Iran War Reality BITES – SPIN HARDER /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Mario Nawfal
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 6, 2026
Trump’s ’Project Freedom’ just got blown out of the water. What now?
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 6, 2026
The escalation trap seems to be pulling Donald Trump deeper and deeper into the quicksand of the Iran war. Following Iran’s strike on a UAE oil terminal, Trump has had to back down and “pause” his plan to create a military escort that would chaperone oil tankers through the Straits of Hormuz. Project Freedom, according to the president’s own social media posts, has been suspended before it even started as Trump struggles to find more smoke-and-mirror tactics to fool a gullible American public that the war in Iran has been “won”. Eight times, in fact.
But it’s easy to see how Trump is getting pulled about by various players and may still be clinging onto the idea of some sort of military manoeuvre in the Persian Gulf. I have previously speculated that I don’t believe he will launch a second strike, but an attempt at landing on an island and installing US soldiers there must still be something he is considering. And since the Iranian strike on the UAE, something extraordinary has happened that will now lodge this idea further in his head—that such a plan might work. The UAE just went out on a limb and beefed up its relations to a whole new level with Israel, even beyond the special status it had as being the Zionist entity’s only solid partner in the entire GCC. After the strike on its oil terminal, news flooded social media that the UAE was planning a retaliatory strike and has teamed up militarily with Israel. This is significant on many levels, as not only does it create a clear dividing line between itself and other GCC countries that would like to make a statement to Iran that they are not its enemy, but it also positions the UAE as a major target for Tehran, and so the move is incredibly risky, if not foolish for its elite in Abu Dhabi. It is almost as though they are prepared to destroy everything the country has accomplished in fifty years as an economic miracle of the entire region just to make the point that signing the Abraham Accords was, in fact, not an egregious error on their part. Israel or nothing.
And so the strategy of Israel is shifting from convincing America that it needs to take huge collateral losses, both militarily and in terms of human life, to now convincing the UAE. But do Abu Dhabi’s rulers have the guts to take on Iran head-on? Can they take the losses of life and the destruction of their infrastructure that is inevitable? One can only imagine that the Israelis have turned on the charm and sweet-talked its rulers into the fantasy zone that Trump was dragged into. Perhaps Trump himself has played a minor but important role as well, as it cannot be a coincidence that just a week earlier he commented to journalists that the US should consider compensating the UAE for the damage caused by Iran’s strikes. Of course all this is linked, and we shouldn’t consider it a coincidence that the UAE has just made the decision on a capricious whim.
Trump’s idea of taking an island in the Persian Gulf and the UAE now making a military alliance with Israel are all part of the same doomed blueprint, which must be bringing new levels of joy to Tehran, whose leaders can hardly believe their luck. They will be thinking, “We’ll destroy Dubai and Abu Dhabi and then watch their rulers beg for mercy, while the whole GCC gives in to whatever demands we have, including rule over the straits.”
Trump’s idea of taking an island is probably his most stupid yet and may well be the brainchild of Israel’s military planners. It’s dumb on so many levels, but it’s easy to see how it is appealing in that it is feasible to install US troops on one of the many islands the UAE claims Iran took from them. Iran would probably allow the operation to go ahead anyway, as allowing the US to install itself on an island would be the perfect way to hold them hostage. Even from a logistical point of view the idea is doomed. It is one thing to put US troops on an island but quite another to supply them. The Iranians could simply block US ships and planes supplying them once they are there and have set up their base. Troops need food, water, and equipment just to function. The military planners who came up with the idea are probably thinking that such an island could be a base to launch operations from, but have not figured that Iran will be one step ahead and will not allow the second part of this plan to bear fruit. And so the island idea will blow up in the faces of those who signed it off, as the soldiers will effectively be hostages to be paraded on social media platforms every day while it is Iran, out of an act of decency, who will be feeding them—unless Tehran is so enraged by a strike on its energy infrastructure that it decides to kill them all to send a message to the US and Israel. It’s all madness. But the problem with such madness having got to this stage is that the only solution seems to be more madness. Trump, Israel, and now the UAE are all fighting fire with fire, and ironically it is the UAE—the only country in the region that had, at one point, quite cordial relations with Iran—that could have been the diplomatic conduit to finding a peaceful solution. The UAE, which has a huge Iranian community in Dubai, could have been the one country to have stopped the madness and to have brokered peace given its unique relations with both Israel and Iran, and yet it chose not to. This is the escalation trap, as Professor Bob Pape calls it, and it just took its latest victim in Abu Dhabi.
US, Iran inching closer toward one-page MoU to end war: Axios
Al Mayadeen | May 6, 2026
The White House believes it is approaching an agreement with Iran on a one-page memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the war and establishing a framework for more detailed nuclear talks, Axios reported, citing two US officials and two additional sources briefed on the matter.
The United States is expecting Iranian responses on several key points within the next 48 hours, the sources added. While no agreement has been finalized, they indicated that this represents the closest the parties have come to a deal since the US and “Israel” launched their war on Iran in February 2026.
The proposed memorandum includes provisions under which Iran would commit to a moratorium on nuclear enrichment, while the United States would agree to lift sanctions and release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds. Both sides would also remove restrictions affecting transit through the Strait of Hormuz.
However, many of the outlined terms remain contingent on reaching a final agreement, leaving open the possibility of a renewed war or a prolonged interim phase in which active fighting ceases without a comprehensive resolution.
In a similar vein to the Axios report, a Pakistani source involved in the Islamabad talks confirmed to Reuters that Washington and Tehran are closing in on a one-page memo to end the US-Israeli war on Iran.
“We will close this very soon. We are getting close,” the source told Reuters.
Shehbaz Sharif hails ‘momentum’
Commenting on the situation, Pakistani PM Shehbaz Sharif asserted that “Pakistan remains firmly committed to supporting all efforts that promote restraint and a peaceful resolution of conflicts through dialogue and diplomacy.
In a post on X, he wrote: “We are very hopeful that the current momentum will lead to a lasting agreement that secures durable peace and stability for the region and beyond.
The prime minister of Pakistan also thanked US President Donald Trump for halting the so-called “Project Freedom”, which aimed to provide “safe” maritime routes through the Strait of Hormuz in an attempt to counter Iran’s closure.
“I am grateful to President Donald Trump for his courageous leadership and timely announcement regarding the pause in Project Freedom in the Strait of Hormuz,” he stated.
He emphasized that Trump’s agreement to halt the project, on the request of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other “brotherly countries”, will serve “advancing regional peace, stability, and reconciliation during this sensitive period.”
Inside the high-stakes draft deal talks
Behind the scenes, the proposed one-page, 14-point memorandum of understanding (MOU) is being negotiated by envoys of Donald Trump, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, alongside several Iranian officials, both through direct contacts and intermediaries, according to Axios.
In its current form, the draft MOU would formally declare an end to the war in the region and initiate 30 days of negotiations aimed at reaching a detailed agreement on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, limiting Iran’s nuclear program, and lifting US sanctions.
Those follow-up negotiations are expected to take place in either Islamabad or Geneva, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.
During the 30-day window, Iran’s restrictions on shipping through the strait, along with the US naval blockade, would be gradually eased, a US official said. However, the same official noted that if talks collapse, US forces would retain the option to reinstate the blockade or resume military operations.
Details of nuclear file included in MoU
The duration of a proposed moratorium on uranium enrichment remains a central sticking point in negotiations, with terms still being actively debated, according to Axios. Three sources indicated the pause would last at least 12 years, while another suggested 15 years as a likely compromise. Iran has proposed a five-year moratorium, while the United States has pushed for a 20-year halt.
Washington is also seeking to include a provision that would extend the moratorium in the event of any Iranian violation, a source said. Under the current framework, Iran would be permitted to resume enrichment at low levels of 3.67% once the moratorium expires. Additionally, Iran would commit to never pursuing a nuclear weapon or engaging in weaponization-related activities, according to a US official. Discussions are also underway regarding a clause that would prohibit Iran from operating underground nuclear facilities.
The draft MoU further includes provisions requiring Iran to accept an enhanced inspections regime, including snap inspections by the United Nations, according to a US official. In parallel, the United States would commit to gradually lifting sanctions and releasing billions of dollars in Iranian funds currently frozen abroad.
Despite this, Iran has repeatedly affirmed that the current talks are solely focused on ending the war, rejecting claims by US officials that the nuclear file is being discussed in the ongoing talks.
Additionally, two informed sources claimed to Axios that Iran would agree to remove its enriched uranium from the country, to be stored in another country, with the United States being one option. Iran has repeatedly rejected such a term, emphasizing that it has no plans to transfer its uranium to any other country, even allies.
Iran denies nuclear talks are ongoing in talks with US
Provisions related to halting uranium enrichment for 15 years, determining the fate of 60% enriched uranium, and the gradual opening of the Strait of Hormuz were included in an earlier US proposal submitted around 20 days ago, but were firmly rejected by Iran, according to Fars News Agency.
On May 2, the agency reported that Washington has since revised its proposal three times, noting that Tehran did not accept any of the earlier drafts in principle. It added that the latest US proposal, consisting of nine articles, omits several of the previously circulated conditions, as US officials recognized Iran would not agree to them.
According to the report, Iran’s counterproposal does not include acceptance of a long-term suspension of uranium enrichment or the opening of the Strait of Hormuz prior to a final agreement, underscoring Tehran’s position that such measures cannot precede a comprehensive deal.
Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran’s plan to end the war is solely focused on halting hostilities, rejecting media reports suggesting nuclear commitments or maritime security arrangements. Speaking to state television, he stated that “some of the issues being raised relate to the record of previous negotiations with the United States,” emphasizing that Iran’s 14-point proposal centers on ending the war.
Baghaei further stressed that “at this stage, we have no nuclear negotiations,” underscoring that the current proposal does not include any nuclear-related topics, in contrast to claims circulating in international media.
Trump’s Self-Serving Narrative Crashes Against the Reality of War
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 6, 2026
Within a few days at the end of March, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky made two claims. He revealed that Russia had given him two months to withdraw all forces from areas still under its control in Donbas, or Russia would take it by force and change the terms of the settlement. Russia said that was not true.
And he said that the United States had conditioned security guarantees on Ukraine withdrawing from Donbas. “That’s a lie,” U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio said. “I don’t know why he says these things; they’re just not true.”
That Zelensky was constructing a false narrative about the war does not bother him because he is not trying to reflect reality; he is trying to reshape reality. With Russia’s military acquisition of Donbas appearing increasingly inevitable, American peace plans conceding it, and Ukrainians increasingly accepting it, Zelensky’s survival depends on crafting a narrative in which he did not betray the nationalists or his promise but had no choice but to surrender Donbas because he was forced by both his enemy and his supporter.
In another war, in another part of the world, another president is doing the same thing. All Iran has to do to end the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump said last week is to “cry uncle, that’s all they have to do. Just say, ‘We give up.” It doesn’t matter if they really give up: they just have to say it.
Trump’s team is crafting a narrative that provides them with an off ramp to a war they have lost that tells the story of a war they have won.
The U.S. had no legal reason for its war on Iran, and what publicly stated reasons they had were forever shifting. But there seem to have been four key goals:
- Regime change.
- Removing Iran’s ballistic missile program.
- Severing Iran from its forward deterrent network, or proxies.
- Zero enrichment of uranium.
Trump has repeatedly identified regime change as a key goal of the war. He has called for it, and he has explicitly said it is “time to look for new leadership in Iran.” The promised change in regime did not occur. The narrative response to that reality has taken two forms. First, Trump simply rewrote history and said regime change was never the goal: “regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change.”
Second, Trump and his team simply continuously repeated that there had been regime change when there had not, as if saying it made it so. Aboard Air Force One on March 30, Trump told reporters that “We’ve had regime change.” One week later, he posted that “we have Complete and Total Regime Change.”
There has been no regime change. Following the assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the regime underwent a seamless transition to his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, though he was specifically declared unacceptable by Trump. That is the opposite of regime change; that is regime continuity. Mojtaba Khamenei is a hardliner who was a close advisor to his father. He has been a core part of the regime, and his selection represents a preservation of, and not a change from, the regime.
Other new leaders who replaced the old, assassinated leaders, also represent regime continuity and survival. Ali Larijani’s replacement as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, is a former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps who has served in government since the days of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is very close to Mojtaba Khamenei and has always been aligned with the hardliners in the political establishment.
When you spend $25-35 billion, destroy a country, kill thousands of people, devastate the environment, damage the United Nations, discredit international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and irreparably wound relations with your European and NATO allies to bring about a regime change that never materialized, just say it did. You might remember another U.S. administration in another U.S. war, saying “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”
As part of his checklist of goals that have been accomplished by the war, Donald Trump has repeatedly included that Iran’s “missiles are just about used up or beaten.” Trump says Iran’s military has been “beaten and completely decimated.” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says Iran’s ballistic missile program has been “functionally destroyed.” That’s not true.
Many of Iran’s missile stockpiles were protected deep underground and were untouched by American strikes. Some that were struck were actually dummy decoys. Many of the ballistic missile launchers that were hit were repaired and reactivated within hours. Hegseth now concedes that Iran is “digging out” its struck missiles and launchers. U.S. intelligence and the military assess that Iran still has at least 60% of its missile launchers, nearly half of its missiles, and 40% of its attack drones.
And they are very capable of hitting their targets and doing damage. U.S. bases in the region suffered a degree of damage thought unthinkable before the war and have been rendered uninhabitable. Radar systems, air defense systems, and aircraft were damaged and destroyed. And recent reporting reveals that the actual damage they sustained far exceeds what has been reported.
The reality falls far short of the narrative and calls into question, not just the claim that the U.S. has won this war, but its ability to win a future war against a real power, like China.
The Trump team’s narrative has consistently told a tale of Iran’s forward deterrent network of proxies being “crushed,” amputating Iran’s ability to reach into the region. Contrary to the narrative, the surprising reality is that Iran’s proxies and partners have survived and are far more resilient, capable and integrated than the United States believed. Hezbollah has launched sophisticated missiles that the U.S. believed they no longer possessed at a rate greater than they have ever launched before. Iraqi militias are launching drone strikes on U.S. bases in the region. The Houthis entered the war and launched several barrages of missiles, some carried out in coordination with Iranian missile strikes.
The primary goal of the war on Iran was the final death of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. “There will never be a deal unless they agree that there will never be nuclear weapons,” Trump said again last week.
That nuclear narrative is the central lie in the justification of the war. Iran has never pursued a nuclear weapon. Washington knows that. The 2022 U.S. Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review concluded that “Iran does not today possess a nuclear weapon and we currently believe it is not pursuing one.” That assessment was repeated in the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment that clearly states that U.S. intelligence “continue[s] to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.” As recently as March 18, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a Senate Intelligence Committee that since the June bombings, “there has been no efforts [sic]…to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.” All Iran has done is insist on their right—like so many other countries—as a signatory to the NPT to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. And that is all they have ever done.
Trump was handed a mechanism for ensuring Iran could never build a nuclear bomb in the form of the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement, which Iran was honoring and which was working. Trump was the author of the current problem because he illegally pulled out of the agreement.
There has been zero progress in negotiations toward forcing Iran to terminate its civilian enrichment program. As at the start of the war, the right to enrich continues to be an absolute red line for Iran.
Trump’s vocabulary alters the narrative. The most concerning 970 pounds of 60% highly enriched uranium is rendered insignificant by renaming it “nuclear dust.”
Trump’s narrative not only renders the highly enriched uranium insignificant, it renders it irrelevant. He doesn’t really care about it because it is “so far underground,” the Americans can watch it, and the Iranians can’t get it. “I had one goal,” Trump said, “They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”
At times, Iran’s enriched uranium is insignificant, at times it is irrelevant, and at other times it is resolved. According to Trump’s narrative, Iran has already agreed to hand over all of its enriched uranium. “They’ve agreed to give us back the nuclear dust,” he said. The reality, of course, is that, though Trump says it, Iran has agreed to no such thing.
Iran still possesses a quantity of its enriched uranium. More importantly, it still possesses advanced scientific knowledge of how to enrich uranium and the legal right to do so. Most importantly, despite starving sanctions and the most lethal bombing the U.S. can deliver, protecting its right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes remains a redline that the U.S. has been unable to erase.
That is the reality. The rest is fiction: a narrative fiction crafted by Trump’s team to give them a way to tell an angry and betrayed public that they won the war when none of the goals—and all of the nightmares—have been achieved.
Though it may have cost $40-50 billion and used up half of its critical munitions, it is not a war but an “excursion.” Aspects of operation “Epic Fury” are rebranded for a public that is no longer buying it as “Project Freedom.”
And in an act of outrageous sophistry, it turns out that none of this matters because there isn’t a war. Seeking to circumvent the demand of the War Powers Resolution to receive permission from Congress to wage war after sixty days of troops being deployed, On May 1, Trump notified Congress that “hostilities” against Iran “have terminated.” Erase Trump’s threats, and the ships, aircraft and tens of thousand of troops in the region. Erase the fact that the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is an act of war under international law and that the U.S. fired on an Iranian flagged ship only days ago. Erase that the day before, Trump was briefed by CENTCOM on new plans for potential military action against Iran and that, days later, U.S. forces sank seven Iranian boats.
This is reality. But the reality is erased by a narrative fiction crafted by the Trump team in which the war is over because they define it as over. So, none of this matters any longer because the war is over.
This article was originally delivered as a speech at the West Suburban Peace Coalition Educational Forum on May 4, 2026.
‘Project Freedom’ perishes in 48 hours as Trump retreats under the wall of Iran’s asymmetric deterrence
Press TV | May 6, 2026
In a dramatic and entirely predictable turn of events, US President Donald Trump early on Wednesday announced the immediate suspension of “Project Freedom,” the high-stakes naval offensive launched 48 hours ago with the stated goal of forcing open the Strait of Hormuz.
This is not an isolated tactical pause, as he wants the world to believe, but the third strategic retreat by the United States in less than a month – a sequence of capitulations that reveals a profound and irreversible shift in the balance of power in the Persian Gulf.
The first retreat was the ceasefire following the devastating 40-day full-scale war against Iran, in which the US-Israeli war machine failed to achieve even a single strategic objective.
The second retreat was the unilateral extension of that ceasefire after the first round of Islamabad negotiations. The third, and most telling, is the suspension of an operation whose very continuation would have inevitably reignited full-scale Iranian retaliation.
At its core, this decision exposes a singular, undeniable truth: Trump has belatedly realized that he holds no cards, no good options, no viable coalition, and no appetite for the catastrophic confrontation to challenge Iran’s legal sovereignty over the strategic waterway
The quiet abandonment of the so-called “Project Freedom” is not a strategic pivot, but a crushing defeat. It marks yet another failure for the US war machine, following closely on the heels of the 40-day war imposed on the Islamic Republic, and confirms that the era of unilateral American naval intimidation in the Persian Gulf is effectively over.
The immediate and decisive Iranian response
The suspension of the so-called “Project Freedom” was not born of American goodwill, but of raw, immediate, and overpowering Iranian military deterrence.
Within hours of its commencement 48 hours ago, Iran’s armed forces delivered a response that was as calculated as it was lethal in its messaging. Serious warning shots were directed squarely at US warships – a level of direct confrontation that Washington has historically sought to avoid.
Furthermore, the targeting of a South Korean vessel that violated the new maritime rules defined by the Islamic Republic served as an unambiguous signal: Iran will enforce its sovereign rights with kinetic action. Finally, a clear and serious ultimatum issued to the United Arab Emirates shattered any illusion that the war could be contained to international waters.
Iran showed that it will not cower under the shadow of American airpower. It is fully prepared for, and in some ways inviting, a decisive engagement. The message was unmistakable: Iran would not merely defend the Strait of Hormuz, but it would hunt aggressors within it.
The speed and severity of this response forced the war hawks in the Pentagon into a defensive crouch, demonstrating that the threshold for Iranian retaliation is far lower – and far more dangerous – than Washington had anticipated.
Perhaps the most ingenious move was the sudden, asymmetric expansion of the war’s geography. Extension of the definition of the Strait of Hormuz to encompass the entire territory of the UAE, specifically designating the port of Fujairah as lying within the Strait’s operational limits, is deemed a masterstroke of strategic redefinition.
For the US and its allies, this has come as an unexpected shock. The port of Fujairah, located on the Gulf of Oman outside the narrow choke point of the Strait of Hormuz, had long been considered a secure fallback. But the dynamics have changed now.
The impotence of American intimidation
The 48 hours of the doomed “Project Freedom” laid bare a critical strategic reality: America has completely lost its ability to intimidate Iran. The torrent of threats that emanated from Washington – warnings of “unmatched force” and “severe consequences” – landed on Tehran with the weight of a spent cartridge.
For Iran’s armed forces, American threats, regardless of their hyperbolic grandeur, no longer constitute actionable intelligence and execution. They are now understood as little more than psychological operations and media theater.
With this premature suspension, the US implicitly confessed that it still fears the risk of re-entering a war with Iran, particularly after the harrowing experience of the 40-day war.
This fear is not abstract but rooted in the traumatic memory of Iran’s deadly strikes against American forces and their allies during those 40 days, impacts whose full scale and intensity remain deliberately under-disclosed by the Pentagon.
The psychological scar tissue from those engagements is so deep that Washington has been forced to abandon all its prior claims regarding “Epic Fury.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that the operation had ended – without anything in hand.
That campaign is effectively over. The US has declared, through its actions, that it will not risk a conventional military exchange with an Iran that has proven willing to draw blood. The credibility of American military threats has essentially evaporated.
The Pakistani intermediary – A pretext for surrender
Perhaps the most humiliating detail of this episode is the official reason offered for the suspension of the 48-hour offensive. According to Trump’s own social media post, the decision to halt “Project Freedom” came in response to a request from the army chief of Pakistan.
Let that sink in. A self-styled “superpower,” possessing the largest and most technologically advanced navy in history, abandons a prestigious military operation – one framed as vital to global energy security – at the behest of a foreign military commander.
This transparent pretext reveals two deeper truths. First, the US is in a state of urgent, almost frantic, need for negotiations with Iran. As became evident during Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s recent trip to Pakistan, the Americans are not just open to talks, but they are counting the moments to re-engage.
Second, the Trump administration is willing to seize upon the smallest request from any intermediary – even one as peripheral as a Pakistani general – to manufacture an exit ramp from a disastrous escalation.
The eagerness for a diplomatic off-ramp is directly proportional to the fear of war. America is not stepping back out of generosity but out of terror at the alternative.
The lonely superpower – No coalition for war
In essence, the failure of “Project Freedom” was sealed long before the first warning shot was fired. It was sealed when America discovered that it was entirely alone and cornered.
Shipping companies, the lifeblood of global trade, ignored the American proposal. Insurance firms, the arbiters of risk, refused to underwrite vessels sailing under the American flag in the troubled zone. Key regional allies, fearful of Iranian retaliation on their own soil and economic infrastructure, distanced themselves from the American offensive.
The American Empire is no longer capable of forming a coalition to open the Strait of Hormuz. Its scenario-planning has devolved into solitary fantasizing. This isolation is not a temporary diplomatic hiccup, but a structural reality.
The world’s biggest navies and commercial fleets have observed Iran’s previous responses and concluded that the cost of aligning with Washington exceeds any conceivable benefit. Trump finds himself commanding a fleet of one.
The triple crossroads: Trump’s impossible choices
Now, after this third and latest retreat, the most humiliating one, Trump stands at a very dangerous triple crossroads. Each path is clogged with thorns. He can choose to continue the war – an effectively impossible option, given the lack of coalition support and the certainty of Iranian asymmetric retaliation.
He can choose to accept Iran’s principles for ending the war – an option that would represent a total strategic surrender. Or he can choose to continue the naval blockade and await results.
The blockade is a particularly ambiguous gamble for Trump. On one hand, he urgently needs time to stabilize global energy markets before the upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and the November midterm congressional elections.
The volatility of oil prices is a political enemy he cannot afford. On the other hand, it is entirely unclear – and virtually impossible – that continuing the blockade will force Iran to submit. All evidence from the past two months suggests the opposite: the blockade is hardening Iran’s resolve, not breaking it. Trump is trapped in a cycle where inaction hurts his domestic timetable, and action guarantees a wider war. He has no good options because he holds no cards.
Negotiations to end the war: Iran’s non-negotiable principles
With the back-and-forth exchange of draft principles now underway, under the Pakistani mediation, it is essential to clarify the fundamental and obvious conditions Iran has laid out to end the war. These are not bargaining points but structural realities of a new Persian Gulf order.
Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s management of the strategic waterway, even after the war, is permanent. This is not about temporary wartime measures. Iran must guarantee its own security in the Persian Gulf, a right that includes obtaining material compensation from vessel passage.
The recent wars have proven that the Strait has been used to equip and strengthen Iran’s enemy. Therefore, enforcing Iranian rules is a natural act of self-defense. Furthermore, effective sovereignty over the Strait can nullify the effects of sanctions.
The Strait is not a bargaining chip but an undeniable right of the Iranian nation. As the Leader of the Islamic Revolution has clarified, Iran’s new management of this strategic waterway is permanent and non-negotiable. There will be no return to the pre-war status quo.
Withdrawal of American forces: The complete withdrawal of American military forces from the Persian Gulf region is a definitive requirement. As the aggressor and perpetrator of unprovoked and devastating war against Iran, the US presence is the only remaining obstacle to peace.
As long as these forces remain in the region, the shadow of war will persist.
Reparations for damages: Iran’s damages from the third imposed war and before that the 12-day war represent an undeniable right of the Iranian nation. Every single Iranian citizen has been harmed by American aggression. Any shortfall in achieving this condition is unacceptable.
Inclusion of the Resistance Front: The terms of ending the ongoing war must include Iran’s allies on the resistance front, especially in Lebanon. This does not negate the right to legitimate resistance against occupation; rather, it codifies the reality that Iran’s security architecture is regional. Any peace that ignores Iran’s partners is no peace at all.
Negotiation from the position of victory: Iran’s post-war doctrine
The collapse of the so-called “Project Freedom” effectively closes the military chapter. What opens now is the diplomatic one – but on Iran’s terms alone. As the new doctrine makes clear, negotiation has no intrinsic value. Only its achievable objectives matter.
First, negotiation is only acceptable if it prevents the repeat of a new war of aggression, not causes it. After repeated American betrayals, Iran will not accept talks that merely delay the next war. The bar is absolute and clear – enduring peace or nothing.
Second, Iran negotiates from the position of the victorious party in the third full-scale imposed war. The goal is not to restore the pre-war status quo but to secure additional concessions not previously held, which includes full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, expulsion of all American forces from the region, and protection of the resistance front.
Third, reparations are not a concession but a basic and inviolable right. The aggressor must pay for the damages of the imposed war. This is non-negotiable.
Fourth, any concession in any domain is forbidden. The enemy is defeated by all accounts. To concede what the enemy failed to win on the battlefield – whether in the 40-day war or the 12-day war before that – would be to validate its aggression.
Inalienable Iranian rights, including nuclear and defense capabilities, are entirely off the table.
Fifth, concessions guarantee future war. If the US learns it can extract through talks what it could not take by force, it will launch another war. Each retreat from an Iranian right is a green light for the next catastrophe – more martyrs, more disasters like the Minab school massacre.
Sixth, the current negotiation must achieve 100 percent of its objectives. Without full realization of Iran’s goals, no further negotiation of any kind will happen. There would be no phased deals, or interim frameworks, or endless talks without result.
Iran War Confusion & Mixed Messaging /Lt Col Daniel Davis
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 5, 2026
Hezbollah denies activity in Syria amid persistent and false claims
Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2026
Hezbollah’s Media Relations categorically denied the false accusations issued by the Syrian Interior Ministry, which claimed to have dismantled a “Hezbollah-affiliated cell” that was planning to carry out security operations inside Syrian territory.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, Hezbollah noted the repeated accusations issued by the Syrian government despite the resistance’s consistent assertions that it maintains no activity in Syria.
It further said that the repetition of such allegations “raises serious questions and confirms that there are those seeking to ignite tension and discord between the Syrian and Lebanese peoples.”
Consequently, Hezbollah said it wishes only well for Syria and its people, and that any threat to Syria’s security would also constitute a threat to Lebanon’s security. It also reiterated that it never sought and would never seek to destabilize the security of any state, stressing that its confrontation remains against the Israeli entity and its expansionist project.
“Hezbollah has been and will remain in a defensive position in confronting the Zionist enemy and its expansionist projects, an enemy of Lebanon and Syria that occupies their lands and covets their resources and the wealth of their peoples,” the statement concluded.
Hezbollah urges vigilance
Several statements have been issued by Syria’s transitional leadership accusing Hezbollah of operating inside its territories, which have been consistently rejected. This is also a trend that stretches beyond Syria, with recent fabricated allegations coming out of Bahrain and Kuwait.
Hezbollah has warned against such narratives, urging the countries to remain vigilant in the face of what appears to be a foreign plot to ignite tensions between Arab nations and the Axis of Resistance.
Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond
By Dan Steinbock | Palestine Chronicle | May 3, 2026
Lebanon accuses Israel of committing ecocide in country since 2023. It is an extension of Israel’s destruction of Gaza – and its obliteration doctrine.
Israeli military aggression has “reshaped both the physical and ecological landscape” of southern Lebanon, according to the Lebanese report (which does not consider the impacts of Israel’s latest barrage of attacks this spring).
In her foreword, Lebanon’s minister for the environment, Tamara el Zein, notes: “The scale and intentionality of the damage to forests, agricultural lands, marine ecosystems, water resources, and atmospheric quality constitute what must be recognized as an act of ecocide, with consequences that extend far beyond immediate destruction.”
Obliteration ecocide in Lebanon
Released by the country’s National Council for Scientific Research and presented by the environment ministry, the report accuses Israel of “ecocide” during the 2023–2024 war and subsequent escalations. It frames environmental destruction not as incidental “collateral damage” but as a systematic transformation of ecosystems.
Key findings are damning. They include:
- 5,000 hectares of forest destroyed
- Massive agricultural losses ($118m direct infrastructure damage; much larger indirect losses)
- Soil contamination (including high phosphorus levels)
- Air pollution from repeated strike cycles
- Destruction of orchards and irrigation systems
Minister el Zein characterizes this as “intentional ecological destruction” affecting food systems, public health, and the long-term viability of southern Lebanon’s rural economy.
International reporting on the same dossier highlights an estimated total damage burden of over $25 billion when recovery costs and economic losses are included. The figure is a combined total from the assessments by the Lebanese report and the World Bank Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA) 2025.
This framing aligns with a growing legal discourse around “ecocide” as a potential international crime, particularly where environmental damage is widespread, long-term, and strategically embedded in military operations.
It is also aligned with UN reporting on the broader Israel–Lebanon escalation, confirming extensive infrastructure destruction, civilian displacement, and strikes affecting residential areas.
As the ecocide of Gaza has gone effectively unpunished by the international community, the Netanyahu government is extending the environmental devastation into Lebanon and the proximate region.
Obliteration Doctrine in Gaza
In The Obliteration Doctrine (2025), related commentaries and excerpts, I define this doctrine as the lethal mix of scorched earth policy, collective punishment, and civilian victimization, coupled with massive indiscriminate bombardment and systematic use of artificial intelligence (AI).
The concept is vital because it connects the dots between military strategies, aerial bombardment, lethal deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) and international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention. As Professor William Schabas, a leading scholar of genocide, notes, “the Obliteration Doctrine” “adds a new term to the lexicon on genocide, notably in the application of international law and its judicial mechanisms.”
Modern warfare in Gaza is no longer just counterinsurgency but systems-level destruction of the environmental and infrastructural substrate of life—water, soil, agriculture, energy, and urban continuity.
This interpretation overlaps with empirical reporting on Gaza’s environmental collapse:
- Satellite analysis shows 38–48% of tree cover and farmland destroyed
- Severe contamination of soil and groundwater
- Large-scale destruction of greenhouses and irrigation systems
- Air pollution from sustained bombardment and debris burning
These patterns are described in independent investigations as producing conditions of near-uninhabitability in many parts of Gaza.
Warfare is no longer bound by battlefield geography. It becomes the restructuring—or “obliteration”—of ecological systems that sustain civilian life.
Ecocide here is not merely the destruction of nature, but the destruction of life-support systems as a purposeful strategy. It is another word for cultural genocide.
Lebanon and the Gaza template
The Lebanese report and international commentary suggest strong structural parallels between Gaza and southern Lebanon operations:
- Destruction of orchards, especially olive groves (long-lived economic ecosystems)
- Targeting of water infrastructure and rural supply systems
- Repeated airstrikes generating soil and atmospheric contamination
- Displacement of civilian populations from ecologically productive zones, which can be seen as a form of ethnic cleansing
International media reports that Israel is applying a “Gaza playbook” in Lebanon: expulsion orders, infrastructure targeting, and village-level destruction patterns.
Lebanon is now an adjacent theatre where similar operational logics are extended across a different ecological terrain:
- Gaza: dense urban-agricultural mosaic under blockade conditions
- Southern Lebanon: dispersed agro-ecological rural system with forested and orchard economies
In both cases, ecological assets are not collateral but structurally embedded in livelihood and resistance capacity – and that makes them strategic targets under the high-intensity obliteration doctrine.
Consequences beyond Lebanon (and for Israel)
The environmental consequences of such conflict patterns are not geographically contained. Three spillover trajectories are particularly important.
First of all, regional ecological degradation. Soil contamination, wildfire damage, and agricultural collapse are not confined to strike zones. Windborne particulates, water contamination, and long-term soil chemistry changes affect broader cross-border ecosystems.
Second, economic fragility and food-system insecurity. Both Lebanon and Israel depend on regional agricultural stability and water systems. Repeated infrastructure destruction increases food import dependence, rural depopulation and long-term land degradation in border zones.
Third, internal Israeli environmental vulnerability. A less discussed but critical dimension is the simple reality that prolonged warfare conditions can feed back into Israel’s own ecological systems vis-à-vis air quality deterioration from sustained military operations, water system strain under security infrastructure expansion, fire ecology disruption in northern regions. long-term land-use militarization effects.
In this sense, “obliteration” generates mutual ecological degradation across interconnected landscapes. It is an ecological version of MAD – mutually assured destruction.
Diffusion of Doctrine
The key concern is not just localized destruction but doctrinal diffusion. Methods of high-intensity ecological disruption normalize across theaters. And let’s keep in mind that the first test of the obliteration doctrine occurred in Dahiya, the predominantly Shia enclave of Beirut.
US military legacy in Iraq and Syria already includes extensive infrastructure and ecosystem disruption under counterinsurgency and airpower doctrines. These features include water system destruction in Iraq, oil field fires, atmospheric contamination, and urban siege warfare effects in Raqqa and Mosul via coalition partners.
Such precedents create a shared operational vocabulary where environmental damage is treated as secondary to strategic objectives.
In a potential Israel–Iran escalation scenario, ecological infrastructure becomes strategically central through water scarcity systems in Iran’s arid regions, oil and petrochemical infrastructure vulnerability, and agricultural basins dependent on irrigation networks.
Under the obliteration logic, these become dual-use environments—civilian life-support systems that also acquire military significance.
Finally, there is the regional systemic risk. This implies a shift from territorial warfare to ecosystem-targeted coercion, where water, soil, energy, and agriculture become primary pressure points. Meanwhile, environmental degradation is exploited as a form of strategic leverage and recovery cycles extend beyond political timelines into generational horizons.
From Battlefield to Biosphere as a Target
The Lebanese charges, Gaza environmental destruction data, and the doctrine of obliteration converge on a structural transformation in modern conflict.
The object of war is increasingly not just territory or armed forces, but the ecological infrastructure that makes civilian life possible. In this way, destruction of that infrastructure is a prelude to ethnic cleansing and displacement.
For military doctrines, this may be framed as an incidental or operational necessity. But for Lebanon and environmental analysts, this constitutes potential ecocide under international law. In view of the obliteration doctrine, it represents a systemic shift in the practice of warfare itself, from the battlefield to the biosphere as a target.
What happens in Gaza won’t stay in Gaza. What happens in Lebanon won’t stay in Lebanon. The stage is being set for obliteration ecocides wherever they are seen as effective necessities.
Ecological systems are now central to both the conduct and consequences of war.
– The author of The Fall of Israel (2024) and The Obliteration Doctrine (2025), Dr Dan Steinbock is the founder of Difference Group and has served at the India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institute for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net/
UAE deports tens of thousands of Pakistanis, seizes their savings amid war on Iran: Report
Press TV – May 5, 2026
Authorities in the UAE are conducting a sweeping deportation campaign targeting tens of thousands of Pakistani workers, freezing their bank accounts and stripping them of their life savings amid growing regional fallout from the US-Israeli aggression on Iran.
While initial reports from New Lines Magazine placed the number of expelled individuals at 15,000, Pakistani sources recently confirmed to Press TV that the deportations are continuing at a rapid pace and now affect tens of thousands of workers.
The expulsions target Shia Muslims or individuals who have publicly expressed solidarity with Tehran following the recent US-Israeli aggression against Iran.
Those targeted are being expelled without formal charges or legal recourse. The systematic removals involve sudden arrests, phone confiscations, and transfers between various detention facilities before the workers are forced onto flights back to Pakistan.
Crucially, deportees are being sent back “without being given the opportunity to withdraw their funds” from Emirati banks, according to a Shia cleric cited by New Lines Magazine.
This sudden seizure of assets has left many families in financial ruin, stripping workers—some of whom spent decades contributing to the Emirati economy—of their entire life savings.
Mohammad Amin Shaheedi, chief of Ummat-e-Wahida Pakistan, told the magazine that following the outbreak of the war, the UAE government launched “what appears to be an organized campaign to deport Shia individuals from the country.”
The US-Israeli aggression began on February 28 with airstrikes that assassinated senior Iranian officials and commanders, including Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. In response, Iranian armed forces launched daily missile and drone operations targeting locations in the Israeli-occupied territories and US military bases and assets, including those in the UAE.
The ensuing war sparked immense public solidarity with Iran across the region, particularly in Pakistan.
Sources indicate the UAE’s mass expulsions are deeply tied to Islamabad’s clear stance against the Israeli regime’s aggression on Iran and Lebanon, as well as Pakistan’s prominent role as a mediator.
On April 8, forty days into the war, a Pakistan-brokered temporary ceasefire between Iran and the US finally took effect. However, subsequent peace negotiations in Islamabad ultimately stalled amid Washington’s maximalist demands and insistence on unreasonable positions.
Wheels Down in Tbilisi: Was a Routine U.S. Military Stopover a Deliberate Signal to Iran?
By Seth Ferris – New Eastern Outlook – May 5, 2026
A brief and poorly explained landing of a U.S. military transport aircraft in Tbilisi at the end of March 2026 has become a subject of discussion and speculation about its real significance, fueling suspicions that more complex geopolitical signals may lie behind the official explanation of a “routine flight.”
Let’s pull apart the “routine flight” narrative and read between the lines, asking whether a fleeting stopover was less about logistics and more about sending a message — one that Georgia may end up paying for. If you think geopolitics is all press releases and polite diplomacy, think again. I would suggest that what is going on in the shadows, outside of mainstream coverage, is closer to theater — with Georgia cast in a role it never auditioned for.
Start with the headlines: last month, a US Air Force cargo aircraft made a brief stop in Tbilisi, purpose unknown – and just start reverse engineering, taking it apart, and you come up with what is between the lines as to the possible motivations for the US, a strategic ally of Georgia, to be willing to put Iran, its regional partner, in harm’s way. Moreover, it is interesting to know the news sites where this news first appeared, such as Georgian Today, and its history of paid hired gun articles supporting US policy in the region.
It is not as if Georgia and the US do not know that now is not the most opportune time to be perceived as supporting the illegal American-Israeli war against Iran. And let’s not forget C-130 Turkish Cargo Planes falling out of blue Georgian skies. Providing logistic support in a preempted war of aggression is still a recognized crime under the Nuremberg Codex. That puts the provider of such support in the crosshairs of the party being attacked, as has already been demonstrated by Iranian countermeasures, not to mention ‘protective reaction’ strikes in the Gulf States and Jordan.
What do we know?
A United States Air Force military transport aircraft made a short, unexplained landing in Tbilisi the last week of March, prompting questions and speculations but little official detail about its actual mission. However, multiple reports published on April 1, 2026, said a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III landed at Tbilisi International Airport in the afternoon after departing from the U.S. military hub at Ramstein Air Base in Germany.
It is interesting that the US Embassy provided a ‘most vague’ news release after the incident, telling of a phone call between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Georgia Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze the very next day.
Also vague is the lack of coverage of planes without tail numbers landing at regional airports, such as the one named in honour of the Soviet-Georgian movie “Mimino” in Telavi, East Georgia, supposedly owned by the Aviation University of Georgia. It has operated since 2012 and serves as a training ground for students in the Faculty of Aviation and Engineering.
But it can serve other purposes, as the airport hosts an aircraft technical service enterprise, a navigation tower, a terminal building for passengers, and dormitories for pilot-instructors and engineering-technical staff.
Recent sightings, including of European-looking visitors to the facility, appear a bit too dodgy in terms of standard news release material about a local use and training facility after the landing of the military transport and drones spotted over Georgia – too short and sweet not to be subterfuge.
The U.S. Embassy characterized some flight movement as routine, stating that such flights are “regularly carried out in coordination with partners,” without providing details about cargo, passengers, or final destination.
Flight tracking platforms such as Flightradar24 confirm that C-17 aircraft frequently operate across Europe and the Middle East, typically transporting personnel, equipment, or humanitarian supplies, though specific mission details are not publicly disclosed.
But I am more interested in what was on board, delivering or taking out human cargo! This brings back memories of a Turkish military transport, a C-130. Dropping from the clear blue sky a few months ago, including its crew, all died, and the debris was scattered over a wide area of Georgian territory. The forensic findings of that crash investigation have never been publicly shared to the best of my knowledge.
Wheels Down!
Would the Georgian government, especially now, be so naive as to agree to this touchdown, an unexpected one at that—and of a US military transport plane out of the blue in the middle of a shooting war in the Middle East?
Already there is political blowback. Georgia political analyst Gia Khukhashvili reportedly said that Rubio’s phone call was a “threatening warning”.
Perhaps Rubio was checking how ready Georgia was, and in what form [to what degree] it was ready to help solve America’s logistical problems… I don’t think there have already been any concrete proposals at this stage. But this was logically followed by a threatening warning (for Georgia) from the Iranian ambassador: “Don’t do anything wrong, otherwise you will also become a target,” the Georgian News portal quotes the political scientist.
Gia Khukhashvili believes that there will be no Georgian-American agreements, because “Washington will understand who it is dealing with … and how the Georgian PM Kobakhidze will later say that Rubio threatened him on the phone and demanded to open a second front,” confirmed the Georgian political pundit.
Posting News to Provoke Iran!
Who knows the real motivations and how the news was reported? As one close, trusted Georgian source shared, … just that they post this news to make Iran angry! The UNM, United National Movement, former Saakashvili regime, wants it so VERY much!
Why didn’t they use Turkish or Armenian bases?
That is a good question, and I think you already know the answer. The US wanted to show Iran that Georgia and the US are cooperating, so it provoked Iran to send a drone or make some attack, as Israel has ordered the US to do.
It should be noted that Armenia has a Russian base, and the plane is claimed to have flown over some Armenian and Turkish territory, perhaps touching down in the Kurdish-controlled region of Northern Iraq. It would have been too dangerous to land in Armenia, as secrets could be revealed, and as for Turkey, it shares a similar position as Georgia, it does not want to get involved, or give the impression of being involved, especially since the Americans are openly arming regional Kurds. It can be expected that a substantial part of this ratline is flowing into and through Turkish territory.
I still can’t find any serious discussion on the plane and its real purpose for making a short stopover in Georgia. It appears that the US and Israel would love to put Georgia in the crosshairs of Iran just for the hell of it. It is also interesting that strikes have been carried out by Israel on joint Russian-Iranian port facilities on the Caspian, in the part on the Iranian side.
Possible Motivations for Wheels Down and Vague News Coverage
My first thought was delivering something to put in place for Iran. But if it went to Turkish airspace, it could also be headed to eastern Turkey or Iraq. Or one of the NATO bases in Turkey, although I’m pretty sure those are in the west, and we would not be in the flight path. In any case, if it is at all related to the war, then more EU countries are banning the use of the bases in their countries, so if a plane needs to stop somewhere or refuel, it could be done here. Georgia still wants to stay on good terms with the US, so if it is a brief stop, they would probably allow it. Not much will happen. If the use looks more like staging, it could be dangerous. Moreover, they could use Vaziani. I think NATO supported development of an air base there (which the government now wants to use for a new commercial mega-airport). But there isn’t much of an air force here, so maybe Vaziani lacks fuel in any quantity and other amenities. The motivation was perhaps to deliver some radar equipment, greenbacks, spyware equipment, or perhaps human resources, thinking that Iran will not attack Georgia since it needs it too much as its window to the world.
We’ll have to see; just a thought on it!
In the end, a half-hour touchdown, a vague press release statement, and a conveniently timed diplomatic call say more than any official briefing ever will. Whether it was cargo, coordination, or quiet signaling, the message landed louder than the aircraft itself: Georgia is being watched, tested, and potentially positioned in a conflict it has no desire to join.
And if this was meant as a signal to Iran, then it’s a risky one—because in today’s climate, even a brief stop can turn a bystander into a target. A fleeting military stopover can transform neutral ground into perceived staging areas, risking Iranian retaliation against a nation determined to remain on the sidelines. Sparse public facts and local sources reveal the shadowy interplay of great-power signaling, where a half-hour touchdown may speak louder than any formal briefing—placing Georgia uncomfortably in the crosshairs of a war it wants no part of.
Seth Ferris is an investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
Trump’s second strike on Iran would be suicidal. But that’s not the reason why he won’t go ahead with it
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 4, 2026
Trump has been presented with a report sketching out a second-strike plan against Iran’s infrastructure, which he is reported to be mulling over. The media has latched onto terms like “short, powerful” strikes aimed at Iran’s infrastructure – which the author predicted in two previous articles and which, if it were to happen, would occur over the summer period when temperatures reach unbearable levels in the region. But is Trump really serious about it, and does he even understand the extent of Iran’s retaliation? The very fact that Trump has military advisors who are even presenting him with such plans shows, if nothing else, the level of their disconnect from reality and his exaggerated sense of self-importance.
The US already did this the first time round and went through its stocks of ordnance, breaking all records for the volume of missiles used in such a short space of time. It did very little to bring Iran to its knees, rather making it stronger than ever, with greater support. But what it did succeed in doing was giving Iran a dry run with such an attack and allowing it to learn a great deal about how to cope with one. Militarily, Iran has never been stronger, more focused and more technologically advanced. For Trump to believe he has a shot at a second go is not only unrealistic but sheer madness in terms of what the US – and to a lesser extent Israel – is going to have to deal with as a response. Iran will almost certainly reduce Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure to dust, which experts estimate would take ten years to rebuild.
If the US opts to go for a second strike, the retaliation against Saudi oil infrastructure and the US military ships themselves being used in the blockade will be unprecedented. Not only could oil easily reach 200 USD a barrel, but the striking of the US armada could be the end of America as we know it.
While the Iranian government presents Trump with their fourteen-point plan, its key officials understand how difficult it is for Trump to walk away. Both sides talk as though they’ve won the war, but in reality Trump is shackled to Netanyahu, who is insisting that the ridiculous blockade continues. What the US media are not reporting about it, though, is that it is only really working for the cameras and not choking Iran of revenues as reported. Many tankers from countries friendly with Iran travel towards the straits while keeping very close to the Iranian coastline – too far for the Americans to strike them, as US battleships would have to come closer.
Meanwhile Iran takes further steps to formalise its legal ownership, which would suggest there is an even stronger case for Tehran to strike the US battleships at some point. Iran is patient and prefers to keep a dialogue going, hoping for Trump to back down at some point while the markets increase pressure on him each day and EU countries drift farther away from Washington’s influence as their own economies face collapse if the situation isn’t resolved soon. Trump has his own way of dealing with the crisis, which, hilariously, is always to place himself first. His recent tantrum about NATO not supporting him, resulting in him pulling US troops out of Germany, is simply a distraction.
Yet the chances of this second strike happening are unlikely. But not for the reasons that seem obvious. In reality, China and Russia are playing an increasingly central role in supporting Iran, and Trump is beginning to understand what this means in practical terms. The low levels of missiles will restrict his options about what kind of strike this second one could be, which is why there’s so much talk about the US using its own hypersonic missiles. It’s not only that the US can’t replenish its stocks – THAAD and Patriot are very low – but the essential raw minerals needed to make them come from China, and Beijing has indicated that this supply is on pause. The other point is that Israel has almost nothing left to even throw into the air, let alone to present so-called journalists with video pictures of a country defending itself. Israel has nothing left. For Trump to go ahead with a second strike would really give Iran the excuse it needs to destroy Trump as a global leader, as hitting Saudi Arabia’s oil would be a wake-up call that Trump would have to take seriously. Iran sees such a strike just as the Americans considered the atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of the Second World War: a moment of clarity.
Trump is still confused. But such a strike would put such enormous pressure on him from around the world, from America’s allies, that the sheer noise would be deafening for him. He would have to listen to it and concede defeat. But for the moment, there is still time for distracting the media with utterly stupid statements that portray America as a winner in the war, and we should expect more of them – but some kind of defeat is coming. Creating a massive distraction will be inevitable, and that might come in the form of a new crisis around the world or from the US pulling out of NATO. Iran, right at the last moment, adding that it is now able to include the nuclear issue as part of the talks – that is now on the table. But will Trump seize the moment?
No commercial ship or oil tanker transited Strait of Hormuz in past hours: IRGC
Press TV – May 4, 2026
No commercial vessels or oil tankers have transited the Strait of Hormuz in the past several hours, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said Monday, dismissing recent US claims as “baseless and outright false.”
In a statement issued by the IRGC’s Public Relations Office, the elite force stressed that maritime movements in breach of its declared naval regulations will face serious risks, and that any violating vessel will be stopped forcefully.
“No commercial or tanker vessels have transited the Strait of Hormuz in the past several hours,” the statement read. “US officials’ claims are baseless and outright false.”
The US military said earlier that two US Navy guided-missile destroyers had entered the Persian Gulf and that two American ships had transited the Strait of Hormuz, after the Iranian Navy said it repelled a US warship approaching the strategic waterway, which has remained under Iranian control since the early days of the war.
On Sunday, US President Donald Trump announced the so-called “Project Freedom” to escort ships out of the Strait of Hormuz.
The unified command of Iran’s armed forces responded by warning American forces to stay out of the Strait, lying between the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.
Iran has restricted transit through the vital waterway responsible for a fifth of global oil demand since the early days of the illegal US-Israeli aggression on the country that began on February 28 and halted in a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire on April 8.
Authorities say, however, that coordinated passage through the Strait is allowed for all ships except for those linked to the US and the Israeli regime and associated entities.
Featured Video
Prof John Mearsheimer TRUMP WILL BE FORCED TO CUT A DEAL w/IRAN
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Not Hamas-Israeli conflict: The Palestinian cause belongs to the world
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | October 15, 2023
This, in his thinking, could only mean one thing: “Never before has Israel stood more honored and revered by the nations of the world.”
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Prof John Mearsheimer TRUMP WILL BE FORCED TO CUT A DEAL w/IRAN
- Hantavirus, the WHO, and the Conflicts in Weighing Mortality
- Russia says disputes over Iran, Greenland and Canada distract from Palestine
- Russia Not Ruling Out West’s Preparing Another ‘Bloody Hoax’ in Ukraine – Diplomat
- Iraq, Pakistan ink Hormuz safe passage deals with Iran: Report
- CIA Waging Covert War Against Drug Cartels in Mexico – Reports
- ‘Utterly baseless’: Iran rejects Kuwait’s claim of hostile plot on its island
- Hidden deep in an NPR story about a man who threatened to kill Jews at Cornell… He admits he did it to benefit Israel
- Col Douglas Macgregor: If We Go Back To BOMBING IRAN
- Trump admits US sent weapons to fuel riots, terrorism inside Iran
- If Americans Knew
- Nakba Day is almost here, but every day is also Nakba Day – Daily Update
- Gaza: ‘Doctors Under Attack’ Wins Top Award After Being Shelved by the BBC
- The Nakba at 78: A statistical snapshot of Palestine
- Israel Expels Father Louis Salman from Palestine
- How Israel Turned Eurovision’s Stage Into a Soft Power Tool
- Palestinians in Jerusalem receive only 7% of housing units
- If not stopped, Israel will wipe out Christians from Palestine by 2050: Bethlehem pastor
- Hidden Deep in an NPR Story About a Man Who Threatened to Kill Jews at Cornell… He Admits He Did It to Make People Love Israel
- Peter Mandelson: the untold Israel connection
- Epstein Advised U.S. Treasury on Crypto During Obama’s Iran Sanctions Push
- No Tricks Zone
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
Aletho News 