US at a crossroads: Iran’s firm positions leave Trump no option but to capitulate
Press TV | April 29, 2026
A close look at the initial American reactions to Iran’s firm positions – laid out by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during his recent tour of Pakistan, Oman, and Russia – reveals one thing immediately: severe confusion and disarray in Washington.
Iran has drawn its red lines with clarity and precision. According to credible sources, Tehran has communicated its positions to all parties on at least two highly important fronts.
First, the exclusion of any nuclear-related issues from end-of-war negotiations. Second, Iran’s decisive and irreversible determination to exercise full control over the Strait of Hormuz.
These are not negotiating tweaks. They represent fundamental demands that reshape the entire strategic landscape. And these uncompromising demands have placed the United States at a crossroads where both paths lead to definitive losses for President Donald Trump.
The first path: Acceptance
If Trump accepts these Iranian positions, the conclusion is devastatingly simple. It would confirm that the United States has achieved nothing whatsoever – neither on the battlefield nor on the diplomatic front. Not a single victory. Not a single concession.
Far worse, Iran would walk away from the war that was imposed on it with major strategic gains. These include the preservation and consolidation of its nuclear rights and provisions, a direct blow to decades of American policy aimed at rolling back Iran’s nuclear program.
And, perhaps even more significantly, the highly sensitive and strategic Strait of Hormuz would be placed firmly under Iranian control and sovereignty forever.
In other words, acceptance would mean formal, public acknowledgment that America has not only failed to defeat Iran but has actually watched Tehran emerge stronger, more sovereign, and more dominant in one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints.
The second path: Resumption of war
If Trump refuses to accept Iran’s conditions, he is left with no choice but to resume the war. And here, the risks are extraordinarily high for him and his war machine.
Iran has already proven its capabilities on the battlefield. The imposed war has shown that American firepower cannot break Iranian resolve. But more worryingly for Washington, Iran still holds unrevealed cards – military and strategic assets that have not yet been deployed.
Given these proven capabilities and the unknown arsenal still in reserve, the likelihood of Iran inflicting an even greater defeat and humiliation on the United States than in the first 40 days is extremely high. This is not hollow bravado. It is a calculation based on evidence.
What does this mean for Trump? A major and terrifying nightmare. If he is not cautious and re-enters a futile war against Iran, he may well be forced in the future to grant Iran far greater and more significant concessions just to extract himself from it.
In other words, resuming the war could lead to an even worse outcome than acceptance.
The third path: The illusion of inaction
Recognizing the impossibility of both options, Washington is now searching for a third way. And the only remaining option – in America’s view, the least risky – is to neither accept Iran’s conditions for permanently ending the war nor restart the new one.
What does this look like in practice? Maintain the current naval blockade in the form of maritime banditry and piracy. Continue harassing Iranian vessels in international waters. Tighten the economic noose around Tehran. Wait for results. And, as the saying goes, hope for a way out by shifting from one failing approach to another.
For the United States, this may be the only possible option. It is a strategy of procrastination – an attempt to freeze the war while seeking to squeeze Iran economically.
The hidden danger
But here lies the great danger that White House strategists may be underestimating. If this option too proves useless and ineffective for Trump, if the economic squeeze fails to break Iran, if the blockade is neutralized, if Iran’s resilience holds, then he would effectively be forced back to the previous two options.
And both of those, from the perspective of any sober strategist, are certainly riskier than the naval blockade. Acceptance brings humiliation and strategic defeat. War brings the terrifying prospect of an even greater humiliation.
What we are witnessing is a president trapped. Iran has structured its demands not as opening bids but as final positions. The nuclear issue is off the table. Hormuz is non-negotiable. Trump can accept, fight, or freeze. None of these leads to victory.
The confusion and disarray in Washington’s initial reactions are not temporary. They are symptoms of a deeper strategic reality: for the first time in decades, the American side faces an adversary that has closed off every good option.
If Trump accepts Iran’s terms, he loses. If he resumes the war, he risks losing even bigger. If he does nothing and hopes the blockade works, he is merely delaying the inevitable return to the first two options – both of which are nightmares.
This is the crossroads. And whichever path Trump ultimately chooses, the writing is on the wall: Iran has turned the ceasefire into a strategic reset, and the US is running out of road.
US maritime banditry
The United States has run out of time. According to a high-ranking security source speaking to Press TV, America’s ongoing “naval blockade,” essentially a maritime piracy and banditry, will soon be met with “practical and unprecedented action.”
Iran’s armed forces have made their position clear: patience has limits. A punishing response is now necessary if Washington maintains its illegal grip on the Strait of Hormuz, he said.
The strategic calculation behind Tehran’s restraint is often misunderstood. According to the source, the pause was never a weakness. It was a deliberate window for diplomacy – a final chance for Americans to learn of and accept Iran’s conditions for ending the war.
It was also meant to give President Trump an off-ramp, an opportunity to pull America out of the quagmire it now finds itself in. That’s precisely what he had been looking for.
If American obstinacy and delusions continue, the source warned, the enemy should expect a very different kind of response. Notably, Iran is fully aware of the economic consequences.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz and maintaining a blockade would affect all countries, including Iran. But Tehran’s decades of experience in circumventing sanctions, its thousands of kilometers of land borders, and its pre-existing measures to counter maritime sieges have made Iran far more resilient to economic pressure than the United States.
Nearly 60 days into the war imposed on Iran, Trump is searching for an exit – having already lost on both the battlefield and at the negotiating table.
But if the illegal and foolhardy blockade continues, even this last option will be discredited like other options. That will be the last nail in the coffin of the dying American Empire.
Iran signals decisive response to end US maritime bullying, piracy
Al Mayadeen | April 29, 2026
A senior Iranian security source has indicated that Tehran is preparing what it describes as a decisive and potentially unprecedented response to ongoing US maritime piracy in the strategic waters surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaking to Press TV on Wednesday, the source warned that continued US actions, described as a form of maritime blockade, would soon be met with a direct military response. “The continued US acts of piracy and maritime bullying will be met with a practical and unprecedented response,” the source stated, signaling a shift away from restraint toward escalation.
According to the official, Iran’s armed forces, operating under the central command structure of Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters, now view continued patience as no longer strategically viable. The source emphasized that a “painful response” has become necessary if Washington maintains what Tehran considers an illegal siege around one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.
Iranian officials are increasingly framing US naval actions as “maritime piracy,” an escalation that reflects both legal positioning and signaling. The source reiterated that Tehran no longer sees the United States as confronting a passive or predictable adversary.
He pointed to Iran’s historical experience in “imposed wars,” arguing that past confrontations have reshaped the balance of expectations. Iran, he said, has demonstrated the capacity to neutralize US strategies through resilience, asymmetric tactics, and strategic patience.
The source also credited Iran’s leadership, describing it as “wise, courageous, and decisive,” in steering the country through prolonged pressure campaigns while maintaining internal cohesion and military readiness.
Trump eager for off-ramp in war on Iran, but Netanyahu has him trapped: Former official
By Alireza Kamandi | Press TV | April 29, 2026
Donald Trump is eager to find an off-ramp, declare “victory,” and end the war against Iran – but Benjamin Netanyahu is not, leaving Trump trapped, says a former chief of staff to the US Secretary of State.
In an interview with the Press TV website, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – former chief of staff to Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005 – said that as tensions with Iran simmer following the recent US-Israeli war against the country, a complex picture is emerging of a Washington administration caught between tactical necessity and political traps.
He said the central question surrounding the White House’s strategy is whether the Trump administration is using the lull in hostilities to rebuild its military capacity.
“There is an ongoing effort to replace critical munitions, expedite repair of warships in maintenance, and alert and prepare more land forces for possible action,” he said, adding that this logistical surge extends to Tel Aviv, where efforts are underway to replenish munitions and call up more reservists.
As for the Trump administration’s self-declared “maritime blockade” of Iranian ports, the timeline is elastic, Wilkerson said, adding that the US can sustain the pressure indefinitely, but only as long as necessary to secure an agreement with Tehran on what constitutes the end of war.
“However, this is where the internal rift becomes critical. President Trump is eager to find an exit, to declare ‘victory’, and to end the conflict, but Netanyahu is not. So, Trump is trapped,” he said.
The former official noted this dynamic suggests that the duration of the blockade depends heavily on the outcome of upcoming Israeli elections and who ultimately emerges as the winner there.
For now, the US finds itself locked into a maritime strategy whose off-ramp is controlled by Israel with conflicting war aims, he told the Press TV website.
When asked how long Israel could sustain a war against Iran without direct US military intervention, the answer was stark: “Not very long—probably less than a month.”
The reason is not a lack of will, but sheer logistics, he stated.
“The supply of fuel, oil, munitions, and even material not available because of the deterioration of Israel’s economy, would be non-existent,” he remarked.
Wilkerson emphasized that the most profound geopolitical consequence of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran will be felt thousands of miles away, in Asia and the Persian Gulf states.
Asian nations are already reassessing their military cooperation with Washington.
“The perception of the United States as a stabilizing, reliable anchor is fracturing. For the Persian Gulf monarchies that have long relied on the US security umbrella, and for Asian powers concerned about energy security and trade routes,” he noted.
On events unfolding inside the US and the recent shooting during the White House correspondents’ dinner, he said these things happen in the Empire, but more frequently with Trump, as he is “a very controversial president.”
“One wonders as well if one or two of the attempts were not staged, such as the one in Pennsylvania and the one on the golf course. Staged to build sympathy for a president who loves the limelight and being ‘loved’,” he stated.
He attributed the violence to a deeply fractured US administration and the American Empire.
“A great many people loathe Donald Trump, believe him directly involved in the Epstein scandal, and do not care for his style of ‘leadership’, plus, wars overseas tend to come home, i.e., violence in war creates violence at home,” he told the Press TV website.
US squares up to China over Panama Canal
RT | April 29, 2026
The US has announced a six-nation coalition aimed at pressuring China to relinquish its interests in two ports in the Panama Canal, accusing Beijing of infringing on Panama’s sovereignty and politicizing global trade. China has called the claims “baseless.”
The development is part of a pattern of US efforts to push China out of Latin America. The US National Security Strategy calls for non-Western “competitors” to be prevented from owning or controlling key assets in the Western Hemisphere.
Last year, US President Donald Trump claimed that China is “operating the Panama Canal” and threatened to “take it back.”
The US State Department issued a joint statement on Tuesday with Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago, saying they support Panama against what they describe as external pressure from China.
”Any attempts to undermine Panama’s sovereignty are a threat to us all,” the statement read, adding that Panama “must remain free from any undue external pressure,” and that freedom in the region is “non-negotiable.”
China rejected the accusations, with the Foreign Ministry hitting back on Wednesday against what it called a smear campaign.
”It is the United States that is politicizing and over-securitizing the port issue… hypocritically posturing and spreading rumors and smears everywhere,” spokesman Lin Jian said, dismissing the claims as “baseless and a complete distortion of facts.”
Lin urged the countries involved not to “be deceived or used by forces with ulterior motives” regarding the port inspections, which he said were conducted lawfully.
The US-led campaign follows a ruling in January by Panama’s Supreme Court that annulled contracts held by a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings for the Balboa and Cristobal, two key ports at the canal’s entrances – a move that the US has backed.
The Chinese company, which managed the terminals for nearly three decades, has contested the ruling, alleging unlawful expropriation, and has launched international arbitration, seeking over $2 billion in reparations.
Monroe Doctrine 2.0: ‘Great Reset’ for US Imperialism?
Sputnik – 29.04.2026
“The United States is a declining power worldwide. It needs to reassert its powers,” Brazilian economics and international affairs scholar Vinicius Vieira told Sputnik, commenting on recently approved Monroe Doctrine 2.0 strategy and the Senate’s refusal to block the president’s power to invade Cuba.
For Washington, establishing greater control over Latin America, especially Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America, may seem like an opportunity to start afresh in reasserting its great power status, Dr. Vieira says.
Regime change in Cuba, for example, would not mean independence or democratization for the island nation, “but a return to the status prior to the Cuban Revolution – a protectorate de facto, US territory de facto.”
The problem is, the neighborhood is not what it was 150-200 years ago. Washington’s neighbors “want a relationship based on equal respect and mutual recognition,” and controlling South America may prove “too ambitious” entirely, given linkages they’ve established with other members of the Global South.
What’s more, “the costs for the US to implement this type of policy are quite high…because it depends on coercion, on sticks, no carrots at all,” Vieira stressed. Speaking of carrots, the US has “lost leverage” in this domain vis-à-vis China and its development projects, according to the scholar.
Ultimately, Monroe 2.0 could prove “too costly,” and “rather than bringing the United States to its golden days of hegemony…may just accelerate its decline because of its very high costs in terms of money and reputation,” Vieira summed up.
Nuclear Apartheid: Iran’s Rise Exposes the NPT Fraud and the West’s Israel Exception
By Freddie Ponton – 21st Century Wire – April 29, 2026
The fight over Iran’s vice presidency at the 2026 NPT Review Conference looked procedural only if one ignored the history that walked into the room with it. The United States, the United Kingdom, speaking for France and Germany, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates objected to Iran’s appointment, yet Iran kept the post after a Non-Aligned Movement nomination and no blocking vote was forced, exposing a basic fact that now hangs over the treaty system. The United Arab Emirates did not merely object but formally and unequivocally disassociated itself from Iran’s election, while citing Tehran’s continuous violations of its safeguards obligations.
That moment is crucial because it revealed a shrinking gap between Western power and Western authority. The states that still dominate military alliances, financial coercion, and media narratives could denounce Tehran in New York, but they could not turn denunciation into institutional compliance, and they could not persuade the wider diplomatic field that their understanding of non-proliferation deserved automatic deference. What looked like a dispute over one vice presidency was in fact a public measure of a much deeper revolt against selective enforcement.
The bargain they broke
The deeper story begins in 1995, when the NPT was indefinitely extended on the basis of a broader political package that included the Resolution on the Middle East. That resolution called on all states in the region that had not yet done so to join the treaty and place their nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards, and the UN Secretariat background paper explicitly records that the resolution was an essential element of the outcome on which indefinite extension was secured.
The 2010 Review Conference reaffirmed that point in unusually clear language. It said the 1995 resolution remained valid until its goals were achieved, recalled the importance of Israel’s accession to the treaty and the placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive safeguards, and endorsed concrete steps toward a 2012 conference on a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The conference never delivered what it promised, and Algeria’s 2026 working paper now states bluntly that Israel’s stance helped render the 1995 resolution “devoid of substance,” while the UN Secretariat paper records that many states saw the failure of implementation as seriously undermining the treaty itself.
The Israeli exception
That is why so much of the Global South reads the current crisis through Israel rather than through Iran alone. The UN Secretariat background paper states in neutral terms that all states of the Middle East except Israel are parties to the NPT and that all states in the region except Israel have undertaken to accept comprehensive IAEA safeguards, giving documentary form to the asymmetry that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Arab states have been protesting for decades.
NAM’s own recent language is harsher because the political implications are harsher. At the 2024 IAEA General Conference record, Uganda speaking on behalf of NAM warned that a selective approach undermined the viability of the safeguards regime, expressed great concern over Israel’s acquisition of nuclear capability, and called for a total prohibition on nuclear-related transfers and assistance to Israel, while the April 2026 NAM statement to the UN Disarmament Commission again demanded that Israel renounce nuclear weapons, accede to the NPT without precondition or delay, and place all its facilities under full-scope safeguards.
That continuity was reaffirmed in the Kampala Declaration, which carried the same line through 2025 and closed the institutional bridge to the April 2026 NAM position. For the movement, this is not a side file or an ideological hobbyhorse. It is the living proof that the rules are preached as universal and applied as political.
The South’s quiet revolt
Once that history is acknowledged, the so-called silence of NAM and many Global South states on Iran’s vice presidency stops looking like ambiguity and starts looking like discipline. They did not need to issue sentimental declarations of love for Tehran in order to refuse a Western effort to re-police multilateral legitimacy, because the issue before them was larger than Iran’s image and deeper than one nomination. It was whether the same powers that had tolerated, normalized, or materially shielded the Middle East’s only non-NPT nuclear exception would now be allowed to decide who is morally disqualified from procedural office inside the treaty system.
That is why the resistance was institutional rather than theatrical. After dismissing the objections as baseless and politically motivated, Iran disassociated itself from the election of the United States as vice president, and according to one contemporaneous account, from Australia’s as well, turning the confrontation into a mirror held up to the old order. The 2025 report of the sixth session of the conference on a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction said Israel’s refusal to join the NPT and submit all its facilities and activities to comprehensive safeguards undermined the credibility of the non-proliferation regime and imposed additional burdens on regional states, while the same report condemned attacks on Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities as a grave threat to the credibility of the NPT and the integrity of the entire IAEA safeguards regime.
In that setting, refusing to let Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, and Canberra define the boundaries of legitimacy was not indulgence toward Iran, but a defense of sovereign equality against a one-sided nuclear order.
What their objection revealed
The objections from the United States, the E3, and Australia therefore boomeranged. They were intended to isolate Iran, but they instead illuminated the moral exhaustion of a bloc that speaks in the language of non-proliferation while presiding over an order in which disarmament obligations are endlessly deferred, nuclear sharing and modernization continue, and Israel’s opaque arsenal remains politically protected from the universality routinely demanded of others. The analysis from the European Journal of International Law (EJIL) long ago captured the pattern by showing how NAM kept international attention on Israel’s nuclear status and how double standards around Israel helped fuel resistance inside the regime, and the documents gathered since then show that this reading did not fade but hardened.
Australia’s place in this picture is revealing precisely because it is less central than Washington or the E3 and yet moved in lockstep with them against Iran’s vice presidency. That choice placed Canberra inside a camp that could still object loudly but could no longer command consent, and it tied Australia to a diplomatic posture that much of the Global South now experiences as selective guardianship rather than principled stewardship. The same is true of the E3, whose claim to defend the treaty sounds increasingly thin when the documentary record shows decades of unfinished obligations on the Middle East file and continued Western insistence that the burden of credibility falls primarily on disfavored treaty members rather than on the region’s protected exception.
A treaty stripped bare
What emerged in New York, then, was not simply a quarrel over Iran. In fact, we all witnessed the exposure of a treaty order whose founding compromise on the Middle East has been repeatedly postponed, diluted, and evaded, until many of the states asked to keep faith with the system now see the system itself as compromised at the core. The 2026 UN Secretariat paper, the 2026 Algeria submission, the April 2026 NAM statement, the 2024 IAEA record, and the 2025 IAEA safeguards resolution all converge on the same underlying reality that Israel’s non-accession, unsafeguarded status, and continuing exceptional treatment have become inseparable from the crisis of NPT credibility.
That is why Iran’s vice presidency is so significant, because it marks the point at which a large part of the non-aligned world stopped pretending that the greatest danger to the treaty’s legitimacy begins and ends in Tehran, and instead used procedure to register a quieter but more consequential judgment that the deeper non-proliferation crisis lies in a regime that punishes some, excuses others, and then demands respect for the imbalance it created.
On April 27th, the West could still denounce, but could no longer decide; and that, more than the vice presidency itself, is the message now being sent from the Global South to Washington, the E3, and Australia.
Continued US maritime piracy will face ‘practical, unprecedented’ response from Iran
Press TV – April 29, 2026
The continued American maritime piracy and banditry in the form of so-called “naval blockade” will soon be met with “practical and unprecedented action,” a high-ranking security source told Press TV on Wednesday.
Iran’s armed forces – operating under the Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters as the war command – believe that patience has limits and that a punishing response is necessary if Washington maintains its illegal naval blockade around the Strait of Hormuz, the source said.
He further emphasized that Iran has proven in recent imposed wars that the United States no longer faces a passive or predictable adversary.
Through the spirited resistance of its people and armed forces, and the wise, courageous, and decisive leadership of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran has managed to neutralize and discredit all American options on the table.
The source said the restraint shown by armed forces so far has been intended to give diplomacy a chance, allowing the United States to learn of and accept Iran’s conditions for ending the war permanently.
This pause, he hastened to add, was meant to provide President Donald Trump an opportunity to pull the United States out of the current quagmire it finds itself in.
However, if American obstinacy and delusions continue and Iran’s conditions are rejected, the official warned that the enemy should soon expect a different kind of response to the ongoing naval blockade, which is akin to maritime banditry.
He also referred to the economic consequences of closing the Strait of Hormuz and maintaining a naval blockade, which, in essence, is American maritime banditry.
While acknowledging that such actions would affect all countries – including Iran – the source noted that Iran’s decades of experience in circumventing sanctions, its thousands of kilometers of land borders, and its pre-existing measures to counter maritime sieges make the country far more resilient to economic pressure than the United States.
Notably, the high-ranking security source contrasted Iranian public opinion with that of the American people, saying Iran’s population holds the US responsible for the current situation, whereas American public opinion does not side with its own government, instead blaming the incumbent government for the unprovoked war on Iran and its aftermath.
The high-level source further warned that a continued American blockade and closure of the Strait of Hormuz might ultimately harm the US more than Iran and that a decisive response is deemed necessary by the top military command to completely discredit even this remaining American option.
The US-Israeli coalition launched an unprovoked and illegal war of aggression against the Islamic Republic on February 28, amidst nuclear talks, triggering a strong Iranian response.
Nearly 60 days into the war imposed on Iran, the United States is now searching for an off-ramp, having suffered significant losses on both the battlefield and at the negotiating table.
Last week, after the two-week ceasefire ended, Trump unilaterally extended it indefinitely, and his administration has since been in back-channel talks with Pakistan to resume negotiations with the Iranian side, suggesting he wants to exit the quagmire.
No More Bombs for Iran, Economic War Instead?
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | April 29, 2026
Trump assembled his national security team in Washington on Monday afternoon to figure out how to respond to Iran’s latest missive delivered via Pakistan — i.e., end the blockade and then we’ll talk about other issues. The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump opted for economic warfare against Iran as it carried less risk, instead of resuming bombing or trying to exit the conflict. That’s the good news. However, President Trump also instructed White House aides to prepare for an extended blockade on Iran.
Before I explain why that is a foolish, unworkable policy that will fail, let’s look at what Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent had to say:
“The Treasury Department, through Economic Fury, has targeted Iran’s international shadow banking infrastructure, access to crypto, shadow fleet, weapons procurement networks, funding for terrorist proxies in the region, and independent Chinese “teapot” refineries that support Iran’s oil trade. These actions have disrupted tens of billions of dollars in revenue that would be used to fund terrorism.
Under President Trump’s’ maximum pressure campaign, Tehran’s inflation has doubled and its currency has rapidly depreciated.
Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export terminal, is soon nearing storage capacity, which will force the regime to reduce oil production, resulting in an additional approximately $170 million per day in lost revenue, and causing permanent damage to Iran’s oil infrastructure. Treasury will continue to exert maximum pressure and any person, vessel, or entity facilitating illicit flows to Tehran risks exposure to U.S. sanctions.”
Notwithstanding the US blockade, Iran continues to fill oil tankers that are sailing out of the Persian Gulf. Iran has continued loading oil onto tankers even as the US blocks their route out. With no large volumes clearly circumventing the blockade, the loaded crude is largely filling up tankers Iran has available in the region. At least two fully laden Iranian tankers — the Hero II and Hedy — sailed out of the Persian Gulf and past the US blockade on April 20, part of a flotilla that has ferried roughly 9 million barrels of oil to market. Most tankers hauling Iranian barrels routinely sail with their automatic position signals disabled.
Since the start of the conflict, at least 52 “ghost fleet” tankers laden with Iranian oil have left the Persian Gulf, some broadcasting their signals and others operating clandestinely. These tankers are en route to Malaysia to conduct ship-to-ship transfers with other vessels bound for China.
Here is the problem the US faces in trying to impose a blockade: If the US stops an Iranian vessel and takes control of it, then the US Navy must assign one ship to accompany it to a location the US controls. The US does not have enough US Navy ships to carry out such a mission on a broad scale. All Iran needs to do is load up 20 tankers and send them to sea simultaneously. The US may be able to stop two or three, but the rest will penetrate the blockade and arrive at their respective destinations.
What about imports for Iran? According to the Fars News Agency, Pakistan has opened six corridors with Iran to bypass the US blockade. More than 3,000 containers bound for Iran are being transited over land.
Ironically, even though it is Iran that effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, the US bragging about its blockade of the Strait takes the onus off of Iran as the rest of the world begins to suffer a massive economic contraction from the Strait being closed.
Instead of suffering the wrath of nations deprived of oil and LNG from the Persian Gulf, Iran will buy itself some much needed support as it allows ships heading toward friendly nations to pass through the Strait in numbers that will make it impossible for the US Navy to stop them.
If my friend — Alex at Reporterfy — is correct, the global economy is going to face major headwinds that will be more damaging than the economic crisis of 2008. At that point the US will face major pressure to end the blockade, which is more symbolic than substantive, and renew negotiations with Iran. Iran for its part is not going to beg for relief… Iran has the full backing, including economic support, from Russia and China. Scott Bessent is deluding himself and misleading Trump by insisting that his version of economic warfare will force Iran, Russia and China to bend the knee to Washington. Ain’t going to happen. … videos
“Trump’s presidency is at risk of being destroyed” Col Douglas Macgregor
ANI News | April 28, 2026
Iran has legal right to act in Hormuz, holds US responsible for disruptions: UN mission
Press TV – April 28, 2026
Iran, which is not a party to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, asserts its legal right to take “necessary and proportionate measures” in the Strait of Hormuz, and holds the United States responsible for any disruptions to maritime transport in the vital waterway, the country’s permanent mission to the United Nations said.
The mission said on Tuesday that US actions in the Strait of Hormuz have severely compromised international maritime safety. The mission made the remarks in two posts on X, a day after Iran addressed at a meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on Maritime safety.
The mission pointed out that Iran is not a party to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and therefore does not regard its provisions as binding.
As the principal coastal state, Iran retains the legal authority to implement necessary measures within the Strait of Hormuz to address security threats and to prevent any military or hostile exploitation of this vital passage, it said.
Iran’s mission further noted that the Islamic Republic reserves the right to ensure safe passage in the Strait of Hormuz and to protect its national interests against hostile activities.
It further asserted that the US has engaged in unlawful actions that disrupt maritime transport, such as the imposition of a maritime blockade, the illegal seizure of Iranian vessels, and the detention of their crews.
Such actions not only violate international law and the UN Charter but also constitute acts of piracy.
As tensions escalate in the region, the Iranian government says that the US’s aggressive maritime policies pose a direct threat to international navigation and regional stability.
The Iranian mission further called for accountability regarding US transgressions.
Tensions have been running high over a so-called naval blockade the US has enforced on Iranian ports and ships, as well as American attempts to conduct mine-sweeping operations in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian officials have said the blockade is unlawful and a breach of a two-week ceasefire that took effect on April 8 and was again unilaterally extended by US President Donald Trump hours before it was set to expire on April 22.
Featured Video
The Truth About the Trump Shootings with Ken Silva
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Geopolitics behind the War in Yemen (I)
By Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA | Strategic Culture Foundation | 30.03.2015
The United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia became very uneasy when the Yemenese or Yemenite movement of the Houthi or Ansarallah (meaning the supporters of God in Arabic) gained control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa/Sana, in September 2014. The US-supported Yemenite President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi was humiliatingly forced to share power with the Houthis and the coalition of northern Yemenese tribes that had helped them enter Sana. Al-Hadi declared that negotiations for a Yemeni national unity government would take place and his allies the US and Saudi Arabia tried to use a new national dialogue and mediated talks to co-opt and pacify the Houthis.
The truth has been turned on its head about the war in Yemen. The war and ousting of President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi in Yemen are not the results of «Houthi coup» in Yemen. It is the opposite. Al-Hadi was ousted, because with Saudi and US support he tried to backtrack on the power sharing agreements he had made and return Yemen to authoritarian rule. The ousting of President Al-Hadi by the Houthis and their political allies was an unexpected reaction to the takeover Al-Hadi was planning with Washington and the House of Saudi. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- IRGC air defenses destroy another US MQ-1 drone over Strait of Hormuz
- Imran Khan’s entire immediate family detained in Pakistan ahead of mass protest demanding his release
- EU nation detains former presidential frontrunner
- Leaked: Britain’s Sham Conviction Of Hashim Thaci
- Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Strike Imminent – Toward Total War in the Middle East
- Russia Voted Under Fire. Washington Is Loading the Tankers.
- 12 Things Your Oncologist Was Trained Not to Tell You
- Anthrax Attacks Paved Way for COVID-Era ‘Junk Drugs and Vaccines’
- How Real Is the Impact of Western Sanctions on Israel?
- France, You Are Guilty: How Paris Turned Western Sahara into the Maghreb’s Powder Keg
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli president pardons soldier convicted for killing wounded Palestinian
- Singer Ed Sheeran says his ‘heart broken’ by Gaza devastation, addresses Macklemore controversy
- Israel Has Imprisoned Female Journalist Bushra Al-Tawil Without Trial Or Charge In Solitary Confinement For Past Month
- Israel poised to teach West Bank a lesson after one Israeli killed – Daily Update
- Salah Sarsour’s Legal Team Says DHS Has Not Met Its Burden to Prove He Is Deportable
- An analysis of tax forms by The Intercept show Kraft’s charity and LLC have donated to Friends of the IDF and AIPAC’s super PAC.
- Israeli attacks kill four Palestinians in Gaza – Daily Update
- Inside Gaza’s death trap of collapsing, bombed-out buildings
- The everyday items Israel bans from Gaza every day
- Inside the siege, the ruined buildings of Gaza – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
Aletho News 