Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘Unacceptable’: Islamabad won’t normalize with Israel, defense minister says despite Trump’s push

Press TV – May 26, 2026

Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif has asserted opposition to his country’s normalizing relations with the Israeli regime after US President Donald Trump called on regional states to enter rapprochement deals with Tel Aviv.

Speaking to Pakistani broadcaster Samaa TV on Monday, Asif said Pakistan should not support agreements that conflict with the country’s “fundamental ideologies.”

Asif made the remarks after being asked about the possibility of Pakistan’s joining the so-called Abraham Accords – a set of Washington-facilitated détentes that have normalized relations between some regional countries and Tel Aviv – following reported pressure from Trump.

Questioning engagement with the regime, the Pakistani defense minister added, “How will you sit down with those people whose word cannot be trusted even for a single day?”

He also reiterated Islamabad’s longstanding position regarding the regime. “We have a very clear stance that this is not acceptable to us,” Asif said.

Referring to Pakistan’s passport policy, he added, “And secondly, on our passports, we are the only country whose passports don’t even include Israel’s name.”

Trump pushes for expansion of Abraham Accords

The remarks came as Trump called for more countries to follow the example of such states as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain that have entered rapprochement deals with Tel Aviv.

He suggested that those countries join the “Abraham Accords” before conclusion of any agreement between Iran and the United States aimed at ending the cycle that has arisen out of Washington’s unprovoked aggression against the Islamic Republic.

Trump said expansion of the accords “should start with the immediate signing by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and everybody else should follow suit.”

He also said that during discussions with leaders of Muslim and Arab countries, he stressed that “all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously, [should] sign onto the Abraham Accords.”

He said “it should be mandatory” for those states to join the normalization deals “after all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together.”

The US president did not clarify further, but observers commenting on his remarks said he was either trying to condition any agreement with Iran on realization of such détentes or portray a favorable picture of regional normalization with the occupying regime and Washington’s role in it.

Trump described the accords as beneficial for participating countries.

“The Abraham Accords have proven to be, for the Countries involved (The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and Kazakhstan), a Financial, Economic, and Social BOOM, even during this time of Conflict and War, with the current Members never even suggesting leaving, or taking so much as even a pause,” he wrote.

Reports, including those provided by Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, have shown how the countries in question, especially the UAE, have been deriving economic benefits from the normalization accords even as the Israeli regime would sustain its campaign of occupation and aggression against Palestinians, including its war of genocide on the Gaza Strip.

Palestinians and their supporters have vociferously denounced the accords, condemning their regional signatories for their betrayal of the Palestinian cause of confronting Israeli atrocities.

May 26, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on ‘Unacceptable’: Islamabad won’t normalize with Israel, defense minister says despite Trump’s push

A new regional logic? If Israel strikes Lebanon, Iran strikes back at the UAE

By Trita Parsi | May 25, 2026

Despite the ceasefire and tentative progress toward a memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, the Persian Gulf has remained perilously volatile. In the past 24 hours alone, several rounds of fire have been exchanged between US and Iranian forces in the region. Though both sides appear to view the incidents — which may have killed as many as four IRGC naval personnel — as falling below the threshold that would shatter the ceasefire altogether, the clashes underscore the fragility of the current arrangement and the ever-present danger of renewed escalation.

Yet in recent days, it was not the Persian Gulf that emerged as the greatest threat to the agreement. It was Israel’s potential refusal to fully adhere to the regional ceasefire and halt its bombardment of Lebanon. That danger remains acute.

Iran has three principal reasons for insisting that any ceasefire be genuinely regional in scope — one that includes not only the United States and Iran, but also Israel and Lebanon.

First, solidarity with the peoples of Gaza and Lebanon is not merely rhetorical theater for Tehran; it lies at the heart of the Islamic Republic’s regional identity and strategic posture. Having already been perceived by some in the Arab world as abandoning these constituencies in 2024, Iran can scarcely afford another rupture that would further erode its credibility within the so-called “axis of resistance.”

Second, continued Israeli attacks risk reigniting direct confrontation between Israel and Iran — a dangerous cycle that has already erupted twice since October 7, 2023. The linkage between these theaters is neither imagined nor incidental. It is openly acknowledged in Western discourse, which routinely portrays Iran as the central node of resistance to Israeli and American policies, operating through allied groups in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Yemen. From Tehran’s vantage point, a durable cessation of hostilities with Israel cannot be disentangled from ending Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. For Iran, this is not an aspirational addendum to diplomacy; it is a foundational condition.

But perhaps the most consequential issue is what Lebanon reveals about Washington itself. For Tehran, tying Israel to the ceasefire is ultimately a test of America’s willingness — and ability — to restrain its closest regional ally. If Trump either cannot or will not do so, then the value of any agreement with Washington comes sharply into question. A ceasefire that leaves Israel free to reignite hostilities at will — while the United States remains unable to prevent itself from being dragged back into conflict — offers little assurance of stability. Under such circumstances, the utility of a deal with Washington diminishes dramatically.

Trump could still choose to put American interests first and compel Israel to comply, much as Ronald Reagan did in 1982 when he pressured Prime Minister Menachem Begin to halt Israel’s devastating assault on Lebanon. Reagan reportedly expressed outrage at the bombardment of Beirut, warning Begin that America’s support could not be taken for granted. Within hours, the bombing stopped. Trump, by contrast, has thus far shown little ability to ensure sustained Israeli compliance with his demands.

A more plausible scenario may be a murkier and more dangerous one: Washington and Tehran reach an agreement, Israel initially abides by it, but over time gradually extricates itself from the arrangement and resumes strikes on Lebanon under the familiar banner of “self-defense.”

At that point, Iran would face a painful dilemma. Tehran would almost certainly pressure Trump to intervene and might even threaten to abandon the agreement altogether. But if Washington failed to act, would Iran truly sacrifice sanctions relief, economic recovery, and an end to open warfare merely to register its objections? Moreover, walking away from the deal might not compel Trump to restrain Israel. Iran could end up with neither an agreement nor a ceasefire in Lebanon. In fact, it would be an outcome Israel would welcome.

One option increasingly discussed within segments of Iran’s security establishment is more ominous still: remaining within the agreement while imposing costs elsewhere — namely on the United Arab Emirates, one of Israel’s closest regional partners. This argument has circulated quietly within segments of Iran’s security establishment, though the extent of its support remains unclear. Yet given the growing sentiment among Iranian decision-makers that Tehran showed excessive restraint toward the UAE during the war, the notion of a “UAE for Lebanon” strategy no longer appears far-fetched.

The logic is brutally simple. If the broader US-Iran arrangement tolerates Israel attacking an Iranian ally in Lebanon, then Tehran may conclude that the same arrangement can tolerate Iran targeting an Israeli ally in the Persian Gulf. Under such a scenario, Iran could retaliate against Emirati territory or Israeli operatives based there for every Israeli strike conducted in Lebanon. Rather than collapsing the agreement outright, Tehran would seek to exact a calibrated price for Israeli noncompliance.

Such a strategy would carry grave risks. Emirati retaliation could follow, potentially igniting a wider regional confrontation. Yet it remains unclear whether Washington would rush to the UAE’s defense if doing so meant destroying the very agreement it had negotiated with Tehran. In that sense, the strategy would place the burden back on the United States: either restrain Israel or watch the conflict metastasize across the Persian Gulf.

The implications for the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council would be profound. Few Gulf states harbor deep affection for the UAE’s increasingly muscular regional posture, but even fewer desire another destabilizing regional war. Moreover, forcefully condemning Iranian retaliation against the Emirates would only throw into sharper relief the broader Arab silence surrounding Israel’s ethnic cleansing in southern Lebanon.

Hopefully, none of this comes to pass. A durable agreement between Washington and Tehran — backed by the overwhelming majority of regional states — remains possible. And Trump could yet decide that preserving regional stability requires compelling Israel to respect the terms of a broader ceasefire.

But the very fact that Tehran is contemplating escalation against the UAE if Israel escalates in Lebanon illustrates the degree to which the Emirates have made themselves needless targets in the larger Israeli-Iranian rivalry by signing the Abraham Accords.

May 25, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on A new regional logic? If Israel strikes Lebanon, Iran strikes back at the UAE

Iran lawmaker outlines five conditions for any understanding with US

Al Mayadeen | May 26, 2026

The head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Ebrahim Azizi, said there is “no meaning” to any understanding or negotiations with the United States unless Washington takes five concrete confidence-building measures.

Speaking to Iranian state television, Azizi said the measures include ending the war on all fronts, particularly in Lebanon, lifting the maritime blockade, guaranteeing the passage of non-military vessels through the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian supervision, suspending oil sanctions for 30 to 60 days, and releasing frozen Iranian assets.

Azizi stressed that even if an agreement is reached, it would not signify the end of confrontation with the United States, adding that “Iran after the war is completely different from Iran before the war.”

His remarks come amid growing anticipation over indirect US-Iran contacts being conducted through regional mediators, including Pakistan and Qatar. In this context, Iranian Parliament Speaker and head of the negotiating delegation Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf visited the Qatari capital, Doha, on Monday.

For his part, US President Donald Trump said negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran were “going well,” describing the process as one that could either lead to “a great deal for everybody” or “no deal at all.” Trump also linked any potential agreement to the need for Arab and Islamic states backing the talks to sign normalization agreements.

On the Lebanese front, which Iran insists must be included in any prospective agreement aimed at halting the war, the Israeli occupation continues its large-scale attacks on towns in southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa.

Israeli media also reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the occupation’s security minister approved plans to expand the war and target civilian buildings in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, after drone operations carried out by the Islamic Resistance that have inflicted losses on occupation forces.

May 25, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran lawmaker outlines five conditions for any understanding with US

Trump Wants To Use A Deal With Iran To Further Isolate The Palestinians

Trump Wants Every Arab State To Abandon Palestine

The Dissident | May 25, 2026

Donald Trump on Truth Social, has announced his intention to pressure Qatar, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, and Jordan to normalize relations with Israel- without Israel agreeing to a Palestinian state-as part of the potential deal with Iran.

On TruthSocial, Trump wrote, “Negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran are proceeding nicely! It will only be a Great Deal for all or, no Deal at all — Back to the Battlefront and shooting, but bigger and stronger than ever before — And nobody wants that!” adding, “after all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together, it should be mandatory that all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously, sign onto the Abraham Accords. Those Countries discussed are Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates (already a Member!), Qatar, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain (already a Member!). It may be possible that one or two have a reason for not doing so, and that will be accepted, but most should be ready, willing, and able to make this Settlement with Iran a far more Historic Event than it would, otherwise, be.”

He added, “I am mandatorily requesting that all Countries immediately sign the Abraham Accords, and that, if Iran signs its Agreement with me, as President of the United States of America, it would be an Honor to have them also be part of this unparalleled World Coalition.”

For context, all members states of the Arab League and even Iran have long agreed to support the Arab peace initiative, which calls for all states who signed on to “Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region” and “Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace” in exchange for “The acceptance of the establishment of a Sovereign Independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.”

Israel has long rejected this major compromise and instead pursues the Greater Israel Project and endless regime change wars against states that are too supportive of the Palestinians.

In 2020 Benjamin Netanyahu, Jared Kushner, and the Trump administration came up with a way for Israel to get normalization with Arab states without any concessions for Palestinians, dubbed the Abraham Accords.

The phony “peace deal” allowed Israel to normalize relations with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco, without anything for Palestinians.

The real purpose of the deal, as the New Yorker David Remnick puts it , was “sidelining the Palestinians yet again”.

The deal, as Mother Jones noted , “essentially kicked the Palestinians and their grievances (the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, its apartheid policies, and its blockade of Gaza, which turned the strip, according to Human Rights Watch, into an ‘open-air prison’) to the curb”.

Benjamin Netanyahu- who wanted to expand the Accords to countries like Saudi Arabia- made it no secret that the deal was intended to isolate the Palestinians, to pave the way for an Israeli annexation of Gaza and the West Bank.

As Journalist Jeremy Scahill noted , “The Abraham Accords, launched under President Donald Trump, effectively excised the issue of Palestinian self-determination as a condition for normalization, a major victory for Israel. Israeli provocations and attacks against worshippers at Al Aqsa were becoming a regular occurrence. Israel was aggressively moving forward with its annexation of Palestinian land and armed settlers were conducting deadly paramilitary actions, often with the support or facilitation of the government, against Palestinian farms and homes in the occupied territories.”

Scahill noted that:

In the years preceding the October 7 attacks, under presidents Trump and Biden, Hamas watched as Israel became more emboldened as prospects for Palestinian liberation receded to the footnotes of Washington-led initiatives aimed at normalizing relations between Israel and Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Netanyahu’s position was: “We must not give the Palestinians a veto over new peace treaties with Arab states.”

Just two weeks before the October 7 attacks, the Israeli leader delivered a speech at the UN general assembly in New York, brandishing a map of what he promised could be the “New Middle East.” It depicted a state of Israel that stretched continuously from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Gaza and the West Bank, as Palestinian lands, were erased.

During that speech, Netanyahu portrayed the full normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia as the linchpin of his vision for this “new” reality, one which would open the door to a “visionary corridor that will stretch across the Arabian Peninsula and Israel. It will connect India to Europe with maritime links, rail links, energy pipelines, fiber-optic cables.”

Netanyahu’s open admission that Israel wanted to use the Abraham Accords to abandon the Palestinians and make way for an Israeli annexation of Gaza and the West Bank is a large part of what triggered the Al-Aqsa Flood operation from Hamas on October 7th.

But after the Israeli Holocaust in Gaza, most states that could have potentially signed onto the Abraham Accords refused to agree to full normalization with Israel without the establishment of a Palestinian state.

As the Times of Israel noted , “Riyadh has repeatedly said, however, that it will not join the accords before Israel commits to the establishment of a Palestinian state, an idea that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vehemently refused to entertain,” adding, “Like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has said it will not recognize Israel until the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Qatar, too, has no formal ties with Israel”.

Türkiye has similarly said, “When Israel stops the pressure and cruelty targeting Palestinians, Türkiye will have no problem with normalizing relations. As long as its regional policies continue, as long as they bomb cities, kill children and women, it is impossible to normalize ties with them”.

Through demanding that all of these states join the Abraham Accords, Trump is attempting to force countries desperate to see an end to the war in Iran to normalize relations with Israel and abandon the Palestinians, in order to lead the way for the final phase of Israel’s annexation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

May 25, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Wants To Use A Deal With Iran To Further Isolate The Palestinians

Trump demands Arab states normalize with Israel in exchange for Iran ceasefire: Report

Press TV – May 25, 2026

US President Donald Trump has told several Arab and Muslim leaders that he expects them to establish formal relations with Israel in exchange for a ceasefire deal with Iran to end the war, according to American officials.

Axios, citing the officials, said that Trump made the demand during a phone conversation on Saturday with leaders from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain.

According to the same sources, all eight leaders expressed support for the potential agreement with Tehran during the call.

“We are with you on this deal,” one official was quoted as telling Trump, according to the report.

Another official familiar with the conversation said the US president indicated that he would next speak with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and hoped to bring him into a joint call with the same group of Arab and Muslim leaders in the future.

Trump also pushed those countries that have not yet joined the so-called Abraham Accords – a series of 2020 US-brokered normalization deals with Israel signed under the Trump administration – to do so and establish formal ties with the Tel Aviv regime, the officials added.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan currently maintain no official diplomatic relations with Israel.

One of the officials told Axios that there was “silence on the line” after Trump’s demand, prompting the president to joke and ask “if they are still there.”

The development comes as indirect talks between Tehran and Washington, mediated by Pakistan and facilitated by Qatar, continue based on the Islamic Republic’s 14-point proposal to reach a memorandum aimed at putting an end to the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Speaking in a televised interview on Saturday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Iran and the United States have edged closer to finalizing the 14-point memorandum to end the imposed war, halt American maritime aggression, and secure the release of Iran’s blocked assets.

He emphasized that Iran’s focus at this stage remains exclusively on ending the US-Israel war based on its proposal, which has been shuttled back and forth several times.

The criminal US-Israeli aggression against Iran began on February 28 with airstrikes that assassinated senior Iranian officials and commanders, including Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

Iranian Armed Forces responded by launching daily missile and drone operations targeting locations in the Israeli-occupied territories as well as US military bases and assets across the region.

Furthermore, Iran retaliated against the strikes by closing the Strait of Hormuz, which resulted in a significant increase in oil prices and its by-products.

On April 8, forty days into the war, a Pakistan-brokered temporary ceasefire between Iran and the US took effect.

Negotiations ensued in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, but stopped short of an agreement amid Washington’s maximalist demands and insistence on unreasonable positions.

May 25, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump demands Arab states normalize with Israel in exchange for Iran ceasefire: Report

The Ivanka Trump Assassination Plot Distraction

Last ditch effort to derail peace deal between the US and Iran

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | May 24, 2026

On May 22, Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post floated a story claiming Iran attempted to murder Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter. In the first paragraph of the Post story, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is blamed for the aborted attack. The sensationalist newspaper sources the claim to the Justice Department.

“Mohammad Baqer Al-Saadi had ‘pledged’ to target Ivanka Trump in retaliation for the assassination of his mentor Qasem Soleimani,” the Post reported.

Al-Saadi is said to be a high-ranking figure in Iraq-Iran terror circles, arrested in Turkey on May 15 and extradited to the US where he is charged with 18 attacks and attempted attacks throughout Europe and the United States, per the Department of Justice.

Al-Saadi is apparently a very ambitious and active terrorist. He is accused of attacking US and Jewish targets, including the firebombing of the Bank of New York Mellon in Amsterdam, the stabbing of two Jews in London, taking potshots at the US consulate building in Toronto, the firebombing of a synagogue in Liège, Belgium, the arson of a temple in Rotterdam, and “various other foiled counter-attacks in the US in response to the current conflict in the Middle East,” according to the Justice Department.

Sources cited in the reports alleged that Al-Saadi possessed a blueprint of Ivanka Trump’s Florida residence and had shared threatening messages online referencing surveillance of the property. Former Iraqi military official Entifadh Qanbar claimed that Al-Saadi openly spoke about avenging [IRGC officer Qasem] Soleimani’s death by targeting Trump’s family. [Qasem Soleimani was assassinated on 3 January, 2020 in Baghdad by a drone strike ordered by President Trump.]

Prosecutors say Al-Saadi is a commander for the Iraqi Shia militia Kata’ib Hezbollah, a US designated terrorist group allegedly linked to a little known group, Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya (the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right, a Qur’anic phrase), described as a “pop up” network that surfaced in March.

Details on the group came from Israel’s Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, an organization that specializes in targeting and defaming supposed anti-Semites, including popular podcasters such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Ian Carroll, the Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, and anti-Zionist political candidate Dan Bilzerian.

The Ministry cannot be trusted. It stands accused of launching a months-long campaign to covertly influence American lawmakers through AI-generated social media posts by fake users, according to The New York Times.

Critics argue Ministry programs like Voices of Israel, formerly known as Kela Shlomo and Concert, use bots and AI-generated content to attack opponents, influence public opinion, lobby for favorable legislation in the US and UK, and organize protests.

A central tactic involves deliberately amplifying anti-Muslim narratives, such as claims of “Islamic invasion,” “Sharia law,” and terrorism, in order to incite hostility between Christians and Muslims. This strategy aims to keep everyday Americans and Europeans divided and distracted with hate, encouraging them to view Muslims as the primary enemy rather than scrutinizing Israeli policies or lobbying efforts.

Therefore, it is not a stretch to assume Israel’s Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism would either invent or exaggerate the claim Al-Saadi and Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya (HAY) are behind antisemitic attacks, especially at a critical juncture in the US-Israel war against Iran. The alleged targeting of Ivanka provides Trump with an excuse to restart the war and fulfill Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire to destroy Iran.

Netanyahu is afraid Trump will agree to a deal with Iran. Although Trump has stated on more than one occasion that he is not concerned about the financial burden his war has placed on the American people, he is, however, worried about the global economy as a depression would undoubtedly destroy the stock market and reduce valuations across the board. Israel, of course, is not concerned about this. It has a single objective—destroy Iran at all costs, even if billions of people suffer. Any deal Trump makes, any action short of bombing Iran, will short-circuit this objective.

A few hours after the story broke, Benjamin Netanyahu was reportedly “highly concerned and ‘worried’ President Trump will make a deal with Iran” and the Israeli PM “urged US to launch another round of strikes,” according to Axios.

By the afternoon of May 23, Trump posted to Truth Social: “Agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization between the United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran.” It was the first time the president called Iran the “Islamic Republic of Iran.” Netanyahu reacted predictably, convening an urgent meeting with coalition leaders and Israeli security chiefs over what Channel 12 described as a “very bad” interim Iran deal.

“Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly. In addition to many other elements of the Agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will be opened,” Trump posted.

RT reported the deal includes: an end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon; several billion dollars of frozen Iranian assets unlocked; when the US blockade is lifted, the Strait of Hormuz will open; US bases and forces in the vicinity of Iran withdrawn; and a 30 day period to seal the nuclear deal.

Iran said Trump’s claim about the Strait of Hormuz “returning to normal” was false. It insisted on full control of the strait, including routes, timing, permits, and passage rules. Iran emphasized that no nuclear commitments were discussed during the meeting. They also claimed that US officials informed them that Trump’s posts are primarily intended for domestic media and political purposes, according to the Fars News Agency. A source told Fars that Trump “has realized that Iran is not one to give concessions” and sends word through intermediaries that his statements “should not be paid attention to.”

In what has become a pattern, the United States and Israel are reportedly collaborating behind the scenes to destroy any peace deal by assassinating supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei, while weighing “whether his survival provides manageable stability or whether his removal could weaken Iran’s ruling structure further, per Israel Hayom.” Iranian MP and member of the negotiation delegation Mahmoud Nabavian “states that if Iranian leaders are assassinated in any attack, all of the complicit despots in the Persian Gulf will be killed and their palaces destroyed,” according to Seyed Mohammad Marandi.

On May 24, Benny Gantz, the Zionist Minister of Defense, posted to X that he believes it is “absolutely forbidden under any circumstances to accept the ceasefire in Lebanon as part of a deal with Iran,” thus signaling that Israel will continue murdering people and stealing land in southern Lebanon regardless of any deal between the United States and Iran.

Meanwhile, the conveniently timed and supposedly foiled assassination of Ivanka Trump is fading into noise, having done little more than prompt MAGA to ventilate on social media and elicit calls to “finish the job” of slaughtering Iranians. Ivanka Trump was never in danger and the plot has all the earmarks of previous concocted plots for which Trevor Aaronson covered more than a decade ago in his book, The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism.

May 24, 2026 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, False Flag Terrorism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on The Ivanka Trump Assassination Plot Distraction

Col Doug Macgregor: US-Iran Deal, Israel’s Nightmare

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 24, 2026

May 24, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Col Doug Macgregor: US-Iran Deal, Israel’s Nightmare

Warmongers in meltdown as Trump heralds Iran deal

In essence, this agreement brings the situation to where it was supposed to be following the announcement of the original ceasefire

By Trita Parsi | May 23, 2026

I wrote yesterday that the United States and Iran were on the verge of an agreement. Trump appeared to confirm as much a few hours ago with an unusually disciplined Truth Social post — grammatically coherent, diplomatically measured, and notably devoid of his customary theatrics or ritual humiliation of the opposing side.

That restraint matters. Unlike his earlier proclamations of imaginary breakthroughs, this statement carried the tone of a serious diplomatic signal rather than political indiscipline. Its timing, moreover, appeared disconnected from market considerations or domestic spectacle. My own sources in Tehran likewise confirm that a major breakthrough has been reached, though it remains contingent on final approval — precisely as Trump indicated.

So what does all of this mean? What do we actually know about the contours of the agreement? How significant was the role played by regional actors in securing the breakthrough, and what explains Europe’s near-total irrelevance in the process? If this arrangement is merely a Memorandum of Understanding, where do the principal vulnerabilities lie as negotiations enter a second phase?

Moreover, can Trump successfully sell the deal at home? What steps can — and likely will — Israel take to sabotage the agreement? And if a final deal is secured, how profound would Israel’s strategic defeat be?

Let me try to address these questions one by one.

First of all, the full details remain unclear. But according to reporting by Amwaj.media —much of which I have independently corroborated — the agreement entails a comprehensive cessation of hostilities, including in Lebanon; the gradual release of Iran’s frozen assets; and an end to America’s “blockade of the blockade” in the Strait of Hormuz.

Maritime traffic through the Strait would resume under joint Iranian and Omani oversight. Once these measures take effect, the parties would have an additional 30 days to negotiate a final agreement. That second-stage accord is expected to address both the nuclear issue and the long-term status of the Strait.

Significant progress, however, already appears to have been made on the nuclear file, and, as I understand it, broad principles for its resolution have largely been agreed upon.

In essence, this agreement restores the situation to where it was always supposed to be following the announcement of the original ceasefire. From the outset, the ceasefire was intended to be regional in scope and to include Lebanon. There was never supposed to be a “blockade of the blockade” — an absurd scheme concocted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies that only served to undermine America’s strategic position.

Nor was commercial traffic through the Strait meant to remain disrupted. The genuinely new elements are limited sanctions relief for Tehran and a formal commitment to resolve the nuclear issue within the next 30 days.

Yet while reaching this point is undeniably significant, there is still no real deal until a final agreement is secured. And the 30-day window, though short, nevertheless offers ample opportunity for spoilers on all sides to sabotage the process.

The regional buy-in — and the fact that Trump announced the agreement only after speaking with a wide array of key regional leaders, including those of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain, in addition to a separate call with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu — is highly significant. This regional anchoring affords Trump a degree of political insulation in Washington. Faced with inevitable accusations from hawks that the agreement amounts to defeat or that it betrays Israel, he can point to broad regional support as evidence that America’s principal partners in the Middle East prefer diplomacy to escalation.

Indeed, compared to President Obama’s 2015 nuclear agreement, the regional engagement surrounding Trump’s deal is objectively deeper, broader, and more politically consequential. Obama’s agreement was negotiated despite resistance from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE; Trump’s appears to be taking shape with active regional backing. Europe’s near-total absence from the process is nevertheless striking — though hardly problematic. By this point, Europe’s diplomatic irrelevance in major Middle Eastern diplomacy has become so normalized that its exclusion barely registers.

Judging by the public panic now emanating from Washington’s war hawks and pro-Israel circles, however, the next 30 days are likely to be politically brutal for Trump. FDD is already openly attacking him. AIPAC is amplifying lawmakers denouncing the agreement. An adviser to the former Crown Prince of Iran has accused Trump of “total surrender.” Many of the same allies who enthusiastically applauded Trump’s decision to initiate the war are now turning on him for choosing diplomacy over permanent escalation.

Senior Israeli politicians, however, may choose a more cautious approach. Rather than confronting Trump directly, they are likely to let their proxies in Washington wage the public battle on their behalf.

Israeli elections are approaching, and Trump remains deeply popular among Israeli voters, while Netanyahu has thus far failed to convert the popularity of the Iran war into a decisive electoral advantage. A direct public clash with Trump over the agreement could therefore prove politically dangerous for Netanyahu. Trump, if provoked, could inflict substantial damage simply by signaling support for one of Netanyahu’s challengers.

Trump may have hinted at this dynamic a few days ago when he — seemingly out of nowhere — told reporters that he enjoys a “99% approval rating” in Israel and could run for prime minister there himself. On the surface, it sounded like another episode of characteristic Trumpian bravado. But in context, it may well have been a pointed warning to Netanyahu and Israel’s political establishment that Trump can damage them far more than they can damage him.

There should be little doubt, however, that if a final agreement is reached — and any lasting agreement will almost certainly require substantial, if not total, sanctions relief for Iran — it would constitute a devastating strategic defeat for Tel Aviv.

Israel’s two wars have, paradoxically, strengthened Iran’s deterrence posture, exposed Israel’s inability to confront Iran without overwhelming American military backing, and inflicted incalculable damage on America’s global standing and aura of military supremacy.

Indeed, the cumulative effect may be so severe that the pursuit of uncontested American global primacy is no longer a realistic option. At the same time, support for Israel within the United States has eroded dramatically across nearly every demographic group except older Republican voters.

Most importantly, sanctions relief would liberate Iran’s economy from decades of constriction and gradually shift the regional balance of power away from Israel and its vision of a “Greater Israel.” For precisely that reason, Israel will almost certainly do everything within its power — behind the scenes — to sabotage the agreement before it becomes irreversible.

But Israel is not the only threat to the deal. Both Washington and Tehran will have to exercise extraordinary discipline to ensure that their competing narratives of victory do not strengthen the hardline opposition camp in the other country. Throughout the negotiations, Trump has shown remarkably little sensitivity to how his inflammatory social media posts complicate Tehran’s ability to compromise. Iran must now avoid making the same mistake. Public triumphalism in Tehran could easily undermine Trump’s political capacity to deliver the agreement domestically.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s recent tweet comparing the outcome of Trump’s war to the failed Roman attempts to subjugate the Sassanidian Persian Empire is a case in point. Whatever its domestic appeal in Iran, such rhetoric risks hardening opposition in Washington at precisely the moment when restraint and strategic ambiguity are most needed.

At the end of the day, for the Phase II negotiations to succeed — and for any agreement to prove durable — both sides must be able to claim victory.

Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

May 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Warmongers in meltdown as Trump heralds Iran deal

Iran to US: Three unresolved issues must be settled before talks begin

Al Mayadeen | May 23, 2026

An informed source close to Iran’s negotiating team has identified three fundamental unresolved issues with the United States, stating that unless these matters are settled, negotiations will not proceed, while also revealing that US officials have privately urged Tehran to disregard Trump’s public statements as domestic posturing.

Speaking to Iran’s Fars news agency, the source said that while American negotiators have effectively retreated from their initial approach based on threats and inducements, having recognised that Iran will not submit to the logic of force, three core disagreements remain. The source noted that Washington has come to understand that Tehran cannot be pressured into submission, yet significant gaps persist.

“If these issues are not resolved, negotiations will not take place,” the source warned.

First sticking point: No nuclear talks until trust measures implemented

The source explained that Iran has declared it will not engage in nuclear discussions during this round of talks. Tehran has made clear that its priority is ending the war, not addressing the nuclear file at this stage.

Only after the other side implements confidence‑building measures will nuclear matters be addressed in a subsequent round. This position reflects Iran’s insistence that Washington must first demonstrate good faith before any discussion of its peaceful nuclear programme.

Second sticking point: Release of frozen funds as precondition

The second fundamental condition for Iran’s entry into negotiations is the transfer and release of Iranian assets frozen abroad. These funds, which have been blocked by US sanctions for years, represent a critical economic issue for Tehran.

“Without this happening, we will not enter negotiations at all,” the source emphasised, indicating that Iran views the release of its assets as a non‑negotiable prerequisite for any diplomatic progress.

Third sticking point: Control over Hormuz shipping traffic

The third disagreement centres on the mechanism for vessel transit through the Strait of Hormuz. Washington insists on a complete return of the strait to its previous status quo, before the US-Israeli war on Iran began.

However, Iran maintains that it will only restore the number of ships to previous levels, but according to its own model. Tehran would determine how many vessels are permitted to pass and grant permission only to those it approves. This means ships must transit under Iranian management and through routes determined by Iran.

The source noted that while the United States has accepted Iran’s positions in many instances, these three major obstacles remain serious.

Iran prepared for all options

The source stressed that Iran has prepared itself for all possible scenarios, indicating that Tehran is not banking solely on a diplomatic breakthrough.

The Iranian armed forces remain on high alert, and military planners continue to update target banks and operational equipment.

This posture reflects Tehran’s understanding that Washington may not be willing to meet its conditions, and that the current ceasefire could collapse at any moment.

US officials: ‘Don’t pay attention to Trump’s tweets’

Fars also reported that certain mediators, along with US officials involved in the indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States, have sent messages to the Iranian side during the text‑exchange process. The message was: “Don’t pay attention to Trump’s tweets.”

According to the sources, these officials emphasized that President Donald Trump’s statements in the media are for “public and domestic consumption,” and that his true position at the negotiating table differs from his public rhetoric. The messages suggest that even Washington’s own negotiators view the president’s social media outbursts as a hindrance to diplomacy.

An informed source also told Fars that Trump’s initial position, known as the “15 points,” represented a high ceiling of American demands that he was unable to achieve, even through the option of war. What is currently on the negotiating table is clearly different from those initial positions. Trump has come to realise that “Iran is not a party that can be subjected to extortion,” the source said.

No current nuclear discussions

Meanwhile, Tasnim news agency quoted an informed source denying reports that Iran had proposed freezing uranium enrichment above 3.6 percent for 10 years. The source confirmed that such reports are “completely baseless.”

The source added that the current focus of messages and conversations is exclusively on ending the war. No details related to the nuclear file are being discussed at this time at all, contradicting Western media reports that have suggested progress on the nuclear front.

Baqaei: US has no role in Strait of Hormuz

Earlier on Saturday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei reiterated that the United States has no role in the Strait of Hormuz, describing it as a matter between Iran and the coastal states of the Gulf. He also confirmed that negotiations at this stage do not address the nuclear issue or the details of sanctions relief.

Tehran has taken a “responsible and wise” decision to make ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, the focus of negotiations, Baqaei said. This approach prioritises stopping the bloodshed and restoring stability to the region before tackling longer‑standing disputes.

May 23, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran to US: Three unresolved issues must be settled before talks begin

The logic of victory: Iran’s principled terms for end to imposed war define a new strategic reality

Press TV | May 22, 2026

Nearly 40 days of all-out military aggression, shadow warfare, and economic blockade have given way not to Iran’s surrender, but its emergence with a strategic upper hand.

The “Ramadan War” – an unprovoked and illegal military aggression that came amidst Oman-mediated nuclear diplomacy – ended in a way Washington and Tel Aviv never anticipated. Iran did not collapse, its alliances did not fracture and its military deterrent remained intact. And now, as the guns have fallen silent, it is Iran – not the US – that is setting the terms.

Iran’s end-of-war conditions are not maximalist bargaining ploys. Rather, they are the logical, rational, and legally grounded demands of a victor who has proven, on the battlefield and in the diplomatic arena, that aggression against a resilient nation produces only defeat.

Tehran is not asking for charity. It is demanding what is rightfully owed to a nation that has been wrongfully attacked, illegally sanctioned, economically terrorized, and yet emerging stronger, more cohesive, and more confident.

The foundational logic of ending an imposed war

The first and most critical point in Iran’s strategic calculus is remarkably simple: in any war, the side that requests a ceasefire is the side that is losing. Iran did not request a ceasefire; it was the American side. This single fact upends the conventional Western narrative that portrays Iran as an isolated, pressure-cooked “regime” desperate for a deal.

Iran’s logic is rooted in the universal, time-tested rationality of all wars. Wars do not end because both sides grow weary simultaneously. They end when one side realizes that continued fighting will produce worse outcomes than accepting the other side’s terms.

In the 40-day imposed war and its aftermath, the American-Zionist enemy – an alliance of the world’s most advanced militaries, intelligence agencies, and economic powers – failed to achieve its stated objectives. There was no “regime change.” Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains intact. The Axis of Resistance did not collapse. And critically, Iran emerged stronger.

Had America possessed the capacity to defeat Iran militarily, it would have done so. It would not have sought a ceasefire and opened back channels for negotiation.

The very act of seeking an end to war is an admission of strategic failure. Therefore, the enemy has no right to obtain through diplomacy – through the end of war – what it could not obtain through indiscriminate force, cowardly acts of terror, and state-sponsored criminality.

This is a strategic logic and it dictates everything that follows.

The aggressor pays: Restitution, withdrawal, and end of sanctions

Because the US is the aggressor – having initiated an unprovoked war against the Iranian nation through assassinations, sabotage, cyberattacks, and direct military strikes – it must bear the full cost of the cowardly aggression.

Iran’s conditions are therefore not punitive fantasies but standard provisions in any post-war settlement where the aggressor ends up on the losing side.

Iran demands full payment of war damages and compensation for all victims of American and Israeli aggression; return of all Iranian assets and properties illegally blocked or seized; complete withdrawal of US forces from military bases surrounding Iran; termination of the illegal naval blockade that in itself constitutes an act of war; a comprehensive end to aggression on all fronts, including against Iran’s allies in the Axis of Resistance; full and verifiable lifting of all illegal sanctions against Iran, including the revocation of UN Security Council sanction resolutions and a signed end-of-war agreement enshrining these terms.

These demands are not opening bids but the minimum acceptable outcome for Iran. The enemy may negotiate over the sequencing or technical details of implementation, but the substance is non-negotiable. The aggressor pays, withdraws and lifts its illegal economic siege.

Diplomacy as a continuation of war by other means

Iran has already demonstrated its superiority in diplomacy. By forcing the American side to accept its framework for ending the illegal and unprovoked war, Tehran has demonstrated that Washington is the frustrated, failed and isolated party in this war.

The US assembled the most powerful military coalition in modern history, planned for years to overthrow the Islamic Republic or force it into fundamental concessions, and came away with nothing. None of the military objectives came to fruition and everyone acknowledges that.

Any future negotiations after the end of this imposed war will be conducted from a position of Iranian strength. Iranian negotiators will have no need to link those talks to wartime pressures. And make no mistake: Iran will enforce compliance.

Any shortcoming by the enemy in fulfilling its obligations will be met with Iranian responses below the threshold of full-scale war – a domain in which Iran operates with even greater ease and lethality. The enemy has already tested Iran in conventional war and suffered a crushing reputational, military, political, and strategic defeat. It has no appetite for a second round.

Strait of Hormuz – A prize already won by Iran

Perhaps no single issue illustrates Iran’s strategic upper hand more clearly than the Strait of Hormuz. Western analysts habitually frame the strait as a point of vulnerability for Iran, a choke point that Iran threatens to close. This is exactly backward.

Iran’s position is that the Strait of Hormuz is already an Iranian gain from the war. It is a legal, principled, and logical right that is presently in Iran’s hands. Unlike blocked assets or sanctions, which require active enemy reversal control over this strategic waterway located between the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman – requires no new action from Iran. It is a fait accompli.

Iran’s enhanced control over the Strait of Hormuz serves three concrete objectives.

  • Security: Guaranteeing Iran’s security in the Persian Gulf against future American or Persian Gulf Arab aggression.
  • Economic justice: Preventing blackmail by regional governments and securing material rights of the Iranian nation through tolls and transit fees.
  • Strategic deterrence: Creating a new normal in which any future aggression against Iran must account for Tehran’s tightened grip over global energy chokepoints.

The status of the strait after the war is fundamentally different from before the war. Iran will not return to the previous order. That order – in which the US patrolled freely, imposed sanctions, and threatened Iran with impunity – is effectively dead. Iran’s permanent sovereignty over the waterway is not a demand but a reality that the enemy must accept.

Iran is not acting unilaterally or recklessly in this regard. Agreements with neighboring Oman, based on mutual interests, are necessary to consolidate Iran’s control. Iran’s diplomatic apparatus is actively pursuing these agreements.

This is not an act of belligerence but an act of responsible statecraft, embedding Iran’s strategic gain within a framework of regional cooperation.

Finally, the strait carries profound symbolic weight. Iran’s unchallenged sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz represents the heavy penalty and fine that the aggressor must pay for having invaded Iranian territory – directly or by proxy. Every tanker that transits under terms acceptable to Tehran is a reminder that the US miscalculated catastrophically.

And if the enemy ever indulges in the fantasy of another war on Iran, it will now have to factor in Tehran’s expanded maritime and land sovereignty as a permanent, inescapable variable.

The nuclear file – Deferred but not diminished

Western media frequently portrays Iran’s nuclear program as the central point of leverage against Tehran. It is not a point of weakness, but an area of demonstrated Iranian resilience.

Throughout its long history of peaceful nuclear activities, including temporary, voluntary transparency measures, Iran has never abandoned its principles or its legal rights.

International law recognizes Iran’s right to possess the full nuclear fuel cycle. America has no authority to override international organizations and treaties and it is not the world’s nuclear policeman. The US defeat in the recent war has stripped it of any pretense to that role.

Both the US and the Zionist regime tried to force Iran’s nuclear surrender through unprovoked war and bombing campaigns, but catastrophically failed. They will also fail in any future negotiations to strip Iran of its inalienable nuclear rights. Iran’s nuclear decisions – regarding enrichment levels, research, development, and even the scope of its program – are Iran’s own business.

They are not tied to the recent war, from which Iran emerged victorious in preserving its nuclear materials, facilities, and, most critically, its scientific and engineering knowledge.

The bomb question: A clear doctrine, not an ambiguity

Donald Trump and members of his war cabinet, including war secretary Pete Hegseth, repeatedly claim that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is their primary objective. But here again, Iran’s position is clear and has been stated repeatedly: a nuclear bomb has no place in Iran’s defense and security doctrine.

This is not a new or ambiguous position. It is a matter of public record, reinforced by the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei’s fatwa (religious decree) against the development and use of nuclear weapons.

Trump cannot claim victory on an issue where no threat existed. The embattled American president does not get to factor the nuclear bomb myth as his personal achievement.

If, in the future, with changed regional circumstances and potentially a revised fatwa, Iran’s doctrine evolves, that is a matter for another time. But today, in the present, the doctrine has not changed. Iran possesses all the knowledge required to complete the nuclear cycle for peaceful development, and it will continue to exercise its inalienable rights.

The invalidity of Trump’s deadline threats

Throughout the recent war and its aftermath, Trump repeatedly resorted to a worn-out, theatrically bankrupt tactic: the artificial deadline. “Iran must agree by X date, or else.” This gimmick failed at least five times. Each time, the US president backpedaled.

This deadline threat is a psychological warfare technique designed to induce panic, haste, and unforced errors from the Iranian side. Iran has shown that it will not be rushed and it will take all the time necessary to draft a meticulous, robust end-of-war document that closes every loophole and secures national and strategic interests.

The deadline is fundamentally a threat of war. But war has already been tried. War brought the enemy nothing but humiliation, and re-entering a war cannot produce anything different.

The enemy is bluffing with a hand it has already shown and lost. Iran’s diplomatic apparatus must remain vigilant against this trick, but it need not lose sleep over it.

The Bab el-Mandeb incidents – A warning across the sea

Recent explosions and security incidents reported in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and around Socotra Island, including a temporary shutdown of the strait for several hours, have been met with conspicuous silence from the US, the Israeli regime, and Western media outlets.

That silence is not accidental. It is the silence of an enemy that understands it has been outmaneuvered.

These incidents constitute a clear and explicit warning from the broad Axis of Resistance. If the American-Israeli enemy resumes its military adventurism against Iran, the war this time will not remain contained to the Persian Gulf. It will expand to include the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Bab el-Mandeb, another global energy chokepoint, will become an active front.

Even during active negotiations to end the war, the hand of the resistance front is not tied. Iran and its allies have many available options, any of which can make conditions harder for the enemy. The message is unambiguous: military escalation will be met with geographical expansion of the war, not with Iranian retreat.

These security incidents may well be a prelude to the extra-regional translation of the war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, as previously alluded to in warnings from the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC). In other words, the battlefield is no longer limited to Iranian soil, the Persian Gulf, or even West Asia. Iran’s enemies are being served notice that their own vulnerabilities – far from their shores – are well within reach.

American refineries – The cyber dimension

The recent chain of explosions and fire incidents in at least five American refineries and petrochemical complexes across different regions of the United States has also been underreported and underexamined by American authorities. This, too, is no accident.

These incidents demonstrate a strategic evolution that should terrify Iran’s enemies. The world has reached a stage where knowledge based on information technology has grown so advanced that it can replace physical military action in specific geographies.

Cyber capabilities, wielded by unknown actors anywhere in the world, can achieve the same results as armed assault, but without the high costs, missile range limitations, or legal and international liabilities.

Iran’s adversaries have long relied on their ability to project conventional military power globally. The refinery incidents suggest that this advantage is being nullified. An actor with sophisticated cyber capabilities can now impose severe economic costs on the American homeland without the need to fire a single missile or cross any border.

The lesson for the enemy is stark: your critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Your refineries, your grids, your financial systems – all are potential targets in a domain where traditional military superiority offers no protection. If you wage another war on Iran, you will not be safe anywhere.

May 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on The logic of victory: Iran’s principled terms for end to imposed war define a new strategic reality

Are we on the verge of a US-Iran deal?

China is emerging as the silent, indispensable diplomatic power in the region

By Trita Parsi | May 22, 2026

Nothing is confirmed and finalized yet, and the spoilers should not be underestimated, but lots of activity points in the direction of a deal.

A few things stand out:

1. The role of China in the background is essential. Without having its fingerprints on the deal, and by that, avoiding any responsibility if it fails, China is emerging as the silent, indispensable diplomatic power in the region. (While Pakistan’s Asim Munir is traveling to Tehran, the Pakistani Prime Minister will be departing for Beijing shortly)

2. The regional involvement in the mediation is astounding: Pakistan, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi and Oman are all or have all been playing an instrumental role in moving things forward. If a deal is reached, it will have regional buy-in (save from Israel and the UAE) at levels far beyond the JCPOA.

3. Regional diplomats and intel folks have been shuttling in and out of Tehran for weeks now. Qatar’s role, in particular, is noteworthy.

4. Europe’s absence is noticeable but not felt, as its irrelevance is becoming normalized.

5. More ships have been passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Whether these were mainly tankers going to China, and whether China paid a fee, is unclear at this point. But it is noteworthy that the ships are passing through both the Iranian AND the American “blockades.”

6. Though some distance remains to reaching a deal, my own conversation with folks on both sides has left me slightly more optimistic, primarily because of the flexibility I am detecting on the Iranian side regarding the stockpile (despite the Reuters story from yesterday). Ideas that were categorically rejected two weeks ago are now being genuinely considered.

7. If a deal is secured, Trump will face a lot of criticism from the Blob and the pro-Israel crowd in DC, but he will be in a very good position to sell the deal to the American public, whose concerns are very different from those of the Blob…

May 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are we on the verge of a US-Iran deal?

IRGC Navy coordinates safe passage of another 35 ships through Strait of Hormuz

Press TV – May 22, 2026

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has announced that it coordinated the transit of another 35 ships through the Strait of Hormuz in the past 24 hours.

“Over the past 24 hours, 35 ships, including oil tankers, container ships, and other commercial vessels, passed through the Strait of Hormuz, after obtaining permission, [and] with the coordination and security protection of the IRGC Navy,” the Public Relations Office of the IRGC’s Navy said in a statement on Friday.

The passage came on top of 31 vessels—including oil tankers, container ships, and other commercial ships—that passed through the strait in the previous 24 hours, the IRGC Navy announced on Thursday.

The Iranian authority controlling the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf has defined the supervisory management zone of the waterway, announcing on Wednesday that movement through the strategic corridor requires coordination and a permit.

The zone is “the line connecting Mount Mubarak in Iran and southern Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates, on the eastern side of the strait, extending to the line connecting the end of Qeshm Island in Iran and Umm Al Quwain in the United Arab Emirates, on the western side of the strait.”

Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz to its enemies and their allies following the latest US-Israeli aggression against the country.

According to a new Reuters report, the IRGC plays a central role in a new multi-layered transit system that gives preference to ships linked to allies such as China and Russia, while other vessels may require government-to-government arrangements or payments to pass.

The IRGC reviews an affiliation document supplied by a ship owner or operator and during the process they may want to physically inspect the ship, the news agency said.

“The affiliation check is to identify if the vessel has any connection to the US or Israel,” a European shipping source told Reuters.

The IRGC requires ship owners to disclose details including the value of the ship’s cargo, the flag, its origin and destination, the registered owner and manager, and nationalities of the crew, according to documents sent to shipping industry sources by Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority.

The vetting is carried out by Iranian state institutions including the Ports and Maritime Organization, the Ministry of Industry, Mine and Trade, the national shipping organization, and the security overseer of the Supreme National Security Council, according to the report.

Ship owners’ willingness to deal directly with Iran shows the degree to which the strait is under the Islamic Republic’s control, Danny Citrinowicz, a former Israeli intelligence officer who specializes in Iran research and analysis, told Reuters.

“The straits will be blocked or opened up only by the approval of the Iranian government,” said Citrinowicz. “Some will get through because of political alliances, others will have to pay, others will be turned back. This is the new norm.”

Bilateral arrangements for passage include an additional step: Countries contact Iran’s foreign minister to request permission. The minister forwards these to the Supreme National Security Council.

A decision is then made and communicated to the relevant bodies, including the IRGC which then provides the coordinates and instructions needed for safe passage.

Other countries have worked out different arrangements. Among them is India, which imports about 90% of its oil needs and about 50% of its gas, much of which passes through Hormuz.

New Delhi uses its embassy in Tehran to liaise with Iranian authorities, including the IRGC and the Iranian navy, which vets ships India wants to sail out of the Persian Gulf, according to an Indian shipping ministry official cited by Reuters.

“The Indian navy also told us that if the Iranians ask you to stop, then you should stop. If they ask you to move, you should move,” the report said, “And we’ve been following those instructions.”

May 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Comments Off on IRGC Navy coordinates safe passage of another 35 ships through Strait of Hormuz

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »