The US Conflict Involving Iran.

TLO Staff Editor John E.

The US's involvement in Iran has grown from one of general political support of-and weapons assistance to-Israel, to today's all-out armed conflicts between Iran and the US military all throughout the Middle East. After Iran failed to comply with IAEA requests for updated access to Iranian nuclear energy sites in 2024-25, both Israel and the US chose to bomb Iranian underground military sites suspected of conducting research into and production of nuclear weapons after Iran publicly admitted to increasing their efforts at enriching uranium to over 60%, which leads very rapidly to development of weapons-grade uranium capable of being used for nuclear bomb-making. In blunt terms, Israel and the US are both aligned on the premise that Iran must never create possess or purchase a nuclear weapon because such development would then ultimately lead to powerful attacks against Israel and Western US allies. 

This isn't a vague assumption. Iran's repeated missile and drone attacks against US military bases throughout the Middle East recently have shown the general public that not only are Iranian forces capable of "first strikes", and as capable as the US and Israel are, but also, despite both nations' abilities- those who conducted first strikes against Iran months ago leading to the present-day situations involving Iran- are still capable of delivering powerful attacks against US forces operating throughout the Middle East. Currently it is widely known that the US continues to defend Western interests all throughout the region, including those of NATO countries. And Iran's weapons have been shown capable of evading and bypassing Israeli air defense systems, leading to wide-scale destruction and damage to major Israeli cities such as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Conversely, Israeli attacks against Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and Israeli strikes into Lebanon and Iran have resulted in large-scale civic destructions over there, and have adversely affected millions of people outside of Israel, and despite the supposed "ceasefire" involving Iran, Israel, the US and Hezbollah and Lebanon. So why is there still fighting over there and when will it end? 

One possible answer is that Iran wants singular and exclusive management control over the Straight of Hormuz. Their government representatives state publicly that the fees that Iran is collecting involving mine clearing in the Straight of Hormuz as well as administrative fees for docking and loading and unloading in and near Iran aren't "tolls" but "costs associated with operations of ships crossing in and out of the Straight and the Persian Gulf". This issue was brought up in recent US-Iran negotiations but the talks have stalled after conflicting reports of massive Iranian and Israeli missile strikes against each other during their declared ceasefire surfaced early in June, 2026. Retaliatory strikes from both sides against both sides, and self-defense strikes by the US against Iranian targets following the Iranian attacks against US military bases in Bahrain and Jordan and Kuwait involving missiles and drones, appear to have pushed potential peace talks into the future. In June, a US military helicopter was downed also, and the US has placed the blame on Tehran's leaders, leading to more self -defense strikes by the US against Iranian targets and unfortunate delays in US Congress as to settling situations involving deciding who has the real power in Washington to conduct these military actions in order to defend US soldiers over there, and also to prevent further escalations of military actions between all fighting parties. 

But, unfortunately, and conversely, the US military is at a severe and ethical crossroads as they are at present ordered to fire at ANY ships crossing into or out of the Straight of Hormuz that violate the blockade, not just Iranian vessels! Because of these orders, US Navy ships have disabled neutral foreign -flagged unarmed oil and cargo vessels by firing large missiles into their engine compartments!  The whole idea of preventing the ships from entering the Straight was to protect the ships from being attacked by Iran or from Iranian mines laid in the waters of the Straight!  Instead, those vessel's worst enemy is now the United States military forces, who are blockading the Straight and firing lethal trajectories at unarmed ships for violating the blockade! Can this situation get any crazier?

Anyway, US President Trump is constantly referring to the near-immediate cessation of hostilities between the US and Iran, and usually despite Iran's just-as-constant denials of any peace deals involving the US. They appear to be ready to agree on something or other, but exactly what those conditions are and how soon, the Iranians' latest answer only specifies about a 60-day timetable starting from June, 2026 for concluding any long-term peace agreement between them and the United States. US Congress has essentially handed over their normal war powers decisions to President Trump only, which is totally mystifying, to speak from international and US policy experience, while Israel continues missile strikes inside Lebanon despite their ceasefire agreements! And Iran and Hezbollah continue striking inside Israel and Lebanon against Israeli forces! The UK Defense Secretary and their Armed Forces Minister have both resigned due to UK defense budget deficiencies. In some alternative dimension, or in trying to gain a basic understanding of what defines war and peace, maybe all of these current events can be somehow described collectively as a "ceasefire", but in this universe, what is happening is- in fact and in truth- ongoing hostilities and wars, and NOT any sort of ceasefire.

So, will the US change its mind about rigid, armed enforcement of the blockade the US has erected surrounding the Straight of Hormuz? Just what is the US trying to protect, now, anyway? Obviously if the US is in a state of self-defense in the Persian Gulf area, the US must  already realize that international cargo and oil vessels usually don't carry or use large-scale military weapons of war onboard their ships! It was supposed to be a US blockade that only intercepted Iranian ships for checking to see if they were carrying weapons or missile parts bound for Iran to use against the US or other countries in the Middle East. Instead, the US blockade is itself operating against public common sense and firing upon shipping vessels flagged as US allies, nations who need to provide oil and food for their respective nationalities during this Straight of Hormuz cockup. All together what is happening is probably one of the most embarrassing and lethal attempts made yet by any number of strong nations in regards to Middle East diplomatic relations involving the West, and oil harvesting issues to date! 

But fortunately, on June 14, 2026, US President Trump announced that a peace agreement intended to end the war between the US and Iran and including Israel had been reached with Iran with help from Pakistani mediators and also several Gulf nations. The terms include releasing frozen Iranian funds back to Iran, ending the US blockade and no-toll free passage for ships entering and exiting the Straight of Hormuz. Also, cessation of military actions between all warring parties is hoped to take place after formal agreements are signed in Switzerland later in June. Presidential Adviser Steve Witkoff and US VP JD Vance are expected to meet with Iranian representatives there concerning the present and ongoing situations in the Straight of Hormuz and Lebanon and Israel. The current results of these cumulative events have been the end of the US blockade, the exits of hundreds of ships trapped in the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman and the opening of the Straight of Hormuz. In other US news, US Congress see-sawed in a decision to accept war powers over the Iran conflict but after the original vote to do so, reversed it's decisions after US Republican Senators who had voted for the resolution changed their minds and voted against the resolution after meeting with President Trump in a closed door session. They then proceeded to take a 2-week recess. 

On July 8, 2026, a day before US Congress was scheduled to reconvene, Trump announced an end to the MOU with Iran because of Iranian strikes against cargo ships in the Straight of Hormuz. The US responded by bombing military installation and missile sites in various coastal cities in Iran such as Bandar Abbas where news videos and civilian witness reports show evening missile and bombing strikes near residential areas. In interviews during Trump's NATO visit to Turkiye, Trump said engagement with Iran was "useless" and that he was "through with them" calling them "scum" and encouraging NATO with supporting Article 5 of collective international defense of NATO members. Trump also discussed selling F-35 fighter planes to Turkiye. 

This is a continuing news op-ed.

Looking through the important treaties that have affected nuclear energy and nuclear weapons proliferations since the 20th century. 

Commentary by John E. Staff Editor.

NPT International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

US State Department Archives. 1968.

SALT Treaties.

US President Gerald Ford Museum. Archives. 1969-1972.

Reagan and Gorbachev: Elimination of Nuclear Missiles in US and Soviet Union. 1987.

US State Department Archives. 1987.

Nuclear Weapons Treaties Since Reagan-Gorbachev: Arms Control Reduction Timeline Courtesy D. Kimball, Arms Control Association. United States.

ACA Reference. 2026.

Under edit.

The definition of "power" has many different subtexts in the Mirriam-Webster English language dictionary. Three of them are included here, and are as follows: 

a: possession of control, authority, or influence over others. 

b: one having such power specifically : a sovereign state. 

c: political control or influence.

So, power can be defined colloquially as a function of control, specifically a singular or group set above others in order to determine the outcome of an event, a people, a person or places. These critical sets of control aspects form a factual part of elected bodies of government in Western societies. And especially in countries such as the United States of America, where it is also colloquially understood that the power of government rests with the people voting, and their cumulative decisions create the elected body of government that establishes the needs and wants of the people governed as the main reason that the government exists, and for who. The question this essay asks is what happens when the elected officials turn away from the people governed and create a power structure that satisfies only itself, at the expense of the people governed? And is this what is happening in today's Trump Administration?

Let's look at some serious and outstanding decisions that were made exclusively by US President Trump and more often than not, explicitly backed by a GOP-led US Congress:

1) The arrests and detentions and deportations of large groups of non-violent illegal immigrants, non-criminal US green card holders, and unfortunate innocent bystanders caught up in the nets of arrests during international travel through the US.

2) The Federal arrests of legal observers of ICE and Border Patrol activities accompanying National Guard activities in several US States during the above activity as initiated by Trump's own personal decisions and explanations, and protested against by thousands upon thousands of US citizens in every US State and US Territory, decisions made without the approval of US Congress during two Federal government shutdowns in 2025.

3) The independent and arbitrary decision by President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to act as judge, jury and executioner of alleged narco-terrorists who were accused of trafficking narcotics into the US from Venezuela and other Latin-American countries.

4) The independent decision of Trump to bomb Iran, along with the military help of Israel, upon suspicion of Iran developing nuclear weapons, and then again, suspecting only based on his "feeling" that Iran would bomb Americans, without any Iranian attack against American civilians and without warning.

5) The arrests of several tourists at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool for "vandalism" and "destruction of Federal property" after these so-called vandals noticed widespread algae and peeling paint in the newly renovated and painted pool, and touched the pool water to look at the effects and ask questions.

In all of the above situations, Trump is himself the sole authority deciding what is to be done! And the people who were appointed and voted into independent powers of US Government in order to participate in lawmaking for the people of the United States of America and the maintenance of Constitutional authority within and throughout the whole of the United States, and who are also expected to check US Presidential power in the Legislative and Judicial branches have instead blindly followed Trump's executive orders and actions without complaints or vetos while he "mandates" command authority seemingly without any counterarguments at all from the separate divisional branches of Constitutional Federal authority! In fact, the only naysayers in Congress are mainly US Democrats and independently thinking House and Senate Republicans, and their leadership, who are presently in the numerical minority today! Is this any way to experience the USA as a US citizen? And most importantly, is the political impotence being experienced by many of today's US voting populations and their elected representatives and senators affecting their abilities to still argue coherently and meaningfully against what appears to many European and other national outsiders as the sole management of the whole of the USA by US President Trump? 

So when we ask ourselves where the power of American government should be and where that was designed to be, namely with the American people, how can we justify handing ourselves over to a government seemingly run by only one man? Trump is just one man, not the whole of US government and certainly not you, the reader. If you happen to be an American citizen then you should already know how to assume your own powers and authority given to you by the founding fathers of the USA contained within the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The land is self-governed and self-determined. The leaders are elected to be public servants. They are given authority by the Constitution and the consent of the governed. The governed are the people and the people ultimately decide what laws there should be. And the people also decide what shouldn't be made into laws. And if you find that that is not the case.....then it's time to vote for new leaders and new national directions and enable new people to represent the people. The Constitution of the country and the laws therein give powers to the people. Welcome to the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave! And be it ever so humble, there is no place like home.

Op-ed by John E. Staff Editor.

Ever since the MAGA Republicans, led by Donald Trump, won the last US Presidential election, a great national divide has been wrought in the US involving religion, especially Christian religion, or conversely, the lack thereof. MAGA supporters point to the last Biden Presidency, where their accusations of atheism, illicit drug use in the White House, a preponderance of gay rights issues and the maintenance of excessively porous US national borders constituted a major set of current and existing US Democrat political "stances" that they blame on liberals specifically, and US Democrats rather redundantly. US President Trump himself has often notoriously criticized, cursed at, demeaned and belittled US Democrat colleagues in Congress and in public without ever mentioning the word "balance" in US lawmaking, pertaining to the major two US political parties and the "other half" of the US voting public who didn't vote for him. Instead, ALL of the blame is shifted to ALL Democrats, and ALL US Democrat policies, and most especially towards proponents of a recent belief calling itself "Democratic Socialism", involving coordinating political actions with direct help for the poor using socialist ideas originating primarily within old Soviet-era practices and in combination with some progressive ideas about affordable this and that, coming from the actions that can be taken by Democratic Socialists in general terms. 

That group of "subtext Democrats" in fact constitutes only a minority group of active US Democrat politicians and US Democrat voters who personally support an unpopular political viewpoint when compared to the vast majority of religiously and politically conservative US Democrats. Even DINO's, ("Democrats in Name Only") people who are listed as Democrat but support traditionally Republican family values and national economic pragmatism, still exist! But in retrospect, the new Democratic ideas about socialism and the nominal divisions between the two parties that used to exist between US Democrats and US Republicans are observationally and also profoundly a result of Trump's past and present excesses in combining family business ventures with those of the US Presidency. Possibly, one could say that Trump's situations are similar to Biden and his son's connections with Ukraine, albeit with a much larger degree of direct applications of US political might and involving personally connected billionaire business owners and family friends of Trump, who have been increasingly brought along in US political deal-making overseas! These actions are exacerbated by Trump and his followers, including a "protection racket" described by US House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has admitted that his work is to protect Trump from prosecution over any US-Trump business deals that benefit Trump personally! Ever since Trump was elected office of US President, the complexity of Christian Democrats in the USA who tended to be more quiet in public gatherings and yet politically active in favor of ALL Americans, has increased, resulting in developmental "socialist trends" that Republicans and Independents have never conceived of or politically included in their rationale of US governance, and Democrat Socialists haven't received much positive press these days.

In a much touted effort to "win back the soul" of the US Democrat party, older US Democrats, and a few US Republicans have lately endeavored to remember the reasons why they joined either party, and what each party actually represented and stood for politically. Before being made subject to gross public opinions, false accusations, misleading party definitions, or punishments by Donald Trump for "disloyalty", both Dems and Republicans had reliable party actions and platforms that defined what they considered important for their constituents! Today, however, both parties have adapted to an independently-minded and forceful Trump, whose methods and actions are not those of any typical US Republican, or in keeping with their usual political platforms. Trump's overwhelming takeover of the US Republican mindset involved not only psychological, but also costly social actions involving executive orders and White House events that defied Congressional oversight and violated local laws involving solicitations and sporting events on White House grounds. In terms of private objections by US groups and efforts at where legality was involved in defending oneself or others from such public and private attacks by an elected official such as Trump, who spends a lot of time, apparently, going after his personal foes, people who have either threatened his legitimacy as US President or disagree with his executive orders and policy directions have been insulted, disparaged, harshly criticized and name-called by Trump. Is this the behavior of a rational President? And are US voters suffering under the social adaptations from Dems and Republicans that create equally immature and undesirable reactions because of Trump's actions?

The answer to this is a resounding YES, according to my own social observations about concurrent and extreme viewpoints being adopted as policy among young Democrats from Gen Z, those born at the turn of the century. Their own experiences as young people emerged during several world crises that painted a portrait of the world as a backdrop for an unfairly imbalanced and violent series of Western wars against Islamic peoples who had previously been victimized by nations such as Israel, the US and France. This generation of young people aspired to create and live in a world where they had been taught as young children to share and share alike and to disbelieve authority figures who were unwilling to compromise under an authority against a majority rule. And many of the most successful children of that generation were coincidentally oriental in thought themselves, being raised in Muslim families where moving around to fit in within Western nations to find work, operate businesses and practice peaceful ways of life were the result of fleeing wars in their original homelands. 

Among existing US Democrats, the emergence of Islamic peoples who joined the party and then personally helped to merge new and older socialist ideas into Democrat Socialism, the crawl and support for the new comers was a part of the party's natural welcoming attitudes and public nature. The US Democrats traditionally stood for helping others less fortunate, funding charity efforts, promoting religious freedom and protecting democracy all around the world! The party worked a major role in the US Civil Rights movement, work school and housing desegregation in the US, and enabled more economic support for public schools, medical and scientific research, and international diplomacy during the end of the Cold War. Gen Z arrived AFTER major peace agreements had been achieved by US Dems, and the Z's who succeeded were smart enough to see where Democrats were their teachers in peace, and emulated them. But party affiliation is not religion. And previous to US President Obama, most US Democrats espoused mainly Jewish, Christian and Baptist beliefs, which are not Islamic ones, although all worship the same God, each in their own way.

"Democratic Socialism" could be a way for today's Muslims and people from other religious and/or non-religious groups who are not well-represented in the US, to embrace democracy that is of a style that is particular to US Americans, and not the more ancient styles practiced and preached by Greek philosophers thousands of years ago. In the United States of America in the 21st Century, "Democracy" is a word used to describe equality and self-government within a nation of people who are treated as equals and who all practice and follow the same laws and have the same societal grievances as "everyone else". That is an elementary school way of describing Western Democracy as practiced in the US, but, alas, is wholly incomplete.

A careful study of previous US Democrat Presidents can describe the true struggle for understanding and coherent balance between the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, of the United States since the 1990's. That was when the Soviet Union was dissolved under Mikhail Gorbachev and the Russian Federation that followed drew up a new Russian Federation National Constitution, and also the same time as when China regained economic and political control and also possession of Hong Kong. The Middle East was experiencing a potential Iraqi Sunni Muslim "revolution" of sorts, led by their President Saddam Hussein. Saddam, a leader who was basically an installed instrument of national power by the US before Iraq's leadership was purged (killed or exiled) with the help of the US, guaranteed the US oil drilling and development rights within that country, which were impossible previously. Unfortunately, around the mid-1990's, Iraq invaded Kuwait militarily after Kuwait exceeded an oil production quota that had been agreed upon by OPEC nations, the ones that produce oil en masse for worldwide consumption. A US Democrat President, Bill Clinton, was forced to deal with that invasion and with Saddam, who by that time was possibly leaning towards agreements with Russian oil oligarchs which would not make American oil operations easier or less expensive in the long term in Iraq as far as Iraq was concerned. A long drawn out sequence of US military actions driven by Clinton and US Congress led to War in Iraq which led to numerous civilian deaths and casualties! These actions broke the Congress's previously and strongly bipartisan efforts at lawmaking and separated US Democrats from US Republicans in such a way as to polarize them into newly distinctive party "constructs" positioned as diametrically opposed to each other, as opposed to being only two different "American political parties". The US Democrats were drawn into a war they did not anticipate or want, and the US Republicans were only recovering from the recent Yugoslavian War, which they could not effectively stop. 

Instead of an expected international statecraft from inside of the US, it seemed that the Americans had been led again and again into arbitrary foreign wars since the Vietnam War, all of which has cost tens of thousands of human lives, whole national reputations, and billions upon billions of USD worth of money. And then, around this time, Generation Z was being born. Again, by observation, if the modern times and current events of any era have any effect upon the children of that era, then the cultural violence and resulting tribal and familial hideaways created  in America by the turn of the century are something worth thinking about. The Z generation had social media and personal privacy within their homes held so importantly that merging the peace at home with the potential for lethal violence at school became second nature to Gen Z. This generation learned how to balance family peace with neighborly trust despite the surrounding chaos of life and circumstances of national laws, random outlaw behavior, lethal weapons and violent game playing! And just exactly how did they accomplish this? Prayers, faith, personal strength and conviction that right is right and wrong is wrong. Being able to discern the difference was something that was felt, even more so than what their consciences explained to them, or what their parents, caregivers, relatives or even their teachers could answer for. But depth of feelings needs coherent and logical thoughts and the abilities also involved with "thinking" as well, and if one could not think past ones feelings, one was in for a confusing life experience. Simply said, life should at the very least seem to make some sort of sense to a child, and there should be some purposes for doing what one is asked to do at home or at school. We adults are then in a position to ask ourselves the following question: "Did we in our actions or apathy fail Gen Z? Or not? Or somewhere in between? Were we good caretakers of that generation and did we set good examples of maturity and social skills for them to observe and emulate? Or did someone or something else do that in our place? And if so, is the fault ours, someone else's or a matter of circumstances beyond our control? 

What of tomorrow, one may ask? Are we prepared to decide in the United States what forces will run our lives and represent us in government after today? Are we preparing for any good or bad events that may come our way that will have unknowable consequences that no one can easily solve?