Trump Taps Israel Lobbyist From Mossad Cutout FDD To Join Iran Negotiations
The Dissident | May 1, 2026
Journalist Alex Marquardt reported recently that , “Amid stalled talks with Iran, President Donald Trump’s negotiators are adding a new member to the team from an outside Washington lobbying group” adding, “Nick Stewart, the Managing Director of Advocacy at FDD Action, the lobbying side of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, has joined the office of Steve Witkoff, the Special Envoy for Peace Missions”.
This means- as I will demonstrate- that a literal Israel lobbyist is now joining the team negotiating with Iran on behalf of the Trump administration.
The think tank, initially founded by the journalist Clifford May, was initially called “EMET,” the Hebrew word for truth, and was established in order to “provide education to enhance Israel’s image in North America”.
John Judis at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace documented in 2015 that , “On April 24, 2001, three major pro-Israel donors incorporated an organization called EMET (Hebrew for “truth’). In an application to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, (Clifford) May explained that the group ‘was to provide education to enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations.’ But in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, May broadened the group’s mission and changed its name to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. As he explained in a supplement to the IRS, the group’s board of directors decided to focus on ‘develop[ing] educational materials on the eradication of terrorism everywhere in the world.’”
He added that the funding for FDD comes primarily from U.S.-based Zionist donors, writing, “FDD’s chief funders have been drawn almost entirely from American Jews who have a long history of funding pro-Israel organizations. They include Bernard Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, whiskey heirs Samuel and Edgar Bronfman, gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson, heiress Lynn Schusterman, Wall Street speculators Michael Steinhardt and Paul Singer, and Leonard Abramson, founder of U.S. Healthcare.”
He also noted that, similar to AIPAC and other Israel lobby groups, the FDD runs propaganda tours of Israel for Americans, noting, “Since its founding, FDD has been running tours of Israel for American academics (with most of their expenses paid) similar to those run for journalists and politicians by AIPAC and other groups. University of Kentucky political scientist Robert Farley, who went on an FDD tour in 2008, says ‘the goal of the trip was to inculcate a particular view of the Israeli security situation and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.’ FDD’s view, Farley says, was ‘rght-wing Likudnik on the relations between Israel and its neighbors and with the Palestinians.’ The tour leaders took a ‘negative’ view of Palestinian statehood. ‘It was understood that the military occupation of the West Bank was necessary to prevent a terrorist campaign against Israel.’”
Al Jazeera’s 2018 documentary on the Israel lobby further exposed that FDD “is functioning as an agent of the Israeli government”.
Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former Israeli intelligence official and official in the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs, admitted in the documentary that “We have FDD,” adding that “the foundation is ‘working on’ projects for Israel, including ‘data gathering, information analysis, working on activist organizations, money trail. This is something that only a country, with its resources, can do the best.’”
By putting a lobbyist for Israel from a “think tank” that is in reality a cover for an Israeli intelligence cutout, the Trump administration is guaranteeing that Israel will be driving the American side during negotiations with Iran.
Trump’s Blockade Snatches Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
By Trita Parsi | May 1, 2026
It appears Donald Trump once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by heeding the hawkish counsel of the warmongers at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
As I have argued before, the fragile ceasefire disproportionately favored the United States over Iran: Trump secured his central objective — a swift exit from a costly war — while Iran forfeited its primary source of leverage, namely the inflationary pressure of elevated oil prices. Tehran, by contrast, remained unable to achieve its core objective — meaningful sanctions relief — without entering a difficult diplomatic process with Washington.
The asymmetry was stark: Trump could afford strategic patience, whereas Iran risked squandering the most consequential gains the conflict could have yielded if negotiations faltered or collapsed.
In short, this emerging status quo could have constituted a quiet but decisive victory for Trump. Yes, Iran would retain control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz — but it does so today as well and would do so in almost any scenario. But the status quo would have seen oil prices drop as the Iranians would allow tankers to transit in order to collect fees. And as long as oil prices came down, Trump’s position at home and vis-à-vis Iran would have strengthened.
FDD argued that blockading the Persian Gulf would swiftly cripple the Iranian economy and coerce Tehran into capitulation, allowing Trump to achieve through economic strangulation what he had failed to secure through military force. In short, it was sold to him as a silver bullet. More on that later.
According to this logic, the blockade would “effectively zero out” Iran’s export revenues within days, inflicting losses of nearly $500 million per day. With oil exports halted, Iran’s limited storage capacity would be filled within weeks, forcing the costly and technically damaging shutdown of its oil wells. This, FDD claimed, would dramatically reverse the strategic balance — transforming the Strait of Hormuz from a perceived Iranian asset into a crippling Achilles’ heel, while handing Washington the invaluable advantage of time. Pressure on Iran would escalate sharply while pressure on the United States would rapidly dissipate.
Trump was fully on board. His long-sought subjugation of Iran suddenly appeared tantalizingly within reach. “The blockade is genius,” the president told reporters. “Now, they have to cry uncle; that’s all they have to do. Just say, ‘We give up.’” (Notably, an FDD staffer has reportedly since joined Steve Witkoff’s team.)
Predictably, the opposite occurred. FDD’s confident calculations and tidy logic were, as so often, rooted more in wishful thinking than in hard reality. By its own projections, Iran should have exhausted its storage capacity nearly a week ago. Yet satellite imagery shows Tehran still actively loading oil onto tankers at Kharg Island. While the blockade has undeniably increased economic pressure, there is no sign of the acute storage crisis — or the cascading collapse — FDD confidently promised Trump.
But by targeting Iran’s oil exports, Trump did more than complicate an already fragile diplomatic pathway — he tightened global supply and drove prices upward. In fact, thanks to the blockade, oil prices now exceed the levels seen during the war itself.
Exxon’s CEO told shareholders today that gasoline prices are poised to rise even further, noting that “the market hasn’t seen the full impact of [the Iran conflict] yet.” Meanwhile, Joe Kent, Trump’s former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, cautions that “the blockade is now triggering a global fertilizer shortage that will cause major food security crises and potential famines.”
In short: the desperately needed pressure release Trump secured through the ceasefire has been entirely undone by FDD’s vaunted silver-bullet blockade.
The lure of the silver bullet
There is a pathology in U.S. policy on Iran that transcends administrations and party affiliations: The incessant search for an escalatory silver bullet that brings Iran to its knees, forces it to capitulate, and enables the U.S. to assert its superpower dominance and avoid a compromise with the Islamic Republic.
Across 47 years, the hunt for this fabled silver bullet has echoed on — yet nothing answers back. Countless diplomatic opportunities have been sacrificed, and face-saving exit ramps have been burnt in the process. Yet, the quest continues.
The demand for Iranian capitulation and the enduring faith in elusive silver bullets are deeply intertwined. In January, Trump believed that the mere threat of military force would compel Tehran to surrender. After issuing a series of increasingly explicit warnings that Iran pointedly ignored, he proposed a calibrated strike — one to which Tehran should respond symbolically by targeting an empty American base. Iran refused outright, making clear that any attack would trigger a full-scale war.
Interpreting this defiance as a failure of credibility rather than a rejection of coercion, Trump escalated. He ordered a substantial buildup of military assets in the region, convinced that a critical mass of force would finally deliver the decisive breakthrough — the long-sought silver bullet. It didn’t.
Indeed, Witkoff revealed in an interview that Trump was frustrated that, despite his military threats, Iran had still not “capitulated.”
Clearly, more escalation was needed. The next imagined silver bullet was the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Midway through the war, a GCC official told me that Trump had assured regional leaders the conflict would last no more than 100 hours. Israeli media similarly reported that he told Britain’s Keir Starmer it would be over within three days. The logic was stark: the killing of Khamenei would trigger either the regime’s rapid implosion or its immediate capitulation. It proved to be yet another illusory silver bullet.
Nor did the sweeping bombardment of Iran’s civilian infrastructure deliver the long-sought breakthrough. A Bloomberg analysis found that only 32% of the damaged buildings were linked to military targets — the overwhelming majority were civilian. Even this devastating and indiscriminate campaign failed to produce the decisive outcome its architects had promised.
The blockade-on-the-blockade is merely the latest in a long line of delusional silver bullets that American presidents have chased instead of pursuing far less costly and far more effective diplomacy. I suspect that a stunning number of those silver bullets were cooked up by FDD.
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Iran Blockade Complications /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Nima Alkhorshid
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 1, 2026
Minab children massacre not ‘unfortunate situation’ but ‘heinous war crime’: Tehran
Press TV – May 1, 2026
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman has condemned the US war secretary’s attempt to portray the massacre of children in Minab as an “unfortunate incident,” reiterating that the missile strike was “a heinous war crime.”
During hours of tense testimony before Congress on Wednesday, Pete Hegseth described the deadly strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Iran’s southern city of Minab as an “unfortunate incident,” which according to him remains under investigation.
On the first day of the US-Israeli aggression against Iran on February 28, US Tomahawk missiles struck the school, killing 168 people, most of them children.
In a post on X on Friday, Esmaeil Baghaei said that the attack “was not an ‘unfortunate situation.’ It was a premeditated, heinous war crime.”
Baghaei shared a video of Representative Ro Khanna questioning Hegseth about the cost to American taxpayers “in terms of the strike on the Iranian school where kids were killed, in terms of the missiles we used.”
“To put it plainly,” Baghaei said, “how much did it cost American taxpayers for their secretary of defense to direct the deliberate killing of innocent schoolchildren and their teachers?”
The spokesman added that those responsible for the crime “must be held fully accountable and brought to justice.”
In an address to the UN Human Rights Council in late March, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the incident as “the tip of the iceberg” of systematic violations committed with impunity by the United States and Israel.
The two enemies launched a large-scale, unprovoked war against Iran, assassinating the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, and a host of senior commanders while indirect negotiations were underway between Tehran and Washington regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.
Subsequent terrorist strikes on civilian targets have so far killed more than 3,300 people, including children.
Iran can thrive under blockade, the US and its allies cannot
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | May 1, 2026
While officials of the US Trump administration have repeatedly claimed that their blockade on Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is a winning strategy, on the contrary, Tehran thrives. Instead of taking the temporary ceasefire as an opportunity to find a viable offramp, Washington has used mental gymnastics to sell the public on a non-existent get out of jail free card.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has claimed that Iran’s oil industry is creaking under the pressure of the blockade imposed upon its exports, even making rather outlandish comments about the inevitability of oil infrastructure blowing up as a result. While the US seizure of Iran-linked tankers and vessels does evidently have an impact, it is being enormously overblown by an American administration that is out of viable options.
The way US President Donald Trump and his senior officials are speaking, it would lead you to believe that the “uno reverse card,” as it has been mockingly referred to, was going to lead to the freefall of Tehran’s economy. Yet, the US is still adding more sanctions to Iran, attempting to seize and/or freeze more of its assets, while issuing round-the-clock threats. If the US-imposed blockade, which is failing to block all shipping to and from Iran, were so effective, then these other much lesser measures wouldn’t make sense.
Even the pro-war Zionist think tanks, like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), have been agitating for more aggressive tactics and to escalate. For example, the Washington-based FDD recently published a Policy Brief article entitled ‘Trump Strikes at China’s Iranian Oil Trade, but It’s Not Enough’. In other words, nobody is convinced by Trump’s strategies, not even the biggest fans of the Iran war.
In the realm of reality, the Islamic Republic of Iran has survived under US sanctions for some 47 years now. Although the sanctions have had varying impacts at different phases of the ongoing conflict with the US, Iran has managed to adapt to its predicament. It survived through 8 years of brutal war with its neighbours, after former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein attacked it for the sake of the United States, and has endured the most brutal sanctions campaigns known to man.
What the US has done over the years is make Iran de facto sanctions-immune. This does not mean that they don’t work at all; clearly, the Iranian economy has taken enormous hits, and the civilian population has borne the brunt of the consequences. But the takeaway here is that the Islamic Republic is not going to buckle in a matter of weeks or months, just because the US is interdicting the passage of some Iranian vessels.
As a matter of record, back in 2018, when President Trump first imposed his maximum pressure campaign – following the decision to unilaterally pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal – the daily Iranian oil exports rapidly declined to 350,000 barrels per day. It remained this way for some 33 months, until Tehran managed to recover. The recovery led Iran back to exporting around 2.5 million barrels per day. Amidst the height of the first round of the current war, Iran even managed to break records for oil revenues generated, not seen since the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
In addition to this, the Iranians have established a status quo under which they will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to be transited unless a toll is paid to them first; a move that has not only placed the key global chokepoint under their control, but will inevitably drive enormous profits in the long run.
Iran did not buckle under years of maximum pressure sanctions and the steep decline in their oil exports. Its Gulf neighbours will not fare so well. The damage done to US allies, like the United Arab Emirates (UAE), has already surpassed what is necessary to cause permanent damage. Emirati officials may have even doubled down on their support for the Zionist project and to see Iran destroyed, withdrawing from OPEC, and claiming they will use alternative export routes, but everyone knows those options simply do not exist.
In the end, it was always going to boil down to the US buckling under the weight of an economic fallout, due to the total closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a pressure that only grew worse following Trump’s goofy decision to impose his own blockade.
Therefore, the embarrassing failure of the Trump administration was only ever going to lead to one of two outcomes: a full US backdown or the resumption of war.
Iran slams US leadership, debunking fabrications, false war costs
Al Mayadeen | May 1, 2026
Iranian officials criticized the United States over its leadership and its justification for the US-Israeli war on Iran, debunking Washington’s fabrications and scrutinizing its political coherence and legal rationale.
In reference to the reported cost of the US-Israeli war on Iran, estimated at 25 billion dollars by the US Department of War, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi maintained that “the Pentagon is lying.”
In a post on X, Araghchi asserted that “Netanyahu’s gamble cost America $100b so far, four times what is claimed.”
He further noted that “indirect costs for U.S. taxpayers are FAR higher. Monthly bill for each American household is $500 and rising fast.”
“Israel First always means America Last,” he assertively concluded.
Trump’s contradictions reveal US decision-making made elsewhere
Mohsen Rezaei, a member of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council, said, also took a swing at the “America first” slogan, asserting that “the contradictory statements of Trump show that real decisions in US are being made somewhere else.”
In a post on X, he argued that key decisions in Washington were being shaped by “behind-the-scenes power networks” that do not align with the “America First” slogan associated with Trump and MAGA.
Rezaei added that this demonstrates “the kind of deadlock America is facing,” emphasizing that Americans “are the ones paying the price.”
‘Self-defense’ against what?: Baghaei
Separately, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei rejected US claims that the US-Israeli war on Iran was launched in “self-defense”.
In a post on X responding to a US claim that the war was launched “at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally,” he questioned the legal basis for such claims, asking, “Was there any ‘armed attack’ by Iran to justify ‘self defense’?”
Baghaei rejected the claim by Washington, emphasizing that the war was “an act of AGGRESSION against the nation of Iran.”
Zionists Are Gunning for Your Freedom of Speech
By Jack Hunter | The Libertarian Institute | May 1, 2026
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to free speech. This right has long differentiated the United States from other Western nations like the United Kingdom and Canada where laws against so-called “hate speech” laws exist and are enforced.
Thankfully, America is different. In our country, even alleged hate speech is protected speech to ensure democratic principles and debate.
In a 1929 dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the Constitution secured “freedom for the thought that we hate.” In 2011, Chief Justice John Roberts said in a ruling that the First Amendment serves “to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
This constitutional protection has been increasingly threatened recently, particularly by pro-Israeli forces that have tried to frame any criticism of that government as “anti-Semitism” and thus hate speech punishable by law. This has included everything from arrests, to squashing campus debate to buying TikTok to an attempt to cover up human rights absuses in Gaza. President Donald Trump has even issued executive orders that use vague definitions of what constitutes “anti-Semitism” that comes with criminal penalties.
Mark Levin is an American-born Zionist radio host who is an outspoken advocate for Israel’s government, regularly calling anyone who criticizes the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and conflict in Gaza “Nazis.”
Toward this agenda, Levin recently appeared to not agree with his own country’s free speech rights. On his latest Sunday Fox News program, unironically called Life, Liberty and Levin, the neoconservative pundit explained why free speech liberties in the U.S. have gone too far.
Seemingly worried that certain speech is protected in the United States, Levin said in the wake of the Secret Service taking down a shooter at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Friday, “First time things like this have happened, but it really is problematic because so much of it is protected.”
“And you hear people say, don’t you believe in the First Amendment?” Levin said. “They don’t even know what the First Amendment believes.”
Certain “speech” is “problematic” because “so much of it is protected.” You could see where this was headed.
Levin then explained what he believes “the First Amendment believes.” “Do you want to de-platform people?” he ranted. “You know, the libs do that. I don’t have any problem with de-platforming Nazis or jihadis.”
“Nazis,” Levin says. Levin uses this term loosely, all the time, and that’s putting it mildly.
Prominent libertarian personality Josie Glabach, known most popularly as “The Libertarian Redhead,” made a telling list of the many people and groups Levin has called Nazis since 2024:
- The Democrats
- The Democrat media
- An Australian bakery
- The Pakistani defense minister
- Libertarian Institute Director Scott Horton
- The entire Libertarian Party
- College students
- MMA fighter Jake Shields
- Nick Fuentes
- Putin’s buddies
- Influencer Dan Bilzarian
- The Houthis
- Comedian and libertarian personality Dave Smith
- Anyone who associates with Dave Smith
- Tucker Carlson
- Beirut
- Hezbollah
- A veteran who asked Mark to be more tolerant
- Influencer Myron Gaines
- The city of London
- Hamas
- The New York Times
- New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman
- A New York Times correspondent
- Terrorists;
- The “woke reich”
- Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner
- The United Nations
- Harvard University
- The city of Amsterdam
- Columbia University students
- Iterations of the “Iranian Nazi regime,” the “Islamic Nazi regime,” the “Islamo Nazi regime,” the “Islamist Nazi regime,” and “All of Iran (the new Nazis)”
- The Ayatollah (presumably of Iran)
- Former Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi
- A protestor on a subway
- Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
- President Joe Biden’s entire State Department
- Turkish Preisdent Recep Erdoğan
- College basketball analyst Bruce Pearl
- Certain Arab, liberals and journalists
- Reporter Lulu Garcia-Navarro
- ISIS
- Seventeen random Twitter users
This eclectic group of entities great and small, many of whom are regular critics of Israel’s government, are “Nazis” in Levin’s view. As Libertarian Institute Senior Fellow Tom Woods succinctly put it, “Nazis’ includes everyone who mocks Levin.”
Levin continued his Sunday rant against “Nazis”:
“I don’t have any problem with de-platforming them. What does that mean, de-platforming them? A government law? No. It means that X or Twitter or Facebook or Amazon with Twitch and someone says you know what? You’re a low life we’re not paying, you know, get off our platform. What’s wrong with that?”
The neocon pundit appeared to say that private platforms should police speech according to the political views of Mark Levin. He is right that this is no violation of the First Amendment. Private companies can allow or restrict speech as they please. “It’s called private enterprise,” he said. “I got no problem with that.”
Then Levin basically said such speech was no different than pornography, which is not protected under the First Amendment. Levin continued, “I mean, what if they have this horrific pornography on? Is that okay? No, it’s not okay.”
“Because our kids have access to it,” he said. “People who are impressionable have access to it. “What if they had people screaming at the top of the lungs saying, assassinate this guy and assassinate that guy? Well, they shouldn’t do that.”
“Why? What’s the standard?” Levin went on. “You need to have a standard. What should the law be? What does the Constitution say?”
The Constitution says that all speech is protected, but “true threats” and obscenity are not.
But political opinions about Israel that go against Levin’s views are protected, whether he likes it or not.
That’s when Levin basically outright said that speech that criticizes Israel should be forbidden just like pornography. “I just think we’ve taken this too far because we’re not even talking about political speech, which is the most protected of all speech,” Levin said.
“We do limit speech,” he insisted. “We limit speech, pornography. We limit speech.”
What Levin, like so many other Zionists, truly want is for the First Amendment to be amended itself. They believe, whether they say it forthright or not (and Levin appears to be doing just that), that this legal provision designed by the Founders precisely to protect political speech should no longer protect speech that is critical of Israel’s government.
Americans have historically valued their free speech. American Zionists like Levin now want a carve out.
But the free speech guarantee enshrined in the United States’s governing charter is so integral to the American experience, to gut it for any reason would be to drastically alter the DNA of the soon to be 250-year-old country.
As an American, Mark Levin doesn’t seem to have a problem with doing just that—all in the service of a foreign country.
It might be better for Americans to instead wish other nations well, yet solely concentrate on our own affairs at home, and perhaps just as important, to stop listening to American pundits whose primary allegiance seems to be countries other than their own.
Larry Johnson: U.S. Desperation Grows as Iran Is Winning
Glenn Diesen | April 30, 2026
Trump and Putin speak for 90 minutes as Russia offers its support to Iran, while the US is growing desperate as the war and economic war fail. Johnson is a former CIA intelligence analyst who also worked at the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism.
Read Larry Johnson’s Sonar21: https://sonar21.com/
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
US CENTCOM’s Request for Dark Eagle Missiles Shows Shortage of Weapons and Limited Options
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 30.04.2026
The request for untested hypersonic missiles for the Middle East arena exposes the US’ failure to neutralize Iran’s launcher network, veteran war correspondent Elijah J. Magnier tells Sputnik.
“The Dark Eagle has reportedly not been declared fully operational in the past,” Magnier says. “So when the US decided to deploy it, it signaled urgency, escalation pressure. And above all, shortage of suitable conventional weapons.”
The request also shows that earlier Pentagon statements that Iran’s launchers were fully destroyed did not match reality, the pundit continues.
“If all key launchers were eliminated, CENTCOM would not need a new system.”
It was previously reported that the US Army intends to deploy Dark Eagle long-range hypersonic missiles against Iran.
Dark Eagle Won’t Change Balance of Power
“Militarily, the Dark Eagle hypersonic would not overturn the balance of power by itself, especially if the available inventory is very limited,” Magnier says. “The value is political and operational.”
- The US aims to keep deeper Iranian missile sites at risk as a tool of pressure
- The request is intended to strengthen coercion while talks remain stalled
- It combines coercive message with operational contingency planning
“By talking about the new type of missiles that obviously doesn’t scare Iran, it shows also that the Americans are lacking options,” he says.
The war correspondent doesn’t believe the US and Israel are in a position to achieve their declared objectives.
Iran consolidates Strait of Hormuz control in post-war power shift, leaving US in dark
Press TV | April 30, 2026
The geopolitical landscape of the Persian Gulf has undergone a seismic shift following the 40-day US-Israeli war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iran emerged from the imposed war not merely intact but strategically ascendant, holding a decisive upper hand over the world’s most critical energy chokepoint.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately one-fifth of global oil trade passes, is no longer a waterway that Washington can threaten, monitor, or control.
It is now firmly under Iranian management, backed by legal codification, military capability, and an unshakable political resolve, as asserted by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei in his Persian Gulf Day statement on Thursday.
The Leader unveiled a comprehensive strategic vision, which seeks to transform Iran’s relationship with the world’s most critical energy chokepoint from defensive vigilance to active and legally codified management.
This is not a tactical victory or a fleeting advantage. It is a fundamental reordering of power in the region, one that leaves the United States guessing about Iran’s next move while every available path before it leads toward a deepening crisis.
The failed cycle: Trump’s return to discredited pressure tactics
The opening gambit of America’s renewed pressure campaign is itself an admission of strategic bankruptcy. Trump’s insistence on escalating economic pressure through the imposition of maritime piracy and naval blockade represents a return to a cycle that has been tested repeatedly – and has failed repeatedly.
The formula is familiar: apply economic strangulation, incite public discontent in Iran, force Tehran to the negotiating table, and extract strategic concessions in exchange for absolutely nothing from the American side.
This cycle has been attempted before. The critical difference this time is that in previous iterations, the military option still carried some credibility. Washington could imply, however vaguely, that if pressure failed, force remained on the table.
That credibility has now been expended. The 40-day war imposed on Iran consumed the military option, and the failure of that aggression has left it hollowed out. It may not have vanished entirely, but it no longer carries the weight or deterrent value it once did.
A second difference is the remarkable resilience of the Iranian people. America’s entire pressure strategy has been built on the assumption that economic hardship would eventually trigger widespread unrest – that the Iranian people would turn against their leadership, creating the conditions for “regime change” or capitulation.
Yet Iranians have demonstrated extraordinary patience, solidarity with the leadership, and unwavering support for the armed forces. This has made America’s investment in fomenting discontent far more difficult than in previous comparable cycles.
A third and perhaps most decisive difference is that America now faces an Iran with relatively full hands. The management and sovereignty imposed by Iran over the Strait of Hormuz have fundamentally altered the balance of leverage.
Iran is no longer merely a sanctioned nation absorbing blows. It has become a sanctioning country capable of imposing costs, controlling access, and reshaping the rules of engagement at the regional and global level.
America’s new priority: Breaking the strait, not Iran
For the United States, the strategic calculus has shifted in revealing ways. The primary objective is no longer dismantling Iran’s nuclear program or forcing a change in its foreign policy. It is far more urgent and immediate: reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
The closure or effective Iranian management of this strategic waterway has dealt a fundamental blow to American prestige and credibility around the world, including among its allies, a wound that Washington cannot afford to leave untreated.
Indeed, breaking the deadlock in the strait may well have taken precedence over – and gained urgency compared to – the question of Iran’s nuclear rights. This inversion of priorities speaks volumes.
America would rather secure passage for its allies’ tankers than resolve the nuclear file. It would rather salvage its wounded so-called “superpower” image than extract concessions on uranium enrichment.
But Iran’s position is unwavering. The decisive, clear, and emphatic declaration of its irreversible decision regarding sovereignty and control over the Strait of Hormuz carries consequences that extend far beyond economics.
There is the economic dimension, certainly – the ability to toll vessels, generate revenue, and pressure adversaries. But there is also the humiliation of American superpower status and the toppling of its global dominance. Every day that Iran exercises effective control over the strait is a day that American credibility erodes further.
Furthermore, the consolidation of Iranian sovereignty over the strait dismantles America’s decades-old strategic roadmap concerning the deployment and geography of its forces in the region.
The United States had built its Persian Gulf presence around the assumption of freedom of navigation – that its navy could come and go as it pleased, that its bases were inviolable, that its dominance was uncontested. That assumption is now dead.
The veto stronger than the Security Council
The vital role of the Strait of Hormuz in the global economy and development cannot be overstated – and it extends far beyond the mere passage of oil through this waterway.
Global supply chains, energy security, and the economic stability of major powers all depend on uninterrupted transit through this narrow chokepoint.
By applying its own rules for the world’s use of the strait, Iran has placed in its hands an extraordinarily powerful tool – perhaps even stronger than the UN Security Council veto.
In practice, this serves as a preamble to the realization of Iran’s strategic objectives in the region and the world. As the Leader of the Islamic Revolution stated in his Persian Gulf Day message, this great achievement will change the order of the region and the world.
The gains from Iran’s implementation of management over the strait are not limited to collecting tolls from passing vessels. While tolls bring considerable material benefits to Iran – revenue that can be reinvested in development – these financial gains are negligible compared to the broader strategic achievements.
The true prize is structural power. The ability to say yes or no. The capacity to reward allies and punish adversaries. The authority to shape the rules by which the global economy accesses one of its most vital arteries.
A new image of Iran: A major power
The consolidation of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz – alongside the imposition of defeat upon the enemy in its objectives during the recent imposed wars – has led to the delineation and unveiling of a new image of Iran to the region and the world.
These days, much confirmation of this can be heard in the comments and analyses from the world’s leading think tanks, experts, politicians, and reputable media outlets worldwide.
For America’s former and current allies, following this great Iranian achievement, the US will no longer carry the halo of a “superpower” or the capacity for bullying and coercion as before. Many current equations and orders – including NATO – will now be subject to change and revision to America’s detriment.
The decisive and crushing defeat of American dominance in the region and the world is far more severe, costly, and far-reaching than a military or political defeat resulting from the third imposed war.
This is not hyperbole. It is a recognition of structural reality. When a superpower attempts to subdue a regional power and fails – when it expends its military option, exhausts its economic leverage, and still cannot achieve its objectives – the message to every other player is clear. The unipolar moment is over. A new order is emerging, and Iran is one of its main architects and protagonists.
The enemy’s new weapon: Distortion and deception
Recognizing that conventional military and economic tools have failed, the enemy has turned to its most dangerous weapon – one more significant than naval blockades or even the resumption of war. That weapon is distortion, deception, and trickery.
The enemy seeks to use its agents inside Iran and its media mouthpieces to influence Iranian minds, causing the value of the Strait of Hormuz to collapse in public opinion under the weight of economic and military pressure.
Signs of this dangerous and insidious influence can be observed these days in certain opinions and media outlets. This mysterious current – in what is certainly a coordinated movement – is pushing for concessions and the use of the Strait of Hormuz card to end American pressures, alongside nuclear capabilities.
These statements align precisely with the enemy’s desire to strip our country of these instruments of power. The logic is perverse but predictable: if the Iranian people can be convinced that the strait is not worth the cost, that the pressure is unbearable, that compromise is preferable to resistance – then the enemy will have achieved through psychological warfare what it could not achieve through military aggression.
This is why vigilance is essential. The battlefield has shifted from the waters of the Persian Gulf to the minds of the Iranian people. And on this battlefield, the stakes are just as high.
Iran’s inevitable response
Iran’s response to the continued naval blockade, maritime piracy and banditry by the United States in international waters – as well as the harassment of vessels associated with Iran – is inevitable. As has been emphasized twice so far in the statements of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, the top military command center, Iran cannot remain indifferent or silent in the face of this lawlessness and maritime piracy.
The American campaign of maritime banditry – the interception of Iranian oil shipments, the seizure of vessels, the intimidation of crews – is itself an act of war. Iran has every right under international law to respond proportionally – and it will respond.
But the form of that response is what keeps Washington guessing. Will Iran escalate gradually or dramatically? Will it target American vessels directly or focus on allied shipping? Will it employ legal mechanisms, economic instruments, or military demonstrations?
The range of options available to Iran is vast, and the deliberate unpredictability of Iranian decision-making leaves the United States in a perpetual state of uncertainty.
This is the new strategic landscape, one in which Iran holds the upper hand, determines the management of the Strait of Hormuz, and keeps Washington guessing about every move.
A pause, not a ceasefire: Washington stalls, Tehran recalibrates
By Peiman Salehi | The Cradle | April 29, 2026
What is currently being described as a “ceasefire” between Iran and the US is, in reality, something far more fragile and far more strategic: a temporary pause in an ongoing war.
The distinction matters. Because while Washington seeks to frame this moment as a diplomatic opening, Tehran increasingly views it as a recalibration of tempo rather than a resolution of conflict.
This is precisely the point articulated by senior Iranian strategist Mohsen Rezaei, who recently argued that what we are witnessing is not a ceasefire, but a “military silence” within an active war.
Negotiations, in this view, are not an alternative to conflict but something that unfolds within it. The current moment aligns with that doctrine. There has been no political settlement, no structural shift in American objectives, and no evidence that the underlying confrontation has been resolved.
Washington’s failed wager
From the outset, the US objective ran deeper than military containment. At its core, the strategy was ideological. Washington calculated that by removing the leadership of the Islamic Republic, it could trigger a transformation within the Iranian political system itself, replacing it with a more compliant, more “rational” actor aligned with western expectations.
That wager has collapsed.
Rather than producing a liberalizing shift, the outcome has been the opposite. Iran’s internal trajectory has not moved toward de-escalation or ideological compromise. If anything, it has reinforced continuity.
The system has demonstrated that it is capable of reproducing itself under pressure, potentially with figures who are even more hardened, more personally affected by the conflict, and less inclined toward accommodation. The expectation that government pressure would translate into ideological change has proven to be a strategic misreading.
The cost equation shifts outward
Iran’s conduct during the war has introduced a new dimension into the equation: the externalization of costs. Tehran’s strategy has not been to avoid damage, but to redistribute it. By targeting regional dynamics and leveraging its geographical position, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has contributed to rising energy prices and broader economic pressures.
The effects have not been confined to the battlefield. They have extended into global markets, impacting fuel prices, transportation costs, and supply chains.
This matters politically in the US.
The timing is critical. US President Donald Trump is approaching the end of a 60-day window in which he can sustain military operations without requiring additional congressional authorization. Within days, that window will close, forcing the administration to seek approval from Congress and the Senate for any continued escalation.
Overlaying this is a convergence of economic and political pressures. Rising energy prices translate directly into domestic dissatisfaction. Higher fuel costs increase transportation expenses, which in turn affect food prices and overall inflation.
At a moment when the US is preparing for major international events, including co-hosting the World Cup, and moving toward midterm congressional elections, the political cost of prolonged instability becomes increasingly difficult to manage.
It is within this context that the current “pause” should be understood. Not as a resolution, but as a temporary adjustment driven by external constraints.
This does not mean that the US is stepping away from confrontation. On the contrary, the logic of pressure remains intact. What appears to be unfolding is a strategic pause designed to create space not necessarily for genuine diplomacy, but for recalibration.
There are clear indications that Washington is attempting to shape internal dynamics within Iran, encouraging segments of the political establishment to view negotiation as a viable path forward.
Araghchi’s calculated circuit
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s recent diplomatic tour spanning Pakistan, Oman, and Russia must be understood within this broader framework.
In Pakistan, the objective appears to have been to reinforce Iran’s negotiating boundaries, ensuring that any engagement remains anchored in core national positions.
In Oman, discussions were likely focused on the management and potential regulation of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical lever in the current confrontation.
And in Russia, the emphasis seems to have been on long-term coordination in the event of renewed escalation.
These visits are often interpreted narrowly as diplomatic outreach tied to negotiations with the US. That reading is incomplete. They also function as preparatory steps for a scenario in which the war resumes. The common thread is not negotiation itself, but readiness for multiple outcomes.
Debate without division
Inside Iran, debate is real. But fragmentation is not.
Differences exist over timing and tactics, not over the nature of the conflict. Decision-making remains centralized. The Supreme National Security Council sets the line.
Some argue that current military positioning opens space for negotiation. Others reject any pause that relieves pressure on Washington and Tel Aviv.
From that view, sustained pressure – especially through energy markets – is the only language the US understands.
Both sides agree on one point. The US will not shift without cost. The disagreement is how to impose it.
Araghchi’s continued references to diplomacy with Trump, even in recent statements, reflect this tension. For some observers, such messaging appears out of sync with the broader trajectory of the conflict. Given the historical record of US policy toward Iran, the expectation that diplomacy alone could produce a durable resolution is viewed with skepticism.
The concern is not that negotiation is inherently flawed, but that it risks being misinterpreted as an endpoint rather than a component of a broader strategy.
This is where the concept of “negotiations within war” becomes critical.
If negotiations are conducted in the absence of pressure, they risk reinforcing existing power imbalances. If they occur within an active confrontation, they can function as instruments of leverage. The current pause, therefore, is not neutral. It has distributional effects. It reduces immediate pressure on external actors while creating incentives for internal debate within Iran.
After the pause
The likelihood of renewed escalation remains high because nothing structural has been resolved and the core US objective – reshaping Iran’s ideological direction – remains firmly in place, alongside the same pressure mechanisms that have defined the conflict from the outset.
What has changed is timing, not intent. Washington is deferring decisions rather than abandoning them, managing the political calendar as much as the battlefield itself.
The period after the US midterm elections will be decisive, when domestic constraints begin to loosen and the incentive to reassert pressure returns with fewer immediate political costs.
The key variable, as it has been from the outset, is cost.
So long as the global economic impact of escalation remains manageable, the threshold for renewed confrontation stays relatively low. Only when the cost – particularly in energy markets and domestic political stability – rises to a level that becomes untenable does genuine deterrence begin to take shape.
This is the unresolved equation at the heart of the conflict.
The failure of the US to achieve its ideological objective extends the war and pushes it onto a different trajectory.
This pause reflects a shift in how the conflict is being managed, with pressure shifted rather than reduced.
And in that sense, the war has not ended. It has only entered a new phase.
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- Trump Visits Beijing In a World Washington No Longer Controls
- 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
- If Americans Knew
- The world no longer loves Israel (or, coincidentally, the US) – Daily Update
- 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
- 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 