The European Union has proposed a 21st sanctions package against Russia that includes a visa ban on current and former Russian military personnel, as Brussels expands pressure on individuals and entities linked to Moscow’s war effort in Ukraine.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the package is part of a broader push to increase economic and political pressure on Russia.
“We are depriving Russia of the means to fund its war,” Kallas wrote on X.
Package includes over 170 proposed sanctions listings across sectors
The sanctions package will target Russia’s financial, energy, and industrial sectors, with more than 170 proposed listings.
These include banks, weapons manufacturers, oil traders, refineries, and crypto-related services, as well as entities in third countries accused of helping Moscow bypass existing restrictions.
Energy measures include a temporary freeze of the Russian oil price cap mechanism, alongside new restrictions on LNG transactions and additional action against Russia’s shadow fleet, with 30 more vessels proposed for designation.
Officials said the aim is to further reduce Russia’s export revenues and disrupt maritime logistics networks used to move sanctioned energy products.
Brick by brick, we are collapsing the foundations of Russia's war economy.
Today, we are presenting our proposals for a 21st sanctions package against Russia.
This includes a temporary freeze of the Russian oil price cap and designations of institutions used by Moscow to…
Measures expand to export controls and financial restrictions
The package also expands export controls on materials used in weapons production, including metals, alloys, and high-performance inputs, with companies in countries such as China, Türkiye, Kazakhstan, the UAE, and India included in the proposals.
Financial restrictions remain a central pillar, with expanded sanctions planned against banks and crypto platforms linked to sanctions evasion and war financing.
EU visa ban on Russian military personnel
The sanctions package includes a “comprehensive” visa ban proposal that would prohibit entry into the EU for current and former members of Russia’s armed forces, as well as “proxy groups,” marking an expansion of sanctions beyond economic measures to individuals linked to military operations.
“Europe’s door should not be open to Russia’s (ex-)combatants,” Kallas wrote.
Our sanctions are working.
They are weakening the economic foundations of Russia’s war effort.
Today we double down.
With a 21st package.
Covering energy, banks & crypto, trade including fisheries and visa for Russian soldiers ↓ https://t.co/fTIkATOSfN
— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) June 9, 2026
Sanctions already cost Russia up to $1.5 trillion, EU says
The same day, Kallas told journalists that existing sanctions continue to intensify pressure on Moscow’s economy. Kallas noted that Western sanctions have already cost Russia an estimated $1.2 to $1.5 trillion, adding that “brick by brick, we are collapsing the foundations of Russia’s war economy.”
She said the aim remains to increase costs for Moscow across multiple sectors while maintaining unity among EU member states.
The package requires unanimous approval from EU member states before it can take effect.
Bulgaria's new government plans to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine, a shift that breaks with the European Union's push to pressure Russia, Bloomberg reported. The country's Defense Minister tied the move to a call for negotiations rather than arms, echoing a prime minister who has long been hostile to military aid for Kyiv.
A falling and rising tide of Russia-friendly governments across central Europe has steadily frayed the bloc's united front on arming Kyiv amid the ongoing Russian invasion, turning each national capital into a potential brake on support.
Government's excuses
Bulgarian Defense Minister Dimitar Stoyanov told reporters in Sofia on 9 June that his government would end weapons deliveries to Kyiv.
"Ukraine needs more people, not more armament," he stated, and called instead for a "just peace that will be defined by both sides participating in the conflict."
He added that the EU's role in any peace process is "extremely important." But the Bloc would struggle to act as a mediator, he claimed, after assisting Ukraine throughout the war.
Explore further
Hungary unblocks $7.7 billion in EU arms payments after dropping two-year veto on Ukraine aid
A prime minister who opposes arming Kyiv
The stance reflects Prime Minister Rumen Radev, who has long held that the war cannot be won on the battlefield. Radev, a former air force commander and president until January, has repeatedly opposed the EU's military support for Ukraine. He has also called for lifting sanctions on the Kremlin, arguing they damage Europe's economy. In office for only a month, the Prime Minister has promised to expand Bulgaria's weight in joint European decisions.
A quiet arms pipeline now set to close
Bulgaria ranks among the EU's biggest producers of Soviet-standard ammunition. Those older Soviet-caliber shells proved crucial to Ukraine early in the war. The government officially refused direct military aid in 2022. Even so, Bulgarian shells reached the front through exports to other EU countries. Since 2022, Sofia has sent 13 packages of military aid, keeping their value and contents classified.
Explore further
Bulgaria approves new cabinet led by Rumen Radev — the ex-president who called Crimea Russian
The timing
The plan surfaced days after the leaders of France, Germany, and Britain urged the Kremlin to accept an immediate, complete ceasefire that would open talks on a lasting deal. Moscow has rejected Kyiv's offer to meet and negotiate an end to the full-scale invasion, launched more than four years ago.
The Times earlier called the rise to power of pro-Russian Radev a strategic success for Putin.
The package will also include a freeze on the current pricing mechanism for Russia energy imports until the end of 2026, meaning Moscow won't be able to profit from rising prices resulting from the U.S. war on Iran.
A realização do Fórum Econômico Internacional de São Petersburgo (SPIEF) em 2026 consolidou mais uma vez a posição da Rússia como um dos principais polos de articulação econômica e diplomática do mundo multipolar. Apesar das previsões reiteradas de setores políticos e midiáticos ocidentais sobre um suposto isolamento internacional de Moscou, o evento reuniu delegações de mais de uma centena de países, além de representantes de governos, empresas e instituições financeiras interessados em ampliar sua participação nos novos fluxos econômicos da Eurásia.
O sucesso do fórum, entretanto, não foi recebido com entusiasmo em determinados círculos políticos do Ocidente. Pelo contrário, a crescente relevância do SPIEF parece ter sido acompanhada por uma intensa campanha midiática destinada a minimizar seus resultados e questionar sua legitimidade. O fenômeno não é novo. Desde o início da crise ucraniana, importantes veículos de comunicação ocidentais passaram a desempenhar um papel cada vez mais próximo dos objetivos estratégicos de seus respectivos governos, abandonando frequentemente a separação tradicional entre jornalismo e interesses de Estado.
Nesse contexto, chamou atenção a publicação coordenada de análises e reportagens em veículos britânicos que procuraram apresentar o fórum como um evento enfraquecido ou incapaz de gerar resultados concretos. O padrão narrativo adotado seguiu uma fórmula conhecida: destacar ausências específicas, ignorar a dimensão geral da participação internacional e sugerir que qualquer dificuldade logística ou financeira decorrente do regime de sanções representaria uma prova do fracasso russo.
O problema dessa abordagem é que ela entra em choque com os fatos observáveis. Os números apresentados durante o SPIEF demonstraram continuidade nos investimentos, expansão de parcerias comerciais e aprofundamento dos mecanismos de cooperação entre a Rússia e diversos países da Ásia, Oriente Médio, África e América Latina. Em vez de isolamento, o que se observou foi uma crescente diversificação das relações internacionais russas.
Particularmente relevante foi o fortalecimento dos eixos estratégicos entre Rússia e grandes potências emergentes. A cooperação com a China continuou avançando em áreas como energia, infraestrutura e tecnologia. As relações com a Índia mantiveram trajetória positiva, apesar dos desafios inerentes à adaptação dos sistemas financeiros internacionais ao novo cenário geopolítico. Da mesma forma, os vínculos com a Turquia permaneceram fundamentais para a estabilidade econômica regional e para a construção de corredores logísticos alternativos.
Essas parcerias representam um desafio direto ao paradigma geopolítico que dominou o sistema internacional após o fim da Guerra Fria. Durante décadas, as principais potências ocidentais desfrutaram de uma posição privilegiada na definição das regras econômicas globais. O surgimento de mecanismos alternativos de cooperação reduz gradualmente essa capacidade de influência, tornando compreensível a preocupação demonstrada por setores comprometidos com a preservação da ordem unipolar.
A guerra informacional tornou-se, portanto, uma das principais ferramentas utilizadas para tentar (inutilmente) conter esse processo. Em vez de confrontar diretamente a expansão das redes de cooperação eurasiáticas por meio de argumentos econômicos consistentes, parte da mídia ocidental opta por enquadramentos seletivos, interpretações tendenciosas e narrativas destinadas a moldar percepções públicas. O objetivo não é informar, mas influenciar.
O SPIEF 2026 demonstrou que tais esforços possuem eficácia limitada. A presença expressiva de países do Sul Global evidenciou que grande parte da comunidade internacional já não enxerga o mundo através das mesmas lentes geopolíticas predominantes em Washington ou Londres. Estados soberanos buscam oportunidades econômicas concretas e tendem a priorizar interesses nacionais em vez de aderir automaticamente a agendas formuladas por potências externas.
Em última análise, o verdadeiro significado do fórum não está apenas nos contratos assinados ou nos investimentos anunciados. Seu valor simbólico reside na confirmação de uma tendência histórica mais ampla: a transição gradual para uma ordem internacional mais plural, na qual diferentes centros de poder coexistem e competem. As tentativas de deslegitimar esse processo por meio de campanhas midiáticas dificilmente alterarão uma realidade que se torna cada vez mais visível. O mundo multipolar deixou de ser uma projeção teórica e passou a ser um fato político em construção.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is willing to stop the war along the current line of contact and move to negotiations, he said in a Sky News interview. He presented the idea as the quickest route to a ceasefire, while rejecting any deal that hands Russia Ukrainian land. He also urged allies to close Ukraine's air defense gaps.
Russia has rejected every ceasefire Ukraine and the US have put forward and keeps refusing to halt an all-out war it has waged since its full-scale invasion in 2022. Whether a freeze ever takes hold rests with the Kremlin, whose demands still stretch far beyond the territory its army has managed to seize.
"The quickest way" to stop the fighting
Asked where he would freeze the lines if Russia agreed to a ceasefire, Zelenskyy said he is ready to accept today's positions.
"Yes, it's the quickest way," he said.
He insisted this is not a giveaway. He does not want to simply freeze the conflict, but to stop the war so it cannot restart "because of some crazy people." A freeze would let Ukraine save children's lives and bring soldiers home. Any ceasefire must be total and free of Russian games, watched by American and European partners. Only then would the sides sit down to end the war through diplomacy. A ceasefire, he added, is "the biggest compromise from our side."
The most urgent need from allies is air defense, Zelenskyy said. Ukraine faces a large deficit in anti-ballistic missiles, with US transfers slowed by the war in the Middle East. He again asked for more Patriot systems. Russia attacks daily, usually with around 300 long-range explosive drones. On the heaviest nights it launches 600 to 850 drones and dozens of missiles.
Ukraine's interceptors now down most of them, but the gaps remain dangerous.
Explore further
10% now, 23% after a ceasefire, 59% only at peace—Ukraine’s verdict on a wartime vote hasn’t moved all year
Ukraine's own arsenal
Ukraine has built more than 400 defense companies since the full-scale invasion, Zelenskyy said. Dozens rank among the world's strongest. They produce drones and missiles, some underground, and the country is close to its own ballistic missile. Ukraine can now share that expertise with allies and even build air defenses for Europe, he said. Kyiv aims to mass-produce drones on a scale few countries can match.
Bringing the war back to Russia
Ukraine's recent strikes on St. Petersburg and the Moscow region answer Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy, Zelenskyy said. St. Petersburg was hit twice last week. He wants Russians far from the front to feel the war they started. Russian President Vladimir Putin understands only "total pressure," he said. Sanctions on Russia's shadow fleet of sanctions-dodging tankers and its oil and gas exports hit hardest.
Zelenskyy said Putin does not want to stop the war and is signaling he wants to win. Whether the fighting ends "100% depends on his decision," he said. His 4 June open letter, which Moscow called rude and rejected, was meant to force an answer and pierce a Russian public living in "some fantastic world." Russian businessman Roman Abramovich came to Kyiv to carry messages to Putin, Zelenskyy said.
The so-called Donbas is a historic name for Ukraine’s two easternmost regions, Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts. Russia still failed to occupy a small part of Luhansk Oblast, as well as a significant swathe of Donetsk Oblast, which contains the so-called “Fortress Belt” that Russia has failed to break through despite its years-long ongoing offensive campaign. Map: ISW
His key message was on the Donbas: Ukraine will not leave its land, and compromises come only after a ceasefire. He is ready to meet in any format, but not in Moscow, Belarus, or Minsk. Leaders cannot decide "without us about us," he said, in a message aimed at Washington. Russia, by contrast, keeps insisting that Ukraine surrender all of the Donbas first.
Someone recently asked me what mark out of 10 I’d give for the efforts of governments to tackle financial crime. It got me thinking about that one bright spot of recent times — the West’s response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine four years ago — and how it is now looking. Back in 2022, a lot of us were pleasantly surprised by the speed and ambition with which Western governments sanctioned the Russian government, state-owned companies and wealthy individuals. While Western pressure did not prevent the war, the asset freezes did impose a real cost on those conducting it. Four years on, however, those sanctions are beginning to look a bit shopsoiled. If they began at 7/10, they’re now scoring a lot lower.
There are reasons for this: Donald Trump does not appear particularly interested in Ukraine; the now former Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán has been snarling things up; and so on, as laid out in this analysis from Tom Keatinge. To make things worse, Trump’s latest adventure in Iran has pushed the oil prices sharply higher, earning more money for Russia while also giving Trump cover to lift sanctions, a temporary measure he has recently extended.
Keatinge argues that European countries need to be far more focussed on going after Russia’s payment mechanisms, particularly digital. “The extent to which crypto activity supports Russia’s war effort is clear,” he writes, “yet repeated initiatives to elevate the importance of opening a concerted line of effort on this issue are ignored. This must change.”
I agree, though it won’t be easy, considering the diffuse crypto ecosystem, and the increasing sophistication of Russian involvement in it. As long as Telegram is willing to host markets, the markets will continue to function to some extent whatever Western countries do (see the story of Xinbi, a Chinese-language hub for illicit crypto.) However, it does look like someone somewhere has lost patience with the ease with which Russia is funding itself.
“The sanctioned Russia-linked cryptoasset exchange Grinex announced an immediate suspension of its operations, citing a ‘large-scale cyberattack,’” reports Elliptic. According to the statement, which Kyrgyzstan-registered Grinex posted on Telegram, it lost around $13 million worth of USDT in the hack, blaming the theft on Western intelligence agencies.
“Today the attempts to destabilise our fatherland’s financial sector hit a new level, with the direct theft of the assets of Russian citizens and companies with the involvement of complex cyberattacks,” the statement said. Grinex is the successor to Garantex, which was shut down just over a year ago after years of effort by Western law enforcement. I would be surprised if Western countries had decided to take direct action against Grinex, as the exchange claims they did. Westerners tend to be a bit too legalistic for this kind of smash-and-grab, and I would expect any operation to more closely resemble what worked a year ago, conducted with Tether’s cooperation.
Instead, I suspect this attack is the work of hacktivists, perhaps working for or with the Ukrainians. Whatever the answer, it is embarrassing for the Russians, shows their crypto-security is not impregnable, and has made a noticeable dent in trading volumes of the A7A5 ruble-denominated stablecoin, which has become a key sanctions evasion tool. Three birds with one stone.
The important point is that sanctions were never supposed to be permanent: they are a foreign policy tool, not a law enforcement one. Hundreds of billions of Russian-owned dollars are languishing in various frozen bank accounts, and Western countries need to start thinking about what to do with them. They can confiscate them, investigate them or — if they’re feeling brave — use their potential return as leverage to persuade wealthy Russians to break with the Kremlin. What they shouldn’t do is leave them as they are to gather dust.
Hopefully, now that Orbán is out of the way, European countries will be able to take firmer collective action but they also need to be imaginative, and to start behaving as if they actually want Ukraine to win, rather than just not lose.
A defeat for transparency
Of course, the United States will have a lot to say about that too, and what it ends up saying about how to tackle the Russian crypto operations will depend on what happens in the midterm elections this year. So, it strikes me as a big deal that crypto firms are once more pouring tens of millions of dollars into campaign vehicles in their quest for, what they euphemistically refer to as, “regulatory clarity.” Among them, of course, is Tether.
If you’re wondering quite how it’s possible to spend that much money on elections, I draw your attention once more to the great Integrity Index, with its records for who’s been spending what. It boggles my mind that, for example, the three Democratic rivals to the Republicans’ Susan Collins for the Maine Senate seat have raised more than $17 million just for the primary. Collins herself has raised over $10.5 million. There really shouldn’t be that much money in politics.
Besides, when it comes to value for money, investing in court cases beats investing in politics every day of the week. I don’t know how much the (ironically) anonymous plaintiffs in the 2022 case against corporate transparency in Luxembourg paid their lawyers, but its effects just seem to keep compounding to the benefit of those who want to hide their wealth from society.
The European Union’s retreat from revealing the ownership of shell companies has given cover for Britain’s tax havens as they resisted efforts from London to force them to open up their own corporate registries. It looks like those efforts may have finally failed. “We are committed to full transparency, but I don’t think there will be any turning back,” said the British Virgin Islands’ Junior Minister for Financial Services Lorna Smith in comments confirming that the islands are in fact very much not committed to full transparency.
A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.
The Trump administration is rolling out what experts describe as the most significant expansion of U.S. sanctions on Cuba in decades.
The administration is attempting what supporters say is the first broad application of Cuba-related secondary sanctions against foreign firms, aiming not only at Havana itself but also at foreign companies and banks that continue doing business with the island’s military-linked economic empire.
The new framework, established under an executive order signed by President Donald Trump May 1, applies pressure beyond U.S. companies for the first time, threatening foreign firms with sanctions exposure if they continue operating in key sectors of the Cuban economy linked to Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A., or GAESA.
Supporters say the move closes a loophole that allowed foreign investors to sustain Cuba’s communist regime while the longstanding U.S. embargo largely restricted Americans.
Critics argue the measures risk worsening an already severe humanitarian crisis on the island without meaningfully weakening the government.
"At the top of the month, what the Trump administration did was for the first time extend the application of U.S. sanctions from just prohibiting trade between U.S. firms and U.S. persons and the Cuban island to third-party countries and enablers," Max Meizlish, a former Treasury Department official now serving as a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
"For the first time ever in a truly unprecedented fashion, that’s the same logic that the administration is now applying to Cuba," he said.
The sanctions focus heavily on GAESA, a sprawling military-linked conglomerate that analysts estimate controls between 40% and 70% of Cuba’s economy, including tourism, mining, retail, ports and financial services.
A recent Foundation for Defense of Democracies report authored by Meizlish and Connor Pfeiffer argued that foreign companies doing business in Cuba are effectively helping sustain the regime’s military and political leadership.
The State Department sanctioned GAESA and several affiliated entities in May under the new authorities, opening the door for potential penalties against foreign companies and financial institutions that continue dealings with them after a June 5 wind-down deadline.
Meizlish argued previous sanctions regimes failed because they isolated American companies while allowing foreign actors to continue financing the Cuban state.
"There’s a lot of Spanish firms, for instance, that have invested millions of dollars in luxury hotel properties, villa properties in Cuba that partner with GAESA, all funding this military enterprise at the expense of the Cuban people," he said.
He also pointed to Canadian involvement in Cuba’s nickel and cobalt sectors, saying foreign investment has generated "huge amounts of money for the regime."
"A lot of people think about the U.S. embargo over the years is actually being responsible for a lot of the problems on the Cuban island, but they don't give consideration to the fact that GAESA, this newly sanctioned entity, has been sitting on an estimated $20 billion in assets and cash over the year while depriving the people of Cuba," Meizlish told Fox News Digital.
But critics of the policy warn the economic fallout could land the hardest on ordinary Cubans.
William LeoGrande, a longtime Cuba expert at American University, said the May 1 measures represent a major escalation because they specifically target foreign businesses rather than just Americans and aim to deter foreign companies from doing business with GAESA by threatening sanctions exposure.
LeoGrande acknowledged the measures could deprive the Cuban government of revenue but argued the broader population is likely to suffer most.
"This would potentially deprive the Cuban government of funds, but the impact will fall mainly on ordinary citizens because it means the government has fewer resources to import food, medicine and fuel," he said.
The World Food Programme says food insecurity is worsening amid fuel shortages, inflation and declining access to imported goods, while U.N. officials have warned that electricity shortages and blackouts are disrupting hospitals, vaccination programs and food distribution networks across the island.
LeoGrande also warned tougher sanctions could contribute to another migration crisis.
"Another unintended effect is that by making living conditions in Cuba even more desperate, tougher sanctions could trigger a mass migration like we saw in 1980 or 1994," LeoGrande said.
"The suffering of the Cuban people is not caused by the U.S. embargo but by the Cuban dictatorship’s failed Communist policies and human rights violations," the official told Fox News Digital. "The embargo does not prohibit Cuba’s access to world markets or trade with third countries."
The official added that U.S. law explicitly permits exports of food, medicine and medical equipment to Cuba and accused the regime of hiding "billions in overseas bank accounts instead of investing in electricity, infrastructure and the daily needs of its people."
The debate mirrors long-standing arguments surrounding U.S. sanctions on countries like Iran and Venezuela, where supporters view economic pressure as a tool to weaken authoritarian governments while critics argue regimes often survive and civilians absorb the economic damage.
Amid President Donald Trump’s Monday announcement that a deal with Iran’s clerical regime is imminent to re-open the Strait of Hormuz and negotiate an end to Tehran’s illicit nuclear weapons program, Iranians who hoped U.S. pressure would force a decisive outcome now fear it may survive while ordinary people absorb the costs.
"Inside Iran, the mood has shifted from early-war optimism to a kind of exhausted resignation, but there is still some hope that this is the moment President Trump will use his leverage to do the right thing. The Iranian people understand this unusually narrow but strategic window," Lisa Daftari, editor-in-chief of The Foreign Desk who keeps in contact with Iranians on the ground, told Fox News Digital.
She continued that ,"The regime is fiscally strained and politically brittle, while the broader population has been disillusioned by years of repression and economic collapse. Iranians do see this as a one‑time opportunity for Washington — and President Trump in particular — to translate military and economic leverage into the potential collapse of an irrefromable regime. If the outcome is a shallow agreement that props up the system without changing its trajectory, that window will likely close for years."
She continued, "If instead, the U.S. holds firm on sanctions and nuclear red lines, it can weaken the regime’s hand without punishing the Iranian people, who have already paid the highest price."
Daftari, the Iran expert, shared recent correspondence from two Iranians from Tabriz and Tehran.
The resident from Tabriz said, "From my perspective, decades of political tension between Iran and the United States have had their greatest impact on ordinary people rather than those in power. Many families feel their voices are not being heard in international discussions about Iran." Adding, "I respectfully ask whether you might consider sharing or highlighting the human side of this situation, so that the experiences of ordinary Iranian families are not overlooked in political discussions and media coverage."
The Tehran resident said, "Today, the people of Iran believe in the future. On days when economic pressure makes the faces of the Iranian people sad, the word ‘unity’ brings a smile to their lips. Our situation is not good, but we are motivated."
Fox News Digital surveyed a few Iranians and agreed to use only their first names because the clerical regime has declared the use of Starlink to bypass the censor a criminal act. A sophisticated clandestine network has managed to smuggle some satellite internet technology into Iran to allow people to communicate with the world outside the Islamist state.
Hassan, who lives in Tehran, pleaded with President Trump to keep strong in his dealings with the regime, saying that "Things have gotten so bad that even if you wanted to give up and leave Iran and just focus on your own life and work, it feels like there’s nowhere left to turn. Mr. Trump, through these deals and arrangements, has left people feeling trapped, with no road left open."
Mehdi, who resides in Tehran, expressed confusion about the existence of an agreement. He said, "So what exactly are they agreeing on? Are they saying they’re close to a deal or are there other discussions too? Every minute there is a new piece of news, everyone has a new analysis, everything changes every minute. It’s strange. This war achieved nothing. We’re the only ones left paying the price," he complained.
Hassan from Tehran said that "Mr. Trump, if until yesterday most Iranians thought they were on the same path as America, you caused them all to become disappointed. "Mr. Trump, if you wanted this government to remain in power, why did you blow up factories? Now workers are being laid off, and inflation is out of control. Even with a salary of 18 million tomans, you cannot feed yourself."
Mahsa, from the Caspian Sea city of Rasht, told Fox News Digital that the system [Islamic Republic of Iran] is still fully intact. They don’t care how many people died. If anything, they seem more emboldened now and even take pride in martyrdom. Yesterday I argued with a regime supporter [who] said: "Our leader didn’t give away a single meter of land, didn’t take a step backward, unlike previous kings who gave away Bahrain, Baku, Nakhchivan, and others."
The concerns among many Iranians revolve around the proposed memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran’s regime. The MOU does not address the overthrow of the clerical regime or human rights violations, according to media reports. Large numbers of Iranians within Iran and among the Iranian diaspora want the Trump administration to topple the Islamist dictatorship in Tehran.
The MOU reportedly involves a 60-day ceasefire extension. Israel and the U.S. launched a joint attack on Iran on February 28. The MOU would also see the reopening the Strait of Hormuz and new talks over Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program.
The leaked elements of the MOU have not been confirmed by the Trump administration.
When asked about the concern among Iranians about a deal with the Islamic Republic, Anna Kelly, a spokeswoman for the White House, told Fox News Digital that "For 47 years, American Presidents and countless other world leaders talked about the threat posed by Iran, but no one had the courage to address it. President Trump took decisive action to ensure that Iran could never harm our homeland, our troops, or our allies again. Once Iran’s nuclear threat is removed for good, the entire region and its people will be safer and more stable."
However, Trump said last week during his cabinet meeting, "We didn’t set out for regime change," adding, "But by the fact that we’re dealing with a totally different group of people than we were at the beginning … This is regime change."
Reza Farnood, an Iranian American who supports the Trump administration and is a researcher, writer and activist, urged that President Trump continue with his maximum pressure campaign against Tehran.
Farnood told Fox News Digital, "We welcome the bombing and attacking the regime because we are aiming to overthrow the regime." He urged that Trump continue the blockade of Iran’s vessels and deny money to the regime. He said sanctions relief will be used by Iran "against the U.S. and Israel and their allies and innocent Iranians."
Farnood stressed that the clerical regime is holding the Iranian people "hostage."
Kianoosh, who lives in the northern city of Karaj, the capital of Alborz province, said about Trump’s proposed deal: "You threw six months of our lives into hell. What answer are "you going to give to the mothers of all those children who were killed? Why did you give people false hope? Why did you hand down a death sentence to everything so many people believed in?"
Leading U.S. Senators well-versed in foreign policy have praised Trump’s approach to the Islamic Republic. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC., recently told Fox News’ Sean Hannity "On Trump’s watch, they’re [Iran’s regime] becoming poorer and weaker. That’s the difference."
Graham juxtaposed Trump’s Iran policy with his predecessors. "Obama and Biden screwed Iran up, and Donald Trump is fixing it. On Obama and Biden’s watch, Iran became rich and lethal," he said. "On Trump’s watch, they’re becoming poorer and weaker. That’s the difference."
Iran is running dangerously low on oil storage capacity and could face a severe economic breaking point if forced to halt production, former U.S. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette recently told Fox News.
Trump has said that Iran’s regime murdered as many as 45,000 Iranian demonstrators in January 2026. He urged just days after the mass murder that protesters keep going and promised them that "help is on its way."
Lawdan Bazargan, a prominent Iranian-American activist who the regime imprisoned in its infamous Evin Prison in Tehran in the 1980s for political dissent, told Fox News Digital that the Iranians she’s spoken with are discouraged by Trump’s dealings. "He was one of the few world leaders who repeatedly spoke about the thousands of Iranians killed in January 2026 and expressed disgust at the sheer brutality of the Islamic Republic. He had promised support for the Iranian people and raised expectations that meaningful change might finally come."
She continued: "Now, 88 days later, many people feel they are left facing the same regime, one that appears more emboldened, more ideological, and still willing to repress, execute, and arrest people. The economy has been devastated, and many feel trapped between a government with no mercy and a future with no clear path forward.
For years, 90 million Iranians have lived as hostages of the Islamic Republic. Now, many fear that the consequences no longer stop at Iran’s borders, through threats to global energy routes, regional stability, and even digital infrastructure."
According to Bazargan, "The question many ordinary Iranians are asking is simple: How are people expected to fight a system that feels victorious, controls the weapons, controls the narrative through a massive propaganda machine, and possesses countless tools of repression?"
Ali, who is also from the sprawling capital city of Tehran, complained about the spiraling prices and inflation and disappointment that the regime is still in place.
"For a government with state-provided housing and billions in patronage and privileges, what difference did any of this make for its supporters?"
Ali added: "We’re the ones who are paying the price and getting crushed. How are our children ever supposed to afford these housing and car prices, and how are they supposed to get married?"
The U.S. State Department referred Fox News Digital to the White House for a comment.
New sanctions were imposed on Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel, along with four other individuals, according to a filing Thursday on the U.S. Treasury Department website.
New sanctions were imposed on Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel, along with four other individuals, according to a filing Thursday on the U.S. Treasury Department website.
The Trump administration’s efforts to tighten the economic noose on Cuba appear to be working, as more international firms announced they would leave the island.
As concern rises in Europe over threats from an emboldened Russia, the Irish government says it’s working to plug gaps in its military, which reflect a tradition of neutrality.
The EU’s diplomacy has felt the weight of having basically the whole world against its double-standard application of international law and its own values and the accusations of being complicit in genocide and the brutal West Bank-Israel colonialism. In order to appease the world’s wrath, the EU has approved sanctions against individual settlers – not […]
New U.S. sanctions against Chinese companies just before Donald Trump’s visit to Beijing highlight the growing tendency to use economic pressure as a primary instrument of American diplomacy. Donald Trump plans to visit China from May 13 to 15. His baggage includes a load of sanctions instead of concessions. Days before his visit to China, […]
The European Union’s adoption of its 20th sanctions package against Russia on 23 April 2026 has triggered one of the sharpest responses from Beijing in recent years. A Reaction That Signals More Than Discontent China’s Ministry of Commerce expressed “firm opposition” to the inclusion of 27 Chinese entities on the sanctions list, demanded their immediate […]
Login
