, specialized joint military exercises have been carried out by NATO countries in Arctic zones, making this one of the most important topics on the alliance’s strategic agenda.

In this context, the Pentagon has sought to align its initiatives with NATO’s operational axis in the High North, prioritizing a logic of joint exercises at high latitudes that emphasize full interoperability between land, naval, and air forces. This approach is not limited to climate training, but reflects an attempt to establish a permanent standard of joint readiness in polar environments, where the degradation of sensors, communications, and logistics requires continuous multinational coordination. In practical terms, this translates into more frequent cycles of combined Arctic and sub-Arctic exercises, integrating U.S. and allied commands under unified planning and response structures.

At the same time, there is a projected increase in the U.S. and NATO military presence in the region, with significant forces deployed in regular rotations and a strengthened naval presence in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas. This includes recurring transits of allied naval groups, the maintenance of a continuous presence of nuclear submarines in strategic patrol areas, and the intensification of strategic bomber operations along routes crossing the High North as a form of deterrence signaling. Together, these measures aim to create a permanent layer of military pressure and surveillance, raising the cost of any alleged attempt by Russia or China to challenge the region.

However, there is a clear problem in this entire scenario that the U.S. seems not yet to have realized: Russia’s status quo in the Arctic is quite secure. The country has, over decades, developed all kinds of appropriate technologies specifically designed for the polar environment. For obvious reasons of survival in the northern part of its own territory, Russia has historically been forced to become a major Arctic power, with a vast fleet of icebreakers and an entire specialized industrial sector dedicated to science and technology specifically for the Arctic. For Russia, this has never been a matter of extravagance or expansionism, but of survival in its own strategic environment.

More recently, China, which is not an Arctic country, has begun expanding its presence in the region through cooperation with Russia. As Russian-Chinese integration advances within the framework of the unlimited strategic partnership, with both countries engaging in various forms of political and economic cooperation, it is natural that their converging interests in Arctic affairs facilitate Beijing’s participation in the region. The Chinese do not have a military strategy for the Arctic, focusing instead on logistics, economics, and science, but even this concerns the West.

Indeed, Western countries, especially the U.S., are in an endless race. They aim to surpass decades of Russian presence in the Arctic in just a few years. The West does not even possess a specialized Arctic technical-industrial sector like Russia, and is far behind in capabilities such as navigation (especially icebreakers), geolocation, infrastructure construction, and overall operational capacity in the Arctic. It is worth questioning how long it will take for the West to even approach Russia’s level of Arctic technology – let alone surpass it -, especially at a time of deep Russian-Chinese integration, in which Moscow can rely on China’s industrial heartland as a partner to further strengthen its Arctic sector.

In the end, the American strategy seems destined to fail. The U.S. inherited much of its geopolitical thinking from the British, and this appears to have come at a high cost. Classical geopolitical theorists historically ignored the Arctic, since the region was seen as inhospitable and impossible to explore, focusing instead on well-known strategies of containing Eurasia – which became an American specialty. Now, however, the Arctic is accessible to humans thanks to modern technology, but the U.S. does not have a geopolitical strategy for this new reality.

Perhaps the best path for Trump would be to reduce his hemispheric ambitions, acknowledging that control of the Arctic is no longer among the achievable goals for the United States. It is important to remember that this obsession with Arctic conquest was inherited and deepened, but not created by Trump. Even before he took office, Democrats had already launched an expansionist military strategy in the region during the Biden administration, under the 2024 Arctic Strategy. So, if Trump truly wants to reverse the harmful legacy of his predecessor, revising Arctic policy could be a good initial step.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , , , | Comments Off on Is there a future for the U.S. strategy in the Arctic?

‘Israel not party to US-Iran talks, will continue full operations in Lebanon,’ Israeli far-right minister says

MEMO | June 23, 2026

Israel is not part of the negotiations between the US and Iran and will continue its offensive on Lebanon until Hezbollah is “fully dismantled,” not just disarmed, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said.

Smotrich, a far-right extremist member of Israel’s security cabinet, made the remarks Tuesday morning in an interview with Israeli Army Radio.

“Israel is not part of the negotiating talks with Iran by choice,” he said, adding: “We will not hold talks with the devil.”

“We are not a party to the negotiations between the United States and Iran, and they do not concern us at all,” Smotrich said.

“We will continue operating in Lebanon fully,” he added.

“The Israeli army will not withdraw from the security zone in Lebanon, including the Beaufort Castle, as long as Hezbollah exists,” he said.

“We will not withdraw not only until Hezbollah gives up its weapons, but until it is fully dismantled,” he continued.

“We do not only want Hezbollah to be stripped of its weapons, but to be fully dismantled, not be part of the government in Lebanon, and not have any military force that threatens Israel,” he said.

The remarks come amid growing disputes within Israeli political and security circles over a memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran and their possible implications for ending the war on the Lebanese front.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz and army chief Eyal Zamir vowed in a joint statement to continue controlling the “security zone” in southern Lebanon, despite the memorandum of understanding signed between the US and Iran, which calls for respecting Lebanon’s unity and territorial integrity.

“The [army] will continue to act decisively to thwart threats to our soldiers and civilians, destroy terror infrastructure, and continue maintaining the security zone in southern Lebanon,” according to the statement.

“The security of Israel’s civilians and IDF troops will continue to remain before their eyes without compromise,” it added.

Israel received a message from the US in recent weeks that “the previous authorization for unrestricted action in Lebanon had expired,” Israel’s Channel 13 quoted an unnamed senior Israeli official Monday.

The Hebrew newspaper Maariv also reported Monday that there are differences between the US and Israel over the Lebanon file.

It also reported growing differences between the US and Israel over the Lebanese file, saying Washington views southern Lebanon within a broader regional framework linked to the Strait of Hormuz, energy prices, the Iranian nuclear issue and the Trump administration’s pursuit of a diplomatic achievement.

In contrast, Israel believes that any early withdrawal from southern Lebanon could be interpreted as a sign of weakness and a reward for the Hezbollah group.

Israel and Lebanon are set to hold a fifth round of direct negotiations in Washington on Tuesday. The upcoming talks follow four previous rounds between the two sides that began in April as part of a track aimed at ending the Israeli war in Lebanon.

The US-mediated negotiations come as criticism grows inside Israel over Washington handling of talks with Iran and Hezbollah.

Israeli news site i24NEWS, citing Israeli officials, said Tel Aviv fears that an agreement between the US and Iran could strengthen Tehran and its allies in the region.

Israeli attacks in Lebanon have killed more than 4,100 people and injured over 12,000 others since March 2, according to official Lebanese figures.

Israel continues to occupy areas in southern Lebanon, some held for decades and others seized during the 2023–2024 war.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on ‘Israel not party to US-Iran talks, will continue full operations in Lebanon,’ Israeli far-right minister says

Two killed in brazen Israeli ceasefire violation in southern Lebanon

Al Mayadeen | June 23, 2026

Two people were killed and a third was injured on Tuesday by gunfire from Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, according to the official National News Agency (NNA).

In detail, the NNA reported that two young men were martyred and a third was wounded when Israeli army soldiers opened machine-gun fire toward them near a bulldozer working to open a road in the Deir neighborhood of the town of al-Nabatieh al-Fawqa.

This marks the first Israeli violation of the ceasefire that results in casualties since it was announced on Sunday, amid the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the US, with Article 1 explicitly stipulating an end to Israeli attacks on Lebanon and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops.

Separately, Israeli occupation forces carried out a drone strike on the town of Kfar Tibnit in the Nabatieh district, while also dropping sound bombs over the town, according to local sources.

In the Bint Jbeil district, an Israeli drone dropped two sound bombs in the towns of Baraachit and Ayta al-Jabal, while in the town of Hadatha, Israeli forces set fires at its outskirts before withdrawing toward the town square.

Ceasefire comes as Iran demands adherence

Continued pressure from the Iranian negotiating delegation since Saturday afternoon has contributed to maintaining a fragile ceasefire in Lebanon for the time being. This came after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to continued Israeli attacks and massacres in South Lebanon, which breached the provisions of the memorandum signed with the United States.

Meanwhile, a source close to the White House was quoted as saying that an American request for Israeli troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon is “only a matter of time,” warning that such a move would present “extreme difficulty” for Netanyahu and his government.

Currently, the Israeli occupation is considering announcing limited withdrawals from parts of Lebanese territory it occupies, a source familiar with the discussions told CNN.

The reported proposal would involve what the source described as “symbolic” redeployments from minor positions beyond the so-called “Yellow Line”, an area of land within Lebanese territory that “Israel” occupied after the November 2024 ceasefire with Lebanon, and which “Israel” has repeatedly refused to surrender.

According to CNN, the proposal has been discussed ahead of three days of US-sponsored talks between Lebanese and Israeli representatives. However, the move comes as Iran has rejected moving forward with the MoU with the US unless a ceasefire is achieved in Lebanon.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on Two killed in brazen Israeli ceasefire violation in southern Lebanon

Israeli Intel Whistleblower: Israel Ended Clinton Iran Deal With Epstein Blackmail

By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | June 22, 2026

The former Israeli intelligence official turned whistleblower, Ari Ben-Menashe made some explosive claims to journalist Afshin Rattansi in the latest episode of his Going Underground TV Show, alleging that then president Bill Clinton made a deal with then Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, but then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, a known close associate of Jeffery Epstein, used blackmail about Clinton’s known connection with Jeffery Epstein and his trafficking operation of underage girls, to end the deal.

Ben-Menashe alleges that in 2000 Bill Clinton “met President Khatami in Mirabel Airport north of Montreal and they worked out the deal between them”.

Ben-Menashe noted that “on March 17, 2000, Madeleine Albright made a speech at the American Iranian Council apologizing to the Iranian people for America overthrowing an elected government in 1952 in Iran and bringing the Shah back”

Indeed, on March 17, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made a speech apologizing for the overthrow of Iran’s popular elected president Mohammed Massadegh in 1953, saying:

In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.

Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah’s regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah’s government also brutally repressed political dissent.

As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy towards Iraq, during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein.

This certainly suggested that the Clinton administration was trying to reset the U.S. and Iranian relationship, acknowledging Iran’s long list of legitimate grievances against the United States.

But according to Ari Ben-Menashe, the deal never went through because Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak “sabotaged” the deal using Epstein blackmail.

Ben-Menashe said, “But Ehud Barak and company sabotaged that deal by using Epstein and company against Mr. Clinton”.

Because Clinton had already gone through the Monica Lewinsky scandal, this was enough for him to abandon diplomacy, according to Ben-Menashe.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Israeli Intel Whistleblower: Israel Ended Clinton Iran Deal With Epstein Blackmail

MIT Professsor Ted Postol: Patriot Missile Capabilties

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on MIT Professsor Ted Postol: Patriot Missile Capabilties

Israel Brings The War Rhetoric Towards Türkiye

After Being Defeated In Iran, Israel Targets Türkiye.

By Justin K.P. – The Dissident – June 22, 2026

The idea of Israel going to war with Türkiye- a NATO member- potentially triggering World War III seems insane.

And yet Israel is using their war rhetoric towards Türkiye.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry put out a post seemingly laying the groundwork for an Israeli war, claiming that “Hamas terrorists based in Turkey are directing attacks against Israelis, funding terrorism, and recruiting operatives. The network is exposed. The facts are clear.”

This is far from the first time Israel has used war rhetoric towards Türkiye.

Israel’s Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli recently said that Israel “will be at war with Syria sooner or later” in part because he called Syria “a Turkish protectorate”.

He also fabricated a new “radical Sunni axis of evil” which supposedly includes Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar.

Middle East Eye reported:

“What we are witnessing before our eyes is the rise of a new axis,” Chikli told 103FM radio on Wednesday, referring to Turkey, Qatar and Pakistan. He described this so-called alliance as “a radical Sunni axis of evil, more dangerous than anything we have seen before”.

While Chikli mentioned both Qatar and Pakistan in his interviews, he mainly focused on Turkey, branding Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s vision “an extremely dangerous combination for us”.

Other members of the ruling Israeli Likud party have similarly been declaring Türkiye “an enemy state”.

Middle East Eye noted, “Last week, Israeli lawmaker Ariel Kellner, also of Likud, called Turkey an ‘enemy state’, while Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar said last month that Israel’“must begin to treat Turkey as an enemy state,’ suggesting that Turkey would suffer heavy blows in a possible conflict with Israel.”

It added that “In February, former prime minister Naftali Bennett indicated that he sees Turkey as an enemy, with the opposition figure stating: ‘Turkey is the new Iran.’”

Perhaps the most concerning development is the fact that the Foundation for The Defence of Democracies (FDD), an Israeli lobby cutout that played a large role in the U.S. war on Iran, has begun publishing articles using similar rhetoric towards Türkiye.

FDD put out an article titled , “Turkey the new Iran? Ankara’s growing challenge to Western interests”.

The article attempted to label Türkiye as the “new Iran”, writing:

As Iran and its proxies take a beating from American and Israeli forces, observers are questioning whether Turkey is waiting in the wings to emerge as the region’s next “bogeyman.” The answer is likely yes, albeit in its own form.

Turkey is not Iran, but depicting Turkey as a nuisance or simply “complicated” only emboldens a maturing adversarial regime with an established track record of undermining its Western allies.

The article attempted to ratchet up hostilities between Türkiye and the United States, writing, “The real question is whether Turkey is actively undermining US, NATO, and regional security interests. There is little doubt that Ankara is doing just that, and doing so more brazenly with the passage of time.”

It also lamented that Türkiye is too supportive of the Palestinian resistance, writing “Hamas, as an Iranian proxy, has served Ankara’s interests in undermining Israel’s security interests, something which Turkey would like to see intact after the end of the current war.”

FDD has similarly put out articles pushing for the U.S. to put sanctions on Türkiye, saying that “Washington should pursue Global Magnitsky sanctions against targets in Turkey” and that “the United States should utilize Global Magnitsky authorities to target Turkish individuals responsible for human rights violations”.

It also called for the U.S. to designate “government officials” in Türkiye as “terrorist organizations” and wrote that “The United States should protect the international financial sector by recommending added scrutiny and screening to transactions involving Turkish financial institutions” and that “Washington should coordinate with the G7 to return Turkey to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) ‘grey list’ until further improvements are seen in combating terrorism financing.”

The Carnegie Endowment for Peace documented that “FDD was the brainchild of a New York Times journalist-turned-Republican operative, Clifford May,” adding that “it arose out of an organization committed to burnishing Israel’s reputation in the United States. On April 24, 2001, three major pro-Israel donors incorporated an organization called EMET (Hebrew for ‘truth’). In an application to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, May explained that the group ‘was to provide education to enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations.’ But in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, May broadened the group’s mission and changed its name to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. As he explained in a supplement to the IRS, the group’s board of directors decided to focus on ‘develop[ing] educational materials on the eradication of terrorism everywhere in the world.’”

It added that, “FDD’s chief funders have been drawn almost entirely from American Jews who have a long history of funding pro-Israel organizations. They include Bernard Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, whiskey heirs Samuel and Edgar Bronfman, gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson, heiress Lynn Schusterman, Wall Street speculators Michael Steinhardt and Paul Singer, and Leonard Abramson, founder of U.S. Healthcare.”

Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former Israeli military intelligence officer, in the Al Jazeera documentary The Lobby, admitted that “We have FDD” and that “the foundation is ‘working on’ projects for Israel, including ‘data gathering, information analysis, working on activist organizations, money trail. This is something that only a country, with its resources, can do the best”.

FDD played a huge role in shaping American policy towards Iran at the behest of Israel.

Now, as Israel calls Türkiye an “enemy state”- the FDD has begun pushing Washington to place sanctions on the country and designate government officials as terrorists, laying the groundwork for a new Israeli war.

June 22, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel Brings The War Rhetoric Towards Türkiye

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »