Is the conflict winding down towards an uneasy stability or winding up for a new escalation?

In nature, nearly everything obeys the law of the pendulum. Motion begins with an impulse, accelerates under the pressure of kinetic energy, reaches an extreme point, and then, sooner or later, is pulled back toward balance. This balance is never absolute and never eternal.

It is only a temporary state of stability, a pause before the next shock, the next pressure, the next external force that sets the mechanism in motion again. Political history has often moved with the same rhythm. Empires expand and contract, revolutions radicalize and institutionalize, wars erupt and then search for a language of exhaustion. The current war of the United States and Israel against Iran is no exception.

An uneasy balance

The active phase of aggression against Iran, which began on February 28 with large scale US and Israeli strikes, lasted almost two months in its most intense form. The conflict opened with coordinated attacks on Iranian military, infrastructure, and leadership targets, after which Iran’s response transformed the initial strike into a wider regional confrontation. In the pendulum analogy, Iran’s retaliation became an additional impulse of kinetic energy. It did not stop the mechanism. It gave it another swing. It widened the arc of the war, pulled the Strait of Hormuz into the center of the crisis, disrupted energy flows, and forced Washington to confront the fact that military pressure alone was no longer producing political control.

Now the pendulum appears to be moving back toward its point of equilibrium. Not toward peace in the full moral sense of the word, and not toward reconciliation, but toward temporary stabilization. In politics, equilibrium is often less a triumph of wisdom than a recognition of limits. The US has discovered the limits of coercion, Iran has discovered the limits of escalation, and Israel has discovered that even military superiority cannot easily enforce a durable regional order. The region itself has once again discovered that no war around Iran remains confined to Iran.

The first round of negotiations in Islamabad failed, but it did show that diplomacy was still working beneath the surface. In early April, Iran and the US received a plan for ending hostilities, described as a two-stage framework that would begin with a ceasefire and move later toward a broader final agreement involving nuclear restrictions and sanctions relief. Later reporting described a one-page memorandum that would declare an end to the war and open a 30-day negotiation window on the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program, and US sanctions.

Read more

It is clear that after destructive military action, diplomacy cannot immediately produce trust. It must first produce channels of communication and establish that the other side is capable of delivering on limited commitments. Even a bad trust, a thin trust, a distrust wrapped in procedure, may be better than no communication at all. Wars often end not because the parties suddenly believe each other, but because they begin to fear what the absence of any understanding might produce.

The first track of the reported two-track structure is a peace arrangement, or more precisely, an arrangement for stopping the war. The second track is a nuclear settlement, which would require more time, more legal formality, and probably a Security Council framework. According to reports, the emerging plan would first use a memorandum of understanding to announce an end to hostilities across several fronts, including Lebanon, while both sides would commit to respecting each other’s territorial sovereignty. After that, the parties would receive roughly 30 days to negotiate sanctions relief, compensation, the release of frozen assets, nuclear limits, and the reopening of maritime routes.

Such a formula reflects the real balance of pressure. Washington wants a nuclear agreement, but it needs the Strait of Hormuz reopened and the war politically closed. Tehran wants sanctions relief and security guarantees, but it also needs time to repair damage, restore internal economic confidence, and convert battlefield endurance into diplomatic leverage. The US reportedly offered partial sanctions relief and the release of some Iranian frozen funds as part of the emerging framework, while Iran would accept limits or a moratorium connected to uranium enrichment and maritime restrictions.

How the US played itself into a corner

The American position is weakened by a central contradiction: Washington entered the confrontation with overwhelming force, but it did not receive overwhelming political support. NATO allies praised certain objectives, but repeatedly avoided direct participation in the US campaign. Later, they refused to join Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports, proposing instead to help only after fighting ended. That was a sign that American power, while still enormous, no longer automatically produces allied obedience in wars that others consider optional, risky, or politically toxic.

Washington’s regional partners were also cautious. Gulf states may fear Iran, but they also fear becoming the battlefield on which American and Iranian escalation is settled. The Strait of Hormuz crisis demonstrated that the geography of this war gives Iran a lever that cannot be bombed away without consequences for everyone. Iran’s military response inflicted costs on American positions and assets in the region, while its control over the maritime choke point turned a war against Iran into a global economic problem.

Read more

For Washington, this is political defeat, even if the military balance remains in its favor. A great power can win battles and still lose the narrative, wreak destruction but fail to force the opponent to surrender. It can announce success and still be forced back into negotiations with the same state it intended to break. The Trump administration tried to rehabilitate its position through pressure, blockade, and the announcement of Project Freedom, an operation intended to secure or reopen passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump later paused the operation while pointing to progress in talks with Iran.

First came force. Then came the blockade. Then came an operation to overcome the consequences of the blockade and a counter-blockade. Then came a pause in that operation because diplomacy again became necessary. In chess this is called zugzwang, a state where every available move worsens the player’s position. Escalation risks a larger regional war. De-escalation looks like retreat. Maintaining the blockade hurts global trade and alienates partners. Lifting it without concessions looks like failure. Demanding total Iranian capitulation makes agreement impossible. Accepting partial compromise undermines the original rhetoric of maximum pressure.

A shaky foundation

The new de-escalation plan recognizes that Iran cannot be wished out of the regional order, that American military power cannot secure Hormuz without political arrangements, and that Israel’s preference for permanent strategic pressure cannot by itself produce a stable Middle East. If the plan is real and if the parties accept its core logic, it could become a temporary bridge from war to managed confrontation.

Yet the risks remain enormous, and the first of those risks is Israel. Any agreement that reduces pressure on Iran will be viewed by Israeli hardliners as a strategic defeat. Israel may fear that even a limited peace memorandum gives Iran time to rebuild, rearm, and restore deterrence. If Israeli leaders conclude that diplomacy is freezing the conflict on terms favorable to Tehran, they may attempt to sabotage the process through new strikes, intelligence operations, or pressure on Washington. The broader war has already included multiple fronts, and reports on the emerging state of affairs explicitly mention hostilities beyond Iran, including in Lebanon. Any front left unresolved can become the spark that pushes the pendulum outward again.

Read more

The second risk is American domestic politics. A pragmatic agreement before the midterm elections may serve Trump as a way to reduce pressure from voters tired of another war in the Middle East. But the same agreement could also be used as a pause for regrouping. Washington may accept temporary stabilization now, and after the elections return to a more coercive scenario, claiming that Iran violated the spirit of the deal. This is why Tehran must negotiate earnestly, but not dismantle its deterrence in exchange for promises that can be reversed by the next American political calculation.

The third risk is the nuclear issue itself. A peace memorandum can be short because silence often helps diplomacy. But a nuclear agreement cannot be built on silence. It must answer hard questions about enrichment, stockpiles, verification, sanctions sequencing, compensation, and the legal durability of commitments. The earlier JCPOA experience remains the shadow over any new arrangement. Iran will be justified to ask why it should accept restrictions if a future US administration can abandon the agreement. Washington, in turn will want some guarantees that it can trust Iran’s nuclear restraint after war. Resolving these mattes will take specific mechanisms, not mere rhetoric.

Still, the possibility of a new agreement is real if viewed pragmatically. The pendulum is settling toward equilibrium, if slowly, because the previous level of kinetic energy has become unsustainable. The forces that pushed the system into motion are still present, but the system seeks rest because continued motion threatens to break the mechanism.

The coming weeks will show whether the new two-stage plan is a genuine bridge or only another tactical pause. If the memorandum is signed, it may pull the pendulum into temporary balance. If Israel rejects stabilization, or if Washington treats the agreement as a pause before renewed pressure, the pendulum will again receive an impulse. And if that happens, the next swing may be wider, faster, and more destructive than the last.

The Israeli PM said he hopes to bring the “financial component” of American military aid down to zero

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that he plans to “wean” his country off US financial aid within the next decade, while blaming social media “manipulation” for declining public support for his country among Americans.

Israel is the largest recipient of aggregate US foreign aid since World War II, having received more than $300 billion in economic and military assistance from Washington since 1948.

Under a ten-year agreement signed in 2016, the US committed $38 billion in military aid to Israel through 2028, including $5 billion for the Iron Dome missile defense system. Overall, American assistance accounts for roughly 16% of the country’s military budget.

In an interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes aired on Sunday, Netanyahu was asked whether it was time for the Jewish state to “reexamine and possibly reset” its financial relationship with Washington.

Read more

“Absolutely. I’ve said this to President Trump. I’ve said it to our own people. Their jaws drop,” he replied.

“I want to draw down to zero the American financial support, the financial component of the military cooperation that we have,” the prime minister said, stating that the process should “start now” and be completed “over the next ten years.”

Netanyahu noted that he is well aware of declining support for Israel in the US. A recent Pew poll indicated that six in ten Americans have a very or somewhat unfavorable view of Israel, up seven percentage points since last year and nearly 20 points since 2022.

The Israeli leader outright dismissed the notion that the war in Gaza might have “contributed to this negative impression of Israel,” blaming the shift almost entirely on social media.

“Israel is besieged on the media front, on the propaganda front, and we’ve not done well on the propaganda war,” he said.

“We have several countries that basically manipulated social media with bot farms with fake addresses, to break the American sympathy to Israel.”

Read more

More than 71,000 Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli war in Gaza, which was triggered by the deadly October 7, 2023 Hamas raid. Israeli military operations in Lebanon and Iran have also resulted in a large civilian death toll, fueling criticism among the American public and prominent commentators, including Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Candace Owens.

In March, US Senator Bernie Sanders filed three resolutions seeking to block nearly $660 million in arms sales to Israel, arguing that three-quarters of Democrats and two-thirds of independents oppose Washington sending weapons to the country.

Civilian infrastructure in several Russian regions, including Crimea, Krasnodar, Belgorod, Kursk, Kaluga, and Rostov, came under drone attacks on Sunday

The Ukrainian military has violated the Victory Day ceasefire more than 16,000 times since it took effect on Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry has said.

In a statement on Sunday, the ministry said Ukrainian forces had carried out drone and artillery strikes on civilian sites in Crimea, Belgorod Region, Kursk Region, Kaluga Region, Rostov Region, and Krasnodar Region. In Belgorod alone, five civilians, including a teenager, were injured in Ukrainian drone attacks, according to regional governor Vyacheslav Gladkov.

Ukrainian troops also carried out 676 strikes against Russian positions using artillery, multiple-launch rocket systems, mortars, and tanks. Kiev’s forces launched 6,331 drone attacks and attempted eight assaults on Russian positions.

Read more

In total, the Russian MOD has recorded 16,071 ceasefire violations by Kiev’s forces since Friday, the statement said. Under those circumstances, Russian troops responded “symmetrically” by targeting firing positions, drone launch sites, and command centers. 

Russian forces “continue to strictly observe the ceasefire regime and remain at previously occupied lines and positions,” the ministry stated.

The Victory Day truce announced by Russia last week to mark the 81st anniversary of the end of World War II was initially set to expire on Sunday, but following a proposal from US President Donald Trump, Moscow agreed to extend it for two more days.

Throughout the conflict, Moscow has repeatedly declared temporary truces during major religious and national holidays. Last month, Russia announced an Easter ceasefire, which the Defense Ministry said was violated by Ukrainian forces more than 6,500 times within 32 hours.

Read more

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky issued several veiled threats ahead of the Victory Day celebrations, prompting Moscow to warn its foreign partners about the possible consequences. The Russian Defense Ministry warned that a retaliatory strike on central Kiev would be carried out if attempts were made to disrupt Victory Day events in Moscow, and urged residents and diplomats to leave the Ukrainian capital in advance.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the warning apparently reached Washington and contributed to Trump’s extended ceasefire initiative. He also said that while the globalist faction of Western elites is still effectively waging war against Russia, using Ukrainians as proxies, the conflict is heading towards its end.

The remote overseas territory of Tristan da Cunha in the southern Atlantic has no airstrip and can only be reached by sea

The British Army has airdropped a team of medics accompanied by paratroopers to treat a suspected hantavirus case on the remote island of Tristan da Cunha. The patient was among the passengers who left the Dutch-flagged cruise vessel MV Hondius before the deadly outbreak was confirmed.

The cruise liner, now dubbed the “plague ship” by some media, initially carried 175 guests and crew from 23 countries when it suffered an outbreak of a rare pathogen typically spread through contact with infected rodent droppings. The outbreak was caused by the Andes strain of hantavirus – the only one known to be capable of human-to-human transmission through close contact.

READ MORE: Hantavirus: How dangerous is the cruise ship outbreak?

One of the passengers left the vessel on his home island of Tristan da Cunha, located in the southern Atlantic, on April 14 – three days after the first death – and reported his first symptoms two weeks later. The man is said to be in stable condition.

9,788km from the UK across the South Atlantic, one operation 🪂@BritishArmy and @RoyalAirForce joined forces to deliver urgent medical supplies to one of the world’s most remote communities, Tristan da Cunha. pic.twitter.com/uOQJP6pmcy

— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) May 10, 2026

On Saturday, a British Royal Air Force A400M aircraft dropped two medics and six paratroopers on the island, along with oxygen and medical supplies to aid in the treatment of the case. The small island, with a population of fewer than 300, has no airstrip and is reachable only by sea.

UK specialist paratroopers and military clinicians have carried out a daring parachute operation to deliver critical medical support to Tristan da Cunha – Britain’s most remote inhabited Overseas Territory – after a suspected case of Hantavirus was identified on the island. pic.twitter.com/w0xPU8fvcw

— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) May 10, 2026

The World Health Organization has so far reported eight hantavirus cases linked to the MV Hondius, including six confirmed cases and two still considered suspected. Three people have died from the infection. Authorities are also trying to trace the contacts of some two dozen people who disembarked at St. Helena on April 24, along with the body of the first victim.

Read more

The distressed vessel anchored at the industrial port of Granadilla in the Spanish Canary Islands, where the passengers were medically checked and ferried ashore over the weekend. Most were then repatriated to their home countries and placed in quarantine. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who personally oversaw the operation, reassured the public that hantavirus, while “serious,” is “not another COVID.”

Patient zero is believed to be a 70-year-old Dutch man, who was the first to die from the disease. According to the New York Post, he was an ornithologist who visited a landfill near the Argentinian city of Ushuaia for birdwatching shortly before boarding the ship. There, he and his wife, who also died, could have inhaled particles from the feces of local rats known to carry the disease.

Tehran has delivered its counterproposal to Washington’s conditions for ending the war via Pakistani mediators

US President Donald Trump has called Iran’s response to Washington’s latest proposal for ending the war “totally unacceptable,” after Tehran insisted it would not surrender its strategic leverage in the Strait of Hormuz without concessions.

The details of Iran’s response have not been made public, but according to US media reports, Tehran’s counterproposal focused on ending the war and securing guarantees that hostilities would not resume, while offering none of the nuclear concessions sought by Washington.

“I have just read the response from Iran’s so-called ‘Representatives.’ I don’t like it — TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday. He previously told Axios that the Iranian reply was “inappropriate,” but did not elaborate.

READ MORE: Trump vows to get Iran’s enriched uranium

Iran’s response allegedly called for a broader end to hostilities across multiple fronts, including Lebanon, before the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and further nuclear talks, according to AP. Trump, however, has continued to demand immediate restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program and has repeatedly threatened to resume large-scale military action if Tehran refuses to accept US terms.

Read more

Trump has repeatedly extended the ceasefire, arguing that Iran’s leadership is divided and unable to produce a unified response. Iranian officials, however, have publicly rejected Washington’s terms as an ultimatum, accusing the US of trying to turn negotiations into surrender talks after failing to achieve its stated goals on the battlefield.

Tehran has also made clear that it views control over the Strait of Hormuz as a central bargaining chip, with Mohammad Mokhber, a top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, comparing the waterway’s strategic value to an “atomic bomb” and vowing that Iran would not “forfeit the gains of this war.”

The latest exchange comes after weeks of fragile diplomacy and intermittent clashes around the Strait of Hormuz, where the US has enforced a naval blockade and Iran has sought to assert control over the strategic waterway.

Read more

US officials had hoped Iran’s long-awaited response would show progress after a 10-day delay, Axios reported. An Iranian source, however, dismissed Trump’s dissatisfaction, telling Tasnim that Tehran’s proposal was aimed at protecting Iranian rights rather than pleasing the American president.

The diplomatic setback also comes as tensions rise over possible European involvement in the Gulf. France and Britain had been discussing a multinational mission to secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, while Tehran has warned that any such deployment would draw an immediate response. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday reiterated his offer to help move Tehran’s fissile material stockpile

US President Donald Trump has said his country will get hold of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium “at some point,” repeating one of his key demands in peace talks.

In an interview aired on Sunday, journalist Sharyl Attkisson asked Trump what stage the war with the Islamic Republic had reached, considering that the US has yet to secure Iran’s fissile material.

“Well, we’ll get that at some point, whatever we want,” he said. “We have it surveilled, you know, I did a thing called Space Force… If anybody got near the place, we will know about it. And we’ll blow them up.”

The US and Israel launched their attack on Iran in late February, framing the war as a way to preempt Tehran’s development of a nuclear weapon.

Read more

In its latest proposal, Washington doubled down on its demand that Iran promise never to develop such a weapon, stop all enrichment activities and give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

Russia has repeatedly offered to aid in the peace process and help remove the material.

“Not only did we make such an offer; we already implemented it once before, back in 2015. Iran has complete trust in us, and not without reason,” Russian President Vladimir Putin told journalists during Victory Day celebrations in Moscow on Saturday. Russia has never violated its agreements and continues to cooperate with Iran on its peaceful nuclear energy programs, he added.

Read more

Iran retains more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, according to International Atomic Energy Agency estimates. Weapons-grade levels typically require 90% enrichment and higher.

While Iran has not published a response to the latest US offer, it has consistently refused to hand over its uranium stockpile or halt its civilian nuclear program, while demanding that Washington provide guarantees of non-aggression and remove its forces from the region. Tehran has also long denied plans to build a nuclear bomb.

The Ukrainian leader’s remarks during his visit to Armenia are seen as a threat by the Russian Defense Ministry

Russia expects Armenia to explain its lack of reaction to the “anti-Russian” statements made by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky during a recent summit in Yerevan, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

Providing a venue for such rhetoric goes against the spirit of partnership between the two nations, he told journalist Pavel Zarubin on Sunday.

Zelensky was in Yerevan earlier this week for a two-day summit of the European Political Community (EPC), an EU-led intergovernmental group launched in 2022 in response to the escalation of the Ukraine crisis. He asked for more military and financial assistance from the West while claiming that Moscow was scared that Ukrainian “drones may buzz over Red Square” ahead of Victory Day celebrations in Russia.

The Russian Defense Ministry then warned that if Ukraine attempted to disrupt the festivities with attacks, a major retaliatory strike would follow.

Read more

“We would surely expect some explanations” from Armenia, Peskov said, pointing to what he called a lack of any attempt to “balance” Zelensky’s rhetoric on the part of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who was hosting the summit. Moscow does not understand “why anti-Russian statements are coming” from Armenian soil, he added.

On Thursday, the Russian Foreign Ministry summoned the Armenian ambassador in Moscow to protest “opening the floor” for Zelensky’s “terrorist threats against Russia.”

Peskov maintained that Yerevan has a “sovereign right” to define its foreign policy and host any summits it wants, adding that Moscow only wants it not to take an anti-Russian position.

Relations between Russia and Armenia started to cool after Pashinyan came to power in 2018. During his time in office, Armenia lost a proxy war with neighboring Azerbaijan over the latter’s region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Pashinyan then attempted to fault Moscow for not providing military assistance at the time.