TODAY

Francia Marquez called for stronger Latin America–Africa ties to boost growth and challenge colonial legacies.

Drone footage shows heavy damage to residential buildings in Arad, Israel, after an overnight Iranian missile strike.

Movsar Evloev rallies after a point deduction against the unbeaten Lerone Murphy to win the contest in London.

Russia’s Movsar Evloev ‌overcame a point deduction for a foul to edge a majority ⁠decision win over ⁠Lerone Murphy at Saturday’s UFC Fight Night 270 at the O2 Arena, likely punching his ticket to a title fight against featherweight champion Alexander Volkanovski ⁠in his next bout.

With the two fighters putting their undefeated records on the line to decide who will face the 37-year-old Australian Volkanovski for the belt, ⁠the bout turned into an intriguing clash of styles.

Evloev, who is known for his wrestling, tried to showcase his striking, while Murphy displayed some superb defensive work on the ground.

Murphy evaded the fearsome grappling attack of his Russian opponent for the ‌first two rounds of the five-round bout, using a selection of stiff right hands to keep him at bay. Evloev took the chance to exhibit some of the dangerous spinning strikes he has added to his repertoire since his last fight in December 2024.

Evloev finally managed to take the fight to the mat early in the third round, but Murphy was quickly ⁠back to his feet, uncorking a spinning back kick of ⁠his own shortly afterwards.

However, it was his opponent who finished the frame strongest with a big overhand right, followed up by a flurry of strikes.

His momentum was derailed somewhat when he landed ⁠a second kick to Murphy’s groin early in the fourth round, and referee Marc Goddard deducted a point from ⁠Evloev for the foul.

Knowing that the deduction could be ⁠decisive if the fight went to the judges’ scorecards, Evloev turned up his energy-sapping grappling attack in the fifth and final frame as he chased a finish, but again Murphy was able to ‌get back to his feet with relative ease.

Despite not really threatening to submit his opponent on the ground, it proved to be enough for the 32-year-old Evloev, ‌with ‌two of the judges scoring the fight 48-46 in his favour and the third scoring it a draw 47-47 after the point deduction was taken into account.

US President Donald Trump has threatened to ‘obliterate’ Iran’s power plants if Tehran fails to open the Strait of Hormuz to all vessels within 48 hours. This major escalation comes as Trump faces pressure over skyrocketing domestic energy prices due to the now three-week-long war.

One of the missiles fired reportedly failed in flight, while the other was intercepted by a US warship. The BBC understands the reports are accurate. There are doubts whether Iran has missiles which are capable of reaching Diego Garcia, which is about 2,350 miles from Iran.

Tehran responds to Trump’s threat by saying all US energy infrastructure in the region will be targeted if Iran is attacked.

United States President Donald Trump has threatened to attack Iran’s power plants if freedom of navigation is not fully restored at the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, a dramatic escalation as the US-Israeli war on Iran continues for a fourth week.

The statement on Saturday came as Trump faces increasing pressure to secure the vital waterway that Iran has promised to keep closed to “enemy ships”, leading to soaring oil prices and plunging stock markets.

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST,” Trump, who is in his Florida home for the weekend, wrote on Truth Social at 23:44 GMT.

He did not specify which plant he was referring to as the biggest.

Following Trump’s threat, the Iranian army said it would target all energy infrastructure belonging to the US in the region if Iran’s fuel and energy infrastructure were attacked.

Trump’s escalatory comments came barely a day after he talked about “winding down” the war that he launched alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 28, when the US and Iran were engaged in nuclear negotiations.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump said the US was “getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East”.

Key waterway

Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes through during peacetime, has virtually ground to a halt since the early days of the war.

Iran has said the Strait of Hormuz is open to all except the US and its allies, with Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi saying last week that he had been “approached by a number of countries” seeking safe passage for their vessels.

“This is up to our military to decide,” he told the US television network CBS, adding that a group of ships from “different countries” had been allowed to pass, without providing details.

The head of US Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, asserted on Saturday that Iran’s ability to attack vessels on the strait had been “degraded” after US fighter jets dropped 5,000-pound (about 2,300kg) bombs on an underground Iranian coastal facility storing antiship cruise missiles and mobile launchers earlier this week.

The strike also destroyed “intelligence support sites and missile radar relays” used to monitor ship movements, Cooper said.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Manuel Rapalo said there seemed to be a “gap between what the White House appears to want in the Strait of Hormuz and what the US military says they have already accomplished”.

“It is interesting, to say at the very least, to hear Trump talking about a major escalation, given the fact that we’ve been hearing throughout the course of the day how much damage the US has done, supposedly, to Iran’s ability to target oil tankers and vessels navigating through the strait.”

Israel’s air defence system failed to stop at least two Iranian missile strikes on southern Israel, in retaliation for an attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear site. More than 100 Israelis have been injured in Arad and Dimona, with dozens of buildings destroyed. This is what we know.

The attack on a teaching hospital in Al Deain, the capital of East Darfur state, has rendered the facility non-functional.

An attack on a ⁠hospital in Sudan’s Darfur region has killed at least ‌64 people, including 13 children, according to the head of ⁠the World ⁠Health Organization (WHO).

In a social media post, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Saturday that multiple patients, two female nurses and one male doctor were also among those killed in the attack on Al Deain Teaching Hospital in Al Deain, the capital of East Darfur state, on Friday night.

Another 89 people, including eight health staff, were wounded, he added.

The attack damaged the hospital’s paediatric, maternity, and emergency departments, rendering the facility non-functional and cutting off ‌essential medical services in the ‌city.

“As a result of this tragedy, the total number of fatalities linked to attacks on health facilities during Sudan’s war has now surpassed 2,000,” said Tedros, adding that over the nearly three-year conflict between Sudan’s army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the WHO had confirmed the killing of 2,036 people in 213 attacks on healthcare.

There was no immediate information about who was behind the attack.

The war between the army and the RSF erupted in mid-April 2023, unleashing a wave of violence that has led to one of the world’s fastest-growing man-made humanitarian crises, with tens of thousands of people killed and more than 12 million forced from their homes.

Both sides have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, while the RSF has been implicated in atrocities in Darfur that United Nations experts say bear the hallmarks of genocide.

“Enough blood has been spilled. Enough suffering has been inflicted,” Tedros said. “The time has come to de-escalate the conflict in Sudan and ensure the protection of civilians, health workers, and humanitarians.”

US President Donald Trump threatens to ‘obliterate’ Iran’s power plants if it fails to open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours. 

The move follows a drone strike on the Red Sea port of Yanbu, Saudi Arabia’s main oil export outlet, after Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz.

Saudi Arabia has given Iran’s military attache and embassy staff 24 hours to leave the kingdom due to “repeated Iranian attacks” on its territory.

The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Saturday that it had declared personae non gratae the “military attache of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Kingdom, the assistant military attache and three members of the mission staff”.

The move comes amid the US-Israeli war on Iran, which has seen Tehran target Saudi Arabia and its Gulf neighbours hosting US military assets with increasingly damaging retaliatory attacks on civilian hubs and energy facilities, unleashing chaos across the region and roiling global energy markets.

Saudi Arabia, which holds the world’s second-largest proven crude oil reserves, has come under attack by hundreds of Iranian missiles and drones since the start of the war, the vast majority of which have been intercepted, authorities have said.

Among the attacks, energy facilities in the east of Saudi Arabia have been repeatedly targeted, as well as the capital, Riyadh, where the US Embassy was hit by two drones earlier this month.

On Thursday, oil loadings at the Red Sea port of Yanbu were disrupted after a drone fell on the nearby Aramco-Exxon refinery, SAMREF.

The port is the only export outlet for Saudi Arabia after Iran effectively blocked tanker traffic leaving the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz.

Saturday’s statement came after Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said earlier in the week that trust in Iran had been “shattered”, asserting his country’s right to defend itself.

The foreign minister said that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states had “very significant capacities and capabilities that they could bring to bear should they choose to do so”.

Saudi Arabia’s relations with Iran have historically been rocky, but the two countries embarked on a Beijing-brokered rapprochement three years ago.

On Saturday, the Foreign Ministry said that continued Iranian attacks would lead to further escalation and have “significant consequences” for current and future relations.

The statement followed Qatar’s decision on Wednesday to declare the Iranian Embassy’s military and security attaches in Doha as personae non gratae, along with their staff.

The head of US Central Command says forces have struck Iranian coastal missile sites and infrastructure, degrading Tehran’s ability to threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, as Washington vows to continue targeting its regional military capabilities.

Gaza City – In front of a toy stall in Gaza City’s central al-Rimal market, Rania al-Saudi stands with her two young daughters, looking bewildered at the unusually high prices of toys.

Al-Saudi had promised her daughters she would buy them two dolls to celebrate Eid, but the exorbitant toy prices mean she simply can’t afford them.

Her elder daughter, six-year-old Razan, didn’t understand her mother’s worried expressions as Rania asked the vendor for the price of each toy. With every price, Rania gasped and said, “Oh my God, it’s so expensive… this used to be much cheaper.”

Faced with her daughter’s insistence, Rania pleaded with the vendor to lower the prices, but he apologised, saying he could not because getting hold of toys to sell was incredibly difficult, considering Israeli restrictions on importing items into Gaza.

Rania was not alone. Other parents and children repeatedly came to the vendor’s stall to ask about toys, but not one of them made a purchase. In Gaza’s current war-driven economic crisis, the prices are simply unaffordable.

Rania, 43, is originally from Shujayea in eastern Gaza, but has been displaced by the war to the west of the city. She told Al Jazeera that she came looking for toys in an attempt to put smiles on her daughters’ faces before the holiday, but her wish was not fulfilled.

“The prices are extremely high, and the vendors tell us that toys have not entered Gaza since the start of the war. But what did our children do to deserve this?”

Rania recalled the many toys her daughters had in their home before it was destroyed, and how she used to make sure they had toys for every occasion and every holiday.

“Eid holidays are for children’s joy, and children are happy with toys and entertainment. But our children are deprived of everything.”

While speaking to Al Jazeera, Rania tried to calm her daughter Lulwa, who had begun to cry after realising from her mother’s words that she would not get the doll she wanted.

“This doll used to cost no more than 15 shekels ($5) before the war; now it costs 60 shekels ($20),” she said to Al Jazeera, frustrated. “This is something I cannot afford. Everything is expensive and overpriced.”

Rania’s voice grew heavier as she explained that she was unable to even buy new Eid clothes for her daughters – a tradition across the Muslim world – due to the high prices.

“My daughters will not be happy this Eid. I wanted to compensate by getting them dolls, but even that is impossible.”

Toys have been in short supply during the war, which began in October 2023, with bombing and displacement meaning that most children either had their toys destroyed, lost, or left behind. Rania says that her children have been bored, and have had to develop their own ways of playing.

“All the children in the camp face the same situation, so they spend their time playing simple street games like hopscotch, hide-and-seek, or drawing in the sand,” she said.

“But my daughters always wished for a doll. I once tried to make one for them, but they didn’t like it.”

Rising prices and market impact

Toy sellers say they are not to blame for the high prices.

Anwar al-Huwaity has been in the business for 20 years. He told Al Jazeera that his stall is still operating despite Israel’s devastation of Gaza, but that business has become extremely difficult.

“Before the war, toys were widely available,” Anwar said. “Today, we go from one trader to another, searching. Sometimes we find toys with someone who had them stored, but they sell it at a very high price, up to three times its normal price.”

He added that most toys that now reach Gaza do not enter through official crossings, but in limited quantities via unofficial routes, making them very difficult to obtain.

The cost of bringing toys into Gaza has become extremely high. Anwar said some middlemen demand up to 12,000 shekels ($3,870) for a small shipment, and if it is confiscated or destroyed, the loss falls entirely on the trader.

“We buy merchandise at high prices, so we have to sell it at high prices as well,” Anwar said apologetically.

Anwar said that toys were now up to 300 percent more expensive compared to pre-war prices. The holiday season, the main income generator for toy sellers, used to bring in between $6,500 and $10,000, he explained. Now, he’d be lucky to sell $1,000 of stock – and most of that is bulk sales to other traders, rather than regular customers.

Anwar may be a businessman, but he shared that the hardest part of his job was seeing children ask for toys that their parents cannot afford.

“Many parents can’t buy toys due to the economic situation. People are barely able to secure food,” he said.

Anwar’s job has gone from providing children joy, to seeing them disappointed.

“I have started hating my workday because I know the prices are exorbitant, and when the children and families see the toys, they get upset, especially during the holidays.”

“People come to buy toys and beg me to lower the price,” he said. “They say, ‘This child is an orphan, that child is an orphan … his parents were killed in the war’. It feels like all children in Gaza have become orphans.”

Restrictions on recreational goods during the Gaza war

Since the outbreak of the war on Gaza in October 2023, trade has been heavily restricted due to the closure of commercial crossings by Israel, especially Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom), the main entry point for goods into Gaza from Israel.

Israel imposed a total blockade on Gaza in 2023, and again for several months in 2025, leading to the declaration of a famine in northern Gaza.

Conditions have improved since a “ceasefire” was declared in October, but Israel is continuing regular strikes – and continuing to heavily restrict the entry of non-essential commercial goods, including toys and recreational materials.

Although no official law or declaration explicitly bans toys from entering Gaza, administrative and security restrictions, combined with the prioritisation of humanitarian goods, have effectively made entry of these items almost impossible.

The United Nations has noted that restrictions on commercial goods, including toys, have affected the availability of both essential and non-essential goods in Gaza.

Near Anwar’s toy stall is another run by Ahmed Ziara. The 24-year-old has been selling toys for several years, but the war has forced him to periodically stop trading.

“Before the war, I worked in major toy exhibitions,” Ahmed explained. “Now toys rarely enter, and we often have to smuggle them, sometimes hidden inside clothes or other goods.”

Ahmed confirmed that most of the toys he acquires are old stock already in Gaza, sold at high prices due to scarcity.

He mentioned that popular Eid holiday toys, which were once inexpensive, now cost triple or even quadruple their previous prices: a small toy car that sold for 40 shekels ($13) last year now costs 150 shekels ($48), a small ball that once cost 3 shekels ($1) is now 30 shekels ($10), building blocks are nearly unavailable, and dolls cost more than 70 shekels ($22.50).

“Buying from traders is hard, and selling is hard due to the economic situation,” Ahmed told Al Jazeera.

“Sometimes I have to sell below the expected price just to clear stock, but most of the time we must raise prices due to high costs and difficulty obtaining toys.”

“If conditions improve and toys are allowed in normally, prices will return to normal, and children and families will be able to enjoy the holiday as before,” he said.

“This work is not easy,” he added, contemplating. “Sometimes I sit alone and tell myself what I am doing is unfair because prices are extremely high. But despite everything, we love to bring joy to children, even for a short time.”

Joe Kent says he resigned as director of the US National Counterterrorism Center over opposition to the war in Iran, telling an audience at a Washington prayer event that he couldn’t “send young men and women off to die on foreign battlefields” in “good conscience.”

The Pentagon has reportedly drawn up plans to send American troops into Iran, possibly to Kharg Island or far deeper into the country to seize enriched uranium. These moves would represent a huge escalation for Operation Epic Fury. Former CENTCOM commander Joseph Votel offers us exclusive insights into the challenges and dangers of having U.S. boots on the ground in the Islamic Republic, and what it would take to seize Kharg Island or attempt to snatch Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium that could be very challenging to access.

In the second part of our conversation, the first centering on the current situation around the Strait of Hormuz, the retired general, now a Distinguished Military Fellow at the Middle East Institute, also addressed concerns over America’s magazine depth of interceptors and other high-end weapons, what China may be learning from the operation, and how long Epic Fury could last, among other topics.

The interview took place before news broke that a second Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) – with at least 2,200 Marines – was being deployed to the Middle East. As we previously reported, Trump ordered another one to the region in the last week.

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

Q: Does a seizure of Kharg Island, or an insertion of SOF to recover enriched uranium from Pickaxe Mountain or elsewhere in Iran, seem feasible? What would either of those operations take, in terms of troops and assets?

A: Both of those things are feasible. Let me just start with Kharg Island. We can put troops on there. We can air mobile them in. We could land them by boat. I guess the comment I have about Kharg is, I’m not sure what the significance is of putting troops there. It’s only about 20 miles off the coast of Iran. So you’re definitely under the threat of their weapon systems. You’d be very, very vulnerable there. And I don’t know that it would give us any particular tactical advantage that we don’t already have or couldn’t get someplace else at an offset location where we have established bases and other things like that. So I’m not sure what the tactical advantage of it is.

I get that it has an informational and kind of messaging advantage against the Iranians that we are on their territory. And it may send a message to the broader energy community that we are safeguarding these vital Iranian infrastructures. That might give them some confidence [but] kind of an odd thing to do. But I just don’t really see the big advantage of going to Kharg. But we could certainly do it if we had to. 

We would be vulnerable. When you start putting troops on the ground – I know there’s some mishmash and words on that – but that’s troops on the ground right there. It also implies that you are going to have to take care of them, you’re going to have to resupply them, you’re going to medevac them, you have to do all the things that keep them in place for whatever period of time. And that requires that you have a logistical tail, and at some point that tail has to be protected as well. So these are not insignificant considerations and they’re often bigger operations.

I would imagine on a little island like Kharg, you would need a battalion sized force of Marines or soldiers could probably do that. So you’re probably looking at 800 to 1,000 troops, kind of size, maybe a little bit smaller, probably not much larger than that.

Going after the fissile material I think is a bigger operation. Again, I think we have the capabilities to do this. Within our Special Operations community, we have people that are trained to do this and have the right relationships and connections and other things to allow us to get in and do that. So you’d have to be able to project that force onto the ground. This would be going to a place like Natanz or Isfahan – probably one of those locations. Those are well inland – several hundred miles into Iran, a country of the same size as the state of Alaska. So it’s big and it’s diverse. It’s largely in an open plain, so you don’t have a lot of natural terrain protection there. That would have to be taken into consideration.

In addition to the kind of operators you put on the ground, you’d also have to bring in a security force, but probably a sizable security force – a brigade size or 1,000 to 3,000 or 4,000 troops to just secure while they did that work. You’d have to do that. You’d have to make sure you dedicated air power. You’d have to put CAPs [combat air patrols] up over, you’d have to have ISR [information, surveillance and reconnaissance] in place.

Again, you’d have the challenge of people on the ground, so you’d have to logistically sustain them and then be prepared to protect that tail. And then you have to have all of the lift, whether it’s rotary wing or fixed wing, to get them in and get them all back out. And then you have the added challenge of handling nuclear material. So about 450-some kilograms. That’s roughly 1,000 pounds of 60% highly enriched uranium. And that’s a lethal material. So ideally, that would be packaged already, but we’d have to make sure we packaged that and moved it and had someplace to actually take it back to. 

So, yeah, could we do a military operation? Sure. I think it would kind of look like I described there. It would be a big operation, and it wouldn’t be something that would be done in a single period of darkness. It probably takes some time. You’d have to have some special capabilities to go in and excavate these things and identify them.

There’s no real open-source discussion of what the conditions are at these things, you’d have to be prepared for the worst, and the worst would be having to dig down and find it. I’m hoping that our intelligence community understands this a little bit more, and I suspect that is the case. But this is a pretty big, pretty significant operation.

An alternative to this would be waiting until there is a cessation of hostilities and then trying to go in in a more semi-permissive environment with elements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who really have responsibility for this. They would bring expertise in to do this. We – or some other military force – would probably assist with some of that. But that may be another option as well. I’m sure they’re looking at all these.

Q: This is not a job for a Tier One unit like SEAL Team Six or Delta, to go in and grab it, right? There’s a lot of discussion about that.

A: Yeah. First of all, you’re not just going to go in and grab 1,000 pounds of nuclear material and then ferret it right out. That’s not the case. Those unique capabilities reside within the Special Operations community. I won’t identify organizations, but they reside within the tip top of our special operations capability. They’re trained and maintained and normally exercise and rehearse on a regular basis. So, yeah, we have the ability to do that. But it’s unlikely – in my view, my estimate, with what I know – that you just send a few folks in there, grab the stuff and get it out. I don’t think that’s the case. I think it’s going to take more. You might be able to do that in a permissive environment, but I don’t think you want to take the risk associated with that in the environment that we’re seeing right now, or perhaps even in a semi-permissive environment.

Q: Was there proper planning to ensure enough missile and drone interceptors were in place prior to the start of Epic Fury?

A: I have no reason to believe that it wasn’t. Is there pressure on our magazine depth? There sure is. We’ve talked about that for a while. CENTCOM planned – which has been developed and modified over the last 20, 25 years – to do this. Every commander had their fingers involved in it. I do not know the current plan. I’m sure that [CENTCOM commander] Adm. [Brad] Cooper has done that. It was a significant discussion, not only about the targets, but certainly about what was required to execute that and also to protect themselves. So my assessment is, yes, I think we have. And I don’t think we’ve seen an instance where we’ve not been able to defend ourselves because we didn’t have any missiles. 

There’s no doubt we’ve expended a lot, and that’s put a lot of pressure on the magazines, but the Department of Defense and CENTCOM and Joint Staff, I think, have been able to make sure that they’ve been able to move enough materials into place so we can sustain this operation, now well into its third week.

Q: How concerned are you about America’s magazine depth of these defensive weapons?

A: We should be concerned. I think the challenge may not necessarily be in CENTCOM. The challenge may be in other areas like the Pacific, Korea, you know, Europe, you know this. This could be impacting our ability to send things to the Ukrainians, or through our NATO partners, the Ukrainians. So I think that’s where the concerns are. And by the way, you know, all of our Gulf Arab partners and many of our partners around the world use THAAD [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] and use Patriot missile systems, and so they require resupply as well, and stocks available to them. 

I think we have long had an issue with making sure we had sufficient magazine depth. We went through this several years ago when North Korea was flexing its muscles and firing missiles towards Guam and over Japan. We had a serious discussion about this. We saw this with the response to Ukraine as well with artillery rounds. The Army’s ramped up production, three or four fold over the last couple of years. But it’s taken a little bit of time. That’s good. But we need to do that with all these other munitions. So a portion of our resources needs to be dedicated to making sure we have sufficient munitions in place for our contingencies and for our partners who have bought our systems they are relying on.

Q: What’s your assessment of Iran’s magazine depth of missiles, operable launchers and drones? How long can they keep presenting a threat?

A: There’s been pretty serious damage done to their missile system and I say the system, because it’s not just the missiles. It’s the launchers, it’s the command and control sites, manufacturing sites, it’s the storage sites. I think we’ve done a lot of damage to that. And you’ve probably heard some of the numbers that have come out of CENTCOM – in the 70, 80% range of destruction. I think we’ve done a lot with the drones as well. I think the concern is the last 15 or 20%.

Don’t pay attention to the numbers. The fact of the matter is, they’re going to have a remnant portion of capabilities, and that’s a portion we’re focused on right now. Iran’s strategy has been to broaden the conflict by hitting a lot of different places, 12 or 13 different countries, and then to extend it by continuing to present this threat to us over a long period of time. They don’t have to shoot large volleys of missiles and drones. They just have to get some across. They just have to launch some every day. And that’s going to keep our focus, and it’s going to keep us occupied doing that. So that’s their strategy on this. 

They’ve taken a significant hit in some of their capabilities, and I imagine some of the magazines, but there’s some left. I think at the start of the war, their missile strength was somewhere in the 2,000 to 3,000 range. Some of the numbers I’ve seen show there are probably over 1,000 that have been launched now, and so that leaves a considerable number. They don’t have the ability to launch these. And now that we have air superiority over those locations, we can go anywhere we want. We see something, we can take it out right away. So the missiles are very, very vulnerable, but the drones are much easier [for Iran to protect]. They don’t require all that much, and they probably got larger stores that it’s important to appreciate. They were manufacturing these things for Russia, so they probably have fairly sizable stores of drones left.

Q: How closely is China watching this? And what are they learning from it?

A: Well, I think they’re paying very close attention to this. They’re learning how we respond to counter fire. They’re very closely following our air tactics and how we are working with the Israelis on that. They’re looking at the targets we are going after, and trying to understand the scheme of fires associated with all of this. 

They will be watching very closely how we deal with the Strait of Hormuz. We’ve got the straits down there – the Strait of Taiwan and all these other ones in Asia – they’ll be paying very, very close attention to this. They’ll be watching what our readiness rates are throughout all of this, and our ability to marshal forces and how quickly we can do this. So I think they’re absorbing a lot about how we are operating. 

But they’re also seeing the use of drones. They’re probably trying to pay attention to how artificial intelligence may be being effectively used. And I would imagine that it is by the US and helping us parse a whole bunch of information and select targets and perform other functions. So, they’re paying a lot of attention. I think they’re also paying attention to what this is doing to our readiness in other areas, frankly. We continue to move resources out of the Asia Pacific, and they certainly are taking note of that.

Q: Do you think China will move on Taiwan given all that?

A: I don’t know. I’m not an expert in that particular area. But what I do know is they’ve had some ambitions of trying to be ready for that in the next year or so. I also know that there’s been a wholesale sacking of their military leadership by President Xi. So he’s putting new people into place, that has an impact. It certainly has an impact on the ability to command and control a major operation to [invade] Taiwan. I don’t think we’re going to see this in the near-term. I don’t know that that’s necessarily the lesson Xi’s taken away from us. I don’t know if they’re actually prepared to do that. But they’re certainly paying attention to how we are doing things here and how that could be used in their types of operations.

Q: So far, the Houthis have been on the sidelines. Why do you think that is and at what point will they get involved?

A: The Houthis – one of the extensions of the Iranian network – have always been much more independent than Hamas or certainly Hezbollah or the Shia militia groups we normally see in Iraq and Syria that are loyal to the Iranian regime. [The Houthis] are much more independent in terms of this. They actually have a governing function, full-on governing function, and so they are trying to make decisions for themselves. 

I have heard a couple of discussions on this one. One viewpoint would be that the Iranians have told them to hold on: ‘We want to extend again. We want to extend this conflict out. We want to buy some time. We’re going to be patient,’ and then we may look to do that. 

Another theory might be that they’re just keeping their powder dry right now and waiting for an opportunity to launch into this. I think there’s probably a variety of reasons why they aren’t doing it. They have an agreement in place with us. They took a pretty serious beat down during our counter-Houthi operations some months ago. So that had an impact on them. They’re probably not anxious to revisit that immediately, because it was pretty devastating for them. So I imagine they’re just being patient.

Q: How likely is regime change in Iran and will it make a difference?

A: I don’t view it as particularly likely at this point. There may be some further power shifts there. I think the military component – the IRGC component of the regime, those senior leaders – are having much more influence, and that’s influencing these very angry responses we’re seeing from the Iranians on this, lashing out at the Gulf Arab countries. So I think that the military is definitely ascending in this.

But yet, they have preserved the theocratic side of government by putting a new Ayatollah in place, admittedly, one that’s not well known, that appears to be pretty weak [Mojtaba Khamenei, chosen to replace his father, Ali Khamenei who was killed on the first day of the war]. He actually seems to be very aligned with the hard liners on the military side. There’s not much on him. He doesn’t have a huge amount of religious credibility or anything. So, he could be a figurehead, could be expendable for them, frankly, but their regime is very deep. It has great influence, and it’s pretty much wired everything in Iran, so they can remain in power. And so I suspect that they probably will. Whether a more pragmatic leader arises. I don’t know. I don’t know who that might be.

Q: What’s your biggest worry about how this all winds up?

A: That the regime remains in power. They’re going to continue to try to extend and keep this going for a long period of time, and we are going to have to undertake very expensive and deliberate activities to bring this under control. I mean, we’re already three weeks into what has been touted as a four or five week campaign. That’s pretty reasonable based on my experience and knowledge of what CENTCOM is trying to do, and what that plan basically looks like. It makes a lot of sense to me. 

And then we have to undertake a very deliberate effort to open the Strait. And then we’ll have to stay committed to helping move ships through there, for some period of time, and Iran will continue to have the ability to interdict that. 

My concern is that when we move to a new normal that hasn’t necessarily changed the dynamic all that much, we will have to stay committed to this for some time forward. I don’t know that that was necessarily what we had envisioned at the start of this, or had envisioned for the force long term.

Q: How long do you think this will go on, given what you’re seeing now?

A: I think we’ve got weeks more of operations.

Q: A month? More than that?

A: More than a month, I think probably double digit weeks and single digit months when you throw in a Strait of Hormuz operation, stuff like that. I can see us for a couple of months here.

Q: What kind of strain does it put on the U.S. in terms of readiness, in terms of the troops and equipment?

A: Well, most of these naval vessels were not necessarily anticipated or forecasted to be in the Middle East right now. For the most part, they have diverted from other things that they were doing, particularly the carriers. That defers maintenance. It defers normal training cycles, and other readiness cycles that are built into this. 

Those ships are fantastic, but they have to go into very deliberate maintenance periods and capital ship maintenance has been an area of some concern for us for a while, because we have so many things going on and because we don’t have the infrastructure that we require to take care of these things. So I think there could be some readiness issues with our maritime vessels. It certainly puts a lot of stress on things like THAADs and Patriots, and again, we have a finite number of those. They’re not in Korea, they’re not other places, they’re not in Europe, they’re here. So that’s going to have an impact, and those organizations are going to have to be reset at some particular point on this.

This is putting more and more stress on our air fleet, our tankers, the C-17 movers, and, of course, all the wear and tear on all of our fighters. I think to our readiness, all of those things have to be taken care of at some particular point. And that’s going to have an impact as we try to rebuild readiness and respond to other contingencies around the world. And in addition to returning to our great power competition. So I think there’s definitely going to be some impacts in this.

Q: How much of a difference to Epic Fury does it make that the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford has to leave the theater to undergo fire damage repairs in Souda Bay, Crete? That leaves just the USS Abraham Lincoln as the lone carrier during a major contingency operation.

A: We’ve got a lot of aircraft. We’ve got ground-based aircraft. My understanding is we may be moving another carrier in to replace that one. I don’t recall exactly which one it is, but I think I’ve read at least one or two sources that said it would happen. It takes 80 or 90 airplanes, theoretically, out of the cycle. Now those aircraft can be cross-decked, they can be moved to land. And we may be doing that. I don’t really know. But it takes away a big platform. We lose some flexibility here, and those aircraft carriers are basically floating air bases out in the middle of the ocean, and give us the ability to launch and recover things and project power where we need to. It takes away from some major command and control capability. So, yeah, it creates a void. It’s not impossible to backfill. I suspect we probably will be able to do that, but there’s definitely a diminishment there, and hopefully we’re replacing one with one here.

Q: Anything I didn’t ask that you want to talk about?

A: No, it was pretty comprehensive.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Former FBI chief Robert Mueller, who probed the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States election, has died at age 81.

“With deep sadness, we are sharing the news that Bob passed away” on Friday night, his family said in a statement Saturday.

“His family asks that their privacy be respected.”

Mueller was appointed as director of the FBI by then-President George Bush in September 2001, a week before the 9/11 attacks that would push him into the centre of a national crisis.

He became the key figure behind changing the FBI from combating crime to now countering national security risks following the attack on New York’s World Trade Centre.

In 2013, Mueller stepped down from the bureau and later by 2017 was appointed as special counsel to oversee the Justice Department’s probe into possible Russian interference in the election, which saw Donald Trump secure his first term over Democratic nominee, Hilary Clinton.

Following the announcement of his death, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to write: “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!”

Mueller is survived by his wife and two children.

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:

U.S. Air Force Lt Col. John Bergmans, 315th Training Squadron commander, enters the Lawn Atlas Missile Base’s missile silo while exploring the narratives of actual personnel deployed to the site during the Cuban Missile Crisis in Lawn, Texas, Dec. 3, 2020. Bergmans attended the Staff Ride to LAMB in support of the 17th Training Wing Heritage Campaign Plan that was founded on Air Force heritage and the Airmen Warrior Ethos among attending personnel.. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Abbey Rieves) 

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.

US president’s reference to Japan’s 1941 attack on naval base in Hawaii has shaken the Japanese public as PM Takaichi’s silence gets mixed reaction.

There has been embarrassment, confusion, and unease in Japan after US President Donald Trump used the Pearl Harbor attack during World War II to justify his secrecy before launching the war on Iran.

Trump was asked by a reporter why he did not tell allies in Europe and Asia in advance of the US-Israel attack on Iran during a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi at the White House on Friday.

Trump cited Pearl Harbor to defend his decision saying, “Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor, OK?”

Following the remarks, social media reaction has ranged from accusations of ignorance and rudeness by the US president to claims that he does not see Japan as an equal partner. There were calls for Japan to protest Trump’s comments.

Tsuneo Watanabe, a senior fellow at the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, said in an opinion piece in the Nikkei newspaper on Saturday that the remarks signalled Trump is “not bound by existing American common sense”.

“I get the impression that the comment was intended to bring the Japanese reporter [who asked the question] or Ms Takaichi into complicity in order to justify his ‘sneak attack’ on Iran during diplomatic negotiations and without telling allied countries,” Watanabe wrote.

There is also a feeling that an unspoken understanding exists between United States and Japanese leaders to tread carefully on the subject.

Both sides need each other, with Washington relying on Japan to host 50,000 troops and an array of powerful hi-tech weapons, and Japan relying on the US nuclear umbrella to deter hostile, nuclear-armed neighbours.

Japan’s post-World War II constitution bans the use of force except for its self-defence, but Takaichi and other officials are now seeking to expand the military’s role.

Mixed reaction to Takaichi’s response

Takaichi, a hardline conservative, was praised by some for not reacting to Trump’s comments, letting them pass with a roll of her eyes and a glance at her ministers seated nearby.

The goal of her summit was to deepen ties with her most important ally, and she arrived shortly after Trump suggested Japan was among the nations that did not quickly join his call to help protect the Strait of Hormuz.

Some, however, criticised Takaichi for not speaking up.

Hitoshi Tanaka, a former diplomat and a special adviser at the Japan Research Institute think tank, wrote on X that he felt embarrassed to see Takaichi flattering Trump.

“As national leaders, they are equals … To make an equal relationship is not to flatter,” he said. “Just doing what pleases Trump and calling it a success if you are not hurt is too sad.”

Initially, social media placed some of the blame on the Japanese reporter who asked the question that prompted Trump’s Pearl Harbor comment.

The reporter, Morio Chijiiwa with TV Asahi, later said on a talk show he asked the question to represent the feelings of Japanese who are not happy about Trump’s one-sided attack on Iran, and because other countries, including Japan, are now being asked to help out after the US and Israel started the war.

“So that’s why I asked the question. I was meaning to say, ‘Why didn’t you tell us, why are you troubling us?’” he said.

“Then President Trump hit back with the Pearl Harbor attack … I found it extremely awkward for him to change the subject.”