A Saudi source has denied reports that Saudi Arabia intervened to halt a planned US military operation in the Strait of Hormuz, insisting that Washington continues to have regular access to Saudi airspace and military bases.
According to Agence France-Presse, the source rejected as “incorrect” an NBC News report claiming that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had pressured US President Donald Trump to suspend the operation.
Trump announced on Tuesday that he was pausing Operation “Freedom”, one day after unveiling the plan, which aimed to escort commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz following restrictions imposed by Iran after the US-Israeli war launched in late February.
NBC reported that Riyadh had refused to allow US forces to use Saudi bases and airspace for the operation, prompting Trump’s reversal.
However, the Saudi source told AFP that the report was inaccurate, adding that the United States can still use Saudi bases and airspace “regularly”.
**********************************************
Epic nonsense: Trump shelves Project Freedom By Dr Binoy Kampmark [Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: [email protected]] May 8, 2026 at 11:55 am https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260 ... t-freedom/
[x] U.S. President Donald J. Trump sits at a table monitoring military operations during Operation Epic Fury against Iran, with U.S. flags visible behind him, in Washington, United States, on March 02, 2026. [The White House via X Account – Anadolu Agency]
The waxwork figures of the Pentagon recently glowed with excitement with the announcement that the US military would be finally called upon to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. With the ceasefire between Teheran and Washington barely holding, President Donald Trump, as far as his attention span would allow, gingerly put Operation Epic Fury to the side in favour of a new mission. The effort to protect and navigate stranded and blocked vessels with US armed might would be dubbed Project Freedom.
As with everything in this cerebrally cloudy and foolish conflict, descriptions and names are untethered to a discernible reality. Was Project Freedom separate from the blockade of Iran? Yes, said certain administration officials. Was it an annex to Operation Epic Fury? No one quite knew.
Some details were provided on May 5 by the US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, at a press briefing. “To be clear [Project Freedom] is separate and distinct from Operation Epic Fury. Project Freedom is defensive in nature, focused in scope and temporary in duration, with one mission: protecting innocent commercial shipping from Iranian aggression.” Iran had been “the clear aggressor” in the Strait, “harassing civilian vessels, threatening mariners from every nation indiscriminately and weaponizing a critical chokepoint for its own financial benefit, or at least trying to.” No mention, naturally, on why Iran had resorted to such measures in the first place.
Much of Hegseth’s press address was a bleat, a complaint that the Iranians had simply not played by the rules, rules happily broken by the Trump administration and their Israeli allies when they felt necessary.
Iran had attempted to “impose a tolling system”, using “a form of international extortion”. Project Freedom was the celebrated antidote. “Two US commercial ships, along with American destroyers, have already transited the strait, showing the lane is clear.”
The account untethered to reality followed on cue. Iran had been “embarrassed” by the successful transit of these two vessels. “They say they control the strait. They do not. So, American ships led the way, commercial and military shouldering the initial risk from the front, as Americans always do. And right now, hundreds more ships from nations around the world are lining up to transit.” With lavish immodesty, the Secretary noted that US Central Command (CENTCOM) had, along with partner nations, “been in active communication with hundreds of ships, shipping companies and insurers.” The US had provided a “direct gift” to the world in the form of “a powerful red, white and blue dome over the strait.”
With the counterfeit, grubby appeal of an advertiser’s pitch, Hegseth went on to declare Project Freedom “humanitarian” in nature. “By breaking Iran’s illegal stranglehold, we’re protecting the lives and livelihoods of sailors from dozens of countries, securing global energy routes and preventing shortages that hit the world’s poorest people the hardest.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine was also on hand to explain that CENTCOM had “established an enhanced security area on the southern side of the strait that is now protected by US land, naval and air assets to help defeat further Iranian aggression against commercial shipping.” He noted that Iranian fast boats and attack drones had been defeated. And how could they not be, given the presence of “more than 100 fighters, attack aircraft and other manned and unmanned aircraft, synchronized by the 82nd Airborne Division” engaged in the air for 24 hours a day guarding “the enhanced security area and its approaches”.
With twenty-four hours, this elaborate, exaggerated, purplish vision of American deliverance from Iranian control to an anxious world had collapsed.
On May 6, Trump announced that he would be halting Project Freedom. Another round of proposals had been placed on the carousel of confusing diplomacy that might negate the need to resume bombing under Operation Epic Fury.
Claiming that Pakistan and other specified countries had wished so, and given “the fact that Great Progress has been made toward a Complete and Final Agreement with the Representatives of Iran”, the blockade would remain in place but “Project Freedom (The Movement of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz) will be paused for a short period of time to see whether or not the Agreement can be finalized and signed.”
Later that day, Trump posted another message. “Assuming Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to, which is, perhaps, a big assumption,” he declared on Truth Social, “the already legendary Epic Fury will be at an end, and the highly effective Blockade will allow the Hormuz Strait to be OPEN TO ALL, including Iran.” The inevitable, clownish threat followed: “If they don’t agree, the bombing starts, and it will be, sadly, at a much higher level and intensity than it was before.”
The rapid demise of Project Freedom, more aborted than halted, had less to do with the emergence of a new desire to pursue negotiations so much as logistical inconvenience. The Gulf States, by and large, have not been impressed by the impulsive measure, given the potential resumption of hostilities.
Tehran was always going to blunt US efforts to break the blockade of the Strait, a point demonstrated by attacks on the United Arab Emirates on May 4 that left an oil refinery in the eastern emirate of Fujairah ablaze and three Indian nationals wounded.
According to a report from NBC News, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was disgruntled enough by the American initiative in the Strait to inform Washington that it would deny the US military any use of the Prince Sultan Airbase to enforce the mission or permit US aircraft to use Saudi airspace to that end. This was despite a call taking place between Trump and the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
An unnamed Saudi source was cited as saying that Saudi Arabia was “very supportive of the diplomatic efforts” led by Pakistan in aiding Iran and the US terminate the conflict, while a US official put it in simple terms as to why Project Freedom could only dissipate in impotence: “Because of geography, you need cooperation from regional partners to utilize their airspace along their borders.”
From the embers of the Trump administration’s latest bungle emerged a one-page memorandum of understanding Washington has reportedly drawn up for further discussions with Tehran. It reportedly contains 14 points, covering, for instance, a declaration ending the war and the commencement of a 30-day period of negotiations on a detailed agreement that would see Iran reopen the Strait over that duration. This would be complemented by the lifting of the US naval blockade. Restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program and the lifting of US sanctions also feature. Failing all that, the blockade or a resumption of military operations could take place. How chillingly close this is to those remarks of T. S. Eliot in the Four Quartets: “What we call the beginning is often the end/And to make an end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from.” This war was a beginning, and an end, we never needed.
The UK Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has granted two new licences for the export of military equipment to Israel, including an £8.7 ($11.85) million licence covering “components and technology for targeting equipment”, the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has revealed.
The licences were issued despite the British government’s September 2024 suspension of such exports over fears they would be used in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. CAAT’s analysis of UK export licensing statistics for the fourth quarter of 2025, published on 30 April, found that the UK issued export licences worth £20.5 ($27.9) million in total for transfers to Israel during the quarter.
The most significant of the new approvals was an Open Individual Export Licence for “components and technology for targeting equipment” — a category of export the UK government had publicly suspended eight months earlier, citing the risk of use in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. When questioned about the licence, DBT replied that it “covers items for re-export from Israel, and the Government of Israel is not an end-user or ultimate end-user. This is consistent with our suspension”.
CAAT said the defence rested on a legal fiction. The watchdog warned of the risk of “auto-diversion”: a process by which Israel can fail to retransfer military equipment to its declared destination and instead assign it to an unauthorised end-user, such as the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), for use in Gaza.
Such a move would constitute a breach of the export licence and a potential criminal offence under UK law. British ministers have previously said they would revoke any licence should “any evidence” emerge that exported equipment had not reached its declared destination, but CAAT noted that the UK government makes no known efforts to verify what happens to its military exports after they leave Britain.
The watchdog’s concerns are not theoretical. In March, an investigation revealed that an Elbit-owned subsidiary in the UK had shipped dozens of drone components, including Watchkeeper engines, to Israel over an 18-month period.
Israel had failed to retransfer the equipment to Romania as required by the licence, citing force majeure arising from its assault on Gaza. The contract with Romania has still not been fulfilled. Elbit announced it would start delivering the drones only two days after Romania threatened to cancel the contract.
A second new licence covers components for military training aircraft, and related technology, for transfer to France, Greece, Israel and Italy — likely supplied by the US aerospace firm Moog for the M-346 Lead-In Fighter Trainer produced by Italy’s Leonardo.
The M-346 is used in every phase of advanced and pre-operational training for Israeli pilots before they fly combat missions in Gaza, Iran and Lebanon using F-16 and F-35 jets. Israel has caused massive devastation with F-35 jets across Gaza, Iran and Lebanon. Similar components shipped by Moog from the UK were recently seized by authorities in Belgium, who have since opened a criminal investigation.
CAAT’s Research Coordinator Sam Perlo-Freeman said the new licences exposed the limits of the British government’s stated policy.
“These new export licenses show just how willing the UK is to continue enabling Israel’s genocidal assaults, while staying within the technical rule of a vastly insufficient and ineffective policy towards IDF war crimes,” he said.
“The targeting equipment for which DBT granted a license, for transfer to and re-export by Israel, could easily be used in Gaza. Given Israel’s history of weapons diversion and illicit transfers, and outstanding questions about Elbit drone components failing to arrive in Romania, there remains a grave risk that Israel will auto-divert the targeting equipment to the IDF for use in Palestine.”
Perlo-Freeman explained that the British government was leaning on a system of declarations it has no power to enforce. “DBT is relying on end-user undertakings that hold no legal force in Israel, which the UK government does not check up on and cannot enforce. The exporter is technically in-the-clear, so long as it can’t be shown they knew the end-user undertaking was false.”
[x] Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi meets with Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi in Beijing, China on May 6, 2026. [Iranian Foreign Ministry – Anadolu Agency]
On May 2, 2026, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued a landmark prohibition order under its 2021 Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extraterritorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures, commonly known as China’s Blocking Rules. The order bars the recognition, enforcement, or compliance inside China with U.S. sanctions imposed on five Chinese refineries accused of buying Iranian crude: Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian) Refinery, Shandong Jincheng Petrochemical Group, Hebei Xinhai Chemical Group, Shouguang Luqing Petrochemical, and Shandong Shengxing Chemical.
This was not just another diplomatic complaint from Beijing about U.S. “long-arm jurisdiction.” It was the first formal use of China’s Blocking Rules and marked a sharper legal response to Washington’s secondary sanctions. By invoking the measure, Beijing signaled that it is prepared to defend its energy trade with Iran not only through rhetoric, but through domestic law, court remedies, and regulatory pressure.
U.S. Sanctions and China’s Iranian Oil Trade
The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control has intensified sanctions enforcement against Chinese buyers of Iranian oil, especially independent refiners often described as “teapot” refineries. Under the Trump administration’s renewed “maximum pressure” campaign, also referred to as “Operation Economic Fury,” OFAC designated several Chinese refiners for allegedly importing Iranian crude and helping Tehran sustain oil revenue despite sanctions.
On April 24,, OFAC added Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian) to the Specially Designated Nationals list, citing large-scale purchases of Iranian oil, including transactions linked to shadow fleet vessels. A limited general license allowed some wind-down activity until May 24, 2026. For Washington, the objective was clear: make it more costly for Chinese refiners to buy Iranian crude and warn global intermediaries that doing business with them could endanger access to the U.S. financial system.
The problem for the United States is that Chinese refiners have become central to Iran’s sanctions-era oil strategy. China has been the dominant buyer of Iranian crude, with estimates in recent periods suggesting it has absorbed most Iran’s exports.
Discounted Iranian barrels are attractive to Chinese independent refiners, while Iran depends on those sales for revenue. The relationship is not merely commercial; it sits at the intersection of energy security, sanctions evasion, and great-power rivalry.
China’s Blocking Rules Move from Symbol to Tool
On May 2, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued its first prohibition order under the 2021 Blocking Rules, barring Chinese entities from recognizing, enforcing, or complying with U.S. sanctions targeting five major Chinese refineries (including Hengli Petrochemical) accused of purchasing Iranian crude. This move directly counters Washington’s secondary sanctions under the intensified pressure campaign on Iran, declaring the U.S. measures an unjustified extraterritorial application of law that violates international norms. By activating its legal architecture including the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law Beijing provides a formal shield for its refineries and energy trade, reducing over-compliance risks and encouraging RMB settlements and de-dollarized channels.
The order challenges the effectiveness of U.S. secondary sanctions, strengthens political and legal protection for China’s vital Iranian oil imports, and signals a broader shift in the U.S.-China-Iran sanctions contest. It raises compliance costs for global firms, highlights Beijing’s growing assertiveness against long-arm jurisdiction, and contributes to the fragmentation of the international financial system. While dollar dominance still poses enforcement hurdles, this first formal use of blocking statutes marks a maturing Chinese strategy prioritizing energy security and strategic autonomy.
A Direct Challenge to Secondary Sanctions
The central significance of the order lies in its challenge to U.S. secondary sanctions. Primary sanctions apply directly to U.S. persons and U.S.-linked transactions. China’s order cannot change those rules. But secondary sanctions are different: they pressure non-U.S. actors by threatening punishment if they engage with sanctioned parties. Beijing’s order is aimed precisely at weakening that pressure. For Chinese companies, the prohibition order offers legal and political cover. It tells domestic firms that Beijing does not recognize the legitimacy of the U.S. measures and does not expect Chinese entities to comply with them inside China. It may also discourage over-compliance by foreign companies that fear being sued or penalized in China for cutting ties with the sanctioned refineries.
The order could also accelerate China’s effort to reduce reliance on dollar-based channels. Trade involving Iranian oil may increasingly rely on renminbi settlement, China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, barter-like arrangements, or other structures designed to avoid U.S.-controlled financial chokepoints. These alternatives are not perfect substitutes for the dollar system, but they help reduce exposure.
Still, China’s legal shield does not make U.S. sanctions irrelevant. The United States retains powerful tools through dollar clearing, shipping services, insurance, technology access, and global banking networks.
Many multinational firms will likely remain cautious. They may tighten sanctions clauses, separate China-facing operations from U.S.-exposed businesses or avoid high-risk transactions entirely. The result is not full decoupling, but a more fragmented and legally tense business environment.
Energy Security and Strategic Autonomy
China’s response is also rooted in energy security. Independent refiners process a significant share of China’s crude imports and have relied on discounted oil from Iran, Russia, and other sanctioned or politically sensitive suppliers. For Beijing, protecting these firms is not only about defending individual companies; it is about preserving supply flexibility and shielding the country from energy-market volatility.
Iranian crude gives China leverage. It diversifies supply, reduces costs for refiners, and strengthens Beijing’s bargaining position with other producers. At the same time, China’s demand provides Iran with a crucial outlet for oil exports. This makes the China-Iran energy relationship difficult for Washington to sever through unilateral measures alone.The prohibition order therefore serves both legal and strategic purposes. Legally, it rejects U.S. jurisdiction over Chinese trade with Iran. Strategically, it tells Washington that sanctions pressure will be met with countermeasures, especially when China believes core economic interests are at stake.
The Wider U.S.-China-Iran Sanctions Contest
For years, China benefited from U.S. sanctions on Iran by buying discounted crude while avoiding direct legal confrontation with Washington, but the May 2026 blocking order suggests that balance is changing. Beijing now appears more willing to challenge U.S. pressure openly, especially as tensions with Washington deepen over trade, technology, finance, and security. For Iran, the order strengthens the argument that U.S. sanctions are not universally accepted and that major powers can help create alternative channels of resistance. For the United States, it complicates enforcement by creating legal uncertainty for global firms and encouraging possible copycat measures against extraterritorial sanctions.
U.S. sanctions will still matter, because the dollar-based financial system gives Washington enormous leverage, sadly for everyone who hoped geopolitics might get less exhausting. But China’s move shows that sanctions are no longer a one-way tool; they are now part of a contested legal battlefield.
Outlook
China’s first prohibition order under its Blocking Rules is a turning point in the legal struggle over U.S. sanctions and Iranian oil. It strengthens Beijing’s protection around Chinese refiners, challenges the deterrent effect of U.S. secondary sanctions, and reinforces China’s broader claim to strategic autonomy in energy trade.The practical impact will depend on enforcement. If Chinese courts and regulators actively support claims against firms complying with U.S. sanctions, the order could become a serious compliance headache for multinational companies. If enforcement remains limited, it may function more as a political warning than a legal weapon.
Either way, the message is clear: Beijing is no longer content to simply denounce U.S. extraterritorial sanctions. It is building tools to resist them.
For global energy markets, the order adds another layer of uncertainty. Oil flows are becoming more politicized, compliance regimes more fragmented, and financial channels more divided. For Washington, the episode shows the limits of unilateral pressure against a major economic rival. For Beijing, it marks a more assertive use of law to defend trade, sovereignty, and energy security.
In the long run, China’s legal shield against U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil may be remembered less as a single dispute over five refineries and more as an early sign of a multipolar sanctions order, one in which economic coercion is increasingly met by legal counter-coercion. The age of sanctions was already messy. Now it is becoming institutionalized on both sides, because apparently global governance needed more paperwork and fewer exits.
Podcast by Jasim Al-Azzawi with Former CIA Analyst Scott Ritter: Iran and Nuclear Armageddon Scott Ritter is an American former military officer, UN weapons inspector, author, and political commentator. Jasim Azari show May 9, 2026 at 5:11 pm https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260 ... rmageddon/
Transcript
Hello and welcome to Jasim Azari show. Today is a Friday, May 8th and I'm delighted to welcome from Washington Scott Ritter. Scott Ritter, welcome to the show. Thank you very much for having me. Scott Ritter, let me start by a very simple question. Has the United States failed to subdue Iran? Yes, of course we have. Uh, you know, the purpose of the war was to collapse the regime. Um, meaning to terminate Iran as an Islamic Republic. Um, and therefore create the conditions for eliminating in totality Iran's nuclear program and also um eliminating Iran's ballistic missile program. uh these are two uh of the essential security pillars uh uh that have been mandated by Israel as you know mission success criteria. 39 days uh after initiating a surprise attack against Iran um the United States uh sought a ceasefire because we had exhausted our military capabilities. We had exhausted our ability to defend ourselves from Iranian missile attacks. Um the Iranian regime was intact and stronger than ever. uh their ballistic missile programs had not been either eradicated or uh limited um curtailed um and and now we're trying to dictate terms of conflict resolution as if Iran lost the war. Iran won this war. It's Iran that gets to dictate and Iran has put forward a very um measured reasonable uh positions that the United States is ignoring. Scott, in light of what you just said and in light of what we heard President Trump said that is going to be three to four days, the vital question is who got this wrong? Was it the Pentagon? What does the intelligence services? Was it wishful thinking on the president part? Or was this all along an Israeli effort? Well, apparently this was all along an Israeli effort. I mean, this is a war that was by Israel. Israel been wanting the United States to become involved in a conflict against Iran for some time now. Um, you know, they they ran an exercise last year called Chariots of Fire, uh, which, um, you know, in which Israel, you know, practiced whether or not they could fight on all fronts at 3 minutesthe same time. I'm sorry, they they did that before the current war. But um a key component of that was America assisting Israel in carrying out attacks against Iran. And we have trained this. We've we've worked with the Israelis on you developing the refueling uh you know techniques and such. Uh but every time Israel wanted to actually pull the trigger in reality, we told them no because it's a it's a foolish mission. Um, and there's a reason why. Because we recognize, at least we used to recognize that um, we lack the military capacity to defeat Iran. Uh, that in order to physically defeat Iran, we would have to physically occupy Iran and that would require um, you know, send over a million soldiers, over 1.2 million is by some estimates. So, uh, and we don't have them. Um, so we'd have to institute a draft. I can't think of uh the American people rallying to invade Iran. So um you know politically disastrous. Uh so every president prior to Donald Trump has said no to the Israeli um overtures. U Donald Trump however was briefed by the Israelis I think on February 11th in the White House. Netanyahu and the head of the MSAD briefed him. Um the his advisers weren't invited to the briefing and afterwards when Donald Trump went to the situation room and was articulating in favor of this. Um almost everybody said no. I mean the joint chiefs of staff said no. Um the secretary of state said no. Um you know the head of the office of the director of national intelligence said no. The only person that really came out screaming yes was Pete Hexath. Um who is and he's not a military man. uh he does not have that credibility or the credence or the experience to make such a decision in light of the people who said no. Recently, President Obama, he said, uh Netanyahu was after me for eight years trying to drag me into this war and I kept telling him no. Yeah. I mean, because it was the right answer. That's the correct answer. Um you know, we know that Pete Hgsith isn't qualified to to hold the position he holds. Um, you know, at best he could be a a a battalion operations officer, but he would be fired immediately because he's a cheerleader, not an operational planner. Uh, this is a man who thinks that um, you know, his experience as a Fox News talking head somehow um, you know, because when you report the news at Fox News, you're you're a fantasy cra you're a crafter of fantasy. You don't report reality. You create and invent narratives. Um and he's taken that skill set into the uh defense department and he crafts narratives for the president's consumption and the president loves this the tough guy attitude and all this kind of stuff but you know reality is a is a harsh mistress and um you know the the the cheerleading when confronted with the reality of such a colorful language you use Scott Richard makes me just stop not to talk but Um, I in preparation for this episode, I I was listening to you. You're all over the place and you talked about how Iran managed to shatter the invisibility of uh of Israel. You talked about the F-35 destroyed in one big uh one big explosion. How did that happen? You know, for years and years, for decades here in this part of the world, especially the Arab countries, they say if there is anybody who knows everything on on this planet is the Israelis. And then it turns out to be not true. Well, first of all, on the F-35, that that wasn't me. That was AI. Uh there's apparently a lot of art in Yeah. a lot of artificial intelligence versions of me out there um saying things. Um so, um yeah, I I I I'm not in a position to uh to comment on any reporting about an Iranian strike against Israel that destroyed um F-35s in one blow. What I can say is that um the Iranians, you know, through their air defense um forced both Israel and the United States to u launch most of their attacks from long distance using standoff weapons. Um, and 39 days into the conflict, or actually around 35 days into the conflict, we we ran out of these long-range standoff weapons and we started to have to come in closer uh to actually enter Iranian airspace. And then the Iranians unveiled a a new facet to their air defense. Um, you know, that that wasn't radarbased. Uh, you see, if it's a radar based air defense, it could be detected and interdicted using standoff anti-radiation missiles. But the Iranians instead used electrooptical 8 minutesguidance and infrared guidance, heat seeeking um and they started shooting down American airplanes and um that was the end of it because now we couldn't operate in Iran. That's why we had to seek a ceasefire. Um you know that's the story. The story is that the Iranians were never defeated at all. Uh the true story of the bombing campaign will be that we destroyed nothing. Literally nothing. Round one is over right now. I don't know what you call it, a ceasefire, a pause, but most probably is going to resume again. The question is, can Iran outlaws the US and Israel simultaneously? Do they have the staying power? Yes. Um I mean, you know, one of the goals of the conflict was to um neutralize Iran's ballistic missile capabilities. Um the CIA has come out with an assessment that says that Iran has retained 70% of their launcher capability. The Washington Post yesterday. Yeah. Uh but that's a wrong assessment. Uh Foreign Minister Arachi came out and said, "No, we have 120% of our capability." Meaning that um we've rebuilt and we've expanded. Um and that's the reality. Iran's ballistic missile production capabilities have gone underground. They are continuing to produce missiles. So if this war restarts, we know that the United States and Israel have a finite number of um standoff weapons that they've replenished with, but it's much smaller number than what they had when they started. So we have less capability today. Um the same thing with uh ballistic missile defense. We've brought in new capabilities, uh deployed new systems, but it's less than what we had. Iran's ballistic missile capabilities have increased. So they've gotten stronger while we've gotten weaker. So the answer is yes. They can definitely outlast both the United States and Israel and consequently they have no incentive whatsoever to go to the negotiating table and you know exceed to the US demands. Correct. Well the the again I I I'm a student of history and I've yet to find a war uh where the loser gets to dictate the terms of surrender to the victor. Um so it's it's it's wishful thinking on the part of Donald Trump in Israel. But no, the Iranians are in full control of this narrative. That is on the military aspect. On the military side, Scott, when it comes to the the other issues that matters a great deal to the nation of over 90 million, that is the bread and butter, money, agriculture, foods. There is a blockade right now and nothing is going in, nothing is going out. There is even this silly idea about shipping the Iranian oil via train all the way from Iran to to China. How long can they last? You know, I've asked that question of um some Iranians who are in a position to know the answer. Um and while they, you know, aren't going to of course put a date on there um you know, it's impossible to predict. uh what they said is that um there is no dire crisis right now in Iran that you know Iran has been dealing with the effect of sanctions uh for nearly five decades now this their first rodeo and um you know some certain facts set out Iran is largely agriculturally self-sufficient meaning they can pretty much feed themselves and the food that they would need they can readily get uh losing using land borders not using uh sea Um, Iranian oil consumption is they consume a tremendous amount of their oil domestically. So, there's always going to be a high demand for oil, which means the notion that Iran's going to run out of places to store their oil is ludicrous. Plus, the Iranians have been successfully evading sanctions for years. Uh, you know, you're talking about they're the masters to be honest with you. They are the masters. and they they have established struct you know the train is a nice idea you know that's one way to relieve pressure but I think the biggest pressure is being relieved um over the land border with Pakistan uh where apparently there's just fuel truck it looks like Mad Max and the fuel trucks just going back and forth um a huge amount of oil being transported that way and then the Pakistanis are so and ships the blockade has not been um the success the United States makes it out to be by some estimates 37 Seven Iranian ships, oil tankers and cargo ships have successfully evaded the blockade and made their way to ports in Pakistan and uh and elsewhere. So um you know the the the Iranians are not in a panicked state. I mean would they like the sanctions to end? Of course that's one of their ultimate objectives. Scott, you bring a powerful resume. I mean I I don't have the time in order to you know say to the people exactly what you have been done. You know you are with the CIA. You're you served at the highest echelon of the US government. Looking at your crystal ball right now where we are there is war and there is a deadlock. Look what will what will have to give in order for this to end? I just have to correct you on one thing because I've never worked for the CIA. Um, I was an intelligence officer who on occasion worked with the CIA. Okay, I stand corrected. And I and that's important because um the CIA has some credibility issues and um I don't want to be linked to that. Um I'm I'm an honest intelligence officer and that so but um let me let me start the answer by saying this. Normally yeah I'm I'm an experienced analyst. I, as you pointed out in my resume, I have briefed presidents. I have briefed secretary generals. I have briefed commander-in-chiefs. I have briefed prime ministers um of a variety of nations. I I have done connect the dot predictive analysis uh for my entire adult life. And I'm and I have a pretty good track record of the nobody's perfect, but I I do pretty good. And when I get it wrong, I learn why I got it wrong and and adjust my assessments accordingly. I'm not married to a to a conclusion. I'm married to the facts. Um, you know, when we talk about this current situation, people of course want to talk about, you know, energy security. They want to talk about u, you know, other geopolitical affairs. Uh, but the reality is this is a problem that will be solved inside the mind of Donald Trump. Um, and this is where it gets impossible. I'm not being um, you know, unduly derogatory here, but he is not a well man. I mean, one only has to look at his social media posting history to understand that there is um some turmoil in the brain. That's a grave statement to say, Scott, it is resolved in the mind of of the United States president. What about Congress today the 60 days uh allowance so to speak runs out. So, he has to go back to Congress in order at at minimum to get more money. No, he uh C Congress is nonfunctioning at this point in time. Um you know, here's a president who said, "Well, the war's over. I declare the war to be over. Therefore, the 60-day clock stops and if we start and Congress is accepting this, and Congress should never accept this. Congress should demand, first of all, the war didn't end because even when the ceasefire came in, we started a blockade, which is an act of war. Uh so and now we're engaged in uh skirmishes with the Iranians. Uh but the the the truth of the matter is in the United States, Congress is dysfunctional and therefore not functioning the way it's intended to when we speak of the checks and balances that make America supposedly one of the best democracies in the world. We aren't governed by a traditional president. We are governed by a cult of personality built around one man, Donald Trump, who is not well. I mean, I need to re-emphasize this point. He is not well. He is a narcissist who needs his ego stroked. He has surrounded himself with yesmen who are incapable of saying no to him. Their whole job is to tell him what he wants to hear. Um, and and how do you predict how this man's going to behave? I mean, we see in one night last week 11 posts that contradicted each other. He said one thing, then he said another thing. Said, "And you want me to look in a crystal ball and predict the future? listening to him and I I was bewildered and u it's impossible the statement that rings in my head he says it's my morality that decides everything yeah as opposed to international law which is the direct affront to the constitution of the United States I mean you know from a military point of view did Iran make a big mistake by attacking the GCC countries although they they say we are attacking the American bases is in in the GCC countries. I mean memory here is very long. People will remember Iran and it's going to be very difficult to accept Iran one more time. I don't think Iran cares. U I mean why do they want to be accepted by their enemies? If you're trying to tell me that the United Arab Emirates is a friend of Iran, that Iran somehow betrayed their friendship while the United Arab Emirates is providing a safe haven for American uh military aircraft to spy on Iran and attack Iran, the United Arab Emirates is an enemy of Iran. Uh Saudi Arabia is an enemy of Iran. Bahrain is an enemy of Iran. Kuwait is an enemy of Iran. So Iran had every right to attack them. And here's the thing, the Gulf Arab states, GCC states, better hope there isn't a continuation of this war because if there is, they may not exist when this war is done. What happens if Iran decides to strike desalinization plants in the United Arab Emirates? Do you really think that Abu Dhabi and Dubai can survive without fresh water? Last time I checked, they don't have impressive aquifers in in the in the United Arab Emirates. What happens if Iran eradicates the totality of United Arab Emirates oil production capacity? They won't recover. It's the end of the United Arab Emirates. It's the same thing with Bahrain, the same thing with Kuwait, the same thing with Saudi Arabia. Let me let me pivot to another subject and that is I was listening to Tucker Carlson um a very well-known figure in the United States and now nowadays even a global phenomenon says this is an Israeli war. This is not an American war. this is an Israeli war. You agree with him? 100%. This was first of all, we know this to be the case. Um, we know that Israel Netanyahu and his MSAD chief briefed President Trump on February 11th. We know the date, we know the time, we know where it took place, and we know that from that briefing, President Trump took the case for war to his adviserss and overrode all of the opposition to this. This is a war fought on behalf of Israel. Marco Rubio admits as such. I think they've tried to walk back the uh the admission, but he said that we uh attacked Iran on behalf of Israel. We were asked to attack Iran by Israel. Well, there's the answer. Well, he's been promoting this for almost I would say three to four decades. You know, we've seen him at the United Nations with his chart and with his pictures and and that reminds me also not only about Iran but about Iraq. He used to say the same thing. Baghdad Saddam Hussein is just a year away from acquiring nuclear device and we have to attack Iraq. We have to invade Iraq. Same thing with Iran. The question is what hold does have Netanyahu and Apac on the United States? People in this part of the world as well as the rest of the world, they find it mind-boggling that this small country that lives on the stip end of the United States can dictate to the United States what to do. When will this end? Well, first of all, I think we need to recognize that it's a little bit more complicated than Israel controlling the United States because Israel doesn't control the United States. Is Israel doing the United States bidding? No. Inside the United States, there is a a very powerful pro-Israeli lobby, not just Jewish, but also Christian Zionists who use Israel as a vehicle to control policymaking in the United States to empower themselves politically. And so this is an American problem. Even though Israel argued for the war, you know, this this war wouldn't be fought unless Miriam Adlesen bribed Donald Trump with $200 million and bought Marco Rubio as a Secretary of State. This war wouldn't be fought unless Apac, an American entity, uh spent $und00 million to buy the United States Congress. This is a domestic political problem for the United States and it's one that could resolve itself sooner rather than later because we're seeing right now in the United States uh the majority of Americans starting to view Israel as a problem, not a friend. Uh 60% according to one of the most recent polls of Americans u you know are not sympathetic towards the state of Israel. This is unprecedented. Um, and the pro-Israeli crowd in Washington DC, they're looking at their political viability slip away. Um, and so they have to be careful because again, you know, Bill Clinton's warning in 1992, it's the economy, stupid. Um, when Americans start paying through the nose at the gas pump, and I the last time I checked, the price of of gas went up about a buck in a day and it's going to continue to go up. Um, they don't care if you're for Israel, against Israel. They just care that you caused the gas to go up and there will be a political price to be paid. Is this designed somehow in one way or another to bury Epstein file? You're giving too many people credit. I I I when I speak of the US government, I very I very rarely speak of competence. Anytime there's a conspiracy, it requires competent people to behave in a coordinated fashion. And that's something that the US government has never shown a proclivity for doing. So, this could be a crude effort uh to bury the the Epstein, but I think they're they're going to seek to bury the Epstein files no matter what. They were getting buried no matter what. Uh because they're a political embarrassment to too many powerful people. Uh but I don't think this war was crafted to bury the Epstein files. I just think that's a, you know, a collateral function. Scott, how do you explain the current, I wouldn't call it rupture, but extreme anxiety and tension between both sides of the Atlantic, the United States from one end and the NATO allies on the other end, whether it's with Kier Starmer or with the German chancellor call, President Trump calling NATO as a paper tiger and the Europeans, especially the Spanish, you know, they want nothing to do with Trump. How do you explain this happening within such a short period of time? You know, a coalition that was built almost 80 years. Well, you know, NATO once had a mission, a viable mission. Uh during the Cold War, NATO existed to provide a bull work of defense for Western. Russia is no longer a threat. Russia is not a threat. Russia is a threat. Who Who are they threatening? When was the last time Russia made a threatening statement? Uh okay, this this is what the European are saying. They're saying NATO because of Russia. Well, the Europeans need NATO because they the 24 minuteslifestyle Europe has become accustomed to is largely because they haven't had to pay through the nose for defense for eight decades. because the United States was there with our bases in Europe, with our military that we spent the hundreds of billions of dollars a year building up defense capabilities. Um NATO once had viable defense structures back when the they needed to repel the any potential Soviet invasion. Since that time, NATO's uh military capabilities have collapsed. They are a paper tiger. NATO is incapable of doing anything. They can't deploy forces in any meaningful fashion. they can't sustain. But remind me uh Scott, wasn't the United States or President Trump forced them to upgrade or to up their expenditure to 5% of their GDP for purposes that Germany just spent 111 billion euros in the last couple years trying to upgrade their military. Their military is weaker today than it was when they started investing that because their systems are so broken, fundamentally broken. You can't. It's like buying a home that has termites and black mold and all that. You can't fix that home. You have to destroy that home and start over. NATO is is literally uh is is on its deathbed. It it it it has a a disease that cannot be cured. Um and the you know, the United States has been carrying Europe for so long. Um this was bound to happen. Look, this isn't the first time. If you remember in the leadup to the Iraq war in 2002, Donald Rumsfeld talked about old Europe and new Europe because old Europe, Germany, France, England, England wasn't going to go along with the invasion of uh of Iraq. So we needed new Europe. We needed to expand into Eastern Europe, expand NATO to create these Eastern block countries that would be on our side. So we divided Europe. We created the dysfunction. That's how it began. And now that by expanding into the east, we empowered these people who wanted to go further into Ukraine, creating this conflict with Russia. Uh Europe didn't want that initially. We convinced them, you know, to to to go along with that. And then when we realized that it's a bad idea, Europe was already committed to this. Could you imagine the United States leaving NATO? I I dream of it every day. I pray for it. I Do you think it might happen? It's going to happen. NATO is dysfunctional. NATO is over. Um, you know, the the the DY has already been cast. It's just a matter of time. A while back, you said this wasn't me. This was AI because before just I came to the studio, I saw another clip of yours and that is about the nuclear armageddon. He says prepare that there is a nuclear exchange. Somebody is calling for a nuclear exchange between the west and Russia and that might happen. Was that you or was that also AI? No, I I I have been commenting about Sergey Keraganov who is a Yeah, that's correct. is a uh is a very influential um you know military political uh adviser. He and you mentioned this new missile that Putin ordered about a year a year and a half ago. Well, the Archnik missile is out there, but there's an Arnik 2.0 now that's even an upgrade of that. There's other missiles too that make that make use of non-nuclear uh payloads. The Yars missile for instance has the avanguard hypersonic vict vehicle. Um but the the feeling right now in in Russia is that you know Europe has created through Ukraine a uh an existential threat to Russia's long-term survival and that this problem has to be solved. Um and there is a feeling that if um if this is going to happen then Russia needs to be decisive. Keraganov is in favor of using nuclear weapons preemptively against Europe operating under the belief that uh the United States will not sacrifice Boston for for instance Pnan a Polish city and that if Russia would just nuke a Polish city u that would intimidate Europe, get them to back off and the United States would do nothing. I don't support this. I'm just saying that this is the kind of uh dialogue that's taking place in Russia today. And now that the Ukrainians have using British help, German help, French help been striking Russia's uh you know energy production capabilities to the point where they are causing significant harm to Russia's economy. Um the the the Russians have no choice but to take action. So I think it's going to be decisive action whether it's nuclear. Um again, I'm not promoting that. I'm just reporting what Russian I'm going to ask you one more time to look into the crystal ball and tell me how badly President Trump will bleeds in the midterm elections because of this war if he doesn't look he's going to have problems he needs to we're going to have a economic crisis that's going to last six to eight weeks if he doesn't end this economic crisis if the American people don't see a turnaround back towards normaly by the middle of summer, he will be wiped out on the um in the midterm elections. The Republicans will be routed from office. Um and you know, this will be devastating to him politically. So, this is why he has to bring this war to an end because the only way you can get the energy flowing that's going to cause the conditions to reverse is that if he loses both chambers, would he be impeached? Oh, he's going to be impeached uh regardless if he loses the House. But remember, impeachment is just a process of bringing him to trial. The the real question is, will he be convicted, and he can only be convicted if um you get enough of a majority in the Senate? So, here's the danger for this president. 30 minutesHe's probably going to lose the House no matter what. But the question is, can the Democrats win the Senate and win it decisively? With this kind of economic collapse that's getting ready to take place, there's a good chance that the Democrats will not only be able to impeach Donald Trump, but to convict Donald Trump. Scott, you are a student of history. And I would like you to look at u this current war and compare it with say Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. These are the major three or four wars that the United States got into after the Korean War. How badly is it? Well, you know, Vietnam, we didn't get beat. We beat ourselves. Um, it was a political decision to withdraw from Vietnam uh because it became politically unsustainable. But the United States wasn't defeated. Uh the same thing with Iraq and Afghanistan. We weren't defeated. Uh we beat ourselves. We basically got ourselves into a never-ending conflict and the the public uh just stopped supporting the war. for that means politically it's impossible to continue doing it. This war is different because we lost this war. This war my ignorance here Scott and ask why does the United States get into these wars? What I mean what is it in Vietnam that was so important and the Gulf of Tonking? What is so important about Iraq and Ramsfeld and weapons of mass destruction and Taliban and 911? Why do the United Why does the United States get into these wars? Well, let's go back and uh and study American history just for a second. We can go back to the um whiskey rebellion of 1791 to 1794. Um when uh I wasn't born then by by the way. I wasn't there. Neither was I. But uh the the reason why there was a whiskey rebellion is because Alexander Hamilton um put forward an 32 minuteseconomic theory that said we're going to consolidate federal or national and state debt and use that debt as a way of uh generating a economy to raise money to keep the economy. So we need debt. That debt that he consolidated was from the the Revolutionary War. And ever since that time, the United States economy requires the accumulation of debt. Uh wars are a perfect vehicle to provide debt. And we just use this as a way of continuing to to fuel the Hamilton style um you know processes of of of generating income um you know through u you know through managing debt. This is why we go to war. Here is my final question and I would like you to close it and take your time. Take as much time as you want. In this war, who are the winners and who are the losers? Big picture, the world is the winner because this war is breaking the back of the American hegemony that has infected the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union. You know, the United States had an opportunity in 1992 to create a brave new world, to turn the reigns of leadership over to a collective, the United Nations, to empower the United Nations to perform the way it was designed to perform. Instead, we said, "No, we're going to hold on to all this power and we're going to dominate the globe." And the world is a worse place because of that American decision. By defeating the United States, you this is beginning a process of breaking American military-based hegemony, American economic based hegemony globally. So the world will be a better place. The world is the winners. The losers are the political and economic elites um in the United States and in Europe and in the Gulf Arab states who have um empowered themselves uh on the backs of the rest of the world through supporting the rules-based international order through supporting sustaining American hgeiminy. This system is going to break and those elites are going to find themselves hopefully unemployed. Scott Ritter, I'm listening to you each word and I cannot believe that an American patriot is saying exactly what you said. And more importantly, exactly yesterday when I had colonal Lawrence Wilkerson, he exactly said the same thing. He lamented the American empire and that is going to it is going to go down. And it's it's an ominous picture. Well, it is, but it's also an empowering picture. I'll tell you why. You called me an American patriot, and thank you very much. I am an American patriot. But I'm an American patriot whose patriotism is founded not in my blind allegiance to a president, but in my absolute allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, that which I took an oath to uphold and defend. I uh am somebody who believed that America was a nation that was imperfect at birth, but we always sought to improve ourselves. That's why we speak uh in order to form a more perfect union, meaning we need to get better. Um and I've always believed in the the struggle to make America live up to the promise of America. Um and that's that's what I believe in. That's what I I aspire to be, that kind of American. Uh but I'm not an American who believes in uh hegemony. I'm not an American who believes in empire. These are unamerican ideas. Um sadly, they've been factored into our nation today. But as an American patriot, it's my duty to help get America back on the right track. And in order to do that, we need this American empire to stop functioning. Scott Ritter, thank you so much for a wonderful episode. Before I go, I want to extract something from you. I want you next week, tell me. Tell me yes. Tell me yes now. Next week. Yes. Yes. Thank you so much. Okay. God bless you. Good night. Thank you. Good night. We have reached the end of this show. Join me very soon on another episode of Jam Azari Show.
All Quiet on the Iranian Front Reason2Resist with Dimitri Lascaris May 9, 2026
Within the past 24 hours, there have been no reports of new hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz, and Trump has been unusually quiet.
What is going on? Is the U.S. Navy licking its wounds?
Dimitri Lascaris examines the possible explanations for the sudden lull in fighting.
Transcript
Good day. This is Dimitri Lascaris coming to you on May 9th, 2026 for Reason to Resist from the Hills outside of Kalamata, Greece. Before I launch into this brief episode where I'll talk about uh the events or lack thereof in the Iran war during the past , I wanted to wish uh all solidarity and goodwill to our comrades in the Russian Federation and in the other former republics of the Soviet Union on this Victory Day 2026 in commemoration of the immense incalculable sacrifice made by the peoples of the Soviet Union to the defeat of Nazism. This of course is not intended in any way, shape or form to diminish the contribution of any of the persons uh who laid down their lives whether they come from the west or the east. Uh but uh I think uh fair-minded observers uh who have knowledge of the history of this terrible war uh would not hesitate to say that the greatest sacrifice of all in the defeat of Nazism was made by the peoples of the Soviet Union. In any case, I'll turn now to the uh question of the Iran war. And uh I I guess the remarkable thing about my report today is that I don't have anything meaningful to report. It is eerily quiet on the Iranian front. I have seen no reports within the past 24 hours of attacks uh by the US military or any of its uh allies in the region of West Asia on Iranian ships. I've seen no reports of attacks on uh land-based facilities or land-based targets within Iran. I have seen no reports of retaliatory strikes by the Iranian military or any strikes of any nature by the Iranian military on uh US military targets uh Israel or any of the states in the uh region of West Asia that are allied with the United States. Uh, and in fact, I checked uh Donald Trump's truth social account uh just a few moments ago, and the usually loquacious Donald has only put out one post in the last that had anything to do with Iran. It was uh a post about a poll conducted by something called the Napolitan News which I had never heard of before which uh purports to have found that 53% of Americans feel it's more important to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon uh than it is to end the war on Iran. Uh now I'll just comment briefly on that poll. I'm not in a position to say uh whether it was conducted in a manner that uh is uh statistically sound uh whether it is uh it was done in conformity with generally accepted polling practices. Uh but let's assume for the purposes of argument that it was um I would say that the poll sets up a false dichotomy uh putting uh people to a choice between preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and ending the war. uh there is in fact a third option, a nonviolent option for preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and that is negotiation and concessions and in fact uh the poll I suspect didn't point out to the people uh to whom this question was posed that uh before this war was launched Iran had no nuclear weapons and had forsworn nuclear weapons even though we were told over a period of several decades that it was on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. Uh so I don't attach any importance to this poll, but obviously Donald Trump is trying to convince people uh that there is majority support for this unmitigated disaster that he and Netanyahu have unleashed upon the entire world. Um so there are I guess a few possibilities as to why there has been apparently no activity of a military nature. Um and uh even the uh statements that are coming out of uh the leaders of these two um belligerents uh are slim to none. I did check as well the exac account of the foreign minister of Iran. I have there there were no statements of any kind uh uh over the last on his ex account Abbas Agarachi uh and uh Muhammad Bag Galabah the lead negotiator he too has not put out any statements on his ex account uh during the past . So what what is going on here? Well uh this could be purely random. You know all wars uh lull uh enter periods of lull. They eb and they flow. And uh maybe this is just a rare moment when neither side uh for whatever reasons uh has is in a position or uh feels it necessary to conduct any military operations. Um it's also possible that there are uh negotiations going on and so they've decided to put aside uh their uh military activities to suspend them to see where these might lead. I personally attach very little importance or I attach very little weight to that possibility. I think it's extremely unlikely that that's the reason for this lull in military operations because as I've said many times there's absolutely no indication uh that uh the negotiating positions of the two sides, Iran and the United States overlap in any respect. Whether we're talking about the lifting of sanctions, whether we're talking about the unfreezing of Iranian assets, the removal of US military bases from the region, the enrichment of uranium by Iran, uh the possession of a ballistic missile arsenal, uh you know, reparations, uh support for the axis of resistance, they are miles apart based upon their public statements on every single issue that matters to one or the other side in this so-called negotiation. and there's no reason to believe that that has changed uh within the past . So I don't think that's likely to be the reason for this uh quiet period. Another possibility is that the United States and Israel are on the verge of launching uh a uh massive attack upon Iran. And uh they uh are of the view either they're preparing to making the final preparations to launch that attack or uh they perhaps are of the view that if they engage in no military operations uh for a brief period of time that may engender a sense of complacency uh amongst the military and political leadership of Iran. And finally, and this is the possibility that I think is uh most likely uh the explanation for uh the uh temporary uh pause in military operations. It is entirely possible that yesterday uh the Iranian military put an ass kicking on the US Navy uh by causing severe damage to one or more of its destroyers. We know that its destroyers were fired upon. The United States admitted as much and uh uh US officials told C CBS news that destroyers had come under a complex and intense attack. Uh that's the way they put it. We know that Iran is perfectly capable of hitting valuable u military hardware uh belonging to the United States. And uh if in fact they succeeded in uh inflicting significant damage on one or more US destroyers, which is what the Iranian military claimed, uh I can imagine uh that the US military leadership and Donald Trump are in the middle of having some very difficult conversations about what to do next. uh because this is obviously uh a suicide mission sending US destroyers, other major naval vessels uh from the United States into the street of Hormuz without the consent of the Iranian military. Uh but we'll have to see uh whatever is going on, it is certainly good news uh albeit uh perhaps of a temporary nature uh that there's no fighting today. Uh at the end of the day however uh the fundamental problem is that uh the maritime traffic through the straight of Hormuz is at a standstill. I saw a report that over the last 3 days not a single commercial vessel has gone through the street of Hormuz. Uh there even a few have managed to make it through. uh it would constitute a tiny fraction of the uh level of traffic we saw through the street of Hormuz before this criminal war of aggression was launched. And therefore uh the supplies of oil and gas and other essential commodities will continue to become more and more constrained in the days, months and god forbid the weeks or years I should say ahead. Uh that is a problem that cannot be solved militarily. And uh I think it would be uh to put it mildly a strategic disaster for the United States to leave Iran in control of the straight of Hormuz and therefore effectively 20 to 30% of the world's oil supply when uh there was no control being exerted by Iran over maritime traffic through the street of Horm. It was before the war began. Uh and so the United States, whatever brave face Donald Trump may be attempting to put on, is unquestionably going to be desperate uh to uh uh end control, Iranian control of the street of Hormuz in any way that it can. And as I said, the only way to do that uh is non-military. It's namely making a series of painful concessions uh to Iran. Now, uh the other thing I wanted to talk about uh today related to the Iran war is the um this whole theory that was uh put forward. Well, I guess they put it forward more as a as more than a theory, 10 minutesbut rather as an explanation for why uh Donald Trump suspended his uh so-called project freedom within about a day of it having been commenced. The theory uh propounded by NBC News based upon two unnamed sources from the US government was that uh the Saudis and other Arab vassels of Washington were so agitated about the fact that they had not been given advanced notice about Project Freedom uh that when they learned of it, they forbade the United States military from using their airspace or military bases on their territory to conduct the operation. Uh now for a variety of reasons I have uh poo pooed this idea. I don't believe the story is true. Uh I'm not going to repeat all the reasons why. Uh but I wanted to bring to attent the attention of uh my audience uh that um Larry Johnson has weighed in on uh the veracity of this story. and Larry Johnson, uh, you know, former CIA analyst, uh, very knowledgeable, uh, and I think, uh, not only a knowledgeable commentator, uh, with, uh, considerable expertise in intelligence and military matters, but also a person of, uh, considerable integrity, uh, somebody I listen to quite a bit. I learned quite a bit from listening to Larry Johnson, even though I may not always agree with him. And Larry Johnson uh yesterday, I believe it was, uh on an alternative media platform said, uh that he it might have been uh uh Dialogue Works with Nema uh said that he had uh asked a source who was well placed to know the truth of of of this matter. Uh that's the way I think Larry put it about whether or not this was true that the Saudis had uh basically uh scuppered the entire enterprise, the Project Freedom by telling the Americans they couldn't use Saudi airspace or military bases. And his source whom Larry says he considers to be reliable told him that it was true. And I thought that as a journalistic matter I should make you aware of that. uh because as I say Larry is a serious commentator and uh I don't doubt that he does have sources within the United States government and this raises an important question uh because we see increasing use both in the corporate and the alternative media but especially the corporate media of uh anonymous sources uh to uh put forward quite uh important and sometimes controversial theories about what is actually going on behind the scenes. And so I'm going to offer my view about how people should deal not just with this particular source that Larry is relying upon, but the whole question of anonymous sources. Uh my own view is that uh I attach little weight to anonymous sources unless I myself know who they are and based upon my knowledge of their record uh have reason to believe good reason to believe that they are credible and reliable and in fact informed about the matters that they comment upon. If I don't know who these people are and I don't even know uh you know uh what position they have within the government, how it is that they claim to have access to the information that they're providing on an anonymous anonymous basis. If I've never spoken to them and I've got no way of assessing their credibility uh or you know uh how wellinformed they actually are uh it would be uh irrational of me to place a lot of weight on what they say. Uh now it may well be that uh uh Lar it may be that Larry I'm sure Larry does feel that he has good reason to regard this source as reliable. Uh but if I were to know this person or meet this person whoever it may be and ask them a series of questions I may come to a different conclusion uh you know in good faith just come to a different conclusion from Larry. Perhaps uh Larry had a certain interpretation of what this person told him and I might have had a different interpretation if I had heard whatever it is that this person told Larry about this so-called Saudi intervention. Uh perhaps this person is him or herself misinformed. They think they know the truth but they've received erroneous information from somebody else. I mean it's just impossible to know. uh and so we really need to be very very careful especially when you're talking about important uh geopolitical issues uh in placing undue weight on uh anonymous sources. Uh and and one other thing I'll add, and this is not in any way, shape, or form intended as a criticism of of Larry, uh but Larry uh uh was told by another source, maybe the same person, it may be a different person, but one that he regards as reliable, uh that the United States and Israel were going to attack Iran on May 7th. Uh that was uh something that Larry shared with uh various audiences on various platforms um a few days before May 7th came and went. And of course, although there was uh there were skirmishes on May 7th, there was no resumption of the war by the United States and Israel, certainly nothing happened that could be characterized as a resumption of the all-out war that was taking place before. Uh so that source, whoever it may have been, appears to have been mistaken or perhaps Larry honestly misinterpreted what he was told uh by that source. But in any case, this just goes to highlight and this sort of thing by the way happens all the time in journalism. People rely on anonymous sources and it turns out uh that they were wrong. And this just goes to highlight that we really have to be very careful about uh attaching undue importance to uh claims made by persons about whom we know nothing. And uh I also want to explain briefly before I sign off today why this issue of whether or not Saudi Arabia intervened is important. It seems to me that there's a lot of opium circulating within the alternative media about the ability and willingness of the Arabitocracies to stand up to the United States. I've seen a lot of discussion and debate about the possibility of, you know, Qatar and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and maybe uh, you know, Jordan, you know, finally growing a spine, the autocrats of these countries and telling the American military to pack up and leave. Uh, frankly, I just think this is fantastical thinking. There is absolutely no reason to believe based on their records that they would ever demonstrate that kind of spying. Uh these people have seen over and over again that the United States and Israel are willing to murder uh the leaders of predominantly Muslim and Arab states who don't do the bidding of Washington. They will also murder their family members. They will take away their wealth. They will even destroy their countries if that doesn't suffice for Washington to get its way. Uh they've seen this in Technicol during this uh genocidal rampage by Israel over the last two and a half years. uh you know so not only that but the preservation and uh uh expansion of their wealth their very prodigious wealth they're paid very handsomely to be vassels of Washington depends on the patronage of the United States military the protection of the United States military and finally they've allowed the foxes into the hen house the US military has bases all throughout these countries which would make it you know quite easy for the United States government to overthrow their regimes if they felt that they were not being sufficiently subservient uh to Washington. I'll believe it when I see it, folks. You show me a an Arab autocrat, whether it be the king of Jordan, uh the so-called crown prince of Saudi Arabia, the Amir of Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, whoever, you show me an instance in which they have actually said no to the United States, stood up to the United States in a matter that was of great importance to the United States, like for example, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and got away with it. and then maybe I'll begin to contemplate this as a realistic possibility. I think the only way we're ever going to see a uh return to sovereignty by any of these countries, assuming that they were ever sovereign, uh Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and so forth, uh is regime change. these corrupt, cowardly vassels, uh, who are extraordinarily wealthy, uh, extraordinarily greedy, couldn't give a damn about ordinary human beings, including in particular the Palestinian people, uh, they're never going to do the right thing. There's no reason to believe they'll ever do the right thing. And, uh, unless and until until the fine peoples of these countries uh, throw off the yoke of their oppression, they will continue to do Washington's bidding. They may complain from time to time. They may grouse. They may try to cajul or persuade the United States not to pursue a course of action that they feel is ill advised. But at the end of the day, if Washington says uh it's this way or the highway, for them, it will be this way. I think that that should be your operating assumption. In any case, uh I'm going to be signing off today. I wish you all an excellent weekend. I'll be traveling uh tomorrow uh Sunday to Athens and probably will not be in a 19 minutesposition to put out a report although if something uh there's some sudden uh vitally uh significant development in the uh region of West Asia or in some other part of the world that we've been covering here on Reason to Resist. I'll probably uh find an opportunity to deliver the information to you tomorrow. Uh until then uh again I wish you the best on this victory day 2026 and I'm signing off from the hills outside of Kalamata Greece.
Putin Secretly Helps Iran Rebuild Arsenal Through ‘UNTOUCHABLE’ Sea Route, U.S. ‘FULLY LOCKED OUT’ Times Of India May 9, 2026 #caspiansea #iran #russia
While the world watches the tankers in Hormuz, the real action is happening in the Caspian Sea. U.S. intelligence reports that Russia has opened a massive military "backdoor," shipping drone parts and strategic cargo to Iran across a sea that the U.S. Navy cannot legally enter or blockade. This secret logistics corridor is helping Tehran rebuild its decimated drone arsenal, proving that even with a total Gulf blockade, Moscow and Tehran have found a way to keep the war machine running.
Transcript
While the world's attention remains fixed on the straight of Hormuz, American intelligence officials now say a far quieter and potentially far more effective [music] supply route is helping Iran rebuild for the next round. And it is not running through the Gulf. It is running across the Caspian Sea. According to a new report by the New York Times, US officials believe Russia is shipping drone components and military related cargo to Iran via Caspian Sea maritime routes, turning the massive inland waterway into a strategic logistics corridor beyond western reach. The officials speaking anonymously to the paper say the shipments are helping Thrron rebuild after the recent USIsraeli campaign during which American assessments suggest Iran lost roughly 60% of its drone arsenal if shipments continue at the current pace. US officials reportedly believe Iran could rapidly replenish its unmanned strike capabilities. Unlike the Straight of Hormuz, no US carrier group patrols it. No Western Navy can legally intercept shipping there, and no [music] sanctions task force can easily monitor cargo once vessels enter its enclosed waters. For Moscow and Thrron, that makes it ideal. The Caspian directly connects both countries through long coastlines, creating a trade corridor largely insulated from American pressure. According to the [music] report, cargo moving across the Caspian now includes drone components along with other strategic goods that would normally move through Gulf routes now disrupted by the Hormuz blockade. While Washington focuses on tankers in Hormuz, Moscow and Thrron may be building the next phase [music] of the war across a sea America cannot blockade. As Washington pushes for quick diplomatic wins on two of the world's biggest conflicts, [music] the Kremlin is delivering a blunt reality check. Slow down. Speaking on Russian state television, Kremlin spokesman Dimmitri [music] Pescov said the United States is clearly in a hurry to secure [music] peace in Ukraine, but warned the conflict is far too complex for [music] quick fixes. his message. It is understandable that the American side is in a hurry. Then came the reality check, but the issue of a Ukrainian settlement [music] is far too complex and reaching a peace agreement is a very long road with complex details. But Pescov didn't stop at Ukraine. He directly linked Washington's Ukraine diplomacy [music] to its growing confrontation with Iran, warning the Americans face an equally long road there. According to Russia's state media, Pescov [music] said, "The same is true of the path with Iran that the United States still has to go through. We do not yet [music] know how long this will last or how it will end. So, let us be patient," he added. President Donald Trump has just brokered a May 9 to11 ceasefire between Moscow and Kev, including a planned 1,000 for 1,000 [music] prisoner exchange, and has publicly said he wants the truce [music] extended. But Moscow is signaling 3 days is 3 days and peace [music] that's another matter entirely. Now, by tying Ukraine to Iran in the same breath, the Kremlin is effectively telling Washington, "Two wars, two negotiation tables, and no [music] shortcuts on either." In a move that is sending shock waves across Europe, a sitting leader from a NATO member [music] state has openly broken ranks with Brussels, ignored regional airspace restrictions, and landed in Moscow to stand alongside President Vladimir Putin on Victory Day. Prime Minister Robert Fiko of Slovakia arrived in Moscow to participate in Russia's 81st Victory Day celebrations, [music] becoming one of the very few Western leaders and the only leader from a current [music] NATO member to personally attend the parade on Red Square. The trip comes despite intense political pressure from European Union partners and after several Baltic NATO members purportedly [music] denied overflight clearance to FICO's aircraft, forcing his delegation to take a longer rerouted path to Russia. But FIO [music] came anyway and held direct talks with Putin. The symbolism could hardly be bigger. At a time when most NATO leaders are boycotting Moscow, increasing military aid to Ukraine, and pushing tougher sanctions on Russia, a NATO prime minister is walking into the Kremlin. [music] FICO has repeatedly criticized Western escalation, questioned the effectiveness of [music] sanctions, opposed some arms deliveries to Ukraine, and called for direct engagement with [music] Moscow. Now he is taking that position directly to Putin. From Moscow, the optics are priceless. A NATO flag may fly over Bratoslava, but today its prime minister is in Moscow. Mr. Prime Minister, it is a distinct honor and a genuine pleasure for me to extend to you once again a most sincere and heartfelt welcome to our capital city of Moscow. It was just last year that on this very same festive and celebratory day, we all gathered together in the city of Moscow to mark the solemn and grand occasion of the 80th anniversary of our historic great victory. Uh, and I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you for your decision to join us once again here today. I am aware that much like on the previous occasion, you encountered certain difficulties regarding your journey to Moscow. I have only just been informed in a brief manner that on this uh particular occasion uh things were once again a little bit a bit easier but that's not important. What matters is that you are here and we are very grateful to you for that. Your unwavering stance on preserving the historical truth about the events of the Second World War and the role of the Red Army in the liberation of Europe from Nazism commands respect. I would like to note that the Slovak fighters against the German fascist forces also made a contribution to the great victory. We selmly remember the historic events of the Slovak National Uprising of August 29th, 1944. We are deeply grateful to the leadership and the people of Slovakia for their respectful care of the monuments and burial sites of Soviet soldiers who fell in battles against the fascists on Slovak soil. in the very near future. As far as I know, the grand opening of the of the Red Army's central military memorial cemetery in the city of Michel is expected. Uh we are referring to Mikovia, aren't we? Machi, I would like to thank you for the very close attention you have been paying to this matter. For many years, the relations between Russia and Slovakia, including during your previous terms as prime minister, have been characterized by a high level of political dialogue and a very stable dynamic of cooperation. Of course, we understand that they are currently complicated by events by events related to to what is happening in Ukraine and by the confrontational foreign policy climate as we believe which is being imposed on all of us by both the EU and NATO. Uh at the same time, I note that uh your government remains firmly committed to pursuing a sovereign foreign policy and building a pragmatic course toward the Russian Federation. I welcome the ongoing gradual restoration of our bilateral cooperation which had been effectively frozen by by the deliberate efforts of the previous Slovak administration. Unfortunately, our trade turnover has declined both last year and this year. We are also aware of the reasons for this decline. Uh we sincerely trust that uh your visit here today will provide us with a much clearer understanding of what exactly can be done to restore our previous levels of trade turnover and how we might develop it further. We are also fully aware of your keen interest in collaborating on several on several spec specific uh areas of mutual benefit including of course the energy sector. We have just had the distinct pleasure and opportunity to speak with you privately one-on-one. However, I would like to reiterate here as well. We are fully committed to doing absolutely everything in our power to meet the Slovak Republic's critical energy requirements. Furthermore, we stand ready to cooperate extensively in various other areas of mutual interest. Thank you very much. Respected Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, on behalf of the entire Slovak delegation, I would like to thank you for the welcome and hospitality of the classic style of traditional Russian hospitality. If you would please allow me to speak on behalf of I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to the government of the Slovak Republic and to the distinguished Slovak delegation present here today on the occasion of your most significant national holiday victory day. Furthermore, it is a profound honor and a privilege for me to be here in the Russian Federation to participate in the official celebrations of this truly significant and historic day. Mr. Mr. President, history binds us together in an extraordinary way and I must firmly reject the blatant distortion of our historical facts and I for one absolutely refuse to ever consider abandoning the fundamental idea of a truly sovereign and independent Slovak foreign policy that is actively oriented towards every single partner who is genuinely and sincerely interested in maintaining and fostering normal standard and mutually friendly relations with our own sovereign Slovak Republic. People in Slovakia are very well aware that it was not just direct assistance during the Slovak National Uprising in 1944. It is Kubui, but rather that it was in fact primarily the tens of thousands of Red Army soldiers who lost their lives and are currently buried to this very day across a wide variety of different locations throughout the country of Slovakia. It is precisely for this reason that I would like to reiterate the firm commitment of the government of the Slovak Republic that we will continue to care for these memorial sites with the utmost respect and profound reverence. Uh my visits to Moscow yesterday and today are first and foremost to express my deepest honor and respect for all those who perished in the Second World War. I also acknowledge the undeniable fact that the nations of the former Soviet Union bore the greatest burden in in the long aruous struggle u to achieve victory over uh over the forces of of fascism. I am genuinely and truly pleased Mr. President that you have specifically mentioned the city of Mikolof. However, it is not merely a matter concerning the city of Mikolov alone. Throughout Slovakia, we possess dozens of military cemeteries where not only, you know, the brave [clears throat] soldiers of the Red Army are laid to rest, but also those of the Romanian army who played a vital role in our liberation. Therefore, it is with the greatest pleasure that I inform you, Mr. President, that we have now fully fulfilled the solemn commitment we made regarding the complete reconstruction of the military cemetery in Mikallovche. and I will personally attend the official opening uh ceremony of uh uh the recon's uh structed cemetery in Mikalloche in the very near future. However, it is important to note that this applies to all sites in Slovakia where the victims of the Second World War are buried. And I truly believe that anyone from your country who visits Slovakia and takes the time to visit these memorial sites will naturally see this level of care. And so I would like to take this opportunity to extend my warmest congratulations to you once again on the occasion of this truly significant and important national holiday. And furthermore, I would very much like to utilize our upcoming bilateral discussion, Mr. President, to set to set aside some time so that we may address uh the core fundamental issues that define our Slovak Russian and Russian Slovak relations. I I have never been one to to say one thing in private and then say something entirely different in public. Even now while the media is still here, I want to state very clearly that I am fundamentally opposed to to the creation of any new iron curtain between Europe, the European Union and the Russian Federation. I personally advocate for uh the establishment of relations that are normal, standard, genuinely friendly and mutually beneficial for both of our nations. and I remain firmly convinced that both the Slovak Republic and the Russian Federation are capable of taking a series of concrete steps in the very near future that will ultimately lead us towards such a state of normaly. Mr. President, I must express uh my sincere regret regarding the unfortunate decline in our bilateral trade. However, we understandably continue to receive very significant energy supplies from your country. I refer specifically to the natural gas currently delivered to Slovakia via the Turk Stream pipeline. I am currently speaking about the the crude oil supplies flowing through the Dusba pipeline system. However, it would be insufficient to limit our mutual efforts solely to cooperation in this area. Therefore, Mr. President, I intend to provide you with a detailed update today regarding uh our uh current status concerning the intergovernmental commission for economic cooperation as well as the specific steps we have already taken. We have taken a number of concrete steps to restore the full presence of military attaches at our individual embassies. We are addressing the practical steps for both our embassy here in Moscow and the practical steps and issues faced by the embassy of the Russian Federation in Bratislava. Therefore, I greatly appreciate that we will be able to exchange very important information in such a broad format. Um, once again, thank you for your hospitality and once again, happy victory day. [music]
Trump admits Iran war is "foolish" and ruining the economy The Grayzone May 9, 2026
The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate on a candid admission by Trump that his decision to attack Iran was "foolish," but that he would do it anyway even though it is wrecking the US economy.
Hassan Ahmadian: 'The US views Gulf states as nothing but proxies' | Ep. 22 The Cradle Apr 18, 2026
Dr. Hassan Ahmadian is an Assistant Professor at the University of Tehran specializing in Iran’s regional policy and political change in West Asia. He previously held research positions at Harvard University. Follow on X https://x.com/hasanahmadian
