Oil can't be the only reason to go soft on Iran

Prof. Eyal Zisser spoke about how Donald Trump appears to have been lenient on Iran simply because of oil/fuel concerns:

Since US President Donald Trump signed the agreement with Iran that will bring the war to an end without achieving any of the goals he had set for himself, and worse, an agreement that strengthens the Iranian regime and grants Tehran the status of a regional power it never had before, Trump has repeatedly justified his surrender to the Iranians by saying that he did not want a "global economic catastrophe," and that because of the agreement, the stock market in New York "soared like a rocket" and oil prices fell dramatically.

Trump's remarks reveal a simple and bitter truth: economic interests dictate American policy, and they are the decisive factor. It is a pity only that Trump did not think all this through before withdrawing from President Barack Obama's nuclear deal from the previous decade, an agreement far better than the understandings he is now seeking to reach with the Iranians, or when he decided to go to war with Iran this past February.

It must be admitted that Trump is not the first president to give absolute priority to the economy and oil. One recalls the famous phrase attributed to an adviser to President Bill Clinton: "It's the economy, stupid." In other words, this is how the American voter makes his decisions, and so does any president who wants to be reelected or is thinking about his legacy.

It's certainly regrettable how everybody's dragging their feet in this whole aggravation, because here, the Bush administration of 2002 rammed Iraq straight through in not too much time, yet here Trump's going much slower, if at all, about battling Iran. And that doesn't bode well at all.

Iran violates supposed agreement

Just a week after the memorandum of understanding that Iran only signed electronically, they attacked a ship in the Straits of Hormuz with a drone, and now, the USA military had to strike back:

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced Saturday that American forces carried out another round of strikes on multiple targets in Iran after a Panama-flagged oil tanker was attacked near the Strait of Hormuz.

The U.S. military launched new strikes against Iranian targets after Tehran allegedly ignored the ceasefire and launched a drone attack on a Panama-flagged oil tanker carrying more than two million barrels of crude oil.

“CENTCOM forces launched strikes today in direct response to continued Iranian aggression against commercial shipping,” Centcom said. “U.S. military aircraft targeted Iranian military surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defense sites, drone storage facilities, and minelayer capabilities.” [...]

The strike came two days after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps allegedly attacked the Singapore-flagged M/V Ever Lovely in the Strait of Hormuz.

So now, the whole "agreement" - developed on the assumption Iran would actually surrender voluntarily in short order - is falling apart. Following this, will Trump's administration realize that a savage dictatorship built on the Religion of Peace won't cooperate unless they're made to stop following said religion? We can only hope more serious steps will be taken soon against Iran's monsters-in-charge.

Knesset resolution submitted to recognize Armenian Genocide

One of the Likud's members - and the foreign minister - is doing the right thing to take a legal step to recognizing the Armenian Genocide in Israel:

At the upcoming government meeting, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar will propose a resolution for the official recognition by the Government of Israel of the Armenian Genocide.

The proposed resolution states that, based on a moral and historical obligation, Israel will recognize the genocide committed against the Armenian people during the final years of the Ottoman Empire. It further states that any denial, minimization, or distortion of the historical truth of these events must be condemned.

The resolution will subsequently be brought before the Knesset for approval as well.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly recognized the Armenian Genocide for the first time in August 2025.

Every resolution like this brought to the table is a vital step towards improvement of foreign relations.

Mark Levin takes issue with Donald Trump

If there's any conservative commentator who's hugely disappointed with how Trump's handling the Iran issue, it's Mark Levin:

Fox News host Mark Levin criticized President Donald Trump's Memorandum of Understanding with Iran across a series of posts on X, with his sharpest break coming over the deal's soft treatment of Hezbollah.

"On top of this, we do the unthinkable," wrote Levin, a longtime Trump defender who has broken with the president over the agreement. "We capitulate to Iran's demand to protect Hezbollah."

The conservative host argued that the Iran-backed group, which he said has "brutally murdered hundreds of our fellow citizens," would emerge from the ceasefire untouched. Under the terms Levin described, Hezbollah "not only survives but is immunized" and remains "free to continue to kill Americans, Israelis, and others." [...]

The posts come amid broader pushback from conservatives over the deal.

What's disturbing is whether Iran will receive any money at all in their current incarnation as a savage dictatorship. Similar points can be made about Syria under Ahmed al-Sharaa, who should not have been allowed to ascend to autocrat there.

Here's more related news:

Fox News' major MAGA ally Mark Levin slammed US President Donald Trump over the Iran war peace deal, calling on the White House to release details of the accord’s Memorandum of Understanding.

Levin on X/Twitter wrote: “I have asked for days, why can’t we, the people, see the damn MoU? Not through people briefed by an anonymous person. Honestly, I’ve never seen anything like this. If it is a great outcome for peace, then release it.”

“Here’s an idea: if you want people to stop speculating about the MoU, release the MoU. Don’t brief a few anointed ones to control the narrative and expect everyone else to sit silently. That’s not how our country works. It’s going to be signed soon. It takes time for people to digest it all once it is released. Controlling the narrative can only last so long," he added.

Vice President JD Vance said the peace accord was signed electronically over the weekend.

Levin speaks out against Trump's attitude towards Netanyahu

Levin, a pro-Israel hawk, also slammed the president for lashing out at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after Israel attacked Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.

Trump had told a reporter that he questioned Netanyahu’s “f***ing judgment.”

“In a period of two-months, Israel has gone from a great ally and partner in war, fighting by our side against a horrible enemy that has killed thousands of our people, killed tens of thousands of their own people, and was a dire nuclear threat intent on attacking us, to Israeli PM Netanyahu being a difficult person who should be thanking us for saving his country from Iran and should get our permission if he wants to defend his people from Hezbollah and Iran, and stand down when his country is attacked," Levin wrote.

That the MoU was electronically signed can also make a serious point of contention, since the autocrats didn't sign it physically. And Levin's got a valid point that it's in very poor taste for Trump to be referring to Netanyahu with expletives, or make it sound like it's wrong for a politician to stand firm on positions meant to defend his/her country. How can we be convinced Trump has even Europe's best interests in mind if that's how he's going to act? Or even J.D. Vance? And here's more of what Levin had to say about how Trump's been acting toward Israel:

“I want to say to people in and out of the administration: stop trashing, smearing, bullying the little state of Israel. Stop cozying up to and telling us that the enemy regime in Iran is now more rational, more moderate, and a regime that we can deal with,” Levin demanded. “When just a few months ago they slaughtered 50,000 people, they’re still hanging young people today and, if they had a nuclear missile today, they’d fire it into our country as sure as I’m alive.”

Levin argued that Israel should not be pressured into altering its security decisions by outside powers.

“I don’t know what’s going on, but if people think they can bully a little country, Israel — a people that have existed 4,000 years through the Babylonians and the Persians, through the Romans and the Third Reich — into surrendering their defense and their decision on how to secure their country, they get another thing coming,” Levin said. “I think it’s outrageous.” [...]

Levin’s online posts also targeted Trump’s criticism of Israel regarding its responses to Hezbollah attacks originating from Lebanon. Levin wrote that the first item in the MOU mandates an immediate and permanent end to the war, including Hezbollah.

“Iran is Hezbollah,” Levin posted. “What’s the enforcement mechanism? Nothing. Israel defends itself after constant attacks from Hezbollah and is admonished for it. Its interests are not aligned with ours, we’re told. It’s endangering the peace deal. This is beyond nuts.”

In another Saturday post, he claimed, “Apparently as long as Israeli soldiers are killed the ceasefire is holding.”

Of course it's angering, and shows weakness in the face of the enemy. Also note how victims of the Iranian dictatorship's massacres were obscured in all this mess, and that doesn't speak well for how the Trump administration is handling the issues so far. So is he willing to change his approach and apologize for what he's done lately? That remains to be seen, and the sad part is that damage has been done to the USA as much as Israel, and won't bode well for the future.

A wise decision made by the Shin Bet director

The director of Israel's Shin Bet intel movement cancelled a LGBT event, and focus on the core missions of the organization:

Shin Bet Director David Zini has decided not to approve the holding of an LGBT event on behalf of the agency, to cancel invitations that had been sent out, and to remove signs or symbols that were already being prepared, Channel 12 News reported.

The LGBT event, according to sources involved in organizing it, was canceled by an “order from above" without any further explanation.

According to those sources, all of their requests were rejected, including a request to display an LGBT banner on a screen in the Shin Bet building, a request to install a screensaver on computers, a request to hang LGBT flags in the event hall, and a request to use the organization’s systems to distribute designated content.

According to the report, Zini is also working to shut down the LGBT forum within the Shin Bet, and the organization’s Human Resources Division has been instructed to transfer the dedicated budget for LGBT-related matters to the general budget.

The Shin Bet did not provide a response to the claims.

This was the right thing to do, because it was pointless, promoting perverted visions of how to manage life, insulting to what the Torah/Bible stands for, and just like how various businesses are moving away from supporting this wokeism in the USA and other places, Israel obviously has to start doing the same. I remember when a poll was taken 3 years ago where Jerusalemites said the LGBT pride parade should be cancelled, and hopefully, that too will fade away in time. For now, the Shin Bet did the right thing to stop pandering to wokeism. What matters is to focus on more serious issues like combating Islamic terrorism.

Socialism continues to have a terrible effect in New York, this time under Zohran Mamdani

3 Democrat candidates for Congress in NYC who were endorsed by their first Muslim mayor, Mamdani, won primaries, including at the expense of an incumbent who's reportedly pro-Israel:

Zohran Mamdani’s growing influence over the Democratic party was on show in New York City on Tuesday as three congressional candidates endorsed by New York’s democratic socialist mayor won closely watched primaries, while voters in Maryland, Utah and South Carolina cast ballots in primaries and runoffs.

Brad Lander, the former New York City comptroller who also ran for mayor last year before endorsing Mamdani, won his race comfortably, defeating the Democratic representative Dan Goldman.

Another Mamdani ally, Claire Valdez, a state lawmaker and former union organizer, defeated Antonio Reynoso, the preferred successor of retiring Democratic Representative Nydia Velázquez in New York’s seventh district, encompassing parts of Brooklyn and Queens. And in a stunning upset, the public defense investigator Darializa Avila Chevalier toppled Representative Adriano Espaillat, the powerful five-term incumbent who chairs the Congressional Hispanic caucus, in the state’s diverse 13th congressional district, which covers Upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx.

What makes this additionally disturbing is that Goldman was attacked in a social media post by Poetica Coffee, which is reportedly owned by Uzbek managers, for his pro-Israel positions. The DOJ opened an investigation into this incident, but sadly, the damage is done in more ways than one, given that Mamdani saw success with his repellent endorsements.

It would definitely seem much of NYC's residents are now revoltingly in favor of both socialism, and Islamism, if what Mamdani oversaw says anything. This is another terrible defeat for 911 Families, and also pro-Israel advocates.

Does Vietnam-era mentality continue in the USA?

If the following poll data says anything, the mindset opposed to seriously defeating the Iranian dictatorship continues in the USA:

A majority of Americans want the United States to end the war with Iran now, according to a recent CBS News/YouGov poll.

The survey, which was taken Wednesday through Friday, asked participants, “The Conflict with Iran: What Should the U.S. Do Now?” CBS reported Sunday.

Seventy-eight percent said the nation should end the conflict now, while 22 percent said continue the conflict until Iran gives up more:

CBS/YouGov poll | 6/17-6/19

Do you think the U.S. should end the conflict with Iran now, or should it continue the conflict until Iran gives
up more?
End the conflict now 78%
Continue the conflict until Iran gives up more 22%
——
Do you consider the conflict with Iran to have… https://t.co/1fuGXyZcXD pic.twitter.com/UESuDVdYkC

— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) June 21, 2026

The poll also surveyed Republicans, asking them, “What Should the U.S. Do Now?”

Sixty percent of all Republicans said the nation should end the conflict now and 56 percent of “MAGA” Republicans agreed. Forty percent of Republicans said the nation should continue the conflict until Iran gives up more, while 44 percent of “MAGA” Republicans agreed.

“This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,519 U.S. adults interviewed between June 17-19, 2026. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as 2024 presidential vote. The margin of error is ±2.4 points,” the article noted.

Now this is coming from a MSM business, so for all we know, it could be faked and distorted. Even so, if there's anything to it, it'll just further make this a most discouraging situation, considering there appears to be a sad case of those in the USA who won't study reality seriously. There's already people in Israel who're understandably worried about the deal with Iran, and if it leaves the current dictatorship in place, that's what's bad.

Diplomacy is doomed

According to senator Lindsey Graham:

Graham said, “We’re not giving any money to Iran that can change the course of history to try diplomacy. Is the MOU problematic? Yeah. I’d rather try diplomacy than take it off the table. The money Iran gets is not going to change the future of Iran. It’s not enough to reconstruct the country. If you don’t have a diplomatic path through the MOU, then you have to go to war or some other form of coercion. Let’s try this. Let’s try a diplomatic solution. I think it’s going to fail. What happens next? I spent four and a half hours with President Trump on Friday. Here’s what I think will happen next. If this deal fails, President Trump is going to take the Strait of Hormuz over by force.

He added, “The United States will control the Strait of Hormuz. We’ll charge a fee for all those who go three through to pay for the operation. And we’re going to expand the Abraham Accords and calendar year 2026. We’re going to get Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords, which is the biggest change in 5000 years in the Middle East. And if Iran can test control of the Strait of Hormuz by the United States will obliterate them. So to all the people listening, if this diplomatic effort fails. President Trump is going to take the Strait of Hormuz. We’re going to run it. We’re going to try to get Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords and the Arab-Israeli conflict in 2026. And if Iran continues to attack Israel and Lebanon, the new policy will be will hit Iran. So to the Iranians, if you’re listening, when you use Hezbollah to attack Israel, I think the new policy will be we will attack Iran.”

For now, if any money is given to Iran, that's wrong. But Graham's got a point that diplomacy is not a good option, and definitely not if it wasn't used in the approach to Afghanistan and Iraq years ago.