Trump Rejects Iran’s Strait Proposal, Opts for Diplomatic Path

The United States has signalled cautious openness to diplomacy despite rejecting a fresh proposal from Iran aimed at easing tensions in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a vital global oil transit route.

Iran’s offer, according to emerging details, centres on reopening the strait and de-escalating the ongoing maritime standoff. In return, Tehran is seeking the removal of U.S. naval restrictions, assurances against future military strikes, and a delay in addressing its nuclear programme within broader negotiations.

However, U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with the proposal, insisting that any agreement must directly address concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The U.S. administration maintains that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons remains a non-negotiable priority.

READ ALSO:

• Kano Politics: Kwankwasiyya Figure Dumps ADC in Surprise Move
• ADC Crisis Deepens as Obi, Kwankwaso Linked to Possible Defection
• Tinubu Declares Poverty, Insecurity National Emergencies

Despite rejecting the terms as insufficient, Trump indicated a preference for a non-military resolution, underscoring the human and economic costs of armed conflict. His stance reflects a delicate balance between maintaining pressure on Tehran and avoiding further escalation in an already volatile region.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes, has been at the centre of rising geopolitical tensions in recent weeks. Disruptions in the corridor have triggered fluctuations in global energy markets and heightened international concern.

Although a ceasefire has largely reduced active hostilities, the situation remains fragile. U.S. naval measures are still in place, and both sides appear divided on key issues, particularly the sequencing of security guarantees and nuclear negotiations.

Diplomatic observers note that while Iran’s proposal may serve as a starting point for dialogue, substantial gaps remain. The coming days are expected to test whether backchannel negotiations can bridge these differences or whether tensions will persist.

Trump Rejects Iran’s Strait Proposal, Opts for Diplomatic Path

 Ten Nigerians Convicted in Massive $215 Million International Fraud Scheme

In a landmark ruling, ten Nigerians have been convicted in the United States for their roles in a sprawling international fraud scheme that resulted in the theft of approximately $215 million from unsuspecting victims across the country and abroad. The convictions, handed down by federal courts in several jurisdictions, shed light on the sophisticated tactics used by fraudsters in the digital age.

The scheme, which spanned several years, involved a multifaceted approach to deception, utilizing romance scams, business email compromise, and identity theft to exploit vulnerable individuals and businesses. Prosecutors revealed that the defendants, often working in coordinated teams, crafted elaborate stories and false identities to gain the trust of their victims, some of whom believed they were engaging in legitimate business dealings or developing romantic relationships.

According to court documents, the fraudsters utilized a range of technologies, including fake websites, cloned email addresses, and social media profiles, to perpetrate their crimes. Victims were lulled into a false sense of security before being induced to transfer large sums of money under various pretenses, including investment opportunities and fictitious emergencies.

The investigation, led by the FBI and other agencies, unveiled a complex web of financial transactions that traversed multiple countries. Authorities discovered that the stolen funds were often laundered through a network of shell companies, making it challenging to trace the money back to the criminals. In addition to the Nigerian nationals, several accomplices in other countries were implicated, leading to ongoing investigations and arrests.

During the trial, the prosecution presented a wealth of evidence, including testimonies from victims who described the devastating emotional and financial impact of the fraud. Some victims reported losing their life savings, while others faced severe emotional distress due to the betrayal and manipulation involved.

In their defense, some of the convicted individuals claimed ignorance of the broader scheme, arguing that they were merely following orders from a higher authority. However, the jury found them guilty on multiple counts, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering.

U.S. Attorney [Name] stated, “This ruling sends a clear message that we will not tolerate fraud in any form. These individuals took advantage of the trust of their victims for personal gain, and they will face the consequences of their actions.”

Sentencing for the ten defendants is expected to take place in the coming months, with potential penalties including substantial prison time and restitution payments to the victims. The case underscores the growing threat posed by international fraud rings, particularly in an increasingly digital world.

Experts in cybersecurity and fraud prevention warn that individuals should remain vigilant against unsolicited communications and always verify the authenticity of requests for funds or personal information. As law enforcement continues to crack down on such schemes, victims are encouraged to report suspicious activity to the authorities.

This case serves as a reminder of the need for ongoing vigilance in the fight against cybercrime and the importance of educating the public about potential scams.

 Ten Nigerians Convicted in Massive $215 Million International Fraud Scheme

Trump Administration Says Iran War ‘Terminated’ Ahead of Congressional Deadline

Washington, D.C. — The administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump has asserted that the ongoing military conflict with Iran was effectively “terminated” before the expiration of a 60-day deadline requiring congressional authorization, setting up a contentious legal and political battle in Washington.

Senior administration officials argue that a ceasefire reached in early April brought an end to active hostilities, thereby rendering the requirements of the War Powers Resolution inapplicable. According to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the absence of recent exchanges of fire signifies that the United States is no longer engaged in active combat operations against Iran.

“The conflict, as defined under the War Powers framework, has ceased,” an official familiar with the administration’s position said. “There are no ongoing hostilities that would trigger the need for congressional authorization.”

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 mandates that the president must seek approval from Congress within 60 days of committing U.S. forces to armed conflict, or otherwise withdraw those forces. That deadline, tied to the recent escalation with Iran, was expected to fall on May 1, 2026.

However, the administration maintains that the ceasefire effectively halted the legal clock, arguing that the absence of sustained combat operations means the United States is no longer in a state of war requiring legislative oversight.

The position has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including members of both major political parties. Critics contend that a ceasefire does not equate to a formal end of hostilities, particularly if U.S. forces remain deployed in the region or continue enforcement measures such as naval blockades.

“Calling it ‘terminated’ doesn’t make it so,” one congressional aide said. “If U.S. forces are still engaged in activities that could lead to conflict, then Congress has a constitutional role to play.”

Legal scholars have also weighed in, noting that the interpretation of what constitutes “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution has long been a gray area. Some argue that even limited military actions or strategic posturing could fall within the scope of the law, thereby requiring congressional approval.

The debate underscores a broader and longstanding tension between the executive and legislative branches over war-making powers. While presidents have often sought to expand their authority in matters of national security, Congress has periodically pushed back to assert its constitutional prerogative to declare war.

For now, the administration’s stance appears aimed at avoiding an immediate vote in Congress that could either authorize continued operations or compel a withdrawal of U.S. forces. Whether lawmakers will challenge this interpretation through legislation or legal action remains to be seen.

The situation continues to evolve, with implications not only for U.S.-Iran relations but also for the balance of power within the American government.

Trump Administration Faces Backlash Over ‘Terminated’ Iran War Claim