Operation Epic Lion

4/10/2026 - Trump is negotiating a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran - same as it ever was. There is no 'Operation Epic Fury'

Operation Epic Lion - Israel expels Spain from US's CMCC in Kiryat Gat over 'blatant anti-Israel bias'_JerusalemPost

___________

4/9/2026 - Updates: The rubicon for U.S. involvement in Iran became apparent when the objectives for 'Epic Fury' were met several weeks ago and queries regarding 'Epic Fury' and 'Roaring Lion' referred to the operations in the middle-east as a 'joint' campaign following the completion of stated objectives by President Trump as opposed to separate operations conducted in parallel which began with a unilateral preemptive strike by Israel.

There are no ongoing negotiations. Gaza negotiations 'failed' when ceasefire proposals were agreed to and then pulled off the table by Israel citing that they did not believe the Palestinians would follow through on the agreement. It is impossible to give or take 'yes' for an answer when this type of logical fallacy is used to employ deconstructive circular reasoning.

Jerusalem, April 9, 2026 — Israel's Operation Roaring Lion, launched on February 28, 2026, as a joint campaign with the United States (paired with the U.S.-led Operation Epic Fury), continues as a sustained multi-front military effort aimed at neutralizing long-term existential threats from Iran and its regional proxy network.

__________

4/9/2026 - Messaging from the White House and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt now indicate that the primary objective of continued support for Israel by the 47 administration comes in the form of using similar media strategies deployed following the conflict in Gaza to project and prolong a Schrodinger's threat, effectively eliminating the possibility of meaningful negotiation or capitulation (now by Iran) to achieve objectives in response to a strike initiated by a unilateral preemptive aggressor.

4/9/2026 - 'The Real Agreement' - latest media keyword phrasing messaging campaign

The "real agreement" that President Trump refers to is a comprehensive, enforceable ceasefire and peace deal with Iran that goes beyond the immediate military objectives of Operation Epic Fury. Trump has emphasized that U.S. forces, ships, aircraft, and assets will remain positioned in and around Iran until this deal is fully complied with.

Context of Operation Epic Fury

Operation Epic Fury was a roughly 38-day U.S.-led military campaign (launched late February 2026) against Iran. Its core, publicly stated objectives were primarily military:

• Destroy Iran's ballistic missile and drone capabilities.

• Destroy the Iranian navy.

• Degrade or destroy Iran's defense industrial base and related infrastructure to prevent power projection or reconstitution of threats.

U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, have described it as a decisive success that rendered Iran's conventional military "combat ineffective for years," with over 13,000 targets struck (including weapons factories, air defenses, and missile sites). A ceasefire was announced after indirect talks (involving Pakistan's leadership), and Iran reportedly agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

What the "Real Agreement" Entails

Trump's Truth Social post (and related statements) clarifies that the initial ceasefire is not the end. The "real agreement" requires full Iranian compliance with key long-term terms, including:

• No nuclear weapons — Iran must abandon its nuclear program and any pursuit of a bomb (a longstanding U.S./Israeli red line, with verification mechanisms implied).

• Strait of Hormuz open and safe — Unrestricted, secure maritime passage for global oil shipping (critical for energy markets; Iran had threatened or disrupted it during the conflict).

Iran did not have nuclear weapons prior to the unilateral preemptive strike launched by Israel (that anyone was definitively aware of) and the Strait of Hormuz was open and safe prior to the unilateral preemptive strike launched by Israel which U.S. forces took 'joint' responsibility for while conducting parallel (but separate) operations with U.S. objectives (Operation Epic Fury) which appeared meaningless or nonexistent - and then were quickly achieved.?! The only objective that appears to have been meaningful was to take shared responsibility for the preemptive unilateral strike by Israel, throw up a bunch of fake wins for meaningless objectives and become inextricably linked to Israel's objectives for Operation Roaring Lion which include (line item number 5) 'Maintaining a Preemptive Security Doctrine'. Therefore, this is nothing more than an open ended agreement by the U.S. to support the objectives of Israel and bolster the media PR for Israel by degrading the support for 47 in the same media market and have the U.S. take shared blame for seemingly all actions in the middle-east which are not only not in the best interest of the U.S., but actually heighten the domestic security threat to the U.S. homeland.

Trump has warned that if these terms are not honored ("which is highly unlikely"), U.S. forces are "loading up and resting" and prepared for escalated action—"the 'Shootin’ Starts,' bigger, and better, and stronger than anyone has ever seen before." He frames this as leverage to secure a durable deal rather than a fragile pause, consistent with his "peace through strength" approach.

In short, the military phase achieved its tactical goals of degrading Iran's offensive capabilities, but Trump is holding position to extract and enforce a broader strategic/political settlement that addresses the root threats (nuclear ambitions and regional disruption). This is not a full withdrawal scenario but a monitored standoff during negotiations. Details on verification, sanctions relief, or other potential concessions remain fluid as of April 9, 2026, with ongoing diplomatic maneuvering.This stance has drawn mixed reactions: praise from allies emphasizing deterrence, and criticism from others questioning the risks of prolonged tension or the ceasefire's fragility.

Jerusalem, April 9, 2026 — As a U.S.-backed 60-day deadline for Hamas to disarm expires tonight, Israeli officials are signaling preparations for a potential new ground offensive in Gaza, even as military operations continue to intensify along the Lebanese border.

The ultimatum, first issued in mid-February by Israeli Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs, gave the Palestinian militant group 60 days to relinquish its weapons — including small arms — or face renewed large-scale military action to “complete the mission.” Fuchs framed the timeline as a U.S.-requested window tied to broader postwar efforts under President Donald Trump’s Gaza plan, which envisions demilitarization, tunnel destruction, and eventual reconstruction under international oversight.

Hamas has repeatedly rejected the demand, insisting on guarantees of full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza before any serious discussion of disarmament. The group has described the ultimatum as a threat rather than a formal negotiated term and continues to link compliance to implementation of the October 2025 ceasefire agreement.

Shifting Deadlines and Diplomatic Pressure

While the original Israeli-set 60-day clock ends tonight, recent diplomatic activity has centered on a shorter, more immediate deadline imposed by the U.S.-led Gaza Board of Peace. That body, tasked with overseeing the fragile ceasefire and postwar governance, gave Hamas until the end of this week (Saturday) to finalize a demilitarization agreement. The proposal would require the group to surrender virtually all weapons and provide maps of its tunnel network.

Meetings between Board of Peace envoy Nickolay Mladenov and Hamas officials in Cairo have continued, but sources say the militant group has dragged its feet, prompting growing frustration from mediators. Hamas has countered by demanding Israeli troop withdrawals and an end to alleged ceasefire violations before it will discuss handing over arms.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has maintained that no lasting progress — including reconstruction or phased Israeli pullbacks — can occur without Hamas’s full disarmament. Senior officials have warned that failure to comply will trigger expanded operations.

Multi-Front Tensions

The Gaza deadline comes amid parallel escalation in Lebanon. Israeli forces have conducted sustained airstrikes and limited ground incursions in southern Lebanon, with Defense Minister Israel Katz signaling plans to establish control over territory up to the Litani River — roughly 20 miles north of the border — to create a security buffer against Hezbollah.

Officials have spoken of applying a “Gaza model” in Lebanon, including demolition of infrastructure used by Hezbollah. Recent strikes have targeted bridges, and evacuation orders have displaced hundreds of thousands, raising fears of a broader ground invasion reminiscent of past conflicts. Hezbollah’s renewed rocket fire, triggered in part by regional spillover from the U.S.-Israel actions against Iran, has further heightened tensions.

Israeli military sources describe 2026 as a decisive year for neutralizing threats on multiple fronts, with operations in Gaza and Lebanon potentially unfolding concurrently if Hamas does not yield.

Fragile Ceasefire at Risk

The October 2025 ceasefire, mediated with heavy U.S. involvement, halted two years of intense fighting that began after Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack. That agreement has held unevenly, with disputes over hostage remains, troop positions, and reconstruction funding.Analysts warn that tonight’s deadline expiration could mark a turning point. If Hamas does not signal meaningful movement toward disarmament, Israeli forces — already positioned and reportedly gearing up — may launch renewed operations in Gaza while maintaining pressure in Lebanon.

International reactions remain divided. The Trump administration has pushed hard for demilitarization as a prerequisite for any major rebuilding effort. European and Arab mediators have urged restraint to avoid humanitarian collapse in both Gaza and southern Lebanon.

As night falls on April 9, the region braces for what many fear could become a new chapter of multi-front conflict in 2026. Both Israeli and Palestinian officials have so far offered no immediate public confirmation of imminent ground movements, but rhetoric from Jerusalem suggests preparations are well underway.

Tell me about Vance, Witkoff and Kushner and their role in this: Pakistan says it is working on a ceasefire for Lebanon and Yemen.

Islamabad, April 9, 2026 — Pakistan announced this week that it is actively working on a broader ceasefire framework covering not only the recent U.S.-Iran conflict but also hostilities in Lebanon and Yemen, as a high-level American delegation prepares to arrive for in-person talks. The delegation is led by Vice President JD Vance and includes Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff (sometimes referred to in reports as Vance Witkoff in shorthand) and senior advisor Jared Kushner.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly declared on Tuesday that the United States, Iran, and their respective allies had agreed to an "immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere," effective immediately. He invited delegations to Islamabad to negotiate a "conclusive agreement to settle all disputes," framing Pakistan's mediation as a success in preventing further escalation after weeks of U.S.-led strikes on Iran during Operation Epic Fury.

The announcement quickly sparked controversy. Iranian officials echoed Pakistan's claim that the truce extended to Lebanon (where Israel continues operations against Hezbollah) and potentially Yemen (Houthi-related tensions). However, the Trump administration and Israel have firmly rejected this scope. Vice President Vance described any inclusion of Lebanon as a "legitimate misunderstanding," stating explicitly that the ceasefire "never" covered Israeli actions against Hezbollah and was focused solely on direct U.S.-Iran hostilities, the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran's nuclear program. Israeli strikes in Lebanon have continued, drawing Iranian accusations of violations.

Roles of Vance, Witkoff, and Kushner

The three men form the core of the U.S. negotiating team heading to Pakistan for talks beginning Saturday, April 11–12:

• JD Vance (Vice President): Leading the delegation, Vance has taken a visible role in the final stages of mediation. He has engaged directly with Pakistani leadership, including Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, and has publicly clarified U.S. red lines—such as no inclusion of Lebanon in the core Iran deal, demands for Iran to surrender enriched uranium, and keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. His involvement signals the administration's high-level commitment while allowing Trump to maintain distance on sensitive security concerns.

  
  

• Steve Witkoff (Special Envoy for Peace Missions): A real estate magnate turned diplomat, Witkoff has been deeply involved in indirect nuclear and ceasefire talks with Iran since at least early 2026, including rounds in Geneva and Oman. He has handled much of the backchannel work alongside Pakistani mediators and is seen as a pragmatic deal-maker in the Trump orbit.

  
  

• Jared Kushner (Senior Advisor, Trump's son-in-law): Kushner, who played a central role in the Abraham Accords during Trump's first term, has rejoined high-stakes Middle East diplomacy without holding a formal administration title. He has participated in earlier indirect negotiations with Iran and is viewed as bringing experience in regional deal-making, though both he and Witkoff faced scrutiny for pre-war talks that did not prevent the outbreak of fighting.

  
  

Together, the trio represents Trump's preference for a small, trusted circle of negotiators—often blending political loyalists and personal associates—over traditional State Department channels. Their mission in Islamabad is to transform the fragile two-week ceasefire into a more durable agreement addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions, uranium stockpiles, maritime security, and regional de-escalation, while navigating disputes over Lebanon and Yemen.

Broader Context and Challenges

Pakistan's mediation effort gained traction after direct U.S.-Iran hostilities peaked in late February–early April 2026. Islamabad positioned itself as a neutral broker with ties to both Washington and Tehran, facilitating the initial truce that included Iran's reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.However, deep disagreements persist:

• Iran and Pakistan insist on a comprehensive regional pause that halts Israeli operations in Lebanon.

• The U.S. and Israel maintain that Lebanon and Yemen remain separate tracks, with Israel gearing up for potential further action in Gaza and Lebanon as its own deadlines with Hamas expire.

• Key U.S. demands, including full handover of Iran's enriched uranium, remain unresolved.

Analysts describe the upcoming Islamabad talks as high-risk but potentially pivotal. Success could lead to a wider de-escalation; failure risks renewed fighting across multiple fronts in what has already become one of the most complex Middle East crises of 2026.

As delegations converge on Pakistan, the region remains on edge, with dueling narratives over what exactly was agreed in the initial ceasefire. The Vance-Witkoff-Kushner team will need to bridge those gaps quickly under the tight two-week timeline.

__________

Iran says Trump BREACHED ceasefire after president claimed victory as fresh bombing rocks the Middle East and Strait of Hormuz is closed

Demands by Iran in their new proposal to the U.S. -

Iran's "new proposal" refers to its 10-point peace plan (also described as a 10-point framework or response), delivered on April 6, 2026, via Pakistani mediators to the U.S. (and indirectly Israel). 

This came after Iran rejected a mediator-backed (Egypt-Pakistan-Turkey) 45-day temporary ceasefire proposal and an earlier U.S. 15-point plan (which Iran called “excessively demanding,” “unrealistic,” and “maximalist”). Iran instead insisted on a permanent end to the war rather than any temporary pause.

The full verbatim text of the 10 clauses has not been publicly released by Iranian state media (IRNA), but officials and reporting have consistently outlined the core demands and offers.

Key Iranian Demands (Summarized from the 10-Point Proposal)

1. Permanent end to the war (not a temporary ceasefire or 45-day pause) across the region.

   
   

2. Security guarantees / formal assurance that Iran will not be attacked again by the U.S. or Israel.

   
   

3. End to Israeli strikes in Lebanon (specifically against Hezbollah and related regional allies).

   
   

4. Lifting of all U.S. and international sanctions on Iran (full sanctions relief).

   
   

5. End to all regional hostilities against Iranian allies/proxies and a broader cessation of conflict in the region.

   
   

6. Reconstruction / reparations mechanism for war damage caused by U.S. and Israeli strikes (Iran has avoided direct cash demands and instead proposed using new revenue streams).

   
   

What Iran Offers in Return

• Reopen the Strait of Hormuz (lifting its de facto blockade).

  
  

• Establish a formal protocol / rules for safe passage through the strait (including regulated traffic).

  
  

• Impose a $2 million fee per ship transiting the strait; Iran would split proceeds with Oman (the country on the opposite shore) and use its share explicitly for reconstruction of damaged infrastructure.

  
  

President Trump described the proposal as “a significant step” but “not good enough,” while maintaining his deadline (originally tied to Tuesday evening, April 8, 2026) for reopening the strait or facing strikes on Iranian power plants and bridges.

These details come primarily from Iranian state media (IRNA), senior Iranian officials speaking anonymously, and reporting in outlets such as The New York Times, Al Jazeera, and others covering the mediated exchanges. The exact wording of every clause remains internal to the diplomatic channel, but the above captures the publicly reported substance of Iran’s counter-proposal. The situation remains fluid as of April 7, 2026.

Was this originally an 11 point plan?

No, Iran's recent proposal to the U.S. (delivered April 6, 2026, via Pakistani mediators) has been consistently described across multiple reliable sources as a 10-point plan (or 10-point framework/counter-proposal).

Key reporting from outlets like The New York Times, Al Jazeera, and Iranian state media (IRNA) confirms it consists of 10 clauses. These focus on demands such as a permanent end to the war (not a temporary ceasefire), security guarantees against future attacks, an end to Israeli strikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon, full lifting of U.S. and international sanctions, cessation of regional hostilities against Iranian allies, and reconstruction support—while offering to reopen the Strait of Hormuz with a regulated protocol and a per-ship fee.

There is no indication in current coverage that this specific proposal was originally an 11-point plan. It appears to have been framed and delivered as 10 points from the outset. Iran rejected an earlier U.S.-backed 15-point framework (which included elements like a short-term ceasefire) as "maximalist" and unrealistic, then responded with its own 10-point alternative emphasizing a lasting settlement.

References to "11-point" items in the broader context of Iran-related diplomacy or conflicts typically point to unrelated matters, such as:

• Older Iranian statements on UN resolutions (e.g., on Gaza in 2025).

• Domestic or historical reform proposals.

• Polling shifts or unrelated agreements.

None of these match the April 2026 Hormuz/war-ending proposal. The exact wording of all 10 clauses has not been fully publicized, but the count and core substance have remained steady in reporting as of April 7, 2026.The situation is fast-moving, so future updates could add nuance, but based on available information, it started and remains a 10-point proposal.

The entire 10 point proposal:

The full verbatim text of Iran's 10-point proposal (delivered April 6, 2026, via Pakistani mediators) has not been publicly released by Iranian state media (IRNA) or any official channel. It remains a diplomatic document shared privately with the U.S. through intermediaries.

All available reporting relies on summaries from Iranian officials (some speaking anonymously), IRNA statements, and Western outlets like The New York Times, Al Jazeera, and others that have pieced together the clauses from leaks and briefings. No single source has published the exact wording of all 10 points.

Reconstructed 10-Point Proposal (Based on Consistent Reporting)

Here is the most complete synthesis of the 10 clauses, drawn from multiple overlapping accounts as of April 7, 2026:

1. Guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again — Formal security assurances from the U.S. and Israel against future military action.

   
   

2. Permanent end to the war — A comprehensive, lasting cessation of hostilities (explicitly rejecting any temporary ceasefire or 45-day pause).

   
   

3. End to Israeli strikes in Lebanon (against Hezbollah and related fronts) and broader cessation of regional conflicts involving Iranian allies.

   
   

4. Lifting of all U.S. and international sanctions on Iran (full sanctions relief).

   
   

5. End to all regional hostilities across West Asia, including mechanisms to prevent escalation involving proxies or other fronts (e.g., references to Gaza/Lebanon in some accounts).

   
   

6. Reconstruction mechanism for war damage — Support for rebuilding affected areas (some accounts frame this as compensation/reparations; Iran has proposed using new revenue streams rather than direct cash payments).

   
   

7. Reopen the Strait of Hormuz — Lift the de facto blockade and restore shipping transit.

   
   

8. Establish a formal protocol/rules for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, including regulated traffic and maritime security arrangements.

   
   

9. Impose a transit fee of roughly $2 million per ship passing through the strait.

   
   

10. Split the fee proceeds with Oman and direct Iran's share toward reconstruction of damaged infrastructure (instead of separate reparations).

    
    

Additional Context from Some Reports

• Recognition of Iran's sovereignty or rights over aspects of the strait (including potential references to uranium enrichment under the NPT in broader demands).

• Withdrawal or limits on U.S. military presence/bases in the region (mentioned in a few accounts but not universally confirmed as one of the core 10).

President Trump described the proposal as a “significant step” but “not good enough,” maintaining pressure ahead of the April 7–8, 2026, deadline tied to reopening the strait. U.S. officials have called elements “maximalist.”

The situation is highly fluid. If the full official text is later released by IRNA or another party, it could provide more precise language. For now, the above reflects the publicly reported substance across credible sources.

Operation Epic Lion - United States and Israel - Iran

17GEN4.com

U.S. Calls this 'Operation Epic Fury' - Israel Calls this 'Operation Roaring Lion' and they have different objectives...

March 18, 2026 - Operation Epic Fury is the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)-led military campaign against Iran, launched on February 28, 2026, at the direction of President Donald J. Trump. It is closely coordinated with Israel’s parallel Operation Roaring Lion. The operation began with large-scale surprise airstrikes and missile attacks targeting Iranian military infrastructure.

Core Objectives

The publicly stated goals (laser-focused per U.S. officials) are:

• Destroy Iran’s offensive ballistic missile arsenal and production capacity.

• Annihilate the Iranian navy and degrade naval capabilities.

• Eliminate support for terrorist proxies (e.g., Hezbollah).

• Prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.

• Broader effect: dismantle the regime’s security apparatus and create conditions for internal regime change.

  
  

Progress and Projected Timeline (as of March 18, 2026 – Day ~19)

The campaign is ongoing with no fixed end date. U.S. officials describe it as making “decisive progress” toward objectives. Early estimates suggested a core phase of 4–6 weeks (flexible), with Trump noting the U.S. intends to exit “very soon” once key threats are neutralized, while monitoring the Strait of Hormuz closely. CENTCOM’s most recent public video update (March 16) from Adm. Brad Cooper emphasized unrelenting strikes and declining Iranian capabilities.

Key achievements reported:

• Missile and production capabilities: Vast majority of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers and offensive capacity degraded or destroyed (U.S./Israeli estimates: 80–90%+; production lines “functionally defeated”). Hundreds of launch sites, storage facilities, and factories hit.

• Navy and air assets: Iranian navy largely neutralized (dozens of vessels sunk or destroyed, including frigates); air defenses and air force severely degraded.

• Leadership and security apparatus: Multiple senior figures eliminated, including early strike on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and recent Israeli assassinations of security chief Ali Larijani, Basij commander Gholamreza Soleimani, and Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib.

• Nuclear-related sites: Significant damage (set back by years per U.S. assessments); Natanz and other facilities struck.

• Overall: Thousands of targets struck (reports range 5,000–7,800+); air superiority achieved; Iranian ability to project power externally heavily curtailed.

  
  

Iran’s retaliatory capacity has declined sharply but remains active, with fewer and less accurate launches reported.

Latest Military Activity Updates (March 17–18, 2026)

The conflict remains an intense air/missile/naval campaign with proxy involvement (primarily Hezbollah in Lebanon). No large-scale U.S./Israeli ground invasion of Iran has occurred.

U.S./Israeli actions in Iran:

• Continued precision strikes on military sites, command centers, and infrastructure.

• Israel conducted first strikes in northern Iran since the war began and hit the South Pars gas field (major escalation; oil/gas prices surged).

• Overnight strikes in Tehran and elsewhere confirmed the killings of Esmail Khatib (Intelligence Minister) and other senior officials.

• U.S. strikes targeted anti-shipping threats near the Strait of Hormuz (e.g., Kharg Island military sites).

Iranian/Proxy responses:

• Multiple missile barrages (including cluster munitions) launched at Israel; impacts reported in central Israel (Tel Aviv/Ramat Gan/Ramla/Bnei Brak areas), killing at least 2 civilians and injuring others.

• Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israel (e.g., Kiryat Shmona) and engagements in southern Lebanon.

• Strikes on Gulf targets: Iranian missiles hit Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG facility (damage reported, no casualties); threats issued to Saudi Arabia, UAE, and others if energy infrastructure is hit again.

• Limited Strait of Hormuz disruptions (mines, selective closures, attacks on shipping).

Casualties (reported figures vary by source):

• Iran: 1,444–5,300+ killed, ~19,000 wounded (per Iranian Health Ministry and independent monitors).

• Israel: Dozens killed/injured in recent barrages (cumulative civilian/military toll in the hundreds).

• U.S.: Limited fatalities (several confirmed, including from a KC-135 loss earlier).

• Broader regional: Hundreds more across Lebanon, Gulf states, etc.

  
  

Economic/Regional notes:

Oil and gas prices elevated due to South Pars/Ras Laffan hits and Hormuz tensions. The situation is fluid and rapidly evolving; U.S. and Israeli officials continue to stress surgical, overwhelming force while Iran vows retaliation.

For real-time developments, official CENTCOM, White House, or IDF statements are the most reliable sources, as events can shift quickly.

17GEN4.com