NEWS

Chinese military and intelligence analyses for 2025 and 2026 indicate that China views the expansion of the Egyptian Armed Forces in establishing numerous naval and air bases, such as the Bernice and Gargoub bases, with strategic interest. Beijing considers this trend, spearheaded by the Egyptian political leadership under President El-Sisi and the Egyptian Ministry of Defense, a vital component of a comprehensive strategic partnership between Egypt and China, aimed at securing shared interests in strategically vital regions. Chinese intelligence and military agencies view the Egyptian expansion in establishing military bases, such as the Mohamed Naguib base, the July 3 base, and bases east and west of the Suez Canal, as part of a comprehensive Chinese strategy to develop the Egyptian Armed Forces and enhance their deterrent capabilities against Beijing’s adversaries in the region. This perspective aligns with Beijing’s view of Egypt as a key strategic partner in Africa and the Middle East. The Chinese military establishment’s vision for this Egyptian military development of air and naval bases up to 2026 can be detailed, as follows: Supporting the Egyptian political leadership’s vision, from a Chinese perspective, of Egyptian military development under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, is seen as a serious attempt to modernize the army and transform it into a smart deterrent force capable of protecting national security and the country’s economic interests. This aligns with China’s +1 strategy (localization), as China seeks to leverage the development of Egyptian bases to become centers for localizing Chinese military technology in Egypt, particularly in the areas of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as the Wing Loong and advanced air defense systems, such as the HQ-9B.

In this context, China views Egypt’s expansion in establishing military bases, such as the Mohamed Naguib Base, the July 3 Base, and the bases east and west of the Suez Canal, with strategic interest as a crucial element in strengthening the comprehensive strategic partnership between Cairo and Beijing. China considers these Egyptian military bases, especially those located on the Mediterranean Sea and near the Suez Canal. Bases like the July 3rd Air Base serve as vital support points for protecting China’s commercial interests and the routes of its Belt and Road Initiative, which passes through the Egyptian Suez Canal. Egypt represents a cornerstone in China’s 21st-century strategy. Therefore, China aims to bolster Egypt’s deterrent capabilities (a defense partnership). Chinese military officials believe that modernizing the Egyptian armed forces through these naval and air bases and localizing Chinese defense industries in Cairo, in accordance with President Sisi’s vision, enhances the independence of Egyptian military decision-making, paves the way for multipolarity, supports developing countries in the Global South, and contributes to regional stability. Relations between Egypt and China have moved beyond mere arms deals to the localization of Chinese technology within Egypt, enabling Egypt to confront regional challenges more effectively and creating a kind of regional balance of power. Here, Beijing, by supporting Egyptian military expansion through these bases, aims to create a strategic balance in the region amidst a growing Egyptian-Chinese rapprochement seen as an alternative to or complement to traditional partnerships with the West. This can be inferred from the military exercises. The air capabilities and joint military exercises between Egypt and China are reflected here. Joint air exercises, such as Eagles of Civilization 2025, and cooperation at Wadi Abu Rish Air Base are Egyptian-Chinese joint training exercises aimed at exchanging expertise in air combat and protecting maritime routes. This coincides with Egypt’s interest in military and arms deals with China, such as the J-10C. Other Egyptian military negotiations with China regarding the purchase of advanced submarines, known as the Yuan class, are also underway. This reduces Egypt’s military dependence on Washington and the West and strengthens the Chinese presence in the Egyptian military arsenal. This reflects a convergence of military visions between the two countries, with China supporting Egypt’s efforts to modernize its military infrastructure. The new bases are considered a cornerstone for securing shared interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

Beijing also aims to strengthen the comprehensive strategic partnership. Here, the Chinese vision extends beyond mere arms deals; it views this as a core partnership aimed at establishing a broad military alliance with Egypt to develop the Chinese military Silk Road. This includes joint operational planning and training exercises, as demonstrated in the Civilization Eagles 2025 maneuvers. China seeks to effect a comprehensive shift in the regional balance of power. Chinese intelligence believes that establishing bases and developing naval and air forces will grant Egypt strategic independence and reduce its dependence on the West. This, in turn, opens the door for China to enhance its influence in the region through defense cooperation, thereby securing shared Chinese and Egyptian military interests. Beijing considers securing Egyptian bases for maritime routes (the Suez Canal) and the Red Sea to be in line with Chinese economic and security interests within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. In general, the Chinese military establishment views Cairo as working to build a strong regional pivot point, and Beijing sees this expansion as an opportunity to deepen defense and technological ties with Cairo, paving the way for the formal declaration of a Chinese-Egyptian military Silk Road partnership.

China views the new Egyptian military bases as a means of protecting its strategic interests within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. These bases, particularly those located on the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Suez Canal, occupy vital maritime chokepoints, and China considers them a guarantee for the security of its international trade routes. The relationship between Egypt and China has evolved from mere arms purchases to the localization of defense industries, such as the production of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and electronic warfare systems, increasing Egypt’s military reliance on Chinese technology. These Egyptian military bases, which enhance Egypt’s rapid deployment capabilities, align with China’s interests in establishing a multipolar regional order that reduces American influence in the Middle East. Chinese intelligence, military, defense, and security reports indicate a qualitative shift in Egyptian military doctrine. Chinese military institutions affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army analyze that Egyptian military bases, such as the July 3rd base, provide strategic depth and protection for economic assets (gas fields and the Dabaa nuclear power plant), thus contributing to the economic stability in which China participates. For this reason, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is seeking to train and qualify the Egyptian military elite through the Military Academy for Advanced Studies as an alternative to Western and American training.

The Chinese intelligence and military establishments view the Egyptian army’s expansionist vision in establishing naval and air bases within Egypt as part of the development strategy adopted by the Egyptian Armed Forces and the political leadership of President El-Sisi. This strategy aims to complete the modernization of the Egyptian Armed Forces and advance the Chinese military Silk Road with Egypt’s assistance. China supports the Egyptian Armed Forces’ efforts to modernize Egyptian military infrastructure, considering the new Egyptian military bases a cornerstone for securing China’s shared interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea. China views these new Egyptian military bases, particularly on the Red Sea, as essential for securing Chinese trade routes (the military/maritime Silk Road) and mitigating risks. In addition to the significant role Egypt plays for China as a regional power center and a key player in the balance of power, relevant military circles in Beijing analyze the modernization of the Egyptian army as a center of gravity for stability in the Middle East and Africa. A strong and stable army serves China’s interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. Therefore, China translates its vision into tangible support, including modernizing Egypt’s military infrastructure to align with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative in its maritime, air, and naval components and equipping it with advanced weapons systems.

Based on the preceding understanding and analysis, we conclude that the new Egyptian military bases (naval and air) are considered, according to the Chinese military and strategic vision, strategic strengths. Their benefits extend beyond Egypt, securing China’s commercial and military interests in the Mediterranean and Red Seas. They also provide a Chinese technological alternative in a region previously dominated by Western and American platforms, paving the way for China’s gradual expansion of its military Silk Road initiative.

A Russian drone strike has hit a kindergarten in Ukraine’s Sumy region, killing at least one person and injuring two others, Ukrainian officials said. The attack came as Kyiv accused Moscow of violating a unilateral ceasefire proposed by Ukraine amid competing truce announcements from both sides.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Tuesday that Operation Epic Fury – the US-Israeli strikes on Iran which commenced on February 28 and prompted a regional conflict – had concluded as its objectives had been achieved. Washington now prefers “the path of peace”, Rubio said.

On the same day, US President Donald Trump announced that the US military operation to escort stranded ships out of the Strait of Hormuz – “Project Freedom”, which was launched the day before – had been paused.

So, does this mean the US-Israel war on Iran is over?

What did Rubio say about Operation Epic Fury?

In a media briefing at the White House on Tuesday, Rubio told reporters that Operation Epic Fury was over.

“The Operation Epic Fury is concluded. We achieved the objectives of that operation,” Rubio said.

“We’re not cheering for an additional situation to occur. We would prefer the path of peace. What the president would prefer is a deal,” he said, referring to Pakistan’s efforts to arrange direct talks between Iran and the US.

The first round of these, in Islamabad last month, ended without a resolution. Both sides have submitted new proposals since then.

“The on-again, off-again talks with Iran, alongside Trump’s abrupt about turn on ‘Operation Freedom’ to guide vessels out of the Strait of Hormuz has created unwelcome frenzy in the Gulf,” Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow for Middle East security at UK-based think tank Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), told Al Jazeera.

“It also reflects the highly fraught and almost frantic diplomatic backchannelling aimed to extract deep concessions from Tehran on the nuclear issue that will lock in commitments that exceed previous conditions, and which will convince the US to lift the blockade on Iranian ports and unlock sanctions relief – thereby effectively ending the war.”

Ozcelik explained that Iran, on the other hand, wants guarantees that this will be the end of the war, rather than just a pause.

What did Trump say about Project Freedom?

The same day, Trump told reporters that Project Freedom had been paused “based on the request” of Pakistan and other countries, and the “fact that Great Progress has been made towards a Complete and Final Agreement” with representatives of Iran.

Project Freedom was the US forces’ operation to escort stranded ships through the Strait of Hormuz that Trump announced the day before. It had appeared to signal a direct challenge to Iran’s closure of the strategic waterway, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped in peacetime. Iran’s threats to attack ships in the strait have blockaded it since the US-Israel attacks on Iran began. Then, the US announcement of a naval blockade on Iranian ports added to the standoff around the strait.

After Trump announced Project Freedom, Iran said ships trying to use the strait without permission from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would be fired on, igniting fears of a return to war. His announcement triggered a war of words between the US and Iran, with claims and counterclaims about strikes continuing throughout the day.

First, Iran’s Fars agency claimed it had hit a US warship with drones after it ignored orders to turn back from the Strait of Hormuz. US Central Command (CENTCOM) denied a US ship had been struck, however, and instead claimed to have sunk at least six IRGC vessels. Iran denied that. Tehran then published a new map extending its claimed area of control over the strait into UAE waters, raising fears of a new regional confrontation.

The UAE accused Iran of launching strikes on its Fujairah port, the site of an important oil pipeline, which sparked a fire in an oil refinery.

On Tuesday, the US operation had been stopped, according to Trump.

“We have mutually agreed that, while the [US] Blockade will remain in full force and effect, Project Freedom (The Movement of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz) will be paused for a short period of time to see whether or not the Agreement can be finalized and signed,” he wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Iran has not immediately responded to this.

Shahram Akbarzadeh, a professor in Middle East and Central Asian politics at Australia’s Deakin University, told Al Jazeera that while it is difficult to determine exactly why Trump has paused Project Freedom, the pause comes against the backdrop of growing antiwar public opinion in the US.

“At the same time, Trump may be losing patience with the war; he says he has time to drag this out,” Akbarzadeh said.

“But in reality, Trump has a short attention span and needs to secure a win – soon. Pausing Project Freedom allows diplomacy to pick up pace, bringing US and Iran closer to a deal that Trump would label as a win.”

Is this the end of the war on Iran?

Not exactly. Akbarzadeh said pausing Project Freedom could serve as “the beginning of the end for the war”.

“We know that the Iranians are desperate for an end, so there is little chance of them resuming attacks on US Navy if Trump sends explicit signals that diplomacy has a green light,” he said.

However, he added, “The problem is that we have been here before. Earlier opportunities were squandered because Israel insisted that the US could get a better deal or because Trump misread the situation and expected the military option to grant him more concessions.”

What happens next?

It is difficult to predict this, but neither side appears to want a return to full-scale war, so both are likely to prioritise a diplomatic way out, Akbarzadeh said.

Still, “neither can afford to be seen as the loser,” he added. “They feel their public image needs to be preserved for their own respective domestic audience. This complicates negotiations and reaching a deal.”

Ozcelik said what happens next “will be determined by what the fractured leadership in Tehran commits to on the nuclear file.

“While it has rejected that talks involve curbs on Iran’s nuclear programme, this type of posturing has aimed to assuage domestic, hard-line and Iranian nationalists who are rattled by the US-Israel strikes and see nuclear issues from a nationalist, sovereign rights perspective.”

She predicted that the United Nations may soon issue a formal condemnation of Iran for unilaterally blockading the Strait of Hormuz.

“But the real pressure, mounting by the day, is the economic one – that shutting the strait is imposing punishing costs on Iran’s economic recovery prospects,” she said.

“Despite rhetoric on resilience and survival, the remaining Iranian leadership is undeniably concerned about the costs of the war. The possibility of renewed military strikes against Iranian critical infrastructure and the destabilising impacts these would inevitably have might be finally forcing Tehran’s hand,” Ozcelik concluded.

On a hauntingly cold night in 2008, a 28-year-old impressionable fan of Mohammed Yusuf sat in the latter’s compound in the London Ciki area of Maiduguri, northeastern Nigeria, at 1 a.m., placed his hand in his, and swore to give his life for Boko Haram. He would advance to become a top commander in the terror group.

That night, the Man was accompanied by a few trusted friends, all of whom pledged their allegiance to the cause. Yusuf started by reciting eight commandments to the small group and asking that they swear to abide by them. He made it clear they could refuse to join the army, in which case, they were not to disclose any of the things that happened that night to another living soul. 

Many of them would die in battle in the years that followed, and Yusuf himself would be killed in a matter of months, but the Man would survive. He had been led there by his friend, who had also been led there by his own friend. 

Mohammed Yusuf, the founder of the Boko Haram terror group, was preparing to wage war against the Nigerian state and was assembling what would later become an army. This army would go on to kill over 35,000 people between 2009 and 2020, indirectly lead to the death of over 300,000 others, and displace over two million more. Through fieldwork involving extensive interviews with a few first-generation members of the terror group who are still alive, victims, and a review of nearly 100 archival materials, such as newspapers and videos, this report documents the strategy that made that army possible.

Since his preaching was still largely peaceful at the time, Yusuf recruited men covertly, so as not to alert the government to the war he was planning. 

But the story of the Man’s radicalisation began long before that night. As far back as 1995 and 1996, the Man, then merely a boy, had begun to listen to Mohammed Yusuf’s preaching, agreeing with a lot of the things he was hearing. But beyond Yusuf, the Man was also an ardent follower of Sheikh Jafar Mahmud, who had been schooled at the University of Madina, Saudi Arabia, a feat he found astonishing.

“That time, I was impressed with the way Malam [Mohammed Yusuf] was. He was a young man like me–he was just a bit older than me. But he was so educated, and that was my dream, too. To become so knowledgeable about the religion,” the Man told me one October afternoon in 2025 in northeastern Nigeria. We were sitting on a mat just outside a rafia hut.

“He had started becoming popular among the Izala and the Abba Aji students, just like how the likes of Gambo Kyari, Bukar Mustapha, Umoru Mustapha, and the rest were popular then. Like Malam Ibrahim Gomari, Bashir Kashara, who was killed, and so on. He [Mohammed Yusuf] was their peer when it came to Islamic scholarship.” 

His ideologies aligned with those of scholars like Sheikh Jafar, who was based in Kano but was preaching regularly at and leading prayers at the Indimi mosque every Ramadan in Maiduguri. In 1999, Yusuf’s fame began to rise beyond his immediate community, his words taking root in the minds of young men and women all across Borno State. The support and fandom were massive. The Man thinks this was due to two things.

“One, he was very young then. Two, he used to preach in both Hausa and Kanuri.” This enabled him to reach a wider audience without a language barrier, as these were among the most widely spoken languages in Borno State. 

Over time, around 2000 and 2002, his preaching began to diverge from that of the likes of Sheikh Jafar and other revered scholars popular at the time. He began to speak against Western education, voting, democracy, and modern science and civilisation. He preached about a radical form of religion that had total government control over the people’s private and public lives. 

In about 60 videos of him around this time that HumAngle reviewed, each 3-6 minutes long, he can be seen preaching against democracy and the West. “The thing the West brought is apostasy,” he said in one of them. “We reject it. This democracy is not good. These soldiers are not genuine soldiers–they do not protect the religion of Islam… God said we should kill them. Allah said in the Qur’an that he would humiliate the enemy by our hand. Did you think he meant our hands holding prayer beads?” and here he chuckles. “Of course not,” he answered himself to the ecstatic screams of his congregation. “He was referring to our hands wielding guns.”

At this time, many of the scholars he used to be known with began to withdraw from him. Rather than see this as the alarm that the larger public saw it as, the Man and many young people like him saw it as a sign of legitimacy. They saw Yusuf as brave, courageous, and unwavering. 

“We believed what he was preaching was the truth because what he was saying regarding the government, jihad, correlated with Qur’an verses and hadiths,” he said. He quoted verses from Chapters Ahzab and Taubah to back up his claim, saying that the scriptures had already said that nothing could change the world if not jihad, which he personally interpreted as war.

Islamic scholars have long disproved this interpretation of scripture and the word ‘jihad’. HumAngle shared the Man’s interpretation of the verses in Ahzab and Taubah with a prominent Islamic scholar, Prof. Ibrahim Maqari, who currently serves as the Chief Imam at the central mosque in Abuja, the federal capital. He said the interpretation was inaccurate. 

“Those verses have been taken out of context. Islam is very clear on there not being compulsion in religion,” he said. “Islam allows war only when war is brought upon you. In that sense, you have a responsibility to fight back in order to protect yourself. There are laws on how warring parties must treat even animals and trees–how can the same religion be used as an excuse to slaughter innocent, unarmed populations, if even animals and trees are expected to be protected even in times of war?”

He also offered an additional, but often ignored, definition of the word: restraint, whether emotional or mental. 

“To stay away from what one craves but has been outlawed by Islam could also be a form of jihad.”

The Boko Haram group views it differently. “Jihad means blood must be spilt,” the Man said.

Following his split with Sheikh Jafar, Yusuf stopped preaching at the Indimi mosque and began preaching in his home, then at the Al’amin Daggash Mosque for several months before he was kicked out again, before eventually establishing the Markaz (Ibn Taimiyya) mosque. 

“Only about 40-50 of us went with him then. That was 2002–2003. With the help of Allah, after like two years, Markaz couldn’t even contain people; we could not even count the number of students anymore.”

There were very few journalists or researchers at the time who were able to accurately document this sociological (and religious) revolution. One of them was Ahmad Salkida, who dispatched the first-ever news article on Mohammed Yusuf in 2006 and was the first to alert the public to what was brewing. He observed in one report that Yusuf enjoyed wide acceptance from young people at the time because of the effects of bad governance and the resulting socioeconomic inequalities—corruption, rampant inequality, lack of education. 

By appealing to a shared victimhood philosophy, he created an Us (victims) Vs Them (the government/the oppressor) dichotomy and garnered a large following. The weaponisation of a sense of community to further genocidal violence is a tactic that is recurring in speeches of warlords or leaders of violent movements. It was apparent in the popular 1943 speech made by Heinrich  Himmler, one of the key military leaders who executed the Holocaust. In it, he frames the killing of jews as a moral obligation, while making the Nazis out to be the victims.  “We have a moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill [some use the word ‘destroy’ here as the original speech was in German] these people who would kill us… We have carried out this most difficult of tasks in a spirit of love for our people,” he said in the speech. 

As the number of his students and followers began to increase, Yusuf decided it was time to take his message beyond his house and Maiduguri. He began to travel to Konduga, Bama, and Gwoza. He soon went beyond Borno State into Yobe State, to places like Potiskum, Gashua, Geidam, and others. He also went to Bauchi. 

“We started getting senior students like Abu Mohammed Bauchi, Abu Maryam, etc. It later crossed to Kano, and there, we got senior scholars, even though they later withdrew.”

It was at this time, when his preaching became regular in Bama, that Fatima, another first-generation member of the group, began to attend. Alongside her entire family, she became a loyal follower of Yusuf. She took the bay’ah in a way that resembled what the Man described. 

“We were gathered around 4 p.m. and then separated into men and women, then took the oath,” she recalled. At this time, the preaching was mainly that the government did not have their best interest at heart, and did not care about Islam. Fatima went alongside her parents and husband. She remembers being told that the Nigerian constitution was forbidden for them to follow or abide by. They also told them that they might be killed, but they should rest assured that they would go straight to paradise if that happened. 

“There are people, these days, who claim that the drinking of blood is somehow part of the oath-taking process. This is not true. At least, not during our time,” she said.

The preachings, at this time, had started to grow more and more radical and inciting.

“This caused some people to lose their wives, some their parents, some their trading partners, and some to destroy their school certificates,” the Man said. Young people, in compliance with the very foundation of Boko Haram, which directly translates to “Western education is forbidden”, began to publicly burn school certificates that they had already acquired before they became radicalised.

“We all knew this was going to happen; it wasn’t a secret,” the Man said of the eventual uprising. “There are scholars who would preach saying we have to shed blood in this country, but once they are done preaching, you will see them with the same government they are criticising in their houses, with cars given to them. But Malam was never like that. He was never in cahoots with the government, so we all believed in him and that he was going to carry out what he had intended–the war.”

The early army

The Man claimed that Yusuf first appointed 11 close friends, whom he termed his commanders. They were the first members of the Boko Haram army. He sat with these 11 and explained the reason for the war, assuring them it would happen soon. He told them they each must be willing to sacrifice their lives if it came to that, and also bring men who believed in the cause and would be willing to do the same. 

He trained them for an initial period of nine months. Some CDs were played for them on war preparation. There were long periods of preaching and indoctrination. 

“Some of these men are in prison, but most of them have died. The only person who is not in prison and is alive was released from prison two years ago: Mohammed Idris. He was imprisoned in 2009. There is Usman Sidi in the Malam Sidi deradicalisation centre in Gombe, and Ibrahim Agaji, who is still in prison. And so on.”

It was one of these first 11 commanders who reached out to the Man, inviting him to join the army. Yusuf had mandated that each of them come with three trusted men who could join. This was not as easy as it sounded, especially because speaking to the wrong person could jeopardise the entire plan if they chose to go to the authorities with what they knew. When the commander reached out to the Man, he explained this, adding that he himself did not know up to three people he could trust, only the Man. He asked the Man to bring the other two. He, too, only trusted one person and asked that person to bring one person as well. In that way, the commander fulfilled his assigned quota of three. Soon, the 11 commanders and their individual recruits totalled 40. Together, they formed the first version of the army, gathering in Yusuf’s house that night in the London Ciki area of Maiduguri and taking the bay’ah after listening to the commandments.

“The first commandment was that we must agree to give our lives if it came to it; then, seeking Islamic knowledge to understand our ancestors; we must also not do things except as stated in the books, whether we like it or not; then, there was confidentiality. I have forgotten most of the conditions. There were like eight conditions. If you agree to them, Malam would take your hand and hold it as you took the bay’ah. You would promise never to discuss it with anyone. If you do, it’s like you have betrayed the religion.”

After that night, they proceeded to undergo a four-month intensive period of prayer and training. They had access to one man, Habib, who used to be a sergeant in the Nigerian Army but whom Yusuf had won over with his preachings. He trained them in combat. Yusuf had also won over one medical doctor, a prominent consultant from Yola known as Abu Adam. He equipped them with basic medical skills, including how to remove a bullet lodged in a wound and how to stitch a wound.

“To this day, whenever my kids get sick, I am able to administer injections for them once they are prescribed and I buy them, because of the skills I learned from that doctor,” the Man said. 

The initial group of 40 was also mandated to come with recruits – some were mandated to come with up to 10 recruits each, others were mandated to come with only three – and in that way, the army expanded little by little. Once they were in their hundreds, Yusuf broke them into battalions and named each battalion after an Islamic historical figure. The Man was under the Zubair Ibn Awwam battalion. Those who later moved to the Timbuktu triangle were named after Umar Farouk. Each of the 11 commanders was also assigned four sub-commanders known as Munzir. The Man was a Munzir at this time. Each Munzir was in charge of about 70–100 people. The Munzirs, in turn, appointed people they called the Naqeeb, each of whom had 25 people under their care. This system made organising easier. 

“Whenever Mohammed Yusuf says to the leader of Zubair Ibn Awwam battalion, ‘I want you to gather your people for me,’ the leader would look for other Munzirs and me. At that time, four of us were Munzirs under that battalion: Mohammed  Sani Tela, Bako Mai Madara, Abdullahi, and me. So, when Malam says to our commander, ‘Gather your people for me,’ he would just call us (the Munzirs) and say, ‘Gather your people.’ If, for example, I have 100 people under my care, how would I reach them? They’re too much for me, so I would call my Naqeeb and tell them to each bring the 25 people under their individual care. You see, this way it is easier for both me and my superior because 25 people are not a lot to gather.”

“That time, we had not yet relocated to the forest. This all happened in Maiduguri,” he clarified. 

There were several locations used for training in Bauchi and Biu in Borno. As things began to heat up, with preparation for the war being heavily underway, Yusuf got word that the government suspected a war was brewing and planned to attack him and his followers. He was invited multiple times by the DSS and the police in both Maiduguri and Abuja, where he was detained briefly and interrogated over those allegations. He denied arming or preparing for war.

“Since they were planning to attack us, we were supposed to also get ready for them. Before they attack us, let’s attack them. We should just be prepared. So we got ready as much as we could. We got our war arms–Malam and a few people had been getting the arms ready all this time with the help of the former sergeant in the Nigerian Army.”

Just then, they began to face some logistical challenges. Some members of the group who had been entrusted with guns in the past few months of preparation and had been told to bury them for safekeeping suddenly said they no longer remembered where they had buried the guns. This caused a setback with planning, and Yusuf, at first, found it puzzling. 

“But he later said we are going to be optimistic, whether they did not buy it, whether they cheated, or they did buy it and truly couldn’t find the place they buried it, it was still amusing. But he said we will not dwell on this, we will just seek Allah’s help with what we have with us.”

According to another source, another setback in the arms gathering department involved a man known as Aliu Tashaku, whom Yusuf met and presumably radicalised during one of his detentions at the Police headquarters in Abuja. Tashaku was later accused by Yusuf and several Boko Haram leaders of defrauding the group. They say he collected millions of naira with a promise to deliver dozens of AK-47 rifles, which he never fulfilled.

Still, plans continued. From Friday to Sunday, dawn till dusk, they were trained to use the guns they did procure: how to cock and shoot them. “Only a few of us were taught how to wield guns. Just the leaders. Not everyone.”

Finally, on that fateful day in June 2009, the ‘helmet’ incident happened. The incident has since been regarded as the beginning of the war. Some even say it was what caused it.

“I need you to understand,” the Man said, “that the helmet incident was not what led to the war. We had already assembled the army, gathered arms and supplies, and put the structure in place.”

What the incident did was accelerate the inevitable.

The helmet incident

In January 2009, authorities in Borno announced that anyone wishing to ride a bike in Maiduguri must wear a helmet as a safety precaution. The Boko Haram group did not agree with the rule (“how dare an illegitimate body tell us what to do?”). And so on that fateful day in June 2009, they came out en masse to bury four members who had died in a motor crash, flooding major roads. Many of them rode on bikes, and there was not a single helmet in sight. The police formed a blockade and refused to let them through, daring them to cross a particular line. They crossed the line, literally, and the police opened fire on the unarmed crowd. It was an act of extrajudicial violence, but for a people who already fancied themselves a parallel and legitimate government, the sect saw it as an act of war. And so they responded, warring for five days and killing indiscriminately across Borno, Yobe, and Kano. A review of Daily Trust newspapers during the whole week showed that the war dominated its front pages from July 27 to July 31 2009. Reports say that up to 800 people were killed. Abubakar Shekau, who was second-in-command at the time and would later lead the violent group after Yusuf, was wounded.

Yusuf himself was in Kaduna, northwestern Nigeria, on the day of the helmet incident. Sources say he flew into a rage when he learned of it. It was when he returned that he became more public and explicit about the war that must be fought, since the state, he said, had drawn first blood.

“He preached that if we didn’t do anything about these soldiers talking about helmets, there wouldn’t be peace, so at that time, he had not yet been captured. It wasn’t long after that the war happened in July, when everything became messy in Markaz. He spoke during evening prayers that this war was beyond us. For three days, it was like victory was on our side, but now security forces were well prepared, planning to attack us, and the little we had was already finished, and our senior commanders were all dead, so he said everyone should just find their way. That was when we went out, that was when he was arrested.”

The last time the Man saw Yusuf, they were trying to escape from their location as authorities advanced. One of his students insisted that Yusuf hop in his car so they could leave together, but Yusuf refused. By this time, he had sustained a bullet wound to the arm. And so when news of his capture and eventual summary execution arrived, it did not come entirely as a shock to the Man.

Ahmad Salkida, who was being held in a cell at the police headquarters at the time Yusuf was killed there, wrote that over 50 policemen emptied bullets into his body, making sure to avoid his head so that his identity could never be disputed. 

In a video of Yusuf’s remains that HumAngle obtained, there were tens of bullet wounds, his body mangled as though slashed open repeatedly, the inner bloody flesh hanging out in several places. The only body part that remained unwounded was his head. His eyes remained open, as though staring straight ahead. In the background, voices could be heard worrying about the stench. In another video I reviewed, this time of Yusuf being interrogated after he was arrested, he was questioned about medical supplies and arms being found in his home. This corroborates the Man’s accounts about medical supplies and arms having already been gathered. 

Later, the government claimed he had been trying to escape when he was shot and killed. The execution drew nationwide condemnation, and the then-President Umaru Musa Yar’adua ordered a probe into the officers responsible.

In the immediate aftermath, authorities went on a hunt for all members of the group. So the premature army and other followers of the group dispersed, and the Man himself relocated to Gwagwalada in Nigeria’s federal capital, Abuja.

He lived there for about two years with his wives and children, until one day, when former associates found him. Abubakar Shekau had healed, emerged from hibernation, and was ready to lead the army into war, the associates told him. He had sent them to him to deliver the message, and they would do so to as many key members of the army as they could find. They put him in touch with Shekau on the phone. 

“We spoke, and he said he was in good health, and he tasked me with gathering the people from my battalion and to lead them since our leader, as I told you, got captured and was only released last year. That was when I felt the weight of the world on my head because we were in hiding, and now we were being told we were to continue with operations.” 

And so the work of regrouping commenced. The structure that Yusuf had put in place helped in this process. Each commander searched for his Munzirs, and each Munzir searched for his Naqeebs. It was not as easy as it would have been were they all still in Maiduguri and not in hiding, because now they were scattered everywhere, and some people had even died.

HumAngle gathered that at this time, several members whom Yusuf facilitated in their travels to North Africa for arms training and other terrorism-related operations, a clear signal that preparations for war were underway long before the July 2009 ma’araka, returned to boost the army Shekau was assembling. Many of them were unable to return by the time the conflict erupted.

Once they had regrouped, the strategic efforts to topple the Nigerian government and establish what they believed to be an Islamic state started. This strategy, mainly, had to do with bombings, abductions, assassinations, and taking control of certain villages and towns to be able to forcefully radicalise and loot.

“We bombed towns, mosques, markets, and churches, too. We were the ones who put everything together. We later realised staying in town would not work because they started arresting our people. So we went to the forest.”

When the group migrated to Sambisa Forest, they turned it into their daulah – the “sovereign territory” – and operated fully from there. But this, in no way, lessened the brutality of the operations. This brutality was due, in part, to the fact that they had run out of supplies and money and were frantic. The Man had sold the lands he owned and used the money to purchase arms, and so had many others. Yusuf’s death had decimated a lot of plans. So they began to take villages.

On the surface, when villages fell to them, it was because they wanted to recruit or radicalise. But they were aware that no village or town could stay in their grip for long, as the Nigerian Army would eventually take it back. So, the more urgent reason was to loot the banks in the villages as soon as they took possession. 

“We held towns for months, except for places like Mubi, which wasn’t held for long but which still yielded us a lot of money because it had like nine to ten banks then. Only three banks were looted before the soldiers came and took over the town. So we started using the money, though a jet came and burnt down the money later on.”

HumAngle has interviewed dozens of people who were stuck in villages like Bama, Kirawa, Gwoza, Kumshe, Boboshe, Andara, and many others, during the periods when Boko Haram held the villages hostage. They described a heavily militarised setting, with people being killed on often unfounded allegations of spying. Baana Alhaji Ali, a man who used to be a trader in Andara before it fell to Boko Haram, told me that many of the laws sought to take complete control of their lives. “They refused to let us go out of the village; they imposed their laws on us; they said we shouldn’t allow our women to fetch water, gather firewood, and that we should be doing all that for them. Our women were never to be seen publicly. They took foodstuff away from us.”

During this time, the government was announcing on the radio that if anyone was brave enough to escape the villages and make it to Maiduguri, the capital city, they would be safely accepted and put into Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps. Thousands of people took the risk. Some were caught by the terrorists and brutally killed, but others made it out safely. Tragically, many of them were intercepted on the road and profiled by the Nigerian Army as members of the terror group. They went on to be detained without trial at detention centres like Giwa barracks, Borno Maximum Security prison, and Wawa military cantonment for about a decade. Some of them died. Others disappeared and have never been seen again. Baana and his family made it to Cameroon, where the local army transferred them into the hands of the Nigerian Army in Banki, a border town. While his wife and children were allowed to go, Baana was detained on allegations of being part of the terror group and held for seven years in conditions that bring tears to his eyes to recount. 

“We didn’t get enough water … some people died of thirst,” he said. “There were about 400 people in one cell, and people died from the heat … We didn’t have proper toilets at first, just plastic buckets to urinate and defecate. People would take them out when they were full and empty them.”

Amid all these, when taking villages became no longer sustainable, the Man said, they began to abduct for money. Though the Chibok abduction of 276 schoolgirls, as has already been extensively reported, was not planned but executed by lower Boko Haram members on their way back from a different assignment, it turned out to be one of their most successful money-making attempts. The Man says up to ₦300 million was paid as ransom for each girl who was released. Reports show that between 2016 and 2018, 103 girls were released, with the BBC reporting that $3.3 million was paid for them. The government, officially, insists that no ransom was paid.

“Abducting the Chibok girls became a blessing for us all in the forest because it touched the whole world. We got a lot of money. Money was made that time! At the time, the group was already facing financial difficulties. You know, when we first migrated to the forest, we would go and break into a shop and steal money, or steal cows and sell. We were struggling financially.”

The Man lived in Sambisa for over a decade with his three wives and nine children. He held numerous positions, including commander, judge, and, later, member of the Shura council.

Once in Sambisa, under the heavy-handedness of Shekau, he began to find ideological differences between what Shekau was doing and what he himself believed the scriptures said to do. This is a popular complaint among members of the group. Shekau believed deeply in violence and had no patience for negotiations. He believed that anyone who did not live in the daulah deserved to be killed. Hence, the bombing of markets, motor parks, mosques, churches, and other public places within state-controlled territories.

“We, on the other hand, believed our target was the Nigerian security forces and those who deserved it. We all agreed on that, but carrying out attacks on mosques, churches, motor parks, and killing children? We were not in support of Shekau doing that,” the Man said of himself and a growing group that had begun to plan to rebel.

“With Shekau, anybody that does not live within those forests, even if he prays, even if he goes to the Holy Ka’abah in Saudi Arabia to pray, then comes back every day, he sees him as a non-believer. He can be killed, and his money or belongings can be collected.”

There were also allegations of witchcraft against some elderly women in the group, who would then be stoned to death and sometimes beheaded. According to Fatima, the follower from Bama, things escalated wildly during that time and caused many people to fear. 

And so in 2016, a faction led by Mamman Nur, another high-ranking member, decided to break away into what is now known as the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), linked to the global Islamic State (IS) group.

ISWAP, at the time and perhaps even now, fancied itself purer and less violent than the Shekau-led sect. Still, over time, the Man began to feel as though even they were “not honest about the work they were doing.” 

As he spoke, it became clear to me that though he was no longer part of the group, he still believed in the cause and thought there was an “honest” or “right” way to do it. And so I asked: Why did he leave the terror group and return to state-controlled territories?

He paused for a moment, then asked, “Are you a Muslim?”

I said yes.

“So you know about the Islamic Khalifs?” he enquired. 

“Yes, Ali, Umar Ibn Khattab, Usman Ibn Affan and the rest?”

He nodded in satisfaction. “Those people you mentioned were among the Prophet’s most knowledgeable and trusted advisors. So, whenever they spoke or offered counsel during that time, they were listened to and taken seriously. We were supposed to be that for ISWAP, but whenever we spoke up against things that were wrong, nobody listened to us. It was made as though we were the ones spoiling people, even when all we were doing was finding them ease.”

He explained that his decision to leave was the culmination of many things, not just one, but the refusal to listen to him and his peers made it clear that the original cause, which he believed in and was once prepared to lay down his life for, no longer existed.

Leaving was risky because he was very high-ranking, he said. It meant that he could never just change his mind and decide to go back because he would be executed. It meant he would leave behind all the wealth he had acquired over the past decade. It also meant he would leave behind a life of status and comfort and take on an uncertain future, doubtless filled with hardship. 

Finally, in 2024, less than two full years ago, he defected with his entire family and surrendered to the Nigerian state. He underwent the Borno state-modelled deradicalisation programme – which is different from Operation Safe Corridor – and offered up his services to the state to aid its fight against the insurgency. He provides regular high-level intel to the government, remains a law-abiding citizen, and in return, the state pays his house rent.

“They paid last year, and they just renewed it this year,” he said.

Towards the end of our interview, I asked what he would do if a young man came to him today seeking guidance on how to join Boko Haram. 

“Kai. I’ll stop him!” he said immediately. “I can’t tell anyone to go, I am even trying to tell those there to come back. I won’t advise anyone to go because if that’s the case, I wouldn’t have come back.”

His own children now go to school. I ask what has changed to make him agree to them going to school, especially since the very foundation of the insurgency was that school was forbidden.

“There were a lot of mistakes I made from the start, and I admit this without shame. One thing we didn’t understand then was that, despite our fears about the ills of Western education, it was still useful. Now, I have come to understand that I only need to arm my children with a good upbringing at home and Islamic knowledge, so that when they come across any harmful teachings in school, they would have the sense to not take them to heart… I have a daughter who has graduated from secondary school, a son who is now in SS1 and another who is going to JSS1 soon.”

I spoke to several other former members whose children are now in school and who now share the same line of thinking.

The Man is now engaged in efforts to deradicalise young people at risk of falling into the same errors he made many years ago. Sometimes, he posts videos on TikTok, countering violent extremism and challenging violent interpretations of scripture. 

Researchers insist that accepting surrenders from people like the Man has always been integral to counter-terrorism efforts worldwide. But many Nigerians, especially those who have lost loved ones, feel differently, because there is still so much suffering, there is little justice and chance of reparations to those who have been wronged, and the institutional failures that led those young boys to Yusuf’s house that cold night in 2008 to take the bay’ah still remain.

Before the war, Baana Alhaji Ali, the man who fled with his family when Boko Haram attacked his village and was subsequently held for seven years in detention, was a trader who lived peacefully with his family. Now, he lives in a tarpaulin tent in Nguro Soye, cramped with his family, with no access to education, healthcare, or basic amenities. The past decade has seen him in prison, in a camp for internally displaced persons, and now in a resettlement site. 

When I talked to his wife about their feelings about former combatants being allowed back into the community, she was angered.

“All I can say is that we have been cheated, we have been violated, and we have been dehumanised.”

HumAngle has chosen to use the phrase “the Man” to anonymise the central source for this story in order to protect him from harm. 

With snow-capped peaks tumbling towards the turquoise waters of the Caribbean, the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta National Park is one of the jewels in Colombia’s tourism crown.

But behind the picture-postcard views lies a more sinister reality.

Armed groups are holding local businesses to ransom and terrorising Indigenous communities.

The signing of a 2016 peace deal between the Colombian state and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) ended more than half a century of war and helped propel a country long associated with druglords and rebels onto the global tourism stage.

Since then, thousands of visitors have poured into the Sierra Nevada each day, trekking through pristine jungle to white-sand beaches or climbing towards Colombia’s mountaintop Lost City, which predates Peru’s Machu Picchu.

Few notice the men in camouflage watching from a distance.

They are members of the Self-Defence Forces of the Sierra Nevada (ACSN), a group of former paramilitaries that controls cocaine trafficking routes in the region and is also involved in illegal gold mining.

Extortion has become another lucrative business for the group. The “Conquistadores”, as ACSN members are often called, demand a cut of the earnings of hotels, tour bus companies and Indigenous communities, whose hand-woven hammocks and bags are snapped up by visitors.

“We are afraid and anxious about the future,” said Atanasio Moscote, the governor of the Kogui Indigenous people, who live high up in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta National Park, which the Kogui consider “the heart of the world”.

In February, the government closed Tayrona National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site overlooking the Caribbean, for more than two weeks following threats against park rangers, allegedly issued by the ACSN.

Authorities have accused the group of pressuring Indigenous Wayuu residents in the park to resist a crackdown on illegal activities such as logging.

Together, Tayrona and the Sierra Nevada national parks received more than 873,000 visitors last year.

The influx of tourists marks a dramatic shift from the 1980s and 90s, when the region was a battleground for brutal clashes between paramilitaries and FARC rebels.

Ten years after FARC laid down its arms, the ACSN – founded by a paramilitary leader who was later extradited to the United States – holds sway in much of the area.

In recent months, Colombia’s biggest drug cartel, the Gulf Clan, has tried to muscle in, vying for control and prompting clashes with the ACSN.

Caught in the middle are Indigenous communities “who don’t speak Spanish, and who live off their crops and their traditional knowledge”, said Luis Salcedo, governor of the Arhuaco people, who also live in the Sierra Nevada.

Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president in modern history, included the ACSN in his bid to negotiate the disarmament of all armed groups in the country.

But four years after he launched his “Paz Total” (total peace) campaign, the ACSN still dominates the Santa Marta area, said researcher Norma Vera.

Extortion has now emerged as a key issue in the campaign to elect Petro’s successor in polls starting on May 31.

The Ministry of Defence says it has received more than 46,000 extortion complaints since 2022.

Omar Garcia, president of the hotel association in the coastal city of Santa Marta, a gateway to the Sierra Nevada, said he fears for Colombia’s fragile tourism boom.

“Any news affecting the image [of a destination] and visitor safety makes tourists think twice,” he said.

The U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force are working on a new “Compact Variant” of the AIM-9X Sidewinder. The smaller Sidewinder is being developed with a focus on increased magazine depth when carried internally by “advanced aircraft,” while also offering improved range and performance.

The Navy manages the Sidewinder program in cooperation with the Air Force. The Navy is asking for $83.3 million for work on the AIM-9X Compact Variant (CV) in its 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. The AIM-9X CV is also mentioned in the Air Force’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, but with the caveat that it does not plan to contribute funding explicitly toward its development until Fiscal Year 2028.

Current-generation Block II and Block II+ subvariants AIM-9X are already highly capable imaging infrared (IIR) guided anti-air missiles. They have thrust-vectoring, high-off-boresight targeting, lock-on-after-launch, and other capabilities that you can read more about in detail here.

Risk reduction work on the AIM-9X CV has already been underway since Fiscal Year 2025. However, the new version does not appear to have been mentioned by name in prior Navy or Air Force budgets. Previous funding was contained under the umbrella of the larger System Improvement Plan IV (SIP IV) upgrade effort.

“The AIM-9X CV repackages the SIP IV technology into a compact airframe optimized for internal carriage on advanced aircraft with improved kinematic performance,” according to the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request. “The program will deliver increased capability to the warfighter with greater standoff range, increased aircraft weapon station capacity, and maintains inner boundary performance.”

In Fiscal Year 2027, the goal is that “the program will advance hardware and software designs. This effort will focus on design and development of critical hardware components and compatibility with advanced platforms,” the budget documents add. “The overall scope includes platform integration, material and energetics studies, and extensive modeling, simulation, and analysis. Activities will also incorporate system safety analysis, the establishment of requisite integration and test environments, risk- reduction testing, and other engineering efforts necessary to mature the complete system baseline.”

The Navy and Air Force budget documents do not offer any further details about the AIM-9X CV’s configuration, or how it will achieve “greater standoff range” and “improved kinematic performance” in a more compact package. How truncated the AIM-9X CV’s airframe, as well as its control surfaces, might be compared to existing versions is also unknown. The core AIM-9X design is already relatively short and narrow by anti-air missile standards at just under 10 feet long and five inches in diameter (not including its fins). For comparison, all variants of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) are some 12 feet long and have bodies that are around seven inches in diameter.

The Navy and the Air Force previously considered developing a Block III variant of the AIM-9X, which could have included a highly loaded grain rocket motor. Though the Block III effort was shelved, at least publicly, the Navy has continued to make significant investments in this kind of rocket technology with a general eye toward improved range and performance for future missiles.

“The Next-Generation Highly Loaded Grain project team has matured the technology and seeded the development of future mission-modular propulsion systems that can increase weapon ranges by up to 1.5x while maintaining inner boundaries for short-range and time-critical missions,” according to one factsheet detailing notable achievements by NAVAIR’s Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCAD) in 2023.

The benefits of greater reach and better kinematic performance, even in the AIM-9X’s existing form factor, are clear-cut. As the Navy and Air Force budget documents highlight, putting all that in a smaller package offers additional value from a magazine depth perspective. If an aircraft can carry multiple AIM-9X CVs on stations that can only accommodate one standard-size version, that means more engagement opportunities per sortie without any change to the rest of the loadout.

This is all especially important for stealthy aircraft that carry stores in internal bays with rigid dimensions when flying in their most low-observable configurations. As an example of what this means in practical terms, Lockheed Martin has spent years now working to develop a capability called Sidekick to increase the total number of AIM-120s that F-35s can carry in their weapons bays from four to six. Even so, that upgrade will only apply to A and C variants of the jet, as the bays on the B model are smaller to begin with.

The expectation that the AIM-9X CV will offer improved capabilities over its predecessors is also significant. The Air Force, in particular, has explored several concepts for air-to-air missiles that are smaller than Sidewinder, but which have generally been understood to trade range and/or performance for added magazine depth.

All of this brings us to the matter of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) type drones, which impose additional constraints on weapons integration simply by virtue of their overall size and maximum takeoff weight. As described now, the AIM-9X CV might be well-suited for arming CCAs, which will have more limited internal and external stores capacity, overall, compared to traditional crewed tactical jets. Being able to load them with more total missiles per sortie, and increase their reach at the same time, would be a major boon.

The Air Force just recently started weapons integration work as part of its CCA program using Anduril’s YFQ-44A Fury, which does not have an internal bay. Fury has been seen so far conducting flight tests loaded with a pair of inert AIM-120s, one under each wing.

The YFQ-44A is one of two designs the Air Force is currently flight testing under the first phase, or Increment 1, of its CCA program. The other is General Atomics YFQ-42A Dark Merlin, which can carry stores internally. The Air Force has also been experimenting with other relevant drone designs in recent years, including Kratos XQ-58A and Boeing’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat, the former of which also has an internal payload bay. More recently, the service assigned the YFQ-48A designation to Northrop Grumman’s Talon Blue drone.

It is worth noting here that the development of the MQ-28 originally began for the Royal Australian Air Force, which has conducted at least one live-fire AIM-120 shot from one of those drones. The Ghost Bat carried the missile externally in that test. Future versions of the design are set to include internal weapons bays.

Uncrewed MQ-28 Ghost Bat showcases its combat capability

Back in the United States, the Marine Corps’ first CCA is set to be a variant of the XQ-58, and the service is also leveraging the YFQ-42A to support its CCA plans. The Navy is still early in the process of exploring potential carrier-based CCA designs.

The AIM-9X CV might also open up other kinds of new operational possibilities. A compact anti-air missile could provide defensive capability against incoming missiles for larger aircraft. This is something the Air Force has been particularly interested in, including as a way to help better protect aerial refueling tankers.

The compact version’s overall benefits could make it attractive for employment as a surface-to-air weapon, as well. Full-size AIM-9Xs are already an interceptor option for several ground-based air defense systems in service or otherwise on the market globally today, including the U.S. Army’s Enduring Shield.

With the development of the AIM-9X CV now fully out in the open, more details about the missile’s design, as well as how the Navy and Air Force might plan to field it, may now begin to emerge.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Iran has said it will only accept a fair and comprehensive agreement in ongoing negotiations with the United States, as talks continue alongside a fragile ceasefire in the Middle East conflict. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi made the remarks following discussions with Wang Yi in Beijing.

At the same time, Donald Trump has pointed to what he described as significant progress, announcing a temporary pause in US naval operations linked to the Strait of Hormuz to support negotiations. The strait remains largely restricted, disrupting global oil flows and contributing to an ongoing energy crisis.

What does Iran mean by a comprehensive agreement
The key question is what Iran is asking for. A comprehensive agreement suggests Tehran wants more than a temporary ceasefire. It likely includes guarantees on sovereignty, relief from military pressure, and recognition of its rights under international agreements such as nuclear development for peaceful purposes.

This position indicates Iran is negotiating for long term security and political legitimacy rather than short term concessions.

What is the United States offering in response
The United States appears to be using a mix of pressure and incentives. Military actions and blockades continue, but the pause in naval escort operations signals willingness to de escalate if progress is made.

Statements from US officials show a firm stance on preventing Iran from controlling key shipping routes, while still leaving room for diplomacy. This creates a dual track approach of negotiation backed by force.

Why is the Strait of Hormuz central to the talks
The Strait of Hormuz is critical because it carries a significant share of global oil supply. Its disruption has already triggered sharp movements in energy markets and raised concerns about global economic stability.

Control over this route gives Iran strategic leverage, while reopening it safely is a priority for the United States and global markets. This makes the strait a core bargaining point in negotiations.

Implications for global markets and politics
The negotiations are directly influencing oil prices, currency markets, and investor sentiment. Even signals of progress have led to falling oil prices and improved market confidence.

Politically, the situation affects domestic dynamics in the United States, where rising energy costs are a concern ahead of elections. It also shapes regional power balances across the Middle East.

Analysis what are the possible outcomes
There are three main paths forward. First, a comprehensive agreement could stabilise the region, reopen energy routes, and reduce global economic pressure. Second, prolonged negotiations without resolution could keep markets volatile and maintain the current fragile ceasefire. Third, a breakdown in talks could lead to renewed escalation, further disrupting oil supply and increasing geopolitical risk.

The most realistic short term outcome appears to be continued negotiations with limited de escalation steps. A full agreement will likely require compromises on both security concerns and economic demands.

With information from Reuters.

At 14:15 local time on 8 April 2026, Israel launched a massive wave of strikes against Lebanon – just hours after US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran to pause fighting in the Gulf region.

Israel said it struck 100 targets in 10 minutes, dashing hopes in Lebanon that the pause in fighting in Iran would end the violence there too.

The latest conflict between Israel and Hezbollah – the Lebanese militia and political party that is funded and armed by Iran – started on 2 March after the group fired rockets into Israel, which responded with widespread air strikes and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon.

Since then, more than 2,600 people in Lebanon have been killed, according to Lebanon’s health ministry, and roughly a fifth of the population displaced, the UN says.

The BBC’s Nawal Al-Maghafi has been piecing together what happened that day and meeting people who lost loved ones on one of the deadliest chapters in the country’s recent history.

Read more about this story here.

Iran’s foreign minister meets his Chinese counterpart one week before President Donald Trump’s visit to Beijing.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is holding talks with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in Beijing amid tensions with the United States in the Strait of Hormuz.

Araghchi’s one-day trip on Wednesday comes a week before US President Donald Trump’s scheduled ⁠visit to Beijing for a summit with President Xi Jinping on May 14 and 15.

China’s official Xinhua news agency reported the meeting between Araghchi and Wang had begun, without providing further details.

Araghchi’s visit to Beijing marks the first time he has travelled to China, a close ally of Tehran, since the US-Israeli war on Iran began on February 28. Araghchi had spoken with Wang by telephone at least three times following the start of the war.

Earlier in Washington, DC, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed hope that Beijing would reiterate to Tehran the need to release its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran effectively closed the strait, through which major oil and gas supplies passed, after the war began, sending prices of fuel and fertiliser skyrocketing and rattling the global economy.

Following a ceasefire in April, the US imposed its own blockade on Iranian ports in a bid to compel Tehran to agree to Washington’s terms in peace talks.

Al Jazeera’s Katrina Yu, reporting from Beijing, said two things will be front and centre on the agenda of Araghchi and Wang’s meeting – maintaining the ceasefire and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

“We know that China has been very critical of the US’s naval blockade on Iranian ports, calling it dangerous. But increasingly, Beijing has also been critical of Iran’s decision to continually close that vital chokepoint,” Yu said.

Wang is expected to speak to Araghchi about what kind of support China can continue to offer Iran if it continues to close the strait.

“Iran will need Chinese backing, for example, at the United Nations, to continue to block any action that would put any additional sanctions on Iran because of its closure of the strait,” Yu said.

“Reportedly, the Iranian foreign minister is looking for clarity from Beijing as to what it will put on the table when Xi meets with Trump, and whether Beijing will be making any concessions to Washington that could make Tehran nervous.”

China, in return, “wants its own assurances that Iran won’t act in any escalatory way or any dramatic fashion in the lead up to that very important meeting”, she added.

Araghchi and Wang’s meeting came as Trump announced a pause on a US military operation to escort stranded ships out of the Strait of Hormuz.

The effort, which began on Monday, ratcheted up tensions, with the US military claiming it sank several Iranian boats that attempted to interfere in the operation. The United Arab Emirates also reported coming under missile and drone attacks from Iran, with one assault sparking a fire at an oil refinery. Tehran denies the launching the attacks.

Trump said on Truth Social the pause was based “on the request of Pakistan and other Countries” and because “Great Progress has been made toward a Complete and Final Agreement with Representatives of Iran”.

Pakistan has been leading efforts for a peace deal between Iran and the US.

The two sides held direct talks in Islamabad on April 11 and 12, but the negotiations ended without an agreement. Key sticking points include US demands for Iran to halt all nuclear enrichment and Tehran’s wish to continue to exercise control over the Strait of Hormuz.

The pro-European Union coalition of Romanian Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan has collapsed after a 281-4 vote of no confidence. The Social Democrats, Bolojan’s allies, sided with far-right parties to oust the prime minister. The leu, Romania’s currency, fell to a record low against the euro before Tuesday’s vote.

Spain has granted permission for a luxury cruise ship hit by a deadly hantavirus outbreak and anchored off the coast of Cape Verde to sail to the Canary Islands.

Spain’s Ministry of Health said in a statement late on Tuesday that the World Health Organization (WHO) had explained that Cape Verde in West Africa was unable to receive the 147 crew and passengers of the MV Hondius.

“The Canary Islands are the closest location with the necessary capabilities,” it said. “Spain has a moral and legal obligation to assist these people, among whom are also several Spanish citizens.”

The ministry said it would receive a medical flight carrying the ship’s doctor, a Dutch national, who it said was gravely ill, following a formal request from the Dutch government.

A Dutch couple and a German national have died of the rare disease, which is usually spread from infected rodents through urine, droppings and saliva, on board the ship in early April. A British national, who was evacuated from the ship, is in intensive care in South Africa, officials said.

Two crew members require urgent medical care, ⁠according to the Dutch-flagged ship’s operator, Oceanwide Expeditions. Another person on board with a suspected case has only reported a mild fever.

Medical evacuations

The Spanish Health Ministry said the MV Hondius will journey on to the Canary Islands once those who need evacuation are taken off the ship.

The Dutch government said earlier on Tuesday that it was preparing to receive the evacuated passengers. Oceanwide Expeditions said the journey to the Canary Islands will take three days of sailing and that the MV Hondius will dock in either Gran Canaria or Tenerife.

When the rest of the crew and passengers arrive in the Canary Islands, they will be examined, treated and repatriated to their respective countries, Spain’s Health Ministry said, in coordination with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the WHO.

All necessary safety measures would be taken, the ministry said, with medical care and transportation provided in special facilities and vehicles to avoid contact with the local population and protect health workers.

According to the WHO, the cruise ship, which set sail from Ushuaia, Argentina, on April 1 for Cape Verde, had 88 passengers and 59 crew members from 23 countries on board.

A WHO official said on Tuesday that she suspected some rare human-to-human transmission had occurred between close contacts on board the ship.

“We do believe that there may ⁠be some human-to-human transmission that’s happening among the really close contacts, the husband and wife, people who have shared cabins,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the director of epidemic and pandemic preparedness and prevention at the WHO, told reporters in Geneva.

Van Kerkhove also sent a direct message to the people on board.

“We just want you to know we are working with the ship’s operators,” she said. “We are working with the countries where you are from. We hear you. We know that you are scared.”

Andes strain

Human-to-human transmission is not common, and the WHO reiterated that ⁠the risk to the wider public was low, adding that it had been told that “there are no rats on board” the ship.

A limited spread among close contacts has been observed in some previous outbreaks of the Andes strain of the virus, which spreads in South America, including Argentina.

Van Kerkhove said the typical incubation period for hantavirus was between one and six weeks, leading the WHO to believe that the Dutch couple, who had been travelling in Argentina before boarding the cruise, “were infected off the ship”.

Other cases may also have been infected while on bird-watching trips to islands where birds and rodents live, the WHO said.

Such trips are part of the cruise.

The Hondius is carrying mostly British, American and Spanish passengers on the luxury cruise, which set off from the southern tip of Argentina in late March.

The cruise visited the Antarctic Peninsula, South Georgia and Tristan da Cunha, some of the remotest islands ‌on the planet.

The voyage was marketed as an Antarctic nature expedition, with berth prices ranging from 14,000 to 22,000 euros ($16,000 to $25,000).

The first stricken passenger, the Dutch man, died on April 11. His body remained on board until April 24, when it “was disembarked on St Helena, with his wife accompanying the repatriation”, Oceanwide Expeditions said.

His wife had gastrointestinal symptoms when she was disembarked, and deteriorated during a flight to Johannesburg. She died upon arrival at the emergency department on ‌April ‌26, the WHO said, adding that contact tracing was under way for passengers on the flight.

South African authorities have confirmed that the British patient, who is being treated in a Johannesburg hospital, tested positive for the hantavirus.

Demonstrators rallied in Louisiana and Tennessee against a US Supreme Court ruling that weakened key protections in the Voting Rights Act, opening the door for Republicans to redraw congressional maps ahead of pivotal November’s midterm elections.

Public workers blocked the streets of El Alto, Bolivia with buses, cars, and trucks during a national transportation strike. Union leaders are demanding the government guarantee clean fuel, end long lines at petrol stations, repair roads, and compensate drivers for repeated engine repairs.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says ceasefire with Iran remains in place despite growing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Tuesday said it came under attack from Iranian missiles and drones. The strikes come a day after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched attacks on the UAE as well as U.S. Navy vessels and the commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The extent of the damage is unclear at the moment, as is whether U.S. assets came under fire today, though no indications have emerged that they have. We have reached out to CENTCOM for more details.

“The UAE’s air defenses are currently dealing with missile and drone attacks originating from Iran,” the UAE Defense Ministry stated on X. “The Ministry of Defense confirms that the sounds heard in scattered areas of the country are the result of the UAE’s air defense systems intercepting ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones.”

Meanwhile, the IRGC issued a new threat against shipping in the Strait of Hormuz today.

“We warn all vessels intending to pass through the strait; the only safe route for crossing the Strait of Hormuz is the corridor previously announced by Iran and any deviation of vessels to other routes is unsafe and will face decisive action from the IRGC Navy.” the IRGC announced.

Yesterday, we reported that the U.S. Navy is urging strait transits to travel south of the Iranian corridor, along the cost of Oman.

The Navy’s suggested route “appears deep enough to accommodate the largest oil supertankers, but it’s very narrow, with several obstacles both north and south [of] the route (including shallow reefs),” Bloomberg News energy and commodities columnist Javier Blas noted on X.

Before this latest attack and new IRGC threat, U.S. War Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine both stated that Iran’s attacks on Monday, as well as other incidents during the ceasefire, still fall below the threshold of violating the agreement. Caine even went as far to say that “thus far, today is quieter” in the region.

As we reported yesterday, U.S. Army AH-64 Apache and U.S. Navy MH-60 Seahawk helicopters destroyed six small Iranian boats that were threatening commercial ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz and that Iran launched new attacks aimed at American warships, as well as merchant vessels on the first day of Project Freedom, the new operation to enable commercial ships to safely transit the Strait. 

“Since the ceasefire was announced, Iran has fired at commercial vessels nine times and seized two container ships, and they’ve attacked U.S. forces more than 10 times, all below the threshold of restarting major combat operations,” Caine told reporters, including from TWZ, at the Tuesday morning briefing. 

He added that “22,500 mariners embarked on more than 1,550 commercial vessels trapped in the Arabian Gulf, unable to transit.”

Caine was vague on the details of the attacks on U.S. forces.

“The threshold of restarting [the war] is a political decision above my pay grade,” he told reporters. “What I’ll say is it’s low harassing fire right now. It feels like Iran is grasping at straws to try to do something across the southern flank.”

The chairman did not elaborate further on the attacks on U.S. forces. We reached out to his office for more details. U.S. Central Command referred us to the Joint Chiefs.

“No, the ceasefire is not over,” Hegseth also posited. “Ultimately, [Project Freedom] is a separate and distinct project, and we expected there would be some churn at the beginning, which happened, and we said we would defend and defend aggressively, and we absolutely have.”

“Iran knows that, and ultimately, the president is going to make a decision whether anything were to escalate into a violation of a ceasefire,” the secretary added. “But certainly, we would urge Iran to be prudent in the actions that they take, to keep that underneath this threshold. This is about the straits. This is about freedom of navigation. This is about international waterways. This is about free flow of commerce, all the things that happened before and only Iran is contesting. So right now, the ceasefire certainly holds, but we’re going to be watching very, very closely.”’

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump offered scant details when asked what Iran has to do to violate the ceasefire.

“You’ll find out,” the president said.

Hegseth also addressed reports that the IRGC carried out yesterday’s attacks without permission from Iran’s civilian government officials.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian “has expressed strong anger at actions by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, led by Ahmad Vahidi,” according to the Iran International media outlet. Pezeshkian described the missile and drone strikes on the UAE as “completely irresponsible” and carried out without the government’s knowledge or coordination,” the publication reported.

“There are some actions the IRGC takes sometimes that are outside the bounds of what maybe Iranian negotiators would like,” Hegseth explained. “That’s their job to rein that in and ultimately create a condition for a deal, right?

Hegseth also noted that Project Freedom was a temporary operation that the U.S. wants to soon hand over to others, saying foreign nations depend on the Strait more than the U.S.

After one of its ships was attacked yesterday by the IRGC, South Korea is reportedly mulling over joining Project Freedom.

“We are reviewing the US proposal about the Strait of Hormuz based on the principle, the military readiness posture on the Korean Peninsula and domestic laws,” South Korean officials said in a statement, according to CNN. “About Project Freedom, South Korea and the US have been closely communicating for safe use of key waterways including the Hormuz Strait.”

UPDATE: 7:04 PM EDT –

Tuesday evening, Trump announced Project Freedom will be placed on hold pending negotiations with Iran.

“Based on the request of Pakistan and other Countries, the tremendous Military Success that we have had during the Campaign against the Country of Iran and, additionally, the fact that Great Progress has been made toward a Complete and Final Agreement with Representatives of Iran, we have mutually agreed that, while the Blockade will remain in full force and effect, Project Freedom (The Movement of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz) will be paused for a short period of time to see whether or not the Agreement can be finalized and signed,” the president announced on Truth Social. 

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has pushed back on comments that President Donald Trump accused Pope Leo XIV of “endangering Catholics” over his stance on the Iran war, saying his early remarks had been mischaracterised.

“Well, I don’t think that’s an accurate description of what he said,” Rubio told reporters on Tuesday when asked about Trump’s comments that the pope was “endangering a lot of Catholics”.

Rubio said the president’s concern was rooted in the threat Iran could pose to “places that have a lot of Catholics and Christians and others”, and questioned why “anyone would think that it’s a good idea for Iran to ever have a nuclear weapon”.

He also pointed to rising tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, accusing Tehran of “holding the whole world hostage” and endangering commercial shipping.

Trump had earlier criticised the pope in remarks to right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt, suggesting the pontiff was too soft on Tehran.

“The pope would rather talk about the fact that it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I don’t think that’s very good,” Trump said.

“I think he’s endangering a lot of Catholics and a lot of people. But I guess if it’s up to the pope, he thinks it’s just fine for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he added.

The exchange comes in advance of a meeting between Rubio and Pope Leo XIV at the Vatican on Thursday, which the US ambassador to the Holy See said is expected to be “frank”, underscoring tensions between Washington and the Catholic Church.

“Nations have disagreements, and one way to work through them is through dialogue,” Ambassador Brian Burch said on Tuesday.

“I think the secretary is coming here in that spirit, to have a frank conversation about US policy and engage in dialogue,” he added.

The pope has not said Iran should have nuclear weapons, but has opposed the war, which Trump says is aimed at stopping Tehran’s nuclear programme.

War of words between Trump and Pope Leo

Strains between Trump and Pope Leo began in March after the pontiff spoke out against the war in Iran and criticised the use of Christian rhetoric to justify military action.

The dispute escalated in April when Trump attacked the pope on social media, calling him “weak on crime” and accusing him of aligning with the “radical left”.

Pope Leo later responded during a trip to Algeria, saying he was not afraid and would keep speaking out against the war.

“I will continue to speak out loudly against war, looking to promote ⁠peace, promoting dialogue and multilateral relationships among the states ⁠to look for just ⁠solutions to problems,” he said, speaking in English.

“Too many people are suffering in the world today. Too many innocent people are being killed. And I think someone has to ‌stand ‌up and say there’s a better way.”

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s top diplomat, said he did not know if Leo would respond to Trump’s latest comments.

“The pope will go ahead on his path, in the sense of preaching ‌the Gospel [and] ⁠peace,” Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, told journalists. He said Leo would speak about peace at every opportunity, “convenient and inconvenient”.

Rubio is also set to meet on Friday with ⁠Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who defended the pope, while her defence minister has said the war in Iran puts US leadership at risk.

The pope has also criticised the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies and called for dialogue between the United States and Cuba, which has faced frequent blackouts linked to US sanctions.

In an Al Jazeera exclusive interview, US Central Command spokesman Tim Hawkins says the main priorities in the Strait of Hormuz are securing safe routes for merchant vessels and blockading Iran.

Tesla is encountering growing resistance in Europe as it seeks approval for its advanced driver assistance system known as Full Self Driving. While chief executive Elon Musk has expressed strong confidence that the technology will soon gain approval across the bloc, internal communications among regulators reveal a far more cautious and skeptical stance.

The system, currently marketed as Full Self Driving Supervised, allows vehicles to operate autonomously under certain conditions but still requires full driver attention. Approval in Europe is critical for Tesla as it attempts to recover market share lost over the past two years and expand its subscription based revenue model.

Early Approval and Wider Ambitions

The Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted initial approval for the system earlier this year. This decision has now been forwarded to the European Union for broader consideration, with discussions underway among member state representatives.

Tesla is aiming not only for approval of its current system but also for future deployment of fully autonomous robotaxis in Europe. Such ambitions depend heavily on regulatory trust in the safety and reliability of its technology.

Regulatory Concerns Across Europe

Despite the Dutch endorsement, regulators from several European countries including Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Norway have raised serious concerns. These include the system’s tendency to exceed speed limits, its performance in icy and hazardous conditions, and the possibility that drivers may bypass safeguards designed to ensure attentiveness.

Officials have also questioned whether the branding of Full Self Driving could mislead consumers into overestimating the system’s capabilities. This concern reflects a broader issue in the automated driving industry, where terminology can blur the line between assistance and autonomy.

Safety, Environment, and Real World Challenges

European regulators are particularly focused on how the system performs under conditions that differ significantly from those in the United States. Winter driving, for instance, presents unique challenges such as icy roads, reduced visibility, and unpredictable obstacles.

Questions have also been raised about how the system would respond to unexpected hazards, including wildlife on roads. These concerns highlight the difficulty of deploying standardized automated driving technology across diverse geographic and environmental contexts.

Pressure, Perception, and Public Influence

Adding to regulatory unease is Tesla’s approach to public engagement. Officials have expressed frustration with the company’s encouragement of Tesla owners to lobby regulators for approval. In several cases, authorities reported being inundated with emails from supporters advocating for the technology.

While some regulators acknowledged that the system performed well in complex urban environments, others warned that public pressure could complicate an already rigorous evaluation process.

High Stakes Approval Process

For the system to gain EU wide approval, it must secure support from a qualified majority of member states representing a significant portion of the bloc’s population. No immediate vote is scheduled, but further discussions are expected in the coming months.

Approval is seen as a key factor in Tesla’s strategy to boost sales and profitability in Europe, especially as competition intensifies from other global and regional automakers.

Analysis

Tesla’s push for automated driving approval in Europe reveals a fundamental tension between technological ambition and regulatory caution. While the company frames its system as a breakthrough in safety and convenience, European authorities are prioritizing risk mitigation and consumer protection.

The skepticism is not merely bureaucratic hesitation but reflects deeper structural differences in regulatory philosophy. European institutions tend to adopt a precautionary approach, particularly in areas involving public safety and emerging technologies.

For Tesla, the challenge lies in bridging this gap. Securing approval will require not only technical validation but also greater transparency and alignment with regional expectations. For regulators, the task is to balance innovation with responsibility in a rapidly evolving sector.

Ultimately, the outcome of this process will shape not only Tesla’s future in Europe but also the broader trajectory of autonomous driving adoption across the continent.

With information from Reuters.

Sudan has recalled its ambassador to Addis Ababa, accusing Ethiopia of being behind attacks on Khartoum’s airport. International Crisis Group’s Alan Boswell says the escalation risks making the countries’ internal challenges worse.

Available for over a year

Today, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth says the US-Iran ceasefire “is not over”, despite attacks in the Strait of Hormuz on Monday.

Donald Trump’s “Project Freedom” aims to use the US military to guide stranded cargo ships out of the Strait of Hormuz. But, Iran insists that it controls the strait – and yesterday fired missiles and drones at military and commercial ships, according to the US. Adam is joined by chief presenter Caitriona Perry and business editor Simon Jack.

And, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said “every part of society” has a responsibility to tackle antisemitism in the UK at a summit in Downing Street. It comes after the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green and a string of attacks at synagogues and other Jewish sites in recent months. Adam and Alex speak with special correspondent Lucy Manning.

You can now listen to Newscast on a smart speaker. If you want to listen, just say “Ask BBC Sounds to play Newscast”. It works on most smart speakers.

You can join our Newscast online community here: https://bbc.in/newscastdiscord

Get in touch with Newscast by emailing newscast@bbc.co.uk or send us a WhatsApp on +44 0330 123 9480.

New episodes released every day. If you’re in the UK, for more News and Current Affairs podcasts from the BBC, listen on BBC Sounds: https://bbc.in/4guXgXd

Newscast brings you daily analysis of the latest political news stories from the BBC. The presenter was Adam Fleming. It was made by Jack Maclaren with Anna Harris. The social producer was Gabriel Purcell-Davis. The technical producer was Ben Andrews. The assistant editor is Chris Gray. The senior news editor is Sam Bonham.

Programme WebsiteShow less

Rearming U.S. Navy warships at sea might be a new mission for its pair of Montford Point class expeditionary transfer dock ships, which it acquired between 2013 and 2014. Four years ago, the service had tried to inactivate these floating logistics nodes, which are unlike anything else in its inventory today, but was blocked by Congress. At that time, TWZ noted that this was a curious decision, given the relatively young age of the ships and their adaptability to supporting new concepts of operations.

The Navy is seeking just over $177.7 million for what is blandly titled “Shipboard Crane Systems/Shipboard Cargo Systems” in its budget request for the 2027 Fiscal Year, which was rolled out last month. This money would go, in part, to completing a demonstration of an At-Sea Reload of Vertical Launch System (ASRV) capability on the USNS Montford Point, also known by its hull number ESD-1, according to the service’s budget documents. No mention is made of any plans to utilize the second ship in the class, USNS John Glenn (ESD-2), as part of this work.

USNS Montford Point, the Navy’s newest afloat forward-staging base

The documents say this same line item would also fund continuing “investigation and demonstration of shipboard crane/cargo system improvements including T-AKE [Lewis and Clark class dry cargo and ammunition ship] Expeditionary Reload and MK 41 Strike Up/Strike Down System.” It would support the initiation of “Naval Strike Missile and MK 48 torpedo reloading system improvements efforts” and the start of a “Mobile Supply Platform (MOSUP) demonstration effort,” as well.

In the current physical year, the Navy also plans to “continue investigation and demonstration of shipboard crane/cargo system improvements including Vertical Launch System (VLS) Rearming and transfer capabilities,” and “initiate design and fabrication for At-Sea Reload of VLS (ASRV) demonstration on ESD-1.”

The budget documents do not provide any further details about the ASRV capability beyond that it will offer a “cost-effective Vertical Launch System (VLS) rearm at-sea solution that will be fully compatible with all CRUDES and Allied/Partner Mk41 equipped vessels.” CRUDES here stands for “Cruiser-Destroyer,” and is a collective term for the Navy’s Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Whether ASRV is related in any way to the Transferrable Reload At-sea Method (TRAM) that has already been tested in conjunction with Lewis and Clark class ships is unclear.

With 25,000 square feet of open main deck area, the semi-submersible Montford Point class design, derived from the Alaska class oil tanker, is ideally suited to hosting outsized items. They were also designed from the start to conduct operations involving the transfer of cargo from ships sitting alongside. As an aside, it is worth noting that the Montford Point and John Glenn are cousins of the Lewis B. Puller class of Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) ships.

CNO Talks About the Mobile Landing Platform

In their primary “transfer dock” configuration, the ESDs act as floating self-propelled piers through which materiel and personnel can move from cargo ships to shore via ‘connectors’ like Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) hovercrafts. They have special docking lanes that allow up to three LCACs to load and/or unload at a time. Amphibious vehicles can also drive right off into the sea and head for shore.

It is worth noting that the Navy’s stated plan now is simply to demonstrate the ASRV capability on Montford Point. At the same time, with all of the above in mind, it is not hard to see the ESDs acting as at-sea reloading nodes operationally in the future. The core transfer dock design could even potentially allow them to offload munitions from one ship on one side, like a member of the Lewis and Clark class, and then load them right into waiting VLS cells on a destroyer or cruiser sitting on the opposite side. They could also help transfer munitions to a separate pier for loading onto ships in need of rearming.

As it stands now, the Navy still has no real capacity to conduct at-sea rearming of VLS arrays on its warships. The service’s Emory S. Land class submarine tenders do have the ability to load missiles and torpedoes onto submarines at sea, but there are only two of these ships in the fleet today, something we will come back to later on. All of this, in turn, creates operational challenges that have become increasingly glaring in recent years.

At the Surface Navy Association’s main annual conference last year, Navy officials disclosed that warships supporting operations in and around the Red Sea had to leave their stations for up to two weeks to rearm in friendly ports. The distances and transit times involved could be much greater in future conflicts, especially in a future fight in the Pacific region against China. In the context of a high-end fight against a major adversary, friendly port facilities might not be readily available at all. Having to sit in an established port waiting for more munitions presents vulnerabilities of its own. A ship in need of rearming is also inherently one with a depleted magazine with which to defend itself, wherever it might be, in the interim.

At-sea reloading, whether it be from an ESD, a Lewis and Clark class cargo ship, or some other platform, would help Navy warships keep up a more persistent forward presence during sustained operations and reduce their vulnerability. There would still be risks entailed, especially if the ships have to be at anchor during rearming operations. The Navy is fully aware that an adversary like China would contest its logistics chains, in general, well into rear areas in any future major conflict.

There is also a capacity question. Making rearming at sea a more routine affair will require tasking ships to perform those duties, which can only increase the operational demands on the Navy’s existing combat support fleets. As mentioned, the Navy budget documents do show plans to work on expanding at-sea reloading capability on its 14 Lewis and Clark class ships, which are already heavily taxed conducting existing at-sea replenishment activities. They would also be high-priority targets in a major conflict. Recent operations against Iran have underscored threats to existing maritime logistics concepts, which would be far more pronounced in a high-end fight.

Making use of other existing auxiliaries in the at-sea rearming role could help address the capacity question, but there are limits there, too. The Navy only has two ESDs, and while it has backed off from its previous push to inactivate them, they are both currently on reduced operating status, which increases the time it takes to get them ready for deployment.

There is also the mention of demonstrating a “Mobile Supply Platform (MOSUP)” in the Navy’s latest budget request. What this might entail is not entirely clear, but it might point to interest in a new class of auxiliaries.

In terms of additional auxiliaries, the Navy is looking to finally order two new submarine tenders, currently referred to as AS(X), in Fiscal Year 2027, but to replace the aging Emory S. Land class ships. Since January, General Dynamics NASSCO, the shipbuilder behind the new tender design, has been pitching a companion vessel optimized for at-sea arming of surface warships, which it calls AD(X). The Navy has yet to show any formal interest in the AD(X) concept, at least that we are aware of at the time of writing.

Gibbs and Cox, a division of Leidos, has also previously put forward a concept involving repurposing semi-submersible oil rigs as forward logistic nodes, as well as missile defense platforms and sea bases.

Gibbs & Cox MODEP concept at SNA 2025

What is clear now is that the Navy is continuing to explore options for fielding sorely needed at-sea reloading capabilities, which are set to be ever-more critical for supporting future operations. An operational role in all this for the highly flexible and adaptable Montford Point class ships increasingly looks to be on the horizon.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com