Former United States State Department advisor and veteran West Asia negotiator Aaron David Miller sharply criticized Washington’s assumptions about the pace and substance of talks with Iran, arguing that the US misjudged Iran’s position.
“If Administration believed after only 21 hours of negotiations, Iran would give up enrichment which is what Vance implied, they totally misread the moment and the Iranian dominated IRGC,” Miller posted on X.
Gerard Araud, a high-ranking retired French diplomat who served as the Ambassador to the United States and the Permanent Representative to the United Nations, also pointed to the prowess of Iranian negotiators.
“The agreement we reached with Iran in 2015 was the result of hundreds of hours of negotiations with the support of experts of nuclear energy,” Araud explained.
“Negotiating with the Iranians is the equivalent of a diplomatic trenches war. Line by line, word by word.” he posted on X.
“From an Iranian point of view, the negotiations are not starting from scratch but after an agreement endorsed by the UNSC,” he added in another post.
“Any new negotiations have to take into account this precedent: words have already a significance and proposals a history,” he said.
Deadlock in Islamabad talks after 21 hours of negotiations
Negotiations between Iran and the US have ended without agreement following Pakistan-mediated diplomatic efforts in Islamabad, with core nuclear demands keeping both sides far apart after 21 hours of discussions.
The talks, aimed at narrowing differences over Iran’s nuclear program and related regional security arrangements, failed to produce convergence on key issues, including Iran’s right to uranium enrichment, the security regime of the Strait of Hormuz, and proposals linking any broader understanding to a ceasefire extending to Lebanon.
Expectations of a rapid breakthrough had been encouraged by US Vice President JD Vance, but were widely regarded as unrealistic given the depth of disagreement between Washington and Tehran. The 2015 nuclear agreement itself took nearly two years to finalize, while current conditions are further complicated by escalating regional confrontation.
Vance defends US position after talks collapse
Following the breakdown of negotiations, US Vice President JD Vance stated that Iran had rejected Washington’s terms, while leaving the door open for future engagement.
“They have chosen not to accept our terms,” Vance said in a brief news conference in Islamabad, though he left open the possibility that terms could still be reached.
“We leave here with a very simple proposal: a method of understanding that is our final and best offer,” he added.
“We’ll see if the Iranians accept it,” he asserted.
Australia calls for renewed negotiations and ceasefire
International reactions followed the collapse of the talks, with Australia urging both sides to return to diplomacy and maintain a ceasefire across the region.
Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong described the outcome of the Islamabad talks as “disappointing” and called for an immediate resumption of negotiations.
“The priority now must be to continue the ceasefire and return to negotiations,” Wong said, adding it was “disappointing that the Islamabad talks between the United States and Iran have ended without agreement.”
Wong also warned that any further escalation “would impose an even greater human cost and further impact the global economy,” stressing the need for sustained diplomatic engagement.
As I expected, the negotiation between the US and Iran failed to reach an agreement. Although JD Vance headed the US team, he was never in control… I have heard from someone who was directly involved with this circus in Islamabad that Israeli agents — Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — made certain that JD Vance would not follow his instincts and accept the deal that Iran had laid on the table. Israel’s role in sabotaging the US delegation was evident in Vance’s statement announcing the failure of the negotiations, when he falsely accused Iran of refusing to give up its alleged quest for a nuclear weapon. This is just a rehashed piece of Zionist propaganda.
There were several Iranian conditions that the US refused to accept: Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz, an end to Israel’s attack on Lebanon and Hezbollah, unfreezing of Iran’s assets and retaining sovereignty over its supply of enriched uranium. I have said repeatedly this past week during various interviews on the subject that Iran’s position on these issues was non-negotiable.
Here is the statement just released by the Iranian government:
The American enemy, which is vile, wicked and dishonest — attempted to achieve on the negotiating table what it could not achieve through war.
Among these demands are handing over enriched uranium and opening the Strait of Hormuz without confirmed Iranian sovereignty over it.
Iran has decided to reject these terms and continue the sacred defense of its fatherland by any means necessary, military or diplomatic.’
So what is next? For starters I hope that the Iranian delegation in Islamabad gets a return flight home on a Russian or Chinese flagged airplane. I do not discount the possibility of Israel and the US trying to destroy the Iranian airliner on its return flight to Tehran.
Iran will not initiate new military actions against Israel or the US… They will wait to absorb the first blow and then launch a massive retaliation. I think they now understand that the US is too much under the control of the Zionist lobby to act in the interest of the people of the United States.
Iran’s demand that the US vacate its bases in the Gulf will be achieved by force… Iran will hit the remaining bases and make them uninhabitable for the US military going forward. The Saudis and the UAE will have to make a choice this week… Seek reconciliation with Iran and survive or side with the US and Israel and face economic destruction.
The real action that will put the most pressure on Trump will start on Monday morning when the US stock market takes a nose dive… again… and the price of oil heads back up into triple digit territory. JD Vance actually did Iran a favor by breaking off first and walking away. This paints Iran in a very favorable light in the eyes of the global south, i.e., Iran was willing to negotiate, but the US refused to engage in good faith negotiations and bailed.
Here is my chat with Ed DeMarche of the Trends Journal from last Wednesday:Video Link
MOSCOW – US President Donald Trump said on Sunday that the United States would soon start the naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to prevent Iran from using what he described as “extortion.”
“The Blockade will begin shortly. Other Countries will be involved with this Blockade,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The US Navy will be blockading “any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz,” until all are allowed to go in and out, he wrote.
“I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas,” Trump also said.
The US leader added that he would not allow any country, especially his own, to be “extorted” by Iran.
Safe passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible if the United States complies with its obligations, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Thursday.
Earlier, Araghchi announced the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for about 20% of the world’s oil, petroleum products, and LNG supplies.
The escalation of the conflict has virtually halted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a key supply route for global oil and LNG. As a result, fuel prices are rising in most countries.
There is growing expectation in Tehran that the Islamabad talks with the US may open the door leading into the rose-garden. But footfalls still echo in the memory, as the US has been an utterly unreliable and unscrupulous interlocutor.
The Islamabad talks on Saturday lasting 21 hours ended without a deal. The US Vice-President JD Vance, in a very short news conference at Islamabad, blamed Iran for not accepting American terms. As he put it, “We need to see an affirmative commitment that [Iran] will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon. That is the core goal of the president of the United States, and that’s what we’ve tried to achieve through these negotiations.”
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said that the two sides reached a consensus on some issues, but held different views regarding 2-3 important matters. Baqaei said the talks covered some new issues with their own complexities, such as the Strait of Hormuz, but stressed that diplomacy never ends, as it is a tool to preserve national interests, and “stands ready for all kinds of sacrifices.”
Baqaei later told Iran’s state television, “Naturally, from the beginning we should not have expected to reach an agreement in a single session. No one had such an expectation.” And Tehran is “confident that contacts between us and Pakistan, as well as our other friends in the region, will continue”.
On their part, Pakistani mediators called on the US and Iran to maintain the ceasefire. Foreign minister Ishaq Dar said Islamabad would try to facilitate a new dialogue between Iran and the US in the coming days.
Such tough situations have a history of grandstanding by protagonists but that hasn’t happened here, and gives hope that it is far too premature to write off that the peace track ended in a train crash. After all, the negotiations were initially expected to be indirect, but the two political leaderships are now engaging in direct discussions for the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Vance separately met Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and foreign minister Abbas Araqchi for two hours.
Previously, the plan was for the two delegations to sit in separate rooms while Pakistani mediators relayed messages between them. “However, now, in a significant shift, our sources close to the mediators say that the two teams are holding direct talks with the presence of Pakistani intermediaries,” Al Jazeera reported.
Also, the negotiations have moved beyond general issues, and in some cases entered technical discussions. Iranian media reported that “specialists from both sides are now reviewing detailed aspects of unresolved matters, including the implementation of regional de-escalation measures and the assessment of the ceasefire in southern Lebanon.”
The talks are very important for Vance himself as he personally sought this role from Trump. Another reason for Trump’s selection was the deep mistrust between Tehran and Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff following the US and Israeli attacks after two previous rounds of negotiations. Nevertheless, Witkoff and Kushner, both Jews with close ties to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accompanied Vance.
At any rate, finalising an agreement may take weeks or months and will likely require extending the current two-week ceasefire. That requires patience and fortitude. Whereas, an inventory of the war highlights only Trump’s fickle-minded temperament and Netanyahu’s tenacity bordering on obsession. Netanyahu has admitted that the US-Israeli attacks on Iran were “something I’ve longed to do for 40 years.”
In the 13 months since Trump took office until the outbreak of the war, Netanyahu met with Trump on average every two months for face-to-face meetings (apart from multiple remote meetings), unmatched by any foreign leader.
According to the New York Times, Trump’s irreversible decision to go to war was reached on February 11, in the famous Situation Room at the White House, where Netanyahu and the head of Mossad delivered Trump a spectacular story of decapitation of Iranian leaders, with a happy ending.
The Times wryly noted that none of Trump’s close associates — Vance, secretary of state Rubio or the CIA director Ratcliffe saw Netanyahu’s presentation and his closing argument as anything more than a live steam for young children, and they were well aware that their boss might believe in fairy tales, yet, none of them was willing to resign in protest.
Vance disclosed in Islamabad yesterday that he spoke with Trump at least half a dozen times during the talks and noted, “The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement, and I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America.”
Herein lies the danger. Trump is notoriously prone to mood swings and has a propensity to believe in the last person he spoke with. It may seem child-like innocence but in this case, chaffing under public ridicule in the US as well as internationally for having ‘lost’ the war, Trump is under immense pressure to do something.
Meanwhile, the Zionist lobby that has easy access to Trump’s ears must be working overtime to block any US-Iran agreement. On the other hand, as the final hours ticked down, there was little indication that Iran was ready to agree to Trump’s ultimatum.
Li Haidong, professor at China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times last week that based on past patterns, when confronted with mounting pressure, the US has at times escalated tensions, while at other moments abruptly shifted course with tactical adjustments. This makes Washington’s next move highly unpredictable.
The Chinese professor noted that “the current dynamics suggest that Tehran is unlikely to make meaningful concessions, while Washington also faces significant constraints in altering its own position. Coupled with Israel’s role in shaping the conflict, this latest ultimatum [by Trump] thatIran could be ‘taken out’ if it did not meet his newly updated deadline is likely to unfold in a more dramatic and uncertain manner.”
But that does not mean the war can end only on Washington’s terms; war is more likely to become protracted. Iran no longer trusts the US and will only accept an end of the war with guarantees that it won’t be attacked again.
Above all, the resurgent IRGC remains confident that it would “deprive the US and its allies of the region’s oil and gas for years” if Trump carries out his threat to attack power plants and bridges. An Iranian official told the media that the process of preparing new infrastructure for managing vessel traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has been completed by Iran and more than 100 vessels of various nationalities have so far submitted written requests to transit the strait under the new protocol.
Max Blumenthal discusses why the consensus over the US-Israel partnership is unravelling as the intrusive influence of Israel is widely seen to undermine US interests. The disastrous Iran War has intensified the MAGA Civil War. Blumenthal is the editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza.
Iran’s Tasnim News Agency reported on Sunday morning that US-Iran talks ended with no agreement due to “excessive US demands” that prevented the formation of a common framework.
The agency said Washington sought to secure concessions it had failed to achieve through military escalation, including demands related to Iran’s enriched materials and control over the Strait of Hormuz. According to Tasnim, the Iranian delegation attempted to advance toward a joint negotiating framework, but US demands ultimately stalled progress.
Tasnim reported that upon arriving in Islamabad, the Iranian delegation met with Pakistan’s army chief and prime minister to coordinate positions and raise concerns over what it described as US breaches of commitments.
It said talks with the Pakistani leadership preceded negotiations with the US side, which began at the level of main delegations before shifting to technical teams and lasted more than 21 hours.
The agency added that Tehran presented what it described as reasonable proposals, stressing that responsibility now rests with Washington to respond realistically. It also said the US administration has miscalculated both militarily and in its negotiating approach, noting that the status of the Strait of Hormuz will not change without a “reasonable agreement.”
No date or venue has been set for a potential new round of talks.
Meanwhile, Al Mayadeen’s bureau chief in Pakistan reported that the US delegation had departed Islamabad following the conclusion of the talks.
Additionally, a source close to the Iranian negotiating team told Fars News that the US delegation appeared to be looking for a pretext to exit the talks. The source added that Iran currently has no plans to engage in a new round of negotiations.
The source further said the Iranian team, representing the Iranian people, sought to safeguard the gains achieved on the ground, arguing that Washington was in greater need of the talks to repair its standing on the international stage.
US leaves Islamabad without an agreement
US Vice President JD Vance announced on Sunday at dawn that negotiations with Iran lasted 21 hours, but ultimately ended without reaching an agreement, failing to produce a satisfactory outcome as the US delegation headed back to Washington.
Vance alleged that core objectives were not achieved despite what he claimed was “significant flexibility” from the US side, claiming that Iran “chose not to accept our terms,” saying the proposal is a “method of understanding that is our final and best offer. We’ll see if the Iranians accept it.”
Whether or not Iran-US peace negotiations succeed depends entirely on the American side, renowned international affairs commentator Dr. Mohammad Marandi told Sputnik, commenting on Saturday’s unprecedented face-to-face talks in Islamabad, Pakistan.
Iran didn’t start the war, it wasn’t the one to escalate it, and it wasn’t the one to call for a halt in hostilities. Accordingly, the crisis can be resolved in one of only two ways, Marandi says.
“Either the Americans are sincere or they’re forced to be sincere, and they implement what they said they will do, or not. If they are unwilling to do so, the Iranian delegation will go back to Tehran,” the Gulf crisis will continue and the global economic picture will continue to deteriorate.
Iran Cares About Facts on the Ground, Not Signals or Signatures
“For the Iranians, what is important is that the facts on the ground change. The signature of the US vice president or president has no value for Iranians,” Marandi stressed.
Iran remembers that twice in less than a year, the US engaged in negotiations while conspiring to attack. Accordingly, whether talks succeed or not, “Iran is prepared” for what comes next, including a continuation of the war if necessary.
Marandi emphasized that the strength and resilience shown by Iran and the Axis of Resistance over the past weeks are the only reasons the US is at the negotiating table today.
US Must Choose: ‘Israel First’ or ‘America First’
Significant progress in negotiations with Iran can be achieved if the Trump administration pursues a genuinely America First policy, the academic believes.
“If they continue to be under the influence of Israeli Firsters, then I think the Iranians will be prepared to go back to Tehran without any agreement whatsoever. For Iran, both scenarios are acceptable. We are not concerned either way,” Marandi said.
US in No Position to Dictate Terms
The US “has not succeeded on the battlefield” and “there’s no reason for them to believe that they will win at the negotiating table,” the observer noted.
“What the Iranians are demanding is justice, and Iran is not making any excessive demands,” Marandi said, referencing Tehran’s 10-point ceasefire plan.
One of these demands is war reparations.
Iran “will get those reparations from the Strait of Hormuz, whether the Americans like it or not. But if the Americans want to prevent the collapse of the global economy they will discontinue obeying the Zionist Lobby and make decisions based on their interests,” Marandi stressed.
Whatever happens, “Iran is not going to give up its sovereignty… and the Axis of Resistance is unwilling to submit to the Empire,” he summed up.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has called for public condemnation of the assassination threats leveled against Iranian negotiators amid ongoing talks with the United States that are aimed at permanently ending the US-Israeli aggression against the country.
In a post on his X account on Saturday, Baghaei said threats in the US government and media space for assassinating the Iranian negotiators, in case the current talks fail, are part of a discourse that seeks to normalize extortion through violence.
“Is this not, in effect, a policy discourse that normalizes extortion through the threat or public incitement of terror, violence, and manslaughter?” he said in the post.
The spokesman, who is himself accompanying the Iranian delegation in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad for the negotiations with the US, said the threats have come amid claims by the US government accusing Iran of lacking good faith and engaging in extortion amid the talks.
“This express public incitement for state terrorism must be denounced by all,” said Baghaei.
Experts believe the far-right political camp in the US is obviously dismayed by the outcome of the US-Israeli aggression on Iran, which began in late February and ended in a Pakistani-mediated two-week ceasefire last week.
The aggression started and continued with the assassination of senior Iranian political and military leaders, aimed at bringing about a regime change in Iran.
However, the US government finally accepted Iran’s conditions as a baseline for launching the current negotiations in Pakistan.
Iranian authorities have indicated that they would seek compensation for all assassinations committed by the US and the Israeli regime in Iran.
According to the Hasbara Symphony Orchestra, Israel’s latest war against Iran was an astounding triumph and the country remains dizzy with success.
More precisely, we should speak of Israel’s invaluable contribution to an enormous US strategic victory, because the suggestion that the war primarily served Israeli rather than US interests, or that Israel played a central role in Washington’s decision to launch this war is an anti-Semitic blood libel.
Yet the Israeli press tells a very different story. Its views are of course not uniform, but across the political spectrum a fairly consistent assessment emerges:
1. Israel’s greatest success was Netanyahu’s ability to persuade Trump to launch this war. In Trump, Netanyahu finally found his mark.
2. This achievement is also a very sharp double-edged sword. It was from the outset an unpopular war in the US, dividing even the MAGA right. If responsibility for this war is placed at the feet of Israel, and particularly if it is seen in the US as a failed adventure that weakens the US position regionally and globally, the negative ramifications for Israel could have strategic consequences. Not so much because of reduced US power, but rather on account of the fallout this could have on the US-Israeli relationship.
3. Israel scored many tactical successes but failed to achieve its war objectives. If the war ends, and the Islamic Republic is not overthrown, it will have been a costly failure. Debate continues over whether Israel’s objectives were realistic and attainable, and whether Israel’s leadership raised false expectations among the Israeli public.
4. Despite the damage inflicted on Iran it has thus far emerged strengthened from this war. The Islamic Republic did not collapse, it demonstrated an ability to retaliate and inflict damage of its own throughout the war, and most importantly was able to establish its control over the Strait of Hormuz with all this entails for the global economy. In other words, Israel’s war objectives will not be extracted from Iran by the US around the negotiating table, because Tehran has no reason to capitulate.
5. If Israel is compelled to end its war against Lebanon before defeating Hizballah, this will be a political catastrophe.
6. The main losers of this war are the Arab states, particularly those of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The good news for Israel is the sharp deterioration in their relations with Iran. But Arab governments are unlikely to respond by strengthening relations with Israel, and perhaps also not with the US, because they see Washington and particularly Israel as responsible for their misfortune. And when push came to shove they proved to be exorbitantly expensive yet unreliable allies. (On this point commentary is more divided, and some anticipate closer relations).
As far as Israeli media is concerned this is not a final verdict, because the war is not necessarily over and even when it is it will take time for its full impact to be revealed. But thus far, at least, it is painting a very different picture than that served up by its flunkies and apologists abroad.
Between the lines, the conclusion is clear: in Iran, Israel’s new national security doctrine of eliminating any challenge to its regional hegemony, and of ensuring that any threat is nipped in the bud before it emerges, has been overtaken by reality.
Pakistani officials are pressuring the Iranian delegation in Islamabad to enter talks with their US counterparts by “dropping” demands for a ceasefire in Lebanon, according to information obtained by Lebanese journalist and The Cradle columnist Dr. Mohamad Hassan Sweidan.
“The authorities in Lebanon have agreed to postpone the ceasefire and to discuss it directly with Tel Aviv; therefore, you cannot exert pressure in a direction that contradicts what the Lebanese themselves have accepted,” the Iranian delegation was informed on 11 April, according to Sweidan’s sources.
Nevertheless, Iranian officials have expressed that their position on a region-wide ceasefire remains firm, revealing that a final resolution to halt the attacks is a “condition for the success of the negotiations — not merely a request.”
“If the Iranian delegation reaches the conviction that the US side is not serious and that the negotiations will not lead to the desired results, it will withdraw and return to Tehran,” Sweidan stressed.
According to his sources, coordination exists between the Iranian delegation and the leadership of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Officials from Iran and the US arrived in the Pakistani capital on Saturday for the first round of indirect negotiations toward a possible ceasefire.
The Iranian delegation is led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
US Vice President JD Vance is leading the delegation for his country. He is accompanied by Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and special envoy Steve Witkoff.
According to reports on Iranian TV, Tehran has set clear red lines for Saturday’s talks: control of the Strait of Hormuz, war reparations, the release of frozen assets, and a permanent ceasefire on all fronts in the region.
Soon after Iran and the US agreed to a brittle ceasefire earlier this week, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam demanded his country not be included in the process.
Since then, the Lebanese government has agreed to hold direct talks with Israeli officials in Washington, which many in the country view as an attempt to normalize relations with Israel and “weaken” the Lebanese resistance by prolonging the war.
The push to be excluded from the regional ceasefire came despite a wave of Israeli terror attacks across Lebanon this week that killed over 300 Lebanese and injured over 1,000, including several members of the state security forces.
According to Lebanese journalist Hassan Illaik, in recent days, Arab and European diplomats were told by a close adviser to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, “The war must continue until Hezbollah is eliminated.”
Senior Hezbollah official and member of Lebanese parliament, Hassan Fadlallah, on Saturday condemned the push by Beirut as a “blatant violation of the national pact, constitution, and laws.”
“The move by those controlling the government deepens internal divisions at a time Lebanon needs unity to face ongoing Israeli attacks, preserve civil peace, and protect coexistence,” Fadlallah said, adding that authorities “should have prioritized national interests” by benefiting from the international opportunity created by Iran’s support for Lebanon.
The United States has denied reports stating it agreed to release Iran’s frozen assets in Qatar and other foreign banks, one of Tehran’s prerequisite for negotiations in Islamabad, Pakistan.
A senior Iranian source had stated that the United States in fact agreed, describing the move as a sign of “seriousness” ahead of potential negotiations in Islamabad, according to a report by Reuters.
According to the source, the unfreezing of assets is “directly linked” to ensuring safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
This is not a first for Washington. Reports previously indicated that the US agreed to a ceasefire that would include Lebanon and other regional fronts. While Trump and Netanyahu denied, US media asserted that the inclusion of Iran’s regional allies in the ceasefire was always in agreement.
Moreover, among the Iranian demands was its right to enrich uranium, another provision the US agreed to. However, only hours after the agreement was declared, Donald Trump claimed Iran would not be allowed to enrich uranium, further exposing Washington’s unreliable positions.
Iran ties ceasefire to Lebanon, ‘Israel’ sabotages agreement
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf previously conditioned talks with the US with a ceasefire in Lebanon and the release of Iran’s blocked assets. He emphasized that both conditions are essential before any diplomatic process can move forward. “These two matters must be fulfilled before negotiations begin,” he added.
Tehran’s 10‑point proposal, accepted by Washington as the framework for talks during the two-week ceasefire, includes ending all US and Israeli military operations against Iran and its allies, as well as halting Israeli attacks on Lebanon and other countries in the region. Iran’s negotiators stress that without a permanent stop to aggression on all fronts, any ceasefire would be meaningless and allow enemy forces to regroup.
Netanyahu, however, made it clear that “Israel” has no intention of halting its campaign, explicitly excluding Lebanon from any ceasefire arrangement. “I insisted that the temporary ceasefire with Iran not include Hezbollah, and we continue to strike them forcefully,” he said, reaffirming the occupation’s commitment to continued aggression.
European officials have warned that excluding Lebanon risks collapsing any broader agreement, as the war increasingly takes on a regional character linking Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon into a single confrontation.
The Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway nestled between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, is not merely a geographical passageway or a shipping lane on the world map to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
It is a strategically vital waterway that forms the pulse of the global energy economy and, simultaneously, a potent asset for the Islamic Republic to fundamentally reshape the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and around the world.
Iran seeks not merely to protect or monitor this strait but to exercise absolute, intelligent and legitimate control that, in the short term, applies economic pressure on any adversary to force it into retreat, negotiation, or acceptance of Iranian terms, and in the long term, to convert this control into permanent and inexhaustible strategic advantage.
This unchallenged authority on the strategic chokepoint, which carries around a quarter of global seaborne oil trade, includes regulating maritime traffic, collecting passage tolls, influencing global supply chains, and reconfiguring power dynamics in the region in alignment with the Axis of Resistance.
Backed by immutable geographical realities, international legal frameworks, precise economic data, and Iran’s asymmetric military capabilities, we examine how no military threats nor diplomatic pressure can alter this fundamental and unalterable reality.
Geographically, the narrowest point of the Strait of Hormuz measures just 21 nautical miles — roughly 39 kilometers — in width. This extremely narrow gap places all key shipping routes, including two two-mile-wide carriageways and a two-mile buffer strip, entirely within Iranian and Omani exclusive territorial economic waters.
Iran is uniquely positioned to exert absolute control over the northern and most critical part of the strait, with its coastline stretching more than 1,600 kilometers along the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. This extensive coastline includes not only mainland shores but also numerous strategic islands that serve as natural strongpoints.
Unlike the Suez Canal or Panama Canal — artificial waterways that can be circumnavigated — the Strait of Hormuz is the only natural, mandatory route for crude oil, liquefied natural gas, and chemical products exiting the Persian Gulf en route to the Indian Ocean and global markets.
No viable alternative to bypass Iran’s control
There is no economically viable or practically feasible alternative to bypass it.
The geography is also immutable: the mountains, rocky coasts, and shallow water depths in key formations make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to open parallel routes or construct new canals. No power on earth, irrespective of its military prowess, can overcome this geographical reality through insignificant actions, the occupation of tiny islands, or even the deployment of naval forces.
Iran’s long and impenetrable coastline is a natural wall that would require manpower and logistical support far beyond the capacity of the world’s largest armies to capture or hold.
Legally, the Strait of Hormuz falls under the purview of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), though its interpretation has consistently and appropriately followed the line advanced by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Because the strait’s width is less than 24 nautical miles, the entire waterway is not considered part of international waters or an international shipping route. The governing legal regime is not free and compulsory transit passage, but rather innocent passage.
Iran, having signed but not fully ratified the 1982 Convention, has always maintained that vessel passage must not prejudice the sovereignty of coastal states in any way, and that any passage threatening Iran’s national security is invalid.
This unique legal status grants Tehran the option of selective and conditional control over vessel traffic without necessarily infringing upon international law as interpreted by Western powers.
This is why the Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s real unsinkable aircraft carrier: an inseparable asset that costs virtually nothing to maintain daily, yet offers strategic and deterrent value inestimable to the global economy.
This legal position, combined with its geographical reality, has placed Iran in a situation where it can exercise practical dominance and unquestionable authority over the waterway without maintaining a permanent surface force presence.
Economically, the Strait of Hormuz is rightly called the true chokepoint of the world economy.
According to the most recent data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), approximately 20.9 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products transit through the strait daily — equivalent to 20 percent of all oil consumed worldwide and 25 to 27 percent of global oil imports and exports.
Moreover, over 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade — roughly 11.4 billion cubic feet per day, mostly from Qatari fields — also passes through this route.
Influence of the Strait of Hormuz beyond oil
But the waterway’s influence extends far beyond the oil industry. Iran is the world’s largest source of urea — a nitrogen fertilizer vital to agriculture — and the broader Persian Gulf region dominates this trade.
Iran alone ranks among the top five urea exporters globally, and any disruption in transit automatically drives international urea prices up by 25 to 30 percent.
This price surge directly disrupts fertilizer supply chains for major importing countries such as India, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and most African countries. The consequence is a large-scale food crisis: soaring wheat, rice, and other agricultural commodity prices, worldwide food inflation, and a direct threat to the food security of billions of people.
Thus, the Strait of Hormuz is the chokepoint of the global food supply — a weapon Iran can use to influence the currents of the global economy and generate unprecedented pressure by seizing control of food and energy chains without launching a single missile or drone.
For the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Strait of Hormuz serves as an asymmetric weapon or economic nuclear. It can hold the world economy at ransom by the implementation of selective but intelligent control of the waterway, without the requirement that involves direct war, without incurring huge costs of armaments and even the use of advanced nuclear weapons.
This strategy can be used to impose colossal and rapid economic strain that compels the opposing side to either flee in haste, bargain, or accept Iran’s terms, with no other options.
The long-term goal could be to transform this temporary control into a structural and permanent arrangement: collecting passage tolls from vessels, selectively regulating traffic (free passage for friendly ships in the Persian Gulf, restrictions and bans on hostile ones), and completely redefining the rules of engagement in the Persian Gulf in alignment with the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Axis of Resistance.
During periods of tension, Iran implements a calculated approach by raising the threat to the point of execution without necessarily ever closing the waterway completely, as was seen in operations True Promise 1, True Promise 2, and True Promise 3.
This strategy imposes continuous economic costs on the enemy without inflicting any harm on Iran. Even though Iranian oil exports and its own products are indirectly affected in the short term, selective transit management and toll collection create new revenue streams, ultimately swinging the economic war in Tehran’s favor.
Iran’s balance of action closely mirrors that of Gamal Abdel Nasser when he nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956. Nasser dared to seize the canal, scuttled ships at its entrance, and effectively closed the oil lifeline to Europe.
That action brought the British and French empires to their knees, triggered the Suez Crisis, and symbolized the fall of British colonial rule in the West Asia region.
Just as Nasser, with a single strategic stroke, turned a major energy canal into an instrument of influence and power shift, Iran has now moved to nationalize the Strait of Hormuz through actual action, asymmetric military strength, and unyielding political determination.
This nationalization of the Strait of Hormuz can be seen as the beginning of the de facto demise of American power in the Persian Gulf region, just as the nationalization of Suez heralded the end of the British Empire. The only difference is that Iran employs less advanced, less costly, and more efficient means to enforce this power and authority.
Iran’s efforts to implement a passage toll system in the operational and executive spheres have been intelligent and multifaceted. Enemies or vessels lacking the required permission face direct threats, while friendly vessels — particularly those from Eastern countries and key allies like China, Russia or Pakistan — pay tolls in Chinese yuan, Russian rubles, or cryptocurrencies such as USDT or Bitcoin, securing safe and uninterrupted passage.
This policy not only provides a direct and permanent revenue stream for the Iranian economy but also significantly reduces Iran’s reliance on the US dollar, which is dying a slow death.
Through the comprehensive use of China’s international payment system (CIPS), other banking networks, and digital payment systems, Tehran has successfully moved to eliminate the dollar from the commercial equations of the Strait of Hormuz and is working toward currency multipolarity and the dismantling of Western financial supremacy.
Iran’s legitimate control over Strait of Hormuz
This initiative is part of a broader economic warfare strategy that renders further struggle or pressure on Iran far more expensive and burdensome for the opponent than capitulating to Tehran’s demands. Iran’s intelligent and legitimate control over the Strait of Hormuz is thus absolute and enduring, resting on three unchangeable foundations.
First is the irrevocable nature of geography and the impossible cost of seizing it by force. Iran is literally impregnable with its 1,600-kilometer coastline. Any invading force attempting to assert control over a 100-kilometer front and fully reopen the strait would require over one million men, a vast naval fleet, and unparalleled logistical support — a force that even the world’s strongest military would struggle to assemble.
Moreover, Iran’s control over the strait does not depend on fixed ground positions surrounding the waterway; complete control can be exercised through anti-ship missiles, long-range drones with a range of nearly 2,000 kilometers, and integrated radar command systems.
The second justification is Iran’s absolute superiority in both low-intensity and high-intensity asymmetric warfare. Large-scale mining of the Strait — not using surface ships but rather Fajr-5 rockets fired from a range of 70 kilometers — is entirely within Iran’s capabilities.
These rockets can deploy magnetic, intelligent, and advanced mines along the entire length of the strait, rendering shipping traffic completely uneconomical. Clearing such mines from this waterway would require no less than six months, during which the global economy would be crippled in terms of energy supply and food security.
The ancillary cost of such warfare to Iran is minimal — thousands of dollars per mine — while the enemy suffers billions of dollars in daily losses, not to mention the devastating disruption to global supply chains.
The third foundation is Iran’s long history and precise strategic calculus. Iran has on many occasions in the past spoken of shutting down the Strait but has not acted on it, as demonstrated during the crises of the 1980s, in 2011-2012, and the last few years.
The threat itself is an effective deterrent. Any force that attempts to respond to Iran’s language of direct threat with its own language of direct threat instantly faces the prospect of a global energy shock, extreme inflation, economic downturn, and domestic opposition.
Records in the contemporary world have revealed that Iran will push the threat to the final stage of execution and will ultimately compel the opponent to withdraw and accept new realities, and it has been clearly and unquestionably demonstrated in the past 40 days.
Finally, Iran does not insist on a permanent and destructive closure of the Strait of Hormuz, but rather on intelligent and selective control. This domination includes non-dollar toll collection, selective passage management of vessels, and the transformation of all external threats into opportunities to reformulate the rules of engagement in the Persian Gulf.
Iran soars above this waterway because its permanence — rooted in immutable natural geography, low-cost and effective asymmetric technology, and most importantly, its unshakable determination — has secured it forever.
This fact cannot be altered by any power on earth, regardless of massive military pressure or international coercion. Any attempt to counter Iran in the Strait of Hormuz would simply cost the global economy far more and ultimately force adversaries to accept the new reality in the Persian Gulf: this waterway will no longer be anyone’s backyard, but rather the territory of the established, solid, and indestructible deterrent power of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
… As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. … Read full article
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 