TODAY

A Palestinian mother from Gaza says she recognised her missing son, Mohammed Sharab, when he was shown shackled, blindfolded and listed as ‘for sale’ in a post shared by Israeli soldiers.

Aiden Markram smacked 82 not out off 46 balls as South Africa beat West Indies by nine wickets to maintain their unbeaten record at the 2026 T20 World Cup.

South Africa’s captain struck seven fours and four sixes as South Africa chased 177 with 23 balls to spare to move two points clear at the top of Group 1 in the Super 8s and put one foot in the semi-finals.

The 31-year-old, who brought up his half-century off 27 balls, shared a 95-run opening stand with Quinton de Kock (47 off 24) before the wicketkeeper was removed by Roston Chase in the eighth over. Ryan Rickelton chipped in with a quickfire 45 not out off 28 at number three.

Markram sealed South Africa’s fifth win of the tournament in Ahmedabad with his 11th boundary.

The victory puts the Proteas on the verge of the semi-finals without making them mathematically sure. They will go through if India beat Zimbabwe in Thursday’s other game. West Indies play India in their final match of the group knowing a defeat will likely eliminate them.

South Africa, finalists in 2024, should have been chasing a significantly lower total after taking four wickets in the powerplay and later reducing West Indies to 83-7.

However, the two-time champions fought back through Romario Shepherd and Jason Holder, who put on 89 (57) for the eighth wicket to drag West Indies beyond 170.

After smacking spinner Keshav Maharaj’s opening over for 17, West Indies, who piled on 254-6 against Zimbabwe in their Super 8 opener on Monday, lost four wickets in 11 balls to slump from 29-0 to 43-4 inside four overs, with Kagiso Rabada and Lungi Ngidi collecting two wickets apiece.

Sherfane Rutherford, who couldn’t capitalise on being dropped on three, Rovman Powell, and Matthew Forde joined the procession back to the dressing room before Shepherd and Holder came together in the 11th over.

After rebuilding steadily, the pair burst into life from the 15-over mark, Shepherd accelerating from 21 (17) to finish unbeaten on 52 (37) and Holder reaching 49 (31) before being run-out off the penultimate ball of the innings.

They added 58 runs off the final five overs, including Holder taking the 18th, bowled by Marco Jansen, for 23.

Newly teamed-up Northrop Grumman and Embraer are hoping that a boom refueling system-equipped version of the latter’s KC-390 Millennium twin jet engine tanker-transport will catch the eye of the U.S. Air Force. The two companies say the KC-390’s size and other attributes make it ideally suited to kinds of ‘agile’ distributed operations the Air Force sees as essential for success in future conflict, especially one in the Pacific against China. This is exactly the case TWZ laid out in detail when the concept for a version of this aircraft fitted with a boom first emerged four years ago.

TWZ‘s Jamie Hunter spoke with representatives from Northrop Grumman and Embraer about current plans for the boom-equipped KC-390 on the show floor at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium. The two firms first announced their new partnership on this aircraft last week. Embraer had originally unveiled this version of the KC-390 together with L3Harris, but the latter was no longer involved in the project, at least at a high level, by October 2024.

“We are excited to announce the partnership to get started on the development of this capability, because we believe it’s a significant advantage to our U.S. Air Force, as well as our international allies,” Craig Woolston, Vice President and General Manager of Research and Advanced Design within Northrop Grumman’s Aeronautics Systems sector, said at the Warfare Symposium. “Partnering our advanced manufacturing and experience in the past in this domain with a proven design, modern capability, we think is a differentiator in this mobility space.”

“With the KC-390, the boom is adding a capability to the refueling capability that is already there with the probe-and-drogue system,” Frederico Lemos, Chief Commercial Officer for Defense and Security International Business at Embraer, also said. “So, adding that capability, and the target is to maintain the multi-mission capability, to bring the KC-390 even more … Agile Combat Employment type of capability, [and be] able to perform all of these missions in a distributed, dispersed operation type of employment.”

Lemos also said his company is committed to investing in a U.S. production facility for the KC-390, but said those plans, including the choice of location, are still to be finalized. Melbourne, Florida, has been raised as one possibility. Embraer and Northrop Grumman both have facilities already, and they held an event there last week to unveil their partnership.

Agile Combat Employment (ACE) is the term the U.S. Air Force currently uses to describe a set of concepts for distributed and disaggregated operations. ACE is focused heavily on short notice and otherwise irregular deployments, often to remote, austere, or otherwise non-traditional locales. We will come back to this later on.

Visualizing ACE

Development of the Millennium dates back to the early 2000s, originally just as a medium-sized jet-powered transport aircraft called the C-390 capable of operating from short and improvised runways. The ability to refuel receivers via the probe-and-drogue method was subsequently added to the design, resulting in its current “KC” designation. The aircraft can itself be refueled using this method via a probe that extends out from the front end of the fuselage above the cockpit. The KC-390 is loosely comparable in size and other respects to the turboprop-powered C-130 Hercules.

Further KC-390 versions configured for maritime patrol, electronic warfare, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions are also now in development. Millennium variants are in service today in Brazil, Portugal, and Hungary, with a number of other countries set to begin operating the aircraft in the coming years.

Embraer | C-390 Millennium: Innovation, Performance and Reliability

The U.S. Air Force’s preferred aerial refueling method is the boom, and it is used by the vast majority of its aircraft. L3Harris had previously talked about several options for integrating a boom onto the KC-390, including ones involving remote operation, broadly akin to what is found on the KC-46, or more direct operator control, as is the case on the KC-135. On KC-390s currently configured for probe-and-drogue refueling, an operator manages those systems from a station in the cockpit.

“We’re starting that development. We’re exploring the trade space of what is the best solution,” Northrop Grumman’s Woolston said when asked for more details about the boom integration plan. “I’ll say those decisions haven’t been made. Like I said, it’s a trade space to explore.”

Woolston did highlight a particular focus on “autonomous boom” capabilities to help “rapidly integrate with whatever aircraft or system we’re refueling,” but didn’t elaborate further. This may refer to more automated boom capabilities, which Boeing and Airbus have also developed, which can help speed up the refueling process, increase safety margins, and reduce operator strain. The future development and fielding of new aerial refueling-capable air combat drones will also benefit from, if not require, these kinds of capabilities.

Boeing KC-46A Tanker Refuels Military Aircraft Using 3D

Airbus achieves world’s first fully automatic refuelling contacts

“You know the [KC-]390 is a full fly-by-wire airplane, low-workload for the crew,” Embraer’s Lemos noted. “We already have a third position in the cockpit that is there, has access to all the information that comes in and out of the airplane. Helps today with their refueling missions, monitoring the cameras … , good situational awareness of what’s happening.”

Overall, the boom integration depends “on what multi-mission capabilities we want to retain on the KC-390,” according to Woolston.

“We already have additional tanks on the [KC-]390. They are roll-on, roll-out. They are the same size as a pallet, standard 463 pallet,” Lemos added. “So you can combine additional tanks with cargo and with passengers. That’s a big advantage in terms of flexibility, in terms of employment. And you can use the fuel of [sic] those tanks to fly further or to offload the fuel for a receiver. So the moment you connect those tanks to the airplane, it’s an integral fuel system, you can use that fuel the best way you see fit.”

Lemos also stressed that retaining the KC-390’s existing capabilities in the boom-equipped version means the aircraft will still be able to operate from short and/or unimproved runways.

Embraer C-390 Millennium’s Unpaved Runway Tests Continues

All of this underscores how a version of the KC-390 with a boom could fit into an ACE scenario just like TWZ previously explored in-depth. As we wrote back in 2022:

“Overall, a KC-390 would provide a significantly smaller footprint than that of a traditional boom-equipped tanker, allowing it to work out of tighter airfields. L3Harris says that the boom-equipped KC-390 itself will still be capable of receiving fuel in flight. However, the model at the Air & Space Force Association Conference shows that it will have a boom receptacle above the cockpit instead the standard type’s refueling probe. Paired with its own refueling boom and the ability to carry out ground refueling operations for other aircraft, the KC-390 will be able to provide ACE deployments with a critical fuel lifeline, not just in the air, but also on the ground, and do so at significantly extended ranges.”

“With its own aerial refueling capability, an Air Force KC-390 could fly out to refuel from a larger tanker, such as a KC-46, and then return that fuel to austere airfields to be used by combat aircraft. Currently, only the service’s special operations-configured M/HC-130s can do that and they do not have a boom of their own so they cannot also provide fuel to Air Force receptacle-equipped aircraft, which accounts for nearly all of the force’s fleet. Basically, the KC-390 could allow for true ‘hub and spoke’ tanker operations, including from austere areas, during a major conflict. This could be especially attractive for refueling tactical aircraft, like fighters and eventually drones, from forward locales. Once again, currently, the Air Force doesn’t have a solution for this problem, which could make the KC-390 very attractive.”

“There are also the multi-role capabilities this aircraft provides, being able to move cargo and personnel to far-flung locations at jet speeds. Once again, this would support a hub-and-spoke concept of operations across a vast theater like the Pacific.”

…

“As noted earlier, the ACE concept will become especially prevalent as the United States continues to keep a pulse on China and any corresponding developments in the Pacific. Considering the sheer size of the region, maintaining the flexibility to disperse aircraft and other assets in less condensed groups will not only ensure widespread U.S. presence, but also prevent adversaries like China from targeting and taking out large amounts of aircraft and other capabilities by attacking just a handful of installations. It also greatly complicates the enemy’s own defensive strategy.”

As an additional point, in the scenarios described above, KC-390s could refuel fighters right after takeoff from austere airstrips. Those tactical jets could, in turn, launch with lower gross weights to help get safely airborne from shorter runways. Part of the initial fuel load could also be traded for more munitions while retaining sufficiently low weight. Topping off after takeoff, as well as being able to refuel closer to a forward operating location on the way back from a mission, would give those fighters greater overall operational reach.

The KC-390’s capabilities could be further expanded by the use of podded and/or roll-on/roll-off communications, electronic warfare, and other capabilities. The U.S. Air Force’s Air Mobility Command (AMC) is already heavily investing in new networking and self-protection systems that can be added to tankers and airlifters, as necessary.

Beyond supporting the ACE construct, KC-390s could just help provide the Air Force with valuable added tanker capacity in general, including to help meet day-to-day training and other non-combat requirements. AMC has previously raised the possibility of acquiring a business jet-based tanker, which could also act as a similar gap-filler. U.S. military officials have been sounding the alarm for years now about the strain on existing tanker fleets and raising concerns about their capacity to meet even existing demands, let alone what would be required for a major sustained conflict.

This has been compounded by the growing age of the service’s Cold War-era KC-135 tanker fleet (and previously by that of the now-retired KC-10s), as well as persistent and often serious issues with newer KC-46s. The increasing vulnerability of traditional tankers based on airliner-type designs has also been a cause for concern.

For some time now, the Air Force has been working to refine requirements for what it is currently calling the Next-Generation Air Refueling System (NGAS). The NGAS plan could include new stealth tankers, as well as other types of aircraft and new capabilities for existing types. The service has said in the past that it hopes to see elements of NGAS begin to enter operational service by 2040, if not much sooner.

“I cannot have a 90-year-old tanker refueling a B-21 [Raider stealth bomber],” Lt. Gen. Rebecca Sonkiss, head of AMC, separately told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable yesterday on the sidelines of the AFA Warfare Symposium. “If you do math, as we reach end of programs for things, that’s reality, right? I cannot have that. I must recap[italize] the tanker force.”

“There is also an element of that, that is the NGAS portion of it, which is a more specific problem set within the theater to be able to ensure that we deliver lethality, effectively and survivably,” she continued, noting that the Air Force is also looking to acquire additional KC-46s.

“They’ve put some money in to maintain that NGAS AOA [analysis of alternatives], and they’re working through [it] right now,” Sonkiss added. “I don’t think they’ve solidified the final pathway to NGAS, and I really don’t want to comment on the half work on that space.”

An analysis of alternatives is a process that the U.S. military uses to assess available options and further refine requirements for further weapon systems and other capabilities.

“Of course, we’re open to a family [of] systems,” Lt. Gen. Sonkiss also said. “It has to fit in with the greater Air Force scheme maneuver of what do those platforms need? And then we make the NGAS platform get after that portion.”

“How far do they need to get into the threat ring?” she added, noting that there could be various avenues to providing more protection for aircraft operating in more contested environments. “And that’s what that NGAS piece is going to work through.”

It should be made clear here that there is no expectation that a boom-equipped KC-390 would be a single ‘silver bullet’ solution to the NGAS question. Aviation Week reported last week that Northrop Grumman is presenting it as just one part of a three-tiered proposal for NGAS that also includes a larger blended wing body design and a smaller tanker drone. Northrop Grumman has so far declined to confirm or deny that it is making this multi-part pitch. The company is already partnered with JetZero on a project to build a blended wing body demonstrator for the Air Force that could be configured as a tanker and/or a cargo aircraft, which you can read more about here.

“The reaction we’ve gotten here at AFA has been very positive,” Northrop Grumman’s Woolston told us when asked about current Air Force interest in the boom-equipped KC-390, specifically.

“We are now starting to have that dialog,” he also said when asked about whether there had been any formal meetings with representatives from AMC or other Air Force officials.

“I haven’t really looked at that,” Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink had told TWZ and other outlets in response to a direct question about whether the KC-390 might have a future in his service’s tanker plans at another roundtable yesterday at the AFA Warfare Symposium.

A boom-equipped KC-390 could also be of interest to non-U.S. air arms that operate aircraft with the ability to refuel via this method. Aircraft built, at least in part, in the United States by an American firm could also open doors to acquiring them through a U.S. government foreign assistance mechanism.

Overall, it remains to be seen how the new partnership between Northrop Grumman and Embraer proceeds now, as well as how the Air Force’s vision for NGAS evolves. Still, as TWZ explored in detail four years ago, a new ‘agile tanker’ like boom-equipped KC-390 would seem to slot right into the operational scenarios the Air Force is now planning around, especially when it comes to a future conflict in the Pacific.

Jamie Hunter contributed to this story.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Japan is one of those spots on the map of the planet Earth where infrastructure and digital innovation are closely connected.

The country considers technology as an instrument of national competitiveness. For the last few years, this approach has extended, bringing revolution to Japan digital infrastructure, and exceeding expectations not only of citizens but also of international travellers.

5G Expansion and Digital Urban Infrastructure

Smart Tourism and Data Consumption Trends

Remote Work, International Mobility and Data Demands

In this context, as demand grows, many international visitors search for Japan eSIM unlimited data solutions that match their usage patterns. One example is available at Mobal Japan eSIM unlimited data, which provides an unlimited eSIM designed specifically for short-term stays, typically ranging from 3 to about 31 days, with unrestricted data usage suited to tourists and business travelers.

eSIM technology supports Japan’s tendency for digital transformation. eSIMs are the easiest way for travelers to stay connected, which can be arranged beforehand.

Policy, Regulation and Mobile Accessibility for Foreign Visitors

Japan’s telecom system is a perfect balance of competition and strict oversight. The market is tightly controlled by the rules around SIM registration, protection of consumers, and network licensing. As a result, foreign visitors may face a problem while getting a local SIM card.

At the same time, it’s clear that easy mobile access is needed for the positive experience of Japan for both business and travel spheres. Mobal provides a stable connection within the regulated system. All the services are perfectly adapted to correspond to legal requirements and the needs of travellers. The focus is not on promotion but on smooth service and security compliance.

Japan expands 5G networks, developing smart city technologies. As a result, regulations are constantly changing, covering such aspects as cybersecurity and digital identity. Such updates are needed for easily foreign visitors access and reliable mobile networks.

The Future of Digital Access in Japan

Arrest in town near the Ethiopian border follows Kenyan intelligence report revealing more than 1,000 citizens were trafficked for war.

Police in Kenya have arrested a man accused of being a member of a human trafficking scheme that lured Kenyans to Russia with false promises of work, only for them to end up fighting on the front lines of Ukrainian battlefields.

In a statement released late on Wednesday, Kenyan officials said Festus Arasa Omwamba was being detained in Moyale, a town in the country’s north bordering Ethiopia.

The 33-year-old “is believed to be a key player in a more extensive human trafficking syndicate that exploits vulnerable individuals by promising them legitimate employment opportunities in European countries”, read a statement from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations on X. “However, upon arrival, these unsuspecting victims find themselves trapped in illegal and perilous jobs, stripping them of their dignity and safety.”

The suspect was in police custody, undergoing preparation for his “impending” court appearance, it added.

Quoting police spokesperson Michael Muchiri, NTV Kenya reported that Omwamba was arrested after arriving from Russia. He was detained for allegedly recruiting Kenyans into the Russian military, Muchiri said.

The arrest comes after Kenya’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) last week unveiled a report which said more than 1,000 Kenyans have been recruited “to fight in the Russia-Ukraine war”, with 89 currently on the front line, 39 hospitalised, and 28 missing in action.

A day after the NIS released its report, dozens of families protested in Nairobi, demanding the government take action against the network of officials and syndicates tricking locals into joining the war. Many are still awaiting news about their loved ones’ whereabouts and when they might return.

Meanwhile, other families are grieving the deaths of their sons and brothers.

The Russian embassy in Nairobi denies the allegations, calling them in a statement last week “misleading propaganda”. It added that it never issued visas to Kenyan citizens who sought to travel to Russia with the aim to fight in Ukraine. However, the embassy added that Moscow does not preclude citizens of foreign countries from voluntarily enlisting in its armed forces.

Kenya’s Foreign Minister Musalia Mudavadi said he would travel to Russia in March to engage directly with the authorities and secure a safe return of Kenyans believed to be stranded there.

Fraudulent ‘schemes’ to lure foreign fighters

Reports of African men being fraudulently recruited and wilfully duped for work abroad to end up on the front lines in Ukraine have also surfaced from South Africa, Zimbabwe and elsewhere in Africa.

Ukraine on Wednesday accused Russia of using deception to recruit more than 1,700 Africans to join its war effort as the conflict drags into a fifth year.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha made the allegation during a news conference in Kyiv with his visiting Ghanaian counterpart, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa. He accused Moscow of using fraudulent “schemes” to lure the foreign fighters.

A day earlier, South Africa’s presidency announced it had secured the return home of 11 of its nationals who were “lured” into fighting for Russia in Ukraine. The presidency had already repatriated four others.

In the high-stakes world of private aviation, the acquisition of an aircraft is often celebrated as the ultimate achievement of corporate efficiency or personal success. It is the beginning of a journey defined by freedom and speed. However, the eventual divestment of that same asset is a process that is frequently underestimated, often to the financial detriment of the owner. Selling a complex machine that operates in a globally regulated environment is not merely a transaction; it is a multi-disciplinary project requiring legal, technical, and financial precision.

Unlike real estate or luxury automobiles, where value is relatively transparent and liquidity is somewhat predictable, the pre-owned jet market is opaque, fragmented, and notoriously unforgiving of unprepared sellers. A Gulfstream G650 or a Bombardier Challenger 350 does not have a “sticker price.” Its value is a floating target determined by its pedigree, its maintenance status, the geopolitical climate, and the specific micro-economics of its fleet type at the exact moment it hits the market. Navigating this exit requires a shift in mindset from “owner” to “vendor,” a transition that demands emotional detachment and rigorous attention to detail.

The Pre-Market Audit

Before a single photograph is taken or a listing is created, the aircraft must undergo a forensic internal audit. The most critical asset in a jet sale is not the leather seats or the paint job; it is the paperwork.

The Pedigree of Paper

In aviation, if a maintenance task is not documented, it effectively never happened. The value of an aircraft is inextricably tied to its logbooks. A missing logbook from ten years ago can devalue an airframe by millions of dollars. It raises the specter of “unknown damage history.” Sophisticated buyers will employ technical researchers to scan every page of the records. If they find gaps – missing 8130 forms for parts, undocumented engine cycles, or vague entries regarding repairs – they will either walk away or demand a price reduction that far exceeds the cost of the potential issue.

Therefore, the first step is digitizing and organizing the records. A seller must present a “clean bill of health” that traces the life of the aircraft from its birth on the assembly line to the present day. This includes organizing the “back-to-birth” trace for life-limited parts (LLPs). If you cannot prove the lineage of a landing gear strut, the buyer is forced to assume it is scrap metal, and the sale price will reflect that brutal reality.

Cosmetic Staging and the “Ramp Presence”

While the logs provide the technical value, the physical condition drives the emotional desire. A private jet is an emotional purchase. When a potential buyer walks up the airstairs, the sensory experience – the smell of the leather, the gleam of the woodwork, the clarity of the galley surfaces – sets the tone for the entire negotiation.

Sellers often neglect “ramp presence.” Faded paint on the wing leading edges, clouded cockpit windows, or worn carpet runners suggest a lack of care. If the owner skimped on the carpet, the buyer subconsciously wonders if they also skimped on the engine maintenance. Investing in professional detailing, wood veneer touch-ups, and even new carpet before listing can yield a return on investment of 3:1 or better. It removes the “low hanging fruit” that buyers use to justify lowball offers.

Valuation in a Fluid Market

Determining the asking price is an exercise in data analysis, not wishful thinking. Owners often fall into the trap of “book value” – what their accountant says the asset is worth – or “acquisition value” – what they paid for it plus the cost of upgrades. The market cares about neither.

The Influence of Engine Programs

One of the single largest determinants of value is the status of the engine maintenance programs. In the turbine world, these are often referred to as “Power by the Hour” programs (such as Rolls-Royce CorporateCare, JSSI, or Pratt & Whitney ESP). These programs act as a prepaid insurance policy for major engine overhauls.

An aircraft with engines “fully enrolled” on a program is a liquid asset. It transfers the liability of the next major overhaul (which can cost $2 million to $4 million per engine) from the buyer to the program provider. An aircraft that is “naked” (not on a program) is significantly harder to move. The seller must realize that if their engines are not covered, they will likely have to deduct the cost of the buy-in from the sale price, dollar for dollar.

Market Sentiment and Fleet Availability

Valuation also requires analyzing the “days on market” for comparable aircraft. If there are twenty Citation X jets for sale and only three have sold in the last six months, it is a buyer’s market. Pricing an aircraft at the top of the curve in such an environment ensures it will sit stagnant while incurring monthly hangar and insurance costs. A sharp, data-driven broker will provide a “Vref” or “Bluebook” value but will then adjust it based on real-time market intelligence, such as knowing that a competitor’s aircraft is about to drop its price by $500,000.

The Marketing Strategy

Once the aircraft is prepped and priced, the question becomes how to find a buyer. This is a small world. The strategy generally falls into two categories: On-Market and Off-Market.

The Broad Broadcast

Listing the aircraft on public-facing sites like Controller, AvBuyer, or JetNet is the standard approach. It maximizes exposure. However, it also signals to the world that the asset is available, which can sometimes be perceived as distress if it sits for too long. High-quality photography is non-negotiable here. Drone shots of the exterior, 3D walkthroughs of the cabin, and detailed shots of the galley amenities are standard expectations.

The Whisper Campaign

For ultra-high-net-worth individuals or corporations concerned with privacy, an “off-market” approach is preferred. The broker utilizes their personal network, calling other brokers and flight departments directly. “I have a turnkey Falcon 7X coming available next month, are you looking?” This creates an aura of exclusivity. It can drive a higher price because the buyer feels they are getting special access to an unlisted gem. However, it severely limits the buyer pool.

The Letter of Intent and the Deposit

When a buyer is found, the dance of documentation begins. The first major milestone is the Letter of Intent (LOI). This is a non-binding offer that outlines the price, the deposit amount (usually a refundable percentage held in escrow), and the timeline for the inspection.

The negotiation of the LOI is critical. It sets the “scope” of the Pre-Purchase Inspection (PPI). A seller wants a limited scope – “kick the tires and light the fires.” A buyer wants a deep scope – “take the plane apart and look for corrosion.” The agreed-upon scope determines how much risk the seller is exposed to. If the seller agrees to a “corrosion inspection” on an older aircraft, they might be opening a Pandora’s box of repair bills.

The Pre-Purchase Inspection (PPI): Where Deals Die

This is the most volatile phase of the transaction to sell a private jet successfully. The aircraft is flown to a neutral maintenance facility chosen by the buyer. For two to four weeks, technicians will open panels, borescope engines, and test avionics.

The Discrepancy List

The facility will produce a list of “discrepancies.” These are things that are broken or out of limits. The contract (Aircraft Purchase Agreement or APA) usually dictates that the seller is responsible for fixing “airworthy” items – things that make the plane illegal to fly. However, buyers will often try to include cosmetic items or “recommended” service bulletins in this list.

The “technical acceptance” phase is a second negotiation. The seller must decide whether to pay for the repairs, offer a credit, or refuse. If the repair bill is $50,000, it’s usually absorbed. If a major structural issue is found costing $500,000, the deal often hangs in the balance. This is where a strong technical manager on the seller’s side is vital to argue that “wear and tear” is not an airworthiness discrepancy.

The Mechanics of Closing

Once the aircraft is technically accepted, the focus shifts to the legal and financial closing. This is rarely a handshake and a check. It is a choreographed movement of funds and title transfers, often across international borders.

The International Registry

Most modern transactions fall under the purview of the “Cape Town Convention,” an international treaty intended to standardize the registration of mobile assets like aircraft. Closing requires registering the sale on the International Registry (IR). This protects the buyer’s title and the lender’s lien. If the seller has existing liens on the aircraft – perhaps a loan from a bank or unpaid maintenance bills – these must be cleared precisely at the moment of funding.

Escrow Agents

An aviation-specific escrow agent (like IATS or Insured Aircraft Title Service) acts as the traffic controller. They hold the buyer’s money and the seller’s bill of sale. They only release the money to the seller once they have confirmed that the title is clear and the registration has been filed with the FAA (or relevant civil aviation authority).

Tax Implications and Depreciation Recapture

For corporate sellers, the sale is a taxable event. If the aircraft has been fully depreciated for tax purposes (written off to zero value over five years, for example), the proceeds from the sale are considered “depreciation recapture” and are taxed as ordinary income. This can be a massive tax bill.

Sellers often utilize a “1031 Exchange” (in the US context) to defer this tax by rolling the proceeds immediately into the purchase of a replacement aircraft. However, the timing rules for a 1031 Exchange are rigid. The replacement asset must be identified within 45 days and closed within 180 days. Failing to meet these windows triggers the tax liability.

Sales and Use Tax

Furthermore, the physical location of the aircraft at the moment of closing matters. Closing in a state or country with high sales tax can trigger a liability for the buyer, which they may try to pass on or negotiate. Delivery locations are often chosen specifically for their tax-neutral status (e.g., closing while the aircraft is flying over international waters or in a state with a specific “fly-away” exemption).

The Post-Closing Detachment

Once the wire hits the account, the seller’s responsibility is largely over, but not entirely. There is the matter of insurance cancellation, hangar lease termination, and crew severance or reassignment.

If the crew is being retained by the buyer, a smooth transition of employment contracts is needed. If the aircraft is leaving the country, it must be deregistered from the national registry (e.g., the N-number removed) so it can be re-registered in its new home.

The Strategic Imperative of Patience

The timeline for a transaction of this magnitude typically runs from three to nine months. Sellers who enter the market with unrealistic expectations regarding price or timeline are often punished by the market. The “stigma of the stale listing” is real. If a jet sits on the market for 300 days, buyers assume there is something wrong with it, and the offers get progressively lower.

The most successful sellers are those who treat the divestment with the same rigor as the initial acquisition. They maintain the asset perfectly until the day it leaves, they assemble a team of specialized brokers and lawyers, and they remove emotion from the negotiation. In the end, the goal is not just to sell a plane; it is to exit a liability cleanly, maximizing capital retrieval to fuel the next mission, whether that is another acquisition or a reinvestment into the core business. The art of the exit is, ultimately, the art of preparation.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio updated U.S. legislators on Iran just hours before President Donald Trump issued warnings over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions in his State of the Union address. In the past days, U.S. military forces in the region have grown to the highest levels seen since the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. New assets that have arrived include U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors, reportedly in Israel, while F-16s have been deployed to Diego Garcia to protect the Indian Ocean outpost against potential Iranian attacks.

Rubio provided a rare intelligence briefing for congressional leaders — the so-called “gang of eight” — which includes the senior lawmakers from both parties in the House and Senate, as well as the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees. The contents of the briefing are classified, but it underscores the wider preparations for potential significant military action against Iran.

The “gang of eight” receives classified intelligence from the White House in the form of briefings, and their content can include preparations for military operations. It is notable that the last time Rubio publicly briefed the group was on January 5, one day after the U.S. military launched its successful operation to capture Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro.

As he left yesterday’s briefing, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said: “This is serious, and the administration has to make its case to the American people.”

“I’m very concerned,” added Jim Himes, the ranking democrat on the House intelligence committee. “Wars in the Middle East don’t go well for presidents, for the country, and we have not heard articulated a single good reason for why now is the moment to launch yet another war in the Middle East.”

Rubio’s intel update preceded Trump’s State of the Union address last night, during which the U.S. president reaffirmed that Iran would never be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

In his address, Trump stated that he would rather handle rising tensions with Iran through diplomatic means. However, he also claimed that Tehran was developing ballistic missile technology that could potentially reach the United States, without providing further details.

“They’ve already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas,” Trump said. “And they’re working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.”

Whether or not the U.S. Air Force’s new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) will carry multiple warheads remains to be seen now that a key arms control treaty has expired. The service is otherwise hopeful that the Sentinel program is now on the right track after years of major delays and ballooning costs, driven heavily by costs and complexities associated with building new infrastructure. A particularly key issue has been the matter of silos, with the original plan to repurpose the ones that currently house Minuteman III ICBMs having been abandoned in favor of all-new construction.

Air Force and other U.S. military officials, as well as a representative from the Sentinel’s prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, shared new updates about the program with TWZ and other outlets at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium today. Sentinel has been undergoing a complete restructuring since delays and cost overruns triggered a legal requirement for a full review back in 2024. The original plan had called for the new Sentinel ICBMs, also designated LGM-35As, to begin entering operational service in 2029. Minuteman III, of which there are 400 currently sitting in silos across five states, was to be phased out by 2036.

The setbacks also mean that ongoing work on Sentinel is now occurring free from the limits on America’s nuclear arsenal that were imposed by the New START treaty with Russia. That agreement sunset, as scheduled, earlier this month without a follow-on deal in place.

A Sentinel Program official declined to say how many warheads could be loaded onto a single Sentinel missile when asked at a press briefing earlier today. The publicly stated plan previously has been to load each missile with a single W87-1 warhead.

Each of the Minuteman III ICBMs in service today, which are also designated LGM-30Gs, is topped with either a single W78 or W87 warhead, the result of a succession of arms control agreements culminating in New START. The LGM-30G, which entered service in 1970, was originally designed to carry up to three warheads, and retains this so-called multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) capability.

“We have the ability to do that. That’s obviously a national-level decision that would go up to the President,” Navy Adm. Rich Correll, head of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), told TWZ and others at a separate roundtable today, speaking generally about the prospect of the U.S. fielding ICBMs in a MIRV configuration again. “Those policy levers, if needed, provide additional resiliency within the capabilities that we have.”

“Nothing’s changed since [the] expiration of the New START treaty. The threat environment that existed before [the] expiration of the New START Treaty exists today,” Correll added. “So that decision space is open, and discussions will occur at a senior policy-making level to make decisions with respect to that. I would reserve any recommendations I have for that discussion within the Department.”

Earlier this month, Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), under which the currently Minuteman III force falls, also told TWZ that it “maintains the capability and training to MIRV the Minuteman III ICBM force” and that it would be prepared to do so “if directed by the President.”

We do know that the Sentinel missile is a new design with a three-stage solid fuel rocket booster that has been described as slightly larger than the Minuteman III. Under the shroud on top is a payload bus with a liquid fuel propulsion system.

Enabling Peace Through Deterrence

“Our liquid propulsion system, this is what gives us the fine point that allows us to place the re-entry vehicle precisely on target, that greater accuracy that comes with the Sentinel system,” the Northrop Grumman official explained at today’s press briefing.

Beyond improved accuracy, the Air Force and Northrop Grumman have said that Sentinel will also offer greater range, as well as reliability and sustainability benefits, compared to the Cold War-era Minuteman III. Though more specific details about Sentinel’s capabilities are classified, developing a new ICBM does provide the opportunity to incorporate various new features and functionality, including when it comes to survivability.

“At this point, we have completed testing on all of the major elements of the missile system. … We met all of our primary objectives and are [on] a good course to first flight, which is why we have confidence that we’re going to hit that pad launch in 2027,” the Northrop Grumman official added. “What we’re working on now are additional tests just to give us confidence” when it comes to “reliability and integrating that system.”

The Air Force first announced it was targeting a Sentinel first flight in 2027, from a launch pad above ground, last week. The service has yet to share when it expects to conduct the first test launch from a silo. Northrop Grumman is now building a full-scale prototype silo facility in Promontory, Utah, but it is unclear whether that will be constructed in a way that would allow it to be used for test launches in the future. As an aside, the New START treaty had also imposed limits on deployed and non-deployed “launchers,” which included silos for ICBMs.

As mentioned, the topic of silos has been absolutely central to the Sentinel program and its troubles over the years. Originally, the Air Force expected to be able to reuse Minuteman III silos, but subsequently determined that this was not the optimal course of action. The plan now is to construct 450 entirely new silos. The Air Force hopes this will actually save time and money now, in part because of the ability to leverage modern modular construction methods from the start rather than trying to repurpose decades-old structures.

“The original acquisition strategy for Sentinel was to use and reuse the Minuteman III silos for the housing of the Sentinel missile, with some upgraded communication rooms and things next to it. Over the past year, we’ve gone through multiple assessments to figure out what the right strategy is as we look forward, and we’ve changed our acquisition strategy to go after building and constructing new silos for Sentinel,” the Sentinel Program official explained today. “That came out of really kind of two primary things. The first reason we looked at this is just the variability of refurbishing Minuteman III silos. The Minuteman III silos are amazing, and they are incredibly efficient at executing the mission today. But as we were going down the path of trying to plan, just like trying to renovate a house built in the [19]60s, there was variability in understanding how you would attack refurbishment, how you would understand the conditions, and the timing, and the cost associated with that.”

The Air Force also sees new silos as helping ease the transition process from Minuteman III to Sentinel. Both missiles will be in service simultaneously for a time to ensure the land-based leg of America’s nuclear deterrent triad remains credible throughout the process.

“As we were looking at opportunity space, we found a squadron at Malmstrom [Air Force Base in Montana], which was the first one, that was still owned Air Force land, but allowed us what I would call swing space,” the Sentinel Program official noted. “If we constructed there, how we sequence and how we choreograph, taking down Minuteman and bringing Sentinel up on alert, it allowed us the opportunity to do that without impacting operations today. And going after that swing space, it actually drove us to designing and constructing new silos, as there were not Minuteman III silos available to be reused on those sites.”

New silos “also captured a few things that we were working through on risk, primarily around human factors and some other things that were existing in the reuse of Minuteman, it allowed us to get those and reduce those as we went forward,” they added.

“We knew and had some assumptions at the beginning. We had to test out those assumptions,” they also said when asked about why these issues were not recognized earlier on. “As we’ve tested out those assumptions, some of them proved false, which is why we’ve been going down the path of laying in, prototyping, experimentation, and showing progress on how do we say, ‘Hey, this is a different way of approaching it.’”

“To suggest they weren’t thought about, I think that would be probably short-sighted. They were very much thought about. I think that we often forget that these are very challenging programs. This is something we have not done in over six decades,” Air Force Gen. Dale White, Director of Critical Major Weapon Systems and direct reporting portfolio manager to the Deputy Secretary of War, also said at the roundtable. “Some of the assumptions that did come to fruition have actually provided more operational advantages. We’ve made changes along the way.”

“With the decision to recapitalize the intersite communications and build new launch silos, it’s opened up a lot of additional possibilities,” AFGSC commander Air Force Gen. Stephen Davis also said at the roundtable. “And I would tell you, I don’t think we have the answer exactly how we’re doing that yet, but we have more flexibility.”

The aforementioned prototype silo in Utah is being built to help further burn down risk.

“There are many things that we’re looking to prove out through this risk reduction activity, excavation techniques, how we integrate the modular elements of the silo, too. How we protect from weather conditions and how we do transportation to and from the site – critically important,” the Northrop Grumman official said. “And we will ultimately use this as we start to integrate and perform operations around missile emplacement, those kinds of things.”

Despite the “swing space” found to exist on Air Force-owned land, the Sentinel program is still expected to require the use of other U.S. government-owned land and the acquisition of additional land from private entities. The full extent of those additional land requirements is still being assessed. What will happen to the decommissioned Minuteman III silos is still to be determined, as well.

Though they are the most important aspect, silos are only one part of the massive infrastructure development plans baked into the Sentinel program. A total of 24 new launch centers and three new missile wing command centers are also set to be built. The new ICBM force will be spread across 32,000 square miles in five states and linked together by more than 5,000 miles of new fiber optic lines.

“The wing command center is actually a new capability being provided by Sentinel that doesn’t exist today for Minuteman,” the Sentinel Program official said. “Today at Minuteman, the information is more siloed. The structure of Minuteman is built around the [missile] squadron, and there isn’t a sole place where the information is pulled together, to give you the battlespace awareness of the entire wing at one time.”

“So the wing command center is where that fiber backbone is incredibly important,” they continued. “The quantity of data that can be pushed on fiber, from my physical security monitoring for health and status of the missiles and of the launch facilities, all can be integrated here into a common picture that allows the operational commander the ability to see what is going on in the missile field and take the appropriate action and prioritize where they are using their resources, their Airmen, to tackle the problems and the solutions.”

The first of these facilities is now being built at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming. That base is also set to host initial prototyping efforts related to the fiber optic cable laying, which is set to be a huge undertaking led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The Air Force is now aiming to start fielding Sentinel sometime in the early 2030s. How long it will take to complete the transition from Minuteman III to the ICBMs is unclear. The service has said it is at least “feasible” to keep some number of Minuteman IIIs on alert until 2050, according to a past report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog.

The U.S. military continues to stress that the new Sentinel ICBMs and modernized infrastructure that will come with them are top national security priorities. Despite debates in the past about the utility of the land-based leg of the triad, it does remain the fastest nuclear response option in the Pentagon’s strategic portfolio. It also has a continued purpose to act as a ‘warhead sponge’ that would force any opponent to expend substantial resources on trying to neutralize it in a future nuclear exchange.

US Air Force launches Minuteman III ICBM from Vandenberg in unarmed test

The global geostrategic environment has also evolved in ways that further bolster the case for Sentinel, particularly when it comes to China drastically expanding its nuclear arsenal. Other global crises, including Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine, together with other proliferation and strategic weapons development concerns, are factors, as well.

“The fact of the matter is that both the offense and defensive threats … have evolved significantly” since Minuteman III was fielded, Gen. Davis said today. “We’ve gotten all the capability that we can out of the Minuteman, but Sentinel will bring Air Force Global Strike Command and USSTRATCOM important new capabilities that we need to keep up with the threat and to stay ahead of it.”

There are many questions the Sentinel program clearly still has to answer, including how many warheads each missile should carry, as it moves toward finally reaching an operational capability in the next decade.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

As the Muslim holy month of Ramadan began last week, the Iraqi city of Mosul regained its spiritual and cultural vibrancy, with religious rituals blending with cultural activities that reflect the city’s heritage, identity and collective memory after years of war and devastation.

On the first night of Ramadan, immediately after the Maghrib call to prayer, the chant “Majina ya Majina”, a traditional Ramadan song, echoes through the old neighbourhoods. Children in traditional clothing roam the streets singing Ramadan songs, in a scene that revives longstanding customs.

“This gathering of children revives Mosuli and Iraqi heritage and teaches them the values of sharing and celebrating the holy month,” said Yasser Goyani, 31, a member of the Bytna Foundation for Culture, Arts and Heritage

Tarawih prayers, performed at night during Ramadan, have also returned to the Grand al-Nuri Mosque and its iconic leaning minaret, al-Hadba, for the first time in nearly nine years, just before the bombing of the mosque in 2017 by ISIL (ISIS) fighters at the peak of an Iraqi government campaign against the group that had taken control of the city.

“I feel great joy performing prayers again in the mosque after its restoration and reopening, which reflects its spiritual and historical importance,” adds Goyani.

The traditional storyteller, or hakawati, has also re-emerged during Ramadan evenings, recounting stories from Mosul’s past.

“The hakawati represents a link between the past and the present. We narrate stories about how life in Mosul used to be, especially during the holy month of Ramadan. Despite technological development, people still love returning to their old memories,” explained Abeer al-Ghanem, 52, who plays the storyteller.

Meanwhile, the musaharati – the traditional predawn caller who wakes people up for a small meal to help them cope with the daylong fast – still walks through neighbourhoods in the Old City of Mosul before dawn.

Ghufran Thamer, 34, who performs the role, says, “The musaharati reminds people of authentic Ramadan rituals and keeps the nights of Ramadan alive, despite the changes in modern life.”

Traditional games remain a key part of the Ramadan atmosphere.

“We have been playing the siniya game since the 1980s. It is closely associated with Ramadan and creates a warm and joyful atmosphere among participants during the nights,” said Fahad Mohammed Kashmoula, 55.

Mosul’s markets, particularly the historic Bab al-Saray, come alive during Ramadan as residents flock to buy seasonal staples. Dates are especially in demand, providing a quick source of energy for those fasting. Khalil Mahmoud, 65, who has been selling dates in Bab al-Saray for nearly 40 years, says date sales increase significantly during Ramadan, especially in this market.

“Dates are highly sought after by those fasting, because they help compensate for the sugar lost during the day,” he said

Raisin juice, another Ramadan drink, is also popular across the city.

“The juice is prepared from high-quality raisins and fresh mint from the mountains of Kurdistan. The raisins are soaked, strained, crushed and strained again before being poured into bags for sale. Shops become crowded as people seek to replenish their energy after fasting,” said Hussein Muwaffaq, a raisin juice maker.

Alongside religious and cultural activities, the city also sees growing humanitarian initiatives during Ramadan, including paying off the debts of people in need, distributing food baskets, setting up free iftar meals, and promoting the values of social solidarity.

Caracas, February 25, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan rice producers have staged demonstrations in recent days, demanding responses from authorities to secure fair prices for their harvests.

Campesino organizations from Barinas, Cojedes, Guárico, and Portuguesa states have held meetings with their respective governors and local representatives of the Agriculture Ministry to denounce pressure from agribusiness conglomerates imposing lower prices for their crops.

Victor Martínez, a rice producer and representative from a rural association in Portuguesa state, told Venezuelanalysis that there is an urgent need to establish appropriate crop prices with harvesting set to begin in the coming days.

“We are calling on the Venezuelan government, from Acting President Delcy Rodríguez to Agriculture Minister Julio León Heredia, to intervene and help set fair prices for rice that take into account our production costs,” he explained. “We cannot have the agroindustrial conglomerates imposing prices unilaterally.”

According to Martínez, rural producers sold rice crops at $0.50-0.55 per kilogram last year, and presently the Iancarina group, the biggest agribusiness firm in Portuguesa state, is offering $0.32-0.38 per kilo. Iancarina holds significant market shares nationwide in corn flour and rice distribution with its “Mary” brand and has ties to the US-based transnational commodities marketer GSI Food.

“These prices would mean the extinction of rice production, jeopardizing thousands of jobs in the countryside,” Martínez continued. “We urge authorities to establish dialogue mechanisms that take our production costs into account.”

The rice growers additionally denounced that corporations have recently imported rice to drive down crop prices and that Venezuelan producers cannot compete with international prices due to “exorbitant production costs.” AgroPatria, a state-owned company that supplied agricultural inputs to campesinos, was turned over to private group AgroLlano in 2020.

Martínez stated that $0.70 per kilo of rice is the price Portuguesa producers have set as a target in negotiations.

“There are too many hurdles to produce right now, from very expensive inputs to a lack of access to credit,” he went on to add. “The same agroindustry corporations offer financing but with draconian conditions and our profit margins vanish.”

According to Martínez, current financing agreements see companies supply inputs and then collect as much as 60 percent of the crop as payment. 

“Agribusiness oligopolies say that they are better off just importing rice, which carries no risk for them. But no country can survive without agriculture.” He concluded with a call for halting imports and extending state support to campesino producers.

In recent days, rural collectives in different states have shared their production costs and come up with different proposals for Venezuelan authorities. They are likewise weighing the possibility of staging a rally in Caracas to demand the intervention of the Agriculture Ministry. Venezuelan government officials have yet to comment on the controversy.

In recent years, with the economy heavily constrained by US sanctions, the Nicolás Maduro government moved to liberalize agricultural policies, transferring former state competencies to the private sector, including provisioning of seed and fertilizer inputs and access to tractors. Fuel subsidies have likewise been phased out, with small-scale producers denouncing it as a major factor driving up production costs.

Campesino collectives have repeatedly drawn attention to a growing agribusiness influence both in the supply of inputs and the commercialization of harvests. Food conglomerates have used their control of silos and retail channels as well as imports during harvest season, to drive up profit margins by imposing lower prices on producers.

Apart from rice, farmers have condemned similar coercive practices with sugar and coffee. Standoffs have traditionally led to mediation from state authorities and a temporary agreement on prices. However, campesinos have repeatedly alerted that agribusiness firms stop honoring established prices or delay payments to take advantage of the Venezuelan currency devaluation.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

US eases oil embargo on Cuba as Caribbean neighbours warn worsening humanitarian crisis could destabilise region.

The United States has said it will allow the resale of some Venezuelan oil to Cuba in a move that could ease the island’s acute fuel shortages, as neighbouring countries raised the alarm over a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation caused by Washington’s oil blockade.

In a statement on Wednesday, the US Department of the Treasury said it would authorise companies seeking licences to resell Venezuelan oil for “commercial and humanitarian use in Cuba”.

It said the new “favorable licensing policy” would not cover “persons or entities associated with the Cuban military, intelligence services, or other government institutions”.

Venezuela had been the main supplier of crude and fuel ⁠to Cuba for the past 25 years through a bilateral pact mostly based on the barter of products and services. But since the US abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro last month and took control of the country’s oil exports, Caracas’s supply to Cuba has ceased.

Mexico, which had emerged as an alternate supplier, also halted shipments to the Caribbean island after the US threatened tariffs on countries that send oil to Cuba. The US blockade has worsened an energy crisis in Cuba that is hitting power generation and fuel for vehicles, houses and aviation.

The shift in US policy came as Caribbean leaders gathering in Saint Kitts and Nevis expressed alarm at the impacts of the blockade on the island nation of some 10.9 million people. Speaking to Caribbean leaders during a meeting of the regional political group CARICOM on Tuesday, Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness affirmed solidarity with Cuba.

“Humanitarian suffering serves no one,” Holness said at the meeting. “A prolonged crisis in Cuba will not remain confined to Cuba.”

The Caribbean summit’s host, Saint Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Terrance Drew, who studied in Cuba to be a doctor, said friends have told him of food scarcity and rubbish strewn in the streets.

“A destabilised Cuba will destabilise all of us,” Drew said.

But addressing the meeting in Saint Kitts and Nevis on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that the humanitarian crisis had been caused by the Cuban government’s policies, not Washington’s blockade.

Rubio, whose parents migrated to the US from Cuba in 1956, warned that the sanctions would be snapped back if the oil winds up going to the government or military.

“Cuba needs to change. It needs to change dramatically because it is the only chance that it has to improve the quality of life for its people,” Rubio told reporters.

It is “a system that’s in collapse, and they need to make dramatic reforms”, he said.

Rubio went on to blame economic mismanagement and the lack of a vibrant private sector for the dire situation in Cuba, which has been under communist rule since Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution.

“This is the worst economic climate Cuba has faced. And it is the authorities there, and that government, who are responsible for that,” Rubio said.

The US pressure on Venezuela and Cuba ⁠has left several fuel cargoes undelivered since December, according to the Reuters news agency, contributing to the island’s inability to keep the lights on and cars circulating. A Cuba-related vessel that loaded Venezuelan gasoline in early February at a port operated by state-run company PDVSA remained this week anchored in Venezuelan waters waiting for authorisation to set sail.

Mexico and Canada have meanwhile announced they would be sending aid to Cuba, and Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak also said his government was discussing the possibility of providing fuel to the island.

Separately on Wednesday, Cuba’s Ministry of the Interior announced killing four people and wounding six others on board a Florida-registered speedboat that it said entered Cuban waters.

Rubio told reporters it was not a US operation and that no US government personnel were involved.

“Suffice it to say, it is highly unusual to see shootouts in open sea like that,” he said. “ It’s not something that happens every day. It’s something frankly that hasn’t happened with Cuba in a very long time.”

So, here we are, once again. The United States has flooded the Middle East with combat capabilities. A massive investment has already been made in airframe hours, manpower, and naval resources in preparation for what could be the biggest initial military action America has taken in more than 20 years. Such an operation is not without absolutely massive risks. Iran has prepared for this day for many decades, and so many questions remain outstanding. Glaring ones. Ones that impact the globe and especially those tasked with fighting what could very well be a bloody war that has, at least at this time, highly opaque goals.

Let’s talk about those questions.

What is the goal?

This is the biggest unknown. What are we getting into here? Aside from the possibility that this is a giant feint — a hammer and anvil tactic to force a diplomatic outcome — there have to be clear military goals. Would an air campaign be focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear program alone? There are limitations to achieving that goal with airpower. Israel, too, is well aware of this. Is this goal to be paired with absolutely neutering Iran’s military-industrial base, along with its existing combat capabilities? That would seem more likely, but doing so would require a much larger, sustained operation.

There have also been reports that the White House is eyeing a limited operation in order to force Iran to make a deal. This seems wildly reckless both on a military and diplomatic level, and I doubt these reports are true. The Pentagon would never recommend this. It would ruin any element of surprise and the cumulative impact of using everything at its disposal to shock, blind, and deafen Iran’s command and control. It would also likely result in Iran counter-attacking, which sets off a chain of events that will be hard to pull back from.

Then there is regime change. That term comes with immense baggage for obvious and totally relevant reasons. Even if this goal is achieved — the collapse of the current regime — mainly through strikes, what comes next? Is there a plan in place for who will succeed Khamenei, and what would that group’s own goals be? How would they seize power when the power vacuum appears? Or will decapitating the regime throw Iran into civil war or even worse, a country controlled by the fanatical IRGC, which, on paper, would seem to be a prime candidate with the might and infrastructure to assume control.

In other words, could lopping off the head of the snake just see another, even more gruesome serpent take its place?

We don’t know the intelligence or what is going on clandestinely to see that such a risky operation has any chance of long-term success. Without a solid plan, such a move would seem to only invite more risk.

And once again, obtaining this level of transformation largely via airpower is a highly questionable proposition, at best. There is absolutely no appetite domestically to engage in another ground war in the Middle East, so that option is a non-starter, which is a good thing, as America’s track record in this regard is terrible.

Finally, as we have mentioned before, the U.S. military has a lot of combat capability now in the region, and more that can strike from afar, but there doesn’t appear to be enough to sustain a long campaign with a wider set of objectives. So this may limit what can be achieved.

That brings us to the next question.

What will Israel’s role be?

I think it’s safe to assume that Israel will be involved deeply in any major military operation the United States executes against Iran. Frankly, for any sustained campaign, based on the airpower capabilities in the region, America will need Israel’s help, and for that to be en masse.

Israel brings hundreds of fighter aircraft, unique munitions, and more to the fight. Supported fully by America’s tanker force, Israel’s tactical airpower will be far more effective than it was during the 12 Day War less than a year ago. Combining forces fully to achieve a common outcome is more powerful than the sum of its parts in this case.

Beyond traditional airpower, leveraging Israel’s intelligence would be critical. Traditional intelligence products from Israel will be key in achieving any outcome faster in an air war. The same can be said for the flow of U.S. information in Israel’s direction. Still, operating seamlessly is very tough in such a complex, long-range combat scenario. While Israel and the United States have repeatedly trained on smaller scales for this type of operation, doing it on a massive scale is a different story. How the tasking orders would be assigned and deconflicted would be very interesting to watch.

But even above the traditional combat power and intelligence Israel can offer such a mission, Israel’s deep presence on the ground in Iran will be arguably of the greatest value. Nobody is anywhere as deeply embedded inside Iran as Israel. And this will impact the full gamut of potential operational scenarios.

Case in point is the Mossad’s novel operation to take out Iran’s air defenses in key areas using operatives on the ground equipped with one-way attack drones and loitering anti-tank guided missiles. While suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses is largely thought to be relegated to the role of airpower, it is anything but limited to just this domain. And Israel proved this on an unprecedented level in the opening stages of the air war in June. Those near-field attacks on Iranian air defense sites allowed standoff munitions, drones, and eventually manned aircraft to make it to their targets, firmly setting the momentum in Israel’s favor during the opening parts of the campaign. It wouldn’t be that surprising if this is repeated, at least in some altered fashion, during whatever could happen in the coming days.

Mossad operatives on the ground also worked to assassinate the cream of Iran’s nuclear scientist corps during the operation, mainly using drones launched from near their targets. We would likely see a similar operation take place against military and regime leadership in the opening stages of the looming conflict, if it comes to pass. There are no indications that the United States has anywhere near this capability working inside Iran.

As we have discussed for years, Israel would likely be willing to put special operations units on the ground to seize and destroy absolutely critical hardened targets, such as nuclear sites or possibly individuals hidden within regime bunkers, that are not capable of being destroyed from the air. The United States could as well, but the political risks would be far higher if such an operation went awry.

Finally, it is worth noting that going to war alongside Israel against Iran brings additional diplomatic risks in the region, although these have waned in recent years as Arab countries have become far less hostile to the Jewish State. These Arab states also could see a massive benefit from a successful campaign that rejiggers the status quo in the region and ends Iran’s troublesome influence throughout it. Still, the economic disruption alone could be large, especially if the war carries and if Iran actively works to deny access to the Persian Gulf.

Real dangers

We have not seen modern Iran fight for its very life against the United States or even Israel. On paper, Iran can do immense damage to the region. Yes, it can close and mine the Strait of Hormuz, causing massive repercussions that could last long after the war ends, a possibility which you can read about here. This is a well-understood danger. But above even that, Iran has an absolutely huge inventory of standoff weapons — specifically cruise missiles, long-range one-way attack drones, and most importantly, ballistic missiles. On the latter, there is a broad misconception that Israel wiped out Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

During the 12 Day War, Israel was concerned with Iran’s long-range ballistic missiles — MRBMs and IRBMs. These are also the easiest to find, fix, and destroy. They are large and their launchers are vulnerable because of it, especially during the pre-launch fueling stage. The location of the storage areas for these missiles is well known, including the missile cave complexes, some of which have the ability to launch the missiles through apertures in launch room ceilings. By hitting the entry and exit points of these facilities, these weapons are not destroyed but they are trapped inside.

In addition, Israel focused their interdiction ‘missile hunting’ efforts on these long-range weapons that threaten its homeland. They were also the weapons that had to be exposed as they were employed in retaliatory strikes during the war. The shorter-range stuff didn’t need to be as it was largely not used.

To make this clear, Iran’s far more plentiful short-range ballistic missiles that threaten American bases in Gulf Arab allied states were not heavily targeted. The same can be said for the shorter-range drones and cruise missiles.

So no, these capabilities were not knocked out by any means, and they are also by far the easiest for Iran to disperse and hide. This makes hunting for them from the air extremely problematic. This is especially true when Iran enters into a combat state, where it distributes these missiles, which are largely loaded onto common truck platforms, into population centers and hidden under pretty much anything. They can also shoot and scoot much faster than their long-range counterparts.

The IRGC-N took a massive delivery of anti ship missiles for coastal defense

Note the dual tube launcher in the pics, which we’ve never seen before. Seems to be a new anti ship new cruise missile. Sadly no information was given besides pics

My guess is possible supersonic AShM pic.twitter.com/i7i0z8uFc0

— Iran Defense commentary (unofficial) (@IranDefense) August 9, 2024

With all of America’s intelligence capabilities, finding and destroying these weapons from the air will be extremely challenging. Even the relatively meager arsenal belonging to Yemen’s Houthis proved vexing for the U.S. military after many months of sustained ‘hunting.’ The Houthis continued to get off successful coastal launches throughout these operations. The scale of the Iranian threat is exponentially larger, and the country has more complex terrain to hide these weapons.

Iran’s shorter-range standoff weapons number in the thousands. They have the ability to saturate the best defenses on earth and lay waste to prized targets across the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, and deeper into allied Arab nations. This not only makes nearby basing of U.S. aircraft and personnel problematic, but it greatly increases the cost of any war the United States could execute against Iran.

We have seen what it took to defend against just one volley of Iranian short-range ballistic missiles. It resulted in the largest volley of Patriot interceptors in history. Even that defensive action wasn’t entirely successful at rebuffing the attack, let alone repeated ones that would include layers of drones, as well as cruise and ballistic missiles.

Footage of a US/Qatari PATRIOT surface to air missile system conducting a large ballistic missile engagement over Al-Udeid this evening, salvoing out dozens of PAC-3 interceptors at incoming Iranian ballistic missiles. pic.twitter.com/a7OHrs9svr

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 23, 2025

There is also a risk to American warships, even those that are operating far out to sea. Iran has shown it has the ability to launch long-range anti-ship weaponry not just from its coasts and warships, but from unassuming seaborne platforms, including using containerized missiles and drones. The farther U.S. Navy vessels have to operate from Iranian territory also means their missiles won’t be able to penetrate as far into the country. A carrier’s air wing will need additional tanking support to get to its targets, and sortie rates will be lowered.

These capabilities, along with the possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz, drastically increase the chances of expanding the conflict by pulling Arab countries into it, as well, which would complicate, not help the cause, at least in many respects.

Iran knows full well where American aircraft are currently based, and they will throw everything they have at these sites. This includes America’s sprawling airbase in Jordan that is packed with tactical airpower. They know what defenses are there and have an understanding of what it will take to overwhelm them if they get the chance to do so. So the idea that we could not see mass losses of aircraft and other materiel, and even lives, on the ground, even when striking from afar, is not reality.

The same can be said about an air war. The U.S. has the most advanced air combat capabilities on earth, but ‘shit happens,’ especially during war. Even the Houthis nearly downed U.S. fighter aircraft optimized to destroy enemy air defenses. But regardless of defenses and the state of Iran’s air defense overlay, putting Americans over Iran, and repeatedly over days and weeks, is a risk. Aircraft can malfunction and mistakes can be made. When that happens, it will require even more risk to push combat search and rescue assets into the area to try and recover the crew. In other words, regardless of America’s outstanding air warfare capabilities, there is still a real risk involved in any operation over Iran.

Finally, if Iran is really backed into a corner, and especially if its most extremist elements remain in play, it could resort to weapons of mass destruction. Specifically, chemical weapons and rudimentary radiological ones (dirty bombs) could be used in a dying gasp of the regime. If they did this, it would mean a certain end for the sitting power structure in the country, but if that is going to happen anyway, they could lash out in horrible ways. There is debate as to whether Iran would, or even could, actually do this, but historically, the regime in Tehran is no stranger to the use of chemical weapons.

Defending Israel again

Iran did not run out of long-range ballistic missiles during the 12 Day War, either. They ran out of ones available for launch, and they likely saw real degradation in their ability to launch those accessible due to Israel’s interdiction efforts and disarray in Iranian command and control after nearly two weeks of being bombarded. Since that war, Iran has been pumping out more of these missiles at a high rate, despite Israel’s attacks on missile production-related targets. Some of these weapons are quite advanced, proving their ability to penetrate the IDF’s multi-tier integrated air defense system, the most advanced one on Earth, an air defense capability you can read all about here.

At the same time, the 12 Day War saw the United States and Israel burn through stocks of advanced interceptors, especially the mid-course or near mid-course intercept-capable ones. These weapons take years to produce and cost many millions of dollars each. Israel’s coveted Arrow system was reported to be running low on interceptors towards the end of the war, although how accurate those reports were is in question. The U.S. military burned through a large portion of its THAAD interceptors and many of the U.S. Navy’s prized SM-3 interceptors. This is on top of Israel ripping through countless Stunners fired by David’s Sling. The U.S. also fired a considerable number of PAC-3 Patriots and air-to-air missiles during the conflict while defending in areas outside of Israel from missile and drone attacks. But it’s the stockpile of the upper tier of missile defense interceptors that is most concerning.

If Iran was truly fighting for its life and knowing the end could be near, how many missiles will it send at Israel, and how many interceptors are available to defend against those barrages? Iran also has become increasingly savvy on what tactics to employ and where in order to overwhelm Israel’s defenses. While targeting has focused, at least to a degree, on military and governmental targets, if this was an all-out conflict, it’s likely Iran would just concentrate on population centers with whatever it has to throw at the cause.

The U.S. stockpile of advanced munitions is already a real concern after multiple campaigns to defend Israel, the long and violent standoff in the Red Sea, and the war in Ukraine. This is especially true for its more advanced interceptors, which are also in extreme demand among allies globally. This is all happening as the threat from China is growing more concerning by the day. A war in the Pacific will consume stocks of these weapons at a vastly higher rate than anything we have seen before. If those magazines run dry, it could mean the difference between winning and losing in that critical theater. And remember, these weapons take years to produce and cost many millions of dollars each. So it’s not like you can just say, ‘we’ll buy more.’ Of course, we will, but we won’t get those weapons for years, even as expansion of production is now underway across the DoW’s munitions portfolio.

So the cost of taking on Iran is not just in money and assets, and especially blood, it’s the opportunity cost of expending precious weapons in a war of choice that would be essential in a war of necessity that could erupt at any time.

Wild cards

There are capabilities and war plans we know nothing about. It may be possible that the United States thinks it can break Iran’s command and control capabilities so quickly that it can preempt many of its most dangerous weapons from being used in large quantities. This could come in the form of cyber attacks, other forms of espionage, electronic warfare, and exotic weaponry — and more likely a combination of the above. It could also be the orchestration of an insider coup-like scenario.

There is also the possibility that the United States thinks Iran’s military apparatus would simply collapse under a full combined aerial assault by the U.S. and Israel. A possible decapitation of the regime is another factor here.

If this is the case, and Iran’s warfighting capabilities can be left largely unused, then the risk equation changes. But this is a massive bet to make, and just how certain whatever measures are used will have the exact crippling effects intended could mean the difference between go and no-go for a major campaign.

In other words, we really don’t know what the United States and Israel still have up their sleeves. And maybe they have nothing that would cause such a dramatic effect at all. Instead, hitting them traditionally fast and hard, along with cyber, espionage, electronic warfare, and everything else, will be needed to erode Iran’s ability to fight back over time.

Regardless, the United States and Israel have prepared for exactly this eventuality for decades, so there certainly are bound to be some surprises. Of what magnitude is the question.

What if a deal is made, but Israel doesn’t think it’s good enough?

It’s possible that the game tree could expand in such a way that the United States makes a nuclear deal with Iran, but it does not address the long-range missile threat, or even the nuclear program, to a sufficient degree in Israel’s eyes. If this occurs, there is still the chance that Israel goes it alone and tries to do as much damage as possible to both of these elements. In some ways, this could be played to America’s advantage as it could deny being involved in the conflict and work to see if the deal sticks even after Israel’s kinetic action. In this case, American resources would be used to defend Israel, but not participate in the attack.

This may sound far-fetched, but it really isn’t an impossibility. Especially if Trump realizes how much of a commitment achieving something meaningful via an air campaign could become, as well as the risks of what comes after on the ground in Iran.

Whether a nuclear deal would even survive such a situation is unclear, but it’s possible.

Why now?

In the end, these are the fundamental questions Trump has to be asking himself and his aides: Is going to war with Iran really worth the risks, both the known ones and unknown ones, and what is the goal in doing so? Is that goal readily attainable and at what cost?

These questions also bleed directly into the political arena. Trump claimed to be the President that would get America out of wars, not start them, and especially ones that seem like they could spiral out of control relatively easily, resulting in much longer-term commitments. While he has had some stunningly successful military victories as of late, and there is a danger for politicians to think it will always turn out a similar way, that can change very quickly. If America wakes up to seeing a U.S. pilot being dragged through the streets of Tehran, any support for this conflict could quickly evaporate.

Above all else, the question has to be asked, why now? What has prompted the idea of declaring war on Iran at this moment? Yes, the protests and the brutal deaths of thousands at the hands of the regime seemed to have moved Trump, but that was subsequently used as a pretext for nuclear negotiations, not to correct human rights abuses.

In addition, Trump has declared repeatedly that he destroyed Iran’s nuclear program after the B-2 strikes in June. So why, just eight months after that action took place, is the United States about to go all-in against Iran over its nuclear program? We have heard anecdotes about possible threats of Iran starting the nuclear program back up, the threat posed by the enriched uranium they already have, and the possibility that they could develop new, longer-range missiles that could hit the U.S. one day, maybe. Yet nothing has been presented in a concrete manner as to why doing this right now is essential. It doesn’t match Trump’s long-standing political rhetoric at all.

There is obviously much the public doesn’t know, but the risk-reward equation seems like a uniquely puzzling one with this crisis, at least at this time.

If Iran doesn’t make a deal, it seems clear that Trump has put himself in a position where he will either have his bluff called or he will need to commit to an air war against Iran.

What happens from that historic split in the road is really anyone’s guess.

Including the Pentagon’s.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

China officially announced in late January 2026 its refusal to join the Board of Peace at the “International Peace Council for the Administration of the Gaza Strip.” This council, proposed by the United States under the leadership of Donald Trump, is a new international entity launched by the US president as an alternative to traditional UN mechanisms. China confirmed in January 2026 that it had received a formal invitation from the United States to join the “International Peace Council” for Gaza, launched by President “Trump” as a global initiative to resolve the conflict. China’s stance toward this council is characterized by caution and a demand for further details while adhering to its established principles.

The reasons for China’s rejection of the US-sponsored peace council for the Gaza Strip are based on several strategic and legal justifications, the most important of which is the marginalization of the UN’s role by the International Peace Council, sponsored by Washington. Beijing believes that the council seeks to replace the role of the United Nations and the Security Council, and it affirms its commitment to an international system centered on the United Nations and based on international law. Regarding China’s criticism of the lack of Palestinian representation within the International Peace Council, China criticized the Council’s charter for failing to mention the Palestinians or respect their will, asserting that any arrangements for the future of Gaza must be based on the principle of “Palestinians governing Palestine.” Furthermore, (China’s concerns about “American dominance” over the International Peace Council): Beijing warned that the Council could be a tool for Washington to impose “control” or establish military bases in the Gaza envelope area under the guise of reconstruction. Also, (China’s rejection of the financial membership criteria within the International Peace Council): The Council requires substantial financial contributions (up to one billion dollars for permanent membership), which China views as transforming peace into a “deal” driven by financial power rather than the legal rights of the Palestinians.

At the same time, China is demanding structural clarity regarding the resolution establishing the International Peace Council and its actual feasibility. China, through its Permanent Representative to the United Nations, “Fu Cong,” expressed concern that the resolution establishing the council lacks essential details, particularly concerning its structure, composition, and terms of reference, as well as the nature of the proposed “international stabilization force” in Gaza. Therefore, Beijing insisted on the UN’s authority in this matter, maintaining that any future arrangements for Gaza must be made under the auspices of UN Security Council resolutions and with broad participation including Palestinian parties and Arab states. China rejected any “closed” or “unilateral” mechanisms that could marginalize the UN’s role. Furthermore, China categorically emphasized the principle of “Palestinian governance of Gaza,” considering the Gaza Strip an integral part of Palestinian territory. China rejects any plans aimed at imposing external trusteeship or control over its administration, affirming that the principle of “Palestinians governing Palestine” is the foundation for any post-conflict governance. China has supported Arab initiatives on post-war management of the Gaza Strip, explicitly endorsing reconstruction and peace plans proposed by Egypt and other Arab states, deeming them consistent with the aspirations of the Palestinian people. China firmly adheres to the two-state solution, maintaining that any peace efforts must ultimately lead to a two-state solution and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Therefore, the motives behind China’s rejection of the American request to join the International Peace Council on Gaza can be summarized as follows: China’s insistence on upholding the international legitimacy of the United Nations and its deep suspicions regarding the security and political objectives behind the council’s formation and Washington’s enthusiasm for it. The main reasons for China’s rejection of the International Peace Council on Gaza are China’s desire to protect the UN system. Beijing believes the proposed council seeks to replace or marginalize the role of the United Nations. The Chinese Foreign Ministry affirmed its commitment to an international system centered on the United Nations and based on its Charter and international law, rejecting any “alternative frameworks” outside of this scope. (Ambiguity in structure and tasks): The Chinese representative to the United Nations, “Fu Cong,” criticized the draft resolution concerning the council (Resolution 2803) for its lack of clear details regarding its structure, composition, and criteria for participation, describing it as “worrying.” In addition to China’s security concerns regarding the Gaza issue: Chinese intelligence reports indicate that one of the hidden objectives of the Washington-sponsored International Peace Council in Gaza is to destroy Hamas tunnels under the guise of “reconstruction,” which Beijing considers a “provocative and extremely dangerous” foreign military intervention. Furthermore, (China rejects American unilateralism in dealing with regional and global issues): China views the American International Peace Council initiative in Gaza as part of Washington’s attempts to impose “unilateralism” and exacerbate confrontation between blocs, which contradicts the “Global Governance Initiative” championed by Chinese President “Xi Jinping. ”.

Herein lies China’s alternative vision to the American initiative to form the International Peace Council: China, in its alternative to joining the Council, calls for the activation of the two-state solution as the only way to guarantee lasting peace in the Middle East and the implementation of the Beijing Declaration to support Palestinian national unity and strengthen the legitimacy of the Palestinian state. (UN Reform): Instead of creating parallel initiatives, Beijing calls for making the Security Council more responsive to the expectations of the world’s people on its 80th anniversary.

China proposes a different vision for managing the Gaza and Middle East issues, based on the following pillars: (Security Council Authority): This involves full adherence to UN Security Council resolutions as the sole basis for international legitimacy in Gaza. The Chinese call for (the principle of self-governance in the Gaza Strip): This involves China’s insistence that post-war administration of Gaza must be in the hands of the Palestinians themselves, rejecting any plans for forced displacement or external trusteeship. The Chinese call for a broad international peace conference on Gaza: Beijing calls for a more inclusive and credible international peace conference under UN auspices, with the aim of concretely implementing the two-state solution within a defined timeframe. With China prioritizing land routes over sea routes or temporary docks, as proposed by the US, China rejects maritime alternatives or “temporary docks” as substitutes for land corridors, viewing them as attempts to circumvent international obligations regarding humanitarian relief in the Gaza Strip.

From the preceding analysis, we understand that China considers itself a “positive stabilizing force” seeking to end the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip through comprehensive dialogue, in contrast to what it describes as the “unilateral” US approach, which it believes could deepen regional divisions. In short, while China does not reject participation in international dialogue on Gaza, it stipulates that the international peace council, sponsored by Washington, should be an instrument for strengthening international legitimacy, not a replacement for it, while preserving full Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza.

The commander of Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) has said that he would like to field F-15E Strike Eagle and F-15EX Eagle II combat aircraft to help the command meet its commitment to supporting the overall Air Force mission. AFRC commander Lt. Gen. John P. Healy was speaking at the Air & Space Forces Association’s annual Warfare Symposium, where TWZ is in attendance.

Headquartered at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, the AFRC is responsible for three numbered air forces, 34 flying wings, 10 flying groups, a space wing, a cyber wing, and an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance wing. It also has other subordinate units that help to accomplish its total-force missions.

Healy was addressing how AFRC is grappling with how best to contribute to the Air Force’s 10-year fighter jet plan, which calls for purchasing more F-15EXs, F-35s, and F-47s, as it aims to have nearly 1,400 combat-coded tactical aircraft in service by 2030. The commander noted that the plan is not only “pretty ambitious” but also that, while it has been submitted to Congress, it is still very much a work in progress.

Nevertheless, Healy said that, whatever happens, the Air Force’s future fighter plans will rely heavily on the AFRC. At the same time, this organization is facing upcoming combat aircraft retirements, including the A-10 attack jet, which the Air Force wants to withdraw entirely.

“As the commander of Air Force Reserve Command, I am keenly aware that some of my units are scheduled to divest without any plan of recapitalization,” Healy said. “Some could say I am loud and annoying when it comes to how we can ensure that we can maintain this fighting force,” he added, noting that in certain AFRC units, 100 percent of the airmen are combat veterans, and that he wants to ensure “that talent, that experience, doesn’t walk out the door during a normal, planned divestment.”

Healy is hopeful that the historic practice of aircraft divestment without recapitalization, something he said has existed over the last 14 years, is now on the way out.

“I think we’re finally at a point where we’re putting a stop to that,” Healy said. “We’re looking at maintaining our classic associations where we have them and recapping as the active duty can. For the remaining fighter units that we have that are divesting or scheduled for divestment, our full expectation is that we’re going to recap those with new weapons systems.”

There’s no doubt that many of the AFRC’s planned divestments are badly needed, with upward of 80 percent of the command’s fleet now being considered “legacy.” Healy continued: “You know, it’s code for old. Some of these airplanes need to be divested, but we also need to ensure that we are proportionately, concurrently fielded with new equipment.”

That’s where the F-15E and F-15EX could come into play.

“For every one of these A-10 units that are going away, I’m looking at if there’s a means by which we can get an F-15 unit behind it, whether it’s a Strike Eagle or an EX.”

Meanwhile, Healy said he’s also “pressing hard” to ensure that ARFC units divesting from the F-16 will be backfilled with F-35 stealth jets.

“We’ve got that combat capability,” Healy added. “We’ve got that combat experience. We need to leverage that.”

The AFRC boss also made the financial case for continuing to re-equip his command’s squadrons with new (or, failing that, newer) equipment.

According to the Air Force’s own factsheet, the AFRC provides around 14 percent of the total force within the service, while consuming only around four percent of the total manpower budget.

“My job is to constantly remind the programmers and remind the chief and the secretary of the value proposition, the advantage of the Reserve, because at the end of the day, we’re providing a little bit more money that we can reinvest into other things as well.”

Healy said that, when it comes to operating the F-16, an AFRC squadron does that “$12 million cheaper than the active duty can.”

The savings on F-15 units would be even more compelling, Healy argued, with an AFRC Strike Eagle squadron working out as $28 million cheaper than the active-duty equivalent, or $24 million in the case of the F-15EX.

There remains a question, however, around just how feasible it might be for the ARFC to get the F-15E or F-15EX. For all their undoubted capabilities, these types are both in short supply and high demand.

The Air Force’s planned F-15EX numbers have fluctuated repeatedly over the last few years. Under the Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal, the Air Force’s program of record is now set to grow from 98 to 129 aircraft, with the addition of at least one more squadron, which will be converting from the A-10.

Originally, the Air Force had a minimum number of 144 F-15EX aircraft to replace the F-15C/D force. Some of the Eagle units have switched to other platforms since then, but units that fly A-10s, F-16s, and even F-15Es could end up getting F-15EX if the service chooses to go such a route. It seems quite possible that further growth of the program could occur, and that would seem to be a prerequisite if the ARFC is to get the Eagle II as well.

When it comes to the F-15E, the Air Force inventory numbers 218 aircraft, of which 119 are powered by the older F100-PW-220 turbofan engines that produce some 23,500 pounds of thrust each. The other 99 have the F100-PW-229s, each of which is rated at 29,000 pounds of thrust.

The Air Force previously aspired to retire the Dash-220-powered jets by the end of Fiscal Year 2028.

The Air Force has argued that it needs to retire its older F-15Es to help free up resources for its future modernization plans, but lawmakers have been concerned about dwindling numbers of available tactical aircraft if this were to happen.

The possibility of transferring F-15Es from active-duty units to Air National Guard (or AFRC) units is something that TWZ has discussed in depth in this previous feature.

As far as the AFRC is concerned, the best chance of getting its hands on F-15Es will almost certainly be provided by the return stateside of the two squadrons of Dash-229-powered Strike Eagles currently at RAF Lakenheath in England. These are due to be replaced by F-35s in the future. For the time being, they are the only permanently forward-deployed F-15Es, which remain the service’s first choice for a wide variety of critical missions around the globe.

Another option, and one we have explored in the past, would be to pass on the Dash-220-powered jets to the AFRC, and it is somewhat surprising the Air Force hasn’t floated this idea before when it has sought to offload the older, less-powerful Strike Eagles.

Asked by TWZ about the likelihood of F-15Es making their way to his command, the AFRC commander responded: “I am optimistic that we’ve at least got people listening to the value that we provide, the combat capability we provide, the experience that we provide. We’ve proven it over and over again. We’re efficient, we’re experienced, we’re 100 percent accessible as a reserve force, and we’re lethal in all these mission sets. I think our message is sounding in a positive way with senior leadership within the Air Force. I’m not going to cash the check yet, but I’m optimistic about our future in terms of recapitalizing some of our units.”

Many of the savings that the AFRC makes are a result of the efficiencies that are baked into its ‘business’ practices. Of the 67,000 airmen that make up the command, 14,000 are full-timers.

“Those full-timers are the ones that keep the lights on day-to-day,” Healy continued. Our business model is such that a typical unit will have 25 percent full-timers, and they run that unit for 28 days of the month. It’s only that one weekend a month that we’re at 100 percent — full strength. So those cost savings, right there, are what allow us to realize benefits. It adds up when we start putting it into big numbers like that.”

Whether examples of the F-15E Strike Eagle or F-15EX Eagle II end up on Air Force Reserve Command ramps remains to be seen, but in Lt. Gen. John P. Healy, that component has a strong advocate for making that happen.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

US judge says that rapid deportation of migrants to countries other than their own violates due process.

A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump had violated the law through the swift deportation of migrants to countries other than their own, without giving them an opportunity to appeal their removal.

US District Judge Brian Murphy declared the policy invalid on Wednesday, teeing up a possible appeal from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Supreme Court.

“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy wrote in his decision, adding that migrants could not be sent to an “unfamiliar and potentially dangerous country” without any legal recourse.

He added that due process – the right to receive fair legal proceedings – is an essential component of the US Constitution.

“These are our laws, and it is with profound gratitude for the unbelievable luck of being born in the United States of America that this Court affirms these and our nation’s bedrock principle: that no ‘person’ in this country may be ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’,” Murphy said.

The ruling is the latest legal setback in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.

Trump has long pledged to remove immigrants from the country who violate the law or are in the country without legal paperwork. But critics argue that his immigration crackdown has been marked by widespread neglect of due process rights.

They also point out that some of the deportees have been in the country legally, with their cases being processed through legal immigration pathways like asylum.

Murphy said in his ruling that the swift nature of the deportation obscures the details of each case, preventing courts from weighing whether each deportation is legal.

“The simple reality is that nobody knows the merits of any individual class member’s claim because [administration officials] are withholding the predicate fact: the country of removal,” wrote Murphy.

In the decision, Murphy also addressed some of the Trump administration’s arguments in favour of swift deportation.

He highlighted one argument, for instance, where the administration asserted it would be “fine” to deport migrants to third-party countries, so long as the Department of Homeland Security was not aware of anyone waiting to kill them upon arrival.

“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy responded in his decision.

Murphy has previously ruled against efforts to swiftly deport migrants to countries where they have no ties, and over the past year, he has seen some decisions overturned by the Supreme Court.

Noting that trend, Murphy said Wednesday’s decision would not take effect for 15 days, in order to give the administration the opportunity to appeal.

Last year, for instance, the conservative-majority Supreme Court lifted an injunction Murphy issued in April that sought to protect the due process rights of migrants being deported to third-party countries.

The injunction had come as part of a case where the Trump administration attempted to send eight men to South Sudan, despite concerns about human rights conditions there.

Wednesday’s decision, meanwhile, stemmed from a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrants similarly facing deportation to countries they had no relation to.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Trina Realmuto from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, hailed Murphy’s latest ruling.

“Under the government’s policy, people have been forcibly returned to countries where US immigration judges have found they will be persecuted or tortured,” Realmuto said in a statement.

Realmuto added that the ruling was a “forceful statement” about the policy’s constitutionality.

Monterrey, Mexico – Portraits of the missing cover Guadalajara’s “Roundabout of the Disappeared”, a landmark renamed by families to highlight the state’s disappearance crisis.

On February 22, the streets surrounding the memorial and throughout the city stood empty after the Mexican army killed Ruben Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, the longtime leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG).

In retaliation, cartel members set fire to buses and taxis, erecting a series of blockades that spread across 20 states.

The widespread unrest demonstrated the CJNG’s capacity for rapid coordination, fuelled by a ‘franchise’ model that allows smaller cells to operate under the cartel’s brand and vast financial network.

While the group’s economic reach extends into Europe and Asia, its power remains rooted in its paramilitary force. This structure relies on extortion, brutal violence and forced disappearances as its main tools to seize territory and control markets.

Oseguera Cervantes, known as “El Mencho”, consolidated one of Mexico’s most powerful criminal organisations in part due to a unique franchise-based structure.

According to the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the CJNG maintains a presence in every state of Mexico, with varying levels of influence, and operates in more than 40 countries across the Americas, Europe, Asia and Africa, and throughout the US. Its primary activity is the trafficking of cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamine.

Raul Zepeda Gil, a teaching fellow in War Studies at King’s College London, notes that rather than following a “classic organisational pyramid”, the CJNG avoids a centralised financial network.

“Instead, profits can be distributed across many locations and groups simultaneously,” Zepeda told Al Jazeera.

Besides controlling key areas in western Mexico, the CJNG controls the Pacific Coast region, including the strategic ports of Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas, crucial for the import of synthetic precursor chemicals.

“Their most important activity is drug trafficking,” Zepeda said. “Chemical precursors that arrive from China reach Mexican ports and are then sent to the United States already in fentanyl form.”

The organisation also generates revenues through fuel theft, illegal mining, extortion, migrant smuggling and money laundering.

On February 19, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned a timeshare fraud network led by the CJNG that targeted elderly Americans.

“Timeshare fraud in Mexico has plagued American victims for decades, costing them hundreds of millions of dollars while enriching criminal organisations such as CJNG,” the Treasury Department stated in a press release.

The CJNG’s extensive reach and rapid growth are made possible by a vast, powerful network that protects drug trafficking operations and ensures impunity, says Carlos Flores, an investigator at the Centre for Research and Higher Education in Social Anthropology (CIESAS). Flores argues that these “hegemonic power networks”, shadow networks of business leaders, politicians, and criminals, have reconfigured state institutions to serve their own interests.

“These same networks, which control and administer state institutions – including security institutions – focus their actions primarily against their competitors, while simultaneously allowing these other networks to consolidate their power,” he added.

The rise of a deadly paramilitary force

Forced disappearances and extortion are crucial for the CJNG’s control of the market, seeding fear that silences communities and facilitates forced recruitment. This ensures a steady supply of disposable labour while following the ‘no body, no crime’ logic that minimises the political and legal costs of their operations.

Homicides and forced disappearances have surged in Jalisco since the group emerged in 2010. The CJNG rose from the remnants of the Milenio Cartel, a subordinate partner of the Sinaloa Cartel based in Oseguera Cervantes’s home state of Michoacan. While across Mexico more than 130,000 people are missing, Jalisco currently ranks at the top with at least 16,000 reported cases, and collectives of families continue to uncover mass graves and what they describe as “extermination sites”.

Raul Servin, a member of the Guerreros Buscadores, a collective representing more than 400 families of the disappeared, told Al Jazeera that their searches frequently reveal human remains in varying states of decay and torture. They have found victims who were shot, hanged or killed with bladed weapons that were left inside the bodies, he said.

“It’s a sadness and helplessness we feel when we see each body these people leave behind,” said Servin, who has been searching for his son since 2018.

Beyond its financial power, the CJNG is notorious for its extensive arsenal of military-grade weaponry, including armed drones, rocket-propelled grenades, and firearms.

On February 22, more than 25 National Guard members were killed in Jalisco. In the past, the organisation has also carried out high-profile attacks against public officials.

Last year in February, US President Donald Trump designated the Jalisco New Generation Cartel as a foreign terrorist organisation. In July, US prosecutors in Virginia unsealed an indictment against Petar Dimitrov Mirchev, a Bulgarian national accused of conspiring with East African associates to equip the CJNG with military-grade weaponry. The indictment states that Mirchev brokered these deals “despite knowing that the CJNG inflicts catastrophic suffering” to protect its prolific drug trafficking operations.

The indictment also revealed that the CJNG was attempting to buy surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft systems (ZU-23). Overall, Mirchev allegedly created a list of weaponry worth approximately $58m.

The paramilitary profile has allowed the CJNG to expand rapidly into rival territories and monopolise the market. Flores describes this training, deployment, and weaponry as being similar to an army, making them “practically uncontestable”.

“They operate under a different kind of logic,” Flores said. “They provide a kind of licence to [local] groups that associate with them. They fight their enemies and collaborate on trafficking in exchange for using the Jalisco New Generation Cartel as a label.”

The CJNG adopted a level of brutality similar to Los Zetas, whose founders were elite Mexican special forces soldiers trained by the US and Israel. In its early days, the CJNG was known as the “Matazetas”, or Zetas Killers.

Servin and the Guerreros Buscadores have seen the results of this brutality firsthand. Locating the missing becomes more difficult as concealment tactics evolve, Servin said. Disappearances have become a powerful economic tool to control and exploit territory. Collectives often find bodies buried under layers of dirt and animal carcasses to throw off the scent, or even encased in concrete.

“They make us work harder than necessary. If they took his life, why not leave him where we can find him quickly?”

Zepeda says that the CJNG leveraged military-grade tactics to fill the void left by the government’s crackdown on other cartels carried out between 2008 and 2010. In 2009, the Beltran-Leyva Organisation – which had been at war with the Sinaloa Cartel since their 2008 split – was reeling from a series of high-profile arrests and killings.

The death of Ignacio “Nacho” Coronel, a key finance operator for the Sinaloa Cartel, at the hands of the military in 2010 further cleared the way for new criminal players. Oseguera Cervantes was working under Coronel before breaking away to form what would become the CJNG.

“If we could summarise the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, it’s a reinvention of Los Zetas, which took over all the territory that the other cartels defeated by the Mexican government had occupied,” Zepeda added.

This history serves as a warning of what may follow the death of Oseguera Cervantes. Zepeda pointed out that the drug trade is an incredibly dynamic market where “there will always be a group of people willing to take control”.

Flores warns that “decapitating the leadership” is insufficient if power networks, along with the CJNG’s criminal and operational structures, remain intact.

“Without dismantling the power networks, yesterday’s victory will become the cause of new violence tomorrow,” Flores said. “We’ve seen this approach many times before, and we know what it leads to: It solves neither the transnational drug problem nor creates conditions of greater stability for the Mexican population.”

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi defended Israel’s devastating war on Gaza, saying it stands by the country “with full conviction” – despite accusations of genocide against the Palestinian people.

Modi gave a speech to the Knesset, or parliament, on Wednesday, on the first day of his two-day visit and received a standing ovation as he stressed India’s enduring support for Israel.

It was the first time an Indian leader addressed the Knesset.

“India stands with Israel firmly, with full conviction, in this moment and beyond,” said Modi, condemning the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas-led fighters as “barbaric”, adding “no cause can justify the murder of civilians”.

India’s leader was earlier greeted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Ben Gurion International Airport, where a welcoming ceremony was held.

In his own Knesset speech, Netanyahu thanked India for “standing by” Israel in the wake of October 7, and said the two nations shared “common interests”. He described Modi as “more than a friend, a brother”.

Modi said New Delhi expressed “strong support” for the Gaza peace initiative approved by the UN Security Council in November. It “offers a pathway”, he said, adding India believes “it holds the promise of a just and durable peace for all the people of the region”.

‘Trusted partners’

The Indian leader said the two countries are “trusted partners” and this “contributes to global stability and prosperity”.

He described their relations as “vital” for trade and security, and hailed “synergy” on artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and other topics.

“We are committed to further consolidating this relationship across many sectors,” he added.

Modi’s first trip to Israel was in 2017 after relations between the two countries warmed following his election in 2014. Netanyahu also visited India in 2018.

Haaretz newspaper journalist Gideon Levy told Al Jazeera that Modi’s visit cannot be underestimated.

“India is a highly important country and [Modi] showing himself … in these times when public opinion in India is very critical about Israel is a step that cannot be underestimated,” said Levy.

He pointed to similarities between Netanyahu and Modi, saying both are “nationalist, populist in a way, quite conservative, and hawkish. Both countries carry also some stains, Kashmir, Palestine, the West Bank”.

Israel’s largest arms buyer

In September 2025, India and Israel signed the Bilateral Investment Treaty to expand trade during far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s visit to India.

India is Israel’s largest arms buyer, spending $20.5bn on Israeli weapons between 2020 and 2024. In 2024, trade between the two, largely based on defence and security, stood at $3.9bn.

Modi has received criticism for his support for Israel during its genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, which has killed at least 72,073 people and wounded 171,756. At least 615 of those deaths occurred during the “ceasefire” agreed between Israel and Hamas last October.

Last week, India was one of the more than 100 countries condemning Israel’s recent moves to expand its control of the occupied West Bank and move towards annexation.

Imran Masood, a parliamentarian for India’s Congress party, urged Modi to address Gaza during his visit, saying, “if there is any morality then he should talk about death of children in Gaza”, ANI news agency reported.

“India’s stand is clear … that it supports Palestine,” said Masood.

Marian Alexander Baby, leader of the Communist Party of India, said Modi’s embrace of Israel is “a betrayal of India’s anti-colonial legacy and our long-standing position in support of the right to self determination of the Palestinian people, reaffirmed by UN resolutions that India has co-sponsored and voted for”.

Modi continues his visit to Israel on Thursday.

A sinkhole suddenly opened at an intersection in Omaha, Nebraska, swallowing two cars stopped at a red light. Police said both drivers escaped before crews arrived and no injuries were reported. Authorities warn the street could remain closed for days amid fears the hole may expand.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Cuba was plunged into crisis. Fuel, food and spare parts vanished almost overnight. This character-led documentary shows how common Cubans refused to give up – and instead built a new culture of radical repair. From Havana’s Malecon to small-town back yards, it follows mechanics, street vendors and a teacher-turned-inventor who live by one rule: “invent and resolve”.

A pristine US Plymouth Fury convertible of the 1950s hides a Soviet engine, Japanese gearbox and handmade parts; washing machines become coconut graters, solar dryers and tools for urban farms. Cuban historians and designer Ernesto Oroza reveal the philosophy behind this “technical disobedience”, treating every object as raw material to hack and extend. Far from nostalgia, the film offers a stark snapshot of a future in which resources are scarce and the power to repair may be our most important tool.