China said it will not comply with the Strait of Hormuz blockade that President Donald Trump imposed on Monday. Beijing explained that it is negotiating with Tehran to transit the waterway and expects other countries not to meddle in its affairs.
Beijing is “monitoring the situation in the Middle East. Our ships are moving in and out of the waters of the Strait of Hormuz,” Chinese Defense Minister, Adm. Dong Jun, said after Trump announced the blockade. “We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honor them and expect others to not meddle in our affairs. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, and it is open for us.”
In response to a US and Israeli surprise attack on February 28, Tehran took control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has allowed only vessels from “friendly nations” to enter or exit the Persian Gulf and has imposed a toll. China is among the nations that have worked out deals with Iran to allow its ships to transit the Strait.
Iran says the Strait of Hormuz is now under Tehran’s control, and plans to change the toll to transit the waterway after the conflict ends.
Trump has threatened that the US will stop any ship that exits the Gulf after paying a toll to Tehran, setting up a potential confrontation with Beijing if the Navy attempts to seize a Chinese-flagged tanker.
Trump is scheduled to visit China next month to meet with President Xi. Earlier this week, the President threatened to place a 50% tariff on China if Beijing provides military support to Iran.
A majority of Israelis are against the ceasefire with Iran and anticipate that it will collapse within the coming year, according to a poll carried out by Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.
The survey was carried out between 9 and 10 April.
According to the results, 61 percent of Israelis oppose the cessation of hostilities with the Islamic Republic.
Seventy-three percent said Tel Aviv will have to resume the war, while 76 percent said that talks will not achieve Israeli objectives.
Additionally, 69 percent say Israel must continue the indiscriminate strikes on Lebanon and military operations against Hezbollah. Only 23 percent believe Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire.
The new poll also reveals that 62 percent are not convinced that the war against Lebanon will bring security and stability to Israelis.
Just 20 percent of supporters of the ruling coalition said they backed the truce, while only 31 percent of opposition voters expressed the same view.
The poll shows Israelis are unhappier with the results of this war than they were following last year’s 12-day June war against Iran.
Thirty-seven percent were “very satisfied” with the results of the new US-Israeli war on Iran, as opposed to 62 percent who said the same about last year’s war.
Forty-four percent of coalition voters are happy with the “diplomatic achievements” made, compared to 24 percent who are extremely unsatisfied.
Only seven percent of opposition voters said they were very satisfied with the achievements, compared with 69 percent who said they were unsatisfied.
The poll was released following the Islamabad talks between Tehran and Washington, which ended on 12 April with no agreement.
Since the US-Israeli war on Iran was launched in late February, Washington’s bases across the region have been ravaged.
A new Pew Research Center survey, released on 7 April, shows rising negative sentiment among US citizens toward Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the start of the war.
Six in 10 respondents report an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53 percent last year, while the number of those holding a “very unfavorable” view has also surged, nearly tripling since 2022.
Another recent poll carried out by Reuters and Ipsos showed that more than two-thirds of US citizens are calling for a quick end to Washington’s war against Iran, even if it means ditching its stated goals.
Just two weeks after the war began, a Drop Site News and Zeteo poll revealed that a majority of US citizens believe US President Donald Trump launched the war on Iran to “cover up” the scandalous Jeffrey Epstein files.
The new poll on Israelis’ sentiment toward ending the Iran war echoes some of those conducted during the genocide in Gaza.
In May 2025, a poll conducted by Penn State University found that 82 percent of Israelis supported the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.
The Strait of Hormuz is “under reasonable control and management” and open to passage by civilian vessels “in compliance with specific regulations,” the IRGC’s public relations department has announced.
This provision does not apply to military vessels, whose approach of the Strait “under any pretext will be considered a ceasefire violation and will be dealt with severely,” the IRGC warned.
The announcement comes on the heels of President Trump’s declaration on Sunday of a naval blockade of “any and all ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz,” and threats to “blow” any Iranian forces that fire at US warships “to hell!”
Former United States State Department advisor and veteran West Asia negotiator Aaron David Miller sharply criticized Washington’s assumptions about the pace and substance of talks with Iran, arguing that the US misjudged Iran’s position.
“If Administration believed after only 21 hours of negotiations, Iran would give up enrichment which is what Vance implied, they totally misread the moment and the Iranian dominated IRGC,” Miller posted on X.
Gerard Araud, a high-ranking retired French diplomat who served as the Ambassador to the United States and the Permanent Representative to the United Nations, also pointed to the prowess of Iranian negotiators.
“The agreement we reached with Iran in 2015 was the result of hundreds of hours of negotiations with the support of experts of nuclear energy,” Araud explained.
“Negotiating with the Iranians is the equivalent of a diplomatic trenches war. Line by line, word by word.” he posted on X.
“From an Iranian point of view, the negotiations are not starting from scratch but after an agreement endorsed by the UNSC,” he added in another post.
“Any new negotiations have to take into account this precedent: words have already a significance and proposals a history,” he said.
Deadlock in Islamabad talks after 21 hours of negotiations
Negotiations between Iran and the US have ended without agreement following Pakistan-mediated diplomatic efforts in Islamabad, with core nuclear demands keeping both sides far apart after 21 hours of discussions.
The talks, aimed at narrowing differences over Iran’s nuclear program and related regional security arrangements, failed to produce convergence on key issues, including Iran’s right to uranium enrichment, the security regime of the Strait of Hormuz, and proposals linking any broader understanding to a ceasefire extending to Lebanon.
Expectations of a rapid breakthrough had been encouraged by US Vice President JD Vance, but were widely regarded as unrealistic given the depth of disagreement between Washington and Tehran. The 2015 nuclear agreement itself took nearly two years to finalize, while current conditions are further complicated by escalating regional confrontation.
Vance defends US position after talks collapse
Following the breakdown of negotiations, US Vice President JD Vance stated that Iran had rejected Washington’s terms, while leaving the door open for future engagement.
“They have chosen not to accept our terms,” Vance said in a brief news conference in Islamabad, though he left open the possibility that terms could still be reached.
“We leave here with a very simple proposal: a method of understanding that is our final and best offer,” he added.
“We’ll see if the Iranians accept it,” he asserted.
Australia calls for renewed negotiations and ceasefire
International reactions followed the collapse of the talks, with Australia urging both sides to return to diplomacy and maintain a ceasefire across the region.
Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong described the outcome of the Islamabad talks as “disappointing” and called for an immediate resumption of negotiations.
“The priority now must be to continue the ceasefire and return to negotiations,” Wong said, adding it was “disappointing that the Islamabad talks between the United States and Iran have ended without agreement.”
Wong also warned that any further escalation “would impose an even greater human cost and further impact the global economy,” stressing the need for sustained diplomatic engagement.
As I expected, the negotiation between the US and Iran failed to reach an agreement. Although JD Vance headed the US team, he was never in control… I have heard from someone who was directly involved with this circus in Islamabad that Israeli agents — Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — made certain that JD Vance would not follow his instincts and accept the deal that Iran had laid on the table. Israel’s role in sabotaging the US delegation was evident in Vance’s statement announcing the failure of the negotiations, when he falsely accused Iran of refusing to give up its alleged quest for a nuclear weapon. This is just a rehashed piece of Zionist propaganda.
There were several Iranian conditions that the US refused to accept: Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz, an end to Israel’s attack on Lebanon and Hezbollah, unfreezing of Iran’s assets and retaining sovereignty over its supply of enriched uranium. I have said repeatedly this past week during various interviews on the subject that Iran’s position on these issues was non-negotiable.
Here is the statement just released by the Iranian government:
The American enemy, which is vile, wicked and dishonest — attempted to achieve on the negotiating table what it could not achieve through war.
Among these demands are handing over enriched uranium and opening the Strait of Hormuz without confirmed Iranian sovereignty over it.
Iran has decided to reject these terms and continue the sacred defense of its fatherland by any means necessary, military or diplomatic.’
So what is next? For starters I hope that the Iranian delegation in Islamabad gets a return flight home on a Russian or Chinese flagged airplane. I do not discount the possibility of Israel and the US trying to destroy the Iranian airliner on its return flight to Tehran.
Iran will not initiate new military actions against Israel or the US… They will wait to absorb the first blow and then launch a massive retaliation. I think they now understand that the US is too much under the control of the Zionist lobby to act in the interest of the people of the United States.
Iran’s demand that the US vacate its bases in the Gulf will be achieved by force… Iran will hit the remaining bases and make them uninhabitable for the US military going forward. The Saudis and the UAE will have to make a choice this week… Seek reconciliation with Iran and survive or side with the US and Israel and face economic destruction.
The real action that will put the most pressure on Trump will start on Monday morning when the US stock market takes a nose dive… again… and the price of oil heads back up into triple digit territory. JD Vance actually did Iran a favor by breaking off first and walking away. This paints Iran in a very favorable light in the eyes of the global south, i.e., Iran was willing to negotiate, but the US refused to engage in good faith negotiations and bailed.
Here is my chat with Ed DeMarche of the Trends Journal from last Wednesday:Video Link
There is growing expectation in Tehran that the Islamabad talks with the US may open the door leading into the rose-garden. But footfalls still echo in the memory, as the US has been an utterly unreliable and unscrupulous interlocutor.
The Islamabad talks on Saturday lasting 21 hours ended without a deal. The US Vice-President JD Vance, in a very short news conference at Islamabad, blamed Iran for not accepting American terms. As he put it, “We need to see an affirmative commitment that [Iran] will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon. That is the core goal of the president of the United States, and that’s what we’ve tried to achieve through these negotiations.”
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said that the two sides reached a consensus on some issues, but held different views regarding 2-3 important matters. Baqaei said the talks covered some new issues with their own complexities, such as the Strait of Hormuz, but stressed that diplomacy never ends, as it is a tool to preserve national interests, and “stands ready for all kinds of sacrifices.”
Baqaei later told Iran’s state television, “Naturally, from the beginning we should not have expected to reach an agreement in a single session. No one had such an expectation.” And Tehran is “confident that contacts between us and Pakistan, as well as our other friends in the region, will continue”.
On their part, Pakistani mediators called on the US and Iran to maintain the ceasefire. Foreign minister Ishaq Dar said Islamabad would try to facilitate a new dialogue between Iran and the US in the coming days.
Such tough situations have a history of grandstanding by protagonists but that hasn’t happened here, and gives hope that it is far too premature to write off that the peace track ended in a train crash. After all, the negotiations were initially expected to be indirect, but the two political leaderships are now engaging in direct discussions for the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Vance separately met Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and foreign minister Abbas Araqchi for two hours.
Previously, the plan was for the two delegations to sit in separate rooms while Pakistani mediators relayed messages between them. “However, now, in a significant shift, our sources close to the mediators say that the two teams are holding direct talks with the presence of Pakistani intermediaries,” Al Jazeera reported.
Also, the negotiations have moved beyond general issues, and in some cases entered technical discussions. Iranian media reported that “specialists from both sides are now reviewing detailed aspects of unresolved matters, including the implementation of regional de-escalation measures and the assessment of the ceasefire in southern Lebanon.”
The talks are very important for Vance himself as he personally sought this role from Trump. Another reason for Trump’s selection was the deep mistrust between Tehran and Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff following the US and Israeli attacks after two previous rounds of negotiations. Nevertheless, Witkoff and Kushner, both Jews with close ties to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accompanied Vance.
At any rate, finalising an agreement may take weeks or months and will likely require extending the current two-week ceasefire. That requires patience and fortitude. Whereas, an inventory of the war highlights only Trump’s fickle-minded temperament and Netanyahu’s tenacity bordering on obsession. Netanyahu has admitted that the US-Israeli attacks on Iran were “something I’ve longed to do for 40 years.”
In the 13 months since Trump took office until the outbreak of the war, Netanyahu met with Trump on average every two months for face-to-face meetings (apart from multiple remote meetings), unmatched by any foreign leader.
According to the New York Times, Trump’s irreversible decision to go to war was reached on February 11, in the famous Situation Room at the White House, where Netanyahu and the head of Mossad delivered Trump a spectacular story of decapitation of Iranian leaders, with a happy ending.
The Times wryly noted that none of Trump’s close associates — Vance, secretary of state Rubio or the CIA director Ratcliffe saw Netanyahu’s presentation and his closing argument as anything more than a live steam for young children, and they were well aware that their boss might believe in fairy tales, yet, none of them was willing to resign in protest.
Vance disclosed in Islamabad yesterday that he spoke with Trump at least half a dozen times during the talks and noted, “The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement, and I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America.”
Herein lies the danger. Trump is notoriously prone to mood swings and has a propensity to believe in the last person he spoke with. It may seem child-like innocence but in this case, chaffing under public ridicule in the US as well as internationally for having ‘lost’ the war, Trump is under immense pressure to do something.
Meanwhile, the Zionist lobby that has easy access to Trump’s ears must be working overtime to block any US-Iran agreement. On the other hand, as the final hours ticked down, there was little indication that Iran was ready to agree to Trump’s ultimatum.
Li Haidong, professor at China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times last week that based on past patterns, when confronted with mounting pressure, the US has at times escalated tensions, while at other moments abruptly shifted course with tactical adjustments. This makes Washington’s next move highly unpredictable.
The Chinese professor noted that “the current dynamics suggest that Tehran is unlikely to make meaningful concessions, while Washington also faces significant constraints in altering its own position. Coupled with Israel’s role in shaping the conflict, this latest ultimatum [by Trump] thatIran could be ‘taken out’ if it did not meet his newly updated deadline is likely to unfold in a more dramatic and uncertain manner.”
But that does not mean the war can end only on Washington’s terms; war is more likely to become protracted. Iran no longer trusts the US and will only accept an end of the war with guarantees that it won’t be attacked again.
Above all, the resurgent IRGC remains confident that it would “deprive the US and its allies of the region’s oil and gas for years” if Trump carries out his threat to attack power plants and bridges. An Iranian official told the media that the process of preparing new infrastructure for managing vessel traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has been completed by Iran and more than 100 vessels of various nationalities have so far submitted written requests to transit the strait under the new protocol.
Max Blumenthal discusses why the consensus over the US-Israel partnership is unravelling as the intrusive influence of Israel is widely seen to undermine US interests. The disastrous Iran War has intensified the MAGA Civil War. Blumenthal is the editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza.
According to the Hasbara Symphony Orchestra, Israel’s latest war against Iran was an astounding triumph and the country remains dizzy with success.
More precisely, we should speak of Israel’s invaluable contribution to an enormous US strategic victory, because the suggestion that the war primarily served Israeli rather than US interests, or that Israel played a central role in Washington’s decision to launch this war is an anti-Semitic blood libel.
Yet the Israeli press tells a very different story. Its views are of course not uniform, but across the political spectrum a fairly consistent assessment emerges:
1. Israel’s greatest success was Netanyahu’s ability to persuade Trump to launch this war. In Trump, Netanyahu finally found his mark.
2. This achievement is also a very sharp double-edged sword. It was from the outset an unpopular war in the US, dividing even the MAGA right. If responsibility for this war is placed at the feet of Israel, and particularly if it is seen in the US as a failed adventure that weakens the US position regionally and globally, the negative ramifications for Israel could have strategic consequences. Not so much because of reduced US power, but rather on account of the fallout this could have on the US-Israeli relationship.
3. Israel scored many tactical successes but failed to achieve its war objectives. If the war ends, and the Islamic Republic is not overthrown, it will have been a costly failure. Debate continues over whether Israel’s objectives were realistic and attainable, and whether Israel’s leadership raised false expectations among the Israeli public.
4. Despite the damage inflicted on Iran it has thus far emerged strengthened from this war. The Islamic Republic did not collapse, it demonstrated an ability to retaliate and inflict damage of its own throughout the war, and most importantly was able to establish its control over the Strait of Hormuz with all this entails for the global economy. In other words, Israel’s war objectives will not be extracted from Iran by the US around the negotiating table, because Tehran has no reason to capitulate.
5. If Israel is compelled to end its war against Lebanon before defeating Hizballah, this will be a political catastrophe.
6. The main losers of this war are the Arab states, particularly those of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The good news for Israel is the sharp deterioration in their relations with Iran. But Arab governments are unlikely to respond by strengthening relations with Israel, and perhaps also not with the US, because they see Washington and particularly Israel as responsible for their misfortune. And when push came to shove they proved to be exorbitantly expensive yet unreliable allies. (On this point commentary is more divided, and some anticipate closer relations).
As far as Israeli media is concerned this is not a final verdict, because the war is not necessarily over and even when it is it will take time for its full impact to be revealed. But thus far, at least, it is painting a very different picture than that served up by its flunkies and apologists abroad.
Between the lines, the conclusion is clear: in Iran, Israel’s new national security doctrine of eliminating any challenge to its regional hegemony, and of ensuring that any threat is nipped in the bud before it emerges, has been overtaken by reality.
The Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway nestled between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, is not merely a geographical passageway or a shipping lane on the world map to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
It is a strategically vital waterway that forms the pulse of the global energy economy and, simultaneously, a potent asset for the Islamic Republic to fundamentally reshape the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and around the world.
Iran seeks not merely to protect or monitor this strait but to exercise absolute, intelligent and legitimate control that, in the short term, applies economic pressure on any adversary to force it into retreat, negotiation, or acceptance of Iranian terms, and in the long term, to convert this control into permanent and inexhaustible strategic advantage.
This unchallenged authority on the strategic chokepoint, which carries around a quarter of global seaborne oil trade, includes regulating maritime traffic, collecting passage tolls, influencing global supply chains, and reconfiguring power dynamics in the region in alignment with the Axis of Resistance.
Backed by immutable geographical realities, international legal frameworks, precise economic data, and Iran’s asymmetric military capabilities, we examine how no military threats nor diplomatic pressure can alter this fundamental and unalterable reality.
Geographically, the narrowest point of the Strait of Hormuz measures just 21 nautical miles — roughly 39 kilometers — in width. This extremely narrow gap places all key shipping routes, including two two-mile-wide carriageways and a two-mile buffer strip, entirely within Iranian and Omani exclusive territorial economic waters.
Iran is uniquely positioned to exert absolute control over the northern and most critical part of the strait, with its coastline stretching more than 1,600 kilometers along the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. This extensive coastline includes not only mainland shores but also numerous strategic islands that serve as natural strongpoints.
Unlike the Suez Canal or Panama Canal — artificial waterways that can be circumnavigated — the Strait of Hormuz is the only natural, mandatory route for crude oil, liquefied natural gas, and chemical products exiting the Persian Gulf en route to the Indian Ocean and global markets.
No viable alternative to bypass Iran’s control
There is no economically viable or practically feasible alternative to bypass it.
The geography is also immutable: the mountains, rocky coasts, and shallow water depths in key formations make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to open parallel routes or construct new canals. No power on earth, irrespective of its military prowess, can overcome this geographical reality through insignificant actions, the occupation of tiny islands, or even the deployment of naval forces.
Iran’s long and impenetrable coastline is a natural wall that would require manpower and logistical support far beyond the capacity of the world’s largest armies to capture or hold.
Legally, the Strait of Hormuz falls under the purview of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), though its interpretation has consistently and appropriately followed the line advanced by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Because the strait’s width is less than 24 nautical miles, the entire waterway is not considered part of international waters or an international shipping route. The governing legal regime is not free and compulsory transit passage, but rather innocent passage.
Iran, having signed but not fully ratified the 1982 Convention, has always maintained that vessel passage must not prejudice the sovereignty of coastal states in any way, and that any passage threatening Iran’s national security is invalid.
This unique legal status grants Tehran the option of selective and conditional control over vessel traffic without necessarily infringing upon international law as interpreted by Western powers.
This is why the Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s real unsinkable aircraft carrier: an inseparable asset that costs virtually nothing to maintain daily, yet offers strategic and deterrent value inestimable to the global economy.
This legal position, combined with its geographical reality, has placed Iran in a situation where it can exercise practical dominance and unquestionable authority over the waterway without maintaining a permanent surface force presence.
Economically, the Strait of Hormuz is rightly called the true chokepoint of the world economy.
According to the most recent data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), approximately 20.9 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products transit through the strait daily — equivalent to 20 percent of all oil consumed worldwide and 25 to 27 percent of global oil imports and exports.
Moreover, over 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade — roughly 11.4 billion cubic feet per day, mostly from Qatari fields — also passes through this route.
Influence of the Strait of Hormuz beyond oil
But the waterway’s influence extends far beyond the oil industry. Iran is the world’s largest source of urea — a nitrogen fertilizer vital to agriculture — and the broader Persian Gulf region dominates this trade.
Iran alone ranks among the top five urea exporters globally, and any disruption in transit automatically drives international urea prices up by 25 to 30 percent.
This price surge directly disrupts fertilizer supply chains for major importing countries such as India, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and most African countries. The consequence is a large-scale food crisis: soaring wheat, rice, and other agricultural commodity prices, worldwide food inflation, and a direct threat to the food security of billions of people.
Thus, the Strait of Hormuz is the chokepoint of the global food supply — a weapon Iran can use to influence the currents of the global economy and generate unprecedented pressure by seizing control of food and energy chains without launching a single missile or drone.
For the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Strait of Hormuz serves as an asymmetric weapon or economic nuclear. It can hold the world economy at ransom by the implementation of selective but intelligent control of the waterway, without the requirement that involves direct war, without incurring huge costs of armaments and even the use of advanced nuclear weapons.
This strategy can be used to impose colossal and rapid economic strain that compels the opposing side to either flee in haste, bargain, or accept Iran’s terms, with no other options.
The long-term goal could be to transform this temporary control into a structural and permanent arrangement: collecting passage tolls from vessels, selectively regulating traffic (free passage for friendly ships in the Persian Gulf, restrictions and bans on hostile ones), and completely redefining the rules of engagement in the Persian Gulf in alignment with the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Axis of Resistance.
During periods of tension, Iran implements a calculated approach by raising the threat to the point of execution without necessarily ever closing the waterway completely, as was seen in operations True Promise 1, True Promise 2, and True Promise 3.
This strategy imposes continuous economic costs on the enemy without inflicting any harm on Iran. Even though Iranian oil exports and its own products are indirectly affected in the short term, selective transit management and toll collection create new revenue streams, ultimately swinging the economic war in Tehran’s favor.
Iran’s balance of action closely mirrors that of Gamal Abdel Nasser when he nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956. Nasser dared to seize the canal, scuttled ships at its entrance, and effectively closed the oil lifeline to Europe.
That action brought the British and French empires to their knees, triggered the Suez Crisis, and symbolized the fall of British colonial rule in the West Asia region.
Just as Nasser, with a single strategic stroke, turned a major energy canal into an instrument of influence and power shift, Iran has now moved to nationalize the Strait of Hormuz through actual action, asymmetric military strength, and unyielding political determination.
This nationalization of the Strait of Hormuz can be seen as the beginning of the de facto demise of American power in the Persian Gulf region, just as the nationalization of Suez heralded the end of the British Empire. The only difference is that Iran employs less advanced, less costly, and more efficient means to enforce this power and authority.
Iran’s efforts to implement a passage toll system in the operational and executive spheres have been intelligent and multifaceted. Enemies or vessels lacking the required permission face direct threats, while friendly vessels — particularly those from Eastern countries and key allies like China, Russia or Pakistan — pay tolls in Chinese yuan, Russian rubles, or cryptocurrencies such as USDT or Bitcoin, securing safe and uninterrupted passage.
This policy not only provides a direct and permanent revenue stream for the Iranian economy but also significantly reduces Iran’s reliance on the US dollar, which is dying a slow death.
Through the comprehensive use of China’s international payment system (CIPS), other banking networks, and digital payment systems, Tehran has successfully moved to eliminate the dollar from the commercial equations of the Strait of Hormuz and is working toward currency multipolarity and the dismantling of Western financial supremacy.
Iran’s legitimate control over Strait of Hormuz
This initiative is part of a broader economic warfare strategy that renders further struggle or pressure on Iran far more expensive and burdensome for the opponent than capitulating to Tehran’s demands. Iran’s intelligent and legitimate control over the Strait of Hormuz is thus absolute and enduring, resting on three unchangeable foundations.
First is the irrevocable nature of geography and the impossible cost of seizing it by force. Iran is literally impregnable with its 1,600-kilometer coastline. Any invading force attempting to assert control over a 100-kilometer front and fully reopen the strait would require over one million men, a vast naval fleet, and unparalleled logistical support — a force that even the world’s strongest military would struggle to assemble.
Moreover, Iran’s control over the strait does not depend on fixed ground positions surrounding the waterway; complete control can be exercised through anti-ship missiles, long-range drones with a range of nearly 2,000 kilometers, and integrated radar command systems.
The second justification is Iran’s absolute superiority in both low-intensity and high-intensity asymmetric warfare. Large-scale mining of the Strait — not using surface ships but rather Fajr-5 rockets fired from a range of 70 kilometers — is entirely within Iran’s capabilities.
These rockets can deploy magnetic, intelligent, and advanced mines along the entire length of the strait, rendering shipping traffic completely uneconomical. Clearing such mines from this waterway would require no less than six months, during which the global economy would be crippled in terms of energy supply and food security.
The ancillary cost of such warfare to Iran is minimal — thousands of dollars per mine — while the enemy suffers billions of dollars in daily losses, not to mention the devastating disruption to global supply chains.
The third foundation is Iran’s long history and precise strategic calculus. Iran has on many occasions in the past spoken of shutting down the Strait but has not acted on it, as demonstrated during the crises of the 1980s, in 2011-2012, and the last few years.
The threat itself is an effective deterrent. Any force that attempts to respond to Iran’s language of direct threat with its own language of direct threat instantly faces the prospect of a global energy shock, extreme inflation, economic downturn, and domestic opposition.
Records in the contemporary world have revealed that Iran will push the threat to the final stage of execution and will ultimately compel the opponent to withdraw and accept new realities, and it has been clearly and unquestionably demonstrated in the past 40 days.
Finally, Iran does not insist on a permanent and destructive closure of the Strait of Hormuz, but rather on intelligent and selective control. This domination includes non-dollar toll collection, selective passage management of vessels, and the transformation of all external threats into opportunities to reformulate the rules of engagement in the Persian Gulf.
Iran soars above this waterway because its permanence — rooted in immutable natural geography, low-cost and effective asymmetric technology, and most importantly, its unshakable determination — has secured it forever.
This fact cannot be altered by any power on earth, regardless of massive military pressure or international coercion. Any attempt to counter Iran in the Strait of Hormuz would simply cost the global economy far more and ultimately force adversaries to accept the new reality in the Persian Gulf: this waterway will no longer be anyone’s backyard, but rather the territory of the established, solid, and indestructible deterrent power of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The aerial massacre conducted by Israel in Beirut Wednesday, the Iranian response further limiting passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and a number of other incidents suggest the agreement reached Tuesday is not only fragile but on the verge of collapse.
Yet the more likely scenario is that these are the death throes of a failed war, and that Israel’s furious efforts to re-ignite a full-scale war will fail.
Let’s recall what happened on Tuesday. That morning the US leader, Donald Trump, threatened that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again”.
Shortly before the 8pm deadline for yet another genocide in the Middle East, Pakistan announced that the US and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. Iranians celebrated, Arabs and particularly those in the Gulf breathed an enormous sigh of relief, and Israel and its flunkies went into meltdown.
What changed?
As recent reporting in the New York Times makes clear, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in February successfully sold this war to Trump as one that would be short, decisive, and guaranteed to succeed. A quickie like no other.
With the exception of self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Trump’s advisors all had serious doubts about the Israeli plan, with one describing it as “farcical” and another dismissing the associated optimism as “bullshit”. But being loyal yes-men, they all signed off on it.
The war was intended to achieve Iranian capitulation or collapse within days, and failing that Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities were to be successfully eliminated within a few short weeks.
The Iranians would be so overwhelmed they would be unable to meaningfully retaliate, and the Islamic Republic would cease to exist before it could choke off the Strait of Hormuz and affect global energy supplies.
Success was so certain there was no need to prepare for any contingencies, let alone develop a Plan B.
More than a month later the US has accepted a ceasefire without any of its objectives achieved. Nor have Israel’s been. No regime change, no state collapse, no de-nuclearization, not even a significant degradation of Iran’s ballistic missile program. An attempted operation near Isfahan last week, the purpose of which appears to have been to establish a base within Iranian territory, went disastrously wrong.
More importantly, Iran was not only able to absorb a series of devastating blows and consistently retaliate against states throughout the region, and target and credibly threaten vital infrastructure, but Tehran also established unilateral control over the Strait of Hormuz. In response, the most powerful navy in history went out of its way to stay well over the horizon.
Iran, in other words, managed to transform the war against it into first a regional crisis and then a global economic crisis. While the US-Israeli bombing campaign continued to focus on the degradation of Iran’s military and industrial and civilian infrastructure, and although it inflicted enormous damage and killed thousands, the US focus visibly shifted to the economic ramifications of its war and re-opening the Strait of Hormuz by hook or by crook.
Washington shifted from achieving its original objectives to addressing the consequences of its own actions.
The US came to the realization that it had too eagerly purchased the counterfeit goods offered at a bargain basement price by Israel, and that achieving its objectives through warfare would require a massive commitment of additional resources. Not only was success still not guaranteed, but the disruption even success would entail would be prohibitively costly.
All the indications are that it was the US which called it a day, and that it was the US that engaged Pakistan, China, and others to bring its adventure to an end.
Trump’s genocidal threats about ending Iranian civilization appear to have been made after he knew a ceasefire was imminent, and as such may well have primarily reflected his need to look tough before accepting reality.
The suggestions that the US and Israel are using the two-week ceasefire to re-arm and resupply doesn’t really make sense. The equipment and weaponry most needed will take months if not years to replace, and the active war did not prevent the US from deploying tens of thousands of additional forces to the Middle East.
The coming days will demonstrate whether or not Iran is serious about bringing Israeli aggression against not only Iran but also Lebanon to an end. Indications are that it is. If indeed so, and as it has stated, Washington will need to choose between Israeli aggression and the Strait of Hormuz.
If that proves an insufficient incentive, and Tehran is serious, it has other options it can deploy. It is unlikely that the US will choose to fall into an Israeli trap, at even greater cost, yet again. Unlikely, but not impossible.
Over the course of the past six weeks Iran has sustained much more damage than it has inflicted. Yet strategically it emerges in a strengthened position relative to where it stood in late February. It neither capitulated, nor collapsed, nor sued for peace.
More to the point, absent this war Iran would not have been able to establish unilateral control over the Strait of Hormuz, and it is not going to fully relinquish this new-found power and leverage over the global economy. In real terms, this is worth more to Iran than a nuclear weapons arsenal, which it may well now develop anyway if negotiations do not result in a satisfactory agreement.
If and when negotiations commence, Iran will put less on the table, and demand more, than it accepted in either the 2015 JCPOA unilaterally renounced by the first Trump administration, or in negotiations with the US during the past year.
The US can make a deal, or refuse one, but at present it does not seem that resuming the war for the purpose of unattainable objectives is a realistic option for Washington. A return to maximum pressure is also no longer an option, because in the Strait of Hormuz Iran can now respond with maximum pressure of its own.
I’ve been wrong before and will of course be wrong again, and perhaps by tomorrow morning Israel or the US will have dropped a nuclear bomb on Iran or are preparing a ground invasion for next month.
Never underestimate the willingness of Americans to be led to disaster by their Israeli proxy. With actors as fanatic, irrational, and hubristic as the US and Israel, anything is possible.
Two issues to look for are Lebanon and Hegseth. Will Washington continue to indulge Israeli aggression against Lebanon, or will it order it to stop in order to wind this crisis down? As for Hegseth, if he is sent back to Rupert Murdoch to drown his sorrows in a succession of bottles, it means the US recognizes it has failed and has sacrificed him as its scapegoat.
The larger question is whether there will be a reckoning for Israel and the central role it played in this fiasco. If and when this reckoning arrives, this should start from the premise that it was Israel’s determination to permanently dispossess the Palestinian people that produced this crisis.
The refusal to properly address the question of Palestine, and the assumption that it can be resolved by armed force and slaughter, remains the root cause of the crisis that has now engulfed the entire region and beyond.
Investors have warned that the US-Israeli war on Iran will leave “scar tissue” in global markets, with commodity prices and bond yields unlikely to quickly return to prewar levels even if a lasting deal is reached.
Energy prices remain far above prewar levels even after the United States and Iran announced a fragile two-week ceasefire on Tuesday, with investors saying that damage to Gulf infrastructure and the loss of confidence after Tehran’s de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz will weigh on any recovery.
“It goes beyond the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. I think there would be longer-lasting scar tissue that would need a higher risk premium in markets, even if a permanent ceasefire was agreed,” said James Vokins, head of core income and investment grade credit at Aviva Investors.
Markets rallied but remain fragile
Stocks and bonds tumbled throughout March as US and Israeli attacks on Iran led Tehran to close the narrow waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and gas transits. Markets rallied quickly on the truce, with European government bonds and stock markets posting their best day for years on Wednesday.
Yet the international oil benchmark Brent crude remains nearly 35 percent higher than its price on the eve of the war, despite falling sharply in recent trading sessions. Bond yields, which have surged as traders slashed their bets on interest rate cuts by major central banks, remain elevated.
The yield on the interest rate-sensitive two-year Treasury note is 0.4 percentage points higher than it was before the aggression began. In Europe, where energy-importing economies are particularly vulnerable to global oil prices, yields have risen even further. Two-year yields in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy remain more than 0.5 percentage points higher than they were on the eve of the war.
A worse outlook than before the war
Bill Papadakis, macro strategist at Lombard Odier, said: “Even if the ceasefire proves to be a lasting one, the conflict was long enough, and leaves enough damage behind, that any reasonable macro scenario as of today looks meaningfully worse than the pre-conflict outlook.”
The US dollar and Treasuries have historically been seen as risk-free assets, used around the world for reserves. But President Trump’s alienation of allies and the ballooning national debt, made worse by the war on Iran, has lifted risk levels on those assets.
“Absolutely there is a bigger risk premium priced into US assets than before the war,” said George Pearkes, macro strategist at Bespoke Investment Group.
International investors losing confidence in the dollar
Andrew Jackson, head of investments at Vontobel, said his firm’s clients were increasingly concerned about the US dollar. “International investors are worried about the US dollar because of debt sustainability and the US’s relationship with the rest of the world. The US dollar curve is probably not the risk-free curve now,” he said.
Bill Campbell, a bond portfolio manager at DoubleLine, added that the conflict had encouraged him to further diversify away from the United States.
As the war on Iran enters its seventh week, the economic consequences continue to ripple outward. Even with a temporary ceasefire in place, investors are warning that the damage done to global markets and to confidence in US assets may not be easily repaired. The “scar tissue” that Aviva’s Vokins spoke of could take years to heal, if it ever does.
For the United States, a country already burdened by record debt and a president who has alienated traditional allies, the long-term cost of this war may be measured not only in dollars, but in the erosion of the very foundations of its economic power.
The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) has categorically denied carrying out reported drone and missile strikes on facilities in countries along the southern edge of the Persian Gulf, stressing that Iranian forces carried out no such operations during the ceasefire hours.
In an official statement on Thursday night, the IRGC stated, “The armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran have not launched any missiles at any country during the ceasefire hours until now.”
The IRGC was responding to a wave of unverified reports circulated by various news agencies over the past few hours alleging Iranian attacks on targets in the Persian Gulf region.
“We would like to inform you that the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran have not launched any missiles at any country during the ceasefire hours until now,” the statement read.
The IRGC further stated that if the media reports prove accurate, “it is undoubtedly the work of the Zionist enemy or the United States,” entities notorious for staging provocations and false-flag operations to destabilize the region and undermine the ceasefire.
Highlighting the Islamic Republic’s policy of transparency and accountability, the IRGC added, “If the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran hit any target, they will boldly announce it in an official statement, and any action that is not in the statements made by the Islamic Republic of Iran has nothing to do with us.”
The IRGC’s decisive clarification exposes yet another attempt by hostile media networks to fabricate narratives against the Islamic Republic at a sensitive time. Iran has remained steadfast in honoring the ceasefire while the Zionist regime continues its aggressive policies across West Asia.
The IRGC reaffirmed the Iranian armed forces’ readiness to defend the country’s sovereignty and regional stability, while exposing the real instigators of any destabilizing actions in the Persian Gulf.
The US and Israel launched an unprovoked war against Iran on February 28, assassinating the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, along with several senior officials, military commanders, and hundreds of civilians.
In retaliation, Iran launched its decisive Operation True Promise 4. Hundreds of ballistic and hypersonic missiles and drones have pounded US military bases across West Asia and Israeli positions throughout the occupied territories.
Throughout the war, Iran continued to target Israeli and American assets in occupied Palestine and US military bases and interests in the Persian Gulf, maintaining its resilience even after about six weeks of fighting.
In December 1945 and January 1946, the British Mandate authorities carried out an extensive survey of Palestine, in support of the work of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. The results were published in the Survey of Palestine, which has been scanned and made available online by Palestine Remembered; all 1300 pages can be read here.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 