The Swiss summit of imperial humiliation
By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | June 22, 2026
In Switzerland, amid the alpine calm where empires go to perfume panic as diplomacy, Iran delivered another masterclass in the ancient art of refusing to kneel.
The Americans arrived with the usual imperial luggage: threats, ultimatums, sanctions theology, and that peculiar Washington habit of mistaking obedience for “peace.” Iran arrived with something far less fashionable and far more effective: leverage. Not the decorative leverage of think-tank seminars and cable-news generals, but the real kind — the kind that closes straits, terrifies markets, freezes war rooms, and forces the self-appointed masters of the universe to rediscover geography.
The spectacle would be hilarious if it were not so historically obscene.
For decades, Washington imagined Iran could be sanctioned into hunger, bombed into prudence, insulted into submission, and finally dragged into a room to sign its own humiliation.
Instead, the empire found itself bargaining with a country it had failed to break. The result was not Iranian capitulation. It was American improvisation — and improvisation by a declining empire always sounds the same: threats in public, panic in private, and a desperate attempt to rename retreat as strategy.
This is the deeper meaning of Switzerland. It is not merely a diplomatic episode. It is a theatre of reversal. The United States entered the crisis assuming Iran would negotiate like a wounded state. Iran is negotiating like a victorious one. It did not ask for mercy. It is demanding implementation. It did not plead for relief. It is presenting conditions. It did not enter the room as an accused party awaiting sentencing. It is entering as a power whose red lines have acquired consequences.
That is why the Strait of Hormuz matters. In the fantasy literature of American empire, waterways are lines on maps guarded by aircraft carriers and narrated by admirals. In reality, they are political arteries. When Iran demonstrated that it could interrupt the world’s most sensitive energy passage, it did more than create a shipping problem. It shattered a mythology. The empire discovered, rather late in its education, that the sea has neighbors — and that those neighbors have memories.
Washington’s response was pure imperial farce. Trump threatened, blustered, contradicted himself, and performed his usual routine: half Caesar, half casino promoter, with the emotional discipline of a man losing an argument to a mirror. One moment he wanted a deal; the next he wanted tribute.
One moment he spoke of peace; the next he threatened annihilation. This was not statecraft. It was strategic delirium dressed up as presidential resolve.
Yet beneath the orange thunder was the essential fact: America needed the strait open, the markets calm, the war contained, and the humiliation disguised. Iran understood this. More importantly, Iran acted on it.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, performed the role history has assigned him: arsonist in a fireman’s helmet. His political survival depends on permanent emergency. War is not merely his instrument; it is his oxygen. Defeat must be repackaged as deterrence, slaughter as security, occupation as necessity, and humiliation as a “strategic achievement.”
Israel’s problem is not that it miscalculates occasionally. Its problem is that it has built an entire political theology around impunity — and then acted shocked when impunity met resistance.
But this time the room for Israeli theatrics narrowed. Iran’s pressure, Hezbollah’s endurance, the strain on global markets, and Washington’s fear of economic catastrophe produced a rare collision between Israeli maximalism and American self-preservation. For once, unconditional support for Israel began to look expensive even to its underwriters. Let us not become sentimental: this was not morality awakening in Washington. It was arithmetic. But in imperial politics, arithmetic sometimes does what conscience is too cowardly to attempt.
Here lies the exquisite irony. The United States spent decades trying to teach Iran the meaning of pressure. Iran returned the lesson, corrected the grammar, and underlined the thesis. Pressure is not a press release. It is not a Lindsey Graham war fantasy delivered between television segments. It is not Netanyahu’s sweaty monologues about victory while the region watches his project rot from within. Pressure is the ability to alter the enemy’s choices. In Switzerland, Iran is proving it can do precisely that.
The Americans may still posture. Trump may still rage into the digital void. Netanyahu may still deliver speeches polished with self-pity and fraud. The professional warmongers may continue promising wars they will never fight, depressions they will never suffer, and corpses they will never count. But beneath the noise sits the brutal reality: Iran survived the siege, absorbed the blows, retained escalation dominance, defended its allies, protected its sovereignty, and forced the conversation onto terrain of its choosing.
That is the defeat Washington cannot confess and Israel cannot metabolize. Not merely that Iran endured, but that Iran emerged demanding compliance. Not merely that coercion failed, but that the coerced state exposed the coercer’s dependence. Not merely that the empire blinked, but that everyone saw it blink.
Switzerland, then, is not a peace summit in the ordinary sense. It is a mirror held up to American power. What stares back is not omnipotence, but exhaustion dressed as menace.
Iran’s message could not be clearer: no surrender, no submission, no confession of guilt to satisfy an empire addicted to obedience. If Washington wants de-escalation, it must pay in substance. If it wants open waterways, it must respect red lines. If it wants agreements, it must implement them. And if it insists on calling this diplomacy, it should begin with the only honest admission available: coercion failed, Iran stood, and the age of bullying Tehran into submission is over.
Iran to continue IAEA cooperation under existing framework, SNSC decision: Baghaei
Press TV – June 22, 2026
The spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry says Tehran will continue its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under existing procedures and in accordance with parliamentary legislation and decisions by the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC).
Esmaeil Baghaei, who serves as spokesperson for the Iranian negotiating team, said on Monday that “Iran’s engagement with the Agency, in fulfillment of its obligations under safeguard agreements, will continue within the existing framework and in line with the resolutions of the Majlis (parliament) and the decisions of the Supreme National Security Council.”
The remarks came after US Vice President JD Vance said during a press conference at the Bürgenstock hotel that Iran had agreed to invite IAEA inspectors back into the country.
Sources familiar with Saturday’s talks in Switzerland said Tehran did not negotiate over its nuclear program during the 18-hour discussions and did not agree to any new commitments, IRNA reported.
Meanwhile, Fars News Agency quoted an informed source as saying that Vance’s claim was “false”.
Under the “Law Requiring the Government to Suspend Cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency,” enacted on June 25, 2025, Tehran has invited IAEA inspectors to visit its active nuclear facilities on a case-by-case basis, subject to approval by the SNSC.
Since the law took effect, IAEA inspectors, with the council’s approval, have conducted multiple inspections at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, including overseeing the loading of reactor fuel supplied by Russia.
As a result, inspections of operational Iranian nuclear facilities are not new, and Tehran has continued to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog regarding access to such sites.
However, inspections of damaged nuclear facilities and arrangements concerning Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile remain contingent on the establishment of a specific mechanism in a final agreement expected to be negotiated during the anticipated 60-day talks.
Report highlights US munitions crisis: Missiles cannot be replenished quickly even with al the money in the world
Al-Manar | June 22, 2026
The supply chain constraints affecting US missile production are structural in nature; they cannot be solved merely by throwing money at them, The National Interest website introduced its article written by by Harrison Kass and titled “Why Can’t America Make More Interceptor Missiles?”.
The article maintained that one of the sharpest conflicts stemming from America’s wars in the Middle East is the rapid depletion of its anti-air interceptor missile inventory, adding that months of operations in the Middle East during the Trump administration—first Operation Rough Rider against the Houthis in Yemen, then the far more expansive Operation Epic Fury against Iran, alongside consistent support for Israeli air defenses in the post-October 7 period—have consumed advanced interceptor missiles at a pace far faster than America’s existing defense industrial base can replace them.
The article warned, “Although most Americans do not worry about missile production rates, the problem is non-trivial. In fact, it is serious enough that the United States’ depleted missile inventories are now influencing broader strategic planning and force-posture decisions, particularly in Asia.”
“So why can’t the US just build more of these systems? The primary constraint is not money, but industrial capacity; a handful of inputs are difficult to ramp up production for, creating bottlenecks for the rest of the missile supply chain.
- Solid Rocket Motors: In spite of their differing designs, nearly every advanced interceptor missile depends on the same highly consolidated rocket-motor section, which is difficult to build and requires human expertise.
- Skilled Labor: Production of many missile components requires specialized technicians who need years of training in order to complete their jobs. Nor is expertise the only constraint; many technicians in sensitive jobs must complete thorough security vetting to ensure they will not share production secrets with US adversaries, taxing the limited resources of government investigators.
- Precision Tooling: Many components depend in turn on advanced machines, which are costly to build and subject to their own supply chain constraints. Though production of these is ramping up, many take time and cannot simply expand overnight.”
Recent defense budgets have dramatically increased procurement funding. Funding for SM missiles jumped from $1.26 billion to $8.5 billion from Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) to FY27. The goal is to rebuild inventories while expanding future production capacity, the article noted.
“Unfortunately, missiles cannot be replenished quickly. Even with all the money in the world, the SM-6 won’t be restored to pre-2025 magazine depth until 2028 or 2029; the PAC-3 until mid-2029; the THAAD until late 2029; the Tomahawk, a cruise missile also used extensively in Iran, around 2030. Many advanced interceptors require roughly two years from component production to final delivery.”
“The strategic consequences of this lag are significant. The Pentagon’s plans for the Pacific rely heavily on SM-6 interceptors, Patriots, and THAAD systems. These weapons would be absolutely critical in a conflict involving China. Every interceptor fired in the Middle East means one interceptor unavailable for the Pacific. So using multi-million-dollar interceptors to defeat cheap drones in the Middle East is a strategic loss,” the article concluded.
Trump’s Attempt to End the Iran War Infuriates the Uniparty
By Ron Paul | June 22, 2026
Against the odds, the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the US and Iran appears to be holding, after threats and counter-threats. It may collapse, but it has survived a first round of talks between the two sides in Switzerland over the weekend.
President Trump started a war on Iran against all sober guidance and in violation of the US Constitution’s requirement that only Congress can declare war. There must be a reckoning for our elected leaders who violate their oath of office, the Constitution, and simple common sense.
However, what is more telling is the reaction when President Trump finally took the correct move and attempted to end the war. The neocons who had hailed him as a great leader – Levin, Bolton, Pompeo, etc. – suddenly turned against him when he turned against further escalation of the war.
Even Trump’s top funder, Miriam Adelson, attacked Trump in her newspaper Israel Hayom. “You could have been the greatest president of all, but you failed,” the newspaper wrote in an editorial.
Not much gratitude from the Israel-first crowd, even if the war was started to benefit Israel.
And more telling even than this was the reaction of the “opposition” party in Congress, the Democrats. They attacked him harder for ending – or at least pausing – the war more than for starting the war in the first place! Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) called the MOU a “capitulation.” Sen Chris Murphy (D-CT) called the MOU an “embarrassing document.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar falsely claimed that President Trump was paying Iran $300 billion to re-open Hormuz.
This is more evidence – as if any is needed – that our foreign policy is run by the “uniparty.” When it comes to wars, there is no Republican Party nor is there a Democratic Party. There is only the “yes!” party.
Congress remains silent in the run-up to war. Congress remains silent when the President launches a war. Congress even remains silent when the war begins going badly. It is only on those rare occasions that a president takes steps to correct his mistake that Congress finds its voice.
Yes, there is plenty to criticize. After weekend talks, the US side, led by Vice President JD Vance, is celebrating as a “breakthrough” that the Strait of Hormuz is open again and that Iran has reportedly agreed to the return of UN inspectors. But the Strait was open before this war and UN inspectors were in Iran before President Trump unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA “Iran Deal” in his first term.
The only difference now is that we burned through likely several hundred billion dollars, we lost dozens of aircraft and other military equipment, and we likely lost more service members than the Pentagon is admitting.
It is a reminder of why the Founders intended to make sure that any war must be declared by the people’s Representatives before the first bullet is shot: it should be very hard to launch wars.
Nevertheless, those who are truly against the wars should, in my opinion, hold their fire for the time being in hope that a lasting resolution can be found. The President Is being attacked from all sides by the war party. Now may not be the best time for the peace party to join in.
First round of Swiss-hosted Iran-US talks ends with 5 key agreements
Al Mayadeen | June 22, 2026
Following the conclusion of the first round of the Iran-US talks in Switzerland on Monday, the media committee of the Iranian negotiating delegation issued a statement outlining the main points and understandings reached during the talks.
The Bürgenstock talks outline a phased framework linking security arrangements, financial measures, and sanctions relief to conditional implementation steps.
Key developments include a Lebanon ceasefire monitoring mechanism, structured communication over the Strait of Hormuz, coordinated asset release arrangements, and temporary sanctions relief measures tied to energy exports.
Lebanon ceasefire monitoring mechanism
According to the statement, continued pressure from the Iranian negotiating delegation since Saturday afternoon contributed to maintaining a fragile ceasefire in Lebanon for the time being.
To support stabilization efforts, the parties agreed to establish a monitoring framework titled the “Conflict Control Unit.” Iran is expected to participate in this mechanism, which will oversee developments related to the ceasefire.
The statement further noted that this arrangement would formally integrate the Islamic Republic of Iran into Lebanon’s security-related discussions, despite US efforts in recent months to exclude Iran from Lebanese affairs. It also stated that “Israel” will have no role in this mechanism.
Strait of Hormuz communication channel
Regarding discussions on the Strait of Hormuz, the statement said an understanding was reached to establish a communication channel aimed at addressing potential implementation issues.
Through this channel, relevant parties would be able to directly contact Iran and present concerns related to maritime coordination and regional navigation.
It characterized this arrangement as part of broader discussions on the management and gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Conditional launch of nuclear and sanctions working groups
The agreement also includes the formation of three working groups focused on nuclear issues, sanctions, and monitoring mechanisms.
These groups are set to begin their work only after the implementation of Article 13 of the memorandum of understanding, which outlines several key steps, including:
- A ceasefire across all fronts, particularly in Lebanon
- Initial steps toward lifting the naval blockade
- Release of frozen Iranian assets
- Issuance of waivers lifting sanctions on oil and petrochemical exports
Iran will not enter the final phase of negotiations before these conditions are fulfilled.
Iran–Qatar agreement on frozen assets
During the same round of talks, Iran and Qatar signed a memorandum of understanding concerning the release of Iranian frozen assets. The agreement is presented as part of ongoing financial and diplomatic coordination between the two sides regarding outstanding economic issues.
US OFAC 60-day sanctions suspension
The statement also referenced documents issued by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) during the negotiations.
According to the statement, these documents provide for a 60-day suspension of sanctions targeting oil, petrochemical, and related sectors. This arrangement would allow Iran to resume oil sales to its customers and receive payments through formal mechanisms managed by the Central Bank, the statement explained.
Bilateral and trilateral meetings at Bürgenstock resort
Al Mayadeen’s Geneva Bureau chief reported on Sunday that various bilateral and trilateral meetings have begun at the Bürgenstock resort ahead of the first official session of Iran-US talks. The opening session took place at 2:30 PM al-Quds time.
The first file discussed after the inaugural session was the implementation of the first clause, which relates to ending the war, particularly on Lebanon.
Al Mayadeen’s Geneva bureau chief later reported that the Iranian delegation held talks with the Qatari delegation in Geneva to discuss the ceasefire in Lebanon. He also reported that, following a meeting with the Iranian delegation, the Pakistani Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff held talks with the US delegation, headed by Vice President JD Vance.
According to an Iranian official, speaking to CNN on Saturday, before departing for Switzerland, Vance said that one of the top concerns included in the talks would be to make progress towards a ceasefire in Lebanon. “I think we’re going to hopefully make progress on the nuclear issue, make progress on the Lebanon ceasefire issue. Those are the two big things that I think we’re going to be focused on,” the US vice president told reporters, noting that he expected to participate in the talks for only “a day or two”.
IRAN WALKS OUT ON PEACE DEAL DUE TO TRUMP’S THREATS – w/ Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi
Mario Nawfal | June 21, 2026
Moderna’s mRNA Flu Vaccine Gets Unanimous Thumbs-Up Despite Risks, Low Efficacy
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 18, 2026
A federal advisory committee today unanimously voted to endorse Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine — just months after rejecting the company’s application on the basis that Moderna had not performed an “adequate and well-controlled” clinical trial.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which reviews scientific data on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and other therapeutics on behalf of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), voted 9-0 in dual votes to recommend approval of the vaccine for the 50-64 and 65-plus age groups.
Today’s votes took place after several hours of presentations based on the findings of Moderna’s Phase 4 clinical trial data for its mRNA-1010 vaccine. The trial compared the efficacy of mRNA-1010 to that of a conventional, non-mRNA flu vaccine.
Daniel O’Connor, founder and CEO of TrialSite News, told The Defender today’s favorable votes “may reflect the committee’s view that the benefit-risk profile is acceptable.” However, the vote “does not erase the fundamental concerns surrounding this application.”
“Significant questions remain about comparator selection, study design and whether the reported efficacy advantage represents a clinically meaningful improvement for patients or simply a statistical advantage within the framework of the trial,” O’Connor said.
According to an FDA briefing document prepared in advance of today’s meeting, “no major deficiencies were identified” with the vaccine for adults 50 and over. Citing the clinical trial data, the document states that the mRNA-1010 vaccine had a 26.6% relative efficacy rate in adults 50 and over, with similar rates for adults 65 and up.
The mRNA-1010 vaccine also showed a higher immune response than Sanofi’s Fluzone vaccine, the document noted. According to Fierce Biotech, these results met all of the FDA’s “pre-specified criteria for success” and bolstered Moderna’s application for approval.
Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said today’s vote shifts mRNA-1010 safety monitoring to after licensure.
“VRBPAC meetings proceed to the beat of the rubber stamp. The unanimous vote guarantees a lot of really good questions of harm will have to be answered in the post-marketing period, when that harm manifests in the population,” Jablonowski said.
Moderna seeks traditional approval for the mRNA-1010 vaccine for the 50-64 age group and accelerated approval for the 65-plus age group.
Fierce Biotech reported that the FDA uses VRBPAC meetings to “seek outside counsel on tough or high-profile regulatory decisions.”
The FDA will make an approval decision on mRNA-1010 by Aug. 5 — and while the agency is not bound to VRBPAC’s votes, it “often follows the opinions” of its advisory committees.
Moderna’s stock was up over 4% in trading immediately after the vote, and up 3.50% at the close of market.
mRNA vaccine had higher rate of adverse events than conventional flu shot
According to MedPage Today, all current flu vaccines are “manufactured using egg-based, cell-culture based, or recombinant production technologies” — a production process that could result in “egg-adaptive mutations” and which makes it slow to reformulate vaccines when they don’t match currently circulating flu strains.
In their briefing document, FDA scientists suggested that “high-volume manufacturing” of a flu vaccine “capable of rapid strain reformulation is … needed.”
However, the briefing document did identify some concerns with mRNA-1010. FDA scientists noted the higher rate of solicited adverse events among clinical trial participants who received mRNA-1010 — and the higher number of unspecified deaths and serious adverse events related to anemia or urinary tract infections.
The document also noted that “efficacy in immunocompromised individuals and very frail older adults has not been established” — which is “significant because these populations face the highest absolute risk of severe influenza-related complications and may respond differently to mRNA-based vaccine platforms.”
Several experts told The Defender that Moderna’s mRNA-1010 vaccine poses risks. “Throughout the study, solicited adverse events are almost, and in some cases more than, double that of the comparator,” Jablonowski said.
The briefing document acknowledged a higher rate of solicited adverse reactions for mRNA-1010 vaccine recipients than among the conventional flu vaccine recipients. According to the Association of Health Care Journalists, solicited adverse events are “those that the trial investigators specifically ask participants about because they are either expected or likely based on known reactions to other vaccines.”
Unsolicited (unexpected) adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events of special interest and deaths “were balanced between treatment groups,” and “no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were identified within 42 days postvaccination,” the document states.
Immunologist and biochemist Jessica Rose, Ph.D., said this period is too small to detect long-term risks. “There is no way to know what the long-term adverse events will encompass,” she said.
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor emeritus of oncology at City St. George’s, University of London, said, “There is no need for any specific flu vaccine.” He cited the high number of serious adverse events related to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
“The case for mRNA gene therapies for any infectious disease can never be approved with current technology, given the totally unacceptable serious side effect risks,” Dalgleish said.
Rose agreed. She said that since mRNA-1010 is based on the same “flawed” platform as the COVID-19 shots, she anticipates “exactly the same problems as for the COVID shots, as per the millions of reported adverse events to pharmacovigilance databases.”
FDA glosses over safety concerns
These concerns are similar to those expressed when Moderna first filed its application for licensure in December 2025 and which contributed to the FDA declining to review the company’s application in February.
In a “refusal-to-file” letter signed by Dr. Vinay Prasad, then-director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which oversees vaccines, the agency cited Moderna’s failure to perform an “adequate and well-controlled” clinical trial and its failure to use the “best-available standard of care” during the trial process.
In February, STAT reported that Prasad overruled senior FDA vaccine reviewers, who were ready to review Moderna’s application. However, Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told STAT at the time that the claim was “categorically false.”
In response to Moderna’s claim that mRNA-1010 had a 26.6% higher relative efficacy rate than the existing Fluzone vaccine, former pharmaceutical research and development executive Sasha Latypova wrote on Substack that this is significantly lower than the 95% relative efficacy claimed for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during Phase 3 clinical trials.
Jablonowski told The Defender in February that the mRNA-1010 clinical trial data show that mRNA recipients had a 329% higher chance of sustaining a serious adverse event and a 278% higher chance of experiencing an unsolicited adverse event — referring to a condition that was not expected or previously known.
However, the FDA’s briefing document found that mRNA-1010’s safety profile was “acceptable for the intended population” and that there was no causal relationship between the vaccine and the unspecified deaths and cases of anemia and urinary tract infections identified during the clinical trial.
The document said these adverse events are “unlikely to represent a vaccine safety signal” and that the risk of rare adverse events should be tracked through post-licensure monitoring.
But according to Jablonowski, conventional flu vaccines have shown they have negative efficacy — placing the vaccinated at higher risk of flu than the unvaccinated. He said this makes any comparison between the candidate mRNA vaccine and existing vaccines invalid.
“If the current flu vaccines have negative efficacy, a placebo would be more efficacious. … In the 2024-2025 season, the Cleveland Clinic found a negative 27% efficacy,” Jablonowski said.
‘They’re promoting the platform’
The FDA’s decision to decline review of Moderna’s application led to an uproar within the pharmaceutical and public health spheres. Within two weeks, the FDA accepted the company’s application for licensure of mRNA-1010. Leadership shake-ups at the FDA soon followed.
Last month, Dr. Marty Makary resigned his FDA commissioner post, following rumors that he would be fired. In April, Dr. Vinay Prasad resigned from the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) — for the second time in less than a year. The FDA then fired Tracy Beth Høeg, M.D., Ph.D., the agency’s top drug regulator and a staunch advocate for vaccine safety.
Some experts suggested that political pressure — and corporate lobbying — contributed to the FDA’s about-face.
Blackstone, a New York-based investment firm, is the world’s largest alternative assets manager, with a portfolio exceeding $1 trillion. In 2024, the company launched an ongoing, $750 million investment in Moderna, explicitly to support the development of its mRNA flu shot.
Aside from its financial might, Blackstone is also closely connected to the Republican Party and the Trump administration, through significant donations from its executives and employees and through its ties with prominent lobbying firms linked to Republicans — and Big Pharma.
In turn, Blackstone’s CEO and co-founder, Stephen A. Schwarzman, has close ties to President Donald Trump and his administration, while members of Blackstone’s Life Sciences division have ties with several vaccine makers, including Pfizer.
In a post on X, Max Bayer, a science reporter with Endpoints News, noted that today’s meeting included the participation of a non-voting pharmaceutical industry representative and that “no waivers were issued for conflicts of interest.”
Bayer also noted that unlike the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which advises the agency on vaccine recommendations and which U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revamped before a federal court froze those changes, VRBPAC’s membership remains “pretty much intact.”
According to a February study, 557 clinical trials of mRNA therapeutic products are in progress, 507 of which involve vaccines, with Pfizer and Moderna leading the way in what analysts project will be a rapidly growing — and lucrative — market for mRNA products in the coming years.
Rose suggested that these moves signal a desire on the part of the FDA to continue promoting mRNA vaccine technology.
“They’re promoting the platform,” Rose said. “People who acknowledge risk who oppose using an unsafe and ineffective platform are a problem for the industry players aligned with pushing this technology forward.”
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.
Cuban FM blasts Rubio for ‘chronically lying’ about US fuel blockade
Press TV – June 21, 2026
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla has condemned US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claim that there is no oil blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba.
In a post published on X on Sunday, Rodríguez wrote: “When [Rubio] talks about incompetence in Cuba, he should be asked why he lies chronically and contradicts the US president and his spokeswoman by denying the existence of the total fuel blockade that the White House acknowledges.”
“There is no oil blockade on Cuba, per se,” Rubio claimed on Saturday while guest-hosting the daily White House press briefing.
Rodríguez stated that Rubio’s references to the situation in Cuba are consistently framed in a way that avoids responsibility and self-accountability, describing it as “an attempt to present himself as a savior.”
The Cuban foreign minister also denounced the “economic suffocation plan” against his country, saying it prevents foreign companies from selling parts and technology needed for the island’s thermoelectric plants.
The plan “prevents any company in the world from selling oil to our country” and also targets CUPET, the Cuban company responsible for fuel logistics and energy infrastructure, he explained.
He added that it sanctions nickel companies, threatens foreign companies involved in tourism and mining, and strips foreign citizens who visit Cuba of the right to use Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) visas to enter the US.
Rodríguez also said Washington pressures and threatens countries that maintain health cooperation agreements with Cuba.
He further stated that Rubio “openly calls for the subversion of Cuba’s constitutional order and persistently seeks US military intervention in Cuba.”
An executive order signed by Trump on January 29 authorized the White House to impose tariffs on countries exporting fuel to Cuba.
So far in 2026, Cuba has received a single shipment of 100,000 tons of crude oil from Russia.
Iran delegation protests Trump’s threat at Switzerland talks, weighs ‘proper’ response: Source
Press TV – June 21, 2026
The Iranian delegation to talks with the United States has raised objections directly with the American side over President Donald Trump’s latest threat of further military strikes, and is now weighing its next steps, a source told Press TV.
“The Iranian delegation has raised its objections to the American side and is currently assessing the conditions to give a proper response to Trump’s verbal threats,” the source said on Sunday.
Trump on Sunday threatened to restart war with Iran, warning Tehran to rein in its allies in Lebanon or face renewed and more powerful US military strikes.
“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform, referring to US war against the Islamic Republic, which started late February.
The threat was made as Iranian and American delegations were engaged in critical negotiations, mediated by Pakistan and Qatar, at the Bürgenstock resort in central Switzerland, where they are working to implement a 14-point memorandum of understanding.
The talks were the first to be held under the terms of the Islamabad MoU agreed a week ago.
Trump’s threat of further military action against Iran is a direct contravention of US commitments under the interim deal, whose clause 1 commits both parties “not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.”
A source close to Iran’s negotiating team later told Tasnim news agency that the Iranian delegation left the venue of talks with the United States in protest over Trump’s latest threat.
Terms of US capitulation to Iran presage new era for the region
By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | June 21, 2026
After a week where it seemed the US-“Israel” and Iran were inevitably sliding back into open war, President Trump finally decided to cut his losses and snatch defeat from the jaws of catastrophe. The terms of his submission to Iran, aptly signed in the Palace of Versailles, enter the historical record as among the most humiliating articles of surrender ever accepted, not least by a supposed global hegemon.
On the sidelines of the G7 summit in Switzerland, no less than Trump himself admitted that his decision to accede to almost all of Iran’s demands was meant to forestall an imminent economic depression triggered by the Hormuz blockade. Still more jarringly, all of the many systemic concessions given by Washington; the ending of the US naval blockade, the immediate suspension of US sanctions against Tehran, the handing over of Iran’s sovereign assets frozen around the world, the muzzling of “Israel” from continuing its pyromaniacal rampage of the last three years- all of this was given by Washington in exchange for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz (open before the war) and Iran’s willingness to negotiate the status of its nuclear program later on.
Of the agreed conditions, the most jaw-dropping article, which many found exceedingly difficult to take seriously, was the establishment of a fund for the reconstruction and economic development of Iran, amounting to $300 billion. The most up-to-date estimates of the damages caused to the Iranian economy by the US-Israeli aggression totaled $270 billion, a figure likely to be preliminary rather than final. Alongside this eye-watering sum, Tehran has already begun exporting its energy and petrochemical products free from the constraints of US primary and secondary sanctions, something almost certain to become permanent, while its $100 to $150 billions of international assets will bring in an added infusion of economic activity. Added to this the implicit acceptance – or at least not rejection – of Tehran’s right to levy charges on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz (though not for 60 days) and the Islamic Republic emerges from this war the overwhelming beneficiary of its consequences, achieving in four months of war what five decades of intermittent and painstaking diplomacy could not.
The $300 billion sum functions in effect as an indemnity, a tribute extracted from the treasury of the defeated party in exchange for the granting of peace. Scores of Roman emperors knew full well the significance of the principle, as they had to repeatedly perform this ritual of humiliation before the Iranians countless times over the course of their seven-century-long rivalry in the Late Ancient Period.
In both of their efforts to contain the humiliation of this clause, Trump and his deputy, JD Vance, have been at pains to emphasize that Washington will not be paying any of its own funds to the Iranians for this purpose. In his Thursday press conference, the Vice-President identified that regional states – the Gulf Cooperation Council, which he repeatedly labelled the “Gulf Coast Coalition” – would be “free” to invest in the Iranian economy if they wished to.
This is, and would be, a monumental shift for Washington to even countenance such an arrangement. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has specifically threatened the mechanism through which the US (and to a lesser extent European) economy has siphoned off the wealth of the Arab world and the capital of the Global South, the infamous ‘petro-dollar cycle’. These states exist specifically for the purpose of recycling their energy revenues into the Western economy through arms deals, acquisitions, and investments in Western financial institutions. Trump himself has personified this process more completely than any other president.
That Trump would give his signature, willingly or otherwise, to the GCC pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the Iranian economy to reconstruct and repair what he destroyed, obviously is demonstrative of which side is the victor in this war. It also signals a shift in the regional balance of power that has truly global ramifications.
If the flow of petro-revenues illustrates the relative strength of the recipient economy, then it shows the war set in motion an increase in Iranian power that grants it competing access to the region’s vast surplus revenues – that is competing with the US.
Even if the process started by the signing of the MoU collapses and the $300 billion fund doesn’t materialize, Tehran’s capacity to challenge – and potentially displace the US as the hegemon of the Persian Gulf, is now a thinkable scenario.
As the consequences of this war continue to unfold and the true increase in the Islamic Republic’s relative power becomes more apparent, it will begin to exert a gravitational pull that makes security under its umbrella a more realistic proposition to the GCC states than the empty promise of American Patriot batteries or fantasies of normalization with “Israel.”
Strategic Oil Reserve Nears Collapse… US Must Choose: Guns or Butter
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | June 21, 2026
As of the week ending June 12, 2026, the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) held approximately 340.25 million barrels of crude oil… Sounds like a lot, but it is approaching the danger zone. In late May, that number was 372 million barrels, which consisted of Sweet crude: ~142 MMB | Sour crude: ~230 MMB, according to the US Department of Energy.
The oil is stored in caverns at four sites:
- Bryan Mound: ~166 MMB
- Big Hill: ~90 MMB
- West Hackberry: ~72 MMB
- Bayou Choctaw: ~44 MMB
To understand how perilous the situation is you need to know that if the oil level in these caverns falls below a certain level that the structural integrity of the caverns would be jeopardized. The most commonly cited operational floor is around 20% of capacity. Mike Sommers, CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, told CNN that the SPR must be at least 20% full to remain operational — that’s roughly 143 million barrels against the SPR’s ~727 million barrel design capacity.
So subtract 143 barrels from 340.25… That means the US only has 197.25 million barrels left before the caverns could face irreparable damage. If the US consumers, who use 20 million barrels a day, had to rely exclusively on the SPR, the US only has less than a 9-day supply of reserves. If you compare the amount reported at the end of May (i.e., 372 MMb) with the June 15th report, the US is drawing 16 million barrels a week from the reserve. This is the optimistic scenario, i.e., the US has roughly a 12-day supply before the proverbial shit hits the fan.
But wait, it gets worse. The US Military has blown through its jet fuel reserves. The problem is compounded becuase Diesel reserves are at 25 year low. Diesel and Jet Fuel are critical Distillates. So the Trump administration must make a choice: support the military jets with jet fuel, or support the trucking Fleet with enough diesel fuel, to provide food and products to US consumers. Trump can’t wage war and keep the economy going at the current rate because diesel and jet fuel compete with each other when comes to production. So the question is, do you want to wage war or do you wanna save the economy and keep the trucks moving on the road? This is the main reason Trump signed the MoU with Iran.
A friend who is an energy analyst summarized the dilemma as follows:
The strategic warning is that the United States cannot assume it can fight a major fuel-intensive conflict and protect the domestic economy without tradeoffs. Military jet fuel, commercial aviation fuel, diesel, heating oil, and marine fuel all draw from the middle distillate portion of the refined barrel. Refineries can bias output, but they cannot instantly maximize every middle-distillate product at once.
The risk is not that every truck or aircraft stops at once. The risk is that a forced fuel-priority decision creates cascading shortages and price shocks across logistics, aviation, agriculture, construction, and consumer supply chains. A war-time jet-fuel surge could reduce the diesel cushion; a civil-aviation diversion could disrupt passenger movement and air cargo. Either channel can become recessionary because both diesel and jet fuel are operating fuels for the real economy.
The US is not the only country or region facing a massive problem. Europe is screwed. An April 2026 report by Karl Miller — The Iran War, the Strait of Hormuz and Europe’s Compound Energy Trap — spells out the danger facing Europe. Here is the Executive Summary:
This report assesses whether the European Union faces a structural energy-security Prisoner’s Dilemma with Russia, with Germany at its centre and the Persian Gulf crisis as the accelerant. The argument is blunt: the Union has deprived itself of the low-cost Russian oil and gas system that underpinned much of its industrial base, while the Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz disruption have simultaneously impaired the maritime energy system that supplies a decisive share of the world’s oil, refined products and LNG.
Europe is on its knees in strategic terms. It is not literally without emergency stocks, because EU and IEA rules require minimum oil inventories. The harder reality is more damaging: those inventories are finite, unevenly usable, commercially fragile and unable to replace the normal flow of crude, diesel, jet fuel, LPG, naphtha and LNG through global markets. Emergency stocks buy time; they do not restore cheap Russian pipeline gas, reopen Hormuz, rebuild refining flexibility or prevent member states from bidding against one another.
The EU therefore faces a compound trap. Russian gas is being removed by law, Persian Gulf flows are exposed to war, U.S. LNG has become indispensable but expensive, storage refill is costly, and Germany’s industrial model remains dependent on affordable dispatchable energy. Each member state can rationally protect itself through bilateral contracts, subsidies, exemptions and emergency procurement, yet those same choices weaken the Union’s collective bargaining power and deepen fragmentation.
The conclusion is that the EU is locked into a repeated, asymmetric collective-action game. Escaping it requires enforceable solidarity, shared critical-fuels planning, coordinated storage, firm-capacity realism, a diversified LNG portfolio, strategic petroleum-product management, and legal reforms that make cooperation faster and more profitable than national defection.
Featured Video
Who Wants to Live in This Digital Prison?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Why Pfizer Can Never Be Trusted
State of the Nation | January 16, 2022
… Here is a partial list of 13 of Pfizer’s most dangerous, most litigated, most potentially lethal drugs. (NOTE: If any reader had adverse effects to any of the following Pfizer drugs, he/she might want to consult an attorney). … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- EU’s New Creator Press Passes Come With a Loyalty Test
- Israeli forces open fire on civilians in southern Syrian village
- Iraq sets Sept. 30 deadline for resistance groups to hand over arms amid US pressure
- Israel rebrands Gaza’s forced displacement scheme amid international outrage: Report
- Lebanon parliament speaker vows Israel deal ‘will not pass’
- The Middle East, Hormuz and the New Mercantilism
- Strait of Hormuz Remains Open for Those Who Adhere to PGSA Protocols, But Global Economy Faces Inflationary Shock
- Who Wants to Live in This Digital Prison?
- Iran, Lebanon speakers agree trilateral unit to end Israeli aggression
- How The Israel/Lebanon Deal Destroys Lebanese Sovereignty And The MoU With Iran
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Who Made Thousands of Hoax Bomb Threats Against Americans Arraigned in Florida
- The Antisemitism Command Center Inside Gillette Stadium
- America’s Founders Tried to Prevent Chronic Wars
- Critics of lifting Iran sanctions can’t offer a viable alternative
- We’re Expected To Remember October 7 But Never Ask Questions About It
- Israeli extremists are terrorizing Palestinian Christians and their holy sites
- Ms Rachel says world has failed Palestinian children at briefing on Gaza, West Bank
- Paradise lost: How Israel is making war on West Bank farmers: 2 Articles
- Trump’s Board of Peace plans to grant itself sweeping immunity, documents show
- Israel readies to restart the war it never ended in Gaza – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- Heat And Drought In Germany Are Nothing New, Archive Media Show
- Lousy Station Siting: Swirling Controversy Surrorunds Germany’s Latest “New Alltime Record High” Temperature
- 2025 Study: Cloud Effects Reduce Downwelling Longwave Radiation, Overriding The CO2 Impact
- 3 New Studies Find Increasing Trends In Solar Radiation Since The 1980s – Easily Explaining Warming
- THE TRANSCEIVER PARADOX: Why Organoid Intelligence (OI) Could Become Our Ultimate Alien Predator
- German Wind Turbines Face Regulatory Shutdown Due To Excessive Noise
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
Aletho News 