Image is of Ansarallah military spokesman Yahya Saree delivering a statement/speech.
The ceasefire appears to be at least temporarily over, with an exchange of fire between (what appears to be) predominantly Iran and the entity, though as always I expect we’ll find increasing evidence of direct US involvement.
The chain of events was as follows, in spoilers below for those who haven’t been keeping up:
chain of events summary
-
A while ago, Iran warned the occupation entity that if they strike Beirut (with particular emphasis on its southern suburbs, which is an area where Hezbollah officials/structures are concentrated as I understand it) then they will directly strike the north of Occupied Palestine, turning the area into a military zone, and encouraged settlers to leave to avoid civilian casualties.
-
This warning was grudging accepted by the entity, who ordinarily has a policy called the Daniyeh Doctrine, in which they murder civilians en masse by bombing apartment buildings and houses in enemy cities in order to pressure the military forces they are battling to give into conditions they ordinarily would not be obliged to accept, because the Zionist ground campaigns are usually fairly ineffective at achieving goals on medium to long timescales. While removing their ability to bomb Beirut didn’t halt the Daniyeh Doctrine entirely (they could and did hit other places), their distinct inability to strike the capital when they ordinarily could do that freely was a big source of discontentment in both the civilian population and the military.
-
As Hezbollah increasingly attrited the Zionist offensive forces, the attractiveness of bombing Beirut in retaliation increased regardless of the consequences, and of course the Zionists do still want to do anything they can to attack and weaken Iran directly and are much worse at hiding this than even the US. This resentment culminated on June 7th, where the Zionists conducted an airstrike on Beirut on a Hezbollah HQ.
-
Iran immediately said that this constituted a break in the ceasefire, and Khamenei put Iran back on a full war footing. Within 6 hours of the strike on Beirut, Iranian missiles were flying towards the northern occupied territories, in what they regarded as merely a warning shot. Western media was obviously fairly dismissive of this; 182% interception rates and all that jazz, but we have several videos of missiles hitting targets.
-
Trump publicly warned the Zionists to not respond, which many sensible people immediately diagnosed as kayfabe, and Iran obviously remained on guard against a counterattack. This came a few hours later from Zionist drones and stand-off strikes from aircraft likely in Iraqi airspace, just like in the initial phase of the war months ago. These hit sites in western and central Iran, including a petrochemical facility, but also with some interceptions.
-
Iran then responded to this counterattack with a yet bigger warning shot into the occupied territories. Ansarallah also joined in with strikes on the Zionists, and they additionally announced that the Red Sea is now closed to all vessels linked directly to the entity. Certain accounts have said that the Bab el Mandab is now actually under full blockade, but this is not clearly substantiated as of me writing this at about 2pm BST, June 8th. There’s been a lot of “considering closing” and “threatening to close” and “moving to close” the Red Sea over the ceasefire period that hasn’t materialized, so I don’t want to get out over my skis.
Worth noting that according to Yves over at Naked Capitalism (a fairly reliable and left-leaning, but not communist, website), we’re now about a month or so away from reaching “tank bottom”. This is largely because commercial demand destruction has not sufficiently occurred due to oil price market manipulations keeping it low, and also because there have been basically no government policies in the US like widespread work-from-home orders. So, soon the shortages will be of the literal oil molecules not being available and not just the price signal. So there’s an increasing anxiety in the US to get this conflict over before the economy really starts to crash in the latter half of the year, one way or another. As a deal seems only increasingly unlikely given US stubborness and inability to accept battlefield realities, a return to military strikes as we’ve seen appears the only way forward, despite almost catastrophic munitions shortages.
Last week’s thread is here.
The Imperialism Reading Group is here.
Please check out the RedAtlas!
The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.
The Zionist Entity's Genocide of Palestine
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against the temporary Zionist entity. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on the Zionists’ destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.
Mirrors of Telegram channels that have been erased by Zionist censorship.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Sources:
Defense Politics Asia’s youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don’t want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it’s just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists’ side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR’s former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR’s forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster’s telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a ‘propaganda tax’, if you don’t believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:
Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.
The Guardian has a ~1,000 word explainer article titled “What do we know about the US-Iran peace deal – and what questions remain?” tl;dr
So…
At least the article was clear. But to the American media this unclear and vague memorandum of understanding is some kind of “deal”.
Full text
What do we know about the US-Iran peace deal – and what questions remain?
Donald Trump and officials in Tehran have hailed an immediate end to the war on Iran, with the US president claiming that “oil will flow on both ends again for the region, and the world”.
However, in the hours that followed the announcements, exactly what had been agreed remained unclear, with the final text of their memorandum of understanding unpublished and details scant about key issues including access to the strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program and Lebanon.
Trump later told the New York Times that he would restart military attacks if Tehran failed to reach a nuclear agreement with the US during broader negotiations set to begin on Friday.
Here’s what we know, and what we don’t know, in the hours immediately after the latest announcements:
1. The strait of Hormuz
On Sunday evening, Donald Trump appeared unequivocal about the status of the strait of Hormuz, declaring: “I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!”
An hour later, the US president said the opening of the key waterway through which about a fifth of the world’s oil flows was contingent upon the signing of a deal, scheduled for Friday, and would be “for purposes of mine removal”.
Crucially, Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, the peace deal mediator, made no mention of the strait in his opening announcement. Iran’s Mehr state news reported that the agreed memorandum of understanding calls for the reopening of the strait within 30 days under “Iranian arrangements”.
The US has long been adamant that any tolling arrangements on shipping – such as those reportedly discussed with Oman – would be unacceptable. The US president said last month: “The strait is going to be open to everybody. Nobody’s going to control it.”
The leaders of the UK, France, Germany and Italy – a grouping called the E4 – were also quick to emphasise that the reopening of the strait must be unconditional and with unrestricted freedom of navigation.
Regardless of the uncertainty, global oil prices tumbled in the hours following the news, with prices falling to their lowest levels since early March, shortly after the Iran war began. Prices plunged despite warnings that it could take months or years to restore the Gulf’s energy production. Reopening oil and gas sites is a complex process, and some of the region’s infrastructure has been damaged by drone attacks. There is also the question of whether shipping companies and insurers will feel the strait is safe enough for passage.
2. Lebanon
A key point of disagreement during early ceasefire talks was whether Lebanon would be included in any deal.
Iranian deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi was unequivocal about the scope of Sunday’s agreement, saying: “A permanent and immediate end to the war has been declared on all fronts, including Lebanon.”
Mediator Sharif was clear, too, saying in a social media post: “Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
But Trump made no mention of Lebanon in his initial announcements on Truth Social, focusing almost exclusively on the strait of Hormuz.
This could be difficult to accept for Israel, which has not been included in the Iran peace negotiations and did not immediately respond to news of the deal. Its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, arguably has his own domestic political reasons to continue pursuing the conflict with Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon. Further military action could conceivably torpedo any agreement between the US and Iran.
Earlier plans to unveil a deal with Iran on Sunday were upset by an Israeli attack on Beirut, which destroyed a building in the Lebanese capital’s southern suburbs, killing three and injuring six. Trump told the Axios news site that the strike had “delayed the signing by a few hours”.
Trump and Netanyahu have repeatedly clashed over Israel’s military operations in Lebanon, which continued as part of a separate and frequently ignored ceasefire deal. Two weeks ago, Trump reportedly called him “fucking crazy” after a launching a strike on Beirut, adding: “You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me.” After the latest strike the weekend, he said Netanyahu had “no fucking judgment”.
3. Iran’s nuclear program
By any assessment, the fate of the Iran’s nuclear program – a key rationale given by Trump for the war on Iran – has not been resolved in the latest agreement.
The president repeated on Sunday his promise that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon” but senior Pakistani officials told the Associated Press that nuclear talks would continue over the next 60 days. Trump himself told the New York Times that if Tehran failed to reach a nuclear deal, it could come under fresh attack by the US military.
In a joint statement with the E4 grouping of the UK, France, Germany and Italy, echoed Trump’s comments on Sunday night, adding: “We are prepared to lift relevant sanctions in response to clear, verifiable steps by Iran on its nuclear program.”
Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is peaceful and has not publicly committed to giving up the enriched uranium, which is believed to be buried under three nuclear sites that were badly damaged by US strikes last year.
Trump faces significant political pressure to secure a better deal on this issue than the one he scuppered during his first term. He withdrew the US from a 2015 multilateral Iran deal, negotiated by Barack Obama, that lifted sanctions on Tehran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program, including international inspections.
Iran responded by ramping up its enrichment of uranium, producing more than 400kg of material at close to bomb-grade purity. The eventual fate of that uranium is likely to be a key negotiating point during the upcoming broader talks.
Republican senator Lindsey Graham said on Sunday he would be “watching closely” the coming nuclear negotiations.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/15/us-iran-peace-deal-terms-details-conditions-explained-what-do-we-know-hormuz-lebanon-israel-nuclear