Company records reviewed by The Intercept show Israel urged Facebook and Instagram to take down posts supportive of Iran.

Israel's government asked Meta to censor social media content about its ongoing war against Iran, according to internal documents viewed by The Intercept.

Company records show that Israel petitioned Meta to take down Facebook and Instagram posts expressing support for Iran, opposition to Israel, and even depictions of Iranian missile impacts.

The government flagged a variety of materials related to the war, including posts mourning the death of Ayatollah Khamenei following his assassination by the U.S. and Israel on the opening day of the conflict, content supportive of Iran's retaliatory attacks, and Iranian accounts that shared military analysis and propaganda sympathetic to the Iranian regime's perspective.

PM Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to withdraw troops from Lebanon despite a US-Iran agreement, the VP said.

US Vice President J.D. Vance has criticized Israeli hardliners opposed to US President Donald Trump's Iran deal, warning that the country cannot "kill" its way out of every security problem.

Vance's comments came as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to withdraw troops from the country's northern neighbor, despite a newly signed US-Iran memorandum of understanding that calls for an end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon.

Responding to Israeli hardliners critical of the agreement, Vance told the New York Times on Thursday:

"What is your exact proposal? You're a country of nine million people. You can't just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have."

I have spent years fighting against Trump's push toward war with Iran, and I have the scars to prove it. When Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, I warned that it would eventually bring us to this moment. Ever since, I have consistently argued against the confrontational path he set the United States on. That record speaks for itself, which is why I can say what follows without any throat-clearing.

Given the circumstances, President Trump's decision to strike a deal with Tehran and bring this costly, unnecessary war to an end is the right one. It deserves support, not partisan second-guessing. As Rob Malley - a key member of Barack Obama's team that negotiated the nuclear deal and later Joe Biden's lead negotiator with Iran - noted on X, comparing Trump's memorandum of understanding to Obama's JCPOA misses the point. What matters is not how the agreement stacks up against past diplomatic achievements, but how it compares to the alternatives before us. And on that score, Malley argued, the MOU is "far preferable to any of the alternatives on offer. Period."

I would go further. To examine the Memorandum of Understanding and ask "Was the war worth it?" is nonsensical.

Charlie Kirk's media empire and his right-wing activist organization, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), have come under the control of the Israel-directed forces he spent the last months of his life antagonizing. Erika Kirk now claims her husband supported Israel to the end, while TPUSA misrepresents his opposition to war on Iran.

The Charlie Kirk Show is now distributed by a federally registered agent of Israel tasked with seeding American media with Zionist propaganda. It is part of a whopping $46 million dollar annual contract between the Israeli government and Brad Parscale, the former chief of staff for Donald Trump's 2020 presidential campaign. This may be the largest lobbying contract in the history of foreign influence operations in the US.

On September 10, 2025, Kirk was assassinated during the first stop on his American Comeback Tour at Utah Valley State University. Eight days later, Parscale registered as a foreign agent of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, assuming responsibility for a propaganda blitz "tailored to Gen Z audiences across platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, podcasts, and other relevant digital and broadcast outlets."

Vance expected in Switzerland for talks

Update(10:00ET): As has become the 'norm' after well over 100 days of war - which some pundits have been calling the "third Gulf war" - there are deeply conflicting headlines emerging Saturday. On the one hand, diplomacy based in Switzerland is said to be in motion, with a potential top level Trump delegation (led by Witkoff and to be joined later by Kushner reportedly/allegedly) - but fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in south Lebanon still rages, with the death toll climbing, and also with Hezbollah rockets still landing against IDF positions as well as in northern Israel.

Will the US and Iranian sides actually meet in Europe for the 'technical' side of further talks toward final peace? Saturday has seen reports of Iran having again 'closed' the Strait of Hormuz, citing Israeli aggression in Lebanon, after Tehran has insisted that the tenuous freshly signed MoU included a Lebanon ceasefire and peace. The latest newswires out of Iranian state media:

• IRAN SAYS HORMUZ TO CLOSE, CITING CEASEFIRE VIOLATION: TASNIM
• IRAN SAYS STRAIT OF HORMUZ HAS BEEN CLOSED: TASNIM
• IRAN'S IRGC NAVY SAYS HORMUZ STRAIT CLOSED TO ALL VESSELS: FARS
• *VESSELS WARNED TO AVOID STRAIT OF HORMUZ OVER SECURITY: FARS

GenXGirl's recent article, "Backdoor Alliance With Israel," does a good job of tracing the policy architecture behind the deepening U.S.-Israel security relationship. She correctly identifies how NSPM-12, several legislative vehicles, and Pax Silica are being used together to create pathways for greater integration. Her framing is useful and timely.

What GenXGirl's piece does not fully develop is the operational layer already in motion beneath those policy instruments. The reporting maps the intent. This article today is the part that moves the story from mapping the policy architecture to showing the operational layer already in motion. It shows how access is already moving through procurement channels, certifications, and existing legal authorities, and how new legislation is being used to make that access harder to reverse.

The evidence does not point to a future architecture waiting to be assembled, but to systems already operating within U.S. federal networks that are now being legally fortified. We can demonstrate that the implementation proof exists and can be mapped.

Set against the backdrop of Epstein file lab revelations and earlier debates over Metabiota and Hunter Biden, the story reveals how politically inconvenient claims can move from denial to official acknowledgment.

Tulsi Gabbard's final weeks as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) may end up defining her entire political legacy: on June 12, 2026, the outgoing DNI announced the declassification of intelligence materials detailing US taxpayer funding for more than 120 biological laboratories spread across over 30 countries, including dozens of facilities in Ukraine. According to the official briefing released by the Office of the DNI, these laboratories were linked to a broad network involving US government agencies, contractors, universities, and partner states.

The release immediately reignited one of the most contentious debates pertaining to the Ukraine conflict. For years, any mention of US-funded "biolabs" in Ukraine was routinely dismissed by much of the Western press as little more than "Russian propaganda" or internet conspiracy theories. Yet the newly declassified material confirms the existence of a substantial American-funded laboratory network, complete with Pentagon involvement, millions of dollars in infrastructure spending, and research involving dangerous pathogens.

The U.S. and Iran have reportedly signed a deal to open the Strait of Hormuz and to begin negotiations to end the war. It is a hopeful sign that this disastrous war of choice may soon be over, but once again, Israel stands to be the spoiler.

According to reports, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz and formally end the fighting between the two countries was signed on Monday.

It is important to clarify that, regardless of White House statements, this is not a peace deal. It is an agreement to end the standoff in the Strait of Hormuz and a commitment to stop fighting for 60 days while an agreement is reached, hopefully. The negotiation period can be extended if both parties agree. Still, it is a important agreement that indicates a end to this disastrous war could be in sight.

But as usual Israel stands to play the role of spoiler. The one thing that is most clear is that Tel Aviv won't give up on its long-term goal of regime change in Iran. But if this MOU actually takes effect and opens the Strait of Hormuz, that will not be achieved through this war.

What is the agreement?
According to American officials, details of the MOU will be released in the next day or so. But we already have a pretty good idea of what it says and what it does not say.

While none of the terms have been announced, it seems certain that the mutual blockades of the Strait will be lifted and commercial traffic will flow through the whole Persian Gulf again. That might take a bit of time, as mines planted by Iran must be removed, a delicate process. But if all sides cooperate, it will be done in short order.

There seems to be a consensus that the ceasefire does apply to Lebanon. Even the Israelis seem to believe this. But there is less clarity about exactly what that means.

Israel is currently occupying a large portion of Lebanon. Israeli leaders have already made it clear they have no intention of leaving.

For the time being, it seems that the MOU will allow Israel to remain in place. The language both sides have used has often featured the "end of attacks" on Lebanon. Iran obviously seeks a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, but whether they are willing to put that off to the negotiation period rather than insisting on it happening immediately remains to be seen.

The self-proclaimed most powerful alliance in modern history is increasingly united in its rhetoric precisely because it is no longer united in its interests, objectives, and methods.

Alliance without Consensus

The recent G7 summit was intended to showcase Western solidarity at a moment of mounting geopolitical uncertainty. Instead, it inadvertently revealed something more significant: the West remains institutionally united but strategically fragmented.

On paper, the summit was a success. The leaders issued joint statements on critical minerals, artificial intelligence, migrant smuggling, transnational repression, quantum technologies, wildfires, and support for Ukraine. Yet the sheer breadth of these commitments raises an uncomfortable question. Why does the world's most powerful political grouping increasingly speak the language of management rather than strategy? The G7's joint statements are filled with promises to "strengthen," "coordinate," "accelerate," and "support." What is largely absent is a coherent vision of how the West intends to navigate a world marked by geopolitical rivalry, economic nationalism, and declining American willingness to shoulder the burdens of global leadership. The documents read less like a blueprint for shaping international order than a catalogue of risks to be mitigated in one way or the other, showing a stark absence of an acceptable strategy or a joint mechanism. The alliance appears increasingly reactive rather than directive.

Last Friday, SpaceX went public and began offering shares on the NASDAQ. It was the largest IPO in history, which generated a lot of buzz and attention. But one of the more dramatic angles of SpaceX going public concerned Elon Musk, the company's chairman, CEO, and chief technical officer.

Musk already had the highest net worth in the world before SpaceX went public. But after the company priced its shares at $135 and the market quickly began trading them at even higher prices, the roughly 5 billion shares that Musk already owned brought his estimated net worth up to roughly $1.1 trillion — making him the world's first genuine, US dollar-denominated trillionaire.

Predictably, the crossing of this threshold was met with dismay and anger from establishment Democrats, progressives, and leftists of all kinds.

Gavin Newsom pointed to the news as proof that "the system is rigged." AOC and Zohran Mamdani jumped in to push, yet again, for raising taxes on the rich. And Elizabeth Warren made the same point in a video where she implied that the extreme wealth being "held" by Musk and his peers is the cause of all the economic pain everyday Americans are feeling — or, at the very least, the reason why the pain persists.

This progressive narrative is not new. It has been around for a long time and has already been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.