World | WPN World People News

A two-week temporary ceasefire agreement is set to expire on the 21st. On the 16th, U.S. President Donald Trump signaled optimism, stating that the U.S.–Iran war is “very close to ending.” He also announced that Israel and Lebanon have reached a 10-day ceasefire agreement.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and military leader Asim Munir have been shuttling between Riyadh, Doha, and Tehran to create conditions for restarting negotiations. Trump revealed that representatives from both the United States and Iran are expected to meet again this weekend, on the 18th, in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. He noted that Iran is “very eager to reach a deal” and described current relations between the two sides as “very good.”

The bottom line in the negotiations is that Iran must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Trump added that a final peace agreement would bring the United States “free oil” and stable control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Despite Trump’s optimism, significant differences remain on key issues. These include the duration of any suspension of uranium enrichment and how existing stockpiles should be handled. In addition, Iran is demanding that the U.S. unfreeze tens of billions of dollars in overseas assets and provide a clear timetable for lifting sanctions, in exchange for fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

The original goal of achieving a “comprehensive peace agreement” may not be attainable, with both sides instead considering a “temporary memorandum” to prevent a resumption of hostilities.

While diplomatic efforts continue, U.S. military pressure on Iran has not ceased. The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed that a navigation blockade targeting Iranian ports has been fully implemented. In the past 72 hours, 14 vessels linked to Iran have been forced to turn back.

If no breakthrough is achieved in this weekend’s talks, the U.S. military is highly likely to resume heavy strikes on civilian infrastructure within Iran, such as power plants and refineries. The outcome of the negotiations will determine whether the Middle East moves toward peace or descends into a new and more intense round of conflict.

Although the first round of U.S.–Iran negotiations collapsed over disputes concerning uranium enrichment—followed by heightened pressure from the United States, including a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—Pakistan’s active mediation has reportedly led both sides to express willingness to resume talks on April 16. The two countries are now assessing whether a new round of face-to-face negotiations could secure a final peace agreement before the April 21 ceasefire deadline, bringing an end to the six-week conflict.

Details of the second round remain under intensive discussion among the United States, Iran, and mediator Pakistan. While both sides have agreed in principle to restart negotiations, key issues—such as the venue (e.g., Islamabad or Geneva) and the level of representation—are still unresolved. The parity of representation is expected to serve as a key indicator of each side’s sincerity. U.S. officials emphasized that they remain hopeful about a diplomatic solution and noted that the ceasefire deadline could be extended if substantive progress is made in the talks. A new proposal has already been submitted for consideration, with negotiations possibly beginning as early as April 16 or later this week.

U.S. President Donald Trump revealed, three hours after imposing a blockade on Iranian ports, that the U.S. had received a call initiated by Iran, suggesting that Tehran is “very eager to reach an agreement.” Trump stressed that limits on nuclear weapons remain a non-negotiable red line for the United States and expressed strong confidence that Iran will ultimately make concessions to secure a deal.

The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced on the evening of the 14th that it has “fully implemented” a military blockade targeting Iranian ports, emphasizing that U.S. forces currently maintain absolute maritime dominance in the region. Within less than 36 hours of issuing the blockade order, the U.S. military successfully halted all economic and trade activities entering and leaving Iranian waters. The United States aims to exert economic pressure to force Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and cease support for terrorist organizations.

CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper stressed that U.S. forces demonstrated strong operational capability in a very short period of time by cutting off all maritime trade associated with Iran. It is estimated that 90% of Iran’s economic activity, which depends on maritime transportation and trade, will be disrupted.

The United States has deployed more than 10,000 personnel, including U.S. Navy sailors, Marines, and Air Force members, to carry out the blockade. The operation includes over a dozen major warships, such as Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group deployed in the Gulf of Oman. Additionally, more than 100 reconnaissance and combat aircraft are involved, including F/A-18 Super Hornets, E-2D Hawkeye early warning aircraft, and P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, providing continuous intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support. Within the first 24 hours, six commercial vessels complied with U.S. directives and turned back to Iranian ports in the Gulf of Oman. U.S. destroyers also intercepted two oil tankers attempting to leave Iran in the Strait of Hormuz.

CENTCOM reiterated that the blockade targets all vessels entering or leaving Iranian ports and coastal areas, including those in the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Ships from all countries are treated equally. However, vessels traveling to and from non-Iranian ports are not affected, and more than 20 such ships have safely passed through the strait during the blockade.

The blockade order was issued by U.S. President Donald Trump following the collapse of negotiations with Iran in Islamabad, Pakistan. The move has once again shaken global energy markets, with international oil prices rising above $100 per barrel. Iran has warned that if the blockade continues, other ports in the Gulf region will “no longer be safe.” Despite the tensions, Trump stated that negotiations are still ongoing and that new diplomatic efforts may resume in the coming days.

U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered the Navy to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, with U.S. Central Command announcing that, starting at 10 a.m. Eastern Time on the 13th (10 p.m. Taiwan time), all maritime traffic entering and leaving Iranian ports will be subject to control measures. The move came just hours after direct U.S.-Iran talks in Pakistan collapsed, raising market concerns over renewed disruptions to global energy supplies. Bloomberg Economics analysts noted that the latest developments highlight growing downside risks to the global economy, with oil prices likely to rise further and exert dual pressure on economic growth and inflation.

Asian economies are expected to bear the brunt of the impact. Many countries in the region, including Japan and South Korea, rely on the Strait of Hormuz for more than 80% of their energy imports. Governments are now scrambling to secure alternative sources of oil and gas, while also implementing energy-saving measures and relief policies to cushion businesses and households from rising costs. Vessels from China and other nations transiting the region could also become targets of the blockade. Analysts suggest that Beijing may seek to pressure Washington through diplomatic or economic means ahead of Trump’s expected mid-May visit to China.

The impact is unlikely to be limited to energy markets. Experts warn that downstream supply chains—from fertilizers and packaging to textiles—could face prolonged disruptions due to transport restrictions. Bloomberg outlines three scenarios: if tensions persist without full escalation, oil prices will likely remain elevated; if the Strait of Hormuz is shut down for an extended period, prices could surge to as high as $170 per barrel, severely damaging the global economy; only a ceasefire or de-escalation that restores passage through the strait would significantly ease pressures on global growth and inflation.

Peace talks between the United States and Iran held on the 11th in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, failed to reach an agreement. The nuclear negotiations, which lasted 21 hours, officially collapsed on Saturday evening U.S. Eastern Time, with both sides holding deep differences on multiple issues. Iran’s refusal to accept the U.S. demand to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions proved to be the key obstacle.

Former President Trump suggested that the U.S. could adopt a strategy similar to its past approach toward Venezuela, potentially imposing a naval blockade on Iran. However, Middle East experts note that Iran also holds a strategic card—it could leverage Houthi forces to block the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which would have consequences for the global economy comparable to a closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Although the U.S. claims to have curbed Iran’s nuclear weapons development, Iran is believed to possess 400 kilograms of enriched uranium, raising concerns that it could accelerate its path toward nuclearization. Amid the ongoing conflict, Iran’s political system has evolved into a highly militarized state centered around the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and it may pursue nuclear development through covert means. The issue of enriched uranium has long been a sticking point in U.S.-Iran negotiations and is unlikely to be resolved in a matter of days.

On Saturday, a U.S. Navy destroyer entered the Strait of Hormuz to conduct mine-clearing operations and shot down an Iranian reconnaissance drone that approached a U.S. vessel, further escalating regional tensions and increasing uncertainty in global energy markets.

Previously, President Trump had announced a two-week ceasefire to facilitate negotiations. However, with the collapse of the latest talks, new uncertainties have emerged. Trump also emphasized that U.S. forces would remain in the region unless a comprehensive and compliant agreement is reached. This suggests that tensions in the Middle East are unlikely to ease in the short term, posing continued challenges to global energy supply chains and economic outlook.

On the eve of Hungary’s parliamentary elections, Andrej Babiš publicly expressed support for incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, adding further political tension to a vote seen as pivotal for Europe’s political landscape.

According to multiple international media reports, Hungary held parliamentary elections on April 12 to fill 199 seats. The vote is widely viewed as a crucial test of Orbán’s 16-year rule. Polls suggest that his ruling party, Fidesz, faces a strong challenge from the opposition and could potentially lose power.

Ahead of the vote, Babiš posted on social media backing Orbán, praising him for “consistently working toward a stronger Europe built on peace and the sovereignty of nation-states,” and urging voters to support his re-election.

In addition to the Czech Republic, Robert Fico, Prime Minister of Slovakia, also voiced support for Orbán, calling him a “defender of national sovereignty.” Analysts note that the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary have increasingly aligned within the European Union in recent years, particularly on issues such as Russia policy, energy, and national sovereignty—forming a more conservative and nationalist-leaning bloc.

During his time in power, Orbán has repeatedly clashed with the European Union over concerns related to the rule of law, human rights, and media freedom. He has also drawn criticism for maintaining a relatively friendly stance toward Russia. The outcome of this election is expected to influence not only Hungary’s domestic politics, but also the EU’s approach to Russia, its support for Ukraine, and the broader regional balance of power.

On the opposition side, emerging party leader Péter Magyar is campaigning on anti-corruption and reform platforms, attracting support from younger and centrist voters. Observers widely regard this election as one of the most consequential political turning points in Hungary since the end of the Cold War.

Putin’s statement is similar to the 30-hour ceasefire he announced in 2025. Previously, Zelenskyy had repeatedly proposed through the United States that both Russia and Ukraine should refrain from attacking each other’s energy infrastructure during Easter. He said Ukraine would take reciprocal measures and expressed hope for future steps toward peace, urging Russia not to launch further attacks after Easter.

The Kremlin issued a statement noting that Ukraine had followed Russia’s example of halting military operations during Easter, while reminding Russian forces to remain vigilant and prepared for any potential provocations or aggressive actions from the enemy.

According to media reports, Russian envoy “Kirill Dmitriev” has arrived in the United States to meet with White House officials to discuss a Ukraine peace agreement and U.S.–Russia economic cooperation. Ukraine hopes to begin with a comprehensive ceasefire and then end Russia’s invasion through negotiations. However, Moscow insists that a peace agreement must be reached before any ceasefire, leading Kyiv to accuse Russia of having no intention to de-escalate the situation.

Since the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine war four years ago, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions displaced, making it the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II.

The United States and Israel say the ceasefire agreement does not cover Lebanon; Iran retaliates by once again blocking the Strait of Hormuz.

A two-week ceasefire agreement reached between the United States and Iran to buy time for diplomatic negotiations is now at risk of collapse in less than 48 hours. The two sides have differing interpretations regarding the scope of the ceasefire. Israel launched its most intense airstrikes on Lebanon since the outbreak of the conflict, prompting Iran to announce the resumption of a de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Geopolitical risks have once again cast a shadow over the global energy market.

The core of the conflict lies in differing interpretations of the ceasefire’s scope. Iran and mediator Pakistan both maintain that the agreement includes the Lebanese front, while Israel and the United States insist that operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon are not covered by the U.S.-Iran ceasefire. Israel subsequently carried out its largest-scale airstrikes since the war began on the southern suburbs of Beirut and areas surrounding its airport, resulting in more than 300 deaths and over a thousand injuries. Tehran strongly condemned the attacks, calling them a “massacre” and accusing them of violating the negotiation framework.

In retaliation for Israel’s strikes on Lebanon, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced on the 9th that, due to “mine-related risks” in the region, all commercial vessels must reroute and follow official guidance. By reinstating the blockade of the strait, Iran has effectively implemented a “Tehran tollgate,” demanding transit fees of up to $2 million per vessel, payable in Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. This move challenges the petrodollar system while circumventing U.S. financial sanctions and SWIFT monitoring. Transit traffic has dropped by 95% compared to pre-conflict levels, leaving more than 800 cargo ships stranded in the Persian Gulf. Oil prices have rebounded sharply, with Brent crude once again nearing the $100-per-barrel mark. Fertilizer supplies and AI technology supply chains are also expected to face structurally higher costs.

U.S. President Donald Trump described Iran’s renewed closure of the strait as “completely unacceptable,” emphasizing that all U.S. naval and air forces deployed in the Middle East will remain in place. He warned that Iran must fully comply with the agreement or face “unprecedented” military strikes. Representatives from both sides are scheduled to meet in Islamabad, Pakistan. A U.S. delegation led by Vice President JD Vance will meet with Iranian representatives on the 11th in an effort to find common ground and preserve the extremely fragile ceasefire.

Vietnam’s political scene has recently undergone a major personnel shift. The current General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, To Lam, has officially taken on the concurrent role of State President, becoming the top leader holding the highest authority over the Party, government, and military. This arrangement is widely interpreted as a further concentration of power, signaling that Vietnam’s political system is moving toward a more strongman-centered leadership model, drawing international attention.

On the 7th, Vietnam’s National Assembly, with 495 members present and 5 absent, unanimously approved the Communist Party’s nomination for To Lam, the current General Secretary, to concurrently serve as State President. This move breaks from the previous “four pillars” collective leadership system, in which the General Secretary, State President, Prime Minister, and National Assembly Chairperson were held by four separate individuals. Last year (2025), the Standing Member of the Secretariat was added as another top leadership role. With his authority further expanded, To Lam was immediately sworn into office.

Vietnam’s State President To Lam stated: “Under the sacred red-and-gold star flag of the fatherland, before the National Assembly, the people, and the voters, I, the President of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, solemnly swear absolute loyalty to the Party and to the Constitution of Vietnam, and I will do my utmost to fulfill the tasks entrusted to me by the Party, the State, and the people.”

Analysts believe this approach follows China’s model. While it may enable Vietnam to accelerate decision-making when facing various challenges, it could also push this one-party state toward greater authoritarianism.

Analysts also note that To Lam has long overseen the public security system. During his tenure as Minister of Public Security, he was known for his hardline measures against corruption and dissent. His concurrent appointment as State President not only continues the trend of internal power consolidation within the Communist Party of Vietnam but also marks the peak of his personal political influence. Observers see similarities between this concentration of power and Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s recent efforts to strengthen personal authority.

Vietnamese officials, however, emphasize that this move is intended to ensure policy continuity and political stability, and to help deepen anti-corruption efforts. In recent years, Vietnam has vigorously pursued its “blazing furnace” anti-corruption campaign, with multiple high-ranking officials being removed from office, leading to a political reshuffle. Against this backdrop, having one individual simultaneously hold Party and state power is seen as an important way to improve decision-making efficiency.

However, critics argue that excessive concentration of power may weaken institutional checks and balances, increase decision-making risks, and even affect foreign investors’ long-term confidence in Vietnam’s political stability. Especially amid global supply chain restructuring and intensifying geopolitical competition, Vietnam is striving to maintain its attractiveness as a manufacturing hub, making changes in its political system a subject of close scrutiny by the business community.

U.S. President Donald Trump intensified his threats against Iran. In a post made 12 hours before his self-imposed deadline, he warned that “an entire civilization will be wiped out tonight, never to return.” This statement triggered strong condemnation and concern from the international community. However, several Republican lawmakers and White House officials quickly stepped in to downplay the remarks, stating that such extreme rhetoric is part of Trump’s usual “high-level negotiation strategy,” aimed at applying maximum pressure to force Tehran to make last-minute concessions.

Trump’s outburst on social media has been described as “crazy,” “mentally unstable,” and “highly irresponsible.” Some members of Congress even accused him of inciting “genocide,” raising concerns about his mental state and intentions to go to war. Nevertheless, some continued to support him. Representatives from Nebraska, Don Bacon and Mike Flood, defended Trump, saying this was simply his “way of negotiating peace,” using threats to compel the Iranian regime to yield and enable Persian civilization to flourish again without the rule of the Ayatollahs. White House officials also revealed that Trump’s inflammatory remarks did not indicate any real intent to use nuclear weapons: “He is creating leverage through unpredictability—he wants Tehran to blink first.”

Edward Wertheim, an associate professor at Northeastern University, categorized this approach as the use of “extreme anchors.” Social psychology experts refer to it as the “door-in-the-face technique.” Both involve making an extreme demand that is likely to be rejected, in order to facilitate acceptance of a more moderate objective afterward.

Fortunately, less than two hours before Trump’s deadline (8:00 p.m. on the 7th), the United States and Iran, with mediation by Pakistan, reached a two-week temporary ceasefire agreement. Iran agreed to temporarily reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Trump then posted again celebrating the “double-sided CEASEFIRE,” calling it a “total and complete victory,” and stating that it demonstrated the effectiveness of his strategy—not only achieving military objectives but also advancing the beginning of a long-term peace agreement.