[Today’s Iran war post fired before finished. Please return at 8:00 AM for a final version]
After two rounds of tit-for-tat attacks, Iran and the US are allegedly returning to the negotiating table in Doha on Tuesday to try to sort out an understanding on the Strait of Hormuz. From Aljazeera’s landing page:
Keep in mind the sources are Axios, which has a close to unblemished record for calling “agreements” that do not happen, and Reuters, which has also had more of a propensity than most other Western outlets for running accounts supporting the US position that did not prove to be accurate. Note that this Doha session would be in addition to the technical talks set for today that Iran shelved:
JUST IN: 🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran says it did not attend scheduled technical talks with the US today after recent attacks.
— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) June 28, 2026
Israeli media claim the next round of US-Iran talks has been canceled due to recent fighting
— Michael A. Horowitz (@michaelh992) June 28, 2026
There are no statements from Iran confirming a meeting in Doha of this hour.
I don’t think these technical talks are going to happen at all and Iran leadership is going to come out with an announcement confirming this in the next hours reiterating what has been already officially announced on state TV yesterday https://t.co/BjKuJlCJHE
— JustDario (@DarioCpx) June 29, 2026
On the one hands, even though it is a near certainty that any chat will not close the gap between Iran and the US, Iran loses nothing by taking the meeting. On the other hand, if I were Iran, I might mess with the effort to tamp down oil prices and, 15 before market opening, say no meeting was confirmed.
After a short and marked uptick due to Oman-channel traffic before the latest dustup, transits in the Strait of Hormuz are back down to low levels:
Here's a look at the Strait of Hormuz over the last 24 hours.
Inbound tankers were very limited with one group of tankers that got through the Oman route under US escorts.
Outside of this group, no visible AIS tankers went through the Oman route.
The other inbound tankers are… pic.twitter.com/6g7IRYu1ht
— HFI Research (@HFI_Research) June 29, 2026
A rather competent opinion on the prospects of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz from HFI Research:
If tankers use the Iranian route, they are mainly associated with Iran. If tankers use the Omani route, they are not and have never been subject to sanctions.
Shipowners… pic.twitter.com/5WgFxgb2RK
— S p r i n t e r (@SprinterPress) June 28, 2026
Not confirmed but credible:
An informed European source told me that Iran has now routinely every night been launching upwards of 6 drones towards commercial shipping attempting to cross the strait of Hormuz.
— WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧 (@WarMonitor3) June 28, 2026
And impediments remain:
🇮🇷 80 Mines Litter Hormuz Shipping Lanes as Normal Traffic Stays Frozen
About 80 mines are scattered across the Strait of Hormuz’s main shipping lanes, the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) estimated Friday
🔹 The explosives are concentrated in the central Traffic… https://t.co/RPDiNVxcID pic.twitter.com/HkS5JB2wbg
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) June 28, 2026
This Lloyds’ List story, points out that even the “get the trapped vessels out” operation was not going to be easy. From
Hormuz exit will bring ‘huge’ navigational challenges:
- Stern-to-bow convoys would reduce collision risk
- But no guarantee how crews will react under fire or if something goes wrong
- Fatigue remains a big risk, with the risk of human error significant
Transiting a non-conventional route through the chokepoint alone will bring navigational issues, without the threat of missile fire on top
However, a very fresh story at Middle East Eye’s live feed says that, contradicting some of the gloomier reports on Twitter, that new oil is starting to come out of the Gulf, and not just inventories on trapped tankers.
Energy shipments in Hormuz continue despite recent tanker attacks
Middle East producers are pushing ahead with loading oil and liquefied natural gas, shipping data showed.
Washington and Iran agreed on Sunday to halt hostilities and renew talks on the Strait of Hormuz, despite recent shipping attacks that threatened their interim deal.
On Monday, a fourth large crude carrier, capable of carrying two million barrels of oil, was seen loading at Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura terminal, LSEG data showed, even after a helicopter belonging to Saudi Aramco, the state oil company, crashed on Sunday, killing 14 people. The cause of the crash was unknown.
Three other very large crude carriers (VLCCs) have loaded oil and gone dark since leaving the terminal over the weekend, according to the data.
One of these supertankers emerged on Monday, having exited the strait, and is now heading for Japan, the data showed.
Two VLCCs entered the strait on Sunday and have docked at a United Arab Emirates terminal to load crude.
On liquefied natural gas, two additional ballast tankers appeared on ship-tracking data in the west of the strait on 26 June after going dark, while two other loaded LNG tankers have exited Hormuz.
From the same feed:
Data shows 48 vessels crossed Hormuz after attacks
A total of 48 vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz between 26 and 28 June following the latest exchange of strikes between the United States and Iran.
According to data tracked by Al Jazeera, the vessels included 23 oil and gas tankers, seven bulk carriers and 19 cargo or container ships.
The figure marks a decline from the 70 transits recorded on Wednesday and 54 on Thursday, before the latest escalation, suggesting renewed security concerns may be affecting maritime traffic through the strategic waterway.
Experts have said that two-way shipments are essential to normalization of supply. Recall also that the Gulf States are dead set against paying fees to Iran or supporting its position that it controls the Strait of Hormuz, so these vessels seem likely to depart the Strait of Hormuz on the Oman side.
We’ll see what happens in light of Iran continuing to insist on the exclusive use of its channel:
Iran military limits Strait of Hormuz transits to corridor south of Larak Island
On the afternoon of the 29th local time, Iran’s military ordered that all vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz may only use the corridor south of Larak Island. On the 28th Iran said ships must…
— CHItrader (@CHItrader) June 29, 2026
A fresher update from Twitter:
Yesterday the Strait of Hormuz stayed open: 44 transits (24 inbound, 20 outbound), no disruption to freedom of navigation despite ongoing military operations.
Multiple OFAC-sanctioned tankers transited with AIS on, while two sanctioned VLCCs went dark to load an estimated 3–4M… pic.twitter.com/X6XdXOZbkR
— Windward (@WindwardAI) June 29, 2026
This level is still low relative to the old normal, needless to say. It looks as if there was one very low day and then ship operators decided to press ahead.
This tweet includes a key fact we had managed to miss:
My reading of the Strait of Hormuz over the past 24 hours:
Traffic patterns appear to show a clear distinction. Tankers using the Iranian side are largely linked to Iran, while those transiting via the Omani side are generally not and are outside existing sanctions.
Several…
— Agnika (@AntarAgnika) June 28, 2026
From its text:
Several ship owners have indicated that many vessels avoid the Iranian route because European sanctions tied to the IRGC remain in place. That leaves the Omani corridor as the practical choice for most commercial shipping.
Expert readers can weigh in, but I believe JCPOA snapback sanctions are also in play. Recall that the E-3, the UK, Germany, and France triggered the snapback under the JCPOA in late 2025, which keeping the JCPOA sanctions in effect (otherwise they would have expired). Russia and China rejected the extension, based on the view that snapback implementation was procedurally invalid.1
You recall the widely-re-reported Bloomberg story, that Oman officials allegedly had told European officials that they might have to pay fees to transit the Strait of Hormuz.2
Macron is setting an even higher bar for ending the sanctions than is contemplated in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), as in demanding that Iran give up its ballistic missiles. From Reuters in on June:
France wants to play a role in talks dealing with Iran’s nuclear programme and will not approve the lifting of UN sanctions unless it is satisfied by the terms of a final accord, its foreign minister said on Friday.
Jean-Noel Barrot, whose country is a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, told broadcaster franceinfo there would be no stability in the region unless U.S. talks with Iran also dealt with Iran’s ballistic missile programme and support for proxies.
“The return for major concessions that will be asked of Iran is the lifting of sanctions, sanctions that were taken at the United Nations,” he said.
“France is a permanent member of the United Nations (Security Council) so as was the case 10 years ago, France will have to give its approval for the sanctions to be lifted.”
Recall that like the magic $300 billion fund that the US cheekily pretended it could get non-signatories to the MOU to pony up, the promise to lift sanctions is another empty bag, with the US making commitments beyond US ability to execute. From the MOU text:
7 — The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and expressed their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
Mind you, the US is merely committed to an undertaking. It can’t make doggedly independent actors like France come to heel. So this was another airy US commitment which is destined to come up short.
On the position of Oman, it seems to be sticking to its opposition to Strait of Hormuz fees, consistent with its signing a joint statement by Gulf States to that effect last week:
Omani officials have confirmed to me just now that their position is no to mandatory fees or tolls in the strait of Hormuz in line with international maritime freedom of navigation despite any statements coming from Tehran or press reports to the contrary
— Alex Plitsas 🇺🇸 (@alexplitsas) June 27, 2026
I know many readers are not fans of Malcolm Nance,3 but in this new talk with Mario Nawfal, he gives a lot of detail on US strikes into Iran and probable Iran tactics. Nance stresses that the US keeps hitting the same targets again and again. He speculates that Iran is using very cheap radars that they are treating as disposables to draw US fire. He also describes long form what others have explained, what it would take to invade Iran or even to merely try to take key islands in the Strait of Hormuz:
But at least according to some “big if true” sightings on Twitter, the US is moving even more military assets into the theater. This is consistent with the point made yesterday: Larry Johnson argued late last week in 13-18 DAYS: THE PRACTICAL DIESEL BUFFER… Does It Preclude Bombing Iran? that the diesel crunch was so imminent that it would prevent Trump from new strike on Iran. Yet he attacked nevertheless. While this could simply be another episode of Trump madness, it may mean the US and Israel think they have a new clever way to deliver a knockout blow.
The USA is conducting the largest logistical operation in its history – a statistical analysis.
This 30-second video shows the US air logistical activity in West Asia over the past seven days alone (accelerated by 20,000 times). At the same time, such activity has been ongoing… pic.twitter.com/E9h0bFc41P
— S p r i n t e r (@SprinterPress) June 28, 2026
From the body of the tweet:
We are talking about the largest airlift in US military history, which surpasses even the operation during the Iraq war in 2003 in its scale. Such a volume of cargo transfers far exceeds the usual replenishment of supplies.
All US strategic warehouses in the region are almost fully loaded and continue to be brought to their maximum capacity.
The US army is not spending billions of dollars on empty threats or demonstrative maneuvers. All this indicates preparation for a preemptive, paralyzing strike and, possibly, the start of a ground operation.
To put it mildly, this does not look consistent with the MOU requirement that the US pull out forces (as in the ones moved in beyond those normally at US bases) in 30 days.
This is also a threatening action but can the US really clear this path fast enough for it to play a part of the men and material sighted above?
GROUND WAR:
Seems like CIA coup, with the downstream objective of clearing the way to organize ground operations against Iran from Iraq.
Iraq is the only country suitable to stage ground ops against Iran… No other GCC will work. Sea-to-land invasions have 25% losses of troops… https://t.co/dMoHrJQjqg pic.twitter.com/Utb5qSHR2Q
— 471TO (@TOzgokmen) June 28, 2026
Iran does face a wee issue. It can clearly control the Strait of Hormuz. The US and its allies lack the means to secure it. But at least the more political factions in Iran seem to have developed what we call endowment effect, that they now have a psychological as well as personal reputation investment in the ideas that they will get all (or at least a lot) of the MOU goodies promised by the US. Some sanity checks:
Iran president says country will receive $6bn of frozen funds held in Qatar
During a visit to the holy city of Qom, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian delivered the following remarks…:
- According to the established plan, $6bn of the $12bn of our frozen funds in Qatar will be released and returned to the country.
- Our efforts will continue to recover the remaining frozen Iranian funds.
This does not sound like progress. Pezeshkian is effectively no progress has been made as far as most of Iran’s frozen funds, even $18 of the $24 billion Iran had sought to get upfront.
On top of that the “will be released” check-is-in-the-mail statement is not convincing, since Iran was set to get that $6 billion back in 2023. From CBS in U.S. clears way for release of $6 billion in frozen Iranian funds as part of prisoner swap deal:
The Biden administration has cleared the way for the eventual release of five American citizens detained in Iran by issuing a waiver for international banks to transfer $6 billion in frozen Iranian money from South Korea to Qatar without fear of U.S. sanctions…
Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed off on the sanctions waivers last week, a U.S. official told CBS News.
And confirming our out-of-the-box skepticism about that $300 billion fund:
"As for the 300 billion, I haven't seen anything. I wasn't informed about it, just like other GCC countries. We don't know anything about it… We don't know what 300 billion is, who will finance this 300 billion, or who will be the beneficiary of this 300 billion,"
Jassem… pic.twitter.com/FpUyhuTdEY
— S p r i n t e r (@SprinterPress) June 28, 2026
And from Dror Balazada on Twitter:
🚨 BREAKING | New Details from Inside the IRGC Following the Israel-Lebanon Agreement
• According to my sources, senior IRGC officials are furious with Abbas Araghchi and Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf over the negotiations with the United States.
• They believe Iran opened the Strait of Hormuz but received nothing substantial in return except limited oil sanctions relief.
• According to my sources, the IRGC is considering “heating up” the Strait of Hormuz once again.
• The anger has intensified over two additional issues: the U.S. push to route shipping through Omani waters instead of Iranian waters, and the Israel-Lebanon agreement, which they view as a violation of the memorandum of understanding.
Bottom line:
According to my sources, the IRGC believes Iran was deceived and is now reassessing its next steps.
However, Iran would have to be on an open-ended conflict situation in the Strait of Hormuz if the US were continue to contest control (which it may be able to do with a lower level of investment, say harassment as opposed to an active effort to secure the Strait of Hormuz). That seems insane given the prospect of continued diminished traffic killing the global economy. See the change in tone at Lloyd’s List today compared to its tone when the Oman channel looked to be getting steam. From Shipping risks mount despite US-Iran agreement to pause strikes:
- Two vessel attacks since Friday have created a new air of caution around shipowners as they reassess risk to crew and vessel
- Fragility of ceasefire has made it challenging for players to make informed decisions about strait transits, given lack of clarity around terms that could be open to interpretation
- An analyst observed a rise in seafarers refusing transits through the strait since Friday, making transits logistically harder
But remember the UN vote at the start of the war when Iran first closed the Strait of Hormuz, censuring Iran. It received a record number of co-sponsors. Russia and China were unable to secure an amendment to include criticism of the US and Israel for attacking Iran and starting the war. Russia and China were not willing to stand against the tide of global opposition to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. They abstained rather than voting against the resolution.
It seems highly unlikely that Iran will see any of its MOU goodies unless it finds a way to compromise on the Strait of Hormuz. That means sanctions come back into place and Israel stays in Southern Lebanon and continues its cage match with Hezbollah.
Shaiel Ben-Ephraim argues on Twitter that despite the IRCG fury and the exchange of fires, the two sides are testing each other and the negotiations are still moving ahead:
The fighting around Hormuz looks like escalation toward war. It is the opposite. This is coercive bargaining inside an active negotiation, not an attempt to end one:
1) Both sides signed an MOU on June 17 and never stopped talking. The strikes started June 28, with Doha talks possibly Tuesday. You do not schedule a summit mid-war. You schedule it mid-haggle. Violence here is a tool of the talks, not a rejection of them.
2) This is Schelling 101. Force is not just about taking territory. It is a bargaining chip used to communicate resolve and shift the terms. Iran attacks a ship on the Omani route to make a point about who administers the strait. The US pounds coastal sites to answer. Each blow is a message.
3) The fight is about the text, not the territory. The MOU says Iran arranges “safe passage” and determines “administration” of the strait. Araghchi reads that as sole Iranian authority. Washington reads it as unimpeded international navigation.
4) Watch the tit-for-tat structure. Iran hits two vessels. The US hits comms and missile sites. Iran hits Kuwait and Bahrain. This is controlled reciprocity, the signature of a costly-signaling game where each side calibrates to demonstrate resolve without crossing into general war.
5) Last week in Switzerland both sides agreed to a deconfliction channel to avoid Hormuz attacks. You build off-ramps when you intend to keep driving. The escalation and the safety valve were negotiated in the same room.
6) Even Trump’s “Iran will no longer exist” post is a bargaining move, not a war plan. It raises the perceived cost of Iranian intransigence to strengthen the US position in Doha. Brinkmanship works by making the threat credible, not by executing it.
Professor Robert Pape disagrees with this cheery take in his new post, The MOU Is Dying — Worse Is Still Ahead:
Less than two weeks after it was signed, the U.S.–Iran Memorandum of Understanding is beginning to collapse.
That should not surprise anyone.
The agreement stopped the shooting for a while.
It never resolved the incentives for war.
Over the past week, Iran attacked commercial shipping exactly where I argued it would. The United States responded with new military strikes. Israel continues pressing for broader military action. Commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains far below normal.
The question is what happens next….
The ceasefire is collapsing. Here’s why.
The biggest mistake this week is believing the latest attacks are isolated violations of a fragile agreement.
They are not.
They are the predictable result of a deeper strategic problem.
The Iran War fundamentally changed the balance of power in the Middle East. Iran survived with enough military capability to deny American control of the Strait of Hormuz. The United States accepted an interim memorandum that stopped large-scale fighting but never resolved who would control the Gulf after the war. Israel, meanwhile, never accepted the emerging settlement and continues pressing for military action in Lebanon despite the broader framework.
That strategic disagreement has now become kinetic.
To return to the topic of Lebanon, the failure of Iran to do more than whinge is not a good look. From the landing page of PressTV’s English language version:
And another story from the landing page:
Note that nowhere does Iran threaten to take action in Lebanon (which would be a ceasefire violation) to discipline Israel. Illustrative sections:
Iran has called for the establishment of a clear timetable for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied areas of Lebanon, describing it as an essential condition for achieving a lasting agreement to end the war and ensure regional stability.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remarks on Sunday in response to questions from reporters about the agreement signed between Israel and Lebanon in Washington with US mediation, as well as the implementation of the first provision of the Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on ending the war in Lebanon…
According to the spokesman, Iran’s position is based on the principles of the United Nations Charter and the fundamental rules of international law, stressing that respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is indispensable for the durability of any agreement concerning the cessation of hostilities and Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory….
He also emphasized that Tehran had placed an end to Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon alongside the termination of hostilities against Iran as one of its principal demands and has consistently insisted on the implementation of those commitments.
Contrast this stance with further information about how the pending Israel-Lebanon agreement will further erode Lebanon sovereignity. From The Cradle on Twitter:
Channel 12: Lebanon-Israel agreement includes secret security annex, Lebanon grants Israel freedom of military operations inside ‘Yellow Line’
——
According to Israel’s Channel 12, the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel includes a classified security annex that remained secret at the explicit request of the Lebanese government.The report says the agreement does not set fixed implementation timelines, with every step instead conditioned on meeting specific requirements on the ground.
The report adds that there will be no automatic Israeli withdrawals, with any redeployment depending on verified progress and the results achieved in the field.
It also says the two agreed pilot zones are the only ones currently approved, and that no additional pilot zones will be established in the foreseeable future without Israeli approval.
Channel 12 further reported that the Lebanese government granted Israel freedom of military operations inside the so-called ‘Yellow Line.’
And:
There are many shocking provisions in the scandalous “agreement” signed by Lebanon and the Israeli regime, but none more shocking than point 13 whereby Lebanon purports to give up its international legal claims against the Israeli occupation. But a news flash for the US-Israel…
— Craig Mokhiber (@CraigMokhiber) June 28, 2026
Beware of bogus claims that Iran has threatened to develop a nuke:
This is fake
Even the Israeli-backed Iran International admitted there was no such story on Fars News:
"this article did not represent the official position of this state-run media outlet, as it was published in the 'Fars Interactive' section and reflected the opinions of its… https://t.co/Fbx8IgXObK
— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) June 28, 2026
Needless to say, there is way too much noise in the signal to be sure of what is accurate until more information surfaces. So please be patient.
All done! See you tomorrow!
_____
1 Again, this is over my pay grade, but I had been watching the snapback matter in real time last year, and I believe Russia and China are correct. The process would have had to start in late June or at worst July because Iran was allowed a certain period to make a formal reply, as in to rebut the allegations of violations that would have justified the snapback. Instead, the procedure was invoked late and as far as I can tell, Iran was never given the opportunity to submit evidence or objections.
.2 From Oman Tells Allies Ships Going Through Hormuz May Have to Pay:
While Omani officials said they will always abide by international maritime law, they added there could be fees for services related to de-polluting the strait or helping ships navigate it, the people said, asking not to be named discussing private matters. It’s unclear if Oman said all these fees would be obligatory….
Muscat has sent mixed messages about the strait’s future. On Tuesday, it published a statement with Iran in which they said they would discuss how to operate the waterway and the costs associated with that. Two days later, it signed a statement from the US and Gulf Cooperation Council that “rejected any tolls, fees, or attempts to assert control over the Strait.”
Note this article ran before the UNIMO cancelled the operation to get ships out on the Oman side. We had understood that the Oman side could not accommodate the level of traffic that the old central and new Iran-side channels can. We had thought it was due to the channel being too shallow for VLCCs, but one of the ships droned while transiting on the Oman side was a VLCC, the Panamanian-flagged Kiku. A new segment on Janta Ka cleared this up. A maritime expert commented in passing (see starting at 7:35) that Oman has a rocky coast which makes passage nearby risky. So Oman could legitimately charge navigation fees as permitted services to individual vessels.
3 The fact that Nance is a jerk and a resume burnisher does not mean that his technical takes are wrong.
Seems like having Iraq and Kurds invade is an instant mess. The paramilitary PMF in Iraq is heavily Iran aligned. Basically a new civil war in Iraq on the horizon if this is what the CIA is aiming to do. Not that they really care.
US and Iraqi “military” forces could not dislodge ISIS. PMF and Quds cleared ISIS from Irbil and Kirkut!
Yes, a CIA coup would be fun to watch. I am not sure Sunni gangs in Baghdad would support the CIA.
Right. I strongly doubt the ability of the CIA and Mossad to reignite the Sunni-Shia conflict, this time in a way that clearly benefits Israel. Iraqi advocates for a revival will not have much of a political future, or future, period.
‘Jean-Noel Barrot, whose country is a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, told broadcaster franceinfo there would be no stability in the region unless U.S. talks with Iran also dealt with Iran’s ballistic missile programme and support for proxies.’
Sounds like Macron is working for the Israelis now by insisting on these Israeli demands that never appeared anywhere in the MoU. Does he think that France will be immune from the effects of an economic crash if these talks go nowhere? He may not be personally be worried as his term as President is coming to an end and a lucrative job will be awaiting him for ‘services rendered’ but France will be living with the consequences for sure.
The French have always been extremely radical on this issue: at least as much as the pre-Trump US. They are also responding typically to the US presuming to take them, and other countries, for granted. It has nothing to do with Israel.
I don’t know, man. Those two demands are exactly what the Israelis want and have demanded in the past. Still, France under Macron has been getting very aggressive on several fronts like hijacking Russian tankers and supporting Jihadists in the Sahel. Blowing up the MoU for Macron seems to be par for the course.
Nothing is more toxic to a negotiation than non-parties to the dispute trying to insert themselves into it. A strong mediator will shut that down quickly. Not sure whether the Pakistanis qualify as “strong”, though.
Note that Macron’s lame duck status means that Iran can easily just wait him out, e.g. let the war restart for a few months, bomb some more US bases if it looks like his schtick has any real-world effect. Macron is also off the Trump reservation, because Taco wants this all behind him ASAP so he can move on to other things.
And finally, Trump has not forgiven the Euro quislings for not supporting Operation Epic Fury, so he is likely to give Macron the back of his hand.
Nothing is more toxic to a negotiation than non-parties to the dispute trying to insert themselves into it.
How about a party that doesn’t negotiate in good faith? ;-)
I’ve seen both – and it’s a tough call as to which is worse. Though I agree completely, a good mediator shuts that down right away.
In my opinion, this rhetoric from the French government should be seen as an attempt to appear relevant and to demonstrate that they cannot be ignored, which is true, given that they do have veto power over the lifting of sanctions. It is worth noting, however, that there is a precedent of France taking a tougher stance than even the US in past negotiations (during the Joint Plan of Action talks in November 2013). It is also possible that French leaders are in fact more unrealistic than their US counterparts regarding the real capabilities of Iran demonstrated in this war and are still trapped in a mentality of a dominant and overwhelmingly powerful West.
That said, I doubt this would remain an obstacle if a genuine and lasting agreement were reached between the US and Iran, because Macron and other European leaders are obsessed with the idea of involving Trump as much as possible in the Ukrainian conflict. They do not want to antagonize him, as we saw at the last G7 summit, when they tried to convince him to take more action against Russia, exploiting the decrease in tensions in the Gulf following the signing of the MOU.
I would think that France would moderate its view on this in light of how implicated Total was when Iran was open for business during that short period when they could get in there. It’s anachronistic and the language does match Israeli demands.
The point surely is that Europe will now be in range of these missiles. It’s not anachronistic, it’s highly topical.
Based on Iran’s history, only if France intends on backing the US against Iran or taking part in future military actions.
Also does not negate the possibility that France is trying to support Israel as well.
The point surely is that Europe will now be in range of these missiles. It’s not anachronistic, it’s highly topical.
So shouldn’t that be a basis for more circumspect and respectful behavior?
What am I thinking? France is part of the Poke-The-Russia-Bear Coalition and if “missiles that can reach Europe nuclear warheads” can’t cause respectful behavior, what chance do mere chemical explosives have?
Macron must understand that Iran isn’t going to demilitarize itself just because it would make Europe/France involvement in another war with it easier proposition, right? So he wants to haggle over something else, or what?
First, that wasn’t Macron’s point, because he explicitly said ‘no stability in the region’ and ’Iran’s … support for proxies’ – he is talking about the risks for Israel and the other US clients in the Middle East, not for France. Second, there is no reason for France to expect Iran to shoot at it unless France itself attacks it first. Why would Iran do it – because ‘they hate us for our freedoms’? Because ‘they are crazy Islamist jihadists who want to destroy the West / all non-Muslim countries’? This is absurdly paranoid Atlanticist propaganda. Ballistic missiles are not a banned weapon, and neither France nor any other country is entitled to other countries not being armed just because they might conceivably use their weapons against it.
Barrot’s statement was rendered as saying that ‘there would be no stability in the region unless U.S. talks with Iran also dealt with Iran’s ballistic missile programme and support for proxies‘. The parts in bold seem to concern risks for Israel and US clients in the region, not for France, so I think that the most plausible interpretation is that the whole statement is primarily about that. There is also, as the others pointed out, no good reason for France to expect Iran to attack it.
Julian Macfarlane published the declaration of the Assembly of Experts of Iran.
Just in case anyone is interested……..
This was reported a couple of days ago on the Telegram channel Middle East Spectator, and it was almost the first thing out of the mouth of Alastair Crooke in the customary Monday morning interview with Napolitano (about 5 minutes in).
At this point, it should be accepted gospel that Axios – and more specifically, Barak Ravid – are nothing but mouthpieces for either the administration, the Israeli government or both. Everything published there should be immediately suspect.
Immediately suspect? I’d say “False unless corroborated by multiple reliable sources” — just like anything said by the US State Department and other agencies concerned with US foreign affairs, or by the White House (either party) regarding any matter at all.
Thanks for continuing to delve into this confusing mess. Meanwhile here in flyover people are putting out their bunting, crowding the highways, paying less for fuel prices which are now just above $3 at some stations. Will the flags and bunting all be seen as the lingering brand fumes before the big crash?
Staging U.S. troops in Iraq for a land invasion of Iran would entail a new invasion of Iraq. We have already seen that movie. It appears that only a military catastrophe will persuade the Washington Blob that it has lost the war against Iran.
Agreed. The Iraqis aren’t going to invade as they have been there, done that and gotten the t-shirt. Besides, if Iraq tried to do that Iran would turn all their oil fields to ash. The Kurds have already refused because they have been betrayed by Washington too many times. In any case, how do you stage the troops there to carry out an invasion and the mountain of supplies that they will need without the Iranians hitting them with ballistic missiles and drones? And as far as I know, most US troops were chased out of Iraq during the war. Lastly, it sounds great while an invasion force is motoring along the flat lands of Iraq but then they come up against the first of a whole series of mountain chains in Iran. Good luck with that one.
Exactly. The idea of a massive land invasion is from another time, like riding in on horses after the machine gun was invented.
As we are seeing in Ukraine, anytime you get more than two or three soldiers together in one place, they are immediately blown up. Putting together a huge invasion force, including supplies, weapons, armored personnel carriers, tanks, helicopters, and everything else seems like nothing but creating a huge stationary target.
If the Iranians can readily destroy every US base in the Persian Gulf, they are not going to have a problem with a temporary gathering of forces sitting out in the desert somewhere with all their guns aimed at Iran.
P. S. One of the Twitter commenters pointed out that maybe this huge stream of cargo aircraft in and out of the Middle East is actually taking stuff out instead of putting it in (gold? diamonds? cash? arms? royal family members?) I don’t know if this is obviously wrong for some reason, but it is a charming idea.
Desert Shield was the force and logistics preparation for Desert Storm. Six full months; fleets of logistics ships, somewhere around 500,000 US troops, an iron mountain of beans, bullets, blood and all the new stuff driven by MIC profitable warmaking.
The first week of Desert Shield the Iraqis were blocked tightly from even thinking about crossing hundreds of miles of desert to “get at KSA”!
Two observations: 1990 US had more than twice the force structure it now has! Second, the means of using that smaller force have eroded, aging fighters bc F-35 is delivered without fire control radars, dwindling magazine, etc!
Invade Iran….. Malcom Nance puts it succinctly, even though he is not a logistician, he gets it.
All those C-17 and C-5 sorties might deliver a plastic mound to Ben Gurion and Jordan.
Note during Desert Shield deployments airlift operations were hugely “hotter” than this! USAF lost a C-5 during this time. US Army used fleets of merchant marine!
USAF lost a C-5 during this time
Yeah, xxx228: we were supposed to ferry it to Rhine-Main for repairs, but the engineer and I both rejected it: the maintenance log had a number of red Xs in it, and a red X is supposed to mean the plane is grounded until that fault/issue is corrected, but “war” means a lot of the rules go out the window… they still couldn’t make us take that aircraft though,.especially since our AC backed us up.
I don’t think that part made the papers.
We got bused to Frankfort and another crew accepted the mission. One of the crew members survived along with a couple of passengers.
I’d imagine there’s a lot of burnt-out crews flying basket-cases right now, and I’m glad not to be one of them.
The graphic showing the US airlift to and from the gulf does not show what’s in the planes, particularly which direction the empty aircraft are going. Without that info it’s not possible to tell whether the airlift is bringing stuff in or taking stuff out.
If US really is setting stage for a major attack, I expect that they will attempt a major military leadership decapitation first.
IMO We need to revisit the prospect of nukes.
Nukes could not be used when USA was the aggressor. But making it so Iran is the aggressor could prompt Congress to declare war and USA/Trump-Netanyahu could then do what is necessary to win that war.
– No one thought that Trump would attack Iran AGAIN! during peace talks.
– No one thought that USA/Trump would F-around as the “energy cliff” nears.
– No one thinks USA/Trump-Netanyahu would use nukes (despite Trump threats like “you won’t have a country”.)
Are nukes effective against the underground “missile cities”?
USA build-up in the region may not be to attack Iran but to occupy it after it has been subdued/nuked (especially the oil-producing areas).
To bust up a target tunneled in granite needs a penetrating warhead, like the supposed warheads that would take out Cheyenne Mt complex and ICBM silos. I doubt US would use them nor that IDF has any.
Nuking Iran would probably cost most electric and desalination facilities in west Asia. If rockets left over the gas facilities in Qatar and crude assets all over.
Aside from civilian casualties the fall out rolling toward India will be quite annoying.
I served in cold war USAF: SAC and Air Defenses prior to 1985.
Done for today! If you arrived before the time of this comment, please refresh the page and re-skim.
I’ve finally trained myself to wait for this comment before diving into the post (by taking that time to brew more coffee… I love coffee).
Of course, due to the very irrational nature and fantastical thinking of some the actors involved in this affair, there’s often much included that defies any reason, logic, or common sense, so I expect I’ll still be re-reading a lot of it anyway.
aye,lol. my modem died saturday night, and they just brought me another one.
but yeah, my usual is rummage around on twitx from 4am(or whenever my back/neck/etc wakes me) until i see Yves’ post around 5:30-6, then ill re-read twice during the day.
the discussion usually dries up around 3pm my time.
still the best roundup/assessment of this mess around…otherwise, i’d hafta run around all over the intertubes.
i dont have a head for remembering numbers, but i filled all our gastanks yeaterday, and it $3-something.
ill be filling both my trucks tomorrow(payday), and getting the oil changed on the lil red one.
if there’s any $ left, ill get another diesel can…i have stabil for the gas cans…altho we run through them pretty regularly for the mowing gigs….so thats mainly for winter.
i dont think i need a stabiliser for the diesel…
one can only stock up so much,lol.
finally got a catalog for the solar well pump systems, and the chick i talked to wrote current prices in the margins for a range of systems that match my well depth, GPM, etc.
so once i study up, ill leave it on mom’s kitchen table.
getting that off grid has been one of my biggest worries for years, now.
without the well, i’m screwed(i have an Amish made iron hand pump, and all the pipe and such i need, and i know how to install it where the windmill is(windmill dry rot in leathers, bc its not hooked up to system=>never gets used) but that would mean carrying water all over the place…so that’s my back up emergency plan)
…if there’s any $ left, ill get another diesel can…
Bring many $$.
I was priceshocked – I bought a bunch of high-end gas cans some years ago at ~30 bucks per. Thought I’d maybe invest in a few more, went to the site, and they’re now at ~112 bucks a pop!!!
I thought the prior price of $30 or $35 a can was ridiculous! They are only made out of plastic – not gold. $112??? Nearly 5 times the cost of the precious liquid it holds.
I was most intrigued yesterday by the video (Nawfal and Martensom) about the apparently massive shorts against the paper price of oil, apparently far exceeding any normal levels. This seems like something Bessent could easily have dreamed up to deliver the political benefit to Trump of lower short term prices (and I remember a note a few days ago that no traders are willing to go long now because Trump can open his mouth and crush them by lowering the price, “deal is near”, as he has many times now). I don’t know whose money Bessent would be using.
The other intriguing bit later in that video was the idea that China might have decided to suppress oil prices the last few months in order to encourage the West to continue its high burn rate of oil reserves. Perhaps also some Taiwan quid pro quo, but China has been studying US capabilities as shown in Iran very closely and has likely concluded the US is not capable of defending Taiwan regardless.
I didn’t see that interview with Martenson, was there any evidence of massive shorting?
The timing of this latest exchange of attacks is, once again, quite convenient. Launch attack on Friday, just after market close, then call for another “ceasefire” in a “ceasefire” on Sunday eve. I’m sure it’s all just a coincidence eh.
Embedded in yesterday’s Iran war post, and Martensen did give numbers.
I am not an expert but a lot of shorting is done with exchange traded instruments so #s are public. See for instance. : https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/commodities/articles/traders-shorting-oil-hormuz-crisis-220000844.html?
Thank you, I missed that, I was traveling yesterday.
Can the Federal Reserve just print the funds out of thin air?
Yes. As Warren Mosler said, Treasury debits its account at the Fed. The Fed squares that up, usually later, usually with bond sales. Wonder if they are doing some janky accounting since this is arguably a short-term investment and not an expenditure.
I think actual money printing is done by US Treasury.
The Federal Reserve with 10 banks spread out around the country does federal open market operations (FOMO). Their mandate by law is to maintain full employment and control interest rates.
I am not sure Andrew Jackson would like Powell or the new guy Warsh any better than Biddle!
How FOMO operates is magic! Around covid shuttering the economy FOMO did massive absorbing federal debt unto its balance sheet! Almost $3 trillion dollar increase in the FR balances sheet in a few months from Feb 2020. By mid 2022 they added another near $2 trillion. Peaking at just under $9 trillion in assets on the federal reserve books. Last week the balance sheet went down about $3 billion.
The recent low point was $6.6 trillion in Dec 2025.
The fed has started adding to the balance sheet recently. New QE to cover the AI bust and energy cliff!
I doubt any significant new US $D were printed when the FR “bought” $3trillion or so of US debt. The banks have to keep reserves, when they have too much the fed does reverse repo, they had a lot of that until recently. Today the Rev repo is about $3 billion.
Money and banking is complex I slept through the last class I took in it, about 54 years ago!
Our poor impulse control is revealing an awful lot about what capabilities we retain and to a large degree to what extent. I’m not seeing overt signs of coordination along battle fronts between Ukraine, SoH, and Taiwan, but there’s obviously a lot of sharing going on.
It appears to me Trump wants to revert to NeoCon low intensity conflict a la Syria until after the mid terms but how is geniuses plan to get around the oil cliff and AI bust in the interim remains a mystery to me. Sounds like strong constituencies are building Russia, Iran & China put down the rabid dog, I wonder if Trump can manage to trigger all three at the same time.
IRGC: do what it takes to win.
Putin: do what it takes to not loose.
Xi: do nothing and win. Xi is the only one with a comfortable position, but he’s got plenty on his hands at home too.
‘Drop Site
@DropSiteNews
🇮🇷 80 Mines Litter Hormuz Shipping Lanes as Normal Traffic Stays Frozen
About 80 mines are scattered across the Strait of Hormuz’s main shipping lanes, the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) estimated Friday’
So what happens if some of these mines cut loose and start drifting around the Strait? The Ukraine dropped boatloads of mines off their coastline back in 2022 and some have been washed ashore in Black Sea nations like Romania after they got loose and at least one ship was sunk by one of these drifting mines.
So a couple of preliminary thoughts before getting to the whole Strait/MoU issue.
1. So the other day Middle East Spectator published a purported translation of a purported statement by Iran’s “College of Cardinals” (i.e. the body that elects the Ayatollah) – see (https://t.me/Middle_East_Spectator/33939).
The statement starts strong, reiterating core demands – quote, “Establishing management over the Strait of Hormuz, receiving compensation for war damages, the release of frozen assets, lifting all sanctions, and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region are inviolable demands of the Supreme Leader and the people” – while pointing out US perfidy during the previous rounds of negotiations, and insisting that things like Israel not withdrawing from Lebanon are blatant MoU violations.
But then by the end the statement it kind of veers into – get this done within the 30- and 60-day time frames of the MoU, because afterwards the war will probably restart again (especially after the US midterms). And this dovetails with the earlier statement by Khamenei II himself, which boils down to “let the diplomats try”.
Sounds like there is a leash in place. I don’t know if it’s a leash tied to specific timelines, or a leash tied to specific actions. But it could very well be that whatever is happening with the talks, or whatever the language of the MoU is, etc., there is a specific future point where the leash is yanked on and the war restarts simply on that basis. Although on the other hand, that same leash should probably keep the IRGC responses fairly tame (rhetoric notwithstanding) up to that specific future point, whatever it might be.
2. Parenthetically, I am reminded of a history of the Iran-Iraq War by Pierre Razoux I’d read a few years ago. One of the contentions revolved around the relationship between the Ayatollah (Khomeini), the President and the Parliament Speaker. The latter two were at constant political loggerheads, specifically on the issue of the war (ceasefire or not, basically), and the Ayatollah took a neutral arbitrator position between them, but also taking a sort of a “let them try and see what happens” attitude that is reminiscent of where we seem to stand today. Except back then, the “let them try” attitude concerned new Iranian offensives – to try and get a more favorable war settlement – and as a consequence, the war dragged on for an extra 5-6 years with comparatively little gained by either side, as in, (per Razoux) the deal Iran got in 1988 it could have easily gotten in 1983 without the intervening casualties.
So here we are. I doubt the new leash will let the “diplomats” putter around with the MoU for five years – or even five months – but it would make sense for Khamenei II to also take a neutral arbitrator position between the IRGC and Pezeshkian & Co., allowing the latter to make the attempt for the time being. Of course, the last time the results were decidedly not in Iran’s favor………….
3. Parenthetically parenthetically. I’m not sure whether this story was hoisted here, but Bloomberg had a piece on the Minab school bombing a few days ago which I cannot read per se (no subscription), but which RT reprinted a recap of.
Bloomberg piece – (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-06-26/an-analyst-s-missed-remark-surfaced-in-deadly-iran-school-strike-probe)
RT piece – (https://www.rt.com/news/642288-us-bombing-iranian-girls-school-reason/)
The basic idea is presented as this. At some point in the distant past, the Minab school was labelled in the Pentagon’s official intelligence database as a legitimate target. In 2019 (!!!!!!!) a Pentagon analyst checked whether this should be so, found that the place was, in fact, an elementary school, and entered a correction into some “digital intelligence tool”. However, this “digital intelligence tool” which the Pentagon analysts use is not actually connected to the official intelligence databasel. The money quote: “At least two intelligence databases used for inputting remarks by analysts, working with imagery, have not been linked to the official and authoritative database used during bombing raids…”
And I point out. 2019.
So first of all, a hand wave in the direction of the theory that this was somehow an AI targeting mistake.
Second of all, from the purely IT side of the equation I can completely see how in a large organization with many different software and database packages, management can delay critical infrastructure work – like linking up databases that are supposed to feed into each other, despite possibly being made by different vendors at different time periods – for years and years because budgets and complexity and we don’t really need it today type of thing, and then the people involved leave or get promoted, and 5+ years later the issue is reduced to a cursory bullet point at a once-a-year management meeting. Until there is a big blow-up, and then everyone acts surprised.
Of course, in the corporate world, this usually leads to wasted money and a few people being fired, as opposed to 160 dead schoolgirls. Minor difference. Nevertheless, if Bloomberg/RT are correct, I see “how” this could happen, in theory.
But there is a big over-arching question that brings us back to the war, especially if said war restarts, as it looks like it probably will, though the when and the how exactly is still debatable.
What the hell are we bombing in Iran?
If we’re hitting thousands of targets, and at least some percentage of these are from a pre-2019 dataset that contains all sorts of errors, err…I mean, the Pentagon probe is dated to April, so I’m sure there has been a scramble to try and update the official database by hand since then. And obviously some targets are “accurate”, like the previous Ayatollah’s house. Or that bridge they semi-destroyed, which is now being rebuilt.
Nevertheless.
4. Finally, I take note that the MoU notwithstanding, Iran has continued to drop a drone or two on the Iraqi Kurds, e.g. at Erbil, at least a few times a week. Clearly the IRGC wants to dissuade anyone from trying a ground operation from Iraq, and at least thus far they have been successful at this. Though on the other hand, maybe the US will push harder this time, witness the mini-leadership purge that is happening in Iraq as we speak…
Back later.
I’m a bit dubious about that Minab school story and how they blamed it on faulty inputs. That was the same excuse used when the CIA bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade back in the 90s. US officers were boasting about that attack but officially the story was that the Embassy was bombed because they were using old data.
My understanding is that the Minab school was bombed because of information from the Israel supplied AI that shows that many family members of the various leaders of Iran were at that school. They used phone data to attack the children of the leaders of Iran to make them not want to fight.
No, it literally had been an IRCG building of some sort before it was a school. Who or whatever did the targeting picked it up from an old map (this per Scott Ritter hard on the heels of the murders).
And I did not read of any reports that kids of IRCG leaders died in that strike. I checked now and see nothing of the kind.
I recall, there were some accusations that the Minab school was deliberately targeted because it was a school attended by the daughters of IRGC officers. (If the Epstein Class can’t rape their daughters, they will murder them in public).
However, there have been conflicting reports and opinions on this, so who can be sure?
The only thing certain is that it was a massive war crime, and no one will be held to account – as usual.
No evidence whatsoever. See my comment above.
There is also no evidence whatsoever that it was not a satanic blood sacrifice of young virgins to ensure victory. Kidding, not kidding. Before the Epstein affair it would have thought this idea nuts but now… as Sherlock Holmes said “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Exactly, accusations, speculation and extrapolation is not hard evidence either way. But the end result is a crime of historical proportion in which no one will be held to account. Sadly, there are many other such examples and likely will be more.
“Pedigree” of data: is it correct, current/time sensitive, updated, has been identified risk in IT applications since day one! Certainly considered in any military application. AI cannot think, nor can it resolve pedigree issues.
In logistics IT especially stock control and distribution age of data is extremely important and compute has always recorded the latest transactional effects and maintained transaction records for review. In the old day that was managers. New systems include using blockchain to maintain file cabinet of evolving stock status.
Seems warehouse empty bins or lost stock are more important than killing school children!
Scott Ritter reported on Judge Nap and at least Nima also on the mis-identification of Minab school and the AI claim. He said in his day targets were REPEATEDLY re-verified manually precisely out of the recognition the information could be bad.
0705 PDT
Trump presses Syria to take on Hezbollah, raising alarm in Lebanon and Israel
https://apnews.com/article/lebanon-syria-trump-israel-hezbollah-
International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Grossi: Iran is obligated to allow the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities under the memorandum of understanding recently reached
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/16683172
US releases full text of Trilateral Framework with Lebanon, US
https://jpost.com/middle-east/article-900828
Senior Lebanese insists US-brokered deal with Israel ‘won’t be implemented,’ warns of divisions
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-900809
China Adds 20 Japanese Entities To Export Control List Over ‘Remilitarisation’ Concerns
https://www.news18.com/world/china-japan-export-control-list-20-japanese-entities-remilitarisation-dual-use-goods-mitsubishi-kawasaki-heavy-industries-ws-l-10178954.html
Pakistani forces bombed civilian populations in the Manoreh districts of Paktika, Paktia, and Kunar provinces of Afghanistan, killin and wounding dozens of civilians, women, and children.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8wygyed0wo
Rafael Grossi really needs to shut up.
An MOU does not enforce or obligate a party to anything, especially something as complicated as nuclear inspections.
Yes, he needs to STFU spouting pro-US nonsense. He has already destroyed his credibility many times over (as well as the credibility of the IAEA). One would think that Grossi would be forced to resign in disgrace due to his involvement in abuse of authority and willful deceit. He might as well be an asset of MI6/CIA/Mossad
The Iranians filed a compliant a year ago, to no avail.
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iran-files-complaint-against-iaea-chief-for-bias–ignoring-a
Might as well be? I think that’s his actual job description.
Regarding the Sprinterpress tweet on US military buildup: for what it’s worth, Nawful brought this up with Larry Johnson late yesterday, and Johnson asked “how do you know it is a military buildup? Could it be traffic going the other way? Not could be, it is. That is what’s happening. The order to start withdrawing was issued 3 days ago. That’s what’s underway, a withdrawal of US forces and US assets.” Johnson went on to say ‘he checked with someone’ and the order to withdraw assets is still in place and being executed. He repeats that the US cannot afford a sustained air war against Iran. This segment begins at about timestamp 16:55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2YxkPspw4c
I saw that as well — but am not convinced either way. Only two sources? — I lean toward Johnson because I don’t know enough about Sprinter. But I’ll confess I’m pulling for the US to do the decent thing for once and get the hell out of there — hopefully, as the first step in an arduous detox from geopolitical substance abuse.
Johnson has a tendency to put way too much faith in single sources. Putting on my sometimes journo hat, you cannot rely on them unless they provide documents or you know them very very well and you are:
1. Sure they are careful and accurate and will be truthful with you
2. Know the limits of their knowledge and will not go beyond that
3. Have sufficient access to information to give a well informed assessment
4. Don’t have a dog in the fight (as in reporting bias)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8vN74kql-c/
Dimitri Lascaris yesterday.
18:30 mark. Showing news report saying additional forces being deployed TO the region.
When an “aviation package “ deploys it brings a logistics load, war reserves spares and support equipment to “generate” the planned missions. With the materiel is a manpower unit, to do the various work.
Aviation packages deployed last December are likely low in supply kit, have received one by one replacement, and their support equipment is needing recalibration, and refit.
This could necessitate rotating in new packages I.e. new units with kit or sending new kit (could cannibalize a unit to non combat ready).
We could be seeing fighter units rotating.
I have no sources, last time I planned support for tacair was 1985.
Whatever just happened in Iraq is definitely starting to look like a move by somebody, but the posted tweet may be out of date. It seems like the sort of thing the CIA may do, especially since it involved the Iraqi CTF, but updates so far seem to agree it’s mostly directed at people without strong Iranian ties & possibly more at the last PM:
From MSN / The National
From Shafaq (Kurdish)
The really interesting thing is that Araghchi apparently went to Baghdad soon after where Iraq announced they wanted to host talks between Iran & the GCC:
From the National
Which if nothing else is implicitly a major snub of Qatar, as a GCC member already running supposedly neutral negotiations alongside Pakistan.
On a related note, so many things are just rumors, but it looks like Tehran-Dubai flights are restarting:
From Khaleej Times
One swallow doesn’t make a spring, but if it’s a trend, the UAE may have quietly made a separate peace, which is the sort of thing I’d expect when this war finally nears the end.
Al Jazeera
Last I heard PMF was recognized as Iraq militia, maybe al Zaida wants to let al Sadr get moving.
I saw that too, and like ilsm mentioned, the ambiguity of it all is that however the US may word things, the PMUs are formally organized under the state with more popular support than probably any gov official.
AFAICT nobody on the Iraqi side is actually talking about demobilizing them, which would probably fail politically, just as it has with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Instead, they’re probably going to be further pulled into the army chain of command under a consensus defense policy, which has also always been Hezbollah’s offer to the Lebanese gov. Unlike in Lebanon though, the Iraqis probably could reach that consensus, especially if some Kurdish factions have shifted away from the US.
Given that there’s no reason to believe the US is suddenly wiser about the internal politics of Iraq either, I would guess this is sort of a fudge & way to help the new PM lift some US pressure. Iran is probably in the loop (if the Iranian security folks were backfooted by this somehow & doing damage-control, I doubt Araghchi is whom they would be rushing in). Plus I don’t think there’s any political base for a pro-US turn in Baghdad, post-2023 more than ever.
Psyops are on steroids…US stuffing Iraqi warehouses with weapons, but US air defense systems have been decimated?
Temperatures in southern Iraq around 110 degrees. Great time to start an invasion of Khuzestan!
Meanwhile Larry Johnson reports that an order has been given to pull US forces out.
Oil prices plunge just as world inches ever closer to an oil supply cliff!!!
Gobs of ships reported to have transited Strait of Hormuz on Omani side…with their transponders turned off to avoid tracking! So how does anyone know if they actually transited? Or were these reports of transits made just to drive down oil prices?
Then, as if by magic, Iran was reported to have attacked some ships after IRGC threats. However, Iran did not explicitly claim credit for the attack on the Singapore-flagged cargo ship off Oman last Thursday, but U.S. officials (ie. the usual suspects) told media that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were responsible–(coincidentally?) just after Marco Rubio arrived in Bahrain. Hmmm…just like Assad conveniently dropped chemical weapons on suburb of Damascus just as UN weapons inspectors arrived!!!
In Lebanon, reports of an agreement between Israel and Lebanon were followed by reports of a secret attachment which allowed Israel to do whatever it wanted below the “yellow line,” which, as we know from Gaza, just happens to change location just as Israel troops advance.
Does anybody know what time it is?
I think Pape is wrong about the renewed fighting. The MoU did not “stop the shooting,” it was a signal that the two sides had decided that the kinetic phase was over and it was time to move on to other things. Documents, as I always say, are not magic. In fact, signalling to each other by small-scale acts of violence is a well-understood way of ensuring that both sides recognise a return to kinetic activity hasn’t been ruled out.
To be crude, but not cynical: human political and economic leaders in mass societies, organized into modern nation-states, only understand brute violence (and greed). The elites and oligarchies of the dominant nation-states can mobilize others to commit the violence while they hide behind their security, and enhance their wealth and interests in the process. This is a built-in incentive to commit violence as the ruling classes benefit from it and are largely protected from harm. Sadly, US policy will not be altered unless it is compelled by brute violence. The US ignores the law, ignores its own constitution due to metastasizing institutional corruption and rot, thus the “law” is just a PR fig-leaf to attempt to legitimize flagrant high crimes. We have seen this in the US, UK etc. for years.
This institutional corruption will, to a large degree, eventually contribute to the downfall of US primacy abroad and result in further decline of material conditions for the majority of the US population. This process has been underway for some time already.
Pape lists his specific calls and so far they have all been correct.
I tend to agree with the IRGC (provided by Dror Balazada on Twitter). Iran’s power, imo, relies on its ability to control the Persian Gulf and particularly the Strait of Hormuz. Without control over Hormuz, there will be no conversation, let alone a signed agreement, not with Trump or anybody else.
Iran should be as ruthless as the US and Israel. If Iran wants sanctions relief, its frozen assets, a peace agreement on its terms, then there can’t be an Omani route or anything less than 100% Iranian control. Iran faces an existential threat and it should treat the entire Gulf as a war zone.
At this point in time, I think talk of fees and nuclear material is a distraction. Iran can threaten more destruction over Gulf infrastructure but its total control over Hormuz and its steadfast willingness to take down the global economy, unless the US relents, is the only way it secures its sovereignty
Reminder about Libya: bombed by Reagan in 1986, sanctions for decades, gave up its nuke program, bombed again in 2011, and a failed state since.
This is difficult, because there’s a real risk of global famine and a depression. Would the US and Israel be assigned the blame for this, having started the war, or Iran? Their claims about international law in Lebanon fall flat if they’re violating freedom of navigation in the strait on the Omani side.
Iran won the kinetic round, but seems to be losing those gains in the aftermath. America controls access to much of the world’s financial system and has manipulated the oil markets pretty effectively, beyond all expectation, I think. The China mystery in the oil market seems to have also blunted the outcome here thus far.
So the question is whether the economic trap shuts, and forces some kind of concessions from Trump that are not currently on the table or even in the same room. I guess we’ll find out.
This timeline is lit.
One key to how blame is assigned, and whatever knock-on repercussions follow, is how the US populace respond to their straitened circumstances. Will the mighty Wurlitzer of the corporate media succeed in spinning the coming hard times as Iran’s fault? And conveniently omit the obvious, that as the SoH was open before the Ramadan War was started by Israel and the US? And downplay that the genocide continues in Palestine, and has even been extended to Lebanon? Given the likelihood that Faux and Friends play the Islamophobia card to the max,but that air power alone is insufficient, and a ground invasion is impossible, the public (and Trump) may be presented only two options; accept an ignominious defeat, or achieve a “victory” via tactical nukes used all over Iran in order to “save the Strait” for America and the world. Using nukes to save the world economy. How noble. Shades of “we had to destroy the village to save it.”
The media assiduously avoids mentioning Israel as the instigator. My hope is that it becomes commonly known as the Zionist War, not the Ramadan War or the 40 Day War.
It’s long past time to bring the Zionists out of the wings, onto the stage, and into the spotlight, where they belong.
@Jason Boxman: You make some good observations. We can’t, however, dismiss that most Americans and the world know the US/Israel started the war and the Strait was open.
Second, when Trump is not threatening to annihilate Iran, he often said we don’t need oil from the Gulf region—most oil imported by the US comes from Canada—then it raises the question; what are we really doing there? IMO, the global repercussions will fall on the US because Trump is disliked for all kinds of reasons besides the Iran war.
Either way, the US has no choice except to settle and Iran has no choice but to control the straight and hold on tight for an equitable agreement.
What will the General Assembly do about the threat of famine form this war?
So the majority of nations on the planet just sit by and watch?
Iran is defending itself from the outsiders…..
If you were in a car wreck in most Middle East countries you are at fault, you should not be there.
Same for US, US is not natural there and US is wrong to break anything that could hurt humanity, by intruding.
Why colonizers, crusaders, and genociders have trouble with anyone not owned.
Yes.
At some point in the future we may get more info about how the MOU was drafted.
I can imagine that Iran wanted language that fully and explicitly recognized its control of the Strait. But the US balked at this probably saying that USA would not make peace if it meant humiliation. Indeed, Trump kept talking about how USA had ‘won’ militarily.
If so, USA/Trump attempting to circumvent Iran’s clear intention after Iran made an accommodation would anger Iranian even more.
—-META COMMENT—-
I love footnotes as a way to add information in written documents. They make writing a lot easier since the author is free to add parenthetic material without agonizing over whether it’s appropriate or where to put it. Also, of course, they make the document a lot richer and more interesting to read.
Back in the dark ages, MS Word had a really usable footnote facility that I used constantly.
It doesn’t seem like HTML has any dedicated markup to help others with footnotes in the language. I did find this Stack Overflow discussion that has a number of examples, though I don’t know how cumbersome this is for HTML writers and whether HTML authoring tools simplify this problem.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, I’m glad to see this useful convention becoming more of a thing on NC.
—-META COMMENT—-
Has anyone done an analysis of how much / what type of traffic an Oman-only route could handle? I’m guessing that there are some real-world limits there.
I read only 40 vessels a day, so it cannot replace the central or Iran-side route.
Excellent discussion on BettBeat Media with Ali Alizadeh and Dimitri Lascaris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEVZHo_Lxc8
They cover inter-alia the:
– circumstances around the accident killing Raisi
– impact of Pezeshkian and the tension between Reformers and Principalists
– de facto successful-so-far decoupling of Lebanon from Iran
– carrot of normalised economic relations with the West
– risk of losing the momentum of support from the Iranian people
Unfortunately they did not discuss the letter from the Assembly of Experts, warning the politicians not to allow the red-lines, laid out by the Supreme Leader, to be crossed.
Bernard at Moon of Alabama posted about that letter, and more, today: “War On Iran: – Iran’s Negotiators Are Under Pressure”. Closing paragraphs:
“Several parliament members want to adopt a binding law to demand a toll or fee for any passage of the Strait of Hormuz. The negotiators want to avoid that as any such law would restrict their flexibility in further negotiations.
Both interventions can be understood as critique of the negotiators. But they are also a device to strengthen the negotiator’s position. The U.S. will have less power to press for compromises when the negotiators can point to the necessity of getting hardliners’ backing for any agreement.”
https://www.moonofalabama.org/
1400 PDT
‘No negotiation at any level’: Iran refutes Donald Trump’s claim of planned US talks in Doha
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/no-negotiation-at-any-level-iran-refutes-donald-trumps-claim-of-planned-us-talks-in-doha
Lebanon president tells US commander he will exert sovereignty over all country’s territory
https://www.rfi.fr/en/middle-east/20260629-lebanon-president-tells-us-commander-will-exert-sovereignty-over-all-country-s-territory
Lost, somewhere between what should be and what is and what might be. The best course of action for the US should be for the US to disengage from Israel. This probably won’t happen. It seems the only way that the US could sucessfully impose its will on Iran would be a via a massive land invasion with low probability of success. It also seems that nothing will stop the neocons, Trump whisperers, and the Israeli lobby except an economic catastrophe in the US. Netanyahu’s strategy seems to be intent on pursuing genocide or the equivalent on all of Israel’s neighbors. Nothing will stop him except actual stop lights & checks from the US. Iran’s best strategy (in the short term) seems to be to try to collapse the Trump regime and thus impair Netanyahu. That metrics are the inflation rate,, interest rates, and gas and commodity prices, not how many ships transit the Straits of Hormuz with or without a toll gate. The only thing that surprises me is that Russia, China, & Iran don’t seem to understand (at least openly) that the US is at war with them and intent on nothing less than their capitulation.
1410 PDT
Israel developing space lasers to attack above the Earth, Katz says
https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-900854
MTG was right! “Jewish Space Lasers” !
Hundreds forced to leave Daraa village after Israeli attacks
https://www.reutersconnect.com/item/hundreds-forced-to-leave-daraa-village-after-israeli-attacks/dGFnOnJldXRlcnMuY29tLDIwMjY6bmV3c21sX01UMUFOQURMMDAwV1VCRThV
Israel says it destroyed Hezbollah underground infrastructure in southern Lebanon
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroys-hezbollah-underground-infrastructure-southern-lebanon-2026-06-28/
According to Drop Site, Oman and Iran met yesterday to have ‘dialogue’ per the MOU on administration of transit in the Strait of Hormuz. Drop Site reported that Oman’s foreign minister said Oman opposes tolls, which are prohibited under international law, but drew a clear distinction between transit fees and maritime, environmental, and navigational services. The FM said responsibility for securing shipping lanes rests primarily with Iran per the MOU. Drop Site opines that the remarks align Oman more closely with Iran’s legal interpretation of the proposed charges than with Washington’s position that no fees should be imposed. And it seems Oman is accepting Iran’s insistence that ships exit in the transit corridor designated by Iran and is not pushing back on Iran stopping ships from transiting on the Omani side.
My go to person Ambassador Chas Freeman on Glenn Diesen.
He has the best info in my opinion.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HowLQM4LUGw&t=621s&pp=2AHtBJACAdIHCQlBAqO1ajebQw%3D%3D&ra=m
I think the US accomplished exactly what they meant to accomplish which is to trick the Iranians into a fake deal and shift the narrative. The world will blame Iran if the straight is fully closed or the economies start failing because the US stopped its blockade and now is escorting ships, as now the good guy, through the strait. Iran is blocking the world from the energy it needs. Sorry but the Iranians fell for the trick and even thought the won the battle they lost the war. The US cannot win the war today on the ground but they will not stop trying, see Ukraine escalation now as an example. Sadly enough with the US willingness to cheat(everbody else plays by the rules, Russia and China as examples) they win most of time. Look at Putin, until Ukraine or Europe flatten Moscow he will keep making his useless warnings that no one believes anymore.
Doubtful.
Trump still owns this as he started the war in the first place. I think the only people who will go down this path of blaming the Iranians are those looking for an excuse to blame them regardless.
No amount of spin will get the US off the hook.
Iran won round one by simply letting the enemy make more mistakes. The war came out of nowhere; Taco did zilch to lay the groundwork, Congress wasn’t even informed, and then he compounded the error by declaring maximalist goals that had no realistic chance of success (“we’re gonna regime change those crazies in a weekend!”) unless everything went perfectly to script.
When it predictably didn’t, he fell back to his M.O. of trying to lie and bluff his way out, moving goalposts, shifting the goal from a total victory to only restoring the status quo ante.
Iran also had home-field advantage in round one, as they only had to play defense and could use terrain/local knowledge to their advantage.
Now that things have shifted towards diplomacy, the US has regained an edge. The possibilities for perfidy and bad-faith dealing are unlimited, while Iran now has limited levers to pull and fewer friends with the power to hold the other side accountable. They can still shut down the Strait, but the markets have shown that they can withstand it for a longer period of time than most analysts predicted. Making matters worse, Trump seems hell-bent on destroying his own party by refusing to pivot from a bad foreign policy move back towards the domestic economy. And the problem of Israel, who are not even a party to the MoU and cannot be expected to do anything but sabotage it, remains.
It’s going to be a long four months until the midterms, but Iran has better prospects in the longer term. A year from now, Taco will be a lame duck, the GOP will likely be defenestrated from both houses of Congress, and the Dems will be on a “revenge” tour we haven’t seen since KISS in the early 90’s.
Macron will be gone as well, and maybe Netanyahu, too. So, advantage Team Epstein in the current set, but the match isn’t over.
Israeli DM warns Israel could be at war with Iran as early as “tomorrow”
I suppose we’ll see headlines tomorrow explaining that the DM and others, frustrated by their lack of materiel, spent the day kicking children and puppies instead of declaring war. Again.
Perhaps the effect of the last few weeks has been to provide weapons and ammunition to Israel. But given their performance in Lebanon, I doubt it.
Thanks for all the info. Iran won the war but their opponents don’t think they are defeated–at least not yet. When the oil crash comes it will be a big surprise to some.