Uncategorized
A new version of the famous Holocaust diary is being called ‘Anne Frank pornography’ and getting banned from schools
(JTA) – Among the many books that conservative parents have recently asked their children’s schools to remove is a lushly illustrated version of the most famous Holocaust diary.
The graphic adaptation of Anne Frank’s diary, published in English in 2018, has found itself at the center of a growing number of controversies involving book removals from school libraries. A small number of passionate activists have pushed for the book to be removed from schools in Florida and Texas, calling it “pornography” and even “antisemitic.” Sometimes, they’ve succeeded.
The movement to police children’s literature — particularly graphic novels — on the basis of race, sex and gender has encompassed thousands of different titles, and it has grown to become a potent political force with potential reverberations for the 2024 presidential race. The official who has played one of the biggest roles in enabling parents to challenge school library books, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, is now running for president.
To defenders of the illustrated book — including the foundation created in Frank’s memory, historians and Jewish groups — the inclusion of Anne Frank’s diary among the list of banned books is a sign that the movement is bigoted and misguided.
Proponents of removing the book from schools say the graphic adaptation is essentially an obscene version that distorts Frank’s legacy and aids in “grooming” children. Even some Jewish parents and at least one Jewish lawmaker have objected to the book’s presence in schools.
“I read the diary of Anne Frank many times as a kid. I don’t remember any of that stuff that they put in that graphic novel,” Florida Rep. Randy Fine told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Calling the adaptation an “Anne Frank pornography book,” Fine continued, “And frankly that graphic novel is antisemitic. To sexualize the diary of Anne Frank in that sort of inappropriate way, it is antisemitic.”
Here is what you need to know about the book, the criticism it’s facing and the context that has made it a flashpoint in a deepening culture war.
What is ‘Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation’?
Published in 2018, “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” is a new, abridged version of Frank’s famous diary presented in comic-book format. The project was authorized by the Anne Frank Fonds, the Switzerland-based foundation started by Anne’s father Otto Frank, which controls the copyright to the diary Otto rescued after he survived the Holocaust. Anne herself perished in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp after hiding out for most of the war with her family in an Amsterdam annex.
The Oscar-nominated Israeli filmmaker Ari Folman, together with illustrator David Polonsky, put the new book together. It was intended as a companion piece to the 2021 animated film “Where Is Anne Frank,” which Folman directed.
While the film tells the fanciful story of Anne’s imaginary friend Kitty coming to life and wandering through modern-day Amsterdam, the book is a straightforward, though heavily truncated, rendition of Anne’s original diary. All of the entries it reproduces are taken from her original text, and dialogue between the characters in the annex is based on Anne’s own recollections of their conversations. Some of its supporters resist the label “graphic novel,” which they say implies the story is fictional.
The new book, the foundation says, is not meant to replace Frank’s original diary, first published in Dutch in 1947 as “The Secret Annex” and in English in 1952 as “The Diary of a Young Girl.” That book, along with subsequent editions that restored some passages edited out of the first publication, continues to be published and widely read in dozens of languages.
Why and how is the book being challenged?
A handful of parent activists, the largest “parents’ rights” group in the country and at least one Republican state lawmaker — Fine — have specifically gone after “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” as part of their larger campaign against what they say is obscene and pornographic content in schools. After a few isolated incidents of parental opposition to the book over the last year, their efforts have gained steam in recent months.
Organized by members of “parents’ rights” groups such as Moms for Liberty and No Left Turn in Education, parents nationwide have brought challenges against thousands of books in school libraries, the vast majority of which deal with topics of race, gender and sexuality. This movement began as parents organized to oppose COVID-19 mask mandates in public schools, and picked up steam in the aftermath of the 2020 racial justice protests following George Floyd’s murder, as well as recent political controversies involving LGBTQ-focused issues such as medical procedures for trans children.
The groups operate under the presumption that their children’s educators and librarians might be trying to sneak leftist viewpoints (including what they call “critical race theory” and “gender ideology”) into the classroom, or even that they are “grooming” their children.
Increasingly, such parents have trained this focus on books, and have become particularly sensitive to any literary depictions of sex and/or LGBTQ identity — particularly in graphic or comic-book format. Some of the most-banned books in schools across the country are graphic novels and memoirs with LGBTQ themes, including “Gender Queer” and “Fun Home.”
“People are just so uncomfortable with the idea of seeing anything represented visually,” said Kasey Meehan, director of the Freedom to Read program at the literary free-speech activist group PEN America. “Time and time again, when graphic novels are taken, an image is pulled out of context or an image is held up and declared as porn.”
Florida has emerged as a frontier for this movement under the leadership of DeSantis, who is a Republican. Under new laws he championed, educators can face felony charges for making obscene material accessible to students; the state also has a new law, dubbed “Don’t Say Gay” by its critics, that prohibits any classroom instruction on sexual identity or orientation in elementary and middle school, and limits it in high school.
Why are parents complaining specifically about the graphic adaptation?
Critics of the book say they are objecting to the small handful of passages in which Anne describes sexual matters. In one, she discusses a time she asked a female friend if they could show each other their breasts, but was rebuffed. (“If only I had a girlfriend,” she muses.) In another, she describes clinical details of her own vagina.
These passages are Anne’s own writing, and were part of her actual diary. Folman and Polonsky reproduce them in the book and show a full-page illustration showing her wandering through a garden of female nude statues in the Greco-Roman tradition.
This illustration, which is presented as coming from Anne’s imagination, has garnered the most intense blowback from parents. In Facebook groups devoted to book challenges, some members have shared screenshots of the page as evidence of the adaptation’s obscene qualities, questioning why any parent would want their child to read it.
Some people challenging the book have offered other explanations. Tiffany Justice, a co-founder of Moms For Liberty whose Florida district has removed the book, told JTA that she was troubled by the fact that the adaptation only replicates a small percentage of the original diary, while leaving out what she believed to be crucial context: the original epilogue that shifted from Anne’s first-person narration to a larger study of the victims of the Holocaust. (An afterword does appear in the graphic adaptation.)
Inveighing against current child literacy levels she said are woefully low, Justice was also infuriated by the idea that Frank’s diary needed an illustrated version to begin with.
“Anne wrote the diary when she was 13,” she said. “So the diary is written at a level where children of that age can completely understand it.”
What has happened when parents have challenged the book?
The book first grabbed headlines in August 2022, when administrators at Keller ISD, a public school district in the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas, ordered staff to remove it (along with a selection of other books) from their shelves. The book had been challenged by a single parent the previous year, and the school’s new board, backed by right-wing special interest groups, had ordered its review policy for classroom materials to be completely overhauled. Any books that had ever been challenged in the district were to be removed from circulation until the matter had been resolved. Following public outcry, the book was returned to Keller’s shelves a week later.
A second Texas school district, Katy ISD outside Houston, had also placed the book under review during the 2021-22 school year, ultimately determining it was only appropriate for high school students.
The book soon landed on the radar of parent activists in Florida. One Florida school district, Indian River County Schools on the state’s Atlantic coast, ruled in April that the book was “not age-appropriate” at any level of instruction, including high school. A parent there had challenged it, claiming that the book “minimizes the Holocaust.”
After a review, the district agreed with the parent, telling JTA it had determined the book to be “a fictional novel,” “not the real diary of Anne Frank,” and filled with “inappropriate content.” The district superintendent issued a statement backing the ruling, citing Florida’s statewide Holocaust education mandate as a reason why the school should not make the book available to students.
The national leadership of Moms For Liberty issued a statement siding with the district — and emphasizing that Anne Frank’s diary is not itself objectionable.
“There are multiple versions of Anne Frank’s diary of varying age appropriateness available to students,” the statement said. “Only this ONE version was removed.”
Justice, the Moms for Liberty cofounder, is a former board member for Indian River County Schools and still lives in the area. She told JTA she does not like the book either and said its removal was a sign of the system working as it should: School administrators took a parent’s challenge seriously and came to a decision.
“If the superintendent and the school board wanted it there, it would be there,” she said. “If the Holocaust education group in the county had wanted it there — these are Jewish people — had wanted it there, it would be there.”
Another Florida school district, Clay County Public Schools outside Jacksonville, has kept the book restricted from student access for some five months and counting, following a single parental complaint earlier this year. That parent, Bruce Friedman, is Jewish, and has become a leading voice of the broader book challenge movement. He challenged the graphic adaptation along with hundreds of other books in his district that he deemed to be inappropriate for students. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s grooming,” he told JTA about the adaptation.
Facing a backlog of book challenges, Clay County in April altered its challenge policy to make it harder for parents like Friedman to file blanket requests to remove many books at once for broadly defined reasons. But notably, the district retained the pending challenge to “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” even after its policy change. A final decision on the book is still pending.
How are the book’s supporters responding to the criticism?
Activists opposed to the book banning movement and experts on the diary’s publication history say critics of the Anne Frank adaptation are wrong even about the most basic facts of their objections.
First, while the visual format of the graphic adaptation (which incorporates some surreal imagery) arguably lies somewhere between fact and artistic interpretation, and its rendition of the diary is severely abridged, the book did not invent the passages these parents find objectionable, as some have alleged. Those came, word for word, from Frank herself. Both passages were fully restored to her English-language diary beginning with versions published in the 1980s, largely without incident.
A crucial part of the argument against the graphic adaptation is the idea that both of these passages were excised from the initial English-language edition of the diary. Both Friedman and Fine have told JTA they have no recollection of having read the passages with sexual content in their own childhood memories of the diary.
They almost certainly did, said Ruth Franklin, a book critic and author who is writing a book about Frank and her diary to be published next year by Yale University Press. According to Franklin’s research, the very first English-language edition of the diary did indeed include one of the two passages the parents are now objecting to: the part where Anne discusses her attraction to another girl.
Franklin said that, contrary to popular belief, Otto Frank was the one who pushed for the passage to be included in the diary’s first English-language edition after it was excised from the Dutch original. Otto is often portrayed as having been responsible for removing the passage so as to sanitize Anne’s language for a general audience.
Contemporary parents who insist they did not read the passage as children, she said, are “misremembering.”
“If they were to actually go to the library and open up the edition that has been in print since 1952, they would be unhappily surprised to find what’s there,” Franklin said. “It seems inconsistent to me to go after the graphic adaptation and not the diary itself.”
At least one parent has objected to the unabridged text-based version of the diary before. In 2013, a Michigan mom challenged an unabridged edition of the diary, citing the same passages that today’s parents are objecting to in the graphic adaptation. She argued that the unabridged diary was “inappropriate for the middle school,” and tried to push her daughter’s district to swap out the “definitive” edition of the diary for the original version that excised one of the objectionable passages. The parent’s objection made national news, was the subject of much condemnation and was ultimately rejected by the district.
Conditions in schools have changed in the last decade, with parents in multiple states newly empowered to challenge books in their children’s schools. The movement has caught up not only the graphic version of Anne Frank’s diary but a growing number of other titles with Jewish and Holocaust themes.
Meehan of PEN America suggested that the parents who objected to Anne exploring her sexuality were doing so because of the passages’ latent LGBTQ themes, meaning that the text had become an example of “intersectionality,” or representing more than one marginalized group. Some of the book’s opponents, including Justice, have separately attacked the idea of intersectionality.
“When there are multiple themes represented in a book,” Meehan said, “then that book becomes even more a focus of efforts to remove it.”
For the Anne Frank Fonds, the Swiss group that controls the diary and authorized the adaptation, the situation is clear-cut. From across the Atlantic, the group issued a statement responding to challenges of the diary in all its forms: “We consider the book of a 12-year-old girl to be appropriate reading for her peers.”
—
The post A new version of the famous Holocaust diary is being called ‘Anne Frank pornography’ and getting banned from schools appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Netanyahu is facing electoral catastrophe — and could place Israel in existential peril
For much of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s current term, Israelis have been told that they are on the verge of a historic military triumph. Netanyahu has been promising “total victory” since early 2024.
Yet the public mood inside Israel has darkened rather than lifted. After nearly three years of war, none of our enemies have actually been vanquished.
The war with Iran may resume at any moment, and the Iranian regime shows no sign of collapse, or of acquiescence to Israeli-American terms. Iran’s proxies — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen — all soldier on, certainly bruised but strangely unbowed.
And in Israel, reservists continue to be called up, and soldiers continue to die. Israel has absorbed devastating reputational damage, and the sense that the country has no positive political horizon has hardened into exhaustion.
As that exhaustion translates into polling that should terrify the prime minister, Israel faces an unprecedented internal danger: that Netanyahu will use a state of permanent emergency he has worked to enshrine to cancel upcoming elections altogether.
Over the weekend, the combined party of former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid passed Netanyahu in many of the polls. Per one poll, the opposition together is now leading him by 71 to 49 seats — a 19-seat swing relative to the current Knesset. And because several small opposition-aligned parties are currently polling below the electoral threshold, the actual anti-government majority in a real election could be larger still.
The direction of travel is clear, the deficit in the polls for the right-religious bloc is huge, and the danger for Netanyahu is real. He faces a plausible future in which he not only loses power in the election that by law must be held by the end of October, but loses decisively.
That’s why many Israelis suspect the election may not occur.
In a recent Hebrew-language column, Haaretz writer Ravit Hecht wrote that when Netanyahu “ is vulnerable and lagging behind, he is at his most dangerous.”.
“Netanyahu will try to ignite an external front — preferably with Iran — in order to manufacture a state of emergency.,” Hecht added. “If he fails to maneuver Donald Trump into renewing the war with Iran, and if that leaves his hands tied in Lebanon or constrains his moves in Gaza, he will inflame the domestic front instead.”
Victory, or emergency
Netanyahu may see two possible lifelines.
The first: political redemption through the kind of overwhelming victory he’s been promising for years. If the Iranian regime were somehow destabilized or collapsed, Netanyahu could argue that history had vindicated him. Enough Israelis who currently view the wars as endless and inconclusive might reinterpret the sacrifices as the painful prelude to a transformative strategic success.
The trouble: years of promising such a victory, with no clear returns, make its likelihood at this late hour very dubious.
The second possibility is darker and more dangerous: capitalizing on a state of permanent emergency.
Israel adopted a siege mentality during the six weeks of war with Iran, weathering mass missile barrages, civilian deaths and profoundly disrupted routines. If those conditions re-emerged under a resumption of war, the government could attempt to argue that national elections are impossible during wartime.
Ministers in Netanyahu’s coalition have spent years preparing the ideological ground for precisely such a claim — and the confrontation it would spark with Israel’s democratic institutions.
Netanyahu’s allies have portrayed the Supreme Court as governed by an illegitimate elite conspiracy. They describe judges not as guardians of the constitutional order but as enemies of the popular will. The current chief justice, Yitzhak Amit, has faced relentless delegitimization campaigns. Senior ministers have openly suggested that court rulings need not be obeyed.
Any attempt to delay or suspend elections would almost certainly trigger intervention by the court. Israel lacks a formal written constitution, but it possesses a dense web of so-called Basic Laws, precedents, and institutional norms that collectively form its constitutional structure. If the government attempted to legislate an indefinite postponement of elections under emergency conditions, the Supreme Court would likely strike the move down.
At that point, Israel could face a constitutional crisis unprecedented in its history: a government claiming emergency authority against a judiciary insisting on democratic continuity.
The government’s position would be strong, because Israel’s institutions are deeply dependent on executive cooperation. If a determined government sought to sabotage the electoral process indirectly while claiming national necessity, the Central Electoral Commission would face immense practical obstacles. At the same time, the Supreme Court lacks any practical enforcement mechanisms
An uncomfortable bargain
None of this means Israeli democracy is doomed. Israeli institutions remain resilient, civil society remains energetic, and public resistance to authoritarian overreach would likely be massive. But it does mean that scenarios once dismissed as hysterical are now being discussed openly by serious observers.
There is, however, another path still faintly visible.
Increasingly, Israeli political circles are discussing the possibility of a negotiated Netanyahu exit from public life. Netanyahu has already sought ways to terminate or freeze his ongoing corruption trial. Under Israeli practice, a presidential pardon generally requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing and some expression of remorse.
If Netanyahu were willing to plead to a reduced offense such as breach of trust rather than the more severe bribery charges, President Isaac Herzog could potentially justify a pardon framed as an act of national reconciliation. Such an arrangement would go against Netanyahu’s pugnacious grain. But he may fear the humiliation of resounding defeat — and the end of any plausible excuses for delaying his trial — even more. It is even conceivable, although far from likely, that he would not choose to cause debilitating harm to Israel.
A bargain — Netanyahu steps back from politics in exchange for a pardon — would outrage many Israelis. Others would see it as a necessary escape hatch from national trauma. And Netanyahu himself would preserve a version of the story he has always wanted to tell: that of a historic statesman stepping aside after defending Israel through existential wars, not a defeated leader dragged from office in disgrace.
His supporters would accept the narrative. His opponents would accept the outcome. Israeli democracy, bruised and deeply damaged, would survive without crossing into outright institutional rupture.
It may be the least destructive option available. Democracies can survive flawed leaders. And Netanyahu, in his obsession with clinging to power, has made the need for this radical option existential.
The post Netanyahu is facing electoral catastrophe — and could place Israel in existential peril appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Texas Sex Therapist in Congressional Race Calls for Castrating, Incarcerating ‘American Zionists’
Maureen Galindo, a sex therapist running for US Congress in Texas as a Democrat. Photo: Screenshot
The Democratic Party has rushed to condemn one of their own — Maureen Galindo, a candidate for US Congress in Texas’s 35th district — following an Instagram post last weekend in which she threatened Americans who support Israel with castration and internment.
“When Maureen gets into Congress, she’ll write legislation so that all Zionism and support of Zionism is undoubtedly Anti-Semitic, since it’s Zionists harming the Semites,” a post appearing on Galindo’s campaign account read. “She’ll turn Karnes ICE [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers for human trafficking. (It will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles which will probably be most of the Zionists).”
The post charged that Galindo’s Democratic primary opponent Johnny Garcia, the public information officer for Bexar County’s Sheriff Javier Salazar, “wants Jews and Mexicans in warehouses.” The campaign asserted that “the billionaire Zionists that control San Antonio and South Texas trafficking networks have coordinated a blitz campaign to propagate the conspiracy that anti-Zionist Maureen Galindo wants Jews in warehouses.”
The Instagram post added that “she would never blame ALL Jews for THE Jews (the Zionists) who have committed genocide on the indigenous Jews (the Semites) of the Middle East. Real Jews are VICTIMS of the Fake Jews (the Zionists).”
Galindo has also claimed that Jews control Hollywood and worship in a “synagogue of Satan,” perpetuating classic antisemitic ideas that have been promoted by both neo-Nazis and far-left extremists.
Democrats have started scrambling to ensure Galindo fails to advance to the general election. The Democratic primary runoff between Galindo, who finished first in the initial vote, and Garcia is scheduled for May 26.
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) released a statement blaming Republicans for spotlighting Galindo in an effort to damage Democrats politically.
“House Republican leadership must immediately cease propping up this antisemitic candidacy, pull spending in the race, and forcefully condemn these comments,” they said. “This vile language by her is disqualifying and has no place in American politics, and certainly not in the Democratic Party.”
According to Democrats, Republicans are the true backers of Galindo’s campaign, with almost the entirety of her funding coming from a mysterious group called Lead Left which emerged earlier this month. Researchers found metadata on the website which suggested alleged links to WinRed, a Republican fundraising platform.
On Wednesday, Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) released a joint statement on X warning that “if for some reason, Maureen Galindo wins the congressional election in TX-35, as soon as she is sworn in, we will force a vote to expel her every single day we are here. Maureen’s insane, antisemitic views – including putting Americans in concentration camps – have no place in our party or country.”
Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico has announced that he will refuse to campaign with Galindo.
“This antisemitic rhetoric has no place in our politics,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “We need leadership in both parties willing to stand up and call out hate wherever it rears its ugly head.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), called Galindo’s statements “absolutely disgusting.”
“This bigoted garbage and antisemitism should be nowhere near our politics,” she posted on X. “If you’re in TX-35, vote for @johnnygarciatx. And the donors behind the Republican super PAC funding her should be exposed.”
Galindo defended herself in a text exchange with the Texas Tribune, claiming that reports of her Instagram post were “miswording my proposal to sound anti-Jew,” adding, “All politicians who have taken Israeli money should be tried for treason for aiding a foreign national with materials to harm Americans.”
In response to a question about how she felt about Democrats opposing her, she the candidate said that she did not care “what any Zionist-owned politician thinks. They’re exposing themselves as Zionists which will backfire on them.”
Galindo operates a business she has christened Exulted Sex Therapy, which offers to “increase safety, increase pleasure” at rates of $200 hourly for individuals or $250 for couples. She states on her site that “with my judgement-free [sic] and systemic approach to sex and wellness, you’ll learn to navigate various facets of your sexuality: anatomy & physiology, thoughts & emotions, and heart & spirit. Through this integration, you’ll discover the keys that unlock your most authentic pleasures.”
Galindo also encourages her potential clients to “inquire about including an astrology report.” She previously operated Cosmic Kinks Tarot in Bexar County, where she offered “kinky birth chart readings” and “live Tarot therapy” with her goal of empowering individuals “through the exploration of their sexuality, spirituality, and the stars,” according to a report from the Daily Mail.
Uncategorized
Trump Says Negotiations With Iran in Final Stages, Warns of Attacks if Deal Fails
A man holds a flag with a picture of late leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, late Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, during a rally in Tehran, Iran, April 29, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that negotiations with Iran were “in the final stages,” while warning of further attacks unless Tehran agrees to a peace deal.
Six weeks since Trump paused Operation Epic Fury for a ceasefire, talks to end the war have shown little progress. Trump said this week he came close to ordering more attacks but held off to allow time for negotiations.
“We’re in the final stages of Iran. We’ll see what happens. Either have a deal or we’re going to do some things that are a little bit nasty, but hopefully that won’t happen,” he told reporters.
“Ideally I’d like to see few people killed, as opposed to a lot. We can do it either way.”
Speaking later at the US Coast Guard Academy, Trump reprised his either/or rhetoric – “We may have to hit them very hard … but maybe not” – and reiterated his determination not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.
Tehran, for its part, accused Trump of plotting to restart the war, and threatened to retaliate for any strikes with attacks beyond the Middle East.
“If aggression against Iran is repeated, the promised regional war will extend beyond the region this time,” the Revolutionary Guards said in a statement.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Iran‘s top peace negotiator, said in an audio message on social media that “obvious and hidden moves by the enemy” showed the Americans were preparing new attacks.
‘SUSPICION OVER AMERICA’S PERFORMANCE’
Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei later said the US had to end its “piracy” against Iranian ships – a reference to the US blockade of Iranian ports.
“Despite the negative record of the other side over the past year and a half, Iran is pursuing the path of negotiations with seriousness and good faith, but it has strong and reasonable suspicion over America’s performance,” Baghaei said.
In the latest diplomatic push, the interior minister of Pakistan – which hosted the only round of peace talks so far and has since been the conduit for messages between the sides – was in Tehran on Wednesday.
Baghaei said Washington and Tehran continued to exchange messages through the Pakistani minister’s mediation.
Iran submitted a new offer to the United States this week. Tehran’s descriptions suggest it largely repeats terms previously rejected by Trump, including demands for control of the Strait of Hormuz, compensation for war damage, lifting of sanctions, release of frozen assets, and the withdrawal of US troops from the area.
Trump has said he called off attacks this week at the last minute in response to requests from several of Iran‘s Gulf neighbors. On Tuesday he said he had been an hour away from ordering strikes.
CHINESE TANKERS CROSS STRAIT
Iran has largely shut the Strait of Hormuz to all ships apart from its own since the US-Israeli campaign began in February, causing a massive disruption to global energy supplies. The US responded last month with its own blockade of Iran‘s ports.
Iran says it aims to reopen the strait to friendly countries that abide by its terms. That could potentially include fees for access, which Washington says would be unacceptable.
Baghaei said late on Wednesday that Iran was ready to establish with Oman a mechanism to ensure sustainable security in the Strait of Hormuz.
Two giant Chinese tankers laden with a total of around 4 million barrels of oil exited the strait on Wednesday. Iran had announced last week, while Trump was in Beijing for a summit, that it had agreed to ease rules for Chinese ships.
South Korea’s foreign minister said on Wednesday a Korean tanker was crossing the strait in cooperation with Iran.
Shipping monitor Lloyd’s List said at least 54 ships had transited the strait last week, about double the previous week. Iran said 26 ships had crossed in the past 24 hours, still only a fraction of the 140 per day before the war.
PRESSURE TO END WAR
Trump is under pressure to end the war, with soaring energy prices hurting his Republican Party ahead of congressional elections in November. Since the ceasefire, his public comments have veered from threats to restart bombing and claims that a deal is close.
The fluctuating US stance has sent oil prices swinging. Benchmark one-month Brent crude futures dropped to $105.76 per barrel late on Wednesday, down 4.95% on the day on revived hopes of a deal.
“Investors are keen to gauge whether Washington and Tehran can actually find common ground and reach a peace agreement, with the US stance shifting daily,” said Toshitaka Tazawa, an analyst at Fujitomi Securities.
The US-Israeli bombing devastated Iran’s military capabilities, including its defense industrial base, before it was suspended in a ceasefire in early April.
Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said when they launched the war that their aims were to curb Iran‘s support for regional militias, dismantle its nuclear program, destroy its missile capabilities, and make it easier for Iranians to topple their rulers.
But Iran has so far retained its stockpile of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium, and its ability to threaten neighbors with missiles, drones, and proxy militias, though toa lesser degree. Its clerical rulers, who put down a mass uprising at the start of the year, have faced no sign of organized opposition since the war began.