ConflictClarifier

متتبع أزمة إيران-الخليج 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 14, 2026

US enforces naval blockade on Iran as nuclear issue takes center stage

Summary

Fresh Iran talks could begin this week as US continues blockade on ports The U.S. and Iran could begin a fresh round of peace talks as soon as Thursday this week after President Donald Trump's administration imposed a blockade on Iranian ports. Chinese-owned vessel passes through Strait of Hormuz, flouting US blockade The Chinese-owned oil and chemical tanker Rich Starry successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday despite a U.S. blockade, The Rich Starry was the first vessel to cross the strait since the U.S. imposed its blockade on Monday. The ship was initially turned back on Monday but was successful on its second attempt to cross. US and Iran have 'all the ingredients of a deal,' senior official says The U.S. and Iran have "all the ingredients of a deal" but have yet to come to a final agreement, a senior U.S. official told Fox News' Bill Hemmer on Tuesday. "A lot is happening today and tomorrow. We have all the ingredients of a deal, but it's not all there yet," the official told Hemmer. The official added that President Donald Trump's blockade on Iranian ports has Tehran "really fearful" and more open to making a deal. Concern grows that Iran's Houthi allies could cut off gateway to Red Sea Regional concern is growing that Iran will instruct its Houthi allies in Yemen to target sea traffic in Bab el-Mandeb, the gateway to the Red Sea. Fox News' Chief Foreign Correspondent Trey Yingst reported on the potential move on Tuesday, noting that it would further restrict the global oil trade. France's Macron urges Trump not to escalate in Iran, calls for Hormuz opening 'without restrictions' French President Emmanuel Macron urged the U.S. and Iran to restart peace negotiations and reopen the Strait of Hormuz "without restrictions" on Tuesday. Macron said in a post on X that he spoke with both President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Monday. "I urged the resumption of the negotiations suspended in Islamabad, the clearing up of misunderstandings, and the avoidance of any further escalation," Macron said. "It is essential, in particular, that the ceasefire be strictly respected by all parties and that it include Lebanon." "It is equally important that the Strait of Hormuz be reopened unconditionally, without restrictions or tolls, as soon as possible," he continued. "Under these conditions, negotiations should be able to resume quickly, with the support of the key parties concerned." Pakistani general says Iran diplomacy still alive, despite US blockade, failed talks The United States began enforcing a naval blockade targeting Iranian maritime traffic Monday, sharply escalating tensions in the Gulf just hours after high-level talks in Pakistan between Washington and Tehran collapsed without a deal. The move, announced by President Donald Trump, came after negotiations in Islamabad ended without a breakthrough, despite what participants described as rare direct engagement between the two sides. But Lt. Gen. (ret.) Mohammed Saeed, former chief of general staff of the Pakistan Army, said in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital that the talks came far closer to success than their outcome suggests — and argued that diplomacy is still within reach. "Both sides are saying they were very close … even inches away from a solution," he said based on his own knowledge and reports. Saeed retired in 2023 but remained part of the core team handling operational planning, internal security coordination, and sensitive periods of political tension. "They talked to each other in a very friendly manner. There was, from both sides, an expression of accommodation and understanding from each other. So, what you can briefly say is that the engagement has sufficient potential to resume." Speaking at the White House Monday, Trump defended the blockade, saying, "Right now, there’s no fighting. Right now, we have a blockade … Iran is doing absolutely no business, and we’re going to keep it that way very easily." He added that Iran’s military capabilities had been significantly degraded, saying its "Navy has gone, their air force is gone, their anti-aircraft is gone, their radar is gone and their leaders are gone." This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News' Efrat Lachter. Trump says Iran’s navy ‘obliterated’ as US enforces Hormuz blockade — but key threat remains President Donald Trump said that Iran’s navy is "completely obliterated," but the small, fast attack vessels the U.S. did not prioritize remain among the most dangerous threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Trump said 158 Iranian vessels were destroyed in U.S.–Israeli strikes and warned that any remaining boats approaching U.S. forces would be "immediately eliminated" as the military moves to enforce a blockade of the strait. But defense analysts say those smaller vessels — along with mines, drones and coastal missile systems — form the backbone of Iran’s strategy in the narrow waterway, allowing Tehran to disrupt traffic without fully shutting it down. Recent reporting indicates more than 60% of Iran’s fast attack fleet — operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — remains intact despite weeks of strikes that officials say sank more than 150 larger vessels. Those smaller, fast-moving boats — along with mines, drones and coastal missile systems — form the backbone of Iran’s asymmetric strategy, giving Tehran enough capability to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz without fully shutting it down. Roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply moves through the strait, and analysts say Iran does not need to block it outright to have a global impact. This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News' Morgan Phillips. Iran secures UN role with backing from UK, France, Canada, Australia as US stands alone Western democracies, including the UK, France, Canada and Australia, are facing backlash after allowing Iran and other authoritarian regimes to secure seats on influential United Nations (U.N.) bodies, with the United States standing alone in opposition. The controversy stems from decisions by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), a 54-member body that plays a central role in shaping U.N. policy and staffing key committees. Critics warn the outcome could allow governments accused of human rights abuses to influence global policy and control which civil society groups are granted access to the United Nations. ECOSOC nominated the Islamic Republic of Iran to the U.N.’s Committee for Program and Coordination Wednesday, a body that helps shape policy on human rights, women’s rights, disarmament and counterterrorism. The nomination is widely expected to be finalized, as the United Nations General Assembly typically approves such recommendations without a vote. At the same session, ECOSOC elected China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia and Sudan to the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, which oversees accreditation and access for thousands of NGOs operating within the U.N. system. The United States was the only member state to formally break from consensus. In remarks delivered April 8, U.S. Representative to ECOSOC Ambassador Dan Negrea said the U.S. "disassociates from consensus" on both decisions, calling several of the countries involved unfit for such roles. "The regime threatens its neighbors and has, for decades, infringed on the Iranian people’s ability to exercise their basic human rights," Negrea said, adding that "we believe Iran is unfit to serve" on the committee. This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News' Efrat Lachter. NYT columnist 'torn' about rooting for Iranian regime's downfall since it would give a win to Trump New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said he's "torn" about efforts to remove the Iranian regime over concerns it would politically benefit President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "I find myself, Michael, in a situation where I really want to see Iran defeated militarily," Friedman told CNN host Michael Smerconish on Saturday. "Because this regime is a terrible regime for its people in the region." "And nothing would improve the region more than the replacement of this regime with the regime in Iran that was focused on enabling its people to realize their full potential and integrating peacefully with other countries and stop occupying Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. So, I'm all for that," Friedman continued. Friedman then turned to what he calls the "problem" of a successful regime change in Tehran. "The problem is I really don‘t want to see Bibi Netanyahu or Donald Trump politically strengthened by this war because they are two awful human beings," the Times columnist said. "They are both engaged in anti-democratic projects in their own countries. They‘re both alleged crooks. They are terrible, terrible people doing terrible things to America‘s standing in the world and Israel's standing in the world." "And so I really find myself torn. I want to see Iran militarily defeated, but I do not want to see these two terrible people strengthened," he added. The "torn" feelings from the New York Times columnist sparked a lot of attention among critics. "What kind of sick hate must @tomfriedman have that he roots for USA to lose to a terrorist regime who has killed thousands of Americans?" Trump's Israel Ambassador Mike Huckabee reacted. This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News' Joseph Wulfsohn. Macron under fire over Iran, Hezbollah policy as Trump admin hosts Israel-Lebanon talks France’s President Emmanuel Macron is facing renewed criticism for his lack of support for President Donald Trump’s war against Iran and demands to include Lebanon in the current ceasefire as historic talks between Israel and Lebanon are set to begin Tuesday. The historic meeting brokered by President Trump between Lebanon, a former French mandate, and Israel will take place at the ambassador level as hopes for an agreement evolve — most noticeably without French involvement. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to host both nations' ambassadors. The Jerusalem Post reported that Israel’s government requested that France be excluded from the talks. An Israeli official told the paper that "France’s conduct over the past year – including initiatives aimed at limiting Israel’s ability to fight in Iran, and a complete lack of willingness to take concrete steps to help Lebanon disarm Hezbollah – has led Israel to view France as an unfair mediator." On Monday, Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem on Monday called on the Lebanese government to cancel the Tuesday meeting in Washington, while describing the talks as pointless. In a televised speech, Qassem said the armed group will continue to confront Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Hezbollah violated a ceasefire to enter the war on its patron, Iran’s side, in March when it launched rockets into Israel after the U.S.-Israel joint attack on the Islamic Republic began, still Macron has demanded Israel stop attacking Hezbollah's terror infrastructure in Lebanon. Israeli Brig. General (Res.) Yosef Kuperwasser told Fox News Digital that Macron was "working against the best interests of the Lebanese state and government. This is a very problematic direction." He accused Macron of "taking the side of Hezbollah and normalizing Hezbollah because he is focused on "narrow interests." The former head of research for the Israel Defense Forces’ Military Intelligence Directorate, Kuperwasser, added that the "Americans want us to engage with the Lebanese along with the military [in Lebanon]. Our expectations are very similar. We want to see Lebanon do something about Hezbollah, something real, not just issue statements and pledges. We believe we have helped them by weakening Hezbollah militarily since they decided to launch missiles on March 2. If there is a breakthrough, Lebanon has a lot to gain," but said it has to "disarm Hezbollah." The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment. This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News Benjamin Weinthal. Fresh Iran-US talks could happen Thursday before ceasefire expires: report A second round of face-to-face negotiations between Iran and the United States is being discussed, The Associated Press reported Monday. The fresh talks could also take place as early as Thursday, according to the report. Citing officials familiar with the matter, the report said the talks would aim to secure a deal to end the six-week war before the ceasefire expires April 21. A diplomat from one of the mediating countries said Tehran and Washington have agreed in principle to hold the talks. It is unclear whether the same level of delegation would attend, according to the diplomat and U.S. officials. Islamabad, Pakistan, is also being considered again as a potential host, while Geneva is also under discussion, officials said. Fox News' Landon Mion contributed to this report. Live Coverage begins here

Actors involved

USIsraelIranProxyUNChina

Sources

  • Anders HagstromBy Anders Hagstrom

    Fresh Iran talks could begin this week as US continues blockade on ports The U.S. and Iran could begin a fresh round of peace talks as soon as Thursday this week after President Donald Trump's administration imposed a blockade on Iranian ports. Chinese-owned vessel passes through

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