Iran replaces UAE ports with Pakistan corridor to break US blockade
Al Mayadeen | May 3, 2026
Pakistan has officially authorised the transit of goods into Iran through its territory and ports, positioning Karachi, Port Qasim, and Gwadar as key logistical gateways for Iranian trade while Washington’s maritime blockade attempts to strangle the Islamic Republic’s access to global commerce, Tasnim News Agency reported.
Islamabad’s Ministry of Commerce issued the Transit of Goods through Territory of Pakistan Order 2026 on April 25, bringing it into immediate effect. The order, which activates a bilateral road transport agreement signed with Tehran in 2008 but never previously used, opens six overland routes linking Pakistan’s three main ports to two Iranian border crossings, Gabd and Taftan, through Balochistan.
The announcement coincided with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s visit to Islamabad for talks with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. The Gwadar-Gabd corridor, the shortest of the designated routes, reduces travel time to the Iranian border to between two and three hours and is projected to cut transport costs by 45 to 55 percent compared with routing cargo through Karachi, according to Pakistani officials.
The move marks a significant shift away from the UAE ports Iran had long relied upon for regional trade access, most notably Jebel Ali.
Ports with room to grow
Pakistan’s ports bring substantial existing capacity to the arrangement. Karachi and Port Qasim together handle approximately 42 million tonnes of cargo annually, with room to absorb significant additional volume.
Since the war began, Karachi alone handled approximately 75 percent of cargo rerouted toward Pakistan, according to industry data. Gwadar, operated by China Overseas Port Holding Company as the anchor of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), sits roughly 170 kilometres east of Iran’s Chabahar port, making it the most geographically proximate of the three to Iranian territory.
Tasnim framed the new arrangement in terms that extend well beyond immediate wartime logistics. The Pakistan-Iran transit corridor is expected to evolve into a strategic link connecting South Asia with Eurasia through integration with the $60 billion CPEC and China’s broader Belt and Road Initiative, an architecture originally designed to reduce China’s dependence on the Strait of Malacca by shortcutting energy transport routes through Pakistan to Xinjiang.
Blockade tightens, Tehran holds its position
US President Donald Trump announced a maritime blockade on Iran on April 13, with US forces intercepting vessels across Iranian coastal waters. Iranian officials have since warned that its continuation risks undermining ongoing negotiations.
Officials in Tehran have insisted that the blockade is a sign of US weakness, maintaining that Iran retains untapped leverage while highlighting domestic cohesion in the face of mounting external pressure.
A senior Iranian security source told Press TV that ongoing US “maritime piracy and bullying,” carried out under the guise of a blockade, would soon be met with an “unprecedented and tangible military response.”
Iran unveils new control measures over Strait of Hormuz transit
Al Mayadeen | May 2, 2026
Senior Iranian lawmakers have unveiled a proposed plan to regulate maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, introducing new restrictions on certain vessels and a licensing system that would require ships to obtain authorization from Tehran.
Ali Nikzad, Deputy Speaker of Iran’s parliament, detailed that the initiative includes a 12-point framework aimed at managing transit through one of the world’s most critical oil shipping routes. Under the proposal, vessels linked to “Israel” would be barred from passing through the Strait at all times, while ships from “hostile countries” would be denied transit unless they pay unspecified war reparations.
Nikzad added that all other vessels would be required to operate under a newly established legal framework, obtaining official licenses and authorization from Iranian authorities before entering the waterway. He emphasized that the plan would be implemented “in accordance with international law” and with consideration for the rights of neighboring states, while asserting that Iran would not relinquish what it views as its sovereign rights.
The deputy speaker described the proposed administration of the Strait as comparable in significance to Iran’s historic oil nationalization efforts, signaling the strategic importance Tehran places on the initiative.
Control of the Strait of Hormuz seen as public demand in Iran
Further details were provided by Mohammad Reza Rezaei, head of the Iranian Parliament’s Reconstruction Committee, who outlined how revenues generated under the plan would be allocated. He said that 30% of fees collected from passing vessels would be directed toward strengthening military infrastructure, while the remaining 70% would fund economic development projects and public welfare initiatives.
Rezaei also emphasized the political framing of the proposal, stating that managing the Strait of Hormuz is “more important than obtaining nuclear weapons” and describing control over the waterway as a demand of the Iranian public. He reiterated that Iran would not forgo its right to administer and oversee the Strait.
“Exercising control and administration over the Strait of Hormuz is a demand of the Iranian people, and Iran will not relinquish this right,” he stressed.
War escalation and regional impact
Against the backdrop of escalating regional tensions, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz has escalated following a US-Israeli aggression on Iran, triggering a forceful Iranian response.
The United States has intensified its military and maritime aggression through sanctions enforcement, ship seizures, and a broader blockade targeting Iranian ports and vessels, moves widely viewed by Tehran as unlawful and destabilizing.
In response, Iran has exercised its geographic leverage over the strait to control the maritime traffic, prioritizing vessels not linked to the hostile aggression. The standoff has disrupted one of the world’s most critical energy corridors, through which roughly a fifth of global oil and gas supplies pass, fueling volatility in global markets while limited shipping continues under heightened restrictions.
Trump’s Blockade Snatches Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
By Trita Parsi | May 1, 2026
It appears Donald Trump once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by heeding the hawkish counsel of the warmongers at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
As I have argued before, the fragile ceasefire disproportionately favored the United States over Iran: Trump secured his central objective — a swift exit from a costly war — while Iran forfeited its primary source of leverage, namely the inflationary pressure of elevated oil prices. Tehran, by contrast, remained unable to achieve its core objective — meaningful sanctions relief — without entering a difficult diplomatic process with Washington.
The asymmetry was stark: Trump could afford strategic patience, whereas Iran risked squandering the most consequential gains the conflict could have yielded if negotiations faltered or collapsed.
In short, this emerging status quo could have constituted a quiet but decisive victory for Trump. Yes, Iran would retain control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz — but it does so today as well and would do so in almost any scenario. But the status quo would have seen oil prices drop as the Iranians would allow tankers to transit in order to collect fees. And as long as oil prices came down, Trump’s position at home and vis-à-vis Iran would have strengthened.
FDD argued that blockading the Persian Gulf would swiftly cripple the Iranian economy and coerce Tehran into capitulation, allowing Trump to achieve through economic strangulation what he had failed to secure through military force. In short, it was sold to him as a silver bullet. More on that later.
According to this logic, the blockade would “effectively zero out” Iran’s export revenues within days, inflicting losses of nearly $500 million per day. With oil exports halted, Iran’s limited storage capacity would be filled within weeks, forcing the costly and technically damaging shutdown of its oil wells. This, FDD claimed, would dramatically reverse the strategic balance — transforming the Strait of Hormuz from a perceived Iranian asset into a crippling Achilles’ heel, while handing Washington the invaluable advantage of time. Pressure on Iran would escalate sharply while pressure on the United States would rapidly dissipate.
Trump was fully on board. His long-sought subjugation of Iran suddenly appeared tantalizingly within reach. “The blockade is genius,” the president told reporters. “Now, they have to cry uncle; that’s all they have to do. Just say, ‘We give up.’” (Notably, an FDD staffer has reportedly since joined Steve Witkoff’s team.)
Predictably, the opposite occurred. FDD’s confident calculations and tidy logic were, as so often, rooted more in wishful thinking than in hard reality. By its own projections, Iran should have exhausted its storage capacity nearly a week ago. Yet satellite imagery shows Tehran still actively loading oil onto tankers at Kharg Island. While the blockade has undeniably increased economic pressure, there is no sign of the acute storage crisis — or the cascading collapse — FDD confidently promised Trump.
But by targeting Iran’s oil exports, Trump did more than complicate an already fragile diplomatic pathway — he tightened global supply and drove prices upward. In fact, thanks to the blockade, oil prices now exceed the levels seen during the war itself.
Exxon’s CEO told shareholders today that gasoline prices are poised to rise even further, noting that “the market hasn’t seen the full impact of [the Iran conflict] yet.” Meanwhile, Joe Kent, Trump’s former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, cautions that “the blockade is now triggering a global fertilizer shortage that will cause major food security crises and potential famines.”
In short: the desperately needed pressure release Trump secured through the ceasefire has been entirely undone by FDD’s vaunted silver-bullet blockade.
The lure of the silver bullet
There is a pathology in U.S. policy on Iran that transcends administrations and party affiliations: The incessant search for an escalatory silver bullet that brings Iran to its knees, forces it to capitulate, and enables the U.S. to assert its superpower dominance and avoid a compromise with the Islamic Republic.
Across 47 years, the hunt for this fabled silver bullet has echoed on — yet nothing answers back. Countless diplomatic opportunities have been sacrificed, and face-saving exit ramps have been burnt in the process. Yet, the quest continues.
The demand for Iranian capitulation and the enduring faith in elusive silver bullets are deeply intertwined. In January, Trump believed that the mere threat of military force would compel Tehran to surrender. After issuing a series of increasingly explicit warnings that Iran pointedly ignored, he proposed a calibrated strike — one to which Tehran should respond symbolically by targeting an empty American base. Iran refused outright, making clear that any attack would trigger a full-scale war.
Interpreting this defiance as a failure of credibility rather than a rejection of coercion, Trump escalated. He ordered a substantial buildup of military assets in the region, convinced that a critical mass of force would finally deliver the decisive breakthrough — the long-sought silver bullet. It didn’t.
Indeed, Witkoff revealed in an interview that Trump was frustrated that, despite his military threats, Iran had still not “capitulated.”
Clearly, more escalation was needed. The next imagined silver bullet was the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Midway through the war, a GCC official told me that Trump had assured regional leaders the conflict would last no more than 100 hours. Israeli media similarly reported that he told Britain’s Keir Starmer it would be over within three days. The logic was stark: the killing of Khamenei would trigger either the regime’s rapid implosion or its immediate capitulation. It proved to be yet another illusory silver bullet.
Nor did the sweeping bombardment of Iran’s civilian infrastructure deliver the long-sought breakthrough. A Bloomberg analysis found that only 32% of the damaged buildings were linked to military targets — the overwhelming majority were civilian. Even this devastating and indiscriminate campaign failed to produce the decisive outcome its architects had promised.
The blockade-on-the-blockade is merely the latest in a long line of delusional silver bullets that American presidents have chased instead of pursuing far less costly and far more effective diplomacy. I suspect that a stunning number of those silver bullets were cooked up by FDD.
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Geopolitics and Geoeconomics of the Strait of Hormuz
Sputnik – 02.05.2026
The reckless reliance on a blitzkrieg to eliminate Iran’s political and military leadership has left Israel and the United States in an extremely precarious situation, where Tehran’s key trump card in the conflict turned out to be control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Alexander Yakovenko, deputy director of Sputnik’s parent company Rossiya Segodnya and head of the Committee on Global Issues and International Security of the Russian Security Council’s Scientific-Expert Board, has addressed the standoff around the Strait of Hormuz.
Analysts in Israel are already writing of a complete failure, with the prospect of “returning to the issue” sometime in the future. Judging by published reports, everything was planned for June this year, but, as the saying goes, the devil intervened, and Benjamin Netanyahu succumbed to the temptation of a final solution through “regime change.” The scapegoats will be the Mossad division responsible for Iran and the military command responsible for Lebanon.
Donald Trump faces a far more difficult predicament: he has been drawn into a war that is neither his own nor in America’s interest. But the main issue is that the Strait of Hormuz problem now rests squarely on his shoulders. Aside from acceding to all of Iran’s demands, there appear to be no viable options for resolving the blockade – including the resumption of military action, which, according to observers, would have catastrophic consequences for the region, the global economy, and the Trump administration.
In terms of the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East, a complete geopolitical reconfiguration has taken place, including a shift in Turkiye’s role (it was Ankara that effectively killed the plans to bring Iraqi Kurds into the “march on Tehran,” which was intended to bolster the confidence of those whom Israeli intelligence believed were ready to take to the streets of Iranian cities).
The destruction of the region’s extraction and logistics infrastructure prompted the UAE to withdraw from OPEC and OPEC+, which will only intensify Abu Dhabi’s contradictions with Riyadh and accelerate the political realignment of smaller players toward Ankara, Saudi Arabia, or Iran.
Iran’s agency has grown qualitatively: from a pariah state burdened by sanctions, Iran has genuinely become a regional power (in contrast to Netanyahu’s claim that Israel is a regional power and “in some ways even a global one”). Everything now depends on Iran – a fact understood by those at the helm in Tehran, namely, by general consensus, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). And all this is aside from the most pressing issue on the regional agenda: the restoration of extraction and logistics infrastructure, especially given that the damage has a cumulative effect – in other words, “time is money.”
Russia, Pakistan, and China have become even more deeply involved in the affairs of the region, while the United States has demonstrated its inability to provide military protection for its allies. In other words, the role of external players has grown, whereas control over the region had been in American hands since the Baghdad Pact at the beginning of the Cold War. Now it can be said that the entire institutional structure in the region is collapsing – even in the OPEC format – and the region is opening up to an entirely new architecture.
In terms of geoeconomics, Tehran now holds a powerful lever of influence over the global economy and world trade through its control over the Strait of Hormuz. Moreover, this is not only direct control but also the ability to destabilize the situation around the Strait at any point in the future, regardless of any agreements that might be reached regarding its possible reopening as part of a ceasefire. In other words, everyone understands that things will never return to how they were before.
The only thing that matters for the global economy and the international financial system – including the dollar’s linkage to oil trade – is the stability of commercial traffic through the Strait. With no indication of it being reopened, the world is losing between 8 and 15 million barrels of oil and petroleum products per day, as well as up to 20% of global LNG supplies. This also includes a range of industrial goods in the petrochemical sector and derivatives for the agricultural sector. Experts expect a monthly shortfall of 300 million barrels, which amounts to three-quarters of the released strategic reserves of developed countries. Moreover, by early May, both strategic reserves and the advantages of unlocking Russian and Iranian oil, along with the balancing buffer of floating storage, will be nearly exhausted. In short, in every respect, a moment of truth is approaching in a conflict that is difficult to restart now that military action has been paused.
Not only have the United States and Israel handed Iran, on a silver platter, escalation dominance in the conflict – the ability to manage escalation if Washington and Tel Aviv launch another round – but Tehran will also gain additional revenue from selling its 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, which economists estimate at 2–3 billion per month, or 24–36 billion per year. Essentially, even without the unfreezing of Iranian assets in Western countries, Iran will have the resources to rebuild what has been destroyed. To this should be added the fees collected from commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz.
It is also worth noting a direct geopolitical consequence of the Iranian conflict: the discord within the Western alliance along the line of Trump’s America versus liberal-globalist Europe. The recent visit of the British monarch to the United States, during which he called in his address to Congress for the collective “defense of Ukraine” invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (despite the fact that Kiev is not a NATO member), indicates that the lack of allied support for the Iranian adventure is a clear appeal to restore Western unity specifically on an anti-Russian basis – everything else is secondary. In Europe, they no longer hide the fact that they intend to “wait out” Trump, if that is what it takes, but under no circumstances will they agree to a settlement of the Ukrainian conflict.
As such, it is not denied that Ukraine is merely the opening move in yet another war of the West against Russia, and that Western elites are determined to make it a decisive, final confrontation of a civilizational nature. This presents an interesting situation for Russia, which could be resolved one way or another very soon. If Russia participated in two world wars, in which, albeit in different ways, relations between groups of Western countries were contested, and in the Cold War we faced a united West, then now we see a disunited West, weakened militarily and in terms of domestic political development. Its consolidation is only possible at our expense.
Charles III quite opportunely mentioned the burning of the White House by the British in 1814, as it reminds us – and perhaps Washington – of positive moments in our shared history, including Russia’s support for the American Revolution and the Union side in the Civil War. The decision rests with the Americans, but it is curious how the Middle East references an era before the ideologization of international relations in the 20th Century.
Iran Blockade Complications /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Nima Alkhorshid
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 1, 2026
Iran can thrive under blockade, the US and its allies cannot
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | May 1, 2026
While officials of the US Trump administration have repeatedly claimed that their blockade on Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is a winning strategy, on the contrary, Tehran thrives. Instead of taking the temporary ceasefire as an opportunity to find a viable offramp, Washington has used mental gymnastics to sell the public on a non-existent get out of jail free card.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has claimed that Iran’s oil industry is creaking under the pressure of the blockade imposed upon its exports, even making rather outlandish comments about the inevitability of oil infrastructure blowing up as a result. While the US seizure of Iran-linked tankers and vessels does evidently have an impact, it is being enormously overblown by an American administration that is out of viable options.
The way US President Donald Trump and his senior officials are speaking, it would lead you to believe that the “uno reverse card,” as it has been mockingly referred to, was going to lead to the freefall of Tehran’s economy. Yet, the US is still adding more sanctions to Iran, attempting to seize and/or freeze more of its assets, while issuing round-the-clock threats. If the US-imposed blockade, which is failing to block all shipping to and from Iran, were so effective, then these other much lesser measures wouldn’t make sense.
Even the pro-war Zionist think tanks, like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), have been agitating for more aggressive tactics and to escalate. For example, the Washington-based FDD recently published a Policy Brief article entitled ‘Trump Strikes at China’s Iranian Oil Trade, but It’s Not Enough’. In other words, nobody is convinced by Trump’s strategies, not even the biggest fans of the Iran war.
In the realm of reality, the Islamic Republic of Iran has survived under US sanctions for some 47 years now. Although the sanctions have had varying impacts at different phases of the ongoing conflict with the US, Iran has managed to adapt to its predicament. It survived through 8 years of brutal war with its neighbours, after former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein attacked it for the sake of the United States, and has endured the most brutal sanctions campaigns known to man.
What the US has done over the years is make Iran de facto sanctions-immune. This does not mean that they don’t work at all; clearly, the Iranian economy has taken enormous hits, and the civilian population has borne the brunt of the consequences. But the takeaway here is that the Islamic Republic is not going to buckle in a matter of weeks or months, just because the US is interdicting the passage of some Iranian vessels.
As a matter of record, back in 2018, when President Trump first imposed his maximum pressure campaign – following the decision to unilaterally pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal – the daily Iranian oil exports rapidly declined to 350,000 barrels per day. It remained this way for some 33 months, until Tehran managed to recover. The recovery led Iran back to exporting around 2.5 million barrels per day. Amidst the height of the first round of the current war, Iran even managed to break records for oil revenues generated, not seen since the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
In addition to this, the Iranians have established a status quo under which they will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to be transited unless a toll is paid to them first; a move that has not only placed the key global chokepoint under their control, but will inevitably drive enormous profits in the long run.
Iran did not buckle under years of maximum pressure sanctions and the steep decline in their oil exports. Its Gulf neighbours will not fare so well. The damage done to US allies, like the United Arab Emirates (UAE), has already surpassed what is necessary to cause permanent damage. Emirati officials may have even doubled down on their support for the Zionist project and to see Iran destroyed, withdrawing from OPEC, and claiming they will use alternative export routes, but everyone knows those options simply do not exist.
In the end, it was always going to boil down to the US buckling under the weight of an economic fallout, due to the total closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a pressure that only grew worse following Trump’s goofy decision to impose his own blockade.
Therefore, the embarrassing failure of the Trump administration was only ever going to lead to one of two outcomes: a full US backdown or the resumption of war.
Iran consolidates Strait of Hormuz control in post-war power shift, leaving US in dark
Press TV | April 30, 2026
The geopolitical landscape of the Persian Gulf has undergone a seismic shift following the 40-day US-Israeli war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iran emerged from the imposed war not merely intact but strategically ascendant, holding a decisive upper hand over the world’s most critical energy chokepoint.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately one-fifth of global oil trade passes, is no longer a waterway that Washington can threaten, monitor, or control.
It is now firmly under Iranian management, backed by legal codification, military capability, and an unshakable political resolve, as asserted by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei in his Persian Gulf Day statement on Thursday.
The Leader unveiled a comprehensive strategic vision, which seeks to transform Iran’s relationship with the world’s most critical energy chokepoint from defensive vigilance to active and legally codified management.
This is not a tactical victory or a fleeting advantage. It is a fundamental reordering of power in the region, one that leaves the United States guessing about Iran’s next move while every available path before it leads toward a deepening crisis.
The failed cycle: Trump’s return to discredited pressure tactics
The opening gambit of America’s renewed pressure campaign is itself an admission of strategic bankruptcy. Trump’s insistence on escalating economic pressure through the imposition of maritime piracy and naval blockade represents a return to a cycle that has been tested repeatedly – and has failed repeatedly.
The formula is familiar: apply economic strangulation, incite public discontent in Iran, force Tehran to the negotiating table, and extract strategic concessions in exchange for absolutely nothing from the American side.
This cycle has been attempted before. The critical difference this time is that in previous iterations, the military option still carried some credibility. Washington could imply, however vaguely, that if pressure failed, force remained on the table.
That credibility has now been expended. The 40-day war imposed on Iran consumed the military option, and the failure of that aggression has left it hollowed out. It may not have vanished entirely, but it no longer carries the weight or deterrent value it once did.
A second difference is the remarkable resilience of the Iranian people. America’s entire pressure strategy has been built on the assumption that economic hardship would eventually trigger widespread unrest – that the Iranian people would turn against their leadership, creating the conditions for “regime change” or capitulation.
Yet Iranians have demonstrated extraordinary patience, solidarity with the leadership, and unwavering support for the armed forces. This has made America’s investment in fomenting discontent far more difficult than in previous comparable cycles.
A third and perhaps most decisive difference is that America now faces an Iran with relatively full hands. The management and sovereignty imposed by Iran over the Strait of Hormuz have fundamentally altered the balance of leverage.
Iran is no longer merely a sanctioned nation absorbing blows. It has become a sanctioning country capable of imposing costs, controlling access, and reshaping the rules of engagement at the regional and global level.
America’s new priority: Breaking the strait, not Iran
For the United States, the strategic calculus has shifted in revealing ways. The primary objective is no longer dismantling Iran’s nuclear program or forcing a change in its foreign policy. It is far more urgent and immediate: reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
The closure or effective Iranian management of this strategic waterway has dealt a fundamental blow to American prestige and credibility around the world, including among its allies, a wound that Washington cannot afford to leave untreated.
Indeed, breaking the deadlock in the strait may well have taken precedence over – and gained urgency compared to – the question of Iran’s nuclear rights. This inversion of priorities speaks volumes.
America would rather secure passage for its allies’ tankers than resolve the nuclear file. It would rather salvage its wounded so-called “superpower” image than extract concessions on uranium enrichment.
But Iran’s position is unwavering. The decisive, clear, and emphatic declaration of its irreversible decision regarding sovereignty and control over the Strait of Hormuz carries consequences that extend far beyond economics.
There is the economic dimension, certainly – the ability to toll vessels, generate revenue, and pressure adversaries. But there is also the humiliation of American superpower status and the toppling of its global dominance. Every day that Iran exercises effective control over the strait is a day that American credibility erodes further.
Furthermore, the consolidation of Iranian sovereignty over the strait dismantles America’s decades-old strategic roadmap concerning the deployment and geography of its forces in the region.
The United States had built its Persian Gulf presence around the assumption of freedom of navigation – that its navy could come and go as it pleased, that its bases were inviolable, that its dominance was uncontested. That assumption is now dead.
The veto stronger than the Security Council
The vital role of the Strait of Hormuz in the global economy and development cannot be overstated – and it extends far beyond the mere passage of oil through this waterway.
Global supply chains, energy security, and the economic stability of major powers all depend on uninterrupted transit through this narrow chokepoint.
By applying its own rules for the world’s use of the strait, Iran has placed in its hands an extraordinarily powerful tool – perhaps even stronger than the UN Security Council veto.
In practice, this serves as a preamble to the realization of Iran’s strategic objectives in the region and the world. As the Leader of the Islamic Revolution stated in his Persian Gulf Day message, this great achievement will change the order of the region and the world.
The gains from Iran’s implementation of management over the strait are not limited to collecting tolls from passing vessels. While tolls bring considerable material benefits to Iran – revenue that can be reinvested in development – these financial gains are negligible compared to the broader strategic achievements.
The true prize is structural power. The ability to say yes or no. The capacity to reward allies and punish adversaries. The authority to shape the rules by which the global economy accesses one of its most vital arteries.
A new image of Iran: A major power
The consolidation of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz – alongside the imposition of defeat upon the enemy in its objectives during the recent imposed wars – has led to the delineation and unveiling of a new image of Iran to the region and the world.
These days, much confirmation of this can be heard in the comments and analyses from the world’s leading think tanks, experts, politicians, and reputable media outlets worldwide.
For America’s former and current allies, following this great Iranian achievement, the US will no longer carry the halo of a “superpower” or the capacity for bullying and coercion as before. Many current equations and orders – including NATO – will now be subject to change and revision to America’s detriment.
The decisive and crushing defeat of American dominance in the region and the world is far more severe, costly, and far-reaching than a military or political defeat resulting from the third imposed war.
This is not hyperbole. It is a recognition of structural reality. When a superpower attempts to subdue a regional power and fails – when it expends its military option, exhausts its economic leverage, and still cannot achieve its objectives – the message to every other player is clear. The unipolar moment is over. A new order is emerging, and Iran is one of its main architects and protagonists.
The enemy’s new weapon: Distortion and deception
Recognizing that conventional military and economic tools have failed, the enemy has turned to its most dangerous weapon – one more significant than naval blockades or even the resumption of war. That weapon is distortion, deception, and trickery.
The enemy seeks to use its agents inside Iran and its media mouthpieces to influence Iranian minds, causing the value of the Strait of Hormuz to collapse in public opinion under the weight of economic and military pressure.
Signs of this dangerous and insidious influence can be observed these days in certain opinions and media outlets. This mysterious current – in what is certainly a coordinated movement – is pushing for concessions and the use of the Strait of Hormuz card to end American pressures, alongside nuclear capabilities.
These statements align precisely with the enemy’s desire to strip our country of these instruments of power. The logic is perverse but predictable: if the Iranian people can be convinced that the strait is not worth the cost, that the pressure is unbearable, that compromise is preferable to resistance – then the enemy will have achieved through psychological warfare what it could not achieve through military aggression.
This is why vigilance is essential. The battlefield has shifted from the waters of the Persian Gulf to the minds of the Iranian people. And on this battlefield, the stakes are just as high.
Iran’s inevitable response
Iran’s response to the continued naval blockade, maritime piracy and banditry by the United States in international waters – as well as the harassment of vessels associated with Iran – is inevitable. As has been emphasized twice so far in the statements of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, the top military command center, Iran cannot remain indifferent or silent in the face of this lawlessness and maritime piracy.
The American campaign of maritime banditry – the interception of Iranian oil shipments, the seizure of vessels, the intimidation of crews – is itself an act of war. Iran has every right under international law to respond proportionally – and it will respond.
But the form of that response is what keeps Washington guessing. Will Iran escalate gradually or dramatically? Will it target American vessels directly or focus on allied shipping? Will it employ legal mechanisms, economic instruments, or military demonstrations?
The range of options available to Iran is vast, and the deliberate unpredictability of Iranian decision-making leaves the United States in a perpetual state of uncertainty.
This is the new strategic landscape, one in which Iran holds the upper hand, determines the management of the Strait of Hormuz, and keeps Washington guessing about every move.
A pause, not a ceasefire: Washington stalls, Tehran recalibrates
By Peiman Salehi | The Cradle | April 29, 2026
What is currently being described as a “ceasefire” between Iran and the US is, in reality, something far more fragile and far more strategic: a temporary pause in an ongoing war.
The distinction matters. Because while Washington seeks to frame this moment as a diplomatic opening, Tehran increasingly views it as a recalibration of tempo rather than a resolution of conflict.
This is precisely the point articulated by senior Iranian strategist Mohsen Rezaei, who recently argued that what we are witnessing is not a ceasefire, but a “military silence” within an active war.
Negotiations, in this view, are not an alternative to conflict but something that unfolds within it. The current moment aligns with that doctrine. There has been no political settlement, no structural shift in American objectives, and no evidence that the underlying confrontation has been resolved.
Washington’s failed wager
From the outset, the US objective ran deeper than military containment. At its core, the strategy was ideological. Washington calculated that by removing the leadership of the Islamic Republic, it could trigger a transformation within the Iranian political system itself, replacing it with a more compliant, more “rational” actor aligned with western expectations.
That wager has collapsed.
Rather than producing a liberalizing shift, the outcome has been the opposite. Iran’s internal trajectory has not moved toward de-escalation or ideological compromise. If anything, it has reinforced continuity.
The system has demonstrated that it is capable of reproducing itself under pressure, potentially with figures who are even more hardened, more personally affected by the conflict, and less inclined toward accommodation. The expectation that government pressure would translate into ideological change has proven to be a strategic misreading.
The cost equation shifts outward
Iran’s conduct during the war has introduced a new dimension into the equation: the externalization of costs. Tehran’s strategy has not been to avoid damage, but to redistribute it. By targeting regional dynamics and leveraging its geographical position, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has contributed to rising energy prices and broader economic pressures.
The effects have not been confined to the battlefield. They have extended into global markets, impacting fuel prices, transportation costs, and supply chains.
This matters politically in the US.
The timing is critical. US President Donald Trump is approaching the end of a 60-day window in which he can sustain military operations without requiring additional congressional authorization. Within days, that window will close, forcing the administration to seek approval from Congress and the Senate for any continued escalation.
Overlaying this is a convergence of economic and political pressures. Rising energy prices translate directly into domestic dissatisfaction. Higher fuel costs increase transportation expenses, which in turn affect food prices and overall inflation.
At a moment when the US is preparing for major international events, including co-hosting the World Cup, and moving toward midterm congressional elections, the political cost of prolonged instability becomes increasingly difficult to manage.
It is within this context that the current “pause” should be understood. Not as a resolution, but as a temporary adjustment driven by external constraints.
This does not mean that the US is stepping away from confrontation. On the contrary, the logic of pressure remains intact. What appears to be unfolding is a strategic pause designed to create space not necessarily for genuine diplomacy, but for recalibration.
There are clear indications that Washington is attempting to shape internal dynamics within Iran, encouraging segments of the political establishment to view negotiation as a viable path forward.
Araghchi’s calculated circuit
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s recent diplomatic tour spanning Pakistan, Oman, and Russia must be understood within this broader framework.
In Pakistan, the objective appears to have been to reinforce Iran’s negotiating boundaries, ensuring that any engagement remains anchored in core national positions.
In Oman, discussions were likely focused on the management and potential regulation of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical lever in the current confrontation.
And in Russia, the emphasis seems to have been on long-term coordination in the event of renewed escalation.
These visits are often interpreted narrowly as diplomatic outreach tied to negotiations with the US. That reading is incomplete. They also function as preparatory steps for a scenario in which the war resumes. The common thread is not negotiation itself, but readiness for multiple outcomes.
Debate without division
Inside Iran, debate is real. But fragmentation is not.
Differences exist over timing and tactics, not over the nature of the conflict. Decision-making remains centralized. The Supreme National Security Council sets the line.
Some argue that current military positioning opens space for negotiation. Others reject any pause that relieves pressure on Washington and Tel Aviv.
From that view, sustained pressure – especially through energy markets – is the only language the US understands.
Both sides agree on one point. The US will not shift without cost. The disagreement is how to impose it.
Araghchi’s continued references to diplomacy with Trump, even in recent statements, reflect this tension. For some observers, such messaging appears out of sync with the broader trajectory of the conflict. Given the historical record of US policy toward Iran, the expectation that diplomacy alone could produce a durable resolution is viewed with skepticism.
The concern is not that negotiation is inherently flawed, but that it risks being misinterpreted as an endpoint rather than a component of a broader strategy.
This is where the concept of “negotiations within war” becomes critical.
If negotiations are conducted in the absence of pressure, they risk reinforcing existing power imbalances. If they occur within an active confrontation, they can function as instruments of leverage. The current pause, therefore, is not neutral. It has distributional effects. It reduces immediate pressure on external actors while creating incentives for internal debate within Iran.
After the pause
The likelihood of renewed escalation remains high because nothing structural has been resolved and the core US objective – reshaping Iran’s ideological direction – remains firmly in place, alongside the same pressure mechanisms that have defined the conflict from the outset.
What has changed is timing, not intent. Washington is deferring decisions rather than abandoning them, managing the political calendar as much as the battlefield itself.
The period after the US midterm elections will be decisive, when domestic constraints begin to loosen and the incentive to reassert pressure returns with fewer immediate political costs.
The key variable, as it has been from the outset, is cost.
So long as the global economic impact of escalation remains manageable, the threshold for renewed confrontation stays relatively low. Only when the cost – particularly in energy markets and domestic political stability – rises to a level that becomes untenable does genuine deterrence begin to take shape.
This is the unresolved equation at the heart of the conflict.
The failure of the US to achieve its ideological objective extends the war and pushes it onto a different trajectory.
This pause reflects a shift in how the conflict is being managed, with pressure shifted rather than reduced.
And in that sense, the war has not ended. It has only entered a new phase.
US blockade crumbles as Iran turns to overland routes
Press TV – April 30, 2026
As the US intensifies its inhuman sanctions and seeks to stifle Iran’s economy through an illegal naval blockade, Tehran has made strategic adjustments.
Pakistan formally activated a new transit corridor through Iran on Friday, announcing that the inaugural shipment including frozen meat bound for Tashkent, Uzbekistan had been dispatched via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Iranian overland routes.
The country designated six transit routes, including multiple key corridors connecting ports and border points inside Pakistan, forming a wide network for overland trade into Iran in a bid to bypass the maritime trade routes in the Persian Gulf.
The order, which took effect on April 25, aims to ease the logjam at Karachi Port and Port Qasim, where more than 3,000 Iran-bound containers have been stuck due to the ongoing US naval blockade of Iranian ports.
By using the new corridor, officials estimate travel time to the Iranian border will drop from 18 hours to just three hours, which in turn will lower logistics costs for regional traders.
The designated routes create a land bridge between Pakistan’s deep-sea ports and the Iranian border, offering a lifeline for third-country goods that would otherwise be vulnerable to US naval piracy at sea.
For China, the world’s largest oil importer and the destination for an estimated 90 percent of Iran’s crude exports before the current war, the opening of overland alternatives carries acute strategic significance.
With the US Navy enforcing an illegal cordon at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman since April 13, the maritime route that once carried one-fifth of global petroleum has been hijacked by an armed naval raid and subjected to systematic plunder.
The blockade’s primary target has always been as much about Beijing as Tehran. China purchases roughly 13 to 15 percent of its crude oil imports from Iran, volumes that before the war exceeded 1.38 million barrels per day.
Iranian crude, often trans-shipped through Malaysia and other intermediaries, feeds China’s independent “teapot” refineries and helps underpin Beijing’s energy security.
The Trump administration has made no secret of its intent to sever this flow. On April 23, Washington imposed sanctions on Hengli Petrochemical’s Dalian refinery, one of China’s largest independent processors, with 400,000 barrels per day capacity, alongside roughly 40 shipping companies and tankers involved in Iranian oil transport.
In a draconian announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that the US would constrict “the network of vessels, intermediaries and buyers Iran relies on to move its oil to global markets”.
Yet even as the American piracy tightens, the physical blockade is showing gaps. Satellite imagery and tracking data have revealed that several Iranian-flagged vessels under sanctions had sailed out of the Persian Gulf.
While tankers maneuver, Iran’s top diplomat has been building the political architecture for overland alternatives. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi embarked on a high-stakes tour on April 23, travelling twice to Pakistan for consultations and to coordinate the corridor activation before heading to Oman and finally to Russia.
In Islamabad, the discussions reportedly focused on key issues, the details of which are not specified. But the tangible outcome was the corridor itself.
Pakistan’s new transit routes, connecting Gwadar, Karachi and Port Qasim to the border crossings of Gabd and Taftan, provide Iran with immediate access to CPEC’s road and rail infrastructure.
Gwadar was built with Chinese loans and Chinese labor precisely as a hedge against maritime chokepoints. Now, with the Sea of Oman effectively closed, goods moving overland from Iran to Gwadar can connect to Chinese markets via the CPEC network, bypassing the US Navy entirely.
On April 27, Araghchi met with President Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg for talks lasting more than 90 minutes. The Iranian foreign minister described the discussions as covering “all issues, both in bilateral relations and regional issues, as well as the issue of war and aggression by the US and Zionist regimes”.
According to media reports, the Russian president said Moscow “will do what it can to support the interests of Iran and other regional countries and help bring peace to West Asia as soon as possible”.
He added that “not only Russia, but now the whole world is admiring the Iranian people for their resistance against America”.
While Russia and Iran signed framework agreements on the International North-South Transport Corridor years ago, the current crisis has given those plans new urgency.
Araghchi used the St Petersburg meeting to reaffirm that Tehran views its relationship with Moscow as a “strategic partnership” that will continue “with greater strength and breadth”.
For China, Russia’s role is complementary. The INSTC offers a route from Mumbai to Moscow via Iranian rail links, a path that, if fully operationalized, would give Chinese goods another overland alternative to maritime shipping.
More immediately, Russia’s diplomatic cover complicates any US effort to pressure Pakistan or other neighbors into closing their borders to Iranian trade.
The central question for Washington is whether maritime piracy can achieve what missiles and airstrikes failed to deliver. After the US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, it became clear that bombing alone would not bring down the country to its knees.
The blockade represents a shift to economic suffocation aiming to squeeze Iran’s oil revenues. But the strategy carries costs. Global oil prices remain elevated near $120 per barrel, stoking inflationary pressures across the US, Europe and beyond.
More fundamentally, the blockade’s success depends on land routes remaining closed. Pakistan’s activation of the transit corridor, Russia’s support, and China’s quiet integration of Gwadar into its supply chain collectively suggest that Tehran is building an overland escape hatch that the US Navy cannot interdict under any circumstance.
“Whenever there are sanctions or blockades, there will also be workarounds, whether informal channels or other flexible arrangements,” Wang Yiwei, director of Renmin University’s Institute of International Affairs, told The Straits Times. “The key question we should be asking is: can this blockade actually be sustained?”
For now, the answer appears uncertain but with each new overland corridor, Iran is proving impossible to seal and China unlikely to be starved.
Monroe Doctrine 2.0: ‘Great Reset’ for US Imperialism?
Sputnik – 29.04.2026
“The United States is a declining power worldwide. It needs to reassert its powers,” Brazilian economics and international affairs scholar Vinicius Vieira told Sputnik, commenting on recently approved Monroe Doctrine 2.0 strategy and the Senate’s refusal to block the president’s power to invade Cuba.
For Washington, establishing greater control over Latin America, especially Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America, may seem like an opportunity to start afresh in reasserting its great power status, Dr. Vieira says.
Regime change in Cuba, for example, would not mean independence or democratization for the island nation, “but a return to the status prior to the Cuban Revolution – a protectorate de facto, US territory de facto.”
The problem is, the neighborhood is not what it was 150-200 years ago. Washington’s neighbors “want a relationship based on equal respect and mutual recognition,” and controlling South America may prove “too ambitious” entirely, given linkages they’ve established with other members of the Global South.
What’s more, “the costs for the US to implement this type of policy are quite high…because it depends on coercion, on sticks, no carrots at all,” Vieira stressed. Speaking of carrots, the US has “lost leverage” in this domain vis-à-vis China and its development projects, according to the scholar.
Ultimately, Monroe 2.0 could prove “too costly,” and “rather than bringing the United States to its golden days of hegemony…may just accelerate its decline because of its very high costs in terms of money and reputation,” Vieira summed up.
China discovers 225 large, medium-sized crude oil, natural gas fields from 2021 to 2025: Ministry of Natural Resources
Global Times | April 29, 2026
China’s Ministry of Natural Resources said on Wednesday that during the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-25) period, 225 large and medium-sized crude oil and natural gas fields were discovered, including 13 oil fields with reserves exceeding 100 million tons and 26 gas fields with reserves exceeding 100 billion cubic meters.
The ministry said that, during period, in collaboration with relevant departments, it made oil and gas the top priority of the new round of strategic mineral exploration breakthroughs, with a cumulative investment of nearly 450 billion yuan ($65.81 billion), and vowed to resolutely ensure that China’s energy supply remains firmly within its own control.
The remarks were made at the regular press briefing held by the ministry, which introduces the achievements of China’s new round of strategic mineral exploration breakthroughs, including the oil and gas resources.
The ministry said the newly proven geological reserves of petroleum and hydrocarbon natural gas rose by 51.7 percent and 44.2 percent, respectively, compared to the last year of the 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-20) period.
Newly proven geological reserves of deep coal-bed methane exceeded 1 trillion cubic meters, surpassing the total cumulative proven reserves of shallow coal-bed methane in history.
In 2025, there reported shale oil proven geological reserves scatter across five major basins and eight oil fields, accounting for 38 percent of the year’s new proven crude oil reserves. Unconventional oil and natural gas exploration has become a new engine driving high-growth increases, according to the ministry.
In 2025, China’s crude oil production hit a record high of 216 million tons. Natural gas output exceeded 260 billion cubic meters, rising by over 10 billion cubic meters annually for nine straight years. Shale oil output topped 8.5 million tons, and shale gas remained above 27 billion cubic meters, providing key support for increasing reserves and production.
Total oil and gas production reached 420 million tons of oil equivalent, making a vital contribution to national energy security, the ministry said.
In the deep-sea sector, the ultra-deep-water gas field, Deep Sea No. 1 was successfully brought into production, positioning China among the world’s leaders in deep-water oil and gas exploration and development. Total offshore oil and gas output surpassed 90 million tons of oil equivalent, representing a major substantive breakthrough in the strategic expansion of exploration from shallow to deep strata and from land to sea.
The significance of the oil and gas exploration breakthroughs achieved during the 14th Five-Year Plan period goes beyond mere numerical growth in reserves and production, Niu Li, an official from the ministry, said.
More importantly, “we have extended our exploration reach into deeper and more challenging frontiers, expanding the space for exploration and development, and firmly placing the initiative for energy security in our own hands,” Niu added.
Moving forward, “we will continue to advance oil and gas exploration and development, consolidate the positive trend of stable oil and increased gas,” and resolutely ensure that China’s energy supply remains firmly within its own control, Niu said.
Featured Video
Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A short history of British torture
ICC | December 2005
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Prolonging US-Iran Conflict Not Meeting Interests of Int’l Community – China’s Wang Yi
- EU bans former Zelensky aide from parliament
- NATO-backed Kosovo separatist ‘responsible for war crimes’
- US destroying international space law
- SCO Calls for Binding Global Deal to Prevent Arms Race in Space
- Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
- ‘40,000 tons of bombs’: Report shows Trump planning ‘largest bomb transfer in modern US history’ to Israel
- Amazon says cloud infrastructure in Bahrain, UAE ‘beyond saving’
- How Europe became an accessory to CIA torture
- Trump says Iran urgently seeks deal, Tehran sets conditions for talks
- If Americans Knew
- Groups urge Americans to support Van Hollen legislation on Israel’s killing of Americans & Palestinians
- Trump administration plans to send 40,000 tons of bombs to Israel: report
- Sanctions Target Iran’s Government, But Kill Hospitalized 23-Year-Old Woman
- An alternative view on the book “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power”
- Ed Sheeran’s band Beoga, other opening acts quit tour after Macklemore was dropped over his pro-Palestinian comments
- The assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler and the various Israeli connections to it
- “We Want That the Whole Land Be Jewish”
- BREAKING: Building collapse in Gaza kills at least 20 as they sleep – Daily Update
- ‘School is Life’: 1.5 Million Palestinian Children Face Fourth Year of Shattered Education
- Pentagon admits Iran war caused ammunition shortages, cost US $33.4bn
- No Tricks Zone
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
Aletho News 