A seventh man has been arrested in connection with a suspected terror plot near RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire, last month, which Andy Burnham has said was most likely linked to Iran.

Amid fears that Tehran was planning a complex drone attack against Fairford, which serves as a forward operating base for US aircraft targeting Iran, the Trump administration made a “historic, unprecedented” decision to withdraw all its 12 B-1 bombers on Sunday, said David Dunn, a professor of international politics at the University of Birmingham.

The incident “tells us much about Iran, Britain and the emerging threats to US forces and assets. None of it is good,” said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial.

What did the commentators say?

The Fairford plot is far from an isolated event. On Tuesday, three Iranian men appeared in court accused of spying on British-based dissident journalists on behalf of Iran’s foreign intelligence service. Earlier this year, a wave of arson attacks targeting British Jews were linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). And in July, a Tehran-backed cyberattack halted operations at a UK power plant for four days.

It is important to note here that the UK is technically “not at war with Iran”, said BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner. But the US is, and “that is a distinction Tehran has publicly challenged”.

In July, Iran warned “any base used for aggression against Iranian territory constitutes a legitimate target for our forces”. As far as the IRGC “is concerned, Britain is already a participant in America’s war with Iran”, said Gardner.

The emergence of sophisticated state-run drone attacks, such as Ukraine’s Operation Spider’s Web last year, when low-cost drones were smuggled into Russia and carried on lorries to locations near airbases before being set upon strategic targets, have changed the game when it comes to perceived threats from hostile nations.

But “the question on minds in London is not whether Britain could stage such an attack but whether it could repel one”, said The Times’ defence editor Larisa Brown.

Given that it would require “months of planning, utmost secrecy and the purchase or smuggling of large quantities of explosives undetected by Britain’s security services”, one senior US diplomat asked, does Iran “really have the capability to pull off an Operation Spider’s Web on foreign soil? I think most of the community doubts that.”

“Yet there was enough concern for America to act”, said The Times.

What next?

The government’s strategic defence review published last year earmarked up to £1 billion for homeland air and missile defence over the next four years.

This week, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch ramped up this pledge to £10 billion over the next 10 years to go towards a “Britannia Shield” that would protect military bases and critical infrastructure from missile or drone attacks.

While defence experts have questioned these figures, for Britain the “bigger problem has been finding the will to confront the Iranians and go on offence against their terror networks. Does protecting US jets and UK Jews fit the bill?”, asked the WSJ.

“The IRGC, like Vladimir Putin, clearly doesn’t think it will pay much of a price for orchestrating terror in Britain – or many other states. Until that changes, even the best defence technology can only do so much.”

The price of diesel has hit £2 per litre – the most expensive it has ever been – at a third of UK petrol stations, said The Sun.

This is “uncharted territory”, financial analyst Kathleen Brooks told City A.M. Donald Trump has already sent markets into a “frenzy” by threatening to ban diesel exports from the US, said the same paper. Weakened infrastructure for refining diesel and lower reserves than European counterparts mean the UK could be uniquely “exposed” to any further “ripple effects”, including more price rises.

What did the commentators say?

President Trump is trying to bring diesel prices down for US consumers ahead of the midterm elections in November. If he does decide to ban exports of US diesel, it would “hurt the countries which heavily depend” on it, said the BBC, including the UK. But it might also have “unintended effects that could hurt US production” in the longer term.

Trump’s threats have “highlighted Britain’s over-reliance on the goodwill of other countries” for its diesel needs, said an editorial in The Times. Last year, the UK imported more than 50% of its diesel supply, around a sixth of that from the US.

Our infrastructure depends on it: around 10 million cars, a quarter of the country’s trains, 70% of buses, virtually all tractors and “almost 99% of HGVs” run on diesel. Yet the UK has enough reserves to last for only around six weeks, according to International Energy Forum data, compared to around six months for France, Italy, Spain and Germany.

Breaking the £2 threshold for a litre of diesel should “set alarm bells ringing in Downing Street”, said The Telegraph in an editorial. The government’s response so far has been to remove VAT from energy bills in an attempt to cushion the blow to consumers, but this “hardly addresses the fundamental issues”. As a nation, we have “failed to prepare”, allowing our refining capacity to “wither away” to leave us “dangerously exposed” to market fluctuations beyond our control.

The diesel crisis could “deepen” after the UK’s largest refinery shut down production for up to 10 weeks, said energy editor Jonathan Leake in The Telegraph. The Fawley refinery in Hampshire – which produces “one fifth of the fuel used on UK roads” – has closed for planned maintenance, a move that “will add to fears about another diesel price spike hurting drivers at the pumps”.

In the 1980s, the UK had 18 refineries, but that has dropped to just four. Two closures last year – in Grangemouth, Scotland and Lindsey in Lincolnshire – “slashed UK refinery output by about a third”. Now, any closures, planned or unplanned, temporary or permanent, have a “rapid impact on supplies”.

What next?

“Rising diesel costs aren’t just a problem for drivers generally but a wider inflation threat,” said Sky News. Diesel is the “engine of the UK economy” and shortages would heavily disrupt supply chains and lead to costs being passed on to consumers, particularly in the run-up to Christmas. This is the type of inflation that “worries” the Bank of England, which is “widely tipped” to raise interest rates in November.

Taxes on fuel – which account for “just over half of the cost of a litre” – are also set to rise. Hikes planned by former chancellor Rachel Reeves are set to come into effect in January, but her successor, John Healey, should “question the wisdom of raising prices at the pump at a time when they are clearly inflationary in nature”. As such, they are likely to be “scrapped or further delayed” at the upcoming Budget.

The midterm elections are looming as a milestone in the Iran war. President Donald Trump declined a ceasefire proposal from Tehran last week, reportedly because he expects to restart U.S. attacks after the vote. And Iran’s leaders may be betting that election pressure can force the White House to make concessions.

‘Midterm election problem’

The president expects to start a new round of bombing “after the November midterms,” said The Wall Street Journal. Trump on Friday rejected a proposed ceasefire that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for lifting the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports.

Iranian leaders, however, say they want to make a deal “before Americans head to the polls this November,” said NBC News. “We don’t want it to get to the midterm elections,” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said to reporters at last week’s United Nations assembly, per NBC.

It is “highly unusual” for U.S. elections to “affect a war,” David Shribman said at The Globe and Mail. The “only precedent” for electoral considerations influencing war strategy so directly came in 1968, when President Lyndon B. Johnson halted bombing in North Vietnam “to help his vice-president, Hubert Humphrey,” in the presidential election. Humphrey lost.

Trump has a “midterm election problem” with the war, said Al Jazeera. Voters who were “promised easy victory” appear poised to punish Republicans in November, which affects strategic considerations. Iran “faces no such countdown,” given that it is “ruled by an unelected Supreme Leader.”

‘Potentially endless’ war

If the elections are affecting war strategy, the war is also affecting elections. U.S. voters are “angry” at the president and his party, Stephen Collinson said at CNN. Just 26% of voters “approve of his handling of the war.” Trump’s “odd” strategy is to give them the “opposite of what they want,” as he refuses to “listen to their fears.”

This is “hardly a recipe for success” in elections, said Collinson. A “potentially endless” war against Iran might be a mistake that gets the GOP’s most devoted voters to “finally ditch Trump,” David Wallace-Wells said at The New York Times.

This week, the world heard from an often quiet figure at the center of the Iran-U.S. war: Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. While subservient to Iran’s supreme leader, Pezeshkian wields immense power as the head of government, and a fiery speech at the United Nations showed that he has no intention of rolling over for the United States.

Heart surgeon-turned-president

Pezeshkian, 71, was born in the city of Mahabad and completed his military conscription service at the age of 19. During his conscription, he served in “Zabul — one of the most deprived cities in Sistan and Balochestan province, an experience that was said to be his political awakening,” said The Guardian. After returning home, Pezeshkian decided to have a career in medicine and “returned to his hometown to start his medical training.”

He eventually pivoted to cardiac health and “became a heart surgeon and served as the head of the Tabriz University of Medical Sciences,” said The Associated Press. His middle life was also marked by tragedy, after a 1994 car accident “killed his wife, Fatemeh Majidi, and a daughter.” Pezeshkian eventually became a politician, serving as Iran’s “deputy health minister and later as the health minister under the administration of reformist President Mohammad Khatami.”

In 2024, Pezeshkian ran for president as a moderate with a pledge to “open Iran to the world,” said Deutsche Welle. His campaign focused on “rebuilding trust between the government and the Iranian people, fighting disillusionment after persistent economic woes and political repression.” He won the election in a runoff, and his victory came as a stunning upset against his hardline opponent. While Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei remains the country’s ultimate authority, Pezeshkian has become a historically significant leader.

‘Never bow our head or bend at the knee’

Since the war in Iran began, Pezeshkian has largely pushed back against what he views to be U.S. aggression. He asserted himself during a speech at the United Nations General Assembly against President Donald Trump, who had personally threatened Iran when he spoke to the body the day before. The country will “never bow our head or bend at the knee,” Pezeshkian said of Iran during his speech. The Iranian president was “defiant in the face of what he called ‘bullying’ by Trump, while saying Tehran is open to negotiations,” said USA Today.

Pezeshkian’s visit to the United Nations in New York City is an “extraordinary appearance,” given that the U.S. and Iran are in a state of war, said USA Today. Just “months after he and other Iranian leaders were targeted by U.S. airstrikes, Pezeshkian — like other world leaders — is traveling through Manhattan with a Secret Service escort.” Pezeshkian has repeatedly accused the U.S. of war crimes and during his speech he “held up a photo of children killed in a U.S. strike on an Iranian primary school at the start of the war.”

While much of the ongoing tension surrounds Iran’s alleged attempts to enrich uranium, Pezeshkian has denied that his country “wanted a nuclear weapon” but “refused limitations on the country’s civilian nuclear program,” said NPR. His conditions for negotiating in the future include the “halting” of “U.S. hostilities, an end to the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports and the release of Iranian funds.”

What happened

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday told the United Nations General Assembly that the U.S. “hit us, but we did not bend the knee” and will defend “our beloved” homeland “until our last breath.” His “defiant speech” at the U.N.’s New York headquarters “marked a striking instance of a foreign leader addressing the world body while their country is at war with the host nation,” The Associated Press said. Pezeshkian held up “pictures of people killed by American and Israeli airstrikes” while “standing at the same lectern where a day earlier” President Donald Trump had “threatened to ’annihilate’ his country,’” The New York Times said.

Who said what

Pezeshkian accused the U.S. of violating international law with “cowardly attacks” on civilian infrastructure and said Iran would not give up its civilian nuclear program. Trump “described us as terrorists,” but Iranians are “the victims of terrorism,” Pezeshkian said. “Iran must be powerful to avoid being threatened,” and Trump and others “who seek to bully us” must understand that Iran is “ready for dialogue, diplomacy and negotiations without accepting the language of force.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran had little standing to “lecture anyone on human rights or the international system when they habitually violate it.” As Pezeshkian was speaking, the “lone American diplomat sitting in the hall left,” the Times said.

What next?

U.S. and Iranian officials downplayed indirect talks on the sidelines of the General Assembly. They’re “not anything new,” said Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei. Rubio said holding talks was “positive” but “I don’t want to mischaracterize this as a major breakthrough.”

China is being quietly credited with keeping energy prices down in the wake of Donald Trump’s war with Iran, in turn helping prop up the global economy while cementing its own power on the world stage.

By tapping into its huge reserves of oil, “China kind of saved the day,” and helped the world avoid the “doomsday scenario” when the Strait of Hormuz closure choked off 20% of global energy supply, said Paul Gruenwald, global chief economist at S&P Global Ratings.

What did the commentators say?

For decades, China heavily depended on imported crude to meet its ever-growing energy needs. But over the past few years Chinese President Xi Jinping has sought to address what has long been viewed in Beijing as a major security weakness by spending billions of dollars amassing the world’s biggest stockpile of oil.

Last year China’s reserves were estimated at nearly 600 million barrels bigger than the US. This enabled it to dramatically cut its oil imports when the war in the Middle East broke out, keeping a lid on global oil prices and safeguarding its own economy.

Not only has this enabled China to weather the global commodities storm resulting from the closure of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, it has seen China emerge as a “clear winner” from Donald Trump’s foray into the Middle East, said The Guardian, citing the findings of a report from geopolitical consulting firm Asia Group.

Long thought to be vulnerable to oil supply shocks, the conflict has made clear how China has “managed to transform that weakness into a surprising source of geopolitical power”, said The New York Times.

This has “big implications for the global energy industry, where oil producers like Saudi Arabia and the United States — not importers like China — have traditionally held most of the cards”.

“If they come to feel that in this domain, they are less vulnerable than they and many others may have assessed previously, that is a profound and important shift in one of the key inputs to how China makes decisions about its global strategy,” said Julian Gewirtz, a former White House and State Department official who worked on China issues in the Biden administration.

What next?

While the Iran crisis has vindicated Xi’s investment strategy, the “buffer” of China’s stockpile of oil, which has helped the world avoid a far deeper energy crisis up to now, “may face a test as Beijing shows signs of resuming purchases”, said CNBC.

Should this happen, the drag on global growth from elevated oil prices would deepen well beyond current estimates, said Krishna Srinivasan, director for the Asia and Pacific Department at the International Monetary Fund.

But the Iran crisis has also shown how “China’s muscular energy policy has afforded Beijing a major tool it could use, for instance, in a war over Taiwan”, said The Wall Street Journal.

“In the future, such power could be wielded in a clash with the US In the event of a war over Taiwan”. For example, “Beijing’s ability to slash oil imports for months on end could help China resist efforts by the US and its allies to block energy shipments”.

For China, “oil is not the Achilles’ heel we thought it was,” said Michal Meidan, head of China energy research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. “I think a lot of people thought China was very, very vulnerable to oil supply disruptions. It’s not.”

What happened

President Donald Trump on Tuesday told the United Nations General Assembly in New York City he was deciding whether to make a deal with Iran or “annihilate the Islamic Republic” and “drive them into hell with no chance of survival.” After his speech, his envoys met indirectly with Iranian officials for what Trump described as a “very good meeting.”

Who said what

In his 35-minute address, Trump also celebrated his military operation in Venezuela, hailed a new agreement on Greenland and criticized efforts to regulate artificial intelligence. But the “heart of the address was a fulsome defense” of his Iran war, The Associated Press said. Trump “didn’t offer an answer” on whether he would annihilate the country, The Wall Street Journal said, leaving the “question to hang over the final weeks of the campaign season as GOP candidates are facing sharp questions” about the war and its fallout, including “sharp increases” in gas and diesel prices.

Trump was “again the center of attention” at the U.N., Politico said, but even as “world leaders scrambled to stay in his good graces,” there was an “undercurrent of discontent — and even defiance — from some leaders who are seemingly preparing for a life after the U.S.-led order.” After Trump threatened to destroy Iran from a “podium where world leaders typically champion peace and global harmony,” The New York Times said, other leaders “warned of the dangers posed by division and unilateral action.”

What next?

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is scheduled to address the General Assembly on Wednesday, where “his remarks will be closely watched,” the Times said.

The prime minister announced military support to Saudi Arabia in a bid to avoid further disruption to global energy supplies, which could have a knock-on effect on the cost of living at home.

He made the decision ahead of his first meeting with Donald Trump in New York, as a statement from the Ministry of Defence said an RAF Voyager air-to-air refuelling aircraft is to be deployed to bolster Saudi “defensive activity in support of the legitimate government of Yemen”.

Why is the UK getting involved?

The conflict between Iranian-backed Houthis and Yemen’s Saudi-backed government has reignited in recent weeks, with the rebels aiming missile and drone attacks at Saudi Arabia itself, including on the capital Riyadh over the weekend. Having seized the strategically vital port city of Mokha in Yemen earlier this month, they have also declared a blockade on Saudi shipping in the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb Strait, through which around 12% of global trade passes.

Last week The Associated Press reported that Saudi was running low on missile interceptors and had “turned to regional and Western allies for assistance”. With the US’ missile stockpile depleted by its war against Iran, France, Britain, Pakistan and Egypt were asked to step in with air-defence assistance to help defend against missile attacks by the Houthis and other Iran-backed groups.

UK Defence Minister Luke Pollard told Sky News that the UK was stepping up “for national security reasons in support of our own national security”, but Andy Burnham alluded to another reason closer to home.

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait has been used increasingly as an alternative route for oil exports, bypassing disruption in the ⁠Strait of Hormuz. Any blockade would drive up global energy prices even further.

“On cost-of-living pressures and acting to secure the interests of Britain and the wider region … we need to keep those pathways open,” said the PM.

Could the UK get dragged into a wider conflict?

The use of the RAF Voyager, normally based in Cyprus, is expected to start within days and will be time-limited. The initial agreement is believed to be for a matter of weeks, but Burnham said it will be kept under review.

It is understood to be focused on defensive capabilities, “but could include shooting down drones, which is considered a defensive measure”, said The Independent.

The support builds on the UK’s existing military contribution to Saudi Arabia’s air defence, including the deployment of air defence equipment and UK personnel helping to protect against missile and drone attacks.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, Burnham chose to focus less on ongoing tensions in the Middle East and instead target Russian disinformation and the threat posed by AI.

On the Iran war he told reporters, “the message is that we want to see an end to the conflict as quickly as possible and we stand ready to play our part”.

As the United States struggles to extricate itself from the Iran war, longtime regional ally Saudi Arabia is facing a growing Iranian threat of its own. Yemen’s Houthi rebels, long considered proxies of the Iranian regime, have successfully launched a series of military offensives, including the recent capture of the port city of Mokha and the destruction of an overland pipeline. These are key fuel nodes for the Red Sea, made all the more vital as Iran throttles traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

The result is a “nightmare scenario for Saudi Arabia” that has “sent jitters through global markets,” said The Associated Press. With fighting between the Saudi-backed government and Iranian-backed rebel forces spreading, Yemen has become a stand-in for larger forces scrambling to capitalize on a new paradigm in the Middle East.

Why are Saudi officials worried?

Saudi Arabia is “becoming a focal point for the Middle East crisis,” as it “contends with a multifront campaign being waged by Iran and its Axis of Resistance allies,” said Newsweek. Houthi forces have “stepped up cross-border attacks” against Iran while “simultaneously gaining ground” against Saudi-backed government forces “in some of the most intensive clashes since an April 2022 ceasefire halted Yemen’s civil war.”

At the same time, the Saudi’s “most essential ally, the United States,” has been “unpredictable and sometimes unreliable” under this administration, said the AP. The White House “seems reluctant to widen an already unpopular and stalemated Mideast war ahead of congressional elections.”

“For a decade,” the Saudi attitude toward Yemen has “rested on the assumption” that “patiently and strategically” applying time, money and force would “eventually produce enough leverage to subdue the Houthis,” said Responsible Statecraft. “Or at least force them into a settlement on Riyadh’s terms.” For the past several weeks, that “assumption has been tested more severely than at any point since 2015,” as Houthi forces press toward the city of Marib, which is the “last major stronghold of forces loyal to the internationally recognized government of Yemen.” And as “Iran-aligned groups” such as the Houthis “increase pressure” on Saudi Arabia, “diplomacy” between the Gulf States and Iran has “hit its own wall.”

What’s at risk for the kingdom?

Attacks by Houthi forces have “already caused a plunge in Saudi oil exports to Asia” from “around 3.4 million barrels a day in June to 128,000 in August,” said the AP. As the group tightens its grip on the Red Sea’s Bab al-Mandab Strait, Houthi figures have “assured U.S. officials” that the group has “no intention of attacking U.S. shipping in the Red Sea,” said Al Jazeera. Instead, any restrictions would “apply only to vessels linked to Saudi Arabia.”

Israel has “reportedly offered to intervene in Yemen on Saudi Arabia’s behalf,” said Al Jazeera. But kingdom officials may be “wary of being seen to rely on Israeli military support” for fear it could “damage Riyadh’s standing and legitimacy throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds.”

Where is Iran in all this?

The Houthis are “agents and proxies of the Iranians,” said Secretary of State Marco Rubio to reporters earlier this month, per Off the Press. Iran “arms, trains and coordinates with the Houthis” in a relationship that “indeed deserves scrutiny,” said The National Interest. But the group has “independent origins, an autonomous decision-making structure, its own revenue base and a track record of acting against Tehran’s preferences when its own interests demand it.”

Ansar Allah is an “independent Yemeni actor” that “makes its own decisions,” said Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei on X, using the Houthis’ official group name. It “takes orders from no one and acts as nobody’s proxy.”

The group is “first and foremost” a Yemeni movement “whose fight has always been about power inside Yemen,” said The Conversation. But “Yemeni security sources” have claimed senior Iranian commander Abdul Reza Shahla’i was “on the ground overseeing part of the latest operation in September.” Moreover, there is also a risk that seizing another fuel “choke point” to target Saudi shipping “makes the Houthis look, to much of the world and no small part of Yemen, like Tehran’s instrument,” no matter what their “own objectives actually are.”

Where is China in all this?

Neither the United States nor Saudi Arabia seems “eager to send their forces to die en masse,” said Annelle Sheline, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft's Middle East program, to Newsweek. Both countries “prefer to rely on superior air power,” which has “proven repeatedly inadequate as a means of holding territory in Yemen and elsewhere.”

Riyadh has instead “turned to China for help” following recent Houthi victories, said Reuters. Accordingly, Beijing has “privately asked Tehran to help rein in Yemen’s Houthis,” going “further” in its private call for restraint and diplomacy than in China’s “public statements.”

Saudi Arabia could also “seek a diplomatic solution with either the Houthis or their patrons in Tehran,” said the AP. But the Houthis have “demanded the lifting of a Saudi-led blockade,” which would allow them to “grow much stronger over the long term.” Iran similarly has “little interest in stabilizing the region without securing major U.S. concessions.”

What happened

United Nations investigators Thursday reported they had found “reasonable grounds” to believe the U.S. committed war crimes in Iran with its “indiscriminate” attacks on an elementary school and sports center, killing at least 178 civilians, mostly children.

The Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran also determined that the Iranian government had “committed crimes against humanity” by murdering, imprisoning and torturing protestors.

Who said what

U.S. officials “have ascribed the school strike to a targeting error,” The New York Times said, though the Pentagon “has not published the results of its investigation” into the bombing. The U.N. investigators said the “clearly identifiable” elementary school was the “intended point of impact,” and the U.S. military’s use of outdated targeting data “went beyond mere negligence.” The White House said Iran is the “only party in this conflict that has committed war crimes,” and the U.N. Human Rights Council, which created the mission in 2022, has been “spouting unserious nonsense for decades.”

What next?

The investigators are set to present their findings to the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Monday. U.N. fact-finding missions are “investigative, not judicial bodies,” and can’t “initiate any criminal cases,” Reuters said. But this report “adds to international evidence gathered about crimes in the war in Iran,” The Associated Press said, and “could eventually be used in efforts to reach justice in international courts.”

It has been more than six months since the first barrage of American missiles struck Iranian targets in what has become the defining foreign policy crisis of the second Trump administration. Less defining, however, is the language the White House has used to describe what is taking place between the United States and Islamic Republic.

While President Donald Trump himself often refers to the violence in bombastic terms, other members of his administration have conspicuously avoided calling the ongoing exchanges of missiles part of a larger “war.” Instead, they opt to downplay the conflict’s duration and severity for domestic audiences.

‘It’s small potatoes for us’

Vice President JD Vance argued this month that the “current hostilities shouldn’t even be called a ‘war’” since “‘active combat operations’ ended months ago,” said CNN. Vance’s claim came “despite three consecutive days” in which the U.S. and Iran exchanged fire. “I can understand what he’s saying,” said Trump during an Oval Office press scrum following Vance’s comments. “I call it a military conflict because it’s small potatoes for us. It’s not a big thing.”

From the start of the war, Americans have been “getting conflicting messages from the Trump administration and congressional leaders” about what to call the violence, said FactCheck in March. Given that Congress hasn’t officially declared it as such, “if political leaders were to say that this is a war, they would also be acknowledging that the administration’s actions were unconstitutional,” said Stephanie Savell, the director of Brown University’s Costs of War project, to the outlet.

“Because we haven’t officially declared war, my kids and I aren’t eligible for some benefits,” said Air Force widow Libby Klinner in a recent social media post highlighting the paradox of a nonwar war, per the Military Times. Air Force officials have since launched an “audit on our benefits to ensure that we receive all we are entitled to,” said Klinner in a subsequent message.

White House officials have “downplayed the scale of the conflict” in the “apparent hope that it will recede from the headlines” since hostilities have “already lasted far longer than the president’s initial predictions of victory within a few weeks,” said The Atlantic. Still, with “no end to the hostilities in sight,” the Navy is “staying on a war footing indefinitely.”

‘Just playing to his base’

Trump has “contradicted himself and his own Cabinet in the same week — and sometimes, the same day” in his assessments of the conflict, said the Los Angeles Times. The evolving language is part of an effort to “control the narrative of the Iran war.”

Trump’s more bellicose rhetoric, like when he personally and repeatedly refers to the Iran “war,” is being used in part to “save face for the quagmire he has put himself and Republicans in” ahead of the midterms, said Khaled Elgindy, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, to The New York Times. The president’s wartime language is “just playing to his base, whether it’s true or not.” It lacks “much of a strategy beyond trying to wish things into existence by sheer force of words.”

Twenty-five years on from the most deadly terrorist attack in history, and almost 25 years into the War on Terror, “the world is a less safe place despite our actions”, said Iraq veteran Joslin Joseph on The Hill.

According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, the military interventions after 9/11 led to the deaths of over 900,000 people and cost the United States more than $8 trillion (£5.9 trillion). “Afghanistan and Iraq ended in failure”, said The American Conservative’s David Brady, while “most Americans believe that the post-9/11 wars in the Middle East were a mistake”. Indeed, this was a major part of Donald Trump’s initial appeal: “They lied,” he said of the War on Terror architects in 2016.

But while “there is much to criticise in the war on terrorism,” said Douglas J. Feith in The Washington Post, on its main objective “the success has been remarkable”. There has been no second 9/11. “Terrorists have not exploded skyscrapers, stadiums and power plants across the country” and “they have not transformed America into a police state.”

What did the commentators say?

“Hasn’t Osama Bin Laden gotten everything he wished for?” asked The American Conservative’s Brady. The financial costs “have taken an undeniable economic toll, fuelling unprecedented levels of debt” while the “human costs have soured many Americans, not just on Mideast wars, but on the elites who got us into them”. Syria is even “run by a former member of al-Qaida, who has been welcomed to the White House”.

But the “most costly single event to the US would have been another successful major attack”, said The Guardian’s Jason Burke. The fact that this never came is an “unarguable success of US policymaking since 9/11 and a major failure for al-Qaida”. And despite the obvious economic problems in the US, “no one could argue that the country has suffered a similar fate to the USSR”.

The terrorist group that Bin Laden headed up, meanwhile, faces the question of whether it can replace its ageing fighters. Although this is conceivable, al-Qaida as a brand is “visibly fading”, terrorism expert Behnam Heidenreuter-Said, head of the research centre for Strategic Police Research at Hamburg Police Academy, told Deutsche Welle. In Europe in particular, militant jihadism has become less attractive.

Some analysts “add together the presumed strength of groups in Somalia or Mali that have very loose, historic links to al-Qaida, and warn that their total membership is higher than those loyal to Bin Laden in 2001”, said The Guardian’s Burke. However, “these few thousand young men with AK-47s have little in common with the organisation Bin Laden led 25 years ago, both in aims and capabilities”. The fact that al-Qaida “still exists is an achievement of sorts for the group and, posthumously, for its founder”. But “it should not be described as any victory”.

What next?

A key lesson of 9/11 is that “perils grow when enemies conclude that America lacks the will, capability or staying power to defend itself”, said The Washington Post’s Feith.

But America and the West are again under attack, this time “from a Cold War enemy” in Russia “that watched the US and its allies waste lakes of blood and trillions in treasure enfeebling themselves after 9/11”, said The Independent’s world affairs editor Sam Kiley.

The West is now “spiritually and politically impoverished, deeply indebted and unable to meet new defence needs, and therefore vulnerable”. Vladimir Putin “has Bin Laden to thank for that”.

What happened

Iran on Wednesday said it attacked two U.S. ships and eight tankers near the Strait of Hormuz in response to the U.S. sinking five Iranian oil tankers. The Pentagon said the tanker strikes were retaliation for Iran’s first confirmed attacks on U.S. Navy ships during the six-month war. Those attacks “failed,” The Wall Street Journal said, but “officials described some of them as close calls.”

This was the “biggest wave of attacks on shipping by both sides” yet, Reuters said, and it “sent the price of oil surging” above $100 a barrel for the first time since July. U.S. gas prices hit $4.22 per gallon, and diesel rose to a record $5.94 per gallon. On Thursday, five gas stations in California maxed out diesel at $9.99 per gallon, the highest possible price on the pump, according to GasBuddy.

Who said what

The U.S. and Iran “appear to be stuck in a cycle that is draining U.S. air defenses and deepening Iran’s economic crisis,” The New York Times said. Iranian ballistic missiles did “minimal” damage to a U.S. military base in Jordan, officials told the Times, and it may have left some U.S. troops with “traumatic brain injuries.” They also damaged “several fighter jets” at the base, CBS News said.

What next?

“I think war ​is going to end immediately after the election,” sending oil prices “tumbling downward,” because Iran “can’t hold out any longer,” President Donald Trump told reporters on Wednesday. Top White House advisers have “privately” discussed with Trump “that the Iran war could drag on through the remainder of his term,” the Journal said, citing U.S. officials.

When President Trump launched the Iran war in February, he declared that his “little excursion” would be over in “four to five weeks.” More than six months later, the war is still raging— and Trump “is losing,” said Ishaan Tharoor in The New Yorker. None of his initial goals have been achieved: the toppling of the Islamist regime, the seizure of Iran’s nuclear program, the dismantling of its ballistic missile program. The Strait of Hormuz, a crucial oil export route that was open to international trade before the war, is now largely shuttered and partly controlled by Iran. Meanwhile, the U.S. has spent more than $37.5 billion on combat operations, “burned through inventories of precision-guided and air-defense munitions,” and seen at least 18 service members killed and more than 750 wounded by Iranian drone and missile strikes. Angered by high gas prices—now averaging $4 a gallon, up from $2.75 pre-war— only about 30% of voters approve of the president’s handling of the conflict. But Trump seems happy with his performance, said Peter Baker in The New York Times. Two weeks ago, he posted an AI-generated image of himself backed by an aircraft carrier, warplanes, American flags, and a sign reading “Mission Accomplished 2026."

Trump has been in denial for months, said Chas Danner in New York. Days before starting the war, he asked his then director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard if his plan for overthrowing the regime would work. According to a new Wall Street Journal report, she warned him that assassinating Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would usher in a more extreme regime, that Tehran would close the strait, and that Iran would hit U.S. partners across the region, weakening our standing with allies. Trump ignored her, “and all of those things happened.” America’s generals are still sending distress signals, said Fred Kaplan in Slate. In a “remarkable” document leaked to The Washington Post, four-star commanders around the world told Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that they wouldn’t be able to “perform their tasks” if, say, China invaded Taiwan or Russia attacked the Baltics, because the Iran war has gobbled up “so many of their planes, ships, and other weapons systems."

Yet Trump now has the upper hand in Iran, said Noah Rothman in National Review. The U.S. Navy has been quietly shepherding more oil tankers through the strait, while its blockade of Iranian ports is making “life inside Iran intolerable.” Supermarkets are running out of rice and cooking oil. Iranians are “hoarding gasoline,” and medical services are “breaking down.” Those “dire conditions” could reignite mass protests—and force the regime to cry uncle. That’s why Trump “must keep up the current economic war,” said Abe Greenwald in Commentary. He’s spent six months flip-flopping on whether to escalate or look for a negotiated “exit.” It’s time to prioritize an “American victory,” even though that means “enduring the inevitable rise in oil prices.”

Good luck selling that to voters, said Joshua Green and Nancy Cook in Bloomberg. With Trump’s approval rating at 33%, GOP strategists are panicking that the “unpopular conflict” will cost the party dearly in the midterms: 69% of undecided voters say they’ll back candidates who want to end U.S. involvement in Iran. But no swift end is in sight, said Daniel DePetris in the Chicago Tribune. Trump’s ego likely won’t let him extinguish “a fire of his own making.” The Iranians, meanwhile, have a simple goal: “Survive.” Tehran may be weaker militarily, but “at least it knows what it wants.”

Democrats are broadcasting cautious optimism as they head into the final stretch ahead of the 2026 midterms. As the party out of power, they are traditionally favored to make major gains when polls close in November. Republicans are meanwhile scrambling to defend their congressional majorities in the face of historic headwinds and flagging popularity.

While each of the hundreds of midterm races is a unique contest shaped by the variety of candidates and communities therein, there are certain issues that have emerged as electoral inflection points. Rising costs of living, increasingly heavy-handed immigration actions and a raging debate over transgender inclusion are just some of the factors that will likely determine who controls Congress — and to what end — come January.

Cost of living

Democrats have “gained a significant edge” over Republicans on “voter perceptions” about which party is better suited to address the rising cost of living, said Reuters. For the past year, voters have “signaled the cost of living will be the most important factor” in their midterm choices. Trump, however, has “mostly dismissed concerns about the high cost of living during his second term,” said Roll Call, “including the price of gasoline” since “joining Israel in an armed conflict with Iran.” Although it was the “financial frustration of a pandemic-weary electorate” that helped push Trump back into office in 2024, the president’s “actions in office have complicated, if not undermined,” many of his promises for financial relief, said The New York Times.

Data centers

The ongoing debate over data centers is “suddenly at the epicenter of the midterm elections,” said The New York Times. Politicians of all stripes are “racing to tap into the backlash — or inoculate themselves” — from what has become an “unusually fast-moving force that is already reshaping races for the House, the Senate and governor’s mansions.” $31 million has been spent this year on data center-focused political ads, “spiking” in July when “more than 8% of all campaign spending on broadcast TV went to data center or AI-related spots,” said CNN. This is “up significantly” from “less than 1% of ads last year.”

Because of the “huge tracts of land” needed to accommodate mammoth computing warehouses, tech companies have “been exploring deeper into rural America,” said PBS News. That has, in turn, “united conservative ranching and farming communities” with “left-leaning environmental advocacy groups” over their “combined concern.”

Donald Trump

Despite being the “most potent force in Republican primary elections,” Trump himself “may soon be something entirely different for Republican candidates,” said The New York Times: a “liability.” Trump’s approval is “well underwater” thanks to “rising prices and an unpopular war.” Accordingly, Democrats have moved to target battleground Republican candidates by “tying them” to the president in the hopes they can “ride voter anger with his administration to congressional majorities.”

Trump may be “on a mission to burnish his legacy,” said The Wall Street Journal, but some GOP insiders “privately worry that Trump’s focus on himself is backfiring with voters.” For his part, the president has reportedly decided to “lean into the Democratic strategy of focusing on himself,” said The Atlantic. To that end, Trump has commissioned a “series of television advertisements about his own record” that will “serve as a backdrop to the hundreds of individual House and Senate contests.”

Gas prices

Republicans may have “hammered Democrats on gas prices” during the 2024 national elections, said Politico. But with prices “soaring” again amid ongoing hostilities with Iran, “this time, the roles are reversed.” This year already, approximately “two-thirds of ads mentioning gas prices” are from Democratic candidates and groups.

Rising gas prices are “becoming a major concern” for voters and “GOP lawmakers trying to hold onto their seats” alike, said MS NOW. Historical electoral analysis holds that incumbents “tend to pay a more significant electoral price” in midterm races “when costs at the pump are higher.” In March, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee purchased a suite of social media ads about rising fuel costs that targeted “about four dozen battleground districts” the party “believes can be flipped,” said USA Today.

Immigration

Republican lawmakers and candidates are hoping to “reverse the damage” that Trump’s deportations and immigration policies have done to voters, said Politico. Although immigration “was a reliable winner for Republicans” in elections past, the party is now “struggling not only to convince persuadable voters” but also to “hold together their own coalition as it splinters over deportations.”

With Immigration and Customs Enforcement “revving up its operations across the country,” the White House is making a move “fraught with political risk as the midterm elections draw closer,” said NBC News. “Moderate and progressive Democrats alike,” meanwhile, have “figured out how to talk about the border,” said Politico. But “with less than three months until Election Day,” they “still aren’t on the same page” when it comes to dealing with ICE.

“Some high-profile” Democratic candidates have campaigned by pushing ICE “reforms,” while others are “calling to dissolve the agency altogether,” said Politico. Although “many in the party see an opening” given how unpopular Trump’s anti-immigration policies have been overall, some Democrats “worry that going too far on ICE could again kneecap their electoral chances in key battlegrounds.”

Iran war

Six months after President Trump declared war on Iran, the conflict between Washington and Tehran has “reshaped the rapidly approaching midterm election,” said The Associated Press. Not only have the months of violence undermined Trump’s campaign pledge to “steer clear of foreign conflicts,” the war is “challenging Republicans who would rather focus on their tax cuts” to defend their “narrow majorities in Congress.”

Republicans have urged the White House to “wrap up the conflict,” said The Atlantic, in the hopes of reducing the war’s “drag on the nation’s economy — and their reelection chances.” Although “poll after poll” has shown how unpopular the war is domestically, said CNN, Republicans remain “reluctant to publicly break with a president” who remains “popular inside their party.”

Israel

“Growing schisms” among Democrats over Israel have become a “contentious issue for the party,” said NPR, “particularly as it heads into the midterm election.” While some party insiders claim that the “divide” among lawmakers is “limited to military aid,” others say the “biggest gap” is “between the party’s elected officials and voters” who have “moved against Israel faster than their representatives” in the wake of Israeli military action in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.

The pivot on historical support for Israel has been “clearest on the Democratic left,” where candidates frame the powerful Israel lobbying group AIPAC as “emblematic of big-money interests overwhelming ordinary voters,” said France 24. But criticism has “spread to the populist right” as well. Some “America First” conservatives have “attacked Washington’s support for Israel and blamed pro-Israel lobbying for drawing the United States deeper into foreign conflicts.” Approaching the midterms, a “once-prized endorsement” from groups supporting Israel “can now, in some races, be something candidates would rather their opponents talked less about.”

Transgender rights

“Across the country,” Republican-run ads attacking Democrats over “transgender athletes’ sports participation and gender-affirming medical care for minors” have “become commonplace,” said PBS News. The nationwide push is part of an “effort to tap into a strategy that was successful for President Trump in 2024,” where he framed former Vice President Kamala Harris’ openness to transgender rights as being “outside the cultural mainstream.”

For Democrats, determining how candidates “should — or should not — respond to anti-trans attacks” has “since taken up a lot of oxygen in Washington as party strategists debate the best course forward,” said The 19th. Some Democrats are confident that anti-trans ads will “backfire on Republicans as Americans increasingly embrace transgender rights,” said The Washington Times, in much the same way the party “brought voters to their side on gay marriage.”

What happened

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian at a summit in Kyrgyzstan that Moscow will continue supplying “the assistance you need” and “the necessary goods” during “this difficult period.” Since President Donald Trump “launched his war against Iran” in February, Russia “has backed the Iranians with intelligence, including on U.S. assets in the Persian Gulf,” and “drone components,” said The New York Times. Moscow has also been secretly helping Iran develop advanced supersonic cruise missiles, the Financial Times reported. The U.S. and Iran traded airstrikes last night, in their “first serious combat since July,” Reuters said.

Who said what

Russia’s transfer of the “strategically important military technology” to build supersonic missiles “would require political approval from Russia’s top leadership,” Conflict Armament Research analyst Fabian Hinz told the Financial Times. Such missiles would be a “qualitatively new strategic weapons system capable of threatening U.S. Navy ships,” former CIA military analyst Jim Lamson told the Financial Times. Iran has already done considerable damage to U.S. military bases in the Middle East with a new ballistic missile it calls “the Kheibar Shekan, or ‘Castle Breaker,’” USA Today said. The missile, likely developed “with the help of Chinese and Russian technology,” can “evade American air defenses and strike with far greater precision.”

What next?

Tehran vowed to respond to last night’s airstrikes with more “crushing and devastating blows” and claimed its own counterstrikes killed several U.S. personnel in Jordan and Iraq.

What happened

The U.S. on Sunday struck two missile launchers on Iran’s Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz, its first confirmed airstrikes on Iran since July 29. U.S. Central Command said Iran was preparing to fire sea mines into the strait, days after President Donald Trump declared the international shipping lanes clear of mines.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said the U.S. strikes killed “several” military personnel and civilians, and warned of “severe repercussions.” Jordan said it successfully intercepted eight missiles that entered its airspace Monday morning, headed for U.S. airbases.

Who said what

The resumption of airstrikes heightened the “risk of a return to all-out conflict,” The Wall Street Journal said, something Trump “has been working to avoid.” The administration recently pivoted to sanctions as it “weighs diminished munitions stockpiles” after six months of war, The Associated Press said.

The “heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force” and other “four-star commanders” warned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth this month that “prolonging large-scale operations against Iran is unsustainable and risks weakening their ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the U.S. homeland,” The Washington Post reported. The U.S. military is “experiencing a ‘beyond critical’ shortage of advanced missile interceptors in Europe,” the AP said last week, citing a U.S. defense official.

What next?

As the war “grinds on, Trump’s talk of finding a quick end” appears to be “fading,” the AP said. He has “repeatedly declared that the ‘Strait of Hormuz is open,’” but Iran continues to strike cargo ships. Brent crude oil jumped 2.8% to $90.57 a barrel after Sunday’s attacks.

What happened

The United Arab Emirates said Wednesday it had halted “all trade, commercial exchanges and financial transactions” with Iran “until future notice” due to “escalations that undermine regional and international peace and security.” Hours earlier, the UAE had accused Tehran of firing two missiles into its territory. Iran’s Foreign Ministry called that accusation “baseless” and possibly a “false flag operation.”

Iranian Gen. Ali Abdollahi later warned “countries on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf” that “any assistance” given to the U.S. military “amounts to participation” in its war. President Donald Trump on Wednesday night threatened that “ANY country that allows its financial institutions” or other entities to “provide any type of lifeline to Iran will itself face TREMENDOUS Economic Consequences.”

Who said what

The UAE is one of Tehran’s “biggest economic lifelines,” The Wall Street Journal said, and Trump’s “effort to squeeze Iran into submission will depend heavily” on Dubai. It’s unclear if the U.S. “played a role in the embargo decision,” The New York Times said, but it was announced “hours after a call” from Trump to the Emirati leader.

What next?

If “implemented broadly,” the UAE’s trade severance could significantly harm Iran’s economy, the Journal said. But “severing those links will be difficult” and “could hurt Dubai’s role as a freewheeling global hub for commerce.”

Donald Trump has ordered the Pentagon to scale back annual joint military exercises with South Korea after the country stayed out of the war with Iran.

Writing on Truth Social, the US president said the exercises “send a signal that is totally inappropriate and hostile” to North Korea, which “has been unthreatening and respectful” during his second term. He also noted that South Korea had recently declined to join the US in the “denuclearisation” of Iran.

What did the commentators say?

The US is losing the Iran conflict, so Trump has “taken the logical next step” of “punishing” a “loyal American friend”, said Tom Nichols on The Atlantic.

In fact, “scaling back the exercise” is an “insane” decision but in “Trump’s world, every loss, every defeat, is a personal insult”, and “when things go wrong, someone must be held responsible” and, of course, “that someone is never Donald Trump”.

So the world is “witnessing a public exhibition of narcissistic rage” because Trump “embarked on a war for personal glory”, but “what he got instead was ongoing humiliation”.

The Chinese, Russians and North Koreans will “draw the appropriate lessons from this deranged policy”, and notice that “when Trump fails, he hurts those he feels safe hurting”.

It is the “latest example” of Trump “appearing to turn against an ally in favour of a leader that previous administrations have cast as an adversary”, wrote Konstantin Toropin and Alanna Durkin Richer on The Associated Press. It’s a particularly “sharp turnaround” from how his administration has viewed South Korea recently.

The announcement could be “part of an effort to divert attention” from the war in Iran, which has “left energy costs high”. This has become a “sensitive economic issue” ahead of the US midterm elections, said The Korea Times.

It could “trigger a debate over whether the scaling down of joint exercises could affect the allies’ deterrence” against North Korea as the “recalcitrant regime has been doubling down on its nuclear and ballistic missile programs”.

The “sudden” announcement “risks renewing concerns” that “US forces are too stretched to support crucial Western allies or maintain deterrence against autocracies that threaten them”, said Brad Lendon on CNN. It’s also a “gift” to Kim Jong Un at a time when he has “ramped up his own nation’s threat to global stability and offered no concessions in return”.

What next?

Experts told the BBC that the “walking back” of these joint military exercises could “carry a high cost with relatively little benefit”.

They are “essential for military forces to be ready and capable of doing their jobs”, Leif-Eric Easley, a professor at Ewha University in Seoul, told the broadcaster.

“Scaling them back” could “damage alliance coordination”, as well as “slow the process of South Korea taking on greater responsibility for its own defence, and weaken deterrence against possible conflicts in Asia”.

In a statement, South Korea’s presidential Blue House said it was reviewing Trump’s comments and added that it hoped a favourable relationship between Washington and Pyongyang could lead to meaningful talks.

There’s trouble brewing in the water. The ongoing war with Iran has stranded more than 1,500 ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, since February. While closure of the strait has led to severe economic consequences, there is also a burgeoning ecological crisis. Invasive species growing on the hulls of the trapped ships could soon voyage across the globe.

Ships, wrecked

There is a “high likelihood” that the idle ships in the Strait of Hormuz will “facilitate the extensive spread of economically and ecologically damaging invasive species as they reenter the global shipping network,” said a study published in the journal Biological Invasions. The stagnant ships’ hulls are “becoming encrusted with marine life,” from “microbes and algae to barnacles and other invertebrates,” a phenomenon called biofouling, said The Guardian. These organisms can “hitchhike to ports around the world” when trade resumes.

The “Persian/Arabian Gulf is home to more than 50 marine nonnative species, and many species native to the region have already been introduced across the globe,” said four of the authors of the study in The Conversation. The circumstances, however, are different this time.

Ships “normally only remain at anchor in a harbor for one to three days, limiting the growth of organisms on their submerged surfaces,” said The Guardian. In the case of the current block of the Strait of Hormuz, many vessels have “remained stationary for months, allowing dense marine communities to establish themselves.” The marine organisms of the Middle East “can withstand extremes,” Mario Tamburri, a professor at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and the study’s lead author, said to USA Today. They are “tolerant organisms, which makes them good candidates for invasions when they go to a new location.”

New waters

Marine invasive species “have profound ecological and economic impacts on coastlines across the globe” and are “extremely difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate once they become established,” Carolyn Tepolt, a biologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and co-author of the study, said in a statement.

Invasive species can outcompete local species, fundamentally altering the ecosystem. They can also perpetuate the spread of “parasites and diseases that are either entrained within ship ballast tanks or associated with organisms attached to ship hulls,” April Blakeslee, an associate professor of biology at East Carolina University and co-author of the study, said to Live Science (a sister site of The Week).

The organisms can “cause millions of dollars’ worth of damage” as well, Tamburri said to ABC News. Biofouling can “lead ships to have more drag as they move through the water, burning extra fuel and increasing exhaust emissions,” said USA Today. Invasive species can also disrupt fisheries and aquaculture, requiring extra money to manage.

The Strait of Hormuz may be the current invasive species risk, but climate change and warming temperatures have been increasing the level of global spread. “Current ship biofouling management and regulatory frameworks are insufficient to mitigate the impacts of large-scale, unplanned vessel lay-up events,” said the study. “While the human and economic consequences of events like the war in the Middle East will always remain the highest priority, ecological impacts cannot be overlooked.”

What happened

The Navy is sending the aircraft carrier USS George Washington from the South China Sea to the Middle East to relieve the USS Abraham Lincoln, U.S. officials said Thursday, amid growing concerns over deteriorating mental health and living conditions aboard the Lincoln after more than 260 days at sea. The ship, which hasn’t made a port call in more than 200 days, has been supporting U.S. military actions against Iran since January.

Separately, President Donald Trump signed a national security memorandum directing the Navy to “tear out a complex system for launching jet fighters from its aircraft carriers and instead go back to using steam catapults,” The Wall Street Journal said. This “would likely cost billions of dollars,” The Associated Press said, and “revert the Navy’s most advanced ships to a system that takes more sailors to operate and is more difficult to maintain.”

Who said what

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday said reports about deplorable conditions on the Lincoln have been “completely misrepresented.” But “concerns about the ship’s roughly 5,000 service members mounted” amid reports of “family members describing suicidal ideation and food shortages,” NOTUS said, and several attempts “to jump overboard.” At least one sailor did go overboard earlier this month, before being rescued, U.S. officials told CNN. “The Navy considered the incident a mental health episode.”

What next?

Trump’s directive to retrofit new aircraft carriers with steam catapults comes as the U.S. military is “trying to find funding from Congress for all its desired equipment,” the AP said, and “as the Navy is struggling to fill its ships with enough sailors.”

“It will work out. It always works out. It’s like a chess game,” said Donald Trump at the weekend, as an impasse over diplomatic discussions and disruption in the Strait of Hormuz continue. By letting economic pressure mount, we are “low-keying it” with Iran, Trump told Axios, and “only semi-negotiating with them”.

In response, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said that whether “lights out or lights on, Iranians showed they are professional chess players”.

With no end to the war in sight, inflation on the rise, fuel rationing and continued threats of strikes, the vast majority of the Iranian population appear not to be players, but pawns.

‘Extensive’ damage

Speaking openly about politics in Iran still “carries obvious risks”, said Nawal Al-Maghafi in The Guardian. Within Iran there is “no single narrative of the war”, with some believing it has “strengthened national unity”, and others saying it has only “deepened repression”. Nonetheless, the country has been “transformed” by the war and, as the conflict carries on, “so does the struggle to shape the legacy it will leave behind”.

Iran is facing “extensive” damage from US attacks, estimated to be “running in the hundreds of billions of dollars”, said Maziar Motamedi in Al Jazeera. But this plays into “decades-old economic structural issues” and being continually “strained by years of Western sanctions and local mismanagement”. During both world wars, the US and Israel “systematically bombed” ports, bridges, roads and other civilian infrastructure, and the country has a long history of internet shutdowns and a “cash-strapped” government.

Now, inflation has risen to “nearly 90%” in the last month, with food inflation “hitting 134%”, compared to a year earlier. Following two wars in less than a year, conflict with the US is “showing no signs of abating”.

Many Iranians feel “abandoned” by the West, said Roxana Saberi and Fatemeh Jamalpour in The Times. They believe the US and others have “largely stood by during the recent executions and the January massacre”. The crackdown since January has left Iranians with “widespread trauma” that “spans generations and classes”. The “greatest source of trauma” is the “inaction” of the international community, said head of a survivor charity Azadeh Afsahi. “If these Western countries have democracy, how come they don’t care to see that the Iranian people are suffering?”

Opinion is ‘far from uniform’

There is still a “fervour” among those who support the regime, said Krishnan Guru-Murthy on Channel 4. In June, the “streets were full” of people for national celebrations, and children fired foam darts at “targets bearing the faces of Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump was by far the most popular face to fire at.” Many are still eager to “express their love of country and their hatred of the enemy”. In many ways, ironically, it “reminds you of the most fired-up Maga supporters in America”.

Yet for others, the “greatest fear” is that “the war will end with the Islamic Republic still in power”, said Kelly J. Shannon on the Atlantic Council. However the conflict ends, the “remnants of the regime” will likely become “further entrenched and even more oppressive”. The massacres after protests in January, and an April order to “speed up executions of political prisoners”, support state television warnings that “any dissidents will be killed”. In the eyes of the Islamic Republic, the Iranian population is the “enemy, and it is willing to use any and all measures to keep them in line”.

Ultimately, “Iranian society is diverse, politically complex, and far from uniform,” said Mahmoud Rasouli on the European Consortium for Political Research. “Citizens hold differing views about domestic reform, foreign relations, economic priorities, and the country’s future.”

Yet this does not translate to political influence. Both Washington and Tehran invoke the interests of the Iranian people, but never do they allow such interests to “directly determine the direction of the conflict”. This creates a “paradox”: the Iranian people are “central” to the language used around the war, but “peripheral” in the “decision-making processes that shape their future”. They are neither “invisible spectators nor the main architects of the conflict”, but the “primary stakeholders in a confrontation largely shaped by others”.

President Donald Trump returned to office last year promising to unleash fossil fuels to power U.S. energy production. But the Iran war has sparked months of persistently high gasoline prices, threatening GOP fortunes in the midterm elections, and Trump is now talking about reining in the industry. Oil companies are “making too much money” and should lower gasoline prices, he said to reporters earlier this month. Executives are nervous about a crackdown.

What did the commentators say?

Oil industry officials are “rattled” by Trump’s “growing criticism of the sector,” said Politico. U.S. companies have profited from the Iran war, shipping American petroleum abroad to countries that have found their usual supplies cut off by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. There is now “upward pressure” on domestic gasoline prices as U.S. car owners “compete with the rest of the world for a suddenly shrunken supply.” Industry executives are now worried Trump might cut off American oil exports, though the White House has denied that is in the offing. The industry remains on alert. “Everyone knows Trump’s gonna Trump,” an anonymous executive said to the outlet.

The law of supply and demand is “as fundamental as they come,” but Trump is “acting like he’s above the law,” The Washington Post said in an editorial. The president has taken aim at Chevron and ExxonMobil’s “windfall profits” of $12.1 billion and $14.5 billion, respectively, during the second quarter. They should “give some of that back to the public,” he said to reporters. But gasoline prices have risen so much over the last year because of “decisions made in Washington, not by the oil majors,” said the Post.

The war is not Trump’s only inflationary policy. He has also imposed tariffs and “taken government stakes in private companies,” said the Post. Rather than criticize oil companies, the president “should focus on expanding the supply of oil at home and abroad.”

The war can be seen as the latest in a “history of handouts to the oil industry,” Jamie Friedman, Jenny Rowland-Shea and Alia Hidayat said at the Center for American Progress. Trump administration policies have made electric vehicles more expensive and gutted emissions standards for gasoline-powered vehicles, leaving Americans “more vulnerable to price spikes and gasoline dependency.” The way to bring gasoline prices down is to “stop the Trump administration’s reckless and unnecessary war in Iran.”

What next?

The Trump administration is considering several policies to expand production and bring down oil costs. The federal government has “fast-tracked an environmental review” for a proposed offshore fracking project off the coast of California, said the San Francisco Chronicle. The White House has also extended a waiver from shipping regulations to “keep fuel flowing amid the Iran war,” said CNBC. The move will “protect consumers from unnecessary price volatility,” American Petroleum Institute’s Kristin Whitman said in a statement.

What happened

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi Sunday said a deal with Oman on control of the Strait of Hormuz was in the “final stages,” but that “does not mean reopening the strait” until “conditions” are fulfilled. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council on Saturday said the strait won’t be reopened until the U.S. “corrects its behavior,” permanently ending the war, lifting the naval blockade and sanctions, “unconditionally” unfreezing Tehran’s assets and “completely” compensating it for war damages.

Who said what

Between its leverage over global oil prices, the “diminishing stockpiles” of key U.S. weapons and the war’s deep unpopularity with U.S. voters, “Iran believes it holds the cards,” The Associated Press said. Trump Sunday told Axios that the U.S. was “low-keying it” with Iran, waiting for economic pain to bring it to heel. Iran’s demands are largely what Trump “already agreed to” in June, The New York Times said. And denying Trump the “ability to claim victory over the strait” is Iran’s “most efficient lever to persuade him to recommit to those agreements.”

What next?

Tehran’s emerging deal with Oman would give each country control of one direction of transit through the strait. There would be no “fees or tolls during the interim period,” the AP said, but “formal control over even part of the strait would be a clear win for Iran and a loss for the U.S.”

Well, is it on or is it off? No one’s quite sure, said Al Jazeera (Doha). Two weeks ago, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a multibillion-dollar deal allowing US companies to build and operate nuclear power plants on Saudi soil over the next 30 years.

But a day later, President Trump added a new condition, via social media: Saudi Arabia must fall in line with the UAE and other Arab nations that have signed the Abraham Accords, and recognise the state of Israel.

‘Reckless’ agreement

And that may prove a deal breaker, said David Frum in The Atlantic. Riyadh had been working towards this landmark pact for almost two decades. Thanks to the savvy of its de facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), who ensured the private equity firm of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, would get its share of the billion-dollar nuclear licensing deals at stake, he almost got it over the line.

But now it must surely be in doubt, said Mohamad Elmasry on Middle East Eye. Riyadh has vowed it won’t normalise relations until Israel guarantees Palestinian statehood. And MbS has reportedly told US officials that hostility towards Israel is so great among Saudis in the wake of Israel’s devastating war in Gaza, that to sign a normalisation treaty would probably get him assassinated.

It’s obvious why the Saudis still badly want this nuclear deal, said Joseph Cirincione on MS Now (New York). It’s not, as they claim, to diversify their energy profile: that makes no sense for a nation sitting on an ocean of oil and blessed with the ideal wind and solar conditions for generating renewable energy – a far cheaper option.

No, the real reason is to gain atomic weapons to protect itself against its main foe: Iran. MbS has made no secret of his desire to build a bomb, and the deal would be a concrete step in that direction. Despite Trump’s claims to the contrary, it appears to permit nuclear enrichment on Saudi soil, thus enabling Riyadh to follow the likes of India, Israel and Pakistan in covertly enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels.

‘Guiding hand’

Who knows what’ll happen if this “reckless” deal goes ahead, said Mitchell Plitnick on Mondoweiss (New York). The “gold standard” nuclear-power pact that the US signed with the United Arab Emirates in 2009 required the UAE to forego the ability to enrich uranium, and obliged it to submit to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections: this Saudi deal has no such restrictions.

Which is why it would inevitably trigger a Middle East arms race, said Azriel Bermant in Foreign Policy. If the deal proceeds, Iran would openly seek its own nuclear deterrent, something it has so far officially forsworn. “It beggars belief that the US went to war against Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon yet now acts in a way that is an open invitation for Tehran to weaponise.” And in a way that would also pour “proliferation kerosene” on Turkey and Egypt’s “smouldering nuclear ambitions”, said Matthew Kroenig and Henry Sokolski in The Wall Street Journal. Trump’s deal invites disaster.

Actually, the US is doing the right thing, said the Washington Examiner. The hard truth is that the “era of non-proliferation is coming to an end”: Pakistan and North Korea are both testing nuclear weapons. Given that sobering reality, better the US offer “a guiding hand” to the Saudis and oversee their nuclear agenda than let China or Russia fill the void.

Good or bad, the deal matters a lot to the US president, said Sharon Squassoni in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Chicago), so rumours of its death “are premature”. After all, it’s not some “spur-of-the-moment fantasy” cooked up by Trump. The same deal was also being considered under Joe Biden, and then too enrichment was a quid pro quo for recognising Israel.

The Saudis won’t do so, of course, given recent history, but they won’t have to. Although Congress can disapprove the deal once it’s submitted, the present Congress – due to adjourn on 18 December – is much less likely to do so than any freshly elected one. So the Saudis can “call Trump’s bluff by simply sitting back” and waiting for him to succumb to the pressure of the December deadline.

Saudi Arabia last week announced it had joined American forces in conducting air strikes on Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a coalition of Iran-backed militias accused of attacks on both U.S. and Saudi assets in the region. The Saudi attack came in response ⁠to recent drone attacks targeting oil facilities “launched from Iraqi territory and carried out by Iran-aligned terrorist militias,” said the kingdom’s Ministry of Defense in a statement on X.

The latest assault is a “highly dangerous escalation,” said the PMF, per Al Jazeera. Iran’s Foreign Ministry had also condemned the “aggressive attacks” as a violation of Iraq’s “national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

The kingdom ‘does not seek escalation’

After spending months “trying not to get dragged into a regional conflict,” Saudi Arabia “appears hemmed in, facing enemies in three directions” between Iran and its proxies in Iraq and Yemen, said CNN. Saudi Arabia’s strategy of “opening the kingdom up to foreign investment” and making it the “regional economic powerhouse” is “now on life support.” At the same time, embroiling itself in a “broader conflict” would be a “risky and potentially costly option” for Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia’s strikes, done “in coordination with U.S. Central Command,” mark the country’s “first announced foray” into the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, said USA Today. But previous reports from Reuters citing “unnamed Western and Iranian officials” indicated that Saudi Arabia had “launched covert strikes on the Islamic Republic” earlier this year already. These most recent attacks stem from the kingdom’s “legitimate right to defend itself and its capabilities,” said the Saudi Defense Ministry in a statement. Riyadh also reserves the “right to respond at the appropriate time and place.”

While Saudi Arabia “does not seek escalation,” the ministry said, it will “respond to any aggression it faces.” Over the weekend, however, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman spoke with President Donald Trump and “expressed concern over his plans for massive new strikes” against Iran, said Axios. Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman expressed similar sentiments at a recent meeting with Vice President J.D. Vance, emphasizing “deescalation with Iran” shortly after the joint U.S.-Saudi strikes, said the outlet.

The PMF in particular has “always been a contentious” issue between Iraq, the U.S., and “other neighboring countries” like Iran, said Al Jazeera. The Iraqi group exists as “part of the country’s security force,” reports “directly to the commander-in-chief who is also the prime minister,” and has “at times struck the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and bases across Iraq at will” while refusing government orders.

‘Unpalatable choice’

Unlike previous clandestine entanglements, Riyadh’s “overt involvement” in regional fighting “marks a new turning point in the conflict,” said The Guardian. “There is a feeling” among Saudi leadership that the Iranians are “doing what they are doing because they feel that the Gulf Arab states won’t move up the escalatory ladder,” said H.A. Hellyer, the Royal United Services Institute’s senior associate fellow in Middle East studies, to the outlet. Riyadh wants to “make it clear that assessment is wrong and that if Tehran thinks the Gulf states are easy prey, they are wrong.”

Should Saudi Arabia come under direct Iranian attack, “it could face an unpalatable choice,” said CNN. Either it must “respond directly in a way that would draw it more deeply into war” or risk emboldening a Tehran “regime that many see as more hardline than before the war.”

U.S. military power is immense but has its limits: Soldiers, sailors and Marines cannot fire missiles that do not exist. The war in Iran has used up much of the U.S. weapons stockpile, though the Pentagon is silent on how much remains. The answer to this question could determine President Donald Trump’s next steps in the Persian Gulf, as well as whether America is ready for a potential war with China.

What did the commentators say?

The missile question is “Washington’s very sensitive secret,” said The Wall Street Journal. Information about munitions stockpiles is always “closely guarded.” There is nonetheless “tremendous concern” within the government about a shortfall. The Army has reportedly “used up much of its stockpile of highly accurate long-range missiles” during the war with Iran, Reuters said this week. Fears that renewed fighting could “dangerously drain” remaining supplies have apparently been a factor in the president’s repeated decisions to “set aside” his threats to escalate the war, said The New York Times.

White House officials are pushing back against such a narrative, said The Associated Press. The military has “everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the president’s choosing,” a White House spokesman said in a statement to the outlet. But “shrunken inventories” of Patriot and other missiles are “potentially putting American troops at more risk,” said the AP, citing a new analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. That fear seems borne out by battlefield experience. U.S. commanders are “picking and choosing” which Iranian attacks to defend against to “preserve the Pentagon’s diminishing supply of weapons,” said NBC News.

The munitions crisis is “even worse than you think,” Aaron MacLean said at The Free Press. If war with a “middling power” like Iran can deplete U.S. missile supplies after just a few months, “what would happen in a broader and more intense campaign” against China? It is a sign that American plans for a potential war in the Pacific “involved some magical thinking.” Realism is needed. The war against Iran is a reminder that “presumptively short wars have a tendency to run inconveniently long.”

A missile shortage “should be a five-alarm fire” for the White House, said The Wall Street Journal. And public concerns about such a possibility undermine the “credibility of U.S. resolve” by signaling to Iran that America “can’t sustain the fight.”

What next?

Trump is attempting to boost weapons production, said Reuters. The United States has the “best quality in the world,” he said to armsmakers last month. “But we need a ​little more speed."

The conflict has nonetheless highlighted concerns about U.S. munitions manufacturing “in a way that now cannot be ignored,” Virginia Burger said at The Project on Government Oversight. The U.S. is facing a “multiyear window of degraded stockpiles” that cannot be quickly restocked, given the timeline needed to produce America’s complicated and expensive weaponry. This issue poses a danger. “Munitions are the clear backbone of American military strategy.”

Russia’s war against Ukraine would seem to be an entirely separate conflict from the hostilities between the U.S. and Iran. But Ukraine last month attacked an Iranian cargo ship in the Caspian Sea, raising fears the two regional conflicts could merge and spiral into something bigger and more destabilizing to the world.

What did the commentators say?

The Caspian Sea attack “underscored the links between the wars,” said The New York Times. Russia has “launched swarms” of Iran-made drones at Ukraine, the outgrowth of a decades-long “close military relationship” between Moscow and Iran. (Ukraine said the Iranian ship was carrying a new supply of drones. Iran denied the accusation.) Ukraine, meanwhile, has “brought its hard-earned expertise” in drone warfare to the task of defending Gulf states from Iranian attacks after the U.S. launched its war.

The Ukraine-Iran conflicts are “beginning to overlap,” Gideon Rachman said at the Financial Times. The wars “now span two continents” in Europe and Asia and are “influencing conflicts in Africa.” Ukraine has “ample reasons” to want to hit Iranian shipments of drones that “killed a great many Ukrainians,” but leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy may also “see an opportunity to dramatically improve relations with the Trump administration” by assisting in the U.S. war. This is a fraught moment. The 20th century proved that “regional conflicts and great-power miscalculation can be a deadly combination.”

Zelenskyy appears to seek a “merging” of the two wars into a “single strategic theater,” Trita Parsi said at Responsible Statecraft. The Ukrainian leader has spent the war urging NATO to “move beyond supplying weapons and intelligence” and take a more direct role in defending his country. The Iran war now presents Ukraine with the opportunity to offer itself as a “strategic asset capable of helping Washington turn a military debacle into a splendid victory.” It is a “dangerous gambit” and it could “pave the way for a disaster.”

The Ukraine strike comes as the war in the Middle East appears to be expanding into a regional conflict that includes Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen and Iraq. It is a “glimpse of just how apocalyptic” the war could become, Spencer Ackerman said at Forever Wars. There is increasingly a risk of the conflict “spiraling” beyond its current limits. “There is no mechanism at present to stop its growth.”

What next?

Iran and Russia may want no part of a larger war. Tehran and Moscow seek a “pragmatic partnership without entangling themselves in each other's regional wars,” Barnard College’s Alexander Cooley said to Newsweek. Ukraine could continue to “strike ships it believes are helping Russia,” said USA Today, but would otherwise “gain little from a full-scale confrontation with Iran.” Ukraine’s top priority “remains Russia,” Chatham House’s Neil Quilliam told the outlet.

The Trump administration has found a novel way to limit the U.S. death toll in the Iran war, said Jack Crosbie in Rolling Stone: Claim that “some deaths don’t count.” Last month, the names of four service members killed by Iranian strikes in mid-July suddenly vanished from the Pentagon’s official list of war dead, lowering the total from 18 to 14. U.S. officials gave differing explanations for the change, from benign “temporary data disruptions” to the claim that the troops killed in Jordan and Iraq didn’t actually die in the war with Iran since “Operation Epic Fury” technically stopped when President Trump struck a temporary ceasefire with Tehran in April. Never mind that neither side ever ceased firing. After Senate Democrats and veterans groups protested the disappearance, the names of the four service members reappeared on the Pentagon website—but under a different category for “Overseas Operations,” which includes only those killed and injured since July 7, when fighting fully reignited.

This is only the latest attempt by the administration to obscure the human cost of its unpopular war, said Edith Olmsted in The New Republic. In March, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed an Iranian drone strike on a tactical operations center in Kuwait as a “squirter,” and the Pentagon said just five troops were seriously wounded. In fact, dozens of soldiers suffered injuries “including burns, shrapnel wounds, and brain trauma.” And when the Pentagon restored the four dead soldiers to its online database, it also quietly upped the number of wounded personnel by more than 140— pushing total U.S. casualties in the war above 600. Trump last month tried to put a positive spin on the casualty count, said Joe Lancaster in Reason, favorably comparing in an online post the conflict’s “4 months, 18 dead” with the thousands of Americans killed in multiyear wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. That may be true, but “American soldiers are still dead as a direct result of the conflict he helped instigate.”

This is predictable behavior from Trump, said David A. Graham in The Atlantic. He “has frequently treated the military as a political prop” and, according to his first-term chief of staff John Kelly, called U.S. troops who died in wars “suckers” and “losers.” Trump and Hegseth seemed to think that the American public are suckers as well, and thought their accounting tricks would prevent Iran war deaths from becoming a political liability. But that plan backfired and has succeeded only in drawing attention to the 18 dead Americans. “The administration sought to hide the war with Iran; instead, it showed the painful and growing costs.”

What happened

The Iran war expanded further across the Middle East last week, as Saudi Arabia joined the U.S. in striking Iran-backed militias in Iraq, Yemen’s Iran-allied Houthi militant group hit Saudi tankers in the Red Sea, and a U.S.-owned natural gas storage tanker at an Egyptian port was set ablaze in a drone attack. In Riyadh’s first acknowledged involvement in the conflict, Saudi and American fighter jets attacked the Iraq-based Popular Mobilization Forces, an umbrella group of Iraqi militants, in retaliation for more than 30 drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities, which the U.S. accused Iran of directing. The U.S.-Saudi operation, which killed at least 20 fighters, came hours after Iran launched a surprise ballistic missile attack at American military sites in Jordan, shattering a days-long pause in fighting. The missiles were all intercepted, but the assault marked a shift in strategy for Iran, showing it was willing to go on the offensive and not simply respond to U.S. strikes. After the drone strike at Egypt’s Mediterranean port of Damietta, President Trump vowed to retaliate against Tehran, saying, “It’s our turn to hit them.”

In the southern Red Sea, the Houthis claimed at least four attacks on Saudi-linked tankers since announcing a maritime blockade of Saudi ports last month. Iran fired on three tankers it said were using an “illegal” route through the Strait of Hormuz—Saudi Arabia’s other major shipping route—and reportedly rejected a proposal from Oman to divide control of the strait and solicit voluntary fees.

What the columnists said

Iran’s escalating attacks “illustrate a fundamental shift” in the war, said Jared Malsin and Suha Ma’ayeh in The Wall Street Journal. The hard-line Revolutionary Guard “exerts more power than ever in Tehran,” and “has grown more assertive and more comfortable with a state of war that could continue for months.” It suits them better than a peace in which they’d have to confront public anger over Iran’s “struggling economy.” Their “zero sum” stance makes any agreement to end the war even more remote, and “heightens the risk of more-frequent rounds of escalation.”

Trump has been told that “a return to major combat operations would be a hugely risky endeavor,” said Eric Schmitt and Jonathan Swan in The New York Times. At a meeting with Cabinet members and top advisers last month, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Dan Caine warned such an offensive would “dangerously deplete” the military’s stockpile of air defense munitions. Trump and aides “are also uneasy” about a widening war alienating Gulf allies vulnerable to Iranian attack, and a “growing energy crisis.” Sources say “few if any in Trump’s inner circle” believed “escalation was wise.”

That interceptor shortage could put “American troops at more risk,” said Ben Finley in the Associated Press. Our stockpile of Patriot interceptors has fallen from 2,330 before the war to as low as 759, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. And our stash of 452 THAAD interceptors has dropped by nearly 40%. To conserve inventories, the U.S. could “take more risks,” such as firing two rather than the standard three interceptors at incoming missiles. That might prove fatal for soldiers on the ground: Last month, three U.S. soldiers were killed in Jordan after an Iranian missile slipped through air defenses.

Meanwhile, growing hostilities between Iran and Ukraine show the war’s potential to “go global,” said Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times. Ukraine recently sank an Iranian vessel in the Caspian Sea it said was ferrying military cargo to Russia, drawing threats of retaliation from Tehran. Iran has supplied Russia with drones that have “killed a great many Ukrainians”; Ukraine says Russia in turn has given Iran intelligence to target American military assets. That “Ukrainians are clashing directly with Iran” is an ominous step toward a wider conflagration.

Trump is in a bind, said Andrew Egger in The Bulwark. Through months of negotiation, Iran has offered “a steady, ironclad” position, insisting on an end to sanctions, no nuclear concessions, and control of the Strait of Hormuz. Our flailing president has toggled between “two demonstrably failed positions: If we bomb the hell out of them, they’ll give us what we want. If we stop bombing them, they’ll give us what we want.” While he vacillates in the vain search for an exit strategy, the damage mounts. “Petroleum reserves, missile stockpiles, global trust in the U.S.-led world order—these are finite resources that are all being spent down at alarming rates.”

It isn’t often we can trace a widely used turn of phrase to a single, inspired genesis. Not so with the mocking ‘TACO’ appellation. Coined in May 2025 by Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong, the acronym highlights President Donald Trump’s inclination to “Always Chicken Out” on his threats and proclamations.

While there have been numerous iterations and adaptations of Armstrong’s broader point (“perhaps the best Mexican food acronym for Trump is TAMALES,” said Reuters: “Trump Always Messes Around, Leaves Everybody Shafted”), none have quite captured the public’s imagination like Armstrong’s four-letter initialism. One year since its coinage, here are some of the president’s biggest TACO moments to date.

‘Liberation Day’ tariffs

The effects of Trump’s 2025 attempt to “remake the global trading system” by “erecting the largest tariff wall around the U.S. economy” in a century are “well-documented,” said Bloomberg. “Markets crumbled and then recovered when Trump delayed and scaled back his original duties” multiple times in the ensuing weeks, meaning that for a “certain audience,” a TACO “isn’t just a meal anymore.”

Ultimately, the administration “threatened far more tariffs” than Trump has “carried through on,” said NBC. Trump’s trade strategy since his Liberation Day rollout of global tariffs has been “rushed and improvisational,” said the Council on Foreign Relations. Absent congressional input and lacking overall cohesion, the White House’s tariffs and subsequent policy are “not U.S. trade agreements but rather Trump’s trade deals” for better or worse.

Wall Street’s TACO trades

Trump’s Liberation Day rollout of worldwide tariffs “didn’t just reshape global trade,” said CNBC, it also “spawned a new play in the stock market: the ‘TACO trade.’” Here, the president’s “extreme position on policy” is inevitably replaced with a “more palatable place for equities, leading investors to then ‘buy the dip.’” Those who buy stocks “at lower costs after Trump announces new tariffs or increases them” later “reap the benefits when the markets rebound as he delays or backs off of them,” said ABC. “Oh, I chicken out? Isn’t that nice? I've never heard that,” said Trump when asked a “nasty question” in the Oval Office about his eponymous trading trend.

Immigration raids at farms and hotels

“Changes are coming!” Trump said in a June 2025 post on Truth Social that acknowledged “our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, longtime workers away” from the agricultural, hospitality and leisure industries. The waffling commitment to his mass deportation raids was an “echo of Trump’s back-and-forth rhetoric on tariffs,” said the Detroit Free Press.

It was a “rare concession” from Trump that his policies were “hurting American farmers and hospitality businesses,” said The New York Times — “industries and constituencies that he does not want to lose.” The message from Trump’s shifting deportation tactics is “clear,” said The Daily Beast. The president’s “commitment to his own anti-immigration agenda cannot withstand pressure from his supporters” to protect “their bottom line.”

Threatening to end Iranian ‘civilization’

In “one of the more bizarre days in U.S. diplomatic history,” said The Washington Post, Trump’s threat to Iran back in April that a “whole civilization will die tonight” ended with the president “proclaiming a two-week ceasefire” to the U.S.-led war. Trump also announced the start of negotiations based on Tehran’s “10-point proposal,” which was full of “conditions that should be utterly unacceptable to any U.S. administration.”

Similar to the Paris Peace Accords that ended the Vietnam War, Trump can now “pretend that his bloodcurdling threats coerced Iran into giving up,” when he has “so far given up more than the mullahs did,” said the Post. Critics “lampooned” the episode as “another TACO moment,” said CNN, in which Trump backed off his “maximalist” demands “in a way that erased his red lines and raised doubts about his credibility.”

‘Guardian’ fees for the Strait of Hormuz

Just one day after threatening on “Fox and Friends” to position the United States as the “guardian angel of the strait” of Hormuz — and then “get paid for guarding it, a lot of money” — Trump “abandoned his threat,” telling reporters the plan would be “replaced by trade deals with Gulf states,” with whom he had spent the past 24 hours talking, said the BBC. “It was TACO Tuesday in Washington” when Trump walked back his threat, said CNBC. “And Wall Street was all too happy to take a bite.”

In Minneapolis, a ‘soft TACO’ pivot?

The more Trump has pushed the limits of his power, the less locked into a binary TACO dynamic he seems, despite Armstrong’s initial framing. It “might be more helpful,” then, to “craft a more limited soft TACO theory instead,” said Vox. While Armstrong asserts Trump possesses a “low tolerance for political or economic pain,” the soft TACO idea posits that his tolerance “can sometimes be quite high — even if it isn’t unlimited.” Trump’s decision to scale back deportation operations in Minnesota after the shooting deaths of two protestors, for example, “shows he was not entirely captured by hardline advisers or ideology,” nor was he “so insulated” that he could “ignore such intense backlash.” However, said Vox, “it took months — and two deaths — to get him to back down.”

What happened

Joint U.S. and Saudi Arabian airstrikes on Iran-backed militia positions in Iraq on Wednesday have intensified fears that the Middle East conflict is entering a more dangerous phase. At least 20 fighters from Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces were killed in the attacks, while Iran responded by firing missiles at U.S. military bases in Jordan. “We are going to be hitting them very hard because it’s our turn,” President Donald Trump said before the U.S. military launched what it called a “heavy wave of strikes” in Iran.

Who said what

The “scope of the war” in the Middle East has now “widened,” The New York Times said. Iran-linked groups across the region have “opened new fronts and reopened old ones, drawing in forces in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan”.

“This is a war in search of a rationale,” Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.) told CNN. “We’re losing lives and we’re not going to be any closer to real peace in the Middle East.”

What next?

It is now impossible to know how Tehran will respond because it views this conflict as an existential struggle, H.A. Hellyer, a Middle East expert at the Royal United Services Institute, told CNN. The region has entered “uncharted territory.”

US Senator Lindsey Graham “relished his role as an informal envoy” between Donald Trump and foreign leaders, said The Economist. So it’s fitting that the Republican’s funeral today “will provide one final round of diplomacy”.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Benjamin Netanyahu will both attend the service for Graham, a “defence hawk” who “forcibly lobbied Washington” to back Ukraine against Russia, and Israel against Iran, said Reuters. Tonight, the Senate prepares to vote on a bipartisan package imposing sanctions on both countries that Graham “spent his final days trying to push across the line”.

Both leaders are also scheduled to meet the US president “with the goal of winning the ear of Donald Trump” at a time when US policy towards both wars is “in a state of flux”, said Robert Tait in The Guardian.

What did the commentators say?

Netanyahu will probably pressure Trump to further “escalate” the war in Iran, while Zelenksyy will “look to shore up American support” after the loss of Graham, “one of Ukraine’s staunchest backers”, said The Economist.

The two wars, taking place 1,550 miles apart, have “converged in recent days”, said Chris Hamill-Stewart on Al Jazeera. On Saturday, Ukraine attacked an Iranian tanker said to be carrying military technology and drones from Iran to Russia. Kyiv’s actions “will please” America, former US ambassador to Kazakhstan and Georgia, William Courtney, told the news site. But Zelenskyy is “unlikely to want to be too closely associated with the ‘unpopular’ US war on Iran”.

There are signs of “a dramatic change” in the US posture on Ukraine, said The Guardian’s Tait. Washington seems “more supportive” of Kyiv than at any other time in Trump’s second presidency. Last week, right-wing influencer Laura Loomer gave the latest “signal of a sea change” when she met Zelenskyy in Kyiv, before “recanting her previous support for Russia”. Trump and Zelenskyy’s “cordial” meeting at the Nato summit in Ankara was also “starkly” different to “last year’s bitter confrontation in the White House”.

By contrast, Trump’s relationship with the Israeli prime minister has grown “visibly strained” since they last met in February, said Tal Shalev on CNN. “Close cooperation and effusive praise” at the start of the Iran war has “given way to Trump’s expletive-laden outbursts”. Trump has said he lashed out at Netanyahu, calling him “crazy”, for continuing to bombard Hezbollah in Lebanon and endangering peace talks with Iran. He has been “resistant” to this meeting, having “little interest in resuming a full fight” against Iran before the US midterms in November, according to one Israeli source.

What next?

Ukraine and the US are moving closer towards a deal on joint drone production, which “could help the US catch up with Ukraine in this crucial military technology”, said Al Jazeera. And Trump and Zelenskyy agreed this month to allow Ukraine to jointly produce Patriot air defence interceptors, “a crucial component for the country’s defence against Russian aerial attacks”.

For Netanyahu, there’s the sticking point of Lebanon: he told his security cabinet on Sunday that the Trump administration “wants to pull Israeli forces back from positions in Lebanon, as well as in Gaza and Syria”. But, as Israel has already refused to withdraw its forces completely before Hezbollah disarms, Netanyahu “intends to oppose the idea”, said CNN’s Shalev. The Israeli PM is under political pressure ahead of elections in October: in recent polls, “he falls far short of the majority he needs to secure another term”. He knows Trump’s support “could be critical”. The stakes “are as high as ever”.

How many sailors are in the Gulf?

About 6,000 seafarers are stuck onboard several hundred tankers and cargo ships, many of which have been stranded in the Gulf since the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran erupted in late February. “It’s as if we are trapped in a pond,” Shafiqul Islam, captain of a ship carrying some 37,000 tons of fertilizer bound for South Africa, told the BBC last month. “There’s only one way out.” That’s via the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas—as well as shipments of crucial commodities including fertilizer, aluminum, and helium—once flowed from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq, and Iran to global markets. Before the war, more than 100 ships a day transited the strait, which is 21 miles wide at its tightest point. After hostilities began, Iran declared the waterway closed and launched missiles and drones at vessels trying to sail through, grinding traffic to a halt. At one point, up to 20,000 mariners and 2,000 ships were stuck in the Gulf, with only a few vessels squeezing through the strait each day.

How were they able to get out?

India, China, Pakistan, and other countries negotiated with Tehran for safe passage for their flagged vessels, and some tanker operators paid Iran up to $2 million for transit rights for individual ships. The logjam in the Gulf eased in June after Washington and Tehran struck a preliminary peace deal, after which about 30 ships a day were able to move through the strait. But that number dropped back to single digits earlier this month after the war restarted. For the sailors stuck in this war zone—many of whom hail from the Philippines, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Ukraine—the fear of death or injury is a constant. “Everyone is just exhausted,” said captain Hassan Khan, “both physically and mentally.” While standing on ships often loaded with highly explosive substances, the crews have watched missiles and drones streak overhead, and more than a dozen mariners have been killed in Iranian and U.S. strikes. Raman Kapoor, a tanker captain who had 10 days left on his tour when war erupted, watched helplessly in March as a nearby tanker exploded in flames after being hit by an unmanned craft. One crew member died. “Everyone was so scared,” Kapoor said. “We are just seafarers. We are not trained for any war.”

What are days like onboard?

Long, monotonous, and hot. While the crews work to ensure their ships remain seaworthy, and movies and ping-pong serve as distractions, staving off boredom and depression is a struggle. “We do our best to keep [up] morale,” Abhijit Chopra, the captain of a tanker that’s been stuck for more than 120 days, told Bloomberg. “But there is definitely a sense of strain and uncertainty.” To entertain themselves and add some diversity to onboard meals, some crews are catching and cooking fish; they report that dried ribbonfish is surprisingly delicious. Calls home are a boon, but infrequent, because satellite phone time is limited and expensive. To protect sailors’ mental health, captains encourage crews to do everything together and to never leave anyone alone—even when they dine or relax. Sailors report that access to knives and other sharp objects is more tightly controlled than normal, to prevent people from harming themselves or others. Meanwhile, food, water, and medicine on many vessels is running low.

Is anything being done about that?

Boats from nearby ports are delivering supplies, but prices keep going up. One Korean sailor told the BBC that it feels like suppliers “are trying to take advantage of the situation to make excessive profits.” The engineer of one ship said the cost of 180 tons of water has spiked in recent months from about $2,000 to $11,000. Price gouging isn’t the only way people are taking advantage of the stranded vessels. Scammers claiming to belong to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard have also tricked shipping firms into sending hefty payments to their cryptocurrency wallets in exchange for safe passage.

Have there been any evacuation attempts?

A short-lived one. While a ceasefire was in effect in late June, the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization began ushering ships through the strait’s southern and northern corridors—avoiding the central lanes where Iran had laid mines. Some 130 ships and 3,000 sailors made it out, but the U.S.-backed initiative was scrapped within days after Iran attacked a tanker that was not taking part in the evacuation off Oman’s coast. Some sailors have taken matters into their own hands. Stuck at an Iranian port, Santosh Kumar borrowed nearly $7,000 to pay an agent to drive him to neighboring Armenia, where he boarded a flight to Dubai and then on to his native India. “My family just wanted me home alive,” he said. But such escapes have become increasingly difficult: Some Gulf Arab states have restricted short-term shore passes for sailors over security concerns. Many merchant sailors are now wondering if the profession has become too dangerous, because the Iran war is only the latest crisis to ensnare the shipping industry.

What were the other crises?

Mariners were stranded at sea during the pandemic, and drone attacks on vessels in the Black Sea have become routine since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen—who attacked more than 100 vessels during the HamasIsrael war—this week declared an embargo of Saudi Arabian shipping in the Red Sea, putting more commercial vessels in the line of fire. Merchant sailors seem increasingly wary of going to sea: Companies have struggled to secure replacement crews to relieve sailors in the Gulf whose contracts have expired, despite offering monthly salaries of up to $30,000. The war, said IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, has shown that “people take seafarers for granted, they don’t value them.”

What happened

Lawmakers in Washington recently demanded that the Trump administration outline its strategy in Iran, as a war that President Trump had vowed would end quickly approached its sixth month and spread further beyond the Persian Gulf. In the first U.S. casualties since March, three American soldiers were killed in a missile attack on a military base in Jordan earlier this month. The next day, a fourth soldier died in Iraq during the controlled detonation of a downed Iranian drone, bringing total U.S. deaths to 18. In response, the U.S. intensified its assault on Iran, hitting bridges and rail lines as well as missile and drone launch sites and air defense facilities. Iran stepped up its attacks on U.S. regional allies, striking a water desalination plant in Kuwait and a U.S. air base and an Amazon data center in Bahrain; the Revolutionary Guard also fired on a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, forcing the crew to evacuate. President Trump vowed the U.S. would “destroy one bridge or power plant” each time Iran targets a ship in the waterway, through which 20% of the world’s oil once flowed.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was pressed on U.S. strategy during a contentious appearance before the Senate appropriations committee. Hegseth, who put the war’s current price tag at $37.5 billion, urged Congress to approve $67 billion in emergency defense funding and warned that the Pentagon would face “critical shortfalls” without the money. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said Democrats would not bankroll “this war and whatever other misadventures Trump wants to get us into”; Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) called for “hard answers” about plans to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Hegseth insisted the U.S. had the upper hand, but Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said Hegseth and the administration had “failed” U.S. troops, adding, “You don’t have a long-term plan to actually win this war.

Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militia vowed to block Saudi Arabian ships from exiting the Red Sea and deployed drones and missiles near the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, leading energy analysts to warn that oil prices— which spiked $20 this month to $95 a barrel—could go even higher. Attempts by mediators to secure a 10-day ceasefire and reopen the Strait of Hormuz made no apparent progress. Until Iran is “ready to meet in a meaningful way,” said Trump, “we have no interest."

What the columnists said

The Iran war “has entered a bleak new phase,” said Megan Messerly and Alex Gangitano in Politico. Trump allies fear the president is running out of ways to extricate America from an unpopular conflict ahead of the midterms. With average gas prices hitting $4 a gallon for the first time since June, Republicans say the war could sink them “in an election that is expected to hinge on costof-living issues.” Even among Trump’s MAGA base, 37% said in a new Politico poll that the U.S. should hold course in Iran only if it doesn’t raise costs.

Trump’s war will only “get harder and harder to defend,” said Zeeshan Aleem in MS.now. Nearly 100 troops have been injured over the past few weeks as Iran ramped up attacks on U.S. bases, and the war’s “human toll is likely to increase.” The Pentagon has been slow to release information on casualties, likely because it knows “the war will become even more widely despised as more people die.” The public will swallow casualties in a campaign they support, but won’t tolerate troops dying “for no obvious reason at all.”

Iran, it turns out, “may be stronger than we thought,” said Joshua Keating in Vox. Contrary to previous assurances by the Trump administration, Iran retains “significant missile and drone capabilities,” with 70% of its prewar missile stockpile intact, according to a recent intelligence report. Meanwhile, there are “growing questions about whether U.S. air defense capabilities are depleting.”

A Houthi blockade of the Bab al-Mandeb Strait could widen the war and “further disrupt global oil supplies and international trade,” said Fatma Khaled and Ahmed Al-Haj in The Associated Press. Sitting at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, the strait serves as a conduit for about 12% of global trade and has become even more vital for Saudi oil exports following the shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz. The Houthis say they’ll stop only ships connected to Saudi Arabia, but even the threat of attack could drive up insurance premiums and deter other ships from using the route.

The conflict now “stands on a knife’s edge,” said Erika Solomon in The New York Times. We’re at a critical moment where both sides must find a way to dial back the hostilities or “risk provoking a war that cascades beyond what they may be able to contain.” With Iran’s economy in tatters and Trump under mounting domestic pressure, “the costs of accelerating the conflict are high for both sides.” But the same factors that make escalation dangerous are “pushing them to riskier attacks,” as they seek to gain leverage.

“Trump has only terrible choices,” said Brynn Tannehill in The Atlantic. With hard-line leaders and “a captive population” accustomed to “economic pain,” Iran is unlikely to bend. Facing that reality, Trump can “stay the course,” with scant odds of success. He can declare victory and walk away. He can ratchet up the pain by targeting civilian infrastructure, which would draw Iranian retaliation against Arab states and make the U.S. a pariah. Or he can launch a ground invasion, and pay a steep price in blood. It boils down to “an unpalatable choice between accepting Iranian hegemony over the strait—or initiating cycles of escalation that cannot end well.”

What happened

The United States has “pressed pause” on airstrikes against Iran after President Donald Trump’s advisers told him their military was “running out of targets” and “expressed worries” about dwindling munitions, Reuters reported Sunday. Sources also told Axios that Adm. Brad Cooper, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, and other advisers “recommended stopping the bombing campaign” because it had “reached the limit of its effectiveness.” There have been no U.S. strikes in the region since last week, and Iran has halted its retaliatory attacks. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed.

Who said what

The president is giving “some space” for diplomatic talks to take place while still keeping “all options on the table,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The U.S. has “far more munitions than anyone in the world,” Trump insisted in a statement to The Wall Street Journal.

Recent polling shows the MAGA base is “losing patience” with the conflict, Politico said. Trump seems “trapped” by a “war he cannot find his way out of,” said The New York Times. “There is more skepticism than optimism” that the pause in fighting will continue, a senior Iranian source told Reuters.

What next?

Oil prices tumbled Monday morning as the pause held, but “analysts cautioned against pricing in further falls,” the Financial Times said. Fed officials will meet this week to discuss a possible interest rate hike as prices remain high.

Since the US and Israel first attacked Iran on 28 February, President Trump “has claimed more than 30 times that Operation Epic Fury has been successful, is over, or almost is”, said Robin Wright in The New Yorker. None of these predictions have been borne out; “some have bordered on delusional”.

Tehran on the attack

The latest ceasefire, agreed in June, has “functionally collapsed”. In the past fortnight, the US has launched nightly air strikes, renewed the blockade of Iranian ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz, and reimposed sanctions. Iran has attacked US and other targets in Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. Three US service personnel were killed last week by a strike on an airbase in Jordan; nearly 100 more have been injured in the latest attacks.

Trump has tried three strategies so far: regime change, a longer campaign of relentless bombardment, and diplomacy. None have worked. In Washington, “there is a growing sense of despair” about the direction of the war.

Iran’s leaders feared that the Memorandum of Understanding agreed in June was just a temporary retreat, said Vali Nasr in the FT – to relieve pressure on the world economy and allow US forces to rearm. There was, in fact, “plenty of evidence to support their suspicions”. More US military assets began to arrive in the area, and the deal’s provisions – on coordinating the passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, on the need for a ceasefire in Lebanon – were ignored. Tehran’s aim now, in going on the attack, is to show that the US cannot dictate events, and that Iran can withstand whatever military and economic pain is inflicted on it.

Deep trouble

Some strategists think the new US plan could work, said Mark Urban in The Sunday Times. Its forces are battering Iran’s coast – military installations, bridges, airports, port facilities – to neutralise the Iranian military’s hold on the strait. At the same time, choking off oil exports will plunge the country into deep economic crisis – albeit in months, not weeks.

In the meantime, the collateral damage to the region is escalating, said Ahmed Al Omran in the FT. Kuwait, which is bearing the brunt of Iran’s current attacks, has endured 1,400 missile and drone strikes. Its airport and its oil infrastructure have been attacked, along with the energy grid and the desalination plants that supply 90% of Kuwait’s water. Oil exports have dropped to 20% of pre-war levels.

The US is in deep trouble, and there’s no easy way out, said Will Walldorf in Foreign Policy – short of accepting Iran’s authority over the Strait of Hormuz and its right to enrich uranium. “But that’s the unfortunate consequence of losing a war that should never have [been] started in the first place.”

Iranian strikes on CIA facilities have led US intelligence officials to believe that unprecedented intelligence cooperation is taking place between Russia and Tehran, with China cooperating closely with Moscow too.

The US is investigating how Iran was able to accurately target covert CIA facilities in Saudi Arabia and other allied countries in March. Reuters cited former CIA officials who said that relatively few countries possess both the intelligence capabilities and strategic motivation to provide Tehran with such highly sensitive data.

If confirmed, “the successful targeting of covert CIA facilities would represent one of the most significant intelligence security breaches affecting US overseas operations in recent decades”, said Military Watch Magazine.

What did the commentators say?

It appears likely that Iran had help from Russia as the attacks “were far more advanced than what they’ve done before”, Nicole Grajewski, from the Center for International Research at Sciences Po university in Paris, told Al Jazeera. Russia “has also allegedly helped Tehran improve the accuracy” of its attack drones by supplying a Russian-designed anti-jamming navigation system, said Al Jazeera.

A secret document seen by The Economist and estimated by the newspaper to have been from the first six weeks of the war showed Russia also offered to provide Iran with “unjammable drones and training on how to use them against American troops in the Gulf”. Christo Grozev, an expert on Russia’s intelligence services, said the proposal was consistent with other evidence that Russia is looking for ways of increasing support for Iran.

For Russia, the benefits of a continued conflict in the Middle East are obvious. More countries are looking to buy Russian oil while the Strait of Hormuz continues to be unstable, said RadioFreeEurope. The Philippines, for example, “has sought to increase Russian crude access and expanded discussions over long-term energy cooperation”. Where Moscow could benefit economically, “China may see diplomatic gains amid the same situation”.

Moscow and Beijing “have coordinated closely throughout the crisis”, said Jasim Al-Azzawi on Middle East Monitor, jointly convening UN sessions and “declining to abandon Tehran diplomatically even as they withheld direct military support”. There is “a seductive myth that China and Iran are allies bound by blood and ideology, that Beijing would ride to Tehran’s rescue the way Nato would for a member under Article 5”. But “nothing could be further from the truth. What binds Beijing and Tehran is colder, more durable, and in some ways more dangerous than sentiment: mutual utility.”

The Iran war has been good for Beijing because it has “accelerated three of China’s long-held goals: a Middle East less dependent on America, a world more dependent on critical Chinese technology and a reputation for Beijing as a serious and steady world power”, said Fareed Zakaria in The Washington Post. Accordingly, China “provides technological and military support to Iran”, said Nadia Helmy on Modern Diplomacy. Chinese companies are “supplying vital components and technologies used in Iran’s missile and defence programmes, making Tehran a regional power that is difficult to deter without significant cost”.

What next?

The US is “surging forces, medics and weaponry to the Middle East to give President Trump more muscular military options as he considers expanding the conflict”, said The Wall Street Journal.

But any escalation will be complicated by the continued support of China and Russia for Iran and the changing of the geopolitical pecking order that this war is beginning to cause. “The Iran conflict has shown that governments increasingly judge the major powers by whether they can help manage energy costs, shipping risk and inflation,” Ilango Karuppannan, a veteran Malaysian diplomat, told RadioFreeEurope.

“This creates a risk for Washington. The US may remain militarily important while becoming less economically relevant.”

What happened

Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis on Thursday morning said they had attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea, enforcing a threatened blockade of the Bab el-Mandeb waterway that Saudi Arabia has been using to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The attack “threatened to open a new front in a war that has roiled the global economy” as the U.S. and Iran “vie for control of vital shipping lanes,” The Associated Press said. Both sides have also “increasingly threatened civilian infrastructure.”

The U.S. conducted a 12th night of airstrikes against Iran, which fired at U.S. allies in the region. Along with striking U.S. military bases, Iran has also hit several CIA sites, prompting U.S. intelligence to “investigate whether Russia assisted by providing targeting information or ​advanced drone technology,” Reuters said.

Who said what

President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened on social media to “destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT” in Iran every time Tehran “shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran will respond in kind with an “eye for an eye” defense against the U.S. and its enablers. “Current and former military officials caution it isn’t lawful to strike an adversary’s infrastructure for political purposes,” The Wall Street Journal said.

What next?

Trump is considering “both a ceasefire and a significant military escalation” in Iran, Axios said. The Pentagon is “surging forces, medics and weaponry to the Middle East,” suggesting “Trump is considering escalating the conflict,” the Journal said.

What happened

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Senate committee on Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s Iran war had cost an estimated $37.5 billion so far, and that the $67 billion in supplemental war funding he was requesting is an “urgent, necessary” stopgap as Congress debates Trump’s $1.5 trillion annual Pentagon budget request. Hegseth faced “fiery questions” during the “combative Senate Appropriations Committee hearing,” The Associated Press said. And the scrutiny was “bipartisan,” The Washington Post said, as “frustrated lawmakers” pressed him to “explain the Trump administration’s strategy for the war” amid “renewed hostilities.”

Who said what

Hegseth’s appearance “represented an attempt by the administration to sell the unpopular conflict as a necessary expense,” Politico said. But Senate Democrats “questioned both the success of the war so far and the need for more military money, citing $75 billion in unused funds” from last year’s huge GOP-only spending package. “The problem is not a lack of money, but poor planning,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) told Hegseth. “This war is now spiraling out of control again,” and Trump is “asking for $70 billion more — and for us to just trust him it’ll all work out fine.”

What next?

The House plans to quit Washington on Thursday “for a month-long recess,” the Post said, “leaving any deal on military funding weeks away at the earliest.”

As the US and Iran continue to trade blows in the Middle East, the consequences of the intense bombings threaten Iran’s already “fragile biodiversity”, said The Associated Press.

Historically, Iran has had a “deep connection” with its wildlife, being one of the first countries to form an environmental protection agency, although “decades of mismanagement and years-long drought” had already put a strain on conservationist work.

Unique biodiversity

Iran’s geographical location gives it a “wide range of climates” that host an “astounding diversity of life”, said the AP. The country is home to at least 86 species at risk of extinction, including the “Asiatic cheetah, Persian fallow deer, brown bear, leopard, black bear, Persian onager, the great bustard and various birds of prey”, according to a 2024 report by Iran’s Environment Department. “Ironically”, military zones had been considered “one of the few areas where falcons can breed safely”, out of reach of smugglers and poachers.

US and Israeli strikes on remote military facilities in deserts and mountain ranges are “causing habitat degradation”, leading to “water and land pollution, soil contamination” and “destruction of land cover”, US-based Iranian wildlife expert Jamshid Parchizadeh told the AP. And an animal population driven away from its habitat, like mountain-dwelling Persian leopards and brown bears, “forever leaves that area from fear”.

Land ecosystems are not the only ones at risk. The “highly contested” Strait of Hormuz is home to the “most diverse” coral population in the region, said CNN. Greenpeace researchers have been able to “regularly detect oil slicks” in the water, following attacks on tankers passing through the strait.

“Many of the compounds found in crude oil will target heart function and respiration,” Martin Grosell, a professor of biology and ecology, told the outlet. Prolonged exposure also “suppresses immune function, rendering animals more susceptible to infections”.

Invisible victims

While most of the attention has been on the urban and economic consequences of the war, the country’s animal species are “less visible victims”, said Iranian news agency Wana.

While there have been “no official reports” on widespread casualties of animals in “natural habitats”, experts warn that a “lack of reporting does not equate to an absence of damage”. And the war’s impact “extends far beyond direct fatalities”: the “intense” noise pollution of bombardments also inflicts “devastating” physical and psychological trauma.

At the Lavizan Bird Garden in Tehran, it was reported that the “deafening noise” caused several birds to lose “behavioural control” due to “severe stress” and to collide with enclosure walls, resulting in injuries and some fatalities.

There are also lasting “indirect” ecological impacts for Iran’s biodiversity. International studies have shown animals exposed to conflict zones develop “disrupted migration, feeding, and breeding patterns” and show signs of “severe aggression or depression”.

“The war has caused serious environmental degradation in a country reeling from a range of climate-related crises, water stress, and air quality issues”, and Iran’s “fragile” ecosystems now face an uncertain future, said non-profit US news organisation Truthout. When it comes to “post-conflict reconstruction”, environmental rehabilitation “often doesn’t take priority”.

Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi militia has announced it is closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait to Saudi ships, in a “maritime embargo” that could further disrupt global energy supplies. The strait, a strategic gateway linking the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden, is one of the world’s most important oil transit routes. And, in recent days, Iran has reportedly been calling on the Houthis to block the strait to all oil tanker traffic passing through it.

Closing off the Bab al-Mandab “chokepoint” on the sea path many oil tankers are now taking to avoid the Strait of Hormuz could seriously “squeeze the global economy” and “add another layer of complexity” to the Middle East conflict, said The Wall Street Journal.

What did the commentators say?

The Bab al-Mandab Strait is “one of the region’s most sensitive sources of leverage”, making the Houthis Iran’s “best placed” allies “to open another pressure front”, said Ahmed al-Shalafi on Al Jazeera.

Around 10% to 12% of annual global maritime trade passes through the strait. With both it and the Strait of Hormuz closed, cargo ships would have to “take a weeks-long detour” around Africa, said Akhtar Makoii in The Telegraph. The Houthis have already shown they are capable of shutting down the waterway: “during the Gaza war, they fired on commercial vessels in the Red Sea for months, driving much of the world’s shipping away from the route”.

Closing the strait again serves “Tehran’s ends” but the Houthis are “partners, not puppets” of Iran, and this move lets them “press their own regional ambitions” and, particularly, “punish Saudi Arabia, their long-time enemy”. Last week, Saudi Arabia “effectively opened a new front in the war” by bombing Sana’a airport in the Yemeni capital to prevent the landing of an Iranian plane carrying a Houthi delegation back from Tehran.

The growing hostilities are “breaking down” the informal 2022 Saudi-Houthi truce that “ended virtually all cross-border attacks” between the two countries, said Stephen Kalin in The Wall Street Journal. The Houthis “see an opportunity to gain an advantage” on the Saudis and feel “strategically emboldened by a perception that Iran has outmanoeuvred the US”.

What next?

Saudi Arabia does not seem “eager to return quickly to a broad war” with the Houthis, said al-Shalafi on Al Jazeera. And closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait completely would require “military, logistical and maritime control capabilities” that the Houthis no longer possess, Ibrahim Al-Malek, a Durham University specialist in Middle Eastern strategic governance, told US-funded Arabic news service Alhurra.

“Whether the Houthis move from threats to direct action remains the critical issue,” Yemeni analyst Mohammed Albasha told Reuters. But “even if no ships are attacked, ​the announcement alone is likely to disrupt shipping and create ​uncertainty”.

What happened

The U.S. military early Monday morning completed a ninth consecutive night of airstrikes on Iranian targets, and Iran again fired missiles and drones at Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan. The Pentagon said a U.S. service member was killed in Iraq on Saturday during the “controlled detonation” of a downed Iranian drone, and human remains were found at a military base in Jordan hit by Iranian strikes last week. That attack killed two U.S. troops, and if the remains are confirmed to be a soldier missing since the strikes, the U.S. death toll from the Iran war will be 18. Iran said U.S. strikes had killed at least 50 people since a ceasefire collapsed this month.

Who said what

The U.S. hit Iran “very hard again” throughout the night “in honor of” the “great patriots” killed, Trump told reporters. “We feel very badly,” but “those great people” were “fighting that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” Iran has been “stepping up” its strikes on Jordan “as it seeks to produce American casualties and deter Washington from escalating its test of wills with Tehran,” The Wall Street Journal said.

What next?

“Even larger American attacks may be coming” as “more U.S. warplanes head to the Middle East,” the Journal said. “The U.S. is planning for a wider war,” a U.S. official told The Washington Post, but with dwindling munitions stockpiles and growing battle damage, “we do not have enough to safely sustain operations, and I don’t think the White House is aware of that.”

What happened

The price of oil has jumped nearly 10% following renewed violence in the Strait of Hormuz. Brent crude futures climbed to $83 a barrel Monday, marking the “largest daily percentage gain since May 2020,” The Wall Street Journal said. The U.S. military launched its third straight night of attacks against Iran Monday night; Iran responded by striking two United Arab Emirates tankers.

Who said what

The new attacks “signaled a return to open conflict” in the region less than a month after the two nations agreed to a ceasefire, The New York Times said. They follow President Donald Trump’s social media declaration that the U.S. is “reinstating THE IRANIAN BLOCKADE,” and will take over the strait, charging a 20% fee for secure passage. That would “be a major new tax on global energy flows and would drive up the cost of the world’s oil and gas,” The Washington Post said.

What next?

The blockade goes into effect Tuesday at 4 p.m. Eastern time. Oil markets are facing a new reality, the Journal said, as the Strait of Hormuz is “no longer expected to return to a prewar norm.”

What happened

The U.S. military on Sunday night conducted a fresh wave of airstrikes against Iranian targets as retaliatory attacks between the two nations increase. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed responsibility for attacks on a U.S. refueling facility at the Omani port of Duqm, as well as attacks on American bases in Qatar and Jordan. Tehran also said it had shut the Strait of Hormuz and struck commercial vessels transiting the strategic waterway. The latest exchange follows fresh U.S. airstrikes on 140 Iranian military targets.

Who said what

Iran accused the U.S. of undermining diplomatic efforts, saying American attacks had “rendered futile” recent negotiations. The two nations have “traded fire and recriminations,” said The New York Times. Both have accused the other of violating the terms of the ceasefire and “leaving the region suspended between war and peace.” As the war “heats up” again, CNN said, U.S. weapon stocks “remain significantly depleted,” risking the military’s “ability to fight” any “future war.”

What next?

In a televised statement, Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not been seen since the Feb. 28 death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that “vengeance” for his father’s killing “is the will of our nation and must certainly be carried out”.

Even though the United States and Iran are embroiled in war, a new lawsuit against the Trump administration is claiming that the two countries’ governments actually began working together last year — and jeopardized Iranian asylum seekers’ lives in the process. The White House has dismissed these claims, but those who filed the lawsuit are not backing down.

‘Confidential information’

The issue first arose in 2025 when the Trump administration “adopted a policy of providing” the Iranian government with “confidential information from the immigration files of Iranians seeking asylum in the United States,” according to the lawsuit filed by the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund (IALDF). Many of the asylum seekers whose information is allegedly being shared are people who “seek refuge in the United States because of the grave dangers they face in Iran,” such as pro-democracy activists and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Disclosing the confidential information of these asylum seekers “violates federal regulations requiring confidentiality, endangers their family members and acquaintances who may still be residing in Iran, and puts those who are subject to removal to Iran at risk of persecution,” the IALDF said in a statement. The lawsuit is requesting that the court “order the U.S. government to stop sharing asylum-applicant information with the government of Iran.”

The allegations are based on accounts from “detainees who had been called into meetings with Iranian officials who seemed to already possess details from their U.S. immigration files,” Michael Kirkpatrick, a lawyer representing the Iranian fund, told The New York Times. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has denied any wrongdoing. DHS “provides illegal aliens the opportunity to contact their consular post and facilitates consular access to detained individuals, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and agency policy,“ the department said in a statement.

‘Prohibit the government from sharing information’

The U.S. government is “allowed to work with government officials of foreign countries to coordinate deportation logistics,” said The Associated Press. But federal regulations generally “prohibit the government from sharing information that could reveal that the individual getting deported applied for asylum.” Congress “made these confidentiality protections mandatory precisely because lives depend on them, and no agency and no administration, of either party, may set them aside,” Ali Rahnama, the interim executive director of the IALDF, told the AP.

And while some may think that the conflict raging in the Middle East would have slowed the information sharing, the lawsuit “alleges that the Trump administration has continued to share confidential information during the current war between the U.S. and Iran,” said ABC News. Though the “in-person meetings reportedly stopped before the war began on Feb. 28,” the lawsuit claims the government continued to “mail or hand deliver document packages” to the Iranian Interests Section, which oversees the nation’s diplomatic duties in the U.S.

Some asylum-seeker data sharing may always occur, such as information on travel documents. What is “different here, though, is they are revealing information from the asylum applications, and that is a very specific category of information that is kept confidential,” Kirkpatrick said to NPR. The U.S. government “shouldn’t even reveal information from which one could infer that somebody had sought asylum.”

What happened

President Donald Trump Wednesday ended the two-day NATO summit in Turkey with warm words for U.S. allies, a promise to let Ukraine produce Patriot air-defense missiles and renewed fighting with Iran. After declaring the ceasefire “over,” Trump ordered a second night of strikes on Iran, which again fired at U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar. Iran’s leaders are “scum” and “sick people,” Trump told reporters. If Iran keeps bombing ships in the Strait of Hormuz, he said on social media, the “retribution” will “get much worse!”

Who said what

Trump began the NATO summit “publicly bashing the alliance and reciting a list of grievances,” Politico said, but “behind closed doors” he “was far more positive” with fellow leaders. “There was a lot of love in that room,” Trump told reporters. “A lot of unity.” The Ankara summit “amounted to a master class in how to manage a mercurial president and minimize damage,” CNN said. “It’s a lesson clearly not absorbed by, or of much interest to, Iran.”

What next?

The reignited battle over the Strait of Hormuz reflects a “divide among Iran’s leadership” between “hard-liners seeking lasting control of the waterway” and “pragmatists” seeking sanctions relief, The Associated Press said. It also leaves Trump back “mired in an unpopular war that he cannot seem to end,” The Washington Post said, “with midterm elections less than four months away.”

What happened

Slain Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s funeral procession began advancing through the streets of Tehran this morning after Sunday’s prayers at the capital’s sprawling Imam Khomeini Grand Mosalla complex. Three of Khamenei’s sons appeared publicly Sunday for the first time since their father and other family members were killed in the opening U.S.-Israeli strikes of the Iran war, but Mojtaba Khamenei, the son who succeeded him as supreme leader, has still not made any public appearances.

Who said what

The funeral procession route was “packed to capacity” with black-clad mourners “hoping to gain a glimpse of the passing cortège,” CNN said. Some mourners said they were disappointed at the absence of Mojtaba Khamenei, whose face was reportedly “disfigured” and “one or ​both legs” significantly injured in U.S.-Israeli strikes, Reuters said. He is believed to be in hiding “due to the dangers of Israeli threats to his life,” Al Jazeera said.

The “increasingly” common “threats from mourners to avenge Khamenei’s death” included chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and signs calling for the “killing of both U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” The Associated Press said. As the poet Mohammad Rasouli asked why “the biggest bastard in the world” was “still alive” to cheering mourners at the Mosalla complex, Trump was boasting he “wiped out” Iran’s military during “a speech at the same time across the world” to celebrate America’s 250th birthday.

What next?

After a 12-hour procession through Tehran, Khamenei’s body will be transported to Qom, then to important Shiite shrines in the Iraqi cities of Najaf and Karbala, and finally to Thursday’s burial in his hometown of Mashhad.

President Trump’s Iran deal-in-progress “is Israel’s disaster,” said Ruth Margalit in The New Yorker. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lobbied Trump to launch the Iran war, telling him they could together topple Iran’s Islamist regime, wipe out its ballistic missiles, and end its nuclear threat. Four months later, that war of choice has ended with Trump signing a “memorandum of understanding” with Tehran that not only leaves the hard-liners in charge but also does nothing to address Iran’s arsenal of long-range missiles or its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. “Perhaps most disturbingly for Israel,” said Lazar Berman in The Dispatch, the deal yields to Iran’s demand for a ceasefire in Lebanon, shielding its proxy Hezbollah from attack even as the terrorist group continues to “threaten Israel from the north.” Rubbing salt in the wound are the “gratuitous insults” from Trump, who has called Israel a “very small partner” and Netanyahu a loose cannon with “no f---ing judgment,” while praising the Iranians as “strong,” “smart,” and “very rational.”

Vice President JD Vance also had some “harsh words for Israel,” said Aaron Blake in CNN.com. Responding to criticism of the Iran deal from top Israeli lawmakers, he warned the country to tread carefully. He noted the Jewish state’s reliance on U.S. weaponry, and said some Israeli leaders needed to “wake up and smell the reality” and defer to Trump, “the only head of state in the entire world” who’s still in their corner. It’s a stunning turnabout, said Matt K. Lewis in the Los Angeles Times. Broad bipartisan support for Israel was for decades “a law of physics” in the U.S. But Israel’s bloody campaign in Gaza following the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023, “repelled” many young Americans. And by allying himself so closely with Trump to “gin up a war against Iran,” Netanyahu alienated mainstream Democrats and Never Trump conservatives and infuriated “America first” populists in the GOP. Today, some 60% of U.S. adults view Israel unfavorably, up from 42% in 2022.

Netanyahu is in a bind of his own making, said Yair Rosenberg in The Atlantic. “He’s built his brand on two promises” to Israelis: that “he alone could withstand international pressure to compromise on Israeli security and that he alone could handle Trump.” Facing re-election in October, he must now choose whether to defy Trump and “save his reputation as a stalwart security hawk” or cave and maintain what’s left of their relationship. He’s learning the hard way that with Trump any alliance is a “marriage of convenience.” As “a student of power” himself, Netanyahu “should have seen this rug pull coming.”

What happened

The U.S. last week removed sanctions on Iranian oil even as peace talks between Washington and Tehran appeared to descend into confusion, with the two sides issuing conflicting accounts of discussions on nuclear inspections and the unfreezing of billions in Iranian funds. An initial round of talks in Switzerland “laid a very good foundation” for a final peace deal, said Vice President JD Vance, who led the U.S. delegation. But the two sides soon sparred publicly over Iran’s nuclear program, with Vance and President Trump saying Tehran had agreed to U.N. inspections of its damaged nuclear sites while Iranians insisted they hadn’t. “They know they’re wrong,” Trump said. “They told us inside.” The two sides also disagreed over the fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, which the preliminary agreement states will be diluted. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country will “never back down from the right to enrich uranium”; Trump shot back that “he better watch his mouth” or “we’ll take over the rest of the country.”

Citing “productive” talks, the U.S. waived long-standing sanctions on Iranian oil through August and cleared the way for Tehran to be paid in dollars, including by U.S. buyers. Iranian officials said steps had been taken toward the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets. Vance said if assets were released, Iran would have to spend them on U.S. exports, but Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei insisted Iran can spend any released funds “freely.” There were also sharp divisions over the Strait of Hormuz, where hundreds of ships were stranded during the conflict. Iran said it will charge “fees” to ships using the strait in exchange for unspecified services; Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that no country can charge fees for transiting an international waterway.

In Washington, the Senate passed a resolution barring Trump from resuming the Iran war without congressional authorization, with four Republicans joining Democrats in a rare rebuke of the president. The vote came amid broad GOP skepticism about Trump’s ceasefire deal, which has been widely criticized for ceding too much to Iran while achieving none of Trump’s war aims. “The administration acts like they want a deal much more than the ayatollah regime,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). It “looks like weakness.”

What the columnists said

The “sweeping rollback” of U.S. oil sanctions reverses “years of pressure designed to cripple Iran’s economy,” said Anniek Bao in CNBC.com. The 60-day license issued by the Treasury Department will unlock the sale of 67 million barrels of Iranian crude floating in the strait, yielding a “windfall” of up to $9 billion for Tehran. And it reopens “Iran’s most important revenue stream.” Sanctions are unlikely to return after 60 days, said Jonathan V. Last in The Bulwark. “Once Iranian oil is in the international supply line, they have Trump over a barrel,” because he won’t be able to impose curbs on Iranian exports without “pushing oil prices up again.”

This is quite the turnaround for the Trump team, said Andrew Kaczynski and Jennifer Hansler in CNN.com. For years, Trump, Rubio, and Vance assailed deals that provided financial concessions to Iran, saying they would enrich a dangerous foe that “fuels terror.” That was their “central indictment” of former president Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal, which granted Iran sanctions relief and “access to frozen assets.” Now they’re poised to hand the regime piles of dollar bills.

And for what? asked The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. Tehran has “made no serious concession on nuclear matters.” Lifting oil sanctions now will “gut” U.S. leverage and send cash flowing to the coffers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iran claims some of its frozen assets have already been released, possibly $6 billion that was being held in Qatar. Even if Tehran complies with a U.S. dictate that such cash be spent only on food and medicine, “it frees up other funds for military purposes.”

Meanwhile, the preliminary deal signed by Trump treats our ally Israel as if it were a U.S. “puppet” with “no sovereignty beyond that which America grants it,” said Noah Rothman in National Review. By demanding a ceasefire in southern Lebanon, Iran has compelled America to tacitly take the side of the Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists who use the region to strike at northern Israel. “And all in the craven pursuit of a ‘peace’ unworthy of the word.”

“Negotiating with Iran has always been an extraordinary challenge,” said David E. Sanger and Yeganeh Torbati in The New York Times, but it’s even more complex under Trump. Instead of letting negotiators quietly work toward a full agreement, he likes to trumpet “his preferred outcomes as fully negotiated side deals,” in a bid to force Iran’s hand. The Iranians have their own “spin strategy”: Deny every claim, even if it contains “an element of truth.” Some “posturing” is par for the course, but at this level it raises the question of whether the sniping “will ultimately sink the whole venture.”

Hanging over the negotiations is “an uncomfortable question,” said Aviva Klompas in USA Today. What exactly has the U.S. accomplished? The hardliners remain in power in Tehran. The fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium is unsettled. The Strait of Hormuz, where oil shipping was uncontested before the war, is now a “bargaining chip.” Iran has “suffered enormous losses” to its military and nuclear infrastructure. But if it is financially rewarded and retains its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, it’s fair to ask “whether Tehran has once again accomplished a tactic it has spent decades perfecting: losing the war while winning the negotiation.”