I think it can be said that 'negotiations' between the US and Iran are now finished, notwithstanding that they don't appear to have actually taken place. This is not because of the supposed failure of Iran to join talks in Islamabad, or to fail to agree on its requirements for an end to the conflict. Rather it was revealed directly by Donald Trump on May 11th, in an extraordinary outburst from the White House, as reported below by the BBC 6 o'clock news:
It wasn't just that the US President demonstrated in a few words that he is of poor and possibly declining intellect, and with a remarkable conceit to cover his ignorance. What was striking about this outburst was the lack of sensible reaction from media, demonstrating some understanding of the issue involved. It may perhaps be hard to accept and contemplate what is a major transformational event now taking place in W Asia - or the 'Middle East' east of the Nile. It is certainly proving hard for the US and its collaborators in the region to accept a situation that will have such a negative and deleterious effect on their 'interests' and financial stake in the Persian Gulf resources. For them Trump's description of the Iranian scheme as 'unacceptable' is probably accurate, though suggesting they have a choice; they don't. This is not the problem however, as Donald Trump's dismissal of Iran's 'final offer' reveals something far more serious - that he never understood - or perhaps never even read - Iran's initial '10-point plan', presented before the first (and last) Islamabad meeting. That plan - which was effectively a set of pre-conditions for a complete settlement of 'the Middle East conflict', is actually so radical that most Western observers and media have also failed to understand or accept its premises. However, none of those would have the sheer gall to call Iran's plan 'garbage' and 'stupid', or be so full of conceit as to admit that they 'didn't even bother to finish reading it'. In an attempt to understand Trump's apparent psychopathology, it's reasonable to inquire whether the ignorance behind his statements reflects a truly blinkered view of the world, or whether his advisors and intelligence chiefs are feeding him a MAGA diet, and one that continues to present the idea of 'complete victory' for the US. If for instance Trump was told that the US navy sunk seven IRGC boats in the recent 'Project Freedom', he could continue to believe that it would be possible to force open the Strait of Hormuz. In addition, if Trump had not been told about the massive destruction to US bases from Iranian missile attacks, and so continues to imagine the US power and presence in the region being restored 'once the war is over' - then Iran's proposal for the US to leave the region could well be regarded as 'unbelievable' and 'stupid'. As this reality has only recently been made public by the NYT, there will be many millions more who also could not accept the idea. This brings up the question of the position of the Gulf States in relation to Iran, the US and 'Israel'. Since the initial attacks by 'Israel' and the US on February 28th, those states have portrayed themselves as innocent parties, who just happen to have US bases on their territory, which supposedly act as deterrent to hostile attacks and so provide some 'protection'. One would think that this illusion would now be thoroughly trashed, replaced by the realisation that the bases simply exposed them to attacks from otherwise friendly Iran. Their situation is comparable to that of Australians, who increasingly realise that the US presence in Australia is 90% liability and 10% partnership. And now there is an additional factor - the danger to Australian forces and interests as a result of involvement with the UAE, recently fully exposed as a co-belligerent in the war on Iran. Whether Australian forces, and particularly the Wedgetail surveillance plane have been directly involved in UAE attacks on Iran remains unproven but almost certain. With the latest revelations however, Australia's claim to only be acting in 'self-defence' becomes irrelevant; defending war crimes committed by an ally obviously makes us complicit. As that article also makes clear, the UAE's collaboration with 'Israel' is extensive, including an almost unheard of secret visit by Netanyahu to Abu Dhabi (presumably..) As I've noted previously, there is a strong partnership between Australia and the UAE which extends to major arms sales, and likely joint collaboration with the Zionist state. In the light of the new revelations, it should also be asked just how early in the game Australia became involved in the 'campaign' or 'conspiracy' to attack Iran and assassinate its leaders. Is it possible that Australia was unaware of the imminent illegitimate attack on Iran on February 28th, given that israel's ex Mossad chief David Barnea was talking to the UAE before that date? Yes it's possible - but it is also likely that Australia has been in on this latest 'regime change' operation since before the '12-day war' in June 2025. Coincidentally - though few things happen purely by coincidence - there is currently a hot debate in some parts of Australia on a highly contentious issue - whether the Bondi shootings could have been a false flag operation. To even pose this question is regarded as a criminal offence, but many did pose it at the time and for good reason. It is worth re-examining the question now, in the light of a further six months of israeli crimes, including the major game changing criminal attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran. As I postulated back in August last year, the sudden ejection of the Iranian Ambassador from Australia based on totally unbelievable and fabricated claims by ASIO, indicated that Australia was now infiltrated by and under the control of the Zionists, and would be acting on their behalf in any confrontation with Iran. And so it has turned out, though as always it is almost impossible to predict far ahead; even the suggestions in this article are now not all so relevant, and some may even be false. But there were some subtle hints and indications behind today's political screening of the meeting in Beijing, as conveyed in the TRT news report today from their Iran correspondent Reza Hatami. He explains the background to Iran's announcement that the Strait of Hormuz 'is now open to all commercial vessels' - meaning of course 'open to non-belligerents' and pending approval from the new Persian Gulf Strait Authority. What actually took place bore the signature of both China and Iran, collaborating to cancel the US blockade. As Hatami notes right at the end of this interview, Chinese ministers requested that Tehran allow free passage through the straits to 30 tankers and vessels mostly linked to China, such that it would manipulate Washington to abandon its blockade. In what must have been a 'touche' moment behind closed doors, China confronted the US with an Iranian fait accompli - knowing that the US navy would be unable to interfere with the released Chinese tankers.
It might also be noted that a partial resolution of the Straits problem is coinciding with a spike in Zionist aggression and fever, as israelis celebrate 'Jerusalem day' by attacking Palestinians in the old city and invading the Temple mount with their flags and prayer hats. This day, which celebrates the seizure of Jerusalem in 1967, and the following 6-day war, also coincides with the anniversary of the Nakba. This year it also falls at the time of the new moon, and the month of the Hajj - whatever that may portend. Seemingly in tune with the pro-israel, pro-Zionist fever gripping Western governments and their media, representatives of the Zionist occupier and the Lebanese puppet government met in Washington, and agreed to extend the 'ceasefire' for another 45 days; israel sychronised this with the targeting of a rescue centre in Nabatieh, as well as an assassination strike on Hamas' leading figure in Gaza, killing numbers of innocents in the necessary building demolition. SBS' presentation of this as 'achieving Netanyahu's current stance on the Gaza agreement' was perhaps compensation to the lobby for the report below, broadcast following Trump's Beijing visit and its effect on the Hormuz Straits crisis. Tom Stayner's report includes some interesting details, backing up those statements in the Al Jazeera report above, and hinting at the likely ongoing confrontation between Iran and the UAE-israel-US consortium:
Update, May 17th It's necessary to provide a running commentary on this crisis as it starts to spiral out of control - something pretty much inevitable given the US failure to comprehend or make concessions of any kind that could resolve the situation peacefully. Following the news report above, today brought updates from 'both banks'. Firstly a report from Al Jazeera's Iran correspondent Tohid Assadi, who traveled to the Strait of Hormuz to register what might be going on there, and to explain Iran's current plans for control of the waterway.
In contrast to Assadi's positive portrayal of developments, and presentation of the new regulatory authority the PGSA, as outlined in the twitter post above, the SBS report on the latest developments following Trump's return from Beijing was both negative and delusionary. Far from acknowledging the differences between the Iranian position and that of the aggressors - differences that should have been evident in Beijing - SBS merely noted that the US and israel 'seemed to be preparing to resume attacks on Iran', and then suggested what sort of attacks they might be. These included, most bizarrely, the suggestion that the US might use special forces to try to seize the HEU..again?! Such tunnel vision exists in the Western media complex that it is not yet understood that the 'great pilot retrieval operation' was a fraud and was in fact a sprung and botched special forces operation to seize the Uranium stored in Esfahan. (the article includes an AI recreation of the event). Notwithstanding that ignorant idea, the problem with SBS' report was that it failed to understand the shattering consequences of launching another attack on Iran for the whole Persian Gulf region, its oil and gas production and for the global economy. Iran's No 1 professor Mohammed Marandi explained these consequences again ( as he has repeatedly warned ) to Nima Alkhorshid today, along with describing in much detail the power relations and allegiances of the different gulf states. Perhaps the next update will include comment from Australia's PM and cabinet ministers on why we are going to war for 'Israel'.
DM 15th May 2026, update 17th May