Archives: Articles

Dr. Firoz Mahboob Kamal

The rule of unhinged bullies

Today on June 22, the US joins Israel in its war against Iran. The USA bombers dropped 13 thousands 608 kilogrammes bombs on nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. President Donald Trump claims that the US bombs have totally obliterated the whole Iranian nuclear facilities. Since Iran hasn’t any such nuclear deterrent, such a US attack was highly expected. Such US bombing has blown up the status quo in the area and created a new situation to reshape the geopolitics of the Middle East.

The tiny settlers’ colony of Israel has been a  regional bully in  the Middle East since its illegal inception in 1948. The USA works as the international bully in the post-World War world. Both bullies work in tandem to jeopardise world peace. Now the world stands as a totally lawless jungle, only the beasts with hunting power can exercise their political agenda and demand others to show full submission. Most Arab autocrats have already shown their full submission to these bullies. Iran faces wars only for its defiance. These bullies want to make a 1953 coup like regime change in Iran to install a puppet like Reza Pahlavi -the son of the deposed puppet king Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He is a preferred candidate for Israel and its allies.       

Since the establishment of this tiny settlers’ colony state, Israel works as a regional bully in  the Middle East and continues its geographical expansion;  and the USA works as the unhinged international bully. As a result, the world looks like a lawless jungle, only the political beasts with highest capacity of mass destruction and genocide exercise their bullying instinct. Iran is blamed for unrest in the region, but unlike the US and Israel, Iran never invaded any country. The US has 19 military bases and 40 thousands armed personnels in the Middle East, whereas Iran hasn’t such bases outside its own borders.

The rule of the war criminals

Most western countries like the US, the UK, Germany, France  are run by political and economic interests; morality and humanity have no place in their politics. This is why they could run colonial projects of ethnic cleansing, plunder and slave trading in the past in Asian and African countries. And now they support, finace and weaponise Israel for its policy of genocide and destruction in Gaza. If they had an iota of morality and humanity, they could condemn Israel for its policy of war crimes. In fact, they have been the active partners in all war crimes that took place in modern history like two World Wars, Vietnam war, and wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya and now in Palestine.

Committing crime is not the only crime; giving necessary logistics, money and weapons to a killer is also a crime. The western countries show their complicity in Israeli war crimes by giving full support to Israel.These western countries are indeed run by war criminals. Because, only such war criminals could support another war criminal like Prime Netayanhu of Israel. They proved to be intimate ideological cousins in committing and rejoicing in the same type of crimes.

Recently, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said, “Israel is doing our dirty work.” Germany considers it a valid reason to stand behind Israel and supply ammunition to continue with the dirty works. The reason works for other war criminals like Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the UK and President Donald Trump of the US. And these dirty works are nothing but war crimes like killing 55 thousands people in Gaza, putting children, women and people on starvation, bombing almost all hospitals to rubble and destroying more than 80 percent of the residential areas.        

War: The most powerful catalyst for policy-shift

One day the US-Israeli bombing on Iran will end. But the consequences of the US-Israeli war on Iran will not end after the end of bombing. The war will work as a powerful catalyst of change. This will work as a powerful impetus for making Iran more powerful. The US bombing has already killed all opportunities of peaceful resolution. And when the path of peace is blocked, the path of war stays as the only option. It generates unending psychological war and prepares ground for further war. Thus, World War I generated the political ground for World War II. The same phenomenon repeats again and again on the world stage. So the current US-Israeli war against Iran will surely impact the future course of history -especially in the Middle East and the Muslim World.

The US bombing on Iran re-enforced the old notion that the US and the Israeli policies go together. The Israeli policy is nothing but the US policy and the US policy is nothing but the Israeli policy. Even President Trump said, “Israel’s war is an American war.” He also claims that he has the best partnership with Israel on war against Iran than any other previous US President. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu congratulated President Trump for bombing Iran; and the Israeli people are rejoicng the destruction of the Iranian nuclear sites -as they rejoice the genocide and destruction in Gaza.

Donald Trump: A war criminal

Starting a war against any country is itself a great crime. President Trump committed a huge crime by starting an unprovoked war against Iran. Iran didn’t bomb on any US soil, nor did kill any US citizen. So, by bombing Iran, the US has violated the UN charter. Even the US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard told in front of the US Congressional committee that Iran is not making any nuclear bomb; she also told that Iran is not near to having that. But President Donald Trump didn’t believe his own spie chief’s information but believed in Israeli information. For Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is more trustworthy than the US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard.

Only a few days ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Chief also told an Al Jazeera journalist that his organisation couldn’t find any evidence that Iran is making any nuclear bomb. So it is a crime to attack Iran on the pretext of making a nuclear bomb. Thus the US violated the UN Charter. President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK did the same war crimes by attacking Iraq on a false pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. These criminal states manufacture lies to justify their war crimes. President Trump is repeating the same.  

The emergence of new Iran

The US attack gave Iran the full right to retaliate anywhere on any US presence. The US has 19 bases and 40 thousands soldiers in the Middle East. So Iran has 19 big and 40 thousands small targets. The US attack has proven that signing Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and allowing IAEA don’t give any extra guarantee and safety to the signing country. So it doesn’t give any sensible reason to continue with NPT and IAEA; so Iran has enough reason to withdraw from such treaties. The current war will solidify the Iranian resolve to defend against any foreign invasion. Now all Iranians will fully understand the need for a nuclear deterrent for its sovereignty. So the war will induce a drastic shift in Iran’s defence policy and priority.

Pakistan’s humiliating defeat in 1971 by India made the country a formidable nuclear power. The former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqer Ali Bhutto said, “We may eat grass but we will make nuclear bombs.” Such a strong resolve made Pakistan nuclear. Iran is a much more resourceful country than Pakistan. Iran is the major oil and gas producer in the world. Iran also has hundreds of world class intelligent scientists. So if Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea make nuclear weapons, why not Iran? Why should there be discrimination? The USA and Israeli attack will only increase the determination of Iran to have that. Iran is already under economic embargo for decades, so the Iranians know how to survive with that.

President Donald Trump now offers peace after bombing Iran. Peace never comes with bombings. Such bombings may cause either surrender cum decapitation or generate firm resilience. Iran is not a banana republic to surrender. Iran may take a period of strategic silence or inaction to fully prepare for an effective encounter.

The US jets bombed Yemen more than a thousand times on Yemen, but couldn’t break the resilience of the Houthis. Hence, Iran is too big to be subdued. The US and its more than 50 partners couldn’t win in Afghanistan in 20 years, how can they dare win in Iran? So Iran may be bombed thousands of times but looks unstoppable in its mission to stay sovereign.   

The US-Israeli attack on Iran also taught important lessons to other independent Muslim countries. The NPT and IAEA are the tools to keep the Muslim countries defenceless and subjugated. If these Muslim countries have any vision to stay sovereign they must discard these shackles like NPT and IAEA from their neck -as Israel has done. The immoral discrimination between the nuclear and non-nuclear countries must disappear.

22 June 2025

Source: drfirozmahboobkamal.com

By Seyed Hossein Mousavian

For Tehran, the attacks by two nuclear-armed countries revealed that the Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Iran is a member, not only has no real value, but is in fact harmful

On Sunday, US President Donald Trump publicly announced: “The US military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

Following the attack, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the use of force by the United States against Iran today is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security.

On 13 June, Israel launched a series of coordinated air and cyber strikes targeting key Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, killing several nuclear scientists and high level military commanders. In response, Iran retaliated with hundreds of missile and drone strikes against military and intelligence installations in Israel.

Israel’s main objective was not about Iran’s nuclear programme. Since the early 1990s, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed each year that Iran would build a nuclear bomb within a year or two. 

This has been a lie repeated for over 30 years. The truth is that by attacking Iran, Netanyahu’s main objective is to overthrow the government, create instability in the country, and turn Iran – like Syria, Lebanon, and Libya – into a failed state and then break it apart.

The consequences of US and Israeli military attacks will haunt the region, and beyond, for years to come. Here, I will highlight the key consequences of such an attack.

Netanyahu’s trap

There is no doubt that Israel coordinated its attack on Iran with the US, Europe, and Nato, and continued the war with their direct and indirect support. Netanyahu has been trying to drag the US into a war with Iran since the 1990s, but all US presidents avoided such a trap. 

Under Netanyahu’s pressure, Trump killed the Iran nuclear deal, which was adopted by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, during his first term and launched a military strike against Iran’s nuclear sites just months into his second term. 

Netanyahu praised Trump’s decision to attack Iran. “Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,” he said.

Ironically, the attack came after Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foriegn Minister Abbas Araghchi agreed that the first three rounds of nuclear talks in Oman and Italy could be a credible base for an agreement.

An informed Iranian source told me: “The key elements of the deal between Witkoff and Araghchi were agreed upon over three rounds of negotiations in Muscat and Rome. The deal was as follows: Iran would accept maximum nuclear inspections and transparency, including implementation of the Additional Protocol and Subsidiary Arrangements Code 3.1 – the highest international mechanisms for inspecting a country’s nuclear programme.”

The source added: “Second, Iran would convert or export its existing stockpile of 60-percent enriched uranium, which is sufficient to build 10 nuclear bombs. Third, Iran would halt its current high-level enrichment at 60 percent and 20 percent and reduce it to the level of civil purposes, which is 3.67 percent. Finally, Iran would fully cooperate with the IAEA to resolve all technical ambiguities.

“In return, the United States would lift the nuclear-related sanctions. It was agreed that the technical teams of both sides would draft the final agreement based on these four points. But suddenly, after a call between Netanyahu and Trump, the American side stopped sending its technical team to Muscat and, in a 180-degree shift in its position, demanded the complete shutdown of Iran’s peaceful enrichment programme.

“This shift delayed the agreement until Trump’s two-month deadline expired – and while the sixth round was set for day 63, Israel launched an attack on Iran on day 61. This was Israel’s trap – designed to drag the US and Trump into a war with Iran.”

Israel’s failure

Foreign ministers from Britain, France and Germany, as well as the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Kaja Kallas, held talks with Araghchi on Friday and agreed to meet again within a week. 

The E3/EU ministers were encouraged to meet the Iranian foreign minister because on 19 June, Trump gave a two-week window for diplomacy.

“Last week, we were in negotiations with the US when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy. This week, we held talks with the E3/EU when the US decided to blow up that diplomacy. What conclusion would you draw?” Araghchi wrote to Britain and the EU High Representative.

The US decision to attack Iran shows that Israel not only failed in its 10-day military operation against Tehran, but was on the verge of defeat. Why would the US intervene if Israel had not been in a crisis?

Israel, the only country in the Middle East that actually possesses nuclear weapons, with as many as 400 nuclear bombs according to some estimates, cannot credibly claim to be fighting against nuclear proliferation.

Moreover, all reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and US intelligence agencies over the past 20 years have consistently confirmed that there is no evidence of the Iranian nuclear programme pursuing weaponisation.

“We do not have at this point, if you ask me, at this time, any tangible proof that there is a programme, or a plan, to fabricate, to manufacture a nuclear weapon,” said the UN nuclear chief.

The key point is that there was no immediate and serious threat. The claim that Iran has enough enriched stockpiles to build 10 bombs in two weeks is only half the truth.

The other half is that – even if Iran decided to build a bomb – it would take them one to two years to develop the delivery systems, such as nuclear warheads. “There was no imminent threat that Iran was weaponising its nuclear programme before Israel’s attack began,” according to the American Arms Control Association.

NPT: A political tool

This is the first time that two nuclear-armed countries have launched a military attack on a non-nuclear country. 

This demonstrates that the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), specifically for the US and Israel, has merely been used as a political tool.

“Israel was not attacked by Iran – it started that war; the United States was not attacked by Iran – it started this confrontation at this point,” said Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute.

The US military attack on Iran is a clear violation of the UN Charter. “The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations,” said the Iranian foriegn minister.

Trump’s national security team either failed to properly assess the consequences of a US military attack on Iran, or they were unable to dissuade Trump. 

A new nuclear strategy

In any case, this event has further revealed the extent of Netanyahu’s influence over the White House. 

“This war was provoked by Benjamin Netanyahu for his own political survival, and Donald Trump has willingly handed him American military power to prolong it. The United States is not anyone’s proxy army, and our troops are not bargaining chips,”  said Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman.

The prespective from Tehran is that the attacks by these two nuclear-armed countries revealed that the NPT not only has no real value, but is in fact harmful. Countries like North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel, that rejected the treaty and developed nuclear weapons have remained immune from military attacks by nuclear weapons.

It is only natural that following the military attack by Israel and the United States, Iran would reconsider its nuclear strategy, including its continued membership in the NPT.

Iran has suffered irreparable damage, but the negative consequences of this attack are not limited to Iran alone – they will also harm the United States and jeopardise regional peace and security. The current war may have no clear winner or loser.

Instead, both Iran and Israel, along with the US, face the prospect of mutual destruction, regional destabilisation and long-term national trauma. In such a scenario, all parties would lose far more than they could ever gain.

The international community must act decisively to deescalate the situation. Failure to do so risks plunging the Middle East – and possibly beyond – into a catastrophic conflict.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a Visiting Research Collaborator with Princeton University and a former Chief of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Relations Committee.

22 June 2025

Source: middleeasteye.net

June 22, 2025—Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute, stated: “Since the unprovoked attack on Iran, first by Israel and then by the United States, is not only tearing down the system of international law, but has put us on a course towards World War III, I am calling on all people of good will around the world to publish and circulate this statement by The LaRouche Organization in the U.S. in whatever form possible, and help us to mobilize an international united peace movement in all countries of the planet.”

Your life, in as little as a few days or weeks, could end in an “accidental thermonuclear war,” triggered by the dropping of a tactical nuclear device on Iran, either by a renegade Israel, or by the United States, or by Israel with the agreement of the United States. What happens next, will be determined by the reports regarding the successful, or unsuccessful, destruction of the sites. 

Here is a question: if the sites were not destroyed, or if Iran announces it is able to rebuild, what will happen then? Will the use of tactical nuclear weapons be the next step? 

The driving force for these events is not in “the Middle East.” It is in the global shift in economic power away from the bankrupt trans-Atlantic NATO “Anglosphere” nations, inhabited by the “golden billion,” to the seven billion other people in the world, typified by the BRICS nations. Iran, a member of the BRICS, wants nuclear power, not nuclear weapons. The intent of the War Party is to use the United States, once an anti-imperial nation, as a battering ram against the BRICS, starting with Iran.

With its attack on Iran, the United States has rejected what its greatest diplomat, President John Quincy Adams, characterized as its very nature: “(America) goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy…She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own…she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue…The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.….She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.” By breaking his pledge that he would keep the United States out of war, President Donald Trump has now fallen into the policy-grip of the War Party. 

If you think that means “the Israelis,” you are mistaken. They are the match, but who sets the fires? Is that the role that Tony Blair, Jonathan Powell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Sir Peter Mandelson and others from the City Of London are playing in Washington right now? Are we watching a reprise of London’s role in starting the Iraq war, in particular giving George Bush his infamous sixteen words—“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”—when there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Is this similar to the role that the British Ministry of Defense, through its Project Alchemy, has played in the attacks deep into Russian territory that also threaten nuclear war? 

Israel has nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, and has had them for over 60 years. That ugly, open secret is why nations like Iran, whatever you may choose to think of their policies, have acted as they have. If the Iranian sites were in fact not destroyed, the danger is that some crazy from the bowels of the Pentagon will now propose, “The only ‘dead certain’ way forward is to use ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons.”

Stop and think about what the following report from Newsweek, June 20, actually means. “The Trump administration has not taken anything ‘off the table,’ including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, if it decides to take military action against the underground Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow, Fox News reported, citing a White House official.” In response to these reports, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the only responsible thing: “There have been a lot of speculations. This would be a catastrophic development, but there are so many speculations that in fact, it’s impossible to comment on them.” 

No matter what you are told, by the White House, by the Pentagon, or anyone else, there is no such thing as the use of one “tactical” nuclear weapon. In the words of Annie Jacobsen, author of Nuclear War: A Scenario, “If nuclear war begins, it doesn’t end until there is a nuclear holocaust. And it happens so fast. There is no quickly going to your secret bunker.” 

What does Russia do, if America, or Israel, deploys the first nuclear bomb used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago? Last week, America’s ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, wrote to President Trump, “No president in my lifetime has been in a position like yours. Not since Truman in 1945.” 

Let this be clear: President Truman dropping the atomic bomb in 1945 was not essential to ending the war. Dropping the bomb on an already surrendering Japan was necessary to begin the next world war, planned by Britain’s Winston Churchill one month after Franklin Roosevelt died in April 1945. In May, Churchill proposed “Operation Unthinkable,” a plan to immediately nuke the Soviet Union with American-made bombs, to “impose the will of the United States and the British Empire,” in the plan’s actual words. 

The use of nuclear weapons has always been wrong, has never been necessary, and is never other than a tool of imperial force. We, the people of the United States, and we, the people of the world, must stop the madness of governments and fanatics. The nations of the Global Majority, and especially the BRICS nations, of which Iran is a member, must have their voices heard. Nations should not be brought to the conclusion that the only way to retain and defend their sovereignty is to build nuclear weapons. 

In Southwest Asia, we need a consortium of regional countries, working with the United States, Russia and China, to create a nuclear weapons-free zone–which has to include Israel joining the IAEA and signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as Iran did. A crash program for the peaceful use of nuclear power as an energy source, for water desalination and other purposes, needs to involve all nations in the region. A New Security and Development Architecture, based on diplomacy, not assassinations and war, must result from actions taken in the next hours and days. 

The period ahead is more dangerous than the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now is the time to act. Circulate this message. Discuss it in every way possible. Get on the phone to Congress and go to their offices. Read and circulate the Ten Principles for A New Security and Development Architecture proposed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

It is up to the people to save themselves, and civilization itself, by speaking out and acting up. The world needs to hear from free citizens that say, “No to assassinations, regime changes, and thermonuclear war!” It is time, now, to change our world, before there is no world left to change.

22 June 2025

Source: schillerinstitute.com

By Prof. Ruel F. Pepa

Introduction: Revisiting Israel’s Nuclear Shadow

In his seminal 1991 work, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh peels back the curtain on one of the world’s worst-kept secrets: Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons program. Through meticulous research and insider accounts, Hersh outlines not only the technical development of Israel’s nuclear capabilities, but also the complex geopolitical maneuvering and tacit approval from the United States that enabled its rise.

Yet over three decades since its publication, the book’s implications remain disturbingly relevant especially in the context of Israel’s aggressive posture toward Iran, underpinned by unverified allegations of nuclear armament. A deeper investigation into this narrative reveals the fragility of intelligence claims, the dangerous utility of suspicion, and the suppression of dissenting truths within the corridors of power.

The Dimona Facility and the Birthofa Nuclear Power

At the heart of Hersh’s exposé lies the Dimona nuclear facility in Israel’s Negev desert. Constructed in secret during the late 1950s, Dimona became the epicenter of Israel’s nuclear ambitions. Hersh details the technical hurdles Israeli scientists overcame and the covert operations used to acquire necessary materials, often circumventing international norms and inspections.

Hersh presents compelling evidence that by the late 1960s, Israel had amassed a credible nuclear arsenal, yet never acknowledged it publicly. This strategic opacity which is commonly known as nuclear ambiguity allowed Israel to avoid international scrutiny while maintaining a formidable deterrent.

The Samson Doctrine: Deterrence by Destruction

The book’s titular concept, The Samson Option, references the biblical figure Samson who destroyed a Philistine temple, killing himself and his enemies when cornered. Applied to Israeli military strategy, the doctrine implies that if Israel were to face existential destruction, it would unleash its nuclear arsenal in retaliation even at the cost of catastrophic global consequences.

This strategy serves as both deterrent and threat, projecting power without disclosure. It also underscores the asymmetry of Israel’s approach to regional adversaries, many of whom are condemned for suspected nuclear activity while Israel’s own arsenal is left unchallenged.

U.S. Complicity: Strategic Silence and Suppressed Truths

Hersh meticulously traces the long history of U.S. awareness and accommodation of Israel’s nuclear development. Beginning with the Eisenhower administration and continuing through successive presidencies, American officials adopted a pattern of “willful ignorance.” Despite mounting evidence, the U.S. opted to suppress, ignore, or even aid Israeli nuclear ambitions in exchange for strategic alliance and regional influence.

A key theme in Hersh’s investigation is the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups in shaping U.S. policy. These powerful networks, he argues, contributed to a political climate where silence on Israel’s nuclear status was rewarded, and open criticism stifled.

Espionage, Intelligence, and the Pollard Affair

One of the more explosive episodes detailed by Hersh involves Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst who spied for Israel in the 1980s. Pollard provided Israel with highly classified information, which, according to Hersh, was subsequently bartered by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to the Soviet Union in exchange for Jewish emigration allowances.

This incident illustrates the blurred lines between ally and adversary, and the unsettling extent to which geopolitical leverage can override principles of loyalty and national security.

Preemptive Strikes and Nuclear Hypocrisy

Israel’s nuclear history is punctuated by acts of preemptive aggression. The 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor and alleged joint nuclear testing with apartheid-era South Africa in 1979 reflect a broader pattern: while Israel reserves the right to act unilaterally against suspected nuclear threats, it remains immune from equivalent scrutiny.

This hypocrisy is particularly glaring in light of Israel’s confrontational stance toward Iran which is an issue that continues to dominate regional and global diplomacy.

The Iran Nuclear Accusation: Weaponizing Suspicion

Israel has long asserted that Iran is developing nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy program. These claims have served as the rationale for cyberattacks (such as the Stuxnet virus), sabotage campaigns, assassinations of Iranian scientists, and even direct military strikes on Iranian-linked facilities in Syria and beyond.

However, there is no definitive proof that Iran has ever diverted its nuclear program toward weaponization. In fact, a classified intelligence report submitted to the U.S. Senate by the Trump government’s Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard offers a radically different perspective. Based on years of in-depth analysis, the report asserts that Iran’s nuclear program is strictly for civilian energy use and has shown no conclusive signs of militarization.

This report, however, was quashed by Gabbard’s very own boss, Donald Trump,who not only dismissed its findings but also publicly ridiculed Gabbard. In one press briefing, US President Trump waved off her conclusions with a caustic quip:

“I don’t care what she [Gabbard] said. I think they were very close to having one.”

Such disregard for intelligence findings that contradict dominant political narratives reveals how truth can be manipulated in service of strategic aims. It also illustrates how Israel’s nuclear policy is not only protected but wielded as a tool to frame adversaries regardless of factual accuracy.

Vanunu, Whistle blowers, and the Costof Truth

No account of Israel’s nuclear program would be complete without mention of Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli technician who exposed the inner workings of Dimona to the British press in 1986. Vanunu was subsequently kidnapped by Mossad, brought back to Israel, and imprisoned for 18 years wherein 11 of them were in solitary confinement.

Vanunu’s story underscores the human cost of speaking truth to power. His case also reinforces Hersh’s argument that transparency is antithetical to Israel’s nuclear doctrine, which depends on secrecy, ambiguity, and a politically convenient silence.

Conclusion: Power, Secrecy, and the Politics of Nuclear Fear

TheSamsonOptionremains one of the most thorough investigations into Israel’s nuclear capabilities and the geopolitical scaffolding that supports them. Seymour Hersh’s work reveals a double standard: where allies like Israel are permitted to possess nuclear weapons in silence, and adversaries like Iran are demonized without credible evidence.

In the post-truth era, the manipulation of intelligence, the silencing of whistleblowers, and the strategic use of fear-mongering have become cornerstones of foreign policy. As Israel continues to justify its regional aggression on the basis of unverifiable threats, it is imperative to question not only the narrative but also the power structures that allow such narratives to thrive unchecked.

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines.

20 June 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Mark H. Gaffney

This summary is time-sensitive. The situation on the ground is changing from day to day, even from hour to hour. Things continue to evolve. Even so, I believe the outcome is almost foregone.

Although the world press is obsessed with the nuclear issue, it’s a red herring. Iran never developed nukes, does not want them, and does not need them to defeat Israel.

In recent days, numerous Israeli analysts on the Internet have been gloating about Israel’s surprise attack and the shocking decapitation of Iranian officials and military leaders. They are saying regime change is imminent, and are boasting that the Israeli Air Force’s (IAF)’s ongoing aerial campaign inside Iran is just hours away from finishing the job (“Breaking Iran’s back”, as one put it). Echoing these claims, Trump just posted that

“We (the US and Israel) now have control of the skies over Iran.”

Then, Trump went out of his tree, threatening Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei with assassination.

But all of these analysts (and Trump) make the mistake of believing their own propaganda. They are ahead of their skis. This morning, video footage from Tehran showed that the Iranians have reconstituted at least a portion of their air defenses. And as the war develops it is likely the Iranians will continue to recover significant air defense, again and again if need be. We saw abundant evidence of this during the Ukraine War. The Israeli claim of total aerial supremacy, which our president trumpets, is bogus. 

So, where is Tulsi Gabbard? Has the National Intelligence chief been sidelined? Why? What is going on? But that is another story…

It is true that Israel has succeeded in suppressing Iran’s missile launches with air power. In the last few days, the number of incoming missiles into Israel has decreased. According to some reports, this is because Iran is running out of missiles. But such a conclusion is also dubious. Why do I think so? In the first place, because there is no evidence for it — none that I have seen. And secondly, because Iran obviously prepared for this war over a very long time. According to professor Mirandi, Iran has at least 200 underground missile bases, all deeply buried under rugged mountain ranges. It took many years to construct these bases. The amount of excavation required must have been enormous. The bases represent a vast expenditure and a strong commitment to national survival. Would the country go to all of that trouble and expense, then scrimp on missile production? Hardly likely. 

Yet, the Israelis claim Iran only has 2,000 missiles. Is this just another propaganda ploy by Mossad to deceive us? My view is that the Iranians anticipated a long war and probably squirreled away a considerable stockpile of missiles. 

Of course, only time will tell.

There is no disputing that Iran’s missile bases are impregnable. They also happen to be spread out over an area the size of western Europe. Iran is a huge country. Strategic depth is one of the country’s most important assets.

Consider that during the First Gulf War, despite absolute control of the skies, the US military utterly failed to stop the Iraqis from launching their SCUDs. Indeed, over the course of that war the US failed to score even one confirmed kill of a mobile SCUD launcher. The US forces and Israel were very lucky the SCUDs were so inaccurate, hence ineffective. Afterward, the Pentagon buried this embarrassing detail in a footnote.

The Iranians are thorough and do not miss a thing. Rest assured, they studied the First Gulf War closely and learned valuable lessons.

Days ago, Israel (or someone) posted a video clip showing the destruction of an Iranian missile launcher. But this proves nothing. Iran’s launchers are well protected within mountain tunnels. When the coast is clear, they exit the tunnels, set up and fire their missiles, then quickly return to cover. Israel has approximately zero chance of making more than a minor dent in Iran’s missile capabilities. 

Just to give some idea, during the recent fighting with Hezbollah, Israel failed to knock out Hezbollah’s underground tunnels in Lebanon that were concentrated in a much smaller area. Heck, the IDF couldn’t even take out the Hamas tunnel system in tiny Gaza that was dug out of sand. So I strongly doubt that the suppression of Iran’s missile launches will alter the outcome of the war. In my view the IAF can suppress the rate of launches but cannot stop them. 

The bottom line is that Israel is vulnerable to missile attack. Iran can pound Israel to dust with its conventionally armed missiles. This is already happening. The missiles carry much larger warheads than what Israel can deliver inside Iran. So the damage is much greater. No doubt, for this reason, Israel is censoring its media and discouraging Israelis from posting evidence of these impacts on social media. Despite this, some of the personal videos and photos have been posted anyway and will make your jaw drop. Iran is kicking the Bejesus out of Israel.

Israel is also running out of intercepters. When the supply runs out Israel will be totally exposed. Nor can the US keep Israel supplied. According to various experts, US stocks are also low. Nor do we have the industrial capacity to produce more and deliver them, at least, not in time. 

When the intercepters run out it won’t matter that Iran is unable to stage saturation attacks because their launches are being suppressed. Iran will still achieve the objective of destroying Israel’s capacity to make war. It will take a bit longer but the outcome will be the same. Within weeks (maybe a lot sooner) Tel Aviv will resemble Gaza.

Moreover, Iran has now unveiled its hypersonic missiles, which are unstoppable. One of them reportedly scored a direct hit against Mossad headquarters just north of Tel Aviv. Photos of the destruction of Mossad succinctly tell the story of the war, to date. 

At some point the Israelis will be hard pressed and will have to decide whether or not to escalate to nukes. If they do all bets are off. Pakistan has announced it will respond with nukes if Israel resorts to them. North Korea might do the same. If Israel uses nukes it will be nuked in turn. But whether or not Israel goes nuclear, the outcome of the war will be the same. From the get go, there was no way Israel could win this conflict without destroying itself.

Israel won the opening round in stunning fashion because the aggressor always has the initial advantage. But Iran has now recovered. The whole world is watching as the rogue state of Israel commits national suicide. Even if the US directly enters the war on behalf of Israel this won’t change the outcome. Of course, Trump could double down, precipitating global thermonuclear war. Never underestimate the power of an imbecile to do the wrong thing.

This is where we the people come in! Trump must be impeached ASAP and removed from office before he plunges the world into nuclear war! Where is the peace movement?

*

Mark H. Gaffney is the author of Dimona the Third Temple (1989), The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America (2008), Black 9/11. Money, Motive and Technology (2016), and Deep History and the Ages of Man (2022).

19 June 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Junaid S. Ahmad

Let us dispense with illusions: Israel’s foreign policy is not defensive. It is expansionist, supremacist, and governed by a messianic impulse to dominate the region militarily while playing the eternal victim diplomatically.

There are moments in history when diplomacy dies with a whimper, not a bang. But this time, it may die with both. Israel, drunk on decades of unpunished aggression, has now hurled itself off the ledge of military recklessness, dragging its American enablers and the wider Middle East into yet another chapter of chaos. The target of this new Zionist tantrum? Iran—a nation of 90 million with a long memory, a steady hand, and a remarkable tolerance for provocation. Until now.

For over a year, Iran has exercised something bordering on saintly restraint. While Israeli airstrikes lit up Damascus, assassins lurked in the streets of Tehran, and mysterious “technical failures” befell Iranian infrastructure, the Islamic Republic did not take the bait. It could have retaliated a dozen times over, and with justification.

But instead, it opted to keep the regional powder keg dry, all while engaging in serious, good-faith negotiations with the United States over its nuclear program. To say Iran was the adult in the room is not a compliment—it’s a condemnation of everyone else in it.

But Netanyahu, Israel’s increasingly unstable prime minister, has now crossed the final line. Israeli jets have struck Iranian territory directly, in a shocking escalation that reveals the full scope of Tel Aviv’s lunacy. This was not a response to a threat. It was the threat. A nuclear-armed apartheid state just launched preemptive attacks on a non-nuclear state engaged in diplomacy.

Even by the low standards of Israeli bellicosity, this is unhinged.

The world should be screaming. But the world, once again, is silent—because Washington is complicit. As always.

The Belligerent State with a Messiah Complex

Let us dispense with illusions: Israel’s foreign policy is not defensive. It is expansionist, supremacist, and governed by a messianic impulse to dominate the region militarily while playing the eternal victim diplomatically. Whether in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, or now Iran, the modus operandi is the same—instigate, provoke, strike first, cry foul, and expect a standing ovation from Capitol Hill.

This pattern is not new. But what is new is the scale and brazenness of Israeli aggression. What began as a genocidal war on Gaza—ongoing now for over twenty months—has metastasized into a regional campaign of destabilization.

In Syria, Israel bombs airports and infrastructure with impunity. In Lebanon, it inches toward war with Hezbollah, hoping to drag the country into a devastating conflict. And now, the unthinkable: open war against Iran.

Netanyahu’s strategy is not just reckless; it is suicidal. But like many dangerous ideologues, he doesn’t mind taking the world down with him. His calculus is simple: provoke Iran until it retaliates, then scream “existential threat” and demand American intervention. It’s a cynical, high-stakes game, and one that only works because Washington plays along.

America: The Empire That Enables

One might have thought that after Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, the United States would have learned a thing or two about the costs of blind loyalty to Israeli security fantasies. But here we are again: the Pentagon nods, Congress claps, and the President mutters something about “Israel’s right to defend itself,” as if Iran had randomly decided to bomb itself and blame Tel Aviv for sport.

The Biden administration, much like its predecessors, had chosen to subcontract U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East to a right-wing ethnostate with a bunker mentality. And while the Bidenites have at times seemed less enthusiastic than the Trump-era neocons, their actions (or inaction) speak volumes. Every Israeli bomb dropped on Iranian or Arab soil is American-approved, American-funded, and American-shielded at the UN.

But make no mistake—Trump is hardly an alternative. The idea that Donald Trump, that tweeting embodiment of impulse control failure, will tell Netanyahu to stand down is laughable. Trump has long worn his servility to the Zionist right like a badge of honor. From moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, to recognizing Israel’s annexation of Syrian land, to greenlighting whatever Netanyahu wants short of nuking Tehran, Trump has proven himself more court jester than commander.

And yet, ironically, Trump might be the only American figure with the personal sway over Netanyahu to dial things down—if he were not completely compromised by the very neocons he once pretended to scorn. His sporadic instincts toward de-escalation are always crushed by the whisperings of Kushner and company. So, don’t bet on The Donald becoming the dove.

Iran: The Last Adult in the Room

That leaves Iran—still standing, still sober. It is a country that has been demonized, sanctioned, infiltrated, and attacked, yet still insists on a negotiated path forward. Its leadership has made clear, repeatedly, that it seeks nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons. This is not merely rhetoric; it is codified in the very document the United States once championed: the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran signed decades ago and Israel still refuses to even acknowledge.

Iran has lived up to its obligations more than any other state in the region. The UN’s own nuclear watchdog has consistently confirmed Iran’s compliance with nuclear agreements—until, of course, the U.S. unilaterally tore up the JCPOA under Trump, to Netanyahu’s applause.

Even after that betrayal, Iran offered to return to the deal. It waited. It negotiated. It tolerated assassinations of its scientists. It endured economic warfare. And still, it waited.

No more.

Iran’s recent military response to Israeli aggression was not impulsive, nor was it disproportionate. It was the logical endpoint of a year-long campaign of patience met with violence. The message was clear: Israel will no longer strike without consequence.

And while Western media are quick to hyperventilate about Iranian “provocations,” it’s worth remembering that Iran has never attacked another country unprovoked in modern history. Israel, by contrast, makes a sport of it.

Two Roads Out: Capitulation or Consequence

The question now is: Who can rein in Netanyahu?

Path one is theoretical: Trump tells him to stop. But that would require Trump to be both politically independent and intellectually coherent—two traits he has never displayed simultaneously. It’s far more likely he’ll throw Israel more weapons while congratulating himself for “bringing peace.”

Path two is brutal but real: a military defeat so undeniable that Israel’s deterrence myth shatters. That defeat could come from a coordinated front of state actors like Iran and Syria, or from non-state actors like Hezbollah, whose arsenal and experience far outstrip anything the Israeli military has faced in recent years.

A real loss—not just in PR or the court of global opinion, but on the battlefield—might be the only language Tel Aviv understands. Only then might its leaders reconsider the wisdom of perpetual war as a national ideology. Until then, the mad dog will keep biting, and the empire will keep pretending it’s a misunderstood puppy.

The Path Forward—or the Plunge

This is not a call for war, but a warning about where one-sided diplomacy ends. The current trajectory is unsustainable. Israel cannot continue to bomb every neighbor that resists its hegemony, all while demanding the world view it as a besieged democracy. Iran cannot be expected to absorb aggression forever without retaliating. And the United States cannot keep pretending to be a neutral arbiter while funding and arming one side to the teeth.

The Middle East is being pushed toward an abyss—not by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but by Israel’s sense of impunity and America’s addiction to double standards. The real danger isn’t that Iran will develop a bomb; it’s that Israel will keep acting like it already used one.

The irony, of course, is that the only player showing any rationality, any restraint, any desire for long-term regional stability, is the one demonized most loudly in Western capitals. Iran, with all its flaws and complexities, has acted like the grown-up in a room full of arsonists.

But even adults lose patience. And when they do, history doesn’t care who claimed to be the victim—it only remembers who lit the match.

Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Law, Religion, and Global Politics and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decolonization (CSID), Islamabad, Pakistan.

17 June 2025

Source: palestinechronicle.com

By Ashish Singh

On June 13, 2025, diplomacy gave way to direct military confrontation as Israel launched “Operation Rising Lion,” a pre-emptive strike targeting Iran’s key nuclear and military facilities. Among the primary targets were the uranium enrichment site at Natanz and several Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) garrisons. Reports from Haaretz, Al Jazeera, and NYT said that several IRGC officials and nuclear scientists were among those killed, though Iran has not confirmed all names. The operation involved over 200 aircraft and extensive Mossad coordination and covert support from Mossad, signaling that this was far more than a tactical maneuver—it was a strategic escalation.

Iran responded immediately, labeling the assault a declaration of war. Over 100 drones were launched towards Israeli territory, many of which were intercepted by the Iron Dome and David’s Sling defense systems. Still, air raid sirens rang out across Tel Aviv, Haifa, and other major cities as panic gripped the civilian population. In a cascading escalation, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi rebels in Yemen issued statements threatening retaliatory strikes against Israeli targets, raising the specter of a broader regional war.

Iranian authorities made their stance unambiguously clear. “We will not retreat from our scientific sovereignty and national determination,” declared a spokesperson from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. One IRGC member has said, “Our enemies have tested our patience. Now they will witness our resistance.”

The conflict is not just about missiles and drones—it is layered with questions of nuclear balance, regional dominance, and geopolitical brinkmanship. Israel has long accused Iran of weaponizing its civilian nuclear program. Tehran, in contrast, insists its activities are peaceful and under international scrutiny. Yet, the June 13 assault reveals a calculated shift in Israel’s strategy: it no longer views Iran’s nuclear capabilities as a distant or containable threat.

In a nationally televised address, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “We cannot gamble with our existence. This operation was an act of self-defense. The destabilization caused by Iran in the region can no longer be tolerated.” Iranian President in a fiery response declared, “This is a direct violation of Iranian sovereignty. Our response will be decisive and unrelenting. The blood of our martyrs will not be shed in vain.”

The international response has been predictably fractured. Australia, France, Canada, and the European Union have expressed deep concern and urged both parties to exercise restraint. The United States, Israel’s most crucial strategic partner, has refrained from direct military engagement but is reportedly providing logistical and intelligence support behind the scenes. An emergency session of the UN Security Council has been convened, and the ongoing G7 summit has been overtaken by the urgency of this escalating crisis. Washington has reiterated its commitment to de-escalation while affirming that Israel’s security remains a central priority.   

The conflict’s economic fallout is already palpable. Crude oil prices have surged, commercial aviation routes across the region are disrupted, and markets are bracing for instability. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have urged restraint but fear the confrontation could ignite sectarian divisions, especially between Shia and Sunni factions. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has called for urgent regional mediation to avert an all-out war.

India, with millions of citizens working in the Gulf and broader Middle East, has activated emergency evacuation protocols. The Ministry of External Affairs has established a high-level committee to liaise with regional governments, and Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar stated, “Our primary focus is the safety of Indian nationals. We are also committed to supporting any effort that restores regional stability.”

The gravest concern, however, lies in the nuclear domain. If Iran accelerates its nuclear program in defiance of Western pressure, and Israel continues its offensive campaign, West Asia may edge toward a full-scale war with potentially nuclear implications. Precedents like the 2006 Lebanon War and the 2019 drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities highlight how quickly localized conflicts can spiral into large-scale confrontations.

The conspicuous silence of Russia and China has also raised eyebrows. Moscow, a long-time ally of Iran in Syria, has yet to issue a formal statement. Beijing has offered a generic call for peace but refrained from taking a clear position. This reluctance underscores the multipolar fragmentation of global diplomacy, where great powers are calibrating their responses through the lens of strategic self-interest.

This standoff is not just a clash of weapons—it is a clash of doctrines, of legitimacy, of spheres of influence. It raises a fundamental question: Can diplomacy survive the logic of deterrence? Can international institutions still serve as a bulwark against the descent into chaos?

The road ahead demands more than appeals for peace. It requires proactive diplomacy, regional dialogue, and a concerted effort to re-establish guardrails around nuclear proliferation. The passive neutrality of powerful states and the inertia of multilateral organizations cannot serve as an excuse for inaction. If unchecked, this conflict will consume not just the actors involved, but the fragile balance of the global order.

History teaches us that when dialogue collapses, war finds its voice. But it also teaches us that every war contains within it the seed of its own prevention—if only the world listens in time. Today, we stand at such a precipice. The time to act is now, before this fire spreads beyond containment and leaves in its wake a world even more divided, dangerous, and disillusioned.

Ashish Singh has finished his Ph.D. coursework in political science from the NRU-HSE, Moscow, Russia.

16 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Rima Najjar

It’s not so much a celebration or joy that we Palestinians feel when Iran hits its targets in Tel Aviv. For us, this event is like a shattered moral universe speaking. We feel and express a grim sense of justice, a complex and morally fraught reaction, rooted in asymmetrical suffering, helplessness, and the brutal arithmetic of oppression.

Deep down, we know: No amount of Israeli suffering will undo the Nakba, the genocide, or our children’s ash-covered bodies. Even if Tel Aviv were flattened, it wouldn’t balance the scales. We know this. We know that revenge doesn’t heal; it just twists the knife. We know that justice is impossible under oppression. True justice would mean accountability for war crimes, returning stolen land, ending apartheid. But since the world denies these, “justice” for Palestinians is reduced to fleeting schadenfreude.

This morning on an “Ahrar Palestine” Telegram channel, I came across a powerful and poetic statement reflecting the deep trauma, existential grief, and moral exhaustion of Palestinians amid Israel’s genocide on Gaza. Its themes, emotional weight, and political implications echoed global anticolonial literatures I had come across before.

As translated from Arabic, the post read: “Even if Tel Aviv crumbles to dust, even if their cities are erased from the earth, it will not soothe the fire inside us. We were not defeated by the rubble that buries us, nor by the hunger that gnaws at our bones. We were defeated the moment children became martyrs; the moment mothers became gravediggers with bare hands. Death runs through us like rivers; massacres mark the chapters of our lives. We waited for bread — but the missiles came instead. We searched for life in the wreckage — and found only pieces of ourselves. The enemy’s ruin does not heal us, because what has been destroyed inside us is greater than any city turned to ash. They did not just steal our land — they stole time, they stole dreams, they stole the unformed features of children.”

The above is a demand for justice that transcends destruction and should not be mistaken for pacifism.

The writer is not just an “angry militant;” though he is clearly embedded in active trauma, he is still deeply reflective. By highlighting “asymmetric harm,” he rejects reductionist narratives like “cycle of violence.” He calls for a moral reckoning by insisting that the world must address “what was destroyed in Palestinians,” — not just buildings.

This Palestinian writer’s reflection on trauma, stolen futures, and the emptiness of revenge finds striking echoes in anti-colonial struggles worldwide. His cry can be said to be the universal cry of the colonized, refusing to let their suffering be reduced to statistics, rejecting the empty promise that the oppressor’s pain will bring justice and insisting on mourning as an act of resistance.

His words mirror Steve Biko’s writings on psychological oppression in South Africa, “The true defeat is the death of our children.” Bobby Sands in Ireland wrote, “We were defeated when children became martyrs.” “What was stolen is not just land, but dreams” mirrors Lakota survivor narratives.

Frantz Fanon wrote about the necessity of resistance in Algeria and how “violence alone cannot heal.” Vietnamese Zen master Thích Nhất Hạnh described the futility of hatred thus: “If you pour a handful of salt into a cup of water, the water becomes undrinkable. But if you pour the salt into a river, people can continue to draw the water. The river is immense, and it has the capacity to receive, embrace, and transform.” Palestinian grief is “the river,” not the cup — too vast for vengeance to purify.

Collective grief, moral resistance, and the tension between vengeance and justice are common themes shared by anti-colonial writers. However, in the Palestinian case, there are also contrasts.

South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) offered a path to healing — something Palestinians are denied under ongoing occupation. Algeria’s revolution succeeded militarily (1962), whereas Palestine remains under occupation. Vietnam’s military victory (1975) contrasts with Palestine’s unending resistance. Ireland’s struggle ended in negotiated peace (Good Friday Agreement), while Palestine’s remains unresolved. Indigenous struggles focus on cultural survival, whereas Palestine’s is ongoing territorial genocide.

Mahmoud Darwish wrote, “We suffer from an incurable disease: hope.” So even this “grim justice” meted out by Iran on Israel is a form of hope deformed by hopelessness — a cry for the world to see what occupation does. Our reaction to the Iranian bombing of Tel Aviv is the howl of a people pushed to the edge of moral exhaustion.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa.

16 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

There is a throbbing complaint among Western powers, including those in the European Union and the United States.  Iran is not playing by the rules.  Instead of accepting with dutiful meekness the slaughter of its military leadership and scientific personnel, Tehran decided, promptly, to respond to Israel’s pre-emptive strikes launched on June 13.  Instead of considering the dubious legal implications of such strikes, an act of undeclared war, the focus in the European Union and various other backers of Israel has been to focus on the retaliation itself.

To the Israeli attacks conducted as part of Operation Rising Lion, there was studied silence.  It was not a silence observed when it came to the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 by Vladimir Putin’s Russia.  Then, the law books were swiftly procured, and obligations of the United Nations Charter cited under Article 2(4): “All members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state.”  Russia was condemned for adopting a preventive stance on Ukraine as a threat to its security: that, in Kyiv joining NATO, a formidable threat would manifest at the border.

In his statement on the unfolding conflict between Israel and Iran, France’s President Emmanuel Macron made sure to condemn “Iran’s ongoing nuclear program”, having taken “all appropriate diplomatic measures in response.”  Israel also had the “right to defend itself and ensure its security”, leaving open the suggestion that it might have been justified resorting to Article 51 of the UN Charter.  All he could offer was a call on “all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to de-escalate.”

In a most piquant response, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories stated that, “On the day Israel, unprovoked, has attacked Iran, killing 80 people, the president of a major European power, finally admits that in the Middle East, Israel, and only Israel, has the right to defend itself.”

The German Foreign Office was even bolder in accusing Iran of having engaged in its own selfish measures of self-defence (such unwarranted bravado!), something it has always been happy to afford Israel.  “We strongly condemn the indiscriminate Iranian attack on Israeli territory.”  In contrast, the foreign office also felt it appropriate to reference the illegal attack on Iran as involving “targeted strikes” against its nuclear facilities. Despite Israel having an undeclared nuclear weapons stockpile that permanently endangers security in the region, the office went on to chastise Iran for having a nuclear program that violated “the Non-Proliferation Treaty”, threatening in its nature “to the entire region – especially Israel.”  Those at fault had been found out.

The President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, could hardly improve on that apologia.  She revealed that she had been conversing with Israeli President Isaac Herzog about the “escalating situation in the Middle East.”  She also knew her priorities: reiterating Israel’s right to self- defence and refusing to mention Iran’s, while tagging on the statement a broader concern for preserving regional stability.  The rest involved a reference to diplomacy and de-escalation, toward which Israel has shown a resolute contempt with regards Iran and its nuclear program.

The assessment offered by Mohamed ElBaradei, former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was forensically impressive, as well as being icily dismissive.  Not only did he reproach the German response for ignoring the importance of Article 2(4) of the Charter prohibiting the use of force subject to the right to self-defence, he brought up a reminder: targeted strikes against the nuclear facilities of any party “are prohibited under Article 56 of the additional protocol of the Geneva Conventions to which Germany is a party”.

ElBaradei also referred anyone exercised by such matters to the United Nations Security Council 487 (1981), which did not have a single demur in its adoption.  It unreservedly condemned the attack by Israel on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear research reactor in June that year as a violation of the UN Charter, recognised that Iraq was a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and had permitted the IAEA inspections of the facility, stated that Iraq had a right to establish and develop civilian nuclear programs and called on Israel to place its own nuclear facilities under the jurisdictional safeguards of the IAEA.

The calculus regarding the use of force by Israel vis-à-vis its adversaries has long been a sneaky one.  It is jigged and rigged in favour of the Jewish state.  As Trita Parsi put it with unblemished accuracy, Western pundits had, for a year and a half, stated that Hamas, having started the Gaza War on October 7, 2023 bore responsibility for civilian carnage.  “Western pundits for the past 1.5 days: Israel started the war with Iran, and if Iran retaliates, they bear responsibility for civilian deaths.”  The perceived barbarian, when attacked by a force seen as superior and civilised, will always be condemned for having reacted most naturally, and most violently of all. 

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. 

16 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Gaza (Quds News Network)- The Gaza Media Office has released a grim report detailing the number of starved Palestinians killed and wounded while trying to collect food from US and Israeli ‘aid centers’ in Rafah and central Gaza, which were described as “death traps.”

Between May 27 and June 15, Israeli forces killed 300 starved civilians and wounded 2,649 others as they approached aid distribution points. The attacks, carried out using tanks, helicopters, and drones, targeted unarmed Palestinians desperate for food.

“These are not isolated incidents,” the Media Office said. “Israeli occupation forces are deliberately killing the starved; young men, elderly, and children, as they search for food.”

The office reaffirmed that Israel is using the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which operates under US-Israeli oversight, to funnel civilians into Israeli firing zones. “This institution is a dirty tool in the hands of the occupation army,” the statement read. “It serves as a cover for organized genocide.”

According to the daily casualty breakdown, Israeli gunfire struck aid seekers on nearly every date:

• May 27: 3 killed, 46 injured
• May 28: 10 killed, 89 injured
• June 1: 35 killed, 232 injured, 2 missing
• June 2: 26 killed, 122 injured
• June 3: 27 killed, 127 injured
• June 6: 8 killed, 142 injured
• June 8: 11 killed, 193 injured
• June 9: 11 killed, 249 injured
• June 10: 36 killed, 295 injured
• June 11: 57 killed, 363 injured
• June 12: 21 killed, 294 injured
• June 13–14: 29 killed, 380 injured
• June 15: 26 killed, 117 injured

The total toll also includes 9 missing persons. Many are feared dead, with their bodies yet to be recovered from strike zones.

The Media Office had warned of Israel’s intent to use hunger as a weapon. “The Israeli occupation deliberately creates total chaos in the Gaza Strip by enforcing starvation and deliberately targeting and killing the starved,” it said.

Photos and footage from Gaza show aid seekers running through open fields or crowding around trucks, only to be gunned down moments later. Human rights groups have called for an international investigation.

The report adds to growing documentation of Israel’s use of aid as a military trap, not a relief effort.

16 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org