999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999
Iran warns Persian Gulf states
after US-hosted security
summit in Bahrain
July 2nd, 7:04pm
(PressTV)
Iran has warned regional countries to remain highly vigilant
against US-led security initiatives, saying they should not
forget the consequences of the recent US-Israeli military
aggression that undermined security across West Asia.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei on Thursday
lambasted the United States over a regional security
meeting hosted in Bahrain, warning neighbouring
countries not to be deceived by Washington's
security initiatives and to remain alert to
its destabilizing role in West Asia.
“The US administration has repeatedly demonstrated
that it places no value on the peace and security of
the countries of the West Asia region,” he said,
in a post on X on Thursday.
“Such gatherings are nothing more than a spectacle and a
public relations exercise aimed at covering up the United
States' destabilizing policies and unlawful actions in
West Asia,” Baghaei stressed, responding to a US
statement announcing the so-called “Regional
Security Dialogue” in Bahrain.
“The countries of the region must remain extremely vigilant
and cautious, and they must not forget the clear lessons of
the consequences of the recent US-Zionist regime military
aggression and their destructive actions, which violated
the security of the entire region,” the spokesman
further said.
On Wednesday night, the US Central Command (CENTCOM)
announced that it had held a regional security meeting
hosted by the Bahrain Defense Force with senior
military officials from 11 Middle East countries.
According to the CENTCOM statement, Commander Gen. Brad
Cooper and senior military officials from Bahrain, Egypt,
Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, discussed
the region's current security situation - and the
opportunities to enhance military cooperation.
The participants also reaffirmed their shared commitment
to ensuring the free flow of commerce through the Strait
of Hormuz.
Iran’s armed forces vow swift response
to any US violation in Strait of Hormuz
The warning comes weeks after a US-Israeli war of aggression
against Iran, during which Iranian armed forces launched
powerful retaliatory strikes - and imposed restrictions
on traffic through the strategic waterway before a
ceasefire..... and a fragile memorandum of
understanding - between Tehran and
Washington ...eased tensions.
___________________________________
Israel's largest refineries face years
of repair after Iran airstrikes:
Report
Report
July 2nd, 3:42pm
(PressTV)
Damage at the Bazan Group oil refinery in the Haifa Bay
after it was hit by an Iranian ballistic missile overnight
on June 15, 2025.
Israel's largest oil refineries have sustained far heavier damage
from retaliatory Iranian missile strikes during the latest round
of US-Israeli aggression against Iran than Israeli authorities
previously acknowledged, Israeli media reports say.
Israel's Channel 12 News reported that the refineries in Haifa
Bay, in the north of the occupied territories sustained severe
damage after two separate Iranian strikes earlier this year.
One oil derivatives storage tank struck during an attack in
March is beyond repair. The refineries had also sustained
damage last year, during Israel's 12-day war of
aggression against Iran.
It said three Bazan employees were killed after Iranian
missiles pierced the US-backed Iron Dome mobile air
defense system in June 2025.
The report further said that the ministry of interior has
now approved... large-scale reconstruction works,
which are expected to be completed - in 2028.
Meanwhile, Yeshiva World, citing an official report by the
ministry, said damage was reported at gas turbines,
steam boilers, electrical rooms, and other
auxiliary systems.
The latest reports emerge as real damage had not
previously been publicly acknowledged by
Israeli authorities.
Israeli media ------- Iran's new-generation
missiles cause widespread destruction
Israelis have filed over 11,000 compensation
claims ---- related to damages... from Iran
Israel’s minister of energy Eli Cohen and Bazan,
the company operating the site, had claimed
no material damage had been recorded.
Bazan told the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange in March
that the roof of a distillate tank had sustained
"localized damage" and that all production
facilities were operational.
"The company estimates..... that the damage is not
significant. As of the time of this announcement,
all the company's facilities remain operational,"
Bazan said at the time.
Bazan also estimated the losses at $150-200 million,
while Israeli officials maintained that fuel supplies
would not be affected.
The Bazan refineries, built during the British occupation
of Palestine, are among Israel's most strategically
important industrial sites, supplying oil products
for domestic consumption.
The refineries have the capacity to produce approximately
26,000 tons of oil per day and can process about 9.8m
tons of crude oil, annually.
During the the latest round of US-Israeli aggression, Iran
struck several strategic sites across the occupied
territories, including the Kirya in Tel Aviv, the
Israeli military-affiliated Weizmann Institute,
the Nevatim airbase, and the Haifa
port area.
Earlier this month, the Times of Israel reported
that a hangar at the Ramat David airbase
had been damaged.
In recent years, Israel has refused to disclose the full
extent of the damage caused by Iranian missile
strikes, applying strict military censorship.
According to +972 Magazine --- Israeli military censorship
reached its highest level in 2024 since the outlet began
collecting data in 2011 --------- with approximately 8,000
articles either banned outright or partially censored.
While military censorship declined last year, with around
5,000 articles banned or partially censored, +972
Magazine still recorded the second-highest
annual total of censored articles
since 2011.
Iranian retaliatory attacks -- also left at least 20 US military
sites damaged since the start of the US-Israeli aggression
against the Islamic Republic ---- a recent analysis of
satellite images and videos shows, indicating
that the strikes were more extensive.....
than publicly acknowledged.
than publicly acknowledged.
____________________________________
How enemy's failure to honour Clause 1
of MoU is forcing Iran to recalibrate
its strategic calculus
July 2nd, 12:47pm
By Press TV Strategic Analysis Desk
Twelve days after the signing of the Iran-US memorandum
of understanding (MoU) to formally end the imposed war,
a troubling reality has become increasingly difficult to
ignore: none of the principal provisions that were
intended to serve as the foundation for
negotiations on a final agreement
have been implemented.
The result is that the diplomatic process now risks becoming
trapped not by disagreements over the substance of a future
deal, but by a more fundamental problem, which is the
unwillingness of the other side..... to fulfill the
commitments it has already undertaken.
At the heart of this impasse --- lies Clause 1 of the
understanding, arguably the most consequential
provision in the entire document.
It was intended to create the minimum strategic conditions
necessary for meaningful negotiations by ending the
illegal war against Iran and its allies and restoring
regional stability. Instead, twelve days later,
virtually every essential requirement
contained within that clause
remains unmet.
The first and most obvious failure concerns the cessation
of US-Israeli military offensives. Clause 1 envisioned an
immediate end to all such hostilities on all fronts, from
Iran to Lebanon. Yet the attacks continue, and
Lebanon remains partially occupied.
Even more significant than the occupation itself is the
political messaging accompanying it. Israeli regime
officials have repeatedly insisted that their illegal
military presence in southern Lebanon.... will
continue for an extended period, signaling
that withdrawal is not even under
serious consideration at
this stage.
This transforms the issue from a temporary delay into
a structural obstacle. As long as the occupation of
Lebanese territory continues, one of the central
political and security conditions underpinning
the Iran-US understanding.... remains
fundamentally unfulfilled.
The second failure concerns the continued reliance on
coercion. Clause 1 was not limited to ending active
military attacks, but it also sought to eliminate
the threat or use of force as a tool of political
pressure. Yet Washington has continued to
employ threatening rhetoric toward Iran
while simultaneously carrying out
aerial military strikes against
Iranian territory.
Such actions... undermine the very logic upon which
negotiations are supposed to proceed. Diplomacy
cannot function as an extension of military
pressure while simultaneously claiming
to replace it.
This contradiction raises an increasingly important
strategic question: if the commitments required
before negotiations have even begun are not
being honoured, what confidence can exist
regarding commitments contained within
any future comprehensive agreement?
The enemy's reluctance to honour its commitments is not a
byproduct of bureaucratic inertia, but a deliberate tactical
choice, one that serves multiple objectives: buying time
to rebuild military capabilities, navigating domestic
political challenges such as the upcoming US
midterm elections and the FIFA World Cup
hosting, and -- fundamentally altering the
balance of leverage before substantive
negotiations on a final agreement --
even begin.
President Donald Trump's stated willingness to extend the
understanding's 60-day deadline should be read not as
flexibility but as a signal that the enemy perceives
its interests as better served by prolongation
than by implementation.
Iran’s entry into Lebanon's political equation
Perhaps the most strategically significant development since
the signing of the MoU has been the creation of a “Lebanon
De-escalation Committee” and Iran’s formal membership
in it. It is a mechanism that represents one of the most
important geopolitical consequences of the recent
war and the changing regional power architecture.
For years, Arab countries exercised influence through
economic leverage, while Western powers and the
United States secured their foothold --- through
military, political, and international pressure.
Iran's entry into this club is rooted in
regional strategic power.
Iran's formal participation in the committee fundamentally
changes the regional equation. For the first time, Iran has
acquired an officially recognized political role in shaping
Lebanon's future, not because of financial leverage or
external sponsorship, but because of the strategic
realities produced by the recent war.
In many respects, this represents the institutional recognition
of a new regional balance of power, and this development
carries implications extending far beyond Lebanon itself.
History demonstrates that regional influence is not granted
voluntarily by competitors. It is earned through political
credibility, military capability, strategic endurance,
and the ability to impose new realities that
other actors are ultimately forced
to acknowledge.
It also reinforces a broader lesson emerging from the
recent war: sustainable regional influence depends
upon ---- preserving the very sources of national
power that created it. Diplomatic recognition
without strategic leverage rarely produces
lasting political outcomes.
However, this new role carries immense responsibility as
well as risk. Mere membership in the committee, without
the active employment of power instruments, would be
worse than useless. It would transform Iran from the
Resistance Front's principal ally into a channel ----
through which enemy pressure flows.
The philosophy behind Iran's presence on this committee is
to defend the rights of the Resistance Front and secure its
objectives. If Iranian diplomacy operates without the
backing of other strategic instruments, it risks
becoming a mechanism for imposing the
enemy's conditions, with Iran itself
becoming the conduit ---- for
that pressure.
This explains why the implementation of Clause 1, cannot
depend solely upon negotiations inside committee rooms.
It requires the continued availability of broader
instruments of national power capable of
altering the calculations of the
opposing side.
The Strait of Hormuz as the fulcrum of leverage
This is precisely why Iran's principal priorities at present,
are very prudently chosen. The focus on two objectives
– consolidating permanent and effective sovereignty
over the Strait of Hormuz and compelling the
Zionist regime to accept Iran's equation
regarding Lebanon – are not separate
goals but complementary elements
of a single strategic vision.
If the US expects negotiations on sanctions relief and the
nuclear issue to advance, it must first ensure that its
Zionist proxy - fulfills the obligations already
embedded - within Clause 1 of the Tehran
-Washington understanding. Otherwise,
the diplomatic process risks being
disconnected from the regional
realities, that made the MoU
possible in the first place.
The Strait of Hormuz -- is the instrument that makes this
equation enforceable. Iran's decisive military response
to the regime following the attack on the southern
suburbs of Beirut (Dahiyeh) demonstrated --- that
the only viable way to consolidate the authority
gained from the recent war is through the use
of strategic instruments such as the Strait of
Hormuz, combined with decisive - effective
military action.
The closure of the Strait during the war created leverage
that gave the Islamic Republic significant power. It will
not hesitate to consider closing it again, if it deems
it necessary.
Iran's ability to influence maritime traffic through the strategic
chokepoint provides leverage... that no amount of diplomatic
maneuvering can replicate. It is the material basis for Iran's
claim to a seat at the table of regional superpowers, and
it is the instrument through which Iran can compel the
enemy to take its demands seriously.
A reciprocal strategy of delay
The enemy's lack of urgency and seriousness in implementing
Clause 1 of the memorandum ------- demands a proportionate
response. Iran possesses many instruments with which
to pressure the enemy into fulfilling the conditions
underlined in the MoU.
These range... from setting deadlines for specific actions, such
as initiating the process of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to making Iran's own commitments
under the understanding - contingent upon reciprocal action.
One option is adopting a policy of reciprocal action in the sense
of: delay in response to delay. For as long as the Zionist regime
delays withdrawing from Lebanon, Iran will likewise suspend
or restrict its own measures ...regarding maritime traffic
through the Strait of Hormuz.
This is not merely tit-for-tat tactics but a strategic
communication -- that the enemy's time-buying
tactics have a cost, and that Iran's patience
is not infinite. Such an approach, would
mirror the pace of compliance rather
than allowing... an asymmetrical
implementation to emerge.
The proposed agreement already includes provisions
allowing Iran to withdraw if commitments are not
met, including breaches of the ceasefire, failure
to provide access to Iranian frozen funds, or
failure to lift the illegal maritime blockade.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has been explicit
in saying that if the provisions of the memorandum are
not fulfilled, Iran will refuse to proceed with a final
agreement. The 60-day window is not a grace
period for the enemy to continue its delaying
tactics but a compliance test, and Iran will
block any loopholes for non-compliance.
The deeper strategic logic
Ultimately --- Iran's ability to compel Israel to withdraw from
southern Lebanon will serve as the principal indicator and
benchmark -- for the continuation of the strategic contest
between Iran and the United States. This is not merely a
Lebanese issue but fundamentally an Iranian issue that
reflects the country’s growing power and authority,
and it is critically important for safeguarding
Iran's rights ------- and consolidating its
strategic victory.
The enemy's calculation that the benefits of prolongation of the
MoU’s implementation exceed the costs - must be changed.
Iran's effective performance in its new regional role - can
continue only by relying on its strategic power and its
constituent elements.
The philosophy behind Iran's membership in the Lebanon
De-escalation Committee is to defend the rights of the
Resistance Front, which won’t happen through
membership alone, but through the credible
employment of all the instruments of
its power.
The next phase will be decisive. The enemy is testing whether
Iran's new regional role is substantive or symbolic, whether
its strategic power is real or rhetorical. Iran's response will
determine not only the fate of the understanding and the
final agreement but the entire trajectory of regional
power dynamics for the coming decade.