Iran Declares Victory Over America After MOU Signed

‘We Are a Superpower’: Iran Declares Victory Over America After MOU Signed

Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz

At the Palace of Versailles on June 17, as French President Emmanuel Macron looked on, President Donald Trump signed his name to a 14-point memorandum of understanding with the Islamic Republic of Iran—a regime whose state-controlled media, within hours, was broadcasting banners declaring that “the US was forced to sign an agreement to end the war.” In Tehran, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian held up his signed copy for cameras, completing what Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei called proof that his country had “defeated two nuclear powers… We truly are a superpower.” 

The proof that Iran’s celebration is not merely rhetorical lies on the ground: Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful proxy, is firing missiles and drones daily into Israel even as a supposed ceasefire is in effect, and Hamas’s latest response to mediators in Cairo amounts to an effective rejection of key components of Trump’s Gaza peace plan, including the demand for disarmament.

The MOU, mediated by Pakistan and Qatar and signed two days earlier than originally planned, grants Iran large-scale economic relief and commits Tehran only in principle to a subsequent dilution of its enriched uranium—while pushing off discussion of Iran’s nuclear program and other core issues to a 60-day negotiation period. Despite Trump’s combative pre-war rhetoric, Iran’s theocratic government remains in place, its stockpile of highly enriched uranium has not been surrendered, its ballistic missile capabilities have not been destroyed, and it has not ended its support for terror proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi wasted no time in framing the outcome. He stated flatly that Iran “defeated the US in the military battlefield” and warned that “Iran’s armed forces will always have their hand on the trigger to confront the conspiracies of the enemies.” He added that the MOU itself was written not in a spirit of partnership but of calculated suspicion: “This memorandum does not mean trusting the enemy; it has been written with active distrust. We will monitor the implementation of U.S. commitments.”

Iran’s military operational headquarters, Khatam al-Anbiya, went further in its Sunday night statement, declaring that “the humiliated enemies have no option but to accept defeat and surrender before a people inspired by God and the soldiers of the Almighty.” The statement continued: “By imposing their divine and iron will upon their adversaries, they proved that there is no alternative for the enemy other than acknowledging defeat.”

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi matched the triumphalist tone from the diplomatic lane. Iran’s state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported that Araghchi declared the nation’s military performance had yielded not only tactical but strategic gains: “The Iranian nation achieved not only tactical victories during the 12-day imposed war in June last year and the recent war, but also important strategic accomplishments whose impact can be observed in both regional and global equations.” Araghchi added that “the true image of Iran’s power on the global stage stems not only from its military capabilities but also from national cohesion, resilience, and the active involvement of its people.”

On the Strait of Hormuz, Baghaei outlined Tehran’s intentions with precision: “Iran will charge fees for services in the Strait of Hormuz. The mechanisms for managing the Strait of Hormuz have largely been agreed upon with Oman,” preserving, he said, “the sovereignty and dominion of the Islamic Republic of Iran” over the waterway. Trump had announced the strait would open toll-free to all shipping and that the US naval blockade on Iran’s ports would be lifted immediately. Iran’s version of what was agreed and Washington’s version were already diverging before the ink had dried.

Baghaei delivered his most sweeping verdict directly to Iranian state television: “Our enemies have inflicted harm on us. But a wounded lion remains a lion. The war they imposed not only did not bring us to our knees, but made us stronger.”

More.....

Ukraine, Russia, and the Danger of Nuclear Attack on Europe

Ukraine, Russia, and the Danger of Nuclear Attack on Europe

Benjamin Abelow

I’m writing to recommend a remarkable discussion between John Mearsheimer (an endowed professor of political science at the University of Chicago) and the influential, religiously conservative, hawkish Russian nuclear strategist, Sergey Karaganov. The discussion was hosted and moderated by Professor Glenn Diesen (University of South-Eastern Norway).

You’ll need a bit of patience to understand some of Karaganov’s comments. His English is halting, and he sometimes mumbles — especially during the opening segment of the discussion. But it is well worth hanging in and attending closely. And all becomes perfectly clear as the discussion progresses. Mearsheimer does a good job of re-articulating and clarifying any points that Karaganov does not himself make sufficiently clear.

The discussion is fascinating. It provides deep insights into nuclear strategy and makes clear the great danger of the present moment for Europe — and all of us. Europe, if it continues on its current path, and Karaganov’s program is implemented, will be struck by a conventional missile attack from Russia, which then — after a conventional retaliation by Europe and/or the U.S. — likely will lead to a nuclear attack on Europe

Mearsheimer does an impressive job of maintaining collegial, and even, at moments, warm interactions with Karaganov — an indirect form of personal diplomacy. I believe that this is extremely important, as human interactions can have a decisive influence, even in contexts such as this one, in international affairs. Humiliations that are inflicted at the level of individual interactions can lead to global disasters. Conversely, respectful interactions, even in exceptionally trying circumstances, can help both sides draw back from dangerously destructive conflicts, even at late stages. I found the human level of the interactions the most heartening part of the discussion.

As Karaganov describes it — and I believe he is being forthright — this attack would be carried out not as an expansionist or intentionally aggressive strategy. In fact, for reasons described below, it could not function in this way. Rather, it would be an attempt to (as Karaganov describes it) “sober-up” European leaders. These leaders seem to have lost any fear of direct conflict with Russia, and they are increasingly seeking to confront Russia militarily, not just through the proxy of Ukraine. In other words, this very hawkish plan would be a Russian attempt to “reestablish deterrence.” Karaganov genuinely seems to believe that this approach is the best way to avoid a large-scale nuclear war with uncontrolled escalation.

You may not like Karaganov’s viewpoint or his strategy. But, I would assert, you must understand it — because it if European leaders persist on their current path, it will become increasingly posssible, perhaps even probable, that Karaganov’s plan will be implemented and that Europe will be on the receiving end of a nuclear attack.

Let me summarize my understanding of what Karaganov is proposing:

Step 1: Russia launches a limited conventional (non-nuclear) missile attack on selected targets in Europe.

Step 2: Europe (and/or the U.S.) respond in kind with a conventional missile attack on selected targets in Europe.

Step 3: Russia launches a nuclear attack on selected targets in Europe.

Step 4: In this scenario there is no Step 4. The conflict ends without further immediate exchanges, escalation, or military conflict of any sort. Europe does not respond with it’s own limited nuclear arsenal (in France and the UK) for fear of being utterly wiped out with a Russian nuclear response. The U.S. does not respond with its own nuclear attack on Russia because it knows that this would immediately trigger a strategic nuclear war, destroying the U.S. (and Russia, of course). So, the exchange ends with Russia’s limited attack on Europe. Deterrence is reestablished on Russia’s terms. Russia is not, however, incentivised to use its new position to expand or significantly coerce the West in other ways, because it knows that doing so is more likely to trigger a nuclear retaliation, and this heightens the risk for Russia. But we must be clear: Even a very “limited” nuclear attack on selected European military and industrial targets probably would kill millions, and quite possibly tens of millions, of Europeans.

This scenario is becoming increasingly likely, I believe, as European leaders seem almost willfully to misunderstand what is happening, why it is happening, and what Russia’s actual goals and concerns are. It has been clear from the start of this conflict — actually, from long before the start of the war — that Russia has not been acting as an expansionary power but rather has been responding to a decades long attempt by the West, especially by the U.S. and NATO, to weaponize Ukraine against Russia, and to do so right on Russia’s border. In a similar but reverse situation, the U.S. would long ago have gone to war to remove the threat.

But these European leaders appear to be entirely blind to this — or, since they are substantially responsible for the course of events, they are psychologically and politically motivated to actively deny the reality. Instead of acknowledging this reality — including the reality of their own terrible and ongoing failures — these leaders are doubling down. They appear to be incapable of changing course.

More....

VPNs & Operating Systems next on the “Age Verification” hit list

Quick Take…VPNs & Operating Systems next on the “Age Verification” hit list

Kit Knightly

It started with “adult content” in the UK and US, and social media bans for children in Australia, France…and many others.

The UK just passed their own social media ban, and we know they’re not done yet. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has promised to “revisit” Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in July, with a potential ban on the table.

The US is hovering toward a federal social media ban as well.

Next comes the operating systems themselves – meaning needing ID scans to access any and all phones, laptops, desktops or tablets. Or at least those from Google, Microsoft or Apple.

As PC Mag reports [emphasis added]:

Age verification laws are no longer limited to porn sites. Two US states have already passed laws requiring your operating system to collect your age, and a federal law is under discussion. After more than two dozen states passed laws targeting adult websites like PornHub—and Utah moved against VPN use—the next battleground is your operating system.

Starting in 2027, California’s Digital Age Assurance Act will require operating systems, including Windows, macOS, Android, ChromeOS, and Linux distributions, to ask users for their age during device setup and share an age range with apps. Depending on how future laws evolve, that process could eventually involve government IDs, credit cards, or biometric verification.

In the UK, in April, Apple changed their policy to force adults to share their ID, credit card or biometrics in order to use certain features of their iPhones. The “nudity detection” software will be device-based too.

And as the technological bounds of this tyranny expand, the moral panic aspect is shifting as well.

Fresh from “protecting the kids”, we’re already talking about social media “stoking division” instead:

The World Cup has prompted “hundreds of thousands” of “abusive” social media posts, according to tabloid headlines from earlier today.

Couple that with the UN’s shiny new “say no to hate” campaign and you can tell they’re feeling the momentum.

They’ve got their foot in the door now. Next comes the shoulder.

A Baffling Deal With The Most Untrustworthy Regime On The Planet

A Baffling Deal With The Most Untrustworthy Regime On The Planet

Erick Stakelbeck

Between Operation Midnight Hammer last June and the recently completed Operation Epic Fury, the U.S. military, on President Trump’s orders, has turned Iran’s nuclear sites into rubble. It’s also eliminated Iran’s Navy, Air Force, air defenses, much of the regime’s ballistic missiles and drone-launching capability, not to mention many of its senior political and military leaders. Meanwhile, Iran’s economy is in tatters thanks to a crippling U.S. naval blockade.

The president was bold and decisive, and he deserves immense credit for all of this. So does our great ally Israel, which fought bravely by our side in these operations. Great things were achieved, and the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism was on the ropes and more vulnerable than ever to an uprising by the long-suffering Iranian people.

That’s why I’m so baffled by the Memorandum of Understanding that President Trump signed with Iran on Wednesday.

Now, this memorandum is not a final deal. It’s an agreement between the United States and Iran to continue talking for the next 60 days in hopes of achieving a final deal—and as we know with Iran’s terrorist regime, nothing is guaranteed.

Some of what is laid out in the current memorandum, which again is the basis for a final deal, is deeply troubling.

First, Iran pledges not to develop nuclear weapons. That is their promise. Scouts honor. Gee, now I feel better! Are we to believe that the most untrustworthy regime on the planet, which, in 47 years, has never signed a deal it has not broken, has now suddenly discovered the concepts of honesty and transparency? Or will they simply restart their nuclear program once President Trump leaves office?

Folks, the Iranians have not suddenly seen the light. They are engaged in the Islamic concept of taqiyya, deception, as David Brody of CBN News pointed out to Vice President Vance on Wednesday:

David Brody: It kind of goes to the theological issues within Islam, specifically the way they, the regime, sees it: taqiyya, which basically allows you to lie in righteousness, if you will. There is Hudaybiyyah, which is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which Mohammed signed in the 6th century, which basically says that’s a way for them to retool and to rearm. And this is part of their mindset. It’s a theology. How concerning is that to you?

JD Vance: Well, you know, I certainly hope that they’re not lying, but it’s not concerning to me because I don’t really trust anybody. And I think this is one of the things the president has told us to do in this negotiation is don’t trust any words that are written on paper, which is why I think both the good and the bad of this entire negotiation—meaning I shouldn’t say the bad… The good things for America and also the good things for Iran fundamentally only happen through action. And that’s what we have set this up to do.

So if they do things, then they get things. If they don’t do anything, then they don’t get any of the benefits of the bargain. I am sure that there are people within their system who are not telling us exactly what’s on their mind.

That’s just the way that these things go. But that’s why the president has told us, don’t reward good words, reward good conduct if that happens. And if not, we don’t; no skin off our back.

Iran does get one big immediate benefit. It will restart its oil exports as the U.S. lifts its naval blockade. Other deal points, thankfully, are contingent on Iran’s behavior.

According to the Memorandum of Understanding, if Iran keeps its end of the bargain—a big if—it will receive U.S. sanctions relief, plus $300 billion in reconstruction money from Arab Gulf states, some of the same Gulf states, presumably, that Iran just spent months bombing during the war.

More....

Israel and Hezbollah renew ceasefire after flare-up, but IDF to stay in southern Lebanon

Israel and Hezbollah renew ceasefire after flare-up, but IDF to stay in southern Lebanon

Jacob Magid

Emanuel Fabian

Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire on Friday afternoon, a US official said, after another flare-up in southern Lebanon that saw four Israeli soldiers and dozens of Lebanese casualties.

The renewed truce appeared as fragile as ever, as it didn’t see Israel pull out of the large buffer zone it established in southern Lebanon — one that Hezbollah has used to justify continued attacks on troops stationed there as well as on northern Israeli towns across the border.

The latest deal was brokered by the US and Qatar through talks with Israel and Iran respectively, a senior US official said in a statement to reporters. While Hezbollah sources confirmed the truce, Israel refrained from doing so publicly until Friday evening when its ambassador to the US declared that Jerusalem “remains firmly committed to an immediate ceasefire.”

“At 11:30 this morning, Israel halted all offensive operations; Hezbollah and Iranian claims to the contrary are bold lies,” Yechiel Leiter wrotes on X. “If Hezbollah honors the agreement and ceases its hostilities, they will be met with quiet.”

The US official who first announced the truce notably did not even try to hide the fact that mediators relied on Iran to secure the ceasefire — an admission of Tehran’s ability to influence events in Lebanon.

The US and Israel had previously stressed the importance of detaching Iran from events in Lebanon, even if they privately recognized Tehran’s control over its terror proxy.

US President Donald Trump’s administration has even brokered talks between Israel and the Lebanese government that have been used to announce previous ceasefires between Israel and Hezbollah, even if Beirut’s ability to influence the Iran-backed militia was limited at best.

It was that process Israel declared it was committed to when Ambassador to Israel Yechiel Leiter said Thursday night that Jerusalem would hold its fire in Lebanon if Hezbollah did the same.

But with Iran warning that Israel’s operations in southern Lebanon amount to a violation of the memorandum of understanding inked with the US this week, the US and Qatar apparently decided to go straight to Tehran to broker Friday’s agreement.

It’s unclear if or for how long Iran will accept the deal, given that the issue wasn’t just Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah but also the Israel Defense Forces’s presence in southern Lebanon that Tehran has argued violates the MOU, which stipulates “an immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”

Iran has reportedly been citing Israel’s continued operations in Lebanon as its reason for holding back on sending a delegation to Switzerland for the first round of technical talks under the MOU, which a US official said was initially supposed to take place on Friday. A time has not yet been publicly announced.

While Israel’s continued operations have also sparked unprecedented public criticism from the Trump administration, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated on Friday that the IDF would remain in southern Lebanon, arguing that the buffer zone is necessary to protect its citizens in the north from Hezbollah attacks. Israel established a similar buffer zone decades ago in 1985, but pulled out in 2000 due to persistent IDF casualties of the kind it is now facing in south Lebanon on a near-daily basis.

Earlier Friday, the IDF announced that four of its soldiers had been killed overnight after a suspected drone or anti-tank missile struck their tank in the southern Lebanese village of Kfar Tebnit.