United States air refueller downed over Iraq in Iran conflict
- First seen
- First seen: March 14, 2026 at 12:10 AM UTC
- Last updated
- Last updated: April 7, 2026 at 06:03 AM UTC
- Activity score
- Activity score: 3.12
- Article count
- 72 articles
Overview
Location
Coordinates: 26.6000, 56.3000
View on mapRelated Articles
Trump’s Iran threat deepens fears of wider war as mediation efforts continue
WASHINGTON: The specter of a wider war has deepened after US President Donald Trump reiterated sweeping threats against Iran, even as he signaled cautious support for Pakistan’s mediation efforts to avert a full-scale conflict. Speaking at a White House news conference on Monday, Trump repeated his familiar assertions about American military supremacy. “The entire country can be taken out in one night, and that night might be tomorrow night,” he said, outlining a scenario in which “every bridge in Iran will be decimated… every power plant… burning, exploding and never to be used again,” claiming reconstruction could take “100 years.” The repeated threats have triggered alarm not only on Capitol Hill but also within American legal circles. More than 100 US-based international law scholars recently signed an open letter expressing concern that attacks on civilian infrastructure could violate the UN Charter and international humanitarian law, warning that sweeping strikes on bridges, power plants and other essential facilities raise serious questions under the laws of armed conflict. The legal concerns now intersect with deep partisan divisions in Washington, where Democrats warn that the president’s threats could amount to war crimes, while many Republicans frame the rhetoric as strategic leverage and grant him broad latitude. Some Democrats are also urging Republicans to call Congress back from recess to vote on a war powers resolution aimed at checking the president’s military actions. Congressman Jason Crow, D-Col., told MS NOW it was time for “Americans of all stripes” to stand up and “condemn what the President is saying and say, ‘We will not tolerate it, and we will seek accountability if he moves forward with it.’” Senator Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., warned that if the president’s threats are carried out, they would “violate the law of armed conflict as laid out in the Geneva Conventions.” Congressman Seth Moulton, D-Mass., a Marine veteran, accused Trump of “gleefully threatening to commit war crimes in Iran.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described the president as “ranting like an unhinged madman,” while Senator Chris Van Hollen posted that “targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime & only solidifies the regime’s power.” Progressive Democrat Yassamin Ansari, the first American Iranian elected to Congress, highlighted the human cost of escalation: “Sharif University is Iran’s MIT. They’ve produced a huge number of engineers who’ve gone on to Silicon Valley and founded some of the most successful American tech companies. Why are we bombing a university in a city of 10 million people?” Republicans have largely framed the president’s rhetoric as strategic pressure rather than operational intent. Senator Joni Ernst, a veteran, defended the approach, saying “it’s an ongoing operation, and if he needs leverage, he’s using that leverage.” On the question of whether striking power plants and bridges would amount to war crimes, she added that the civilian resources in question are “being used by the military, there’s no doubt.” Congressman Don Bacon, R-Neb., said he had “mixed feelings” on the issue, while Congressman Clay Higgins, R-La., urged Trump to “hit” the Iranians “harder than ever Mr. President.” Even as he escalates threats, Trump acknowledged that diplomacy is ongoing. He described Iran as an “active, willing participant” in negotiations and said indirect talks through intermediaries are “going well.” Pakistan, along with Egypt and Turkey, is engaged in shuttle diplomacy, with Vice President JD Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff coordinating the outreach. The volatility on the ground underscores the risks of miscalculation. US General Caine, describing this week’s rescue mission, said: “Every Iranian who had a small gun was shooting at us.” The remark captures the combustible atmosphere in which sweeping threats and fragile diplomacy now coexist. For Pakistan, disputes in Washington over legality and morality, have created a high-stakes environment in which the prospects for both war and peace remain finely balanced. Whether Islamabad’s efforts can convert this tenuous window into meaningful de-escalation may ultimately determine if the crisis spirals into a wider regional conflict or retreats from the brink.
DawnApril 7, 2026 at 04:56 AM UTCTrump’s threats
THERE were few details in US President Donald Trump’s presser late on Monday about which way his war on Iran could go, with the American leader continuing to issue threats as well as hold out the promise of a possible negotiated solution. The media interaction followed Mr Trump’s social media posts on Sunday, which were unhinged even by his standards, as he used foul language against the Iranians, while also appearing to mock Islam. Most of the event was dedicated to the mission inside Iran in which two American troops were reportedly rescued, with the US president and his subordinates heaping praise on each other for accomplishing the mission. What did emerge on Monday was the fact that Mr Trump’s deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz stands: unless Tehran does so by early Wednesday Pakistan time, Donald Trump has threatened to take out the entire country in “one night”. In his posts on Sunday, he had warned of destroying Iranian civilian infrastructure, specifically bridges and power plants. His abrasive war secretary also warned Tehran of heavy strikes. Mr Trump’s long list of threats comes as supposedly last-ditch efforts to secure a negotiated settlement also continue. Media reports say a potential 45-day truce is on the table, with Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt leading the effort. When questioned, the Foreign Office spokesman simply said the peace process was “ongoing”. However, it should be understood that team Trump’s consistent threats and insults will hardly make Iran come running to the table and sign the dotted line to secure peace. The Iranians have shown that they can defend themselves even in the face of massive aggression from two of the most powerful militaries in the world, the US and Israel. Mr Trump’s use of profanity — highly unbecoming of a public office-holder — and his mockery of Islamic sanctities will only strengthen the Iranian resolve to resist. Moreover, it is highly unfortunate that Muslim states have largely kept quiet despite the US leader’s appalling and offensive outburst. Instead of more violence and bullying, if Mr Trump wants to end this war, he must reach out to the Iranians with respect. The window for diplomacy is closing fast and the commendable efforts made by Pakistan and other regional states will come to nought if the US and Israel continue their illegal aggression against Iran. Meanwhile, Trumpian threats to obliterate civilian infrastructure inside Iran may fall under the purview of war crimes. Tehran is interested in permanent guarantees of no more aggression. If Iran is assured of this, the devastating war can hopefully be wound down. But if Mr Trump delivers on his latest ultimatum, the region, and the global economy, should be prepared for further shockwaves from the Gulf. Published in Dawn, April 7th, 2026
DawnApril 7, 2026 at 03:28 AM UTCTrump says Vance, Witkoff, Kushner talking with intermediaries in Pakistan; Iran could be ‘taken out’ on Tuesday
US President Donald Trump asserted on Monday that Iran could be taken out in one night, “and that night might be tomorrow night”, even as he said shortly afterwards that US officials, including Vice President JD Vance, were talking to intermediaries in Pakistan. His statements from two different events came ahead of a looming Tuesday night deadline he gave to Tehran to agree to a ceasefire deal with Washington, warning of wider bombing on power plants and other critical infrastructure. Trump is demanding that Iran forswear nuclear weapons and reopen the Strait of Hormuz oil transit waterway. Iranian media reported on Monday that Tehran had rejected the US ceasefire proposal through intermediary Pakistan, and had instead shared a 10-point proposal, demanding an end to conflicts in the region, a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, lifting of sanctions and reconstruction. Addressing a White House press conference on Monday, Trump told reporters that Iran could be taken out in one night, warning Tehran it had to make a deal by Tuesday night or face wider bombing raids. “The entire country can be taken out in one night, and that night might be tomorrow night,” he said. “I hope I don’t have to do it.” While answering reporters’ questions, he claimed the US had an active and willing partner in negotiations. “I can’t talk about ceasefire. But I can tell you that we have an active, willing participant on the other side. They would like to be able to make a deal. I can’t say any more than that,” Trump said. Trump reiterated his deadline for Iran to forge an agreement and warned otherwise of “complete demolition” of Iran’s energy infrastructure. “We have to have a deal that’s acceptable to me. And part of that deal is going to be we want free traffic of oil and everything,” he said. “We have a plan, because of the power of our military, where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o’clock tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding, and never to be used again. I mean, complete demolition by 12 o’clock, and it’ll happen over a period of four hours if we want it to. We don’t want that to happen.” He said he had been criticised for “not having a plan” for the war on Iran, adding, “I have the best plan of all, but I’m not going to tell you what my plan is.” US President Donald Trump speaks about the war in Iran in the James S Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC, the US on April 6. 1 AFP Trump also called out Nato, South Korea, Japan and Australia for not joining the United States in the war on Iran, even if, as he put it, “we didn’t need them.” “They’ve actually gone out of their way not to help. They didn’t even want to give us landing strips,” Trump said. “And it’s not just Nato. You know who else didn’t help us? South Korea didn’t help us. You know who else didn’t help us, or Australia didn’t help us? You know who else didn’t help us? Japan.” Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth told the briefing that the largest volume of strikes since day one of the operation against Iran would take place on Monday and warned that Tuesday would have even more. Critics have said Trump would be committing war crimes if the US attacked civilian power plants, a point that Trump dismissed on Monday. “I’m not worried about it. You know what’s a war crime? Having a nuclear weapon,” Trump said earlier on Monday during an Easter egg event for children on the White House South Lawn. He said the Tuesday deadline he had set for Iran to make a deal was final. Under the gaze of First Lady Melania Trump and a mascot dressed as a giant Easter bunny, Trump doubled down on the threats of wider bombing. “If they don’t, they’ll have no bridges, no power plants, no anything. I won’t go further because there are other things that are worse than those two,” Trump told reporters. But later at the White House press briefing, when he was asked about his threat to bomb power plants and bridges, Trump said: “No, not at all. I hope I don’t have to do it.” He later added, “I can tell you they’re negotiating, we think, in good faith. We’re going to find out.” At the Easter event, he said that if it were up to him, he would seize Iran’s oil, but that “unfortunately, the American people would like to see us come home” and end the war. “I’d keep the oil, and I would make plenty of money,” Trump said. The US president added that Americans who opposed the Iran war were “foolish.” “Because the war is about one thing. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said. Moreover, he said the US attempted to arm Iranian protesters but the weapons were diverted and never passed to the right people. Trump said the armaments were meant to help anti-government protesters fight back against the authorities. “We sent guns, a lot of guns, they were supposed to go to the people so they could fight back against these thugs.” “You know what happened? The people that they sent them to kept them,” Trump went on, adding: “So I’m very upset with a certain group of people, and they’re going to pay a big price for that.” Trump did not give details about who he was accusing of taking the US weapons. However, on Sunday, Trump was quoted as saying by a Fox News reporter that he blamed Kurdish intermediaries for having taken weapons destined for Iranian dissidents. He claimed, without providing evidence, that the United States had “numerous intercepts” from Iranian civilians urging the US not to let up in trying to dislodge the Iranian government from power. “They would be willing to suffer that in order to have freedom,” Trump said. Trump called the ceasefire proposal “significant step” but said it is “not good enough.” “They made a proposal, and it’s a significant proposal. It’s a significant step. It’s not good enough, but it’s a very significant step,” Trump told reporters about the draft put forward by countries working to end the war. “They’ve made — they’re negotiating now, and they’ve made a very significant step. We’ll see what happens,” he added. Trump said the five-week conflict could end quickly if Iran does “what they have to do.” “They have to do certain things. They know that, they’ve been negotiating I think in good faith,” he said. On the sidelines of an Easter Egg Roll event at the White House, he told reporters that Vance, US Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were talking with intermediaries in Pakistan. Asked by a reporter whether he expected Vance to continue talks with intermediaries in Pakistan, Trump replied: “Well, he is, and we have Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner talking. They’re all unified and they’re all talking.“ Asked about the possibility of Vance being part of an in-person meeting, Trump said, “could be”.
DawnApril 6, 2026 at 08:47 PM UTCIran conveys to Pakistan its rejection of US ceasefire proposal: report
Iran has conveyed its response to the US proposal for ending the war to intermediary Pakistan, rejecting a ceasefire and emphasising the necessity of a permanent end to the war, the official IRNA news agency said on Monday. The Iranian response consisted of 10 clauses, including an end to conflicts in the region, a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, lifting of sanctions, and reconstruction, the agency added. US President Donald Trump, who has threatened to rain “hell” on Tehran if it did not make a deal by 8pm EDT Tuesday (midnight GMT) to open the vital route for global energy supplies, rejected the Iranian proposal on Monday and said his deadline was final. “They made a proposal, and it’s a significant proposal. It’s a significant step. It’s not good enough,” Trump told reporters at an annual White House Easter event, referring to Iran. Iran responded to US and Israeli attacks in February by effectively closing Hormuz, a conduit for about a fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supply. The waterway’s stranglehold on the global economy has proved a powerful Iranian bargaining chip, and on Monday, it showed reluctance to relinquish it too easily. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that Tehran’s demands “should not be interpreted as a sign of compromise, but rather as a reflection of its confidence in defending its positions.” He added that earlier US demands, such as a 15-point plan, were rejected as “excessive”. Ceasefire proposal ‘one of many ideas’ A White House official told Reuters that Washington’s ceasefire proposal was “one of many ideas, and (Trump) has not signed off on it. Operation Epic Fury continues”. In a post laden with expletives on his Truth Social platform on Sunday, Trump threatened further strikes on Iranian energy and transport infrastructure if Iran failed to make a deal and reopen the Strait by Tuesday. Anwar Gargash, an adviser to the president of the United Arab Emirates, said any settlement must guarantee access through Hormuz. He warned that a deal that failed to rein in Iran’s nuclear programme and its missiles and drones would pave the way for “a more dangerous, more volatile Middle East”. Fresh aerial strikes were reported across the region on Monday, more than five weeks since the US and Israel began pounding Iran in a war that has killed thousands and damaged economies by sending oil prices surging. Iranian state media said the Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence chief, Majid Khademi, had been assassinated. Israel on Monday claimed responsibility for his assassination. A US-Israeli attack hit the data centre at Sharif University of Technology in Tehran, damaging infrastructure underpinning the country’s national artificial intelligence platform and thousands of other services, Fars News Agency said on Sunday.
DawnApril 6, 2026 at 06:37 PM UTCTrump’s Strait of Hormuz ultimatum: threat or tactic?
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump has drawn a stark red line, giving Iran until Tuesday evening to reopen the Strait of Hormuz—or face what he ominously described as attacks on key infrastructure. The unusually precise deadline — “Tuesday, 8:00 P.M. Eastern Time” — coupled with his warning of “Power Plant Day and Bridge Day,” conveys both urgency and resolve. Yet analysts, scholars, and lawmakers are divided on whether this ultimatum signals imminent military action or is a high-stakes pressure tactic. There are reasons to take Trump’s warning seriously. The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s traded oil. Any disruption could spike global energy prices and hit major economies in Europe and Asia. Failing to act after publicly setting a deadline risks undermining Washington’s credibility, especially in a second term where Trump may feel freer to authorise calibrated strikes to reinforce deterrence. Still, the language he used suggests something short of full-scale war. Targeting bridges or power plants signals punitive action designed to assert resolve, not regime change. Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, notes: “The damage to Iran’s military capabilities is unquestionable. Since the start of the war, the United States has hit more than eleven thousand targets.” Yet he adds a cautionary note: “Iran wins if it does not lose; the United States loses if it does not win.” Caution is warranted. Iran possesses asymmetric capabilities that could inflict serious retaliation, from missile and drone strikes on US bases to disruptions of Gulf oil infrastructure or mobilisation of allied groups across the region. Thomas S. Warrick, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, observes: “US attacks on Iran’s infrastructure would almost certainly succeed—but so would Iranian attacks on Gulf facilities. Iran would remain unlikely to open the Strait of Hormuz, and could portray itself as the winner, leaving the US on the defensive.” Economic risks compound the strategic dilemma. Daniel Byman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies warns: “From Southeast Asia to Europe, a surge in oil, gas, and fertilizer prices could devastate economies and risk a global recession. The United States could be blamed, fueling anti-US sentiment worldwide.” Democratic lawmakers have been vocal in warning against an aggressive approach. Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts described Trump’s threats as ineffective and urged diplomacy to avoid further costs to Americans at the pump and in human lives. Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan highlighted the human cost of indiscriminate strikes, noting they contradict Trump’s stated goal of aiding the Iranian people. Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii added: “Bombing civilian infrastructure is a war crime, and the time to speak out is now.” Observers also note a pattern in Trump’s confrontations: maximalist rhetoric followed by tactical recalibration. Public threats often precede backchannel diplomacy or deadline extensions framed as progress. Some analysts suggest that the ultimatum may be coercive rather than strictly military. Allied pressure matters too: Gulf states fear being drawn into conflict, while European partners are likely to urge restraint. Even opponents of Tehran may prefer controlled containment over open confrontation. The likely outcome could lie between extremes. Washington might extend the deadline if Tehran signals partial compliance or willingness to negotiate. Alternatively, limited strikes — possibly against military rather than civilian targets — could be used to demonstrate resolve without triggering a broader escalation.
DawnApril 6, 2026 at 04:59 AM UTCMiddle East conflict has no easy answers, only hard choices
— Courtesy China Daily There is a familiar rhythm to the wars that the United States starts: a burst of declaratory confidence, a promise of swift resolution and then the slow intrusion of reality. The latest statements from Washington on the Middle East — oscillating between imminent victory and overwhelming escalation — fit that pattern all too well. Set against the hard facts of US troop movements, the scale of the recent counterattacks Israel endured and the subtle but unmistakable hedging by regional actors, a different picture emerges. This is not a conflict nearing closure. It is one settling into the longue duree of a protracted crisis, with consequences that will radiate far beyond the Gulf. The contradictions are no longer easy to ignore. On the one hand, Washington signals that its military objectives are close to completion; on the other hand, it continues to reinforce its presence and sharpen its intimidation. Such dual messaging might once have been dismissed as tactical ambiguity. Today it looks more like anxiety. Wars rarely end because one side declares them nearly over. They end when reality can no longer be denied. Consider the battlefield. Iran’s capacity to sustain missile barrages and extend pressure through regional proxies has not been decisively degraded, despite claims to the contrary. Israel has demonstrated formidable defensive resilience but at a cost that underscores the limits of even arguably the most advanced missile defence systems. Meanwhile, the conflict’s geography is expanding — into Lebanon, across Gulf shipping lanes, and into the calculations of almost every economy. A war that touches the Strait of Hormuz is a global economic concern. It is here that the limits of rapid solutions become most apparent. The notion that a rapid, decisive outcome was achievable recalls earlier attempts to bend complex political environments to Washington’s will in a compressed timeline. The recent US approach to Venezuela, where the issuance of selective “energy development licenses” was meant to catalyze a quick economic and political shift, rested on a belief that calibrated pressure could deliver swift results. Even there, success has been partial and contested. To imagine that such an approach could be transplanted onto the Middle East was always a stretch. The global economy is now paying the price. Energy markets have reacted with predictable alarm to the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Price volatility is not merely a trader’s headache; it is a tax on growth, a complicating factor for central banks and a destabilizer for different economies. Supply chains, already strained by years of US unilateralism and protectionism, face renewed uncertainty. Insurance premiums for shipping have soared. Even if hostilities were to cease tomorrow, the backlog of vessels and the fragility of confidence would take a long time to unwind. US allies, too, are beginning to display growing unease. Some have started to ask, quietly but audibly, what the endgame looks like. When the leaders of some countries aligned with the US question whether the original objectives have already been met — or whether those objectives were ever clearly defined — it is a signal that “consensus” is fraying, or never existed. In past conflicts, such cracks have widened quickly once the costs became indisputable. Against this backdrop, the stance of Beijing, along with other peace-loving parties, deserves attention. In recent exchanges between China and Pakistan, a five-point initiative was advanced that can be distilled into three imperatives: cease hostilities, initiate talks, and ensure basic security — of civilians, of shipping lanes and of the international order embodied in the UN Charter. Wars that disrupt global commons require solutions that extend beyond the battlefield. China’s critique of unilateral economic measures elsewhere, including in Venezuela, is also relevant. The use of sanctions and selective licensing as instruments of policy may offer short-term leverage, but they erode the very multilateral frameworks needed to manage crises of this scale. If anything, the current Middle East conflict illustrates the limits of coercive tools in the absence of a credible diplomatic horizon. None of this is to suggest that negotiations will be easy — especially since the war was launched when negotiations were taking place and none of the parties seems any more ready to compromise than before. Tehran demands guarantees against future attacks; Washington insists on “behavioral changes” that Iran has long resisted; Israel faces its own security imperatives. Yet the alternative — a grinding conflict with no clear terminus — serves no one’s interest. The temptation in Washington will be to double down, to seek clarity through force where clarity of purpose is still lacking. That would be an ill-advised move. Strategic clarity is not achieved by louder rhetoric or larger deployments. It comes from aligning means with achievable ends, and from recognising when the pursuit of total victory undermines the possibility of a sustainable peace. The Middle East does not offer quick victories. It offers, instead, hard choices. The most rational of those now is also the most unfashionable in wartime: to step back from maximalist aims, return to the negotiating table and accept that stability — however imperfect — is preferable to a conflict that should never have started and the world can ill afford to sustain. Published in Dawn, April 6th, 2026
DawnApril 6, 2026 at 04:53 AM UTCNo easy way out
THE US increasingly seems to be mired in a no-win war against Iran. With the conflict in its second month, not only has Iran shown the resilience to resist and conduct effective asymmetric warfare but its chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz has given it extraordinary leverage over global energy markets and the global economy. President Donald Trump, on the other hand, has come under mounting pressure at home and abroad. None of America’s allies — other than Israel — are prepared to back or get drawn into his military misadventure. America is internationally isolated in the war while domestically, rising anti-war sentiment is reflected in the recent massive nationwide protests against Trump’s policies. Trump himself has been oscillating between talking about an exit from the war and saying the US will “blast Iran back to the stone age”. In his primetime TV address last week, his tone was particularly aggressive. Speaking to a sceptical domestic audience, he said the military operation was “nearing completion” but before that Iran would be hit “extremely hard”. In recent days, he has also struggled to find an off-ramp. But he is caught in a bind of his own making. If he decides to exit from the war in the prevailing situation, with Iran having the upper hand, it will be seen as a defeat. If he continues the conflict, it will mire the US in a protracted war with no clear end and no sure outcome. Already the war’s economic fallout has plunged global markets into turmoil, sent energy prices spiralling and threatened a global recession, which will also hurt the American economy. The disingenuous and conflicting statements Trump has made during the course of the war were repeated in his nationwide address. He claimed all his war objectives had been met because Iran had been “obliterated”, but then pledged to escalate the conflict. At the same time, he declared talks with Iran were “ongoing” while offering no details. The main emphasis of the speech, however, was on escalation not diplomacy. This validated the doubts expressed repeatedly by Iranian leaders about Trump’s lack of seriousness in negotiations. Caught in a bind, if Trump orders a ground offensive that will be the biggest blunder. The situation Trump finds himself is a consequence of a series of miscalculations he and his team made before and during the war. They assumed the Iranian government would capitulate in a few days. That didn’t happen. Decapitation of Iranian leaders was expected to plunge Iran into chaos. It didn’t. They thought Iran would not be able to withstand the combined military might of the US and Israel. It did. Washington also didn’t anticipate Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Gulf countries. Or for that matter targeting of GCC states’ energy infrastructure and its damaging consequences for US allies whose security it committed to protect but failed to do. Trump’s national security team underestimated Iran’s resolve to seize control of the Strait of Hormuz. The scenario emerging from this was also not contemplated by US officials. All this underlined Trump had no strategy and certainly no plan to deal with the consequences of the war. Even when the war didn’t go Trump’s way his military officials kept insisting the US was on course to meet its military goals — a throwback to the past when the US military kept telling their political bosses, for 20 years, that America was winning in Afghanistan. With pressure mounting on Trump, he has been issuing ultimatums to Tehran, which have left Iran unmoved. He then had to extend deadlines for Iran’s “surrender”, denuding such threats of credibility. The latest deadline he set is for April 6 by which time Iran must agree to a deal otherwise, he said, the US military would target Iranian power grids as well as oil facilities. His latest pronouncements, coming in the midst of thousands of additional US troops being dispatched to the Gulf, have strengthened the view that he might order a ground offensive to take over Kharg Island, Iran’s principal oil export terminal. This would be a very risky operation, if not a blunder, that would provoke Iran, advantaged by geography, into a fierce response, which could result in American casualties. In an interview with the Financial Times last week, Trump, in characteristic style, said “Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we won’t” and then suggested that if it was seized the US “would be there for a while”. Trying to seize and hold Kharg Island or other Iranian islands close to Iran’s coast, would be the road to ruin. It would place American lives at risk but not strike a decisive blow to change the course of the war and force Iran to ‘surrender’. Tehran is well prepared for such an attack. As Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and other Iranian officials have said, their forces were “waiting for American soldiers” and will “rain fire” on troops seeking to invade Iranian territory as well as “punish” US’s regional allies. This would widen the war and propel it into a more dangerous, open-ended phase whose fallout on energy markets would be severe. What the war has shown is that military might is not enough. It produces hubris but not the outcome sought. Meanwhile, US inability to protect its Gulf allies has exposed to them the sharp limits of relying on the American security umbrella. That did nothing to deter Iran from striking US bases and other targets on their soil. For Trump the response of Washington’s European allies must have come as a shock. Despite his entreaties to them for help in his war effort, they declined. Several European countries denied use of their airspace and US bases. A frustrated Trump lashed out at Nato countries, mocked European leaders and threatened to quit Nato. This prompted France’s President Emmanuel Macron to reject Trump’s criticism of Nato, decry his unserious approach to the war and assert “When we are serious, we don’t say the opposite of what we said the day before”. This rift between the US and its European allies is unlikely to soon mend. There will be dire consequences of the war for the global economy and especially for economies of the Global South. But perhaps the biggest fallout of the war will be to America’s international standing and its credibility in the region and beyond. The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN. Published in Dawn, April 6th, 2026
DawnApril 6, 2026 at 03:57 AM UTCStrait of Hormuz stays sticking point as ceasefire remains elusive
• Trump warns power plants, bridges to be attacked on Tuesday, hopeful for Hormuz deal; Iran wants world to ‘act now’ to prevent ‘war crime’ • Iranian official says Hormuz strait will be opened only after payment of war damages • China, Russia call for ceasefire; Lavrov tells Washington to abandon ‘language of ultimatums’ • IRGC bombs petrochemical facility in Israel as US strikes target Ahvaz airport WASHINGTON: The US-Israel war with Iran raged on Sunday amid no signs of a ceasefire despite threats by US President Donald Trump, who warned that the US would target power plants and bridges in the besieged country if the Strait of Hormuz was not opened up by Monday. Iran said the statement, which was also denounced in the US, made by the US president was a “clear evidence of intent to commit war crime” and asked the international community to prevent this atrocious act from happening. For almost six weeks, the US and Israeli jets have bombed the length and breadth of Iran, targeting civilian and military infrastructure, even though reported negotiations to end the conflict were also taking place. After his expletives-laden tweet in which he told Iranians to open up the maritime route else they would be “living in hell”, the US president claimed that talks with Tehran were underway and he believed there was “a good chance” of making a deal with Iran on Monday. “I think there is a good chance tomorrow, they are negotiating now,” the president told a Fox News journalist. “If they don’t make a deal and fast, I’m considering blowing everything up and taking over the oil,” he added.  It’s war crime, Tehran tells UN Tehran took strong exception to these threats. The Iranian mission to the UN said the US president was threatening “to destroy infrastructure essential to civilian survival” in the country. “If the conscience of the United Nations were alive, it would not remain silent in the face of the overt and shameless threat by the war-mongering President of the United States to target civilian infrastructure. Trump seeks to drag the region into an endless war,” the mission said on X. “This is direct and public incitement to terrorise civilians and clear evidence of intent to commit [a] war crime,” it said. “The international community and all states have legal obligations to prevent such atrocious acts of war crimes. They must act now. Tomorrow is too late.” Strait of Hormuz Meanwhile, Seyyed Mehdi Tabatabaei, deputy for communications at the Iranian president’s office, said Iran would open the Strait of Hormuz only after receiving compensation for war damages, paid via a “new legal regime” based on transit fees. Separately, Oman and Iran held talks on easing passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the Omani state news agency reported Sunday. “Oman and the Islamic Republic of Iran held a meeting at the deputy ministers’ level in the foreign ministries of the two countries, with the attendance of specialists from both sides, during which the possible options were discussed regarding ensuring the smooth passage through the Strait of Hormuz,” the news agency posted on X. “The experts from both sides put forward a number of visions and proposals regarding it,” it added. On Thursday, Tehran said it was drafting a peacetime protocol that would supervise maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz with Oman, state media reported. ‘Navigation linked to ceasefire’ As both sides stick to their guns, world leaders continue to make efforts to end the stalemate. China’s top diplomat Wang Yi told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in a phone call that “China and Russia should uphold fairness on major issues of principle”, state news agency Xinhua said, noting that the call came at Mr Lavrov’s request. Mr Wang said, “The situation in the Middle East is still deteriorating and fighting is escalating”. Calling for an “immediate ceasefire”, he said China was willing to continue cooperating with Russia in the UN Security Council, communicating promptly on major issues and making efforts to de-escalate the situation and maintain regional peace and stability and global security. He said, “The fundamental way to resolve navigation issues” in the Strait of Hormuz was to reach a ceasefire. Russia against language of threats Mr Lavrov said Washington should abandon “the language of ultimatums” and return to negotiations. “The Russian side expressed hope that the efforts undertaken by a number of states to de-escalate tensions around Iran will be successful,” said a Moscow read-out of his conversation with Iran’s Araghchi, reported AFP. It may be noted that mediation efforts facilitated by Pakistan reportedly hit a stonewall after no response to a peace proposal, either from the US or Iran. Pope tells warmongers to choose peace Pope Leo XIV also urged “those who have the power to unleash wars” to “choose peace”, in his first Easter blessing. “We are growing accustomed to violence, resigning ourselves to it, and becoming indifferent. Indifferent to the deaths of thousands of people,” he told a crowd in St Peter’s Square. Zelensky, Fidan meet in Syria Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in Damascus alongside Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, with a senior official saying the former was scheduled to meet Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa. Mr Zelensky announced in a Facebook post that he had arrived in the Syrian capital, saying “important meetings lie ahead”. “Every nation and every region deserves a peaceful life,” he added. The senior official with knowledge of the visit said “cooperation between countries” and the “security situation in the region” were on the agenda. Iran’s responds to attacks As the US reportedly rescued its crew a day after the F-15 jet was downed, Iran claimed that it destroyed two C-130 aircraft and two US Black Hawk helicopters in southern Isfahan province, as they were taking part in the rescue operation. Furthermore, Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported that the forces targeted petrochemical industries near Dimona in southern Israel, reported Al Jazeera. Dimona was also home to Israel’s main nuclear facility. An Iranian strike in Haifa injured four people, including one critical. The Times of Israel report, quoted by Al Jazeera, said a residential building had been heavily damaged in the city. An Iranian drone attack sparked a fire at a storage tank belonging to Bahrain’s state energy firm, the company said in a statement, as per AFP. The blaze had been “fully extinguished” and no injuries were reported, Bapco Energies said, adding that the damage was still being assessed. Authorities in Abu Dhabi said they were battling fires at a petrochemical facility caused by falling debris. The emirate’s media office said work at the plant had been suspended to allow the damage to be assessed, but there were no reports of injuries. The UAE’s defence ministry said its air defences were responding to missile and drone attacks after Iran said it was targeting “aluminium industries”. Two Kuwaiti power and water desalination plants were damaged by a drone attack from Iran, the electricity and water ministry said. The attack caused “the shutdown of two electricity generating units” but there were no reports of casualties, the ministry said. Five IRGC men killed On the other hand, five members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were killed as well as a brigadier general in separate attacks. US-Israeli strikes killed five fighters with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the northwestern Ardabil province, the official IRNA news agency quoted the Guards as saying, while Mehr news agency reported that Brigadier General Masoud Zare, commander of the Iranian Army’s Air Defence College, was killed in a US-Israeli attack on Iranian territory. Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency also reported that the international airport in the southwestern city of Ahvaz was attacked by the US and Israel. An ambulance of the Iranian Red Crescent Society was hit early Sunday morning when it was dispatched on a rescue operation in the Komher area. There were no casualties, it said, as the crew abandoned the ambulance as soon as it noticed an approaching fighter jet, reported Al Jazeera. Published in Dawn, April 6th, 2026
DawnApril 6, 2026 at 02:18 AM UTCCONFLICT: BOMBING TRUST
Iran’s top security official and Supreme National Security Council secretary, Ali Larijani was killed in an Israeli airstrike on March 17, 2026: the latest round of US-Israel military strikes against Iran began when Tehran was engaged in negotiations with the Washington on its nuclear programme | AFP Operation Epic Fury — the latest round of military strikes against Iran — began when Iran was engaged in negotiations with the United States to renew restrictions on its nuclear programme. This is not the first time the United States has bombed Iran during nuclear negotiations. In June 2025, while its representatives were in talks with Iran over that country’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, Washington launched Operation Midnight Hammer, targeting three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Washington has been broader in its selection of targets in Iran this time around, even though one stated US goal has been to ensure that Iran does not gain nuclear weapons capability. By launching strikes on Iran even as negotiations were underway, Washington may have secured short-term military gains at the cost of long-term diplomatic credibility. Its fallout is likely to reshape future nuclear agreements… Conducting military strikes against a country that is engaged in negotiations to reduce its nuclear capacity sets a dangerous precedent. As a scholar of the global nuclear order, I believe that the conflict has jeopardised all future diplomacy to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. The US military action during negotiations has also undermined Washington’s ability to conduct diplomacy to end the war. Iranian officials negotiating with mediators have expressed their concern that they “don’t want to be ‘fooled again’”, according to a report in [US-based news website] Axios, and that any new set of negotiations might just be a ruse to conduct more attacks. Breaking trust The key components of any negotiations are trust and good faith. Parties coming to a negotiating table to discuss their nuclear programmes must trust that those across the table are acting in good faith. Past negotiations on nuclear arms control and risk-reduction measures between entrenched enemies, such as the US and the Soviet Union or even India and Pakistan, have seen trust as a key component of coming to the table. Trust has its own diplomatic cachet. It allows negotiating states to be a little more vulnerable, thus facilitating the possibility of softened positions leading to landmark agreements. In the 1960s, negotiations were held to establish a global agreement — the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons — to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Nations without nuclear weapons had to trust that countries with them would not use their atomic arsenals to gain military advantage over them, as they committed to forswear the possession and development of these weapons. Today all but one of the non-nuclear countries of the world — South Sudan — are signatories to the treaty. The consequences of Washington’s military strikes would be even more grave if a new nuclear deal between Iran and the US was truly within reach in the negotiations in Geneva days before the conflict started. This is because the reported concessions from Iran were substantial enough to have warranted a pause in Washington’s military strategy. A day before Operation Epic Fury began, Oman’s foreign minister Badr bin Hamad al Busaidi, the principal mediator in the talks, announced that Iran had agreed to zero stockpiling. That is, Tehran would give up its enriched uranium, would down-blend — nuclear-speak for diluting — all material that was previously highly enriched to a neutral level, and be subject to “full and comprehensive verification” by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If true, these terms could have made any new agreement between the US and Iran as consequential as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated between the US and Iran under [former] President Obama’s administration [in 2015]. The violation of trust by the US will be keenly observed by North Korea. In early March 2026, that country conducted tests of what it called “strategic cruise missiles” — missiles it suggests could have nuclear capability — stating that its ability to attack from under and above water was growing and that it was arming its navy with nuclear weapons. Any possibility of bilateral negotiations between the US and North Korea on its nuclear and missile programmes will now be marked by the unreliability of the US as a good faith negotiator. Imperilled future With its actions in Iran, the US has lost credibility as a leading international interlocutor in service of global non-proliferation diplomacy. Key to a nation’s credibility during negotiations is the reputation that it builds from its past actions. Both instances of the US bombing Iran while negotiating with it will make it very unlikely that other countries will engage with Washington in future nuclear diplomacy. Those countries that want to take part in nuclear diplomacy involving the US will likely ask that other, trusted countries participate as well. They will also likely seek security guarantees before engaging in negotiations. This will mean that China and the European Union — countries, alliances or institutions that might help keep the US accountable — will likely have to be a part of any such diplomacy. Loss of trust in the US’ good faith will likely continue across future US administrations after the Trump presidency. This will be because of uncertainty over the credibility of international commitments made by the US. An agreement made by one administration could be reneged on by the next. Another area of concern is that, in the future, a country on the threshold of gaining nuclear weapons might not arrive at the negotiating table fully ready to give up all parts of its nuclear programme. Even if a country does make concessions, it might choose to hold on to some part of its nuclear or missile programme as a guarantee against a future American military strike. The future of negotiations over nuclear proliferation may yet expand beyond that focus to ballistic missiles as well. Recall that Trump began the latest conflict saying that Iran’s ballistic missiles were an “imminent threat” to the US and its bases abroad. Nuclear weapons programmes and ballistic missile programmes often go together. Countries with such missile programmes that are not allied with the US might also be future targets of bilateral diplomatic and military action. The loss of trust and good faith has substantially reduced the ability of the US to diplomatically address not only broader nuclear and missile non-proliferation concerns but also its own national security needs. Under these circumstances, military action might be the most tempting option for Washington to secure these goals — and that is dangerous. The writer is Assistant Professor at the University of Denver, USA Republished from The Conversation Published in Dawn, EOS, April 5th, 2026
DawnApril 5, 2026 at 02:37 AM UTCTrump warns of ‘hell’ as Iran fights back
• US president asks Tehran to ‘make a deal or open up’ Hormuz • Iran missiles land near military headquarters in Tel Aviv, drone sets Israeli tanker on fire • US, Israel bomb petrochemical facilities, Bushehr nuclear plant; Araghchi warns of radioactive fallout • Iraq closes border crossing after one person killed in US-Israeli strike • WHO says over 4.3m displaced, 116 attacks on healthcare facilities; Iran’s minister says 30 varsities hit till date WASHINGTON: A day after the Iranian forces downed multiple US aircraft, President Donald Trump renewed his threats against Tehran and asked it to “open up” the Strait of Hormuz, a vital trade route blockaded by Iran in response to the US-Israeli attacks, within 48 hours or face oblivion. The new deadline came as Iran struck Israel multiple times on Saturday, including its defence ministry headquarters in central Tel Aviv, while also claiming that it deployed a new air defence system to deny the US-Israeli jets air superiority, as earlier claimed by President Trump. As the war entered its sixth week, the US president announced that he would “rain down hell” on Iran if it did not open the vital strait within 48 hours. “Remember when I gave Iran ten days to MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. “Time is running out — 48 hours before all Hell will reign [sic] down on them.” Meanwhile, Iran authorised the passage of vessels carrying essential goods to its ports through the Strait of Hormuz, while a second Turkish ship also sailed through the strait. According to Reuters, Trump has sent mixed messages since the conflict began with a US-Israeli bombardment of Iran on Feb 28, switching between hinting at diplomatic progress to making threats to bomb the Islamic Republic “back to the Stone Ages”. Petrochemical sites targeted On Saturday, Iran’s petrochemical zone remained a target of the US-Israeli strikes. According to Iranian state media quoted by Reuters, these air strikes injured five people. A projectile also hit an auxiliary building near the perimeter of Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant, Iran’s Tasnim news agency said, killing one person. The operations of the plant were unaffected and the plant remained safe. As Moscow called the strike “evil”, Russia’s state nuclear company Rosatom evacuated a further 198 of its staff from the site on Saturday, Russian news agencies reported, in evacuations already planned before the latest incident. The Iranian top diplomat warned against these strikes, saying the fallout would not be confined to Iran only. “Israel-US have bombed our Bushehr plant four times now. Radioactive fallout will end life in GCC capitals, not Tehran,” Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said on ‘X’. Attacks on Iranian petrochemical facilities also reveal “real objectives,” Mr Araghchi tweeted. A US-Israeli strike also hit a cement plant in southern Iran, AFP said, adding that operations were not interrupted. “The Amer–ican-Zionist attack against the cement plant of Bandar Khamir did not leave any casualties,” said Tasnim news agency, quoting Ahmad Nafisi, the Hormozgan province. According to AFP, a US-Israeli strike hit a trade terminal at the Iran-Iraq border, killing one person. “At 11am, the commercial terminal of the Shalamcheh border crossing in the southwestern city of Khorramshahr was targeted in an air attack by American and Zionist enemies,” Mehr news agency said, citing the deputy governor for Khuzestan province, Valiollah Hayati. Subsequently, Iraq closed the border. Missiles land in Tel Aviv Meanwhile, the Revolutionary Guards said they had targeted various areas in Israel in a wave of missiles and drones. Israeli media reported that two warheads from an Iranian cluster missile landed near Israel’s Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv. The Guards also targeted US HIMARS rocket launcher batteries in Kuwait and Patriot missile batteries in Bahrain, according to a statement read on Iranian state TV. Shrapnel from intercepted drones injured four people in Bahrain, as per AFP. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said they targeted an Israel-linked ship in the Gulf in a drone attack, setting it on fire, AFP reports. On their Sepah News website, the Guards said they targeted MSC Ishyka, “owned by the Israeli regime and flying the flag of a third country” at the Khalifa Bin Salman port in Bahrain. WHO’s regional director for Eastern Mediterranean, Hanan Balkhy said the fighting triggered one of the most “far-reaching crises” in recent decades, resulting in over 3,300 deaths and 30,000 reported injuries. Over 4.3 million people have been displaced and 116 verified attacks on healthcare facilities have been reported. Iran’s science minister Hossein Simai Sarraf during a visit to a university in northern Tehran said, “To date, more than 30 universities have been directly targeted.” Published in Dawn, April 5th, 2026
DawnApril 5, 2026 at 02:26 AM UTC