Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Europe’s quiet role in the war on Iran

By Leila Nezirevic | Al Mayadeen | April 8, 2026

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

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

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

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

NATO alignment

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

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

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

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

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

From passivity to complicity

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

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

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

Prashad situates this within a longer historical trajectory:

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

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

Colonial standard

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

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

The comparison with other conflicts is unavoidable.

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

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

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

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

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

Economic blowback and strategic self-harm

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

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

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

He traces this trajectory through successive ruptures:

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

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

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

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

The limits of independence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following a strategy it does not control

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sovereignty in question

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

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

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

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

War beyond the battlefield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sarwar Abbas | Press TV | April 8, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now the Republicans are concerned about the midterm elections.

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

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

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

Sarwar Abbas is a Pakistan-based writer and commentator.

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

Netanyahu unilaterally declares Lebanon outside of ceasefire deal

Al Mayadeen | April 8, 2026

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

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

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

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

Israel bombs ambulance, kills 4

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

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

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

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

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

Direct contradiction of Pakistani mediator

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

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

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

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

Israeli public reacts with fury

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

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

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

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

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

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

Press TV – April 8, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Trita Parsi | April 8, 2026

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

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

Those 10 points are:

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

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

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

4. Removal of all primary sanctions on Iran.

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

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

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

8. Compensation payment to Iran for war damage.

9. Withdrawal of US combat forces from the region.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran declares ‘historic victory’ over US, says enemy forced to accept its proposal

Press TV – April 7, 2026

Iran has declared a “historic and crushing defeat” of the United States and the Israeli regime after 40 days of war, announcing that Washington has been forced to accept a 10-point Iranian proposal that includes a permanent ceasefire, the lifting of all sanctions, and the withdrawal of US combat forces from the region.

In a statement addressed to the “noble, great, and heroic nation of Iran,” the Supreme National Security Council said the enemy had suffered an undeniable defeat and now saw “no way forward but to submit to the will of the great nation of Iran and the honorable Axis of Resistance.”

The announcement comes on Day 40 of the US-Israeli war of aggression on Iran, which began with the assassination of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and top-ranking commanders on February 28.

According to the statement, the United States has agreed to a 10-point proposal that fundamentally commits Washington to:

  • No new aggression against Iran
  • Continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz
  • Acceptance of enrichment
  • Removal of all primary sanctions
  • Removal of all secondary sanctions
  • Termination of all UN Security Council resolutions
  • Termination of all Board of Governors resolutions
  • Payment of compensation to Iran
  • Withdrawal of US combat forces from the region
  • Cessation of war on all fronts, including against the heroic Islamic Resistance of Lebanon

“Iran has achieved a great victory and has forced criminal America to accept its own 10-point proposal,” the statement read.

The statement by the top security body described the past 40 days as one of the “heaviest combined battles in history,” in which Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and occupied Palestine inflicted blows that “the historical memory of the world will never forget.”

“Iran and the Resistance have almost completely destroyed the American military machine in the region,” it stated. “They have inflicted crushing and deep blows on the vast infrastructure and capabilities that the enemy had built and deployed around the region over many years for this war against Iran.”

The statement added that within the occupied territories, Resistance forces had dealt “devastating and crushing blows to the enemy’s forces, infrastructure, facilities, and assets.”

It further stated that the United States understood as early as 10 days into the war that it could not win.

“Not only did none of the enemy’s main objectives materialize, but the enemy realized from about 10 days after the start of the war that it would have no ability to win this war,” the statement said. “For this reason, through various channels and methods, the enemy began efforts to establish contact with Iran and request a ceasefire.”

The top security body further said the enemy had initially imagined a quick military victory, believing Iran’s missile and drone capabilities would be “quickly extinguished,” and noted that the “vile global Zionism” had convinced the “ignorant President of the United States” that the war would finish Iran.

While declaring victory, the top security body also urged continued vigilance.

“We congratulate all the people of Iran on this victory,” the statement read, “and emphasize that until the details of this victory are finalized, there remains a need for the resilience and prudence of officials and the preservation of unity and solidarity among the people of Iran.”

The Iranian announcement came hours after Trump said he had agreed to a two-week suspension of bombing and attacks on Iran, subject to Tehran reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said he would “suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks” — a decision he described as a “double-sided CEASEFIRE.”

Trump said the suspension is “subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz.”

Earlier on Tuesday, he had warned that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran failed to meet his demands, an inflammatory war rhetoric that triggered backlash worldwide.

Many condemned the bluster as genocidal and said it amounts to a horrendous war crime.

Pope Leo XIV called the threat “truly unacceptable,” while US lawmakers decried Trump’s rhetoric as “pure evil,” with many of them calling for the invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.

The Strait of Hormuz, which carries approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil, has been effectively blocked by Iran since the US and Israel launched their unprovoked and illegal war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28.

Iranian officials had categorically stated that the strategic waterway will not be reopened unless its demands are met, which include the permanent cessation of US-Israeli attacks.

In line with the directive of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei and the approval of the Supreme National Security Council, and given Iran and the resistance’s upper hand on the battlefield, the enemy’s inability to carry out its threats despite all its claims, and the official acceptance of all the legitimate demands of the Iranian people, it has been decided that negotiations will be held in Islamabad to finalize the details.

This will take place within a maximum of 15 days, so that the details of Iran’s victory on the battlefield may also be solidified in political negotiations.

The negotiations will begin on Friday in Islamabad. Iran will allocate two weeks for these negotiations and the timeframe may be extended by mutual agreement of the two sides.

The top security body said it is essential that during this period, complete national unity is maintained and victory celebrations continue with strength.

These negotiations, it asserted, are a national negotiation and an extension of the battlefield, so all people and political groups must trust and support this process, which is under the supervision of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution.

“If the enemy’s surrender on the battlefield is transformed into a decisive political achievement in the negotiations, we will celebrate this great historic victory together. Otherwise, we will fight side by side on the battlefield until all the demands of the Iranian people are met,” the statement noted.

“Our hands are on the trigger, and the moment the slightest mistake is made by the enemy, it will be answered with full force.”

April 7, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Iran declares ‘historic victory’ over US, says enemy forced to accept its proposal

Trump Claims Ceasefire, Reopening of Strait of Hormuz Agreement with Iran

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | April 7, 2026

President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that Iran had agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and a two-week truce would begin.

“Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, of Pakistan, and wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double sided CEASEFIRE!” the President posted.

Trump did not specify if Israel was a party to the truce. Iran has not confirmed that it agreed to the ceasefire or to reopen the Strait.

The President explained that the pause in fighting will give time for the two sides to work out a peace deal based on a framework proposed by Iran. “We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated,” he wrote.

A US official previously described the 10-point proposal as Iran’s “maximalist” position. The proposal called for establishing protocols for shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a permanent end to the conflict, war reparations, and the lifting of sanctions.

Trump made the ceasefire announcement just 90 minutes before a deadline he imposed on Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz was set to expire. He vowed to permanently destroy the country of Iran if Tehran did not reopen the strait by 8 PM on Tuesday.

April 7, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Trump Claims Ceasefire, Reopening of Strait of Hormuz Agreement with Iran

Israeli tank fire killed UN peacekeeper in Lebanon, UNIFIL investigation finds

MEMO | April 7, 2026

A projectile that killed a UN peacekeeper in Lebanon last month was fired by an Israeli military tank, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said Tuesday, concluding its investigation into the deadly incident, Anadolu reports.

Based on analysis of the impact site and fragments recovered at the position, UNIFIL said the round was a 120mm tank main armament projectile fired by an Israeli Merkava tank from the east, in the direction of Ett Taibe.

UNIFIL noted that it had provided the Israeli military with the coordinates of all its positions and facilities March 6 and again March 22, weeks before the incident, in an effort to reduce risk to its personnel.

The peacekeeper was killed on the night of March 29 when a projectile struck a UNIFIL position near Adchit Al Qusayr. A second peacekeeper was critically injured in the strike. At the time, UNIFIL said the origin of the projectile was unknown and launched an investigation.

In its initial statement, UNIFIL said deliberate attacks on peacekeepers constituted grave violations of international humanitarian law and UN Security Council Resolution 1701 that ended the 2006 Lebanon War, and could amount to war crimes.

April 7, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on Israeli tank fire killed UN peacekeeper in Lebanon, UNIFIL investigation finds

Israel’s air defenses overwhelmed by cluster-warhead Iranian missiles: Reports

Press TV – April 7, 2026

Iran’s changing tactics in firing missiles toward the Israeli-occupied territories have created a real challenge for the Israeli regime’s missile interceptor systems, according to sources within the regime who say the systems are effectively failing to counter the growing threat of Iranian missiles.

A Tuesday report by IRNA cited analyses published in the Israeli media showing that Iran’s increasing use of missiles equipped with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) has become a major challenge for Israeli air defense systems.

It said Iran is in fact using a “tactical hole” in the structure of Israel’s missile defense by firing ballistic missiles with warheads that carry dozens of smaller sub-munitions.

Sources said that those sub-munitions are dispersed at a high altitude, approximately seven kilometers above ground level, and effectively turning one missile into dozens of missiles with lower explosive power but a much higher chance of passing through modern air defense systems.

Israeli sources say the new method used by Iran places immense pressure on the Israeli regime and has led to much higher consumption of interceptor missiles, particularly those used by the David’s Sling system and other medium-range systems.

The sources say Iran has fired more than 500 ballistic missiles in the past five weeks, a significant number of which were equipped with cluster warheads, including some Khorramshahr missiles that can carry about 80 smaller bombs, covering an area up to a radius of 13 kilometers in comparison to a single warhead that hits a specific point.

To be able to counter the threat of Iranian MIRV missiles, the Israeli regime is forced to use its costly Arrow 3 system as it seeks to hit the missiles before they release their payload. However, the missiles used in Arrow 3 are sourced from the US with an estimated cost of $3 million per unit and an annual supply of only 20 units.

A report last year suggested Israel had used 150 of such missiles in the 12-day war with Iran in June and is already facing an acute shortage of Arrow 3 missiles.

Experts say the Israeli regime has also been unable to come up with a solution to detect Iranian MIRV missiles before sub-munitions are separated from the main missile in the upper atmosphere, leaving air defense operators with no option but to use expensive interceptor missiles to counter relatively cheap bombs.

April 7, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Israel’s air defenses overwhelmed by cluster-warhead Iranian missiles: Reports

Striking Iran’s Infrastructure Would Have Little Military Impact – Report

Sputnik – 07.04.2026

US threats to target Iran’s electricity grid, refineries, and desalination plants would have devastating consequences for civilians while offering little military advantage, even the US-based Atlantic Council acknowledged.

“Striking Iran’s water-related infrastructure will immediately spark a crisis of disease, hunger, and thirst among Iran’s civilian population,” the report said.

The report also warns that targeting Iran’s infrastructure risks destabilizing the entire region. Gulf states, heavily dependent on energy-intensive desalination, could face severe water shortages within days if tensions escalate.

Rather than weakening Iran militarily, such actions could deepen mistrust of the United States and further aggravate the regional conflict.

“Destroying Iran’s civilian energy and water infrastructure would likely only serve to prolong and escalate the conflict,” the authors warn.

Earlier, US President Donald Trump threatened Iran with strikes on its civilian infrastructure in multiple posts on Truth Social.

April 7, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on Striking Iran’s Infrastructure Would Have Little Military Impact – Report

What’s Behind U.S./Israeli Strikes On Iranian Pistachio Factories?

Inside The Role Zionist Billionaires Lynda and Stewart Resnick Have Played In Shaping The Iran War

The Dissident | April 6, 2026

Open source reports have indicated that “The pistachio warehouses of Iranian Pistachio Company near Rafsanjan Airport were targeted by American/Israeli fighter jets in the first week of Farvardin”, “ which has been described as “the heart of Iran’s pistachio industry.”

This strike was likely a gift to Lynne and Stewart Resnick, the Zionist billionaires who own the California-based Wonderful company, the largest producer of pistachios in the world.

Investigative journalist Yasha Levine has documented that Lynne and Stewart Resnick took over the pistachio market after the U.S. embargo on Iran in 1979, noting that, “For as long as anyone can remember, Iran had been the world’s main supplier of pistachios. But Carter’s 1979 embargo on the country effectively cut off Iranian pistachio growers from the American market and created a need for alternative pistachio production, which was virtually nonexistent in the United States.” Adding, “the Resnicks began to snap up thousands of acres from Mobil Oil and Texaco in order to create pistachio and almond orchards. They steadily bought up more and more acreage all through the 1980s for rock-bottom prices because of a long period of drought. By the end of the decade, the Resnicks had amassed enough farmland to rival Oligarch Valley’s biggest and oldest billionaire farmer clans: 100,000 acres—nearly 160 square miles—growing cotton, pistachios, almonds, oranges, lemons and grapefruit. They didn’t just grow the crops, but packaged, processed and distributed them as well.”

In a 2008 interview with the Independent, Stewart Resnick stated his desire to keep up American hostilities with Iran in order to corner the pistachio market.

“Three years ago, with the flourish of a visionary, pistachio king Stewart Resnick, the chief executive of processor Paramount Farms, started paying growers about twice what they were used to getting for their nuts,” the Independent noted, adding:

“How does one create enough demand for the increased supply that’s coming on in the industry?” Mr Resnick asked at a Paramount conference last week in Monterey.

His answer: export them, especially to Europe. Paramount plans to sell 300 million pounds of pistachios around the world over the next five years, with Europe representing nearly a third of that target.

The article added, “Along the way, it will run into its old foe, Iran. The man on Paramount’s front line taking on the challenge is the vice-president of worldwide sales, Mark Masten. ‘We don’t mind stealing share from the Iranians,’ he declared last week.”

As Yasha Levine has documented, Resnick has helped keep American hostilities with Iran going by funding neocon and Zionist think tanks lobbying for a hawkish American policy towards Iran.

“Economic sanctions are what have allowed the Resnicks to create their pistachio empire, which would suffer a severe blow if relations with Iran were ever normalized. Iran’s pistachios are considered to be superior to America’s, so much so that Israelis still buy Iranian pistachios shipped in through Turkey” Levine noted, adding that the “Resnicks did what any smart and ruthless American would do: they made common cause with oil companies, Islamophobes, neocons and Likudniks, and began funneling money to think tanks and political advocacy groups that take a hardline approach with Iran. Economic sanctions, sabotage, vilification—all these things worked in the Resnicks’ interest. Bombing some of Iran’s pistachio fields wouldn’t be so bad, either”.

Levine documented that:

Tax filings from 2008 show that Stewart Resnick and his wife Lynda are on the board of trustees of the highly influential Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank, which was created as an AIPAC spin-off in the ’80s. In the realms of US government mid-east policy and media reporting about the region, the think tank is considered to be one of the most influential in the country. It is also ridiculously hawkish on Iran, calling for heavy sanctions and military strikes against the country. In 2005, the Resnick Foundation gave $20,000 to the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy. Unfortunately, the real amount of money the Resnicks have given to the institute is hard to gauge, as any funds that did not go through their personal foundation would not have to be reported on any of their IRS documents.

Stewart Resnick is also board member of the American Friends of IDC, a not-for-profit foundation that serves as the fundraising arm of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, a think tank with close links to the Israeli intelligence and military establishment. Like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Herzliya is considered to be the most influential think tank in Israel on security matters. American Friends of IDC funneled $10 million to Herzliya in 2006.

Yasha Levine noted in 2018 that , “Stewart and Lynda Resnick are donors and supporters of of some of the most powerful and influential neoconservative organizations in America, including the AIPAC spinoff WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy) where they have been on and off the board for over a decade. WINEP has been extremely hawkish on Iran. One of its executives has openly called on Israel to provoke a war with Iran in order to pull in the United States.”

“Through their family foundation, the Resnicks have also funneled money to the American Jewish Committee, which is one of the most active lobbyists pushing for a sweeping Iran sanctions bill that was eventually signed into law by Obama in 2010,” Levine added.

He also documented in 2024 that the Resnicks, have “given anywhere from $500,000 to $200,000 to the Israeli military every year, with most of it funneled through an outfit called the American Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces”, noting that this is done through a convergence of their loyalty to Israel and their pistachio monopoly “based off of U.S. meddling in the Middle East”.

Levine noted this January :

The Resnicks’ personal Zionist politics and their business politics are very much in alignment. It’s also very circular because American foreign policy created the Resnicks’ business: US meddling in Iran and subsequent economic sanctions created the conditions for the emergence of California’s pistachio industry. Then profits from that industry circulate and cycle right back into this imperial machine that works to basically create a consensus in America that Iran is our greatest enemy. When I first started reporting on the Resnicks back in 2009, there were numerous domestic Jewish lobby groups who were lobbying against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. At the time, the Resnicks were giving a lot of money to those Jewish organizations. Then, over the years, they have donated millions to American Friends of the IDF and sat on the board of the hawkish Middle East policy think tank, Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They are recycling their profits right back into supporting the imperial logic that made their business possible.

While America is losing the war with Iran, the Resnicks seem to be profiting from their investment in the war.

The New York Times reported :

More than a month into the war with Iran, ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is at historically low levels, which has stymied exports from the region.

The potential removal of a major player in the market is good news for farmers in California, who are likely to get higher prices for their pistachios.

“With this war, it’s going to limit what Iran is able to do, able to ship, to customers in Europe and China,” said Adam Orandi, who farms 1,600 acres of pistachio orchards in the San Joaquin Valley. His father imported saplings from Iran in the 1970s.

Given this context, the U.S./Israeli strikes on Iranian pistachio warehouses can be best seen as a gift to Lynne and Stewart Resnick, who have funded the Zionist and Neo-con lobbies behind the war based on a convergence of their Zionist loyalties and desire to corner the pistachio and take out a potential competitor.

April 7, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on What’s Behind U.S./Israeli Strikes On Iranian Pistachio Factories?

Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Military DIVIDED? Iran’s Secret Defense EXPOSED

Dialogue Works | April 6, 2026

An intense discussion on escalating U.S.–Iran tensions highlights internal divisions within the U.S. military and claims of miscalculation in confronting Iran’s long-prepared defense systems. The interview argues Iran’s capabilities remain largely intact, with underground bases and strategic planning shaping its response. It emphasizes regional involvement, warning that Gulf states hosting U.S. forces are deeply entangled. The conversation frames the conflict as potentially catastrophic globally, with risks to energy routes, economies, and civilian infrastructure, while stressing that continued escalation could trigger widespread retaliation and long-term geopolitical consequences.

April 7, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Military DIVIDED? Iran’s Secret Defense EXPOSED

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »