Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1054603241-scaled

Media launders hawks’ absurd claims that John Kerry spilled secrets to Iran’s foreign minister

It’s easy to distract Washington reporters from the realities of high stakes diplomacy.

Analysis | Reporting | Middle East

The United States is engaging in diplomacy with Iran so that means it’s silly season once again in Washington. 

The latest episode this week originated from a Sunday New York Times article reporting on leaked audio to the Saudi owned Persian news outlet Iran International of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif discussing behind-the-scenes intrigue of Iranian politics and power.

The highlight of this leaked audio was Zarif’s supposedly controversial comments about Iran Revolutionary Guards Corps General Qassam Suleimani, whom the U.S. military assassinated last year.

But buried toward the end of the piece, the Times reported: “Former Secretary of State John Kerry informed [Zarif] that Israel had attacked Iranian interests in Syria at least 200 times, to his astonishment, Mr. Zarif said.”

Assuming Zarif is telling the truth — it’s entirely possible he is not, and Kerry himself has since denied that any such conversation took place — Kerry had informed Zarif of events that had already taken place. Moreover, the media has been reporting on these kinds of attacks since at least 2013, and the Israelis themselves acknowledged their role in them back in 2018

But, facts and logic be damned, right-wing media quickly picked up on this particular passage and went crazy, allegeding that Kerry had revealed “Israeli covert operations” and that he was “‘ratting out’ our allies.” 

It’s to be expected that right-wing media would go nuts and seize on this opportunity to attack President Biden and any sort of diplomatic outreach to the Iranians. 

But then hawks on Capitol Hill kicked into gear and reporters there couldn’t help themselves but take the bait. 

Politico ran with the sensational “GOP tears into Kerry amid Iran controversy” headline, and relayed wild claims like “[p]eople are talking about treason.” There was very little skepticism about the claims, other than saying “Zarif’s version of events has not been independently corroborated,” and noting in passing that the attacks were revealed years ago.

But Politico still wondered whether Kerry “revealed the Israeli operations to Zarif before they were publicly reported by Israel itself in 2018.”

The Hill followed suit. “Kerry faces calls to step down over leaked Iran tapes,” its headline reads, later relaying one GOP lawmaker’s claim that Kerry should be “prosecuted.” 

While, unlike Politico, the Hill piece was more explicit in pointing out that these attacks had been previously made public, it’s quite astonishing that mainstream reporters have been so warped by hysterical partisan mania, particularly when it comes to Iran, that they would speculate and/or relay unsubstantiated claims that John Kerry — a former U.S. senator, Democratic presidential nominee, and secretary of state — would play fast and loose with U.S. intelligence in such a way, particularly in a conversation with Iran’s foreign minister. 

But they’re also missing the bigger picture here. None of these stories pointed out that Iran International — the London-based Persion news outlet that the Zarif tapes were originally leaked to — was, according to a Wall Street Journal report in 2019, funded and helped launched by “individuals connected to the Saudi royal court.” 

It’s well-known that Saudi Arabia — like Israel and the United Arab Emirates — strongly opposes the Iran nuclear deal and the United States’ re-entry into it. Therefore, it’s likely that this leak, along with other acts like the recent attack on an Iranian nuclear facility allegedly carried out by Israel, is part of a campaign to gum up the talks between Iran, the United States, and other world powers on restoring the 2015 accord. 

It’s a shame that reporters in Washington who should know better can’t see what’s actually going on here, and seemingly without hesitation get caught up in the distraction and take the bait. Thankfully it appears that those tasked with working on a return to the JCPOA aren’t. 


Photo: Alexandros Michailidis via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.