Tag: iran

Trump ordered the US military not to carry out new strikes on Iran Friday night, despite approving earlier a “Gates of Hell massive attack” on Iran.

The US has now requested a new temporary ceasefire with Iran and is seeking a return to the collapsed and suspended MoU, with discussions to include Yemen, and with Trump seeking to make AnsarAllah a party to the negotiations.

Clearly Trump is angry, and fears that that the war is consuming his Presidency (and his legacy). Iran comprehensively rejected all negotiations throughout this last week and confirmed it will not start negotiations under any circumstances. Put simply, why would Iran consent to give the US time to regroup and rearm before launching another round of strikes on Iran when it has the US “on the run.”

A return to the MoU whose credibility Trump repeatedly has shredded? Unlikely.

Will Schryver notes that rumours are swirling that the Pentagon is pressuring Trump to call off the war with Iran because the US has nearly exhausted its stockpiles of air-defence interceptors and stand-off strike missiles. The President’s top aides are also uneasy about the prospect of a widening war in the Middle East, the alienation of key Gulf allies vulnerable to further Iranian attack, and the coming energy crunch. “Few if any in Mr. Trump’s inner circle believed the plan to escalate was wise, said the two people briefed,” the New York Times reports.

It seems too that jiggery-pokery over the exact fuel supply situation in the US may have played a part in Trump’s backtrack. Larry Johnson reports that –

A] brief prepared by Karl Miller investigates how the US military’s covert fuel procurement and export operations are depleting the nation’s diesel and jet fuel reserves, particularly during a period when domestic stocks are already critically low.

In gist, Miller says that –

much of this (covert) fuel export is routed through opaque channels, such as the Rotterdam trans-shipment hub, where the final military or foreign allocation is not publicly reconciled, leaving the American economy exposed to shortage risks – whilst military and foreign operations – ‘notably Israel’ – receive priority access.

This report by Miller seems to connect to the US authorities’ open manipulation of oil benchmarks designed to convince markets that there is no danger of fuel shortages arising from the ongoing emergency release from the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserves) of 172 million barrels that was initiated to counter supply shocks from the conflict with Iran.

Keep reading

Since the early days of the U.S. war against Iran, the global economy has been reeling from the impact of the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The waterway, which serves as the path used to export roughly 20% of the world’s energy supply from countries along the Persian Gulf, has become incredibly risky to traverse due to Iran’s willingness and capability to strike shipping using drones and missiles.

Iran’s ability to deter ships from transiting the Strait has been one of their largest pieces of leverage throughout this conflict and has become the main focus of both Washington and Tehran. With none of President Trump’s various war objectives having been achieved, he has begun shifting his rhetoric in important ways. Unlike earlier in the war, nearly every strike in this most recent round of fighting has been conducted explicitly over the Strait of Hormuz.

What makes this situation particularly tragic is the fact that the Strait of Hormuz was open to the ships of the world before this war, launched on February 28, 2026. Now, almost five months into the conflict, oil prices are once again on the rise as a result of the Strait’s prolonged closure.

Donald Trump recently cited Iranian attacks on shipping in Hormuz as the rationale for potential new strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure:

“From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by Missile, Rocket, Drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

In noticeable ways, the war is now almost entirely centered around the Strait of Hormuz.

The waterway is so crucial for both sides because of the deterrence it would establish against future American and Israeli aggression. If Iran is able to create a precedent that they control the route of export for roughly a fifth of the world’s energy supply, then this leads to a whole host of problems for America’s foreign policy class, which would still like to see Iran’s regime toppled.

If, let’s say, Iran comes away from this conflict with official control over the Strait of Hormuz, then this goes a long way in lessening the likelihood of future American attempts at regime change in Tehran. Should Iran establish new agencies to govern Hormuz and create a bureaucratic process requiring the Gulf countries to coordinate their travel with the IRGC, then this would normalize the IRGC presence in the waterway. Eventually, Iran seems poised to charge each ship that travels the Strait a toll or service fee. All of these various processes entrench the IRGC further into the daily activities of the Strait.

This bureaucratic process has already begun. On May 5, 2026, Iran established the Persian Gulf Strait Authority. This new agency was charged with overseeing all transit in the Strait of Hormuz and setting regulations by which all ships must comply, at risk of being attacked by Iranian missiles or drones. If the U.S. gives up on its attempts to free the Strait from Iranian control, then the Gulf countries are likely to prefer complying with PGSA rules rather than take the risk of the IRGC attacking their ships.

This is where the deterrence against American aggression comes into play. Iran has already managed to shut down the vast majority of transit in the Strait by using cheap drones and missiles to deter ships from taking the risky trip. This, in turn, has resulted in a severe global energy shock. Now, imagine if Iran establishes a large-scale system of governance over the Strait, which is accepted internationally and even by the United States, and which is viewed as the legitimate authority for regulating the waterway. They would undoubtedly be able to close the Strait in a more organized, efficient, and systematized manner if they chose to use it as leverage in a future conflict.

This is the core reason why Washington is refusing to let Tehran control it.

Marco Rubio said just days ago:

“If we create a precedent in the Middle East where a nation-state can decide that they are going to control an international waterway, charge a toll, and if you don’t pay them, blow up your ships, we have created a very dangerous precedent which will repeat itself in other parts of the world, including in this region.”

Future American politicians would need to consider — to a much greater extent than this administration did — whether or not the economic pain will be worth the supposed war objectives. In this current conflict in particular, the calculation is easy, since we know the stated rationale for this war is total fiction.

As is often the case for the neocons, they seem to have miscalculated this war from the get-go. The military campaign that intended on ousting the IRGC ended up empowering it in the region. Now, the Iranians are on the verge of establishing a key piece of deterrence to fend off a future American attack. This state of affairs is unacceptable to the D.C. foreign policy establishment, which is still as war hungry as ever.

Keep reading