reasserts

Iran has reasserted its control over the Strait of Hormuz, warning that foreign commercial and military vessels will be targeted, if they do not comply with regulations governing passage through the strategic waterway.

The announcement on Saturday came after the United States signalled that President Donald Trump was close to a decision on a potential deal with Iran, but Tehran denied an agreement had been reached.

“The management of the Strait of Hormuz is exercised with full authority by the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” the operational headquarters of Iran’s armed forces, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said in a statement reported by Iranian media on Saturday.

“All ships, commercial vessels, and tankers are only required to travel through the designated routes and obtain permission from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] Navy. Any violation of these regulations will seriously jeopardise the security of their traffic,” it added.

Iran also issued a warning to foreign military forces operating in the area, saying any attempt to interfere with maritime management or shipping movements would trigger a response.

On Friday, Trump met with advisers in the White House Situation Room and said a “final determination” on a possible deal with Iran would soon be made. But no statement followed the meeting.

US sources had told the AFP news agency the deal was waiting on Trump’s sign-off, but he made no decision after Friday’s meeting.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, said on Friday that while messages continue to be exchanged “no final agreement has been reached” on a deal with the US.

US ‘more than capable’ of restarting war

While attending a defence summit in Singapore on Saturday, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said that Washington was “more than capable” of restarting the war if a satisfactory deal is not reached.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) posted on social media that American forces “remain present and vigilant across the region”.

The efforts to reach a deal were thrown into question this week by US strikes on the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, countered by retaliatory Iranian fire.

Iran’s IRNA state news agency said air defences shot down a drone “belonging to the US-Zionist aggressor enemy” on Saturday, citing a statement from the army.

Trump said his priorities in any deal include Iran agreeing to never develop nuclear weapons, and the reopening of the blockaded Strait of Hormuz.

“President Trump will only make a deal that is good for America and satisfies his red lines,” a White House official told AFP, adding: “Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon.”

Trump ‘betraying diplomacy’

Also on Saturday, Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser ⁠to Iran’s Supreme ⁠Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, said in a social media post that Trump was “betraying diplomacy for ⁠the third time” by ⁠continuing the US naval blockade in the strait, and making what he described ‌as “excessive demands ‌in ‌negotiations”.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump said Tehran would remove mines from the strait and end its closure of the waterway with “no tolls”, while the US would lift its blockade.

Both countries would coordinate on removing and destroying Iran’s enriched uranium, he said, adding that “no money will be exchanged, until further notice”.

Iran’s Fars news agency, however, cited sources as saying Tehran was demanding “the immediate release of $12bn” in frozen assets before moving to the next phase of negotiations.

On the toll-free reopening of Hormuz, the sources said “no such clause appears in the text of the agreement”, while Trump’s comment on destroying Iran’s nuclear material “is fundamentally baseless”.

Iran’s ISNA news agency cited legislator Alireza Salimi as saying a plan “to implement Iran’s management and sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz will soon be approved by parliament”.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency said the US blockade remains in place, and its ships “are receiving warnings from CENTCOM to stop and not cross the blockade line”.

Caracas, May 8, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government reasserted its sovereignty claim over the Essequibo Strip during an International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing aimed at resolving the long-standing territorial dispute with Guyana.

Venezuelan representative Samuel Moncada, defended the country’s “inalienable right” over the 160,000 square kilometer resource-rich territory during his intervention on Wednesday.

The ICJ is holding a week of hearings in The Hague between the two South American nations over the controversy, which in recent years has raised fears of a possible military confrontation. Venezuela has repeatedly stated that it does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction over the matter. However, Guyana unilaterally brought the dispute before the ICJ in 2018.

In this context, Moncada argued that the only valid legal instrument governing the dispute is the 1966 Geneva Agreement, which calls for a practical and mutually satisfactory solution between Caracas and Georgetown.

“Venezuela is here today because it cannot remain silent in the face of a process in which Guyana seeks to use the Court to unilaterally redefine the nature of the controversy,” Moncada said. He added that Venezuelans rejected the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the issue in the December 2023 referendum. 

For his part, Guyanese Foreign Minister Hugh Hilton Todd told the judges that the case has “existential importance for Guyana” because it affects more than 70 percent of the country’s territory.

“For Guyanese people, the very idea that our country could be dismembered is a true tragedy because we would lose the vast majority of our land and population. Guyana would cease to be Guyana without them,” Todd argued during Guyana’s hearing session on Monday.

Moncada responded by saying that Guyana’s position implied that decades of mediation efforts by United Nations officials and Good Offices processes were attempts to “dismember” Guyanese territory, when in reality they sought the negotiated settlement that Guyana is now attempting to avoid.

The Guyanese government intends to have the ICJ uphold an 1899 arbitration ruling that awarded the Essequibo to the United Kingdom. However, in 1962 Venezuela filed a complaint before the United Nations seeking to nullify the award after evidence emerged suggesting that the decision had been reached fraudulently.

As a result, in 1966, while Guyana was negotiating its independence from the United Kingdom, the parties signed the Geneva Agreement, establishing that the Essequibo region would remain administered by Guyana while its sovereignty claim by Venezuela remained unresolved until a mutually agreed settlement could be reached.

The accord effectively superseded the Paris ruling and established a four-year framework to resolve the dispute in a “practical, peaceful and satisfactory” manner for both sides. Although no final resolution has been achieved, the agreement is still considered to be in force.

Tensions between the two countries escalated significantly in 2015 after ExxonMobil discovered massive offshore oil reserves in the disputed area, giving Guyana access to one of the world’s highest per capita oil reserves. Though the Essequibo is under Guyanese administration, Venezuela includes the territory in its official map and recently established administrative structures for its eventual 24th state.

The court at The Hague is scheduled to hold four hearings in total, during which both countries will present their legal arguments.

Guyana presented its first round of arguments on Monday, May 4, while Venezuela did so on Wednesday, May 6. Guyana’s second round took place on Friday, May 8, and Venezuela is scheduled to respond again on Monday, May 11.

Although the hearings will conclude that day, a final ruling could take months or even years. While ICJ rulings are legally binding, the court has no direct mechanism to enforce compliance.

According to Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil, regardless of the judicial proceedings, “the inevitable outcome will be Guyana’s return to the negotiating table to definitively resolve the territorial controversy under the framework of the 1966 agreement.”

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.