Friday, September 04, 2026

Iran war fractures US administration: Driscoll quits amid Pentagon chaos

TEHRAN — The resignation of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll has further exposed deep divisions within the US administration in the wake of a failed war Washington launched jointly with Israel on Iran some six months ago.

What began on February 28 as an aggressive, coordinated assault designed to impose regional hegemony and force Tehran into submission has instead deteriorated into an operational quagmire, fueling administrative paralysis and fierce internal warfare inside the Pentagon. As the joint aggression falters on the battlefield and regional realities defy Washington’s calculations, the high-profile departure of one of the Army’s top civilian leaders serves as undeniable proof that the American war machine is fracturing under the weight of its own strategic failure.

Driscoll’s decision to tender his resignation to President Donald Trump directly reflects a deep, unbridgeable rift with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. According to accounts from officials familiar with the matter, the departure was entirely predictable given months of escalating friction between the two figures. While Driscoll attempted to oversee the technical readiness and modernization programs necessary to sustain high-intensity conflict, Hegseth pursued an aggressive, politically driven purge across the military establishment. The clash between Driscoll and Hegseth demonstrates how the joint American-Israeli campaign against Iran has accelerated the unraveling of coherence within the highest echelons of the United States defense apparatus.

The timing of this departure is catastrophic for the White House. Exactly six months into the war initiated on February 28, the joint US-Israeli campaign has yielded none of its promised strategic breakthroughs. Instead, the conflict has stretched American logistics thin, exposed serious vulnerabilities in allied posture across the region, and triggered an intense wave of bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers in Congress have voiced surging alarm over the war’s lack of a viable path forward, openly questioning the administration’s blind alignment with Israeli objectives and demanding accountability for an escalation that has drained American resources while achieving zero strategic leverage over a resilient Iran.

Central to Driscoll’s grievances was Hegseth’s systematic dismantling of senior Army leadership during an active, high-stakes conflict. In his communications regarding the resignation, Driscoll explicitly cited severe concerns regarding Army transformation and combat readiness, calling out Hegseth for blocking critical modernization programs by abruptly dismissing the very flag officers entrusted with carrying them out. Rather than focusing on the severe operational demands of the ongoing Middle Eastern theater, Hegseth has prioritized purging decorated commanders and civilian officials suspected of disloyalty or deemed out of step with his domestic cultural agenda.

The scope of this institutional decapitation is unprecedented during wartime. Hegseth forced out Army Chief of Staff General Randy George, along with Vice Chief of Staff General James Mingus, Army Transformation and Training Command head General David Hodne, Chief of Chaplains Major General William Green Jr., and Director of the Joint Staff Lieutenant General Douglas Sims. Just days before Driscoll’s exit, General Christopher Donahue, the veteran commander of US Army Europe and Africa, was pushed into retirement after being denied a nomination to a new post due to bureaucratic friction. 

This chaotic purge of the officer corps has collided violently with the battlefield reality of the war launched on February 28. Driscoll, widely regarded inside the administration as the primary architect of modern drone and autonomous systems integration, recognized that warfare against sophisticated Iranian defensive networks required technological evolution, logistical stamina, and deep operational discipline. Yet while the joint assault with Israel encountered formidable Iranian resistance and defensive deterrence, the Pentagon’s civilian leadership remained obsessed with domestic ideological warfare and internal loyalty tests. The refusal to heed professional warnings regarding equipment readiness and modern drone capabilities has left the American ground forces vulnerable, disorganized, and ill-equipped for the demands of the campaign.

The resulting collapse of operational cohesion has intensified congressional fury. Lawmakers from both parties have openly confronted Hegseth over the abrupt dismissals of key generals, warning that the administration has compromised the armed forces at the worst possible moment. The discontent across Washington reflects a growing consensus that the joint war against Iran was poorly conceived, disastrously planned, and executed without regard for long-term strategic viability. Rather than demonstrating strength, the continuous stream of resignations and dismissals has exposed to the world an administration hopelessly divided over how to extricate itself from the quagmire of war with Iran. 

The internal power struggle has also poisoned the civilian command structure. Hegseth’s profound suspicion of those around him fostered a toxic environment, particularly regarding Driscoll’s close personal ties to Vice President JD Vance, his former classmate at Yale Law School. Hegseth viewed Driscoll’s direct communication lines with the White House—including Trump’s prior reliance on Driscoll for diplomatic missions—as an intolerable attempt to bypass his authority. In the midst of an active war, the Department of War has devolved into a factional battlefield characterized by paranoia, bureaucratic backstabbing, and competing centers of influence.

With Under Secretary Mike Obadal stepping in as acting secretary, the Army faces deep operational uncertainty at a pivotal juncture. The claims by White House spokespersons that Driscoll helped advance readiness and lethality cannot conceal the underlying truth: the administration’s military leadership is collapsing from within. The joint war launched alongside Israel on February 28 was intended to display overwhelming force, but six months later, it has achieved the exact opposite. It has exposed the limits of Western intervention, triggered a profound crisis of confidence across the US armed forces, and left Washington trapped in a self-inflicted strategic defeat from which it has no clear escape.

Islamic Iran determined to cure Trump of his delusions

Yusuf Dhia-Allah

Donald Trump’s delusional rants have become more extreme as he thrashes about trying to find an exit ramp from the illegal and unwinnable war he launched against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28. From demanding “unconditional surrender” to now begging for a deal with Tehran, Trump’s desperation is apparent in his delusional posts on Truth Social (in reality total lies).

Officials in the Islamic Republic of Iran have made clear that they will no longer tolerate Trump’s delusional nonsense. Let us consider some of his recent posts.

On August 18, Trump claimed—yet again—that the Strait of Hormuz is open and should be US territory. In his Truth Social post, he even posted a map of the Strait of Hormuz under the headline “NEW US Territory.”

Reflective of his shallow mind, Trump typed the word “NEW” in capital letters. His sophomoric map included parts of Iran’s coast, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. He had posted a similar message a week earlier.

At that time he wrote: “I THINK I WILL KEEP IT” (again in capital letters), referring to the strait, which he has repeatedly claimed is under “American control”. Embarrassed by Trump’s claims, White House officials have tried to downplay his ludcrous assertions by saying the president was joking. Perhaps they should tell the truth and admit that he is raving mad.

How else could his irrational statements be explained? Trump has made other fantastic claims. These include wiping out Iran’s navy and missile production facilities and “obliterating” its nuclear program. He also said he had achieved “regime change” by assassinating Iran’s top leaders. He then asserted that he would be involved in choosing the new Supreme Leader!

If Iran’s navy has been wiped out and the US controls the Strait of Hormuz, how is Iran able to block ships from passing through the waterway? And if Iran’s nuclear facilities have been “obliterated”, why keep repeating that it cannot have a nuclear weapon?

The word obliterate means to wipe out completely. So, if Iran’s nuclear facilities were obliterated, its acquiring nuclear weapons does not arise. Trump first made the “obliteration” claim in June 2025 when the US and Israel attacked the Islamic Republic amid indirect negotiations, and has repeated it several times since.

Iranian officials have called Trump’s claims “delusional”. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said in a social media post on August 18 that Trump’s suggestion that the Strait of Hormuz should be US territory was a “delusion.”

“Soon his delusion regarding the Strait of Hormuz will either be corrected or we will correct the delusions of this deluded man,” Gharibabadi said.

On March 2 (the third day of US-Israeli illegal war), Trump had posted a tweet demanding Iran’s “unconditional surrender”. He said the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commanders must lay down their weapons and come out with their hands up! Trump also announced that the US will control Iran’s oil (a la Venezuela) and decide who the new Supreme Leader will be. And he has repeated at least 38 times that a deal with Iran was close.

Iran now controls the Strait of Hormuz that was open before the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran. It has become a major issue because 20 % of global oil and gas supplies pass through the narrow waterway.

Tehran insists that vessels must seek its permission for safe passage. This condition is part 5 of the 14-point Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that Trump signed on June 18.

Islamic Iran is enforcing this provision despite the US reneging on the other points of the MoU, especially a complete end to hostilities by all parties including in Lebanon.

Iran’s parliament speaker and negotiator Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf made clear that the Islamic Republic will not lift its de facto blockade of commercial shipping traffic in the waterway until the US meets Tehran’s demands.

“I want to state clearly that the Strait of Hormuz will not be opened until the American commitments stipulated in the memorandum of understanding are implemented,” Qalibaf said in a speech broadcast on Iran television.

Tehran’s conditions include the release of Iran’s frozen financial assets abroad, the lifting of sanctions on its oil and gas sales, and an end to the US blockade of Iran’s ports and vessels. Tehran has also demanded the withdrawal of US forces from bases around Iran.

The Pentagon has already drawn up plans (see also here) to move US military assets from bases in the Persian Gulf. Both Jordan and Israel have been mentioned as relocation sites although they too are within Iran’s missile range. American troops have already fled these bases and are hiding in hotels in the Arabian states.

Militarily the US has lost to Iran. Its bases in West Asia have been severely degraded. The crew of the aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln suffers from low morale, unhygienic conditions and exhaustion. Some have even contemplated suicide.

This is the second aircraft carrier, after USS Gerald Ford, that has gone out of commission in less than a year. It is a floating piece of junk and can be sent to the bottom of the sea if Iran so chooses.

Despite vehement denials by Trump, the US stock of interceptor missiles, THAAD and patriot missiles and other systems is nearly depleted. The navy is extemely low on Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Iran continues to target vessels in the Strait of Hormuz attempting to pass without coordinating with Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority. A vessel was struck by an “unknown projectile” while transiting the waterway on August 18. One person was killed that also caused damage to an engine room.

There has been no response from the US that in the past threatened to bomb Iran if it attacked vessels transiting the waterway. Given its military defeat, the Trump regime has announced intensified economic warfare. Will it be any more successful than past failed attempts?

Experts say that while economic pressure has caused difficulties for ordinary Iranians, it has not led to economic collapse. This has much to do with the Iranians’ commitment to maintain their independence and dignity. These are values most Americans are unfamiliar with. They are only concerned about gas and grocery prices and the price of beer!

Amid the ongoing warfare, Islamic Iran has decided to go on the offensive. Its new strategy emphasizes “offensive operations” as well as defensive action to neutralize enemy threats.

The appointment of former head of the IRGC, Mohsen Rezaie as Secretary General of the Supreme National Security Council points to this more assertive policy. The appointment of General Ahmad Vahidi as head the IRGC also signals this confident offensive posture.

Iranians commanders have learned from their experience of the war since February 28. They have modified the design of missiles to penetrate enemy defences. That a country with the highest military budget in the world is forced to abandon the military option against an adversary whose defence budget is miniscule reflects the new reality.

Wars are not won merely on the basis of preponderance of weapons. Courage and the willingness to make the requisite sacrifices are what determine the outcome of a struggle.

Islamic Iran has shown that it possesses all these qualities. Besides, it is engaged in self-defence. America and its surrogates are the aggressors.

Unfortunately, the US and Israel do no adhere to international law or the UN charter. Islamic Iran is left with no choice to resist the aggressors and punish them for their crimes against humanity.

United StatesIslamic Republic of IranDonald Trump

Persian Gulf equilibrium: The fracturing of US hegemony

 By Syeda Farheen Naqi Mossavi 

TEHRAN — The metaphor of Tom and Jerry has long served financial journalists describing the Federal Reserve's pressure on Wall Street. That narrative, however, is a sideshow. The real contest unfolds in the Persian Gulf, and the dynamics defy cartoon logic entirely. Iran, cast as Jerry, does not flee; it stands its ground, exhausts its adversary, and systematically neutralizes American capabilities.

The International Monetary Fund's 2026 Persian Gulf economic projections offer a stark revelation. Iran's economy is forecast to contract by 6.1 percent this year, a severe blow attributable to American sanctions. Yet Qatar, home to the Al Udeid Air Base and a cornerstone of US regional strategy, is projected to shrink by 8.6 percent, with Kuwait also registering negative growth. The nation Washington seeks to isolate is outperforming its closest allies, rendering the administration's declared "most crushing economic operation" a self-defeating exercise that has inflicted greater harm on friends than on the designated foe.

This outcome stems from two strategic factors. Iranian strikes crippled Qatar's Ras Laffan liquefied natural gas complex—the world's largest removing approximately 17 percent of its export capacity with repairs requiring three to five years. More consequentially, Iran's effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has severed Qatar's primary revenue route to European markets. Doha responded with a 30 percent reduction in departmental budgets and an 85 percent cut to overseas aid. The emirate's vulnerability exposes a fundamental failure of its American patron to guarantee maritime security, undermining Washington's protective commitments.

Militarily, the United States confronts a depletion of its advanced interceptor inventory. Patriot and THAAD systems have been drawn down to critically low levels, with some estimates indicating losses of up to three-fifths of total stockpiles. Requests from Saudi Arabia for replenishment have been denied, revealing an arsenal stretched beyond capacity. Iran has exploited this asymmetry through a cost-exchange strategy: deploying inexpensive, mass-produced drones that compel the US to expend million-dollar interceptors per engagement. This arithmetic has exhausted American defensive resources, forcing a strategic reevaluation.

The conflict's impetus traces directly to Israeli advocacy for direct US military confrontation with Iran. Washington's compliance has, however, transformed American military installations across the Persian Gulf from protective shields into liability magnets. Persian Gulf Arab monarchies have consequently initiated back-channel communications with Tehran, as confirmed by Iran's Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Their calculus reflects a sober assessment that the US security umbrella no longer functions, with Patriot batteries depleted and alliance commitments hollowed out.

For these states, a homegrown regional order now appears as the sole viable alternative. Iran has demonstrated resilience through sustained sanctions, bombing campaigns, and strategic retention of its nuclear and missile programs while exercising precise control over the Strait of Hormuz. This endurance has compelled Washington to negotiate on Iranian terms. Unlike the Federal Reserve's domestic measures raising interest rates to suppress demand Iran offers cooperation and trade routes rather than occupation and regime change.

The empirical evidence is unequivocal. IMF projections confirm the economic paradox. Depleted American arsenals validate the military imbalance. Diplomatic overtures from Riyadh and Abu Dhabi signal the collapse of US strategic credibility. Iran has not merely survived the most powerful empire; it has emerged as the indispensable regional power. The Zionist project for regional hegemony lies buried beneath Qatar's damaged LNG infrastructure and the empty Patriot canisters across Saudi bases. The American cat retreats, its claws broken, while Iran assumes its position at the center of a new Persian Gulf order, one that Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf, after decades of servitude, are finally embracing.

The old balance is giving way to something more uncertain. Iran has not emerged stronger because it escaped the costs of war, but because, despite those costs, it remains impossible to exclude from any serious settlement of the Gulf's future. The real question is no longer whether Iran can be pushed to the margins, but whether Washington can still dictate regional rules as it once did. In the Persian Gulf, Jerry has stopped running. He has found his ground, raised his voice, and forced the cat to reckon with him. Tom may still be larger, richer, and more heavily armed but size alone no longer guarantees control. The next chapter will be written by those capable of enduring pressure and shaping what comes after it.

How the shift in Islamic Iran’s strategic thinking defeated US-zionist war plans

Zafar Bangash

It is a well-known axiom that you never fight a war according to your enemy’s plans. The ongoing US-zionist war of aggression on the Islamic Republic of Iran has demonstrated this clearly.

While Islamic Iran was not expecting the June 2025 attack because negotiations were underway, the war criminals’ second attack eight months later did not catch Tehran totally by surprise. Both wars were launched in the middle of indirect negotiations.

Neither war is justified under international law or the UN charter. Both constituted crimes against humanity.

What the twin wars have demonstrated is the duplicitous nature of the Americans and their zionist allies. This should have been obvious to policymakers in Tehran but there were those who assumed that the US was serious in resolving issues through negotiations.

This mistake cost them dearly. Almost all top commaders were martyred in their homes when the zionist war criminals struck on the night of June 13, 2025. While this was a serious blow, the Islamic Republic recovered quickly to defend itself against the US-zionist onslaught. It was the zionists that begged for a ceasefire after 10 days and the war ended after 12 days.

There was a body of opinion in Tehran that felt that agreeing to the ceasefire was a mistake. They felt the war should have been continued.

The 12-day war, however, created the realization in Iran that the US-zionist war criminals will attack again. Thus, they prepared for the next round vigorously.

Between the two wars, there was a strategic shift in the thinking of top officials—civilian and military—that they should not fight the next war according to the plans or timing of the enemy. Islamic Iran must set the rules of engagement.

Before his martyrdom in the US-zionist attack on February 28, 2026, the Rahbar, Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei had warned that the war will no longer be confined to Iran’s borders. The US-zionist plan was to determine the geography and timing of the war. This is what the US-zionist tag team had done in June 2025.

Islamic Iran refused to fight the war on US-Israeli terms. It had already decided to widen the war, both geographically and in terms of its duration.

The current situation reflects this new reality. Despite a ceasefire of sorts being in place since April 7 and a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed on June 18, 2026, Islamic Iran not only responds to US violations but it has taken the initiative and determines the tempo of the war. Control of the Strait of Hormuz and the blockade’s expansion to Bab al-Mandab illustrate this thinking.

While the US has been at war virtually its entire history of 250 years, Iran has not attacked any country in the same period. True, it has defended itself vigorously when attacked but it has not initiated aggression.

There were many provocations against it but it always showed strategic patience. For instance, during the Iraqi-imposed war from September 1980 to August 1988, almost all Arabian regimes, particularly the Kuwaitis took a very aggressive stand toward the Islamic Republic. After the war ended, Tehran could have hit the Kuwaitis. It did not.

In August 1990, the Iraqi dictator Saddam Husain attacked and occupied Kuwait despite the latter’s support in his war on Iran. The Americans had tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait. The plan was to drive his forces out of Kuwait and wipe out Iraq’s massive stockpile of weapons that were left in his possession when his war of aggression against Iran ended in August 1988. The US attacked Iraq in January 1991.

The retreating Iraqis set fire to almost 900 oil fields in Kuwait. The pleasure-loving Kuwaitis had no expertise in putting out such fires.

The Islamic Republic sent teams of experts to help put out the fires (there were fire fighting teams from other countries as well). One could hardly find another example of such magnanimity anywhere the world.

How did the Kuwaitis reciprocate Iran’s goodwill gesture? They have not only provided military bases to the Americans, like other Arabian regimes, they have allowed these bases to be used to launch attacks against the Islamic Republic.

Tehran has decided to not show any more strategic patience. Those who attack Iran, or facilitate attacks against it will face severe repercussions.

Regardless of Kuwaiti or other Arabian dictators’ protests about being hit, Islamic Iran has decided on escalation dominance. Its retaliatory strikes are no longer proportional. Tehran has established a new paradigm based on power projection.

In the past, the dominant thinking in Tehran was that adherence to international law and appeals to international organisations such as the UN would secure its rights. Iran’s adherence to the terms of the JCPOA despite Donald Trump walking away from it in May 2018 reflected this thinking.

For more than a year, Iran waited for the European members of the JCPOA to fulfill their obligations, as stipulated in the nuclear agreement that they had signed and the Security Council had endorsed. The Europeans did nothing.

Successive US regimes—whether Republican or Democrat—have imposed illegal sanctions on Iran, frozen its assets and even threatened other countries with sanctions if they traded with it.

American actions were and are illegal. Neither international law, nor UN Security Council resolutions such as SC resolution 2231 that the US and its allies have violated with impunity, helped Iran to secure its rights.

Tehran had to find creative ways to overcome the negative consequences of the collective west’s illegal sanctions and other hostile acts. It is, however, the shift in strategic thinking in Iran as a result of the ongoing war that is most striking.

Decision-makers in Tehran have concluded that costs determine the outcome of a war, not international law. The US—and the collective west—invokes international law when it suits them.

Consider the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); it demands Iran’s compliance with its NPT obligations but has remained totally indifferent to the illegal US-zionist attacks on its nuclear facilities that constitute war crimes.

Thus, Islamic Iran has decided to escalate the cost of the war for the US and zionist Israel. Rising gas prices and the resultant grocery costs for American consumers have brought home the point that Iran can also inflict pain on them. The Iranians have borne such pain for decades.

Indeed, by regulating tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran has got the global economy in its grip. The Yemeni Ansarallah’s control of Bab al Mandab and attacks on Saudi oil facilities have similarly escalated the cost of Saudi aggression.

Islamic Iran now has escalation dominance. Trump is trapped in a situation of his own making. The only way out for him is to accept Iran’s terms or face even greater humiliation and pain.

Continuing his failed policy of threats and bluster will not force Iran to back down. The consequences of Trump’s folly will become apparent in the November congressional elections. The Republicans may lose control of both houses of Congress. The likelihood of Trump’s impeachment cannot be ruled out either, a prospect he truly dreads.

United StatesIslamic Republic of Iran

Qalibaf: Iran and the Axis of Resistance share a fundamental path against arrogance

TEHRAN- Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Iran's Parliament Speaker, articulated on Wednesday during a meeting with Bassem Naim, the head of Islamic Relations for Hamas, that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Axis of Resistance are intricately and profoundly aligned on a unified trajectory in confronting global arrogance. Reflecting on five decades of resistance, he emphasized that this struggle has consistently been depicted as a righteous war against falsehood, evolving new forms at each stage.

The Speaker underscored that the true essence of the Resistance Axis resides in its opposition to tyranny. He warned that should Iran ever cease its battle against the United States and the Zionist regime in all their manifestations, such a moment would signify its unequivocal defeat.

Nonetheless, he clarified that his government does not categorically reject negotiation; rather, it regards diplomacy as a tactical tool subordinate to the overarching strategy of resistance.

Addressing the ongoing Iran-US negotiations, Qalibaf noted that, pursuant to Article One of MoU, Tehran has insisted on ending the hostilities waged against Iran and its allies within the Resistance Axis. He contrasted this stance with the initial American proposal, which comprised fifteen articles demanding the complete cessation of Iran s missile, nuclear, and resistance activities. He further emphasized that all elements of the Resistance Axis are fully cohesive and that maintaining this unity is vital for sustaining the righteous struggle.

Qalibaf also highlighted Washington s failure to implement its commitments under the Islamabad Memorandum, warning that the United States must honor its obligations before Iran proceeds with reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

During the meeting, Bassem Naim lauded Iran s military and political resilience, observing that while many regional states were caught unawares by Tehran s steadfast stance against the United States, Hamas had always anticipated that the enemy would be taken by surprise in any confrontation with Iran. He reaffirmed that the Palestinian struggle against the Zionist regime would persist relentlessly until every remnant of that regime is eradicated from Palestinian soil.

Having lost the war, American terrorists intensify attacks on civilians in Iran

Crescent International

Roof of the building in Kouhestak, where the US missile struck a wedding party killing five people and left 70 injured among them 19 children below the age of 10.
The US missile strike on a wedding on the night of September 1 in Kouhestak, Sirik County, Hormozgan province, reflects the nature of American barbarism.

Families had gathered to celebrate a wedding.

It had no military value but for the American war criminals, that is no bar to committing war crimes.

They were Iranian civilians, women and children, gathered to celebrate a young couple starting a new life together.

That was reason enough for the American war criminals to strike.

The US missile strike killed at least five people, most of them from the Mallahi family, and injured nearly 70 others.

Among the injured were 19 children below the age of 10.

Among those killed was a five-year-old child.

After each war crime, the Americans trot out the familiar excuse: we use precision munitions.

In the Kouhestak strike, remanents were identified as components associated with the SLAM-ER missile, manufactured by Boeing.

Not surprisingly, the manufacturer describes the SLAM-ER as the most ‘accurate precision-guided missile’ in US inventory.

This is what all American weapons manufacturers claim.

Without such claims, they cannot sell their junk to the rest of the world.

This raises the question, if the missile is so precise, how did it target a wedding hall?

Photographs from the scene showed scattered shoes, slippers, clothes and other items.

In typical style, the Americans lied through their teeth and claimed their strikes were directed at military targets.

This is what the CENTCOM spokesperson, Captain Tim Hawkins claimed.

The Americans are compulsive liars.

This is what they had said about the double tap missile strikes on the Menab Girls School on February 28, 2026 when they launched their criminal war on the Islamic Republic.

The Menab attack killed 168 school girls ranging in age from 7 to 12 years.

The same day, there was also an attack on the Lamerd sports complex where young women were playing volleyball.

The Lamerd strike killed 21 girls.

That there is a pattern to US attacks on civilians in other locales—Afghanistan and Iraq, for instance—cannot be used as justification for more war crimes.

Neither the UN nor the European Union condemned this dastardly US crime.

It makes them complicit in US war crimes.

The Islamic Republic not only retaliated against US targets in Abu Dhabi and Jordan—the latter from where the missiles were launched—but also vowed to strike other US assets.

This time, in addition to military targets, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has vowed to strike economic targets as well.

If civilians in Iran cannot be safe from US criminal attacks, then those in neighbouring countries facilitating American war crimes must also pay the price.

The IRGC strikes hit US bases and positions in Jordan (including Prince Hassan and Camp Titin), Kuwait (Ali Al-Salem Air Base), Bahrain (US Fifth Fleet area), and Erbil, Iraq.

Islamic Republic of IranMenab school massacreUS war crimesKouhestakLamerd sports complexCENTCOMIRGC

Pourmohammadi reflected on a crucial meeting with martyred Leader before 12-day war

TEHRAN- Hamid Pourmohammadi, Head of Iran’s Planning and Budget Organization and Vice President, disclosed during a televised interview the foresight and preparatory steps taken by the executive branch in anticipation of renewed sanctions and possible conflict following Donald Trump’s return to office.

 He explained that as early as two months before the conclusion of the Iranian year 1403 (mid-February 2025), the Planning and Budget Organization had initiated the development of a proactive counter-sanctions strategy, having anticipated the most severe scenarios, including a total blockade of oil exports. Recognizing essential goods and pharmaceuticals as the most vulnerable sectors, he obtained the President’s approval to strengthen strategic reserves of these critical supplies.

Pourmohammadi identified a pivotal moment as the meeting held on March 29, 2025 (Farvardin 9, 1404), convened at the behest of the late Major General Bagheri. During this gathering, senior military and civilian officials were summoned before the Supreme Leader. The Leader described the upcoming year as extraordinarily delicate for Iran and the region, urging all officials to prepare for adverse conditions without reliance on external actors. He prioritized the welfare of the populace as the foremost concern and issued a stark warning that the enemy’s primary move would be an assassination attempt against the gathered officials, instructing everyone to be ready to sacrifice their lives if necessary. Notably, three-quarters of those present at this meeting were later martyred.

Two days subsequent to this, on March 31, 2025, Pourmohammadi recounted that General Bagheri orchestrated a session of the Supreme National Security Council. Attended by current and former commanders and secretariat officials, this meeting saw the presentation of a comprehensive strategic plan—imbued with a wartime tone—stemming directly from the Leader’s prior remarks. The plan encompassed short-term, medium-term, and long-term strategies, aimed at preparing the nation for an almost catastrophic scenario.

He further emphasized that from the beginning of the Iranian year (March 21, 2025), the country had been operating under semi-war and crisis conditions, despite the absence of any large-scale military exercises since the Iran–Iraq war (1980–1988). Pourmohammadi reaffirmed his personal commitment to fiscal discipline, resource conservation, and the accumulation of reserves for medicines and essential commodities, underscoring that the administration recognized it was entering a series of compounded challenges.

Finally, Pourmohammadi recounted that on the night of June 13, 2025 (Khordad 23, 1404), at midnight, news arrived of Israel’s offensive and the successive assassinations of commanding figures. After an initial period of shock and disorientation, efforts were undertaken to restore composure.

Authorities promptly compiled and assessed a comprehensive list of emerging issues and resource shortages, preparing the nation for the difficult days ahead.