NEWS

The Palestinian Authority condemned Israel’s decision to build 2,162 illegal settlement units in the occupied West Bank, calling for US intervention to halt the Israeli “madness.”

“All settlement activity is illegal under international law and does not confer legitimacy to anyone,” the authority said in a statement carried by the official news agency Wafa.

It said the Israeli decision constitutes a “blatant challenge to international law and UN resolutions,” particularly UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which affirms the illegality of the Israeli settlements in all occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem.

It held the Israeli authorities responsible for the “serious consequences” of the settlement policies, warning that they would push the region toward “further cycles of violence and escalation.”

READ: Situation worsening in West Bank, warn Italy, UK, France, Germany

The authority called on the US administration to intervene immediately “to stop the Israeli madness if it genuinely seeks to promote security and stability in the region and globally.”

It stressed that the Palestinian people would remain “steadfast on their land and committed to their legitimate national rights,” saying the illegal settlement plans would not deter them from continuing their struggle to establish an independent Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The statement came after Israel’s Higher Planning Council approved the construction of 2,162 new settlement units across several illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The plans include 1,006 units in the Gevaot settlement within the Gush Etzion bloc south of Bethlehem, 922 units in the Har Brakha settlement south of Nablus, and 234 units in Kiryat Arba settlement built on land belonging to the city of Hebron.

Palestinians view the new plans as part of an accelerated Israeli policy aimed at expanding illegal settlements, confiscating Palestinian land and creating new facts on the ground.

READ: Israeli authorities issue order to seize 74 acres East of Bethlehem

New York Mayor Mamdani was among those critical of FIFA’s decision to ban water bottles at World Cup stadiums.

FIFA has made changes to its stadium policy, allowing fans to bring disposable water bottles into match stadiums after a ban earlier this week drew backlash from supporters and tournament host city officials.

FIFA’s initial policy permitted fans to carry empty, transparent, reusable plastic bottles up to 1 litre (34oz). However, the governing body made a U-turn on that policy on Thursday and banned fans from carrying reusable water bottles into venues due to safety concerns.

The move essentially meant fans would have to buy water or soft drinks from concession stands in the stadium, where prices would “remain consistent with other events held at each stadium”, according to FIFA.

The backlash prompted FIFA to issue what it called a “clarification” on its stadium policy, saying: “All fans will be permitted to bring in one soft, plastic, 20-ounce (590ml), factory-sealed disposable water bottle into any FIFA World Cup 2026 match in the USA and Canada.

“Fans will not be permitted to bring in hard-sided, reusable water bottles due to safety and security reasons.”

The updated policy made no mention of the policy for stadiums in Mexico.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was pleased with FIFA’s decision to reverse the water bottle ban.

“No one should have to fear being priced out of being hydrated, especially fans who are often waiting for hours before a game in extreme heat,” said football fanatic Mamdani, who has championed equitable prices for this World Cup in his home city. Last month, he made 1,000 tickets costing $50 available to city residents as match tickets reached well into four figures.

Forecasters have warned that fans could face health risks from extreme heat at open-air venues during the World Cup, which is being cohosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico from June 11 to July 19.

A report published by the World Weather Attribution research group last month estimated that 26 of 104 games at the World Cup are likely to be played in conditions where the Wet Bulb Global Temperature (WBGT) exceeds 26 degrees Celsius (78.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

WBGT is a measure of heat stress on the human body, which combines temperature, humidity, wind and sunlight.

At last year’s FIFA Club World Cup in the US, where fans complained of searing temperatures, supporters were also barred from bringing water bottles into venues.

FIFA has noted that misting stations, fans, hydration stations and cooling tents would be available in “the stadium footprint”.

Fans at the 2022 Qatar World Cup were also not permitted to bring reusable water bottles into stadiums.

A mushroom farm in Jericho, an heirloom seed library, a project to introduce Kale to the Palestinian market and a local farmers’ cooperative – these small agricultural projects are the latest weapon in the fight against the Israeli occupation. They aim to tackle the policies that make Palestine dependent on the Israeli market and offer alternatives for Palestinians who find themselves forced to buy Israeli products.

After returning to Palestine for the first time in five years, Vivien Sansour noticed changes in her homeland. “All the things I had missed, like the delicious tomatoes and cheese, the things old ladies would come and sell at the front of our house, they were gone,” says Sansour. “I thought I was coming home and I found myself coming back to a place that was foreign to me where I was buying Israeli broccoli in the supermarket and that was what was available.”

In June, she officially launched Palestine’s first heirloom seed library as a way to preserve the knowledge of generations of farmers who have cultivated varieties of organic vegetables, fruits and herbs adapted for the region’s climate and soil. Due to Israeli policies and neo-liberal farming techniques, these varieties, and traditional Palestinian farming as a whole, are facing extinction. These tiny seeds, she says, have the power to stop this from happening. Anyone can borrow a packet of the library’s seeds and grow the local varieties of produce, returning seeds from the next harvest.

“The heirloom seed gives us power to resist our dominance, though our heirlooms seeds we can truly eat what we grow and stop having to be slaves to our master,” she says.

Under the Oslo Accords, around 63 per cent of agricultural land in the West Bank was designated as “Area C”, which means it fell under the control of the Israeli military. As a result, farmers whose land fell in that 63 per cent were unable to farm their land freely, as is still the case. Meanwhile, Israeli settlements in the West Bank have mushroomed, and settlement farms are able to produce a large quantity of crops at low cost using pesticides, leaving traditional farmers unable to compete. Unequal water resources allocated to Palestinians and Jewish settlers living in the same territory makes keeping up almost impossible.

According to the Israeli occupation authorities, the value of goods produced in settlements and exported to Europe amounts to approximately $300 million a year. Israel is flooding the Palestinian market with cheap Israeli products whilst simultaneously controlling the Palestinian exports and imports. Restrictions on the importation of fertilizers has cut agricultural output in the OPT by an estimated 20-33 per cent. This pressure is forcing Palestinian farmers to leave their land, with many having to work on the settlement farms that displaced them on as little as half the Israeli minimum wage, in unsafe working conditions, and without holiday or sick pay.

“Oslo has been a disaster for agriculture in Palestine,” says Sansour. Aside from the restrictions placed on farmers as a result of the agreement, it also brought foreign donations to the agricultural section, she explains. “The aid was designed in a very neo-liberal way on the production of certain items and the elimination of people – that’s the idea of agribusiness.” This sort of funding pushed farmers away from sustainable agriculture to mono-cropping (the production of one type of crop) designed for consumer export or selling to the Israeli market, using methods relying on chemicals, she says.

Sansour highlights the Paris Protocol, an annex of the Oslo Accords, which tied the Palestinian economy with the Israeli economy. This has led to a situation, she says, where the tobacco industry is renting Palestinian land for prices small-scale producers cannot compete with. “We went from producing food to producing poison,” she poignantly adds.

The same factors motivated Lamya Hussain to implement The Kale Project – Palestine, a joint venture by organisations MAAN Development Center and Refutrees to introduce kale to the Palestinian market. Two years on and two solid harvests of three types of kale and the project is looking to expand. “There are many ways Israel controls what is produced and why and how, and we want to challenge this,” says Hussain. “We are challenging the occupation through cross diversity because one of the things the Israeli occupation has done to the agricultural sector is that it’s reduced it to a few basic crops.”

“One key issue facing small-scale Palestinian producers is the challenge to work around previously negotiated economic agreements via which Israeli goods are dumped in the local market,” she explains. “To this end, there is always the risk that Israeli producers can take advantage of the rising demand for kale and flood the market with larger quantities and cheaper prices.” Hussain continues, “It’s very difficult for people like myself or for the project, and even more difficult for smaller scale farmers who are competing against not only consumer market prices and local competition, they’re actually competing with an occupied-led system in the market.”

Fareed Taamallah was one of these small scale farmers struggling to sell his produce in this system. Tired of selling his olives and olive oil in bulk to a trader who then sells it to the consumer while taking most of the profit, he co-founded Sharaka. The organisation links Palestinian farmers and consumers directly, promoting Baladi food, a word for local, seasonal and Palestinian produce.

“In Occupied Palestine, the matter of keeping the farmer in his land cultivating and producing is more important than any other place because it is not only a matter of producing, but also a matter of food sovereignty,” says Taamallah. “Sharaka is trying to tackle part of these problems and help small-scale farmers to stay in their land by helping them to market their product at good prices, and in this way support them to remain steadfast in their groves. On the other hand, we try to help the consumer to have access to the good, healthy food and not depend on the Israeli products that are found in the local market.”

For the Palestinian farming industry, the Israeli occupation has been deadly. But these agricultural efforts are seeking to change the status quo by offering Palestinians alternatives to the Israeli products that fill up their local supermarkets. As Sansour puts it, buying the produce of the occupation is like smoking; “you pay for your own poisoning”.

Images courtesy of The Kale Project – Palestine.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Ever since leading pro-Israel lobby financier Sheldon Adelson intervened in the 2016 election heavily in favour of Donald Trump, the now-president’s Middle East policies (if you can even call them that) have become more and more openly in favour of the Zionist state.

To call casino tycoon Adelson an “Israel first” financier is misleading, as it implies that he has second, third and fourth priorities. With a net worth of almost $34 billion at his disposal, though, his one and only cause is Israel, so “Israel only” financier would be a more accurate description.

Adelson has ploughed hundreds of millions of dollars into funding anti-Palestinian groups. He has, for example, donated a reported $410 million to Birthright Israel, a pro-Israel propaganda organisation which takes young Jews on brainwashing tours to occupied Palestine, inculcating in them the idea that the country forms part of their “birthright”.

Although nobody should delude themselves that such a huge amount of money does not have the intended effect on many impressionable young people, money isn’t everything and, thankfully, largely left-wing and liberal Jews are increasingly rejecting Israel. Last year, media outlets reported a number of walk-outs from Birthright tours, with participants reacting against the heavy-handed propaganda that always forms the basis of such trips.

READ: US comedian Roseanne, shunned since racist tweet, visits Israel

Left-wing and anti-Zionist Jews have for many years now been organising against Birthright, even putting on a “Birthwrong” tour celebrating diasporic Jewish life in ancestral Jewish homelands, such as Spain, France, Brazil, Germany, the USA and Britain.

Such efforts are now paying off. Birthright walk-outs are part of a broader trend in which Israel is haemorrhaging support from the base of the Democratic Party in the US. Once upon a time, Sheldon Adelson funded the Democrats. However, in a 2012 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal (the in-house organ of America’s billionaire business class), Adelson explained: “I didn’t leave the Democrats. They left me.” In that article it emerged that the main, if not the only, reason he switched his substantial financial support from the Democrats to the Republicans was that the Democrats’ base is now largely hostile to Israeli war crimes and apartheid.

Since then, Adelson has apparently made it his mission in life to fund the worst of the worst right-wing Republicans. As the late, lamented website Gawker reported, “In 2012 he spent $20 million supporting Newt Gingrich, nearly derailing [Mitt] Romney’s primary run.”

President Donald Trump answers questions during a meeting with military leaders in the Cabinet Room on 23 October, 2018 in Washington [Win McNamee/Getty Images]

During the course of the race for the 2016 White House, every Republican candidate did their best to net Adelson’s support and, of course, his money. Marco Rubio was reportedly calling Adelson every other week at one stage, and “when Jeb Bush hired a foreign policy advisor who was critical of Israel’s diplomatic actions, Adelson forced Bush to issue an apology.”

With President Donald Trump now leading the most anti-Palestinian White House of all time, it’s easy to forget that at one stage, his non-interventionist instincts in matters of foreign policy seemed, for a brief moment, to extend even to Palestine. That’s when Adelson started to plough cash onto the Trump bandwagon and ended up being Trump’s number-one backer. The White House is now more pro-Israel than ever, with each new advisor seemingly more fanatically Zionist than the last.

READ: Media hypocrisy puts pressure on Arabs but not Israeli activists

The Trump-appointed US Ambassador to Israel not only tolerates illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, for example, but also actively funds them out of his own money. Trump has also followed through on a promise to Adelson to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in the face of international law, which still considers the latter to be an occupied city, the annexation of which by Israel is illegal.

While the pro-Israel lobby seems to have the White House sewn up for now, its propagandists look at the new crop of progressive and left-wing Democrats in Congress with some trepidation, for Israel no longer has the universal, bipartisan support in the House and Senate that it once had. This week, news emerged that its lobby has even had to establish a new group, aiming to shore up its floundering support among Democrats.

“Democratic Majority for Israel” is supposedly set to make the “progressive case for Israel”. The fact that such a move has had to be made now is a serious indication of how much US support for Israel has slipped. Indeed, in the secretly filmed words of Eric Gallagher, a leading “liberal” pro-Israel lobbyist when he referred to the lobby’s flagship organisation, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee: “The foundation that AIPAC sat on is rotting… There used to be actual widespread public support for Israel in the United States. So I don’t think that AIPAC is going to remain as influential as it is.”

READ: How AIPAC-Israel agenda became US priority

One establishment policy wonk conceded this week that the passage of a bill through the Senate targeting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, while seemingly a victory for Israel, was “actually a pretty significant loss. Because only one serious presidential candidate voted for it.”

Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, two corporate Democrats who have thrown their hats into the presidential ring for 2020, both failed to show up for the vote, despite speaking at previous AIPAC policy conferences. Even they don’t want to enrage their support base, much of which is likely to opt for Bernie Sanders should he decide to run again.

With the situation in Congress changing rapidly, the pro-Israel lobby is going for broke to take advantage of its position in the White House while it lasts.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Funerals will be held for Lebanese officers killed in an Israeli attack in southern Lebanon, as Beirut’s army chief headed to Pakistan on a surprise visit amid ongoing mediation efforts in the wider United States-Israel war on Iran.

The Lebanese soldiers will be laid to rest on Sunday, a day after the brigadier general, captain and soldier were killed in an Israeli strike on a military vehicle on the Khardali-Nabatieh road, in an incident the Israeli army said it was investigating.

A ceasefire agreed on April 17 was meant to halt the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, but Israel has continued to carry out near-daily attacks, prompting retaliatory ones from the Lebanese group. The violence has taken a disproportionate toll on civilians in Lebanon, where more than 3,500 people have been killed since hostilities resumed on March 2.

A further conditional ceasefire was announced by Lebanese and Israeli envoys last week in Washington, but was rejected by Hezbollah as it did not include the group or provide for Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

Lebanese army chief Rodolphe Haykal left on Saturday for Pakistan, which has emerged as a central mediator between the US and Iran.

The visit is notable given the insistence by Washington – and by Lebanese leaders, including the president – that ceasefire talks for Lebanon remain separate from the US-Iran negotiations ‌mediated by Pakistan.

Fighting continues in southern Lebanon

Meanwhile, Israeli attacks hit several towns across southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa overnight, while Hezbollah said it launched rockets, artillery fire, and drone attacks against Israeli forces, including near the Beaufort Castle in Yohmor al-Shaqif.

Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health said on Sunday that an Israeli raid on the town of Saksakiyeh a day earlier killed at least two people. The ministry added that 22 people were wounded in the attack, including three children and a woman.

Two others were wounded following an Israeli drone attack on the town of Shahabiyeh, Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA) reported.

Israeli air attacks also hit the town of Qalawiya at dawn, and the towns of al-Qatrani, Byblos and Rihan in the Jezzine district overnight. The town of Deir Kifa in the Tyre district was also bombed, while Barashit and Chaqra in the same district were subjected to intermittent artillery shelling overnight.

NNA also reported artillery shelling in the towns of al-Mansouri and Bayt al-Sayyad in the Tyre district.

Israeli warplanes launched an attack on the town of Srifa. Local media also reported that Israeli fighter jets attacked Dweir, near Nabatieh, north of the Litani River.

Paramedics, meanwhile, continue to look for survivors under the rubble following Israeli attacks.

“The pattern is part of what is being called the Gazafication of Lebanon, or Israel using actions normalised by the Gaza genocide,” said Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Ramallah in the occupied West Bank.

“The targeting of schools in southern Lebanon, just like Gaza. Bombing Lebanese hospitals and clinics, also like Gaza. And the murder of journalists. Then there’s these so-called double-tap attacks against paramedics and rescue workers. Hundreds of Palestinian and Lebanese paramedics have been killed with this unlawful practice.”

Gazafication extends to the ceasefire, too, she added.

“The ‘Yellow Line’, first introduced in Gaza, has now swallowed 60 percent of the territory. In Lebanon, the ‘Yellow Line’ now includes nearly a fifth of the country. Both invisible lines keep expanding,” said Odeh.

No choice but negotiations, says Lebanese lawmaker

Najat Aoun Saliba, an independent member of Lebanon’s parliament, meanwhile, condemned Israel’s killing of the Lebanese soldiers and said President Joseph Aoun has no choice but to enter into negotiations with Israel.

“If we don’t have negotiations, what is the alternative? Is the alternative going to war? The war is not going to give us peace,” she told Al Jazeera.

Saliba said dialogue was the only viable path given the imbalance of power between Israel and Lebanon’s armies.

“The balance of power between the armies is not to be compared. Israel has a very strong army backed up by the United States. The Lebanese Armed Forces have been sidelined by a political will for 30 years, because they wanted to strengthen the presence of Hezbollah,” she said.

The lawmaker added that Hezbollah has not been able to stop Israeli aggression.

“Hezbollah is not able to stop any of these war crimes, and it’s not able to stop any of the invasions that Israel is doing. I think with … all these massacres and destruction, I don’t think we have a choice.”

The killing of Brigadier General Wissam Sabra, Captain Elie Khoury and soldier Hussein Ghozal came at a tense moment amid broader efforts to strike a deal between the US, Iran, Hezbollah, the Lebanese government and Israel.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the attack was “aimed at thwarting all efforts to reach a solution”, while Prime Minister Nawaf Salam described it as “a heinous crime and an attack on Lebanon and all Lebanese people”.

Lebanon was drawn into the Middle East war when Iran-backed Hezbollah attacked Israel on March 2, following joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran.

Tehran has made a ceasefire in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah a condition for any peace deal with Washington.

Formula One racing sensation Kimi Antonelli made a mockery of suggestions that the Monaco Grand ⁠⁠Prix would stall his incredible start ⁠⁠to the season by producing a stunning qualifying lap to stick his Mercedes on pole position.

The qualifying battle lived up to expectations, with provisional pole changing hands several times before the 19-year-old championship leader snatched it with his ⁠⁠final lap on Saturday.

He edged out Red Bull’s Max Verstappen by 0.043 seconds to become the first Italian since Jarno Trulli in 2004 to take pole position in the principality.

“It was one of those laps that we call a magic lap. I was able to put it all together. It was such a close ⁠⁠qualifying with Max,” Antonelli, who clocked 1:12.051 (1 minute and 12.051 seconds) to claim his fourth pole in six races this season, said.

“I knew the last lap was good; I was just hoping that it would be enough, but it was very close.”

Antonelli is the youngest driver to lead the championship, having won the last four races, but the unique nature of Monaco’s twisting circuit, full of slow corners, was supposed to take away the Mercedes power advantage.

Ferrari pair on second row

Ferrari have been strongly tipped as ‌‌race favourites but had to be content with the second row on Sunday’s grid, with Lewis Hamilton third quickest, 0.228 seconds slower, and local favourite Charles Leclerc, winner of the race in 2024, fourth.

Leclerc had been on provisional pole with time running out in Q3 – the third and final session of qualifying – but clipped the wall on his final lap as he tried to wrestle it back, stopping his car at Rascasse.

Ferrari dominated Friday’s two practice sessions, with Hamilton and Leclerc first and second in both, although Antonelli was quickest in Saturday’s final practice.

“Congrats to Kimi. Mega, mega job. Having your first pole here is so special,” three-time Monaco champion Hamilton, who is yet to win a race for Ferrari, said.

“It was tough for us. We were looking so strong in practice, and ⁠⁠we barely changed anything, but the car was drastically different once we got to qualifying for some reason.”

Isack Hadjar, in ⁠⁠the second Oracle Red Bull, bounced back from a nasty crash in Friday practice to qualify fifth, with Antonelli’s teammate George Russell, who trails him by 43 points in the standings, a disappointing sixth.

Reigning world champion and last year’s Monaco winner Lando Norris will be on the fourth row alongside fellow McLaren driver Oscar Piastri, with the team’s hopes of victory in ⁠⁠their 1,000th Grand Prix now looking slender.

‘The walls start coming closer’

Antonelli finished 18th and last at the Monaco Grand Prix 12 months ago, and he was expected to feel the pressure of leading the standings on his return.

But he ⁠⁠now has a golden chance to continue his dream start to the season by emulating Trulli, ⁠⁠who converted his pole into a victory in his Renault in 2004.

“I think this is one of the most intensive, if not the most intense, qualifying sessions of the year, and it takes a massive effort,” he said. “When it is about finding the last two tenths, it is not easy because the walls start coming closer.

“But I felt great this morning, and I am happy that we ‌‌could finish the job today.”

Of the last 22 Monaco Grands Prix, only six have been won by a driver who did not start on pole, such is the extreme difficulty of overtaking on the narrow, twisty circuit that snakes round the stunning Mediterranean playground.

The last three editions have all been won by the ‌‌top ‌‌driver in qualifying, but Hamilton did win from third on the grid in 2016, and with Verstappen showing great speed here this year, Antonelli will be taking nothing for granted.

“If you would have told me yesterday I would be on the front row, I would have taken it,” Verstappen said.

After reportedly losing dozens of MQ-9 Reaper drones while battling Iran, the Air Force on Friday confirmed to TWZ that it is planning to purchase an undisclosed number of unused ones from General Atomics, who made the aircraft. The company, however, said it has less than 10 of these drones to offer, and it remains unclear where else the Air Force can find more.

All of this continues to raise serious questions about the Air Force’s near-term ability to plug gaps left by the losses fighting against Iran and in other recent operations in and around the Middle East. The downed Reapers have a reported combined value of about $1 billion.

Furthermore, despite the top Air Force officer recently praising Reaper as “perhaps the most valuable player” in the air war against Iran, the aircraft have been in the crosshairs of service officials. They have openly questioned the drone’s survivability and, by extension, general value in future operations. The Air Force has made several half-hearted efforts, without success, to find a successor. It is now in the early stages of a new attempt at acquiring an “MQ-9 Next.” You can read more about that effort in our story here.

It will be years, if ever, before “MQ-9 Next” comes online. Meanwhile, the search is on for existing replacements.

“The USAF intends to purchase several unused MQ-9A Block 5 from GA-ASI [General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.],” a spokesperson for the service told TWZ today. “A number of MQ-9A Block 5 aircraft were manufactured based on forecasted purchases for other customers but are no longer needed. The available aircraft are currently GA-ASI owned aircraft.”

“The USAF has received funds to begin the acquisition process,” they added.

The Air Force was responding to our questions about congressional testimony from a top officer highlighting the service’s plans to backfill the combat losses. 

“We’re looking at options to buy back as many of the MQ-9As as we possibly can right now,” Air Force Lt. Gen. David Tabor, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, had told members of Congress at a hearing back on May 13. “So there’s a bit of a short-term effort to buy back things immediately, in this fiscal year.”

Tabor also said at that time that the Air Force’s total MQ-9A fleet had shrunk to 135 aircraft. Official budget documents say the Air Force had 165 Reapers in inventory as of the start of Fiscal Year 2026, which began on October 1 of last year. This had already marked a significant year-over-year decrease, down from 231 MQ-9As at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2025.

Despite Air Force needs, General Atomics told us the number of available Reapers is in short supply.

“Between parts in stock for new builds, and company-owned Reapers with some number of flight hours on them, there are less than 10 total ‘new’ MQ-9As available to any customers anywhere in the world,” General Atomics spokesperson C. Mark Brinkley told TWZ earlier this week. “There are some number of decommissioned Reapers out there, and some number of those could potentially be brought back into service.”

One place the Air Force won’t be able to find any Reapers is in storage. 

“The 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (The Boneyard) has zero MQ-9s in storage nor have they ever regenerated a MQ-9 back into service,” the spokesperson told us.

The MQ-9A is out of production. General Atomics has moved on to the MQ-9B, and currently offers those drones in multiple configurations. Though an evolution of the original Reaper, the core B model design differs in significant ways from its predecessor. Any new Air Force purchases of drones in this broader family would have to be of the B model and worked into the existing production schedule.

How many MQ-9As the Air Force has lost in operations in and around the Middle East since January 2025 is unclear, but is understood to be substantial. As of May, “nearly 30 MQ-9 Reapers have been lost in the course” of Operation Epic Fury against Iran, Air & Space Forces Magazine reported, citing “people familiar with the matter.” This is on top of dozens of Reapers reportedly downed while conducting operations targeting Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen in the past year or so.

At the hearing last month, Tabor did not provide any official accounting of Reaper losses, but did acknowledge that “we are concerned about how they’ve attrited.”

In another effort to bolster the supply of operational Reapers, the Air Force told us that while it never regenerated MQ-1 Predator drones back into service, it was repurposing parts from these aircraft that the service stopped using in 2020. There were dozens on hand after they were retired.

More than 50 were sent to the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) “and heavily cannibalized for spare parts for the MQ-9 aircraft,” the spokesperson told us.

Questions about the status of the MQ-1 fleet arose last week after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) acknowledged the loss of an “MQ-1” drone to Iranian fire. This has led many to question whether American forces are flying the venerable Predator again as a result of the Reaper losses.

At the time, the Air Force declined to say if it lost any of theirs and referred us to CENTCOM, which declined comment. However, on Friday, the Air Force told us that in addition to the Predators being used for parts, 20 had been transferred to the Navy. We reached out to them for comment. 

As we previously noted, it is also very possible, if not likely, that the uncrewed aircraft in question was an MQ-1C Gray Eagle, a related but different design still in active U.S. Army service. You can read more about this event in our original story here.

At the time of the incident, CENTCOM declined to tell us which variant of the MQ-1 was lost.

Regardless, the Air Force’s mad scramble to find additional Reapers highlights the value of having a high-flying, long-loitering drone that can gather intelligence and fire off munitions, no matter how slow it flies.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

China strongly condemns the Israeli airstrikes and ground incursion into southern Lebanon, describing these operations as a dangerous escalation that threatens the stability of the entire region. China demands that Israel immediately cease its military operations and fully withdraw its forces from Lebanese territory, warning of the dangers of its incursions and violations of established lines. China views the fourth round of Washington talks between Lebanon and Israel and the military tensions as an extension of a broader crisis. Beijing sees this conflict as a consequence of the Gaza war, emphasizing clear principles in its intelligence and military assessment of the situation across several axes, most notably the necessity of an Israeli withdrawal and a ceasefire. Beijing calls for an immediate cessation of military operations and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory, warning that expanding ground operations will drag the region into chaos. China’s efforts in the reconstruction of Lebanon focus on providing urgent humanitarian aid packages, signing development cooperation agreements, and encouraging Chinese companies to participate in infrastructure projects and long-term investments within the framework of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. China also defended the Lebanese position in the face of Israeli escalation at the United Nations, with its representative to the Security Council emphasizing that Israel’s advance to Beaufort Castle (Qalaat Al-Shaqif) was the most serious incursion into southern Lebanon in 30 years. He called on the international community to take urgent measures before the situation in Lebanon deteriorated further, demanding respect for Lebanese sovereignty and the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from southern Lebanon.

The most prominent features of these Chinese efforts for joint cooperation with the Lebanese side and the international community in the reconstruction of Lebanon and the cessation of Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon are the provision of direct financial and development support. The Chinese and Lebanese governments signed a development cooperation agreement in Beirut worth 50 million Chinese yuan to support reconstruction and sustainable development efforts, along with the provision of urgent humanitarian aid. China delivered shipments of emergency humanitarian aid through the Port of Beirut to alleviate the economic and living burdens on the Lebanese people. Furthermore, China encouraged the participation of Chinese companies and investments in reconstruction and development efforts in Lebanon. Beijing has expressed its readiness to encourage its major companies and national institutions to participate in Lebanon’s reconstruction projects and support the development of the energy, telecommunications, and infrastructure sectors through China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Lebanon has been a partner in this Chinese initiative since joining in 2017. China aims to enhance Lebanon’s role as a pivotal hub for trade and logistics in the Middle East. In addition to sustained Chinese diplomatic efforts, China has continued its diplomatic and developmental support for Lebanon, alongside its active participation in UN peacekeeping operations in southern Lebanon.

China’s role in halting the Israeli war on Lebanon has focused on exerting diplomatic pressure through the United Nations and utilizing international platforms to call for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory, while supporting political and diplomatic solutions to prevent the conflict from escalating. China has consistently called for an end to Israeli military operations against Lebanon during UN sessions and warned that the collapse of ceasefires places the region on a more dangerous precipice. Beijing called for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the devastated Lebanese territories, emphasizing the need to respect international resolutions, Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence, and the protection of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). China stressed the importance of ensuring that UN peacekeepers could carry out their duties freely and safely and condemned any attacks against UNIFIL personnel. China also emphasized the need to intensify humanitarian aid to the Lebanese people to address the repercussions of the war and expressed its full readiness to contribute to restoring regional stability.

Here, Chinese diplomatic and intelligence agencies affirmed that Lebanon’s sovereignty and security must not be violated, stressing that extending the authority of the Lebanese state and protecting its stability are the fundamental pillars for preventing the entire region from sliding into a comprehensive regional war. They reiterated the necessity of respecting Lebanon’s sovereignty and security, considering the stability and protection of the Lebanese state as essential to preventing a full-blown regional war. China also expressed its full support for the role of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and emphasized the need to provide guarantees for its protection and freedom of movement to carry out its mission. From an analytical perspective, Beijing believes that a political solution to the crisis must include respect for international resolutions and adherence to the two-state solution for Palestine and Israel. It also expressed concern that these negotiations might lead to regional arrangements that serve the interests of certain major powers and marginalize other parties in the region. On the other hand, China welcomes dialogue and diplomatic solutions as a means to ease tensions in the Middle East and supports efforts to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty. However, Beijing has criticized unilateral US actions in managing interconnected issues such as Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, emphasizing the need to adhere to international resolutions and support regional stability, avoiding military interventions and the expansion of conflict.

Beijing adopts a clear strategic vision regarding the Lebanese crisis, which is summarized in its emphasis on respecting sovereignty. Chinese diplomacy strongly condemns any violations of Lebanese sovereignty and calls for an immediate halt to foreign military operations on Lebanese territory to ensure the safety of civilians. With Chinese intelligence and military agencies calling for a monopoly on weapons, a position reiterated by the Chinese Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council, China supports the Lebanese state as the sole guarantor of internal stability. This signifies Beijing’s strong support for the principle of state monopoly on weapons, considering official institutions the only guarantor of internal stability and the prevention of the country’s disintegration. China also supports the UNIFIL forces, opposing the termination of the UNIFIL mandate and demanding that it be enabled to fulfill its mission to ensure stability in southern Lebanon and contribute to regional de-escalation. Beijing emphasizes that escalation will not resolve crises, urging conflicting parties (including Washington and Tehran) to prioritize diplomacy and political negotiation to exercise restraint.

Emergency Lawyers said dozens were also wounded in the strike that came less than 24 hours after similar drone attacks.

A drone strike on a market in central Sudan has killed at least 11 people and injured dozens more, according to a local rights group, as escalating aerial attacks further increase the death toll of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

The attack on Saturday targeted the main market in Abu Zaeima, a paramilitary-controlled town in North Kordofan state, according to Emergency Lawyers, which has documented abuses since fighting erupted in April 2023 between the army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

The group said the casualty figures could rise, but did not specify who carried out the attack. Neither side has claimed responsibility.

Emergency Lawyers said the strike came less than 24 hours after similar drone attacks struck nearby villages and a civilian vehicle.

Condemning the attack, it said the repeated targeting of civilians, villages and public transport reflected a blatant disregard for human life and the basic principles of international humanitarian law.

The group added that the continued loss of civilian life should not be treated as routine and called for an end to such attacks, as well as accountability for those responsible.

Two witnesses told the AFP news agency that another drone hit a fuel station later on Saturday in el-Obeid, the capital of North Kordofan, which the RSF has partially encircled for months.

A medical source at a hospital there said four wounded civilians had been brought to the facility.

Drone warfare

Nearly 70 people were killed in two separate drone strikes in the West and North Kordofan states over the past week, according to Emergency Lawyers and a local leader.

Drone warfare has become increasingly more common in Sudan’s conflict.

The United Nations said in May that at least 880 civilians were killed in drone strikes nationwide between January and April.

Fighting has intensified in Kordofan and Blue Nile State near the Ethiopian border since the RSF captured el-Fasher last October, the military’s last major stronghold in western Darfur.

Since then, more than 300,000 people have fled front-line areas, including el-Fasher and parts of Kordofan and Blue Nile, according to the UN.

Kordofan, rich in oil and arable land, is strategically significant, linking RSF strongholds in the neighbouring Darfur region to the country’s army-controlled east. The region remains largely contested between the army and the RSF.

Now entering its fourth year, the war has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced nearly 13 million others, creating what the UN describes as the world’s largest displacement and hunger crises.

The first recorded use of smoke as a weapon of asphyxiation against civilians in the MENA region dates back to the mid-19th century, when French general Bugeaud adopted this “new method” against thousand of people in Algeria: “If they [Algerians] take refuge in their caves”, Bugeaud argued, “then smoke them out like foxes [renards]”.

Seventy years later, the Middle East witnessed its first recorded use of chemical weapons. This occurred during the 1917’s Third Battle of Gaza, when the troops led by General Edmund Allenby fired about 10,000 cans of asphyxiating gas. Their limited impact did not meet Allenby’s expectations. However, the use of gas attracted much attention to the point that – right after the 1920 Iraqi Revolt against the proposed British Mandate of Mesopotamia – Secretary of State for the colonies Winston Churchill noted of being “strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilised tribes […] it would spread a lively terror”.

One century and many wars later, the UK, France and the US (whose support for Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran War has now been ascertained), launched a “US-led humanitarian intervention to protect [Syrian] civilians” against a chemical attack allegedly carried out by the Syrian regime in East Ghouta. Yet, their humanitarian intentions raise serious questions yet to be answered.

The cost of ‘non-intervention’?

The suspected chemical attack of 7 April has been denied by a number of sources, including the doctors serving at the field hospital were the victims have been treated. Nothwithstanding the recurrent war crimes perpetrated by the Syrian regime, the latter’s interest in using chemical weapons in a phase in which Bashar Al-Assad’s forces are advancing and winning the war appears unclear.

It should also be added that conventional weapons (not chemical weapons) are responsible for over 90 per cent of the mass killing of Syrian civilians by the regime and its allies (including Iran and Russia). If anything, the “US-led humanitarian intervention” confirmed that external powers are not so much troubled by the fact that dozens of Syrians die every day. It is mainly how they do so that seems to deserve a special attention, or “reaction”.

Read: Air strikes send a message to the Russians not to Assad

And it is indeed in the alleged lack of an earlier “reaction” – the so called “non-interventionist policy” in Syria – that many observers see as a key-component to assess what Syria is currently experiencing. If there was an opportunity for Western powers to make a difference for the better, pointed out British author Andrew Rawnsley, “chance was missed many, many deaths ago”.

London and its allies had indeed plans already before 2011 to use the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to curb a regime that has been considered by them as a thorn in their sides for decades. In 2011 strategy shifted to West’s allies funding proxies. If anything, the US, Britain and their allies intervened too much and too early, largely to the benefit of Bashar Al-Assad, but also Hezbollah and Iran.

A regional order in the making

It has been noted that in our age of “politics as reality show”, even geopolitics and military raids are often done for show. There is much truth in these words. In this sense it should be noted that a  possible chemical attack occurred already in April 2017. Then as today, the US-led strike was preceeded by an announcement made by US President Donald Trump regarding his will to withdraw from Syria and followed by the bombing of an empty Syrian airfield.

A Syrian man receives medical treatment after the Assad regime conducted a poisonous gas attack in Eastern Ghouta, in Damascus, Syria on 7 March, 2018 [Dia Al Din Samout/Anadolu Agency]

And yet, the ongoing “geopolitical show” is underpinned by two very practical aims. The first one might be linked to the 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis. Both the outbreak of the Qatar crisis and the recent US-led strike are in fact meant to provide a clear sign to regional actors to show the consequences that will be faced by those unwilling to align themselves with the anti-Iran front and the tacit agreement that binds Israel to Saudi Arabia and its allies.

#WarInSyria

In recent months also a number of Saudi sources have come forward contending that Saudi-Israeli relations are “the main gateway” to understanding the “transformations in the region and the backstage deliberations over the Palestinian cause”, including the recent and upcoming developments concerning Jerusalem.

Fostering fragmentation

The second aim is rooted in the will to weaken the link between Iran, Turkey and Russia; the three guarantors of the Astana peace process. The latter, in which Russia has played a key role, is perceived by many as a key tool to overcome the fragmentation of Syria and, more generally, the division of large Arab states into small and mostly homogeneous entities incapable of posing any threat.

This political goal is actively supported, directly andor indirectly, by a number of key-figures within the Trump administration, and has been advocated by several influential think tanks in Washington, including Project for the New American Century (PNAC), since the early 2000s.

Read: US admitted only 44 Syria refugees in the last 6 months

Among the 25 political figures who signed PNAC’s founding statement of principles in 1997, ten went on to serve in the administration of former US President George W. Bush. Some of them – including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz – were charged with highly influential positions that had direct repercussions on key-aspects pertaining to the region. The then president expressed his support for the remodeling of the “greater Middle East” also in his State of the Union speech on 20 January 2004.

Whose humanitarism?

The image of a “civilised world” that was witnessing yet another clash in the context of an inherently fanatic “Islamic Orient” was very much present in the articles published in England and France in the early 1860s. Western observers were then describing the massacres which occurred between Christians and Muslims during the 1860 Mount Lebanon civil war.

Then, as today, external (and particularly Western) powers felt the necessity to intervene in the region justifying this through “humanitarian considerations”, and by adopting a self-imposed mission civilisatrice. They were, however, much less ready to acknowledge their own roles and responsabilities, or to ease the humanitarian burden faced by local actors.

Not much has changed in this respect. It is enough to mention that, according to the US State Department, Washington has admitted a total of 11 Syrian refugees in the all 2018. Despite playing a leading role in Syria and the broader region, Russia has granted refugee status to “only one Syrian national since 2011”. These examples represent the rule rather than the exception. Orwell’s celebrated prophecy – “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength” – could not have found a better manifesto.

Caricature of Syrian President sending air strikes in Syria – Cartoon

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Israeli forces kill three high-ranking Lebanese soldiers as Arab nations condemn Iran’s attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait.

Welcome to Bunker Talk. This is a weekend open discussion post for the best commenting crew on the net, in which we can chat about all the stuff that went on this week that we didn’t cover. We can also talk about the stuff we did or whatever else grabs your interest. In other words, it’s an off-topic thread.

This week’s caption reads:

First Lt. Pamela Blanco-Coca, 319th Missile Squadron missile combat crew commander, and her deputy commander, 2nd Lt. John Anderson, simulate key turns of the Minuteman III Weapon System Feb. 9, 2016, in the E-01 Launch Control Center in the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., Missile Complex. A properly conducted key turn sends a “launch vote” to any of a number of Minuteman III ICBMs in a missileer’s flight area, and two launch votes from two separate LCCs will enable a real-world launch when directed by the U.S. president. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Jason Wiese) 

Prime Directives:

• If you want to talk politics, do so respectfully and know that there’s always somebody that isn’t going to agree with you. 
• If you have political differences, hash it out respectfully, stick to the facts, and no childish name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. If you can’t handle yourself in that manner, then please, discuss virtually anything else.
• No drive-by garbage political memes. No conspiracy theory rants. Links to crackpot sites will be axed, too. Trolling and shitposting will not be tolerated. No obsessive behavior about other users. Just don’t interact with folks you don’t like. 
• Do not be a sucker and feed trolls! That’s as much on you as on them. Use the mute button if you don’t like what you see.  
• So unless you have something of quality to say, know how to treat people with respect, understand that everyone isn’t going to subscribe to your exact same worldview, and have come to terms with the reality that there is no perfect solution when it comes to moderation of a community like this, it’s probably best to just move on. 
• Finally, as always, report offenders, please. This doesn’t mean reporting people who don’t share your political views, but we really need your help in this regard.

In response, the MoD spokesman said that, since coming to power in July 2024, the government had signed more than 1,400 major defence contracts, adding it was providing “a generational increase in defence spending… ensuring no return to the hollowed out armed forces of the past”.

Like the other Silicon Valley monopolies, Google habitually takes the side of Israeli occupation and war crimes in Palestine – the very term Palestine is not used by their highly influential maps app.

A new report by a Palestinian human rights group last month exposed the depths of Google’s dedication to the Israeli occupation.

With a known history documented back more than 3,200 years, the name “Palestine” is the only term continuously used for the entire territory of the country lying between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Palestine is the most historically accurate term. But since 1948, when Zionist militias expelled the majority of the Palestinian population from the country by force, a new state, “Israel”, was established.

That state has never declared its borders.

Consequentially, when speaking about “Israel” it is unclear exactly what territory is being referred to. But Zionists of both the right and the “left” commonly claim the entire historic territory of Palestine as the “Land of Israel.”

The new report, by 7amleh (Hamleh), a Palestinian organisation advocating online rights, details how Google seems to almost go out of its way to eradicate the reality of Palestinian life.

In 2016, Google came under fire from Palestinians on social media when the terms “West Bank” and “Gaza” disappeared from Google Maps. Google said that the removal of these terms was down to a glitch and that they had never used the word Palestine in the first place.

(The West Bank and Gaza Strip are regions of Palestine that are important, since they represent the remaining Palestinian territories which Israel failed to occupy in 1948. In 1967, however, Israel took over those too.)

“Through its mapping and labelling,” the 7amleh report explains, “one can deduce that Google Maps recognises the existence of Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital, but not Palestine.”

There are further aspects of the way Google has wiped Palestinian life off the map though. As the 7amleh report maps in some detail, Palestinian villages in the Naqab (Negev desert) deemed “unrecognised” by Israel (inside of what is sometimes termed “Israel proper” – the territories of Palestine occupied in 1948) are not properly mapped by Google.

These villages are only visible in Google Maps “when zooming in very closely,” the report explains, “but otherwise appear to be non-existent. This means that when looking at Google Maps, these villages appear to be not there.”

The report details how small Israeli villages are “displayed even when zoomed-out, while unrecognised Palestinian Bedouin villages, regardless of their size are only visible when zooming in very closely.”

Israel demolishes Al-Araqeeb for 135th time, arrests residents

This is despite the fact that there “are in total 46 Bedouin villages in the Naqab, the majority of which existed before Israel’s creation in 1948. Some claim to have existed since the 7th century.”

Israel has repeatedly attempted to physically remove these villages, but has repeatedly failed, thanks to the resistance of the Palestinians who live there, and thanks also to national and international solidarity shown to those villages.

Their Israeli (lack of) status as “unrecognised” also means that the state refuses to connect the villages to basic services like water and electricity – despite the fact that nearby Israeli-Jewish settlements are given all the support possible.

As Basma Abu-Qwaider, one Palestinian Naqab villager, explains in the report:

Google Maps acts in a discriminatory manner towards the unrecognised village the same [way] as the Israeli government does. Google ignores the existence of these villages just like Israel and for me if you do not exist on the map it means that you are invisible and that’s exactly what Israel wants us to be.

This solidarity with Israeli racism expressed by Google’s helpful attitude towards Israel’s wiping of Palestinians quite literally off the map extends across the 1967 “Green Line” ceasefire boundary.

Palestinian villages even within the “West Bank” area of the Jordan Valley are not properly mapped by Google either. The report documents that while Israeli settlements “can be seen when looking at the larger area of the map” some Palestinian villages are only visible when zoomed in – and even that only as a result of pressure being put on by a human rights organisation.

Google also refuses to recognise or map the reality of Israel’s apartheid roads system for Palestinians.

Khan Al-Ahmar resident: ‘We are imprisoned here’

As part of Israel’s ongoing settler-colonisation of Palestine, large parts of the West Bank – which is ruled by Israeli military decree – are prohibited access for Palestinians. Many roads are reserved for the use of Jews only.

Despite the illegality of these practices under international law, Google’s route-planning apps do not designate Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal.

7amleh’s report concludes: “Google Maps, as the largest global mapping and route planning service, has the power to influence global public opinion and therefore bears the responsibility to abide by international human rights standards and to offer a service that reflects the Palestinian reality.”

Google should be compelled to end its complicity with Israeli racism and apartheid.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

For decades, the massive MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter has served as the Navy’s primary airborne mine countermeasure platform, dragging massive mine hunting sleds through waters all around the globe. However, the Sea Dragon’s days are now numbered, with the last 11 aircraft scheduled to sunset sometime next year. With the MH-53E’s demise on the horizon, we reached out to one of its former pilots, Steve Jones — a man who came to know this monster intimately during the Global War On Terror. He had plenty of stories to tell and provided us with a new understanding of the often misunderstood counter-mine mission.

The MH-53E’s mission is also, of course, extremely topical right now thanks to ongoing tensions with Iran. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently told senators that the Islamic Republic mined “large segments” of the Strait of Hormuz, endangering shipping in the region.

As it currently stands, the mighty Sea Dragons, which are considered one of the military’s most dangerous to fly due to numerous fatal mishaps, are being phased out in favor of the smaller MH-60S Seahawk paired with a suite of new aerial mine countermeasures systems, as well as other new technologies, like uncrewed underwater and surface vessels. The Navy’s overall mine hunting force is going through a transition that is controversial, to say the least, with many questioning if the Pentagon is investing enough resources in this critical missions set.

With all these issues in play, in an exclusive, wide-ranging, two-hour interview, Steve Jones offered in-depth insights about the Navy’s airborne counter-mine mission, the Sea Dragon’s capabilities and dangers, current mine sweeping operations, as well as everything from what it was like to narrowly avoid getting entangled with a surfacing sub to his experiences ferrying celebrities like Robin Williams and Tom Jones around a war zone.

So, with the stage being set, let’s get into this incredible exchange.

Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Q: How did you end up becoming an MH-53 Sea Dragon pilot?

A: During the time that I selected, you could choose SH-60 Seahawks, you could choose CH-46E Sea Knights and the MH-53 Echo. You could choose SH-3 Sea Kings, but they were kind of winding down the H-3s, which is the same as the presidential helicopter Marine One that they fly now, but they were flying out of Norfolk and Puerto Rico, primarily for VIP transport. 

So, I looked at the 53 for a lot of reasons. One, I liked the instructors that came from that community in the advanced helicopter training. And two, I just thought the helicopter just really looked awesome, and it was big, and so that’s why I chose it, and I just thought it would be a good personality fit, work fit for me, and it ended up being that way.

Q: What are the main differences between the Navy’s MH-53E and the Marines’ CH-53E Super Stallion?

A: It’s primarily the same aircraft. Except our aircraft has larger fuel sponsons, so we could carry more gas. The reason for that is ideally we’d want to be able to fly an hour to where the mission objective was, be able to stay on station for about an hour, and be able to fly back. That requires at least three and a half, four hours of gas and extra fuel in those side sponsors. And that allowed us to do that. So instead of a small sponson with two tanks, we had one big sponson with four fuel tanks that were inside each of the sponsons on either side of the aircraft.

Q: So how much gas would that larger sponson hold?

A: About 22,000 pounds of gas.

Q: Talk about the training and some of the biggest challenges of flying that huge aircraft. 

A: Typical Navy training is two years of flight school, and then after flight school, we went to our Replacement Air Group, which we call the RAG, that was in Norfolk, Virginia. You spend about a year, or up to 10 months, in Norfolk, Virginia, learning primarily how to fly the helicopter, how to land the helicopter, and we do that in the combination with the Airborne Mine Countermeasure Squadron. We used aircraft from Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 14 to learn how to fly the different mission sets and learn aircraft familiarization. And then from there you either get assigned to HM-14, which was in Norfolk, Virginia, or HM-15, which was in Corpus Christi, Texas. HM-15 has now moved to Norfolk, Virginia. [Editor’s note: HM-14 sunsetted in 2022.]

The training takes about 10 months. Mine was a little bit longer because when I actually joined that community, the aircraft were down because of a crash off the coast of Corpus Christi, Texas. There was a problem called ‘thermal runaway,’ where the bearings in the main rotor head would fail, and they would seize together and get hot, and we lost a few sailors from HM-15. And until they figured out why and how to prevent it, it took about a year for those aircraft to come back up, so I was in Norfolk for maybe about a year and a half, almost two years, before I got to Corpus because of that bearing issue.

Q: What was it like when you finally got out there and learned how to fly while pulling a mine countermeasure sled?

A: There’s different types of equipment that you use and it takes a special kind of person to be able to maintain the situational awareness – both flying the aircraft and what’s happening in the back – because there’s dangers in the back. You have a very confined area, lots of equipment, and under lots of tension, and so the very first couple of times, the instructor is kind of handling everything, and you’re just kind of riding along.

Then eventually you start to do more tasks, physical tasks, in terms of flying and maintaining a stable platform for the men and women that are working in the back, and then over time those skills translate into a larger situational awareness, where you’re now a mission commander – where you’re flying the aircraft, but also, conducting the mission in the back is your primary responsibility. The positions are second pilot or co-pilot, and then you become a Helicopter Aircraft Commander (HAC), which is like the captain, and then you become an Airborne Mine Countermeasures Mission Commander (AMCM MC), meaning you’re flying the aircraft, you’re the commander of the aircraft, but you’re also commanding the mission.

Q: Did you become a mission commander?

A: I did. So I was fully qualified in the MH-53 Echo in my squadron, so I was a mission commander. I worked the maintenance side, so I was the maintenance check pilot and functional check pilot. It takes a lot of maintenance, and then post maintenance, and you have to do post maintenance flights to be able to make sure the aircraft is safe for anyone else to fly. So I spend most of my time in those areas in that squadron.

Q: What are the MH-53’s unique quirks and advantages?

A: One of the advantages was pure brute strength. You had three GE engines, so you could handle lots of torque, and the way that we hunted and swept for mines was pulling sleds in the water, which causes thousands and thousands of pounds of stress, so it’s really like a forceful instrument in the water. The operation requires the coordination of not only meteorologists and Operations Specialists, which are like intel specialists in mine warfare, but then you have the maintainer, you had two pilots and a crew chief, plus it could be up to four people in the back, depending on the type of gear you’re stowing in the back, so it really takes coordination from the front.

The disadvantage is that it’s a very expensive aircraft to operate. Every hour of flight, required 24 hours of maintenance, and if a squadron had 10 helicopters, which we did at one point in time, you’re looking at the largest deployable squadrons in the Navy, like 600-plus people to operate these aircraft.

With everybody working together, we advertise that we could be anywhere in the world in 72 hours, where there’s a mine threat. We could break down the helicopters, put them in a C-5 and then reassemble them anywhere in the world in 72 hours. After 9/11, for Operation Iraqi Freedom, we did deploy by C-5. We took half the helicopters to Sicily and the other half went to Bahrain and took 11 C-5s in order to move a squadron that size into those two locations, so big footprints, lots of money, lots of parts.

Q: How fast could the Sea Dragons fly?

A: The 53 is a fast helicopter. One of the fastest out there. We were limited to 150 knots for airframe preservation. Under towing conditions, we typically flew between 18 and 25 knots, depending on the device in the water.  Each vehicle had different performance parameters to properly deploy the device. Under rapidly changing conditions we always had to maintain proper speed and altitude control. 

Q: The Sea Dragon has experienced a notoriously high rate of mishaps. Did that ever concern you? What do you think contributed to this record?

A: It did. If you’ve ever seen one or been on one, been close to one, or heard one, you’ve got 100-foot long machine with millions of moving parts, right? 

Our maintenance crews were very good, I always felt safe flying. I think you have to if you choose to fly that particular weapon system, but there were a lot of accidents. And I knew folks that were killed in MH-53 accidents who I went to flight school with, and buddies.

Maintaining MH-53E’s

It’s a very complicated machine that did a very important mission, and accidents do happen, both mechanically, but also because of pilot error. In combination, you end up losing a lot of airframes. Besides the United States, there is only one other nation that flew that airframe, and that was the Japanese for their mine sweeping operation. It’s a very complicated, expensive machine, and that’s why not very many people flew it.

Q: Did the danger concern you?

A: You know, you’re in your 20s, right? So you feel a little bit invincible. I’ll tell you a story. When I switched from 53s and started flying C-130s, after the Haitian earthquake, I flew into Guantanamo Bay, and my old squadron was there on the same ramp as we were. So I walked over to see who I still knew there, and they had a 53 turning on the deck there, and I was just going, ‘wow, I couldn’t believe I used to do that,’ and not thinking about how many things have to go right in order to have a good day. And I just kind of said to myself, ‘it’s really a young person’s game,’ because you gotta kind of hit the ‘I believe’ button on a lot of things, because there’s just a lot of opportunity for negativity to come in. Weather, environment, and then the mechanics of things.

Q: What were the biggest factors contributing to the Sea Dragon mishaps?

A: With any aircraft system, the largest factor that contributes to any accident is the human factor. Yes, engines will fail, components will fail, but a lot of times it was human error that caused the ultimate catastrophe because when an emergency happens, you have three criteria in order to gauge when you should land.

The two critical ones are ‘land immediately,’ meaning if you do not ditch in the water or put the aircraft down, it is going to come apart in flight. The other critical criteria is ‘land as soon as possible,’ meaning as soon as you have a safe place to land, then you land as soon as possible. Then you have another condition where you can continue to fly, but flying is not recommended. And so that decision factor between land immediately and land as soon as possible, it’s a bit of a gray area, right? You have a set of skills you can fly, but you can never time when the aircraft is going to come apart.

Navy ‘Sea Dragon’ Helicopter Unsafe For Flight | NBC Nightly News

For example, in the Corpus Christi crash, they knew that they had a problem. I’m not second-guessing the pilot, but it was in that gray area between land immediately and land as soon as possible.

The aircraft commander chose to try to bring the aircraft closer to the beach, so you could survive a ditch, because putting a helicopter in the water – nothing is guaranteed, right? Then you have no control. However, bring it closer to the beach means you’re flying that much longer. So land immediately, there could have been more survivors.

Not to ‘Monday morning quarterback’ anything. I probably would have made the same call. And then with the new equipment that was put on the aircraft, there are lights now placed in a monitoring system that kind of took the gray area out of those decisions when it came to thermal runaway with the main rotor head. So now the decision is clear. Land immediately if certain indications happen, and land as soon as possible if certain indications happen. Prior to 2000, we didn’t have that.

Q: The Sea Dragon community has been well-documented for being neglected by the Navy. What was your experience when you were flying it? Why do you think that was?

A: It’s a unique mission set. It kind of came online during the Vietnam War and Haiphong Harbor, and clearing those mines, and then again in Desert Storm, when the USS Tripoli was hit by a mine.

Mining sea straits is a very cheap way to stop a huge navy, such as the one that we have in the United States. However, the Navy, in my opinion, didn’t necessarily see the value in that mission. There are very limited resources. There’s only so much money to go around, and large strike groups and ships just took priority. We were always probably a little bit underfunded, in my opinion, for a mission that’s important, which you can see today with the Strait of Hormuz. But it was definitely a huge problem that many people did not talk about during the first two Gulf Wars.

Q: Why was it a huge problem?

A: Well, when you try to move a carrier strike group into a small area like the Persian Gulf, by putting mines in the water, you create doubt in a captain’s head. The captain is responsible for thousands and thousands of lives, and the battle group commander is responsible for thousands and thousands of more lives, plus the strategic reason of why they’re there. If a mine is discovered, then everything has to pause. You can’t land Marines on the beach, you can’t move the strike group closer to the shore. The ability for you to project power ashore, all that kind of comes to an end. 

Q: How does the MH-53E go about this unique mission set? Can you walk us through what a mission would look like from start to finish? 

A: Depending on the intel, you’ll have a threat and the threat could be you suspect that there’s mines in the water, or that you know that there’s mines in the water. So, typically it’s ‘you suspect,’ right? And we used the AN/AQS-14, or “Q-14.” There’s about three different versions of the Q-14. It’s a side-looking sonar, which you drag in the water – we call it the fish. We would fly the fish at certain depths based on the terrain and what was in the water. That was called mine hunting. 

So initially you would always kind of begin with a hunting mission, where we could, or the OS operator, or the console operator would mark what they view as a mine-like contact. You’re really kind of looking at the sonar and distinguishing between man-made objects and natural objects. If you believe it’s a man-made object, and then you would mark a tape. You could also, real time, send that image back to the ship, but that capability came a little bit later.

We also had devices that allow you to sweep. A mine can be triggered by different mechanisms. Sometimes they’re triggered by contact.

Some mines are acoustically triggered, meaning you can set that mine to blow up for a certain type of ship acoustics. For instance, a destroyer has a different set of acoustics from an amphibious ship, from an aircraft carrier. If you want to let 1,000 destroyers pass you or a submarine and then wait for the aircraft carrier, you can tune it to that way. So we had devices that could mimic the sound signatures of different ships, and you could tow that in the water, you could tow it really fast. One of the reasons why we were successful is that we could do large areas of the ocean relatively quickly. 

The last piece for sweeping is the magnetic variation. Each ship is a metal hull, and as a ship is moving through the water, it has a magnetic signature, and then we have gear, which you could tune to mimic certain types of ships in the water, in order to have them explode behind the gear that we’re towing in the water.

So you hunt, that means you’re searching, and then you sweep, and then that means you’re clearing. Sometimes you can clear using other technology, such as sometimes the Avenger class ships would go in and sweep, and not us. Sometimes you would use dolphins to work with EOD teams in order to sweep mines. It just depends upon the threat, on what the second tool is used after you hunt.

Navy Dolphins Practice In Key West How To Find Mines In The Ocean

The most time that I spent was in the hunting phase of the mission set. In Bahrain, every week, a couple days a week, we would hunt. We would do the Strait of Hormuz. We would do the approaches into Saudi Arabia for the tankers. We would do the approaches into the Suez Canal, just to be sure that there are still no mines in that area.

That is for what we call change detection, meaning you map the ocean floor, and then over time, because of consistency, you’ll be able to tell if something changed. If something changed, then you went in to investigate further. It’s constant because the ocean floor is constantly moving, and then somebody could easily place a very cheap object that could be devastating.

Q: Walk me through how a mission would take place.

A: The intel can be good sometimes, sometimes the intel is lacking. The weather has to be at a certain sea state in order for it to be successful, and you can’t do it at night, right? You have to do it during a daytime in littoral situation, so you’re pretty close to shore and you are susceptible to threats that are on the beach. That is the mission set and if you don’t know where the mines are, that’s why you begin with hunting. The Q-14 is a relatively quick device to deploy. You can pull it in the water relatively fast. Then you can real-time send images back, or you can collect tapes to study for that change detection.

When you’re going out for a mission, you’ll have your standard aircraft brief, where the crews get together and talk about the state of the aircraft, the conditions, the environmental conditions of today. And then you’ll get into the mission brief on where the ship is, or where the shore is, and where actually the square, or the box, or the rectangle is, where we’re going to conduct a mission. We talk about the distances from that point that we’re going to deploy the gear, because it takes time to be able to do that, and then we’ll enter what we suspect is a minefield or an area of interest from which we want to be able to tow in.

Minesweeper Exercise

Then we fly what we call tracks. It’s almost like rows on a field, like cornrows, and we go up, down, up, down, and you have to stay within track by feet, okay? If you, if you stray as little as 20 feet off track, then you have to redo that track, because you want to have a continuous picture of the ground. And so it may take two or three sorties to cover an entire minefield.

And then times where the device may have strayed off track. It takes time, but we can do it quicker than a ship doing it on its own, like the Avenger class ship, and so between the aircraft brief and the mission brief, and executing, it’s like a six, seven hour day in the heat or in the cold, depending on where you are.

This is the Navy’s Largest Helicopter | MH-53 Sea Dragon

There’s no air condition on that helicopter. So everybody’s working in those conditions based on the information that we bring back. Then the tactics folks that are supplied to us by COMINEWARCOM  (Commander, Mine Warfare Command), which was our bosses, those intel folks will say what needs to happen next, meaning there’s nothing that needs to happen now, or we need to investigate this further. And then they pick the next tool for us to be able to deploy, or they go with the EOD and dive teams to go take a closer look.

Q: How fast are you flying, and how high are you flying? How deep do the sleds go?

A: The helicopters are anywhere between 25 and 75 feet over the water, depending on the gear, because the speed in which we pull through the water is extremely important. You could go as fast as 25 knots in some cases, which is about the top speed, or you’d have to go as slow as 12 knots.

Mine Countermeasures Unit Drops a Slocum Glider from a MH-53E Sea Dragon

Q: How deep do the sleds go?

A: The depth of some of the gear is classified, or at least it was at my time. I’m not sure now, but you could go relatively deep. It’s under lots and lots and lots of tension, and the reason why you had to go very deep is that some gear has to be able to get to the sea floor at certain distances, because there’s also the subsurface fleet that is operating down there, and mines will affect them as well.

Q: What’s the tension like when you’re dragging a sled?

A: You’re looking at around 15,000 to 20,000 pounds of tension. The aircraft will kind of buckle. You look at the side of a 53, it has a crease from the tension that goes on it.

If there is a swell in the sea state, sometimes the Doppler radar – which would kind of track how fast you’re going forward, backwards, or sideways – it’ll go from forward to negative, meaning we’re actually getting pulled backwards by the sea state. And the engines would automatically just start – the torque would come in as the blade did a bigger bite out of the air. And the aircraft will kind of turn, because of the torque. It’ll kind of turn and whine, and you’re just flying an out of balance flight, nose down.

Q: Did you ever have the sled get tangled up behind you?

A: Yes. It can get caught on things in the water, and the tension will spike. If the tension spikes too high, or the gear gets fouled in something, you always have the option to guillotine or cut the gear.

Q: Did the aircraft have other devices that helped in the mine hunting mission?  

A: Yes. In addition to the Q-14, we had the Mk 104 acoustic device, mine chain cutting devices and the Mk 105, a huge gas generator, which produces electrical charges in the water for those magnetic-seeking mines that change the magnetic variation.

HM-15 Sailors Recover Mk 104

There’s at least six devices that I know of that are used for hunting mines, including something as simple as what we call a MOP, which is stands for Magnetic Orange Pipe, which is what they used in Vietnam.

Essentially you have this pipe, it looks like a telephone pole, which is about the size of a telephone pole or larger, and it’s orange. It has a positive charge on one end and negative on the other end. It’s just a magnetic pipe that we would tow in the water. It’s probably the easiest thing that you can tow, and the simplest, but it’s looking for those magnetic variations. The problem with the magnetic orange pipe is you can’t change it, so it’s set for a certain amount of tactics. You can see how that could become obsolete in today’s environment.

Q: How does the Sea Dragon integrate with other mine hunting capabilities, like the Avenger class ships or other assets?

A: We worked as a team, but obviously we’re a tool in that larger mine warfare strategy. We were the speed aspect of that, meaning we could have left holes, but if you’re trying to move at the speed of war, then sometimes we were the tool that was required. And if you have 72 hours to be somewhere, speed is required. We could do that to be sure that the fleet can continue to do what it needs to do, but if you’ve got time, then you could sail a ship or move one of those slower small boats into that environment, that makes sense.

Q: Did you ever work together with Avenger class ships?

A: Maybe in the same AOR, but other than an exercise where you would see an Avenger class ship working the tow area, and then we will be working our tow area. It was under controlled condition. When I was doing change detection, and during work conditions, we were operating concentrated on our mission set, they’re probably concentrating on their mission set, and between the two pictures, they came together in the operation center to have a very clear picture.

Q: When was the Sea Dragon actually used for this mission operationally? How did it perform?

A: It was used throughout Iraqi Freedom, from Shock and Awe to the pull-out to the drawdown. If not every day, every week there was change detection in mine operations, because it’s always a threat. It’s a very cheap weapon that non-state actors can get off the black market. One mistake or one mishap causes devastating consequences for the individuals on that ship, but also the mission, so it’s a constant threat, and still is a threat. 

During my time, actively hunting for mines to be sure that those straits and those approaches remain clear, dominated my entire career in the community. From the time I started  and then I towed to my last days in the squadron, which was in 2005.

Q: How did the Sea Dragon perform?

A: I would say, since there was not a mishap, it performed as designed. It doesn’t mean that the mines were not there. During Iraqi Freedom, mines were put in the water, but we didn’t have the mishaps like we had before that I can recall. So I would say it was a success.

Q: Any close calls during any of your sled-towing flights? 

A: I got disoriented one time with vertigo. Like I mentioned earlier, you’re on an out-of-balanced flight, so your ears are doing one thing, your eyes are doing another thing, and sometimes there’s low fog over the water early in the morning. Under tow there was a time where I got vertigo and put the aircraft in an undesired state, but there’s two pilots. I recognized it and told the aircraft commander ‘I’ve got vertigo.’ He took the control and saved it. Being that close to the ground, getting vertigo could have devastating effects, right? We just ended up releasing the gear that day.

Q: How do the big rearview mirrors help with towing?

A: Mirrors are super important for situational awareness when lowering the equipment into the water and for ensuring the tow cable is staying on track. The co-pilot is crucial while under tow because they are responsible for making sure the aircraft remains clear of obstacles and threats. The pilot flying will be head-down monitoring performance of the helicopter and the gear deployed. The pilot flying will maintain navigation in the minefield and overall safety. When flying, looking out of the windows was a brief luxury. 

Q: Tell me about the time you encountered a surfacing sub while dragging your sled.

A: It was sometime in 2003 or 2004. We were flying over the Strait of Hormuz, towing a side-looking sonar to do bottom mapping. I’ve got a very loud helicopter in the air and a sonar that’s pinging on the bottom, so it probably was not a surprise where we were to the submarine, but their location was a surprise to us.

It’s a bright sunny day. The water looked beautiful, and we’re just doing a random tow. And all of a sudden, this big black submarine surfaced right in front of us. Just popped out of the water, and right in line with our track.

I think I was maybe 50 feet over the water and the gear is behind me. Now I have to turn like a semi truck, having to turn myself and the gear all at the same time to maneuver around the submarine. I said something like ‘holy shit’ and I remember I banked to the right because I think it was the easiest thing to do. There’s more space.

We ended up able to clear the sub, but it had a startling effect. So either they were in the wrong spot or we were in the wrong spot, I couldn’t tell you. But no one came and knocked on the door, saying that I did something wrong. So I’m gonna leave it as if they were in the wrong spot.

Q: What was it like aerial refueling such a monstrous helicopter and did you use it operationally often?

A: Very intimidating at first. However, it is all about training. Yes, you are very close to the other airplane, but that is not your focus. Your focus is on check points. Align your check points and the aircraft will plug. Once you connect and position the aircraft above the wing and propeller wash, the ride is smooth. When I switched over the flying C-130s, it would have been nice to go full circle, but never got the chance to give fuel.

We almost did aerial refueling during a possible mission scenario, but the plan was scaled back and we ended ship hopping. I only used the boom in training. I’m sure it happened, but didn’t know anyone who did it. They were there for a reason, and we trained for it.

Q: What’s the operational situation regarding Iran at the time you were flying?

A: Annoying. They have a lot of islands that are in the Persian Gulf that are their territory, and sometimes during operations, when you’re either delivering cargo or going to field a tow, it puts you in close proximity with those islands. At the same time, if it’s necessary, you could have your own boat team in the water as well. It was post-Cole [a reference to the October 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole just a few years earlier by explosive-laden suicide boats at the port of Aden in Yemen. The blast ripped a 40-foot-wide hole near the destroyer’s waterline, killing 17 U.S. sailors and injuring nearly 40 other crew members.]

A Suicide Boat Attack Leaves the USS Cole Reeling from the Damage | Combat Ships | Smithsonian

So you have fishing boats in the water, and you don’t know who’s on that boat that is getting close to your ship. But when you got close to Iranian territory, they will speak up on the radio, and tell you to turn around, that you’re approaching their territory,. Even though you know exactly where you are, and you know exactly where this island is, they’re still going tell you are in violation of their airspace. 

Then it’s always a constant threat, right? So, if I were to have to ditch a helicopter or airplane in the water, they’ve got boats in the water. You wouldn’t want to get captured by them, where they could say you are in violation of their sovereign territory by mistake, and then it becomes an issue.

We were flying helicopters without GPS, so you’re using visual navigation maps and whatnot.  I’m sure there’s a GPS on those birds now, but at the time, I had a handheld GPS from Academy Sport, where I marked the islands myself, so I knew exactly where I was, or at least the best that I could manage with the equipment, to be sure that was in the right position. 

Q: Did they ever directly threaten you while you were on those missions?

A: No. They talked about violating their airspace, but they never intercepted or anything like that. I think that would be a huge mistake. It would not be a good day for them.

Q: Tell us about other locales where Sea Dragons operated.

A: We had detachments in South Korea for the North Korean threat from underwater mines. We did exercises in the Pacific. We did exercises with Japan because there’s a threat of mine in those straits, like the Strait of Malacca. 

There’s obviously a threat in the Pacific theater. But because of the situation with Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, I spent most of my time in the Middle East.

Q: Were there any difference between operating in the Persian Gulf area and the Pacific, or Europe?

A: A lot of the effectiveness of what we do is dependent upon water. The salinity of the water, the sea state, the amount of garbage and trash that’s in the water. So those environmental threats change the tactics. That’s why you need to practice out there.

In terms of the purpose of the mission, that does not change, but how you go about it does change. If you’re closer to a near-peer actor, it’s going to require better intelligence, different types of equipment in order to counteract the threat. I would say the Iraqi Navy was not near-peer in terms of mine tactics, but the Chinese could probably be very different in terms of mine tactics. They would be a more sophisticated enemy in this case, which would heighten everything.

Q: Did the Iraqi Navy or the Iraqis present a threat to your aircraft? Did they harass you, fire at you?

A: No, not during my time. I think maybe possibly during the first Gulf War. The threat was that there, it was always a threat when you’re operating close. So yes, something could have happened. They’ve got boats, they’ve got men in the water.

Q: What are your thoughts about the current MCM missions taking place now in the Middle East? Just how hard is it to clear an area of mines like the Strait of Hormuz?

A: I would say that it is difficult. All mine clearing operations are difficult because you’re talking about the needle in the haystack. Like literally, and you know they’re deploying something that can be hoisted by one person and thrown overboard into the water or by a machine, and you can deploy a lot of mines in a very short time in a concentrated, tactical way, or randomly. It really doesn’t matter, it’s still a threat. 

I would say it is difficult because people talk about how narrow and small the Strait of Hormuz is, but you have to remember the earth is large, and there is just a sheer volume of water, and square miles or square kilometers on which something can happen.

It is a very daunting task, and so having more MH-53E helicopters probably wasn’t the solution for the future.

From reading, and then from hearing from my peers that are still in, the tactics are different, but also the equipment that they use to detect this threat is also different. It is faster. It is unmanned. You can deploy more assets quicker because you’re not relying upon one machine or two machines at one time being deployed.

What kind of sea mines is Iran using in Strait of Hormuz?

Q: What equipment are they using now? What are the differences?

A: I retired in 2017 and it has changed dramatically. For one, it is more integrated into the fleet, so you’ll have multi-mission capabilities, meaning an MH-60Ss can be used for different sets of missions, from delivering cargo, to deploying different sensor arrays. You have AI for detection assistance. You have side-looking sonar, which instead of being towed are now on underwater unmanned vehicles. So I think more of what you’re looking at now is a mission package of sensors that can be deployed.

When you have sensor sets, it’s integrated into the larger Navy strategic picture better. I think that that was lacking in the past in a way, because you have to cover such a large volume of area, you need more sensors and eyes to be able to do that, and I think that’s the strategy today.

Q: Do you talk to any of the current pilots/crews of the last squadron flying them? What do they say about the current status of the fleet? Are they involved in the mine clearing operation in the Strait?  

A: So I talked with folks, there’s still some folks that are still active duty. Some of them have transitioned out of the 53 pilot-wise and have transitioned into the MH-60S community and so they are deploying those tactics and new systems.

I would say it is probably still a neglected community in their opinion. Everybody’s fighting for resources, but I think when you’re talking about the current situation with Iran in the straight, there’s always a time where mine countermeasures become a very hot topic, because people do forget about it. 

Q: Are the MH-53Es still performing airborne counter-mine missions?

A: I’m not sure. 

Q: What other missions does the MH-53 community perform? Can you talk about your experience with those and what they entail?

A: When you have that much capability, you move a lot of things. And so we did a lot of moving cargo. I could move an F-14 Tomcat engine with the afterburner completely attached. I could move it at 150 knots from shore to ship internally, so I didn’t have to sling it underneath the aircraft in a pod. I can have the engine assembled together and be able to move it. So we moved things that the C-2 Greyhound couldn’t.

The primary mission was mines, the secondary cargo and people. We would do people movement, if a better ride wasn’t available to move an admiral or someone for an important meeting, then we would do so. Obviously, you know, it’s a very dirty ride.

Q: What admirals did you move?

A:  I can’t remember the admirals, because they kind of all blend together, but we did move fun people. We did Tiger Woods for all the USO engagements. Blink 182. We did Tom Jones, Robin Williams, a number of NASCAR folks and other celebrities. We did a lot of that.

Q: What was Robin Williams like?

A:  Funny. He was on from the time that we picked him up in Bahrain, and then giving him the brief. He liked talking with sailors and making jokes. Tom Jones was memorable because he’s got the hair right, and he didn’t want to wear a cranial or helmet on his head to mess up his hair before he did the show, and so that became a thing. But you know, the hair won out. The hair was not going to get covered by the helmet.

Q: What will the Navy miss when that last squadron is finally retired next year and there are no more Sea Dragons flying? Can the MH-60S handle the job?

A:  With the Greyhounds going away, I think even with the CMV-22, which is a very capable aircraft, a very fast aircraft, but in terms of lift capacity internally, there’s something to that. If it’s outsized or weirdly shaped or is on wheels, the MH-53E is your catch-all aircraft. The Navy will miss that and the large numbers of people that we can move.

During the start Operation Iraqi Freedom, when I was in Sigonella we spent four days offloading the Marine Corps battalion landing team from the Iwo Jima on to Souda Bay for them to be flown into the northern part of Iraq. With those two helicopters and in one helicopter with Helicopter Detachment 4, we moved hundreds and hundreds of Marines from a ship to the shore for them to be staged in order to be moved into Iraq in a matter of days. I don’t think that same amount of capability in terms of volume of moving at that speed can be done with what’s available today. So I think they’re going to miss the kind of the ad hoc nature of having a big aircraft to move odd things. It’s good to be a generalist sometimes.

Q: What about the mine countermeasures mission? Is there anything that the Navy will miss from the capabilities of the 53 from that standpoint?

A: I can’t speak on it with the new equipment, because I’ve never operated it, but I think what the Navy won’t miss is the price tag, and maybe the lack of full mission capability. We operated a lot of times in that partial mission capability, because of the complexity of the equipment and the machine, and then you have to get the equipment and the machine to work together, the machine being the helicopter. I don’t think the Navy will miss that part of it.

Q: Can the MH-60 do the job?

A: They can do the job, but they don’t conduct it the same way we did. They can’t pull big sleds like we did for underwater sonars because of power and tension. And you can’t send as many crew members in the back in order to make that mission successful. But the 60 is a very capable platform in order to conduct the mission the way they do it now.

Q: What’s the difference between what they do and what you did?

A: They’re deploying sensor arrays and underwater vehicles from the thing, so they have standoff distance. They’re capable of not putting the helicopter in the same proximity to danger. They can’t put a Mk 105 in the water, but they don’t need to, because they have other types of technology to do it. 

Q: What was your most fear-inducing flight in the Sea Dragon?

A: For me, I was on the sea wall in Corpus Christi, Texas, about to do a towing training mission off the coast of Texas. In the 53 you have three engines, and then you have an auxiliary power unit – another gas turbine that’s above the cockpit.

The purpose of the auxiliary power unit is to run the hydraulics and various components and accessories when the engines and the rotor head aren’t turning. The idea is, once you get the engines going and the main rotor is turning, there is a shaft that goes from the main gear box into that auxiliary power unit, where all your generators and hydraulic systems are run. So we had the engines running, we were on the sea wall – we had a hanger, and then we had an apron, and right there was the Corpus Christi Bay.

I was taxiing out to take off from the helipad, and you’re over the water as soon as you take off from the sea wall. Well, that shaft sheared while I was taxiing up. I have to push the cyclic (the stick) forward in order to tip the rotor head forward to pull me along the ground. If you lose hydraulics in a 53 there is no amount of strength that you or the other copilot has to help to change the path of that helicopter. 

When the shaft broke, it meant whatever condition that rotor head was in, it was not going to move, and that rotor head was in position for me to be able to take off, but I did not have enough power in order for me to lift off. Even if I lifted off, I probably would have just careened into the water. 

So we were going in a situation where I heard it pop, and then all of a sudden the controls froze, and I told the co-pilot, Ty Jurica, that I was so concentrated at that point because I could not control the aircraft. I said ‘I don’t have control, I cannot move the controls.’ But Ty’s quick thinking noted that he could get the hydraulic power unit started again, which it takes time to spool up, but he was able to hit the start on the APU, and we managed to spool up to get hydraulics back, and as soon as the pressure came on at 3000 psi, I was able to move the controls again.

We stopped the aircraft where we were, and we shut it down at that particular time, but in a few seconds, maybe, we probably just would have taxiied off over the sea wall, and into a very bad situation.

Q: What was your best memory of a mission you flew, or a moment during one of your missions in your time in the Sea Dragons? Put us in your shoes of what that was like.

A: Oh man, my best day there? There were a lot of good days. A lot of times, we would fly in formation – two ships going out to whether it was an aircraft carrier or whatever – and we would take off before sunrise. When you’re flying in formation low over the water, and the sun is coming up over the Persian Gulf, those are those are great days. Because everything is working. You have two planes actually going to conduct the mission and not training. I don’t care who you are, it’s always a lot of fun. 

You’re going relatively fast. I mean, we’re not Hornets or whatever, but we were low and fast at that time for us, and we thought we were pretty cool.

You couldn’t touch us on those days.

Author’s note: we added three additional sets of questions and answers to this story. We asked Jones about how fast the Sea Dragons could fly, how helpful the big rearview mirrors were when pulling a sled and what it was like conducting aerial refueling in the giant helicopter.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Saurara a: Apple Podcast | Spotify | RSS

Lokacin Ramadan ne, kuma Bintu Suleiman, wata uwa kuma ‘yar kasuwa mai shekaru 55 daga Ngoshe a Jihar Borno, Arewa maso Gabashin Najeriya, tana shirin buɗe baki tare da iyalanta.

Sai harbe-harbe ya fara, kuma cikin awa guda gidanta ya kama da wuta. Yayin da ‘yan ta’adda ke tattara mutane, ta samu damar tserewa tare da wasu daga cikin ‘ya’yanta da jikokinta zuwa cikin daji. Daga baya, ta gane cewa mutum huɗu daga cikinsu ba su tsere tare da ita ba. Suna wani wuri a cikin duwatsu.

A wannan shirin na #BIRBISHINRIKICI, mun ga yadda bayan harin, Bintu, wadda yanzu ta rasa matsuguninta, ke samun mafaka a wata makarantar firamare ta gwamnati a Pulka, yayin da har yanzu ba ta san halin da ‘ya’yanta da jikokinta suke ciki ba.

Mai Gabatarwa: Rukayya Saeed

Marubuciya: Sabiqah Bello

Muryoyin Shiri: Sabiqah Bello

Fassara: Rukayya Saeed

Edita: Aliyu Dahiru

Furodusa: Mu’azu Muhammad

Babban Furodusa: Anthony Asemota

Babban Mashiryi: Ahmad Salkida

Africa’s performance at World Cups peaked at Qatar 2022 when Morocco became the first side from the continent to reach the semifinal stage.

Even their quarterfinal appearance was noteworthy – the Atlas Lions were only the fourth African nation to get there.

Although Cameroon, Senegal and Ghana are the three other African teams to reach the quarterfinals, North Africa has dominated the continent’s success overall at the World Cup and at the Africa Cup of Nations.

Egypt are the record seven-time winners of AFCON, while three of the top five African qualifiers for World Cup finals are Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria.

Al Jazeera breaks down the chances of the sub-Saharan nations looking to outshine their neighbours from the north at the tournament which kicks off on June 11:

SENEGAL

World Cup Appearances: Four – 2002, 2018, 2022 and 2026
Best finish: Quarterfinals
Overall record: P12 W5 D3 L4 F16 A17
FIFA ranking: 14
Prediction: Eliminated at quarterfinal stage

Senegal head to World Cup 2026 with a burning sense of injustice firing their campaign. The Lions of Teranga were stripped of the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) title by the Confederation of African Football (CAF), which decided the mid-game walk-off by the Senegalese players and staff voided January’s final – which was later awarded to Morocco, along with the trophy, as a 3-0 win.

In 2002, Senegal upset the odds and reached the ⁠quarter-finals in their World Cup debut at the tournament co-hosted by Japan and South Korea.

More than two decades later, expectations are running high – perhaps carrying the greatest expectation on all African teams, including Morocco.

The depth of the 26-man squad is seen as their greatest strength over continental neighbours, but their star power is also envied by rivals.

Sadio Mane remains the country’s greatest export. Although midfield kingpin Pape Gueye, goalkeeper Edouard Mendy and captain Kalidou Koulibaly would grace almost any side at the tournament.

All three are French-born and another shot at the two-time winners of the competition is in their sights.

A 1-0 win against then defending champions France at the 2002 edition announced Senegal as a rising footballing powerhouse. Their first Group ⁠I encounter this time around is against Didier Deschamps side in New York on June 16.

“It’s always a pleasure to play against France. It’s a country we know well,” said Senegal coach Pape Bouna Thiaw, who moved to France aged 17.

“If I lose even a second of my belief that I can win the World Cup with Senegal, I will step down,” he added.

Senegal’s group is completed by Iraq and Norway.

GHANA

World Cup Appearances: Five – 2006, 2010, 2014, 2022 and 2026
Best finish: Quarterfinals
Overall record: P15 W5 D3 L7 F18 A23
FIFA ranking: 74
Prediction: Eliminated at quarterfinal stage

Ghana have only missed one World Cup since their 2006 debut.

Four years after their global bow they became the third African side to reach the quarterfinal stage at Germany 2010.

Their run-up to this tournament has not been smooth, with a late change of coach as veteran Portuguese Carlos ⁠Queiroz replaced Otto Addo following a run of poor results.

The German-born former Ghana international led his nation at Qatar 2022, but the ⁠failure to qualify for the last AFCON and comprehensive losses in their four high-profile games in November and March saw him fired in early April.

It will be a fifth successive World Cup for the 73-year-old Queiroz, whose past African experience has been with South Africa and Egypt, and who managed Real Madrid, and was Alex Ferguson’s right-hand man at Manchester United.

Group L, against Panama, England and Croatia, appears to be the ‘group of death’ in the opening stage of the competition, but with Manchester City’s Antoine Semenyo leading a strong attack, Ghana will fully expect to progress.

“I think that this country has a huge, enormous potential. This is a country of footballers,” Queiroz said.

The Black Stars will, however, be without the injured Tottenham forward Mohammed Kudus, who has become the team’s talisman and key factor in their last two successful qualifying campaigns.

IVORY COAST

World Cup Appearances: Four – 2006, 2010, 2014 and 2026
Best finish: Group Stage
Overall record: P9 W3 D1 L5 F13 A14
FIFA ranking: 34
Prediction: Eliminated at quarterfinal stage

The Ivory Coast return to the global stage after a 12-year absence – one that was hard-felt following the retirement of some of their greatest players in Yaya Toure and Didier Drogba.

It has been a long rebuild for the Ivorians, but they have won two AFCON titles since their last World Cup appearance.

Their youthful attack led by teenager attacker Yan Diomande, alongside Simon Adingra and Amad Diallo of ⁠Manchester United, will be key to their chances.

When hosting AFCON two years ago, Ivory Coast were nearly eliminated in the group stage, but they promoted Emerse Fae from assistant manager for their final game of the opening phase and went on to win the title.

“I believe Ivory Coast has the potential to achieve something exceptional – why not aim for the final?” Fae said ahead of the tournament, that will begin with matches against Curacao, Ecuador and former world champions Germany.

CAPE VERDE

World Cup Appearances: One – 2026
Best finish: NA
Overall record: NA
FIFA ranking: 69
Prediction: Eliminated at group stage

One of the debutants, Cape Verde – with a population of about ⁠600,000 – is the third ⁠smallest nation to qualify in the tournament’s long history.

They only debuted at AFCON in 2013, but did go on to reach the quarterfinals – a feat repeated in 2023.

The task before them now – which will be led by their diaspora of players in the main – is daunting, with Uruguay, Saudi Arabia and European champions Spain, lying in wait in the group stage.

“We’ve always been aware of our talent but ‌we haven’t always believed that it could take us much further than we had achieved up to that point,” said manager Bubista, named African Coach of the Year in 2025.

“Therefore, it took courage to face any opponent. The first step in our success was truly believing in our potential. In other words, we changed the players’ mindset.”

SOUTH AFRICA

World Cup Appearances: Four – 1998, 2002, 2010 and 2026
Best finish: Group stage
Overall record: P9 W2 D4 L3 F11 A16
FIFA ranking: 60
Prediction: Eliminated at round of 32 stage

After a burgeoning beginning to their return to the international fold, with qualification for the 1998 World Cup, South Africa’s fortunes have taken a downtown in the last 16 years.

A first appearance in the finals since 2010 feels long overdue for a nation hoping to reap the rewards of strong domestic growth as they head to North America.

South African ‌club Mamelodi Sundowns are the newly crowned African Champions League winners and eight of their players are in Bafana Bafana’s squad. There are also ⁠eight players from Orlando Pirates – the domestic league champions, who pipped Sundowns to the title by a point.

“We can say that we have players of the best teams of the season. Those guys have much experience at a high level,” South Africa’s Belgian-born coach Hugo Broos said of his 26-man selection.

“I’m certainly happy that Sundowns won the Champions League, because I was afraid that if they should lose, I would get players who would be very ⁠disappointed. So now they all have that boost of confidence, and that ⁠helps a lot.”

South Africa are in the other so-called ‘group of death’ as they take on Czech Republic, South Korea and co-hosts Mexico, who they face in the opening game of the tournament

DR CONGO

World Cup Appearances: Two – 1974 and 2026
Best finish: Group stage
Overall record: P3 W0 D0 L3 F0 A14
FIFA ranking: 46
Prediction: Eliminated at quarterfinal stage

DRC’s only previous appearance was when it was still known as Zaire, competing at the 1974 finals in West ⁠Germany – the first African side from south of the Sahara to go to the World Cup.

As reigning continental champions, their 9-0 thumping by Yugoslavia did little to raise the flag for Africa at the time.

Much has changed since then for the continent and in its second-largest country. The Congolese players will arrive in North America with a FIFA ranking that outstrips three of the other five sub-Saharan qualifiers.

It did take two playoffs to reach this edition – the African legs saw the Congolese eliminate Cameroon and Nigeria, before edging Jamaica in extra time in their intercontinental playoff

Most of the squad are European-born, either in Belgium, France or Switzerland, plus the London-born Aaron Wan-Bissaka, previously called up by England but who missed out on a cap through injury.

“We ‌are ‌extremely proud because a whole generation hasn’t been able to see its national team in the World Cup but now they will see them there,” said their French coach, Sebastien Desabre.

Pro-Palestine activists interrupted an army recruitment event during German Armed Forces Day. They climbed onto a tank and unfurled a banner reading ‘Genocide with German weapons’ and named Rheinmetall, a key arms supplier to Israel’s military.

Read more