Prof. Ted Postol: Iran Already Achieved NUCLEAR DETERRENCE Against Israel
Dialogue Works | April 3, 2026
Al Mayadeen | April 6, 2026
The US aggression against Iran has cost American taxpayers over $42.1 billion in nearly 37 days of war, according to the Iran War Cost Tracker portal.
The portal’s real-time tracking is based on a Department of War briefing for the US Congress on March 10, which stated that Washington spent $11.3 billion in the first six days of its aggression on Iran and plans to spend an additional $1 billion each subsequent day of the war.
Trump requests $1.5 trillion defense budget as war costs spiral
On Friday, US President Donald Trump asked Congress to enact a $2.2 trillion budget for discretionary programs, seeking a massive increase in defense spending, while also renewing his push for steep cuts to domestic agencies.
The budget proposal released on Friday requests $1.5 trillion for defense, a significant increase over the $1 trillion sought for fiscal year 2026. The new figure includes $1.1 trillion in base discretionary spending for the Department of War and another $350 billion in mandatory spending as the US carries out its war on Iran.
The sharp increase in military spending comes as the United States remains engaged in a war that has driven up costs and placed a growing strain on financial and military resources. The war cost Washington more than $11 billion in its first six days alone, with estimates placing daily expenditures at between $1 billion and $2 billion. Munitions stockpiles have been drawn down significantly, raising concerns about sustainability and replenishment.
War costs could reach hundreds of billions
Short-term projections from weeks ago cited by The Intercept suggest that the war could push costs to $250 billion in its eighth week, if it drags on this long.
A government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged the uncertainty of these figures, telling The Intercept that “it’s a back-of-the-napkin estimate,” while another official told the outlet, “They really have no idea of the real cost.”
The proposed budget also aligns with a broader military buildup that includes investments in missile systems, naval assets, and advanced fighter jets, signaling preparations that extend beyond immediate battlefield needs. Against this backdrop, the proposed budget reflects a broader reallocation of resources toward sustaining prolonged military operations, while partially offsetting rising expenditures through cuts to domestic spending.
The budget blueprint comes ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections, with Republicans aiming to preserve their narrow control of both chambers of Congress. The proposal is also likely to face scrutiny from lawmakers who have already raised concerns over the scale of war-related spending and its long-term fiscal impact.
For American taxpayers, the message is clear: as the war on Iran grinds on with no end in sight, the costs continue to mount. And the administration’s solution is not to end the war, but to pour even more money into it, all while cutting domestic programs that ordinary Americans rely on.
Whether Congress will approve Trump’s request remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the price of this war has only begun to be counted.
US–Israeli escalation is accelerating, rather than weakening, the Russia–Iran axis, reshaping the Caspian into a contested strategic corridor.

By Hazal Yalin | The Cradle | April 6, 2026
Hours after the US and Israel – increasingly referred to in some circles as the “Epstein coalition” – attacked Iran on 28 February, Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a sharply worded response, describing the assault as “a deliberate, premeditated, and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state, in direct violation of the fundamental principles and norms of international law.”
When interpreting diplomatic texts in general – and Russia’s statements in particular, given its near-obsessive adherence to traditional diplomacy – the importance of terminology is often overlooked. The concept of “aggression” is not an ordinary one; it signifies a violation of the very spirit of the UN Charter, especially Article 2(4).
A firm response to aggression
Just as significant as its use is its absence elsewhere. Aside from Russia, North Korea, and Cuba, no other state initially used the term “aggression” in condemning the attack—not even China, which only adopted the wording after 2 March.
This framing has been consistent across Russian statements and in President Vladimir Putin’s diplomatic readouts. At the same time, Moscow has walked a careful line in its engagement with Persian Gulf monarchies.
While avoiding endorsement of Iranian strikes on US and Israeli-linked targets in the Gulf, Russian officials have repeatedly stressed that the central issue remains US–Israeli aggression—and that criticism of Iran cannot be allowed to obscure this.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov captured this balance on 5 March during the Ambassadorial Roundtable on the Ukraine crisis. While opposing Iranian strikes on Gulf states and questioning their military utility, he warned that “Simply saying that Iran has no right to do anything effectively means openly encouraging the United States and Israel to continue what they are doing.”
In line with this approach, Russia (and China) did not veto the UN Security Council resolution on 11 March condemning Iran. However, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Vasiliy Nebenzya, stated that the resolution was one-sided and “confused cause and effect.”
This stance is largely linked to the UAE’s critical role in facilitating capital movement for Russia under western sanctions.
Israeli irritation and escalation
Such an uncompromising definition of aggression – and the Kremlin’s apparent decision to avoid even routine contact with the Israeli government – was never likely to pass unnoticed in Tel Aviv.
The first notable rupture came via an interview with Israeli army spokesperson Anna Ukolova on Radio RBK. Referencing reports that Israel had hacked Tehran’s traffic cameras to track Iranian officials, she was asked whether similar access existed in Moscow. Her response was striking:
“The elimination of key figures – the leadership of all these proxy groups, including Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei – already demonstrates that we possess quite formidable capabilities, and that no one who seeks to do us harm will go unscathed.”
“Then again, the question is: Who would want to do us harm? I hope that, at this moment, Moscow does not wish Israel ill. I want to believe that.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist government has traditionally adopted a cautious and diplomatic stance in relations with Russia. Even if it had decided to shift toward open hostility, one would expect it to do so through diplomatic, economic, or even, at most, fifth-column activities within Russia. Ukolova’s direct threat – drawing a parallel of “elimination” against the Russian leadership – was unprecedented.
Attack on Bandar Anzali
The remark itself might have been dismissed as bluster were it not followed by something far more consequential: Israel’s reported strike on Iran’s Bandar Anzali Port on the Caspian coast.
The attack was first reported on 18 March by Israel’s Channel 12 as an “unusual attack” carried out 1,300 kilometers from Israeli territory.
Curiously, western media remained silent on the matter for some time. In Russia, Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov initially stated on 20 March that he had no information about it. When asked how Moscow would view a situation where the conflict escalated to engulf the Caspian Sea region, he said: “Russia would view it extremely negatively.”
Later that same day, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova confirmed the strike, warning that the Caspian Sea basin has always been regarded “as a safe zone of peace and cooperation. The aggressors’ reckless and irresponsible actions pose a threat of dragging Caspian states into an armed conflict.”
She also stressed that Bandar Anzali is “an important trade and logistics hub that is actively used in Russian–Iranian trade, including for food deliveries. The strike has affected the economic interests of Russia and the other Caspian states that maintain transport communications with Iran via that port.” Two days later, Peskov noted that the conflict was “showing a tendency to expand its boundaries.”
Because there is a general tendency to follow events through the lens of London or Washington, The story only gained wider traction on 24 March, when the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ran it as a headline: “Israel Hits Russian–Iranian Weapons Smuggling Route in the Caspian Sea.”
Casting a sovereign logistics corridor as “smuggling” recodes the strike as pre-emptive policing rather than escalation. The same report noted that the attack threatened Iran’s food supply and signaled Israel’s capacity to inflict broader civilian hardship – language that treats civilian suffering as a strategic message.
Russia’s public response was strong – and predictably so – for two reasons.
The Caspian legal order
First, the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Unlike other bodies of water, the Caspian falls outside the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Its governance is defined instead by the 2018 Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea, agreed upon by its five littoral states.
Under this framework, all decisions concerning the Caspian must be made jointly by the five littoral states – Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Non-littoral states are prohibited from maintaining a military presence (Article 3/6), and littoral states cannot allow their territory to be used for aggression against one another (3/7). Navigation security is a shared responsibility (3/9).
An attack carried out by a non-littoral actor via the Caspian undermines not only these provisions but the broader stability they are meant to guarantee.
While no explicit breach of Articles 3/6 or 3/7 has been formally identified, the presence of Israeli, US, and British military and intelligence networks – particularly in Azerbaijan – is widely acknowledged. This latent infrastructure adds a further layer of tension.
The strike on Bandar Anzali directly engages Article 3/9. It represents a breach of navigational security by an external actor, placing responsibility on all littoral states. Yet, aside from Russia and Iran, none have responded – an omission that speaks as loudly as any formal position.
Trade routes and strategic depth
The second factor is more straightforward: geography. The Caspian is the primary trade corridor between Russia and Iran, and Bandar Anzali is one of its key nodes.
This trade is not limited to civilian goods. Since the signing of the “comprehensive strategic partnership agreement” on 17 January 2025, it is widely understood that military logistics also transit this route.
The agreement was signed in Moscow on 17 January 2025 by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. It was approved by the Russian State Duma on 8 April 2025, signed by Putin on 21 April 2025, approved by the Iranian parliament on 21 May 2025, endorsed by the Guardian Council on 11 June 2025, and entered into force on 2 October 2025.
As previously noted by The Cradle, the agreement is not a binding mutual defense pact but a statement of strategic intent. Russia’s threshold for military support hinges on legal framing – specifically, whether an action qualifies as “aggression” in terms Moscow recognizes. Iran, for its part, has resisted any arrangement that would allow foreign military use of its territory.
Still, the agreement is far from symbolic. It outlines extensive cooperation in defense, security, and intelligence, and explicitly commits both sides to countering third-party interference across the Caspian, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and West Asia.
Articles 4, 5, and 6 set out broad military and security cooperation frameworks, while Articles 4/1 and 4/2 specifically formalize intelligence exchange, experience-sharing, and operational coordination between the two countries’ security and intelligence services.
Al Mayadeen | April 6, 2026
Iran and the United States have received a plan to end hostilities that could come into effect on Monday and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reported, citing a source aware of the proposals.
A framework to end the US-Israeli war on Iran has been put together by Pakistan and exchanged with Tehran and Washington overnight, the source told Reuters, outlining a two-tier approach with an immediate ceasefire followed by a comprehensive agreement.
“All elements need to be agreed today,” the source said, adding the initial understanding would be structured as a memorandum of understanding finalized electronically through Pakistan, the sole communication channel in the talks.
Pakistan as mediator
Axios first reported on Sunday that the United States, Iran, and regional mediators were discussing a potential 45-day ceasefire as part of a two-phase deal that could lead to a permanent end to the war, citing US, Israeli, and regional sources.
The source told Reuters that Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, has been in contact “all night long” with US Vice President JD Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Under the proposal, a ceasefire would take effect immediately, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, with 15 to 20 days to finalize a broader settlement. The deal, tentatively dubbed the “Islamabad Accord”, would include a regional framework for the Strait, with final in-person talks to be held in Islamabad.
Iran rejects opening Hormuz in exchange for ‘temporary ceasefire’
Meanwhile, a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Monday that Iran will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for a “temporary ceasefire”, adding that Tehran views Washington as lacking the readiness for a permanent ceasefire.
The official confirmed Iran had received Pakistan’s proposal for an immediate ceasefire and was reviewing it, adding that Tehran does not accept being pressured to accept deadlines and make a decision.
Two Pakistani sources said Iran has yet to commit despite intensified civilian and military outreach.
“Iran has not responded yet,” one source said, adding that proposals backed by Pakistan, China, and the United States for a temporary ceasefire have drawn no commitment so far.
The final agreement is expected to include Iranian commitments not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief and the release of frozen assets, the source said.
Iran’s approach
For Tehran, the calculus is clear: any agreement must include guarantees that the United States and “Israel” will not use the ceasefire to regroup and launch any attacks in the future. Having been burned by previous negotiations, most notably when Iran engaged in good-faith talks with the US only to see them bomb Iranian territory, Iranian officials are understandably cautious.
As the Monday deadline approaches, the world waits to see whether Tehran will sign onto a deal that, on paper, offers sanctions relief and an end to hostilities, but in practice, offers few assurances that the aggressors will not strike again.
Pakistan mediation not new
Pakistan first publicly signaled its mediation role in the escalating US-Israeli war in late March 2026, when Islamabad offered to help facilitate indirect talks and relay messages between Washington and Tehran. This came as the war involving Iran entered its second month, heightening fears of wider regional instability.
On March 24, 2026, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Pakistan was ready to host talks and promote a diplomatic path toward peace, emphasizing that Islamabad stood “ready and honoured” to support meaningful negotiations.
By March 26, 2026, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed that Pakistan was relaying a 15‑point US proposal to Iranian officials as part of indirect peace efforts. He acknowledged that media speculation had grown but said Islamabad was working discreetly to keep communication lines open.
Pakistan’s role gained broader visibility as it worked with other regional capitals, including Turkiye and Egypt, to prepare the ground for diplomatic engagement and explore avenues to reduce hostilities.
The Cradle | April 6, 2026
Iran announced on 6 April that it has conveyed its demands on a potential ceasefire with the US and Israel through intermediaries, as US President Donald Trump’s threat to bomb Iranian energy and water infrastructure looms.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told a news briefing that Tehran has communicated its demands “based on national interests” through regional mediators.
“We have formulated our own set of demands based on our interests and considerations. We are not ashamed to voice our legitimate and logical demands,” he said when asked about the prospect of an end to the war.
Iranian officials have previously stated that Tehran has four main conditions for an agreement: an end to the war and guarantees against future military attacks, compensation for losses during the conflict, recognition of formal control of the Strait of Hormuz, and no limits on its ballistic missile program.
Baghaei stressed that Iranian leaders are committed to continuing the war to defend the country from US-Israeli attacks if necessary.
“Expressing our positions quickly and courageously should not be interpreted as backing down,” he said.
The ministry at the same time expressed doubts about US intentions, stating that “America destroyed the path of diplomacy in months in the worst way, and the world sees that its claims do not match its actions.”
“America gives no value to the security of the region’s countries, and its only obsession is maintaining the existence of the Zionist entity,” the statement added.
The US and Israel launched an unprovoked war on Iran starting on 28 February, including assassinating the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, despite negotiations taking place at the time described by Omani mediators as “positive.”
US and Israeli attacks have so far killed over 1,340 people in Iran, according to Iranian authorities.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry announcement comes amid a report from Axios claiming that the US, Iran, and a group of regional mediators are discussing a potential 45-day ceasefire meant to lead to a permanent end to the war.
The negotiations are crucial, as US President Donald Trump gave a 48-hour deadline for Iranian leaders to reach a deal with him, including opening the Strait of Hormuz, while threatening to bomb Iran’s electricity and water infrastructure if they refuse.
However, Axios described the chances for reaching a deal before Trump’s deadline of Tuesday at 8:00 pm Eastern Time (ET) as “slim.”
“But this last-ditch effort is the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states,” the news outlet wrote.
On Sunday, Trump extended the deadline to Tuesday, telling Axios that he was “deep in negotiations” with Iranian officials.
“There is a good chance, but if they don’t make a deal, I am blowing up everything over there,” he claimed.
Last week, during a televised address to the nation, Trump threatened to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Age.”
If Trump orders deliberate attacks on Iran’s civilian infrastructure, such attacks would constitute war crimes.
They would be reminiscent of the US bombing campaign against Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, which heavily damaged the country’s electricity and water purification facilities. Coupled with economic sanctions over the next decade, the US bombing campaign led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.
If Trump makes good on the threat, Iran has, in turn, threatened to retaliate with attacks against power and water infrastructure in Israel and the Gulf states.
Iran’s shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz to the US and its allies has already struck a blow to Gulf oil production, while the targeting of Gulf desalination facilities could eliminate drinking water supplies for a combined 62 million people.
Two sources speaking with Axios said the plan for a major US-Israeli bombing campaign targeting Iran’s energy facilities is “ready to go,” if no deal is reached by the deadline.
The last-minute diplomatic effort reportedly involves Pakistani, Egyptian, and Turkish mediators, according to the four sources. Messages are reportedly being passed between Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
The sources said the mediators are discussing the terms of a two-phase deal: the first phase would involve a potential 45-day ceasefire, during which a permanent end to the war would be negotiated in the second phase.
According to the sources, a deal to open the Strait of Hormuz and a “solution” for Iran’s highly enriched Uranium, such as removing it from the country or diluting it, would only be reached in the second phase.
The Iranian officials have reportedly insisted to the mediators that they will not agree to a ceasefire similar to that reached in Gaza or Lebanon, where Israel had the ability to carry out additional attacks at any time despite the agreement.
OpenAI, Oracle, NVIDIA, Cisco, and SoftBank stand to lose $30 billion.
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 6, 2026
Iran has threatened to follow through on its threat to strike tech operations in Israel and the Persian Gulf emirates. Brigadier General Ebrahim Zolfaghari, IRGC Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters spokesperson, in a video released on April 5, singled out the AI Stargate data center in the UAE. He threatened “complete and utter annihilation” of the $30 billion facility in Abu Dhabi and extended the threat to other US and Israeli tech targets.
In early March, the IRGC attacked Amazon’s AWS data centers in Bahrain and Dubai, triggering outages. It was the first time a “hyperscale cloud provider” suffered a military attack, notes Tom’s Hardware. Earlier this month, the IRGC claimed to have hit Oracle’s data center in Dubai, although this was denied by Oracle.
“Should the USA proceed with its threats concerning Iran’s power plant facilities the following retaliatory measures shall be promptly enacted,” warned Zolfaghari. “All power plants, energy infrastructure, and information and communications technology of the Zionist regime, and all similar companies within the region that have American shareholders shall face complete and utter annihilation.”
The IRGC video provided a censored Google Maps satellite image of the Stargate facility. “Nothing stays hidden to our sight, though hidden by Google,” the caption reads. A second photo of the site, taken apparently with night vision or a similar technology, reveals the hidden structures redacted by Google.
G42, OpenAI, Oracle, NVIDIA, Cisco, and SoftBank collaborated to establish the UAE Stargate AI project. Group 42 Holding Ltd, commonly known as G42, is an Emirati AI development holding company headquartered in Abu Dhabi. Oracle, NVIDIA, and Cisco were specifically mentioned in a previous IRGC threat.
The initiative is led by Sam Altman of OpenAI, Larry Ellison of Oracle, and Masayoshi Son of SoftBank, and all three are billionaires. OpenAI and Microsoft provide artificial intelligence for the IDF. CEO and founder Sam Altman, during a meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog, said “Israel will play a huge role in AI development.” Ellison, the second richest man in the world, has donated millions to the Friends of the IDF and maintains close ties with the Israeli leadership, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Masayoshi Son’s SoftBank Group invests in Israeli technology, particularly in AI and cybersecurity. Son also invests in Israeli tech startups, including Lemonade, Compass, and WeWork.
The Stargate Project, a five data center, $400 billion investment, is supported by President Trump. The original site is located in Abilene, Texas, with subsequent sites in Lordstown, Ohio, and Milam County, Texas. Trump pushed the project through an AI action plan released in July. The initiative aims to federalize state-level AI regulations and accelerate the development of AI.
The massive 1-gigawatt Stargate UAE data center is the world’s largest AI computing cluster outside of the United States. G42 has a plan to expand the facility to encompass a 10-square-mile site with up to 5 gigawatts of power. Stargate represents the first international deployment of OpenAI infrastructure in West Asia. It is designed to enhance “sovereign” AI capabilities in the Gulf. Due to Stargate’s large scale and enormous energy requirements, it has been compared to the Manhattan Project.
“Safeguarding our models is a continuous commitment and a core pillar of our security posture,” explains Altman’s OpenAI. “Every OpenAI model deployment is governed by a rigorous, continuously evolving security framework that spans information security, governance, and physical infrastructure… We will continue to invest significantly in defense-in-depth measures that address physical security, insider threats, supply chain, and advanced cyber risks.”
Iran has demonstrated “physical security” of enemy infrastructure is no longer realistic. For more than a decade, it has worked to improve the precision and lethality of its ballistic missiles. It is estimated Iran has up to 80,000 Shahed loitering munitions and can produce hundreds daily. If the United States was unable to secure its $1.1 billion ballistic missile tracking system in Qatar, there is little chance it will be able to protect corporate assets in West Asia. If the crown jewel of Stargate AI is taken out in the UAE, it is likely the project will fail, with the loss of $30 billion or more.
The IRGC notice threatens the entire AI buildout in West Asia. “The Gulf states, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia, have aggressively positioned themselves as neutral computing corridors, offering cheap energy, abundant capital, and favorable regulatory environments,” reports Startup Fortune.
Companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have committed tens of billions to the region, betting that its strategic location between Europe, Asia, and Africa makes it an ideal hub for data processing. The IRGC threat challenges that assumption directly, as the Times of India reported, signaling what could be a deliberate shift toward targeting high-value Western technology assets in the Gulf.
Iran remains steadfast in its demands: reparations for damages caused by military action, the withdrawal of US forces from the Persian Gulf, safeguards against future attacks, including attacks against resistance groups, and Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Short of achieving its objectives, Iran will continue to ascend the escalation ladder and target critical infrastructure in Israel and Persian Gulf nations complicit in a disastrous war initiated by Israel and the United States.
The Dissident | April 6, 2026
The Trump administration is seemingly creating another deception, claiming that Iran wants to give concessions to the United States to yet again back off on its threat to target Iranian power plants and bridges if they do not agree to open the Strait of Hormuz.
For context, Trump took to Truth Social and in an unhinged message wrote , “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH!” later adding that this planned war crime will take place, “Tuesday, 8:00 P.M. Eastern Time!”.
Iran, remained defiant and did not give in to Trump’s threats, with the Iranian IRCG saying , “We have consistently declared that any aggression against civilian targets will be met with extensive responses against enemy interests anywhere in the region” adding that “any repeated attacks on civilian facilities will trigger a second stage of the operation, which will be far more forceful, doubling the losses for the aggressors” stating, “We reiterate: if you commit further acts of aggression against civilian facilities, our responses will be even more crushing”.
Just in time for Trump to back off from his threat against Iran, Axios journalist Barak Ravid-who was previously with Israel’s Unit 8200 and repeatedly launders U.S. and Israeli national security state propaganda and controlled leaks as news report- put out an article claiming that “The U.S., Iran and a group of regional mediators are discussing the terms for a potential 45-day ceasefire that could lead to a permanent end to the war, according to four U.S., Israeli and regional sources with knowledge of the talks.”
According to Ravid’s “report” “this last-ditch effort is the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states” and that “the mediators are discussing with the parties the terms for [a] two-phased deal; the first phase would [be] a potential 45-day ceasefire during which a permanent end to the war would be negotiated.”
But this “report” seems to be yet another deception laundered to allow Trump to back off on his threats – knowing that they did not work in scaring Iran into opening the Strait of Hormuz, and fearing Iran’s retaliatory strikes if Trump follows through.
As even Barak Ravid’s report acknowledges, “the mediators are highly concerned that the Iranian retaliation for a U.S.-Israeli strike on the country’s energy infrastructure would be destructive for Gulf countries’ oil and water facilities.”
Not The First Time
The most conclusive evidence that Ravid’s report was a deception through a controlled leak is that he previously laundered a fake news report to allow Trump to get out of his initial threat against Iranian Nuclear power plants.
On March 21st, Trump first wrote on Truth Social, “If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!”.
Iran did not give in to Trump’s threats, with Iranian military spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaqari saying , “If Iran’s fuel and energy infrastructure is attacked by the enemy, all energy infrastructure, as well as information technology (IT) and water desalination facilities, belonging to the US and the regimes in the region will be targeted pursuant to previous warnings”.
“In case of the slightest attack on the electricity infrastructure of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the entire region will go dark”, Mehr news, an outlet affiliated with Iran’s IRGC, warned, giving a list of targets which included:
Saudi Arabia
– The Village (near Al-Khobar): gas power plant (4,000+ MW)
– Ras Tanura (Sharqiya Province): major oil and gas facility / power infrastructureUnited Arab Emirates
– Barakah (Al Dhafra, Abu Dhabi): nuclear power plant (~5,600 MW)
– Jebel Ali (South Dubai): gas power and desalination complex (multi-GW capacity)
-Mohammed bin Rashid Solar Park (Dubai): large-scale solar power projectQatar
– Ras Laffan (north Qatar): gas power plant (one of the largest in Qatar)
– Umm Al Houl (south of Doha): gas power + desalination plant (multi-GW capacity)Kuwait
– Al-Zour South: oil and gas power plant
-Al-Zour North: combined-cycle power plant (multi-GW capacity)
– Shaqaya Energy Park (west Kuwait): solar and wind renewable energy complex
Realizing that Iran was not going to back down in the face of Trump’s threats and fearing Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel and the Gulf States – and it’s effect on the global economy – Trump came up with an excuse to postpone the strikes, taking again to Truth Social to say :
I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WHICH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
Iran, however denied that the talks were taking place at all, with Iran’s Press TV reporting that, “Iran has received messages through some friendly countries over the past few days regarding the US request for negotiations to end the ongoing war” but that “Iran has responded appropriately and based on the Islamic Republic’s principled positions” which includes demands for “a guarantee that war would never take place again, US military bases are closed in the region, and compensations are paid for damages inflicted on Iranian military and civilian structures.”
This was confirmed by journalists Jeremy Scahill and Murtaza Hussain, who reported that an Iranian official, off the record, confirmed that “there aren’t any negotiations taking place. The Iranian side has simply communicated its conditions to them, and even that has been done indirectly”.
Trump doubled down on this deception, claiming that he was negotiating with a “a top person” in Iran – who he would not name.
Aiding Trump in laundering this deception was none other than Barak Ravid.
In an article for Axios, Ravid claimed, “U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had been in touch with the speaker of the Iranian parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf” and that, “the mediating countries were trying to convene a meeting in Islamabad — with Ghalibaf and other officials representing Tehran, and Witkoff, Kushner and possibly Vice President Vance representing the U.S. — possibly later this week.”
But Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf – Iran’s hardline speaker of parliament publicly rebuked the report, stating, “Iranian people demand complete and remorseful punishment of the aggressors. All Irainan officials stand firmly behind their supreme leader and people until this goal is achieved. No negotiations have been held with the US, and fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped.”
Iranian media noted that this deception was deployed because “Trump backed down from his threats after realizing that the country would target all power plants in West Asia, warning that any threat to Tehran would be met with a proportional and firm response.”
The most likely explanation behind the Axios report is that an increasingly desperate and mentally declining Trump believed sending an unhinged message on Truth Social would this time make Iran back down and open the Strait of Hormuz.
With Iran yet again remaining defiant against U.S. threats, Trump yet again feared Iran’s retaliatory response to American strikes on power plants and tapped Barak Ravid to deploy another deception that would allow him to postpone the threats yet again.
Press TV – April 5, 2026
Iran’s foreign minister has raised serious concerns over the adverse consequences of US-Israeli airstrikes on the Iranian civilian nuclear facilities, notably the Bushehr nuclear power plant, emphasizing that such attacks expose the region to the risk of radioactive contamination.
In identical letters addressed to the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and the members of the Security Council on Saturday, Abbas Araghchi said that the US-Israeli assaults on Iranian nuclear installations happen regardless of the fact that these facilities are devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and are operating under the IAEA’s comprehensive safeguards regime.
“These unlawful attacks expose the entire region to the risk of radioactive contamination with grave humanitarian and environmental consequences, and as such shall not be left unattended,” the letters read.
Araghchi pointed out that Iran has experienced two wars of aggression within the span of nine months, imposed by the US, a depository of the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and Israel, an outlaw regime that remains outside the framework of the NPT.
He noted that Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities were attacked and bombed in both instances, and with grave disappointment, the United Nations Security Council, the IAEA Board of Governors and its director general have flatly failed even to condemn the illegal attacks, let alone undertake effective measures within their mandate to prevent their recurrence.
“Now the US Senior officials, who label international humanitarian law as ‘stupid,’ have gained the audacity to state that nuclear facilities are among their targets,” the Iranian foreign minister wrote.
He stated that the US permanent representative to the United Nations has openly expressed that attacks against the Bushehr nuclear power plant are “not off the table.”
“Such recklessness is the direct consequence of the inaction of the United Nations and the agency regarding the manifest acts of aggression by the United States and the Israeli regimes, which have only emboldened the aggressors. This course of unlawful attacks inflicted an irreparable blow upon the credibility of the United Nations, the Security Council, the IAEA, and its safeguards system,” Araghchi stated.
The top Iranian diplomat said it is disturbing that since the beginning of the ongoing war on February 28, attacks on Iranian civilian nuclear facilities have been carried out without any outright condemnation being heard from relevant international bodies.
“The aggressors’ repeated strikes in the vicinity of the active nuclear power plant in Bushehr is extremely alarming; their proximity to an active nuclear facility constitutes an intolerable escalation entailing a grave risk of radiological release,” Araghchi said.
The Iranian foreign minister finally highlighted that should the Security Council and the Board of Governors of the IAEA remain indifferent in the face of a manifest illegal attack against Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities, the member states may lose confidence in the United Nations, the agency, and the broader non-proliferation regime will be further eroded. “The consequences of such inaction would not be confined to Iran,” he added.
The United States and Israel initiated a large-scale and unprovoked military campaign against Iran on February 28, assassinating Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and several high-ranking military commanders and civilians.
The aggression has comprised a series of intensive strikes on both military installations and civilian facilities throughout Iran, leading to considerable loss of life and widespread damage to infrastructure.
In response, the Iranian Armed Forces have carried out waves of massive missile and drone operations against US interests across West Asia and Israeli positions in the occupied territories.
Press TV | April 4, 2026
The Trump administration is declaring “false victory” in its war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran while actively dismantling international humanitarian law (IHL), says a legal scholar at Queen’s University Belfast.
In an interview with the Press TV website, Alannah Travers, a PhD student at Queen’s University Belfast School of Law, said the US President Donald Trump’s warning to “bomb Iran back to the Stone Age” reveals a dangerous disregard for legal norms.
She noted the irony that Iran was actually a cradle of innovation during the real Stone Age.
“Listening to President Trump declare a false victory (yet again) while simultaneously threatening to bomb a nation of 90 million people back to the Stone Age made me think of what legal scholars have termed the ‘warification’ of international humanitarian law,” Travers said.
Travers’ PhD is on Algorithmic Warfare and Civilian Harm – working with the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, an international initiative to develop civilian-led monitoring of violations of international humanitarian law or human rights; to secure accountability and reparation for those violations; and to develop the practice of civilian rights.
She pointed to Trump’s explicit threat to destroy “each and every” electricity-generating plant in Iran as a clear signal that his administration views the Geneva Conventions as optional. Under Article 52 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, civilian objects such as power plants and bridges must be protected.
“By targeting infrastructure essential for meeting the basic needs of tens of millions of Iranian civilians, the administration is moving towards a campaign of collective punishment with the sort of reverberating effects IHL once sought to prevent,” she said.
Travers also condemned the US military’s practice of housing troops in hotels in the Persian Gulf countries, calling it a breach of IHL that effectively uses local civilians as human shields.
Thirty-five days into the unprovoked and illegal war on Iran, Travers said it was difficult to identify any legitimate American war goals.
Instead, she pointed to measurable destruction: over 15,000 strikes, at least 1,900 killed, 20,000 injured, more than 600 schools hit, and 60 hospitals damaged – including the Pasteur Institute, which had been working on global health security.
“Are these, then, the war goals?” she asked. “Rather than neutralizing a threat, the US and Israel have waged war against civilian infrastructure.”
She noted that 2,100 children had been killed or injured by day 23 of the war, an average of 87 per day, including over 170 children at a school in southern Iran’s Minab city.
Travers said the US and Israel have fallen for their own fantasies about superior AI-driven military technology, comparing the miscalculation to the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“It’s the same racist miscalculation that paved the road for the 2003 invasion of Iraq,” she said. “Most citizens of the region could explain it far better than I, having lived this violent ignorance with their bodies.”
She slammed Washington over institutionalized ignorance bordering on “overt racism and colonial arrogance,” particularly in its surprise that Iran’s retaliation has persisted for 34 days.
Travers referenced an open letter from over 100 legal scholars challenging the US and Israel’s conduct, noting there was no credible evidence of an imminent threat to justify a “self-defense” claim made by officials in Washington and Tel Aviv.
The letter also raised alarms about War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “gloves off” approach, which has included removing senior military lawyers and weakening IHL compliance.
Travers also highlighted rare public rebukes from Catholic leaders. Pope Leo has condemned the US and Israel, saying God rejects the prayers of leaders whose “hands are full of blood.”
Archbishop Timothy Broglio, head of the US Military Services since 2008, publicly rebuked Hegseth’s theology, telling troops to minimize participation in what he called an unjust war.
“When I met Broglio in January, my impression was he took a far more conservative view,” Travers said. “That he is now so clearly troubled is extremely telling.”
Travers also condemned Israeli military affairs minister Israel Katz’s vow to bring “Gaza-like destruction” to Lebanon, as well as Israel’s refusal to acknowledge its status as an occupying power.
She said that by keeping southern Lebanon in a state of perpetual armed conflict, Israel falsely claims military necessity under Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to justify forced displacements – a breach of Article 49.
“There is no such thing as a legal buffer zone on sovereign foreign soil,” she said. “These are more war crimes.”
Travers concluded that the lack of accountability in Palestine has directly enabled the current lawlessness across Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, and the Gulf. She called on the international community to move beyond “concerned statements” and take action.
“The Iranian people are navigating their survival in this crazed and lawless war amid their own domestic repression,” she said. “They deserve so much better. We have to stop this senseless war and ensure that those who waged it will face the full consequences of their illegal action.
Press TV – April 4, 2026
Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf says the ongoing aggression is “Israel’s war,” adding that its security repercussions and resulting losses have extended beyond the region and affected the wider world.
“This war is Israel’s war, and the resulting security breakdown and losses have affected the world,” Qalibaf said in an interview with Al Jazeera Arabic.
He added that Iran has prepared for this confrontation and proven its ability to defend itself.
“Iran was forced to target US bases and interests in the region to preserve its presence,” he said, warning that any further escalation against Iran “will be met with a decisive and broad response” directed at US interests.
According to Qalibaf, maintaining stability in the region serves the interests of all regional states, and Iran considers sustainable security a priority.
He added that countries in the region are capable of safeguarding their interests through bilateral and multilateral security arrangements “without foreign interference.”
Qalibaf further said that the key sources of regional instability must be addressed, emphasizing that security should be established “without the involvement of the United States and Israel.”
The US and Israeli regimes launched their military aggression against Iran in late February by attacking 30 targets across Tehran, assassinating Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and several senior Iranian officials.
Since then, Iranian armed forces have retaliated strongly by launching barrages of missiles and drones at Israeli occupied territories as well as US bases across the region.
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | April 4, 2026
Indian media have spread misconceptions over the meeting convened by the UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper on Thursday 2nd April regarding the situation around the Strait of Hormuz. Far-fetched conclusions are drawn that the meeting marked the first step toward forming a coalition to restore safe passage; plans include clearing mines from the waterway in consultation with military planners in the coming weeks, and so on.
We should not frighten the Indian community living in the Persian Gulf region. A military confrontation with Iran is not even in the wildest dreams of anyone in Europe. The US didn’t even attend the London meet.
The statement issued after the event does not contemplate coercive measures, leave alone military solution. The London statement outlined 4 action points: first, “increase diplomatic pressure on Iran, including through the UN”; second, “Explore co-ordinated economic and political measures, such as sanctions”; third, “work together with the International Maritime Organisation”; and, fourth, “Joint arrangements to support greater market and operational confidence.”
Interestingly, Canberra, one of the few participating countries with credible maritime capability to mount amphibious operations categorically ruled itself out from any such wild adventure. The Australian FM who attended the London meeting since issued an unequivocal statement on April 3, which underscored:
“The focus of last night’s meeting was diplomatic and civilian initiatives countries could pursue to make the Strait of Hormuz accessible and safe… Australia is not taking offensive action against Iran and we are not deploying troops on the ground in Iran. The Australian Government continues to support de-escalation and the resolution of this conflict.”
Equally, France openly opposes any military option. President Emmanuel Macron said attempts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by military means would take an uncertain amount of time and expose participants to risks from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC]. “This has never been the option that we’ve chosen, and we think it’s unrealistic,” Macron said. Italy and Germany also have opposed the entire US-Israeli aggression against Iran.
India chose to avoid even a cursory reference to the Strait of Hormuz. Its readout was titled, “Foreign Secretary’s participation in the meeting hosted by UK on the situation in West Asia (April 02, 2026).” India did not sign up on the joint statement.
Meanwhile, the UN security Council postponed a vote scheduled for Friday on authorising the use of “defensive” force to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz from Iranian attacks following reservations on the part of 3 out of five veto-holding members — France, Russia and China.
China has taken a strong position. “Authorising member states to use force would amount to legitimising the unlawful and indiscriminate use of force, which would inevitably lead to further escalation of the situation and lead to serious consequences,” said Chinese ambassador Fu Cong.
Suffice to say, it is hard to see Russia and China supporting a resolution that treats stability in the Strait of Hormuz exclusively as a security issue. Also, disagreements over the resolution have arisen among the 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council. On its part, Tehran has forewarned against any intrusive resolution. “Any provocative action by the aggressors and their supporters, including in the UN Security Council regarding the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, will only complicate the situation,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.
The Strait of Hormuz has a formidable geography, which favours Iran. The narrow coastline is littered with caves on the cliff. CNN carried a feature article last week titled Mines, missiles and miles of coastline: Why Iran has the upper hand in the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump in his speech on Wednesday regarding the war virtually acknowledged that the US understands that it cannot open the Strait of Hormuz through the use of force. He said it is up to countries dependent on the strait for economic livelihood, to open the waterway.
The only way to resolve the crisis is through an agreement with Iran which of course requires that the concerned country is not hostile towards Iran, not sanctioning Iran or facilitating the US military operations against Iran from its territory. Provided it is a benign interlocutor, such a country can approach the IRGC for a permit to take its ship through the strait. Certainly, in the present war conditions, the IRGC personnel will board the ship, inspect the its cargo, verify the ownership, check the nationality of sailors on board, where the cargo was loaded and its destination, etc.
Once the IRGC green lights the vessel, it will give a code with which the ship can signal Iran’s coastal defences and go through the strait. China, India, Turkey, Japan, Bangladesh, South Korea, etc have shown the way by taking up the issue bilaterally with Iran.
The Strait of Hormuz lies in the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. These two countries are presently drafting a protocol for the joint management of the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran may be gaining out of this situation. After all, it has already shaken off the embargo on its own exports and the US had to issue a waiver allowing its oil exports. Tehran can expect the acquiescence of the international community eventually to its de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz. It will be undoubtedly a historic shift in the geopolitics of the region. Some sort of modus vivendii amongst the regional states may ensue once the war ends and it becomes clear that there is no military solution to the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel is spreading alarmist stories that Saudi Arabia is following the footfalls of the UAE to get the US to intervene militarily to force open the Strait of Hormuz. On the contrary, Saudis are working with like-minded countries to create underpinnings of regional stability in the fluid situation adjusting to the shift of tectonic plates. The leitmotif of the Islamabad meeting of FMs recently — Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia plus Pakistan — was actually more about regional and global stability than for arranging a meeting between JD Vance and Steve Witkoff with Iranian officials.
The Islamabad meeting reached some sort of an agreement following which the Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar paid a hurried trip to Beijing. A major outcome of the visit has been a 5-point initiative by China and Pakistan on March 31 on the Gulf and Middle East Region with focus on
Significantly, two days later, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman also spoke on the phone reconnecting after some interlude to discuss and revive the pursuit of their congruent interests , including OPEC Plus. The Saudi and Russian readouts omitted any reference to the Strait of Hormuz.
Advantage goes to Tehran geopolitically. Iran will use this as trump card to get the western sanctions lifted. Tehran has offered to negotiate an agreement with the EU on the use of the Strait of Hormuz.
To be sure, Trump blundered by attacking Iran and creating war conditions unilaterally, thereby handing over to Tehran the perfect alibi to come out of isolation and even make the Strait of Hormuz a big revenue earner. The Suez Canal fetches Egypt approx. $700 million as toll annually. In comparison, the Strait of Hormuz is estimated to bring in anywhere up to 1 billion dollars annually.