TODAY

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

This week’s second caption reads:

WASSENAAR, NETHERLANDS – MAY 5: The remains of a communication room are visible as the Seyss-Inquart bunker opens its doors to the public on Liberation Day for a special “Freedom Meal” on May 5, 2025 in Wassenaar, Netherlands. The holiday marks the Netherlands’ liberation from Nazi occupation 80 years ago. The bunker is named after Arthur Seyss-Inquart, a prominent Nazi official who served as Reich Commissioner during the German occupation of the Netherlands.He was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Trials and subsequently executed. After the war, the bunker, concealed beneath a structure resembling a traditional Dutch farmhouse, was repurposed by the Dutch armed forces during the Cold War and served as a site for NATO military exercises. (Photo by Pierre Crom/Getty Images)

Also, a reminder:

Prime Directives!

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

Caracas, February 20, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration is forcing all royalty, tax, and dividend payments from Venezuelan oil production be paid into accounts managed by Washington.

The mandate reinforces the White House’s control over Venezuelan crude export revenues in the wake of the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, as well as a naval blockade imposed in December.

The US Treasury Department updated its FAQ section on February 18 to clarify conditions on recently issued sanctions waivers allowing expanded participation in Venezuela’s oil sector to Western corporations.

Under the licenses, only “routine payments of local taxes, permits, and fees” to Venezuelan authorities are permitted.

“Other payments, including royalties, fixed per-barrel production levies, or federal taxes to blocked persons, such as the Venezuelan government or (state oil company) PDVSA, must be made into the Foreign Government Deposit Fund,” the text read.

The acting Rodríguez administration has yet to comment on the new restrictions. 

Since January, Washington has imposed control over Venezuelan crude exports, with proceeds deposited in a US-administered account in Qatar. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced recently that funds will now be deposited directly in a US Treasury account. Senior administration officials have stated that the arrangement gives the White House “leverage” to condition Venezuelan government policies, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that Caracas must submit a “budget request” to access its own oil revenues.

At least US $500 million, out of an initial deal estimated at $2 billion, have been returned to Venezuela and offered by banks in foreign exchange auctions. Venezuelan authorities have also reported the import of medicines and medical equipment from US manufacturers using “unblocked funds.”

On Thursday, the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License 50A allowing select firms to conduct transactions and operations related to hydrocarbon projects with PDVSA or any other Venezuelan public entity. The document mirrors General License 50 issued on February 13 but added French firm Maurel & Prom to a list including BP, Chevron, Eni, Repsol, and Shell.

Maurel & Prom’s main project in the Caribbean nation is a minority stake in the Petroregional del Lago joint venture, which currently produces 21,000 barrels per day (bpd). The company’s executives recently held a meeting with Acting President Delcy Rodríguez as part of Caracas’ efforts to secure foreign investment.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has issued several licenses to boost US and European involvement in the Venezuelan energy sector, with imports of diluents, inputs and technology now allowed. General License 49, issued on February 13, demands that companies apply for a special license before striking production and investment deals with Venezuela.

The US Treasury issued sanctions waivers while maintaining existing coercive measures against the Venezuelan oil industry in place, including financial sanctions against PDVSA. The licenses likewise block any transactions with companies from Cuba, China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

The selective flexibilization of sanctions followed the Venezuelan National Assembly’s approval of a pro-business overhaul of the country’s Hydrocarbon Law. The reform grants private corporations expanded control over operations and sales, while opening the possibility for disputes to be taken to external arbitration.

The reformed law also allows the Venezuelan executive to arbitrarily reduce royalties and a new “integrated tax,” capped at 30 and 15 percent, respectively. The executive is likewise entitled to grant reductions to the 50 percent income tax set for the oil industry if deemed necessary for projects to be “internationally competitive.”

According to US-set conditions and the reformed law, minority partners such as Repsol are authorized to sell crude from Venezuelan joint ventures before depositing the owed royalty and tax amounts, as well as dividends belonging to PDVSA, to US Treasury-designated accounts.

The initial crude sales as part of the Trump-imposed arrangement were conducted via commodity traders Vitol and Trafigura, which lifted cargoes at Venezuelan ports before re-selling them to final customers. However, according to Reuters, US-based refiners including Phillips66 and CITGO are looking to secure crude directly from Venezuela to maximize profits.

CITGO, a subsidiary of PDVSA, is close to being taken over by vulture fund Elliott Management following a court-mandated auction to satisfy creditor claims against the South American country. The company has been managed by boards appointed by the US-backed Venezuelan opposition since 2019.

US President Trump’s announcement of the creation of the so-called “Peace Council,” involving several countries, including Morocco, sparks a deep debate that goes beyond the diplomatic event itself. It addresses the core of the international order established after World War II. The issue isn’t only about establishing a new international body but also raises an implicit question: Is the United Nations still capable of managing global peace and security, or are we entering a phase in which alternatives are being sought?

From this perspective, the Peace Council becomes a political project par excellence, reflecting shifts in the American vision of the role of international institutions and revealing a structural crisis within the United Nations system.

First: The Peace Council… Read for the idea, not the structure.

Internationally and institutionally, the Peace Council cannot be considered a direct alternative to the United Nations. The latter is grounded in an international charter, legal legitimacy, and semi-inclusive membership, whereas the Peace Council remains a selective framework, initially limited in membership, and its legitimacy is based, in particular, on the political will of the countries involved, foremost among them the United States. However, attention to this formal aspect may overlook the substance of the matter. The true value of the Peace Council lies not in its organizational and administrative structure, but in the political message it carries: explicitly questioning the United Nations’ ability to perform its historical function, offering an alternative grounded in effectiveness rather than consensus, and prioritizing alliance over inclusiveness. In other words, we are facing a shift in how international peace is managed, not just a new institutional addition.

Second: Why does the US administration believe that the United Nations has failed? Washington’s view is rooted in the strong belief that the United Nations has faced significant challenges: it has become hostage to the veto powers within the Security Council; it struggles to enforce its strategic decisions in major international conflicts; and it has shifted from being a mechanism for resolution to more of a platform for political battles. This perspective is not merely popular opinion; it is shared by many international relations scholars, who argue that the UN has not evolved sufficiently to address emerging global and regional issues, including unconventional conflicts, the rise of non-state actors, shifting global power dynamics, and a waning collective commitment to international law. In this context, the Peace Council is regarded by the United States as a tool to address what it perceives as a long-standing institutional paralysis.

Third: The Peace Council… Is it truly an alternative or just a parallel path?

When we look at international relations realistically, we usually consider three levels: 1. Legal level: The Peace Council can’t replace the United Nations when it comes to legitimacy grounded in international law. 2. Practical level: The Council aims to fill a real gap in conflict management, especially in cases where the United Nations has struggled to resolve or contain issues. 3. Symbolic and expressive level: This is where the concern grows, as the Council challenges the UN’s exclusive claim to legitimacy in the “peace industry.” In the end, it’s not just about being an alternative or a supporting body. It’s more like a parallel system that could, over time, become a real competitor if it gains more influence and members.

Fourth: The American Dimension… Redefining International Leadership.

The creation of the Peace Council aligns with Trump’s broader perspective on international relations, emphasizing three key points: reducing dependence on multilateral organizations, strengthening alliances, and shifting decision-making authority to major global powers. From this standpoint, the Council is less about promoting peace and more about reshaping America’s influence and alliances, especially in a world where Washington is reluctant to bear the costs of a global order it cannot fully control. This reflects a shift away from seeking international legitimacy toward a focus on “realistic legitimacy,” in which institutions are judged more by their results than by strict adherence to rules.

Fifth: Morocco and the Peace Council… a strategically chosen location

The Kingdom of Morocco’s decision to join the Peace Council should not be seen as a departure from the United Nations, but rather as a strategic move in its diplomatic efforts to diversify its international partnerships. Morocco maintains strong institutional ties with the UN, actively participates in peacekeeping missions, and is also eager to expand its presence in new global initiatives. By joining the Peace Council, Morocco positions itself favorably in discussions on security and stability, gaining an influential role in shaping international approaches to conflict management. This move also helps to reinforce Morocco’s image as a responsible actor that avoids relying solely on a single framework for its diplomatic and security strategies.

Sixth: Is the time of the United Nations over?

The prediction that the United Nations mission is coming to an end may be premature, but it still carries weight. The key point is that the UN is facing a crisis of legitimacy and effectiveness, not one of existence. It continues to exist, but it can no longer handle alone a world marked by multiple power centers, rising complex conflicts, and waning trust in collective action. So, the Peace Council isn’t signaling its demise but rather highlighting the deepening challenges facing the traditional international system.

In the end, the Peace Council put together by the Trump administration isn’t officially replacing the United Nations yet, but it definitely marks a shift—signaling that we’re moving from one phase to another. We’re entering a time when peace and security are handled through selective alliances and initiatives driven by major powers, rather than through large umbrella organizations. The big question is, will this new approach bring about more effective peace, or will it make the world less legitimate and more fragile? The answer won’t be found just in the data but in how this new model actually plays out on the ground.

Nigerian lawmaker reports ‘at least 50 people dead’ after attack as list of missing is still being compiled.

Gunmen killed at least 50 people and abducted women and children in an overnight assault on a village in northwestern Nigeria’s Zamfara State, authorities and residents said.

The attack started late on Thursday night and continued into Friday morning in Tungan Dutse village in the Bukkuyum area of Zamfara when armed men arrived on motorcycles and began setting fire to buildings and abducting residents.

“They have been moving from one village to another … leaving at least 50 people dead,” said Hamisu A Faru, a lawmaker representing Bukkuyum South.

Faru, speaking to the Reuters news agency by phone on Friday, said the number of people abducted remained unclear as local officials were still compiling lists of the missing.

Residents say warning signs were visible before the attack.

Abdullahi Sani, 41, said villagers alerted security forces after spotting more than 150 motorcycles carrying armed men a day earlier, but no action was taken.

“No one slept yesterday; we are all in pain,” Sani said, adding that three members of his family were killed in the attack.

Areas of Nigeria’s north and west continue to grapple with overlapping security threats, including armed criminal gangs and rebel fighters.

Just last week, at least 46 people were killed in raids in the Borgu area of northwest Niger State. The deadliest assault occurred in the village of Konkoso, where at least 38 residents were shot or had their throats cut, according to reports.

The crisis has drawn increased international involvement.

Nigeria recently expanded security cooperation with the United States after President Donald Trump accused the country of failing to halt the killing of Christians and threatened military intervention.

On December 25, the US launched air strikes on the northern state of Sokoto, conducted in coordination with Nigerian authorities.

Earlier this week, Nigeria’s military confirmed the arrival of 100 US soldiers tasked with training local forces.

Samaila Uba, spokesperson for Nigeria’s Defence Headquarters, said the US troops would offer “technical support” and “intelligence sharing” to help combat “terrorist organisations”, along with “associated equipment”.

He stressed the US personnel would not engage directly in combat and would share technical expertise under Nigerian command.

Brazil’s President Lula says fate of Venezuelan president should be determined by the ‘people of Venezuela’ and ‘not by foreign interference’.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro should face trial, but that it should take place in a Venezuelan court, rather than in the United States, where he is currently being held after his abduction by the US military.

“I believe that if Maduro has to be trialled, he has to be trialled in his country, not trialled abroad,” Lula said in an interview, emphasising that “what matters now is to re-establish democracy in Venezuela”.

“It has to be solved by the people of Venezuela, and not by foreign interference,” said Lula, citing a history of US-backed dictatorships in Latin America, including Chile, Argentina and Uruguay.

“We cannot accept that a head of state of one country could invade another country and capture the president,” the Brazilian leader added.

Lula’s comments come as Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, has been working to release hundreds of politicians, activists and lawyers jailed during Maduro’s residency, which began in 2013.

The Brazilian has openly criticised the abduction of ⁠Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a military operation ordered by US President Donald Trump on January 3.

Maduro was flown to New York after his abduction in a bloody night raid on Caracas. He has since been accused by US authorities of planning to transport drugs to the US alongside other charges.

The US government’s own data shows that Venezuela is not among the world’s major drug producers; however, Trump administration officials have accused Maduro and others of working with the region’s largest drug trafficking groups, including in Colombia and Mexico.

While the Trump administration has claimed that its military buildup near Venezuela and maritime blockade of the country were focused on combating drug trafficking, Trump has laid claim to Venezuelan oil reserves since removing Maduro.

Trump has also invited US oil companies to exploit Venezuela’s oil and said he wants proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan oil “to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States”.

Almost fifty years after the revolution in 1979 that changed the political landscape of Iran, Iran is at the crossroads of its history, which is defined by economic pressures, social pressure, and the changing geopolitical environment. The Islamic Republic was constructed as a combination of revolutionary ideology, anti-Western response, and promise of social justice. In the present day, although the ideological framework is still maintained, the sustainability of that framework is being strained increasingly by the structural economic pressures of the day, generational shifts, and changing regional hegemony.

On the economic front, Iran is continually constrained by global sanctions and inefficiency in its structure. Withdrawal by the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the reimposition of massive sanctions in 2018 have cut off much of the oil exports of Iranian oil, banking, and foreign investment flows. The country works well under its economic potential despite the fact that Tehran has been able to sustain limited oil sales, especially through discounted sales to China and through surrogate routes. The inflation rate has been above 40 percent during the recent years, the Iranian rial is falling drastically, and unemployment among the youth is also a burning issue. It is the middle and lower classes that are directly impacted by these economic pressures and that pose a legitimacy challenge that cannot be solved only through rhetorical means of revolution.

The internal landscape is a manifestation of long-term frustration. Frequent demonstrations regarding fuel prices, the state of the economy, and social liberation indicate the growing disparity between state discourses of resistance and the realities that the citizens encounter. The newer generation born after the revolution has lost any connection with the revolutionary memory of 1979 and perceives governance less as ideologically symbolic and more based on economic performance and individual opportunity. The policy employed by the state has been based on the repressed handling of dissent, which consists of the limitation of the mobilization of protests and the prevention of the collapse of the system. Although this is a way of maintaining short-term stability, it does not deal with structural issues like brain drain, capital flight, falling purchasing power, and diminished faith in long-term economic potential.

The main political quandary is consequently a legitimacy transformation quandary. In the past, the Islamic Republic gained legitimacy through revolutionary mobilization, religious control, and confrontation with the external hostilities, especially the United States and Israel. Nevertheless, the contemporary politics demands more and more performance-based legitimacy—providing economic growth, stability, and material changes in the quality of life. The conflict between ideological stability and realistic adjustment is the characteristic of the contemporary crossroads of Iran.

Iran is geopolitically a country that exists in the complex web of pressures. The United States is still the main external agent, which affects the Tehran strategic calculations. The policy of Washington is alternating between the engagement of diplomacy and coercion, yet the ultimate goal is the same as it is: avoiding the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons competence and reducing its impact in the region. In Tehran, it will need negotiations that will help soften sanctions and stabilize the economy, but any deal will not collapse under the perception of submission over matters of sovereignty, ballistic missile potential, and relations with the region.

Meanwhile, the nuclear and missile programs in Iran are considered to be existential threats to Israel. The shadow struggle that has been there for a long time, including cyber attacks, precision attacks, espionage, and proxy wars, has heightened strategic mistrust. The intensity of this rivalry is shown by the fact that Israel has been carrying out its operations within Iran and against Iran-related targets in Syria. Any intensification would attract Gulf states and disrupt world energy supply, especially through the Strait of Hormuz, which is a choke point in the oil markets of the world. Even minor confrontations will have a global economic impact, as Iran is strategically placed in the important maritime paths.

The regional policy of Iran has focused on the establishment of strategic depth by alliance and coalition with non-state actors and supportive governments within Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. This system becomes a deterrence and leverage factor, making it difficult to engage in a direct military strike on the territory of Iran. Geostrategically, this doctrine of forward defense has enhanced the bargaining power of Iran. But it is likewise causing tension with the other Arab countries and creating the impression of destabilization in the region. The recent diplomatic thaw between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which was facilitated by China, shows that both sides noticed that continued confrontation is expensive in terms of both economics and strategy.

Iran is geographically at one of the most strategic points of Eurasia. It connects the Persian Gulf with Central Asia, the Caucasus, and South Asia. The International North-South Transport Corridor is one of the major trade routes that can make Iran a major transit route between India and Russia and Europe. This geo-economic location, in theory, has colossal prospects of being rolled into new multipolar trade systems. Sanctions and political isolation in reality prevent full access to the global markets. The latter can be said to be strategic convergence, as Iran was brought closer to Russia, especially after the war in Ukraine, as a result of Western pressure. But such convergence also subjects Tehran to secondary sanctions and makes it less flexible in its East-West balancing.

Iran—Concerns about the nuclear problem continue to be the major pivot of the external affairs. Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is nonviolent and has indicated that it is free for verification. But the Western governments require more guarantees and wider negotiations, which can feature missile capabilities and regional operations. It is possible that a strictly limited nuclear deal will minimize the risks of immediate proliferation and alleviate the economic pressure, which might make the Iranian internal situation more stable. Nonetheless, such a deal may not help solve any underlying rivalries between the region but could simply freeze the situation unless there are larger regional de-escalation mechanisms. On the other hand, the inability to find any solution will lead to the further worsening of the economy and the possible military clash.

In a more geo-strategically global understanding, the balance of power between the Middle East and the rest of the world will be influenced by the course of Iran. In case Tehran manages to negotiate the lifting of sanctions and turns in the direction of economic integration with the Gulf states, it will be able to shift from the resistance-focused model to the development-oriented state step by step. This would strengthen the stability of the region, safeguard the energy security, and minimize the motivation to intervene. It would also make the regional rivalry be based more on economic rivalry rather than military rivalry, especially in terms of infrastructure rivalry, trade corridor rivalry, and energy market rivalry.

Nevertheless, should the negotiations fail and the confrontation escalate, Iran might apply the asymmetric deterrence further, increasing the range of its missiles and extending proxy bases. That way would strengthen the preemptive stance of Israel and increase the presence of the US military in the Gulf. The escalation would disorient shipping routes, exert more volatility on oil prices, and disintegrate the security infrastructure in the region. To the surrounding Arab nations, which require diversifying and changing their economies, new warfare would destroy investment conditions and long-term strategies.

On the domestic front, economic resilience is what will sustain the strategic position of Iran. The political principle of endurance can only be stretched so far as inflation undermines the wages and the depreciation of currency undermines savings. This needs structural changes: enhancing transparency, welcoming foreign investment, and a non-hydrocarbon economy, and empowering the business sector. Foreign policy victories cannot entirely offset its dissatisfaction at home without economic change.

After all, the crossroads of Iran is not only ideological but also structural. The state has to strike a compromise between sovereignty and economic need, deterrence and diplomacy, and ideological identity and practical governance. Its strategic location means that its decisions will have a far-reaching impact, not only across its frontiers, but also on the energy markets of the world, the great-power politics, and the new security order of the Middle East. The future of Iran becoming a development-oriented regional power with full membership in multipolar networks or being a sanction-bound resistance state under continuous pressure will not only dictate the internal stability of the country but also the geopolitical orientation of a long-time conflict-ridden and strategically divided region.

The U.S. Marine Corps is aiming to acquire a new single “capability” to fill gaps left by the retirement of its AV-8B Harrier jump jets, AH-1Z and UH-1Y helicopters, and legacy F/A-18C/D Hornet fighters. Dubbed the Future Attack Strike (FASt) plan, the current vision is to have the ability to attack targets kinetically and non-kinetically, and to work together with future uncrewed aircraft.

The first public mention of FASt appears to have come in the most recent annual Marine Corps Aviation Plan, released earlier this month. At this early stage, the Expeditionary and Maritime Aviation-Advanced Development Team (XMA-ADT), part of the U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), has been leading the work to refine the FASt plan.

“FASt capability is being developed to provide long range fires and Close Air Support (CAS) to the ground force and to be a Joint Force kill web enabler. FASt continues to evolve through Weapons Integration Risk Reduction (WIRR) trade studies to drive innovation and experimentation,” per the 2026 Marine Aviation Plan. “Conceptual solutions are being analyzed to inform requirements and acquisition pathways. Enhanced capabilities such as kinetic/non-kinetic launched effects, long-range precision fires, advanced survivability, DI [digital interoperability], and EW [electronic warfare] will be further developed.”

“Future Attack Strike (FASt) is a capability being developed to fill a Marine Aviation attack & strike mission gap posed by sundowning F/A-18, AV-8B, AH-1Z, & UH-1Y aircraft, with an initial operating capability being fielded in the mid-2040s,” a Marine Corps spokesperson also told TWZ directly after we reached out for more information. “FASt will employ kinetic and non-kinetic weapons, be capable of Manned Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T), be interoperable with the Joint Force to close long-range kill chains in contested environments, and deliver offensive air support to affect all-domain threats.”

It should be noted here that the previously stated plan for replacing the AV-8B and F/A-18C/D fleets has been the acquisition of a mixture of short takeoff and vertical landing capable F-35B and carrier-based F-35C variants of the stealthy Joint Strike Fighter. We will come back to this later on.

Though not explicitly stated, supplanting the fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters mentioned above with a single platform would require a short, if not vertical takeoff and landing (S/VTOL) capable design. The Marine Corps has said in the past that it is at least monitoring U.S. Special Operations Command’s progress with its High-Speed Vertical Takeoff and Landing (HSVTOL) program. HSTVOL is paired with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Speed and Runway Independent Technologies (SPRINT) effort.

Last year, DARPA selected Bell over Boeing subsidiary Aurora Flight Sciences to move to the next phase of SPRINT. The core goal of SPRINT is to demonstrate a concept for a VTOL aircraft that can cruise at speeds between 400 and 450 knots. Bell’s design centers on wingtip proprotors with blades that fold away after the transition from hover to level flight, as you can read more about here.

HSVTOL Sled Transition Test

HSVTOL and SPRINT have both focused heavily on designs capable of transporting cargo and personnel, but Bell says its design concept is scalable. The company has shown renderings of multiple crewed and uncrewed variations, including types that could be configured for missions more in line with FASt.

The Marine Corps could look to other emerging S/VTOL designs for FASt, as well. The possibility of a Marine Corps derivative of Bell’s V-280 Valor tiltrotor, which serves as the basis for the U.S. Army’s new MV-75, has been put forward in the past. The company’s uncrewed V-247 Vigilant tiltrotor was aimed originally at a Marine requirement, as well. FASt could also end up intertwined with a separate Marine Corps plan to replace its MV-22 Osprey tiltrotors, currently called the Next Generation Assault Support (NGAS) platform.

Speed and range, on top of runway independence, will be key considerations for the Marines when it comes to FASt. The service’s current core vision for future conflicts centers on hub-and-spoke-type expeditionary and distributed deployments with forces positioned at far-flung sites across a broad area. Those units are expected to be able to rapidly deploy and redeploy from one operating location to another, which could be within range of enemy standoff strikes, to disrupt an opponent’s targeting cycles and reduce vulnerability. Island-hopping in the Pacific during a high-end fight with China is a principal scenario.

This all has raised questions, in particular, about the future utility of slower, lower-flying, and shorter-ranged helicopters like the AH-1Z and UH-1Y, and, by extension, how to fill the gaps in close air support and other capabilities they provide. The Marine Corps has already slashed the size of its AH-1Z and UH-1Y fleets, but is also taking steps to ensure the continued relevance of the remaining helicopters. This includes the acquisition of a new standoff strike capability for the AH-1Z in the form of L3Harris’ Red Wolf miniature cruise missile. The UH-1Y is regularly used as an electronic warfare platform when paired with the podded Intrepid Tiger II system, and other future roles for those armed utility helicopters are still being explored.

AH-1/UH-1 “investments also inform Future Attack Strike (FASt) capability development, which will help fill critical gaps in Marine Aviation’s future ACE [air combat element of the Marine Air Ground Task Force],” the 2026 Marine Aviation Plan notes.

“Coming back to that interoperability, it’s multiple pathways and multiple waveforms. I don’t think we say kill chains anymore, because it’s not a linkage of nodes, it’s a linkage of webs,” Col. Nathan Marvel, then commander of Marine Aircraft Group 39 (MAG-39) based at Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton in California, told TWZ in an interview back in 2023. “We may very well be an enabler where you’re pushing data through us via voice and or data, and we may very well be the end of that kill web or that kill chain enabler as well. We may tell someone where something is so they can go kill it or we maintain custody, or someone may tell us where something is so we can go kill it like we have traditionally done. Interoperability is a huge focus for us.”

Col. Marvel had outlined a case to us for the continued relevance of the AH-1Z, as well as the UH-1Y, in a future major fight in the Pacific, which you can find here. Much of what he detailed at the time is in line with how the Marine Corps is now talking about FASt.

“We are going to be able to carry a potpourri of weapons. It would not be unheard of to hang some exquisite fixed-wing fighter weapons on the wing-stub of a Cobra and bring that to a fight,” Marvel also told us last year. “It may be a loitering weapon or maybe an exquisite pod that does only certain things that we’re used to seeing on fixed-wing aircraft and bring that to the fight and put that down at the rotor wing level to enable the battlespace commander and the maneuver element commander to do things that they may or may not have thought they could do before. So that’s kind of where we are with capabilities buildup.”

The expectation that FASt will fill gaps left by the retirement of the AV-8B and the F/A-18C/D may also point to new interest in a future high-low capability mix. As mentioned, the Marine’s primary plan has been to replace both of these types with variants of the F-35, and this looks to still be the case, at least in part. However, FASt could offer a valuable lower-tier companion to the F-35s, which are highly capable, but also very expensive and complicated to operate and maintain, especially in more austere locales. Just in general, the Marines have many day-to-day tactical aviation requirements that do not demand a very costly high-end fighter, as well. TWZ has highlighted the value of high-low mixes in the context of future U.S. Air Force tactical force structure plans on several occasions in the past.

F-35B

With the explicit mention of MUM-T capabilities for FASt, that platform also looks set to benefit from Marine efforts now to acquire fleets of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) type drones. The first Marine CCAs will be variants of Kratos’ stealthy XQ-58 Valkryie configured for operations from traditional runways, as well as at least runway-independent launches, as you can learn more about here.

The service is also looking at future ‘spiral’ development cycles that could result in purchases of different uncrewed aircraft designs. The Corps just recently announced plans to use General Atomics’ YFQ-42A, one of two drones now in development under the first phase of the U.S. Air Force’s CCA program, as at least a surrogate for future uncrewed tactical aviation capabilities.

It is possible that FASt could turn out to be a family of systems that itself includes uncrewed capabilities in the end, as well. Shield AI has notably been describing its runway-independent X-BAT stealthy jet-powered ‘autonomous fighter,’ which TWZ was first to report on last October, in terms that could be of interest to the Marines for this emerging requirement.

X-BAT: Earth Is Our Runway

All this being said, the 2040s timeline outlined for FASt now means that this platform, however it might evolve, will not be an immediate replacement for the AV-8s or the F/A-18C/Ds. Marine Harriers are set to fly their last sorties in June of this year. The service’s goal now is for the legacy Hornets to be retired around the end of the decade. The AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys are currently expected to serve into the 2040s.

Regardless, the vision the Marines have laid out for FASt points to a very different-looking tactical aviation ecosystem now on the service’s horizon.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

These are the key developments from day 1,458 of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Here is where things stand on Saturday, February 21:

Fighting

• The death toll from a Russian attack on a warehouse in Malynivka in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region rose to three after rescuers found two more bodies under the rubble, the State Emergency Service said on the Telegram messaging app.
• A Russian drone attack killed two police officers as they were on their way to evacuate residents near the village of Serednii Burluk in Kharkiv, the National Police of Ukraine said on Telegram.
• Russian forces launched a ballistic missile and 128 drones towards Ukraine overnight on Thursday, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence said on Facebook. Ukrainian forces shot down 107 of the drones, the ministry added.
• Russian attacks caused dozens of injuries and damage to homes and infrastructure, including oil and gas facilities in Ukraine’s Poltava region, according to the country’s state-owned oil and gas company Naftogaz.
• Russian forces attacked Komyshuvas in Ukraine’s Zaporizhia region with guided bombs, causing a fire in residential buildings that injured a 22-year-old woman and a 27-year-old man, regional governor Ivan Fedorov said on Telegram.
• In Russia, two people were killed and three were wounded in a Ukrainian drone attack on a car in the rural Maksimovskoye settlement located on the front line in the Belgorod region, regional governor Vyacheslav Gladkov wrote on Telegram.
• The attack was one of several by Ukrainian forces across Belgorod, including another strike that killed a man in the village of Pochayevo, the regional emergency task force wrote on Telegram.
• Alexander Bogomaz, the governor of Russia’s Bryansk region, said Ukrainian forces attacked a hospital in the village of Voronok with drones, though no casualties were reported.
• A “significant portion” of the northwest of Russian-occupied Zaporizhia was left without electricity due to “a massive attack” by Ukrainian forces on the region’s electric grid, Russia’s TASS state news agency reported, citing a Russian-appointed official, Yevhen Balitsky.
• Yevgeniya Yashina, communications director at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, told TASS that there was heavy Ukrainian shelling in the vicinity of the facility, which has been under Russian occupation since 2022.

Politics and diplomacy

• French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will chair a video conference of Ukraine’s “Coalition of the Allies” on February 24, which will mark the fourth anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Macron’s office said on Friday.

• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters in a WhatsApp group that no positive movement has been made regarding negotiations over the future of Ukrainian land occupied by Russia in peace talks with Moscow mediated by the United States.
• Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday that he cannot yet confirm when and where a new round of talks on Ukraine will take place after TASS reported the next talks will take place in Geneva.

Energy

• The European Commission has allowed the German government to take trusteeship of the German assets of US-sanctioned Russian oil group Rosneft, which supplies most of the fuel to Berlin via its PCK Schwedt refinery, when the current arrangement expires on March 10.

• The US Department of the Treasury has extended a sanctions waiver on Serbia’s Russian-owned oil firm NIS until March 20, giving the Balkan country another month to import crude oil supplies, Serbia’s Energy Minister Dubravka Djedovic Handanovic said in a statement.
• Hungary will block a 90 billion euro ($106bn) European Union loan for Ukraine until oil transit to Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline resumes, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said.
• “By blocking oil transit to Hungary through the Druzhba pipeline, Ukraine violates the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, breaching its commitments to the European Union. We will not give in to this blackmail,” Szijjarto said on X.

Regional security

• Britain and European allies – including France, Germany, Italy and Poland – will work together to develop new low-cost air defence weapons to protect the continent’s skies, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence said in a statement.

A group of Block 52 F-16CJ Vipers belonging to the South Carolina Air National Guard was recently spotted heading east across the Atlantic as part of a huge build-up of U.S. forces ahead of potential strikes on Iran. Each of the Vipers was notably seen carrying an Angry Kitten pod, a new electronic warfare system that helps defend against anti-air threats, and that may now be headed for its first use in real combat. Angry Kitten also has a very unique genesis, which we will dive into in a moment. These particular F-16s are primarily tasked with the Wild Weasel mission and are optimized for neutralizing enemy air defenses, something that would be crucial in any future operation aimed at the regime in Tehran. They can fulfill many other types of missions, as well.

The 12 F-16CJs arrived at Lajes on the island of Terceira in the Azores, a Portuguese archipelago in the mid-Atlantic, on February 17 and left the next day. The Vipers are readily identifiable as ones assigned to the South Carolina Air National Guard’s 169th Fighter Wing by the “South Carolina” emblazoned on many of their tails, as well as distinctive markings reflecting the wing’s nickname, the “Swamp Foxes.” They were accompanied by at least one KC-46A Pegasus tanker. A substantial U.S. Air Force tanker force is now also forward-deployed in Lajes to support the ongoing build-up.

Roar of the F-16s Over the Atlantic | KC-46A Opens the Afternoon ✈️🇺🇸

Military Stopover in the Azores | F-16 & KC-46A ✈️🇺🇸 at Lajes

The F-16s transiting through Lajes carried inert AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) on their wingtips and drop tanks under each wing, as well as a single baggage pod. Each Viper also had a LITENING targeting pod and an AN/ASQ-213 HARM Targeting System pod. The AN/ASQ-213 is a key feature of Wild Weasel F-16s and is primarily designed to support the employment of members of the AGM-88 High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) family. AGM-88-series missiles are chief among the munitions U.S. aircraft typically use during suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD) missions.

However, the most notable stores seen on the jets were the Angry Kitten pods hanging underneath their fuselages. U.S. Air Force F-16s, and especially Wild Weasel CJs, typically carry other types of electronic warfare pods, such as the AN/ALQ-184 and AN/ALQ-131, on that station.

Angry Kitten has a very different story from other electronic warfare pods in U.S. military service. It is a direct outgrowth of the AN/ALQ-167, a series of pods primarily used to mimic hostile electronic warfare threats for training and testing purposes for decades. There are some documented examples of U.S. aircraft carrying AN/ALQ-167s, at least on an ad hoc basis, on real combat missions.

The development of Angry Kitten, which dates back to the early 2010s, was originally focused on providing improved electronic warfare capabilities for testing and training use, especially by aggressors playing the role of ‘red air’ adversaries. However, the potential value of the new pods as operational assets to help protect friendly aircraft quickly became apparent. The ability to rapidly adapt the pods in training to provide different effects simulating enemy systems, in particular, opened the door to a much more agile electronic system for use on real-world missions.

“We had a jammer called ‘Angry Kitten.’ It was built to be an adversary air jamming tool,” now-retired Air Force Gen. Mark Kelly, then commander of Air Combat Command (ACC), told TWZ and other outlets back in 2022. “And all of a sudden, the blue team said, ‘you know, hey, we kind of need that, can we have that for us?’ And so I see this iterating and testing our way into this.”

Angry Kitten has been flying on F-16s since 2017. The pods have also been at least test flown on U.S. Air Force A-10 Warthog ground attack jets, MQ-9 Reaper drones, and HC-130J Combat King II combat search and rescue (CSAR) aircraft, as well as U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighters. AATC said last year that there were plans to evaluate the pod on KC-135 and KC-46 aerial refueling tankers.

As TWZ has previously written:

“Unlike the older AN/ALQ-167s, Angry Kitten is designed to be more readily modifiable and updatable to more rapidly adapt in parallel with the threat ecosystem. This is enabled in part by advanced Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) technology, which allows radio frequency (RF) signals to be detected and ‘captured,’ as well as manipulated and retransmitted. Electronic warfare systems that use DRFM can project signals from hostile radars (and radar seekers on missiles) back at them to create false or otherwise confusing tracks. Data collected via DRFM can also be used to help improve and refine the system’s capabilities, as well as for other intelligence exploitation purposes.”

“In general, electronic warfare systems need to be able to accurately detect, categorize, and respond to waveforms based on information contained in their built-in threat libraries to work most effectively. This, in turn, requires specialists to routinely reprogram systems to keep them as up to date as possible. Automating and otherwise shortening that process at every step of the way by developing what are known as cognitive electronic warfare capabilities has become a major area of interest for the entire U.S. military. The absolute ‘holy grail’ of that concept is an electronic warfare system capable of adapting its programming autonomously in real-time, even in the middle of a mission, as you can read more about here.”

Details the Air Force has previously shared about Angry Kitten have highlighted how the system important stepping stone for new cognitive electronic warfare capabilities.

“Unlike the F-16 tests, where pre-programmed mission data files were used, the C-130 testing includes development engineers aboard the aircraft who can modify jamming techniques mid-mission based on feedback from range control,” a release last March from the Air National Guard Air Force Reserve Command Test Center (AATC), which has been heavily involved in Angry Kitten’s development, explained.

“They are making changes [in] real-time to the techniques and pushing updates to the pod, seeing the change in real-time,” Chris Culver, an electronic warfare engineer involved in the work, said in that same release. “This approach allows for rapid optimization of jamming techniques against various threat systems.”

For F-16s supporting future operations in and around Iran, Angry Kitten would offer a valuable boost in self-defense capability for the fourth-generation jets. Stealthy B-2 Spirit bombers, as well as F-22 and F-35 fighters, spearheaded the Operation Midnight Hammer strikes on Iran last year, with non-stealthy platforms providing support on the periphery. A new protracted campaign would involve more substantial effort to break Iran’s air defense overlay, which would likely require heavier use of fourth-generation tactical jets. The SEAD/DEAD missions that the South Carolina Air National Guard jets are optimized for inherently involve added risk since the aircraft are deliberately tasked with finding anti-air threats and engaging them.

Past TWZ analysis of air defense capabilities that Iran has supplied Houthi militants in Yemen offers some sense of the risks involved, even to stealth aircraft. However, Iran’s own capabilities are more advanced. At the same time, Israeli strikes took a significant toll on Iranian air defense systems during last year’s 12 Day War, especially in the western end of the country. It’s unclear to what degree that capacity has been restored in the interim.

Angry Kitten is, of course, just one part of the massive array of electronic warfare and other capabilities that the U.S. military has deployed in and around the Middle East in recent weeks.

It remains to be seen whether President Donald Trump’s administration will launch a new operation, which could last weeks, against Iran. There continues a steady drumbeat of reports pointing to the increasing likelihood of strikes as U.S. military assets continue to flow into the region, but also stressing that no final decision has been made. Trump and other administration officials are at least still publicly pushing for a diplomatic resolution to the current crisis, focused primarily on curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“They better negotiate a fair deal,” Trump said today when asked if he had a message for the Iranian people.

Reporter: Do you have any message to the Iranian people?

Trump: The Iranian people in Iran or people here?

Reporter: In Iran

Trump: They better negotiate a fair deal. You know, the people of Iran are a lot different than the leaders of Iran. And it’s very, very very sad… pic.twitter.com/0a7i5LtGf2

— Acyn (@Acyn) February 20, 2026

“The most I can say – I am considering it,” Trump had also said earlier today when asked if he was considering strikes on Iran.

If the Trump administration does decide to move ahead with a new Iran operation, Wild Weasel F-16s from the South Carolina Air National Guard carrying Angry Kitten pods are among the capabilities that could be brought to bear.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, its embarked airwing and elements of its carrier strike group (CSG) are now in the western Mediterranean. The Ford and the USS Mahan, one of its Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer escorts, transited the Strait of Gibraltar around 1 p.m. local time (7 a.m. Eastern), eyewitnesses told The War Zone. The Ford passed through the Strait from the Atlantic after leaving the Caribbean, where it took part in the mission to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.

This marks the Ford‘s return to the Mediterranean since leaving its homeport of Norfolk on June 24, 2025. The Ford‘s deployment was extended for a second time to join a growing list of U.S. military assets in the Middle East, including the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, as President Donald Trump considers an attack on Iran. You can read more about how the extension affects the ship and its crew in our story here.

Daniel Ferro, (@Gibdan1 on X), shared photos of the ships with us. 

Another eyewitness, who runs the @maritimegraphy X account, provided to us videos of the ships crossing as well as a U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol jet flying overhead. The P-8 is packed with sensors and they often provide overwatch for CSGs to detect potential threats on and under the water’s surface.

Both ship spotters said the U.S. Navy vessels were accompanied by at least one Spanish Navy Santa Maria class frigate. The Pentagon declined comment.

Ford Carrier Strike Groups Enters The Med On Feb. 20th, 2026

As noted earlier, the Ford CSG will eventually be joining the Lincoln CSG, already deployed to the Middle East, as well other Navy ships and scores of tactical jets, surveillance planes, tankers, airborne early warning and control aircraft, as well as additional air defense assets. The Ford‘s current location puts it about 2,500 miles east of the Israeli coast, meaning it could take a few more days to arrive there if that is indeed its intended station, as one report states. While patrolling there would help Israel defend against incoming barrages, the ship’s air wing would have to fly across Israel or Lebanon, Syria or Jordan, and Iraq, to reach Iranian territory.

In addition to the tactical jets already in theater or in bases in Europe preparing to fly there, reports have emerged that the U.S. has pulled F-35 Lighting II stealth fighters and other assets and troops out of NATO’s Cold Response exercise scheduled to take place in Norway next month. This move is another part of the U.S. buildup in the Middle East, according to Norwegian defense officials.

NATO declined comment and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to our query.

The influx of aviation assets has packed U.S. facilities in the Middle East and elsewhere. For instance, satellite images show 18 F-15E Strike Eagles, 18 F-35A Lightning II stealth fighters, 12 F-16 Fighting Falcons, six E/A-18G Growler electronic warfare jets and two MQ-9 Reaper drones visible at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan alone. This does not include all the aircraft that cannot be seen under shelters and sun shades. Every designated spot for a tactical jet that is visible from space is now full at the packed installation.

Lajes Air Field in the Azores has also seen a big uptick of aircraft. There were at least 11 KC-46 Pegasus aerial refueling tankers, 12 F-16 Fighting Falcons and a C-17 Globemaster II cargo jet there as of yesterday. This includes a KC-46 that had an aborted takeoff last month. The tankers at the island airfield are a critical component of the air bridge between the U.S. and Europe and the Middle East that enables the rapid buildup we have been seeing unfold.

Satellite imagery also shows an increase of refueling tanker activity at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, while a continuous decrease at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East. The closer the base is to Iran, the more vulnerable it is to large scale barrages or ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones. Al Udeid sits right on the Persian Gulf. As we have previously noted, both Jordan and Saudi Arabia have both said they would not allow U.S. forces to use their territory or airspace for an attack against Iran. Whether that pledge sticks is doubtful.

Friday morning, Trump was asked if he is considering a “limited strike” against Iran if it does not agree to a deal to curtail its nuclear weapons ambitions. He replied in the affirmative. The president did not provide details of what that could entail or when it might be launched.

The United States Supreme Court ruling against the administration of US President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs has left a question unanswered on what is the refund process for the funds collected over the past several months through the tariffs that had been imposed on most US trading partners .

In a 6–3 decision issued on Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld a lower court ruling that found the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded his authority.

The high court did not specify how the federal government would refund the estimated $175bn collected under the tariffs. In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that issuing refunds would present practical challenges and said it would be “a mess”.

The case will now return to the Court of International Trade to oversee the refund process.

More than 1,000 lawsuits have already been filed by importers in the trade court seeking refunds, and a wave of new cases is expected. Legal experts say the administration will likely require importers to apply for refunds individually. That process could disproportionately burden smaller businesses affected by the tariffs.

“The government is probably not going to voluntarily pay back the money it unlawfully took. Rather, the government is going to make everyone request a refund through different procedures by filing formal protests. They’re going to delay things procedurally as long as they can. Hiring lawyers and going through these procedures costs money and time,” Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

“I imagine the largest companies, who have been prepared for this eventuality, will eventually get their money back. But smaller importers, it’s a cost-benefit analysis where they might shrug their shoulders and say it’s not worth going through the hassle to get the unlawfully imposed taxes paid back to them.”

Trump’s path forward

Despite Friday’s ruling, other sweeping levies remain in place. Trump had invoked Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act to impose sector-specific tariffs on steel and aluminium, cars, copper, lumber, and other products, such as kitchen cabinets, worldwide.

On Friday, Trump said he would impose a 10 percent global tariff for 150 days to replace some of his emergency duties that were struck down. The order would be made under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the duties would be over and above tariffs that are currently in place, Trump said.

The statute allows the president to impose duties of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to “large and serious” balance of payments issues. It does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits.

The president also has other legal avenues available to continue taxing imports aggressively.

“Our trading partners were well aware of the risks the President faced in using IEEPA as the basis for reciprocal and other tariffs. Nevertheless, they chose to conclude deals with Washington, convinced by Washington that other statutes would be utilised to keep the tariffs in place,” Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

“With respect to China, USTR [United States trade representative] still has an active Section 301 investigation on China’s compliance with the Phase One agreement, which could be a major feature of the back-up plan for Beijing.”

The president is expected to travel to Beijing next month to meet his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, to discuss trade.

“The two main options include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the traditional mechanism for imposing tariffs in response to unfair trade practices by other countries. It requires an investigation and a report, but ultimately gives the president considerable discretion to impose tariffs. It has been used in the past and will likely be the most frequently used measure going forward,” Shaffer, the law professor, said.

He noted, however, that the administration’s tariff options could not be applied retroactively, meaning any new tariffs would apply only to future imports rather than covering duties already paid.

Raj Bhala, professor of law at The University of Kansas School of Law, argues there are remedies at the president’s disposal in addition to Section 122. Bhala said that Trump could use Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (also known as the Smoot-Hawley Act). That allows the president to impose a 50 percent tariff to challenge discriminatory trade practices from other countries.

“Each option involves procedural hurdles,” Bhala said.

Congressional pressure

Roberts wrote that the president must “point to clear congressional authorization” to impose tariffs. The ruling has increased pressure on both Trump’s allies and critics in Congress to clarify the scope of executive trade authority.

“What a fantastic ruling for a feckless branch of government. While its current tendency is to abdicate, the court has told Congress to do its job,” a former official in the White House Office of Management and Budget told Al Jazeera in response to the decision.

“Congress must either act with specific legislation, or declare war, which would grant the President the emergency powers to levy tariffs.”

“Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a post on the social media platform X.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, by contrast, welcomed the ruling, saying it will “finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve” and that Trump should end “this reckless trade war for good.”

But how that money will get paid back, and if it was already spent, will require Congress to step in.

“If it has been spent, the money will have to be reallocated by Congress. Congress will have to determine how much is owed to importers, pass a law to fund it, and create a mechanism for repayment. There’s also the question of who is entitled to it. Is it only the importer, or does it extend to the end consumer? Where does the line stop?” Babak Hafezi, professor of international business at American University, told Al Jazeera.

“This is not something that will be fixed in 24 hours. It will most likely take years, possibly even a decade, to resolve all the issues this less-than-a-year-old law has imposed on Americans.”

Millions travel to Kenya and Tanzania each year to witness the Great Migration, but growing tourism infrastructure is raising concerns. Conservationists and community leaders warn that development is disrupting wildlife corridors and impacting Maasai land rights. We explore the science behind migration shifts, the economic role of tourism, and ask whether conservation and community livelihoods can coexist.

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:

Joseph Moses Oleshangay – Lawyer and human rights activist

Chloe Buiting – Veterinarian and wildlife conservationist

Gladys Kalema-Zikusoka – Veterinarian

Grant Hopcraft – Researcher and professor, University of Glasgow

The Israeli government has approved a plan to claim large areas of the occupied West Bank as “state property” if Palestinians cannot prove ownership, prompting regional outcry and accusations of “de facto annexation.” The move forces Palestinians to navigate complex legal hurdles after decades of occupation and displacement, amid continued Jewish settlement expansion. What could this mean for the future of Palestinian land?

In this episode: 

Episode credits:

This episode was produced by Noor Wazwaz and Melanie Marich, with Tamara Khandaker, Marcos Bartolomé, Maya Hamadeh, Tuleen Barakat, and our guest host, Kevin Hirten. It was edited by Sarí el-Khalili. 

Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhemm. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio. 

Connect with us:

@AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor remains under investigation, which means he has neither been charged nor exonerated by police.

British police are searching the former home of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for a second day after questioning him on suspicion of misconduct in public office linked to his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

The search of the disgraced royal’s former Royal Lodge home on the Windsor estate continued on Friday, one day after the 66-year-old was released under investigation after being held by police for 11 hours over allegations that he sent confidential government documents to the late convicted sex offender Epstein.

During his time in custody, police had raided Wood Farm on the sprawling grounds of the King’s Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, where he is currently living, and his former home, the 30-room Royal Lodge residence in the parkland near Windsor Castle, west of London.

Unmarked vans, believed to be police vehicles, were seen entering the grounds in Windsor throughout Friday morning.

Mountbatten-Windsor remains under investigation, which means he has neither been charged nor exonerated by Thames Valley Police, the force responsible for areas west of London.

The king issued a rare, personally signed statement Thursday, insisting “the law must take its course”, seeking to project a business-as-usual air on one of the most tumultuous days in the modern history of the United Kingdom’s royal family.

Mountbatten-Windsor has always denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein, but the release of millions of documents by the United States government showed the friendship continued long after the financier was convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008.

Those files suggested Mountbatten-Windsor had shared British government reports with the financier while serving as the government’s special representative for trade and investment. The reports related to investment opportunities in Afghanistan and assessments of Vietnam, Singapore and other places he had visited.

Thames Valley’s Assistant Chief Constable Oliver Wright said in a statement on Thursday that officers had now opened a full investigation into the offence of misconduct in public office.

A conviction for misconduct in a public office carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and cases must be dealt with in a Crown Court, which handle the most serious criminal offences.

Thames Valley Police has previously said it was also reviewing allegations that a woman was trafficked to the UK by Epstein to have a sexual encounter with Andrew. Thursday’s arrest was not related to that allegation.

In 2022, the king’s brother settled a civil lawsuit brought in the US by the late Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexually abusing her when she was a teenager at properties owned by Epstein or his associates.

Other police forces are also conducting their own investigations into Epstein’s links to the UK, including the assessment of flight logs at airports. They are coordinating their work within a national group.

On Friday, London’s Metropolitan Police said it was assessing, with the help of US counterparts, whether the capital’s airports, which include Heathrow, “may have been used to facilitate human trafficking and sexual exploitation”.

It also said that it is asking past and present officers who protected Mountbatten-Windsor to “consider carefully” whether they saw or heard anything that may be relevant to the investigations.

As of now, it said no new criminal allegations have been made regarding sexual offences within its jurisdiction.

The arrest of the senior royal, eighth in line to the throne, is unprecedented in modern times. The last member of the royal family to be arrested in the UK was Charles I, who was beheaded in 1649 after being found guilty of treason.

What looks to be a new 155mm naval gun has been installed on a Chinese weapons trials ship. This is larger than any gun currently found on People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) warships. The weapon could offer a boost in naval gunfire support capability to aid in future amphibious operations, as well as additional firepower for use against enemy ships and aerial threats, including possibly incoming missiles.

A picture showing what appears to be a Type 910 test vessel with a very large caliber gun mounted in a turret on the bow began circulating online yesterday, but it is unknown when exactly it was taken. The location is readily identifiable as Liaoning Shipyard, also known as Dalian Liaoning South Shipyard. This yard, which is situated adjacent to the PLAN’s Lushun Naval Base, has been involved in other advanced naval developments in the past, including the testing of a stealthy Chinese corvette or light frigate.

Though it is a relatively low-quality image, what is visible of the weapon and its turret aligns with what has emerged in the past year or so about a new 155mm naval gun under development in China.

Specific details about the 155mm gun remain limited, but a picture of a data plate that previously appeared online indicates that it weighs 21,800 kilograms (roughly 48,060 pounds) and is capable of firing guided projectiles. There have also been reports that the Inner Mongolia Northern Heavy Industries Group division of the state-run China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO) has been responsible for the design. NORINCO is a heavy industrial conglomerate involved in a wide variety of military and commercial enterprises, including the development and production of ground-based 155mm howitzers and other large caliber guns.

The largest caliber gun in active PLAN service today is a single-barrel 130mm (roughly 5-inch) type known variously as the H/PJ-38 and the H/PJ-45. The design was reverse-engineered from the Soviet-era AK-130, a twin-barrel weapon. The H/PJ-38 / H/PJ-45 first appeared on the Type 052D destroyer in the early 2000s and is also now found on newer Type 055 destroyers.

Though the maximum range of the H/PJ-38 / H/PJ-45 is unclear, the AK-130 is said to have a maximum range of around 14 miles (23 kilometers). One would expect, then, that the new 155mm naval gun would have greater reach.

The larger 155mm caliber could also open the door to more novel ammunition types in line with other developments globally. The U.S. Army, for instance, has been actively pursuing ramjet-powered 155mm rounds for ground-based howitzers in recent years. The Army, as well as the U.S. Navy, have also been supporting work on a 155mm gun-launched glide munition from General Atomics called the Long Range Maneuvering Projectile (LRMP). Hypervelocity projectiles that could be fired from howitzers on the ground and naval guns on ships, and be used to engage land, sea, and aerial targets, have been another area of active development in the United States.

Long-Range Maneuvering Projectile

Other known 155mm naval gun developments elsewhere in the world have historically focused primarily on meeting requirements for naval gunfire support for amphibious operations. China has uniquely relevant needs to be able to bombard targets ashore, especially in the context of any future intervention against Taiwan, as well as operations in the hotly contested South China Sea and other littorals it may seek to control.

The PLAN has been making other major investments in recent years to expand its amphibious warfare capabilities, overall. This has included the construction of the new supersized Type 076 amphibious assault ship Sichuan, as well as the continued expansion of its fleet of smaller Type 075s. China has also been acquiring a fleet of barges with jack-up legs that could be used to establish temporary piers after beachheads are secured.

Chinese PLA Navy’s First Type 076 Amphibious Assault Ship “Sichuan” Conducts First Sea Trial

1/x New lengthy & detailed footage (2nd & 3rd videos) of the 🇨🇳Chinese Shuiqiao-type landing barges (self-propelled amphibious landing platform utility vessels) during some trials with civilian cars
(via wb/齐天的孙猴子) pic.twitter.com/ajphn4m0mu

— Jesus Roman (@jesusfroman) June 15, 2025

A long-range naval gun capable of firing hypervelocity projectiles, as well as other ammunition types, could offer new cost and flexibility advantages over missiles in certain scenarios against other types of targets, as well. The U.S. military has previously demonstrated the ability of a 155mm howitzer to down incoming subsonic cruise missiles when firing hypervelocity rounds that could cost $100,000 or less when produced at scale.

At the same time, the reach of any gun is still likely to be relatively short in the context of modern naval warfare, which is dominated today by missiles, another area where the PLAN has been making major investments. As such, there are still questions about the utility of a new longer-ranged gun in any naval context, given what it might take to get a ship armed with one within range of relevant targets. TWZ explored exactly these issues in detail when U.S. President Donald Trump made his first comments about plans for a new class of “battleships” for the U.S. Navy last year.

This is all reflective of a larger debate over the value, or lack thereof, of naval gunfire support globally. This played a notably central role in the development of the Zumwalt class stealth destroyers for the U.S. Navy. A pair of 155mm guns that would sit fully concealed with their turrets when not in use, and that would fire long-range guided rounds, was central to the original Zumwalt design. The Navy subsequently balked at the cost of the Long-Range Land Attack Projectiles (LRLAP), the unit price of which was pegged at approximately $800,000. That, in turn, threw the future of the guns into limbo. The U.S. Navy is now refitting its Zumwalt class ships with new vertical launch system cells for hypersonic missiles in place of the guns.

BAE Systems – 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS) Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) [480p]

The Trump class “battleship” design that has now emerged does feature an electromagnetic railgun, as well as multiple 5-inch guns, but also various types of missiles and laser directed energy weapons. The U.S. Navy had shelved previous work on railguns in the early 2020s, despite having seen promising progress, due to significant technological impediments.

China has also been developing railguns for naval use. A prototype design mounted in a large turret emerged on a PLAN ship in 2018, but the current status of that program is unclear. It is possible that Chinese work now on a traditional 155mm naval gun could be, at least in part, a hedge against issues with the railgun effort.

Other countries are also pursuing railguns for naval use, with Japan notably having now conducted multiple at-sea tests of a prototype design, as you can read more about here.

How the development of the new Chinese 155mm naval gun proceeds is still to be seen, but the project does look to be advancing now toward at least initial at-sea testing.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com