Iran’s foreign minister has accused the United States of pursuing a “reckless military adventure” as tensions escalate in the Gulf, even as both sides say a ceasefire intended to enable peace talks remains in place.

Get today's headlines by email

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, said Washington repeatedly resorts to force whenever diplomatic options emerge. Writing on the social media platform X, he said Iranians would “never bow to pressure”.

Araghchi’s remarks came a day after the United States and Iran blamed each other for new clashes in the Strait of Hormuz. The exchange followed further U.S. military action against Iranian vessels and continued friction despite the ceasefire announced earlier in the conflict.

“Is it a crude pressure tactic?” Araghchi wrote. “Or the result of a spoiler once again duping POTUS into another quagmire?”

Ceasefire Amid Continuing Tensions

Despite the latest confrontations, Donald Trump said the ceasefire remained intact. The truce is intended to create space for negotiations aimed at ending the war launched in February by the United States and Israel.

Washington says it is waiting for Tehran’s response to a set of proposals designed to resolve the conflict.

Marco Rubio, the U.S. secretary of state, said Iran was expected to respond on Friday.

“I hope it’s a serious offer, I really do,” Rubio said while visiting Italy.

Iran has taken control of the Strait of Hormuz and launched attacks on U.S. allies in the Gulf in retaliation for American and Israeli military strikes earlier in the war.

The narrow waterway is one of the world’s most critical shipping routes. Around 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments pass through the strait, and disruptions there have pushed energy prices sharply higher.

Naval Blockade and Ship Incidents

Earlier this week, Trump authorised a U.S. military operation aimed at freeing roughly 2,000 vessels that have been stranded in the area since February. The operation was later paused.

At the same time, the United States has maintained a naval blockade of Iranian ports in an effort to pressure Tehran to accept U.S. negotiating terms. Iranian officials have condemned the blockade, describing it as an act of aggression.

On Friday, U.S. Central Command said American forces had disabled two Iranian-flagged oil tankers attempting to enter an Iranian port in the Gulf of Oman in violation of the blockade.

According to the command, the vessels were not carrying cargo. U.S. forces fired precision munitions into their smokestacks, preventing them from docking.

The military said it was also stopping more than 70 tankers from entering or leaving Iranian ports as part of the blockade effort.

Clashes in the Strait of Hormuz

The latest incidents followed Thursday’s confrontations in the Strait of Hormuz, with each side accusing the other of initiating the attacks.

U.S. Central Command said Iran launched missiles, drones and small boats at three American warships in what it described as an “unprovoked attack”.

Iran’s senior military leadership gave a different account, claiming U.S. forces targeted an Iranian oil tanker and another vessel approaching the strait and carried out aerial strikes against several coastal areas.

One cargo vessel attacked near the waters off Minab caught fire, according to Mohammad Radmehr, an official in Iran’s southern Hormozgan province.

Radmehr said ten injured sailors had been taken to hospital while local rescue teams searched for others who were aboard the vessel.

Late on Thursday, Trump said on the social media platform Truth Social that U.S. forces had destroyed several Iranian small boats, missiles and drones.

He warned that further strikes could follow if Iran failed to quickly agree to the proposed deal to end the conflict.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 9 May 2026

View full article

3 hours ago, webfact said:

reckless military adventure” a

Very true. Many people wish them to strike back or get the nuke ready

Taking out the regimes coastal military targets and disabling an Iranian tanker trying to run the naval blockade. Reckless?

The US and Israel, lies, lies and lies.

It was them that started all this.

Not Iran.

The online dictionary defines "reckless" as;

reck·less

1. heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions; rash or impetuous:

So I ardently agree that the USA's (my country's) current military actions in Iran, and actually everywhere else, are reckless. 😟

I believe ALL the comments above mine here are Reckless.

The radical Zionist objective is to destroy Iran and with it the last obstacle to realizing their dream of Eretz Israel .

Trump is playing the Shabbos goy in this bloody farce.

They are absolutely correct, this was an incredibly reckless adventure, or as the nimwit would say an excursion. It was done without much planning, and it was done solely at the prompting of Netanyahu. Trump never made a case for the war with the American people nor the Congress or the Senate, and they never had an end game, they just somehow magically expected the regime to disappear, and a public uprising to take their place.

If nothing else this wore demonstrates how spectacularly incompetent Trump is and how appointing a chest thumper who would not be qualified to lead a county chapter of the Cub Scouts as SEC DEF was a tragic and historic mistake.

Nothing has been accomplished. The regime has only been hardened, Trump managed to turn the Iranian people against America and actually gain sympathy for the regime in the process, the world has turned their sympathy toward Iran and away from the US, no nuclear deal is in sight and much sabotage has been done to the US and world economies. In addition the US has spilled both treasure and American lives with absolutely no justification. And thousands of Iranian civilians have been killed in a reckless manner.

Iran was not a threat.

Trump is the real threat.

4 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

tThey are absolutely correct, this was an incredibly reckless adventure, or as the nimwit would say an excursion. It was done without much planning, and it was done solely at the prompting of Netanyahu. Trump never made a case for the war with the American people nor the Congress or the Senate, and they never had an end game, they just somehow magically expected the regime to disappear, and a public uprising to take their place.

If nothing else this wore demonstrates how spectacularly incompetent Trump is and how appointing a chest thumper who would not be qualified to lead a county chapter of the Cub Scouts as SEC DEF was a tragic and historic mistake.

Nothing has been accomplished. The regime has only been hardened, Trump managed to turn the Iranian people against America and actually gain sympathy for the regime in the process, the world has turned their sympathy toward Iran and away from the US, no nuclear deal is in sight and much sabotage has been done to the US and world economies. In addition the US has spilled both treasure and American lives with absolutely no justification. And thousands of Iranian civilians have been killed in a reckless manner.

Iran was not a threat.

Trump is the real threat.

You are correct! Trump is the real threat to world peace !! The Yanks have hindsight, they voted in a madman and do not realize that there are consequences in voting him in, Trump will not leave when his term is over, if you think jan 6th was bad try and get him to leave, you yanks do not know what you have done, your country is going down the tubes

Aren't all wars "reckless military adventures" the fighting starts when one party thinks the talking is going nowhere.

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Nothing has been accomplished. The regime has only been hardened,

Much of their air defense has been wiped out, many mullahs were blown up, and their oil wells are about to become permanently plugged up.

Economically, inflation is out of control. Literally holding Monopoly money would have been a better investment than the Rial.



That is just the start, but the regime has been significantly weakened.

6 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Taking out the regimes coastal military targets and disabling an Iranian tanker trying to run the naval blockade. Reckless?

I take it, then, given that you appear to favor military aggression that involves taking out coastal military targets and imposing a naval blockade against a country halfway around the world, that you supported Kamala Harris in the last general election -- who EVERYONE (at least in your media universe) agreed would be the one to start new “endless wars in the Middle East.” Right?

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

They are absolutely correct, this was an incredibly reckless adventure, or as the nimwit would say an excursion. It was done without much planning, and it was done solely at the prompting of Netanyahu. Trump never made a case for the war with the American people nor the Congress or the Senate, and they never had an end game, they just somehow magically expected the regime to disappear, and a public uprising to take their place.

If nothing else this wore demonstrates how spectacularly incompetent Trump is and how appointing a chest thumper who would not be qualified to lead a county chapter of the Cub Scouts as SEC DEF was a tragic and historic mistake.

Nothing has been accomplished. The regime has only been hardened, Trump managed to turn the Iranian people against America and actually gain sympathy for the regime in the process, the world has turned their sympathy toward Iran and away from the US, no nuclear deal is in sight and much sabotage has been done to the US and world economies. In addition the US has spilled both treasure and American lives with absolutely no justification. And thousands of Iranian civilians have been killed in a reckless manner.

Iran was not a threat.

Trump is the real threat.

this preceded by the firing of the analysts that would have updated potential targets e.i. the girls' school. and IMHO other targets too.

A troll post with a derogatory slur comments toward Americans has been removed. @VillageIdiot

28 minutes ago, Presnock said:

this preceded by the firing of the analysts that would have updated potential targets e.i. the girls' school. and IMHO other targets too.

Reporter: We’re almost 10 weeks since a missile hit a school in Iran. Who fired that missile?

Trump: That’s under study. We’ll give you a report when we have it.

meidastouch.com

i.e. when we can't think of any more reasons not to have it maybe Ex. #1 there can be no definitive conclusion until we visit the bomb site itself.

Edited May 9May 9 by JerryM

1 hour ago, Cory1848 said:

I take it, then, given that you appear to favor military aggression that involves taking out coastal military targets and imposing a naval blockade against a country halfway around the world, that you supported Kamala Harris in the last general election -- who EVERYONE (at least in your media universe) agreed would be the one to start new “endless wars in the Middle East.” Right?

What I don't agree with is Iran having a nuclear weapon, a ballistic missile shield and the ability to control the Strait of Hormuz.

It was reckless of the USA to use so many very expensive missiles

to shoot down a 50,000 dollar drone ,Zelensky offered the American's

interceptor drones and knowledge about how to combat incoming

drone attacks ,they been arguable the World experts in drones.

Donald would have lost face if he had taken any help from Ukraine

but later on in this War, that is not a War , realizing how many munitions

that had been used , accepted Ukraines help. ,it will take at least 5 years

to replace stocks that were used up,and at great expense.

regards Worgeordie

Israel, the USA and Russia have adopted the strategy of the pre-emptive strike. Trying to disable an "enemy"'s ability to fight back. Does that not strike you as the real Axis of Evil.

But.....5555555!

And where's Bibi? Exit stage left, leaving Trumpet holding his bag.

16 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

And where's Bibi? Exit stage left, leaving Trumpet holding his bag.

Obibi-wan-Kinobi strikes again

If only there was a gag strong enough to keep him from opening his mouth, we would probably be in a much better position right now. He has no filter from his demented mind to his mouth.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

What I don't agree with is Iran having a nuclear weapon, a ballistic missile shield and the ability to control the Strait of Hormuz.

i would not be posting all your posts get a thumbs down !! as does this one it is because you post rubbish

1 Iran having a nuclear weapon, no evidence iran having a Nuke!! where is your proof !!!

2 a ballistic missile shield, Again No evidence no proof !!!

3 to control the Strait of Hormuz. again no evidence, the US has claimed it has "total control" and initiated "[Project Freedom]"

5 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

1 Iran having a nuclear weapon, no evidence iran having a Nuke!! where is your proof !!!

2 a ballistic missile shield, Again No evidence no proof !!!

3 to control the Strait of Hormuz. again no evidence, the US has claimed it has "total control" and initiated "[Project Freedom]"

Wow! Wrong on each of your points. 60% enriched uranium. What's that for? Guess you missed all the missiles the regime fired off and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the US who claimed to have mined the Strait and was demanding money for safe passage.

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

What I don't agree with is Iran having a nuclear weapon, a ballistic missile shield and the ability to control the Strait of Hormuz.

On Iran not having a nuclear weapon, that was NOT a problem until Trump reneged on Obama’s agreement, which among other things included inspectors on the ground. As recently as a few months ago, Trump’s own intelligence agencies said that Iran was ten years away from having a functional nuclear weapon.

 

On ballistic missiles, various online sources state that more than 30 countries worldwide possess such missiles (of various ranges), including most of Iran’s immediate neighbors. The Iranians can make a pretty good case for their need for such missiles.

 

On the Strait of Hormuz, that also was not a problem until the US and Israel launched their unprovoked attack. Iran’s “ability” to control the strait is a geographical reality, though the strait is wide open to all traffic nearly all the time. The trick to keeping it that way, I think, is negotiation to settle disagreements rather than military adventurism.

 

I do not deny that Iran’s current administration is horrendous and hated by most Iranians, or that Iran supports terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen, which creates an unsustainable situation for Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other states in the region. But a reckless military attack with no end game in sight is not the way to rectify matters; this only serves to harden the Iranian government (and population). Have we not learned anything?

A post with a flaming comment toward another member has been removed: @MikeandDow :

• Be polite and respectful to other users.

• Avoid flaming, trolling, or stalking other members.

14 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Taking out the regimes coastal military targets and disabling an Iranian tanker trying to run the naval blockade. Reckless?

The recklessness involves the munitions used to disable the vessals. In two vessels, allegedly precision munitions were used against the smoke stack, and for the third, F/A18 Hornet 20mm. Those precision munitions were apparently 500lb gravity bombs. The munitions could have injured or killed merchant sailors; they are not armed, they are not belligerants. The attacks might have caused the loss of the vessels, causing an environmental issue and potentially a shipping hazard. The intelligence might be wrong about the flag status of the vessel. The crew might not even be Iranian. Lots of ways this could have gone tits up.

The US government has repeatedly said, and I am sure you will agree, their dispute is with the Iranian government and not the Iranian people.

Previously, the US has demonstrated a capability to board tankers without issue. Somali Pirates in a skiff can get aboard. The Iranians have boarded vessels. This is exactly the sort of thing Navy SEALS train for. And if you say there might have been a risk of armed resistance, why do you think these SF chappies were armed when they boarded the Venezuelan vessel; the drill assumes every enforced interdiction will be met with force.

12 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

The recklessness involves the munitions used to disable the vessals. In two vessels, allegedly precision munitions were used against the smoke stack, and for the third, F/A18 Hornet 20mm. Those precision munitions were apparently 500lb gravity bombs.

"AI Overview

As of May 2026, U.S. forces have used F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets to disable Iranian-flagged tankers breaking a blockade in the Gulf of Oman, primarily employing 20mm cannon fire to destroy rudders and laser-guided bombs to strike funnels. These precise strikes aimed to stop ships without sinking them, causing them to lose steering control and momentum."

Possibly GBU-12 laser guided bombs used but looking at the released footage maybe only HE incendiary rounds from the 20mm Vulcan cannon on the Super Hornet.

Edited May 9May 9 by dinsdale

4 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Wow! Wrong on each of your points. 60% enriched uranium. What's that for? Guess you missed all the missiles the regime fired off and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the US who claimed to have mined the Strait and was demanding money for safe passage.

You are making a crap effort to come up with the proof that Iran possesses a nuclear weapon. No one disputes that they have an ambition, but you have it your head, because you called the poster wrong, that they already have a nuclear weapon.

What you stated:

What I don't agree with is Iran having a nuclear weapon, a ballistic missile shield and the ability to control the Strait of Hormuz.

So:

1. You disagree with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon

2. You disagree with Iran having the ability to defend itself against a ballistic missile attack (ie. possessing a ballistic missile shield).

3. You disagree with Iran having the ability to contro the Strait of Hormuz

In response

1 Iran having a nuclear weapon, no evidence iran having a Nuke!! where is your proof !!!

2 a ballistic missile shield, Again No evidence no proof !!!

3 to control the Strait of Hormuz. again no evidence, the US has claimed it has "total control" and initiated "[Project Freedom]"

Your response to these points (and this is the sad nature of the internet, every one feels the need to respond to a response, which was a response to another response)

Wow! Wrong on each of your points. 60% enriched uranium. What's that for?

Guess you missed all the missiles the regime fired off

and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the US who claimed to have mined the Strait and was demanding money for safe passage.

Here you appear to believe Iran currently has a nuclear weapon

You clearly don't understand what is meant by a "missile shield"; you originally said that Iran shouldn't be allowed a missile shield, which in common parlance is possessing SAM systems similar to Patriot. ie. you believe a country should not be able to defend itself

Actually, when you dig through the reports, Iran has never said it has mined the Strait. They said they could start laying sea mines under certain conditions. However, the IRGC announced on the 23rd March that as they already "control" the strait, there was no need to lay any mines. Only the US has claimed Iran has laid any sea mines. No ships have hit a mine. The US Navy has not reported the destruction of a mine, nor recovered a mine.

As you are a big champion of freedom of the seas, I am sure that you are writing to your Congressman at this very moment, urging, nay demanding , that the US immediately ratify, without further delay UNCLOS, a treaty a US government signed, but which Congres has repeatedly refused to ratify, following in the steps of Iran, who has also signed the same treaty, but also, in agreement with the US, refused to ratify it.

UNCLOS, which you hold great stall in, does allow nations to levy charges on vessels passaging through their waters, for regulatory and environmental reasons.

UNCLOS says a coastal state:

• cannot hamper innocent passage arbitrarily,

• and cannot impose charges on foreign ships “by reason only of their passage”.

A country can charge for:

• specific services actually provided, such as pilotage, towage, port services, or icebreaking,

• but not just because a ship crossed the waters.

Now while Iran has not ratified the Treaty (and therefore it would argue the provisions don't apply to Iran), the rights to passage the Straits is seen as "customary". This can get a bit sketchy because Portugal did in fact used to charge transit charges. Was that "customary"?

In terms of the rerouting of shipping, Iran is claiming another treaty, the 1907 Hague Convention. What this is about is the obligations of nations during wartime regarding mining of sealanes.

The laying of mines during war is not a warcrime. The moment the US attacked Iran, Iran considered itself at war, irrespective of the Putinesque semantics coming from the Whitehouse. Presumably it then started dusting off its war plans. The Hague Convention requires countries to provide alternative routes of passage for non-belligerant shipping, and this is what Iran is claiming. Does that mean that Iran has actually mined a strait, or is Iran providing a routing because it might mine the strait?

And the UNCLOS Treaty, which you hold dear to your heart, refers to innocent passage. What that means is Iran doesn't have to allow passage of vessals it things are going to attack it later on.

1 minute ago, Roadsternut said:

You are making a crap effort to come up with the proof that Iran possesses a nuclear weapon.

Please show anywhere I have said they have a nuke. I have NEVER said this because they don't have a nuke. Saying they want nukes is quite obviously different to saying they have nukes.

24 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

AI Overview

As of May 2026, U.S. forces have used F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets to disable Iranian-flagged tankers breaking a blockade in the Gulf of Oman, primarily employing 20mm cannon fire to destroy rudders and laser-guided bombs to strike funnels. These precise strikes aimed to stop ships without sinking them, causing them to lose steering control and momentum.

What I said; you're just a parrot. The difference is you are more gullible. Yet another forum member who graduated from that Zoolander college.

You notably make no comment why the US had to shoot at these ships, but didn't need to in the Caribbean.

15 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Taking out the regimes coastal military targets and disabling an Iranian tanker trying to run the naval blockade. Reckless?

I love all your thumbs up.