The Key Nuclear Allegation That Started the War Was Coaxed From a Palantir Counter-Intelligence Algorithm

[PAF]

By Alastair Crooke
Strategic Culture
June 24, 2025


Trump sided with the Israelis, asserting that Iran was ‘very close’ to having a bomb, and added that he didn’t care what Gabbard thinks.

The IAEA Board’s ‘Non-Compliance’ Resolution on 12 June 2025 was the planned precursor for Israel’s ‘bolt from the blue’ strike on Iran the next day. Israelis say the plan to go to war with Iran was grounded in ‘the opportunity’ to strike, and not the intelligence that Iran was speeding towards a bomb (that was the peg for war).

Alastair Crooke


The sudden claim of Iran being very close to a bomb (that seemingly jumped out of ‘nowhere’ to leave Americans puzzling how could it happen that – in the blink of eye, we are going to war – was subsequently refuted by IAEA Chief Grossi to CNN on 17 June (but only after the abrupt attack on Iran already had taken place):

“We did not have any evidence of a systematic effort [by Iran] to move to a nuclear weapon”, Grossi confirmed on CNN.

This statement drew the following riposte from Iran by its Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Esmaeil Baqaei on 19 June:

“This is too late, Mr. Grossi – you obscured this truth in your absolutely biased report that was instrumentalized by E3/U.S. to craft a resolution with baseless allegation of [Iranian] ‘non-compliance’; the same resolution was then utilized, as a final pretext, by a genocidal warmongering regime to wage a war of aggression on Iran and to launch an unlawful attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities. Do you know how many innocent Iranians have been killed/maimed as a result of this criminal war? You turned IAEA into a tool of convenience for non-NPT members to deprive NPT members of their basic right under Article 4. Any clear conscience?!”.

To which Dr Ali Larijani, Advisor to the Supreme Leader, added:

“When the war ends, we will hold the director of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, accountable”.


What they are saying:

The Russian Foreign Ministry’s Statement, in relation to the escalation of the Iranian-Israeli conflict –

“It was precisely these “sympathisers” [EU3] who exerted pressure on the leadership of the [IAEA] Agency to prepare a controversial “comprehensive assessment” of Iran’s nuclear programme, the flaws of which were subsequently exploited to push through a biased anti-Iran resolution at the IAEA Board of Governors on 12 June [2025]. This resolution effectively provided a green light to actions by West Jerusalem, leading to tragedy” [i.e. to the sneak attack on the immediate day after, 13 June].
Behind the scenes:

The underpinnings to the 12 June 2025 IAEA Resolution – giving pretext for Israel to strike Iran (and crafted to sway President Trump to dismiss his own Director of National Intelligence’s warnings that there was no evidence of Iran moving towards weaponisation) – reportedly were drawn not from Mossad or other western intelligence services, but from IAEA software. As DD Geo-politics outlines, since 2015, the IAEA has relied on Palantir’s Mosaic platform, a $50-million AI system that sifts through millions of data points – satellite imagery, social media, personnel logs – to predict nuclear threats:

“Iran’s stockpile [of enriched uranium] had been growing steadily for months—yet the narrative of an imminent breakthrough surged only after the IAEA’s censure on June 6, 2025. That resolution, adopted 19–3, provided Israel the diplomatic cover it needed. Palantir’s Mosaic platform played a critical role in this pivot. Its data shaped the May 31 report, flagging anomalies at Fordow and Lavisan-Shian, and recycling prior allegations from Turquzabad—despite years-old Iranian denials and sabotage … Mosaic was conceived originally to identify insurgent activity in Iraq and Afghanistan”.

Its algorithm looks to identify and infer ‘hostile intent’ from indirect indicators – metadata, behavioral patterns, signal traffic – not from confirmed evidence. In other words, it postulates what suspects may be thinking, or planning. On 12 June, Iran leaked documents, which it claimed showed IAEA chief Rafael Grossi sharing Mosaic outputs with Israel.

.
.
.

Continue to full article:

The Key Nuclear Allegation That Started the War Was Coaxed From a Palantir Counter-Intelligence Algorithm - LewRockwell

Trump sided with the Israelis, asserting that Iran was ‘very close’ to having a bomb, and added that he didn’t care what Gabbard thinks. The IAEA Board’s ‘Non-Compliance’ Resolution on 12 June 2025 was the planned precursor for Israel’s ‘bolt from the blue’ strike on Iran the next day. Israelis...

www.lewrockwell.com

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[TheTexan]

As SS likes to say, "Bunk".

It's undisputed at this point that Iran has enriched to 60% NPT which has no purpose except nuclear weapons, which is a clear violation of the NPT.

The quote provided in the article is not intended to mean that Iran didn't violate the NPT because they did, and everyone knows they did. The handful of "no" votes from China and Russia are likewise not intended to mean they don't think Iran violated the NPT: they know Iran did and they were just protest voting against the US and they have said as much.

Iran has been playing brinksmanship games, at their own admission, with getting "closer" to nuclear weapons in terms of a development. As a "deterrent".

So while it may or may not be true that they ever intended to 100% complete a weapon, their admitted and demonstrated intentions was to get as close to a weapon as they could. In violation of the NPT.

So yea, bunk.

If people here want to make the argument that Iran and everyone else in the world should be able to have nukes then feel free to make that case.

But it's undisputable that Iran violated the NPT. Unless anyone here wants to dispute that they didn't enrich to 60%

 

[acptulsa]

So yea, bunk.

If people here want to make the argument that Iran and everyone else in the world should be able to have nukes then feel free to make that case.

But it's undisputable that Iran violated the NPT. Unless anyone here wants to dispute that they didn't enrich to 60%

You're the one who is full of shit. There is no enrichment limitation in the NPT.

 

[TheTexan]

You're the one who is full of shit. There is no enrichment limitation in the NPT.

There doesn't need to be. The whole point of the NPT is to agree not to pursue nuclear weapons. If you want to play lawyer games on whether or not the NPT technically allows enriching towards weapons grade with zero economic purpose, then that falls strictly into the Fuck Around And Find Out territory.

I would also mention that Iran did agree not to enrich in the 2015 agreement. Just because the US backed out doesn't mean the agreement wasn't still in force - it was an international agreement that Iran was still expected to comply with and they didnt.

 

[sparebulb]

There doesn't need to be. The whole point of the NPT is to agree not to pursue nuclear weapons. If you want to play lawyer games on whether or not the NPT technically allows enriching towards weapons grade with zero economic purpose, then that falls strictly into the Fuck Around And Find Out territory.

I would also mention that Iran did agree not to enrich in the 2015 agreement. Just because the US backed out doesn't mean the agreement wasn't still in force - it was an international agreement that Iran was still expected to comply with and they didnt.

I think that it would be impossible for Iran to cut a path through these minefields when you have two hostile nations, Izrael and Izrael's bitch, meaning to do you harm.

Complicating the matter is when the chief belligerent doesn't recognize the NPT and the chief belligerent's bitch unilaterally pulled out of a limitations agreement.

Iran was being forced to agree to suicide.

 

[TheTexan]

I think that it would be impossible for Iran to cut a path through these minefields when you have two hostile nations, Izrael and Izrael's bitch, meaning to do you harm.

Complicating the matter is when the chief belligerent doesn't recognize the NPT and the chief belligerent's bitch unilaterally pulled out of a limitations agreement.

Iran was being forced to agree to suicide.

I have sympathy for their dilemma, but it doesn't change the fact that we can't allow them - or anyone - to get nuclear weapons.

Perhaps America wouldn't have been so aggressive with Iran if Iran hadn't been pursuing nuclear weapons to begin with.

 

[sparebulb]

I have sympathy for their dilemma, but it doesn't change the fact that we can't allow them - or anyone - to get nuclear weapons.

Perhaps America wouldn't have been so aggressive with Iran if Iran hadn't been pursuing nuclear weapons to begin with.

Now that 'murika is imposing nuke control on Iran, I'm quite sure that they will not be permitted to have a legal nuke.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

After trying out the latest AI, it would be the height of foolishness to believe any thing that comes from it. It is often wrong, contradicts itself constantly, and then denies it's contradictions and errors.

AI is similar to a well polished politician.

 

[acptulsa]

After trying out the latest AI, it would be the height of foolishness to believe any thing that comes from it. It is often wrong, contradicts itself constantly, and then denies it's contradictions and errors.

GPS has to be a conspiracy of the oil cartel. I've had it recommend I do a trip which is one and one half miles by surface streets by taking the highway. That reduced the portion covered on streets by half a mile, but made the trip more than a mile longer. It wanted me to drive almost twice as far. To buy that b.s. you have to literally have no concept of geography or geometry. Relying on it ensures you perpetually don't know (or even think about) where you are in the world.

AI is just Expanded GPS. It's designed to keep you perpetually lost.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Israel & the US did what they did (and will do what they will do) because:
(1) they wanted to do it (for whatever reasons), and
(2) they judged - apparently correctly in this case - that they could get away with it and come out ahead in the end.

Exactly the same thing goes for Iran - with the exception that, in respect to factor (2), their judgment was not quite so correct.

Who did or didn't break what agreement, when, and to what degree is just irrelevant "public relations" window dressing. People can bicker and quarrel over such details if they like (I occasionally enjoy doing so myself), but it doesn't really matter - faits accomplis will always trump "coulda-shoulda-woulda"s.

Or to speak in less general terms:

US/Israel wants an under-their-thumbs Iranian puppet regime over which they exert at least near-total control. If and when that ever happens, all their hyperventilating about how Iran must never be permitted to have nukes (plants or bombs) will be dropped like a used diaper. Indeed, if they're feeling especially frisky and daring, and they are sufficiently confident in having secured Iran as their cat's-paw, they might even give Iran nukes themselves (Russia has always been in the crosshairs of the Western global hegemonists). If they don't do that, it won't be because of any devotion to the cause of "non-proliferation" or any such thing, but only because they don't think they can get away with it without risking too much.

And just to put this more back on the OP topic, any AI-generated outputs will be caused by this dynamic, and will not be the cause of it. IOW: Any desire or intent to make war will not be caused by"allegations [...] coaxed" from AI algorithms - rather, "allegations [...] coaxed" from AI algorithms will be caused by the desire or intent to make war. ("Garbage in, garbage out", as they say ...)

 

[ClaytonB]

Who did or didn't break what agreement, when, and to what degree is just irrelevant "public relations" window dressing. People can bicker and quarrel over such details if they like (I occasionally enjoy doing so myself), but it doesn't really matter - faits accomplis will always trump "coulda-shoulda-woulda"s.

In terms of coalition-formation, however, who-broke-what-law/treaty actually does matter because the law of the land (the Constitution) is a long-standing rally-point that our country can -- if we ever get the moral courage to do so -- rally around in order to abolish the Federal government and "institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Alex Jones is the wrong messenger but he has the right message: the answer to 1984 is, indeed, 1776. And law-breakers are setting themselves up for the gallows should 1776 come again, just as many law-breakers and traitors went to the gallows at that time.

Keep receipts.

 

[ClaytonB]

After trying out the latest AI, it would be the height of foolishness to believe any thing that comes from it. It is often wrong, contradicts itself constantly, and then denies it's contradictions and errors.

AI is similar to a well polished politician.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...
US/Israel wants an under-their-thumbs Iranian puppet regime over which they exert at least near-total control. If and when that ever happens, all their hyperventilating about how Iran must never be permitted to have nukes (plants or bombs) will be dropped like a used diaper. Indeed, if they're feeling especially frisky and daring, and they are sufficiently confident in having secured Iran as their cat's-paw, they might even give Iran nukes themselves (Russia has always been in the crosshairs of the Western global hegemonists). ...

You called it here first. Iran must be allowed to join NATO.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Exactly, then the next cartoon panel would have the robot proceed to cut another hole in the left side.

 

[Occam's Banana]

In terms of coalition-formation, however, who-broke-what-law/treaty actually does matter because the law of the land (the Constitution) is a long-standing rally-point that our country can -- if we ever get the moral courage to do so -- rally around in order to abolish the Federal government [...]

I disagree. I think that would be a terrible mistake. (File under "fool me once ...".)

I recently addressed the issue of "muh Constuhtooshun" in a post in another thread.

I'll just add that the United States Constitution is the primary genetic constituent of the abomination that is "the Federal government".

It should be excised from any future body politic as the metastatic tumor that it has always been (and was always intended to be).

and "institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Alex Jones is the wrong messenger but he has the right message: the answer to 1984 is, indeed, 1776. And law-breakers are setting themselves up for the gallows should 1776 come again, just as many law-breakers and traitors went to the gallows at that time.

Keep receipts.

I can't help but notice that the quote you offer is from the Declaration, not the Constitution (and that the year you reference is 1776, not 1787-1788).

As I said in another post in the same thread:

If we're going to fetishize a centuries-old document, let it be the Declaration of Independence - not the United States Constitution.

 

[ClaytonB]

As I said in another post in the same thread:

The Constitution is smarter than people think it is, both those who want to undermine it, and those who (like you) dismiss it because it did not prevent out-of-control federal power. That's a legitimate objection. But as constitutional lawyer Michael Farris explains in his excellent textbook on the US Constitution, the Declaration and the Constitution are actually legally paired or joined. To borrow a metaphor from corporate law, he explains that the Declaration is like the articles of incorporation (of a corporation) and the Constitution is like the bylaws. The Declaration explains why the new government was formed, just as articles of incorporation explain the purpose of incorporating, and legally declare the fact of incorporation. The Constitution spells out "the rules of the game" that will pertain within the national government of the US, just as bylaws explain the rules according to which a corporation will operate.

Once this is understood, the formula in the DoI regarding "alter or abolish ... and institute new Government" becomes clearer. The Founders explicitly did not see the US Constitution as the final form of the US government. Perhaps it could be, but they knew they weren't able to foresee the future, so maybe it would not hold up to the test of time. And that's OK -- if we can't make the US government work with the US Constitution as it was ratified in 1789, we can alter or abolish it, and institute new Government as seems most likely to us to secure our peace and happiness. This is what I am calling neo-federalism, but that's just a term I've invented, I don't care what people call it, it's the idea that matters.

Note that, at root, I am simply anti-State. However, I think that the number of mental locks I had to pick in order to perform the Houdini escape of mentally seceding from statism in all its forms is something that the vast majority of the public cannot -- at this time -- achieve. There is an interesting parenthesis in a quote from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience that captures precisely how I feel about this:

I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—"That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

- Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"

I think he had a lot of foresight to include the highlighted parenthesis because the fact is, men are not yet ready for anti-statism or, anarchy. There must be a socio-political and, more importantly, spiritual development that occurs before we will be ready. And MAGA/etc. shows that people really do have to become broadly supportive of a social idea before it can actually take root. Some folks on RPF will take the Harry Browne route (find your own freedom, screw the rest) but I think that's actually part of the poison of DC... DC is chock full of anarchists if you really think about it. A pirate is the ultimate anarchist because he brooks no limitations upon himself, at all, not even the "arbitrary" social conventions regarding crime. So, DC is not really a manifestation of tyranny, it's a manifestation of unchecked anarchy, that is, wholly unenlightened self-interest. I don't believe in that kind of anarchy and I assume most on RPF don't, either. But acknowledging its existence is important... it's what makes philosophical anarchy different from American Psycho self-interest.

So, the question then is, how do we get people ready? Ron Paul's answer is very simple: education (in the positive sense, that is, disseminating true information for people to learn.) But I think that education is only part of the answer, we also do need a movement, and MAGA showed that, not because it was a good example of a movement, but because it showed the power of a movement not only to coalesce the populace on an agenda, but also to change hearts and minds. A lot of people were changed by MAGA, some for good, some for bad but, either way, they were changed. So, we not only need education, we also need a movement. But it can't be a Marxist type of movement, done behind closed doors for revolutionary purposes because, in the end, all darkness goes to darkness. So, what I think the Founders had absolutely right, what they somehow keenly looked into the future and foresaw, was the power of a historical anchor-point, which they provided in three ways: (1) declaring independence, (2) winning the war of Independence. and (3) the US Constitution as, at the very least, a proof-of-concept of how liberty could work under a Republic, for a time, if we can "keep it". So, I like to think of the DoI and Consitution as a kind of social open-source software-project (as opposed to proprietary Marxist revolution) where We The People can go back and edit the source code if it's not working. There is enough sub-structure to enable that editing process to occur, which is the bare-bones that you have to have, otherwise, there is no forward guidance towards liberty, we are just wandering in a desert of never-ending slavery to the State.

We haven't tried Abolish and Replace. I argue that with the very real threat of Russian nukes over American cities after somebody's finger slips in the Israel-Iran war, we have nothing to lose from giving it a shot. Everything else has already been tried, why not this. Just keep Altering and Abolishing until the State is no more... when men are ready for that...

 

[Occam's Banana]

You called it here first. Iran must be allowed to join NATO.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia."



NATO sees China as the next front line

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is stepping up belligerent rhetoric toward China, in line with Washington. According to him, China's military expansion is "unprecedented" and poses a direct threat to the West, especially in relation to Taiwan.

He openly speculates that any move by China towards Taiwan could be coordinated with Russia, which would "preoccupy Europe" while the US is tied to the Pacific.

Rutte warned: “They are not building an army for parades in Beijing.” Instead, he argues that China’s military posture clearly indicates an intention for conflict, stressing that NATO must prepare for the possibility of the war spreading to Europe.

He also highlighted NATO's "close relationship" with partners in the Indo-Pacific region and stressed that the Alliance must increase defense spending and combat readiness to simultaneously confront both Russia and China.

The message is clear: NATO is now seeking to expand its mandate beyond the North Atlantic zone, preparing the West for a conflict on two fronts – in Europe against Russia and in Asia against China.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Iran, Russia, China have always been targets. Then again, the US (and Europe) is a target too, albeit through sabotage instead of "kinetic" warfare. The global plutocracy wants to eliminate all potential competition, except strangely, for one nation...

"We have always been at war with Eastasia."



NATO sees China as the next front line

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is stepping up belligerent rhetoric toward China, in line with Washington. According to him, China's military expansion is "unprecedented" and poses a direct threat to the West, especially in relation to Taiwan.

He openly speculates that any move by China towards Taiwan could be coordinated with Russia, which would "preoccupy Europe" while the US is tied to the Pacific.

Rutte warned: “They are not building an army for parades in Beijing.” Instead, he argues that China’s military posture clearly indicates an intention for conflict, stressing that NATO must prepare for the possibility of the war spreading to Europe.

He also highlighted NATO's "close relationship" with partners in the Indo-Pacific region and stressed that the Alliance must increase defense spending and combat readiness to simultaneously confront both Russia and China.

The message is clear: NATO is now seeking to expand its mandate beyond the North Atlantic zone, preparing the West for a conflict on two fronts – in Europe against Russia and in Asia against China.

Actually, Russia is the grand prize. But once they have Russia, China will be in the way too.

Apparently, China is front and center now.

Fox News had a "former" IDF spokesman on today saying that Iran is just a proxy for China.

Fox Business right now is going on about ties between Iran and China.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Constitution is smarter than people think it is, both those who want to undermine it, and those who (like you) dismiss it because it did not prevent out-of-control federal power. That's a legitimate objection.

My objection to the Constitution is not that it failed to "prevent out-of-control federal power".

My objection to the Constitution is that it facilitated and enabled "out-of-control federal power" - and this was not by accident. The Constitution provided what the Articles of Confederation could not - a means of concentrating more power in the hands of fewer people while centralizing and insulating their authority. For example, as I have said elsewhere:

Without the Constitution or something like it, we would have ended up with neither "federal supremacy" nor a "federal reserve" - to name just two of the most obvious and inevitable consequences that followed from the coup of 1787-1788.

IOW: The Constitution has not failed. Rather, it has succeeded brilliantly - beyond even the wildest ambitions of its progenitors.

But as constitutional lawyer Michael Farris explains in his excellent textbook on the US Constitution, the Declaration and the Constitution are actually legally paired or joined. To borrow a metaphor from corporate law, he explains that the Declaration is like the articles of incorporation (of a corporation) and the Constitution is like the bylaws. The Declaration explains why the new government was formed, just as articles of incorporation explain the purpose of incorporating, and legally declare the fact of incorporation. The Constitution spells out "the rules of the game" that will pertain within the national government of the US, just as bylaws explain the rules according to which a corporation will operate.

Once this is understood, the formula in the DoI regarding "alter and abolish ... and institute new Government" becomes clearer. The Founders explicitly did not see the US Constitution as the final form of the US government. [...]

[...]

We haven't tried Abolish and Replace. I argue that with the very real threat of Russian nukes over American cities after somebody's finger slips in the Israel-Iran war, we have nothing to lose from giving it a shot. Everything else has already been tried, why not this. Just keep Altering and Abolishing until the State is no more... when men are ready for that...

All this is exactly and precisely why I say that if we are going to fetishize either document, then it should be the Declaration, not the Constitution.

The Declaration embodies and expresses the real principles of genuine liberty. The Constitution does not - it even quite explicitly and flagrantly contradicts those principles with its endorsements of federal "supremacy", its accommodations for the abomination of human chattel slavery, its erection of a multitude of offices from which to send hither swarms of Officers to harrass people and eat out their substance (file under, e.g., "Rebellion, Whiskey" - just for starters), etc., etc., etc.

"[M]en are [never going to be made] ready for that" by venerating and exalting the very blueprint from which their present oppression has been constructed.