Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

Yet another civil conflict is brewing this week as the Supreme Court tackles a number of foreign citizenship debates, including Temporary Protection Status (TPS) and Birthright Citizenship. The court has ruled that hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants residing in the US under TPS are no longer safe from mass deportations (a win). But, they have also ruled in favor of migrant anchor babies (a big loss).

Both issues deal with changing American perceptions on what is “constitutional” when it comes to foreign access to citizenship. The Supreme Court’s decisions aside, I find it mind boggling that this debate has been ongoing for so many decades. Frankly, foreigners should not have any citizenship rights under the constitution until they have demonstrated assimilation. Until that time, there should be a separate set of rules handling newcomers (and invaders).

When it comes to TPS and the Haitians, the leftists are raging. Despite this status supposedly being “temporary” (the Obama Administration originally claimed these people would only be in the US for 18 months), many of these foreign transplants have been enjoying the benefits of unearned American citizenship for 16 years or more.  Yet, when Haitians protest the TPS decision, what flag do you see them flying?  That’s right – They fly the Haitian flag, not the American flag.  This tells us everything we need to know.

The liberal position on this issue is crystal clear: They believe that the constitution protects foreign migrants and their cultures from overt scrutiny. Meaning, foreigners don’t have to prove themselves worthy of citizenship, they get access regardless. Liberals also believe that it should be extremely difficult to remove migrants once they enter the country.

Keep in mind, this is the LIBERAL position. The woke position is much worse.

The radical left argues that western borders should not exist at all. For other countries, borders are fine. For the US and Europe, borders must be erased. Furthermore, they assert that the American economy must be treated as an open marketplace rather than a closed system. In other words, foreigners should be allowed to feed on the system whenever they please, transfer that wealth back to their third world hovels, and then come back for more.

The “empathetic” liberal position creates the foundation for the militant woke position. It’s rooted in a propaganda narrative created in the early 20^th century: The claim that America’s entire identity is a “melting pot” of cultures and nationalities and that there is no original source identity. This false origin story was produced by New York socialists and it’s been spread by Hollywood for decades.

The famous poem called “The Colossus” imprinted on the Statue of Liberty is often used to elevate the melting pot myth. It was added in 1903, over 20 years after the statue was built. It’s author, Emma Lazarus, was a Zionist feminist with ties to numerous socialist movements. The fantasy of the melting pot of “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” was then popularized heavily in the 1960s and 1970s by far-left activist groups and the establishment media.

The melting pot is not our identity and never was. Historically speaking, America has always had a guarded relationship to immigration and we operated on “origin-based rules”. Meaning, Europeans from the north and west were welcomed, everyone else was limited. There was nothing wrong with this model.

America’s source identity is western civilization and European influence. There is no cultural melting pot.

The notion that the US is somehow legally required to accept everyone from everywhere regardless of their beliefs or background was not a thing until after the liberal era of the 1960s – 1990s. Until this time period, America had numerous regulations on who was allowed in. After the 1990s, the melting pot ideal became sacrosanct, as if it had always been a part of our constitutional legacy.

George Washington instituted the Naturalization Act of 1790 which restricted immigration to people mostly from European nations. John Adams instituted the Alien Friends Act 1798 which allowed the quick deportation of migrants found to be initiating civil disruption and sedition. He also enforced an extended probation period of 14 years before any migrant gained citizenship rights (instead of the original five year period).

Even Thomas Jefferson, who opposed the Alien Friends Act and had a highly liberal (and I would argue naive) ideal of America as an “open asylum for the oppressed”, supported some restrictions and regulations to immigration. It was a different time, but the rules still make sense today.

Teddy Roosevelt enforced the Immigrant Act of 1907, which banned the citizenship of any foreigners from cultures that practiced polygamy (which included Muslims) and focused on migration among groups that could easily assimilate into American society. Once again, this is perfectly acceptable and rational. There’s nothing wrong with enforcing logical standards.

Now, more than ever, we need such rules in place. Just because they were overturned once does not mean they can’t be brought back again as the conditions demand.

As far as the 1^st Amendment is concerned, we’ve had exceptions to these protections when it comes to dangerous ideologies. For example, the US banned communist organization for decades, right up until the 1990s.

Why? Because the proliferation of communism will inevitably lead to the destruction of the same 1^st Amendment rights that liberals claim to be protecting. Even in a republic, there are certain groups who cannot be allowed to exist because they represent a clear and present danger to the very framework that our country is built on. They are at war with our culture. To give citizenship to the barbarians at the gate is suicide.

By extension, one could argue that Muslim ideology is much like communism in that Muslims have a tendency to seek dominance and authoritarianism rather than integration. Their presence in the US is an obvious threat to the Bill of Rights. Therefore, we may have to make exceptions for them, just as we made exceptions for communism (globalism is also another important target for removal).

We can argue over the bureaucratic labyrinth that has been created to make expulsion of these groups difficult, but it doesn’t matter. Again, regardless of what the courts say, these people are not entitled to the same rights as natural born citizens, and we need to stop pretending as if they are owed something.

It is true that under current liberal precedents the constitution restricts the Federal Government from taking action to remove people based on identity, but this does not apply to the American public. If the government isn’t allowed to remove these threats, then make no mistake, the American people will eventually do it themselves. The film “Citizen Vigilante” is not fiction, it’s a warning. It’s wildly popular for a reason.

At the very least, the TPS decision shows that the Supreme Court is beginning to realize that it’s better to allow managed deportations than it is to drive the population to adopt vigilantism.

America has NEVER been a country of equal treatment for everyone all the time, and that’s because this is a foolish concept. The closer the Overton Window moves us towards multicultural equality the worse things get for everyone. As we’ve witnessed over the past decade, some groups tend to sabotage everything they touch. They don’t view American life as a privilege, they see it as something that can be pillaged, and liberal movements are enabling this behavior.

There are two key pillars to the liberal argument that need to be abandoned before it’s too late:

First, that immigration is some kind of sacred duty of the American people. It is our “historical identity” and a tradition that must not be forsaken. They suggest that migrants, as if by magic, become Americans as soon as they cross the border or drop a newborn child on the soil, and thus they must be given all the opportunities and legal protections afforded to true citizens.

Second, the constitutional laws in place are liberal in the application of rights, even for foreigners fresh off the boat. In other words, we’re violating the constitution by making exceptions.

This is simply not so. History shows us that logical exceptions have always been made. Why, for example, is a migrant allowed to slip across our border illegally, squeeze out a kid on this side of the line and by default that kid becomes a citizen? It makes no sense and almost no other country in the world allows it.

The absolutist vision of the constitutional shield might be sacred for people who are born and raised in America under American ideals and by American parents. This does not, however, apply to foreign invaders with intentions of exploiting loopholes and ransacking the nation while maintaining loyalties to their home countries.

Hell, I would even argue that exceptions can and should be made for radical communists. We had it right in the 1950s. And the answer is simple: Deport them all.

Is a group of people seeking to sabotage western civilization? Deport them. Are they acting like parasites feeding off subsidies while giving nothing in return? Deport them. Does a group have a religion or ideology that is clearly antithetical to western values? Deport them.

And what about the argument that we must accommodate refugees from war-torn regions; that we must provide safe haven? No, we don’t.

Since when are we not allowed to be selective in who we help? No other country in the world is treated with the same expectations as the US when it comes to immigration. When did it become our responsibility to fix every problem in the world? This is a role that was foisted on us by a century of progressive propaganda.

Maybe Haitian refugees need to be sent back home to fix their own problems in their own country? Maybe the only way these places will ever be reformed is if the US stops acting as a steam valve for the discontented? Maybe anchor babies need to be shipped off with their illegal migrant parents, instead of letting them all stay in the country on a technicality?

Is it a slippery slope? Could these same rules be turned back on American conservatives and patriots? No, because who would be left to use them against us? This is not a call for an end to constitutional rights. Nor is it a call for an end to all immigration. Rather, it is plea for nuance, sanity and selectivity.

We used to have more practical rules for these problems, and I guarantee, the Founding Fathers would be FAR more aggressive in enforcing those rules than we are today. Some people do not deserve the same rights as US citizens and some people do not deserve the same access as US citizens.

It’s okay to admit it. This is a fact that we need to accept as a society. We need to stop the benevolent liberal charade which is designed to make us feel obliged to the rest of the world.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

If modern history has taught us anything, it’s that one should never align one’s self with zealots.  They might be useful for creating momentum and pushing your agenda forward at the time, but eventually they will deem you inadequate to their standards, because frankly, no one is actually capable of meeting their standards.   

The political left’s shift into radical communism (and radical Islam) is accelerating rapidly, with a number of incumbent and “centrist” Democrat politicians being unseated by “Democratic Socialists” in the primaries in states like New York.  Meanwhile, the far-left is taking over management in deep blue cities across the US.   

Rumors suggest that the party is heavily divided and they are unsuccessfully trying to hide it.  Zohran Mamdani’s ascension to mayor of NYC was the canary in the coal mine and a sign of things to come.  There is a rising tide of militant woke fanatics using the Democrat Party as a vehicle to gain access to positions of political power, and the Dems happily invited them in.    

And, with any socialist revolution, those who are viewed as moderates or “less revolutionary” are always targeted for expulsion (or extinction) once the zealots gain enough influence. 

Case-in-point, California State Senator Scott Wiener, perhaps one of the most radical (and some would argue one of the most detestable) Democrat politicians in office today, is not safe from the woke mob.  Wiener has operated as an agent for LGBT activism and it’s the central pillar of his career.  Yet, during a trans pride march in San Francisco last week he was accosted by a gaggle of crazies demanding he leave because of his past support for Israel.  

Scott Wiener showed up to the trans march and for the first time we kicked his ass out. It’s sad because while he’s written some good legislation for queers, hes ultimately a genocidal-supporting center right shill. Trigger warning: broken man walking away defeated. Vote Connie! pic.twitter.com/TXIB7omxde

— Dimitry Yakoushkin (@decadimitry) June 27, 2026

After extensive pressure from pro-Islam activists, Wiener shifted his position on Gaza in January and explicitly labeled the situation a “genocide”.  It didn’t matter.  Because Wiener is Jewish he is considered guilty by default.  It’s incredible how quickly the very people that accuse conservatives of being “Nazis” end up acting just like Nazis.

U.S. Congressional candidate Scott Wiener was harassed by a Free Palestine activist. 🇺🇸

Scott, who is Jewish, had changed his stance on Israel, parroting the typical Free Palestine rhetoric, in order to get easy votes.

It turns out, to nobody’s surprise, that he still isn’t… pic.twitter.com/ZDXdpiEqQd

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) June 25, 2026

Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer received similar treatment recently.  After he joined a pride march in NYC, the boos were hard to ignore and the cheers were thin. 

@NY1 @InsideCityHall @PodSaveAmerica Chuck Schumer getting booed at NYC Pride pic.twitter.com/bHV6XL7Um2

— ladybird (@LadybirdMV) June 28, 2026

This response from leftist crowds is becoming more frequent as they turn their sights on the Democrat establishment.  The party is changing from the inside and leaders like Schumer are no longer considered extreme enough.  The progressives want to burn the system (and their ideological opponents) to the ground, and Schumer is part of that system.

CNN: “It’s no longer the overall electorate that doesn’t like Chuck Schumer…he’s actually not popular with Democrats.” pic.twitter.com/gO05m4KY5n

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 29, 2026

Conservatives might view these divisions among Democrats as predictable, but also as a welcome advantage.  Seeing people like Scott Wiener and Chuck Schumer get browbeaten by a communist struggle session is indeed hilarious.  The cancel culture they avidly supported over the past decade smells their blood in the water this time, and the feeding frenzy is circling closer.      

There is, however, the long term problem of an increasingly militant leftist movement operating in the midst of an American society seeking order and sanity.  Once the Democrat Party officially becomes the Democratic Socialist Party, any chances a peaceful solution will disappear.  Some would argue that US politics already crossed that line a long time ago.

Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

• The Middle East conflict has disrupted more than 1 billion barrels of oil supply, but China’s massive strategic crude stockpile helped offset the shock by sharply reducing imports, preventing oil prices from surging even higher.

• Countries are now racing to build or replenish strategic petroleum reserves, with the IEA planning to refill the 400 million barrels it released during the crisis and major importers like India looking to expand their emergency stockpiles.

• This wave of reserve rebuilding could create a major new source of oil demand, supporting crude prices once the Middle East crisis fully subsides as governments prioritize energy security alongside the energy transition.

The war in the Middle East has cost the world over a billion barrels in cumulative supply losses. Yet luckily, China had built a reserve of about the same size before the closure of Hormuz, so it stopped buying so much oil, arresting the inevitable price jump. Now, everyone wants to build an oil reserve—or needs to replenish the ones they already have.

Back in March, soon after the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran began, prompting the latter to retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the International Energy Agency said it would release 400 million barrels of crude from its joint emergency reserve. The reserve was set up, along with the IEA, as a response to the Arab oil embargo and other supply disruptions from the 70s, when the world was even more dependent on Middle Eastern crude than it is today.

The release announced in March worried oil market observers because it was set to be the largest ever made, much larger than what the IEA member states released in 2022 when Western sanctions on Russia following its incursion into Ukraine prompted a price spike. Back then, the IEA only released 182 million barrels. Now, member states stood ready to release 400 million barrels, plus millions of barrels from the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve.

All these millions of barrels would need to be replenished once the crisis is over, or even before it is over if it drags on. Analysts have been warning about it and about the potential of this replenishment drive to lift international prices, which have remained stubbornly depressed, even amid fresh reports of new strikes between Iran and the United States. Yet on top of the replenishment drive, there are nations seeking to build their own strategic reserves to insulate themselves from future shocks.

Reuters noted in a recent report that nations that had limited oil reserves at home had felt the pain from the closure of Hormuz more sharply than those with ample reserves. Such a conclusion is, of course, a no-brainer, but it is indicative of something besides the obvious, namely, that crude oil remains the ultimate fuel of the global economy, regardless of the acceleration of transition efforts in the past decade.

Multiple reports following the outbreak of war in the Middle East said it would prompt energy importers to switch to things like wind and solar in order to reduce their dependence on those imports of crude from the Middle East. Indeed, many governments across Asia—the most vulnerable region—did double and triple down on wind and solar, but at the same time signaled they are aware these cannot replace hydrocarbons to any meaningful degree. So they also started thinking about building an oil reserve. China was the inspiration.

There seems to be a pretty comprehensive agreement among energy analysts that China played an instrumental role in keeping the world from drowning in three-digit oil prices. It did this thanks to its tendency to plan well ahead and prepare for adverse events, such as a war in the Middle East. China had been buying oil on the cheap from Iran, Russia, and Venezuela for years, building the most massive oil reserve in the world. Funnily enough, reports about the gap between Chinese crude imports and refinery run rates served to keep a lid on prices, keeping oil cheaper for longer, helping China build its reserve. And when the war came, China slashed imports and dug into its oil inventories.

Following China’s example may be quite a challenge, though it seems simple on the face of it. The challenge, of course, is financial. India, for instance, wants to boost its own oil reserve, which is currently unacceptably low, covering just eight days of imports. The government has already instructed state major ONGC to add 13 million barrels to its crude reserve, but those 13 million barrels will not go a long way in case of shortages—and buying enough oil to help in case of shortages would cost tens of billions of dollars. India, by the way, is not the only large oil importer thinking of boosting its oil reserves. And China will need to refill its reserve, as will IEA members.

What this means is that demand for crude oil is about to rise the moment there is an indication that the crisis in the Middle East is over, for real this time. Even the International Energy Agency—of peak oil demand fame—said in its latest monthly oil report that it expected global oil demand to rebound to 2 million barrels daily in 2027, after dipping by 1.1 million barrels daily this year due to the crisis and its effect on supply and prices. In good news for buyers, the news of stronger demand would probably push oil prices lower.

A mega heat dome is set to descend on the eastern half of the U.S., prompting the Energy Department to issue two emergency orders to reduce the risk of rolling blackouts in the Mid-Atlantic area as PJM Interconnection braces for record power demand.

DOE’s first order directs the PJM region, which serves 67 million people across 13 states, “to dispatch specified units and to order their operation as needed to maintain reliability.”

PJM has implemented several alerts and actions to maintain reliable system operations throughout this week’s forecasted extreme heat and humidity. A Hot Weather Alert is currently in effect for the entire region PJM serves through July 3. PJM has also issued a Maximum Generation… pic.twitter.com/Ho1txMZBIh

— PJM Interconnection (@pjminterconnect) June 30, 2026

The second order states that PJM, working with transmission owners and electric distribution companies, must use backup generation as a last resort before or during a Level 3 energy emergency.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright said, “Maintaining affordable, reliable, and secure power in the PJM service territory is non-negotiable.”

Bloomberg’s forecast for maximum temperatures across the Washington, D.C., metro area could average in the low triple digits through Saturday.

The hot temperatures, beginning tomorrow, will increase cooling demand and boost power demand on the PJM grid, potentially straining the system during peak late-afternoon hours. Concerns about grid reliability have risen as data center buildouts are blamed for soaring power bills – yet aging grids and climate policie should also be blamed. 

For months, several auto news outlets and EV forums and auto-focused YouTubers have been tracking what some are calling a “hidden time bomb” inside Tesla’s Cybertruck: a growing number of owner complaints linked to Power Conversion System failures.

The PCS failure, according to those reports, can paralyze charging and key electrical functions, in some cases leaving the roughly 7,000-pound stainless truck immobilized until service or replacement parts are available.

“Tesla is risking a backlash from Cybertruck owners affected by Power Conversion System (PCS) failures. This prevents trucks from using Level 2 (AC) charging. While Tesla is aware of these issues, it has only offered a fix on a case-by-case basis rather than issuing a recall to replace the faulty parts across the fleet,” Autoevolution wrote in a report.

Here’s where things get weird. The report continued:

Tesla fans are always happy that the EV maker has far fewer recalls than other carmakers. On the other hand, critics point out that Tesla prefers to deal with failures quietly by forcing owners to sign NDAs. This makes it appear that Tesla EVs have fewer problems than other car models. It also allows Tesla to address failures without notifying the NHTSA and issuing a recall.

For Cybertruck owners, this approach has become increasingly obvious during the past months. An unusually large number of Cybertruck owners have been affected by a wave of PCS failures that can prevent the truck from charging via AC. This negates one of the most important advantages of an EV: cheap overnight charging at home. The good news is that, in most cases, DC charging remains available.

Another report suggests that early 2024 and 2025 Foundation Series trucks are the most discussed, and there is concern that repairs could become expensive once the basic 4-year/50,000-mile warranty expires.

Auto blog Not A Tesla bluntly asked:

Where is the Recall?

Despite the clear pattern of failure affecting dozens of confirmed vehicles, and reports that some service centers proactively replace the PCS when trucks come in for unrelated tire or trim service, there is no official NHTSA recall or proactive owner notification specifically addressing the PCS hardware defect.

For now, early Cybertruck owners are left hoping their PCS either fails safely within the initial 50,000-mile warranty window or survives long enough for Tesla to officially acknowledge the defect and issue a sweeping recall.

What X users are saying:

Day 16
Cybertruck PCS2 failure, in for service
Started at 62% charge and is in low power mode
Now at 39% and expected 2 weeks more till parts arrive.
Who else has been waiting longer? pic.twitter.com/eOtrHztct5

— Gary – contractorsPOV⚡🦺 (@contractorsPOV) April 16, 2026

Sooo according to this my VIN is affected 😞
Hopefully I don’t ever see the issue and Tesla figures out how to fix it before it becomes a problem. https://t.co/IelPOzwVeH pic.twitter.com/OrmUbxnIup

— Tesla Owners of Kentucky (@KentuckyToc) April 24, 2026

@Tesla PCS2 Failure can leave you with zero ability to charge your vehicle.
It would be equivalent of someone putting a locking gas cap that can’t be removed on a gas vehicle. When you run out, you’re done.
Everyone with a Cybertruck should inundate Tesla service for an… pic.twitter.com/WK6LbufQJM

— Gary – contractorsPOV⚡🦺 (@contractorsPOV) April 10, 2026

Mine went into a failure mode last month. The replacement occurred this past week. They also replaced the Device Cluster and two harnesses. I did hear a service advisor mention a bulletin but I haven’t been able to find it in SI. My appointment was for Monday 3/2 and it was… pic.twitter.com/qzW3mnSXfR

— Scott Brown (@TechScottBrown) March 8, 2026

Guys, what’s wrong with my Cybertruck?

Am I cooked??? pic.twitter.com/ksoBEGfmym

— LilHumansBigImpact (@BigImpactHumans) April 15, 2026

Another one bites the dust. Cybertruck PCS failure.
Coolest part, 10 days for earliest appointment and it won’t charge at a supercharger either.
I’m cooked 🫠 pic.twitter.com/j5wHCxym9S

— Gary – contractorsPOV⚡🦺 (@contractorsPOV) March 31, 2026

Tesla added free supercharging to my truck until July 20th.
Due to the PCS2 failure pic.twitter.com/v2KBWQEAlj

— Maaz Jilani (@Maazisrock) April 24, 2026

Good luck with a timely fix…  

I’m on week 8!!!

Cybertruck Owner Warning: AC Charging / PCS Failures & Backorders 🚨
If your Cybertruck’s home charging speed suddenly cut in half (or stopped completely), you are not alone. Widespread failures are hitting the Power Conversion System (PCS) / AC Converter.
🔴…

— Andreas Dettlaff (@AndreasDettlaff) June 30, 2026

YouTube channel The RED Review warned:

The Power Conversion System (PCS2) is quietly breaking down on Cybertruck owners across the country — bricking their trucks, killing AC charging, and leaving them with a $2,500+ repair bill that Tesla won’t warn you about. There’s no recall yet, and most owners have no idea it’s happening.

Watch: Your Cybertruck Has a Hidden Time Bomb (PCS2 Failure)

And another report:

We hear that Tesla is providing free Supercharging to affected Cybertruck owners, and service staff have acknowledged this as a growing problem.  

Warren Buffett has funneled roughly $48 billion into the Gates Foundation from 2006 to 2025, typically through annual midyear transfers of Berkshire Hathaway shares. However, this year, for the first time in two decades, Buffett is reportedly delaying his usual donation as he waits for the outcome of a review into the foundation’s ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a new Wall Street Journal report.

The delay comes as Buffett’s relationship with Gates, a longtime friend, has reportedly become strained since the release of Justice Department files related to Epstein.

Buffett said in March that he had not spoken with Gates since the files were released and wanted to see what else emerged before making his annual giving decision.

WSJ noted:

Whatever decision Buffett makes, it isn’t expected to affect his annual contributions to his family’s foundations, including those run by his three children and the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named after his first wife, according to the people familiar with the matter.

This year, a series of DoJ documents sparked scrutiny of Gates’s ties to Epstein. He recently appeared at a congressional hearing and said that his meetings with Epstein were “a grave error in judgment.”

Related:

• “I Did Nothing Illicit”: Bill Gates Begins Apology Tour Over His Epstein Ties

WSJ recently reported that the Gates Foundation slashed 500 jobs, or about 20% of its staff, as the left-wing NGO has come under fire for Gates’ ties to Epstein. Back in February, Gates pulled out as a keynote speaker at a high-profile global AI summit in India.

The Gates Foundation CEO recently told employees during a town hall event that the Gates-Epstein relationship had deeply tarnished the nonprofit’s reputation, according to a Financial Times report.

But it is not just the Gates-Epstein ties that Buffett should be concerned about. Late last year, the Gates Foundation had to publicly sever ties with philanthropic adviser Arabella Advisors, which engineered a sprawling “dark money” network of nonprofit entities, including the New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund, and Windward Fund, that continues to wage color-revolution-style operations against President Trump.

All in all, it is not looking great for the Gates Foundation.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Monday that the Israeli military was ready to restart the war against Iran and that it could happen as soon as “tomorrow”.

Katz vowed that Israel would bomb Beirut’s southern suburb of Dahiyeh if Hezbollah rockets were fired into northern Israel and that the IDF was prepared to respond if that prompted Iranian attacks on northern Israel.

“There is no reality in which Israel will not respond to an Iranian attack,” Katz said, according to Israel Hayom. “The equation stands – rocket fire on Israeli communities means an immediate assault on the Dahiyeh. The possibility exists that Iran will attack Israel not only in response to strikes in the Dahieh. We could find ourselves at war with Iran tomorrow.”

The Israeli minister said that a second potential scenario that would lead to a renewed war with Iran would be if President Trump decides to restart the bombing campaign.

“There are two scenarios that would resume full-scale fighting – a decision by President Donald Trump or Iranian missile fire. This could happen in two days,” he said.

Katz also insisted that Israel was ready to fight Iran on its own, which he called a “blue and white operation,” despite the fact that Israel is extremely reliant on US air defenses.

“The IDF is just waiting for it. We have selected targets to strike in Iran, and the IDF is prepared and alert, but we will not interfere with the US President’s current moves vis-a-vis the Iranians,” he said.

Katz also boasted about the destruction of Shia Muslim villages in southern Lebanon. “It was clear during Operation Silver Plow that the Shia villages along the contact line had to disappear,” he said, using the codename for Israel’s recent operations in southern Lebanon.

‘Israel is preparing for the immediate resumption of military operations against Iran.’

Senior Middle East Correspondent @ariel_oseran joins @benitalevin on #TheRundown pic.twitter.com/8c7YfNgaMP

— i24NEWS English (@i24NEWS_EN) June 30, 2026

“We are currently in a situation where there is nearly 100% destruction in the contact-line villages of the western and central sectors. In the eastern sector, we are at 73% of villages destroyed,” Katz added.