Live ingestion is paused. We’re migrating our backend to a new database. The archive is up to date through Jun 20, 2026 (46 daysago). Fresh events will resume once the migration finishes — historical analysis is fully available.
Conflict Events Archive
108,443 documented events · latest Jun 20, 2026 — chronological archive with full summaries and multi-source verification.
Axios says Araghchi plans trip to Switzerland for talks
Axios says Araghchi plans trip to Switzerland for talks Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi is planning to travel to Switzerland for upcoming diplomatic talks, although the trip remains subject to change, according to a report by Axios citing an informed source. The report said Araghchi has informed several foreign counterparts that the implementation of a ceasefire in Lebanon remains a critical priority for Tehran, adding that US envoy Steve Wittkopf will travel to Switzerland for a round of talks. According to Axios, Iran is insisting on seeing the ceasefire take effect in practice before moving forward with the Switzerland visit. The report said Tehran wants concrete evidence that hostilities in Lebanon have ended before proceeding with the next stage of diplomacy, underscoring the importance Iran attaches to regional de-escalation as negotiations continue.
Calm down and use your head: Trump says he pushed Israel into Hezbollah ceasefire
Calm down and use your head: Trump says he pushed Israel into Hezbollah ceasefire Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire after a deadly escalation in Lebanon, easing pressure on fragile US-Iran diplomacy and helping preserve negotiations aimed at a broader Middle East peace deal. US President Donald Trump said he personally urged Israel to agree to a ceasefire with Hezbollah, revealing that he intervened as escalating violence in Lebanon threatened to derail broader diplomatic efforts tied to the fragile peace process with Iran. In a phone interview with NBC News, Trump said he spoke with Israeli officials and pressed for restraint, arguing that continued fighting risked undermining a wider regional agreement. "You just gotta calm down sometimes and use your head," Trump said, according to an NBC News reporter who posted details of the interview on X. Trump declined to say whether he spoke directly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The comments came hours after Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon following a surge in hostilities that had raised fears of a wider regional conflict and cast doubt over efforts to transform the interim US-Iran agreement into a lasting Middle East peace deal. CEASEFIRE AFTER DEADLY ESCALATION A senior US official said the ceasefire came into effect around 4 p.m. local time in Lebanon after an exchange of fire between the two sides. The official said American and Qatari negotiators, with assistance from Iran, helped broker the agreement. Two Hezbollah sources and a senior Israeli official confirmed the ceasefire to Reuters. "If Hezbollah does not attack us, then for us it is not a time of war," the Israeli official said, adding that Israeli forces would remain deployed in southern Lebanon. Lebanese security sources said Israel carried out several airstrikes during the first hour of the ceasefire, though no strikes were reported after 5 p.m. LEBANON FIGHTING THREATENS IRAN TALKS The outbreak of violence in Lebanon forced the postponement of planned US-Iran talks in Switzerland that were considered crucial to advancing negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme and the future of the Strait of Hormuz. Under the interim agreement signed earlier this week, Washington and Tehran have given themselves 60 days to negotiate a broader settlement covering Iran's nuclear activities, sanctions relief and regional security issues. Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah said Iran had made clear that further negotiations depended on a comprehensive ceasefire in Lebanon. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi also warned that Washington would be responsible for ensuring commitments under the agreement were upheld. TRUMP DEFENDS IRAN DEAL Trump's comments on Israel came as he mounted a fresh defence of the interim accord with Iran, which has faced criticism from some Republican allies who argue that Tehran received too many concessions. Writing on social media, Trump insisted the conflict had severely weakened Iran. "The War has diminished Iran!" Trump wrote. "We didn't meet out of desperation, Iran did. They are FINISHED!" He also rejected suggestions that Tehran would benefit financially from the agreement. "We'll play out the 60 days. They get no money, not ten cents!" Trump said.
Compromise with Iran isn’t ‘surrender’
Compromise With Iran Isn't 'Surrender' Hawks don’t understand what diplomacy is: Both sides give something up and both sides get something in return. The United States has gotten used to specific ways of ending wars. Sometimes the U.S. military decisively forces the enemy state to surrender, imposes a new political order, and gets it to stick, as in Germany and Japan in the 1940s or Panama in the 1990s. Other times, rebels wear down U.S. resources and willpower before decisively kicking out U.S. forces, as in Vietnam in 1975 or Afghanistan in 2021. But the Iran war is ending with something quite unfamiliar to Washington: compromise. The United States and Iran were unable to defeat each other in the first round, and, staring at an unacceptably costly escalation, they came to the table. While a final deal hasn't been agreed to, the ceasefire memorandum commits both sides to giving things up, with the U.S. promising to lift all economic sanctions if Iran negotiates away its nuclear program. Big parts of Washington are not taking it well, with Republicans and Democrats alike calling the peace a "blunder" or even a "surrender." It's one thing to object to specific terms of the truce. The U.S. may be promising too much and demanding too little at the outset. But some criticisms would apply to any kind of two-sided deal with a former enemy. For hawks, failure to secure the enemy's surrender is itself a form of U.S. "surrender." Simply put, hawks have forgotten how to make peace. Conservative journalist and presidential confidante Mark Levin claims that the memorandum makes the mistake of "trying to incentivize the behavior of 7th century barbaric Islamists with promises of money" and that "the West is being conquered" by agreeing to stop the war short of Iranian surrender. Others have argued that a deal shouldn't have any benefits for Iran, regardless of what Iran is offering in return. Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) said that a deal shouldn't "give Iran any money," because "they're not great actors." To borrow a Russian turn of phrase, this mentality is недоговороспособность, or "agreement incapability." An agreement-incapable actor approaches diplomacy as nothing but a weapon "to delay, deceive, and destabilise its opponents." (Levin, for example, suggested using the current negotiations to buy time for restarting the war after the U.S. midterm elections.) The agreement-incapable mind cannot imagine talks leading to "a mutually beneficial settlement." In fact, this mindset is baked into U.S. law. Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has repeatedly bragged about his role in creating a "sanctions wall" to prevent a deal. He pushed the first Trump administration to impose layers of economic sanctions on Iran under different pretexts, from the nuclear issue to human rights, so that a future administration could not resume trade with Iran without resolving all of those issues. To be clear, sanctions relief costs American taxpayers nothing, and some of it will benefit American business interests. For example, the U.S. government will immediately license Iran to spend $6 billion in its own oil revenues on American agricultural products, according to the Financial Times. But hawks are alarmed at giving away U.S. leverage. Former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D–N.J.) complained that Iran would get relief from sanctions "on human rights abusers and sponsors of terror, with zero Iranian concessions on those issues." Dubowitz's sanctions wall worked. In order to offer Iran normal economic relations, President Donald Trump will have to pick a domestic political fight over inflammatory issues like human rights and terrorism. There are serious criticisms to be made about the memorandum. It is vague about the nuclear concessions Iran has to make to unlock full sanctions relief. Vice President J.D. Vance has implied that there are unwritten "gentleman's agreements," which is not exactly reassuring. While the memorandum forces Iran to stop extorting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz in the immediate term, it leaves the "future administration" of the strait up for negotiations. Any conversation over the costs and benefits of the deal also has to take into account the costs and benefits of the alternatives. In fact, it was trying those alternatives that gave Iran leverage in the first place. Trump started down the road hawks wanted by bombing Iran, calling for regime change, and promising "no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER." The war didn't collapse the Iranian government, but it did give Iran the opportunity to harass shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, holding the world's oil economy hostage. Trump searched in vain for a cost-free escalation, only to discover that none existed. A ground raid to take away Iran's sources of leverage, its enriched uranium and its oil export terminal, would expose U.S. troops to serious casualties. Escalating the air war by bombing critical Iranian infrastructure would provoke Iran to do the same to its oil-rich neighbors. Trying to sneak ships through the strait during the ceasefire was provoking near-nightly naval combat. Even maintaining the status quo was rapidly depleting oil inventories around the world, which would have forced either rapid price hikes or outright shortages by the beginning of July, as oil executives were warning. Trump ultimately concluded that the deal was the least bad option. That conclusion, of course, is up for debate. But much of the hawkish rhetoric is meant to shut out debate with emotional cries about surrendering to evil and losing honor. The withdrawal from Afghanistan—which, unlike the stalemate with Iran, involved an unambiguous U.S. surrender—is a cautionary tale. After the U.S. military overthrew the Taliban government in 2001, the Bush administration declared that it was "not inclined to negotiate surrenders" and turned down the chance to integrate Taliban supporters into the new government. Nearly two decades of civil war later, the Taliban underground had gained so much strength that both Trump and Joe Biden decided that Afghanistan was a lost cause. Trump cut a deal for an orderly withdrawal, which Biden upheld, only for it to become violent chaos anyway when the Taliban stormed Kabul while U.S. troops were still there in August 2021. The Bush administration similarly turned down a deal with Iran itself, which offered up a "grand bargain" including everything from its nuclear program to its support for Hamas and Hezbollah in 2002. In return, Iranian leaders wanted an end to U.S. sanctions and a guarantee of noninterference in U.S. politics. A quarter-century and two wars later, the Trump administration is getting less than Iran was offering in 2002 for the same price. Unlike in Afghanistan, the administration is at least getting something from Iran. Again, the rhetoric about surrender and humiliation is not about weighing the relative merits of that deal or whether a better one is possible. It is about ensuring that there will be no deal at all. And, ironically, that strategy has already led to an actual U.S. surrender at least once.
Opinion | Trump achieved a historic victory in Iran. His deal risks squandering it.
Former President Barack Obama has predicted that Trump’s deal with Iran would not be “significantly different or a significant improvement from the deal that we had in the first place.” I can think of more than 13,000 differences: That’s the number of U.S. military strikes that Trump launched during Operations Epic Fury and Midnight Hammer. Unlike Obama, Trump buried Iran’s nuclear material so deep that, senior officials tell me, Iran has indicated the United States will have to dig it up because it can’t reach it to hand over. He also took out over 85 percent of Iran’s defense industrial base; sank its navy; grounded its air force; damaged its centrifuges; and decimated its ballistic missile capabilities, conventional military forces and infrastructure of repression. An Iranian journalist relayed to me that her mother was taken into a police station for questioning because of the journalist’s reporting on the war. Days later, she said, the station lay in rubble.
India-bound ships begin Strait of Hormuz transit as US lifts Iran blockade; Chabahar, INSTC in focus
The government is also working towards movement of other ships through the region meant for India. Ahead of the peace deal, 13 Indian-flagged vessels were stuck in the strait alongside 16 India-bound fertiliser ships. Between March and early May, more than 20 ships reached India through the Strait of Hormuz. Also read: PM Modi to commission three indigenously built naval ships in Kolkata As part of the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran for a 60-day ceasefire-when a full agreement will be negotiated-the US has agreed to end its blockade of Iranian ports and Iran. India is studying the fine print of the deal to relaunch its economic engagement with Iran from energy trade to connectivity initiatives including the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC) that connects India with Eurasia via Iran. Iran is set to resume oil exports to India following the lifting of sanctions, ET has learnt. India was once among the top buyers of Iranian crude. The Chabahar Port is also in focus. India, which had entered into an understanding with Iran to maintain its presence in the port after Washington withdrew its sanctions waiver, is awaiting the US notification to formally lift sanctions on the port. There are plans to link the Chabahar Port with the INSTC and connect the INSTC with the Northern Sea Route in the Arctic. India has been engaged with Iran to fast-track the conclusion of an arrangement for securing its interests in the Chabahar Port, as the US did not extend the six-month sanctions waiver that ended on April 25. New Delhi was seeking an arrangement with a local port authority to manage the port with a guarantee that this right would be returned to India when the US sanctions were lifted, ET had reported. India has also been seeking a guarantee from the Iranian government for this arrangement in the form of legal sanctity so that the deal between the two sides is honoured, ET had reported in January. Experts on Iranian affairs told ET that China may stake claim on the Chabahar Port if India does not retain its role in some form. On May 13, 2024, India signed a 10-year contract to operate the port-the first time when it took over the management of an overseas port. The agreement was signed between India Ports Global Ltd (IPGL) and Iran's Port & Maritime Organisation. IPGL has invested about $120 million in equipping the port. India had also made provision for a $250 million equivalent rupee credit window for mutually identified projects aimed at improving Chabahar-related infrastructure. Also read: Indian refiners sitting on enough crude, in no rush to resume purchases from West Asia The port is critical for expanding India-Afghanistan economic partnership and supply of humanitarian aid. Afghanistan's Taliban regime is keen on effective utilisation of the port for its global outreach. Central Asian states of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan are also keen to use the Chabahar Port for increasing trade with India and for access to the Indian Ocean Region. India is seeking to put in place an early-harvest free trade agreement with the Eurasian Economic Union to access the markets of Eurasia and source goods including rare earth minerals from the region. The Chabahar Port will be a useful tool to push India-EAEU trade. The port will provide connectivity also to parts of Russia bordering Central Asia. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
'Not A Lunatic Rant': Iran's Araghchi Says Israel's Only Interest Is Permanent War
'Not A Lunatic Rant': Iran's Araghchi Says Israel's Only Interest Is Permanent War
'Not A Lunatic Rant': Iran's Araghchi Says Israel's Only Interest Is Permanent War
'Not A Lunatic Rant': Iran's Araghchi Says Israel's Only Interest Is Permanent War
'Not A Lunatic Rant': Iran's Araghchi Says Israel's Only Interest Is Permanent War
Foreign Minister of Islamic Republic of Iran, Seyed Abbas Araghchi has sharply criticised remarks by Israel's far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, accusing the Israeli government of pursuing a strategy of "permanent war" after the minister called for devastating retaliation against Lebanon. The exchange followed the killing of four Israeli soldiers in Lebanon, prompting Ben Gvir to post a strongly worded message on X demanding an escalated military response. "For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!" Ben Gvir wrote. "With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not forfeit," he added. "Enough with the ping-pong. In the Middle East, you don't win with measured responses and restraint—you need to go berserk. To obliterate. To crush the terror." ALSO READ: 'Lebanon Must Burn': Israel's Ben Gvir As IDF Reports Four Soldiers Killed In Combat Against Hezbollah Responding on X, Abbas Araghchi condemned the comments and said they reflected a broader pattern within Israel's leadership. "This is not a rant by a random genocidal lunatic. It's a public post by the national security minister of the Israeli regime," Araghchi said. This is not a rant by a random genocidal lunatic. It's a public post by the national security minister of the Israeli regime.— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) June 19, 2026 The genocidal death cult headquartered in Tel Aviv is a threat to all of humanity. It threatens all humans. Its only interest is permanent war. pic.twitter.com/7t5bcpafs0 "The genocidal death cult headquartered in Tel Aviv is a threat to all of humanity. It threatens all humans. Its only interest is permanent war," he added. The latest war of words comes amid heightened tensions along the Israel-Lebanon border and growing concerns that further escalation could widen the regional conflict. According to Al-Jazeeram Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon continued after a ceasefire was reported to have come into effect at 4 p.m. local time (1300 GMT), with local reports indicating at least 12 air strikes and ongoing artillery shelling across multiple locations. ALSO READ: Netanyahu Agrees To Renew Lebanon Ceasefire Hours After Flare-Up According to local accounts, the first strike was reported in Kfar Reman at 4 p.m., coinciding with the start of the ceasefire. Additional strikes followed within minutes, targeting Nabatieh al-Fawqa, Kfar Sir, the Nabatieh-Zibdin-Choukin area, Jabal al-Rafie, al-Rayhan, Adshit and Masir Habboush. Nabatieh al-Fawqa and Kfar Sir were among the hardest-hit locations, with both areas reportedly struck multiple times after the ceasefire took effect. Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz began recovering following a U.S.-Iran agreement aimed at preserving the ceasefire and restoring navigation through one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints. Kpler data logged 25 verified crossings through the Strait on June 18, the highest since April, split evenly in both directions. No physical attacks have been reported since May 10. On Wednesday, the United States and Iran signed an interim memorandum of understanding electronically that lifts the US blockade and reopens the Strait of Hormuz, with a waiver for Iranian oil and petrochemical exports that could release more than 50 million barrels of crude sitting on the water. Goldman Sachs Sees Hormuz Flows Recovering By July Analysts at Goldman Sachs believe the reopening could trigger a relatively swift normalization of oil exports from the Persian Gulf. “We now assume that Persian Gulf exports normalize to pre-war levels by end of July and Persian Gulf crude production recover by October,” Goldman’s Yulia Zhetskova Grigsby said in a note this week. The bank estimates that Gulf exports can return to normal even if visible Hormuz traffic only recovers to roughly 70% of pre-war levels, thanks to alternative routes and logistics adjustments developed during the conflict. Goldman estimates a 12.7-million-barrel-per-day increase in Hormuz flows would be enough to restore exports to pre-war levels. The bank also sees little evidence that tanker availability will constrain the recovery, estimating that vessels positioned within or near the Strait have the capacity to load roughly 861 million barrels. However, Goldman warned that shipowners remain cautious and that risk aversion among shippers could continue limiting traffic during upcoming nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. Businesses Aren’t Convinced The Crisis Is Ending While Wall Street is becoming more optimistic, businesses appear far less convinced that the Strait will quickly return to normal. A new Oxford Economics Global Risk Survey led by Jamie Thompson, head of Macro Scenarios, found that more than two-fifths of businesses expect transit through the Strait of Hormuz to remain below pre-war levels not only for the remainder of 2026 but also into 2027. The survey, conducted among 144 businesses between May 28 and June 16, showed companies remain concerned that disruptions could persist despite the U.S.-Iran agreement. Oxford Economics said businesses appear “resigned to a protracted period of disruption” and noted that the share of respondents expecting Hormuz disruptions to last into 2027 has roughly doubled compared with April. The survey also revealed that nearly three-fifths of respondents still view the Middle East as a very significant risk to the global economy over the next two years. Businesses continue to assign roughly a 30% probability to either renewed energy market disruptions or an extended period of constrained shipping through Hormuz. Oil Rebounds From Key Technical Support Crude is trading as if the crisis is all but over, up just 12% from pre-war levels. The companies that burn the oil are budgeting as if it has another eighteen months to run. One of them is wrong. © 2026 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
Hormuz Reopens, Yet Businesses Warn Oil Crisis Isn't Over - United States Oil Fund (ARCA:USO)
'Nuclear section' of Iran-US memorandum poses biggest risks to its implementation — expert
'Nuclear section' of Iran-US memorandum poses biggest risks to its implementation — expert
'Nuclear section' of Iran-US memorandum poses biggest risks to its implementation — expert
'Nuclear section' of Iran-US memorandum poses biggest risks to its implementation — expert
'Nuclear section' of Iran-US memorandum poses biggest risks to its implementation — expert
'Nuclear section' of Iran-US memorandum poses biggest risks to its implementation — expert
'Nuclear section' of Iran-US memorandum poses biggest risks to its implementation — expert
MOSCOW, June 19. /TASS/. The "nuclear section" of the memorandum of understanding signed between the United States and Iran represents one of the most significant challenges to its successful implementation, according to Marat Zembatov, Director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at the Institute of Public and Municipal Administration at the National Research University Higher School of Economics. "The nuclear component remains one of the primary risks at this critical juncture," Zembatov explained to TASS. "While Iran affirms its renunciation of nuclear weapons development, it continues to assert its right to uranium enrichment, which remains a key point in ongoing negotiations. The United States will likely insist on verification measures - such as stockpile limitations, IAEA access, and a sanctions dismantlement schedule acceptable to Congress. Meanwhile, Iran seeks formal recognition of the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and the continuation of its activities." Zembatov expressed cautious optimism about the possibility of extending negotiations if necessary. "Achieving a comprehensive deal within the 60-day timeframe is conceivable, but it demands a level of discipline and flexibility that may be challenging for Washington, Tehran, Israel, and regional partners, especially at this critical moment," he warned. The analyst highlighted that Israel and Lebanon remain the most delicate external factors influencing the deal's stability. "Israel is not a convenient partner for American diplomacy. There is concern that the agreement could bolster Iran’s regional influence and restrict Israel’s freedom of action along its borders with Lebanon. Any escalation in these areas could threaten the broader ceasefire and regional stability," he noted. While acknowledging that the signed memorandum has contributed to de-escalating tensions, Zembatov emphasized that it "has not yet laid the groundwork for sustainable peace." Its ultimate success will depend on tangible steps taken by all parties - supported by financial aid, clear language regarding Iran’s nuclear program, and a managed situation in Lebanon. About the Memorandum Earlier this week, the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding calling for an immediate ceasefire across all fronts, including in Lebanon. Notably, Israel did not participate in the negotiations. The Swiss Foreign Ministry’s press service reported that the planned US-Iran talks in Buergenstock, Switzerland, scheduled for June 19, have been postponed and will not take place as planned.