TODAY

Dogecoin is trading near $0.116 in May 2026, with a market cap of around $17.9 billion and a 24-hour volume of over $2.37 billion.

The latest Dogecoin price prediction data shows room for a move toward the $0.13 to $0.25 range in 2026, but DOGE still needs stronger meme coin demand before a larger rally becomes realistic.

For traders looking beyond older meme coins, Meme Punch and Poly Truth add two newer presale stories through P2E gaming and prediction market data.

This article breaks down DOGE’s 2026 outlook, the main rally drivers, and how $MEPU and $PTRUE compare with Dogecoin’s meme coin setup.

How Dogecoin Is Performing in May 2026

Dogecoin still has one of the strongest brands in crypto. It ranks inside the top 10 by market value, and CoinGecko shows DOGE up 22.2% over 30 days, which keeps it active on trader watchlists.

Daily volume also supports the short-term case. DOGE’s 24-hour trading volume was about $2.37 billion, which shows a recent rise in market activity and gives traders enough liquidity for short-term moves.

However, DOGE is no longer a small coin. A market cap near $18 billion means each major price move needs real buying pressure, not only social media noise.

Dogecoin Price Prediction for 2026

CoinCodex gives DOGE a short-term target of $0.1302 for one month and $0.1491 for three months. Its near-term table also shows a 5-day target around $0.1142, which keeps DOGE close to its current range before any stronger move develops.

Changelly gives a wider full-year 2026 range. Its analysis places DOGE between $0.0957 and $0.142, with an average price near $0.119. For May 2026, Changelly estimates a range between $0.108 and $0.131, with an average near $0.120.

Binance’s prediction page takes a different approach because its figures are based on user input and shown on an “as is” basis. The page also states that the data does not represent Binance’s own view or advice, which makes it useful as crowd input rather than a firm forecast.

Can DOGE Stay a Top Meme Coin in 2026?

What Could Push Dogecoin Higher?

Why New Meme Coin Presales Are Getting More Attention

Meme Punch ($MEPU)

Meme Punch turns meme coin culture into a medieval P2E battle arena. Players choose meme-inspired knights, fight rivals, climb the leaderboard, and earn $MEPU rewards.

The game loop is easy to scan.

• Players choose from meme fighters such as Pepe, Doge, Floki, Brett, and Pudgy Penguin.
• Arena battles decide leaderboard progress.
• Winners earn $MEPU rewards.
• $MEPU can be used for weapons, skins, and special powers.
• Staking adds another token use inside the project.

$MEPU has a total supply of 10 billion tokens.

• Presale: 40%
• DEX/CEX liquidity: 12%
• Marketing: 16.5%
• Game rewards: 9.5%
• Staking: 14.5%
• Project funds: 7.5%

Poly Truth ($PTRUE)

Poly Truth gives the presale market a data-led angle through prediction market intelligence. The project uses AI-powered analysis to help users read active events across crypto, sports, politics, and other markets.

Its system has three parts.

• The Runners collect data from active prediction events across the internet.
• The Starlet compares sources, finds patterns, and calculates probability scores.
• The Presenter turns the analysis into event reports that show which outcome has stronger data support.

$PTRUE has a total supply of 11.5 billion tokens.

• Presale: 40%
• Liquidity pool: 17%
• Development: 13%
• Team: 10%
• Staking rewards: 10%
• Marketing: 8%
• Community and airdrops: 2%

DOGE vs. $MEPU and $PTRUE

Is DOGE Still One of the Best Meme Coins to Buy Now?

For traders comparing old and new meme coin stories, Dogecoin still holds the benchmark spot. Meme Punch brings a playable meme coin model through $MEPU, while Poly Truth adds a different presale route through $PTRUE and prediction market intelligence.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. ModernDiplomacy.eu is not a licensed crypto-asset service provider under EU regulation (MiCA). Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile and involve significant risk. Always conduct your own research and consult a licensed advisor before making any investment decisions.

Northampton: Furbank, Freeman, Litchfield, Hutchinson, Hendy, Smith, McParland; Iyogun, Smith, Millar Mills, Coles, Prowse, Kemeny, Pollock, Chick

Replacements: Walker, Fischetti, Green, Van Der Mescht, Pearson, Graham, Mitchell, Dingwall

Bristol: Lane, Rees-Zammit, Janse van Rensburg, Williams, Ravouvou, Jordan, Randall; Genge, Thacker, Kloska, Dun, Batley, Owen, Harding (c), Grondona

Replacements: Gwilliam, Woolmore, Lahiff, Taylor, Ivanishvili, Marmion, Moroni, Heward

Referee: Luke Pearce

US President Donald Trump concluded a two-day summit in Beijing with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The high-profile visit, in which Trump aimed to reset relations with Beijing, saw discussions on trade, Taiwan, and the war on Iran.

Several women sexually violated in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have come forward to report the war crimes committed against them by the M23 rebels amid the ongoing war in the country. The women spoke to Human Rights Watch researchers, but asked to be kept anonymous out of fear of retribution from the predators. 

The international organisation documented it in a report the atrocities committed by the rebels and Rwandan soldiers against the Congolese women. The report, published on May 13,  revealed how the duo summarily executed men and raped women during raids on civilian communities. Victims described being raped under threat of death and at gunpoint in their homes or in fields while searching for food, according to the HRW report. The attackers assaulted or killed relatives who attempted to stop them from sexually violating women. The absence of operational healthcare services in Uvira during the violent operations deprived survivors of crucial medical attention, including access to post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to prevent HIV infection.

A woman who was allegedly raped by a combination of the M23 rebels and Rwanda soldiers in Uvira told  HRW researchers about the hell she was put through by the invaders in Uvira. 

“They stripped me completely naked, tied my hands behind my back with my clothes and then raped me. They continued doing so for a long time, and when my husband tried to intervene, they took him outside our house and shot him dead, ” the woman whose identity is being withheld in order to maintain her dignity told HRW.

The woman eventually lost consciousness and later consulted a health professional, receiving analgesics and a post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) kit. She says she still suffers from a persistent infection. The woman is one of eight individuals identified in the recent HRW report. 

According to the report, survivors of the atrocities identified their torturers as M23 combatants and soldiers of the Rwandan army, notably because they spoke the Kinyarwanda language and wore uniforms of the Rwandan army. They also carried military hardware which could easily be recognised and linked to the Rwandan army. 

Another woman cited in the report revealed how she was sexually violated on the same day, while she was working on her farm in Katala, situated in Uvira territory. She said two fighters approached her, one of them pointed a gun at her and declared in Kinyarwanda: “If you don’t do what I tell you, I will kill you”. The men, whom she identified through their Rwandan army uniforms, then went ahead to rape her. She eventually went to the Kavimvira health centre in Uvira for treatment, but she received no medical attention.

A third woman revealed that she was also sexually assaulted in December when she went to search for food, as provisions have been dwindling since the arrival of the M23 rebels in the zone. She said a Congolese and a Rwandan assaulted her sexually.

“The Rwandan man said he wanted to kill me, but the Congolese said ‘no, rape her’,” the woman revealed. She said after having been raped, she was afraid to go to a hospital for treatment and rather opted to go buy drugs from a pharmacy which only sold antibiotics to her. She stated that she continues to experience pain and has ongoing bleeding, but she has been unable to undergo medical tests, including an HIV test. 

Another woman told HRW that she was sexually assaulted on January 3, 2026, while she was on her farm on the periphery of Uvira. She said an M23 combatant and a Rwandan soldier who were pretending to be searching for water accosted her, and one of them ordered, “If you shout, we will kill you”, adding that they had not been with a woman for over six months, during which time they were in the bush. Since the rape incident, she has been bleeding and sick.

The woman revealed that during the occupation of Uvira by the M23 rebels, hospitals were not providing treatment for sexual violence, so she did not benefit from the medical kit necessary within 72 hours following sexual violence.

“In all the accounts rendered, the survivors underlined the almost total absence of accessible health services during the M23 and Rwandan occupation, and in particular, the absence of post-rape treatment at the appropriate time, as well as adequate treatment for wounds and infections provoked by sexual violence. Other essential services, including psycho-social support, the collection of proofs and judicial assistance were also not available”, the HRW report reveals.

The United Nations Population Fund, on its part, notes that sexual violence committed by the belligerent parties in the Eastern DR Congo has increased, with more than 80,000 cases of rape reported between January and September 2025, which is a 32 per cent increase compared to the same period in 2024.

The sudden and chaotic cuts in international aid introduced by the American government at the beginning of 2025 abruptly halted emergency medical treatment and various forms of support for thousands of survivors of sexual violence.

The survivors have been confronted by a bigger risk of contracting HIV or unplanned pregnancies because the clinics and hospitals in the Eastern DR Congo no longer have stocks of post-exposure prophylactic (PEP) kits, which were hitherto mostly supplied by projects financed by the United States. These kits are supposed to be administered 72 hours after exposure in order to prevent infections like HIV.

The strategic town of Uvira has, since the M23/AFC rebels occupied Bukavu at the beginning of December 2025, become the provisional capital of South Kivu province despite the signing of the Washington Accords by Felix Tshisekedi and Paul Kagame in the presence of Donald Trump. Supported by Rwanda, the M23/AFC rebels launched a rapid offensive, resulting in the capture of the town.

Russia launched more than 1,400 drones and 56 missiles into Ukraine on Wednesday and Thursday.

Much of the onslaught was aimed at the capital Kyiv, days after Russia threatened to do so only if Ukraine attacked its Victory Day parade in Moscow’s Red Square on May 9. It is a major Russian holiday commemorating the end of the Second World War.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had proposed a ceasefire, beginning as early as May 5.

Moscow did not respond until May 7, and presented its peace proposal as a unilateral initiative, accompanied by threats to punish Kyiv if it did not respect its terms.

Moscow said Russian front line units would “launch a massive missile strike” on central Kyiv if attacked.

Forty-three Russian drones and a number of ballistic missiles were launched into Ukraine on May 9, and another 27 drones on May 10. It was not until May 11 that Ukraine had a day of peace.

Moscow justified these attacks as reciprocity for Ukrainian assaults. Kyiv accused Moscow of breaking its own ceasefire.

Once the ceasefire was over, on the night of May 11, Russia launched 216 drones and followed up with a massive strike involving 892 drones overnight on May 12 and during the day on May 13.

The night of May 13-14 was worse with 675 drones accompanied by 56 missiles.

Official Ukrainian reports recorded strikes in at least 20 locations in the capital, including a nine-storey apartment building where 12 people were killed in the collapse.

“These are ordinary residential buildings, a school, a veterinary clinic, and other purely civilian infrastructure,” wrote Zelenskyy on his Telegram messaging channel. “These are definitely not the actions of those who believe that the war is coming to an end.”

Throughout the week, Ukraine said it shot down 92 percent of the 1,930 drones launched, close to Zelenskyy’s 95 percent kill target, with 41 out of 57 missiles downed.

Russia’s army slows down

Russia’s onslaught of came as its armies in eastern Ukraine slowed down.

The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, estimated they had advanced by an average of 2.9 sq km (1.1 sq miles) in the first four months of 2026, compared with 9.76 sq km (3.76 sq miles) a day in the first third of 2025 and 14.9 sq km (5.8 sq miles) a day between October 2024 and March 2025.

Two weeks into May, that daily average had already dropped to 2.63 sq km (1 sq mile), suggesting Russia’s advance is slowing almost daily.

The ISW recently estimated that Ukraine made net territorial gains of 116 sq km (45 sq miles) in April – its first such advance since a September 2023 counteroffensive.

Some of that success is attributed to Ukraine’s successful use of drones behind the front lines.

On May 8, the Azov Corps of Ukraine’s National Guard announced it had “returned to Mariupol”, four years almost to the day since it surrendered control of the city to Russian forces.

The Corps filmed drone strikes on Russian diesel tankers, army trucks and other logistics 160 km (99 miles) behind the front line along the T-0509 highway, which feeds the Russian war effort in the Donetsk region.

“The strike depth will increase,” said the Azov Corps.

Their strikes are part of a broader Ukrainian campaign to hit Russian logistics at middle ranges of about 120-150 km (75-90 miles) from the front line as announced by Zelenskyy at the end of April.

“This primarily involves military logistics, enemy warehouses and headquarters, air defence systems and other components,” he said, adding that Ukraine had increased its strikes at this depth five-fold during the past year.

“We’re already carrying out about five thousand successful strikes at a depth of 20 plus km (12 miles) every month,” said Ukrainian Defence Minister Mykhailo Fedorov this week.

Also this week, a Russian military reporter said Ukrainian Hornet drones were targeting Russian logistics on roads closer to the frontlines.

“Although the front line is more than 35 km away from the M-30, it is currently paralysed due to enemy [First Person View drone] surveillance,” wrote the Russian reporter.

“In 2014-2015 the front line was closer, but the M-30 was safer,” he added. “This is because many people think that if the front line moves away from large cities and logistics routes they become safer, but for some reason no one takes into account that the range of enemy drones, even FPV surveillance, increases more rapidly relative to the movement of the front line.”

Russia’s declining performance is not due to lack of effort.

“The enemy has intensified offensive actions along almost the entire front and is regrouping its troops,” said Ukrainian commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskii on May 8. “The most tense area is currently the Pokrovsk direction, where the Russian aggressor has concentrated about 106,000 personnel,” he said.

Since March, Ukraine has increased strikes against Russian oil infrastructure as many as 1,700 km (1,056 miles) inside Russia, in an effort to starve its war machine of diesel and export revenue.

Andriy Kovalenko, the head of Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation, said the Ukraine Security Service (SBU) hit the Yaroslavl oil refinery and Perm oil pumping station on May 8 – Perm sends oil in four directions across Russia to refineries and export terminals.

Russian media reports said the fire from a previous strike on the pumping station was not put out until May 11.

The SBU also said it hit the Perm refinery that day.

During the week, Ukrainian forces struck drone bases and a radar research centre in Rostov-on-Don, the Bryansk chemical plant, an explosives warehouse in Nizhny Novgorod and other targets.

Fedorov on Monday thanked Germany for investing $1bn in Ukraine’s deep strike capabilities, when his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius, visited Kyiv.

“Overall, Ukraine’s positions right now – on the front line, in our long-range sanctions, and in our joint results with partners – are the strongest they have been in years,” said Zelenskyy.

The Pentagon has outlined plans to acquire at least 10,000 lower-cost cruise missiles over the next three years, as well as a similar number of relatively ‘cheap’ Blackbeard hypersonic missiles. The new framework deals are part of a broader strategy to dramatically bolster America’s stockpiles of standoff strike munitions and prime the industrial base to sustain those inventories going forward. This is all seen as especially critical for supporting the demands of future high-end fights, such as one in the Pacific against China, and doing so in a cost-effective manner.

“The Department of War has reached new framework agreements with a slate of disruptive new entrants and commercial innovators to aggressively expand the United States military’s strike capabilities,” the Pentagon declared in a press release today. “Agreements with Anduril, CoAspire, Leidos, and Zone 5 will launch the Low-Cost Containerized Missles [sic; Missiles] (LCCM) program, while a parallel agreement with Castelion advances an initiative to scale low-cost hypersonic solutions.”

“The new frameworks for LCCM will drive a fast-paced experimentation and assessment campaign that will culminate in a Military Utility Assessment by the sponsoring Service Components. Designed to move at the speed of commercial industry, the agreements establish the terms for future firm-fixed-price production contracts,” the release adds. “This effort positions the Department to procure over 10,000 low-cost cruise missiles across these portfolios in just three years, starting in 2027. The Department is creating a pathway for rapid and repeatable production of high-volume, lethal strike capabilities. The agreements include firm fixed material-unit costs for production lots in 2027 through 2029.”

The Pentagon has not yet explicitly defined what it means by “containerized” in this context, or how exactly these munitions might be fielded. However, there is already a clear focus on designs that could be fired from containerized launchers on land or loaded on ships. As TWZ has reported on many occasions, containerized systems offer immense operational flexibility, as well as the ability to blend in with standard shipping containers, creating targeting challenges for opponents. The LCCM munitions could be adapted for air launch, if they are not expected to also be employable in that mode already. Common munitions that could be employed from launch platforms across domains would offer additional benefits in terms of logistics and production, as well as helping to keep costs down through economies of scale.

Anduril has already announced that its contribution will be the surface-launched version of its Barracuda-500M design, a weapon that can also be air-launched. The company says it plans to deliver a minimum of 1,000 of these weapons to the U.S. military each year for the next three years.

Leidos says it will supply an LCCM design that leverages existing work on its air-launched AGM-190A Small Cruise Missile (SCM), also known as Black Arrow, originally developed for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The company plans to deliver 3,000 of these units under the new framework deal.

Leidos completes successful test launch of a Small Cruise Missile

“At approximately twice the size of the AGM-190A, the LCCM offers increased mission effectiveness and fuel capacity to maximize range. Building on the Leidos Small Cruise Missile’s heritage, the LCCM leverages key design features including a modular airframe and a common Weapon Open Systems Architecture (WOSA) to enable rapid integration, upgrades and mission adaptability,” Leidos’ press release adds. “The design also utilizes Leidos’ established supply chain and scalable production approach. While initially ground-launched, LCCM’s modular design could also support maritime platform integration and air-launched variants.”

At the time of writing, CoAspire and Zone 5, the latter of which was recently acquired by Norway’s Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, do not appear to have issued press releases regarding the Pentagon’s LCCM announcement. However, both companies have already developed cruise missile designs under the U.S. Air Force’s Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) program, which was focused first on delivering new, lower-cost air-launched strike capabilities to Ukraine. CoAspire’s ERAM design is called the Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile (RAACM), while one from Zone 5 is named Rusty Dagger.

RAACM Cruise Missile Video Long Range Flights Summer 2025 Cleared for Public Release

ERAM is also now feeding into the Air Force’s Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program. That service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year had already laid out plans to buy nearly 28,000 FAMM munitions over the next five years.

CoAspire has talked in the past about surface-launched versions of its RAACM and its new longer-range RAACM-ER. Zone 5 could similarly look to adapt its existing Rusty Dagger missile to meet the specific LCCM requirements.

“Concurrently, once Castelion achieves testing and validation, the Department will award a two-year multi-year procurement contract for a minimum of 500 Blackbeard missiles annually, with options to extend for up to five years,” the Pentagon’s press release today also notes. “To further encourage Castelion’s self-funded facility expansion, the Department is actively seeking the necessary authorizations and appropriations to purchase over 12,000 Blackbeard missiles over five years.”

Castelion has already been developing a ground-launched version of Blackbeard for the U.S. Army. Last month, the company formally announced that it had received a separate contract from the U.S. Navy for an air-launched version to arm that service’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

“The experimentation and assessment campaign for LCCM will be led by the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering, with the Army Program Acquisition Executive Fires serving as the transition partner and acquisition lead for procurement,” according to the Pentagon. “To kickstart this initiative, the Department will procure test missiles from all four LCCM companies starting in June 2026, laying the groundwork for the assessment phase of the program. These agreements were developed in close coordination with the United States Air Force Program Acquisition Executive Weapons, the Test Resource Management Center and multiple components across the War Department, including the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment.”

It should be stressed here that the problem set that LCCM and the tangential framework arrangement with Castelion are intended to address, that of a critical need for production of cost-effective strike munitions at scale, is not new. Expenditures of critical air-to-surface and surface-to-surface munitions, as well as anti-air interceptors, by the U.S. military, as well as its allies and partners, in conflicts in recent years have only underscored the vital need to bolster these inventories. Demand for stand-off munitions, in particular, would be far greater in any future high-end fight against a near-peer adversary like China. That is a scenario where American forces could easily find themselves tasked to prosecute tens of thousands, of targets, just in the opening phase.

Furthermore, existing munitions are often exquisite in design, and take months, or more often years, of lead time to produce. The Pentagon’s focus on “disruptive new entrants and commercial innovators,” rather than any of America’s long-established prime defense contractors, with its newly announced framework deals, is extremely significant in its own right. This is the latest example of a major shift away from awarding high-profile contracts to large legacy providers, helping to diversify the industrial base and promote competition. This also means moving away from companies accustomed to very long lead procurement and production arrangements.

The LCCM effort follows years of work in the pursuit of lower-cost stand-off munitions, especially by the U.S. Air Force. This is underscored by the fact that all of the companies named today already have relevant designs that they have been working on under contract to the U.S. military. This, in turn, has already led to an explosion in the market for munitions in this general category, many of which increasingly blur the line between long-range kamikaze drones, traditional cruise missiles, and decoys. It should also be noted that the new lower-cost munitions are not intended to replace existing exquisite designs, but instead to form a valuable high-low capability mix that offers a more cost-effective and flexible blend of options for striking targets.

The U.S. Army and U.S. Navy have also made significant investments already in containerized launchers capable of firing various types of longer-ranged missiles.

If the frameworks announced today produce the promised results, they could be instrumental in laying the foundation for the production of lower-cost strike munitions for years to come.

Update: 6:20 PM EST –

Zone 5 has now provided a statement regarding today’s announcement from the Pentagon.

“Zone 5 is proud to partner with the Department of War on the Low-Cost Containerized Missiles program to deliver affordable, scalable strike capacity to our warfighters needed to deter and defeat emerging threats,” Thomas Akers, CEO of Zone 5 Technologies, said. “This program reflects exactly where American defense innovation must go: faster development, on-demand production, and high-volume weapons that can be fielded at the pace of relevance. We are honored to be a part of this effort to expand the munitions industrial base and strengthen America’s arsenal.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

US President Donald Trump said he discussed US arms sales to Taiwan with Chinese leader Xi Jinping during talks in Beijing. Trump also said he is considering lifting sanctions on Chinese companies that buy Iranian oil.

Israel is moving to enhance the capabilities of its F-35I Adir fighter, funding a new external fuel tank upgrade that will boost the Israeli Air Force’s potential for conducting long-range strikes. The announcement comes after the jets saw extensive action striking targets in Iran during the campaigns this year and last. In the process, the fleet ran at a tempo of operations that raised questions about Israel’s ability to provide adequate refueling support. The new modification for the F-35I will help address that.

The Israeli Ministry of Defense confirmed today that the development and integration of the external fuel tanks on the F-35I will be carried out by Elbit Systems’ Cyclone subsidiary. Elbit says the deal is valued at over $34 million and will involve tanks based on an existing Cyclone design originally developed for the F-16.

“The new capability is expected to extend the aircraft’s operational range, reduce reliance on aerial refueling, and enhance operational flexibility across long-range missions,” the company added.

Based on the reference to the F-16, the announcement has been widely taken to refer to external drop tanks, but it remains possible, although improbable, that the F-35I is getting some kind of conformal, flush-mounted fuel tank. This could have a reduced impact on stealth and overall performance, but would likely also involve significant shape change and alterations to the airframe. Integrating and clearing tanks of this kind for operational service would be a complex and potentially very lengthy process, since they would disrupt the highly quantified low-observable moldline of the aircraft. However, Israel has experience in operating both F-15s and F-16s with conformal tanks.

Obviously, adding external fuel tanks of any kind to the stealthy F-35I will degrade its low-observable features. However, with the Israeli Air Force putting a premium on its ability to conduct long-range strikes, this is clearly seen as a worthwhile tradeoff. If the upgrade does involve drop tanks, they are also likely to be jettisonable, possibly together with their pylons, meaning they could be discarded before penetrating a hostile air defense system, for example. This would only be the case on extremely high-risk long-range missions, and could not be sustained for long campaigns. They could also be dropped when under threat, giving the F-35I back critical agility and providing a lower radar signature.

There are also means of mitigating the penalty that drop tanks impose on a stealth aircraft. This is best evidenced by the new fuel tanks for the U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor, which are seen as a critical addition to ensure that the fighter is able to better cover the vast distances involved in a potential future conflict in the Indo-Pacific.

The new faceted, low-drag tanks for the F-22, like the older ones, can be jettisoned from the jet to restore the full scope of its performance and further reduce its radar cross-section. However, Lockheed Martin says it expects the Raptor to go into direct combat, at least in some scenarios, with the tanks fitted.

There have also been steady signals that some kind of range extension was in the works for the Israeli F-35I.

Back in 2021, a cryptic announcement from Lockheed Martin confirmed that the company was working with an unnamed foreign buyer to develop a modification of the F-35 to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in engineering support work. An Israeli fuel-carriage enhancement was a possibility, as you can read more about this here.

Then, in 2022, separate reports emerged suggesting that Israel had developed an unspecified means of extending the range of its F-35Is, allegedly providing them with enough reach to hit targets in Iran without needing aerial refueling. The 2022 reports might have involved a prototype version of the tanks mentioned in the announcement today, some other kind of external fuel carriage, or they might have been erroneous.

More recently, just before the latest campaign against Iran, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter provided what was likely the first official confirmation that range-extending fuel tanks for the F-35I are already in service. In an interview in mid-February, he stated: “We developed fuel tanks that extend the aircraft’s range without compromising stealth.” Exactly how this was achieved was not revealed, but even small internal tanks may be a possibility, while also presenting a serious engineering challenge.

In the United States, range-extending external fuel tanks for the F-35 also re-emerged in 2025 as part of the ongoing Block 4 modernization effort for those aircraft, years after a requirement for streamlined drop tanks was eliminated. The Pentagon confirmed it will explore the feasibility of all forms of external fuel tanks, including underwing tanks, for all three variants of the F-35.

Overall, the idea of integrating external fuel tanks on the F-35 is far from new. Back in 2019, TWZ reported on how Lockheed Martin was looking at adding two 600-gallon drop tanks under the F-35’s wings as part of a larger range-extension study. This would have increased total fuel capacity by around 40 percent. Prior to that, studies had looked at adding smaller 480- and 460-gallon tanks.

Of these, the original 480-gallon drop tank was abandoned after aerodynamic and stores separation issues emerged. The subsequent 460-gallon design was also not ultimately pursued, and it was found that additional drag also eroded the range increase.

It is notable that Aviation Week previously reported that Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Cyclone had worked on both a conformal tank design for the F-35I and the 600-gallon drop tank.

As an Israeli-specific version of the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, the Adir already incorporates some significant Israeli-developed systems. Many of these have been tested on a specially outfitted one-off version of the aircraft, which arrived in the country in 2020. Israeli additions include electronic warfare systems and also weaponry. The F-35I fleet is expected to be armed with the Rafael SPICE precision-guided bomb, but may eventually include air-to-air missiles and other weapons, too.

At the same time, the F-35’s inboard stores hardpoints are still plumbed for the carriage of external fuel tanks, suggesting that introducing this capability, including on the Israeli-specific F-35I variant, might not be too complicated.

The Israeli requirement for the F-35I to be less reliant on aerial refueling is especially important. The Israeli Air Force currently operates a fleet of only around seven aging Boeing 707 tankers. The overreliance on these aging tankers for long-range missions has led to previous speculation that the Israeli Air Force has relied upon U.S. Air Force refueling support when it has gone into combat. The Pentagon denied this.

At the same time, a strike package that doesn’t require tanker support is in some ways more flexible and more survivable. Moreover, the survivability of traditional refueling jets in or near contested airspace is becoming a growing concern. Meanwhile, Israel is now starting to modernize its tanker fleet, with the first of its more modern KC-46s having begun flight trials earlier this month.

Israel has also previously shown that it is willing to degrade the stealth characteristics of the F-35I to increase its strike capacity. The type has been seen flying strike sorties with external ordnance, demonstrating the F-35’s so-called ‘beast mode,’ featuring loads on underwing pylons.

Israel has repeatedly used its F-35Is in strikes on targets both closer to Israel and much further afield. In 2018, it became the first operator to use the jet on offensive operations. Meanwhile, it has also recorded success in aerial combat against hostile drones.

Last year, the Adir was involved in strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. There were reports that Israeli fighters often landed on fumes after their initial sorties during this conflict. With these jets operating to the edge of their endurance, fuel starvation was a serious threat, and it is perhaps surprising that none were lost. External drop tanks were also found in multiple locations in eastern Iraq, pointing to their use to maximize long-range sortie rates early in the conflict.

The F-35I also played an important role in striking Iranian targets during the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign launched at the end of February this year.

The Israeli effort against Iran, Operation Lion’s Roar, also saw an Israeli Adir claim the first aerial victory for any F-35 against a crewed aircraft. On March 4, in an incident that you can read more about here, an F-35I brought down an Iranian Yak-130 Mitten combat trainer over Tehran.

The importance of the F-35I to Israel has also been demonstrated by the country’s successively adding to its orders for the type.

Earlier this month, it was confirmed that the Israeli Air Force is set to receive a fourth F-35I squadron, bolstering its fighter inventory with another 25 of the aircraft.

In 2023, Israel opted to buy a third squadron of F-35Is, covering 25 more jets. This batch is scheduled to be delivered starting in 2028.

Once all four squadrons are stood up, Israel will have a total of 100 F-35Is.

Before long, we are likely to see at least some of these jets sporting the long-range upgrade announced today. At that point, the precise nature of these external fuel tanks will finally be revealed.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The U.S. Navy’s near-total abandonment of surface combatants with nuclear propulsion after the end of the Cold War is “one of the largest mistakes” it’s ever made, according to the service’s top officer. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle made this remark today while voicing support for the recently announced decision that the future Trump class battleships will be nuclear-powered. He also explicitly highlighted challenges the Navy has faced when it comes to fueling conventionally-powered ships taking part in operations against Iran, something TWZ recently reported on in detail.

Adm. Caudle, as well as Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao and Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Eric Smith, testified before members of the House Armed Services Committee today. The focus of the hearing was on the Department of the Navy’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. The Navy disclosed that it had decided the Trump class warships will feature nuclear propulsion in its latest long-term shipbuilding plan, which was released on Monday.

“I know there have been many conversations and questions over the past few days regarding the news that the Trump class battleship will be nuclear powered. And, as you know, Virginia has a long history of nuclear shipbuilding. What specific design plans can you share at this point and can [you] speak to how nuclear power would enable this system to be successful?” Rep. John McGuire, a Virginia Republican and former U.S. Navy SEAL, asked Adm. Caudle directly.

“Sir, we walked away from surface nuclear power decades ago, and that was one of the largest mistakes the Navy ever did, and we’re bringing it back,” the Chief of Naval Operations said in response. “We need nuclear-powered surface ships to sustain combat operations with our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.”

Though a major operator of nuclear-powered submarines, the Navy’s aircraft carriers are currently its only nuclear-powered surface ships. The service previously had a mixture of nuclear-powered surface combatants. This included three one-of-a-kind ships, the cruiser USS Long Beach, the destroyer USS Truxtun (later recategorized as a cruiser), and the frigate USS Bainbridge. There were also two California class and four Virginia class cruisers, the latter not to be confused with the subsequent Virginia class of attack submarines. All of these ships entered service in the 1960s and 1970s. Expensive and complex to operate compared to similar conventionally-powered ships, they were all retired in the 1990s as part of post-Cold War drawdowns across the U.S. military.

As Caudle highlighted, the central benefit of nuclear propulsion is functionally unlimited range since naval reactors can operate for decades without needing to be refueled. In the context of modern ships packed with ever-more advanced weapons and other systems, it can also offer an important boost in onboard power generation. As noted, this does come at a cost. Today, Russia is the only country anywhere in the world with a nuclear-powered surface combatant, the Kirov class battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov. In terms of nuclear-powered surface naval ships of any kind, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is the only other example. Russia also has several nuclear-powered icebreakers, but these are operated by the state-run nuclear company Rosatom.

“Imagine what that would have looked like in the Arabian Gulf if I’d had a nuclear-powered battleship there to give the air and defense and fires [sic] power that it could sustain – rotate ships that roll, that need gasoline around it,” Caudle continued today in his response to Rep. McGuire’s question. “So the imperative for this is crucial to develop that level of payload capacity.”

Navy officials have already acknowledged that Iranian attacks on friendly countries in the Middle East in the course of recent operations significantly disrupted established logistics chains. In particular, this impacted how the service delivered fuel to conventionally-powered warships in the region, as you can read more about here.

Threats to fuel supplies would be something the Navy would have to take into account in any future conflict, especially a high-end fight against China across the broad expanses of the Pacific. There are other logistics requirements that nuclear ships do still have in common with their conventionally-powered counterparts, as well, such as food for the crew and fuel for any embarked aircraft. Even with nuclear propulsion, maintenance and other requirements mean that ships cannot stay at sea indefinitely.

“We intend to, with all we can do, use pull-through technologies, [including] things from that we’ve worked on with DDG(X),” the Navy’s top officer added, speaking about the plans for the Trump class specifically. “It will have the SPY-6 radar. It will have the Baseline 10 Aegis combat system. It will pull through, of course, the A1B Ford class reactor plant and all the design that goes with that. The only thing inherently new to it will be the actual hull itself, and so most of the fixtures in it. And I would say the directed energy [weapons] and up gunning, that will also be new.”

Caudle had first shared the A1B reactor detail at another budget-related hearing earlier this week. It was previously known that the Trump class battleship program would leverage prior work done in relation to the now-defunct DDG(X) next-generation destroyer.

Multiple types of laser-directed energy weapons, as well as an electromagnetic railgun, are core elements of the planned armament package on the future Trump class warships. They are also set to be loaded with a mix of nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, in several large vertical launch system (VLS) arrays, and have a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns.

The Navy has previously stated that the battleships, now also referred to as BBGNs, will displace approximately 35,000 tons. This is very roughly three times that of the newest Flight III subvariant of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. The Trump class vessels are expected to be between 840 and 880 feet long, have a beam (the widest point in the hull) between 105 and 115 feet, and be able to reach a top speed greater than 30 knots, as well.

It is worth noting here that Caudle’s comments today represent a huge change in tone from how he had previously talked about the prospect of nuclear propulsion for the Trump class. Speaking to the press at the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) main annual symposium back in January, he had notably appeared to downplay the possibility.

“I think it’s a logical question to think, hey, here’s a big capital ship. It’s going to be carrying a lot of load, you know, in places that we don’t necessarily need a strike enforcement air wing as a large ship there that’s in command of a flotilla,” he said at that time. “Wouldn’t it be logical to be nuclear powered? And that brings a tail to the construction of that that [sic] just really fell outside the scope of what we want to do on the speed to get this thing in the water. And so what you trade off with, with persistency that only nuclear power can do, is you end up having, you know, the ability to go produce that — it pushes the battleship into a timeframe that just didn’t meet the operational need of the ship.”

Just last month, former Secretary of the Navy John Phelan had also said making the Trump class ships nuclear-powered was unlikely, citing the need to balance cost and complexity against aggressive schedule demands. Phelan was fired unexpectedly just two days after making those comments. There have been reports that disagreements over plans for the battleships, specifically, as well as other friction within the Trump administration, factored into his dismissal.

“He’s a very good man. I really liked him, but he had some conflict with, not necessarily with [Secretary] Pete [Hegseth], but with some other[s],” President Trump said about Phelan while speaking to the press on April 23. “He’s a hard charger, and he had some conflicts with some other people, mostly as to building and buying new ships. I’m very aggressive in the new shipbuilding.”

As it stands now, the Navy still does not expect to order the first Trump class battleship until Fiscal Year 2028 and or see that ship enter service before Fiscal Year 2036. The first example, at least, currently has an estimated unit cost of around $17 billion, which is considerably more than the projected price tag of any of the next four Ford class aircraft carriers.

Even before the nuclear propulsion decision was announced, TWZ had raised numerous questions about the plans for these warships, including their exact operational utility, as well as the costs and risks involved. Caudle’s comments today about leveraging pull-through notwithstanding, nuclear-powered ships are inherently complex and expensive, which are the tradeoffs for the aforementioned boost in capability. A specialized workforce and supply chains are required to build such vessels. Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, is the only yard in the United States currently building surface ships with nuclear propulsion, in the form of new Ford class carriers, all of which have suffered delays.

Enterprise (CVN 80) Construction Update

There are two more yards in the country that make nuclear-powered submarines, both of which are already under strain to meet Navy demands. There is a particular need to keep on schedule with the new Columbia class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines to avoid any gap in capacity when it comes to the sea leg of America’s nuclear deterrent triad. Additional plans now to supply Virginia class submarines to the Royal Australian Navy, which Adm. Caudle said today he vehemently supports, can only further add to that workload.

The U.S. naval shipbuilding industry, collectively, has other demands to keep churning out conventionally-powered warships like Arleigh Burke class destroyers, as well. This is an industry that has contracted to a worrisome degree, overall, since the end of the Cold War, especially when compared to the completely opposite trend that has been observed in China. Efforts to reinvigorate America’s shipyards, and the continued challenges the Navy is facing in doing so, were key points of discussion at today’s House Armed Services Committee hearing.

Adm. Caudle’s broad statement of support today for a nuclear-powered surface Navy raises the additional question now of whether the service might be interested in expanding this capability beyond the Trump class. Some of the Navy’s prior nuclear-powered surface combatants were derived from conventionally-powered designs. At the same time, any such decision would run up against the same shipbuilding capacity and other questions facing the new battleships.

Just when it comes to the Trump class, the plans for the ships could easily still evolve further, or even come to an end entirely. The timeline laid out now has the battleship program continuing well into the next presidential administration, where the fortunes of a new nuclear-powered surface navy could change dramatically.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Finnish authorities scramble fighter jets; defence chief says false alarm but warns of potential repeats while Russian war persists.

Finland has stood down its defence forces after sounding an alarm over suspected drone activities in its airspace.

The authorities said on Friday that suspected drone activity above the Helsinki region no longer posed a threat and that the situation was ⁠returning to normal hours after launching an emergency response, including the launch of fighter jets and closure of the capital’s airport.

The alarm illustrates the tension stalking the region as Finland and the Baltic states eye Russian aggression and daily missile and drone attacks amid Moscow’s continued war on Ukraine.

The Helsinki City Rescue Department had warned the nearly 2 million inhabitants of Finland’s Uusimaa region to stay indoors starting about 4am local time (1:00 GMT), as fighter jets were scrambled. Helsinki’s airport was also closed for about three hours.

Later, President Alexander Stubb wrote on X that authorities had “demonstrated their readiness and capacity to react”, adding that the country was now facing “no direct military threat”.

Kimmo Kohvakka, director general for rescue services at the Ministry of the Interior, called the response a “precautionary measure” and said “daily life can continue.”

The incident arose amid growing concerns about regional spillover from the Ukraine war.

The Baltic states of ‌Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have reported a series of suspected Ukrainian drones headed for Russia entering their airspace, prompting domestic criticism over their ability to respond to military threats.

The situation has led to a full-blown government crisis in Latvia. Prime Minister Evika Silina resigned on Thursday after a coalition partner pulled support. The move followed the ousting of the defence minister after a drone crashed at a fuel storage facility.

In March, two drones crossed into Finnish territory and crashed after flying low over the sea and southeastern Finland.

Finnish authorities did not indicate the source of Friday’s drone activity.

However, defence forces operations chief Kari Nisula suggested that Finland had received information from Ukraine about drones potentially straying into the country, according to the Reuters news agency.

The military head added that there was no evidence that drones had entered Finland, but that such situations could happen again as long as Russia continues its war on Ukraine.

Prisoner swap

The incident in Finnish airspace unfolded as Ukraine maintained its drone attacks on Russian oil and energy infrastructure, and Kyiv continued counting the costs of a huge strike that killed two dozen people.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence said on Friday that its air defence systems shot down 355 Ukrainian drones targeting Moscow overnight, as well as the border regions of Belgorod, Bryansk and Kursk.

Among the targets was an oil refinery ⁠in the central city ⁠of Ryazan, about 200km (125 miles) southeast of Moscow, according to the commander of Ukraine’s drone forces.

The attack killed three people ⁠and wounded 12, regional Governor Pavel Malkov wrote on Telegram. Two high-rise apartment buildings were struck, he said, while debris fell on the grounds of an industrial enterprise.

Meanwhile in Kyiv, the death toll from a Russian barrage on an apartment building on Thursday rose to at least 24 people, including three children, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said. Forty-eight people were wounded.

Amid the ongoing violence, Russia and Ukraine have moved ahead with a prisoner swap that saw 205 POWs repatriated on each side ⁠on Friday. It was the first step of a swap that is planned to ultimately see 1,000 people on each side return home.

The two sides also conducted an exchange of those killed in the fighting, with Russia handing 526 bodies to Ukraine and receiving 41 in return. Both Kyiv and Moscow thanked the United Arab Emirates for mediating the swap.

Zelenskyy wrote on social media that most of the prisoners returned to Ukraine had been in Russian captivity since 2022.

“We will continue to fight for every single person who remains in captivity,” he said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy strongly condemned Russia after a missile strike on a residential apartment building in Kyiv killed at least 24 people, including three children.

The attack occurred during one of the heaviest aerial bombardments on the Ukrainian capital this year and further intensified international concern over the continuing war between Russia and Ukraine. Rescue operations continued for more than a full day before emergency workers completed searches through the destroyed structure in Kyiv’s Darnytskyi district.

The strike formed part of a broader wave of Russian drone and missile attacks across Ukraine that officials say targeted multiple regions over consecutive days.

Zelenskiy Visits the Site of the Attack

Zelenskiy visited the destroyed apartment building on Friday, laying red roses at the site and meeting rescue workers who had spent more than twenty eight hours searching for survivors beneath the rubble.

In remarks shared through social media, the Ukrainian president praised emergency responders for their continuous efforts and accused Russia of deliberately destroying civilian lives.

According to Zelenskiy, the missile strike effectively destroyed an entire section of the residential building. Ukrainian officials stated that initial analysis suggested the attack involved a recently manufactured Russian Kh 101 cruise missile.

The Ukrainian leader once again appealed to international allies for stronger air defence support and increased pressure on Moscow.

Heavy Civilian Casualties

Kyiv authorities declared Friday a day of mourning in memory of the victims. Flags across the capital were lowered to half mast, and public entertainment events were cancelled or postponed.

The Interior Ministry reported that rescue teams removed approximately 3,000 cubic meters of rubble during the operation. Hundreds of emergency personnel participated in the search efforts.

Officials confirmed that 24 bodies were recovered from the site, while approximately 30 people were rescued alive. Nearly 50 individuals were injured, and hundreds required psychological support following the attack.

The deaths of children among the victims further intensified public grief and anger across Ukraine.

Russia Intensifies Air Campaign

Ukrainian authorities stated that Russia launched more than 1,500 drones along with dozens of missiles during attacks carried out over two consecutive days this week.

The strikes extended beyond Kyiv and affected western regions of Ukraine located far from active frontline combat zones. Officials reported that six people were killed during attacks in western Ukraine on Wednesday.

The scale of the aerial assault highlights Russia’s continuing ability to conduct large coordinated attacks despite prolonged international sanctions and battlefield losses.

Moscow did not immediately comment specifically on the apartment building strike. Russia consistently denies deliberately targeting civilians, although residential buildings, hospitals, schools, and energy infrastructure have repeatedly been damaged throughout the conflict.

Ukraine Also Conducts Cross Border Attacks

The conflict has increasingly involved reciprocal long range attacks by both sides.

Russian regional officials stated that Ukrainian drone strikes killed four people, including a child, in the Russian city of Ryazan. Authorities reported damage to apartment buildings and an industrial facility during the incident.

Ukraine has expanded drone operations against targets inside Russia over the course of the war, aiming to disrupt military infrastructure, industrial production, and logistical operations linked to Moscow’s military campaign.

These developments reflect the increasingly transnational nature of the conflict, with civilian populations on both sides facing growing security risks.

The Continuing Humanitarian Crisis

The attack on Kyiv underscores the severe humanitarian consequences of the war, which began with Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced since the start of the conflict, while repeated strikes on civilian infrastructure have damaged homes, hospitals, schools, transportation systems, and energy networks across the country.

International organizations and human rights groups have repeatedly raised concerns about civilian casualties and the destruction of non military targets during the war.

At the same time, the prolonged conflict has placed enormous economic and psychological pressure on Ukrainian society as cities continue to face the threat of missile and drone attacks.

Analysis

The deadly strike on Kyiv demonstrates how the war between Russia and Ukraine continues to evolve into a prolonged campaign involving large scale aerial warfare and attacks far beyond frontline battle zones.

For Ukraine, the attack reinforces the urgent need for stronger air defence systems capable of intercepting missiles and drones before they reach urban areas. Zelenskiy’s renewed appeals to allies reflect growing concerns that Ukraine’s defensive capabilities remain under intense strain as Russia increases the scale and frequency of aerial assaults.

For Russia, sustained missile and drone attacks appear aimed at weakening Ukrainian morale, exhausting defence systems, and increasing pressure on the government through continued civilian disruption.

However, such attacks also carry significant international consequences. Civilian casualties, especially involving children and residential buildings, strengthen global criticism of Moscow and may encourage additional military and financial support for Ukraine from Western allies.

The conflict additionally illustrates the changing character of modern warfare, where advanced missiles, drones, and long range strikes allow both sides to target infrastructure and urban centers far from traditional battlefields.

Despite ongoing diplomatic discussions in various international forums, there remains little indication of a near term political settlement. Instead, the war increasingly appears locked in a prolonged phase of escalation, attrition, and humanitarian suffering.

The strike on Kyiv therefore stands not only as a tragic individual event but also as a broader symbol of the continuing devastation caused by one of the most consequential conflicts in modern Europe.

With information from Reuters.

United States President Donald Trump concluded his final round of discussions with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing while attempting to present the visit as a major economic success. The summit came at a sensitive moment for both countries as tensions over trade, Taiwan, artificial intelligence technology, and the Iran conflict continue to shape relations between the world’s two largest economies.

Trump emphasized trade agreements and commercial cooperation during the visit, hoping to strengthen his political standing ahead of important midterm elections in the United States. China, however, used the occasion to deliver clear warnings regarding Taiwan and to criticize the ongoing Iran conflict, signaling that major strategic disagreements remain unresolved despite the positive diplomatic atmosphere.

Trump Highlights Economic Progress

During meetings at the Zhongnanhai leadership compound in Beijing, Trump promoted what he described as successful trade negotiations between Washington and Beijing. He stated that both sides had reached agreements that would benefit their economies and help stabilize commercial relations after years of tariff disputes and economic uncertainty.

The United States announced several proposed agreements involving agricultural exports, beef, and energy sales to China. Officials also discussed mechanisms to manage future trade disputes and identified billions of dollars in potential goods trade between the two countries.

One of the most closely watched announcements involved aircraft manufacturer Boeing. Trump claimed China had agreed to purchase 200 Boeing aircraft, marking China’s first major order of American commercial planes in nearly ten years. However, investors reacted negatively because markets had anticipated a significantly larger agreement. Boeing shares declined after the announcement, reflecting disappointment over the scale of the deal.

The summit also failed to produce a breakthrough regarding advanced artificial intelligence technology exports. Expectations had been growing that restrictions on the sale of advanced AI chips from NVIDIA to China might ease, especially after company chief executive Jensen Huang joined the trip. No major agreement emerged on that issue.

China Pushes Back on Iran Conflict

While Trump focused publicly on economic achievements, China used the summit to voice frustration over the war involving Iran. Beijing stated that the conflict should never have started and called for diplomatic efforts to restore peace.

The Iran crisis has become a major international concern because of its impact on global energy markets. Rising instability in the Middle East has pushed oil prices upward and increased fears about disruptions to energy supplies traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical shipping routes.

China’s position reflects both economic and strategic interests. Beijing relies heavily on stable energy imports and also views Iran as an important geopolitical partner that can balance American influence in the Middle East. Analysts believe China is unlikely to pressure Tehran aggressively because maintaining strong relations with Iran supports Beijing’s broader strategic goals.

Although Trump stated that he and Xi shared similar views on Iran, Chinese officials avoided publicly endorsing Washington’s approach. This difference highlighted the continuing gap between the two powers on international security issues.

Taiwan Remains the Most Sensitive Issue

Despite the friendly diplomatic setting, Taiwan emerged as one of the summit’s most serious areas of tension. Xi warned that mishandling the Taiwan issue could lead to conflict, reinforcing Beijing’s longstanding position that the island is part of China.

Taiwan remains one of the most dangerous flashpoints in global politics. China has repeatedly stated that it does not rule out the use of military force to bring Taiwan under its control, while the United States continues to support Taiwan’s defensive capabilities under American law.

American officials maintained that United States policy toward Taiwan had not changed. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that Washington continues to support regional stability while maintaining its established position on Taiwan.

The issue remains highly sensitive because any military escalation involving Taiwan could severely disrupt global trade, semiconductor production, and international security across the Indo Pacific region.

A Fragile Trade Truce Continues

One of the summit’s most important outcomes may simply be the continuation of the fragile trade truce reached during earlier talks between the two leaders. Previous negotiations had temporarily paused extremely high tariffs and reduced tensions over rare earth mineral exports that are essential for modern technology manufacturing.

However, uncertainty remains about whether the current trade arrangements will continue beyond the end of the year. American officials indicated that no final decision had been made regarding the future of tariff suspensions and broader economic cooperation.

This uncertainty reflects the deeper structural rivalry between the United States and China. While both countries benefit economically from stable trade relations, they remain competitors in technology, military influence, and geopolitical leadership.

Human Rights Concerns Surface

Human rights issues also appeared during the summit. Trump reportedly raised the case of Hong Kong media businessman and democracy advocate Jimmy Lai, who was sentenced to prison under Hong Kong’s national security law.

American officials expressed hope that Lai could eventually be released, while China maintained that Hong Kong affairs are internal matters and rejected foreign criticism.

The discussion demonstrated that human rights disputes continue to complicate relations between Washington and Beijing even during periods of economic cooperation.

Analysis

The Trump Xi summit demonstrated the increasingly complex nature of United States China relations. Both sides attempted to project stability and cooperation, particularly on trade and economic matters, yet major disagreements remained visible beneath the surface.

Trump sought to frame the visit as proof of economic leadership and diplomatic success. However, the relatively modest scale of announced agreements and the lack of major breakthroughs on technology exports limited market enthusiasm.

China, meanwhile, used the summit to reinforce its strategic priorities. Beijing signaled that Taiwan remains a non negotiable issue, defended its relationship with Iran, and resisted external pressure on human rights matters.

The summit ultimately reflected a broader reality in global politics. The United States and China are deeply interconnected economically, but they are also strategic rivals competing for influence across multiple regions and industries. Cooperation may continue in trade and commerce, but tensions over security, technology, and global power are unlikely to disappear soon.

With information from Reuters.

When European Jewish settlers embarked on brutal ethnic cleansing to establish Israel in 1948, they thought the Palestinian population would be the least of their problems. In fact, Zionist leaders like David Ben-Gurion believed that “the refugee problem would resolve itself”.

There was deep-seated conviction among Zionists that the Palestinians lacked an identity, and they would just flee to neighbouring Arab countries and assimilate. They would not come back to claim their stolen land.

But what happened was the exact opposite.

Decade after decade, the Palestinian national cause grew stronger. Today, few survivors of the Nakba of 1948 remain, but the national commitment to Palestinian rights and historical justice is as strong as ever. That is because the older generations did not teach the younger ones to forget the trauma and move on; they taught them to remember and to keep the keys to their ancestral homes in their minds.

The “refugee problem” did not “resolve itself” not just because of Palestinian determination and resilience, but also because the Israeli policies of violence and dispossession backfired.

Israel’s theft of land and resources and violent displacement of Palestinians was the starting point for every Palestinian generation to reject and resist occupation.

As Israel succeeded in usurping more and more Palestinian land, it failed miserably in controlling the Palestinian consciousness.

Despite continuous Israeli efforts to turn refugee camps into isolated enclaves, recruit agents and collaborators to undermine unity, and introduce international bodies to redefine the refugee issue as a purely humanitarian one, it failed to dismantle the Palestinian national cause.

Those who were dispossessed and violated – the Palestinian refugees – became the most ardent carriers of the idea of resistance. Refugee camps became the centres of peaceful and armed struggle. These camps gave birth to prominent Palestinian thinkers, doctors, educators and leaders, who spread one message: the rejection of the Israeli occupation and the insistence on Palestinian rights.

Palestinian refugees were the drivers of the first Intifada of 1987 and the second Intifada of 2000. They were at the centre of any subsequent mobilisation to resist the Israeli occupation.

The colonial project saw no option but to ratchet up its brutality. Repeated massacres, mass imprisonment and relentless efforts to uproot communities did not achieve subjugation. This approach failed and the Gaza Strip – where 80 percent of the population are refugees – stands as the clearest evidence of that failure.

After the launch of its genocidal assault on Gaza in October 2023, the Israeli government repeatedly described the war as “existential”. If Israel itself acknowledges today that the fourth generation of Palestinians, the descendants of the survivors of the Nakba, represent a threat to its existence, then this is in itself an admission of the collapse of Ben-Gurion’s prediction and the strategic failure of the Israeli project to eliminate the Palestinian people.

But Israel has not just failed, it has also become trapped. It is stuck in the paradox of the futility of its own brutal power. The more violence, mass killings and displacement it carries out and the more it reproduces the Nakba, the more determined the Palestinian people become to resist. Repression is not uprooting Palestine, it is helping it take deeper root.

The Gaza genocide is perhaps the best illustration of this deadly paradox. More than 72,000 Palestinians have been massacred, more than 170,000 injured, and 1.9 million displaced. Most homes have been damaged or destroyed.

What is the result of all this? When a Palestinian child is born today in a tent and grows up without most of his family, without a school, a playground, proper healthcare, or a home, he or she won’t need a complex historical narrative to understand who is responsible for this and what needs to be done to achieve justice.

But the self-defeating impact of Israeli brutality is not limited to Palestine alone. Israel’s genocide has backfired on a global scale. It has allowed the Palestinian cause to grow beyond the confines of a marginal, left-wing issue into one that increasingly attracts attention across the political spectrum in the West but also elsewhere in the world.

Activists and ordinary citizens of different political convictions now stand in solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Many do so, despite facing retribution, arrest and prosecution for their support of Palestinian rights.

The Palestinian cause has also become an influential factor in local elections in many countries, including the United States and United Kingdom, where support for the Israeli occupation and genocide can cost candidates an electoral win.

As a result, the Palestinian issue has grown beyond a regional struggle to become a defining moral question for people across the world.

This has left the occupation locked in a permanent confrontation with what cannot be defeated: memory. The more it tries to erase the Palestinian cause, the more it is etched in the Palestinian and global consciousness.

If he had been alive today, Ben-Gurion would have been dismayed to learn that Zionism secured its own defeat the moment it embarked on the Nakba.

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

“Designating an area as a bathing water before it is suitable for bathing and without a plan in place to clean it up risks confusing the public, who will rightly believe it is safe to swim there,” a spokesman for Water UK, which represents the water companies, told the BBC.

Before arriving for his high-stakes summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, United States President Donald Trump aimed to set expectations high.

He said he would urge Xi to “open up” China’s economy and announced a delegation of top business executives, including Tesla’s Elon Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, to accompany him.

As Trump and Xi prepare to wrap up two days of meetings on Friday, the expectations for their summit’s outcome among observers generally are modest at best.

While Trump and Xi are anticipated to extend the one-year pause in their trade war agreed to in South Korea in October, the expectations are for a stabilisation – not revitalisation – in ties between the world’s two largest economies, which are locked in a rivalry that spans everything from trade and artificial intelligence to the status of Taiwan.

“It is important to be clear-eyed about the state of relations here,” Claire E Reade, a senior counsel at Arnold & Porter who previously worked on China at the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), told Al Jazeera.

“China does not trust the US, and China wants to beat the US in what it sees as long-term global competition,” Reade said.

“This limits what can be agreed.”

While Trump and Xi have yet to announce the final contours of any trade agreement, the US side has flagged various business deals in the pipeline.

In a pre-recorded interview with Fox News that aired on Thursday, Trump said that China would invest “hundreds of billions of dollars” in companies run by the CEOs in his delegation, without providing further details.

Trump also said that Beijing had agreed to purchase US oil and 200 Boeing aircraft.

Trump administration officials have said that the sides are also discussing the establishment of a “Board of Investment” to manage investments between the countries.

“A realistic ‘opening up’ of the Chinese market would likely focus first on sectors where the economic complementarity is most obvious,” Taiyi Sun, an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Virginia, told Al Jazeera.

“Agricultural goods such as soybeans and beef, as well as high-value-added manufacturing products like Boeing aircraft, are natural areas for expansion because they match existing Chinese demand with American export strengths.”

Sun said a “gradual” opening for US firms in sectors such as financial services could also be possible.

“But those areas are politically and institutionally more sensitive inside China, so progress would likely be incremental rather than immediate,” he said.

Gabriel Wildau, a senior vice president at global business advisory firm Teneo, said both sides will be seeking to address supply-chain vulnerabilities exposed by their trade war.

“The Iran war has likely increased the US’s vulnerability to export controls on rare earths, given the need to rebuild the munition stocks depleted in that war,” Wildau told Al Jazeera.

“Washington will therefore be willing to offer tariff relief – or at least assurances not to impose new tariffs – in exchange for Beijing’s commitment to keep rare earth exports flowing.”

While Trump and Xi agreed to roll back some trade barriers at their summit in South Korea, US-Chinese business and trade remain severely constrained after a decade of tit-for-tat economic salvoes between the sides.

The average US tariff on Chinese goods stood at 47.5 percent after the South Korea summit, up from 3.1 percent before Trump’s first term, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

China’s average tariff on US goods stood at 31.9 percent, up from 8.4 percent in 2018, according to the think tank.

Two-way goods trade amounted to about $415bn in 2025, down sharply from its 2022 peak of $690bn.

Carsten Holz, an expert on the Chinese economy at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said China has less incentive to make concessions to the US than before, amid the rise of its domestic industries.

“Across many industrial sectors, PRC [People’s Republic of China] firms hold leading or controlling positions,” Holz told Al Jazeera.

“As a result, the PRC economy has little to gain from opening further to the US and is likely to only offer largely symbolic gestures.”

Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, voiced similar sentiments about the limits of US leverage.

“Basically, Trump expects China to buy more stuff from America and let US companies operate more freely in China,” Elms told Al Jazeera.

“What is he offering?” Elms said. “Very little, largely because Trump sees the bilateral relationship as one where the US has been fair and China has not.”

Reade, the former USTR official, said Xi would not agree to any measures that “harm Chinese interests in any way.”

“Instead, China will potentially give the US no-cost ‘gifts,’” Reade said, suggesting such measures could include the removal of trade barriers it placed on US beef.

“It may buy US goods it needs,” Reade said.

“If it allows purchases of US tech products, it will only be because it needs them right now,” she added, “But this does not interfere with China’s strategic plans to eliminate dependence on US technology over the longer term.”

Al Jazeera’s Manuel Rapalo reports from Washington, where the first of two days of US-mediated ambassador-level talks between Israel and Lebanon concluded on Thursday. A ceasefire between them expires on Sunday, though Israel has killed 512 Lebanese since its implementation on April 17.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, the admiral in charge of U.S. military operations in the Middle East pushed back against claims that Iran still possesses a large number of missiles and launchers. He spoke as the White House said U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping discussed the ongoing Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz and hours after Iran seized another ship. 

Iran can “no longer threaten regional partners, or the United States, in ways that they were able to do before, across every domain,” the commander of U.S. Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, explained.

On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that the “Trump administration’s public portrayal of a shattered Iranian military is sharply at odds with what U.S. intelligence agencies are telling policymakers behind closed doors.”

The newspaper cited “classified assessments from early this month that show Iran has regained access to most of its missile sites, launchers and underground facilities.”

“Most alarming to some senior officials is evidence that Iran has restored operational access to 30 of the 33 missile sites it maintains along the Strait of Hormuz, which could threaten American warships and oil tankers transiting the narrow waterway,” the Times added. “Iran still fields about 70 percent of its mobile launchers across the country and has retained roughly 70 percent of its prewar missile stockpile, according to the assessments. That stockpile encompasses both ballistic missiles, which can target other nations in the region, and a smaller supply of cruise missiles, which can be used against shorter-range targets on land or at sea.”

The Washington Post offered a similar assessment last week.

WaPo last week: “Iran retains about 75 percent of its prewar inventories of mobile launchers and about 70 percent of its prewar stockpiles of missiles” https://t.co/FpAhZQKPlG

— John Hudson (@John_Hudson) May 12, 2026

Cooper took issue with those figures when asked about them.

“I think it’s appropriate in this forum not to discuss specific intelligence assessments,” he responded. “What I would say, from my perspective, is the numbers that I’ve seen in open source are not accurate. I think what also is not taken into consideration, it’s more than just the numbers. It’s the command and control that’s been shattered. It’s a significant degradation and capability, and it’s the lack of any ability to then produce any missiles…on the back end.”

Cooper was further pressed on Iran’s ability to threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz because it still has missiles and fast boats and other assets.

“In each of those cases, their capabilities have been significantly degraded,” the admiral posited. “If I just use my own professional experience and 100 transits through the Strait of Hormuz, you would typically see 20 to 40 fast boats, and lately we’ve seen two or three. So the degradation means it’s been significant, but some residual capability does exist with respect to the threat that remains.”

CENTCOM forces recently sank about a half-dozen Iranian fast boats threatening ships in the Strait.

.@CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper: “[Iran’s] capability has been significantly degraded. If I just use my own professional experience, in 100 transits through the Strait of Hormuz, you would typically see 20-40 fast-boats; lately, we’ve seen two or three.” @centcomcdr pic.twitter.com/8pWaMFpKQ9

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 14, 2026

Though Cooper downplayed Iran’s current capabilities, he said Tehran posed significant new threats with its modern drones.

“The days of $35,000 drones that we saw in the last couple of years, particularly in the fight against the Houthis in Yemen, those days are behind us,” Cooper proffered. “Today we face an increased threat from drones that are highly sophisticated. They’re jet-powered. They have high-end sensors. They have electronic warfare…signals intelligence. So those days of using high value defenses to shoot down cheap targets are behind us.”

“Quite the contrary, what we have been doing lately is using our own low-cost one way attack drones, [to attack] Iran, making them use higher and more expensive weapons. So I can confidently tell you, we have flipped the cost curve in many ways. Always work to be done, but I like where we are in this regard.”

CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper says the U.S. has “flipped the cost curve” in drone warfare against Iran.

“The days of using high-value defenses to shoot down cheap targets are behind us.” pic.twitter.com/7iK4JKpL9N

— Kassy Akiva (@KassyAkiva) May 14, 2026

Cooper didn’t elaborate, but earlier in his testimony, he talked about the Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) kamikaze drones that TWZ has written frequently about. CENTCOM first began using these weapons, reverse-engineered from Iranian Shahed-136 drones, to strike targets in Iran.

The War Zone has advocated for the procurement of this exact class of drone by the American military and today, Cooper once again backed up that assessment.

The LUCAS drones are “an additional capability that we’ve now employed against an adversary very effectively,” Cooper commented. He declined to provide further details. 

“Vis a vis Iran, I think I would just like to keep that in the classified setting,” he noted.

Cooper provided additional statistics about Epic Fury to the committee.

• “We destroyed or buried much of Iran’s ballistic missiles, launcher vehicles, and long-range attack drones with more than 450 strikes on ballistic missile storage and systems and roughly 800 strikes on Iran’s drone-launching units and storage. In the air domain, Iran’s air and air defense forces are functionally and operationally irrelevant.” 

• “Before OEF, the Iranian Air Force flew between 30 and 100 sorties each day. Today that number is zero. We destroyed or rendered non-mission-capable Iran’s fixed-wing airfields, hangars, fuel storage, and munitions stockpiles, and we knocked out 82 percent of its air defense missile systems along with the radar and command architecture that tied them together.”

• “At sea, we destroyed 161 vessels in total across 16 classes of warships, effectively crippling the regime’s ability to operate.”

SASC @CENTCOM Posture Hearing

Admiral Cooper:
“At sea, we destroyed 161 vessels in total across 16 classes of warships, effectively crippling the regime’s ability to operate. We eliminated more than 90 percent of Iran’s once-massive inventory of over 8,000 naval mines, with more… pic.twitter.com/VmBwR8KIlM

— Charlie B (@supbrow) May 14, 2026

• “We eliminated more than 90 percent of Iran’s once-massive inventory of over 8,000 naval mines, with more than 700 airstrikes on Iranian naval mine targets. In sum, Iran’s navy can no longer claim to be a maritime power, and it cannot project into the Gulf of Oman or the Indian Ocean. Iran retains nuisance capability – harassment, low-end drone and rocket attacks, and residual proxy support – but it no longer possesses the means to threaten major regional operations or to deter U.S. freedom of action in the air or maritime domains.”

• “The second-order effects of OEF are significant. More than 2,000 strikes against Iran’s command-and-control structures created leadership vacuums, paralysis, and internal confusion.” 

• “We have seen reporting of desertions, personnel shortages, and signs of regime desperation in their attempts to compel discipline through arrest and execution. Most importantly for the region’s future: Iran will be highly challenged to proliferate advanced weapons to Lebanese Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, or the Iraqi militia groups. The supply chain from Tehran to the proxies has been broken.”

While Iran has clearly been battered by attacks from the U.S. and Israel, recent events show it can still inflict damage on its neighbors and shipping. As we previously reported, Tehran has repeatedly struck the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before and after the April 7 ceasefire. In previous coverage, we have pointed out how Iran has also attacked U.S. warships and commercial vessels they were helping guide through the Strait of Hormuz during the short-lived Project Freedom operation.

Hours before Cooper testified, “the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy seized the Honduras-flagged fishery research vessel Hui Chuan,” a maritime security official told us. “The Company Security Officer (CSO) reported that the vessel was taken by Iranian personnel while at anchor approximately 38nm northeast of Fujairah, UAE, at 05:45 UTC.”

The Hui Chuan was operating as a “floating armory” storing weapons for Chinese security firms who protect ships at sea from attack by pirates, the official told us. The ship is now “bound for Iranian territorial waters,” the UK’s Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) organization said.

The Honduras-flagged fishing research vessel Hui Chuan (IMO: 8316895), anchored off the UAE’s east coast, is believed to have been seized by the IRGC Navy.

The ship is reportedly operated by the Chinese private security company Sinoguards as a floating armory. pic.twitter.com/VlHpmkqFYw

— Egypt’s Intel Observer (@EGYOSINT) May 14, 2026

UPDATE: 8:06 PM EDT –

During an interview with NBC News, Rubio was asked what Trump asked Xi when it comes to Iran.

“He didn’t ask him for anything,” the secretary noted. “We’re not asking for China’s help. We don’t need their help… Our position is very clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

NBC: “What exactly did President Trump ask President Xi for when it comes to Iran?”@SecRubio: “He didn’t ask him for anything. We’re not asking for China’s help. We don’t need their help… Our position is very clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” pic.twitter.com/Hn7f3aqiUp

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 14, 2026

In a post on his social media platform responding to Xi’s remarks that the U.S. is essentially a declining power, Trump responded that the Chinese leader was referring to America under Biden and that things are much better now.

More interesting, however, is a hint Trump dropped about the future with Iran.

Among the accomplishments he claimed on Truth Social was “the military decimation of Iran (to be continued!).” 

The House voted for a third time against acting as a check on President Trump’s military powers in Iran, even as a growing number of Republicans express concern about the prolonged conflict, CBS News reported. 

Thursday’s vote on a Democratic resolution to rein in Trump’s authority was 212-212, falling just short of a majority. Originally introduced on March 4, the measure as written would have directed the president to remove U.S. forces from hostilities within 30 days of the start of the war, which began on Feb. 28.

The U.S. House voted 212-212 on a War Powers Resolution to restrict military action against Iran. The measure failed, needing a majority to pass. pic.twitter.com/NcRDvUIFyA

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) May 14, 2026

UPDATES

In a readout of the meeting in Beijing between Trump and Xi, the White House noted that the topic of the Strait of Hormuz came up in discussions between the two leaders.

“The two sides agreed that the Strait of Hormuz must remain open to support the free flow of energy,” the White House posted on X. “President Xi also made clear China’s opposition to militarization of the Strait and any effort to charge a toll for its use, and he expressed interest in purchasing more American oil to reduce China’s reliance on the Strait in the future.”

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was among those accompanying Trump, highlighted Xi’s opposition to allowing Iran to impose tolls on ships transiting the Strait. 

“President Trump raised the issue of Iran with China and it was important,” said Rubio. “The Chinese side said they are not in favor of militarizing the Strait of Hormuz and are not in favor of a tolling system, and that’s our position.”

SECRETARY RUBIO: President Trump raised the issue of Iran with China and it was important.

The Chinese side said they are not in favor of militarizing the Strait of Hormuz and are not in favor of a tolling system, and that’s our position. pic.twitter.com/9JYpbvztd8

— Department of State (@StateDept) May 14, 2026

The much-longer Chinese readout of the meeting mentioned improving trade and a warning that the U.S. “must exercise the utmost prudence in handling the Taiwan question.”

However, there was no mention of Iran or the Strait of Hormuz.

While that doesn’t mean these issues weren’t discussed, readouts are messaging and this reflected the emphasis Beijing places on the paused war and its aftermath.

“The two heads of state exchanged views on major international and regional issues, including the situation in the Middle East, the Ukraine crisis, and the Korean Peninsula,” was about as close as the statement from the Chinese Foreign Ministry came to addressing Iran.

Despite the Trump administration’s stance that China opposes allowing Iran to impose tolls on shipping, Beijing is paying for transits, the Guardian claims.

Tehran “says it has reached a deal with China that has already allowed a large number of oil tankers bound for China to go through the strait of Hormuz since Wednesday night, and this has been made possible by China agreeing to limited charging, undercutting US opposition to such moves,” the outlet reported. “The development suggests China has accepted Iran’s assertion that the shipping rules in the strait have changed, with reports suggesting the cost will be in the region of $1 per barrel.”

We cannot independently verify that and have reached out to the White House for details.

🇮🇷 🇨🇳 Iranian media reported on Thursday that naval forces had allowed a group of Chinese ships to pass through the strategic Strait of Hormuz since the night before. Iran has largely blocked shipping through the strait since the outbreak of war with the US and Israel ➡️… pic.twitter.com/PVjGJ0TY7t

— AFP News Agency (@AFP) May 14, 2026

Trump pushed back on claims that China is working to arm Iran.

“We discussed it,” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “I mean, when you say ‘support,’ they’re not fighting a war with us or anything. He said he’s not gonna give military equipment. That’s a big statement. He said that strongly. But at the same time he said they buy a lot of their oil there, and they’d like to keep doing that.”

HANNITY: Did you discuss China’s support for Iran with Xi?

TRUMP: We discussed it. Uhhhh. I mean, when you say ‘support,’ they’re not fighting a war with us or anything. He said he’s not gonna give military equipment. That’s a big statement. But at the same time he said they buy… pic.twitter.com/Lq677uoCfG

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 14, 2026

Trump’s claim that China told him it won’t give weapons to Iran followed The New York Times report that Beijing was working to ship arms to Tehran.

“Chinese companies have been discussing arms sales with Iran, plotting to send the weapons through other countries to mask the origins of the military aid,” the publication stated, citing U.S. officials.

The United States “has gathered intelligence that Chinese companies and Iranian officials have discussed the arms transfers,” the newspaper added. “It is not clear how many, if any, arms have been shipped or to what degree Chinese officials have approved the sales.”

Officials briefed on the intelligence “have reached different conclusions on whether the arms have already been sent to the third countries,” according to the Times. “But no Chinese weapons appear to have been used on the battlefield against U.S. or Israeli forces since they began their war against Iran in late February.”

The newspaper reported last month that U.S. intelligence agencies had obtained information showing that China may have transferred shoulder-fired man portable air defense systems (MANPADS) to Iran. Intelligence also showed that China was considering other shipments of the weaponry.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Wednesday pushed back on claims that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the heads of Mossad and Shin Bet visited the country during the now-paused war with Iran. The denial is a strong public rebuke amid a growing relationship between the two nations that has seen Israel supply the UAE with Iron Dome air defense batteries to protect against Iranian attacks.

“The United Arab Emirates denies reports circulating regarding an alleged visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the UAE or receiving any Israeli military delegations in the country,” the UAE Foreign Affairs Ministry posted on X Wednesday afternoon EDT. “The UAE reaffirms that its relations with Israel are public and conducted within the framework of the well-known and officially declared Abraham Accords, and are not based on non-transparent or unofficial arrangements. Accordingly, any claims regarding unannounced visits or undisclosed arrangements are entirely unfounded unless officially announced by the relevant authorities in the UAE.”

The ministry added that the “UAE calls on media outlets to exercise accuracy and professionalism, and to refrain from circulating unverified information or promoting misleading political narratives.”

UAE Denies Reports Regarding Visit by Israeli Prime Minister or Receiving Any Israeli Military Delegation pic.twitter.com/TRX9y5ZoVN

— MoFA وزارة الخارجية (@mofauae) May 13, 2026

Hours before the UAE announcement, Netanyahu’s office claimed the Israeli leader did travel to the Gulf Arab nation, confirming a CBS News report about the visit.

“In the midst of Operation ‘Roar of the Lion,’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a secret visit to the United Arab Emirates and met with the President of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed,” the office posted on X. “This visit led to a historic breakthrough in relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.”

לשכת ראש הממשלה מאשרת כעת:

בעיצומו של מבצע ״שאגת הארי״, ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו ביקר בחשאי באיחוד האמירויות ונפגש עם נשיא איחוד האמירויות, השייח׳ מוחמד בן זאיד.

ביקור זה הביא לפריצת דרך היסטורית ביחסים בין ישראל לאיחוד האמירויות.

— ראש ממשלת ישראל (@IsraeliPM_heb) May 13, 2026

Israel’s N12 News chief political correspondent Amit Segal noted a “few striking details regarding the news of Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE.”

“A covert flight reportedly took place while Israeli airspace was fully shut—without leaks or detection,” he noted on X. “Sources suggest a deal was reached on an Iron Dome shipment” and “UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan has publicly hosted Israeli leaders like Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid—but not Benjamin Netanyahu. Until now, their contacts stayed behind closed doors.”

Bennet and Lapid visited the UAE in 2021, as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister respectively.

A few striking details regarding the new of Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE:

1. A covert flight reportedly took place while Israeli airspace was fully shut—without leaks or detection.

2. Sources suggest a deal was reached on an Iron Dome shipment.

3. UAE President Mohammed bin… https://t.co/An2kbqJrNC

— Amit Segal (@AmitSegal) May 13, 2026

The announcement from Netanyahu’s office followed media reports on Tuesday about the visit to the UAE of two other high-level Israeli officials.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Mossad chief David Barnea visited the UAE at least twice during Operation Roaring Lion to coordinate war efforts. Barnea reportedly flew to the UAE in March and April. In addition, Israeli media reported that Shin Bet chief David Zini also visited the UAE to coordinate security efforts.

Certainly not surprising given the Abraham Accords and the more recent Iron Dome battery and miltary deployment to UAE by Israel. But 2 back to back visits by a Mossad chief amid a war speaks volumes. Important read by @AnatPeled1 & @summer_said in @WSJ.https://t.co/i9BmyHNZ3p

— Behnam Ben Taleblu بهنام بن طالب لو (@therealBehnamBT) May 13, 2026

The back and forth over the potentially unprecedented wartime visit by three top Israeli officials to the UAE comes a day after U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee publicly confirmed that Israel sent the UAE an unspecified number of Iron Dome air defense batteries and troops to operate them. News of the deployment was first reported by Axios last month. Such an acknowledgement of direct Israeli military aid to an Arab nation is unusual in its own right.

🚨 WATCH: US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee officially confirms: Israel sent the United Arab Emirates an Iron Dome system and a team to operate it. This happened because there are exceptional relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, based on the Abraham Accords. pic.twitter.com/BgCkESt4Yl

— Raylan Givens (@JewishWarrior13) May 12, 2026

TWZ cannot independently verify any of the travel claims. However, Israel has historically been viewed as an enemy by the Arab world and direct cooperation in the form of a visit by its head of state could be considered controversial to say the least. At the same time, things have changed dramatically in the region over the last decade or so, with Arab countries warming to relations with Israel. This has been spurred by the major economic development the region has seen as well as, at least to a degree, a common foe — Iran.

Perhaps the UAE is trying to appeal to a domestic audience or, as Israel’s I24 News senior Middle East correspondent Ariel Oseran suggested on X, UAE is trying to distance itself from Netanyahu and his coalition, not Israel writ large. Maybe Netanyahu, for his own reasons, is trying to claim a level of relationship that doesn’t exist, however that seems unlikely.

We may never find out for sure.

It is highly unlikely that Israel’s PMO would issue a fake statement regarding Netanyahu visiting the UAE at such a sensitive time.

What is more likely is that Abu Dhabi is trying to publicly distance itself from Netanyahu on a personal level, a sentiment that I have personally… https://t.co/8laUSjOAc7

— Ariel Oseran أريئل أوسيران (@ariel_oseran) May 13, 2026

The Senate on Wednesday blocked the seventh Democratic attempt to prevent Trump from waging war on Iran. However, it was by the slimmest margin yet, indicating a growing unease in the legislature about the now-paused conflict.

The vote failed by a 49-50 margin, with all Democrats but John Fetterman of Pennsylvania supporting the measure. For the first time, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined fellow Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky in breaking with Trump and voting with Democrats. 

This was the first vote on the War Powers Resolution since Trump bypassed the 60-day deadline to seek congressional authorization for Operation Epic Fury last month. You can read more about that effort in our story about it here.

Meanwhile, as we noted yesterday, NBC News reported that the administration is considering changing the name of the operation to Sledgehammer should hostilities resume.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Protesters have demanded the resignation of President Rodrigo Paz, who was elected on a platform of economic reform.

Demonstrators, led by mining groups and rural unions, have clashed with law enforcement in Bolivia as tensions simmer over the country’s economic crisis, the worst in decades.

On Thursday, small explosions were heard in the midst of the protest in La Paz, credited to miners setting off small sticks of dynamite. Some protesters were reported as attempting to breach the presidential palace.

The unrest follows weeks of road blockades, as miners, farmers, teachers and rural workers express frustration over the country’s ongoing economic turmoil.

Bolivia used to be a major exporter of natural gas, but in recent years, its reserves began to shrivel, and its production has plummeted. Now, rather than being a fuel exporter, it has become a net importer, reliant on oil and natural gas from abroad.

The collapse of the natural gas industry has been coupled with dwindling supplies of foreign currency in the country. The result has been soaring inflation, supply shortages and higher prices.

Bolivians have experienced long lines for fuel, and hospitals have reported a lack of basic supplies like oxygen and medication.

Centre-right leader Rodrigo Paz was elected in October last year in part on a promise to address the economic tailspin.

His victory marked a political sea change in Bolivia. For much of the past two decades, except for a brief period in 2019, the country has been governed by the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS).

The decline of MAS has been credited, in part, to the uproar over the economy.

But on Thursday, Paz likewise faced calls from protesters for his resignation, just as his MAS predecessor, Luis Arce, had.

Earlier in the day, a group of 20 miners were invited to the presidential palace to meet with Paz and discuss their demands, according to the Reuters news agency.

Ahead of the meeting, Economy Minister Jose Gabriel Espinoza said his government was “open to dialogue”.

Among the issues reportedly discussed were fuel subsidies, welfare benefits and changes to an agrarian reform measure, Law 1720, that was repealed on Wednesday after outcry.

Still, officials have refused demands that Paz step down. “The president is not going to resign,” Mauricio Zamora, the minister of public works, services and housing, said earlier this month.

Some of Paz’s allies have blamed the unrest on former President Evo Morales, a former trade union leader who continues to draw popular support in Bolivia’s rural areas.

Morales, who led Bolivia from 2006 to 2019, previously supported protests against Paz’s predecessor Arce, after splitting from MAS.

He is also the subject of an arrest warrant: Morales has been accused of statutory rape and was held in contempt of court for failing to show up to a hearing last week.

A prolific social media user, Morales posted multiple times on Thursday about the protests, accusing the government of using him as a scapegoat. He also echoed calls for officials to address the shortages of food, fuel and other basic supplies.

“They believe that the thousands of Bolivians currently protesting — in the streets and on the roads — are merely obeying a single individual,” Morales wrote in one post.

“The outraged are driven by their social conscience and their fury against a government that, from day one, betrayed its constituents and the nation.”