Category: iran

  • Israel and the USA have each attacked Iran in the middle of negotiations. Iran must not fall for it a third time. Negotiation is dead.

    Israel attacked Iran during negotiations between Iran and the U.S., with the next scheduled meeting just three days away.

    Trump then gave Iran a two-week ultimatum to agree a peace deal. Iran held one foreign-minister-level meeting with the U.K., Germany and France and scheduled a second meeting. Trump then attacked Iran with 11 days of the ultimatum still to run.

    Plainly the Zionist West not only has zero interest in peace, it is engaging in morally abhorrent levels of dishonesty and deception, attacking under a false flag of truce. The idea that Iran should now return to “negotiation” with such appallingly deceitful interlocutors is risible.

    The post You Can’t Bomb Iran Into Zionism appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The US/Israel realized:

    that their regime change plans were not coming to fruition,
    that the Iranian govt had more support and stronger foundations than they had believed,
    that Israeli air defense was collapsing/exhausted and
    that an attrition war of long range strike was going to go badly for Israel.
    And Trump began to get freaked out over the rising price of oil with the Iranian threat of closing the strait of Hormuz.

    So they wrapped it up, declared victory, and demanded a ceasefire.

    Iran agreed because they too have been badly shaken through Israeli covert warfare and their own air defense all but collapsed.

    The post What The Hell Just Happened In The Middle East You May Ask? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • CNN reported on Tuesday that an initial US intelligence assessment has found that the US bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites didn’t destroy the core components of the sites and likely set back the nuclear program by only a few months.

    The assessment was prepared by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and was based on a battle damage assessment from US Central Command, and it could change as the US gathers more intelligence. “So the (DIA) assessment is that the US set them back maybe a few months, tops,” a source told CNN.

    The report also said that the US strikes didn’t destroy Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, and the centrifuges were largely “intact.”

    The post Initial US Intelligence Assessment: US Didn’t Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Sites appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • As an Iranian, I felt a surge of relief — and cautious hope — when I heard news of the ceasefire between Iran and Israel. The bloodshed had gone on for 12 long days. The killing, the airstrikes, the relentless tit-for-tat violence — it all had to stop. If for nothing else, for the sake of the people on both sides. Now, of course, Israel’s massacre in Gaza must end, too. But even in that…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • At the NATO summit in the Hague, almost all European nations reached an agreement to raise military spending to 5% of each county’s GDP. This comes as President Trump said the U.S. would not come to the defense of other NATO nations unless they hit 5% in military spending. “Trump wants to move towards a much, much more instrumental and crudely material, transactional politics…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Iranian parliament approved a bill Wednesday suspending its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The resolution states that weapons inspectors with the United Nations nuclear watchdog organization will not be allowed to enter the country unless it guarantees the security of Iran’s nuclear facilities and their ability to pursue peaceful nuclear activities.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), an ardent loyalist to President Donald Trump, is rejecting the idea that the current commander-in-chief must adhere to the War Powers Act, a half-century-old law that is meant to rein in presidential misuse and abuse of the U.S. military. Instead, Johnson told reporters on Tuesday that the law itself is unconstitutional…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg3 nato3

    At the NATO summit in the Hague, almost all European nations reached an agreement to raise military spending to 5% of each county’s GDP. This comes as President Trump said the U.S. would not come to the defense of other NATO nations unless they hit 5% in military spending. “Trump wants to move towards a much, much more instrumental and crudely material, transactional politics,” says Richard Seymour, writer, broadcaster and activist. “I think this is a version of imperial decline that Trump is trying to manage.”


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • BEARING WITNESS: By Cole Martin in occupied Bethlehem

    Kia ora koutou,

    I’m a Kiwi journo in occupied Bethlehem, here’s a brief summary of today’s events across the Palestinian and Israeli territories from on the ground.

    At least 79 killed and 391 injured by Israeli forces in Gaza over the last 24 hours, including 33 killed and 267 injured while seeking aid at the US-Israel “humanitarian” centres.

    *

    Three killed and 7 injured by settler pogrom on the town of Kafr Malik, northeast of Ramallah; setting fire to houses and cars, and protected by soldiers. Israeli forces shot and killed 15-year-old Rayan Houshia west of Jenin as they retreated from resistance fighters, after using a civilian home as military barracks; also invading several towns across the West Bank, firing teargas into al-Fawar refugee camp south of Hebron, sound-bombs near the Jenin Grand Mosque in the north, and arresting several Palestinians.

    Al Quds/Jerusalem’s old city faced low visitor numbers even after restrictions were lifted by the Israeli occupation. Jerusalem Governate reported 623 homes and facilities demolished by Israel since October 2023.

    *

    Palestinian political prisoner Amar Yasser Al-Amour was released after 2.5 years without charge or trial in Israeli prisons. Thousands remain detained illegally in this way. Another freed prisoner Fares Bassam Hanani mourned his mother who passed away while he was imprisoned. Mohammad al-Ghushi, also freed, was taken to hospital to have his kidney removed due to torture and medical neglect he faced in Israeli prisons.

    *

    The unexpected ceasefire between Israel, America, and Iran appears to be holding for now. Iranian officials say the US “torpedoed diplomacy” and have passed a bill to halt cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA.

    Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

    — Justice Louis D. Brandeis

    While the U.S. wages war abroad—bombing Iran, escalating conflict, and staging a spectacle of power for political gain—a different kind of war is being waged here at home.

    This war at home is quieter but no less destructive. The casualties are not in distant deserts or foreign cities. They are our freedoms, our communities, and the Constitution itself.

    And the agents of this domestic war? Masked thugs. Unmarked vans. Raids. Roundups.

    Detentions without due process. Retaliation against those who dare to question or challenge government authority. People made to disappear into bureaucratic black holes. Fear campaigns targeting immigrant communities and political dissenters alike. Surveillance weaponized to monitor and suppress lawful activity.

    Packaged under the guise of national security—as all power grabs tend to be—this government-sanctioned thuggery masquerading as law-and-order is the face of the Trump Administration’s so-called war on illegal immigration.

    Don’t fall for the propaganda that claims we’re being overrun by criminals or driven into the poorhouse by undocumented immigrants living off welfare.

    The real threat to our way of life comes not from outside invaders, but from within: an unelected, unaccountable enforcement agency operating above the law.

    President Trump insists that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is focused on violent criminals, but the facts tell a different story (non-criminal ICE arrests have surged 800% in six months)—and that myth is precisely what enables the erosion of rights for everyone.

    By painting enforcement as narrowly targeted, the administration obscures a far broader dragnet that sweeps up legal residents, naturalized citizens, and native-born Americans alike.

    What begins with immigrants rarely ends there.

    According to the Cato Institute, 65 percent of people taken by ICE had no convictions, and 93 percent had no violent convictions at all.

    This isn’t targeted enforcement—it’s indiscriminate purging.

    What ICE—an agency that increasingly resembles a modern-day Gestapo—is doing to immigrants today, it can and will do to citizens tomorrow: these are the early warning signs of a system already in motion.

    The machinery is in place. The abuses are ongoing. And the constitutional safeguards we rely on are being ignored, dismantled, or bypassed entirely.

    When legal residents, naturalized citizens, and native-born Americans are swept up in ICE’s raids, detained without cause, and subjected to treatment that defies every constitutional protection against government overreach, this isn’t about immigration.

    It’s not about danger. It’s about power—unchecked and absolute.

    This is authoritarianism by design.

    Here are just a few examples of how ICE’s reach now extends far beyond a criminal class of undocumented immigrants:

    This pattern of abuse is not accidental.

    It reflects a deliberate strategy of fear and domination by ICE agents acting like an occupying army, intent on intimidating the population into submission while the Trump Administration redraws the boundaries of the Constitution for all within America’s borders, citizen and immigrant alike.

    This is how you dismantle a constitutional republic: not in one dramatic moment, but through the steady erosion of rights, accountability, and rule of law—first for the marginalized, then for everyone.

    When constitutional guarantees become conditional and oversight is systematically evaded, all Americans—regardless of status—stand vulnerable to a regime that governs by fear rather than freedom.

    We’ve seen this playbook before.

    It’s the same strategy used by fascist regimes to consolidate power—using fear, force, and propaganda to turn public institutions into instruments of oppression.

    ICE raids often occur without warrants. Agents frequently detain individuals not charged with any crime. Homes, schools, hospitals, workplaces, and courthouses have all become targets. Agents in plain clothes swarm unsuspecting individuals, arrest them without explanation, and separate families under the pretense of national security. In many cases, masked agents refuse to identify themselves at all—creating a climate of terror where the public cannot distinguish lawful enforcement from lawless abduction.

    This is not justice. It is intimidation. And it has become business as usual.

    ICE has even begun deputizing local police departments to carry out these raids.

    Through an expanded network of partnerships, ICE has turned routine traffic stops into pipelines for deportation. According to the Washington Post, immigrants stopped on the way to volleyball practice, picking up baby formula, or heading to job sites have been detained and, in some cases, sent to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador.

    This is what politicizing and weaponizing local police looks like.

    Even members of Congress attempting to exercise constitutional oversight have been turned away from ICE facilities. As the New York Times reported, ICE now claims the authority to “deny a request or otherwise cancel” congressional visits based on vague “operational concerns”—effectively placing its operations beyond democratic scrutiny.

    Beyond the high-profile arrests, the abuse runs deeper.

    Julio Noriega, a 54-year-old American citizen, was snatched up off the street and detained in Chicago for 10 hours without explanation. Leonardo Garcia Venegas, a U.S.-born citizen, was detained because ICE dismissed his REAL ID as fake. Cary López Alvarado, a pregnant U.S. citizen, was handcuffed and arrested for challenging ICE agents who had followed her fiancé to work. Children, veterans, and immunocompromised individuals have all suffered under ICE’s dragnet.

    These are not outliers. They are the product of a system that operates without meaningful checks.

    ICE agents are rarely held accountable. Internal investigations are ineffective. Congress has abdicated oversight. Directives from the Trump administration—including those authored by Stephen Miller—have turbocharged deportations and loosened any remaining restraints.

    From boots on the ground to bytes in the cloud, ICE’s unchecked power reflects a broader shift toward authoritarianism, fueled by high-tech surveillance, public indifference and minimal judicial oversight. The agency operates a sprawling digital dragnet: facial recognition, license plate readers, cellphone tracking, and partnerships with tech giants like Amazon and Palantir feed massive databases—often without warrants or oversight.

    These same tools—hallmarks of a growing surveillance state—are now being quietly repurposed across other federal agencies, setting the stage for an integrated surveillance-policing regime that threatens the constitutional rights of every American.

    This isn’t about safety. It’s about control.

    These tools aren’t just targeting undocumented immigrants—they’re laying the digital scaffolding for a future in which everyone is watched, scored, and subject to state suspicion.

    Quotas over justice. Algorithms over rights.

    ICE’s operations have little to do with individualized threat assessments. What drives these raids is not public safety but bureaucratic performance. Field offices are under pressure to meet arrest quotas, creating a system that incentivizes indiscriminate sweeps over focused investigations.

    As Jennie Taer writes for the NY Post:

    “The Trump administration’s mandate to arrest 3,000 illegal migrants per day is forcing ICE agents to deprioritize going after dangerous criminals and targets with deportation orders, insiders warn. Instead, federal immigration officers are spending more time rounding up people off the streets… Agents are desperate to meet the White House’s high expectations, leading them to leave some dangerous criminal illegal migrants on the streets, and instead look for anyone they can get their hands on at the local Home Depot or bus stop.”

    Predictive algorithms and flawed databases replace constitutional suspicion with digital hunches, turning enforcement into a numbers game and transforming communities into statistical targets.

    Constitutional safeguards are being replaced by digital suspicion.

    We now live in a nation where lawful dissent—especially from immigrants or those perceived as outsiders—can place someone under state suspicion. The line between investigation and persecution has been erased.

    Fear needs fuel.

    And ICE finds it in propaganda: just as the Gestapo used propaganda to justify its cruelty, ICE relies on the language of fear and division. When the government labels people “invaders,” “animals,” or “thugs,” it strips them of humanity—and strips us of our conscience.

    This rhetoric serves to distract and divide. It normalizes abuse. And it ensures that, once targeted, no one is safe.

    The construction of a new ICE mega-prison in Florida—nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz” for its proposed moat and remote location—serves as a grotesque symbol of the Trump Administration’s mass deportation agenda: out of sight, beyond accountability, and surrounded by literal and bureaucratic barriers to due process.

    And Trump’s shifting stance on industries that rely on migrant labor—one moment threatening crackdowns, the next signaling exemptions for hotels, farms, and construction—reveals what this campaign is really about: not security, but political theater.

    It’s not about danger; it’s about dominance.

    But the crisis isn’t just rhetorical. It’s systemic. Agents are trained to obey, not to question. Immunity shields misconduct. Whistleblowers are punished. Watchdogs are ignored. Courts too often defer to executive power.

    This is not law enforcement—it is authoritarian enforcement.

    And it’s not limited to immigrants. It’s creeping into every corner of American life.

    When a government can detain its own citizens without due process, punish political dissent, and target individuals for what they believe or how they look, it is no longer governed by law. It is governed by fear.

    The Constitution was designed to prevent this. But rights are meaningless when no one is held accountable for violating them.

    That is why the solution must go beyond the ballot box.

    We must dismantle the machinery of oppression that enables ICE to act as judge, jury, and jailer.

    Congress must ban warrantless raids, end predictive profiling, and prohibit mass surveillance. It must enforce real oversight and revoke the legal shields that insulate abusive agents from consequences.

    We must reassert the rule of law, not just through legislation, but through a cultural recommitment to constitutional values. That includes transparency, demilitarization, and equal protection for all—citizens and non-citizens alike.

    This is not just a fight over immigration policy. It’s a battle for the soul of our nation.

    ICE is not the exception. It is the prototype.

    As I make clear in my books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the same blueprint is being applied across the federal landscape: to protest monitoring, dissent suppression, and data-mined predictive policing.

    If we fail to dismantle the ICE model, we normalize it—and risk reproducing it everywhere else.

    ICE has become the beta test—perfecting the merger of technology, policing, and executive power that could soon define American governance as a whole.

    Make no mistake: when fear becomes law, freedom is the casualty.

    If we don’t act soon, we may find that the Constitution is the next to be detained.

    James Madison warned that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

    When ICE acts as enforcer, jailer, and judge for the president, those fears are no longer theoretical—they are the daily reality for countless people within U.S. borders.

    The post America’s Most Lawless Agency: ICE Is the Prototype for Tyranny first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Much of the current crop of commentary on Israel’s war of aggression on Iran has adopted the familiar tone of breathless admiration: praise for its targeting precision, the elegance of its intelligence-gathering, the almost clinical efficiency with which it eliminates not only combatants but scientists, technicians, and — under the now-naturalized euphemism — “sites and infrastructure.”

    Israel’s opening salvo in the war was, by most conventional metrics, effective. The Iranians, caught off guard, scrambled to recalibrate. Though they gradually recovered some measure of initiative, their response bore the marks of persistence and attrition rather than dominance.

    The post The Ceasefire With Iran Reveals The Limits Of Israel’s Power appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), allowed the IAEA to be used by the United States and Israel — an undeclared nuclear weapons state in long-term violation of IAEA rules — to manufacture a pretext for war on Iran, despite his agency’s own conclusion that Iran had no nuclear weapons program.

    On June 12, based on a damning report by Grossi, a slim majority of the IAEA Board of Governors voted to find Iran in non-compliance with its obligations as an IAEA member. Of the 35 countries represented on the board, only 19 voted for the resolution, while three voted against it, 11 abstained and two did not vote.

    The post Atomic Agency Gave Diplomatic Cover To War On Iran appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Something is Happening in Iran.

    People are not only supporting the war, but they are getting closer to the state. The concept of “nation” has undergone a shift. In recent days, I have seen things I never could have imagined.

    One of the most powerful images was a viral video: A young woman in Tehran, without hijab, wearing a koufiyeh, singing a deeply patriotic song under Azadi Tower, the symbolic heart of Tehran. This was not just a moment of performative nationalism; it was a statement, a contradiction of the narrative that pits the Iranian people against their state.

    Social media, once a battleground of polarizing slogans, has become a platform for national unity.

    The post War, Resistance, And The Reunification Of Nation And State In Iran appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape says the Middle East conflict was one of the discussions of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) in Suva this week — and Pacific leaders “took note of what is happening”.

    The Post-Courier reports Marape saying the “12 Day War” between Israel and Iran was based on high technology and using missiles sent from great distances.

    “In the context of MSG, the leaders want peace always. And the Pacific remains friends to all, enemies to none,” he said.

    He said an effect on PNG would be the inflation in prices of oil and gas.

    Yesterday morning, US President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire had been agreed  between Israel and Iran, and so far it has been holding in spite of tensions.

    Australia had stepped in to help Papua New Guinea diplomats and citizens caught in the Middle East.

    Foreign Affairs Minister Justin Tkatchenko confirmed last week that a group was to be evacuated through Jordan.

    There had been six diplomats in lockdown at the PNG embassy in Jerusalem awaiting extraction.

    Meanwhile, a repatriation flight for Australians stuck in Israel had been cancelled.

    ABC News reported that it was the second day repatriation plans were scrapped at the last minute because of rocket fire. A bus meant to take people across the border into Jordan was cancelled the previous day.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Before all the images of smoldering cities, of hooded men tortured and beaten, and of bloodied bodies lying in the dust, there was Colin Powell holding up a vial. On February 5, 2003, the then-U.S. secretary of state appeared before the United Nations Security Council and made a case for war with Iraq. Powell claimed that U.S. intelligence had shown that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Donald Trump laid into Israeli leaders for bombarding Iran right after he announced a ceasefire deal between the warring states on Tuesday, levying a rare criticism of Israel even after bombing Iran on its behalf. Speaking in remarks to the press before boarding a plane to a NATO summit, Trump expressed frustration that Israel, in its usual fashion, unleashed a barrage of strikes on…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • President Donald Trump is touting a ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran, despite what he said were violations of the deal by both sides shortly after he announced it. Trump said he was especially angry with Israel and urged the country to stand down as he faces mounting criticism over the prospect of another U.S. war in the Middle East. “Part of the reason why Trump also was quite eager to…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran doesn’t. But genocidal war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu (without a hint of irony) claimed his recent unprovoked attack on Iran was to stop it getting “the world’s most dangerous weapons”.

    As an expert working to prevent nuclear war told us, when it comes to nuclear weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), Israel is very much ‘part of the problem’.

    Not a victim. Not ‘self-defence’.

    Israel has now bombed Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. And it has “worked as a team” with Donald Trump, who just carried out his own unprovoked attack on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    But as always, Israel is still portraying itself as a victim, to deflect accountability. Netanyahu has declared Israel’s actions ‘self-defence’ and claims the targeting of Iranian nuclear sites, and the country’s top nuclear scientists and military commanders, is necessary for:

    rolling back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival.

    Nuclear weapons: none in Iran, but Israel has them

    Israel and its allies have been claiming Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons since the 1980s. Iran, meanwhile, has always said its nuclear programme is for peaceful civilian purposes only – a claim backed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is constantly inspecting all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to leading legal scholars, Israel’s actions are therefore illegal, as there is no justification for its attack.

    The settler-colonial state, meanwhile, has made a mockery of international legal systems, and has operated with complete impunity since its creation in 1948. Realising its allies will even let it get away with committing a genocide, it now sees this as the ideal time to strike its long-time foe, Iran, and weaken the ‘axis of resistance’ and support for Palestine.

    Israel’s attacks on Iran conveniently come not only at a time when it is stepping up its campaign of annihilation in Gaza – providing a welcome distraction while the slaughter of innocent civilians continues – but also in the midst of US-Iran nuclear talks (to prevent the development of a weapons programme) which, as a result, have now collapsed.

    Israel is the only country in the Middle East which has nuclear weapons. But it has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and refuses to place its nuclear facilities under the watch of UN inspectors. This is unlike Iran, whose facilities are monitored constantly and which, as a non nuclear-weapon state which is a signatory to the NPT, has also agreed not to seek or acquire these weapons.

    Dishonesty surrounds Israel’s nuclear programme

    Susi Snyder is programme coordinator for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). She told the Canary that:

    Everybody knows Israel has nuclear weapons, but the country will not confirm or deny it, and that is their policy of strategic ambiguity. As long as they don’t admit they have nuclear weapons, they don’t admit they are part of a problem of weapons of mass destruction, particularly in the region. It’s terribly dishonest and means we can’t negotiate about their nuclear arsenal, and we can’t put their nuclear programme under international inspection. They have taken themselves out of the international community by doing this.

    Israel’s nuclear programme began in the late 1950s but was under the radar for several years. Initially, US officials were deceived into thinking the nuclear site at Dimona, in the Negev Desert, was a textile factory. Then, as construction was completed, Israel changed its story and said the nuclear reactor was purely for civilian purposes, and did not contain the chemical reprocessing plant needed to produce nuclear weapons.

    Although much is unknown about Israel’s nuclear arsenal, declassified documents, whistleblower testimony and satellite imagery have provided useful information. We have learnt that Israel did not develop its nuclear programme alone. Instead, there was direct involvement and complicity from several countries, during its early development. France provided Israel with the technology and expertise not only to build the reactor, but also to construct a reprocessing plant at Dimona for the extraction of Plutonium, an essential component of nuclear weapons, while Norway supplied heavy water (a vital ingredient for the production of plutonium), which was sold to Britain and then secretly transferred to Israel.

    Nuclear whistleblower helped us learn more about Israel’s nuclear secrets

    In an attempt to keep details quiet, Israel has dealt harshly with nuclear whistleblowers, such as Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli former nuclear technician and peace activist who, in 1986, confirmed Israel had nuclear weapons, and revealed details about its programme to the British press, showing Israel’s nuclear arsenal was larger and more advanced than people previously believed.

    Israeli intelligence agency Mossad soon lured Vanunu to Italy. There, it drugged and abducted him, secretly transporting him to Israel and convicting him in a closed trial. He spent 18 years in prison for speaking out about Israel’s nuclear weapons, including 11 years in solitary confinement. He is still banned from leaving the country and speaking to journalists.

    The complete absence of oversight, combined with the lack of international pressure and public statements from global powers, reflect a broader pattern of diplomatic silence that started in the early days of Israel’s nuclear programme and continues today. Its allies, including the UK government, protect Israel by refusing to acknowledge the open secret that it has nuclear weapons, shielding it from the international criticism it deserves.

    In addition, the US has adopted a policy not to pressure Israel to join the NPT. And US presidents since Bill Clinton have promised Israel, by signing a secret letter, that any arms control efforts will not affect Israel.

    Israel’s nuclear arsenal is unregulated and ambiguous, but supported by the West

    Hypocrisy and double standards are plain to see. Israel gets Western support even though its nuclear arsenal remains unacknowledged and unregulated. Iran, meanwhile, faces crippling sanctions and military pressure over its civilian nuclear programme, despite allowing thousands of inspections under the NPT and the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal.

    Israel is not only believed to possess 90 nuclear warheads, but also to have produced enough plutonium to produce 100 to 200 more nuclear weapons. And according to new research from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), it is actively modernising its nuclear arsenal.

    Snyder said that:

    Based on an assessment of their own military spending, leaked information and satellite images, we have seen that in the last five years Israel has spent about $5.5bn on its arsenal. It has 90 warheads, about half of which can be delivered by Jericho ballistic missiles, that have a range of about 4000km. We know from satellite imagery that they are stored in caves near the Judean Hills, and are on mobile launchers so they can be driven wherever they need to go, throughout the country.

    Britain’s complicity: we supply war criminals with components for their nuclear submarines

    These caves are visible on commercial satellite images of the Sdot Micha facility near the town of Zakharia in the Judean Hills, approximately 30km East of Jerusalem.

    Israel not only has land-based delivery systems for its nuclear weapons, but air and sea-based ones too. According to Snyder, Israel’s F15 and F16 aircraft, and its Dolphin-class submarines – which are built in Germany – also house nuclear weapons. Although their missiles have a shorter range, the submarines are able to stay underwater for 18 days, can move long distances during this time period, and are well hidden.

    SIPRI estimates that Israel has 10 cruise missile warheads for its submarine fleet, which the UK has long provided components for. Research carried out earlier this year by Declassified UK found British ministers have authorised 77 export licences since 2010, to supply Israel with components for these submarines, to a value of almost £9m.

    Snyder explained that:

    The use of these weapons violates the principles of International Humanitarian Law, as you cannot use them without causing massive indiscriminate harm, that lasts for generations. It’s a huge risk, which is not limited just to the region, but to the world. So it’s really important that the world is addressing this and talking about this. There’s no evidence that exists that says these weapons have deterred war in the past. We have seen throughout history that when a country has nuclear weapons it is more likely to attack others, and act with impunity, because it feels it can operate without consequence.

    $100bn spent on nuclear weapons by 9 countries in 2024

    According to a report by ICAN, the nine nuclear-armed countries spent more than $100bn on their nuclear weapons last year. That’s an increase of almost $10bn from 2023, while companies working on nuclear weapons development and maintenance earned more than $40bn from their contracts in 2024 alone.

    98 countries have rejected nuclear weapons and joined the NPT. They are not only talking about Israel’s nuclear arsenal but the arsenals of all the nine nuclear-armed states,. Because if any of these countries use their nuclear weapons, it would pose a direct risk to these non-nuclear countries, wherever they are.

    Israel is a significant threat to Middle East security

    Israel’s unchecked militarisation and nuclear arsenal, undeclared and outside the framework of the NPT, is a significant threat to (at the very least) Middle Eastern security and stability.

    Calls for a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East have been ongoing since 1974, when Iran and Egypt submitted a resolution to the UN General Assembly calling for such a zone, because they were concerned about Israel’s nuclear programme. But although the idea has broad support from most countries in the region, Israel’s undeclared nuclear capability and its position outside the NPT are major obstacles to its progress. Discussions and conferences have taken place but no binding agreement has been reached.

    Israel always has the full support of the majority of the genocide-enabling Western countries, which have doubled down on this support since Israel has been attacking Iran.

    Just last week, G7 leaders issued a statement which read:

    We affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself. We reiterate our support for the security of Israel. Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror.

    Keir Starmer, although calling for “restraint”, sent more aircraft to the Middle East, and on 22 June, endorsed Trump’s illegal bombing of three nuclear facilities in Iran, saying:

    Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

    Although Trump described the attacks as a “spectacular military success”, nothing is further from the truth.

    Risk of escalation amid the 80th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    While the IAEA has said no increase in radiation levels have been detected in Iran at the targeted nuclear sites, there could still be serious consequences because of our unconditional support for Israel: a pariah state which, according to the UN, has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and is led by a war criminal wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

    These are very dangerous times, and there is a high probability the conflict could escalate further and lead to widespread instability. In addition, Iran has, yet again, been misled by Trump and now, understandably, totally distrusts the US. The attacks on Iran (a country which has no nuclear weapons) by Israel and the US (both nuclear states) have already led Iran to consider withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and could even drive it to develop a nuclear weapons programme – one which is unregulated and unaccounted for, exactly like Israel’s.

    This year marks the 80th anniversary of the invention of nuclear weapons and their first use in New Mexico, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Since then, more than 2,000 nuclear test detonations have been carried out, and the risk of nuclear weapon use is higher than at any time since the Cold War. A dramatic expansion of nuclear power in the Middle East is also expected over the next decade, which will create many security problems.

    Hope for the future if countries are held to account

    Israel’s unchecked militarisation, fueled by a blatant disregard for international law and oversight, has created a dangerous precedent not only for the Middle East, but for the global community, which continues to look away. But although the situation is dire, it is not irreversible.

    We know it is possible for countries to change course as, back in 1989, South Africa went through a process, with the IAEA, to dismantle its nuclear programme, completely eliminating not just the weapons it had, but also the infrastructure it had to build those weapons. There was a willingness to do this, and every material has been accounted for. Libya has also done the same.

    Similar efforts must be made to create not just a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, but a world free of nuclear weapons. Diplomacy, transparency, and a willingness to hold all parties (including Israel) accountable are the only means by which we can achieve peace and security.

    The world’s nine nuclear-armed countries are Israel, the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

    By Charlie Jaay

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On 20 June 2025, Galloway spoke about his dream team for the next presidential race: “Tulsi Gabbard, Tucker Carlson, president and vice president of the United States of America.”

    He advised Gabbard to “resign if Trump joins the war and should make plain that she intends to run for president.” She hasn’t.

    Given the public rebukes of her by Donald Trump, speculation had emerged of her doing just that: resigning. However, Gabbard has instead attempted to win her way back into Trump’s good book.

    Two years ago, George Galloway, who served five-terms as a UK MP, and now hosts the popular Mother of all Talk Shows came across as a Gabbard fanboy,

    I have come to the view that the best possible president for the United States in 2024 is Tulsi Gabbard. I think she’s got the looks. I think she’s got style. I think she’s got the eloquence. And most of her politics, but by no means all, are as good as you’re going to get from anyone with a chance of winning the presidency of the United states. So there’s quite a few hedges and qualifications in there, but I have come to the view that Tulsi Gabbard for president is our best bet.

    Horrors that looks, sartorial, and eloquence should be enounced as foremost considerations — or even being considerations at all — for a political leader. A consideration not mentioned by Galloway was intelligence.

    When one scrutinizes Gabbard on her record, support for her would again be an appeal to lesser evilism. She may, however, be one of the best among so many regressivist politicians.

    Gabbard, in particular, comes to the fore on militarism and foreign affairs. What is part of her record here?

    Gabbard is regressivist on Palestine and Israel

    Gabbard seems not to realize that Palestine is state, unrecognized as such by the United States, that is under siege, occupation, theft of resources, and an ongoing genocide (sped up greatly since 7 October 2023). Moreover, Gabbard does not call what Israel has been carrying out since 7 October as a genocide.

    She focuses her ire on Hamas’s “evil” actions. In a 10 October 2023 interview on Fox News Tonight (hosted by Brian Kilmeade filling in for Tucker Carlson), Gabbard stated: “Israel has not only the right but the responsibility to defend itself against these terrorists who slaughtered innocent civilians.”

    On 10 October 2023, Gabbard posted on X: “Hamas is responsible for this war. They could end it now by surrendering, releasing hostages, and laying down their arms.” In other words, Gabbard denies Palestinians the inalienable right to resist occupation, an occupation that is rooted in killing, racism, humiliation, and brutality.

    Gabbard also rejected calls for a ceasefire, implying that she backs the continued Israeli military operations in Gaza. (The Tulsi Gabbard Show, Ep. 45)

    While Gabbard has never referred to Israel’s genocidal actions, she does make this accusation of Hamas. In an X post on 10 October 2023, she stated: “Hamas is a genocidal terrorist group. They must be defeated.”

    Gabbard took aim at those Democrats who are

    accusing Israel of committing a genocide. It it is the height of hypocrisy because they’re apologists and supporters of these Islamist Hamas terrorists who are calling for a genocide the extermination of all Jews not just in Israel but around the world and we’re seeing this being carried out by these violent mobs and threats and other things that are happening against Jewish people literally uh around the world.

    By Gabbard’s logic, she could be criticized as an apologist and supporter of these Israeli Zionist terrorists.

    Gabbard also opines, “This is not a ‘resistance’ movement. Hamas is a jihadist terrorist group funded by Iran, whose goal is the destruction of Israel.” (The Tulsi Gabbard Show, Ep. 45)

    She accuses Hamas of using human shields, but she does not criticize Israel using Palestinian children as human shields. Even the Zionist friendly BBC reports this.(“Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields, knowing Israel will retaliate. They provoke war, then exploit the suffering for propaganda.” Cited by Deepseek as “Tulsi Gabbard on Israel-Palestine Conflict,” CNN, 7 May 2019.)

    Gabbard criticizes the ICERD Genocide Case (2024): “South Africa’s case at the ICJ is a propaganda stunt. Hamas is the real war criminal here.” (Twitter/X)

    Gabbard is regressivist on Iran

    Gabbard has called for regime change in Iran: “The Iranian people deserve freedom from this oppressive, theocratic dictatorship.” (Fox News, 2023)

    She was also against Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal: “The JCPOA gave Iran billions while allowing them to keep terror networks intact.” (CNN, 2019)

    Of course, all the talk about Iran and its purported nuclear weapons program has now had a wrench thrown into the works as the US launched an illegal and unannounced war on Iran. Gabbard fell into line behind Trump on this illegal attack (contrary to the UN Charter and without Congressional approval). The repercussions from that US attack will become clearer as time passes.

    Galloway’s Lesser Evilism

    Back to Galloway. Is this really, as Galloway claims about a future Tulsi Gabbard presidential candidacy: “As good as it is going to get”? Have pity on the world, if that is true.

    Can Gabbard represent the conscience of a nation? Surely there are better progressivist choices.

    Right away a courageous woman of integrity such as Medea Benjamin comes to mind.

    The post Tulsi Gabbard: Another Lesser Evilist Offering first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • As President Donald Trump announced a deal brokered between Israel and Iran on Monday evening, new polling shows that a plurality of Americans disapproved of his military strikes on Iran last weekend, and that very few voters have confidence that the conflict will not escalate. The Reuters/Ipsos polling, conducted after Trump ordered the military operation against Iran on Saturday but before…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier,” said President Trump as he addressed the American people shortly after announcing he was bombing Iran. I was too young to watch my political leaders spiral themselves into the war in Iraq – I was only old enough to be able to comprehend the final toll: one million Iraqis died because my country couldn’t help itself from another power grab in the Middle East. I can’t help but feel that the same thing is happening all over again.

    Myself, and countless other Americans, are ashamed at how many people have been killed in our name or with our tax dollars. The comfy politicians in Washington condescend to us — that our concern for human life actually goes against our own interests — as if Palestinians and Iranians do more to hurt Americans than the politicians and billionaires who gutted out industry, automated our jobs, privatized education, and cut social services. In our daily life, the people who actually hate us only become more obvious.

    Last week before it was absolutely clear that the US would formally enter the war, public opinion polls came out that a vast majority of Americans did not want the US to go to war. This was not the case in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Times and opinions have changed amongst the masses, but that didn’t seem to matter to anyone in the White House yesterday.

    In the aftermath of 9/11, our leaders were awfully good at convincing Americans that they needed revenge for what happened. Even if it wasn’t logical, even if it didn’t make sense — we invaded two countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. Revenge is often carried out in a blind rage, and I would say that characterized US actions in Iraq, given the barbaric nature of how the war was carried out, how many civilians died, and with a fallout that’s done very little for “strategic security interests”. I would say that it was a “blind rage” if its violence wasn’t so calculated — specifically to enrich a handful of Americans. It did succeed in that endeavor, and American families had their sons and daughters sent home in body bags so Haliburton’s stock could skyrocket. The Iraqi people, with unsolicited promises to be “liberated” from Saddam, got nothing but grief and trauma that continues twenty years later. It was perhaps hard to justify all of that to the public; American public opinion has changed a lot, and so has US-led warfare as a result of that shift.

    So, Donald Trump has made it obvious (in case it wasn’t before) that the consent of the governed doesn’t hold any weight in the United States of America. However, it’s still an interesting thing to examine in our current context. Despite a barrage of lies about nuclear weapons (like Saddam’s WMDs) and images of scary, oppressive mullahs (like the ‘dictator Saddam’) Americans still opposed a US war on Iran. If Americans were to leverage this public opinion against war in a meaningful way, by taking some sort of step past having a stance in their heads, what would it challenge? What would it look like? Will Americans oppose – at a large enough scale, US warfare that looks slightly different than it did in 2003?

    US warmaking is more subtle to the American public, but not less deadly to the countries we impose it on. Trump insisted in his address to the nation that he has no plans to keep attacking Iran as long as they “negotiate”. This is after Israel killed Iranian negotiators with US approval, and after Iran had made clear their terms of negotiating that the US just couldn’t accept. There’s no definition about what Iranian compliance would look like, setting the stage for further bombing campaigns whenever Trump decides. There might not be troops on the ground or a US military occupation, but a war they refuse to call one is still functionally a war. It still kills people. It still destabilizes countries.

    The US fights wars with money, private contractors, and “offensive support”. Only pouring into the streets to oppose sending troops to fight on behalf of Israel against Iran might not be the demand that becomes most pressing in the coming days and weeks. For example, will Americans oppose a war with Iran if it’s primarily conducted from the air?

    There’s also a large sector of the American public that still morally supports Israel’s military in one way or another, whether it be overtly or with silence on the subject. Some of them might also make up the large portion of society that opposes the US going to war. For the last two years, as Israel has carried out its genocide campaign against Palestinians in Gaza, the US has been building up Israel’s military, sending off billions of our tax dollars to make sure Israel was perfectly poised for the moment it decided to kill Iranians. Whether the public who opposes war with Iran likes it or not, their support for Israel as a military ally will directly contradict their opinion opposing war with Iran. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, if we want to put it simply.

    On the other side, Israel’s war crimes in Gaza also might have something to do with why opposition to the war on Iran is so prevalent. Because the back-up justification for attacking Iran, made by the ruling class, in case the nuke lies didn’t work, was portraying Iran’s leaders as scary, irrational, and evil boogeymen. The ruling class, decrying an evil Hitler-esque foreign leader in Iran, is now the boy crying wolf. We were told the same things about the leaders in Libya and Iraq to justify our country bombing of theirs. The result was Libyan, Iraqi, and to a lesser extent, American blood pooling in the streets. On top of that collective memory, we’ve seen our government entrench itself with Netanyahu — a commander of a military that’s killed countless Palestinians and a handful of Americans without any condemnation from our government. If there are murderous and unjust dictators in the Middle East, one of them is named Benjamin Netanyahu, and we are told he’s our greatest ally, and acting on behalf of Israel is acting in the best interest of Americans. Now, even if the US wanted the war on Iran all along, it appears to the world that Israel pulled us into the war – people do not like that, rightfully so.

    If Americans who are against the war can reject these new forms of hybrid warfare as much as they reject the traditional forms of warfare, and the sectors of the public still sympathetic to Israel see the blatant contradictions in front of their eyes — then perhaps this public opinion could mean something real. Furthermore, it’s been made clear that the American ruling class will not change course solely because the people they “serve” oppose what they are doing. They’ve also demonstrated that they are willing to jail and deport people who disagree with them and their foreign policy escapades. The genocide in Gaza has made it clear that Americans standing against the actions of their government do so at great personal risk. Do Americans disagree with US involvement in the war enough? Do they disagree to the point where they are willing to experience threats, jail time, repression, physical harm, or other forms of violence? In the case of a war that could turn nuclear with an untethered Israel and Trump Administration at the helm, I sincerely hope so. 

    The post Bombs Away first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Seg ro trump hegseth

    “You can’t, as the president, engage in strikes on a foreign country when there’s no imminent threat, without coming to Congress for authorization,” says Ro Khanna, Democratic congressmember and member of the House Armed Services Committee, criticizing President Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites as “blatantly unconstitutional” and a clear instance of executive overreach. Khanna and Republican congressmember Thomas Massie recently introduced a bipartisan Iran War Powers resolution in a bid to prevent further U.S. involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict. Khanna shares how anti-war voices in U.S. politics are too often silenced by powerful and wealthy interest groups and urges the Democratic Party to harness widespread anti-war sentiment in opposition to Trump’s increasingly authoritarian foreign policy.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg trita iran

    U.S. President Donald Trump is touting a ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran, despite what he said were violations of the deal by both sides shortly after he announced it. Trump said he was especially angry with Israel and urged the country to stand down as he faces mounting criticism over the prospect of another U.S. war in the Middle East. “Part of the reason why Trump also was quite eager to get to a ceasefire, why he’s so frustrated with what the Israelis are doing right now, is precisely because he’s very much aware of the strain that all of this has caused within his own support base,” says political analyst Trita Parsi. Parsi says the breakdown of the global Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear weapons could lead to dangerous consequences, as countries like Iran see incentive to build their own nuclear deterrence.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg trita iran

    U.S. President Donald Trump is touting a ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran, despite what he said were violations of the deal by both sides shortly after he announced it. Trump said he was especially angry with Israel and urged the country to stand down as he faces mounting criticism over the prospect of another U.S. war in the Middle East. “Part of the reason why Trump also was quite eager to get to a ceasefire, why he’s so frustrated with what the Israelis are doing right now, is precisely because he’s very much aware of the strain that all of this has caused within his own support base,” says political analyst Trita Parsi. Parsi says the breakdown of the global Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear weapons could lead to dangerous consequences, as countries like Iran see incentive to build their own nuclear deterrence.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.