We know what’s coming and we are prepared.
🇮🇱☢️🇮🇷 Leaked US Intel Confirms Israeli Nuclear Weapons
"We have not observed indications that Israel intends to use a nuclear weapon." That sentence is the concluding line from an allegedly leaked (or hacked) U.S. intelligence document posted online this week and later reported on by Axios, CNN, and other outlets.
The Associated Press and independent investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein both cited government sources who said the documents appeared to be authentic. While U.S. officials have yet to comment publicly on the material, reporting confirmed an investigation into their authenticity and how they came to be in the public domain was underway.
Assuming the documents are authentic, what they show is that U.S. intelligence—as is well known and despite being close allies—keeps a close and clandestine eye on Israeli military operations.
CNN cited an unnamed U.S. official who called the documents being made public "deeply concerning," though the outlet did not publish the documents in full. The documents, according to CNN,
🔸 are marked top secret and have markings indicating they are meant to be seen only by the US and its "Five Eyes" allies — Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
🔸 They describe preparations Israel appears to be making for a strike against Iran. One of the documents, which says it was compiled by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, says the plans involve Israel moving munitions around.
🔸 Another document says it is sourced to the National Security Agency and outlines Israeli air force exercises involving air-to-surface missiles, also believed to be in preparation for a strike on Iran. CNN is not quoting directly from or showing the documents.
It has long been known that Israel has a nuclear weapons program and maintains a nuclear arsenal, but it remains both Israeli and U.S. government policy never to acknowledge or confirm the existence of either. In one of the documents, the U.S. specifically references Israel's ability to deploy a nuclear weapon, though it categorizes the threat of doing so in this case as low.
🔗 https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/leaked-us-intel-confirms-israeli-nuclear-weapons
🇸🇪 Sweden passes 'good behaviour' law to kick out misbehaving immigrants
Sweden's parliament passed a law on Monday allowing authorities to revoke immigrants' residency permits based on bad behaviour, such as having unpaid debts, doing undeclared work or links to extremist organisations.
The law, which covers pending permits but also retroactively already granted permits, is part of a wider tightening of immigration rules by the right-wing government and its support party, the nationalist Sweden Democrats, ahead of a parliamentary election in September.
The law has been criticised by the opposition and human rights advocacy groups as arbitrary because decisions would be taken on behaviour that has not been deemed criminal.
The law does not specify what types of behaviours are deemed unacceptable but the government has mentioned unpaid debts, not paying taxes, criminality and links to extremist organisations. The Migration Agency is tasked ...
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) has fallen to 340.3 million barrels, its lowest level since 1983, after the government released another 8.9 million barrels last week.
The reserve has dropped 18% (75 million barrels) since the Iran conflict began in February.
The administration has used SPR releases to help keep oil prices from surging.
Source: CNN
After several hours of confusion and uncertainty, it’s time to bring some order to the situation.
What exactly did Trump agree to?
The agreement rests on two very lean principles:
“The Strait of Hormuz must remain open to free navigation, and Iran must not possess nuclear weapons.”
Trump has insisted in nearly every other post that Iran will not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, while simultaneously pushing to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to unrestricted maritime traffic at any cost.
But why was Trump so eager to reach such a minimal agreement? Why did he pressure Israel not to interfere, even at the cost of merging the various fronts and exposing soldiers to greater danger? Why did J.D. Vance, who has opposed military intervention, suddenly move to the forefront while Rubio faded into the background? And why has no one managed to offer a convincing explanation beyond references to the World Cup, birthdays, the midterm elections, and other superficial reasons for this apparent obsession?
Most ...
