Deep Dive Intel Briefing: What We Learned This Week /Lt Col Daniel Davis
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive
Iran to charge ships passing Strait of Hormuz in rial: Lawmaker
Press TV – April 27, 2026
A motion being prepared in the Iranian parliament to regulate future transit through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf stipulates that ships allowed to pass through the key waterway must pay tolls in Iranian rial currency.
The chairman of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Ebrahim Azizi, said on Monday that charging tolls on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz is part of an 11-article motion being prepared in the parliament.
Azizi told state TV that the motion has been discussed and finalized in his committee and will become law once ratified in a vote in the main chamber of the Iranian parliament.
He said the motion contains some smart and well-considered measures that are based on a decree by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, who said last month that Iran must introduce a new system of governance in the Strait of Hormuz.
Azizi said the measures include a total ban on transit for ships owned by or linked to the Israeli regime, as well as restrictions on passage for vessels connected to hostile countries and their affiliates.
He said that the motion also seeks to require all countries that have inflicted financial damage on Iran over the past years, including by imposing sanctions or blocking its funds in foreign banks, to compensate Iran, through tolls paid by their ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
“It has been stipulated in the motion that the financial proceeds obtained from the Strait should be (paid) in Iranian rial,” he said.
The motion comes amid Iran’s continued control over transit through the Strait of Hormuz, which it has enforced since the early days of the US-Israeli aggression against the country in late February.
Iran has maintained its control over the strait, although the aggression ceased in early April following a Pakistani-mediated ceasefire.
Talks would resume if US accepts 3-phase framework Iran put forward
Al Mayadeen | April 27, 2026
Iran has informed mediators of a proposed three-phase framework for negotiations and says talks could resume if the United States agrees to the plan, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in Tehran reported.
The proposal, as described by our correspondent, outlines an initial phase focused on ending US-Israeli aggression and securing guarantees that fighting will not resume against Iran and Lebanon. During this stage, Iran would not discuss any other issues, the report said.
The plan envisions coordination with Oman
If agreement is reached on the first phase, discussions would move to a second stage centered on the management of the Strait of Hormuz. The plan reportedly envisions coordination with Oman to establish a new legal framework governing the strategic waterway.
The third phase would address Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran would only be prepared to discuss after agreements are reached on the first two phases, according to the report.
This is happening as Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has departed for Moscow, leading a diplomatic delegation.
Iranian ambassador in Moscow, Kazem Jalal, said earlier that Araghchi is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin during his visit to Moscow, where he will hold consultations on the latest developments regarding negotiations and the ceasefire.
Liberation From War
By Manlio Dinucci | Global Research | April 26, 2026
Italy is experiencing an economic slowdown: this is confirmed by the fact that in 2025 public debt stood at 37% of GDP and that the situation has worsened since then. The Italian Minister for the Economy and Finance, Giancarlo Giorgetti, attributes the crisis largely to the “energy shock” caused by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, blamed on Iran, which led to a rise in the price of oil and natural gas. Giorgetti seems to have forgotten that the “energy crisis” began before the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz due to the halt in Russian natural gas imports. These imports have fallen from 40% of Italy’s total gas imports in 2021 to 2% in 2026.
During this period, Italy’s imports of liquefied natural gas from the United States have risen from 13% to 33%, despite the much higher price. By waging war against Russia and Iran alongside NATO, Israel and other allies, the United States has succeeded in making Italy and Europe increasingly dependent on its energy supplies.
After triggering the war that has torn Europe apart with the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the United States has succeeded in making its European allies bear an ever-increasing share of the cost.
They have now approved the 20th “sanctions package” against Russia and granted Ukraine a further “loan” of 90 billion euros. At the same time, the United States has succeeded in driving up the military spending of its European allies sharply. Between 2015 and 2025, Italian military spending has more than doubled, rising in 2025 to €45.3 billion annually – equivalent to over 2% of GDP, or an average of €124 million a day. Italian military spending is set to continue rising, reaching 3.5% of GDP – equivalent to €198 million a day – and subsequently 5%, equivalent to over €280 million a day.
Following the war against Russia, Italy is becoming increasingly involved in the conflict against Iran.
US drones and aircraft are stationed at the Sigonella base in Sicily, from where they carry out missions in the Middle East to identify targets in Iran and guide US missile and bomber strikes. For the war against Iran, US forces are also using other bases in Italy, such as Aviano and Camp Darby. The Italian government has now decided to send two military ships to the Strait of Hormuz, even without a UN mandate, officially for mine clearance. As these ships would be in a war zone, including within Iranian territorial waters, should they be threatened with attack or attacked by Iranian forces, they would be flanked by Italian Navy strike units, officially “for protective purposes”.
Italy would thus effectively enter the war alongside the United States. The US is using its warships not only to block the Strait of Hormuz and cut off Iranian ports, but also to attack and seize ships in the Indian Ocean that are carrying (or are said to be carrying) Iranian oil to China and other Asian countries.
The US military blockade of shipping lanes is triggering an economic crisis that could soon spread from Asia across the globe. In Vietnam, rice mills have cut production due to soaring electricity costs and the difficulties faced by farmers following rises in fuel and fertiliser prices. In the Philippines, many farmers have decided not to harvest their crops, leaving them to rot, as they would have to sell them at a loss due to the rise in transport fuel costs. In Indonesia, nickel mines are closing because, due to the US blockade of Iran, they no longer have the gas and sulphur needed for extraction. In Bangladesh, clothing production is falling due to the disruption of import-export chains. All this – warns a UN report – could cost the Asia-Pacific region up to $300 billion, as the region relies on imported energy. Pressure is mounting on households, small businesses and public finances, with around 9 million people at risk of falling into extreme poverty.
This shows that war causes carnage not only through weapons such as bombs and missiles, but also through economic weapons such as the blockade of ports and shipping lanes, which can result in even greater loss of life. The dramatic images of war – that of an Israeli soldier destroying a statue of Christ on the cross in the Christian village of Debel in Lebanon, that of Israeli settlers in the West Bank preventing Palestinian children from going to school by blocking their path and attacking them with tear gas grenades – demonstrate the vital need to continue the struggle for liberation, freeing ourselves from war once and for all.
Seyed M. Marandi: The Strike That Wiped Out Trump’s Plan (It’s Over)
Dialogue Works | April 25, 2026
Substack: https://substack.com/@dialogueworks?u…
X (Twitter): https://x.com/Dialogue_NRA
Iran war launched at ‘Israel’s’ request: US memo debunks Trump claims
Al Mayadeen | April 25, 2026
A US State Department legal memo has confirmed that Washington’s military attacks on Iran were carried out in support of “Israel”, contradicting earlier claims by President Donald Trump that the decision was made independently.
Published on April 21 by Legal Advisor Reed D. Rubinstein on the state government website, the document titled “Operation Epic Fury and International Law” outlines the “justification” for US attacks launched on February 28 against Iranian missile systems, naval assets, production facilities, and nuclear infrastructure.
The memo explicitly states that the United States is engaged in the war “at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally,” invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Trump’s version of the truth
On Monday, Trump insisted that “Israel” did not influence his decision to strike Iran, dismissing reports suggesting coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and rejecting criticism from right-wing commentators.
In a Truth Social post, Trump claimed, “Israel never talked me into the war.”
This isn’t the first time he has pushed back on claims that “Israel” influenced US actions against Iran. In March, Marco Rubio told reporters that “Israel” had reportedly weighed a preemptive strike on Iran, warning it could provoke retaliation against US forces in the region and potentially help set the stage for what became known as “Operation Epic Fury.”
At the time, Trump rejected that framing, telling reporters at the start of an Oval Office meeting with Merz. “If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”
“We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and I thought they were going to strike first. If we didn’t act, they would have,” he said, adding, “It was something that had to be done.”
A memo or an unintended exposé?
At the time, Trump had dismissed suggestions that “Israel” influenced the decision to strike Iran. The memo’s language, however, presents a far clearer picture, emphasizing coordination with and support for the Israeli side as a central legal basis for the operation.
Operation Epic Fury was launched with stated objectives to destroy Iran’s offensive missile capabilities, dismantle its production infrastructure, target naval forces, and prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The document further argues that the war is part of a broader, ongoing confrontation driven by what it describes as Iran’s regional activities, including support for allied groups and strikes on US and Israeli targets.
US officials maintain that their war on Iran complies with international law, arguing that it falls within established frameworks governing “self-defense”. Critics, however, have questioned the legality of the attacks under the UN Charter, particularly given the scale of operations, which by early April had involved thousands of attacks before a ceasefire took hold.
The memo also underscores a more politically sensitive point: Washington’s own account now formally acknowledges a role for “Israel” that Trump had previously denied and downplayed.
Netanyahu destabilizing region, US hindering talks: Pakistani official
Al Mayadeen | April 24, 2026
In an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen, former Pakistani Information Minister and Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed highlighted Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts in facilitating indirect and direct communication between Iran and the United States, describing the process as a rare breakthrough in regional diplomacy.
Sayed stated that Pakistan “achieved something close to the impossible” in the initial round of discussions by helping bring Iranian and US representatives to the same table. He emphasized that the significance of the effort lay in “bringing the Iranian and American sides into the same room,” describing it as a notable diplomatic achievement.
According to Sayed, expectations remain high for a second round of talks between Tehran and Washington, though he stressed that such progress depends on the lifting of the US naval blockade on Iran.
He also told Al Mayadeen that the continuation of dialogue is contingent on a shift in US policy, adding that Pakistan remains in active contact with both Tehran and Washington. He also noted that communication channels include engagement with Pakistan’s military leadership, which has played a facilitating role.
Strait of Hormuz and regional developments
Sayed emphasized that Iranian leadership responded positively to a request from Pakistan’s army chief to ease tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime passage.
He said Iran’s position initially expected relief from US-imposed restrictions, which had not materialized. He added that Iran’s decision to show flexibility regarding the Strait of Hormuz reflects its willingness to support de-escalation efforts.
According to Sayed, the “ball is now in the Americans’ court,” stressing that Washington must make the next move if negotiations are to continue.
He further warned that if restrictions on Iranian ports continue, Iran’s negotiating delegation may not participate in future talks scheduled in Islamabad.
US policy obstructs negotiations
Sayed identified the US blockade on Iran as the central obstacle to a second round of negotiations, describing it as “legally and morally wrong.”
He expressed the view that former US President Donald Trump may eventually reconsider this position, suggesting that lifting the blockade could open the way for renewed dialogue.
He also argued that ongoing US policy has failed to achieve its objectives, claiming that Washington is under pressure to find an exit strategy from the current regional tensions.
Netanyahu destabilizing region
In his remarks, Sayed accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of playing a central role in escalating regional tensions, blasting him as a destabilizing figure in West Asia.
He further said that Netanyahu influenced US policy and dragged it into war through political “blackmail” and the notorious Epstein files, in which Trump is extensively mentioned.
Moreover, Sayed stated that “Israel” does not seek peace, adding that Zionism pursues the idea of a “Greater Israel,” a concept rejected in the region. Regional resistance, he said, including Iran’s stance, has challenged the feasibility of such projects.
Lebanon ceasefire central to regional peace
The former minister also referred to developments in Lebanon, stating that a ceasefire was achieved following pressure on Israeli leadership.
He claimed that Trump played a role in urging Netanyahu toward de-escalation, based on diplomatic advice, and said that Iran had also rightfully insisted on a ceasefire in Lebanon, which he stressed was a victim of aggression.
Sayed emphasized that peace in the region is interconnected, stating that stability in Iran and the wider West Asia region is directly linked to peace in Lebanon. He added that discussions reportedly include a broader framework in which Lebanon is not treated as a separate issue but as part of a wider regional settlement.
Pakistan’s regional position
Sayed underscored Pakistan’s role as a key regional actor, highlighting its status as the only nuclear power in the Islamic world and a consistent supporter of the Palestinian cause.
He suggested that Pakistan is positioned to play a continued mediating role in facilitating dialogue between regional and global powers.
Looking ahead, Sayed expressed cautious optimism that an agreement between Tehran and Washington could eventually be reached, stating that such a deal might even be signed in Pakistan if negotiations succeed.
He concluded by reiterating that the Strait of Hormuz is not the root cause of tensions but rather a consequence of broader geopolitical disputes, which he attributed to US and Israeli regional policies.
Confusion, delusion, and how Israel drives the Iran War
By Jamal Kanj | MEMO | April 23, 2026
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz following the temporary ceasefire is the culmination of an American policy defined by strategic incoherence. At the center stands Donald Trump, whose shifting positions, confused war objectives, and conflicting actions have not only failed to ease regional tensions but have actively deepened them.
Nowhere is this clearer than in Trump’s threats to blow up the whole country, including its bridges and power plants. At the same time, he touted a military “big day,” presenting potential war crimes as diplomatic tool, aggression as diplomacy, and destruction as leverage.
Trump’s inflated, almost delusional, promises ahead of potential talks come across less as statesmanship and more as a calculated sales pitch to the American public. His vows “to end up with a great deal,” coupled with an almost obsessive focus on Barack Obama by insisting his agreement will be “far better” than the one negotiated over a decade ago. An approach that reflects a tendency toward messaging driven less by policy depth and more by projection, comparison, and to frame outcomes in terms of self-aggrandizement and personal glory.
Instead of articulating clear strategic objectives, his policy relies on distinguishing himself and image cultivation to project authority and superiority, leaving the underlying substance vague and open to question.
By manufacturing optimism and exaggerating progress while promising an imminent “great deal,” Trump appears to be negotiating with himself—or detached from reality—seeking to construct a narrative of success regardless of the facts on the ground. The performative optimism stands in sharp contrast to his simultaneous threats and pompous rhetoric, suggesting not confidence but a measure of desperation.
Trump’s rationale for extending the ceasefire because of “internal divisions” within Iran is unconvincing. If internal debate within Iran is seen as warranting a pause, what should be said of a policy where direction shifts from one moment to the next? Differing political views are the essence of a normally functioning political system, whereas impulsive, erratic, personalized decision-making is not.
All of this unfolds as Trump continues issuing maximalist demands for conditions he helped create. For instance, he demands the surrender of enriched uranium that would not exist had he not abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Likewise, the Strait of Hormuz was closed as a consequence of his and Netanyahu’s war, not as its cause.
The consequences of these Israel-driven U.S. policies are felt by ordinary Americans at the gas pump and in grocery stores. The Strait of Hormuz has become a battleground, destabilizing global energy supply chains and economies worldwide. Yet despite these cascading effects, the core strategy remains unchanged. Trump continues to operate within an echo chamber of Israel-first sycophants that assume military might alone can deliver results, even as the policy falters and the war spills across the region, threatening roughly one-fifth of the world’s energy infrastructure.
This is not merely a political flaw or a matter of mismanagement. It is rather a strategic vulnerability shaped by Israel-first loyalists pulling U.S. strategy in directions that ultimately undermine U.S. national interests. In the absence of clearly defined national objectives, as in the first Israel’s war in Iraq, each step risks drawing the U.S. deeper into the polluted water of the Gulf, while simultaneously advancing an environment of chaos that serves only Israel’s calculated aims.
In this framework, was Israeli Prijamame Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent statement that the war with Iran is “not over” an embedded message to Trump ahead of the proposed peace talks in Pakistan?
Negotiation between countries, especially in the context of war is not selling real estate deals, where haggling and the threat of retracting an offer are routine tactics. The craft of negotiation in this case operates on an entirely different level. Culture, national dignity, historical memory, and political positioning shape both the process and the outcome.
Leaders are not merely bargaining over financial assets or credit ratings, they are navigating domestic demands, legitimacy, and the perception of strength or weakness on the global stage.
In this regard, threats or the constant withdrawal and reintroduction of proposals are not leverage, they are weakness. Unlike commercial transactions where the “Art of the Deal” is largely concluded at the moment of signing, international agreements mark the beginning of an ongoing, often long-term relationship. What may pass as hard-nosed bargaining in business can, in international diplomacy, be interpreted as bad faith, an approach that tends to invite resentment and resistance instead of compromise. This is why since last Tuesday, Trump was left waiting for Iran to come to the negotiation table.
Effective diplomacy requires serious leadership, consistency, and an understanding of the symbolic as much as the substantive. Agreements endure not because one side is pressured into submission, but because all parties can present the outcome as preserving their dignity and advancing mutual interests.
The lack of strategic maturity is indicative in a proclamation in the morning signaling openness to de-escalation; by midday, the message splinters, issuing threats and ultimatums while simultaneously hinting at imminent breakthrough deals; by the middle of the night, amid his insomnia, it escalates to threats of total destruction. This constant shifting of positions is not a minor stylistic quirk. It is possible that, at least some of this, is associated with his nocturnal communications with Netanyahu, who is apparently wagging him left and right.
This yo-yoing of positions does more than create confusion; it erodes credibility. Diplomacy depends on a baseline of predictability and mental stability. When signals shift faster than the wind, uncertainty breeds mistrust, and negotiations drift from closed rooms into fiery statements played out for public consumption, creating an opening for Israel to drive the war and breed destruction and more chaos.
US naval blockade has disrupted but ‘not broken’ Iran’s oil exports: Kpler
Al Mayadeen | April 23, 2026
The US naval blockade of Iranian ports has disrupted the country’s oil machine, but its loading infrastructure remains intact, and cargoes are still flowing toward China, according to maritime analytics firm Kpler.
US Central Command announced overnight that American forces have redirected 31 vessels to return to port or turn around as part of the ongoing US blockade against Iran. Most of the redirected vessels were oil tankers, CENTCOM posted on X.
The US has also seized an Iranian-flagged vessel in the Gulf of Oman and boarded a sanctioned vessel in the Indian Ocean.
Despite the blockade, tankers are still positioned in Iran’s loading zones and Iranian crude continues to move toward China, Kpler data shows. The maritime analytics firm estimated the flow of crude from Iran to China to be 985,000 barrels per day in the first half of April. Since then, this flow has not been interrupted, Kpler said.
Jask terminal bypasses Strait of Hormuz
At Jask, an Iranian oil export terminal located outside the Strait of Hormuz, there is currently an all-time high of 5.8 million barrels in storage, Kpler reported. Tankers carrying oil are able to depart from the Jask terminal directly into the Gulf of Oman without needing to transit through the strait.
“The blockade has disrupted the oil machine, but it has not broken it,” Kpler said.
The findings suggest that while the US naval campaign has inflicted damage on Iran’s ability to export oil freely, Tehran has developed alternative routes and maintained key infrastructure to ensure continued revenue from crude sales. The Jask terminal, which bypasses the strategically vulnerable Strait of Hormuz, has emerged as a critical asset in Iran’s efforts to sustain exports despite the blockade.
‘Iran will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz’
In this context, a senior Iranian official involved in communications with Washington told the BBC that, at this stage, it is not possible to reopen the Strait of Hormuz due to blatant violations of the ceasefire by the United States and “Israel.”
According to the official, these violations include the US naval blockade on Iranian ports and Israeli aggression across various fronts, particularly Lebanon.
These steps, according to the official, “hold the global economy hostage” and undermine the chances of achieving political progress.
John Mearsheimer: U.S. Expands Iran War & Divorces Europe
Glenn Diesen | April 22, 2026
Prof. John Mearsheimer argues that the failure to make peace with Iran can dramatically widen the war in the Middle East, while the rift with Europe and other allies widen. John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
- X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen
- Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
- Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
Islamabad’s post-war push: A new Gulf security order takes shape
Regional powers are moving quickly to fill the vacuum before Washington can reassert control
By F.M. Shakil | The Cradle | April 22, 2026
US President Donald Trump’s decision to extend the ceasefire with Iran at Pakistan’s request has given Islamabad more time to push for a broader settlement between Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran. Yet even as diplomacy inches forward, the war has already triggered a deeper shift across West Asia.
A Pakistan-brokered truce is now tied to a broader regional realignment. Persian Gulf states, long dependent on Washington’s military shield, are openly questioning whether that shield still works. In its place, a new conversation has emerged: one centered on regional defense cooperation led by Muslim-majority states rather than the US.
Iran signaled cautious optimism last week about joining a second round of talks in Islamabad. Reports had suggested Tehran might refuse to attend after a US naval assault on an Iranian vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, but Trump’s decision to extend the ceasefire has bought negotiators more time.
That development reportedly pushed Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, to press Washington for a ceasefire extension and an easing of the blockade. Trump’s decision to prolong the truce has partly addressed Iran’s conditions for rejoining negotiations, although the blockade remains in place.
Munir, who concluded a three-day visit to Tehran last week, has remained in direct contact with Trump while Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has carried out parallel diplomacy in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkiye.
Yet another obstacle to an agreement is the status of the enriched uranium that Iran possesses. Latest updates reveal that both Russia and China have offered to store Iranian uranium to address a major US demand for a peace agreement.
A regional order without Washington
Parallel to the peace effort, intense diplomacy is underway between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkiye, and Egypt over a possible “Muslim” replacement for the US-led Gulf security architecture.
A quadripartite meeting on the sidelines of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, held from 17–19 April in Turkiye, reportedly focused on lowering tensions and building a new regional security structure. Sources speaking to The Cradle say there is now broad support for an “internal security apparatus” rooted in economic integration and defense coordination.
Ankara has proposed what it describes as an “organized regional security platform” built around the idea that regional states, not outside powers, should be responsible for defending West Asia.
The urgency behind those discussions is easy to understand.
Several Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, now believe that US bases in the Persian Gulf have become liabilities rather than assets. After Iranian strikes damaged or destroyed multiple US military facilities in the region, Gulf governments began to question whether the US presence protects them or simply turns them into targets.
Zahir Shah Sherazi, executive vice president of Bol News, tells The Cradle:
“Targeting the US bases and installations in the Gulf states, where American outposts were located, was a strategic and insightful military tactic of Iran that exposed the true nature of Washington. The Gulf nations came to understand that the US is unable to safeguard them, as its primary focus lies on the Zionist state and its expansionist ambitions.”
Sherazi states that the concept of a Greater Israel stems from the expansionist designs of the Zionist state, which is working on it in the West Bank, Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria under US protection. This situation, he argues, has worried the Gulf states, and even Turkiye is at risk of clashing with Israel in Syria and Lebanon.
These apprehensions led to the formation of a NATO-like force in West Asia, not to counter Iran but Israel’s expansionist designs. He says Iran may join this force after its war, making it a strong military alliance against the US and Israel.
Sunni alliance or regional deterrent?
Not everyone sees the proposed force in the same way.
Imtiaz Gul, executive director of the Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), tells The Cradle that the project could end up functioning as a Sunni coalition rather than a genuinely regional defense structure.
In his view, the force may ultimately suit both Washington and the occupation state because it could be used to contain Iran while protecting the oil-rich Arab monarchies.
“This force is perceived as a facilitator of the Abraham Accords, as it is designed to fortify regional alliances and counteract Iranian influence in the Middle East. This coterie may emerge as an alternative security arrangement, specifically for Saudi Arabia, as the US military bases have become liabilities rather than functioning as a protective umbrella for the Gulf and Arab states.”
Concerning the prospects of this force, Gul is not so optimistic. He is of the view that such an organization could not effectively assume the responsibility of regulating this region.
“It is a highly intricate issue that is both challenging and difficult to implement due to several internal differences and conflicting interests, such as the ongoing tensions between Iran and Turkiye, with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which complicate any potential regulatory efforts.”
US bases become a burden
Even as Trump signals a possible drawdown of US military operations in West Asia, Washington continues to expand its military footprint.
Trump has suggested that thousands of US troops could leave Iraq and Syria by September 2026. Yet his administration has also sent an additional 2,500 marines to the region.
That contradiction has reinforced Russian warnings that “the US and Israel can use the peace talks to prepare for a ground operation against Iran, as the Pentagon continues to increase US troop numbers in the region.”
Gul believes a large-scale US withdrawal from Gulf bases would leave the occupation state more isolated. Without those facilities, Tel Aviv would lose much of the logistical and intelligence infrastructure that underpins its military reach across the region.
He argues that Washington will maintain a military foothold in West Asia for as long as it sees Israel as vulnerable.
A recent report by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) urged the Pentagon to reassess its Gulf basing strategy once the war with Iran ends. The report argued that Bahrain and the UAE should remain key hubs for US naval power, while other facilities may create more problems than advantages.
AEI suggested that Washington rely more heavily on Greece and Cyprus instead of accommodating Turkiye. It also argued that the US should deepen its presence in Somaliland rather than maintain extensive deployments in Saudi Arabia and Oman.
According to the Middle East Institute (MEI), US forces remain stationed in the UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. Roughly 50,000 troops are spread across 19 known sites.
“The US security umbrella became more of a liability, directly threatening the sovereignty of the host countries, especially since these bases were implicated in the attack on Iran. Although Iran is not a threat to the GCC’s sovereignty, it is assaulting the US bases from which the US attacks Iran,” Gul says.
Pakistan moves in as Gulf protector
Pakistan deployed 13,000 troops and a fleet of 10 to 18 fighter jets, including advanced platforms such as the JF-17 “Thunder” Block III and J-10CE fighters, at King Abdulaziz Air Base in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.
Sherazi goes further. He argues that despite its military superiority and technological edge, Washington has already been forced to abandon some positions in Saudi Arabia and Qatar because of Iranian retaliation.
“Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan have established strong connections in trade and defense collaboration. Qatar appears to be signaling its intention to join this Saudi–Pakistan defense mechanism. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have also declared that their territories will not be used for actions against Iran.”
Pakistan has already started positioning itself as an alternative security guarantor for the Gulf monarchies.
Islamabad and Ankara are also deepening military cooperation. Pakistan is involved in the KAAN stealth fighter program, while Turkiye is providing support in drone technology, training, and military equipment.
There is also growing speculation that Iran may quietly support parts of this regional transition. One of Tehran’s key demands in recent negotiations with Washington was reportedly the closure of US military bases across the region.
“Almost all Middle Eastern nations, except for a few like the UAE, support an indigenous security mechanism in the region due to the US-Israel collusion that has caused significant bloodshed among Arab nations,” Sherazi says.
“Now is the time for a robust force to end the barbarity of the Zionists and their supporters.”
Featured Video
Macgregor: We Haven’t Seen the Worst of the Iran War Yet
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
New Book
Breast Cancer: Before You Consent
A new Unbekoming paperback
Lies are Unbekoming | September 18, 2026
Peter Gøtzsche reviewed every randomised mammography screening trial ever conducted for the Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane’s headline is that, assuming a 15% mortality reduction, one woman in 2000 avoids dying of breast cancer over ten years. Ten are overdiagnosed and treated. Two hundred experience false alarms.
But that headline assumes the reduction. When Gøtzsche looked only at the trials with adequate randomisation — the higher-quality ones — the reduction disappeared. No effect on breast cancer mortality. No effect on all-cause mortality.
This is the Cochrane finding, published in the establishment’s own database of systematic reviews.
No woman being asked to consent to a mammogram this week knows it.
That is why the new Unbekoming paperback exists. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Yemeni army claims responsibility for strikes on sensitive sites in Saudi capital, Aramco facilities in Yanbu
- Iran Judiciary issues indictments against 159 US, Israeli officials for assassination of Leader, commanders
- Turkiye revokes Iranian bank license under US sanctions campaign
- US-Denmark Agreement on Greenland Is ‘PR Stunt’ Ahead of Midterms
- Araghchi: Military intervention cannot create security; coercion cannot bring peace
- Fraud Squared
- Breast Cancer: Before You Consent
- Iran’s Plan to Shut Down AI in the Persian Gulf
- Israel seeks ‘compensation’ from Washington over Saudi F-35 sale
- Saudi crown prince seeks dialogue with Ansarullah after Yemeni blows: Report
- If Americans Knew
- Inside Gaza’s death trap of collapsing, bombed-out buildings
- The everyday items Israel bans from Gaza every day
- Inside the siege, the ruined buildings of Gaza – Daily Update
- Debunking The Claim That Macklemore Has A “History Of Antisemitism”
- CPJ demands release of arrested Palestinian-US journalist near Bethlehem
- Robert Kraft: The Billionaire Friend of Netanyahu Pulling The Strings Behind the Macklemore/Ed Sheeran Blow Up
- Columbia Administered Fund Gives Big Money to Pro-Israel Groups
- Deportation Case of Palestinian Activist Salah Sarsour Tests First Amendment
- ‘We Will Not Forget’: Palestinians Mark 44 Years since Sabra and Shatila
- Why do we let Zionists decide what we can and can’t say?
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
Aletho News 