Judge Revokes Bail for Mother Charged With Murdering Twins Who Died 8 Days After Vaccines
Photo courtesy of Joe Filicetti
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 14, 2026
A district judge in Payette County, Idaho, today revoked the bond for 23-year-old Andrea Shaw, the Idaho mother charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her 18-month-old twins.
Bail was initially set at $2 million. But today’s decision means that Shaw will not be eligible for release on any amount of bail.
Shaw was indicted by a grand jury and arrested on June 30 on allegations that she deliberately suffocated her twins, who died on May 1, 2025. Prosecutors allege the children were killed while sharing a bed in their home.
Shaw, who pleaded not guilty, has consistently denied the allegations. She alleges that her twins’ deaths were caused by the vaccines they received at a routine doctor’s appointment just over a week before they died. The toddlers both had documented adverse reactions to the shots.
In a motion filed Monday, defense attorney Joseph Filicetti argued that the $2 million bond is excessive and should be reduced to $100,000 with reasonable release conditions.
Prosecutors opposed any bond reduction, arguing that the evidence supports the murder charges and that Shaw should remain in custody.
Prosecutors said the court had been generous in granting the bond, which, in the state’s opinion, Shaw is not entitled to.
Bond is discretionary in capital cases, the prosecution said, and they suggested that she should not be allowed near her new infant.
Twins diagnosed with ‘post-immunization reaction’
The defense argued that Shaw has no criminal history — not even a parking ticket. She has remained in Idaho throughout the more than year-long investigation, has strong family ties to the Payette area, and recently gave birth by caesarean section to a premature daughter who needs her mother.
Filicetti said Shaw’s postpartum medical needs and her newborn’s dependence on her legally justify release under supervised conditions. He argued that bond is meant to ensure that a defendant will attend court; it’s not to punish them.
The defense also contended that the prosecution’s case is entirely circumstantial. He noted that there is no confession, eyewitness or admission connecting Shaw to the children’s deaths — and that the grand jury was not informed of those shortcomings in the state’s allegations.
Documentation supports Shaw’s statement that on April 24, 2025, the day after the twins received the vaccines, she took them to the emergency room when they were lethargic and their lips turned blue.
The treating physician in the ER diagnosed them with “post-immunization reaction.”
The children remained ill in the days leading up to their deaths eight days after receiving the shots, and Shaw repeatedly sought medical advice, according to court documents.
Supporting affidavits filed with the motion to reduce bail and shared with The Defender included one from Shaw’s mother-in-law who accompanied the family to the vaccination appointment and later to the ER.
She said she questioned the administration of the flu vaccine given a family history of adverse reactions and that the nurse assured the family the twins would be safe. She also described Shaw as a devoted mother who repeatedly sought medical care for the children.
The defense also submitted an affidavit from Angela Wulbrecht, a registered nurse with 26 years of obstetrics experience, who contacted the family after she learned of the infant deaths.
Wulbrecht said she offered to help obtain an independent forensic review and advised the family that if such a review uncovered evidence of abuse, she would report it to law enforcement.
Wulbrecht said the family immediately welcomed an independent examination — a response she said is inconsistent with what one would expect from someone who had intentionally harmed a child.
The defense argued these facts undermine the state’s theory of homicide and said independent experts are being assembled to challenge the prosecution’s conclusions.
Prosecutors filed a motion opposing the bond reduction. In their summary of the evidence, they said that investigators ruled out other possible causes of death — including heat exposure, carbon monoxide poisoning, poisoning and vaccines — during the investigation.
They did acknowledge that the infants had suffered side effects from the vaccine and that at least one of them was still suffering reactions at the time of death.
They argued that the only “conceivable explanation” was that the twins were suffocated and cited one expert who said that autopsy findings, including pulmonary vascular congestion and pulmonary edema in one of the twins, are consistent with suffocation.
The state also alleged Shaw made inconsistent statements during interviews with investigators about the children’s final hours and that the seriousness of the charges, combined with concerns about public safety, justifies maintaining the current bond or denying her bail altogether.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
IRAN WAR REPERCUSSIONS, THE US WILL BE BLAMED /The Duran’s Alexander Mercouris
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 14, 2026
Hamas had no option but to govern Gaza and repeatedly tried to find solutions
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | July 14, 2026
Hamas’ decision to dissolve its committee governing the Gaza Strip was not a trick or simple gesture; the movement has long sought to hand over control of the territory’s civil administration. While the Zionists have claimed that Hamas governing the territory has long been the key impediment to “peace”, nothing could be further from the truth.
Despite the Israeli-US refusal to implement the agreed-upon terms of the Gaza ceasefire, never entering into the second phase of the agreement and remaining in limbo instead, Hamas recently took a measure that aimed to show the international community that it was willing to take the initiative in good faith. Immediately, the Israelis and their defenders began to invent narratives arguing that Hamas had engaged in some kind of trick, while asserting that the Palestinian group needed to disarm for the second phase of the agreement to begin.
The United States and its so-called “Board of Peace” (BoP) have put little to no effort into the ceasefire, despite having been authorised to exist by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). When there have been any measures taken, they usually come in the form of guarding the Israelis from criticism, despite the fact that they have killed over 1,000 Palestinians since the ceasefire began and blocked many basic goods from crossing into the territory inhabited by the internally displaced.
As a measure to try and get the process jump-started once again, Hamas announced the dissolution of the temporary committee set up to govern the people after they had suffered an all-out genocide. The critics of this move claim that Hamas-affiliated individuals could be involved in the future technocratic body that the movement has just made way for, which is simply an excuse to prevent further progress.
Unfortunately, even if a technocratic Gaza governing body can be achieved, the Israelis are likely to point to its members as agents of Hamas. This could come in the form of pointing to these technocrats previously working for the civil administration in Gaza, which evidently has been run by Hamas. The same would be the case if you sought to dismantle the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s civil administration in the occupied West Bank; inevitably, the people most qualified to assume positions under a technocratic administration would likely have had some job role under the PA in the past and may even have Party affiliations to Fatah or the PFLP. This wouldn’t mean they are agents of those organisations, it just means that all the available jobs in their field require being employed with the PA.
Hamas did not simply seize control of the civil administration in Gaza as a power-hungry movement that was desperate for control. They were pressured into running in the 2006 Palestinian Legislative elections, which, to their own surprise, they won in a landslide. Immediately upon their election to power, the United States, their EU partners, and “Israel” sought to punish them for daring to engage in democracy.
The EU and US immediately placed sanctions upon the Gaza Strip, the Israelis imposed a blockade, and then the Bush Jr. administration covertly armed a coup plot that sought to violently overthrow Hamas. The coup plot was ultimately foiled by the Qassam Brigades (armed wing of Hamas) in 2007, which is when the Israelis tightened their blockade on Gaza.
Following this, the Palestinian civil war between Hamas and Fatah raged on. Despite countless attempts to mend ties, both Gaza and the West Bank were split from one another. This was a scenario brought about by US-Israel-EU interference, not the Palestinians alone.
After years of failed unity attempts, in 2014, there appeared to be a diplomatic breakthrough between Hamas and Fatah, which is when the Israelis found a convenient pretext to launch a massive assault on the Gaza Strip. Not only did the Zionist regime murder over 2,300 Palestinians, but their allies in Washington helped to ensure that the Palestinian Authority would back away from any unity agreement.
Again, in 2017, there was a unity agreement that was almost reached between Hamas and the PA. Hamas was on the verge of handing over control of the civil administration to the Palestinian Authority (PA). On November 1, Hamas dissolved its governing committee and handed over control of the Rafah border crossing to the PA, an event which was celebrated across the Gaza Strip. However, the US and Israel again intervened to pressure the PA to collapse the agreement.
Control over the civil administration in Gaza has never been the demonstrated or publicly stated goal of the Hamas movement. Time and time again, they have made strides towards relinquishing governance. The reason why the US, EU, and Israelis don’t allow it is for two reasons:
They don’t want the PA to govern both Gaza and the West Bank, because they fear this will give legitimacy to the idea of a Palestinian State.
Hamas and allied resistance movements refuse to disarm as a part of any such agreement.
The problem was never that Hamas was clinging to power; it was that the Israelis and their complicit Western partners sought to prevent the formation of a Palestinian State and to rob the people of Palestine of their ability to defend themselves.
Trump’s 3 failed options for reopening Strait of Hormuz: The Economist
Al Mayadeen | July 14, 2026
The memorandum of understanding that was meant to end the US war on Iran is unraveling, and Washington is left with the same three options it had before the deal existed, none of which reopens the Strait of Hormuz.
The Economist traces the collapse back to the MoU’s fifth paragraph, which commits Iran to “make arrangements” for safe passage of commercial vessels.
Washington reads this as an obligation to clear mines, while Tehran reads it as a right to administer traffic through the Strait. Washington has already revoked the sanctions waiver that let Iran sell oil, and Trump has said he will resume the naval blockade.
Option one: Continued limited attacks
The first path available to Washington is simply to keep doing what it has already been doing, attacking Iranian military sites and equipment on a limited basis. The Economist argues that this option has effectively already failed.
More than 300 such attacks over five nights have not shifted Iranian behavior in any meaningful way, and there is little reason to expect a sixth night, or a sixtieth, to succeed where the first fifty did not.
Part of the problem is geographic, as even if the US were able to bomb every coastal launcher Iran possesses, the country could keep firing on shipping from positions further inland, since many of its missiles and drones have ranges well beyond 1,000 kilometers.
Option two: Escalation
The second option is to escalate well beyond the current tit-for-tat, but The Economist notes that this path carries substantial risk without any assurance of a better outcome.
Attacking Iran’s core infrastructure directly would likely draw retaliation against Gulf states caught in the crossfire and could expose Washington to accusations of a war crime.
Deploying ground troops, meanwhile, is regarded as politically untenable in Washington under current conditions, making it a non-starter regardless of its theoretical military logic.
Trump has repeatedly floated occupying Kharg Island, the site of Iran’s main oil export terminal, but The Economist points out that this would do nothing to reopen Hormuz itself, since the island sits more than 600 kilometers from the strait.
Option three: Reimposing the blockade
The third option, reinstating the naval blockade, might look like the least disruptive choice, but The Economist argues it simply returns both sides to the standoff that existed before the MoU was signed, a staring contest over which side blinks first under economic pressure.
That earlier standoff is precisely what produced the interim deal now falling apart, which offers little confidence that repeating it would end differently.
There is also no guarantee Iran accepts a renewed blockade without retaliating against Gulf states this time around, and if it does escalate in response, Trump would be left choosing between all-out war and a retreat from his stated goals.
No outside help in sight
Britain and France have offered to help Oman clear mines from the strait, but Germany, Japan, Gulf states and China have all stayed on the sidelines, The Economist observes, leaving Washington with little meaningful outside support to draw on.
Tanker traffic through the strait has collapsed to its lowest level since May, and Brent crude has climbed roughly 20 percent since July 6, trading near $87 a barrel.
The Economist concludes that neither Washington nor Tehran has a military path to what it wants, claiming that the US cannot bomb the strait open, and Iran cannot profit while it stays shut, leaving the fragile MoU as the least bad option either side has left.
TIME Magazine Reveals Israeli Influence Campaign Targeting Americans To Restart Iran War
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | July 14, 2026
Have you ever noticed how so many Zionist social media influencers often post the exact same messaging, at the exact same time?
It turns out, according to a new investigation in Time Magazine, that these messages are part of a coordinated Israeli influence campaign targeting Americans.
The investigation profiled Brad Parscale, the former Trump campaign manager and current registered Israeli agent, whose firm, Clock Tower X, was hired last year “to conduct a digital campaign on behalf of the State of Israel”.
Parscale was paid by the Israeli government to “produce 100 original pieces of content each month, with at least 80% aimed at Gen Z audiences across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and podcasts” and to “amplify the campaign across social media and through ‘integration of narrative messaging into Salem Media Network properties and aligned distribution channels,’ referring to the Christian conservative broadcasting and publishing company where he serves as Chief Strategy Officer” and to “produce at least 50 million digital impressions per month, as well as influence how AI tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini characterized Israel and the war”.
Brad Parscale admitted to Time that “the operation was intended to prevent young conservatives from drifting away from Israel”.
Trump administration officials speaking to Time Magazine revealed that Brad Parscale’s paid influencers were attempting to undermine the MoU with Iran.
The investigation wrote:
Online influencers in Trump’s MAGA movement were excoriating it (the MoU) on social media. One shared an Israeli op-ed titled, “You Could Have Been the Greatest President of All—But You Failed.” Several posted the same video of Qatar’s prime minister appearing to snub Vice President J.D. Vance in Israel, arguing it showed regional powers dismissing the Trump Administration’s “naivete.” Others accused Trump of surrendering before achieving his stated objective of eliminating Iran’s nuclear program. Many of the posts appeared almost simultaneously, with similarities in language and tone.
The official began collecting screenshots, and came to believe it wasn’t a coincidence. Tracing tweets by prominent members of the online right, the official came to believe there was an unlikely figure at the centerof all this criticism: Trump’s former presidential campaign manager and digital guru, Brad Parscale.
The investigation added:
Inside the White House, some officials were frustrated for a different reason. What had begun as an effort to keep the American right supportive of Israel, they believed, had evolved into an influence campaign that was colliding with the President’s political interests as Trump’s and Netanyahu’s war aims diverged, led by a figure trading on the perception that he remained close to Trump. They believed the very media ecosystem Parscale had promised to activate was now helping to circulate arguments that undercut Trump’s effort to end the war. “We’re talking about American influencers who are being paid by a foreign country, then trying to build momentum to change the President’s view, or the views of others around him,” says a senior U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the issue publicly. “It can’t be dismissed as inconsequential by any means.”
Looking more closely at the conversation about the deal unfolding across the conservative internet, the official began noticing the same patterns: similar language appearing across seemingly independent accounts in rapid succession. “You have a person who is farming out this influencing task, who is being paid by a foreign element to the social media space,” the official tells TIME. “To me, this is a very, very dangerous thing.”
Describing the campaign, Time Magazine wrote, “Three people familiar with the campaign describe a messaging operation run through a network of interconnected firms overseen by Parscale or other firms he owns or created, such as Campaign Nucleus and Influenceable, in which he now owns a minority stake. Through private group chats, they say, conservative influencers receive suggested language for posts on social media sites such as X, Instagram and TikTok. They were then compensated based on the impressions and engagement their content generated. On its website, Clock Tower X says it has developed an ‘influencer ecosystem’ that includes ‘managed networks that amplify narratives through credible, distributed voices.’”
It identified the Zionist propagandist X account of “Eyal Yakoby” as one of the accounts on Parscale and Israel’s payroll, writing, “One of the conservative figures associated with the campaign was Eyal Yakoby, a recent college grad with a popular X account who began working with one of Parscale’s firms about a year ago, he says, after testifying before a House committee about antisemitism on college campuses. Yakoby confirms he was paid by Influenceable to fight antisemitism online.”
It added, “Another component involved a sprawling network of conservative influencers. According to a former participant, they received coordinated messaging through private group chats, synchronized the timing of their posts, and were compensated based on the reach they generated.”
This is just one of the many influence campaigns targeting Americans that was paid for by Israel.
Most recently O’Dwyer’s reported that :
Havas Media Germany has hired Piro Inc. to further the digital efforts of the Israel Government Advertising Agency to sway US public opinion.
Founded by Daniel Rosenberg and Tim Piper, New York-based Piro has produced branded entertainment for film, TV and digital media.
Rosenberg has collaborated with actors such as Denzel Washington, Julia Roberts, Robert DeNiro, Steve Martin, Al Pacino, Kevin Bacon and Jodie Foster.
Piper was called “one of the most influential people on the planet” by Time for for his branded content work. He is executive producer on “Odd Mom Out” for Bravo and “Farmed and Dangerous” on Hulu.
According to its June 2 Justice Dept. filing, Piro is engaged to provide digital content strategy, creative development, video production oversight, and campaign advisory services in connection with a pilot digital communications program.
Services include audience research, content architecture, scriptwriting, asset production, distribution planning, iterative performance analysis, and final program evaluation. Al content is developed for distribution via digital and social media platforms in the US.
Piro has received $900K for its effort.
At the time of Israel’s contract with Brad Parscale, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that it was only one of several firms hired by Israel through Havas Media Germany to influence American public opinion.
Harretz reported that Israel also hired “Show Faith by Works, owned by Republican consultant Chad Schnitger, an evangelical operative connected to the Christian right” to “focus on ‘churches and Christian organizations in the western United States’ aimed at countering ‘declining support for Israel among evangelical Christians’ and ‘raising awareness of Palestinian ties to Hamas and support for terrorism’” and to advance, “‘biblically based arguments highlighting the importance of Israel and the Jewish people to Christians,’ while spreading messages that ‘the Palestinians chose Hamas… they murder Christian aid workers… they celebrated the October 7 massacre and shelter terrorists… Palestinians and Iran share genocidal intentions toward Israel’”.
It added, “The filings for the proposed campaign explain that the messages will reach their audience through ‘the largest geofencing campaign in U.S. history’ – a pitch to map the physical perimeters of every major church and Christian college in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado during worship hours; identifying attendees using commercial data, tracking them, and continuing to target them with relevant ads.”
Israel also used Havas to hire SKDKnickerbocker, a firm close to the Democratic Party, to, “develop a ‘bot-based program on various social media channels that that `floods the zone` with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ pro-Israel message.”
Along with this, it noted that Israel hired “Bridges Partners, a Washington-based consulting firm owned by Yair Levi and Uri Steinberg” to “fund social-media influencers promoting Israel”.
Revolutionary Guard Calls on Jordanians to Expel US Forces
Al-Manar | July 14, 2026
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced on Tuesday that it has targeted a major US military facility and site inside an airbase in Jordan with ballistic missiles.
In its ninth statement, the Guard directly addressed the Jordanian people, saying: “You know very well that we harbor no animosity towards your country; on the contrary, we hold you in the highest regard and affection. You are also aware of the suffering of the Palestinian people.”
The Guard added that “the Jordanian people, more than any other people, are aware of the crimes committed by the Israeli entity in the Gaza Strip – crimes carried out with the direct intervention of the United States.”
The IRGC called on Jordanians to demand “the removal of American military bases from the region,” describing this as “a significant contribution to saving the Palestinian people and restoring security and stability to the region.”
Earlier in the day, the Guard announced that it had targeted several American military installations in Bahrain as part of the second phase of Operation “Victory 2.”
The Guard stated that its naval forces, using missiles and drones, struck weapons supply depots, a satellite communications center, and a residential building for American forces at the Juffair base, confirming the complete destruction of these targets.
It added that the operation came in response to American aggression that targeted coastal stations and multiple military centers in Bahrain, as well as the southern regions of Iran, following Washington’s defeat in the Strait of Hormuz.
In a separate statement, the Revolutionary Guard also announced that two supertankers were damaged and disabled in the Strait of Hormuz after they ignored warnings from the strait’s security control center and crossed a mine-strewn waterway.
The Guard stated that the two tankers were “deceived by the United States” after they switched off their navigation systems and attempted to transit through an illegal route, thereby endangering maritime traffic.
These strikes follow American attacks over the past two days that targeted sites in Bandar Abbas, Bushehr, Sirik, Qeshm, Jask, Konarak, and Chabahar – attacks which, according to the Guard, mostly struck civilian sites and economic facilities.
TRUMP BLOCKS HORMUZ AGAIN /Prof Seyed Marandi Live from Tehran
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 13, 2026
US demands Spain extradite pro-Palestine activist on ‘dubious’ money laundering charges
By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | July 13, 2026
Fergie Chambers, a communist philanthropist and heir to the Cox family fortune, has been jailed in Ibiza, Spain, on the orders of the US Department of Justice. According to a sealed indictment seen by The Grayzone, Chambers now awaits extradition to Washington on dubious federal charges of “international money laundering… with the intent to provide material support to and resources to foreign terrorist organizations.” If deported to the US, he faces up to 30 years in prison.
On July 10, six Spanish police vehicles surrounded Chambers’ car while he drove through Ibiza with his family, before detaining him. Since his arrest, he has been denied bail and contact with the outside world. Chambers’ detention marks the first time an individual has faced extradition to the US from Spain for supporting the Palestinian cause.
An heir to the vast Cox family fortune, in 2023 he cut ties with his family and sold his stake in Cox Enterprises, receiving an estimated $250 million. Vowing to use this money to fund social activism and international solidarity work, Chambers has since donated over $1 million to humanitarian projects supporting those impacted by the Gaza genocide, and to support pro-Palestine activist groups and news outlets.
The sealed indictment offers no evidence that Chambers has donated any money to “foreign terrorist organizations.” It merely states “Chambers made numerous transfers of funds from banks in the US to banks in Tunisia,” where he relocated in late 2023.
It appears Chambers used those funds for seemingly legal purposes, including investing in local businesses and sponsoring the Club Africain football team, which in May became champion of the Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle. Chambers has bankrolled similar enterprises, along with political and social causes since the early 2000s, including paying the bail and legal fees of imprisoned left-wing activists.
“The Department of Justice is politically persecuting Fergie [Chambers] because he is using his wealth to support Palestine, and help people facing genocide in Gaza. His crime is dedicating his life to building a better society, rather than exploiting people, extract wealth and profit from war,” Stella Schnabel, Chambers’ partner, told The Grayzone. “He should be home safe with our family and continuing his important humanitarian and social advocacy, not incarcerated in a foreign jail facing effective life imprisonment back in the US.”
Chambers’ arrest comes amidst bitter tensions between the Trump administration and Spanish government, with Washington lashing out over President Pedro Sánchez’s criticism of Israel’s assaults on Gaza and Iran, and his refusal to allow Washington to use his country to stage attacks on Iran.
Chambers’ arrest occurred the same day the Washington Post reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio invited senior ministers from more than 60 countries to a meeting on tackling the alleged scourge of “transnational far-left terrorism.” Critics, including some US officials themselves, charge that the Trump administration is seeking to abuse powerful counterterrorism tools to crack down on left-wing activists.
In May, Trump’s new counterterrorism czar Sebastian Gorka – a pro-Israel fanatic exposed by The Grayzone in November 2024 as a longstanding British intelligence asset – unveiled a new “counterterrorism plan” which explicitly targets supposed “left-wing extremist groups” at home and abroad. A US counterterror official recently told the Washington Post that targeting left-wing activists with accusations of links to foreign terrorist groups “can unlock certain investigative tools,” including intensive surveillance. The false conflation of Chambers’ support for activism with Hamas financing fits neatly into this vision.
In June, eight anti-ICE protestors were sentenced for a combined 450 years for their roles in a riot outside a Texan immigration detention center. The severity of their punishments in large part hinged on prosecutors successfully arguing their use of Signal to communicate, and attendance at book clubs where left-wing literature was read, demonstrated they were part of a coordinated terrorist conspiracy. Chambers’ sealed indictment indicates the Trump administration’s war on Palestine solidarity is going global.
Trump’s “Memorandum of Surrender”: The art of the deal meets the fact of defeat
By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | July 13, 2026
Donald Trump is not negotiating with Iran. He is negotiating with the humiliation of having failed to break it.
Beneath the ceasefires, memoranda, podium theatrics and sanctimonious appeals to “stability” lies a fact Washington cannot admit: the United States entered this confrontation expecting submission and emerged confronting its own limits.
It wanted Iran isolated, disarmed and politically obedient. It wanted its deterrence shattered, its regional influence dismantled and its sovereignty reduced to a flag, an anthem and nothing more. It failed.
Iran endured the pressure, preserved its strategic leverage and forced the most powerful empire on earth to negotiate with the country it had promised to bring to its knees.
That is not an American victory. It is the management of an American defeat.
Real diplomacy begins when both sides recognize that the other possesses interests, rights, red lines and power. Trump’s version begins from imperial theology: Washington has interests; Israel has rights; everyone else has obligations.
American coercion is called deterrence. Israeli aggression is called self-defence. Iranian resistance is called escalation.
Sovereignty is sacred when invoked by an American client and intolerable when asserted by an American enemy.
This is the fraud now being sold as peace in the Gulf: a ceasefire presented as capitulation, an interim agreement marketed as surrender and a renewed campaign of pressure repackaged as de-escalation.
Trump did not win the confrontation. He failed to produce the result he promised. Iran was not bombed into obedience. Its government did not collapse. Its strategic position was not erased. Its enemies discovered, once again, that destruction is not control and military superiority is not political mastery.
For an empire addicted to command, the inability to compel surrender is defeat.
Trump’s response is therefore not to honor the agreement, but to hollow it out. Accept the document. Rewrite its meaning. Violate its logic. Impose new demands. Then accuse Iran of sabotaging peace. It is diplomacy by battering ram.
The Strait of Hormuz is where this revisionism becomes geography. The attempt to reroute shipping through Omani waters is not a neutral administrative adjustment. It is an effort to strip Iran of the leverage that forced Washington to negotiate at all.
“Freedom of navigation” is merely the varnish.
The real demand is that Iran tolerate a hostile military order on its doorstep, surrender its principal strategic pressure point and accept that its sovereignty exists only when it is politically useless.
Iran may possess rights, provided it never exercises them. It may retain leverage, provided Washington decides when it may be used. It may remain sovereign, provided it behaves as a subordinate. This is not peace. It is coercion translated into diplomatic jargon.
The method is familiar: provoke, retaliate, moralize, escalate. Strangle the adversary economically. Threaten it militarily. Exhaust it politically. Then present concessions extracted under duress as the triumph of moderation.
Washington calls this “managed escalation.” The phrase is obscene. There is nothing managed about pushing an entire region toward catastrophe and congratulating oneself for controlling the speed. Nor does the strategy stop at Hormuz.
In Lebanon, the American-Israeli project is to transform Israeli security doctrine into Lebanese national destiny: isolate Iran, constrain Hezbollah and call the resulting submission “sovereignty.”
In Syria, fragmentation remains useful because a sovereign, territorially coherent state would obstruct the endless manufacture of pressure points. A wounded country is easier to penetrate, divide and punish.
The region is never allowed to heal because its wounds remain profitable. Different countries. Different instruments. The same imperial objective: reverse the political reality produced by war and reconstruct the appearance of American-Israeli supremacy after its material limits have been exposed. Israel’s role is not secondary. It is central, relentless and poisonous.
Its political machinery in Washington treats any durable Iranian power as an intolerable violation of the regional hierarchy. It does not seek security in any reciprocal sense. It seeks permanent superiority: Iran contained, Lebanon vulnerable, Syria fractured and the Gulf militarized without end.
Restraint may occasionally serve American interests. Permanent confrontation serves the Israeli project.
Trump is the ideal salesman for this arrangement because his greatest political talent is not victory, but the theatrical conversion of failure into triumph.
He needs a camera, a slogan and a captive press corps. If the battlefield will not produce surrender, the press conference must counterfeit it. A document is signed. Trump declares victory. The media repeats the phrase. The coercion resumes. The performance becomes the policy.
But Iran has already achieved what Washington was determined to prevent: it survived, preserved deterrence and forced the empire to confront the limits of its power.
That is a strategic victory. Not because Iran escaped damage. Not because the confrontation was costless. But because the central American objective — submission — was denied.
Iran did not merely resist an attack. It exposed the distance between imperial spectacle and imperial capacity. It demonstrated that the United States and Israel can devastate, sanction and threaten, but cannot automatically dictate the political outcome. That is the defeat Trump is trying to disguise.
Tehran must therefore treat any agreement not as a gift from Washington, but as a battlefield whose terms remain contested. An agreement that binds only Iran while leaving the United States free to reinterpret, pressure and punish is not diplomacy. It is an ultimatum disguised as diplomacy.
Restraint without reciprocity is not prudence. It is permission. Permission to rewrite the terms. Permission to escalate without cost. Permission to demand surrender after promising peace.
The central question is not whether Trump can stage another ceremony. It is whether the United States can tear up every agreement that fails to produce obedience.
Peace cannot be built on coerced submission and renamed stability. Victory cannot be manufactured at a podium while the balance of power says otherwise.
Trump wants Iran to surrender the leverage that defeated his strategy so he can announce that he won. Iran’s task is to deny him the fiction. To preserve its rights, consolidate its gains and make clear that the empire’s declaration is not reality. It is merely an empire issuing orders to history — and discovering, once again, that history does not obey.
Trump painted US into a tinderbox
By Trita Parsi | Responsible Statecraft | July 13, 2026
For all practical purposes, the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of (Mis)Understanding is over. The dispute over how to manage the Strait of Hormuz in the interim has pushed the two sides back into open war. But to what end?
There is little reason to believe another round of fighting can alter the fundamentals enough to change the reality from which the two sides must ultimately negotiate. If they are fortunate, the MOU’s collapse may yield another round of talks in which the allure of reshaping facts on the ground through force has finally faded.
As I have written elsewhere, the dispute over the Strait turns, at least on the surface, on Paragraph 5 of the MOU: whether Iran is responsible for safe passage throughout the Strait for the duration of the agreement, or only for the waterway’s northern corridor.
Beneath the surface, however, lies a more fundamental strategic disagreement. Even before the MOU was signed, Tehran believed Washington’s objective was to establish a southern shipping corridor through Omani waters that would gradually erode Iran’s control over the Strait. Such a corridor would require Oman’s cooperation, which may explain why Trump at one point threatened to bomb Oman unless it abandoned its proposal for joint management of the Strait, with administrative fees collected by Muscat and Tehran.
The corridor would remain operational even if war resumed and Iran sought once again to close the Strait. From Tehran’s perspective, Washington used the MOU to strengthen this alternative route, and the U.S. military’s escort of commercial shipping without coordinating with Iran marked a significant step in that direction. If successful, the strategy would deprive Iran of its most important source of leverage — which is precisely why it appeals to Washington.
This is why Tehran has insisted that all ships transiting the Strait — regardless of the corridor they use — coordinate with Iran, consistent with its reading of Paragraph 5 of the MOU. Washington, by contrast, argues that the MOU merely assigns Iran responsibility for ensuring the safe passage of commercial vessels, without granting it operational control over all maritime traffic.
Before the funeral of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, the two sides explored a compromise under which ships would coordinate their transit with both Iran and a designated Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) state. As I wrote in my Substack, “Under such an arrangement, ships would notify Tehran while also reporting to a GCC maritime authority, balancing Iran’s demand for oversight with Washington’s desire to avoid granting Tehran exclusive control.” But no agreement was reached before diplomacy was suspended for the duration of the funeral.
Accounts of what transpired in Muscat over the weekend naturally differ, but three proposals emerged. Iran advanced a variation of the earlier compromise: a dual-notification system for all vessels transiting the Strait. Qatar proposed three channels—an Iranian corridor in the north, an Omani corridor in the south, and a neutral corridor in the middle. For Tehran, this was a nonstarter, as it would effectively restore the Strait to its pre-February status.
According to Tehran, the United States and Oman favored separate management of the Iranian and Omani corridors: Iran could require coordination for vessels using its corridor, while Oman’s would remain unrestricted.
Tehran saw this as an attempt to formalize what it had long suspected was Washington’s strategy: creating a southern corridor through the Strait beyond Iran’s influence, leaving Tehran no means of challenging it short of war with Oman. Iran also contends that Muscat advanced the proposal only under intense U.S. pressure, noting that Oman had previously supported a joint management system.
Washington disputes this account. U.S. officials maintain they were open to several arrangements, provided commercial vessels could transit the Strait safely. According to the American version, the talks unraveled only after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi consulted Tehran regarding a joint Iranian-Omani statement declaring the Strait open. From Washington’s perspective, negotiations had been progressing until Araghchi was overruled by hardliners in the IRGC, who chose confrontation over compromise.
Whether such a fracture proved decisive in this instance is unclear. What is clear is that the outlook of Iranian strategists has hardened markedly in recent weeks as they have become increasingly convinced that Trump intends to restart the war. Several developments have reinforced that belief. First, Trump’s rhetoric shifted dramatically: he called the Iranians “scum,” declared the ceasefire over, and said he might resume bombing to “finish the job.”
Second, as I argued here, Tehran believes Washington brokered the Lebanese-Israeli agreement — which contradicts the U.S.-Iran MOU by conditioning Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon on Hezbollah’s disarmament — to enable Israel to retain key positions that would weaken Hezbollah’s ability to support Iran in the next war.
Third, White House officials leaked the U.S. demand that Tehran declare the Strait open and, at least implicitly, accept responsibility for attacks on shipping. Rather than seeing the leak as political posturing to make Trump appear tough, Tehran increasingly viewed it as a deliberate attempt to derail the talks and steer the crisis back toward military confrontation.
Taken together, these developments convinced Tehran that Washington was preparing to resume the war. From that perspective, Iran’s best option was to close the Strait immediately. Rather than an attempt to extract additional concessions or an instance of overplaying its hand, Tehran’s decision appears to have been driven by the fear of losing its most important source of leverage before the next round of fighting.
In the view of Iranian decision-makers, closing the Strait would not trigger war because war was already coming. (If their assessment was incorrect, however, Tehran’s own actions have likely created a self-fulfilling prophecy by taking actions that made a military response from Washington next to inevitable).
Still, much indicates that another round of war will not fundamentally change realities on the ground or the balance between the US and Iran. Trump, in particular, does not have time on his side when taking into account both economic and political realities, and even some military factors.
By almost every meaningful measure, the global oil inventory position is materially weaker today than it was before the February war. Since the end of February, observed global oil inventories have fallen by roughly 360–370 million barrels, with only about 21 million barrels rebuilt after the U.S.–Iran MOU — recovering just 5% of the wartime draw.
More importantly, the apparent recovery reflects oil in transit rather than replenished storage: oil on water increased by 117 million barrels, while onshore inventories fell by 96 million barrels. OECD inventories declined by another 62 million barrels in June alone, including roughly 44 million barrels released from government emergency stocks.
The United States also enters any renewed conflict with a substantially smaller strategic cushion. It has fallen from about 415 million barrels before the war to roughly 337 million barrels, while commercial crude, gasoline and distillate inventories all remain below their five-year seasonal averages. Consequently, Washington has significantly less capacity than in February to absorb another major disruption to global oil flows.
In addition, the United States is now only four months away from the midterm elections, dramatically shortening Trump’s economic and political pain threshold. In February, the administration could plausibly argue that the oil shock was temporary and that prices would normalize before voters went to the polls. A renewed conflict today would push its most visible economic consequences directly into the campaign: higher gasoline prices, inflation, interest rates, and rising food, airline, freight, and utility costs.
As a Pentagon source told me last year, Iran builds missiles faster than the United States produces missile interceptors. And while Washington must divide its attention and resources among multiple theaters — from Ukraine to Taiwan — Iran has only one.
Thus, although the United States could, given enough time, degrade Iran’s ability to threaten shipping in the Persian Gulf, there is little reason to believe it could do so before the economic and political costs became prohibitive for Trump. It is essentially the same strategic reality he confronted in February. The difference is that he lacked the benefit of hindsight then. Now he has it — though it does not appear to have mattered.
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
US Reinstates Naval Blockade of Iran – Trump
Sputnik – 13.07.2026
WASHINGTON – The United States is reinstating the blockade of Iranian ports, US President Donald Trump said on Monday.
“The Hormuz Strait is OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran. We are reinstating the THE IRANIAN BLOCKADE, so named because it is only stopping Iran’s ships or customers from entering or leaving. All other countries will have fair and open use of the Strait,” Trump said on Truth Social.
Trump also said that the United States will become a “guardian” of the Strait of Hormuz and receive a reimbursement equal to 20% of cargo shipped through the waterway.
“All other countries will have fair and open use of the Strait. The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as ‘THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,’ but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World. The process and formation will begin immediately,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Featured Video
Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
15 Saudi ‘hijackers’ were CIA agents working for US: Scholar
Press TV – April 13, 2016
Fifteen of the 9/11 “hijackers” from Saudi Arabia were CIA agents working for the United States government, which was seeking to destroy the Middle East for Israel and to double the American military budget, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003…. continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Russia Just Struck the Eyes of NATO’s War Machine in Ukraine
- Russia summons UK charge d’affaires over Kiev drone support
- NATO member warns bloc seeking pretext for war with Russia
- Macgregor: We Haven’t Seen the Worst of the Iran War Yet
- ‘We are not like everyone else’ laws that bind other nations do not apply to Israel, says Likud lawmaker
- Report: Saudi Arabia seeks allies’ assistance as missiles deplete amid war on Yemen
- Fuel Crisis Deepens: Pakistan Warns Tanker Attack in Red Sea Would Be an ‘Act of War’
- ‘Bucha massacre’ a false flag orchestrated by UK – Moscow
- China Rejects Outside Pressure on Trade Ties After New US Russia Sanctions Bill
- Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
- If Americans Knew
- US welcomes Israeli, Iranian delegations to UN, but not Palestinians – Daily Update
- Biden’s Genocide Accomplices Targeted by New Accountability Campaign
- AIPAC’s Network Has Already Spent $67.2 Million to Shape the Midterm Elections
- Jewish Supremacist Manufacturing a Civilizational Threat to License Bigotry
- US bans Palestinian president from speaking at the UN
- Israeli Forces Detain Journalist Alaa al-Rimawi amid Widespread West Bank Raids
- Even a pro-Israel Congress member has put a hold on 40,000 one-ton bombs to Israel
- As Gaza crumbles, Israel preps new ground invasion – Daily Update
- ‘We are not like everyone else’ laws that bind other nations do not apply to Israel, says Likud lawmaker
- Trump’s govt makes ‘treasonous’ claim of weapons shortages
- No Tricks Zone
- 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
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
Aletho News 