A few observations on Iran’s latest proposal to Trump
By Trita Parsi | May 3, 2026
A few observations on what has been reported as Iran’s three-phase proposal to the United States. I have been able to confirm some elements, though not all.
⏺️Overall, the Iranians appear to be pursuing a grand bargain—without labeling it as such. This is not merely a proposal aimed at securing a ceasefire, or even a formal end to the current conflict, but rather an attempt to resolve the broader U.S.-Iran antagonism that has persisted for the past 47 years. Implicit in this approach is an expectation that both sides would also restrain their respective regional partners and proxies (Israel, Hezbollah, etc.). In many respects, framing the proposal in this way may align more effectively with Trump’s instincts and psychology.
⏺️It is somewhat surprising that the proposal appears to frontload an end to the war before addressing the nuclear issue. If the conflict is fully de-escalated at the outset, Iran risks losing a significant source of leverage over Trump. Iran’s nuclear program alone has not been sufficient to extract meaningful concessions from Washington, as was evident during the recent ceasefire period. This sequencing may reflect a concession to China and other Asian countries, which have grown increasingly frustrated with bearing the economic costs of a conflict initiated by Trump and Israel.
⏺️The call for an international mechanism to guarantee a non-return to war suggests that any final agreement would, at a minimum, need to be codified in a UN Security Council resolution, with Russia and China serving as guarantors. From Tehran’s perspective, Trump’s personal assurances carry no credibility.
⏺️There is also mention of a revised compensation clause within a new framework, indicating that the fees Tehran might seek in the Straits could be modified or reframed. One potentially more acceptable approach for a broad range of states would be to characterize such charges not as tolls, but as maintenance fees shared with Iran and Oman. This could include oversight of environmental and navigational management, particularly given the high volume of maritime traffic that typically transits the Straits.
⏺️The reported proposal for a 15-year enrichment freeze is somewhat surprising. This would make more sense if it remains tied to a needs-based enrichment framework, as outlined in the earlier Geneva proposal. Under that approach, Iran would only enrich uranium sufficient to fuel two reactors: the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) and another reactor not expected to come online for approximately seven years. Given that the TRR already possesses enough fuel for the next 5–7 years, Iran would not require additional enrichment during that period. This timeline could be extended—potentially to 15 years—either by downblending existing 60% enriched uranium and turning it into fuel pads now, or by securing external fuel supplies (from France or Russia, for example) to cover future needs. In that sense, the arrangement would technically not constitute a moratorium.
⏺️Iran’s proposal to negotiate a comprehensive regional security framework in phase three is not new. It dates back to UN Security Council Resolution 598, which ended the Iran-Iraq War. Tehran has pursued such an arrangement for decades. The United States should view this constructively: any framework that enables a reduction of U.S. military presence while encouraging regional actors to assume greater responsibility for their own security aligns with the stated objectives of the Trump administration.
⏺️What remains unclear in the reporting is the scope of sanctions relief Iran would seek in return. If Tehran is indeed aiming for a grand bargain, it will likely expect the lifting of all sanctions—primary and secondary U.S. sanctions, as well as UN-imposed measures.
Let’s see what happens.
“STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!
We can’t imagine why…
By Kevin Barrett | May 3, 2026
On April 23, the 410th death anniversary of William “All the World’s a Stage” Shakespeare (and his trusty Hispanic sidekick Cervantes) CNN published a thought piece entitled “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?” Two days later, on April 25, somebody staged yet another Trump assassination attempt, this time at the White House Correspondents Dinner at the Washington, DC Hilton.
According to the official narrative, the Hilton shooting was staged by a lone producer, director, casting director, lead actor, and stuntman (it was a dangerous scene) named Cole Tomas Allen. We are told, and video seems to confirm, that Allen descended a back stairway from his hotel room, sprinted past a security checkpoint, fired a shot which struck a Secret Service officer’s bulletproof vest, evaded return fire, tripped on a magnetometer box and fell to the ground, and was jumped on by cops, never having gained access to the actual ballroom where the event was taking place. Allen left a brief manifesto calling himself a “friendly federal assassin” who was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”
Surrounding the event were some odd coincidences. As I wrote the morning after the shooting:
Trump’s press secretary, Karoline “Machine Gun Lips” Leavitt, predicted last night’s shooting two hours before it happened: “There will be some shots fired tonight!”… Fox News reporter Aishah Hasine was in the midst of describing Leavitt’s husband Nicholas Riccio half-bragging half-warning her of what was about to go down, when suddenly and for no apparent reason (beyond the obvious one) Fox cut off the feed…
Weird Israeli connections also surfaced, as is par for the course with these kinds of events, including:
The patsy’s social media profile featuring a picture of him wearing an IDF sweatshirt; the patsy’s name being allegedly researched in Israel less than 24 hours before the attack; and the shooting erupting at the exact moment that an Israeli magician was terrifying Melania by exposing private information she had thought was secret.
If powerful insiders staged the event, perhaps using Allen as a mind-controlled patsy, what might have been their motive or motives? Social media users argued that the shooting greased the skids for Trump’s secure White House ballroom, which had been facing legal and political challenges. The Guardian noted: “Trump’s quick pivot to claiming that the shooting incident confirms the need for a more secure ballroom at the White House, and rightwing pundits’ near-uniformity in messaging along the same lines in the immediate response, heightened the conspiracy framing.”
The Israeli connections suggested another possible motive: reminding Trump just who were the “magicians” who could stage assassination events, and who held terrifying secrets that could ruin his and Melania’s lives. The Guardian reported what many believe: “Israel is blackmailing him for untold reasons, perhaps related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.”
The Guardian’s phrasing subtly injects confusion where none is necessary. Blackmailing Trump for untold reasons? Back when it was Russia being accused of blackmailing and controlling Trump, everyone knew the reasons why a foreign state would want to blackmail and control a US president. Is the Guardian pretending that it can’t even imagine why Israel would want to blackmail Trump? Unless, of course, they were using untold in the sense of “a quantity so huge that it cannot be measured, counted, or fully described.” Could the author, Rachel Leingang, be hinting at the obvious fact that Israel would have countless reasons to want to control the US president? Did she sneak that one past her editors?
Perhaps those “untold’ reasons, Leingang tells us, might be “related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.” Is Leingang pretending to be too stupid to understand what she is saying, in a clumsy effort to avoid responsibility for unambiguously and explicitly conveying what everyone knows or strongly suspects to be true? The moral: If you write for mainstream media, never offer a clear, straightforward summary of what “conspiracy theorists” believe, because it might sound reasonable and convincing. Instead, muck it up a bit, add some confusion, and give the reader the impression that it’s the “conspiracy theorists” who are confused.
CNN’s “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?”, published 48 hours before the latest shooting, exhibits a similar technique of seemingly deliberate obfuscation. Noting that the hashtag #staged has been picking up momentum, reflecting ever-growing skepticism about the July 13, 2024 “Trump shooting” in Butler, Pennsylvania, the author, Harmeet Kaur, offers an overly complicated mishmash of reasons why staging a political PR event would be…overly complicated. And that, of course, is why nobody would ever do such a thing.
Kaur begins by pretending that she doesn’t understand what the term staged could possibly mean in the context of a political PR stunt. After a detour through the etymology and philology of the term staged (“from the Old French ‘estage,’ meaning ‘dwelling,’ and its verb form ‘estager,’ meaning ‘to stay somewhere.’ ‘Estage’ is also related to the Latin ‘stagium’”) Kaur notes that by the 1930s staged was being used to describe faked crime scenes. Such doings, she suggests, are rare and exotic. The plain, obvious fact that almost any serious crime, committed by criminals with above-room-temperature IQs, will involve “staged” presentations of evidence and/or the lack thereof, including such simple “staging” as wiping away fingerprints or wearing ski masks, apparently doesn’t register with her.
Nor does Kaur note that a certain ethnoreligious group, whose genocidal crime headquarters, I mean “state,” is the number one suspect in the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings as well as countless other state crimes against democracy, has a well-documented history of staging crimes for political gain. As you watch the following half-hour video compilation of mainstream media reports of Jews hoaxing “antisemitic” attacks on themselves, keep two things in mind: 1) This is just the tip of an enormous iceberg; and 2) That iceberg of thousands of similar cases represents just the dumb and/or unlucky ones who got caught.
The US clearance rate for ordinary crimes, mostly committed by impulsive, none-too-bright criminals, is less than 45% for violent crimes and less than 15% for property crimes. Miscreants who plot their crimes carefully—as high-level political criminals do—are obviously going to get away with the vast majority of their misdeeds, even before we factor in the likelihood that they have corrupted law enforcement and the media. What is surprising about the Butler, Pennsylvania “Trump shooting” is not that they managed to pull off such a complex and difficult operation, but that they did it so casually and clumsily, not even bothering to create even the slightest wound on Trump’s ear.
Roughly two and a half hours after he was taken off the rally stage, Trump says in a Truth Social statement, “I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place…” Yet not one shred of convincing evidence, not least of all the extensive medical evidence that would exist had Trump actually taken a bullet to the ear, supports the claim that Trump’s ear was wounded in any way. Nor does he appear to have suffered the hearing damage that might have been expected.
Whoever was in charge of the Secret Service detail must have known that Trump was in no danger. Less than a minute after the volley of shots, Trump was allowed to stand up and shake his fist in front of the flag in an obviously pre-planned photo op. Apologists for the Secret Service conspirators claim that the determination “shooter is down” reassured them that it was perfectly okay to allow Trump to stand up and expose himself to more potential bullets. But had the event been authentic, how could they have possibly known that there was only one shooter?
Kaur’s CNN article avoids even entertaining such questions. Like Leingang’s Guardian article on the Hilton shooting, it offers an ad hominem argument against the “conspiracy theorist” by representing him as a deliberately discombobulated straw man, whose supposed incoherent, confusing arguments are actually CNN’s own deliberately distorted rendering.
Kaur hauls out Spencer Parsons, “an associate professor of media production at Northwestern University and an independent filmmaker who has staged shooting scenes,” to claim that staging the Butler “Trump shooting” scene would be so difficult as to be essentially impossible. Parsons claims that a “staged shooting scene” requires vast numbers of people: “the director, camera operators, camera technicians, lighting technicians, sound engineers, special effects coordinators, safety coordinators and so on.”
Talk about misdirection! Why would ANY such people be necessary for a high-level criminal operation involving a deceptive shooting?! Were camera, lighting, sound, special effects, and safety technicians necessary when hypnotized patsy Sirhan Sirhan fired a volley of random shots, distracting onlookers while the professional killer pressed a revolver to the back of Robert F. Kennedy’s head and pulled the trigger, leaving powder burns on his skull?
Kaur tells us that setting up a patsy to take the blame for a shooting is impossibly complicated:
Then there’s the issue of the fake assassin himself. The task would require an extraordinarily skilled marksman, someone who could aim close enough to the candidate’s head to make it look like he’d intended to hit him without actually hitting him. (Acquaintances of the gunman who tried to shoot Trump told reporters that he was rejected from his high school’s rifle club because he was such a bad shot.)
And to make the situation seem believable, the Secret Service would have to kill the designated shooter after he opened fire, an outcome the person in the gun-wielding role either wouldn’t anticipate or would have to be willing to accept.
Kaur again sets up a preposterous straw man: A conspiracy theorist stupid enough to think Thomas Crooks fired shots that came anywhere near Trump’s head, and that Crooks was a conscious, witting, fully-informed participant. But nobody thinks that! What skeptics actually think is that Crooks, like most other patsies going back to Sirhan, was probably mind-controlled. (For an introductory discussion including a demonstration of MK-Ultra style hypnotic mind-control, check out Jesse Ventura’s “Mind-Controlled Assassins and Programmed Killers.”) Crooks, like Oswald, was “just a patsy” who didn’t shoot anyone. The actual shooting, which did not and could not have caused a bullet to come anywhere near Trump’s head, but which likely did strike three onlookers, killing one of them, was fired from the building behind and to the left of the one that hypnotized patsy Crooks had climbed onto. For details, check out my interview with filmmaker John Hankey, and watch his film below.
Kaur then implies that it would have been too difficult or impossible for Trump to use a squib to create the fake blood he smeared on his face like warpaint for the photo op:
The blood would be another consideration, Parsons says. Film crews simulate gunshot wounds via squibs, small explosive devices that spout fake blood when detonated — some conspiracy theories surrounding Trump’s assassination attempt claimed that he used a squib because the blood on his face was supposedly only seen after he raised his hand to his cheek, though researcher Katherine FitzGerald noted at the time that the first appearance of blood was not clear from the videos.
Another technique for staging bloodshed might involve the candidate superficially wounding himself with a small razor blade, like professional wrestlers do, but that also presents challenges…
Wait a minute! What does Kaur mean, also presents challenges?! The first paragraph quoted above fails to present the slightest argument or evidence that Trump or a Secret Service confederate would have faced the slightest “challenge” in using a squib to produce the fake blood. The word also is a lie. Kaur hopes the careless reader will gloss over it.
Having refuted nothing while flailing about with straw men, Kaur concludes:
Given all of this, Parsons finds the idea that an assassination attempt of this scale could be “staged” to be “tremendously unlikely.” “This is just astronomically difficult to stage,” he adds. “The whole thing, from a filmmaking perspective, seems to be just immensely, immensely difficult and really based on a lot of chance.”
What would be so hard about putting an MK-Ultraed patsy on a rooftop, a professional sniper in a difficult-to-spot location where he could shoot a couple of bystanders, and giving Trump a blood squib after rehearsing “hit the deck, smear the blood, count to fifty, get up, shake your fist in front of the flag”? Sure, you and I couldn’t do it, but we don’t control the top of the federal command chain.
Setting up that scenario wouldn’t require precisely the same skill set that Parsons, the film-and-TV guy, enjoys. But if you think that people with “deceptive shooting” skill sets don’t exist, you must not know much about special forces, intelligence agencies, organized crime, and the rather large area where they overlap. That’s why someone like Joe Kent, the former Counterrorism chief who knows people with such skill sets, can easily see that incidents like the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings are extremely suspicious, and point directly at the overlapping territory inhabited by Israel, Israeli-linked organized crime, and their assets in US military, intelligence, and police agencies… and, perhaps most importantly, the mainstream media that insists on obfuscating such matters.
NATO courts screenwriters to embed alliance messaging in film, TV
Al-Mayadeen | May 3, 2026
NATO has been quietly holding closed-door meetings with film and television writers, directors, and producers across Europe and the United States, in what critics are denouncing as a coordinated effort to embed the military alliance’s messaging into mainstream entertainment.
According to The Guardian, the initiative has already spanned sessions in Los Angeles, Brussels, and Paris, with a fourth meeting planned for London next month, where NATO officials are set to meet with members of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain (WGGB).
The meetings, held under Chatham House rules, meaning participants may use information discussed but are not permitted to identify other attendees, focus on what organizers describe as the “evolving security situation in Europe and beyond.”
A WGGB email reviewed by The Guardian indicated that three separate projects are already in development that were “inspired, at least in part,” by those conversations.
James Appathurai, a former NATO spokesperson now serving as the alliance’s deputy assistant secretary general for hybrid, cyber and new technology, is expected to attend the London session alongside other officials.
In language that alarmed many recipients, the invitation suggested that “even if something so simple,” as NATO’s core message of cooperation and collective security, “finds its way into a future story, that will be enough.”
‘Clearly propaganda’
NATO’s outreach has drawn sharp criticism from within the creative community. Irish screenwriter Alan O’Gorman, whose film Christy won best film at the 2026 Irish Film and Television Awards, called the initiative “outrageous” and “clearly propaganda,” telling The Guardian that many writers come from countries that have “suffered under wars that NATO has joined and propagated.”
O’Gorman said those invited were “pretty offended that art would be used in a way that was supporting war,” and framed the meetings as part of a broader effort to cultivate pro-NATO sentiment in light of fearmongering across European media about weakened defenses.
Screenwriter and producer Faisal A. Qureshi, who applied to attend one session before a scheduling conflict prevented him, raised more structural concerns. He warned that the “risk for any creative who dips into this unattributable world of intelligence or military briefings is that they can get seduced into thinking they now have some secret knowledge,” one that normalizes moral compromise in the name of the greater good.
Qureshi questioned whether writers given such privileged access would genuinely “challenge or interrogate” the information fed to them, or simply absorb it.
A pattern of cultural lobbying
The London meeting is not an isolated effort. In 2024, eight prominent Hollywood screenwriters, including a writer and executive producer on Friends and a producer on High Potential, were flown to NATO headquarters in Brussels, where they met then-Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. The trip was organized by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The initiative also mirrors recommendations from the Centre for European Reform, which earlier this year called on governments to directly engage cultural figures, including screenwriters and producers, to build public support for rising defense budgets and “better tell the story” of why military investment is necessary.
NATO, for its part, framed the sessions as demand-driven, saying the meetings “follow from interest expressed by members of the industry to know more about what NATO is about and how it works.”
Iran replaces UAE ports with Pakistan corridor to break US blockade
Al Mayadeen | May 3, 2026
Pakistan has officially authorised the transit of goods into Iran through its territory and ports, positioning Karachi, Port Qasim, and Gwadar as key logistical gateways for Iranian trade while Washington’s maritime blockade attempts to strangle the Islamic Republic’s access to global commerce, Tasnim News Agency reported.
Islamabad’s Ministry of Commerce issued the Transit of Goods through Territory of Pakistan Order 2026 on April 25, bringing it into immediate effect. The order, which activates a bilateral road transport agreement signed with Tehran in 2008 but never previously used, opens six overland routes linking Pakistan’s three main ports to two Iranian border crossings, Gabd and Taftan, through Balochistan.
The announcement coincided with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s visit to Islamabad for talks with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. The Gwadar-Gabd corridor, the shortest of the designated routes, reduces travel time to the Iranian border to between two and three hours and is projected to cut transport costs by 45 to 55 percent compared with routing cargo through Karachi, according to Pakistani officials.
The move marks a significant shift away from the UAE ports Iran had long relied upon for regional trade access, most notably Jebel Ali.
Ports with room to grow
Pakistan’s ports bring substantial existing capacity to the arrangement. Karachi and Port Qasim together handle approximately 42 million tonnes of cargo annually, with room to absorb significant additional volume.
Since the war began, Karachi alone handled approximately 75 percent of cargo rerouted toward Pakistan, according to industry data. Gwadar, operated by China Overseas Port Holding Company as the anchor of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), sits roughly 170 kilometres east of Iran’s Chabahar port, making it the most geographically proximate of the three to Iranian territory.
Tasnim framed the new arrangement in terms that extend well beyond immediate wartime logistics. The Pakistan-Iran transit corridor is expected to evolve into a strategic link connecting South Asia with Eurasia through integration with the $60 billion CPEC and China’s broader Belt and Road Initiative, an architecture originally designed to reduce China’s dependence on the Strait of Malacca by shortcutting energy transport routes through Pakistan to Xinjiang.
Blockade tightens, Tehran holds its position
US President Donald Trump announced a maritime blockade on Iran on April 13, with US forces intercepting vessels across Iranian coastal waters. Iranian officials have since warned that its continuation risks undermining ongoing negotiations.
Officials in Tehran have insisted that the blockade is a sign of US weakness, maintaining that Iran retains untapped leverage while highlighting domestic cohesion in the face of mounting external pressure.
A senior Iranian security source told Press TV that ongoing US “maritime piracy and bullying,” carried out under the guise of a blockade, would soon be met with an “unprecedented and tangible military response.”
Iran sets one-month deadline for end to US-Israeli war, blockade: Report
The Cradle | May 3, 2026
The Islamic Republic has set a one-month deadline for an agreement on the Strait of Hormuz and a full end to the wars on both Iran and Lebanon, sources told US media outlet Axios on 3 May.
Iran “set a one-month deadline for negotiations on a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, end the US naval blockade and permanently end the war in Iran and in Lebanon,” the sources said.
“Per the Iranian proposal, only after such a deal is reached, another month of negotiations would be launched to try and reach a deal on the nuclear program,” they added.
On the same day, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Intelligence Organization said in a social media post: “Iran sets Pentagon a blockade deadline. China, Russia, Europe shift tone against Washington. Trump’s passive letter to Congress. Acceptance of Iran’s negotiating terms. There is only one way to read this: Trump must choose between ‘an impossible military operation or a bad deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran.’ The room for US decision-making has narrowed.”
Iran had previously proposed setting nuclear issues aside and negotiating a ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Trump said on Friday that he was dissatisfied with Tehran’s proposal before saying he would review it on a flight to Miami.
“I’m looking at it. I’ll let you know about it later… They told me about the concept of the deal. They’re going to give me the exact wording now.”
Shortly after the president said he “can’t imagine that it would be acceptable,” adding that Iran “has not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years.”
He also said he would resume bombing if Tehran “misbehaves.”
The US president is required to end his war within 60 days or request approval from the US Congress to continue it for another 30 days on grounds of “unavoidable military necessity” for the safety of the military. Trump formally notified Congress of the conflict 48 hours later, making Friday, 1 May, the deadline to request a 30-day extension from Congress or terminate the war.
Trump has claimed the ceasefire has terminated hostilities and that this has rendered the deadline irrelevant and inapplicable. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also claimed that the 60-day clock pauses or stops during a ceasefire.
The US has maintained an illegal blockade on Iranian ports throughout the ceasefire, while also imposing new sanctions. Tehran has repeatedly warned that it may take further military action, following its recent retaliation to the seizure of its vessels by Washington.
According to a report by Israel’s Channel 12, Tel Aviv is “bracing” itself for the collapse of negotiations between Washington and Tehran and the resumption of all-out war against the Islamic Republic.
Axios reported on 29 April that Trump was to be briefed on a series of options for renewed attacks against Iran.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) has readied a “short and powerful” wave of strikes on Iran, “likely including infrastructure targets – in hopes of breaking the negotiating deadlock,” the report claimed.
Tehran has vowed a “crushing response” to any renewed aggression.
At the edge of the Strait: A superpower in a narrow sea

By Mahmood Rehman | Al Mayadeen | May 3, 2026
I have spent a good part of my professional life at sea, and I say this without hesitation: there are few waterways in the world as unforgiving, as deceptive, and as strategically consequential as the Strait of Hormuz. It is not just a stretch of water; it is a pressure point of the global economy. When tension rises here, the entire world feels it—from fuel pumps in America to kitchen tables in South Asia.
What we are witnessing today is not merely a regional conflict. It is a strategic impasse in one of the most sensitive maritime corridors on earth. The United States has deployed significant naval power into the region. Carrier strike groups centred around the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, USS Theodore Roosevelt, and USS Gerald R. Ford are operating alongside cruisers, destroyers, frigates and replenishment tankers. Along with them are nuclear-powered guided missile submarines of the Ohio-class submarine type, carrying formidable strike capability. With over two hundred and fifty aircraft embarked across these platforms, the sheer scale of deployment is impressive by any standard.
Yet, having commanded ships myself, I know that numbers and tonnage do not always translate into control, especially in confined, contested waters.
The stated objective appears straightforward: enforce a maritime blockade of Iranian ports and ensure unhindered passage through the Strait of Hormuz. But here lies the irony. The Strait, by most accounts, was already open before the escalation. What has changed is not the physical state of the waterway, but the political and military environment surrounding it.
Iran’s recent offer has placed Washington in a difficult position. It has indicated willingness to ensure the Strait remains open, on its own terms, provided the United States lifts the blockade and shows flexibility on the timing of nuclear negotiations. Accepting such an offer risks appearing to concede under pressure. Rejecting it prolongs a costly and increasingly unpopular confrontation.
And cost is now becoming the defining factor.
Fuel prices have risen. The ripple effect is visible in everyday commodities. The American public, which never truly supported this war, is beginning to feel the burden directly. Wars fought thousands of miles away eventually find their way into domestic politics, and this one is no exception. The narrative of a swift and decisive operation has long faded. What remains is a grinding reality.
There is also a growing perception (rightly or wrongly) that this was not entirely America’s war to begin with. Many point towards the long-standing position of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has, for decades, articulated a hardline stance against Iran. Previous US administrations, including those led by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, exercised caution in this regard. They understood, perhaps better than most, that Iran is not an easy adversary.
And this is where, in my professional judgement, the conversation must turn towards Iran’s maritime capability, often underestimated, sometimes misunderstood, but very real.
Iran does not seek to match the United States ship for ship. Instead, it has built what we in naval terms would call an asymmetric maritime strategy. Its so-called “mosquito fleet” consists of numerous fast attack craft — small, agile, heavily armed platforms that can swarm larger vessels. Operating from concealed bases along the coastline and from island positions, these units are difficult to detect and even harder to neutralize in large numbers.
Then there are the Ghadir-class submarines, small, quiet, and ideally suited for the shallow waters of the Gulf. These are not platforms designed for long blue-water patrols; they are designed for ambush. In confined waters, that makes all the difference.
Iran unveils new control measures over Strait of Hormuz transit
Al Mayadeen | May 2, 2026
Senior Iranian lawmakers have unveiled a proposed plan to regulate maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, introducing new restrictions on certain vessels and a licensing system that would require ships to obtain authorization from Tehran.
Ali Nikzad, Deputy Speaker of Iran’s parliament, detailed that the initiative includes a 12-point framework aimed at managing transit through one of the world’s most critical oil shipping routes. Under the proposal, vessels linked to “Israel” would be barred from passing through the Strait at all times, while ships from “hostile countries” would be denied transit unless they pay unspecified war reparations.
Nikzad added that all other vessels would be required to operate under a newly established legal framework, obtaining official licenses and authorization from Iranian authorities before entering the waterway. He emphasized that the plan would be implemented “in accordance with international law” and with consideration for the rights of neighboring states, while asserting that Iran would not relinquish what it views as its sovereign rights.
The deputy speaker described the proposed administration of the Strait as comparable in significance to Iran’s historic oil nationalization efforts, signaling the strategic importance Tehran places on the initiative.
Control of the Strait of Hormuz seen as public demand in Iran
Further details were provided by Mohammad Reza Rezaei, head of the Iranian Parliament’s Reconstruction Committee, who outlined how revenues generated under the plan would be allocated. He said that 30% of fees collected from passing vessels would be directed toward strengthening military infrastructure, while the remaining 70% would fund economic development projects and public welfare initiatives.
Rezaei also emphasized the political framing of the proposal, stating that managing the Strait of Hormuz is “more important than obtaining nuclear weapons” and describing control over the waterway as a demand of the Iranian public. He reiterated that Iran would not forgo its right to administer and oversee the Strait.
“Exercising control and administration over the Strait of Hormuz is a demand of the Iranian people, and Iran will not relinquish this right,” he stressed.
War escalation and regional impact
Against the backdrop of escalating regional tensions, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz has escalated following a US-Israeli aggression on Iran, triggering a forceful Iranian response.
The United States has intensified its military and maritime aggression through sanctions enforcement, ship seizures, and a broader blockade targeting Iranian ports and vessels, moves widely viewed by Tehran as unlawful and destabilizing.
In response, Iran has exercised its geographic leverage over the strait to control the maritime traffic, prioritizing vessels not linked to the hostile aggression. The standoff has disrupted one of the world’s most critical energy corridors, through which roughly a fifth of global oil and gas supplies pass, fueling volatility in global markets while limited shipping continues under heightened restrictions.
House Resolution Calls for Tech Companies to Censor Speech
Legislation introduced by two AIPAC funded representatives
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | May 2, 2026
This one slipped under the wire. Tucker Carlson talked about it the other day, but beyond that, it is flying sans transponder. On February 29, New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer and New York Republican Mike Lawler introduced “a bipartisan resolution condemning the rise of antisemitic, hate-filled rhetoric disseminated by prominent online personalities, including Hasan Piker and Candace Owens, and calling on social media platforms and public leaders to take stronger action against hate,” according to Gottheimer’s taxpayer funded website.
Watch at Rumble
“The resolution highlights the growing influence of online personalities and the alarming surge in antisemitism driven, in part, by disinformation and extremist rhetoric… When influential voices spread conspiracy theories, promote terrorism, or dehumanize Jewish people, it fuels real-world violence and intimidation. We must stand up and speak out.”
Owens, Gottheimer’s post continues, “has trafficked in vile conspiracy theories, promoted blood libels, and platformed Holocaust deniers,” and Piker has “dehumanized Orthodox Jews” The post continues with debunked lies concerning the Hamas al-Aqsa Flood open-air prison breakout on October 7, 2023.
Lawler received $1,069,875 and Gottheimer $2,062,601 from the Israel lobby. Both are essentially paid operatives for the Likud government of Israel. Furthermore, both “representatives” are traitors to the the Bill of Rights and have violated their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The Democrat Gottheimer, sounding like a staunch MAGA Republican, declared the “relationship with Israel is key to our national security. Terrorists hate the United States more than they hate Israel.” Lawler voted for a budget “that cut Medicaid and raised the cost of healthcare for millions of Americans, while saying US taxpayer funding for Israel should be ‘unconditional’ and voted for over $18 billion in weapons to Israel in 2024,” thus revealing his priorities (and making sure AIPAC sweetens his pot for the next election).
Last August, Israeli PM Netanyahu directly inserted himself in domestic American politics by demanding “the algorithms and the social networks” be censored to eliminate criticism of Israel.
In April, Zionist podcaster and self-proclaimed constitutionalist Mark Levin denounced critics of Israeli apartheid and genocide as “Nazis” and “jihadis” and said they are “inciting” violence with their speech. He argued the freedom of speech, once considered god-given and natural in America, is “overprotected.” Carlson said “Mark Levin, the right wing MAGA guy, is saying those people [critics of Israel] should be silenced by the tech companies.”
Another podcaster, Ben Shapiro, told the Palm Beach Gardens Chabad synagogue that X is an “unusable” and “vile stream of trash.” He admitted reaching out “to Elon’s people about” the criticism of Zionism he considers contemptible. “The algorithms are destroying America,” he said.
“We will monitor social media, and check your bank accounts,” Jonathan Greenblatt, the leader of the ADL, threatened in January. He said the ADL “shares the information with the FBI” gathered on anti-Zionist “extremists.” In June, he demanded companies “knock the anti-Zionists off the platform once and for all.” Research from the ADL’s Center for Technology and Society posted to X “shows that five major platforms are still failing to enforce” the removal of content critical of Israel and Zionists.
Israel-born Chabadnik Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, Trump’s czar of antisemitism, announced in December the State Department will establish a “whole division” to combat criticism of Israel and is working to develop social media algorithms that exclude “misinformation.”
“From YouTube to X, Wikipedia, and TikTok, Zionists are capturing all means of communication to erase the evidence of its genocide, reshape the historical record, and censor those critical of it,” writes Robert Inlakesh for the Palestine Chronicle. “Those who are critical of Israel are being censored or arrested.”
Tucker Carlson warns full-blown censorship will soon arrive in America through legislation forcing technology corporations to remove content deemed antisemitic by Israel and Zionists in America. “Criticizing the behavior of a foreign government is a hate crime and can get you censored in your own country,” he said.
So what’s the takeaway from all this? Well, the first takeaway is censorship is coming, and it will work unless people exercise their God-given and First Amendment-guaranteed right to push back against it with words and do so at high volume without any shame at all. It’s going to need a refusal to be intimidated by false claims of, quote, hate.
Ceasefire no longer viable after 200 days of Israeli violations: Hamas
Al Mayadeen | May 2, 2026
One Palestinian was killed in an Israeli drone strike targeting the vicinity of al-Qastal Towers, east of Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported on Saturday.
In a separate development, Israeli forces carried out a large-scale demolition operation east of Khan Younis in southern Gaza, according to the same correspondent.
In light of the continued Israeli violations, Basem Naim, a member of the political bureau of Hamas, said that after 200 days, it is no longer possible to speak of a ceasefire in Gaza. He stated that the situation is a continuation of a “war of extermination,” despite the Resistance’s adherence to the agreement.
Speaking to Al Mayadeen on Saturday evening, Naim stressed that the future of the Gaza Strip and the broader Palestinian cause remains a solely internal Palestinian matter. He added that the Resistance has fulfilled all obligations requested of it, as confirmed by mediators, while Israeli attacks have continued.
Naim also stated that the Rafah crossing has not been opened in accordance with the agreement, noting that the number of people allowed to pass remains limited. He said mediators had been informed of the need to review the implementation of the first phase of the agreement before moving on to the second.
US providing cover for ‘Israel’ to violate ceasefire
The Hamas official further accused the United States of providing cover for Israeli violations, revealing that a technical committee comprising mediators and relevant parties is being supplied with daily documentation of the breaches.
According to Naim, the negotiating position is based on previous agreements and the rights of the Palestinian people, with insistence on the full implementation of the first phase, including the entry of humanitarian aid and reconstruction materials. He added that the agreement includes a political track aimed at securing Palestinian rights, including the establishment of a state with its capital in al-Quds.
Naim emphasized that armed resistance is a legitimate right and that its weapons are an essential component of that right. He also highlighted unity among Palestinian factions and ongoing coordination between them, while warning that the occupied West Bank is facing a “silent and continuous war,” amid escalating attacks on religious sites.
‘Israel’ working to ‘annex’ West bank as a ‘fait accompli’
In this context, Naim said “Israel” is working to consolidate the “annexation” of the West Bank as a “fait accompli”, while restricting the work of international organizations in Gaza unless they operate under its conditions.
He added that the negotiating delegation remains in Cairo and is serious about continuing talks, while maintaining its demand for the full implementation of the first phase. He stressed that the Resistance is not seeking war and does not oppose political pathways if they lead to ending the occupation, but rejects discussing the issue of its weapons separately from a permanent ceasefire.
Naim also praised international activists expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people and condemned attacks on ships attempting to break the blockade, stressing Gaza’s need for an international humanitarian corridor. He concluded by emphasizing the importance of Palestinian unity and rejecting internal divisions that could serve Israeli interests.
Israeli strikes intensify across southern Lebanon, casualties reported

Al Mayadeen | May 2, 2026
The Israeli occupation has intensified its attacks on villages and towns in southern Lebanon, with fresh airstrikes and artillery shelling reported across several districts, according to field reports from the south.
Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported that three people were killed after an Israeli raid struck a house in the town of al-Louaizeh in the Jezzine district at dawn on Friday, with the escalation extending beyond the area as Israeli airstrikes also hit the towns of Harouf and Shoukin, as well as the al-Tuffah heights region.
The National News Agency (NNA) reported that an earlier strike on Shoukin resulted in the killing of civilians and the injury of several others, including the town’s mayor, Hussein Ali Ahmad.
Further raids targeted multiple towns in the Nabatieh district, including Zawtar al-Sharqiyah, A’dshit, Mayfadoun, Kfar Joz, and Ebba. An additional strike hit a vehicle on the Kfar Dajjal road in the same district.
Strikes across Tyre, Bint Jbeil, and Hasbaya
Southern Lebanon also came under intensified attacks across a wider area, with strikes hitting Majdal Zoun in the Tyre district and Burj Qalaway in the Bint Jbeil district.
The town of Qounine was targeted in an aerial attack, while heavy artillery shelling struck Touline and Qabrikha in the Marjeyoun district. Another airstrike hit Kfarshouba in the Hasbaya district.
Israeli artillery also struck residential areas and outskirts, including al-Mansouri in the Tyre district, while military aircraft maintained intensive overflights across southern Lebanese airspace.
The aggression has continued despite the so-called temporary ceasefire agreement, which took effect on April 17 for 10 days and was later extended for a further three weeks on April 24. However, since the agreement came into force, the Israeli occupation has maintained its attacks, while also facing continued retaliatory attacks from the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, Hezbollah.
Since March 2, the cumulative toll has reportedly exceeded 2,618 martyrs and more than 8,094 injured, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health. Officials say the ceasefire framework involving Lebanon has not prevented continued strikes, with repeated attacks reported across multiple regions.
Left in Disbelief: Israel in Panic over Hezbollah FPV Drone Nightmare
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | May 1, 2026
Left in disbelief, an already drained Israeli military is left without any viable solutions to the ever-growing threat of first-person view (FPV) drones, now used by Hezbollah to overwhelm their newly assumed positions in southern Lebanon.
On April 16, Tel Aviv and Beirut agreed to a temporary ceasefire imposed by US President Donald Trump. Within the first hour of the ceasefire’s imposition, Israel had already violated the agreement 10 times, including an attack on an ambulance. What they sought to achieve was a return to the pre-war status quo, whereby the Israeli military attacked Lebanon at will, without any return fire.
It soon became clear that the 15-month ceasefire period, following November 27, 2024, during which the Israeli military violated the agreement 15,400 times according to UNIFIL, was not going to be replicated. The first wave of retaliation against Israeli violations began with Hezbollah detonating improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and destroying convoys of Israeli tanks and armored personnel carriers (APCs), after carrying out reconnaissance and anticipating the movement of armed convoys.
Initially, the Israeli military passed three successive IED attacks off as incidents occurring due to explosives previously left behind by Hezbollah fighters. Later, the Lebanese Party officially announced it had taken out four Israeli Merkava tanks in a single IED attack, forcing the Israelis to issue a statement acknowledging it.
Before long, Hezbollah was issuing statements claiming responsibility for a number of retaliatory attacks each day, including rocket fire on Israeli army positions across the Lebanon Blue Line (Lebanese border).
Then came the prominence of Hezbollah’s usage of the cheap, but highly effective FPV drones, inflicting considerable numbers of casualties amongst Israeli soldiers in retaliation for ceasefire violations and the attempt to illegally occupy a strip of territory in southern Lebanon.
Contrary to Israel’s initial claims to have established a considerable “buffer zone” and that only a small number of Hezbollah fighters had remained in the area, it would become clear that nothing of the sort had truly taken place. There was never any “full operational control” of the “buffer zone”, instead, the Israelis were practicing the Gaza strategy of deploying forces in their heavily armoured vehicles to towns and villages, where they would then be tasked with blowing up civilian infrastructure.
Hezbollah fighters remain positioned throughout this newly declared zone, a terrain that favors a defending force using guerrilla warfare tactics. Perhaps the most menacing is the usage of the FPV drones for both reconnaissance and attacks alike.
In a new article, written for Yediot Aharanot in Hebrew, correspondent Elisha Ben Kimon wrote the following:
“For years, the IDF has invested billions in sophisticated interception systems, precision missiles, and the intelligence capabilities of superpowers. But when Hezbollah, with simple and deadly ingenuity, decided to lower its flight altitude and switch to drones, with fiber optics that make it difficult to detect and intercept, Israel found itself in a situation of dealing with a “low-tech” threat that disrupted all work plans.”
The FPV UAVs can be cheaply acquired for only hundreds of dollars per unit, yet when assembled domestically, they can be put together for as little as 50 dollars in some instances. Successful FPV drone deployment for war was pioneered by the Ukrainians and Russians during the Ukraine War. According to some sources, the majority of battlefield casualties in that war have been a result of this drone, which Kyiv can mass-produce at around 300 dollars per unit.
Equipped with a fiber-optic cable, the drones are completely immune to electronic warfare jamming, negating the high-tech advantages that the Israelis have previously enjoyed. Hezbollah does have access to a range of different attack drones, including various Iranian models, which have proven highly effective also. Yet, they are not available in as high quantities, and their most sophisticated technology is used to target high-value targets.
This development has meant that Hezbollah drone operator teams can safely fly these drones from up to and over 10 kilometers away, without being detected. The process of detecting these drones is the same as it is for Hezbollah’s arsenal of more sophisticated radio frequency (RF) drones, relying on acoustic sensors, radars and thermal imaging, yet FPV drones fly at such low altitudes and use the terrain of southern Lebanon to make them more difficult to detect until it is too late.
A recent article published by the Israeli daily Haaretz noted that back in 2024, the Israeli political and military leadership claimed to be on top of deploying solutions to the Hezbollah drone threat, stressing that a range of Israeli defense companies were engineering solutions.
However, an anonymous source “involved in the field” told Haaretz that “There is a need for a systemic response – not to acquire a little of this and a little of that, but a broad plan to address all unmanned threats along our borders. DDR&D (Directorate of Defense Research & Development) has known about this threat for many years but has not mobilized to address it.”
In a nightmare situation for the Israeli military, Hezbollah recently launched a retaliatory attack using FPV drones, inflicting 6 soldier casualties near the Lebanese town of Taybeh. Israel announced that one of its sergeants, Ithan Fukes, was killed in the attack. What happened next was perhaps even more damning.
Hezbollah followed up their attack with an FPV drone strike targeting the medivac helicopter. The incident caused such a stir because the Israeli military leaked videos of the incident. Despite the Israeli soldiers wearing body cams or GoPros on their helmets, this was the first time such footage has been released, due to Israel’s strict military censor laws.
The first video released was from a distance, showing the FPV drone impacting the site where the evacuation of soldiers was happening, causing them to fall back and the helicopter to abruptly take off. From the footage, it was unclear whether the drone hit any target or not, triggering criticism from the Israeli media over why it was released.
Then, a second video was released, from a soldier’s helmet camera, revealing that the drone fell just short, either due to the wind force of the helicopter or due to the soldier’s gunfire. Any release of footage of this kind is deliberate; in this case, it was to jolt the Israeli leadership into action.
An enormous amount of criticism has been leveled at the Israeli political leadership over its failure to achieve its announced goals in Lebanon, and the army itself is even joining that parade. What this demonstrates is that the psychological impact of the FPVs is greatly burdening soldiers on the ground, while the army is left to sit in southern Lebanon twiddling its thumbs.
Hezbollah’s asymmetric warfare is already causing enormous strain on the some 6 Israeli divisions deployed to fight against Lebanon. Just as they were in Gaza, the Israelis are not doing much beyond demolishing civilian infrastructure, proving so risk-averse as to fear entering a fight in which they actually seek to degrade Hezbollah in any significant way. They may have gotten away with this in Gaza, but in South Lebanon, they are dealing with a much more powerful opponent and a more difficult terrain.
Israeli Merkava tanks, worth between 3.5 to 6 million dollars each, are being taken out day after day by FPV drones, carrying explosive charges, worth a maximum of a few hundred dollars each. Hezbollah is taking out mobile telecommunications equipment, command and control vehicles, APCs, D-9 bulldozers, and excavation equipment, with cheap drones that they continue to mass produce with ease. They also do this while their fighters are kept out of harm’s way.
Israel has attempted to consult Ukrainian advisors in order to learn new tactics to deal with the threat and has purchased its own FPV drones, yet none of this has borne fruit. Instead, individual soldiers have tried experimenting with netting to place over vehicles and the use of shotguns, while relying on soldiers to watch the skies for incoming drones.
Despite some of this being effective, out of fear, the Israelis do not normally deploy infantry next to their tanks while on the move. In Gaza, this tactic of hiding inside heavily armored vehicles and tanks did manage to reduce soldier deaths and injuries, but in Lebanon, it could actually be causing the opposite effect, at least when it comes to FPV drone attacks.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

