2 critical Iran lifelines the US has left largely untouched — just as cease-fire talks stall

 The cease-fire with Iran, though extended, could end any day now. Meanwhile, Iran has fired on tankers, opened and closed the Strait of Hormuz within hours and rejected Washington’s core demands.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, not Iran’s civilian government, is calling the shots. And a senior US official confirmed this week what the numbers have shown all along: “Iran has no money. They’re broke. We know it. And they know we know it.”

If that is true, a deal is closer than the chaos suggests. But only if Washington uses the right instruments.

During a public rally at Tehran’s Enghelab Square on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, a missile identified as “Khorramshahr-4” was displayed in support of Iran’s negotiating team, while US President Trump extended the cease-fire at the request of a Pakistani mediator.Behnam Tofighi/UPI/Shutterstock

The air campaign produced real results. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was damaged, its navy destroyed, its proxy network disrupted. Those are real and significant gains.

The naval blockade announced after last weekend’s failed Islamabad talks is cutting off 90% of Iran’s seaborne trade.

Yet even as the US prepares to board additional Iran-linked dark fleet tankers in international waters, the IRGC’s ability to hold out remains intact, because Washington has left two critical financial lifelines largely untouched.

Cut off oil funds

The first is Kharg Island. Kharg handles 90% of Iran’s crude exports, roughly 1.5 million barrels a day, worth about $140 million daily at current prices.

Iran’s defense budget channels over half of those oil revenues to the military, with the IRGC taking the largest cut. That money pays 190,000 personnel. The blockade squeezes Iran’s imports and has made outbound shipments far riskier, but it does not touch Kharg’s loading terminals, storage tanks or the pipelines connecting the island to the mainland.

Washington has struck Kharg’s weapons. It has not struck Kharg’s wallet. Those are not the same target.

Forcing Iran to shut production due to lack of storage would risk long-term reservoir damage, including permeability loss, water coning and formation compaction — effects that could permanently reduce future output and cash flow.

The second lifeline is a floating reserve of roughly 200 million barrels of Iranian crude sitting on tankers near China, about five months of export supply that the IRGC stockpiled before the war as a financial cushion.

Stronger measures

The blockade and planned boardings do not yet fully neutralize it. As long as that reserve exists, the IRGC can sustain its current position for months without a single new barrel moving through Hormuz.

If the cease-fire expires without a framework agreement, two steps would change the IRGC’s calculus in ways nothing deployed so far has managed.

The first is a targeted strike on Kharg’s loading equipment, the trucks, pumps, manifolds and loading arms that move oil from storage onto tankers. Under normal conditions, this equipment can be repaired in weeks. Under sanctions, with spare parts unavailable, the timeline stretches to months.

Because these facilities directly fund IRGC military operations, they may constitute legitimate military objectives under the Law of Armed Conflict, subject to full legal review. Former CENTCOM commander Gen. Kenneth McKenzie said publicly this month that Kharg is legally defensible and that striking it would shut down Iran’s oil export capability.

The target is identified. The legal case looks solid. The capability is ready.

The second step is less conventional but potentially more powerful. Washington should designate the entire floating reserve under IRGC sanctions, extend the blockade’s intercept authority to cover any tanker attempting delivery and offer China a structured escrow arrangement. Proceeds from Iranian crude purchases would be held in a neutral account pending verified IRGC compliance.

While the US is preparing to board additional dark fleet vessels, physical seizure of tankers in Chinese-adjacent waters is not operationally realistic without Chinese cooperation. The financial mechanism achieves the same result without a naval confrontation in sensitive waters.

The complexities are real. Chinese acquiescence is not guaranteed, and the legal framework requires careful construction, but Beijing could be incentivized with eased US tariffs, technology concessions and guaranteed alternative oil supplies at competitive prices.

The concept does not need to be executed immediately to be effective. It needs to be communicated to the IRGC as a tool Washington is prepared to use.

Ideology vs. survival

An institution watching its financial cushion come under credible threat, with its payroll bank already struck and its export revenues blocked, faces a fundamentally different calculation than one that believes its reserves are safe.

The IRGC negotiating in Islamabad is harder and more ideologically driven than the leadership Washington dealt with in 2015. But ideology and institutional self-preservation are not the same thing. Even radical institutions protect their finances when those finances are directly threatened.

Iran’s military payroll bank, Sepah Bank, has already been struck and is under sustained cyberattack. The pressure is building. The question is whether Washington completes the squeeze before the floating reserve buys Iran another round of talks without real concessions.

The blockade is necessary, but it is not enough. If the cease-fire ends without a deal, two decisive targets remain that Washington has not yet pressured: Kharg’s loading infrastructure and its floating reserve.

Both directly hit the IRGC’s financial lifelines and appear legally sound under the Law of Armed Conflict. The analytical and targeting case for each is strong.

Washington knows Iran is broke. The question is whether it uses the tools that prove it.

Capt. Lance B. Gordon (US Navy, ret.) is a retired US Navy intelligence officer and US Army War College and New York University School of Law graduate. From RealClearDefense.

https://nypost.com/2026/04/21/opinion/the-2-critical-iran-lifelines-the-us-has-left-largely-untouched-just-as-cease-fire-talks-stall/

Supreme Court hit job reinforces a dangerous leftist trend

 For progressives, every institutional norm is sacred until it stands in the way of their political goals.

Such is the case with the left’s latest assault on the Supreme Court.

It’s an ongoing campaign of public pressure, intra-court sniping and conveniently timed leaks — all designed to delegitimize the justices whenever the court refuses to function as a super-legislature for the Democratic Party.

Start with Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s remarkable outburst two weeks ago.

She publicly criticized Justice Brett Kavanaugh by taking a swipe at his “privilege” — as though a justice’s personal background somehow disqualifies him from participating in legal debate.

It was ugly stuff, more at home in a graduate seminar than among members of the nation’s highest court.

Still, Sotomayor then did something vanishingly rare in our public life: She apologized.

Good for her.

The incident seemed to be a reminder that the court, for all its tensions, still functions better and with more civility than our other branches of government.

That should’ve been the end of it — but now it looks like the opening act.

Last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson launched her own attack, this time on the court’s use of what progressives call the “shadow docket” — decisions made about interim relief on an expedited basis.

One need not be an uncritical fan of emergency orders to see the selectivity here.

Would Jackson be delivering lectures on the dangers of expedited relief if the cases in question involved Republican-appointed district judges issuing nationwide injunctions against President Joe Biden’s executive orders?

This approach is pure gaslighting: When lower courts issue sweeping rulings against conservative policies, that’s “judicial independence”; when the Supreme Court steps in, it’s a constitutional crisis.

The principle never changes for progressives, because there is no principle.

Then came the really disturbing part.

A few days after Jackson’s broadside, the New York Times published a story based on leaked internal Supreme Court memoranda, slamming the emergency docket and, not coincidentally, Chief Justice John Roberts.

So let’s review the sequence: public attacks from liberal justices, escalating media criticism of the court’s emergency orders, then a prestige-paper exposé built on confidential documents that just happen to reinforce the same political narrative.

Doesn’t this have all the hallmarks of a left-wing stitch-up?

That doesn’t mean everybody sat in a room and conspired. Politics rarely works that way.

It means that an ideological ecosystem — liberal legal activists, sympathetic journalists, Democratic politicians and institutional allies — predictably converges on the same target, at the same time, for the same purpose: to intimidate the court into behaving differently.

And let’s be clear about what’s most scandalous here.

The worst part of those leaked memos isn’t what they reveal about internal disagreement: Courts are made of human beings who, to do their jobs, must argue, cajole and maneuver.

No, the real outrage is that confidential deliberations were leaked yet again, apparently for partisan purposes.

That should terrify anyone who cares about the judiciary as an institution.

The Supreme Court simply can’t function if private deliberations become just another political weapon.

The justices need space to test arguments, change their minds and write candidly to one another.

Turn every internal memo into future front-page fodder and you corrode the very process by which the court reaches sound judgments.

That’s why legal experts including Will Baude, Josh Blackman, Jack Goldsmith and others are rightly criticizing the Times’ framing.

The reporting strains to depict Roberts, of all people, as some kind of ideological bulldozer, as though forceful legal argument were itself sinister.

Justices are supposed to persuade each other, and chief justices are supposed to lead.

Strongly worded memos aren’t evidence of anything nefarious, but of good-faith jurisprudence.

Like ProPublica’s past attacks on Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, this is one big nothingburger.

But it’s evidence of the deeper problem: that too many people on the left refuse to accept the legitimacy of a Supreme Court they don’t control.

So they threaten court-packing, smear the justices, denounce emergency rulings as inherently suspect, and traffic in leaks from inside the marble palace.

They lost the court, so they’re trying to break it.

That should alarm citizens of all political stripes.

Because once judicial confidentiality and institutional legitimacy are treated as expendable, the damage will not stop with one chief justice or one president’s term.

It will spread to the entire constitutional order.

And unlike Sotomayor, the architects of this pressure campaign aren’t about to apologize.

Ilya Shapiro is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute and author of the Shapiro’s Gavel newsletter.

https://nypost.com/2026/04/22/opinion/new-supreme-court-hit-job-unveils-a-dangerous-leftist-trend/

Oil jumps 3% on Hormuz ship seizures

 Crude prices continued to climb on Wednesday after Iran claimed to have seized two vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, escalating Middle East tensions.

The attacks came even as the US extended its ceasefire deal with Iran, leaving the fate of negotiations uncertain. Tehran has linked future talks to Washington lifting its port blockade.

West Texas Intermediate (WTI) for June's settlements jumped by 3.48% at 11:37 am ET to sell for $92.79 per barrel. Meanwhile, Brent for June's deliveries increased by 3.34% to $101.77 per barrel.

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Oil-jumps-3-on-Hormuz-ship-seizures/66125744

Peskov: We hope Witkoff's trips to Russia will continue

 Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov expressed hope on Wednesday that United States Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and US President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner will continue visiting Moscow for negotiations.

"We hope that these trips will continue. But when exactly it will be, we cannot say now, as soon as we decide, we will report," Peskov told reporters.

Earlier today, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that he does not see a chance to meet US negotiators until the war in Iran is over.

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Peskov:-We-hope-Witkoff's-trips-to-Russia-will-continue/66125935

A New Iran (Military?) Base Case

 By Michael Every of Rabobank

Our central assumption for the Iran war had been that by end the third week of April at latest, the Iranian regime faction willing to make a deal in line with Trump’s tweets would have asserted itself over those who won’t, Hormuz would slowly reopen, and energy markets gradually normalise.

As neither the Iranian nor US negotiating teams traveled to Pakistan for the second round of peace talks yesterday, that cannot happen. Our new geopolitical base case is of an extended closure of Hormuz (in the range of 2-4 weeks). However, the likelihood of escalation to achieve that de-escalation is very high, which risks more energy supply damage.

Trump just unilaterally and indefinitely extended the ceasefire, “based on the fact that the Government of Iran is seriously fractured,” which the Iranians didn’t request, but Pakistan did. In the Middle East, making a threat and not following through smacks of weakness, and will be noted (again) by Tehran’s hardliners. He added US attacks would be held off “until such time as their leadership and representatives can come up with a unified proposal.” That’s as a Saudi tweet claimed Ghalibaf and Pezeskhian, willing to negotiate with Trump, have been arrested by the IRGC.

If true, that points to a unified Iranian position of defiance. That would then require a US response - either an attack or a 1956 Suez Crisis retreat. Of course, Iran may be incapable of a unified answer until its factions turn on each other (which is likely part of the US strategy) - that would also suggest the need for a US attack, to ‘shake the box’. Or this ceasefire extension can be a US deception as its forces continue to fly or sail into the region.

Meanwhile, the US economic blockade of Iran and the de facto Iranian blockade of Hormuz remain in place: critical energy and goods are not going to flow for longer, with exponentially rising economic damage. Indeed, the US says it will ramp up Operation ‘Economic Fury’ at sea and via sanctions. Iran claims it will break its blockade by force, if it persists, which would of course lead us straight to an escalation again.

Importantly, the threat of an extended throttling of Hormuz will increase the global pressure to act. On one hand, US allies might do something, though this seems unlikely. On the other, China may have to given it has already stated it wants Hormuz to reopen.

Looked at like this, there is nothing for markets to savor about a ‘chicken TACO Tuesday’. Indeed, screen oil prices only softened a little in response to the US ceasefire extension, and the price of physical oil and products in Asia will continue to rise unless Hormuz reopens.

Yet it’s undeniable the extended ceasefire also points towards a true TACO, which we’ve long made clear would be a geopolitical earthquake on par with the 1956 Suez Crisis. Were that to occur, it might be bearish for energy but could leave Iran in charge of Hormuz, which is less so; or Israel in charge of removing Iran from Hormuz, so far less so. Moreover, it would be it would be bearish for lots of assets markets don’t yet envision.

This is as Trump says a proposed currency swap with the UAE -- which is pegged to the dollar-- is under consideration, with some suggestions China will step in if not. That such an economy might need a dollar facility says a lot about the new world (dis)order that is emerging.

In parallel to Iran, Israel and Hezbollah’s ceasefire is holding on by its fingernails. Lebanon’s PM says his government will not let Hezbollah “intimidate us” – which lack of government actions shows it clearly does; and top US senators are calling to halt aid to Lebanon’s army over its failed Hezbollah disarmament efforts.

Things are also fluid --but not flowing-- on other geopolitical fronts. Zelenskyy stated the Druzhba oil pipeline will be ready to ship Russian oil again – as Russia halted Kazakhstan's oil flows to Germany via it, worsening its energy crisis.

The €90bn EU loan to Ukraine may now proceed, with Kyiv expected to spend the bulk of it on US Patriots, UK Storm Shadows and its own drones – which will be used to hit Russian oil refineries based on the recent heuristic. Yet Ukraine is reportedly proposing naming part of the disputed Donbas region to ‘Donnyland’ in Trump’s honor, not Von der Leyen-land.

At the same time the EU is trying to ease new tensions with Turkey, which also hosts energy pipelines leading to it, after VDL used a media interview to name the EU neighbour alongside Russia and China as threats to Europe requiring Brussels to ‘Complete the continent.” To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “To lose one key NATO ally may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.”

Meanwhile, as the Middle East and Russian energy complexes are mired in war, a key trader warns of a looming global food shock due to a squeeze on fertilizers; the EU is looking to revive joint gas buying as energy fears mount, which critics say will make little difference; Brussels said we should keep flying despite a looming fuel shortage as “Fears of widespread cancellations are overblown” – as Lufthansa axed 20,000 ‘unprofitable’ flights to save jet fuel; and EU lawmakers urged the Parliament to halt its monthly trip to Strasbourg over energy costs.

So, to central banks. See our US strategist Philip Marey’s take on Fed Chair nominee Warsh’s Senate confirmation hearing here, but note he had a tough time, reflecting how much political economy has shifted in the past few years. (Recall “Maestro’ Greenspan, anyone?)

Senator Warren called Warsh President Trump’s “sock puppet.” Then there were a series of questions over Warsh’s wealth, and the extent to which it was tied to Trump, Druckenmiller, China, or Epstein. That’s before we got to actual central banking, which was also disputed.

Warsh had to underline that he backs Fed independence. Yet he thinks interest rates rather than the balance sheet should be the dominant tool of monetary policy, because the distributional effects of the latter favoured the rich, while the more pervasive effects of the former reached everybody. That statement undoes most of the post-GFC central bank strategy.

Warsh also said he wants to work with the Treasury Secretary to see how the Fed can reduce the balance sheet and get out of fiscal policy. That’s as the Pentagon budget is about to increase by 40% and the Treasury is extending its reach into other areas as part of US economic statecraft.

Moreover, while there was some Q&A around the impact of the Iran war on inflation, there was no revealed view on how the Fed can keep CPI low if physical supply constraints matter, from oil to AI to the military; nor what to do if those constraints extend into the geopolitical realm, both in terms of freely-perceived problems and politesse-free solutions. Saying ‘That’s not my job,’ is not how economic statecraft works.

There was also a short discussion of crypto, which Warsh backed: and US dollar stablecoins are potential US economic statecraft, as we have previously explained. Yet there were no questions about political swaplines, perhaps because the Treasury is also muscling in on that territory of late(?)

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/new-iran-military-base-case

Merck, rivals eye deal for Inhibrx experimental cancer drug tied to Keytruda, sources say

Inhibrx Biosciences has drawn interest from drugmakers including Merck & Co, Germany’s Merck KGaA and Japan's Ono Pharmaceutical for an experimental cancer treatment that could be valued at more than $8 billion, people familiar with the matter said.

The San ‌Diego-based biotech is exploring the joint spin-off of the drug, INBRX-106, and a second experimental cancer treatment, which could have a combined value ‌of more than $9 billion if clinical trials succeed, the people said.

Interest is concentrated on INBRX-106, which is being tested alone and in combination with Merck's Keytruda. Inhibrx has said it believes its ​drug can boost the efficacy of New Jersey-based Merck's more than $30-billion-a-year immunotherapy, the world's top-selling prescription medicine.

Keytruda, which is approved to treat a wide variety of cancers, accounted for almost half of Merck's global sales in 2025.

Talks are in early stages and any deal would likely be several months away, with valuation hinging on upcoming trial results, the people said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the matter is private.

Inhibrx declined to comment. Merck, German Merck and Ono did not immediately respond to ‌requests for comment.

UPDATES ON BOTH DRUGS EXPECTED

Expected results of ⁠clinical trials should support the case for both drugs, people close to the information said.

The company said it will provide an update on ozekibart, which received fast track and orphan drug designations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday. ⁠It is expected to disclose it has filed for FDA approval of ozekibart, one of the people said.

The therapy, which has shown positive results in Phase 1/2 trials for Ewing sarcoma and colorectal cancer, could be valued at about $1  billion, two of the people said.

Ozekibart is designed to promote cancer cell death. In one Ewing sarcoma study, patients ​saw tumors ​shrink by about 52%, the company has said.

INBRX-106 could be worth $8 billion or more ​if trials confirm its potential to boost Keytruda's already impressive ‌efficacy. Ultimate valuation will depend on how well patients respond, the people said.


The drug is an antibody that boosts immune response by activating a receptor on T cells, a key component of the immune system.

Preliminary results from more than half of the 60 recruited patients in Phase 2/3 combination trials with Keytruda so far support the potential to improve patient overall response rates to 45%, from 30% with Keytruda alone, one of the people said.

The company is planning to disclose interim results next month, one of the people said.

"We think INBRX-106 is highly investable through targeting the narrow Keytruda-responder base to enhance this $32 billion drug’s cure-like ‌efficacy," Stifel biotech analyst Dara Azar said in a recent client note.

Stifel initiated coverage of ​the largely unknown biotech this month with a "buy" rating and a $150 price target. Inhibrx shares ​closed at $84.08 on Tuesday.

Clinical trials are being conducted in patients with advanced ​head and neck cancers, which have limited treatment options.

BUYER APPEAL

INBRX-106 would be of particular strategic interest to Merck, which is ‌looking for new revenue sources as its blockbuster immunotherapy faces the ​loss of patent protections in 2028.

That strategic ​fit, however, does not give Merck an advantage as a potential buyer, the people said.

INBRX-106 could equally attract attention from other top-tier drugmakers looking to bolster their immuno-oncology offerings, the people said. Those include Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and J&J, one of the people said.

The drug is unlikely ​to reach the market before Merck begins facing competition ‌from less expensive biosimilar versions of Keytruda.

Inhibrx is considering a spinout structure similar to its 2024 deal with Sanofi, one of the ​people said. In that transaction, Sanofi acquired INBRX-101 for $30 per share in cash, plus a $5 contingent value right tied to regulatory milestones.

https://www.aol.com/articles/exclusive-merck-rivals-eye-deal-110208174.html

Gas damage could become structural if war lasts, gas forum head says

 

Damage to natural gas infrastructure from the Iran war could become structural if the conflict lasts six months, the head of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum said on Wednesday.

Secretary General Philip Mshelbila said the longer the war continues, the greater the risk that disruptions to gas supply and infrastructure could become permanent.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/liveblog/202604194357