Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told

Dialogue Works | April 8, 2026

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told

Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief

Press TV – April 8, 2026

Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, has strongly warned of the Israeli regime’s full intention to destroy chances of peace between the United States and Iran.

“The most important thing Israel will work on by all means is eliminating any chances for peace between Iran and America,” he wrote in a post on X on Wednesday.

The regime, he added, would try to torpedo any likelihood of rapprochement between the Persian Gulf’s littoral states and the Islamic Republic with similar zeal.

Such anti-peace efforts on the part of the regime would, meanwhile, “result in marginalizing it (Tel Aviv) in the region and spotlighting the policies of occupation, settlement, and ethnic cleansing it practices, as we see it doing now in Lebanon,” ElBaradei added.

The comments by the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) came after the regime killed hundreds of people in Lebanon shortly after President Donald Trump announced agreeing to a two-week lull in the US’s attacks on Iran.

Trump said a 10-point proposal forwarded by the Islamic Republic serves as a “workable basis on which to negotiate and the main framework for these talks.”

The proposal underlines the need for cessation of aggression throughout the entire region, including in Lebanon, conditioning the Islamic Republic’s stopping its defensive strikes on a halt to aggressors’ regional atrocities.

ElBaradei said “a fundamental condition for peace in the region is for America to rein in Israel’s rampage.”

He, however, regretted that Washington had stopped utterly short of doing so in the face of the regime’s deadly attacks on the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank.

“And the result is clear to everyone: More killing and destruction!”

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief

Ceasefire for all or for none: Iran shuts Hormuz over Lebanon attacks

Al Mayadeen | April 8, 2026

In response to recent Israeli attacks on Lebanon, Iranian officials are calling for decisive measures to counter the aggression in support of Lebanon and its people, warning that the Strait of Hormuz could be closed again until the attacks on Lebanon stop.

Ibrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said in a post on X: “In response to the brutal Israeli aggression on Lebanon, the movement of ships in the Strait of Hormuz must be immediately stopped, and a strong, decisive strike must be launched to prevent further attacks by the Israeli entity.”

The Iranian official paid tribute to the Lebanese people, asserting that “we must not leave them alone for a second.” Rezaei emphasized the need for clarity on the terms of engagement and rejected the separation of the battlefields in Iran and Lebanon, stating, “Either there is a ceasefire on all fronts, or there is no ceasefire on any front.”

Iran’s UN envoy stresses ceasefire in Lebanon, warns of consequences

On his part, Iran’s envoy to the United Nations in Geneva, Ali Bahraini, stressed the importance of “Israel” upholding the ceasefire in Lebanon, adding that Tehran will approach peace negotiations with Washington cautiously due to a deep lack of trust.

Bahraini stated, “In light of the deep lack of trust, Tehran will deal cautiously with ‘peace’ negotiations with Washington, while at the same time remaining on military alert.”

The UN envoy also stressed the role of “Israel” in the ongoing aggressions, declaring, “We emphasize the necessity of the Israeli entity’s commitment to a ceasefire in Lebanon.”

He further warned about the consequences of continued hostilities, saying, “We warn that the continuation of attacks will lead to further complications and the resulting severe consequences.”

On the issue of talks, Bahraini said Iran will approach the talks with the US in Islamabad with far more caution than previous negotiations due to “the deep chasm of mistrust, while remaining on military alert.”

“We are not putting any trust in the other side. Our military forces are keeping their preparedness…but meanwhile, we will go for negotiations to see how serious the other side is,” the ambassador told Reuters.

Iran considering withdrawal from ceasefire if ‘Israel’ continues Lebanon assault

Iran may withdraw from the ceasefire agreement if “Israel” continues violating the truce by launching attacks on Lebanon, an informed source told Tasnim News Agency.

The source told the agency that “Iran is currently studying the possibility of withdrawing from the ceasefire agreement with the continuation of the Israeli entity’s violations and its aggression against Lebanon.”

The report noted that halting the war on all fronts, including against the “Resistance forces” in Lebanon, had been accepted by the United States as part of a two-week ceasefire plan. However, the source added, “Since this morning, in blatant violation of the ceasefire, the Israeli entity has carried out brutal attacks against Lebanon.”

In response, Iranian armed forces are identifying targets to retaliate against Israeli aggression in Lebanon, Tasnim‘s source said, further warning, “If the United States is unable to restrain its rabid dog in the region, Iran will assist it in this matter, exceptionally, through force.”

Moreover, a senior Iranian official also told Press TV that “Iran will punish Israel for its aggression against Lebanon and violations of the ceasefire.”

Cementing this stance, Fars News Agency reported that oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz was halted following the Israeli attacks, though two tankers had earlier received safe passage clearance after Tehran’s conditions were accepted and the ceasefire went into effect.

Later, a source in the Iranian Navy confirmed the Strait’s closure, saying, “We have closed the Strait of Hormuz, and currently, only Iranian ships and vessels coming from Iran are passing through”

“Only two oil tankers were able to benefit from the ceasefire and pass through the Strait of Hormuz before ‘Israel’ violated the agreement,” he added.

Iran conditions deal on ceasefire in Lebanon

Iran has tied any move toward a ceasefire in the US-Israeli war to the halt of all aggression on every front, including in Lebanon. Tehran’s leadership insists a lasting end to hostilities must go beyond a temporary truce and must stop attacks against Iran and its allies.

Tehran’s 10‑point proposal, which Washington has accepted as the basis for talks during the two-week ceasefire, calls for the cessation of all aggression in the region as a precondition for peace negotiations. The plan demands an end to wartime attacks and a guarantee that further aggression will not be launched against Iran or allied forces.

Among other conditions, the proposal includes a commitment to end all US and Israeli military operations targeting Iranian territory and groups aligned with Tehran, as well as halting aggression that “Israel” launched on Lebanon, among other countries in the region.

Iran’s negotiators emphasize that without a permanent stop to the war’s aggression on all fronts, including the war in Lebanon, any cease‑fire would be meaningless and could allow enemy forces to regroup and resume attacks.

‘Israel’ sticks to its criminal ways, violating the agreement

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unilaterally decided that the ceasefire agreement does not include Lebanon, effectively violating the terms of the agreement reached between Tehran and Washington and potentially derailing the process to reach a permanent ceasefire.

In a statement posted on the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office X account, Netanyahu said the Israeli regime backs Washington’s efforts to ensure Iran “no longer poses a nuclear, missile and terror threat,” and acknowledged that the United States had communicated its commitment to achieving these goals in upcoming negotiations.

However, buried at the end of the statement was a unilateral carve-out: “The two-week ceasefire does not include Lebanon.”

Barely hours after the ceasefire was reached, the Israeli occupation forces brazenly violated the agreement, launching a wide-scale attack targeting the entirety of Lebanon from south to east with more than 100 strikes and committing harrowing massacres in Beirut, the South, and the Bekaa. ِThe Israeli aggression killed and wounded hundreds, the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health reported, while the Lebanese Red Cross reported that 100 ambulances were working on rescue operations across the country.

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Ceasefire for all or for none: Iran shuts Hormuz over Lebanon attacks

Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s ‘nuclear weapon’ that forced US retreat: Medvedev

Press TV – April 8, 2026

Russia’s former president, Dmitry Medvedev, says Iran’s undisputed command over the Strait of Hormuz has become its true “tested nuclear weapon” that forced the United States to retreat.

Iran and the US agreed to a two-week ceasefire on Tuesday after Donald Trump was forced to accept a 10-point proposal from Tehran. This proposal includes a permanent end to the war, the lifting of all sanctions, and the withdrawal of US combat forces from the region.

Hours after the announcement, Medvedev—currently Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council—wrote on X, “It’s not clear how the truce between Washington and Tehran will play out.”

“But one thing is certain—Iran has tested its nuclear weapons. It is called the Strait of Hormuz. Its potential is inexhaustible,” Medvedev added.

Iran’s Armed Forces fought a 40-day war against two nuclear powers, the US and Israel, who have long accused Tehran of seeking an atomic weapon.

Days after the unprovoked war was launched against Iran on February 28, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) imposed restrictions on transit through the Strait of Hormuz, leaving hundreds of vessels and tankers linked to the aggressors stranded in the Persian Gulf.

During the war, Iranian authorities asserted that the world’s vital energy lifeline, through which nearly one-fifth of global oil typically passes, was open to everyone except the US, Israel and their allies.

The restrictions sent global energy prices soaring, with experts warning that the impact could escalate to historic levels if the confrontation continued.

President Trump issued several deadlines for Iran to open the strait or face attacks on its vital infrastructure, including power plants. However, he extended the deadline every time after Iran threatened massive retaliation, and announced a ceasefire hours before his last deadline was approaching.

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, announced after the ceasefire that “safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible” for a period of two weeks.

Araghchi also said that Iran would halt its defensive strikes if unprovoked attacks targeting the country were halted.

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s ‘nuclear weapon’ that forced US retreat: Medvedev

Energy crisis will last for months – Kremlin envoy

RT | April 8, 2026

Global energy markets will take months to recover from the shock caused by the US‑Israeli war on Iran, Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev has warned, noting that the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is unlikely to have an immediate effect.

His comments come after US President Donald Trump announced a “double-sided” two-week ceasefire with Iran to negotiate a long-term peace agreement based on Tehran’s 10-point plan that would see it retain control over the strait.

While oil prices have dropped in response to the news, Dmitriev, who serves as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy for investment and economic cooperation, has warned that energy markets “will take months to normalize even if the Strait of Hormuz remains open.”

Dmitriev’s prediction came in response to a Bloomberg report in which several Asian airline chiefs cautioned that jet fuel prices would still require “many, many more months” to stabilize. The director general of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), Willie Walsh, noted that if the Strait of Hormuz “were to reopen and remain open, it will still take a period of months to get back to where supply needs to be, given the disruption to the refining capacity in the Middle East.”

The conflict has inflicted lasting damage on energy infrastructure with multiple refineries destroyed, causing jet fuel prices to more than double since the war began. Thai Airways CEO Chai Eamsiri called the current shock the worst in his near‑four‑decade career.

More than 800 vessels also remain trapped in the Persian Gulf after the Strait of Hormuz was virtually closed following the US and Israeli strikes in late February. According to Bloomberg, traders and shipowners are now closely monitoring which ships will begin to transit the strait under the fragile ceasefire. An International Maritime Organization tally from late March estimated that some 20,000 seafarers are stuck aboard trapped ships, facing dwindling supplies, fatigue, and psychological stress.

A recent Newsmax report, released just before the ceasefire announcement, also warned of a looming global commodity shock, noting that the true scale of the disruptions caused by the US-Israeli war on Iran has yet to materialize. The outlet cautioned that the world could soon face sudden and severe shortages that will quickly spread from energy to fertilizers, food production, and consumer goods.

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Energy crisis will last for months – Kremlin envoy

Europe’s quiet role in the war on Iran

By Leila Nezirevic | Al Mayadeen | April 8, 2026

European leaders have responded to the war on Iran with a familiar language: calls for restraint, appeals to diplomacy, and renewed commitments to international law. From Brussels to Berlin, the language has been measured, even cautious. Yet the gap between what Europe says and what it does has rarely been so stark.

While European governments publicly distance themselves from escalation, their infrastructure, alliances, and policies continue to sustain the very war effort they claim to oppose. Military bases, logistical networks, and intelligence frameworks tied to NATO remain fully operational.

Arms flows continue. Political backing, though often indirect, is unmistakable.

This contradiction is not simply a matter of hypocrisy. It reveals something deeper about Europe’s position in the global order, one defined less by autonomy than by structural dependence on the United States. The war on Iran is not creating this reality; it is exposing it.

NATO alignment

At the core of Europe’s constrained position lies its long-standing transatlantic alliance membership. NATO has, for decades, provided the framework for European security. But it has also shaped Europe’s foreign policy, narrowing the space for independent action.

For Vijay Prashad, historian and executive director of the Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research this  relationship explains the apparent contradiction between Europe’s rhetoric and its behavior.

“Well, that contradiction is at the heart of the arrangement across the Atlantic, where European countries have, in a sense, surrendered their foreign policy to the United States through their attachment to NATO. In a sense, NATO shapes the foreign policy of Europe for the most part, and Europe doesn’t really have much independence to chart its own foreign policy direction.”

This is not merely a matter of political choice in any given moment. It reflects a deeper institutional reality. Europe’s security, intelligence, and military systems are deeply intertwined with those of the United States.

In moments of crisis, divergence becomes not only politically costly, but structurally difficult. “So regardless of the statements made from European capitals, when push comes to shove, the Europeans are right there alongside the United States, ” he told Al Mayadeen English.

From passivity to complicity

A central question raised by the war is whether Europe is a passive observer or an active participant. The answer, increasingly, points toward the latter.

“Europe is providing various forms of assistance—direct assistance—to the Israelis and the United States, including the use of the British base in Cyprus, which is basically a NATO base. So complicity goes to the heart of the NATO world.”

This involvement may not always take the form of direct military engagement, but it is nonetheless material. The use of European territory for operations, the maintenance of supply chains, and the continuation of arms transfers all contribute to the functioning of the war effort.

Prashad situates this within a longer historical trajectory:

“Europe has had a very ugly relationship with Iran over the course of the 20th century. It was European countries that conducted the coup in 1953 that brought in the Shah of Iran, whose very brutal reign lasted from 1953 to 1979. It was West Germany that provided chemical weapons to Iraq to use against the new Islamic Republic between 1980 and 1988. Other European countries also armed Saddam Hussein to conduct an ugly war against the Iranian people.”

This history is not incidental. It shapes how Europe is perceived in Tehran and across the region. More importantly, it underscores that Europe’s current role is part of a longer continuum of intervention, alignment, and strategic calculation.

Colonial standard

Europe has long cultivated an image of itself as a defender of international law. Its institutions and diplomatic traditions are frequently presented as pillars of a rules-based global order. The war on Iran, however, has exposed the fragility of this claim.

“If Europeans want to have a meaningful foreign policy, I would like to see it… Where is the condemnation from European capitals? Not one capital has clearly condemned this war of aggression. It is quite striking.”

The comparison with other conflicts is unavoidable.

“There was immediate outrage over the Russian entry into Ukraine, but the Israeli bombing, including the killing of civilians, including 180 schoolchildren on the very first day of the bombardment, none of that elicited complete condemnation on the grounds of international law.”

This inconsistency has consequences. It undermines Europe’s credibility not only in West Asia, but globally.

“Europe’s claim to being a defender of international law has been deeply undermined. One could say it was already severely damaged in the context of Gaza, and in this situation with Iran, that claim is further weakened.”

For Prashad, the issue is not a double standard, but something more systemic:

“In fact, I would say Europe doesn’t have a double standard, it has a single standard. And that standard is what I would call a colonial standard.”

Economic blowback and strategic self-harm

Even as Europe aligns politically with US strategy, it is increasingly bearing the economic costs of that alignment. The war on Iran threatens to further disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy supplies. Any escalation risks driving up oil prices, intensifying inflation, and pushing already fragile European economies toward recession.

Yet, as Prashad notes, Europe’s vulnerability is not new: it is the result of a series of strategic decisions over the past two decades.

“Over at least the last 20 years, Europe has conducted what could be described as a kind of energy self-sabotage,” said Prashad, who is also an author of 40 books, including Washington Bullets.

He traces this trajectory through successive ruptures:

“By participating in US sanctions against Iran, Europe effectively removed one of its principal oil suppliers from its energy mix. Then, following the war in Libya, another major source of energy was destabilized. And later, through the deterioration of relations with Russia, Europe reduced its access to Russian oil and natural gas.”

The cumulative effect has been to push Europe toward more expensive and less stable energy sources.

“As a result, it has had to rely more heavily on liquefied natural gas and other imports, often at higher cost.”

These decisions were not taken in isolation. They were embedded in a broader geopolitical alignment, one that prioritized strategic cohesion with the United States over economic pragmatism.

The limits of independence

Europe’s predicament raises a broader question: to what extent can it act independently in a world defined by great power competition?

“Europe has the space to make its own decisions. But you don’t very often see Europe crossing the United States.”

There have been moments of divergence like Germany’s refusal to join the Iraq War in 2003, but these remain exceptions rather than the rule.

More often, alignment prevails. And this alignment is not only institutional, but ideological.

“There is an underlying cultural arrogance that runs, as I put it, like an undersea cable between the United States, Canada, and Europe.

“Despite the fact that there are different institutions… this underlying cultural alignment brings them together and effectively whips them into a common political position.”

Following a strategy it does not control

The risks of this dependence are becoming increasingly apparent. The war on Iran is unfolding along a trajectory largely shaped by the United States and Israel.

Europe, by contrast, finds itself reacting rather than shaping outcomes.

“Europe needs to reflect very seriously on the fact that the United States and Israel have basically reached very high levels on the escalation ladder, and yet it seems that Iran is not going to fold.”

If the conflict fails to achieve its objectives, or if Iran emerges politically strengthened, Europe may find itself strategically exposed.

“Iran has, in fact, secured a kind of political victory. So, what does that mean for Europe, which has followed the United States into sanctions policies that have also hurt European economies?”

Europe was once a major customer of Iranian oil and natural gas, and that relationship was cut off—not primarily by Europe’s own initiative, but through alignment with US policy.

Sovereignty in question

The effect of these dynamics is to cast doubt on the very idea of European sovereignty in foreign policy.

“If Europeans want to have a meaningful foreign policy, I would like to see it.”

Europe possesses the institutions, the economic weight, and the diplomatic capacity to act independently. But in practice, those capabilities are constrained by structural, political, and ideological factors.

The result is a form of sovereignty that exists more in theory than in practice, invoked in speeches but rarely exercised in moments of crisis.

War beyond the battlefield

The final outcome of the war on Iran will not be determined solely by military means.

“Outcomes in war are not only determined militarily, they are also political. It is possible for a country to have overwhelming military power and still not achieve its political objectives.”

For Europe, the implications are profound. By aligning itself with a war whose outcome it can neither control nor guarantee, it risks deepening both its dependence on the United States and its vulnerability.

In fact, the war on Iran is revealing Europe’s role in the world.

This is a continent that speaks the language of international law, yet applies it selectively.

A political bloc that calls for diplomacy, yet remains embedded in military escalation. An economic power that bears the costs of conflict, yet struggles to shape its course.

The contradiction is no longer subtle. It is structural. And in the war on Iran, it is fully exposed.

Leila Nezirevic is a London-based journalist and documentary filmmaker with extensive experience in reporting for major media outlets, with her work being published by leading networks worldwide.

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Europe’s quiet role in the war on Iran

Forty days that shook the Empire: How Iran turned the tables on US and prevailed

By Sarwar Abbas | Press TV | April 8, 2026

Forty days into the war imposed illegally on the Islamic Republic of Iran, the unthinkable has happened. The United States has retreated unceremoniously, and Iran has declared a “historic victory,” stamping its authority as a new global superpower.

And the enemy, despite unleashing overwhelming force, has been forced to accept a 10-point Iranian proposal that includes a permanent ceasefire, the removal of all primary and secondary sanctions, and the withdrawal of US combat forces from the region.

The proposal also includes Iran’s complete and firm control over the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that disrupted the global energy momentum in the past month.

After 40 days of the war that should never have happened in the first place, the aggressors have failed to achieve any of their stated objectives. Trump desperately looked for an off-ramp from the quagmire he helped create, and the world witnessed something unprecedented: the defeat of a superpower at the hands of a nation that refuses to bend.

The war of aggression was launched against Iran on February 28, amid indirect nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington. Its initial aim was audacious: “regime change” in Iran. The first wave of strikes specifically targeted the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, along with several top-ranking military commanders. The subsequent waves targeted both commanders and top officials.

Washington and Tel Aviv believed this time would be different. Unlike the 12-day war of June last year, which also came in the middle of nuclear talks, this time the proponents of “regime change” felt that the collapse of the Islamic Republic was imminent. They were catastrophically wrong, which they must have realised now.

Immediately after launching what was dubbed “Operation Epic Fury,” Trump exuded confidence that the US aggression would allow the Iranian people to overthrow their own government, hoping to plant someone subservient to Washington.

Perhaps the plan was to do what they did in Venezuela. But Trump and his aides forgot that Iran is not Venezuela. And the Iranian people are not passive bystanders.

Following devastating Iranian retaliatory strikes that obliterated nearly all US military installations across the region, President Trump made a strained declaration two weeks ago. He claimed that “regime change” had already happened in Iran, referring to the election of Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei as the country’s new Leader.

He was ridiculed for making such an outlandish claim. As one observer quipped, the US-Israeli war machine could not even change Iran’s revolutionary slogans, let alone topple the system that has survived nearly five decades of plots and conspiracies.

When Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei addressed the nation on March 13, he struck a defiant tone – vowing revenge for martyrs, reaffirming resistance against aggression, and emphasizing the strategic value of controlling the Strait of Hormuz.

Far from indicating collapse, his election demonstrated institutional strength, which the products of the Epstein class will never understand. The Islamic Republic rests on constitutional structures that are not tied to one individual. Its strategic doctrine remains unshaken, which has been demonstrated yet again during this war.

Trump has long framed Iran’s nuclear program as an existential danger. Before the Ramadan war, he threatened military action to dismantle it, even though, as many social media users pointed out, he had, after the 12-day war, claimed the program was already “obliterated.”

Eventually, after 40 days of war and mindless rhetoric, the “regime change” fantasy also evaporated. His attempt to attack nuclear facilities in Isfahan failed spectacularly, as Americans lost a vast fleet of aircraft in the process, without achieving anything.

Trump was also fixated on the Strait of Hormuz, vowing to open it. Iran’s navy had effectively closed the waterway to American and allied vessels following the launch of the unprovoked war. Any attempt to cross the Strait without Iran’s consent was a recipe for disaster.

Trump issued several warnings: reopen the strait or face strikes on Iranian power plants. Deadlines changed from 48 hours to five days to ten days and then again 48 hours before he eventually gave up and accepted Iran’s 10-point proposal.

The shifting goals of America’s futile military campaign, from day one to day forty, revealed a stunning absence of strategy or clarity. Even US politicians and pundits condemned the war as unnecessary and unprovoked, with many of them even suggesting the 25th Amendment to have the megalomaniac president removed from office.

Beyond strategic failure, the United States suffered crippling military and economic damage from Iran’s Operation True Promise 4 retaliatory strikes – 99 of them in 40 days.

During the first week alone, Iranian retaliatory strikes cost American taxpayers over $1 billion, as per reports. Carrier and warplane deployment accounted for $630 million, while lost F-15E jets in Kuwait added nearly $300 million, as per Press TV analysis.

The war had become a costly trap for the Trump administration, widely seen as a strategic miscalculation with no gains and only losses. That’s precisely why the role of Netanyahu was the key. He couldn’t do it on his own, so he dragged Trump into the unnecessary war.

A total of 99 waves of Iranian missile and drone strikes leveled US bases across the region, as American forces were compelled to abandon fortified positions for hotels and office spaces. Americans have downplayed the casualty toll, particularly the death toll, but independent estimates have put the deaths into hundreds, if not thousands.

The Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, the bastion of US military presence in the region, particularly suffered the heaviest damage. Iranian strikes repeatedly targeted its headquarters in Manama, demonstrating a new model of asymmetric warfare, inflicting irreparable damage on infrastructure, ammunition depots, and command buildings there.

American air power was completely decimated in the region. On March 27, the IRGC destroyed a $700 million E-3 Sentry AWACS at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, along with multiple electronic warfare planes and refueling aircraft. Days earlier, Iran and Iraqi resistance forces downed six KC-135 Stratotankers, the important air-refueling backbone.

Days later, Iran successfully hit an F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter for the first time ever. The multi-trillion-dollar asset of the American military was targeted in central Iran.

A number of F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, over a dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones and over 170 drones were also downed or damaged. Four AN/TPY-2 THAAD radars and a billion-dollar Qatar early-warning installation were also hit.

On April 3, dubbed the “darkest day” for the US Air Force, F-15E Strike Eagle, an A-10 Thunderbolt II, multiple MQ-9 Reaper drones, and Hermes reconnaissance platforms were also downed by the Iranian air defenses, which have vastly improved since the 12-day war.

On the other hand, due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz for American and allied vessels, oil prices hit three-year highs, which had ripple effects across the globe.

Gasoline prices in the US climbed above $4 per gallon, and diesel also hit $6 in many states. Supply disruptions spread to LNG, fertilizer, and other commodities as well.

To make it worse, Trump’s approval rating nosedived to 36 percent, his lowest since returning to office, with 59 percent disapproval, the highest of his political career.

Now the Republicans are concerned about the midterm elections.

Now, 40 days after launching its war of aggression, the US has been forced to accept Tehran’s 10-point proposal: a permanent ceasefire, Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of enrichment, full sanctions removal, termination of all UN resolutions, war compensation, US combat withdrawal from the region, and an end to fighting on all fronts, including against Lebanon’s Islamic Resistance.

This is not a stalemate. This is a defeat – historic, undeniable, and crushing.

The era of unchecked American power in West Asia has ended. Iran has emerged as a regional superpower and the world must come to terms with this undeniable fact.

Sarwar Abbas is a Pakistan-based writer and commentator.

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Forty days that shook the Empire: How Iran turned the tables on US and prevailed

Netanyahu unilaterally declares Lebanon outside of ceasefire deal

Al Mayadeen | April 8, 2026

Just a couple of hours after a ceasefire deal was reached, “Israel’s” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Wednesday that his government supports the US decision to suspend strikes on Iran for two weeks, but immediately breached the agreement by declaring it does not extend to Lebanon.

In a statement posted on the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office X account, Netanyahu said the Israeli regime backs Washington’s efforts to ensure Iran “no longer poses a nuclear, missile and terror threat,” and acknowledged that the United States had communicated its commitment to achieving these goals in upcoming negotiations.

However, buried at the end of the statement was a unilateral carve-out: “The two-week ceasefire does not include Lebanon.”

The Israeli regime has already violated the ceasefire before the ink had dried, targeting an ambulance in southern Lebanon alongside bombing several towns in the South.

Israel bombs ambulance, kills 4

All of the following attacks took place shortly after the ceasefire came into effect.

Israeli forces opened their post-ceasefire assault by targeting an ambulance in the town of al-Qleileh in the Tyre district, South Lebanon, killing four people, per Al Mayadeen’s correspondent.

In the Ras al-Ain area, our correspondent reported that an Israeli airstrike hit another vehicle, wounding a number of people. An Israeli drone also struck a motorcycle in Qana, causing injuries.

The IOF carried out airstrikes across al-Rayhan and Nabatieh al-Fawqa in the South, while Israeli artillery shelled a string of towns across the Bint Jbeil district, like Touline, Jmeijmeh, Baraachit, Majdal Selm, and Shaqra. Meanwhile, the town of Hadatha was attacked twice in the early hours of the morning.

In the Bekaa, an airstrike targeted the town of Yohmor.

Direct contradiction of Pakistani mediator

The declaration stands in direct contradiction to the announcement made by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who brokered the agreement.

Sharif stated that “the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.”

Israeli media outlets, including Ynet and Maariv, had reported that the ceasefire encompassed Lebanon. Israeli Channel 12 further cited a security source confirming that the Iranians “insisted that the ceasefire also includes Lebanon.”

Iran’s demands throughout negotiations had explicitly included an end to aggression on all fronts, Lebanon among them.

Israeli public reacts with fury

The ceasefire announcement triggered a wave of frustration across Israeli media. Israeli broadcaster Channel 11 reported that settlers remained in shelters even as the truce was declared. Other outlets described the agreement as “the largest failure in Israel’s history since October 7.”

Maariv was particularly critical, writing that the United States and “Israel” had abandoned most of their war objectives, creating a new regional reality. The outlet said Iran had succeeded in dragging both into an agreement that amounted to surrender from both sides, and that after 41 days of fighting and 5,000 buildings destroyed, the outcome was a decisive Iranian victory, with Hezbollah expected to return stronger than before. Iran and its allies, Maariv concluded, appeared to be the only party emerging victorious from the confrontation.

Commentators questioned the logic of the deal, with one platform sarcastically asking, “Forty days and an entire nation staying home for a ceasefire?”

Trump was not spared either, with several outlets calling him “a global joke” and “a weak man unable to withstand pressure.”

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Netanyahu unilaterally declares Lebanon outside of ceasefire deal

Israeli leaders: ‘Not a single goal’ achieved in war with Iran

Press TV – April 8, 2026

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid has sharply criticized prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for supporting a temporary ceasefire between the United States and Iran, calling it a “political disaster.”

Lapid made the remarks in a post on his X account on Wednesday, after Netanyahu’s office said Israel supports US President Donald Trump’s decision for a two-week ceasefire.

“There has never been such a political disaster in all of our history,” Lapid said, adding that Israel “wasn’t even at the table when decisions were made concerning the core of our security.”

Lapid also stressed that Netanyahu “failed politically and strategically in achieving “even a single one of the goals that he himself set.”

“It will take us years to repair the political and strategic damage that Netanyahu wrought” due to “arrogance, negligence, and a lack of strategic planning” on Netanyahu’s part, he added.

Israeli opposition figures also criticized the ceasefire with Iran, saying Netanyahu has failed to achieve the war’s objectives.

In a post on X, Yair Golan, the head of the left-wing Democratic Party, called the ceasefire a “strategic failure” by Netanyahu.

“He promised a historic victory and security for generations, and in practice, we got one of the most severe strategic failures Israel has ever known,” Golan said.

“It’s a total failure that endangers Israel’s security for years to come,” he added.

On Wednesday, the United States and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire after Washington received a 10-point proposal from Tehran. Netanyahu’s office said Israel supported Trump’s decision.

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Israeli leaders: ‘Not a single goal’ achieved in war with Iran

What on earth just happened? Trump, Iran, and the unlikely ceasefire

By Trita Parsi | April 8, 2026

Yesterday began with Donald Trump issuing genocidal threats against Iran on social media and ended—just ten hours later—with the announcement of a 14-day ceasefire, on Iran’s terms. Even by the volatile standards of Trump’s presidency, the whiplash is extraordinary. What, then, have the two sides actually agreed to—and what might it mean?

In a subsequent post, Trump asserted that Iran had agreed to keep the Strait of Hormuz open during the two-week pause in hostilities. Negotiations, he added, will proceed over that period on the basis of Iran’s 10-point plan, which he described as a “workable” foundation for talks.

Those 10 points are:

1. The US must fundamentally commit to guaranteeing non-aggression.

2. Continuation of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz.

3. Acceptance that Iran can enrich uranium for its nuclear program

4. Removal of all primary sanctions on Iran.

5. Removal of all secondary sanctions against foreign entities that do business with Iranian institutions.

6. End of all United Nations Security Council resolutions targeting Iran.

7. End of all International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions on Iran’s nuclear program.

8. Compensation payment to Iran for war damage.

9. Withdrawal of US combat forces from the region.

10. Cease-fire on all fronts, including Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The United States has not, of course, signed on to all ten points. But the mere fact that Iran’s framework will anchor the negotiations amounts to a significant diplomatic victory for Tehran. More striking still, according to the Associated Press, Iran will retain control of the Strait during the ceasefire and continue—alongside Oman—to collect transit fees from passing vessels. In effect, Washington appears to have conceded that reopening the waterway comes with tacit recognition of Iran’s authority over it.

The geopolitical consequences could be profound. As Mohammad Eslami and Zeynab Malakouti note in Responsible Statecraft, Tehran is likely to leverage this position to rebuild economic ties with Asian and European partners—countries that once traded extensively with Iran but were driven out of its market over the past 15 years by U.S. sanctions.

Iran’s calculus is not driven solely by solidarity with Palestinians and Lebanese. It is also strategic. Continued Israeli bombardment risks reigniting direct confrontation between Israel and Iran—a cycle that has already flared twice since October 7. From Tehran’s perspective, a durable halt to its conflict with Israel is inseparable from ending Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. This is not an aspirational add-on; it is a prerequisite.

The forthcoming talks in Islamabad between Washington and Tehran may yet falter. But the terrain has shifted. Trump’s failed use of force has blunted the credibility of American military threats, introducing a new dynamic into U.S.-Iran diplomacy.

Washington can still rattle its saber. But after a failed war, such threats ring hollow. The United States is no longer in a position to dictate terms; any agreement will have to rest on genuine compromise. That, in turn, demands real diplomacy—patience, discipline, and a tolerance for ambiguity—qualities not typically associated with Trump. It may also require the participation of other major powers, particularly China, to help anchor the process and reduce the risk of a relapse into conflict.

Above all, the ceasefire’s durability will hinge on whether Trump can restrain Israel from undermining the diplomatic track. On this point, there should be no illusions. Senior Israeli officials have already denounced the agreement as the greatest “political disaster” in the country’s history—a signal, if any were needed, of how fragile this moment may prove to be.

Even if the talks collapse—and even if Israel resumes its bombardment of Iran—it does not necessarily follow that the United States will return to war. There is little reason to believe a second round would produce a different outcome, or that it would not once again leave Iran in a position to hold the global economy hostage. In that sense, Tehran has, at least for now, restored a measure of deterrence.

One final point bears emphasis: this elective war was not only a strategic blunder. Rather than precipitating regime change, it has likely granted Iran’s theocracy a renewed lease on life—much as Saddam Hussein did in 1980, when his invasion enabled Ayatollah Khomeini to consolidate power at home.

The magnitude of this miscalculation may well puzzle historians for decades to come.

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on What on earth just happened? Trump, Iran, and the unlikely ceasefire

Alberta Bill Would Fine Political Deepfakes $10,000 Without Satire Exemptions

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | April 7, 2026

Alberta’s government wants the power to fine people $10,000 for creating a political deepfake. The bill makes no distinction between a fake video designed to suppress votes and a satirical meme poking fun at the premier.

Justice Minister Mickey Amery tabled Bill 23, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, on March 30.

The legislation would prohibit individuals and entities from creating or distributing deepfakes that are likely to mislead voters about the conduct or statements of a party leader, minister, leadership or nomination contestant, MLA candidate, the chief electoral officer, the election commissioner, Elections Alberta employees or election officers.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The ban’s reach is notable for what it doesn’t say. There is no carve-out for satire, no exemption for parody, no protection for political memes. A deepfake clearly labelled as humor could still be prosecuted if someone, somewhere, decided it was “likely to mislead voters” about a politician’s statements. Who decides what’s likely to mislead? The election commissioner, the same office empowered by the bill to issue directions to stop the creation, distribution, or publication of content it deems in violation.

Officials said the prohibition would apply at all times, not only during the election cycle. The ban operates year-round, every year, regardless of whether Albertans are anywhere near a ballot box. It applies to content about sitting politicians even when no one is voting.

“We know that deepfake technology is going to continue to improve, and the distinction between what is reality and what is fake is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish,” Amery said.

Alberta’s bill takes a different approach. Rather than relying on existing fraud and election interference laws to prosecute genuine bad actors, it creates a broad new category of banned speech and gives a government appointee the power to enforce it.

“Bill 23 ensures that our elections will remain fair and honest,” Amery said. “This is why Bill 23 will prohibit the creation and distribution of deepfakes that are likely to mislead voters about the statements or conduct of a candidate. Public confidence is essential to a healthy democracy.”

The phrase “likely to mislead” is where the real power sits. A deepfake of a premier singing a ridiculous song, obviously fake to any viewer, could technically be argued to mislead someone about the premier’s “conduct.” A satirical clip of a justice minister saying something absurd could be classified as a misleading depiction of their “statements.” The legislation provides no guidance on how to distinguish a genuine attempt at voter suppression from a political joke that happens to use AI-generated media.

Those who violate the rules face fines of up to $10,000, and entities up to $100,000. Additional fines could be imposed for each day of non-compliance. Those are serious penalties for speech that may well be constitutionally protected under the Canadian Charter. The chilling effect is predictable. An Alberta resident thinking about making a satirical AI video about their MLA now has a strong incentive to not bother. The government doesn’t need to prosecute anyone for the law to work exactly as a speech restriction always works, by making people think twice before they speak.

The bill also happens to be buried inside a much larger piece of legislation that quietly reshapes how Albertans can challenge their own government. Bill 23 would create a 12-month blackout period before and after provincial elections for starting or continuing a citizen initiative petition. It would also repeal deadlines for the government to call a referendum for any future successful policy or constitutional petition. A citizen petition that gathers enough signatures no longer comes with any deadline for the government to actually act on it. A petition delayed long enough is a petition that never matters.

Alberta already has laws against fraud and election interference. The question is whether a province needs a new law that bans a broad category of political expression, with vague definitions and no protections for satire or parody, enforced by fines that would bankrupt most individuals.

Opposition parties have indicated tentative support for the bill, which is unsurprising.

The deepfake provisions will probably pass. They’ll sit on the books alongside the citizen petition restrictions, the removed referendum deadlines, and the expanded government oversight of the signature verification process. Bill 23 gives the Alberta government more tools to control what citizens say about their politicians and fewer obligations to respond when citizens try to hold those politicians accountable.

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Comments Off on Alberta Bill Would Fine Political Deepfakes $10,000 Without Satire Exemptions