Israel has named its attacks on Lebanon “Operation Eternal Darkness.” In other words: hell. Hundreds of civilians were killed after Israel dropped over 150 bombs in just 10 minutes on civilian areas in Lebanon. Israel says it will continue these attacks under the guise of targeting Hezbollah—similar to how civilians were killed in Gaza during operations against Hamas. This is a clear breach of the ceasefire that President Trump announced with Iran on Tuesday, and Iran is not willing to let it go. In a statement released Wednesday, it pointed to the ongoing assault on Lebanon, along with violations of Iranian airspace. Israel’s actions are completely out of bounds. It took less than a day to violate the ceasefire, and Netanyahu is openly saying, “Our finger is on the trigger.” The question is whether the U.S. has any will or power to make Israel stop attacking Lebanon, or Gaza, for that matter. The U.S. government allowed the utter destruction of Gaza with only cursory condemnations. Why would they take a different stance on Lebanon? Trump administration officials are now saying that Lebanon was never part of the ceasefire deal with Iran, which is simply not true. Is this finally getting hard to ignore? It’s starting to look that way. Many world leaders have condemned Operation Eternal Darkness. Qatar has expressed its disgust with Israel, releasing a statement today: “The State of Qatar condemns the series of heinous Israeli airstrikes that targeted wide areas in Lebanon and resulted in hundreds of deaths and injuries.” And now Spain’s prime minister is urging the European Union to suspend its trade and diplomatic ties with Israel, with Turkey also stepping up, publicly rebuking Israel’s actions. The outrage is growing, but whether it leads to action is another story. The post Beirut Bombarded Despite Ceasefire appeared first on Redacted.

Not even 24 hours after the ceasefire with Iran was declared, the president’s tone has already shifted. Trump is once again turning to threats, this time of the economic variety. The President took to Truth Social to lay down his latest warning: “A Country supplying Military Weapons to Iran will be immediately tariffed, on any and all goods sold to the United States of America, 50%, effective immediately. There will be no exclusions or exemptions.” Can he do that? Recall that the Supreme Court ruled that he could not use the 1977 emergency law that the administration had been using to impose those levies at will. There is, technically, another lever Trump could try to pull: Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows tariffs of up to 50 percent. The problem? That law is meant to address discriminatory trade practices against U.S. goods, not weapons sales, so if the Trump administration tries it, it would be a legal stretch. The White House hasn’t responded when asked what legal authority, if any, the president plans to use to back up this latest threat. Whether he’ll be able to make good on it or not, announcing his intention to limit Iran’s defenses mid-ceasefire is an interesting way to reinforce a truce. The post Truce Undermined appeared first on Redacted.

On Tuesday, President Trump announced that talks with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir led him to agree to postpone his destructive plans for Iran for two weeks, conditional on the “Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the complete, immediate, and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz.” Trump also reported that “we have already met and exceeded all military objectives, and are very far along with a definitive agreement concerning longterm peace with Iran.” Do these “exceeded objectives” include the United States’ failed uranium extraction, the loss of multiple U.S. aircraft, and the inability to force Iran to reopen the Strait? Trump also noted that the U.S. received a 10-point peace plan from Iran, and that he believed it was a workable basis on which to negotiate. However, this plan was already circulating before Tuesday, so it is interesting that Trump is now endorsing it. Still, can the U.S. ensure that points one and three of the plan are carried out: “Guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again” and “End to Israeli strikes on Lebanon?” If Israel is not restrained, it is likely to continue those actions regardless. Frustration with Israel’s actions appears to be growing, along with a clear lack of trust—reflected in the decision not to inform it of the current ceasefire until the final moments before it was signed. In that context, multiple Trump advisers have told The New York Times, off the record, that they opposed Netanyahu’s push for war with Iran. It remains to be seen whether or not Washington will continue to go along with Israel’s hard sell over the next two weeks. For now, though, as far as Trump is concerned, it was, apparently, a big day for world peace. The post Two-Week Timeout appeared first on Redacted.

Russia and China voted NOT to join in military action to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The UN was voting on a draft proposed by Arab nations to to effectively form a coalition to force their way through the Strait. Both opposed the measure because, as Chinese Ambassador Fu Cong explained, “The United States is openly threatening the survival of civilization. This war imposed upon Iran could very likely escalate further. If this resolution were to pass, it would send an extremely wrong signal and produce extremely serious consequences,” adding that the resolution should not be “issuing a green light for force.” He concluded, “China had no choice but to veto the draft resolution. Mr. President, this is a war that should have never happened.” Russia and China appear to be the only level-headed countries that took part in the voting process, and many could argue that the draft should have instead focused on curbing the actions of the aggressors—Israel and the United States. The post Common Sense Vote appeared first on Redacted.

Well friends, the U.S. may use a nuclear weapon in Iran today. In a news conference with military leaders on Monday, President Trump reiterated his deadline with Iran and said that “the entire country can be taken out in one night and that night might be tomorrow.” How do you take out an entire country in one night? One obvious answer is a nuclear weapon, but let’s hope that’s not what he meant. Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara famously said that nuclear weapons serve no military purpose whatsoever. Their only purpose is to deter your opponent from using them. If Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, is it acceptable for the U.S. to use one against them because they refuse to open a critical global trade route? Reminder: that Iran threatened to do this if attacked, so this was a predictable and avoidable escalation. Iran has rejected President Trump’s ultimatums and presented their own conditions. They are not seeking a ceasefire. Instead, they want guarantees that the war will end permanently for Iran and its allies, that Israel withdraw from Lebanon, and that the U.S. lift all sanctions. They have also proposed a $2 million fee for passage through the Strait of Hormuz, framed as reparations for damage to their country. The U.S. is unlikely to accept this. President Trump said in his press conference that he ended President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal because it was bad for Israel. So, if you didn’t already know, this is a war being fought for Israel, which means that it cannot end and the U.S. cannot accept those terms. This is the scenario McNamara warned about decades ago: “The indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nations.” The post The Nuclear Point of No Return appeared first on Redacted.