Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

There are No Ceasefires with Israel, Only Opportunities for Later Attacks

By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | April 12, 2026

“The war is not over,” stated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, less than twenty-four hours after a two-week cessation of hostilities with Iran was declared by the US. A clear sign of what is to come, from an emboldened Israeli leadership that has failed to achieve their goals of “total victory” in a “seven-front war” that has been ongoing since October of 2023.

With all the talk about ceasefire agreements to end regional hostilities in the Arab and English media, the Israeli Hebrew media is looking at things quite differently. Instead of an end to a war that the majority of the international community has worked to close, Tel Aviv eyes the next escalation.

In Lebanon, if a ceasefire is reached, the Israeli government will seek to do so in a way that inflicts a major political blow against Hezbollah, after having failed to achieve actual military accomplishments. Almost immediately following US President Donald Trump’s Truth Social post declaring a two-week ceasefire, Israel jumped to use the opportunity it had gained through the ceasefire in order to focus all of its airpower on Lebanon.

The results were truly devastating; around 300 Lebanese civilians were murdered in a series of strikes that lasted only ten minutes, which followed mass strikes across the country, including the targeting of an ambulance. After this, a series of other attacks took place, including a targeted strike which killed 19 Lebanese in Nabatieh, including at least 12 Security Force members.

Meanwhile, the US picked Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and President Joseph Aoun, who have publicly begged their way to direct negotiations with Israel, while their civilians suffer through successive massacres. The way this is all being orchestrated was laid out well by a presenter on Israel’s Channel 13 News, who openly said that the Israelis are trying to orchestrate civil war inside Lebanon, using the government to order a crackdown on Hezbollah that will trigger it.

There are also Lebanese Forces militiamen who are suspected of helping drag the nation into such a bloody conflict.

Just as on November 27, 2024, when the Lebanon ceasefire was declared, the Israelis don’t see it as an agreement designed to stop aggression mutually. Over the course of 15 months, the Israelis committed 15,400 violations of the Lebanon ceasefire, setting a world record for the most violated ceasefire in recorded human history. While the US-backed Lebanese government pretended as if a new war had started in March, the Israelis had been waging war on the Lebanese south for 15 months.

In the Gaza Strip, the so-called ceasefire was also an opportunity for the Israelis; they got a break from the fighting while continuing to arm and build up their ISIS-linked militia allies. They violated the ceasefire around 3,000 times, killing over 700 Palestinians, all as a Civi-Military Coordination Center (CMCC), composed of over 20 countries, watched on in silence.

All the way back to 1948, the Israelis used ceasefires and temporary truces in the same exact way. For example, they launched ‘Operation Danny’, in July of 1948, during a temporary pause to secure territory in Lydd and Ramla; then ‘Operation Yoav’ in October 1948, breaking the second truce to launch an attack in the Naqab region; followed by ‘Operation Hiram’, also in October 1948 that was initiated shortly after the second truce ended, flooding their forces into the Galilee.

All of the Gaza ceasefire agreements were violated continuously by the Israelis, each used to Tel Aviv’s advantage. More recently, we can turn to Syria, where the Israelis tore up the 1974 disengagement agreement, using the fall of Bashar al-Assad to occupy even more southern Syrian territory, including seven key water assets. They had a well-oiled plan prepared, sitting there waiting for the day that regime change occurred in Damascus.

There is only one example of where the Israelis were forced to abide by a ceasefire, but were still violating Lebanese sovereignty thousands upon thousands of times throughout, and that was following the 2006 Lebanon war, when a costly equation was imposed by force. Yet, the post-October 7 predicament has destroyed all previous understandings and ushered in an expansionist era for the Israeli government. Both Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition leader Yair Lapid have both publicly stated their interest in expanding Israel’s undeclared borders and achieving the “Greater Israel Project”.

Tel Aviv’s defence minister, Israel Katz, has made it clear Israel’s intention to expand its borders up to the Litani River in Lebanon, while Finance Minister Smotrich has openly asserted that the objective of settling the area is a goal.

Israel is currently fighting what it sees as an existential battle to achieve the rebirth of “Eretz Israel”, a regional war that will not end until the project is secured. This means that even if a ceasefire is reached with Iran and Lebanon, it is not actually a ceasefire; it is simply another opportunity to implement new schemes and head back to the drawing board, only to escalate once again in the future.

Both history and the statements coming from the Israeli leadership clearly demonstrate that there is no such thing as a sustainable ceasefire with Israel.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on There are No Ceasefires with Israel, Only Opportunities for Later Attacks

Iran to charge ships from ‘hostile’ nations to cross Hormuz – security chief

RT | April 13, 2026

Iran will levy tolls on ships from ‘hostile’ countries crossing the Strait of Hormuz as compensation for damage caused by sanctions and US-Israeli strikes, Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, has said.

Speaking to RT on Sunday following US-Iran talks in Islamabad that ended in an impasse, Azizi said Washington should accept Tehran’s terms because it needs a deal “more than we do,” and that many Iranians are unhappy that Tehran even entered into negotiations.

“When they need it, they should accept both the conditions and the prerequisites. If they don’t, we’ll do our work and go our own way. Nothing will change,” he added.

US President Donald Trump has refused to rule out resuming “limited” strikes against Iran after ordering a naval blockade and threatening to deny safe passage to any ships that have complied with Tehran’s fees and rules for transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

According to Azizi, a draft bill being drawn up in the Iranian parliament would stipulate that “those who have caused us damage, those who are in fact liable to pay compensation, may only cross the Strait of Hormuz if they pay their damages and compensation.”

Referring to countries that have frozen Iranian assets “on the orders of America,” he said: “You made a great mistake by blocking them. Now you also want to cross this waterway? That era is over.”

Once approved, the law will require the government to establish a new “management and control system” for the strait and the Persian Gulf, based on environmental safety, security, and services, Azizi said. Any vessel wishing to enter would then have to pay tolls “based on the national interests of Iran,” with specific fees and procedures to be set later by the cabinet rather than by parliament.

Tehran remains deeply skeptical of Washington’s intentions, even after ceasefire-related preconditions were discussed, Azizi said. “We simply do not trust them,” he stated, questioning how a country that “elevates arrogance and colonialism to a guiding principle” could be expected to honor its agreements.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran to charge ships from ‘hostile’ nations to cross Hormuz – security chief

Russian frigate ‘resurfaces’, chases off NATO pirates days after Kiev ‘sank’ it

By Drago Bosnic | April 13, 2026

On April 6, the Unmanned Systems Forces (USF) of the Kiev regime posted a video of the alleged “attack” on the Russian Navy’s (VMF) “Admiral Grigorovich” frigate in the port of Novorossiysk. According to Ukrinform, Robert “Magyar” Brovdi, commander of the USF, also posted the video on his Telegram channel. He claims that “on the night of April 6, the USF ‘birds’ struck the frigate ‘Admiral Grigorovich’ in the port of Novorossiysk and delivered some blessed fire to the Sivash drilling rig”. The supposed “attack” was carried out by the 1st Separate Center of the USF. The Neo-Nazi junta sources report that it was planned and coordinated by the SBU (effectively a terrorist organization at this point) and that “the extent of the damage is being assessed by intelligence”.

“The air defense missile launches were carried out directly from the frigate’s deck while approaching the target, which did not prevent us from pecking at the floating scab,” Brovdi stated, adding: “The Sivash floating drilling rig was targeted by the birds of the 413th Raid Separate Battalion in cooperation with the deep-strike forces of the Ukrainian Navy.”

This must be a great success for the Kiev regime, right? There’s “video evidence of the incident”, so the supposed “attack” undoubtedly happened, right? Well, there’s a “tiny” consistency problem with this entire story. Namely, the aforementioned “Admiral Grigorovich” frigate “magically resurfaced” in the English Channel just two days after it was “destroyed”. The vessel was sent to escort oil tankers after multiple incidents where NATO pirates hijacked Russian ships in international waters. This was also confirmed by the endemically and pathologically Russophobic United Kingdom, which sent its naval forces to track Russian warships. The British HMS “Mersey” was sent to “enforce sanctions” on Moscow’s oil tankers, but was forced to turn back after detecting naval escorts.

British sources report the vessels include the “Admiral Grigorovich” frigate, the “Aleksandr Shabalin” Ropucha-class landing ship and the “Krasnodar” Kilo-class diesel-electric attack submarine, which was transiting on the surface. These vessels passed only about 15 km from the Strait of Dover. For London, the issue is that it pledged to “take more direct action against vessels linked to Russia’s shadow fleet”. However, with the appearance of the VMF, the UK is now complaining that “this has sharpened the operational context”. In simpler terms, NATO pirates would love to hijack those tankers and steal Russian oil, but it’s too risky when the targets are protected by ships that can actually shoot back, complicating the enforcement of “freedom and democracy” in international waters.

It should be noted that the political West has long been behaving like a bunch of pirates. In a purely legalistic sense, NATO navies are in no way different from Somali pirates, as both are hijacking ships in violation of international law. However, it should also be noted that Somali pirates would certainly protest such insulting comparisons, because at least they’re not a bunch of pedophile-cannibalistic Satanists. In the last several months alone, approximately a dozen Russian oil tankers have been hijacked. Although this is only a fraction of the so-called “shadow fleet” consisting of around 3,000 vessels, the obvious goal is to disrupt Russian oil exports, particularly at a time when US aggression against Iran caused price hikes that increased Moscow’s profits.

Although the VMF’s primary role is not to protect Russian shipping, after the US/NATO decided to openly practice piracy, the Kremlin was forced to retask its naval forces for escort missions. “Admiral Grigorovich” is the first of the Project 11356R frigates, equipped with eight 3S-14 UKSK VLS (vertical launch systems). These usually house “Kalibr” cruise missiles, although they can also accommodate P-800 “Oniks” ramjet-powered supersonic and 3M22 “Zircon” scramjet-powered hypersonic cruise missiles. No Western navy has anything remotely capable. On the contrary, the US is still struggling with the disastrous Zumwalt-class destroyers, which are now slated to be equipped with hypersonic missiles after billions were wasted on far more modest weapons.

Namely, the Zumwalt-class destroyer’s Advanced Gun System (AGS) is slated to be removed and replaced by Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) launchers housing the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), better known by its US Army name, the “Dark Eagle”. However, the problem is that the Pentagon is yet to induct these missiles, leaving the entire US military without operational hypersonic weapons. Meanwhile, much smaller Russian frigates and corvettes all share the same 3S-14 UKSK VLS, enabling them to carry world-class missiles, such as the aforementioned “Kalibr”, “Oniks” and “Zircon”. This includes the smaller Gremyashchiy-class and Karakurt-class corvettes, giving them unrivaled strategic capabilities akin to those of destroyers.

Interestingly, after realizing that its little propaganda ploy failed, the Neo-Nazi junta resorted to damage control, claiming that its drones didn’t hit “Admiral Grigorovich”, but “Admiral Makarov”, which was later amended to also include “Admiral Essen”. The two ships are the third and second vessels of the same class, respectively. In other words, when caught lying and conducting its “PR victories”, the Kiev regime tries to hide it all with additional lies that only make things worse. It’s highly likely that the Neo-Nazi junta propagandists used AI-generated images as “evidence” of the alleged “hits”. This is most likely done to shift attention away from the Kiev regime’s massive losses, as the latest KIA exchange with Russia demonstrates a 1,000:41 ratio in Moscow’s favor.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on Russian frigate ‘resurfaces’, chases off NATO pirates days after Kiev ‘sank’ it

Ukraine Targets Russian Merchant Fleet With NATO Intel Support – Presidential Aide

Sputnik – 13.04.2026

MOSCOW – The Ukrainian special services are targeting the Russian merchant fleet with coordination and intelligence support of NATO, Russian presidential aide and chairman of the Russian Marine Board Nikolai Patrushev said on Monday.

“The risks of illegal actions and terrorist attacks against ships sailing from or towards Russian ports are increasing. The Ukrainian special services, with the coordination and intelligence support of NATO countries, are targeting the non-military maritime infrastructure and the merchant fleet of our country,” Patrushev told Russian media.

The Baltic states and Finland’s provision of airspace for attack drones means that NATO members directly participate in the attacks on Russia, the official said, adding that neighboring countries are complicit in Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian ports in the Baltic.

“Kiev cynically regards the death of three crew members, which was a tragedy for their relatives, friends, and all normal people, as its victory. At the same time, we record the hypocritical policies of a number of states and international organizations that refrain from assessing attacks on Russian ships,” the Russian presidential aide said.

Kiev, which has flooded the Black Sea with mines and unmanned boats, remains the main source of terrorist and military danger, Nikolai Patrushev said.

“NATO countries continue to play out exercise scenarios to neutralize non-existent security threats from Russia, even though they themselves face real threats in the Black Sea. The Kiev regime, which has flooded the Black Sea with mines and unmanned boats, remains the key source of terrorist and military threats in the region,” Patrushev said.

Drifting Ukrainian mines are increasingly being discovered in close proximity to the coasts of Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania, Patrushev added.

The route of the Ukrainian UAVs through the Baltic States required a careful study and at least the consent of the leadership of those states over which it passed, Patrushev said.

“I believe that neighboring countries are also complicit in these crimes, even if Ukrainian drones are launched from the decks of ships in the Baltic Sea… The distance from the northern borders of Ukraine to the Leningrad Region is more than 1,400 kilometers [870 miles]. Such a route requires careful study and at least the consent of the leadership of the countries over which it passes,” Patrushev said.

A frigate of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet escorted tankers with Russian oil through the English Channel last week, Patrushev said.

Last month, the UK government announced that UK military personnel will be able to board vessels subject to UK sanctions and transiting through UK territorial waters. London will also impose even greater restrictions by blocking British waters, including the English Channel, for sanctioned vessels. The measure affects the so-called “shadow fleet,” allegedly engaged in the transportation of Russian energy resources.

“Given that London prefers to interpret international law in its favor, last week a frigate of the Black Sea Fleet escorted tankers with Russian oil across the English Channel,” Patrushev said.

If necessary, other measures will be taken to ensure the safety of navigation and protect national interests in international waters, the official added.

“It seems that the British are haunted by the evil fame of their ancestors, who made profit in a piratical manner on the transport passing along their shores,” Patrushev said.
NATO continues to build anti-Russian infrastructure in the Black Sea region under the guise of the recent Sea Shield 2026 exercises, Nikolai Patrushev said.

“The North Atlantic Alliance, under the guise of the Sea Shield – 2026 exercises held in early April, continues to form an anti-Russian infrastructure in the Black Sea area. Romania was chosen as the main territory of the maneuvers as a Black Sea springboard to confront Russia,” Patrushev said.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Ukraine Targets Russian Merchant Fleet With NATO Intel Support – Presidential Aide

Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ makes mockery of UK naval power

By Ian Proud | Resposible Statecraft | April 13, 2026

Few things provoke British politicians into fits of rage more than mention of Russia’s “shadow fleet.” Yet last week’s impotent tracking of Russian tankers in the English Channel illustrates that Britain doesn’t have the means to do much about it.

On 9 April, two Russian “shadow” oil tankers were escorted through the channel by a Russian navy frigate armed with all manner of weapons, including anti-ship missiles. In response, the Royal Navy could only muster an auxiliary fuel tanker to follow it helplessly. The Daily Telegraph reported on this heroic operation from the deck of a 40-foot fishing boat following in the tanker’s wake.

A regular pattern is forming in which the Royal Navy deploys vessels that are overmatched by better armed Russian naval escorts.

The inability of the Royal Navy to challenge Russian tankers has drawn howls of protest from opposition politicians, including former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The United Kingdom’s attorney general has now ruled that U.K. forces cannot likely board Russian vessels to seize them anyway, as this may be contrary to international law. Yet the policy message is clear. Even if Britain sent troops to board escorted Russian tankers, they might be fired upon with no effective military means to push back the Russian navy. The Royal Navy has been rendered unable to project force, even close to British shores.

A British frigate and helicopter seeing off Russian submarines apparently lingering over undersea cables provided much-needed relief to the embattled Defense Secretary John Healey, who took to the 10 Downing Street press room to brief the media on the operation. But that won’t be enough to quell the growing sense of national embarrassment and anger at the parlous state of the British armed forces.

An already much delayed Defence Investment Plan is quite obviously being held back until after the upcoming May local elections, because it will likely list more projects that Britain can’t afford or should shelve, rather than anything genuinely new and revolutionary; when published, I predict, it will be politically humiliating for the Labour government, which is suffering disastrous polling numbers, with just one fifth of the population inclined to vote for them, a historic low for a governing party.

The case of HMS Dragon has become illustrative of UK naval decay; the single air defense destroyer that Britain rushed out of maintenance and belatedly deployed to the Mediterranean to support defensive operations against Iran, was bedeviled by technical difficulties and has been forced to dock again for repairs.

Russia, meanwhile, has been emboldened. Having significantly increased the size of its fleet in recent years, Moscow is now increasingly able to dominate the high seas off Europe and hold British and European vessels at risk. In May of 2025, a Russian jet warned off an Estonian vessel looking to interdict a Russian tanker. Following the seizure by U.S. forces of a Russian tanker bound for Cuba in January and the boarding by the French of a shadow tanker on March 20, they have clearly decided “enough is enough” and are sending heavily armed Russian naval vessels to escort oil tankers.

Since the start of the war in Ukraine, western allies have sought to bear down on Russia’s war economy by limiting the revenue it gains from oil and gas sales, which make up around two thirds of its exports. With some estimates suggesting 80% of Russian oil exported is transported on ships, attacking the network of so-called “shadow tankers’’— aging Russian tankers that sail under murky insurance and flag arrangements — might appear on the surface a sensible approach, or at least it did in 2022. But four years on, the endeavor has proved utterly meaningless. Now it appears self-defeating.

Let’s be clear: the export of Russian oil has never been sanctioned in absolute terms. Rather, in December 2022, G7 countries imposed a price cap of $60 per barrel of oil sold to minimize the revenue Russia generates from its exports. In July 2025, Europe further lowered the cap to $47.60, though the U.S. stuck at $60.

Despite their protestations, Europe has nevertheless continued to import billions of euros worth of Russian oil throughout the war in Ukraine. Russia’s biggest customers, China and India, have bought at discounted rates below the level of the G7 price cap. Russia’s third largest customer, Turkey, has seen its imports of oil practically unchanged, walking a narrow tightrope on price restrictions.

The bottom line is that Russia’s export revenue hasn’t obviously suffered since 2022. In the first year of the Ukraine war, Russia pulled in its biggest ever current account surplus of $238 billion. Exports have remained above their historical average since that time.

The Iran war has now rendered the G7 price cap irrelevant. Global customers, faced with fuel rationing, will pay any price to get hold of oil. It is therefore clear that Russia will gain another windfall from oil exports in 2026. Indeed, preliminary analysis suggests Russia will see its tax revenue from oil sales double in April.

Since the war in Iran started, Russia has upped the ante by refusing to sell oil to countries that back the G7 price cap. That policy guarantees that developing countries will get preferred status and won’t want to enforce any price cap at a time of supply constraints. It also puts pressure on supplies to Europe and Japan in particular, who are struggling under the weight of soaring prices and tightened supply.

At a time when the U.S. has temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian oil shipments, this is a further sign of the untethering of American and European policy towards Russia. The festering and as yet unresolved stand-off between Ukraine and Hungary about the supply of oil via the damaged Druzhba pipeline might excite those Eurocrats who stridently believe we should continue to resist Russian energy supplies at all costs. The British hullabaloo about our inability to stop Russian tankers in the English Channel further proves our politicians have lost sight of our strategic objectives towards Russia, and whether our policies hurt Putin more than they hurt us.

Right now, it is crystal clear that our economies are suffering under the weight of energy shortages, as the coffers in the Kremlin are ringing, and Russia’s navy is ruling Britannia’s waves.

Ian Proud was a member of His Britannic Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. He served as the Economic Counsellor at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019. He recently published his memoir, “A Misfit in Moscow: How British diplomacy in Russia failed, 2014-2019,” and is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Comments Off on Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ makes mockery of UK naval power

Ukraine plans to attack Russian ships with Norwegian support

By Ahmed Adel | April 13, 2026

At a time when the world is distracted by the Iran War, Ukraine and Norway are reportedly planning to attack Russian commercial ships. If Norway, which shares a nearly 200-kilometer border with Russia, implements the plan, it would make the Nordic country directly involved in the Ukrainian conflict and could therefore drag all of NATO into the conflict.

“The criminal Kiev regime, with the assistance of military specialists from the Norwegian Navy, is preparing to carry out terrorist attacks against Russian vessels traveling through the Barents and Norwegian Seas to and from the port of Murmansk,” TASS quoted a military-diplomatic source as saying on April 9.

As part of preparations for Ukrainian attacks on Russian commercial ships crossing the Barents and Norwegian Seas, one of the main maritime routes of the Arctic Circle, Norway has reportedly offered training and even its own territory for the military actions. Approximately 50 personnel of the 385th Separate Brigade of Special-Purpose Naval Unmanned Systems of the Ukrainian Navy are already in Norway, “practicing the use of unmanned underwater and surface systems in cold conditions,” according to the unnamed source.

It is recalled that Norway has already signaled its intention to provide financial and military aid to Ukraine in recent months, as the war-torn country has lost much support from the United States amid events in the Middle East. So, an attack by Ukraine with Norwegian help could clearly further escalate the conflict, introduce new nuances, and even bring new actors into this confrontation. The Norwegian government has already shown support for Ukraine in areas such as intelligence and even drone development, but until now, it had never directly engaged on the battlefield, whether to attack ports, ships, or troops.

The plan would also directly involve NATO in the conflict, since the military actions would originate from the territory of one of its members. If Norway opens its territory for use, for example, the border with Russia in the Arctic, it would lead to an escalation of the conflict and bring NATO directly into the war on a new battlefront.

Ukraine’s plan is an attempt by the Kiev regime to regain the spotlight lost to the Middle East and to attract the attention of its Western allies. Although the conflict in Ukraine has never stopped, nearly all the world’s attention has been on events in the Middle East since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Ukraine hopes that audacious attacks against Russia, particularly along a trade route, will bring the conflict in Eastern Europe back into the spotlight, attract public attention, and even recover some of the lost financial and military support.

Despite negotiations to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine being virtually stalled in recent weeks, the discovery of the Ukrainian plan could affect peace talks and further strain relations between Brussels and Moscow. This could deepen existing distrust between the countries and hinder already fragile, obstacle-laden contacts. Reaching a peace agreement and a resolution is already difficult, and these reports could further worsen the situation.

It is worth noting that in recent decades, NATO itself broke a historic pledge made with Russia in 1991: not to advance eastward and to encircle the country’s borders. Instead, Moscow finds itself surrounded today by alliance members, with the exception of Belarus and Ukraine. Zelensky’s campaign to make Kiev a member state was one of the crucial factors in the outbreak of conflict in 2022.

The Ukrainian-Norwegian plan further exacerbates instability in the Arctic region, where tensions in Greenland have also escalated due to the actions and statements of US President Donald Trump. Given this, Norwegian support is not surprising, but the extent of the country’s interest in helping is notable.

Aid would likely be limited to unmanned vessels and would not involve military personnel. When citizens of a third country are attacked, the conflict will escalate. For this reason, like all the aid provided so far to Ukraine, it remains indirect.

The plan is not surprising, given the numerous terrorist attacks by Ukraine throughout the conflict, such as the Nord Stream 2 explosion and the failed attempt to blow up TurkStream, which connects Russian gas to Serbia and Hungary. This exemplifies not only Ukrainian practices but also collaboration among European allies.

In Norway’s case, the situation is further complicated by the country’s competition with Russia in the oil market and its even benefiting from anti-Russian sanctions. This motivation may stem from Oslo’s view of Russia as an energy rival.

Ahead of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in the Ramstein format, scheduled for April 15, Ukraine and Norway agreed on priority areas for defense cooperation, including strengthening air defense, developing unmanned systems, supporting innovative projects, and enhancing the capabilities of Ukraine’s Defense Forces. It is unlikely that Zelensky can draw NATO attention back to Ukraine, but it certainly appears that he has secured Norway’s support, an Arctic country opposed to Russia’s role in the region.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on Ukraine plans to attack Russian ships with Norwegian support

Diplomats slam US negotiators’ performance in Iran talks

Al Mayadeen | April 12, 2026

Former United States State Department advisor and veteran West Asia negotiator Aaron David Miller sharply criticized Washington’s assumptions about the pace and substance of talks with Iran, arguing that the US misjudged Iran’s position.

“If Administration believed after only 21 hours of negotiations, Iran would give up enrichment which is what Vance implied, they totally misread the moment and the Iranian dominated IRGC,” Miller posted on X.

Gerard Araud, a high-ranking retired French diplomat who served as the Ambassador to the United States and the Permanent Representative to the United Nations, also pointed to the prowess of Iranian negotiators.

“The agreement we reached with Iran in 2015 was the result of hundreds of hours of negotiations with the support of experts of nuclear energy,” Araud explained.

“Negotiating with the Iranians is the equivalent of a diplomatic trenches war. Line by line, word by word.” he posted on X.

“From an Iranian point of view, the negotiations are not starting from scratch but after an agreement endorsed by the UNSC,” he added in another post.

“Any new negotiations have to take into account this precedent: words have already a significance and proposals a history,” he said.

Deadlock in Islamabad talks after 21 hours of negotiations

Negotiations between Iran and the US have ended without agreement following Pakistan-mediated diplomatic efforts in Islamabad, with core nuclear demands keeping both sides far apart after 21 hours of discussions.

The talks, aimed at narrowing differences over Iran’s nuclear program and related regional security arrangements, failed to produce convergence on key issues, including Iran’s right to uranium enrichment, the security regime of the Strait of Hormuz, and proposals linking any broader understanding to a ceasefire extending to Lebanon.

Expectations of a rapid breakthrough had been encouraged by US Vice President JD Vance, but were widely regarded as unrealistic given the depth of disagreement between Washington and Tehran. The 2015 nuclear agreement itself took nearly two years to finalize, while current conditions are further complicated by escalating regional confrontation.

Vance defends US position after talks collapse

Following the breakdown of negotiations, US Vice President JD Vance stated that Iran had rejected Washington’s terms, while leaving the door open for future engagement.

“They have chosen not to accept our terms,” Vance said in a brief news conference in Islamabad, though he left open the possibility that terms could still be reached.

“We leave here with a very simple proposal: a method of understanding that is our final and best offer,” he added.

“We’ll see if the Iranians accept it,” he asserted.

Australia calls for renewed negotiations and ceasefire

International reactions followed the collapse of the talks, with Australia urging both sides to return to diplomacy and maintain a ceasefire across the region.

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong described the outcome of the Islamabad talks as “disappointing” and called for an immediate resumption of negotiations.

“The priority now must be to continue the ceasefire and return to negotiations,” Wong said, adding it was “disappointing that the Islamabad talks between the United States and Iran have ended without agreement.”

Wong also warned that any further escalation “would impose an even greater human cost and further impact the global economy,” stressing the need for sustained diplomatic engagement.

April 12, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Diplomats slam US negotiators’ performance in Iran talks

Trump Refuses Exit Ramp, War with Iran will Continue

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | April 11, 2026 

As I expected, the negotiation between the US and Iran failed to reach an agreement. Although JD Vance headed the US team, he was never in control… I have heard from someone who was directly involved with this circus in Islamabad that Israeli agents — Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — made certain that JD Vance would not follow his instincts and accept the deal that Iran had laid on the table. Israel’s role in sabotaging the US delegation was evident in Vance’s statement announcing the failure of the negotiations, when he falsely accused Iran of refusing to give up its alleged quest for a nuclear weapon. This is just a rehashed piece of Zionist propaganda.

There were several Iranian conditions that the US refused to accept: Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz, an end to Israel’s attack on Lebanon and Hezbollah, unfreezing of Iran’s assets and retaining sovereignty over its supply of enriched uranium. I have said repeatedly this past week during various interviews on the subject that Iran’s position on these issues was non-negotiable.

Here is the statement just released by the Iranian government:

The American enemy, which is vile, wicked and dishonest — attempted to achieve on the negotiating table what it could not achieve through war.

Among these demands are handing over enriched uranium and opening the Strait of Hormuz without confirmed Iranian sovereignty over it.

Iran has decided to reject these terms and continue the sacred defense of its fatherland by any means necessary, military or diplomatic.’

So what is next? For starters I hope that the Iranian delegation in Islamabad gets a return flight home on a Russian or Chinese flagged airplane. I do not discount the possibility of Israel and the US trying to destroy the Iranian airliner on its return flight to Tehran.

Iran will not initiate new military actions against Israel or the US… They will wait to absorb the first blow and then launch a massive retaliation. I think they now understand that the US is too much under the control of the Zionist lobby to act in the interest of the people of the United States.

Iran’s demand that the US vacate its bases in the Gulf will be achieved by force… Iran will hit the remaining bases and make them uninhabitable for the US military going forward. The Saudis and the UAE will have to make a choice this week… Seek reconciliation with Iran and survive or side with the US and Israel and face economic destruction.

The real action that will put the most pressure on Trump will start on Monday morning when the US stock market takes a nose dive… again… and the price of oil heads back up into triple digit territory. JD Vance actually did Iran a favor by breaking off first and walking away. This paints Iran in a very favorable light in the eyes of the global south, i.e., Iran was willing to negotiate, but the US refused to engage in good faith negotiations and bailed.

Here is my chat with Ed DeMarche of the Trends Journal from last Wednesday: Video Link

April 12, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Refuses Exit Ramp, War with Iran will Continue

Trump Says US Naval Blockade in Strait of Hormuz Will Begin Shortly

Sputnik – 12.04.2026

MOSCOW – US President Donald Trump said on Sunday that the United States would soon start the naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to prevent Iran from using what he described as “extortion.”

“The Blockade will begin shortly. Other Countries will be involved with this Blockade,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The US Navy will be blockading “any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz,” until all are allowed to go in and out, he wrote.

“I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas,” Trump also said.

The US leader added that he would not allow any country, especially his own, to be “extorted” by Iran.

Safe passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible if the United States complies with its obligations, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Thursday.

Earlier, Araghchi announced the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for about 20% of the world’s oil, petroleum products, and LNG supplies.

The escalation of the conflict has virtually halted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a key supply route for global oil and LNG. As a result, fuel prices are rising in most countries.

April 12, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Trump Says US Naval Blockade in Strait of Hormuz Will Begin Shortly

Between war and industrial breakdown: The US-Israeli attrition crisis

The Cradle | April 10, 2026

The US–Israeli war on Iran has laid bare a structural crisis at the heart of Washington’s war machine – one that calls into question its ability to sustain prolonged conflict, let alone replenish what it expends.

In the opening weeks alone, vast stockpiles of missiles, aircraft, and precision-guided munitions – from Tomahawk and ATACMS to Patriot, THAAD, and Arrow interceptors – were burned through at a staggering pace.

Battlefield attrition is rapidly translating into an industrial reckoning, exposing the limits of US and Israeli capacity to reproduce high-end weaponry at the pace modern war demands.

Firepower without endurance

According to a report issued by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) on 24 March, the first 16 days of the war saw the use of 11,294 munitions at a direct cost of $26 billion. Reparations could push that figure beyond $50 billion. But the financial toll only tells part of the story.

In the first 96 hours alone, coalition forces launched 5,197 munitions across 35 categories – one of the most intense air campaigns in modern warfare. The scale of consumption quickly overwhelmed the logic of industrial replenishment.

Air defense systems bore the brunt. US and Gulf batteries fired 943 Patriot interceptors in just four days – roughly equivalent to 18 months of production. THAAD systems followed a similar trajectory, with 145 missiles expended, consuming more than a third of the estimated stockpiles.

On the Israeli side, the pressure was even sharper. Arrow interceptor reserves dropped by more than half within the same period. Rebuilding that stockpile could take nearly 32 months. What initially appeared as heavy usage rapidly revealed itself as a structural imbalance.

The cost of those first four days alone ranged between $10bn and $16bn, rising to $20bn when factoring in aircraft and system losses. Worse still, degradation of radar and satellite infrastructure reduced interception efficiency, forcing operators to fire multiple missiles at single targets – in some cases up to 11 interceptors for one incoming threat.

Strategic weapons, empty warehouses

Offensive systems followed the same pattern. In the opening phase, 225 ATACMS and PrSM missiles were fired – core assets designed for deep precision strikes. Alongside them, more than 500 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched over 16 days.

Replenishing those Tomahawks alone could take up to 53 months – more than four years of uninterrupted production. In practical terms, this means the US cannot replicate the same level of sustained bombardment in any near-term confrontation.

JASSM-ER missiles (precision-guided air-to-ground missiles), each costing over $1 million, were used in large numbers against Iranian radar and communications nodes. Their production cycles depend on advanced electronic components already under strain from global supply bottlenecks. HARM anti-radiation missiles were also heavily deployed, eating into stockpiles originally intended for the European theater.

Precision came at a strategic cost. Every successful strike depleted assets that cannot be quickly replaced.

The use of eight GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators in the first 96 hours – nearly a quarter of available inventory – underscored the intensity of the opening assault on hardened Iranian facilities. Thousands of JDAM kits followed, draining stocks of the guidance systems that convert conventional bombs into precision weapons.

Small-diameter bombs were used in what the report described as near “suicidal” quantities, particularly against mobile launchers. Meanwhile, bunker-busting BLU-109 bombs were expended continuously, pushing global inventories toward depletion within two weeks.

When air superiority breaks

The downing of an F-15E Strike Eagle inside Iranian territory on 3 April marked a turning point. It shattered the assumption of uncontested air dominance and revealed the cascading costs of even a single tactical loss.

The incident triggered a complex rescue operation that quickly spiraled. Alongside the destroyed fighter jet, an A-10 Thunderbolt II was lost, helicopters were hit, and additional assets were damaged or abandoned.

At the peak of the operation, US forces destroyed two MC-130 transport aircraft and four special operations helicopters to prevent their capture. MQ-9 drones were also shot down, adding to the tally.

Direct losses from this single incident exceeded $500 million. But the real cost lies elsewhere.

The rescue mission involved 155 aircraft, hundreds of personnel, and stretched over two days inside hostile territory. To recover a single crew, Washington expended vast operational resources, exposing a deeper vulnerability: high-value platforms can trigger disproportionate losses when confronted with layered defenses.

Iranian air defenses also reportedly struck an F-35 and downed multiple drones, while friendly fire incidents added further strain. Superiority, once assumed, is now conditional.

Supply chains as the new battlefield

US war spending surpassed $45 billion within just over a month, according to tracking data based on Pentagon reporting to Congress. Daily costs eventually reached $1 billion.

Yet the more consequential crisis lies not in expenditure, but in production.

Rebuilding munitions used in the first four days alone requires 92 tons of copper, 137 kilograms of neodymium, 18 kilograms of gallium, 37 kilograms of tantalum, seven kilograms of dysprosium, and 600 tons of ammonium perchlorate – a critical component for solid-fuel rockets.

The US depends on a single domestic source for ammonium perchlorate. At the same time, China dominates global supply chains, controlling 98 percent of gallium production, 90 percent of neodymium processing, and 99 percent of dysprosium.

Rebuilding just the first four days of munitions expenditure alone would require tens of tons of critical minerals and hundreds of tons of rocket propellant inputs, tying any recovery effort directly to these constrained supply chains.

Military power is now tethered to geoeconomic realities beyond Washington’s control, turning industrial recovery into a strategic vulnerability. Replenishment runs up against supply chains shaped by global resource flows that sit firmly outside the Atlanticist sphere.

In practical terms, this means that even unlimited funding cannot accelerate production without access to these materials, placing a hard ceiling on how quickly stockpiles can be rebuilt.

The cost imbalance trap

Beyond sheer consumption, the war exposes a deeper flaw in how interception works.

Air defense systems rely on expensive interceptors to neutralize low-cost threats. Iranian drones and missiles, often built at a fraction of the cost, have pushed the US and its allies into an unsustainable exchange ratio.

Even as Iranian attack rates dropped by 80 to 90 percent after the opening phase, pressure did not ease. Daily barrages of roughly 33 missiles and 94 drones continued to drain defensive stockpiles.

Close-in systems like C-RAM fired over 509,500 rounds at a cost of just $25 million, while interceptor missiles consumed at least $19 billion. This imbalance forces advanced militaries to burn through their most sophisticated systems far faster than their adversaries can replace losses, unless viable “cheap defeat” options are developed.

An industrial base that cannot surge

The structure of the US defense industry compounds the problem. Despite rising demand, production has not meaningfully increased.

Defense contractors remain hesitant to expand capacity without guaranteed long-term contracts. Repeated cycles of political promises followed by funding reversals have left industry wary of overcommitting.

Key facilities, such as the Holston Army Ammunition Plant – the backbone of US ammonium perchlorate production – operate under fixed capacity, exposing a critical bottleneck at the heart of the US missile supply chain.

The consequences extend far beyond the Iran theater. Every missile fired here reduces Washington’s ability to project power elsewhere.

The depletion of more than 500 Tomahawks, alongside dwindling interceptor reserves, weakens US deterrence across multiple fronts – from East Asia to Eastern Europe. The war imposes a “second front tax,” forcing the US to choose between sustaining current operations and preserving its broader deterrence posture.

A myth unraveling

The war on Iran strips away the illusion of limitless western military superiority. Technological advantage remains, but it no longer guarantees endurance.

Missiles can hit their targets. Aircraft can penetrate defenses. But without the industrial capacity to sustain operations, every strike draws down future capability.

This war exposes the limits of US-Israeli power and points to a new strategic equation, where industrial resilience outweighs firepower. The ability to sustain production, rather than deliver precision strikes, increasingly defines military power in a prolonged conflict.

In that equation, Washington is no longer dominant.

April 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | | Comments Off on Between war and industrial breakdown: The US-Israeli attrition crisis

Pressure builds on Iran to ‘drop’ Lebanon ceasefire demand as Islamabad talks hang in balance

The Cradle | April 11, 2026

Pakistani officials are pressuring the Iranian delegation in Islamabad to enter talks with their US counterparts by “dropping” demands for a ceasefire in Lebanon, according to information obtained by Lebanese journalist and The Cradle columnist Dr. Mohamad Hassan Sweidan.

“The authorities in Lebanon have agreed to postpone the ceasefire and to discuss it directly with Tel Aviv; therefore, you cannot exert pressure in a direction that contradicts what the Lebanese themselves have accepted,” the Iranian delegation was informed on 11 April, according to Sweidan’s sources.

Nevertheless, Iranian officials have expressed that their position on a region-wide ceasefire remains firm, revealing that a final resolution to halt the attacks is a “condition for the success of the negotiations — not merely a request.”

“If the Iranian delegation reaches the conviction that the US side is not serious and that the negotiations will not lead to the desired results, it will withdraw and return to Tehran,” Sweidan stressed.

According to his sources, coordination exists between the Iranian delegation and the leadership of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Officials from Iran and the US arrived in the Pakistani capital on Saturday for the first round of indirect negotiations toward a possible ceasefire.

The Iranian delegation is led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

US Vice President JD Vance is leading the delegation for his country. He is accompanied by Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and special envoy Steve Witkoff.

According to reports on Iranian TV, Tehran has set clear red lines for Saturday’s talks: control of the Strait of Hormuz, war reparations, the release of frozen assets, and a permanent ceasefire on all fronts in the region.

Soon after Iran and the US agreed to a brittle ceasefire earlier this week, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam demanded his country not be included in the process.

Since then, the Lebanese government has agreed to hold direct talks with Israeli officials in Washington, which many in the country view as an attempt to normalize relations with Israel and “weaken” the Lebanese resistance by prolonging the war.

The push to be excluded from the regional ceasefire came despite a wave of Israeli terror attacks across Lebanon this week that killed over 300 Lebanese and injured over 1,000, including several members of the state security forces.

According to Lebanese journalist Hassan Illaik, in recent days, Arab and European diplomats were told by a close adviser to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, “The war must continue until Hezbollah is eliminated.”

Senior Hezbollah official and member of Lebanese parliament, Hassan Fadlallah, on Saturday condemned the push by Beirut as a “blatant violation of the national pact, constitution, and laws.”

“The move by those controlling the government deepens internal divisions at a time Lebanon needs unity to face ongoing Israeli attacks, preserve civil peace, and protect coexistence,” Fadlallah said, adding that authorities “should have prioritized national interests” by benefiting from the international opportunity created by Iran’s support for Lebanon.

April 11, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Pressure builds on Iran to ‘drop’ Lebanon ceasefire demand as Islamabad talks hang in balance

Why no power can undermine Iran’s eternal dominance over the Strait of Hormuz

By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | April 10, 2026

The Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway nestled between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, is not merely a geographical passageway or a shipping lane on the world map to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It is a strategically vital waterway that forms the pulse of the global energy economy and, simultaneously, a potent asset for the Islamic Republic to fundamentally reshape the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and around the world.

Iran seeks not merely to protect or monitor this strait but to exercise absolute, intelligent and legitimate control that, in the short term, applies economic pressure on any adversary to force it into retreat, negotiation, or acceptance of Iranian terms, and in the long term, to convert this control into permanent and inexhaustible strategic advantage.

This unchallenged authority on the strategic chokepoint, which carries around a quarter of global seaborne oil trade, includes regulating maritime traffic, collecting passage tolls, influencing global supply chains, and reconfiguring power dynamics in the region in alignment with the Axis of Resistance.

Backed by immutable geographical realities, international legal frameworks, precise economic data, and Iran’s asymmetric military capabilities, we examine how no military threats nor diplomatic pressure can alter this fundamental and unalterable reality.

Geographically, the narrowest point of the Strait of Hormuz measures just 21 nautical miles — roughly 39 kilometers — in width. This extremely narrow gap places all key shipping routes, including two two-mile-wide carriageways and a two-mile buffer strip, entirely within Iranian and Omani exclusive territorial economic waters.

Iran is uniquely positioned to exert absolute control over the northern and most critical part of the strait, with its coastline stretching more than 1,600 kilometers along the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. This extensive coastline includes not only mainland shores but also numerous strategic islands that serve as natural strongpoints.

Unlike the Suez Canal or Panama Canal — artificial waterways that can be circumnavigated — the Strait of Hormuz is the only natural, mandatory route for crude oil, liquefied natural gas, and chemical products exiting the Persian Gulf en route to the Indian Ocean and global markets.

No viable alternative to bypass Iran’s control

There is no economically viable or practically feasible alternative to bypass it.

The geography is also immutable: the mountains, rocky coasts, and shallow water depths in key formations make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to open parallel routes or construct new canals. No power on earth, irrespective of its military prowess, can overcome this geographical reality through insignificant actions, the occupation of tiny islands, or even the deployment of naval forces.

Iran’s long and impenetrable coastline is a natural wall that would require manpower and logistical support far beyond the capacity of the world’s largest armies to capture or hold.

Legally, the Strait of Hormuz falls under the purview of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), though its interpretation has consistently and appropriately followed the line advanced by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Because the strait’s width is less than 24 nautical miles, the entire waterway is not considered part of international waters or an international shipping route. The governing legal regime is not free and compulsory transit passage, but rather innocent passage.

Iran, having signed but not fully ratified the 1982 Convention, has always maintained that vessel passage must not prejudice the sovereignty of coastal states in any way, and that any passage threatening Iran’s national security is invalid.

This unique legal status grants Tehran the option of selective and conditional control over vessel traffic without necessarily infringing upon international law as interpreted by Western powers.

This is why the Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s real unsinkable aircraft carrier: an inseparable asset that costs virtually nothing to maintain daily, yet offers strategic and deterrent value inestimable to the global economy.

This legal position, combined with its geographical reality, has placed Iran in a situation where it can exercise practical dominance and unquestionable authority over the waterway without maintaining a permanent surface force presence.

Economically, the Strait of Hormuz is rightly called the true chokepoint of the world economy.

According to the most recent data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), approximately 20.9 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products transit through the strait daily — equivalent to 20 percent of all oil consumed worldwide and 25 to 27 percent of global oil imports and exports.

Moreover, over 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade — roughly 11.4 billion cubic feet per day, mostly from Qatari fields — also passes through this route.

Influence of the Strait of Hormuz beyond oil

But the waterway’s influence extends far beyond the oil industry. Iran is the world’s largest source of urea — a nitrogen fertilizer vital to agriculture — and the broader Persian Gulf region dominates this trade.

Iran alone ranks among the top five urea exporters globally, and any disruption in transit automatically drives international urea prices up by 25 to 30 percent.

This price surge directly disrupts fertilizer supply chains for major importing countries such as India, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and most African countries. The consequence is a large-scale food crisis: soaring wheat, rice, and other agricultural commodity prices, worldwide food inflation, and a direct threat to the food security of billions of people.

Thus, the Strait of Hormuz is the chokepoint of the global food supply — a weapon Iran can use to influence the currents of the global economy and generate unprecedented pressure by seizing control of food and energy chains without launching a single missile or drone.

For the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Strait of Hormuz serves as an asymmetric weapon or economic nuclear. It can hold the world economy at ransom by the implementation of selective but intelligent control of the waterway, without the requirement that involves direct war, without incurring huge costs of armaments and even the use of advanced nuclear weapons.

This strategy can be used to impose colossal and rapid economic strain that compels the opposing side to either flee in haste, bargain, or accept Iran’s terms, with no other options.

The long-term goal could be to transform this temporary control into a structural and permanent arrangement: collecting passage tolls from vessels, selectively regulating traffic (free passage for friendly ships in the Persian Gulf, restrictions and bans on hostile ones), and completely redefining the rules of engagement in the Persian Gulf in alignment with the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Axis of Resistance.

During periods of tension, Iran implements a calculated approach by raising the threat to the point of execution without necessarily ever closing the waterway completely, as was seen in operations True Promise 1, True Promise 2, and True Promise 3.

This strategy imposes continuous economic costs on the enemy without inflicting any harm on Iran. Even though Iranian oil exports and its own products are indirectly affected in the short term, selective transit management and toll collection create new revenue streams, ultimately swinging the economic war in Tehran’s favor.

Iran’s balance of action closely mirrors that of Gamal Abdel Nasser when he nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956. Nasser dared to seize the canal, scuttled ships at its entrance, and effectively closed the oil lifeline to Europe.

That action brought the British and French empires to their knees, triggered the Suez Crisis, and symbolized the fall of British colonial rule in the West Asia region.

Just as Nasser, with a single strategic stroke, turned a major energy canal into an instrument of influence and power shift, Iran has now moved to nationalize the Strait of Hormuz through actual action, asymmetric military strength, and unyielding political determination.

This nationalization of the Strait of Hormuz can be seen as the beginning of the de facto demise of American power in the Persian Gulf region, just as the nationalization of Suez heralded the end of the British Empire. The only difference is that Iran employs less advanced, less costly, and more efficient means to enforce this power and authority.

Iran’s efforts to implement a passage toll system in the operational and executive spheres have been intelligent and multifaceted. Enemies or vessels lacking the required permission face direct threats, while friendly vessels — particularly those from Eastern countries and key allies like China, Russia or Pakistan — pay tolls in Chinese yuan, Russian rubles, or cryptocurrencies such as USDT or Bitcoin, securing safe and uninterrupted passage.

This policy not only provides a direct and permanent revenue stream for the Iranian economy but also significantly reduces Iran’s reliance on the US dollar, which is dying a slow death.

Through the comprehensive use of China’s international payment system (CIPS), other banking networks, and digital payment systems, Tehran has successfully moved to eliminate the dollar from the commercial equations of the Strait of Hormuz and is working toward currency multipolarity and the dismantling of Western financial supremacy.

Iran’s legitimate control over Strait of Hormuz

This initiative is part of a broader economic warfare strategy that renders further struggle or pressure on Iran far more expensive and burdensome for the opponent than capitulating to Tehran’s demands. Iran’s intelligent and legitimate control over the Strait of Hormuz is thus absolute and enduring, resting on three unchangeable foundations.

First is the irrevocable nature of geography and the impossible cost of seizing it by force. Iran is literally impregnable with its 1,600-kilometer coastline. Any invading force attempting to assert control over a 100-kilometer front and fully reopen the strait would require over one million men, a vast naval fleet, and unparalleled logistical support — a force that even the world’s strongest military would struggle to assemble.

Moreover, Iran’s control over the strait does not depend on fixed ground positions surrounding the waterway; complete control can be exercised through anti-ship missiles, long-range drones with a range of nearly 2,000 kilometers, and integrated radar command systems.

The second justification is Iran’s absolute superiority in both low-intensity and high-intensity asymmetric warfare. Large-scale mining of the Strait — not using surface ships but rather Fajr-5 rockets fired from a range of 70 kilometers — is entirely within Iran’s capabilities.

These rockets can deploy magnetic, intelligent, and advanced mines along the entire length of the strait, rendering shipping traffic completely uneconomical. Clearing such mines from this waterway would require no less than six months, during which the global economy would be crippled in terms of energy supply and food security.

The ancillary cost of such warfare to Iran is minimal — thousands of dollars per mine — while the enemy suffers billions of dollars in daily losses, not to mention the devastating disruption to global supply chains.

The third foundation is Iran’s long history and precise strategic calculus. Iran has on many occasions in the past spoken of shutting down the Strait but has not acted on it, as demonstrated during the crises of the 1980s, in 2011-2012, and the last few years.

The threat itself is an effective deterrent. Any force that attempts to respond to Iran’s language of direct threat with its own language of direct threat instantly faces the prospect of a global energy shock, extreme inflation, economic downturn, and domestic opposition.

Records in the contemporary world have revealed that Iran will push the threat to the final stage of execution and will ultimately compel the opponent to withdraw and accept new realities, and it has been clearly and unquestionably demonstrated in the past 40 days.

Finally, Iran does not insist on a permanent and destructive closure of the Strait of Hormuz, but rather on intelligent and selective control. This domination includes non-dollar toll collection, selective passage management of vessels, and the transformation of all external threats into opportunities to reformulate the rules of engagement in the Persian Gulf.

Iran soars above this waterway because its permanence — rooted in immutable natural geography, low-cost and effective asymmetric technology, and most importantly, its unshakable determination — has secured it forever.

This fact cannot be altered by any power on earth, regardless of massive military pressure or international coercion. Any attempt to counter Iran in the Strait of Hormuz would simply cost the global economy far more and ultimately force adversaries to accept the new reality in the Persian Gulf: this waterway will no longer be anyone’s backyard, but rather the territory of the established, solid, and indestructible deterrent power of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

April 10, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Why no power can undermine Iran’s eternal dominance over the Strait of Hormuz

« Previous Entries