Scoop: CIA director doubts Iran's intentions on deal, sources say - Barak Ravid

 

by Barak Ravid

Ratcliffe isn't the only skeptic in Trump's top team. In internal discussions, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth both expressed concerns and raised questions about the memorandum of understanding (MOU) announced Sunday, while Vice President Vance and U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner advocated for it, according to two of the sources.

 

CIA Director John Ratcliffe at a Cabinet meeting in May. Photo: Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty

CIA Director John Ratcliffe told President Trump and other senior officials that evidence gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies raises serious doubts about Iran's willingness to make the nuclear concessions the U.S. is seeking in any final deal, according to three sources familiar with those discussions.

Friction point: Ratcliffe isn't the only skeptic in Trump's top team. In internal discussions, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth both expressed concerns and raised questions about the memorandum of understanding (MOU) announced Sunday, while Vice President Vance and U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner advocated for it, according to two of the sources.

Behind the scenes: There were a series of high-level meetings about the deal between Trump and his advisers in the lead-up to Sunday's announcement.

• During those meetings, Trump and his team discussed intel gathered by several U.S. intelligence agencies that showed that the way Iranian officials were discussing the deal among themselves was inconsistent with what they were telling the mediators and the U.S., two sources said.
• Ratcliffe and Rubio said that based on that intel, they doubted the Iranians would agree to take the nuclear steps the U.S. was seeking, according to two sources.
• "The intelligence reflects that the Iranian intentions are not in line with their commitments under the deal," a source said.

What they're saying: "President Trump listens to all opinions on any given issue — but everyone understands he is the final decision-maker," a White House official said in response to questions for this story.

• "This MOU meets all of the redlines that the administration has long articulated by ensuring that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon, they cannot keep their highly enriched uranium, and they cannot hold the world's energy supply hostage," the official said, adding that Trump would only agree to a "good" final agreement.
• The CIA and the State Department declined to comment. The Pentagon did not respond.

Zoom out: The nuclear elements of the MOU signed Sunday depend on the parties reaching a more detailed nuclear deal over the next 60 days.

• Vance, Witkoff and Kushner are expected to meet Friday with Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, along with Pakistani and Qatari mediators, to discuss that next phase.

Between the lines: The full text of the 14-point initial deal has yet to be published, but a source familiar with the text contended that the Iranians will get more than they give under the MOU — unless they agree to sign a nuclear deal that meets the U.S. objectives.

The big picture: The deal is designed to extend the ceasefire and launch 60 days of negotiations, which can be extended by mutual consent.

• In the context of those talks, Iran reiterates its past commitment to never acquire or procure a nuclear weapon.
• The source said the MOU says the U.S. and Iran commit to "resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material" and "discuss the issue of future enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to Iran's nuclear needs based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal."
• The text says Iran will maintain the status quo of its nuclear program so long as negotiations continue. For its part, the U.S. won't impose new sanctions or deploy additional forces to the region.
• If a final nuclear deal is reached, within 30 days the U.S. will remove the forces it mobilized for the war and will terminate all sanctions against Iran under an agreed-upon schedule, according to the source's description of the text.

Breaking it down: Internal skeptics of the deal contend that Iran is unlikely to sign a nuclear deal on the U.S. terms, and in the meantime it will benefit more than the U.S. from the MOU.

• However, two senior U.S. officials contended in a briefing with reporters Monday that the benefits for Iran all depend on it taking meaningful steps.

• One senior U.S. official said the U.S. will know in two to three weeks if Iran is serious about nuclear concessions. If not, the process could stop without Iran gaining much.
• "I am somewhat concerned that Iran's view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Axios, while calling for the document's immediate release.

Zoom in: While the nuclear aspects are conditional, the MOU calls for the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened in the near term.

• The MOU stipulates that "Iran will make arrangements, using its best efforts, for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days," while the U.S. will gradually lift its blockade such that it's entirely removed within 30 days, according to the source familiar with the text.
• The MOU says Iran will conduct a dialogue with Oman "to define future administration and maritime services" in the strait, with other Gulf countries participating in that dialogue to reach a solution "in line with applicable international law and sovereign rights" of regional countries, the source said.
• Iranian state media has reported on the possibility of charging transit fees after that 60-day period ends.

One of the most contentious issues in the negotiations was the release of Iran's frozen funds and assets.

• The MOU leaves much room for interpretation by stating that the U.S. "undertakes to make [the funds] fully available for use ... upon the implementation of this MOU," according to the source familiar.
• U.S. officials say it will be a "pay for performance" model. A senior U.S. official told reporters that if the U.S. sees positive "gestures" from Iran, it may release some funds in exchange.
• The MOU also says any final deal will include a "definitive and mutually agreed plan" for the establishment of a $300 billion fund for the "reconstruction and economic development" of Iran, as well as a mechanism for its implementation, the source said.
• Advocates of the deal argue it's a long-term proposition that will become reality only if Iran dismantles its nuclear program and undergoes significant internal reforms.

Go deeper: The 8 unresolved questions in Trump's Iran deal 

Barak Ravid

Source: https://www.axios.com/2026/06/15/us-iran-deal-cia-director-ratcliffe

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

FBI stopped alleged terror plot to attack UFC 250 event with drones and snipers, officials said - John Solomon

 

by John Solomon

“Planned attacks were stopped cold," FBI director Kash Patel said.

 

The FBI stopped a terror plot involving as many as two dozen perpetrators to attack Sunday’s UFC 250 fight at the White House with explosive-laden drones and snipers, officials told Just the News on Tuesday.

At least five people have been arrested, and agents are working to identify as many as 18 others who appeared to be involved in the planning on encrypted chats communicating with the alleged plotters, officials said.

FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed the arrests, first reported by Fox News, in a statement obtained by Just the News.

“On June 10, FBI and our law enforcement partners became aware of a potential threat to the UFC America 250 event in Washington, D.C. involving individuals outside of the National Capital Region – and thanks to the rapid action of this FBI, our partners, and the Department of Justice in a multi-state operation, multiple individuals are now in custody and allegedly planned attacks were stopped cold,” Patel said.

"While the result represented the best of investigative work, it was also nothing out of the ordinary for this law enforcement team – we are built to detect, respond to, and bring to justice those who threaten the lives of American citizens - particularly during large gatherings like the historic UFC 250 fight," he added.

A dozen FBI offices around the country were involved in the investigation, and one of the first arrests occurred in Cincinnati, officials said.

Officials said they believed the goal of the plot was to attack the site of the fight on the White House South Lawn with one or more explosive-laden drones, causing panicked fans to flee into areas where snipers would then shoot them.

Officials said more details would likely emerge when indictments are filed in court against some of the perpetrators in the coming days.

Editor’s Note: John Solomon is temporarily working as an unpaid member of a government transparency task force helping to identify information that can be released to the public. During the temporary assignment, he has stepped down as Editor In Chief of Just the News. 

John Solomon

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/security/fbi-stopped-alleged-terror-plot-attack-ufc-250-event-drones-and-snipers

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump's Iran Deal: A Strategic Opening - Ahmed Charai

 

by Ahmed Charai

Iran's recent posture follows a familiar pattern: negotiate under pressure, demand relief, preserve leverage, and use regional proxies to complicate the battlefield.

 

• The real obstacle to peace has never been the Iranian nation. It is the regime that governs Iran against the will and aspirations of its own people—a regime that behaves less like a normal state than like a revolutionary-security cartel.

• Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon—not under this framework, not after sixty days, not in five years, not through ambiguity, delay, concealment, or the gradual normalization of violations.

• The nuclear file cannot be postponed into irrelevance while sanctions relief, oil access, and frozen assets are granted upfront. Any serious diplomatic process must begin with verifiable commitments, intrusive inspections, a full accounting of enriched uranium stocks, and consequences that are automatic rather than rhetorical.

• An agreement with Tehran is not a contract with a normal government. It is an arrangement with a divided, opaque, militarized system in which diplomats may sign while commanders sabotage; presidents may speak while the Revolutionary Guard decides; moderates may promise while hard-liners prepare the next escalation.

• Iran's recent posture follows a familiar pattern: negotiate under pressure, demand relief, preserve leverage, and use regional proxies to complicate the battlefield. The Revolutionary Guard is the backbone of the regime's coercive power at home and its projection of force abroad. Figures such as Ahmad Vahidi symbolize the problem.

• That is why the framework must not be limited to the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear file. It must also address the machinery of regional destabilization.

• If Tehran is allowed to trade temporary calm in the Gulf for continued proxy pressure in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq, or Yemen, then the agreement will not bring peace. It will simply move the war from one front to another.

• The third principle must be regional consultation. Israel has direct security concerns that cannot be dismissed as political inconvenience.

• Washington need not make regime change the declared objective of this diplomacy. But America should not grant the regime legitimacy without conditions. Human rights must remain part of the architecture: internet freedom, political prisoners, women's rights, the right to protest, and accountability for repression.

• This is where President Trump should consider a bold political and economic complement to the security negotiations: entrust Jared Kushner with a parallel track focused on the future of the Iranian economy, but designed for the benefit of the Iranian people—not the enrichment of the regime.

• Kushner's achievement with the Abraham Accords was not merely that he helped negotiate documents; it was that he understood the strategic power of economic imagination in a region exhausted by ideology. The same logic should now be applied to Iran. Any sanctions relief, investment mechanism, infrastructure plan, or economic opening must be tied to transparency, private-sector development, young entrepreneurs, women, students, technology, and civil society—not to the Revolutionary Guard, not to the clerical establishment, and not to the regime's networks of coercion.

• The purpose of diplomacy should not be to rescue the regime from the consequences of its own failures. It should be to ensure that the Iranian people, and not their jailers, become the ultimate beneficiaries of peace.

Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon—not under this framework, not after sixty days, not in five years, not through ambiguity, delay, concealment, or the gradual normalization of violations. Pictured: Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian looks on as a 'Qasem Soleimani' missile is displayed during a military parade in Tehran, on September 21, 2024. (Photo by Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)

On his eightieth birthday, President Donald Trump announced what many in Washington, Jerusalem, Abu Dhabi, Manama, and beyond had been waiting to hear: the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran had reached a framework aimed at ending a dangerous war, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and beginning a new round of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.

This is good news. It should be welcomed. But it should not be romanticized.

No serious person in the Middle East is hungry for war. The people of the region—Israelis, Emiratis, Bahrainis, Kuwaitis, Lebanese, Yemenis, and above all the Iranian people themselves—have lived too long under the shadow of missiles, militias, intimidation, and ideological blackmail. They want security, dignity, prosperity, and a future for their children. They do not want another generation sacrificed to revolutionary fantasies or strategic miscalculations.

The real obstacle to peace has never been the Iranian nation. It is the regime that governs Iran against the will and aspirations of its own people—a regime that behaves less like a normal state than like a revolutionary-security cartel. Its power rests on repression at home and destabilization abroad. Its proxies have terrorized Israel, threatened Gulf stability, paralyzed Lebanon, devastated Yemen, and turned the Palestinian cause into an instrument of regional leverage rather than a path toward dignity and prosperity.

That is why this framework, if implemented seriously, represents an opportunity.

President Trump deserves credit for understanding something many traditional diplomats often miss: in the Middle East, diplomacy without leverage is rarely diplomacy; it is theater. His method has often been described by critics as transactional. Perhaps it is. But transactions can be useful when they produce results, and there is no virtue in elegant failure. If this framework stops the guns, reopens a vital artery of the global economy, reduces immediate risks to Israel and the Gulf, and creates a diplomatic window to address Iran's nuclear program, then it is a meaningful achievement.

Now the central question is unavoidable: what happens next?

The answer will determine whether this becomes a strategic turning point or merely another pause before the next crisis.

The first principle must be clarity. Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon—not under this framework, not after sixty days, not in five years, not through ambiguity, delay, concealment, or the gradual normalization of violations. The nuclear file cannot be postponed into irrelevance while sanctions relief, oil access, and frozen assets are granted upfront. Any serious diplomatic process must begin with verifiable commitments, intrusive inspections, a full accounting of enriched uranium stocks, and consequences that are automatic rather than rhetorical.

The second principle must be enforcement. An agreement with Tehran is not a contract with a normal government. It is an arrangement with a divided, opaque, militarized system in which diplomats may sign while commanders sabotage; presidents may speak while the Revolutionary Guard decides; moderates may promise while hard-liners prepare the next escalation.

This is not an abstract concern. Iran's recent posture follows a familiar pattern: negotiate under pressure, demand relief, preserve leverage, and use regional proxies to complicate the battlefield. The Revolutionary Guard is the backbone of the regime's coercive power at home and its projection of force abroad. Figures such as Ahmad Vahidi symbolize the problem. The West is not negotiating merely with foreign ministers and polished diplomats. It is negotiating with a security apparatus shaped by hostage-taking, proxy warfare, repression, missile programs, and ideological militancy.

That is why the framework must not be limited to the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear file. It must also address the machinery of regional destabilization.

Iran's ballistic missile and drone capabilities must be constrained. Its support for Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other armed groups must be cut, monitored, and penalized. Its financial networks, front companies, weapons transfers, training channels, and intelligence support to proxies must be exposed and dismantled.

If Tehran is allowed to trade temporary calm in the Gulf for continued proxy pressure in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq, or Yemen, then the agreement will not bring peace. It will simply move the war from one front to another.

The third principle must be regional consultation. Israel has direct security concerns that cannot be dismissed as political inconvenience. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait live within missile range of Iranian power and within economic range of Iranian coercion. Lebanon and Yemen know the human cost of Iran's imperial ambitions. Any serious American strategy must integrate the concerns of these states rather than ask them to trust a process designed elsewhere.

There is also a moral dimension Washington must not forget: the Iranian people.

The people of Iran are the first victims of the regime and the natural allies of any future peace. They have been beaten, imprisoned, censored, tortured, and killed for demanding the most basic rights: dignity, freedom, women's rights, economic opportunity, and a normal life.

Washington need not make regime change the declared objective of this diplomacy. But America should not grant the regime legitimacy without conditions. Human rights must remain part of the architecture: internet freedom, political prisoners, women's rights, the right to protest, and accountability for repression.

This is where President Trump should consider a bold political and economic complement to the security negotiations: entrust Jared Kushner with a parallel track focused on the future of the Iranian economy, but designed for the benefit of the Iranian people—not the enrichment of the regime.

Kushner's achievement with the Abraham Accords was not merely that he helped negotiate documents; it was that he understood the strategic power of economic imagination in a region exhausted by ideology. The same logic should now be applied to Iran. Any sanctions relief, investment mechanism, infrastructure plan, or economic opening must be tied to transparency, private-sector development, young entrepreneurs, women, students, technology, and civil society—not to the Revolutionary Guard, not to the clerical establishment, and not to the regime's networks of coercion.

Iran is a great civilization with a young, educated, creative population. It should be a bridge between Asia, the Gulf, the Caucasus, Europe, and the Mediterranean. It should be exporting talent, technology, culture, energy, and ideas—not fear, drones, militias, and repression. The purpose of diplomacy should not be to rescue the regime from the consequences of its own failures. It should be to ensure that the Iranian people, and not their jailers, become the ultimate beneficiaries of peace.

If this framework stops a war, it deserves support. If it prevents a nuclear Iran, it will deserve history's praise. But if it allows the regime to recover, rearm, finance proxies, hide nuclear material, and repress its people with renewed confidence, then it will be remembered not as peace but as an intermission.

The Middle East does not need another illusion. It needs a disciplined peace—generous to the Iranian people, firm with the regime, and informed by the pragmatic regional logic that produced the Abraham Accords.

That is the test. And it begins now.

This article was originally published in the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune. It is reprinted here by the kind permission of the author.

 

Ahmed Charai is the Chairman and CEO of World Herald Tribune, Inc., and the publisher of the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune, TV Abraham, and Radio Abraham. He serves on the boards of several prominent institutions, including the Atlantic Council, the Center for the National Interest, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the International Crisis Group. He is also an International Councilor and a member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22613/trump-iran-deal-a-strategic-opening

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump condemns Israel's strategy in Lebanon: 'Syria would do a better job' - Israel National News

 

by Israel National News

President Donald Trump criticized Israel's campaign against Hezbollah, urging greater restraint while insisting Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons.

 

During a meeting with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, on the sidelines of the G7 Summit, US President Donald Trump voiced harsh criticism of Israel's war against the Hezbollah terrorist organization in Lebanon.

The President said that an Israeli attack on Hezbollah would not affect the deal with Iran and continued, "I consider that a minor war. We have a little pin prick out there that constantly rears its head, and that's Hezbollah."

The President praised Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa's approach to fighting Hezbollah, "He is very good with Hezbollah, he does not like them."

He then attacked the manner in which Israel was executing its war with the terror group: "Israel's fighting Hezbollah for too long, and too many people are being killed. You don't have to knock down an apartment house every time you're looking for somebody. There are a lot of people in those apartment houses, and they're not all Hezbollah."

Trump suggested that Israel "let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because to be honest with you, I think they'd do a better job at doing it." He repeated his praise for the former Al-Qaeda member al-Sharaa, and said that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, he'll do the job."

At the beginning of his remarks, President Trump clarified that the US has no obligation under the deal to invest any money in Iran, but reserves the right to do so later down the line.

He also praised Qatar and said that no country in history has invested more money in the US than the Arab state.

Turning back to Iran, the President declared that "the only thing that matters to me is that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon."

According to the President, the deal with Iran "says it loud and clear. They're not going to develop it, they're not going to buy it, they're not going to do anything with it. And if they do, they suffer unbelievable consequences. Not just a little bit."

He noted that the deal ensures that Iran does not develop or purchase a nuclear weapon. "If they do, all hell will rain down on them."

He remarked that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, they would have blown up Israel, they would have blown up the Middle East, and they probably would have taken a shot at us. We would have gotten them first, I think."

President Trump also claimed that "I never cared about regime change" in Iran. This being said, the President noted that "I guess you have regime change, because the first group is dead, the second group is dead, part of the third group is gone, and we're dealing with very rational people. They were nice to deal with, they were strong people, smart people. They are not radicalized, and they're looking to help their country."

He added, "I don't believe in regime changes. I've watched regime changes for years; they don't work. It has to just happen.

Asked what he would do if the Iranian regime continued to kill its own people, Trump claimed that "we talked to them about it."

He differentiated between the leaders before the war and those currently leading the regime: "I would say that the majority of that took place during the first and second regimes. Much more so than now."

Asked if he's frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said: "No. We had a great relationship. We're talking about some end details."

The President expressed distaste with the strike on Beirut earlier in the week. "You know, there was a very minor thing with some drones, and he ends up... I saw that attack, that was vicious, too much."

With that, he clarified, "We've had a very effective relationship. Without the United States, there would be no Israel. Without me, there would be no Israel because no other president would be willing to do what I did. I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi needs to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon." 

Israel National News

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/428711

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

London Defends Israel: Community pushes back after anti-Israel protest targets synagogue - Israel National News

 

by Israel National News

Counter-protesters gathered in support of a UK Israeli Real Estate Fair, accusing demonstrators of intimidation and antisemitism while calling for stronger action to protect Jewish communities.

 

At the protest                                                                                                      Arutz Sheva

Arutz Sheva - Israel National News spoke to members of a counter-demonstration held in response to an anti-Israel protest outside the Arutz Sheva Conference during the UK Israeli Real Estate Fair.

Participants who attended the event expressed anger and concern over the protest, which took place outside a synagogue. “I’m furious that they would demonstrate outside a synagogue," one attendee said. “They are trying to intimidate us and to silence us, and we won’t be intimidated or silenced."

Others at the event described the demonstration as part of a growing atmosphere of hostility toward the Jewish community in the UK. “I’m sick of Jews being intimidated by these activists protesting in front of a show. This is anti-Semitic. It shouldn’t be here and it needs to be stopped."

Several attendees said they were encouraged by the turnout of community members who came to support the event despite the protest. “It’s becoming the normal, and I think we all need to stand up and be counted," one participant said.

Another attendee criticized the demonstrators for targeting the Aliyah-focused event, saying: “It is essential to fight back against hateful forces who have come here just to spoil an Aliyah event being held at Edgeware Synagogue."

Some participants said the incident had increased their fears about the future of Jewish life in Britain. “I’m frightened. I’m worried for the future. I’m worried for my grandchildren. There is no future for Jews here."

Others echoed concerns that similar incidents have become more frequent. “We’re seeing this all the time now, and it’s increasing further and further," one attendee said. “Not enough is being done to stop it."

The concerns come despite recent declarations by British PM Starmer, who has repeatedly declared his intention to significantly reinforce police presence and community support against antisemitism. 

Israel National News

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/428710

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

IDF plans permanent base in Jenin after cutting terror by 70% - Yaakov Lappin

 

by Yaakov Lappin

Military source tells JNS that Tehran sought to unite Hamas and other factions into a single Iran-backed force in northern Samaria before the IDF intervention.

 

The Israel Defense Forces is planning for the construction of a permanent military base in the Jenin area to consolidate operational gains and prevent the resurgence of unified terror infrastructures in northern Samaria, a military source told JNS on Monday.

The decision is part of a fundamental departure from the previous security approach that governed the area for over two decades. Following the conclusion of the Second Intifada, the military largely relied on intelligence-driven, targeted raids.

However, this operational model allowed the broader terror ecosystem to survive and continuously replenish its ranks, weapons, and fortifications in the absence of a permanent Israeli security presence. This changed in January 2025, when the IDF launched “Operation Iron Wall” in Samaria.

“The fact is that every time we entered into a pinpoint operation of a few days, seized weapons, and targeted operatives, in the end we kept going back to the same baseline,” said the source. “Ultimately, when you leave them with their terror stronghold and their hub, you essentially fail to change anything, which is why ‘Operation Iron Wall’ in January 2025 was launched to change this situation.”

“By remaining inside the camp to alter the reality on the ground, the operation worked, leading to a 70 percent decrease in terror since it began,” the source observed.

“The decision to establish a base there is a directive from the political echelon, which essentially states that they are currently not interested in a withdrawal of forces,” said the military source.

The decision is driven by a number factors, including the need to protect renewed Israeli nearby settlement presence in the region, specifically the communities of Sanur, Ganim, and Kadim.

Planners also recognized the inherent unreliability of the Palestinian Authority’s security forces.

Before the launch of “Operation Iron Wall,” the various armed factions inside the camp abandoned their traditional organizational rivalries. The military observed intense efforts to amalgamate Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and various local terror networks into a singular cohesive fighting force funded directly by Tehran. This newly formed alliance was designated as a centralized terror organization specific to the camp, operating under the moniker Abnaa al-Mukhayam (Sons of the Camp).

“They really tried to imitate the terror organizations from Oct. 7, since on Oct. 7 the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as well as Hamas, all raided together, and that is exactly what they attempted to do here,” the source stated.

“They sought to unite Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and all of these bodies under one head that is funded by Iran. So that is what we succeeded in doing ultimately, neutralizing all the attempts to organize as a group, at least in these areas.”

Still, Israel faces continuous attempts to orchestrate terrorism against civilian and military targets alike, forcing the defense establishment to maintain high readiness.

“Obviously, like always, there are desires and attempts and warnings to carry out attacks, there is no question here,” the source cautioned.

The external funding and strategic direction for this terror hub flowed directly from the Iranian regime. Iranian leadership views the destabilization of Judea and Samaria as a vital component of its multi-front war of attrition against the State of Israel. By trying to flood the territory with terror financing and smuggled weaponry, the Islamic Republic sought to ignite a major escalation that would stretch Israeli forces and attention.

“You also see the Iranians [in action], who understand that Judea and Samaria is ultimately the soft underbelly of Israel,” the source analyzed. “Ultimately, an intifada in Judea and Samaria diverts the attention of all the arenas directly into that sector.”

This effort was heavily supported by various Hamas command centers operating safely in foreign capitals.

“This includes Hamas in Turkey and Hamas in Tunisia, but you also see the Iranians attempting to drag Judea and Samaria into this,” the source concluded.

The Iranian strategy has included an arms smuggling campaign across the eastern border with Jordan. Smuggling rings utilized criminal networks to move vast quantities of assault rifles, explosives, and cash across the frontier, destined for the terror cells operating in Samaria. To counter this, the IDF deployed the newly established 96th Division to secure the Jordan Valley and interdict the supply lines fueling the violence.

Yaakov Lappin is an Israel-based military affairs correspondent and analyst. He is the in-house analyst at the Miryam Institute; a research associate at the Alma Research and Education Center; and a research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. He is a frequent guest commentator on international television news networks, including Sky News and i24 News. Lappin is the author of Virtual Caliphate: Exposing the Islamist State on the Internet. Follow him at: www.patreon.com/yaakovlappin.

Source: https://www.jns.org/analysis/idf-plans-permanent-base-in-jenin-after-cutting-terror-by-70

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

New Reports: Nuclear War with China Coming - Gordon G. Chang

 

by Gordon G. Chang

Dangerous regimes are fast preparing for war. China, Russia, and North Korea are "expanding and diversifying their nuclear arsenals at a breakneck pace, showing little or no interest in arms control," said Pranay Vaddi, a National Security Council official, in June 2024 at an arms-control conference.

 

• Of these regimes [Russia, North Korea, and China], the most dangerous is China, now engaged in the fastest nuclear buildup since the Cold War. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI, estimates that the Chinese military "now has around 620 nuclear warheads."

• "There are, however, two main unknowns," he also said. "First, there is a new generation of small nuclear warheads revealed in a late 2025 book by China-educated engineer Hui Zhang. Second, the China Military Power Reports do not report the number of smaller 'theater' missile warheads in the inventory of the People's Liberation Army. That number could be large, perhaps close to 1,000."

• China's theater arsenal, Fisher argues, "constitutes a major threat to the Asian democracies."

• Dangerous regimes are fast preparing for war. China, Russia, and North Korea are "expanding and diversifying their nuclear arsenals at a breakneck pace, showing little or no interest in arms control," said Pranay Vaddi, a National Security Council official, in June 2024 at an arms-control conference. These three regimes and Iran, he said, are "increasingly cooperating and coordinating with each other—in ways that run counter to peace and stability, threaten the United States, our allies and our partners, and exacerbate regional tension."

China is now engaged in the fastest nuclear buildup since the Cold War. The combined number of China's and Russia's nukes — not to mention North Korea's — is beginning to create an imbalance that could lead to horrible consequences. Pictured: China's new DF-5C intercontinental ballistic missile, which has a range of 20,000 km and carries nuclear warheads, is displayed at a military parade that was attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean ruler Kim Jong Un, and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in Beijing on September 3, 2025. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

"The risk of nuclear conflict is rising, with the world on the cusp of a nuclear-arms race centered on the Asia-Pacific," writes the International Institute for Strategic Studies this month. "China's expanding military capabilities and North Korea's growing arsenal are driving the assertive force postures and procurement decisions of regional states and the U.S."

"Apart from small additions to the arsenals of India and Pakistan, the only nations increasing deployed nuclear weapons are Russia, North Korea, and China," Peter Huessy of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies and the Gold Institute for International Strategy told Gatestone last week.

Of these regimes, the most dangerous is China, now engaged in the fastest nuclear buildup since the Cold War. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimates that the Chinese military "now has around 620 nuclear warheads."

The 620 count is "plausible," considering the U.S. intelligence community's assessments in the Pentagon's China Military Power Reports, Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center told this publication the other day.

"There are, however, two main unknowns," he also said. "First, there is a new generation of small nuclear warheads revealed in a late 2025 book by China-educated engineer Hui Zhang. Second, the China Military Power Reports do not report the number of smaller 'theater' missile warheads in the inventory of the People's Liberation Army. That number could be large, perhaps close to 1,000."

China's theater arsenal, Fisher argues, "constitutes a major threat to the Asian democracies."

As Huessy pointed out, Russia in 1999 decided to build low-yield, super-accurate battlefield nuclear weapons, a "reckless move now also adopted by China."

Vladimir Putin has, in a sense, already used these weapons. He threatened their use immediately before his February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and he got what he wanted: Western states backed down and did not support Ukraine as they had planned to do.

China, when it decides it is ready to go to war, will almost certainly make similar threats against Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, or other states in the region.

In fact, China, which has pledged to never use nuclear weapons first, has throughout this decade made threats to do just that. For instance, in July and September of 2021, China threatened to nuke Japan for supporting Taiwan and Australia for joining AUKUS, the submarine-building coalition of Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. In March 2022, the Chinese Ministry of Defense promised the "worst consequences" for countries helping Taiwan defend itself.

These threats followed a series of warnings against America, made during the first decade of this century.

In our age of rapidly expanding nuclear arsenals and less-than-resolute Western leaders, something is bound to go horribly wrong.

"For most of the nuclear age, it was assumed nuclear weapons were instruments of deterrence," Huessy told me in June 2024. "There has, however, been a sea change in contemplated nuclear weapons use. Now, these weapons in the hands of China, Russia, and North Korea are instruments of coercion and blackmail." Now-retired U.S. Air Force Gen. John Hyten called this the "escalate to win, escalate to end" strategy.

Dangerous regimes are fast preparing for war. China, Russia, and North Korea are "expanding and diversifying their nuclear arsenals at a breakneck pace, showing little or no interest in arms control," said Pranay Vaddi, then a National Security Council official, in June 2024 at an arms-control conference. These three regimes and Iran, he said, are "increasingly cooperating and coordinating with each other—in ways that run counter to peace and stability, threaten the United States, our allies and our partners, and exacerbate regional tension."

The United States has comprehensively disclosed the size and composition of its arsenal while, as Huessy noted, China, Russia, and North Korea have covered their buildups in secrecy.

China is refusing to talk to the United States about arms control. Its refusal to engage led the Trump administration to let New START, the last major nuclear arms-control agreement with the Russian Federation, expire in February. It was simply untenable for America to agree to limits on nuclear weapons with Russia when China was not a party to the treaty.

Russia and China have made it clear they are partners, something the pair has repeatedly affirmed. Although the U.S. does not need to maintain parity in warheads with all adversaries to maintain deterrence, a serious imbalance is nonetheless dangerous because it can embolden these bad actors.

The combined number of China's and Russia's nukes — not to mention North Korea's — is beginning to create the imbalance that could lead to horrible consequences.

As SIPRI writes about those consequences, "States are increasingly relying on nuclear weapons as instruments of national power—reversing decades of efforts to reduce the numbers and role of nuclear weapons—even as the risk of miscalculation and escalation are rising."

• Follow Gordon G. Chang on X (formerly Twitter)

 

Gordon G. Chang is the author of Plan Red: China's Project to Destroy America, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, and a member of its Advisory Board.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22614/china-nuclear-war

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

An explosion of AI deepfakes is redefining American elections - Andrew Sclender

 

by Andrew Sclender

This largely unregulated practice is warping the unspoken norms of political campaigns and blurring the line between truth and fiction.

 

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Stock: Getty Images

 

Campaign ads featuring AI-generated clips and images once sounded like a laughable concept. Now they're everywhere, with attack ads that place candidates in a wide variety of compromising — and fictitious — situations.

Why it matters: This largely unregulated practice is warping the unspoken norms of political campaigns and blurring the line between truth and fiction.

• Some campaigns voluntarily disclose this AI use, but it's not required.
• Democrats want to change that if they retake control of Congress in November.

Driving the news: The latest spot to push the envelope is an attack ad against Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico from a President Trump-aligned group called Citizens for Sanity.

• The ad depicts Talarico in a dress singing an abridged version of "Favorite Things" about transgender children.
• Talarico has been a frequent target of this practice: The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) used AI in March to depict Talarico reciting past social media posts. The posts were real. Talarico reading them was not.

Zoom out: While the Texas Senate race has been a hotbed of AI use — Republicans John Cornyn and Ken Paxton and Democrat Jasmine Crockett all utilized it to some extent in the primaries — it is far from the only one.

• The GOP primary in Kentucky's 4th district saw widespread AI use by both sides.
• That included a "throuple" ad, which contained deepfakes of Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) dining, checking into a hotel and holding hands with Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
• Pro-Massie spots used AI to depict an elephant with Trump-like hair and a MAGA cap, and Ed Gallrein, Massie's challenger, abandoning Trump in a foxhole.

In Georgia, gubernatorial candidate Brad Raffensperger used AI in multiple ads to depict his GOP primary opponents wildly shooting guns in the air and fighting each other with pugil sticks.

• A new ad from another Georgia gubernatorial candidate, Burt Jones, is entirely AI-generated and features depictions of his GOP primary runoff opponent Rick Jackson shoveling money into a furnace and inflating a hot air balloon with his breath.

It's not just Republicans making use of AI:

• In Texas, Crockett made use of AI to inflate the crowd size in one of her ads and posted an AI video to social media of herself, Trump and others as babies.
• In New York City, Democrat-turned-independent Andrew Cuomo used AI in the mayoral election in an ad that portrayed him performing various jobs, including subway conductor, stockbroker, stagehand and window washer.
• In Maryland, a new ad from Democrat Harry Dunn in the 5th congressional district includes a brief shot of AI-generated men in suits reading "Crypto" and "AIPAC" tossing golden basketballs into a carnival free-throw game.

Andrew Sclender

Source: https://www.axios.com/2026/06/16/ai-deepfake-ads-campaigns-midterms

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

18 firearms and explosives lathes destroyed in Shechem - Israel National News

 

by Israel National News

In a nighttime operation, Yahalom Unit and 967th Reserve Battalion raided Shechem's Balata Camp and the Ras al-Ein neighborhood to disable terrorist production infrastructure.

 

One of the lathes found in a residential area in Shechem                             IDF Spokesperson

In a counterterrorism operation overnight between Sunday and Monday, soldiers from the Yahalom Unit and 967th Reserve Battalion operated in Shechem (Nablus) under the Samaria Brigade.

The forces located lathes for the production of weapons, including firearms and explosives. The lathes were intentionally located in a dense residential neighborhood.

The operation focused on the Balata Camp and the Ras al-Ein neighborhood, where the special engineering forces operated to disable the production infrastructure of the terrorist organizations in the area.

During the operation, the forces located and destroyed 18 lathes. Additionally, weapons parts were located and seized. 

Israel National News

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/428700

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Arutz Sheva Conference: Experts warn antisemitism has become socially acceptable - Yoni Kempinski

 

by Yoni Kempinski

Speakers at the Arutz Sheva Conference at the Israeli Real Estate Fair in London warned that antisemitism is becoming normalized, fueled by radicalization, campuses and anti-Zionism.

 

A panel at the Arutz Sheva Conference at the Israeli Real Estate Fair in London examined the global rise in antisemitism, with participants warning that anti-Jewish hatred has become increasingly normalized and discussing the challenges posed by radicalization, universities, and anti-Zionist activism.

Moderated by Stop the Hate UK Chief Policy Adviser Catherine Perez-Shakdam, the discussion featured investigative journalist David Collier and historian and political analyst Aurele Tobelem.

Asked whether antisemitism has become "the world's most socially acceptable conspiracy theory," Tobelem responded simply, "Yes."

He argued that antisemitism is rooted in conspiracy thinking that reduces Jews to "this sort of non-human vessel" defined by "their capacity for conspiratorial thinking and action." He added that much of today's antisemitism "has been rendered socially acceptable... through the form of Israel."

When asked what could be done to begin addressing the problem, Tobelem said antisemitic ideology depends on obsessive thinking about Jews.

"The antisemite needs the Jew. The antisemite dreams about the Jew," he said. "Keeping people busy is probably the best way to stop them from being hateful."

Collier agreed that strengthening Jewish identity is important, but argued that communities must also confront those driving antisemitism.

"On the one hand, yes, absolutely, we need to stand there and enjoy our own lives and our own existence and not let them define who we are," he said. "But on the other hand, we also need to face up to the realities of the enemy that we are facing. And we need to basically tell the truth to ourselves about what it is we're up against."

The discussion also focused on universities, where Tobelem recounted his experiences while serving as president of the Israel Society at King's College London following the October 7th Massacre.

He described encountering what he characterized as antisemitism among both students and faculty, including threats against him and lectures that he said presented material sympathetic to Hamas.

"There is an incredible tolerance for intolerance in our institutions," Tobelem said, arguing that greater scrutiny of university funding and governance was needed. "I think it's time that we audited these universities to find out exactly what's going on."

The panel also addressed anti-Zionism, with Collier arguing that the term no longer accurately describes those seeking to eliminate Israel.

"We have allowed these people to occupy this semi-moral space by misnaming the terms of what they are," he said. "They're trying to uproot the state of Israel... That's nothing to do with anti-Zionism. It's something completely different."

Concluding the discussion, both speakers argued that the challenge extends beyond the Jewish community.

Tobelem stressed the importance of education, saying long-term change would require reforming educational institutions.

Collier pointed instead to the broader impact of online radicalization.

"We are probably about a generation away from understanding how much damage social media has done to our society," he said. "Social media provides people with a self-radicalization tool."

He concluded that while antisemitism directly affects Jews, the underlying forces driving polarization and extremism are "not a Jewish problem. It's a societal problem." 

Yoni Kempinski

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/428680

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter