IRAN ISSUES NEW WARNING! /Lt Col Daniel Davis
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 10, 2026
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 10, 2026
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 10, 2026
By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | May 10, 2026
Far from a stroke of genius, the US Trump administration’s decision to impose its own blockade on the Strait of Hormuz was a reactionary act of desperation, not a real strategy. The reason behind this quickly became clear and led to immediate doubt, even from the US domestic corporate media.
On April 7, when US President Donald Trump declared a two-week temporary cessation of hostilities between his armed forces and Iran, he almost instantly faced an Israeli refusal to acknowledge that any such agreement had been struck. Not only did the Israelis violate the ceasefire agreement by launching a 10-minute terror bombing campaign on Beirut, which killed around 300 Lebanese, but they also began pressuring Washington to ensure that they could have their say on the course of Iran-US negotiations.
While the Iranians declared that the US had accepted their 10-point plan of demands, within 24 hours, the United States had signaled that it would respect none of them. This could have reasonably justified Iran continuing its campaign of self-defense, especially as US military assets continued to be transported into West Asia.
Instead, Tehran chose to ignore the fact that the very basis of the temporary ceasefire had been torn up in front of them, and the US was demanding precisely what it sought prior to its attack on Iran. The one thing that the Islamic Republic chose to do was to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed and impose its sovereignty over it, causing a real crisis for the Trump administration.
The Iranians just managed to fend off the world’s top military superpower, dealing blows to all of its allies and collaborators throughout the region while it was at it. At least 16 US military bases were smashed beyond recognition, many rendered inoperable, with the multi-million/billion dollar equipment losses numbering into the hundreds of units across the region.
Iran may have been fighting the US military, but the problem it faces and continues to face is that the commander-in-chief does not sit in Washington, but instead in Tel Aviv. Israel simply was not degraded to the extent that it saw a reason for the war to end, but the US, which was doing its bidding, had all but run out of options to achieve regime change.
This led to the ceasefire predicament. Because the next stop on the escalation ladder was a large-scale coordinated campaign of attacks against civilian infrastructure across Iran, which would inevitably trigger a retaliation in kind from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Although the escalation was evidently welcomed by the Israelis, if it still failed to achieve their goals, the repercussions regionally would have international implications.
Then came the temporary truce that Pakistan managed to mediate, likely by leading both sides on a bit too much, but it was nonetheless accepted by Washington and Tehran alike. As noted above, while the Iranians did manage to achieve a historic defensive victory of sorts, exceeding all expectations of it, neither side emerged as the decisive victor, and no one secured a long-term strategic victory.
Therefore, the opposing sides went back to the drawing board, re-arming themselves and preparing for the inevitable escalation ahead, while leaving the door open for negotiations. In a bid to keep the Iranians from escalating against the Israelis, the US decided to step in and execute a temporary strategy in Lebanon instead.
Tel Aviv had hoped to secure a “ceasefire” in Lebanon that enabled it to return to the 15-month ceasefire status quo that had existed prior to the regional war, bombing Lebanon at will as Hezbollah held its fire. That never materialized, which ended up leading the Israelis into a strategic military trap in southern Lebanon, one that Washington is attempting to undo by using their puppets in Beirut to undergo a process that will lead to another Lebanese civil war.
Meanwhile, Tehran, which was refusing to lift its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz until a full ceasefire in Lebanon, temporarily began allowing selected ships to transit the key chokepoint after paying a fee. This was quickly interrupted by not only the Israeli decision that they would not implement the ceasefire, but also the US aggression.
Trump’s uno-reverse-card strategy was then implemented, as the leadership in DC declared that they were going to blockade the blockade. Although this evidently has an impact on Iran’s economy, it was a failing strategy from the get-go, one designed to keep the President’s fragile ego stable, more than anything else.
The reason why it was so ridiculous to begin with is that it only further strained the international economy and sent oil prices surging further. When the Israel Lobby ordered Trump to unilaterally withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2018, the US’s ‘Maximum Pressure’ sanctions managed to dramatically impact Iran’s oil export rates. For around 33 months, Iran’s daily exports plummeted to around 350,000 barrels before later recovering to roughly 2.5 million barrels per day.
It will take at least three months for the Iranian economy to start truly suffering from the US’s blockade strategy, but such a long term economic pressure plan was always going to impact the US and its allies way more. The Islamic Republic has been under sanctions and suffered constant economic hurdles for 47 years, all at the hands of the US and its Western allies, which has led to a certain kind of sanctions immunity.
No routine exports for Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE for three more months will spell catastrophe for all of them. This will also have additional ramifications that are going to impact the entire planet. This means that the Iranians are simply being given time to re-arm, dig out their missile bases, rebuild sites struck by US-Israeli airstrikes, devise new military plans, all as their blockade squeezes the US and its allies.
In a way, it’s actually the perfect predicament for the Iranians to be in. Yes, they will suffer economically, but it isn’t like they haven’t been here before; their opposition has never had to go through such hardships. Hezbollah is also inflicting dozens of Israeli soldier casualties every day, while the Israeli population loses more and more confidence in their ability to achieve anything resembling victory in Lebanon.
All without having to endure round-the-clock airstrikes on their major cities like Tehran and Isfahan, all without losing assets or civilian life. Playing the game of who can outlast the other with the Iranians is a losing strategy, one that was born out of desperation.
These reasons, amongst others, were always going to force the US’s hand into yet another escalation. Israel won’t allow their puppet in the White House to retreat and bow down to Iran’s demands, while there is no way to achieve what Washington and Tel Aviv couldn’t through their war efforts.
In the future, the US has two major military options: Ground incursions into Iranian territory and a massive campaign of strikes against Iran’s civilian infrastructure, as was threatened prior to the temporary ceasefire. Neither will achieve regime change, but will inflict blows. The only thing standing in the way of a deal is Israel; until Israel is faced with strategic defeat, the war cannot fully end.
Even if there was some kind of diplomatic off-ramp that could hypothetically be found here, then the Israelis would simply go back to the drawing board and seek to escalate once again in the future. This is also why the Iranians had been so adamant on ending the war on all fronts, because the Israelis have to be subdued in order for Tehran to ensure that such an attack against it cannot happen again. The US may be seeking to kick the can down the road after failing to achieve its goals, but Iran seeks to prevent this.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
Glenn Diesen | May 9, 2026
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 9, 2026
Glenn Diesen | May 9, 2026
Larry Johnson is a former CIA intelligence analyst who also worked at the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses how the Iran War is putting an end to the former security architecture of the Middle East.
Read Larry Johnson’s Sonar21: https://sonar21.com/
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | May 9, 2026
US Secretary of State Rubio on Wednesday declared “Operation Epic Fury” concluded, the clearest indication so far that the US is writhing in the economic trap it sprung on itself. Being in a state of institutional paralysis, unable to accept the costs of ending the war while unable to tolerate its continuation, the Trump administration is attempting to find an equilibrium that allows hostilities to cease, while keeping as much as possible of its “maximum pressure” on Iran’s economy.
In precisely this vein, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in recent days has been unable to conceal his glee at the economic privation imposed on the Iranian people by his policies, attributing both the Riyal’s late 2025 collapse and the impending effects of the naval blockade on its oil production to “[Operation] Economic Fury.”
Since the inception of the Islamic Republic 47 years ago, the United States has weaponized its dominance in the global economy to impose one of the most comprehensive sanctions regimes ever implemented.
With each successive layer of economic siege deployed against the Iranians, US administrations and their surrogate regimes across the collective west, along with their propagandists in the media, painted this undeclared war as solely targeting “the regime.” The Iranian people themselves, they would have us believe, were never the intended targets.
This was, of course, only ever a rhetorical sleight of hand. The sanctions were “targeted” at the “regime” only in the sense that they were intended to make everyday life so unbearable that the Iranian public would blame their own leadership and overthrow it. The exact reason why they would primarily blame their own government, rather than Washington, London, Berlin and so-on, has never been rationalized. It is simply the economic strangulation of Gaza and Cuba that has been scaled up to the macro-level. Collective punishment of the entire population is the point, either to induce domestic rebellion, or to discipline them for not carrying out Western policy goals.
With the restarting of active war from February 28, Washington has reverted to implementing this strategy by its most direct means. Instead of choking off medicines to the health system, it simply bombed the health system itself, from critical national hospitals to the Pasteur Institute that produced domestic vaccines against the Covid pandemic. Instead of blacklisting Iranian students from foreign institutions, it bombs the Iranian universities that have been the engines of the nation’s indigenous industries, civilian, industrial and military since the siege began in 1980. Beyond merely sanctioning Iran’s industrial output, it is now robbing it of its revenues by attacking the steel plants of Isfahan and Ahvaz and the Asalouyeh petrochemical complexes.
The logical framing of these targets is that they are aimed at degrading Iran’s capacity to manufacture missiles, drones and its still non-existent nuclear weapons. By this reasoning, literally every economic sector, every potential source of revenue for the Iranian state is a target. It lays bare the true motivation not only behind the current war, but also behind the entire campaign of economic, political, and diplomatic coercion that the West has thrown at the country since its Revolution. It is not simply that Iranian nuclear program is unacceptable to Washington, London, Berlin, Paris and Tel Aviv, it is mainly the existence of an Iranian steel industry, pharmaceutical sector, ship-building capacity and space program. The very existence of an entrenched, self-sufficient and technologically progressing economy outside of the Western-dominated world system constitutes, by its nature, a systemic threat that cannot be tolerated. It must either be economically absorbed and dismantled from within or militarily destroyed.
It is a fear of the vastly enhanced economic and technological weight of an Iran unburdened by secondary sanctions, reaping tens of billions of dollars in taxes on traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and fundamentally restructuring the security and economic architecture of the Gulf, that explains the Trump administration’s unwillingness to end the state of war, even as it pushes the global economy deeper into existential crisis every day.
Tehran’s incentive, and its ability to demand, maximal concessions to accept an end to war however will not decline over time, it will increase inversely to the US tolerance for economic pain. Thus, Washington is at some point going to make at least one existentially humiliating concession to extricate itself from the crisis it created. It might agree to suspend all secondary sanctions against the Islamic Republic, or accept Tehran’s demonstrated capacity to tax traffic through Hormuz or permanently evacuate its bases in the region. It might even do all of these.
The blockade might plausibly remain as a face-saving fiction- the US navy clearly dares not intercept Iranian shipments heading to China. Over time, alternate land and sea corridors will compensate for the disruption to Iranian shipping.
When Washington eventually does cave it will have achieved the exact opposite of its intentions in launching its aggression: a vastly more economically empowered Islamic Republic with the throat of the world economy in its hand.
Trump’s choices are limited to accepting a far more economically powerful Iran now or accepting it later after a catastrophic resumption of hostilities. Maybe then, he will have learned precisely why none of his predecessors acted as he has.
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | May 9, 2026
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been accused of launching direct strikes targeting Iranian civilian infrastructure, while escalating its anti-Tehran rhetoric and having lobbied the US to return to all-out regional war. Although on the surface of things, it would appear nonsensical for such a small and fragile country to commit itself to reckless actions of these kinds, the UAE is no ordinary Gulf State.
While presenting itself as an innovative nation, one that is dissimilar to its neighbors in that its focus is the creation of wealth, “unity” and “peace”, the UAE fosters an image of a wise and inviting leadership that caters to outsiders. Utilizing their immense oil wealth, Abu Dhabi’s rulers have managed to construct an image of themselves that is almost as artificial as Dubai’s Skyline.
Behind the “tallest building” and “deepest pool” in the world are not talented Emirati architects, hard labor, and meticulous planners; instead, there are foreign experts and modern-day slaves. Although the Emirati rulers may be the ones who own everything and their people the ones who reap the benefits, even their prized oil industry would be nothing without all the foreigners who did everything for them.
Interestingly, both their foreign intelligence operations and oil industry have been heavily influenced by Palestinians, specifically from the Gaza Strip, and other non-Emirati Arabs, who helped make their nation run. Many of their police patrol officers are not their own nationals either, while 80% of their armed forces are foreigners.
The “peace” and “unity” that they promote are simply a Zionist project to attack the resistance to Israel’s expansionist endeavors. Not only were the ‘Abraham Accords’ lobbied for by the UAE, with it using its influence in Sudan and Morocco to bring even more States on board, but their entire national project has also been centered around assassinating pan-Arab and pan-Islamic unity.
Not only does the UAE use “inter-faith” projects to normalize Zionism and Zionists amongst Muslims, it actively controls a host of Islamic influencers, sheiks, Quran reciters, and scholars, whose role is to target impressionable Muslims. These individuals are used to push sectarianism, especially against Twelver Shias, but even against fellow Sunni Muslims who refuse to comply with their views.
Across the region, the UAE, known amongst its war hawk allies as ‘Little Sparta’, pursues a bloodthirsty approach, especially across the Horn of Africa. In Sudan, it is the primary backer of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) of warlord Muhammad Dagalo (Hemedti), a militant group accused of committing genocide. In Gaza, they are also accused of backing the Israeli-controlled ISIS-linked death squads, used to fight against the Palestinian resistance.
In Libya, they provided support to warlord Khalifa Haftar’s men, while propping up the Southern Transitional Council (STC) separatists in Yemen. They claim to oppose “Islamists” and “Islamic extremism”, while they actively promote Wahhabi Islam, with the political goal of encouraging the most malignant forms of sectarianism. Their only true opposition to ‘Islamists’ is a stance against the Muslim Brotherhood and all groups who dare to challenge Israel, and/or the United States in any way.
To demonstrate the depths of their hypocrisy, consider that the toughest fighters belonging to their STC proxy forces in Yemen were former Al-Qaeda and ISIS militants. In the name of combating the so-called “Islamist threat” of the Ansarallah government in Sana’a, the UAE decided to throw its weight behind hardline Salafist militants.
When it comes to the Iran conflict, the UAE optical illusion is also in effect. It played victim, feigned neutrality, while simultaneously pushing claims that it managed to intercept more Iranian missiles and drones than the Israelis did. In this way, it becomes both the hero and victim, but in an even less believable way than the Zionists, who clearly have more believable propaganda.
In reality, the UAE not only provided a launching pad for the illegal US-Israeli attack on Iran, but had even fully integrated its air defense systems with Israel following their normalisation agreement. They were providing the Israelis with information used to help them combat Iranian retaliatory strikes on their territory, while the Emirati-owned Wing Loong II UAVs were used to monitor Iranian airspace in support of the US-Israeli aggression.
While the US certainly used other Persian Gulf Arab States to attack the Islamic Republic, none were so enthusiastic as Abu Dhabi’s leadership. Oman is the only country in the region that did not allow for its territory to be used for offensive action against Iran, while Qatar began developing a more neutral tone, especially as the war progressed, the UAE went the opposite direction. Eventually, the Emirati anti-Iran rhetoric escalated to the degree that the Emirati rulers began labeling Tehran as terrorists.
Understanding why is crucial to comprehending the nature of the UAE as an entity in the Persian Gulf. Contrary to its propaganda, Abu Dhabi is the means through which Israeli and Western imperial power is harnessed.
The British, who helped form the “Trucial States” that would later band together under the leadership of Abu Dhabi and become the United Arab Emirates in 1971, referred to them as “pirates”. This legacy of being a disrespected puppet of the empire is something that holds true until this day, where the ultra-rich Emirati leadership enthusiastically does the bidding of their superiors.
In only 54 years, the regime along the Persian Gulf has managed to present to the world a model of what unfettered materialism leads to. A regime that operates off of oil money, which wouldn’t exist without foreign know-how and intelligence. It looks down on other Arabs, despite it needing them to function or to have become what it is.
It claims to represent a moderate and peaceful version of Islam, promoting Madkhali Wahhabi voices who promote it as a model of socially conservative religion and claim it represents a leadership that follows the virtues of Tawheed (monotheism) above all others. Simultaneously, Dubai is a representation of everything that Islam opposes socially, while the same pro-UAE preachers who want to excommunicate ordinary Muslims from their religion over the slightest disagreements will sit back as Hindu Temples are openly constructed.
It has been involved in aiding two genocides, perhaps a third if you consider the 400,000 deaths in Yemen to constitute a genocide also. Even today in Somalia, only it and Israel recognize and back the Somaliland separatist movement, which could contribute to major future bloodshed.
All of this is relevant to keep in mind as the UAE is as artificial and malignant to the region as the Israelis are. Both have utter contempt for the people surrounding them, refuse to acknowledge the limits of their power, and have major narcissism complexes. In the UAE, they have to monitor every square inch of their territory, censor everyone’s thoughts, killing, deporting or imprisoning anyone who refuses to go along with stroking their fragile egos.
Ultimately, the UAE is just as complicit in regional atrocities as are the Israelis, which is why it is no surprise that they decided to directly join the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran. Their mission is to conquer, dominate and destroy the surrounding region, in order to come out on top, working hand in hand with the Zionists to do so. Now that their tourism industry has been devastated and they have taken significant blows, that only reinforces the idea of aiding the Israelis in pursuing their expansionist endeavors.
Recent history alone has demonstrated that the UAE is willing to clash with neighboring Saudi Arabia, however irrational that idea may have been, and how quickly Riyadh managed to quash their separatist proxy project in Yemen. They also demonstrated in 2017 that they were willing to push Qatar to the breaking point, in order to demand on Israel’s behalf that they stop providing financial support to Hamas, as well as using Al-Jazeera to air coverage favorable of Palestinians.
The UAE is not a normal country; it doesn’t have thousands of years of history like neighboring Oman, it is an aggressive asset that cares only for expanding the power of its monarchy. Therefore, it is to be assumed that it will participate in continued attacks on its neighbors, while wearing the cloak of plausible deniability.
However, the Emiratis are likely to find out against Iran, what they quickly learned when they recently clashed with Saudi Arabia, they are not Israel and can’t behave as such without consequences.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 08.05.2026
A “calibrated escalation” is likely to follow the overnight US-Iran clash in the Strait of Hormuz, veteran war correspondent Elijah J. Magnier tells Sputnik.
“Return to full-scale war remains possible, but neither side appears eager for an immediate all-out confrontation,” Magnier says.
“What is more likely in the near term is a continuation of calibrated escalation, which means maritime incidents, allies being attacked, cyber operations, targeted strikes, and limited exchanges designed to impose pressure without triggering a wider or regional war.”
Both sides assess different forms of leverage, according to the pundit:
“Therefore, one strike causing mass casualties, damage to strategic energy infrastructure, or a direct attack on senior leadership — such as targeted assassinations — could rapidly push both sides beyond the current threshold,” Magnier warns.
Press TV – May 8, 2026
Iran’s Foreign Ministry has strongly condemned US acts of aggression against Iranian oil tankers and coastal infrastructure, describing the attacks as a blatant violation of the ceasefire agreement.
The US military attacked two Iranian oil tankers near the port of Jask and the Strait of Hormuz late Thursday and early Friday, while also carrying out attacks on several coastal sites overlooking the strategic waterway.
The assaults were met with a “powerful response and a heavy slap” from the Iranian Armed Forces, the ministry said in a statement on Friday.
The enemies, it said, failed to achieve their “illegitimate objectives.”
The minister said the aggression has clearly violated a ceasefire agreement reached between Tehran and Washington in early April.
It also condemned contradictory conduct and inflammatory rhetoric by US officials, saying the Trump administration’s actions reveal “desperation, confusion, and a deep inability” to find a way out of its “self-created quagmire.”
Reiterating Iran’s determination to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity, the ministry called on the UN Security Council and the Secretary-General to fulfill their responsibilities in safeguarding international peace and security.
It also warned that any UN “indifference or appeasement” toward Washington’s “lawlessness and rogue behavior” would carry dangerous consequences.
Recent events, it added, have made it clear that the US military presence in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman “has not contributed to regional stability or security; rather, it has itself become a source of insecurity with far-reaching regional and global consequences.”
The ministry also reiterated Iran’s commitment to a policy of good neighborliness and respect for the sovereignty of regional states, urging countries in West Asia to work toward a regional security mechanism based on collective trust and free from foreign intervention.
In response to the assault on Iranian tankers and civilian areas on Qeshm Island, Iran’s naval forces struck US destroyers with cruise missiles and combat drones near the Strait of Hormuz.
Hours later, Donald Trump claimed that the ceasefire was still in effect and sought to play down the exchange.
Intelligence monitoring conducted after Iran’s retaliatory strike, however, confirmed “significant damage” to American military assets.
With a pointed message directed at Washington and its regional allies, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ismail Baghaei later wrote in a post on X that “they see a lion’s fangs bared; do not assume the lion is smiling.”
Al Mayadeen | May 6, 2026
The White House believes it is approaching an agreement with Iran on a one-page memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the war and establishing a framework for more detailed nuclear talks, Axios reported, citing two US officials and two additional sources briefed on the matter.
The United States is expecting Iranian responses on several key points within the next 48 hours, the sources added. While no agreement has been finalized, they indicated that this represents the closest the parties have come to a deal since the US and “Israel” launched their war on Iran in February 2026.
The proposed memorandum includes provisions under which Iran would commit to a moratorium on nuclear enrichment, while the United States would agree to lift sanctions and release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds. Both sides would also remove restrictions affecting transit through the Strait of Hormuz.
However, many of the outlined terms remain contingent on reaching a final agreement, leaving open the possibility of a renewed war or a prolonged interim phase in which active fighting ceases without a comprehensive resolution.
In a similar vein to the Axios report, a Pakistani source involved in the Islamabad talks confirmed to Reuters that Washington and Tehran are closing in on a one-page memo to end the US-Israeli war on Iran.
“We will close this very soon. We are getting close,” the source told Reuters.
Shehbaz Sharif hails ‘momentum’
Commenting on the situation, Pakistani PM Shehbaz Sharif asserted that “Pakistan remains firmly committed to supporting all efforts that promote restraint and a peaceful resolution of conflicts through dialogue and diplomacy.
In a post on X, he wrote: “We are very hopeful that the current momentum will lead to a lasting agreement that secures durable peace and stability for the region and beyond.
The prime minister of Pakistan also thanked US President Donald Trump for halting the so-called “Project Freedom”, which aimed to provide “safe” maritime routes through the Strait of Hormuz in an attempt to counter Iran’s closure.
“I am grateful to President Donald Trump for his courageous leadership and timely announcement regarding the pause in Project Freedom in the Strait of Hormuz,” he stated.
He emphasized that Trump’s agreement to halt the project, on the request of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other “brotherly countries”, will serve “advancing regional peace, stability, and reconciliation during this sensitive period.”
Inside the high-stakes draft deal talks
Behind the scenes, the proposed one-page, 14-point memorandum of understanding (MOU) is being negotiated by envoys of Donald Trump, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, alongside several Iranian officials, both through direct contacts and intermediaries, according to Axios.
In its current form, the draft MOU would formally declare an end to the war in the region and initiate 30 days of negotiations aimed at reaching a detailed agreement on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, limiting Iran’s nuclear program, and lifting US sanctions.
Those follow-up negotiations are expected to take place in either Islamabad or Geneva, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.
During the 30-day window, Iran’s restrictions on shipping through the strait, along with the US naval blockade, would be gradually eased, a US official said. However, the same official noted that if talks collapse, US forces would retain the option to reinstate the blockade or resume military operations.
Details of nuclear file included in MoU
The duration of a proposed moratorium on uranium enrichment remains a central sticking point in negotiations, with terms still being actively debated, according to Axios. Three sources indicated the pause would last at least 12 years, while another suggested 15 years as a likely compromise. Iran has proposed a five-year moratorium, while the United States has pushed for a 20-year halt.
Washington is also seeking to include a provision that would extend the moratorium in the event of any Iranian violation, a source said. Under the current framework, Iran would be permitted to resume enrichment at low levels of 3.67% once the moratorium expires. Additionally, Iran would commit to never pursuing a nuclear weapon or engaging in weaponization-related activities, according to a US official. Discussions are also underway regarding a clause that would prohibit Iran from operating underground nuclear facilities.
The draft MoU further includes provisions requiring Iran to accept an enhanced inspections regime, including snap inspections by the United Nations, according to a US official. In parallel, the United States would commit to gradually lifting sanctions and releasing billions of dollars in Iranian funds currently frozen abroad.
Despite this, Iran has repeatedly affirmed that the current talks are solely focused on ending the war, rejecting claims by US officials that the nuclear file is being discussed in the ongoing talks.
Additionally, two informed sources claimed to Axios that Iran would agree to remove its enriched uranium from the country, to be stored in another country, with the United States being one option. Iran has repeatedly rejected such a term, emphasizing that it has no plans to transfer its uranium to any other country, even allies.
Iran denies nuclear talks are ongoing in talks with US
Provisions related to halting uranium enrichment for 15 years, determining the fate of 60% enriched uranium, and the gradual opening of the Strait of Hormuz were included in an earlier US proposal submitted around 20 days ago, but were firmly rejected by Iran, according to Fars News Agency.
On May 2, the agency reported that Washington has since revised its proposal three times, noting that Tehran did not accept any of the earlier drafts in principle. It added that the latest US proposal, consisting of nine articles, omits several of the previously circulated conditions, as US officials recognized Iran would not agree to them.
According to the report, Iran’s counterproposal does not include acceptance of a long-term suspension of uranium enrichment or the opening of the Strait of Hormuz prior to a final agreement, underscoring Tehran’s position that such measures cannot precede a comprehensive deal.
Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran’s plan to end the war is solely focused on halting hostilities, rejecting media reports suggesting nuclear commitments or maritime security arrangements. Speaking to state television, he stated that “some of the issues being raised relate to the record of previous negotiations with the United States,” emphasizing that Iran’s 14-point proposal centers on ending the war.
Baghaei further stressed that “at this stage, we have no nuclear negotiations,” underscoring that the current proposal does not include any nuclear-related topics, in contrast to claims circulating in international media.
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 6, 2026
Within a few days at the end of March, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky made two claims. He revealed that Russia had given him two months to withdraw all forces from areas still under its control in Donbas, or Russia would take it by force and change the terms of the settlement. Russia said that was not true.
And he said that the United States had conditioned security guarantees on Ukraine withdrawing from Donbas. “That’s a lie,” U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio said. “I don’t know why he says these things; they’re just not true.”
That Zelensky was constructing a false narrative about the war does not bother him because he is not trying to reflect reality; he is trying to reshape reality. With Russia’s military acquisition of Donbas appearing increasingly inevitable, American peace plans conceding it, and Ukrainians increasingly accepting it, Zelensky’s survival depends on crafting a narrative in which he did not betray the nationalists or his promise but had no choice but to surrender Donbas because he was forced by both his enemy and his supporter.
In another war, in another part of the world, another president is doing the same thing. All Iran has to do to end the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump said last week is to “cry uncle, that’s all they have to do. Just say, ‘We give up.” It doesn’t matter if they really give up: they just have to say it.
Trump’s team is crafting a narrative that provides them with an off ramp to a war they have lost that tells the story of a war they have won.
The U.S. had no legal reason for its war on Iran, and what publicly stated reasons they had were forever shifting. But there seem to have been four key goals:
Trump has repeatedly identified regime change as a key goal of the war. He has called for it, and he has explicitly said it is “time to look for new leadership in Iran.” The promised change in regime did not occur. The narrative response to that reality has taken two forms. First, Trump simply rewrote history and said regime change was never the goal: “regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change.”
Second, Trump and his team simply continuously repeated that there had been regime change when there had not, as if saying it made it so. Aboard Air Force One on March 30, Trump told reporters that “We’ve had regime change.” One week later, he posted that “we have Complete and Total Regime Change.”
There has been no regime change. Following the assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the regime underwent a seamless transition to his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, though he was specifically declared unacceptable by Trump. That is the opposite of regime change; that is regime continuity. Mojtaba Khamenei is a hardliner who was a close advisor to his father. He has been a core part of the regime, and his selection represents a preservation of, and not a change from, the regime.
Other new leaders who replaced the old, assassinated leaders, also represent regime continuity and survival. Ali Larijani’s replacement as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, is a former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps who has served in government since the days of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is very close to Mojtaba Khamenei and has always been aligned with the hardliners in the political establishment.
When you spend $25-35 billion, destroy a country, kill thousands of people, devastate the environment, damage the United Nations, discredit international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and irreparably wound relations with your European and NATO allies to bring about a regime change that never materialized, just say it did. You might remember another U.S. administration in another U.S. war, saying “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”
As part of his checklist of goals that have been accomplished by the war, Donald Trump has repeatedly included that Iran’s “missiles are just about used up or beaten.” Trump says Iran’s military has been “beaten and completely decimated.” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says Iran’s ballistic missile program has been “functionally destroyed.” That’s not true.
Many of Iran’s missile stockpiles were protected deep underground and were untouched by American strikes. Some that were struck were actually dummy decoys. Many of the ballistic missile launchers that were hit were repaired and reactivated within hours. Hegseth now concedes that Iran is “digging out” its struck missiles and launchers. U.S. intelligence and the military assess that Iran still has at least 60% of its missile launchers, nearly half of its missiles, and 40% of its attack drones.
And they are very capable of hitting their targets and doing damage. U.S. bases in the region suffered a degree of damage thought unthinkable before the war and have been rendered uninhabitable. Radar systems, air defense systems, and aircraft were damaged and destroyed. And recent reporting reveals that the actual damage they sustained far exceeds what has been reported.
The reality falls far short of the narrative and calls into question, not just the claim that the U.S. has won this war, but its ability to win a future war against a real power, like China.
The Trump team’s narrative has consistently told a tale of Iran’s forward deterrent network of proxies being “crushed,” amputating Iran’s ability to reach into the region. Contrary to the narrative, the surprising reality is that Iran’s proxies and partners have survived and are far more resilient, capable and integrated than the United States believed. Hezbollah has launched sophisticated missiles that the U.S. believed they no longer possessed at a rate greater than they have ever launched before. Iraqi militias are launching drone strikes on U.S. bases in the region. The Houthis entered the war and launched several barrages of missiles, some carried out in coordination with Iranian missile strikes.
The primary goal of the war on Iran was the final death of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. “There will never be a deal unless they agree that there will never be nuclear weapons,” Trump said again last week.
That nuclear narrative is the central lie in the justification of the war. Iran has never pursued a nuclear weapon. Washington knows that. The 2022 U.S. Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review concluded that “Iran does not today possess a nuclear weapon and we currently believe it is not pursuing one.” That assessment was repeated in the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment that clearly states that U.S. intelligence “continue[s] to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.” As recently as March 18, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a Senate Intelligence Committee that since the June bombings, “there has been no efforts [sic]…to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.” All Iran has done is insist on their right—like so many other countries—as a signatory to the NPT to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. And that is all they have ever done.
Trump was handed a mechanism for ensuring Iran could never build a nuclear bomb in the form of the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement, which Iran was honoring and which was working. Trump was the author of the current problem because he illegally pulled out of the agreement.
There has been zero progress in negotiations toward forcing Iran to terminate its civilian enrichment program. As at the start of the war, the right to enrich continues to be an absolute red line for Iran.
Trump’s vocabulary alters the narrative. The most concerning 970 pounds of 60% highly enriched uranium is rendered insignificant by renaming it “nuclear dust.”
Trump’s narrative not only renders the highly enriched uranium insignificant, it renders it irrelevant. He doesn’t really care about it because it is “so far underground,” the Americans can watch it, and the Iranians can’t get it. “I had one goal,” Trump said, “They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”
At times, Iran’s enriched uranium is insignificant, at times it is irrelevant, and at other times it is resolved. According to Trump’s narrative, Iran has already agreed to hand over all of its enriched uranium. “They’ve agreed to give us back the nuclear dust,” he said. The reality, of course, is that, though Trump says it, Iran has agreed to no such thing.
Iran still possesses a quantity of its enriched uranium. More importantly, it still possesses advanced scientific knowledge of how to enrich uranium and the legal right to do so. Most importantly, despite starving sanctions and the most lethal bombing the U.S. can deliver, protecting its right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes remains a redline that the U.S. has been unable to erase.
That is the reality. The rest is fiction: a narrative fiction crafted by Trump’s team to give them a way to tell an angry and betrayed public that they won the war when none of the goals—and all of the nightmares—have been achieved.
Though it may have cost $40-50 billion and used up half of its critical munitions, it is not a war but an “excursion.” Aspects of operation “Epic Fury” are rebranded for a public that is no longer buying it as “Project Freedom.”
And in an act of outrageous sophistry, it turns out that none of this matters because there isn’t a war. Seeking to circumvent the demand of the War Powers Resolution to receive permission from Congress to wage war after sixty days of troops being deployed, On May 1, Trump notified Congress that “hostilities” against Iran “have terminated.” Erase Trump’s threats, and the ships, aircraft and tens of thousand of troops in the region. Erase the fact that the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is an act of war under international law and that the U.S. fired on an Iranian flagged ship only days ago. Erase that the day before, Trump was briefed by CENTCOM on new plans for potential military action against Iran and that, days later, U.S. forces sank seven Iranian boats.
This is reality. But the reality is erased by a narrative fiction crafted by the Trump team in which the war is over because they define it as over. So, none of this matters any longer because the war is over.
This article was originally delivered as a speech at the West Suburban Peace Coalition Educational Forum on May 4, 2026.