Trump sided with the Israelis, asserting that Iran was ‘very close’ to having a bomb, and added that he didn’t care what Gabbard thinks.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The IAEA Board’s ‘Non-Compliance’ Resolution on 12 June 2025 was the planned precursor for Israel’s ‘bolt from the blue’ strike on Iran the next day. Israelis say the plan to go to war with Iran was grounded in ‘the opportunity’ to strike, and not the intelligence that Iran was speeding towards a bomb (that was the peg for war).

Alastair Crooke

The sudden claim of Iran being very close to a bomb (that seemingly jumped out of ‘nowhere’ to leave Americans puzzling how could it happen that – in the blink of eye, we are going to war – was subsequently refuted by IAEA Chief Grossi to CNN on 17 June (but only after the abrupt attack on Iran already had taken place):

“We did not have any evidence of a systematic effort [by Iran] to move to a nuclear weapon”, Grossi confirmed on CNN.

This statement drew the following riposte from Iran by its Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Esmaeil Baqaei on 19 June:

“This is too late, Mr. Grossi – you obscured this truth in your absolutely biased report that was instrumentalized by E3/U.S. to craft a resolution with baseless allegation of [Iranian] ‘non-compliance’; the same resolution was then utilized, as a final pretext, by a genocidal warmongering regime to wage a war of aggression on Iran and to launch an unlawful attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities. Do you know how many innocent Iranians have been killed/maimed as a result of this criminal war? You turned IAEA into a tool of convenience for non-NPT members to deprive NPT members of their basic right under Article 4. Any clear conscience?!”.

To which Dr Ali Larijani, Advisor to the Supreme Leader, added:

“When the war ends, we will hold the director of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, accountable”.

What they are saying:

The Russian Foreign Ministry’s Statement, in relation to the escalation of the Iranian-Israeli conflict –

“It was precisely these “sympathisers” [EU3] who exerted pressure on the leadership of the [IAEA] Agency to prepare a controversial “comprehensive assessment” of Iran’s nuclear programme, the flaws of which were subsequently exploited to push through a biased anti-Iran resolution at the IAEA Board of Governors on 12 June [2025]. This resolution effectively provided a green light to actions by West Jerusalem, leading to tragedy” [i.e. to the sneak attack on the immediate day after, 13 June].

Behind the scenes:

The underpinnings to the 12 June 2025 IAEA Resolution – giving pretext for Israel to strike Iran (and crafted to sway President Trump to dismiss his own Director of National Intelligence’s warnings that there was no evidence of Iran moving towards weaponisation) – reportedly were drawn not from Mossad or other western intelligence services, but from IAEA software. As DD Geo-politics outlines, since 2015, the IAEA has relied on Palantir’s Mosaic platform, a $50-million AI system that sifts through millions of data points – satellite imagery, social media, personnel logs – to predict nuclear threats:

“Iran’s stockpile [of enriched uranium] had been growing steadily for months—yet the narrative of an imminent breakthrough surged only after the IAEA’s censure on June 6, 2025. That resolution, adopted 19–3, provided Israel the diplomatic cover it needed. Palantir’s Mosaic platform played a critical role in this pivot. Its data shaped the May 31 report, flagging anomalies at Fordow and Lavisan-Shian, and recycling prior allegations from Turquzabad—despite years-old Iranian denials and sabotage … Mosaic was conceived originally to identify insurgent activity in Iraq and Afghanistan”.

Its algorithm looks to identify and infer ‘hostile intent’ from indirect indicators – metadata, behavioral patterns, signal traffic – not from confirmed evidence. In other words, it postulates what suspects may be thinking, or planning. On 12 June, Iran leaked documents, which it claimed showed IAEA chief Rafael Grossi sharing Mosaic outputs with Israel. By 2018, Mosaic had processed more than 400 million discrete data objects and had helped impute suspicion to over 60 Iranian sites such as to justify unannounced IAEA inspections of those sites, under the JCPOA. These outputs, though dependent largely on the algorithmic equations, were incorporated into formal IAEA safeguard reports and were widely accepted by UN member states and non-proliferation regimes as credible, evidence-based assessments. Mosaic however is not a passive system. It is trained to infer from its algorithm hostile intent, but when repurposed for nuclear oversight, its equations risk translating simple correlation into malicious intent.

What leading Israeli commentators are saying:

Leading Israeli centre-right commentator, Ben Caspit (Ma’ariv):

“Was Iran’s ‘breakthrough’ to the nuclear weapon actually detected? Probably not. Was the [Supreme] Leader’s “order” to achieve a military nuclear weapon actually given? Probably not. So why did we go to war? Because there was no choice. They were promoting an Israeli annihilation plan and we had no choice… October 7: A cold shower woke up an entire country. All those involved need to understand that anyone who contemplates our destruction will be destroyed. Eyes on the ball and a bullet between the eyes … From now on, every move one of our enemies makes somewhere must be followed by action. Every snake’s head that rises must be beheaded … And there is something else: the rare and one-time historical window of opportunity that suddenly opened before us … All of this made the decision to go to this war the right one … Netanyahu is currently in euphoria”.

Israeli commentator, Nahum Barnea (Yedioth Ahoronot):

“The decision to start a war was all Netanyahu’s. And here he is, deciding and responsible: all the credit is his. Trump gave Israel the green light to start a war, provided that it does not present America as a partner and responsible. The Trump method does not distinguish between Zelensky’s Ukraine and Khamenei’s Iran: humiliation along the way is the guarantee of an agreement in the end”.

Israeli & NY Times commentator, Ronan Bergman (Yedioth Ahoronot):

“The need for the series of assassinations last week first emerged as a thought last September, among senior officials in Unit 8200, the research division in the Intelligence Directorate, the Mossad, and other parts of the system. The trigger was the defeat inflicted by the IDF on Hezbollah, followed by the successful attack on Iran and the destruction of its air defence system in October, followed in December by the collapse of the Assad regime in Damascus and the destruction of its air defence system by the IDF. The sequence of events led many senior Israeli officials to believe that an unprecedented opportunity had arisen, a window of a lifetime, to attack Iran… And so the beheading forum, which decided the fates of scientists thousands of miles away, sat down and decided who would be ranked at level A – the highest importance – and who at levels B, C or D – the lowest”.

Big Picture:

Seemingly, Trump had been convinced by Netanyahu, Ron Dermer and CENTOM’s General Kurilla (Politico reports that Kurilla was instrumental in persuading Trump that DNI Tulsi Gabbard was wrong in her assessment that Iran had ‘no bomb’). Trump sided with the Israelis, asserting that Iran was “very close” to having a bomb, and added that he ‘didn’t care what she [Gabbard] thinks’. Trump did speculate out loud – the day before the sneak 13 June – that an Israeli attack (on Iran) “could speed [up] a deal”. There is little doubt that Syria’s unexpectedly sudden ‘fall’ galvanized the neo-cons to imagine they might quickly repeat the exercise in Iran. This is why, too, so much emphasis is beinglaid on assassinating the Supreme Leader. When Iran did not collapse; when the Iranian system rebooted itself unexpectedly swiftly; and when Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel began, the pro-Israeli bloc panicked and exerted tremendous pressure on Trump for the U.S. to enter the war on Israel’s behalf.

This left Trump facing a terrible dilemma – having to choose between the sirens, Scylla and Charybdis – either to alienate his MAGA support base (who voted for him precisely to prevent the U.S. joining another forever war (thus likely causing a GOP loss at the next midterms)), or to alienate his ultra-rich Jewish donors (such as Miriam Adelson, whose money holds sway over Congress, and whose resources are harnessed by the Deep State to pursue mutual interests with the Israeli-Firsters), who would turn against him.

Shades of Iraq and the Colin Powell role…