NEWS

Even before the first naira changes hands or the first customer calls, Musa Lekki reaches for his phone. It is 5:32 a.m. on a Tuesday, and like many smartphone users, he begins his day with a glance at his phone screen. The 42-year-old provisions trader lives in Yola, northeastern Nigeria, and runs a small wholesale business supplying neighbouring shops and customers with rice, beverages, and household goods. 

As he unlocks his phone, there is already work waiting for him. A supplier has sent a voice note. A customer wants to confirm a payment. Another customer has placed an order. Before he has even left his bed, Musa is responding to messages and preparing for the business day ahead.

What appears to be a routine start to the morning is also a series of digital interactions. Within minutes of waking up, Musa has engaged with systems that recognise his phone number, device information, account credentials, and network location.

Each interaction leaves a data trail. A phone call generates telecommunications records. A bank transfer creates transaction logs. A utility payment produces another digital entry. Individually, these fragments may seem insignificant. Together, they form an increasingly detailed portrait of everyday life, which is increasingly mediated and supported by Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) rails, a set of foundational digital systems that form the backbone of modern societies, enabling secure and seamless interactions between people, businesses, and governments. 

Musa does not think about any of this. Most mobile phone and internet users do not. 

“During the day, I use my phone for transfers, calls, and ordering goods, and by night I check my account balance before closing for the day,” he said.

As Nigeria expands its digital identity and payment systems, everyday activities such as making calls, sending money, paying bills, and accessing services are becoming increasingly dependent on interconnected digital infrastructure. Musa’s daily routine shows how Digital Public Infrastructure is reshaping daily life, expanding access to services while also raising questions about privacy, transparency and accountability.

What Musa sees is a phone. What he does not see is an invisible infrastructure that increasingly determines who can communicate, who can make payments, who can access services, and who can participate fully in modern economic life. By the time he goes to bed, several institutions will have processed fragments of his personal information. Many of those interactions will happen without him ever knowing.

This is how millions of Nigerian residents increasingly navigate life as data points within systems they rarely see.

The identity that travels ahead

At 6:45 a.m., Musa calls a supplier in Kano. The conversation lasts less than three minutes. It is a routine business call, yet that call depends on a national identity system. In 2020, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) directed all mobile network operators to link users’ Subscriber Identification Module (SIM) cards to their National Identification Number (NINs) and to bar those who did not comply. Musa’s line was among those affected. 

“There was a time my SIM was restricted because of an issue with my NIN linkage,” he recalled. “I couldn’t make calls for some days and also lost customers, until I sorted it out.”

The experience taught him something many Nigerians have learned: The ability to make a phone call increasingly depends on proving who you are. Identity is one of the key layers of a DPI. In Nigeria, the NIN is the foundational identity document, managed by the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC).

As of December 2025, the NIMC reported more than 127 million NIN enrolments nationwide, making it one of Africa’s largest digital identity databases, while over 172.67 million SIM cards had been linked to NINs. 

Nunaya David, a senior enrolment officer at the NIMC, Yola, said, “NIN is increasingly required for banking, telecommunications, social programmes, and several government services.” Identity is no longer simply something Nigerians carry in a wallet; it is increasingly verified continuously in the background.

The money moves, the data moves too

Shortly after 7 a.m., Musa pays ₦45,000 to a supplier. The transfer takes less than a minute. Money leaves one account and appears in another. With a few taps, Musa has interacted with another stack of the DPI: the payment layer. Behind that transaction, the payment infrastructure operated by banks, fintechs, and the Nigeria Interbank Settlement System (NIBSS) performs multiple checks.

“Once a transfer is initiated, the request passes through several systems before reaching the recipient,” Hakeem Abdulkareem, a tech specialist with NIBSS, explained. “These systems communicate with one another to confirm and complete the transaction.”

Identity verification, fraud screening, account authentication and transaction routing all happen in the background. Most of it occurs within seconds. The customer sees only a debit alert while the infrastructure works in the background. 

According to the Central Bank of Nigeria, electronic payment channels now account for the majority of retail payment activity, with internet transfers, mobile payments and point-of-sale transactions becoming increasingly dominant. Data from NIBSS show that Nigeria recorded ₦284.99 trillion in electronic payment transactions in the first quarter of 2025, representing a 17.7 per cent year-on-year increase compared with ₦234.49 trillion recorded in the same period in 2024. This reflects how deeply electronic payments have become embedded in everyday economic activity. Each transfer generates records that move across banks, payment switches, and settlement systems, creating the digital trail that allows modern commerce to function.

A market built on digital trust

For Musa, these systems are largely invisible. What he sees are payment alerts arriving on his phone and customers walking through his door. By mid-morning, those customers have started to arrive. One of them is Aisha Bello, a 21-year-old student at Modibbo Adama University, preparing for a new academic session. Like Musa, she relies on digital systems she rarely thinks about.

Her school registration requires identity verification. Her bank account relies on Bank Verification Number (BVN). Her mobile line and BVN are all linked to her NIN. 

As she pays Musa electronically, two very different lives intersect through the same digital infrastructure. Neither sees the systems operating behind the scenes, yet both depend on them.

The same is true for Grace Ezra, a nurse at Modibbo Adama University Teaching Hospital in Yola. Like Musa and Aisha, she increasingly relies on digital systems to manage her salary payments, telecommunications services, tax records, and pension contributions.

Frank Akabueze, a digital identity expert, describes Nigeria’s journey as a gradual shift from fragmented systems to interconnected ones. “We have moved from having several disconnected identity systems toward greater integration.”

Increasingly, a person’s ability to study, work, save, communicate, and transact begins with a digital identity record. This speaks to the third layer of DPI, interoperability, the ability of different digital systems to speak to each other securely. 

The invisible checks 

Around noon, Musa buys airtime through a mobile app. Moments later, he pays an electricity bill. The transactions feel routine, but each leaves a digital footprint. Each creates records, generates data and triggers some form of verification.

Airtime purchases, utility payments, transfers and merchant payments may appear unrelated, but increasingly they travel through interconnected platforms that rely on identity verification, payment infrastructure and data exchange mechanisms working together in the background. The power of DPI lies in the ability of these systems to communicate with one another. This interoperability allows a verified identity, a payment instruction and a service request to move across different platforms within seconds.

Esther Kolo, a staff member at Opay, a leading digital financial services provider in Nigeria, explains that many customers only notice verification during registration. “Most people notice identity verification during account registration, but checks can also happen when account details are updated or when unusual transactions are detected. In many cases, these checks happen in the background.”

The reality is that verification does not end after account creation. It becomes part of daily life. The systems simply become invisible. Every interaction leaves behind another record. Those records may sit in various databases, often connected in ways users never see. By midday, Musa has become far more than a trader buying and selling goods. He is part of a growing collection of records moving across this ecosystem. 

When identity becomes the gatekeeper 

Later in the afternoon, Musa receives a call from his younger brother. He is trying to resolve a problem involving identity records required to open a bank account. 

Across Nigeria, mismatched records, incorrect dates of birth, missing details, and verification failures have become common sources of frustration. As systems become more interconnected, a discrepancy in one database can sometimes affect access to services that depend on another.

Such complaints have become familiar in identity management centres and online forums, where citizens report problems ranging from incorrect personal details and outdated biometric records to difficulties validating identity information across different systems. According to Nunaya of NIMC, “The person may experience delays in accessing certain services until the issue is resolved.”

As more services become interconnected, identity functions as a gatekeeper. When systems work properly, access becomes easier. When records fail, opportunities can disappear, sometimes without warning. The same infrastructure designed to enable inclusion can also create new barriers. 

For instance, in August 2025, Catherine Bello, a beneficiary of a humanitarian cash assistance programme in Adamawa, was unable to receive support because a minor discrepancy between her name on the beneficiary list and her National Identification Number (NIN) record caused the verification process to fail. Similarly, others have recounted losing access to mobile services and facing banking restrictions because their NIN, BVN, and SIM records did not match across government databases.

Who is watching the data trail?

As evening approaches, conversations throughout the day prompt Musa to reflect on something he rarely considers: who actually has access to all this information? His answer is uncertain. “I know my bank, telecom company, and government agencies have my details. Honestly, I don’t really know who else can access the information or how it is being used.”

Digital rights advocates say Musa’s uncertainty underpins the challenges facing millions of Nigerians. As more services become digital and become interconnected through digital identity and payment systems, citizens often have little visibility into how their information is shared, stored, or processed across institutions.

Gbenga Sesan, Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative, a digital rights advocacy organisation, said the challenge is not only the collection of personal information but the lack of transparency surrounding its use. 

“Many people provide information to access essential services without fully understanding where that data goes, who can access it, or how long it may be retained,” he said, adding that public trust in digital systems depends not only on efficiency and convenience but also on clear safeguards, transparency and accountability.

As identity systems, payment systems, and service delivery platforms become more interconnected, questions about transparency become increasingly important. 

According to Vincent Olatunji, the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), for identity management to be effective, there is a need for harmonised policies, secure technologies and inclusive systems. “The more systems are connected, the greater the impact if information is mishandled or exposed,” he noted. 

Reports have shown how vulnerable these systems can be when safeguards fail. In 2025, the Foundation for Investigative Journalism uncovered websites that offered access to Nigerians’ sensitive personal information, including NINs, BVNs, photographs, and other identity records, for small fees. One platform reportedly sold access to personal records for ₦70-₦150, while another provided unauthorised identity-related services despite not being licensed by the NIMC. 

These incidents illustrate the risks that emerge when large volumes of personal data are concentrated within interconnected digital systems without proper safeguards. 

Olatunji of NDPC noted that the Nigeria Data Protection Act has established rules governing how personal information should be collected, processed, stored, and shared. Citizens have rights and organisations have obligations, but awareness is limited. “Organisations are generally expected to explain why information is being collected and how it will be used,” he explained. 

Under the Act, citizens have several rights over their personal information. These include the right to know why their data is being collected, the right to request access to personal information held about them, the right to seek correction of inaccurate records, the right to withdraw consent for certain forms of data processing, and the right to seek redress when their information is misused. The law also requires organisations to explain how personal data will be used and gives individuals the right to lodge complaints with the NDPC when they believe their rights have been violated.

In practical terms, these rights mean that citizens are not merely sources of data, but they are entitled to ask questions about how their information is used, request access to records held about them, and challenge organisations that fail to protect their information. Yet awareness of these protections remains low among ordinary users.

Musa says he has heard of data protection laws but does not know what rights they give him. Like many Nigerians, he uses digital services every day without fully understanding who controls the information he generates.

Before bedtime, by 9:45 p.m., Musa checks his account balance for the final time. The day is over. He has made phone calls, received payments, sent transfers, paid utility bills, purchased airtime and verified identities. Each action took only seconds. Each left a record somewhere. Some records sit inside telecom databases. Others exist in banking systems, payment switches, identity registries and government platforms. Together they form a digital version of Musa’s day, one that is often more detailed than he realises.

“Many people do not realise how often their identity is being checked behind the scenes,” Frank noted. 

This report is produced under the DPI Africa Journalism Fellowship Programme of the Media Foundation for West Africa and Co-Develop.

Rats are invading displacement camps across Gaza, where piles of garbage, overflowing sewage and overcrowded shelters are worsening a public health crisis. Doctors report more severe skin diseases as families struggle without proper sanitation or adequate medical care.

Beirut, Lebanon – After the governments of Lebanon and Israel on Friday signed a United States-brokered framework agreement following months of direct negotiations, protesters took to the streets of the Lebanese capital to express their anger at the deal.

Many of the demonstrators waved flags of the Iran-backed group Hezbollah, which has been militarily confronting Israel’s ongoing invasion and occupation of large swaths of southern Lebanon.

Israel and Hezbollah have been fighting since October 2023, with varying levels of intensity, but the former has twice escalated the conflict – first in September 2024 and then nearly four months ago.

Some of the harshest critics of the framework, which does not force the Israeli army to withdraw from the areas it occupies, have been those most deeply impacted by Israel’s war, which has killed more than 4,200 people and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes since early March.

“After everything my family, my village, the south, and Dahiyeh have endured – the destruction, the displacement, the grief and the loss – it is incredibly difficult for me to accept an agreement with the same state that carried out the military actions that devastated our communities,” said Ali Zaytoun, a resident of Beirut’s southern suburbs, known as Dahiyeh.

Zaytoun, who runs a popular Instagram account called History of Dahieh, said he had been displaced multiple times due to Israeli attacks.

“Imagine someone destroys your home and your life, and then you’re expected to simply move on as if nothing happened,” said Zaytoun. “My protest is about remembering those who suffered, standing up for my community, and expressing that this agreement does not reflect the justice or respect that people who lived through this war deserve.”

A new Oslo?

The Israeli intensification on March 2 came after Hezbollah fired on Israel for the first time in more than a year following the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israeli air attack on Tehran two days earlier, and as a response to more than 10,000 Israeli violations of a ceasefire reached in November 2024.

On the same day, the Lebanese government declared Hezbollah’s military activities illegal and later tried – unsuccessfully – to expel the Iranian ambassador.

Its position was that Hezbollah’s actions invited Israel’s wrath in a war fought on behalf of Iran and not the people of Lebanon.

Hezbollah, however, continued fighting Israel in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli army has established what it calls a “security zone” that goes as deep as 10km (6.2 miles) into the country.

As attacks continued, Lebanon’s government entered the United States-brokered negotiations with Israel, despite Hezbollah’s objections.

The final text of the 14-point Washington agreement states Israel has no claim to Lebanese territory and that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) will eventually be the authority in southern Lebanon, “pending the verified disarmament of” non-state armed groups such as Hezbollah.

Proponents point to Israel recognising Lebanon’s authority over its own territory, though critics say the framework relies too heavily on the US – Israel’s main military and diplomatic backer and a signatory to the deal – to enforce it.

“The United States is unlikely to act as a neutral mediator and will almost certainly align with Israeli positions whenever disputes arise over the interpretation or implementation of the agreement,” said Karim Emile Bitar, a professor of international relations at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut.

“This creates a fundamentally asymmetric negotiating environment in which Lebanon has little leverage and few effective guarantees.”

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem declared the agreement “null and void”, calling it “humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty”, while Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah lawmaker, warned of “internal conflict” in Lebanon.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri called for calm but also declared that the deal was an attempt to incite strife.

Those who backed the government said it had originally little choice but to enter direct negotiations, given its limited leverage in a war where Israel has technological superiority and unwavering US support.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam wrote on social media after the agreement’s signing that it “aims to achieve Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territories”, while President Joseph Aoun called it “a first step” towards restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Still, the final terms of the deal were criticised by many analysts.

“This framework agreement essentially mirrors the reality of the military and political balance on the ground, which is decisively tilted in Israel’s favour,” said Bitar.

Bitar said the agreement was reminiscent of the Oslo Accords, a series of US-brokered agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel in the 1990s.

“We see a similar pattern here: Israeli negotiators seek recognition and get the other side to relinquish leverage while offering no binding timetable or reciprocal obligations,” he added.

On Saturday, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz insisted soldiers will remain in Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed.

US reliance

Days before the signing of the Washington framework, Iran and the US agreed on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that aims to end the war launched by the US and Israel against Iran in late February.

The MoU declared, among other things, “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon”, between the two countries and their allies.

Lebanon’s inclusion in the MoU was reportedly an Iranian priority, while a “deconfliction cell” was formed to bolster the supposed ceasefire in the country.

Throughout the war and the period of negotiations, Lebanon’s government has tried to separate itself from Iran – but some said it may have gone too far in the other direction.

“We are seeing the confirmation of what Hezbollah has been warning all along. Not because Hezbollah got it right, but because the Lebanese state got it so wrong,” said Lebanese writer Elia Ayoub.

“I understand the need to not depend on Iran, but what we’ve instead done is become even more dependent on the US than we’ve previously been,” added Ayoub, the founder of the podcast The Fire These Times.

“And it’s the US that has been bankrolling Israel’s genocide in Palestine and war crimes in Lebanon,” Ayoub added.

Analysts also questioned whether the government would be able to implement the deal.

“It appears that the Lebanese side has come under significant US pressure to sign an agreement that is very likely to remain little more than ink on paper, and very unlikely to be implemented in any meaningful way,” said Bitar.

Karim Safieddine, a nonresident fellow with the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, said the framework left the Lebanese government with “very little agency”.

“It’s Israel imposing a deal,” he added. “It’s very clear what this deal is. It’s just a surrender agreement.”

At the same time, some pointed to similarities to the 2024 ceasefire agreement, expressing doubt whether Israel will be incentivised to respect the framework.

“It’s one thing to sign a declaration of intent; it’s another thing to have it implemented, and I can see all kinds of problems emerging from this,” said Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of a book on Hezbollah.

Last year, Israel repeatedly complained that LAF’s efforts to disarm Hezbollah were either too slow or ineffective. The US often sided with Israel despite diplomatic attempts from European and other officials encouraging it to support LAF.

In a call with his US counterpart, President Donald Trump, on Saturday, Aoun said Lebanon “would assume its responsibilities” in implementing the framework and expressed hope Washington would help ensure that commitments ‌are fulfilled, particularly by pressing Israel to pull out from the areas it occupies.

Point 9 of the agreement states Lebanon’s government commits to a “rigorous, performance-based program to enable the capacity of the LAF to assert full military and security control within Lebanon … to implement the disarmament of all non-state armed groups”.

This provision has some in Lebanon worried about potential confrontations between LAF and Hezbollah, but Blanford said the possibility of a large escalation is currently not likely.

“The Lebanese army and the government are unwilling to use force against Hezbollah,” he said. “Forcibly trying to disarm a group that is refusing to disarm is an act of war. And I think the Lebanese army and the Lebanese government would be extremely wary of that.”

Drone footage from Catia La Mar in Venezuela’s La Guaira shows widespread destruction after twin 7.2 and 7.5 magnitude earthquakes devastated the region. Authorities say at least 1,430 people have been killed, more than 3,200 injured and over 50,000 remain unaccounted for as rescue teams continue searching collapsed buildings for survivors.

Hezbollah calls the deal a surrender as Israeli forces stay put and continue striking the south.

Israel has resumed air strikes on southern Lebanon, only days after signing a US-brokered agreement meant to end its war with the country.

The strikes came on Sunday, two days after the framework was signed in Washington following five rounds of talks.

Each side is presenting the same document as a victory on its own terms, and the deal has been rejected by Hezbollah and by far-right Israelis, raising immediate doubts over whether it can hold.

Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA) reported a series of attacks in the south on Sunday, a day after the Lebanese Ministry of Health said one person was killed in an Israeli attack there, the first death since the deal was signed.

Israeli aircraft were also active, with NNA reporting drones flying over the northeastern city of Baalbek and warplanes staging what residents described as a mock raid over nearby highlands.

Israel said its forces were targeting members of Hezbollah, the Lebanese armed group, near the buffer zone its troops occupy inside the country.

The Israeli military also announced that one of its soldiers had been killed in combat in the south. It named him as Captain David Hazutt, 21, a platoon commander in the Golani Brigade, an elite infantry unit, and said a second soldier was lightly wounded.

Israel’s military chief approved continued operations in the zone, saying they were in line with the ceasefire.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday called the agreement “historic” and “a massive blow to Iran and Hezbollah”.

An agreement was struck between Lebanon and Israel on Friday in Washington, which was described cautiously by United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio as “the beginning of the beginning”.

At the time, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said that the agreement “aims to achieve Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territories”.

The text appears not to require Israel to unconditionally withdraw from Lebanon, instead linking any pullback to the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Saturday that Israeli forces were preparing for an extended stay in the buffer zone, and would remain as long as the group held on to its weapons.

Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected the deal in a statement on Saturday, calling it “humiliating” and “a surrender of sovereignty” and saying his fighters would not leave the battlefield.

Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah member of parliament, said on Sunday that any move by the Lebanese army to enforce the agreement would push the country towards internal conflict, as supporters of the group protested across the capital against the deal.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s far-right national security minister, said the deal handed Hezbollah a “lifeline” and dismissed the idea that Lebanon’s army could disarm the group. He said he had opposed the agreement in cabinet for weeks and would continue to do so.

The war began on March 2, when Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel in response to the killing of Iran’s supreme leader in US-Israeli strikes.

Israel answered with heavy air raids and a ground invasion. More than 4,200 people have been killed in Lebanon since then, according to the country’s Health Ministry.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday that Washington should force Israel to stop its strikes and pull out of the areas it occupies in Lebanon, citing a separate understanding he said was binding on both Israel and the United States.

England test captain Ben Stokes will retire from international cricket after the ongoing test match against New Zealand.

England captain Ben Stokes has made the dramatic decision to announce his imminent retirement from international cricket midway through the deciding third test against New Zealand.

“This is my last two days as your captain and my last two days representing England,” Stokes told his England teammates inside the dressing room on Sunday at the start of play at Trent Bridge on Day 4, in a video released on social media by England Cricket.

The match is headed to a fifth and final day on Monday, with the series on the line at 1-1.

The shocking announcement came 15 minutes before the tea break. Stokes picked up a wicket moments later and was given a standing ovation as he led England off at the end of the session.

“The reasons can wait [about] why,” Stokes said in his dressing-room speech. “But I’ve had many trips to the well before for this team, and I’ve got one more trip to do.”

Stokes, 35, one of the world’s best known cricketers, has represented England for 15 years, the peak surely coming in 2019 when he starred for England in its wild win over New Zealand in the 50-over World Cup final at Lord’s.

He was also a key player in England’s T20 World Cup-winning team in 2022, the same year he became test captain.

Stokes has decided to quit international cricket during a series when he made front-page news after being dropped by England for the second test amid an investigation following a night out with teammate Gus Atkinson after the first test at Lord’s.

The two players were in a London nightclub when an England team security official was reportedly struck by a rugby player from English club Saracens.

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) dropped Stokes and Atkinson, and later said they had “breached specific contractual obligations” and were given a written warning. The sport’s independent oversight panel – the Cricket Regulator body – said after its investigation that there was “insufficient evidence to establish that any regulatory breach occurred”.

Stokes was recalled for the third test.

ECB chairman Richard Thompson said Stokes is “one of England’s greatest ever cricketers and one of the defining figures of his generation.”

“His performances under pressure, his relentless competitiveness and his ability to produce the extraordinary when it matters most have given me and millions of other fans memories that will endure forever,” Thompson said.

“Beyond his remarkable achievements on the field, his performances have inspired many youngsters to embrace cricket with positivity and belief. We are losing a batsman, a bowler, a captain and a talisman.”

The memorandum of understanding (MoU) the United States and Iran have signed is not a peace treaty. It is not even a credible framework for one. A vocal chorus of critics has rushed to portray it as a humiliation – evidence that President Donald Trump was manoeuvred into negotiations and extracted a poor deal from a regime that outplayed him.

That reading mistakes a mirage for reality. The Trump administration entered these talks with a precise understanding of what the Iranian regime is, what it wants and what any agreement with it is actually worth. No one in that negotiating team harbours the illusion that Tehran intends to honour commitments that constrain its core ambitions. The MоU is not a peace settlement. It is a mutually understood pause – a tactical intermission chosen by both sides for reasons that have nothing to do with trust and everything to do with time.

To grasp why, one needs only consult Iran’s unbroken record. That record is not a matter of interpretation or political dispute. It is a documented history of agreements made, commitments given and obligations systematically abandoned whenever honouring them conflicted with the regime’s objectives.

The pattern is consistent enough to constitute a doctrine: Iran negotiates under pressure, signs what is necessary to relieve that pressure and resumes its course once the immediate threat has passed.

The deeply flawed 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the most prominent recent demonstration of this cycle. Presented as a landmark of multilateral diplomacy, it was in practice a subsidised intermission – a breathing space Iran used to consolidate resources, sustain its proxy networks and continue advancing its strategic programme. The JCPOA did not change Iranian behaviour. It funded and protected it.

The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign was a direct response to that lesson: A regime of this kind cannot be managed through diplomatic lifelines. It can only be constrained by pressure severe enough to leave it no viable alternative to compliance.

The new MoU does not signal that Iran has changed. Its calculus remains what it has always been – survival and expansion, pursued through whatever tactical posture the moment requires. When pressure mounts, Iran negotiates. When pressure eases, Iran advances. Its negotiators are, by all available evidence, prepared to offer assurances they have no intention of keeping. This is not a failure of diplomatic craftsmanship. This is simply the nature of any negotiation with a regime like Iran’s.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Iranian nuclear programme. As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has repeatedly committed to transparent cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. It has repeatedly broken those commitments, blocking inspections, constructing clandestine enrichment facilities, destroying evidence and systematically deceiving the international community. The pattern is not one of occasional noncompliance. It is deliberate, sustained deception in pursuit of a single unwavering objective: the acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

A state genuinely committed to civilian nuclear energy has no need for a vast and enormously expensive domestic enrichment programme. Nuclear fuel can be purchased – from Russia, among others – at a fraction of the cost and without the international confrontation such a programme inevitably provokes.

Iran has chosen the far more costly and dangerous path for one reason: Enrichment is not a means to an end, but the end itself. Its rulers are committed to a nuclear weapon, and that commitment has survived changes in personnel, shifts in rhetoric and decades of pressure.

It will not be bargained away – and here lies the critical point that no amount of diplomatic optimism can paper over. Iran’s rulers are not pragmatic actors engaged in a conventional cost-benefit calculation. Their goals are theological and strategic in a way that places them beyond the reach of ordinary negotiation.

They do not govern in the interests of the Iranian people. The sanctions they have endured have devastated ordinary Iranians – driven up poverty, hollowed out the middle class, denied the population access to medicines and opportunity. None of that has moved the regime one degree from its course.

This is a regime that could, if it chose, transform its position entirely. It could make peace with its neighbours, normalise relations with the international community, shed the sanctions that have devastated its economy and dramatically improve the lives of Iranians. The price is not beyond reach: abandon the nuclear weapons programme, cease development of offensive ballistic missiles and end the sponsorship of terrorist proxies. Iran’s rulers have refused that bargain consistently and completely.

That is the essential context for understanding what the Trump administration is actually doing. It would be a serious misjudgement to read this MoU as evidence of American weakness or strategic confusion. The team that designed and executed the most effective pressure campaign against Iran in recent memory is not naive about this adversary.

Trump enters this pause knowing that Iran will not honour commitments that genuinely constrain it. He is not expecting otherwise. Neither side, in all likelihood, operates under any such illusion – which is precisely what makes the critics’ alarm about a “bad deal” somewhat beside the point.

You cannot be cheated by an agreement you never expected the other party to keep.

What this MoU represents is a mutually understood strategic pause, a breathing space both parties have chosen, for entirely different reasons, over immediate confrontation. Iran needs economic relief. A regime facing internal decay and a depleted treasury has strong incentives to buy time, replenish its resources and wait out what it calculates to be a finite window.

Tehran is acutely aware that Trump has roughly two and a half years remaining in office. From its perspective, survival through that period is itself a form of victory.

Washington’s calculus is different in kind. Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open is an immediate, non-negotiable goal – a choked strait means an energy price shock with global consequences. Beyond that, the US has its own repositioning to accomplish. Military inventories drawn down through recent operations are being restocked. Strategic options are being preserved and expanded.

A pause that enables that rebuilding, while avoiding a premature confrontation on unfavourable terms, is not a concession. It is preparation.

Trump has never wavered in his commitment to eliminating Iran as a strategic threat – not through wishful diplomacy, but through the kind of pressure that forecloses options. That commitment did not expire with the signing of this MoU. The question for Tehran is not whether American resolve exists but whether it can be outlasted. That is a wager the Iranian regime has made before and lost.

The international community will, as usual, observe from a careful distance. Many nations will urge Iran to be stopped while taking few steps to stop it, criticising US action and inaction with equal facility.

Trump understands this dynamic. It is the foundation of his approach to alliances – the insistence that partners bear proportionate burdens rather than simply drawing on American resolve while contributing little of their own.

The MoU will not resolve the Iranian problem. It was not designed to. When its terms expire or when Iran decides it has served its purpose, the nuclear programme will resume its advance, the proxies will be better resourced, and the Strait of Hormuz will once again become a flashpoint.

That outcome is not a possibility. Given Iran’s record, it is a near-certainty. The only consequential variable is whether the US and those willing to stand alongside it will be better positioned to act decisively when that moment arrives. Far from a mirage, the evidence suggests that is precisely what this administration is working to ensure.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Rescuers in Venezuela are racing against time to find survivors after twin earthquakes left thousands missing. International teams have pulled several people from the rubble alive, including 11-year-old boy Moises rescued after a six-hour operation and a newborn reunited with their family.

Khartoum, Sudan – As drone attacks rain down on el-Obeid and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) tighten their months-long siege, the capital of North Kordofan has emerged as the latest flashpoint in Sudan’s grinding war of attrition.

Despite mounting international alarm and renewed US diplomatic pressure aimed at securing a nationwide truce, Sudan’s warring generals remain deeply entrenched. Both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF appear locked in a pursuit of outright military victory, largely sustained by a continuous flow of foreign weapons.

Through the lens of the escalating crisis in el-Obeid, a grim reality is unfolding: Civilian suffering is increasingly weaponised amid polarised domestic narratives, while geopolitical manoeuvring repeatedly stalls any viable path to peace.

A strategic prize and international alarm

El-Obeid holds immense strategic value. Located 550km (340 miles) southwest of Khartoum, it acts as the primary gateway linking Khartoum to the vast Darfur region. The city is also a major military stronghold, hosting the SAF’s 5th Infantry Division, known as “Al-Hagana”, and has become a refuge for hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians fleeing violence elsewhere.

The looming threat of a full-scale ground invasion has triggered urgent global warnings. Recently, 38 international nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), alongside the UN and countries including Qatar, sounded the alarm over the escalating use of drones and the potential for mass atrocities, warning that el-Obeid could face the same devastation recently seen in el-Fasher.

Yet these warnings have failed to alter the calculus on the ground.

Polarised narratives of a stalled peace

Recent United States diplomatic efforts, led by Massad Boulos, an adviser to US President Donald Trump, have pushed for a comprehensive ceasefire. However, the push for peace has collided with absolute domestic polarisation.

SAF commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan has firmly rejected unconditional truces, stating that the army will operate with the precision of “digging with a needle” until the RSF is entirely dismantled.

This deadlock reflects a deeply fractured political landscape. Fathi Abu Ammar, a Sudanese academic, told Al Jazeera that the SAF is primarily responsible for the prolonged suffering by obstructing peace initiatives and refusing to establish safe corridors for civilians to leave el-Obeid.

He accused the army of using the city’s residents as “human shields” to garner international sympathy, while arguing that the RSF is fighting to address legitimate historical grievances.

Conversely, Sudanese journalist and political analyst Yousef Abdel Mannan vehemently rejected these claims.

Speaking to Al Jazeera from Sudan, Abdel Mannan accused the RSF of widespread atrocities, including a recent drone attack on a girls’ school in el-Obeid and the systematic killing of thousands of civilians in el-Fasher, including patients inside the Saudi Hospital.

Abdel Mannan dismissed the US-backed truce proposals as inadequate measures that merely “treat the wounds of the conflict while leaving the root cause intact”, arguing that only a comprehensive political settlement, not a temporary ceasefire, can resolve the crisis.

He maintained that civilians in el-Obeid are not being held hostage by the army, but rather prefer to remain in their homes rather than face displacement at the hands of paramilitaries.

Foreign arms and the geopolitical deadlock

Beneath the domestic blame game lies a critical factor sustaining the conflict: Foreign interference.

David Shinn, a former US diplomat and assistant secretary of state for African affairs, noted that despite years of US engagement and sanctions targeting both SAF and RSF leaders, neither side has shown a genuine interest in halting the violence.

“There is a desire from both sides to continue fighting until one side wins,” Shinn told Al Jazeera.

The escalating use of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) over el-Obeid underscores this external lifeline. “Neither the RSF nor the Sudanese army manufactures drones,” Shinn pointed out, meaning these advanced weapons must be imported.

He highlighted that the warring parties are actively backed by regional powers, pointing to the United Arab Emirates as a backer of the RSF, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia as supporters of the SAF, arguing that the conflict has transformed into a proxy war.

For the siege of el-Obeid to end and a genuine peace process to begin, the geopolitical spigot must be turned off.

Until the international community forces external actors to halt their military support, analysts warn that Sudan will remain hostage to a war its generals believe they can still win.

The president’s son said he did not believe in a free press as military personnel were deployed to the media offices.

The chief of Uganda’s military says he has ordered the closure of two of the country’s biggest media outlets.

Muhoozi Kainerugaba said on Sunday that the Daily Monitor, the country’s largest independent daily newspaper, and NTV Uganda, one of the largest private broadcasters, were being shut down and would not reopen without his permission.

“In Uganda, I do not believe in a free press!” Kainerugaba, who is the president’s son, wrote on X.

“From now on ALL bad stories about Uganda have to be cleared by my office!” he said in one of a series of posts, adding that all media in Uganda would follow the rules, going forward.

Military personnel deployed

Both the Daily Monitor and NTV Uganda are owned by the Nation Media Group (NMG) conglomerate. The Daily Monitor said armed security personnel were outside NMG Uganda’s headquarters in Namuwongo, Kampala and its Serena Hotel location, with staff reporting “no one was being allowed to enter or leave.”

NTV Uganda, Spark TV and other TV and radio broadcasters owned by NMG were down in the country on Sunday, the Reuters news agency reported.

According to Kainerugaba, he has had the power to shut down any media outlet since 2017, when his father, President Yoweri Museveni, granted him this ability.

Kainerugaba is seen as the likely successor to his father, who has ruled Uganda since 1986 and is also known to write controversial social media posts.

His government shut down the Daily Monitor for 10 days in 2013, and in 2007, NTV Uganda was taken off air months after its launch, following government criticism of its coverage.

The Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), Uganda Police Force and Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) are yet to release a statement on the operation.

Uganda’s National Association of Broadcasters said it was closely monitoring the situation, adding that it was “deeply concerned about this action and its impact on the media ecosystem” and the rights enshrined in the constitution.

Knockout matches begin with South Africa vs Canada as Iran exit, Africa make history and hopes for Messi-Ronaldo final rise.

The knockout stage of the 2026 FIFA World Cup begins on Sunday with South Africa taking on Canada in the first round of 32 tie.

With the group stage complete, the full knockout bracket is now set. Nine African nations have reached the round of 32, Iran were eliminated after Algeria’s late qualification and the draw has left the door open to a Lionel Messi vs Cristiano Ronaldo final.

Here’s the full round of 32 schedule, the South Africa vs Canada prediction and the latest World Cup news:

What is Sunday’s schedule?

• South Africa vs Canada at Los Angeles Stadium, California, in the United States at noon (19:00 GMT).

What are the predictions for South Africa vs Canada?

This will be only the second meeting between South Africa and Canada. The sides’ only previous encounter ended in a 2-0 win for Bafana Bafana in a friendly in Durban in 2007.

Canada, however, will be looking to end another unwanted record. They have lost both of their previous competitive matches against African opposition, falling 2-0 to Cameroon at the 2001 Confederations Cup before a 2-1 defeat to Morocco at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

Despite that history, the Opta supercomputer shows Canada as the clear favourites. They won 55 percent of 25,000 pre-match simulations while South Africa triumphed in 20 percent. The remaining 24.9 percent of its calculations ended level after 90 minutes, which would send the tie to extra time and potentially penalties.

Overall, Canada are given a 67.8 percent chance of reaching the quarterfinals, compared with 32.2 percent for South Africa.

When and where will the other knockout matches be played?

Monday

• Brazil vs Japan: (noon/17:00 GMT) at Houston Stadium, Texas, in the US
• Germany vs Paraguay: (4:30pm/20:30 GMT) at Boston Stadium, Massachusetts, in the US
• Netherlands vs Morocco: (7pm/01:00 GMT on Tuesday) at Monterrey Stadium in Mexico

Tuesday

• Ivory Coast vs Norway (noon/17:00 GMT) at Dallas Stadium, Texas, in the US
• France vs Sweden (5pm/21:00 GMT) at New York/New Jersey Stadium in the US
• Mexico vs Ecuador (7pm/02:00 GMT on Wednesday) at Mexico City Stadium in Mexico

Wednesday

• England vs Democratic Republic of the Congo (noon/16:00 GMT) at Atlanta Stadium, Georgia, in the US
• Belgium vs Senegal (1pm/20:00 GMT) at Seattle Stadium in the US state of Washington
• USA vs Bosnia and Herzegovina (5pm/00:00 GMT on Thursday) at San Francisco Bay Area Stadium, California, in the US

Thursday

• Spain vs Austria (noon/19:00 GMT) at Los Angeles Stadium
• Portugal vs Croatia (7pm/23:00 GMT) at Toronto Stadium, Ontario, Canada
• Switzerland vs Algeria (8pm/03:00 GMT on Friday) at BC Place Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Friday

• Australia vs Egypt (1pm/18:00 GMT) at Dallas Stadium
• Argentina vs Cape Verde (6pm/22:00 GMT) at Miami Stadium, Florida, in the US
• Colombia vs Ghana (8:30pm/01:30 GMT on Saturday) at Kansas City Stadium, Missouri, in the US

What else is happening?

Is Iran eliminated from the 2026 World Cup?

Yes. Iran have been eliminated from the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Team Melli’s hopes depended on the final Group J match on Saturday between Austria and Algeria. A draw was the only result that could have knocked Iran out, and the 3-3 score meant that Algeria moved above Iran in the ranking of third-placed teams.

Algeria finished third in Group J on four points, enough to take the final available place among the eight best third-placed teams, which advanced to the round of 32.

Iran, who had been holding the last qualifying spot, were, therefore, eliminated in the group stage.

Africa set a new World Cup record

African teams have enjoyed their best ever men’s World Cup campaign.

A record 10 African nations qualified for the expanded 2026 tournament, and nine have reached the round of 32, the most from the continent in a single World Cup.

Those who qualified are: Algeria, Cape Verde, DR Congo, Egypt, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Senegal and South Africa.

Tunisia are the only African side eliminated so far.

The success builds on Africa’s growing influence on the world stage after Morocco’s historic run to the 2022 semifinals. With more nations now consistently challenging football’s traditional powers, the continent is enjoying its strongest World Cup showing yet.

Messi vs Ronaldo final?

A potential knockout clash between superstars Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo remains a possibility – but only if both captains lead their teams all the way to the World Cup 2026 final.

With the round of 32 bracket now confirmed, Argentina and Portugal are on opposite sides of the draw, ruling out the quarterfinal meeting many fans had anticipated. That means football’s two greatest modern rivals can face each other only if both reach the final on July 19.

The bracket has sparked widespread reaction on social media, where fans have been sharing predictions, memes and hopeful scenarios for one last meeting between the two icons, who are both playing in their sixth World Cup.

Democratic Republic of Congo fans erupted in celebration after their team secured a historic place in the World Cup knockout stage with victory over Uzbekistan. The Leopards will now face England in the Round of 32, their first-ever appearance beyond the group stage.

The MQ-28 Ghost Bat drone will gain a valuable opportunity to prove its relevance in a high-end coalition environment as part of Valiant Shield 26, the sprawling U.S.-led military exercise spanning Japan, Guam, Hawaii, and Australia, which began this week. It is also, as far as we know, the first time that the MQ-28 has taken part in a multinational large-force exercise of any kind. The participation of the collaborative combat aircraft (CCA) comes soon after Boeing confirmed it was conducting a separate series of test flights of the drone off the coast of southern California, part of efforts to validate autonomous operations and demonstrate rapid deployment from an allied location.

While Australia’s contribution to Valiant Shield includes a P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and around 80 personnel, one of the more notable aspects is the involvement of Australian Defense Forces (ADF) aviator observers alongside a U.S.-led MQ-28 component. The arrangement will allow Australian personnel to work with operators and planners as the uncrewed aircraft is employed in a complex, multi-domain operational environment for the first time.

Directed by the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Exercise Valiant Shield 2026 kicked off on Monday and continues through July 1.

“Valiant Shield demonstrates our enduring commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific,” Adm. Steve Koehler, commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet, said in a media release. “Exercising advanced multidomain capabilities with our allies ensures we continue to seamlessly innovate and operate together, project combat power together, and prevail over any challenge — together.”

The U.S. Air Force today released a series of photos showing an MQ-28 taking part in Valiant Shield. The drone was photographed at Rota, in the Northern Mariana Islands, on June 21. Accompanying captions state that the Ghost Bat will be used to advance human-machine teaming, including flying in concert with crewed fighters.

“The Department of the Air Force and its partners will analyze the aircraft’s contribution as a force multiplier that extends the reach, awareness, and survivability of crewed platforms in contested environments,” the U.S. Air Force adds.

The MQ-28 involved in the exercise is configured with an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor system in the nose. The Ghost Bat is a highly modular design, with the nose section designed to be readily swappable.

The Ghost Bat’s participation in Valiant Shield comes as Australia continues efforts to mature collaborative combat aircraft concepts, an increasingly important component of future air warfare, with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) currently very much at the forefront. Designed to operate alongside crewed fighters and other assets, like tankers and airborne early warning and control aircraft, the MQ-28 is intended to extend sensor coverage, serve as a weapons platform, and perform a variety of other missions while reducing risk to human pilots.

Valiant Shield offers a particularly relevant proving ground for the MQ-28. The exercise brings together forces from the United States, Australia, Japan, Canada, and New Zealand to train in responding to coordinated threats across the maritime, air, land, cyber, and space domains. Participants will be required to detect, track, and engage shared threats while operating across a vast geographic area and under realistic conditions.

For the Ghost Bat program, exposure to this type of coalition environment is significant. Future conflicts in the Indo-Pacific will require seamless integration between allied forces, crewed aircraft, and increasingly sophisticated autonomous systems. Observing how the MQ-28 is incorporated into a large-scale multinational exercise should provide valuable insights as Australia moves toward making its collaborative combat aircraft capabilities operational. Currently, the MQ-28 is slated to be in service with the RAAF in 2028, which would likely make it the first operational CCA anywhere in the world.

The exercise also reflects growing allied interest in integrating uncrewed systems into complex command-and-control architectures and air defense networks. As autonomous aircraft move from experimentation toward operational service, events such as Valiant Shield are becoming important venues for testing how these systems contribute to the broader fight rather than operating as standalone assets. Valiant Shield has served as a diverse test crucible in recent years, with advanced capabilities being put through their paces in a realistic, joint-force environment.

According to defense reporter Carter Johnston, the Ghost Bat’s Indo-Pacific deployment will include operations from an austere airfield led by the U.S. Air Force. This will be conducted under the Agile Combat Employment (ACE) concept, something that is seen as fundamental to survival in a future conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific region. It is also notable that the U.S. Air Force’s new CCA drones are being developed from the ground up around concepts for distributed and disaggregated operations.

The exact status of the MQ-28 with the U.S. military testing community is somewhat unclear, as we have discussed before. There have been indications of Ghost Bat flight testing in the United States in the past, and the U.S. Air Force previously said it had made use of at least one MQ-28 to support advanced uncrewed aircraft and autonomy development efforts. Regardless, the Air Force, at least, has test units set up to explore exactly how to use CCAs operationally, including in an ACE-type environment. This kind of testing is now also involving the first two Air Force Increment 1 CCAs, with the YFQ-44 Fury ‘fighter drone’ prototype notably having been tested out of Edwards Air Force Base, California, helping to demonstrate how CCAs can be deployed and sustained in contested environments.

Other U.S. participants in Valiant Shield 2026 include the George Washington Carrier Strike Group, based around the aircraft carrier USS George Washington with the embarked Carrier Air Wing 5, the cruiser USS Robert Smalls, and the destroyers USS Benfold and USS Shoup.

Valiant Shield 2026 will also see the deployment of the containerized Typhon missile system in Japan. According to the Japan Ministry of Defense, the Typhon and the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) will participate in Joint Integrated Anti-Ship Warfare training carried out in the waters around Kanoya and Amami Oshima Island. However, no live firing is scheduled.

The U.S. Army’s Typhon was first deployed to Japan last year, as you can read about here. The system, which can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles and SM-6 multi-purpose missiles, is a growing feature of U.S. military activities in the wider Indo-Pacific region.

Returning to the Ghost Bat, it now seems that the test flights of the MQ-28 off the coast of southern California from the U.S. Navy’s base in Point Mugu, California, were an important precursor to Valiant Shield. In fact, the same drone that was flown out of Point Mugu, ATS-008, is the example now involved in Valiant Shield.

Boeing had previously said its main goals of those flights were to demonstrate the maturity of the design and promote export sales. As we noted at the time, the choice of testing location also seemed to be relevant given Boeing’s involvement in the Navy’s still-evolving carrier-based CCA plans.

As for the MQ-28’s previous test campaigns, the drone has been flying in Australia since 2021, with the RAAF having received eight Ghost Bats in the pre-production Block 1 configuration.

Boeing is now building the first of a batch of nine Block 2 drones for the RAAF, which will provide an intermediate stepping stone to the fully operational Block 3 version. The Block 3 aircraft is expected to be substantially larger and have a greater range. It will also feature an internal weapons bay that can accommodate a single AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), two GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), or equivalently sized stores.

The RAAF has employed Block 1 MQ-28s to demonstrate some important capabilities in testing so far. This includes crewed-uncrewed teaming with RAAF E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft and F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters.

When it comes to potential export sales, participation in Valiant Shield will give Japan, Canada, and New Zealand a closer look at the drone and its capabilities. Of these, Boeing has already publicly named Japan as a potential customer and has said it is exploring potential opportunities with other unnamed countries in the Indo-Pacific region.

Valiant Shield should offer the clearest indication yet of how the Ghost Bat can contribute to a coalition fight. As the United States and its allies increasingly embrace autonomous combat aircraft, the MQ-28’s performance in one of the Indo-Pacific’s largest and most complex military exercises will be watched closely as an indicator of how collaborative combat aircraft could be employed across the region in the future.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The US has conducted new strikes on Iran, following a drone attack on a Panama-flagged vessel in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday.

US Central Command (Centcom) said it hit multiple targets across Iran in direct response to “continued aggression” against commercial shipping.

In retaliation, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it has launched missiles and drones at US infrastructure in Kuwait and Bahrain, in a statement shared to state media.

Following the exchange of fire, the US and Iran accused each other of violating the ceasefire agreement.

Centcom said in a statement, “Iran was given a chance to honor the ceasefire agreement but elected not to when its forces launched a one-way attack drone that hit MT Kiku,” a Panama-flagged tanker.

In response, it said, US fighter jets conducted strikes on 10 Iranian military targets at multiple locations in and near the Strait of Hormuz. These included military equipment, communication systems, air defense sites and drone storage facilities.

In the IRGC’s statement, it said the US had attacked five coastal posts in Iran under what it called “the pretext of the IRGC Navy confronting the offending ship”.

In retaliation, the IRGC said it had launched ballistic missiles and drones at “eight key pieces of infrastructure” at the Ali al-Salem base in Kuwait and the Fifth Naval Fleet in Port Salman, Bahrain, “destroying them”.

A US official has told Reuters that there were no reported US casualties or major impacts or damage to US facilities in the Middle East.

The IRGC said that under the Memorandum of Understanding signed earlier this month, Iran has arrangements for controlling passage and navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, and from now on, violating ships will be dealt with more forcefully than in the past.

“Any potential enemy aggression, under any pretext, even if the aggressions are against minor targets, as happened last night and tonight, will have a crushing response,” read the statement.

It also accused the US of violating the ceasefire agreed to in the memorandum of understanding between the two nations, warning that it “will lead to a complete halt to the process”.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has also condemned what it described as the “brutal attacks” a violation of the ceasefire, adding it showed that the US “does not place the slightest value and credibility on its commitments, and breaking promises is part of its nature.”

Shortly after the latest US strikes on Iran were announced, Trump said on Truth Social that it was “very possible” that Tehran would “never learn”.

“There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started,” he wrote on Saturday evening.

The post went on: “If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

In the hours following the US strikes, Kuwait and Bahrain both reported that their air defence systems had been activated.

“Kuwaiti air defenses are currently confronting hostile missile and drone attacks,” the Kuwaiti Armed Forces said in a statement shared to X, asking the public to adhere to security instructions.

Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior has urged citizens to “remain calm and head to the nearest safe place”.

Centcom said that commercial vessels are continuing to operate in the Strait of Hormuz.

The latest strikes come less than a day after the US launched retaliatory strikes on Iran that it said were in response to a drone attack on Singapore-flagged cargo ship, MV Ever Lovely, on 25 June.

Centcom described the American strikes as “a powerful response” to the attack on the cargo ship, adding that the “unwarranted aggression against commercial shipping by Iranian forces clearly violated the ceasefire”.

Tehran said the cargo ship was attacked because it was using an unauthorised route to transit through the Gulf waterway, and said that the retaliatory strikes qualified as a ceasefire violation by the US.

In a statement released on Saturday morning, Iran’s foreign ministry said it had carried out more strikes against targets linked to American forces in response, and blamed the “treaty-breaking US regime” for the situation.

The US and Iran agreed on 17 June to end hostilities under a 14-point memorandum of understanding, which had also called for Iran to use its “best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days”.

The Strait of Hormuz is a key waterway for oil and gas shipments, and was effectively closed by Tehran after the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran at the end of February.

The shutdown of the critical channel caused a spike in global oil prices and prevented shipments of other crucial commodities such as fertiliser.

In the latest twist in Canada’s long-running saga to field a new fighter, the country’s defense minister has said that Ottawa is “interested in learning more about” the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) next-generation fighter. GCAP is currently a trinational effort, led by the United Kingdom and involving Italy and Japan. Its centerpiece is the Tempest crewed fighter. A demonstrator for this jet is currently taking shape with BAE Systems in the United Kingdom.

David McGuinty, the Minister of National Defense of Canada, made the remarks after a meeting in Tokyo with his Japanese counterpart, Shinjiro Koizumi. Breaking Defense reports that McGuinty confirmed he had spoken with Koizumi about the GCAP, which the Canadian official described as a “promising initiative.”

“We are interested in learning more about it. I’ll take it back to my team and see what it looks ‌like,” McGuinty told Reuters.

Until now, no senior Canadian official appears to have spoken publicly about interest in GCAP. However, the development comes as Ottawa weighs up the option of a split fighter buy, which would involve acquiring the U.S.-made F-35 and one other type. This thinking has been driven by a growing rift between Ottawa and Washington.

However, the possibility of Canada coming on board GCAP as an ‘observer’ had been raised in March of this year. According to The Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese daily newspaper, unnamed Japanese officials disclosed that, during a previous meeting, McGuinty and Koizumi discussed such an arrangement.

Canada’s joining GCAP with observer status would provide it access to information on the program and could be a stepping-stone to deeper involvement.

Earlier this week, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto raised the possibility of other nations joining GCAP, noting that, were that to happen, “we would be completely willing, because the more there are, the greater the chances of creating something and bringing down costs.”

Crosetto then identified Canada as “the country most interested [in GCAP] at the moment.” He said he would be “fully open” to Canada joining as an observer.

For Canada, however, GCAP would require a rethink of Canada’s potential pursuit of a split-buy approach to its new fighter.

Until now, the Saab Gripen E had been identified as the most likely candidate to be bought alongside the F-35.

Sweden has made a strong push to sell Gripen to Ottawa, and Saab offered to build the jet in Canada, in an effort to secure support for its previous bid, which it lost to Lockheed Martin. Since then, Saab has also emerged as the preferred candidate to supply Canada with its future airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) via its GlobalEye.

In April of this year, McGuinty confirmed that Ottawa was still reviewing its earlier plan to buy 88 F-35s.

“The review of the purchase of the F-35s is continuing… We are taking the necessary time to study very, very closely the question of the fighter fleet,” McGuinty told the Senate’s defense committee.

The split-buy option emerged since Canada has already made a firm commitment to buy 16 F-35As to start replacing its aging CF-18 Hornets. Canada’s industry also has a significant degree of involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Canada currently has around 75 CF-18A/B+ jets and has also added 18 upgraded former Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F/A-18A/Bs, plus seven more as spares, to help bolster its fleet.

Of Canada’s first 16 F-35s, four have already been paid for in full, while parts for eight others have also been purchased. The first Canadian F-35s were expected to be delivered for training at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, in 2026.

Back in 2023, Canada’s Liberal government announced plans to buy 88 F-35s, a decision that appeared to bring closure to what had already been a very protracted process. You can read about this here.

However, amid growing trade tensions and a war of words with the United States, Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney launched a review of the F-35 program shortly after taking office in the spring of 2025.

There are other arguments for a split buy, too. Back in 2019, the cost of buying the planned 88 F-35s was put at $19 billion. Now it has rocketed to $27.7 billion, not including weapons and infrastructure.

Bill Blair, who was Canada’s defense minister when the review of the F-35 buy was launched last year, pointed to the advantages of a mixed fleet, saying it would give the RCAF more options to handle different types of threats.

“What happens if you have to persist in that space for months and months and years? The tool that you use, is it the right tool to do that job?” Blair said. “We need to have a whole wide range of capability sets to deal with all the eventualities that we could face.”

Were Canada to procure the Tempest, it would surely have to wait longer than 2035 — the prospect of GCAP’s fighter entering service at this date, as planned, is highly unlikely. Canada would be fourth in line behind the three core partners. Ottawa would need to buy more F-35s, perhaps around two thirds of its original intended number, or around 60 aircraft, and also keep the best of its CF-18s in service for longer, if that’s even possible. The Hornets are getting very old and disappearing from service abroad. Supporting them will become increasingly problematic. When the Tempest finally arrived, it would provide a flipped high-low fighter mix. This is essentially the same approach that the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan — all current F-35 operators — are taking.

However, the Tempest does appear to be especially well-suited to Canada’s fighter requirement.

The design of the jet will stress extreme range and a large payload — roughly twice that of the F-35A. Senior GCAP officials have said the jet could potentially carry enough internal fuel to fly across the Atlantic without refueling.

While these attributes are optimized for a future conflict in the Indo-Pacific region, they are equally applicable to dealing with the ‘tyranny of distance’ and the increasing Russian threat posed around Canada’s enormous land mass, which extends far into the highly strategic Arctic region.

“Both China and Russia have fifth-generation fighter aircraft and fifth-generation missiles that are able to go at much greater speeds and with much more that are holding Western allies at risk at this moment in time,” the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), Lt. Gen. Jamie Speiser-Blanchet, said in the past.

Plans to arm the Tempest with larger air-to-air missiles offering a longer range than those currently used by any of the three GCAP partner countries have also been revealed, as you can read about here.

If Canada decides it wants a sixth-generation combat aircraft to tackle current and emerging threats from China and Russia, the GCAP might be the only realistic choice. The rival pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) has collapsed, and there is little chance of Canada getting its hand on the Boeing F-47.

But any kind of split buy “would duplicate a certain amount of infrastructure and training,” Speiser-Blanchet admitted.

In some cases, however, there could be cost-benefit arguments in having a mixed fighter fleet, as well as the important factor of not relying entirely upon one source of this type of combat equipment.

There is also the question of how feasible it would be for Canada to join GCAP at this point, at least in terms of industrial participation and steering requirements. The latter point seems next to impossible, with national requirements already set, and most of the workshare agreement has also been divided up between the three partners.

The same applies to India, which has also looked at joining GCAP in the past.

There has been talk of Saudi Arabia possibly joining GCAP in some capacity, and, more recently, Poland has been reported as being interested in buying the aircraft, too.

With that in mind, Canada’s best shot might be to buy the jet ‘off the shelf,’ rather than hope for industrial windfalls.

At the same time, Canada and the United Kingdom are partners on some other key military programs, including the Royal Canadian Navy’s future River class Canadian Surface Combatants, derived from BAE Systems’ Type 26 design for the U.K. Royal Navy. 

Meet The River-Class Destroyer – State-of-the-art WARSHIP!

Returning to the Tempest, the broader GCAP program still has to survive considerable challenges, both technical and political, that lie ahead.

As we have explained many times in the past, the process of creating an all-new fighter, especially one incorporating stealth technologies, brings very lengthy development times and high costs.

At this point, BAE Systems is in the process of building a demonstrator as part of the GCAP program, with a first flight planned by the end of 2027.

The latest rendering of that demonstrator appears at the top of the story. Notably, it retains the Typhoon’s EJ200 turbofan engines, with non-stealthy nozzles. The Tempest will have an all-new powerplant.

As we have argued in the past, the more time that passes, and the more deeply intertwined with the F-35 Canada becomes, the arguments in favor of a split fighter buy become harder to justify. Buying the Tempest would certainly not be the cheapest option, and would force a rethink of timelines, but it does underscore the fact that Canadian officials are casting their net wider, looking at very high-end capabilities, and seeking to build deeper strategic relationships outside of the United States.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The U.S. military has now confirmed the acceptance of at least six F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the U.S. Marine Corps without radars. This is due to issues tied to the development of the new AN/APG-85 radar, the first production lot of which is scheduled to be delivered in 2028. The prospect of radarless F-35s had first emerged publicly back in February. The AN/APG-85 is a critical component of the larger Block 4 upgrade package for all variants of the F-35, an effort that has been mired in cost growth and delays.

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Masiello, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), disclosed the acceptance of the six radarless F-35Bs at a hearing before members of the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week. This came as part of a larger back-and-forth between Masiello and Senator Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat and a retired naval aviator, about F-35 readiness rates across the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, which have long been a point of concern.

Two weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, released a report stating that the average F-35 full mission capable (FMC) rate across all variants had fallen from 38 to 25 percent between Fiscal Years 2020 and 2025. GAO defines FMC as an aircraft “that can perform all of its missions.” The F-35 JPO has not disputed GAO’s figures directly, but has openly disagreed with the methodology it uses to determine FMC.

“So, the GAO FMC rate is, they said, 25 percent. Your office claims it’s 56 percent,” Kelly said, leading up to his question. “We’ll go with your number, 50 percent. So, half of the airplanes are not fully mission capable, and I think it’s the Marine Corps that has been accepting airplanes with no radar in it. Is that correct?”

“We have accepted six aircraft for the Marine Corps that do not have a radar installed. That is correct,” Masiello confirmed.

Kelly then asked if this was due to a lack of available AN/APG-85 radars, which Masiello also confirmed.

Reports circulating already say that the aircraft in question are reportedly short takeoff and vertical landing-capable F-35Bs, though Masiello does not appear to have confirmed this during the hearing. The Marines are the only U.S. operator of the B variant, but they also fly carrier-based C models.

“The Block 4 modernization program is necessary to ensure that the Marine Corps and Joint Force can continue to project air superiority against future threats,” a Marine Corps spokesperson told TWZ today when asked for more information. “The Department of War deliberately undertook a highly concurrent development and production program for Block 4 capabilities (Technical Refresh 3 (TR-3), APG-85, etc.) and the largest fighter aircraft production line in the world. DoW officials made this decision with full understanding of the risk of having production aircraft ready ahead of the Block 4 capabilities. The Services’ decision ensured that production aircraft could accept Block 4 capabilities, rather than continuing to build Block 3 F-35s that would require extensive retrofit for Block 4 capabilities, thereby saving multiple years of retrofit hardware installation. ”

The Marine Corps deferred any further questions to the F-35 JPO. TWZ had already reached out to that office for more information, as well.

“F-35 Lightning II aircraft are being built to accommodate the F-35 advanced radar (APG-85) for U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. When delivered, the F-35 with APG-85 will provide unmatched capability against current and future threats. Initial fielding for some F-35 aircraft is planned for Lot 17,” the F-35 JPO previously told TWZ in May when asked for an update on the radar situation. “The Program in coordination with the Services deliberately undertook a highly concurrent development and production program for advanced capabilities. This decision was made with full understanding of the risk of having production aircraft ready ahead of the capabilities.”

“The program has plans to accelerate APG-85 production capacity to deliver radars that meet capability, stability, and maintainability requirements needed to meet emerging threats,” the office added at that time. “F-35s with APG-85 radars, actual modernization plans, capabilities, and schedules remain classified to maintain program security.”

The F-35 JPO had provided TWZ with a similar statement when asked about whether radarless F-35s were already being accepted back in February.

In February, the U.S. Air Force also explicitly denied receiving F-35As without radars. There is no confirmation yet that the F-35 JPO has accepted any Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force or the Navy without radars. Previous reports have said that foreign customers are not expected to be impacted at all, at least in the near-term, since none of them are currently in line to receive AN/APG-85-equipped jets.

Today, the standard radar in use on F-35A, B, and C variants is the AN/APG-81, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) type with air-to-air and air-to-ground modes that traces its roots back to the 1990s. It also has a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode, which allows it to produce high-resolution map-like images. These can be used for target acquisition and identification, as well as general reconnaissance purposes.

Details about the new AN/APG-85, which Northrop Grumman is developing, continue to be limited. At the hearing this week, Lt. Gen. Masiello declined to talk about its specific capabilities in an unclassified setting.

The AN/APG-85 is also an AESA design, and is expected to offer an array of new and improved functionality compared to the AN/APG-81. As TWZ has previously noted, it will also just be able to leverage decades of additional general technological advancements since its predecessor was developed. In general, the use of gallium nitride (GaN) has had a major impact on modern radar developments when it comes to physical size, weight, and power requirements.

It should also be noted that the AN/APG-81 is deeply integrated with the F-35’s extensive electronic warfare capabilities, as well as other sensors and facets of the design. The AN/APG-85 is similarly expected to fuse together with other key elements of the Block 4 upgrade package, especially a planned new electronic warfare suite, which we will come back to later on.

As the F-35 JPO noted in its statement in May, the plan had been to start integrating the AN/APG-85 onto F-35s starting with production Lot 17. Deliveries of aircraft from that lot began last year. However, per official budget documents released earlier this year, the first production AN/APG-85s are not expected to be delivered before April 2028. This would actually be a nine-month improvement on the much-delayed delivery timeline for the new radars, the unit cost of which is currently pegged at nearly $9 million.

A compounding factor here is that the hardware used to mount the AN/APG-85 on the F-35 is not backwards compatible with the AN/APG-81. According to a report last year from Breaking Defense, the Joint Strike Fighter’s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, has reportedly at least raised the possibility of developing a common mounting solution, but also said that this would not be ready before Lot 20 aircraft start being delivered. The first Lot 20 jets are not expected to arrive until sometime between 2027 and 2028.

How the Marine Corps, or any other service, might utilize its radarless F-35s in the meantime is unknown. This was among our queries to the Marines today.

“The currently fielded Block 3 (TR-2) F-35 Lightning II is the most capable fighter in the world today, having proven its capabilities in combat,” the Marine Corps spokesperson added in their statement. “Its advanced mission systems enable the F-35 to deter, and if necessary, dominate in any clime and place.”

Senator Kelly also prodded Lt. Gen. Masiello about this, indirectly, at the hearing this week.

“So, I assume that those airplanes can’t count as fully mission capable with no radar?” Kelly asked the JPO head.

“I don’t think I would count them as fully mission capable,” Masiello said in response.

“You say you don’t think. I can’t imagine a scenario where an F-35 with no radar could be an FMC airplane,” Kelly retorted, which Masiello did not push back on.

TWZ has previously noted that F-35s without radars would not be completely useless, but their capabilities and survivability would certainly be severely degraded. As we previously wrote:

“As long as one F-35 in a formation has a radar, all of the other aircraft in said group should be able to benefit from the data it provides via their Multifunction Advanced Data Links (MADL). As such, even without a radar installed, a Joint Strike Fighter would not be without F-35-derived radar data if at least one other was flying cooperatively with it within MADL’s transmission reach.“

“It is possible that radar-less jets could be sent into combat, at least in an emergency scenario, though doing so would still require accepting greater risks. It would limit tactical flexibility, as well, since remaining linked together with other radar-equipped jets would be key. Those jets would also have to rely on using their radars more heavily, which can be a vulnerability. The F-35 also has a host of passive sensors that it can rely on for battlespace information, although none are capable of replacing the radar’s functionality. Data from other platforms transmitted via Link 16 is also available to all F-35 pilots.“

“Maybe one of the biggest issues with having no radar is that it is a major part of the jet’s electronic warfare suite. Its ability to transmit narrow, extremely powerful beams of energy adds to the jet’s potent electronic attack capability. So, without the radar, its ability to defend itself and others by leveraging the electromagnetic spectrum is also curbed.“

Remarks from Lt. Gen. Masiello at the hearing this week also raise new concerns about the capabilities that the AN/APG-85 radars will offer even when they do finally start being integrated onto F-35s. This is tied to what it will take to sufficiently cool the radar and other elements of the Block 4 upgrade package. Thermal management is another long-standing issue for all variants of the F-35, which has already had major negative impacts on readiness rates and maintenance demands, as you can read about in more detail here.

“So, right now, you’re cooling, you got about 30 kilowatts [of cooling],” Senator Kelly said as part of another question posed to the head of the F-35 JPO. “Block 4 requires 32 [kilowatts of cooling], is what I have here. But to get to the cooling needed to – for the full capability of the APG-85, needs to be somewhat higher, it seems like 62 kilowatts of cooling?”

“The requirement that we have for the program going forward is 62 to 80 [kilowatts of cooling],” Masiello said in response. “The challenge I see is if the totality of Block 4, when it’s installed, and on the aircraft, it takes the complete power available, which is 32 [kilowatts].”

“There’s no margin, which as you know, is not a smart way to go,” he continued. “So, we have an incremental approach to increase that. And we have an ongoing program to look at a more systemic and affordable upgrade to the power thermal management across the program.”

Masiello insisted that this Power and Thermal Management System (PTMS) upgrade would not be required for AN/APG-85 integration, but also made clear that it would be available in time, regardless.

“For the engine core upgrade that we anticipate and have asked for additional funding on that, we anticipate that being fielded in 2031, and it will come with a marginal increase in the power thermal management,” he explained. “The actual system that’s under review and looking for the forward program will come a few years later into the system, which is when we would have the additional capabilities beyond Block 4, not yet to be determined that will require that.”

At the same time, as Masiello himself acknowledged, the current plan offers no margin when it comes to cooling before the PTMS upgrade is available. In response to further questioning by Senator Kelly, he declined to speak in an unclassified setting about what that might mean for the initial fielding of the AN/APG-85 radar.

As noted, the entire Block 4 upgrade effort continues to be beset by delays and cost growth, despite efforts to reorganize and accelerate certain components thereof. As of September 2025, the schedule for delivery of a truncated portion of the upgrade package was still running five years behind, according to GAO. The original goal had been for F-35s with the full suite of Block 4 improvements to begin arriving this year.

Beyond the AN/APG-85, Block 4 is eventually supposed to include replacements for the Joint Strike Fighter’s AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), as well as a new electronic warfare suite and a host of other improved capabilities. The Air Force previously described the electronic warfare package, which directly tied in with the APG-85, as a top priority. This is all driving the aforementioned demands for more auxiliary power-generation and thermal cooling capacity, work on which is also now behind schedule.

The F-35 program as a whole continues to face growing costs and other challenges associated with operating and maintaining the jets, which are key factors in the low readiness rates of all variants in service today. Spare parts shortages have been a particularly persistent and serious problem, as you can learn more about in this past TWZ feature.

“That is now what we’re putting forth is the requirement, which is the reason why, in this generational investment of the 2027 budget will help us. So, we will fill up the available parts,” Lt. Gen. Masiello also said at the hearing this week. “It’s not a systemic issue with the system having the ability. It’s the fact that we didn’t put enough parts and pieces on the shelf. And we’ve increased the demand exponentially with the number of aircraft fielded, and we didn’t do the same thing with the spare parts and the system.”

As of last year, the total project cost of the entire program, from initial development in the 1990s through the end of the type’s expected lifecycle in the 2070s, was pegged at $2.1 trillion. The JPO has stressed in the past that this figure includes the acquisition of thousands of jets and that inflation is expected to account for roughly half of the total cost.

When it comes to the continuing saga of the AN/APG-85, F-35s are now being delivered without any radars, and it could be years still before that changes.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The ongoing armed violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has stalled national examinations, putting the future of students at risk. Many students in the region have complained about not being able to reach the locations of their examinations due to roadblocks mounted by rebels and local militants.

Michel Buingo, the chief of the provincial sub-division for primary, secondary, and new citizenship education in Walikale 4, North Kivu, said that 540 final-year students were expected to sit two examinations at different centres within the sub-division. However, only 387 students arrived, while 153 were unable to access the examination centres due to security issues.

Local authorities in the education sector attribute the low student participation at examination centres to ongoing insecurity affecting several areas from which the candidates come. Recent armed clashes, population movements, and forced displacements in the DRC’s eastern region have disrupted the educational activities of many students, making it difficult for them to access examination centres.

This situation illustrates the consequences of the security crisis for the education sector in several zones of North Kivu. While authorities said they are doing their best to ensure that students write their national examinations, several students continue to pay the price of security instability, with their educational futures compromised.

Cases of stalled examinations have become a recurring issue in recent years. In 2025, the continuation of national exams in active conflict zones was only made possible in part by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). They facilitated the transport of sealed trunks containing exam papers from Kinshasa to various locations in North Kivu, including areas controlled by rebel groups. In 2024, hundreds of students were also unable to write their examinations due to widespread violence in the city of Bweremana in the North Kivu region.

The ongoing armed violence in the DRC has significantly impacted the quality of education. A 2025 UNICEF report states that more than 1.6 million children are currently out of school due to escalating conflict and mass displacement. In the North Kivu and South Kivu provinces, over 2,500 schools and learning centres have been forced to close, leaving approximately 795,000 children without access to education.

“Even before the latest escalation of the conflict, the education system in eastern DRC was under immense strain, due, in part, to the high number of displaced people,” the report partly noted.

U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III cargo jets have arrived in Venezuela, packed with personnel and equipment for the ongoing earthquake relief efforts. The aircraft are joining U.S. forces already in the country as well as on the amphibious transport ship USS Fort Lauderdale, the littoral combat ship USS Billings and at American bases around the region.

The flights are part of a growing U.S. military presence being run by U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in support of the U.S. State Department. The movements are in response to 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude earthquakes Wednesday night that Venezuelan authorities say devastated much of the northern part of the country and have killed more than 900. 

Utter devastation seen across the Northern Venezuelan coastal city of La Guaira, following tonight’s pair of major earthquakes, measuring 7.2 and 7.5 magnitude with an epicenter just to the west of Caracas. pic.twitter.com/BQv4YixUiB

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) June 25, 2026

WATCH: Inside Caracas Simon Bolivar International Airport during a powerful earthquake that struck Venezuela.

The first 7.2-magnitude quake was followed just 39 seconds later by a stronger 7.5-magnitude quake, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS), with witnesses… pic.twitter.com/3eZk7RV86h

— Breaking Aviation News & Videos (@aviationbrk) June 25, 2026

The first C-17 arrived in Venezuela this morning. Online flight trackers show that at least four of the cargo jets have left the U.S.

“The first air shipment of equipment has arrived to support the two specialized U.S. search and rescue teams, which are arriving in Venezuela to join ground operations as soon as possible,” the U.S. Embassy in Caracas said in a post on X. “With nearly 80 experts per team—firefighters, doctors, structural engineers—12 canines trained for detection in rubble, these groups bring advanced capabilities to locate survivors and assist in complex emergencies. Their personnel and specialized equipment are being positioned to head to the hardest-hit areas and begin operations when conditions allow.”

La primera carga aérea de equipamiento ha llegado para apoyar a los dos equipos especializados de búsqueda y rescate de los EE.UU., que están llegando a Venezuela para integrarse lo antes posible a las operaciones en el terreno. Con cerca de 80 expertos por equipo – bomberos,… pic.twitter.com/ZCaQMcBM6J

— Embajada de los EE.UU. en Caracas (@usembassyve) June 26, 2026

A second one reportedly landed in the stricken nation as well.

A second USAF C-17 carrying humanitarian aid and search and rescue teams has landed at El Libertador airbase in Maracay, also seen in the background are two Mexican air force planes that delivered aid this morning #Venezuela pic.twitter.com/LR9WuSbOh2

— CNW (@ConflictsW) June 26, 2026

“A C-17 Globemaster III was loaded overnight at Dover AFB with Urban Search and Rescue personnel and equipment for transport to Venezuela in support of State Department-led humanitarian response efforts,” SOUTHCOM said in a post on X Friday morning. “America’s military is delivering the people and capabilities needed to save lives.”

When called, the @DeptofWar moves.
A C-17 Globemaster III was loaded overnight at Dover AFB with Urban Search and Rescue personnel and equipment for transport to Venezuela in support of @StateDept-led humanitarian response efforts.

America’s military is delivering the people and… pic.twitter.com/zMguJ7Ra4q

— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) June 26, 2026

When disaster strikes, we answer the call. USA-01 is enroute to #Venezuela following the devastating earthquakes, w/ 79 personnel, six K9s, and 70k lbs of equipment. We are honored to represent the US, bringing our expertise, compassion, & unwavering dedication to those affected. pic.twitter.com/8snA89Qwae

— VA-TF1 / USA-01 – Urban Search and Rescue (@VATF1) June 26, 2026

Another C-17 landed in Curaçao. The island is serving as one staging area for international efforts to search for survivors and victims and bring in much-needed humanitarian aid.

The US response to the earthquake disaster in Venezuela is well underway.
📍The first related C-17, #AE1449 as RCH234, arrived in Curacao overnight.
📍#AE2FA6 as RCH525 is en route with members of USA-02 urban search & rescue team.
📍#AE07F8 as RCH421 is en route with members of… pic.twitter.com/4mznPCySI7

— TheIntelFrog (@TheIntelFrog) June 26, 2026

U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Kevin J. Jarrard arrived in Caracas on Thursday to oversee the Pentagon’s Venezuela earthquake relief efforts, SOUTHCOM stated. 

“Jarrard is serving as the senior U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) official on the ground and is working closely with partners to plan, coordinate, and direct the U.S. military’s unparalleled logistical and operational capabilities to support the rapid, life-saving movement of response personnel, equipment, and humanitarian assistance into affected areas,” the command said in a media release.

RELEASE: SOUTHCOM Leadership Arrives in Venezuela to Coordinate Earthquake Relief Support

U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Kevin J. Jarrard arrived in Caracas, Venezuela, today, to oversee Department of War support to Venezuela earthquake relief efforts.

Maj. Gen. Jarrard is serving… pic.twitter.com/sCIhyuI63L

— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) June 26, 2026

In another post on X, SOUTHCOM included a photograph of a USMC MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. The Osprey is part of an array of fixed- and rotary-wing assets deployed for the relief effort around the region.

Jarrard is leading SOUTHCOM Commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan’s deployment of “significant forces to the effort,” according to the command. This includes the aforementioned cargo jets and Navy vessels, as well as C-130 Hercules transports, unspecified reconnaissance platforms and rotary-wing aircraft.

“These forces will provide specialized mobility services and support to U.S. government personnel, search and rescue teams, and U.S. interagency partners as they assess damage, locate the injured, and deliver critical, life-saving assistance,” SOUTHCOM said in a statement.

The Pentagon released images of a U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter loading up personnel and supplies in Honduras for potential participation in this mission.

All this is being anchored by the two Navy vessels, which have been in the region for months.

Earthquake relief support from the sea:
The @USNavy has a proud legacy of providing disaster relief directly from the sea.#SOUTHCOM has directed USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28) and USS Billings (LCS 15) to Venezuela to support @DeptofState-led U.S. government relief operations in… pic.twitter.com/z1JJ0aLjSl

— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) June 26, 2026

Of the two, Fort Lauderdale has been in the Caribbean the longest and took part in the counternarcotics operation that led to the capture of former Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, now in custody in the U.S. The rest of the ships assigned to that mission left the region months ago.

Fort Lauderdale can embark multiple types of rotary wing aircraft, including Marine MV-22B Ospreys and UH-1Y Venoms. Other helicopters can use their large deck area for resupply and refueling, as well. The vessel could be used as a staging area to deliver aid and extract wounded from a nearby port or off the coast of Venezuela. Hundreds of sailors and Marines aboard could assist with humanitarian efforts, from the ship or on the ground. 

The flight deck of Billings, which arrived in the Caribbean in March, is much smaller and supports the ship’s MH-60 Seahawk helicopter and drones. It can also be used by other helicopters.

If needed, there are additional Navy assets operating off the East Coast that could be re-tasked to SOUTHCOM. 

The amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima recently returned to Norfolk from a 10-month deployment in the Caribbean. If it has not yet entered its planned maintenance availability, the vessel could be redeployed if called upon. 

Much less likely is moving the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz. The fleet’s oldest carrier left Mayport, FL, on Wednesday and is now participating in large-scale FLEETEX before a planned transit to New York for America 250 events. 

Rolling deep ⚓💪🌊

Twenty-six ships from 13 partner and allied nations steam in formation with Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) during a multinational maritime exercise as part of Fleet Exercise (FLEETEX) 250 in the Atlantic Ocean, June 25, 2026. Nimitz is… pic.twitter.com/0p0yyvm0QV

— U.S. Navy (@USNavy) June 26, 2026

Meanwhile, America’s unique array of ISR assets can be critical to Venezuela’s relief efforts.

Platforms like MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-4C Triton drones and piloted aircraft like P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol craft and even U-2 Dragon Lady spy planes could bring a lot of sensor power to bear to help with search and rescue, mapping and provide other geospatial intelligence benefits to develop a clearer picture of the situation.

This relief effort is still unfolding and the full extent of the damage is still coming to light. As we previously noted, the disaster offers an opportunity for the U.S. military to foster improving relations with Venezuela almost half a year after Maduro was snatched out of Caracas.

This is where the US military can broadly impact the relationship with Venezuela again. They are now our friends? Go big helping them here. We are prepared and ready for this mission. Huge opportunity here. https://t.co/pu8RSRMjUK

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) June 25, 2026

U.S. President Donald Trump appears to have seized on this chance, at least to some degree, announcing America would play a key role in helping Venezuela in a post on his Truth Social site.

“The two major earthquakes that just hit the great people of Venezuela are both massive in scale and have left a devastating number of deaths,” Trump proclaimed. “The U.S.A. stands ready, willing, and able to help! I have instructed all agencies of our government to get ready to move quickly. We will be there for our new and great friends. Early reports are not good!!!”

We thank U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration, who have been in constant contact with Venezuelan authorities, offering support and solidarity to the people of Venezuela in the face of this tragedy that has plunged us into mourning. https://t.co/nw2bupuN7C

— Delcy Rodríguez (@delcyrodriguezv) June 25, 2026

It is unclear how much larger the U.S. military presence will grow for this mission. Several other countries are taking part as well and China has pledged to. Trump has made keeping the Caribbean under the control of the U.S. a major part of his administration’s plans and a top reason for removing Maduro was to stem the influence of China and Russia there.

MOFA: China to provide humanitarian assistance to Venezuela

China will provide emergency humanitarian assistance to Venezuela, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said on Friday. He added that China is prepared to provide further support as the disaster situation… pic.twitter.com/zpge2sGNXb

— CGTN Frontline (@Frontlinestory) June 26, 2026

We will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates when warranted.

UPDATE: 3:28 PM EDT –

SOUTHCOM provided an update on the assets being deployed:

• Two U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster aircraft are transporting U.S. Urban Search and Rescue teams based in Los Angeles and Fairfax, Virginia, and one U.S. Air Force C-17 will deliver load-movement equipment to Caracas.

• U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Ospreys will transport an airfield assessment team to Venezuela to support airport operations that were impacted near the earthquake epicenter.

• The U.S. Navy’s San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28) and Freedom-variant littoral combat ship USS Billings (LCS 15) have arrived in waters near Venezuela and will begin supporting relief and live-saving efforts.

• Three U.S. Army CH-47 Chinooks and crews from Joint Task Force-Bravo will depart Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras en route to support the transport of key personnel and supplies aiding impacted Venezuelan communities.

• The command’s U.S. Space Force component is providing satellite imagery of devastated areas to disaster relief planners in Venezuela to aid them in assessing where immediate live-saving and aid efforts are needed most and identifying what capability requests to prioritize.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

US president threatens to ‘militarily complete the job’ as US strikes Iran over ship attacks.

Scotland, who have played at each of the past two European Championships, booked their spot at a World Cup for the first time since 1998 in dramatic fashion with an unforgettable victory against Denmark at Hampden Park in November.

Backed by tens of thousands of fans who had travelled to the United States, John McGinn’s deflected strike against Haiti earned the country’s first win at a World Cup for 36 years.

That would be Scotland’s only goal of the tournament.

They lost to a second-minute strike by 2022 semi-finalists Morocco in their second match, so they entered their final group game against Brazil knowing a draw would probably be enough to send them through as one of the best third-placed teams.

However, first-half defensive errors would prove their undoing.

They once again conceded early when defender Scott McKenna was robbed of possession inside his own penalty area, gifting an opener to Vinicius Jr.

The Real Madrid forward was denied a second when the video assistant referee (VAR) deemed he had fouled Jack Hendry before rolling the ball past Angus Gunn, but just before half-time Scotland again gave the ball away near their own goal and Vinicius Jr nodded in at the back post to make it 2-0.

Matheus Cunha extended Brazil’s advantage after half-time and a late rally failed to yield a reply that would have improved Scotland’s goal difference.