Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iraq, Pakistan ink Hormuz safe passage deals with Iran: Report

The Cradle | May 13, 2026

Iraq and Pakistan have reached separate arrangements with Iran to move crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) through the Strait of Hormuz under Tehran’s new system for controlled passage through the strategic waterway, Reuters reported on 12 May.

The deals come as the US-Israeli war on Iran has sharply reduced energy exports from the Gulf, a region that normally supplies 20 percent of the world’s crude oil and LNG.

Claudio Steuer of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies told Reuters that “Iran has shifted from blocking Hormuz to controlling access to it … Hormuz is no longer a neutral transit route, it is a controlled corridor.”

Under this new framework, Iraq secured safe passage for two very large crude carriers, each carrying about 2 million barrels of crude, through the strait on Sunday.

An Iraqi oil ministry official said Baghdad is now seeking Iranian approval for additional shipments, as oil revenue makes up 95 percent of the Iraqi budget.

“Iraq is a close ally of Iran, and any deterioration in Iraq’s economy would also damage Iran’s economic interests in the country,” the official said.

In a separate arrangement, two tankers carrying Qatari LNG are heading to Pakistan after Islamabad reached an agreement with Tehran, according to two industry sources cited by Reuters.

The sources said neither Iraq nor Pakistan made direct payments to Iran or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) for the transits.

Industry sources said Tehran is formalizing control over the strait by asking Baghdad to submit documents for each tanker, including destination, shipping details, ownership, and cargo specifications.

A Pakistani source told Reuters that the process has not been smooth, saying, “The IRGC sometimes changes the goalposts, so it is hard to keep things on track, but we are working through it.”

Amid the chokehold of the US–Iran double blockade, maritime activity through the vital Strait of Hormuz has withered to a mere five percent of its normal capacity, staggering global economies and energy markets.

The blockade has pushed Pakistan to open six overland routes for Iran-bound cargo, giving Tehran an alternative land corridor as the US blockade disrupts maritime trade through the Gulf.

A military correspondent for The Cradle reported that Pakistan issued the “Transit of Goods through Territory of Pakistan Order 2026” on 25 April, designating Karachi Port, Port Qasim, and Gwadar Deep-Sea Port to receive cargo bound for Iran and Central Asia through the Taftan border crossing.

The move could help clear around 3,000 Iranian containers stranded in Karachi after restrictions on ships traveling to and from Iran left food and consumer goods stuck at Pakistani ports.

Former Pakistani information minister Mushahid Hussain Syed said the new corridor gained importance after “the US Navy’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz since 13 April,” but stressed that Islamabad sees the arrangement as a commercial decision rather than a direct escalation with Washington.

“The unfair blockade has left thousands of Iranian containers stuck at Karachi ports, which has made it harder for people in Iran to get consumer goods,” Syed told The Cradle.

May 13, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Comments Off on Iraq, Pakistan ink Hormuz safe passage deals with Iran: Report

Col Douglas Macgregor: If We Go Back To BOMBING IRAN

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 12, 2026

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

China rejects Israel’s ‘groundless’ allegation of missile support for Iran

Press TV – May 12, 2026

China has rejected Israel’s claims that Beijing provided support to Iran in manufacturing missiles.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told reporters on Tuesday that the accusations “are not grounded in facts.”

Beijing, he said, is “committed to promoting de-escalation and peace talks to bring about an end to the conflict” between Iran and the United States.

“We have made China’s position clear on multiple occasions. As a responsible major country, China always fulfills its due international obligations,” he added.

In an interview with CBS, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that during the joint US-Israeli aggression against Iran, China “gave a certain amount of support and particular components for missile manufacturing.”

Asked whether such support was continuing, he said, “Could be. Could be,” without providing further information.

Netanyahu’s controversial remarks came ahead of a planned visit to Beijing by US President Donald Trump.

The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman also condemned recent US sanctions on 12 individuals and entities over their alleged links to Iran, saying Beijing firmly opposes “unilateral sanctions.”

Guo said that the current “pressing priority” in West Asia is to “prevent, by all means, a relapse in fighting, rather than exploit the situation to throw mud at China.”

The US Treasury Department has imposed sanctions on 12 individuals and companies, several of them based in China and Hong Kong, for their alleged involvement in helping Iran “obtain weapons and the raw materials” necessary for its Shahed drones and ballistic missiles.

The department also threatened to take action against any foreign entities supporting what it called “illicit Iranian commerce,” including airlines, and to implement secondary sanctions on foreign financial institutions that assist Iran, even those connected to China’s independent oil refineries.

China, however, pushed back against the sanctions on Chinese refiners buying Iranian crude, invoking a “blocking rule” for the first time last week, directing companies not to comply with US sanctions.

May 12, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on China rejects Israel’s ‘groundless’ allegation of missile support for Iran

Why did Washington impose sanctions on China before the Trump-Xi summit?

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – May 12, 2026

New U.S. sanctions against Chinese companies just before Donald Trump’s visit to Beijing highlight the growing tendency to use economic pressure as a primary instrument of American diplomacy.

Donald Trump plans to visit China from May 13 to 15. His baggage includes a load of sanctions instead of concessions. Days before his visit to China, Washington imposed fresh sanctions on mainland Chinese and Hong Kong-linked firms accused of helping Iran procure drone and missile-related components. The message is unmistakable: the United States wants to negotiate from a position of pressure. But coercion before diplomacy often produces the opposite effect. Rather than strengthening Washington’s leverage over Beijing, the move risks hardening Chinese resistance, deepening China-Iran ties, and accelerating the erosion of America’s sanctions power in an increasingly multipolar world.

Coercion as Diplomacy

The timing tells the story. On May 8, the US Treasury announced sanctions on 10 individuals and companies — several based in China and Hong Kong — accused of facilitating Iran’s acquisition of materials used in Shahed drones and ballistic missile programmes. According to the Treasury Department, some firms allegedly supplied insulation materials and procurement services linked to Iran’s military-industrial network. Reuters reported that the sanctions came just days before Trump’s scheduled meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. And, just as Trump flew to China, the US imposed further sanctions on entities involved in shipping Iranian oil to China, hitting China’s energy demands.

The logic behind the move is relatively straightforward. Trump appears determined to avoid entering Beijing looking conciliatory or desperate for stabilization in US-China relations. He wants to completely dodge the impression that the US has lost in Iran. By imposing sanctions beforehand, Washington is signaling that dialogue with China will not come at the expense of American pressure campaigns against Iran or broader national security concerns. The sanctions also serve a domestic political purpose. Trump can portray himself as simultaneously engaging China diplomatically while remaining “tough” on both Beijing and Tehran.

This reflects a broader pattern in Trump-era diplomacy: negotiation through escalation. Whether on tariffs, NATO burden-sharing, or Iran, Trump has frequently relied on pressure tactics to create bargaining leverage before high-level meetings. The assumption is that economic coercion raises the costs of resistance and therefore increases the incentives for compromise. But this strategy works only if the other side believes accommodation is less costly than defiance. That assumption is becoming increasingly questionable in the case of China.

Beijing’s reaction was immediate and predictable. China’s Foreign Ministry condemned the sanctions as “illegal unilateral measures” and pledged to defend the legitimate interests of Chinese companies. Rather than creating diplomatic flexibility, the sanctions may have narrowed Xi Jinping’s room for maneuver by making concessions appear politically submissive.

This is an important point often overlooked in Washington. Chinese leaders do not interpret pre-summmit sanctions merely as tactical bargaining instruments; they typically view them as public demonstrations of coercion designed to humiliate China before negotiations even begin. In such circumstances, compromise becomes politically costly because it risks reinforcing perceptions of weakness both domestically and internationally. That dynamic is particularly significant today because US-China relations are no longer defined by strategic ambiguity or selective competition. They are increasingly viewed in both capitals as a systemic rivalry involving trade, technology, finance, security, and ideology simultaneously. In that environment, sanctions cease to look like isolated policy tools and instead become part of a broader containment strategy.

The Limits of Economic Pressure

The deeper problem for Washington is that sanctions may no longer carry the same coercive power they once supposedly did.

For decades, the United States relied on its dominance over the global financial system to compel compliance from adversaries and third parties alike. Access to the dollar system, Western banking networks, and US markets gave Washington enormous leverage. Secondary sanctions became, at least from Washington’s perspective, one of the most effective tools of American statecraft. But the geopolitical environment has changed significantly.

China today possesses far greater economic resilience than most previous sanctions targets. It also has stronger incentives to resist American pressure because compliance increasingly carries strategic costs of its own. Beijing sees Iran not merely as an isolated Middle Eastern partner but as part of a broader network of states capable of constraining US influence across multiple regions.

China remains Iran’s largest oil customer despite years of American sanctions. Under these conditions, China is unlikely to fully cooperate with Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran. Indeed, repeated sanctions may actually be accelerating China’s determination to build sanctions-resistant economic structures. Beijing has already expanded the use of alternative payment systems, encouraged yuan-denominated trade, and adopted legal mechanisms allowing Chinese firms to challenge or ignore certain foreign sanctions regimes. Each new round of American penalties reinforces the Chinese perception that dependence on US-controlled financial systems constitutes a strategic vulnerability.

There is also growing evidence that sanctions enforcement is producing diminishing returns. The United States has repeatedly sanctioned Chinese and Hong Kong-linked firms accused of helping Iran procure drone components over the past several years. Yet the procurement networks continue adapting through shell companies, intermediaries, and rerouted supply chains.

A 2025 report in the South China Morning Post described the process as a “whack-a-mole exercise,” noting how Iranian procurement networks rapidly reorganized after earlier sanctions targeted Hong Kong-based front companies. The persistence of these networks suggests that sanctions may disrupt transactions temporarily without fundamentally changing the underlying strategic calculations of either China or Iran.

This matters because coercive tools derive much of their effectiveness from credibility. If the targeted state concludes that sanctions are manageable, adaptable, or largely symbolic, then the deterrent value of future sanctions declines substantially.

A More Fragmented Geopolitical Order

The sanctions also reveal a broader contradiction in contemporary American foreign policy. Washington increasingly wants two incompatible outcomes at the same time: strategic competition with China and selective cooperation with China. The Trump administration appears to believe that it can compartmentalize the relationship — sanctioning Chinese entities over Iran while simultaneously seeking Chinese cooperation on trade, regional stability, or maritime security. But the relationship has become too securitized for neat compartmentalization.

From Beijing’s perspective, sanctions on Chinese firms are not disconnected technical measures. They are part of a larger American strategy aimed at constraining China’s economic and geopolitical rise. Under those conditions, even limited cooperation with Washington becomes politically sensitive inside China.

Ironically, the sanctions may therefore deepen exactly the alignment Washington seeks to weaken. China, Iran, and Russia increasingly share a common interest in reducing exposure to US-led financial and strategic pressure. They do not constitute a formal alliance, but they are moving toward greater coordination because American coercive policies create shared incentives for resistance.

This does not mean sanctions are entirely ineffective. They can still raise transaction costs, complicate procurement networks, and signal political resolve. But the era in which sanctions alone could fundamentally reshape the behavior of major powers may be fading.

The more important question now is whether Washington is adapting quickly enough to that reality. If the United States continues relying on sanctions as its primary instrument of geopolitical leverage, it may unintentionally accelerate the fragmentation of the very international order that once made those sanctions so powerful.

Trump may arrive in Beijing believing he has strengthened his negotiating hand. Yet Xi Jinping is likely to interpret the sanctions differently: not as leverage for compromise, but as evidence that Washington increasingly views pressure itself as diplomacy, and that coercion is likely to remain a key feature of US ties with China. And when coercion becomes the default language of international politics, major powers rarely move toward accommodation. They prepare instead for a world in which confrontation is permanent.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is aresearch analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

May 12, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Why did Washington impose sanctions on China before the Trump-Xi summit?

Iran submits response to latest US proposal for ending aggression

Press TV – May 10, 2026

Iran has submitted its official reply to the latest US proposal for reaching a deal that allows a permanent end to the US-Israeli war of aggression against the country.

Iran’s official IRNA news agency said in a Sunday report that the country had submitted its reply to the US proposal to Pakistan, which has mediated efforts aimed at ending the war of aggression.

IRNA said the reply insists that current negotiations between Iran and the US should solely focus on efforts to end the war, and other issues, including disputes surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, should be discussed at later stages of the talks.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry announced earlier this week that the country would submit its final response to the US proposal after carrying out deliberations and thorough examinations.

The US proposal had come in response to a 14-article plan submitted by Iran to allow a complete halt to the US-Israeli war of aggression.

The latest Iranian reply is focused on efforts to end the aggression on all fronts, including Israeli attacks on Lebanon, and to guarantee the security of shipping in the Persian Gulf.

Iran and the US held an intensive day of negotiations on April 11–12 in Islamabad, four days after Pakistan mediated a ceasefire to halt the US-Israeli aggression on Iran that had started in late February.

The talks collapsed over US maximalist demands, Iranian officials said.

A key sticking point in the current negotiations between Iran and the US is the restoration of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway in the Persian Gulf, which has come under Iranian control since the early days of the aggression.

Iran has indicated it is ready to reopen the Strait if the aggression ends permanently and the US lifts its illegal sanctions and blockade on the country.

Authorities in Tehran have said that a first phase of efforts to reach a deal must concentrate on shipping and sanctions, while signaling they are ready to discuss the country’s nuclear program in later stages of the talks with the US.

May 10, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran submits response to latest US proposal for ending aggression

Iran’s ‘threat’ to Western hegemony is not nuclear weapons

By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | May 9, 2026

US Secretary of State Rubio on Wednesday declared “Operation Epic Fury” concluded, the clearest indication so far that the US is writhing in the economic trap it sprung on itself. Being in a state of institutional paralysis, unable to accept the costs of ending the war while unable to tolerate its continuation, the Trump administration is attempting to find an equilibrium that allows hostilities to cease, while keeping as much as possible of its “maximum pressure” on Iran’s economy.

In precisely this vein, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in recent days has been unable to conceal his glee at the economic privation imposed on the Iranian people by his policies, attributing both the Riyal’s late 2025 collapse and the impending effects of the naval blockade on its oil production to “[Operation] Economic Fury.”

Since the inception of the Islamic Republic 47 years ago, the United States has weaponized its dominance in the global economy to impose one of the most comprehensive sanctions regimes ever implemented.

With each successive layer of economic siege deployed against the Iranians, US administrations and their surrogate regimes across the collective west, along with their propagandists in the media, painted this undeclared war as solely targeting “the regime.” The Iranian people themselves, they would have us believe, were never the intended targets.

This was, of course, only ever a rhetorical sleight of hand. The sanctions were “targeted” at the “regime” only in the sense that they were intended to make everyday life so unbearable that the Iranian public would blame their own leadership and overthrow it. The exact reason why they would primarily blame their own government, rather than Washington, London, Berlin and so-on, has never been rationalized. It is simply the economic strangulation of Gaza and Cuba that has been scaled up to the macro-level. Collective punishment of the entire population is the point, either to induce domestic rebellion, or to discipline them for not carrying out Western policy goals.

With the restarting of active war from February 28, Washington has reverted to implementing this strategy by its most direct means. Instead of choking off medicines to the health system, it simply bombed the health system itself, from critical national hospitals to the Pasteur Institute that produced domestic vaccines against the Covid pandemic. Instead of blacklisting Iranian students from foreign institutions, it bombs the Iranian universities that have been the engines of the nation’s indigenous industries, civilian, industrial and military since the siege began in 1980. Beyond merely sanctioning Iran’s industrial output, it is now robbing it of its revenues by attacking the steel plants of Isfahan and Ahvaz and the Asalouyeh petrochemical complexes.

The logical framing of these targets is that they are aimed at degrading Iran’s capacity to manufacture missiles, drones and its still non-existent nuclear weapons. By this reasoning, literally every economic sector, every potential source of revenue for the Iranian state is a target. It lays bare the true motivation not only behind the current war, but also behind the entire campaign of economic, political, and diplomatic coercion that the West has thrown at the country since its Revolution. It is not simply that Iranian nuclear program is unacceptable to Washington, London, Berlin, Paris and Tel Aviv, it is mainly the existence of an Iranian steel industry, pharmaceutical sector, ship-building capacity and space program. The very existence of an entrenched, self-sufficient and technologically progressing economy outside of the Western-dominated world system constitutes, by its nature, a systemic threat that cannot be tolerated. It must either be economically absorbed and dismantled from within or militarily destroyed.

It is a fear of the vastly enhanced economic and technological weight of an Iran unburdened by secondary sanctions, reaping tens of billions of dollars in taxes on traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and fundamentally restructuring the security and economic architecture of the Gulf, that explains the Trump administration’s unwillingness to end the state of war, even as it pushes the global economy deeper into existential crisis every day.

Tehran’s incentive, and its ability to demand, maximal concessions to accept an end to war however will not decline over time, it will increase inversely to the US tolerance for economic pain. Thus, Washington is at some point going to make at least one existentially humiliating concession to extricate itself from the crisis it created. It might agree to suspend all secondary sanctions against the Islamic Republic, or accept Tehran’s demonstrated capacity to tax traffic through Hormuz or permanently evacuate its bases in the region. It might even do all of these.

The blockade might plausibly remain as a face-saving fiction- the US navy clearly dares not intercept Iranian shipments heading to China. Over time, alternate land and sea corridors will compensate for the disruption to Iranian shipping.

When Washington eventually does cave it will have achieved the exact opposite of its intentions in launching its aggression: a vastly more economically empowered Islamic Republic with the throat of the world economy in its hand.

Trump’s choices are limited to accepting a far more economically powerful Iran now or accepting it later after a catastrophic resumption of hostilities. Maybe then, he will have learned precisely why none of his predecessors acted as he has.

May 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Comments Off on Iran’s ‘threat’ to Western hegemony is not nuclear weapons

US Superpower Myth Shattered w/ Trita Parsi

Rumble
The Duran | May 6, 2026 
Follow Trita Parsi:
https://x.com/tparsi
https://tritaparsi.substack.com/
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/aut…
https://quincyinst.org/author/trita-p…
Iran has achieved what almost no country has managed in the post-Cold War era, a strategic defeat of the United States military without being knocked out on the first punch. In a landmark conversation on The Duran, Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou sit down with Trita Parsi to dissect exactly how America’s 40-year obsession with finding a “silver bullet” against Iran has brought Washington to its weakest position in the Middle East since 1979. Parsi argues that the naval blockade of Iran sold to Trump as the final pressure tool that would force capitulation was built on dangerously flimsy analysis, and that the window for Trump to negotiate a genuine exit and spin it as a win is rapidly closing. From Iran’s nuclear calculus and the prospect of a grand bargain replacing the JCPOA, to the long-term unraveling of the American security umbrella across the Gulf states, this episode maps out the tectonic shift now reshaping the global order. The question is no longer whether US primacy in the Middle East is ending it’s whether Washington will recognize it in time to leave on its own terms.

May 7, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on US Superpower Myth Shattered w/ Trita Parsi

Iran unveils new control measures over Strait of Hormuz transit

Al Mayadeen | May 2, 2026

Senior Iranian lawmakers have unveiled a proposed plan to regulate maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, introducing new restrictions on certain vessels and a licensing system that would require ships to obtain authorization from Tehran.

Ali Nikzad, Deputy Speaker of Iran’s parliament, detailed that the initiative includes a 12-point framework aimed at managing transit through one of the world’s most critical oil shipping routes. Under the proposal, vessels linked to “Israel” would be barred from passing through the Strait at all times, while ships from “hostile countries” would be denied transit unless they pay unspecified war reparations.

Nikzad added that all other vessels would be required to operate under a newly established legal framework, obtaining official licenses and authorization from Iranian authorities before entering the waterway. He emphasized that the plan would be implemented “in accordance with international law” and with consideration for the rights of neighboring states, while asserting that Iran would not relinquish what it views as its sovereign rights.

The deputy speaker described the proposed administration of the Strait as comparable in significance to Iran’s historic oil nationalization efforts, signaling the strategic importance Tehran places on the initiative.

Control of the Strait of Hormuz seen as public demand in Iran

Further details were provided by Mohammad Reza Rezaei, head of the Iranian Parliament’s Reconstruction Committee, who outlined how revenues generated under the plan would be allocated. He said that 30% of fees collected from passing vessels would be directed toward strengthening military infrastructure, while the remaining 70% would fund economic development projects and public welfare initiatives.

Rezaei also emphasized the political framing of the proposal, stating that managing the Strait of Hormuz is “more important than obtaining nuclear weapons” and describing control over the waterway as a demand of the Iranian public. He reiterated that Iran would not forgo its right to administer and oversee the Strait.

“Exercising control and administration over the Strait of Hormuz is a demand of the Iranian people, and Iran will not relinquish this right,” he stressed.

War escalation and regional impact

Against the backdrop of escalating regional tensions, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz has escalated following a US-Israeli aggression on Iran, triggering a forceful Iranian response.

The United States has intensified its military and maritime aggression through sanctions enforcement, ship seizures, and a broader blockade targeting Iranian ports and vessels, moves widely viewed by Tehran as unlawful and destabilizing.

In response, Iran has exercised its geographic leverage over the strait to control the maritime traffic, prioritizing vessels not linked to the hostile aggression. The standoff has disrupted one of the world’s most critical energy corridors, through which roughly a fifth of global oil and gas supplies pass, fueling volatility in global markets while limited shipping continues under heightened restrictions.

May 2, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran unveils new control measures over Strait of Hormuz transit

Iran to charge ships passing Strait of Hormuz in rial: Lawmaker

Press TV – April 27, 2026

A motion being prepared in the Iranian parliament to regulate future transit through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf stipulates that ships allowed to pass through the key waterway must pay tolls in Iranian rial currency.

The chairman of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Ebrahim Azizi, said on Monday that charging tolls on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz is part of an 11-article motion being prepared in the parliament.

Azizi told state TV that the motion has been discussed and finalized in his committee and will become law once ratified in a vote in the main chamber of the Iranian parliament.

He said the motion contains some smart and well-considered measures that are based on a decree by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, who said last month that Iran must introduce a new system of governance in the Strait of Hormuz.

Azizi said the measures include a total ban on transit for ships owned by or linked to the Israeli regime, as well as restrictions on passage for vessels connected to hostile countries and their affiliates.

He said that the motion also seeks to require all countries that have inflicted financial damage on Iran over the past years, including by imposing sanctions or blocking its funds in foreign banks, to compensate Iran, through tolls paid by their ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

“It has been stipulated in the motion that the financial proceeds obtained from the Strait should be (paid) in Iranian rial,” he said.

The motion comes amid Iran’s continued control over transit through the Strait of Hormuz, which it has enforced since the early days of the US-Israeli aggression against the country in late February.

Iran has maintained its control over the strait, although the aggression ceased in early April following a Pakistani-mediated ceasefire.

April 27, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran to charge ships passing Strait of Hormuz in rial: Lawmaker

Promises, pressure, pullout: Why US nuclear talks with Iran were never about a deal

By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | April 24, 2026

For over two decades, US-Iran nuclear negotiations have been wrapped in secrecy and sold as a mechanism for reducing tensions. Yet a closer examination reveals a far different reality.

Negotiations were never intended to deliver a just or lasting solution. As the evidence suggests, they were simply a tool, a mechanism for the United States to maintain pressure on Iran while preserving the facade of diplomacy.

From the early 2000s through the signing of the nuclear deal in 2015 and its eventual unraveling three years later, the nuclear negotiation process has been defined by a single, consistent reality: the United States has never been a trustworthy or reliable partner at the table, and the negotiations have never produced the outcomes that were initially expected.

Roots of the crisis

The roots of the crisis, according to the evidence examined by this writer, trace back to 2002, when peaceful energy-centric nuclear facilities were unveiled in the central Iranian cities of Natanz and Arak. Western governments seized on these as evidence of so-called “military ambition.”

Yet Iran made clear from the very beginning that its nuclear program was peaceful and fully within its rights under Article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). What began as a technical issue concerning safeguards compliance soon metastasized into a broader geopolitical confrontation.

This transformation did not occur because of any real diversion in Iran’s program. Rather, the nuclear dossier offered the United States and its allies a convenient pretext to sustain strategic pressure against a state that refused to submit to Western domination in West Asia.

This pattern emerged early in the negotiations with the so-called EU-3 – France, Germany, and the United Kingdom – culminating in the Saadabad Declaration of 2003.

Seeking to prevent escalation, Iran voluntarily halted uranium enrichment and, as a counterpart, accepted the Additional Protocol, granting the IAEA expanded access to nuclear sites. These steps went well beyond Iranian legal requirements and were widely regarded as a significant act of goodwill.

Yet rather than reciprocating with tangible concessions or normalization, Western powers seized on the suspension to demand even more radical measures. The voluntary and provisional nature of Iran’s commitments was gradually reframed by European negotiators into open-ended constraints.

Iran resuming parts of nuclear program

The asymmetry of expectations became impossible to ignore, and the fragile trust that had been built soon evaporated. By 2005, it was clear that the West’s objective was not transparency but permanent restriction.

In defense of its sovereign rights, Iran resumed parts of its nuclear program. That dynamic would define the next two decades: every Iranian show of restraint was answered not with reciprocity, but with escalating demands and mounting pressure.

The next turning point came in 2006, when Iran’s nuclear file was referred to the United Nations Security Council. The crisis was now internationalized.

Over the following years, successive resolutions imposed escalating sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, arms transfers, and froze the assets of individuals and organizations.

Alongside these multilateral measures, the United States intensified its unilateral sanctions regime – particularly between 2010 and 2013 – when comprehensive financial and energy sanctions effectively amounted to a total embargo on Iran.

Legislation such as the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA), combined with sanctions targeting Iran’s central bank and oil exports, succeeded in isolating the Iranian economy from global finance.

By this stage, the nuclear issue had clearly ceased to be a technical file. It had become an instrument of economic warfare, designed to coerce Iran into altering not only its nuclear policy but its entire strategic orientation.

JCPOA and how it materialized

It was against this backdrop of relentless pressure that the JCPOA was reached in 2015, today hyped as one of the most comprehensive nonproliferation agreements in diplomatic history.

Under the controversial deal, Iran accepted unprecedented restrictions on its nuclear program: stringent caps on enrichment levels, a dramatic reduction of its uranium stockpile, and full IAEA surveillance. These were not hollow concessions but a verifiable rollback of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, offered in exchange for sanctions relief and economic integration.

Moreover, successive IAEA reports from 2016 to 2018 confirmed Iran’s full compliance – a fact that vindicates Iran’s consistent claim that its nuclear program was always peaceful.

Nevertheless, despite Iran’s full cooperation, the expected benefits of the JCPOA never materialized in any meaningful way. Structural barriers within the US sanctions architecture deterred international businesses and financial institutions from engaging with Iran, even after some restrictions were formally lifted.

This systematic failure to deliver tangible outcomes pointed to a deeper problem: the United States had no intention of providing genuine economic relief, preferring to maintain its sanctions leverage despite being a signatory to the deal.

Trump’s withdrawal from JCPOA

The truth became undeniable in May 2018, when the US administration unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA – even as Iran remained in full compliance – and reimposed comprehensive sanctions under the banner of so-called “maximum pressure.”

This not only erased any economic gains Iran might have realized but also demonstrated that any agreement with Washington was structurally unreliable and could be undone at any moment based on political whim.

The US withdrawal only deepened the cycle. As sanctions escalated and pressure mounted, Iran began scaling back its voluntary commitments under the JCPOA after a year of strategic restraint, invoking provisions that allowed for remedial action in the event of non-compliance by the other party.

These steps, including increased enrichment levels and advanced centrifuge research, were presented by Tehran as reversible measures, contingent on the restoration of sanctions relief.

Yet the West, instead of addressing the root cause of the crisis – the US violation of the agreement – once again focused its rhetoric on Iran’s nuclear activities. This inversion of cause and effect simply reset the familiar cycle of pressure and negotiation.

Limitations of the diplomatic process

The inherent limitations of the diplomatic process became clear during efforts to revive the deal through indirect Vienna negotiations starting in 2021. The core issues remained unresolved because talks focused merely on how to arrange a return to compliance.

Iran sought reasonable assurances that the US would not break its word again, along with economic compensation for its own compliance. Washington cited internal political and constitutional constraints as reasons such guarantees were impossible.

The resulting stalemate exposed a fundamental failure: the absence of any practical mechanism to ensure US promises are kept or prevent future violations, dooming any future settlement to the same cycle of disintegration.

The IAEA’s role has also come under scrutiny. Technical safeguards issues have repeatedly been pushed to the edge of a political flashpoint. Impartial compliance monitoring should be the agency’s mandate, yet on Iran, it has aligned with Western pressure, selectively raising issues at Iran’s expense – especially when geopolitical tensions peak.

This has reinforced the perception that the nuclear file is not technical but part of a larger pressure architecture, where institutional mechanisms are weaponized to justify more investigations and punishment.

Lessons from two decades of negotiations

The past two decades leave no room for doubt. The pattern is unmistakable: Iran can negotiate, compromise, and open up, only to face new demands, new sanctions, and shifting goalposts.

Every diplomatic phase has been followed not by resolution but by the reorganization of pressure in another form. This is not about miscalculations or technical differences. It is a chain of political choices in which diplomacy serves not as an end but as a means to gain advantage over Iran. The nuclear issue has become a scapegoat, not a genuine concern, but a tool to coerce and constrain an independent regional power.

The conclusion is inescapable. The technical dimension of Iran’s nuclear program has never been the real issue. Iran has submitted to one of the most invasive verification systems in history and has been repeatedly verified as peaceful.

The true obstacle is that the United States refuses to engage on terms of mutual respect, reciprocity, or long-term commitment. Washington always operates top-down, imposing conditions while reserving the right to walk away.

Under these conditions, nuclear negotiations with the US cannot produce a solution.

The process is fundamentally flawed and has been an absolute failure. And since Iran has already proven its program is peaceful, further talks are worthless – nothing more than pressure recycled as diplomacy.

The ongoing stalemate in the Islamabad talks is fundamentally due to Iran’s refusal to be dragged into a vicious cycle again. After emerging triumphant in the 40-day war, Iran is not willing to accept any of the US maximalist and unreasonable demands.

The nuclear file is effectively off the negotiating table, as the talks underway for nearly two decades have never been about a nuclear deal.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Promises, pressure, pullout: Why US nuclear talks with Iran were never about a deal

Iran defends limits on Strait of Hormuz passage

The Islamic Republic once again shut the strategic waterway due to what it described as US “piracy”

© Ruptly

RT | April 18, 2026

Iran said the renewed restrictions on maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz are justified under international law and necessary to counter hostile actions, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei has said in an interview with RT.

Iranian military officials said on Saturday that Tehran had reasserted “strict control” over the strategic route, which carries about 20% of global oil, citing the continued US blockade of its ports, just a day after declaring it open. The Revolutionary Guard Navy Command later said the strait would remain under Iranian military control as long as US restrictions stay in place.

“There was no safe and secure passage in this waterway,” Baqaei told RT on Saturday, adding that as a coastal state Iran has the right under international law to take measures against what it sees as hostile actions.

“We cannot allow enemy vessels, especially military ones or those linked to countries involved in aggression, to pass through the strait normally, as they pose a direct threat,” the spokesman stated.

The US-Israeli bombing campaign prompted Iran to restrict passage through the strait for “enemy ships,” triggering a breakdown in supply chains and sending global crude oil prices soaring.

Oil prices eased during the first round of US-Iran talks in Islamabad last weekend on hopes of the Strait reopening. After the negotiations collapsed, US President Donald Trump ordered a naval blockade on Iranian ports and shipping, prompting tankers to turn back and pushing prices back toward $100 a barrel.

On Friday, Iranian authorities said the waterway was fully open to commercial vessels for the remainder of the ten-day Israel–Lebanon ceasefire, lowering crude oil prices on de-escalation hopes. Tehran later reversed the decision after Trump said the US blockade of Iranian ports would remain in full force until a peace deal is reached.

The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has triggered broad global economic ripple effects, with Europe facing higher fuel and energy costs due to reduced oil flows. The International Energy Agency has warned of rising market volatility and possible jet fuel shortages within six weeks if disruptions continue. Humanitarian organizations have also flagged growing risks to global food security as fertilizer and agricultural supply chains are affected.

April 18, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran defends limits on Strait of Hormuz passage

‘We warned you’: Hormuz Strait back to pervious state amid US blockade

Al Mayadeen | April 18, 2026

Iran’s military announced that the Strait of Hormuz has returned to its previous operational status, placing it under “strict management and control” by the country’s armed forces, following repeated violations of prior understandings by the United States.

In a statement, the spokesperson of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters said Iran had earlier agreed, in good faith and within the framework of negotiations, to allow the managed passage of a limited number of oil tankers and commercial vessels through the strategic waterway.

However, the spokesperson stated, the United States had failed to uphold its commitments, amid Washington’s continued acts of “piracy and maritime robbery” under the guise of a naval blockade.

The statement added that, in response, Iran has reinstated full control measures over the strait, emphasizing that the passage of vessels will remain tightly regulated unless the US fully lifts restrictions on Iranian shipping routes, both inbound and outbound.

“As long as the United States does not completely lift the restrictions on the passage of vessels from Iran to destination and from destination to Iran, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will be strictly controlled and remain as before,” the spokesperson said.

IRGC-N affirms change in Hormuz regime

Meanwhile, Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps Navy (IRGC-N) reaffirmed the change in the regime of the Strait of Hormuz, stressing that any breach of promise by the United States will receive a fitting response.

“As long as the passage of vessels from and to Iran is threatened, the status of the Strait of Hormuz will remain unchanged,” the IRGC-N said, according to the Iranian TV, IRIB.

Iranian official outlines ‘new maritime regime’

Separately, Ebrahim Azizi, head of the National Security Commission of the Iranian parliament, outlined a new framework governing maritime transit in the strait.

“It is time to submit to the new maritime regime of the Strait of Hormuz; this regime is determined by the Islamic Republic of Iran, not by virtual posts,” Azizi wrote in a post on X.

“In this regime, only commercial ships, and only with permission from the Armed Forces General Staff, particularly the Navy, are allowed to pass through designated routes after paying the rightful dues of the Iranian nation.”

He added that any US interference with Iranian vessels could prompt further escalation in restrictions.

“If the Americans want to create the slightest interference for Iranian ships, this decision can easily be changed!” Azizi said.

In a follow-up post, he added, “We warned you, but you didn’t pay attention! Now enjoy the return of the Strait of Hormuz situation to its previous state.”

April 18, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on ‘We warned you’: Hormuz Strait back to pervious state amid US blockade

« Previous Entries