TODAY

At first sight, last week’s unprovoked attack on a French nun walking along a street in occupied East Jerusalem came without warning. However, for the roughly 180,000 Christians living in Israel – and the 10,000 or so Christians living in East Jerusalem – the attack is the latest in a growing number of incidents of abuse, assault, and intimidation that the community says has increased in tandem with Israel’s turn towards far-right nationalism.

While incidents of violence and arson grab the attention, low-level incidents of spitting, insults, and disparaging graffiti have become a daily experience for many Christians in the area – the majority of them Palestinian – contributing to the desire on the part of nearly half of all the religious community under 30 to leave.

Israeli officials have been quick to condemn the attack on the nun, calling it “despicable” and with “no place” in Israeli society. A man has also been arrested, after the arrest of Israeli soldiers blamed for smashing a Christian statue in southern Lebanon last month.

But ultimately, trust in the Israeli state is thin on the ground, with many of the incidents going unreported, analysts say.

Christians in Israel and East Jerusalem have been present in the area for more than 2,000 years. But they now find themselves attacked by Israelis, just for practicing their faith.

According to the volunteer-run Religious Freedom Data Center (RFDC), in the first three months of this year, Christians reported 31 incidents of harassment, most involving spitting or defacing church property. Last year, analysts with the interreligious Rossing Center for Education and Dialogue tracked 113 known attacks on individuals and church property in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem, including 61 physical assaults mainly targeting visible members of the clergy, such as monks, nuns, friars, and priests.

‘It’s definitely increased in the last three years,” said Hana Bendcowsky, programme director at the Jerusalem Center for Jewish-Christian Relations. “Resentment toward Christianity existed in the past as well, but people did not dare express it openly.”

“Over the past three years, the political atmosphere in Israel – where there is less concern about how the world perceives us – has led people to feel more comfortable harassing Christians,” Bendcowsky added. “This broader sense of Israeli isolation, and the reduced concern about international reactions, is also reflected in the way the State of Israel has acted regarding what has taken place in Gaza and southern Lebanon.”

Rising nationalism

Israel’s shift towards ultranationalism, particularly when it comes to policies towards Palestinians, has intensified under the current government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Under his administration, far-right voices that were once at the fringes of Israeli society have become incorporated into its heart, and now play defining roles in government.

Fuelled by a not entirely unfounded sense of impunity, a survey by the Rossing Center for Education and Dialogue last year found it was largely ultra-Orthodox and ultra-nationalistic Israelis who were responsible for the majority of attacks on Christians.

“The hate and attempt to harass non-Jews by some of the elements, particularly settler elements, knows no bounds,” Rabbi Arik Ascherman, an Israeli peace activist, told Al Jazeera. “Therefore, anything from spitting, harassing, and desecrating, to government actions to prevent churches from bringing in staff and clergy from abroad…  is simply part of the reality here.”

Bendcowsky noted that “the complexity of Jewish–Christian relations goes back to the early centuries.”

“While some churches have undergone processes of rethinking their attitudes towards Jews and Judaism and have begun a path of healing, this has not yet taken place within Israeli Jewish society,” she said. “In education, the focus is on Jewish victimhood, so the lack of familiarity with Christians, together with the historical memory of Christianity, tends to be negative. In the current political climate, there are those who exploit this as a chance to strike back.”

Incidents are rarely reported, researchers say, with concern over foreign visas, or not wanting to draw attention to the issue, mixing with a profound absence of confidence in the state to take action.

‘There’s an absolute lack of confidence in the police, and I think that’s leading to many of the attacks going unreported,” Bendcowsky said. “Unfortunately, that’s often borne out by the evidence. Unless an incident gains international attention, particularly in the US, it often goes uninvestigated, or investigations are closed without any official conclusion.”

Losing support

High-level international objections to attacks on Christians and Christianity, especially those coming from Israel’s principal backers in the United States, have typically elicited swift responses from the Israeli government.

After viral footage of Israeli soldiers destroying a Christian statue in southern Lebanon sparked international outrage, the Israeli prime minister’s office was swift to publish its own condemnation. And in March, following a backlash from many world leaders, including avowedly pro-Zionist US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, after Israeli police prevented Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem Pierbattista Pizzaballa from reaching the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, official apologies and “clarifications” were quick in coming. But Israeli military attacks on Christian churches in Gaza and Lebanon have only been acknowledged when international and specifically US sympathy for Israel risks being undermined.

In Israel, Christianity is often associated with the Palestinians – and it is therefore perhaps inevitable that as Israel becomes increasingly unrepentant in its killing of Palestinians and seizure of their land, Palestinian Christians and other Christians in the area will not find themselves spared.

Shaiel Ben-Ephraim, an Israeli analyst with Atlas Global Strategies, said that he has noticed intolerance towards Christians increasing. He noted that along with Israel’s violence in Gaza and the wider region, this is contributing towards Israel’s increasing unpopularity worldwide and in the US, and making it more difficult for Christian supporters of Israel to square their support for the country with its treatment of their co-religionists on the ground, a plight they have ignored for decades.

‘In the long term, these attacks on Christians are massive,’ Ben-Ephraim told Al Jazeera.

“Older evangelicals may be forgiving, but the young are already turning against Israel,” he said. “This erodes the little support [Israel has] left. So, while current-day leaders like [US President Donald] Trump and Huckabee will pretend this isn’t happening, this will shape an entire generation of religious Christians in a way that Israel does not even begin to imagine.”

Earlier today, U.S. Army AH-64 Apache and U.S. Navy MH-60 Seahawk helicopters destroyed six small Iranian boats that were threatening commercial ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz, according to the U.S. military’s top officer in the region. He also confirmed that Iran has launched new attacks aimed at American warships, as well as merchant vessels. All of this comes after the U.S. kicked off a new operation to safeguard commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, dubbed Project Freedom, which you can read more about in our initial reporting here.

“We have an enormous amount of capability and firepower concentrated in and around the strait, including AH-64 Apache and MH-60 Seahawk helicopters used just this morning to eliminate six Iranian small boats threatening commercial shipping. So we’re backing up commitment with action,” Navy Adm. Brad Cooper, head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), told TWZ and other outlets during a press conference today. “We also have A-10s, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-35, EA-18 Growlers, RC-135s, KC-46s, and KC-135 fixed-wing aircraft, and numerous U.S. warships, including destroyers, two carrier strike groups, [an] amphibious readiness [sic] group, and [a] Marine Expeditionary Unit.”

“The cruise missiles were going after both U.S. Navy ships, but mostly after commercial shipping,” Cooper added when asked about attacks so far. “We defended both ourselves and, consistent with our commitment, we defended all those commercial ships.”

“We had drone launches against commercial ships, all of which were defended against, consistent with our commitment, and then the small boats were all going against commercial ships, and all were sunk by Apaches and Seahawk helicopters,” he continued.

UPDATE: More Details From Adm. Cooper’s Briefing

• On the scope of Project Freedom:

“We are employing U.S. ballistic missile defense-capable destroyers, over 100 land and sea-based aircraft, multi-domain unmanned platforms – meaning under the sea, on the sea, and from the air – and then 15,000 service members to extend this defensive umbrella across the Strait of Hormuz to protect our forces and also, as committed, to defend commercial shipping.”

• On international reaction

“Vessels currently in the Arabian Gulf represent 87 countries from around the world. As the president mentioned, they’re merely neutral and innocent bystanders. Over the last 12 hours, we’ve reached out to dozens of ships and shipping companies to encourage traffic flow through the Strait, consistent with the president’s intent, to help guide ships safely through the narrow trade corridor. This news has been quite enthusiastically received, and we’re already beginning to see movement.”

“The President has also said that if the process [Project Freedom] is interfered with, we will react forcefully. And over the last 12 hours, Iran has interfered. The IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] has launched multiple cruise missiles, drones, [and] small boats at ships we are protecting. We have defeated each and every one of those threats through the clinical application of defensive munitions.”

• On whether U.S. warships were hit:

“I can confirm there’s been no U.S. military ship hit, and there’s been no U.S. flagged-ship [sic] that have been hit.”

🚫 CLAIM: Iranian state media claims that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps hit a U.S. warship with two missiles.

✅ TRUTH: No U.S. Navy ships have been struck. U.S. forces are supporting Project Freedom and enforcing the naval blockade on Iranian ports. pic.twitter.com/VFxovxLU6G

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) May 4, 2026

• On whether these attacks mean the ceasefire is over:

“I wouldn’t go into detail of whether the ceasefire is over or not. I think the key thing for us is we’re merely there as a defensive force and a force to give a very thick layer of defense to commercial shipping to allow them to proceed out of the Arabian Gulf. That’s what we’re focused on. What we saw this morning was Iran initiating aggressive behavior. We are simply going to respond to that consistent with the president’s direction.”

• On whether Project Freedom is protecting ships in port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which have also come under attack today:

“I don’t want to give the details of what we’re protecting and what we’re not. I wouldn’t want to tip our hand on that. But in the case of the Fujairah attack, I’d really refer to the UAE on that. That’s really a matter under their national jurisdiction and not part of our project operation.”

• On how close the Iranian missiles and drones got to ships:

“I don’t want to get into the specific details of differences. All of the missiles and drones that were fired at both us and the commercial ships were effectively engaged. So that’s the good news. No personnel injuries in that regard, and also in terms of where specifically, the area in the strait was transited, probably not worth getting into details. What I will say is, over the past several weeks, we’ve used low-observable capability to clear that path, and we validated that in multiple ways. And then we took the risk by using U.S. flagships [sic] to go first, setting the example. Since then, we’ve had great communication with industry, as I mentioned, and ships, multiple ships, are already heading that way. So the summation of that is, we used our own military technology in a unique way to clear a free lane that’s not obstructed in any way, shape or form, through the Strait, executed by setting the example of U.S. ships. And over top of all that, we have a US military defensive umbrella.”

• On whether U.S. destroyers transited the Strait today:

“Yes, we have gone through the Strait today. As we sit here right now, we have multiple U.S. Navy guided missile destroyers operating in the Arabian Gulf.”

U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers are currently operating in the Arabian Gulf after transiting the Strait of Hormuz in support of Project Freedom. American forces are actively assisting efforts to restore transit for commercial shipping. As a first step, 2 U.S.-flagged merchant… pic.twitter.com/SVDxDhK72I

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) May 4, 2026

• On whether U.S. warships are providing escort through the Strait:

“There’s no specific escort. If I just describe this overall, if you’re escorting a ship, you’re playing kind of one-on-one, I think we have a much better defensive arrangement in this process, where we have multiple layers that include ships, helicopters, aircraft, airborne early warning, electronic warfare – we have a much broader defensive package than you would have ever had if you were just escorting. I feel good about that, and it was proven just in the last couple of hours.”

“In terms of mines, I’m not going to talk about specific capabilities. You know, they all have varying degrees of influence. I think the key thing about mines is that we have cleared an effective pathway for ships to lead. At this point, for the first time, there seems to be great enthusiasm to do that, but we’re going to stay in contact with the commercial shipping and support them along the way.”

• On our question about whether Project Freedom is just for getting ships out of the Strait, or whether it is also for getting them into it.

“It will ultimately be a two-way path. The most important thing is in the near-term getting ships out. And then over time, we’ll also, for sure, see ships go in.” 

• On our question about what munitions the Apaches and MH-60s used:

“We don’t want to get into the munitions or how we’re doing things tactically. I will just kind of put that off to the side. But the munitions that were used were very effective, and the tactics worked just as described.”

UPDATE: More on AH-64s and MH-60s in the counter-small boat role

Today’s use of AH-64s and MH-60s to engage Iranian small boats as part of a larger effort to ensure access to the Strait of Hormuz highlights a larger contingency plan that the U.S. military has been working to refine for decades now.

The IRGC’s naval arm, in particular, has been a chief example of the threats that small boats pose since the Tanker War sideshow to the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Armed helicopters, including ones belonging to the U.S. Army’s elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, the famed Night Stalkers, were an important part of the American response to threats to commercial shipping at that time.

Small boat threats, and in the context of a Strait of Hormuz crisis, especially, became even more of a focus of U.S. military planning in the early 2000s. Al Qaeda’s attack on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Cole while it was in port in Aden, Yemen, was one key driver. The fallout from the still-controversial Millennium Challenge war game in 2002 was another very important factor.

All of this impacted the addition of new close-in defense capabilities to existing and forthcoming warships. It also put additional emphasis on the role of armed helicopters, as well as fixed-wing aircraft, in responding to swarms of small boats. The Air Force’s A-10 Warthog ground attack planes have trained extensively to fly counter-small boat missions for the past two decades, for instance.

Army AH-64s and Air Force A-10s had already been conducting missions targeting Iranian naval assets in and around the Strait of Hormuz before the announcement of the ceasefire in April. Navy MH-60s are known to have been flying armed force protection missions as part of Operation Epic Fury against Iran, as well. As an aside, Seahawks also destroyed small boats belonging to Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen as part of previous operations to safeguard commercial shipping in and around the Red Sea.

Armed helicopters remain key assets for defending against swarms of small boats. This is in part because of the added flexibility they offer in terms of their ability to launch from forward bases on land and ships at sea, either of which can also be situated closer to the threat area. This, in turn, can help reduce the time it takes to react and increase time on station. Helicopters’ ability to fly slow and low also allows them to spot, identify, and make rapid attacks on small moving targets. For naval vessels that carry helicopters, arming them with more advanced weaponry to go after small boats means they can provide an on-call outer highly flexible layer of force protection that would not exist otherwise. New munitions, including laser-guided Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) rockets, will only increase their capabilities to engage larger swarms of small boats

Small boats are, of course, not the only threat Iran is already bringing to bear in the Strait of Hormuz. As Adm. Cooper noted in his briefing, Iranian forces have been launching cruise missile and drone attacks on ships in and around this critical waterway. There is also the continued threat of Iranian naval mines, as well as explosive-laden uncrewed surface vessels. Iran has also launched a new round of missile and drone attacks on the United Arab Emirates.

For weeks, TWZ has been pointing out that Iran’s shore-based anti-ship cruise missiles had been largely absent from conflict in the region, and these weapons could play a major part in responding to any American push to reopen the Strait. This now seems to be happening and also underscores a broader point we have been making about the real danger of the regime in Tehran turning the waterway into a super weapons engagement zone. The threat ecosystem also includes air defenses, such as shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, also known as man-portable air defense systems, which present hazards to armed helicopters, as well as fixed-wing aircraft.

All of this only reinforces the general risks that U.S. forces will face as Project Freedom gets further underway, especially if it grows to include more direct escort and/or convoy missions.

UPDATE: Reaction to the Iranian missile and drone barrage

In a phone conversation with ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Trump “”stopped short of saying Iran has violated the ceasefire,” Karl stated on X. “Regarding the Iranian drone and missile attacks on UAE today: ‘They were shot down for the most part,’” Trump told Karl. “‘One got through. Not huge damage.’ Regarding the Iranian attack on a South Korean ship: ‘We’re going to look into it. Shots were fired at a South Korean ship, and I think South Korea should take some action. … This was a South Korean ship riding by itself. It was not an escorted ship.’”

In a phone conversation a short while ago, President Trump stopped short of saying Iran has violated the ceasefire.

Regarding the Iranian drone and missile attacks on UAE today: “They were shot down for the most part,” Trump told me. “One got through. Not huge damage.”…

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) May 4, 2026

Trump said Iran will be “blown off the face of the Earth” if they attack U.S. vessels carrying out Project Freedom.

Trump made the comments during an interview with Fox News‘ Trey Yingst on Monday, adding that he believes Iran has become “much more malleable” in peace negotiations.

The president also emphasized that U.S. military buildup in the region is continuing.

“We have more weapons and ammunition at a much higher grade than we had before,” Trump said. “We have the best equipment. We have stuff all over the world. We have these bases all over the world. They’re all stocked up with equipment. We can use all of that stuff, and we will, if we need it.”

Trump again said that Iran has “no navy, they have no air force, they have no anti-aircraft equipment, they have no readar, they have no nothing, they have no leaders actually…the leaders happen to be gone also.”

President Trump on Iran: “They have no navy, they have no air force, they have no anti-aircraft equipment, they have no radar, they have no nothing, they have no leaders actually…the leaders happen to be gone also.” pic.twitter.com/JBkAV7OKwi

— CSPAN (@cspan) May 4, 2026

UAE air defense systems “engaged 12 ballistic missiles, 3 cruise missiles, and 4 UAV’s launched from Iran, resulting in 3 moderate injuries,” the UAE MoD stated on X. “Since the beginning of the blatant Iranian attacks on the United Arab Emirates, the air defences have engaged a total of 549 ballistic missiles, 29 cruise missiles, and 2,260 UAV’s.”

تتعامل حالياً الدفاعات الجوية الإماراتية مع اعتداءات صاروخية وطائرات مسيرة قادمة من ايران وتؤكد وزارة الدفاع أن الاصوات المسموعة في مناطق متفرقة من الدولة هي نتيجة تعامل منظومات الدفاعات الجوية الإماراتية للصواريخ الباليستية، والجوالة والطائرات المسيرة.

UAE Air Defences system… pic.twitter.com/j9mW4JucfW

— وزارة الدفاع |MOD UAE (@modgovae) May 4, 2026

Qatar “strongly condemns the renewed Iranian attacks targeting civilian sites and facilities in the sisterly United Arab Emirates using missiles and drones, which resulted in injuries to three Indian nationals,” the country’s Foreign Ministry stated on X. “Qatar considers these attacks a blatant violation of the UAE’s sovereignty and a serious threat to the security and stability of the region.”

Qatar Strongly Condemns Renewed Iranian Missile, Drone Attacks on UAE

Doha | May 4, 2026

The State of Qatar strongly condemns the renewed Iranian attacks targeting civilian sites and facilities in the sisterly United Arab Emirates using missiles and drones, which resulted in… pic.twitter.com/UU0tV5w111

— Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Qatar (@MofaQatar_EN) May 4, 2026

The U.S. and Israel are “holding feverish consultations on how to respond and assist their loyal ally.” Israel’s Israel Hayom news outlet claimed, citing three sources familiar with the matter. 

“The likely options include targeted attacks against launchers and military targets threatening the strait, or a parallel attack on an Iranian energy facility in response to the attack on Fujairah,” the outlet posited. 

We cannot independently verify that claim.

Tehran had no prior plan to attack Emirati facilities in Fujairah port, an Iranian official told Iranian media. 

“What happened is the result of the American army’s adventure to illegally open a passage for ships to cross from the prohibited passages in the Strait of Hormuz,” the official said.

BREAKING: Iranian Military source to Iranian TV:

Tehran had no prior plan to attack Emirati facilities in Fujairah port

What happened is the result of the American army’s adventure to illegally open a passage for ships to cross from the prohibited passages in the Strait of… pic.twitter.com/Pt3GKSUIDb

— Sulaiman Ahmed (@ShaykhSulaiman) May 4, 2026

UPDATE: 5:32 PM EDT –

In the wake of today’s attacks from Iran, UAE has partially closed its airspace for one week, effective today through May 11. Commercial traffic is restricted to narrow corridors through specific waypoints only.

UAE has partially closed its airspace for one week, effective May 4 through May 11.

Vide NOTAM A1722/26, Emirates FIR partially closed. Commercial traffic restricted to narrow corridors through specific waypoints only.#airspace pic.twitter.com/dfmJFuOAlA

— FL360aero (@fl360aero) May 4, 2026

Meanwhile, Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport management has raised the alert level for an attack scenario, which includes a rapid “departure procedure” for international companies, according to Israel’s Channel 14 news outlet. 

“Against the backdrop of increasing security tensions and reports of the closure of the airport in the United Arab Emirates today (Monday), Israel is on high alert for the possibility of a widespread escalation,” the outlet added. “As of this time, Ben Gurion Airport continues to operate as usual, but behind the scenes the alert level has been raised to the highest level with the understanding that the schedule could change within minutes.”

Ben Gurion Airport is on high alert in preparation for a possible closure of Israeli airspace and evacuation of aircraft -CH14

The Airport Authority and the Ministry of Transportation have conducted situational assessments in recent hourshttps://t.co/VufBp2viqj pic.twitter.com/inDP3RNVKm

— Faytuks News (@Faytuks) May 4, 2026

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

ICE agents arrested a Nigerian immigrant in Brooklyn on Saturday night. People promptly staged a protest outside Wykhoff Heights Medical Center, where Chidozie Wilson Okeke was taken after the violent arrest. NYPD officers assaulted and arrested protesters.

The leader of Mali’s military government, Assimi Goita, has taken on the role of defence minister following the killing of the previous minister in last week’s uprising by rebel groups.

State television channel ORTM reported on Monday that Goita was taking on the post following the death of Sadio Camara in large-scale attacks by an al-Qaeda-linked group working with Tuareg separatists.

The report noted the presidential decree that Assimi Goita will remain president while also taking on the new role

General Oumar Diarra, who was military chief of staff, has been appointed as delegate minister to the defence ministry.

Car bomb blast

During the assault on strongholds of the military government, more than a week ago, Camara was killed by a car bomb blast at his residence. The rebel armed groups were able to capture the key northern town of Kidal in the largest attack in the West African country in nearly 15 years.

The fighting killed at least 23 people, with the United Nations children’s agency UNICEF reporting that civilians and children were among the dead and injured.

Mali has been beset by security crises since at least 2012. Al-Qaeda-linked Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) controls large areas of rural territory, especially in the north and central regions, and has active cells around the capital. Similarly, the ISIL (ISIS) affiliate in Sahel Province (ISSP) controls areas in northeastern Menaka city.

At the same time also in the north, armed Tuareg separatists of the Liberation Front for Azawad (FLA) group are fighting for an independent nation called Azawad. They are battling Mali’s military and allied Russian mercenaries who have been deployed since 2021.

Together with the JNIM, they control Kidal, but also want Gao, the largest city in the north, as well as Menaka and Timbuktu, to complete the self-declared state of Azawad.

Those groups sometimes work together: they operate in the same areas and draw from the same pool of fighters from aggrieved communities. In the latest widespread attacks, the JNIM worked with the FLA against the army.

Goita’s military government took power after coups in 2020 and 2021, pledging to restore security, but has struggled to achieve that.t It has cut ties with its former colonial ruler, France, and expelled French forces and United Nations peacekeeping missions.

Last July, military authorities granted coup leader Goita a five-year presidential mandate, which can be renewed “as many times as necessary” without an election.

The previous month, Russia’s Wagner Group, which had been aiding Malian forces against armed groups since 2021, said it would complete its mission. It has now become the Africa Corps, an organisation under the direct control of the Russian defence ministry.

In the wake of last month’s attacks, the rebels announced a blockade of the capital Bamako in retaliation for “the population’s support of the army”. However, that blockade has only partially been effective, according to an AFP correspondent in the city.

Dealing with emissions could help alleviate effects of Iran crisis on global energy supply, says report.

Tackling methane emissions in the fossil fuel sector would help efforts to hold back climate change and increase energy security, especially as the Iran crisis threatens global supplies, according to a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The oil, gas and coal industries account for about 35 percent of all methane emissions from human activity, notes the IEA’s Global Methane Tracker 2026, released on Monday. However, there is little progress in reducing them, the report points out.

“There is still no sign that methane emissions from fossil fuel operations are falling, despite well-known and proven mitigation pathways,” the IEA said.

Methane, the second-biggest contributor to climate change, stays in the atmosphere for far less time than carbon dioxide, but its warming effect is roughly 80 times more potent over a 20-year period.

The IEA estimates that methane emissions from oil, gas and coal total 124 million tonnes a year. Oil is the largest source at 45 million tonnes (Mt), followed by coal at 43 Mt, and natural gas at 36 Mt.

“A further 20 Mt comes from bioenergy production and consumption, largely from the incomplete combustion of traditional biomass used for cooking and heating in developing economies,” the report added.

Oil prices have soared since the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran in late February and Tehran closed the Strait of Hormuz in response. An April ceasefire between the sides is currently holding, but global energy supplies remain limited.

The ongoing crisis is reshaping the global energy system and disrupting about 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade flows.

Nearly 100 billion cubic metres of natural gas could be made available annually through a global effort to cut methane from oil and gas operations, the IEA said, estimating that nearly 15 billion cubic metres could be made available in a sufficiently short period of time to provide some relief to gas markets.

A further 100 billion cubic metres would be unlocked through the elimination of non-emergency flaring worldwide, it added.

Paris initiative

France, using its role as rotating chair of the Group of Seven (G7) bloc of industrialised powers, convened government officials, industry leaders and experts on Monday to build momentum on cutting methane emissions.

The conference aimed at reducing methane emissions ahead of the United Nations’ November COP31 summit.

“I sincerely hope that the discussions we will have today will enable us to join our forces to accelerate the implementation of effective solutions to reduce methane emissions,” French Ecological Transition Minister Monique Barbut said in a speech.

“Of course, action on methane is not a fight of any single actor and nobody can win it alone,” she added, noting that the world remains “very far” from meeting a pledge to cut methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared with 2020 levels.

“Reducing methane emissions remains one of the best things we can do to slow global warming while cleaning up our air, improving public health, and increasing our energy security,” British Secretary of State for Energy Security Ed Miliband said in a video message.

Raman Kapoor, an Indian oil tanker captain stranded in the Gulf, says no vessel will attempt to exit the Strait of Hormuz without assurance of safety, despite the announcement of a US evacuation plan for ships stranded by the war.

The Palestinian National Popular Action Committee have today issued a press statement strongly condemning the Israeli abduction of activists Saif Abu Khashk and Thiago Ávila in international waters near the island of Crete. “This act of maritime piracy,” the Committee said, “is part of a continuing pattern of violations of all international norms and laws.”  The statement said Israel’s cross-border lawlessness comes as no surprise from an occupation that systematically disregards international law. “We hold all those complicit in these crimes, including those who remain silent, fully responsible.” 

It added; “While we hold the occupation fully accountable for the safety of Saif and Thiago, we urgently call on the Governments of Spain and Brazil to intervene immediately to secure their safety and ensure their prompt release.”

The Committee expressed its appreciation and esteem to the two activists, Saif and Thiago, as well as to all participants in the “Sumud Flotilla” who confronted the occupation’s arrogance and piracy with their unarmed presence and firm determination. “These sacrifices reaffirm that the struggle for freedom and justice will continue,” it concluded.

READ: Israeli court extends detention of 2 Gaza-bound flotilla volunteers

The security landscape along the border between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and South Sudan is deteriorating amid a series of alarming attacks attributed to armed men believed to be South Sudanese soldiers. The Kakwa chiefdom, particularly the Roumou tribal group and the village of Agoroba in Aru territory, Ituri province, has been severely affected by these incursions. 

Local sources said the suspected South Sudanese soldiers looted cattle and money, and abducted Congolese civilians.

“These armed men coming from South Sudan have looted from the population, taking away cows, goats, money, and even abducting young men, whom they continue to hold in the bushes. This situation does not date today. It has been several months since these armed men have been crossing the border to attack our villages,” a local chief told HumAngle.

Dieudonne Tabani, a national parliamentarian,  has raised concerns about the worsening security situation along the border between the DRC and South Sudan in the Aru territory of Ituri province. He condemned how the repeated incursions in several localities of Kakwa chiefdom are characterised by the looting of belongings as well as the abduction of civilians.

“The number of our soldiers along the border with South Sudan is very minimal. When these armed men enter, they are not faced by a rigorous response. We call on the provincial authorities, under the state of siege, to urgently reinforce the military presence in the zone,” a local in the Ituri province told HumAngle. “The central government must also get involved in diplomatic overtures with a view to clearly demarcating the boundary, most times given as a reason for the incursions into our territory.”

Amid this troubling situation, Ituri provincial authorities have called on the population to remain calm, assuring that the authorities in Kinshasa have already been briefed and that measures will eventually be taken to secure the zone.

In January, DRC and South Sudan completed a major prisoner exchange following a diplomatic meeting. The border town of the Aru territory in the DRC serves as a haven for numerous South Sudanese refugees escaping the civil conflict in their homeland.

Distraught onlookers caught the moment a monster truck lost control at a car show and plowed into spectators in Colombia, killing at least three people, including a 10-year-old girl. Around 40 people were injured.

For the first time, the U.S. Air Force has publicly released imagery showing a B-1B Lancer bomber carrying an AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon hypersonic missile, or ARRW. The development comes with the B-1B now officially slated to serve for another decade, while it has been earmarked as a hypersonic weapons test platform. For its part, the ARRW, at one point expected to be the U.S. military’s first operational hypersonic weapon, is also back from purgatory, after continued questions about its future. The Air Force now wants to develop an improved version, as well as a separate air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM).

A brief clip showing a B-1B flying with an ARRW carried on an external hardpoint was released on Edwards Air Force Base’s Instagram page recently. The emergence of the video was first brought to our attention by The Aviationist.

It is unclear when the test-flight footage was taken, and it is not directly referenced in the video, which is otherwise dedicated to the work of maintainers on different aircraft platforms at Edwards.

The B-1B was originally designed to carry external stores on up to eight external hardpoints. The Air Force had also developed special pylons that would have allowed the bombers to carry two nuclear-tipped AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCM) on each one. Following the end of the Cold War, the B-1Bs lost their nuclear mission and, as a result, the external pylons fell into disuse, at least as far as weapons are concerned.

However, as long ago as 2020, the Air Force detailed plans to add the ARRW to the B-1B, after the service highlighted work to expand the bomber’s ability to carry hypersonic weapons and other new stores, both internally and externally.

“My goal would be to bring on at least a squadron’s worth of airplanes modified with external pylons on the B-1, to carry the ARRW [Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon],” Gen. Timothy Ray, then head of Air Force Global Strike Command, told Air Force Magazine. He added that the service had contemplated several options for integrating the missile onto the bombers, “but we believe the easiest, fastest, and probably most effective in the short term will be to go with the external pylons.”

In the meantime, we have seen examples of the ARRW carried under the wing of the B-52H bomber during multiple test sorties, and a live version also notably appeared on a Stratofortress during a training event at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam.

The Fiscal Year 2026 budget request confirmed that the Air Force plans to use the B-1B as a testbed for the Load Adaptable Modular (LAM) pylon, intended for hypersonic weapons and other outsize loads. The B-1B can accommodate six of these pylons, each capable of carrying two 2,000-pound-class weapons or a single 5,000-pound-plus-class weapon. The ARRW would fall into the latter category.

The budget documents noted: “The Hypersonic Integration Program successfully demonstrated the B-1’s ability to execute a captive carry of a 5,000-pound-class store and the release of a proven weapon shape from a Load Adaptable Modular (LAM) pylon.” This suggests that the video we are now seeing could have been taken during this demonstration, but it might also refer to external load tests involving the Air Force’s new bunker-buster bomb, the 5,000-pound class GBU-72/B.

In the same position as seen in the ARRW video, the LAM has also been used for external carriage tests of the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). More routinely, this same position mounts an external pylon that accommodates a Sniper targeting pod. The same location has previously been used in external carriage tests of the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) cruise missile, too.

As for ARRW, it carries an unpowered hypersonic boost-glide vehicle as its warhead. A rocket booster accelerates and lifts the vehicle to the required speed and altitude, after which it separates and glides through the atmosphere on a relatively shallow path toward its target. The weapon’s high speed and unpredictable flight path make it difficult for opponents to intercept and engage it, and give very little response time.

B52 ARRW Hypersonic evaluation test at Edwards Air Force Base 12 JUN 2019

The Air Force’s plans to move ahead with purchases of ARRWs notably re-emerged in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal. The service had moved to cancel the AGM-183A in 2023, and refocus resources on the development of the air-breathing Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM), but there were steady signs afterward that there was still life left in the ARRW program.

Meanwhile, in its Fiscal Year 2027 budget request, the Air Force seeks funds for the development of what it calls ARRW Increment 2, as well as to kick-start a new air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) program. The service wants almost $350 million to fund these two efforts. ARRW Increment 2 involves adding undisclosed enhanced capabilities onto the baseline weapon, while the ALBM effort would seek to field a new air-launched, long-range strike capability to complement the ARRW and HACM.

The US Air Force plans to kick off Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) Increment 2 development and stand up a new Air Launched Ballistic Missile (ALBM) program in Fiscal Year 2027. The service has set aside nearly $350 Million combined for these two efforts. ARRW Inc 2… pic.twitter.com/pe0SKPlrDO

— Air-Power | MIL-STD (@AirPowerNEW1) April 27, 2026

In its Fiscal Year 2027 budget documents, the Air Force further notes:

“We are doubling production rates for our two developmental hypersonic weapons, the Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) and the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM), with a planned investment of $1.8 billion across the FYDP to accelerate delivery of these critical strike capabilities into the hands of the warfighter.”

The documents don’t give any details on how many ARRWs they want to order.

Regardless, these developments are especially notable as China continues to push ahead in the development and fielding of these capabilities, and especially ALBMs.

Despite previous plans to retire the B-1B by 2030, the bomber’s ability to carry outsize loads, in particular, has helped ensure that it’s now expected to remain in service until at least 2037.

Fiscal Year 2027 budget documents indicate that the Air Force plans to spend $342 million on modernizing its 44 remaining B-1Bs from 2027 to 2031. “This request provides the necessary funding to modernize the platform, ensuring its lethality and relevance through 2037,” the budget said.

The B-2 stealth bomber will also be modernized, as the Air Force seeks to address growing demand for bomber capacity, pending the arrival of the new B-21. The intensity of recent operations against Iran, combined with day-to-day bomber task force operations around the globe, and the growing specter of a conflict with China, underscores just how important the bomber fleet is to the Pentagon at large.

B-1s first mission to Iran out of RAF Fairford UK

With a capacity to carry more conventional weapons than any other aircraft in the Air Force’s inventory, we will surely see the B-1B carrying additional external weapons and larger numbers of them, as it continues its service career.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The US president has accused some NATO countries of not doing enough to support the US-Israel war on Iran.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte says European leaders have “gotten the message” after United States President Donald Trump announced plans to withdraw 5,000 soldiers from Germany.

Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with NATO allies, accusing them of not doing enough to support the US-Israel war on Iran. Speaking on Monday, Rutte acknowledged “disappointment from the US side”.

“European leaders have gotten the message. They heard the message loud and clear,” Rutte said before a European Political Community meeting in Armenia.

“Europeans are stepping up, a bigger role for Europe and a stronger NATO,” he added.

The Pentagon announced the troop withdrawal from Germany on Friday, days after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Iran was humiliating the US during the negotiations aimed at ending the war.

The European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, called the announcement’s timing a “surprise”.

“I think it shows that we have to really strengthen the European pillar in NATO, and we have to really do more,” Kallas said while stressing that “American troops are not in Europe only for protecting European interests but also American interests.”

Over the weekend, NATO spokesperson Allison Hart said officials in the 32-nation military alliance “are working with the US to understand the details of their decision on force posture in Germany”.

‘Dangerous military intervention’

European criticism of the war on Iran has mounted in recent weeks as the conflict sends shockwaves through the global economy due to the continued disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

Last week, Merz compared the war to previous military quagmires, such as the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

“It is, at the moment, a pretty tangled situation,” he said. “And it is costing us a great deal of money. This conflict, this war against Iran, has a direct impact on our economic output.”

Spain has refused to let the US launch attacks on Iran from its airspace or military bases. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has condemned the war as “unjustified” and a “dangerous military intervention” outside the realm of international law.

In response, Trump called Spain “terrible” and threatened to end all trade ties.

Despite this, Rutte said “more and more” European nations were now pre-positioning assets such as minehunters and minesweepers close to the Gulf to be ready for the “next phase” in the war.

He provided no details, and European nations have previously insisted they would not help to police the Strait of Hormuz until the war is over.

Increased defence spending

Many European countries have committed to ramping up defence spending in the face of fears over Trump’s commitment to NATO and Russia’s assault on Ukraine – a push underscored by several leaders in the Armenian capital.

“Europeans are taking their destiny into their own hands, increasing their defence and security spending, and building their own common solutions,” French President Emmanuel Macron said.

“We have to step up our military capabilities to be able to defend and protect ourselves,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters.

In one of the world’s most deprived and volatile regions, HumAngle’s reporting and experience reveal that journalists in Nigeria are not just observing suffering but are pulled into it as they try to report it. Consequently, they say, they find themselves paying out of pocket to feed the people whose stories they are trying to tell.

In theory, the profession is expected to observe some emotional distance from its sources and the stories they tell. However, that model is inoperable in conflict-affected regions of northern Nigeria and the Sahel.

Journalism here is embedded in environments shaped by violence, poverty, and dense social networks. Since these variables affect people at random, the reporter is not an outsider; sometimes, the conflict directly affects them as well. Ethical decisions are then made under pressure, repeatedly, and often without the comfort of certainty.

HumAngle operates in this space. Its work across Lake Chad, Central Africa, Nigeria’s Middle Belt, the North West, the South East, and other conflict zones forces a confrontation with a difficult question: What does ethical journalism look like when the people you report on are not just sources, but individuals whose survival may intersect directly with your presence?

The limits of imported ethics

Global journalism standards discourage payment for information, and while exceptions exist, they do so under strict editorial oversight, a clear public-interest justification, and transparency. Journalism teachers say that, though these frameworks are expected to provide clarity, they don’t in conflict-affected Nigeria, where the assumed context doesn’t apply. The ideal context has clear distinctions between sources and service providers and functioning identity systems. This is hardly obtainable in conflict-affected environments.

Dr Kabiru Danladi, a Mass Communication scholar with the Ahmadu Bello University in northwestern Nigeria, says, “Our curriculum borrows heavily from Euro-American ethical frameworks – objectivity, detachment, neutrality – principles rooted in relatively stable societies. The failure becomes evident when our graduates are deployed to cover issues that weren’t directly taught in class, or they are sent to cover conflicts in places like Zamfara, Sokoto, Kebbi, Borno, Yobe or Benue, where journalism is not just a profession but a survival exercise.”

Dr Obiora Chukwumba, a researcher and media expert in Abuja, identifies the same problem in the moral obligation created by field contact. “There is no ethical barrier to a journalist intervening on grounds of goodwill to assist a source who is in a vulnerable position,” he said.

The reality of field reporting

A fixer in Zamfara, where terror groups continue to kill, abduct, and loot, is not simply an access broker but may also translate, assess risk, and act as a negotiator in certain environments. A driver in Borno, North East Nigeria, may carry more situational intelligence than any formal briefing. An intermediary in the southeast may navigate relationships across vigilante groups and separatist networks.

These individuals are essential. Without them, our reporters’ access vanishes. But they are also embedded in the same systems the journalist is trying to understand, which creates layered risks, including legal risks that emerge when payments made for legitimate services are later interpreted as material support. 

Barrister Joseph Danboyi, a senior lawyer in Jos, North Central Nigeria, says, “Payment to a fixer creates liability if the journalist knew his connection with criminals. Ordinary payment for information is insufficient. The journalist will be aiding and abetting when payment is purposefully linked to criminal conduct.”

He goes further to add, “The practical bottom line is that a journalist who unknowingly pays a criminal for information is generally not liable… liability requires knowledge… and intent to help or further it.”

This distinction between knowledge and intent anchors the legal reality that sits beneath field decisions. 

Dr Obiora also treats fixers and access arrangements as part of newsroom operations, not automatically as ethical breaches. “Parts of the routine (investigative) costs tied to the operations of a newsroom include such services as engaging fixers, obtaining access to a reasonably considered newsmaker, and appreciation handouts,” he said. “They are all legitimate operational costs.”

There is no procedural checklist that eliminates these risks. What exists instead is a need for structured awareness and disciplined judgment in newsrooms.

The Knifar women: A case that reshapes the debate

HumAngle’s engagement with the Knifar movement brings these tensions into focus. The Knifar women are part of a grassroots movement shaped by prolonged suffering. Their husbands, sons, and brothers were detained during military operations, often for years, without trial. In many cases, these men were the primary providers, and so their absence triggered cascading consequences for these women, including food insecurity, poverty, and social fragmentation. The women organised into a pressure group to demand accountability for the detention of their male relatives.

HumAngle’s reporting amplified their efforts, influencing outcomes that ultimately led to the release of over a thousand men that the women were advocating for. 

Our work required prolonged engagement with the women, whose daily reality was defined by deprivation. In some instances, our journalists provided stipends. In other cases, some of these women became part of the reporting process as fixers and contributors with fixed incomes in our newsroom. We have even given some of them ‘additional reporting’ credit for their work. Since they are both sources and resource persons for our newsroom, we are often clear about what we are paying them for – their work, not their information. We have spoken publicly about the dynamics of our relationship with these women, including in a Pulitzer Centre-supported documentary.

Kunle Adebajo, a renowned award-winning investigative journalist, reflects on his own experience in being moved to provide money to vulnerable sources: “I’ve often had to pay vulnerable sources. This is because the majority of them live from hand to mouth and rely on wages from daily labour to get their sustenance, and so such interviews could be very disruptive and uncomfortable for them. Oftentimes, they also have to transport themselves to meet at the interview location. The sums given were trifling, and there was never an understanding that the interview itself was transactional. 

Dr Obiora agrees that the understanding must always be clear. “If the source or interviewee presents the personal need to overshadow the reason for the meeting with the journalist, then that could be a red flag,” he said, “pointing to potential compromised narrative or ‘adjusted facts’ from the source or interviewee.”

When observation is not enough

Journalists are trained not to pay sources because it could risk distortion and affect credibility, but what happens when the people you are interviewing live in destitute conditions?

“I met residents, elderly men and women who could not feed themselves, who could not afford basic healthcare. I met a father who lost his wife to a particular ailment, and whose two kids are still suffering from the same ailment. Yet, he could not help.”

The award-winning journalist said he felt compelled to help. “I offered to buy meals for some of them through my fixer. Yes, I offered them some cash to buy what they needed. When I got back to my hotel room that evening, I actually cried. I felt the depth of these people’s suffering.”

He is not unaware of the ethical grey spots in giving money to sources. “Ethically, I did not really care at that point whether offering them some cash would be seen as an inducement. I told myself that I had to act as a human being at the moment and drop the toga of ‘a journalist’ at that point.” 

Dr Danladi understands this and says that “Students must be taught that they are a journalist, yes – but they are also human beings. Refusing to help in the name of ‘objectivity’ can itself be an ethical failure.” He says that liability only becomes possible “where the journalist knows or is willfully blind to criminal activity… or where the payment itself is tied to illegal conduct.”

Another journalist from southwestern Nigeria, who declined to be named, described facing similar situations in which his sources were suffering. 

“They had had to eat rotten food sourced from the nearby markets, and sometimes they went days without eating anything because their husbands, who provided for them, had been killed. I saw that most of their children were malnourished and looked so skinny. It was such a touching situation, and I couldn’t help but give them some money that I had with me so that they could buy food and cook.”

The practice of support

Payment for content implies a transaction because it links money to information, but support that exists independently of reporting is different. It protects the integrity of the story while still acknowledging the reality of the environment.

Hauwa Shaffii Nuhu, an award-winning journalist and newsroom manager, said that though in her early days as a journalist, she could not resist the urge to help vulnerable sources, she has now learned to favour long-term external support. “Now, I connect them [the vulnerable subjects of her story] with NGOs… or make it possible for society to donate directly to them or through an independent third party like a fixer.”

In cases where reporters have to provide any form of support, journalism scholars like Obiora say documentation matters. Record decisions and rationale for such actions while in the field. According to Obiora, “one of the most important structures for documenting and reviewing ethical footprints in the newsroom is within the internal editorial space.” He proposed an Editorial Board of Line Editors, chaired by the title editor, and another layer through an Editorial Advisory Board, where “it would be necessary to bring the platform’s legal advisor as a member.”

“These steps will not protect you from state action if authorities choose to act,” a senior security official said. What they only do is to protect the integrity of your journalism, he implied. They help you draw a line between necessary support and inducement, between humanitarian assistance and conduct that could be interpreted as enabling someone directly or indirectly tied to the crime you are investigating.

The unresolved tension

Speaking more to the legal position of a source, unknown to the journalist, being tied to criminal activity, Danboyi reiterates that a journalist who unknowingly pays a criminal is generally not liable, as exposure begins when there is knowledge, or when you consciously ignore signals that should raise concern.

Consider the fixer a journalist has worked with closely. Not a transactional contact, but someone embedded in the reporting process, with days, sometimes weeks, spent together. The journalist has covered his meals, made stops at his home during fieldwork, supported him beyond the assignment, helped with school fees, and contributed when his child was ill. Then, months or years later, the fixer is named in a crime. The record of the journalist’s relation with him exists: Transfers, messages, shared locations. A traceable history of proximity that can be turned into proof of complicity.

A different kind of responsibility

The Knifar women’s story forces a reconsideration of responsibility and demands a different approach to how journalism ethics is taught and judged. “We graduate students who know the code, but cannot survive in the field,” says Dr Danladi.

Dr Obiora returns the question to dignity. “A journalist whose interaction with a source contributes to lifting the source’s dignity has discharged his or her obligation professionally.”

In environments where silence sustains suffering, the act of telling a story, and the way that story is told, carries consequences beyond journalism.

The latest escalation between Hezbollah and Israel began in early March following strikes linked to a wider regional conflict involving Iran and the United States. Hezbollah entered the conflict shortly after, positioning itself as part of a broader regional confrontation.

Since then, the group has faced significant battlefield losses, territorial setbacks in southern Lebanon, and growing domestic criticism. Israeli forces have established a buffer zone inside Lebanese territory, while large numbers of civilians have been displaced, particularly from Shiite communities that form Hezbollah’s core support base.

The conflict follows an earlier war that severely weakened Hezbollah, including the killing of its long time leader Hassan Nasrallah. Despite rearming and adapting its tactics, the group now faces mounting pressure on both military and political fronts.

Hezbollah’s Strategic Gamble
Hezbollah officials suggest the decision to re enter conflict was calculated. By aligning more closely with Tehran during a wider regional war, the group aims to ensure Lebanon becomes part of any future negotiations between Iran and the United States.

The expectation is that Iranian leverage could secure a stronger and more lasting ceasefire than previous agreements. However, this strategy carries high risks, especially as Washington has indicated that any deal with Iran may not include Lebanon.

Rising Human and Material Costs
The war has inflicted heavy casualties. Lebanese authorities report thousands killed since March, though the exact number of Hezbollah fighters remains disputed. Reports from within the group suggest losses could be substantial, with some fighters’ bodies still unrecovered in frontline towns.

Entire communities in southern Lebanon have been devastated, with villages destroyed and new graves appearing rapidly after ceasefire periods. Displacement has also intensified sectarian tensions, as affected populations seek refuge in other regions where resentment toward Hezbollah is growing.

Domestic Political Fallout
Inside Lebanon, opposition to Hezbollah’s armed status has hardened. Critics argue that its actions continue to expose the country to repeated wars. In a significant shift, the Lebanese government has engaged in direct talks with Israel, a move Hezbollah strongly opposes.

The government has also taken steps to limit Hezbollah’s military role, including banning its armed activities earlier this year. However, enforcing such measures remains difficult given the group’s entrenched influence and the risk of internal conflict.

Continuing Clashes Despite Ceasefire
Although a ceasefire announced in mid April reduced large scale fighting, hostilities have not fully stopped. Both sides continue to exchange strikes in southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah has dismissed the truce as ineffective due to ongoing Israeli attacks.

Israel maintains that its operations are necessary to eliminate threats to its northern regions and has indicated that dismantling Hezbollah’s military capacity will be central to any long term agreement.

Analysis
Hezbollah’s current position reflects a complex mix of resilience and vulnerability. While it has demonstrated the ability to regroup and continue fighting, this alone does not translate into strategic success. The group is increasingly constrained by battlefield losses, internal Lebanese opposition, and uncertainty over external support.

Its reliance on Iran introduces another layer of risk. If a broader agreement between Tehran and Washington excludes Lebanon, Hezbollah may find itself bearing the costs of a war without securing meaningful political gains.

At the same time, Israel appears determined to reshape the security landscape in southern Lebanon, potentially prolonging the conflict. Without a comprehensive regional settlement, the most likely outcome is a prolonged stalemate marked by intermittent violence and continued suffering on both sides.

With information from Reuters.

Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including deployed Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), using publicly available open-source information. Check out last week’s map here.

The historic deployment of the Gerald R. Ford CSG appears to be winding down, finally. The strike group – now deployed for a record-setting 314 days – transited the Suez Canal northbound on May 1 and has reportedly begun the journey back home to Norfolk, according to the Washington Post. However, CENTCOM still has two CSGs under its command, led by USS Abraham Lincoln and USS George H.W. Bush, positioned in the Arabian Sea together for the first time since the conflict kicked off. The second carrier provides additional flexibility to enforce the blockade, support the just-announced ‘Project Freedom’ mission to get commercial vessels out of the Persian Gulf, and, should combat operations resume, strike Iran with double the firepower.

“U.S. military support to Project Freedom will include guided-missile destroyers, over 100 land and sea-based aircraft, multi-domain unmanned platforms, and 15,000 service members,” CENTCOM stated in a release on Sunday. But reporting from the Wall Street Journal claims the plan “doesn’t currently involve U.S. Navy warships escorting vessels through the strait,” and the mechanics of the mission remain unclear. Also of note, Adm. Brad Cooper, CENTCOM’s Commander based in Florida, visited troops over the weekend.

Adm. Brad Cooper, CENTCOM commander, visited USS Milius (DDG 69), May 2, as the guided-missile destroyer patrolled regional waters in support of the U.S. blockade operations against Iran. While on board, he interacted with Sailors and addressed them on the 1MC while highlighting… pic.twitter.com/2qTmMmfY05

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) May 3, 2026

The Boxer ARG steamed northbound through the Malacca Strait on April 30, TWZ was among the first to report, and entered the Indian Ocean the following day. Boxer went dark on AIS shortly after completing the transit but, assuming a direct route to reinforce the Tripoli ARG in the Middle East, could arrive in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility sometime next week. As of publication, the ARG was still operating under U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.

Continuing her scenic tour circumnavigating South America, USS Nimitz moved through the Strait of Magellan and into the Atlantic Ocean on April 26. While Nimitz’s exact position is currently unknown, pictures on DVIDS show her most recently participating in a PHOTOEX off the southeast coast of Argentina.

Note: Positions are general approximations. Non-deployed LHA/LHD amphibious warships are not shown.

Contact the author: ian.ellis-jones@teamrecurrent.io

Aaron Hardie’s brilliant all-round performance ensured Peshawar Zalmi clinched their second Pakistan Super League cricket title with a five-wicket win over newcomers Hyderabad Kingsmen, despite an early wobble in the run chase in the final.

Hardie grabbed 4-27 to bowl out Hyderabad for a below-par 129 all out in 18 overs and then hit a fluent 56 not out off 39 balls to anchor Peshawar to 130-5 in 15.2 overs, in front of a packed crowd at the Gaddafi Stadium in Lahore on Sunday.

It completed a redemption arc for Peshawar’s captain Babar Azam, who finished the franchise-based T20 tournament as its leading run-scorer after finding himself in and out of Pakistan’s T20 squad in recent years.

“It’s a very big achievement for me, for Peshawar Zalmi and all the fans,” Babar said after winning his first PSL title as skipper.

“Throughout the tournament, we’ve performed really well as a team … Every player executed the plans they were given in batting, bowling, and fielding. Our plan was to go match by match.”

The crowd at the Gaddafi Stadium in Babar’s hometown chanted his name and erupted in joy when Hardie scored the winning runs for the team in yellow and pink kits.

Peshawar, who won the toss and chose to chase, had slumped to 40-4 inside the first five overs after losing Babar for a golden duck, while Mohammad Haris, Kusal Mendis, and Michael Bracewell also fell for single-digit scores.

But Hardie, who smashed nine fours, then combined in a match-winning stand of 85 runs with Abdul Samad (48), who missed out on his half-century before holing out in the deep when Peshawar needed only five runs for victory.

“It was just a great game of cricket,” Hardie said. “Kingsmen came out of the blocks really hard. They’ve certainly had a lot of momentum from the last couple of games and they carried that in, but I’m really proud of the way the boys were able to fight back.”

Peshawar were favourites for the title after losing only one game in the tournament, with Babar, who scored two centuries, equalling Fakhar Zaman’s PSL record of 588 runs in one edition of the tournament.

Earlier, Saim Ayub (54) scored a fighting half-century to help Hyderabad post 129.

Hyderabad had a productive power play of 69-2, despite Hardie having captain Marnus Labuschagne (20) caught behind off a rising delivery, and Maaz Sadaqat’s early aggression was cut short to just 11 runs when he half-heartedly pulled pace bowler Mohammad Basit to deep backward square leg in the first over.

However, Hyderabad lost momentum and crashed to 73-6 in the space of nine balls after the power play for just two runs.

The slide began when Usman Khan, coming into the final with half-centuries in the last three successive games, was trapped leg before wicket by the tournament’s leading wicket-taker Sufyan Moqim (1-23).

Irfan Khan and Kusal Perera were run out due to some sharp fielding by Bracewell, and between those dismissals, Glenn Maxwell was undone by Nahid Rana’s (2-22) pace and got caught first ball while going for a pull against the Bangladesh fast bowler.

Ayub stretched the total beyond the 100-run mark with a knock of 54 off 50 balls before he fell in Hardie’s last over as he top-edged a pull to mid-on, before the fast bowler wrapped up the innings by having No 11 batter Akif Javed caught behind.

The Australian batter, who was visibly moved to tears after leading Hyderabad into the final in a dramatic last-over win over Islamabad United in the second qualifier on Friday, admitted that his team did not post an imposing target.

“As a batting group, we probably left a few runs out there,” Labuschagne said. “We showed once again that belief in the side and what we can do, putting them four for 40, but just not enough runs on the board tonight.”

Hyderabad had a fairytale run in the tournament when they came back strongly after losing their first four league games, and also knocked out both former champions Multan Sultans and Islamabad United in the playoffs.

“Tonight hurts,” Labuschagne said. “But reflecting on what an amazing tournament we’ve put together, coming from four losses to winning four in a row, getting bowled out for 80 then winning by 100, and then winning two games to get into the final, we’ve made so many great memories and I’m just so proud of the team, it’s been an awesome effort.”

Venezuela’s recent Hydrocarbon Law reform has sparked fierce debates about its short- and long-term implications. In this essay, Blas Regnault, an energy policy analyst and researcher, offers an in-depth analysis of the new legislative framework, from the significant changes to the state’s governance over its natural resources to his perspective on a sovereign recovery of the oil industry.

The recent hydrocarbon reform: an overview

It is important to distinguish between two closely connected but analytically separate developments: first, US oversight of Venezuelan oil revenues after Maduro’s kidnapping; and secondly, the new Hydrocarbon Law itself. The first is an externally imposed mechanism that conditions oil sales, revenue collection, transport, and the distribution of oil proceeds to US interests. The second is a domestic legal reform whose constitutionality and political legitimacy have been widely questioned.

It remains unclear whether the new law is fully operative in practice, or whether it is only being applied selectively while its fiscal substance is displaced by the US revenue-control mechanism. ^{But the outcome is largely the same: a loss of fiscal automaticity and a form of fiscal sovereignty under tutelage in relation to Venezuelan oil income.}

In other words, the crisis of governance in the Venezuelan oil sector, together with its chronic lack of transparency since 2017, now culminates in a profound loss of sovereign control over all three dimensions of the business: its rentier dimension, belonging to the nation; its fiscal dimension, belonging to the state; and its shareholder dimension, linked to the role of the state oil company PDVSA as principal participant in extraction and commercialisation.

Therefore, the new law is not simply a technical reform. It is not merely about updating contracts, modernising procedures, or making the sector more attractive to investors. The deeper issue is that the reform changes the way the nation is compensated for the use of the subsoil and therefore alters the very governance of the sector. What is at stake is the relationship between sovereignty, ownership of the subsoil, and public income.

It is true that, on paper, the law formally preserves state ownership over the resource. But the business models it opens weaken the practical substance of that ownership. And that is the crucial point. Ownership is not a decorative legal formula. Ownership means that the state, acting on behalf of the nation, has the right to decide whether the resource remains underground or is extracted; and if it is extracted, under what conditions, with what public charge, and for whose benefit. The recent reform softens the link between ownership and the nation’s participation as owner of the subsoil, turning something that was once grounded in a general rule into something negotiable, adjustable, and highly discretionary.

A useful way of understanding the economic and social significance of the reform is to distinguish the different streams of public income historically associated with oil in Venezuela. Under the former hydrocarbon law, the nation participated in the oil business through three distinct channels: as owner, as tax authority, and as shareholder. The first channel, corresponding to ownership, was royalty. The second was taxation, arising from the state’s fiscal authority over the activity. The third was dividends, arising when the state participated through PDVSA and therefore received income in its capacity as stakeholder rather than as landlord or tax authority.

This distinction matters because the oil business has historically involved different claimants competing over the fruits of extraction. In a sector marked by extraordinary profitability and strategic importance, the owner of the rent, the fiscal authority, and the capitalist operator all seek to maximize their share of the value generated. In the Venezuelan framework that prevailed before 2026, those three roles were clearly present: the nation as owner of the subsoil, the state as fiscal authority, and the operator as capitalist actor. The new law alters the balance between them.

Royalty

The royalty is where the change is most revealing. As already noted, royalty is the clearest expression of ownership. It is paid upfront. It does not depend on profit. It is charged before taxes are assessed and before the remaining income covers the factors of production; that is, wages, interest, profits, and the other claimants on the project. In other words, royalty is not part of the production costs. If the oil price is 100 dollars per barrel and the agreed royalty rate is 30 per cent, the owner receives 30 dollars per barrel straight away. That is the proprietorial logic in its purest form.This has long been a battleground in the global oil industry. The dispute over rent has historically taken place between the operating companies, whether private national oil companies acting as operators, and the owner of the resource, that is, the landlord. Depending on the property-rights regime, that owner may be a private individual, as in parts of Texas, or the state, as in Venezuela and in most oil-exporting countries. Whether in Texas, Alaska, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Norway, the United Kingdom, Nigeria, or Venezuela, the property-rights regime has been the principal legal instrument through which the owner secures a share of the rent. It is a legitimate exercise of sovereignty, recognised by all parties involved in the global oil business.

And yet the new law, in practical terms, empties out that proprietorial logic by turning royalty into a negotiable variable within a range of zero to 30 per cent, something highly unusual in the global oil business. The potential scale of the loss becomes immediately clear once one thinks in terms of export volumes. At an oil price of 86 dollars per barrel, a 1 per cent royalty leaves the nation with less than one dollar per barrel, whereas a 30 per cent royalty yields 25.8 dollars. If Venezuela exports 800,000 barrels per day, that means roughly 688,000 dollars per day under a 1 per cent royalty, compared with 20.64 million dollars per day under a 30 per cent royalty. This is a dramatic compression of the owner’s income. It shows that a high oil price cannot compensate for the hollowing out of the royalty. Put simply, under the new law, higher oil prices will no longer automatically translate into greater income for the nation if royalties are arbitrarily lowered to the benefit of transnational capital. This is not a marginal fiscal concession; it is a radical compression of the nation’s proprietorial income. 

Taxes

Turning to taxes, under the previous legal framework, the fiscal regime included not only taxes on profits, but also local and municipal taxes on oil activity, together with other parafiscal charges and special contributions linked to extraordinary profits. These different channels gave the public side several routes through which to capture value from extraction. Under the new law, much of that architecture is displaced and compressed into an integrated tax on gross income that will also be set in a discretionary fashion up to a fixed ceiling. According to supporters of the reform, this new framework is designed to ensure the project’s “economic equilibrium.” But the political significance of that shift is considerable. What was previously structured through several distinct legal claims can now be more easily absorbed into a flexible package, negotiated project by project. In that sense, this is not simply simplification; it is a substantial thinning of the fiscal claim. Once the fiscal architecture becomes thinner, the public claim over oil value becomes weaker, more flexible, and ultimately more negotiable.

Table 2 illustrates the magnitude of the change using the March 16, 2026, marker Merey 16 price. Under the previous regime, taxes and parafiscal charges alone could amount to about $31 per barrel, or 36 percent of the barrel price. Under the post-reform interim scenario, that could fall to about $17.6 per barrel, or 20.5 percent.

Dividends

Finally, there are dividends arising from state equity participation, and these too must be distinguished from both royalty and taxation. Dividends are not paid because the nation owns the subsoil, nor are they collected because the state exercises fiscal authority over the activity. They arise because the state participates in the business as shareholder and therefore receives part of the profits in its capacity as investor. In other words, dividends represent the state’s participation in the profits of the business itself. But that income is not necessarily available for immediate public use in the same way as royalty or taxation. Part of it may be retained within the company, used for reinvestment, capital expenditure, debt service, or the wider financial needs of the enterprise. So, unlike royalty, which expresses ownership, or tax, which expresses fiscal authority, dividends are tied to the corporate logic of the business. Depending on the ownership structure, this channel of participation may range, illustratively, from zero to 60 per cent of distributable profits.

International jurisdiction of potential oil litigation

There is also an important jurisdictional dimension. By reducing the fiscal share captured by the state and by placing greater weight on contractual flexibility, the reform moves the sector towards a framework that is more exposed to international arbitration. At the same time, the sanctions and licensing regime has become part of a broader architecture of control over the oil business: control over access to the fields, control over marketing channels, and control over financial access to revenues. So, this is not merely a domestic fiscal reform. It is also part of a broader reordering of the legal and financial chain through which Venezuelan oil is governed.

Key takeaways

Supporters of the new law argue that it delivers increased flexibility, greater operability, improved investment prospects, and greater bankability. And that is not a trivial argument. In a country that has experienced production collapse, sanctions, institutional erosion, and a loss of market share, it is understandable that policymakers would seek a framework that appears more attractive to capital. In that sense, the reform may indeed reduce perceived risk and make projects easier to finance. It may also simplify part of the gross take and make negotiations easier. In that sense, the reform should not be caricatured. But it also entails the abandonment of each of the nation’s and the state’s historic roles in the sector, undermining the institutional fabric that once gave the oil economy a degree of stability and rationality.

For that reason, the disadvantages of the reform ultimately outweigh its potential benefits. What is lost is fiscal automaticity. That means the nation is no longer guaranteed a stable share by rule, but must now negotiate it, justify it, or recover it through more uncertain channels. Put differently, the reform replaces payment-by-rule with payment-by-negotiation on a case-by-case basis. In practical terms, each contract will generate its own conditions over each of the principal sources of public income arising from oil activity.

What is also lost is the clarity of a system in which the state charges because it owns the resource, not because the project happens to be commercially convenient. Once royalties become variable and fiscal terms are subordinated to the “economic equilibrium” of the project, the centre of gravity shifts. The guiding principle is no longer the nation as sovereign owner; it becomes the financial viability for the investor/operator. That is a profound political change presented as technical pragmatism.

In summary: the 2026 reform does not abolish formal ownership, but it hollows it out in practice. It replaces a more proprietorial fiscal logic with a more contractualized and discretionary one. That may attract investment, but it also weakens the automatic link between national ownership and national income. Whatever mechanism one chooses to emphasize, the result is much the same: 

• The nation no longer receives royalty by rule, but under externally conditioned arrangements. What is presented as flexibility is a retreat from ownership. 
• The state compresses its fiscal participation at every level. 
• The state oil company weakens its position as an investor. 

Once that happens, the central question is no longer simply, “How much is the state collecting?” but rather “Who decides, under what rules, with what traceability, and with what accountability?”

The historical context of Venezuela’s oil legislation

Venezuela’s oil history is not just a history of contracts or companies; it is a history of how the nation has tried to define its authority over the subsoil. Venezuela did not begin from the same position as many oil-exporting countries in West Asia or North Africa. It was already an independent republic when it developed its mining and hydrocarbons legislation. That matters, because it means Venezuela built a national jurisdictional framework around state ownership of mines and deposits, rather than inheriting a colonial concessionary order imposed from outside. That distinction is central.

From the early twentieth century onwards, successive legal frameworks progressively consolidated the republic’s sovereign claim over oil-bearing land. In other words, Venezuelan oil law was historically moving towards a more explicit assertion of the nation’s right to charge for the extraction of its natural wealth. This is one reason Venezuela mattered so much internationally: not only because it was a major producer, but because it became a reference point for fiscal regimes and sovereign oil governance, including later in the wider OPEC environment. In that sense, Venezuela’s experience was historically complete in a way that few other oil-producing countries were.

Nevertheless, there is a paradox surrounding the 1975-1976 nationalization of the oil industry. On paper, it ought to have marked the culmination of national control, but it did not deepen sovereignty. In practice, it helped produce a shift towards a more internationalized governance structure. The Ministry, as representative of the owner-nation, was gradually displaced by state oil company PDVSA, and PDVSA increasingly operated under a logic of global business rather than one of public sovereign rule. So instead of the owner-state speaking directly, the national oil company became the intermediary, and that had long-term consequences. Put differently, PDVSA, together with international oil capital, gained ground in the long struggle to reduce the landlord’s direct grip over rent.

This is where the historical relationship with Western transnational corporations becomes more nuanced than a simple story of foreign domination versus nationalist resistance. The issue is not merely the presence of Western companies, but the governance structures they operate under. Venezuela moved from a more classic proprietorial regime towards a more cessionary one, and later, especially in the late 1980s and 1990s, towards more liberal or non-proprietorial arrangements. The oil opening (“Apertura Petrolera”) of the 1990s is especially important here, because it reduced the fiscal burden and shifted the framework in a way that centralized the operator’s conditions. That was already a major break.

The Chávez years brought a partial reversal. The restoration of the property right was not merely ideological posturing; it was a restoration of a more classical fiscal logic, in which the sovereign character of the state take was reaffirmed. But that restoration took place amid other contradictions, including the politicization of PDVSA and the accumulation of debt. So even that phase did not resolve the deeper institutional tensions.

The 2026 reform, then, does not emerge from nowhere. It is a new chapter of a long historical movement: from national jurisdiction, to nationalization, to cessionary governance, to the oil opening, to partial reassertion, to crisis and collapse, and now to a new form of contractualization from a position of weakness. Venezuela’s oil history has been a struggle not simply over who owns the oil, but over who governs the terms on which ownership is exercised. The present reform is the latest chapter in that struggle, but it is a particularly radical one because it comes after institutional erosion and under a global order that is far more contractual, litigious, and externally structured than the one Venezuela faced in the mid-twentieth century.

Oil in the present geopolitical battle

The current geopolitical context of the US-Israeli aggression against Iran should, in principle, strengthen Venezuela’s bargaining position. When West Asia becomes more unstable, supply security rises as a strategic concern, and oil regains immediate geopolitical urgency, countries with large reserves and an established production history become more valuable. 

Venezuela has occupied that position before. Venezuelan oil played an important strategic role for the Allies during the Second World War, for example. Today, renewed disruption around Iran and the Strait of Hormuz has again tightened the market and raised the geopolitical value of accessible barrels.

That is precisely why the current outcome appears so paradoxical. If global conditions improve Venezuela’s leverage, one would expect the country to negotiate from a stronger position and to demand a larger participation. One would expect a legal framework that captures more rent, not less; that uses geopolitical scarcity to reinforce state take, not to dilute it. But the current reform, alongside the sequence of deals with foreign conglomerates, and combined with US control over revenues, seem to move in the opposite direction.

This leads to the second point: the geopolitical issue is not only price or supply. It is also about control. What is emerging is a form of sovereignty under tutelage. Venezuela may formally remain the owner of the resource, but effective control over commercialization, revenue channels, and external validation appears increasingly conditioned from outside. Whether one calls that tutelage, external supervision, or subordinated reintegration, the takeaway is the same: sovereignty over the resource is no longer identical to sovereignty over the business. Recent US licenses illustrate the point very clearly. Washington has opened the door to renewed oil transactions with PDVSA, but under Treasury oversight and with proceeds channelled into US-administered accounts. That is not normal sovereign control over national oil income.

This is where the distinction between the origin and the destination of rent becomes especially useful. Even before we ask what is done with oil income socially or politically, we first need to know how that income is generated: through what pricing, what discounts, what fiscal structure, and through which payment channels. If that first level is opaque, then both the origin and the destination of rent become politically indeterminate. In other words, the problem is not only that the country may receive less revenue. The problem is that the country may not even be able to clearly verify what it is owed, how, and why. That is a much deeper sovereignty problem.

As a result, a geopolitical context that would, in theory, favor Venezuela, sees the country re-entering global markets with weakened sovereignty, under a framework of greater flexibility for operators and less certainty for the nation. That is why the debate is no longer only about production volumes or export flows. The real debate is about the jurisdictional and political order that now governs Venezuelan oil: who authorizes, who commercializes, who arbitrates disputes, who tracks the proceeds, and who answers to the country.

What does a sovereign recovery look like?

Moving from critique to programme is difficult, and the first honest thing to say is that no one can predict the exact path ahead. Venezuela is emerging from collapse, sanctions, loss of market share, institutional erosion, and a deep social crisis. Any recovery scenario, therefore, is bound to be politically fraught. But one thing is clear: if the country does not rebuild the public intelligibility of oil income, then any so-called recovery may simply reproduce opacity, distrust, inequality, and social tension.

A sovereign recovery does not mean autarky. It does not mean excluding foreign firms, nor does it mean mechanically returning to an earlier model. It means something more precise: restoring the link between ownership, public rule, and accountable income capture. In other words, if the nation owns the resource, then the nation must be able to know, verify, and govern how value is extracted from it. That means transparency over net prices, discounts, taxes, royalties, exemptions, payment channels, and the destination of funds. Without that, there can be no recovery in any meaningful sovereign sense. It would simply be resumed extraction.

A sovereign recovery also requires stripping away some of the ideological confusion that usually surrounds debates on natural resources. As Bernard Mommer argued more than twenty years ago, the governance of natural resources is, in many ways, a more elementary question than the conventional left-right divide suggests. In the case of oil and minerals, the deeper divide is above versus below. It is the tension between those who live and work on the surface (the nation, society, the public realm) and those who make their living from the subsoil.

That is why the question of ownership comes before the question of distribution, that is, before the question of what is done with the income generated by oil activity. Only after establishing the governance over the resource and the rules over its extraction does the familiar left-right question properly arise: how that income is used, whether for social spending, public services, etc., or private accumulation. 

The first step, then, is transparency. Not as a slogan, but as an institutional obligation. Who is selling? At what net price? Under what discounts? With what deductions? Paid where? Audited by whom? These are not minor administrative questions. They are the very mechanics of sovereignty in an extractive economy. If the country cannot answer them, then the state is no longer exercising full command over its principal source of income.

The second step is to move away from excessive discretion and back towards intelligible general rules. Contracts will always matter in oil. But there is a difference between contracts operating within a strong public framework and contracts effectively replacing public rule. Once everything becomes negotiable in the name of investment or “economic equilibrium,” the public realm shrinks and the executive realm expands. That is politically dangerous in any country, but especially in one where oil historically underpinned a broader social pact.

The third step is to reconnect oil income with social legitimacy. This is not an abstract issue. It is whether oil wealth translates to salaries, living standards, public services, social protection, and some minimum sense of collective benefit. If the country enters a new extractive cycle in which more oil is produced but public income remains narrow, opaque, or externally conditioned, then social tensions are likely to intensify rather than diminish. That is why a sovereign recovery cannot be measured by production figures alone. It must be judged by whether the nation regains an intelligible and legitimate claim over the income stream.

In simple terms, the average Venezuelan citizen is aware of fluctuations in crude prices because they know they affect the national budget. Oil income is widely and legitimately perceived as income belonging to the nation, and therefore as something that ought to support public services and collective welfare. Even when that income is later misused (through corruption, clientelism, or mismanagement) the underlying perception remains: oil revenue belongs to all Venezuelans.

That is also why the current situation can be described as one of sovereignty under tutelage. The country may still be sovereign in formal terms, yet it operates under external supervision in practical terms. Unless that gap is closed, the language of recovery will remain politically fragile.

Blas Regnault is an oil market analyst and researcher based in The Hague, whose work explores how oil prices move across time and what they tell us about the global economy. Drawing on years of experience in central banking, energy research, and international consulting, he brings together political economy, business cycles, production costs, and petroleum governance in a way that is both rigorous and accessible.

He has spent much of his career studying the deeper forces behind oil price trends and fluctuations, always with an eye on the institutional and geopolitical realities of the global petroleum market. Later this year, he will publish his book, Political Economy of Oil Prices: Trends and Business Cycles in the Global Petroleum Market, with Routledge.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

US President Donald Trump has announced ‘Project Freedom’, a naval mission to escort stranded ships through the Strait of Hormuz starting Monday, warning any interference will be met “forcefully”. The move comes amid a fragile US-Iran truce, with Tehran warning it would treat US intervention as a breach.

“For the good of Iran, the Middle East, and the United States, we have told these Countries that we will guide their Ships safely out of these restricted Waterways, so that they can freely and ably get on with their business,” he said in a post on social media without specifying which countries.

The 60-day clock for President Trump to seek congressional approval for further military actions against Iran was stopped by the April 7 ceasefire, a senior White House official claimed to The War Zone Friday morning. As we previously noted, the president faced a deadline today under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to obtain permission from Congress to continue fighting.

The White House decision comes as the now-paused war is at a stalemate, with both sides believing they can outlast the other. Meanwhile, Trump is considering options for a new round of strikes while Iranians say they have presented new plans for working toward a peace deal.

“For War Powers Resolution purposes, the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28 have terminated,” the official told us, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the matter. “Both parties agreed to a two-week ceasefire on Tuesday, April 7 that has since been extended. There has been no exchange of fire between U.S. Armed Forces and Iran since Tuesday, April 7.”

The administration’s statement today follows War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Congressional testimony yesterday that “the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.”

Under the War Powers Resolution, the use of armed forces should be terminated within 60 days unless Congress has declared war or voted to approve a 30-day extension. Since Trump formally notified Congress about the Iran war on March 2, that deadline fell today. Even though several other presidents have simply ignored the War Powers Resolution, the Trump administration is now arguing that the measure doesn’t really apply to their operation just yet.

It remains unclear how or if Congress will react. It adjourned yesterday for a week-long recess. On Thursday, the Senate rejected the latest of many resolutions intended to halt the war, The Washington Post noted. 

Republican lawmakers appear to be deferring to Trump on the issue of the War Powers Resolution. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told The Associated Press on Thursday that he doesn’t plan on a vote to authorize force in Iran or otherwise weigh in.

“I’m listening carefully to what the members of our conference are saying, and at this point I don’t see that,” Thune said.

Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said he’d vote for an authorization of war if Trump asked for it. But he questioned if the War Powers Act, passed during the Vietnam War era as a way for Congress to claw back its power, is even constitutional.

“Our founders created a really strong executive, like it or not like it,” Cramer said.

Shield AI revealed a revised planform configuration and new details about its extremely ambitious X-BAT jet-powered autonomous stealth ‘fighter’ drone at April’s Sea-Air-Space 2026 convention, as detailed by TWZ. At the event, I was able to speak at length with Armor Harris, the chief designer of X-BAT, who was keen to discuss the status of the project. You can read TWZ’s original deep dive exclusive interview with Harris that was published when X-BAT first emerged from the shadows last October here.

The tail-sitting X-BAT, designed to take off vertically and land the same way, is planned to start vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) testing before the end of this year. Harris explained how it is designed to fly combat missions under the control of the company’s Hivemind artificial intelligence “pilot” and how Shield AI has designed-in payload bays that are roughly the same size as those found on the F-35, which will enable it to carry many of the same weapons as the stealthy crewed fighter.

The X-BAT concept is aimed to disrupt not just the budding advanced autonomous drone marketplace, but parts of the fighter market too. So much hangs on the VTOL element that the airframe is designed around, so to say that a lot is riding on those tests is an understatement.

Here is the full interview from the show floor at Sea-Air-Space:

Meet The Man Behind The X-BAT Autonomous VTOL Fighter Drone