Wednesday, May 20, 2026

US demands on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program ‘illegal’ and ‘humiliating’: Nuclear expert

By Alireza Kamandi

The latest US demands for the complete suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment program, according to an analyst, are both 'illegal' and 'humiliating.'

In an interview with the Press TV website, Dr. Peter J. Kuznick, Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington, D.C., said enrichment for peaceful purposes is an “inalienable right” of signatory states under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

He recalled that under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, Iran had already agreed to limit its enrichment and faithfully abided by that pact, a fact repeatedly verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) through constant and invasive inspections.

“Now Iran refuses to abandon its right to enrich,” Kuznick said. “(Donald) Trump insists upon coming up with a better deal than the one (Barack) Obama negotiated. Eliminating Iranian enrichment does not look like it’s going to be part of it.”

The US has also demanded the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear facilities, echoing the infamous agreement once imposed on Libya, which Tehran equates to outright “surrender.”

Kuznick attributed the hawkish US position to key figures, including Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, and Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he referred to as “the butcher of Gaza.”

He noted that Trump has openly admitted to disregarding international law, telling The New York Times that he is limited only by “his own morality and his own mind,” the former of which, Kuznick argued, does not exist.

To counter this arrogance, he recommended that Iranian leaders turn the tables by demanding the dismantlement of US and Israeli military nuclear facilities.

“The world would be better off without US nuclear weapons and with Southwest Asia as a nuclear weapons-free zone,” he told the Press TV website.

Unlike the JCPOA, which allowed Iran to retain low-enriched uranium, the US now demands the physical transfer of all enriched material to a third country. Tehran has flatly rejected this.

“The issue for the world should not be shipping all the HEU, Highly Enriched Uranium (above 20% 235U), out of Iran,” he stressed. “It should be making sure there is intensive, invasive, and unrestricted IAEA scrutiny, which Iran permitted under the JCPOA.”

He also insisted that Israel, which possesses an undeclared and clandestine nuclear arsenal, should be forced to join the NPT and submit to the same level of surveillance.

He reiterated that the only real security lies in a nuclear-free Southwest Asia.

“Trump is desperate for a face-saving way out of this stupid, illegal, unpopular, and immoral war,” Kuznick said, referring to the US-Israeli war of aggression against the Islamic Republic.

“The American people have hated this war from the beginning. As long as this goes on, there remains a real danger that the US or Israel will resort to nuclear weapons. The world prays not.”

Trump, he added, has succeeded in provoking “regime change” – but in the US over the next few months and then Israel.

US-Israeli war against Iran driven by corporate profit, not nuclear concerns: Activist

By Press TV Website Staff

The US-Israeli war against Iran was never about nuclear weapons, but about corporate profit and control over the country’s oil, according to a prominent American anti-war activist.

In an interview with the Press TV website, Mike Ferner, a long-time anti-war activist and former national director of Veterans for Peace, pulled no punches in his criticism of Washington's motives and the influence of Zionist lobbies and US corporations.

Asked whether the US-Israeli war against Iran was necessary, particularly given that it unfolded in the midst of Oman-mediated nuclear talks in Geneva and despite Iran's repeated assertions that it is not seeking a nuclear weapon, Ferner offered a blunt answer.

"The war was necessary if you understand that the US is an empire and US corporations govern it, influenced by Zionists," Ferner told the Press TV website.

He identified financial interests as the primary drivers of the war, not security concerns.

"Weapons-making corporations saw it as an opportunity to make billions," he stated. "Oil companies saw it as a way to reassert control over Iran's oil. These corporations basically control our foreign policy."

Ferner also pointed to the collapse of diplomatic alternatives, noting that a functional nuclear agreement had already existed, one that the Trump administration had previously withdrawn from, referring to the 2015 nuclear deal.

"There was a functioning agreement that Trump will not be able to replace," he said. "In the meantime, Iranians are suffering and dying, while in this country millions of people still go without health care."

Many analysts, including Iranian officials and even some US figures such as former top counterterrorism official Joe Kent, assert that President Donald Trump was drawn into the war by Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu, who had previously failed to persuade US presidents to directly engage Iran on Israel's behalf.

"It would not surprise me if that were true," the anti-war activist said.

On Washington's stated rationale for the unprovoked war against Iran, Ferner pointed to both Iran's consistent position on its nuclear program and recent US military actions.

Iran has long maintained that it does not seek a nuclear weapon, a position backed by a formal religious decree (fatwa) from the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

Moreover, during the 12-day war last June, the United States attacked three key Iranian nuclear facilities, claiming to have “obliterated” them.

"It's regime change – to find someone more like the Shah," he said, referring to the deposed West-backed Pahlavi monarchy that ruled Iran before the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

"That does not look possible in today's Iran," he said. "It's that, and the desire to control Iran's oil, plus make money for the weapons makers."

With the 2026 FIFA World Cup approaching, to be co-hosted by the US, and midterm elections on the horizon, many believe Trump would be forced to hold back.

Ferner, however, downplayed the global sporting event's domestic political significance.

"The World Cup is important to a small segment of people in the US," he said. "Regardless of international sports, the US cannot afford to continue this war economically, politically or environmentally."

He offered a somber reflection on American democracy and its failure to force the government to end its disastrous and futile wars abroad.

"It is a tragedy – but that's what happens when people here don't govern themselves, but leave it to corporations and madmen," Ferner noted.

Same bloody cloth, different vampiric cuts

 By Garsha Vazirian

Israel's electoral circus and its sick logic of permanent warmongering

TEHRAN — The Israeli political landscape leading into the scheduled fall elections is less a "democratic" contest than a high-stakes audition for regional aggression.

Regardless of the faces on the campaign posters, the underlying logic of the regime remains a rigid constant: a revolving door of coalitions that all eventually converge on the same violent ends.

In Tel Aviv, the musical chairs of leadership are never about offering an alternative to the war regime but about proving who can manage its machinery with the most efficiency.

The illusion of choice

The central fraud of the 2026 race is the idea that the "opposition," led by figures such as Benny Gantz, Yair Lapid, and Gadi Eisenkot, represents a meaningful departure from the status quo.

In reality, this is a false binary where voters choose between different shades of the same militaristic doctrine.

Gantz and Eisenkot are former military chiefs of staff who frame their critique of Netanyahu not around the morality of strikes on Lebanon, Gaza, or Iran, but around tactical competence.

This consensus is anchored in the Begin Doctrine, a mandate for pre-emptive strikes that remains a sacred cow across different parties.

The April merger between former PMs Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid was marketed as a "secular" alternative, yet their platform remains strictly anchored in the same deranged war doctrine that has defined the last three years.

Whether the leadership is "center-right" or far-right, the commitment to continue the campaign of aggression against Iran and Lebanon in different arenas, as well as what they call "mowing the grass" and maintaining permanent security control over Palestinian territories is absolute.

Blood as campaign capital

In the cynical arithmetic of Israeli politics, military escalation often serves as a primary tool for domestic legitimation.

We have seen this rhythm before: from Operation "Pillar of Defense" in November 2012, launched just two months before the January 2013 elections, which killed 174 Palestinians, including 33 children and 13 women, to Operation "Breaking Dawn" in August 2022.

The latter occurred less than three months before the November vote and claimed at least 49 Palestinian lives, including 17 children and 4 women, while wounding over 360 others.

These strikes are frequently timed to boost "security credentials" and manufacture a rally-around-the-flag effect among a radicalized electorate, transforming the slaughter of civilians into a campaign advertisement for toughness.

The current cycle is no different. The campaign of aggression on Iran is viewed by analysts partly as electoral props designed to show that the current leadership can act where others merely talk, especially considering the court cases of Netanyahu and people close to him.

For the Israeli political class, Palestinian, Lebanese, and Iranian lives are the raw material of campaign messaging, used to rally a frightened public and distract from internal crises.

Given that the regime has already pushed the region to the brink through its ongoing strikes, the approaching election guarantees even more escalation against Lebanon.

Candidates are currently engaged in a lethal competition to prove who can execute a more destructive offensive to "restore the north," essentially using the prospect of total war as a central pillar of their campaign strategy.

This makes Iran's red line of including Lebanon in a possible deal with the U.S. to end the war even more crucial.

A sick society structured for siege

This war regime rests on a deeply militarized culture that views its armed forces as its only legitimate representative.

While trust in the government has plummeted to under 25%, trust in the military remains above 80%. This explains why the political discourse has shifted to "decisive victory (Hachra'a)."

The numbers speak for themselves:

 - 59% of Israelis believe that ending the current war on Iran without further escalation would fail to achieve security goals.

 - 62% believe a return to wide-scale war with Iran is "highly likely."

 - 82% of Jewish Israelis in a 2025 poll supported the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza.

This is not deviation; it is the system becoming visible. A 2026 UN report highlighted that the line between the military and armed settlers in the West Bank has effectively vanished, with over 1,732 incidents of settler violence recorded in 2025 alone, often with direct military participation.

Permanent warmongering

As Israel’s 2026 electoral circus intensifies, three scenarios stand out. A generals’ coalition led by Bennett, Lapid, and figures such as Gantz or Eisenkot might adopt a slicker approach, attempting to harm regional de-escalation efforts while escalating what has been deceptively marketed as “surgical” strikes against the Resistance, all backed by unwavering American support. They may also use the Netanyahu era as the punching bag for Israel’s weakened position and structural problems.

Netanyahu’s persistence, on the other hand, would likely double down on current aggressive projects and accelerate formal annexation of the West Bank to appease Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, dressed up as "political and security necessities."

Additionally, pre-election panic could ignite a major escalation, whether renewed heavy strikes on Iran or a full push into Lebanon, timed to clear the board before the September vote.

In every outcome, the U.S.-Israeli axis operates in practiced coordination.

Ultimately, the election may change the lunatic spokesman, but not the vampiric logic of this settler-colonial regime addicted to the blood of innocents.

Christian Zionist ideology best fits Trump’s Mideast policies

TEHRAN — The term "Christian Zionism" refers to a belief among some Christians that supports the flood of the Jews to Israel and the establishment of a Jewish state as part of biblical prophecy.

While it's difficult to provide an exact number of officials who identify as Christian Zionists, various political leaders, especially in the United States, have expressed support for Christian Zionist beliefs.

Prominent figures include some members of Congress, evangelical leaders, and certain political candidates who align with pro-Israel policies. Organizations like the Christian Coalition and the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem advocate for Christian Zionist views and have many supporters among political officials.

Some notable evangelical leaders and politicians within the Republican Party who have identified as Christian Zionists or have expressed strong support for Israel are:

Mike Pence, the former Vice President under Donald Trump. Pence has been a vocal supporter of Israel and has often spoken about the biblical significance of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI). Hagee is a prominent evangelical pastor known for his strong support of Israel and advocacy for Christian Zionism.

Ted Cruz, the U.S. Senator from Texas. He has openly expressed his support for Israel and has aligned himself with Christian Zionist beliefs, often invoking biblical references in his speeches.

Franklin Graham is the son of evangelist Billy Graham. Graham is a prominent Christian leader who has been an outspoken supporter of Israel and has promoted Christian Zionist views.

Robert Jeffress - Pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas. He is a well-known evangelical leader who has been a strong advocate for Israel and has described himself as a Christian Zionist. Called a televangelist, he is a Fox News contributor. 

Jerry Falwell Jr., the former president of Liberty University and son of Jerry Falwell Sr. He has been a vocal supporter of Israel and has promoted the idea of Christian Zionism in his public statements.

Michelle Bachmann, the former U.S. Representative from Minnesota. She has been a strong advocate for Israel and has expressed her support for Christian Zionism in various forums. According to TC Jewfolk, she has said, “I have tremendous love for Israel, and great admiration for the Israeli people. I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish.

“I am a Zionist” 

Some prominent Democrats have also expressed strong support for Israel, though they may not specifically identify as Christian Zionists. A few notable Democrats who have shown a biased stance toward Israel are: 

Former President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and current Senate Minority Leader 

Chuck Schumer; former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat in the House after Pelosi from 2003-2023; Dianne Feinstein, the senator from California from 1992 until her death in 2023.

In the early stages of the genocide in Gaza following the Oct. 7 attack, Biden, meeting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, said, “I don’t believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist.” 

Of course, not all Jews are Zionist. There is a considerable percentage of Jews around the world who oppose Israel’s apartheid against the Palestinians. 

Like all people of the faith, Jews should be respected. The problem is that Zionism is synonymous with occupation, injustice, and cruelty.

Biden, in his half-century of public life, was a strident supporter of Israel. Though he expressed support for a two-state solution for the decades-long conflict, his support for Israel fell within political and strategic interests.

Hillary Clinton’s support for Israel was unwavering in her political career, especially as senator and chief diplomat. She stated her support for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital during her presidential campaign in 2016. Also, in a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in March 2016, Hillary said she would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. 

However, her sworn enemy, Donald Trump, who called her “crooked” as a presidential rival, recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in his first presidency.

Framed conflicts in biblical terms

The United States joined Israel in launching the war of aggression on Iran in June 2025 and again on Feb. 28.  In the case of Iran, much of that backing is rooted in Washington's long-standing regional and strategic interests.

“But within the administration of President Donald Trump and beyond, prominent Christian Zionists have sometimes framed conflicts in the Middle East in biblical terms, invoking scripture to justify support for Israel,” Daniel Tester wrote in Middle East Eye on May 12.

As a political and religious ideology, Christian Zionism not only facilitates the flow of Jews to occupied Palestine but also backs the annexation of neighboring parts of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. 

Though Trump has not openly said he is a Christian Zionist, he is openly surrounded by people with such ideology. Trump’s recognition of Syria’s Golan Heights as part of Israel in his first term meets this biblical ideology. 

In the UK and elsewhere, many politicians were and still are sympathetic to Christian Zionism. Most notably, they included British foreign minister Arthur Balfour, who in 1917 sent the Balfour Declaration, in which Britain pledged support for a Jewish state in Palestine, to Lord Rothschild, a leading Zionist.

The fire that Balfour ignited in the Middle East is still raging, even with a greater speed and many more flames. For example, since the creation of Israel in 1948, the region has not seen a tragedy as horrific as the Gaza genocide so far.

In the U.S., where Christian Zionism is most widespread and influential, 73 million Americans identified as Evangelical Protestants in 2024, according to polling from the Pew Research Center - around 21 percent of the overall population. There were 5.8 million Jews in the U.S. in 2020, according to Pew’s most recent survey.

Christian Zionist Evangelicals have been influential in U.S. policymaking for more than a century. 

In the 1940s, for example, Evangelicals were a central force within the American Christian Palestine Committee, which lobbied for the founding of the state of Israel in Palestine.

Today, key members of the Trump administration are Evangelical Protestants who identify as Christian Zionists, including Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and the current Washington’s Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. 

It is because of this dangerous Christian Zionist ideology that Hegseth has said the aim is for “maximum lethality, not tepid legality” in the war on Iran. Not showing regret for burying 168 school children and staff under rubble with Tomahawk missiles in Minab in southern Iran on the first day of the war fall within this ideology.

It is also because of this ideology that Huckabee said on Feb. 20 that Israel has a biblical right to take over the entire Middle East.

“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee said to Tucker Carlson. 

The Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, another Trump ally, is also an Evangelical supporter of Israel, as is Mike Pence.

Christian Zionist televangelists have also served as advisers during the Trump administration, including Paula White-Cain, Trump’s personal spiritual adviser. 

In July 2024, her website stated: “In this pivotal moment in human history, we are called to STAND with ISRAEL! This isn’t about politics; this is about living in harmony with the WORD of God!”

With Iran's armed forces at peak readiness and red lines locked, Trump walks into ring of fire

By Press TV Strategic Analysis Desk

A day after US President Donald Trump theatrically rejected Iran's comprehensive and pragmatic plan to permanently end the war he illegally imposed on the country, a critical question looms over Washington's war rooms: What comes next?

The answer, drawn from the latest field and political assessments, is as clear as it is chilling for American strategists. Iran's armed forces are not merely prepared for a return to full-scale war if the enemy resorts to another military adventurism; they have already removed the psychological barrier that restrains most countries from such a confrontation.

And on every clearly defined red line, from the Strait of Hormuz to nuclear enrichment, Iran will not step back. It is the enemy with empty hands that has to surrender or retreat.

The field situation

The decisive reaction of Iran's armed forces in recent days to the enemy's desperate but foolhardy attempts to open a passage through the Strait of Hormuz has done more than repel a tactical incursion. It has once again proven, in the most concrete manner possible, Iran's firm determination to consolidate its permanent sovereignty over this vital waterway.

This is not posturing or brinkmanship for diplomatic leverage. It is the physical manifestation of a strategic will that analysts in the West have repeatedly underestimated – and that the US military has now learned to its growing cost.

In any tense scenario between two countries, the final unspoken consideration is always the prospect of full-scale military war. All other measures – diplomacy, negotiation, sanctions, pressure tactics – exist precisely to achieve objectives before reaching that threshold.

When that consideration is removed, when a country acts as though war is no longer a deterrent, it signals something profound: the issue at stake is existential, directly connected to the country's most inviolable red lines.

Iran has now removed that consideration. The military prevention of enemy vessels from transiting the Strait of Hormuz – and Iran's forceful response to every attempt by the US to violate the new equation Tehran has established in the strait – signifies that Iranian sovereignty over the waterway is existential in nature.

It is not negotiable or up for bargaining. It is not subject to compromise. And here is the key point that Washington refuses to absorb: this strategic will is irreversible, even at the cost of igniting a full-scale war, for which the Iranian armed forces are fully prepared.

The United States rejected Iran's peace proposal, believing it could extract better terms through continued pressure tactics. That miscalculation has already backfired. Iran has now made it unmistakably clear that no amount of military escalation will reverse its legitimate and sovereign control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Negotiation through the barrel of gun

There is an old strategic axiom: diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means.

Iran has inverted that formula into something the US has never quite understood. What Tehran has demonstrated in the Strait is the art of negotiation through a position of power.

Without sitting at a single formal negotiating table, Iran has articulated its non-negotiable red lines through the unmistakable and powerful language of its armed forces.

The most important of these – the establishment of permanent, undisputed Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz – has now been inscribed in water and blood.

The timing is no accident. This decisive action and authoritative measure provided the ideal foundation for Iran to present its comprehensive plan to permanently end the war. It did not speak through diplomats this time, but through missile batteries, naval deployments, and the credible threat of asymmetric military retaliation.

And Washington heard. But it chose not to listen.

The meaningful and coordinated action of both the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Army in the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman has done something the Pentagon never anticipated: it has validated Iran's threat to counter and neutralize the enemy's maritime banditry in the form of a naval blockade.

When the consideration of war is removed from the equation, asymmetric counteraction to a naval blockade – even if it leads directly to full-scale war – becomes not just an option but an inevitability from Iran's perspective.

Tehran has already made this clear through Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, its top military command: if the enemy continues its maritime banditry, its interception of Iranian vessels, its aggression, then the response will arrive not on some distant future battlefield but at the enemy's very own strategic centers in the region.

This is not rhetoric but an unambiguous military warning. And its meaning is unmistakable: Iran is now determined to expel every last element of enemy military force from the Persian Gulf. The naval blockade, far from pressuring Iran into submission, has triggered the very response it was designed to prevent.

The return to war: A different calculation

Washington's war planners must now confront a grim reality. There is indeed a possibility that the enemy may return to the option of war. But unlike the decision to start the war on February 28, when American calculations predicted Iran's rapid destruction and surrender within a short period, that option will not be the enemy's preferred choice today.

Why? Because those calculations have already failed spectacularly. Iran did not surrender. Its institutions did not dismantle and the United States achieved none of its war objectives.

If the enemy now chooses to return to full-scale war, it will only do so after realizing two things: first, that Iran's position regarding the conditions for ending the war is absolutely unchangeable; second, that accepting Iran's declared conditions is politically impossible for the United States.

The enemy may also realize that continued economic pressure and naval blockade will not, in the short term or even in the long term, force Iran to concede the two major concessions that Washington demands above all others: free passage through the Strait of Hormuz and the abandonment of the nuclear enrichment program.

All of these assessments are correct. And that is precisely why a return to war remains possible, but also why such a return would be a catastrophe for the US, not for Iran.

The political situation: No concession, no surrender, no escape

Iran's modified plan to end the war, as anticipated by every sober and informed analyst, was rejected by Trump and his war hawks in Washington. Even milder conditions than those in Iran's submitted proposal, as long as they rest on the two non-negotiable pillars of Hormuz sovereignty and the right to enrichment, will never be accepted by Trump.

That is not a weakness in Iran's position, but a recognition of America's political pathology. But Iran's refusal to bend is not born of stubbornness. It is born of blood and sacrifice.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has, in a single year, faced two full-scale imposed wars, a coup attempt, the martyrdom of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, thousands of other martyrs, dozens of senior government officials and military commanders, staggering material damage, apart from decades of crippling sanctions and pressure.

Through all of this, Iran has neither surrendered nor backed down from its fundamental rights. Nuclear knowledge is the symbol of that steadfastness.

But the back-to-back full-scale wars also forced Iran to evolve and introspect. They forced a permanent change in Iran's policy regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran learned that it could not secure its own survival without taking direct, physical control over the waterway that is the lifeline of the region's energy exports. That lesson has been inscribed in Iran's strategic DNA. Iran will never – and the word bears repeating, never – abandon either nuclear enrichment or sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.

Full list of non-negotiables

And beyond those two pillars, Iran's other demands stand on equally firm ground. War reparations and damages for the destruction inflicted on Iranian infrastructure, economy, and civilians. The full lifting of primary and secondary sanctions and termination of draconian anti-Iran resolutions. The return of all frozen Iranian assets. The protection of Iran's allies in the Resistance Front. The maximum possible guarantees against any repetition of war against the country.

None of these can be removed from Iran's list of legitimate demands. They are not bargaining chips but basic entitlements of a nation that has been attacked, bombed, starved, and isolated for nearly half a century by arrogant powers.

But here lies the strategic deadlock that the White House cannot break. The acceptance of even one of Iran's core principles would amount to an open admission of defeat.

And Trump – the man who has built his political identity on "America First" and "maximum pressure" – cannot formally concede such a disastrous defeat. His political survival depends on the illusion of victory, especially ahead of the midterms.

Iran cannot step back either. Accepting the abandonment of the fundamental, logical, and legal rights of the nation would not be diplomacy. It would be extortion. It would be surrendering to an aggressor. And that is precisely the green light for the next war.

If Iran concedes even once, the enemy will immediately begin searching for the next pretext, the next crisis, the next "concession" to extract. Iran's refusal to negotiate from a point of weakness is not inflexibility. It is the only rational strategy for survival and strength.

The scorpion in the ring of fire

This brings us to the final and inescapable image. Whatever action Trump now takes in response to Iran, he is like a scorpion trapped in a ring of fire. Every possible move is suicide.

If he throws himself into the flames and chooses to continue the useless, economically ruinous, and navally costly blockade, it would be suicide. If he restarts full-scale war, it would be suicide. If he accepts Iran's conditions, or even some of them, in a desperate attempt to salvage something, it would also amount to suicide.

The scorpion has three options: burn in the fire, strike its own sting into its head, or be consumed from within.

Make no mistake. Iran's armed forces are fully ready for any eventuality. The Strait of Hormuz is locked. The nuclear program is advancing. The resistance front is intact. And the United States, for the first time in its modern history, has trapped itself in a war it cannot win, against an adversary that will never surrender, over issues that are not negotiable.

Iran has already paid the price for its sovereignty. America has only begun to count its losses.

Trump's theatrical rejection of Iranian proposal reeks of desperation as Iran's leverage grows

By Press TV Strategic Analysis Desk

The exchange of proposals between Iran and the United States, facilitated through Pakistani mediators in recent days, on ending the third war of aggression has crossed into a moment of strategic reckoning.

Far from constituting a routine diplomatic impasse, the American response – specifically President Donald Trump's theatrical rejection of Iran's latest proposal – confirms an undeniable strategic reality: the White House is not operating from a position of strength.

Trump's subsequent sabre-rattling has once again laid bare the frustration and desperation festering on the American side. Such unhinged behavior is the reflex of a leader trapped at a strategic dead end, something even Western pundits now candidly acknowledge.

His refusal to accept Iran's terms, therefore, signals a simple but telling reality: he has run out of moves. What stands before him is an Iranian stance not defined by obstinacy but by the strategic leverage Tehran has accumulated through significant gains on both the battlefield and the negotiating table. And that leverage is proving unbreakable.

This dynamic places the United States in an increasingly vulnerable position. At the same time, Iran's leverage continues to grow, while its armed forces maintain a state of readiness for any eventuality. The asymmetry in strategic composure is becoming unmistakable.

The chaos of a cornered administration

Following Iran’s formal response to the American plan for ending the war that was imposed amid nuclear talks on February 28 – a response that firmly reiterated Tehran’s uncompromising principles – Trump’s public and private statements have devolved into a turbulent mix of incoherence and delusion.

Over the past forty-eight hours, the tapestry of American positions, as leaked to American, Zionist, and Western media, reveals a ruling establishment in complete disarray.

We have witnessed simultaneous threats to resume the military aggression, outright rejections of Iran’s conditions, frantic internal consultations, and desperate outreach to Zionist allies. Importantly, Trump has been spreading contradictory narratives, even claiming contact with Iranian officials, a claim that reeks of wishful thinking.

This confusion is not a strategic move but the noise of a befuddled man realizing that his “maximum pressure” campaign to get maximum concessions has failed. Trump has not yet accepted the simple truth that he has lost the war against Iran.

Fed a diet of false intelligence and sycophantic reports, he genuinely believes he still holds the upper hand in this war. He imagines he can dictate terms from a higher position, behaving in a domineering and condescending manner. But this is a dangerous self-delusion.

The aggression in his tone is inversely proportional to the options remaining on his desk.

Psychological warfare or confession of failure?

Some analysts might argue that Trump’s belligerent posture is a calculated tactic – a piece of psychological theater designed to frighten Iran into submission.

According to this view, the threats are meant to force Tehran into accepting American conditions: surrendering its stockpile of 60-percent-enriched uranium and, most critically, opening the Strait of Hormuz. If this is indeed a performance, it is a desperate one.

Trump understands – even if he will not say so publicly – that he has failed and exhausted his options. Not a single war objective has been realized. The Islamic Republic of Iran stands tall and unyielding, while the "regime change" plot has been nipped in the bud.

Now, he is resorting to his only remaining and ineffective tool: verbal psychological operations. He specializes in this – bluster, threats, and feigned dominance. But Iran is not intimidated. It sees the man behind the curtain, a frustrated figure trying to impose a surrender document that has no basis in military reality. His rejection of Iran’s proposal stems from the agony of a gambler who cannot accept that the game is over.

Iran’s unshakable stance

Why is Trump so desperate and frustrated? The answer is simple: Iran neither negotiates from fear nor offers concessions to the aggressor. On the contrary, it negotiates from a position of strength and authority. It has laid out its conditions with clinical clarity and refused to retreat a single inch.

These conditions include the absolute, non-negotiable sovereignty of Iran over the Strait of Hormuz. They include demands for full war reparations and compensation, the release of all blocked Iranian assets, the complete lifting of illegal and draconian sanctions, and the annulment of international anti-Iran resolutions.

Also, Iran has made clear that any end to the war must explicitly include the resistance axis, particularly Lebanon, and a definitive end to the American-led naval blockade.

This is the language of a victor outlining terms and conditions. And it has had a discernible effect on Trump and his close circle of hawks who pushed him into this quagmire.

His unhinged outbursts and uncouth language are the last gasp of a bully who has met an immovable object. By rejecting Iran’s fair proposal, Trump is hoping to mask his own failure. But Iran’s insistence on these principles tells the world that it will not enter America’s psychological maze. Tehran will not be intimidated by insults or theatrical threats.

Good faith, not weakness

It is essential to understand the nature of Iran’s diplomatic engagement. Over several weeks, Tehran has acted in good faith, exchanging modified plans to end the unprovoked war.

Some in the West might misinterpret this as a sign of fear. It is not. Iran’s willingness to talk means there will be no room for any excuses that it did not negotiate. It is a demonstration to the global public that Iran is the party genuinely seeking peace, while Washington remains addicted to war and economic coercion.

Iran has shown remarkable patience. And now, that patience has transformed into decisive clarity. By rejecting the proposal, Trump has proven to the world that he is not interested in a just and fair peace, only in a humiliating surrender that will never come.

This decisiveness forces the American side to confront an uncomfortable truth: the defeated party must behave realistically and pragmatically. America has tried the path of war and pressure, and both failed. The only way forward is for Washington to recognize Iran’s rightful conditions. But Trump, blinded by desperation, seems incapable of that recognition.

Geopolitical earthquake: The China factor

Compounding America's weakness is the timing. As Trump prepares to embark on his high-stakes visit to China, he does so as a supplicant – not a rival.

Washington has proven incapable of altering the war equation or tilting the diplomatic landscape in its favor. Consequently, it finds itself in an abysmal position opposite its most powerful global competitor. The inevitable outcome is the further consolidation of China's superpower status – not despite Iran, but as Iran's great economic partner.

China, like Russia before it, has fully grasped the value of partnering with a powerful, independent Iran that refuses to be bullied by any global hegemon – as proven in the past 72 days. Beijing recognizes Iran as a strategic anchor in West Asia.

When Trump arrives in China, he will be treated not as a triumphant victor, but as a failed actor still pretending to have won. This is the new reality. America's inability to break Iran has directly accelerated the rise of a multipolar order, one in which Washington's veto carries less weight by the day. Iran's growing leverage is now China's gain.

On the water: Military readiness and calm

The armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran recently issued a clear warning to the enemy following the new cases of American maritime banditry in the Strait of Hormuz.

The enemy attempted to move its vessels through the strait and failed. More critically, when the US Navy tried to harass Iranian vessels and disrupt Iranian interests, Iran warned that any new act of aggression would be met with direct strikes on American centers.

The result has been remarkable. Instead of escalation, we have witnessed a significant, meaningful calm in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

In recent days, there have been no reports of American maritime banditry and piracy or harassment of Iranian vessels in international waters. It is the product of Iranian military readiness and American risk aversion.

Trump may threaten war from the safety of the Oval Office, but his commanders know the cost. The calm on the water is a testament to whose navy holds the balance of resolve.

His rejection of Iran’s pragmatic and fair proposal to end the third imposed war is a strategic error born of desperation. He is frustrated by Iran’s growing strength, leverage and steadfastness, and confused by his own failing intelligence.

As Iran’s leverage grows, the United States finds itself in a position of historic weakness.