Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be traveling to the Middle East from June 23 to June 25 while Vice President JD Vance leads talks with Iran over the war.
Rubio is set to visit the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait and Bahrain, State Department spokesman Thomas Pigott said in a statement Monday. He will also speak with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in Bahrain to address common priorities in the area. Vance began talks with Iran on ending the war and intermediaries June 21 after President Donald Trump signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) June 17.
Pigott said, “The Secretary will discuss a range of priorities including the memorandum of understanding with Iran, efforts to secure full and free safe transit through the Strait of Hormuz, and the importance of safety in the region.”
The GCC has supported U.S. efforts to end the war with Iran, but they also have concerns over some of the aspects of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) the U.S. made with Iran, Reuters reported. The current MOU includes a $300 billion reconstruction fund to Tehran, which Gulf State leaders worry may allow Iran to rebuild the military capacity the U.S. destroyed. They are also reportedly concerned about potential future dangers from Iranian missiles and drones.
NOW: Secretary of State Marco Rubio will visit the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain this week as the Trump administration seeks Gulf support for a preliminary Iran agreement. He is also set to meet with the Gulf Cooperation Council, bringing together key U.S. partners across the region. pic.twitter.com/k4e9G4A3Yq
The MOU between the U.S. and Iran calls for “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.” However, U.S. officials said Monday that the agreement does not necessitate Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, according to The Guardian. Lebanon’s National News Agency said Israel struck multiple targets June 20, three days after Iran and the U.S. signed the MOU, although Israel claimed they were retaliating against an attack from Hezbollah, Reuters reported.
Pigott did not name which specific leaders Rubio will be meeting with or which days he is visiting the individual countries. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman are all members of the GCC.
The MOU gives the U.S. and Tehran a 60-day window to reach a more in-depth agreement.
The U.S. began launching strikes on Iran on Feb. 28, prompting the Islamic Republic to effectively halt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Editor’s note: Article updated with additional information. This is a developing story and will be updated.
The so-called Iranian memorandum of understanding involving a 60-day period of negotiations that may or may not lead to an armistice was published just recently, and it’s gotten a lot of storm of criticism.
It’s kind of ironic. All last month and up until the memorandum was published, the Left said that Donald Trump was a warmonger. Now they’re calling him Neville Chamberlain and an abject appeaser.
Some on the right were saying he was the bravest of the last eight presidents, the first to take seriously the Iranian threat. In a sense, he didn’t just talk about it. He tried and did end it, I think. And now they are saying he was had. He’s a fool.
So, what’s going on with this memorandum of understanding?
I think everybody is confusing, first of all, military victory versus strategic victory. In a tactical sense, we have had an overwhelmingly historic victory over the Iranian military. There are no air defenses. The airspace is open to anybody who wants it. The Iranians cannot stop the Americans, the Gulf states, or Israel from entering its airspace. That’s new.
Second, they don’t really have a navy. They have some mosquito boats, but now we’ve learned they have very few of those left. We’ve been attriting them in the evening, and there are about 160 ships we sank.
Their missiles have been 90% destroyed, but we don’t know the denominator. We don’t know how many there were. But even then, we are still aware of where they’re stored, and if there is another war, we could pretty quickly dispense with them.
I could go on. Eighty percent of their leadership—80 of their key leaders—have been taken out, including the supreme leader. So that’s a military victory, but that is different from a strategic victory.
Strategic victory means an unconditional surrender, and you dictate terms unconditionally to the defeated. We did that in World War II. We did that in the Civil War. We sort of, kind of, maybe did it in World War I with the Versailles Treaty that followed the Armistice of 1918.
And we did it with Saddam Hussein, and we initially did it with the Taliban.
But here’s the catch: You usually need ground troops to enter the foreign country, and then you remove the regime that you were fighting and install a new one.
We did that with the Confederacy. We did that with Germany, Italy, and Japan. We did that with the Taliban. We did that with Saddam Hussein.
But the key is, you have to have ground troops. To do that required 7,000 American deaths, 53,000 wounded, $2 trillion, and a combined chronological frame of 30 years—10 in Iraq and 20 in Afghanistan.
And then the regimes we installed completely flipped or were replaced. The Taliban came back to power, and now there’s a consensual government in Iraq, but it’s heavily dominated by our enemies, radical Shia.
Do we really want to do that in Iran? It’s 93 million people. It’s one and a half times the size of Texas. If you want to go in there and remove the regime, then of course you can say, “You are not going to have missiles. You are not going to give subsidies to terrorists. You’re not going to send agents throughout Europe and the United States.” But that would require a strategic victory.
Right now, the American people poll overwhelmingly that they do not want any more ground troops in the Middle East. They feel like [Otto von] Bismarck did about the Balkans when he said it’s not worth the bones of one German grenadier, meaning the Middle East isn’t worth that type of expense.
So, we’re not a colonial power, and Iran is not a protectorate that we’re going to micromanage.
That said, our ability to go in at any time and severely damage it means that we can get the objectives that we talked about, specifically the Strait of Hormuz open and no more nuclear weapons. That would be a fantastic achievement.
So far, we’ve tragically lost 13 soldiers. That’s about the accident rate every two weeks in the military. So, it hasn’t cost a lot of blood and treasure yet.
So, what can we do if they violate the memorandum of understanding, if they send missiles into Kuwait or they try to shut down the strait? We can go to the next level of bombing.
You won’t believe it, but Donald Trump hasn’t bombed like [Barack] Obama did in Libya in 2011. He has not bombed like we did in Vietnam. He has not bombed like Bill Clinton did in Serbia.
All of these Democrats, whether they’re [Lyndon] Johnson, or Clinton, or Obama, hit dual-use targets: docks, TV stations in Libya, schools, hospitals.
Not that we’d ever do that, but we accidentally hit them, including the Chinese Embassy. But we did take out the bridges and the electrical grid in Serbia. In Vietnam, we tried to destroy everything that could be used by the military and civilians.
So, we can do that. If they violate the terms of the agreement, we can say, “OK, you violate it. We’re going to respond disproportionately and take out 10 bridges for every missile.” And I think that would have an enormous effect on them.
But why did Donald Trump and the administration even have a memorandum? Because polls said that the people wanted it over with, because the price of gas had gone up to over $5 a gallon from $3.12 on average, or $3, and because the world was pressuring him to avoid a global recession, and the midterms were coming up.
So, Donald Trump wanted a space in which he could get some of the objectives. He could get the enrichment—it’s under a buried mountain—and he’s got the strait opened, and then the others will be discussed.
In the meantime, the stock market has soared. The price of gas is falling precipitously. And in a generic poll, do you support or reject the negotiations with Iran, the majority support it.
Everybody says he can’t win the midterms. If he were to lose them, he will be impeached. His whole family and associates will be subject to lawfare investigations for two years. So, it’s paramount that he bulk up and break from historical precedent that says he’s going to lose.
Redistricting, whether it’s racial gerrymandering or blue-state gerrymandering, will result in a loss, due to red-state gerrymandering, of probably five to 10 seats.
The Democratic agenda is very unpopular when people hear about it, whether it’s the trans issue, or open borders, or Green New Deal, or DEI, etc.
And, of course, the economy, for all the bad news about the war—record Wall Street highs, good employment, enormous foreign investment, tax cuts, deregulation kicking in—we could have the inflation back to where it was well before the war by November.
People have also mischaracterized the deal itself. This is not the end of the negotiations or the war. This is the very beginning of the problems for Iran.
Once the kinetic part of the war stops, they have to face the people, and the people are angry. We have taken out much of their leadership. The next second- or third-tier are mostly incompetent, and the people are going to say not one dime of reconstruction goes to Arab terrorists—the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah.
Not one dime goes to these crazy nuclear programs. Not one dime to your missile fleet.
You lost them all. You were humiliated. You lost half a trillion dollars and a half century of investment. No more.
So they’re going to have a problem with internal dissension that is rising. We can always, at any time, encourage that. We can even arm it.
More important, time is on Trump’s side. Not only can he react with dual-use targeting any time during the memorandum if they break it, but he can also explain to our allies and our friends that the strait itself will be irrelevant in some sense in two years, maybe one year.
Right now as we speak, the Saudis, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait—all of the Gulf Councils—are saying expand the pipeline to the Arabian Sea outside the Strait of Hormuz, and we can export oil without even getting near it. Expand the pipeline to the Red Sea without even getting near the Gulf.
Expand pipelines or build them, whether with Turkish plans or with the Israelis, to the Mediterranean.
The result of all that is that you may be able to export 10, 12 million barrels without ever going into the strait, which would flip the entire geostrategic reality.
Iran would be vulnerable. We could shut the strait any time we wanted and shut down all of their oil exports and imports. But if they tried to shut down the strait, it would not affect, within two years from now, the vast majority of oil exports to the West, to Asia, to Africa. And the same thing is true of imports.
Finally, geostrategic, I’ve talked about this before, Russia has lost its clients in the Middle East—Syria and Iran. China has lost its clients—Venezuela and Iran.
They both have enormous problems. Both have very low fertility. China has to import 10 to 11 million barrels. They’re big losers in this war.
They are not winners when Elizabeth Warren says everything was going well until the war, and now Iran is much stronger than it was before the war. She should ask 80 or so of their leaders who are now burning in an inferno if they would prefer the present to the past under Obama when they were ascendant.
She should ask the Air Force generals, the head of missile defense, the Iranian admirals: Would you prefer right now having no military, or would you like to go back to the hey days when you were calling the shots under Obama?
The strait, Senator Warren, was closed sometimes, sometimes it was open, because we decided for the first time to disarm them nuclearly. Every other president, all seven of them, said they cannot have a bomb, and then people said, but they might close the strait. OK, we don’t want to get near that.
They closed the Strait because we took away their nuclear option. When you don’t take their nuclear option away and you appease them, the strait is open. It’s that simple.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Why-Trump-Critics-Cant-Make-Up-Their-Minds-on-the-Peace-Deal.jpg360640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2026-06-23 06:47:372026-06-24 05:11:28Why the Media Called Trump a Warmonger…Then an Appeaser
The June 2026 Tehran Accord stands as the ultimate executioner of international trust. Donald Trump traded decades of strategic alliances for short-term political survival, leaving a trail of broken promises from Washington to Jerusalem.
The transactional foreign policy of the administration compromises the defense perimeter of America’s primary Middle Eastern ally. Jerusalem faces a direct existential threat due to this unilateral surrender to the Iranian regime. Corporate media assets previously loyal to the administration now lead the condemnation.
Israel Hayom, funded by primary mega-donors, directly indicts the administration for abandonment. The accord surrenders regional deterrence, dismantles years of counter-proliferation efforts, and rewards state-sponsored terror networks. This pattern mimics the previous abandonment of Kurdish partners in Syria, proving that tactical partnerships dissolve the moment personal financial or political gain takes precedence.
The true executioner of regional security operates from within the inner circle of the administration. Vice President JD Vance leads the backchannel diplomatic surrender, driving an isolationist agenda that deliberately sacrifices established democratic allies. Internal policy shifts reveal a profound hostility toward the long-standing defense pact with Jerusalem. Vance actively engineering terms that grant the Islamic regime every single item on its strategic wish list.
This isolationist doctrine abandons decades of deterrence for immediate, opportunistic gains. By permitting Vance to dictate the terms of engagement, the executive branch validates an anti-Israel posture at the highest levels of American governance. This subversion places the regional survival of democratic partners on the chopping block to satisfy a localized, populist agenda.
The domestic fallout of this international surrender manifests as an immediate, devastating shock to the American economic foundation. The administration trades long-term industrial stability for rapid corporate consolidation, effectively starving the domestic working class. By rewarding hostile foreign cartels with sanctions relief under the new accord, the state apparatus destabilizes Western energy markets and triggers massive capital flight.
Speculative trading networks exploit the regulatory voids engineered by this deal. Working families face the immediate brunt through hyper-inflationary spikes in core commodity costs. This economic layout abandons the explicit campaign guarantees of protectionism and localized job growth. Instead, the administration operates as a shield for multinational financial conglomerates, allowing elite actors to strip wealth from domestic infrastructure while shielding their own assets within offshore tax havens.
The administration weaponized the hope of the Iranian public, then abandoned them to the gallows. Early executive rhetoric demanded absolute resistance and promised full American backing to domestic protesters. Dissidents filled the streets under the explicit assumption of Western solidarity.
The sudden pivot to a peace pact isolated these democratic movements. The Iranian regime utilized this diplomatic cover to execute tens of thousands of citizens. Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi confirms the accord acts as a direct betrayal of the population. The regime retains its iron grip, validated by a Western signature while blood stains the streets of Tehran. Official reports on the systemic suppression of these protests remain documented via Human Rights Watch.
The strategic vacuum created by the signature of the administration completely destabilizes the primary maritime trade arteries of the planet. Empowered by the influx of unfreezed capital and newly minted diplomatic immunity, the Iranian regime initiates an aggressive kinetic campaign across regional waterways. Paramilitary forces launch waves of drone strikes and ballistic missile barrages, explicitly targeting commercial logistics networks.
The consequences ripple instantly across the global supply chain, manifesting as severe energy price spikes and systemic food insecurity that directly assault human rights on a global scale. This calculated oceanic blockade cripples international shipping lanes, forcing commercial fleets into long, high-cost detours around the continent of Africa. The state-sanctioned escalation and the direct targeting of non-combatant vessels stand fully exposed via the Human Rights Watch Maritime Warfare Investigation.
The rot extends deep into the American domestic contract, where the executive branch bypasses foundational constitutional boundaries to wage unauthorized foreign conflicts. Congressional defense leaders point to an absolute failure to protect the economic security of the working class. The administration launched unilateral military strikes without required congressional approval, dragging the nation into a strategic quagmire.
This unconstitutional executive overreach inflicts immediate damage on the domestic front:
Eviscerated Supply Chains: The resulting maritime instability triggers hyper-inflationary spikes, forcing working families to absorb skyrocketing costs for gasoline, utilities, and basic groceries.
Dismantled Checks and Balances: The executive branch intentionally sidelines the War Powers Resolution, treating legislative oversight as entirely non-existent.
Squandered Public Treasure: The administration channels hundreds of billions of domestic tax dollars into overseas conflict zones while local infrastructure decays.
Congressional leadership, including Whip Katherine Clark and Appropriations Defense Ranking Member Betty McCollum, labels this unauthorized warfare a total abdication of the oath of office. The official legislative pushback and formal statements demanding an end to this executive overreach are preserved directly via the House Appropriations Committee Defense Record.
The stains on the executive legacy remain deep, but tactical options exist to dismantle this compromise. The executive branch possesses the immediate constitutional authority to purge isolationist architects from the negotiating table. Halting the direct participation of JD Vance in all ongoing diplomatic tracks is the mandatory first step to restore institutional credibility.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Capitulation-of-the-Washington-Machine.jpg360640Amil Imanihttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAmil Imani2026-06-21 14:13:312026-06-23 05:25:43The Capitulation of the Washington Machine that Betrayed Global Allies
Greetings from our summer quarters in the south of France!
I wasn’t with you last week because Christina and I attended the 50th anniversary of Paris Metro, a city magazine I wrote for occasionally all those years ago. Mostly lefties at the reunion. and the only bad meal I’ve had in Paris in 40 years!! But a great view! And Joel Stratte-McClure (left) is a fabulous host.
Much more important was our Sunday lunch at the Jardin de Bagatelles, where we celebrated our marriage 39 years earlier!
Okay. Now back to serious stuff, the Iran MoU.
To evaluate the Iran Memorandum of Understanding on its merits, beyond the hype, let’s start by separating what we know from what we don’t.
Iran’s military has been destroyed. It has no air force, no navy, and no air defenses.
We have obliterated Iran’s uranium enrichment plants, its uranium mills, and its uranium hexafluoride conversion facility, as well as the secret bomb-making workshops in Parchin Iran would never allow the IAEA to inspect.
We have destroyed most of Iran’s ability to manufacture drones and ballistic missiles.
We have shattered the Iranian economy.
We have pitted the regime against itself, as seen in recent demonstrations organized by hard-liners against the MoU.
We have also demonstrated that America has a new “special relationship” – with Israel, not Britain. We have gone to war with the IDF, flying thousands of joint air missions without a single mishap, something we could arguably not do today with our NATO allies.
These are facts, and they are major accomplishments of a military campaign that no previous American president has been willing to attempt.
But we did not defeat the Iranian regime. That, too, is a fact — one the regime reminds us of every day.
Not only do they appear to be undeterred, but they enjoy taunting us, threatening to “bloody” our noses, and deliver a “harsh blow” should we not keep up our commitments under the MoU.
But just what are the US commitments?
The 14-point MoU reads like a wish-list crafted in Tehran. And I suspect that is exactly what it is. (More on that below).
Over the past several weeks, I have watched with disbelief as pro-regime media in Tehran released this or that version of the accord, including what appeared to be US commitments to establish a $300 billion reconstruction fund and to withdraw all U.S. military forces from the region.
Astonishingly, those measures do indeed figure in the 14-point MoU. Paragraph 6 says that the United States “undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Paragraph 4 states that the United States “undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.”
These are just two of the extraordinary concessions made by Trump’s negotiating team to the Iranian regime. Other concessions include immediately releasing frozen Iranian assets, and the future removal of sanctions.
But will all of those US concessions actually occur? Listening to President Trump at his G7 press conference on Thursday suggests, perhaps not.
He said that if the Iranians didn’t hold up their sign of the agreement — opening the Strait of Hormuz and surrendering their nuclear material – then the US would return to bombing, maybe for two weeks, maybe for two years.
He also said the US wasn’t putting up one cent for the reconstruction fund. Any US “contribution” would come from Iranian money the US has frozen and now has pledged to release.
It all raises the question whether Trump didn’t somehow snooker the Iranians.
That’s right.
From the man who said the Iranians had never won a war but never lost a negotiation, did Team Trump actually get the better of the Iranians in this deal?
He gave them all they could possibly want. But, it’s not a deal. It’s an MoU.
It contains only three active pieces: an end to immediate hostilities, opening the Strait, and an undefined release of frozen Iranian assets. Everything else is to be negotiated at a later date, in principle, by August 15.
Those follow-on negotiations were supposed to have started in Geneva on Friday, June 19 – the day after Trump signed the MoU publicly at the G7 confgerence in Evian.
But nobody came.
Ever since Jimmy Carter, U.S. presidents have bet a piece of their presidency on the quixotic notion that somehow they could offer the Iranians something so enticing they would change their behavior.
But I have long argued that this Iranian regime can never change the behavior we object to. It can never abandon its nuclear ambitions, it can never give up its terror proxies, it can never abandon the charter of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is to spread the Islamic revolution around the globe, because these are core values of the regime.
Give up on those core values, and the regime disintegrates.
JD Vance has made clear that the goodies contained in the MoU are all “performance based.” In other words, if the Iranians don’t deliver on their commitments — whether it’s the ceasefire itself, or freedom of navigation in the Strait, or the surrender of their nuclear program — then they will not receive the benefits set forth in the MoU.
And that’s what leads me to suspect that the President may actually have snookered the Iranians.
When they see a US president offering them $150 billion in sanctions relief, as Obama did, they take it to the bank. It’s not up to further negotiation; it’s a fait accompli.
But with President Trump, those bets are off. They can point to all the goodies they believe they are entitled to in the 14-point MoU, but until Trump declares that they have fulfilled their commitments, they won’t be getting them. Not a one.
So what does the MoU achieve? It settles the oil markets, it fuels the stock market, and arguably it enhances the chances of the Republicans to win the mid-term elections.
If it collapses on November 5 because the Iranians didn’t carry out their part of it, so be it. America will be back to war without the restraint of another election.
I discuss this, as well as the prospect of Russiia-Ukraine negotiations, on this week’s Prophecy Today Weekend. As always, you can listen live at 1 PM on Saturday on 104.9 FM or 550 AM in the Jacksonville, fForida, area, or by using the Jacksonville Way Radio app.
Yours in freedom.
PS: And for those of you who can’t get enough of the Iran deal, here are two recent appearances on Newsmax where I discuss the MoU. The first, before the details were confirmed. the second, today, with John Bachman on the front porch of our house in France.
Thursday with Amb. Kurt Volker: I tell Newsmax TV that the US has never succeeded in changing the behavior of the Iranian regime, because what we seek to change — pursuit of nuclear weapons, terrorism, export of the revolution — are core values of the regime.
Today with John Bachman:Trump gave Iran everything they wanted — with a catch. It was all performance based. They are already going back on the big deliverable….:
Ken Timmerman’s 14th book of non-fiction, THE IRAN HOUSE: Tales of Revolution, Persecution, War, and Intrigue,can be ordered by clicking here or by viewing my author’s page, here.
Raising Olives in Provence, can be ordered by clicking here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-iran-flag-e1532345054464.jpg360640Kenneth R. Timmermanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKenneth R. Timmerman2026-06-20 05:04:592026-06-20 05:09:30Did Trump Snooker the Iranians?
Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran has jointly agreed in good faith on such and such a date on the following
1. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this mou declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.
2. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.
3. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent.
4. Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal,
5. Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf with Oil states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz
6. The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers, and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.
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, i.e.
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.
8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpile enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven with the minimum methodology to be down blending on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned, and express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
9. Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions, and will not deploy additional forces in the region.
10. The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU, and until the termination of sanctions, the US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.
11. The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.
12. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal.
13. After signing this MOU and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1,4,5,10, and 11 of this MOU and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.
14. The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution, and then there’s the signature page,
The Key Takeaways
The proposed U.S.-Iran MOU would:
End military operations between the U.S., Iran, and their allies, including in Lebanon.
Create a 60-day negotiation window for a final agreement.
Lift the U.S. naval blockade and restore shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Begin sanctions relief and allow Iranian oil exports.
Release frozen Iranian assets.
Establish a $300 billion reconstruction and economic development plan for Iran.
Commit Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.
Place the final agreement under a binding U.N. Security Council resolution.
Most Controversial Provisions
1. $300 Billion for Iran
The U.S. and regional partners would develop a reconstruction and economic development package worth at least $300 billion.
Critics’ concern: Why should the Iranian regime receive a massive economic package after decades of sponsoring terrorism and regional destabilization?
2. End of Nearly All Sanctions
The U.S. commits to terminating:
U.N. sanctions
IAEA-related restrictions
Primary U.S. sanctions
Secondary U.S. sanctions
Critics’ concern: This dismantles decades of economic pressure and gives away America’s most powerful leverage.
3. Release of Frozen Iranian Funds
Iran would gain access to frozen and restricted assets, with funds available for any beneficiary designated by Iran’s central bank.
Critics’ concern: Billions of dollars could flow back to the regime with little control over how the money is ultimately used.
4. Immediate Oil Export Waivers
Treasury would issue waivers allowing:
Iranian crude exports
Petrochemical exports
Banking transactions
Insurance
Transportation services
Critics’ concern: Iran begins earning substantial revenue before a final deal is reached.
5. Iran Keeps Its Nuclear Program During Negotiations
Iran merely agrees not to develop nuclear weapons.
The agreement:
Preserves the current nuclear “status quo”
Defers key decisions on enrichment
Defers final decisions on existing enriched uranium stockpiles
Critics’ concern: Iran retains nuclear infrastructure while receiving significant concessions.
6. U.S. Military Pullback
The U.S. agrees to remove forces from the vicinity of Iran within 30 days of a final agreement.
Critics’ concern: Opponents will argue this weakens deterrence and expands Iranian influence.
7. Permanent End to Fighting, Including Lebanon
The agreement formally ends hostilities and commits both sides not to use force against one another.
Critics’ concern: The text says little about dismantling proxy networks or addressing Hezbollah’s long-term military capabilities.
8. Binding U.N. Security Council Resolution
The final agreement would be embedded in a binding U.N. Security Council resolution.
Critics’ concern: Makes future reversal by a U.S. administration more difficult and internationalizes the deal.
Supporters’ Argument
The White House’s case is:
Trump negotiated after crippling Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure.
Iran gets benefits only as it performs.
Frozen funds are Iran’s own money, not U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Gulf allies support the agreement.
The deal ends the Lebanon front, opens the Strait of Hormuz, lowers energy prices, and prevents a nuclear-armed Iran.
The Central Political Fight
Supporters will say:
Trump forced a weakened Iran into a signed agreement and secured a commitment that Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon.
Critics will say:
The U.S. is offering sanctions relief, oil revenue, frozen assets, and a $300 billion development package before obtaining permanent, irreversible dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-Official-Reads-Iran-Deal-to-Reporters.jpg318640The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2026-06-18 05:47:182026-06-18 06:30:36Trump Official Reads Iran Deal to Reporters: Here Are The Terms
This is a strong sign on how shocked Israelis are from what has been revealed about the MOU to be signed between U.S. and Iran.
Blue and White chairman Benny Gantz expressed deep concern over the emerging agreement with Iran, warning that it could endanger Israel’s security and undermine the objectives previously set by Israel and the United States.
“I have not a shred of joy at the agreement, only great concern,” Gantz told his faction meeting.
He called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to enlist every relevant political and diplomatic voice—including members of the opposition—in a united campaign against what he described as a dangerous agreement.
“I call on Netanyahu to seek help from every relevant party, including opposition members, to stand against a bad agreement and to speak about it to the world,” Gantz said.
His remarks signal that opposition figures may be prepared to temporarily put domestic political disputes aside in order to present a united Israeli position against an agreement that fails to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities, ballistic missile program and terrorist proxy network.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Blue-and-White-chairman-Benny-Gantz.jpg302640NEWSRAEL Telling the Israeli Storyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNEWSRAEL Telling the Israeli Story2026-06-15 12:16:442026-06-16 05:21:46BREAKING: Gantz urges political unity against bad Iran agreement
History shows that when Jerusalem has folded under American pressure, it has earned contempt, while when it has insisted on its sovereign security needs, it has earned respect. If history is our guide, Israel has no choice but to act independently in the fateful campaign for its future.
In my media interviews, I am often asked: “Has Israel become the 51st state of the US?” With half a smile, I answer: “If only. American states have far more freedom and room to maneuver than Israel does.”
This situation is hardly new. Ever since U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower demanded that Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion halt the Israel Defense Forces’ campaign against Egypt in Sinai in 1956, and later withdraw from Gaza, the United States has consistently forced Israel to stop fighting and agree to a ceasefire.
That was true in the 1967 Six-Day War, which Israel wanted to continue for an eighth day; in the 1973 Yom Kippur War; in both Lebanon wars; and in all our operations in Gaza. Even pro-Israel presidents such as Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush threatened severe consequences if Israel ignored their demands to cease fire.
In May 2021, on the eighth day of “Operation Guardian of the Walls” against Hamas, I received a phone call from a senior adviser to U.S. President Joe Biden, who asked me to convey an urgent message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “Israel must end the operation tonight, or risk losing American support.” Netanyahu was furious. He wanted to keep fighting for at least three more days. But he immediately complied. The operation ended that evening.
The only difference between U.S. President Donald Trump and previous presidents is his tendency to treat us publicly as vassals who must obey his every order. This is humiliating and demoralizing for Israel and, unfortunately, it strengthens our enemies. But that raises the question: Must Israel obey the White House’s demands under all circumstances and at any price?
Historically, the answer has been “no.” U.S. presidents not only ordered Israel to stop fighting; they also opposed its decision to go to war in the first place. That was the case in every war from the establishment of the state until “Operation Rising Lion” last year. Yet Israel’s leaders, despite the risk of a rift with Washington, determined that our basic security was at stake and decided to act.
Ironically, every time Israel defied the White House and went to war—in 1948, for example, in 1967 and in the 1981 strike on Iraq’s nuclear reactor—we earned America’s respect. Every time we surrendered to pressure and showed restraint—in 1973 and in the 1991 Gulf War—we earned America’s contempt.
This record is especially relevant today, when Hezbollah will undoubtedly violate any ceasefire and continue attacking us. Israel needs to defend and save the north, but in doing so, it risks not only war with Iran but also an open confrontation with President Trump. As in the past, Israel will have no choice but to act.
With its eyes wide open to the potential cost, Israel must show that it is neither a U.S. vassal nor its 51st state, but a sovereign country with an unshakable duty to defend its territory and its citizens. In the end, if history is our guide, Trump will respect us for it.
“The islamic regime is selling murdered Iranian women for parts. Armenia has confiscated massive amounts of undeclared Iranian natural women’s hair which was brought across the border. This illegal trend has been skyrocketing since, wait for it, January. Almost all the morgue victims from the massacre were men, and not women. We are beginning to learn what actually happened to the girls who were massacred back then.”
In the heart-wrenching saga of a nation teetering on the brink of economic collapse, a hauntingly lucrative enterprise emerges, reaching unprecedented heights in Iran: the shameless trafficking of human organs.
This macabre trade, with its grotesque nature and moral bankruptcy, stands as a chilling testament to the depths of a human tragedy. While there have been numerous reports about this problem, a recent article published in the state-run Jahan-e Sanat newspaper brought this tragedy into the spotlight again.
The May 3 article, entitled “life traders,” made headlines, prompting the ruling theocracy to order the paper to remove it.
In recent years, as the weight of skyrocketing living expenses and unabated destitution bears down upon the populace, the insidious allure of this enterprise has thrived.
The article begins with a chilling advertisement on the wall: “I sell my body parts, even my heart. I am 33 years old, and I need the money to feed my wife and four children and pay off my rent. I’m not unemployed. I have been a laborer for 23 years.”
While kidneys, the coveted lifeblood of the trade, continue to be in high demand, the boundaries of this sordid marketplace have long been breached. From the hollow depths of its origin over a decade ago, it has metamorphosed into a grotesque bazaar where the liver, bone marrow, and cornea are mercilessly bartered. Each transaction further exacerbates the somber plight that afflicts the nation, sinking it deeper into the abyss of desolation.
“Going down in Vali-Asr Street and near the Judicial Palace, there is an alley, which is the kidney marketplace. There is no one there, but one can find a wall filled with advertisements of selling body parts,” the article writes, adding that “In the past year, alongside kidney advertisements, liver, bone marrow, eye cornea, sperm, and ovum donation have also found their way onto the walls. Moreover, a website bearing the same name has been launched, facilitating easy connections between individuals seeking these services.
“In the preceding year, the Kidney Association of Iran established the kidney donation rate at 800 million rials; however, the actual buying and selling price had surged to 3 billion rials. This year, from the onset, the kidney’s price has oscillated between 5 billion and 10 billion rials. The involvement of intermediaries or the critical condition of the patient, combined with demanding the rare blood type of O-, further increases the price.”
Meanwhile, even according to the regime’s own laws, buying and selling body organs is considered a crime in Iran, and only its donation is legal. Only kidney donation from a living person is possible.
“According to the Ministry of Health’s records, Iran witnessed 420 cases of living kidney transplants in 2020. Recognizing the concerning presence of intermediaries in kidney donation, the Iran Kidney Association, dedicated to supporting kidney patients, established a regulated system for this process, including registration and specific financial arrangements,” Jahan-e Sanat wrote in this regard, adding that the Kidney Association “Initially set the price at 120 million rials and later raised to 340 million rials, the designated amount for donation by the association has now surged to 800 million rials since 2020.”
Now as a body organ’s price fluctuates between 500 million to one billion rials in the black market, more Iranians sell out their vital organs to make a living.
“Our reporter’s interview with sellers indicates they all want to sell their body organs due to poverty, and this is sadly not limited to a specific gender or age. Sometimes, buyers also cannot afford these prices because they should sell their houses or cars to have enough money for a transplant,” Jahan-e Sanat writes.
Thus, as Iranians can no longer afford the high prices of vital organs, many sell their body parts outside of Iran, namely in Iraq, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.
“Certain intermediaries with international ties facilitate the travel of organ sellers to neighboring countries like the UAE, Turkey, and Iraq, where they can sell their body parts for sums ranging from $7,000 to $15,000. Unfortunately, in many cases, these sellers become ensnared in the clutches of fraudsters, with fatal consequences. It is worth noting that sellers of body parts lack legal protection within the country, often leaving them with no alternative but to engage in this perilous undertaking,” Jahan-e Sanat acknowledges in this regard.
These sellers are not unemployed; they toil relentlessly to make ends meet. However, the dire economic crisis in the country, exacerbated by the regime’s pervasive corruption, leaves them with no choice but to sacrifice their very own vital organs to secure survival.
“A brief search through Telegram channels and local websites reveals that the trade of body parts extends far beyond Tehran or major cities, encompassing the entire nation—an alarming testament to the widespread destitution evident on the faces of all 80 million Iranians. Poverty is not an overnight creation; it has persistently existed and continues to afflict the populace,” the paper writes in this regard.
As Jahan-e Sanat acknowledges, “Inflation and soaring prices have plunged people into the abyss of poverty. Within Iran’s boundaries, the heart-wrenching plight of individuals haggling over their own body parts for a mere morsel of bread underscores the harrowing tragedy beneath the surface. Kidney sellers, once motivated by desires for material possessions like cars or homes, now find themselves compelled to sell their organs to meet their basic daily needs.”
Jahan-e Sanat’s reporter contacted two sellers, one a worker and the other a single mom with two underage children. The worker is 22 years old and sells his kidney for 5 billion rials and part of his liver for 2 billion rials. The single mom, born in 1987, sells her kidney for 3.4 billion rials. “This is the only way I have to feed my children,” she says.
Engaging in the sale of body organs poses significant risks and can have severe consequences for the individuals involved. The human body is intricately balanced, and the removal of vital organs can lead to life-altering complications, both physical and psychological. Surgical procedures performed outside regulated medical settings and without proper medical expertise increase the chances of infections, surgical errors, and long-term health issues.
Moreover, the emotional toll of parting with an organ and the potential ethical and legal repercussions can inflict lasting harm on a person’s well-being.
But people of one of the world’s richest nations have to sell their body parts to make a living, while the ruling theocracy squanders Iran’s national wealth on terrorism and oppression.
“More people are selling their body organs while Ebrahim Raisi’s government keeps on bragging about eradicating poverty. The poverty line has increased by 210 million rials, and a worker’s salary is around 80 million rials. Yet, the government keeps speaking of eradicating poverty,” Jahan-e Sanat writes in this regard.
These heart-wrenching tragedies, abhorrent in their nature, stoke the flames of social outrage against the ruling theocracy, whose illicit machinations and malignant policies have ruthlessly ravaged the populace’s lives.
“The trade of body organs serves as a stark testament to the dire economic plight and the agonizing struggle for survival faced by members of society, preventing them from experiencing a semblance of normalcy. Such a distressing state of affairs inevitably breeds a myriad of social perils, casting a dark shadow over the fabric of the community,” Jahan-e Sanat warns officials.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Islamic-Regime-is-Selling-Murdered-Iranian-Women.jpg360640Amil Imanihttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAmil Imani2026-06-12 06:12:512026-06-12 06:26:28The Islamic Regime, teetering on the brink of economic collapse, is selling murdered Iranian women’s body parts
U.S. President Donald Trump announces that Washington will retaliate against Iran for shooting down a military helicopter last night over the Strait of Hormuz.
“I have just been informed by our great military that last night the Iranians shot down one of our highly sophisticated Apache Helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz. There were two pilots involved, both are safe and uninjured,” Trump writes on Truth Social.
“Nevertheless, the United States must, of necessity, respond to this attack,” Trump adds, without elaborating on what a response might look like.
But Israel is prevented from retaliation (or minimized its retaliation) when it is attacked.
CENTCOM: The two crewmembers were rescued by a drone-boat. Central Command: At 7:33 p.m. ET on June 8, two crew members from a U.S. Army AH-64 Apache were rescued by American forces after their helicopter went down near the coast of Oman while patrolling regional waters. The Soldiers were safely rescued within approximately two hours and are in stable condition. The cause of the incident is under investigation. Rescue efforts were led by U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the 82nd Airborne Division, with support from U.S. Air Force and Navy units including U.S. 5th Fleet’s Task Force 59.
Axios: More details on the rescue: The crew of a U.S. Apache attack helicopter shot down by Iran was rescued by a drone-boat known as Corsair. It was a first-of-its-kind operation, with incredibly high stakes…. Saronic advertises Corsair as autonomous. It was not immediately clear how it maneuvered during the rescue mission. It was operated by the Navy’s Task Force 59, which was established in 2021 to experiment with unmanned tech and artificial intelligence and fold them into naval operations. Navy leadership has for years advocated for a hybrid fleet, or a mix of manned and unmanned ships. The Corsair, unveiled in October 2024, is 24 feet long. It can travel 1,000 nautical miles, carry 1,000 pounds and hit speeds greater than 35 knots.
In response the USA just launched “self-defense strikes against Iran” in response to “yesterday’s downing of an Apache helicopter”
The explosions are reported from Qeshm island, Sirik, Bandar Abbas and 2 other locations near the Strait of Hormuz.
The United States launched a series of strikes against Iranian targets following the downing of an American Apache helicopter over the Strait of Hormuz, which President Donald Trump directly attributed to Tehran. According to the Pentagon, American forces targeted Iranian air defense systems, ground control stations, and radar installations. U.S. Central Command announced the completion of the operation three hours after it began. In response, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed to have attacked 21 targets on US military bases in the region, including sites in Bahrain and Jordan. Kuwait reported intercepting incoming attacks. American officials have not yet commented on reports of attacks on their bases, and it is unclear whether any damage was caused. However, according to local authorities, an air alert was declared in Bahrain, and the Iranian attacks were repelled.
That description comes straight from CENTCOM: U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces began launching self-defense strikes against Iran at 5 p.m. ET today at the Commander in Chief’s direction, in response to yesterday’s downing of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter. The mission is a proportional response to unjustified Iranian aggression.
Ravid: Tuesday evening we heard of a second and third round of retaliatory strikes. Barak Ravid of Axios: Third round of strikes now, per U.S. official.
Jonathan Karl of ABC News: I was on the phone with Trump as CENTCOM announced US retaliatory strikes against Iran. Here’s what he said: “I think it’s very important to respond. They shot down a helicopter, and we are responding as we speak.” He added: “This is a response to what they did they did with our helicopter last night, and I believe the response should be very strong, very powerful, and that’s what this one is” (Karl).
Dubowitz: Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies: President Trump is right to respond. But the more effective strategy is to impose—and support Israel’s right to impose—overwhelming costs on the regime in Tehran and its terror network. The lesson: perceived weakness invites aggression. Strength restores deterrence. Escalate to de-escalate.
Consider: Trump told the press just hours before that attack, “We’re very close to having a very, very good, strong, powerful deal.”
Does it feel like an Iran deal is getting closer?
A country that’s “very close” to sealing a deal in good faith doesn’t escalate against its negotiating partner.
This leaves us wondering which presidential advisers are leading him down this garden path to likely humiliation.
By one count, he’s said “nearly there” 38 times since he announced that “almost all” of the points of contention “have been agreed to” and that a “two-week period” should allow the deal to be “consummated.”
We’re now 10 weeks into that “two-week period,” and everything’s going backward.
Back then, those final issues were: 1) setting verifiable procedures for the end of Iran’s nuke program, and 2) securing permanent free passage through the Strait of Hormuz — with any benefits to Iran (beyond the end of US-Israeli bombing) to come later.
Now, suddenly, getting to the deal somehow has Washington telling Jerusalem it can’t respond to Hezbollah’s missile attacks out of Lebanon.
It’s what the Iranians do: Claim they could give us what we want, stall on actually delivering it (in this case, on any way to hold them to a no-nukes promise) by never giving an inch unless they take it back a day or three later — meanwhile ginning up side issues and manipulating the other side into delivering in advance on those demands in the foolish belief that a final deal will then be possible.
Trump’s negotiators are falling into the same old trap as Carter and Barack Obama.
Are they telling him the blockade will force the regime to bend? Sorry: Iran’s leaders are perfectly willing to let the people suffer. (Heck, they proved in January that they’ll slaughter civilians in the street!) The elites can keep on living the high life, just as they do in impoverished North Korea.
A sign Trump’s getting terrible advice is his assertion Monday night that if “we spend another two or three weeks bombing, they’ll have nothing left whatsoever,” but then “you won’t have the Strait open for months.”
How’s that?
And why is just reopening the Strait not a legitimate military aim to take away the regime’s leverage?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/US-Apache-Helicopter.jpg351640The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2026-06-11 07:05:572026-06-11 07:12:29Iran Shoots Down U.S. Apache Helicopter in Strait of Hormuz; Crew Members Rescued, U.S. Strikes Back
Iran, trying to force the IDF to stop hitting Hezbollah sites in Beirut, launched 11 ballistic missiles at Israel on June 7. They were all intercepted, causing no damage. But such an attack could not go unanswered. The IDF then responded, giving not as good as it got, but far better. More on the damage it wrought can be found here: “Watch: IDF strikes key targets throughout Iran in response to missile barrages,” Jerusalem Post, June 8, 2026:
The IDF struck several targets throughout western Iran in retaliation for Iranian missile attacks on Israel on Monday morning.
The strikes come after sources told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday that Israeli officials were still deciding when and how hard to hit Iran, noting that a significant Israeli response to Tehran’s ceasefire breach was expected.
Earlier on Monday, a United States official told Axios that he did not expect an imminent Israeli retaliation against Iran. “I don’t think anything is imminent in terms of an Israeli strike,” he said.
Targets were hit in Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, and some other places in western Iran, while explosions have reportedly been heard in Karaj, outside of Tehran, according to Tasmin News Agency, an IRGC-affiliated outlet.
Additionally, Iran’s official state news agency, IRNA, reported that all flights in Tehran’s Mehrabad airport have been suspended until further notice.
The targets include a petrochemical complex near Iran’s southwestern city of Mahshahr, which the military confirmed was used to produce unique materials critical for Iran’s ballistic missile program.
The israeli [sic] Air Force struck several infrastructure sites at the complex, and the area has been evacuated, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-run Fars News Agency reported on Monday….
Unlike the most recent Iranian missile attack, that caused no casualties or damages, the IDF response has been effective, destroying both offensive weapons — long-range ballistic missile factories — and defensive weapons, including a large number of air defense radars that the Iranians had been furiously rebuilding-since their earlier destruction by Israel and the U.S. in June 2025 and in early 2026.
Stung by the IDF’s wide-ranging attacks, and after Trump called for both sides to stop their tit-for-tat exchanges, Tehran decided to announce that it would stop its own attacks on Israel, provided Israel stopped attacking Hezbollah sites in Beirut, thereby hoping to elicit the same promise from Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was unwilling to oblige. He agreed to stop hitting Iran, but with the caveat that the IDF will continue striking Hezbollah in Beirut as long as the terror group launches more missile and drone attacks against northern Israel. The IDF is itching to launch far more devastating attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran, and knows that another attack from Iran will be all the excuse it needs.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Tehran-in-a-clean-day.jpg344640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2026-06-11 06:09:342026-06-11 06:14:17What Israel Hit in Iran
While Nicholas Kristof recently published in the New York Times his baseless accusation that the IDF engages in sexual torture, including his claim that Israeli soldiers “train dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners,” the real victims of sexual torture in the Middle East are to be found elsewhere.
These are the prisoners that the Islamic Republic of Iran holds in Evin Prison and similar torture houses. And the New York Times, that continues to defend Kristof’s infamous column and to accuse his critics of trying to “stifle journalism,” when all they are trying to do is to point out his lies, has failed completely to report on the sexual torture inflicted on prisoners in Iran.
More on that torture can be found here: “Iranian men and women describe horrific abuse at the hands of regime guards specialising in ‘sexual torture,’” by Eliana Silver, Daily Mail, May 17, 2026:
Detainees in Iran’s prisons are being subjected to beatings, rape and psychological abuse, according to testimonies that lay bare the lengths the Islamic Republic will go to crush dissent.
Despite the regime’s long-standing reputation for brutality, accounts of sexual violence and intimidation reveal a particularly disturbing pattern of abuse.
In a harrowing account to The Australian, a woman identified as Mina, a pseudonym, described her experience inside one of Iran’s notorious prisons.
‘They repeatedly struck my head with a Koran so hard that my nose began to bleed. The interrogator also touched my body under my clothes while using disgusting sexual language, and repeatedly asked which newspaper editors I had slept with.’
She added: ‘He told me, “I will bring your 12-year-old son here and make him rape you. Then you will confess on television”.’
Such accounts are not isolated, with a report by Amnesty International last month finding that thousands of Iranians are at risk of sexual violence, with children as young as 14 among those assaulted by IRGC-linked forces during the January protests.
Evidence suggests this pattern stretches back decades.
Researcher and former political prisoner Iraj Mesdaghi has documented abuses from the 1980s, including testimony from a 14-year-old boy tortured by Mohammad Mehrayin, known as the ‘Butcher of Evin’….
The mainstream media in the United States — television, radio, newspapers, news sites online — should have reported on so many cases of sexual torture in Iran, that so many different sources have reported on, including those who were its victims, but until now their stories have received very little attention. Why is that? And why has Nicholas Kristof, with his great interest in the use of sexual torture, and his bully pulpit at the most prestigious American newspaper, not provided a single report on how that torture has been inflicted on prisoners, including children, in Iran?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Evin-House-of-Detention-Ehsan-Iran.jpg360640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2026-06-10 06:09:212026-06-10 06:21:08In Iran, the Real Sexual Torture
Now that I have arrived in our summer quarters in the South of France, I am discovering the secret animal nature of Iran’s current leaders.
More than any other animal, they resemble the boar.
I know them well — both the Iranians, and the boar.
This winter, my boar were particularly aggressive — boorish, if you will. They crashed through my electric fence like it was an Arleigh Burke destroyer in dry-dock, with devastating results.
I tell them every year not to do this, because they will get shot. And without fail, every year they do it.
They can’t help it. It is their boar nature. And neither I nor the local guns managed to catch them in the act and shoot them.
So they tore up acres of cultivated ground, ripping out flowers and shrubs, leaving behind hillsides looking like a swarm of mosquito boats had just swept past at 50mph.
This week, Maj. Gen. Mohsen Rezai (there is no “ret.” after that, despite the fact he was fired as Rev. Guards commander in 2007), announced that Iran had no intention of making a deal with the United States unless Donald Trump authorized the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets.
I write about Rezai extensively in my new book, The Iran House: Tales of Revolution, Persecution, War, and Intrigue. One reason is that his son Ahmad defected to the United States in 1997 and not long thereafter called upon me to parole him into the country, where he learned English in our Kensington, Maryland basement for six months.
Rezai was sidelined for power for years because of his son’s actions. And when his son was murdered in Dubai in November 2011, I went there to investigate on behalf of his widow and young daughter. And what I found troubled me.
You can read the full story in the book. But in short, I believed Dad showed the regime he was capable of Abrahamic loyalty.
Mohsen Rezai reappeared in 2021 as a vice-president under the Raisi government. And now, he has reinvented himself once again, this time as the military advisor of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.
It’s a convenient job, if true. Because Mojtaba is 1) shy, or 2) disabled, or 3) paranoid that the CIA will track him if he ever appears on a video, so he issues written statements that get read by a succubus.
Mohsen Rezai is that succubus.
His latest gambit — or invention, and we don’t really know which — is that El Supremo wants Trump to return $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets as a “sign of good will.” Otherwise, the negotiations are over.
Now that’s an interesting gambit. Eventually, if Iran gives up its enriched uranium — all of it, not just the HEU — and opens the Strait and pledges to never seek a nuclear weapons capability in the future, ever — well, then sanctions relief becomes possible.
But not upfront. Trump made that clear.
But SOMEONE talked the US Navy into easing the blockade of the Strait to allow four Iranian-flagged supertankers to slip the noose this week, carrying 7 million barrels of Iranian crude they loaded at Kharg more than 6 weeks ago.
I suspect Trump’s Svengali, Steve Witkoff. I can picture him whispering in the president’s ear: Mr. President, it’s such a small gesture, but for the Iranians, it will show our good faith and unblock the negotiations. That’s all they are asking. Just a little gesture or good will.
Here’s a lesson in Iranology for Mr. Witkoff. Offer the mullahs carrots and they will consume them, burp, and not even say thank-you. Instead, they will ask for more.
And that’s exactly what Mohsen Rezai is doing.
The president today made his deadline clear. He wants a deal over the weekend, and a signing ceremony next week in Geneva. Mohsen Rezai and the Gayatollah can pound sand in their bunker as it collapses on top of them. Or so we can hope.
I discuss the Iran talks, as well as Zelinskyy’s asking Putin for lunch, Turkey’s ambitions to strike Israel, and Trump’s plan to restructure our NATO assets so the Germans can’t suck us into another senseless war, in this week’s Prophecy Today Weekend.
As always, you can listen live at 1 PM on Saturday on 550 AM in the Jacksonville, Florida, area or by using the Jacksonville Way Radio app.
Ken Timmerman’s 14th book of non-fiction, THE IRAN HOUSE: Tales of Revolution, Persecution, War, and Intrigue,can be ordered by clicking here or by viewing my author’s page, here.
Raising Olives in Provence, can be ordered by clicking here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/What-does-victory-and-surrender-in-Iran-mean-e1773246078703.jpeg427640Kenneth R. Timmermanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKenneth R. Timmerman2026-06-07 12:20:082026-06-07 12:22:58The Iranians and the Boar
Nearly a month after President Trump informed Congress that the Iran war is “terminated,” the belligerents continue to routinely trade fire in the Persian Gulf, as Iran refuses to abide by the ceasefire. The latest exchange of fire came Tuesday, resulting in one death and dozens of injuries after an Iranian missile struck civilian infrastructure in a country not at war with it. Iran is clearly the “bad guy,” but the breathless denunciations so freely hurled at the first insinuation of Israeli misconduct are strangely absent on the Left.
The skirmish began with Iran firing one-way attack drones at civilian shipping in the Persian Gulf. U.S. Central Command shot down three of the drones and responded with strikes on Iranian ground control stations on Qeshm Island.
After that, Iran launched a volley of projectiles toward Bahrain, home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Bahrain’s air defenses “intercepted and destroyed three missiles and a number of drones,” with no damage resulting.
Iran also launched a volley toward Kuwait, where the U.S. operates several military bases. Two missiles failed to reach their targets, and some were intercepted, but Kuwait had to deal with a total of 13 missiles and 17 drones.
One missile that was not intercepted crashed into Kuwait’s international airport at dawn, causing “severe material damage” and suspending air traffic. Clearly, the missile was not aimed at a U.S. military base, which would have been a legitimate military target. The Iranian attack killed one Indian national and injured 63 other people in the airport. It sounds like an open-and-shut war crime — or at least it would be, for anyone named “Israel.”
For their part, Iran pointed fingers at the U.S. Earlier on Tuesday, an American aircraft fired a missile into the engine room of a sanctioned oil tanker trying to run the U.S. blockade and reach Iran’s Kharg Island, its oil export hub. Iran claimed that it launched drones at ships in the Persian Gulf in response to this incident, and that it launched missile barrages at Bahrain and Kuwait in response to America’s retaliatory strikes.
By even issuing such an explanation, Iran continues to insult the world’s intelligence by insisting that they fall for a patent lie. Seizing or disabling ships that try to run a blockade is a basic function of maintaining a naval blockade. If there were no hazard to venturing past the U.S. Navy, then the presence of its ships would not slow traffic, and if it never made good on its threats to use force against ships that tried to slip past, then the threat of force would lose its effect.
Iran understands how this game is played. In fact, it previously blockaded the Strait of Hormuz, creating a precedent to justify America’s action. The entry to the Persian Gulf is like a high-stakes version of the playground game “sharks and minnows.” The shadowy fleet of ships aligned with Iran wants to slip past the powerful American sharks, but they understand that anyone who gets tagged in the attempt must be considered “out.”
Of course, in such a playground game, it would be entirely inappropriate for a child who was tagged out to stamp off in a huff and “retaliate” against the kid who tagged him by punching the tagger’s little sister in the face. It would be even more bizarre if he stamped off and punched some random little girl in the face and claimed that it was in retaliation. Such a child would face severe consequences, parents would be involved, and charges might even be filed. Certainly, a cloud would hang over his participation in future games.
Yet this is what Iran did Tuesday — and what it has done repeatedly and consistently since February 28. Iran’s war is with the U.S. and Israel. Yet it has fired the majority of its projectiles at defenseless shipping from unrelated nations and neutral Arab countries around the region. These are — and continued to be — unjustified acts of war, naked aggression.
The sovereign state of Iran immediately resorted to the mewling tactics of a lowly terror group — like the network of terror groups it funds. Instead of playing by the rules everyone agrees to, Iran simply delights in sadistically inflicting maximum punishment on as many people as possible. Not only that, but Iran continues to violate the ceasefire while refusing to agree to reasonable terms.
The only conclusion to draw from this situation is that Iran is the “bad guy,” which every rational American already understood Iran to be.
Yet many leftists are not acting like Iran is the “bad guy.” The loud and omnipresent denunciations of Israel — heard for the past two years in every college, urban center, street protest, and even some political campaigns — are totally lacking. Yet, compared with Iran, Israel conducts wars with the care and gentleness of Mr. Rogers.
Where are the cries of genocide, of war crimes, of demands to use America’s full power to end the evil regime? They are not there. Does this mean there is a double standard for Israel? There seems to be no other explanation. And the word for such a double standard is “anti-Semitism.”
On Wednesday, House Democrats carried a resolution to force the president to end the Iran war, with support from four Republicans. The resolution perpetuates the charade of pretending that Iran is a normal state that plays by the rules, not one that lost every play in the war and still demands to be called the victor by cheating.
Yes, Iran is certainly the “bad guy.” Will we let the bad guy win?
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Latest-Skirmish-Demonstrates-Why-Iran-Is-Still-the-Bad-Guy.jpg336640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2026-06-04 11:35:032026-06-05 05:52:10Latest Skirmish Demonstrates Why Iran Is Still the Bad Guy
Social media users across the political spectrum are casting serious doubts on a new Axios report claiming President Donald Trump cursed out Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Axios reported Monday that Trump “lashed out” at Netanyahu during a phone call concerning Israel’s threat to bomb Beirut, Lebanon, and the Israel Defense Force’s invasion of Southern Lebanon amid a fragile U.S.-Iran ceasefire. One anonymous official, “summarizing” the phone call, claimed Trump told Netanyahu, “You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.” Axios also reported that Trump “reined in” Netanyahu and convinced him to scrap the plans to bomb Beirut and Hezbollah targets.
However, many people aren’t buying it.
Progressive “Breaking Points” host Krystal Ball compared the new Axios story to nearly identical stories leaked during former President Joe Biden’s administration. Biden had reportedly described Netanyahu as a “bad f*cking guy” and an “asshole,” all while his administration continued to green-light U.S. weapons sales to Israel.
How many times have they sold and resold this same story about Biden and now Trump being secretly VERY VERY mad at Netanyahu https://t.co/uGpSULbhhM
Fox News host Mark Levin claimed the story was “largely fabricated” and called for one of its authors, Barak Ravid, to be fired.
MORE RE YESTERDAY’S LEAK ABOUT THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN POTUS AND BIBII
Barack Ravid at Axios should be fired. Reason: his story was largely fabricated by those leaking anonymously leaking to him. The media need to take seriously the accuracy of what they report and these media…
Amit Segal, a correspondent for Israel news outlet N12, reported that the Axios story was “inaccurate.”
EXCLUSIVE: According to a very senior official on the PM’s team on the late-night Netanyahu-Trump call, the Axios report is inaccurate. Trump did not make personal remarks about jail or claim Netanyahu is hated globally.
Instead, the tense call focused on conflicting social…
Independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone accused Ravid of making a “whole career” out of Biden-era leaks suggesting the former president was fed up with Netanyahu or on the verge of making an ultimatum to the Israeli prime minister.
Barak Ravid has made a whole career out of these articles telling Americans they don’t need to worry about the latest horrifying war because the president is taking care of it. Some Ravid headlines from the Biden administration:
For his part, Trump claimed that he acted as an intermediary between Israel and Hezbollah and prevented further attacks from happening Monday.
“I had a very productive call with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, of Israel, and there will be no Troops going to Beirut, and any Troops that are on their way, have already been turned back,” he said in a Truth Social post. “Likewise, through highly placed Representatives, I had a very good call with Hezbollah, and they agreed that all shooting will stop — That Israel will not attack them, and they will not attack Israel.”
To deal, or not to deal. That is the question the Iranians are asking themselves.
There are days they wake up in a state close to wonderment. Today was one of those days.
There was Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s real estate buddy and negotiator in chief, offering them a $300 billion international investment fund. The Ayatollah must have been rubbing his eyebrows or what’s left of them, wondering if he was dreaming. The Iranians had been demanding war reparations but never thought they would get them.
Will somebody give Witkoff the cane? You have to wonder sometimes what he’s thinking.
And then you have the President, one day reassuring Americans that he won’t make a “crummy” deal, won’t make a bad deal, will only make a “great deal,” and if the Iranians don’t like it, he’ll turn it back over to Pistol Pete.
That was Thursday, at the Cabinet meeting in the White House. And then on Friday, you have the President saying on Truth Social that the US and Iran are close to a deal.
“Iran must agree that they will never have a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb. The Hormuz Strait must be immediately open, no tolls, for unrestricted shipping traffic, in both directions…. The enriched material, sometimes referred to as “Nuclear Dust,”… will be unearthed by the United States… in close coordination and conjunction with the islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA,”
No mention of that $300 billion “sweetener,” as Witkoff reportedly called it. Just sayin.
But if you examine what the President just said, it’s pretty clear he has not changed his negotiating demands.
What about the Iranians?
Earlier this week, Ayatollah Mojtaba – or what’s left of him – tweeted that “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” remain the regime’s rallying cries and would become “common slogans” for Muslim youth across the world. “The region will not return to past conditions, and Washington will no longer have a safe place to station military bases in the region,” he added.
Does that sound like someone about to sign a peace deal?
How about the “moderate” Parliament speaker, Qalibaf, the former commander of the IRGC Air Force? “We get concessions not through talks, but through missiles,” he tweeted on Friday. “In negotiations we only clarify them.”
That doesn’t sound terribly conciliatory either, if you ask me.
Now about that “nuclear dust.” Iran has 450 kg of 60% enriched uranium, which is enough for at least 11 bombs with just a few more spins of the centrifuge. Trump says that the deal must include the turnover of that material, which the Iranians have never agreed to, at least not in public.
Trump has also said they cannot have a nuclear weapon in the future. What does that mean? It means, they must also give up the 9000 kg of low enriched uranium in their stockpile, and destroy their enrichment centrifuges.
As a reminder, the physics of uranium enrichment might appear counter-intuitive. Nuclear power plants require uranium enriched to 3.67%, which is 70% of the enrichment work needed to reach weapons grade. Iran is believed to have around 8500 kilograms of 3.67% uranium in its stockpile.
In addition, Iran has anywhere from 250 kilograms to more than 550 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20%, which is 90% of the enrichment work needed to reach weapons grade. Much of that stockpile was actually taken off the books by the JCPOA (Obama’s “bad nuclear deal,” as Trump calls it). Experts refer to it as the “ghost inventory.”
I think Trump is deliberately blowing hot and cold on the negotiations, and not just because he wants to drop the price of oil and bump up the stock market.
I think he is playing mind games with the Iranians. He is in no hurry to close a deal, and this has caught the Iranians off guard. They think the midterms will force Trump’s hand, but so far they haven’t.
In other words, Trump is beating them at their own negotiating game, and it’s making their heads explode.
Remember, best beloved, that the annual five-day Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, ends on Friday night. The Saudis reportedly asked last week that the United States abstain from combat operations against Iran during the hajj.
I call these negotiations Act III of the Iran war. Even if President Trump says that the US and Iran have agreed to the outlines of a deal, I am willing to bet the Iranians will say no. They can’t help it. It’s how they’re wired.
And if their negotiators say yes, but…? I’m willing to bet the IRGC will launch more drones against ships, or Israel, or the UAE. It’s just their nature.
And that will lead us directly to Act IV.
Act IV is the resumption of kinetic operations, They will be tremendously violent, if brief, and will shut down the entire country. Their goal will be to convince the Iranian people that the regime cannot possibly survive.
And that will lead us directly to Act V.
This is where the genius of Trump’s long-term strategy will become apparent. Act V is where the Iranian people finally rise up and, with US and Israeli help, seize control of the vast armories of weapons stockpiled by the IRGC and the bassij in every part of the country.
The violence will unfold under US and Israeli overwatch, which means that whenever we see an IRGC or bassij mobilization that threatens the uprising, we take them out. I would imagine we would also take down the Iranian regime broadcasting networks, or hack them and turn them over to the insurgents.
The President said on Thursday he wanted the Saudis, the Omanis, the Kuwaitis, and the Qataris to join the Abraham Accords. Almost jokingly he added, “I think they owe it to us… In fact, maybe I won’t do the deal if they don’t.”
If Act V is as successful as I believe it will be and the Iranian regime falls to a popular uprising, there will be no more roadblock to expanding the Abraham Accords.
The Islamic regime in Iran has been the source of violence and terror for 47 years, not just in the Middle East but around the world. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum called them “terrorists with an oil field.”
We humans are trouble-makers by nature. Just read the Old Testament.
But a world without Islamic Iran could become one of those periods you read about in a single sentence in the Bible. “And for forty years, Israel knew peace.”
I discuss the Iran negotiations, as well as the current state of the Russia-Ukraine war, in this week’s Prophecy Today Weekend. As always, you can listen live at 1 PM on Saturday on 550 AM or 104.9 FM in the Jacksonville, Florida, area and in participating Christian broadcasting networks around the country.
You can also listen using the Jacksonville Way Radio app, or catch the podcast later, here.
Ken Timmerman’s 14th book of non-fiction, THE IRAN HOUSE: Tales of Revolution, Persecution, War, and Intrigue,can be ordered by clicking here or by viewing my author’s page, here.
Raising Olives in Provence, can be ordered by clicking here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-iran-nuclear-program.jpg360640Kenneth R. Timmermanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKenneth R. Timmerman2026-05-29 15:17:262026-05-29 15:36:10To Deal, or Not to Deal?
