IRAN RECEIVES 500 HWASONG -18 ICBMs from North Korea

Murray Hunter
Apr 08, 2026


IRAN RECEIVES 500 HWASONG -18 ICBMs from North Korea

Its now understandable why Trump wanted an urgent ceasefire





While hopes are rising for a two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan, Iran has just received 500 Hwasong-18 ICBMs from North Korea.

It is claimed (according to sources close to the North Korean leadership) the Hwasong-18 ICBM, a solid fueled three stage intercontinental ballistic missile has the range of 15,000 kms with a warhead payload of 1,000-1,500 Kgs. This is an ICBM large enough to reach the United States from an altitude of 6,648 km.

The Hwasong-18 has been designed for a single nuclear warhead. The ICBM has been well tested in North Korea so is potentially fully operational.

This changes all US military calculations that continental United States is safe during a war with Iran.

Until this morning US President Donald Trump had been talking about eliminating the whole Persian culture off the Earth in a manner that it could not return. Trump was hinting at a nuclear option against Iran.

With the latest intelligence that Iran now possesses the Hwasong-18 from North Korea, Iran would now be capable of retaliating to any US apocalyptic strategy. These have been shipped in parts and were assembled in Iran in underground facilities.

Continuing the war is now placing Israel under existentialist threat.

Hwasong-18 is launched from a mobile unit.

It is now not unsurprising that Trump is urgently seeking an ‘off ramp’ for the conflict. Some of the terms like allowing Iran (and Oman) to continue collecting tolls from ships in the Strait of Hormuz would have been unthinkable just a day ago.

The US calamity in losing two US Air Force MC-130 Commando II special operations aircraft in the South of Isfahan Province in Iran has shown the US military just how formidable Iran forces are.

With Israel as a lose cannon it will be highly questionable how long the integrity of a ceasefire can last.

It has now become very clear what any non-nuclear nation must do when attacked or threatened by a nuclear power. This will change strategic thinking around the world.

Ab Rauf rejects Akmal Saleh's resignation as Melaka Exco

Ab Rauf rejects Akmal Saleh's resignation as Melaka Exco


Akmal at the UMNO Youth General Assembly at the World Trade Centre Kuala Lumpur (WTCKL) on January 15 announced his decision to resign as the Melaka Exco

Ab Rauf said Akmal will continue his responsibilities as a State Government Exco as usual. - April 8, 2026

MELAKA Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Ab Rauf Yusoh, has rejected Datuk Dr Mohamad Akmal Saleh's resignation letter as the state Rural Development, Agriculture and Food Security Committee Exco, which was sent in January.


Ab Rauf said Akmal will continue his responsibilities as a State Government Exco as usual.

"I want to inform you that he submitted his resignation letter immediately after making the announcement.

"But I have decided to reject the resignation so that he can continue his duties as a State Government Exco," he said when commenting on the status of the resignation of the Merlimau assemblyman and UMNO Youth Chief.

He stressed that the power to accept or reject the resignation lies with the Chief Minister.

“So, the right to accept or reject is the right of the Chief Minister. I have spoken to the Chief Minister, and the Chief Minister has decided to reject,” he joked.

Akmal at the UMNO Youth General Assembly at the World Trade Centre Kuala Lumpur (WTCKL) on January 15 announced his decision to resign as the Melaka Exco.

He, however, explained that he would remain as the UMNO Youth Chief.

The decision was made in response to DAP leaders who previously demanded that he take such a stance, following calls for UMNO to withdraw from the Unity Government. – April 8, 2026

Driving under the influence: the difference between drugs and alcohol

FMT:

Driving under the influence: the difference between drugs and alcohol

13 HOURS AGO
Letter to the Editor

The persistence of the alcohol-versus-drugs debate reflects gaps in knowledge, enforcement asymmetries and cultural attitudes

From P Sundramoorthy


The belief that driving under the influence of alcohol is inherently “worse” than drug-impaired driving is widespread in Malaysia but from a criminological perspective, this hierarchy is neither straightforward nor particularly useful.


It reflects more about social perceptions, enforcement patterns and cultural narratives than the actual risks posed by different substances.

Recent high-profile vehicular manslaughter cases have intensified public anger, often accompanied by calls for harsher punishments, including the death penalty. Such reactions risk oversimplifying a complex issue.


At its core, impairment regardless of substance is the central concern. Alcohol has long dominated road safety campaigns and enforcement strategies. Alcohol-impaired driving is highly visible and heavily stigmatised. However, this visibility can create a cognitive bias; what is more frequently detected is often assumed to be more dangerous.

Drug-impaired driving by contrast, remains less visible and under-examined. Unlike alcohol, which typically produces predictable depressant effects, drugs have diverse and sometimes contradictory impacts.

The number of drug users in Malaysia is significant. A larger population of drug users increases the likelihood that some individuals will drive while impaired.

In certain contexts, this probability may exceed that of alcohol-impaired driving especially since alcohol consumption is often episodic, whereas some forms of drug use are habitual or integrated into daily routines.


While alcohol-impaired driving is more visible and frequently detected, drug-impaired driving may be more prevalent but under-recognised.

This reflects the “dark figure” of crime – behaviours that occur but are not fully captured in official statistics. The relative invisibility of drug-impaired driving should not be mistaken for lower risk but rather seen as an indicator of enforcement and surveillance gaps.

Legal and cultural factors also shape perceptions. Alcohol though regulated, is socially accepted in many contexts, whereas most drugs are criminalised and heavily stigmatised. Paradoxically, this can lead to an underestimation of drug-related risks in road safety discourse.

Detecting alcohol impairment is relatively straightforward but identifying drug impairment often requires more complex testing methods. This gap reinforces the perception that drug-impaired driving is less prevalent or less dangerous.


Alcohol impairment can be broadly measured through blood alcohol concentration, allowing for standardised legal thresholds. Drug impairment, however, is far less uniform. The same quantity of a drug can affect individuals differently depending on tolerance, metabolism and context. This complicates enforcement, prosecution and public messaging, reinforcing ambiguity around drug-impaired driving.

In response to tragic cases, there have been renewed calls to impose the death penalty for vehicular manslaughter involving impairment.

However, evidence consistently shows that the certainty of detection and punishment not the severity of punishment is the more effective deterrent.

The death penalty, in particular, has not been shown to produce a meaningful deterrent effect in cases involving impulsive or risk-laden behaviours such as impaired driving.

A more effective approach would focus on increasing the certainty and consistency of enforcement. This includes expanding roadside drug testing capabilities, improving forensic toxicology capacity, enhancing data collection and ensuring that enforcement is applied uniformly without regard to status or background.

When the public perceives that laws are enforced consistently and fairly, confidence in the justice system is strengthened, reducing the impulse to call for excessively punitive measures.

Both alcohol- and drug-impaired driving pose serious threats to public safety and require evidence-based responses.

Public education should emphasize that impairment is impairment, regardless of the substance and that driving under such conditions reflects broader issues of risk perception, accountability and social responsibility.

In a context where drug use is significant and often under-detected, drug-impaired driving may represent a more pervasive, if less visible, threat.

At the same time, calls for extreme punitive measures such as the death penalty risk diverting attention from more effective, evidence-based interventions.

A balanced and rational approach must recognise that crime is colourblind, deterrence depends on certainty rather than severity, and all forms of impaired driving must be addressed with equal seriousness and strategic clarity.



P Sundramoorthy is a criminologist at the Centre for Policy Research at Universiti Sains Malaysia and an FMT reader.

A Starving Lion Doesn’t Eat Grass: Why Iran Won’t Bow to Donald Trump

Malaysia's #1 Content Aggregator


OPINION | A Starving Lion Doesn’t Eat Grass: Why Iran Won’t Bow to Donald Trump


8 Apr 2026 • 12:00 PM MYT

TheRealNehruism
An award-winning Newswav creator, Bebas News columnist & ex-FMT columnist

Image generated by ChatGPT


It was never realistic to expect Iran to accept a ceasefire on American terms—and its latest response only confirms that.


According to state media, Tehran has rejected the proposal outright, offering instead its own : an end to wider regional conflicts, reconstruction commitments, sanctions relief, and formal guarantees for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. That is not the language of a country looking for an exit. It is the language of a country asserting standing.



To understand why, you have to look beyond missiles and sanctions, and into something less tangible but far more powerful: identity.


Iran does not see itself as just another state in the international system. It sees itself as a civilizational power—an heir to empires, a custodian of history, a nation that has been shaping its region long before the modern West existed. Whether that self-image aligns with present realities is beside the point. What matters is that it believes it.


There is a Tamil proverb that captures this perfectly: a starving lion does not eat grass.


A nation that has defined itself, for centuries, as a dominant force—not just a participant but a central player—does not easily accept being reduced to compliance. And when that identity comes under pressure, it does not soften. It hardens.


That is why Iran’s posture today feels less like desperation and more like defiance. Even under economic strain, even under military threat, it refuses to negotiate from a position that looks like submission. Because to do so would be to concede something deeper than territory or policy—it would be to concede identity.



Which brings us to Donald Trump.


It is tempting to interpret Trump’s rhetoric—his threats, his harsh language, his willingness to publicly humiliate adversaries—as impulsive or even reckless. But that reading misses something important. Trump understands power in psychological terms as much as strategic ones. He knows how pride works. He knows how ego reacts.


And that raises a more uncomfortable possibility: what if the humiliation is the point?


Ask yourself this, if Trump was truly interested in a ceasefire with Iran, would he have posted on his Truth Social website: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”


Of course not.


Because if your goal were genuinely to secure a ceasefire with a country like Iran, you would not frame your offer in a way that guarantees rejection. You would leave room for face-saving. You would construct an off-ramp.



Trump has done the opposite. By tying peace to demands that strike at Iran’s sovereignty—especially over something as strategically vital as the Strait of Hormuz—he has made acceptance politically and psychologically impossible for Tehran.


That does not look like diplomacy aimed at de-escalation.


It looks like positioning for escalation.


Why?


There are a few plausible answers.


One is because it is only if he destroys Iran, Trump will look like the boss of all bosses.


Two because Israel might want him to - Israel is only going to feel safe if Iran is decapitated.


Three is because Trump, as the president of america and the leader of the western civilisation, might want to boost the waning fortune of the western civilisation, by expanding its influence to the middle east, and Iran is the chief nation in the middle east that stands in his way.


But whatever the mix of motives, the pattern is clear: a ceasefire is being discussed in form, but undermined in substance.



And Iran, for its part, is not exactly searching for peace either.


A state that sees itself as historically destined to lead does not easily accept a subordinate role in a system defined by others. Even when circumstances change, self-perception lags behind reality. Sometimes, it resists reality altogether.


So what you have is not one side pushing for peace and the other resisting. You have two sides, each operating from a position of asserted authority, each unwilling to concede the symbolic ground that compromise requires.


That is not a recipe for resolution.


It is a recipe for prolongation.


The current war—now stretching well beyond a month, fueled by strikes, counterstrikes, and regional spillover—is not an anomaly. It is the result of decades of unresolved tension. These kinds of conflicts do not end with a single agreement or a sudden breakthrough. They persist, evolve, and, more often than not, intensify.



So expecting a near-term peace between Iran and the United States may not just be optimistic.


It may be fundamentally misguided.


Because when both sides see themselves as the lion, neither is willing to eat grass.


And when neither yields, the conflict does not fade.


It stretches—year after year—until it becomes not just a war, but an era.

MIC caught between PN gambit and need for relevance

FMT:

MIC caught between PN gambit and need for relevance

With the two state elections expected before GE16, Perikatan Nasional's wooing of MIC is not out of love but from a need to gauge Indian support in states with mixed voters

MIC’s dithering over whether to commit to Perikatan Nasional, while PN pushes its line that MIC is already a member of the opposition coalition, puts the focus squarely on whether the Indian-based party continues to hold relevance in national politics.

Party leaders are aware that PN’s fervent efforts at wooing MIC stem out of the opposition coalition’s hope of broadening its appeal to non-Malay voters, and not out of passion.


For now, the party has declared it will remain with Barisan Nasional, sticking to its short-term interests which are the state elections in Malacca and Johor, widely expected to be held before the next general election in two years.

At stake for MIC are its precarious hold of six legislative seats: three in Johor and one in Melaka as well as one seat in Pahang, and the sole parliamentary constituency of Tapah, Perak, won in the 2022 general election (GE15).

Given that BN formed an alliance with Pakatan Harapan after GE15, one source said “there is no chance DAP, PKR and Amanah will be generous enough to allow MIC to contest any of the seats that they won from MIC”. The two coalitions were rivals then, and contested against each other.

“In the present circumstances those parties will be hard-pressed as well to try and retain their seats at the coming elections,” the source says.

Melaka will hold its state election this year, as confirmed by chief minister Ab Rauf Yusoh while the Johor election is not expected to be held early as the current government’s term ends only in April 2027.

A look at the voting trend at the previous elections shows that MIC won mainly on the strength of BN’s Malay vote bank and its strong machinery. If MIC is to have any change at retaining those seats, the party will again be forced to depend largely on BN and its machinery, even if BN may have suffered some erosion of Malay support as some believe.


Too much of a risk

For MIC to suddenly switch to PN now will be too risky a move, robbing the party of support from its traditional Indian voter base and from the BN’s Chinese and Malay supporters.

“Many leaders at division levels have expressed their discomfort if they are forced to work with PAS during any future election. BN is MIC’s comfort zone at the moment. That’s why a majority of the CEC members felt remaining in the coalition is the best option for now.

“Despite the flaws of the Madani government in the way it has handled controversial issues, especially the contentious temple debate, Indian voters are not expected to drop BN or PH in droves for a PAS-led PN,” another source said.


The recent “takeover” of PN by PAS leaders in a questionable manner has also made MIC jittery.

The recent controversy over so-called “illegal” temples saw some PAS leaders openly supporting the campaign, with one PAS rising star, information chief Ahmad Fadhli Shaari making an open statement encouraging members to take part in the protest gathering.

Taking into account the hardline PAS has taken on religious rights in the past, some non-Muslims have been privately saying, rightly or wrongly, that PAS may resort to amending the Federal Constitution to curtail certain rights if it obtains a parliamentary majority one day.

This may not be wholly true but it’s the perception, unfortunately.

Such fears among non-Malay voters would make it a strong possibility that MIC will be annihilated in Johor and Malacca if the party stands under the PN flag. That was apparently the main consideration when the MIC central working committee took a step back from committing to PN, saying it is studying the sentiments of the Indian community on the recent PAS “takeover” of PN.

For PAS, however, its hopes of an association with MIC stems from the possibility of using the party to further make inroads in Johor, where Indian voters form an estimated 16% of the electorate. Its pact with MIC in Johor and Malacca could become a yardstick to draw up strategies for the next general election, and for the future.

This looks to be the only reason for PN’s ultimatum for MIC to make an official decision as soon as possible — the hope that pulling away MIC will weaken PH and BN in one way or the other.

It’s obviously not out of love for MIC but just another step in the PN/PAS journey to eventually capturing federal power.

‘Unity banquet’ to replace barred temple association’s Hari Raya open house

FMT:

‘Unity banquet’ to replace barred temple association’s Hari Raya open house

Penang deputy chief minister Mohamad Abdul Hamid says the Zhao Zi Long Cultural and Arts Association will co-host the event with Bagan Ajam residents on April 11

Penang deputy chief minister Mohamad Abdul Hamid said the state national unity and integration department will help coordinate the April 11 unity banquet. (Bernama pic)

GEORGE TOWN: A “unity banquet” will be held in Butterworth to replace a temple association’s Hari Raya Aidilfitri open house that was barred by the Penang Islamic religious department.

Deputy chief minister Mohamad Abdul Hamid said the Zhao Zi Long Cultural and Arts Association of Penang will co-organise the banquet with Bagan Ajam residents at Dewan Panorama Bagan Ajam in Butterworth on April 11.

“Following advice from the Penang national unity and integration department, the state Islamic religious department and council will leave coordination of this event to the unity department, under whose jurisdiction all unity-related activities fall,” Mohamad said in a statement today.

The department had prohibited the Butterworth-based Tean Hock Keong Association from hosting its Hari Raya Aidilfitri open house on grounds that the celebration is a Muslim religious activity.

The department’s director, Marzuki Hassan, said in a March 31 letter to the association that all Islamic religious activities, including celebrations related to Hari Raya Aidilfitri, required permission from the Penang Islamic religious council.

The association had explained in an April 5 letter that the open house aimed to “foster unity, strengthen ties of friendship, and reinforce harmony in the local community”.

Bangi MP censures former S'pore lawmaker over 'callous remarks' on Iran

Bangi MP censures former S'pore lawmaker over 'callous remarks' on Iran

Published: Apr 8, 2026 4:49 PM
Updated: 8:14 PM


DAP lawmaker Syahredzan Johan has slammed a former Singapore nominated MP for making a veiled jab at Malaysia regarding its foreign policy.

This came after Calvin Cheng criticised countries that negotiate with Iran for safe passage for their oil tankers and claimed that Singapore did not adopt such an approach because it “doesn’t negotiate with terrorists”.

In a Facebook post today, Syahredzan said Malaysians do not appreciate “outsiders” like Cheng (above, right) making such comments.

“... his remark about countries that have ‘negotiated safe passage’ but ‘running out of oil next month’ is to me a clear reference to Malaysia, even if he does not mention us by name.

“Let me make this clear: we respect Singapore’s position in this conflict. Each country has different energy needs and uses different ways to overcome the crisis.

“Malaysia, too, will chart its own path for its people. Our government will do what is needed to protect the people of Malaysia, including negotiating for passage through the Strait of Hormuz,” the Bangi MP said.

“Go ahead and support your country’s position. That is your right. But leave us out of it,” he added.

Yesterday, Cheng, who served as a lawmaker in Singapore between 2009 and 2011, shared on Facebook a screenshot of a news article about Singapore refusing to negotiate with Iran for safe passage through the strait.

He accompanied the post with a statement supporting the decision while condemning Iran and other countries that decided to negotiate with the West Asian nation.

‘Iran not a terrorist organisation’

Syahredzan claimed Cheng’s remark had also misrepresented Singapore’s position on the issue.

According to the DAP leader, Singaporean Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan - who was quoted in the article - did not say that the republic refused to negotiate because Singapore doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.

“Iran is a sovereign state, not a terrorist organisation.

“All countries that negotiated for safe passage through the strait do so with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the state, and this, of course, includes Malaysia. Not some organisation or body, but the state itself.

“With this sort of callous remarks and his previous statements, it is no wonder he has been accused of Islamophobia,” said Syahredzan, referring to a controversy last year following a remark that Cheng made about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Trump: China prompted Iran to negotiate ceasefire, AFP reports

Trump: China prompted Iran to negotiate ceasefire, AFP reports



US President Donald Trump mimics firing a gun as he speaks about the conflict in Iran in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House on April 6, 2026, in Washington, DC. — AFP pic

Wednesday, 08 Apr 2026 6:09 PM MYT


WASHINGTON, April 8 — US President Donald Trump told AFP on Thursday that he believes China got Iran to negotiate a ceasefire in the war against Israel and the United States.

The Chinese foreign ministry said on Wednesday that it welcomed the ceasefire, adding that China had made its own efforts towards realising lasting peace in the Middle East.


“China has consistently advocated for an immediate ceasefire and cessation of hostilities, as well as the resolution of disputes through political and diplomatic channels,” ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said.


She did not detail what China’s efforts were when asked at a regular news briefing. — Reuters

Hedges Report: Ground War With Iran?

Consortium News
Volume 31, Number 96 — Tuesday, April 7, 2026


Hedges Report: Ground War With Iran?


More than a month into the conflict, Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson’s central warning is blunt: if Washington commits troops on Iranian soil, the result could be a military disaster on a scale policymakers appear unwilling to acknowledge

By ScheerPost Staff
ScheerPost

In a stark and unsettling conversation on The Chris Hedges Report, journalist Chris Hedges sits down with retired Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson to confront a question now hanging over Washington’s war planning: Is the United States preparing to send ground forces into Iran?

The interview arrives at a moment when the American-Israeli war on Iran has already burned through massive military resources, destabilized global markets and failed to produce anything resembling a clear strategic victory. More than a month into the conflict, the central warning from Wilkerson is blunt: if Washington commits troops on Iranian soil, the result could be a military disaster on a scale policymakers appear unwilling to acknowledge.

Rather than describing the conflict as an isolated confrontation, Wilkerson places it inside a much larger geopolitical struggle — one tied to declining American economic leverage and the attempt to preserve dominance over global trade routes increasingly shaped by China. In his view, the war cannot be understood simply through the language of retaliation or deterrence; it reflects deeper anxieties inside an empire confronting limits it no longer knows how to manage.

That argument gives the interview its sharpest edge: the possibility that military escalation is being driven less by coherent strategy than by a collapsing political imagination in Washington.

Wilkerson, whose long military career included service under Colin Powell, argues that planners inside the Pentagon have historically understood the risks of a direct ground confrontation with Iran. Unlike previous wars launched under assumptions of rapid dominance, Iran presents terrain, manpower, regional alliances and retaliatory capacity that could quickly turn invasion into prolonged attrition.

The concern is not only battlefield cost. The interview points repeatedly to how the war is already redrawing global alignments. Iranian retaliation, regional uncertainty and threats to energy routes through the Persian Gulf have intensified fears of wider economic shock, with Wilkerson warning that continued escalation could accelerate conditions for a global depression.

One of the most alarming moments in the discussion centers on Israel. Both Hedges and Wilkerson raise concern that if Israeli leadership sees conventional military objectives slipping away, pressure could mount for far more extreme measures — including actions that would permanently transform the conflict and likely push Iran toward openly pursuing nuclear weapons.

That possibility exposes a contradiction running through Western war rhetoric: a campaign supposedly justified in the name of preventing escalation may instead be creating exactly the conditions for irreversible escalation.

Wilkerson’s proposed exit is politically simple but strategically difficult: declare victory and withdraw. Frame retreat as success before the conflict hardens into another generational war.

But he openly doubts whether the current administration possesses either the discipline or independence to do that. His most cutting remark suggests that many driving policy are not fully directing events themselves, but acting under pressures they neither control nor clearly explain.

The interview leaves viewers with a grim historical echo. From Vietnam War to Iraq War, American military history is crowded with conflicts entered under promises of control and exited under the weight of miscalculation.

What makes this moment especially dangerous is that many of those lessons appear visible — and ignored.

The central force of the discussion is not prediction but warning: once a ground war begins, political leaders often lose the ability to shape where it ends.

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for The Dallas Morning News, The Christian Science Monitor and NPR. He is the host of show “The Chris Hedges Report.”

This article is from ScheerPost.

12 TYPES OF @$$E$ YOU SHUD NOT VOTE FOR IN GE 16

 

OutSyed The Box

Saturday, April 4, 2026

12 TYPES OF @$$E$ YOU SHUD NOT VOTE FOR IN GE 16

 

Military Watch:

U.S. Military Leaders Purged as Invasion of Iran Faces Major Brass Opposition

North America, Western Europe and Oceania , Ground

Military Watch Magazine Editorial Staff

April-4th-2026

---

Dismissed Generals Randy George and David Hodne

U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has led an extensive purge of the U.S. Armed Forces leadership with few precedents in recent history, dismissing U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Randy George, and multiple other senior generals including David Hodne and William Green. Hegseth commented that George’s position needed to be filled by someone better able to "implement President Trump's vision,” fuelling considerable speculation that opposition from the military leadership to plans for a ground invasion of Iran were a primary factor in the decision to replace them. General George was responsible for preparing and equipping the Army for large-scale combat operations, and is reported to have expressed serious concerns about the high risks, extreme costs, and high potential for heavy casualties should a full-scale ground invasion be launched.

U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth

The removal of top commanders in wartime is rare, and has raised concerns about continuity and readiness in the campaign. The decision has faced particular criticism due to Hegseth’s own almost total lack of experience, having himself been a political appointee with an activist agenda inside the Pentagon, rather than a traditional defence bureaucrat. There has been no single official explanation for the purges, and the removal of multiple other senior military leaders have been reported but not confirmed. Multiple sources describe a broader pattern of dismissals and replacements across senior ranks, raising concerns regarding the politicisation of the military and a shift toward loyalist leadership.

U.S. Marines Conduct Amphibious Landing During Exercises

War-game style simulations conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces and various U.S. think tanks have not only cautioned against launching a war against Iran, but also pointed to a potential ground invasion as having particularly disastrous outcomes. The Iranian Armed Forces’ ability to sustain missile and drone attacks, as demonstrated since February 28, are likely to leave landing ships and U.S. ground units highly vulnerable to targeting, providing more ludicrous targets than U.S. forces based in the Gulf and elsewhere in the region. With multiple sources indicating that the U.S. has already suffered major casualties in its campaign due to the targeting of bases, hotels and compounds hosting them, this is likely to have further increased the controversy of escalating to deploy ground forces on Iranian soil. 

Trump furious as CNN portrayed Iran as victor

From the FB page of:

Nury Vittachi 

Seosdrtopn2f7ah50hua0uii8lfgg8m3791um0469693m450tgt901hhfac0 ·

BREAKING NEWS: Trump is furious again. CNN printed a statement from Iran saying the US had suffered “an undeniable, historic, and crushing defeat”.

So the US President just uploaded a rant attacking CNN for “fake news”. He wrote: “The alleged Statement put out by CNN World News is a FRAUD, as CNN well knows.”

A probe has been launched, Trump added. “Authorities are looking to determine whether or not a crime was committed…”

Trump pointed to a different statement from the Iranian government, a shorter text saying that if attacks are halted, defensive operations will stop, and passage through the Strait will be possible for a two week period.

.

THE REAL STORY

What’s the real story? When CNN checked back with Iran government contacts, they confirmed the statement they printed was true.

So both are real.

Trump is upset because the one CNN printed had a gloating tone that humiliated the US. The Iranian message said: “The enemy, in its unfair, unlawful, and criminal war against the Iranian nation, has suffered an undeniable, historic, and crushing defeat.”

It added: “Our hands remain on the trigger, and at the slightest mistake by the enemy, a full-force response will be delivered.”

Trump naturally favored the more formal alternative.

Other outlets also printed the “crushing defeat” text.

However, the Trump-appointed FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, took his bosses’ side and just issued a threat. “Time for change at CNN,” he wrote.