IRAN ISSUES NEW WARNING! /Lt Col Daniel Davis
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 10, 2026
The North Star with Shaun King | May 9, 2026
In the Fall of 2023, local, national, and even international news reported that a New York man made a series of threats against Jewish students and staff at Cornell University. A year later he was actually convicted and sentenced to nearly two years in prison for it.
It happened. Students there were actually afraid. I don’t want to pretend that they weren’t.
But there is one detail in this story that pretty much changes EVERYTHING.
According to NPR’s own reporting, the lawyer for Patrick Dai — the former Cornell student sentenced to 21 months in prison for making violent threats against Jewish students — said Dai made those threats as a “misguided attempt” to generate support for Israel and that he was a devout supporter of Israel. It was a false flag attack.
Patrick Dai, a former Cornell student from Pittsford, New York, pleaded guilty to one felony count of posting threats to kill or injure another person using interstate communications. According to the Department of Justice, Dai admitted that on October 28th and 29th, 2023, he posted anonymous threats to the Cornell section of an online discussion forum, including threats to shoot up 104 West, a Cornell dining hall that serves kosher meals and is located next to the Cornell Jewish Center.
The posts were vile.
They were criminal.
They terrorized Jewish students.
And Dai deserved serious consequences.
But that is not the whole story.
The part that should have been in the headline — or at least in the first few paragraphs — is that Dai’s own attorney said he was not acting out of hatred for Israel, but out of a desire to defend it. Except I had to literally scroll down TWELVE PARAGRAPHS to learn that the student was a Zionist who did it all to make people feel more sympathy for Israel.
NPR reported that Dai’s lawyer, Lisa Peebles, described his actions in a court filing as a “misguided attempt to highlight Hamas’ genocidal beliefs and garner support for Israel.” She said he believed the posts would create “blowback” against what he perceived as anti-Israel media coverage and pro-Hamas sentiment on campus.
Read that again.
According to his lawyer, he made threats against Jewish students to create sympathy for Israel.
That is not a small detail.
That is not a footnote.
That is the story.
Because if that defense claim is true, even partly true, then this was not just a case of antisemitic threats in the simple way NPR framed it. It was a false-flag-style propaganda act: a man allegedly posing as the very hatred he claimed to oppose in order to manipulate public opinion.
And NPR buried that fact deep inside the story.
That matters because media framing shapes public consciousness. Most people never read to paragraph 10 or 12 or 15. They read the headline. They skim the first few paragraphs. They absorb the frame. And the frame here was simple: a former Cornell student made antisemitic threats during a period of rising campus tension after October 7th.
But the buried fact makes the story more complicated and more politically explosive.
The threats were real. The fear was real. The crime was real. But according to the defense, the motive was not what the public would naturally assume.
That is the tension NPR should have centered.
To be fair, prosecutors rejected Dai’s explanation. NPR reported that federal prosecutors described his claims as “self-serving” and said they were contradicted by the threats themselves and by his later apology. The court also found that his conduct qualified as a hate crime under federal sentencing guidelines because he targeted Jewish students and substantially disrupted Cornell’s educational function. The Justice Department said the threats “terrorized the Cornell campus community for days and shattered the community’s sense of safety.”
That must be included.
But including the prosecution’s view does not erase the media problem.
The public deserved to know, from the start, that the defendant’s lawyer said this was an attempt to manufacture sympathy for Israel. Arab News, citing AFP, stated it much more directly:
Peebles told the court Dai was “pro-Israel” and made posts “in the guise of an anti-Semite Hamas extremist.”
That phrase should stop everybody cold.
“In the guise.”
Meaning, according to the defense, he was pretending.
If a Muslim student had posted fake Islamophobic threats against Muslims and later claimed he did it to generate sympathy for Palestine, do we honestly believe NPR would have buried that detail deep in the story?
No.
It would have been the headline.
It would have been the lead.
It would have been the entire frame.
We would have heard about hoaxes, manipulation, propaganda, radical activism, and fake victimhood. Every cable news panel would ask what this says about pro-Palestinian movements. Every politician who wanted to criminalize Palestine solidarity would use it as evidence.
But when the alleged motive points in the other direction — toward manufacturing support for Israel — suddenly the detail is handled delicately, carefully, quietly.
That is the double standard.
And it is not harmless.
Since October 2023, American media has repeatedly helped create an atmosphere where Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and anti-war students are treated as presumed threats. Their protests are scrutinized. Their chants are criminalized. Their grief is pathologized. Their politics are framed as danger before they are understood as dissent.
Meanwhile, this case involved a man who admitted to making horrific threats against Jewish students — and whose own lawyer said he did so to create backlash against anti-Israel sentiment.
That should have forced a deeper media conversation about how fear is manufactured, how propaganda works, and how quickly institutions accept narratives that benefit Israel.
Instead, the story was mostly folded back into the same familiar frame.
“Rising antisemitism.”
“Campus tensions.”
“Threats against Jewish students.”
Again, the threats were real. Jewish students were harmed. Nothing about Dai’s claimed motive changes the terror they experienced.
But motive matters.
Political context matters.
Media framing matters.
Because when a threat is allegedly staged to create sympathy for Israel, the public deserves to understand that clearly. Not as an afterthought. Not buried beneath official statements. Not softened into a detail most readers will miss.
The same media institutions that demand endless nuance when Israel bombs hospitals, schools, refugee camps, journalists, doctors, and children somehow lose their curiosity when a story might reveal pro-Israel manipulation.
That curiosity returns only when it can be aimed at Palestinians, Muslims, Arabs, immigrants, protesters, or anyone demanding an end to genocide.
This is why independent media matters.
Because the question here is not whether Dai should have been punished. He should have been.
The question is why one of the most important facts in the story was buried.
The question is why a case that may involve false-flag-style threats designed to “garner support for Israel” was still framed mainly as a straightforward example of antisemitic danger on campus.
The question is why American media is so much more comfortable telling stories that benefit Israel than interrogating stories that expose how support for Israel is manufactured.
That is the real story.
And NPR had it.
They just buried the lead.
Love and appreciate each of you.
Your friend and brother,
Shaun
Press TV – May 12, 2026
Yemen has written to the United Nations, calling for an end to over 10 years of blockade of the country and urging cessation of aggressive measures targeting the nation by the US and its allies.
Deputy Foreign Minister Abdulwahid Abu Ras denounced continuation of the “unjust blockade” in a letter addressed to the UN secretary general and the world body’s Security Council, Yemen’s official Saba news agency reported on Monday.
Continuation of the blockade, he added, “does not serve international peace and security.”
Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies launched the blockade as part of a full-scale war on March 26, 2015, with military, political, and logistical support from the United States and other Western states.
The war went on to claim the lives of tens of thousands of Yemenis, while consistently falling short of its main objective of restoring power to Yemen’s former Riyadh-friendly government.
The government had fled the country amid a power struggle, prompting Yemen’s popular resistance Ansarullah movement to start running state affairs.
Following a fragile UN-brokered ceasefire that was clinched in 2022, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Israeli regime waged many rounds of wholesale aggression against Yemen.
The attacks would seek to cripple Sana’a’s capability to stage solidarity strikes against Israeli targets in response to Tel Aviv’s war of genocide on the Gaza Strip.
According to the Yemeni official, “The continued hostile activities of the United States and its proxies will inflict greater damage on the region, and their consequences will be catastrophic.”
“The state of ‘neither war nor peace’ is no longer acceptable under any circumstances.”
Press TV – May 12, 2026
China has rejected Israel’s claims that Beijing provided support to Iran in manufacturing missiles.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told reporters on Tuesday that the accusations “are not grounded in facts.”
Beijing, he said, is “committed to promoting de-escalation and peace talks to bring about an end to the conflict” between Iran and the United States.
“We have made China’s position clear on multiple occasions. As a responsible major country, China always fulfills its due international obligations,” he added.
In an interview with CBS, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that during the joint US-Israeli aggression against Iran, China “gave a certain amount of support and particular components for missile manufacturing.”
Asked whether such support was continuing, he said, “Could be. Could be,” without providing further information.
Netanyahu’s controversial remarks came ahead of a planned visit to Beijing by US President Donald Trump.
The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman also condemned recent US sanctions on 12 individuals and entities over their alleged links to Iran, saying Beijing firmly opposes “unilateral sanctions.”
Guo said that the current “pressing priority” in West Asia is to “prevent, by all means, a relapse in fighting, rather than exploit the situation to throw mud at China.”
The US Treasury Department has imposed sanctions on 12 individuals and companies, several of them based in China and Hong Kong, for their alleged involvement in helping Iran “obtain weapons and the raw materials” necessary for its Shahed drones and ballistic missiles.
The department also threatened to take action against any foreign entities supporting what it called “illicit Iranian commerce,” including airlines, and to implement secondary sanctions on foreign financial institutions that assist Iran, even those connected to China’s independent oil refineries.
China, however, pushed back against the sanctions on Chinese refiners buying Iranian crude, invoking a “blocking rule” for the first time last week, directing companies not to comply with US sanctions.
Al Mayadeen | May 11, 2026
The producers of the documentary “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack” used their BAFTA TV Awards win on Sunday to publicly denounce the BBC for refusing to air the film, accusing the network of censoring coverage of “Israel’s” genocidal assault on Gaza and silencing voices that document the atrocities committed against Palestinian medical workers.
The documentary, originally commissioned by the BBC but never broadcast due to what the network called “concerns about impartiality” towards “Israel,” won in the current affairs category at the BAFTA ceremony in London. The film was eventually aired by Channel 4 and investigates the systematic targeting of medical personnel and healthcare infrastructure in Gaza during the ongoing genocide.
Journalist Ramita Navai delivered a speech while accepting the award, in which she stated that the occupation has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza and deliberately targeted hospitals and medical workers. According to the documentary’s investigation, more than 1,700 Palestinian health workers have been killed, and over 400 have been abducted by Israeli forces.
Citing United Nations language, Navai described “Israel’s” attacks against Gaza’s medical infrastructure and personnel as “medicide.” She concluded her remarks with a defiant message: “We refuse to be silenced and censored.”
Executive producer challenges BBC on camera
Executive Producer Ben De Pear, speaking during the acceptance speech, dedicated the award to journalists in Gaza who continue to work under extreme danger. He then directly addressed the BBC on camera, questioning whether the broadcaster would also cut their acceptance speech from the delayed broadcast of the ceremony.
De Pear’s challenge to the BBC adds renewed pressure on the network over its long-standing Zionist bias and controversial editorial decisions regarding coverage of Palestine.
The incident follows a report by a Freedom of Information NGO on April 16, 2026, revealing that BBC executives have met nine times with Zionist groups since the start of the genocide, compared to just once with pro-Palestinian organizations.
Furthermore, over 100 BBC staff signed an open letter on July 2, 2025, addressed to Director-General Tim Davie, accusing the broadcaster of acting as “a mouthpiece” for “Israel” and failing its own editorial standards.
The documentary team’s defiance at the BAFTA awards underscores a growing crisis of credibility for the BBC, as even its own journalists and the filmmakers it commissioned accuse the network of actively suppressing evidence of war crimes and genocide.
UK mainstream media has been constantly criticized for its coverage of “Israel’s” genocide on Gaza, sparking controversy for its journalistic biases that promote double standards through misinformation.
“The coverage of Gaza has several noticeable features. There have been instances of misleading and factually incorrect information being published throughout the last 10 months,” media analyst at the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) Faisal Hanif told Anadolu in September.
“Israel” killed two four-day-old newborn twins at their parents’ apartment in central Gaza in an airstrike as their father went to collect their birth certificates.
Western mainstream news outlets, including the BBC and Sky News, did not mention “Israeli strikes” in their headlines on their social media posts, prompting online users to ask “Killed by who?”
Hanif highlighted that many Western news outlets continue to refer to a fabricated story presented at the beginning of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, claiming the Palestinian resistance “beheaded babies.”
The media analyst emphasized that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to the debunked narrative in his address to the US Congress in July 2024, which the BBC reported verbatim without providing context for readers that investigative journalists determined the story to be a fabrication.
Press TV – May 11, 2026
In a noteworthy mea culpa from one of America’s most influential neoconservative commentators, Robert Kagan believes the United States has suffered a “total defeat” in its ongoing war against Iran, which has permanently shattered its global standing.
Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was a vocal advocate of the war against Iraq and a lifelong champion of American military interventions in West Asia.
But in a recent article for The Atlantic, he offered a grim verdict on the current war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, launched on February 28.
“The US suffered a total defeat,” Kagan writes, describing the loss as having no precedent in American history and one that can “neither be repaired nor ignored.”
While acknowledging that previous American military failures carried heavy costs, Kagan insists this war is fundamentally different in nature.
“The defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly but did not do lasting damage to America’s overall position in the world,” the prominent commentator writes.
“Defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character.”
At the heart of this catastrophe, Kagan noted, is Iran’s newfound ability to control the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most strategic waterway, without any challenge.
“Iran will be able not only to demand tolls for passage, but to limit transit to those nations with which it has good relations,” he writes.
According to Kagan, Iran has no interest in returning to the pre-war status quo. Most Persian Gulf states, he believes, will have no choice but to accommodate Tehran, effectively making Iran the dominant regional power.
“The United States will have proved itself a paper tiger, forcing the (Persian) Gulf and other Arab states to accommodate Iran,” Kagan writes.
He also dismisses any notion that a coalition of allies could rectify the situation.
“If the United States with its mighty Navy can’t or won’t open the strait, no coalition of forces with just a fraction of the Americans’ capability will be able to, either,” he states.
Kagan frames the collapse not as a regional setback but as a global strategic failure that fundamentally alters America’s position in the world.
“America’s once-dominant position in the (Persian) Gulf is just the first of many casualties,” he warns. “America’s allies in East Asia and Europe must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.”
Compounding the strategic humiliation is a staggering depletion of American military resources during the ongoing war, which has been widely documented in the US media.
“Just a few weeks of war with a second-rank power have reduced American weapons stocks to perilously low levels, with no quick remedy in sight,” Kagan writes.
He hastens to add that the United States now finds itself unable to control the consequences of a war it initiated – a war it has already lost.
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 10, 2026
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 10, 2026
By Trita Parsi | May 10, 2026
The Iranian counter-proposal is publicly rejected by Trump, but if WSJ reporting is correct, Tehran is trying to move closer to US demands, but not fully.
The US demands that the entire Iranian stockpile be shipped out of the country. In the past, Tehran rejected shipping any of it out; it only agreed to downblending it. In its latest proposal, however, it offers to have some of it diluted and the rest shipped to a third country. The exact proportions are unclear.
As I understand it, though thi sis not reported by the WSJ, Iran is also offering to accept an arrangement in which it will not need to enrich uranium at all for 12 years. This is not the 15-20 years Trump originally wanted, but longer than the 3-5 years Terhan originally offered.
That Iran is willing to pause enrichment at all is a significant concession that I am not sure is fully appreciated by the American side. Last time Iran did this, it backfired significantly.
As I explain in Treacheorus Alliance, through the mediation of the E3, Tehran agreed to a voluntary suspension of enrichment in 2003. This was a significant victory for European diplomacy.
Though the suspension was supposed to be temporary until a final solution was found, its duration was tied to the continuation of talks. Meaning, as long as the two sides continued to negotiate for a final agreement, Tehran was supposed to sustain the suspension.
But once Iran had suspended, Europe had achieved its main goal. It was in no rush to reach a final agreement because such an agreement would inevitably have Iran restart enrichment. The Iranians soon concluded that, intentional or not, the suspension had turned into a trap.
But the cost of the suspension mistake in their view only grew.
In August 2005, after two years of suspension, Iran announced it would restart enrichment. By January, enrichment recommenced.
Immediately, a crisis erupted, and only a month later, the IAEA Board of Governors referred Iran’s case to the UN Security Council (February 4, 2006).
This started the process that led to numerous UNSC sanctions being imposed on Iran.
In the Iranian narrative, the suspension trapped Iran into a scenario in which the world expected it not to enrich indefinitely, and Iran was then forced to pay a massive cost once it ended the voluntary suspension.
If Iran once again agrees to a moratorium or suspension – even if framed differently – the fear is that this will normalize Iran not enriching, and once Iran resumes enrichment for peaceful purposes after 12 or whatever years, a new crisis will erupt, and Iran will once again face sanctions and economic punishment.
Even though in this recent proposal to the US, the suspension is tied to Iran’s needs for two of its reactors, it is nevertheless a major Iranian concession.
Trump could easily point to this and declare victory.
It remains unclear to me why this and the stockpile have become so central in Trump’s perspective. His earlier red line was simply no nuclear weapons.
He shifted to no enrichment due to pressure from Israel in mid-2025. Still, for Trump to even agree to a 20-year moratorium is a deviation from the Israeli red line (Israel wants Iran to permanently cease enrichment).
But the insistence on shipping the entire stockpile out appears to be another example of Trump allowing America’s red lines to be replaced by Israel’s.
It would be a shame if the entire negotiation collapses over this issue.
By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | May 10, 2026
Far from a stroke of genius, the US Trump administration’s decision to impose its own blockade on the Strait of Hormuz was a reactionary act of desperation, not a real strategy. The reason behind this quickly became clear and led to immediate doubt, even from the US domestic corporate media.
On April 7, when US President Donald Trump declared a two-week temporary cessation of hostilities between his armed forces and Iran, he almost instantly faced an Israeli refusal to acknowledge that any such agreement had been struck. Not only did the Israelis violate the ceasefire agreement by launching a 10-minute terror bombing campaign on Beirut, which killed around 300 Lebanese, but they also began pressuring Washington to ensure that they could have their say on the course of Iran-US negotiations.
While the Iranians declared that the US had accepted their 10-point plan of demands, within 24 hours, the United States had signaled that it would respect none of them. This could have reasonably justified Iran continuing its campaign of self-defense, especially as US military assets continued to be transported into West Asia.
Instead, Tehran chose to ignore the fact that the very basis of the temporary ceasefire had been torn up in front of them, and the US was demanding precisely what it sought prior to its attack on Iran. The one thing that the Islamic Republic chose to do was to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed and impose its sovereignty over it, causing a real crisis for the Trump administration.
The Iranians just managed to fend off the world’s top military superpower, dealing blows to all of its allies and collaborators throughout the region while it was at it. At least 16 US military bases were smashed beyond recognition, many rendered inoperable, with the multi-million/billion dollar equipment losses numbering into the hundreds of units across the region.
Iran may have been fighting the US military, but the problem it faces and continues to face is that the commander-in-chief does not sit in Washington, but instead in Tel Aviv. Israel simply was not degraded to the extent that it saw a reason for the war to end, but the US, which was doing its bidding, had all but run out of options to achieve regime change.
This led to the ceasefire predicament. Because the next stop on the escalation ladder was a large-scale coordinated campaign of attacks against civilian infrastructure across Iran, which would inevitably trigger a retaliation in kind from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Although the escalation was evidently welcomed by the Israelis, if it still failed to achieve their goals, the repercussions regionally would have international implications.
Then came the temporary truce that Pakistan managed to mediate, likely by leading both sides on a bit too much, but it was nonetheless accepted by Washington and Tehran alike. As noted above, while the Iranians did manage to achieve a historic defensive victory of sorts, exceeding all expectations of it, neither side emerged as the decisive victor, and no one secured a long-term strategic victory.
Therefore, the opposing sides went back to the drawing board, re-arming themselves and preparing for the inevitable escalation ahead, while leaving the door open for negotiations. In a bid to keep the Iranians from escalating against the Israelis, the US decided to step in and execute a temporary strategy in Lebanon instead.
Tel Aviv had hoped to secure a “ceasefire” in Lebanon that enabled it to return to the 15-month ceasefire status quo that had existed prior to the regional war, bombing Lebanon at will as Hezbollah held its fire. That never materialized, which ended up leading the Israelis into a strategic military trap in southern Lebanon, one that Washington is attempting to undo by using their puppets in Beirut to undergo a process that will lead to another Lebanese civil war.
Meanwhile, Tehran, which was refusing to lift its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz until a full ceasefire in Lebanon, temporarily began allowing selected ships to transit the key chokepoint after paying a fee. This was quickly interrupted by not only the Israeli decision that they would not implement the ceasefire, but also the US aggression.
Trump’s uno-reverse-card strategy was then implemented, as the leadership in DC declared that they were going to blockade the blockade. Although this evidently has an impact on Iran’s economy, it was a failing strategy from the get-go, one designed to keep the President’s fragile ego stable, more than anything else.
The reason why it was so ridiculous to begin with is that it only further strained the international economy and sent oil prices surging further. When the Israel Lobby ordered Trump to unilaterally withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2018, the US’s ‘Maximum Pressure’ sanctions managed to dramatically impact Iran’s oil export rates. For around 33 months, Iran’s daily exports plummeted to around 350,000 barrels before later recovering to roughly 2.5 million barrels per day.
It will take at least three months for the Iranian economy to start truly suffering from the US’s blockade strategy, but such a long term economic pressure plan was always going to impact the US and its allies way more. The Islamic Republic has been under sanctions and suffered constant economic hurdles for 47 years, all at the hands of the US and its Western allies, which has led to a certain kind of sanctions immunity.
No routine exports for Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE for three more months will spell catastrophe for all of them. This will also have additional ramifications that are going to impact the entire planet. This means that the Iranians are simply being given time to re-arm, dig out their missile bases, rebuild sites struck by US-Israeli airstrikes, devise new military plans, all as their blockade squeezes the US and its allies.
In a way, it’s actually the perfect predicament for the Iranians to be in. Yes, they will suffer economically, but it isn’t like they haven’t been here before; their opposition has never had to go through such hardships. Hezbollah is also inflicting dozens of Israeli soldier casualties every day, while the Israeli population loses more and more confidence in their ability to achieve anything resembling victory in Lebanon.
All without having to endure round-the-clock airstrikes on their major cities like Tehran and Isfahan, all without losing assets or civilian life. Playing the game of who can outlast the other with the Iranians is a losing strategy, one that was born out of desperation.
These reasons, amongst others, were always going to force the US’s hand into yet another escalation. Israel won’t allow their puppet in the White House to retreat and bow down to Iran’s demands, while there is no way to achieve what Washington and Tel Aviv couldn’t through their war efforts.
In the future, the US has two major military options: Ground incursions into Iranian territory and a massive campaign of strikes against Iran’s civilian infrastructure, as was threatened prior to the temporary ceasefire. Neither will achieve regime change, but will inflict blows. The only thing standing in the way of a deal is Israel; until Israel is faced with strategic defeat, the war cannot fully end.
Even if there was some kind of diplomatic off-ramp that could hypothetically be found here, then the Israelis would simply go back to the drawing board and seek to escalate once again in the future. This is also why the Iranians had been so adamant on ending the war on all fronts, because the Israelis have to be subdued in order for Tehran to ensure that such an attack against it cannot happen again. The US may be seeking to kick the can down the road after failing to achieve its goals, but Iran seeks to prevent this.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
Press TV – May 10, 2026
Iran has submitted its official reply to the latest US proposal for reaching a deal that allows a permanent end to the US-Israeli war of aggression against the country.
Iran’s official IRNA news agency said in a Sunday report that the country had submitted its reply to the US proposal to Pakistan, which has mediated efforts aimed at ending the war of aggression.
IRNA said the reply insists that current negotiations between Iran and the US should solely focus on efforts to end the war, and other issues, including disputes surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, should be discussed at later stages of the talks.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry announced earlier this week that the country would submit its final response to the US proposal after carrying out deliberations and thorough examinations.
The US proposal had come in response to a 14-article plan submitted by Iran to allow a complete halt to the US-Israeli war of aggression.
The latest Iranian reply is focused on efforts to end the aggression on all fronts, including Israeli attacks on Lebanon, and to guarantee the security of shipping in the Persian Gulf.
Iran and the US held an intensive day of negotiations on April 11–12 in Islamabad, four days after Pakistan mediated a ceasefire to halt the US-Israeli aggression on Iran that had started in late February.
The talks collapsed over US maximalist demands, Iranian officials said.
A key sticking point in the current negotiations between Iran and the US is the restoration of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway in the Persian Gulf, which has come under Iranian control since the early days of the aggression.
Iran has indicated it is ready to reopen the Strait if the aggression ends permanently and the US lifts its illegal sanctions and blockade on the country.
Authorities in Tehran have said that a first phase of efforts to reach a deal must concentrate on shipping and sanctions, while signaling they are ready to discuss the country’s nuclear program in later stages of the talks with the US.
The Dissident | May 9, 2026
Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently came out against the idea of a non-partisan Anti-War and Anti-Zionist coalition between the populist left and right, through an attack on the former Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene.
“I personally do not trust someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene, a proven bigot and antisemite, on the issues of what is good for Gazans and Israelis,” AOC said, adding, “I don’t think that it benefits our movement, in that instance, to align the left with white nationalists, I don’t think it serves us”.
AOC faced major backlash for these comments, including from her own base of support, such as political commentator Cenk Uygur, who previously launched the Justice Democrats organization that helped AOC get elected, who said, “This is just terrible. She sounds just like the establishment. She’s attacking an opponent of Israel as an antisemite. This is exactly what Israeli supporters want – split the anti-war movement and the critics of Israel’s genocide. Deeply counterproductive. And selfish”, in response to AOC’s attack.
Through this attack on Marjorie Taylor Greene, AOC showcased her hypocrisy and what an unserious fraud she really is.
MTG Took On The Republicans Over Zionism, AOC Covered For The Democrats
Looking at AOC and MTG’s record on Zionism, and who was able to stand up to their own party over it, MTG’s record stands up to AOC’s.
As journalist Ryan Grim noted , “MTG sacrificed her political career to stand against genocide, against Trump, against the Epstein Class, and to defend the survivors of Epstein’s trafficking. If that doesn’t earn credibility, I don’t know what possibly could.”
When it came to Donald Trump backing the Israeli genocide in Gaza, Marjorie Taylor Greene bucked her own party and stood up to Donald Trump’s funding and arming of the genocide.
“It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza,” Greene said in July of 2025 , while Trump was in power, arming and funding the genocide.
The next month, she called on Trump to stop sending arms to fuel the genocide in Gaza, saying , “I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to pay for genocide in a foreign country against a foreign people for a foreign war that I had nothing to do with, and I will not be silent about it.”
MTG also introduced legislation to “cancel $500 million in funding for Israel’s missile defense system” in July of last year, saying, “My amendment would strike $500 million in funding for nuclear-armed Israel’s missile defense system, and it’s important to emphasize it that way. Israel is a nuclear-armed nation, which is very capable of defending themselves … I also want to point out that Israel bombed a Catholic church in Gaza, and that an entire population is being wiped out as they continue their aggressive war in Gaza”.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, in November of 2025, was pushed to resign from Congress after attacks and a primary campaign from the Trump administration because of her standing up to her own party over Zionism, as well as other issues such as the release of the Epstein Files.
“I have too much self-respect and dignity, love my family way too much, and do not want my sweet district to have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me by the President we all fought for, only to fight and win my election, while Republicans will likely lose the midterms. And in turn, be expected to defend the President against impeachment after he hatefully dumped tens of millions of dollars against me and tried to destroy me” MTG wrote in her resignation letter.
She added, “If I am cast aside by MAGA Inc and replaced by Neocons, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Military Industrial War Complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor class that can’t even relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well” adding, “When the common American people finally realize and understand that the Political Industrial Complex of both parties is ripping this country apart, that not one elected leader like me is able to stop Washington’s machine from gradually destroying our country, and instead the reality is that they, common Americans, The People, possess the real power over Washington, then I’ll be here by their side to rebuild it.”
No matter what one thinks about MTG, the truth is she stood up to her own party for selling out to the Zionist lobby and military industrial complex, and fought against its backing of the Genocide in Gaza, and lost her political career as a result.
The same cannot be said about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
When AOC similarly had the chance to stand up to the Biden administration over backing Israel’s genocide in Gaza, she blatantly lied to cover for Biden’s backing of the genocide.
Then Vice President and Democratic Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris, along with the Biden administration, AOC falsely said , was “working tirelessly to secure a cease-fire in Gaza and bringing the hostages home”.
In reality, Israeli officials and Biden administration officials have admitted to fully backing Israel’s genocide in Gaza and never once putting pressure on Israel to end it.
“At the most significant political peril of Joe Biden’s political career, the easiest thing for Joe Biden would have been, if he was worried about the votes in Michigan, is to basically be a little soft; he refused to do it. There was enormous pressure within the White House on him to change his position. When I hear comments about ‘he wasn’t good enough, or he didn’t have Israel’s back,’ am I disgusted by it? One hundred percent. Is it true? 100 percent no,” admitted the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, Thomas Nides, on Israeli TV .
In the same TV special, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Herzog, admitted, “God did the State of Israel a favor that Biden was the president during this period, because it could have been much worse. We fought for over a year, and the administration never came to us and said, ‘ceasefire now.’ It never did. And that’s not to be taken for granted.”
“After more than $20 Billion military support, largest in Israel history, 2 aircraft carriers rushed to the region, deterring a massive regional war, defeating Iran missile/drone attack x2, defending israel at most vulnerable moments, after SAVING countless lives of Israelis – only acceptable response to POTUS Biden and American people is THANK YOU”, the Biden administration advisor Amos Hochstein later admitted in response to claims from Benjamin Netanyahu that the Biden administration was not deferential enough to Israel and it’s genocide in Gaza.
Soon after, Philip H. Gordon, the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President of the United States under the Biden administration, admitted that , “Biden resisted enormous pressure to condition aid, as required by U.S. law, even as Israel rebuffed calls to facilitate more humanitarian assistance and reduce civilian casualties”.
Furthermore, when it comes to a weapons embargo on Israel, Marjorie Taylor Greene goes further than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
AOC voted against MTG’s aforementioned amendment to cut off U.S. funding to Israel, stating that she favoured funding “defensive” weapons for Israel while it was in the middle of committing a modern-day Holocaust in Gaza.
AOC wrote on Twitter:
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza. Of course I voted against it.
What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue.
I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end. That is a simple and clear difference of opinion that has long been established.
I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza.
In reality, as Dylan Saba noted in Jewish Currents, “By almost entirely negating the ability of militant groups in Gaza to respond to Israel’s incursions, the purportedly defensive Iron Dome allows Israel to strike without fear of repercussion”.
He wrote, “because the cost is so low when measured in Israeli casualties, Israel can wage perpetual war without suffering domestic political consequences, and is under negligible pressure to pursue diplomacy with the Palestinians” adding, “while the Iron Dome may prevent the deaths of Israeli non-combatants, it has made it easier for Israel to engage in deadly operations that take Palestinian lives”.
AOC’s Hypocrisy On Working With ‘White Nationalists’
AOC’s main argument for not working with conservatives like Marjorie Taylor Greene on anti-war issues was over her labeling of Marjorie Taylor Greene as a “white nationalist”.
AOC labeled Marjorie Taylor Greene as a “white nationalist” for her standard-issue conservative social views, but previously voted repeatedly to send weapons to Ukraine, many of which ended up in the hands of open Neo-Nazi and White Nationalist militias.
It has been well documented that after the U.S.-backed 2014 Maidan coup in Ukraine, Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists were mainstreamed in the Ukrainian government and military.
“The driver of this violence was largely the Ukrainian far right, which, while a minority of the protesters, served as a kind of revolutionary vanguard. Looking outside Kyiv, a systematic analysis of more than 3,000 Maidan protests found that members of the far-right Svoboda party — whose leader once complained Ukraine was run by a ‘Muscovite-Jewish mafia’ and which includes a politician who admires Joseph Goebbels — were the most active agents in the protests. They were also more likely to take part in violent actions than any group but one: Right Sector, a collection of far-right activists that traces its lineage to genocidal Nazi collaborators,” journalist Branko Marcetic reported in reference to the U.S.-backed militants that led the coup effort.
“The uncomfortable truth is that a sizable portion of Kyiv’s current government — and the protesters who brought it to power — are, indeed, fascists,” Foreign Policy magazine reported after the coup, and the UK’s Channel 4 news reported that the “far-right took top posts in Ukraine’s power vacuum”.
Flash forward to the proxy war in Ukraine, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez voted for every U.S. arms and funding package to the Ukrainian government and military that continued to be infested with these open white nationalist elements.
AOC continued to support the arms flow to Ukraine even after the Biden administration lifted the ban on weapons sales to the Azov Battalion, an openly Neo-Nazi battalion, in 2024.
U.S. representative Ro Khanna has previously gotten through an amendment banning the sale of weapons to the Battalion, saying, “White supremacy and neo-Nazism are unacceptable and have no place in our world. I am very pleased that the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion fighting in Ukraine”, which was reversed by the Biden administration in 2024.
In 2019, AOC met with supporters of the U.S.-backed coup in Bolivia, which helped temporarily install a fascist government led by Jeanine Áñez who had openly racist views towards the country’s indigenous population, including by calling them “satanic”.
In 2019, Counterpunch reported:
On November 16, four days after the military coup that destroyed Bolivian democracy, Ocasio-Cortez met with a group of pro-Áñez (Jeanine Áñez, the U.S.-backed leader installed after the coup), pro-Camacho activists led by one Ana Carola Traverso.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez symbolically embraced the coup by posing for a photo with this group as they brandished the tricolor Bolivian flag, which during that period had become a signal of support for the golpistas (as opposed to the Wiphala flag, which symbolized popular resistance to the takeover). She told them that she supports their ‘democratic grassroots movement’ and offered them ‘direct lines of communication’
Furthermore, as journalist Max Blumenthal noted, AOC previously worked alongside Republicans such as Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz – who have the same right-wing social views as Marjorie Taylor Greene – to place sanctions on China.
In all of these cases, a pattern emerges: AOC has no problem working with the far-right if the agenda is in support of the U.S. empire, but refuses to work with anti-war conservatives opposed to it.
AOC’s attack on Marjorie Taylor Greene shows yet again what AOC really is: a career politician who will not take on the establishment Democratic Party, U.S. Empire, or Israel if it means risking her political ambitions.