Palantir CEO Calls for Draft to Fight the Empire’s Wars
Involuntary servitude is good for business
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 20, 2026
In 2025, Alex Karp, the CEO of government and military tech contractor Palantir, published The New York Times best-seller, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West. The Wall Street Journal praised the book as a cri de coeur, a passionate appeal “that takes aim at the tech industry for abandoning its history of helping America and its allies,” while Wired praised the book as a “readable polemic that skewers Silicon Valley for insufficient patriotism.”
On April 18, 2026, Palantir posted twenty-two points to social media summarizing the book. In addition to taking Silicon Valley to task for insufficient patriotism, advocating a role for AI in forever war, and denouncing the “psychologization of modern politics,” the Palantir post on X declares: “National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.”
National conscription, a form of involuntary servitude, and the wars it portends, is good for business, especially for corporations within the orbit of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the national security state. Palantir fits comfortably within this amalgamation.
Mass Murder by Artificial Intelligence
Project Maven is an AI-driven battlefield intelligence system designed by the corporation. The Defense Department, now known as the War Department, employed Maven in 2024 for “targeting support” in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Maven incorporates the AI model Claude, built by Anthropic.
More recently, in US airstrikes against Iran, “AI systems born from Project Maven have helped identify and prioritize thousands of targets, accelerating intelligence analysis and operational planning,” explains the Center for a New American Security, a military think tank founded by Michèle Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense with links to Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems. She was the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense in the formulation of national security and defense policy.
Maven was reportedly used to shorten the “kill chain” during Israel’s invasion of Gaza. “I am proud that we are supporting Israel in every way we can,” CEO Karp exclaimed. Following the Gaza al-Aqsa Flood in October, 2023, Palantir “provided Israel with multiple AI-powered data analytics tools for military and intelligence purposes,” notes the American Friends Service Committee. The corporation has a “strategic partnership” with Israel’s Ministry of Defense to assist the Zionist state and its “war effort” against Palestinian resistance to Israeli military occupation, an armed struggle recognized under international law.
“As the genocide in Gaza advances, attention is turning to the companies whose technologies may be facilitating Israel’s daily atrocities, with US-based Palantir Technologies among them,” reports the Business and Human Rights Center. “While the International Criminal Court (ICC) is stepping in to address genocide accusations, the tech barons who design and supply the tools of warfare remain largely unchallenged.”
Another Israeli AI-based targeting system, Lavender, ostensibly developed by the IDF’s Unit 8200, is said to be a Palantir project. Palantir rejected this assertion in a letter sent to Francesca Albanese, the sanctioned United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. In the letter, Palantir stressed it “stands in solidarity with Israel in response to the horrific attacks on 7 October, 2023. Our work in Israel long predates the 7 October attacks and is in line with our global commitment to U.S. allies and liberal democracies. We proudly support our partners in Israel across a multitude of mission sets, programs, and contexts.”
Israel utilized Palantir in its September 2024 attacks in Lebanon, employing exploding electronic pagers that resulted in numerous fatalities and injuries, writes AFSC’s Investigate. In addition to its collaboration with the Israeli military, Palantir also provides the Gaza Civil-Military Coordination Center with its services. This center is located at the US military compound in Kiryat Gat, which was established in October 2025 to implement the Trump administration’s plan for Gaza. Iran targeted Kiryat Gat in March, 2026.
Maven, incorporating Anthropic’s Claude, was used to target the Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in Minab, in southern Iran, killing 180 people, mostly young girls. President Trump praised Palantir Technologies, saying the company “has proven to have great war-fighting capabilities and equipment. Just ask our enemies,” apparently including children.
“Creepy CEO” Advocates Involuntary Servitude in “Service to the West”
“Alex Karp, the creepy CEO of creepy defense contractor Palantir, just can’t stop talking about killing people,” Lucas Ropek writes for Gizmodo. “During a recent call with investors, the billionaire let it slip that he doesn’t mind a little bloodshed, just so long as the money keeps pouring in.”
“Palantir is here to disrupt and make the institutions we partner with the very best in the world and, when it’s necessary, to scare enemies and on occasion kill them,” Karp said, with a smile on his face. The CEO added that he was very proud of the work his firm is doing and that he felt it was good for America. “I’m very happy to have you along for the journey,” he said. “We are crushing it. We are dedicating our company to the service of the West, and the United States of America, and we’re super-proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about.”
For Karp, “service to the West” includes conscription, that is to say involuntary servitude and the possibility of a violent and horrific death for an untold number of men and women drafted to fight the forever wars envisioned by the billionaire elite, including those within the “libertarian” tech sector.
However, forcing an individual against his or her will to kill and possibly be killed for the sake of the state (or foreign states, such as Israel), and in accordance with a “social contract” that demands submission and obedience, is not libertarian. In the case of Palantir, it is more accurately described as “techno-fascism,” an alliance between Silicon Valley and the state. Contrary to libertarian principles advocating against government intervention, leading tech companies frequently advocate for regulations that favor established AI companies benefiting from government funding and contracts.
Palantir, named after the “seeing stones” from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, may be characterized as a “merchant of death,” a term prominent in the 1930s regarding WWI profiteering. Alex Karp may be compared to Basil Zaharoff, a Greek arms dealer and industrialist, one of the wealthiest men of his time. Unlike Zaharoff, Karp is not selling rifles or munitions, he is selling something far worse—the ability, through artificial intelligence, to murder thousands, if not millions of people with the speed and efficiency of computer technology.
Israel’s war obsession and the urgency of Palestinian leverage
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | April 20, 2026
It is tempting to argue that Israel’s new military doctrine is predicated on perpetual war—but the reality is more complex.
Not that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would object to such an arrangement. On the contrary, his relentless drive for military escalation suggests precisely that. After all, his openly declared quest for a “greater Israel” would require exactly this kind of permanent militarism—endless expansion and sustained regional destruction.
However, Israel cannot sustain an open-ended fight on multiple fronts indefinitely.
Israeli officials boast about fighting on “seven fronts,” but many of these are, in military terms, largely imaginary rather than sustained battlefields.
The real wars, however, are entirely of Israel’s making: from the genocide in Gaza to its unprovoked regional wars.
Still, that fact should not blind us to another reality: in the lead-up to the war on Iran, and in the escalation against Lebanon, there was near-total consensus among Jewish Israelis. An Israel Democracy Institute survey conducted on March 2–3 found that 93% of Jewish Israelis supported the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran. Support cut across all political camps.
The same enthusiasm for war accompanied the Gaza genocide and the various wars and escalations in Lebanon.
Even Yair Lapid—so often and so falsely marketed abroad as a “dove”—fully backed these wars, admitting after the Iran ceasefire that Israel had entered them with “rare consensus” and that he supported them “from the very first moment.”
His repeated criticisms, like those of other Israeli politicians, are not of the war but of Netanyahu’s failure to deliver a strategic outcome.
And this is the crucial distinction. Israelis mostly support the wars, but many no longer trust Netanyahu to translate destruction into strategic victory. By mid-April, 92% of Jewish Israelis gave the army high marks for its management of the Iran war, but only 38% gave high ratings to the government.
In other words, the public still believes in war but increasingly doubts the leadership waging it.
That distinction may not matter much to us, since the outcome remains mass death, devastation, and colonial violence. But in Israel’s own military and strategic calculations, it matters enormously. Its wars have historically followed a familiar model: crush resistance, impose military and political domination, and translate battlefield violence into colonial expansion.
Netanyahu delivered none of that.
This is why the uproar in Israel over the April 16 Lebanon ceasefire has been so fierce, and why the fears surrounding a possible stalemate with Iran run even deeper.
The Lebanon ceasefire clearly did not secure one of Israel’s central declared aims: the disarmament of Hezbollah. Israel kept troops in southern Lebanon, but the agreement halted offensive operations and fell far short of the promised “total victory.”
For many in Israel, any outcome that falls short of total victory is immediately read as defeat. One northern Israeli regional leader, Eyal Shtern, captured that mood with brutal clarity when he reacted to the Lebanon ceasefire by asking how Israel had gone “from absolute victory to total surrender,” in remarks reported by CNN.
That is the real crisis now confronting Israel: not that it has discovered the limits of permanent war, but that it has once again discovered that exterminatory violence does not automatically produce political victory.
While Iran possesses political leverage that could allow for a long-term, or even permanent, truce, Lebanon and Syria remain in a far more vulnerable position. However, no one is in a more precarious condition than the Palestinians, particularly those in Gaza.
Unlike others who retain some political margin and space to maneuver, Palestinians live under Israeli occupation, apartheid, and siege. Gaza, in particular, has been reduced to a sealed enclave of devastation.
Its hermetic siege has produced one of the most horrific humanitarian catastrophes in modern history: an entire population surviving on polluted water, with infrastructure destroyed, food critically scarce, and thousands still buried beneath the rubble.
Aside from their legendary steadfastness—sumud—Palestinians operate under severe constraints in their ability to impose conditions on Israel, particularly as it continues to receive unconditional support from the United States and its Western allies. Yet their resilience, collective action, and enduring presence remain powerful forms of leverage that cannot be easily contained.
Netanyahu—and those who will come after him—will always find in Palestine a space in which war can be waged continuously and at relatively low cost to Israel itself.
Unlike other battlefields, where war becomes politically, militarily, and economically unsustainable, Israel has turned its occupation of Palestine into a permanent battlefield.
Even if Netanyahu, now politically diminished and aging, exits the political scene, the underlying paradigm will remain intact. Future Israeli leaders will continue to wage war on Palestine, not despite its costs, but because of its perceived benefits: it is financially subsidized, colonially advantageous, and politically sustainable within Israel’s current structure.
To break this paradigm, Palestinians must generate leverage—real leverage. This cannot come from futile negotiations or appeals to long-ignored international law. It can only emerge from sustained collective resistance to colonialism, reinforced by meaningful support from Arab and Muslim states and genuine international allies, and amplified by global solidarity capable of exerting real pressure on Israel and, crucially, on its principal benefactors.
For now, Netanyahu continues his wars because he has no answer to his own strategic failures. Here, escalation is not a strength; it is the last refuge of a leadership that cannot deliver victory.
This, however, also reveals something else: Israel is entering a moment of unprecedented vulnerability.
That vulnerability must be exposed—clearly, consistently, and urgently—by all those who seek an end to these senseless wars, an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and a path toward justice that has been denied for far too long.
US strikes vessel in Caribbean killing three, death toll reaches 180
Al Mayadeen | April 20, 2026
The United States military announced the killing of three individuals in a strike targeting an alleged drug-trafficking vessel in the Caribbean, marking the latest escalation in Washington’s expanding operations across the region.
According to the United States Southern Command, the strike was carried out on Sunday against what it described as a vessel “operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations.”
SOUTHCOM alleged that “intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” adding that “three male narco-terrorists were killed during this action.”
Washington frames operations as war
US President Donald Trump’s administration has framed these operations within the context of a broader confrontation, asserting that the United States is effectively “at war” with what it labels as “narco-terrorists” in Latin America.
Despite repeated claims by US officials, the administration has not presented definitive public evidence demonstrating that the targeted vessels were actively engaged in drug trafficking.
This lack of transparency has fueled skepticism and intensified scrutiny over the criteria used to authorize strikes, particularly in cases where those targeted are not independently verified as combatants.
Three major US rights groups filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in December of last year, stating that there is a total lack of legal justification for the US strikes in the Caribbean.
Lawmakers also raised questions about the validity of strikes, stating that the decision to use lethal force may run contrary to international law, as well as US statutes prohibiting murder or assassination.
The latest strike brings the number of reported fatalities from these operations to at least 180, based on available data. US military officials have acknowledged conducting at least six such strikes in April alone, indicating a sharp increase in operational tempo.
The growing frequency of these attacks reflects a sustained escalation, with Washington relying on military force as a primary tool in its anti-drug campaign across Caribbean waters.
International legal experts and human rights organizations have also raised serious concerns regarding the legality of the strikes. Critics argue that the operations likely constitute extrajudicial killings, as they appear to target individuals who do not pose an immediate threat to the United States.
The absence of due process, combined with the classification of suspects as “narco-terrorists,” has further complicated legal assessments, raising broader questions about the use of military force in law enforcement contexts.
Col Doug Macgregor: US Strategy in Iran NEVER ADMIT DEFEAT
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – April 19, 2026
IRNA denies 2nd round of negotiations: reports
Al Mayadeen | April 19, 2026
Iran has not yet made a decision on whether it will engage in a new round of negotiations with the United States, local media reported on Sunday. IRNA news agency said that “there is no clear prospect of fruitful negotiations.”
IRNA denied reports that a second round of negotiations had been held in Islamabad, stating that they were “incorrect.” The state news agency reported that Washington’s “maximalism and excessive and unrealistic demands,” along with “frequent changes of positions, constant contradictions, and the continuation of the so-called naval blockade.”
The agency added that under these conditions, “there is no clear prospect of fruitful negotiations.”
It also indicated that the reports being circulated by the United States are nothing more than “media games, part of a pattern of exchanging accusations and exerting pressure on Iran.”
On another note, citing unnamed sources, the Fars and Tasnim news agencies reported that Tehran has not finalized its position on participating in the proposed talks. They also described the current climate as “not very positive,” with Fars quoting a source as saying that lifting a US blockade on Iranian ports would be a prerequisite for any negotiations.
Iran withholds second-round US talks until blockade lifted
Iran has not yet decided whether to send a delegation for negotiations with the United States, Tasnim News Agency reported on Sunday, as tensions remain high following Washington’s continued breach of the ceasefire.
According to the report, Tehran has made clear that talks with the United States will not take place as long as the maritime blockade remains in force, effectively linking any diplomatic engagement to the removal of coercive measures.
Communication between the two sides is ongoing through a Pakistani intermediary, suggesting that backchannel contacts remain active despite the absence of formal negotiations.
Talks collapse
The current deadlock follows an earlier round of talks held in Islamabad in mid-April, which lasted several hours but ended without agreement.
The US delegation was led by Vice President JD Vance, while Iran was represented by a senior delegation headed by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Tehran rejected “maximalist” US demands, arguing that Washington sought sweeping concessions, particularly on nuclear and regional issues, without offering credible guarantees or meaningful sanctions relief in return.
Ceasefire contradiction
The breakdown was further compounded by Washington’s decision to impose a naval blockade on April 12, even as negotiations were ongoing.
Iran had initially moved to reopen the waterway under a ceasefire understanding before reversing course in response to continued US interference with maritime traffic.
Washington maintained its blockade, announced on April 12, even as it publicly framed the Strait as “reopened,” a contradiction that has fueled tensions.
Iran has argued that engaging in talks under such conditions would amount to negotiating under pressure, insisting that meaningful dialogue requires the lifting of restrictions on its shipping and ports.
Netanyahu’s ‘total victory’ to total flop
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | April 19, 2026
Promising annihilation, dominance, and total victory, the Israeli leadership has found itself in a predicament no closer to victory on any front. Tactical victories sold as strategic ones have been exposed; instead of meticulously planned operations, Tel Aviv engages in aggression without any discernible long-term strategy to achieve its stated aims.
Since October 7, 2023, the Israeli regime of old is no more. Instead of implementing methodical planning, public deception, and fighting the long game, its thinking has been replaced by a ruthlessly violent vengeance scheme that seeks to try and achieve in months what it was previously aiming for over decades.
The beginning of the war on Iran was not February 28, 2026; instead, it was October 7, 2023. This was the moment when everything changed in the strategic thinking of the Israeli leadership. For them, the illusion of absolute control and superiority was crushed under the boots of a few thousand Palestinian fighters, who single-handedly dealt the most severe blow to the Zionist regime in its history.
As an event, the collapse of the Israeli southern command at the hands of a guerrilla force possessing homemade light weapons, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, represented the moment of a great shift. It wasn’t long before the decision was made to launch a genocide against the people of Gaza.
Inflicting the genocide was the whole strategy, not dealing a military defeat to Hamas or any other Palestinian organizations. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu foolishly believed that the genocide would restore the Zionist entity’s prized “deterrence capacity”, while the side effects of the genocide would mean the de facto defeat of the Resistance, destroying Palestinian will to resist that could lead to a mass ethnic cleansing event that would end up inflicting a predicament on Hamas that replicates the PLO’s defeat in 1982.
When it became clear that this strategy was not working inside Gaza itself, the Israeli military continued without any clear goals and launched operation after operation in desperate attempts to achieve their desired outcomes. The majority of the tasks performed inside Gaza by the invading ground forces were simply round-the-clock demolition work; so much that they even recruited private businesses and settler employees to aid in these efforts.
Ultimately, they ran into a major problem; after two years, they had still failed and presented a plan to try to implement a West Bank-style occupation over Gaza City, a task that experts predicted could take them a decade. This is why they accepted a ceasefire, one in which the war was simply frozen and meant they were able to engage in a prisoner exchange.
In Lebanon, they were also put into a difficult predicament. The stance of former Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah had been that Lebanon would remain a support front for Gaza until the very end. “Hamas will win,” stated Nasrallah in a 2023 speech, after which he asserted that “no matter where the region is taken,” Hezbollah will stand with Gaza.
The daily operations by Hezbollah were a thorn in its side, which is why the Israelis began planning to escalate in an unprecedented way. Through their terrorist indiscriminate pager attacks, followed by the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and most of Hezbollah’s senior leadership, the Israelis believed they had dealt a death blow to Hezbollah.
Selling this lie to the public, the Israeli leadership claimed a major victory and alleged to have taken out around 80% of Hezbollah’s weapons arsenal.
In March, when Hezbollah began responding to the some 15,400 ceasefire violations committed by the Zionists, suddenly the Israeli public was jolted back by the power and coordination with which Hezbollah managed to attack, especially as these operations were carried out alongside Iran’s missile and drone strikes.
Eventually, failing to score victories in key towns like Bint Jbeil and Khiam, the Israelis begrudgingly accepted a temporary ceasefire, one that they immediately violated.
If it were true that the Israelis were close to, or even believed that a victory over Hezbollah was possible, they would not take any ceasefire agreement of any description. Instead, they were forced to go back to the drawing board.
Similarly, they launched the 12-day war on Iran and came out empty-handed. They also used their US allies to launch an air assault on Yemen and failed to achieve any of their goals. Then came the February 28 attack on Iran, where the largest blows were landed during the first 24 hours, yet even with the US on their side, their aspirations for regime change quickly faded into a distant memory.
When Yemen’s Ansar Allah joined the war in support of Iran and Hezbollah, the Israelis didn’t even launch strikes on Yemen, likely due to it being a useless endeavour.
So as it stands, the Lebanon front is again open, the Iran front was fought to a standstill with no goals achieved, Yemen is open whenever there is aggression on their allies, and Gaza is a temporarily frozen arena that they still have no plan for. Even in Syria, the constant aggression is like playing with fire.
Meanwhile, the delusional Zionist leadership is still chasing its aspirations of a “Greater Israel”, threatening even Turkey with retaliation for simply criticizing them. What this behaviour and all of their decision-making since October 7 point to is an irrational inability to close any conflict, lacking any coherent plans to win.
Therefore, the Israelis will use any and all ceasefire agreements in order to go back to the drawing board, in order to conjure up new plans for further aggression. Whether it’s a Lebanon, Gaza, or Iran ceasefire, they are not about to give up on attacking everyone mercilessly.
This means that despite all of its efforts and attacks over the past two and a half years, the predicament they find themselves in has not changed. A ceasefire kicks the can down the road, simply delaying the inevitable resumption of war. Either the Israelis are totally defeated in battle, or they will continue to attack again and again. This will go around in circles until they are eventually defeated.
REPORT: United States Now Global Outlier Ignoring Vaccine Injured as UK Inquiry Acknowledges Harms
By Jefferey Jaxen | April 17, 2026
Baroness Hallett is the Chair of the UK’s COVID-19 Inquiry – an independent public investigation established to examine the country’s response to and impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
‘Module 4’ was just released today and it dealt primarily with those harmed by the rushed rollout of an experimental mRNA jab.
THE NEW INQUIRY ACKNOWLEDGED THE FOLLOWING:
“The current system of payment for those injured as a result of having a Covid-19 vaccine requires reform.”
“The Inquiry acknowledges the suffering of those for whom vaccines led to serious injury and death. It is imperative that a sufficiently supportive government scheme is in place to help the minority of people (and their loved ones) who suffer serious injury following vaccination.”
“The Inquiry recognises that some of the vaccine injured and bereaved sharing their experiences online felt stigmatised and ignored when their content was labelled as misinformation“
“The Inquiry was also told that, when the Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out, little was done to publicise the scheme and a significant number of those who had been injured or bereaved as a result of the vaccine were unaware of it.“
The inquiry’s overarching recommendation was the following:
“… reforming the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme as soon as possible, with an increase in the minimum payment awarded to those injured by a vaccine and a fairer system for determining payment.“
For many, these admissions are a welcomed surprise from slow-acting governments who have dragged their feet to recognize citizens harmed by products they mandated.
What wasn’t included in the UK inquiry was any mention of the violations of informed consent that occurred during the failed pandemic response. A particularly telling point especially in the UK where, in addition to the garden variety slights of lockdowns, forced vaccinations, blanket ‘do not resuscitate orders in care homes, the media openly boasted about the Army’s psychological warfare unit being deployed domestically on citizens.
The UK announcement now shamefully places the United States as the global outlier in recognizing and beginning the plan to develop better care and ultimate justice for the COVID-vaccine injured.
Most U.S. government officials and compliant corporate media outlets are still satisfied with calling the injured who question vaccines ‘anti-vaxxers’ and other divisive names to neutralize them and their rightful quest for help, the world is changing and America is beginning to look not as great on this vitally important subject.
The legal cancellation of the recent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) by a lawfare Massachusetts judge took away the opportunity for American COVID vaccine injured who were scheduled to testify at the federal meeting. Recognition was denied and shockingly, few politicians and media pundits cared.
For the first time in U.S. history, a dedicated ICD-10 diagnostic code specific to adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines is moving forward. React19 advanced the proposal at the March 17–18, 2026 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting, and it has now entered a 60-day public comment period ending May 15, 2026.
Why An ICD-10 Code Matters
The ICD-10 code proposal aims to address a critical gap: currently, no specific ICD-10-CM code exists for adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination. This has led to widespread miscoding, under-recognition, and difficulty in tracking, researching, and treating these conditions. The proposed code would give clinicians, researchers, and public health officials a clear way to document these cases.
In a separate effort to petition the appropriate U.S. agencies seeking proper care, React19 petitioned the Social Security Administration’s Compassionate Allowances program only to be greeted with the following writes The Defender :
Last year, React19 and Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo asked the CAL program to include the 10 conditions. The CAL program is designed to fast-track disability benefits for people with severe illnesses that clearly meet SSA criteria.
The program rejected all 10 requests within 48 hours.
In response, React19 filed a FOIA request seeking documents and data that could shed light on the decision-making process behind the rejections.
The ‘help’ the U.S. government does offer the COVID-vaccine injured is in the form of the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).
The latest numbers from that program have just been released. Shamefully, less than 1% of injury claims have been compensated.
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.
‘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.”
Iran rejects uranium transfer, warns of response to naval blockade
Al Mayadeen | April 18, 2026
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei flatly rejected on Friday any proposal to transfer the country’s enriched uranium abroad, declaring that Iran’s uranium reserves are as sacred as its own soil.
Responding to remarks made by US President Donald Trump, who told Reuters that Washington would work with Tehran to retrieve and transfer its enriched uranium, and claimed Iran had agreed to halt enrichment, Baghaei called such assertions part of a coordinated media campaign designed to pressure negotiators and tilt the direction of ongoing talks.
“Claims about a permanent suspension of uranium enrichment are aimed at influencing the course of negotiations,” Baghaei said, adding that any final agreement must fully safeguard Iran’s interests and rights.
Iran has consistently maintained that its uranium enrichment program serves civilian purposes, including agriculture and medicine, and that it operates no military nuclear program.
Compensation, sanctions relief are core demands
Baghaei stressed that compensation for the losses and damages inflicted on Iran is not a peripheral issue but a fundamental pillar of any potential deal.
He also placed the lifting of sanctions at the top of Tehran’s list of priorities, emphasizing that ending the war and halting hostilities across all fronts must be treated as a single, inseparable package, not piecemeal concessions to be negotiated separately.
He described diplomacy as “a continuation of military efforts on the ground,” signaling that Tehran’s negotiating posture is shaped by the same resolve it has brought to the battlefield.
Naval blockade crosses a red line
On the security front, Baghaei warned that a naval blockade would be met with a firm Iranian response, calling any such measure a direct violation of the ceasefire. “Iran cannot be blockaded,” he said, adding that Tehran would take all necessary measures in response.
He also invoked international maritime law, asserting that coastal states bordering strategic straits hold both the right and the responsibility, in wartime conditions, to take appropriate measures against states they consider hostile, in reference to the Strait of Hormuz.
No direct talks with Trump
Baghaei also denied Trump’s claims that US officials had held direct talks with Iranian counterparts, calling those assertions false.
He noted that while earlier rounds of negotiations had focused primarily on the nuclear file, the most recent discussions have shifted to center on ending the war entirely.
On the progress of talks, he said the Islamabad meeting had helped map out areas of understanding and define red lines, adding that “there is no ambiguity regarding the negotiation files.”
He cautioned, however, that developments over the coming days would ultimately determine the outcome.
Tehran’s previous uranium offer
Iran’s Deputy Parliament Speaker Ali Nikzad revealed on Monday that Tehran had at one point signaled a willingness to demonstrate goodwill, but on its own terms.
Nikzad said Iran had proposed diluting 450 kilograms of enriched uranium, not handing it over, and that earlier negotiations had explored the possibility of establishing a trilateral consortium involving Iran, the United States, and Saudi Arabia to carry out that dilution. He clarified that the other parties ultimately pulled back from that framework.
Nikzad also claimed that the US military operation targeting Isfahan had been aimed at seizing Iran’s uranium stockpiles, but that it failed.
US Middle East Policy: The Growing Propensity for Genocide
Arab Center Washington DC | April 10, 2026
Professor John Mearsheimer discusses the #IranWar, the #Gaza genocide, and the US policy toward the Middle East.
His remarks were the keynote address for Arab Center’s Eleventh Annual Conference.
John J. Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and international relations scholar who serves as the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and is the author of How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, among other works.
Daniel Davis: Iran Reopens the Strait of Hormuz
Glenn Diesen | April 17, 2026
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis is a 4x combat veteran, the recipient of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling, and is the host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive YouTube channel. Lt. Col. Davis discusses Iran’s announcement that it is reopening the Strait of Hormuz, yet the US decides to maintain the blockade on Iranian ports. While diplomatic developments are positive, the statements from the US and Iran do not correspond with each other.
Daniel Davis Deep Dive: https://www.youtube.com/@DanielDavisDeepDive/videos
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
- X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen
- Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
- Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Crusades – colliding narratives
Ashes of Pompeii | June 13, 2026
They say history is written by the victors, but the Crusades offer an interesting historical contrast: a two-century collision that produced not one history, but two parallel, irreconcilable realities. The dates and the battles are identical in both accounts, but the moral axis is entirely flipped.
In the traditional Western narrative, the Crusades are framed as a heroic, if tragic, epic. The First Crusade is a pious pilgrimage; the knights are romanticized figures of chivalry in shining armor, bravely holding the line in a hostile, exotic land. The eventual loss of the Holy Land is mourned as the “fall of Outremer,” a tragic retreat of European civilization. In this telling, the East is often reduced to a passive backdrop, its inhabitants viewed through a lens of mystique or backwardness, mere obstacles to a divine mandate.
But cross the Mediterranean, and the exact same timeline reads like a chronicle of foreign invasion and eventual, hard-won restoration against the barbarous northerners. The dates do not change, but the adjectives do. Here is the history as it is remembered in the Levant… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The 12 Screenings That Manufacture the Patients They Claim to Find
- Iran deputy FM says MoU with US finalized, to be signed in Geneva on Friday
- With one strike, Netanyahu tries to kill two peace deals
- Iran warns ‘no point’ in deal with US if Israel remains unrestrained
- Ukraine as a laboratory of ‘techno-fascism’
- Desperate Starmer choosing piracy as distraction over UK crime crisis – Putin envoy
- The Crusades – colliding narratives
- Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
- What Is SIDS?
- DHS docs: Govt bracing for nationwide anti-AI riots, preparing to crack down on dissent
- If Americans Knew
- Did Trump just threaten a nuclear attack on Iran? Another merger for Israel-Firster David Ellison –Daily Update
- Israeli Firm Accused of Launching Smear Campaigns During US, European Elections
- As World Cup kicks off, Gaza amputee girls chase football dreams
- Oxfam: More Palestinians killed by Israel across West Bank in last 3 years than previous 17 years combined
- US-Iran ceasefire may be imminent, but will Israel blow it up? – Daily Update
- The Issue of Israel Is Ending Democracy In Michigan
- Israel is stealing homes, livelihoods, and lives in West Bank
- Gaza is not an aberration – Israel planned this genocide decades ago
- Israel is changing the face of Lebanon, mainstream media is normalizing it – 3 articles
- Genocide lobby benefits from EU anti-racist fund
- No Tricks Zone
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
Aletho News 