By Gustavo de Arístegui,
April 7, 2026
I. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
The 38th day of Operation Epic Fury dawns with the highest tension since the conflict began on February 28, 2016. The ultimatum that President Donald Trump has imposed on the Iranian jihadist oligarchy regime expires this evening—Tuesday, April 7, at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time—without Tehran having agreed to the essential condition : the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The world finds itself, once again, facing the dilemma that defines our time: the effectiveness of coercive measures versus the precipice of escalation.
In the last 24 hours, events have unfolded with a pace that leaves no room for complacency. Iran, through Pakistan, has conveyed a ten-point counterproposal rejecting the temporary truce and demanding a permanent cessation of hostilities with guarantees; Trump called it a “significant but insufficient proposal.” The price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil is nearing $113 a barrel, in what the International Energy Agency (IEA) has unequivocally described as “the biggest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.” And, as if the situation weren’t complex enough, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has revealed that Russia has shared detailed satellite intelligence with Iran on 55 Israeli energy facilities—a chilling fact that confirms the depth of the Moscow-Tehran axis in this war.
The world breathes amidst the tweet and the missile. Stock markets tremble. The strategic oil reserves of the IEA countries (400 million barrels released in the largest operation of its kind in history) buy time, but cannot replace the 12 million barrels per day blocked in the Gulf. Europe, as usual, observed the situation with the nonchalance of those who can’t quite believe the world is on fire.
II. MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE LAST 24 HOURS
1. Trump’s ultimatum to Iran: the Strait of Hormuz and the threshold of escalation
FACTS
President Donald Trump, in a press conference held on Monday, April 6, at the White House, reiterated his ultimatum to the Iranian regime with unprecedented force: if the Strait of Hormuz is not fully operational by 8:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday, April 7, he will order the systematic bombing of Iranian power plants and bridges. “The entire country can be wiped out in one night, and that night could be tonight,” the US president declared. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, acting more like a “Secretary of War” given the eminently bellicose nature of his statements, warned that the United States is carrying out more attacks against Iran than on any other day since the beginning of the conflict. Trump described Iran’s rejection of a 45-day truce as “significant but insufficient,” noting that Tehran is negotiating “in good faith,” albeit with unacceptable conditions.
Iran transmitted a ten-point counterproposal through Pakistan, including a permanent cessation of hostilities throughout the region, a safe transit protocol across the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of sanctions, and commitments to reconstruction. Tehran explicitly rejects any temporary ceasefire: “We will not accept a mere ceasefire; we will only accept an end to the war with guarantees that we will not be attacked again,” stated Mojtaba Ferdousi Pour, head of the Iranian diplomatic mission in Cairo. The new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, declared that the ranks of the Iranian fighting force are “so high and deeply rooted that neither terrorism nor crime can break its resolve.”
IMPLICATIONS
The situation is critical. If Trump carries out his threat, the conflict will enter a qualitatively different phase: the systematic bombing of Iranian civilian infrastructure—electrical and transportation—raises serious legal questions under International Humanitarian Law and will exponentially increase the number of civilian casualties. If he does not, the credibility of the ultimatum will be irreversibly eroded, something Trump cannot afford. This is the dilemma his own unrestrained rhetoric has created: the trap of the leader who makes unpredictability a system of governance. In any case, the diplomatic window—Pakistan as mediator, Ghalibaf as a potentially viable interlocutor, Witkoff maintaining direct contact via text with Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi—remains, miraculously, ajar.
PERSPECTIVES AND SCENARIOS
Scenario A — Minimal agreement before 8:00 PM ET: possible, but unlikely in its execution. Trump needs to present some tangible success; Iran needs a way out that doesn’t look like a complete capitulation. A limited transit protocol for the strait, with generic commitments and verification to be agreed upon, could save face for both sides. Scenario B — Another tacit extension: Trump has extended the deadline multiple times; the markets have already priced in the possibility of a bluff. The devaluation of his ultimatums is the price of having abused them. Scenario C — Bombing of civilian infrastructure: if carried out, the humanitarian consequences will be severe, the price of oil will exceed $130/barrel, and the international narrative will immediately shift to Tehran. The paradox of decapitation—removing leadership to facilitate negotiations—could become the paradox of radicalization.
2. Russia supplies Iran with satellite intelligence on 55 Israeli energy targets
FACTS
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed on April 5, and confirmed on April 6, that Ukrainian military intelligence has “irrefutable proof” that Russia has provided Iran with satellite imagery and detailed intelligence on approximately 50 to 55 Israeli energy facilities—all civilian infrastructure with no military purpose. According to The Jerusalem Post, which cited sources close to Ukrainian intelligence, the targets are classified into three categories: critical production facilities (such as the Orot Rabin power plant), major urban and industrial energy centers, and local substations. The Russian assessment shared with Tehran concludes that Israel, being an “energy island” without interconnection to neighboring countries, is particularly vulnerable: damaging a few critical nodes could trigger a total and prolonged electrical collapse. Zelensky emphasized that “all the expertise accumulated by Russia during the war against Ukraine is being transferred to Iran,” including Shahed drone technology, now produced with Russian components and provided or upgraded for Iranian use.
IMPLICATIONS
This revelation is of strategic gravity that admits no euphemism. We are witnessing confirmation that the Moscow-Tehran axis is not a relationship of circumstantial convenience, but an active operational alliance in which Russia directly contributes to attacks against the civilian infrastructure of a Western ally. It is the transformation of hybrid warfare into a proxy war. Putin reaps a triple benefit: he boosts oil prices that finance his war against Ukraine, he diverts Western attention and resources—especially Patriot missiles—from the Ukrainian front, and he erodes the cohesion of the Atlanticist coalition. Zelensky has stated it unequivocally: the war in the Middle East prolongs and empowers the war in Eastern Europe.
PERSPECTIVES AND SCENARIOS
The revelation forces a reconfiguration of the perception of the conflict: it is no longer simply a war between the Iranian regime and the US-Israeli coalition; it is a conflict in which Russia acts as a shadow power, taking advantage of the West’s strategic confusion. European democracies—still mired in their structural inability to make decisions commensurate with the dangers they face—must urgently process this new reality. The question that no one is asking clearly enough is: what will NATO do if Russia moves from intelligence sharing to more direct involvement?
3. The global energy crisis: the Strait of Hormuz and the biggest supply shock in history
FACTS
The price of WTI crude oil is trading at $112.41 a barrel, and Brent crude around $109.77, 66% and 50% higher, respectively, than before the oil price war began on February 28. The IEA’s executive director, Fatih Birol, stated that the energy crisis triggered by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz surpasses the combined magnitude of the 1973 and 1979 oil shocks: “We have lost 12 million barrels a day—more than two of those oil crises combined.” The IEA’s 32 member countries have agreed to release 400 million barrels from their strategic reserves, the largest volume ever, but the measure is still insufficient. Saudi Arabia reported the interception of seven ballistic missiles over its eastern region, while Iran attacked the industrial hub of Jubayl, which accounts for 7% of Saudi GDP. Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia activated their air defense systems. An Iranian drone attack on Ali Al Salem air base (Kuwait) injured 15 US soldiers, most of whom had returned to service.
IMPLICATIONS
Europe is facing its second major energy crisis in four years, following the Russian gas crisis triggered by the invasion of Ukraine. European gas storage facilities are at 30% capacity after an unusually cold winter in 2025-2026, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) prices have almost doubled in just a few weeks. The European Central Bank (ECB) has postponed planned interest rate cuts and revised its inflation projections upward, with energy-intensive economies facing a high risk of technical recession. In Asia, Japan—which was projected to import 94.2% of its crude oil from the Middle East in February 2026—has released 80 million barrels from its reserves. The food crisis is equally alarming: 50% of global urea exports and 20% of global LNG pass through the Strait of Hormuz, with fertilizer prices potentially doubling and threatening the Northern Hemisphere’s spring harvest.
PERSPECTIVES AND SCENARIOS
The CSIS warns that even a truce does not guarantee an immediate return to normal flow: damaged refineries, canceled marine insurance, and displaced human capital. The Eurasia Group estimates that recovery would take several months even if an agreement were reached tomorrow. The capacity to divert oil through alternative pipelines—Saudi Arabia and the UAE—covers barely 15% of the blocked volume. If the blockade continues into the summer, the combination of physical shortages and financial panic could plunge the global economy into a major recession.
4. Ukrainian front: Russia launches more than 1,000 drones in the midst of the spring offensive
FACTS
While the world watched the Strait of Hormuz, Russia’s war against Ukraine continued unabated. In the past week, Russian forces have launched more than 2,800 attack drones, nearly 1,350 guided bombs, and over 40 missiles of various types into Ukrainian territory. A Russian attack on the city of Odesa killed three people, including a child, and wounded 16. More than 340,000 customers in the Chernihiv region were left without power after nighttime attacks. Ukraine, for its part, confirmed continued attacks on Russian oil infrastructure—including the frigate Admiral Grigorovich in the port of Novorossiysk and the Sheskharis oil terminal—defying allied pressure to limit its attacks on Russian territory amid the already soaring price of crude oil. According to Ukrinform data, Russian casualties have exceeded 1,304,490 personnel since the start of the invasion.
IMPLICATIONS
The Ukrainian conflict is entering its fourth year, and the IISS formula remains valid: wars of variable temperature, where neither side has the capacity for a decisive victory but also for defeat. The revelation of Russian-Iranian intelligence cooperation adds a new and dangerous dimension: Moscow is instrumentalizing the Middle Eastern conflict to relieve pressure on its Ukrainian front, distract Western defense systems, and profit from rising oil prices. Western allies, meanwhile, are urging Kyiv not to attack Russian refineries precisely because that would raise the price of crude oil, which they themselves are struggling to contain—a strategic contradiction that Zelensky, quite rightly, rejects.
PERSPECTIVES AND SCENARIOS
Putin observes the global situation with the satisfaction of a gambler who has managed to distract all other players from another game. While Western attention is focused on the Strait of Hormuz, the Kremlin is advancing in Ukraine at a slower pace than in previous periods—about 17 square miles in the last week, according to the ISW—but steadily. The Ukrainian spring will be a defining test of Kyiv’s resilience at a time when air defense resources—particularly Patriot missiles—are being primarily directed toward Gulf allies.
5. Trump’s tariffs and the global trade order: one year since Liberation Day
FACTS
It has been a year since the so-called “liberation day” of tariffs on April 2, 2025, when the Trump Administration imposed tariffs of at least 10% on virtually all of the United States’ trading partners. The U.S. Supreme Court declared the use of the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) to impose those tariffs unconstitutional in February 2026, forcing Trump to implement a new global tariff of 15% under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, valid for 150 days until July 24, 2026. The European Parliament postponed for the second time the vote on a trade agreement with Washington. A Washington Post-ABC-Ipsos poll revealed that 64% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of tariffs. The average effective US tariff rate stood at 13.7% in February 2026, up from 2.5% prior to January 2025 — the highest level since 1993.
IMPLICATIONS
Trump’s tariff policy presents a bittersweet balance sheet. The trade deficit in goods has narrowed, the deficit with China fell by 32% in 2025, and certain strategic sectors—metals, semiconductors—have benefited from protectionism. But the costs for American consumers are real: the average household pays $1,500 more annually in implicit taxes due to tariffs, inflation is already above the levels at the end of the Biden administration, and the labor market shows signs of weakening in sectors most exposed to foreign trade. In this context, the energy shock caused by the Iran war is acting as an inflationary accelerator that will exacerbate all these tensions.
PERSPECTIVES AND SCENARIOS
The next 150 days will be decisive for the global trade order: if Trump fails to get Congress to extend the Section 122 tariffs, or if he doesn’t negotiate solid bilateral agreements before July 24, trade policy will once again be left in legal limbo. The great risk, as the incomparable Reagan would say, is confusing protectionism with strength: tariff barriers can be legitimate instruments of negotiating pressure, but if they become an end in themselves, they end up devouring the competitiveness of the country that imposes them. Uncertainty, as global companies well know, is not neutral: it paralyzes investment and erodes confidence.
6. The paradox of the decapitation: Mojtaba Khamenei and the hardening of the regime
FACTS
The new supreme leader of Iran’s jihadist oligarchy, Mukhta Khamenei—son of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the initial airstrikes on February 28—issued a public statement declaring that the ranks of the Iranian fighting force are “so formidable and deeply rooted that neither terrorism nor crime can break their resolve to jihadist ideals.” Meanwhile, the head of intelligence for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), General Majid Khademi, was killed in a joint US-Israeli airstrike on April 6. The terrorist organization Hezbollah continues its attacks against northern Israel, with more than 400 of its fighters killed since March 2. The Houthis in Yemen—another terrorist organization under the umbrella of the Iranian jihadist oligarchy—continue their attacks on the Red Sea. The Israeli military warned the Iranian population in Farsi to avoid trains until 9:00 PM local time, anticipating new targets.
IMPLICATIONS
The so-called decapitation paradox—the idea that removing a regime’s leadership would facilitate either negotiation or collapse—is not playing out according to Washington’s script. Mojtaba Khamenei has proven to be a more uncompromising interlocutor than his father, entrenched in a narrative of martyrdom and resistance that is effective for the regime’s internal mobilization. The systematic decapitation of the IRGC’s top brass—more than 50 high-ranking officials eliminated since the start of the conflict—has not caused the collapse of the Iranian military apparatus, although it has generated significant disruptions in its operational coordination.
PERSPECTIVES AND SCENARIOS
The great dilemma that Washington has failed to resolve—and that no Western media outlet addresses with due honesty—is what happens if the Iranian regime collapses or implodes. There is no plan for the day after. There is no alternative governance architecture prepared for Iran. There are no guarantees that a chaotic transition will not create an even more dangerous power vacuum. The regime’s brutal oppression of its own population—with thousands of protesters killed in January 2026—leads many Iranians to not lament the punishment of their jihadist oligarchy; but between the regime’s collapse and an orderly transition to democracy lies a chasm that no strategic planner has yet filled with concrete answers.
III. MEDIA RACK
| Half | Editorial emphasis (April 7, 2026) |
| NYT / Washington Post | Comprehensive coverage of Trump’s ultimatum to Iran; analysis of the dilemma between military action and a diplomatic approach via Pakistan. Veiled criticism of the lack of a strategy for the “day after.” |
| Financial Times / Bloomberg | Economic impact of the conflict: WTI above $112, risk of global stagflation. The IEA describes the Strait of Hormuz blockade as the biggest energy supply disruption in history. Trump tariffs: persistent uncertainty. |
| The Times / The Telegraph | British concern over the UK’s energy exposure. Inflation expected above 5% in 2026. Debate over the UK’s role in the coalition. |
| The Guardian / Le Monde | Humanitarian criticism: More than 3,500 dead according to HRANA, including 244 children. Questioning the legality of attacks on Iranian civilian infrastructure. Editorials calling for an immediate ceasefire. |
| Le Figaro / FAZ | Geoeconomic alert: Europe at risk of technical recession if the Strait of Hormuz blockade persists until summer. European gas storage facilities at 30% capacity. ECB to postpone interest rate cuts. |
| Al Jazeera / Al Arabia | Focus on Iranian civilian casualties. Coverage of Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and Bahrain. Pan-Arab solidarity with a moderate anti-Western narrative. |
| Jerusalem Post / Haaretz | Revelation that Russia provided Iran with satellite intelligence on 55 Israeli energy facilities. Internal debate on the adequacy of Israel’s air defense shield. |
| Kyiv Independent / Ukrainian Pravda | Zelensky accuses Moscow of sharing satellite intelligence with Tehran. Ukraine attacks Russian oil facility in Novorossiya, defying allied pressure. Russia launches more than 1,000 drones recently. |
| TASS / Russia Today | Russian narrative: portraying the conflict as Western aggression. TASS: “Ukraine loses 1,210 fighters in 24 hours.” RT amplifies Iranian threats of a “far more devastating” response. |
| CNBC / CBS / Reuters | Crude oil prices and global markets take center stage. Chevron CEO testifies at CERAWeek about the “real physical manifestations” of the lockdown. Stagflationary recession warning. |
| South China Morning Post/China Daily | Monitoring the energy impact in Asia: China, India, Japan, and South Korea, which account for 75% of Gulf crude oil exports. Japan releases 80 million barrels from strategic reserves. |
| Times of India / Hindustan Times | Pakistan’s central role as mediator: Army Chief of Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir in direct contact with Vance and Witkoff. India’s first purchase of Iranian oil in seven years, fully covered. |
| CSIS / RUSI / Foreign Affairs | Strategic analysis: Washington lacks a plan for the “day after.” CSIS warns: only 3 Mb/d of bypass capacity compared to 20 Mb/d blocked. Paradox of the decapitation: Mojtaba Khamenei more intransigent than his father. |
IV. RISK TRAFFIC LIGHT
| Level | Indicator and description | Risk |
| ● | Strait of Hormuz: Total blockade; 12 Mb/d removed from the world market. Threat of bombing of Iranian civilian infrastructure. | CRITICAL |
| ● | Military escalation: Trump’s ultimatum expires today at 8:00 PM ET. Operation “Epic Fury” at maximum intensity (Day 38). | CRITICAL |
| ● | Energy prices: WTI above $112/barrel; Brent at $109. IEA: biggest supply disruption in oil history. | VERY HIGH |
| ● | Russia-Iran cooperation: Moscow provides Tehran with satellite intelligence on 55 Israeli energy facilities. A consolidated anti-Western axis. | VERY HIGH |
| ● | Ukrainian front: Russia maintains spring offensive. More than 1,000 drones launched recently. Attack on Odesa killed 3 people. | HIGH |
| ● | Global economy: Stagflation, energy inflation, Trump tariffs (15%). ECB postponed rate cut. Risk of recession in Europe. | HIGH |
| ● | Iran-US negotiations: Pakistan mediates; Iran’s 10-point proposal on the table. Trump: “significant but insufficient.” Diplomatic window still open. | MODERATE |
V. EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
This April 7, 2026—day 38 of Operation Epic Fury—may go down in history as the day the world once again peered into the abyss and, once again, made the prudent decision to retreat. Or it may be the day President Trump’s unbridled rhetoric finally translates into large-scale military action against Iranian civilian infrastructure, with unpredictable consequences for the international order, energy prices, and the already fragile cohesion of the West. I write this just hours before the ultimatum expires, and the uncertainty, far from being mere journalistic rhetoric, is the most accurate description of reality.
What I can say with certainty—because the facts bear it out—is that this war, even if justified in its original motivations—the neutralization of the nuclear program of the jihadist oligarchy in Tehran, the world’s largest terrorist state—suffers from a major strategic flaw: the absence of a coherent plan for the aftermath. Striking at the top of the snake without knowing what you will put in its place is not strategy; it is military adventurism disguised as force. We, the friends of Israel, of the Gulf allies, of Western interests—among whom I unequivocally count myself—must be able to offer informed criticism precisely because we share the underlying objectives.
The revelation of Russian-Iranian cooperation in satellite intelligence on Israeli energy targets is not a peripheral episode: it confirms that we are facing a global authoritarian axis—Moscow, Tehran, and their respective satellite states and proxy terrorist organizations—operating in a coordinated manner against the liberal international order. Zelensky, who knows this better than any other European leader due to the cruel experience of four years of Russian aggression, has stated it with the clarity that is usually denied him in European foreign ministries: “All the experience accumulated by Russia during the war against Ukraine is being transferred to Iran.” In other words: Ukraine is not a regional war; it is the laboratory for the techniques of aggression that the authoritarian axis will apply in any other scenario that arises.
European leaders—that mediocre and short-sighted 21st-century political class I have repeatedly referred to in my writings—continue to demonstrate a structural inability to grasp the scale of the dangers they face. The European Central Bank postpones interest rate cuts. The Commission warns that gas storage facilities must be replenished. The European Parliament delays, for the second time, the vote on a trade agreement with Washington. Political pettiness in the face of existential threats. Meanwhile, energy inflation will hit the European middle and working classes particularly hard—those who already paid the price of the first Russian gas crisis—creating the breeding ground that populist movements, even those with justifiable reasons, know so well how to exploit.
Regarding Trump’s trade policy, to be fair: the identification of the problem—structural trade deficits with China, strategic dependence on critical supply chains—is correct. The great Reagan also resorted to selective protectionism when necessary, although he always understood that free trade was the desirable goal. What separates Trump from Reagan is not the diagnosis of the system’s ills, but the quality of the solutions: unpredictability as a governing system, outbursts as diplomacy, and the constant ultimatum as negotiation. A tariff policy that generates an additional $1,500 in annual tax burden for the average American household, that 64% of Americans themselves disapprove of, and that the Supreme Court has declared partially unconstitutional, urgently needs a reorientation toward legal coherence and predictable negotiations.
I conclude with the conviction that comes from my direct knowledge of the region and its actors: the diplomatic window, against all odds, remains ajar. Pakistan—the most unlikely and perhaps the most effective mediator—Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf as a potentially viable interlocutor within the regime, and the existence of direct contacts between Witkoff and Araqchi are elements that should not be underestimated. But an emergency truce is one thing, and a sustainable peace is quite another. The Iranian regime, as resilient as ever, knows that the Strait of Hormuz is its last high-value card. It will not relinquish it easily. And the international community is right to remember that the cure—as the IEA itself has stated—is not strategic reserves: the cure is opening the Strait. Everything else is merely a temporary fix.