News & views related to the war in Ukraine …

News & views not related to the wars in Ukraine and Palestine …

Alastair Crooke is summarizing the first days of USrael's war on Iran:

The situation in the broadest terms is that the attempt by Israel and allied Intelligence services to launch a surprise ‘synergistic psychic-shock’ to the Iranian state through simultaneous muti-domain decapitations, assassinations of scientists, disruption of Air Defence systems and the insertion of drone saboteur teams, failed.

It failed in its expected outcome — that of paralysing and panicking the Iranian leadership and even creating the space for ‘the hoped for’ regime-change vibe to take hold. (It never happened. Iranians buried political differences and rallied to national sovereignty).

Rather, despite the loss of eight military line commanders, the system quickly re-booted itself: the Air Defence systems were restored within 8 hours, and Iran retaliated with missile attacks on Israel.

The point here was that – other than superficial surface damage – there was no setback made to Iran’s nuclear programme. And to be clear, that was never the Israeli aim. They simply do not have the ability to destroy infrastructure buried 800 metres into mountains. They (with their allies — the US and European States) rather hope for ‘regime change’.

[…]

So, the situation has inverted from that of 13 June. Israel now is in big trouble: Its Air Defences are performing badly and it is Israel sustaining (verified) substantive damage to key assets. Basically, every politician in Israel now is begging the US to enter the war for them.

Israeli Minister & Cabinet member, Gila Gamliel: “We categorically demand that the United States join the war against Iran”.

While it first looked yesterday as if Trump may join the war with more overt action that changed after a meeting with his national security council.

As Larry Johnson observes:

Cont. reading: Tic-Toc Thread On The War On Iran – 4

by English Outsider
lifted from a comment

There's nothing funny here, though it's true that the Western military and political establishments are now pure farce. Nothing funny because the farce has had lethal consequences. The unrestrained carnage in Gaza will be a reproach to the West for ever. As for Ukraine, "b" summed up, must be two years ago now, what we are putting our proxies in Ukraine through. A "crime", he stated. So it is. Has been since 2014. Worse now, after a million and more deaths and economic and societal ruin for Ukraine to match.

As for the military reality Putin, in the video embedded in the Simplicius article above, sums up the military reality that has been clear to us Europeans since February 2022. NATO, the US and all, is a paper tiger. Even with the substantial manpower of the original Ukrainian armed forces NATO has neither the troops nor the equipment for a ground war on Russia’s doorstep and never has had. All we do have is the nuclear threat and neither Biden, nor, now, Trump, will risk Chicago frying for Vilnius. Nor for Berlin. Nor for London. That accepted, the only puzzle lies in working out what the European politicians hope to gain from prolonging a war long since lost.

Seems a simple enough puzzle assuming, that is, that the European politicians are rational. The gamble they took in 2022 was a gamble on destroying Russia with sanctions. Their only way out of that failed gamble is to save face by taking us into the new Cold War. We must strain every nerve, they tell us, to face the Russian threat. Only keeping us in a state of permanent war hysteria will serve. Otherwise, should we recover from that hysteria, the danger is that we shall look about us and hold the politicians to account for the damage they have done and are still doing to our own economies and to our own societies.

The outcome of the war with Iran is still unknown. That of the war in Ukraine is set in stone and always has been. It remains only to attempt to guess how the Russians will accomplish their local objectives there.

Those local objectives are simple enough. To protect the inhabitants of the Donbas, an objective often forgotten or glossed over but the primary initial objective of the SMO. To prevent NATO's use of Ukraine, and now of whatever remnant Ukraine turns out to be, as a means of attacking Russia.

That means no more sabotage and assassination missions run out of Ukraine into Russia from the bases we set up in Ukraine for that purpose. No more "look no hands" missile and drone attacks from out of Ukraine. If we wish to continue with those various lines of attack we'll have to do so out of Europe, or from elsewhere along the Russian perimeter. Remnant Ukraine will no longer be at our disposal for those purposes.

Cont. reading: English Outsider – The ‘West’ Is A Farce

…

When "we" do it:

• UK scientists will attempt to dim the sun in controversial experiment costing taxpayer £800 million – Daily Record, Apr 27 2025
  The controversial technology aims to reflect sunlight back into space in a bid to combat climate change
• Experiments to 'dim the Sun' to be given green light by UK government – Manchester Evening News, Apr 23 2025
• Cloudy with a chance of taxpayer’s funds: UK to pay for less sun – York Vision, June 5 2025

When others may intend to do it:

• Britain’s enemies could dim the sun and weaponise weather – Telegraph, Jun 15 2025
• Warning as Britain's enemies could 'dim the sun' over UK skies – Express, Jun 16 2025
  The terrifying tactic could see malign powers fire substances into the atmosphere to affect sunlight hours over Britain.
• Could Putin attack Britain by blocking the SUN? Fears hostile actors might deploy 'weather weapons' as ministers order probe into 'risks' – Daily Mail, Jun 16 2025

The tun of headlines is not astonishing to anyone who has seen how Russia is weaponizing everything.

Machine translated from Hebrew:

Yossi Melman @yossi_melman – 5:50 UTC · Jun 15, 2025

The euphoria was brief. On Friday morning, I asked if it was even necessary to start a war with the Iranians. Shiites are historically willing to suffer. I mentioned their willingness to sacrifice as demonstrated in the 8 years of attrition with Iraq. I recommend that we cut our losses. Ask Trump to stop the scramble for a reasonable agreement. Otherwise, we’ll end up begging for a cease-fire and Iran will refuse.

Yossi Melman @yossi_melman – 6:22 UTC · Jun 16, 2025

There is no one to stop the madness. Ariel Kahana, political commentator for Israel Hayom, writes about Israel’s response plan to attack population centers: The IDF will announce in the coming hours an evacuation order for neighborhoods in Tehran. After that, the air force will bring down buildings, similar to what Israel did in Beirut.

…

Current tic-toc round:

• Iranian strike at Israel's electric infrastructure.
• Israeli strike at …
• …

News & views related to the war in Palestine …

News & views related to the war in Ukraine …

Last week's posts on Moon of Alabama:

• Jun 9 – Russia Seeks 'Asymmetrical' Response For Strike On Its Nuclear Assets
• Jun 10 – When Will Russia Attack NATO?
  Related:
  – Russia air attack damaged Boeing offices in Ukraine (archived) – FT
  – Secret British plans to ‘defeat entire Russian Black Fleet’ revealed in leaks – Grayzone
  – Rob Urie: Why Retaliation Rhymes with Negotiation, US – Russia Edition – Naked Capitalism

  – Russia’s Summer Offensive in Ukraine Gains Ground With New Tactics (archived) – NY Times
  – Russia’s offensive pushes closer to northern city of Sumy, opens new front (archived) – Washington Post
  – Yes, Russia is Escalating the War with Ukraine – Sonar21

• Jun 12 – Trump's Attempt To Scare Monger Iran Into Nuclear Restrictions Will Fail
• Jun 13 – USrael's War On Iran
• Jun 13 – Iran Could Use Oil To Urge The U.S. To Sue For Peace
• Jun 14 – Lies Used To Justify War On Iraq Get Reused To Wage War On Iran
  Related:
  – Trump’s pretend diplomacy enabled Israel’s war on Iran – Aaron Maté
  – ‘We fight or we die’: How days of frantic diplomacy and dire warnings culminated with Israel’s attack on Iran – CNN

  – Conflict between Israel and Iran would ‘most certainly’ close the Strait of Hormuz – Lloyds List
  – Pure Orwell: Europe condemns Iran for attacks on its own territory – Responsible Statecraft

  Media lie! Iran does NOT have nuclear weapons:
  – Destroying Iran’s nukes is Netanyahu’s obsession (archived) – Economist
  – Israel destroyed part of Iran’s premier weapons facility, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said. (archived) – NY Times
  Israel has nukes:
  – Hidden History: How Israel Acquired Nukes – Kit Klarenberg

—
Other issues:

Cont. reading: The MoA Week In Review – OT 2025-131

Former CIA officer Larry Johnson opines:

I believe that Israel’s attack was part of a planned international intelligence and military operation, which included the participation and support of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. We got the first clue on May 31, when a UN watchdog issued two reports designed to create a narrative that Iran is a rogue nuclear state:
…
This tactic was employed in 2002/2003 to gin up a justification to attack Iraq, who the US insisted had weapons of mass destruction. We now know it was a lie, but the propaganda was effective in producing support in the US and Europe to invade Iraq. We’re seeing a similar effort today, only this time Iran is being falsely accused of enriching uranium to build a bomb. The Iraq WMD lie, like the current calumny against Iran, only has one purpose… justify military action in order to achieve regime change.

I have previously detailed the current IAEA operation to blame Iran over some alleged nuclear contamination which were found more than two decades ago.

During the build-up to the 2003 war on Iraq there was another lie that famously used to 'justify' the attack.

It was alleged that Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al-Qaeda, a terrorist group that had been created by the U.S. in Pakistan to fight against the Soviet supported government of Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda was alleged to have committed attacks in the U.S. on 9/11 2001. Associating Iraq, which had fought against al-Qaeda inspired groups, with al-Qaeda itself was the second most cited lie used to justify the U.S. war on Iraq.

It is no wonder than that a similar narrative is now suddenly being build with regards to Iran.

David Ignatius, the unofficial CIA spokesman at the Washington Post, was told to publish this nonsense (archived):

But Iran has other means to hit back. One that has received little attention is its relationship with al-Qaeda affiliates. According to former U.S. counterterrorism officials, Tehran has built good relations with the new “de facto” al-Qaeda “emir,” Saif al-Adel, who took over in 2023 after Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed. These former officials say Adel helped manage WMD planning for Osama bin Laden.

The al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen may pose a special danger. It’s headed by Saad bin Atef al-Awlaki, who posted a chilling video this month threatening U.S. officials. “Go after the scum of the earth and its greatest criminals,” he urged his followers, naming Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and former DOGE chief Elon Musk. “There are no red lines after all that has been happening to our people in Gaza,” he said. According to the Jerusalem Post, Awlaki urged Muslims in Europe and America to make sure there is “not a single safe place” for Jews.

Who would be those "former U.S. counterterrorism officials"? Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, or some other notorious liars?

Saif al-Adel, the "de facto" never declared leader of Al-Qaeda has since 2001 been rumored to be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and Iran where he allegedly was once under house arrest and later exchanged against Iranian hostages held by al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Over more than two decades the Shia Iran has fought the Sunni al-Qaeda wherever it could. Its operations against Sunni extremist in Iraq and Syria were largely wars against al-Qaeda affiliated forces. In Yemen Iran is allied with the Houthi who are fighting against U.S. supported al-Qaeda aligned groups in the south of the country. A similar situation exists in Lebanon where Iran supported Hizbullah forces have for years feuded against al-Qaeda aligned radicals.

To claim that Iran is now somehow in cahoots with Saif al-Adel, an alleged but never declared leader of a more or less extinct al-Qaeda, is blatant nonsense.

David Ignatius is a much read 'opinion leader'. That he was told to trot out those nonsensical claims is a signal for others to pick up on them.

We can now expect lots of other second rated opinion writers to come up with similar tales.

It is, like the attempt to associated Iran with weapons of mass destruction, a narrative that will be used to further escalate the current regime change war on Iran.

The primary targets of Israel's attack on Iran do not seem to be nuclear research and production facilities. People in the top positions of Iran's military forces, top scientists of Iran's nuclear program and political leaders seem to have been the primary aim.

Two dozen high ranking officers, including the chief of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, General Mohammad Bagheri, and the commander of the IRGC’s Aerospace Force, Amir-Ali Hajizadeh, were killed in targeted attacks. Several leading scientist were killed over night when Israel bombed the civilian buildings they were living in.

Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities are buried underground near Natanz and Fordow. Satellite images show only light damage on above ground facilities in Natanz. Fordow seems to have not been attacked at all. There were attacks on some of Iran's ballistic missile facilities. There are no reports yet of the level of damage they received.

Curiously there were no signs of any active air defenses. Israel seems to have disabled them by other means than open warfare.

Israeli sources claimed that Iran had retaliated by launching a hundred drones against Israel. There were however no observations of any drone. Iranian sources say that none had been launched (yet).

The attacks so far seem to be aimed more at regime change than on nuclear facilities. The few strikes on nuclear infrastructure are just enough for Israel to claim this as an act of preemptive self-defense.

A preemptive self defense is legal under international law. But it requires that the threat is "instant", "overwhelming" and "imminent" leaving "no time for deliberation". None of these conditions existed when Israel launched its attack. The war it launched is thus an act of aggression and illegal under international law.

Israel has planned for the campaign to continued for at least two weeks:

Israel's operation against Iran's nuclear program, military leadership and arsenal of missiles is nowhere near over, with Israel having planned out 14 days of operations, a senior Israeli official said.

The likely duration of the campaign fits with analysts' expectations that a single wave of strikes wouldn't be able to do enough damage to Iran's nuclear program and Israel's comprehensive approach of attacking Iran's facilities, leadership and arsenal at the same time to limit the possibility of a retaliatory strike.

The pattern is similar to the one Israel deployed against Lebanese militia and Iranian ally Hezbollah—decapitating its leadership, degrading its arsenal and pushing it to a settlement. The current conflict could similarly end in a negotiated deal, the official said.

Iran has only two viable ways to respond to the attack. One is, as Scott Ritter lays out, an overwhelming destructive strike on Israel itself. This must be sufficiently hard for Israel that it will ask the U.S. to negotiate an end to the war. This would however risk nuclear strikes by Israel on Iran.

Another potential is to retaliated against the power behind Israel which conspired with it to launch the attack. There are U.S. targets in the Middle East which Iran could easily strike at. But the response from the U.S. would be an air and missile war that would overwhelm any defenses Iran has left.

A more reasonable attack on the U.S. will target its economy. Iran can stop its production of oil. It has various means to stop oil and gas production in U.S. allied countries situated in its neighborhood. It can close down the Strait of Hormuz through which 25% of the global hydrocarbon productions is flowing. There is the little the U.S. could do to prevent Iran from sustaining such a blockade.

As I have stated previously:

Trump wants lower oil prices and freedom to pursue his domestic agenda. 

A few month of oil prices above $200 per barrel would devastated the chances for Republicans to keep the House and the Senate. It would ruin Trump's presidency. The would turn the world against Israel. Trump would be forced to sue for peace with Iran.

There would be strong collateral damage in the global economy. Iran would be blamed for it. But everyone would also know that it was not Iran or its leader who started this.

Counter to my expectations Israel has launched a war against Iran …

There is some noise that an Israeli and/or U.S. attack on Iran is imminent. I regard this a propaganda which hopes to put pressure on Iran and not as serious war planning.

Israel wants the U.S. to destroy Iran. It would be the last of the seven countries in five years plan of destruction the U.S. had activated, with Israel's prodding, in 2003.

President Donald Trump wants to avoid a war with Iran. He has nothing to gain from it. But he is under pressure by the Zionist lobby. Instead of bombing Iran he would prefer to shut down its civil nuclear program. Its existence makes Iran a latent nuclear weapon state. Iran denies that it is striving to get nuclear weapons. U.S. intelligence has found that Iran has no current program that would lead to weapon capabilities.

It was Trump who in 2018 withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which had limited Iran's nuclear industry and had put it under strict surveillance. Iran waited a year before it took retaliatory measure by increasing its enrichment of nuclear fuel and by decreasing its cooperation with the inspectors of the IAEA who are supervising Iran's adherence to the JCPOA.

With Trump back in office he set out to push Iran towards a new agreement that would, he hoped, eliminate all enrichment of nuclear fuel in Iran. There is no chance to achieve that. Nuclear enrichment is an inalienable right of all nation under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and Iran insists on not being blocked from it.

Trump decided on a two pronged strategy. He would push the IAEA and the European co-signers of the JCPOA to condemn Iran with the perspective of reestablishing UN mandated sanction on Iran. He would also offer Iran a new kind of JCPOA to again limit its nuclear development abilities.

Trump had sent out his envoy Steve Witkoff to push Iran towards a new agreement. He however mangled the constrains Iran should agree to. Witkoff told the Iranians that they would be allowed to enrich Uranium to 3.6% as needed for a civil nuclear reactor. A few days later Trump ordered that to be 0% – i.e. no enrichment at all. This went back and forth several times.

The JCPOA was a very fine balanced and very technical agreement that took many months to conclude. Trumps offer to Iran is a "dollar-store-JCPOA", incomplete and with many clauses Iran would never agree to.

Trump has made negotiations even more difficult when he publicly demanded Iran to surrender completely:

Cont. reading: Trump’s Attempt To Scare Monger Iran Into Nuclear Restrictions Will Fail

News & views related to the war in Palestine …

News & views related to the war in Ukraine …

News & views not related to the wars in Ukraine and Palestine …

The cheerleaders of the military-industrial-media complex are trying to press people and governments into handing more money to them.

They do so by predicting, again and again, that the 'big bad bear' will soon come to slaughter them.

But their purported guestimates of when that will happen are all over the place:

• Putin could attack NATO in ‘5 to 8 years,’ German defense minister warns – Politico, Jan 18 2024
• Russia could attack a Nato country within 3 to 5 years, Denmark warns (archived) – FT, Feb 9 2024
• “Not if, but when”: NATO prepares for Russian attack on Finland, Baltics and Norway – Euromaidan, Jan 4 2025
• Russia could start a major war in Europe within 5 years, Danish intelligence warns – Politico, Feb 11 2025
• Putin is capable of attacking NATO country ‘next year,’ Zelenskyy warns – Politico, Feb 14 2025
• Will Russia attack Nato? Experts warn of invasion as early as 2027 (archived) – The Times, Feb 15 2025
• German intelligence warns Putin preparing Nato assault by end of decade – Standard, Mar 29 2025
• Russia Could Be Ready to Strike NATO in Two Years, New Report Says – Newsweek, May 15 2025
• Russia 'could attack a NATO state by 2027 if a ceasefire is agreed in Ukraine this year' as experts warn Europe 'cannot assume that they have years to prepare' for another war – Daily Mail, May 16 2025
• NATO at risk of Russia attack in next four years, warns German defence chief – LBC, Jun 1 2025
• Russia could attack Nato in five years, Rutte warns – Telegraph, Jun 9 2025
• Putin could attack Europe within three years, warns senior Nato official – Inews, Jun 10 2025

Fortunately there are still some sane people with whom I tend to agree on this:

Cont. reading: When Will Russia Attack NATO?

There is some confusion over Russia's response to the June 1/2 attacks on railway infrastructure and its strategic nuclear forces.

To recap:

On Saturday/Sunday Ukrainian diversion groups used explosives to destroy two Russian railroad bridges in the Kursk and Bryansk region. These bridges were located some 50 kilometer north of the Sumy region frontline. The hits will impact, if only for a short time, the railway bound supply of Russian forces north of Sumy.

One of the bridge explosions destroyed a civil passenger train. Some 10 people were killed and some 100 were wounded. This was likely intended and thereby a terror attack.

On Sunday morning a large scale operation by the Ukrainian secret service managed to attack multiple strategic airfields throughout Russia. Ukrainian sources claimed attacks on five airfields and the destruction of more than 40 strategic bombers.

Current damage assessment confirms attacks on two airfields and the destruction or damaging of up to 10 bombers.

It is very important to distinguish these attacks. While both coincided with negotiations between Ukraine in Russia in Istanbul, and were clearly timed to influence those, the purpose was larger.

The railroad attacks were planned to hinder rearward logistics of Russia's operation in Ukraine's Sumy region. That a civilian train was hit by these was likely seen by the Ukrainian forces as an additional feature but not as a main purpose. Still, it is the mass harm of civilians that make this otherwise permissible attack on a quasi-military target a terrorist act. The Russian side has emphasized this.

The attack on the strategic bombers of Russia's nuclear triad (land based nuclear missiles, submarine based nuclear missiles, air carriers for launching nuclear bombs and missiles) hit at a much higher level. It was a military attack on a strategic military target. Russia's publicly announced doctrine allows for the use of nuclear forces to retaliate for such an attack on its nuclear assets. This independent of the immediate source of the attack.

The attack on the railway bridges were an operation that is typical for British services. It has been reported and is well known that British services have advised and helped the Ukrainians to launch sea drones against Russia in the Black Sea, to cross the Dnieper river in Krinki and in other operations of higher propaganda value.

The Russian Foreign Minister has accused the U.K of direct involvement in the terrorist attack.

Several western experts of U.S. special services believe, as the Russian's do, that the operation against its nuclear forces have a different actor behind them – most likely the CIA. It is unlikely that Ukraine would have been able to identify and target those airfields without the intelligence acquired by U.S. sources. There is also no military benefit for Ukraine to attack Russian air bases far from its territory.

It has been reported that since 2014 the CIA had build some 20 stations in Ukraine from where it operates against Russia. Several high ranking Ukrainian intelligence actors, including the head of its military intelligence service General Budanov, have been trained by the CIA and are actively cooperating with it.

The CIA has a special unit dedicated to long term plans to harm Russia. As the Washington Post once described it:

Cont. reading: Russia Seeks ‘Asymmetrical’ Response For Strike On Its Nuclear Assets