Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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?

A $1.5 Trillion Military Budget is a Gift to the Grifters

By Ron Paul | May 11, 2026

Last week “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth insulted Americans by claiming that a 50 percent increase in the US military budget – from an incomprehensible one trillion dollars to an impossible one and a half trillion – was a “fiscally responsible investment.”

“Thanks to President Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense budget, this War Department has moved from bureaucracy to business,” he said last Thursday.

In a way he was right, though. The huge increase is much more about “business” than what is needed to protect the United States from potential invasion.

But it isn’t the kind of “business” that most supporters of free markets would applaud. On the contrary, this is the business of transferring massive amounts of wealth from the struggling middle and working classes to the well-connected Beltway elite based on lies and scare tactics.

The US mainstream media is crucial in manufacturing the fairy tale that if we don’t mortgage our children’s and grandchildren’s future to finance this obscene military budget, we will be attacked or invaded by some evil foreign power.

It’s not difficult to do a little research and see why the mainstream – and even some “independent” – media outlets push these scare tactics: they are owned or funded by giant corporations with close ties to military contractors.

This unhealthy relationship is known as “corporatism” – the intermingling of pseudo-private companies with the government. It is the precursor to actual fascism, where the government takes a stake in such companies.
We’re getting there faster than most Americans understand.

The whole scam is not about protecting the citizens of the United States. It’s about protecting the US empire overseas, which actually harms the citizens of the United States.

Yes, they rob us to fund their empire and lie to us that it keeps us safe. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our constant military interventions on virtually every continent of the globe only build resentment among the rest of the world’s population. Anyone who thinks people overseas welcome US bombs has been watching too much Fox News or reading too much Washington Post.

And what do we get for the most expensive military on earth – larger than the combined militaries of the next dozen or so countries? Not much. Iran’s military budget is less than one percent of ours, yet Iran destroyed or disabled every US military base in the Middle East.

It turns out that Iran has destroyed dozens of multi-million dollar US spy drones – and several near-billion dollar spy radar stations – with their own drones costing mere thousands of dollars each.

The US surprise attack was supposed to make Iran cower and beg for mercy, but it did the opposite: it showed that despite the trillions extorted from Americans for the most expensive military on earth, the US military can no longer win the wars that US presidents illegally force them into fighting.

The US military continues to fight World War II – with massively expensive aircraft carriers that do not dare get close to combat – while warfighting has evolved into something entirely different.

The only good thing about the Iran war is that it demonstrates how much the special interests have lied to us about the need to continue our suicidal military spending increases.

It was never about protecting the United States. It is about protecting the ever-growing bank accounts of the special interests at the expense of the rest of us. It needs to stop. Now.

May 12, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | | Comments Off on A $1.5 Trillion Military Budget is a Gift to the Grifters

The Battle for Zaporizhzhia – Part 34 of the Anglo-American War on Russia

Tales of the American Empire | May 7, 2026

Springtime in Ukraine melted snow turning farmland and dirt roads into deep slush that vehicles could not cross. The ground has dried and Russian forces quicken their advance and will reach the big Dnieper River this summer. The most likely crossing point is the city of Zaporizhzhia with a population of 700,000.

It is unclear if Ukraine will fight to defend Zaporizhzhia or fall back behind the Dnieper River. If Ukraine evacuates this city, its big buildings could provide a great fortress. But Ukraine has nowhere for its 700,000 people to live and not enough transport to move them anyway. In addition, as Russian forces soon approach, their drones will patrol Zaporizhzhia bridges and attack any transport, effectively blockading the city. Ukrainian forces could become trapped on the east side of the river.

It will be interesting to see if NATO can destroy all the Dnieper bridges despite opposition from many Ukrainians, who may disrupt plans with police and military units. The Russians want them to support major forces once they cross the river. The Ukrainians know these bridges are vital national assets and not easily replaced. If all bridges are destroyed, this can delay the Russian advance for months.

_________________________________

“Military Summary” channel; YouTube; daily war updates;    / @militarysummary  

Related Tales:

“The Anglo-American War on Russia”;    • The Anglo-American War on Russia  

May 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Comments Off on The Battle for Zaporizhzhia – Part 34 of the Anglo-American War on Russia

The Next Indictment Should Be Against Greg Folkers

Brownstone Institute | April 30, 2026

The Department of Justice does not need to wait for Dr. David Morens to turn on his colleagues; the evidence to charge the next key advisor to Dr. Anthony Fauci is already in the public record.

Greg Folkers was critical to the censorship operation at the heart of the Covid response. As Chief of Staff at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Folkers oversaw operations for the agency’s $6 billion budget and later sought to evade FOIA requests by conspiring with Dr. Morens and intentionally misspelling key phrases such as “g#in-of-function.”

In January 2020, he sent the first email to Anthony Fauci warning that the NIAID had funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through grants it made to EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak’s organization. That research, Folkers cautioned, could be the source of Covid-19.

But instead of warning the public of the “lab leak” as it would come to be known, Folkers, Fauci, and Morens initiated the coverup.

Hours after Folkers’ initial warning, Fauci recruited virologists Kristian Andersen and Eddie Holmes to plant a cover story. This conspiracy prompted “Proximal Origin,” the infamous Nature article that stated that it was “implausible” that the virus was “laboratory-based,” even though Andersen and his colleagues made over 50 direct statements that expressed their belief that a lab leak was the likely origin of the virus.

While that article became the basis to censor any dissidents who questioned the origins of the virus, Folkers, Morens, and Fauci conspired to keep their role in the affair secret. “Tony doesn’t want his fingerprints on origin stories… Don’t worry… I will delete anything I don’t want to see in the New York Times,” Morens wrote to Peter Daszak.

Morens then coached his colleagues on how to avoid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (in defiance of federal law) by misspelling key phrases, using code words, deleting emails, and sending sensitive information to non-government accounts. “I learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after i am foia’d but before the search starts, so i think we are all safe,” he wrote in February 2021.

This is the crime that led to Tuesday’s charges against Dr. Morens, which include “conspiracy against the United States; destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations; concealment, removal, or mutilation of records; and aiding and abetting.” FBI Director Kash Patel spoke out against the “illegal obfuscation of…communications” and vowed that “if you have engaged in activity conspiring against the United States, we will not stop until you face justice.”

The US Government already has concrete proof that Folkers conspired to evade FOIA requests on at least three occasions in June 2021 alone.

On June 4, 2021, in an email exchange discussing Peter Daszak’s gain-of-function research, he intentionally misspelled “EcoHealth” as “Ec~Health.” Three days later, in an email to Dr. Morens, Folkers attempted to hide his reference to Kristian Andersen by typing his last name as “anders$n.” Dr. Morens forwarded the message to his personal email account.

Three weeks later, Folkers intentionally misspelled “gain-of-function” to be “g#in-of-function” in another email to Dr. Morens.

While President Joe Biden (or his autopen) granted a startlingly broad pardon to Anthony Fauci in the final days of his administration, there is still ample opportunity to bring his co-conspirators to justice. Greg Folkers was a central figure in the Covid operation. He knew of NIAID’s culpability, he served as Dr. Fauci’s liaison, and he helped orchestrate a massive coverup. In the process, he partook in the same crimes that now support the indictment against Dr. Morens.

There are many more besides, among whom the heads of the Cybersecurity Inflation Security Agency, which divided the population between essential and nonessential and masterminded the censorship regime, the employees of the Department of Health and Human Services who worked to close medical services to non-Covid-related diagnostics, and the people at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who used the crisis to push for mail-in ballots.

May all this come in time. We’ve got a good start. Much more needs to be done.

May 11, 2026 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , | Comments Off on The Next Indictment Should Be Against Greg Folkers

Trump ‘frustrated’ with Cuba’s ability to withstand pressure, considers military action

Press TV – May 11, 2026

US President Donald Trump has grown “increasingly frustrated” with Cuba and its ability to withstand months of US pressure, and is considering waging an act of aggression against the Caribbean country, according to a report.

NBC News reported on Monday that American officials have told Trump that the government of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel “could still fall by the end of the year” without military action, but the US president is not willing to wait that long.

Trump’s impatience, the report added, has prompted the Pentagon to ramp up planning for a possible attack against the island country.

Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the Cuban government had rejected $100 million in humanitarian aid offered by Washington.

He also called it “an unacceptable status quo” that the US has, “90 miles from our shores, a failed state that also happens to be friendly territory for some of our adversaries.”

For more than six decades, Cuba has been subject to increased inhumane US sanctions in flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The Trump administration has intensified the campaign of pressure against Cuba since January, when the US kidnapped Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro following an illegal military assault.

In February, the US president imposed an oil blockade on Cuba, while also repeatedly hinting at a possible “regime change” operation against the Latin American state.

Last month, the Cuban president told NBC News that he is willing to sacrifice his life for his homeland.

“If the time comes, I don’t think there would be any justification for the United States to launch a military aggression against Cuba, or for the US to undertake a surgical operation, like the kidnapping of a president,” Díaz-Canel said, referring to the abduction of Maduro.

“If that happens, there will be fighting and there will be a struggle. And we’ll defend ourselves. And if we need to die, we’ll die, because as our national anthem says, ‘Dying for the homeland is to live.’”

The Trump administration is looking for a face-saving way to escape the Iran war quagmire it has become trapped in.

Earlier, Trump said that “we may stop by Cuba after we’re finished with this,” in reference to the illegal US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, which began on February 28 and stopped under a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire on April 8.

May 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on Trump ‘frustrated’ with Cuba’s ability to withstand pressure, considers military action

US suffers ‘total defeat’ in war against Iran, faces irreversible strategic collapse: Neocon analyst

Press TV – May 11, 2026

In a noteworthy mea culpa from one of America’s most influential neoconservative commentators, Robert Kagan believes the United States has suffered a “total defeat” in its ongoing war against Iran, which has permanently shattered its global standing.

Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was a vocal advocate of the war against Iraq and a lifelong champion of American military interventions in West Asia.

But in a recent article for The Atlantic, he offered a grim verdict on the current war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, launched on February 28.

“The US suffered a total defeat,” Kagan writes, describing the loss as having no precedent in American history and one that can “neither be repaired nor ignored.”

While acknowledging that previous American military failures carried heavy costs, Kagan insists this war is fundamentally different in nature.

“The defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly but did not do lasting damage to America’s overall position in the world,” the prominent commentator writes.

“Defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character.”

At the heart of this catastrophe, Kagan noted, is Iran’s newfound ability to control the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most strategic waterway, without any challenge.

“Iran will be able not only to demand tolls for passage, but to limit transit to those nations with which it has good relations,” he writes.

According to Kagan, Iran has no interest in returning to the pre-war status quo. Most Persian Gulf states, he believes, will have no choice but to accommodate Tehran, effectively making Iran the dominant regional power.

“The United States will have proved itself a paper tiger, forcing the (Persian) Gulf and other Arab states to accommodate Iran,” Kagan writes.

He also dismisses any notion that a coalition of allies could rectify the situation.

“If the United States with its mighty Navy can’t or won’t open the strait, no coalition of forces with just a fraction of the Americans’ capability will be able to, either,” he states.

Kagan frames the collapse not as a regional setback but as a global strategic failure that fundamentally alters America’s position in the world.

“America’s once-dominant position in the (Persian) Gulf is just the first of many casualties,” he warns. “America’s allies in East Asia and Europe must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.”

Compounding the strategic humiliation is a staggering depletion of American military resources during the ongoing war, which has been widely documented in the US media.

“Just a few weeks of war with a second-rank power have reduced American weapons stocks to perilously low levels, with no quick remedy in sight,” Kagan writes.

He hastens to add that the United States now finds itself unable to control the consequences of a war it initiated – a war it has already lost.

May 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on US suffers ‘total defeat’ in war against Iran, faces irreversible strategic collapse: Neocon analyst

By rejecting Iran’s proposal, US enters a strategic nightmare with no escape

Press TV | May 11, 2026

In a theatrical move that fooled no one, US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s comprehensive plan to end the war he illegally imposed on the country 70 days ago.

The US president postured as a victor, dismissing Tehran’s proposal with the bluster of a leader who expects capitulation. But the reality on the ground tells a starkly different story.

By every measurable metric, America is the defeated party in the asymmetric war that was imposed on Iran amid the nuclear talks in Geneva on February 28. And his rejection of Iran’s terms in a social media post has not opened new options for Washington, but it has only trapped the US in a deadly three-way crossroads from which there is no easy escape.

Trump’s rejection of Iran’s plan, which was submitted early on Sunday through Pakistani mediators, is a grave strategic error as Americans hold no winning cards.

Iran’s proposal: Fundamental, natural, and uncompromising

Iran’s plan to permanently end the war was never meant to please Washington. It was designed to restore justice, recognize strategic realities, and secure Iran’s undeniable rights after the unprovoked military aggression against the country and maritime banditry.

The core elements of Iran’s proposal are not maximalist. They are rooted in natural and fundamental principles that any nation subjected to unprovoked aggression and holding the upper hand would rightfully insist upon:

  • War reparations – Payment of damages and reparations by the aggressor for the destruction inflicted on Iran’s infrastructure, economy, and civilian population.
  • Management of the Strait of Hormuz – Recognition of Iran’s sovereign control over this vital waterway, based on the mechanism already announced by Tehran.
  • Lifting of sanctions – The complete removal of all oppressive and illegal sanctions that have targeted the Iranian people for decades.
  • Release of frozen assets – The return of billions of dollars of Iranian assets illegally seized by the United States.
  • Permanent end to the war – A cessation of hostilities not only against Iran but also against the entire resistance front, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and other allied forces across the region.

None of these demands is unreasonable or impractical. They are the basic entitlements of a nation that has been attacked, bombed, and subjected to economic warfare for nearly half a century. What Iran is asking for is not special treatment but justice.

The American non-offer: Irrelevant demands and nuclear obsession

In stark contrast to Iran’s focused, reasonable and practically sound proposal, the American counteroffer reads like a wish list written by someone who has lost sight of reality.

Washington’s plan has nothing to do with ending the war. Instead, it resurrects the long-dead nuclear file – demands that were irrelevant before the war and are absurd now.

The United States insists on:

  • Closure of Iran’s nuclear sites – A non-starter that Iran has rejected for decades.
  • Long-term halt to enrichment – Effectively disabling Iran’s nuclear program for years to come, which is totally unacceptable to Iran.
  • Transfer of enriched uranium to America – A humiliating demand that no sovereign nation would accept, least of all Iran.

What is striking about the American proposal is what it omits. There is no mention of the American responsibility for starting the war in the middle of nuclear diplomacy.

There is also no acknowledgment of the thousands of Iranian civilians killed in the 40-day aggression. There is no offer of reparations. There is no commitment to withdraw the occupation forces from the region. There is no guarantee against future aggression.

Washington simply pretends the war never happened and pivots back to its failed nuclear fixation to deflect attention from the real issue.

The posture of defeat: Trump’s fake victory pose

Trump rejected Iran’s plan while posing as the victor. But this is pure theater. International experts, military analysts, and even sober voices within Western capitals acknowledge what Trump refuses to admit – the United States lost the asymmetric war against Iran.

Consider the evidence. The US entered this war with ambitious objectives: “regime change,” destruction of Iran’s missile program, dismantling of nuclear facilities, and unrestricted access to the Strait of Hormuz.

None of these objectives has been achieved. Iran’s missile cities remain intact. Its nuclear program continues to make progress. Its control over the Strait of Hormuz has been consolidated. And the Iranian people, far from rising against their government, have poured into the streets by the millions to support the leadership and the armed forces.

Trump’s hallucinatory “victory” exists only in his own press releases. In the real world, the United States has been defeated on every front. And rejecting Iran’s proposal does not change that fact – it only prolongs Washington’s agony.

The three-way crossroads: All paths lead to disaster

By rejecting Iran’s plan, Trump has trapped the United States in a deadly strategic dilemma. He now faces three options and none of them are good:

  • Resume full-scale war

This is the most dangerous path. Starting the war again would plunge the United States and its Israeli proxy into a “dark corridor” from which there may be no return.

Iran has not yet deployed all its strategic cards. Throughout the 40 days of war, Tehran fought with its eyes fixed on the possibility of an even larger confrontation. The weapons systems, tactics, and capabilities that Iran deliberately held back would be unleashed in a second round, if that actually happens.

The result would likely be far heavier defeats for the US-Israeli war machine, defeats that could become irreversible. Iran’s unrevealed cards, combined with the lessons learned from the first phase of the war, would make any renewed American military campaign a gamble with catastrophic odds.

  • Accept Iran’s terms

This is the only path to ending the imposed war, but it requires Trump to swallow his pride and acknowledge defeat like someone who understands the ground realities.

The United States would have to pay reparations, accept Iran’s complete and sovereign control of the Strait of Hormuz, lift illegal sanctions, release frozen assets, and agree to a comprehensive end to the war on all fronts.

For a president who has built his political identity around “maximum pressure” and “America First,” this option is politically toxic. But rejecting it does not make it disappear. It remains the only sustainable exit from a war that Washington cannot win.

  • Continue the naval blockade

An ambiguous, indefinite naval blockade that neither ends the war nor escalates it decisively is the current situation. But this option is also unsustainable. Iran’s top military command has already made its position clear that for every vessel intercepted or attacked, American centers and American vessels will be struck.

The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters has announced this equation publicly. It is not a threat but a binding warning. The continuation of the naval blockade will trigger Iranian responses that escalate incrementally but inevitably. There is no “safe” stalemate.

The economic dimension: A losing battle for Washington

The closure of the strategic waterway due to the war imposed on war and US maritime banditry and piracy has already sent shockwaves through global energy markets.

Oil prices have surged past $110 per barrel. Inflationary pressures are mounting across Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The continued naval blockade of Iran, coupled with Iranian retaliatory strikes on regional energy infrastructure, will only worsen these trends.

And who bears the blame? Global public opinion increasingly points to Washington. The United States started this war, and the United States rejected a reasonable peace plan.

The United States continues to strangle Iran’s economy while Iranian civilians suffer. The further economic indicators deteriorate, the more pressure will mount on Trump from domestic constituencies and international allies alike.

Iran understands this dynamic perfectly. Continued economic disruption is not a bug in Tehran’s strategy but a feature. Every day the war continues, the United States bleeds economically and reputationally.

Iran’s trap: No escape for the United States

World media have accurately described the current situation as “Iran’s trap” for the United States. It is a trap with no exit and Trump is yet to wrap his head around this reality.

Trump can neither win the war nor end it on acceptable terms. Resuming full-scale war invites catastrophic defeat. Accepting Iran’s proposal requires humiliating capitulation. Maintaining the status quo triggers escalating Iranian retaliation that systematically degrades American interests in the region.

This is the strategic nightmare that Trump has created for himself and his country. He started a war he could not win. He rejected a peace that would have ended it. And now he stands at a deadly three-way crossroads, with every direction leading to danger.

Iran, meanwhile, holds the strategic advantage. Tehran’s proposal remains on the table — reasonable, principled, and rooted in natural rights. But if the US chooses not to accept it, Iran is prepared to continue the war, escalate it, and inflict far heavier costs than anything seen in the first 40 days.

The choice is Washington’s. The consequences will be for Iran to impose. And history will record who acted with wisdom – and who walked willingly into a trap of their own making.

May 11, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on By rejecting Iran’s proposal, US enters a strategic nightmare with no escape

Col Douglas Macgregor: Iran TOO BIG TO INVADE

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 10, 2026

IRAN ISSUES NEW WARNING! /Lt Col Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 10, 2026

May 10, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Col Douglas Macgregor: Iran TOO BIG TO INVADE

The important change in Iran’s latest response to Trump

By Trita Parsi | May 10, 2026

The Iranian counter-proposal is publicly rejected by Trump, but if WSJ reporting is correct, Tehran is trying to move closer to US demands, but not fully.

The US demands that the entire Iranian stockpile be shipped out of the country. In the past, Tehran rejected shipping any of it out; it only agreed to downblending it. In its latest proposal, however, it offers to have some of it diluted and the rest shipped to a third country. The exact proportions are unclear.

As I understand it, though thi sis not reported by the WSJ, Iran is also offering to accept an arrangement in which it will not need to enrich uranium at all for 12 years. This is not the 15-20 years Trump originally wanted, but longer than the 3-5 years Terhan originally offered.

That Iran is willing to pause enrichment at all is a significant concession that I am not sure is fully appreciated by the American side. Last time Iran did this, it backfired significantly.

As I explain in Treacheorus Alliance, through the mediation of the E3, Tehran agreed to a voluntary suspension of enrichment in 2003. This was a significant victory for European diplomacy.

Though the suspension was supposed to be temporary until a final solution was found, its duration was tied to the continuation of talks. Meaning, as long as the two sides continued to negotiate for a final agreement, Tehran was supposed to sustain the suspension.

But once Iran had suspended, Europe had achieved its main goal. It was in no rush to reach a final agreement because such an agreement would inevitably have Iran restart enrichment. The Iranians soon concluded that, intentional or not, the suspension had turned into a trap.

But the cost of the suspension mistake in their view only grew.

In August 2005, after two years of suspension, Iran announced it would restart enrichment. By January, enrichment recommenced.

Immediately, a crisis erupted, and only a month later, the IAEA Board of Governors referred Iran’s case to the UN Security Council (February 4, 2006).

This started the process that led to numerous UNSC sanctions being imposed on Iran.

In the Iranian narrative, the suspension trapped Iran into a scenario in which the world expected it not to enrich indefinitely, and Iran was then forced to pay a massive cost once it ended the voluntary suspension.

If Iran once again agrees to a moratorium or suspension – even if framed differently – the fear is that this will normalize Iran not enriching, and once Iran resumes enrichment for peaceful purposes after 12 or whatever years, a new crisis will erupt, and Iran will once again face sanctions and economic punishment.

Even though in this recent proposal to the US, the suspension is tied to Iran’s needs for two of its reactors, it is nevertheless a major Iranian concession.

Trump could easily point to this and declare victory.

It remains unclear to me why this and the stockpile have become so central in Trump’s perspective. His earlier red line was simply no nuclear weapons.

He shifted to no enrichment due to pressure from Israel in mid-2025. Still, for Trump to even agree to a 20-year moratorium is a deviation from the Israeli red line (Israel wants Iran to permanently cease enrichment).

But the insistence on shipping the entire stockpile out appears to be another example of Trump allowing America’s red lines to be replaced by Israel’s.

It would be a shame if the entire negotiation collapses over this issue.

May 10, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on The important change in Iran’s latest response to Trump

How The US Blockaded Itself In The Strait Of Hormuz

By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | May 10, 2026

Far from a stroke of genius, the US Trump administration’s decision to impose its own blockade on the Strait of Hormuz was a reactionary act of desperation, not a real strategy. The reason behind this quickly became clear and led to immediate doubt, even from the US domestic corporate media.

On April 7, when US President Donald Trump declared a two-week temporary cessation of hostilities between his armed forces and Iran, he almost instantly faced an Israeli refusal to acknowledge that any such agreement had been struck. Not only did the Israelis violate the ceasefire agreement by launching a 10-minute terror bombing campaign on Beirut, which killed around 300 Lebanese, but they also began pressuring Washington to ensure that they could have their say on the course of Iran-US negotiations.

While the Iranians declared that the US had accepted their 10-point plan of demands, within 24 hours, the United States had signaled that it would respect none of them. This could have reasonably justified Iran continuing its campaign of self-defense, especially as US military assets continued to be transported into West Asia.

Instead, Tehran chose to ignore the fact that the very basis of the temporary ceasefire had been torn up in front of them, and the US was demanding precisely what it sought prior to its attack on Iran. The one thing that the Islamic Republic chose to do was to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed and impose its sovereignty over it, causing a real crisis for the Trump administration.

The Iranians just managed to fend off the world’s top military superpower, dealing blows to all of its allies and collaborators throughout the region while it was at it. At least 16 US military bases were smashed beyond recognition, many rendered inoperable, with the multi-million/billion dollar equipment losses numbering into the hundreds of units across the region.

Iran may have been fighting the US military, but the problem it faces and continues to face is that the commander-in-chief does not sit in Washington, but instead in Tel Aviv. Israel simply was not degraded to the extent that it saw a reason for the war to end, but the US, which was doing its bidding, had all but run out of options to achieve regime change.

This led to the ceasefire predicament. Because the next stop on the escalation ladder was a large-scale coordinated campaign of attacks against civilian infrastructure across Iran, which would inevitably trigger a retaliation in kind from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Although the escalation was evidently welcomed by the Israelis, if it still failed to achieve their goals, the repercussions regionally would have international implications.

Then came the temporary truce that Pakistan managed to mediate, likely by leading both sides on a bit too much, but it was nonetheless accepted by Washington and Tehran alike. As noted above, while the Iranians did manage to achieve a historic defensive victory of sorts, exceeding all expectations of it, neither side emerged as the decisive victor, and no one secured a long-term strategic victory.

Therefore, the opposing sides went back to the drawing board, re-arming themselves and preparing for the inevitable escalation ahead, while leaving the door open for negotiations. In a bid to keep the Iranians from escalating against the Israelis, the US decided to step in and execute a temporary strategy in Lebanon instead.

Tel Aviv had hoped to secure a “ceasefire” in Lebanon that enabled it to return to the 15-month ceasefire status quo that had existed prior to the regional war, bombing Lebanon at will as Hezbollah held its fire. That never materialized, which ended up leading the Israelis into a strategic military trap in southern Lebanon, one that Washington is attempting to undo by using their puppets in Beirut to undergo a process that will lead to another Lebanese civil war.

Meanwhile, Tehran, which was refusing to lift its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz until a full ceasefire in Lebanon, temporarily began allowing selected ships to transit the key chokepoint after paying a fee. This was quickly interrupted by not only the Israeli decision that they would not implement the ceasefire, but also the US aggression.

Trump’s uno-reverse-card strategy was then implemented, as the leadership in DC declared that they were going to blockade the blockade. Although this evidently has an impact on Iran’s economy, it was a failing strategy from the get-go, one designed to keep the President’s fragile ego stable, more than anything else.

The reason why it was so ridiculous to begin with is that it only further strained the international economy and sent oil prices surging further. When the Israel Lobby ordered Trump to unilaterally withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2018, the US’s ‘Maximum Pressure’ sanctions managed to dramatically impact Iran’s oil export rates. For around 33 months, Iran’s daily exports plummeted to around 350,000 barrels before later recovering to roughly 2.5 million barrels per day.

It will take at least three months for the Iranian economy to start truly suffering from the US’s blockade strategy, but such a long term economic pressure plan was always going to impact the US and its allies way more. The Islamic Republic has been under sanctions and suffered constant economic hurdles for 47 years, all at the hands of the US and its Western allies, which has led to a certain kind of sanctions immunity.

No routine exports for Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE for three more months will spell catastrophe for all of them. This will also have additional ramifications that are going to impact the entire planet. This means that the Iranians are simply being given time to re-arm, dig out their missile bases, rebuild sites struck by US-Israeli airstrikes, devise new military plans, all as their blockade squeezes the US and its allies.

In a way, it’s actually the perfect predicament for the Iranians to be in. Yes, they will suffer economically, but it isn’t like they haven’t been here before; their opposition has never had to go through such hardships. Hezbollah is also inflicting dozens of Israeli soldier casualties every day, while the Israeli population loses more and more confidence in their ability to achieve anything resembling victory in Lebanon.

All without having to endure round-the-clock airstrikes on their major cities like Tehran and Isfahan, all without losing assets or civilian life. Playing the game of who can outlast the other with the Iranians is a losing strategy, one that was born out of desperation.

These reasons, amongst others, were always going to force the US’s hand into yet another escalation. Israel won’t allow their puppet in the White House to retreat and bow down to Iran’s demands, while there is no way to achieve what Washington and Tel Aviv couldn’t through their war efforts.

In the future, the US has two major military options: Ground incursions into Iranian territory and a massive campaign of strikes against Iran’s civilian infrastructure, as was threatened prior to the temporary ceasefire. Neither will achieve regime change, but will inflict blows. The only thing standing in the way of a deal is Israel; until Israel is faced with strategic defeat, the war cannot fully end.

Even if there was some kind of diplomatic off-ramp that could hypothetically be found here, then the Israelis would simply go back to the drawing board and seek to escalate once again in the future. This is also why the Iranians had been so adamant on ending the war on all fronts, because the Israelis have to be subdued in order for Tehran to ensure that such an attack against it cannot happen again. The US may be seeking to kick the can down the road after failing to achieve its goals, but Iran seeks to prevent this.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

May 10, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on How The US Blockaded Itself In The Strait Of Hormuz

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »