Iran declares ‘historic victory’ over US, says enemy forced to accept its proposal
Press TV – April 7, 2026
Iran has declared a “historic and crushing defeat” of the United States and the Israeli regime after 40 days of war, announcing that Washington has been forced to accept a 10-point Iranian proposal that includes a permanent ceasefire, the lifting of all sanctions, and the withdrawal of US combat forces from the region.
In a statement addressed to the “noble, great, and heroic nation of Iran,” the Supreme National Security Council said the enemy had suffered an undeniable defeat and now saw “no way forward but to submit to the will of the great nation of Iran and the honorable Axis of Resistance.”
The announcement comes on Day 40 of the US-Israeli war of aggression on Iran, which began with the assassination of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and top-ranking commanders on February 28.
According to the statement, the United States has agreed to a 10-point proposal that fundamentally commits Washington to:
- No new aggression against Iran
- Continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz
- Acceptance of enrichment
- Removal of all primary sanctions
- Removal of all secondary sanctions
- Termination of all UN Security Council resolutions
- Termination of all Board of Governors resolutions
- Payment of compensation to Iran
- Withdrawal of US combat forces from the region
- Cessation of war on all fronts, including against the heroic Islamic Resistance of Lebanon
“Iran has achieved a great victory and has forced criminal America to accept its own 10-point proposal,” the statement read.
The statement by the top security body described the past 40 days as one of the “heaviest combined battles in history,” in which Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and occupied Palestine inflicted blows that “the historical memory of the world will never forget.”
“Iran and the Resistance have almost completely destroyed the American military machine in the region,” it stated. “They have inflicted crushing and deep blows on the vast infrastructure and capabilities that the enemy had built and deployed around the region over many years for this war against Iran.”
The statement added that within the occupied territories, Resistance forces had dealt “devastating and crushing blows to the enemy’s forces, infrastructure, facilities, and assets.”
It further stated that the United States understood as early as 10 days into the war that it could not win.
“Not only did none of the enemy’s main objectives materialize, but the enemy realized from about 10 days after the start of the war that it would have no ability to win this war,” the statement said. “For this reason, through various channels and methods, the enemy began efforts to establish contact with Iran and request a ceasefire.”
The top security body further said the enemy had initially imagined a quick military victory, believing Iran’s missile and drone capabilities would be “quickly extinguished,” and noted that the “vile global Zionism” had convinced the “ignorant President of the United States” that the war would finish Iran.
While declaring victory, the top security body also urged continued vigilance.
“We congratulate all the people of Iran on this victory,” the statement read, “and emphasize that until the details of this victory are finalized, there remains a need for the resilience and prudence of officials and the preservation of unity and solidarity among the people of Iran.”
The Iranian announcement came hours after Trump said he had agreed to a two-week suspension of bombing and attacks on Iran, subject to Tehran reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said he would “suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks” — a decision he described as a “double-sided CEASEFIRE.”
Trump said the suspension is “subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz.”
Earlier on Tuesday, he had warned that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran failed to meet his demands, an inflammatory war rhetoric that triggered backlash worldwide.
Many condemned the bluster as genocidal and said it amounts to a horrendous war crime.
Pope Leo XIV called the threat “truly unacceptable,” while US lawmakers decried Trump’s rhetoric as “pure evil,” with many of them calling for the invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.
The Strait of Hormuz, which carries approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil, has been effectively blocked by Iran since the US and Israel launched their unprovoked and illegal war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28.
Iranian officials had categorically stated that the strategic waterway will not be reopened unless its demands are met, which include the permanent cessation of US-Israeli attacks.
In line with the directive of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei and the approval of the Supreme National Security Council, and given Iran and the resistance’s upper hand on the battlefield, the enemy’s inability to carry out its threats despite all its claims, and the official acceptance of all the legitimate demands of the Iranian people, it has been decided that negotiations will be held in Islamabad to finalize the details.
This will take place within a maximum of 15 days, so that the details of Iran’s victory on the battlefield may also be solidified in political negotiations.
The negotiations will begin on Friday in Islamabad. Iran will allocate two weeks for these negotiations and the timeframe may be extended by mutual agreement of the two sides.
The top security body said it is essential that during this period, complete national unity is maintained and victory celebrations continue with strength.
These negotiations, it asserted, are a national negotiation and an extension of the battlefield, so all people and political groups must trust and support this process, which is under the supervision of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution.
“If the enemy’s surrender on the battlefield is transformed into a decisive political achievement in the negotiations, we will celebrate this great historic victory together. Otherwise, we will fight side by side on the battlefield until all the demands of the Iranian people are met,” the statement noted.
“Our hands are on the trigger, and the moment the slightest mistake is made by the enemy, it will be answered with full force.”
Trump Claims Ceasefire, Reopening of Strait of Hormuz Agreement with Iran
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | April 7, 2026
President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that Iran had agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and a two-week truce would begin.
“Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, of Pakistan, and wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double sided CEASEFIRE!” the President posted.
Trump did not specify if Israel was a party to the truce. Iran has not confirmed that it agreed to the ceasefire or to reopen the Strait.
The President explained that the pause in fighting will give time for the two sides to work out a peace deal based on a framework proposed by Iran. “We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated,” he wrote.
A US official previously described the 10-point proposal as Iran’s “maximalist” position. The proposal called for establishing protocols for shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a permanent end to the conflict, war reparations, and the lifting of sanctions.
Trump made the ceasefire announcement just 90 minutes before a deadline he imposed on Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz was set to expire. He vowed to permanently destroy the country of Iran if Tehran did not reopen the strait by 8 PM on Tuesday.
Israeli tank fire killed UN peacekeeper in Lebanon, UNIFIL investigation finds
MEMO | April 7, 2026
A projectile that killed a UN peacekeeper in Lebanon last month was fired by an Israeli military tank, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said Tuesday, concluding its investigation into the deadly incident, Anadolu reports.
Based on analysis of the impact site and fragments recovered at the position, UNIFIL said the round was a 120mm tank main armament projectile fired by an Israeli Merkava tank from the east, in the direction of Ett Taibe.
UNIFIL noted that it had provided the Israeli military with the coordinates of all its positions and facilities March 6 and again March 22, weeks before the incident, in an effort to reduce risk to its personnel.
The peacekeeper was killed on the night of March 29 when a projectile struck a UNIFIL position near Adchit Al Qusayr. A second peacekeeper was critically injured in the strike. At the time, UNIFIL said the origin of the projectile was unknown and launched an investigation.
In its initial statement, UNIFIL said deliberate attacks on peacekeepers constituted grave violations of international humanitarian law and UN Security Council Resolution 1701 that ended the 2006 Lebanon War, and could amount to war crimes.
IRGC commander declares ‘new phase’ of reprisal attacks against aggressors
Press TV – April 7, 2026
Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force has declared the start of a “new phase” in Iran’s retaliatory operations against the US aggression, as the elite force warned earlier that any violation of red lines by the enemies will trigger a crushing response.
Posting a video on social platform UpScrolled, Brigadier General Seyyed Majid Mousavi said, “And now, the new phase of the war [has begun] with fresh, twin launchers for Fateh and Kheibar Shekan missiles, all previous strikes doubled.”
In a statement announcing the launch of the wave 99 of Operation True Promise 4, the IRGC reiterated that Iran “has not been and will never be the one to initiate attacks on civilian targets.”
However, it added that the IRGC “will not hesitate to retaliate against despicable aggressions on civilian facilities.”
In response to any further attack on Iran’s civilian infrastructure, the IRGC forces “will inflict such damage on the infrastructure of the US and its partners that they will be deprived of the region’s oil and gas for years to come.”
The IRGC said that Washington’s regional allies need to be aware of the fact that the IRGC has so far “shown great restraint and exercised caution in selecting its targets for retaliation, out of respect for good neighborly relations.”
But the Iranian Armed Forces, the statement added, will cast aside all such considerations and self-restraint from now on.
Since the US launched its illegal war against Iran on February 28, the country’s civilian infrastructure has repeatedly been targeted in flagrant violation of international law.
In response to the aggression, Iran’s Armed Forces have carried out daily missile and drone attacks on American assets and bases in the region.
Under growing pressure at home to end the war, US President Donald Trump has once again threatened that he would bomb Iran’s bridges and power plants if the Islamic Republic does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran has imposed restrictions on passage through the strait, days after the start of the military aggression, saying ships related to the aggressors could not use the waterway.
Striking Iran’s Infrastructure Would Have Little Military Impact – Report
Sputnik – 07.04.2026
US threats to target Iran’s electricity grid, refineries, and desalination plants would have devastating consequences for civilians while offering little military advantage, even the US-based Atlantic Council acknowledged.
“Striking Iran’s water-related infrastructure will immediately spark a crisis of disease, hunger, and thirst among Iran’s civilian population,” the report said.
The report also warns that targeting Iran’s infrastructure risks destabilizing the entire region. Gulf states, heavily dependent on energy-intensive desalination, could face severe water shortages within days if tensions escalate.
Rather than weakening Iran militarily, such actions could deepen mistrust of the United States and further aggravate the regional conflict.
“Destroying Iran’s civilian energy and water infrastructure would likely only serve to prolong and escalate the conflict,” the authors warn.
Earlier, US President Donald Trump threatened Iran with strikes on its civilian infrastructure in multiple posts on Truth Social.
What’s Behind U.S./Israeli Strikes On Iranian Pistachio Factories?
Inside The Role Zionist Billionaires Lynda and Stewart Resnick Have Played In Shaping The Iran War
The Dissident | April 6, 2026
Open source reports have indicated that “The pistachio warehouses of Iranian Pistachio Company near Rafsanjan Airport were targeted by American/Israeli fighter jets in the first week of Farvardin”, “ which has been described as “the heart of Iran’s pistachio industry.”
This strike was likely a gift to Lynne and Stewart Resnick, the Zionist billionaires who own the California-based Wonderful company, the largest producer of pistachios in the world.
Investigative journalist Yasha Levine has documented that Lynne and Stewart Resnick took over the pistachio market after the U.S. embargo on Iran in 1979, noting that, “For as long as anyone can remember, Iran had been the world’s main supplier of pistachios. But Carter’s 1979 embargo on the country effectively cut off Iranian pistachio growers from the American market and created a need for alternative pistachio production, which was virtually nonexistent in the United States.” Adding, “the Resnicks began to snap up thousands of acres from Mobil Oil and Texaco in order to create pistachio and almond orchards. They steadily bought up more and more acreage all through the 1980s for rock-bottom prices because of a long period of drought. By the end of the decade, the Resnicks had amassed enough farmland to rival Oligarch Valley’s biggest and oldest billionaire farmer clans: 100,000 acres—nearly 160 square miles—growing cotton, pistachios, almonds, oranges, lemons and grapefruit. They didn’t just grow the crops, but packaged, processed and distributed them as well.”
In a 2008 interview with the Independent, Stewart Resnick stated his desire to keep up American hostilities with Iran in order to corner the pistachio market.
“Three years ago, with the flourish of a visionary, pistachio king Stewart Resnick, the chief executive of processor Paramount Farms, started paying growers about twice what they were used to getting for their nuts,” the Independent noted, adding:
“How does one create enough demand for the increased supply that’s coming on in the industry?” Mr Resnick asked at a Paramount conference last week in Monterey.
His answer: export them, especially to Europe. Paramount plans to sell 300 million pounds of pistachios around the world over the next five years, with Europe representing nearly a third of that target.
The article added, “Along the way, it will run into its old foe, Iran. The man on Paramount’s front line taking on the challenge is the vice-president of worldwide sales, Mark Masten. ‘We don’t mind stealing share from the Iranians,’ he declared last week.”
As Yasha Levine has documented, Resnick has helped keep American hostilities with Iran going by funding neocon and Zionist think tanks lobbying for a hawkish American policy towards Iran.
“Economic sanctions are what have allowed the Resnicks to create their pistachio empire, which would suffer a severe blow if relations with Iran were ever normalized. Iran’s pistachios are considered to be superior to America’s, so much so that Israelis still buy Iranian pistachios shipped in through Turkey” Levine noted, adding that the “Resnicks did what any smart and ruthless American would do: they made common cause with oil companies, Islamophobes, neocons and Likudniks, and began funneling money to think tanks and political advocacy groups that take a hardline approach with Iran. Economic sanctions, sabotage, vilification—all these things worked in the Resnicks’ interest. Bombing some of Iran’s pistachio fields wouldn’t be so bad, either”.
Levine documented that:
Tax filings from 2008 show that Stewart Resnick and his wife Lynda are on the board of trustees of the highly influential Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank, which was created as an AIPAC spin-off in the ’80s. In the realms of US government mid-east policy and media reporting about the region, the think tank is considered to be one of the most influential in the country. It is also ridiculously hawkish on Iran, calling for heavy sanctions and military strikes against the country. In 2005, the Resnick Foundation gave $20,000 to the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy. Unfortunately, the real amount of money the Resnicks have given to the institute is hard to gauge, as any funds that did not go through their personal foundation would not have to be reported on any of their IRS documents.
Stewart Resnick is also board member of the American Friends of IDC, a not-for-profit foundation that serves as the fundraising arm of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, a think tank with close links to the Israeli intelligence and military establishment. Like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Herzliya is considered to be the most influential think tank in Israel on security matters. American Friends of IDC funneled $10 million to Herzliya in 2006.
Yasha Levine noted in 2018 that , “Stewart and Lynda Resnick are donors and supporters of of some of the most powerful and influential neoconservative organizations in America, including the AIPAC spinoff WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy) where they have been on and off the board for over a decade. WINEP has been extremely hawkish on Iran. One of its executives has openly called on Israel to provoke a war with Iran in order to pull in the United States.”
“Through their family foundation, the Resnicks have also funneled money to the American Jewish Committee, which is one of the most active lobbyists pushing for a sweeping Iran sanctions bill that was eventually signed into law by Obama in 2010,” Levine added.
He also documented in 2024 that the Resnicks, have “given anywhere from $500,000 to $200,000 to the Israeli military every year, with most of it funneled through an outfit called the American Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces”, noting that this is done through a convergence of their loyalty to Israel and their pistachio monopoly “based off of U.S. meddling in the Middle East”.
Levine noted this January :
The Resnicks’ personal Zionist politics and their business politics are very much in alignment. It’s also very circular because American foreign policy created the Resnicks’ business: US meddling in Iran and subsequent economic sanctions created the conditions for the emergence of California’s pistachio industry. Then profits from that industry circulate and cycle right back into this imperial machine that works to basically create a consensus in America that Iran is our greatest enemy. When I first started reporting on the Resnicks back in 2009, there were numerous domestic Jewish lobby groups who were lobbying against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. At the time, the Resnicks were giving a lot of money to those Jewish organizations. Then, over the years, they have donated millions to American Friends of the IDF and sat on the board of the hawkish Middle East policy think tank, Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They are recycling their profits right back into supporting the imperial logic that made their business possible.
While America is losing the war with Iran, the Resnicks seem to be profiting from their investment in the war.
The New York Times reported :
More than a month into the war with Iran, ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is at historically low levels, which has stymied exports from the region.
The potential removal of a major player in the market is good news for farmers in California, who are likely to get higher prices for their pistachios.
“With this war, it’s going to limit what Iran is able to do, able to ship, to customers in Europe and China,” said Adam Orandi, who farms 1,600 acres of pistachio orchards in the San Joaquin Valley. His father imported saplings from Iran in the 1970s.
Given this context, the U.S./Israeli strikes on Iranian pistachio warehouses can be best seen as a gift to Lynne and Stewart Resnick, who have funded the Zionist and Neo-con lobbies behind the war based on a convergence of their Zionist loyalties and desire to corner the pistachio and take out a potential competitor.
Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Military DIVIDED? Iran’s Secret Defense EXPOSED
Dialogue Works | April 6, 2026
An intense discussion on escalating U.S.–Iran tensions highlights internal divisions within the U.S. military and claims of miscalculation in confronting Iran’s long-prepared defense systems. The interview argues Iran’s capabilities remain largely intact, with underground bases and strategic planning shaping its response. It emphasizes regional involvement, warning that Gulf states hosting U.S. forces are deeply entangled. The conversation frames the conflict as potentially catastrophic globally, with risks to energy routes, economies, and civilian infrastructure, while stressing that continued escalation could trigger widespread retaliation and long-term geopolitical consequences.
The End of NATO
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – April 6, 2026
The war between the United States and Iran has become not only a military crisis in the Middle East but also a turning point for the transatlantic alliance, exposing deep divisions between Washington and its European allies.
When Donald Trump publicly derided NATO as a “paper tiger” and threatened to withdraw the United States from the alliance over Europe’s refusal to back the Iran war, it signaled more than frustration; it exposed a strategic rupture. As this conflict unfolds, Washington is discovering that military strength without allied support is not dominance, but isolation. The Iran war may yet end on the battlefield, although it is unlikely to be a US victory. But politically, it is already reshaping—and dramatically weakening—the foundations of American global power.
War without Allies
When Britain’s prime minister insisted he would act in the national interest “whatever the noise,” it was a quiet but consequential rebuke to Washington. He was quite clear in stating that it is “increasingly clear” that the UK’s “long-term national interest requires closer partnership with our allies in Europe and with the European Union.” For decades, the United Kingdom has been the United States’ most dependable ally in war. Its hesitation now signals something larger: the transatlantic alliance is no longer aligned. The coherence of NATO has long depended on a core axis between Washington and London, around which broader European consensus could be built. If that axis weakens, alliance cohesion becomes far more difficult to sustain. It is already happening.
Several key NATO members have moved beyond rhetorical caution to operational resistance, directly constraining US military options. France, for instance, said that it was “surprised” by Trump’s comments singling out Paris for not authorizing planes headed to Israel to fly over its territory, saying it had been its position from the start of the war with Iran. “We are surprised by this tweet. France has not changed its position since day one (of the conflict), and we confirm this decision,” President Emmanuel Macron’s office said. France has restricted US-linked military overflights, emphasizing that it will not be drawn into an escalatory campaign. Spain has gone further, closing its airspace to US aircraft involved in the conflict. Italy has limited access to key bases. Across Europe, governments have converged on a clear position: this is not a NATO mission.
These decisions carry operational consequences. Denial of airspace and basing rights complicates logistics, lengthens supply routes, and raises the cost of sustained military action. More importantly, they signal a breakdown in political alignment. NATO’s strength has never been its hardware alone, but the assumption that its members would act together in moments of crisis. That assumption no longer holds.
Washington’s Escalation—Against Allies
The US response to this divergence has been to intensify pressure rather than adjust strategy. Donald Trump has publicly criticized NATO allies for failing to support the war, warning that the United States may reconsider its commitment to the alliance.
This rhetoric has been reinforced by policy signals. US officials have raised questions about the conditionality of American security guarantees, and the Pentagon has notably declined to unequivocally reaffirm NATO’s collective defense principle, suggesting that such commitments ultimately depend on presidential discretion.
This introduces a fundamental shift. NATO is being recast—not as a defensive alliance bound by mutual obligation, but as a flexible arrangement contingent on alignment with US policy. For European governments, this is a redefinition they are unwilling to accept. The result is an emerging confrontation within the alliance itself. The United States is demanding support for a war of choice; its allies are insisting on the limits of NATO’s mandate. Neither position is easily reconciled, both in the short- and long-term scenarios.
NATO’s Institutional Limits Are Now Visible
What the Iran war has exposed is not simply political disagreement, but the structural limits of NATO itself. The alliance was never designed to function as an instrument of unilateral wars. Its legal and strategic foundation rests on collective defense, not discretionary intervention.
This distinction is embedded in the North Atlantic Treaty itself. Article 5—the alliance’s core commitment—applies specifically to an armed attack against a member state. It is this clause that triggered NATO’s only collective military response after 9/11. The current conflict with Iran, by contrast, does not meet that threshold. It is not a case of collective defense, but of strategic choice.
Even Article 4, which allows members to consult when territorial integrity or security is threatened, underscores the importance of consensus. Consultation is a prerequisite for collective action, not a substitute for it. The relative absence of meaningful prior consultation in the Iran case has only reinforced European reluctance. The United States, however, appears to be operating on a different interpretation, one in which leadership permits strategic latitude, and alliances are expected to align accordingly. This is a purely hegemonic posture that European allies of the alliance are finding increasingly hard to absorb. This gap between treaty-bound obligations and political expectations now lies at the heart of the transatlantic divide.
What Does the Future Look Like?
Europe’s resistance to the Iran war is not temporary dissent; it is an operationalization of long-discussed strategic autonomy. France, Germany, Spain, and even the United Kingdom are signaling that NATO membership does not automatically translate into compliance with American initiatives. They are asserting the right to define their own limits of engagement.
This shift has immediate and long-term consequences. NATO may remain institutionally intact, i.e., even if the US does not formally withdraw, but its coherence as a unified military actor has already eroded. Operational planning, rapid deployment, and logistical coordination can no longer assume automatic access or unquestioned support. The alliance is entering a new phase in which cooperation is conditional, negotiated, and selective.
For the United States, the implications are profound. Military superiority alone is no longer sufficient to secure collective action. Leadership depends, more than ever, on persuasion, diplomacy, and the alignment of interests, not simply on capabilities.
The Iran war has thus done more than challenge US military objectives. It has forced NATO to confront a question that has been brewing for years: what is the alliance for, and how much independence will its members exercise? In Trump’s mind, members have no real independence. They are expected to pay more for defence, i.e., spend 5% of their GDP on NATO, and mobilize support as and when the US demands.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
37 days of war on Iran cost US staggering $42bln, tracker shows
Al Mayadeen | April 6, 2026
The US aggression against Iran has cost American taxpayers over $42.1 billion in nearly 37 days of war, according to the Iran War Cost Tracker portal.
The portal’s real-time tracking is based on a Department of War briefing for the US Congress on March 10, which stated that Washington spent $11.3 billion in the first six days of its aggression on Iran and plans to spend an additional $1 billion each subsequent day of the war.
Trump requests $1.5 trillion defense budget as war costs spiral
On Friday, US President Donald Trump asked Congress to enact a $2.2 trillion budget for discretionary programs, seeking a massive increase in defense spending, while also renewing his push for steep cuts to domestic agencies.
The budget proposal released on Friday requests $1.5 trillion for defense, a significant increase over the $1 trillion sought for fiscal year 2026. The new figure includes $1.1 trillion in base discretionary spending for the Department of War and another $350 billion in mandatory spending as the US carries out its war on Iran.
The sharp increase in military spending comes as the United States remains engaged in a war that has driven up costs and placed a growing strain on financial and military resources. The war cost Washington more than $11 billion in its first six days alone, with estimates placing daily expenditures at between $1 billion and $2 billion. Munitions stockpiles have been drawn down significantly, raising concerns about sustainability and replenishment.
War costs could reach hundreds of billions
Short-term projections from weeks ago cited by The Intercept suggest that the war could push costs to $250 billion in its eighth week, if it drags on this long.
A government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged the uncertainty of these figures, telling The Intercept that “it’s a back-of-the-napkin estimate,” while another official told the outlet, “They really have no idea of the real cost.”
The proposed budget also aligns with a broader military buildup that includes investments in missile systems, naval assets, and advanced fighter jets, signaling preparations that extend beyond immediate battlefield needs. Against this backdrop, the proposed budget reflects a broader reallocation of resources toward sustaining prolonged military operations, while partially offsetting rising expenditures through cuts to domestic spending.
The budget blueprint comes ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections, with Republicans aiming to preserve their narrow control of both chambers of Congress. The proposal is also likely to face scrutiny from lawmakers who have already raised concerns over the scale of war-related spending and its long-term fiscal impact.
For American taxpayers, the message is clear: as the war on Iran grinds on with no end in sight, the costs continue to mount. And the administration’s solution is not to end the war, but to pour even more money into it, all while cutting domestic programs that ordinary Americans rely on.
Whether Congress will approve Trump’s request remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the price of this war has only begun to be counted.
Baghdad tells Asian refiners, traders to begin loading Iraqi crude amid Iranian exemption
The Cradle | April 6, 2026
Baghdad has told Asian traders and refiners they can begin loading Iraqi oil into tankers for transit through the Strait of Hormuz following an Iranian exemption to transit the strategic waterway.
After the US and Israel began their unprovoked attack on Iran over one month ago, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, threatening to target vessels linked to the US and Israel with missile and drone strikes.
The move forced Iraq to cut its oil production by some 70 percent, as Baghdad had no major alternate route for exporting oil, which funds 90 percent of the state budget, and as its oil storage facilities quickly reached capacity.
Iraqi oil exports subsequently plunged by roughly 97 percent, to an average of 99,000 barrels per day (bpd).
However, in a notice sent on Sunday, Iraq’s State Organization for Marketing of Oil (SOMO) announced that Iraqi oil shipments were now “exempt from any potential restrictions.”
It asked Asian buyers to begin loading crude into vessels, saying export terminals, including in the city of Basra on the Persian Gulf, were “fully operational.”
According to Bloomberg, it was not immediately clear if the Iranian exemption would apply to all Iraqi oil or just the tankers owned by SOMO.
“Buyers expressed caution about the move,” the financial news outlet added.
The Ocean Thunder, a tanker carrying a million barrels of Iraqi crude, crossed the narrow strait on Sunday.
Iraq often sells oil on a free-on-board basis, meaning refiners arrange their own shipping. Asian buyers speaking to Bloomberg said they were seeking additional information, including whether Iraq would allow the use of its own tankers for extra security.
Transit of vessels through Hormuz has not only been hampered by Iranian threats, but by massive increases in maritime insurance premiums, as well as outright cancellations of insurance policies by western insurers.
Bloomberg notes that the number of vessels transiting through Hormuz has increased over the past week but remains at a “trickle” compared to before the war.
On 18 March, Baghdad reached a deal with leaders of the Iraqi Kurdistan region to resume oil exports via pipeline to Turkiye, though the volume the pipeline can hold is too small to make up for the disruptions of exports from Basra through Hormuz.
Roughly 300,000 bpd are now exported via the pipeline in the Kurdistan Region through Turkiye’s Ceyhan port.
This may aid Israel’s oil security, as Tel Aviv receives much of its oil from Azerbaijan, which ships to Ceyhan via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. From there, Israel can import crude via oil tankers transiting to Haifa on the Mediterranean Sea.
Under fire, Moscow and Tehran close ranks
US–Israeli escalation is accelerating, rather than weakening, the Russia–Iran axis, reshaping the Caspian into a contested strategic corridor.
By Hazal Yalin | The Cradle | April 6, 2026
Hours after the US and Israel – increasingly referred to in some circles as the “Epstein coalition” – attacked Iran on 28 February, Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a sharply worded response, describing the assault as “a deliberate, premeditated, and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state, in direct violation of the fundamental principles and norms of international law.”
When interpreting diplomatic texts in general – and Russia’s statements in particular, given its near-obsessive adherence to traditional diplomacy – the importance of terminology is often overlooked. The concept of “aggression” is not an ordinary one; it signifies a violation of the very spirit of the UN Charter, especially Article 2(4).
A firm response to aggression
Just as significant as its use is its absence elsewhere. Aside from Russia, North Korea, and Cuba, no other state initially used the term “aggression” in condemning the attack—not even China, which only adopted the wording after 2 March.
This framing has been consistent across Russian statements and in President Vladimir Putin’s diplomatic readouts. At the same time, Moscow has walked a careful line in its engagement with Persian Gulf monarchies.
While avoiding endorsement of Iranian strikes on US and Israeli-linked targets in the Gulf, Russian officials have repeatedly stressed that the central issue remains US–Israeli aggression—and that criticism of Iran cannot be allowed to obscure this.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov captured this balance on 5 March during the Ambassadorial Roundtable on the Ukraine crisis. While opposing Iranian strikes on Gulf states and questioning their military utility, he warned that “Simply saying that Iran has no right to do anything effectively means openly encouraging the United States and Israel to continue what they are doing.”
In line with this approach, Russia (and China) did not veto the UN Security Council resolution on 11 March condemning Iran. However, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Vasiliy Nebenzya, stated that the resolution was one-sided and “confused cause and effect.”
This stance is largely linked to the UAE’s critical role in facilitating capital movement for Russia under western sanctions.
Israeli irritation and escalation
Such an uncompromising definition of aggression – and the Kremlin’s apparent decision to avoid even routine contact with the Israeli government – was never likely to pass unnoticed in Tel Aviv.
The first notable rupture came via an interview with Israeli army spokesperson Anna Ukolova on Radio RBK. Referencing reports that Israel had hacked Tehran’s traffic cameras to track Iranian officials, she was asked whether similar access existed in Moscow. Her response was striking:
“The elimination of key figures – the leadership of all these proxy groups, including Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei – already demonstrates that we possess quite formidable capabilities, and that no one who seeks to do us harm will go unscathed.”
“Then again, the question is: Who would want to do us harm? I hope that, at this moment, Moscow does not wish Israel ill. I want to believe that.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist government has traditionally adopted a cautious and diplomatic stance in relations with Russia. Even if it had decided to shift toward open hostility, one would expect it to do so through diplomatic, economic, or even, at most, fifth-column activities within Russia. Ukolova’s direct threat – drawing a parallel of “elimination” against the Russian leadership – was unprecedented.
Attack on Bandar Anzali
The remark itself might have been dismissed as bluster were it not followed by something far more consequential: Israel’s reported strike on Iran’s Bandar Anzali Port on the Caspian coast.
The attack was first reported on 18 March by Israel’s Channel 12 as an “unusual attack” carried out 1,300 kilometers from Israeli territory.
Curiously, western media remained silent on the matter for some time. In Russia, Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov initially stated on 20 March that he had no information about it. When asked how Moscow would view a situation where the conflict escalated to engulf the Caspian Sea region, he said: “Russia would view it extremely negatively.”
Later that same day, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova confirmed the strike, warning that the Caspian Sea basin has always been regarded “as a safe zone of peace and cooperation. The aggressors’ reckless and irresponsible actions pose a threat of dragging Caspian states into an armed conflict.”
She also stressed that Bandar Anzali is “an important trade and logistics hub that is actively used in Russian–Iranian trade, including for food deliveries. The strike has affected the economic interests of Russia and the other Caspian states that maintain transport communications with Iran via that port.” Two days later, Peskov noted that the conflict was “showing a tendency to expand its boundaries.”
Because there is a general tendency to follow events through the lens of London or Washington, The story only gained wider traction on 24 March, when the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ran it as a headline: “Israel Hits Russian–Iranian Weapons Smuggling Route in the Caspian Sea.”
Casting a sovereign logistics corridor as “smuggling” recodes the strike as pre-emptive policing rather than escalation. The same report noted that the attack threatened Iran’s food supply and signaled Israel’s capacity to inflict broader civilian hardship – language that treats civilian suffering as a strategic message.
Russia’s public response was strong – and predictably so – for two reasons.
The Caspian legal order
First, the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Unlike other bodies of water, the Caspian falls outside the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Its governance is defined instead by the 2018 Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea, agreed upon by its five littoral states.
Under this framework, all decisions concerning the Caspian must be made jointly by the five littoral states – Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Non-littoral states are prohibited from maintaining a military presence (Article 3/6), and littoral states cannot allow their territory to be used for aggression against one another (3/7). Navigation security is a shared responsibility (3/9).
An attack carried out by a non-littoral actor via the Caspian undermines not only these provisions but the broader stability they are meant to guarantee.
While no explicit breach of Articles 3/6 or 3/7 has been formally identified, the presence of Israeli, US, and British military and intelligence networks – particularly in Azerbaijan – is widely acknowledged. This latent infrastructure adds a further layer of tension.
The strike on Bandar Anzali directly engages Article 3/9. It represents a breach of navigational security by an external actor, placing responsibility on all littoral states. Yet, aside from Russia and Iran, none have responded – an omission that speaks as loudly as any formal position.
Trade routes and strategic depth
The second factor is more straightforward: geography. The Caspian is the primary trade corridor between Russia and Iran, and Bandar Anzali is one of its key nodes.
This trade is not limited to civilian goods. Since the signing of the “comprehensive strategic partnership agreement” on 17 January 2025, it is widely understood that military logistics also transit this route.
The agreement was signed in Moscow on 17 January 2025 by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. It was approved by the Russian State Duma on 8 April 2025, signed by Putin on 21 April 2025, approved by the Iranian parliament on 21 May 2025, endorsed by the Guardian Council on 11 June 2025, and entered into force on 2 October 2025.
As previously noted by The Cradle, the agreement is not a binding mutual defense pact but a statement of strategic intent. Russia’s threshold for military support hinges on legal framing – specifically, whether an action qualifies as “aggression” in terms Moscow recognizes. Iran, for its part, has resisted any arrangement that would allow foreign military use of its territory.
Still, the agreement is far from symbolic. It outlines extensive cooperation in defense, security, and intelligence, and explicitly commits both sides to countering third-party interference across the Caspian, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and West Asia.
Articles 4, 5, and 6 set out broad military and security cooperation frameworks, while Articles 4/1 and 4/2 specifically formalize intelligence exchange, experience-sharing, and operational coordination between the two countries’ security and intelligence services.
Iran, US receive Pakistan-mediated plan for ceasefire then final deal
Al Mayadeen | April 6, 2026
Iran and the United States have received a plan to end hostilities that could come into effect on Monday and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reported, citing a source aware of the proposals.
A framework to end the US-Israeli war on Iran has been put together by Pakistan and exchanged with Tehran and Washington overnight, the source told Reuters, outlining a two-tier approach with an immediate ceasefire followed by a comprehensive agreement.
“All elements need to be agreed today,” the source said, adding the initial understanding would be structured as a memorandum of understanding finalized electronically through Pakistan, the sole communication channel in the talks.
Pakistan as mediator
Axios first reported on Sunday that the United States, Iran, and regional mediators were discussing a potential 45-day ceasefire as part of a two-phase deal that could lead to a permanent end to the war, citing US, Israeli, and regional sources.
The source told Reuters that Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, has been in contact “all night long” with US Vice President JD Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Under the proposal, a ceasefire would take effect immediately, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, with 15 to 20 days to finalize a broader settlement. The deal, tentatively dubbed the “Islamabad Accord”, would include a regional framework for the Strait, with final in-person talks to be held in Islamabad.
Iran rejects opening Hormuz in exchange for ‘temporary ceasefire’
Meanwhile, a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Monday that Iran will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for a “temporary ceasefire”, adding that Tehran views Washington as lacking the readiness for a permanent ceasefire.
The official confirmed Iran had received Pakistan’s proposal for an immediate ceasefire and was reviewing it, adding that Tehran does not accept being pressured to accept deadlines and make a decision.
Two Pakistani sources said Iran has yet to commit despite intensified civilian and military outreach.
“Iran has not responded yet,” one source said, adding that proposals backed by Pakistan, China, and the United States for a temporary ceasefire have drawn no commitment so far.
The final agreement is expected to include Iranian commitments not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief and the release of frozen assets, the source said.
Iran’s approach
For Tehran, the calculus is clear: any agreement must include guarantees that the United States and “Israel” will not use the ceasefire to regroup and launch any attacks in the future. Having been burned by previous negotiations, most notably when Iran engaged in good-faith talks with the US only to see them bomb Iranian territory, Iranian officials are understandably cautious.
As the Monday deadline approaches, the world waits to see whether Tehran will sign onto a deal that, on paper, offers sanctions relief and an end to hostilities, but in practice, offers few assurances that the aggressors will not strike again.
Pakistan mediation not new
Pakistan first publicly signaled its mediation role in the escalating US-Israeli war in late March 2026, when Islamabad offered to help facilitate indirect talks and relay messages between Washington and Tehran. This came as the war involving Iran entered its second month, heightening fears of wider regional instability.
On March 24, 2026, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Pakistan was ready to host talks and promote a diplomatic path toward peace, emphasizing that Islamabad stood “ready and honoured” to support meaningful negotiations.
By March 26, 2026, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed that Pakistan was relaying a 15‑point US proposal to Iranian officials as part of indirect peace efforts. He acknowledged that media speculation had grown but said Islamabad was working discreetly to keep communication lines open.
Pakistan’s role gained broader visibility as it worked with other regional capitals, including Turkiye and Egypt, to prepare the ground for diplomatic engagement and explore avenues to reduce hostilities.
Featured Video
Prof John Mearsheimer TRUMP WILL BE FORCED TO CUT A DEAL w/IRAN
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Not Hamas-Israeli conflict: The Palestinian cause belongs to the world
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | October 15, 2023
This, in his thinking, could only mean one thing: “Never before has Israel stood more honored and revered by the nations of the world.”
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Guatemala Admits U.S. Pressure Over Cuban Doctors
- France investigates possible Israeli company interference in local elections
- Mark Rutte wants to triple military aid to Zelensky, with Western taxpayers footing the bill
- NATO member’s government collapses after Ukrainian drone incident
- Aafia Siddiqui and Pakistan’s bargain with American gulags
- UAE launches Muslim Shia crackdown under cover of ‘Iran-linked terror’ claims
- Trump Visits Beijing In a World Washington No Longer Controls
- Prof John Mearsheimer TRUMP WILL BE FORCED TO CUT A DEAL w/IRAN
- Hantavirus, the WHO, and the Conflicts in Weighing Mortality
- Russia says disputes over Iran, Greenland and Canada distract from Palestine
- If Americans Knew
- Microsoft fires head of Israeli subsidiary and other managers over surveillance of Palestinians
- The world no longer loves Israel (or, coincidentally, the US) – Daily Update
- Nakba Day is almost here, but every day is also Nakba Day – Daily Update
- Gaza: ‘Doctors Under Attack’ Wins Top Award After Being Shelved by the BBC
- The Nakba at 78: A statistical snapshot of Palestine
- Israel Expels Father Louis Salman from Palestine
- How Israel Turned Eurovision’s Stage Into a Soft Power Tool
- Palestinians in Jerusalem receive only 7% of housing units
- If not stopped, Israel will wipe out Christians from Palestine by 2050: Bethlehem pastor
- Hidden Deep in an NPR Story About a Man Who Threatened to Kill Jews at Cornell… He Admits He Did It to Make People Love Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
Aletho News 