137

A reminder that as the US continues to threaten countries around the world, fedposting is to be very much avoided (even with qualifiers like "in Minecraft") and comments containing it will be removed.

Image is of Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi (below) and Iranian Speaker of Parliament Ghalibaf (above, right) in the Iranian parliament in 2024. These two figures have played a major role in the war so far.


My summary of the situation as I understand it is in spoiler tags below.

summaryAfter many long weeks, Iran and the US have agreed that they're going to begin negotiations on certain topics in a process lasting at least 60 days. Due to America's perfidy during previous negotiations, trust has broken down so far that Iran demanded $12 billion of their frozen funds and several other promises, such as the end to the naval blockade, to even return to the table, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Iran also demanded that negotiations take place in two stages, and that nuclear issues will only be discussed in the second stage, which will be several weeks from now if everything goes as planned.

The terms of the MoU have themselves been a big source of confusion and suspicion, for me and many other pro-Iranian spectators. Getting the wording exactly correct is important, because the US really is like the devil - leave room for any possible interpretation in the contract that favors them more, and they'll insist that this was the only interpretation up for discussion. Additionally, the US might be historically bad at winning wars, but they're very, very good at winning peaces: they set up the post-WW2 order to best suit them by playing the European powers off each other; the DPRK might have survived the Korean War politically intact but existed for nearly the next hundred years as a sanctioned pariah; Vietnam was soon forced to economically engage with the country that had dropped triple of all the bomb tonnage of WW2 on them; and so on. It is no exaggeration when I say that the negotiation phase will be the most dangerous part of this war and it could lead to the most death and destruction without a single missile impacting Iran.

However, there's one little genocidal colony in the region that could stop this whole process from even beginning, as the US appears to have promised Iran that the Zionists will stop the war against Lebanon (and perhaps Gaza too? I'm a little unclear) and even withdraw entirely from southern Lebanon, including all bases set up since this broader conflict began. Apparently, the US promised this in return for Iran not striking the Zionists in return for their most recent strike on Beirut on June 14th. Now, the issue with this whole situation is that the US greenlit the Zionist strike on Beirut, and they knew that Iran would respond to it because they did in response to an earlier strike. If the US made such major concessions to Iran in return for this response strike not occurring, then why authorize the Beirut strike at all? Why make their position worse? Right now, I can think of two reasons. First is that they attempted to create one final embarrassment for Iran, under the assumption that Iran was so desperate for a deal that they wouldn't risk responding. Second is that this is all one big ruse or misdirection; the US does not intend to follow through with the MoU and subsequent negotiations anyway, and so the terms they're "agreeing" to don't really matter.

With the MoU signing apparently set for June 19th, we'll know for sure soon.


Last week's thread is here.
The Imperialism Reading Group is here.

Please check out the RedAtlas!

The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.

The Zionist Entity's Genocide of Palestine

If you have evidence of Zionist crimes and atrocities that you wish to preserve, there is a thread here in which to do so.

Sources on the fighting in Palestine against the temporary Zionist entity. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:

UNRWA reports on the Zionists' destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.

English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.

Mirrors of Telegram channels that have been erased by Zionist censorship.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict

Sources:

Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.

Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.

Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:

Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.

https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.

Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:

Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.


you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Tervell@hexbear.net 48 points 2 weeks ago

https://archive.ph/OxA9Z

Pentagon’s Ability To Supply Ukraine With More Patriot Interceptors Questioned By Congress

The Senate action comes amid deep concerns about how the U.S. can provide enough Patriot interceptors for itself and allies.

more

Concerned with Ukraine’s ability to protect itself from the onslaught of Russian missile and drone attacks, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) is demanding to know if the Pentagon can increase deliveries of Patriot air defense system interceptors to that war-torn nation. This comes against the backdrop of extreme U.S. and allied demand on dwindling supplies of these weapons. As we have previously noted, between U.S. usage in recent Middle East conflicts and commitments to Ukraine and nearly 20 other nations, there have long been concerns about the supply of Patriot interceptors. Still, the Pentagon has maintained that it has sufficient supplies.

It is hard to say precisely how many Patriot interceptors remain in Ukraine’s stockpile, The New York Times recently noted. “The number is classified. At the end of June last year, there were as few as 16 in Ukraine’s arsenal,” the publication stated. Given the low supplies and constant Russian bombardment, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has frequently requested additional interceptors from the U.S. and allies. SASC said it “recognizes the importance of Patriot air defense systems and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors in supporting Ukraine’s self-defense and notes continued concerns regarding interceptor availability, production capacity, and the impact of transfers on United States military readiness.” “Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than October 1, 2026, assessing the feasibility of increasing deliveries of PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine,” its directive states. We have reached out to the committee to find out which variant of the PAC-3 they are referring to. Lockheed Martin is boosting production of the more advanced current-generation Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors and it is unclear how many of the other variants are still being made or are in U.S. stockpiles.

SASC wants the following information from the Pentagon:

  • “An assessment of current and projected Ukrainian requirements for PAC-3 interceptors over the next 12 months;”
  • “An assessment of the availability of PAC-3 interceptors from existing Department of Defense inventories for transfer to Ukraine and the impact of such transfers on United States military readiness and operational plans;”
  • “An evaluation of options to accelerate production of PAC-3 interceptors, including through multiyear procurement authorities, advance procurement, expanded supplier capacity, and other industrial-base investments;”
  • “An assessment of the feasibility of increasing annual PAC-3 interceptor production and the anticipated timeline for achieving such increases;”
  • “An identification of any statutory, regulatory, contractual, or supply-chain barriers to increasing interceptor deliveries to Ukraine;”
  • “An assessment of opportunities for allied and partner nations operating Patriot systems to contribute additional PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine, including options for United States backfill arrangements;” and
  • “Recommendations for legislative or administrative actions that would enable increased interceptor deliveries to Ukraine while maintaining acceptable levels of U.S. military readiness.”

In addition, the committee said the secretary should “brief the congressional defense committees on the findings of the report, not later than 15 days after its submission.” The Pentagon on Wednesday declined comment on the committee’s report, how many interceptors it has provided to Ukraine or whether it has the ability to increase that supply. We have reached out to Lockheed Martin as well and are awaiting a response. TWZ recently addressed the supply of these munitions in a story about a new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The report, on the severity of the depletion of U.S. advanced weapons stockpiles, found that current production PAC-3 MSE “is around the baseline rate of 650 interceptors per year, with half the deliveries going to the United States and the rest to allies and partners.” Under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is committed to boosting Patriot annual production to 2,000. “Because U.S. procurement in the last decade has averaged 225 missiles per year, deliveries from prior years will not be enough to fully replace expenditures,” CSIS cautioned. “For that, the United States will need to wait for the 3,203 Patriot missiles requested in the Army’s FY 2027 budget. These are projected to start delivery in May 2029.”

As we noted earlier in this story, in addition to the Patriot interceptors already provided to Ukraine, the U.S. used a large amount during the conflict with Iran defending its assets, as well as those of allies. The CSIS report found that at the start of the war with Iran, “there were about 2,500 Patriot interceptors in the U.S. inventory,” though its accompanying chart does not specify which variant. “During the course of the conflict, between 1,060 and 1,430 Patriots were fired.” We don’t know what that tally includes, but we do know that PAC-2 and PAC-3 series interceptors have been employed in the latest conflict with Iran. Adding to questions about the ability to supply Ukraine with more Patriots, a top official from Lockheed Martin recently warned that the company cannot give U.S. allies any certainty over when they will receive interceptors despite plans to triple capacity, according to Financial Times. Brian Dunn, vice president for strategy and business development of missiles and fire control, recently said that the company was working hard to scale up production of critical PAC-3 interceptor missiles amid a supply crunch exacerbated by the war in Iran.

But in remarks to journalists at the ILA Berlin Air Show, “he sent a sobering message to American allies including Germany, Japan, Poland, the UAE and Saudi Arabia that operate the Patriot air defense system,” the publication reported. Dunn said the extra capacity “is obviously going to be able to satisfy multiple user requirements in a faster timeline.” However, he added that Lockheed Martin does not “control what the allocation of those missiles is going to be. We can’t tell anybody where you’re going to be on that [priority list].” “Obviously there’s a lot of rhetoric coming right now from the Department of War . . . about how they’re going to reorder, reorganize, who’s going to get missiles first,” he continued. “We don’t control any of that.” Dunn’s statements highlight concerns we raised long before and during Operation Epic Fury about the rapid expenditure of critical munitions and how that could affect a potential future fight against China. It also goes along with our reporting about the overall inadequacy of the U.S. Patriot force, an issue we have been highlighting for years.

Meanwhile, for Ukraine, the influx of new Patriot interceptors cannot come soon enough. Two nights ago, for instance, Russian forces launched 70 missiles and over 600 drones in a mass assault, according to the Kyiv Independent. “Of the 34 ballistic missiles fired, 19 were aimed at the capital,” the publication noted. “Kyiv’s beleaguered Patriot batteries did a valiant job, intercepting 15 of them, along with five of the six 3M22 Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles launched in the attack,” the news outlet added. “Still, even layered defenses were stretched beyond the limit.”


UPDATE: 6:57 PM EDT –

Lockheed Martin responded to our questions:

Lockheed Martin is accelerating production and increasing capacity to deliver a record number of interceptors to American and global customers, and stands ready to support any U.S. government decision on Foreign Military Sales deliveries. Additional questions should be directed to the U.S. government. The PAC-3 MSE is the only variant currently in production. We closed our PAC-3 CRI production line in 2023.

this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
137 points (100.0% liked)

news

24819 readers
447 users here now

Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:

We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.

Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:

The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.

  1. Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.

  2. Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.

  3. Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.

  4. Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.

  5. Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.

  6. Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.

  7. American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.

  8. Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.

  9. AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS