ConflictClarifier

متتبع أزمة إيران-الخليج 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 8, 2026

Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu broke Iran’s empire, now they must win at Hormuz | The Jerusalem Post

Summary

Everything now turns on the Strait of Hormuz. In 39 days, the US-Israeli campaign killed Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, wrecked its ballistic missile infrastructure, and forced a regime that spent decades projecting invincibility to accept a ceasefire brokered by Pakistan. Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA) has confirmed at least 1,221 military deaths. Iran International puts the security forces toll at 4,700. The navy in the Gulf of Oman is finished. The nuclear program has been struck twice in under a year. And the proxy network was already hollowed out before the first bomb fell on February 28, Hezbollah’s command structure gutted, Hamas dismantled in Gaza, the Houthis’ leadership killed last year. By the time US and Israeli jets reached Iran, the axis of resistance existed mostly as a slogan. US President Donald Trump made the call that mattered most: greenlighting the February 28 strike, even as his own national security establishment was split. His maximum pressure sanctions had cratered Iran’s economy before the first sortie. His deadline brinkmanship, which The Washington Post and The New York Times editorial boards treated as buffoonery, dragged Iran to a ceasefire. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was blunt: “This is a victory for the United States that President Trump and our incredible military made happen.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supplied the operational architecture. The pager operation. The Nasrallah strike. The push toward direct US involvement during last June’s Twelve-Day War. Each was a deliberate escalation that the foreign policy establishment said would backfire. As Nadim Koteich, a prominent UAE-based commentator, told me: “Thanks to Bibi Netanyahu, they lost everything in this war.” The historical parallel that fits is not Iraq 2003. It is the Cold War. President Ronald Reagan did not tear down the Berlin Wall. He made it impossible to maintain. Decades of pressure made the Soviet system unsustainable, and the people of Eastern Europe did the rest. Trump, Netanyahu broke Iran's instruments of power Trump and Netanyahu have applied the same logic to the Islamic Republic: break the regime’s instruments of power, and leave the question of Iran’s future where it belongs, with Iranians. President George W. Bush tried the other approach, building democracy from the sky, and got a generation of chaos. The question is whether the patient will survive the surgery this time. The January protests were the largest since 1979. The regime massacred thousands to suppress them. But the Islamic Republic also survived the Iran-Iraq war, the Green Movement, and the Mahsa Amini uprising. What makes this different is scale. None of those earlier crises combined the loss of a supreme leader, the collapse of every proxy network, economic strangulation, and a dynastic succession (Mojtaba Khamenei inheriting his father’s title) that mocks the revolution’s founding mythology. Previous shocks hit one pillar. This hit all of them simultaneously. Iran, however, found something in the rubble that changes the calculus. “You can’t assassinate Hormuz,” Koteich told me. “You can’t kidnap Hormuz.” He’s right. Iran lost its proxies, its missiles, its nuclear infrastructure, and in their place discovered a single instrument with more leverage than all of them combined: the ability to shut down a fifth of global oil supply. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates Gulf production shut-ins hit 7.5 million barrels per day in March. A Pew Research Center survey found 69% of Americans cite gas prices as their top war concern. Iran bet that domestic pressure would break Trump before the military campaign broke them. It didn’t. But Hormuz is still on the table. Within hours of the ceasefire announcement, missile attacks hit the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council declared “nearly all the objectives of the war” achieved. And the Associated Press reported that the ceasefire terms already allow Iran and Oman to collect shipping fees on transiting vessels. A wartime demand, being formalized before negotiations even start. Islamabad is where the war’s meaning will be decided. Iran’s publicly circulated 10-point proposal demands a guarantee against future attack, an end to Israeli strikes in Lebanon, sanctions removal, and a $2 million fee for every ship transiting the strait. The White House has pushed back hard. Trump called the circulating version “fraudulent,” and Leavitt clarified that what he endorsed as “a workable basis to negotiate” is a different document from the one Iran is waving around. The NYT confirmed the two frameworks differ. But the shipping fee arrangement is already taking shape on the ground, and if Iran walks out of Islamabad with it codified, it will have turned a military disaster into a strategic stalemate. Gulf officials in Abu Dhabi tell me privately they trust the Israelis more than the Americans to hold the line. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud affirmed solidarity against “Iranian aggression” on April 6. His mid-March warning that trust with Tehran had been “completely shattered” was not diplomatic theater. A senior Israeli military official I spoke with said the Iranian leaders who survived, the ones who spent weeks in bunkers cut off from electronic communications, may not yet understand how little they have left. Netanyahu’s Wednesday address put it in public: “We shook the foundations of the regime. We crushed their missile manufacturing plants. The Iranians are firing what’s left in their magazine. It’s running out.” He confirmed Israel had destroyed centrifuge plants and killed additional nuclear scientists. The military official added, separately, that the IDF needs this pause. The operational tempo since October 7, 2023, has been relentless. The ceasefire buys time that Israel also needs. The cost ledger cannot be wished away. HRANA documented 1,665 civilian dead as of April 6, at least 15% of them children. The Minab school strike. The B1 bridge on Sizdah Be-dar. The Rafi Niya synagogue on the final night of Passover. If the reporting holds up, these will define this war internationally for a generation. Israel gains nothing by pretending otherwise. Netanyahu’s insistence that Lebanon is excluded from the ceasefire may be the agreement’s most consequential clause. Israeli jets hit central Beirut on Wednesday morning. He called it “the hardest blow, perhaps since the pagers,” and framed the ceasefire itself as a station, not a destination: “There are more objectives to complete, and we will achieve them, either by agreement or by resuming fighting. Our finger is on the trigger.” Koteich’s summary was the sharpest I heard all day: “We did not reach this point to grant Iran a victory.” Iran walks into Islamabad weaker than at any point since 1988. If the negotiations result in Hormuz still being weaponized, everything that has been achieved over the past 39 days will depreciate quickly. Trump and Netanyahu did not tear down the Islamic Republic. They made it impossible to maintain. Whether the walls actually fall depends on what happens inside Iran, and on whether the diplomacy in Pakistan is prosecuted with the same nerve as the war. The operation was a success. The recovery is someone else’s fight.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranProxyUN

Sources

  • ZVIKA KLEINBy ZVIKA KLEIN

    Everything now turns on the Strait of Hormuz. In 39 days, the US-Israeli campaign killed Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, wrecked its ballistic missile infrastructure, and forced a regime that spent decades projecting invincibility to accept a ceasefire brokered by Pakistan. H

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran