US’s war of choice on Iran imposed avoidable costs on Americans: FM
Press TV – May 16, 2026
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says the US’s unprovoked aggression towards Iran has burdened ordinary Americans with avoidable economic costs.
“Americans are told that they must absorb rocketing costs of war of choice on Iran,” the top diplomat wrote in a post on X on Saturday.
“Put aside gas price hike and stock market bubble. Real pain begins when US debt and mortgage rates start to jump. Auto loan delinquencies are already at 30+-year high,” he added. “This was all avoidable.”
Together with the Israeli regime, the United States waged its latest bout of unlawful attacks on the Islamic Republic between February 28 and April 7.
The aggression prompted decisive and uncompromising reprisal featuring devastating blows to American and Israeli targets across the region. In addition to causing extensive material damage to the targeted sites, the Islamic Republic shut down the strategic Strait of Hormuz to enemies and their allies, therefore, sending shockwaves throughout global energy markets.
Including reconstruction and replacement costs, the war is so far estimated to have run Washington a cost likely ranging between $40 billion and $50 billion.
Economists, meanwhile, project the overall cost of continued restrictions imposed on the Strait of Hormuz to end up astronomically higher.
Professor Linda Bilmes, a public policy expert at Harvard Kennedy School, recently forecast that the war on Iran could ultimately cost American taxpayers $1 trillion.
On Friday, Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, Iran’s Majlis (Parliament) speaker, warned that the United States’ efforts at sustaining military escalation near the strait could trigger a fresh global financial crisis at a time when Washington’s national debt already stands at a whopping $39 trillion.
China’s position on Iran, Hormuz remains unchanged
Al Mayadeen | May 15, 2026
China moved on Friday to publicly reaffirm its longstanding position on Iran after speculation and conflicting reports circulated regarding Beijing’s stance during recent regional tensions, with the Chinese Foreign Ministry publishing a full statement outlining its official position.
Asian diplomatic sources told Al Mayadeen that Washington is expected to continue promoting claims that it succeeded in persuading Beijing to pressure Iran, particularly following recent US-China discussions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranian nuclear file.
The sources said that the growing American rhetoric regarding “the Iranian nuclear issue” or claims of an agreement with Beijing on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open “without fees” are merely “attempts at media flooding and covering up the essence of the matter.”
China’s position on Iran clear, unchanged
The sources stressed that China’s position toward Iran “is clear and unchanged,” dismissing reports suggesting a shift in Beijing’s stance as false. They noted that China deliberately refrained from discussing Iran publicly during earlier talks before later issuing a full Foreign Ministry statement outlining its official position in detail.
Beijing continues to oppose the possession of nuclear weapons while simultaneously supporting Iran’s right to the peaceful use of uranium and civilian nuclear technology. China also maintains its longstanding position in favor of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and preventing its militarization, while supporting Iran’s rights as a coastal state bordering the strategic waterway.
The sources added that “China buying oil or gas from the United States is nothing new because China diversifies its energy sources, but no one can replace Iranian oil or Hormuz energy imports, which constitute 45 percent of its energy needs.”
They further noted that China continues to support the creation of a joint regional security structure among Gulf states without outside interference, describing Beijing’s current “calm rhetoric” as an attempt to contain the “arrogance” of US President Donald Trump and his allies while creating conditions for a broader agreement through mutually beneficial economic incentives.
The sources noted that narratives suggesting a major Chinese shift against Iran are either inaccurate, deliberately misleading, or attempts to present recent diplomatic developments in the best possible light for Washington.
Trump, Xi, agree to address each other’s concerns
Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump held extensive discussions on bilateral and global issues and reached a series of new common understandings, China’s Foreign Ministry said Friday, as Beijing called for accelerated diplomacy between the United States and Iran.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said the two leaders agreed to address each other’s concerns and enhance communication and coordination on international and regional affairs, describing the talks as a step toward building a “constructive and stable strategic relationship” between China and the US.
Commenting on ongoing US-Iran negotiations, the Chinese Foreign Ministry stressed that a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire should be achieved “as soon as possible,” adding that a rapid resolution would benefit the United States, Iran, regional countries, and the broader international community.
“The war between Iran and the United States should not have erupted in the first place, and there is no need for it to continue,” the ministry said.
Beijing reiterated its longstanding position that dialogue and negotiations remain the best path forward, warning against military escalation and emphasizing that “a military solution is not the answer.”
“Now that the door to dialogue has been opened, it should not be closed again,” the ministry said, calling for efforts to consolidate momentum toward de-escalation. China also said it would continue working with the international community to provide greater support for peace talks between the US and Iran.
Prof John Mearsheimer TRUMP WILL BE FORCED TO CUT A DEAL w/IRAN
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 13, 2026
Russia says disputes over Iran, Greenland and Canada distract from Palestine
MEMO | May 13, 2026
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the US of trying to distract global attention from Palestine, Anadolu reports.
Commenting on the situation in the Middle East in an interview with RT India TV channel, Lavrov said ongoing US-provoked disputes involving Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland and Canada were distracting international attention from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“All of the efforts that are being taken right now on Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Greenland, and now Canada … all of these issues are moving us away from settling the most protracted, the most negative crisis in the world – that is, the crisis around Palestine,” he said.
The minister criticized American proposals regarding the future of the Gaza Strip, saying they did not address the establishment of a Palestinian state.
“I have no doubt that when plans to stir up aggression against Iran were being hatched, one of the goals was to prevent the normalization of relations between Iran and the Arab states,” he said.
He added: “Now, everything is being done to ensure that reconciliation never happens … and to pull its other Gulf neighbors into structures that, first, will not focus on resolving the Palestinian issue, and second, will force them to betray the Palestinian cause as the price for normalizing relations with Israel.”
Lavrov argued that failure to create such a state would prolong instability and extremism in the region for decades.
“We are returning to a period when everything is decided by force and international law is ignored,” Lavrov said.
‘Utterly baseless’: Iran rejects Kuwait’s claim of hostile plot on its island
Press TV – May 13, 2026
Iran’s Foreign Ministry has dismissed as “utterly baseless and rejected” accusations by Kuwait that the Islamic Republic had been planning hostile acts against its neighbor.
In a statement on Wednesday, the ministry strongly condemned the “improper action” of the Kuwaiti government in “politically and propagandistically exploiting” the case of four Iranian personnel who had been on a routine naval patrol mission and entered Kuwaiti territorial waters due to a navigational system malfunction.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran, while reiterating its principled policy of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries in the region, including Kuwait, declares that it expects the Kuwaiti authorities, while avoiding hasty statements and baseless allegations, to pursue the existing issues through official channels,” it said.
The ministry also stressed the need for Iran’s embassy in Kuwait to be granted “the fastest possible access” to the detained Iranian nationals in accordance with international legal norms, and called for their immediate release.
Kuwait’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on Tuesday that it had summoned the Iranian ambassador and delivered a note of protest to him.
It claimed that this action was taken following “the infiltration of a group of Iranian armed forces into Bubiyan and their clash with Kuwaiti forces.”
In a statement released on Wednesday, Kuwait’s Ministry of Interior also alleged a group linked to what it called the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) had attempted to enter Bubiyan Island.
Trump admits US sent weapons to fuel riots, terrorism inside Iran
Press TV – May 12, 2026
US President Donald Trump has again admitted to Washington’s support for armed riots and terrorist activities inside Iran amid continued aggressive American measures targeting the nation.
Speaking to reporters at the Oval Office on Monday, Trump said elements were willing to take such seditious actions inside Iran.
He, however, referred to such actors as “the Iranian people” and pointed to the measures they could take as simply “going out on the streets.”
“They have no weapons. They have no guns,” he claimed.
Earlier this year, too, Trump had unequivocally admitted to the United States’ intentions to arm such elements, saying, “We sent guns, a lot of guns.” “You know what happened? The people that they sent them to kept them,” he had added at the time.
Adding to his Monday remarks, the US president said the weapons had been transferred to “Kurds,” who, according to him, stopped short of relaying the arms. “The Kurds disappointed us. The Kurds take, take, take… I’m very disappointed in the Kurds.”
The comments came as Iran faced widespread riots and terror activities across the country in late December and early January, during which elements primed and trained by American and Israeli spy agencies roamed the streets and opened fire against civilians and security forces.
Thousands, including women and children, were martyred throughout the episode that sought to take advantage of peaceful economic protests.
The Islamic Republic has denounced such “long-standing” policy on the part of the United States “of creating, financing, and arming terrorist groups in West Asia and beyond,” saying, it “constitutes a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and the fundamental principles and rules of international law.”
Tehran has also urged the United Nations to condemn and confront such measures.
Trump’s remarks also follow unprovoked American-Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic, which was launched in late February.
The US president announced a ceasefire on April 8 amid decisive Iranian retaliation, but continues to target the country with an illegal naval blockade.
Iran sues US at Hague tribunal, demands war reparations for June 2025 aggression
Press TV – May 12, 2026
Iran has filed a complaint against the United States at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), demanding compensation for damage inflicted on the country during the June 2025 war of aggression.
The semi-official Tasnim news agency said in a Tuesday report that the Iranian complaint at the Hague-based PCA was filed in February.
The report said the complaint accuses the US of violating the 1981 Algiers Accords, in which Washington committed to refraining from interfering in Iran’s internal affairs, whether directly or indirectly, politically or militarily.
It said Iran has demanded reparation from the United States over its imposition of sanctions, its attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and its use of threats.
The complaint also calls on the PCA to force the US to immediately cease its direct and indirect interventions in Iran, provide guarantees that it will not repeat those actions, and pay full compensation for the damage caused to the country by its military and non-military actions, Tasnim said.
It said the complaint only demands compensation for the damage caused to Iran during the 12-day Israeli war of aggression in June 2025, in which the US participated.
The United States contributed to the Israeli attacks on Iran by providing intelligence and military support to the regime.
Washington also carried out a midnight attack on Iran’s nuclear installations on June 22, 2025, causing considerable damage to underground facilities in central parts of the country.
The report did not mention whether Iran may take a separate legal action against the US for the damage inflicted during the recent war of aggression that began in late February and was halted as part of a ceasefire on April 8.
China rejects Israel’s ‘groundless’ allegation of missile support for Iran
Press TV – May 12, 2026
China has rejected Israel’s claims that Beijing provided support to Iran in manufacturing missiles.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told reporters on Tuesday that the accusations “are not grounded in facts.”
Beijing, he said, is “committed to promoting de-escalation and peace talks to bring about an end to the conflict” between Iran and the United States.
“We have made China’s position clear on multiple occasions. As a responsible major country, China always fulfills its due international obligations,” he added.
In an interview with CBS, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that during the joint US-Israeli aggression against Iran, China “gave a certain amount of support and particular components for missile manufacturing.”
Asked whether such support was continuing, he said, “Could be. Could be,” without providing further information.
Netanyahu’s controversial remarks came ahead of a planned visit to Beijing by US President Donald Trump.
The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman also condemned recent US sanctions on 12 individuals and entities over their alleged links to Iran, saying Beijing firmly opposes “unilateral sanctions.”
Guo said that the current “pressing priority” in West Asia is to “prevent, by all means, a relapse in fighting, rather than exploit the situation to throw mud at China.”
The US Treasury Department has imposed sanctions on 12 individuals and companies, several of them based in China and Hong Kong, for their alleged involvement in helping Iran “obtain weapons and the raw materials” necessary for its Shahed drones and ballistic missiles.
The department also threatened to take action against any foreign entities supporting what it called “illicit Iranian commerce,” including airlines, and to implement secondary sanctions on foreign financial institutions that assist Iran, even those connected to China’s independent oil refineries.
China, however, pushed back against the sanctions on Chinese refiners buying Iranian crude, invoking a “blocking rule” for the first time last week, directing companies not to comply with US sanctions.
Why did Washington impose sanctions on China before the Trump-Xi summit?
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – May 12, 2026
New U.S. sanctions against Chinese companies just before Donald Trump’s visit to Beijing highlight the growing tendency to use economic pressure as a primary instrument of American diplomacy.
Donald Trump plans to visit China from May 13 to 15. His baggage includes a load of sanctions instead of concessions. Days before his visit to China, Washington imposed fresh sanctions on mainland Chinese and Hong Kong-linked firms accused of helping Iran procure drone and missile-related components. The message is unmistakable: the United States wants to negotiate from a position of pressure. But coercion before diplomacy often produces the opposite effect. Rather than strengthening Washington’s leverage over Beijing, the move risks hardening Chinese resistance, deepening China-Iran ties, and accelerating the erosion of America’s sanctions power in an increasingly multipolar world.
Coercion as Diplomacy
The timing tells the story. On May 8, the US Treasury announced sanctions on 10 individuals and companies — several based in China and Hong Kong — accused of facilitating Iran’s acquisition of materials used in Shahed drones and ballistic missile programmes. According to the Treasury Department, some firms allegedly supplied insulation materials and procurement services linked to Iran’s military-industrial network. Reuters reported that the sanctions came just days before Trump’s scheduled meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. And, just as Trump flew to China, the US imposed further sanctions on entities involved in shipping Iranian oil to China, hitting China’s energy demands.
The logic behind the move is relatively straightforward. Trump appears determined to avoid entering Beijing looking conciliatory or desperate for stabilization in US-China relations. He wants to completely dodge the impression that the US has lost in Iran. By imposing sanctions beforehand, Washington is signaling that dialogue with China will not come at the expense of American pressure campaigns against Iran or broader national security concerns. The sanctions also serve a domestic political purpose. Trump can portray himself as simultaneously engaging China diplomatically while remaining “tough” on both Beijing and Tehran.
This reflects a broader pattern in Trump-era diplomacy: negotiation through escalation. Whether on tariffs, NATO burden-sharing, or Iran, Trump has frequently relied on pressure tactics to create bargaining leverage before high-level meetings. The assumption is that economic coercion raises the costs of resistance and therefore increases the incentives for compromise. But this strategy works only if the other side believes accommodation is less costly than defiance. That assumption is becoming increasingly questionable in the case of China.
Beijing’s reaction was immediate and predictable. China’s Foreign Ministry condemned the sanctions as “illegal unilateral measures” and pledged to defend the legitimate interests of Chinese companies. Rather than creating diplomatic flexibility, the sanctions may have narrowed Xi Jinping’s room for maneuver by making concessions appear politically submissive.
This is an important point often overlooked in Washington. Chinese leaders do not interpret pre-summmit sanctions merely as tactical bargaining instruments; they typically view them as public demonstrations of coercion designed to humiliate China before negotiations even begin. In such circumstances, compromise becomes politically costly because it risks reinforcing perceptions of weakness both domestically and internationally. That dynamic is particularly significant today because US-China relations are no longer defined by strategic ambiguity or selective competition. They are increasingly viewed in both capitals as a systemic rivalry involving trade, technology, finance, security, and ideology simultaneously. In that environment, sanctions cease to look like isolated policy tools and instead become part of a broader containment strategy.
The Limits of Economic Pressure
The deeper problem for Washington is that sanctions may no longer carry the same coercive power they once supposedly did.
For decades, the United States relied on its dominance over the global financial system to compel compliance from adversaries and third parties alike. Access to the dollar system, Western banking networks, and US markets gave Washington enormous leverage. Secondary sanctions became, at least from Washington’s perspective, one of the most effective tools of American statecraft. But the geopolitical environment has changed significantly.
China today possesses far greater economic resilience than most previous sanctions targets. It also has stronger incentives to resist American pressure because compliance increasingly carries strategic costs of its own. Beijing sees Iran not merely as an isolated Middle Eastern partner but as part of a broader network of states capable of constraining US influence across multiple regions.
China remains Iran’s largest oil customer despite years of American sanctions. Under these conditions, China is unlikely to fully cooperate with Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran. Indeed, repeated sanctions may actually be accelerating China’s determination to build sanctions-resistant economic structures. Beijing has already expanded the use of alternative payment systems, encouraged yuan-denominated trade, and adopted legal mechanisms allowing Chinese firms to challenge or ignore certain foreign sanctions regimes. Each new round of American penalties reinforces the Chinese perception that dependence on US-controlled financial systems constitutes a strategic vulnerability.
There is also growing evidence that sanctions enforcement is producing diminishing returns. The United States has repeatedly sanctioned Chinese and Hong Kong-linked firms accused of helping Iran procure drone components over the past several years. Yet the procurement networks continue adapting through shell companies, intermediaries, and rerouted supply chains.
A 2025 report in the South China Morning Post described the process as a “whack-a-mole exercise,” noting how Iranian procurement networks rapidly reorganized after earlier sanctions targeted Hong Kong-based front companies. The persistence of these networks suggests that sanctions may disrupt transactions temporarily without fundamentally changing the underlying strategic calculations of either China or Iran.
This matters because coercive tools derive much of their effectiveness from credibility. If the targeted state concludes that sanctions are manageable, adaptable, or largely symbolic, then the deterrent value of future sanctions declines substantially.
A More Fragmented Geopolitical Order
The sanctions also reveal a broader contradiction in contemporary American foreign policy. Washington increasingly wants two incompatible outcomes at the same time: strategic competition with China and selective cooperation with China. The Trump administration appears to believe that it can compartmentalize the relationship — sanctioning Chinese entities over Iran while simultaneously seeking Chinese cooperation on trade, regional stability, or maritime security. But the relationship has become too securitized for neat compartmentalization.
From Beijing’s perspective, sanctions on Chinese firms are not disconnected technical measures. They are part of a larger American strategy aimed at constraining China’s economic and geopolitical rise. Under those conditions, even limited cooperation with Washington becomes politically sensitive inside China.
Ironically, the sanctions may therefore deepen exactly the alignment Washington seeks to weaken. China, Iran, and Russia increasingly share a common interest in reducing exposure to US-led financial and strategic pressure. They do not constitute a formal alliance, but they are moving toward greater coordination because American coercive policies create shared incentives for resistance.
This does not mean sanctions are entirely ineffective. They can still raise transaction costs, complicate procurement networks, and signal political resolve. But the era in which sanctions alone could fundamentally reshape the behavior of major powers may be fading.
The more important question now is whether Washington is adapting quickly enough to that reality. If the United States continues relying on sanctions as its primary instrument of geopolitical leverage, it may unintentionally accelerate the fragmentation of the very international order that once made those sanctions so powerful.
Trump may arrive in Beijing believing he has strengthened his negotiating hand. Yet Xi Jinping is likely to interpret the sanctions differently: not as leverage for compromise, but as evidence that Washington increasingly views pressure itself as diplomacy, and that coercion is likely to remain a key feature of US ties with China. And when coercion becomes the default language of international politics, major powers rarely move toward accommodation. They prepare instead for a world in which confrontation is permanent.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is aresearch analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
US suffers ‘total defeat’ in war against Iran, faces irreversible strategic collapse: Neocon analyst
Press TV – May 11, 2026
In a noteworthy mea culpa from one of America’s most influential neoconservative commentators, Robert Kagan believes the United States has suffered a “total defeat” in its ongoing war against Iran, which has permanently shattered its global standing.
Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was a vocal advocate of the war against Iraq and a lifelong champion of American military interventions in West Asia.
But in a recent article for The Atlantic, he offered a grim verdict on the current war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, launched on February 28.
“The US suffered a total defeat,” Kagan writes, describing the loss as having no precedent in American history and one that can “neither be repaired nor ignored.”
While acknowledging that previous American military failures carried heavy costs, Kagan insists this war is fundamentally different in nature.
“The defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly but did not do lasting damage to America’s overall position in the world,” the prominent commentator writes.
“Defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character.”
At the heart of this catastrophe, Kagan noted, is Iran’s newfound ability to control the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most strategic waterway, without any challenge.
“Iran will be able not only to demand tolls for passage, but to limit transit to those nations with which it has good relations,” he writes.
According to Kagan, Iran has no interest in returning to the pre-war status quo. Most Persian Gulf states, he believes, will have no choice but to accommodate Tehran, effectively making Iran the dominant regional power.
“The United States will have proved itself a paper tiger, forcing the (Persian) Gulf and other Arab states to accommodate Iran,” Kagan writes.
He also dismisses any notion that a coalition of allies could rectify the situation.
“If the United States with its mighty Navy can’t or won’t open the strait, no coalition of forces with just a fraction of the Americans’ capability will be able to, either,” he states.
Kagan frames the collapse not as a regional setback but as a global strategic failure that fundamentally alters America’s position in the world.
“America’s once-dominant position in the (Persian) Gulf is just the first of many casualties,” he warns. “America’s allies in East Asia and Europe must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.”
Compounding the strategic humiliation is a staggering depletion of American military resources during the ongoing war, which has been widely documented in the US media.
“Just a few weeks of war with a second-rank power have reduced American weapons stocks to perilously low levels, with no quick remedy in sight,” Kagan writes.
He hastens to add that the United States now finds itself unable to control the consequences of a war it initiated – a war it has already lost.