NEW:

President Trump says he has changed his mind and won’t charge 20% tolls from ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz

Instead, he will seek

‘investments’ and ‘trade contracts’

from Gulf states.

@observer_5

🔴 The new wave of Iranian attacks targeting U.S. targets in the region

The recent hours have witnessed a series of attacks targeting military sites and bases hosting U.S. forces in several countries across the region, amid escalating regional tensions:

• Iraq: Field reports indicated that a military base hosting U.S. forces in the vicinity of Erbil Airport was subjected to a drone attack.

• Kuwait: Successive explosion sounds were heard in various parts of the country, amid a state of anticipation.

• Bahrain: Local sources detected explosions in the vicinity of the "Sheikh Isa" Air Base, which hosts U.S. military units.

@observer_5

🔴 Mohammad Khatami directs his arrows inward: Advocates of revenge are practically walking the exact path that Israel wants

Former Iranian President Seyyed Mohammad Khatami called for supporting the government's efforts to reach a

"sustainable agreement"

to end conflicts, warning against domestic extremist factions that obstruct the path of negotiations.

Key points from his speech:
•

"Today, despite its wounds from the injustice of outsiders and the ignorance of friends, our beloved Iran stands anxious yet proud."

•

"It is regrettable that, amidst this complex situation instigated by Israel and America, extremist forces and media at home align with this trend, working to disparage the negotiations and public officials."

•

"Based on fairness, morality, and reason, I do not consider the warmongers and advocates of revenge to be aligned with Israel; however, I say that—despite their good intentions—they are practically walking the exact same path and saying the exact same things that Israel wants."

•

"Viewing peace as treason, and using the name of Imam Hussein (AS) as a pretext to justify delusional demands and attack negotiators, has nothing to do with the essence of Islam, does not serve Iran, and does not preserve the blood of the martyrs."

•

"I say now in all frankness that I call, with all my being, for an honorable peace."

@observer_5

A Regime of Concessions: Lebanese Government Accepts "Experimental Zones" and Direct Military Talks with the Israeli Occupation Under U.S. Sponsorship!

Official sources have revealed the Lebanese authorities' capitulation to a highly questionable negotiating path that compromises national sovereignty under the guise of "experimental zones" in South Lebanon.

Key outcomes of the Rome meeting today :


Agreement on Two "Experimental Zones":

One currently occupied by Israel and the other adjacent to its positions, effectively turning sovereign Lebanese territory into a testing ground.

Direct Military Negotiations:

A joint Lebanese-Israeli military meeting will be convened under U.S. sponsorship to finalize implementation, including Lebanese Army deployment, Israeli withdrawal, and timelines for subsequent "experimental" areas.

Imminent Implementation:

Israeli outlet Yedioth Ahronoth confirmed through its sources that the final preparation and agreement regarding these experimental zones will be finalized very soon.

@observer_5

🔴 The US House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejects a proposal to cut military aid to Israel

📍 Washington

Representative Thomas Massie introduced a proposal to cut US military aid to Israel by $3.3 billion, and Nancy Pelosi supported the motion.

Despite the media hype surrounding this vote, the response within Congress was overwhelming, rejecting the proposal by a vote of 314 to 104, putting an end to any misinterpretations.

The move was a tactical attempt to absorb electoral pressure and settle personal scores with Netanyahu, rather than a genuine shift against the war ongoing since 2023. The core of US support for the Zionist entity remains steadfast, unaffected by superficial disagreements with the occupation's leaders.

📌 Note

This result embodies the solid American reality before all the naive individuals inside Iran who still bet on an "honorable peace" or the lifting of sanctions by relying on minor shifts in US political rhetoric. These people deliberately—or out of ignorance—ignore that the US Congress, across all its factions, remains committed to its strategic alignment in support of Israel.


@observer_5

🔵 Statement No. 15 / Targeting the early warning radar of the C-RAM system at Ali Al Salem Base in Kuwait, as well as gatherings of terrorist US Army soldiers in complex operations
Public Relations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC):

🔹 O zealous and steadfast people of Iran! In response to the enemy's attacks last night on locations along the southern coasts and cities of the country, your brave and heroic sons in the Navy and Aerospace Forces of the Revolutionary Guard—in the eighth wave of Operation "Nasr 2" under the blessed name "Ya Zeinab al-Kubra (S)", and in a complex operation using their missile and drone capabilities—targeted and destroyed the early warning radar of the C-RAM system at Ali Al Salem Base, in addition to gatherings of the terrorist US occupation army soldiers.

🔹 We remind the honorable Kuwaiti people once again that these crimes are committed by America using your territory against Muslim Iran.

🔹 We expect you, Muslim brothers and sisters, to cleanse your country of the presence of the aggressors, and to perform your Islamic duty to preserve your honor and historical dignity.

@observer_5

🟢 Iranian Army Spokesperson: In the event of continued US aggression, the war will expand to new arenas

▪️ Non-regional countries must deal with Iran on the basis of mutual respect, and the country's armed forces are fully prepared to protect national security and interests.

▪️ Iran has no conflict with neighboring countries or Islamic nations in the region, and it always emphasizes the development of cooperation and brotherly relations with regional countries.

▪️ A significant portion of the armed forces' capabilities and potential has not yet been demonstrated. In the event of any continued hostile action against the country, Iran's response will be proportional to the circumstances and beyond what the enemy expects, and new arenas of confrontation will emerge.

▪️ The Iranian Armed Forces consider protecting the security, interests, and dignity of the Iranian people to be their primary mission, and they will spare no effort in this path.

@observer_5

🔴 Spokesperson for the "Khatam al-Anbiya" Headquarters: If you target our infrastructure, we will strike all infrastructure in the region

▪️ Under no circumstances and in no shape or form will we allow America, as a foreign and non-regional country, to interfere in the Strait of Hormuz. This is an Iranian red line that cannot be crossed.

▪️ If the recent threats by the "mindless" President of America—stating that the infrastructure of Islamic Iran would be targeted by its aggressive military—are executed, then everything that has remained intact thanks to Iran's nobility, meaning all infrastructure in the region, will be crushed under the steel strikes of the capable Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, leaving no trace behind as if it had never existed before.

▪️ Let the ignorant enemy know that the moment of epic battle is not a moment of avoidance for us. What emanates from the Iranian Armed Forces is not a proportional strike, but a superior strike. Strikes that will be fiercer, broader, and more destructive than ever before. The fire of wrath of a nation that has never surrendered will burn the aggressor.

@observer_5

Trump claims:

Iran has allowed an American citizen, who was wrongfully detained in December 2024 under the "presidency" of Sleepy Joe Biden, to leave the country.

She is now safely out of Iran, and doing well.
The United States of America appreciates this gesture of goodwill by Iran!

@observer_5

🔴 Washington pushes project to connect Iraq and Syria via oil pipeline to bypass the Strait of Hormuz

The United States, led by its Special Envoy "Thomas Barrack" (the project's godfather), is leading a strategic initiative to revive the Kirkuk-Baniyas pipeline to connect Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean.

The project aims to reduce Iran's influence over global energy corridors. This was raised as a key file during the recent visit of Iraqi Prime Minister "Ali Al-Zaidi" to Washington and his meeting with President Trump, paving the way for the announcement of new oil partnerships that establish this strategic shift.

@observer_5

🔴 The "Mediterranean Pipeline" Project and the Attempt to Re-colonize Energy

The (Kirkuk-Baniyas) pipeline project brings back memories of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, as this move cannot be separated from the political doctrine adopted by the "hawks" in Washington at the time.

The return of companies like KBR to the scene is no coincidence; rather, it is a continuation of an approach that relies on transforming the "war economy" into an "economy of hegemony."

1. "Halliburton" and the Root of the Story: Linking Invasion to Plunder

It is impossible to discuss KBR without returning to its roots in Halliburton, which was run by Dick Cheney before he assumed the office of US Vice President.

This company was the true "godfather" of logistics services in Iraq, scooping up billion-dollar contracts through highly controversial means.

The truth that everyone recognizes today is that the owners and boards of directors of these companies were the primary drivers behind the invasion decision. They planned for two inseparable goals:

Direct seizure of oil fields: Transforming Iraqi oil from a national asset into resources under the control of major corporations.

Billion-dollar logistics contracts: Ensuring that reconstruction budgets—originally funded by Iraqi oil revenues—went directly into their own pockets under the guise of providing food, construction, and maintenance for the invading forces.
At its core, the invasion was an "investment project" par excellence, and today, history is repeating itself with the same faces and companies.

2. What Do They Want from This Project?
The project aims to achieve "oil enslavement":

Dominance over the route: Washington does not just want Iraq's oil; it wants to be the "controller of the tap." Whoever owns the pipeline owns Iraq's sovereign decision-making.

Altering the geopolitical map: The goal is to detach Iraq from its eastern surroundings and link it to the Mediterranean (and consequently to the Zionist entity) to secure "Israel's" energy security and bypass any threats in the Strait of Hormuz.

3. The Inevitable Result: An Existential Confrontation

The outcome of this project will not be economic, but highly security-driven:
Turning Iraq into a theater of conflict: The project will turn oil routes into legitimate "military targets" in the eyes of the Resistance. If Halliburton and its sisters previously drained Iraq's funds, the Resistance today will not allow them to drain its strategic resources.

The Resistance on the ground: Revolutionary Iraqi youth will not stand idly by in the face of attempts to re-establish hegemony. The Resistance views this project as a "new kind of invasion" aimed at stealing the livelihood of the Iraqi people and serving the agendas of the nation's enemies.

📌 Conclusion
Companies like KBR and their partners are betting that a "security grip" and friendly politics will allow them to push this project through. But they forget that today's Iraq is not the Iraq of 2003, and the people who expelled them previously are capable of disrupting any oil route that mortgages national decision-making to the will of the White House. This pipeline, if they begin laying it down, will become a "security liability" and a "direct target," making the cost of its continuation far higher than any imaginary profits dreamed of by the new "godfathers of invasion."

@observer_5

🔴 Ghalibaf in a statement to the public: The option of "negotiations" is a national tool that does not contradict "readiness for war"
Head of the negotiating team, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, addresses a message to the Iranian people. The statement reads:

▪️ We are in an existential war with America that requires a realistic and long-term outlook. We do not welcome war, but we are ready for confrontation until the last breath, while utilizing diplomacy to achieve our interests; negotiation and war are both means to preserve national security, and the decision regarding them lies in the hands of the supreme leadership.

▪️ We do not commit to any agreement that does not yield benefit for us, in accordance with the principle of "an eye for an eye." In this regard, we have established the "Iranian arrangements" in the Strait of Hormuz as a national right that we will stand firm to protect against American attempts at intimidation.

▪️ We call upon the people to unite behind the directives of the Leader of the Revolution, and to ignore news aimed at shaking confidence or spreading despair. Our strength in Hormuz is the fruit of sacrifices on the battlefield, and we are moving forward to take revenge for the blood of our martyrs. We have dedicated our lives to defending this homeland, and we will respond decisively to the enemy's crimes.


@observer_5

🔴 How does the "enemy camp" read this statement?

In light of Washington violating all clauses of the understanding in less than a month, the adversary's camp in Washington may read this statement as a "turning point" that plays in their favor, according to the following interpretations:


1. Interpreting "Continuation" as an "Inability to Find an Alternative":
For them, the fact that all clauses have been gutted without being met by an Iranian withdrawal from the understanding—but rather by an "explanatory statement" defending negotiation—may be read as evidence of an "inability to escalate." They interpret this adherence to "negotiation tools" as an implicit admission that the Iranian side lacks the field or political alternatives to walk away from the negotiating table.


2. Reading "Internal Pressures" as an "Indicator of Weakness":
The clear references in the statement to domestic opponents may be read in Washington as a strategic "signal of weakness." The adversary sees that Ghalibaf is not in a position of initiative, but rather in a position of "defending his choices" under the weight of growing domestic pressure. This perception leads them to believe that Ghalibaf will not risk leaving the negotiating table, regardless of the scale of the violations, for fear of the repercussions this would have on his political standing.


3. The Strategic Conclusion:
The message received by the adversary is not "we are ready for war," but may instead be read as follows: "We are in a political and economic impasse that makes us cling to the negotiating table as a last resort." This analysis tempts the American side to continue its "maximum pressure" approach and refuse to make any concessions, as they have become convinced that the Iranian side has made its strategic decision to "remain" in the negotiating process, regardless of the price paid in the terms of the understanding.

📌 Conclusion
Instead of the adversary viewing the statement as a "warning," it may be read by them as a "green light" to continue imposing a fait accompli. This is due to their confidence that the Iranian side, despite all the firm rhetoric, has settled on its choice not to leave the negotiating table—which, in the mentality of "deal-making," they consider a victory for themselves.

@observer_5

🔴 The Prime Minister Speaks on Behalf of Iraq, Not on His Own Personal Behalf

✍🏼 By: Mohammad al-Shabout

In politics, an official may miscalculate a position or choose one phrasing over another, but there are moments when words do not express a personal opinion, but rather the state they represent. One of these moments occurred at the White House when US President Donald Trump brought up the assassination of Iranian Commander Qasem Soleimani and the assassination of the Deputy Chairman of the Popular Mobilization Forces, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and questioned Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Al-Zaidi in a manner implying that this act was a service to Iraq.

The question was directed to the Prime Minister of Iraq, not to Ali Al-Zaidi as an individual. Therefore, the answer should have come from the position of the state, not the individual. However, the Prime Minister replied that he was not involved in political work at the time, as if the issue were linked to the date of his entry into political life, whereas the reality is that the Iraqi state did not begin with him, and its sovereignty is not tied to the date he assumed office.

This response was unfortunate because it shifted the discussion from the level of the state to the level of personal biography. Of what relevance is it whether the Prime Minister was in or out of politics at the time of the incident? Does Iraq's sovereignty become less significant because the current Prime Minister did not hold public office at that time? And does the state's responsibility to defend its sovereignty change with a change of individuals?
The core of the issue is not about Qasem Soleimani or Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Iraqis have the right to differ in their assessment of the two men, and political forces may differ in their positions toward them, but this is not the subject of discussion. The real issue is that a military operation was carried out by a foreign nation on Iraqi soil, without the approval of the Iraqi state, resulting in the death of an official Iraqi officer, as well as an Iranian military official who was present in Iraq.

This is a matter that infringes upon the sovereignty of the state before it touches individuals.
Had the Prime Minister answered from this standpoint, he would have expressed a position respected by all Iraqis, regardless of their differing views on the targeted individuals. He could have said, quite calmly: Iraq is keen on having the best relations with the United States, but it cannot consider the violation of its sovereignty as a service to it, because respect for state sovereignty is the foundation upon which international relations are built.

Such an answer does not carry hostility toward the United States, does not offend the US President, and does not open the door to a diplomatic crisis. At the same time, it preserves the dignity of the Iraqi state. Diplomacy is not the art of avoiding the truth, but the art of speaking the truth in the best possible way.

When the Prime Minister stands in the capital of a foreign nation, he does not represent his party, his political bloc, or his personal history; he represents the Republic of Iraq.

Consequently, every word he utters becomes part of the official position of the state, not merely an individual opinion that can be apologized for or explained later.
For this reason, I did not like the Prime Minister's response. Not because I wanted him to engage in an argument with the US President, or to turn the visit into a political confrontation, but because I wanted him to perform his constitutional duty in defending Iraq's sovereignty, and to point out, calmly and respectfully, that Iraq is a sovereign state. This sovereignty does not change with the change of governments, does not lapse with the change of individuals, and must not be a matter of courtesy, even with the closest of allies.
Nations are often measured by the way their leaders defend their dignity in difficult situations. That was one of those moments when Iraq needed a voice to speak on its behalf, not on behalf of its owner.

Defending state sovereignty does not mean defending individuals, just as criticizing individuals does not justify violating state sovereignty. The state is the framework that protects everyone, and it is the duty of the Prime Minister to defend this framework before any other consideration. Iraqis may differ in their assessment of Qasem Soleimani or Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, but they must agree that the decision to use force inside Iraq must be an Iraqi decision, and that the state's monopoly on the use of force on its territory is one of the most important components of sovereignty and independence. Hence, the issue is not a matter of individuals, but of the state, and it is not a matter of the past, but of the principle that must govern Iraq's present and future.

@observer_5