TOP NEWS

For years, Iran’s leaders believed time was on their side.

After the United States withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Tehran effectively adopted what later came to be described as a “strategic patience” approach. Rather than immediately counter-escalating, Iran chose to endure economic pressure while waiting to see whether diplomacy could be revived.

The logic behind the strategy was simple: eventually, Washington would recognise that confrontation with Iran was against its own interests.

Today, that assumption lies shattered.

The collapse of diplomacy and the outbreak of war have forced Iran’s leadership to confront a painful reality: their belief that the US would ultimately act rationally may have been a profound miscalculation.

If Iran survives the current conflict, the lessons Iranian leaders draw from this moment may motivate them to pursue a nuclear deterrent.

The strategy of waiting

After the first Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA and launched its “maximum pressure” campaign in 2018, Tehran initially avoided major counter-escalation. For nearly a year, it largely remained within the deal’s limits, hoping the other signatories, particularly Europeans, could preserve the agreement and deliver on the promised economic benefits despite US sanctions.

When that failed, Tehran began gradually increasing its nuclear activities by expanding enrichment and reducing compliance step by step while still avoiding a decisive break.

The pace accelerated after Iran’s conservative-dominated parliament passed a law mandating a significant increase in nuclear activities, in the wake of the assassination of top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. The shift was reinforced further by the 2021 election of conservative President Ebrahim Raisi.

The ultimate goal was to rebuild negotiating leverage, as Tehran believed that broader geopolitical and regional trends were gradually shifting in its favour. From its perspective, China’s rise, Russia’s growing assertiveness, and widening fractures within the Western alliance suggested that Washington’s ability to isolate Iran indefinitely might weaken over time.

At the same time, Iran pursued a strategy of reducing tensions with its neighbours, seeking improved relations with Gulf states that had previously supported the US “maximum pressure” campaign. By the early 2020s, many Gulf Cooperation Council countries had begun prioritising engagement and de-escalation with Iran, culminating in moves such as the 2023 Saudi-Iran rapprochement brokered by China.

Against this backdrop, even as tensions rose, Tehran continued to pursue diplomacy. Years of negotiations with the Biden administration aimed at restoring the JCPOA ultimately produced no agreement. Subsequent diplomatic efforts under Trump’s second presidency also collapsed.

Underlying this approach was a fundamental assumption: that the US ultimately preferred stability to war. Iranian officials believed Washington would eventually conclude that diplomacy, rather than endless pressure or a major war, was the most realistic and least costly path forward.

The joint US-Israeli assault on Iran has now exposed how deeply flawed that assumption was.

The return of deterrence

While Tehran based its strategy on mistaken beliefs about the rationality of US foreign policy, Washington, too, is misreading the situation.

For years, advocates of the maximum pressure campaign argued that sustained economic and military pressure would eventually fracture Iran internally. Some predicted that war would trigger widespread unrest and even the collapse of the regime.

So far, none of those predictions has materialised.

Despite the enormous strain on Iranian society, there have been no signs of regime disintegration. Instead, Iran’s political base — and in many cases broader segments of society — has rallied in the face of external attack.

Furthermore, Iran spent years reinforcing its deterrence capabilities. This involved expanding and diversifying its ballistic missile, cruise missile and drone programmes and developing multiple delivery systems designed to penetrate sophisticated air defences. Iranian planners also drew lessons from the direct exchanges with Israel in 2024 and the June 2025 war, improving targeting accuracy and coordination across different weapons systems.

The focus shifted towards preparing for a prolonged war of attrition: firing fewer but more precise strikes over time while attempting to degrade enemy radar and air defence systems.

We now see the results of this work. Iran has been able to inflict significant damage on its adversaries. Retaliatory attacks have killed seven Americans and 11 Israelis, placing a growing strain on US and Israeli missile defence systems, as interceptors are steadily depleted.

Iranian missile and drone strikes have hit targets across the region, including high-value military infrastructure such as radar installations. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent global energy markets into turmoil.

Apart from the immense cost of war, the US decision to launch the attack on Iran may have another unintended consequence: a radical shift in Iranian strategy.

For decades, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei maintained a longstanding religious prohibition on nuclear weapons. His assassination on the first day of the war may now motivate the new civilian and military leadership of the country to rethink its nuclear strategy.

There may now be fewer ideological reservations about pursuing nuclear weapons. The logic is simple: if diplomacy cannot deliver sanctions relief or permanently remove the threat of war, nuclear deterrence may appear to be the only viable alternative.

Iran’s actions in this conflict suggest that many leaders now see patience and diplomacy as strategic mistakes. These include the unprecedented scale of Iranian missile and drone attacks across the region, the targeting of US partners and critical infrastructure, and political decisions at home that signal a harder line, most notably the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as supreme leader.

The choice of Khamenei’s son breaks a longstanding taboo in a system founded on the rejection of hereditary rule and reflects a leadership increasingly prepared to abandon previous restraints.

If a more zero-sum logic of deterrence takes hold across the region, replacing dialogue as the organising principle of security, the Middle East may enter a far more dangerous era in which nuclear weapons are viewed as the ultimate form of deterrence and nuclear proliferation can no longer be stopped.

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

SEOUL, March 11 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un oversaw the test-firing of strategic cruise missiles from a naval destroyer, state media reported Wednesday, as the United States and South Korea began a large-scale joint military exercise this week.

The North’s Choe Hyon destroyer launched the missiles at island targets in the Yellow Sea on Tuesday, the official Korean Central News Agency said, with Kim watching via a video feed. The missiles flew for roughly two hours and fifty minutes before striking their targets, KCNA said.

Pyongyang described the weapons as “strategic,” a term it typically uses for systems capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

The launches came days after North Korea conducted a similar cruise missile test from the destroyer ahead of its commissioning.

The test also coincided with the start of the allies’ annual Freedom Shield exercise on Monday, an 11-day program of command-post simulations and field training drills.

North Korea has long condemned the joint exercises as rehearsals for invasion. On Tuesday, Kim Yo Jong, the powerful sister of Kim Jong Un, warned that the drills could destabilize the region and lead to “unimaginably terrible consequences.”

After observing the launch, Kim praised the “superiority of the destroyer’s integrated combat system,” according to KCNA.

“The components of our war deterrent are now being included in the very sophisticated operational system … and the country’s nuclear forces have made a switch to the phase of multifaceted operation,” Kim said.

Images released by state media showed Kim watching the test alongside his daughter Ju Ae, who has appeared frequently with her father at major events. South Korea’s spy agency said last month that Ju Ae, believed to have been born in 2013, appears close to being designated as Kim’s successor.

Pyongyang launched the Choe Hyon, its first 5,000-ton destroyer, last April as Kim called for strengthening the country’s naval capabilities. North Korean reports say the vessel carries a range of weapons, including nuclear-capable cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles.

Photos released by state media show the ship’s missile and radar systems resembling those found on Russian vessels, prompting speculation Pyongyang may have received technical assistance from Moscow.

North Korea has deployed troops, artillery and weapons to support Russia’s war in Ukraine and is believed to be receiving financial support and advanced military technology in return.

A second destroyer, the Kang Kon, suffered an accident during its launch ceremony last year that left it listing on its side before it was repaired and relaunched in June.

Kim has ordered another 5,000-ton destroyer completed by Oct. 10, the anniversary of the founding of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea.

The South Korean government is “closely involved” in discussions with the International Energy Agency (IEA) over the agency’s reported proposal to release strategic oil reserves to help stabilize soaring oil prices, Seoul officials said Wednesday.

Officials at the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources confirmed Seoul’s participation in the reported IEA discussions to Yonhap News Agency, following media reports saying that the IEA has proposed the largest-ever release of oil reserves to its 32 member countries, including South Korea.

According to the report by the Wall Street Journal, IEA members are expected to soon decide on the proposal in an extraordinary meeting.

“South Korea is closely involved in discussions over a coordinated release of strategic oil reserves by the IEA,” a ministry official said.

The country currently holds around 1.9 billion barrels of oil reserves, which is enough to last more than 200 days.

“We have yet to decide how much oil will be released from our reserves with the IEA’s decision,” a ministry official said.

The Seoul government has released its strategic oil reserves on five occasions since 1990, all through international coordination.

The occasions included the 1991 Gulf War, the 2011 Libya crisis and the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War in 2022.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

The deterrence posture against North Korea will not be hindered regardless of a potential shift of military assets owned by the U.S. military stationed in South Korea, a senior official at Cheong Wa Dae said Wednesday, amid media reports that the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) has shipped out some of its air defense assets from the Korean Peninsula.

“Given our level of military capability, defense spending, defense industry capacity and the high morale of our troops, there is no problem with deterrence against North Korea regardless of whether some USFK assets are relocated overseas,” the official said.

The official, however, declined to comment on media reports that parts of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and other air defense units owned by the USFK were moved from South Korea amid a raging war in the Middle East.

“It is not appropriate for our government to comment on military operations between Korea and the U.S.,” the official said.

The official said South Korea and the U.S. have remained in close coordination to maintain a robust combined defense posture.

“Korea and the U.S. will maintain a robust combined defense posture to contribute to peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the region,” the official said. “To that end, the two countries will continue close communication and coordination.”

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Star NBA players like LeBron James take to social media to praise the Miami player’s incredible scoring achievement.

Miami Heat centre Bam Adebayo’s 83-point performance against the Washington Wizards on Tuesday – the second-highest scoring game in NBA history – was a historic statistical line no one saw coming.

The Heat star shot 20-43 from the floor and was 7-22 from beyond the three-point line. Thirty-six of his 83 points came from the free-throw line (36 of 43).

Entering the game, Adebayo was averaging just 18.9 points per night this season, placing him outside the top 40 scorers in the league.

Now, the 28-year-old only trails the legendary Wilt Chamberlain for most points scored in a single NBA game after he passed the late Kobe Bryant’s 81-point masterpiece against the Toronto Raptors, set in 2006.

Post-game, Adebayo spoke of the significance of passing Bryant, who he idolised growing up.

“To be 83 and passing [Bryant], in my mind, it’s like, what would he say to me? Because I’ve always wanted to have a conversation with him,” Adebayo said. “He’ll probably say, ‘Go do it again.’

“Just a surreal moment being in the company with somebody that you idolised growing up.”

Here is some reaction to the Miami big man’s incredible scoring feat from some of the biggest names in the NBA:

“BAM BAM BAM ,” wrote LeBron James, the NBA’s all-time career leading scorer, on X.

“Bro, what?” said Jalen Brunson in disbelief.

Former Miami Heat legend Dwayne Wade wrote: “83 for Cap”

Houston Rockets star Kevin Durant, who was asked about Adebayo’s achievement in a post-match news conference on Tuesday, said:

“I couldn’t believe it when I was hearing about it in real time. He got 30 in the first quarter … Congratulations to Bam. I know how much work he puts in.

“I looked at the statsheet, and it’s pretty crazy, 40 shots, 40 free throws, 20 threes, that takes a lot of stamina man, that takes a lot of energy to not only go out there to put those shots up, but also make them to set the record to surpass Kobe [Bryant] as the second-highest scorer in the history of the game,” Durant added.

A residential building in central Beirut was seen with flames erupting from a hole in its side after what appears to have been another Israeli strike.

March 10 (Asia Today) — President Lee Jae-myung said Tuesday the government may prepare an early supplementary budget to cushion the economic impact of rising energy prices linked to the Middle East conflict.

Speaking at a Cabinet meeting in Seoul, Lee said additional fiscal measures could be necessary to support small businesses, struggling companies and vulnerable households if global energy shocks continue.

“To provide fiscal assistance and support for small business owners and vulnerable firms, we may inevitably need an early supplementary budget,” Lee said.

Lee also called for targeted support for lower-income households rather than a blanket reduction in fuel taxes as oil prices surge.

The president instructed officials to accelerate additional financial and fiscal measures, including a petroleum price cap system, adjustments to energy taxes and direct assistance to consumers.

“We must mobilize all national capabilities to minimize the impact of external shocks on people’s livelihoods, the economy and industry,” Lee said.

Deputy Prime Minister and Economy Minister Koo Yoon-cheol said the government could potentially finance the supplementary budget without issuing new government bonds.

He cited improving conditions in the semiconductor industry and increased fiscal resources linked to stronger activity in the stock market.

Lee also addressed concerns over reports that United States Forces Korea may remove some air defense assets from the country amid the regional conflict.

“If you ask whether this seriously undermines our deterrence strategy against North Korea, the answer is no,” Lee said.

He acknowledged that South Korea had expressed opposition to the partial withdrawal of air defense systems but noted that the United States may reposition some assets based on its broader military needs.

Foreign media have reported that systems such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system and Patriot missile batteries could be redeployed.

Lee emphasized that South Korea’s defense spending remains among the highest in the world and said the country’s military readiness remains strong.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260311010002954

A group of Democrats in the United States Senate is demanding public hearings on the country’s war against Iran after receiving a series of classified briefings from officials in President Donald Trump’s administration.

Lawmakers say the White House has not clearly explained why the US entered the conflict, what its goals are, or how long it may last.

Republicans currently hold a narrow, 53-47 Senate majority, which gives them the power to control what legislation comes to the floor for debate.

Some Democrats have expressed frustration after the latest closed-door briefing. Trump has not ruled out sending US ground ⁠troops into Iran.

“I just came from a two-hour classified briefing on the war,” Senator Chris Murphy from the state of Connecticut said on Tuesday. “It confirmed to me that the strategy is totally incoherent.

“I think this is pretty simple: if the president did what the Constitution requires and came to Congress to seek authorisation for this war, he wouldn’t get it – because the American people would demand that their members of Congress vote no,” he added.

Here is what we know:

What has happened so far?

Since the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran on February 28, senior officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have held several closed-door meetings to brief Congress members on the military campaign and its progress.

Because the meetings are classified, lawmakers are restricted in what they can publicly disclose about the information they received.

What are Democrats saying?

Several Democratic senators have said they left the briefings frustrated, arguing that the administration had not provided clear answers about the war’s objectives, timeline or the long-term strategy guiding their approach to the conflict.

Earlier this week, six Democratic senators also called for an investigation into a strike on a girls’ school in Minab, in southern Iran. Reports indicate the attack, which investigators say involved US forces, killed at least 170 people, most of them children.

“There seems to be no endgame,” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said. “The president, almost in a single breath, says it’s almost done, and at the same time, it’s just begun. So this is kind of contradictory.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts raised concerns about the cost of war.

“The one part that seems clear is that while there is no money for 15 million Americans who lost their health care, there’s a billion dollars a day to spend on bombing Iran,” Warren said on Tuesday.

“The one thing Congress has the power to do is to stop actions like this through the power of the purse,” she added.

Others seem worried that a ground deployment could take place.

“We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here,” Blumenthal, of Connecticut, told reporters after Tuesday’s classified briefing.

“The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform and the potential for ⁠further escalation and widening of this war,” he added.

What are Republicans saying?

Republicans, who have slim majorities in both houses of Congress, have almost unanimously backed Trump’s campaign against Iran, with only a handful expressing doubt about the war.

Some Republican leaders say the strikes are necessary to curb Iran’s military capabilities, missile programme and regional influence.

They have also argued that the operation is limited in scope and designed to weaken Iran’s ability to threaten US forces and allies in the region.

Republican Representative Brian Mast of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, last week publicly thanked Trump for taking action against Iran, saying the president is using his constitutional authority to defend the US against the “imminent threat” posed by Tehran.

But some Republican members of Congress have voiced concerns.

Representative Nancy Mace from South Carolina said she did “not want to send South Carolina’s sons and daughters into war with Iran”, in a post on X.

Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky, accused the Trump administration of changing its narrative and rationale for the war on a daily basis.

“We keep hearing new reasons for war with Iran—none convincing,” he wrote on X. “‘Free the oppressed’ sounds noble, but where does it end? We’ve been told for decades Iran is weeks from a nuke. War should be a last resort, not our first move. A war of choice is not my choice.”

Why does the debate matter?

The dispute has revived a long-running debate in Washington, DC, about the limits of presidential war powers.

Under the US Constitution, Congress has the authority to declare war, but modern presidents have frequently launched military operations without formal congressional approval, often citing national security or emergency threats.

The law allows the president to deploy US forces for up to 60 days without congressional authorisation, followed by a 30-day withdrawal period if Congress does not approve the action.

Some lawmakers and legal experts say the war on Iran highlights the need for stronger congressional oversight of military action.

“In the 1970s, we adopted something called the War Powers Resolution that gives the president limited ability to do this,” said David Schultz, a professor in the political science and legal departments at Hamline University.

“And so, either you could argue that what the president is doing violates the Constitution by… not [being] a formally declared war; or b, it exceeds his authority, either as commander-in-chief or under the War Powers Act,” he added.

“And therefore, you could argue that domestically, his actions are illegal and unconstitutional,” Schutlz said.

The Trump administration has argued that the February 28 strikes were justified as a response to an “imminent threat”, a rationale often used by presidents to justify military action without prior congressional approval.

However, US intelligence agencies had themselves said before the start of the war that they had no evidence of an imminent Iranian threat to the US or its facilities across the Middle East.

March 10 (UPI) — President Donald Trump posted on social media that the United States has destroyed 10 inactive mine-laying vessels on the Strait of Hormuz while the White House cleared up a claim by another administration official.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that the U.S. Navy did not escort an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz after Energy Secretary Chris Wright claimed it did on social media.

Leavitt said President Donald Trump may consider using Navy escorts for oil tankers on the strait but that has not happened yet.

“The U.S. Navy has not escorted a tanker or vessel at this time,” Leavitt told reporters during a press briefing Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, Wright posted that the U.S. Navy “successfully escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz to ensure oil remains flowing to global markets.”

Leavitt said she was “made aware of this post,” but had not spoken with Wright about it.

The post was later taken down.

The price of crude oil fell below $80 per barrel briefly following Wright’s post. It climbed again after the post was deleted.

Iran has taken measures to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil trade route, since the United States and Israel launched strikes on Feb. 28.

To combat the impact the military conflict with Iran will have on the global oil market, the United States has discussed plans to escort oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. However, retaliatory strikes by Iran have demanded more military resources, Wright previously said.

A new report has expressed alarm at what it describes as backsliding press freedoms across the Americas, with the United States seeing the steepest decline.

The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) released its latest press freedom index on Tuesday, ranking last year as the lowest point for freedom of expression since the report began in 2020.

Researchers found that the Americas have experienced a “dramatic deterioration” in unrestricted speech, according to the report.

“This is one of the worst years for journalism in the region, marked by murders, arbitrary arrests, exile, and rampant impunity in countries such as Mexico, Honduras, Ecuador, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Cuba, and Venezuela,” the report said.

It added that enhanced restrictions on free speech have occurred in countries of various ideological persuasions, whether right-wing or left-wing.

The US, however, was singled out as an area of “alarming decline”. In a ranking of 23 countries across the hemisphere, the US dropped from fourth place to 11th, indicating that journalists operate with increased restrictions.

Changes under President Donald Trump, who returned to office last year, were cited as a primary factor.

“Even though journalistic practice in the United States remains protected by the Constitution and laws, last year’s events saw the erosion of safeguards,” the report explained.

Trump, it said, had contributed to the “stigmatisation of critical journalism”. The report also pointed to developments like cuts to public media funding and the closure of Voice of America, a government-funded broadcaster, as detriments to the free press.

In total, the report tallied 170 attacks against journalists in the US last year, and it cited interactions with federal immigration agents as an area of concern.

The report also noted that Nicaragua and Venezuela continue to rank as “without freedom of expression”.

In Venezuela’s case, for instance, it cited the closure of more than 400 radio stations and the detention of 25 journalists in the wake of the controversial 2024 presidential election.

On a scale of 100, the report ranked press freedom in the country at 7.02. It remains in last place on the report’s list of 23 countries.

El Salvador also dropped in the index’s latest evaluation, now in 21st position on the press freedom list, just ahead of Nicaragua and Venezuela.

In an accompanying statement, Sergio Arauz, the president of the Association of Journalists of El Salvador (APES), denounced what he called the “escalating repression” under the government of President Nayib Bukele.

Arauz noted that 50 Salvadoran journalists had been pushed into exile in the last year amid a campaign of harassment by the government.

“There are no possibilities of practicing journalism fully without facing consequences when there is an Executive branch with virtually unlimited powers and no effective legal oversight,” said Arauz.

Since 2022, Bukele and his government have placed the country under a state of emergency that suspended key civil liberties and granted wide latitude to state security forces, in the name of addressing crime.

Tuesday’s report pointed to the state of emergency as a factor in undermining free speech, and also cited El Salvador’s new Foreign Agents Law, which gives the government the power to dissolve organisations that receive funding from abroad.

El Salvador is one of eight nations categorised in the index as “high restriction”, along with Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, Peru, Mexico, Haiti and Cuba.

The Dominican Republic, Chile, Canada and Brazil were ranked among the highest for protecting press freedoms.