Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

How Iran decimated US power projection in West Asia: Military lessons of 40-day war

By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | April 10, 2026

As the ceasefire comes into effect after 40 days of aggression against the Islamic Republic, with violations continuing on the Lebanese front, military analysts worldwide are just beginning to unpack one of the most unexpected outcomes of modern military confrontation.

They are examining how the Islamic Republic of Iran, against the full American air and naval power backed by the finest allied systems, managed not only to survive but to inflict high costs and ultimately achieve a historic victory despite overwhelming odds.

Iran’s success did not come through matching the United States in crude technological adequacy or superior system quantities. Rather, it resulted from an advanced, multidimensional asymmetric approach integrating mass, accuracy, mobility, electronic warfare, and unremitting innovation.

This strategy turned historically strong American capabilities in air superiority and power projection into liabilities, while exposing the vulnerabilities of costly, high-tech defensive systems facing prolonged, low-cost saturation attacks.

Anti-access/area denial in the Persian Gulf: Holding US carriers at bay

Among the clearest evidence of Iranian military effectiveness was its maritime defense. The backbone of American power projection — US Navy carrier strike groups — was never free to operate without detection in proximity to Iranian waters.

Iranian coastal defense doctrine established a dense network of mobile anti-ship missile batteries, creating an impassable no-go zone.

Iranian anti-ship cruise missiles — such as the Noor (range approximately 120-170 km), the Qader (range approximately 200-300 km), and longer-range systems like the Abu Mahdi (some versions reaching 1,000 km) — forced American surface combatants to standoff range.

US carriers and their escorts never dared to approach within 300 km of the Iranian coast. Iranian forces fired multiple salvos of anti-ship cruise missiles at both short-range (300 km) and long-range (1,000 km) targets, typically accompanied by swarms of loitering munitions and fast-attack boats.

Although these attacks did not necessarily result in sinkings, they forced US forces to expend vast quantities of defensive missiles and divert air assets to protection missions, significantly impairing American offensive momentum.

Combined with sea-skimming profiles, terminal maneuvering, and saturation tactics, this made interception an extremely expensive affair. The US Navy found itself in an archetypal cost-benefit trap: pitting expensive multimillion-dollar interceptors against cheaper cruise missiles in a highly constrained littoral battlespace where response time was minimal.

Ballistic missile excellence and defeat of theater missile defense

Iran’s ballistic missile force proved to be the decisive strategic weapon. Throughout the 40-day war, Iran maintained a very high volume of fire, launching waves of advanced missiles combining liquid and solid fuel systems with increasing accuracy and survivability.

The Kheibar Shekan (and its modernized versions) played a particularly significant role. This medium-range ballistic missile features a maneuverable reentry vehicle capable of making terminal-phase adjustments at high speed, making reliable interception by Patriot PAC-3 systems extremely difficult.

The combination of speed, altitude profile, and evasive maneuvers stretched the kinematic limits of several Western interceptors. The United States and its allies expended thousands of Patriot and THAAD missiles — costing billions of dollars — yet leak rates remained high enough to damage bases and infrastructure multiple times over.

Targeting the eyes of the US missile defense

One of the enablers of Iran’s astounding success was the systematic targeting of the US missile defense system’s “eyes.” At the beginning of the war, Iranian retaliatory attacks — using both ballistic missiles and drones — damaged or destroyed at least four AN/TPY-2 radars associated with THAAD stations in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.

These powerful X-band radars are essential for providing the long-range, high-resolution tracking needed to achieve exo-atmospheric intercepts. As several of these mission-critical sensors were either blinded or impaired, the effectiveness of the layered US-led missile defense architecture plummeted significantly.

The destruction of early-warning and discrimination capability meant that even advanced THAAD interceptors could no longer reliably engage incoming threats — particularly when Iran combined ballistic missiles with decoys and saturation salvos.

Short-range air defense: The stealthy killers of sophisticated aircraft

Although long-range capabilities dominated headlines, it was Iran’s short- and very-short-range air defense systems that inflicted some of the most crushing damage on US airpower. Electro-optically guided, low-signature launchers such as the Majid (AD-08) and the Qaem-118 — with ranges of approximately 10-15 km — proved incredibly successful.

These systems lack radar emitters, making them nearly invisible to conventional radar warning receivers until a missile is already in flight. During the war, Iranian short-range air defenses were reported to have shot down over 160 drones and several manned aircraft, including F-15E Strike Eagles and A-10 Thunderbolt IIs. Most astonishingly, Iran claimed — and provided evidence of having downed or damaged at least one F-35 Lightning II.

This was widely regarded as nearly impossible before the war. The F-35’s AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) provides 360-degree infrared coverage and can detect incoming missiles, cue countermeasures, and even command evasive maneuvers without pilot input.

The jet is also equipped with advanced infrared countermeasures, including cutting-edge flare dispensers and other systems designed to counteract optically guided threats. Nevertheless, Iranian electro-optical systems repeatedly achieved locks and hits — possibly indicating higher sensor sensitivity, superior image processing, or effective tactics that reduced warning time beyond the F-35’s defensive capabilities.

These short-range systems formed a dense, mobile, and highly integrated air defense grid. Iranian crews adapted quickly as the war progressed: they refined engagement envelopes, improved camouflage and relocation strategies, and closed off previously exploitable avenues.

What began as an occasional threat became a tightening noose. According to American pilot reports, they experienced an ever-shrinking operating range, an increasing risk profile during close air support and strike missions, and a continued deterioration of freedom of maneuver.

The result was a slow strangulation of US air superiority — not necessarily through attrition of aircraft numbers, but through a drastic rise in the risk and cost of every sortie.

Delayed adaptation and cost-imbalance strategy

Iran’s overall strategy rested on three pillars: mass (large quantities of cheaply produced drones and missiles), precision and maneuverability (enhanced guidance packages and terminal-phase evasion), and resilience (mobile launchers, underground bases, and rapid repair capabilities).

This dragged the United States and its allies into a war of attrition in which high-cost, limited-quantity munitions were traded against low-cost, mass-produced Iranian weapons.

Patriot and THAAD interceptors cost millions of dollars each and were often fired in two- or three-shot salvos against each incoming threat. The problem was exacerbated by swarms of drones, which forced defenders to choose between expending expensive interceptors or suffering successful attacks. The result was that US and Persian Gulf inventories were depleted, logistics systems were repeatedly overstretched, and political pressure mounted to de-escalate.

Iran also demonstrated remarkable operational learning. Air defense crews continuously adjusted frequencies, emission control protocols, and ambushing strategies. Missile forces rotated between fixed and mobile positions, employed decoys, and maintained launch efficiency despite persistent American and Israeli airstrikes.

Air corridors that had previously been open became highly contested, forcing American planners to either accept greater risk or reduce operational tempos.

A new model of regional deterrence

Neither side was able to win the Ramadan war on its own traditional battlefield. But in strictly military terms, Iran achieved its fundamental objectives: it deterred a full-scale ground invasion, foiled the “regime change” plots hatched by the enemy, and demonstrated that American troops and airspace were no longer safe havens of American hegemonic power.

This war highlighted a dynamic reality of modern warfare: the absence of qualitative technological superiority can be countered by quantity, asymmetry, and multi-domain integration.

Iran’s ability to combine ballistic missiles that defeat or saturate theater defenses, anti-ship attacks that keep capital ships at standoff range, and short-range electro-optical air defenses proven effective against fifth-generation stealth aircraft — all of this demonstrates that Iran has built an effective A2/AD bubble far stronger than pre-war estimates suggested.

As the dust settles and both sides count the lessons, one inescapable fact remains: the mighty US military is no longer able to dictate its terms at an acceptable pace and cost against a resolute, well-armed regional power equipped with modern asymmetric capabilities.

The Iranian military’s performance has rewritten chapters of the military playbook for future confrontations in the West Asia region — and has sent a powerful message that the era of unparalleled US domination in the region is past.

The ceasefire may have prevented the continuation of a devastating war that could spill over beyond the region, but the military lessons of the ‘Ramadan War’ will continue to shape deterrence calculations, force planning, and alliances in the region for years to come.

Mohammad Molaei is a Tehran-based military affairs analyst.

April 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Comments Off on How Iran decimated US power projection in West Asia: Military lessons of 40-day war

Iran’s report details US-Israeli war crimes in targeting schools, hospitals, livelihoods

Press TV – April 10, 2026

Iran’s Human Rights Headquarters has condemned the US-Israeli attacks that “deliberately” targeted civilian places directly affecting people’s daily lives and livelihoods as a “clear violation” of the most basic humanitarian and legal principles, stressing that they amount to “war crimes”.

In a statement on Friday, the office strongly condemned “the repeated and deliberate attacks by the Zionist regime and the United States against a wide range of civilian targets, including residential homes, hospitals, medical and relief centers, vital infrastructure, economic centers, bridges, schools, as well as vessels and barges used for people’s livelihoods”.

The statement referred to the attack on four fishing boats in the Lengeh port and other civilian vessels set ablaze, saying the attacks have directly violated “fundamental human rights, including the right to life, the right to work and the right to development.”

These acts of aggression “may amount to war crimes”, it said, referring to threats by US President Donald Trump and his war secretary Pete Hegseth to return Iran to the “Stone Age” and attack its vital infrastructure as “a clear evidence of the war crime intent of this aggressor regime.”

The statement noted that the fundamental principle of separation – the principle of distinction between military and civilian – in international humanitarian law obliges all parties to the conflict to avoid targeting civilian persons and property.

“Systematic attacks against ordinary people, the country’s vital arteries and development infrastructure are a gross violation of these principles and constitute a war crime.”

The statement also emphasized that the US and Israeli practice of “collective punishment” of the Iranians breaches the principle of prohibition of the threat and use of force in international law.

“This inhuman approach, which is devoid of the logic of law, morality and human conscience, reveals the true mentality” of those behind these “brutal” attacks, it added.

The statement urged the international community, human rights institutions and the United Nations to take immediate, decisive action against the US and the Israeli regime for committing these crimes and holding them accountable for these crimes.

It warned that any silence or indifference on the part of international institutions constitutes “approval and complicity” in these crimes.

April 10, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Iran’s report details US-Israeli war crimes in targeting schools, hospitals, livelihoods

NATO’s Slow Fracture: How Trump’s Iran War Exposed the Instrument of Hegemony

By Adrian Korczyński – New Eastern Outlook – April 10, 2026

The myth was always more durable than the machinery. NATO presented itself as a collective security architecture; in practice, it functioned as a billing arrangement for American imperial overhead, in which European governments paid in treasure, territory, and political will for the privilege of hosting Washington’s forward operating positions. The Iran war has not broken the alliance. It has simply made the arrangement too expensive to maintain the fiction. When Spain closed its airspace to U.S. flights on 31 March 2026, and Italy denied Sigonella to transiting bombers, it was not a minor rift or hesitation. It was the first visible moment in decades in which the instrument of European subordination refused to execute commands. NATO, as a mechanism of American coercion, has encountered limits.

The Myth of the Monolith

Europe’s formal commitments, ceremonial meetings, and Article 5 promises created an impression of unity. Yet 28 February 2026 revealed the monolith for what it was: a thin shell over a transactional system. The United States and Israel struck Iran first, without consultation, without a Security Council mandate, and without Iranian aggression against U.S. territory. The assassination of Supreme Leader Khamenei was the execution of a sitting head of state, an act that violated international law. Iran’s partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a defensive response, not an act of aggression. European refusal to participate is not mere obstinacy; it is recognition of the legal asymmetry. Compliance was optional the moment the operation violated the norms Europe had quietly internalized.

Compliance, Refused

The operational picture is unequivocal. Spain barred U.S. aircraft from Rota and Morón. Italy prevented Sigonella landings. France blocked munitions intended for Israel. Poland refused to redeploy its Patriot batteries. These refusals are not symbolic; they are concrete disruptions to U.S. planning. Bases, airspace, and munitions are tools of war; withholding them alters outcomes. NATO’s bureaucratic structure remains, but the logic of obedience—the lifeblood of the instrument—has fractured.

Poland illustrates the alliance’s contradictions most starkly. Warsaw has cultivated the image of the United States’ most reliable European client: hosting expanded troop rotations, spending 4.8% of GDP on defence in 2026, providing Patriot batteries, absorbing the economic costs of Ukraine-related sanctions. Operation Epic Fury arrived without consultation. Washington’s subsequent request to redeploy Polish Patriots to the Persian Gulf met a clear refusal. Defence Minister Kosiniak-Kamysz stated: “Our Patriot batteries are used to protect Polish airspace and NATO’s eastern flank. Nothing is changing in this regard.” The message is stark: loyalty is no longer a currency that guarantees influence. Even the most obedient client confronts limits when the cost of compliance exceeds both legality and national interest. Every denial signals a reassertion of European discretion, previously constrained by financial and political leverage wielded by Washington.

Trump, Rubio, and the Transactional Doctrine

Trump’s public denunciations of NATO—calling it a “paper tiger” and European governments “cowards”—and Rubio’s remarks on Fox News are doctrinal, not emotional. Trump suggested that U.S. membership itself is under reconsideration. Rubio asked why America should maintain NATO when the operational support is denied. What they articulate is a formal redefinition: the transatlantic relationship is no longer a guarantee of security; it is a transaction. European compliance in operations like Hormuz now exchanges political obedience for U.S. defence assurances. The logic is imperial, not allied. Empires do not seek permission; they dictate terms and issue invoices. When clients decline, threats of withdrawal follow. This is not a NATO crisis; it is the moment when the protection racket stops pretending to be a mutual defense treaty.

Historical Echo: From Suez to Iran

The lessons of Suez, 1956, resonate here. Britain and France acted militarily without consulting Washington; Eisenhower threatened financial retaliation, forcing withdrawal. Europe learned that independent military initiative without U.S. consent carries unmanageable cost. Iran 2026 reverses the dynamic. Washington acts unilaterally; Europe refuses operational support. The instruments of coercion—financial leverage, dollar dominance—are no longer sufficient. Europe possesses central bank reserves, fiscal tools, and industrial capacity to resist. Suez taught Europe to follow. Iran may be teaching it to lead.

Yuan in Hormuz

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is now operating a live pilot for post-dollar maritime commerce. Ships wishing to transit the Strait are assessed for U.S. or Israeli connections. Friendly vessels—from China, India, Turkey, or neutral states—pay transit fees in Chinese yuan or cryptocurrency. Rates are significant: oil tankers carrying two million barrels face starting fees of one dollar per barrel. Washington launched a war to defend the rules-based international order; in real time, Iran is constructing an alternative settlement infrastructure that bypasses the dollar entirely. The petrodollar system, once the backbone of American financial hegemony, is not debated in conferences—it is bypassed, barrel by barrel, yuan by yuan, as the U.S. Navy observes from afar. This is not a theoretical shift. It is operational, measurable, and immediate.

Europe Responds and the Quiet Proof

European capitals retreated into legal formalism not out of cowardice but calculation—the calculation that the cost of compliance now exceeds the cost of refusal. Macron called the operation illegal, yet deployed the Charles de Gaulle for French interests. Starmer emphasized national priorities. Steinmeier denounced the operation as dangerous. Spain and Italy blocked airspace and bases. France restricted ammunition transit. Simultaneously, a coalition outside Washington—Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey—began mediating Ormuz transit. States are acting to preserve navigational freedom, financial sovereignty, and operational independence without U.S. supervision.

Economic behavior confirms the operational shifts. EU-Iran trade in 2025 reached €3.72 billion, with Germany exporting €963 million and importing €218 million. Italy exported €447 million, and imported €132 million. The Netherlands served primarily as a logistics hub. These flows constitute two-thirds of total EU-Iran commerce. INSTEX remains operative, facilitating transactions despite secondary sanctions. Machinery, transport equipment, and chemical products move across borders under a deliberately maintained European framework. The numbers require no interpretation. While Warsaw was applauding in Davos, Berlin was exporting machinery to Tehran. Strategic autonomy was always practiced. It simply wasn’t named.

The Architecture of Compliance

Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, noted: “Military alliances are, at their core, based on trust. It’s hard to see how any European country will now be able and willing to trust the United States to come to its defense.” The alliance exists in form; obedience does not. European investment in defense, industrial capacity, and energy diversification accelerates independently of U.S. preferences. NATO survives as a bureaucratic structure, but the instrument of American hegemony—the mechanism through which Washington coerced compliance—is no longer operational.

What matters is what emerges where the old order once dominated: a mediation coalition outside U.S. influence, yuan-denominated shipping through Hormuz, European defence funded by its own borrowing, independent industrial capacity, and sustained trade with Iran. These are not marginal adjustments; they are the outlines of a multipolar order actively taking shape. The architecture of compliance is intact. The compliance itself is not. In geopolitics, that distinction is everything.

April 10, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on NATO’s Slow Fracture: How Trump’s Iran War Exposed the Instrument of Hegemony

Chinese jet fuel and the myth of energy independence

Inside China Business | April 8, 2026

Except for in Russia and (ironically) Iran, the war in the Persian Gulf has blown up energy markets everywhere. Worldwide, no country is self-sufficient in all its energy needs, and disruptions in a supply chains anywhere result in major problems everywhere. China is the largest refiner of jet fuel in Asia-Pacific, and has enormous reserves of crude stashed away, which can last months. But immediately after the war on Iran began, China locked down its exports of jet fuel. The effect on prices across Asia was felt immediately, with costs more than doubling in just six weeks. In the United States, fuel prices also soared, and also by over 100%. 

Resources and links:

$140, and going higher: That’s the real price of oil, right now. Oil traders will be wiped out.    • $140, and going higher:  That’s the real p…  

Singapore’s major oil source is blocked and experts warn Australians will pay https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-0…

Australia and Japan face jet fuel supply crunch as China cuts exports https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-ec…

Daily Jet Fuel Spot Prices https://www.airlines.org/dataset/argu…

America’s energy independence https://no01.substack.com/p/americas-…

US crude oil exports decreased by 3% in 2025 despite higher production (+3%) https://www.enerdata.net/publications…

Petroleum & Other Liquids, Imports by Country of Origin https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move…

China set to extend fuel export ban with small exemptions, sources say https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pa…

South Korea to enforce 5-day vehicle rotation system as Mideast conflict hits energy supplies https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific…

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Chinese jet fuel and the myth of energy independence

IRGC: Iranian forces launched no attacks during ceasefire hours

Press TV – April 9, 2026

The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) has categorically denied carrying out reported drone and missile strikes on facilities in countries along the southern edge of the Persian Gulf, stressing that Iranian forces carried out no such operations during the ceasefire hours.

In an official statement on Thursday night, the IRGC stated, “The armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran have not launched any missiles at any country during the ceasefire hours until now.”

The IRGC was responding to a wave of unverified reports circulated by various news agencies over the past few hours alleging Iranian attacks on targets in the Persian Gulf region.

“We would like to inform you that the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran have not launched any missiles at any country during the ceasefire hours until now,” the statement read.

The IRGC further stated that if the media reports prove accurate, “it is undoubtedly the work of the Zionist enemy or the United States,” entities notorious for staging provocations and false-flag operations to destabilize the region and undermine the ceasefire.

Highlighting the Islamic Republic’s policy of transparency and accountability, the IRGC added, “If the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran hit any target, they will boldly announce it in an official statement, and any action that is not in the statements made by the Islamic Republic of Iran has nothing to do with us.”

The IRGC’s decisive clarification exposes yet another attempt by hostile media networks to fabricate narratives against the Islamic Republic at a sensitive time. Iran has remained steadfast in honoring the ceasefire while the Zionist regime continues its aggressive policies across West Asia.

The IRGC reaffirmed the Iranian armed forces’ readiness to defend the country’s sovereignty and regional stability, while exposing the real instigators of any destabilizing actions in the Persian Gulf.

The US and Israel launched an unprovoked war against Iran on February 28, assassinating the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, along with several senior officials, military commanders, and hundreds of civilians.

In retaliation, Iran launched its decisive Operation True Promise 4. Hundreds of ballistic and hypersonic missiles and drones have pounded US military bases across West Asia and Israeli positions throughout the occupied territories.

Throughout the war, Iran continued to target Israeli and American assets in occupied Palestine and US military bases and interests in the Persian Gulf, maintaining its resilience even after about six weeks of fighting.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, False Flag Terrorism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on IRGC: Iranian forces launched no attacks during ceasefire hours

Spain orders reopening of Tehran embassy, condemns Israel’s carpet bombing of Lebanon

The Cradle | April 9, 2026

Spain is reopening its embassy in Tehran in hopes of achieving “peace” in the US-Israeli war against Iran, Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares declared on 9 April.

“I’ve instructed our ambassador in Tehran to return, to take up his post again and reopen our embassy, and for us to join in this effort for peace from every possible quarter, including from the Iranian capital itself,” Albares told reporters.

The move comes as Spain sharply escalates its criticism of Israel and the US, condemning Israeli assault on Lebanon and the broader war on Iran, and pushes for regional de-escalation, according to Reuters.

Spain’s position, voiced by Albares, called the war “the greatest assault on the civilization built upon the humanist ideals of reason, peace, understanding, and universal law.”

He criticized Israel for violating international law and breaching the newly brokered two-week ceasefire after strikes killed more than 254 people and injured over 1,100 in Lebanon on Wednesday.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has reinforced that stance, previously closing Spanish airspace to aircraft involved in attacks on Iran, and renewing calls for the EU to suspend its association agreement with Israel, citing “impunity for (Israel’s) criminal actions.”

He also described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “contempt for life and international law” as “intolerable.”

At the same time, Spain summoned Israeli envoys alongside Italy over incidents involving UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, including the reported detention of a Spanish UNIFIL member.

US officials and allies of US President Donald Trump have pushed for punitive measures after Madrid rejected military cooperation and restricted the use of joint bases, widening the diplomatic rift between the two countries.

One US senator suggested relocating forces to “a country that will allow us to use them.”

Domestically, public opinion mirrors the government’s stance, with a POLITICO European Pulse survey showing that 51 percent of respondents in Spain view Washington as a “threat” to Europe, and 56 percent strongly oppose the US-Israeli offensive on Iran.

Support for European independence is also overwhelming, with 94 percent backing greater autonomy even at economic cost.

Despite welcoming a Pakistani-brokered ceasefire, Sanchez warned Spain would “not applaud those who set the world on fire just because they turn up with a bucket.”

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Comments Off on Spain orders reopening of Tehran embassy, condemns Israel’s carpet bombing of Lebanon

Israel faces ‘unsustainable’ strategic crisis following 40-day war against Iran: Analyst

Press TV – April 9, 2026

The Israeli regime is facing its worst strategic crisis following the 40-day war against Iran amid unsustainable economic burdens, eroding international support, and a deepening military manpower crisis, according to an American-Israeli analyst.

Shaeil Ben-Ephraim, a US-based geopolitical analyst and former diplomat, said with the protracted war in Lebanon looming and no resolution so far in the genocidal war on Gaza, Israel’s “security reality” has deteriorated.

“Israel now faces a worse security reality than before the war,” Ben-Ephraim wrote on X.

He noted that the US-Israel ceasefire deal could restrict Israel’s future ability to act against Tehran, while Iran has demonstrated its capability to strike deep inside the occupied territories with its ballistic missiles.

Perhaps most alarmingly, Ben-Ephraim warned that US -Israeli relations are eroding too.

“Chances are that future rounds against Iran and other potential enemies will be fought with decreasing, and eventually no, American support at all. That is unsustainable,” he said.

He said the regime’s military budget currently stands at $45.7 billion, having already been expanded by nearly $9.6 billion in a recent top-up. However, it sees even that insufficient, requesting an additional $10.9 billion before year’s end just to cover existing commitments.

“For context, that additional $10.9 billion ask alone is roughly equivalent to the entire annual defense budget of a mid-sized European nation,” Ben-Ephraim noted.

Each confrontation with Iran carries a price tag of $16 to $19 billion, he stated, and if such rounds become recurring, Israel “would be spending the equivalent of a small war every year or two, not as an emergency but as a structural cost of existence.”

At that pace, cumulative spending over a decade could reach $160 to $190 billion in direct military costs alone, before factoring in economic disruption, lost productivity from reserve mobilization, or deferred civilian infrastructure.

Israel’s formerly robust relations with some Persian Gulf states are now under severe stress following the war against Iran and the Iranian retaliation, the analyst noted.

“Israeli machinations have put them in serious danger with Iran and caused severe damage to their tourism and energy prospects,” Ben-Ephraim said.

“They will be looking to lessen dependence on the US and possibly move away from normalization with Israel, leaving Israel isolated in the region.”

To counter the lack of diplomatic resolution, Israel has shifted toward a strategy of creating permanent buffer zones in southern Lebanon, Gaza, and parts of Syria, adding to mounting responsibilities in the occupied West Bank.

“Patrolling these vast, hostile areas simultaneously will place an unsustainable long-term strain on IDF (Israeli military) personnel and the domestic economy,” Ben-Ephraim said.

The convergence of record-high reserve call-ups, a significant brain drain in the high-tech sector, and a nearly total loss of the Palestinian labor force has created a critical manpower crisis, he added.

Israeli regime leadership recently warned the situation could cause the military to “collapse in on itself,” Ben-Ephraim said.

While standard deployment for combat reservists has shifted from ad-hoc emergency calls to a structured 60 days per year in 2026 — a one-third reduction from peak burdens in 2025 — constant deployments have caused turnout rates in most reserve battalions to drop to just 60 to 70 percent.

Ben-Ephraim warned that the regime now faces a severe, unsustainable strategic crisis characterized by a permanent war economy, mounting financial strain, and increasing international isolation.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on Israel faces ‘unsustainable’ strategic crisis following 40-day war against Iran: Analyst

Iran restricts Hormuz access to 15 vessels per day under ceasefire terms: Report

The Cradle | April 9, 2026

Iran will restrict maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz to fewer than 15 vessels per day under a Pakistani-brokered ceasefire with the US, a senior Iranian source told Russia’s state-run TASS on 9 April, outlining the conditions for the ceasefire’s continuation.

“Under the current ceasefire, fewer than 15 ships per day are permitted to transit the Strait of Hormuz. This movement is strictly contingent upon Iran’s approval and the enforcement of a specific protocol,” the source said.

“This new regulatory framework, operating under the supervision of the IRGC, has been officially communicated to regional parties. There will be no return to the pre-war status quo,” the source added.

The same official linked the arrangement to broader demands, stating that “the unfreezing of Iran’s blocked assets is a critical executive guarantee that must be realized within this two-week timeframe.”

Tehran has also tied the ceasefire to international backing.

“If the termination of the war is not codified into a UN Security Council resolution based on our stipulated terms, we are fully prepared to resume combat against the US and the Zionist regime … and with even greater intensity,” the source said.

In parallel, Iran insisted that Washington refrain from increasing troop deployments during the truce, while maintaining its right to uranium enrichment.

“Regarding uranium enrichment – we remain committed strictly to the text of the exchanged agreement and are actively holding to it,” the source added.

On 7 April, US President Donald Trump announced a “two-week mutual ceasefire,” describing Iran’s demands as a “working basis” for negotiations and linking the pause in hostilities to reopening Hormuz.

Tehran, in turn, agreed to halt “defensive attacks” on the condition that no strikes target the country.

Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has invited both sides to Islamabad on 10 April for talks, which Iranian state television said are expected to be direct.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran restricts Hormuz access to 15 vessels per day under ceasefire terms: Report

The ‘Opposition Party’ Has Done Nothing to Stop the Iran War and Much to Goad Trump Into Continuing It

By Jeremy Loffredo | April 9, 2026

There is a version of the Democratic Party that exists only in the imagination: the peace party, the anti-war party, the party that marched against the Iraq War and howled at its neocon designers. As Donald Trump (reportedly) accepted Iran’s ceasefire terms this week, some of the most pointed attacks coming his way from Democrats are not about the thousands of civilians killed, the weeks of brutal bombardments against medical centers and universities, or the global economic damage the war has caused. They are about the war ending before the U.S. and Israel finished the job.

And this is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a pattern coming from Democratic senators, the Democratic House Foreign Affairs Committee, ranking members of the Armed Services Committee, and some of the party’s most prominent voices. The liberal opposition party wants more war.

This pattern predates the war. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Kamala Harris called Iran America’s “greatest adversary,” vowed that Iran would never obtain a nuclear weapon under her watch, and argued that Iran’s attacks on Israel would not have happened under her presidency. The Democratic nominee for president was running on a promise to be harder on Iran than Donald Trump.

“What a disaster”

On April 7, 2026, as a ceasefire between the United States and Iran was announced following weeks of devastating U.S.-Israeli bombing campaigns, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) took to X to offer his initial reaction: not relief at the end of the killing, but outrage at the terms Trump had accepted to stop it.

“It appears Trump just agreed to give Iran control of the Strait of Hormuz, a history-changing win for Iran,” Murphy wrote. “The level of incompetence is both stunning and heartbreaking. What on earth is happening?”

And Murphy is not a Democratic Party outlier. The New York Times has called Murphy “one of the future leaders of the party.” The Guardian, the Times, and NBC News have all listed him as a possible 2028 presidential candidate. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has named him one of the party’s “best messengers.” Foreign Policy magazine has called him a “rising Democratic star.”

For Murphy, attempting to end a war against a civilian population that had been brutally bombed for over five weeks was just infuriating.

In a follow-up thread, he wrote: “They will control and toll the Strait for the first time. They keep their nuclear program. They keep their missiles. What a disaster.”

And should anyone point out that at least the killing had stopped, Murphy had an answer ready: “An anti-American regime is in power and emboldened. Iran still has their missiles and nuclear program. That’s ‘good’?”

Murphy is not arguing that the war was unjust, that it violated international law, or that it killed too many innocent women and children, all of which are true and documented. He’s arguing that the ceasefire is a bad deal because it leaves the Iranian government standing with its nuclear program and ballistic missiles intact.

Having a civilian nuclear program is a legal right under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. But Murphy is treating Iran’s exercise of their international right as an American defeat. And as for their intolerable missiles, most countries have militaries, and every country has the right to them.

Trump, for his part, had no good options left: Iran had closed the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices had spiked globally, and American military objectives had not been achieved. The only path out was accepting terms. Stopping the bombing has already saved lives and protected a civilian population from further devastation. Murphy’s “Democratic rising star” objection is not that the war was wrong but that it ended before the Iranian state was entirely destroyed.

‘TACO’ Trump

Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s top Democrat, had established this line — attacking Trump from the right — months earlier, during nuclear deal negotiations in mid-2025. When Trump was reportedly exploring a diplomatic agreement with Tehran as an alternative to war, Schumer coined an acronym: TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out).

“When it comes to negotiating with the terrorist government of Iran, Trump’s all over the lot,” Schumer said. “One day he sounds tough, the next day he’s backing off. If TACO Trump is already folding, the American public should know about it.”

Schumer was not criticizing Trump for threatening war; he was criticizing him for not following through on those threats, demanding that Trump be tougher on Iran at a moment when most Americans, including supermajorities of his own party, supported a diplomatic nuclear deal. Foreign Policy magazine noted that Schumer’s attack was from a position to Trump’s right, using the language of Iran hawks.

When the ceasefire was finally announced, Schumer held a press conference in New York and went through the deal point by point, explaining why the outcome represented an American failure. “The Strait of Hormuz is in worse shape today, with more Iranian domination of it than it was before the war started,” Schumer said. “Iran still has an ayatollah named Khamenei. The Iranian regime is still standing. Not just standing, but now emboldened. And the regime is likely to be even more radical and more dangerous than it was before.” He called Trump “a military moron” and said the war had made the United States worse off than before it started. The Senate’s top Democrat was not upset that the war happened. He was upset that it hadn’t achieved more.

Venezuela: Trump Didn’t Finish the Job

In January 2026, U.S. special forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a nighttime raid and flew him to New York to face drug trafficking charges. Within weeks, the Trump administration settled into a working relationship with Maduro’s former vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, now Venezuela’s acting president. Trump, having removed Maduro, chose to work with the Venezuelan regime rather than dismantle it. Rodriguez, previously sanctioned by Trump’s own Treasury Department, was quietly removed from the sanctions list in April 2026.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats posted a screenshot of the New York Times article reporting the sanctions removal and responded:

“Delcy was Maduro’s brutal co-conspirator to steal an election and repress Venezuelans. 3 months later she’s off the US sanctions list, with zero plans for reforms and her regime still harassing and jailing its political opponents. Trump doesn’t care about Venezuela’s democracy, just its oil.”

Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the body in Congress responsible for overseeing U.S. foreign policy, were not satisfied. The problem, in their telling, was not that Trump had removed a foreign head of state by military force. It was that Trump had cut a deal with his successor rather than going for full regime change.

The Impeachment Spectacle

In 2019, Democrats launched an impeachment process that would run for months, producing two weeks of nationally televised public hearings, 12 witnesses, and more than 30 hours of testimony, before the full House voted to impeach in December. The central charge was that Trump had frozen $400 million in military aid to Ukraine, weapons intended to be used against Russia, a U.S. adversary. Withholding them was, in the Democratic telling, an impeachable betrayal of American interests. Fast forward to 2026: Trump waged a 40-day bombing campaign against Iran, a U.S. adversary, without congressional authorization, and Democrats introduced not impeachment articles but complaints that he failed to hit Iran hard enough.

When Trump withheld weapons from a U.S. enemy’s enemy, Democrats called it impeachable. When Trump actually bombed a U.S. enemy, Democrats called it inadequate. In both cases, they were pushing Donald Trump in exactly the same direction.

All of it, from Schumer’s TACO attacks to the Democratic Foreign Affairs Committee’s frustration with Delcy Rodriguez to Murphy calling a ceasefire “heartbreaking,” points in the same direction. Not toward restraint, not toward diplomacy, but toward a more complete and more decisive confrontation with American adversaries. Whether that reflects genuine hawkishness, reflexive opposition to anything Trump does, or some complicated mixture of both, the political effect is the same. The liberal opposition party is pushing for more war.

Jeremy Loffredo (X: @loffredojeremy) is an independent journalist and filmmaker who covers foreign policy and war.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on The ‘Opposition Party’ Has Done Nothing to Stop the Iran War and Much to Goad Trump Into Continuing It

Moscow backs Tehran on status of Lebanon in US-Iran deal

RT | April 9, 2026

Moscow believes the US-Iran ceasefire has a regional dimension and extends to Lebanon, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told his Iranian counterpart Abbas Aragchi in a phone call on Thursday, according to a readout.

Lavrov stated that Russia fully supports the cessation of hostilities between the US and Iran and Israel’s accession to those agreements. He expressed hope for the success of the upcoming negotiations and reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to help “overcome the consequences of the unprovoked US‑Israeli aggression against Iran and ensure long-term peace and sustainable security in the region.”

The Russian minister also emphasized that Moscow “firmly believes that these agreements, as announced by the Pakistani mediators, have a regional dimension and, in particular, extend to Lebanon.”

Israel has insisted that Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire deal and said it intends to continue operations in the country, where it has conducted extensive airstrikes and launched a ground invasion.

Shortly after the US-Iranian ceasefire was announced, the Israeli military said it carried out its largest wave of strikes on Lebanon since the war began, hitting approximately 100 targets across the country in just ten minutes.

More than 1,700 people have been killed in Israeli strikes since March 2, and over 5,800 have been wounded, including hundreds of women and children, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry.

Iran has made clear that Lebanon must be included in any cessation of hostilities. It has also warned that the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed to shipping until Israel commits to a ceasefire on all fronts.

Araghchi thanked Lavrov for Russia’s “principled position” during UN Security Council meetings on the situation in the Persian Gulf, according to the ministry. The two diplomats also discussed broader regional security issues.

Moscow has consistently condemned the US‑Israeli campaign against Iran, which began on February 28. Russia has called for de‑escalation and a diplomatic solution, while accusing Washington of violating international law.

The Kremlin has also criticized Israel’s strikes on Lebanon, including a March attack on a Russian cultural center in the southern city of Nabatieh.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Moscow backs Tehran on status of Lebanon in US-Iran deal

Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told

Dialogue Works | April 8, 2026

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told

Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief

Press TV – April 8, 2026

Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, has strongly warned of the Israeli regime’s full intention to destroy chances of peace between the United States and Iran.

“The most important thing Israel will work on by all means is eliminating any chances for peace between Iran and America,” he wrote in a post on X on Wednesday.

The regime, he added, would try to torpedo any likelihood of rapprochement between the Persian Gulf’s littoral states and the Islamic Republic with similar zeal.

Such anti-peace efforts on the part of the regime would, meanwhile, “result in marginalizing it (Tel Aviv) in the region and spotlighting the policies of occupation, settlement, and ethnic cleansing it practices, as we see it doing now in Lebanon,” ElBaradei added.

The comments by the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) came after the regime killed hundreds of people in Lebanon shortly after President Donald Trump announced agreeing to a two-week lull in the US’s attacks on Iran.

Trump said a 10-point proposal forwarded by the Islamic Republic serves as a “workable basis on which to negotiate and the main framework for these talks.”

The proposal underlines the need for cessation of aggression throughout the entire region, including in Lebanon, conditioning the Islamic Republic’s stopping its defensive strikes on a halt to aggressors’ regional atrocities.

ElBaradei said “a fundamental condition for peace in the region is for America to rein in Israel’s rampage.”

He, however, regretted that Washington had stopped utterly short of doing so in the face of the regime’s deadly attacks on the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank.

“And the result is clear to everyone: More killing and destruction!”

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »