The Observer
🔴 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…
🔴 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
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.
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
@observer_5
The Observer
🔴 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: ▪️…
🔴 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
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 Observer
🔶⭕ Trump to Al-Zaidi: Did we do Iraq a favor by assassinating Soleimani?.. and the latter: I was not in politics at that time‼️ @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.
✍🏼 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.
The Observer
🔶⭕ Trump to Al-Zaidi: Did we do Iraq a favor by assassinating Soleimani?.. and the latter: I was not in politics at that time‼️ @observer_5
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
@observer_5
🚨 HEROES TRAPPED UNDERGROUND: THE SILENT SIEGE OF ALI AL-TAHIR
The News:
According to a report published by the Hebrew outlet Walla (July 2026), dozens of Lebanese resistance fighters have been blockaded for several weeks inside a strategic tunnel network in the Ali al-Tahir area, specifically near the town of Tibnit, southeast of Nabatiyeh in South Lebanon.
The Israeli military is enforcing strict "media ambiguity" and official silence on the siege. Per Walla, the Israeli defense establishment fears that directly targeting the trapped fighters will trigger a severe retaliatory response from Hezbollah or direct Iranian intervention, potentially escalating into a full-scale regional war.
Military intelligence indicates the blockaded fighters possess enough water, medicine, and dry rations (including dates and canned goods) to hold out for several more weeks.
International mediators have reportedly attempted to secure safe passage for the fighters.
The News:
According to a report published by the Hebrew outlet Walla (July 2026), dozens of Lebanese resistance fighters have been blockaded for several weeks inside a strategic tunnel network in the Ali al-Tahir area, specifically near the town of Tibnit, southeast of Nabatiyeh in South Lebanon.
The Israeli military is enforcing strict "media ambiguity" and official silence on the siege. Per Walla, the Israeli defense establishment fears that directly targeting the trapped fighters will trigger a severe retaliatory response from Hezbollah or direct Iranian intervention, potentially escalating into a full-scale regional war.
Military intelligence indicates the blockaded fighters possess enough water, medicine, and dry rations (including dates and canned goods) to hold out for several more weeks.
International mediators have reportedly attempted to secure safe passage for the fighters.
However, an Israeli security source confirmed their stance remains uncompromising: "Surrender or die in the tunnels."
Our Remark:
While our fighters face slow suffocation under the soil of their own homeland, the puppet theater in Beirut remains deafeningly silent. The current Lebanese government has once again proven its absolute spinelessness. Instead of leveraging diplomatic channels, international law, and state sovereignty to demand the immediate release and safe passage of these Lebanese citizens, our officials sit in their air-conditioned offices, paralyzed by cowardice and complicity.
A state that abandons its defenders under siege is not a state—it is an occupying power's bystander. We demand the Lebanese government break its shameful silence, act like a sovereign authority for once, and aggressively intervene to secure the release of these freedom fighters before time runs out. Silence is treason.
@observer_5
Our Remark:
While our fighters face slow suffocation under the soil of their own homeland, the puppet theater in Beirut remains deafeningly silent. The current Lebanese government has once again proven its absolute spinelessness. Instead of leveraging diplomatic channels, international law, and state sovereignty to demand the immediate release and safe passage of these Lebanese citizens, our officials sit in their air-conditioned offices, paralyzed by cowardice and complicity.
A state that abandons its defenders under siege is not a state—it is an occupying power's bystander. We demand the Lebanese government break its shameful silence, act like a sovereign authority for once, and aggressively intervene to secure the release of these freedom fighters before time runs out. Silence is treason.
@observer_5
⚡️ MILITARY UPDATE: ESCALATION IN SOUTH LEBANON DESPITE TRUCE TALKS (JULY 16, 2026)
Following yesterday's bilateral negotiations in Rome, the Israeli occupation forces launched a coordinated wave of escalatory strikes across Southern Lebanon today, Thursday, July 16, 2026. Heavy airstrikes, artillery shelling, and arson campaigns targeted civilian neighborhoods and strategic axes.
Here is the operational breakdown of today's strikes, compiled from military field sources:
📍 Key Targets & Geographic Areas
Nabatieh al-Fawqa (Al-Deir District): Target of two heavy waves of tactical airstrikes. Massive explosions resounded across the Nabatieh region, sending thick columns of smoke over residential areas.
Rashaf (Bint Jbeil District): Subjected to intense, concentrated artillery shelling.
Beit Yahoun (Outskirts): Ground forces deliberately set fire to several civilian homes and surrounding agricultural land.
Following yesterday's bilateral negotiations in Rome, the Israeli occupation forces launched a coordinated wave of escalatory strikes across Southern Lebanon today, Thursday, July 16, 2026. Heavy airstrikes, artillery shelling, and arson campaigns targeted civilian neighborhoods and strategic axes.
Here is the operational breakdown of today's strikes, compiled from military field sources:
📍 Key Targets & Geographic Areas
Nabatieh al-Fawqa (Al-Deir District): Target of two heavy waves of tactical airstrikes. Massive explosions resounded across the Nabatieh region, sending thick columns of smoke over residential areas.
Rashaf (Bint Jbeil District): Subjected to intense, concentrated artillery shelling.
Beit Yahoun (Outskirts): Ground forces deliberately set fire to several civilian homes and surrounding agricultural land.
Overflights & Reconnaissance:
Israeli warplanes and reconnaissance assets carried out medium-altitude sorties covering the eastern district of Hermel, the northern region of Akkar, and Beirut's Southern Suburbs (Dahiyeh).
⚔️ Weapons & Assets Deployed
Fixed-Wing Fighter Jets: Utilized in the precision bombardment of Nabatieh al-Fawqa (Al-Deir neighborhood) delivering high-explosive payloads.
Artillery Battalions: 155\text{mm} heavy artillery pieces deployed to shell the outskirts of Rashaf.
Incendiary Tactics: Ground units deployed incendiary devices/materials to scorch homes and fields in the Beit Yahoun sector.
@observer_5
Israeli warplanes and reconnaissance assets carried out medium-altitude sorties covering the eastern district of Hermel, the northern region of Akkar, and Beirut's Southern Suburbs (Dahiyeh).
⚔️ Weapons & Assets Deployed
Fixed-Wing Fighter Jets: Utilized in the precision bombardment of Nabatieh al-Fawqa (Al-Deir neighborhood) delivering high-explosive payloads.
Artillery Battalions: 155\text{mm} heavy artillery pieces deployed to shell the outskirts of Rashaf.
Incendiary Tactics: Ground units deployed incendiary devices/materials to scorch homes and fields in the Beit Yahoun sector.
@observer_5
🚨 VANCE UNLEASHED: VP Accuses Israel of Sabotaging US Policy and Confirms Epstein-Mossad Ties
VP JD Vance , issued very controversial statements during The Joe Rogan Experience Podcast. The interview was released yesterday July the 15th, 2026.
Here are some of the highlights:
1. Israel Sabotaging Negotiations & Prolonging the War
What Vance said: He accused elements within the Israeli government of backing a heavily funded influence campaign to manipulate American public opinion to derail US diplomatic efforts with Iran and prolong the war indefinitely.
Quote/Context: Referring to those behind the campaign targeting him over his diplomatic efforts, Vance said they can
He added,
VP JD Vance , issued very controversial statements during The Joe Rogan Experience Podcast. The interview was released yesterday July the 15th, 2026.
Here are some of the highlights:
1. Israel Sabotaging Negotiations & Prolonging the War
What Vance said: He accused elements within the Israeli government of backing a heavily funded influence campaign to manipulate American public opinion to derail US diplomatic efforts with Iran and prolong the war indefinitely.
Quote/Context: Referring to those behind the campaign targeting him over his diplomatic efforts, Vance said they can
"go to hell."
He added,
"There are some people within their system, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, who are manipulating and trying to change American public opinion to keep the war going on indefinitely."
2. Trump, Netanyahu, and Nuclear Weapons
What Vance said: He dismissed the idea that Donald Trump was being blackmailed or controlled by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He emphasized that the administration's actions are driven by a core strategic objective: ensuring Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.
3. Jeffrey Epstein's Links to Israeli Intelligence (Mossad)
What Vance said: When asked by Joe Rogan about theories that Jeffrey Epstein was connected to Israel's Mossad, Vance agreed that Epstein had deep intelligence ties.
Quote/Context: Vance replied,
He further noted that Epstein's ties were specifically connected to elements of the Israeli deep state that were "left of center."
@observer_5
What Vance said: He dismissed the idea that Donald Trump was being blackmailed or controlled by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He emphasized that the administration's actions are driven by a core strategic objective: ensuring Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.
3. Jeffrey Epstein's Links to Israeli Intelligence (Mossad)
What Vance said: When asked by Joe Rogan about theories that Jeffrey Epstein was connected to Israel's Mossad, Vance agreed that Epstein had deep intelligence ties.
Quote/Context: Vance replied,
"Yeah, Mossad or CIA or some other deep state... He clearly had connections to the upper, the highest levels of American intelligence. He clearly had connections to the highest levels of Israeli intelligence."
He further noted that Epstein's ties were specifically connected to elements of the Israeli deep state that were "left of center."
@observer_5
⚠️ SECURITY ALERT: US EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD ISSUES WARNING FOLLOWING ERBIL ATTACK
The US Embassy in Baghdad has issued an urgent security advisory for its citizens in Iraq, urging extreme caution following the recent attack in Erbil.
Key Details:
Travel Advisory: The embassy confirmed that the official travel advisory for Iraq remains at Level 4: Do Not Travel (the highest threat level).
Disruptions: US citizens are warned of potential travel disruptions and sudden, unannounced airspace closures.
Recommended Actions: Citizens currently in Iraq are advised to maintain a low profile, monitor local media for sudden updates, and prepare emergency contingency plans.
@observer_5
The US Embassy in Baghdad has issued an urgent security advisory for its citizens in Iraq, urging extreme caution following the recent attack in Erbil.
Key Details:
Travel Advisory: The embassy confirmed that the official travel advisory for Iraq remains at Level 4: Do Not Travel (the highest threat level).
Disruptions: US citizens are warned of potential travel disruptions and sudden, unannounced airspace closures.
Recommended Actions: Citizens currently in Iraq are advised to maintain a low profile, monitor local media for sudden updates, and prepare emergency contingency plans.
@observer_5
🤣1
Iran's Mahan Air announces new flight route connecting Tehran and Sana'a, with the inaugural flight scheduled to launch on July 18.
What does that mean in reference to the Saudi embargo against Yemen?
The announcement of direct flights between Tehran and Sana'a serves as a direct geopolitical challenge to the long-standing, Saudi-led air and naval blockade imposed on Yemen since 2015. While Riyadh has historically controlled and restricted access to Sana'a International Airport—limiting flights primarily to humanitarian aid and specific regional destinations—Iran’s unilateral moves to establish commercial air corridors signal a significant shift in regional leverage, undermining the strategic efficacy of the embargo.
@observer_5
What does that mean in reference to the Saudi embargo against Yemen?
The announcement of direct flights between Tehran and Sana'a serves as a direct geopolitical challenge to the long-standing, Saudi-led air and naval blockade imposed on Yemen since 2015. While Riyadh has historically controlled and restricted access to Sana'a International Airport—limiting flights primarily to humanitarian aid and specific regional destinations—Iran’s unilateral moves to establish commercial air corridors signal a significant shift in regional leverage, undermining the strategic efficacy of the embargo.
@observer_5
The Observer
⚠️ SECURITY ALERT: US EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD ISSUES WARNING FOLLOWING ERBIL ATTACK The US Embassy in Baghdad has issued an urgent security advisory for its citizens in Iraq, urging extreme caution following the recent attack in Erbil. Key Details: Travel Advisory:…
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🇮🇷❌🇺🇸🇮🇶 — Satellite imagery appears to show a U.S. Patriot air defense launcher at Erbil Airport, Iraq, was destroyed in an Iranian Shahed-136 drone strike last night.
@observer_5
@observer_5
🔴 Iran Confronts US Aggression: US Airstrike Targets Iranshahr Airport and a Vital Bridge Connecting Southern Provinces
▪️ Today, areas in Iran were subjected to a series of airstrikes targeting strategic infrastructure, amid reports of loud explosions.
▪️ Field reports indicated that the airport in the city of "Iranshahr" was subjected to a missile attack carried out by warplanes. Residents heard three powerful explosions in the vicinity of the airport, prompting an immediate mobilization of authorities and specialized teams to assess the extent of the damage.
▪️ In a related context, the attacks hit the "Kahurestan" area of the city of "Bandar Khamir," where airstrikes targeted a vital bridge connecting Bandar Abbas and Shiraz (the Shur River Bridge), destroying it and completely cutting off the road linking Bandar Abbas and Lar.
▪️ The attack on the Kahurestan area also resulted in power outages across large parts of it.
▪️ Preliminary reports indicate the potential presence of civilian vehicles crossing the bridge at the moment it was targeted, while assessments remain ongoing to determine the extent of casualties and material damage resulting from these strikes.
@observer_5
▪️ Today, areas in Iran were subjected to a series of airstrikes targeting strategic infrastructure, amid reports of loud explosions.
▪️ Field reports indicated that the airport in the city of "Iranshahr" was subjected to a missile attack carried out by warplanes. Residents heard three powerful explosions in the vicinity of the airport, prompting an immediate mobilization of authorities and specialized teams to assess the extent of the damage.
▪️ In a related context, the attacks hit the "Kahurestan" area of the city of "Bandar Khamir," where airstrikes targeted a vital bridge connecting Bandar Abbas and Shiraz (the Shur River Bridge), destroying it and completely cutting off the road linking Bandar Abbas and Lar.
▪️ The attack on the Kahurestan area also resulted in power outages across large parts of it.
▪️ Preliminary reports indicate the potential presence of civilian vehicles crossing the bridge at the moment it was targeted, while assessments remain ongoing to determine the extent of casualties and material damage resulting from these strikes.
@observer_5