Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump Administration Moves To Automate U.S. Military Draft Registration

A dark omen that peace is not what lies ahead

blueapples on X | April 9, 2026

Although the Trump administration has framed the war it has waged against Iran as a decisive victory saving the American people from an inevitable nuclear apocalypse, that unconvincing narrative does little to shield from the reality that the biggest loser in the conflict is the reputation of the administration itself. While Trump built the campaign that led him back to the White House upon a platform of refusing to drag the country into any new conflicts like the endless cycle of regime change wars in the Middle East that has haunted the United States since the dawn of the new millennium, that promise has been completely broken little more than a year into his second term in the Oval Office. Any optimism that the administration will emerge in the image of the pro-peace ticket voters elected is bleak, as the two-week ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and Iran de-escalating the latest episode of the return to a neoconservative foreign policy already hangs on a knife’s edge, making a resumption of the conflict seem little more than an inevitability. The pessimism that more war lies ahead have been amplified by a new policy being advanced by the Trump administration that forecasts an even more bellicose future for the country, as the Selective Service System (”SSS”) has begun to take measures to automatically register eligible men for a potential military draft that could be enacted to quench the bloodthirst of the warmongers who have once again taken control of America’s foreign policy.

Starting in December 2026, men between 18 and 25 years old will be automatically registered into the U.S. military draft pool. This requirement went into effect on December 18th, 2025, when President Trump signed the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (”NDAA”) into law. A proposed rule submitted by the SSS to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on March 30th has initiated the implementation of the technical infrastructure necessary to transfer registration for the draft from eligible individuals to an automated process that will integrate disparate federal data systems. All male U.S. citizens from 18 to 25 years old continue to be required by federal law to register with the SSS within 30 days of their 18th birthday until the automated system goes into effect in December 2026. Young men failing to register for the draft pool are in violation of the Military Selective Service Act (“MSSA”) and face penalties including ineligibility for federal programs and a fine of up to $250,000 or five years imprisonment.

The SSS lists that automatic registration system as the first of the three strategic initiatives it aims to achieve in order to reshape the agency and increase the draft pool over the next five years. The second and third of those initiatives are the technological modernization and workforce optimization of the agency, each of which it frames as imperative to facilitate automatic draft registration. The newly automated draft registration system will integrate data from various state and federal databases, including the Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and nationwide Department of Motor Vehicles registries, to register eligible individuals.

Automating registration into the draft pool has long been a goal of the SSS, which it began making headway during the drafting of the Fiscal Year 2025 NDAA in 2024 when the agency began to enhance its efforts to work with Congress to achieve that mission. The impetus of that increased initiative followed a decline in voluntary registrations, which began decreasing significantly in 2022 when the option to register for the draft was removed from federal student loan forms. That option had previously accounted for nearly one quarter of all previous registrations.

The SSS was established under the Selective Service Act (”SSA”) in 1917 by President Woodrow Wilson following the U.S. entry into the First World War, marking the first modern military draft in the country’s history. Opposition to conscription into the U.S. military to fight WWI was quickly suppressed, culminating in the landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (”SCOTUS”) in the case of Schenck v. United States, which ruled that criticism of the draft was not protected by the free speech protection under the First Amendment. In a unanimous decision from the SCOTUS, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously coined the term “clear and present danger” to characterize how speech designed to oppose the draft created an imminent threat to national security. The court upheld the application of Section 3 of the Espionage Act of 1917 that the defendants were charged with violating. Long considered to be one of the worst rulings in the SCOTUS’ history, the precedent set by Schenck became void when the case was overturned in 1969 following the decision in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which deemed that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Since the U.S. implemented conscription under President Wilson, the SCOTUS has heard several challenges to its constitutionality. In 1918, the court immediately upheld the constitutionality of the SSA after deciding the Selective Service Draft Law Cases united under the matter of Arver v. United States. The court rejected the argument that the military draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude and the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of conscience. The constitutionality of a male-only draft has also been challenged on the basis it violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. That argument was also rejected by the SCOTUS in the case of Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981. While opponents of the draft who continue to conceptualize arguments that only requiring men to register for the military draft violates the equal protection provisions under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution are optimistic that the changing attitudes of the court toward a more liberal jurisprudence offer some hope in striking the draft down, caselaw since the decision of Schenck demonstrates the SCOTUS’ unwavering support to uphold it.

Six years after Schenck was overturned by Brandenburg, President Gerald Ford suspended the draft in 1975 in response to the fallout from the Vietnam War, which shifted the paradigm on how U.S. citizens perceived the bellicosity of their federal government. Although President Jimmy Carter reinstated the draft just five years later in 1980 after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the U.S. hasn’t implemented a military draft since 1973 during the Vietnam War. Currently, 17 million men between the ages of 18 and 25 years old are eligible for the draft pool. In 2024, registration rates dropped to as low as 81%. The Trump administration hopes to increase that rate to as close to 100% as possible by enabling the SSS to automate the draft registration process. While the administration has undertaken increased efforts to streamline the draft process, reactivation of the draft is not vested in the authority of the Executive Branch alone. Congress would have to amend the MSSA first in order for President Trump to exercise that authority.

The implementation of an automated draft registration process is the latest troubling sign of enhanced militarism from the Trump administration. In late March 2026, the U.S. Army increased its maximum enlistment age to 42, a significant increase from the previous limit of 35. The army had previously increased its maximum enlistment to 42 temporarily in 2006 as it struggled to fill its ranks during the height of the War on Terror. Despite President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth constantly boasting about how military recruitment is at record highs, the increased enlistment age of the Army indicates the administration seeks to further supplement its ranks nevertheless. The decision to automate the draft registration process beckons the question of how it intends to do so.

When White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt spoke on the prospect of the U.S. reactivating the military draft during the onset of the war with Iran, she stated that while it was not part of the current calculus of the administration, she refused to rule out the possibility, saying that President Trump “keeps his options on the table.” That rhetoric, combined with decisions to automate the military draft registration and increase the age of those eligible to enlist in the U.S. army, stands as an ominous omen that peace will not be what defines the legacy of the Trump presidency.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on Trump Administration Moves To Automate U.S. Military Draft Registration

Spain orders reopening of Tehran embassy, condemns Israel’s carpet bombing of Lebanon

The Cradle | April 9, 2026

Spain is reopening its embassy in Tehran in hopes of achieving “peace” in the US-Israeli war against Iran, Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares declared on 9 April.

“I’ve instructed our ambassador in Tehran to return, to take up his post again and reopen our embassy, and for us to join in this effort for peace from every possible quarter, including from the Iranian capital itself,” Albares told reporters.

The move comes as Spain sharply escalates its criticism of Israel and the US, condemning Israeli assault on Lebanon and the broader war on Iran, and pushes for regional de-escalation, according to Reuters.

Spain’s position, voiced by Albares, called the war “the greatest assault on the civilization built upon the humanist ideals of reason, peace, understanding, and universal law.”

He criticized Israel for violating international law and breaching the newly brokered two-week ceasefire after strikes killed more than 254 people and injured over 1,100 in Lebanon on Wednesday.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has reinforced that stance, previously closing Spanish airspace to aircraft involved in attacks on Iran, and renewing calls for the EU to suspend its association agreement with Israel, citing “impunity for (Israel’s) criminal actions.”

He also described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “contempt for life and international law” as “intolerable.”

At the same time, Spain summoned Israeli envoys alongside Italy over incidents involving UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, including the reported detention of a Spanish UNIFIL member.

US officials and allies of US President Donald Trump have pushed for punitive measures after Madrid rejected military cooperation and restricted the use of joint bases, widening the diplomatic rift between the two countries.

One US senator suggested relocating forces to “a country that will allow us to use them.”

Domestically, public opinion mirrors the government’s stance, with a POLITICO European Pulse survey showing that 51 percent of respondents in Spain view Washington as a “threat” to Europe, and 56 percent strongly oppose the US-Israeli offensive on Iran.

Support for European independence is also overwhelming, with 94 percent backing greater autonomy even at economic cost.

Despite welcoming a Pakistani-brokered ceasefire, Sanchez warned Spain would “not applaud those who set the world on fire just because they turn up with a bucket.”

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Comments Off on Spain orders reopening of Tehran embassy, condemns Israel’s carpet bombing of Lebanon

Israel faces ‘unsustainable’ strategic crisis following 40-day war against Iran: Analyst

Press TV – April 9, 2026

The Israeli regime is facing its worst strategic crisis following the 40-day war against Iran amid unsustainable economic burdens, eroding international support, and a deepening military manpower crisis, according to an American-Israeli analyst.

Shaeil Ben-Ephraim, a US-based geopolitical analyst and former diplomat, said with the protracted war in Lebanon looming and no resolution so far in the genocidal war on Gaza, Israel’s “security reality” has deteriorated.

“Israel now faces a worse security reality than before the war,” Ben-Ephraim wrote on X.

He noted that the US-Israel ceasefire deal could restrict Israel’s future ability to act against Tehran, while Iran has demonstrated its capability to strike deep inside the occupied territories with its ballistic missiles.

Perhaps most alarmingly, Ben-Ephraim warned that US -Israeli relations are eroding too.

“Chances are that future rounds against Iran and other potential enemies will be fought with decreasing, and eventually no, American support at all. That is unsustainable,” he said.

He said the regime’s military budget currently stands at $45.7 billion, having already been expanded by nearly $9.6 billion in a recent top-up. However, it sees even that insufficient, requesting an additional $10.9 billion before year’s end just to cover existing commitments.

“For context, that additional $10.9 billion ask alone is roughly equivalent to the entire annual defense budget of a mid-sized European nation,” Ben-Ephraim noted.

Each confrontation with Iran carries a price tag of $16 to $19 billion, he stated, and if such rounds become recurring, Israel “would be spending the equivalent of a small war every year or two, not as an emergency but as a structural cost of existence.”

At that pace, cumulative spending over a decade could reach $160 to $190 billion in direct military costs alone, before factoring in economic disruption, lost productivity from reserve mobilization, or deferred civilian infrastructure.

Israel’s formerly robust relations with some Persian Gulf states are now under severe stress following the war against Iran and the Iranian retaliation, the analyst noted.

“Israeli machinations have put them in serious danger with Iran and caused severe damage to their tourism and energy prospects,” Ben-Ephraim said.

“They will be looking to lessen dependence on the US and possibly move away from normalization with Israel, leaving Israel isolated in the region.”

To counter the lack of diplomatic resolution, Israel has shifted toward a strategy of creating permanent buffer zones in southern Lebanon, Gaza, and parts of Syria, adding to mounting responsibilities in the occupied West Bank.

“Patrolling these vast, hostile areas simultaneously will place an unsustainable long-term strain on IDF (Israeli military) personnel and the domestic economy,” Ben-Ephraim said.

The convergence of record-high reserve call-ups, a significant brain drain in the high-tech sector, and a nearly total loss of the Palestinian labor force has created a critical manpower crisis, he added.

Israeli regime leadership recently warned the situation could cause the military to “collapse in on itself,” Ben-Ephraim said.

While standard deployment for combat reservists has shifted from ad-hoc emergency calls to a structured 60 days per year in 2026 — a one-third reduction from peak burdens in 2025 — constant deployments have caused turnout rates in most reserve battalions to drop to just 60 to 70 percent.

Ben-Ephraim warned that the regime now faces a severe, unsustainable strategic crisis characterized by a permanent war economy, mounting financial strain, and increasing international isolation.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on Israel faces ‘unsustainable’ strategic crisis following 40-day war against Iran: Analyst

Iran restricts Hormuz access to 15 vessels per day under ceasefire terms: Report

The Cradle | April 9, 2026

Iran will restrict maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz to fewer than 15 vessels per day under a Pakistani-brokered ceasefire with the US, a senior Iranian source told Russia’s state-run TASS on 9 April, outlining the conditions for the ceasefire’s continuation.

“Under the current ceasefire, fewer than 15 ships per day are permitted to transit the Strait of Hormuz. This movement is strictly contingent upon Iran’s approval and the enforcement of a specific protocol,” the source said.

“This new regulatory framework, operating under the supervision of the IRGC, has been officially communicated to regional parties. There will be no return to the pre-war status quo,” the source added.

The same official linked the arrangement to broader demands, stating that “the unfreezing of Iran’s blocked assets is a critical executive guarantee that must be realized within this two-week timeframe.”

Tehran has also tied the ceasefire to international backing.

“If the termination of the war is not codified into a UN Security Council resolution based on our stipulated terms, we are fully prepared to resume combat against the US and the Zionist regime … and with even greater intensity,” the source said.

In parallel, Iran insisted that Washington refrain from increasing troop deployments during the truce, while maintaining its right to uranium enrichment.

“Regarding uranium enrichment – we remain committed strictly to the text of the exchanged agreement and are actively holding to it,” the source added.

On 7 April, US President Donald Trump announced a “two-week mutual ceasefire,” describing Iran’s demands as a “working basis” for negotiations and linking the pause in hostilities to reopening Hormuz.

Tehran, in turn, agreed to halt “defensive attacks” on the condition that no strikes target the country.

Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has invited both sides to Islamabad on 10 April for talks, which Iranian state television said are expected to be direct.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran restricts Hormuz access to 15 vessels per day under ceasefire terms: Report

The ‘Opposition Party’ Has Done Nothing to Stop the Iran War and Much to Goad Trump Into Continuing It

By Jeremy Loffredo | April 9, 2026

There is a version of the Democratic Party that exists only in the imagination: the peace party, the anti-war party, the party that marched against the Iraq War and howled at its neocon designers. As Donald Trump (reportedly) accepted Iran’s ceasefire terms this week, some of the most pointed attacks coming his way from Democrats are not about the thousands of civilians killed, the weeks of brutal bombardments against medical centers and universities, or the global economic damage the war has caused. They are about the war ending before the U.S. and Israel finished the job.

And this is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a pattern coming from Democratic senators, the Democratic House Foreign Affairs Committee, ranking members of the Armed Services Committee, and some of the party’s most prominent voices. The liberal opposition party wants more war.

This pattern predates the war. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Kamala Harris called Iran America’s “greatest adversary,” vowed that Iran would never obtain a nuclear weapon under her watch, and argued that Iran’s attacks on Israel would not have happened under her presidency. The Democratic nominee for president was running on a promise to be harder on Iran than Donald Trump.

“What a disaster”

On April 7, 2026, as a ceasefire between the United States and Iran was announced following weeks of devastating U.S.-Israeli bombing campaigns, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) took to X to offer his initial reaction: not relief at the end of the killing, but outrage at the terms Trump had accepted to stop it.

“It appears Trump just agreed to give Iran control of the Strait of Hormuz, a history-changing win for Iran,” Murphy wrote. “The level of incompetence is both stunning and heartbreaking. What on earth is happening?”

And Murphy is not a Democratic Party outlier. The New York Times has called Murphy “one of the future leaders of the party.” The Guardian, the Times, and NBC News have all listed him as a possible 2028 presidential candidate. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has named him one of the party’s “best messengers.” Foreign Policy magazine has called him a “rising Democratic star.”

For Murphy, attempting to end a war against a civilian population that had been brutally bombed for over five weeks was just infuriating.

In a follow-up thread, he wrote: “They will control and toll the Strait for the first time. They keep their nuclear program. They keep their missiles. What a disaster.”

And should anyone point out that at least the killing had stopped, Murphy had an answer ready: “An anti-American regime is in power and emboldened. Iran still has their missiles and nuclear program. That’s ‘good’?”

Murphy is not arguing that the war was unjust, that it violated international law, or that it killed too many innocent women and children, all of which are true and documented. He’s arguing that the ceasefire is a bad deal because it leaves the Iranian government standing with its nuclear program and ballistic missiles intact.

Having a civilian nuclear program is a legal right under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. But Murphy is treating Iran’s exercise of their international right as an American defeat. And as for their intolerable missiles, most countries have militaries, and every country has the right to them.

Trump, for his part, had no good options left: Iran had closed the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices had spiked globally, and American military objectives had not been achieved. The only path out was accepting terms. Stopping the bombing has already saved lives and protected a civilian population from further devastation. Murphy’s “Democratic rising star” objection is not that the war was wrong but that it ended before the Iranian state was entirely destroyed.

‘TACO’ Trump

Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s top Democrat, had established this line — attacking Trump from the right — months earlier, during nuclear deal negotiations in mid-2025. When Trump was reportedly exploring a diplomatic agreement with Tehran as an alternative to war, Schumer coined an acronym: TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out).

“When it comes to negotiating with the terrorist government of Iran, Trump’s all over the lot,” Schumer said. “One day he sounds tough, the next day he’s backing off. If TACO Trump is already folding, the American public should know about it.”

Schumer was not criticizing Trump for threatening war; he was criticizing him for not following through on those threats, demanding that Trump be tougher on Iran at a moment when most Americans, including supermajorities of his own party, supported a diplomatic nuclear deal. Foreign Policy magazine noted that Schumer’s attack was from a position to Trump’s right, using the language of Iran hawks.

When the ceasefire was finally announced, Schumer held a press conference in New York and went through the deal point by point, explaining why the outcome represented an American failure. “The Strait of Hormuz is in worse shape today, with more Iranian domination of it than it was before the war started,” Schumer said. “Iran still has an ayatollah named Khamenei. The Iranian regime is still standing. Not just standing, but now emboldened. And the regime is likely to be even more radical and more dangerous than it was before.” He called Trump “a military moron” and said the war had made the United States worse off than before it started. The Senate’s top Democrat was not upset that the war happened. He was upset that it hadn’t achieved more.

Venezuela: Trump Didn’t Finish the Job

In January 2026, U.S. special forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a nighttime raid and flew him to New York to face drug trafficking charges. Within weeks, the Trump administration settled into a working relationship with Maduro’s former vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, now Venezuela’s acting president. Trump, having removed Maduro, chose to work with the Venezuelan regime rather than dismantle it. Rodriguez, previously sanctioned by Trump’s own Treasury Department, was quietly removed from the sanctions list in April 2026.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats posted a screenshot of the New York Times article reporting the sanctions removal and responded:

“Delcy was Maduro’s brutal co-conspirator to steal an election and repress Venezuelans. 3 months later she’s off the US sanctions list, with zero plans for reforms and her regime still harassing and jailing its political opponents. Trump doesn’t care about Venezuela’s democracy, just its oil.”

Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the body in Congress responsible for overseeing U.S. foreign policy, were not satisfied. The problem, in their telling, was not that Trump had removed a foreign head of state by military force. It was that Trump had cut a deal with his successor rather than going for full regime change.

The Impeachment Spectacle

In 2019, Democrats launched an impeachment process that would run for months, producing two weeks of nationally televised public hearings, 12 witnesses, and more than 30 hours of testimony, before the full House voted to impeach in December. The central charge was that Trump had frozen $400 million in military aid to Ukraine, weapons intended to be used against Russia, a U.S. adversary. Withholding them was, in the Democratic telling, an impeachable betrayal of American interests. Fast forward to 2026: Trump waged a 40-day bombing campaign against Iran, a U.S. adversary, without congressional authorization, and Democrats introduced not impeachment articles but complaints that he failed to hit Iran hard enough.

When Trump withheld weapons from a U.S. enemy’s enemy, Democrats called it impeachable. When Trump actually bombed a U.S. enemy, Democrats called it inadequate. In both cases, they were pushing Donald Trump in exactly the same direction.

All of it, from Schumer’s TACO attacks to the Democratic Foreign Affairs Committee’s frustration with Delcy Rodriguez to Murphy calling a ceasefire “heartbreaking,” points in the same direction. Not toward restraint, not toward diplomacy, but toward a more complete and more decisive confrontation with American adversaries. Whether that reflects genuine hawkishness, reflexive opposition to anything Trump does, or some complicated mixture of both, the political effect is the same. The liberal opposition party is pushing for more war.

Jeremy Loffredo (X: @loffredojeremy) is an independent journalist and filmmaker who covers foreign policy and war.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on The ‘Opposition Party’ Has Done Nothing to Stop the Iran War and Much to Goad Trump Into Continuing It

Moscow backs Tehran on status of Lebanon in US-Iran deal

RT | April 9, 2026

Moscow believes the US-Iran ceasefire has a regional dimension and extends to Lebanon, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told his Iranian counterpart Abbas Aragchi in a phone call on Thursday, according to a readout.

Lavrov stated that Russia fully supports the cessation of hostilities between the US and Iran and Israel’s accession to those agreements. He expressed hope for the success of the upcoming negotiations and reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to help “overcome the consequences of the unprovoked US‑Israeli aggression against Iran and ensure long-term peace and sustainable security in the region.”

The Russian minister also emphasized that Moscow “firmly believes that these agreements, as announced by the Pakistani mediators, have a regional dimension and, in particular, extend to Lebanon.”

Israel has insisted that Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire deal and said it intends to continue operations in the country, where it has conducted extensive airstrikes and launched a ground invasion.

Shortly after the US-Iranian ceasefire was announced, the Israeli military said it carried out its largest wave of strikes on Lebanon since the war began, hitting approximately 100 targets across the country in just ten minutes.

More than 1,700 people have been killed in Israeli strikes since March 2, and over 5,800 have been wounded, including hundreds of women and children, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry.

Iran has made clear that Lebanon must be included in any cessation of hostilities. It has also warned that the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed to shipping until Israel commits to a ceasefire on all fronts.

Araghchi thanked Lavrov for Russia’s “principled position” during UN Security Council meetings on the situation in the Persian Gulf, according to the ministry. The two diplomats also discussed broader regional security issues.

Moscow has consistently condemned the US‑Israeli campaign against Iran, which began on February 28. Russia has called for de‑escalation and a diplomatic solution, while accusing Washington of violating international law.

The Kremlin has also criticized Israel’s strikes on Lebanon, including a March attack on a Russian cultural center in the southern city of Nabatieh.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Moscow backs Tehran on status of Lebanon in US-Iran deal

The Black Cube Files: How Former Mossad Operatives Flipped a Nation

Inside the Israeli intelligence operation that shook Slovenia

José Niño Unfiltered | April 8, 2026

10 days before a national election, with secretly recorded videos of government officials circulating online and former Israeli intelligence operatives confirmed to have visited opposition party headquarters, Slovenia abruptly reversed its decision to join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The official explanation pointed to national security concerns. Slovenian officials warned that joining could “jeopardize Slovenia’s national security,” citing the uncomfortable reality that many of the country’s cyber defense systems are of Israeli origin. They noted that Israeli authorities play a crucial role in facilitating Slovenian humanitarian operations in Gaza and in evacuating Slovenian nationals from the Middle East.

Foreign Minister Tanja Fajon expressed regret, calling the internal debate “quite emotional and exhausting.” When asked about external pressure, Fajon acknowledged, “It is clear that these pressures exist, we are all subjected to them by superpowers, and ultimately this must be taken into account when deciding.”

What Fajon did not say, but what Slovenian intelligence would confirm days later, was that operatives from Black Cube, a private intelligence firm founded by former Israeli military intelligence officers and advised by former Mossad chiefs, had been operating on Slovenian soil for months. They had visited the headquarters of the opposition party. They had lured government officials into staged meetings using a fictitious British investment fund. They had secretly recorded them.

Almost nobody in the English-speaking world covered it.

In the annals of intelligence operations that never quite make the headlines, few stories rival what unfolded in Slovenia between December 2025 and March 2026. A small European nation of two million people found itself at the center of geopolitical intrigue involving former Israeli military intelligence officers, fictitious investment funds, secretly recorded politicians, and a last-minute reversal that may have saved Slovenia from whatever consequences Israel had in store.

A Relationship Built on Trade and Transformed by War

Israel and Slovenia established diplomatic relations on April 28, 1992, shortly after Slovenia declared independence from Yugoslavia. For decades the relationship remained cordial if unremarkable, built on a bilateral investment protection agreement signed in 1998 and a double taxation treaty signed in 2007, along with occasional state visits. Israeli President Shimon Peres visited Ljubljana in 2010. Slovenia designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization in November 2020, treating the group in its entirety as a “criminal and terrorist organization posing a threat to peace and security” — notably declining to distinguish between Hezbollah’s military and political wings as most EU countries had done.

The relationship strengthened under conservative Prime Minister Janez Janša, who governed from 2020 to 2022. Janša cultivated close personal ties with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ordered the Israeli flag raised over his party headquarters during a moment of crisis. In December 2020, Janša traveled to Israel and met with representatives of five Israeli companies, including the controversial spyware firm NSO Group, according to Slovenian investigative outlet Oštro. The Slovenian government confirmed the meeting but stated no deals were concluded.

In August 2021, Slovenia’s Government Information Security Office signed a cybersecurity cooperation memorandum with the Israeli National Cyber Directorate. The country purchased Spike missiles from Rafael and received armored vehicle components from Elbit Systems in contracts stretching back to the 1990s.

Then came October 2023 and the war in Gaza.

The Golob Pivot

When center-left Robert Golob unseated Janša in 2022, Slovenia’s posture toward Israel began shifting. After the Gaza war erupted, the transformation became dramatic.

Slovenia became the first European nation to join the ICJ advisory opinion proceedings on Israel’s control of occupied territories in January 2024, submitting written comments while other EU states held back. On June 4, 2024, Slovenia officially recognized the State of Palestine. In July 2025, the country declared Israeli ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich persona non grata, becoming the first EU member state to do so. On July 31, 2025, Slovenia announced a comprehensive arms embargo covering import, export, and transit of all weapons to and from Israel, again the first EU member state to take such action.

In September 2025, Slovenia banned Netanyahu himself from entering the country, the first EU nation to do so, citing the ICC arrest warrant. By early 2026, Slovenia was preparing to join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the ICJ. Foreign Minister Tanja Fajon expressed strong support.

Then everything changed.

The Black Cube Files

Black Cube, officially BC Strategy Ltd, describes itself as “the world’s leading intelligence firm” staffed by “veterans of elite Israeli Intelligence Units.” Founded in 2010 by Dan Zorella, a former IDF Military Intelligence officer, and Dr. Avi Yanus, a former IDF strategic planning officer, the firm operates in over 75 countries and employs more than 100 investigators fluent in 30 languages.

The firm’s advisory board reads like a who’s who of Israeli intelligence. Meir Dagan, the former Mossad chief who ran the agency from 2002 to 2011, served as Black Cube’s honorary president until his death in 2016 and was heavily involved in the firm from its earliest stages. Other advisory board members include Efraim Halevy, another former Mossad head, and Major General Giora Eiland, former head of the Israeli National Security Council.

Black Cube became globally infamous through the Harvey Weinstein scandal. The film producer hired the firm, reportedly on a referral from former Israeli PM Ehud Barak, to suppress sexual harassment allegations. Black Cube agents tracked journalists investigating Weinstein, including Ronan Farrow of The New Yorker and Jodi Kantor of The New York Times. They targeted accusers, particularly Rose McGowan, using an operative who posed as a women’s rights supporter. The explicit contract goal, as Farrow documented in his Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting, was to “completely stop the publication of a new negative article in a leading NY newspaper.”

The firm also saw five employees convicted in Romania — two lower-level operatives arrested in 2016 and three company founders including Zorella and Yanus in 2022 — for targeting the country’s chief anticorruption prosecutor, Laura Codruța Kövesi, through hacking and harassment. Black Cube conducted operations targeting researchers at Citizen Lab who were investigating NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware. The firm was also hired to find compromising material on architects of the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, including former officials Colin Kahl and Ben Rhodes, according to NBC News.

And then Black Cube turned its attention to Slovenia.

Spies in Ljubljana

Between December 10 and 11, 2025, three Black Cube representatives arrived in Slovenia. According to the Slovenian government and ABC News, the three operatives were Dan Zorella, the firm’s co-founder, Liron Tzur, and Giora Eiland, the former head of Israel’s National Security Council who sits on Black Cube’s advisory board. Flight records and intelligence data confirmed they visited Trstenjakova Street No. 8 in Ljubljana, where Janša’s Slovenian Democratic Party maintains its headquarters.

On December 22, 2025, senior Black Cube figures reportedly met with Janša himself. The opposition leader later admitted to having “contacts with an adviser from the Israeli private intelligence agency Black Cube” but denied doing anything illegal.

Between January and March 2026, Black Cube operatives posing as representatives of a fictitious British investment fund called “Stockard Capital” lured Slovenian political figures into staged business meetings in Vienna and other locations, secretly recording them. Among the targets was former Justice Minister Dominika Švarc Pipan.

Roughly ten days before the election, an anonymous website called anti-corruption2026.com appeared online, publishing edited videos of government figures including officials from Golob’s Freedom Movement party. The content was described by analyst Lily Lynch as “more embarrassing than criminal.”

On March 16, 2026, Slovenian investigative journalist Borut Mekina of Mladina presented findings at a press conference with civil society researchers linking Black Cube to the secretly recorded videos and to Janša’s party. The following day, Prime Minister Golob accused “foreign services” of interfering in the election, calling it “the biggest scandal we have witnessed in Slovenia since independence.”

“Clear-Cut Interference”

On March 22, 2026, Slovenia held its parliamentary elections. Golob’s Freedom Movement party narrowly defeated Janša’s SDS despite the scandal.

French President Emmanuel Macron stated that Golob “was the victim of clear-cut interference” by “third countries” and misinformation, according to Euronews.

On March 26, 2026, SOVA, the Slovenian Intelligence and Security Agency, “unequivocally confirmed the activity of foreign influence” on the elections. Agency chief Joško Kadivnik presented material evidence linking the three Black Cube operatives to the SDS headquarters visit and demonstrating “counterintelligence operations against the Republic of Slovenia and foreign interference in Slovenian elections.”

The evidence was handed to prosecutors and police.

The Dependency Trap

The Slovenia episode illuminates a dynamic rarely discussed in Western capitals. Israeli defense and cybersecurity firms have quietly embedded themselves into the security infrastructure of allied nations, creating dependencies that carry geopolitical weight.

Slovenia procured Elbit Systems weapon stations and turrets for its Patria AMV armored vehicle program in 2007. It purchased Spike anti-tank missiles from Rafael in multiple transactions, including a $6.6 million deal for 50 Spike LR2 missiles in September 2022. It signed a cybersecurity memorandum with Israel’s National Cyber Directorate in 2021.

Yet despite declaring a full arms embargo in July 2025, a Haaretz investigation in August 2025 revealed that Slovenia purchased €828,000 in Israeli military equipment in 2024 and continued planning to acquire Spike missiles through EuroSpike, a joint venture between Rafael and German defense firms Rheinmetall and Diehl that manufactures the missiles in Germany.

Israel’s influence operations demonstrate that a country’s sovereignty is only as secure as its gatekeepers. A truly free nation must ensure that Israeli nationals and their intelligence assets are permanently barred from setting foot on its soil.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | Deception | , , | Comments Off on The Black Cube Files: How Former Mossad Operatives Flipped a Nation

Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told

Dialogue Works | April 8, 2026

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told

Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief

Press TV – April 8, 2026

Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, has strongly warned of the Israeli regime’s full intention to destroy chances of peace between the United States and Iran.

“The most important thing Israel will work on by all means is eliminating any chances for peace between Iran and America,” he wrote in a post on X on Wednesday.

The regime, he added, would try to torpedo any likelihood of rapprochement between the Persian Gulf’s littoral states and the Islamic Republic with similar zeal.

Such anti-peace efforts on the part of the regime would, meanwhile, “result in marginalizing it (Tel Aviv) in the region and spotlighting the policies of occupation, settlement, and ethnic cleansing it practices, as we see it doing now in Lebanon,” ElBaradei added.

The comments by the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) came after the regime killed hundreds of people in Lebanon shortly after President Donald Trump announced agreeing to a two-week lull in the US’s attacks on Iran.

Trump said a 10-point proposal forwarded by the Islamic Republic serves as a “workable basis on which to negotiate and the main framework for these talks.”

The proposal underlines the need for cessation of aggression throughout the entire region, including in Lebanon, conditioning the Islamic Republic’s stopping its defensive strikes on a halt to aggressors’ regional atrocities.

ElBaradei said “a fundamental condition for peace in the region is for America to rein in Israel’s rampage.”

He, however, regretted that Washington had stopped utterly short of doing so in the face of the regime’s deadly attacks on the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank.

“And the result is clear to everyone: More killing and destruction!”

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief

Ceasefire for all or for none: Iran shuts Hormuz over Lebanon attacks

Al Mayadeen | April 8, 2026

In response to recent Israeli attacks on Lebanon, Iranian officials are calling for decisive measures to counter the aggression in support of Lebanon and its people, warning that the Strait of Hormuz could be closed again until the attacks on Lebanon stop.

Ibrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said in a post on X: “In response to the brutal Israeli aggression on Lebanon, the movement of ships in the Strait of Hormuz must be immediately stopped, and a strong, decisive strike must be launched to prevent further attacks by the Israeli entity.”

The Iranian official paid tribute to the Lebanese people, asserting that “we must not leave them alone for a second.” Rezaei emphasized the need for clarity on the terms of engagement and rejected the separation of the battlefields in Iran and Lebanon, stating, “Either there is a ceasefire on all fronts, or there is no ceasefire on any front.”

Iran’s UN envoy stresses ceasefire in Lebanon, warns of consequences

On his part, Iran’s envoy to the United Nations in Geneva, Ali Bahraini, stressed the importance of “Israel” upholding the ceasefire in Lebanon, adding that Tehran will approach peace negotiations with Washington cautiously due to a deep lack of trust.

Bahraini stated, “In light of the deep lack of trust, Tehran will deal cautiously with ‘peace’ negotiations with Washington, while at the same time remaining on military alert.”

The UN envoy also stressed the role of “Israel” in the ongoing aggressions, declaring, “We emphasize the necessity of the Israeli entity’s commitment to a ceasefire in Lebanon.”

He further warned about the consequences of continued hostilities, saying, “We warn that the continuation of attacks will lead to further complications and the resulting severe consequences.”

On the issue of talks, Bahraini said Iran will approach the talks with the US in Islamabad with far more caution than previous negotiations due to “the deep chasm of mistrust, while remaining on military alert.”

“We are not putting any trust in the other side. Our military forces are keeping their preparedness…but meanwhile, we will go for negotiations to see how serious the other side is,” the ambassador told Reuters.

Iran considering withdrawal from ceasefire if ‘Israel’ continues Lebanon assault

Iran may withdraw from the ceasefire agreement if “Israel” continues violating the truce by launching attacks on Lebanon, an informed source told Tasnim News Agency.

The source told the agency that “Iran is currently studying the possibility of withdrawing from the ceasefire agreement with the continuation of the Israeli entity’s violations and its aggression against Lebanon.”

The report noted that halting the war on all fronts, including against the “Resistance forces” in Lebanon, had been accepted by the United States as part of a two-week ceasefire plan. However, the source added, “Since this morning, in blatant violation of the ceasefire, the Israeli entity has carried out brutal attacks against Lebanon.”

In response, Iranian armed forces are identifying targets to retaliate against Israeli aggression in Lebanon, Tasnim‘s source said, further warning, “If the United States is unable to restrain its rabid dog in the region, Iran will assist it in this matter, exceptionally, through force.”

Moreover, a senior Iranian official also told Press TV that “Iran will punish Israel for its aggression against Lebanon and violations of the ceasefire.”

Cementing this stance, Fars News Agency reported that oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz was halted following the Israeli attacks, though two tankers had earlier received safe passage clearance after Tehran’s conditions were accepted and the ceasefire went into effect.

Later, a source in the Iranian Navy confirmed the Strait’s closure, saying, “We have closed the Strait of Hormuz, and currently, only Iranian ships and vessels coming from Iran are passing through”

“Only two oil tankers were able to benefit from the ceasefire and pass through the Strait of Hormuz before ‘Israel’ violated the agreement,” he added.

Iran conditions deal on ceasefire in Lebanon

Iran has tied any move toward a ceasefire in the US-Israeli war to the halt of all aggression on every front, including in Lebanon. Tehran’s leadership insists a lasting end to hostilities must go beyond a temporary truce and must stop attacks against Iran and its allies.

Tehran’s 10‑point proposal, which Washington has accepted as the basis for talks during the two-week ceasefire, calls for the cessation of all aggression in the region as a precondition for peace negotiations. The plan demands an end to wartime attacks and a guarantee that further aggression will not be launched against Iran or allied forces.

Among other conditions, the proposal includes a commitment to end all US and Israeli military operations targeting Iranian territory and groups aligned with Tehran, as well as halting aggression that “Israel” launched on Lebanon, among other countries in the region.

Iran’s negotiators emphasize that without a permanent stop to the war’s aggression on all fronts, including the war in Lebanon, any cease‑fire would be meaningless and could allow enemy forces to regroup and resume attacks.

‘Israel’ sticks to its criminal ways, violating the agreement

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unilaterally decided that the ceasefire agreement does not include Lebanon, effectively violating the terms of the agreement reached between Tehran and Washington and potentially derailing the process to reach a permanent ceasefire.

In a statement posted on the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office X account, Netanyahu said the Israeli regime backs Washington’s efforts to ensure Iran “no longer poses a nuclear, missile and terror threat,” and acknowledged that the United States had communicated its commitment to achieving these goals in upcoming negotiations.

However, buried at the end of the statement was a unilateral carve-out: “The two-week ceasefire does not include Lebanon.”

Barely hours after the ceasefire was reached, the Israeli occupation forces brazenly violated the agreement, launching a wide-scale attack targeting the entirety of Lebanon from south to east with more than 100 strikes and committing harrowing massacres in Beirut, the South, and the Bekaa. ِThe Israeli aggression killed and wounded hundreds, the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health reported, while the Lebanese Red Cross reported that 100 ambulances were working on rescue operations across the country.

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Ceasefire for all or for none: Iran shuts Hormuz over Lebanon attacks

Europe’s quiet role in the war on Iran

By Leila Nezirevic | Al Mayadeen | April 8, 2026

European leaders have responded to the war on Iran with a familiar language: calls for restraint, appeals to diplomacy, and renewed commitments to international law. From Brussels to Berlin, the language has been measured, even cautious. Yet the gap between what Europe says and what it does has rarely been so stark.

While European governments publicly distance themselves from escalation, their infrastructure, alliances, and policies continue to sustain the very war effort they claim to oppose. Military bases, logistical networks, and intelligence frameworks tied to NATO remain fully operational.

Arms flows continue. Political backing, though often indirect, is unmistakable.

This contradiction is not simply a matter of hypocrisy. It reveals something deeper about Europe’s position in the global order, one defined less by autonomy than by structural dependence on the United States. The war on Iran is not creating this reality; it is exposing it.

NATO alignment

At the core of Europe’s constrained position lies its long-standing transatlantic alliance membership. NATO has, for decades, provided the framework for European security. But it has also shaped Europe’s foreign policy, narrowing the space for independent action.

For Vijay Prashad, historian and executive director of the Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research this  relationship explains the apparent contradiction between Europe’s rhetoric and its behavior.

“Well, that contradiction is at the heart of the arrangement across the Atlantic, where European countries have, in a sense, surrendered their foreign policy to the United States through their attachment to NATO. In a sense, NATO shapes the foreign policy of Europe for the most part, and Europe doesn’t really have much independence to chart its own foreign policy direction.”

This is not merely a matter of political choice in any given moment. It reflects a deeper institutional reality. Europe’s security, intelligence, and military systems are deeply intertwined with those of the United States.

In moments of crisis, divergence becomes not only politically costly, but structurally difficult. “So regardless of the statements made from European capitals, when push comes to shove, the Europeans are right there alongside the United States, ” he told Al Mayadeen English.

From passivity to complicity

A central question raised by the war is whether Europe is a passive observer or an active participant. The answer, increasingly, points toward the latter.

“Europe is providing various forms of assistance—direct assistance—to the Israelis and the United States, including the use of the British base in Cyprus, which is basically a NATO base. So complicity goes to the heart of the NATO world.”

This involvement may not always take the form of direct military engagement, but it is nonetheless material. The use of European territory for operations, the maintenance of supply chains, and the continuation of arms transfers all contribute to the functioning of the war effort.

Prashad situates this within a longer historical trajectory:

“Europe has had a very ugly relationship with Iran over the course of the 20th century. It was European countries that conducted the coup in 1953 that brought in the Shah of Iran, whose very brutal reign lasted from 1953 to 1979. It was West Germany that provided chemical weapons to Iraq to use against the new Islamic Republic between 1980 and 1988. Other European countries also armed Saddam Hussein to conduct an ugly war against the Iranian people.”

This history is not incidental. It shapes how Europe is perceived in Tehran and across the region. More importantly, it underscores that Europe’s current role is part of a longer continuum of intervention, alignment, and strategic calculation.

Colonial standard

Europe has long cultivated an image of itself as a defender of international law. Its institutions and diplomatic traditions are frequently presented as pillars of a rules-based global order. The war on Iran, however, has exposed the fragility of this claim.

“If Europeans want to have a meaningful foreign policy, I would like to see it… Where is the condemnation from European capitals? Not one capital has clearly condemned this war of aggression. It is quite striking.”

The comparison with other conflicts is unavoidable.

“There was immediate outrage over the Russian entry into Ukraine, but the Israeli bombing, including the killing of civilians, including 180 schoolchildren on the very first day of the bombardment, none of that elicited complete condemnation on the grounds of international law.”

This inconsistency has consequences. It undermines Europe’s credibility not only in West Asia, but globally.

“Europe’s claim to being a defender of international law has been deeply undermined. One could say it was already severely damaged in the context of Gaza, and in this situation with Iran, that claim is further weakened.”

For Prashad, the issue is not a double standard, but something more systemic:

“In fact, I would say Europe doesn’t have a double standard, it has a single standard. And that standard is what I would call a colonial standard.”

Economic blowback and strategic self-harm

Even as Europe aligns politically with US strategy, it is increasingly bearing the economic costs of that alignment. The war on Iran threatens to further disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy supplies. Any escalation risks driving up oil prices, intensifying inflation, and pushing already fragile European economies toward recession.

Yet, as Prashad notes, Europe’s vulnerability is not new: it is the result of a series of strategic decisions over the past two decades.

“Over at least the last 20 years, Europe has conducted what could be described as a kind of energy self-sabotage,” said Prashad, who is also an author of 40 books, including Washington Bullets.

He traces this trajectory through successive ruptures:

“By participating in US sanctions against Iran, Europe effectively removed one of its principal oil suppliers from its energy mix. Then, following the war in Libya, another major source of energy was destabilized. And later, through the deterioration of relations with Russia, Europe reduced its access to Russian oil and natural gas.”

The cumulative effect has been to push Europe toward more expensive and less stable energy sources.

“As a result, it has had to rely more heavily on liquefied natural gas and other imports, often at higher cost.”

These decisions were not taken in isolation. They were embedded in a broader geopolitical alignment, one that prioritized strategic cohesion with the United States over economic pragmatism.

The limits of independence

Europe’s predicament raises a broader question: to what extent can it act independently in a world defined by great power competition?

“Europe has the space to make its own decisions. But you don’t very often see Europe crossing the United States.”

There have been moments of divergence like Germany’s refusal to join the Iraq War in 2003, but these remain exceptions rather than the rule.

More often, alignment prevails. And this alignment is not only institutional, but ideological.

“There is an underlying cultural arrogance that runs, as I put it, like an undersea cable between the United States, Canada, and Europe.

“Despite the fact that there are different institutions… this underlying cultural alignment brings them together and effectively whips them into a common political position.”

Following a strategy it does not control

The risks of this dependence are becoming increasingly apparent. The war on Iran is unfolding along a trajectory largely shaped by the United States and Israel.

Europe, by contrast, finds itself reacting rather than shaping outcomes.

“Europe needs to reflect very seriously on the fact that the United States and Israel have basically reached very high levels on the escalation ladder, and yet it seems that Iran is not going to fold.”

If the conflict fails to achieve its objectives, or if Iran emerges politically strengthened, Europe may find itself strategically exposed.

“Iran has, in fact, secured a kind of political victory. So, what does that mean for Europe, which has followed the United States into sanctions policies that have also hurt European economies?”

Europe was once a major customer of Iranian oil and natural gas, and that relationship was cut off—not primarily by Europe’s own initiative, but through alignment with US policy.

Sovereignty in question

The effect of these dynamics is to cast doubt on the very idea of European sovereignty in foreign policy.

“If Europeans want to have a meaningful foreign policy, I would like to see it.”

Europe possesses the institutions, the economic weight, and the diplomatic capacity to act independently. But in practice, those capabilities are constrained by structural, political, and ideological factors.

The result is a form of sovereignty that exists more in theory than in practice, invoked in speeches but rarely exercised in moments of crisis.

War beyond the battlefield

The final outcome of the war on Iran will not be determined solely by military means.

“Outcomes in war are not only determined militarily, they are also political. It is possible for a country to have overwhelming military power and still not achieve its political objectives.”

For Europe, the implications are profound. By aligning itself with a war whose outcome it can neither control nor guarantee, it risks deepening both its dependence on the United States and its vulnerability.

In fact, the war on Iran is revealing Europe’s role in the world.

This is a continent that speaks the language of international law, yet applies it selectively.

A political bloc that calls for diplomacy, yet remains embedded in military escalation. An economic power that bears the costs of conflict, yet struggles to shape its course.

The contradiction is no longer subtle. It is structural. And in the war on Iran, it is fully exposed.

Leila Nezirevic is a London-based journalist and documentary filmmaker with extensive experience in reporting for major media outlets, with her work being published by leading networks worldwide.

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Europe’s quiet role in the war on Iran

Forty days that shook the Empire: How Iran turned the tables on US and prevailed

By Sarwar Abbas | Press TV | April 8, 2026

Forty days into the war imposed illegally on the Islamic Republic of Iran, the unthinkable has happened. The United States has retreated unceremoniously, and Iran has declared a “historic victory,” stamping its authority as a new global superpower.

And the enemy, despite unleashing overwhelming force, has been forced to accept a 10-point Iranian proposal that includes a permanent ceasefire, the removal of all primary and secondary sanctions, and the withdrawal of US combat forces from the region.

The proposal also includes Iran’s complete and firm control over the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that disrupted the global energy momentum in the past month.

After 40 days of the war that should never have happened in the first place, the aggressors have failed to achieve any of their stated objectives. Trump desperately looked for an off-ramp from the quagmire he helped create, and the world witnessed something unprecedented: the defeat of a superpower at the hands of a nation that refuses to bend.

The war of aggression was launched against Iran on February 28, amid indirect nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington. Its initial aim was audacious: “regime change” in Iran. The first wave of strikes specifically targeted the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, along with several top-ranking military commanders. The subsequent waves targeted both commanders and top officials.

Washington and Tel Aviv believed this time would be different. Unlike the 12-day war of June last year, which also came in the middle of nuclear talks, this time the proponents of “regime change” felt that the collapse of the Islamic Republic was imminent. They were catastrophically wrong, which they must have realised now.

Immediately after launching what was dubbed “Operation Epic Fury,” Trump exuded confidence that the US aggression would allow the Iranian people to overthrow their own government, hoping to plant someone subservient to Washington.

Perhaps the plan was to do what they did in Venezuela. But Trump and his aides forgot that Iran is not Venezuela. And the Iranian people are not passive bystanders.

Following devastating Iranian retaliatory strikes that obliterated nearly all US military installations across the region, President Trump made a strained declaration two weeks ago. He claimed that “regime change” had already happened in Iran, referring to the election of Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei as the country’s new Leader.

He was ridiculed for making such an outlandish claim. As one observer quipped, the US-Israeli war machine could not even change Iran’s revolutionary slogans, let alone topple the system that has survived nearly five decades of plots and conspiracies.

When Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei addressed the nation on March 13, he struck a defiant tone – vowing revenge for martyrs, reaffirming resistance against aggression, and emphasizing the strategic value of controlling the Strait of Hormuz.

Far from indicating collapse, his election demonstrated institutional strength, which the products of the Epstein class will never understand. The Islamic Republic rests on constitutional structures that are not tied to one individual. Its strategic doctrine remains unshaken, which has been demonstrated yet again during this war.

Trump has long framed Iran’s nuclear program as an existential danger. Before the Ramadan war, he threatened military action to dismantle it, even though, as many social media users pointed out, he had, after the 12-day war, claimed the program was already “obliterated.”

Eventually, after 40 days of war and mindless rhetoric, the “regime change” fantasy also evaporated. His attempt to attack nuclear facilities in Isfahan failed spectacularly, as Americans lost a vast fleet of aircraft in the process, without achieving anything.

Trump was also fixated on the Strait of Hormuz, vowing to open it. Iran’s navy had effectively closed the waterway to American and allied vessels following the launch of the unprovoked war. Any attempt to cross the Strait without Iran’s consent was a recipe for disaster.

Trump issued several warnings: reopen the strait or face strikes on Iranian power plants. Deadlines changed from 48 hours to five days to ten days and then again 48 hours before he eventually gave up and accepted Iran’s 10-point proposal.

The shifting goals of America’s futile military campaign, from day one to day forty, revealed a stunning absence of strategy or clarity. Even US politicians and pundits condemned the war as unnecessary and unprovoked, with many of them even suggesting the 25th Amendment to have the megalomaniac president removed from office.

Beyond strategic failure, the United States suffered crippling military and economic damage from Iran’s Operation True Promise 4 retaliatory strikes – 99 of them in 40 days.

During the first week alone, Iranian retaliatory strikes cost American taxpayers over $1 billion, as per reports. Carrier and warplane deployment accounted for $630 million, while lost F-15E jets in Kuwait added nearly $300 million, as per Press TV analysis.

The war had become a costly trap for the Trump administration, widely seen as a strategic miscalculation with no gains and only losses. That’s precisely why the role of Netanyahu was the key. He couldn’t do it on his own, so he dragged Trump into the unnecessary war.

A total of 99 waves of Iranian missile and drone strikes leveled US bases across the region, as American forces were compelled to abandon fortified positions for hotels and office spaces. Americans have downplayed the casualty toll, particularly the death toll, but independent estimates have put the deaths into hundreds, if not thousands.

The Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, the bastion of US military presence in the region, particularly suffered the heaviest damage. Iranian strikes repeatedly targeted its headquarters in Manama, demonstrating a new model of asymmetric warfare, inflicting irreparable damage on infrastructure, ammunition depots, and command buildings there.

American air power was completely decimated in the region. On March 27, the IRGC destroyed a $700 million E-3 Sentry AWACS at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, along with multiple electronic warfare planes and refueling aircraft. Days earlier, Iran and Iraqi resistance forces downed six KC-135 Stratotankers, the important air-refueling backbone.

Days later, Iran successfully hit an F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter for the first time ever. The multi-trillion-dollar asset of the American military was targeted in central Iran.

A number of F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, over a dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones and over 170 drones were also downed or damaged. Four AN/TPY-2 THAAD radars and a billion-dollar Qatar early-warning installation were also hit.

On April 3, dubbed the “darkest day” for the US Air Force, F-15E Strike Eagle, an A-10 Thunderbolt II, multiple MQ-9 Reaper drones, and Hermes reconnaissance platforms were also downed by the Iranian air defenses, which have vastly improved since the 12-day war.

On the other hand, due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz for American and allied vessels, oil prices hit three-year highs, which had ripple effects across the globe.

Gasoline prices in the US climbed above $4 per gallon, and diesel also hit $6 in many states. Supply disruptions spread to LNG, fertilizer, and other commodities as well.

To make it worse, Trump’s approval rating nosedived to 36 percent, his lowest since returning to office, with 59 percent disapproval, the highest of his political career.

Now the Republicans are concerned about the midterm elections.

Now, 40 days after launching its war of aggression, the US has been forced to accept Tehran’s 10-point proposal: a permanent ceasefire, Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of enrichment, full sanctions removal, termination of all UN resolutions, war compensation, US combat withdrawal from the region, and an end to fighting on all fronts, including against Lebanon’s Islamic Resistance.

This is not a stalemate. This is a defeat – historic, undeniable, and crushing.

The era of unchecked American power in West Asia has ended. Iran has emerged as a regional superpower and the world must come to terms with this undeniable fact.

Sarwar Abbas is a Pakistan-based writer and commentator.

April 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Forty days that shook the Empire: How Iran turned the tables on US and prevailed

« Previous Entries