The United States and Iran, says Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz, are to sign an initial peace deal within the next 24 hours, Reuters has reported.
The two nations have agreed on a framework for a peace deal that could end the months-long war in the Middle East, with the final text of the agreement having been drawn up. According to the Pakistani Prime Minister, his government is preparing for the two sides to sign the initial agreement electronically before proceeding to technical-level talks next week.
However, on Wednesday, the USA and Iran exchanged missile attacks, compromising the fragile ceasefire agreement.
On Friday, the Trump administration voiced confidence that the two sides would agree to peace terms, although Iranian statements on the agreement have differed from those of the US as per certain details, CNN says. A senior US administration official has likewise revealed that both sides have agreed on a written declaration and that Washington expects to sign an initial deal in the coming days.
While both sides point to progress on a peace deal, Iran asserts that the initial agreement will not be signed on Sunday. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi maintained on Friday that, while changes in the deal were still possible, the tentative agreement reflects his country’s strengthened position in emerging from the conflict. “Iran is the winner of the war with the US,” he said on state television on Friday.
On the other hand, US President Trump claimed on Friday that a deal was likely to be signed imminently. That was a day after the US President had declared the US would strike Iran “very hard” again. Later in the day, however, he announced he would be cancelling the strike since negotiators had “just made a great settlement” with Iran.
Trump told reporters it was “subject to finalization of documents, which should get done over the next few days” and that there would “probably” be a signing ceremony in Europe.
Citing multiple sources, Reuters has reported that an agreement includes the US releasing billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets and waiving sanctions on its oil exports in return for Iran’s opening of the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, Iran’s nuclear program would be addressed during a 60-day period of talks. As per the US President, the agreement would ultimately lead to the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, with its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to be destroyed and removed.
According to other sources, however, Iran has not agreed to the dismantling of its nuclear program and wants to retain its uranium stockpile in a diluted form. The proposals are also said to include discussions on potential war reparations for Tehran and the possibility of the United States dropping its longstanding demands for limits on Iran’s missile program.
Ultimately, it awaits to be seen whether the deal will in fact be signed by the leaders of the two nations.
As Russian battlefield gains slow and recruitment drive falters, Ukraine is warning that the Kremlin may finally reach for the measure it has long resisted — a forced mobilization.
According to Kyiv, Moscow is preparing to call up tens of thousands of fresh soldiers to offset its climbing battlefield losses.
By Josh PAUL
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Upcoming Israeli elections give the U.S. president leverage he can use.
The U.S.-Israel relationship has never been less popular in America, but at the same time that support for Israel is cratering in American public opinion, Congress appears to be fast-tracking an effort to entrench the relationship and give Israel enduring access to both our most sensitive technologies and our most sensitive intelligence—in exchange for nothing more, it seems, than a thank you note from Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the same time, the U.S. is at war, stuck in an unpopular and unnecessary conflict whose political and economic impacts create mounting and unanticipated obstacles for the Trump administration’s agenda. While this week Trump has seemed intent on escalating the conflict, he’s also shown a desire to end it—and a recognition of one major roadblock to peace. The president’s frustration at Netanyahu—who played a key role in convincing him to enter the conflict, and who can now act as a spoiler to prevent him from exiting it—has become evident in recent weeks.
Given the challenges posed by the Israeli leader, a common complaint on both the right and the left of American politics is that Israel exerts far too much power in U.S. politics. But a closer look at the facts demonstrates that Netanyahu is actually in an incredibly weak position—or would be, if the administration was willing to assess and deal with the entire U.S.-Israel portfolio holistically.
Netanyahu’s own objectives are not shaped as much by geopolitics, or even national interest, as much as they are by the growing urgency of presenting himself as a winner in time for Israel’s elections this fall. To do this, he has to leverage U.S. military power to deliver something resembling a win in Iran (which seems less and less likely), do the same in Lebanon (now a quagmire), and demonstrate that despite the collapse of U.S. public support and the foreseeable end of U.S. grant military assistance, he has guaranteed a means of enduring Israeli influence in Washington that doubles as a financial boon for Israel’s tech sector and broader economy.
In short, his back is against the wall. By October, he may be out of a job. And by January, after the 120th Congress is seated, the odds of the U.S. enacting laws that entrench Israel in our defense and intelligence systems may drop precipitously.
Netanyahu, as is typical for him, is projecting strength, to the point of hubris (which is also typical for him). His advantage to this point has rested on keeping the two negotiations (Iran and framework legislation) separate. In the Iran context he can exercise significant leverage as a spoiler, and in the legislative context he can exercise significant leverage through Republican congressional endorsement of a plan for which he has publicly taken credit. For as long as these lanes stay apart, he would seem to have the advantage.
But as a businessman, Trump knows the value of writing his own script and re-framing the situation in a way that benefits his—and America’s—interests. In this context, the way to do that is by combining all three tracks in the U.S.-Israel relationship—Iran, Palestinian self-determination, and the future of security cooperation—into one.
There are signs he may already have recognized this. Although the White House pushed back on recent reporting from NBC and the New York Times regarding Israeli espionage against the United States, those stories may have been a shot across the bow following an incredibly contentious call between the two leaders. Or in other words: “Play nice on Iran, or the intelligence cooperation under consideration by Congress gets pulled.”
The administration should leverage this opportunity by linking all three tracks together. Specifically, it should signal to Israel that continued progress on the pending U.S. legislation is premised on Israeli compliance with U.S. efforts to wind down the regional conflict and with U.S. efforts to drive forward a real diplomatic pathway for Palestinian self-determination. To demonstrate he holds the upper hand, Trump should also work with Republican leadership in Congress to slow-roll the current legislative vehicles so that Netanyahu cannot present them as a “sure thing” prior to Israel’s elections.
Such an approach would not only incentivize Netanyahu to work more constructively with the administration, but could also inform the policies and campaign strategies of Israel’s opposition leaders, resulting in a more compliant Israelis after the fall elections.
This is a winning hand for President Trump, should he choose to play it. There is no need to give away the game, as Congress now seems poised to do, just as the cards have been dealt. Trump can use Israel’s desperation for defense and intelligence integration as leverage to constrain Netanyahu on Iran. After Israel’s elections and the U.S. midterms, he will still have time to assess if the current legislative work to integrate Israel needs to proceed, or if further concessions are needed from Netanyahu or a new Israeli government, before signaling his assent to Congress.
Original article: www.theamericanconservative.com
Trump’s Iran strikes: staged weakness or real madness? Behind him, Graham and Keene push oil theft and fantasy invasions.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Many may be confused about America’s recent attacks on Iran, given that they come each day while Trump keeps telling us that a deal is about to be made. Just days ago, analysts believed that Trump was genuinely angry about Netanyahu going ahead with his IDF attacks in Lebanon against Hezbollah. But was that real, or staged? Given that Trump ordered strikes against Iran after that, a cynical view might be that there are only two scenarios why he would do something so incongruent. One: he believes that Iran is very close to signing a deal but needs the extra ’encouragement’ to finally get over the line. Or two: he felt embarrassed by what a whole phalanx of Western commentators were recently saying — that it was in fact Bibi who was running the whole show, using America’s resources to create chaos and havoc. The refusal by the Israeli PM to stop his troops fighting was a clear signal that Trump really doesn’t control the war and is very much a servile player to Israeli thinking.
But what is interesting is how Trump is not at all convinced that he has no military options, even given that they would certainly mean the total eradication of anything left of relations with GCC countries. Trump still believes even today that the US military — who have only a track record in the last 80 years of losing all wars and interventions they instigate — can actually take on Iran and win. As ludicrous as this sounds, it is what is at the heart of what is stalling any deal being struck, coupled with Trump’s sensational failure to negotiate — something he is simply incapable of doing despite his own hype and hubris. The US struck a number of water plants in Iran, which was an incredibly stupid initiative given that this is the region’s Achilles heel. If Iran wants to completely eliminate water desalination plants in, say, Qatar — a country which has no natural water at all — then it could easily do this in a matter of hours.
When a US Apache helicopter crashes, Trump’s reaction is a theatre of the absurd, similar to watching a child burst into tears on his first sports day where his new soccer shirt gets dirty on the pitch. The US is the aggressor, but when a helicopter is downed, this is met with misplaced outrage that borders on comedy. The reality is that no US military analysts believe the chopper was taken down by Iranian fire; it is more likely that it suffered a malfunction and crashed, with both pilots surviving. But it is interesting how Trump considers the war as more of a theatre of PR stunts rather than an important battle he can win.
One reason which explains this is the need for US troops to keep busy in the region, in a pathetic bid to remain relevant to GCC allies — a point made by the commentator Patrick Henningsen recently on RT television. Another reason, though, is the people that Trump keeps around him who he listens to, like Lindsey Graham — who one can only assume is being blackmailed by Israel over his sexual inclination, given his almost cultish beliefs in Zionism. But Graham knows nothing about war and seems to glean some sexual satisfaction from sending young American men in uniform to their deaths. On the other hand, General Jack Keene, a man who isn’t overburdened with intelligence, is probably responsible for a lot of the erroneous decisions Trump is making militarily, and certainly for stoking the “invasion option” while reminding the whole world what an irony-free zone America actually is.
Keene recently rambled on Fox News that he had no confidence in Iran ever keeping its word if Tehran were to ever sign a deal — a hilarious and preposterous claim given America’s reputation for never keeping its word on ceasefires and peace deals. The very fact that Trump is in talks with the Iranians every day demonstrates that they can be trusted, as it is the Trump camp which has no credibility whatsoever when it comes to integrity — the main reason why the Iranians are dragging their feet and are more comfortable with a drawn-out war that will recalibrate their position in the region and put down Israel and the US once and for all. For Keene to say such a thing is quite remarkable. But then he continues with his ideas about US troops “taking” Kharg Island, and a picture emerges of how and why Trump is so deluded about what the real capability of US troops is, and how his decisions and ideas are so detached from reality. Landing airborne troops on the island would only be possible if Iran allowed it to happen — so that it could disarm the occupiers and then hold them hostage as a key part of a new deal. That’s on a good day. On a bad day, if the more hardcore element of the IRGC has its way, they might simply decide to slaughter all of them. What Keene doesn’t seem to understand is the logistical nightmare of having 10,000 US soldiers on a single location within reach of just about everything Iran has to throw at it. And the talk of troops “landing” there with helicopters is a fantasy. How did General Keene become a general, given that he is stupid and seems to know little about warfare or Iran’s capability? The Iranians will shoot down US helicopters like they are having a fun day at clay pigeon shooting. But even if troops were allowed to land on Kharg and other islands, they have to be supplied practically every day. Presumably, the Iranians would prevent the supplies getting in and then starve the marines on the ground. If General Keene really has the ear of the president and Iran holds out for a better deal, the case for Trump to go to war becomes even stronger and grows each day.
But Keene let the cat out of the bag when he talked about oil. It’s really only about oil, or energy, as it was in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and more recently Venezuela. For Trump to capture some oil production and then simply steal from it would be all in a day’s work for the president who has never had any problem with the stigmatisation of being called a thief. Trump believes oil theft is a real possibility and makes sense on any given day. But then there are days when he is desperate to get out of Iran altogether, which we can see with his panicky gestures — like the last strike, which actually achieved nothing but prepared Iran more for war, as the talks combined with bombardment don’t produce the results which Trump needs but make him look even weaker and more desperate. Has General Keene prepared Trump for a scenario where the ceasefire is over and he needs to move onto a new phase? Oil would only sweeten such a plan, and Keene makes no effort to hide this during his interview.
by Brian Shilhavy
Health Impact News
Earlier this week, trading in the U.S. Stock Exchanges were significantly declining, leading many analysts to speculate that the AI bubble might finally be bursting.
But by Thursday, one day before Elon Musk’s SpaceX IPO listing on the NASDAQ, Trump made sure that the failing stock markets would not derail what was going to be the largest IPO entry into the U.S. Stock Market in the history of Wall St., so he did what he has done so often before during the Iran War, and he announced that they had agreed on a “peace deal” with Iran, and the stock market skyrocketed to new heights, wiping out all of the losses from earlier in the week.
But is there actually a peace deal in place with Iran to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz?
If you only get your news from the U.S. corporate media, which all for the most part print the same thing about the war whether they are “Left” and “hate” Trump, or from the “Right” who support Trump, you probably think that Iran is giving up and caving to the demands of Israel and Trump.
To understand how the rest of the world outside of the U.S. and the West view the events now happening, you need to read what the Iranians and others are saying.
Now as I have stated multiple times since this war started, BOTH SIDES will lie and use psychological warfare to their advantage. So when I present the Iranian view, I am not endorsing it as 100% true.
But it does give the alternative perspective, and the fact Iranians seem to still be taking to the streets in large numbers each day seems to suggest that their regime is not about to fall, and in fact may be establishing Iran as one of the major superpowers in the world today.
This is from PressTV, the major English language news source coming out of Iran, and it was just published today. While the author is not named, you will quickly see it is someone who is highly educated and whose native language is probably English.
It is literally written like a legal brief, and probably accurately describes Iran’s current position on where this war is at right now. It marks the one-year anniversary of when Israel and the U.S. began bombing Iran in the “12 Day War” last year.
by PressTV
After a year in which the full spectrum of the enemy’s military, political, economic, intelligence, and psychological warfare machinery was mobilized to topple the Islamic Republic, the strategic outcome has been dramatically reversed.
Far from accomplishing its stated but improbable objectives, the US war machine has suffered a staggering collapse into oblivion, while Iran has consolidated its position as a regional superpower with a clear and widely recognized upper hand.
The regional balance of power has shifted decisively in the wake of the three imposed wars against the Islamic Republic in less than a year. Tehran is now positioned to impose strategic conditions, while Washington finds itself increasingly forced into reactive diplomacy.
It was in June last year when the United States, the Israeli regime, and a coalition of their regional allies launched what they believed would be a swift, decisive, and terminal operation – a 12-day war of aggression designed to bring about “regime change” in Iran.
They banked on the much-hyped doctrine of shock, surprise, and cumulative pressure, unleashing every lever of power: military, political, economic, and psychological.
Their war plans, repeatedly refined since 1979, were executed twice in less than a year – most recently in February, a war lasting nearly 40 days that ended with the US retreat.
Today, on the anniversary of the 12-day imposed war, the region’s strategic map has been reversed. The United States is no longer the predator circling weakened prey. It is the petitioner, eagerly seeking a deal to escape a wider and more dangerous catastrophe.
Iran has not merely survived, but it has emerged as a formidable regional superpower, imposing conditions on Washington for the first time in decades.
Between June 13, 2025, and June 12, 2026, the enemy coalition – led by the United States, operationalized by Israel, and facilitated by Arab logistical support and European betrayals – activated every option in its playbook. This was not a single war but a cascade of catastrophes, designed to overwhelm Iran’s capacity for resistance through simultaneity.
The assassination of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution was the biggest salvo – the crossing of the Islamic Republic’s highest red line. In any conventional strategic framework, the decapitation of a state’s top-most authority should have triggered collapse.
Instead, it triggered something the enemy had neither calculated nor imagined – a quick and seamless transfer of leadership and a nation galvanized by unity and resolve to resist.
The 40-day war in February this year was the sequel to the 12-day war in June last year. The June 2025 war was a full-scale military assault on sensitive military, security, and nuclear nodes inside Iran. When that failed to break the country, the enemy escalated to a 40-day war, an expanded campaign targeting civilian and scientific infrastructure, media industry, administrative centers, and economic lifelines, accompanied by mass civilian killings in cities like Minab, Lamerd, and Karaj – including the massacre of over 150 schoolchildren.
Simultaneously, separatist terrorist elements, trained and armed abroad by familiar suspects, struck from the northwest and southeast borders.
But the most insidious operation was the armed coup attempt before the 40-day war in January and early February. It was the deployment of extensively trained terrorist cells across the country, activated simultaneously with maximum brutality.
Thousands of Iranian citizens were murdered in this coordinated campaign of domestic terror, for which Donald Trump recently took public responsibility.
Europe, for its part, abandoned fifteen years of JCPOA diplomacy, triggering the “snapback” mechanism, a juridical betrayal that confirmed Tehran’s long-held suspicion – Western agreements are tactical instruments, not binding commitments.
A complete US naval blockade in the form of maritime banditry and piracy was imposed to strangle Iran’s economy. Every regional ally of the United States – Persian Gulf Arab states, Israeli military bases, and regional logistics hubs – was activated against Iran.
And throughout this year of open warfare against the Iranian nation, Washington and its partners repeatedly engaged in simultaneous talks and diplomacy, using negotiation as cover for surprise attacks. Each Iranian gesture of goodwill was met with betrayal.
The enemy’s stated goal, which was admitted openly in Western and Israeli strategic circles, was the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, the disintegration of the country into ethnic fragments, and the plunder of its rich resources.
The enemy’s assessment, briefed to American and Israeli war cabinets, was that Iran would collapse within the first few days of the Ramadan War. They had imagined the Islamic Republic as a brittle system – aging leadership, economic distress, popular discontent, a military stretched thin. They were catastrophically wrong, as they later realized.
What the enemy failed to understand is that civilized and revolutionary states do not fight like conventional powers. The assassination of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution did not create a vacuum, but it gave the nation a martyr. The new Leader – the martyred Leader’s worthy successor, elected amid bombings – demonstrated something the West has never internalized: in Shia revolutionary doctrine, the system is larger than any individual.
The outcome, after twelve months of maximum pressure and maximum violence against the Iranian nation, is an Iran that holds the clear upper hand.
Now, let us consider the balance sheet. On Iran’s side:
First is the strategic defeat of the enemy’s core objective. The United States and Israel sought to break Iran’s will and project their own invincibility. Instead, it proved counterproductive as the enemy lost its credibility and deterrence. The sight of American warships quietly withdrawing from the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian tactical control traveled across every news platform in the region. The psychological effect was seismic.
Second is an unprecedented national cohesion. Western analysts had long predicted that economic pressure would drive a wedge between the people and the Islamic Republic. The opposite happened. The two imposed wars produced exceptional national unity. Public presence in defense of the country – volunteer armed groups, civilian logistics networks, popular mobilization – reached levels unseen since the 1980s Imposed War. The armed forces, the Basij, and ordinary civilians fused into a single resistance organism.
Third is the preservation and strengthening of strategic assets. Iran’s civilian nuclear program, missile arsenal, and regional network of resistance allies emerged not only intact but enhanced. International experts now note that Iran’s exclusive operational control over the Strait of Hormuz has created a strategic asset “greater than nuclear weapons.”
Fourth is the demonstration of offensive and defensive superpower capability. Iran proved it could initiate and end a war with Israel on its own terms. It demonstrated deterrent power so clearly that regional states relying on American bases – Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and others – have been forced into a recalibration of their security doctrines. The US guarantee is no longer credible if Washington cannot protect its allies from Iranian retaliation.
Fifth is a decisive shift in global public opinion. Despite an unprecedented Western propaganda campaign, popular sentiment across the Global South – and even within Western civil societies – moved in favor of Iran. The image of a small power standing alone against the full might of the American Empire, and winning, resonated deeply in post-colonial societies worldwide.
While Iran’s position has grown significantly, America’s power has collapsed. The anniversary of the 12-day war finds the US in its weakest strategic posture since the 1975 fall of Saigon.
The damage to the American “superpower” image is irreversible. For decades, Washington projected an aura of military invincibility and inevitable victory. That aura was shattered in the skies over Iran and the waters of the Strait of Hormuz.
The enemy failed to achieve any of its declared objectives. It was forced to downgrade its war aims from “overthrow the Islamic Republic” to “prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons” – an objective Iran has repeatedly and officially stated it does not seek.
The humiliation in the Strait of Hormuz stands as one of the greatest strategic disasters. The United States, the world’s maritime superpower, lost operational control of the planet’s most vital waterway to a non-naval power. The damage to American global power projection is permanent. Every allied navy in the world has already taken note.
Economic and material losses are staggering, including hundreds of billions of dollars in direct and indirect costs; the depletion of expensive strategic reserves – air defense missiles, precision-guided munitions, naval assets – with no prospect of replenishment at a pace matching Iranian asymmetric resupply. The US military industrial base, already strained by Ukraine and Israel, has been further hollowed out.
Loss of credibility with allies is perhaps the most consequential long-term damage. Persian Gulf monarchies that paid billions for US protection watched American forces retreat, their air defense systems bypassed, their territories vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. The phrase “all options are on the table” was exposed as rhetorical theater. When the US repeatedly retreated from re-entering the war with Iran, ending the 40-day war without any gains, every regional ally understood the new reality.
Domestic and international disgrace is complete. Western and regional analysts, even those hostile to Iran, have been forced to acknowledge the transfer of initiative in war and peace into Tehran’s hands. Inside Iran, the collapse of US prestige has been particularly devastating for Western-oriented groups who long promoted the narrative of America as a “benevolent hegemon.” That flawed narrative is now completely dead.
At the time of writing this, Trump has reportedly received signs of a final agreement with Iran with what can only be described as desperation. His renewed threats of attacks on Iranian targets were quickly withdrawn Thursday evening. It recalls the posture of a desperate gambler who has run out of chips.
Several structural realities must be understood about the current US pursuit of a deal.
First, after failing militarily, the United States is now pursuing a submissive diplomatic approach. Washington hopes Iran will agree to terms that allow the US to declare a face-saving exit. But make no mistake: any deal America seeks is not about mutual benefit, but about the survival of the remaining fragments of US credibility in the region.
Second, the United States is engaged in an intense and all-out war of disinformation. Through social media posts, contradictory press releases, and manipulated narratives, the Trump administration officials seek to project a false image of “achievement.” They will claim they “prevented” something worse, or that Iran “conceded” something. These are propaganda weapons aimed at domestic and allied audiences, not reflected by facts.
Third, any agreement with Iran must not be misread as a partisan tactic of Trump or the Republican Party. This is a broader, bipartisan structural bid by the entire US machinery: the deep state, the military establishment, and global Zionist networks.
Political figures are visible operators, but the machinery behind them is national and transnational. The retreats we see are tactical moves designed to preserve the larger goal of maintaining Western power credibility over the long arc.
Iran should not – and cannot – afford to mistake a tactical pause for a strategic conversion.
If Iran chooses to enter an agreement – and that is an “if,” not a “when” – the terms must reflect the new balance of power. The following are non-negotiable:
First, Iran must not compromise its fundamental rights – not for a temporary ceasefire, not for sanctions relief, not for any American promise. If negotiations collapse and war is reimposed, Iran must be able to return from a position of strength and authority.
Second, the goal of any agreement must be the removal of the shadow of war, not a temporary truce, not a managed escalation ladder, but the establishment of durable deterrence. Real security comes from power projection and the absence of weakness signals. Every concession, no matter how small, will be interpreted by Washington as an invitation for further pressure.
Third, full Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz must be recognized without any conditions. This is now a strategic reality. Any agreement that does not explicitly acknowledge Iran’s control and right to manage this waterway is an agreement built on a lie.
Fourth, Iran’s nuclear rights, defense capabilities, and regional resistance structure must remain intact. The United States has no standing to demand limitations on a sovereign nation’s defensive capabilities, especially after failing to destroy those very assets.
Fifth, compensation for damages caused by US and Israeli aggression must be addressed. The destruction of Iranian infrastructure, the murder of thousands, the economic strangulation – these are not abstract costs but crimes for which reparations are due.
Sixth, the role of the Iranian people’s resistance and presence must be formally recognized. Any agreement that ignores the popular mobilization that saved the country betrays the very source of Iran’s strength.
The most important strategic insight for Iranian decision-makers is that any agreement marks not the end, but the beginning of a new confrontation with the unreliable enemy.
The United States is fundamentally opposed to Iran’s existence as a unified, powerful, and independent state. That has not changed and it will not change with any agreement on the table. What has changed is the method from direct military assault to a renewed campaign of subversion, economic pressure, and political isolation.
To consolidate the gains of the past year, Iran must now focus on internal factors. National strength must be reinforced by addressing economic vulnerabilities, maintaining popular unity, and ensuring that the military and security apparatus remain resupplied and ready.
Simultaneously, weakening factors, especially Western-dependent thinking, defeatist psychological operations, and fifth column elements, must be systematically eliminated.
It is important to understand that the enemy’s next war will not look like the last one. It will be fought in the currency of doubt, division, and delay.
On the first anniversary of the 12-day imposed war, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the people of Iran have emerged as undisputed winners. The enemy employed every option on the field and on the table but left with nothing but staggering losses.
Iranian people, leadership, and armed forces achieved what theorists in the West believed was impossible: they defeated a “superpower” in a full-spectrum war – not once, but twice in less than a year – without surrendering a single core principle.
The United States now seeks a deal to escape from the quagmire of its own making. And whether the deal finally materializes or not, the foundation of Iran’s security must remain what it has always been: not American promises, but Iranian power.
This article was written by Human Superior Intelligence (HSI)
See Also:
Having problems receiving our emails? See:
If our website is seized and shut down, find us on Telegram, as well as Bitchute and Odysee for further instructions about where to find us.
If you use the TOR Onion browser, here are the links and corresponding URLs to use in the TOR browser to find us on the Dark Web: Health Impact News, Vaccine Impact, Medical Kidnap, Created4Health, CoconutOil.com.
The post Iran Still Standing and Still Controlling the Strait of Hormuz after One Year of Being Bombed by Israel and U.S. – Trump Uses War for Insider Trading for Profit first appeared on Health Impact News.
Login
