Iran FM Blasts Trump's Economic D-Day Threat 'Diversion' Which Will Fail, As New Carrier Arrives In Mideast Waters

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) has on Thursday confirmed the USS George Washington is now deployed in the Middle East, following the lengthy, over-extended deployment of personnel onboard the USS Lincoln, which has sparked crisis and media frenzy over poor conditions, lack of supplies, and worsening morale.

"The George Washington Carrier Strike Group is operating in Middle East during a scheduled deployment after arriving in the CENTCOM theater yesterday," the command said in a statement posted on X. CENTCOM image of the USS George Washington flight deck

The USS Washington will now be the military's frontline carrier leading the mission in regional waters, which has featured an ongoing blockade of Iranian ports.

President Trump had the evening prior issued a Truth Social post describing a new "ECONOMIC D-DAY" against Iran, declaring that his total economic war against Tehran will be the "MOST CRUSHING ECONOMIC OPERATION EVER TAKEN AGAINST ANY COUNTRY."

Trump said that with Tehran's military and military-industrial base reduced to "now rubble" and its "currency worthless," he will unleash severe economic consequences against "ANY country that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran."

On Thursday Iranian leaders responded to the D-Day threat, with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stating on X that Trump’s announcement is designed to distract from Washington’s "unprecedented debt & surging interest costs". He said the new economic measures will "bring further defeat" to the US. He added that "US economic terrorism threatens [the] global economy and sovereignty worldwide.

Another top Iranian official elsewhere asserted the US seeks exit from the region:

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf visited Iraq on Wednesday and said that the US was seeking to exit the region, comments that come following a report from The Washington Post that said the Pentagon is considering pulling back from the Persian Gulf after many of its bases in the area were heavily damaged by Iranian strikes.

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi also weighed in with another message, saying Washington is headed towards its next defeat. "They claim Iran is on the verge of defeat, hanging by a thread, yet they are begging all their allies to help them," he posted on X.

Meanwhile Qatar is still seeking mediation and de-escalation, with Qatar’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani having said Thursday that traffic in the Strait of Hormuz must go back to what it was before. He urged that no party go back to "blackmailing" the other.

"The consequences of this war were grave, not only on the Gulf region but elsewhere in the world," Sheikh Mohammed told reporters at a press briefing following high-level discussions in El Alamein, Egypt.

"We need the situation to go back to what it used to be before" he said. "We condemn any threats in this regard in any obstacles."

On the question of global shipping flows through the strait, much remains to be seen following a controversial Axios report issued Wednesday which said the Pentagon has successfully established a stealth corridor in and out of the strait. Here are the key untested claims, which await verification:

Under the operation, which has been underway for the last several weeks, 15–20 tankers have entered and exited the strait each night through a southern channel along the coast of Oman. About 10 million barrels of oil a day — roughly half the pre-war volume — are being transported out of the strait and injected into the global energy market, the officials said. If this is the case, then it's likely to lead to further rounds of war, given Iran is unlikely to sit back and allow the corridor to run smoothly...

I fully agree: "Iran is unlikely to accept a situation in which it cannot export oil while other Gulf producers continue to do so. Paradoxically, therefore, America’s relative operational success could become a driver of further Iranian escalation." https://t.co/I2IuU0deyU — Hamidreza Azizi (@HamidRezaAz) August 20, 2026 Of course, many analysts have pointed out that Axios has not been reliable on oil and Iran related reports, which tend to come out at sensitive moments timeline-wise, perhaps for maximum impact on markets.

Regional watcher and Atlantic Council author Danny Citrinowicz writes, "There is a fundamental paradox at the heart of the current U.S. approach to Iran: Washington wants to avoid another major military campaign, yet the very strategy it is pursuing to achieve that goal may make renewed military escalation increasingly difficult to avoid."

"The administration appears to believe that it can dramatically intensify economic pressure, including through aggressive enforcement of secondary sanctions, while keeping the confrontation largely within the economic domain," he continues. "But that assumption misunderstands both Iran’s position and the incentives facing its current leadership." Indeed Washington has seemed to miscalculate and underestimate Tehran at every turn of this nearly 6-month long conflict.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/20/2026 - 09:20

https://sputnikglobe.com/20260820/number-of-us-troops-wounded-during-operation-against-iran-exceeds-750-1124609350.html Number of US Troops Wounded During Operation Against Iran Exceeds 750 Number of US Troops Wounded During Operation Against Iran Exceeds 750 Sputnik International The total number of US military personnel injured during the conflict with Iran has increased to 757, Sputnik found out on Thursday after analyzing recent Pentagon data.

2026-08-20T13:15+0000 2026-08-20T13:15+0000 2026-08-20T13:15+0000 us-israel war on iran us iran pentagon strait of hormuz https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07ea/03/01/1123727066_0:160:3072:1888_1920x0_80_0_0_a05b022c95c3ae3f9344a5e216e6cd54.jpg.webp As of August 19, 418 soldiers were injured during Operation Epic Fury that finalized on May 5, another 339 people were wounded since July 7, when the United States launched a new series of strikes against Iran, bringing the total number to 757.

At the same time, the death toll of American servicemen remains at 18: fourteen soldiers died during Operation Epic Fury and four more since July 7, according to the Pentagon. CNN has reported, citing US officials, that the US authorities had informed their political allies that they are shifting to a strategy of gradually economically "strangling" Iran instead of pursuing their previous course of military action.

The officials said a new package of sanctions against Iran was expected to be introduced this week, while the blockade of Iranian ports would remain in place. Overnight into June 18, Iran and the US signed a memorandum to end the conflict that began on February 28.

However, on July 8, President Donald Trump announced that the ceasefire was no longer in effect, and US forces have since carried out several series of strikes on Iran. The US Central Command claimed the strikes were in response to Iranian actions against commercial vessels crossing the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian forces responded with strikes on US bases in the Middle East. On July 12, Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz until the end of US interference in the region, following another wave of exchanges of strikes between the parties to the conflict.

The next day, Trump said the United States would become a "guardian" of the Strait of Hormuz. He also reinstated the US blockade of Iranian ports. On Thursday, US President Donald Trump called his economic operation against Iran an "isolation on an unprecedented scale" and urged allies to join the US, describing it as an Economic D-Day analogous to the allied landings in Normandy.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20260816/iran-war-proves-us-air-defenses-inefficient-against-modern-threats-1124585302.html iran strait of hormuz Sputnik International [email protected] +74956456601 MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“ 2026 Sputnik International feedback@sputniknews.

com +74956456601 MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“ News en_EN https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07ea/03/01/1123727066_171:0:2902:2048_1920x0_80_0_0_0b341716df88070653bb4e36e8bca778.jpg.webp Sputnik International [email protected] +74956456601 MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“ Sputnik International feedback@sputniknews.

com +74956456601 MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“ us, iran, pentagon, strait of hormuz us, iran, pentagon, strait of hormuz Number of US Troops Wounded During Operation Against Iran Exceeds 750 WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The total number of US military personnel injured during the conflict with Iran has increased to 757, Sputnik found out on Thursday after analyzing recent Pentagon data.

As of August 19, 418 soldiers were injured during Operation Epic Fury that finalized on May 5, another 339 people were wounded since July 7, when the United States launched a new series of strikes against Iran, bringing the total number to 757. At the same time, the death toll of American servicemen remains at 18: fourteen soldiers died during Operation Epic Fury and four more since July 7, according to the Pentagon.

CNN has reported, citing US officials, that the US authorities had informed their political allies that they are shifting to a strategy of gradually economically "strangling" Iran instead of pursuing their previous course of military action. The officials said a new package of sanctions against Iran was expected to be introduced this week, while the blockade of Iranian ports would remain in place.

Overnight into June 18, Iran and the US signed a memorandum to end the conflict that began on February 28. However, on July 8, President Donald Trump announced that the ceasefire was no longer in effect, and US forces have since carried out several series of strikes on Iran.

The US Central Command claimed the strikes were in response to Iranian actions against commercial vessels crossing the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian forces responded with strikes on US bases in the Middle East. On July 12, Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz until the end of US interference in the region, following another wave of exchanges of strikes between the parties to the conflict.

The next day, Trump said the United States would become a "guardian" of the Strait of Hormuz. He also reinstated the US blockade of Iranian ports. On Thursday, US President Donald Trump called his economic operation against Iran an "isolation on an unprecedented scale" and urged allies to join the US, describing it as an Economic D-Day analogous to the allied landings in Normandy.

US equity futures declined at the start of trading amid a sharp rise in Treasury yields, which pushed the 10-year yield to 4.69% following recent Treasury announcements. The sell-off in bonds coincided with Brent crude oil prices surging above $94 per barrel, reportedly in response to statements by President Trump regarding economic measures against Iran.

Market data indicated S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures dropped by 0.2% and 0.3%, respectively, while broader market activity included mixed performance across energy and technology sectors.

Russia’s war against Ukraine is entering another dangerous phase with both sides relying heavily on long range strike systems, including Ukraine executing attacks at depths of over 2,000 kilometers from its borders. As the risk of further escalation rises as fall and winter approach, Washington should now make more aggressive use of selective disclosure: revealing more about what each side is demanding, rejecting and tentatively accepting.

U.S. mediation since early 2025 has produced limited restraints involving Black Sea navigation and attacks on energy facilities and a three-day ceasefire, but no lasting ceasefire. U.S.-mediated negotiations in Geneva in February ended without a breakthrough and the Kremlin said in July there was no immediate prospect of resuming formal negotiations, though President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky recently discussed reviving the peace talks.

The parties remain far apart. Moscow insists on control of all of the Donbas, including Ukrainian-held territory. Kyiv is unwilling to surrender it. Even if a ceasefire can be reached, Ukraine would struggle to accept terms that look like defeat: surrender of territory it still controls, a permanent bar on NATO membership without credible alternative guarantees, or abandonment of its claim to reparations.

Recent Ukrainian polling underscores this difficulty, finding that 57% categorically rejected withdrawing from Ukrainian-held Donbas in exchange for U.S. and European security guarantees. The contrast with the public debate surrounding diplomacy over the Strait of Hormuz and Gaza is striking.

Those negotiations are not fully transparent either, but key bargaining positions have been publicly reported in considerable detail. In the current Hormuz crisis, reporting has laid out disputes over Iranian control of inbound shipping and oversight of outbound traffic, as well as proposed transit fees and demands for unimpeded, toll-free passage.

In Gaza, the sequencing of Hamas’s disarmament and Israel’s withdrawal is openly debated. Stakeholders can see who is accepting which terms and where the talks are stuck. The Russia-Ukraine negotiations are more opaque in this crucial respect. Observers know the broad disputes, but much less about the exact trades, sequencing, commitments and authoritative negotiating text.

Is Moscow asking only for Ukraine’s withdrawal from the rest of Donbas? What commitments would Russia make if that happened? What are the details of Kyiv’s counteroffer? Is a peace treaty under discussion? What third-party security guarantees are on the table?

Public reporting confirms that territory and security guarantees are major issues. But even after recent high-level U.S.-Russian contacts, Washington declined to explain the Russian position in detail. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stunningly confessed in a recent interview that while trying to obtain Patriot missile defenses for Ukraine, he is discussing things that he “cannot even share.

” The parties’ public answers have been elusive and at times inconsistent. Talks have proceeded largely behind closed doors for understandable diplomatic reasons: secrecy can protect sensitive bargaining and insulate negotiators from domestic backlash.

The Kremlin in particular has kept important details undisclosed.Research on secret international negotiations finds that secrecy is regarded as more legitimate when it protects sensitive information or raises the likelihood of an agreement, but substantially less legitimate when its purpose is to avoid criticism.

Confidentiality often helps diplomacy. After four and a half years of full-scale war, however, it increasingly protects the parties from accountability rather than the talks from disruption. Peer-reviewed work on back-channel negotiations likewise stresses that secret channels can be crucial for breaking deadlocks, while recognizing the accountability and constituency problems that secrecy creates.

First, the parties feel too little pressure from their own constituencies and international partners. Russia’s economy has slowed sharply and some among its business and political establishment see economic advantages in ending the war. If they knew that realistic options were available, some might support the concessions needed to reach them.

Ukrainians likewise deserve a clear view of the proposed off-ramps and of whether they have been rejected for legitimate national-security reasons or narrower political ones. It was reported in June that Russian businesses saw ending the war as the best route to reviving growth.

Second, secrecy is creating an opening for attacks on Washington’s credibility as mediator. Moscow has repeatedly invoked alleged “understandings” reached at the August 2025 U.S.-Russia summit in Anchorage and accused Washington of retreating from them.

Yet United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio says there was a proposal at Anchorage but no agreement, despite Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov insisting that the exchanges amounted to an understanding. Because no peace agreement or was announced at the summit, outsiders have been left to guess what Moscow believes Washington promised and whether the American position later changed.

That allows Moscow to portray Washington rather than itself as an obstacle to peace. Selective disclosure does not mean publishing transcripts or exposing every bargaining position. After each round, Washington could issue a structured account of the issues discussed, areas of provisional agreement, proposals each party accepted or rejected, and questions still unresolved.

When either side mischaracterizes an American proposal, the U.S. should release enough of the record to correct the claim. Negotiators could be told in advance what categories of information may be disclosed. This approach is consistent with a practice documented in negotiation research: leaders sometimes communicate progress or disclose interim arrangements to test reactions among the public, media and key constituencies.

Such transparency carries risks. Public bargaining can improve accountability but also impose costs on negotiations, and a leaked compromise can become politically toxic. Research on peace bargaining shows how domestic challengers can seize on concessions to discredit pro-settlement leaders.

Yet controlled disclosure after a long period of secret diplomacy around the Russia-Ukraine war is unlikely to make the current impasse worse. It could make obstruction more costly and compromise easier to defend. Some workable solutions may already exist but remain hidden from the officials, business leaders and citizens whose support would be needed to carry them out.

Public pressure informed by the realistic contours of a settlement can help decision makers accept necessary concessions. Scholars of peace negotiations note that constituency support matters both for reaching a deal and for implementing one and that negotiators sometimes deliberately communicate negotiating progress to assess or shape that support.

Exposing negotiated terms to light will not produce peace by itself. It may reveal who is preventing it and illuminate a path to ending the war before the next escalation. A Message from The Moscow Times: Dear readers, We are facing unprecedented challenges.

Russia's Prosecutor General's Office has designated The Moscow Times as an "undesirable" organization, criminalizing our work and putting our staff at risk of prosecution. This follows our earlier unjust labeling as a "foreign agent." These actions are direct attempts to silence independent journalism in Russia.

The authorities claim our work "discredits the decisions of the Russian leadership." We see things differently: we strive to provide accurate, unbiased reporting on Russia. We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. But to continue our work, we need your help.

Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $2. It's quick to set up, and every contribution makes a significant impact. By supporting The Moscow Times, you're defending open, independent journalism in the face of repression.

Thank you for standing with us. Remind me later.