Archives: Articles

By Ivana Nikolić Hughes and Peter Kuznick

The following article by Ivana Nikolic Hughes and Peter Kuznick was first published by Al Jazeera in Arabic on May 24, 2026.

The U.S. and Israeli war on Iran has put into sharp relief the vulnerability of the region to civilian devastation, given just how much Israel and the Gulf states depend on targetable industries for basic needs, including water. But more than that, the war has also exposed just how threatening such a multi-layered conflict is to the future of humanity in the age of nuclear weapons.

The continuation of the U.S. and Israeli war on Iran risks not just a nuclear exchange that could result in millions of people dead across the Middle East, but even a wider nuclear war that could wipe out humanity. Whether such attacks would be initiated due to a deliberate decision—by President Trump or Prime Minister Netanyahu or both—to attack Iran with a nuclear weapon, or an accident in the fog of war, as a result of faulty intelligence or a cyberattack for example, does not matter. What matters is that nothing less than life on our planet is at stake.

Instead of continuing to plunge the region into darkness, despair, and further violence, the U.S. and Israel must renounce their wars of aggression in both Iran and Lebanon and seek a new policy of peace for West Asia, including by pursuing a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine and a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone at last.

Today, nine states (U.S., Russia, U.K., France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) possess approximately 12,500 nuclear weapons, with US and Russia’s arsenals accounting for nearly 90% of the total number. The first five states on the list – having acquired these weapons of mass destruction by 1968 – were recognized as Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the premier United Nations (UN) treaty that has been in force since 1970, and that is meeting in New York starting this week for its Eleventh Review Conference. According to Article 6 of the NPT, the five NWS have a responsibility not just to disarm their nuclear arsenals, but to pursue general disarmament. Of the remaining four states, Israel, India, and Pakistan, never joined the NPT, while North Korea left the treaty in 2003, prior to its first nuclear test in 2006. All must be brought into a framework for disarmament, lest we blow ourselves up.

When the NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995, the treaty’s Review Conference passed a Resolution on the Middle East, with a goal of establishing a regional Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone (WMDFZ), modeled after similar efforts in Latin America and the Caribbean, South Pacific, and Southeast Asia. All three of those regions had already become Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZ). The Middle East effort, initiated by Egypt and Iran in 1974, and embraced by the new Iranian regime following the 1979 Revolution, was bolstered by the added international focus. And yet, little progress has been made in turning this WMDFZ into reality.

Over the last several years, the UN has hosted conferences on this process, which Israel has not attended, and the U.S. has largely boycotted. Perhaps if the U.S. and Israel are so concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, a regional zone free of nuclear weapons would be the place to start?

Why does any of this matter? Aren’t nuclear weapons in the “right hands” a good thing? Haven’t we gone through more than 80 years of the nuclear age without blowing ourselves up? And don’t we have to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands so that we can in fact prevent the dreaded nuclear war?

To state the obvious, the right or wrong hands is clearly a matter of perspective. While the West has generally been a steadfast supporter of Israel and an adversary of Iran, many of U.S.’s NATO allies, like Spain and Italy, have condemned this conflict and refused to take any part in it. But even more importantly, as Ban Ki Moon, the former UN Secretary General, stated, “there are no right hands that can handle these wrong weapons.” Israel and the U.S.’s possession of nuclear weapons is what is putting the world at risk of nuclear war right now. And it has for decades.

We know from U.S. declassified documents that we have been far too close to nuclear war in the past, and not only during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There have been several instances in which U.S. and Soviet officials received false information about incoming missile attacks and chose to not follow protocol, thereby saving the world from a nightmare beyond reckoning.

To say that nuclear war would destroy human civilization and possibly all of life on the planet is not an exaggeration. Whether we’re talking about the hundreds of millions of people who would die from the heat, blast, and radiation the nuclear explosions would create, or the billions who would die from starvation due to nuclear winter that would ensue from enormous amounts of soot in the atmosphere, or the impacts on all forms of life from the resulting ozone layer destruction, nuclear Armageddon is real. We don’t want to play this game. Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev said as much in Geneva in 1985: “Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” But today there’s a resurgent school of nuclear experts who believe that nuclear war can be won and should be risked and some, very likely, have Donald Trump’s ear.

And perhaps the saddest thing about this conflict, besides the heartbreaking suffering of innocent civilians who did nothing to bring about the current slaughter, is that at a time when we should be pursuing nuclear disarmament and strengthening non-proliferation, the lesson nations will draw from what is going on is the exact opposite. The lesson that nations will draw is that the only defense against being invaded by Trump and his sycophants and allies is having nuclear weapons.

This is not the first time this message has been communicated to the world. North Korea drew this conclusion explicitly after watching Saddam Hussein’s Iraq get invaded and their leader executed. It is the lesson the world drew after watching Gaddafi get murdered and sodomized with a bayonet in Libya. It is the lesson that the world drew after watching the U.S. invade Venezuela, kidnap the Maduros, and steal that country’s oil. And it is also the lesson that the Europeans drew after the Trump regime threatened to invade Greenland and other countries.

The U.S. and Israel are right to say that Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons. But that statement must have an addendum: the U.S. and Israel should pursue the dismantlement of their own nuclear arsenals. The U.S. should pursue its obligations of nuclear disarmament according to Article 6 of the NPT, and support the Middle East WMDFZ wholeheartedly. Israel should negotiate a lasting solution for Palestinian statehood, establish a Middle East WMDFZ by eliminating its nuclear arsenal, and join the NPT as a Non-Nuclear Weapons State.

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate existential threat to all of humanity. Only by pursuing nuclear disarmament can we ensure the safety of the nations of the world and the future of life on the planet. The Middle East is the right place to turbocharge these efforts before it is too late.

23 June 2026

Source: nuclearinsanity.substack.com

By Raïs Neza Boneza

From the UN Vote to the Code Noir: When the Ancestors Entered the Room

2 Jun 2026 – It took the world about four hundred years to say the obvious. Not justice. Not reparations. Not land returned. Not wealth redistributed. Not the descendants of enslavers standing in line at the bank saying, “Good morning, we are here to return the empire.”

No. A sentence.

On 25 March 2026, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring the trafficking of enslaved Africans and the racialized chattel enslavement of Africans “the gravest crime against humanity.” The vote was 123 in favor, 3 against, and 52 abstentions. The three countries that voted no were the United States, Israel, and Argentina.

A non-binding sentence. And even that was too much for some people.

That is the part we must sit with.

Because before a single European constitution learned to say “human rights” with a straight face, before parliaments discovered morality between tea and banking hours, before universities invented seminars on “historical complexity,” African bodies were already being turned into inventory.

Before the ships left the coast, people were stripped naked, inspected, touched, measured, violated. Women and girls were examined like breeding animals. Men and boys were groped like livestock at market. One the trafficker later compared the process to inspecting a horse before purchase. A horse. This is what they did to human beings, then had the nerve to invent “civilization.”

After the inspection came the number. Not a name. A number. Because a name is dangerous. A name remembers. A name carries ancestors. A number behaves better in an account book.

Then came the ships. Tight packers and loose packers. Even the language sounds like logistics, like shipping furniture, like IKEA had a colonial department. Tight packers maximized profit by packing as many African bodies as possible into the hold. Human beings were measured with charts and instruments so investors could calculate how many could be chained into a row. The space given to each person was roughly coffin-sized. Imagine designing a ship around the question: how little room does a human being need before death begins to interfere with profit?

That was not barbarism in the dark. That was business in daylight.

Men were shackled in pairs at wrists and ankles, forced to lie on their sides, unable to stand, unable to turn, unable to breathe properly. Heat. Vomit. Blood. Diarrhea. Dysentery. Smallpox. Measles. Human waste. Rotting bodies. Sailors themselves described the air below deck as unbearable when the hatches were opened. Of more than 15 million Africans trafficked through the transatlantic trade, only about 8 million survived the Middle Passage. Nearly more 3 million died before land appeared.

The ocean is not only a cemetery by accident. That Atlantic is an archive. It holds bones. It holds names that a part “humanity” never wrote down because that part “humanity” was too busy writing invoices.

Women were often kept unchained in separate compartments, not because mercy suddenly visited the ship, but because access mattered. Rape was not an exception. It was part of the voyage. The same men who would later speak of Christian virtue used African women as moving property in the middle of the ocean. Some women gave birth there, in the stink and terror of the hold, without care, without safety, without a prayer anyone in power intended to answer.

Then there was the Zong. In 1781, the crew of the British slave ship Zong threw more than 130 enslaved Africans into the sea. The owners then filed an insurance claim for the “loss” of their human cargo. The legal dispute was not treated first as mass murder. It was treated as an insurance question. Were the murdered Africans covered property? That was the civilized legal mind at work: not “who killed them?” but “does the policy pay?”

Those who survived the crossing were processed again. Their skin rubbed with oil to hide wounds. Their heads shaved to make them appear younger. Their bodies poked, opened, inspected, sold. George Washington, who would become the first president of the United States, could write in 1772 that he preferred enslaved people “not exceeding 20 years of age.” A founding father placing an order for human beings like he was choosing furniture.

And then came the plantations. About 80% of enslaved Africans transported across the Atlantic were taken to Brazil and the Caribbean, overwhelmingly into sugar economies where death was so routine that the system depended on constant replacement. Sugar was not sweet but sweeter them and bitter for the other. Sugar was a machine that ate folk and served dessert to the occident. That is what sat inside the teacup. That is what made the drawing rooms glow. That is what paid for the manners.

In the United States, slavery became hereditary through the mother. That means rape was not an accident of slavery; it was one of its mechanisms — a brutal way of turning Black women’s bodies into profit, lineage, and property; a production system. The enslaver could rape an enslaved woman, produce a child, and own the child. His blood ran in the veins of the people he sold. Let us not soften this with academic fog. This was not “labor exploitation.” This was reproductive terrorism with paperwork.

Families were separated deliberately. Children sold from mothers. Husbands from wives. Languages criminalized. Religions demonized. Names replaced. Reading and writing forbidden. Memory attacked. Because you cannot fully enslave a person who knows who they are. So, the system went after the name, the tongue, the drum, the god, the mother, the book, the child.

And after all that, the people who built the crime wrote the textbooks. Naturally. The burglar wrote the police report.

They called it “a tragedy of its time.” They called it “complex.” They called it “unfortunate.” They put statues in public squares and named streets after men whose wealth smelled of saltwater and blood. They turned atrocity into heritage. They turned theft into architecture. They turned mass death into “economic development.”

And the money did not vanish. It compounded.

The slave trade and plantation slavery fed banking, insurance, textiles, shipping, ports, universities, aristocratic estates, national treasuries. When Britain abolished slavery in 1833, it did not compensate the enslaved. It compensated the enslavers. The British government agreed to pay £20 million to slave owners for the “loss” of their property; the Bank of England administered the compensation. Read that again slowly. The enslaved got freedom with empty hands. The enslavers got paid. Even abolition had a receipt for white comfort:

“Oh oui, la France mon ami. La guillotine pour qui?” Oh! Haiti Mon Pay»

And then, almost as if history had suddenly discovered it had left the stove on, France entered the room:

On 28 May 2026, the French National Assembly voted unanimously — 254 to zero — to formally repeal the Code Noir knows as the Black Code, the 1685 royal decree signed under Louis XIV that codified slavery in the French colonies and treated enslaved Africans as movable property. Yes, you read correctly. France abolished slavery in 1848, recognized slavery and the slave trade as crimes against humanity in 2001, mute it vote a UN in 2026 and yet the legal corpse of the Code Noir was still lying quietly in the cupboard, wearing a powdered wig and smelling of sugar, blood, and administrative elegance.

For 178 years after abolition, the Republic of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité had apparently forgotten to take out the trash.

The Assembly finally said the Code Noir must be erased from French law. Tears were shed. Speeches were made. Humanity was invoked. Very moving. But let us not confuse symbolic hygiene with justice. The bill still needs Senate approval, and it does not include reparations. It asks for reports on the consequences of slavery, racism, discrimination, and education — important, yes — but no bank account trembled, no plantation fortune fainted, no museum returned a god, no descendant of enslavers woke up to find history standing at the door with an invoice.

Still, the symbolism matters.

Because the Code Noir was not just a document. It was France saying, in royal ink: these human beings are things. Things to buy. Things to beat. Things to baptize. Things to breed. Things to sell. Things to kill. And when a state writes that into law, the crime does not disappear because centuries pass. It waits. It stains. It sits inside archives with a calm face, hoping nobody reads too closely.

So yes, France finally repealed the Code Noir.

Bravo. Champagne? Not yet.

First, let us ask: who profited while the law lived? Who inherited while the enslaved were buried? Who still walks through Paris, Bordeaux, Nantes, La Rochelle, Marseille, and the Antilles surrounded by dark stones.

France has not closed the chapter. France has merely admitted the chapter was still open.

And somewhere, the ancestors smiled — not because justice arrived, but because even the Republic had to confess that the ghost was real.

And now, in 2026, when the descendants of the enslaved ask for recognition, the great moral accountants suddenly discover legal caution.

We remember the United States voted no. Its argument was almost too honest. It said it does not recognize a legal right to reparations for historical wrongs that were not illegal under international law at the time. Translation: we made the crime legal; therefore, the crime cannot accuse us.

Wonderful.

A murderer writes a law permitting murder, kills the village, inherits the land, builds a courthouse on the graves, and four centuries later says, “Technically, your honor, at the time, I was compliant.”

This is not a defense. It is a confession wearing a tie.

Because who built those laws? Who enforced them? Who sent men with guns after those who escaped? Who wrote constitutions with liberty in one hand and slave schedules in the other? Who fought wars to preserve the right to own human beings? Who built a republic where freedom was declared universal by men who owned people?

The United States did not vote no because the resolution was dangerous in law. It voted no because memory is dangerous in politics.

Then Europe, the continent of museums full of other people’s gods and skull. Europe abstained. The European Union explained that the word “gravest” could imply a hierarchy among atrocity crimes, and that no legal hierarchy exists among crimes against humanity.

Ah yes. The adjective. Not the ships. Not the chains. Not the million dead in the Atlantic. Not the women pinned in the suffocating dark of the holds, raped between chains, sickness, saltwater, and the stench of human waste. Not the children sold beside livestock. Not the wealth still sitting in banks, estates, institutions, universities, ports, museums, foundations, and family names. The adjective.

The old colonial capitals looked at four hundred years of racial capitalism, mass death, colonial expansion, cultural destruction, and hereditary human ownership, and said: “We have concerns about the wording.”

Let us be fair the west is very sensitive about hierarchies of suffering. Especially when the hierarchy might accidentally point back to its bank account. Because the issue is not that west cannot understand the crime. It does understand it perfectly. That is the problem. Recognition is not difficult because the facts are unclear. Recognition is difficult because the consequences are clear.

Once you say what it was, people may ask what it built. Once they ask what it built, they may ask who inherited it. Once they ask who inherited it, dinner becomes uncomfortable. And Europe hates an uncomfortable dinner. It prefers colonialism discussed with soft lighting, white wine and the phrase “shared history.”

Shared? My friend, if someone steal your house, put you in the basement, display your grandmother’s mask in the Livingroom, and then invite you to discuss “our shared history,” that is not sharing. That is theft with a brochure. Call the police. Or at least call for the ancestors as your only recourse.

But look at who voted yes. Africa. The Caribbean. Latin America. Majority of Asia. The Global South. The people who know what empire feels like when it enters the room smiling. The people who know that law can be written by thieves, that civilization can be a costume, that the archive can lie by omission, that silence is not neutrality but collaboration.

They did not tremble before the adjective. They named it.

And naming matters.

No, this vote is not justice. Let us not insult the dead by pretending a UN resolution can resurrect a child thrown into the Atlantic. No prison doors opened. No check was written. No plantation fortune was seized. No museum emptied itself in shame. No royal families woke up poor. Calm down, Brussels. Your chandeliers are safe tonight.

This is not reparations. It is not accountability. It is not the end of anything. It is a word.

But after four hundred years of being told to forget, a word can be a weapon.

Because our ancestors knew what this was. They knew it in the hold. They knew it on the auction block. They knew it in the cane fields. They knew it when their children were taken. They knew it when their languages were beaten out of their mouths. They knew it when the man who raped them baptized himself respectable on Sunday.

They knew. We have always known. The world is simply late.

So yes, le code noir in France parlement and the 123 countries votes earlier at the UN finally afraid to said what should have been said for centuries ago: the trafficking and chattel enslavement of Africans was not a misunderstanding, not an unfortunate chapter, not a regrettable economic arrangement, not “complex,” not “of its time.” It was the gravest crime against humanity.

And the fact that this sentence still frightened powerful countries tells us everything.

They are not afraid of the past. They are afraid the past is not past. They are afraid that the ship is still sailing, only now it is called debt, migration policy, border control, resource extraction, structural racism, museum collections, development aid, IMF conditionality, and “rules-based international order”, “Genocide”.

Same ocean. New paperwork.

But these last months, for once, the dead were part of the rooms:

At the United Nations, the ancestors entered the General Assembly without passports, without visas, without diplomatic badges. They stood behind every yes vote. They stood behind every abstention too, silently watching some governments wrestle with an adjective like a man trying to hide a corpse under a napkin. And they stood before the three no votes with the terrible dignity of people history could not bury.

Then, in France, they entered the National Assembly too.

They walked past the marble, past the republican speeches, past the polished words of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, and stood over the old legal skeleton of the Code Noir — that royal instruction manual for turning African life into property. For centuries, it had remained there like a ghost in the archive, pretending to be dead while its consequences kept breathing.

And when the Assembly finally voted to repeal it, the ancestors did not applaud too quickly. They had seen this before: beautiful words, delayed courage, symbolic justice dressed in Sunday clothes. But still, something moved. A state that once wrote Black captivity into law was forced to admit that the law itself was a crime scene.

Three centuries to remove one colonial corpse from French law.

Four hundred years to say one sentence at the UN.

And still, that sentence belongs to us.

It always did.

_________________________________________

Raïs Neza Boneza is the author of fiction as well as non-fiction, poetry books and articles. He was born in the Katanga province of the Democratic Republic of Congo (Former Zaïre).

8 June 2026

Source: transcend.org

By Prof. Richard Falk

Postwar Peacebuilding by Winners and Losers – Losing the War and Winning the Peace

2 Jun 2026 – Trump’s miscalculations relating to Iran’s capabilities together with a confusing but boastful claims of that U.S. attacks beginning on February 28 were a glorious success. President Trump seemed to be acting on the implicit premise that the militarily superior political actor automatically sets the terms for ending active warfare while making a transition to peaceful relations. This line of reasoning recalls the 1945 peace diplomacy at which the the winners of the war on the battlefield established a framework for peace that reflected this substance outcome. It was expressed in several domains. Perhaps, most noticeably in structuring the United Nations by giving the five winners of World War II permanent membership and a right of veto in the Security Council, the only organ of the UN system with authority to decide (not merely recommend) and to enforce (and not be in the position of the International Court of Justice that can decide but dependent for enforcement on the Security Council. This winners/losers framework was even more vividly exhibited by the war crimes trials held at Nuremberg and Tokyo. In these judicial proceeding only the international crimes of the losers were subjected to prosecution and punishment while the winners awarded themselves unconditional impunity. Such an outcome in the Japanese trials was aptly dubbed ‘victors’ justice’ by the historian Richard Minear in a book with that title.

The inarticulated premise of Trump’s diplomacy in the Middle East has also proceeded on a basis that only the victors in international armed encountered were entitled and empowered to dictate the terms of restored peace. The central fallacy such an approach relying on the analogy to 1945 peace building arises because of the deeply questionable boast that the outcome in Iran somehow resembles the Allied victory in the World War II sense. For starters, Iran does not accept the outcome as as a defeat as did the Axis powers in 1944-45 in instruments of surrender. Nor are such bizarre claims supported even among mainstream Western commentators who generally regard Iran as the winner, not only by not giving in the Trump demands but by the effective retaliatory measures that have inflicted high costs on the aggressors as well as on the stability of the international system. view by many Western assessments of the outcome.

Beyond cost-benefit calculations, we should never forget that Iran was the victim of unprovoked aggression, and was not the aggressor as were Germany, Italy, and Japan in 1945. This alone should serve to disqualify aggressor governments from framing peace arrangements, not only legally, but by giving weight to populist ideas of legitimacy. The United States somewhat understood this when in 1975 it accepted political defeat in Vietnam and only sought from diplomacy a graceful exit. The aggression, occupation, regime change, and state-building in the Iraq War of 2003 did give the world a bland foretaste of Trump’s reckless launching of the two Iran wars of the last year. Such betrayals of law and legitimacy were highlighted by the criminal attack on Iraq dramatized by the trial of Saddam Hussein, the deposed head of state and steadfast opponent of the US/UK aggression. These betrayals also illustrated brazen instances of absolute impunity for aggressors, somewhat accentuated by the criminal prosecution of Iraq’s head of state, admittedly a wrongdoer but for crimes unrelated to the defense of the sovereign rights of Iraq.

In this second Iran War now in its fourth month, there is further distortion of a rule of law approach to the outcome of recourse to aggressive war clearly prohibited by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The aggressor although widely perceived to be the loser of the war insists without yet saying so on being treated as the victors were in 1945. There is this glaring normative difference. In the current context only Iran has the right of self-defense, as delimited in Article 51 of the Charter as it was massively attacked in a manner aggravated by the head Oman mediator’s statement that a negotiated settlement of the dispute concerning Iran’s nuclear program was on the verge of success. And yet the victim of aggression is being subjected by the Trump diplomacy with a take it or leave it ultimatum with a direct threat of a genocidal resumption of the war if Iran rejected what the aggressor was prepared to offer. The victim of aggression is thus expected to confront potentially dire consequences if it refuses the demands of the aggressor.

The extremity and vulgarity of such bullying threats challenge the Iranian leadership to be the adult in the room. Quoting Trump’s language suggests unprecedented departures from the canons of diplomacy to such a one-sided, bloody, extent as to be themselves instances of international crimes associated with prohibited threats. Whether or not enforceable as violations of international law these threats are the clearest possible instances of illegitimate diplomacy.

Trump said the following:

— April 4

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards or you’ll be living in Hell. JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”

–April 7

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” Trump wrote. “However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the world. 47 years of extortion corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran.”

This style of diplomatic terrorism partially worked in Gaza with the connivance of others either too weak or insufficiently motivated to challenge the geopolitical bully. Even the UN was induced to support unanimously the Gaza application of rewarding an extreme instance of lawlessness and punishing further the extreme victimization of the Palestinian people. Iran’s distrust of such a diplomacy in light of this style of diplomacy combined with the background of the 2025 12-Day War which was paused after its goals of destroying Iran nuclear program were falsely proclaimed as achieved, representing an easy and quick victory for the combined aggression of Israel and the United States.

In this later instance Trump insisted in public utterances that Iran was also ‘defeated’ in the first days of the war, claiming the destruction of its virtually its entire naval and missile capabilities. In effect Trump’s diplomacy relied neither on rational arguments, international law rules, nor a genuine diplomatic process. Instead, it has relied for over three months on a weird, unprecedented mixture of irrationality, bullying on-again, off-again threats of state terrorism, inflated and premature claims of victory. It even advanced claims that its the assassination of the Supreme Leader of Iran on Day One of the aggression had produced a regime change in the form of new leadership ready to accommodate U.S demands (the Venezuelan model), a claim that turned out to be totally misleading. In actuality, after this assassination of a civilian, religious leader Iran enjoyed greater support from its population and continuity in its resolve to resist aggression and to devise means of retaliating (Hormuz and U.S. military bases in. Gulf) that exhibited strike capacities making a mockery of Trump’s boast of their destruction.

Trump’s premature victory claims was soon ridiculed as a further monumental miscalculation, overlooking Iran’s learning experience from the June 2025 12 Day War that Western ceasefire diplomacy was an entrapment mechanism. Applying these lessons from the past this second Iran War dragged on ruinously for the world economy. The US Government forced to appreciate the formidable economic and political impacts of Iran’s retaliatory measures, especially the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. 20% of internationally traded oil and gas passed through as well as a vital fertilizer supply chain on which many countries in the Global South depended upon to sustain agricultural productivity and food security for often food vulnerable populations.

In other words, Iran’s failed to blink in response to Trump’s genocidal threats, and hence the US faced a Plan B imperative to retreat being the only effective and least undignified way to cut losses. But this was not to be. Instead of a prudent step back, Trump beset by frustration and fury sought victory by means of bluffs and one-sided demands disguised as negotiations that Iran, while skeptical, went along with as long as vaguely heading for some sort of mutually acceptable agreement. The only deescalation on the US side was to drop its earlier demands for regime change and an immediate agreement curtailing Iran’s nuclear program.

Current Observations

Beyond its international criminality, the Iran War was never even authorized domestically in the manner contemplated by the US Constitution, much less the UN Charter. It was also never justified at the outset by an explanation of the policy. It has become increasingly more unpopular with the citizenry as its adverse affordability effects st home were experienced. At the same time this partial back-down by Trump infuriated both Iran MAGA hawks wanting corporate access to Iranian oil and diaspora Iranians deeply resentful that regime change in Tehran was no longer on the diplomatic agenda.

Iran, long the rational actor in the encounter with the West on its side seems unwilling to settle for anything less than permanent normalization with both of its adversaries. Understandably, it resists an Israeli style ‘ceasefire’ that continues to violate Iranian sovereignty and views the stoppage of large-scale attacks as only a pause in an ongoing belligerent process rather than as an acceptance of seeking paths to a peaceful future. In view of this past and justified distrust of the US and Israel, Iran seems sensibly determined to insist on a framework of rules and peacekeeping forces committed to the avoidance of a third aggressive war against Iran after a passage of time to regroup. Iran also is demanding a lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of its frozen foreign assets so that it can resume normal state/society relations. Iran seems flexible about agreeing to negotiate at some future time a solution as to the stockpile of the enriched uranium in Iran’s possession. It is quite remarkable that despite the sustained hostility by Israel, including the assassination of nuclear scientists and others, Iran has not addressed the dangers and double standards embedded in the Euro-American indulgence of Israel’s unregulated and covertly acquired arsenal of nuclear weapons.

If the US can be persuaded to drop its threats and bullying, Iran seems willing to commit not only to the opening of the Strait of Hormuz but adding to the future stability of navigational rights of passage. This would be a notable contribution to the public good in relation to the highly interactive character of the world economy, both as to supply chains, inflationary surges, and currency markets. Such an outcome becomes daily less likely if the US continues to punch below the belt to win the peace after its most dangerous global misadventure in more than a century has managed to lose the war.

A Metaphoric Summary

This second Iran War epitomizes the limits of military power in this historical period. This has been previously illustrated by the victories of the militarily inferior side in the most notable anti-colonial wars since 1945. Whether the 20th century nationalist struggles of India, Indochina, Indonesia, Vietnam, Algeria, and South Africa are considered, and variations taken into account, the weaker side militarily controlled the political outcomes, although suffering great losses on its journey to liberation and victory. This is a lesson that the United States and Israel seem unable to learn, believing against the evidence that as in earlier times the militarily superior side always wins wars. The quip attributed to Stalin, ‘how many divisions does the Pope have?’ is illustrative of this militarist mindset deeply embedded in the obsolete consciousness of elite foreign policy advising geopolitical actors.

In the interplay of Iran and the United States there is a metaphorical rendering of the two sides that sheds light on how the conflict has unfolded since Trump reascended the presidency in 2025. The diplomacy that is playing out at present pits an experienced poker player against a veteran chess player. Trump by bluffs in the form of threats seeks to intimidate opponents with better cards, while threatening so convincingly that they fold their better hands rather than wait and see whether the bluff is backed up by a hidden winning hand. Iran quietly measures its rational options under circumstances where the options of the two sides are visible to all. The poker player acts by hidden impulses, as well as assessments of the other, often with impatience. The chess player calculates by analyzing what the opponent is aiming to do, countering with defensive moves while also probing weaknesses to gain an advantage that will if it holds create checkmate opportunities.

In real life, most often a subtle mixture of bluffs, threats, tactics, and capabilities are deployed, with more or less skill, and less rationally in times of change where secrecy and technological innovation play leading roles. Ideas are also crucial. For instance, anti-colonial victories became possible when nationalist ideologies and patriotism were seen as providing callings to resist foreign encroachments. Also, vitally important were the longer, deeper willingness of a people defending their homeland to make sacrifices and prolongs the struggle to the point that the foreign invader become inclined to make transactional assessments of whether the gain is worth the pain.

Iran seems motivated to endure the pain of prolonged resistance, while the US is impatient to cut loose from a poorly calculated launch of an expensive, failed war, blocked only by its autocratic leader who seems psychologically incapable of admitting defeat and grabbing the option of a graceful exit, which would requires the US to impose credible constraints on its warmongering partner.

_______________________________

Prof. Richard Falk is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, of the TRANSCEND Media Service Editorial Committee, Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, Chair of Global Law, Faculty of Law, at Queen Mary University London, Research Associate the Orfalea Center of Global Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Fellow of the Tellus Institute.

8 June 2026

Source: transcend.org

By Laala Bechetoula

History may remember Donald Trump for a remarkable political invention: a presidency capable of contradicting itself daily, publicly, and almost proudly.

With Trump, reversal is not an accident. It is a method. Contradiction is not a weakness. It is a weapon. He does not always seek consistency; he seeks centrality.

He does not need to be right every morning.

He needs to be the morning.

Iran offers the latest example.

For years, Trump denounced the 2015 nuclear agreement as a historic surrender. In May 2018, he withdrew the United States from it with theatrical certainty, promising something tougher, stronger, and more American. Then came tensions, sanctions, threats, strikes, and the familiar choreography of maximum pressure.

Then reality returned.

Reality has one unforgivable flaw: it does not applaud slogans.

A strike can damage a facility.

It cannot bomb a geography.

It cannot erase a civilization.

It cannot solve a geopolitical equation.

Sooner or later, diplomacy returns. It always does. Under another name. With another logo. Wrapped in louder language. But carrying the same old truth: even empires must negotiate.

Trump, of course, does not call this a return. He never retreats. He relocates the finish line. He never admits a reversal. He renames it victory. He never goes back to an old policy. He unveils a new one that looks suspiciously like what he condemned yesterday.

This is not limited to Iran.

In January 2017, Trump called NATO “obsolete”; later, he claimed credit for having pushed the alliance into greater spending and renewed strength. China was threatened, tariffed, punished, negotiated with, and re-packaged as proof of toughness. In August 2017, North Korea was promised “fire and fury”; by June 2018, Trump was shaking Kim Jong Un’s hand in Singapore before the relationship settled back into strategic stagnation. Ukraine has become a file in which every Trump sentence seems to require two translations: one for allies, one for his voters.

The pattern is clear.

Trump is not only a president. He is a global political brand.

Before selling doctrines, he sold towers. Before selling strategy, he sold casinos, television, gold letters, and the most durable product of all: himself. In that world, attention matters more than consistency. An ignored brand is a dying brand.

Trump imported that logic into politics.

What does not attract attention does not exist.

That is why the small scene at the G7 with UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed may say more than several official communiqués.

Hearing MBZ speak softly, Trump joked: “When you’re that rich, you can speak that low.”

The room laughed.

History should have paused.

Because Trump accidentally described the very power he admires but cannot imitate.

Real power rarely raises its voice.

Sovereign wealth funds do not shout. They buy.

Central banks do not shout. They decide.

Markets do not shout. They punish.

Intelligence services do not shout. They wait.

States that are sure of themselves can afford silence. Their silence works for them.

Trump belongs to another school: the school of amplification. The school of the permanent microphone. The school of the golden megaphone.

He does not merely speak to the world.

He interrupts it.

Every summit becomes a stage. Every crisis becomes an episode. Every contradiction becomes a trailer for the next act.

His genius is real. He understood before many others that attention is the oil of the twenty-first century. Every provocation is a well. Every scandal is a pipeline. Every threat is an emotional refinery. As long as the world talks about him, he remains at the center of the map.

But noise has a cost.

Threats wear out when repeated too often. Exceptional announcements become routine when everything is historic. Allies start doubting. Adversaries start waiting. Markets start speculating. Diplomats start repairing.

The Trump method creates movement, but not always direction.

It produces shock, but not always strategy.

It captures the hour, but may lose the century.

Trumpism may be less an ideology than a hostage-taking of public attention. It does not always demand belief; it imposes presence. It does not always persuade; it prevents silence.

That is why Trump is larger than Trump. He is the symptom of an age in which visibility often replaces legitimacy, slogans crush doctrine, performance competes with institutions, and volume pretends to be strength.

He did not create this world.

He mastered it.

This is why reducing him to a clown is lazy. A clown makes noise because he must. Trump makes noise because he knows it works. He turns outrage into currency, confusion into leverage, fatigue into submission. He has transformed politics into a casino where every contradiction is another spin of the wheel — and the house, somehow, remains branded with his name.

But history is not television.

It does not reward only those who dominate the moment. It judges what remains. It separates builders from announcers, architects from advertisers, statesmen from performers.

Trump has the largest microphone on earth, yet he seems unable to step away from it. He admires the silence of power, yet governs through noise. He seeks the posture of Caesar, but often communicates like a salesman at the closing hour. He dreams of empire, but behaves as if History were a breaking-news banner.

The empires that endure are not always those that speak the loudest.

They are often those that know when silence is enough.

Trump keeps speaking.

History will answer quietly.

Laala Bechetoula is an independent historian, journalist, and geopolitical analyst based in Laghouat, Algeria.

24  June 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Gaza (QNN)- The Israeli military now occupies approximately 70 percent of the Gaza Strip, and officials believe the area under Israeli control could expand further in the coming months after ICC-wanted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directed the military to expand its control of Gaza. This comes amid ongoing violations of the ceasefire agreement.

“It is possible that the scope of operational control in Palestinian territory will increase in the coming months, ” a security source told Walla.

The forces are also expanding military zones near Israeli settlements adjacent to Gaza. Forces are building new routes, paving roads, and upgrading positions facing the Yellow Line.

Defense officials said that the military could be required to launch a new assault on Gaza.

In May, Netanyahu said that he had directed the Israeli military to take control of 70 percent of the Gaza Strip as a “start”.

During an interview at a conference in the occupied West Bank, Netanyahu said, “We are now in 60% of the territory of the Gaza Strip. We were at 50%. We moved to 60%.”

When someone in the audience shouted that Israel should take the entire besieged enclave, Netanyahu said “we are going in order”, according to The Times of Israel.

“My directive is to move to — take it step by step — first of all 70. Let’s start with that.”

In late April, the Israeli military issued maps to international aid groups that showed the forces already controlling approximately 64% of Gaza by expanding the so-called “yellow line” westward across Gaza in the seven months since the ceasefire, forcing approximately 2 million Palestinians into a shrinking fraction of the coastal enclave’s shattered territory.

According to a new report by the Wall Street Journal, Israel now holds around 59% of the enclave, up from 53% at the start of the US-brokered ceasefire in October.

Recently, Hamas said Israel’s moving of the line “constitutes an explicit and ongoing undermining of the ceasefire agreement, a serious violation of its provisions, and an exposed attempt to impose new facts on the ground by force, with the aim of entrenching military control over the Strip and undermining any real chance of stabilizing the situation or making de-escalation efforts succeed.”

Nickolay Mladenov, a Bulgarian diplomat who serves as the official in charge of implementing the agreement, said that the “yellow line” could turn “into a fence or wall, a permanent separation of Gaza.”

There has been a spike in Israeli attacks in the war-torn Strip despite the ceasefire.

Israel has violated the ceasefire which took effect in October more than 3,200 times, killing hundreds and blocking the entry of much-needed aid.

Israeli forces have killed more than 1,000 Palestinians since the ceasefire, including over 300 children, women, and the elderly.

Apartment buildings, markets, vehicles, and cafés have continued to come under attack. In some cases, families received displacement orders only minutes before their homes were bombed, while many others received no warning at all.

Over 73,700 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks since the war began on October 7, 2023.

United Nations human rights chief Volker Turk condemned Israel’s recent attacks in the Gaza Strip, saying that “the unrelenting pattern of killings” reflects Israel’s “sweeping impunity”.

“Palestinians are still being killed and injured in what is left of their homes, shelters and tents of displaced families, on the streets, in vehicles, at a medical facility and a classroom,” Turk said.

The yellow line is a non-physical demarcation line separating the Israeli occupation forces deployment from certain areas of Gaza, while occupying more than half of the Strip. The line divides Gaza into two zones: an eastern area under Israeli military control and a western area where Palestinians live, were forcibly displaced to, and are under constant Israeli threat of attacks.

During a visit to the Gaza Strip in December, the Israeli military’s chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, said unequivocally that the “Yellow Line” is “a new border line”.

Haaretz previously reported that the Israeli military is turning the “yellow line” into a physical border, despite it being initially intended as a temporary demarcation. The report added that there is currently no detailed mechanism regulating a withdrawal from it.

The Defense Minister, Israel Katz, said that Israel’s ultimate aim was to expel large numbers of Palestinians from Gaza in what he claimed to be “voluntary migration” but human rights activists describe as a long-term plan for ethnic cleansing by making living conditions inside Gaza intolerable.

Muhammad Shehada, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said: “Netanyahu is now declaring the whole Trump deal, the framework for Gaza, to be null and void. That’s what it means in a nutshell. There’s no other way to spell it out.”

Israeli forces have systematically destroyed the remaining buildings in their zone, so its expansion to 70% of Gaza would mean that the 2.2 million Palestinians who have survived the war would be crammed into less than a third of their original territory, which was already overcrowded, just 109 square kilometres of land.

“The conditions there are already appalling. It is the single most overcrowded place on the face of the planet,” Shehada said.

“Every square metre has another displaced family, another makeshift tent, or some sort of improvised shelter on it. So it would be a death sentence for a lot of people who physically have no place to go.”

“We mourn as Gaza reaches yet another tragic milestone … Thousands more people who were told the worst was over are still burying their loved ones,” said Fikr Shalltoot, Gaza director at Medical Aid for Palestinians.

23 June 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Geneva (QNN)- Israel deliberately targeted Palestinian children, resulting ​in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, and war crimes in the occupied West Bank, an independent UN inquiry said ‌on Tuesday.

The report by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel examined violations against Palestinian children since the start of the genocide on October 7, 2023.

Around 30% of those killed in the Gaza assault were children, the report found.

A previous report by the commission in September 2025 found that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza and that top Israeli officials including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu incited these acts.

The UN commission said that Palestinian children were deliberately targeted and killed during the war, including after ​a ceasefire came into effect in October 2025. It said this was a key element establishing genocidal intent by Israeli occupation authorities and forces to destroy the Palestinian ​group, in whole or in part, in Gaza.

“The evidence shows that Palestinian children have been deliberately targeted and killed by the Israeli security forces,” said Srinivasan Muralidhar, the commission’s chair, in a statement accompanying the report.

The report found that the proportion of children killed was higher than in previous assaults. Between October 7, 2023 and October 7, 2025, at least 20,179 children were ​killed, around 30% of the overall death toll.

By comparison, in previous Israeli assaults on Gaza in 2008–2009 and 2014, children made up approximately 24% of conflict-related fatalities, the report said.

More than 50,000 children have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since Israel began its war on Gaza, according to the UN children’s agency (UNICEF).

The agency noted that one Palestinian child has been killed every day on average for more than eight months in Gaza, since the so-called “ceasefire” took effect last October.

On Monday, the UN also warned that children are being left “increasingly unprotected” as humanitarian groups and rights defenders are forced to scale back their operations in the Palestinian territory.

Israeli ​forces continued to use high-payload munitions and weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated residential areas despite mounting child casualties, the commission said.

“This indicates that such attacks, which killed children in ‌such high ⁠numbers, were intentional,” it said. It said it believed children were targeted collectively because the Israeli forces considered the civilian population as a whole to be associated with Palestinian resistance factions.

Conditions imposed by Israel in Gaza, ​including widespread attacks, repeated displacement and ⁠starvation caused by the blockade of aid, food and medicine, severely harmed children’s health and development, resulting in preventable deaths and trauma, the report said.

The inquiry also found that attacks on healthcare and reproductive facilities impacted the survival of newborns and reported ​increases in miscarriages, and that nearly all children in Gaza were reported to require psychological support.

In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Commission found a sharp increase in violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinian children and documented evidence of torture, including ⁠sexual and ​gender-based violence, during mass arrests and detention.

It said Palestinian children, particularly boys, were subjected to systematic mistreatment ​in detention, including forced stripping, beatings and food deprivation.

The commission concluded that the treatment constituted the crimes against humanity of torture and other inhumane acts causing great suffering or serious injury.

Palestinians across the occupied territory, including children, have faced a surge in arrests and detention since Israel launched the war on Gaza.

More than half of the Palestinian children detained in Israeli prisons at the end of last year were being held without charge or trial, a Palestinian rights group, Defence for Children International-Palestine (DCIP), said in March.

“Even if the bombs and guns fall silent in Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinian children will not simply recover overnight,” Muralidhar said.

“The protection, care and survival of Palestinian children are inseparable from the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination,” he added.

“By targeting children, Israel is attacking the very capacity of the Palestinian people to exist and to determine their future.”

24  June 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Vijay Prashad

The Iran–US Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) emerged not from reconciliation, but from exhaustion and strategic failure by the United States and its allies. It was the product of a war that had reached its political limits. Washington and Tel Aviv presented their illegal war of aggression as a necessary response to Iran’s nuclear energy programme, missile capabilities, and regional alliances. Yet behind this language of security lay a broader objective: to weaken Iran decisively and restore a regional order centred on unquestioned US and Israeli dominance.

For more than two decades, successive US administrations had sought to contain Iran through sanctions, diplomatic isolation, covert operations, cyberwarfare, and targeted assassinations. The recent war represented the most intense expression of this strategy. The assumption in Washington and Tel Aviv was that overwhelming force would cripple Iran’s military infrastructure, fracture its state capacity, provoke internal instability, and perhaps open the way for political transformation.

That expectation was not fulfilled. Iran suffered extensive damage to military facilities, infrastructure, and economic assets. Civilian life was severely disrupted. But the Iranian state did not collapse. Its command structures continued to function, its armed forces retained retaliatory capacity, and its leadership preserved enough cohesion to withstand the assault. Despite the murder of several key leaders of the Islamic Republic, it remains in authority and its legitimacy has in fact been strengthened.

Equally important, Iran demonstrated that it could impose costs beyond its own borders. Missile and drone attacks reached Israeli territory and threatened strategic infrastructure across the Gulf Arab states. The conflict imposed by the US and Israel ended up with disrupted shipping routes, raised insurance costs, unsettled energy markets, and reminded governments across the world that instability in the Gulf cannot be contained within the region.

As the war continued, the gap between military power and political achievement became increasingly visible. The United States and Israel possessed overwhelming military superiority, but they could not convert battlefield pressure into decisive political outcomes. Iran remained intact; regime change did not occur. The Axis of Resistance – from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea – was weakened but not eliminated. Continued escalation promised greater destruction, but not strategic victory. Due to this fact, the MoU is not a final peace treaty. It is a provisional framework designed to halt direct hostilities, reopen channels of negotiation, and prevent the conflict from spreading further.

Its first and most immediate provision is a temporary cessation of direct military operations. The framework establishes a 60-day period during which the parties are expected to negotiate the terms of a more durable settlement. This pause does not resolve the underlying conflict, but it creates space to prevent accidental escalation and reduce the immediate risk of a wider regional war.

Second, the MoU centres on the Strait of Hormuz. This is the agreement’s most economically significant feature. Roughly one-fifth of globally traded petroleum passes through this narrow waterway. During the war, threats to shipping demonstrated both Iran’s geographic leverage and the vulnerability of the global economy to instability in the Gulf. The MoU treats maritime deconfliction not as a technical matter, but as a central pillar of regional and global economic stability.

Third, the agreement establishes a process for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear energy programme. Crucially, it does not impose immediate dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Instead, it opens discussions on enrichment levels, inspection mechanisms, monitoring arrangements, and the possible return of international technical oversight. This marks a shift from coercion to bargaining: Iran is not being treated simply as a target, but as a state whose consent is required for any durable nuclear arrangement.

Fourth, the MoU includes discussions on sanctions relief, oil exports, and the possible release or mobilisation of Iranian financial assets. The details remain contested. But the principle is clear: economic strangulation did not produce surrender. A sustainable settlement will require some degree of economic accommodation.

Fifth, the agreement reportedly includes regional deconfliction mechanisms, particularly around Lebanon. This reflects the fact that the conflict was never only bilateral. Iran’s regional alliances, Israel’s military operations, US security commitments, and the fragile balance in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and the Gulf are all connected. Any agreement that ignores this regional architecture will remain unstable.

The most revealing aspect of the MoU is what it omits. It does not demand regime change, it does not require Iran to abandon its missile programme, and it does not force Tehran to withdraw entirely from regional political and security affairs. In short, the agreement recognises Iran as a regional power whose interests must be negotiated, not simply bombed away.

The MoU exposes important differences between the strategic priorities of the United States and Israel. For Israel, the war was an opportunity to reshape the regional balance of power. Israeli policymakers have long regarded Iran as the principal obstacle to their strategic ambitions in West Asia. The weakening of Hezbollah, the fragmentation of resistance networks, and the isolation of Tehran were seen as necessary steps toward a regional order more favourable to Israel. The United States shared some of these objectives but operated under broader constraints. Washington had to consider not only military outcomes, but also oil markets, global trade, Gulf allies, domestic political pressures, and the risk of wider international involvement. As the costs mounted, US calculations increasingly diverged from Israeli maximalism.

The result is an agreement that many in Israel are likely to regard as insufficient. The war did not eliminate Iran as a strategic actor. It did not produce regime change. It did not destroy Iran’s capacity to influence events beyond its borders. Most importantly, it ended not with capitulation, but with negotiation. This outcome reveals a deeper problem for Israeli strategy. Military superiority can inflict enormous damage, but it cannot by itself produce political legitimacy or regional acceptance. Israel can strike targets across West Asia, but it cannot determine the political future of societies beyond its borders through force alone.

For the United States, the MoU represents the recognition of another reality: military dominance no longer guarantees political obedience. This lesson has been learned repeatedly in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and now once again in relation to Iran.

The Gulf Arab monarchies are among the most important observers of this agreement. Throughout the conflict, Gulf governments were caught between competing pressures. They remain dependent on US security guarantees and have expanded overt or covert relations with Israel. At the same time, they understand that any regional war with Iran places their own economic and social stability at risk. The disruption of shipping routes and threats to regional infrastructure made this vulnerability unmistakable. The Gulf states possess immense wealth, but their economies depend on secure maritime trade, stable energy exports, foreign investment, and the confidence of global markets. A prolonged war endangers all of these.

The likely conclusion for Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman is pragmatic rather than ideological. They will continue to work with Washington. Some will maintain or deepen relations with Israel. But they will also seek channels with Tehran and avoid becoming direct platforms for escalation. This trend was already visible before the war. The Saudi–Iranian rapprochement facilitated by China in 2023 reflected a growing recognition that regional stability cannot be achieved through permanent confrontation. The war has reinforced that conclusion. The Gulf monarchies have learned that neither Iran nor the United States is going away. Their future depends not on choosing one side permanently against the other, but on managing the contradictions between them while protecting their own interests.

Whether Iran has won depends on how victory is defined. If victory means avoiding destruction, Iran did not win. The country suffered severe economic losses, infrastructure damage, military degradation, and human costs. The burden of the war fell heavily on ordinary Iranians. But strategic outcomes are not measured only by damage suffered. They are also measured by political objectives achieved or prevented.

The central objective of the United States and Israel was not merely to damage Iran. It was to fundamentally weaken Iran as an independent regional actor. On that measure, the campaign fell short. Iran remains sovereign and the government of the Islamic Republic remains in power. Its military capabilities have been reduced but not eliminated. Its diplomatic relevance has been strengthened by the fact that negotiations now revolve around securing Iranian consent rather than imposing foreign dictates. In this sense, Iran achieved what many states facing overwhelming military pressure have sought throughout history: survival. Survival is not romantic. It is often costly, brutal, and incomplete. But in international politics, survival can be the most important measure of strategic success.

The larger significance of the war lies elsewhere. The conflict demonstrated once again that destruction is not the same as power. Military force can demolish infrastructure, kill combatants, and impose suffering. What it cannot always do is produce political transformation. The United States and Israel possessed vastly superior military capabilities, yet they could not secure the political outcome they desired. The Iran–US MoU is therefore not a story of decisive victory by either side. It is the story of a war that revealed the limits of coercion. Iran emerges battered but standing. The United States and Israel emerge powerful but unable to dictate terms. The Gulf states emerge more conscious of their vulnerability. The region enters a new phase in which negotiations, rather than battlefield victories, will determine the next chapter of West Asian politics. That is the deepest political meaning of the MoU: military power can destroy, but it cannot always rule.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. He is the author of forty books, including Washington Bullets, Red Star Over the Third World, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South, and How the International Monetary Fund Suffocates Africa, written with Grieve Chelwa.

24  June 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Michel Chossudovsky & Christine Cotton

She Courageously Confronted Pfizer–May Her Legacy Live!

8 Jun 2026 – It is June 2, 2026. By the time you read these lines, I will have left this world.

For those who do not know me, my name is Christine Cotton.

I am what is known as a whistleblower. I worked for 25 years in the pharmaceutical industry in the management and analysis of clinical data.

As a biostatistician, since December 2020, I have immersed myself in the documents of the COVID vaccine from the Pfizer laboratory. I have written numerous documents and done many broadcasts to share the real results. My conclusions are catastrophic, beyond the invalidity of the results due to errors or even manifest frauds.

The Pfizer vaccine that the population received, that you may have received, is not the one from the clinical trial with the 95% efficacy announced by all the politicians, journalists, and TV doctors. You were administered a product for which there were absolutely no results, neither of efficacy nor of tolerance.

This message is not intended to create sensationalism on social networks but to inform you of one of the biggest manipulations that humanity has ever known.

All the evidence is in the latest version of my work, which I invite you to download and read. For the lazier ones and the very busy, the few pages of the conclusion and the links to the source documents will already enlighten you a great deal.

I fell ill at the very moment I filed a complaint against the health authorities.

For over a year, I have been suffering from excruciating pain starting from the lower back down to my legs, burning sensations in the skin, mainly in the legs and back. I have consulted general practitioners, neurologists, osteopaths, virologists, dermatologists, rheumatologists, psychiatrists, homeopaths… I have swallowed thousands of capsules of dietary supplements, anxiolytics, neuroleptics, painkillers prescribed by the pain center. I have even done bioresonance sessions and seen magnetizers, and this without any result.

I am at the end of what I can bear.

I ask forgiveness from those who love me, you who have followed me on social networks for 4 years, my friends, my parents, and above all to God or whatever his nature or name may be, to end my life—I, who have never ceased to protect it since childhood, whether plant, animal, or human life.

From the bottom of my heart, I thank those who have supported me, encouraged me, and all those who pray or have organized prayer groups. I am going to ask you to pray once more so that my soul may be in the light of the Creator as soon as possible.

***

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. He has taught as visiting professor in Western Europe, Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Latin America.

15  Jun 2026

Source: transcend.org

By Richard Falk

4 Jun 2026 – The post below attempts to unravel the problematic relationship between the UN framework of regulating war/peace relations and geopolitical management of global security shaping the design of world order embedded in the post-1945 architecture of world order by the winners of World War II, the five permanent members of the Security Council vested with a right of veto. I am publishing here my edited version of an AI generated summary of my conversations with Pascual Lottaz, founding director of the Institute of Neutrality Studies.

Abstract

Richard Falk, a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, critiques the current state of international law and U.S. militarism, arguing that the unipolar world order established post-1945 is failing. He contends that international law is often ineffective in the realm of global security due to power imbalances, where the most powerful states evade accountability, undermining the law’s legitimacy. Falk emphasizes that the U.S. mismanaged its unipolarity, investing heavily in militarism while neglecting the socio-economic welfare of its citizens. He contrasts this with China’s more cooperative approach to international relations, which prioritizes mutual benefits over militaristic dominance. The discussion also highlights the resurgence of neutrality as a potential counterbalance to aggressive geopolitical maneuvers, particularly in the context of shifting alliances in the Middle East. Falk warns that without a reevaluation of political realism and a commitment to equitable international norms, the world risks further instability and conflict.

Introduction

The contemporary landscape of international relations is marked by an overwhelming sense of turbulence, exacerbated by the persistent militarism of powerful nations. As the geopolitical order shifts, the role of international law becomes increasingly critical yet disappointingly inadequate. Within this context, discussions surrounding the effectiveness of international law, the implications of U.S. militarism, and the prospects for neutrality and shifting alliances emerge as vital considerations for scholars and policymakers alike. A recent conversation sheds light on these pressing issues, articulating a nuanced understanding of the complexities that define the current state of global governance. Note that the inadequacy of international law is not with the normative framework of rules, principles, international institutions, but with the geopolitical control of global security enforcement and accountability mechanisms.

Law Power and Reciprocity

The effectiveness of international law with respect to global security (war/peace agenda and genocide prevention) is profoundly shaped by the dynamics of power and reciprocity. While international law ostensibly serves as a framework for regulating state interactions, its actual performance in the realm of global security has been deeply disappointing. The principles of reciprocity, which are fundamental to the functioning of any legal system, are eroded by the stark inequalities among states. The United Nations (UN) Charter, established in 1945, institutionalized a system that privileges the powerful, allowing them to wield disproportionate influence over global governance, whether through funding leverage or the veto. This structural inequality has resulted in widespread public perceptions that international law operates more as a tool of the strong than as a genuine system of accountability.

The power imbalance has led to a selective application of international law, where the actions of powerful states are often shielded from scrutiny. The conversation highlighted that this selective enforcement creates a crisis of belief in the law itself. When the powerful are not held accountable, the legitimacy of the entire legal framework is called into question. The discourse surrounding international law must therefore grapple with this inherent hypocrisy, recognizing that the laws crafted to govern global relations often reflect the interests of those who designed them. Double standards undermines belief in international law as occurs when considerations of legality are used to criticize or sanction geopolitical rivals and their friends but denied to exonerate their own actions and those allied. It is this duality that makes a mockery of international law as integral to international relations, and relegates it to the role of state propaganda.

US Militarism and Failed Wars

U.S. militarism has significantly shaped the course of international relations, leading to a series of controversial interventions that have often resulted in political failure. The conversation underscored how the U.S. has engaged in numerous military endeavors that, rather than promoting stability or security, have exacerbated tensions and contributed to cycles of violence. The historical context of these interventions reveals a pattern of hubris in shaping foreign policy, revealing the shortcomings of an uncritical belief that military superiority produces victorious endings of wars. The post-1945 record shows that wars not justified by the law governing self-defense have generally led the U.S.to experience catastrophic outcomes or at best stalemates.

The discussion pointed to the Vietnam War as a pivotal example of this phenomenon. The U.S. ultimately did not win in Vietnam, and the lessons from that conflict seem largely unheeded. Instead, the pattern of military engagement continues, with the U.S. investing heavily in a militarized foreign policy that often neglects the nuances of diplomacy and negotiation, and consistently disregards the sovereign rights and national security of other sovereign states. The ramifications of such an approach are far-reaching, extending beyond the immediate geopolitical landscape to have damaging economic, political, and cultural impacts on the very fabric of American society, where militarism diverts resources away from pressing domestic needs.

The conversation also highlighted the economic motivations underpinning U.S. militarism. The intertwining of military expenditures with corporate interests creates a situation where the machinery of war becomes self-perpetuating. This relationship not only undermines the country’s economic health and democratic ethos but also perpetuates a cycle of violence that is difficult to break, as well as creating a militarist bureaucracy that biased policymaking in the governing structure..

Neutrality and Shifting Alliances

The concept of neutrality is experiencing a renaissance as sovereign governments reassess their alliances in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. The conversation illuminated how historical notions of neutrality are being redefined in light of contemporary challenges. Countries are again viewing geopolitical neutrality as a positive strategic option while exhibiting serious concerns about with the implications of aligning with powerful geopolitical actors, pursuing their national goals that jeopardize the stability of alliance relations.

This reassessment is evident in the strategies adopted by nations such as the Gulf states, which are increasingly recognizing that dependence on U.S. security guarantees may not provide the stability or protection that they seek. Instead, these nations are exploring avenues for independent diplomacy, signaling a shift towards a more complex understanding of neutrality or multiple alignments in the face of emerging threats. Such shifts are particularly evident in Europe and the Middle East.

The conversation also pointed to the dangers of abandoning neutrality, as exemplified by Sweden and Finland’s recent NATO membership. This move illustrates a broader trend where nations are compelled to choose sides in an increasingly polarized world, potentially sacrificing their sovereignty in the process. The implications of these shifting and eroding alliances are profound, as they may lead to heightened tensions and conflict rather than the stability that neutrality historically provided. These adjustments in policy have been particularly affected by Trump’s unilateral transnationalism (‘America First’) evident in responding to the Russian attack on Ukraine and the launching of a second Iran War within calendar year 2025, in one case abandoning European security in relation to Russia and in the other proceeding to a major war with heavy costs without consultation with allies or the receipt of any authorization by internal constitutional procedures or the UN Security Council.

Israel Palestine Media and War Propaganda

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a focal point of international law discussions, particularly concerning the media’s role in shaping narratives around war and legality. The conversation emphasized how the framing of conflict in media discourse often obscures the realities on the ground, creating a disconnect between legal principles and lived experiences. The portrayal of the conflict in mainstream media frequently reflects biases that align with the interests of powerful nations, thus perpetuating a narrative that can undermine the pursuit of justice and accountability.

The conversation also highlighted the significance of international law in this context, noting the challenges faced by those who attempt to hold powerful states accountable for violations. The selective application of international law creates a scenario where the powerful can act with impunity, while those on the receiving end of aggression are often left without recourse. This disparity not only delegitimizes the legal framework but also fosters a sense of hopelessness among those affected by conflict, and relying on their right and will to resist encroachments on basic rights. For the Palestinians, their inalienable right of self-determination.

Moreover, the media’s framing of the conflict often fails to address the underlying legal and moral questions that should guide international responses. The discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must therefore evolve to encompass a more robust understanding of international law and its application, recognizing the urgent need for accountability and justice in the face of ongoing violence.

Conclusion

The conversation encapsulates the complexities and challenges facing the international legal order in an era marked by U.S. militarism, shifting alliances, and the urgent need for a reevaluation of neutrality. As the world grapples with the consequences of historical injustices and the failures of powerful states to act responsibly, the role of international law becomes more critical than ever. The discussions surrounding the effectiveness of international law, the implications of unipolarity, geopolitical management of global security, and the necessity for a renewed commitment to neutrality reflect a broader call for a reevaluation of how states engage with one another in an increasingly interconnected world endangered by reckless militarism and multiple forms of inequality.

The future of international law hinges on the recognition that it must serve as a genuine mechanism for the regulation of behavior of governments and the accountability of leaders, corporations, and financial institutions rather than a propaganda tool for the powerful. Only through a commitment to equity, reciprocity, and genuine dialogue can the international community hope to address the pressing challenges of our time and move toward a more just global order. As nations navigate the complexities of their relationships with one another, the lessons learned from past conflicts and the ongoing struggles for justice should inform the path forward.

Prof. Richard Falk is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, of the TRANSCEND Media Service Editorial Committee, Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, Chair of Global Law, Faculty of Law, at Queen Mary University London, Research Associate the Orfalea Center of Global Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Fellow of the Tellus Institute.

15  Jun 2026

Source: transcend.org

By Katherine Krueger

How many acts of war must occur before the mainstream media accepts there is no ceasefire between the U.S., Israel, and Iran?

3 Jun 2026 – To any reasonable person, a ceasefire is exactly what it sounds like: It is the total cessation of military attacks to end a war. But to the mainstream American media outlets covering the U.S.–Israel war with Iran, what constitutes a “ceasefire” is a rhetorical exercise.

Today, Iran launched missiles at the international airport in Kuwait. As the New York Times reported: “The barrage was one of the biggest attacks on a Gulf nation since the U.S.-Iran cease-fire took effect in April.” ABC News’s live update coverage ran with the breaking news headline “Iran targets US forces, Kuwait airport amid ceasefire.” Over at CNN, the headline was “Kuwait’s airport attacked as fresh Iran-US strikes strain ceasefire.”

Of course, Iran’s latest campaign didn’t come out of nowhere: It comes two days after the U.S. announced that it had bombed radar and drone sites in the country, and one day after Israel bombarded south Lebanon with airstrikes and artillery yet again, reportedly killing at least four people across two towns.

All that bombing, and all of its attendant death and suffering, sure doesn’t feel like a “ceasefire” in any real sense. Still, the Times, along with other national news outlets, continues to spin the fantasy that the ceasefire is intact — only now it’s increasingly “fragile” or “tested.” The paper of record has gone so far as to say that it “hangs in balance.”

In a piece of news analysis in the Times last week — on the heels of the U.S. bombing Iran for the second time in three days — the paper made the case that “a truce isn’t necessarily doomed if the missiles are still flying.” It also argued that while a ceasefire might sound like an end to the bombing, the geopolitical definition hinges on whether both sides agree that a “ceasefire” remains in effect.

If government officials call it a ceasefire, who is The New York Times to question it?

If government officials call it a ceasefire, who is the New York Times to question it?

For many months, another ceasefire in name only has been touted in Gaza. What that’s looked like in practice is Israel relentlessly bombing the Palestinians on a near-daily basis. Al Jazeera reported that since the “ceasefire” in Gaza was announced in October 2025, Israel has killed at least 922 people and injured 2,786.

To the people of Gaza and of south Lebanon, there is no ceasefire. Continuing to carry water for the idea that we’re no longer at war, or that there’s been any meaningful progress made to end this war, is to provide cover for the U.S. and Israel, the countries that launched this war of aggression and continue to execute it. It also provides President Donald Trump with the political cover he so desperately desires as he realizes that he’s powerless to end the deeply unpopular war he started with Israel, and that no number of testy phone calls will move the needle if our ally won’t agree to a true ceasefire.

The mainstream media is perfectly comfortable spinning the fiction that we’re currently in a gray zone somewhere between war and peace because the stakes are an abstraction. To them, blindly supporting American imperialism and Israeli aggression are baked-in ideological assumptions, not matters of life or death. It’s no coincidence that the New York Times has done more than any other media organization to massage the language around Israel, Gaza, and Iran to an extreme degree.

But words like “ceasefire” matter a great deal, which is why it’s critically important for the media to call out acts of war for exactly what they are. In this way, the brutal fact of war is black and white: Your country is either killing people with the bombs it’s dropping, or it’s not. Failing to acknowledge that reality is worse than dishonest — it is to irrevocably deprive those paying the highest price of their humanity.

15  Jun 2026

Source: transcend.org