Is The War Against Iran Over?
It is easier to start than end wars, but this one appears to have run its course
By Mouin Rabbani | April 8, 2026
Is the war against Iran over?
The aerial massacre conducted by Israel in Beirut Wednesday, the Iranian response further limiting passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and a number of other incidents suggest the agreement reached Tuesday is not only fragile but on the verge of collapse.
Yet the more likely scenario is that these are the death throes of a failed war, and that Israel’s furious efforts to re-ignite a full-scale war will fail.
Let’s recall what happened on Tuesday. That morning the US leader, Donald Trump, threatened that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again”.
Shortly before the 8pm deadline for yet another genocide in the Middle East, Pakistan announced that the US and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. Iranians celebrated, Arabs and particularly those in the Gulf breathed an enormous sigh of relief, and Israel and its flunkies went into meltdown.
What changed?
As recent reporting in the New York Times makes clear, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in February successfully sold this war to Trump as one that would be short, decisive, and guaranteed to succeed. A quickie like no other.
With the exception of self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Trump’s advisors all had serious doubts about the Israeli plan, with one describing it as “farcical” and another dismissing the associated optimism as “bullshit”. But being loyal yes-men, they all signed off on it.
The war was intended to achieve Iranian capitulation or collapse within days, and failing that Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities were to be successfully eliminated within a few short weeks.
The Iranians would be so overwhelmed they would be unable to meaningfully retaliate, and the Islamic Republic would cease to exist before it could choke off the Strait of Hormuz and affect global energy supplies.
Success was so certain there was no need to prepare for any contingencies, let alone develop a Plan B.
More than a month later the US has accepted a ceasefire without any of its objectives achieved. Nor have Israel’s been. No regime change, no state collapse, no de-nuclearization, not even a significant degradation of Iran’s ballistic missile program. An attempted operation near Isfahan last week, the purpose of which appears to have been to establish a base within Iranian territory, went disastrously wrong.
More importantly, Iran was not only able to absorb a series of devastating blows and consistently retaliate against states throughout the region, and target and credibly threaten vital infrastructure, but Tehran also established unilateral control over the Strait of Hormuz. In response, the most powerful navy in history went out of its way to stay well over the horizon.
Iran, in other words, managed to transform the war against it into first a regional crisis and then a global economic crisis. While the US-Israeli bombing campaign continued to focus on the degradation of Iran’s military and industrial and civilian infrastructure, and although it inflicted enormous damage and killed thousands, the US focus visibly shifted to the economic ramifications of its war and re-opening the Strait of Hormuz by hook or by crook.
Washington shifted from achieving its original objectives to addressing the consequences of its own actions.
The US came to the realization that it had too eagerly purchased the counterfeit goods offered at a bargain basement price by Israel, and that achieving its objectives through warfare would require a massive commitment of additional resources. Not only was success still not guaranteed, but the disruption even success would entail would be prohibitively costly.
All the indications are that it was the US which called it a day, and that it was the US that engaged Pakistan, China, and others to bring its adventure to an end.
Trump’s genocidal threats about ending Iranian civilization appear to have been made after he knew a ceasefire was imminent, and as such may well have primarily reflected his need to look tough before accepting reality.
The suggestions that the US and Israel are using the two-week ceasefire to re-arm and resupply doesn’t really make sense. The equipment and weaponry most needed will take months if not years to replace, and the active war did not prevent the US from deploying tens of thousands of additional forces to the Middle East.
The coming days will demonstrate whether or not Iran is serious about bringing Israeli aggression against not only Iran but also Lebanon to an end. Indications are that it is. If indeed so, and as it has stated, Washington will need to choose between Israeli aggression and the Strait of Hormuz.
If that proves an insufficient incentive, and Tehran is serious, it has other options it can deploy. It is unlikely that the US will choose to fall into an Israeli trap, at even greater cost, yet again. Unlikely, but not impossible.
Over the course of the past six weeks Iran has sustained much more damage than it has inflicted. Yet strategically it emerges in a strengthened position relative to where it stood in late February. It neither capitulated, nor collapsed, nor sued for peace.
More to the point, absent this war Iran would not have been able to establish unilateral control over the Strait of Hormuz, and it is not going to fully relinquish this new-found power and leverage over the global economy. In real terms, this is worth more to Iran than a nuclear weapons arsenal, which it may well now develop anyway if negotiations do not result in a satisfactory agreement.
If and when negotiations commence, Iran will put less on the table, and demand more, than it accepted in either the 2015 JCPOA unilaterally renounced by the first Trump administration, or in negotiations with the US during the past year.
The US can make a deal, or refuse one, but at present it does not seem that resuming the war for the purpose of unattainable objectives is a realistic option for Washington. A return to maximum pressure is also no longer an option, because in the Strait of Hormuz Iran can now respond with maximum pressure of its own.
I’ve been wrong before and will of course be wrong again, and perhaps by tomorrow morning Israel or the US will have dropped a nuclear bomb on Iran or are preparing a ground invasion for next month.
Never underestimate the willingness of Americans to be led to disaster by their Israeli proxy. With actors as fanatic, irrational, and hubristic as the US and Israel, anything is possible.
Two issues to look for are Lebanon and Hegseth. Will Washington continue to indulge Israeli aggression against Lebanon, or will it order it to stop in order to wind this crisis down? As for Hegseth, if he is sent back to Rupert Murdoch to drown his sorrows in a succession of bottles, it means the US recognizes it has failed and has sacrificed him as its scapegoat.
The larger question is whether there will be a reckoning for Israel and the central role it played in this fiasco. If and when this reckoning arrives, this should start from the premise that it was Israel’s determination to permanently dispossess the Palestinian people that produced this crisis.
The refusal to properly address the question of Palestine, and the assumption that it can be resolved by armed force and slaughter, remains the root cause of the crisis that has now engulfed the entire region and beyond.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
The Black Cube Files: How Former Mossad Operatives Flipped a Nation
Inside the Israeli intelligence operation that shook Slovenia
José Niño Unfiltered | April 8, 2026
10 days before a national election, with secretly recorded videos of government officials circulating online and former Israeli intelligence operatives confirmed to have visited opposition party headquarters, Slovenia abruptly reversed its decision to join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
The official explanation pointed to national security concerns. Slovenian officials warned that joining could “jeopardize Slovenia’s national security,” citing the uncomfortable reality that many of the country’s cyber defense systems are of Israeli origin. They noted that Israeli authorities play a crucial role in facilitating Slovenian humanitarian operations in Gaza and in evacuating Slovenian nationals from the Middle East.
Foreign Minister Tanja Fajon expressed regret, calling the internal debate “quite emotional and exhausting.” When asked about external pressure, Fajon acknowledged, “It is clear that these pressures exist, we are all subjected to them by superpowers, and ultimately this must be taken into account when deciding.”
What Fajon did not say, but what Slovenian intelligence would confirm days later, was that operatives from Black Cube, a private intelligence firm founded by former Israeli military intelligence officers and advised by former Mossad chiefs, had been operating on Slovenian soil for months. They had visited the headquarters of the opposition party. They had lured government officials into staged meetings using a fictitious British investment fund. They had secretly recorded them.
Almost nobody in the English-speaking world covered it.
In the annals of intelligence operations that never quite make the headlines, few stories rival what unfolded in Slovenia between December 2025 and March 2026. A small European nation of two million people found itself at the center of geopolitical intrigue involving former Israeli military intelligence officers, fictitious investment funds, secretly recorded politicians, and a last-minute reversal that may have saved Slovenia from whatever consequences Israel had in store.
A Relationship Built on Trade and Transformed by War
Israel and Slovenia established diplomatic relations on April 28, 1992, shortly after Slovenia declared independence from Yugoslavia. For decades the relationship remained cordial if unremarkable, built on a bilateral investment protection agreement signed in 1998 and a double taxation treaty signed in 2007, along with occasional state visits. Israeli President Shimon Peres visited Ljubljana in 2010. Slovenia designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization in November 2020, treating the group in its entirety as a “criminal and terrorist organization posing a threat to peace and security” — notably declining to distinguish between Hezbollah’s military and political wings as most EU countries had done.
The relationship strengthened under conservative Prime Minister Janez Janša, who governed from 2020 to 2022. Janša cultivated close personal ties with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ordered the Israeli flag raised over his party headquarters during a moment of crisis. In December 2020, Janša traveled to Israel and met with representatives of five Israeli companies, including the controversial spyware firm NSO Group, according to Slovenian investigative outlet Oštro. The Slovenian government confirmed the meeting but stated no deals were concluded.
In August 2021, Slovenia’s Government Information Security Office signed a cybersecurity cooperation memorandum with the Israeli National Cyber Directorate. The country purchased Spike missiles from Rafael and received armored vehicle components from Elbit Systems in contracts stretching back to the 1990s.
Then came October 2023 and the war in Gaza.
The Golob Pivot
When center-left Robert Golob unseated Janša in 2022, Slovenia’s posture toward Israel began shifting. After the Gaza war erupted, the transformation became dramatic.
Slovenia became the first European nation to join the ICJ advisory opinion proceedings on Israel’s control of occupied territories in January 2024, submitting written comments while other EU states held back. On June 4, 2024, Slovenia officially recognized the State of Palestine. In July 2025, the country declared Israeli ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich persona non grata, becoming the first EU member state to do so. On July 31, 2025, Slovenia announced a comprehensive arms embargo covering import, export, and transit of all weapons to and from Israel, again the first EU member state to take such action.
In September 2025, Slovenia banned Netanyahu himself from entering the country, the first EU nation to do so, citing the ICC arrest warrant. By early 2026, Slovenia was preparing to join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the ICJ. Foreign Minister Tanja Fajon expressed strong support.
Then everything changed.
The Black Cube Files
Black Cube, officially BC Strategy Ltd, describes itself as “the world’s leading intelligence firm” staffed by “veterans of elite Israeli Intelligence Units.” Founded in 2010 by Dan Zorella, a former IDF Military Intelligence officer, and Dr. Avi Yanus, a former IDF strategic planning officer, the firm operates in over 75 countries and employs more than 100 investigators fluent in 30 languages.
The firm’s advisory board reads like a who’s who of Israeli intelligence. Meir Dagan, the former Mossad chief who ran the agency from 2002 to 2011, served as Black Cube’s honorary president until his death in 2016 and was heavily involved in the firm from its earliest stages. Other advisory board members include Efraim Halevy, another former Mossad head, and Major General Giora Eiland, former head of the Israeli National Security Council.
Black Cube became globally infamous through the Harvey Weinstein scandal. The film producer hired the firm, reportedly on a referral from former Israeli PM Ehud Barak, to suppress sexual harassment allegations. Black Cube agents tracked journalists investigating Weinstein, including Ronan Farrow of The New Yorker and Jodi Kantor of The New York Times. They targeted accusers, particularly Rose McGowan, using an operative who posed as a women’s rights supporter. The explicit contract goal, as Farrow documented in his Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting, was to “completely stop the publication of a new negative article in a leading NY newspaper.”
The firm also saw five employees convicted in Romania — two lower-level operatives arrested in 2016 and three company founders including Zorella and Yanus in 2022 — for targeting the country’s chief anticorruption prosecutor, Laura Codruța Kövesi, through hacking and harassment. Black Cube conducted operations targeting researchers at Citizen Lab who were investigating NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware. The firm was also hired to find compromising material on architects of the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, including former officials Colin Kahl and Ben Rhodes, according to NBC News.
And then Black Cube turned its attention to Slovenia.
Spies in Ljubljana
Between December 10 and 11, 2025, three Black Cube representatives arrived in Slovenia. According to the Slovenian government and ABC News, the three operatives were Dan Zorella, the firm’s co-founder, Liron Tzur, and Giora Eiland, the former head of Israel’s National Security Council who sits on Black Cube’s advisory board. Flight records and intelligence data confirmed they visited Trstenjakova Street No. 8 in Ljubljana, where Janša’s Slovenian Democratic Party maintains its headquarters.
On December 22, 2025, senior Black Cube figures reportedly met with Janša himself. The opposition leader later admitted to having “contacts with an adviser from the Israeli private intelligence agency Black Cube” but denied doing anything illegal.
Between January and March 2026, Black Cube operatives posing as representatives of a fictitious British investment fund called “Stockard Capital” lured Slovenian political figures into staged business meetings in Vienna and other locations, secretly recording them. Among the targets was former Justice Minister Dominika Švarc Pipan.
Roughly ten days before the election, an anonymous website called anti-corruption2026.com appeared online, publishing edited videos of government figures including officials from Golob’s Freedom Movement party. The content was described by analyst Lily Lynch as “more embarrassing than criminal.”
On March 16, 2026, Slovenian investigative journalist Borut Mekina of Mladina presented findings at a press conference with civil society researchers linking Black Cube to the secretly recorded videos and to Janša’s party. The following day, Prime Minister Golob accused “foreign services” of interfering in the election, calling it “the biggest scandal we have witnessed in Slovenia since independence.”
“Clear-Cut Interference”
On March 22, 2026, Slovenia held its parliamentary elections. Golob’s Freedom Movement party narrowly defeated Janša’s SDS despite the scandal.
French President Emmanuel Macron stated that Golob “was the victim of clear-cut interference” by “third countries” and misinformation, according to Euronews.
On March 26, 2026, SOVA, the Slovenian Intelligence and Security Agency, “unequivocally confirmed the activity of foreign influence” on the elections. Agency chief Joško Kadivnik presented material evidence linking the three Black Cube operatives to the SDS headquarters visit and demonstrating “counterintelligence operations against the Republic of Slovenia and foreign interference in Slovenian elections.”
The evidence was handed to prosecutors and police.
The Dependency Trap
The Slovenia episode illuminates a dynamic rarely discussed in Western capitals. Israeli defense and cybersecurity firms have quietly embedded themselves into the security infrastructure of allied nations, creating dependencies that carry geopolitical weight.
Slovenia procured Elbit Systems weapon stations and turrets for its Patria AMV armored vehicle program in 2007. It purchased Spike anti-tank missiles from Rafael in multiple transactions, including a $6.6 million deal for 50 Spike LR2 missiles in September 2022. It signed a cybersecurity memorandum with Israel’s National Cyber Directorate in 2021.
Yet despite declaring a full arms embargo in July 2025, a Haaretz investigation in August 2025 revealed that Slovenia purchased €828,000 in Israeli military equipment in 2024 and continued planning to acquire Spike missiles through EuroSpike, a joint venture between Rafael and German defense firms Rheinmetall and Diehl that manufactures the missiles in Germany.
Israel’s influence operations demonstrate that a country’s sovereignty is only as secure as its gatekeepers. A truly free nation must ensure that Israeli nationals and their intelligence assets are permanently barred from setting foot on its soil.
Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told
Dialogue Works | April 8, 2026
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!”
Ceasefire for all or for none: Iran shuts Hormuz over Lebanon attacks
Al Mayadeen | April 8, 2026
In response to recent Israeli attacks on Lebanon, Iranian officials are calling for decisive measures to counter the aggression in support of Lebanon and its people, warning that the Strait of Hormuz could be closed again until the attacks on Lebanon stop.
Ibrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said in a post on X: “In response to the brutal Israeli aggression on Lebanon, the movement of ships in the Strait of Hormuz must be immediately stopped, and a strong, decisive strike must be launched to prevent further attacks by the Israeli entity.”
The Iranian official paid tribute to the Lebanese people, asserting that “we must not leave them alone for a second.” Rezaei emphasized the need for clarity on the terms of engagement and rejected the separation of the battlefields in Iran and Lebanon, stating, “Either there is a ceasefire on all fronts, or there is no ceasefire on any front.”
Iran’s UN envoy stresses ceasefire in Lebanon, warns of consequences
On his part, Iran’s envoy to the United Nations in Geneva, Ali Bahraini, stressed the importance of “Israel” upholding the ceasefire in Lebanon, adding that Tehran will approach peace negotiations with Washington cautiously due to a deep lack of trust.
Bahraini stated, “In light of the deep lack of trust, Tehran will deal cautiously with ‘peace’ negotiations with Washington, while at the same time remaining on military alert.”
The UN envoy also stressed the role of “Israel” in the ongoing aggressions, declaring, “We emphasize the necessity of the Israeli entity’s commitment to a ceasefire in Lebanon.”
He further warned about the consequences of continued hostilities, saying, “We warn that the continuation of attacks will lead to further complications and the resulting severe consequences.”
On the issue of talks, Bahraini said Iran will approach the talks with the US in Islamabad with far more caution than previous negotiations due to “the deep chasm of mistrust, while remaining on military alert.”
“We are not putting any trust in the other side. Our military forces are keeping their preparedness…but meanwhile, we will go for negotiations to see how serious the other side is,” the ambassador told Reuters.
Iran considering withdrawal from ceasefire if ‘Israel’ continues Lebanon assault
Iran may withdraw from the ceasefire agreement if “Israel” continues violating the truce by launching attacks on Lebanon, an informed source told Tasnim News Agency.
The source told the agency that “Iran is currently studying the possibility of withdrawing from the ceasefire agreement with the continuation of the Israeli entity’s violations and its aggression against Lebanon.”
The report noted that halting the war on all fronts, including against the “Resistance forces” in Lebanon, had been accepted by the United States as part of a two-week ceasefire plan. However, the source added, “Since this morning, in blatant violation of the ceasefire, the Israeli entity has carried out brutal attacks against Lebanon.”
In response, Iranian armed forces are identifying targets to retaliate against Israeli aggression in Lebanon, Tasnim‘s source said, further warning, “If the United States is unable to restrain its rabid dog in the region, Iran will assist it in this matter, exceptionally, through force.”
Moreover, a senior Iranian official also told Press TV that “Iran will punish Israel for its aggression against Lebanon and violations of the ceasefire.”
Cementing this stance, Fars News Agency reported that oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz was halted following the Israeli attacks, though two tankers had earlier received safe passage clearance after Tehran’s conditions were accepted and the ceasefire went into effect.
Later, a source in the Iranian Navy confirmed the Strait’s closure, saying, “We have closed the Strait of Hormuz, and currently, only Iranian ships and vessels coming from Iran are passing through”
“Only two oil tankers were able to benefit from the ceasefire and pass through the Strait of Hormuz before ‘Israel’ violated the agreement,” he added.
Iran conditions deal on ceasefire in Lebanon
Iran has tied any move toward a ceasefire in the US-Israeli war to the halt of all aggression on every front, including in Lebanon. Tehran’s leadership insists a lasting end to hostilities must go beyond a temporary truce and must stop attacks against Iran and its allies.
Tehran’s 10‑point proposal, which Washington has accepted as the basis for talks during the two-week ceasefire, calls for the cessation of all aggression in the region as a precondition for peace negotiations. The plan demands an end to wartime attacks and a guarantee that further aggression will not be launched against Iran or allied forces.
Among other conditions, the proposal includes a commitment to end all US and Israeli military operations targeting Iranian territory and groups aligned with Tehran, as well as halting aggression that “Israel” launched on Lebanon, among other countries in the region.
Iran’s negotiators emphasize that without a permanent stop to the war’s aggression on all fronts, including the war in Lebanon, any cease‑fire would be meaningless and could allow enemy forces to regroup and resume attacks.
‘Israel’ sticks to its criminal ways, violating the agreement
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unilaterally decided that the ceasefire agreement does not include Lebanon, effectively violating the terms of the agreement reached between Tehran and Washington and potentially derailing the process to reach a permanent ceasefire.
In a statement posted on the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office X account, Netanyahu said the Israeli regime backs Washington’s efforts to ensure Iran “no longer poses a nuclear, missile and terror threat,” and acknowledged that the United States had communicated its commitment to achieving these goals in upcoming negotiations.
However, buried at the end of the statement was a unilateral carve-out: “The two-week ceasefire does not include Lebanon.”
Barely hours after the ceasefire was reached, the Israeli occupation forces brazenly violated the agreement, launching a wide-scale attack targeting the entirety of Lebanon from south to east with more than 100 strikes and committing harrowing massacres in Beirut, the South, and the Bekaa. ِThe Israeli aggression killed and wounded hundreds, the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health reported, while the Lebanese Red Cross reported that 100 ambulances were working on rescue operations across the country.
