Iran, which is not a party to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, asserts its legal right to take “necessary and proportionate measures” in the Strait of Hormuz, and holds the United States responsible for any disruptions to maritime transport in the vital waterway, the country’s permanent mission to the United Nations said.
The mission said on Tuesday that US actions in the Strait of Hormuz have severely compromised international maritime safety. The mission made the remarks in two posts on X, a day after Iran addressed at a meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on Maritime safety.
The mission pointed out that Iran is not a party to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and therefore does not regard its provisions as binding.
As the principal coastal state, Iran retains the legal authority to implement necessary measures within the Strait of Hormuz to address security threats and to prevent any military or hostile exploitation of this vital passage, it said.
Iran’s mission further noted that the Islamic Republic reserves the right to ensure safe passage in the Strait of Hormuz and to protect its national interests against hostile activities.
It further asserted that the US has engaged in unlawful actions that disrupt maritime transport, such as the imposition of a maritime blockade, the illegal seizure of Iranian vessels, and the detention of their crews.
Such actions not only violate international law and the UN Charter but also constitute acts of piracy.
As tensions escalate in the region, the Iranian government says that the US’s aggressive maritime policies pose a direct threat to international navigation and regional stability.
The Iranian mission further called for accountability regarding US transgressions.
Tensions have been running high over a so-called naval blockade the US has enforced on Iranian ports and ships, as well as American attempts to conduct mine-sweeping operations in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian officials have said the blockade is unlawful and a breach of a two-week ceasefire that took effect on April 8 and was again unilaterally extended by US President Donald Trump hours before it was set to expire on April 22.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson says the EU’s insistence on inhumane sanctions against Iran demonstrates Europe’s double standards and hastens its “embarrassing descent into irrelevance.”
On Monday, European Commission President Ursula Vonder Leyen said at a press brief in Berlin that “it is too early to talk about lifting sanctions on Iran.”
In a post on X late Monday, Esmaeil Baghaei strongly criticized the European Commission president’s insistence on maintaining sanctions against Iran under the guise of human rights, calling the stance hypocritical and disgraceful.
“The EU’s inhumane sanctions on Iran were never about ‘human rights’ — they were designed to trample the basic rights of ordinary Iranians,” Baghaei wrote. “No one is buying this tired moral theater.”
He added that such posturing will not earn Europe or its constituency “an ounce of credibility on the world stage.”
“If anything, it only further demonstrates Europe’s ruling class’ double-standard & hypocrisy, and hastens Europe’s embarrassing descent into irrelevance,” the spokesperson further said.
Iranian officials have consistently condemned EU sanctions, arguing they are not about human rights but are a form of collective punishment designed to harm ordinary citizens and serve the political interests of Western powers.
Few individuals embody the conflict between American national interest and the demands of world jewry as sharply as Douglas Feith. Throughout his career, Feith has operated as a consummate advocate for the Jewish state, positioning himself within the highest echelons of the U.S. government to ensure that American military and foreign policy served as a potent instrument for his own tribal convictions. From his early days in the pro-Israel lobby to his role in architecting the catastrophic Iraq War, Feith’s career is a study in the subordination of American sovereignty to the priorities of the Jewish people.
General Tommy Franks, who commanded the invasion of Iraq, famously said he had to deal with “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day” — referring to Feith, as documented in Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department, separately stated: “Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man.” Irrespective of his perceived deficiencies, Feith was able to reach the apex of the national security establishment and fundamentally reshape American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.
The Zionist convictions Feith brought to the highest levels of American government were not adopted in adulthood but absorbed in childhood.
The Origins of a Zionist Hawk
Douglas Jay Feith was born on July 16, 1953, into a Jewish family in Philadelphia. His background was rooted in Zionist tradition through his father, Dalck Feith, who had been a member of Betar, the Revisionist Zionist youth organization founded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, active in Poland during the 1930s. Betar was a militaristic movement associated with Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionism, a hard-line nationalist strand that rejected the socialist mainstream of the Zionist movement and evolved through the Herut Party into what became the Israeli Likud Party,
Dalck Feith came to the United States in January 1942 and became a businessman, philanthropist, and Republican donor. Douglas Feith grew up in Elkins Park, a Philadelphia suburb, and has acknowledged that his father’s Betar membership and the family’s experience of the Holocaust profoundly shaped his own Zionist convictions.
Feith has publicly described himself as a Zionist — specifically not a Labor or “peace now” Zionist but a right-wing Zionist closely aligned with the Likud tradition. He wrote a 2021 op-ed in the Jewish News Syndicate titled “Why I’m a Zionist,” arguing that support for a Jewish state is entirely compatible with American patriotism. His worldview draws heavily on Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s “iron wall” doctrine, the idea that Arabs will only accept a Jewish state after recognizing they cannot destroy it militarily.
Education and Early Career
This ideological foundation accompanied Feith through an elite educational track and into the upper reaches of the legal profession. Feith graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1975 and magna cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 1978, according to his Hudson Institute biography.
He began his public career in 1975 working as an intern on Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson’s Subcommittee on Investigations — the Democratic senator from Washington famous for his hawkish anti-Soviet foreign policy and strong support for Israel. While at Harvard, Feith studied under Professor Richard Pipes, a Polish-born Jewish scholar and anti-Soviet hawk who chaired the CIA’s Team B strategic intelligence exercise in 1976 and later joined Reagan’s National Security Council in February 1981. Feith joined the NSC as a Middle East specialist that same year, working under Pipes.
The Reagan Years
These formative experiences positioned Feith for a direct entry into the national security establishment. Feith joined the government in 1981 as a Middle East specialist on the National Security Council, serving under his former Harvard professor Richard Pipes. The following year, he moved over to the Pentagon to take up duties as Special Counsel to Richard Perle, then Assistant Secretary of Defense. Feith later characterized the role in his own words as covering “UN-related, law of war, and the like” issues that fell to him as the only lawyer in that office. Two years later, in 1984, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger elevated Feith to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy, where he remained until 1986.
One striking and highly contentious chapter unfolded in 1982, when Feith departed the NSC amid an FBI probe into administration officials suspected of leaking intelligence to Israel. Accusations surfaced that he had mishandled classified materials, though Feith never faced prosecution.
The Private Sector and the Pro-Israel Network
Feith soon traded government service for the lucrative side of the defense and foreign-policy world. When Feith left the Pentagon in 1986, he and Marc Zell co-founded Feith & Zell, P.C., a law firm based initially in Israel that lobbied the U.S. government on behalf of the Turkish, Israeli, and Bosnian governments while representing defense contractors including Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. In 1989, Feith separately established International Advisors, Inc., a lobbying operation whose clients included Turkey.
In 1999, Feith & Zell merged with the Israel-based Zell, Goldberg & Co. to form the FANDZ International Law Group. When Feith returned to government in 2001 as Undersecretary of Defense overseeing Iraq reconstruction, FANDZ was simultaneously running a task force to help companies secure reconstruction contracts in Iraq.
Throughout the 1990s, Feith built an extensive presence in neoconservative and pro-Israel organizations that would later staff the Bush administration’s national security apparatus. In 1997, the Zionist Organization of America honored both Feith and his father at its annual dinner. Dalck received the ZOA’s special Centennial Award “for his lifetime of service to Israel and the Jewish people,” while Douglas received the prestigious Louis D. Brandeis Award.
Feith served as Vice Chairman of the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a think tank promoting close military cooperation between the United States and Israel. He also served as Chairman of the Board of the Center for Security Policy, a think tank founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney that advocates higher military budgets, missile defense systems, space weapons programs, and hard-line Middle East policies.
Feith was also among the founding figures of One Jerusalem, created in 2001 following the Camp David peace talks, with the mission of “maintaining a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.” Other founders and principals included former Israeli diplomat Dore Gold and former Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky.
The Clean Break Document
Feith’s organizational work in this period laid the groundwork for direct policy advocacy on behalf of the Israeli government. The most consequential episode in Feith’s pre-government career was his participation in drafting “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” in 1996. The paper was produced by a study group led by Richard Perle and organized by the Israel-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies for incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It urged Netanyahu to abandon the Oslo Accords and the land-for-peace framework entirely, called for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as an “important Israeli strategic objective,” proposed striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon and possibly in Syria proper, and laid out a new Israeli strategic doctrine grounded in “peace through strength” rather than diplomatic concessions.
Three members of that study group later occupied senior positions shaping Bush administration Middle East policy: Perle chaired the Defense Policy Board, Feith became Under Secretary of Defense, and David Wurmser became Dick Cheney’s top Middle East adviser. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their 2006 essay “The Israel Lobby” in the London Review of Books, wrote that the Clean Break paper “called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East” and that “Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same goals.”
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
A second and far more consequential bureaucratic creation soon followed. Appointed on July 16, 2001, Feith served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy — the third-highest civilian position in the Department of Defense. His portfolio included formulating defense planning guidance, managing DoD relations with foreign governments, representing the Pentagon in interagency deliberations, and advising the President and Secretary of Defense on national security matters.
Early in the Bush administration, Feith created the Office of Strategic Influence, established in November 2001 to conduct information operations targeting foreign audiences, including proposals to plant news items — “possibly even false ones” — with foreign media organizations, according to the New York Times. After the program’s existence became public in February 2002 and generated intense scrutiny, Feith decided to close the office, with Rumsfeld announcing the closure at a February 26 press conference. Rumsfeld later acknowledged that its functions continued through other offices, telling reporters in November 2002: “I’m gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have.”
The Office of Special Plans
The most damaging controversy of Feith’s tenure centered on his supervision of the Office of Special Plans, a Pentagon unit that operated from September 2002 through June 2003. The OSP was charged with supplying senior administration officials with raw intelligence about Iraq that bypassed the normal vetting process of the intelligence community.
The unit’s driving purpose was to build the political case for invading Iraq by circumventing both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which had each concluded that evidence for an operational Iraq-al-Qaeda link was weak or nonexistent. Rather than work through the established intelligence consensus process, the OSP fed its conclusions directly to Vice President Cheney’s office and other senior decision-makers. According to Mother Jones, the OSP’s director, Abram Shulsky, “turned cherry-picked pieces of uncorroborated, anti-Iraq intelligence into talking points” that circulated to Rumsfeld and Cheney. The OSP also worked closely with Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, whose intelligence the broader community had largely discounted.
In September 2002, two days before the CIA completed its own final assessment of the Iraq-al-Qaeda question, Feith briefed senior advisers to Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, directly attacking the CIA’s credibility and alleging “fundamental problems” with its analysis. The version of the OSP briefing presented to senior White House officials differed from the version shown to the CIA — with a slide citing the CIA’s “fundamental problems” omitted from the version given to the intelligence community, according to the Washington Post’s reporting on the Inspector General’s summary.
In February 2007, the Pentagon’s Inspector General released a landmark report concluding that Feith’s office had “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.” The report found these actions “inappropriate” though not “illegal.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, did not accept the limitations of that framing. “The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration’s decision to invade Iraq,” Levin stated. “The inspector general’s report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war.”
Feith seized on the “not illegal” finding to declare he felt “vindicated” by the report, calling it proof that his office had been “smeared for years.” He disputed the Inspector General’s “inappropriate” finding as “bizarre” and “quibbling,” arguing that his office had simply produced “a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community.”
De-Ba’athification and Its Catastrophic Consequences
The intelligence controversy was only one front of the wreckage Feith’s office produced. Among the most consequential decisions associated with Feith’s tenure were two orders that remade Iraq’s governing and security structures. The Pentagon, under Feith’s direction, drafted the de-Baathification decree that became CPA Order 1, signed by Ambassador Paul Bremer on May 16, 2003, which stripped all senior Ba’ath Party members from government positions.
A separate instrument, CPA Order 2, signed one week later, dissolved Iraq’s military and security forces — affecting 385,000 soldiers, 285,000 police, and 50,000 presidential security personnel. Together, the two orders threw hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of work and destroyed the administrative and security infrastructure of the Iraqi state. They are now widely considered among the worst strategic decisions of the occupation, having helped ignite the sectarian insurgency that followed.
The Lawrence Franklin Espionage Scandal
The damage caused by Feith’s policy decisions was matched by serious security breaches involving his subordinates. Lawrence Franklin, a veteran Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who worked in Feith’s Near East and South Asia Bureau, was arrested in 2005 and pleaded guilty to espionage-related charges for passing classified information to AIPAC officials Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, who then relayed the information to Israeli officials and the media. Franklin was sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison, later reduced to ten months’ house arrest. All charges against Rosen and Weissman were dropped in 2009. Although Feith himself was not charged, the scandal reinforced longstanding concerns about the security culture within his office and its relationship to Israeli intelligence interests.
After the Pentagon
After leaving the Pentagon in August 2005, Feith held the position of professor and Distinguished Practitioner in National Security Policy at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service from 2006 to 2008. The appointment drew sharp opposition from the faculty — a letter signed by 35 professors accused Feith of ethical conflicts and of having defended the use of torture — and his contract was not renewed. He subsequently served as a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution before joining the Hudson Institute in September 2008 as a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for National Security Strategies.
In 2009, Feith became one of several Bush administration officials considered for a war crimes investigation by a Spanish court under claims of universal jurisdiction, headed by Judge Baltasar Garzón.
Ultimately, the Iraq War must not be viewed merely as a tactical or strategic failure of the American state, but as a profound success for the interests of organized Jewry, which Feith serves with unwavering fidelity. By viewing Feith as an agent of the Jewish state rather than a servant of the American public, the true objective of his career becomes clear: the advancement of his own people is his paramount duty, with the welfare of the United States trailing as a distant afterthought.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Monday that Iran’s leadership is effectively “humiliating” the United States amid the ongoing war.
Speaking publicly, Merz argued that Washington does not seem to have a coherent plan and raised doubts about how the US intends to bring its involvement to a close.
“The Iranians are clearly stronger than expected and the Americans clearly have no truly convincing strategy in the negotiations either,” Merz said during a school visit in Marsberg, located in his native Sauerland region.
He emphasized the difficulty of disengaging from such wars, noting, “The problem with conflicts like this is always: you don’t just have to get in, you have to get out again. We saw that very painfully in Afghanistan for 20 years. We saw it in Iraq.”
Merz continued, “At the moment, I do not see what strategic exit the Americans will choose, especially since the Iranians are clearly negotiating very skillfully — or very skillfully not negotiating.”
He further stated that “an entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership,” particularly by Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC).
Economic fallout for Germany
Addressing the domestic impact, Merz said tensions in West Asia are now weighing heavily on Germany’s economy.
“It is at the moment a pretty tangled situation,” he said. “And it is costing us a great deal of money. This conflict, this war against Iran, has a direct impact on our economic output.”
He claimed that Berlin continues to “offer support in securing global trade routes“, including the potential deployment of minesweepers to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a key passage for international oil shipments.
However, Merz alleged that such a move would depend on a cessation of hostilities.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
“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.
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.
I have previously addressed the lie that Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism. Now I want to look specifically at the question of how many Americans, both civilian and military, have been killed by proxies who have received assistance from Iran. I will flip the script… How many Iranians, civilian and military, have been killed by US proxies? The numbers are staggering. US proxies have killed almost 28,000 times the number of Iranians than Iranian proxies have killed Americans. These numbers come primarily from US Department of Justice indictments, State Department reports, American Jewish Committee (AJC), and compiled victim databases.
The principal Iranian proxies routinely identified in US government reports on terrorism are Hamas, Hezbollah, and a variety of Iraqi-Shia groups. If I used the strict definition of terrorism — i.e., the use of violence against civilians for political purposes — the number of actual terrorist deaths from Iranian proxies would be less than 300 since 1979. If I relied only on the strict definition, I would exclude all attacks on military targets. However, since the US statistics on terrorism include the 1983 bombing of the US Marines barracks in Lebanon and the roadside bombs targeting US forces in Iraq from 2003 -2011, I am including the military fatalities for both sides.
HAMAS
At least 60–70 Americans (including dual US-Israeli citizens) have been killed in attacks attributed to or carried out by Hamas since its founding in 1987. This is an approximate total based on US government, DOJ, and research compilations. The vast majority occurred on or after October 7, 2023.
October 7, 2023 Attack (the single deadliest incident)
43–46 Americans killed: (US Department of Justice indictment of Hamas leaders in 2024 confirmed at least 43; some sources, including the State Department, cite 46). These numbers include dual US-Israeli citizens murdered at kibbutzim, the Nova music festival, and other sites near Gaza.
Several additional Americans were taken hostage, with some (e.g., Hersh Goldberg-Polin) died in captivity as a result of Israel’s unconstrained bombing of Gaza.
Pre-October 7 Attacks (1987–2023)
Hamas carried out or claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings, shootings, and other attacks during the First and Second Intifadas and subsequent periods that resulted in the deaths of roughly 15–25 Americans, based on cross-referenced State Department chronologies and victim lists (exact counts vary slightly due to dual citizenship and attribution debates). Documented American deaths include:
2002 Hebrew University bombing: (Jerusalem): 5 Americans killed.
2003 Jerusalem bus bombing: 5 Americans killed. Other notable incidents (Second Intifada era, 2000–2005): Americans killed in attacks such as the Sbarro pizzeria bombing, Park Hotel Passover bombing, and various bus bombings (e.g., Alan Beer, Malka Roth, and others).
Earlier attacks (1990s): Smaller numbers, including incidents like the 1996 Jerusalem bus bombing (3 Americans) and others. Scattered additional deaths in the 1990s–2010s from stabbings, shootings, and bombings.
HEZBOLLAH
At least 270–300+ Americans (including service members and civilians, plus some dual U.S.-Israeli citizens) have been killed in attacks attributed to or carried out by Hezbollah (or its direct precursors like Islamic Jihad Organization) since its formation in 1982.
Major Incidents and Breakdown
1983 Beirut Attacks (the deadliest period):
April 18, 1983: U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut — 17 Americans killed (including 8 CIA personnel).
October 23, 1983: U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut — 241 Americans killed (220 Marines, 18 Navy sailors, 3 Army soldiers). This remains the single deadliest attack on U.S. Marines since Iwo Jima and the largest loss of American life to Hezbollah.
September 20, 1984: U.S. Embassy annex bombing in Beirut — 2 Americans killed.
Other Notable Attacks:
1980s hostage crisis and related violence: Several Americans were kidnapped and murdered, including CIA station chief William Buckley (1984–1985) and U.S. Marine Colonel William Higgins (kidnapped 1988, murdered 1989).
Scattered attacks in the 1980s–2000s: Additional deaths from hijackings (e.g., TWA Flight 847 in 1985, where U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered), bombings, and operations in Iraq (Hezbollah-trained Shiite militias targeting U.S. forces post-2003).
The key take away from this data is that Hezbollah stopped attacking US targets in the 1990s and was not the face of Islamic extremism. Hezbollah focused its energy on attacking Israeli military targets.
OTHER IRANIAN PROXIES
At least 620–650+ Americans (mostly U.S. service members, plus some contractors and civilians) have been killed in attacks by Iranian proxies excluding Hamas and Hezbollah since 1979. The vast majority of these deaths occurred in Iraq during the 2003–2011 period.
Primary Figure: Iraqi Shiite Militias (2003–2011)
At least 603 U.S. troops were killed by Iran-backed Shiite militias in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Defense/Pentagon assessment. These militias include groups such as Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH), Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), the Badr Organization, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, and others.
Iran provided advanced weaponry (especially explosively formed penetrators or EFPs), training, and direction via the IRGC Quds Force. This accounted for roughly 17% of all U.S. combat deaths in Iraq during that period.
US PROXY TERRORISM AGAINST IRAN
Now I want to address the antagonism of the US towards Iran, where multiple US presidents used proxies to attack Iran. Let’s start with the case of Iraq… In 1980, the CIA, acting under a finding signed by President Jimmy Carter, began providing support to Saddam Hussein with the goal of Iraq launching an attack on Iran. Saddam attacked Iran in September 1980. When the Reagan administration took power in January 1981, the support for Iraq increased dramatically with the US supplying precursor chemicals that were used to make chemical weapons, financial aid, and classified intelligence that was routinely shared with the Iraqi General Staff. The CIA handled the task of sharing intelligence until 1986 when, as a result of the Iran/Contra revelations, Saddam refused to deal anymore with the CIA and would only accept assistance from the US military. The task of carrying US intelligence to Iraq, starting in 1987, was given to Colonel Walter Patrick Lang aka Pat. Pat, who is now deceased, was a close friend of mine for more than 20 years.
Using the same standard of blaming Iran for the actions of Hezbollah, the US merits blame for its prolific support for Saddam Hussein during the war on Iran. Estimates of Iranian deaths in the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988, also known as the First Gulf War) vary widely due to the fog of war, propaganda from both sides, and limited transparent records. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, launched the war with a surprise invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980. The US provided direct, covert support to Iraq (intelligence, economic aid, and allowing allies to supply weapons) during much of the conflict.
Iranian military deaths, based on a 2013 systematic review in the Iranian Journal of Public Health (based on Iranian records), put the figure at 188,015 to 217,489 killed (roughly 70 people per day over 2,887 days of war). Iranian civilian deaths, according to Western/CIA estimates, are estimated to be 50,000–60,000 dead.
MEK
Besides using Iraq as a weapon against Iran, the US also took a page out of Saddam Hussein’s playbook. Saddam provided sanctuary and financiing, along with weapons, to the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). They not only fought alongside Saddam’s forces in the war with Iran but, after the war, continued to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran.
Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Coalition forces bombed MEK bases (the group had been allied with Saddam Hussein). The MEK surrendered its heavy weapons and concentrated at Camp Ashraf. n 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld designated MEK members as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. US forces provided security at the camp, shielding them from Iraqi forces and preventing repatriation to Iran.
Starting around 2004–2005, the US provided clandestine support to the MEK as part of broader efforts to pressure Iran’s nuclear program and regime. This included intelligence cooperation, funding channels to dissident groups, and operational assistance. According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh (reporting in The New Yorker in 2012), the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) conducted secret training of MEK operatives at a facility in Nevada (Department of Energy’s Nevada National Security Site) beginning in 2005. Training covered communications, cryptography, small-unit tactics, weaponry, and other special operations skills. This reportedly continued into 2007 (or possibly later).
Funds were covertly passed to the MEK and other Iranian dissident groups for intelligence collection inside Iran and anti-regime activities. The MEK supplied intelligence on Iran’s nuclear sites (e.g., Natanz) and carried out CIA sponsored operations, such as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. This support occurred even while the MEK remained on the US FTO list, reflecting internal US government tensions (e.g., Pentagon vs. State Department).
In September 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton removed the MEK from the FTO list, citing its renunciation of violence and cooperation on relocation. This enabled greater political and logistical support for resettling members… many eventually went to Albania where they continued to receive support and training from the CIA.
The Iranian government claims that the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has killed more than 12,000 to 17,000 Iranians through terrorist attacks, assassinations, bombings, and armed operations since the early 1980s. This is the most frequently cited figure in Iranian official statements, state media, and court proceedings.
Hell, MEK alone has killed 12 to 17 times more Iranians than Iranian proxies have killed Americans. The numbers are not even close.
I want you to keep these numbers in mind the next time you hear some nitwit US politician or pundit ranting about Iranian sponsorship of terrorism. Hands down, the US is a bigger sponsor of terrorism than Iran by a fact of at least 12.
For over two decades, US-Iran nuclear negotiations have been wrapped in secrecy and sold as a mechanism for reducing tensions. Yet a closer examination reveals a far different reality.
Negotiations were never intended to deliver a just or lasting solution. As the evidence suggests, they were simply a tool, a mechanism for the United States to maintain pressure on Iran while preserving the facade of diplomacy.
From the early 2000s through the signing of the nuclear deal in 2015 and its eventual unraveling three years later, the nuclear negotiation process has been defined by a single, consistent reality: the United States has never been a trustworthy or reliable partner at the table, and the negotiations have never produced the outcomes that were initially expected.
Roots of the crisis
The roots of the crisis, according to the evidence examined by this writer, trace back to 2002, when peaceful energy-centric nuclear facilities were unveiled in the central Iranian cities of Natanz and Arak. Western governments seized on these as evidence of so-called “military ambition.”
Yet Iran made clear from the very beginning that its nuclear program was peaceful and fully within its rights under Article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). What began as a technical issue concerning safeguards compliance soon metastasized into a broader geopolitical confrontation.
This transformation did not occur because of any real diversion in Iran’s program. Rather, the nuclear dossier offered the United States and its allies a convenient pretext to sustain strategic pressure against a state that refused to submit to Western domination in West Asia.
This pattern emerged early in the negotiations with the so-called EU-3 – France, Germany, and the United Kingdom – culminating in the Saadabad Declaration of 2003.
Seeking to prevent escalation, Iran voluntarily halted uranium enrichment and, as a counterpart, accepted the Additional Protocol, granting the IAEA expanded access to nuclear sites. These steps went well beyond Iranian legal requirements and were widely regarded as a significant act of goodwill.
Yet rather than reciprocating with tangible concessions or normalization, Western powers seized on the suspension to demand even more radical measures. The voluntary and provisional nature of Iran’s commitments was gradually reframed by European negotiators into open-ended constraints.
Iran resuming parts of nuclear program
The asymmetry of expectations became impossible to ignore, and the fragile trust that had been built soon evaporated. By 2005, it was clear that the West’s objective was not transparency but permanent restriction.
In defense of its sovereign rights, Iran resumed parts of its nuclear program. That dynamic would define the next two decades: every Iranian show of restraint was answered not with reciprocity, but with escalating demands and mounting pressure.
The next turning point came in 2006, when Iran’s nuclear file was referred to the United Nations Security Council. The crisis was now internationalized.
Over the following years, successive resolutions imposed escalating sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, arms transfers, and froze the assets of individuals and organizations.
Alongside these multilateral measures, the United States intensified its unilateral sanctions regime – particularly between 2010 and 2013 – when comprehensive financial and energy sanctions effectively amounted to a total embargo on Iran.
Legislation such as the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA), combined with sanctions targeting Iran’s central bank and oil exports, succeeded in isolating the Iranian economy from global finance.
By this stage, the nuclear issue had clearly ceased to be a technical file. It had become an instrument of economic warfare, designed to coerce Iran into altering not only its nuclear policy but its entire strategic orientation.
JCPOA and how it materialized
It was against this backdrop of relentless pressure that the JCPOA was reached in 2015, today hyped as one of the most comprehensive nonproliferation agreements in diplomatic history.
Under the controversial deal, Iran accepted unprecedented restrictions on its nuclear program: stringent caps on enrichment levels, a dramatic reduction of its uranium stockpile, and full IAEA surveillance. These were not hollow concessions but a verifiable rollback of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, offered in exchange for sanctions relief and economic integration.
Moreover, successive IAEA reports from 2016 to 2018 confirmed Iran’s full compliance – a fact that vindicates Iran’s consistent claim that its nuclear program was always peaceful.
Nevertheless, despite Iran’s full cooperation, the expected benefits of the JCPOA never materialized in any meaningful way. Structural barriers within the US sanctions architecture deterred international businesses and financial institutions from engaging with Iran, even after some restrictions were formally lifted.
This systematic failure to deliver tangible outcomes pointed to a deeper problem: the United States had no intention of providing genuine economic relief, preferring to maintain its sanctions leverage despite being a signatory to the deal.
Trump’s withdrawal from JCPOA
The truth became undeniable in May 2018, when the US administration unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA – even as Iran remained in full compliance – and reimposed comprehensive sanctions under the banner of so-called “maximum pressure.”
This not only erased any economic gains Iran might have realized but also demonstrated that any agreement with Washington was structurally unreliable and could be undone at any moment based on political whim.
The US withdrawal only deepened the cycle. As sanctions escalated and pressure mounted, Iran began scaling back its voluntary commitments under the JCPOA after a year of strategic restraint, invoking provisions that allowed for remedial action in the event of non-compliance by the other party.
These steps, including increased enrichment levels and advanced centrifuge research, were presented by Tehran as reversible measures, contingent on the restoration of sanctions relief.
Yet the West, instead of addressing the root cause of the crisis – the US violation of the agreement – once again focused its rhetoric on Iran’s nuclear activities. This inversion of cause and effect simply reset the familiar cycle of pressure and negotiation.
Limitations of the diplomatic process
The inherent limitations of the diplomatic process became clear during efforts to revive the deal through indirect Vienna negotiations starting in 2021. The core issues remained unresolved because talks focused merely on how to arrange a return to compliance.
Iran sought reasonable assurances that the US would not break its word again, along with economic compensation for its own compliance. Washington cited internal political and constitutional constraints as reasons such guarantees were impossible.
The resulting stalemate exposed a fundamental failure: the absence of any practical mechanism to ensure US promises are kept or prevent future violations, dooming any future settlement to the same cycle of disintegration.
The IAEA’s role has also come under scrutiny. Technical safeguards issues have repeatedly been pushed to the edge of a political flashpoint. Impartial compliance monitoring should be the agency’s mandate, yet on Iran, it has aligned with Western pressure, selectively raising issues at Iran’s expense – especially when geopolitical tensions peak.
This has reinforced the perception that the nuclear file is not technical but part of a larger pressure architecture, where institutional mechanisms are weaponized to justify more investigations and punishment.
Lessons from two decades of negotiations
The past two decades leave no room for doubt. The pattern is unmistakable: Iran can negotiate, compromise, and open up, only to face new demands, new sanctions, and shifting goalposts.
Every diplomatic phase has been followed not by resolution but by the reorganization of pressure in another form. This is not about miscalculations or technical differences. It is a chain of political choices in which diplomacy serves not as an end but as a means to gain advantage over Iran. The nuclear issue has become a scapegoat, not a genuine concern, but a tool to coerce and constrain an independent regional power.
The conclusion is inescapable. The technical dimension of Iran’s nuclear program has never been the real issue. Iran has submitted to one of the most invasive verification systems in history and has been repeatedly verified as peaceful.
The true obstacle is that the United States refuses to engage on terms of mutual respect, reciprocity, or long-term commitment. Washington always operates top-down, imposing conditions while reserving the right to walk away.
Under these conditions, nuclear negotiations with the US cannot produce a solution.
The process is fundamentally flawed and has been an absolute failure. And since Iran has already proven its program is peaceful, further talks are worthless – nothing more than pressure recycled as diplomacy.
The ongoing stalemate in the Islamabad talks is fundamentally due to Iran’s refusal to be dragged into a vicious cycle again. After emerging triumphant in the 40-day war, Iran is not willing to accept any of the US maximalist and unreasonable demands.
The nuclear file is effectively off the negotiating table, as the talks underway for nearly two decades have never been about a nuclear deal.
Almost immediately after the proxy war erupted, ISIS-tier footage of the torture and murder of Russians in Ukrainian custody emerged.
On July 6th, the New York Times published an astonishing investigation: In Ukraine, Killings of Surrendering Russians Divide an American-Led Unit. The article documents in grim detail how Chosen Company, an international volunteer battalion for Kiev, routinely executes Russian prisoners of war. It is the very first mainstream admission that this practice – a brazen breach of the Geneva Conventions, and a grave war crime – is widespread among Ukraine’s fighters, both foreign and homegrown. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
