What’s Behind U.S./Israeli Strikes On Iranian Pistachio Factories?
Inside The Role Zionist Billionaires Lynda and Stewart Resnick Have Played In Shaping The Iran War
The Dissident | April 6, 2026
Open source reports have indicated that “The pistachio warehouses of Iranian Pistachio Company near Rafsanjan Airport were targeted by American/Israeli fighter jets in the first week of Farvardin”, “ which has been described as “the heart of Iran’s pistachio industry.”
This strike was likely a gift to Lynne and Stewart Resnick, the Zionist billionaires who own the California-based Wonderful company, the largest producer of pistachios in the world.
Investigative journalist Yasha Levine has documented that Lynne and Stewart Resnick took over the pistachio market after the U.S. embargo on Iran in 1979, noting that, “For as long as anyone can remember, Iran had been the world’s main supplier of pistachios. But Carter’s 1979 embargo on the country effectively cut off Iranian pistachio growers from the American market and created a need for alternative pistachio production, which was virtually nonexistent in the United States.” Adding, “the Resnicks began to snap up thousands of acres from Mobil Oil and Texaco in order to create pistachio and almond orchards. They steadily bought up more and more acreage all through the 1980s for rock-bottom prices because of a long period of drought. By the end of the decade, the Resnicks had amassed enough farmland to rival Oligarch Valley’s biggest and oldest billionaire farmer clans: 100,000 acres—nearly 160 square miles—growing cotton, pistachios, almonds, oranges, lemons and grapefruit. They didn’t just grow the crops, but packaged, processed and distributed them as well.”
In a 2008 interview with the Independent, Stewart Resnick stated his desire to keep up American hostilities with Iran in order to corner the pistachio market.
“Three years ago, with the flourish of a visionary, pistachio king Stewart Resnick, the chief executive of processor Paramount Farms, started paying growers about twice what they were used to getting for their nuts,” the Independent noted, adding:
“How does one create enough demand for the increased supply that’s coming on in the industry?” Mr Resnick asked at a Paramount conference last week in Monterey.
His answer: export them, especially to Europe. Paramount plans to sell 300 million pounds of pistachios around the world over the next five years, with Europe representing nearly a third of that target.
The article added, “Along the way, it will run into its old foe, Iran. The man on Paramount’s front line taking on the challenge is the vice-president of worldwide sales, Mark Masten. ‘We don’t mind stealing share from the Iranians,’ he declared last week.”
As Yasha Levine has documented, Resnick has helped keep American hostilities with Iran going by funding neocon and Zionist think tanks lobbying for a hawkish American policy towards Iran.
“Economic sanctions are what have allowed the Resnicks to create their pistachio empire, which would suffer a severe blow if relations with Iran were ever normalized. Iran’s pistachios are considered to be superior to America’s, so much so that Israelis still buy Iranian pistachios shipped in through Turkey” Levine noted, adding that the “Resnicks did what any smart and ruthless American would do: they made common cause with oil companies, Islamophobes, neocons and Likudniks, and began funneling money to think tanks and political advocacy groups that take a hardline approach with Iran. Economic sanctions, sabotage, vilification—all these things worked in the Resnicks’ interest. Bombing some of Iran’s pistachio fields wouldn’t be so bad, either”.
Levine documented that:
Tax filings from 2008 show that Stewart Resnick and his wife Lynda are on the board of trustees of the highly influential Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank, which was created as an AIPAC spin-off in the ’80s. In the realms of US government mid-east policy and media reporting about the region, the think tank is considered to be one of the most influential in the country. It is also ridiculously hawkish on Iran, calling for heavy sanctions and military strikes against the country. In 2005, the Resnick Foundation gave $20,000 to the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy. Unfortunately, the real amount of money the Resnicks have given to the institute is hard to gauge, as any funds that did not go through their personal foundation would not have to be reported on any of their IRS documents.
Stewart Resnick is also board member of the American Friends of IDC, a not-for-profit foundation that serves as the fundraising arm of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, a think tank with close links to the Israeli intelligence and military establishment. Like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Herzliya is considered to be the most influential think tank in Israel on security matters. American Friends of IDC funneled $10 million to Herzliya in 2006.
Yasha Levine noted in 2018 that , “Stewart and Lynda Resnick are donors and supporters of of some of the most powerful and influential neoconservative organizations in America, including the AIPAC spinoff WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy) where they have been on and off the board for over a decade. WINEP has been extremely hawkish on Iran. One of its executives has openly called on Israel to provoke a war with Iran in order to pull in the United States.”
“Through their family foundation, the Resnicks have also funneled money to the American Jewish Committee, which is one of the most active lobbyists pushing for a sweeping Iran sanctions bill that was eventually signed into law by Obama in 2010,” Levine added.
He also documented in 2024 that the Resnicks, have “given anywhere from $500,000 to $200,000 to the Israeli military every year, with most of it funneled through an outfit called the American Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces”, noting that this is done through a convergence of their loyalty to Israel and their pistachio monopoly “based off of U.S. meddling in the Middle East”.
Levine noted this January :
The Resnicks’ personal Zionist politics and their business politics are very much in alignment. It’s also very circular because American foreign policy created the Resnicks’ business: US meddling in Iran and subsequent economic sanctions created the conditions for the emergence of California’s pistachio industry. Then profits from that industry circulate and cycle right back into this imperial machine that works to basically create a consensus in America that Iran is our greatest enemy. When I first started reporting on the Resnicks back in 2009, there were numerous domestic Jewish lobby groups who were lobbying against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. At the time, the Resnicks were giving a lot of money to those Jewish organizations. Then, over the years, they have donated millions to American Friends of the IDF and sat on the board of the hawkish Middle East policy think tank, Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They are recycling their profits right back into supporting the imperial logic that made their business possible.
While America is losing the war with Iran, the Resnicks seem to be profiting from their investment in the war.
The New York Times reported :
More than a month into the war with Iran, ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is at historically low levels, which has stymied exports from the region.
The potential removal of a major player in the market is good news for farmers in California, who are likely to get higher prices for their pistachios.
“With this war, it’s going to limit what Iran is able to do, able to ship, to customers in Europe and China,” said Adam Orandi, who farms 1,600 acres of pistachio orchards in the San Joaquin Valley. His father imported saplings from Iran in the 1970s.
Given this context, the U.S./Israeli strikes on Iranian pistachio warehouses can be best seen as a gift to Lynne and Stewart Resnick, who have funded the Zionist and Neo-con lobbies behind the war based on a convergence of their Zionist loyalties and desire to corner the pistachio and take out a potential competitor.
Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Military DIVIDED? Iran’s Secret Defense EXPOSED
Dialogue Works | April 6, 2026
An intense discussion on escalating U.S.–Iran tensions highlights internal divisions within the U.S. military and claims of miscalculation in confronting Iran’s long-prepared defense systems. The interview argues Iran’s capabilities remain largely intact, with underground bases and strategic planning shaping its response. It emphasizes regional involvement, warning that Gulf states hosting U.S. forces are deeply entangled. The conversation frames the conflict as potentially catastrophic globally, with risks to energy routes, economies, and civilian infrastructure, while stressing that continued escalation could trigger widespread retaliation and long-term geopolitical consequences.
How I fell foul of the BBC thought police
By Charlie Spedding | TCW Defending Freedom | April 5, 2026
THE BBC recently featured a United Nations report which claimed the Earth’s ‘Energy Balance’ was dangerously disrupted by excess heat caused by rising carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. This is false for many reasons, but rather than explain why, I want to discuss the BBC.
This story was on the evening news and also on the website. I read many of the comments posted online. The majority were worried and adamant that we must ‘do something before it is too late’. I wanted to reassure people that there is nothing happening to the climate that could be described as a crisis and carbon dioxide is not the control knob of planetary weather patterns. I decided it was best to direct them towards some of the world’s leading physicists rather than attempt to explain it myself. This is what I tried to post on the BBC website:
‘May I respectfully suggest that everyone worried about a man-made climate crisis do some research. I recommend the work of Prof Richard Lindzen, Prof William Happer, Prof Willie Soon, Nobel Laureate John Clauser and the CO2 Coalition. Most people don’t realise how much we are all manipulated by vested interests including the mainstream media. Be smarter than most and learn from world experts.’
The website moderators informed me that my post had been deleted because it broke their house rules: ‘We reserve the right to fail comments which . . . are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others, are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable; contain swear words or other language likely to offend.’
I appealed against their decision, not because I expected them to change their minds, but because it gave me the opportunity to ask which part of my post they considered to be ‘sexist, racist, homophobic or abusive’. This was their response: ‘In this instance, we believe the moderator made the correct decision so we will be unable to uphold your appeal. Due to the volume of correspondence we receive, we are unable to discuss this matter further.’
They were confident the ‘rules’ had been broken but would not tell me which part of my message transgressed which part of their rules. I didn’t express an opinion about the climate but suggested that the opinion of world-renowned specialist scientists was worth reading. Did the BBC object to this, or was it my reference to manipulation by the mainstream media? I included that comment in reference to the BBC’s Environmental Correspondent, Justin Rowlatt, who was found to have lied about the climate in a 2022 BBC Panorama programme called Wild Weather. He said deaths worldwide were rising due to extreme weather caused by climate change – whereas the opposite is true.
The BBC’s Charter states that ‘The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.’
The Public Purposes of the BBC are ‘To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them.’
When it comes to coverage of the climate the BBC is not impartial, high-quality or informative. In this case, it has blocked an opportunity for people to discover high-quality scientific research from around the world. I am firmly of the opinion that I am not the one breaking rules; it is the BBC which is ignoring its own rules and charter.
The End of NATO
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – April 6, 2026
The war between the United States and Iran has become not only a military crisis in the Middle East but also a turning point for the transatlantic alliance, exposing deep divisions between Washington and its European allies.
When Donald Trump publicly derided NATO as a “paper tiger” and threatened to withdraw the United States from the alliance over Europe’s refusal to back the Iran war, it signaled more than frustration; it exposed a strategic rupture. As this conflict unfolds, Washington is discovering that military strength without allied support is not dominance, but isolation. The Iran war may yet end on the battlefield, although it is unlikely to be a US victory. But politically, it is already reshaping—and dramatically weakening—the foundations of American global power.
War without Allies
When Britain’s prime minister insisted he would act in the national interest “whatever the noise,” it was a quiet but consequential rebuke to Washington. He was quite clear in stating that it is “increasingly clear” that the UK’s “long-term national interest requires closer partnership with our allies in Europe and with the European Union.” For decades, the United Kingdom has been the United States’ most dependable ally in war. Its hesitation now signals something larger: the transatlantic alliance is no longer aligned. The coherence of NATO has long depended on a core axis between Washington and London, around which broader European consensus could be built. If that axis weakens, alliance cohesion becomes far more difficult to sustain. It is already happening.
Several key NATO members have moved beyond rhetorical caution to operational resistance, directly constraining US military options. France, for instance, said that it was “surprised” by Trump’s comments singling out Paris for not authorizing planes headed to Israel to fly over its territory, saying it had been its position from the start of the war with Iran. “We are surprised by this tweet. France has not changed its position since day one (of the conflict), and we confirm this decision,” President Emmanuel Macron’s office said. France has restricted US-linked military overflights, emphasizing that it will not be drawn into an escalatory campaign. Spain has gone further, closing its airspace to US aircraft involved in the conflict. Italy has limited access to key bases. Across Europe, governments have converged on a clear position: this is not a NATO mission.
These decisions carry operational consequences. Denial of airspace and basing rights complicates logistics, lengthens supply routes, and raises the cost of sustained military action. More importantly, they signal a breakdown in political alignment. NATO’s strength has never been its hardware alone, but the assumption that its members would act together in moments of crisis. That assumption no longer holds.
Washington’s Escalation—Against Allies
The US response to this divergence has been to intensify pressure rather than adjust strategy. Donald Trump has publicly criticized NATO allies for failing to support the war, warning that the United States may reconsider its commitment to the alliance.
This rhetoric has been reinforced by policy signals. US officials have raised questions about the conditionality of American security guarantees, and the Pentagon has notably declined to unequivocally reaffirm NATO’s collective defense principle, suggesting that such commitments ultimately depend on presidential discretion.
This introduces a fundamental shift. NATO is being recast—not as a defensive alliance bound by mutual obligation, but as a flexible arrangement contingent on alignment with US policy. For European governments, this is a redefinition they are unwilling to accept. The result is an emerging confrontation within the alliance itself. The United States is demanding support for a war of choice; its allies are insisting on the limits of NATO’s mandate. Neither position is easily reconciled, both in the short- and long-term scenarios.
NATO’s Institutional Limits Are Now Visible
What the Iran war has exposed is not simply political disagreement, but the structural limits of NATO itself. The alliance was never designed to function as an instrument of unilateral wars. Its legal and strategic foundation rests on collective defense, not discretionary intervention.
This distinction is embedded in the North Atlantic Treaty itself. Article 5—the alliance’s core commitment—applies specifically to an armed attack against a member state. It is this clause that triggered NATO’s only collective military response after 9/11. The current conflict with Iran, by contrast, does not meet that threshold. It is not a case of collective defense, but of strategic choice.
Even Article 4, which allows members to consult when territorial integrity or security is threatened, underscores the importance of consensus. Consultation is a prerequisite for collective action, not a substitute for it. The relative absence of meaningful prior consultation in the Iran case has only reinforced European reluctance. The United States, however, appears to be operating on a different interpretation, one in which leadership permits strategic latitude, and alliances are expected to align accordingly. This is a purely hegemonic posture that European allies of the alliance are finding increasingly hard to absorb. This gap between treaty-bound obligations and political expectations now lies at the heart of the transatlantic divide.
What Does the Future Look Like?
Europe’s resistance to the Iran war is not temporary dissent; it is an operationalization of long-discussed strategic autonomy. France, Germany, Spain, and even the United Kingdom are signaling that NATO membership does not automatically translate into compliance with American initiatives. They are asserting the right to define their own limits of engagement.
This shift has immediate and long-term consequences. NATO may remain institutionally intact, i.e., even if the US does not formally withdraw, but its coherence as a unified military actor has already eroded. Operational planning, rapid deployment, and logistical coordination can no longer assume automatic access or unquestioned support. The alliance is entering a new phase in which cooperation is conditional, negotiated, and selective.
For the United States, the implications are profound. Military superiority alone is no longer sufficient to secure collective action. Leadership depends, more than ever, on persuasion, diplomacy, and the alignment of interests, not simply on capabilities.
The Iran war has thus done more than challenge US military objectives. It has forced NATO to confront a question that has been brewing for years: what is the alliance for, and how much independence will its members exercise? In Trump’s mind, members have no real independence. They are expected to pay more for defence, i.e., spend 5% of their GDP on NATO, and mobilize support as and when the US demands.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
37 days of war on Iran cost US staggering $42bln, tracker shows
Al Mayadeen | April 6, 2026
The US aggression against Iran has cost American taxpayers over $42.1 billion in nearly 37 days of war, according to the Iran War Cost Tracker portal.
The portal’s real-time tracking is based on a Department of War briefing for the US Congress on March 10, which stated that Washington spent $11.3 billion in the first six days of its aggression on Iran and plans to spend an additional $1 billion each subsequent day of the war.
Trump requests $1.5 trillion defense budget as war costs spiral
On Friday, US President Donald Trump asked Congress to enact a $2.2 trillion budget for discretionary programs, seeking a massive increase in defense spending, while also renewing his push for steep cuts to domestic agencies.
The budget proposal released on Friday requests $1.5 trillion for defense, a significant increase over the $1 trillion sought for fiscal year 2026. The new figure includes $1.1 trillion in base discretionary spending for the Department of War and another $350 billion in mandatory spending as the US carries out its war on Iran.
The sharp increase in military spending comes as the United States remains engaged in a war that has driven up costs and placed a growing strain on financial and military resources. The war cost Washington more than $11 billion in its first six days alone, with estimates placing daily expenditures at between $1 billion and $2 billion. Munitions stockpiles have been drawn down significantly, raising concerns about sustainability and replenishment.
War costs could reach hundreds of billions
Short-term projections from weeks ago cited by The Intercept suggest that the war could push costs to $250 billion in its eighth week, if it drags on this long.
A government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged the uncertainty of these figures, telling The Intercept that “it’s a back-of-the-napkin estimate,” while another official told the outlet, “They really have no idea of the real cost.”
The proposed budget also aligns with a broader military buildup that includes investments in missile systems, naval assets, and advanced fighter jets, signaling preparations that extend beyond immediate battlefield needs. Against this backdrop, the proposed budget reflects a broader reallocation of resources toward sustaining prolonged military operations, while partially offsetting rising expenditures through cuts to domestic spending.
The budget blueprint comes ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections, with Republicans aiming to preserve their narrow control of both chambers of Congress. The proposal is also likely to face scrutiny from lawmakers who have already raised concerns over the scale of war-related spending and its long-term fiscal impact.
For American taxpayers, the message is clear: as the war on Iran grinds on with no end in sight, the costs continue to mount. And the administration’s solution is not to end the war, but to pour even more money into it, all while cutting domestic programs that ordinary Americans rely on.
Whether Congress will approve Trump’s request remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the price of this war has only begun to be counted.
Baghdad tells Asian refiners, traders to begin loading Iraqi crude amid Iranian exemption
The Cradle | April 6, 2026
Baghdad has told Asian traders and refiners they can begin loading Iraqi oil into tankers for transit through the Strait of Hormuz following an Iranian exemption to transit the strategic waterway.
After the US and Israel began their unprovoked attack on Iran over one month ago, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, threatening to target vessels linked to the US and Israel with missile and drone strikes.
The move forced Iraq to cut its oil production by some 70 percent, as Baghdad had no major alternate route for exporting oil, which funds 90 percent of the state budget, and as its oil storage facilities quickly reached capacity.
Iraqi oil exports subsequently plunged by roughly 97 percent, to an average of 99,000 barrels per day (bpd).
However, in a notice sent on Sunday, Iraq’s State Organization for Marketing of Oil (SOMO) announced that Iraqi oil shipments were now “exempt from any potential restrictions.”
It asked Asian buyers to begin loading crude into vessels, saying export terminals, including in the city of Basra on the Persian Gulf, were “fully operational.”
According to Bloomberg, it was not immediately clear if the Iranian exemption would apply to all Iraqi oil or just the tankers owned by SOMO.
“Buyers expressed caution about the move,” the financial news outlet added.
The Ocean Thunder, a tanker carrying a million barrels of Iraqi crude, crossed the narrow strait on Sunday.
Iraq often sells oil on a free-on-board basis, meaning refiners arrange their own shipping. Asian buyers speaking to Bloomberg said they were seeking additional information, including whether Iraq would allow the use of its own tankers for extra security.
Transit of vessels through Hormuz has not only been hampered by Iranian threats, but by massive increases in maritime insurance premiums, as well as outright cancellations of insurance policies by western insurers.
Bloomberg notes that the number of vessels transiting through Hormuz has increased over the past week but remains at a “trickle” compared to before the war.
On 18 March, Baghdad reached a deal with leaders of the Iraqi Kurdistan region to resume oil exports via pipeline to Turkiye, though the volume the pipeline can hold is too small to make up for the disruptions of exports from Basra through Hormuz.
Roughly 300,000 bpd are now exported via the pipeline in the Kurdistan Region through Turkiye’s Ceyhan port.
This may aid Israel’s oil security, as Tel Aviv receives much of its oil from Azerbaijan, which ships to Ceyhan via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. From there, Israel can import crude via oil tankers transiting to Haifa on the Mediterranean Sea.
Under fire, Moscow and Tehran close ranks
US–Israeli escalation is accelerating, rather than weakening, the Russia–Iran axis, reshaping the Caspian into a contested strategic corridor.
By Hazal Yalin | The Cradle | April 6, 2026
Hours after the US and Israel – increasingly referred to in some circles as the “Epstein coalition” – attacked Iran on 28 February, Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a sharply worded response, describing the assault as “a deliberate, premeditated, and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state, in direct violation of the fundamental principles and norms of international law.”
When interpreting diplomatic texts in general – and Russia’s statements in particular, given its near-obsessive adherence to traditional diplomacy – the importance of terminology is often overlooked. The concept of “aggression” is not an ordinary one; it signifies a violation of the very spirit of the UN Charter, especially Article 2(4).
A firm response to aggression
Just as significant as its use is its absence elsewhere. Aside from Russia, North Korea, and Cuba, no other state initially used the term “aggression” in condemning the attack—not even China, which only adopted the wording after 2 March.
This framing has been consistent across Russian statements and in President Vladimir Putin’s diplomatic readouts. At the same time, Moscow has walked a careful line in its engagement with Persian Gulf monarchies.
While avoiding endorsement of Iranian strikes on US and Israeli-linked targets in the Gulf, Russian officials have repeatedly stressed that the central issue remains US–Israeli aggression—and that criticism of Iran cannot be allowed to obscure this.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov captured this balance on 5 March during the Ambassadorial Roundtable on the Ukraine crisis. While opposing Iranian strikes on Gulf states and questioning their military utility, he warned that “Simply saying that Iran has no right to do anything effectively means openly encouraging the United States and Israel to continue what they are doing.”
In line with this approach, Russia (and China) did not veto the UN Security Council resolution on 11 March condemning Iran. However, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Vasiliy Nebenzya, stated that the resolution was one-sided and “confused cause and effect.”
This stance is largely linked to the UAE’s critical role in facilitating capital movement for Russia under western sanctions.
Israeli irritation and escalation
Such an uncompromising definition of aggression – and the Kremlin’s apparent decision to avoid even routine contact with the Israeli government – was never likely to pass unnoticed in Tel Aviv.
The first notable rupture came via an interview with Israeli army spokesperson Anna Ukolova on Radio RBK. Referencing reports that Israel had hacked Tehran’s traffic cameras to track Iranian officials, she was asked whether similar access existed in Moscow. Her response was striking:
“The elimination of key figures – the leadership of all these proxy groups, including Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei – already demonstrates that we possess quite formidable capabilities, and that no one who seeks to do us harm will go unscathed.”
“Then again, the question is: Who would want to do us harm? I hope that, at this moment, Moscow does not wish Israel ill. I want to believe that.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist government has traditionally adopted a cautious and diplomatic stance in relations with Russia. Even if it had decided to shift toward open hostility, one would expect it to do so through diplomatic, economic, or even, at most, fifth-column activities within Russia. Ukolova’s direct threat – drawing a parallel of “elimination” against the Russian leadership – was unprecedented.
Attack on Bandar Anzali
The remark itself might have been dismissed as bluster were it not followed by something far more consequential: Israel’s reported strike on Iran’s Bandar Anzali Port on the Caspian coast.
The attack was first reported on 18 March by Israel’s Channel 12 as an “unusual attack” carried out 1,300 kilometers from Israeli territory.
Curiously, western media remained silent on the matter for some time. In Russia, Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov initially stated on 20 March that he had no information about it. When asked how Moscow would view a situation where the conflict escalated to engulf the Caspian Sea region, he said: “Russia would view it extremely negatively.”
Later that same day, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova confirmed the strike, warning that the Caspian Sea basin has always been regarded “as a safe zone of peace and cooperation. The aggressors’ reckless and irresponsible actions pose a threat of dragging Caspian states into an armed conflict.”
She also stressed that Bandar Anzali is “an important trade and logistics hub that is actively used in Russian–Iranian trade, including for food deliveries. The strike has affected the economic interests of Russia and the other Caspian states that maintain transport communications with Iran via that port.” Two days later, Peskov noted that the conflict was “showing a tendency to expand its boundaries.”
Because there is a general tendency to follow events through the lens of London or Washington, The story only gained wider traction on 24 March, when the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ran it as a headline: “Israel Hits Russian–Iranian Weapons Smuggling Route in the Caspian Sea.”
Casting a sovereign logistics corridor as “smuggling” recodes the strike as pre-emptive policing rather than escalation. The same report noted that the attack threatened Iran’s food supply and signaled Israel’s capacity to inflict broader civilian hardship – language that treats civilian suffering as a strategic message.
Russia’s public response was strong – and predictably so – for two reasons.
The Caspian legal order
First, the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Unlike other bodies of water, the Caspian falls outside the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Its governance is defined instead by the 2018 Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea, agreed upon by its five littoral states.
Under this framework, all decisions concerning the Caspian must be made jointly by the five littoral states – Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Non-littoral states are prohibited from maintaining a military presence (Article 3/6), and littoral states cannot allow their territory to be used for aggression against one another (3/7). Navigation security is a shared responsibility (3/9).
An attack carried out by a non-littoral actor via the Caspian undermines not only these provisions but the broader stability they are meant to guarantee.
While no explicit breach of Articles 3/6 or 3/7 has been formally identified, the presence of Israeli, US, and British military and intelligence networks – particularly in Azerbaijan – is widely acknowledged. This latent infrastructure adds a further layer of tension.
The strike on Bandar Anzali directly engages Article 3/9. It represents a breach of navigational security by an external actor, placing responsibility on all littoral states. Yet, aside from Russia and Iran, none have responded – an omission that speaks as loudly as any formal position.
Trade routes and strategic depth
The second factor is more straightforward: geography. The Caspian is the primary trade corridor between Russia and Iran, and Bandar Anzali is one of its key nodes.
This trade is not limited to civilian goods. Since the signing of the “comprehensive strategic partnership agreement” on 17 January 2025, it is widely understood that military logistics also transit this route.
The agreement was signed in Moscow on 17 January 2025 by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. It was approved by the Russian State Duma on 8 April 2025, signed by Putin on 21 April 2025, approved by the Iranian parliament on 21 May 2025, endorsed by the Guardian Council on 11 June 2025, and entered into force on 2 October 2025.
As previously noted by The Cradle, the agreement is not a binding mutual defense pact but a statement of strategic intent. Russia’s threshold for military support hinges on legal framing – specifically, whether an action qualifies as “aggression” in terms Moscow recognizes. Iran, for its part, has resisted any arrangement that would allow foreign military use of its territory.
Still, the agreement is far from symbolic. It outlines extensive cooperation in defense, security, and intelligence, and explicitly commits both sides to countering third-party interference across the Caspian, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and West Asia.
Articles 4, 5, and 6 set out broad military and security cooperation frameworks, while Articles 4/1 and 4/2 specifically formalize intelligence exchange, experience-sharing, and operational coordination between the two countries’ security and intelligence services.
Iran, US receive Pakistan-mediated plan for ceasefire then final deal
Al Mayadeen | April 6, 2026
Iran and the United States have received a plan to end hostilities that could come into effect on Monday and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reported, citing a source aware of the proposals.
A framework to end the US-Israeli war on Iran has been put together by Pakistan and exchanged with Tehran and Washington overnight, the source told Reuters, outlining a two-tier approach with an immediate ceasefire followed by a comprehensive agreement.
“All elements need to be agreed today,” the source said, adding the initial understanding would be structured as a memorandum of understanding finalized electronically through Pakistan, the sole communication channel in the talks.
Pakistan as mediator
Axios first reported on Sunday that the United States, Iran, and regional mediators were discussing a potential 45-day ceasefire as part of a two-phase deal that could lead to a permanent end to the war, citing US, Israeli, and regional sources.
The source told Reuters that Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, has been in contact “all night long” with US Vice President JD Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Under the proposal, a ceasefire would take effect immediately, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, with 15 to 20 days to finalize a broader settlement. The deal, tentatively dubbed the “Islamabad Accord”, would include a regional framework for the Strait, with final in-person talks to be held in Islamabad.
Iran rejects opening Hormuz in exchange for ‘temporary ceasefire’
Meanwhile, a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Monday that Iran will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for a “temporary ceasefire”, adding that Tehran views Washington as lacking the readiness for a permanent ceasefire.
The official confirmed Iran had received Pakistan’s proposal for an immediate ceasefire and was reviewing it, adding that Tehran does not accept being pressured to accept deadlines and make a decision.
Two Pakistani sources said Iran has yet to commit despite intensified civilian and military outreach.
“Iran has not responded yet,” one source said, adding that proposals backed by Pakistan, China, and the United States for a temporary ceasefire have drawn no commitment so far.
The final agreement is expected to include Iranian commitments not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief and the release of frozen assets, the source said.
Iran’s approach
For Tehran, the calculus is clear: any agreement must include guarantees that the United States and “Israel” will not use the ceasefire to regroup and launch any attacks in the future. Having been burned by previous negotiations, most notably when Iran engaged in good-faith talks with the US only to see them bomb Iranian territory, Iranian officials are understandably cautious.
As the Monday deadline approaches, the world waits to see whether Tehran will sign onto a deal that, on paper, offers sanctions relief and an end to hostilities, but in practice, offers few assurances that the aggressors will not strike again.
Pakistan mediation not new
Pakistan first publicly signaled its mediation role in the escalating US-Israeli war in late March 2026, when Islamabad offered to help facilitate indirect talks and relay messages between Washington and Tehran. This came as the war involving Iran entered its second month, heightening fears of wider regional instability.
On March 24, 2026, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Pakistan was ready to host talks and promote a diplomatic path toward peace, emphasizing that Islamabad stood “ready and honoured” to support meaningful negotiations.
By March 26, 2026, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed that Pakistan was relaying a 15‑point US proposal to Iranian officials as part of indirect peace efforts. He acknowledged that media speculation had grown but said Islamabad was working discreetly to keep communication lines open.
Pakistan’s role gained broader visibility as it worked with other regional capitals, including Turkiye and Egypt, to prepare the ground for diplomatic engagement and explore avenues to reduce hostilities.
Iran submits demands for end to war as mediators scramble ahead of Trump deadline
The Cradle | April 6, 2026
Iran announced on 6 April that it has conveyed its demands on a potential ceasefire with the US and Israel through intermediaries, as US President Donald Trump’s threat to bomb Iranian energy and water infrastructure looms.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told a news briefing that Tehran has communicated its demands “based on national interests” through regional mediators.
“We have formulated our own set of demands based on our interests and considerations. We are not ashamed to voice our legitimate and logical demands,” he said when asked about the prospect of an end to the war.
Iranian officials have previously stated that Tehran has four main conditions for an agreement: an end to the war and guarantees against future military attacks, compensation for losses during the conflict, recognition of formal control of the Strait of Hormuz, and no limits on its ballistic missile program.
Baghaei stressed that Iranian leaders are committed to continuing the war to defend the country from US-Israeli attacks if necessary.
“Expressing our positions quickly and courageously should not be interpreted as backing down,” he said.
The ministry at the same time expressed doubts about US intentions, stating that “America destroyed the path of diplomacy in months in the worst way, and the world sees that its claims do not match its actions.”
“America gives no value to the security of the region’s countries, and its only obsession is maintaining the existence of the Zionist entity,” the statement added.
The US and Israel launched an unprovoked war on Iran starting on 28 February, including assassinating the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, despite negotiations taking place at the time described by Omani mediators as “positive.”
US and Israeli attacks have so far killed over 1,340 people in Iran, according to Iranian authorities.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry announcement comes amid a report from Axios claiming that the US, Iran, and a group of regional mediators are discussing a potential 45-day ceasefire meant to lead to a permanent end to the war.
The negotiations are crucial, as US President Donald Trump gave a 48-hour deadline for Iranian leaders to reach a deal with him, including opening the Strait of Hormuz, while threatening to bomb Iran’s electricity and water infrastructure if they refuse.
However, Axios described the chances for reaching a deal before Trump’s deadline of Tuesday at 8:00 pm Eastern Time (ET) as “slim.”
“But this last-ditch effort is the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states,” the news outlet wrote.
On Sunday, Trump extended the deadline to Tuesday, telling Axios that he was “deep in negotiations” with Iranian officials.
“There is a good chance, but if they don’t make a deal, I am blowing up everything over there,” he claimed.
Last week, during a televised address to the nation, Trump threatened to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Age.”
If Trump orders deliberate attacks on Iran’s civilian infrastructure, such attacks would constitute war crimes.
They would be reminiscent of the US bombing campaign against Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, which heavily damaged the country’s electricity and water purification facilities. Coupled with economic sanctions over the next decade, the US bombing campaign led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.
If Trump makes good on the threat, Iran has, in turn, threatened to retaliate with attacks against power and water infrastructure in Israel and the Gulf states.
Iran’s shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz to the US and its allies has already struck a blow to Gulf oil production, while the targeting of Gulf desalination facilities could eliminate drinking water supplies for a combined 62 million people.
Two sources speaking with Axios said the plan for a major US-Israeli bombing campaign targeting Iran’s energy facilities is “ready to go,” if no deal is reached by the deadline.
The last-minute diplomatic effort reportedly involves Pakistani, Egyptian, and Turkish mediators, according to the four sources. Messages are reportedly being passed between Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
The sources said the mediators are discussing the terms of a two-phase deal: the first phase would involve a potential 45-day ceasefire, during which a permanent end to the war would be negotiated in the second phase.
According to the sources, a deal to open the Strait of Hormuz and a “solution” for Iran’s highly enriched Uranium, such as removing it from the country or diluting it, would only be reached in the second phase.
The Iranian officials have reportedly insisted to the mediators that they will not agree to a ceasefire similar to that reached in Gaza or Lebanon, where Israel had the ability to carry out additional attacks at any time despite the agreement.
Iran Threatens Retaliatory Strike on Stargate AI Project in UAE
OpenAI, Oracle, NVIDIA, Cisco, and SoftBank stand to lose $30 billion.
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 6, 2026
Iran has threatened to follow through on its threat to strike tech operations in Israel and the Persian Gulf emirates. Brigadier General Ebrahim Zolfaghari, IRGC Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters spokesperson, in a video released on April 5, singled out the AI Stargate data center in the UAE. He threatened “complete and utter annihilation” of the $30 billion facility in Abu Dhabi and extended the threat to other US and Israeli tech targets.
In early March, the IRGC attacked Amazon’s AWS data centers in Bahrain and Dubai, triggering outages. It was the first time a “hyperscale cloud provider” suffered a military attack, notes Tom’s Hardware. Earlier this month, the IRGC claimed to have hit Oracle’s data center in Dubai, although this was denied by Oracle.
“Should the USA proceed with its threats concerning Iran’s power plant facilities the following retaliatory measures shall be promptly enacted,” warned Zolfaghari. “All power plants, energy infrastructure, and information and communications technology of the Zionist regime, and all similar companies within the region that have American shareholders shall face complete and utter annihilation.”
The IRGC video provided a censored Google Maps satellite image of the Stargate facility. “Nothing stays hidden to our sight, though hidden by Google,” the caption reads. A second photo of the site, taken apparently with night vision or a similar technology, reveals the hidden structures redacted by Google.
G42, OpenAI, Oracle, NVIDIA, Cisco, and SoftBank collaborated to establish the UAE Stargate AI project. Group 42 Holding Ltd, commonly known as G42, is an Emirati AI development holding company headquartered in Abu Dhabi. Oracle, NVIDIA, and Cisco were specifically mentioned in a previous IRGC threat.
The initiative is led by Sam Altman of OpenAI, Larry Ellison of Oracle, and Masayoshi Son of SoftBank, and all three are billionaires. OpenAI and Microsoft provide artificial intelligence for the IDF. CEO and founder Sam Altman, during a meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog, said “Israel will play a huge role in AI development.” Ellison, the second richest man in the world, has donated millions to the Friends of the IDF and maintains close ties with the Israeli leadership, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Masayoshi Son’s SoftBank Group invests in Israeli technology, particularly in AI and cybersecurity. Son also invests in Israeli tech startups, including Lemonade, Compass, and WeWork.
The Stargate Project, a five data center, $400 billion investment, is supported by President Trump. The original site is located in Abilene, Texas, with subsequent sites in Lordstown, Ohio, and Milam County, Texas. Trump pushed the project through an AI action plan released in July. The initiative aims to federalize state-level AI regulations and accelerate the development of AI.
The massive 1-gigawatt Stargate UAE data center is the world’s largest AI computing cluster outside of the United States. G42 has a plan to expand the facility to encompass a 10-square-mile site with up to 5 gigawatts of power. Stargate represents the first international deployment of OpenAI infrastructure in West Asia. It is designed to enhance “sovereign” AI capabilities in the Gulf. Due to Stargate’s large scale and enormous energy requirements, it has been compared to the Manhattan Project.
“Safeguarding our models is a continuous commitment and a core pillar of our security posture,” explains Altman’s OpenAI. “Every OpenAI model deployment is governed by a rigorous, continuously evolving security framework that spans information security, governance, and physical infrastructure… We will continue to invest significantly in defense-in-depth measures that address physical security, insider threats, supply chain, and advanced cyber risks.”
Iran has demonstrated “physical security” of enemy infrastructure is no longer realistic. For more than a decade, it has worked to improve the precision and lethality of its ballistic missiles. It is estimated Iran has up to 80,000 Shahed loitering munitions and can produce hundreds daily. If the United States was unable to secure its $1.1 billion ballistic missile tracking system in Qatar, there is little chance it will be able to protect corporate assets in West Asia. If the crown jewel of Stargate AI is taken out in the UAE, it is likely the project will fail, with the loss of $30 billion or more.
The IRGC notice threatens the entire AI buildout in West Asia. “The Gulf states, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia, have aggressively positioned themselves as neutral computing corridors, offering cheap energy, abundant capital, and favorable regulatory environments,” reports Startup Fortune.
Companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have committed tens of billions to the region, betting that its strategic location between Europe, Asia, and Africa makes it an ideal hub for data processing. The IRGC threat challenges that assumption directly, as the Times of India reported, signaling what could be a deliberate shift toward targeting high-value Western technology assets in the Gulf.
Iran remains steadfast in its demands: reparations for damages caused by military action, the withdrawal of US forces from the Persian Gulf, safeguards against future attacks, including attacks against resistance groups, and Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Short of achieving its objectives, Iran will continue to ascend the escalation ladder and target critical infrastructure in Israel and Persian Gulf nations complicit in a disastrous war initiated by Israel and the United States.
US sent ‘a lot’ of arms to Iranian protesters – Trump
RT | April 6, 2026
The US sent “a lot” of weapons to Iranian protesters during unrest in January, President Donald Trump has told Fox News.
The demonstrations, initially driven by economic grievances and marred by violence, were openly incited at the time by Trump, who threatened the Iranian authorities with retaliation for suppressing the unrest. Tehran described the demonstrations as foreign-instigated and accused the US and Israel of fueling the movement, blaming armed provocateurs for deadly clashes.
In a phone interview on Sunday, Trump told reporter Trey Yingst that Washington had carried out a covert effort to arm demonstrators. He claimed the plan had little effect because Kurdish intermediaries allegedly kept the weapons instead of delivering them.
During the early stages of the Iranian protests, former CIA chief Mike Pompeo – who led the ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Iran in Trump’s first administration – praised the rioting, sending his regards to protesters and “every Mossad agent walking beside them.”
In mid-March, the New York Times reported that Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency sought to “galvanize the Iranian opposition” during the early phase of the US-Israeli bombing campaign launched on February 28.
Mossad chief David Barnea reportedly presented a destabilization plan to the Trump administration in January. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cited the agency’s optimism in making the case to Trump for military action.
However, instead of being overthrown by a mass uprising alongside targeted assassination of Iranian leaders, Tehran consolidated its control. A Kurdish offensive in Iran, which Trump had also encouraged, did not materialize either.
The US has a long history of supplying arms to groups aligned with its strategic goals. In the 1980s, the CIA supported jihadist insurgents in Afghanistan fighting Soviet forces. More recently, the Obama administration authorized the Timber Sycamore program in Syria, intended to help ‘moderate rebels’ topple the government in Damascus, which ended up strengthening radical Islamist factions.
Barak Ravid Launders Deception To Allow Trump To Back Off Of His Power Plant Threat – Again
The Dissident | April 6, 2026
The Trump administration is seemingly creating another deception, claiming that Iran wants to give concessions to the United States to yet again back off on its threat to target Iranian power plants and bridges if they do not agree to open the Strait of Hormuz.
For context, Trump took to Truth Social and in an unhinged message wrote , “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH!” later adding that this planned war crime will take place, “Tuesday, 8:00 P.M. Eastern Time!”.
Iran, remained defiant and did not give in to Trump’s threats, with the Iranian IRCG saying , “We have consistently declared that any aggression against civilian targets will be met with extensive responses against enemy interests anywhere in the region” adding that “any repeated attacks on civilian facilities will trigger a second stage of the operation, which will be far more forceful, doubling the losses for the aggressors” stating, “We reiterate: if you commit further acts of aggression against civilian facilities, our responses will be even more crushing”.
Just in time for Trump to back off from his threat against Iran, Axios journalist Barak Ravid-who was previously with Israel’s Unit 8200 and repeatedly launders U.S. and Israeli national security state propaganda and controlled leaks as news report- put out an article claiming that “The U.S., Iran and a group of regional mediators are discussing the terms for a potential 45-day ceasefire that could lead to a permanent end to the war, according to four U.S., Israeli and regional sources with knowledge of the talks.”
According to Ravid’s “report” “this last-ditch effort is the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states” and that “the mediators are discussing with the parties the terms for [a] two-phased deal; the first phase would [be] a potential 45-day ceasefire during which a permanent end to the war would be negotiated.”
But this “report” seems to be yet another deception laundered to allow Trump to back off on his threats – knowing that they did not work in scaring Iran into opening the Strait of Hormuz, and fearing Iran’s retaliatory strikes if Trump follows through.
As even Barak Ravid’s report acknowledges, “the mediators are highly concerned that the Iranian retaliation for a U.S.-Israeli strike on the country’s energy infrastructure would be destructive for Gulf countries’ oil and water facilities.”
Not The First Time
The most conclusive evidence that Ravid’s report was a deception through a controlled leak is that he previously laundered a fake news report to allow Trump to get out of his initial threat against Iranian Nuclear power plants.
On March 21st, Trump first wrote on Truth Social, “If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!”.
Iran did not give in to Trump’s threats, with Iranian military spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaqari saying , “If Iran’s fuel and energy infrastructure is attacked by the enemy, all energy infrastructure, as well as information technology (IT) and water desalination facilities, belonging to the US and the regimes in the region will be targeted pursuant to previous warnings”.
“In case of the slightest attack on the electricity infrastructure of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the entire region will go dark”, Mehr news, an outlet affiliated with Iran’s IRGC, warned, giving a list of targets which included:
Saudi Arabia
– The Village (near Al-Khobar): gas power plant (4,000+ MW)
– Ras Tanura (Sharqiya Province): major oil and gas facility / power infrastructureUnited Arab Emirates
– Barakah (Al Dhafra, Abu Dhabi): nuclear power plant (~5,600 MW)
– Jebel Ali (South Dubai): gas power and desalination complex (multi-GW capacity)
-Mohammed bin Rashid Solar Park (Dubai): large-scale solar power projectQatar
– Ras Laffan (north Qatar): gas power plant (one of the largest in Qatar)
– Umm Al Houl (south of Doha): gas power + desalination plant (multi-GW capacity)Kuwait
– Al-Zour South: oil and gas power plant
-Al-Zour North: combined-cycle power plant (multi-GW capacity)
– Shaqaya Energy Park (west Kuwait): solar and wind renewable energy complex
Realizing that Iran was not going to back down in the face of Trump’s threats and fearing Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel and the Gulf States – and it’s effect on the global economy – Trump came up with an excuse to postpone the strikes, taking again to Truth Social to say :
I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WHICH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
Iran, however denied that the talks were taking place at all, with Iran’s Press TV reporting that, “Iran has received messages through some friendly countries over the past few days regarding the US request for negotiations to end the ongoing war” but that “Iran has responded appropriately and based on the Islamic Republic’s principled positions” which includes demands for “a guarantee that war would never take place again, US military bases are closed in the region, and compensations are paid for damages inflicted on Iranian military and civilian structures.”
This was confirmed by journalists Jeremy Scahill and Murtaza Hussain, who reported that an Iranian official, off the record, confirmed that “there aren’t any negotiations taking place. The Iranian side has simply communicated its conditions to them, and even that has been done indirectly”.
Trump doubled down on this deception, claiming that he was negotiating with a “a top person” in Iran – who he would not name.
Aiding Trump in laundering this deception was none other than Barak Ravid.
In an article for Axios, Ravid claimed, “U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had been in touch with the speaker of the Iranian parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf” and that, “the mediating countries were trying to convene a meeting in Islamabad — with Ghalibaf and other officials representing Tehran, and Witkoff, Kushner and possibly Vice President Vance representing the U.S. — possibly later this week.”
But Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf – Iran’s hardline speaker of parliament publicly rebuked the report, stating, “Iranian people demand complete and remorseful punishment of the aggressors. All Irainan officials stand firmly behind their supreme leader and people until this goal is achieved. No negotiations have been held with the US, and fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped.”
Iranian media noted that this deception was deployed because “Trump backed down from his threats after realizing that the country would target all power plants in West Asia, warning that any threat to Tehran would be met with a proportional and firm response.”
The most likely explanation behind the Axios report is that an increasingly desperate and mentally declining Trump believed sending an unhinged message on Truth Social would this time make Iran back down and open the Strait of Hormuz.
With Iran yet again remaining defiant against U.S. threats, Trump yet again feared Iran’s retaliatory response to American strikes on power plants and tapped Barak Ravid to deploy another deception that would allow him to postpone the threats yet again.
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: Negotiations Collapsed – Return to War
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The US-Iran Scenario That Most Scares Israel
By Ali Haydar | Al-Akhbar | October 9, 2013
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a series of threats toward Iran and its interlocutors in the West, including the US, as serious negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program seem more plausible.
As a possible rapprochement looms between the US and Iran, Netanyahu has attempted to impose impossible Israeli conditions on the negotiators, such as the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, not to mention threatening military force.
Whatever the deal that could materialize between Iran and the West, Israel is going to find itself before an open-ended path. One can foresee three possible scenarios… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Trump’s desperate bombasts amount to war crimes
- Most Israelis oppose Iran ceasefire, reject talks: Poll
- Iran to charge ships from ‘hostile’ nations to cross Hormuz – security chief
- UK, Spain reject Trump’s new scheme to blockade Hormuz Strait
- Russian frigate ‘resurfaces’, chases off NATO pirates days after Kiev ‘sank’ it
- Ukraine Targets Russian Merchant Fleet With NATO Intel Support – Presidential Aide
- Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ makes mockery of UK naval power
- Ukraine plans to attack Russian ships with Norwegian support
- US’s ‘Very Foolish’ Double Blockade of Hormuz Strait Makes Absolutely No Sense: Here’s Why
- China issues rules on countermeasures against foreign states’ unlawful extraterritorial jurisdiction
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli prison authorities are blocking hundreds of solidarity postcards being sent to female Palestinian prisoners
- ‘I wished for death’: Sexual violence in Israel’s prisons is an ‘organized state policy’
- Israeli army shoots, kills 9-year-old girl in her Gaza classroom
- Israel is attacking Lebanon to sabotage the Iran ceasefire, but the media is hiding its true motivation
- Israel’s restriction of aid into Gaza leads to critical shortages in bread, baby formula, and water
- Critical shortages in Gaza, Lebanon in ruins, “piracy” in Iran – Daily Update
- US-Iran ceasefire negotiations make zero progress – Daily Update
- Pro-Israel ‘Thinktanks’ and Individuals who Influence U.S. Foreign Policy
- Mearsheimer reveals how Israel dictates US policies on Iran, Gaza – video
- After killing 350+, Israel still has a “score to settle” with Lebanon before ceasefire – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
Aletho News 