closer

Seoul proposes expanding its Cheonghae unit’s operational areas to waters near Duqm in Oman amid pressure from US to support war on Iran.

South Korea plans to expand its anti-piracy patrols off the coast of Somalia to waters closer to the Strait of Hormuz, the Ministry of National Defense said, following pressure from the United States to provide support for the war on Iran.

The government will ask the National Assembly to extend the mandate of the Cheonghae unit, a naval task force due to expire at the end of 2026, a Defence Ministry spokesperson told the Reuters news agency on Thursday. The request would also widen the unit’s area of operations to waters near the port of Duqm in Oman, about 650km (403 miles) from the Strait of Hormuz.

The motion will go to lawmakers after the cabinet endorses it next week, the Yonhap news agency reported.

The Cheonghae unit has patrolled the Gulf of Aden since 2009 to protect commercial shipping. Its latest contingent sailed from South Korea’s Busan on October 2 on board the Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin, a 4,400-tonne destroyer carrying a maritime helicopter and about 300 service members.

Under the new mandate, the unit would push northeast into the Arabian Sea south of Oman, roughly doubling its operating radius to about 1,930km (1,200 miles), officials told Yonhap.

It would add 75 personnel, including a bomb disposal team, and a P-8A maritime patrol aircraft to help monitor shipping routes.

Officials told Yonhap the mission would be strictly noncombat and the unit would remain under South Korean command, operating independently of allied forces.

“The enhancement of the Cheonghae unit’s mission is to protect our citizens and safeguard our economic interests,” a defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Yonhap.

“Operations will remain restricted to the open waters south of Oman, and the maritime patrol aircraft will be prohibited from targeting or monitoring Iranian territory, territorial waters or the interior of the Strait of Hormuz during their missions,” he said.

The latest proposal follows pressure from US President Donald Trump for Seoul to support Washington’s war on Iran.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung pledged in April to help safeguard shipping during talks led by the United Kingdom and France. In September, he said he would avoid any deployment that could draw South Korea into the war.

Opposition lawmakers have argued against an expansion of the Cheonghae unit’s mission.

“Expanding the Cheonghae unit’s operational area amounts to a troop deployment,” Kim Joon-hyung, the floor leader of the small left-leaning Rebuilding Korea Party, said at a news conference at the National Assembly in Seoul on Wednesday.

“It is not a clever solution but a deceptive workaround.”

Kim warned that an expanded mission could expose South Korean forces to Iranian retaliation, even if Seoul insisted that its personnel would not take part in combat.

“If President Donald Trump boasts that South Korea was the first country in the world to dispatch troops, we would become the first country to join the Middle East war,” he said.

Over the past week, Washington and Tehran have sent mixed signals about whether their eight-month war is heading back to full-scale strikes or towards a peace deal.

On Thursday, the head of United States Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Brad Cooper, briefed US President Donald Trump on options for renewed attacks on Iran, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported.

The US and Israel have drawn up joint plans to attack Iran after the November 3 US midterm elections, The New York Times (NYT) reported last week.

Yet on the same day, The Washington Post reported that Vice President JD Vance had offered to meet Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, in person to negotiate an end to the war.

On Friday, Qatari mediators returned to Tehran for talks coordinated with the US, an official told Reuters.

So is Washington heading back to war, or towards a deal? Here’s what we know:

Why are there conflicting reports?

Essentially, Washington is preparing for war while keeping a diplomatic channel open.

The WSJ reported that the US has boosted air defences and munitions in the region and moved some troops away from bases vulnerable to Iranian retaliation.

Ten US military cargo planes landed at the Ovda and Nevatim air bases in Israel’s Negev region on Thursday, with more sent to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the Israeli public broadcaster Kan reported.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who said he had been briefed on the plans, called them “insane” and warned of a devastating escalation.

Can diplomatic efforts hold off a return to strikes?

Diplomacy has not stopped.

Vance’s letter, delivered to Rezaei through Qatari mediators on Sunday, proposed direct talks led by Vance, with Iran’s nuclear programme on the table from the start, according to the NYT, in a bid to prevent a renewal of strikes.

Whether it might have any influence over what happens next is a matter for debate. Rouzbeh Parsi, an Iran analyst who is an affiliated researcher at Lund University’s Department of History and Human Rights Studies in Sweden, described Vance as the “voice of reason” on Iran within the Trump administration, saying his signals have been “the least volatile and unpredictable”.

But he also told Al Jazeera that Vance’s position has “never proven to be sturdy enough to actually sway Trump”.

“Thus, while the optics with Vance look better than anyone else in the Trump administration, I doubt that they [Iranian officials] give the outreach much credence until Vance proves able to actually deliver something on his own,” he said.

Furthermore, Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera that “Rezaei is just one voice among many” adding that the “reality is that decisions are made collectively inside the Islamic republic”.

Wolfgang Pusztai, a security and defence analyst and Austria’s former defence attache to Libya, has a different view, however, telling Al Jazeera, “There is no doubt that the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] currently calls the shots in Iran.”

In February, Iran’s then supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in the initial attacks by Israel and the United States, and his son became the new supreme leader, but Pusztai says he “simply does not have the influence his father did”.

“Without the IRGC’s approval, there will be no agreement with Iran,” Pusztai said, adding it is safe to assume that when Rezaei makes a statement or endorses a proposal, “it reflects the position of the IRGC leadership” and that the US was “absolutely right to negotiate with him”.

Pusztai said it is unclear whether Rezaei is indeed ready to make a serious compromise, but under sustained US pressure, Rezaei, who holds a doctorate in economics, could come to see that “Iran’s interests and the regime’s survival can be better secured without nuclear weapons and through a less aggressive foreign policy”.

“He certainly knows that peak oil is approaching and that time is running out for Iran’s economic recovery through the use of its oil revenues,” he said.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said progress depends on Iran’s seven conditions being met – including the lifting of sanctions, ending the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, guarantees to an end to US-Israeli strikes, and the unfreezing of Iranian assets – adding that the “carrot-and-stick approach has no effect on Iran”, according to the semi-official Tasnim news agency.

Vance, meanwhile, told Fox News on Thursday that Trump would “never” let the conflict become “a forever war”.

Which of all these signals matter most?

The diplomacy may say more than the threats.

Andreas Krieg, an associate professor of security studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera that Vance’s offer of direct talks “suggests that the Americans do have second thoughts” and that they are less ready to strike than they publicly suggest.

But he warned that Cooper, whom he called “quite hawkish”, could give Trump false confidence “that there is a military way out of it, when in reality there isn’t a military way out of it”.

“This idea that there is a short and crisp military operation to solve this issue is obviously an illusion,” he said.

Paul Musgrave, an associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera the White House could be sending signals to coerce Tehran, but that “the better interpretation is the simplest one”.

He believes “the United States is getting ready to carry out substantial attacks relatively soon”. He said he does not expect Washington to accept what he called the unfavourable deal Tehran is offering “without another round of attacks”.

Pusztai said Trump’s main focus is now the midterms, making it “very unlikely that he will order another large-scale attack on Iran before the elections”.

“Starting in mid to late November, there could be a major wave of attacks aimed at advancing the American agenda,” he said, adding that the aim would be to weaken the IRGC enough to push it towards a deal on US terms.

Whatever the vote’s result, “in the short term it will not change much”, Musgrave said.

A strong Republican showing could encourage more aggressive tactics, while a Democratic win could push Trump to show his unilateral powers, including by attacking, he said.

Hasn’t this all happened before?

It has. Iran was attacked by Israel or the US while talks were under way in both 2025 and 2026.

“We’ve seen this pattern of behaviour before from the United States,” Hashemi said, describing it as “talking diplomacy while preparing for war”.

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched major strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, two days before a sixth round of US-Iran talks was due in Oman. The US joined on June 22, bombing Iran’s Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan nuclear sites.

This year, the US and Israel attacked on February 28, two days after talks in Geneva that mediator Oman said had made “significant progress”.

A day before the strikes, Oman’s foreign minister said Iran had agreed to reduce its nuclear stockpiles to “the lowest level possible”.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told Al Jazeera in September that Iran no longer trusts negotiations with Washington because attacks had come during previous rounds of talks.

Hashemi said he suspects “the same pattern is repeating itself”, with the US preparing “a massive bombing campaign in Iran, replete with war crimes like we haven’t seen before”, citing his reading of Murphy’s comments.

What is blocking a deal?

“The issue is mostly around sequencing and the lack of trust on the Iranian side that the Americans will actually follow through with their commitments,” Krieg said.

Tehran wants sanctions and the US naval blockade lifted quickly, fearing that a slow process gives Trump room to backtrack, he said.

Some IRGC hardliners do not necessarily see war as a bad thing if it tightens their grip on the Hormuz strait, he added, and “the Iranians have been prepping for this war for the last three weeks, so they are ready to fight”.

Krieg said he expects “nothing is going to happen until the 3rd of November [the date of the US midterm elections]”. After that, he said, the likelihood of war will “increase exponentially”.

Any new escalation would be worse than in February and March, he said, with Iran readier to strike critical infrastructure in Gulf countries.

He said the threat to the Gulf “will be unprecedented”.

Prince Harry is opening up about his and wife Meghan Markle’s unexpected decision earlier this year to move back to the United Kingdom years after their dramatic fallout with the British royal family.

The Duke of Sussex spoke about the move in an interview with GQ’s Zach Baron, explaining that he and the duchess of Sussex returned to Britain for “opportunities for the family.” Prince Harry — promoting his session on grief with neuroscientist Dr. Mary-Frances O’Connor for the MasterClass online platform — said the ability to put his and Meghan’s two children “in a British school has meant a lot to me” as was being “back closer to my family.”

“To be back on U.K. soil for longer than a few days or a week here or there,” he continued, “it’s nice to be back.”

Reports of Harry and Meghan’s return to the United Kingdom surfaced in August after the spouses made clear in 2020 that their departure was due to several factors, including severe scrutiny by the British media and alleged racism and bullying by the royal family. During the GQ interview, published Tuesday, Harry said he felt more confident and “optimistic” about returning to the U.K. and its tabloid scene, saying, “I can respect them if they respect me and our position.”

After Harry and Meghan separated themselves from the British family, they settled in California in the affluent neighborhood of Montecito. While in the United States, the pair took on a variety of media ventures — including a podcast, a television series and documentaries — under their multimedia company Archewell Productions. Memorably, Harry also penned his memoir, “Spare,” in 2023, providing readers a look at his family and his scathing view of the paparazzi. Subject to media scrutiny for nearly the entirety of his life, Harry told GQ, “I prefer me to be putting things out there rather than the machine creating stuff.”

“Why not try to be in control of your own story?” he added. “Because if they can’t be responsible enough to tell your story, then you have to tell your own story.”

Prince Harry also said in the interview he felt the stars aligned for his and Meghan’s return and that their two children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, had been “loving” their time attending British school. “It’s just giving them a whole different experience.”

As for his other family members, brother Prince William and father King Charles III, Prince Harry said, “I want it to work out.”

“Of course I do. Again, with everything else that’s going on in the world, the most important thing is to reconcile,” he said. “That’s the key point.”