We’ve Always Known the Truth of War w/Iran Lt Col Daniel Davis
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 8, 2026

Press TV – June 9, 2026
Itamar Ben-Gvir, the fanatic Israeli minister for security affairs, says the Lebanese women and youth must be kidnapped as a means of exerting pressure on the resistance movement Hezbollah.
He made his proposal during a security cabinet meeting on Tuesday, urging officials to adopt more aggressive measures against the Lebanese group as discussions focused on expanding Israel’s military invasion in Lebanon.
“Let’s start thinking outside the box about Hezbollah,” Ben-Gvir said, adding that conquering territory and killing many Hezbollah fighters, but also abducting their women and youth and taking them to prisons is “what hurts them the most.”
Israeli forces continue to suffer casualties and equipment losses in southern Lebanon.
Several cabinet members reportedly voiced support for intensifying military raids in Lebanon despite a ceasefire announced by the United States earlier this year.
Israeli forces have already kidnapped Lebanese civilians during the aggression, although the exact number remains unclear.
The abductees are believed to be among the 1,316 individuals currently held under Israel’s “unlawful combatant” law, a measure that includes Palestinians from Gaza and Syrian nationals.
The legislation, first enacted in 2002, allows authorities to hold individuals for indefinite and renewable periods without formal charges.
Human rights organizations have repeatedly criticized the law, arguing that it violates international legal standards by permitting detention without court orders, limiting access to legal counsel, and withholding information about detainees’ whereabouts and conditions.
Calls for escalation were echoed by other Israeli officials during the cabinet meeting. Minister Yitzhak Wasserlauf urged finance minister Bezalel Smotrich to increase military funding, saying he should “open his pockets” for the armed forces and artillery units.
Israel’s minister of military affairs, Israel Katz, also backed expanding military operations, saying “the prime minister made an important decision to attack, and we must expand the armaments even further.”
The discussions come amid continued Israeli strikes on Lebanon despite a US-brokered ceasefire.
Lebanese Defense Minister Michel Menassa said earlier this week that Israeli forces had carried out approximately 3,500 attacks and hundreds of controlled explosions since the ceasefire was announced on April 17.
According to Lebanese authorities, around 1.2 million people have been displaced nationwide as a result of the ongoing hostilities.
Lebanon’s Health Ministry says at least 3,637 people have been killed since the latest phase of the conflict began in March, including more than 800 deaths recorded after the April ceasefire announcement.
Israeli officials say Hezbollah attacks have also caused casualties on the Israeli side. At least 34 Israelis, most of them soldiers, have been killed since March, including 18 deaths reported since April 17.
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.
Glenn Diesen | June 8, 2026
Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a former advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Prof. Marandi discusses Iran extending its deterrence to Lebanon, the subsequent strikes by Iran on Israel, and Israel’s retaliation against Iran that humiliated Trump, while Yemen bans access to the Red Sea for Israeli ships.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 8, 2026
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 8, 2026
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | June 8, 2026
Iran has fired missiles at Northern Israel after Israel crossed Iran’s red line and began bombing Dahieh in South Beirut .
The Israeli media has claimed that Israel intercepted most Iranian missiles, including missiles fired at Israel’s Nevatim and Tel Nof air bases.
But what Israel and Western media will not tell you is that Israel yet again issued strict censorship orders, barring journalists from covering any damage that Iranian missiles did to Israeli military facilities.
As the Al Jazeera journalist Nida Ibrahim, working in the occupied West Bank, noted :
In general, there is an emphasis in Israel on reporting that the Israeli military has been intercepting all the missiles launched from Iran into the country. Although some Israeli media outlets are reporting damage in certain locations, including yesterday when the first volley was fired from Iran, it remains difficult to fully assess the impact.
We have to remember how Israel works. There is a military censor that ensures information deemed sensitive by the state is not exposed to the media.
So it is hard to assess how much damage these rockets have been causing inside Israel.
Palestinian journalist Abdusalam Fayez revealed that the Israeli military censor issued “strict restrictions on coverage of the ongoing regional war, ordering journalists not to publish information about missiles landing at military sites in the country.”
This included orders from the Israeli military censor saying:
-Do not publish the exact number of missiles launched in each volley. You may use general phrases such as scattered missiles or dozens, but not precise numbers.
-Do not publish reports about missiles that fell before reaching their target or crashed along their path. Instead, say they did not reach their destination
-The censor also ordered journalists not to publish “any information about missiles landing at military or strategic sites, or at sea
-It further instructed them not to publish “any videos showing interceptor missiles hitting targets.”
He added that, “Israel also banned the circulation of visuals related to the sites where missiles and drones landed in Israeli cities, towns and settlements.”
This is a continuation of the Israeli military censorship that was put in place throughout the Iran war to hide the actual damage Iran had done to Israel through retaliatory strikes.
As CNN reported in March of this year:
Every reporter in Israel — and every member of the public — is subject to a military censor. On national security grounds, the regulation authorizes the censor to prohibit reporting or broadcasting any material that could reveal sensitive information or pose a threat to the country’s security interests.
This is particularly sensitive during wartime, where the military censor has made clear that broadcasting any images that reveal the location of interceptor missiles or military sites hit by enemy projectiles is forbidden, especially in live broadcasts.
To ensure military censorship, Israel has imposed harsher penalties for journalists who violate it.
The Committee to Protect Journalists noted in March that “Israel’s Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir and Minister of Communications Shlomo Karhi announced stricter enforcement measures against foreign media during the ongoing military operation. Officials said authorities would adopt a ‘zero tolerance’ policy toward violations of military censorship rules, including detaining and arresting journalists suspected of broadcasting information that could endanger operational security”.
Yet again, Israel has barred journalists from reporting on any Iranian strikes on Israeli military sites, and even Israeli military intercepts (suggesting they are not as successful as Israel lets on), in order to hide the damage that Iran’s retaliatory strikes have actually done.
MEMO | June 8, 2026
“Instead of trying to control the whole world” or “manage” social media, we can control AI, Israeli AI researcher Dr Maya Ackerman has suggested, telling the American Jewish Committee that pro-Israel advocates can go “directly to the companies” developing the technology with “technical and advocacy solutions.”
Ackerman stressed that AI is a major opportunity for pro-Israel advocacy after supporters of Israel “missed the boat with social media”, referring to the global collapse in support for the apartheid state, which is widely attributed to TikTok and other popular platforms.
READ: Oracle executive pushed to ‘embed love for Israel’ in US culture as TikTok sale advances
“The really cool thing about AI is that while it can become a great ally for our enemies, if we act early, it can be exactly the opportunity that we need,” Ackerman said.
“After missing the boat with social media, AI is now becoming the dominant source of information. The main source of information. People trust AI more than anything else. They trust AI more than social media. They turn to chatbots, like ChatGPT and Gemini, instead of using Google, and young people use these bots instead of Google in very, very, very large numbers. So this is becoming the main source of information.”
Ackerman said many Jewish people remain discouraged because they believe online sources already reflect anti-Israel or what she called is anti-Semitic bias, which AI systems may then reproduce.
“And so when I say this, I still find Jewish people being discouraged,” she said. “They say, ‘Oh, but Wikipedia is already so anti-Semitic, and social media is so anti-Semitic. Why bother? The AI just learns from all of this data. So, you know, whatever. Not much we can do.’”
She rejected that view, arguing that AI companies are increasingly shaping outputs through “alignment”, rather than allowing systems to reflect online data without intervention.
“But that’s not true,” Ackerman said. “Because over the past two years, the AI companies have been moving towards alignment. So instead of the algorithms sort of honestly representing what’s in the data, we’re finding that these chatbots and the text-to-image models are increasingly showing us exactly what the companies want us to see.”
She then pointed to direct engagement with AI firms as the path forward.
“So it’s becoming intentional, which means that instead of trying to control the whole world, and trying to somehow manage what’s happening in this big blob of Wikipedia and social media, we can go directly to the companies with clear technical and advocacy solutions. For the first time, there is a path to correcting the digital world,” Ackerman said.
Ackerman’s remarks are widely seen as a striking admission that pro-Israel advocacy groups view AI as a new battleground for narrative control. While the Israeli scientist presented the strategy as a way to improve Jewish representation and counter what she considers anti-Semitic, the comments have raised serious concerns about attempts to influence how AI systems frame Israel, Zionism, Palestine and criticism of Israeli policies.
Press TV | June 8, 2026
A draft resolution set to be tabled at the June 2026 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors – a copy of which is in the possession of the Press TV website – is another calculated attempt to weaponize the UN nuclear watchdog against Iran and its peaceful nuclear program.
The new resolution – like many other IAEA resolutions in the past – seeks to mount political pressure on Tehran over the unsubstantiated and long-discredited claim of “non-compliance” with ITS nuclear safeguards obligations.
The proposed resolution, titled “Implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of UNSC resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” does nothing more than recycle the same old accusations.
It alleges that Iran has failed to provide the IAEA with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple locations, ignoring the fact that three important Iranian nuclear sites were bombed by the United States and Israel.
Significantly, the draft text refers back to a June 2025 resolution that – without presenting any tangible evidence whatsoever – found Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute.
That politically driven resolution, history now records, paved the ground for direct and unprovoked Israeli military aggression against Iran days later. The IAEA, by pushing that resolution, effectively became complicit in aggression against a sovereign NPT signatory.
According to the current draft, Iran has failed over the past year to remedy those alleged concerns or provide the access and information requested by the agency. This is a claim Tehran categorically dismisses, pointing out – correctly – that the agency’s demands frequently exceed Iran’s legal obligations under the NPT.
The IAEA, under Western pressure, keeps moving the goalposts – demanding more than the law requires, encouraging Iran’s enemies to impose sanctions and wage wars, refusing to condemn attacks on nuclear facilities, and then dishing out new reports against Iran.
The latest resolution further cites the IAEA’s 2025 Safeguards Implementation Report and a subsequent report by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, which claimed that the agency remains unable to verify previously declared nuclear material in Iran, including a large quantity of highly enriched uranium (HEU).
What the resolution conveniently omits is the context: much of the IAEA’s so-called “lack of access” stems directly from the damage inflicted by US-Israeli military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities – strikes that Grossi-led agency has never once condemned.
The draft further expresses “grave concern” that the agency has lacked access for nearly a year to verify previously declared stocks of both highly enriched and low-enriched uranium, describing the delay as “long overdue according to standard safeguards practice” and warning that it constitutes both a proliferation concern and a compliance issue.
But here is what the resolution does not say: Iran lost access to its own facilities because those facilities were bombed by the same entities that dictate terms to Grossi and his team.
The text further reiterates that the IAEA is currently unable to verify that no safeguarded nuclear material in Iran has been diverted toward nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, invoking Article 19 of Iran’s safeguards agreement. This is an assertion Tehran has consistently rejected as factually incorrect and politically motivated.
In one of its strongest passages, the draft stresses that Iran’s safeguards obligations “cannot be unilaterally amended or suspended,” while reaffirming Tehran’s legal obligation to implement modified Code 3.1 of its subsidiary arrangements with the agency. That provision requires early notification and disclosure of nuclear facility design information.
Iran’s response is straightforward: Such demands must be viewed against the backdrop of two unprovoked wars of aggression on its territory, including direct attacks on nuclear sites.
No other NPT signatory has ever endured two full-scale military attacks while simultaneously being accused of non-compliance with its commitments. No other country has been bombed and then blamed for the consequences of those bombings.
The resolution also references earlier UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1737 adopted in 2006, which – very illogically and unreasonably – demanded that Iran suspend all peaceful enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development work, as well as heavy water-related projects.
The text calls on Grossi to provide another report on Iran’s implementation of the resolution ahead of the Board’s next regular session. Quite interestingly, the draft warns that the Board remains prepared to take “further action,” including steps related to reporting Iran’s case again to the United Nations Security Council under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute.
What is absurd is that the IAEA wants to report Iran to the Security Council, the very same Security Council whose permanent members were involved in the aggression against Iran.
This new and another politically-motivated draft resolution comes despite the fact that Iran has adhered to all its commitments under the NPT, despite being subjected to illegal sanctions and two unprovoked wars in less than a year.
The first act of unprovoked and illegal military aggression in June 2025 came merely days after the IAEA passed its previous resolution against Iran. Israeli fighter jets struck Iran’s central uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. Days later, the Arak nuclear reactor was also attacked. So, it was an IAEA resolution, followed by bombs.
Behrooz Kamalvandi, spokesperson for the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, at the time condemned the IAEA for its “dangerous and deliberate silence” regarding the aggression.
“We wrote multiple letters to Director-General Rafael Grossi warning of these threats, but they remained unanswered,” Kamalvandi said. The agency was forewarned, but it didn’t act.
In the subsequent days, Israel’s aggression intensified further, in flagrant violation of international law. On June 19, Israel carried out more strikes on multiple other sites, including the Natanz facility and the Khondab (Arak) heavy water reactor.
Just three days later, on June 22, American B-2 bombers breached Iranian airspace, targeting critical nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan in a coordinated US-Israeli assault.
In response to this aggression against peaceful nuclear facilities and the IAEA’s complicit silence, Iran’s parliament approved a bill in June last year to suspend Tehran’s cooperation with the agency. Lawmakers described the IAEA’s actions as a betrayal of its own charter and a direct enabler of aggression against a sovereign member of the NPT.
Iran still kept the window open for the UN nuclear agency, like a responsible state, allowing it to make amends, but the politicization of the agency continued.
Far from acting as a neutral arbiter, the UN atomic agency has repeatedly allowed itself to be wielded as a political instrument by the United States and the Israeli regime. Even as Iran continues to cooperate with the agency, it has remained utterly mute regarding Israel’s serial violations of international law, an illegitimate entity that has not even signed the NPT.
Its silence over the regime’s aerial and cyber attacks against Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities is nothing less than collusion by an international body sworn to impartiality.
Experts have long warned that this one-sided scrutiny has inflicted serious damage on the credibility of the international non-proliferation regime. It has created a two-tier system: one tier for Western-backed nuclear actors like Israel, which act with complete impunity, and another tier for sovereign and responsible non-nuclear states like Iran.
More recently, the US-Israeli war machine carried out yet another unprovoked military aggression against the Islamic Republic, and once again, the IAEA stood as a mute spectator.
By Trita Parsi | June 8, 2026
It remains unclear whether Iran’s effort to establish a new equation in the region has truly succeeded — an equation in which, for the first time, Iran would directly strike Israel if Israel attacks Lebanon.
What is clear is that recent events suggest the strategic landscape may be shifting. Israel chose to defy President Trump and carry out strikes against Iran. Yet according to both Iranian and American sources, those Israeli attacks appear to have been deliberately calibrated to inflict limited damage, perhaps reflecting U.S. pressure to avoid a broader escalation.
Iran, for its part, responded by striking Israel once more after the Israeli attacks. The full extent of the damage caused by Iran’s two rounds of attacks remains unknown, however, due to extensive Israeli military censorship. As a result, outside observers still lack a complete picture of the military and strategic consequences of these exchanges.
The real test of whether a new regional equation has emerged may not lie in what has already happened, but in what comes next. Specifically: Will Israel strike Beirut again?
Even if it does, Israeli decision-makers will now have to factor in a cost that did not previously exis — the likelihood of a direct Iranian response against Israel. For decades, Israel enjoyed near-complete freedom of maneuver in much of the region. It could bomb targets in Lebanon at will without facing meaningful costs imposed by third parties. That assumption may no longer hold.
At the same time, the United States has signaled clearly that it no longer intends to be an active participant in Israel’s confrontation with Iran. The White House has, for instance, stated that it did not partake in Israel’s defense this time around. This would be a first and a very alarming development for Israel, if true. Washington’s desire to avoid direct involvement has become increasingly evident, even as it continues to support Israel in other ways.
Taken together, these developments suggest that a new strategic reality may be in the making. The picture remains murky, and it is far too early to declare that a durable deterrence framework has been established. Much will depend on future Israeli actions, Iranian responses, and the degree to which both sides internalize the risks of escalation.
But if Israel now has to weigh the prospect of direct Iranian retaliation before striking Lebanon, then something important has changed. Whether that change proves temporary or enduring remains to be seen.
The next question is whether this emerging equation can be translated into renewed momentum for U.S.-Iran diplomacy.
The Iranians believe that their action demonstrated to the US that the value of the Memorandum is so low that Iran is willing to risk a complete collapse of diplomacy. The hope is that Trump yields on what appears to be the last sticking point in the talks, which is the release of $12 billion of Iranian frozen assets.
Trump, on the other hand, may calculate that the exchange of fire demonstrated both the cost to Iran if full-scale war were to break out again, as well as Trump’s ability to impose certain restraints on the Israelis. As a result, the Iranians should feel confident in Trump’s ability to deliver on his end of the bargain and not insist on the release of the assets at the outset of the MOU.
But neither side should be aware: If no movement is achieved in the next 72 hours, Netanyahu may once again feel emboldened to attempt another sabotage of the talks. How many flare-ups can this diplomatic process absorb before it collapses?
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
By Humaira Ahad | Press TV | June 8, 2026
When the lights went out inside the Shahid Naimi Sports Complex, Helma, a fourth grader, and Elham, a fifth grader, were still on the volleyball court.
According to teammates and relatives, the two schoolgirls had been training with the Lamerd youth volleyball team on the evening of February 28, 2026, in Lamerd, a county in the southern Iranian province of Fars.
Only moments earlier, the sports hall had echoed with the sharp blasts of whistles, the rhythm of running drills, and the thud of volleyballs striking the floor.
Then, a US-Israeli missile strike outside the complex plunged the facility into darkness. In the confusion, players, coaches, and children began making their way toward the exits. But they never made it out.
According to residents, hospital personnel, and family members, a second US-Israeli missile detonated above the sports hall moments later, tearing through the roof and unleashing thousands of high-velocity fragments across the court below.
Doctors said Elham was already dead before she reached the hospital. Helma, however, managed to walk to the ambulance on her own.
Eyewitnesses say there was not even a visible bloodstain on her body. Helma told her coach, “It feels like something went into my body.”
She lifted her shirt and showed what appeared to be a small, blade-like object. It did not appear to be a serious wound. Helma appeared to be the furthest from death. But according to her uncle, that small black fragment had penetrated her heart, and around 7:00 p.m. on the same day, the efforts of the medical staff failed to save her life.
Later, the hospital staff described cases in which external wounds appeared minor but internal damage was severe.
Iliya Khatami, a sixth-grade boy, and his coach, Mahmoud Najafi, who were playing football on a grass field nearby, were also killed by the same fragments released from the US missile.
Two-year-old Avina Barzegar has been the youngest casualty of this US-Israeli attack. According to her family, she was martyred in an operating room while still having a pacifier in her mouth.
However, the attacks did not end there. A third missile, launched by the United States and Israel, struck the Lamerd ring road, killing three workers.
Two were on duty at the time, one from Lamerd and another from Mamasani, a county in Iran’s Fars Province, while the third was an Afghan national.
The civilian death toll extended far beyond those workers. Among the dead was a homemaker who had been sitting outside her house when the missile struck.
Also killed were a grocery store clerk, a pedestrian visiting from Norway who happened to be inside a pharmacy, the deputy director of customs at the Lamerd Special Economic Zone, and several university students.
The head of the MRI department at Lamerd Hospital instinctively threw herself over her daughter after hearing the blast. Her daughter survived, but she did not.
The attack, carried out on the first day of the 40-day war of aggression against Iran, killed 24 innocent civilians and injured more than 130 others.
Among the injured was a female student who was left blind. One resident said the fragments entered his body “like blades” and, as in Helma’s case, shattered the bone in his leg even though the external wound appeared barely visible.
The tragedy continues to haunt surviving families. The brother of one of the university students killed in the attack suffered a spinal cord injury and has still not been informed of his sister’s death.
Based on the locations where the US-Israeli missiles detonated, it has been confirmed that they struck densely populated civilian areas with heavy daily foot traffic.
Did the US and Israel use new lethal weapon in these deadly strikes?
The walls, doors, and windows of the city are riddled with large and small pellet holes. Reports suggest that a new missile called the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) was tested for the first time over the people of Lamerd by the US-Israeli war machine.
The PrSM is a surface-to-surface weapon system capable of striking targets from 60 to 500 kilometres away, far beyond the range of any artillery or conventional missile system.
The missiles are rocket-powered, guided by a GPS-supported inertial navigation system.
PrSM is produced by Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control division, an American weapons manufacturer. The company describes PrSM as a “next-generation, long-range precision-strike missile.”
Sharing an image of text on X, Max Blumenthal, the editor and founder of The Grayzone website, wrote, “Lockheed Martin CEO Jim Taiclet tells investors the US-Israeli war on Iran and assaults across the region are a ‘golden opportunity’,” as “Lockheed tested its new Precision Strike Missile on a girl’s volleyball game in Lamerd, Iran, on Feb 28, killing and wounding dozens.”
Describing the lethal weapon, US Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Admiral Brad Cooper said that the PrSM provides the American military with “an unrivalled deep strike capability”.
Each PrSM missile carries 180,000 tungsten pellets. Four missiles mean 720,000 projectiles dispersed over just a small section of Lamerd, a city of only 30,000 people.
That’s the equivalent of 24 tungsten pellets for every man, woman, and child in the city, suggesting that a staggering concentration of firepower was unleashed by the US and Israel on a civilian area.
The first missile exploded over the residential neighbourhood of Isar, the second a little farther away in the residential area of Tolkhandaq, the third again over Isar, and the fourth above an elementary school and the Shahid Naeimi sports hall. The reported impact extended beyond the sheer volume of munitions used.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, stated that the “American forces fired PrSM at a residential neighbourhood in Lamerd, directly hitting a sports hall filled with civilians, including teenage volleyball players, women, men, and a helpless two-year-old girl.”
“There is no longer any doubt that this was not an accident, not ‘collateral damage,’ but a premeditated decision by the US regime to test its new weapon system on Iranian civilians in a residential area. Such a cold-blooded act constitutes a clear and despicable war crime,” he said in a social media post on May 25.
McKenzie Intelligence also said that Lamerd was “within the extended range” of the missile and “US Central Command has admitted to using PrSM in strikes from the desert of an unnamed Gulf country against Iran in the early phases of the conflict.”
Western media analysis of PrSM
Subsequent reporting and analyses, including by Western media outlets, have also identified the munition used in Lamerd as the PrSM. These findings have drawn further attention to the weapon’s deadly airburst design and its effects in populated civilian areas.
The Times, a British daily, ran an investigation stating that it verified videos of two strikes in Lamerd, as well as aftermath footage from the US-Israeli attacks.
The reporters of the daily and munitions experts found that the “weapon features, explosions and damage are consistent with a short-range PrSM ballistic missile, which is designed to detonate just above its target and blast small tungsten pellets outward.”
The New York Times reported that it examined video and satellite imagery from Lamerd and assessed the characteristics of the strikes.
The analysis concluded that a PrSM missile, an airburst capable weapon designed to detonate above its target and disperse tungsten fragments across a wide area, was “likely” used in Lamerd.
Post-strike imagery showed distributed pockmark patterns rather than large crater formation, a characteristic attributed in the analysis to fragmentation dispersal.
Separate video analysis by the Washington Post reviewed satellite imagery and ground-level footage, concluding that observed damage patterns were consistent with airburst detonation rather than direct-impact high-explosive warheads.
Mapping the targets of the US-Israeli attack
The Shahid Naimi Sports Complex was hosting routine evening training sessions on February 28, when multiple youth teams and school groups were present inside the facility.
According to residents, the indoor hall was being used by a girls’ volleyball team while a separate section of the complex and the adjacent open field were occupied by a boys’ football group.
At the time of the strike, the complex was hosting a girls’ volleyball practice session alongside a boys’ football training activity in adjacent areas of the facility.
Coaches and school staff were supervising regular pre-competition training activities for students preparing for provincial tournaments.
The facility, identified in local mapping platforms and municipal records as a civilian recreational and educational facility, was used regularly by school sports programs and youth training teams before the US-Israeli strike.
It was located within a broader residential zone of Lamerd, with pedestrian access routes connecting nearby homes, small commercial units, and a ring road within a short distance of the complex.
According to accounts from survivor testimonies, the first US-Israeli strike occurred in proximity to a nearby installation or open area outside the immediate sports hall structure.
This initial blast was described by witnesses as causing a sudden power disruption inside the gymnasium, resulting in immediate darkness and confusion among those present. Training activities were abruptly halted as athletes and coaches attempted to locate exits.
The second US-Israeli strike, which occurred shortly thereafter, is reported to have detonated above or immediately adjacent to the sports hall structure.
Eyewitness descriptions suggest an airburst pattern, with fragments dispersing across the roof and interior space of the facility. Panic ensued inside the hall, with children attempting to evacuate through limited exits in low-visibility conditions.
The speed of the sequence of US-Israeli strikes, according to residents, left almost no time for evacuation.
A third impact was reported in the Lamerd ring road area, approximately a short distance from the sports complex, affecting a separate cluster of civilian movement and vehicles.
This third US-Israeli strike has been described by eyewitnesses as having caused widespread destruction over a populated roadside zone.
Medical and municipal sources said the fragmentation injuries were so widespread that they affected individuals inside vehicles, outside shops, and within nearby residential courtyards.
After more than three months, the fragments of the US PrSM remain visible in shattered homes, perforated walls, and lives permanently altered by loss.
For the families of Helma, Elham, Avina, and the other victims, the United States and Israel killed their children in places where they should have been the safest, sports halls, neighbourhoods, and family spaces where ordinary life was unfolding.
The Cradle | June 8, 2026
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei denied reports alleging that Iran targeted Saudi Arabia on 8 June, cautioning that such claims could be linked to potential “false-flag operations” conducted in Iran’s name.
Baghaei stressed that Tehran publicly takes responsibility for any military action it carries out and noted that no statement had been issued by Iran confirming the reported incident.
He further said Iran has repeatedly warned about the possibility of false-flag operations, claiming that Israel and other actors have previously carried out similar actions, including during the most recent US-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic.
His comments came after missile alert sirens were activated in the Saudi city of Al-Kharj, home to Prince Sultan Air Base, a facility long used by US forces, just hours after Israel launched renewed strikes against Iran on Monday morning.
Since the US-Israeli war on Iran began in late February, Tehran has frequently argued that many of the strikes blamed on its forces were actually “false-flag” operations staged by its enemies, designed to draw Gulf states further into the war.
On 4 June, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) dismissed reports that it targeted the terminal at Kuwait International Airport, saying the alleged visual evidence was a “crude fabrication.”
While acknowledging midnight strikes on regional US bases, Iranian officials noted that footage of the airport explosion was recorded in daylight.
In April, the IRGC accused Israel of being behind the strike on a Kuwaiti desalination plant to incite regional tensions further.
This followed a similar denial regarding a 30 March attack on a Kuwaiti power facility, which Tehran also blamed on Israel.
On 4 April, the IRGC further rejected claims that it struck the US Embassy in Riyadh in the opening days of the war, asserting the drone attack was “certainly carried out by Zionists.”
Iran’s Foreign Ministry said on 15 March that the US and Israel were using “Lucas” drones – modeled after the cheap and effective Iranian Shahed – to conduct false-flag operations and attribute them to Tehran.
The IRGC military headquarters, Khatam al-Anbiya, stated that such “deceptions” included attacks in Turkiye and Iraq.
Earlier in March, Iranian military sources described a drone strike on the Ras Tanura refinery in Saudi Arabia as an Israeli false flag designed to distract from strikes inside Iran and draw the Gulf states into further hostilities against the Islamic Republic.
Tucker Carlson also claimed in March that Saudi Arabia and Qatar had detained Israeli agents who were planning bombings in their countries.
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | June 8, 2026
Nine days after Iran warned the West, Israel in particular, that any further attacks on Beirut would result in Iran retaliating against Israel, Israel hit the Beirut suburb of Dahiyeh. The attack on Sunday afternoon sent plumes of smoke rising over the suburb, with strikes targeting two apartments in two buildings. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office announced the attack in the Dahiyeh district, saying it was in retaliation for an earlier Hezbollah strike on Israel. At least two people were killed and 11 wounded in the strike on the densely populated civilian neighborhood, according to Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency.
Iran, as promised, wasted little time in responding and launched 20 missiles in five waves at Israel. Donald Trump called Bibi Netanyahu, telling him to hold off in retaliating against Iran because he anticipated signing a peace deal with Iran. Trump also reportedly told Netanyahu that if Israel decided to retaliate the Israelis would not have US support. What did Netanyahu do? He launched a retaliatory strike using 11 missiles against Iran.
As I write this, Iran is responding with a larger missile launch against Israel and there are visible impacts in Israel despite Israeli claims that the IDF intercepted the missiles. Not to be left on the sidelines, the Houthis joined in by launching a missile at Israel. Media reports blamed the Houthis for also striking the Prince Saud Airbase in Saudi Arabia, but there is no independent confirmation to substantiate that claim. In addition, the Houthis announced they are closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which is certain to roil the financial markets. Finally,Hezbollah stepped up its engagement of Israeli targets and launched more missiles and drones into northern Israel.
The IRGC has officially announced the beginning of the ‘Nasr‘ military operation against two major Israeli airbases: Tel Nof and Nevatim. This is retaliation for Israel’s strike on radar facilities in Iran. If successful, these Iranian strikes will do significant damage to two critical air fields and could hamper Israel’s ability to carry out further strikes on Iran.
I believe that the Israeli decision to attack Beirut had one objective… force the Iranian hand in launching an attack on Israel in hopes of bringing the US back into the war and sabotaging any chance for Trump to sign a Pakistani peace deal with Iran. So far, the Israelis have failed. Donald Trump is staying on the sidelines for now, which has sparked mass hysteria among the neo-cons and Zionist fanatics.
Trump appears genuinely sincere in wanting to sign on to the Pakistani deal. It is possible he could do so while letting Israel and Iran fight it out. Alternatively, Trump will come under intense pressure from the Zionist crowd to re-enter the war. It is a fluid situation and I hope to have an update by noon Monday about Pakistan’s view of the situation.
If Trump stands firm and refuses to re-enter the war to assist Israel, the situation could evolve along the lines of the 12-day war last June… i.e., when Israel begged the US to convince Iran to stop bombarding Israel with missiles. Times have changed, however, and I do not think Iran will agree to another orchestrated end to the conflict. Instead, Iran will hold out and demand that Israel withdraw from Lebanon and withdraw from Gaza… otherwise, Iran will continue hitting Israel with missiles until it is forced to surrender. We are in new territory and Iran is in a better position to carry out a war of attrition with Israel.
Press TV – June 7, 2026
Iran’s Foreign Ministry has declared that the Islamic Republic’s defensive strikes against military targets in the northern occupied territories were carried out within the framework of inherent self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, following repeated ceasefire violations by the Zionist regime.
In a statement released on Monday, the ministry said the strikes came in response to Israel’s persistent breaches of the April 8 ceasefire, including its collaboration with the US military in attacks on Iranian ships and targets in southern Iran over the past two weeks, as well as US‑backed maritime piracy against the Iranian nation.
Iran emphasized that the ceasefire in Lebanon is an inseparable part of the April 8 truce agreement, and that the United States bears direct responsibility for Israeli violations and any resulting escalation in the region.
The ministry warned that any malicious adventure by the Zionist regime against Lebanon or Iran will be met with a crushing and comprehensive response from Iran’s brave armed forces.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its nation’s serious determination to decisively defend its security and national interests wherever it deems necessary,” the statement read.
The April 8 ceasefire was brokered by Pakistan after 40 days of intense US‑Israeli war on Iran.
Despite the truce, Israel has continued its aggression against Lebanon and Gaza, while the US has maintained a naval blockade of Iranian ports.
Iran has consistently insisted that any final agreement must include a comprehensive halt to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon.
The latest Iranian strikes came after the Israeli regime committed a gross violation of the ceasefire by launching deadly attacks on the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday.
Iran had warned last week that it will target the occupied territories in case of an attack on Beirut and its sorroundings.