Prof. Ted Postol: Iran Already Achieved NUCLEAR DETERRENCE Against Israel
Dialogue Works | April 3, 2026
Press TV – April 7, 2026
Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force has declared the start of a “new phase” in Iran’s retaliatory operations against the US aggression, as the elite force warned earlier that any violation of red lines by the enemies will trigger a crushing response.
Posting a video on social platform UpScrolled, Brigadier General Seyyed Majid Mousavi said, “And now, the new phase of the war [has begun] with fresh, twin launchers for Fateh and Kheibar Shekan missiles, all previous strikes doubled.”
In a statement announcing the launch of the wave 99 of Operation True Promise 4, the IRGC reiterated that Iran “has not been and will never be the one to initiate attacks on civilian targets.”
However, it added that the IRGC “will not hesitate to retaliate against despicable aggressions on civilian facilities.”
In response to any further attack on Iran’s civilian infrastructure, the IRGC forces “will inflict such damage on the infrastructure of the US and its partners that they will be deprived of the region’s oil and gas for years to come.”
The IRGC said that Washington’s regional allies need to be aware of the fact that the IRGC has so far “shown great restraint and exercised caution in selecting its targets for retaliation, out of respect for good neighborly relations.”
But the Iranian Armed Forces, the statement added, will cast aside all such considerations and self-restraint from now on.
Since the US launched its illegal war against Iran on February 28, the country’s civilian infrastructure has repeatedly been targeted in flagrant violation of international law.
In response to the aggression, Iran’s Armed Forces have carried out daily missile and drone attacks on American assets and bases in the region.
Under growing pressure at home to end the war, US President Donald Trump has once again threatened that he would bomb Iran’s bridges and power plants if the Islamic Republic does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran has imposed restrictions on passage through the strait, days after the start of the military aggression, saying ships related to the aggressors could not use the waterway.
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.
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.
Al Mayadeen | April 6, 2026
The US aggression against Iran has cost American taxpayers over $42.1 billion in nearly 37 days of war, according to the Iran War Cost Tracker portal.
The portal’s real-time tracking is based on a Department of War briefing for the US Congress on March 10, which stated that Washington spent $11.3 billion in the first six days of its aggression on Iran and plans to spend an additional $1 billion each subsequent day of the war.
Trump requests $1.5 trillion defense budget as war costs spiral
On Friday, US President Donald Trump asked Congress to enact a $2.2 trillion budget for discretionary programs, seeking a massive increase in defense spending, while also renewing his push for steep cuts to domestic agencies.
The budget proposal released on Friday requests $1.5 trillion for defense, a significant increase over the $1 trillion sought for fiscal year 2026. The new figure includes $1.1 trillion in base discretionary spending for the Department of War and another $350 billion in mandatory spending as the US carries out its war on Iran.
The sharp increase in military spending comes as the United States remains engaged in a war that has driven up costs and placed a growing strain on financial and military resources. The war cost Washington more than $11 billion in its first six days alone, with estimates placing daily expenditures at between $1 billion and $2 billion. Munitions stockpiles have been drawn down significantly, raising concerns about sustainability and replenishment.
War costs could reach hundreds of billions
Short-term projections from weeks ago cited by The Intercept suggest that the war could push costs to $250 billion in its eighth week, if it drags on this long.
A government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged the uncertainty of these figures, telling The Intercept that “it’s a back-of-the-napkin estimate,” while another official told the outlet, “They really have no idea of the real cost.”
The proposed budget also aligns with a broader military buildup that includes investments in missile systems, naval assets, and advanced fighter jets, signaling preparations that extend beyond immediate battlefield needs. Against this backdrop, the proposed budget reflects a broader reallocation of resources toward sustaining prolonged military operations, while partially offsetting rising expenditures through cuts to domestic spending.
The budget blueprint comes ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections, with Republicans aiming to preserve their narrow control of both chambers of Congress. The proposal is also likely to face scrutiny from lawmakers who have already raised concerns over the scale of war-related spending and its long-term fiscal impact.
For American taxpayers, the message is clear: as the war on Iran grinds on with no end in sight, the costs continue to mount. And the administration’s solution is not to end the war, but to pour even more money into it, all while cutting domestic programs that ordinary Americans rely on.
Whether Congress will approve Trump’s request remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the price of this war has only begun to be counted.
100% infection in exposed animals—mutations associated with immune evasion arise
By Jon Fleetwood | April 4, 2026
A new peer-reviewed study published last month in Science Advances says that U.S. government–funded researchers engineered chimeric influenza viruses using components from the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain—and achieved a 100% infection rate in exposed animals.
The engineered viruses mutated during infection, generating changes associated with immune evasion.
The work was funded in part by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), along with support from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The research was conducted within the Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Response (CEIRR/CEIRS), a federally backed network focused on influenza surveillance, vaccine development, and pandemic preparedness.
You can contact NIAID here, the NIH here, HHS here, and the USDA here to voice opposition to taxpayer-funded chimeric research on pandemic pathogens—particularly after Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, the CIA, and Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) all acknowledged that the deadly COVID-19 pandemic was “likely” the result of a laboratory incident.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump recently signed legislation into law allocating at least $5.5 billion in taxpayer funding for a future influenza pandemic.
Sputnik – 05.04.2026
President Donald Trump earlier wrote on Truth Social that the US carried out an operation to rescue an F-15 airman “without a single American killed, or even wounded.”
“Success in military terms is measured not only by the extraction of personnel but also by the cost incurred. If the US indeed lost aircraft and other equipment during the mission, then the operation cannot be deemed an unqualified success,” former colonel of Pakistan’s Air Force Sultan M. Hali told Sputnik.
“Rescue missions involving dozens of warplanes penetrating hostile airspace and engaging Iranian defenses are inherently dangerous. Historically, governments often downplay or delay acknowledgment of casualties to maintain morale and political optics,” Hali explained.
That’s why “it is difficult to accept at face value” Washington’s allegations on the rescue mission, according to the former colonel of Pakistan’s Air Force.
“The destruction or capture of advanced assets represents a strategic setback,” which “undermines deterrence, emboldens adversaries, and raises questions about the sustainability of such operations,” he concluded.
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | April 4, 2026
Indian media have spread misconceptions over the meeting convened by the UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper on Thursday 2nd April regarding the situation around the Strait of Hormuz. Far-fetched conclusions are drawn that the meeting marked the first step toward forming a coalition to restore safe passage; plans include clearing mines from the waterway in consultation with military planners in the coming weeks, and so on.
We should not frighten the Indian community living in the Persian Gulf region. A military confrontation with Iran is not even in the wildest dreams of anyone in Europe. The US didn’t even attend the London meet.
The statement issued after the event does not contemplate coercive measures, leave alone military solution. The London statement outlined 4 action points: first, “increase diplomatic pressure on Iran, including through the UN”; second, “Explore co-ordinated economic and political measures, such as sanctions”; third, “work together with the International Maritime Organisation”; and, fourth, “Joint arrangements to support greater market and operational confidence.”
Interestingly, Canberra, one of the few participating countries with credible maritime capability to mount amphibious operations categorically ruled itself out from any such wild adventure. The Australian FM who attended the London meeting since issued an unequivocal statement on April 3, which underscored:
“The focus of last night’s meeting was diplomatic and civilian initiatives countries could pursue to make the Strait of Hormuz accessible and safe… Australia is not taking offensive action against Iran and we are not deploying troops on the ground in Iran. The Australian Government continues to support de-escalation and the resolution of this conflict.”
Equally, France openly opposes any military option. President Emmanuel Macron said attempts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by military means would take an uncertain amount of time and expose participants to risks from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC]. “This has never been the option that we’ve chosen, and we think it’s unrealistic,” Macron said. Italy and Germany also have opposed the entire US-Israeli aggression against Iran.
India chose to avoid even a cursory reference to the Strait of Hormuz. Its readout was titled, “Foreign Secretary’s participation in the meeting hosted by UK on the situation in West Asia (April 02, 2026).” India did not sign up on the joint statement.
Meanwhile, the UN security Council postponed a vote scheduled for Friday on authorising the use of “defensive” force to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz from Iranian attacks following reservations on the part of 3 out of five veto-holding members — France, Russia and China.
China has taken a strong position. “Authorising member states to use force would amount to legitimising the unlawful and indiscriminate use of force, which would inevitably lead to further escalation of the situation and lead to serious consequences,” said Chinese ambassador Fu Cong.
Suffice to say, it is hard to see Russia and China supporting a resolution that treats stability in the Strait of Hormuz exclusively as a security issue. Also, disagreements over the resolution have arisen among the 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council. On its part, Tehran has forewarned against any intrusive resolution. “Any provocative action by the aggressors and their supporters, including in the UN Security Council regarding the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, will only complicate the situation,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.
The Strait of Hormuz has a formidable geography, which favours Iran. The narrow coastline is littered with caves on the cliff. CNN carried a feature article last week titled Mines, missiles and miles of coastline: Why Iran has the upper hand in the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump in his speech on Wednesday regarding the war virtually acknowledged that the US understands that it cannot open the Strait of Hormuz through the use of force. He said it is up to countries dependent on the strait for economic livelihood, to open the waterway.
The only way to resolve the crisis is through an agreement with Iran which of course requires that the concerned country is not hostile towards Iran, not sanctioning Iran or facilitating the US military operations against Iran from its territory. Provided it is a benign interlocutor, such a country can approach the IRGC for a permit to take its ship through the strait. Certainly, in the present war conditions, the IRGC personnel will board the ship, inspect the its cargo, verify the ownership, check the nationality of sailors on board, where the cargo was loaded and its destination, etc.
Once the IRGC green lights the vessel, it will give a code with which the ship can signal Iran’s coastal defences and go through the strait. China, India, Turkey, Japan, Bangladesh, South Korea, etc have shown the way by taking up the issue bilaterally with Iran.
The Strait of Hormuz lies in the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. These two countries are presently drafting a protocol for the joint management of the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran may be gaining out of this situation. After all, it has already shaken off the embargo on its own exports and the US had to issue a waiver allowing its oil exports. Tehran can expect the acquiescence of the international community eventually to its de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz. It will be undoubtedly a historic shift in the geopolitics of the region. Some sort of modus vivendii amongst the regional states may ensue once the war ends and it becomes clear that there is no military solution to the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel is spreading alarmist stories that Saudi Arabia is following the footfalls of the UAE to get the US to intervene militarily to force open the Strait of Hormuz. On the contrary, Saudis are working with like-minded countries to create underpinnings of regional stability in the fluid situation adjusting to the shift of tectonic plates. The leitmotif of the Islamabad meeting of FMs recently — Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia plus Pakistan — was actually more about regional and global stability than for arranging a meeting between JD Vance and Steve Witkoff with Iranian officials.
The Islamabad meeting reached some sort of an agreement following which the Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar paid a hurried trip to Beijing. A major outcome of the visit has been a 5-point initiative by China and Pakistan on March 31 on the Gulf and Middle East Region with focus on
Significantly, two days later, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman also spoke on the phone reconnecting after some interlude to discuss and revive the pursuit of their congruent interests , including OPEC Plus. The Saudi and Russian readouts omitted any reference to the Strait of Hormuz.
Advantage goes to Tehran geopolitically. Iran will use this as trump card to get the western sanctions lifted. Tehran has offered to negotiate an agreement with the EU on the use of the Strait of Hormuz.
To be sure, Trump blundered by attacking Iran and creating war conditions unilaterally, thereby handing over to Tehran the perfect alibi to come out of isolation and even make the Strait of Hormuz a big revenue earner. The Suez Canal fetches Egypt approx. $700 million as toll annually. In comparison, the Strait of Hormuz is estimated to bring in anywhere up to 1 billion dollars annually.

Global Times | April 3, 2026
When Donald Trump threatened to withdraw the US from NATO, Western capitals seemed not to show particular surprise; it was clear they had anticipated it. But the more important question is why, at this particular moment, such a statement could be made at all.
NATO’s current crisis is the consequence of a slow, structural erosion that has been underway for decades. It is also due to its inability to keep pace with the rapidly developing multipolar world.
The alliance’s original logic was straightforward. The Soviet Union posed a clear and present danger. Western Europe needed American protection. Washington needed strategic depth on the European continent. The threat was real, shared, and sufficient to hold divergent interests together.
That threat disappeared in 1991. NATO did not. Instead of dissolving, the alliance tried to consolidate its coherence. Therefore, it had to find a new target.
It began expanding eastward, then globally. Some voices have called for extending its reach into the Indo-Pacific, even to form an “economic NATO” against China, raising questions about NATO’s strategic focus and relevance in a changing world.
An alliance that must continually invent new enemies to justify its existence is already in structural trouble.
In an increasingly multipolar world, NATO’s attempt to wield military power, primarily through American power, to manage global affairs is no longer possible. However, some within NATO have not recognized this change.
The deeper problem is that Western interests have quietly but fundamentally diverged. When the Russia-Ukraine conflict erupted, Europe absorbed the consequences, including soaring energy prices, industrial outflow, and waves of refugees. Today, Europe’s economic outlook is sluggish, and trade friction with the US persists.
Europe has begun asking an uncomfortable question: Are we defending shared values that unite us, or merely subsidizing others’ strategic ambitions? This distinction has raised doubts about the alliance’s purpose.
The war in Iran has sharpened that question considerably.
European governments refused to participate. Even Britain, Washington’s most reliable partner, declined. This was not betrayal but a calculation rooted in domestic political shifts and strategic priorities, illustrating how internal political changes in key NATO members influence alliance cohesion and decision-making.
Trump’s rise is itself a symptom of deeper forces. America’s middle class has hollowed out. The US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq destroyed the domestic legitimacy of overseas intervention. Younger Americans show little attachment to the idea of their country as the world’s indispensable guarantor.
The fiscal arithmetic is unforgiving. The US federal debt has exceeded $36 trillion. Interest payments now surpass the defense budget. The cost of maintaining a global military presence is real, recurring, and increasingly unsustainable. This is not ideology. It is arithmetic.
As for an economic NATO directed at China, the very ambition reveals the depth of Western strategic anxiety. But if the military alliance is already fracturing, what would hold together a coalition that would ask its members to prepare for a long economic war with China, the world’s second-largest economy? Such a move would be fatal for NATO member states.
The idea of using NATO to expand Western ideology globally is either out of touch with the times or simply foolish. NATO no longer possesses that kind of power.
History offers no example of a great power that maintained its global commitments indefinitely after internal contradictions, economic decline, and domestic fractures. The US will not be the exception, highlighting the need for strategic adaptation.
NATO’s story is not yet finished. But the forces pulling it apart are not the invention of any single administration. They are the accumulated weight of unresolved contradictions, contradictions that have been building since the wall came down.
Trump did not create that weight. He simply brought forward the moment it hit the ground.
The war in Iran has provided the world with a window into what awaits hegemonic powers if they fail to keep pace with global progress. The fate of NATO is no exception.
Xinhua | April 4, 2026
A poll conducted by Gallup found that China surpassed the United States in global approval ratings in 2025, with a median of 36 percent approving of China’s leadership, compared with 31 percent for the United States.
Gallup’s report published Friday said China’s five-percentage-point advantage over the United States is the widest it has recorded in China’s favor in nearly 20 years.
The recent shift reflects a decline in US ratings alongside an increase for China. Median approval of US leadership fell from 39 percent in 2024 to 31 percent in 2025, returning to earlier lows, while China’s approval rose from 32 percent to 36 percent, according to the report.
The latest results are based on Gallup surveys conducted in 2025 in more than 130 countries, with around 1,000 respondents in each country. They do not account for recent U.S. foreign policy moves since the beginning of 2026, including its attack on Iran and its withdrawal from 66 international organizations.
Approval of US leadership has declined across many US allied nations, including many NATO partners, and sunk the most in Germany by 39 percentage points.
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – April 3, 2026
Press TV – April 3, 2026
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has revealed hard evidence on the involvement of some Persian Gulf Arab states in the unprovoked US-Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic.
In a post on social media platform X on Friday, Baghaei published photos of a drone, which was shot down in southern Iran on Thursday, noting that only two regional states possess this drone, without naming them.
“This drone was downed by our brave armed forces over the beloved city of Hafiz and Saadi, Shiraz,” he said, referring to the two prominent Persian poets.
“It could be another (hard) evidence of direct participation and active complicity of some states of the region in US-Israel crime of aggression and war crimes against Iran,” Baghaei said.
The spokesman demanded “clarification” by “either of the TWO STATES of the region that are the users of this drone!”
The downed drone initially appeared to be an American MQ-9. However, military experts say it is actually a Wing Loong-2 drone, which is operated by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Last month, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran’s neighboring countries should “promptly” clarify their position regarding their role in the “slaughter” of Iranian civilians by the Israeli regime and the United States.
In a post on his X account in mid-March, Araghchi said hundreds of Iranian civilians, including children, have been killed in Israel-US bombings.
“Reports claim that some neighboring states that host US forces and permit attacks on Iran are also actively encouraging this slaughter,” the top Iranian diplomat stated.
He said positions should be promptly clarified on the mass killing of Iranian civilians.
The US and Israel started the latest round of unlawful military aggression on Iran on February 28, some eight months after they carried out unprovoked attacks on the country.
The attacks led to the martyrdom of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and hundreds of Iranian civilians, including women and children, as well as several senior military commanders.
Iran has carried out extensive retaliatory attacks on US assets in the region and on locations in the Israeli-occupied territories since the very first day of the US–Israeli aggression.
The Islamic Republic says it respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors and that its reprisal attacks are directed at US assets and bases on their soil.
It has also warned regional countries not to allow their territory to be used for attacks against Iran.
Al Mayadeen | April 3, 2026
The United Nations Security Council on Friday postponed a vote on a draft resolution authorizing force in the Strait of Hormuz, as divisions deepen among major powers amid the ongoing war on Iran.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned ahead of the session that any move within the Council could escalate tensions further. “Any provocative action by the aggressors and their supporters, including in the UN Security Council regarding the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, will only complicate the situation,” he said.
The vote, initially scheduled for today, concerned a Bahrain-led proposal that would allow the use of “defensive” force to protect commercial shipping in the strategic waterway. The measure is backed by the United States and several Gulf states, which have been heavily impacted by the disruption of maritime traffic.
However, the session was delayed with no new date announced. Russia, China, and France have raised objections to earlier drafts, particularly over language that could authorize military action, warning that such steps risk widening the war.
Diplomatic wrangling has already forced Bahrain to revise the proposal multiple times. Earlier versions reportedly included language permitting “all necessary means,” a formulation commonly interpreted as allowing military force, before being scaled back under pressure from opposing members.
The evolving text has been repeatedly watered down in an effort to avoid a veto, shifting from explicit authorization of force toward more limited “defensive” measures, with additional conditions on how any action would be carried out.
Despite backing the broader push led by Bahrain and the United States, France has played a more complex role in negotiations. Paris has participated in drafting efforts while also resisting stronger provisions, joining Russia and China in blocking earlier versions of the resolution during the so-called “silence procedure”, effectively preventing its automatic adoption.
At the same time, France has pushed for de-escalation and a delayed or limited mandate instead of immediate authorization of force, amid concerns that military action would further destabilize the situation.
The dispute unfolds against the backdrop of a severe crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, driven by Iranian restrictions imposed in retaliation for US-Israeli aggression. The resulting disruption to tanker traffic has triggered a major shock to global energy markets.
Despite the military buildup, Iran has maintained a controlled approach to maritime transit, allowing selective passage for non-hostile states while restricting vessels linked to the United States, “Israel,” and their allies.