04/08/2026
Reblogged on kommonsentsjane 04/08/2026
KOMMONSENTSJANE – SECRET OBAMA-ERA LICENSE LET IRAN TAP DOLLARS.
Posted on June 6, 2018 by kommonsentsjane
Derangement in the first degree. The world needs to be in charge and its caretaker.. They are mentally unqualified to lead. They are not serious negotiators and never will be.
ttps://dailypresser.com/darnell/iranian-regime-violates-ceasefire-launches-missile-barrages-into-uae/
NextICE Arrests 13 After Chaos At Pennsylvania DMV, Drivers Flee
Iranian Regime Violates Ceasefire, Launches Missile Barrages Into UAE
4 min read
Follow America’s fastest-growing news aggregator, Spreely News, and stay informed. You can find all of our articles plus information from your favorite Conservative voices.
The ceasefire announced in the Iran conflict already looks shaky: within hours there were reports of missile and drone strikes across the Gulf and into Israel, confusing who agreed to what and showing a regime that may be acting with one hand while negotiating with the other.
Over a dozen hours after the ceasefire announcement, Iranian forces were reported to have launched multiple missile barrages against targets in the region. Israel, despite being listed as part of the agreement, came under attack, and Gulf states including Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain reported strikes on their territory. These actions raise immediate questions about whether Tehran intends to honor any deal or simply exploit a pause to regroup and press its advantage.
Public claims of damage included references to Lavan Island, which is Iranian territory, but independent confirmation of strikes on oil infrastructure there has not appeared. That raises the possibility, especially given Tehran’s history, that state media could spin incidents to justify violations. The pattern looks familiar: actions taken first, justifications offered later.
Here’s Fox News reporter Trey Yingst, who is based in the Middle East. The presence of a live reporter in the region underscores how quickly events are moving and how confused the situation remains on the ground. When embedded footage and on-the-ground reporting appear alongside competing official statements, it becomes harder to separate deliberate deception from fog-of-war mistakes.
There are a few plausible explanations for the violations, and none of them are reassuring. One is simple disorganization: a splintered chain of command failing to pass orders down fast enough to stop attacks. That excuse is weak once strikes continue for more than a few hours, especially when multiple countries are hit and sophisticated systems are involved.
A second, more cynical option is that Tehran wants the benefits of a deal while continuing to pressure its adversaries. If the regime can secure economic or diplomatic relief by signing or appearing to sign an agreement, yet keep proxy forces and hardline elements active, it gets the best of both worlds. Subversion and duplicity have long been tools of Iran’s revolutionary leadership, so this strategy would be consistent with past behavior.
Another layer to this is the narrative Tehran uses to justify attacks. The regime has repeatedly claimed its strikes on Gulf countries were responses to American operations originating from bases or territories in the region. If those American operations have actually stopped under a ceasefire, Tehran loses that particular pretext. That makes continued attacks look less like retaliation and more like opportunism or deliberate treaty-breaking.
For U.S. political leadership and regional partners, the calculus is immediate and thorny. From a Republican viewpoint, there is a strong impulse to demand clarity and consequences rather than accept opaque deals that let Tehran keep striking. A ceasefire that permits continued aggression is no ceasefire; it is a pause that rewards bad behavior and leaves American interests and allies exposed.
President Trump and his team reportedly have been inclined to preserve the truce, at least initially, seeking to lock in diplomatic gains where possible. History suggests, though, that forgiving early violations without firm enforcement invites more of the same. Real deterrence requires the credible threat of swift, decisive response, and that principle applies whether the opponent is a state actor or a proxy network.
Militarily, the pattern of missile and drone use points to a sophisticated, layered campaign aimed at testing both defenses and political will. Attacks on Gulf infrastructure and shipping lanes have outsized economic consequences, and those impacts are part of the leverage Iran seeks. If Western and regional actors fail to coordinate firm responses, Iran’s calculations will be reinforced.
Diplomatically, allies in the Gulf will want immediate assurances and practical steps to limit further strikes, not vague promises. Regional partners who feel excluded or blindsided by any agreement will be suspicious by default, and that distrust makes future cooperation harder. Any deal that leaves Gulf states vulnerable undermines long-term stability and Western credibility.
At the same time, the possibility of internal Iranian fragmentation complicates things; elements within Iran may act autonomously to derail a diplomatic track. But whether motivated by internal rivalry or strategic deception, continued attacks under a ceasefire signal a regime willing to exploit ambiguity. The U.S. and its allies need to treat such moves as tests, not accidents.
How this episode resolves depends on immediate, coordinated pressure and the willingness to apply consequences if violations persist. Allowing Tehran to claim victory while continuing attacks is a dangerous precedent. Tough-minded clarity, not wishful thinking, should guide the next steps in confronting a regime that has shown it can sign agreements with one hand and wage war with the other.
kommonsentsjane
kommonsentsjane 