Thursday, April 16, 2026

04/16 Links Pt1: What Victory Looks Like When Your Foe Won’t Surrender; Israel, Lebanon agree to 10-day truce; Outlawing Israeli Self-Defense; The Return of the Echo Chamber

From Ian:

Jonathan Schanzer: What Victory Looks Like When Your Foe Won’t Surrender
Trump’s problems in fighting Iran are tangible: a naval blockade, drone swarms, and missile attacks on allies. But the struggle can be distilled to one word: ideology. The wars at the beginning of this century were waged to defeat that ideology. We called it the “War on Terror.” And it was a war worthy of waging, even though the word “terror” was a politically correct euphemism for the true enemy, Islamic radicalism. But we gave up for lack of progress. From 2001 to 2021, the United States spent more than $8 trillion. We had the edge against our enemies in terms of firepower. However, we could not credibly declare victory no matter how many battles we won. And we could not win because the other side refused to lose.

Adherents to jihadism (who make up fewer than 20 percent of the world’s Muslim population) believe that their faith commands them to fight and that victory is inevitable, even if it takes decades. Indeed, they believe they are destined to win, or die trying. As the late, great Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis wrote back in 2006, “For people with this mindset, [Mutually Assured Destruction] is not a constraint; it is an inducement.”

This is the worldview of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. It is the worldview of Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention the Houthis in Yemen. Adherents to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s 1979 Islamic Revolution view the world this way, too.

When your enemy is the infidel, and your victory is ordained by Allah, your obligation is to keep fighting, even in defeat. Surrender is not an option. The Islamic Republic not only embraces this mindset; it portrays every challenge as a test of will that it must endure. Military losses or economic pain are spun as proof of martyrdom and sacrifice, to be answered with even greater confidence in the revolution.

But just because someone refuses to admit defeat doesn’t mean he is immune to it. The relentless Israeli–American assault on the assets of the regime is undeniably taking its toll. There is still a chance that the regime will collapse amid the demise of its top leaders, the destruction of its key military assets, and the voiding of its cash-generating businesses. If the regime survives all of that, it will still be contending with a population that is not soon to forget the slaughter of more than 30,000 patriots who were murdered for the crime of protesting against their oppressive regime. The Iranian rank and file will likely be aided by the Mossad, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies from countries that sustained attacks by the Islamic Republic over the course of this war. These countries have deep pockets and a grudge. The combined ability of these parties to provide weapons, cash, secure communications, and intelligence to the Iranian people could ultimately tip the scales and topple the regime.

The problem for Donald Trump is that such things take time. And, as we’ve seen, he fears that time will sink him deeper into this war, just as it has sunk America into almost every war it has fought since World War II.

One possible missed opportunity for Trump was to take a page out of the George H.W. Bush handbook. When the United States expelled Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, Saddam Hussein’s regime was defeated militarily in just six weeks. However, the Iraqi government remained in place, and it was not forced to surrender unconditionally. The liberation of Kuwait was the aim, so Operation Desert Storm was deemed a success. What followed was a long-standing effort to isolate the Iraqi regime through a combination of diplomatic and economic pressure, along with UN measures to ensure disarmament and the enforcement of no-fly zones to protect the Iraqi population.

Such a scenario might have been thinkable at the outset of Operation Epic Fury. But the window for that closed when the regime began to wage its asymmetric war in the Persian Gulf. There was no way to leave and save face.

An unequivocal victory is still feasible, but that may be possible only by waging total war. Which is what Trump implied when he warned the regime that a failure to reach an equitable deal through diplomacy would result in Iran getting bombed “back to the stone age.” His words immediately elicited howls of disapproval from the international community, not to mention Trump’s political opponents, who declared such rhetoric out of bounds. But threats such as “a whole civilization will die” violate not a single law of war. Angry rhetoric does not constitute a crime. And in any event, due to the unlikely diplomatic intervention of Pakistan, a window for dialogue was opened.

The cease-fire that followed only 12 hours later was dramatic, but mostly because it was bound to fail. The Iranian regime sent emissaries to Islamabad to deliver one message: It will not capitulate. After 21 hours of fruitless talks, Trump and his chief negotiator, Vice President JD Vance, sensibly took no for an answer.

The next phase of Operation Epic Fury will be a hybrid campaign. The conventional strikes will continue as necessary when targets present themselves—although we have already been told that we may have reached a point of diminishing returns in this regard.

Concurrently, the U.S. will likely continue to wage the economic campaign during which the United States Navy is blocking Iranian tankers and those paying Iran bribes for its tankers to transit the Strait of Hormuz. The Air Force may knock out additional economic assets to deprive the regime of the ability to pay its loyalists. The handbook for sanctions and other financial tools honed since the George W. Bush administration is likely to be deployed, too. This will be a reprise of Trump’s “Maximum Pressure” campaign on steroids.

For Trump, this is now all about legacy and history. If waged wisely, Operation Epic Fury could bring down America’s most determined Middle Eastern foe. It can also help redefine military victory in the modern era. There will be no white flags, no papers signed on a battleship, no suicides in a bunker. We will have to content ourselves with knowing we set the world on a new course—even as, in the wake of a victory, there will almost certainly be an entire class of experts and political opponents who will continue to insist that the whole thing was a dead loss.
Why Iran's Rulers Are Not "Rational Actors"
If Iran's rulers were "rational actors," they wouldn't have wanted to repeat the experience of the 12-day war in June 2025.

Yet they're not. They are not peace-loving. They don't prefer compromise over conflict. Iran's rulers believe - literally - that they are on a mission from God.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's title was "Supreme Leader," implying that he was the divinely ordained guardian of Iran.

For nearly half a century, every American president pledged that Iran's theocrats would be prevented from acquiring the nuclear capabilities that could lead to the fulfillment of their grand ambition: "Death to America!" Yet no serious actions were ever taken.

If Mr. Trump had not struck when he did, then Tehran might have acquired nukes while continuing to build up an enormous arsenal of drones and missiles, leading to a war that future presidents could not win, or could win only at an exorbitant cost in blood and treasure.

This conflict was about degrading an American enemy's capabilities, not its intentions.

Their hatred of America, Israel and the West has not abated. They continue to believe it is their duty to wage jihad.
Saudi Arabia, the Abraham Accords, and Operation Roaring Lion
Saudi policy toward Israel will depend largely on how the war with Iran ends. Four main scenarios stand out, each affecting in different ways the likelihood that Saudi Arabia will join the Abraham Accords.

In a prolonged war with no clear outcome but continued regional erosion, Saudi Arabia is likely to remain cautious. Quiet coordination with the United States and Israel would still carry strategic value, but the public and regional costs of open normalization would stay high. Riyadh would likely deepen its hedging—expanding quiet security cooperation, investing more in regional alternatives, and holding back from a formal agreement.

In a stable ceasefire without a decisive outcome, the chances of gradual warming are likely highest. Riyadh could present the outcome as inconclusive while arguing that it opens a window to reshape the regional order. If this is coupled with some form of arrangement in Gaza and on the Palestinian track, phased normalization could again become a realistic option. This scenario comes closest to more optimistic assessments, which hold that the prospect of an agreement has not disappeared but now depends on effective mediation and the management of a new regional order. (Rothem, 2025; Ross, 2025).

If the conflict settles into a pattern of recurring rounds of fighting, Saudi policy is likely to remain deeply ambivalent. Strategically, the case for a regional alignment would continue to strengthen; politically, however, each new round would heighten public and Arab sensitivities and push back any move from quiet cooperation to open normalization. In this scenario, there would be growing strategic need for an alliance alongside limited political room to act.

In a scenario in which the Iranian regime is replaced, or at least significantly weakened, the picture would be more complex. On one hand, the immediate Iranian threat would recede, potentially easing the sense of urgency that has driven part of the logic for normalization. On the other, such a shift could open a window for a new regional order in which Saudi Arabia would seek to consolidate its gains, reinforce its position, and anchor itself in a U.S.-backed regional architecture. Thus, in this scenario, normalization would not necessarily accelerate immediately, but if a less threatening regional order takes shape, it could become politically easier for Riyadh, even if less strategically urgent.

The war therefore will not shape the Saudi approach to normalization in a single direction. Some scenarios increase the strategic case for normalization, others reduce its urgency, and still others widen the gap between strategic interest and political feasibility.

Conclusion
Before the war, the prospects for Saudi–Israeli normalization were improving even as the path toward it grew longer, however the war has changed the way the Saudis view the issue. Riyadh no longer sees normalization as a bilateral deal with Israel, but as part of a broader question: what regional order will emerge after the war, what will Saudi Arabia’s place be within the new order, and what alternative regional options will it have. As long as the outcome of the war remains uncertain, Saudi policy will stay gradual, cautious, and hedged. If, however, conditions begin to take shape for some form of regional settlement with a Palestinian track, and there is a clearer picture of the Iranian threat, the overall likelihood of Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords may not only hold but increase. The prospects have improved; the path has lengthened; and the meaning of normalization has changed.Top of Form


Israel, Lebanon agree to 10-day truce
Israel and Lebanon agreed to a 10-day ceasefire on Thursday following calls between U.S. president Donald Trump and the leaders of each country.

After Trump announced the truce on social media, the State Department released a statement with details of the agreement between the two sides.

“Israel and Lebanon will implement a cessation of hostilities” that will start at 5 p.m. Eastern on April 16 for “an initial period of 10 days, as a gesture of goodwill by the government of Israel, intended to enable good-faith negotiations toward a permanent security and peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon,” the agreement says.

The agreement adds that Israel will retain a right to self-defense “at any time, against planned, imminent or ongoing attacks” but will otherwise cease offensive military operations in Lebanon.

The agreement does not call for a withdrawal of Israeli ground forces from Lebanon and says that the initial ceasefire may be extended “as Lebanon effectively demonstrates its ability to assert its sovereignty.”

That condition appears to be tied to Lebanon’s ability to disarm Hezbollah, as the agreement requires the Lebanese government to take “meaningful steps” from the time the ceasefire begins to prevent Hezbollah and other terrorist groups from attacking Israel from Lebanese territory.

Trump wrote in a followup post to the truce announcement that he would invite Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for “meaningful talks.”

The agreement released by the State Department says that those negotiations would be designed to resolve “all remaining issues” and reach a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, which do not have diplomatic relations and have technically been in a state of war since Israel’s founding in 1948.

An open question about any ceasefire in Lebanon is whether Israel can prevent Hezbollah from carrying out attacks on Israeli border communities.


Behind the scenes of the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire: Why did Netanyahu, Aoun agree to 10-day truce?
US President Donald Trump pressured Israel to agree to a ceasefire in Lebanon after Lebanon’s president clarified to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other senior American officials that such a call would not take place without progress in negotiations between the two countries, according to two sources familiar with the details.

Although the US president posted on Truth Social on Thursday morning that a call between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun would take place, Aoun refused.

“There is only value in such a phone call between leaders when there is significant progress on the ground. Without real negotiations underway, and certainly without a ceasefire, I will not hold a call with Netanyahu at this time,” Aoun said.

He emphasized that he is not ruling out a future call with the prime minister, but that something meaningful must happen first.

These remarks by Aoun on Thursday, including those made to Rubio, led to a conversation between Aoun and Trump, during which the American president promised his Lebanese counterpart that “there will be a ceasefire.”

Iran ceasefire not connected to Lebanon, Trump and Netanyahu assert

An Israeli source told The Jerusalem Post that Trump and Netanyahu held at least one phone call during the day.

Following the ceasefire with Iran, Netanyahu and Trump clarified that it is not connected to Lebanon. In recent days, there has been no pressure from Israel for a ceasefire, only requests by Trump and other officials to minimize Israeli strikes in Lebanon.

During a security cabinet meeting, Netanyahu was asked what led to the sudden change and Israel’s decision to agree to a ceasefire. “It's a Trump request,” he answered.


The Stakes of Iran Diplomacy: Enrichment, Ballistic Missiles, and Hormuz
Washington is applying military and economic pressure to compel Iran toward a deal, but without pursuing actual regime change. That is also the stated position of the White House: deny Iran nuclear weapons, degrade its ballistic missile infrastructure, strike its naval forces, and sever its support for proxy networks, but do not topple the regime.

Iran, for its part, is not seeking a deal. It is seeking to stop the assault without any real loss of its core capabilities. From Tehran's perspective, walking away from a negotiation is a tactic, because Iran understands that Washington has no appetite for a sustained military campaign without a clear political objective of actual regime change. Tehran is therefore trying to force Washington into an impossible choice: either a war with no political endpoint, or a deal that contains no Iranian surrender.

Negotiation is not an alternative to war. It is one of war's theaters. Iran shifts the battle into the negotiating room because that is where it holds a relative advantage. It can delay, buy time, fragment the opposing side, relieve external pressure, and keep the argument focused on language and formulas rather than on actual capabilities. This is the foundation of its strategic deception. What matters is not the declared intentions across the table, but what Iran retains while the world is talking.

As long as Tehran holds the principle of enrichment, the technical knowledge, the physical infrastructure, ballistic reconstitution capacity, active proxy networks, and maritime pressure levers, what is happening is not threat dismantlement. It is threat management. There is no genuine diplomatic solution that would compel Iran to stop rebuilding its missile arsenal or halt its drive back toward nuclear capability.

Any American concession on the question of the Strait of Hormuz, or any form of functional Iranian control over commercial shipping, would constitute an unambiguous Iranian victory and a strategic situation worse than the one that existed before hostilities began. Hormuz is therefore the only card Iran can convert into an unambiguous public victory, and the one place where Washington absolutely cannot afford to yield.

If the genuine objective is to eliminate the Iranian threat, nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, proxy networks, and maritime coercion, there is no real diplomatic solution. If the U.S. is unwilling to pursue actual regime change, there are only solutions that manage the threat, suspend it, or defer it.
U.S. Sets Conditions for Renewing Talks with Iran
The U.S. has set two conditions for renewing talks with Iran in Pakistan, according to two diplomatic sources.

The first is the full and unrestricted reopening of the Strait of Hormuz before the talks begin.

The second is agreement by all senior regime officials to any understandings reached in Islamabad.

So far, Iran has not fulfilled its commitment to reopen the strait, apparently because of opposition from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, despite prior agreement by the political echelon.

One diplomatic source said the Americans are sticking to a position of reciprocity.

If the Iranians prevent the movement of ships and tankers, their own ships and tankers will not be allowed to move through the strait either.

Two senior Revolutionary Guards officials, Ahmad Vahidi and Ali Abdollahi, did not allow the political delegation that was in Pakistan to reach agreements with the Americans.

The Americans responded that they would return to the talks only if the political delegation coming to meet them had the authority to close a deal.
Welcome to the New Iran
For the most part, that which once constituted Iran no longer exists. One can argue that the U.S.-Israel operation tipped Iran from a strong theocracy to a weak dictatorship. This process has been going on for at least two decades, but the operation caused an irreversible change. The death of Ali Khamenei created a vacuum. The growing need for both violent internal repression and dealing with external threats further strengthens the centrality of the IRGC in decision-making.

The damage to the Iranian economy and the regime's industries primarily harms its supporters. The regime will have to use the state's resources first and foremost to reestablish its power and core support base. This will come at the expense of most Iranian citizens.

The acquisition of unconventional weapons will now depend on technological feasibility and the ability to implement technical capability without its being detected, attacked, and destroyed beforehand.

The survival and way of life of the members of the public who support the regime are highly dependent on the survival of the regime. At the same time, they are being fed lies about the state's situation by the regime's media. The rest of the public is in a battle for survival and a significant portion of the Iranian population will have to fight for their most basic needs. In such a situation, and where brutal oppression is increasing, it is likely that widespread and organized protests will decrease significantly, while anger and willingness to commit violence will increase. As Iran's economic situation worsens, the sanctions will become much more effective. It is therefore essential to push for their continuity and prevent ideas that might arise to ease them in the name of misplaced concern for the Iranian people.
Trump claims Iran 'totally agreed' to give up nuclear ambitions
US President Donald Trump claimed that Iran has agreed to give up their nuclear ambitions during comments to the press outside the White House on Thursday.

“We had to make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. They've totally agreed to that. They've agreed to almost everything,” he claimed, despite no deal being reached during Saturday’s US-Iran talks in Pakistan.

Trump also asserted that Iran is willing to do things today “that they weren't willing to do two months ago,” before the US and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury against Iran.

When asked if it would be acceptable for Iran to agree to a 20-year halt for enriching uranium, Trump said he had received “a very powerful statement” that Iran will not have nuclear weapons for “beyond 20 years.”


Lee Smith: The Return of the Echo Chamber
The Obama faction and Vance’s restraintists are therefore structurally aligned, and the former are confident they have a shot at forcing Trump to accommodate Iran because they’ve got a man on the inside pushing things their way. As Carlson put it: “There are people in the White House … working really hard, really late, trying to fix this, to get a peace, even one that diminishes us.”

For the sake of his political future, Vance wants at the very least to distance himself from what allies like Carlson describe as a costly war of choice that serves only Israeli, not American, interests. Thus it’s hardly surprising his status as the cabinet member most opposed to the Iran campaign was the cornerstone of a recent New York Times article contending that Netanyahu fooled Trump into the war. According to the Times, during planning for the war America’s number two official told number one: “You know I think this is a bad idea. But if you want to do it, I’ll support you.”

Trump couldn’t have liked a leak showing that Vance publicly prioritized his political profile over showing unified support for the president’s Iran policy at wartime. So the vice president was sent to Pakistan to fail at winning a diplomatic solution to a war he opposes while Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vance’s rival for Trump’s 2028 endorsement, was invited to party with the boss at a UFC fight in Miami.

The Iranians’ reputation as tough negotiators is largely owing to U.S. officials who seek to accommodate Tehran even if it diminishes the U.S., like those Obama deputies who negotiated the JCPOA. But in this case, the Iranians really would have to be intransigent because the uranium is the only thing they have left resembling deterrence. The U.S. naval blockade neutralized Iran’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz, and with Hezbollah fighting for its life, the regime’s top proxy force is out of the picture. All Tehran has left is its adversaries’ concern that somehow in the middle of a massive military campaign that’s trashed their nuclear program they might yet build a bomb and find some way to push it across a neighbor’s doorstep. Of course, by not handing over the uranium, the Iranians are risking more of Trump’s devastating war, a bad option but from their perspective, in for a penny, in for a pound. And giving up the HEU is tantamount to complete surrender.

In short, there was no chance of a diplomatic solution since Trump’s redlines are indelible and the Iranians’ are existential. Vance’s task was essentially to offer the Iranians compensation packages: When you give up the goods, we’ll lift sanctions worth this much now and another portion at a future date—and of course we will give assurances that neither we nor the Israelis will liquidate you. If you don’t accept the terms, the war will resume until we get what we want.

Naturally, the Iranians rejected Trump’s redlines, which Vance nonetheless characterized as “progress.” Tuesday the vice president said: “I think the people we’re sitting across from wanted to make a deal.” But whether the Iranians showed flexibility, as Vance says, is irrelevant to Trump’s policy since his redlines are not negotiable. But the prospect of more negotiations is highly important to Vance, warned by his own camp that his failure to end Trump’s war will make him complicit in it and ruin his shot at the White House.

Trump has staked his legacy to a war he’s all but won and he says he wants everything. “I don’t want 90 percent, I don’t want 95 percent,” he says he told his negotiators. “I told them, ‘I want everything.’” If he doesn’t get it, the predecessor who plotted against him, and the possible successor who’s undermining his war policy, will decide not only the Iran campaign but also Trump’s place in history—as well as the fate of the echo chamber which was put in place to sell the Iranian nuclear bomb and which has been at the center of a decade’s worth of campaigns to deceive the American public.
Seth Mandel: Outlawing Israeli Self-Defense
But the debate over the word “defensive” largely misses the point, because it was never about defensive weapons in the first place. When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez expressed her opposition to Iron Dome funding, which is undeniably purely defensive, she was responding to a DSA member who phrased it this way (emphasis added): “If the moment presents itself in Congress, will you commit to voting ‘no’ for any spending on arms for Israel, including so-called ‘defensive capabilities?’”

“So-called defensive capabilities” was a telling phrase, and AOC’s willing submission to the DSA’s demands foreshadowed last night’s vote on bulldozers and anti-tunnel munitions. The new talking point is that there’s really no such thing as purely defensive weapons.

Iron Dome is an umbrella. When Ocasio-Cortez walks under an umbrella in the rain, are we unsure who is protecting themselves from what? Only a lunatic would say the umbrella is an offensive capability deployed against the raindrops.

But that’s where we are. Those of us who have tried to find common ground with Israel’s critics have made a serious mistake: We allowed for the division of offensive and defensive categories thinking it would at least protect the anti-missile system that stops rockets from falling on the heads of little children as they walk to school in Israel. We didn’t imagine that members of Congress would suggest those children are the aggressors in the conflict and therefore anything that protects them is an offensive weapon.

We should have seen it coming. The progressive idea of “colonialism” bears no relation to actual colonialism; it’s usage is solely to justify the killing of Jews in Israel no matter where they live. They’re considered occupiers even in Tel Aviv. Academic and NGO activists have been arguing that Israel has no right to defend itself—so how could anything Israelis deploy be considered defensive? “Defense” doesn’t exist for the Jewish state, according to this line of thinking.

Once you concede that non-defensive weaponry is on the table, Bernie Sanders and AOC and Elissa Slotkin and Chris Murphy merely adjust the category so that all arms are non-defensive.

In a broader sense, this simply means that Israel is deprived of the rights we usually accord to all other states. It’s another way of saying Israel has no right to exist, therefore anything that enables it to exist is evil, including mine-clearing and wildfire-fighting vehicles. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

The worst part is that the trend is clear: Unless something changes, this shameful moment in American history will be surpassed by an even more shameful moment next time this vote is taken. And anti-Israel Democrats will continue trying to chip away, bit by bit, at the Jewish state’s ability to defend itself from mass-casualty terrorism.
Sanders Resolution Blocking Arms Sales to Israel Garners Approval From 2028 Dem Presidential Hopefuls
A majority of the 47 Democrats in the Senate, including a handful of potential 2028 presidential candidates, backed two resolutions from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) blocking arms and equipment sales to Israel.

Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.), Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Jon Ossoff (Ga.), Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), and Raphael Warnock (Ga.) all voted in favor of both resolutions on Wednesday. One would have prohibited the United States from selling Caterpillar bulldozers to the Jewish state, while the other would have barred the U.S. government from selling Israel a shipment of thousand-pound bombs.

After the vote failed, Sanders boasted that "Democrats are beginning to listen to the average American who is sick and tired of spending billions of dollars to support Netanyahu's horrific wars."

But some of the senators who voted alongside Sanders may have more political considerations. While Ossoff and Warnock—both of whom have been mentioned as potential contenders for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2028—have mixed records on U.S. arms sales for Israel since Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023, attack, the votes on the Sanders resolutions mark a significant shift for the others.


EU states to revisit Israel sanctions after Orbán loss
Several E.U. member states will reintroduce proposals for sanctions on Israel when they meet next week in Luxembourg for the first time since outgoing Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s loss in his country’s general elections, the EUObserver news site reported on Wednesday.

Hungary under Orbán has blocked several attempts to sanction Israel by withholding its consent from proposals that required a consensus by all E.U. member state foreign ministers to pass.

Péter Magyar, whose Respect and Freedom Party, commonly known by its Hungarian abbreviations Tisza Party, won the election on April 12, has not specified his standpoints on Israel. His platform favors closer cooperation with the E.U., with which Orbán has publicly clashed on many issues, including Israel. Magyar is expected to assume power next month, after first forming a government.

Magyar has said he would reverse the Orbán government’s decision to take Hungary out of the International Criminal Court for its prosecution of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes in Gaza.

E.U. trade sanctions could mean a suspension of the E.U.-Israel Association Agreement by a qualified majority vote in the E.U. Council. If passed, this could cost Israel about $1 billion annually.
Iran using cease-fire to dig out bombed missile bases hit by US, Israeli strikes: satellite images
Iran is using the cease-fire to dig out its underground missile bases that were buried by US and Israeli airstrikes, according to recent satellite images.

Trucks and heavy machinery were seen arriving at the ruins of Iran’s missile bases near Khomeyn and Tabriz on April 10, two sites previously hit by airstrikes, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Iranian crews were seen to be clearing the debris from the underground tunnels, scooping the rubble and loading up nearby trucks that hulled it away.

The work appeared concentrated at the entrances to the missile bases that were hit and sealed off during the war, preventing Iran from deploying its rockets.

The images suggest Iran could be rushing to salvage its missile launchers during the temporary cease-fire, which remains in effect this week.

Mediators are still attempting to bring Washington and Tehran back to the negotiating table after talks broke down over the weekend.
China urges Iran to reopen Strait of Hormuz
China on Wednesday called on Iran to restore normal navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in a phone call that while Iran’s sovereignty and security in the strategic waterway should be respected and safeguarded, freedom and safety of navigation must also be guaranteed, according to a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement.

Wang said there is broad international interest in reopening the strait and described the situation as being at “a critical stage of transformation” with “a window for peace” emerging. He reiterated China’s support for maintaining a ceasefire and continuing negotiations, saying such efforts serve the interests of Iran, the region and the wider world.

Wang added that Beijing remains willing to help ease tensions and promote improved relations among countries in the region.

U.S. naval forces on Monday began enforcing a maritime blockade of Iranian ports. The Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical oil and gas choke points, spans about 21 miles between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Tehran has long exercised de facto control over the waterway, which handles about 20% of global oil trade.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Wednesday that the United States is trying to increase pressure on Iran via China, which was the largest purchaser of Iranian oil before the war.

“We believe with this blockade in the straits there will be a pause of Chinese buying,” Bessent said. “Two Chinese banks received letters from the U.S. Treasury—I’m not going to identify the banks—but we told them that if we can prove that there is Iranian money flowing through your accounts, then we are willing to put on secondary sanctions.”


Israeli Navy hits Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Yemen, and Gaza targets with precision strikes
The Israel Navy has torn apart enemy forces in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen since 2023, raising Israel’s power in the Middle East to new heights, since most of its rivals have been wiped out militarily.

With over 1,000 naval combat soldiers at sea, logging over 26,000 operational hours in only 47 days of the current war with Iran and Hezbollah, the Navy said on Thursday that it has already undertaken or provided critical intelligence for 154 attacks.

95 of these attacks have been in Iran.

Of those 95 attacks, 68 of them were undertaken by US forces, but were entirely based on Israeli naval intelligence.

27 of those attacks were solely by the Israeli naval intelligence and carried out by the air force.

This was a major jump from the Navy's involvement in the June 2025 war with Iran, in which it had a much smaller, though still lethal, role.

During the current war, the Navy has also struck 53 targets in Lebanon.

These attacks included 35 general attacks, 18 senior targeted assassination targets, and six special forces operations.

In addition, the Navy has attacked six targets in Gaza, mostly senior terror operatives, during the current war.

Previously, IDF Navy Lt. "G" told the Jerusalem Post that during Operation Rising Lion against Iran, "I was in a bunch of operations. To be part of these operations felt like a substantial contribution."

G added, "For two-and-a-half years, sometimes it was hard to see why the training mattered. But when you are on the frontlines at sea, it helps you connect everything you studied to something real and practical. The climax was against Iran, we had the chance to perform all of the skills which we learned during the course."


Can the Lebanese Army Disarm Hizbullah?
In a country deeply divided by religion and politics, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) is one of the few entities that enjoys broad trust across Sunni, Shia, Christian, and Druze communities. Historically, the army has often chosen neutrality during internal conflicts to prevent its own collapse. If the army were to take a side in a sectarian fight, it would likely fracture along religious lines, as happened during the Lebanese Civil War in 1975.

Gen. Rodolphe Heykal, the current army chief, reported to the government that South Lebanon was clear of Hizbullah's armed presence, but he gave false information. During a meeting in Washington with Sen. Lindsey Graham, Heykal was asked if he considered Hizbullah a terrorist organization. Heykal replied, "No, not in the context of Lebanon." If this is the LAF chief's view, what can the U.S. and Israel expect from the Lebanese army when it comes to implementing any agreement between Israel and Lebanon?

Nearly 60% of the LAF's rank and file are Shiites, and major positions in the army are held by Shiite officers, such as Gen. Souheil Harb, head of military intelligence, who reportedly serves as a debriefer to Hizbullah on major developments. For years, the LAF has operated under a "no-confrontation" policy with Hizbullah. Critics argue that until the LAF has a monopoly on the use of force, its "national" loyalty remains compromised by Hizbullah's Iranian-backed influence.
IDF Battalion Commander Describes Lebanon Fighting
"We are the battalion combat team that first entered Lebanon, more than 40 days ago," said Lt.-Col. A.

"When you go on the offensive in Gaza, you mostly focus on short ranges. In Lebanon, the fighting is far more spread out....The main challenge for a commander is to understand that every meter is a potential combat zone."

"This is a type of warfare that requires a deep understanding of the terrain, of explosives, and of an enemy that is right there, 40 to 50 meters away from you, face to face."

He said Hizbullah operatives avoid direct engagement with Israeli forces. "Every time we move forward, they move back."

"When the enemy is pushed back, its drones and explosives hit the army and not civilians in the Galilee. The range of threats to the communities would have been far greater if we weren't there."

"The goal is clear: to create an area with no enemy and no population, to ensure that Israeli communities are not on the front line."
Hizbullah Terrorists Caught Off Guard in Southern Lebanon
The IDF has continued an extensive campaign against rocket launchers in Lebanon while providing air support to ground forces in the south that is no longer constrained by the war with Iran.

The heaviest fighting is now in the Bint Jbeil area, where dozens of Hizbullah operatives, including members of the Radwan force, were surrounded and trapped in the town.

Hizbullah had massed a sizable force there for an attack into Israeli territory.

But the operatives were caught off guard. They did not detect the quiet advance of Israeli troops, who moved in and encircled them from three sides.

Several dozen terrorists who tried to flee were killed, and those who remained were left fighting for their lives.

Some Hizbullah operatives were filmed surrendering and throwing down their weapons.

Although Israeli forces are advancing with massive fire support in an effort to reduce casualties, the battle is unfolding in a densely-built urban area, making close-quarters clashes difficult to avoid.
Israel's New Security Zone in Lebanon
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz outlined the IDF operation in Lebanon as including "the destruction of homes in the contact-line villages, the defensive positions line inside Lebanon, which was expanded from five to 15 points, the anti-tank line whose seizure was completed through the ground maneuver and is now being expanded at additional points, and the Litani line, where the IDF will maintain control."

For residents in northern Israel, this is a security necessity rooted in the understanding that the IDF must separate civilians from their enemies. Brig.-Gen. (res.) Effi Eitam, who commanded forces in the previous security zone in Lebanon which existed in 1985-2000, said, "Israel had an efficient, effective security zone for many years. It was not a Lebanese mire. It was exactly what a country needs to do to protect its line of civilian communities."

"Since we fled from there and announced that the war was over, we have been inside Lebanon twice. During the years of supposed quiet, Hizbullah was built up into a monstrous military force....To protect Metula, Misgav Am, Rosh Hanikra and Avivim, we need to be inside Lebanon up to the Litani line in order to prevent what Hizbullah's Radwan Force planned."

Meir Ben-Shabbat, head of the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, who served as head of Israel's National Security Council, said, "Before the withdrawal from Lebanon [in 2000], the public discourse focused on the price of our presence there. Today the public understands what people spoke less about back then: the price of our absence."

"Control of a security zone is by no means a recipe for a static presence, nor is it a stand-alone component. Alongside it there must be sustained offensive interdiction activity that does not allow the enemy to entrench itself and forces it to direct its efforts toward survival rather than attacking us."


Trump-imposed truce between Israel and Hezbollah takes effect; 2 badly hurt by rocket fire hours before
A 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah appeared to take effect at midnight Thursday-Friday after being declared hours earlier by US President Donald Trump, who also announced that he was inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Lebanese President for peace talks at the White House.

Both the Israel Defense Forces and Hezbollah continued to launch attacks on Thursday until right before the truce went into force, with rockets fired by the Iran-backed Lebanese terror group resulting in serious wounds to a 17-year-old girl and a 25-year-old motorcyclist in Karmiel, while a Nahariya man in his 40s was moderately injured by another impact.

The IDF issued a statement minutes before midnight saying it struck over 380 Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon in the past day, including Hezbollah operatives, command centers, and several rocket launchers used in attacks on Israel, while stressing it remained “on high alert and will act in accordance with the directives of the political echelon.”

Trump made the ceasefire announcement in a Truth Social post shortly after wrapping up a phone call with Netanyahu, during which he coaxed the Israeli premier to agree to the truce. The news caught Israel’s security cabinet off guard, as no meeting was held to approve the decision beforehand, and prompted furious condemnations from mayors in northern Israel, who said the government had failed to ensure the security of their residents and warned that Israel was “losing the north.”

Iran hailed the truce as its victory and that of Hezbollah, having insisted since its own Trump-brokered ceasefire with Israel and the US went into effect last week that it was meant to, and had to, include the Israel-Hezbollah fighting.

The development was also seen as a victory for the Lebanese government, which had agreed to hold direct talks with Israel earlier this week for the first time in decades, with the declared aim of securing such a ceasefire. Jerusalem had resisted a truce, convinced that further military action was needed to degrade Hezbollah, which has been firing at Israel.

Washington, however, became amenable to a diplomatic off-ramp as it appeared Israel’s military approach to curbing Hezbollah could only go so far, with previous declarations by Netanyahu that Israel inflicted generational damage upon the Shiite organization not seeming to ultimately pan out.


Bethany and Hugh talk about the long, long trauma of Israel and its 30 months of war and suffering

Call me Back Podcast: The Continuation of War by Other Means - with Tal Becker
Dan is joined by Ark Media contributor and VP of the Hartman Institute Dr. Tal Becker to explore whether the next phase will be driven less by military action and more by political pressure, economic leverage, and shifting regional alliances.

They unpack why there’s no clear definition of “victory,” what dynamics the war has set in motion, and whether Israel and its partners can turn short-term gains into long-term strategic advantage, all while the nuclear threat continues to loom.

In this episode:
03:42 – Why there’s no agreed definition of victory in this war
04:48 – How to measure success through objectives, cost, and long-term dynamics
06:45 – What comes after the ceasefire and the possible paths forward
02:00 – How war can continue through pressure without direct combat
09:06 – The case for a regional alliance against Iran
11:09 – How Gulf states are reassessing their strategy
26:00 – What happens if Iran races toward a nuclear weapon
33:15 – The legal debate over justification, self-defense, and imminence


General Jack Keane: This will bring Iran to its knees
Former US Army vice chief of staff General Jack Keane weighs in on US President Donald Trump’s blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

“This is going to bring Iran to its knees,” Mr Keane told Sky News host Andrew Bolt.

“As a result of it, I believe there is going to be major concessions made here; 90 per cent of their oil and the overwhelming majority of all of their revenue has now been stopped.

“Our estimates here are somewhere in the neighbourhood of about a little short of $450 million a day in revenue.”




Quillette: Gadi Taub: Israel Iran War Explained and Why Deterrence Fails
In this wide-ranging Quillette interview, Gadi Taub speaks with Pamela Paresky about Israel’s war aims, the threat of a nuclear Iran, and the collapse of long-standing assumptions in Western foreign policy.

Taub argues that the goal of the current conflict is not simply to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but to make the cost of pursuing them unbearable. He also examines the legacy of the Oslo Accords, the failure of deterrence-based thinking, and the deeper ideological divide between Western and Islamist worldviews.

The conversation explores how postmodern and postcolonial ideas have shaped Western perceptions of conflict—often obscuring reality rather than clarifying it.

Topics include:
– Why regime change is difficult but still relevant
– The strategic transformation of the Middle East
– The failure of Oslo and the two-state paradigm
– Palestinian political culture and the role of Hamas
– Deterrence, escalation, and military doctrine
– The influence of postmodernism on Western thinking

This is a detailed and challenging discussion about war, ideology, and the limits of Western self-understanding.

00:00 – War aims and the limits of destroying nuclear programmes
01:00 – Why deterrence may not work with Iran
03:00 – How the Middle East strategic balance has shifted
05:00 – The problem with “living with a nuclear Iran”
07:00 – Zionism, academia, and the culture wars
10:00 – Civilisation vs barbarism: competing worldviews
12:00 – Nuclear deterrence and Western complacency
14:30 – Why avoiding war can lead to bigger wars
18:00 – Israel’s early military doctrine vs modern strategy
22:00 – Deterrence, escalation, and US–Israel alignment
25:00 – Internal tensions: politicians vs military leadership
29:00 – The “gatekeepers” and democratic accountability
33:00 – Oslo explained: demographics vs security
37:00 – The collapse of the “concept” on October 7th
42:00 – Palestinian society, education, and ideology
47:00 – Civilian casualties and urban warfare comparisons
50:00 – Why Oslo failed in practice
55:00 – Gaza disengagement and its consequences
59:00 – West Bank risks and security realities
01:05:00 – The West’s tendency to blame itself
01:10:00 – Postmodernism, Foucault, and truth
01:15:00 – Identity politics and the depoliticisation of identity
01:20:00 – Why Zionism is uniquely targeted
01:24:00 – What the West gets wrong—and what must change




Iran to execute first woman prisoner linked to January protests as regime executions surge
Iranian authorities are preparing to execute Bita Hemmati, the first woman sentenced to death in connection with the mass protests in Tehran in late December and January, according to the US-based non-profit the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA).

Judge Iman Afshari, of Branch 26 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court, sentenced Hemmati, her husband, Mohammadreza Majidi Asl, and Behrouz Zamaninezhad, and Kourosh Zamaninezhad to death on the charge of “operational action for the hostile government of the United States and hostile groups,” in addition to discretionary imprisonment period of five years on the charge of “assembly and collusion against national security.”

A fifth defendant, Amir Hemmati, was sentenced to five years of discretionary imprisonment on the charge of “assembly and collusion against national security,” and eight months in prison for “propaganda against the regime,” according to HRANA.

The four sentenced to death were arrested while demonstrating in Tehran and subjected to torture before their sentencing, according to a press release by the National Council of Resistance of Iran. HRANA also purported to have received evidence that the defendants were forced to confess.


Kassy Akiva: Slopaganda: Iran Weaponizes Brainrot To Attack The United States
Since the war between the United States and Iran began nearly two months ago, the conflict has extended beyond the battlefield and into social media feeds. Across X, several official Iranian embassy accounts have amassed hundreds of thousands of followers while adopting a striking new tactic: meme warfare.

While there have long been accusations that Iran uses anonymous “bot” accounts to push propaganda, its new strategy with many of its official embassy accounts is far more blatant and transparent. Since early March, many of these accounts have shifted from sharing Iranian news or embassy-related information to posting aggregated headlines, AI-generated content, memes, snarky commentary, and personal attacks aimed at maximizing likes, reposts, and impressions.

Without seeing the name of the account, one might assume it belongs to a Gen-Z partisan influencer rather than a government run by religious fundamentalists who are wary of the West.

Creative content includes everything from Lego-style war videos to Jeffrey Epstein cast as the devil manipulating Trump into war — pushed across more than 70 accounts reaching over 1.1 million followers.

They are leveraging the algorithm to attack the United States, President Donald Trump, and Israel — and doing so effectively.

One of the most inflammatory posts came from the Iranian embassy in Tajikistan on Tuesday, which shared a video depicting Jesus killing President Trump by punching him into a fiery pit — racking up 11.9 million views and 78,000 likes.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth called the effort “disgusting” and “detached from reality” Thursday in response to a question from The Daily Wire’s White House Correspondent Mary Margaret Olohan.

“Iran says a lot of things in the propaganda space based on complete lies,” he said.

What explains the shift in strategy? The answer lies in both technology and audience.

As Iranian citizens remain in a near-total internet blackout now nearing 50 days, these official government accounts moved in the opposite direction.

Before Operation Epic Fury, many of these Iranian embassy accounts posted sparingly, often fewer than 10 times a day. Then a switch flipped. Data from 69 of the accounts shows a clear surge to between 50 and 200 posts per day, flooding feeds with a nonstop stream of content, according to data compiled by Network Contagion Research Institute and shared with The Daily Wire.

That output is powered in large part by the rapid rise of generative AI. Content that would have required significant time, money and production resources can now be created cheaply and almost instantly. It relies heavily on what has come to be known as “AI slop” — low-cost, mass-produced AI-generated content that prioritizes speed and virality over polish or accuracy.
Three arrested after attempted arson at dissident Iranian news station in London
British police said Thursday that it arrested three people in connection with an attempted arson attack on the offices of dissident Iranian news station Iran International.

An ignited container was thrown Wednesday evening toward the premises of the Persian-language network’s parent evening, Volant Media, landing in a car park where the fire extinguished itself. No damage was reported and there were no injuries, the police said.

Two men, aged 19 and 21, and a 16-year-old boy were arrested on suspicion of arson endangering life. The arson attempt was not being treated as terrorism, but counterterrorism officers were involved in the investigation, police said.

Iran International said a suspicious vehicle was denied entry to its London site shortly before incendiary devices were thrown into a nearby parking lot.

It said it viewed the incident in the context of “growing threats and intimidation” directed at the organization and its journalists.

London’s Jewish community and Iranian diaspora increasingly targeted, says Met police
The incident came a day after police arrested two suspects following an attempted arson attack on a synagogue in north London, amid a wave of attacks on Jewish diaspora sites since the Iran war began on February 28.

Last month, several ambulances belonging to the Jewish volunteer emergency service Hatzolah were set alight while parked near a synagogue in the Golders Green area, also in north London.

Counterterror police were investigating the Golders Green fire as an antisemitic hate crime and looking into a claim of responsibility by a group with potential links to Iran, but have not declared it an act of terrorism.

Matt Jukes, a deputy commissioner for London’s Metropolitan Police, said in a statement on Thursday he understood why conflict overseas and heightened tensions in Britain would be “deeply worrying.”

“London’s Jewish communities and the Iranian diaspora in London have, in recent years, been increasingly targeted by individuals, groups and hostile states intent on spreading fear, hate and harm,” Jukes said.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

    
 

 



AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Hasbys!

2019 Nobel Peace Prize nominee

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Show All

Blog Archive

Copyright © Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News | Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates