Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iran unity foils West plans for regime change: Responsible Statecraft

Al Mayadeen | July 1, 2025

Washington is now looking into dividing Iran, with neo-conservative think tanks openly promoting the Balkanization of Iran, a strategy that is bound to destabilize Iran and the region, according to Responsible Statecraft on Tuesday. 

United States foreign policy has a troubling tendency to promote the fragmentation of nations it deems adversarial.

Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their allies in the European Parliament are openly pushing for Iran’s disintegration, a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance not only from Iranians but also from US partners in the region.

Think tanks push for fragmentation based on ethnicity

Amid the war “Israel” waged on Iran in mid-June, FDD analyst Brenda Shaffer posited that Iran’s ethnically diverse population structure presented an exploitable strategic weakness.

According to Responsible Statecraft, Shaffer advocated for the disintegration of Iran along ethnic divisions, drawing parallels to the breakup of Yugoslavia, while concentrating significant efforts on fostering separatist movements in Iranian Azerbaijan, home to Iran’s largest ethnic minority group, the Azeris. However, she consistently failed to acknowledge her ties to the Azeri state oil company SOCAR.

Her position mirrors a recent Jerusalem Post editorial that, during the initial wave of triumphalism following “Israel’s” strikes in this month’s war on Iran, urged Trump to publicly endorse the dismemberment of Iran.

The editorial specifically advocated for forming a “Middle East coalition for Iran’s partition” while proposing “security guarantees for Sunni, Kurdish and Balochi minority regions seeking independence,” in addition to previously endorsing US and Israeli support for the secession of northwestern Iran’s Azeri-majority areas referred to as “South Azerbaijan” from Iran.

Popular uprising or scenarios for regime change?

Meanwhile, a foreign affairs spokesperson representing a centrist liberal faction within the European Parliament organized a discussion forum titled “The Future of Iran,” which while framed as an examination of potential pathways for what they termed a “successful” uprising against the current Iranian government, appeared to focus primarily on scenarios for regime change.

The panel’s composition featured only two Iranian speakers, both ethnic separatists from Azerbaijan and Ahwaz, revealing the organizer’s true agenda: promoting regime change.

Since unilaterally cutting ties with Iran’s official institutions in 2022, the European Parliament has become a platform for fringe exiled groups. These include monarchists, the controversial MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), and ethnic separatists, all of whom now operate with growing visibility in EU political spaces.

Delusions of division

What these think tanks and organizations forget, Responsible Statecraft highlighted, is that Iran is not a fragile country on the brink of collapse; it is a 90-million-strong country with a deep sense of historical and cultural identity.

While the proponents of the Balkanization of Iran focus on the ethnicities in Iran, they underestimate the unifying effect of Iranian nationalism on these diverse groups.

Shervin Malekzadeh, a scholar who recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, observed that academic research overwhelmingly recognizes Iranian politics as fundamentally rooted in a profound, enduring national identity.

This identity transcends the country’s internal ideological divides, which means Iran’s political dynamics unfold within this unifying framework of nationalism, which has shaped all major factions, from monarchists to Islamists to leftists.

Foreign pressure only made Iran more united

Moreover, decades of foreign pressure, sanctions, covert ops, and war have only hardened Iran’s unity, making the separatist approach dangerously naive; this approach, pushed heavily by pro-“Israel” neocons, already failed in Iraq and Syria, leaving chaos instead of victory.

This approach further demonstrates its advocates’ glaring disregard for actual conditions, as seen with Shaffer, a leading proponent of Azerbaijani irredentism, who even applauded Israeli strikes on Tabriz, the cultural and economic center of Iranian Azerbaijan.

Beyond being morally reprehensible, this strategy fundamentally misreads Iran’s domestic realities, with Shaffer and like-minded advocates operating under the flawed assumption that increased external pressure on Tehran would spark rebellions among Azeris and other minority groups against the central government.

Contrary to separatist expectations, “Israel’s” recent attack produced the same rally-around-the-flag effect seen across Iran, demonstrating how deeply Iranian Azerbaijanis are woven into the national fabric, as evidenced by the fact that both the country’s highest officials, Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei and President Massoud Pezeshkian, are of Azeri heritage.

July 1, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Spying on Iran: How MI6 infiltrated the IAEA

Leaked confidential files indicate the IAEA was infiltrated by a veteran British spy who has claimed credit for sanctions on Iran

By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | July 1, 2025

A notorious British MI6 agent infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on London’s behalf, according to leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone. The agent, Nicholas Langman, is a veteran intelligence operative who claims credit for helping engineer the West’s economic war on Iran.

Langman’s identity first surfaced in journalistic accounts of his role in deflecting accusations that British intelligence played a role in the death of Princess Diana. He was later accused by Greek authorities of overseeing the abduction and torture of Pakistani migrants in Athens.

In both cases, UK authorities issued censorship orders forbidding the press from publishing his name. But Greek media, which was under no such obligation, confirmed that Langman was one of the MI6 assets withdrawn from Britain’s embassy in Athens.

The Grayzone discovered the résumé of the journeyman British operative in a trove of leaked papers detailing the activities of Torchlight, a prolific British intelligence cutout. The bio of the longtime MI6 officer reveals he “led large, inter-agency teams to identify and defeat the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology, including by innovative technical means and sanctions.”

In particular, the MI6 agent says he provided “support for the [IAEA] and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] and through high level international partnerships.”

Langman’s CV credits him with playing a major role in organizing the sanctions regime on Iran by “[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy” between 2010 and 2012. He boasts in his bio that this achievement “enabled [the] major diplomatic success of [the] Iranian nuclear and sanctions agreement.”

The influence Langman claimed to have exerted on the IAEA adds weight to Iranian allegations that the international nuclear regulation body colluded with the West and Israel to undermine its sovereignty. The Iranian government has alleged that the IAEA supplied the identities of its top nuclear scientists to Israeli intelligence, enabling their assassinations, and provided critical intelligence to the US and Israel on the nuclear facilities they bombed during their military assault this June.

This June 12, under the direction of its Secretary General Rafael Grossi, the IAEA issued a clearly politicized report recycling questionable past allegations to accuse Iran of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Three days later, Israel attacked the country, assassinating nine nuclear scientists as well as numerous top military officials and hundreds of civilians.

Iranian former Vice President for Strategic Affairs Javad Zarif has since called for the IAEA’s Grossi to be sacked, accusing him of having “abetted the slaughter of innocents in the country.” This June 28, the Iranian government broke ties with the IAEA, refusing to allow its inspectors into the country.

While Iranian officials may have had no idea about the involvement of a shadowy figure like Langman in IAEA business, it would likely come as little surprise to Tehran that the supposedly multilateral agency had been compromised by a Western intelligence agency.

Langman’s name placed under official UK censorship order

In 2016, Langman was named a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George, the same title bestowed on fictional British spy James Bond. By that point, the supposed secret agent held the dubious distinction of being publicly ‘burned’ as an MI6 operative on two separate occasions.

First, in 2001, journalist Stephen Dorril revealed that Langman had arrived in Paris weeks prior to Princess Diana’s fatal car crash in the city on August 31 1997, and was subsequently charged with conducting “information operations” to deflect widespread public speculation British intelligence was responsible for her death.

Then, in 2005, he was formally accused by Greek authorities of complicity in the abduction and torture of 28 Pakistanis in Athens. The Pakistanis, all migrant workers, were suspected of having had contact with individuals accused of perpetrating the 7/7 bombings in London, July 2005.

Brutally beaten and threatened with guns in their mouths, the victims “were convinced their interrogators were British.” When Greek media named Langman as the MI6 operative who oversaw the migrants’ torture, British news outlets universally complied with a government D-notice – an official censorship order – and kept his identity under wraps when reporting on the scandal.

London vehemently denied any British involvement in torturing the migrants, with then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dismissing the charge as “utter nonsense.” In January 2006 though, London admitted MI6 officers were indeed present during the Pakistanis’ torture, although officials insisted the operatives played no active part in their arrests, questioning or abuse.

Following his withdrawal from Athens, Langman returned to London to head the UK Foreign Office’s Iran Department, a shift which highlights his importance to MI6 and suggests the British government had no qualms about his allegedly brutal evidence gathering methods.

Britain’s Foreign Office collaborates closely with MI6, whose agents use it as cover just as the CIA does with State Department diplomatic postings.

MI6’s man on Iran takes credit for “maximum pressure” strategy

While leading the Foreign Office’s Iran Department from 2006 – 2008, Langman oversaw a team seeking to “develop understanding” of the Iranian government’s “nuclear program.”

It’s unclear exactly what that “understanding” entailed. But the document makes clear that Langman then “generated confidence” in that assessment among “European, US and Middle Eastern agencies” in order to “delay programme [sic] and pressurise Iran to negotiate.” The reference to “Middle Eastern agencies” strongly implied MI6 cooperation with Israel’s Mossad intelligence services.

In April 2006, Tehran announced it had successfully enriched uranium for the first time, although officials denied any intention to do so for military purposes. This development may have triggered Langman’s intervention.

The Islamic Republic has rejected any suggestion it harbors ambitions to possess nuclear weapons. Its denials were corroborated by a November 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate expressing “high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted” any and all research into nuclear weapons. This assessment remained unchanged for several years, and was reportedly shared by the Mossad, despite Benjamin Netanyhau’s constant declarations that Iran was on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon.

Langman’s IAEA support work overlaps with Iran sanctions blitz

International governmental attitudes towards Iran changed abruptly between 2010 and ‘12. During this period, Western states and intergovernmental institutions initiated an array of harshly punitive measures against the country, while Israel ramped up its deadly covert operations against Iran’s nuclear scientists.

This period precisely overlapped with Langman’s tenure at the Counter-Proliferation Centre of the UK Foreign Office. His bio implies he used this position to influence the IAEA and other UN-affiliated organizations to foment a campaign of global hostility towards Iran.

In June 2010, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1929, which froze the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ assets, and banned overseas financial institutions from opening offices in Tehran. A month later, the Obama administration adopted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. This set off a global chain of copycat sanctions by Washington’s vassals, who often imposed even more stringent measures than those levied by the UN and US.

In March 2012, the EU voted unanimously to cut Iranian banks out of the SWIFT international banking network. That October, the bloc imposed the harshest sanctions to date, restricting trade, financial services, energy and technology, along with bans on the provision of insurance to Iranian companies by European firms.

BBC reporting on the sanctions acknowledged European officials merely suspected Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but lacked concrete proof. And behind the scenes, the MI6 operative Langman was claiming credit for helping legitimize the allegations against Iran.

Nuclear agreement lays foundations for war

Following the Western-led campaign isolation of Iran from 2010 – 2012, over its purported nuclear weapon program, the Obama administration negotiated a July 2015 agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Under the JCPOA’s terms, the Islamic Republic agreed to limit its nuclear research activities in return for sanctions relief. In the years that followed, the IAEA was granted virtually unlimited access to Tehran’s nuclear complexes, ostensibly to ensure the facilities were not used to develop nuclear weapons.

Along the way, IAEA inspectors collected vast amounts of information on the sites, including surveillance camera photos, measurement data, and documents. The Iranian government has since accused the Agency of furnishing the top secret profiles of its nuclear scientists to Israel. These include the godfather of Iran’s nuclear program, Mohsen Fakrizadeh, who was first publicly named in a menacing 2019 powerpoint presentation by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The following year, the Mossad assassinated Fakrizadeh in broad daylight with a remote-controlled machine gun.

Internal IAEA documents leaked this June indicated that IAEA Secretary General Rafael Grossi has enjoyed a much closer relationship with Israeli officials than was previously known, and suggested he leveraged his cozy ties with Tel Aviv to secure his current position.

During a June 24 interview with Fox News’ war-crazed anchor Martha MacCallum, Grossi did not deny making the inflammatory claim that “900 pounds of potentially enriched uranium was taken to an ancient site near Isfahan.” Instead the IAEA director asserted, “We do not have any information on the whereabouts of this material.”

Well before Grossi rose to the top of the IAEA with Western and Israeli backing, the agency appears to have been penetrated by a British intelligence agent who took responsibility in his bio for engineering the West’s economic attack on Iran.

The IAEA has not responded to an email from The Grayzone seeking clarification on its relationship with Langman and the MI6.

July 1, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , | Leave a comment

Tehran emerges stronger as Netanyahu’s Iran war backfires: FP

Al Mayadeen | July 1, 2025

In a scathing analysis of the recent 12-day Israeli war on Iran published by Foreign Policy (FP) on Tuesday,  a senior nonresident fellow at the Center for International Policy, Sina Toossi, argues that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s high-stakes offensive not only failed to achieve its strategic aims but also significantly undermined “Israel’s” long-term deterrence. The war ended swiftly, leaving behind no decisive victory.

The operation began with a wave of covert actions, decades of intelligence work culminating in drones assembled inside Iran, sleeper cells launching bombings, and high-profile assassinations. These were soon followed by a series of conventional airstrikes on military and nuclear sites, including Natanz and Fordow. But as Toossi notes, the campaign extended far beyond strategic targets: residential areas, prisons, media offices, and police stations were also struck, indicating a broader attempt to incite chaos and unrest.

According to the FP, the human cost was staggering. At least 610 Iranians were killed, including 49 women, 13 children, and five healthcare workers, with nearly 5,000 more injured. Medical facilities and emergency services were also hit. In response, Iranian missile and drone strikes on “Israel” killed at least 28 settlers, injured over 3,200, and displaced more than 9,000. Public infrastructure and buildings sustained extensive damage.

War on Iran fell far short of its objectives

Despite Netanyahu’s declared intention to cripple Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities, Toossi argues the campaign fell far short of its objectives. Iran’s retaliation was swift and calculated, targeting Israeli settlements and strategic assets, reported FP. After the United States joined by bombing Iranian nuclear sites, Tehran escalated further, striking the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, a move that drew Washington deeper into the war.

Just 12 days after “Israel’s” initial strikes, a cease-fire was reached under undisclosed terms, leaving the regional balance precariously unresolved.

While “Israel” managed to inflict tactical damage on Iranian command and scientific infrastructure, Toossi stresses that strategic outcomes are what truly matter, and by that measure, the war was a failure.

Iran’s nuclear infrastructure appears largely intact. Intelligence reports suggest sensitive materials may have been moved ahead of the attacks. Moreover, Iran had already initiated construction of a fortified, undisclosed enrichment facility, possibly untouched.

The aftermath of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities 

In a critical shift, Iran’s parliament passed a bill to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency just days after the cease-fire. One Iranian lawmaker stated, “Why was our nuclear facility attacked, and you remained silent? Why did you give the green light for these actions?”

As Toossi warns, by attacking nuclear sites while demanding oversight, the US and “Israel” may have inadvertently legitimized the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent.

The FP argues that its ballistic arsenal successfully pierced both Israeli and US air defenses, targeting refineries, military bases, and research centers. Though censorship in “Israel” limited public data, over 41,000 compensation claims were reportedly filed due to war damage. Meanwhile, “Israel” expended an estimated $500 million worth of US-supplied THAAD missile interceptors.

A ceasefire was necessary to ‘save Israel’

Economic disruption was also severe. Ben Gurion Airport was shut down, financial activity slowed, and capital outflows surged. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon bluntly stated that the ceasefire was necessary to “save Israel,” while Donald Trump admitted that “Israel” had been hit “very hard.”

In a revealing statement, Trump also announced that China would be permitted to buy Iranian oil to help Iran “get back into shape.”

That said, Toossi highlights how Iran’s retaliatory strategy was calibrated and symbolic. After an Israeli drone strike on an Iranian refinery, Iran responded by hitting a refinery in Haifa. After “Israel” attacked suspected nuclear research centers, Iran struck the Weizmann Institute of Science near Tel Aviv, long believed to be part of “Israel’s” nuclear research apparatus. These strikes demonstrated Tehran’s capacity for restrained but potent retaliation.

On the domestic front, instead of sparking internal collapse, the war triggered a surge of national unity across Iran. As Toossi observes, the strikes unified a polarized society in resistance to foreign aggression. Civil society, from Gen Z activists to artists and athletes, mobilized in solidarity. Citizens opened their homes to the displaced, and the indiscriminate loss of civilian life only deepened collective resilience.

Crucially, this war erupted just as Iran was re-engaging in nuclear negotiations with the Trump administration. Many Iranians had pinned hopes on the election of reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian and his promise of diplomacy and economic reform. Instead, they watched their country being bombed during peace efforts.

Netanyahu’s war boosts Iran’s unity and deterrence

Toossi contends that the long-standing belief in Washington that Iran’s government is one blow away from collapse has now been discredited. Far from eliminating the threat posed by Iran, Netanyahu’s war has exposed “Israel’s” vulnerabilities and rallied Iranian nationalism, the author stressed.

In a paradoxical outcome, the war may enhance Iran’s diplomatic leverage. Trump and his envoy Steve Witkoff continue to insist that Tehran must abandon uranium enrichment, yet Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, have reaffirmed: “Iran will never give up this right.” Meanwhile, Trump has floated lifting sanctions and allowing Chinese oil purchases as part of “great progress” toward de-escalation.

July 1, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

“Smart War” and State Terrorism

By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | July 1, 2025

On June 16, 2025, President Donald Trump threatened the 10 million inhabitants of Tehran, Iran, with death, for their government’s alleged nuclear aspirations.

The message was posted to the president’s Truth Social account, shared on X/Twitter, and then picked up by all major mass media outlets, making it common knowledge to everyone on the planet that Trump was preparing to join Israel’s war on Iran.

On June 17, 2025, President Trump directly threatened Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei with assassination.

Sometimes crazy people issue vague threats which they have no power to follow through on. Such persons are best avoided and ignored. In order to be effective, death threats must be credible, otherwise there is no fear generated in the persons being addressed, for they recognize that they are dealing with no more and no less than a feckless buffoon. Whatever one may think of President Trump, his menacing social media posts are credible threats, given his official role as commander-in-chief with the power to unleash formidable military might on the people of the world. In case anyone did not already know this, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reminded the press corps on June 20, 2025, that “Iran and the entire world should know that the United States military is the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world, and we have capabilities that no other country on this planet possesses.”

Trump’s warning to the entire population of Tehran that they should all evacuate the city was a fortiori a credible threat, given the U.S. government’s wide-ranging “War on Terror,” during which both Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded and occupied. Several other countries were subjected to thousands of missile strikes “outside areas of active hostilities,” that is, where there were no U.S. troops present and thus no force-protection pretext for the use of state-inflicted homicide.

Verbal threats of the use of deadly force by a president often culminate in military action because the commander may be easily persuaded by his advisors to believe that he (and the nation) will lose credibility if he fails to follow through on his words, which, he is told, would be a sign of weakness. Predictably enough, then, on June 22, 2025, President Trump delivered on his threat to bomb Iran, although he claimed to have struck only three specific sites: Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. It was at these sites where nuclear enrichment and the development of nuclear arms were allegedly underway. The Trump administration’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reported to members of congress in March 2025: “The [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”

On June 17, 2025, when a journalist reminded Trump of Director Gabbard’s assessment, the president bluntly blurted out, “I don’t care what she said.” It has become increasingly obvious that Trump’s foreign policy in the Middle East is primarily informed not by his own cabinet but by the intelligence services of Israel, above all, Mossad.

For anyone unfamiliar with the modus operandi and general demeanor of Mossad, I recommend the films Munich (2005), The Gatekeepers (2012), and The Operative (2020).

That Trump has been decisively influenced by the government of Israel was further evidenced by his direct threat against Supreme Leader Khamenei and the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been calling for regime change in Iran for decades.

On June 20, 2025, two days before Trump’s missile strikes on Iran, Director Gabbard did an about-face, insisting that her earlier testimony before congress had been misrepresented and ignored her finding that Iran had been enriching uranium:

Gabbard’s retraction, or creative reinterpretation, of her former testimony bears similarities to the case of Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell, who initially opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and then for reasons which remain unclear suddenly became one of the mission’s most ardent supporters. In Powell’s case, he went even so far as to present the case for war to a less-than-enthusiastic United Nations Security Council. After a colorful Powerpoint presentation featuring an array of ersatz evidence—ranging from speculation about Iraq’s aluminum test tubes, to a receipt for “yellow cake” purchase, to photos of what were claimed to be mobile chemical labs—Powell recognized that he did not have the votes needed to secure U.N. approval and so abruptly withdrew the war resolution. The United States then proceeded to invade Iraq unimpeded, claiming, among other things, that the 2003 military intervention was legal because of previous U.N. resolutions violated by President Saddam Hussein. In other words, after having sought U.N. approval, the U.S. government suddenly denied that it needed such approval before invading Iraq anyway.

Unlike George W. Bush, when Donald Trump bombed Iran “at a time of his choosing,” as they say, he did not have the support of the U.S. congress. Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Trump all depended on the Bush-era AUMFs as they continued to lob missiles on several countries beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, including Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, et al. But the carte blanche AUMFs granted to Bush in 2001 and 2002 had nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict between Israel and Iran. Neocons naturally devise all manner of interpretive epicyclic curlicues to arrive at the conclusion that Iran is in fact “fair game” for bombing. As stated and ratified, however, the AUMFs granted by congress to George W. Bush were intended to facilitate the U.S. president’s quest to bring justice to the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 crimes.

Lest anyone forget, President Trump was not unique among twenty-first century presidents in bombing countries whose residents had nothing to do with the shocking demolition of the World Trade Center. President Obama effected a regime change in Libya without securing the support of congress because, he claimed, it was not really a war, since he was not deploying any ground troops. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did her part to persuade Obama that “Gaddafi must go!” She later characterized the Libya intervention as a shining example of “smart power at its best,” even though a few U.S. State Department officials, including the ambassador to Libya, Christopher Steele, were killed in the post-bombing mêlée. Today, Libya is essentially a failed state. Obama himself has confessed that the biggest regret and worst mistake of his presidency (reported in The Guardian) was not having a plan for the aftermath of his supposedly “humanitarian” intervention, which he enlisted NATO to carry out.

In the immediate aftermath of the June 22, 2025 missile strikes, Trump officials followed the Obama administration’s Libya playbook in insisting that his attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was not the beginning of a long, protracted engagement in Iran. This was meant to draw contrast with the unpopular multi-decade wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ignoring Trump’s threat to the residents of Tehran, Vice President J.D. Vance and others recited the Obama administration refrain that the mission was “not a war” with Iran. As Vance explained, the limited missile strikes were carried out only in order to dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to the government of Iran, a total of 610 people were killed and thousands more injured by the bombs of the U.S. and Israeli governments. However, none of the persons who perished were Americans.

Availing himself of the Obama-era “smart war” trope, Vice President Vance also observed that Trump’s preemptive military strikes differed from those of his predecessors because, unlike Trump, the previous presidents were “dumb”. Oliver Stone produced a film, W (2008), which persuasively portrays Bush as a half-wit, but no one ever suggested that Vice President Dick Cheney or the cadre of other war profiteers and neocons who coaxed Bush into preemptively attacking Iraq were stupid.

In any case, by now, the U.S. government has directly massacred so many thousands of people (and millions indirectly) in so many different countries, often located outside areas of active hostility (war zones or lands under occupation), that the citizenry has become largely inured to it all. Tragically, over the course of the twenty-first century, we have witnessed an apparently permanent paradigm shift to the profligate state use of homicide to terrorize and kill anyone anywhere deemed dangerous or even suspicious by U.S. officials or their contracted analysts. This radical paradigm shift was made possible by a new technology: the weaponized drone, which began to be used by the Bush administration first under a pretext of force protection in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush team effectively initiated the Drone Age by firing a missile on a group of terrorist suspects driving down a road in Yemen on November 3, 2002.

As the Global War on Terror stretched on and angry jihadists began to proliferate and spread throughout the region, President Obama assumed the drone warrior mantel with alacrity, opting to kill rather than capture thousands of suspected terrorists outside areas of active hostilities. In his enthusiasm for drone killing, Obama went even so far as to intentionally and premeditatedly hunt down and kill U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki (located in Yemen at the time, in 2011), without indicting him, much less allowing him to stand trial, for his alleged crimes.

Following the Obama precedent, in 2015, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron opted to execute British nationals Ruhul Amin and Reyaad Khan, who were suspected of complicity in terrorism, after they had fled from the U.K. to Syria, and despite the fact that the parliament had rejected Cameron’s call for war on Syria. Cameron’s missile strikes against British citizens located abroad was all the more surprising because capital punishment is illegal in the U.K. as well as the European Union, of which Britain was a member at that time.

One state-perpetrated assassination leads to another, and on January 3, 2020, President Trump authorized the targeted killing via drone strike of a top Iranian commander, Qassem Soleimani, who was in Baghdad on a diplomatic mission at the time. Trump openly proclaimed, and indeed bragged, that the homicide, which he authorized, was intentional and premeditated. According to the president, Soleimani was responsible for past and future attacks against both Israel and the United States. The summary execution of a specific, named individual would have been considered an illegal act of assassination in centuries past but today is accepted by many as an “act of war” for the sophomoric reason that it is carried out by a military strike rather than undercover spies armed with poisons or garrottes.

In view of Trump’s unabashed, vaunted, assassination of Soleimani, and his full-throated support of Netanyahu, the threat to liquidate Supreme Leader Khamenei was just as credible as the “evacuation order” to the entire population of Tehran. Leaders today exult over their use of cutting-edge technology to eliminate specific, named individuals, as though summarily executing the victims were obviously permissible, given that targeted killing is now regarded by governments the world over as one of the military’s standard operating procedures. Such unlawful actions were fully normalized as a tool of “smart war” during the eight-year Obama presidency.

Shortly after Trump officials went out on the media circuit to insist that the bombing of Iran’s alleged nuclear production facilities was not the initiation of a U.S.-Iran war, Trump took to social media again, this time to suggest that his administration’s ultimate goal might really be regime change:

Less than one day later, the new official narrative became that Trump had masterfully brought the “twelve-day war” to a miraculous close, thanks to his superlative deal-making capabilities.

All of this would be risible, if not for the fact that many millions of persons in Iran continue to live under a persistent threat of death, given the wildly unpredictable comportment of President Trump, seemingly exacerbated by his longstanding commitment to stand by Israel, regardless of how outrageously Netanyahu behaves. The more and more daring acts of assassination perpetrated by the government of Israel clearly illustrate where state-perpetrated homicide and its attendant terrorist effects under a specious guise of “smart war” eventually lead.

Targeting named terrorist suspects allegedly responsible for previous crimes swiftly expanded to include signature strikes against groups of unarmed persons designated potentially dangerous and located anywhere in the world—in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, or anywhere else they please. The Israeli government has even deployed exploding cellphones and car bombs, the latter of which was once a tactic primarily deployed by dissident anti-government groups and crime syndicates. The repeated use by the Israeli government of car bombs to kill research scientists illuminates the slippery slope from missile strikes outside areas of active hostilities to what are empirically indistinguishable from Mafia hits. Car bombs have long been used by the Mafia and other nongovernmental organized crime groups, but the Israeli government openly perpetrates the very same acts under cover of “national self defense”.

Washington’s normalization of assassinations has emboldened leaders such as Netanyahu, who today conducts himself according to the principle “everything is permitted” in the name of the sacrosanct State. Witness what has been going on in Gaza since October 7, 2023: terrorism, torture, starvation, and summary execution. All of this is being condoned by every leader in the world who continues to voice support for, or even aids and abets, Netanyahu’s mass slaughter. This support for mass slaughter is provided ostensibly under the assumption that the perpetrators are doing no more and no less than defending the State of Israel.

Following the examples of U.S. Presidents Trump and Obama, and UK Prime Minister Cameron, all of whom publicly vaunted their assassination prowess, Prime Minister Netanyahu, having apparently recognized that the implement of homicide is in fact morally irrelevant, openly and brazenly executes persons determined by Mossad to be dangerous, with no concern for the thousands of innocent persons’ lives ruined along the way. In Operation Red Wedding, the Israeli government claimed to have dispatched, in a matter of minutes, thirty senior officials associated with the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) including military chiefs and top commanders located throughout Iran at the opening of the June 2025 “Twelve-Day War.” The operation was praised by the pro-Israel media as featuring “bespoke” acts of targeted killing made possible by “pattern of life” intelligence.

Drone assassination, successfully marketed by the Obama team as “smart war,” smoothed the way to the uncritical acceptance by many citizens of the reprobate expansion of state killing to include acts historically committed by members of nongovernmental organized crime. Looking back, the rebranding by U.S. officials of political assassination as an act of war, provided only that the implement of death is a missile, was a slick and largely successful way of persuading U.S. citizens to believe that extrajudicial, state-inflicted homicide abroad is an acceptable means to conflict resolution. Even though it bypasses all of the republican procedures forged over millennia, including judicial means, for reconciling the rival claims of adversaries.

In the maelstrom of the twenty-first-century wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, assassination was labeled targeted killing and successfully sold to politicians as “smart war,” a surgically precise way to defeat the enemy without sacrificing combatant troops. Whichever label is used, assassination or targeted killing, acts of summary execution by governments involve the intentional, premeditated elimination of persons suspected to be possibly dangerous, a criterion so vague as to permit the targeting of virtually any able-bodied person who happens to be located in a place where terrorists are thought to reside.

There are three differences between “targeted killing” carried out by drone warriors and assassination. First, the weapon being used is a missile. Second, drone operators wear uniforms, while undercover assassins and hitmen do not. Third, far from being “surgically precise,” drone warfare increases the slaughter of innocent bystanders in their own civil societies, which is facilely dismissed as the “collateral damage” of war. In this way, the advent of lethal drones and their use outside areas of active hostility has served to terrorize entire populations forced to endure the hovering above their heads of machines which may—or may not—emit missiles at any given time on any given day.

Credible death threats to heads of state and evacuation orders issued to millions of people not only terrorize the persons being addressed, but also undermine the security of the citizens of the United States. The populace will bear the brunt of the blowback caused by such reckless behavior on the part of officials who operate with effective impunity and are ignorant of or oblivious to the nation’s republican origins. By launching preemptive missile strikes, the Pentagon does not protect but sabotages the interests and well-being of not only U.S. citizens but also the citizens of the world.

Nonetheless, many U.S. politicians and members of the populace, along with heads of state such as Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, et al., having been thoroughly seduced by the “smart war” marketing line, appear to have no problem whatsoever with the tyrannical and arguably deranged death threats of the U.S. president. They have become altogether habituated to the assassination of persons now regarded as a standard operating procedure of war. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen effectively condoned Trump’s behavior by issuing this statement in the aftermath of the June 22, 2025 U.S. missile strikes against Iran: “Iran must never acquire the bomb.”

If terrorism is the arbitrary killing of or threat of death against innocent persons, then there can be no further doubt that the largest state sponsor and perpetrator of terrorism in the twenty-first century is in fact the U.S. government. President Trump inherited from President Obama and his mentor, drone-killing czar John Brennan (appointed by Obama as CIA director in 2013), the capacity to terrorize entire civilian populations and execute individuals at his caprice. No less than every drone strike launched in the vicinity of civilian populations beyond war zones, Trump’s completely unhinged threat to a group of people with nowhere to seek refuge, and no way of knowing whether the U.S. president is issuing a serious warning or simply bluffing, attempting some sort of perverse ploy to bring Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei back to the negotiation table (where he was, before Israel began bombing Iran), was an act of terrorism.

It is not “smart” to terrorize millions of human beings in the name of preventing terrorism. It is a contradiction, pure and simple.

Laurie Calhoun is a Senior Fellow for The Libertarian Institute. She is the author of Questioning the COVID Company Line: Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times,We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, War and Delusion: A Critical Examination, Theodicy: A Metaphilosophical Investigation, You Can Leave, Laminated Souls, and Philosophy Unmasked: A Skeptic’s Critique. In 2015, she began traveling around the world while writing. In 2020, she returned to the United States, where she remained until 2023 as a result of the COVID-19 travel restrictions imposed by governments nearly everywhere.

July 1, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel kills more Palestinian journalists in Gaza

Press TV – June 30, 2025

Israel continues to target Palestinian journalists covering the regime’s atrocities in Gaza, killing a number of them in Gaza City.

“Several Palestinian journalists were killed and others injured in an Israeli airstrike targeting al-Baqa Café in western Gaza City, where they had been working to upload news reports,” Rami Abdu, the founder of Chairman of Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, said in a tweet on Monday.

Medical sources said at least 33 people were killed and dozens of others injured in the attack.

Most of the victims were “journalists, artists, and social media activists”, as the place is one of the few remaining internet access points in the strip,” Abdu added, amid internet blackout.

“It’s increasingly clear that Israel is deliberately targeting data upload hubs used by journalists to transmit reports and images.”

Among the victims was Ismail Abu Hatab, a photojournalist who worked with several media platforms and various outlets, Gaza’s Government Media Office said on Telegram.

The office “condemned in the strongest terms the systematic targeting, killing, and assassination of Palestinian journalists by the Israeli occupation”.

Since this morning, hospital sources said at least 80 people have been killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza.

Sources told Al-Jazeera that those killed include 57 Palestinians in northern Gaza, and 15 aid seekers near the so-called aid distribution centers north of the southern city of Rafah.

Israel launched the campaign of genocide in Gaza on October 7, 2023. It has killed over 56,530 Palestinians there so far, according to the health ministry of Gaza.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Pakistan won’t remain silent if US, Israel target Ayatollah Khamenei: Senator

Press TV – June 30, 2025

A Pakistani senator has condemned a threat by the US and Israel to target Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, saying it will trigger a response from all Muslim nations, including Pakistan.

Allama Raja Nasir Abbas Jafari, a member of the Pakistani Senate, described Ayatollah Khamenei as a religious leader and a Marja (religious authority), who is also a political leader.

Religious authorities issued a fatwa (religious decree) that says anyone who threatens the Leader is an enemy of God, whose punishment is death in Islam, he noted.

Between June 13 and 24, Israel waged a blatant and unprovoked aggression against Iran, assassinating many high-ranking military commanders, nuclear scientists, and ordinary civilians.

On June 22, the United States also jumped on the bandwagon and bombed three Iranian nuclear sites in a grave violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

During the 12-day war, US President Donald Trump claimed that Ayatollah Khamenei was “an easy target.”

Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel also ranted that the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei would “end” the war.

The Pakistani senator said Trump and Netanyahu should know that if an attack is carried out, it will not just be an attack on Iran, and all Muslims in the world will respond to it.

“We will respond in Pakistan as well; if such an action is taken, no American will remain in Pakistan. We will not remain silent when they (Trump and Netanyahu) do not abide by any law,” he added.

On Sunday, senior Iranian clerics Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi and Grand Ayatollah Hossein Nouri-Hamedani issued religious decrees against any attack or threat to Ayatollah Khamenei.

They said that any person or regime that threatens or attacks the leadership and religious authority to harm the Islamic Ummah and its sovereignty is subject to the ruling of confrontation.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Agent of Chaos: Lindsey Graham’s Power Depends on War

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 30.06.2025

Hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham got President Donald Trump to strike Iran, according to the Wall Street Journal. What’s he gaining from the Middle East war?

Darling of Jewish Lobby

  • The Republican Jewish Coalition was Graham’s top donor in his 2020 re-election, giving $111,000 (OpenSecrets).
  • Over $1 million more came via RJC, according to RJC’s executive director Matt Brooks.
  • Brooks: “There is nobody more important in the US Senate” for the US-Israel partnership.
  • He raised $109 million in total.

RJC: Longtime Supporter of Graham

  • RJC leaders Larry Mizel and Sam Fox backed Graham’s 2014 re-election.
  • Fox gave $50,000 and Mizel $100,000 to his super PAC, West Main Street Values.
  • RJC board member Sheldon Adelson co-hosted a fundraiser for Graham’s 2016 presidential bid.

AIPAC is Another Backer

  • Graham major backer, billionaire Mizel, also sits on AIPAC’s board — the top pro-Israel lobby in the US.
  • Haaretz calls Mizel a key booster of pro-Israel Republicans who opens doors in Israel’s power circles for GOP politicians.

More Wars – More Defense Contractors Backing

  • Lockheed Martin gave Graham $102,000 in 2020, according to OpenSecrets
  • Boeing added $80,700 in 2024.
  • The Intercept notes most cash comes from defense-linked individual donors — like Humvee mogul Ron Perelman, who gave $500,000 to Graham’s 2016 run.

Graham’s 2026 Senate Bid at Stake

  • Graham’s hawkish Iran stance apparently ties to his 2026 ambitions – he needs big donor cash.
  • RJC backs him as “one of the strongest advocates for the US Jewish community.”
  • Defense firms will pay too—if he keeps the bombs dropping.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Can international institutions be reformed?

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 30, 2025

It appears that Israel and Iran have postponed World War III and, for now, seem to adhere to the ceasefire negotiated by Donald Trump (likely with the help of other countries). But even if the “12-Day War” has stopped and missiles are no longer flying back and forth, doubts remain about the fate of Iran’s nuclear program.

The U.S. government insists that Iran’s nuclear program no longer exists, while Iran maintains that its nuclear program is still operational. All signs indicate that the Iranians are correct and that the U.S. is once again constructing a purely simulated parallel reality for the sake of narrative power projection.

But the main issue is not this—it is, in fact, something few have mentioned, as recently noted by Sergey Lavrov: the role of Rafael Grossi and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The IAEA was founded in 1957 as an “autonomous” agency—though linked to the UN—with the goal of monitoring nations’ use of nuclear energy to promote peaceful applications and prevent the construction of nuclear weapons. In this capacity, IAEA teams visit nuclear power plants, research centers, and other facilities related to national nuclear programs to conduct safety checks and oversee enrichment levels.

However, it is important to note that despite its claims of “autonomy,” the IAEA was established at the insistence of the U.S., shortly after the abandonment of the post-WWII “utopian” idea of keeping nuclear weapons under the exclusive control of the UN. The institution has always been closer to the interests of the Western Bloc than to those of the Eastern Bloc or the Non-Aligned Movement.

That said, in the past, the IAEA did challenge U.S. claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, under the leadership of Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei.

But even during ElBaradei’s tenure, there were signs of a shift toward Western alignment. In writings from that period, ElBaradei advocated for a revival of the utopian, globalist vision of nuclear energy monopolized by a “multinational” agency—much like the various Western agencies controlled or influenced by the U.S. ElBaradei himself became a collaborator with the U.S. after his term ended, participating in the color revolution orchestrated in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak.

It was only during Yukiya Amano’s leadership that the IAEA’s collaboration with the U.S. became evident, thanks to WikiLeaks revelations. According to documents obtained by Julian Assange, in a meeting between Amano and U.S. diplomats, Amano explicitly stated that he was aligned with the U.S. regarding staffing decisions and the stance to be taken on Iran’s nuclear program. This, of course, meant that Amano filled the IAEA with U.S. collaborators. He was later accused by IAEA staff themselves of having a pro-Western bias.

This context helps explain the behavior of Rafael Grossi, Amano’s successor.

Fast-forward to June: Grossi prepared a report accusing Iran of failing to meet its obligations to the IAEA and scheduled a board meeting for the same day Trump’s 60-day ultimatum on negotiations with Iran expired. According to CNN, the U.S. contacted several board members to persuade them to vote in favor of Grossi’s resolution. The purpose was to lend an institutional veneer of legitimacy to Israel’s attacks against Iran.

Grossi’s report was entirely based on information provided by Mossad, which alleged the existence of previously unknown nuclear facilities containing traces of enriched uranium.

All evidence suggests that Grossi was aware of the imminent attack and collaborated in creating a pretext to justify Israel’s actions. This is further corroborated by the fact that Grossi has never once turned his attention to Israel’s nuclear program, which remains entirely opaque, free from any international inspections.

In light of these revelations, it is alarming that, as Grossi told the Financial Times earlier this year, he intends to run for UN Secretary-General. Given his track record, it is plausible that he will have U.S. backing, which would greatly aid his candidacy.

Cases like this are not isolated. We have seen how the International Criminal Court (ICC) moved to accuse Vladimir Putin and Russia of “kidnapping” Ukrainian children. The World Health Organization (WHO), meanwhile, attempted to override national sovereignty during the pandemic. The IMF is routinely used to deindustrialize Third World countries.

The list could go on.

The key issue, however, is this: Given the current state of international institutions, can they be reformed?

Or will we need to abandon them—as Iran did with the IAEA—and build new ones from scratch?

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran asks UN Security Council to recognize Israel, US as ‘initiators’ of aggression

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi
Press TV – June 29, 2025

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has called on the United Nations Security Council to recognize the Israeli regime and the United States as the “initiators” of the recent 12-day aggression against the Islamic Republic.

“We solemnly request that the Security Council recognize the Israeli regime and the United States as the initiators of the act of aggression and their subsequent responsibility, therefore including compensation and reparation,” Araghchi said in a letter to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres on Sunday.

“The Security Council should also hold the aggressors accountable and prevent the recurrence of such heinous and serious crimes to enable it to maintain international peace and security,” he added.

He emphasized that political and military leaders, who order an act of aggression, “are also individually liable for the international crime of aggression under customary international law.”

The top Iranian diplomat described the act of aggression as a “brazen assault” on the very foundations of international law, warning that tolerating it and its legal consequences seriously undermines the credibility of the United Nations system.

It also “poses a real threat to the rule of law at the international level and engenders lawlessness in the future of international relations in our region as well as the international community at large,” Araghchi pointed out.

In the early hours of June 13, the Israeli regime launched an all-out aggression on Iranian soil by targeting various military and nuclear sites, claiming the lives of dozens of top military commanders and nuclear scientists as well as ordinary civilians.

On June 22, the United States joined the Israeli regime in the assault and bombed three Iranian nuclear sites in a grave violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

A day later, Iran launched a wave of missiles at al-Udeid air base in Qatar—the largest American military base in West Asia—in retaliation for the aggression.

As the Iranian armed forces pounded Israel and its military and industrial infrastructure, using many new-generation missiles that precisely hit the designated targets, the embattled regime was forced to unilaterally declare a truce deal on June 24.

In a letter to the United Nations secretary general and president of the Security Council on June 13, Araghchi said the Israeli regime’s act of aggression against the country amounts to a “declaration of war.”

“These oppressive acts are not only constitute a severe violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran as an independent member of the United Nations, but as per international law and international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, are among acts of aggression and war crimes,” he said back then.

June 29, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

UK arrests 4 in crackdown on Palestine Action over RAF incursion

Al Mayadeen | June 28, 2025

UK counterterrorism authorities have arrested four individuals in connection with a break-in at RAF Brize Norton, reportedly carried out by members of Palestine Action. The incident, which took place last Friday, involved activists entering the Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire and spray painting on two military aircraft in protest against Britain’s support for “Israel” and its ongoing genocide in Gaza.

South East Counter Terrorism Police confirmed the arrests, stating that a 29-year-old woman without a fixed address, along with two men aged 36 and 24, were detained on “terrorism-related grounds”. A fourth suspect, a 41-year-old woman, was arrested on suspicion of “assisting an offender.”

Authorities said the three were being held under suspicion of committing, preparing, or instigating acts of terrorism, as defined under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Government crackdown on pro-Palestine activism

Following the arrests, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced her intention to designate Palestine Action as a proscribed organization under the UK’s Terrorism Act. If implemented, the designation would make it illegal to support, join, or promote the group, an escalation that has drawn concern from human rights advocates and civil liberties organizations.

On the same day, hundreds gathered in Trafalgar Square to express solidarity with the group, warning against the criminalization of activism aimed at opposing the UK’s complicity in supplying weapons to “Israel”.

In response, Palestine Action issued a statement via X, condemning the government’s treatment of the protest. “Despite us not being proscribed, the state is treating red paint on warplanes as an act of terrorism,” the group stated. It further revealed that the arrested activists were being held in solitary confinement without charge for several days.

Authorities moved quickly to suppress related demonstrations, dispersing planned rallies outside Parliament and pushing protesters into Trafalgar Square. Several arrests were made, with the Metropolitan Police citing public order risks. Meanwhile, counter-terrorism police have launched a broader security review across UK military installations.

Wider context

Palestine Action, founded in 2020 by British-Palestinian activist Huda Ammori and co-founder Richard Barnard, is known for its confrontational yet non-lethal tactics aimed at arms companies tied to “Israel’s” military-industrial complex. Previous campaigns have led to the temporary shutdown of Elbit Systems-linked factories in Oldham and Tamworth, as well as disrupted contracts with Israeli weapons suppliers.

Legal experts have raised doubts about whether Palestine Action meets the statutory requirements for proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000, which include posing a real threat to national security or British citizens. Critics argue that the group’s actions, while disruptive, remain rooted in civil disobedience rather than terrorism.

The proposed ban has renewed scrutiny of UK-“Israel” cooperation, with campaigners pointing to past evidence of coordination between British counterterrorism units and the Israeli embassy. Concerns are growing that this measure could set a precedent for further repression of pro-Palestine activism.

Families of detained activists face deepening uncertainty, as support efforts, ranging from legal aid to court appearances, could be criminalized. Foreign nationals involved in the group may also face deportation or visa revocation if the ban is enacted.

June 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Zarif accuses IAEA’s Grossi of aiding war crimes, calls for removal

Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2025

Former Iranian Foreign Minister and ex-Vice President for Strategic Affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, issued a scathing condemnation of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretary-General Rafael Grossi on Friday, accusing him of facilitating war crimes through politically charged actions and rhetoric.

In a statement posted on his official X account, Zarif said Grossi had “abetted the slaughter of innocents” by issuing what he described as a fictitious IAEA report, and warned that the director-general is now laying the groundwork for further crimes against Iran.

Grossi accused of promoting false narratives

Zarif sharply criticized Grossi’s recent suggestion that Iran might be concealing uranium at World Heritage Sites in Isfahan, calling the claim “reckless musing” and part of a broader campaign to provoke further military escalation. “@rafaelmgrossi is now conspiring to abet more war crimes,” Zarif wrote.

The former top diplomat added that the IAEA should remove Grossi from his post, calling him a “disgrace” to the agency and launching the hashtag “#Fire_Grossi” to amplify the demand.

Mounting criticism over IAEA’s politicization 

The remarks add to a growing number of Iranians accusing the IAEA of losing its impartiality and enabling acts of aggression by the Israeli occupation and the United States.

This also comes after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced Friday that the Iranian Parliament had voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until the safety and security of the country’s nuclear infrastructure can be guaranteed.

The decision follows days of mounting tension over the US and the Israeli regime’s attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, which Tehran says were politically facilitated by the IAEA’s leadership. Araghchi directly blamed IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi for contributing to what he called “a sordid state of affairs.”

In a statement published on X, Araghchi accused Grossi of playing a “regrettable role in obfuscating” the fact that the IAEA had closed all past issues with Iran’s nuclear program a decade ago. Instead of upholding that record, Grossi, according to Araghchi, enabled the IAEA Board of Governors to adopt a “politically-motivated resolution” against Iran.

That resolution, Araghchi said, directly set the stage for recent bombings of Iranian nuclear sites by the US and the Israeli occupation.

Iran to defend its sovereignty 

Araghchi condemned Grossi’s silence in the face of these attacks, calling it a “betrayal” of his statutory responsibilities. “In an astounding betrayal of his duties, Grossi has failed to explicitly condemn such blatant violations of IAEA safeguards and its Statute,” Araghchi said.

He further criticized Grossi’s insistence on visiting bombed sites under the pretext of inspections, calling such efforts “meaningless” and “possibly even malign in intent.”

Iran, Araghchi emphasized, reserves the right to take any measures necessary to defend its sovereignty, people, and national interests. He reiterated that cooperation with the IAEA would not resume until credible guarantees are in place to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from further attacks.

“The IAEA and its Director-General bear full responsibility for what has transpired,” Araghchi stated, underscoring Iran’s growing distrust of the agency’s impartiality amid a broader climate of Western pressure and aggression.

June 28, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | Leave a comment

Most Americans Believe Israel Has Too Much Influence on US Policy – Poll

Sputnik – 27.06.2025

More than half of Americans believe Israel wields too much influence on US policy, a survey conducted by US research firm Tyson Group showed on Friday.

Specifically, 54% of respondents said that Israel’s influence is excessive, while 27% disagreed with this position, according to the survey.

Among Democrats, 62% agreed with the position, compared to 43% of Republicans and 44% of senior Americans aged 65 and over.

The majority of Americans, 54%, also believe recent US airstrikes significantly set back the development of Iran’s nuclear progam, including 19% who state that it was “completely obliterated,” the survey showed.

Meanwhile, 75% of respondents are concerned that the conflict could escalate into a larger war, while 67% believe that the US could launch new military action against Iran, according to the survey.

The survey was conducted from June 25-26 among 1,027 US adults, with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

June 27, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »