Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Sinopec’s Jiyang shale oil base in Shandong Province produces 2 million tons of crude oil

Global Times | May 25, 2026

A major shale oil base in Jiyang, East China’s Shandong Province, which is operated by Sinopec, has achieved cumulative crude output exceeding 2 million tons, marking a breakthrough in safeguarding national energy security, China Media Group reported on Monday.

Covering 7,300 square kilometers, the base has accelerated production capacity expansion this year. In the first four months of this year, the zone put 10 high-production wells into operation, delivering shale oil output of 14,000 tons, a 15 percent year-on-year increase.

Shale oil, trapped in tight and fragmented rock formations with no natural flow capacity, is widely regarded as one of the world’s most difficult exploration challenges.

Through independent innovation, Chinese researchers have conquered more than 40 key technological bottlenecks. They pioneered a targeted exploration and development theory tailored for continental faulted basins. The breakthroughs have enabled the effective exploitation of 90 percent of previously inaccessible shale oil resources in the region, uncovering three 100 million ton level oil fields.

The Jiyang shale oil demonstration zone has reported proven geological reserves of 327 million tons, with estimated total resources reaching 10.5 billion tons. The massive new reserve is equivalent to discovering a large new oilfield, supporting stable crude output growth and reinforcing China’s energy security.

China boasts abundant shale oil resources, distributed across five major basin areas including the Bohai Bay and Ordos in North China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, as well as eight medium-sized and small basins. The country’s technically recoverable shale oil reserves now rank third worldwide at about 32 billion barrels.

Unlike marine shale oil overseas, China’s shale oil is largely continental, featuring more complex geological conditions and greater development difficulties, said Guo Xusheng, an academician with the Chinese Academy of Engineering.

Driven by continuous technological breakthroughs, China’s total proven shale oil reserves have reached 1.84 billion tons. The country’s annual shale oil output topped 8.5 million tons last year and is expected to surpass 10 million tons soon, demonstrating strong development prospects.

With the orderly construction of national-level shale oil demonstration zones including Jiyang, China has built the world’s largest continental shale oil development system with fully self-controllable core technologies. The industry has achieved a leap from technological breakthroughs to large-scale stable production, emerging as a strategic pillar in safeguarding national energy security.

May 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics | | Comments Off on Sinopec’s Jiyang shale oil base in Shandong Province produces 2 million tons of crude oil

The logic of victory: Iran’s principled terms for end to imposed war define a new strategic reality

Press TV | May 22, 2026

Nearly 40 days of all-out military aggression, shadow warfare, and economic blockade have given way not to Iran’s surrender, but its emergence with a strategic upper hand.

The “Ramadan War” – an unprovoked and illegal military aggression that came amidst Oman-mediated nuclear diplomacy – ended in a way Washington and Tel Aviv never anticipated. Iran did not collapse, its alliances did not fracture and its military deterrent remained intact. And now, as the guns have fallen silent, it is Iran – not the US – that is setting the terms.

Iran’s end-of-war conditions are not maximalist bargaining ploys. Rather, they are the logical, rational, and legally grounded demands of a victor who has proven, on the battlefield and in the diplomatic arena, that aggression against a resilient nation produces only defeat.

Tehran is not asking for charity. It is demanding what is rightfully owed to a nation that has been wrongfully attacked, illegally sanctioned, economically terrorized, and yet emerging stronger, more cohesive, and more confident.

The foundational logic of ending an imposed war

The first and most critical point in Iran’s strategic calculus is remarkably simple: in any war, the side that requests a ceasefire is the side that is losing. Iran did not request a ceasefire; it was the American side. This single fact upends the conventional Western narrative that portrays Iran as an isolated, pressure-cooked “regime” desperate for a deal.

Iran’s logic is rooted in the universal, time-tested rationality of all wars. Wars do not end because both sides grow weary simultaneously. They end when one side realizes that continued fighting will produce worse outcomes than accepting the other side’s terms.

In the 40-day imposed war and its aftermath, the American-Zionist enemy – an alliance of the world’s most advanced militaries, intelligence agencies, and economic powers – failed to achieve its stated objectives. There was no “regime change.” Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains intact. The Axis of Resistance did not collapse. And critically, Iran emerged stronger.

Had America possessed the capacity to defeat Iran militarily, it would have done so. It would not have sought a ceasefire and opened back channels for negotiation.

The very act of seeking an end to war is an admission of strategic failure. Therefore, the enemy has no right to obtain through diplomacy – through the end of war – what it could not obtain through indiscriminate force, cowardly acts of terror, and state-sponsored criminality.

This is a strategic logic and it dictates everything that follows.

The aggressor pays: Restitution, withdrawal, and end of sanctions

Because the US is the aggressor – having initiated an unprovoked war against the Iranian nation through assassinations, sabotage, cyberattacks, and direct military strikes – it must bear the full cost of the cowardly aggression.

Iran’s conditions are therefore not punitive fantasies but standard provisions in any post-war settlement where the aggressor ends up on the losing side.

Iran demands full payment of war damages and compensation for all victims of American and Israeli aggression; return of all Iranian assets and properties illegally blocked or seized; complete withdrawal of US forces from military bases surrounding Iran; termination of the illegal naval blockade that in itself constitutes an act of war; a comprehensive end to aggression on all fronts, including against Iran’s allies in the Axis of Resistance; full and verifiable lifting of all illegal sanctions against Iran, including the revocation of UN Security Council sanction resolutions and a signed end-of-war agreement enshrining these terms.

These demands are not opening bids but the minimum acceptable outcome for Iran. The enemy may negotiate over the sequencing or technical details of implementation, but the substance is non-negotiable. The aggressor pays, withdraws and lifts its illegal economic siege.

Diplomacy as a continuation of war by other means

Iran has already demonstrated its superiority in diplomacy. By forcing the American side to accept its framework for ending the illegal and unprovoked war, Tehran has demonstrated that Washington is the frustrated, failed and isolated party in this war.

The US assembled the most powerful military coalition in modern history, planned for years to overthrow the Islamic Republic or force it into fundamental concessions, and came away with nothing. None of the military objectives came to fruition and everyone acknowledges that.

Any future negotiations after the end of this imposed war will be conducted from a position of Iranian strength. Iranian negotiators will have no need to link those talks to wartime pressures. And make no mistake: Iran will enforce compliance.

Any shortcoming by the enemy in fulfilling its obligations will be met with Iranian responses below the threshold of full-scale war – a domain in which Iran operates with even greater ease and lethality. The enemy has already tested Iran in conventional war and suffered a crushing reputational, military, political, and strategic defeat. It has no appetite for a second round.

Strait of Hormuz – A prize already won by Iran

Perhaps no single issue illustrates Iran’s strategic upper hand more clearly than the Strait of Hormuz. Western analysts habitually frame the strait as a point of vulnerability for Iran, a choke point that Iran threatens to close. This is exactly backward.

Iran’s position is that the Strait of Hormuz is already an Iranian gain from the war. It is a legal, principled, and logical right that is presently in Iran’s hands. Unlike blocked assets or sanctions, which require active enemy reversal control over this strategic waterway located between the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman – requires no new action from Iran. It is a fait accompli.

Iran’s enhanced control over the Strait of Hormuz serves three concrete objectives.

  • Security: Guaranteeing Iran’s security in the Persian Gulf against future American or Persian Gulf Arab aggression.
  • Economic justice: Preventing blackmail by regional governments and securing material rights of the Iranian nation through tolls and transit fees.
  • Strategic deterrence: Creating a new normal in which any future aggression against Iran must account for Tehran’s tightened grip over global energy chokepoints.

The status of the strait after the war is fundamentally different from before the war. Iran will not return to the previous order. That order – in which the US patrolled freely, imposed sanctions, and threatened Iran with impunity – is effectively dead. Iran’s permanent sovereignty over the waterway is not a demand but a reality that the enemy must accept.

Iran is not acting unilaterally or recklessly in this regard. Agreements with neighboring Oman, based on mutual interests, are necessary to consolidate Iran’s control. Iran’s diplomatic apparatus is actively pursuing these agreements.

This is not an act of belligerence but an act of responsible statecraft, embedding Iran’s strategic gain within a framework of regional cooperation.

Finally, the strait carries profound symbolic weight. Iran’s unchallenged sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz represents the heavy penalty and fine that the aggressor must pay for having invaded Iranian territory – directly or by proxy. Every tanker that transits under terms acceptable to Tehran is a reminder that the US miscalculated catastrophically.

And if the enemy ever indulges in the fantasy of another war on Iran, it will now have to factor in Tehran’s expanded maritime and land sovereignty as a permanent, inescapable variable.

The nuclear file – Deferred but not diminished

Western media frequently portrays Iran’s nuclear program as the central point of leverage against Tehran. It is not a point of weakness, but an area of demonstrated Iranian resilience.

Throughout its long history of peaceful nuclear activities, including temporary, voluntary transparency measures, Iran has never abandoned its principles or its legal rights.

International law recognizes Iran’s right to possess the full nuclear fuel cycle. America has no authority to override international organizations and treaties and it is not the world’s nuclear policeman. The US defeat in the recent war has stripped it of any pretense to that role.

Both the US and the Zionist regime tried to force Iran’s nuclear surrender through unprovoked war and bombing campaigns, but catastrophically failed. They will also fail in any future negotiations to strip Iran of its inalienable nuclear rights. Iran’s nuclear decisions – regarding enrichment levels, research, development, and even the scope of its program – are Iran’s own business.

They are not tied to the recent war, from which Iran emerged victorious in preserving its nuclear materials, facilities, and, most critically, its scientific and engineering knowledge.

The bomb question: A clear doctrine, not an ambiguity

Donald Trump and members of his war cabinet, including war secretary Pete Hegseth, repeatedly claim that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is their primary objective. But here again, Iran’s position is clear and has been stated repeatedly: a nuclear bomb has no place in Iran’s defense and security doctrine.

This is not a new or ambiguous position. It is a matter of public record, reinforced by the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei’s fatwa (religious decree) against the development and use of nuclear weapons.

Trump cannot claim victory on an issue where no threat existed. The embattled American president does not get to factor the nuclear bomb myth as his personal achievement.

If, in the future, with changed regional circumstances and potentially a revised fatwa, Iran’s doctrine evolves, that is a matter for another time. But today, in the present, the doctrine has not changed. Iran possesses all the knowledge required to complete the nuclear cycle for peaceful development, and it will continue to exercise its inalienable rights.

The invalidity of Trump’s deadline threats

Throughout the recent war and its aftermath, Trump repeatedly resorted to a worn-out, theatrically bankrupt tactic: the artificial deadline. “Iran must agree by X date, or else.” This gimmick failed at least five times. Each time, the US president backpedaled.

This deadline threat is a psychological warfare technique designed to induce panic, haste, and unforced errors from the Iranian side. Iran has shown that it will not be rushed and it will take all the time necessary to draft a meticulous, robust end-of-war document that closes every loophole and secures national and strategic interests.

The deadline is fundamentally a threat of war. But war has already been tried. War brought the enemy nothing but humiliation, and re-entering a war cannot produce anything different.

The enemy is bluffing with a hand it has already shown and lost. Iran’s diplomatic apparatus must remain vigilant against this trick, but it need not lose sleep over it.

The Bab el-Mandeb incidents – A warning across the sea

Recent explosions and security incidents reported in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and around Socotra Island, including a temporary shutdown of the strait for several hours, have been met with conspicuous silence from the US, the Israeli regime, and Western media outlets.

That silence is not accidental. It is the silence of an enemy that understands it has been outmaneuvered.

These incidents constitute a clear and explicit warning from the broad Axis of Resistance. If the American-Israeli enemy resumes its military adventurism against Iran, the war this time will not remain contained to the Persian Gulf. It will expand to include the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Bab el-Mandeb, another global energy chokepoint, will become an active front.

Even during active negotiations to end the war, the hand of the resistance front is not tied. Iran and its allies have many available options, any of which can make conditions harder for the enemy. The message is unambiguous: military escalation will be met with geographical expansion of the war, not with Iranian retreat.

These security incidents may well be a prelude to the extra-regional translation of the war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, as previously alluded to in warnings from the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC). In other words, the battlefield is no longer limited to Iranian soil, the Persian Gulf, or even West Asia. Iran’s enemies are being served notice that their own vulnerabilities – far from their shores – are well within reach.

American refineries – The cyber dimension

The recent chain of explosions and fire incidents in at least five American refineries and petrochemical complexes across different regions of the United States has also been underreported and underexamined by American authorities. This, too, is no accident.

These incidents demonstrate a strategic evolution that should terrify Iran’s enemies. The world has reached a stage where knowledge based on information technology has grown so advanced that it can replace physical military action in specific geographies.

Cyber capabilities, wielded by unknown actors anywhere in the world, can achieve the same results as armed assault, but without the high costs, missile range limitations, or legal and international liabilities.

Iran’s adversaries have long relied on their ability to project conventional military power globally. The refinery incidents suggest that this advantage is being nullified. An actor with sophisticated cyber capabilities can now impose severe economic costs on the American homeland without the need to fire a single missile or cross any border.

The lesson for the enemy is stark: your critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Your refineries, your grids, your financial systems – all are potential targets in a domain where traditional military superiority offers no protection. If you wage another war on Iran, you will not be safe anywhere.

May 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on The logic of victory: Iran’s principled terms for end to imposed war define a new strategic reality

Are we on the verge of a US-Iran deal?

China is emerging as the silent, indispensable diplomatic power in the region

By Trita Parsi | May 22, 2026

Nothing is confirmed and finalized yet, and the spoilers should not be underestimated, but lots of activity points in the direction of a deal.

A few things stand out:

1. The role of China in the background is essential. Without having its fingerprints on the deal, and by that, avoiding any responsibility if it fails, China is emerging as the silent, indispensable diplomatic power in the region. (While Pakistan’s Asim Munir is traveling to Tehran, the Pakistani Prime Minister will be departing for Beijing shortly)

2. The regional involvement in the mediation is astounding: Pakistan, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi and Oman are all or have all been playing an instrumental role in moving things forward. If a deal is reached, it will have regional buy-in (save from Israel and the UAE) at levels far beyond the JCPOA.

3. Regional diplomats and intel folks have been shuttling in and out of Tehran for weeks now. Qatar’s role, in particular, is noteworthy.

4. Europe’s absence is noticeable but not felt, as its irrelevance is becoming normalized.

5. More ships have been passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Whether these were mainly tankers going to China, and whether China paid a fee, is unclear at this point. But it is noteworthy that the ships are passing through both the Iranian AND the American “blockades.”

6. Though some distance remains to reaching a deal, my own conversation with folks on both sides has left me slightly more optimistic, primarily because of the flexibility I am detecting on the Iranian side regarding the stockpile (despite the Reuters story from yesterday). Ideas that were categorically rejected two weeks ago are now being genuinely considered.

7. If a deal is secured, Trump will face a lot of criticism from the Blob and the pro-Israel crowd in DC, but he will be in a very good position to sell the deal to the American public, whose concerns are very different from those of the Blob…

May 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are we on the verge of a US-Iran deal?

IRGC Navy coordinates safe passage of another 35 ships through Strait of Hormuz

Press TV – May 22, 2026

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has announced that it coordinated the transit of another 35 ships through the Strait of Hormuz in the past 24 hours.

“Over the past 24 hours, 35 ships, including oil tankers, container ships, and other commercial vessels, passed through the Strait of Hormuz, after obtaining permission, [and] with the coordination and security protection of the IRGC Navy,” the Public Relations Office of the IRGC’s Navy said in a statement on Friday.

The passage came on top of 31 vessels—including oil tankers, container ships, and other commercial ships—that passed through the strait in the previous 24 hours, the IRGC Navy announced on Thursday.

The Iranian authority controlling the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf has defined the supervisory management zone of the waterway, announcing on Wednesday that movement through the strategic corridor requires coordination and a permit.

The zone is “the line connecting Mount Mubarak in Iran and southern Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates, on the eastern side of the strait, extending to the line connecting the end of Qeshm Island in Iran and Umm Al Quwain in the United Arab Emirates, on the western side of the strait.”

Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz to its enemies and their allies following the latest US-Israeli aggression against the country.

According to a new Reuters report, the IRGC plays a central role in a new multi-layered transit system that gives preference to ships linked to allies such as China and Russia, while other vessels may require government-to-government arrangements or payments to pass.

The IRGC reviews an affiliation document supplied by a ship owner or operator and during the process they may want to physically inspect the ship, the news agency said.

“The affiliation check is to identify if the vessel has any connection to the US or Israel,” a European shipping source told Reuters.

The IRGC requires ship owners to disclose details including the value of the ship’s cargo, the flag, its origin and destination, the registered owner and manager, and nationalities of the crew, according to documents sent to shipping industry sources by Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority.

The vetting is carried out by Iranian state institutions including the Ports and Maritime Organization, the Ministry of Industry, Mine and Trade, the national shipping organization, and the security overseer of the Supreme National Security Council, according to the report.

Ship owners’ willingness to deal directly with Iran shows the degree to which the strait is under the Islamic Republic’s control, Danny Citrinowicz, a former Israeli intelligence officer who specializes in Iran research and analysis, told Reuters.

“The straits will be blocked or opened up only by the approval of the Iranian government,” said Citrinowicz. “Some will get through because of political alliances, others will have to pay, others will be turned back. This is the new norm.”

Bilateral arrangements for passage include an additional step: Countries contact Iran’s foreign minister to request permission. The minister forwards these to the Supreme National Security Council.

A decision is then made and communicated to the relevant bodies, including the IRGC which then provides the coordinates and instructions needed for safe passage.

Other countries have worked out different arrangements. Among them is India, which imports about 90% of its oil needs and about 50% of its gas, much of which passes through Hormuz.

New Delhi uses its embassy in Tehran to liaise with Iranian authorities, including the IRGC and the Iranian navy, which vets ships India wants to sail out of the Persian Gulf, according to an Indian shipping ministry official cited by Reuters.

“The Indian navy also told us that if the Iranians ask you to stop, then you should stop. If they ask you to move, you should move,” the report said, “And we’ve been following those instructions.”

May 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Comments Off on IRGC Navy coordinates safe passage of another 35 ships through Strait of Hormuz

Iran asserts sovereign rights over Hormuz fiber-optic routes

Al Mayadeen | May 18, 2026

Tehran has signaled that, under Iran’s sovereign rights over its territorial seabed, the country could regulate optical fiber cables crossing the Strait of Hormuz through permits, oversight mechanisms, and transit fees, highlighting the strategic importance of the waterway in global communications and finance, Iran’s Fars News Agency has reported.

Iran could require sovereign permits, impose oversight measures, and levy fees on subsea communications infrastructure passing through the strategic waterway, as per the report.

The report underscores the growing geopolitical importance of undersea digital networks alongside the strait’s longstanding role in global energy transit.

Fiber-optic cables routed through the Strait of Hormuz facilitate more than $10tn in daily financial transactions worldwide, the news agency reported, citing a report by the UK-based Policy Exchange research center. The corridor reportedly serves as a critical link connecting Gulf states, Asia, and Europe through high-capacity telecommunications systems.

Iran’s subsea leverage

The agency further warned that any disruption involving protected dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) cables in the strait could trigger substantial economic fallout, with losses potentially reaching tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per day through direct and indirect impacts on regional and global markets.

The report comes as Iran is reportedly looking to expand its control over the Strait of Hormuz by eyeing the vast network of subsea communication cables running beneath the vital waterway amid the US-Israeli ongoing threats.

Following a successful demonstration of leverage during recent US-Israeli aggression, Iranian officials and state-linked media are now focusing on underwater internet infrastructure that carries major volumes of global digital and financial traffic between Europe, Asia, and the Gulf.

Iranian authorities are discussing plans to impose charges on international companies using submarine internet cables that pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian military spokesperson Ebrahim Zolfaghari stated on X last week, “We will impose fees on internet cables.”

Media outlets said the proposal could require major technology firms, including Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon, to follow Iranian regulations regarding cable operations in the region. Reports also suggested submarine cable operators could face licensing fees, while maintenance and repair activities may be limited to Iranian companies.

Several of the companies referenced have financial interests tied to cable systems operating through the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. However, it remains uncertain whether those specific routes pass directly through Iranian territorial waters.

At the same time, Iranian media have hinted at the possibility of disruptions to subsea cable traffic, raising concerns about the vulnerability of infrastructure responsible for trillions of dollars in global data transmission and international internet connectivity.

Strait of Hormuz gains new strategic importance

Concerns over renewed US-Israeli aggression have intensified following US President Donald Trump’s return from China, with Tehran increasingly emphasizing the strategic tools it possesses beyond conventional military capabilities, CNN reported.

The latest rhetoric highlights the growing geopolitical significance of the Strait of Hormuz not only as a major energy corridor but also as a critical digital passageway. Iran appears intent on converting its geographic position into broader economic and strategic influence.

Subsea communication cables are essential to the modern global economy, carrying most international internet and data traffic. Any major disruption could affect banking operations, military communications, cloud computing systems, AI infrastructure, remote work networks, online gaming platforms, and streaming services worldwide.

Dina Esfandiary, Middle East lead at Bloomberg Economics, said Iran’s messaging is intended to showcase its leverage over the strategic waterway and protect the Islamic Republic from future aggressions.

“It aims to impose such a hefty cost on the global economy that no-one will dare attack Iran again,” she said.

Concerns over potential cable attacks

A number of key intercontinental subsea cables pass through the Strait of Hormuz. According to Mostafa Ahmed, a senior researcher at the UAE-based Habtoor Research Center, international operators have historically avoided Iranian waters because of long-standing security concerns. Instead, many cables are concentrated near the Omani side of the strait.

Still, Alan Mauldin, research director at telecom research company TeleGeography, noted that two systems, Falcon and Gulf Bridge International (GBI), cross Iranian territorial waters.

Although Iranian officials have not directly threatened to damage the cables, Tehran has repeatedly warned Washington’s regional allies that it possesses multiple ways to respond to pressure. Experts say this reflects a broader pattern of asymmetric tactics employed by the Islamic Republic.

Ahmed warned that Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), equipped with combat divers, mini-submarines, and underwater drones, could pose a threat to underwater communications infrastructure. He said a major strike on subsea systems could trigger a “digital catastrophe” affecting multiple regions simultaneously.

Global economic risks

Countries along the Gulf could experience severe internet disruptions in the event of cable damage, potentially affecting banking systems and critical oil and gas exports. Ahmed also noted that India could face significant interruptions to internet traffic, placing billions of dollars in outsourcing services at risk.

Because the Strait of Hormuz serves as a major digital corridor connecting Asian hubs such as Singapore with European cable landing stations, disruptions could also slow financial trading and international transactions between Europe and Asia. Some areas in East Africa could even experience internet outages.

Experts further warned that similar tactics in the Red Sea by the Yemeni Armed Forces could magnify the threat.

In 2024, three subsea cables were damaged after a vessel hit by Yemen’s resistance movement dragged its anchor across the seabed while sinking. According to Hong Kong-based HGC Global Communications, the incident disrupted nearly 25% of internet traffic in the surrounding region.

Despite these risks, TeleGeography said cables running through the Strait of Hormuz represented “less than 1% of global international bandwidth as of 2025.”

Undersea cable warfare has deep roots

The strategic importance of underwater communication lines dates back to the 19th century. The first transatlantic telegram was transmitted in 1858, carrying a 98-word message from Britain’s Queen Victoria to US President James Buchanan that took more than 16 hours to arrive.

Today, modern submarine fiber-optic cables can transmit enormous amounts of information at extraordinary speeds. According to the International Cable Protection Committee, a single optical fiber can carry data equivalent to around 150 million simultaneous phone calls.

The targeting of undersea communication infrastructure is also not new. During World War I, Britain cut Germany’s key telegraph cables in one of the conflict’s earliest moves, isolating German military communications.

While most modern cable failures cause limited disruption because traffic can be rerouted through alternative networks, experts caution that a large-scale attack today would carry far greater consequences due to the world’s heavy dependence on digital connectivity.

Repair operations could also become more difficult during ongoing regional instability. Maintenance vessels must remain stationary for long periods while fixing damaged cables, making them vulnerable in conflict zones. Mauldin said only one of the five repair ships usually operating in the region currently remains inside the Gulf.

Iran looks to the Suez Model

Iranian media outlets have defended the proposal to charge for subsea cables by citing international maritime law, particularly provisions within the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Although Tehran signed but never formally ratified the convention, many legal experts regard parts of it as customary international law. Article 79 of UNCLOS allows coastal states to set conditions for cables and pipelines entering their territorial waters.

Iranian commentators have compared the initiative to Egypt’s management of the Suez Canal, which hosts numerous subsea cables connecting Europe and Asia and generates substantial annual revenue through transit and licensing fees.

“Of course, for existing cables, Iran has to abide by the contract that had been made when the cable was laid,” said Irini Papanicolopulu, a professor of international law at SOAS University of London. “But for new ones, any state, including Iran, can decide if and under what conditions, cables can be laid in its territorial sea.”

Esfandiary said Tehran may have previously understood its strategic leverage over the strait only in theory, but recent developments appear to have reinforced its confidence.

Now, she said, Iran “has discovered the impact.”

May 18, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran asserts sovereign rights over Hormuz fiber-optic routes

Thomas Massie Gives the ‘America First’ Leadership Trump Promised

By Jack Hunter | The Libertarian Institute | May 18, 2026

When Donald Trump ran for president in 2024, he promised, among other things, no more U.S. regime change wars, no more of America sending its citizens’ dollars to fund foreign nations, and that he and Elon Musk would drastically cut federal departments and overall spending, finally taking a hatchet to the country’s mounting debt.

In other words, the opposite of the last Republican president, George W. Bush.

It is 2026, the United States is stuck in a seemingly endless regime change war in Iran, America continues to funnel money to nations around the world (particularly Ukraine and Israel), Musk is long gone and any promises of spending cuts through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are but a distant memory.

At this juncture, President Trump’s goal seems to be to become more George W. than George W.

Then there’s Thomas Massie, the libertarian-leaning Republican U.S. congressman from Kentucky’s 4th district, who was an avid supporter of Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012.

Long before Trump officially entered the political fray, Massie supported Dr. Paul, in part, because he promised no more endless wars, an end to foreign aid, and because he was a serious fiscal conservative.

When Trump also promised these things, Massie lent his support at various intervals and gave his full endorsement in 2024. Massie also still votes according to these principles in Congress. If those votes run against any part of Trump’s agenda, and they have—part of Trump’s early ire against Massie was his opposition to the president’s big spending “Big Beautiful Bill” last year—Massie still votes against war and foreign aid and for fiscal responsibility.

Massie has refused to change throughout. This has made Trump and people who blindly support him mad.

President Trump and his allies apparently now expect Massie to support U.S. regime change wars, to support foreign aid, and to put up with financial recklessness from Republicans. They are so angry that he won’t go along with their complete betrayal of what Trump originally campaigned on that the president, leftwing Zionist billionaires and Israeli lobbying group AIPAC have poured a historic amount of money into Massie’s primary opponent ahead of tomorrow’s election.

Team Trump insists that Massie needs to betray his principles just like they have. They are absolutely outraged that he won’t do it.

If you think this sounds completely insane, you would be correct. Only someone with their head so far up Trump’s backend could not be able to see the complete lunacy of how Team Trump now views Massie and his primary race.

There’s a lot of those, unfortunately.

What is fortunate, however, is there are also powerful conservative voices who can still discern reality.

Tucker Carlson is chief among them. Before interviewing Massie on his popular podcast earlier this month, Carlson said in his opening monologue, “Thomas Massie is, in his district, and probably nationally, but certainly we know for a fact in his district, the most popular person.”

He continued:

“Thomas Massie has made good on the promises that Donald Trump made to the nation. Thomas Massie is a better standard bearer for Trumpism, for the ‘America First’ ideology that Donald Trump ran on three times, than Donald Trump is.”

Carlson went even further about Massie’s overall character. “He is, in short, the American they told us we should aspire to be. He is the man you want your son to be.”

That’s high praise.

Another Massie fan is Dr. Ron Paul, who was exiting Congress when the Kentucky Republican was elected in 2012. Paul has said of Massie:

“I met Thomas before he came to Congress and was sworn in before his class was actually sworn in. But I was leaving Congress a few weeks later. So we actually crossed paths so we could say we served in Congress together.”

Paul would add, “I knew he was very dedicated to the cause of liberty. I was anxious to help him. And I think he has proved his case for being a defender of liberty and the Constitution.”

The same Thomas Massie who supported Ron Paul’s presidential runs and who now votes according to those libertarian principles is the same in his beliefs now as he has been throughout his entire political journey. For a time, Trump claimed to believe in these things too, but now clearly doesn’t. As Carlson notes, in the three times he ran for president, Trump promised an “America First” agenda and now, today, prioritizes the state of Israel and other foreign interests over those of the country he was elected to lead.

Which indeed makes Massie “a better standard bearer for Trumpism,” or at least what Trump advertised himself as originally, than Trump himself.

This is barely even debatable. It is almost perfectly clear to anyone not completely blinded by mind-numbingly dumb partisanship.

Again, what Donald Trump and his supporters now truly need from Thomas Massie is for him to betray those principles too. To join them in putting America second or third or worse.

But he won’t. And thank God for that.

May 18, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Thomas Massie Gives the ‘America First’ Leadership Trump Promised

US to Spend Over $740Bln for 7,800 Space Interceptors in Golden Dome System

Sputnik – 18.05.2026

The US would need to deploy 7,800 satellites costing $743 billion over 20 years to intercept a limited raid of 10 simultaneous missiles as part of a space-based layer of the proposed Golden Dome system, Sputnik found based on analysis of the system by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The space-based interceptor layer represents the most expensive component of the Golden Dome system that CBO estimates would cost $1.2 trillion to develop, deploy, and operate for two decades. This space layer alone accounts for 60% of the total expenditure and 70% of the $1 trillion in acquisition costs. This total estimate significantly exceeds the $185 billion figure cited by the director of the Office of Golden Dome for America for the system’s objective architecture over the next decade.

Maintaining this coverage creates a significant financial burden due to atmospheric drag at altitudes between 300 and 500 kilometers. This drag causes orbits to decay, limiting the service life of each satellite to roughly five years. To maintain a constant presence of 7,800 satellites, the US would need to launch approximately 1,600 replacement satellites annually, totaling roughly 30,000 launches over 20 years. Despite assuming future launch costs of $500 per kilogram facilitated by next-generation heavy-lift rockets, the average cost per satellite remains $22 million.

According to the report, the massive size of the constellation is required because the satellites are designed to engage missiles during the boost phase, the brief window of three to five minutes while a missile’s rocket motor is still burning. Because satellites in low-Earth orbit move in bands and cannot remain fixed over specific launch sites, thousands of units are necessary to ensure that enough interceptors are always positioned close enough to a potential launch to reach the target before the boost phase ends.

Beyond the space-based layer, the remaining costs of the Golden Dome system include a combination of surface-based defenses and tracking infrastructure. CBO estimates that 35 regional sectors would cost $187 billion over 20 years to provide terminal defense against cruise and hypersonic missiles, while three upper wide-area surface sites and four lower wide-area surface sites would add $46 billion and $29 billion, respectively. Additionally, a separate satellite constellation for tracking targets would cost $90 billion over two decades, with another $92 billion allocated for general research, development, and system integration.

May 18, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Comments Off on US to Spend Over $740Bln for 7,800 Space Interceptors in Golden Dome System

UAE fuelling African conflicts while evading accountability, SWP finds

Al Mayadeen | May 17, 2026

A newly published report by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) has delivered a critical assessment of the United Arab Emirates’ role in African conflicts, describing Abu Dhabi as a systematic spoiler that arms proxy forces, manipulates diplomatic processes, and bears significant responsibility for some of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, all while facing virtually no political consequences from its Western partners.

The report, authored by researchers at one of Europe’s most influential foreign and security policy think tanks, which directly advises the German government and Bundestag, calls on Berlin and its European partners to fundamentally reassess their relationship with the UAE.

Sudan: The clearest case

The report presents Sudan as the most devastating example of Emirati interference. The UAE is identified as the most important military, logistical, and financial backer of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the paramilitary group whose war against the Sudanese Armed Forces has produced what the UN reports as the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with 33.7 million people dependent on aid, over 15 million displaced, and widespread extreme hunger.

The RSF’s conduct has been particularly brutal. The report details targeted violence against non-Arab minorities, including sexual violence, mass killings, attacks on medical facilities, and hostage-taking, primarily directed at groups such as the Masalit and Zaghawa.

When the RSF captured El-Fasher in North Darfur in October 2025, a UN fact-finding mission described its actions against the civilian population as bearing the hallmarks of genocide.

Emirati support for the RSF continued even after Iranian strikes on the UAE, with numerous cargo flights departing from Emirates airports to Ethiopia, apparently to ferry supplies across the border to RSF positions.

A UN panel of experts documented 458 flights involving heavy transport aircraft from Emirati military airports or the transhipment hub of Bosaso to eastern Libya between October 2024 and the end of 2025, 239 of them bound for Kufra, a key hub for RSF resupply, in likely violation of UN arms embargoes on both Libya and Darfur.

A proxy model built on plausible deniability

The UAE rarely deploys its own forces. Instead, it operates through a carefully constructed network of local proxies, private military contractors, and logistical intermediaries. Beyond the RSF in Sudan, its partners include Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan Arab Armed Forces, the Puntland Maritime Police Force in Somalia, and, in a departure from the pattern, the Ethiopian government during its war against the Tigray people.

The report details how the UAE recruited and deployed hundreds of Colombian mercenaries to Sudan via an Emirati security firm, with the US government noting in 2025 that these fighters had served as infantry, artillery personnel, drone pilots, and even trained children for combat.

Supplies to the RSF have been routed through LAAF-controlled Libya, Chad, Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda, with Abu Dhabi deploying financial leverage to secure cooperation, including a 1.5 billion dollar loan to Chadian President Idriss Déby in 2023.

The UAE also profits from gold smuggling networks in conflict zones, with members of the ruling family reported to have personal ties to both Haftar and RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo.

Why the UAE intervenes

SWP identifies several overlapping motives. Economic interests are central, as state-owned logistics giants DP World and AD Ports Group have port and infrastructure projects across the continent, and military interventions serve to protect access to trade routes and strategic resources.

But economics alone do not explain the pattern. The report points to the UAE’s drive to outcompete Saudi Arabia for regional influence, a rivalry that has only sharpened since Riyadh forced Abu Dhabi out of southern Yemen.

Ideological opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood also shapes policy, with the UAE consistently backing actors who suppress Islamist movements. Personal enrichment through resource networks and ruling family ties to conflict actors adds a further layer.

Diplomatic manipulation

The report scrutinises the UAE’s use of diplomatic engagement as cover, whereby Abu Dhabi participates in international peace processes while simultaneously intensifying support for belligerents.

In September 2025, the UAE joined the Sudan Quad format alongside Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, signing joint commitments to end external support for conflict parties. According to US intelligence reporting, however, the UAE was actively intensifying support for the RSF at the same time.

The UAE also pledged 200 million dollars at a February 2025 humanitarian conference and a further 500 million dollars at a US conference in 2026, while contributing only around 33 million dollars to the UN-coordinated humanitarian plan.

In November 2025, Emirati Minister of State Lana Nusseibeh spent four days meeting with Members of the European Parliament in Brussels. Nusseibeh’s endeavor was successful, as a Parliament resolution on Sudan adopted at the same time made no mention of the UAE’s support for the RSF, following opposition from the European People’s Party to amendments tabled by left-wing parliamentary groups.

The same pattern played out during the Berlin Libya Process in 2019-20, when the UAE pledged to halt arms transfers to Libyan conflict parties but continued them regardless. Transport aircraft flew from the Emirates to eastern Libya on the very day of the Berlin conference in January 2020.

European silence, eroded accountability

The report stresses that Western governments, including Germany, have consistently refused to name the UAE publicly in international forums, despite substantial documented evidence of its role in fuelling conflicts. No UN Security Council member has explicitly raised Emirati support for the RSF in formal meetings, either.

This reluctance, SWP argues, is not incidental but reflects a broader calculation in which trade ties, security cooperation, the UAE’s close relationship with “Israel,” and the strategic goal of preventing Abu Dhabi from drifting further toward China or Russia have consistently outweighed accountability concerns.

The UAE’s open disregard for the UN embargo on Libya from 2014 onward, the report notes, likely encouraged other states to adopt a similar approach, with the same dynamic now being repeated in Sudan.

Five recommendations

SWP outlines five concrete steps for Germany and its European partners:

  • First, Abu Dhabi should be named explicitly in international forums rather than referenced in vague language about “external actors.”
  • Second, EU financial sanctions should be expanded and applied more consistently where Emirati actors have documented embargo violations.
  • Third, German arms export policy toward the UAE requires a fundamental review, given the documented transfer of German-chassis military equipment to conflict zones.
  • Fourth, anti-money-laundering enforcement should be tightened, with greater focus on Emirati financial centres as hubs for conflict economies and sanctions evasion.
  • Fifth, the strategic partnership Germany has maintained with the UAE since 2004 should, at a minimum, be suspended unless Abu Dhabi demonstrably reorients its policy toward de-escalation.

The report concludes that the war on Iran, mounting tensions with Saudi Arabia, and growing reputational vulnerabilities have made the UAE more susceptible to European pressure than at any previous point, and that this window should not go unused.

May 17, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on UAE fuelling African conflicts while evading accountability, SWP finds

Saudi Arabia is pulling Europe toward a “Gulf Helsinki” deal with Iran — because Washington failed

By Tamer Ajrami | MEMO | May 17, 2026

When military power fails to impose “deterrence,” oil becomes politics. And the Strait of Hormuz is now writing Gulf security rules instead of the Pentagon.

With Hormuz still closed and the emergency oil stock releases used to calm markets running down, prices are moving _ no matter how much some people deny it _ toward a new surge. The real problem is not the price as a number. It is the chain reaction: gasoline and diesel, shipping and insurance, raw materials, and then inflation that travels from Asia to the United States. And even if the strait opened tomorrow, the damage would not vanish. Supply chains do not reset overnight, and parts of the oil and petrochemicals flow would take time to recover.

In my previous Middle East Monitor article, I said clearly that Gulf states “have nothing but to talk to Iran now”. That was not idealism or goodwill. It was hard security math: the old formula is eroding. Bases do not protect the way people assumed, and guarantees shrink the moment they face a real test. Today, this is no longer an argument. It is a reality driven by markets before politics.

Trump and China: A visit without a lifeline — and Time is against him

Trump’s attempt to turn to China produced no clear exit. Not because Beijing is powerless, but because it sees the issue in simple terms: open the strait through practical understandings, and negotiate with Iran on realistic terms.

The problem is that Washington still wants a “surrender” wrapped in diplomatic language. Iran sees no reason to give that for free as it holds leverage in a global energy shock.

This is the core of Trump’s trap: he can say whatever he wants, but he cannot cancel economics. Markets do not negotiate. They punish.

That is why countries are now moving on two tracks: a unilateral track to protect their own interests, and a collective track to design a new framework that prevents the next shock. Saudi Arabia is stepping forward to lead the collective track, not because it loves “mediation” as a headline, but because the cost of ongoing chaos has become higher than the cost of a deal.

A New “Helsinki Act” — But without the Human Rights Basket

According to Western reporting, Saudi Arabia is floating something close to a “Gulf Helsinki Act” arrangement with Iran—modeled on the Helsinki process of the mid-1970s during the Cold War. It would not be just a Saudi–Iran deal. It would extend to the Gulf and the European Union, aiming to lock in non-aggression, structured economic normalization, and monitoring and implementation mechanisms.

The original Helsinki process was built around four “baskets”: security and non-aggression; economic cooperation; human rights and self-determination; and follow-up mechanisms. In the Middle East, copying the third basket is unrealistic. The region’s unwritten rule is non-interference. Here, states do not use “human rights” language as a tool to destabilize each other internally. So, the Saudi approach seems to focus on three practical baskets: security and non-aggression, economic cooperation and stable energy flows, and verification/implementation.

It is a practical logic: if you want an agreement that can survive, you do not plant a delayed bomb inside it.

The Hard Question: Can a Deal work without the United States?

Here is the central dilemma. A Gulf–EU–Iran non-aggression arrangement without the United States creates a dangerous gap: the Gulf and Europe commit to non-aggression, Iran commits too, but Washington and Israel still retain the ability to strike Iran. What does the agreement do then? Does it become a nice document that collapses at the first air raid?

On the other hand, bringing Washington into the deal is not easy either. The US is struggling to produce a quick bilateral agreement with Iran to end the crisis, so why would it accept a broader framework that limits its freedom of action?

This opens a third, more sensitive option: Gulf states and Europe “bypass Washington” in practice. That would mean refusing the use of their airspace and territorial waters for any military or intelligence activity against Iran. And maybe refusing to enforce sanctions that destabilize the region and recreate the Hormuz shock. This is not a small move. It would be a strategic shift.

The UAE: A Different Vision — and a Dangerous Ceiling

The Gulf is not unified on strategy. Other reporting suggests Emirati efforts to push a coordinated Gulf military “response” against Iran. The problem is not the idea of response by itself. The problem is the ceiling of objectives.

If the goal is limited deterrence to reduce escalation, that is one thing. But if the goal mirrors Netanyahu and Washington _ regime change, dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, destroying its ballistic capabilities, and reshaping Iran from the inside _ that is a long war. And the Gulf does not have the luxury to absorb its costs.

Most importantly, the idea of “escaping Hormuz” through alternative pipelines is not a real solution. If peace collapses, fields, ports, and energy infrastructure across the region remain within range. And Bab al-Mandab can become another choke point. In the end, the issue is not a pipeline or a port. It is a sustainable peace that prevents the drone and the missile before it “manages” the price.

Whoever Ends the War Ends the Chaos

A way out starts from one point: ending the US–Israeli confrontation with Iran through a realistic understanding; then building a regional framework similar to “Helsinki” that locks in non-aggression, protects economies, and prevents a repeat of the strait crisis.

Saudi Arabia is trying to “hold the story together” because Washington entered, got stuck, and now wants to exit; while the Gulf cannot afford to sit between Iran’s leverage and America’s disorder.

The choice is clearer than ever: either a settlement that closes the door on choke-point warfare, or a longer crisis that bankrupts markets before it bankrupts armies. The Gulf; whether it likes it or not; no longer has the option to “wait”.

May 17, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Saudi Arabia is pulling Europe toward a “Gulf Helsinki” deal with Iran — because Washington failed

Trump’s Failed Mission to China

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | May 15, 2026

The Beijing circus is over and Donald Trump’s talks with Xi Jinping produced nothing more than some pleasing photo ops and some performative diplomacy with no substantive accomplishments.

There was no final communique at the end of Trump’s two days of meetings with Xi Jinping. Instead, we are left to rely on the statements from each government. When you parse the two statements, the two readouts diverge significantly, and the gaps are as informative as the overlaps. When you compare what each side claims was discussed you can see what actually transpired at the summit.

The divergence between the two readouts is stark and strategically deliberate. Here is a precise accounting of what the White House emphasized that China’s Foreign Ministry either omitted entirely or mentioned only in the vaguest terms:

1. The Iran War and Nuclear Weapons — Omitted by China

This is the most consequential gap. The White House readout stated explicitly:

The two sides agreed that the Strait of Hormuz must remain open to support the free flow of energy. President Xi also made clear China’s opposition to the militarization of the Strait and any effort to charge a toll for its use, and he expressed interest in purchasing more American oil to reduce China’s dependence on the Strait in the future. Both countries agreed that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.”PBS

The Chinese readout, by contrast, merely said that “the two sides discussed the Middle East conflict” without offering any further details — no mention of the Strait, no mention of tolls, no mention of Iran’s nuclear program, and no acknowledgment of any agreed position on any of those issues. YouTube

This gap is enormous. The White House is asserting that China agreed Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and opposed Iran’s toll regime. That White House is spinning this as significant Chinese concessions that Beijing clearly did not want attributed to it publicly. However, according to a reliable source with access, Xi firmly rejected Trump’s request that China apply pressure on Iran and help open the Strait of Hormuz.

2. Fentanyl — Omitted by China

The White House readout specifically noted that the two sides discussed “addressing fentanyl precursor flows into the United States” — a longstanding US demand that China reduce the flow of chemical precursors used to manufacture fentanyl. The Chinese readout made no mention of fentanyl whatsoever, which is consistent with Beijing’s longstanding position that it has already done enough on the issue and resists framing it as a bilateral problem. Komo News

3. Agricultural Purchases — Omitted by China

The White House noted that the two presidents discussed “increasing Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural products.” China’s readout spoke only in general terms about trade being “mutually beneficial” and made no specific commitment to agricultural purchases. YouTube

4. Market Access for US Businesses — Framed Very Differently

The White House described the meeting as centered on “expanding market access for American businesses into China and increasing Chinese investment into US industries.” China’s readout framed this entirely differently — as China “opening its door wider” on its own terms, not as a response to US demands for market access.

5. The Business Delegation — Treated Asymmetrically

The White House noted that “leaders from many of the United States’ largest companies joined a portion of the meeting,” treating it as a substantive commercial engagement. The Chinese readout mentioned that Trump “asked each of the business leaders who were traveling with him to present themselves to President Xi” — framing it as a courtesy introduction rather than a substantive business discussion. YouTube

6. Taiwan — The Mirror Image Problem

The most telling asymmetry runs in the opposite direction on Taiwan. The White House readout did not mention Taiwan at all, while China centered its entire readout on Xi’s Taiwan warning. Trump declined to answer a reporter’s question about whether he and Xi had even discussed Taiwan. Rubio told NBC News that the US was “not asking for China’s help with Iran” — a comment that implicitly pushes back on what the White House readout seemed to suggest about Chinese cooperation. The National DeskBreitbart

The Bottom Line

Both sides released statements detailing what Trump and Xi discussed, but they only overlap in limited areas. The statements diverge most sharply on Iran — where the US claims specific Chinese commitments that China refused to acknowledge — and on Taiwan, where China made explicit warnings that the US declined to even mention. NPR

The pattern is diplomatically classic: each side published the readout that serves its domestic political needs and advances its negotiating position. China wanted the world to see Xi issuing stern warnings on Taiwan. Washington wanted the world to see China agreeing that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and opposing Iran’s toll regime. Whether either claimed concession is real — or merely asserted — is precisely what makes the readout divergence so revealing.

The Strategic Framework

Xi opened with a sweeping philosophical framing: “Transformation not seen in a century is accelerating across the globe, and the international situation is fluid and turbulent.” He posed three questions to Trump directly: Can China and the United States overcome the Thucydides Trap and create a new paradigm of major-country relations? Can we meet global challenges together and provide greater stability for the world? Can we build a bright future together for our bilateral relations? Wikipedia

Xi announced the two leaders had “agreed on a new vision of building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability,” defining it precisely: “Constructive strategic stability means positive stability with cooperation as the mainstay, healthy stability with competition within proper limits, constant stability with manageable differences, and lasting stability with expectable peace.” He said this framework “will provide strategic guidance for China-U.S. relations over the next three years and beyond” and stressed: “Building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability is not a slogan. It means actions in the same direction.” Wikipedia

Trade and Economics

Xi stated that “China-U.S. economic and trade ties are mutually beneficial and win-win in nature. Where disagreements and frictions exist, equal-footed consultation is the only right choice.” He said the economic and trade teams had “produced generally balanced and positive outcomes” at preparatory talks the prior day, and that “China will only open its door wider. U.S. businesses are deeply involved in China’s reform and opening up.” Wikipedia

Military and Diplomatic Channels

Xi called on the two sides to “make better use of communication channels in the political and diplomatic and military-to-military fields” and to “expand exchanges and cooperation in areas such as the economy and trade, health, agriculture, tourism, people-to-people ties and law enforcement.” Wikipedia

Taiwan — The Sharpest Language in the Readout

Xi was unambiguous: “The Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-U.S. relations. If it is handled properly, the bilateral relationship will enjoy overall stability. Otherwise, the two countries will have clashes and even conflicts, putting the entire relationship in great jeopardy. ‘Taiwan independence’ and cross-Strait peace are as irreconcilable as fire and water. Safeguarding peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait is the biggest common denominator between China and the U.S. The U.S. side must exercise extra caution in handling the Taiwan question.” Wikipedia

International Issues

The readout notes that the two presidents “exchanged views on major international and regional issues, such as the Middle East situation, the Ukraine crisis, and the Korean Peninsula” — but offered no further detail on any of those topics in the official Chinese text. Wikipedia

APEC and G20

The two presidents agreed to support each other in hosting a successful APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting and G20 Summit this year. Wikipedia

Wang Yi’s Closing Assessment — May 15

Foreign Minister Wang Yi told state media: “This was an important meeting in which the two heads of state engaged in in-depth communication and achieved substantial outcomes,” calling it “a historical meeting.” He particularly touted progress on trade and economic issues. China’s Foreign Ministry also confirmed that President Xi Jinping will visit the United States this fall at the request of President Donald Trump.

As far as Iran is concerned, the Chinese and Russians are working behind the scenes — using Pakistan as a frontman — to erect a new security architecture for the Persian Gulf. The current effort is to convince Saudi Arabia and Qatar to effectively cut military ties with the US and enter into a strategic agreement that will be guaranteed by Russia and China. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar persist with prohibiting the US to use their bases and air space for a new set of attacks against Iran, the US may be compelled to call off planned strikes.

Video interviews

May 16, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Video | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s Failed Mission to China

US’s war of choice on Iran imposed avoidable costs on Americans: FM

Press TV – May 16, 2026

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says the US’s unprovoked aggression towards Iran has burdened ordinary Americans with avoidable economic costs.

“Americans are told that they must absorb rocketing costs of war of choice on Iran,” the top diplomat wrote in a post on X on Saturday.

“Put aside gas price hike and stock market bubble. Real pain begins when US debt and mortgage rates start to jump. Auto loan delinquencies are already at 30+-year high,” he added. “This was all avoidable.”

Together with the Israeli regime, the United States waged its latest bout of unlawful attacks on the Islamic Republic between February 28 and April 7.

The aggression prompted decisive and uncompromising reprisal featuring devastating blows to American and Israeli targets across the region. In addition to causing extensive material damage to the targeted sites, the Islamic Republic shut down the strategic Strait of Hormuz to enemies and their allies, therefore, sending shockwaves throughout global energy markets.

Including reconstruction and replacement costs, the war is so far estimated to have run Washington a cost likely ranging between $40 billion and $50 billion.

Economists, meanwhile, project the overall cost of continued restrictions imposed on the Strait of Hormuz to end up astronomically higher.

Professor Linda Bilmes, a public policy expert at Harvard Kennedy School, recently forecast that the war on Iran could ultimately cost American taxpayers $1 trillion.

On Friday, Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, Iran’s Majlis (Parliament) speaker, warned that the United States’ efforts at sustaining military escalation near the strait could trigger a fresh global financial crisis at a time when Washington’s national debt already stands at a whopping $39 trillion.

May 16, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on US’s war of choice on Iran imposed avoidable costs on Americans: FM

China’s position on Iran, Hormuz remains unchanged

Al Mayadeen | May 15, 2026

China moved on Friday to publicly reaffirm its longstanding position on Iran after speculation and conflicting reports circulated regarding Beijing’s stance during recent regional tensions, with the Chinese Foreign Ministry publishing a full statement outlining its official position.

Asian diplomatic sources told Al Mayadeen that Washington is expected to continue promoting claims that it succeeded in persuading Beijing to pressure Iran, particularly following recent US-China discussions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranian nuclear file.

The sources said that the growing American rhetoric regarding “the Iranian nuclear issue” or claims of an agreement with Beijing on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open “without fees” are merely “attempts at media flooding and covering up the essence of the matter.”

China’s position on Iran clear, unchanged

The sources stressed that China’s position toward Iran “is clear and unchanged,” dismissing reports suggesting a shift in Beijing’s stance as false. They noted that China deliberately refrained from discussing Iran publicly during earlier talks before later issuing a full Foreign Ministry statement outlining its official position in detail.

Beijing continues to oppose the possession of nuclear weapons while simultaneously supporting Iran’s right to the peaceful use of uranium and civilian nuclear technology. China also maintains its longstanding position in favor of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and preventing its militarization, while supporting Iran’s rights as a coastal state bordering the strategic waterway.

The sources added that “China buying oil or gas from the United States is nothing new because China diversifies its energy sources, but no one can replace Iranian oil or Hormuz energy imports, which constitute 45 percent of its energy needs.”

They further noted that China continues to support the creation of a joint regional security structure among Gulf states without outside interference, describing Beijing’s current “calm rhetoric” as an attempt to contain the “arrogance” of US President Donald Trump and his allies while creating conditions for a broader agreement through mutually beneficial economic incentives.

The sources noted that narratives suggesting a major Chinese shift against Iran are either inaccurate, deliberately misleading, or attempts to present recent diplomatic developments in the best possible light for Washington.

Trump, Xi, agree to address each other’s concerns

Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump held extensive discussions on bilateral and global issues and reached a series of new common understandings, China’s Foreign Ministry said Friday, as Beijing called for accelerated diplomacy between the United States and Iran.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said the two leaders agreed to address each other’s concerns and enhance communication and coordination on international and regional affairs, describing the talks as a step toward building a “constructive and stable strategic relationship” between China and the US.

Commenting on ongoing US-Iran negotiations, the Chinese Foreign Ministry stressed that a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire should be achieved “as soon as possible,” adding that a rapid resolution would benefit the United States, Iran, regional countries, and the broader international community.

“The war between Iran and the United States should not have erupted in the first place, and there is no need for it to continue,” the ministry said.

Beijing reiterated its longstanding position that dialogue and negotiations remain the best path forward, warning against military escalation and emphasizing that “a military solution is not the answer.”

“Now that the door to dialogue has been opened, it should not be closed again,” the ministry said, calling for efforts to consolidate momentum toward de-escalation. China also said it would continue working with the international community to provide greater support for peace talks between the US and Iran.

May 15, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on China’s position on Iran, Hormuz remains unchanged

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »