Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump’s Failed Mission to China

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | May 15, 2026

The Beijing circus is over and Donald Trump’s talks with Xi Jinping produced nothing more than some pleasing photo ops and some performative diplomacy with no substantive accomplishments.

There was no final communique at the end of Trump’s two days of meetings with Xi Jinping. Instead, we are left to rely on the statements from each government. When you parse the two statements, the two readouts diverge significantly, and the gaps are as informative as the overlaps. When you compare what each side claims was discussed you can see what actually transpired at the summit.

The divergence between the two readouts is stark and strategically deliberate. Here is a precise accounting of what the White House emphasized that China’s Foreign Ministry either omitted entirely or mentioned only in the vaguest terms:

1. The Iran War and Nuclear Weapons — Omitted by China

This is the most consequential gap. The White House readout stated explicitly:

The two sides agreed that the Strait of Hormuz must remain open to support the free flow of energy. President Xi also made clear China’s opposition to the militarization of the Strait and any effort to charge a toll for its use, and he expressed interest in purchasing more American oil to reduce China’s dependence on the Strait in the future. Both countries agreed that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.”PBS

The Chinese readout, by contrast, merely said that “the two sides discussed the Middle East conflict” without offering any further details — no mention of the Strait, no mention of tolls, no mention of Iran’s nuclear program, and no acknowledgment of any agreed position on any of those issues. YouTube

This gap is enormous. The White House is asserting that China agreed Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and opposed Iran’s toll regime. That White House is spinning this as significant Chinese concessions that Beijing clearly did not want attributed to it publicly. However, according to a reliable source with access, Xi firmly rejected Trump’s request that China apply pressure on Iran and help open the Strait of Hormuz.

2. Fentanyl — Omitted by China

The White House readout specifically noted that the two sides discussed “addressing fentanyl precursor flows into the United States” — a longstanding US demand that China reduce the flow of chemical precursors used to manufacture fentanyl. The Chinese readout made no mention of fentanyl whatsoever, which is consistent with Beijing’s longstanding position that it has already done enough on the issue and resists framing it as a bilateral problem. Komo News

3. Agricultural Purchases — Omitted by China

The White House noted that the two presidents discussed “increasing Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural products.” China’s readout spoke only in general terms about trade being “mutually beneficial” and made no specific commitment to agricultural purchases. YouTube

4. Market Access for US Businesses — Framed Very Differently

The White House described the meeting as centered on “expanding market access for American businesses into China and increasing Chinese investment into US industries.” China’s readout framed this entirely differently — as China “opening its door wider” on its own terms, not as a response to US demands for market access.

5. The Business Delegation — Treated Asymmetrically

The White House noted that “leaders from many of the United States’ largest companies joined a portion of the meeting,” treating it as a substantive commercial engagement. The Chinese readout mentioned that Trump “asked each of the business leaders who were traveling with him to present themselves to President Xi” — framing it as a courtesy introduction rather than a substantive business discussion. YouTube

6. Taiwan — The Mirror Image Problem

The most telling asymmetry runs in the opposite direction on Taiwan. The White House readout did not mention Taiwan at all, while China centered its entire readout on Xi’s Taiwan warning. Trump declined to answer a reporter’s question about whether he and Xi had even discussed Taiwan. Rubio told NBC News that the US was “not asking for China’s help with Iran” — a comment that implicitly pushes back on what the White House readout seemed to suggest about Chinese cooperation. The National DeskBreitbart

The Bottom Line

Both sides released statements detailing what Trump and Xi discussed, but they only overlap in limited areas. The statements diverge most sharply on Iran — where the US claims specific Chinese commitments that China refused to acknowledge — and on Taiwan, where China made explicit warnings that the US declined to even mention. NPR

The pattern is diplomatically classic: each side published the readout that serves its domestic political needs and advances its negotiating position. China wanted the world to see Xi issuing stern warnings on Taiwan. Washington wanted the world to see China agreeing that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and opposing Iran’s toll regime. Whether either claimed concession is real — or merely asserted — is precisely what makes the readout divergence so revealing.

The Strategic Framework

Xi opened with a sweeping philosophical framing: “Transformation not seen in a century is accelerating across the globe, and the international situation is fluid and turbulent.” He posed three questions to Trump directly: Can China and the United States overcome the Thucydides Trap and create a new paradigm of major-country relations? Can we meet global challenges together and provide greater stability for the world? Can we build a bright future together for our bilateral relations? Wikipedia

Xi announced the two leaders had “agreed on a new vision of building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability,” defining it precisely: “Constructive strategic stability means positive stability with cooperation as the mainstay, healthy stability with competition within proper limits, constant stability with manageable differences, and lasting stability with expectable peace.” He said this framework “will provide strategic guidance for China-U.S. relations over the next three years and beyond” and stressed: “Building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability is not a slogan. It means actions in the same direction.” Wikipedia

Trade and Economics

Xi stated that “China-U.S. economic and trade ties are mutually beneficial and win-win in nature. Where disagreements and frictions exist, equal-footed consultation is the only right choice.” He said the economic and trade teams had “produced generally balanced and positive outcomes” at preparatory talks the prior day, and that “China will only open its door wider. U.S. businesses are deeply involved in China’s reform and opening up.” Wikipedia

Military and Diplomatic Channels

Xi called on the two sides to “make better use of communication channels in the political and diplomatic and military-to-military fields” and to “expand exchanges and cooperation in areas such as the economy and trade, health, agriculture, tourism, people-to-people ties and law enforcement.” Wikipedia

Taiwan — The Sharpest Language in the Readout

Xi was unambiguous: “The Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-U.S. relations. If it is handled properly, the bilateral relationship will enjoy overall stability. Otherwise, the two countries will have clashes and even conflicts, putting the entire relationship in great jeopardy. ‘Taiwan independence’ and cross-Strait peace are as irreconcilable as fire and water. Safeguarding peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait is the biggest common denominator between China and the U.S. The U.S. side must exercise extra caution in handling the Taiwan question.” Wikipedia

International Issues

The readout notes that the two presidents “exchanged views on major international and regional issues, such as the Middle East situation, the Ukraine crisis, and the Korean Peninsula” — but offered no further detail on any of those topics in the official Chinese text. Wikipedia

APEC and G20

The two presidents agreed to support each other in hosting a successful APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting and G20 Summit this year. Wikipedia


Wang Yi’s Closing Assessment — May 15

Foreign Minister Wang Yi told state media: “This was an important meeting in which the two heads of state engaged in in-depth communication and achieved substantial outcomes,” calling it “a historical meeting.” He particularly touted progress on trade and economic issues. China’s Foreign Ministry also confirmed that President Xi Jinping will visit the United States this fall at the request of President Donald Trump.

As far as Iran is concerned, the Chinese and Russians are working behind the scenes — using Pakistan as a frontman — to erect a new security architecture for the Persian Gulf. The current effort is to convince Saudi Arabia and Qatar to effectively cut military ties with the US and enter into a strategic agreement that will be guaranteed by Russia and China. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar persist with prohibiting the US to use their bases and air space for a new set of attacks against Iran, the US may be compelled to call off planned strikes.

Video interviews

May 16, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Video | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s Failed Mission to China

Iranian military official warns ‘safe’ US targets now within range

Al Mayadeen | May 16, 2026

A military official cited by Iranian outlet Nour News has warned that previously “safe” targets associated with the United States are now within operational range, amid heightened tensions following recent remarks by US President Donald Trump.

The statement followed comments made by Trump to reporters on Air Force 1 after his visit to China, where he suggested that the US “wiped out their armed forces, essentially.”

The US president added that Washington “may have to do a little cleanup work” in Iran, which the official described as part of escalating threats against the country.

According to the official, Iran’s armed forces have notified all operational units of a “comprehensive immediate response plan” designed to deliver a rapid and forceful reaction to any US military action.

The official told Nour News that any “miscalculation or hostile action” would be met with “heavy and simultaneous fire” targeting a broad range of US interests and infrastructure in the region.

The report also stated that targets previously excluded from engagement considerations during earlier conflict periods have now been placed under operational review.

Expanded targeting range and operational escalation

The officer further told the news outlet that the new operational framework expands Iran’s response capacity, stating that “targets that were not hit during the 40-day war due to considerations have been given operational priority this time.”

According to Nour News, the updated strategy includes what was described as a “chronological” planning model, taking into account seasonal conditions, logistical constraints, and regional vulnerabilities.

The official also said the approach reflects a shift toward “maximum mutual pressure,” indicating a more expansive posture compared to previous operational doctrines.

Strategic considerations and regional vulnerabilities cited

The report attributed the revised planning to a broader assessment of regional and trans-regional conditions, including energy pressures and logistical bottlenecks affecting US operations in the region.

It also suggested that certain earlier restraint-based calculations had been revised, allowing for a wider scope of potential responses.

May 16, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iranian military official warns ‘safe’ US targets now within range

US’s war of choice on Iran imposed avoidable costs on Americans: FM

Press TV – May 16, 2026

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says the US’s unprovoked aggression towards Iran has burdened ordinary Americans with avoidable economic costs.

“Americans are told that they must absorb rocketing costs of war of choice on Iran,” the top diplomat wrote in a post on X on Saturday.

“Put aside gas price hike and stock market bubble. Real pain begins when US debt and mortgage rates start to jump. Auto loan delinquencies are already at 30+-year high,” he added. “This was all avoidable.”

Together with the Israeli regime, the United States waged its latest bout of unlawful attacks on the Islamic Republic between February 28 and April 7.

The aggression prompted decisive and uncompromising reprisal featuring devastating blows to American and Israeli targets across the region. In addition to causing extensive material damage to the targeted sites, the Islamic Republic shut down the strategic Strait of Hormuz to enemies and their allies, therefore, sending shockwaves throughout global energy markets.

Including reconstruction and replacement costs, the war is so far estimated to have run Washington a cost likely ranging between $40 billion and $50 billion.

Economists, meanwhile, project the overall cost of continued restrictions imposed on the Strait of Hormuz to end up astronomically higher.

Professor Linda Bilmes, a public policy expert at Harvard Kennedy School, recently forecast that the war on Iran could ultimately cost American taxpayers $1 trillion.

On Friday, Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, Iran’s Majlis (Parliament) speaker, warned that the United States’ efforts at sustaining military escalation near the strait could trigger a fresh global financial crisis at a time when Washington’s national debt already stands at a whopping $39 trillion.

May 16, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on US’s war of choice on Iran imposed avoidable costs on Americans: FM

AIPAC Favorite Ed Gallrein Wants to Bring Back the Draft

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | May 15, 2026

Ed Gallrein is running against Thomas Massie in Kentucky. Trump hates Massie because he opposes the Iran boondoggle war. Massie has also demanded the release of the Epstein files. Ed has received a whopping $11,824,741 from the Israel lobby. That’s on the high end of donations, so you get an idea how important it is to defeat Massie and gain another voice for Israel in Congress.

There is one issue at the top of Gallrein’s list. Ed mentioned it during an interview with USA Cares, a veterans organization in Kentucky. The reimplementation of a military draft. Ed says we need it for “national security.” Considering the hefty sum donated by the lobby, it is natural to conclude much of that “national security” concerns Israel.

It is telling Gallrein complains about the slowness of the current system. The Selective Service system is inadequate for the sort of insta-wars the War Department is in the process of rolling out as of late. If you want to occupy a country the size of Iran, you need more than a million soldiers. For an occupation of Cuba, far less. Ed wants to take us back to days of the Vietnam War. Some of us remember how that turned out. Millions protested in the street and Lyndon Johnson refused to run for re-election. Nixon ran the war into the ground.

It will likely take a similar tactic to that used by the Ukrainian military when it hunts down reluctant draftees. Maybe that would become a task for ICE. Maybe there would be violent anti-draft riots like there were in northern cities during the War Between the States.

If Gallrein wins—and it is a close race—Kentuckians can look forward to having another bought-and-paid-for representative, this one ready to draft American kids and send them to help Zionist Israel become the undisputed hegemon of West Asia and realize its Greater Israel project.

May 15, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on AIPAC Favorite Ed Gallrein Wants to Bring Back the Draft

China’s position on Iran, Hormuz remains unchanged

Al Mayadeen | May 15, 2026

China moved on Friday to publicly reaffirm its longstanding position on Iran after speculation and conflicting reports circulated regarding Beijing’s stance during recent regional tensions, with the Chinese Foreign Ministry publishing a full statement outlining its official position.

Asian diplomatic sources told Al Mayadeen that Washington is expected to continue promoting claims that it succeeded in persuading Beijing to pressure Iran, particularly following recent US-China discussions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranian nuclear file.

The sources said that the growing American rhetoric regarding “the Iranian nuclear issue” or claims of an agreement with Beijing on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open “without fees” are merely “attempts at media flooding and covering up the essence of the matter.”

China’s position on Iran clear, unchanged

The sources stressed that China’s position toward Iran “is clear and unchanged,” dismissing reports suggesting a shift in Beijing’s stance as false. They noted that China deliberately refrained from discussing Iran publicly during earlier talks before later issuing a full Foreign Ministry statement outlining its official position in detail.

Beijing continues to oppose the possession of nuclear weapons while simultaneously supporting Iran’s right to the peaceful use of uranium and civilian nuclear technology. China also maintains its longstanding position in favor of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and preventing its militarization, while supporting Iran’s rights as a coastal state bordering the strategic waterway.

The sources added that “China buying oil or gas from the United States is nothing new because China diversifies its energy sources, but no one can replace Iranian oil or Hormuz energy imports, which constitute 45 percent of its energy needs.”

They further noted that China continues to support the creation of a joint regional security structure among Gulf states without outside interference, describing Beijing’s current “calm rhetoric” as an attempt to contain the “arrogance” of US President Donald Trump and his allies while creating conditions for a broader agreement through mutually beneficial economic incentives.

The sources noted that narratives suggesting a major Chinese shift against Iran are either inaccurate, deliberately misleading, or attempts to present recent diplomatic developments in the best possible light for Washington.

Trump, Xi, agree to address each other’s concerns

Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump held extensive discussions on bilateral and global issues and reached a series of new common understandings, China’s Foreign Ministry said Friday, as Beijing called for accelerated diplomacy between the United States and Iran.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said the two leaders agreed to address each other’s concerns and enhance communication and coordination on international and regional affairs, describing the talks as a step toward building a “constructive and stable strategic relationship” between China and the US.

Commenting on ongoing US-Iran negotiations, the Chinese Foreign Ministry stressed that a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire should be achieved “as soon as possible,” adding that a rapid resolution would benefit the United States, Iran, regional countries, and the broader international community.

The war between Iran and the United States should not have erupted in the first place, and there is no need for it to continue,” the ministry said.

Beijing reiterated its longstanding position that dialogue and negotiations remain the best path forward, warning against military escalation and emphasizing that “a military solution is not the answer.”

Now that the door to dialogue has been opened, it should not be closed again,” the ministry said, calling for efforts to consolidate momentum toward de-escalation. China also said it would continue working with the international community to provide greater support for peace talks between the US and Iran.

May 15, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on China’s position on Iran, Hormuz remains unchanged

UAE launches Muslim Shia crackdown under cover of ‘Iran-linked terror’ claims

By Robert INLAKESH | MintPress News | April 22, 2026

The United Arab Emirates says it has dismantled an Iran-linked “terrorist organisation” targeting the Muslim Shia community of the UAE. But the evidence made public so far tells a different story — one that raises serious questions about whether these arrests are part of a widening crackdown on dissent against the US-Israeli backed war against Iran which the UAE is involved in, masked as counterterrorism.

Despite presenting itself on the international stage as a victim, the UAE is quietly participating and aiding the US and Israel in its war against Iran. Yet, Abu Dhabi has enforced draconian censorship laws that carry lengthy prison sentences for those posting or even privately forwarding videos of Iranians munitions impacting targets in the UAE.

This week, the UAE’s State Security Department announced the arrest of 27 individuals, described by state-run WAM media as members of a “Shia terrorist group” allegedly linked to Tehran. Yet despite the severity of those accusations, none of the detainees appear to be facing formal terrorism charges.

Instead, those arrested are accused of spreading “misleading ideas,” maintaining “foreign allegiances,” and forming a secret organization — vague allegations that critics say are often used to justify political repression. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmaeil Baghaei, rejected the arrests outright, calling them “baseless and unfounded.”

Even Emirati state media reporting reveals inconsistencies. While headlines such as “UAE dismantles terrorist cell and arrests members” suggest a major security operation, the details within those same reports make no mention of terrorism-related charges, focusing instead on loosely defined political and ideological offenses.

However, within the article itself, there is no mention of any terror related charges, only that they were detained for spreading “misleading ideas”, have “foreign allegiances”, in addition to being accused of establishing a secret organisation and managing its activities.

The case has also raised concerns of a sectarian dimension. Among the 27 detained are prominent members of the UAE’s Muslim Shia community, including cleric Ghadeer Mirza Al-Rustam of the Jaafari Endowments in Dubai and as well as Seyed Sadiq Lari who had served as the Imam of the Grand Mosque in the Zayed area of ​​Abu Dhabi, fueling suspicions that the crackdown may be targeting religious identity.

Furthermore, those arrested were all Emiratis, Saudis or Bahraini, none were Iranians. The alleged link made to the Islamic Republic of Iran is through Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), a concept within Shia Islam of adherence to a qualified Islamic leader. Emirati Shia publicly follow Ayatollah Sistani as their religious authority, for whom the concept of Velayat-e Faqih does not apply.

There is yet to be evidence presented to prove the detainees are agents of Iran, opposed to them simply expressing popular political views amongst Shia Muslims including opposing the war against Iran.

The UAE is the only Arab State that has directly participated in the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran. This was exposed after two Emirati Wing Loong II UAVs were downed over Iranian airspace. Following the US President’s announcement of a two-week temporary ceasefire, Abu Dhabi allegedly lobbied Washington to continue its assault, even going as far as bombing Iran’s Lavan Oil Refinery.

In the past, Abu Dhabi has launched politicised arrests while engaging in war.

For example, in 2016, two US citizens of Libyan origin were acquitted after spending two years in prison, on charges of funding two groups fighting in Libya. They were originally arrested in Dubai as part of wider crackdown on Libyan nationals, as the UAE began launching airstrikes in the North African country in 2024. According to the UN and their family members, the two wrongfully detained American citizens were severely tortured.

Between March and April, the UAE was struck by more Iranian missiles and drones than any other nation, during which it arrested at least 375 for violating its strict “cybercrime laws”. The mass arrests, assumed to be much more than officially announced, were launched as reprisals against those sharing and even forwarding videos they had filmed of Iranian munitions striking locations in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. It got so bad, that even British media had picked up on how many UK citizens were being rounded up.

According to Radha Stirling, the CEO of Detained in Dubai, “Under national security frameworks, individuals may face: 5 to 15 years imprisonment, or potentially life sentences. Fines reaching approximately USD 500,000. Prolonged or indefinite pre-trial detention. Restricted access to lawyers, embassies, and evidence. Human rights violations and torture.”

“People are increasingly afraid to communicate, send messages, document events or share information or a news article, even privately. Many are choosing to remain silent, unsure whether even routine communication could expose them to criminal liability and unsure to what extent authorities are surveilling the population”, Stirling added.

The mass arrest campaigns came as a part of an ongoing information war waged between the UAE and Iran. An investigation into Emirati censorship, by Bellingcat, “identified several high-profile incidents where authorities in the United Arab Emirates have downplayed damage, mischaracterised interceptions and in some instances not acknowledged successful Iranian drone strikes on the country.”

Meanwhile, the UAE has not been the only Gulf country to have launched mass detention campaigns over alleged “cyber crimes” and charges related to publishing “misleading ideas” or having “foreign allegiances”. Kuwait even arrested well known US-Kuwaiti journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin on March 2, on cyber crime offenses related to posts shared during the war with Iran.

Arrest campaigns carried out against Shia Muslims across the region are also not a new feature to the US-Israel led war on Iran. The UAE’s media itself claimed without evidence that the Emirati authorities had dismantled another “terrorist network” last month, accusing both Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah of being behind it. In mid-March, Kuwait also claimed to have arrested members of a “Hezbollah network”, also failing to provide any evidence. Earlier this month, Saudi Arabia had even executed two Shia detainees, accusing them of “terrorism”, one of whom was charged for protesting and arrested while he was only 17 years old.

May 14, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on UAE launches Muslim Shia crackdown under cover of ‘Iran-linked terror’ claims

Prof John Mearsheimer TRUMP WILL BE FORCED TO CUT A DEAL w/IRAN

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 13, 2026

May 13, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Prof John Mearsheimer TRUMP WILL BE FORCED TO CUT A DEAL w/IRAN

Russia says disputes over Iran, Greenland and Canada distract from Palestine

MEMO | May 13, 2026

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the US of trying to distract global attention from Palestine, Anadolu reports.

Commenting on the situation in the Middle East in an interview with RT India TV channel, Lavrov said ongoing US-provoked disputes involving Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland and Canada were distracting international attention from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“All of the efforts that are being taken right now on Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Greenland, and now Canada … all of these issues are moving us away from settling the most protracted, the most negative crisis in the world – that is, the crisis around Palestine,” he said.

The minister criticized American proposals regarding the future of the Gaza Strip, saying they did not address the establishment of a Palestinian state.

“I have no doubt that when plans to stir up aggression against Iran were being hatched, one of the goals was to prevent the normalization of relations between Iran and the Arab states,” he said.

He added: “Now, everything is being done to ensure that reconciliation never happens … and to pull its other Gulf neighbors into structures that, first, will not focus on resolving the Palestinian issue, and second, will force them to betray the Palestinian cause as the price for normalizing relations with Israel.”

Lavrov argued that failure to create such a state would prolong instability and extremism in the region for decades.

“We are returning to a period when everything is decided by force and international law is ignored,” Lavrov said.

May 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Russia says disputes over Iran, Greenland and Canada distract from Palestine

Col Douglas Macgregor: If We Go Back To BOMBING IRAN

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 12, 2026

May 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Col Douglas Macgregor: If We Go Back To BOMBING IRAN

How Iran’s Strait of Hormuz cable sovereignty could reshape global internet governance

By Yousef Ramazani | Press TV | May 11, 2026

In the wake of the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran and the subsequent maritime banditry and piracy, the Islamic Republic is reportedly moving to assert its long-dormant sovereign rights over the submarine internet cables that traverse the waters of the Strait of Hormuz.

This strategic reorientation – as confirmed by some reports – promises to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue while fundamentally reshaping the legal and economic architecture of global data transmission.

The unprovoked military aggression against Iran, which halted with a ceasefire on April 8, 2026, has fundamentally altered the strategic calculus of the Persian Gulf.

During the 40 days of aggression against Iran, a previously overlooked dimension of the country’s sovereign territory emerged as a critical vulnerability for the global digital economy.

Beneath the waters of the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran’s territorial sea extends 12 nautical miles and overlaps completely with Omani jurisdiction, leaving no high seas whatsoever, lie at least five major submarine fibre-optic cable systems.

These cables carry approximately 99 percent of all intercontinental internet traffic and an estimated 10 trillion US dollars in daily financial transactions.

Now, in the aftermath of the aggression, which came in the middle of nuclear talks, Iran is moving to exercise its full and legal sovereign authority over this hidden infrastructure.

The plan is increasingly centered on a comprehensive governance model that would include permit requirements, transit fees, Iranian legal jurisdiction over foreign technology companies, and exclusive Iranian control over cable maintenance and repair operations.

Forgotten dimension of the Strait of Hormuz

For decades, international discourse surrounding the Strait of Hormuz focused almost exclusively on traditional dimensions: freedom of navigation for oil tankers, security of energy flows, and the legal regime governing the passage of commercial and military vessels.

This narrow framing, however, systematically ignored one of the most vital emerging dimensions of this strategic corridor: the fibre-optic communication infrastructure and submarine data transmission cables that lie on the seabed of Iran’s territorial waters.

These cables, which include major systems such as FALCON (owned by Tata Communications of India), the Gulf Bridge International (GBI) system, and the TGN-Gulf system, form the backbone of the digital economy, not just for the Persian Gulf region but the entire world.

They carry international internet traffic, cloud data centre synchronization, enterprise virtual private networks, voice-over-IP communications, and – most critically – international banking and financial transactions, including SWIFT messages.

Any disruption to these communication highways, whether from natural disasters, ship anchoring, or military action, could cause irreparable damage to the tune of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars daily.

What makes this issue particularly significant for Iran is the undisputed legal reality that the Strait of Hormuz is not, and has never been, international waters.

The careful repetition of the phrase “international waters” by Western media and think tanks is part of a cognitive and legal battle designed to diminish the legitimate sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran over one of the world’s most vital waterways.

Why is the Strait Iranian territory

The legal status of the Strait of Hormuz must be understood through the precise geometry of international maritime law.

According to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, each coastal state has the right to determine the width of its territorial sea up to a maximum distance of 12 nautical miles from its baselines.

Iran has never ratified this convention, but it serves as a reference point for international practice. Within these 12 miles, the coastal state exercises absolute sovereignty over the water column, the seabed, the subsoil, and even the airspace above.

This is exactly the same sovereignty it exercises over the territory of its capital city.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has determined the width of its territorial sea in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman to be 12 nautical miles. The Kingdom of Oman has adopted exactly the same procedure.

The Strait of Hormuz, at its narrowest point between Iranian islands and the Omani coast, measures approximately 21 nautical miles in width.

When Iran extends its territorial sea 12 nautical miles southward from its northern coast, and Oman extends its territorial sea 12 nautical miles northward from the Musandam Peninsula, the combined territorial waters of the two countries total 24 nautical miles.

This exceeds the total width of the strait at that point by three nautical miles.

The result is geometrically inevitable: the territorial seas of Iran and Oman collide and overlap in the middle of the Strait of Hormuz.

There is not a single drop of water in the narrowest points of the strait and its main shipping channels that can be legally classified as high seas or even as an exclusive economic zone.

Any vessel, submarine, or cable that passes through this point is legally passing within the sovereign borders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

To this geometric reality must be added the clarifying force of Article 34 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

That article states definitively that the regime of passage through straits used for international navigation does not in any way affect the legal status of the waters forming these straits.

Nor does it affect the exercise of sovereignty and jurisdiction by the bordering states over those waters, their airspace, their bed, and their subsoil.

The international community possesses only the right of passage through these waters under the rules set by Iran. This right of passage is limited to the rapid and continuous movement of ships and aircraft.

It does not extend to the laying of fixed infrastructure such as internet cables or energy pipelines on the seabed.

Sovereignty over the seabed, for laying communication cables, energy pipelines, and conducting research, remains entirely the exclusive preserve of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Value of what passes through Iranian waters

The economic significance of the cables transiting the Strait of Hormuz is staggering.

According to data from the TeleGeography database updated to January 2026, the main cable systems crossing the strait form a complex network connecting the Persian Gulf countries to the global network spanning Europe, India, and East Asia.

These systems carry not only public internet traffic but also the most sensitive and valuable data streams in the global economy.

Global content providers known as hyperscalers, companies including Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta, use these fibre-optic cables to connect their local nodes to the core of their global networks.

The traffic these companies carry consists primarily of cloud data centre synchronization, including real-time copies of distributed databases, virtual machine migrations, internal application programming interface traffic, and user-generated content.

In cloud computing architecture, maintaining stability and reliability at the level of 99.999 percent uptime, known as the “five nines” standard, is a mandatory requirement in service level agreements.

Rather than purchasing small amounts of bandwidth, these companies lease long-term dark capacity or purchase irrevocable rights to use submarine cables for periods of 15 to 25 years, keeping network latency in the millisecond range.

Level 1 and Level 2 telecommunications operators, including Etisalat of the UAE, Ooredoo of Qatar and Oman, the Telecommunications Infrastructure Company of Iran, and STC of Saudi Arabia, are responsible for transporting international internet traffic.

This traffic includes Border Gateway Protocol routing information, enterprise virtual private networks, international mobile roaming traffic, and network-based voice packets.

These operators are the gateway to the internet for the countries of the region, receiving terabits per second of capacity from the submarine cables in the Strait of Hormuz and then distributing it to smaller operators and end users.

These cables form the backbone of the digital economy of the Persian Gulf countries, creating a near-total dependence on connectivity to the global network.

Most critically, global financial institutions and content distribution networks, including Akamai, Cloudflare, and the SWIFT financial messaging network, depend on these cables.

Bank settlement messages and high-frequency transactions require dedicated, encrypted, low-latency paths with minimal signal variability.

In global stock market trading, a delay of even one millisecond can result in millions of dollars in losses. Submarine cables are the safest, fastest, and most reliable physical medium for transporting these sensitive intercontinental financial transactions.

According to analytical reports from British think tanks and transaction data from international payment networks, including SWIFT and the Central Interbank Dollar Payments System CHIPS, submarine cables carry more than 10 trillion US dollars in financial transactions every single day.

This colossal figure represents bank settlements, stock market transactions, foreign exchange operations, and all financial activities that form the lifeblood of the global economy.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development confirms in its annual Digital Economy Reports that more than 99 percent of all international data traffic is transmitted through this cable network.

At the regional level, the West Asia international broadband market, for which the Strait of Hormuz serves as the main thoroughfare, is worth several billion dollars annually.

This value derives from the bulk sale of capacity by cable owners such as FALCON, GBI, and TGN-Gulf to national telecommunications operators.

The damage caused by a disruption or complete outage at this strategic bottleneck, however, is far larger than the direct revenues of this market.

Modelling based on studies of transatlantic cable outages estimates that a five-day disruption of cables through the Strait of Hormuz could inflict tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in damage daily to the combined economies of the Persian Gulf countries.

Failure of alternatives

In response to Iran’s assertion of its sovereign rights, some Western analysts have suggested that alternative routes or technologies could bypass the Strait of Hormuz.

The technical reality, however, offers no fast and reliable alternative.

Next-generation low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations such as Starlink offer lower latency than fibre-optic cables for very long distances, because lasers in space travel at actual light speed while light in glass fibres travels at roughly two-thirds of that speed.

However, while a single submarine cable can carry terabits of data per second, an entire satellite constellation offers bandwidth measured in gigabits.

Satellites cannot yet handle the massive bandwidth demands of artificial intelligence training, high-definition streaming for millions of users, or cloud backups. They are, in the assessment of industry experts, a boutique solution not scalable to millions of users.

Terrestrial overland corridors represent the most practical alternative, with massive land cables running through Iraq to Turkey or through Syria to the Mediterranean.

Ambitious projects such as Saudi Arabia’s SilkLink and Qatar’s FiG are underway. However, these routes must cross war-torn regions, including Syria and Iraq, where West-backed wars have previously destroyed similar infrastructure and where local militias and unstable governments remain capable of seizure, taxation, or sabotage.

These are not peaceful alternatives; they merely exchange one set of vulnerabilities for another. Free-space optical systems using lasers transmitted through air or vacuum are not a solution for the Strait of Hormuz at all.

Such systems are extremely susceptible to weather interference, including the fog and sandstorms common to the Persian Gulf, and have a limited range of less than 50 kilometres.

The verdict is clear: there exists no single alternative that is simultaneously fast, high-capacity, and secure. The Strait of Hormuz remains an irreplaceable chokepoint for global digital communications.

Repair regime and Iran’s essential role

The maintenance and repair of submarine cables in the Strait of Hormuz present another dimension of Iran’s sovereign authority.

According to International Cable Protection Committee technical documents and performance reports, the repair process for a complete cable cut follows a well-established sequence: fault location using optical time-domain reflectometer tools, application for navigation permits under international law, and dispatch of a cable repair ship.

The process of dispatching a ship, retrieving the two ends of the cable from the seabed, performing the reconnection, and returning the cable to the seabed typically requires between 7 and 30 days, depending on weather conditions and the availability of repair vessels.

In the Strait of Hormuz specifically, the exceptionally high volume of maritime traffic requires intensive traffic coordination during cable laying and repair operations.

Under normal conditions with full cooperation from the countries exercising sovereignty over the strait, the repair process would be expected to take up to 45 days.

During the recent joint US-Israeli aggression, however, major cable installation contractors, including Alcatel Submarine Networks, declared force majeure on Persian Gulf operations, halting both new installations and maintenance of existing systems.

Billions of dollars’ worth of cable projects were suspended or abandoned, with some reportedly 90 percent complete before work stopped.

Given that the Strait of Hormuz lies entirely within Iranian territorial waters, the logical conclusion is inescapable: the user companies whose cables transit Iranian sovereign territory must conclude contracts for cable repair and maintenance exclusively with Iranian companies, specifically companies owned more than 50 percent by Iranian entities and operating entirely under the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This is not a matter of political choice but of legal necessity arising from the undisputed fact that foreign vessels, including cable repair ships, cannot operate in Iranian territorial waters without Iranian permission.

Global recognition of the new reality

The world media has taken notice of Iran’s digital sovereignty initiative. Indian media outlets, including ABP Live and the Economic Times, have warned that a significant portion of India’s internet passes through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and that any disruption to these routes could disrupt online services, digital banking, and communications, pressuring the digital economy of countries, including India.

Russian media outlet AIA Daily reported that Iran has effectively conveyed the message that it possesses physical access to vital routes of the global internet, emphasizing that at least seven major internet cables pass through the Strait of Hormuz and serve as the backbone of e-commerce, cloud services, and international communications.

Asian media, including Korea’s Asia Business Daily and the English-language Asia Times, have described the Strait of Hormuz as one of the world’s most important internet bottlenecks.

Asia Times wrote that data infrastructure and fibre-optic cables have become part of the deterrence equation in the region, warning that an attack on cables could disrupt the global economy without firing a missile, and that future wars may take place on the seabed and over data cables rather than traditional battlefields.

Western media have also acknowledged the vulnerability. Reuters reported in a piece that Iran’s warning about the vulnerability of undersea cables has raised concerns, emphasizing that several important fibre-optic cables lie in the Strait of Hormuz connecting countries in Asia, the Persian Gulf, and Europe, and that any damage in this area would disrupt cloud services, online communications, and the digital economy.

The Washington Post warned that submarine cables have become one of the most vulnerable parts of the world’s digital economy, with Western governments concerned that undersea cables could be used as a tool of strategic pressure.

The French newspaper Le Monde wrote that the joint US-Israeli aggression against Iran has placed infrastructure, including submarine cables, data centres, and cloud computing networks under the simultaneous pressure of geopolitical and security crises.

Three practical steps

Based on the legal, technical, and economic factors, the Islamic Republic of Iran can implement three practical steps to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue from the Strait of Hormuz internet cables while exercising its full sovereign rights.

First, all companies wishing to use this infrastructure must obtain an initial license from Iranian authorities, and because this license must be renewed annually, these companies must pay all outstanding amounts on a recurring basis.

The fee model can draw from international precedents, including the Egyptian model based on providing exclusive services, the Singaporean model based on policy-making and administrative licensing, the Indonesian bureaucratic model based on permits and corridors, and the Russian model based on strategic control and state participation.

Egypt, for example, earns between 250 million and 400 million US dollars annually from submarine cable infrastructure alone, representing 15 to 20 percent of the Egyptian Telecommunications Company’s total operating revenues.

Second, all cross-border communications and information technology companies operating in the region, including US companies such as Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft that transfer Iranian user data abroad through these cables, must be subject to the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran and supervised and regulated by the Iranian Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.

With the official activities of these companies and their cooperation with the Iranian side, there would no longer be any need for filtering or blocking of their platforms.

Third, because the Strait of Hormuz is entirely part of Iranian territory, the user companies must conclude contracts for cable repair and maintenance exclusively with an Iranian company, meaning a company owned more than 50 percent by the Iranian side and operating fully under the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The proceeds from this entire framework will flow to the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, specifically to the Fibre-Optic Development Fund, and will be used to create and improve the country’s information technology infrastructure.

May 11, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Comments Off on How Iran’s Strait of Hormuz cable sovereignty could reshape global internet governance

US suffers ‘total defeat’ in war against Iran, faces irreversible strategic collapse: Neocon analyst

Press TV – May 11, 2026

In a noteworthy mea culpa from one of America’s most influential neoconservative commentators, Robert Kagan believes the United States has suffered a “total defeat” in its ongoing war against Iran, which has permanently shattered its global standing.

Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was a vocal advocate of the war against Iraq and a lifelong champion of American military interventions in West Asia.

But in a recent article for The Atlantic, he offered a grim verdict on the current war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, launched on February 28.

“The US suffered a total defeat,” Kagan writes, describing the loss as having no precedent in American history and one that can “neither be repaired nor ignored.”

While acknowledging that previous American military failures carried heavy costs, Kagan insists this war is fundamentally different in nature.

“The defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly but did not do lasting damage to America’s overall position in the world,” the prominent commentator writes.

“Defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character.”

At the heart of this catastrophe, Kagan noted, is Iran’s newfound ability to control the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most strategic waterway, without any challenge.

“Iran will be able not only to demand tolls for passage, but to limit transit to those nations with which it has good relations,” he writes.

According to Kagan, Iran has no interest in returning to the pre-war status quo. Most Persian Gulf states, he believes, will have no choice but to accommodate Tehran, effectively making Iran the dominant regional power.

“The United States will have proved itself a paper tiger, forcing the (Persian) Gulf and other Arab states to accommodate Iran,” Kagan writes.

He also dismisses any notion that a coalition of allies could rectify the situation.

“If the United States with its mighty Navy can’t or won’t open the strait, no coalition of forces with just a fraction of the Americans’ capability will be able to, either,” he states.

Kagan frames the collapse not as a regional setback but as a global strategic failure that fundamentally alters America’s position in the world.

“America’s once-dominant position in the (Persian) Gulf is just the first of many casualties,” he warns. “America’s allies in East Asia and Europe must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.”

Compounding the strategic humiliation is a staggering depletion of American military resources during the ongoing war, which has been widely documented in the US media.

“Just a few weeks of war with a second-rank power have reduced American weapons stocks to perilously low levels, with no quick remedy in sight,” Kagan writes.

He hastens to add that the United States now finds itself unable to control the consequences of a war it initiated – a war it has already lost.

May 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on US suffers ‘total defeat’ in war against Iran, faces irreversible strategic collapse: Neocon analyst

By rejecting Iran’s proposal, US enters a strategic nightmare with no escape

Press TV | May 11, 2026

In a theatrical move that fooled no one, US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s comprehensive plan to end the war he illegally imposed on the country 70 days ago.

The US president postured as a victor, dismissing Tehran’s proposal with the bluster of a leader who expects capitulation. But the reality on the ground tells a starkly different story.

By every measurable metric, America is the defeated party in the asymmetric war that was imposed on Iran amid the nuclear talks in Geneva on February 28. And his rejection of Iran’s terms in a social media post has not opened new options for Washington, but it has only trapped the US in a deadly three-way crossroads from which there is no easy escape.

Trump’s rejection of Iran’s plan, which was submitted early on Sunday through Pakistani mediators, is a grave strategic error as Americans hold no winning cards.

Iran’s proposal: Fundamental, natural, and uncompromising

Iran’s plan to permanently end the war was never meant to please Washington. It was designed to restore justice, recognize strategic realities, and secure Iran’s undeniable rights after the unprovoked military aggression against the country and maritime banditry.

The core elements of Iran’s proposal are not maximalist. They are rooted in natural and fundamental principles that any nation subjected to unprovoked aggression and holding the upper hand would rightfully insist upon:

  • War reparations – Payment of damages and reparations by the aggressor for the destruction inflicted on Iran’s infrastructure, economy, and civilian population.
  • Management of the Strait of Hormuz – Recognition of Iran’s sovereign control over this vital waterway, based on the mechanism already announced by Tehran.
  • Lifting of sanctions – The complete removal of all oppressive and illegal sanctions that have targeted the Iranian people for decades.
  • Release of frozen assets – The return of billions of dollars of Iranian assets illegally seized by the United States.
  • Permanent end to the war – A cessation of hostilities not only against Iran but also against the entire resistance front, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and other allied forces across the region.

None of these demands is unreasonable or impractical. They are the basic entitlements of a nation that has been attacked, bombed, and subjected to economic warfare for nearly half a century. What Iran is asking for is not special treatment but justice.

The American non-offer: Irrelevant demands and nuclear obsession

In stark contrast to Iran’s focused, reasonable and practically sound proposal, the American counteroffer reads like a wish list written by someone who has lost sight of reality.

Washington’s plan has nothing to do with ending the war. Instead, it resurrects the long-dead nuclear file – demands that were irrelevant before the war and are absurd now.

The United States insists on:

  • Closure of Iran’s nuclear sites – A non-starter that Iran has rejected for decades.
  • Long-term halt to enrichment – Effectively disabling Iran’s nuclear program for years to come, which is totally unacceptable to Iran.
  • Transfer of enriched uranium to America – A humiliating demand that no sovereign nation would accept, least of all Iran.

What is striking about the American proposal is what it omits. There is no mention of the American responsibility for starting the war in the middle of nuclear diplomacy.

There is also no acknowledgment of the thousands of Iranian civilians killed in the 40-day aggression. There is no offer of reparations. There is no commitment to withdraw the occupation forces from the region. There is no guarantee against future aggression.

Washington simply pretends the war never happened and pivots back to its failed nuclear fixation to deflect attention from the real issue.

The posture of defeat: Trump’s fake victory pose

Trump rejected Iran’s plan while posing as the victor. But this is pure theater. International experts, military analysts, and even sober voices within Western capitals acknowledge what Trump refuses to admit – the United States lost the asymmetric war against Iran.

Consider the evidence. The US entered this war with ambitious objectives: “regime change,” destruction of Iran’s missile program, dismantling of nuclear facilities, and unrestricted access to the Strait of Hormuz.

None of these objectives has been achieved. Iran’s missile cities remain intact. Its nuclear program continues to make progress. Its control over the Strait of Hormuz has been consolidated. And the Iranian people, far from rising against their government, have poured into the streets by the millions to support the leadership and the armed forces.

Trump’s hallucinatory “victory” exists only in his own press releases. In the real world, the United States has been defeated on every front. And rejecting Iran’s proposal does not change that fact – it only prolongs Washington’s agony.

The three-way crossroads: All paths lead to disaster

By rejecting Iran’s plan, Trump has trapped the United States in a deadly strategic dilemma. He now faces three options and none of them are good:

  • Resume full-scale war

This is the most dangerous path. Starting the war again would plunge the United States and its Israeli proxy into a “dark corridor” from which there may be no return.

Iran has not yet deployed all its strategic cards. Throughout the 40 days of war, Tehran fought with its eyes fixed on the possibility of an even larger confrontation. The weapons systems, tactics, and capabilities that Iran deliberately held back would be unleashed in a second round, if that actually happens.

The result would likely be far heavier defeats for the US-Israeli war machine, defeats that could become irreversible. Iran’s unrevealed cards, combined with the lessons learned from the first phase of the war, would make any renewed American military campaign a gamble with catastrophic odds.

  • Accept Iran’s terms

This is the only path to ending the imposed war, but it requires Trump to swallow his pride and acknowledge defeat like someone who understands the ground realities.

The United States would have to pay reparations, accept Iran’s complete and sovereign control of the Strait of Hormuz, lift illegal sanctions, release frozen assets, and agree to a comprehensive end to the war on all fronts.

For a president who has built his political identity around “maximum pressure” and “America First,” this option is politically toxic. But rejecting it does not make it disappear. It remains the only sustainable exit from a war that Washington cannot win.

  • Continue the naval blockade

An ambiguous, indefinite naval blockade that neither ends the war nor escalates it decisively is the current situation. But this option is also unsustainable. Iran’s top military command has already made its position clear that for every vessel intercepted or attacked, American centers and American vessels will be struck.

The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters has announced this equation publicly. It is not a threat but a binding warning. The continuation of the naval blockade will trigger Iranian responses that escalate incrementally but inevitably. There is no “safe” stalemate.

The economic dimension: A losing battle for Washington

The closure of the strategic waterway due to the war imposed on war and US maritime banditry and piracy has already sent shockwaves through global energy markets.

Oil prices have surged past $110 per barrel. Inflationary pressures are mounting across Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The continued naval blockade of Iran, coupled with Iranian retaliatory strikes on regional energy infrastructure, will only worsen these trends.

And who bears the blame? Global public opinion increasingly points to Washington. The United States started this war, and the United States rejected a reasonable peace plan.

The United States continues to strangle Iran’s economy while Iranian civilians suffer. The further economic indicators deteriorate, the more pressure will mount on Trump from domestic constituencies and international allies alike.

Iran understands this dynamic perfectly. Continued economic disruption is not a bug in Tehran’s strategy but a feature. Every day the war continues, the United States bleeds economically and reputationally.

Iran’s trap: No escape for the United States

World media have accurately described the current situation as “Iran’s trap” for the United States. It is a trap with no exit and Trump is yet to wrap his head around this reality.

Trump can neither win the war nor end it on acceptable terms. Resuming full-scale war invites catastrophic defeat. Accepting Iran’s proposal requires humiliating capitulation. Maintaining the status quo triggers escalating Iranian retaliation that systematically degrades American interests in the region.

This is the strategic nightmare that Trump has created for himself and his country. He started a war he could not win. He rejected a peace that would have ended it. And now he stands at a deadly three-way crossroads, with every direction leading to danger.

Iran, meanwhile, holds the strategic advantage. Tehran’s proposal remains on the table — reasonable, principled, and rooted in natural rights. But if the US chooses not to accept it, Iran is prepared to continue the war, escalate it, and inflict far heavier costs than anything seen in the first 40 days.

The choice is Washington’s. The consequences will be for Iran to impose. And history will record who acted with wisdom – and who walked willingly into a trap of their own making.

May 11, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on By rejecting Iran’s proposal, US enters a strategic nightmare with no escape