Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

IRGC targets US military base in response to attack on Bandar Abbas

 Al Mayadeen | May 28, 2026

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a stern warning on Thursday following a US military violation and aggression near the Bandar Abbas Airport, stressing that any further aggression “will not go unanswered.”

In a statement released by its public relations office, the IRGC said the US military launched aerial projectiles at a location on the outskirts of Bandar Abbas before dawn. It added that Iran responded by targeting the US air base from which the attack originated at approximately 4:50 am.

The operation comes as a “serious warning,” the IRGC said, adding that the response was intended to demonstrate that any aggression against Iran would be met with retaliation, warning that any repeat attack would provoke “a more decisive response.”

“The responsibility for the consequences lies with the aggressor,” the statement added.

At the same time, the Kuwaiti military confirmed that “air defense systems are confronting missile and drone attacks.”

During the war, Iran repeatedly warned that any US military base used to launch attacks against its territory would be considered a legitimate target, stressing that while it maintains friendly relations with neighboring countries, it would not hesitate to strike the source of any aggression.

US attacks Bandar Abbas 

This comes after the US military targeted the “scorched earth” areas surrounding the city of Bandar Abbas, as explosions were heard across the area without any reported casualties or material damage, according to an Iranian military source cited by Tasnim News Agency.

Shortly after, Iranian media outlets reported hearing three explosions east of Bandar Abbas, with air defense systems activated.

Meanwhile, Reuters quoted a US official as saying that the US military had carried out fresh strikes on an Iranian military site near the Strait of Hormuz and allegedly intercepted several Iranian drones that were deemed “a threat to US forces.”

Similarly, on Monday, the US launched an aggression on alleged missile sites in southern Iran and targeted boats allegedly attempting to lay naval mines in the area, according to the US Central Command.

US tanker forced to retreat from Hormuz following Iranian intervention

In a related escalation, a US oil tanker attempted to cross the Strait of Hormuz overnight after disabling its radar system, but was forced to retreat after the Iranian navy responded swiftly and opened fire on the vessel, Tasnim reported, citing an Iranian military source.

Washington’s continued violations have raised fresh concerns over the stability of the current ceasefire and prospects for a broader regional agreement, with the US yet again bombing Iran in the middle of talks.

Just yesterday, Tasnim reported that progress has been made in talks, particularly on the release of Iran’s frozen assets in Qatar. However, reaching a final formulation of the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran requires resolving outstanding differences, as per the same sources.

They emphasized that the mechanism for announcing the memorandum must be joint, warning that any unilateral announcement by the United States could be “not entirely accurate.”

The initial framework of the proposed understanding includes ending the aggression on all fronts, releasing Iran’s frozen assets, lifting the maritime blockade, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

The sources further indicated that, following the implementation of this initial phase, a 60-day negotiation period, extendable, would be allocated to address Iran’s nuclear file.

May 28, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on IRGC targets US military base in response to attack on Bandar Abbas

Strategic rebound: How Iran turned military aggression and economic siege into lasting leverage

By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | May 27, 2026

The US military aggression and economic strangulation ended in a ceasefire, not because of American goodwill, but because the war objectives failed and the aggression backfired.

This outcome reflects a new strategic reality that emerged during the war itself.

Facing the biggest military assault in its history, with Western and Arab countries complicit in arming and supporting the enemy across multiple fronts, Iran not only avoided strategic collapse but imposed a new balance of power on the battlefield.

Against overwhelming odds and coordinated pressure, Iranian resistance transformed what was meant to be a war of submission into a demonstration of enduring national strength.

What has emerged now is far more than the end of a military aggression against the Islamic Republic. It is the failure of a campaign designed to weaken Iran, isolate it from other nations, drain its economic strength, and ultimately force it into strategic retreat.

Military lessons of the war

In terms of the military, the most telling and self-evident lesson from the war is that the idea of “shaping Iran to crumble quickly” was misguided from the outset. Even after multiple claims by the enemy that Iran’s missile infrastructure, command centers, and launch capabilities had been destroyed, Iran continued its regular military activity, hitting the enemy at will.

Missile and drone operations were carried out multiple times every day during the war. The continuity of launch waves will one day become one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that the backbone of Iran’s strategic missile program has remained completely intact.

This revealed a critical wrong assumption made by both Americans and Zionists: the true extent of Iran’s underground military infrastructure, its depth, dispersion, and survivability.

Much of Iran’s arsenal of rockets, along with the necessary underground launching, storage, and escape facilities, is located in hardened bunker networks built over decades to resist common aerial attacks. Some of the most effective US bunker-penetration munitions are thought to be severely restricted by these heavily fortified facilities.

Operational philosophy: Restraint as strength

Also significant was the implementation of Iran’s operational philosophy during the war. Data has shown that Iran was not as aggressive in its use of its most advanced missiles as is often believed. Several systems discussed for years in military circles were either underutilized or not used at all. This has reinforced assessments that Iran deliberately relied more heavily on older missile stockpiles while carefully managing the timing and intensity of launches.

This has led to reports that Iran deliberately kept some of its strategic missiles in reserve while using older arms with calibrated firing patterns. This approach enabled Tehran to maintain its escalation edge while simultaneously proving sustainability.

Moreover, recent reports and analyses of military forces in the region suggest that systems for launching newer solid-fuel ballistic missiles with dual-stage capsules were not widely deployed, though they could greatly boost launch density in future operations.

Iran mounted extended attacks without fully testing its more sophisticated launch architecture. The size and intensity of future attacks could be far greater than anything seen so far.

The naval dimension: Anti-access and area denial

The naval dimension of the war also revealed a major shift in regional deterrence equations. US carrier groups operated well off Iranian waters on opposite shores, a remarkable caution given the overwhelming power of the American navy.

It has become clear that as Iran has matured its anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) doctrine, derived from the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles, long-range cruise weapons, drones, and multi-tiered coastal defense systems, the country has imposed a new caution on American operational decisions.

The Khalij Fars and Hormuz missiles, along with newer generations of anti-ship missiles, pose a serious threat to large naval assets in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Notably, these systems were not used during the recent war, indicating that Iran kept its deterrent capacity largely unused – yet visible enough to alter enemy behavior. This restraint sends its own message: what remains in the arsenal is far more capable than what was shown.

Strategic failure: The unraveling of the pressure campaign

Strategically, the most significant event of the third imposed war has been the complete failure of the original political goal behind the military pressure campaign. What its planners envisioned was a war that would trigger internal instability within Iran’s borders, fracture its command structure, undermine its regional cooperation, and ultimately isolate Tehran as a matter of strategy. Prolonged military pressure, they believed, would achieve what decades of illegal and crippling sanctions could not.

Not a single one of these goals was realized. The Iranian state machinery was not fractured. Continuity of command was maintained. Regional ally networks remained not only intact but operationally effective. In fact, the war produced the opposite effect on multiple fronts.

The war reinforced Iran’s broader strategic narrative across the region that military pressure alone cannot force Tehran into capitulation.

Diplomatic implications: A unified front that never formed

The results carry significant implications for diplomacy as well. Perhaps the most obvious fact to emerge from the war is that Iran successfully thwarted the establishment of any unified international body arrayed against it.

Despite a heavy Western political and military campaign coordinated with Israeli objectives, large portions of the Global South refused to align with the escalation drive against Tehran.

Several regional governments actively worked to defuse the crisis rather than escalate it. Major powers like China and Russia remained opposed to wider international isolation measures. Even among Western allies, growing concerns emerged regarding the risks of uncontrolled regional escalation, energy disruption, and maritime insecurity.

This deep division inhibited Washington from fashioning the kind of new global pressure architecture against Iran that it has typically pursued during past crises – from nuclear non-proliferation to regional security frameworks. The coalition that was meant to isolate Iran found itself isolated instead.

Economic dimension: Sanctions undermined, energy leverage preserved

The economic goal of the unprovoked war was another expected outcome that was not met. During the war, the economic disruption that many external observers had anticipated became totally muted. Iran continued exporting energy and maintaining its internal markets and logistics throughout the war, despite pressure on infrastructure and the weight of sanctions.

Remarkably, the US-Israeli aggression and Iranian retaliation revealed the fragile nature of the global energy system when it comes to instability involving Iran. The mere threat of escalation at the Strait of Hormuz triggered an immediate reaction from the international community, precisely because of the waterway’s critical importance to global oil supply.

Tehran’s inability to be isolated without sparking international ramifications was reaffirmed by the facts, not least of which are Iran’s deep ties to the region’s energy landscape and its central role in maritime security.

Industrial adaptation: War as a catalyst for expansion

The swift pace of the industrial adaptation process was another crucial factor in the recent war. Based on domestic sources and analyses from military-affiliated institutions, the rate of missile production had already dramatically increased after the 12-day war in June last year, and the recent war only accelerated and extended it even further.

Iran possesses a widespread defense industry, and even if aggressors succeed in targeting its production facilities, these are interdependent in such a way that they can localize supply chains and establish underground production lines.

Far from halting production and launch capabilities, the latest war has spurred strategic investments in survivability, redundancy, and high-volume output.

Political triumph: The narrative that collapsed

Among the more significant political considerations, this war represents a significant triumph for Iran, given the failure of the central narrative that Tel Aviv and Washington had been aggressively pushing for decades.

Their premise was that continued military, economic, and diplomatic pressure would eventually bring Tehran to the end of its rope, forcing it to “sit at the table” to negotiate strategic concessions.

Instead, the war proved to be another confirmation of the reverse: Iran under pressure continues to function, possesses the capacity to retaliate, and maintains domestic and governmental strength and unity. Most importantly, it has survived the encounter with its ability to influence regional affairs completely intact.

This is not to suggest that Iran was unaffected or bore no costs. Wars come with severe costs. But strategic results are not determined solely by the scale of damage. They are determined by the ultimate success or failure of political and military objectives.

The new regional reality

In this respect, there is growing evidence that Iran’s opponents found themselves baffled by the outcome. A campaign designed to diminish Iranian deterrence ended up confirming much of it.

A policy aimed at isolating Iran was met by a pressure strategy that ultimately promoted de-escalation with Tehran and prevented tensions from proliferating across the region.

What emerged instead were increased challenges and the risk of direct confrontation with a long-established regional power armed with deep missile stockpiles, rugged supply chains, and a mature asymmetric warfare doctrine.

The lessons that have become clear on the battlefield, in regional negotiations, and in energy calculations leave Iran poised to enter the post-war era with strategic gains and enhanced leverage.

May 28, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Strategic rebound: How Iran turned military aggression and economic siege into lasting leverage

US, Israel root cause of insecurity in region, have no place in its future: Iranian official

Press TV – May 27, 2026

The vice secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has denounced hostile measures by the United States and the Israeli regime as the root cause of insecurity in West Asia.

Ali Bagheri-Kani made the remarks in a Wednesday meeting with head of the International Security Division at Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Gabriel Luchinger, on the sidelines of the 14th International Meeting of High Representatives Responsible for Security Issues in the Russian capital, Moscow.

Bagheri-Kani said the root cause of insecurity and instability in the region is the Israeli regime’s and the United States’ aggressive measures, emphasizing they will have no role in its future.

For his part, Luchinger expressed his deep condolences over the assassination of former secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani in an Israeli airstrike on March 17, stating that Bern is prepared to cooperate with Tehran to resolve regional and international issues.

The two officials further discussed and exchanged viewpoints on regional and international developments, particularly the fallout of the US-Israeli war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Earlier, Bagheri-Kani met and held talks with Iraqi National Security Adviser Qasim al- Araji.

Bagheri-Kani arrived in Moscow on Tuesday to take part in the international security conference. Besides giving a speech at the event, the Iranian official is expected to meet with several Russian political and security leaders.

The International Security Forum is taking place in Moscow from May 26 to 29, aimed at fostering practical collaboration among nations and facilitating a non-political, thorough dialogue on urgent security challenges.

The forum also features the 14th International Meeting of High Representatives Responsible for Security Issues, a variety of thematic sessions (academic conferences, roundtables, briefings, presentations), as well as bilateral and multilateral meetings and exhibits that display specific projects from relevant Russian agencies and organizations.

May 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on US, Israel root cause of insecurity in region, have no place in its future: Iranian official

Iran TV shows details of unofficial preliminary US-Iran MoU framework

Al Mayadeen | May 27, 2026

The Iranian state television has unveiled a preliminary and unofficial draft memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States, outlining potential arrangements on maritime activity and regional security.

The draft framework, as per the broadcaster, suggests that the United States would commit to lifting a maritime blockade on Iran. In return, Iran would agree to restore commercial shipping through key maritime routes to pre-escalation levels within one month.

The reported arrangement does not apply to military vessels.

The report also said the draft includes provisions placing the management and regulation of maritime transit routes under Iranian oversight, in coordination with the Sultanate of Oman.

Military base troop status remains unresolved

In detail, the unofficial draft stipulated that the United States would agree in principle to withdraw military forces from areas surrounding Iran, including recently deployed regional assets. However, it added that the status of forces already stationed at established military bases would remain subject to further negotiation.

The Iranian state television further revealed that the draft proposes that, if a final agreement is reached within 60 days, it could be submitted for adoption as a binding United Nations Security Council resolution.

The Iranian state broadcaster added that the understanding reportedly reached in Islamabad remains unresolved and non-final, stressing that Iran would not take any steps without verifiable and tangible confirmation of implementation measures.

US-Iran MoU delayed amid disputes over final wording: CNN 

CNNreported earlier on  Wednesday that a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran remains uncertain despite earlier signs of broad consensus among negotiators.

According to diplomats familiar with the discussions, officials involved in the talks still do not know when or where the agreement could be formally signed, even after key language in the draft was reportedly finalized over the weekend.

The report said expectations had risen Saturday after US President Donald Trump held calls with Gulf leaders while negotiators considered the text effectively “locked in”. Regional sources cited by CNN said the understanding was viewed as a potential opening toward ending the war, reducing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, and paving the way for broader negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program and other disputes.

However, progress appears to have stalled over unresolved wording disputes.

Fragile negotiations

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday that negotiations still required “a couple of days” to settle “disagreements” over a “word or sentence.”

Speaking during a visit to India, Rubio said talks were continuing in Doha and remained centered on “specific language in the initial document,” while insisting that an agreement could still be reached within days despite renewed military escalation.

“The president’s expressed his desire to make it. He’s either going to make a good deal or no deal,” Rubio said, referring to Trump.

The report noted that delays have increased concerns among regional actors who fear the talks could collapse in a manner similar to previous failed diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran.

CNN also cited tensions during earlier contacts involving US Vice President JD Vance in Pakistan last month, when Iranian negotiators reportedly accused Washington of altering agreed terms after discussions had advanced.

Mounting pressure

The ceasefire framework underpinning the negotiations has meanwhile entered its eighth week amid mounting regional strain, including renewed instability in the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian warnings of retaliation following recent US attacks, and escalating Israeli aggression against Lebanon.

The latest tensions come after US Central Command confirmed that American forces carried out strikes in southern Iran on Tuesday, claiming the attacks were conducted “in self-defense” during the ongoing ceasefire period.

At the same time, tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz have continued to intensify after Iran moved to restrict traffic through the strategic waterway in response to US-Israeli aggression.

The report added that international and regional pressure to secure the agreement and prevent further escalation continues to intensify as energy markets and shipping routes remain exposed to the risk of wider conflict.

“A few words or sentence even on a ‘locked in’ MOU is unlikely to give him everything he wants,” CNN wrote, referring to Trump’s efforts to present the agreement as a diplomatic breakthrough.

May 27, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran TV shows details of unofficial preliminary US-Iran MoU framework

India-Israel-UAE: An Alliance of Many Anxieties

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – May 27, 2026

The I2U2 — that much-heralded “West Asian Quad” of India, Israel, the UAE, and the United States — is gathering dust. Launched with fanfare in July 2022 and billed as a transformative framework for regional integration, it has produced little of consequence since its inaugural summit.

Progress stalled through 2024, and its April 2025 revival dialogue in New Delhi was notably described as the first convening of the group in almost two years. Without sustained American engagement, the scaffolding has simply collapsed. What remains, however, is something more durable and more troubling: an informal troika of Israel, the UAE, and India, joined not by shared ambition but by a shared phobia.

Three States, One Obsession

Strip away the diplomatic pleasantries, and the organic glue binding Jerusalem, Abu Dhabi, and New Delhi is strikingly similar: each government perceives political Islam — in its domestic and regional expressions — as a foundational threat to its survival. For the UAE, the enemy has a name: the Muslim Brotherhood. Abu Dhabi under Mohammed bin Zayed has treated Brotherhood-affiliated movements as an existential menace to dynastic stability. The Emirati government’s sweeping crackdown on al-Islah, the Brotherhood’s local affiliate, was driven by the calculation that political Islam of any kind is fundamentally threatening to government security. The UAE formally designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation in 2014, backed the military coup in Egypt, led the 2017 blockade of Qatar, and as recently as January 2025, blacklisted eleven individuals and eight UK-based organisations linked to Brotherhood networks. This is not counterterrorism policy in any conventional sense; it is a preemptive war on political pluralism dressed in security language.

India’s version of the same anxiety plays out along the Hindu-Muslim fault line. Anti-Muslim sentiment has intensified systematically since 2014. India’s 200 million Muslims — the world’s third-largest Muslim population — have faced demolitions of homes, discriminatory citizenship legislation, and a political atmosphere. The BJP government has systematically reframed domestic Muslim political life as a security threat, deploying counterterrorism law against peaceful dissent. If the UAE fears a Brotherhood-style capture of the state, India fears the democratic agency of its own largest minority.

Israel’s specter is Palestine. More precisely, it is the impossibility of indefinitely suppressing Palestinian political self-determination without a cost to legitimacy. For all three governments, the language of “counterterrorism” functions as a tranquilizer: it sedates domestic dissent, silences international criticism, and transforms political opponents into security threats. This shared grammar of repression is the true foundation of the troika.

While tackling these internal and regional threats remains a key imperative, the most recent push to revive the alliance, even without Washington being a formal member, is Iran and the still ongoing Iran war.

From Phobia to Alliance: Iran as the Accelerant

If political Islam is the ideological glue, Iran is what has now hardened this informal troika into something resembling a war coalition. Following the US-Israeli strikes on Iran that began on February 28, 2026, the theoretical alignments of the Abraham Accords era became operational reality. Iran retaliated by targeting Gulf infrastructure, firing some 550 ballistic and cruise missiles and more than 2,200 drones at the UAE, making it the most targeted country in the region, including Israel. In response, Israel did something unprecedented: it deployed an Iron Dome battery, Israeli troops to operate it, and reportedly also its cutting-edge Iron Beam laser defence system and Spectro surveillance technology to Emirati soil. The Financial Times reported that Israeli military personnel on the ground in Gulf states were “a not insignificant number”. Emirati officials, reflecting on who came to their defence, reportedly said: “It was a real eye-opening moment. To see who our real friends are.”

The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, were partly motivated by a shared perception of the Iranian threat. What the 2026 conflict has done is strip away all residual ambiguity about what that means in practice. The UAE allowed its territory and airspace to be used by Israeli and American forces for strikes on Iran, according to Iranian officials. The Israeli Air Force carried out strikes in southern Iran during the war to neutralize short-range missiles threatening Gulf states. Abu Dhabi and Jerusalem are no longer strategic partners in aspiration; they are military partners in fact. The dream project of dismantling Iran as a regional power, long whispered in the corridors of both capitals, is now an open agenda.

It is in this context that Prime Minister Modi’s May 15, 2026 visit to Abu Dhabi — his eighth trip to the UAE in twelve years — must be read. The visit produced a raft of agreements: $5 billion in Emirati investment pledges, a long-term LPG supply deal, ADNOC access to India’s strategic petroleum reserves, and — most significantly — a formal Framework for the Strategic Defence Partnership covering defence industrial collaboration, cybersecurity, intelligence sharing, maritime security, and joint military exercises. Modi also chose to publicly condemn the Iranian attacks on the UAE and pledged India’s support in maintaining regional peace — a significant departure from the studied neutrality New Delhi had maintained for years. The visit came one day after India had hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who had openly accused the UAE of being “directly involved” in the US-Israeli war on Iran. The juxtaposition was not accidental; it was a signal about the direction of India’s foreign policy.

Silence Is No Longer a Strategy

For years, India’s position in this triangular relationship was one of studied ambiguity. New Delhi deepened ties with Israel and the UAE while maintaining functional relations with Iran and nominally adhering to the principle of strategic autonomy. That posture is now collapsing under the weight of events.

The contradiction at its heart is Chabahar. In May 2024, India signed a ten-year agreement to operate the Shahid Beheshti terminal, committing $120 million with a further $250 million credit line. This was to be New Delhi’s only viable overland and maritime gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia that bypasses Pakistan. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi has called it a “golden gate” for India’s connectivity ambitions. Yet the US ended its special sanctions waiver for Chabahar in September 2025, and India has been reduced to exploring a temporary transfer of its stake back to Iran to avoid American penalties. Strategic autonomy, it turns out, survives only on American sufferance. Meanwhile, any Indian military technology that reaches the UAE now enters a security ecosystem that includes Israel — meaning India’s new defence partnership with Abu Dhabi is, in practice, an indirect alignment with Tel Aviv.

India now faces a reckoning that its political class has been deferring for years. As the region moves from cold confrontation to hot war, the space for equidistance evaporates. Every arms deal, every investment pact, every public statement condemning Iranian strikes while maintaining silence on Gaza and the West Bank narrows the gap between partnership and complicity. The troika that fear built has a peculiar logic: states drawn together by what they dread at home — Muslim political power in its various forms — will inevitably be pulled toward a shared agenda abroad. For India, the path ahead is less a clear choice than a delicate negotiation — with its own pluralistic traditions, with its new partners in the Gulf and Israel, and with a neighbourhood that offers no easy answers. What happens next will depend not on grand declarations, but on the quiet, unglamorous work of balancing interests without losing sight of the human cost at home.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

May 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Islamophobia, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on India-Israel-UAE: An Alliance of Many Anxieties

Al Jazeera Claims The US-Iran Deal is Done… Not So Fast

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | May 27, 2026 

Notwithstanding the Al Jazeera report, there are still significant areas of disagreement that make a deal between Iran and the US unlikely. The Pakistan-Qatar mediation channel toward a possible memorandum of understanding remains active. But “active” does not mean “settled.” The unresolved center of gravity remains sequencing. The following is based on information I received from a knowledgeable source with access to the negotiations. It mirrors my analysis.

Washington and Israel want Iranian concessions first, while Tehran wants tangible, front-loaded economic and security relief before it gives ground on anything that matters. That is the heart of the present deadlock.

Iran’s position is not theatrical. It is rooted in a clear strategic doctrine: after decades of sanctions, pressure, assassinations, sabotage, and military threats, Tehran will not trade hard leverage for verbal assurances or a memorandum of understanding.

Promises are not enough. Mechanisms matter. Sequencing matters. Asset movement matters. Enforcement matters. The central judgment is this: Iran is not blinking.

Tehran is not operating from weakness, confusion, or desperation. It is executing a highly disciplined strategic posture: firmness on the fundamentals, flexibility on the margins, and careful use of its available leverage across the nuclear file, the Strait of Hormuz, regional alliances, frozen assets, and the Pakistan-Qatar mediation channel.

This is not the behavior of a state preparing for unconditional surrender. Nor is it the behavior of a state recklessly lurching toward total war. It is the behavior of a state converting pressure into leverage — and leverage into economic and security guarantees.

The Nuclear File: Sovereignty Is the Red Line

According to a knowledgeable source, enrichment is not a negotiable bargaining chip. Tehran views enrichment as three things simultaneously:

  1. A sovereign right;
  2. A deterrence instrument;
  3. A domestic legitimacy anchor.

No meaningful quantity of enriched uranium will leave Iranian territory under the present framework. That line is firm.

On weaponization, the assessment is more nuanced. Iran is not presently building a bomb. But it is deliberately preserving the capability to move toward one if it concludes that its survival is at stake.

The phrase “all bets are off” should not be read as an announcement of imminent weaponization. It should be read as doctrine: if Iran faces an existential assault, it will not leave any strategic option permanently closed. That is virtual deterrence — and, at least for now, it is working.

Strait of Hormuz: Tehran’s Non-Nuclear Strategic Lever

The Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s most powerful non-nuclear instrument. The logic from Tehran is blunt: the United States cannot freeze Iranian assets, sanction Iranian exports, suffocate Iranian banking channels, and then expect unconditional maritime passage as though nothing has happened.

Iran’s emerging posture appears tiered and deliberate. Friendly states receive passage. Neutral states are handled selectively. Hostile or adversary-linked shipping will face interdiction, delay, or denial. This is not simply military posturing. Tehran is attempting to convert maritime geography into a regional security architecture based on reciprocity: if Iran’s economy is strangled, the economic arteries of others will not remain entirely immune.

The reported MOU framework involving the Strait appears real: Iranian de-escalation in exchange for sanctions relief, asset movement, and restoration of commercial access. But the sequencing dispute remains unresolved. Iran wants assets released before surrendering maritime leverage. Washington wants compliance in the Strait before releasing assets. As I write this (Tuesday evening eastern time) this issues remains unresolved.

The Drone and Air-Defense War: Contested Skies, Real Costs

The airspace over Iran, the Persian Gulf, and adjacent maritime corridors has become a live drone and air-defense battlespace. Iran’s message is clear: it may not dominate the air domain, but it can make aerial operations expensive, politically visible, and operationally imperfect. Every drone interdicted, every platform forced down, every failed or disrupted operation adds friction. That friction shapes how Washington and Tel Aviv assess the real cost of escalation.

This is deterrence by attrition. Not absolute deterrence. Not total denial. But enough to complicate operational planning and raise the political price of continued pressure.

Frozen Assets: The Economic Core of the Negotiation

The frozen-assets file is not peripheral. It is central. According to a knowledgeable source with access, Iran is demanding immediate movement on approximately $12 billion held through Qatar-linked channels, within a much larger claim that Tehran places at more than $100 billion in frozen overseas assets.

This is the economic heart of the negotiation. Tehran wants asset release as a precondition for meaningful concessions. Washington wants asset relief conditioned on Iranian performance first. Until this is resolved in a concrete, enforceable way — not with vague language or aspirational language — no MOU is likely to hold. Iran is leery of any verbal assurances from the West and does not trust a MOU having been burned previously on this issue after signing the JCPOA.

For Tehran, this is not merely about money. It is about proof of seriousness. If Washington cannot or will not move assets, Tehran will conclude that the negotiation is designed to extract concessions without delivering relief.

Lebanon and Hezbollah: The Detonator Built Into the System

Lebanon remains the most dangerous variable in the entire equation. The diplomatic architecture now being constructed contains a structural flaw, and that flaw runs directly through Beirut. Lebanon is not a side theater. It is the tripwire.

Israel wants continued freedom of operation in southern Lebanon. Iran views Hezbollah as a central pillar of its regional deterrence architecture. From Tehran’s perspective, Hezbollah is not a disposable card. It is non-negotiable. Hezbollah has not agreed to disarm. Israel has not abandoned its operational doctrine. Iran has not agreed to separate the Lebanese file from its broader regional deterrence posture.

The American formula — that if Hezbollah behaves, Israel will behave — is not a guarantee. It is an aspiration dressed up as a diplomatic condition. This means that even a signed MOU between Washington and Tehran could be blown apart by one Israeli operation in Lebanon, or one Hezbollah response, that crosses a threshold neither side can fully control. In fact, Israel has renewed its offensive in Lebanon on Tuesday, but apparently acceded to Donald Trump’s demand to halt bombings of Beirut.

The ground war in southern Lebanon, however, is back on in its full fury, with Israel trying to push beyond the Yellow Line while Hezbollah is scoring major hits on Israeli forces, tanks and vehicles. Netanyahu is facing major pressure from Ben Gvir and Smotrich to expand military operations

Abraham Accords and the Pakistan Variable

Iran’s rejection of the Abraham Accords is categorical. Tehran views the Accords as a U.S.-backed normalization architecture designed to entrench Israeli regional legitimacy while hollowing out the Palestinian cause. Any attempt to fold that architecture into an Iran settlement cuts directly against Tehran’s strategic and ideological position.

The Pakistan dimension is especially sensitive. Islamabad is functioning as a key mediation channel between Washington and Tehran. But pressuring Pakistan to join or support the Abraham Accords while simultaneously relying on Pakistan to carry messages to Tehran creates a structural contradiction. Pakistan understands this. Its public rejection of forced linkage is not diplomatic boilerplate. It is the condition under which Islamabad preserves credibility with Tehran and keeps the mediation channel alive.

Saudi Arabia remains in its established position: no normalization without a credible path to Palestinian statehood. In the current environment, that condition cannot be met.

Three Triggers That Could Blow This Up

The negotiations remain alive because both sides understand the danger of uncontrolled escalation. But there is no strategic trust. The situation remains combustible and highly sequenced. One operational incident could change the trajectory very quickly.

The three most dangerous triggers are:

1. Failure of the frozen-asset transfer mechanism
If Tehran concludes that Washington is blocking relief while extracting concessions, the entire diplomatic framework could collapse.

2. An Israeli operation in Lebanon that crosses Iran’s response threshold
This could force Hezbollah into a major confrontation and pull Iran back into a harder regional posture.

3. Renewed US strikes during the ceasefire or negotiation window
If Iran reads such strikes as negotiation under fire, it is likely to conclude that diplomacy is merely cover for coercion.

Video

May 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Al Jazeera Claims The US-Iran Deal is Done… Not So Fast

Col Doug Macgregor NO DUST NO DEAL, Seems Like We’re Closer to Hot War w/Iran

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 26, 2026

May 26, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Col Doug Macgregor NO DUST NO DEAL, Seems Like We’re Closer to Hot War w/Iran

‘Unacceptable’: Islamabad won’t normalize with Israel, defense minister says despite Trump’s push

Press TV – May 26, 2026

Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif has asserted opposition to his country’s normalizing relations with the Israeli regime after US President Donald Trump called on regional states to enter rapprochement deals with Tel Aviv.

Speaking to Pakistani broadcaster Samaa TV on Monday, Asif said Pakistan should not support agreements that conflict with the country’s “fundamental ideologies.”

Asif made the remarks after being asked about the possibility of Pakistan’s joining the so-called Abraham Accords – a set of Washington-facilitated détentes that have normalized relations between some regional countries and Tel Aviv – following reported pressure from Trump.

Questioning engagement with the regime, the Pakistani defense minister added, “How will you sit down with those people whose word cannot be trusted even for a single day?”

He also reiterated Islamabad’s longstanding position regarding the regime. “We have a very clear stance that this is not acceptable to us,” Asif said.

Referring to Pakistan’s passport policy, he added, “And secondly, on our passports, we are the only country whose passports don’t even include Israel’s name.”

Trump pushes for expansion of Abraham Accords

The remarks came as Trump called for more countries to follow the example of such states as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain that have entered rapprochement deals with Tel Aviv.

He suggested that those countries join the “Abraham Accords” before conclusion of any agreement between Iran and the United States aimed at ending the cycle that has arisen out of Washington’s unprovoked aggression against the Islamic Republic.

Trump said expansion of the accords “should start with the immediate signing by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and everybody else should follow suit.”

He also said that during discussions with leaders of Muslim and Arab countries, he stressed that “all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously, [should] sign onto the Abraham Accords.”

He said “it should be mandatory” for those states to join the normalization deals “after all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together.”

The US president did not clarify further, but observers commenting on his remarks said he was either trying to condition any agreement with Iran on realization of such détentes or portray a favorable picture of regional normalization with the occupying regime and Washington’s role in it.

Trump described the accords as beneficial for participating countries.

“The Abraham Accords have proven to be, for the Countries involved (The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and Kazakhstan), a Financial, Economic, and Social BOOM, even during this time of Conflict and War, with the current Members never even suggesting leaving, or taking so much as even a pause,” he wrote.

Reports, including those provided by Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, have shown how the countries in question, especially the UAE, have been deriving economic benefits from the normalization accords even as the Israeli regime would sustain its campaign of occupation and aggression against Palestinians, including its war of genocide on the Gaza Strip.

Palestinians and their supporters have vociferously denounced the accords, condemning their regional signatories for their betrayal of the Palestinian cause of confronting Israeli atrocities.

May 26, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on ‘Unacceptable’: Islamabad won’t normalize with Israel, defense minister says despite Trump’s push

West planning to use former ISIS militants against Iran – FSB chief

RT | May 26, 2026

Western spy agencies are intending to use Syrian militants as a proxy force against Iran, Russian Federal Security Service chief Aleksandr Bortnikov has said.

The jihadists, who fought for Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) and other terrorist groups, are being moved from their detention facilities in Syria to special camps in Iraq, Bortnikov said during a meeting of the security chiefs from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in Russia’s Irkutsk Region on Tuesday.

“The history of Islamic State began with similar Iraqi prison complexes under the protection of Western coalition intelligence agencies,” he stressed.

The CIS was established in 1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, to promote economic, political and security cooperation between members. It currently includes nine nations: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Moldova, and Uzbekistan.

The actions of Western spy agencies also pose a danger to the members of the organization as the released militants, “include individuals from CIS countries who fought in the Islamic State and other terrorist groups and later ended up in Syrian prisons,” Bortnikov warned. They can be used not only across the Middle East, but also in their home countries, he added.

“Undoubtedly, the escalation of the Iranian conflict and the involvement of an increasing number of parties in it is threatening to destabilize the entire Islamic world,” the FSB chief stressed.

Indirect negotiations are currently ongoing between the US and Iran amid a fragile truce, which was established in early April after a month of intense hostilities initiated by the Americans and the Israelis. Meanwhile, Tehran continues to prevent the ships of Washington’s allies from sailing through the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for some 25% of the global crude oil trade, while the US maintains its own blockade of Iranian ports.

On Monday, Iran’s top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reportedly arrived in Doha for talks with Qatar’s prime minister on a potential peace deal with the US.

However, both sides downplayed hopes of a swift breakthrough, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that Washington was willing to give diplomacy a chance before deciding whether to deal with Iran in “another way.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that the fact that the sides were able to reach common ground on some issue “does not mean that the signing of an agreement is imminent.”

May 26, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on West planning to use former ISIS militants against Iran – FSB chief

A new regional logic? If Israel strikes Lebanon, Iran strikes back at the UAE

By Trita Parsi | May 25, 2026

Despite the ceasefire and tentative progress toward a memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, the Persian Gulf has remained perilously volatile. In the past 24 hours alone, several rounds of fire have been exchanged between US and Iranian forces in the region. Though both sides appear to view the incidents — which may have killed as many as four IRGC naval personnel — as falling below the threshold that would shatter the ceasefire altogether, the clashes underscore the fragility of the current arrangement and the ever-present danger of renewed escalation.

Yet in recent days, it was not the Persian Gulf that emerged as the greatest threat to the agreement. It was Israel’s potential refusal to fully adhere to the regional ceasefire and halt its bombardment of Lebanon. That danger remains acute.

Iran has three principal reasons for insisting that any ceasefire be genuinely regional in scope — one that includes not only the United States and Iran, but also Israel and Lebanon.

First, solidarity with the peoples of Gaza and Lebanon is not merely rhetorical theater for Tehran; it lies at the heart of the Islamic Republic’s regional identity and strategic posture. Having already been perceived by some in the Arab world as abandoning these constituencies in 2024, Iran can scarcely afford another rupture that would further erode its credibility within the so-called “axis of resistance.”

Second, continued Israeli attacks risk reigniting direct confrontation between Israel and Iran — a dangerous cycle that has already erupted twice since October 7, 2023. The linkage between these theaters is neither imagined nor incidental. It is openly acknowledged in Western discourse, which routinely portrays Iran as the central node of resistance to Israeli and American policies, operating through allied groups in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Yemen. From Tehran’s vantage point, a durable cessation of hostilities with Israel cannot be disentangled from ending Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. For Iran, this is not an aspirational addendum to diplomacy; it is a foundational condition.

But perhaps the most consequential issue is what Lebanon reveals about Washington itself. For Tehran, tying Israel to the ceasefire is ultimately a test of America’s willingness — and ability — to restrain its closest regional ally. If Trump either cannot or will not do so, then the value of any agreement with Washington comes sharply into question. A ceasefire that leaves Israel free to reignite hostilities at will — while the United States remains unable to prevent itself from being dragged back into conflict — offers little assurance of stability. Under such circumstances, the utility of a deal with Washington diminishes dramatically.

Trump could still choose to put American interests first and compel Israel to comply, much as Ronald Reagan did in 1982 when he pressured Prime Minister Menachem Begin to halt Israel’s devastating assault on Lebanon. Reagan reportedly expressed outrage at the bombardment of Beirut, warning Begin that America’s support could not be taken for granted. Within hours, the bombing stopped. Trump, by contrast, has thus far shown little ability to ensure sustained Israeli compliance with his demands.

A more plausible scenario may be a murkier and more dangerous one: Washington and Tehran reach an agreement, Israel initially abides by it, but over time gradually extricates itself from the arrangement and resumes strikes on Lebanon under the familiar banner of “self-defense.”

At that point, Iran would face a painful dilemma. Tehran would almost certainly pressure Trump to intervene and might even threaten to abandon the agreement altogether. But if Washington failed to act, would Iran truly sacrifice sanctions relief, economic recovery, and an end to open warfare merely to register its objections? Moreover, walking away from the deal might not compel Trump to restrain Israel. Iran could end up with neither an agreement nor a ceasefire in Lebanon. In fact, it would be an outcome Israel would welcome.

One option increasingly discussed within segments of Iran’s security establishment is more ominous still: remaining within the agreement while imposing costs elsewhere — namely on the United Arab Emirates, one of Israel’s closest regional partners. This argument has circulated quietly within segments of Iran’s security establishment, though the extent of its support remains unclear. Yet given the growing sentiment among Iranian decision-makers that Tehran showed excessive restraint toward the UAE during the war, the notion of a “UAE for Lebanon” strategy no longer appears far-fetched.

The logic is brutally simple. If the broader US-Iran arrangement tolerates Israel attacking an Iranian ally in Lebanon, then Tehran may conclude that the same arrangement can tolerate Iran targeting an Israeli ally in the Persian Gulf. Under such a scenario, Iran could retaliate against Emirati territory or Israeli operatives based there for every Israeli strike conducted in Lebanon. Rather than collapsing the agreement outright, Tehran would seek to exact a calibrated price for Israeli noncompliance.

Such a strategy would carry grave risks. Emirati retaliation could follow, potentially igniting a wider regional confrontation. Yet it remains unclear whether Washington would rush to the UAE’s defense if doing so meant destroying the very agreement it had negotiated with Tehran. In that sense, the strategy would place the burden back on the United States: either restrain Israel or watch the conflict metastasize across the Persian Gulf.

The implications for the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council would be profound. Few Gulf states harbor deep affection for the UAE’s increasingly muscular regional posture, but even fewer desire another destabilizing regional war. Moreover, forcefully condemning Iranian retaliation against the Emirates would only throw into sharper relief the broader Arab silence surrounding Israel’s ethnic cleansing in southern Lebanon.

Hopefully, none of this comes to pass. A durable agreement between Washington and Tehran — backed by the overwhelming majority of regional states — remains possible. And Trump could yet decide that preserving regional stability requires compelling Israel to respect the terms of a broader ceasefire.

But the very fact that Tehran is contemplating escalation against the UAE if Israel escalates in Lebanon illustrates the degree to which the Emirates have made themselves needless targets in the larger Israeli-Iranian rivalry by signing the Abraham Accords.

May 25, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on A new regional logic? If Israel strikes Lebanon, Iran strikes back at the UAE

Iran lawmaker outlines five conditions for any understanding with US

Al Mayadeen | May 26, 2026

The head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Ebrahim Azizi, said there is “no meaning” to any understanding or negotiations with the United States unless Washington takes five concrete confidence-building measures.

Speaking to Iranian state television, Azizi said the measures include ending the war on all fronts, particularly in Lebanon, lifting the maritime blockade, guaranteeing the passage of non-military vessels through the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian supervision, suspending oil sanctions for 30 to 60 days, and releasing frozen Iranian assets.

Azizi stressed that even if an agreement is reached, it would not signify the end of confrontation with the United States, adding that “Iran after the war is completely different from Iran before the war.”

His remarks come amid growing anticipation over indirect US-Iran contacts being conducted through regional mediators, including Pakistan and Qatar. In this context, Iranian Parliament Speaker and head of the negotiating delegation Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf visited the Qatari capital, Doha, on Monday.

For his part, US President Donald Trump said negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran were “going well,” describing the process as one that could either lead to “a great deal for everybody” or “no deal at all.” Trump also linked any potential agreement to the need for Arab and Islamic states backing the talks to sign normalization agreements.

On the Lebanese front, which Iran insists must be included in any prospective agreement aimed at halting the war, the Israeli occupation continues its large-scale attacks on towns in southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa.

Israeli media also reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the occupation’s security minister approved plans to expand the war and target civilian buildings in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, after drone operations carried out by the Islamic Resistance that have inflicted losses on occupation forces.

May 25, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran lawmaker outlines five conditions for any understanding with US

Iran uranium transfer reports ‘US psychological warfare’: Tasnim

Al Mayadeen | May 25, 2026

Iran’s Tasnim News Agency has dismissed Western media reports claiming that Tehran has agreed to transfer its enriched uranium stockpile out of the country as part of a proposed nuclear deal, describing the allegations as part of American “psychological warfare” against Iran.

Tasnim reported that what has been circulated in the media regarding Iran’s readiness to remove enriched uranium from the country is “untrue,” and falls within the framework of “American psychological warfare against Iran.” The agency added that the text of the memorandum of understanding does not contain any statement indicating Iran’s readiness to transfer nuclear materials out of the country, and that the memorandum “did not include any commitment regarding any nuclear action.”

Earlier, The New York Times had quoted US officials claiming that “Iran agreed to give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium” as part of the proposed agreement announced by President Donald Trump. Tasnim also denied reports that “US officials said Iran will not receive any facilities for the release of frozen funds unless it begins transferring its enriched uranium reserves.”

Iran refuses to link frozen assets to nuclear file

Tasnim affirmed that “Iran is not prepared to link the release of its frozen assets to the nuclear file,” adding that there is a “possibility that no agreement will be reached.”

The agency stressed that Tehran has not made any commitment at this stage regarding the details of the nuclear file, and therefore the release of funds in the first step will have no connection to the nuclear file. The initial understanding, Tasnim emphasised, must be based on “ending the war.”

The denial comes as the US-Israeli war on Iran continues, with Washington maintaining an illegal naval blockade on Iranian ports while demanding nuclear concessions from Tehran. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes and that it will not negotiate under pressure. Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that the priority is ending the war, not addressing the nuclear file at this stage.

Background: Iran has consistently denied nuclear concessions in ongoing talks

The denial from Tasnim is consistent with Iran’s stated negotiating position throughout the US-Israeli war on Iran. As reported yesterday, Tasnim had already rejected a previous Al Arabiya report claiming that Iran proposed suspending uranium enrichment above 3.6 percent for 10 years.

At that time, a source informed about the negotiation process told Tasnim that all issues touched upon in recent messages exchanged between Iran and the United States have been limited to points on the cessation of hostilities, while the nuclear issue has not been mentioned at all.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei confirmed that negotiations at this stage do not address the nuclear file or the details of sanctions relief. He also reiterated that the United States has no role in the Strait of Hormuz, describing it as a matter exclusively between Iran and the waterway’s coastal states.

Three fundamental sticking points remain unresolved

Beyond the nuclear file, an informed source close to Iran’s negotiating team told Fars News Agency that three fundamental points of contention remain unresolved, warning that talks will not proceed unless they are addressed. These concern the nuclear file, the release of Iranian frozen assets abroad as a non‑negotiable prerequisite for entering negotiations, and Iranian management of shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

The source noted that while US negotiators have retreated from their initial positions and accepted many of Iran’s stances, significant gaps persist. Iran has “prepared itself for all options,” the source stressed, with the Iranian armed forces remaining on high alert.

The repeated denial of media reports about nuclear concessions suggests that Washington may be attempting to shape public perception of the negotiations, while Tehran insists that no agreement on the nuclear file has been reached or even discussed in detail.

May 25, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran uranium transfer reports ‘US psychological warfare’: Tasnim

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »