News Desk

March 12 (UPI) — The recent, new delay in NASA’s moon landing program represents the latest in a string of technical, budgetary, workforce and public perception challenges that plague the space agency, a UPI analysis shows.

When flight officials pulled the Artemis II Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft off the launch pad at Kennedy Space Center on Feb. 25 after a recurrence of helium flow problems and pushed the launch back to April at the earliest, it served as another reminder of the space agency’s current assortment of formidable problems.

Those issues include a moon program whose timeline keeps slipping; recurring technical failures and cost overruns with its flagship SLS rocket; a commercial lander — SpaceX’s Starship — that has yet to demonstrate reliability; the effective grounding of the Vulcan Centaur rocket made by United Launch Alliance; the departures of thousands of NASA workers and turnover in its top leadership positions.

The agency announced March 3 it had identified the latest problem with Artemis II as a faulty helium seal in the SLS upper stage, and that it is repairing the assembly, as well as making other fixes to the spacecraft.

But meanwhile, the lag time since the last crewed U.S. spaceflight has now stretched to three full years. This lengthy drought has prompted outside analysts and NASA officials to worry about how public support for the space program is being affected.

“When missions occur every few years, it is easy for people to lose interest,” said Burt Dicht, a leader of the National Space Society, who added he backs a newly announced NASA effort to increase the frequency of launches.

The latest delay has prompted a fresh look at some of the major challenges facing the space agency’s moon effort, as well as more general problems.

Headwinds with partners, personnel issues

One of the more pressing issues with the Artemis program is its dependence on SpaceX’s Starship Human Landing System, or HLS, as the initial human lander that will put the first U.S. astronauts on the lunar surface.

Elon Musk’s company signed a contract with NASA in 2021 to provide the lander, but struggled in 2025 to perfect the mammoth Starship V3 rocket necessary for a key element of the HLS mission, according to a report issued by NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel and released last month.

The Starship V3 incorporates upgraded Raptor engines to provide it with the required performance for low-Earth orbit flight and on-orbit operations, and its development is deemed crucial for transferring fuel to an orbiting tanker.

How it performs will “ultimately determine the number of refueling missions required for the HLS mission,” which is now pegged at roughly 12 fueling flights, the report’s authors wrote.

“The development and test progress necessary for a version of Starship that has not yet flown in time to support a human lunar landing mission within the next few years appears daunting and, to the panel, probably not achievable,” they wrote.

SpaceX announced Feb. 26 that the first Starship V3 had left its build site at Boca Chica, Texas, and had begun prelaunch testing.

In 2023, NASA selected Blue Origin, owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, to develop a second human landing system to compete with the HLS. Its Blue Moon Mark 2, to be launched aboard a New Glenn rocket, is to be tested twice and then carry a crew to the moon in late 2028.

New critical report

But NASA’s Office of Inspector General, in a report issued Tuesday, looked at both programs to carry astronauts to the moon and advised that the agency faces significant technical and programmatic risks that threaten mission timelines and crew safety.

The report said NASA is not fully adhering to “test like you fly” principles, particularly for uncrewed demonstration missions, and has not yet ensured that SpaceX’s Starship lander will meet manual control requirements for astronauts.

The inspector general also noted gaps in hazard‑mitigation planning and insufficient testing of critical systems, especially given the complexity of both SpaceX’s and Blue Origin’s lander architectures.

The report also warned that NASA the capability to rescue astronauts in the event of a life‑threatening emergency during lunar surface operations, echoing limitations from the Apollo era.

And it concluded that SpaceX and Blue Origin face technical challenges likely to cause additional delays, with SpaceX’s schedule slipping beyond its earlier 2027 target and even the revised 2028 goal remaining uncertain.

The report recommends stronger risk‑management practices, more realistic scheduling and more rigorous testing to ensure crew safety and mission success.

Meanwhile, NASA’s larger operations also could be affected by problems encountered in the new Vulcan Centaur rockets made by United Launch Alliance.

Vulcan launches halted

The U.S. Space Force last week temporarily halted all national security launches using the rocket after the same booster malfunction occurred twice, according to comments made by Col. Eric Zarybnisky at a meeting last month in Colorado.

The Vulcan Centaur program was established by ULA to reduce costs and eliminate reliance on the current workhorse Atlas V Russian-supplied RD-180 engine and is primarily meant to meet U.S. military needs.

But the program benefits NASA as well, giving it greater flexibility and transport capability for launching of payloads, the space agency said.

NASA also continues to struggle with an exodus of workers, including thousands of crucial senior staff, which some analysts believe is impacting its moon and Mars exploration goals due to a loss of expertise.

Nearly 4,000 agency employees last year chose to accept “deferred resignations” as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to slash the federal workforce — a move that reduced NASA’s employee roster by more than 20% to some 14,000, NASA spokesperson Cheryl Warner told NPR in June.

Still, even amid all of those issues, the agency was able to dodge the biggest potential bullet of them all — a proposed 24% reduction in its budget issued by the White House, which would have been the biggest cut in agency history.

That threat all but evaporated when Congress agreed on a $24.4 billion NASA spending bill in January, representing a mere 1.7% budget reduction.

The NASA administrator’s job itself remained unfilled throughout 2025, as President Donald Trump withdrew his nomination of Isaacman. Trump ultimately changed course, and Isaacman was confirmed by the Senate on Dec. 17.

Major changes for the Artemis program

Of all the difficulties faced by NASA, the technical problems and cost overruns of the Artemis program itself have emerged as perhaps the most high-profile.

The Feb. 25 postponement was the second recent delay for Artemis II, which is to send four astronauts on a “slingshot” fly-by around the moon. Last month, NASA pushed back the launch to March after engineers discovered what they called a significant hydrogen leak during a wet dress rehearsal.

NASA said Thursday it plans to roll the Artemis II Space Launch System rocket and Orion capsule back out to the launchpad next week, aiming for a launch in April.

The rollout wis to begin March 19, with an eye at launching as early as the evening of April 1, NASA officials said during a press briefing.

The original target date for landing astronauts on the moon — 55 years after the United States first did it — was 2024. When that was announced in 2019, many observers thought the target date was too optimistic.

The effort’s total cost after NASA recently added nine new elements now exceeds $20 billion, the Government Accountability Office reported last summer. Three of those elements have racked up a total of $7 billion in cost overruns.

NASA has made efforts to get a handle on the overruns through its Moon to Mars Program Office, the GAO said, but warned that each new delay to mission dates can create a cascading effect of increased costs across multiple programs that function independently of each other.

Clear warnings

And in its report from last month, the NASA safety panel sounded clear warnings about the “ambitious timeline” for developing the Human Landing System, given its “intricate operational design” and :complex concept of operations,” as well as other serious safety concerns surrounding the Artemis program.

Taken together, the issues posed a “high safety risk,” the panel concluded, which “casts doubt on the current Artemis III timeline and the feasibility of the Artemis III mission goals.”

In the wake of the latest issues, Isaacman announced a major revamp of Artemis under which the expected moon landing was pushed back from Artemis III in 2027 to Artemis IV in 2028.

“We have to rebuild core competencies,” he told reporters Feb. 27, blaming the repeated delays on too-infrequent launch schedules (known as the “launch cadence”), which he said causes “muscle memory” to “atrophy.”

“This is just not the right pathway forward,” he asserted, while revealing that a moon landing with Artemis III in 2027 has been deemed too ambitious and will instead now be attempted with Artemis IV in 2028.

Artemis III will instead now serve as a mission to perform tests on connecting with lunar landers in low-Earth orbit, as well as to test equipment that will go on Artemis IV.

Meanwhile, to bump up the launch cadence to once every 10 months rather than every three years, Isaacman announced a standardization of the SLS rocket fleet to “essentially near ‘Block-1’ configuration.”

The idea, he said, is to reduce the complexity of the massive rocket and to “accelerate manufacturing, pull in the hardware and increase launch rate, which obviously has a direct safety consideration to it, as well. You get into a good rhythm launching with greater frequency, you get that muscle memory.”

To do that, he added, “we need to rebuild and strengthen the workforce here at NASA. … We have to rebuild core competencies. The ability to turn around our launch pads and launch with frequency greater than every three years is imperative,” he said, pointing to the histories of the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle programs, when “the average launch cadence was closer to three months.”

The decision to simplify and standardize the SLS starting with Artemis IV also means the agency will no longer need to use the $1.5 billion Mobile Launcher 2 at Kennedy Space Center, which is still under construction and has faced its own cost overruns and delays.

Experts’ reactions

Experts who have been closely following the development of Artemis expressed a range of opinions about whether the latest moves are the right ones for the moon program and the U.S. space program generally.

Kenny Evans, a fellow in science, technology and innovation policy at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston, told UPI the glitches and the resulting negative perceptions of the program are indeed tied to the drawn-out launch cadence.

“The extended periods between SLS launches have given NASA fewer chances to test out hardware — and less cover for when things go wrong,” he said. “That has long been a valid criticism of the SLS program and a source of bad press — for example, the fueling issues in prior wet dress rehearsals.

“Working out kinks, as visible and expensive as they are, should be seen as net positives rather than programmatic failures,” he said.

“Frankly I’m relieved to see the timeline revamp,” Evans added. “The Artemis schedule Isaacman inherited had absolutely no chance of meeting its prior targets, and I’ve been impressed by his willingness to address the hard truths about the program.

“In terms of safety, making Artemis III a system test will provide NASA a much needed opportunity to remove as much risk as possible before attempting a lunar landing for Artemis IV,” he said while noting he is “particularly enthusiastic” about the NASA leader’s stated commitment to strengthening its workforce, “especially in light of cuts to agency staff.”

Meanwhile, the National Space Society’s Dicht, said his interactions with students, engineers, long-time space advocates and the public have shown him there is “real enthusiasm for progress in the space program,” but that new momentum is needed.

“I believe NASA Administrator Isaacman’s proposals to improve launch cadence, strengthen the workforce and standardize the SLS are positive steps that can help stabilize the Artemis program and move it toward a sustained return to the moon,” Dicht said.

“Whether it is SLS or any other rocket, these are extraordinarily complex machines,” he said. “Increasing the cadence of launches and ensuring the workforce is well-trained and consistently engaged helps build the operational experience, or ‘muscle memory,’ that improves reliability and the likelihood of mission success.”

While there is steady and palpable excitement over humankind’s first return to the moon since 1972 among committed enthusiasts, “there remains a segment of the public, including some social media influencers, who interpret technical issues as a sign that the program is failing,” he said.

“When missions occur every few years it is easy for people to lose interest,” Dicht said. “If the program can move toward a more regular rhythm, possibly two flights per year, it will attract attention and reinforce the sense that progress is being made.”

Similar to Apollo 9

Spaceflight historian and science author Amy Shira Teitel, creator of The Vintage Space YouTube channel, said the revamp “doesn’t particularly surprise me,” noting the decision to change Artemis III’s moon landing mission into a test flight is reminiscent of Apollo 9 in March 1969.

In that mission, a three-astronaut crew carried out vital tests while in low-Earth orbit to prepare for the historic Apollo 11 moon landing four months later.

“The plan to land Artemis III while still not having the lander ready or even chosen, from what I could tell, seemed like trouble waiting to happen, so the idea of going back to Apollo 9 and testing the hardware/mission in Earth orbit seems both safe and like it should have been the first step before going to the moon,” she told UPI in emailed comments.

The author of Breaking the Chains of Gravity: The Story of Spaceflight before NASA has questioned the overall purpose, cost and broader implications of the moon-to-Mars effort, contending it lacks a compelling justification other than “going for the sake of going” while the highly successful and popular International Space Station is scheduled to be scrapped in 2030.

All of the Artemis changes, Teitel said, are “emphasizing how hard it is, and how insane it is to be looking at canceling the ISS without a replacement and just focusing on the moon-to-Mars pipeline without any kind of long-term infrastructure or planning.

“And the endless issues with SLS — why are we adding more launches?” she asked. “We know this system is flawed. It feels like retrofitting a mission into the hardware to justify the … launch cost.”

Washington, DC – In September, the United States began launching dozens of deadly military strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific.

Nearly half a year later, remarkably little is known about the strikes. The identities of the nearly 157 people killed have not been released. Any purported evidence against them has not been made public.

But a group of United Nations and international law experts are hoping to change that on Friday, when they testify at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

The international hearing will be the first of its kind since the strikes began on September 2, and rights advocates hope it can help lead to accountability as individual legal cases related to the strikes proceed.

Steven Watt, a senior staff lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union’s human rights programme, said the goal of the hearing will be threefold.

“Our ask will be to conduct a fact-finding investigation into what’s going on,” Watt said.

The second aim, he continued, would be “to assert or to arrive at a conclusion that there is no armed conflict here”, in what would be a rebuke to US President Donald Trump’s previous claims.

Finally, Watt said, he hopes the proceedings will yield long-sought transparency from the Trump administration on “whether or not they have a legal justification for these boat strikes”.

“We don’t think there are any,” Watt added.

‘We don’t know the names’

The experts set to testify at Friday’s hearing said the IACHR has a unique mandate to uncover the truth behind the US strikes.

The commission, based in Guatemala City, Guatemala, is an independent investigative body within the Organization of American States, of which the US was a founding member in 1948.

While the Trump administration has claimed it has a right to carry out the deadly attacks as part of a wider military offensive against so-called “narco-terrorists”, rights groups have decried the campaign as a series of extrajudicial killings.

They argue that Trump’s deadly tactics deny those targeted of anything that approaches due process.

Legal experts have also dismissed Trump’s claims that suspects in drug-related crimes are equivalent to “unlawful combatants” in an “armed conflict”.

Few details have emerged from the air strikes. Several families have come forward, however, to informally identify the dead as their loved ones.

Victims are said to include 26-year-old Chad Joseph and 41-year-old Rishi Samaroo, who were sailing home to Trinidad and Tobago when they were killed in October, according to relatives.

A complaint filed against the US government said both men travelled often between the islands and Venezuela, where Joseph found work as a farmer and fisherman, and Samaroo laboured on a farm.

The family of Colombian national Alejandro Carranza, 42, have also said he was killed in September when the US military attacked his fishing boat off the country’s coast.

The US has yet to confirm the victims’ identities, and only two survivors have ever been rescued in the 45 reported strikes.

A clearer picture of what happened will be a significant step towards accountability, according to experts like Watt.

“[The IACHR] is uniquely positioned to identify who all these persons are,” Watt said. “We just know the numbers from the United States. We don’t know the names or the backgrounds of these people.”

The IACHR has launched a range of human rights investigations in recent decades, including probes into the 2014 mass kidnapping of 43 students in Iguala, Mexico, and a series of murders in Colombia from 1988 to 1991 dubbed the Massacre of Trujillo.

The commission has also examined US policies, including extrajudicial detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during its so-called “global war on terror”.

The IACHR has the power to seek resolutions to human rights complaints or refer them for litigation before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Just last week, the court ordered Peru to pay reparations to the family of a woman who died during a government-led forced sterilisation campaign in the 1990s.

The Carranza family has filed its own complaint to the IACHR, and the families of Joseph and Samaroo have also lodged a lawsuit against the US in a federal court in Massachusetts.

Angelo Guisado, a senior staff lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), said a fuller accounting of the US actions is needed to prevent future abuses. He is among the experts testifying on Friday.

“You can’t normalise assassinating fishermen off the coast of South America,” Guisado told Al Jazeera. “That’s just sadistic and an abomination to the rules-based order that we’ve created.”

“So we hope that the commission can do some investigation.”

A war against ‘narco-terrorists’?

One of Guisado’s goals for Friday’s hearing will be to unpack the Trump administration’s argument that the attacks are necessary from a national security standpoint.

Even before the US strikes began, the Trump administration began framing the Latin American drug trade as an existential threat to the US.

As part of that re-framing, the administration borrowed messaging from its “global war on terror”, taking the unorthodox approach of labelling several cartels “foreign terrorist organisations”.

Speaking last week at a meeting of Latin American leaders, White House security adviser Stephen Miller maintained there is no “criminal justice solution” to drug cartels.

Instead, he affirmed that the US would use “hard power, military power, lethal force, to protect and defend the American homeland”, even if that meant carrying out deadly operations throughout the Western Hemisphere.

Guisado, however, noted that the administration has admitted that the targeted boats were largely carrying cocaine, not the highly addictive fentanyl responsible for the majority of US drug overdoses.

He explained that the administration has done little to prove its claims that drug traffickers are part of a coordinated effort to destabilise the US.

Such hyperbolic language, Guisado added, could be used as a smokescreen to conceal illegal actions.

“When you invoke national security interest, it seems as if scrutiny and any legitimate analysis or condemnation gets pushed to one side in favour of an ersatz martial law,” Guisado said.

“The idea that you could just proclaim anyone a narcoterrorist and do whatever you want with them is just so repugnant to our system of fairness, justice and law.”

Watt, meanwhile, said he hopes the IACHR will draw a clear “line in the sand”, separating drug crimes from what is conventionally considered an armed conflict.

He also would like to see the IACHR clearly outline the US’s human rights obligations.

“But even if there was an armed conflict — of which there isn’t — the laws of war would prohibit the type of conduct that the United States is engaging in here,” Watt explained.

“It would be an extrajudicial killing. It would be a war crime.”

Transparency or accountability

Friday’s hearing will only be an initial step towards accountability, and critics question how effective the IACHR will ultimately be.

The US has regularly shrugged off human rights probes at international forums, and it is not party to entities like the International Criminal Court in The Hague, raising barriers to the pursuit of justice.

Despite being a member of the OAS, the US has also not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, one of the organisation’s founding documents.

It is, therefore, unclear how binding any IACHR decisions could be, although Watt argued that it is “longstanding jurisprudence of the commission that the declaration imposes obligations on non-ratifying member states”.

Still, legal experts said Friday’s hearing may yield clarity on the Trump administration’s legal argument for the boat strikes.

The IACHR has said US government representatives are set to appear at the hearing.

To date, the US Department of Justice has not released the Office of Legal Counsel’s official reasoning for the boat strikes, considered the foundational legal document for the military actions.

A separate memorandum from that office addressed the US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3, which it framed as a drug enforcement action.

That memo touched on the boat strikes, but it only served to raise further questions about Trump’s rationale.

“This will be an opportunity for the United States to put its case before the commission,” Watt said.

“But of course, it depends on US cooperation,” he continued. “They’re going down there, but it’ll be interesting to see what they actually say”.

Universal Pictures will now keep its new films in theaters for at least five weekends, a reversal from the studio’s previous policy of at least 17 days that was set during the pandemic.

The change takes place immediately, the studio said Thursday. That means it will apply to its newest film, the Colleen Hoover romance “Reminders of Him,” which is out in theaters this weekend. Other upcoming films include Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” which will be released in July.

“Our windowing strategy has always been designed to evolve with the marketplace, but we firmly believe in the primacy of theatrical exclusivity and working closely with our exhibition partners to support a healthy, sustainable theatrical ecosystem,” Donna Langley, chair of NBCUniversal Entertainment, said in an email to the New York Times, which first reported the news.

Focus Features, Universal Pictures’ specialty film arm, will keep its existing theatrical exclusivity policies, which vary on a case-by-case basis. Chloé Zhao’s “Hamnet,” for instance, was in theaters for 99 days, while 2024’s “Nosferatu” played for 58 days. The minimum is 17 days.

The amount of time films are available exclusively in theaters — known as “windowing” in industry jargon — has become a contentious topic of conversation in Hollywood.

That debate ramped up during the pandemic, when some studios shortened theatrical exclusivity periods in order to move films to release for video on demand or streaming.

Prior to the pandemic, those windows could be as long as 90 days. Now, the average is around 30 days.

Theater owners have argued that shorter windows cut into box office profits and train audiences to wait to watch a movie at home. Distributors have countered that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t necessarily work for smaller or mid-budget films, which may find a bigger audience via at-home viewing.

At last year’s CinemaCon trade conference, top theater lobbyist Michael O’Leary called on distributors to establish a minimum 45-day window, arguing there needed to be a “clear, consistent starting point” to set moviegoers’ expectations and affirm commitment to theatrical exclusivity.

The debate has become even more fierce as box office profits still have not recovered from the pandemic. Last year, theatrical revenue in the U.S. and Canada totaled about $8.87 billion, just 1.5% above 2024’s disappointing $8.74-billion tally.

March 12 (UPI) — The International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor announced Thursday that the United States did not commit crimes against humanity with its sanctions against Venezuela.

The investigation, called Venezuela II by the court, was referred to the court by Venezuela’s government in 2020, alleging that sanctions against the country had caused suffering and hardship.

The referral from now-deposed President Nicolas Maduro alleges the suffering of Venezuelans from “the application of unlawful coercive measures adopted unilaterally by the government of the United States of America against Venezuela, at least since the year 2014.”

Venezuela alleged that “murder, extermination, deportation, persecution and other inhumane acts constituting crimes against humanity” were committed, the OTP said.

The ICC prosecutor determined that the “evidential requirements of causation and intent are not met.”

The evidence “must provide a reasonable basis to believe that sanctions by the United States of America led to murder, displacement or other alleged crimes,” the OTP said.

The decision is unrelated to the January 2026 events in Venezuela, the prosecutor noted.

In January, the United States invaded Venezuela, arrested Maduro and his wife and took them to Manhattan, where they await trial on drug trafficking charges.

The ICC prosecutor said it is still investigating “Venezuela I,” a case that doesn’t involve the United States.

New York City, United States – Rising prices on the back of US-Israel strikes on Iran are adding to the economic pressure facing US consumers despite efforts by US President Donald Trump to paint the war as a success.

On Wednesday, Trump declared, “We won – in the first hour it was over.”

Trump’s declaration comes even as the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, cutting off oil from the Gulf amid warnings from Iran, which continues to strike ships, that oil could reach $200 per barrel.

Oil prices spiked above $100 per barrel on Sunday and again today.

The magnitude of the economic pressure on consumers will depend on how long the war lasts and, crucially, how soon shipping traffic can return to the Gulf.

“If it drags on and especially if it remains at this intensity, prices will be higher, and more volatile for consumers,” said Rachel Ziemba, an adjunct senior fellow at the think tank Center for a New American Security.

“If it ends quickly, and it’s a credible and stable end, then we could see prices fairly quickly normalising”.

If the war lasts more than a few weeks, however, observers say the US economy is more likely to see deepening impacts, like 1970s-style “stagflation” or a recession.

When might we see a recession?

On Thursday, the International Energy Agency said in a report that “the war in the Middle East is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”

According to Sam Ori, who directs the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, in the past, when oil prices have reached 4 percent to 5 percent of gross domestic product and stayed elevated, “that’s always triggered a recession.”

The US will not hit that threshold as quickly as it would have in the 1970s, when its economy was more deeply dependent on foreign oil, Ori said, but added he expected a recession if prices remained about $140 a barrel for most of the year.

Alternatively, “the indefinite closure of the Strait of Hormuz would so vastly exceed that number, it would not take a year,” he said.

Ori, who used to run an oil shock war game for US officials, said he would have been “laughed out of the room” if he had proposed a scenario where the strait was closed for six months, because many analysts see it as “too big to fail”.

Ori says that assessment is still likely, but recent developments “are chipping away at that level of certainty”.

The Gulf, which separates the Arabian Peninsula and Iran, provides more than one-fifth of the world’s oil supply via tanker ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

The severity of that threat to the global economy is the “strongest indicator that this is going to get resolved pretty fast, because it’s impossible to fathom what would happen if it didn’t”, Ori said.

He added that the conflict has now entered a phase in which it may be moving out of US control, especially as some countries have turned off the oil wells as they run out of storage.

While those events have now been baked into oil prices, the things that he is on the lookout for include “successful mining of the strait, some kind of structural blockage, or a battlespace development that binds the US into a longer, drawn out conflict”, outcomes that could signal a total loss of the strait for an unknown amount of time and create the “conditions for a complete meltdown”.

Higher prices

The war is already driving petrol prices up for US consumers.

Patrick DeHaan, who leads petroleum analysis for the app GasBuddy, said that the national average as of Wednesday is now $3.59 per gallon ($0.95 per litre) – up 65 cents since February.

The highest increases are near the coasts, where US petrol, diesel and jet fuel supplies are more easily diverted to meet global demand, according to DeHaan.

An end to the conflict could lower petrol prices within weeks, DeHaan said, but “every week that this goes on, we could see another 25 to 40 cent increase”.

Robert Rogowsky, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, said lower-income people in particular, “will pay the price for this inflationary burst”.

As the war continues, it will also nudge up prices for consumer goods.

Peter Sand, chief analyst for freight intelligence platform Xeneta, said the backup at the Strait of Hormuz is already causing congestion at ports worldwide.

In the short term, consumers should not feel much of a pinch, Sand said. But if the conflict lasts for a month, some goods will be delayed, “and of course, the price tag on those goods also goes up.”

The war also means that the Red Sea, mostly closed in 2025 due to Houthi attacks, will likely stay closed throughout 2026, Sand said. It was expected to reopen, which could have lowered consumer prices.

Oil and oil byproducts from the Gulf are also used directly in consumer goods, like plastics, pharmaceuticals and fertilisers. Shortages now may mean higher prices later.

Fertilisers from the Gulf, for example, are needed soon for spring planting. Delays could affect crops next year.

A shortage of helium from the Gulf could also impact semiconductor manufacturing, delaying car manufacturing and other industries, Ziemba said.

The spectre of 1970’s-style ‘stagflation’

Higher consumer prices could increase the risk of “stagflation”, when stagnant economic growth occurs alongside high unemployment and high inflation.

That is how the US economy responded to the oil price shocks of the 1970s.

Severin Borenstein, faculty director of the Energy Institute at the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, said, “There’s certainly concern about stagflation again.”

That combination of high inflation plus high unemployment, Borenstein said, “is just really tough for the Fed to deal with”.

“They can either juice the economy or slow it down, and the two problems call for opposite solutions”, Borenstein said.

The Fed can lower interest rates to prompt spending and hiring, which can make inflation worse, or it can raise interest rates to lower inflation, which can slow hiring.

Ziemba said higher oil prices likely point to “inflation remaining stickier, which means it’s harder for the Fed to cut interest rates.”

As a result, “mortgage rates and other long-term interest rates might be stuck at their current levels,” Ziemba said. Mortgage rates, which were at 5.99 percent on February 27, are up to 6.29 percent as of March 12.

Even if the war ends tomorrow, it may already be accelerating longer-term shifts.

Rogowsky called US attacks on Iran “an injection of adrenaline” into a realignment already under way, as middle powers seek to reduce their reliance on the US.

That realignment “will affect our terms of trade, which will have a distinct impact on our economy”, Rogowsky said.

Logistics consultant David Coffey said for some businesses, the war is expediting conversations about risk. “They may have been assuming ‘Yes, there’s risk in the Middle East,’ but they may not have been assuming that this would kick off”, Coffee said.

Making supply chains more secure could raise costs for consumers, he said.

Military spending and the US budget

Meanwhile, Heidi Peltier, a senior researcher at Brown University’s Costs of War Project, said war also means long-term expenses around debt payments and veterans’ healthcare.

“We have spent at least $1 trillion in interest on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – and rising, because it’s not like we’ve paid off any of that principal”, Peltier said.

Military spending, she said, also tends to create fewer jobs than government investment in education or healthcare. “If we’re spending money on this, what are we not spending money on?” Peltier asked.

KATIE Price’s furious sister Sophie has revealed her true thoughts on the glamour model’s whirlwind marriage to Lee Andrews – admitting she was left shocked over the nuptials.

The mum-of-five married Lee in Dubai just ten days after meeting him, leaving her friends and family back home blindsided.

Following the nuptials, we revealed how Katie’s family were worried for the star and concerned Lee was a ‘conman’ .

It came after he was unmasked as fantasist businessman who faked celebrity links using AI-generated photos.

Katie and Sophie even pulled the plug on their weekly podcast, The Katie Price Show, as the eponymous star admitted her family were ‘angry’.

But now, they have made up and returned to the show with a comeback episode – during which Sophie revealed her true thoughts on the situation.

KATIE’S FEAR

Katie Price warns ‘Harvey will die of a heart attack’ as she begs for fat jabs

family woes

Katie Price admits hospitalised mum cried and ‘was traumatised’ after marriage

Opening the show – which is their first since late January – Katie revealed that her year so far has been ‘fantastic’.

While Sophie said her has been ‘s**t’ due to her sister’s antics.

She began: “I’m not going to lie, this year for me has not been great.

“Mine has been a really f***ing s**t start to the year.”

Katie replied: “But you have had s*** as well. Do you know what I mean?”

“Yeah, caused by you,” said Sophie.

She added: “You, this year, you, this year have been a pain in the a**.

“No, it’s not funny. Mum has been horrendous, is she talking to you yet?”

Katie confirmed that she is talking to her mum, who is currently in hospital.

As they spoke about their mum Amy, Sophie added that Katie had “traumatised” the whole family with her shock romance.

The pair then moved on to other news throughout the episode as Sophie said she “didn’t want to hear it” when it came to conversation surrounding Lee.

The price of oil has soared over $100 a barrel globally as a result of the US-Israeli war on Iran. Iran has effectively shut down shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, while Israel has attacked critical Iranian oil depots. Despite public pressure and outrage, all parties seem prepared to continue the war. What will it mean for the global economy and the people caught in the crossfire?

Listen to more about the Strait of Hormuz here.

In this episode: 

• Zein Basravi (@virtualzein), Al Jazeera Senior Correspondent

Episode credits:

This episode was produced by Chloe K. Li, with Sarí el-Khalili, Catherine Nouhan, Tuleen Barakat, Spencer Cline and our host, Malika Bilal. It was edited by Alexandra Locke.

Our sound designer is Alex Roldan.  Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhem. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer.

Special thanks to Sheila H.

Connect with us:

@AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube

Satellite imagery from Vantor shows at least two, and more likely three, swing-wing F-14 Tomcat fighters, as well as at least 10 other aircraft destroyed on the ground following strikes on an Iranian airbase in Isfahan. Iran’s Tomcats, the only ones left in service anywhere after the U.S. Navy retired the type back in 2006, have been a hot topic of interest for decades now. The fleet’s fate may now be sealed for good as U.S. and Israeli strikes continue to pummel Iran’s Air Force, along with the rest of the country’s military and security forces.

Vantor has provided an image of Iran’s 8th Tactical Air Base in Isfahan taken on March 9, following strikes, as well as one from February 22 for comparison. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said explicitly on March 8 that it had targeted F-14s at Isfahan, the home base for Iran’s Tomcat fleet, but no imagery of those strikes looks to have been released. IDF videos of Iranian F-14s being struck that have been circulating online recently all look to be old.

The Vantor image from February 22 shows five F-14s. One is seen on what looks to be an alert pad, with another on a taxiway nearby. Two more are seen sitting outside a pair of aircraft hangars, while another is seen next to a separate set of hangars. The March 9 image shows the Tomcat on the pad and the lone example by the shelters to have been hit. There is also a huge scorch mark where the F-14 had been previously seen on the taxiway, pointing to its total destruction, though it is hard to tell for certain from the remaining wreckage. The other two jets appear to have been moved in the intervening weeks, and their status is unclear.

The post-strike image also shows at least 10 other aircraft destroyed along various taxiways. Vantor has assessed these to be members of the Iranian Air Force’s fleet of Chinese-made F-7 fighters. F-7 is the nomenclature for export variants of the Chengdu J-7, itself derived from the Soviet MiG-21 Fishbed.

Vantor also shared imagery of a row of four hardened aircraft shelters at Isfahan, three of which have a single hole in the top following the strikes. A structure next to the shelters, which had already been damaged prior to the current conflict, has now been flattened, as well.

Whether or not any of the F-14s that were struck at Isfahan were operational at the time is unknown. Estimates of how many Iranian Tomcats are even still airworthy have ranged widely in recent years, from just a handful to maybe as many as 25. As noted earlier, the 8th Tactical Air Base is the main station for Iran’s F-14s, though examples have also been positioned to provide quick reaction alert (QRA) coverage for Tehran in the past.

A total of 79 F-14As were delivered to Iran before the fall of the Shah in 1979. Iran’s air arm and the U.S. Navy are the only ones to have ever operated the Tomcat, and Iran has been the only one still flying them since 2006. While the current regime in Tehran has been able to keep a small portion of its original F-14 fleet flyable, sustaining the jets has been an immense challenge requiring the cannibalization of airframes.

The capabilities of the remaining jets can only have steadily degraded, as TWZ has written in the past:

“In particular, the F-14’s once-state-of-the-art AN/AWG-9 fire control radar has suffered from low serviceability, with the Tomcat fleet effectively being divided between those with fully functioning radars and those with more diminished capabilities. The current status of any surviving AIM-54 Phoenix and AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles is also a matter of debate, and Iranian programs to introduce alternative weaponry for the F-14 have had only very mixed results, as you can read more about here.“

The total number of F-14s in Iran, flyable or not, had already been reduced to some degree during the 12 Day War with Israel last year. Strike footage the IDF released during that conflict showed at least five Tomcats being struck. Satellite imagery had confirmed that at least two of those jets had been sitting idle for some time beforehand, as well.

The Israeli Air Force has conducted additional precision strikes targeting IRIAF F-14s, continuing its focused effort to systematically degrade Iran’s remaining air combat capabilities. pic.twitter.com/vT6JJ4D1x7

— GMI (@Global_Mil_Info) June 21, 2025

תקיפת זוג מטוסי F 14 בשדה תעופה בטהראן | את”צ

The overall intensity of the current U.S.-Israeli air campaign against Iran has been far greater than what was seen during the 12 Day War last year. The Iranian Air Force does not appear to have mustered any kind of major response, even in the first few days of what the U.S. military has dubbed Operation Epic Fury and that the Israelis are calling Operation Roaring Lion. Qatari F-15 fighters shot down two Iranian swing-wing Su-24 Fencer combat jets attempting to carry out a strike mission on Al Udeid Air Base on March 2. An Israeli F-35I Adir also shot down a Yak-130 armed jet trainer over Iran on March 4.

Other airbases across Iran beyond Isfahan have also been targeted in U.S. and Israeli strikes. Satellite imagery has previously confirmed the loss of one Il-76 cargo plane, two C-130 airlifters, and two swing-wing Su-22 Fitter combat jets in Shiraz.

U.S. Central Command has also previously released video footage in the past showing strikes targeting Su-22s at Shiraz, as well as some of Iran’s remaining U.S.-made F-5s at Qasem Soleimani International Airport (formerly Ahvaz International Airport) in Khuzestan.

Geolocation of destruction of F-27s and F-5s:
31.33563, 48.76275
Ahvaz International Airport, Khuzestan Province, Iran

Google Earth imagery taken 11/19/2025 for reference (F-5s not present). Aircraft were in current placement on 2/28/26. Runway was seen cratered by 3/05/26. https://t.co/XRMx7NZxWH pic.twitter.com/iZGnxPp4mO

— Evergreen Intel (@vcdgf555) March 6, 2026

Overall, Iran’s already dilapidated air arm looks to be even more severely degraded now, and seems likely doomed, at least in its present guise. U.S. officials have said that neutralizing the Iranian government’s ability to project military power beyond its borders is a core objective of the current campaign.

When it comes to the F-14s, regardless of whether any of them were still operational to any real degree when the current conflict erupted, the story of the country’s Tomcats looks to be increasingly approaching a definitive end.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

March 12 (UPI) — Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., announced Thursday that he will run for his 18th term in the House of Representatives.

Clyburn, 85, said he is going to run a “very vigorous campaign.”

“Today I’m going to answer a question that’s always asked: What is there unfinished or what more do you need to do? Well, it’s in the preamble of our Constitution: We exist in pursuit of a more perfect union,” he said. “And I’m here today to say I do believe that I am very well-equipped — and healthy enough — to move into the next term, trying to do the things that are necessary to continue that pursuit of perfection.”

About his age, Clyburn said, “If I were not up to it, I would not do it. But in response to some extensive surveys, some intense consultations with my three daughters, they finally got to a unanimous opinion that I should be here today and make this announcement.”

Clyburn, who has served in the House for more than 30 years, was the No. 3 Democrat in the chamber until he stepped down as Democratic whip in 2023. He then became assistant Democratic leader to House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

Reps. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Steny Hoyer, D-Md., recently announced their retirements from the House, leaving Clyburn as the only one left of that leadership trio from 2007-2023.

Clyburn joined the House in 1992 as the first Black congressman from South Carolina since Reconstruction.

Clyburn endorsed then-presidential candidate Joe Biden just before the South Carolina primary, which helped him win the state and boost his candidacy after struggling in other early primaries.

Antjuan Seawright, Clyburn’s longtime adviser, said he is still needed in Congress to “help shape the direction and future of our country.”

Seawright added that the party needs “a little hip-hop and R & B, Old Testament and the New Testament.”

South Carolina’s primary will be June 9.

The U.S. Navy is not yet ready to escort oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, but it will happen. This is the synopsis provided by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright in an interview with CNBC. The development comes as Iran continues to pummel international shipping in and around the critical channel, which the new Iranian supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, vows to keep closed.

“It’ll happen relatively soon, but it can’t happen now,” Wright said, of the planned naval escort mission. “We’re simply not ready. All of our military assets right now are focused on destroying Iran’s offensive capabilities and the manufacturing industry that supplies their offensive capabilities.” Wright added that the Navy should be able to escort tankers through the strait by the end of this month.

Khamenei, it appears, is also resolute in his plan to keep the strait closed to all maritime traffic, reportedly having turned down approaches from several countries that were seeking an end to the attacks.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on March 3 that “the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible.”

Putting a date of the end of this month on the escort mission is certain to trouble markets that are already feeling the pressure of the conflict. At the very least, this is an indicator that the war or its hostile aftermath will continue for weeks to come.

Equally pessimistically, there have been reports from analysts suggesting that fully reopening the strait may require some kind of ground operation to seize the Iranian coastline adjacent to it.

“Strategic priorities, like opening the Strait of Hormuz and securing what remains of Iran’s nuclear stockpile, will likely require some ground troops if no diplomatic options are pursued,” Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told The Wall Street Journal. “What we are looking at is potentially a very messy situation.”

Even without boots on the ground, which now seems like a remote prospect, running a tanker-escort mission, which would involve convoys protected by warships and accompanied by mine-clearing assets, is fraught with difficulty. Military unwillingness to take on missions of this kind is an issue we have explored in the past at TWZ.

The warships involved in any such endeavor would also be at extreme risk, especially from Iranian ground-mobile anti-ship missiles, which are relatively small and can be easily disguised in utility trucks. Eliminating that threat is one potential driver for a ground operation along the coast of the strait.

The U.S. military has made extensive efforts in recent days to remove the Iranian minelaying capability, but, according to the U.K. Defense Secretary, there are now increasing signs that Iran may have started mining the strait.

The Ambrey maritime security firm told us that a Malta-flagged crude oil tanker and another merchant vessel were targeted in an attack in Al Basrah Anchorage, Iraq. One fatality was reported. At least 38 individuals were rescued from both vessels according to the Iraq Port Authority, with further search and rescue operations ongoing as of this morning.

Video footage of the incident shows a vessel engulfed in fire with a large plume of smoke rising from the area of impact. Fire can also be seen in the water as a result of the oil spill.

Unverified reports state that the two tankers were struck by uncrewed surface vehicles (USVs).

Iraq’s State Organization for Marketing of Oil identified the two vessels as crude oil tanker Safesea Vishnu and the combined chemical and oil tanker Zefyros. While the Zefyros is Malta-flagged, the Safesea Vishnu is owned by a U.S. company but was sailing under the Marshall Islands flag. A dramatic video has appeared that is said to show the moment of the explosion that targeted the Safesea Vishnu.

In a statement, the IRGC said that it considered the Safesea Vishnu as an asset of the U.S. military and claims that it was struck after ignoring repeated warnings and alerts from the IRGC Navy.

Ambrey also reports that a container vessel was struck by an unknown projectile 38 nautical miles north-northeast of Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates. The strike was reported to have caused a small fire on board the vessel, and the crew was reported to be safe.

Another vessel, the Japanese-flagged container ship One Majesty, was reportedly also damaged while anchored in the Persian Gulf. The damage was only discovered later, around 60 miles from the Strait of Hormuz. There were no reports of casualties.

The vessel seen burning in the video below, from the perspective of crew members who evacuated on a liferaft, is the Thai-flagged cargo vessel, Mayuree Naree Bangkok, which was attacked near the Strait of Hormuz yesterday.

Gardening expert Charlie Dimmock has presented numerous TV shows beyond Ground Force and Garden Rescue and fans rated them highly

Fans of gardening expert Charlie Dimmock could be excused for not exploring much beyond Ground Force and Garden Rescue.

With over 150 episodes of Garden Rescue available to watch and 97 instalments of the ’90s favourite Ground Force, there’s no shortage of content. However, throughout her career, she’s created numerous other gardening programmes that slipped beneath most people’s notice.

One such programme is Charlie’s Garden Army, which aired in 1999 and 2000 across 12 episodes. The series featured Charlie alongside volunteer teams transforming derelate wasteland into beautiful public gardens.

She subsequently secured a presenting position on 2002’s The Joy of Gardening and 2001’s Charlie’s Gardening Neighbours, reports the Express.

In 2005, Charlie featured at the Hampton Court Palace Flower Show as a television presenter, and she’s also participated in coverage of the Chelsea Flower Show throughout the years.

Judging purely by IMDb ratings, though, several programmes actually surpass Ground Force in terms of viewer scores.

Ground Force’s typical rating stands at 7.2 stars out of 10 – but it’s eclipsed by Garden Rescue at 7.9 stars, and the Great British Garden Revival with an identical rating.

Charlie inadvertently fell into a television career whilst employed at a garden centre, and during the ’90s, she maintained that she “wasn’t famous” and didn’t perceive herself as a TV personality.

Reflecting on her television work in a 1999 interview with The Guardian, Charlie remarked: “In some ways, the television stuff isn’t unsatisfying, it’s very interesting.

“But the other day, I was at work [at the garden centre], the first time I’d been there properly for three or four weeks, and I thought, ‘God, this is nice!’

“‘You see people you know, regular customers, and there’s no hassle. You fall out of bed, go to work, potter around. It’s all right, really.'”

Garden Rescue is on BBC One and BBC iPlayer

For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website.

The United States military is “not ready” to accompany oil ships through the Strait of Hormuz, a top official in President Donald Trump’s administration says as Iran continues to block the strategic waterway.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the CNBC business news channel on Thursday that the markets are experiencing a “short-term disruption”, predicting that the war would go on for “weeks, not months”.

Despite Trump’s repeated threats, Iran has largely succeeded in shutting down the strait, which links the Gulf to the Indian Ocean. The closure has sent oil prices soaring.

Wright described the effects of the crisis as “short-term pain for long-term gain”, arguing that the US is “destroying” Iran’s ability to threaten the energy market.

Last week, Trump suggested that the US Navy would escort ships through the Gulf, but Wright said on Thursday that the move “can’t happen now”.

“We’re simply not ready. All of our military assets right now are focused on destroying Iran’s offensive capabilities and the manufacturing industry that supplies their offensive capabilities,” the energy secretary said.

“We don’t want this to be a brush-off for a year or two. We want to permanently destroy their ability to build missiles, to build roads, to have a nuclear programme.”

His comments came as Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, affirmed in his first public comment since being selected to succeed his assassinated father, Ali Khamenei, that the Strait of Hormuz should remain closed during the war.

“The will of the people is to continue effective and deterrent defence,” Khamenei said in a written statement. “The tactic of closing the Strait of Hormuz must also continue to be used.”

The Iranian military has said it would “welcome” the US Navy escorting oil ships, suggesting it is prepared to strike US forces in the narrow waterway.

On Wednesday, three commercial vessels were attacked near the strait.

Wright announced earlier this week on social media that the US Navy had escorted an oil ship through the strait, then quickly deleted the post. The White House subsequently confirmed that the claim was not true.

It is not clear why the statement was released and then retracted.

Assurances by US officials that Washington would open the strait have temporarily calmed markets, only for prices to spike again.

The price of a barrel of oil peaked at about $120 on Sunday, up from about $70 before the US and Israel launched the war on February 28. It has been yo-yoing between $80 and $100 for the past few days.

In addition to the marine blockade, Iran has targeted oil installations across the Gulf.

As one of the world’s largest oil producers, the US is largely self-sufficient. But possible shortages in Asia and Europe have put a strain on prices globally.

According to data from the American Automobile Association, the average price of one gallon (3.78 litres) of petrol in the US is now $3.60, up from $2.94 last month.

Rising energy prices could fuel inflation and affect the cost of basic goods, including food.

But Trump suggested on Thursday that the US is benefitting from skyrocketing oil prices.

“The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” the US president wrote in a social media post.

“BUT, of far greater interest and importance to me, as President, is stopping an evil Empire, Iran, from having Nuclear Weapons, and destroying the Middle East and, indeed, the World.”

Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, and Trump reiterated for months before the current conflict that US strikes against Iranian facilities in June had “obliterated” the country’s nuclear programme.

A video out of RAF Fairford in England shows American B-1Bs getting prepped for a strike mission against Iran. In addition to the staple AGM-158 JASSM cruise missiles being readied for loading onto the ‘Bones,’ we see GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) equipped with BLU-109 2,000-lb bunker buster warheads. We can also see the revolving weapons rack being extracted from the B-1’s weapons bay. The move from cruise missiles to JDAMs, at least for some targets, is a sign that air supremacy over Iran is becoming more assured, at least in some areas. You can read all about how the U.S. and Israel had not achieved air supremacy last week in our report linked here.

The videos were posted on X by journalist Richard Gaisford and can be seen below:

The bomber force at RAF Fairford has expanded even larger over the last couple of days. There were nine American bombers at Fairford — three B-52s and six B-1s — as of the start of this week. Now there are 15 total — three B-52s and 12 B-1Bs.

Bomber aircraft can achieve far greater and more varied effects if they are allowed to directly strike targets instead of relying on cruise missiles fired at standoff ranges. This is especially true for delivering withering assaults on large target areas via a belly full of JDAMs. It also allows the aircraft to do this against targets that require bunker-buster capabilities. So far, we only know of the B-2 that has executed large-scale bunker buster attacks in Iran, using its stealth capabilities, as well as support from the total force, to ensure it can safely return from the mission. Fighters have been able to deliver much smaller numbers of these weapons onto targets deeper in Iran. Opening up these same target sets to forward-deployed B-1s and B-52s would help change the pace and impact of the air campaign.

Potential targets include large industrial complexes used for long-range weapons production and development, command and control bunkers, nuclear-program related sites, and, maybe most likely, keeping Iran’s underground ‘missile cities’ entombed by bombing their entrances so that the weapons that are housed inside can not be put to use.

B-1s first mission to Iran out of RAF Fairford UK

Still, B-1s and B-52s will likely operate over western Iran, where degradation of enemy air defenses has been the focus for nearly two weeks. Venturing into the eastern part of the country, which has seen far less attention, probably remains too risky. This is underscored by the map below, which the Pentagon released yesterday, showing the distribution of strikes across Iran during the first 10 days of the conflict (February 28 to March 9).

We still don’t know if the U.S. military will activate Diego Garcia as another forward operating location for its bombers. The U.K. government approved the use of both Fairford and Diego Garcia last week after denying that access leading up to the war. We have seen some heavy transport movements in satellite imagery to the remote island outpost in the Indian Ocean, and KC-135 tankers and force protection F-16s are still there, so it’s possible this could occur or has already happened. Cloud cover has kept the island obscured in satellite imagery for the last few days. Of course, such a deployment all depends on how long this campaign will actually last, with conflicting signals from the Trump administration as to its planned duration and exit strategy.

Regardless, it looks like the B-1s are going to be using their extremely large payload capacity to directly attack hardened Iranian targets in the very near future.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

GEMMA Collins has won £20k at the Cheltenham races and made £5k off of just one bet.

The reality star, 45, was left overjoyed today when she raked in the cash and took home the huge amount of money.

A source told The Sun: “Gemma was over the moon and kept showing her wads of cash to James Nesbitt in the Paddy Power box. She made £20k the whole day – and £5k off one £500 bet.”

In an exclusive video obtained by The Sun, Gemma was seen shouting: “I’m f***ing loaded!,” as she revelled in her glory, before adding: “I’m coming home with 20 large ones.”

She took to Instagram to give fans a peek into her winnings as she showcased just one of her successful betting slips.

On the slip, it revealed that the former TOWIE star had won £5k from a £500 bet.

READ MORE ON GEMMA COLLINS

JUNGLE GOSSIP

Harry Redknapp reveals Gemma Collins had nasty fall on I’m A Celeb All Stars

GEM’S GARMS

Gemma Collins flogs her clothes on Vinted after losing 3 stone on Mounjaro

The television icon wrote over it: “I won @paddypowerofficial. Best day ever!,” alongside horse and four leaf clover emojis.

Gemma certainly looked the part at the Cheltenham Festival as she stunned while standing on a balcony with pals.

She kept warm in an eye-catching blue and purple checked coat with brown fur sleeves and a belt which perfectly synched in her waist.

She accessorised with a white and red headscarf and a pair of blacked out sunglasses.

Her winning moment was captured as she enjoyed a glass of bubbly and was hugged by friends surrounding her.

One of those people was Danny Dyer, who was seen throwing up a fist in celebration for the Celebrity Big Brother star.

In true Gemma fashion, she was spotted looking very animated as she celebrated her exciting victory.

Her big win comes after she was announced as part of the line-up for the second series of I’m A Celebrity… South Africa.

The show was filmed last year and will see familiar faces return for a second stint on the hit ITV series.

After it was announced earlier this week, Gemma revealed she nearly pulled out of it but was put in her place by her make-up artist.

Speaking at the press launch, Gemma said: “It didn’t work out for me the first time around in there and ever since it’s been like this black cloud hanging over my head.

“Obviously I’m older now and I just thought, I have to do this. It was one regret that I had that I left.

“I was absolutely bricking it. I was petrified. My makeup artist slapped me at Heathrow Airport because I actually said I don’t think I can actually go through with this.

“But do you know what? I took a deep breath. I went in strong. And to be honest, I think I shut it down.

“It’s not the GC in there. It’s Gemma Collins as you’ve never seen her before. You’ll see me vulnerable in there.

“I was so stripped bare going in there. And because I knew it was so disastrous the time before, I had no chance to back out of any of it.”

“The one thing that troubled me was the copious amounts of washing up,” said Gemma.

“I was on camp duty with Adam and obviously, it was a massive camp, and I’m not going to lie, I’ve got two dishwashers at home.”

ITV viewers will remember Gemma’s meltdown back in 2014 and refusal to get into a helicopter to get into camp on day one.

She was then forced to make her own way to camp, but things went from bad to worse.

After struggling with camp life and the food rations, she sensationally quit the series on day two.

March 12 (UPI) — Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and right-wing Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro are tied for the first time for a potential runoff after the Oct. 4 presidential election, according to a poll released Wednesday. A runoff would be Oct. 25.

The survey found each candidate with 41% support in a hypothetical second round.

Bolsonaro, a member of the Liberal Party and son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, leads among voters who identify as independent, a shift that could give him an edge.

Among independents, Bolsonaro gained 6 percentage points and would lead Lula 32% to 27% in a runoff scenario. Another 36% said they would not vote and 5% were undecided.

The gap between the two candidates has narrowed steadily, from 10 points in December to seven in January, five in February and zero in March, according to the survey conducted by polling firm Quaest and commissioned by Genial Investimentos.

Similar trends have appeared in other recent polls. A Datafolha survey published Saturday showed Lula with 46% support compared with 43% for Bolsonaro.

Quaest tested first- and second-round scenarios with eight potential candidates. In first-round simulations, Lula leads in two scenarios and is statistically tied with Bolsonaro in five others. Lula’s support ranges between 36% and 39%, while Bolsonaro’s support ranges between 30% and 35%.

Felipe Nunes, Quaest’s director, said Bolsonaro’s gradual rise began after his father publicly named him as a potential candidate in December.

“Flávio has managed to consolidate Bolsonaro’s electorate. He has grown among right-wing voters and improved his performance among independent voters,” Nunes said, according to news website O Globo.

The poll also showed worsening public assessments of the government and the economy.

Both Lula and Bolsonaro face high rejection rates, with 56% of respondents saying they would not vote for Lula and 55% saying the same about Bolsonaro.

“The shift over time is striking. In December, Lula had much greater potential and lower rejection. Now, both have similar levels,” Nunes said.

The survey found 48% of Brazilians believe the economy has worsened over the past 12 months, while 24% say it has improved. In February, negative perceptions stood at 43%.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has laid out terms for ending the war with the United States and Israel in what analysts say is a possible sign of de-escalation from Tehran as the US-Israel war on Iran entered its 13th day on Thursday.

In a post on Wednesday on social site X, Pezeshkian said he had spoken to his counterparts in Russia and Pakistan, and that he had confirmed “Iran’s commitment to peace”.

“The only way to end this war – ignited by the Zionist regime & US – is recognizing Iran’s legitimate rights, payment of reparations, and firm int’l guarantees against future aggression,” Pezeshkian wrote.

This is a rare posture from Tehran, which has maintained a defiant stance and initially rejected any possibility of negotiations or a ceasefire when war broke out nearly two weeks ago.

Pezeshkian’s statement comes as pressure mounts on the US to halt what has become a very costly mission. Analysts say speculation from Washington that Iran would quickly submit after the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were misguided.

Tehran is likely going to determine the end of this war, not the US or Israel, because of its ability to inflict economic pain broadly, they say.

Amid a military pummelling by the US and Israel, Iran has launched heavy retaliatory strikes at US assets and other critical infrastructure in Gulf countries, upsetting global supplies. It has also adopted what analysts call “asymmetric” tactics – such as disrupting the critical Strait of Hormuz and threatening US banking-linked entities – to inflict as much economic pain on the region and wider world as it can.

This is what we know about Pezeshkian’s stance and what the pressures are on both sides to draw the conflict to a close, quickly.

What has the war cost so far?

Economically, both sides have weaponised energy. Israel first targeted Iran’s oil facilities in Tehran on March 8, prompting an outcry from global health experts over the potential risk of air and water pollution.

Iran has, meanwhile, tightened its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz shipping route – the only route to open sea for oil producers in the Gulf – with its military promising on Wednesday that it has the capabilities to wage a long war that could “destroy” the world economy.

Attacks on ships in the strait, through which about 20 percent of global oil and gas traffic normally passes, have effectively closed the route.

Oil prices rocketed above $100 per barrel late last week, up from around $65 before the war, with ordinary buyers feeling the increases at pumps in the US, Europe and parts of Africa.

On Wednesday, Iran upped the ante, saying it would not allow “a litre of oil” to pass through the strait and warned the world to expect a $200-per-barrel price tag.

“We don’t know how quickly it’ll revert back,” Freya Beamish, chief economist at GlobalData TS Lombard, told Al Jazeera. “We do think it’ll revert back to $80 in due course, but the ball is to some degree in Iran’s court,” she said, adding that because Iran needs oil revenue, the price hikes are expected to be time-limited.

The International Energy Agency agreed on Wednesday to release 400 million barrels from the emergency reserves of several member states but it is not yet clear what impact that will have, nor how quickly this quantity of oil can be released.

Tehran has also been accused of directly attacking oil facilities in neighbouring countries this week. Iraq shut all its oil port operations on Thursday after explosive-laden Iranian “drone” boats appeared to have attacked two fuel tankers in Iraqi waters, setting them ablaze and killing one crew member.

A drone was filmed striking Oman’s Salalah oil port on Wednesday, although Tehran has denied involvement.

What are Iranian officials saying about ending the war?

There has been conflicting messaging from the Iranian leadership.

Iran’s elite army unit and parallel armed force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), continues to show defiance, issuing threats and launching attacks on Israel and US military assets and infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf countries.

However, the political leadership has appeared more inclined towards diplomacy, analysts say. On Wednesday, President Pezeshkian said that ending the war would take the US and Israel recognising Iran’s rights, paying Iran reparations – although it’s unclear how much is being asked for – and providing strong guarantees that a future war will not be waged.

In a video recording last week, he also apologised to neighbouring countries for the strikes and promised that Iran would stop hitting its neighbours as long as they do not allow the US to launch attacks from their territory.

“I personally apologise to the neighbouring countries that were affected by Iran’s actions,” the president said, adding that Tehran was not looking for confrontations with its neighbours.

However, it is not known how much sway the political leadership has over the IRGC. Hours after the president’s apology last week, air defence sirens went off in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain, as strikes continued on the Gulf.

So, what is Iran’s actual position?

“Iran wants to go to the end to make sure that the United States and Israel never attack Iran again … so this has to be the final battle,” Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas explained.

Indeed, the IRGC sees this as an existential war, but the timing of Pezeshkian’s statement about ending the conflict also shows Tehran is pressured economically, politically and militarily, Zeidon Alkinani of Qatar’s Georgetown University told Al Jazeera.

“These differences and divisions [between IRGC and political leaders] always existed even prior to this war but we may notice it now more, given the fact that the IRGC believes that it has the right to take the front seat in leading this regional war, which is why a lot of the statements and positions are contradicting with the official ones from Pezeshkian,” he said.

The IRGC reports directly to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and not to the country’s political leadership. That council is led by Ali Larijani, a top politician and close aide to the late supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who analysts describe as a “hardliner”.

In a post on X on Tuesday, Larijani responded to threats from Trump about attacks on the Strait of Hormuz, saying: “Iranian people do not fear your hollow threats; for those greater than you have failed to erase it … So beware lest you be the ones to vanish.”

The newly elected supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, was once in the IRGC and was put forward by the unit as the next ayatollah after his father was killed on the first day of the war, analysts say. He is thus not expected to follow the reformist, diplomatic ideals of President Pezeshkian and other political leaders which his father managed to marry with the IRGC militarised stance, they say.

What do the US and Israel say about ending the war?

There have also been conflicting messages from the Trump administration and Israel regarding when the war mission on Iran, codenamed Operation Epic Fury, is likely to end.

Trump told US publication Axios on Wednesday that the war on Iran would end “soon” because there’s “practically nothing left to target”.

“Anytime I want it to end, it will end,” he added. He had said earlier on Monday that “we’re way ahead of our schedule” and that the US had achieved its goals, even as speculation mounts about a possible US ground mission.

On the other hand, Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Wednesday that the war would go on “without any time limit, for as long as necessary, until we achieve all the objectives and decisively win the campaign”.

Analysts say Trump’s stance that the conflict will be quick reflects increasing pressure on his administration ahead of upcoming mid-term elections in November.

Trump’s advisers privately told him this week to find a quick end to the war and avoid political backlash, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal. That came as polls from Quinnipiac University and The Washington Post suggested that most Americans are opposed to the war in Iran.

In his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to lower prices, and inflation had stabilised at 2.4 percent ahead of the war, according to government data released on Wednesday. Analysts speculate the conflict will likely push it back up.

The US spent more than $11.3bn in the first six days of the war, Pentagon officials told lawmakers in a classified briefing on Tuesday, Reuters reported this week – nearly $2bn a day.

The Washington-based think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), estimated that the war cost Washington $3.7bn in its first 100 hours alone, or nearly $900m a day, largely due to its expenditure on costly munitions.

“It’s quite ironic that [Trump] chose a war that would make affordability worse, not better,” Rebecca Christie, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank, told Al Jazeera’s Counting the Cost.

“Every time the US loses even one object, air defence or a plane or something like that, that represents an awful lot of money that could have been used on some of these issues that have an impact on people’s day-to-day lives in the United States.”

ITV has shared images from its upcoming true crime series about convicted sex offender John Worboys

Broadcaster ITV has released a first look at its new true crime drama Believe Me.

Filmed in Cardiff, the four-part series tells the story of John Worboys – who was dubbed the ‘black cab rapist’ after preying on women under the cover of being a licensed taxi-cab driver.

He was convicted in 2009 for crimes including sexual assault and drugging with intent against 12 women.

His modus operandi was to claim that he’d had a win at a casino or on the lottery, then offer women he’d picked up in his cab after a night out a glass of champagne, which he’d laced with drugs, and which rendered his victims unconscious.

ITV said the drama “tells the story of how the victims of one of the most prolific sex attackers in British history were failed by the system”.

The series focuses on the ordeal of Sarah (played by Peaky Blinders‘ Aimée-Ffion Edwards) and Laila (played by Raised By Wolves’ Aasiya Shah), who reported sexual assaults by Worboys (Daniel Mays), and how their allegations were not thoroughly investigated.

Sarah and Laila – both pseudonyms – joined forces with solicitor Harriet Wistrich, played by Philippa Dunne and barrister Phillippa Kaufmann QC, played by Rachael Stirling, to sue the Metropolitan Police under the Human Rights Act for their failure to properly conduct investigations into their allegations of sexual assault, leading to their being subjected to degrading treatment and contributing to their distress.

They won, and when the Met appealed that judgment to the Supreme Court, they won again.

As these women fought to have their cases heard, looming in the background was Worboys’ first parole hearing. Eight years after he was convicted for his crimes, his victims had to fight again to keep him behind bars.

Sarah, Laila, Harriet and Phillippa were joined by Carrie Symonds (played by Industry’s Miriam Petche), a senior figure in the Conservative Party press team. She put her career on the line to spearhead a huge media and political campaign pushing for an unprecedented judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision. The campaign, with Sarah, Laila and Carrie at the forefront, was successful, and Worboys’ parole was quashed.

Sarah, whose identity has been protected, said: “Believe Me is about the courage of every woman who came forward to help put John Worboys behind bars.

“What happened to me changed my life, but in many ways the hardest part was not being believed for so many years. Without the people who stood by me, Worboys would have been freed and continued to pose a huge risk to women. Seeking justice shouldn’t mean more trauma. We shouldn’t have to fight to be believed or feel like we’re the ones on trial. The shame never belongs to the survivor.”

Believe Me will air on ITV

If you or somebody you know has been affected by this story, contact Victim Support for free, confidential advice on 08 08 16 89 111 or visit their website, http://www.victimsupport.org.uk.

Multiple explosions have been reported across Iran’s capital, Tehran, and other cities as United States-Israeli attacks and Iranian retaliation continue.

As the conflict saw its 13th day on Thursday, Iran’s representative to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, said at least 1,348 civilians have been killed.

The humanitarian toll continues to mount with more than 17,000 injured in Iran since the US and Israel launched their war on February 28. UNICEF described the situation as “catastrophic”, noting that more than 1,100 children have been reported injured or killed.

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that up to 3.2 million people have been displaced within Iran since the conflict began. “This figure is likely to continue rising as hostilities persist, marking a worrying escalation in humanitarian needs,” UNHCR said in a statement.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, Israeli attacks since March 2 have killed at least 687 people, including 98 children, according to Information Minister Paul Morcos.

United Nations refugee agency says forced displacement likely to increase as US and Israel continue deadly strikes across Iran.

More than three million people have been displaced in Iran since the United States and Israel launched a war against the country late last month, the United Nations says, as concerns mount over a worsening humanitarian crisis.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said on Thursday that as many as 3.2 million people – representing between 600,000 and one million Iranian households – have been forcibly displaced since the war began on February 28.

“Most of them are reportedly fleeing from Tehran and other major urban areas towards the north of the country and rural areas to seek safety,” UNHCR official Ayaki Ito said in a statement.

“This figure is likely to continue rising as hostilities persist, marking a worrying escalation in humanitarian needs.”

The US and Israeli militaries have continued to bombard Iran despite mounting international condemnation and calls for de-escalation.

More than 1,300 people have been killed in US-Israeli attacks across the country to date, according to the latest figures from Iranian officials.

While the US and Israel have said they are targeting Iranian leaders as well as military and nuclear infrastructure, Iran says thousands of civilian sites, such as schools and hospitals, have been attacked.

Iran’s Deputy Health Minister Ali Jafarian told Al Jazeera on Thursday that medical teams have been responding to a growing number of casualties as strikes on urban areas have intensified in recent days.

“Most of these people are civilians,” Jafarian said, adding that more than 30 hospitals and health facilities have been damaged due to the attacks.

On Thursday, explosions were heard in several parts of the capital, Tehran, and other Iranian cities as the strikes continued.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi said rescuers were digging through mounds of rubble as several multistorey apartment buildings were heavily damaged in recent attacks on a hard-hit eastern neighbourhood of Tehran.

“We saw bodies taken out [of the rubble] … and the situation was far beyond what I can call disastrous,” Asadi said.

Iran has responded to the US-Israeli assault by launching a barrage of missiles and drones at US bases and other sites in countries across the wider Middle East region.

It has also shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical Gulf waterway through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil transits, raising serious concerns of disruptions to global energy supplies.

The new season of Virgin River unveiled some major twists.

Virgin River fans were exposed to a disturbing death and other tragedies.

WARNING: THIS STORY CONTAINS SPOILERS

Season seven of Virgin River has just arrived on Netflix, sending fans on an emotional rollercoaster as each character faces a life-changing event.

The new season saw Mel (played by Alexandra Breckenridge) and Jack Sheridan (Martin Henderson) navigate their lives as newlyweds while facing the prospect of becoming adoptive parents.

Meanwhile, Lizzie (Sarah Dugdale) and Denny (Kai Bradbury) welcomed their baby daughter, but Lizzie began to struggle with post-natal anxiety.

Elsewhere, Brie Sheridan (Zibby Allen) and Brady (Ben Hollingsworth) were trying their best to get along as friends, but they were both in denial about their feelings for one another.

Also, Brie was on a mission to track down Charmaine Roberts (Lauren Hammersley), who had gone missing following a disturbing death. Here are just some of the major plot points from the finale.

Brady was in a motorcycle accident

The final moments of the season saw Brady on his way to meet Brie for breakfast after the pair rekindled their relationship.

While they had tried their best to remain just friends, Brie realised Brady was the only one who had made her feel alive and free.

They made their relationship official at a huge community event, and Brady was excited to spend the morning with his girlfriend.

However, whilst on his motorbike, he was distracted by thoughts of Brie and did not see a lorry approaching.

Viewers saw Brady come off his bike after it collided with the huge vehicle, but his ultimate fate remained a mystery.

Preacher wanted to leave Jack’s bar

Jack’s best friend and business partner, Preacher (Colin Lawrence), was keen to explore new opportunities at the bar and took on a whole new menu.

He was excited to share his vision of expanding the bar, but when he put the idea to Jack, he was not keen on taking such a big risk.

Feeling that Jack was unappreciative of his work, Preacher asked Jack to buy him out of the business so He could explore his own opportunities.

After some deliberation, Jack decided to grant Preacher his wish and draw up the paperwork, but it appeared Preacher was starting to have second thoughts.

Fans are still waiting to find out whether Preacher signed the paperwork, ultimately cutting ties with Jack and the business.

Roland confessed his love for Hope

Hope McCrea (Annette O’Toole) and Doc Mullins (Tim Matheson) ended up falling out after Doc began having second thoughts about partnering with the doctors at Grace Valley.

Feeling he had gone behind her back in making such an important decision, Hope stormed out on Doc and ended up spending time with her ex-husband, Roland (John Ralston).

During an emotional conversation, Roland revealed the truth about Hope’s father, who was the reason she had come to hate Roland so much, and it transpired that neither was to blame after all.

Roland eventually admitted he still loved Hope and helped her scatter her father’s ashes, so fans may be left wondering whether they will start to rekindle their romance.

Charmaine was kidnapped by Grant and he killed Calvin

A huge storyline in season seven was the disappearance of Charmaine after it was revealed her ex Calvin (Josh Blacker) had been shot and killed.

It transpired that Charmaine’s boss, Grant, had developed an obsession with Charmaine, and they had clearly spent a lot of time together.

Recalling the events of the night of Calvin’s death, Grant, who was holding a gun, revealed Calvin had not wanted him around the babies, and he had come to Charmaine’s house to threaten her.

As Calvin and Charmaine got into an altercation, Grant shot and killed Calvin in order to protect Charmaine. Grant was ultimately arrested for killing Calvin and kidnapping Charmaine and the twins.

Marley’s baby was born with a rare heart defect

Mel’s patient Marley (Rachel Drance) had spent the entire season debating whether or not she wanted Mel and Jack to be the parents of her unborn child.

After the baby’s father came back into her life, the pair decided they were not ready to have a child and agreed Mel and Jack could keep the baby once it had been born.

In a tragic twist, it was discovered that the baby had a rare heart defect that he would need to have a series of operations.

Marley was whisked off to the hospital the next day, and Mel helped deliver the baby, who was then taken off in an ambulance with Mel and Jack present.

Fans were left wondering whether the baby would recover.

Virgin River season 7 is on Netflix

For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website

Despite United States President Donald Trump’s repeated declarations of victory in the US-Israeli war on Iran, Tehran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel and US military assets in the region have continued, upending global financial and energy markets.

“We’ve had two decades to study defeats of the US military to our immediate east and west. We’ve incorporated lessons accordingly,” Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote in a post on X on March 1, the day after US and Israeli strikes on Tehran killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian officials.

“Bombings in our capital have no impact on our ability to conduct war,” he wrote.

According to analysts, Iran has made use of “asymmetric” warfare tactics while striking the US and Israel. So, are Tehran’s war tactics working?

Here’s what we know:

What is ‘asymmetric’ warfare?

When the balance of capabilities is unequal in a conflict – as it is in relation to weapons in this one – the weaker party can turn to unconventional methods of warfare, John Phillips, a British safety, security and risk adviser and a former military chief instructor, told Al Jazeera.

This is known as “asymmetric” warfare.

This can include the use of guerrilla tactics, terrorism, cyberattacks, use of proxies and other indirect tools, Phillips said, in order “to offset conventional inferiority, avoid the enemy’s strengths, and exploit vulnerabilities in political will, logistics, and legal or ethical constraints”.

“Iran is conventionally weaker than the US and Israel, but relatively strong compared to many neighbours,” he said.

“What makes Iran distinctive is not that it uses these methods at all, but that they sit at the centre of its grand strategy rather than at its margins.”

Why is Iran using asymmetric warfare?

In the ongoing war between Iran and the US-Israel, Washington and Tel Aviv have been using expensive missiles and drones to attack Iran and to intercept missiles Iran has fired back. The Patriot and THAAD defence systems, for example, which launch interceptors to take out incoming drones and missiles, can cost millions of dollars for each missile they fire. This compares with the $20,000-$35,000 cost of each Iranian Shahed drone.

As a result, the US has reportedly spent $2bn a day in its war on Iran and there are fears it could run out of interceptor missiles altogether if the war goes on for more than a few weeks.

It is therefore in Iran’s interests to focus on holding out against strikes and protecting its own weapons supplies while it does so, military experts say.

However, Phillips explained that precision strikes and sabotage by Israel and the US have demonstrated that Iran is not able to fully shield its missile, drone and nuclear‑related assets, while sanctions and domestic pressures have limited its capacity to sustain a very high‑tempo confrontation.

“As a result, Iran’s asymmetric approach is best understood as an effective ‘survival and leverage’ mechanism that produces a chronic, costly ‘shadow war’, rather than a path to decisive regional hegemony or victory,” he said.

Iran began using asymmetric warfare techniques following the 1979 Iranian revolution, which overthrew Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

“Instead of trying to match high‑end aircraft, precision munitions, or blue‑water fleets, [Iran] has built a ‘forward deterrence’ posture that operates in the grey zone between war and peace,” Phillips said.

“This is backed by large inventories of ballistic and cruise missiles, mass‑produced drones [often handed to proxies], cyber-operations, and a posture of underground, dispersed and hardened facilities that make preemption difficult and preserve some retaliatory capability.”

What asymmetric tactics has Iran been using?

Enemy depletion tactics

Since US-Israeli strikes on Iran began on February 28, Tehran has launched a wave of ballistic missiles targeting Israel and US military bases across the Gulf region.

Using a mix of short and medium-range ballistic missiles, as well as drone swarms through this defence system, Iran aims to deplete Israeli and US interceptor stockpiles.

Economic warfare

Iran has shut down the Strait of Hormuz through which about 20 percent of global oil and gas supplies are shipped. Linking the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, the strait is the only waterway to the open ocean available to Gulf oil producers.

On Thursday, Iran attacked fuel tankers in Iraqi waters. Instability in and around the Strait of Hormuz drove Brent crude oil prices past $100 a barrel last week, with wild swings ongoing, prompting fears of a global energy crisis.

Iran has also targeted civilian infrastructure like airports and desalination plants which are crucial for water supply in the region, and it has launched drones targeting oil depots.

War on global finance

Meanwhile, on Wednesday this week, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) threatened to attack “economic centres and banks” with links to United States and Israeli entities in the Gulf region after what it claimed was an attack on an Iranian bank, with the war in its 12th day.

Since then, many banks like Citibank and HSBC in Qatar, have begun shutting, further threatening global financial stability.

Top technology companies such as Google, Microsoft, Palantir, IBM, Nvidia and Oracle, as well as the listed offices and infrastructure for cloud-based services, are also located in several Israeli cities and in some Gulf countries, which Iran has also threatened to attack.

Use of proxies

Iran has aimed to keep the much more powerful US military and its allies off balance through proxies in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. Hezbollah in Lebanon, for example, has fired missiles and drones into northern Israel since March 2 as part of Iran’s retaliatory strikes.

“At the core of this [asymmetric] approach is a network of proxies and partners – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq, groups in Syria, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen – which receive weapons, training, funding and ideological guidance from Iran,” Phillips said.

These actors allow Tehran to threaten Israeli and US forces, as well as regional shipping lanes, on multiple fronts, “often with a degree of deniability and at a fraction of the cost of deploying its own regular forces”, Phillips noted.

‘Mosaic’ defence system

Iran has organised its defensive structure into multiple regional and semi-independent layers instead of concentrating power in a single command chain that could be paralysed by a decapitation strike. This concept is most closely associated with the formation of the parallel military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), particularly under former commander Mohammad Ali Jafari, who led the force from 2007 to 2019.

The doctrine has two central aims: to make Iran’s command system difficult to dismantle by force, and to make the battlefield itself harder to resolve quickly by turning Iran into a layered arena of regular defence, irregular warfare, local mobilisation and long-term attrition.

What damage have these tactics done to the US and Israel?

Iran’s asymmetrical playbook has made the war more expensive for the US. It has been forced to spend money on replacing stockpiles of expensive missiles like Tomahawks and defensive systems such as Patriot and THAAD interceptors.

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the first 100 hours alone of Operation Epic Fury – the codename for the US-Israeli assault on Iran – cost the US approximately $3.7bn, mostly unbudgeted. Israel, already reeling from the economic strain of its prolonged wars in Gaza and Lebanon, faces mounting domestic pressure as daily sirens force millions into bunkers.

While the Pentagon has not yet announced an official estimate for the cost of the war, late last week, two congressional sources told US broadcaster MS NOW that the war is costing the United States an estimated $1bn a day.

A day later, Politico reported that US Republicans on Capitol Hill privately fear the Pentagon is spending close to $2bn a day on the war.

Meanwhile, officials from President Donald Trump’s administration estimated during a congressional briefing this week that the first six days of the war on Iran had cost the US at least $11.3bn, a source familiar with the matter told the Reuters news agency.

Reporting from Washington, DC, following the publication of the CSIS analysis last week, Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan said the Pentagon had put together a $50bn supplemental budget request in order to replace Tomahawk and Patriot missiles and THAAD interceptors already used in the first week of the war, along with other equipment that had been damaged or worn out so far.

Are Iran’s tactics working?

To a certain extent, they are.

According to a report by The Soufan Center, the “pattern of Iranian counterattacks suggests a layered operational approach designed to generate pressure on Gulf states, create regional disruption on land, sea, and air, while simultaneously attempting to exhaust US and allied defensive resources”.

“Tehran appears to be fighting a war of endurance: prolong the conflict, expand the economic battlefield, make the costs increasingly prohibitive, ration advanced capabilities, and impose steady human and financial costs on its adversaries. All with the hope that political tolerance erodes faster in Jerusalem and Washington than in Tehran,” the report noted.

This may be working. Questions about the cost of the war are already causing a political headache for the Trump administration in Washington.

Congress’s House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference last week that President Donald Trump is “plunging America into another endless conflict in the Middle East” and “spending billions of dollars to bomb Iran”.

“But they can’t find a dime to make it more affordable for the American people to go see a doctor when they need one,” he said. “Can’t find a dime to make it easier for Americans who are working hard to purchase their first home. And they can’t find a dime to lower the grocery bills of the American people.”

Trump won the presidency in 2024 largely on the back of a promise to handle the rising cost of living and he faces mid-term elections this year. It is likely that the cost of the war will not play well with voters, analysts say.

In Israel, opposition politician Yair Golan has also criticised his government’s economic management of the war.

In a post on X on Sunday, he wrote: “The war with Iran has been planned for months. The fact that the Israeli government has not prepared an orderly economic plan to support citizens during the war period is a disgrace.

“The serving and working public should not be the one footing the bill for the war out of its own pocket while billions of shekels go to the evading and non-working sector,” he said, adding that the opposition will soon replace the government.

Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that at a fraction of the cost – and despite a significant technological gap – Iran has demonstrated an ability to hold the global economy at risk, to pressure Washington into “blinking first”.

“A steady stream of inexpensive drones and limited missile strikes can disrupt the thriving economies of Israel and the Gulf, sending shockwaves through energy markets and ultimately translating into higher prices at American gas stations,” he said.

Phillips, the British safety, security and risk adviser, said the strategy has worked in important but limited ways.

“It has helped the Islamic republic survive intense sanctions, clandestine campaigns and periodic strikes while maintaining a credible ability to hit US bases, Israeli territory and Gulf infrastructure, which in turn raises the political and military cost of any attempt at regime-change war,” he said.

“Iran’s reach – stretching from Lebanon and Syria to Iraq and Yemen – allows it to shape crises, quickly raise the stakes of local conflicts, and force adversaries to devote substantial resources to missile defence, counter‑UAV systems, naval protection and regional coalition management,” he noted.

“However, there are clear constraints and growing problems. Key proxies such as Hezbollah and various militias have suffered leadership and infrastructure losses; the network has become more fragmented and sometimes less controllable, increasing the risk of unwanted escalation even as its coherence as an instrument of policy erodes,” he added.