Israeli Minister says Lebanon Must Burn

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused Israel on Friday of wanting “permanent war” following remarks from its far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir saying “all Lebanon must burn” after four Israeli soldiers were killed there. (Invading and occupying another country)

“This is not a rant by a random genocidal lunatic. It’s a public post by the national security minister of the Israeli regime. The genocidal death cult headquartered in Tel Aviv is a threat to all of humanity. It threatens all humans. Its only interest is permanent war,” Araghchi said on X.

Ben Gvir should have been tried for war crimes long ago.. Instead he’s as disgusting, despicable and hateful as always. Of course, he gets away with it

At least 31 killed as Israel keeps attacking Lebanon

At least 31 people were killed and several others injured in a series of Israeli airstrikes across southern Lebanon since early Friday, Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA) reported, marking the deadliest escalation since the US and Iran signed an agreement aimed at ending war on multiple fronts, including Lebanon.

Israeli strikes after midnight targeted residential homes in the towns of Al-Sharqiyah, Harouf and Kfar Sir in the Nabatieh district, causing casualties and leaving several people missing, NNA reported.

At around 2.10 am local time (2310GMT Thursday), Israeli warplanes launched a series of strikes on Nabatieh city, Kfar Tebnit, Nabatieh al-Fawqa and the Rayhan heights, according to the agency.

Several other strikes hit the Kfarjoz-Nabatieh area, the university neighborhood in Nabatieh and the Al-Baydar neighborhood in Harouf, killing eight people around 3 am (0000GMT), according to the news agency.

Another strike targeted the Al-Ashamiya area between Al-Sharqiyah and Doueir, destroying a house and killing four people, according to the agency.

US/Iran deal Strait of Hormuz- Shipping oil/gas prices

Gas Prices Could Take Months to Return to Pre-War Levels Even After U.S.-Iran Deal

It could take months for gas prices to fall to pre-war levels and economies to fully recover even after the U.S. and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding to end the war on Wednesday, analysts tell TIME, dashing hopes that countries around the world may find instant relief.

“Any indication that negotiations towards a final deal are not progressing as expected could raise concerns that the Strait of Hormuz may be blocked again,” adds Niels Rasmussen, chief shipping analyst at the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO).

More than 40 energy infrastructures across the Middle East were damaged in attacks during the war, forcing many refineries across the Gulf to halt production. Middle East crude oil exports fell from 15 million barrels per day before the war began to around seven million barrels per day at the start of April

Ludher tells TIME that the repair of damaged fertilizer production facilities could take years. Food prices will also be dependent on how soon fuel supplies reach markets and whether suppliers opportunistically price gouge, she adds.

Trump condemned Obama’s Iran deal. Here’s how his own compares.

Read at this link via archive.ph

Related to yesterday’s post…

Link

Trump doubled down on his prediction that the deal would be signed Sunday, though he added that he was “very unhappy” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a Sunday phone call with Axios. The president told a reporter that Netanyahu “has no fucking judgment.”

Israel attacked Lebanon quite viciously today, again.- Trump is allegedly unhappy with this. I’ve heard this before. The US would have surely known Israel was going to and did attack Lebanon.

Top administration officials would not confirm whether a peace deal would be signed Sunday — though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told CBS he thinks the agreement is “on track.”

“From all I know, we are on track. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when,” Hegseth said.

While U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz said Sunday morning he’s “confident” the peace deal will happen soon, he deferred to the White House when asked about the timing and logistics for signing the agreement.

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday that a “great settlement” with Iran was close after more than 100 days of conflict. The president announced the timing of the peace deal in a pinned post on Truth Social on Saturday.

“The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL,” Trump wrote, claiming his administration has “a much different and better” relationship with Iran than previous presidents.

A senior Iranian official shared details about the pending peace deal with Reuters on Sunday, claiming that in exchange for Iran immediately reopening the Strait of Hormuz and halting the expansion of its nuclear program (as well as agreeing not to acquire a nuclear weapon), the U.S. will deliver economic relief to the country in the form of $25 billion in frozen assets.

A White House source familiar with the deal told NOTUS that the framework reported by Reuters “isn’t accurate” but did not provide additional details.

So deal or no deal? Cause I’m not seeing one.

President Donald Trump has said Arab states, as well as Pakistan and Turkey, should join the Abraham Accords as part of any peace deal with Iran, an apparent new addition to already slow-moving peace talks between the United States and the country that could further complicate prospects of quickly reaching an agreement. Trump said in a Monday social media post that it should be “mandatory” for Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain to sign up to improve relations with Israel.

Only complicates the issue….

Fake news

Trump cursed at Netanyahu in call over Lebanon escalation, sources say

Also, Armenia.. Cause readers here are aware that Armenia had long severed it’s ties to Russia and entered American/EU spheres of engagement and influence

On May 26, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stopped in Armenia to sign three documents that culminated several years of negotiations, marking, from Washington’s perspective, the consolidation of Armenia’s Western pivot. From Yerevan’s perspective, the signing of the three documents reinforces the paradigmatic shift in its security thinking, as deepening ties with the United States has become one of the main pillars of the country’s growing security architecture. The general discourse on the signing of the TRIPP Framework Agreement, Charter on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, and the Framework on Mining and Critical Minerals, have revolved around the economic, technological, and commercial/interconnectivity components of the agreements. But at the deeper doctrinal level, it is the security component that is defining thinking at the policy-making level within official Yerevan.

In this context, this article addresses the security configurations of the agreements signed during Secretary Rubio’s visit, qualified through three analytical frameworks: 1) the TRIPP Framework Agreement consolidating the operationalization of the TRIPP project, an endeavor that was designed, from the outset, as a fundamental part to Armenia’s layered soft deterrence model; 2) the elevation of U.S.-Armenia relations from a Strategic Partnership to Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, which includes crucial defense and security elements that Armenia has never before had access to; and 3) the implementation of Armenia’s “mining-for-security” strategy through the signing of the agreement on mines, critical minerals and rare earths.

Interesting read

With a third U.S. aircraft carrier, more warships and thousands of new troops heading toward the Middle East, President Donald Trump will soon have more options to keep up U.S. military strikes or put boots on the ground, maintaining pressure on Iran even after he extended a ceasefire. The USS George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier, along with three missile-armed destroyers and roughly 5,000 highly-trained soldiers, is en route to the region, according to the Financial Times, citing unnamed United States officials. They will join at least 24 warships and more than 50,000 troops already in the region, where the U.S. has amassed its largest build-up of forces since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Thousands of these troops are specially trained for seizing chunks of land in hostile territory.

If they do make this move look for Kurds and MEK to participate- The US has groomed these terror groups for a very, very, very long time.

The additional deployment comes as Trump said he would grant a Pakistani request to continue holding off on attacks on Iran until progress could be made in peace talks or a new proposal takes shape. Iran says it won’t negotiate under U.S. threats, and a senior Iranian adviser called the extension a “ploy to buy time for a surprise strike” on X. Trump, meanwhile, has firmly kept up a U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, and fresh military force remains an option on the table. The U.S. is “ready” to restart its heavy bombing campaign, its forces “raring to go,” he said on Tuesday. Another aircraft carrier moving into the area would help Trump follow through on this claim or even escalate the war into a ground invasion scenario.

How Much New Firepower Is Going to the Middle East?

Each aircraft carrier, including the USS George H.W. Bush, is manned by thousands of personnel, ferrying dozens of fighter jets and caches of precision weapons to wherever they are needed. They don’t travel alone. An aircraft carrier is accompanied by two or three destroyers, which can launch long-range missiles like Tomahawks deep into Iranian territory and shoot down enemy weapons trying to hit the aircraft carrier. Three destroyers can usually fire just under 300 missiles in total, both to protect the carrier and to attack targets such as depots or command centers in Iran. While the carrier itself doesn’t fire missiles, up to around 90 jets can perch on its deck. Each jet is loaded with a combination of precision weapons, including missiles that they can fire from the air into Iran. When the Bush arrives in the Middle East, it will bring all this with it, collectively known as a carrier strike group. This will both beef up the U.S.’s ability to hit Iran hard, as Trump has repeatedly threatened, and give another of its aircraft carriers, the USS Gerald R. Ford, a chance to rest.

As I’d posted five days ago- this build up was reported in the Turkish media-

LINK– Lebanese

U.S. President Donald Trump said that, given what he described as deep divisions within the Iranian government, ( I DON’T THINK SO LIAR TRUMP) which he said was not unusual, and following a request from Pakistan’s army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, the planned U.S. action against Iran had been postponed to allow its leaders and representatives to present a unified proposal.

He added that he had instructed the military to continue the blockade and remain fully prepared on all fronts, and that the ceasefire would be extended until such a proposal is presented and discussions are concluded in any form.

Indefinitely?

Iran didn’t attend this most recent round of negotiations- So, Trump “extended the ceasefire deal”

Iran to skip Wednesday negotiations with U.S. in Pakistan, Tasnim reports

Iran has decided not to participate in scheduled negotiations with the United States set for Wednesday in Pakistan, the Iranian Tasnim news agency reported on Tuesday.

Citing informed sources, the agency said the Iranian negotiating delegation had conveyed to the United States, via a Pakistani intermediary, that it would not travel to Islamabad for the planned talks.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. President Donald Trump was considering cancelling Vice President J.D. Vance’s planned visit to Pakistan for talks related to Iran

J.D Vance didn’t go, because there were no negotiations. To my knowledge Witkoff and Kushner remained in the US.

Patrick Cockburn

The ceasefire in the war between the US and Israel on the one side and Iran on the other, which runs out on Wednesday, looks more fragile by the day. But though the US and Iran cannot agree on concrete steps towards peace, neither do they show much appetite for renewed war.

The US Navy has fired on and seized an Iranian cargo ship while enforcing a blockade on Iran’s Gulf ports – something that Iran has described as an act of piracy. The Iranians say they will retaliate for the US breaching the ceasefire, and trust between the sides is at zero.

But a second phase of the war is unlikely to be any more conclusive than the first. Donald Trump could destroy more of Iran’s infrastructure, much as the US did in Iraq in 1991, which took 20 years to repair. Yet the threat of this is not going to lead to an Iranian capitulation – or even significant concessions on uranium enrichment or Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz. Trump still has overwhelming military force on his side, but his original goals – notably a regime change in Iran – are now further away than when the US and Israel first attacked on 28 February.

Both sides have opportunities for escalation and counter-escalation, but not for launching knock-out blows. Iran has found, somewhat to its own surprise, that it has the capacity to inflict serious damage on the world by keeping the Strait closed, and it can cripple the economies of the Arab states on the south side of the Gulf. Paradoxically, Iran has become a global power, but one that cannot control its own skies or defend its 92 million people from relentless air strikes.

The mood among Iranian leaders is evidently more confident than it was – they have weathered five-and-a-half weeks of war and the loss of many of them. But they are still the inferior power and without serious allies. They cannot defend themselves against a US-Israeli scorched-earth policy as visited upon Gaza and south Beirut.

This does not mean, however, that Iran is without counter-escalatory options. Simply keeping the Strait of Hormuz shut is one. Getting the Houthis in Yemen to close the Bab-el-Mandeb strait between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden is another. This would sever Saudi oil exports from the Red Sea, but the Houthis will not be enthusiastic to enrage Saudi Arabia. Another option might be to cut the Saudi east-west pipeline circumventing the Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Ending a war in which both sides still believe they have a chance of changing the military and political balance in their favour would never be easy. But in this case Trump still insists he has won, and his messages on Truth Social about a beaten Iranian leadership begging for a deal are fantasy served up to his own hardcore supporters. But how far does he himself believe this – and how desperate is he for a deal before higher oil and gas prices do the Republicans further damage in the midterm elections?

On Truth Social he cites obscure polls showing that his handling of the war is popular, but every other survey shows that it is not. The brief Iranian opening – with caveats – of the Strait of Hormuz followed by its closure because of the continuing US blockade makes Washington look like the obstinate one.

Whatever happens at talks in Islamabad, in Pakistan, it is difficult to see how lasting agreement can spring from Trump-style diplomacy conducted by amateur diplomats such as his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his real estate crony Steve Witkoff, both of whom Trump says are heading to negotiations. Iran says it has not decided if it will send its envoys, thought it said on Monday afternoon that it was “positively reviewing” its participation.

Successful talks look unlikely and there is a chance the US President will opt for an escalation – as he has done during previous talks with Iran. But his chances of winning a decisive victory do not look good.

In my very many years of covering current events- this is one of the worst “shit shows” yet. Sorry for the language, but, that’s exactly how it is. Brought upon us all by Trump and Bibi and NO ONE ELSE.

Over to any of you who may want to express an opinion, some frustration, whatever…

With the cease-fire process that began on April 9, the future of the war in Iran remains uncertain. Although efforts are being made to keep the process moving despite various setbacks, the fact that the conditions put forward by the parties do not align is stalling the process.

It appears that the demands, which can be summarized in about 10 points, have become deadlocked on three critical issues: the elimination of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the transfer of enriched uranium to the United States, control of the Strait of Hormuz, and the cessation of Israeli attacks in Lebanon. Additionally, issues such as cutting off Iran’s support for proxy forces, disarming Hezbollah and reducing the range of Iran’s tactical ballistic missiles remain unresolved between the parties.

Looking at the broader picture, the process is proceeding less as a negotiation and more as a clash between U.S. demands and Iran’s resistance.

Then, why is a cease-fire table assembled?

There may be three main reasons for the U.S. shift toward a cease-fire: domestic political pressures and economic costs, international isolation and most importantly, the depletion of missile stockpiles in the Gulf region to 30%. The fact that the U.S. has failed to achieve its military and political objectives in the war also supports this situation. Iran’s missile capabilities have not been eliminated, its nuclear facilities have not been destroyed and the regime has not been overthrown. Furthermore, the influence of a provocative actor like Israel on the U.S. continues to this day.

One of the most striking and even unusual aspects of this process is that the cease-fire is limited to 15 days. While cease-fires in international relations are typically not time-bound, the fact that a specific date has been set here is noteworthy. This raises a critical question: Does the U.S. truly want to end the war, or is it using the cease-fire negotiations to buy time for greater military preparations?

Developments on the ground offer important clues for understanding the answer to this question.

Iran tends not to retaliate unless directly attacked. However, following 40 days of fighting, it is working to heal its wounds, address its shortcomings and rebuild its capabilities. At the same time, it is striving to enhance its military strength with support from Russia and China.

On the U.S. side, there is significantly more active military movement.

Ground forces have been deployed to the region. A brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division, marines brought in from South Korea and the 142nd Artillery Brigade are deployed in the region. In terms of naval power, one aircraft carrier is in the Eastern Mediterranean, another is south of Oman and a third is reportedly en route to the region.

In addition, the U.S. is conducting intensive ammunition transfers using C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft. Tomahawk missiles, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Patriot air defense systems are being deployed to the region. There is also information indicating that a significant portion of ammunition from U.S. forces in Europe has been redirected to the Gulf.

Furthermore, the U.S. is working to establish a new air defense system in the Middle East. Mobile tactical radars and the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) early warning aircraft have been deployed to replace the fixed radars destroyed by Iran. Israel is also being heavily supported in this context.

The issue of mines in the Gulf is also noteworthy. The mines laid by Iran off Basra are intended for coastal defense and do not obstruct maritime traffic. Therefore, the U.S.’s mine-clearing efforts may point to a different objective: paving the way for a potential amphibious operation. This scenario strengthens the likelihood that the U.S. has planned a ground attack on Iran from the Strait of Hormuz and the Basra coast. The artillery units deployed to the region are also a significant indicator supporting this possibility.

In light of all this data, it can be assessed that the U.S. is using the current process not as a cease-fire but as a new strategic buildup process. Unlike the initial buildup, which was leader-focused and had limited objectives, this time it appears a broader plan has been devised – one that is longer-term, more intensive and incorporates different operational methods. April 22 stands before us as the critical threshold that will determine the direction of this process.

Iran rejects US President Trump’s Uranium transfer claim

Iran rejects Donald Trump’s claims that there was an agreement on moving enriched uranium to the US. Also challenging other Trump statements

etc., read at the link

Interesting read @ Responsible Statecraft

As soon as the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran ended without an agreement, President Donald Trump fired a volley of angry tweets venting his frustration. As a concrete step to force Iranian concessions, he announced a blockade of Iranian ports along the Persian Gulf.

Cut off Tehran’s oil exports, the logic goes, and the regime will have no choice but to bend to Trump’s will.

This thought process is being echoed and amplified by influential Washington voices who should know better. Take Dennis Ross, a former Middle East peace negotiator, who argued that “the blockade always made more sense than seizing Kharg Island. It stops Iran’s exports, its revenues, is a counterpoint to their closing the Straits.” He also thinks that the measure will “put pressure on China to pressure Iran.”

Meanwhile, Richard Haass, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, praised the announcement and suggested the U.S. should “also propose a new governance authority for the Strait in which Iran participates but doesn’t control.”

This is wishcasting disguised as strategy. A blockade is not a clever alternative to military strikes. It is, in fact, an act of war — and one that carries serious risks.

The very idea of an American blockade ignores the legal reality: under international law, Article 3(c) of the U.N. General Assembly’s Definition of Aggression (1974) considers a naval blockade of a sovereign state’s coasts an act of armed aggression. That entitles Iran to use all necessary means to defend itself.

You cannot propose a “governance authority” while your warships are blockading a nation’s lifeline. Haass’s suggestion of a structure where Iran “participates but doesn’t control” is therefore a non-starter. Tehran will never surrender control of its sovereign waters to an arrangement designed by the same power that just declared a blockade.

That is a recipe for continued escalation. And for the Trump administration, a resumption of a shooting war with Iran would be far less popular and far more costly than Ross or Haass seem to acknowledge.

But there is an even more dangerous scenario that no supporter of the blockade addresses. Major buyers of Iranian oil — most notably China — could decide to escort tankers with their own naval vessels. Beijing has a strong economic incentive to call Washington’s bluff. Ross claims a blockade “puts great pressure on China to pressure Iran,” but what if China pressures the U.S. instead? What would the U.S. Navy do then? Fire on Chinese warships? Let the convoys pass, effectively ending the blockade? Risk a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed power over oil lanes in Hormuz?

The stakes could not be higher as Trump prepares to embark on a visit to China for a summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Trump has already postponed the meeting once because of the war with Iran. Postponing it for the second time, or going to Beijing with, using Trump’s own language, weak cards, would be an embarrassing blow to American standing.

So is Trump’s blockade threat a serious policy or bluster? That remains unclear. But one thing is certain: the mere threat of a U.S. blockade is enough to drive oil prices higher and inject dangerous volatility into global markets. On Monday, when the blockade is expected to enter into force, the oil price bounced back to over $100 per barrel. The view that a blockade is a clean, low-risk pressure tool is a dangerous illusion.

Read the above article entirely at the Responsible Statecraft link

Interesting listen

Since I have zero trust in Pakistan to be anything but a US pawn- This comes as no surprise

Pakistan’s Pivotal Mediation Role

Washington calculated that a Muslim‑majority neighbour with a neutral stance would be better placed to sell a truce to Tehran. The White House turned to Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, who became the linchpin of the back‑channel effort. Munir and his team shuttled messages between Iranian political and military figures and top US officials, including Trump, Vice‑President JD Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff. The deal that finally emerged was a two‑week pause in exchange for Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

A Victory Lap Built on Sand

The ceasefire was announced less than two hours before Trump’s latest deadline for Tehran to accept a deal or face “the destruction of an entire civilisation”. Yet the administration’s public narrative – that Iran had “begged” for a ceasefire and that the outcome was an unconditional military victory – stands in sharp contrast to the behind‑the‑scenes scramble. As the FT notes, the White House was driven less by triumph than by anxiety over oil prices and a resilient regime that had refused to break. The temporary truce may halt the bombing, but it has not resolved the underlying confrontation.

Daily Kos

The crap sandwich of a ceasefire deal President Donald Trump made with Iran may have saved Iranians from being wiped off the face of the planet by our genocidal maniacal leader. But it won’t save the rest of us from higher prices at the pump—at least not anytime soon.

“It’s not a case of you just flick a switch and everything’s back up again,” Martin Houston, a former oil and gas executive, told The New York Times.

Trump is desperate for oil prices to come down, as he and his party will be crushed in the midterms if prices remain high and inflation once again ticks up. It’s why he caved and made this horrible ceasefire deal that leaves Iran better off than it was before he decided to drop bombs.

The ceasefire agreement was quite advantageous to Iran, but Usrael never intended to honour it anyway

The ceasefire deal including Lebanon, but, Israel kept right on attacking Lebanon..Of course the US and Israel say the deal didn’t include Lebanon, but, from my reading it did.

Here’s the 10 points Iran released as basis for ceasefire

1. An U.S. guarantee of nonaggression with Iran.

Iranian officials want to ensure a formalized end to hostilities that is more permanent. This is one of the main demands, according to interviews with regional security figures and a former Iranian diplomat, that Iran will focus on.

2. Iran maintains control of the Strait of Hormuz. This is likely to become a major sticking point. Iran’s ability to strangle traffic through the strait, through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes, has wreaked havoc on the global economy. It is very unlikely that Washington or Iran’s Gulf Arab neighbors would accept this.

3. Ending the regional war on all fronts, including against Iran’s ally, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. This could become an eventual point of alignment.

4. Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from all bases and positions in the region. U.S. forces maintain bases across Gulf Arab states, Israel and Iraq. It is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which the U.S. would accept this. 5. Reparations to Iran for war damages.

6. Acceptance of Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment. This is diametrically opposed to Trump’s most recent statements, in which he has again called for zero enrichment of uranium. Some regional diplomats have aimed to soften U.S. demands, suggesting Tehran could instead agree not to actively conduct enrichment, or to limit enrichment to a symbolic amount at the lowest threshold for civilian purposes. It remains unclear whether Washington would accept that.
7. Lifting all primary sanctions on Iran. Washington has imposed on Iran different forms of primary sanctions, or direct restrictions on financial transactions, since the founding of the Islamic Republic after the 1979 revolution. In previous negotiations, mediators aimed for U.S. officials to lift some sanctions in exchange for concessions on Iran’s nuclear program. Trump’s own statement Wednesday touched on the idea of offering “Tariff and Sanctions relief.”
8. Lifting all secondary sanctions on Iran. In addition to its directly blocking trade with Iran, the United States also imposes sanctions that penalize other countries or non-American companies that do business with Iran. Like the point on primary sanctions, this part of the proposal would likely be negotiable depending on what Iran offers.
9. Termination of all resolutions against Iran by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
10. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran. There have been several U.N. resolutions against Iran, particularly on the issue of nuclear proliferation. In October, the United Nations reimposed sanctions on Iran, saying Iran was in breach of a 2015 deal to limit Iran’s nuclear enrichment. Washington could try to influence its allies to do this, but again, it would likely require a comprehensive agreement with Iran

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/article315342728.html#storylink=cpy

https://publish.twitter.com/?url=https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/2041169719953129977#

Way too much wreckage..

CNN Aircraft Wreckage

Some suggest the US was attempting to grab Iranian uranium- others suggest this was an attempt to insert an “insurgency” group/ team for a mission into Iran (for lack of a better term)
The rescue story just doesn’t add up- Though I’m anticipating an over the top heroic narrative with some type of reinforcement movie follow up

*****Saving Jessica Lynch

US Ceasefire Offer? Don’t believe that either

I’m of the mind these cease fire news article are planted before the stock market opens.A sort of an attempt to stay ahead or tamp down a potential crash.

TRT World

Tehran’s foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei said during a press briefing in Tehran on Monday that any pause in fighting would risk allowing Iran’s adversaries to regroup.

“A deadline must not cause us to have even the slightest hesitation in defending our country,” he said.

“A ceasefire means creating a short pause to allow the other side to rebuild its forces and commit crimes again. No rational person would accept such a course of action,” he added.

The spokesperson also said Tehran had a set of requirements based on its national interests that had already been conveyed through intermediary channels, adding that earlier US demands, such as the 15-point plan, were rejected as “excessive”.

“Iran does not hesitate to express what it considers its legitimate demands clearly, and doing so should not be interpreted as a sign of compromise, but rather as a reflection of its confidence in defending its positions,” Baqaei said in a press conference.

“We have formulated our own responses” and will announce details in due time, he added in response to an Iranian journalist’s question regarding ongoing efforts to bring about a ceasefire between Iran and the US.

White House

A White House official, meanwhile, said that a proposed 45-day ceasefire between the US and Iran is “one of many ideas” currently under discussion, according to an Axios reporter.

One of many ideas…

Barak Ravid said on X that the official told him: “The president (Donald Trump) has not signed off on it. Operation Epic Fury continues.”

He added that Trump will provide further details during a news conference in Washington at 1700 GMT on Thursday.

Ravid’s remarks came hours after reports suggested that a 45-day ceasefire proposal had been put forward.

Though the president didn’t sign off on the offer?– There was no ceasefire offer

Israel Strikes Iranian Petrochemical complex

Ah, the fog of war…