Zionist country is very keen to drop nuclear weapons on Iran in the name of USA. US Mainstream media is closely collaborating with Zionists on this.
As usual, the Israeli-lackey Trump is giving sermons on Pool.
Spokesperson for the Iranian Ministry of Health:
No representative of the ministry gave an interview to the newspaper The Times, and the quote attributed to the ministry regarding the distribution of iodine in the country is false.
Declaring a state of emergency is not within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. Spreading unverified information in the current circumstances is irresponsible.
False reports have appeared in the media claiming that Iranian authorities, due to the threat of nuclear strikes, have begun distributing iodine tablets to the population.
US cannot do anything in Strait of Hormuz, the backwaters of Iran.
Fools in GCC still believe that they can bypass Iran with the help of US, will lose continuously.
They should realise the ground, sorry, Strait Realities.
This news falls within the pretext of collapsing NATO, so that Trump can heave a sigh of relief of no longer spending for European lackeys.
WSJ: Updated NATO strategy allows for strikes deep inside Russia
The concept implies not only the destruction of military targets near the border, but also strikes against facilities (military bases, supply depots, and industrial structures) deep within Russia.
At the same time, the use of nuclear weapons is not being considered; the alliance plans to use high-precision, long-range weapons for potential attacks.
The alliance has rethought its strategy for countering a supposed Russian attack due to conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, the article states.
This is what’s happening when US drops Nukes on Iran to satisfy Bibi.
Once Trump did, it’s not far away to see what’s in the movie to become reality.
Nuke will beget another nuke. Be prepared.
So, #SayNoToNukes
At least several times. During the 2026 Iran conflict, Trump has repeatedly announced pauses, ceasefires, or "no immediate plan" / deal talks (e.g., May 18 hold-off, July/Aug pauses, and recent "no fighting for months" claims). Strikes often resumed days later or continued quietly, including limited actions reported even as he made those statements this week. The pattern is well-documented.
Winter is coming to America.
#WinterIsComing
Falling prices is good. Why are you reporting it as if it is a danger.
Market realises that Trump has no options left but to sign on the paper, after throwing Bibi under the bus.
International crude oil prices extended sharp losses today as market fears of immediate regional escalation eased following reports of accelerated Qatari-mediated negotiations between Washington and Tehran.
Global benchmark Brent North Sea crude dropped 6.1 percent to settle at $106.54 a barrel, while US benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) fell 6.3 percent to trade at $97.56 a barrel.
Anna retweeted
Trump is reportedly contemplating using nuclear weapons against Iran's facilities. This is exactly and precisely where all those who advocated withdrawing from the JCPOA, and then "maximum pressure," wanted him to be.
Trace the timeline. First, they claimed the JCPOA was a bad deal that needed fixing. Remember the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' motto, "fix it or nix it"? Then they lured him out of the agreement by insisting it could not be fixed. Then they lobbied for the most extreme economic measures imaginable under maximum pressure. Then the narrative quietly shifted: economic pressure alone would not work, they said, and diplomacy with Iran required a "credible threat of military force." Just short of calling for war.
Once the use of force was normalized, they set about getting him to actually use it. Report after report argued that designating Iran's official armed forces, the IRGC, as a terrorist organization, and then assassinating Iran's top general, would make Tehran cave. It didn't. But the ice had been broken. From then on, every step was an escalation, and every diplomatic initiative that might have eased tensions or produced a peaceful settlement was attacked and buried.
Then came the strike on Fordow, alongside Israel. Then the war in February, in which they got him to cross every red line and pushed a settlement further out of reach than ever.
Running in parallel all these years was a campaign to persuade Washington that diplomacy with Iran is a waste of time and that the only option worth keeping on the table is the military one. Iran is just "buying time," they said. Iran never honors its commitments, they said, even as IAEA inspectors verified its compliance over and over. You can't negotiate with the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran cannot be trusted. Iran is weak. Why bother negotiate with a “significantly weakened Iran” when you can simply use force to extract concessions?
So much for "weak"!
Every one of these assumptions has proved false. Yet instead of asking why they were wrong at every turn, they read each failure as proof that the last measure was too mild.
And so here we are. Openly discussing war crimes, threatening to wipe out power plants and bridges, bombing civilian infrastructure and even weighing nuclear weapons have all become ordinary instruments of policy.
They took a president who brandished "The Art of the Deal" and sold himself as the ultimate dealmaker, and turned him into a man deciding whether to become the first leader since Truman to use a nuclear weapon. Against whom? A country that was already at the negotiating table, prepared to reach an equitable agreement.
So don't let them ever claim this was about a bad nuclear deal that needed correcting. It was always about Israel's destructive agenda, carried into Washington by its lobbies, its mouthpieces and its PR firms.
There is an old fable about a frog dropped into a pot of water that is heated so slowly it never thinks to jump. Each degree feels bearable, because it is only one degree warmer than the last. The frog never notices the moment the water starts to boil. Washington is that frog. And the water is already boiling.
Perfect news just before the mid-term elections polling time begins.
All the best Republicans. You have sold your country to Zionists for the breadcrumbs they throw.
What a shame.
#Republicans
#RepublicanDefeat
#IranWar
Tucker Carlson claims Washington considering nuclear strike on Iran under Israeli pressure
——
According to a public statement released on social media by US political commentator Tucker Carlson, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is applying intense pressure on the White House to launch a tactical nuclear strike against Iran's subterranean Pickaxe Mountain facility (Kolang Kouh).
Carlson asserted that Israeli intelligence claims Tehran has restarted nuclear enrichment deep beneath the granite complex near Natanz, alleging that because conventional US munitions cannot penetrate 300 feet of rock, Pentagon officials including War Secretary Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper are advocating nuclear deployment alongside Tel Aviv.
Carlson further claimed that Netanyahu's push for immediate military escalation is driven by domestic political survival following recent Israeli parliamentary elections, where the prime minister remains unable to assemble a 61-seat Knesset coalition.
"Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war," he wrote.
Citing unnamed informed observers, Carlson alleged that former president Barack Obama and Secretary of State Marco Rubio oppose current peace talks in Doha, whereas Vice President JD Vance and diplomatic envoy Steve Witkoff are counseling President Donald Trump to pursue a negotiated settlement rather than executing a strike decision by 7 November.
The claims—which have not been verified—warned that an American nuclear attack would cause catastrophic regional radioactive fallout across Persian Gulf water supplies and trigger immediate global proliferation.
Wasn’t it the Iran war is a dirty work that Israel is doing for Europe?
Why grovel now?
Man, you are sitting in a glass door. Do not throw stones on others.
But I haven’t seen a leader with pure hatred which clouds a decision to STOP purchasing gas at $135 from Russia, and cancel the deal, broke the undersea pipe and buying Gas from USA by ship at $1250.
What is your dirt, @bundeskanzler ?
🇩🇪🇮🇷 Germany's Chancellor Merz says the war on Iran has dealt a massive financial blow to Europe and must stop:
“We now have costs exceeding €100 billion for Europe alone over the last eight months, solely because of the increase in energy prices caused by this conflict.
More than €100 billion extra has been paid by businesses and consumers in Europe because energy has become more expensive as a result of this conflict.
We have an economic interest in bringing this conflict to an end as quickly as possible.”
Anna retweeted
Tucker Carlson reports that Benjamin Netanyahu is pressing Donald Trump to launch a nuclear strike on Iran. Before that idea gains any ground in Washington, its consequences need to be understood. More than 180 countries renounced nuclear weapons under a set of explicit promises. A nuclear attack on Iran would show those promises to be worthless.
The bargain is written into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty itself. Under Article II, non-nuclear-weapon states agreed not to acquire nuclear arms. In return, they were promised three things: the inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy, good-faith negotiations toward disarmament by the nuclear powers, and - when the treaty was extended indefinitely - assurances that nuclear weapons would not be used against them, noted by the Security Council in Resolution 984. In Iran’s case, the first promise has already been broken: its peaceful programme has been sanctioned and bombed. The second has gone unmet for decades. A nuclear strike would break the third.
The regime urging this strike has never accepted any part of that bargain. Israel refuses to join the NPT, has never acknowledged the arsenal it built at Dimona, and has ignored Security Council Resolution 487 calling on it to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. When Mordechai Vanunu exposed the programme, Israeli agents abducted him in Rome and he spent 18 years in prison. Under the Begin Doctrine, Israel claims the right to bomb any state in the region it suspects of seeking the capability it already possesses, while demanding total transparency from its neighbours and accepting none for itself. At the same time, Israel stands accused of genocide and of widespread war crimes and crimes against humanity. Its forces have repeatedly violated the sovereignty of neighbouring states through cross-border strikes and occupations, and it has pursued an openly aggressive posture across the region. Its prime minister is wanted by the International Criminal Court. This is the war criminal now urging Washington to use the most destructive weapon ever built against a member of the treaty his regime has spent half a century evading.
Iran’s record points the other way. It negotiated the JCPOA, which the Security Council endorsed unanimously in Resolution 2231, and the IAEA confirmed its compliance in report after report. Washington walked away anyway. When Iran returned to the table, it was attacked twice: days before a scheduled round with U.S. envoys, and hours after talks in Geneva that Oman’s foreign minister said had brought the two sides close to a genuine agreement.
Article X allows any party to withdraw if extraordinary events related to the treaty have jeopardised its supreme interests. A nuclear attack on a member that negotiated, complied, and kept returning to diplomacy would hand that argument to every other member. Islamic countries will rightly see an ethno-supremacist and racist ideology behind this use of nuclear weapons. A nuclear strike against a Muslim-majority nation, urged by a regime that has long defined itself in ethno-religious terms and that has never accepted the restraints of the NPT, would be read not as a narrow security measure but as the expression of a deeper hierarchy of peoples. That perception would further erode confidence in the treaty among its Islamic members and accelerate momentum toward withdrawal. The treaty rests on a single premise: that a state can give up the bomb and still be safe. If that premise fails in Iran, parliaments, politicians, and publics across the membership will start asking whether staying in serves their security. Some governments will decide that it does not. Withdrawals, individual or collective, would follow, and the non-proliferation regime would simply not survive them.
@TuckerCarlson
Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran. The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place. The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one. “Bibi calls Trump about it every day,” says an informed observer.
Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war.
To that end, he’s applied maximum pressure to his closest allies in the administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper. Both oppose a negotiated settlement to the war they’ve so grievously mismanaged; both are pushing to restart major combat operations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA director John Ratcliffe are also following Netanyahu’s lead, as are leaders of the Democratic Party. In a recent meeting on the subject, former president Barack Obama said he opposes the current Iran peace deal being drafted in Doha.
The rest of America’s longtime allies in the Middle East are terrified by the prospect of more war. On September 27th, Netanyahu flew secretly to Abu Dhabi to enlist the UAE in his lobbying effort for a final attack on Iran. The Emiratis refused. After eight months of conflict, Gulf economies are teetering. So are global energy and fertilizer markets. They won’t recover soon. Globally, there are a total of about 850 supertankers used to transport oil from producers to the rest of the world. In October alone, 11 of them were badly damaged in Hormuz. At this pace, a global depression is imminent. A nuclear strike would radically accelerate the destruction. Fallout from a ground explosion at Pickax Mountain would contaminate the Persian Gulf, poisoning the water supply for 100 million people.
And those are just some of the immediate consequences for the region. The rest of the world is every bit as exposed. No country other than the United States has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Some would like to. An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent. The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other, as would North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable. That war would be short and final.
We’ve been sleepwalking toward this moment for months. Since February, the administration has quietly rewritten America’s nuclear doctrine to make first use of so-called “battlefield nukes” easier and therefore more likely. No one in Washington in either party seems bothered by this. Now we’re on the brink of it.
Close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons. That would be November 7, six days from now. To his credit, he’s hesitating. At the moment, Trump is listening to his vice president, JD Vance, and to his envoy and friend Steve Witkoff, both of whom argue a deal with Iran can be made.
They’re right, though it won’t be simple. The Iranians are famously frustrating to negotiate with under any circumstances, and elements of that government have become more radical since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family were killed in February. After decades of isolation, even relatively moderate Iranian leaders seem confused by how decisions are made in the West. (There is a widespread belief in Tehran, for example, that the United States government controls Israel.) But overall, people who have spoken to decision-makers in Iran say there is consensus there that more war is bad for everyone and a deal is worth making.
One group that hasn’t been consulted so far is the global population — the hundreds of millions of people who will be killed along with their children if Trump is pushed by Netanyahu into launching a nuclear strike next week. Now would be the time for them to speak up.
On Binance Hack, did anyone have verifiable proof that North Korea did that?
But every media agency under Western control sings the same chorus, 24x7.
Coincides with Trump’s statement that US is not hurrying towards the peace deal.
Araqchi: We have no plans to meet with the American delegation.
"My deputy is currently in Doha, continuing consultations with our Qatari friends. We currently have no plans to meet with the American delegation."
"No plans for talks with the United States have been arranged so far, and all the rumors circulating are merely media speculation."




















