Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Will Trump Break JFK’s Agreement on Cuba?

By Jacob G. Hornberger – Future of Freedom Foundation – June 8, 2026

In October 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) came within an inch of all-out nuclear war with each other. To resolve the crisis, President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev entered into an agreement in which the United States agreed not to invade Cuba in return for Russia’s decision to withdraw nuclear missiles it had installed in Cuba.

For more than 50 years, both Russia and the United States have complied with that agreement. Russia has never re-installed nuclear missiles into Cuba. In turn, the United States has never re-invaded Cuba.

Given President Trump’s recent acts of aggression against Cuba, the question naturally arises: Will Trump and the US national-security establishment break the commitment that President Kennedy made by initiating another military invasion of Cuba?

Soon after Kennedy was inaugurated in 1961, the US national-security branch of the federal government, which, by this time, had become the most powerful branch, employed deception, subterfuge, lies, and manipulation to induce the new president into authorizing a US invasion of Cuba. The plan called for using a contingent of CIA-trained Cuban exiles to invade the island, with the aim of ousting the communist regime that had come into power with the Cuban revolution in 1959.

The CIA told Kennedy that no US air support would be needed. They also told him that the Cuban people hated Cuban leader Fidel Castro and would rise to the assistance of the US invaders.

Both were lies, and the CIA knew it was lying to Kennedy. The CIA figured that once its invasion got underway and was going to go down to defeat at the hands of the communists, JFK would have no other effective choice but to authorize the air support — as a way to “save face.”

But JFK stood his ground, and the US invasion of Cuba went down to defeat. This was, of course, the beginning of the vicious and ruthless war between JFK and the US national-security establishment that would end in JKF’s defeat on November 22, 1963. See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National-Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas P. Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.

After the disaster of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Pentagon continued to pressure Kennedy into ordering an invasion of Cuba. As part of this pressure, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented JFK with one of the most shameful and immoral plans in US history — Operation Northwoods. It called for terrorist attacks on American soil in which innocent Americans would be intentionally sacrificed at the hands of US agents who would be falsely portraying themselves as Cuban communists. The terrorist attacks would then be used as a justification for invading Cuba and violently achieving regime change.

To Kennedy’s everlasting credit, he rejected Operation Northwoods, much to the deep anger and rage of the national-security branch against which he was at war.

Why was the national-security branch so obsessed with invading Cuba? Their mindset was part of their old Cold War racket, which came into existence after World War II to justify the conversion of the federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, which is a totalitarian-like governmental structure with omnipotent powers, including the power of assassination.

The Cold War racket involved inculcating the American people with a deep fear that the Reds were coming to get them. Central to this racket was the notion that the Reds in Cuba were only 90 miles away from American shores and, therefore, needed to be taken out before they invaded Miami, fought their way up the Eastern seaboard, and captured Washington, D.C. Never mind that Cuba was an impoverished Third World Country that lacked the remotest capability of even crossing that little stretch of water and successfully conquering the well-armed citizens of Miami. Never mind also that Cuba has never initiated any act of aggression against the United States and that it simply has always wanted to be left alone by the US national-security branch, which has always steadfastly and obsessively refused to leave Cuba alone.

Castro knew that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were pressuring Kennedy into ordering another invasion of Cuba. That’s when the Russians came to his assistance. They installed nuclear missiles in Cuba to hopefully deter the US from invading again. Alternatively, the missiles were to serve as a means of self-defense if the US were to initiate another war of aggression against Cuba.

It’s important to recognize something important here: The Cubans had every right in the world to have those nuclear missiles installed in Cuba. After all, Cuba is a sovereign and independent country. It is also worth noting that Cuba, like every other nation, has the right to defend itself from invasions and wars of aggression, including those initiated by the United States.

But no one (including Russia), likes to have nuclear missiles pointed at it from just a short distance away. The US certainly didn’t like it (just as Russia wouldn’t like it if US or NATO nuclear missiles were installed in Ukraine). And so, JFK demanded that the Russians withdraw their missiles from Cuba. If Russia had refused to do so, it is a virtual certainty that JFK would have ordered an attack on the missiles and an invasion of Cuba, both of which the Pentagon and the CIA were demanding. The result would have been World War III.

To resolve the crisis, Russia agreed to withdraw its missiles, and the US committed to not invade Cuba again. It’s an agreement that has been honored for more than 60 years.

Of course, Trump, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA can argue that the agreement, which they considered was a betrayal of America and a grave threat to US “national security” was not a treaty. That’s true. It was simply an oral agreement — a handshake, if you will. Nonetheless, an agreement is an agreement. There was no time limit on the agreement, which meant that it would exist into perpetuity. The Russians would not reinstall their nuclear missiles and the United States would not invade Cuba again.

If Trump and US national-security establishment decide to break JFK’s agreement, undoubtedly the Russians will not retaliate. But it will be another reason why people around the world understand that the United States can never be trusted to keep its word.

June 11, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Comments Off on Will Trump Break JFK’s Agreement on Cuba?

Nuking Iran: Why Israel and the US gain nothing from crossing the ultimate red line

By Hadi Zaarour | The Cradle | June 10, 2026

A question many strategists and military planners have floated in recent months is whether the US or Israel could, or would, use a nuclear weapon against Iran.

Since the latest US-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic erupted, some have brushed the idea aside as too extreme to be taken seriously. Others, however, have treated it as a real option, even if only through the use of a so-called tactical nuclear weapon – a smaller-yield device designed to devastate a more limited area while still crossing the nuclear threshold.

One point should be beyond dispute: the question is no longer whether the US or Israel can strike Iran with a nuclear weapon. They can. The more important question is whether anyone in power is reckless enough to believe such an act would solve a strategic problem rather than set the world on fire.

A precedent with no return

Only a handful of countries possess nuclear weapons. Yet only one nation has ever used them in war, and used them twice: the US.

That historical reality inevitably raises an uncomfortable question. If Washington used nuclear weapons before, what, in absolute terms, prevents it from doing so again? And what prevents its ally Israel – whose leaders frequently invoke existential threats while standing accused across much of the world of carrying out mass atrocities against others – from considering the same path?

Since 1945, the world has lived under what many describe as the nuclear taboo: an unwritten but powerful restraint against the use of nuclear weapons in war. It is not a legal shield, nor is it a moral guarantee. Yet it has shaped state behavior for nearly eight decades. Once that taboo is broken again, particularly in West Asia, there is little reason to assume it can simply be rebuilt.

From a purely military perspective, both the US and Israel possess the means to strike Iran and successfully deliver a nuclear warhead. That much is not seriously in doubt. Both have demonstrated, directly or indirectly, the capacity to project air power, conduct long-range strikes, and deliver devastating payloads with precision. The real question, therefore, is not whether they can, but what happens if they do.

Certainly, such an act would not strengthen deterrence in the long term. If a country with the scientific and industrial capacity to acquire nuclear weapons is attacked with one, the strategic conclusion is difficult to avoid: acquire a nuclear deterrent, whatever the cost.

Rather than reducing fears of proliferation, a nuclear strike would guarantee them. Any state capable of developing nuclear weapons would draw the same lesson.

The illusion of a ‘limited’ nuclear option

A crucial point is often overlooked in discussions of nuclear war. A nuclear weapon is indeed a weapon of mass destruction (WMD), but that does not mean a single bomb destroys an entire country. Nuclear weapons have specific blast, heat, and radiation effects determined by their yield, altitude of detonation, terrain, population density, and many other variables.

The Hiroshima atomic bomb (“Little Boy”), often cited in discussions of nuclear devastation, had a yield of roughly 15 kilotons. Its destruction was immense and horrifying, yet even that bomb had a limited radius of severe direct damage relative to the scale of a modern nation. Newer nuclear weapons are more powerful, but larger yields do not magically erase geography. To destroy more, more weapons are required.

In broad theoretical terms, the US possesses a wide range of nuclear warheads, including weapons with yields far beyond Hiroshima, ranging from the low hundreds of kilotons to much larger strategic systems. Israel, while maintaining its policy of nuclear ambiguity and officially declaring nothing, is widely believed to possess a nuclear arsenal as well, with estimates ranging from dozens to more than one hundred warheads, though exact figures remain unconfirmed.

While the numbers matter, they are not the central issue. Nuclear weapons are not simply larger bombs. They are political weapons. Psychological weapons. Civilizational weapons. Their use sends a message far beyond the immediate target. It tells every country watching that survival may depend less on diplomacy, treaties, or restraint than on possessing a nuclear deterrent of its own.

The central question remains: why would Iran be targeted with a nuclear weapon in the first place?

One argument is deterrence. That argument quickly collapses under scrutiny. Another is the idea of compelling surrender in a major war, echoing the historical justification long invoked for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whether one accepts that argument or not, applying it to Iran is deeply questionable. Iran is not Imperial Japan in 1945, and the international environment today is far more dangerous, interconnected, and difficult to control.

There is also a major difference between various nuclear scenarios. A demonstration strike is not the same as a battlefield tactical strike. A strike on military infrastructure is not the same as a strike on cities. Limited nuclear use is not the same as a campaign of annihilation.

Some may argue that the US or Israel would not need to strike a city or a major military facility at all. Instead, they could detonate a tactical nuclear weapon in one of Iran’s vast desert regions as a demonstration of resolve – a terrifying signal intended to show Tehran that Washington and Tel Aviv are prepared to go all the way if Iran refuses to back down.

On paper, this may appear to offer a controlled or limited nuclear option. In reality, there is nothing controlled about breaking the nuclear threshold.

A nuclear detonation in an empty desert would still be a nuclear detonation. It would still break the taboo that has largely held since 1945 despite wars, crises, invasions, and confrontations between nuclear powers. More importantly, it would send a message to every government in the world that restraint offers no protection against nuclear coercion.

For Tehran, the lesson would be unmistakable. The only reliable guarantee against future nuclear threats would be the acquisition of a nuclear deterrent of its own. Any lingering debate over whether Iran should pursue such a capability would effectively end overnight.

Strategically, such a demonstration strike would have much the same effect as a direct nuclear attack. It would push Iran toward the bomb, establish the same global precedent, and destroy the psychological barrier that has kept nuclear weapons from being used for nearly eight decades.

The target may be an empty stretch of desert, but the message would be heard in every capital in the world. Once a nuclear weapon is used as political signaling, nuclear blackmail becomes part of modern warfare.

The fantasy of destroying Iran 

Consider the most extreme scenario, one in which the objective is not merely coercion, but the destruction of the Islamic Republic as a functioning state.

Iran is a vast country covering roughly 1.6 million square kilometers, with difficult mountainous terrain stretching across much of its territory. Geography matters. Mountains, dispersion, strategic depth, and terrain all influence how blast effects spread, how infrastructure survives, and how populations are distributed.

Even if one assumes the use of a nuclear weapon in the tens-of-kilotons range, the notion that a country the size of Iran could be “destroyed” with one or two bombs belongs more to fantasy than military reality.

Take Tehran alone. The metropolitan area is enormous. To comprehensively devastate it through direct blast effects would require not one weapon, but multiple strikes distributed across a vast urban area. And Tehran is only one city.

Even a city as large and densely populated as Tehran could not simply be erased by a single low- or medium-yield weapon in the manner often imagined in political rhetoric or popular culture. The destruction would be horrific, but comprehensive devastation would require multiple strikes, coordinated targeting, and the acceptance of civilian casualties on a scale that would shock the conscience of much of the world.

And even then, Tehran is not Iran.

One must also distinguish between direct destruction and indirect consequences. Here, the discussion concerns only the immediate effects of blast and thermal radiation, not the long-term consequences of fallout, environmental contamination, infrastructure collapse, mass displacement, economic devastation, regional instability, or generations of human suffering.

In reality, the aftermath would likely prove even more destructive than the strike itself, because nuclear war does not end at detonation. Its effects expand through time, geography, illness, panic, and retaliation.

That raises an unavoidable question. What exactly would be the objective? Regime change? The destruction of military infrastructure? The collapse of civilian morale? Forced surrender? Or, in its most extreme formulation, the destruction of Iran as a civilization?

The experience of that war matters because it suggests that overwhelming violence does not necessarily produce submission. A nuclear strike might just as easily generate the opposite outcome, producing rage, radicalization, mass mobilization, and a permanent national commitment to acquiring a nuclear deterrent. In that sense, the strategy risks failing before its immediate objectives are even achieved.

The world after the nuclear threshold

The broader questions are perhaps the most important.

Would the world simply stand by as millions were killed, displaced, or poisoned by the consequences of nuclear warfare? Would governments issue statements, convene emergency meetings, and then return to business as usual? Or would such an act fundamentally alter what remains of the international order?

What would become of NATO if the US were directly involved in a nuclear strike, or openly supported one carried out by Israel? Would every European government accept being politically, morally, and strategically tied to such a decision? Would NATO remain unified, or would internal fractures deepen under the weight of an action many of its own populations would likely regard as indefensible?

The same questions extend far beyond Europe.

What kind of isolation would Washington and Tel Aviv face afterward? Countries that already view the US-led order with skepticism would see their suspicions confirmed in the most dramatic way possible. The political fallout would reach far beyond West Asia, making it increasingly difficult for even close allies to defend actions that much of the world would regard as indefensible.

Countries that already accuse the US and Israel of operating under a different set of rules would see those accusations confirmed in the most dramatic way possible. The implications stretch even further.

What would nuclear-armed Pakistan do in such a scenario? How would the wider Muslim world respond politically, socially, and emotionally if Iran became the target of the first wartime nuclear strike since 1945? How would non-state actors react?

How long would it take for North Korea to conclude that the nuclear taboo had effectively collapsed? What calculations would Russia make regarding Europe or Ukraine in a world where nuclear use had once again become thinkable? And what precedent would such an act establish in a world that still claims to be civilized?

This is where the real danger lies. One or two nuclear strikes on Iran would not resolve the underlying strategic problem. They would all but guarantee that Iran – or whatever political structure emerged from the aftermath – would pursue a nuclear deterrent with absolute urgency. A large-scale nuclear campaign, meanwhile, would not remain confined to the region. Its consequences would ripple through the international system politically, strategically, and potentially militarily.

Whether limited or large-scale, both scenarios amount to strategic failure. Neither offers a realistic path to stability, and both carry consequences that would extend far beyond Iran itself.

So the original question remains. Can the US or Israel nuke Iran?

Technically, yes.

Whether they will is a different matter altogether.

Yet it is difficult to believe anyone is that reckless – not even the Israelis, for all the brutality, escalation, and dangerous rhetoric that have accompanied this war. They understand, as everyone else does, that once the nuclear threshold is crossed, there is no meaningful return to the world that existed before it.

Yet even after all of that destruction, Iran would not be erased in any absolute sense, nor is there any guarantee it would surrender. From every strategic angle – military, political, diplomatic, moral, and civilizational – the logic of a nuclear strike on Iran collapses under scrutiny.

There is no credible path to stability at the end of such an action. A nuclear strike would weaken one of the few restraints that have survived since 1945, accelerate proliferation, invite retaliation, and encourage future nuclear brinkmanship by states that conclude such weapons are once again usable.

The real danger, therefore, is not whether Washington or Tel Aviv can cross the nuclear threshold, but what kind of world emerges once they do. The first wartime use of a nuclear weapon in eight decades would not remain confined to Iran.

Its consequences would reverberate through the international system for generations, leaving behind not order or deterrence, but escalation, instability, and a precedent from which the world may never fully recover.

June 10, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Nuking Iran: Why Israel and the US gain nothing from crossing the ultimate red line

Iranian missiles pierced US defense systems, hit 70% of targets: Fars

Al Mayadeen | June 10, 2026

Preliminary data, satellite imagery assessments, and information from Iranian security services point to the success of Iran’s large-scale military operation that was carried out at dawn Wednesday, Fars News Agency reported, citing an informed military source.

According to the source, Iran’s Air and Missile Forces successfully struck 70% of the designated military targets with high precision, adding that long-range ballistic missiles and drones operated by Iran’s armed forces were able to penetrate air defense systems deployed at US military bases in the region.

Iranian missiles and drones also accurately hit their designated targets at the al-Azraq base in Jordan, the Ali al-Salem base in Kuwait, as well as the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, the source stated.

Iran retaliates against 21 US-linked targets

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) announced early Wednesday that it launched an attack targeting 21 US-linked sites across the region, including the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, stressing that the operation was in response to recent American aggression on Iran.

The targets also included a US F-35 fighter jet base in al-Azraq in Jordan, as well as a command and control center at the same facility. Iranian Fars news agency reported that the IRGC used Kheibar Shekan missiles in strikes targeting F-35 hangars in Jordan.

The IRGC added that it had destroyed four high-value targets using long-range solid-fuel missiles and said a US MQ-9 drone was shot down during aerial engagements over Jam in Iran’s southern Bushehr province.

The IRGC warned that continued hostile actions would be met with “more severe and harsher responses,” signaling readiness to expand its military operations if attacks persist.

June 10, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iranian missiles pierced US defense systems, hit 70% of targets: Fars

Pakistan says Israel derailed US–Iran peace deal described as ‘inches away’: Report

The Cradle | June 9, 2026

Diplomatic efforts to finalize a peace agreement between the US and Iran ran into significant delays due to Israeli violations across West Asia, Pakistani government mediators revealed to Anadolu Agency on 9 June.

US President Donald Trump told reporters in New York on Monday that a settlement could be reached in “two or three days,” yet Pakistani mediators say that such an immediate breakthrough is “unlikely.”

While Trump continues to maintain that a peace deal is close at hand, officials in Islamabad stress that the “situation is complex and has entered a sensitive phase” due to persistent Israeli military aggression in southern Lebanon.

According to sources close to the mediation, the two nations were “inches away” from concluding a temporary truce in late May, only for the momentum to be derailed by the  “large-scale” Israeli incursion and the annexation of Lebanese territory.

Although a temporary ceasefire in Lebanon was established on 17 April and subsequently extended until early July, Israel has maintained daily violations, including airstrikes and ground incursions.

Pakistani officials have informed Washington that Israel’s actions in both Lebanon and Gaza are the primary obstacle to reaching a final end to the war.

The Iranian leadership has reiterated through diplomatic channels that it will not return to the negotiating table while Israeli strikes persist.

Last week, Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi traveled to Tehran for the fourth time since 28 February to deliver a “special message” to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei from the Pakistani army chief, Field Marshall Asim Munir.

Pakistan, alongside regional partners such as Qatar, is currently attempting to convince Trump to apply “maximum” pressure on Israel to halt its offensive.

Islamabad has reported receiving a “positive response” from the White House regarding the situation in Lebanon, despite the lack of an immediate cessation of attacks.

Pakistani sources told Anadolu Agency they anticipate a “breakthrough” in efforts to stop the Israeli military attacks “in a few days.”

If a halt to the fighting is achieved and direct communication between Washington and Tehran is restored, mediators believe there are “high” chances of reaching a deal “soon,” noting that the majority of conflicting issues have already been resolved.

However, the officials maintained that “this process cannot be completed within two or three days.”

Israel has continued to strike out on multiple fronts. On Tuesday morning, Israel issued a forced mass displacement order against the southern Lebanese city of Tyre (Sur) for the second time in less than a month.

At least 15 airstrikes hit Tyre on Tuesday morning, killing nine and injuring over two dozen.

Thousands of civilians were forced to flee north, joining the over 1 million already displaced throughout Lebanon.

Since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon began in March, the attacks have so far killed at least 3,666 people and injured over 11,000.

On Monday, Israel also reignited a brutal campaign of collective punishment on Gaza by closing all entry points for humanitarian aid in response to Iranian retaliatory strikes triggered by Israel’s overnight violations in the Lebanese capital of Beirut.
Iran had repeatedly asserted that a strike on the Lebanese capital was an unacceptable red line that should not be crossed.

June 10, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Pakistan says Israel derailed US–Iran peace deal described as ‘inches away’: Report

US strikes cut drinking water to 20,000 in Iran’s Hormozgan province

Press TV – June 10, 2026

The managing director of the Hormozgan Water and Wastewater Company says pre-dawn US strikes have completely destroyed critical water infrastructure in the eastern part of the province, leaving more than 20,000 residents without access to drinking water as summer temperatures soar.

Abdolhamid Hamzehpour told local media Wednesday that American terrorist attacks hit the water supply facilities in Sirik county, targeting the distribution network for the town of Kuhestak and 10 villages in the Bemani district.

Hamzehpour detailed that two concrete reservoirs, with capacities of 500 and 2,000 cubic meters, along with their associated mechanical equipment, were demolished in the strikes. The destruction of the facilities has led to a complete halt in water distribution for the affected areas.

“The enemy has precisely targeted the infrastructure linked to the daily livelihood and health of the people,” Hamzehpour said, describing the act as “flagrant terrorism.”

The outage comes as the region endures peak summer temperatures, with reports that local weather hovers between 45 and 50 degrees Celsius. Officials stated that the area lacks sufficient groundwater reserves to compensate for the loss of the reservoirs, creating a critical situation for the population.

Hamzehpour condemned the loss of water access as a “clear instance of a crime against humanity,” noting that operational teams are on-site but face significant challenges due to the scale of the destruction.

The strikes on Sirik, as well as on the cities of Jask and Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz, occurred in the early hours of Wednesday. They followed Washington’s accusation that Iran downed a US Army Apache helicopter over Persian Gulf waters.

While the United States has stated its strikes targeted military infrastructure, including air defense systems and radar installations near the Strait of Hormuz, provincial Iranian officials maintain that civilian water facilities in Sirik were directly hit.

Hamzehpour confirmed that mobile water tankers have been deployed to the region as an emergency measure. However, he warned that fully restoring the destroyed pumping and storage systems will require “time and extensive technical actions.”

“The deprivation of a large population of people from water in these weather conditions is carried out under the shadow of false claims of humanitarian aid,” Hamzehpour added, according to IRNA.

In response to the acts of aggression, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) launched a series of drone and missile strikes against US military assets across the region.

In one instance, the IRGC targeted the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet with missile and drone attacks, as part of its broader retaliatory campaign.

Iranian armed forces also carried out strikes against US military facilities in Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait during the early hours of Wednesday.

June 10, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on US strikes cut drinking water to 20,000 in Iran’s Hormozgan province

Why Iran’s Retaliation for Israel’s Attack on Beirut is a Regional Game Changer

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | June 10, 2026

Iran’s ballistic missile response to Israel’s attack on Beirut is a game-changer for the power dynamics of West Asian politics. The ‘Unity of Squares’ concept has officially led to a NATO-style defense pact developing between the members of the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to strike the southern suburbs of Beirut last Monday, the immediate threat issued by the leadership in Tehran forced him to take a step back. Ultimately, the US and Israel would delay the implementation of the decision to attack the Lebanese Capital, then suffering an overwhelming response that outperformed expectations.

The first detail to consider here is that the mere threat of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launching strikes on Israeli targets forced Tel Aviv and Washington to take a step back, meaning that both de facto admitted that Tehran maintains deterrence power. Then came the Israeli strike on the southern suburbs this Sunday, which was extremely limited and nothing of the nature of what Netanyahu had originally advertised.

A weak strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, which had no actual impact on Hezbollah whatsoever, indicates that the US-Israeli alliance acted in order to save face, seeking to test Iran’s resolve, but also to leave space for it to retreat from all-out war.

Following Iran’s missile waves, which struck Ramat David Airbase – according to satellite imagery evidence – the Israelis decided to launch an attack on Iran. Although they did target at least three radar sites and a petrochemical company, amongst other targets, it was clear that the Israeli attack was lackluster; designed primarily to give them the veneer of having risen to confront the IRGC. No Iranians were killed in the Israeli attack, and the majority of the sites hit were previously struck during the 40-day war earlier this year.

It was clear that the IRGC had prepared for the Israeli counter-strike, not only unleashing an attack of its own on Israeli companies and military sites in response but also coordinating its retaliatory action with Yemen’s Ansarallah.

As the Israelis were playing catch-up, the Iranians were implementing a carefully calibrated phase two of their promised retaliation to Israel’s attack on Beirut– that being the inclusion of new fronts. The IRGC had previously warned Tel Aviv that the war would expand to other fronts; the Yemeni Armed Forces achieved precisely this.

Ansarallah has declared that the Bab al-Mandab Strait is now closed to Israeli shipping, returning to the equation imposed in support of Gaza until October of 2025, when the ceasefire was signed. Yemen then went a step further and vowed to totally close Bab al-Mandab, should the war escalate further. This would represent an enormous economic blow to the global economy, considering the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The concept of the ‘Unity of Squares’ was originally developed by former Secretary General of Lebanese Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, and before him Iran’s former IRGC Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani. In essence, it was the idea of linking all of the fronts of the Axis of Resistance so that none would stand alone. On October 8, 2023, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah put this into action by immediately intervening on the side of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza. Soon thereafter, Ansarallah would follow, and to a lesser extent, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq.

Israel had long bragged that its assassination of Nasrallah had broken this Unity of Squares dynamic, because Hezbollah was forced into accepting a less-than-favorable ceasefire in late 2024. It was because of Nasrallah’s refusal to abandon Gaza “no matter where it takes the region”, that Tel Aviv had decided to kill him. Therefore, it is accurate to say that the former Hezbollah leader quite literally gave his life for Gaza.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s quest to achieve “total victory” in his 7-front war has not proven successful, but one major step towards that was managing to break the idea of the Unity of Squares. Through Iran’s actions this Sunday, that “success” was just undone.

The IRGC has also recently been insisting that Gaza be included in their ceasefire agreement, something that a number of statements released by Hamas also appear to be indicating will be the case. If the Islamic Republic does impose its will on the US-Israeli alliance by setting in stone the equation that an attack on one is an attack on all, the Unity of Squares equation will be imposed fully, as it was originally intended. In the past, it was never fully implemented because of Iran’s absence as a front that could easily open.

The implications of this equation coming to life are that the Iranian-led Axis will undoubtedly be the most powerful alliance in the region. Not because they necessarily possess the most firepower and capabilities, but because they will together be able to cut off key international chokepoints, while battering their adversaries in a way that can achieve strategic deterrence.

It should be noted that this is a direct result of the US-Israeli failure in their war of aggression to achieve any of their goals. Instead of weakening Tehran, their reckless aggression and arrogance may have just undone the tactical victories they previously achieved, pushing Iran into the position that many previously argued it should have assumed sooner after October 7, 2023. Unless Tel Aviv and Washington find a way to reverse this, this will represent a major historic shift in regional power dynamics.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

June 10, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Iran’s Retaliation for Israel’s Attack on Beirut is a Regional Game Changer

Araghchi warns Washington: Iran will not leave any attack unanswered

Al Mayadeen | June 10, 2026

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has stated that Iran will not leave any attack or threat unanswered, stressing that the United States has chosen to test what he described as Iran’s resolve despite battlefield losses.

Araghchi affirmed in an X post that the Iranian armed forces would respond to any aggression, signaling a hardened stance amid rising regional tensions.

‘Leave our region if you want to be safe’

Addressing Washington directly, Araghchi warned the United States to withdraw from the region, saying: “Leave our region if you want to be safe.”

He added that the history of the Persian Gulf contains what he described as “dire fates” that befell foreign forces, framing foreign military presence as inherently risky.

The foreign minister’s statement comes after the US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that it had launched strikes on Iran, stating the operation was carried out under orders from the US military leadership and framed as a response to what the US claims is Iran’s downing of an Apache helicopter.

CENTCOM described the strikes as a “proportionate response” to what it called “unprovoked Iranian aggression,” linking the escalation to reports surrounding the incident. However, no independent verification has confirmed the claims.

June 10, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Araghchi warns Washington: Iran will not leave any attack unanswered

Iran launches concerted retaliatory strikes against American military targets after fresh US aggression

Press TV – June 10, 2026

Iran’s Armed Forces have launched retaliatory operations against American military targets in the region after fresh American aggression struck several locations in the country’s southern Hormozgan Province.

On Wednesday, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) noted how the “warmongering American regime” had attacked several locations in Jask, Sirik, and Qeshm in the province earlier in the day under the “false pretext” of an American helicopter’s crash.

According to the IRGC, the American strikes had damaged a telecommunications tower in Sirik and destroyed two water reservoirs in the Bemani district of the county.

US Fifth Fleet, al-Azraq base hit in reprisal

The Corps said its Navy responded to the attacks by carrying out a retaliatory drone strike against the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

The force later announced that it had also launched a missile strike against Washington’s al-Azraq base in Jordan.

According to another IRGC statement, four major targets, including F-35 warplane shelters and the command-and-control center of the “child-killing American army” at al-Azraq, were struck and destroyed.

An informed military source, meanwhile, said Iran used long-range solid-fuel Kheibar Shekan missiles to target the shelters housing the warplanes.

The IRGC added that, in total, 21 targets at American air and naval bases across the region were hit throughout the reprisal.

Army reports drone strikes

Additionally, the Iranian Army’s Public Relations Office said that, as part of operations aimed at countering the “hostile acts and harassment of the terrorist American army” against residents of southern Iran, the Army launched waves of drone operations against American bases and the radar systems of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

IRGC says operations continue

The IRGC also described the Islamic Republic’s response to enemy aggression as ongoing amid reports that the American attacks were followed by additional blasts in Jask.

It added that, should the United States continue its actions, “heavier responses are on the way.”

Shortly after the latter comments, local sources reported more strikes against American outposts in Bahrain and Kuwait.

Joint command issues warning

Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, which coordinates the IRGC’s and the Army’s operations, described the overall counterstrikes as a “powerful [retaliatory] assault.”

The headquarters likewise warned that if the United States repeated any aggression against the Islamic Republic, “heavier and more extensive strikes” would be carried out against a predetermined list of targets across the region.

Iranian officials and military forces have denied any role in the helicopter crash, which was used by Washington to try to justify the attacks on Hormozgan.

They have sternly warned that any act of aggression against the country would not go without an answer.

June 9, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on Iran launches concerted retaliatory strikes against American military targets after fresh US aggression

The Possibility Of Bari Weiss Being Installed As Head Of CNN Is Part Of Israel’s Information War

The Dissident | June 9, 2026

Axios has reported that if David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance deal to absorb Warner Bros. Discovery, the parent company of CNN goes through, Zionist genocide denier Bari Weiss, the current editor of CBS News, may now be installed as editor-in-chief of CNN as well.

The report noted that “Paramount has held preliminary conversations with several candidates for a business-side counterpart to CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, according to two sources familiar with the network’s inner workings”, adding, “The search implies that if Paramount Skydance’s deal with Warner Bros. Discovery goes through, Weiss would oversee all news editorial across both CBS News and CNN. Her potential counterpart would manage business operations across both companies.”

For context, David Ellison’s production company Skydance previously bought Paramount, the parent company of CBS News.

David Ellison, according to the Jerusalem Post, “quietly donates quite a bit to the State of Israel and the IDF”.

His father, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, is the largest private donor to the Israeli IDF and is close with Benjamin Netanyahu.

David Ellison bought Skydance primarily to turn CBS News into a propaganda organ for the Israeli government.

He installed Bari Weiss- a self-described Zionist fanatic and open Israeli propagandist who has published outright genocide denial articles at her outlet The Free Press, denying well-documented Israeli atrocities in Gaza.

Weiss also ran a smear campaign on the Palestinian academic Reefat Alareer to silence his countering of Israeli atrocity propaganda, which led to the IDF labelling him an “Amalekite” and slaughtering him along with multiple family members.

At CBS News, Bari Weiss fired any reporter who has said anything remotely critical of Israel and promoted committed Zionists into high-level positions.

Having Bari Weiss turn CBS News, and now likely CNN, into full-on state media outlets for Israel is just part of Israel’s larger information war on America.

Benjamin Netanyahu himself boasted that Larry Ellison’s Oracle purchasing a large share of TikTok was part of Israel’s information war campaign, boasting, “We’re going to have to use the tools of battle, the weapons change over time, we have to fight with the weapons that apply to the battlefields in which we are engaged, and the most important ones are the social media” in reference to the purchase of TikTok.

Benjamin Netanyahu also boasted about using Elon Musk to manipulate the X algorithm in his favour, saying, “the other one that’s most important is X, we have to talk to Elon, he’s not an enemy, he’s a friend, we should talk to him”.

Aside from using Zionist billionaires like David and Larry Ellison to further its agenda, Israel is simultaneously directly funding PR firms to push pro-Israel propaganda on Americans.

As I reported in my last article , Israel has hired Havas Media Germany, a subsidiary of the marketing company Havas, to hire the production company Piro Inc. to produce Zionist propaganda targeting Americans.

Through Havas Media Germany, Israel has similarly:

  • Hired the firm Clock Tower X to distribute pro-Israel messaging through the conservative network Salem Media Network.
  • Hired the firm Show Faith by Works to focus on ‘churches and Christian organisations in the western United States’ aimed at countering ‘declining support for Israel among evangelical Christians
  • Hired the firm SKDKnickerbocker to “develop a ‘bot-based program on various social media channels that ‘floods the zone’ with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ pro-Israel message”.
  • Hired the firm Bridges Partners to “fund social-media influencers promoting Israel”.

With Americans across the political spectrum abandoning support for Israel, Israel – which relies entirely on U.S. funding and arms to maintain its occupation of Palestine – will go into overdrive with its information war targeting Americans.

June 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on The Possibility Of Bari Weiss Being Installed As Head Of CNN Is Part Of Israel’s Information War

US Leads Nuclear Spending Surge as Global Arsenal Costs Hit Record $119 Billion

Sputnik – 09.06.2026

The US heads a record rise in nuclear arsenal spending, accounting alone for $69.2 billion of the $119 billion spent on nuclear arsenals in 2025 by the world’s nine nuclear-armed states, according to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

The total represents a 19% increase from 2024, the highest level since ICAN began tracking spending of Russia, China, the US, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel in 2020.

Other major increases included:

  • China: 7% increase to $13.5 billion
  • United Kingdom: 17% increase to $12.6 billion
  • Russia: 6% increase to $9.5 billion

June 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on US Leads Nuclear Spending Surge as Global Arsenal Costs Hit Record $119 Billion

Congress Moves to Institutionalize US-Israeli Relationship

Israel will benefit enormously and Americans will bear the burden

By Philip Giraldi | Unz Review | June 7, 2026

There is near certainty that Section 224 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2027 will pass through the House of Representatives to become law this coming week after a failed attempt last Thursday in the House Armed Services Committee to pass an amendment to delete it led by Democratic Party Congressman Ro Khanna and Republican Thomas Massie. The NDAA will now be awaiting only the fully expected signature of Israel’s servant President Donald Trump on the Act to become part of the nation’s legislative package that will set the rules and regulations that the nation’s defense will operate under. It will, unfortunately, also set up through Section 224 a “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” that integrates “US-Israeli military research and development, co-production of weapons systems, licensing agreements, AI, directed energy, data integration, and missile defense.” It also creates the framework for “bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and seemingly every manner of US-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation.” The Director of the “Initiative” will be responsible for the coordination of the work and it is already being suggested that he will be an Israeli. And the funding will come 100% from the US Treasury by way of the budgeted allocation of $1.5 trillion that has been requested for the US military in 2027.

The result is to completely connect the functionality of the US military with that of the Israeli military in what has been described as an equal partnership that will include the government of Israel and its Israeli Defense Force as full participants. There will be full intelligence sharing and a planning process that will determine many aspects of how the American Department of War (sic) procures its weapons and equipment and establishes its strategic goals. This is plausibly the hidden story behind why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been slyly suggesting that Israel might in future forego the $3.8 billion in annual automatic “aid” (which some refer to as “tribute”) from the US Treasury, a process begun by President Barack Obama. Netanyahu, working through his accomplices in the White House and the US Congress, clearly would have known in advance that a much larger slice of the pie was on its way via Section 224.

Those politicians who have sponsored and promoted 224 inevitably cite how the Jewish state is a major “ally and best friend” even though it is neither, but they ignore the dark side fact that it is also a genocidal state whose leaders have been condemned by international courts for multiple war crimes that is hated by most of the world. And this hatred has rubbed off on the United States, which is Israel’s principal source of arms, money and political cover. The slaughter in Gaza and now in Lebanon would not occur without the support of Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

And there’s more, coming from the Senate which is doing something similar via the FY27 Intel Authorization bill which will make US intelligence sharing with Israel mandatory. The bill in question is S-4615, introduced on May 20th by leading Israel Firster Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas. The full text is here. S-4615 includes Section 622, entitled “US-Israel intelligence sharing enhancement.” This new section would establish as law (where it would apply forever, unless repealed by Congress) new US national security-related obligations with respect to Israel. It includes a Statement of Policy: “(1) To maintain and strengthen the strategic security partnership with Israel as a means of advancing the national defense of the United States… (2) To enhance intelligence collaboration through robust intelligence sharing and analytic partnership with Israel… (4) To ensure that security assistance and defense cooperation are structured to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge…”

When the Intel Authorization Bill comes up for a vote in the Senate it will no doubt pass due to the Republican Majority supplemented by the usual Israel Firsters among the Democrats. And to complete the takeover by Israel there is a bill moving through Congress that will give US military benefits to American citizens, often Israeli dual nationals, who serve in the Israeli military, to include educational and medical benefits unavailable to other Americans who have not served in the US armed forces. Ironically, Israel’s new status as America’s partner in national security and warfare coming from both parts of Congress is not shared with any of Washington’s actual allies in NATO, making the relationship with Israel both unique and, in the opinion of many, uniquely dangerous as an empowered Israel will inevitably work to advance its security perceptions and Middle East “Eretz Israel” ambitions at the expense of genuine concerns that the United States might have intrinsic to its much broader worldwide exposure to global threats. In other words, pandering to Israeli concerns will actually make the United States much weaker and more vulnerable.

Astonishingly, the danger that Israel poses to US national security through its insertion as something like an equal into the planning process has been little remarked in the mainstream US media, possibly due to increased federal and state government pursuit of “antisemites” which includes criminalization of criticism of Israel. And it is certainly once again suggesting the power of the Israel Lobby, its “bought” media and its stable of supporting Jewish billionaires. But there has been considerable concern being expressed across much of the alternative media, some of which has even reached the front pages, suggesting that there is some leakage going on to feed official reservations about 224. The New York Times, which sometimes serves as a go-to leaked resource for the intelligence and defense communities had an interesting article on Israeli spying on the United States sourced to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which appeared just after 224 was being debated in Congress.

The Times article is entitled “Pentagon Sees Growing Espionage Threat From Israel” and is summarized as “The Defense Department has increased the counterintelligence threat assessment to its highest level, and Israel is believed to have eavesdropped on American negotiations with Iran.” The story details how “Israel is now at the Pentagon’s highest counterintelligence threat level.” It includes how American officers working with their Israeli counterparts both in the US and overseas have had their phones and other messaging systems tapped through the insertion of surreptitious listening devices by the Israelis. Negotiations to end the Iran War have also been particularly targeted, both through phones being used by the negotiators as well as from the Washington end where the calls and messages are received.

The reality is, of course, that Israel has been a major source of spying and even worse against the United States since the 1950s, always ranking in FBI and Department of Defense assessments as one of the top three foreign espionage offenders, frequently as number one. And Israeli clandestine covert actions and false flag attacks have not hesitated to kill Americans as part of their efforts to cover-up their more disreputable activities. Notably, the Israeli false flag attack on the US Navy’s USS Liberty in international waters on June 8th 1967 in which 34 crewmen were killed stands out, particularly due to the subsequent cover-up conveniently arranged by Presidents Lyndon B Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.

Israeli spies, which might have included Netanyahu himself when he resided in the US, arranged the illegal removal of enriched uranium from a Zionist-Jewish-owned metallurgical company in Pennsylvania and also obtained the special triggers in California that enabled Tel Aviv to create a nuclear arsenal. When President John F Kennedy sought to stop that development he was assassinated, quite possibly with help from Mossad. And then there was the most damaging spy in the history of the US, Jonathan Pollard, who stole for Israel the most sensitive intelligence ever obtained by a foreign power. He is now running for the Knesset in Israel and is speaking of the next two likely targets for the Israeli army once the Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians are disposed of, neighbors Egypt and Turkey!

The appearance of the Times article is suspicious and it might have been a shot across the Israeli-Israel Firster bow from the intelligence community coming as it apparently did from what was once called the Department of Defense. But Israel appears to have won this round and will be entering into a new relationship with the United States national security, intelligence and defense systems. Given the utter ruthlessness of Israel and the willingness of its sponsors in Washington to let it get away with mass murder, literally, this is a disaster for the United States and will only produce excruciatingly bad results.

June 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , | Comments Off on Congress Moves to Institutionalize US-Israeli Relationship

Lebanese Parliament speaker demands full Israeli withdrawal as Hezbollah exposes Trump’s false claims

Press TV – June 9, 2026

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri has stated that Lebanon will accept nothing less than a complete and unconditional ceasefire on land, air and sea, strongly reaffirming the Lebanese resistance’s principled and steadfast position against Israeli aggression.

Berri said on Monday night that only after a full ceasefire takes effect will any discussion on the simultaneous withdrawal of the Israeli occupation army from Lebanese soil and Hezbollah forces from areas south of the Litani River begin.

He categorically rejected the Israeli regime’s so-called “test areas” or any piecemeal arrangements.

“What is being called ‘test areas’ is unacceptable to me. We only accept the withdrawal of Israel and the entry of the Lebanese army into the area, simultaneously with the return of all displaced people,” Berri said.

He also underscored Lebanon’s openness to mediation by any country proving the resistance’s flexibility for genuine peace while maintaining its unbreakable red lines against the Israeli aggressor.

Hezbollah slams Trump’s fabricated claims

In a separate development, Hezbollah has delivered a sharp rebuke to US President Donald Trump’s fabricated claims of direct contact with the Lebanese resistance.

Senior Hezbollah official and Deputy Chairman of the Political Council, Mahmoud Qamati, told AFP that no direct communication whatsoever exists between the resistance movement and Trump, dismissing Washington’s narrative as a deliberate distortion aimed at creating a false impression of diplomatic breakthroughs.

Qamati pointed out that messages are routinely passed through official Lebanese channels, particularly via Nabih Berri’s adviser to the US ambassador.

The senior official suggested that Trump may have intentionally mischaracterized indirect diplomatic channels.

Qamati added that Trump’s misleading suggestions of direct contact expose US readiness to bypass and undermine official Lebanese authorities the moment it seeks engagement with the country’s actual influential power brokers.

The denial comes after Trump boasted last week of holding direct talks with Hezbollah “for the first time in history” to discuss halting hostilities.

Trump made the claims immediately after the Israeli regime escalated threats to resume its brutal carpet-bombing of Beirut’s southern suburbs.

Meanwhile, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, in earlier remarks to CNN, acknowledged that a purely military solution will never bring security to the occupied northern settlements and said Lebanon is negotiating a non-aggression agreement with the Zionist entity.

Aoun also stated he would refuse to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu until the war ends.

However, Aoun’s suggestion that Hezbollah should hand over its weapons or negotiate directly with the government has been met with strong criticism from the resistance.

The unified message from Berri and Hezbollah remains loud and clear that no surrender, no partial ceasefires, and no acceptance of any arrangement that falls short of the complete withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from Lebanese territory.

June 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Lebanese Parliament speaker demands full Israeli withdrawal as Hezbollah exposes Trump’s false claims

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »