“Rubio says US will keep Strait of Hormuz open,” Iran International, 3-31-26. “US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United States will ensure the Strait of Hormuz remains open and warned NATO may need to be re-examined after some allies denied airspace and basing access. “The Strait of Hormuz will be open. When this operation is over, it will be open, and it’ll be open one way or another,” Rubio said in an interview with Al Jazeera. “It will be open because Iran agrees to abide by international law… Or a coalition of nations… will make sure that it’s open. One way or the other, it’s going to be open,” he added. .. He also criticized NATO allies over restrictions on US operations, saying, “We have countries like Spain… denying us the use of their airspace and bragging about it.” “If NATO is just about us defending Europe… but them denying us basing rights when we need them, that’s not a very good arrangement,” he said, adding the alliance “is going to have to be re-examined.”
This is plain wrong. First Spain, then France, the Italy, refusing different types of landing or flyovers. And also refusing to face up to the pirates holding Hormuz. Maybe this is why it took 47 years (since 1979) without a country truly standing up to the Ayatollahs. See “Trump criticizes France over blocking flights to Israel,” and “Italy denies landing permission for US military aircraft – Reuters,” Iran International, 3-31-26.
A problem long in the making, and should be quickly undone if UAE willing. “Dozens of IRGC-linked money changers arrested in UAE,” Iran International, 3-31-26.
“Over 4,700 security forces killed in US-Israeli strikes on Iran,” Iran International, 3-31-26. “At least 4,770 members of the IRGC, Basij, and police have been killed since the start of the war in attacks by Israel and the United States, Iran International has learned. The sources said 20,880 others have also been injured.”
The NYT (and David Sanger) needs to be careful how it handles this story, after years of coverage saying there is no nuclear weapons program or that the Supreme Leader had issued a fatwa against such. But never showing us the fatwa. “Trump Says He Halted Nuclear Threat From Iran, Despite Evidence to the Contrary,” NYT, 3-31-26. “President Trump declared on Tuesday that he had already achieved one of the primary objectives of his attack on Iran, the elimination of its ability to build a nuclear weapon. But there is no evidence that the United States or Israel has removed or destroyed the country’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade fuel. … Dropping the elimination of the nuclear program from the administration’s list of strategic goals, or declaring the problem solved when Iran retains control over its nuclear fuel, now poses a factual, political and rhetorical challenge. Unless something changes over the next two weeks — the target Mr. Trump set to begin withdrawing from the conflict — he will have left the Iranians with 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium, enough for 10 to a dozen bombs. The country will retain control over an even larger inventory of medium-enriched uranium that, with further enrichment, could be turned into bomb fuel, if the Iranians can rebuild that capacity after a month of steady bombing. Just a few weeks ago, the administration was actively debating sending in Special Operations forces to seize the material, stored in 30 to 50 canisters. But the operation would be among the riskiest of commando raids. Isfahan is hundreds of miles inland, and presumed to be guarded by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or I.R.G.C., which runs Iran’s covert nuclear efforts. … And, if real negotiations begin, the United States may convince Iran to give up the material. That is what happened in 2015, when the Obama administration negotiated a deal in which Iran shipped about 97 percent of its nuclear stockpile to Russia. That left the country with so little material that intelligence estimates concluded Iran would require at least a year to make the fuel for a weapon, and months or years longer for the device itself. Mr. Trump exited that accord in 2018, calling it one of the worst in history. But if he leaves Iran without getting the uranium out of the country, he will open himself to the criticism that he accomplished less than Mr. Obama did.” So I’ll ask the NYT what I said in the op-eds I wrote a decade ago—Why would the U.S. agree to a document allowing Iran to eventually have the nuclear material they needed, just by waiting the requisite number of years? We weren’t just kicking the can down the road, we were empowering proliferation. For a state that couldn’t be trusted with it.
We are dealing with Iran. “Iran does not seem to recognize the distinction being made by Mr. Starmer. [offensive v. defensive strikes] The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said on social media recently that Mr. Starmer was “putting British lives in danger by allowing U.K. bases to be used for aggression against Iran” and his country would “exercise its right to self-defense.” Ah, Iran can use self defense, the UK can’t. See “How Britain’s Leader Decides Which U.S. Bombers to Let Fly Against Iran,” NYT, 3-31-26.