control

China has added 10 United States-based companies to its export control list and barred government procurement from nearly 50 US companies two weeks after the Pentagon blacklisted some of China’s best-known companies for their alleged ties to the Chinese military.

China’s Ministry of Commerce announced the export order on Monday, barring Chinese companies from exporting “dual-use” items that can be used for civilian or military purposes to the US firms.

The list of companies includes rare-earth mine operator MP Materials Corp, rare-earth magnet maker USA Rare Earths, and US defence contractors specialising in fields such as aerospace, drones, synthetic-aperture radar, and shipbuilding and repairs.

Under the order, “foreign institutions and individuals worldwide are also prohibited from transferring or providing Chinese dual-use goods to them” while ongoing export transactions must be suspended immediately.

The Commerce Ministry said the export ban had been issued to “safeguard national security and interests and fulfil international obligations such as non-proliferation”.

China’s Ministry of Finance on Monday separately barred Chinese government procurement from 46 companies, including subsidiaries of major US defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Atomics and General Dynamics. US-funded, locally registered companies, however, have been given an exemption by the ministry.

Experts described Beijing’s orders as a retaliation, albeit a largely symbolic one, against the US after the Pentagon in early June added about 80 Chinese companies and their subsidiaries to its list of “Entities Identified as Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States”.

The designation means the Pentagon either believes the companies are owned or controlled by the Chinese military or they are “military-civil fusion contributors”, a term for commercial companies that contribute to China’s military development despite their civilian status.

The updated list includes Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Holdings, search engine giant Baidu and electric automaker BYD, some of China’s largest and best-known companies.

While the order does not bar US companies from doing business with them, it does impact US defence contractors and their future supply chains.

“We can interpret this as a tit-for-tat response, and that fits into China’s playbook any time we’ve seen escalation from the US side in terms of trade and investment tools,” said Nick Marro, global trade lead analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

China-based supply chain consultant Cameron Johnson said the Commerce Ministry’s order mirrors US semiconductor export controls designed to keep the most advanced chips out of Chinese hands.

“They basically say it doesn’t matter where or who you are, you are bound by this regardless of circumstance,” said Johnson, who is also a senior partner at the Shanghai consultancy Tidal Wave Solutions. “Organisations or individuals in any country or region are prohibited from transferring dual-use materials that originated in China.”

He said Beijing’s orders in practice may be hard to enforce and many of the companies named in those orders have already moved their supply chains out of China or begun to “de-risk” their operations there.

Johnson said the wide scope of companies included in Washington’s and Beijing’s directives could be a sign of more to come and may signal a new front in the US-China trade war.

“This is probably just the beginning of the back and forth,” he said. Last year, after returning to the White House for a second term, US President Donald Trump reignited the US-China trade war, leading Washington and Beijing to impose escalating rounds of tariffs on each other.

Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to a trade truce in October, which was extended during a summit between the two leaders in Beijing in May.

Despite promises to “enhance economic cooperation” during the meeting, observers like Singapore-based geopolitical analyst Steve Okun predicted the goodwill may be short-lived.

“The US’s recent closure of chip export loopholes and China’s continuing addition to its export bans show the national security lane remains active in both capitals regardless of the diplomatic niceties at the recent Trump-Xi summit,” Okun told Al Jazeera.

“There is no ‘truce’ in the US-China trade war. Expect further actions from both sides as well on export controls and investment restrictions,” he said.

L3Harris wants to demonstrate the ability of the RC-135V/W Rivet Joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft to team up with uncrewed platforms. Drones could soak up additional data and otherwise extend the reach of the airliner-sized Rivet Joints, while also helping keep the prized jets further away from threats. This and other developments underway at L3Harris could open the door to further operational possibilities for the Rivet Joint fleet.

Jason Lambert, President for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) at L3Harris, talked about the crewed-uncrewed teaming capability for the RC-135, and other major developments in a recent interview with our Jamie Hunter. He also spoke about airborne early warning, electronic warfare, and other capabilities the company is pursuing for various special mission aircraft across its portfolio. This includes a version of the airborne early warning and control-optimized Bombardier Global 6500 business jet-based AERIS-X that is now in the works for South Korea.

Jamie Hunter’s full interview with L3Harris’ Jason Lambert can be found below.

RC-135 Rivet Joint Could Control Uncrewed Drones To Soak Up More Data

When it comes to the Rivet Joints, L3Harris supports the global fleet, which consists of 17 in U.S. Air Force service and another three flown by the Royal Air Force (RAF) in the United Kingdom. The company performs depot maintenance and upgrade work on the RC-135V/Ws at its facility in Greenville, Texas.

“The way these planes operate is every four years or so they come out of the field for depot-level maintenance. So we take the aircraft into our operation in Greenville, we take out the electronics gear, we do a full inspection on the airframe, look for any corrosion, [and] do any repairs required,” Lambert explained. “Then we basically build back the aircraft up with the latest antennas, hardware capabilities, processing power, as well as the software that’s currently going and always going, actually on a baseline spiral upgrade.”

“The software development is on a spiral upgrade schedule, so we’re constantly working the development of new updates and new upgrades for the capability set on the aircraft mission set itself,” he continued. “So, while the aircraft were actually birthed in the 60s and 70s from the Boeing line, from a mission system capability, they’re actually the youngest mission system across the entire United States Air Force, and the reason that’s the case is because as they come off the production line or come out of our depot center, every aircraft is leaving with the world’s leading technology, both software and hardware.”

L3Harris “is already provisioned to be able to do quick turn hardware and software upgrades on the aircraft,” Lambert noted. “We can do that from anywhere from a week to a month, and then actually field the aircraft back into operational theater to perform.”

It should be noted here that rapid upgrade cycles, measured in days, if not hours, rather than weeks or months, have been shown to be a decisive factor, especially when it comes to drones and electronic warfare, on both sides of the battlefield in Ukraine. The U.S. military has been increasingly open about its need to adapt faster, which was notably underscored by lessons learned from operations in and around the Red Sea between 2023 and 2025. We will come back to this later on.

For L3Harris, crewed-uncrewed teaming is one new capability it is already looking to insert into the Rivet Joint fleet using the processes available now.

“We’re currently in discussions right now to actually do demonstrations on that [crewed-uncrewed teaming] with the RC-135,” Lambert said. “So, new technology, new capability set that’s underway. The technology is actually there. It exists today. We just need to go demonstrate it.”

Lambert said that L3Harris has been talking with multiple unspecified drone makers about crewed-uncrewed teaming with the Rivet Joint, as well as other special mission aircraft. He also highlighted the company’s own ability to provide the secure datalinks that would be critical for realizing this capability, via the Broadband Communications Systems (BCS) business unit in Salt Lake City, Utah.

“The next question is how we actually go demonstrate that with a connected set of tissue in theater to be able to do that,” he added.

As noted, pairing the RC-135V/Ws with uncrewed teammates would expand their ability to scoop up electronic emissions and other intelligence, and to do so across a larger area. Drones could operate beyond the Rivet Joint’s organic sensor range and the radio horizon. They could carry additional sensor systems to also broaden the types of intelligence the team could gather at any given time. Having multiple assets tied together would also help with geolocation of radio signals via triangulation. Paired with the right tactics, the crewed-uncrewed team could allow for additional tactical flexibility and collection of higher-fidelity data.

The information the drones collect could be passed to the Rivet Joint’s crew for analysis and exploitation, as well as to other intelligence and command and control nodes further to the rear. The aircraft also have the ability to send data to forces at or near the tactical edge. The crew of these planes includes dozens of signals and electronic warfare specialists, as well as linguists, who can immediately begin sifting through the intelligence being collected and help get it where it needs to go.

RC-135V/Ws are already particularly well known for their role in creating so-called “electronic orders of battle” detailing an opponent’s force posture, especially when it comes to air defense and command and control assets. Drone teammates would fit right into this playbook, offering a new way to stimulate integrated air defense networks, and glean intelligence about capabilities and standard operating procedures as a result.

Crewed-uncrewed teaming could also help keep the Rivet Joints further away from threats. Stealthy drones, in particular, could be sent to collect intelligence in higher-risk areas. Adversary anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) bubbles are only growing in scale and scope, to include ever-longer-ranged anti-air missiles. This, in turn, threatens to push Rivet Joints further and further away from areas they would be tasked to collect on, especially in the midst of a high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific. As an aside, the U.S. Army sees air-launched drones as a critical capability for its new ME-11B High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES) ISR aircraft, specifically to help keep them as far away from enemy air defenses as possible.

The ability for Rivet Joint to act as airborne drone controllers opens the door to additional operational possibilities beyond ISR, including using those uncrewed teammates to provide localized force protection. The drones could be configured for other missions, including electronic warfare and signal relay, too. A networked swarm of uncrewed teammates in various configurations could offer further flexibility to perform multiple tasks simultaneously across a swath of the battlespace.

All of this could transform the RC-135V/Ws into more multi-purpose platforms going forward. At the same time, it should also be noted that the Rivet Joints are the definition of a highly in-demand, but low-density asset, and each one of the Air Force’s 17 aircraft can only be in one place at one time. The aging aircraft have also suffered readiness challenges in recent years, further limiting how many are actually available for real-world missions on a day-to-day basis.

In his interview with Jamie Hunter, L3Harris’ Lambert also discussed drone teaming and other capability developments the company is pursuing in the context of what this could mean for AERIS-X.

For AERIS-X, “think of connecting and having this be the command and control unit to be able to operate a set of unmanned aircraft,” Lambert said. It “is essentially the hub-and -spoke system to be able to go operate as a network in theater.”

“So, the current [AERIS-X] aircraft is, right now, in a six operators [sic] configuration. It can easily be flexed to eight. We’re also looking at opportunities to take the aircraft to 10,” he added. “The operator count is also a function of the AI [artificial intelligence] evolution. So you think about the effectivity of what that operator can do in terms of their workload that they have in that station. We view AI as not a replacement for that, it’s a supplement to the operator. So, being able to do – take on and process more information with less. So being able to do the job of 10 or more with a group of six is very feasible with an AI technology platform.”

This latter point could factor into directing larger groups of drones, as well as other mission sets. The uncrewed aircraft could themselves be highly autonomous, further helping to reduce the workload of human operators.

“Think of AERIS-X essentially owning the skies, so owning the battle space, and looking at not just what’s in the air, but what’s coming into the air from the ground. It’s got the radar package to be able to go look out,” Lambert also noted in talking about AERIS-X more generally. “We also have the capability set to integrate this with an ISR platform to be able to look downward. So, think SAR/GMTI [synthetic aperture radar/ground moving-target indicator] radar, standoff targeting, to be able to do that.”

AERIS X™ Airborne Early Warning and Control Mission Scenario

“Mentioned the ground connectivity. Of course, we have that not only from line-of-sight, but we can also do through satellite link to be able to have that command and control on the ground, as well as control from the air,” he added. “And we have a program called TOC-L, Tactical Operations Center-Light, which is actually a complementary product and system to this. Because you can have the air bases, and think across maybe an island chain or set of four deployed locations, now you can have essentially a network architecture and infrastructure to be able to do that command and control across the suite of assets.”

In addition to the airborne early warning and control and surface surveillance roles, Lambert highlighted the ability to configure AERIS-X with electronic warfare capabilities, especially to provide additional layers of self-protection. L3Harris’ special mission aircraft portfolio also extends to electronic attack platforms, including the EA-37B Compass Call for the U.S. Air Force. Italy is also now on track to field a version of the EA-37B. L3Harris has already been working with that country on the Joint Airborne Multi-Mission Multi-Sensor System (JAMMS) aircraft program, as well.

In speaking with Jamie Hunter, Lambert also highlighted how L3Harris had leveraged technology from the Rivet Joint fleet for the MC-55A Peregrine for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The Australians notably describe the MC-55A as an “airborne intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare” platform.

It’s possible that the Rivet Joint fleet could gain electronic warfare capabilities, if they haven’t already. The Air Force has already been openly exploring the capabilities to be gained by teaming crewed Rivet Joint and Compass Call aircraft directly together during operations.

The electronic warfare domain is also an area where the aforementioned comments about rapid upgrade cycles are especially pertinent. Electronic warfare systems have to receive regular updates to ensure their effectiveness in an ecosystem where threats can evolve very quickly by changing waveforms or otherwise modulating the signals they pump out. The data that ISR platforms like the Rivet Joint collect is critical to staying ahead of adversary developments, but getting upgrades to systems in the field as fast as possible is also essential. If updates come too slowly, they could easily be out of date before they even arrive. A vital set of capabilities to further truncate these upgrade processes is now being developed under the umbrella of what is known as cognitive electronic warfare. Major leaps are already being made in shortening the time required to make these updates. The absolute “holy grail” of the concept would be an electronic warfare system that could adapt autonomously by itself in real-time, even in the middle of a mission, based on any new data it is presented with.

For its part now, L3Harris seems very interested in demonstrating how pairing drones with the Rivet Joint, as well as other ISR, early warning and control, and electronic warfare aircraft, could create new powerful airborne teams better suited to tomorrow’s potential conflicts.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Today, we discuss political jockeying, litigation and Hail Mary passes.

There’s so much going on these days …

Indeed.

Between the war with Iran, the World Cup and President Trump slapping his filigreed (emphasis greed) name on everything in sight, I’ve completely lost track of the fight for control of Congress.

Well, now that the California gubernatorial primary is in the rear view, let’s catch up. The midterm election is not until November, of course. But a fierce political competition, aimed at skewing the result, has been underway since last summer.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

It started in Texas, where Trump strong-armed Republican lawmakers into redrawing their congressional map in hopes of boosting the GOP’s chances of keeping control of the House. That led California voters to pass an eye-for-an-eye measure aimed at boosting Democratic prospects.

Other states joined the skirmishing, capped by Virginia, where voters in April approved new political lines aimed at netting Democrats as many as four additional seats.

For a short time, it looked as though Trump’s move had backfired and Democrats might actually come out ahead, at least on paper, by a seat or two.

And then?

And then the courts stepped in.

In a 4-3 decision in May, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the state’s new congressional map, ruling that the Democratic-run legislature had violated procedural requirements when it placed the constitutional measure on the ballot.

But the more significant legal decision came a week prior, when the U.S. Supreme Court nullified a major part of the federal Voting Rights Act, freeing several Southern states to hastily redraw a number of congressional districts to Republicans’ advantage.

What’s the bottom line?

It looks as though the GOP has come out ahead, but not by more than a handful of seats, give or take. It’s important to note that all that cartographic competition offers no guarantee of success.

“Cartographic competition?”

Those gerrymandered maps were drawn for the express purpose of helping out one party or the other, but the partisan manipulation doesn’t make all those redrawn districts a lock come November.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs legislation calling for a special election to redraw the state’s congressional map

(Godofredo A. Vasquez / Associated Press)

In California, for instance, the Central Valley seat held by Republican David Valadao — a perennial Democratic target — remains highly competitive. In Texas, GOP lawmakers redrew their map assuming the substantial Latino support that Trump enjoyed in 2024 would carry over to Republican candidates in this year’s midterm election. That seems increasingly less likely, given shifting Latino attitudes, which means at least two of those redrawn Texas seats are more competitive than Republicans would like.

Bottom line, where does that leave things in the fight for control of the House?

There are no certainties …

… Beyond death and taxes. Understood.

It still seems more likely than not that Democrats will win the House in November.

They just need to gain three seats. Going back more than half a century, the out party (which is to say the one not in the White House) has gained an average of more than two dozen House seats in the midterm election. So Democrats have that going for them.

President Trump kicked off a redistricting battle by strong-arming Texas into redrawing its congressional map.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

Also, more significantly, Trump’s approval ratings — in a word — stink. There’s a very strong correlation between a president’s standing in polls and his party’s performance, given midterm elections are almost always a referendum on the party in the White House. Since disgruntled voters are more likely to turn out, that means the out party typically gains seats.

“It would be one thing if Republicans were trying to buck a historical trend and they were doing so strengthened by a popular Republican president,” said Jacob Rubashkin, an analyst with the authoritative nonpartisan political guide Inside Elections. “But that’s simply not the case. … [Trump] is less popular than any president heading into a midterm election in a very long time.”

What about control of the Senate?

Advantage Republicans.

How so?

Part of it is straight-up math. Democrats need to flip four seats. There are 35 Senate races being decided this fall, but only 10 or so are even remotely competitive. Nearly all are in states that Trump carried.

That said, things are looking up considerably for Democrats from where they were a few months ago.

Oh?

There’s much less correlation between presidential approval and the outcome of Senate races. Still, Trump is putting up some pretty strong headwinds that Republicans will have to overcome this fall, including in battleground states such as Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina. (His gaseous effusions — “I love the inflation,” “Affordability is a con job” — are not helpful, to put it mildly, when gasoline and hamburger are costing hard-pressed voters an arm and a leg, respectively.)

And Democrats have done about as well as they could have hoped in landing their preferred candidates in the Republican-leaning states of Alaska, Ohio and Iowa, making those contests far more competitive than they would have been.

What about Maine?

That started out as Democrats’ top target this election cycle. Five-term incumbent Susan Collins has the distinction of being the only Republican senator running in a state that Kamala Harris won. The race is still considered a toss-up.

But the nomination of Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran with a history that is, um, problematic — a tattoo resembling a Nazi SS symbol he did or did not apprehend; extramarital sexting; coarse online commentary — could turn the race into more of a referendum on the Democrat than either Trump or Collins.

And Texas?

You mean the boneyard of Democratic dreams?

It’s been decades since the party won a statewide race in Texas, despite all manner of attempts. (The “dream team” of a white/Black/Latino slate; the streaking-comet candidacies of Beto O’Rourke and Wendy Davis, who both flamed out short of victory.)

Democrats are giddy again, this time over 37-year-old state Sen. James Talarico, who’s built a national following with his telegenic, Christian-infused progressive platform. More pertinent, he’s running against a singularly flawed Republican nominee, state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, whose dubious resume is muddied with a felony indictment, impeachment by the GOP-run Texas House and allegations of repeated adultery.

Still, it’s Texas. Electing Talarico would be like connecting on one of those last-second, desperation, alley-oop passes in the end zone. Not impossible.

But don’t bet the ranch.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich says Israel has transferred authority over Hebron to the army. It includes control of the key holy site, Cave of the Patriarchs. Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh explains.

June 14 (Asia Today) — South Korean Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back said Sunday that Seoul and Washington plan to recommend a target year for transferring wartime operational control of South Korean forces by the end of this year.

Ahn said during an appearance on KBS television that the allies would discuss verification of their full operational capability assessment at their annual Security Consultative Meeting in November.

“If we complete the full operational capability verification and make a recommendation to the presidents of both countries at the end of this year, we will be able to determine the target year for restoring wartime operational control,” Ahn said.

The United States has retained wartime operational control of South Korean forces since the 1950-53 Korean War. South Korea exercises control over its military during peacetime.

The allies have agreed that the transfer should be based on three conditions: South Korea’s military capabilities to lead the combined defense, the alliance’s ability to respond comprehensively to North Korean nuclear and missile threats and a regional security environment conducive to a stable transfer.

The first condition includes three stages of evaluating a future South Korea-led Combined Forces Command: initial operational capability, full operational capability and full mission capability.

Ahn said the full operational capability assessment has been completed. Verification expected by the end of the year would allow the allies to begin specifying a timetable for the transfer.

Responding to concerns that the transfer may be premature, Ahn said waiting for every condition to be perfectly satisfied could postpone the process indefinitely.

“New weapons emerge from one day to the next and the nature of the battlefield continues to change,” Ahn said. “If we keep treating the conditions this way, we could wait forever.”

Although warfare is shifting toward drones and other advanced systems, South Korea has sufficient capabilities to lead combined operations, he said.

Asked whether a future combined command led by a South Korean four-star general could impede coordinated operations or the deployment of U.S. strategic assets, Ahn said the issue had not been discussed.

Ahn acknowledged that Seoul and Washington may have different views on the timing of the transfer.

“Even children raised by the same parents can think differently,” he said. “How could two countries have identical views?”

Ahn also discussed the Jangbogo-N project, South Korea’s plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, describing it as part of the country’s transition from a tactical state to a strategic state.

“A tactical state operates within a framework designed by major powers,” he said. “A strategic state creates the framework and takes the lead in planning and designing its response during a war or another crisis.”

South Korea is preparing to build the first nuclear-powered submarine in the mid-2030s, Ahn said.

He said the country possesses the necessary conventional submarine construction capabilities, advanced nuclear technology and world-class shipyards but lacks access to nuclear fuel suitable for naval propulsion.

South Korea plans to seek U.S. cooperation in obtaining uranium enriched to less than 20%, he said.

Ahn said Seoul and Washington had not yet agreed on where the submarines would be built.

“Building nuclear-powered submarines in another country would be less efficient in terms of costs and technology,” he said. “The United States is also coming to understand that position.”

Ahn dismissed concerns in some U.S. circles that the project could contribute to nuclear proliferation.

“Low-enriched uranium below 20% cannot be converted easily for use in a nuclear weapon,” he said. “South Korea has been a model member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

— 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=20260614010004655

BBC sports editor Dan Roan quizzes Fifa president Gianni Infantino on the eve of the World Cup, after he told journalists to “chill” and “relax” over visa and ticketing issues.

READ MORE: US official claims banned referee had links with ‘terror organisations’

WASHINGTON — Democrats’ path to winning control of the Senate probably runs through Maine — where voters were set to head to the polls Tuesday after several days of growing party anxiety about Graham Platner, who has faced a string of controversies as the likely Democratic candidate.

Democrats not just in Maine but around the country — including in Texas, Iowa and other red states where the party’s mission to flip Senate seats would become more urgent if its prospects in Maine faltered — were closely watching Platner’s performance in Tuesday’s primary.

“They’ve probably become if not less optimistic, at least more nervous over the last 10 days or so,” said Mark Brewer, a political science professor at the University of Maine.

Democrats face a challenging map as they seek to regain control of both chambers of Congress and claw back power in Washington. Unseating Sen. Susan Collins, the veteran Maine Republican, has been viewed as one of the party’s best chances, Brewer said.

Platner’s primary opponent, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, suspended her campaign in late April, clearing his path. He is generally expected to prevail as the Democratic nominee, but what percentage of his party’s vote he captures could help indicate how strong his candidacy will be in the general election, said John Cluverius, director of survey research for the Center for Public Opinion at UMass Lowell, which has conducted polling on the race.

“It’s critical [for Democrats], because without Maine, to win back the Senate you would need to win in states that Donald Trump won overwhelmingly,” Cluverius said.

Platner, an oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran, emerged as a political outsider and quickly gained popularity.

But apparent scandals followed him. The latest came Thursday, when the New York Times reported that three ex-girlfriends of Platner’s had described his behavior as volatile and, by one account, physically rough. Platner, who denied the latter allegation, had previously addressed controversies related to his texting of women outside his marriage, a Nazi-style tattoo and old Reddit posts.

Over the weekend, Platner projected confidence. He took questions from audience members at a Sunday town hall, and on Friday, the campaign saw its best fundraising day since Mills suspended her bid opposing Platner for the nomination, bringing in $200,000 in 24 hours, a campaign official said.

“Since the beginning, Maine, you had my back,” Platner told supporters at a Friday rally. He drew a standing ovation when he continued: “Now, as every single piece of that past and journey gets dug up, litigated and weaponized, you have my back.”

Platner described the allegations against him as “politically motivated” and false.

The controversies surrounding him could help Collins, who has a track record as a political survivor, Brewer said. In 2020, the last time Collins was reelected, polls predicted she would lose to her Democratic opponent, but she secured reelection, even as the state went for Democrat Joe Biden in the presidential race.

“Her position has probably improved over the last few weeks,” Brewer said. “She has mostly stayed out of the way on this and let the negative stories pile up.

Last week, Democratic leaders largely stood by Platner, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated the party would continue to back him. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) campaigned with him at the Friday rally. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) recorded a call to prospective voters on his behalf, and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) appeared at a virtual fundraiser, according to a source familiar with the plans.

The political calculus comes down to whether “they would rather have a Senate majority with Graham Platner in it than a Senate minority without Graham Platner in it,” Culverius said.

Democrats must flip at least four Republican seats to take control of the Senate, a difficult task. The Maine seat is the only possible Democratic flip in a state that went for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024 rather than for President Trump.

Democrats are also looking for victory in Texas, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina or Alaska, all states that went for Trump in 2024. The party must additionally retain their seats in competitive races in Michigan, New Hampshire and Georgia.

How Platner affects his party’s chances of taking Senate control depends on what happens next, Brewer said.

“What else are we going to see? And I don’t know that anybody knows that at this point,” Brewer said. “I think that’s really what Democrats have to worry about the most. Is this as bad as it gets, or is there other stuff?”

Voters are willing to overlook scandal more readily than in the past, said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at the University of Houston. And in these midterm elections, Democratic voters view the stakes as “extremely high.”

“Most voters are looking at the prospect of winning and losing,” he said. “Parties are worried about getting the win.”

Anthropic is proposing that the world’s top artificial intelligence companies come up with a coordinated way to pause development of advanced AI systems, warning that the technology is improving so quickly that there’s a risk humans would lose control.

The company behind the Claude chatbot said in a blog post on Thursday that, as cutting-edge AI gets increasingly faster at carrying out tasks, “it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause” its development.

Anthropic said its internal research institute plans to explore the issue in collaboration with others and “take actions” to help build the systems for a credible slowdown or pause, without being more specific.

Anthropic rival OpenAI argued for a different approach in a report published on Wednesday, saying that “democratic governments — not private companies acting alone — must ultimately determine the rules, safeguards, and accountability mechanisms”.

“Our view is that decisions about the pace of AI innovation should not be left to any one lab, company, or special interest group,” it said.

AI models are getting faster, with rapid increases in how quickly they can carry out software tasks like coding on their own, Anthropic said in its post. Based on current trends and given enough computing power, an AI system could be able to design and develop its own successor, in what is known as “recursive self-improvement”.

Self-building AI would be a major technological milestone that would bring benefits in science, healthcare and other areas, Anthropic said, but it “also might increase the risks of humans losing control over AI systems”.

Some tech industry figures have long warned of such a scenario.

Anthropic’s post comes after a different warning this week from a team of researchers at the University of Toronto who showed how AI tools could be used to create a new kind of AI “worm” that adapts its hacking strategy as it spreads from device to device and takes over a vast computing network.

“I think it’s really important that people understand that it’s not just the biggest, most powerful language models that pose the security concerns,” lead researcher Nicolas Papernot said in an interview.

The authors of the Anthropic post, company cofounder Jack Clark and Marina Favaro, head of its research institute, said the pause would be used to enable “societal structures and alignment research” to keep up with AI advances. Alignment is industry shorthand for making sure the technology matches human values and intentions.

The proposed coordination would let advanced AI labs verify that global rivals have actually stopped or slowed their work, “and that a bad actor could not use the auspices of a coordinated slowdown to jump ahead in secret”.

The company said a coordinated global mechanism is needed because, without it, a slowdown in AI development could let the “least cautious” players catch up and add to pressure on companies and governments as they make tough choices about AI safety.

Fears that advanced AI systems may get out of human control and cause societal harm have risen as the technology becomes increasingly capable. Anthropic’s own Mythos model sent shockwaves through industries, including banking and software, earlier this year with its ability to find vulnerabilities in existing code.

But regulation has been slow, especially in the US, where most leading AI labs are based. A Trump administration executive order earlier this week put the onus on the labs themselves, asking them to voluntarily submit their most capable models for government cybersecurity testing before public release.

Safety focus

AI researchers have also urged a pause before, but have had little success. Elon Musk, who owns AI lab xAI, was among the backers of a 2023 push by the non-profit Future of Life Institute to halt AI development for six months to allow time for safety guardrails.

Anthropic has long positioned itself as a safety-focused AI lab. Earlier this year, it refused to let the US military use its models for domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons, prompting backlash from the government, which put it on a national security blacklist, set to take effect later in 2026.

Anthropic’s post comes as the company and ChatGPT-maker OpenAI race to sell shares on the stock market, in an IPO that could value Anthropic at nearly a trillion dollars.

Papernot notified Canadian cybersecurity authorities prior to releasing his report, which shows how researchers developed the worm in a laboratory by using an “open-source” AI tool that is easy for software developers to cheaply access and modify.

“In the past, cyber attackers would focus on targets that are very high value,” he said. “Banking systems, hospitals, electricity grids, water treatment systems, schools.”

Papernot agreed that there should be more collaboration between companies, government agencies and academic researchers to develop countermeasures as AI-powered hacking tools supercharge the search for computer vulnerabilities.

“That old laptop you have in your basement that you don’t check on regularly doesn’t seem like a very high-value target, but it can be used as a launch pad to attack these higher-value targets,” he said. “Anything connected to the internet is now at risk because of how low the cost has become to mount these cyberattacks.”

California’s decision to redraw its congressional map to flip as many as five House seats to Democrats in November is poised to play a big and potentially decisive role in the nation’s broader, bare-knuckle fight for control of Congress.

Tuesday’s primary races — where the top two candidates will advance to November runoffs — won’t determine which Republicans are ousted in most cases, but they will provide an important first look at voter sentiment and bring the fall’s most crucial head-to-head contests into focus.

“There will be some real cues and signals about what to expect,” said Christian Grose, a redistricting scholar and political science professor at USC. “We’re going to know how strong the Democrats’ chances are going to be based on who advances.”

As one example, Grose pointed to the redrawn 22nd Congressional District in the Central Valley, where incumbent Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) is facing challenges from moderate Assemblymember Jasmeet Kaur Bains (D-Delano) and progressive college professor Randy Villegas.

Grose said Bains is probably a stronger challenger than Villegas in a district that’s still a reach for Democrats — even if “either one could probably beat Valadao if 2026 is a big Democratic wave.”

Grose will also be closely watching the race between incumbent Reps. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) and Ken Calvert (R-Corona) in the redrawn Congressional District 40, which covers a swath of inland Orange County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, including parts of Kim’s and Calvert’s current districts.

The district race wasn’t designed to deliver Democrats a seat, but will produce “one of the first casualties for Republicans from the new map” — months before other expected ousters — if Kim and Calvert don’t both advance.

The national picture

The redistricting war was prompted by President Trump’s unprecedented pressuring of Republican-controlled states to redraw their maps mid-decade for partisan advantage in order to retain control of Congress, given his sinking approval ratings and a history of midterm voters punishing the president’s party.

After Texas Republicans heeded Trump’s call to redraw five districts in their party’s favor, California Democrats responded with Proposition 50, a ballot measure passed by voters in November to sideline the state’s independent redistricting committee and allow Democrats to redraw five congressional districts in their favor.

The war ratcheted up — with more Republican states suddenly considering map changes — after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that weakened the 1965 Voting Rights Act and its long-standing protections for majority-Black districts in the South.

Republicans have now acted to redraw congressional maps in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee, with varying degrees of success, while a battle in Utah could add a single additional Democratic seat there. Attempts in other states have failed, including by the GOP in South Carolina and Democrats in Virginia.

Experts say the net result from the flurry of redistricting will probably be a gain of a handful or more seats for Republicans — but in a year when Democrats are expected to make gains more broadly, leaving control of the House up for grabs. California’s new map is “a huge deal” precisely because that math is so close, said David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for the independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

“Democrats are modest favorites for House control based on the political environment, but also because of California,” Wasserman said in an interview with The Times. “Picking up these four or five seats is a prerequisite to Democrats getting the majority.”

California seats in play

California has 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, by far the most of any state. With their new map, California Democrats are hoping to increase their 43 House seats to 48. That would leave just four seats represented by members of the GOP despite Republicans accounting for a quarter of the state electorate.

But that outcome isn’t guaranteed.

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic redistricting expert who devised California’s new map, said the reconfigured congressional districts had to create a pathway for new Democrats to win additional seats without undermining incumbent Democrats’ reelection. And the result is a map with three pretty safe pickups for Democrats, and two districts that are “100% on the table, ready for Democrats to win,” but will nonetheless “require shoe-leather and grit.”

The redrawn congressional district boundaries enacted by Proposition 50 promise to shake up at least three seats, experts said.

Congressional District 1: Held by the late Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) for 13 years until his death in January, the district is currently rural and conservative, stretching from the Sacramento outskirts through Redding to the Oregon border and California’s northeastern corner. Under the state’s new congressional district map, it loses some of its rural reaches and picks up liberal coastal communities, and favors a Democrat such as state Sen. Mike McGuire, who is one of the leading candidates.

Congressional District 3: The seat is currently held by Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Rocklin) and stretches from the Sacramento suburbs through Lake Tahoe and south along the Nevada border. Under the new map, it holds more tightly to the Sacramento suburbs, favoring a Democrat.

The changes were enough to convince an incumbent Democrat, Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove), to leave his current district — Congressional District 6, which includes the city of Sacramento and the suburbs of Roseville and Rocklin in Placer County — and run in District 3 instead.

Meanwhile, Kiley did the reverse. He quit the Republican Party, became an independent and announced he would be leaving District 3 and running instead in District 6 — the one Bera is leaving — against a slate of new Democratic challengers.

Congressional District 41. The seat is now held by Calvert, a 17-term incumbent, and currently stretches from Corona to the Coachella Valley. The new map made the district more liberal, losing voters in Riverside County and gaining them in Los Angeles County, and Calvert decided to run instead in Kim’s redrawn but still Republican-leaning Congressional District 40 that is just to the west.

The two toughest flips for Democrats, experts said, are Congressional District 22, Valadao’s heavily Latino district in the Central Valley, followed by Congressional District 48 in San Diego and Riverside counties, where Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) decided to retire rather than run for reelection.

Valadao is viewed as especially vulnerable because of his recent support for Medicaid cuts, but he has proved resilient in the past. Meanwhile, his two leading Democratic challengers, Bains and Villegas, are in a bitter fight, with Bains receiving Democratic establishment support and Villegas winning endorsements from prominent progressives.

In Issa’s district, moderate Republican San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond is running against several infighting Democrats, including San Diego Councilwoman Marni von Wilpert and former Obama labor official Ammar Campa-Najjar.

Not new, or over

Jeff Wice, a New York Law School professor who was involved in California redistricting efforts in 2010, said the state “has long played hardball politics on redistricting,” including when then-Rep. Phil Burton, a powerful San Francisco Democrat, bragged more than 40 years ago that the complex congressional boundaries he’d crafted for Democrats were his “contribution to modern art.”

But in five decades studying redistricting, Wice said he has never seen such “politically driven, partisan politics” as are occurring now across the nation, which he said have “no root in law, reason or fairness” — and are only likely to continue.

“This state-by-state war is far from over, and may continue all the way through 2030,” he said. “A lot of it depends on the outcome of this November’s election.”

Wasserman said the country has “entered an era of no-holds-barred redistricting,” and he also sees redistricting efforts continuing — including in California, where they would present a distinct threat to the state’s few remaining Republicans.

Michael Li, senior counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, said California is a “big part of the story” this election cycle, thanks to Proposition 50. “Democrats in California proved to be very determined and resourceful and managed to get that done, and right now California is the big offset to Republican gerrymandering around the country,” he said.

But what will come of it all — in California and across the country — is still to be determined.

“When you’re gerrymandering, you’re making a bet that you know what the politics of the future will look like, and it’s hard to predict,” he said. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward venture.”

A pair of nesting bald eagles has been spotted in Los Angeles County, according to a recent Instagram post from the L.A. County Department of Parks and Recreation.

In the video posted Friday, the two eagles are perched on a high tree branch in an undisclosed location. Native nesting birds, like bald eagles, are protected under federal law, and disturbing active nests can “disrupt breeding and impact their success,” the department said in the post.

The department did not immediately respond to a request Sunday for comment about where the eagles took up refuge.

Southern California residents should give nesting birds plenty of space and avoid lingering near nest sites, the post said.

If possible, residents should hold off on tree trimming or vegetation clearing during nesting season. Dogs should also remain leashed and under control around trees and shrubs where birds may be nesting, and residents also should not fly drones near wildlife.

If a nestling is in distress, the department said to contact the San Dimas Raptor Rescue Center for advice at (626) 559-5732.

Iran has reasserted its control over the Strait of Hormuz, warning that foreign commercial and military vessels will be targeted, if they do not comply with regulations governing passage through the strategic waterway.

The announcement on Saturday came after the United States signalled that President Donald Trump was close to a decision on a potential deal with Iran, but Tehran denied an agreement had been reached.

“The management of the Strait of Hormuz is exercised with full authority by the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” the operational headquarters of Iran’s armed forces, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said in a statement reported by Iranian media on Saturday.

“All ships, commercial vessels, and tankers are only required to travel through the designated routes and obtain permission from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] Navy. Any violation of these regulations will seriously jeopardise the security of their traffic,” it added.

Iran also issued a warning to foreign military forces operating in the area, saying any attempt to interfere with maritime management or shipping movements would trigger a response.

On Friday, Trump met with advisers in the White House Situation Room and said a “final determination” on a possible deal with Iran would soon be made. But no statement followed the meeting.

US sources had told the AFP news agency the deal was waiting on Trump’s sign-off, but he made no decision after Friday’s meeting.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, said on Friday that while messages continue to be exchanged “no final agreement has been reached” on a deal with the US.

US ‘more than capable’ of restarting war

While attending a defence summit in Singapore on Saturday, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said that Washington was “more than capable” of restarting the war if a satisfactory deal is not reached.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) posted on social media that American forces “remain present and vigilant across the region”.

The efforts to reach a deal were thrown into question this week by US strikes on the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, countered by retaliatory Iranian fire.

Iran’s IRNA state news agency said air defences shot down a drone “belonging to the US-Zionist aggressor enemy” on Saturday, citing a statement from the army.

Trump said his priorities in any deal include Iran agreeing to never develop nuclear weapons, and the reopening of the blockaded Strait of Hormuz.

“President Trump will only make a deal that is good for America and satisfies his red lines,” a White House official told AFP, adding: “Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon.”

Trump ‘betraying diplomacy’

Also on Saturday, Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser ⁠to Iran’s Supreme ⁠Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, said in a social media post that Trump was “betraying diplomacy for ⁠the third time” by ⁠continuing the US naval blockade in the strait, and making what he described ‌as “excessive demands ‌in ‌negotiations”.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump said Tehran would remove mines from the strait and end its closure of the waterway with “no tolls”, while the US would lift its blockade.

Both countries would coordinate on removing and destroying Iran’s enriched uranium, he said, adding that “no money will be exchanged, until further notice”.

Iran’s Fars news agency, however, cited sources as saying Tehran was demanding “the immediate release of $12bn” in frozen assets before moving to the next phase of negotiations.

On the toll-free reopening of Hormuz, the sources said “no such clause appears in the text of the agreement”, while Trump’s comment on destroying Iran’s nuclear material “is fundamentally baseless”.

Iran’s ISNA news agency cited legislator Alireza Salimi as saying a plan “to implement Iran’s management and sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz will soon be approved by parliament”.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency said the US blockade remains in place, and its ships “are receiving warnings from CENTCOM to stop and not cross the blockade line”.

The catalog of unrequited hopes and hearts is a long one.

Captain Ahab went mad in his vengeful search for “Moby Dick.” Jay Gatsby’s ostentatious fortune failed to win the love of Daisy Buchanan. Charlie Brown never kicked the football.

Then there’s Texas, the land of broken Democratic dreams.

It’s been half a century since the party carried Texas in a presidential election. The last time Democrats won a statewide office, back in 1994, “The Lion King” was smashing box office records, Boyz II Men ruled the radio and the World Wide Web was about to change everything.

As Texas grew increasingly Republican, and politically beyond reach, Democrats insisted every election year was the one when they’d end their futility and take back power in either Washington or Austin, the state capital.

It never happened.

But is this, finally, the year?

With Ken Paxton stomping incumbent John Cornyn on Tuesday in a fierce and astronomically expensive U.S. Senate primary, many Democrats believe so — and even neutral observers agree they’ve been handed their best shot at resurrection in a good while.

“Paxton is going to be a much tougher guy [for Republicans] to haul over the finish line five months from now as opposed to Cornyn, who never lost an election until this one,” said Richard Murray, an emeritus political science professor at the University of Houston, who spent decades surveying Texas voters. “We’re looking at a very expensive, hard-fought race.”

Paxton, Texas’ three-term attorney general, is a singularly flawed candidate. Indicted, impeached, accused by his ex-wife of adultery, the GOP nominee is, to put it mildly, “an ethically challenged individual,” as the famously understated (and concerned) Republican Maine Sen. Susan Collins put it.

But Paxton was the choice of President Trump — he, too, of impeachment, indictment and adulterous infamy — and that settled that.

Trump described Cornyn, a four-term senator and former justice of the Texas Supreme Court, as a “good man” but insufficiently supportive when “times were tough.” Among those occasions of abandonment, Cornyn voted to certify the incontrovertible result of the 2020 presidential election, thwarting Trump’s bid to illegally stay in office.

The Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate is James Talarico, 37, a state representative from Austin and a Presbyterian seminarian and former public schoolteacher who’s built a nationwide following with his articulate and scriptural takedown of Republican foes. Imagine Beto O’Rourke with a clerical collar and capacity to mint money.

In 2018, O’Rourke came from seemingly nowhere and nearly upset Republican Ted Cruz in the closest Texas Senate race in decades. Before that it was the filibustering Wendy Davis who fired up Democratic imaginations nationwide. She commandeered the floor of the state Senate to briefly block antiabortion legislation — This is the year! — before falling well short in a 2014 bid for governor.

The key difference this time, with all due credit to Talarico and his prodigious fundraising, is his damaged-goods opponent. Normally, all it takes to win in Texas is a Republican ‘R’ beside a candidate’s name. But polling suggests a not-insignificant number of GOP voters could have a hard time supporting Paxton, which doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll back Talarico. They may simply not vote in the Senate race, which could be nearly as costly.

(The counterargument is that Paxton, a martyred hero to the MAGA movement, could boost turnout among the party base at a time Trump is leaking support within the establishment GOP.)

Either way, the president’s me-first political self-indulgence is not making things any easier for his fellow Republicans as they fight to hang on to control of the House and Senate in November.

In the 2022 midterm election, Trump boosted a batch of unappealing misfits — their sole attribute being their fealty to him — with poor results. Republicans lost eminently winnable Senate contests in Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania and, with it, their chance at control of the chamber.

Even if Paxton prevails in November, Trump’s endorsement could prove quite costly to the GOP, and not just in the figurative sense.

Democrats need a gain of four seats to flip the Senate. To do so, they must successfully defend seats in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire and then pick up at least four others from a menu that includes Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio and, now, Texas.

It’s a considerable reach. But Democratic chances look a lot better than they did just a few months ago, before Trump mired the country in an Iranian quagmire and the price of gas and just about everything else began to sail through the ceiling.

Holding on to Cornyn’s seat will end up costing Republicans a kingly sum — money that “can’t be spent in two places at the same time,” as Matt Mackowiak, a longtime Texas GOP strategist and advisor to Cornyn’s campaign, noted. “It can go either to Michigan, New Hampshire, Georgia, Iowa, Alaska. Or it can go here to Texas, which is extremely expensive.”

Odds are against Talarico and Democrats winning the Senate race in November, because Texas remains, fundamentally, a Republican and conservative-leaning state. Paxton may win for that reason and that reason alone.

“This is as good an environment as Democrats are going to get realistically,” said Jim Henson, head of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas in Austin, who’s witnessed many highly touted Democrats fail in a blaze of unwarranted hype. “But when you start doing the math, it’s a little bit hard to see it all adding up.”

Which is not to say it can’t happen.

Truth, as the saying goes, can be stranger than “Moby Dick” or any other fiction.

The Canadian Grand Prix was the race in which the Formula 1 title battle finally came alive this year.

It was also, however, the race in which it took a potentially decisive turn, putting a huge dent in George Russell’s hopes of beating his 19-year-old Mercedes team-mate Kimi Antonelli to the championship.

Russell’s retirement from the race came after 30 laps of frenetic battling between the pair which lit up the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve on a damp, gloomy day so cold it tempted world champions McLaren into a seemingly inexplicable decision to start the race on a dry track on wet-weather tyres.

Russell’s retirement handed the win to Antonelli, his fourth in a row, and the Italian now has a massive 43-point lead.

Doubtless there are many twists and turns to come in the remaining 17 races. Even so, that will take some recovering.

Afterwards, Russell was stoic but understandably downbeat.

“Right now it’s his to lose,” he said. “He is so many points ahead. It feels like the gods don’t want me to be in this fight, when I look at the safety-car timing in Japan, breaking down in China Q3, fighting for pole, breaking down from the lead here today.

“But, you know, the pressure’s off. Go out, enjoy every single race. Try to win every single race. And I’ve got nothing to lose.

“I don’t want to be stood here talking like that. It is, of course, frustrating, but I want to be in that fight. Hopefully, the luck will turn.”

Major rule changes have come into force

Millions of holidaymakers head to Spain each year, with the nation being a firm favourite with those from the UK. Prior to Brexit, British travellers could enter Spain fairly easily.

However, since the UK left the European Union, new rules have come into force. For instance, your passport must display a ‘date of issue’ that falls within 10 years of your arrival date, and if you renewed your passport prior to October 1, 2018, it could carry a date of issue exceeding 10 years, rendering it invalid for entering the Schengen zone (which includes Spain).

As well as this, those travelling on a British passport can only visit the Schengen area for 90 days in any 180-day period. And if you’re entering Spain you’ll need to scan your passport, have a photo taken of your face, and scan four of your fingerprints, under the new Entry/Exit System (EES).

Once you have registered for travel under the EES, your digital EES record is valid for three years or until your passport expires if this is within the three year window. According to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), alongside a valid passport, UK visitors may also be required to produce a return or onward ticket and/or proof of valid travel insurance at border control.

You may also need to prove you have enough money for your stay, and show proof of accommodation. This could be a hotel booking, or the address of a property you own. Alternatively, this could be an invitation if staying with friends, family, or a third party, such as a ‘carta de invitation’ completed by your hosts.

Iran is reportedly working to solidify its control over the Strait of Hormuz despite U.S. objections by seeking a joint deal to impose fees on ships transiting the strategic waterway with Oman. The move comes amid increasing hopes of a peace deal to end the war that began Feb. 28 and highlights just how difficult it will be to reach such an agreement. Iran’s closure of the Strait has created severe global economic impacts and spurred the Trump administration to stand up Project Freedom, a short-lived effort to provide military protection for ships stuck in the Persian Gulf and trying to get out.

Though U.S. President Donald Trump has insisted the Strait remain open and free of any tolls, Iran is in discussions with Oman, a U.S. ally, to impose financial burdens on vessels passing through the critical chokepoint, The New York Times reported. Together, the countries border both sides of the Gulf of Oman, through which any ship must pass to get into or out of the Strait.

Two people familiar with the discussions over management of the waterway said that “Iran was not planning a toll system, which would charge simply for transit,” according to the Times. Instead, the talks with Oman have “explored a proposal to charge vessels fees for services.”

“Oman had initially rejected a joint partnership with Iran on the strait but is now in discussion over a share of the revenues,” the newspaper stated, citing two Iranian officials familiar with the talks. “The officials said Oman told the Iranians that it was willing to use its influence with neighbors in the Gulf, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and with the United States to push the plan, having realized the potential economic benefits of a fee system.”

Iran and Oman “appear to be emphasizing that the proposed system would involve fees, not tolls, a legally significant distinction,” the Times posited. “A tolling system that simply charges ships to pass through the waterway would be illegal under international law, but charging fees for actual services rendered to vessels, such as waste disposal at a port, is allowed under certain circumstances.”

On Wednesday, Iran’s newly created Persian Gulf Strait Authority declared on X that it has “defined the boundaries of the Strait of Hormuz management supervision area” as the “line connecting Kuh Mobarak in Iran and the south of Fujairah in the UAE in the east of the strait to the line connecting the end of Qeshm Island in Iran and Umm al-Qaiwain in the UAE in the west of the strait.”

Iran’s claimed area of control includes the coastal waters of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman in addition to its own.

In the face of Iran’s insistence on controlling the Strait, Rubio on Friday reiterated that the Trump administration rejects any form of Iranian tolling on the Strait.

“That’s just not acceptable. It can’t happen,” Rubio said of any Iranian effort to impose payment for the safe passage of vessels. “If that were to happen in the Straits of Hormuz, it will happen in five other places around the world.” 

Rubio added that NATO allies are beginning to think through a worst-case scenario if Iran refuses to open the Strait of Hormuz.

“We all would love to see an agreement with Iran in which the Straits are open and they abandon their nuclear ambitions and so forth,” he told reporters. “We also have to have a plan B…We have to start thinking about what do we do if, a few weeks from now, Iran decides ‘We don’t care, we’re going to keep the Straits closed. We’re going to sink any ship that doesn’t listen to us or doesn’t pay us.’ Then someone’s going to have to do something about it.”

Since implementing the blockade on Iranian ports on April 13, “U.S. forces have redirected 97 commercial vessels and disabled 4 since the start of the blockade,” CENTCOM claimed on X.

Regardless of the blockade, Japan is anticipating the arrival of the first tanker full of oil that transited the Strait of Hormuz since the war began.

The Idemitsu Maru, a very large crude carrier that passed through the waterway in late April, could dock as soon as Monday, according to the trade ministry. Hauling two million barrels of Saudi crude, the vessel is on track to arrive at Idemitsu Kosan Co.’s Aichi refinery, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said in a briefing document on Friday, according to Bloomberg News.

The announcement highlights the difficult choices many nations now have as a result of the war. Japan is a key U.S. ally and risks running afoul of Trump, who maintains opposition to Iranian control of the vital waterway, including tolls on shipping levied by Iran, something Trump vehemently opposes. But Japan is also one of the world’s importers of Middle Eastern oil and the inability to get what it needs as a result of the Iranian Strait closure is having dramatic economic effects.

Most of the ships passing through the Strait under the new Iranian system “were linked to Southeast Asian nations that maintain friendly relations with Iran,” the official state broadcaster IRIB claimed on Friday in a post on X.

There has been a large increase in the number of Iranian-trading tankers at anchor off the country’s main oil export port of Kharg Island in the past week, according to the Windward maritime intelligence firm’s multi-source intelligence (MSI) analysis.

“MSI images show 27 tankers off Kharg Island as of May 21, including 18 assessed as very large crude carriers (VLCC),” Windward reported. “This has expanded from 14 tankers a week ago on May 14, a 93% increase. All were ‘dark’ and not broadcasting their position via AIS.”

Windward “assesses the majority of VLCCs at anchor off Kharg Island are being used for floating storage. About two-thirds of Iranian-trading tankers are now constrained in the Gulf of Oman or Arabian Gulf by the U.S. blockade. The remaining third are either waiting at ports off China or at anchor off the Riau archipelago, in Malaysia’s EEZ.”

UPDATE: 5:25 PM EDT –

Trump convened a meeting with his senior national security team on the war with Iran on Friday morning, Axios reported Friday evening, citing two U.S. officials.

The president “is seriously considering launching new strikes against Iran barring a last-minute breakthrough in negotiations, sources who have spoken directly with the president say,” the news outlet stated.

Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and other officials attended the meeting along with Trump, the sources told Axios.

Hours later, Trump issued his cryptic message on Truth Social about not attending his son’s wedding due to “circumstances pertaining to Government.”

Iran insists it is ready with new tactics, weapons and a threat to extend the conflict beyond the region should a new round of fighting break out.

UPDATES

There are growing indications that the U.S. and Iran could be moving closer to a deal to end the war. However, both sides are poised to resume fighting as major sticking points remain over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its control over the Strait of Hormuz and the future of its ballistic missile arsenal as well as U.S. sanctions.

In a sign that progress has been made in talks to reach a deal, Pakistani and Qatari negotiators are now in Tehran.

“Field Marshal Asim Munir, is traveling to Tehran on Friday in an effort to reach a deal under which the U.S. and Iran would agree to end the war and launch negotiations for a broader agreement,” Axios reported on Friday, citing a Pakistani security source.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday oversaw the White House swearing-in of the new Federal Reserve chair and said he would like Kevin Warsh’s help in stimulating the economy even as he tried to emphasize that the nation’s central bank would remain independent.

Trump spent months criticizing Warsh’s predecessor, Jerome Powell, for being reluctant to cut interests rates, with the Republican president arguing that lower borrowing costs would provide an economic boost. By taking the unusual step of holding the ceremony in the East Room and not the Fed, Trump made clear his pleasure that Warsh is now in charge.

The war with Iran has caused gas prices to spike, unsettled financial markets and driven inflation concerns across the economy. Those developments have led to recent doubts about whether Warsh might heed Trump’s calls and push the Fed to lower rates.

Still, Trump said he had faith that Warsh would prioritize a strong economy.

“Thankfully, unlike some of his predecessors, Kevin understands that when the economy is booming, it is, that’s a good thing,” the president said. Trump said it was not necessary “to go crazy. Just let it go. We want it to boom.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administered the oath of office. Also on hand were House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Justice Brett Kavanaugh, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Cabinet members.

“I expect he will go down as one of the truly great chairmen of the Federal Reserve that we’ve ever had,” Trump said of Warsh.

Republican President Reagan swore in Alan Greenspan as Fed chair at the White House in 1987. Republican President George W. Bush attended the 2006 ceremony at central bank headquarters when Ben Bernanke became chair.

But having the event at the White House raises more questions about the Fed’s independence at a time when Trump has constantly sought to bend the independent central bank to his will.

Trump’s Department of Justice began an investigation into Powell and the Fed’s extensive building renovations. That drew backlash from lawmakers and the department scrapped the investigation. The Fed’s internal watchdog is now handling the matter. Powell’s term as chair ended last week, though he has opted to remain on the Fed board for now.

Trump made a point of saying during his remarks, “Honestly, I really mean this. This is not said in any other way: I want Kevin to be totally independent.”

“I want him to be independent and just do a great job,” Trump said. “Don’t look at me, don’t look at anybody. Just do your own thing.”

In the next breath, however, Trump said that “in the eyes of many, the Fed has lost its way in recent years” under his predecessor, Democratic President Biden. Trump also suggested that Warsh is looking to lead policies that promote “positive economic growth” and that doing so did not have to mean higher inflation.

Trump also noted that the stock market had risen Friday. “That means they like you,” he said of Warsh.

Warsh once harshly criticized Fed’s policies, including its low interest rate policies coming out of the pandemic, which he says contributed to the largest U.S. inflation spike in four decades in 2021-22. More recently, he has sometimes echoed Trump’s demands for lower rates.

Warsh says productivity gains from artificial intelligence will help the economy grow more quickly without spurring inflation, enabling the Fed to reduce borrowing costs. Many Fed officials, however, disagree that AI’s development will support rate cuts, especially because the technology has also been blamed for large-scale layoffs in the computer sector and other parts of the economy.

On Friday, Warsh promised “to lead a reform oriented Federal Reserve, learning from past successes and mistakes, both escaping static frameworks and models and upholding clear standards of integrity and performance.”

He told Trump that he believes “these years can bring unmatched prosperity that will raise living standards for Americans from all walks of life. And the Fed has something to do with it.”

Warsh further noted that the Fed’s mandate “is to promote price stability and maximum employment. When we pursue those aims with wisdom and clarity, independence and resolve, inflation can be lower; growth, stronger; real take home pay, higher and America … more prosperous.”

As he left the ceremony, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reinforced Trump’s message, predicting to reporters that Warsh will “do the right thing for inflation and growth.”

Weissert and Price write for the Associated Press.

A year ago, David Ellison was viewed as a white knight poised to save Paramount.

Hollywood embraced billionaire Larry Ellison’s son, figuring he had the means and the mettle to revive the faded studio after decades of neglect.

But now, as the 43-year-old tech scion works to close his $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — which would mark his second major studio acquisition in less than a year — a large swath of Hollywood has soured on the budding mogul and his audacious bid to build a new media colossus.

More than 5,000 artists and industry workers — including J.J. Abrams, Javier Bardem, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Kevin Bacon and Tiffany Haddish — have signed an open letter opposing the union of two century-old studios.

“Our industry is already under severe strain,” the group wrote.

Many anticipate the U.S. Justice Department will rubber-stamp the deal because President Trump is friendly with Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle. Trump and his team want David Ellison to make sweeping changes at CNN, one of Warner Bros. Discovery’s premier properties.

David Ellison has spent the last year courting the president and his allies, including hosting a black-tie gala to honor Trump and attending state dinners and the president’s State of the Union address.

Ellison’s perceived coziness with the administration, along with controversial changes at CBS, has sullied his reputation in a town where image is everything.

Should the merger clear its regulatory hurdles, the Ellison family would control CNN and CBS News in addition to holding a significant stake in TikTok, the hugely influential social media app.

“When power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the stories that get told and the livelihoods of the people who tell them become hostage to whoever that power serves,” Jane Fonda, the Oscar-winning actor who is helping lead the opposition, told The Times. “We are not going quietly.”

Paramount declined to comment. Ellison previously has pushed back on fears that Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros. would be bad for Hollywood. Instead, Ellison envisions building a stronger company to boost the industry, including movie theaters.

If the Warner Bros. Discovery deal is finalized, Ellison would control two legendary news organizations and two iconic studios. His determined White House outreach to speed approval of the Warner Bros. deal has aroused deep suspicion among many in Hollywood, which has long been considered a liberal bastion.

“They got too close to Trump,” said Norm Eisen, executive chairman of Democracy Defenders Fund, one of the groups coordinating the opposition campaign. “People in Hollywood are concerned that the Ellisons are going to do to CNN what they did to CBS.”

One of Ellison’s first moves after taking over Paramount was to hire journalist Bari Weiss, who had no TV news experience, as CBS News editor-in-chief. Weiss, who built her reputation being a contrarian voice, along with her recently installed evening news anchor Tony Dokoupil got off to a rocky start.

During his inaugural week, Dokoupil awkwardly saluted Secretary of State Marco Rubio (a fellow Floridian). “CBS Evening News” viewership fell 9% this season. The program, which attracts 4.1 million viewers, musters less than half the audience for ABC’s “World News Tonight with David Muir.”

Ellison is aiming to get his deal done by September.

“The projected merger timeline would have Ellison in control of CNN before November,” Fonda said, noting the high stakes this fall because the midterm elections will decide control of Congress.

“If this merger goes ahead, the administration will have yet another lever to cast doubt on results it does not like,” Fonda said. “This is about corruption, not optics.”

Her group has urged California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to file a lawsuit to try to block the merger. Bonta has said his team is reviewing potential antitrust concerns with the deal, which he said has “red flags everywhere.”

Some in Hollywood favor Ellison’s takeover, saying it would lift two middling players to create more robust competition to Netflix, Disney and Amazon.

“This deal will set up an environment where we will have four competitive streaming services, and that’s a good thing for the creative community,” said Ari Emanuel, executive chairman of WME Group and Ellison’s agent.

Ellison is pressing ahead, working to secure government approvals in Britain, Europe and the U.S. Prominent Democrats in Congress have decried the deal and Ellison’s proposed ownership structure, which would include the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi as significant, but passive, investors.

Paramount leaders have tried to keep their heads down by focusing on their businesses. This year, the company has signed deals with Kim Kardashian, Neil Patrick Harris, Tituss Burgess and Kinetic Content, the reality TV firm behind Netflix’s “Love Is Blind.”

Hollywood opposition

But the “block the merger” campaign has picked up prominent Paramount and Warner Bros. talent, including Oscar-winning filmmaker Adam McKay (“The Big Short”); “South Park” co-creator Trey Parker; and Emmy Award-winning actors Noah Wyle (“The Pitt”) and Mark Ruffalo, a stalwart of critically acclaimed HBO productions, including “Task.”

Some filmmakers have privately discussed whether to steer clear of Paramount, according to people knowledgeable of the discussions who were not authorized to comment. Taylor Sheridan, the prolific producer behind “Yellowstone” and “Landman,” last fall opted to switch teams. He eventually will make new shows for NBCUniversal instead of Paramount.

CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert’s sign-off Thursday night has added to the hand-wringing.

Colbert learned he was getting the boot in July, two days after he called Paramount’s $16-million settlement with Trump “a big fat bribe” during a show monologue. Paramount had agreed to pay the money to end Trump’s lawsuit over edits to a “60 Minutes” interview, a payout blasted by 1st Amendment advocates who viewed the Trump suit as frivolous.

Paramount settled because it needed Federal Communications Commission approval as part of its sale to the Ellison-owned Skydance Media. Paramount’s CBS has blamed declining revenues for its decision to oust Colbert, which came just before Ellison officially took the keys to Paramount.

This week, for the first time in 18 years, CBS will fall short of claiming the largest live audience in broadcast TV. NBC snagged the ratings crown, thanks to its sports-heavy lineup, prompting NBC late-night comedian Seth Meyers to crow about his network’s victory.

“We have taken down CBS,” Meyers told advertising buyers last week in New York. “Well, the Ellisons did, but I like to think we helped.”

Ellison’s supporters view the anti-merger campaign as politically motivated.

“So much of the criticism and negative sentiment originates from [Ellison’s] apparent relationship with Trump,” said one observer who was not authorized to speak publicly about the topic.

But interviews with numerous industry insiders reveal that concerns over Paramount’s proposed purchase of Warner go well beyond anti-Trump sentiment — or worries about CNN’s future.

The merger comes during an existential crisis for the industry, and for Los Angeles, as the shift to streaming has upended established business models.

“Whether it’s Ellison, Amazon, Apple or Netflix, these are essentially tech companies that are gaining increasing control over what has been a cultural and entertainment sector,” said Dominic Asmall Willsdon, executive director of the International Documentary Assn.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Apple’s outgoing Chief Executive Tim Cook also have openly embraced Trump, which some see as a pragmatic move to curry favor in Washington to advance their sprawling businesses, which include film and TV operations in Culver City.

Much of the angst over the Ellison deal is driven by economic uncertainty. L.A.’s film industry has been decimated by a flight of production to other locations.

“L.A. has already had a taste of things to come,” Eisen said. “There’s less competition so the artists get hurt, and so do the working people who have long been an integral part of Hollywood.”

A combined Warner-Paramount would instantly become the largest employer for union writers, said Michele Mulroney, president of the Writers Guild of America West. It would control HBO, CBS, CNN, Comedy Central, HGTV, Animal Planet and two of the largest film and television studios.

“This media behemoth would have enormous leverage to reduce content, raise prices, increase control of production, suppress our members’ compensation and silence the voices of our members,” Mulroney said.

Jessica J. González, the L.A.-based co-chief executive of the 1st Amendment group Free Press, said: “This isn’t just about David Ellison. It’s about what David Ellison did with his last merger and how he uses his power.”

Ellison’s wealth and privilege have also fueled resentment among the rank and file who are struggling amid America’s growing economic disparity. Said one veteran executive: “We’re living in a new gilded age.”

For many, the prospect of more job losses is most unsettling.

Ellison and his team have vowed to make $6 billion in cuts following the merger. Those cuts are expected to include sizable layoffs on top of nearly 2,000 in job cuts at Paramount since last fall.

Hollywood has a troubled track record with mergers, including two failed takeovers of Warner Bros.

AT&T misfired with its 2018 acquisition of Time Warner, and within four years, the phone company had unloaded the firm to David Zaslav’s smaller Discovery. That transaction saddled Warner with more than $50 billion in debt, and Zaslav and his team laid off thousands of workers and cut dozens of projects to dramatically reduce the company’s debt and keep the company solvent.

Walt Disney Co.’s $72-billion acquisition of much of Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox in 2019 led to thousands of layoffs as one of the industry’s original studios all but disappeared.

“We have seen from that merger the earnings and employment numbers for screenwriters significantly reduced,” Mulroney said.

Emanuel, the power agent, pointed to Ellison’s commitment to keep the Warner and Paramount studios largely intact, with each entity releasing about 15 films into theaters each year.

“He’s going to be making a minimum of 30 movies a year for theatrical release plus content for both their own and other platforms because that’s the only way to generate revenue,” Emanuel said.

Still, critics question whether Ellison will be able to keep his commitment due to the $79-billion debt load he will take on.

“I’m sure [Ellison’s] intentions are genuine,” Mulroney said. “But a promise like that’s not enforceable, and there are no consequences if you don’t meet the quota that you’ve set for yourself.”

On Wednesday, S&P Global Ratings agency said Paramount Skydance will remain on a negative credit watch due to balance sheet concerns.

S&P also cited worries about Ellison’s prospects “given the immensely complicated endeavor of combining two of the largest global media companies and the limited track record of PSKY’s management team in integrating and transforming such companies.”

Emanuel and others say Ellison’s image won’t suffer long-term damage.

The two sides, he predicts, will eventually work together.

“Here’s a guy who’s willing to put a lot of money on the line and take huge risks to make our environment more competitive,” Emanuel said. “The one thing about David is that he’s not a vindictive person. He always does what’s best for the project.”

NUUK, Greeland — Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said Monday that he had a respectful and positive meeting with President Trump’s special envoy to the Arctic territory, but that he made it clear that the Greenlandic people continue to insist on self-determination.

Greenland is a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark, and Trump in the past has frequently insisted that the U.S. should take control of the island for security reasons, which has raised sovereignty concerns and pushback from Greenlandic and Danish leaders.

“The Greenlandic people are not for sale. Greenlandic self-determination is not something that can be negotiated,” Nielsen was quoted by Danish TV 2 as saying after meeting on the island with the envoy, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

Nielsen also reiterated that the Greenlandic people “seek good cooperation” with the U.S., and said his “courtesy meeting” with Landry took place with “mutual respect and in a positive atmosphere.”

Landry reportedly said upon his arrival in Greenland on Sunday that Trump had told him to “go over there and make as many friends as we can get,” public Danish broadcaster DR reported.

Greenland’s Foreign Minister Múte B. Egede told reporters Monday that a working group involving the U.S., Greenland, and Denmark continues to try to find a solution to the repeated U.S. demands for control over Greenland. Trump has suggested that Russia or China may be on the verge of seizing Greenland, a notion that regional experts have dismissed.

“We haven’t been the ones creating obstacles to cooperation between the United States and Greenland,” said the Greenlandic foreign minister, who also participated in the meeting with Landry and his delegation in the Greenlandic capital of Nuuk.

“So if we are to continue down this positive and constructive path, we must await the working group’s report,” he said, according to TV 2, adding that the work in the group appears “more promising” than before.

U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Ken Howery, who is also part of the American delegation in Greenland, is expected to inaugurate the U.S. Consulate’s new offices in Nuuk, and both he and Landry are to attend a business fair on Tuesday and Wednesday, local media reported.

JERUSALEM — Nickolay Mladenov, the top diplomat overseeing the U.S.-brokered ceasefire in Gaza, said Wednesday the truce hinged on Hamas’ disarmament, a sticking point that has stalled progress on other fronts, including rebuilding the mostly destroyed enclave.

The high representative for President Trump’s International Board of Peace in Gaza, Mladenov, said months without progress implementing the deal benefited neither Israel nor Palestinians. He said the phased deal was paralyzed over Hamas not yet disarming, calling it “not negotiable.”

International mediators have long said disarmament is core to the ceasefire, to which Hamas has agreed, but no significant progress has been made toward it. The Palestinian militant group has sought to link any demilitarization to Israeli troop pullbacks. Israel’s military remains in control of more than half of Gaza.

“The only way that we believe that we can ensure that Israeli withdrawal takes place to the perimeter is if we have the full element of the plan unfolding in Gaza,” Mladenov said at a rare press conference in Jerusalem.

Mladenov stated plainly that the plan envisioned in the ceasefire was off to a rocky start. He also said conditions remain dire and miserable for the more than 2 million people in Gaza. He accused both sides of violating the ceasefire but said it had mostly held and staved off the return of full-scale war.

Disarmament is among the most challenging elements of the ceasefire. Hamas, whose founding charter calls for armed resistance against Israel, has been reluctant to give up its arsenal, including rockets, anti-tank missiles, and explosives.

Mladenov did not answer questions about what could lie ahead for Gaza in the absence of disarmament. He criticized Hamas for consolidating power in parts of Gaza under its control, saying it hoped “to squeeze better terms of a negotiation.”

He also said that he could envision a role for Hamas in postwar Gaza if it disarms.

“We are not asking Hamas to disappear as a political movement,” Mladenov told reporters.

Israeli leaders have said they want to destroy the militant group that has governed Gaza for two decades and orchestrated the attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing some 1,200 people and taking 251 as hostages.

Israel’s ensuing offensive has killed over 72,724 Palestinians, including at least 846 since a ceasefire took hold last October.

Mladenov’s remarks came as the Board of Peace faces scrutiny, with efforts to advance the phased ceasefire stalled.

The truce envisioned Hamas handing over its weapons, Israeli forces withdrawing and rebuilding destroyed swaths of the coastal enclave after more than two years of war.

Instead, the seven months since the ceasefire have seen Israel and Hamas trade accusations of violations. Aid groups say Israel has not allowed the promised amount of aid in. Hamas has not disarmed and remains in control of roughly half the strip.

Trump’s 20-point plan says that all of Hamas’ “military, terror and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities” in Gaza must be destroyed. It also says that weapons must be placed “permanently beyond use.”

Israel and the U.S. say this language is clear and that Hamas must surrender all of its weapons.

Hamas has sought to differentiate between “heavy” weapons, such as rockets, and “light” weapons like rifles and pistols, Hamas officials and mediators say, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the negotiations.

Israel has stepped up its attacks in Gaza in recent days, since the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, and many Palestinians fear a return of more airstrikes and full-scale war may be imminent.

Frankel and Metz write for the Associated Press.

The Strait of Hormuz has become the central strategic battleground in the ongoing confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and regional Gulf powers. What initially appeared to be a military conflict is increasingly evolving into a struggle over maritime control, energy security, and geopolitical influence.

Since the outbreak of hostilities following the joint United States and Israeli strikes on Iran in February, Tehran’s near closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Washington’s retaliatory naval blockade have severely disrupted global energy markets. The conflict has reduced the movement of oil and liquefied natural gas through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints, creating economic instability far beyond the Middle East.

Recent tanker movements coordinated through informal understandings with Tehran suggest that Iran may now be shifting from blocking Hormuz entirely to selectively controlling access. This emerging dynamic could fundamentally reshape Gulf security and international energy politics.

Hormuz Is No Longer Just a Trade Route

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most strategically important waterways in the global economy. Before the conflict, roughly one fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments passed through the narrow corridor each day.

Its disruption has exposed the vulnerability of global energy markets to geopolitical conflict. Asian economies have been particularly affected because of their heavy dependence on Gulf energy exports. Oil supply disruptions and rising transportation risks have intensified inflationary pressure, energy insecurity, and market volatility across multiple regions.

The recent passage of a limited number of oil and gas tankers with apparent Iranian approval demonstrates that Tehran may now be exercising selective authority over maritime transit rather than enforcing a complete blockade.

This distinction is critical because it suggests Iran is attempting to transform military leverage into long term political and economic influence.

Iran’s Emerging Strategy of Selective Access

The limited reopening of shipping lanes indicates that Tehran may be developing a new model of strategic control. Rather than permanently shutting down the strait, Iran appears to be determining which countries, companies, or shipments can safely transit through the waterway.

This selective access system gives Tehran several advantages.

First, it allows Iran to maintain pressure on global energy markets without fully halting trade flows that could trigger overwhelming international military intervention.

Second, it creates potential economic benefits through informal transit arrangements, leverage over energy dependent states, and indirect influence on oil pricing.

Third, it positions Iran as a gatekeeper within one of the world’s most important strategic corridors, expanding its geopolitical relevance despite sanctions and military pressure.

The reported coordination involving Pakistan and Qatar also demonstrates how regional diplomacy is becoming intertwined with energy security and conflict management.

Gulf States and the United States Face Strategic Risks

For Gulf Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, any arrangement that allows Iran to regulate maritime access poses a direct strategic threat.

Their economies depend heavily on uninterrupted hydrocarbon exports, and Iranian control over transit patterns would increase Tehran’s regional influence at their expense.

Asian importers are equally vulnerable because selective access introduces political uncertainty into global energy supply chains. Countries dependent on Gulf oil and gas would become increasingly exposed to Iranian political calculations.

For the United States, accepting Iranian dominance over Hormuz would undermine Washington’s broader strategic objectives in the region. The Trump administration has repeatedly emphasized restoring unrestricted freedom of navigation as a core war aim.

Allowing Iran to effectively manage maritime access would signal a major geopolitical shift and weaken perceptions of American regional dominance.

Why the Current Situation May Become More Dangerous

The most concerning aspect of the emerging situation is that temporary wartime arrangements could solidify into a long term strategic reality. Even if a ceasefire is eventually reached, Iran may resist fully restoring unrestricted navigation because Hormuz now represents its strongest source of leverage against the United States and regional rivals.

This creates the conditions for a prolonged state of instability rather than genuine conflict resolution.

A system based on selective transit rights would likely produce repeated confrontations as regional powers, Western navies, shipping companies, and energy importers challenge or negotiate the limits of Iranian control.

Such a situation would institutionalize uncertainty in global energy markets and increase the likelihood of future military escalation.

Analysis

The battle over the Strait of Hormuz reflects a broader transformation in modern geopolitical conflict where control over trade routes and economic chokepoints can become more strategically valuable than territorial conquest.

Iran appears to recognize that its greatest strength lies not in conventional military superiority but in its ability to disrupt the global economy through maritime leverage. By controlling the flow of energy through Hormuz, Tehran can influence oil prices, inflation, international diplomacy, and political stability in rival states.

This gives Iran asymmetric power against economically stronger adversaries.

The United States faces a difficult strategic dilemma. Military escalation aimed at fully reopening Hormuz could deepen regional conflict and further destabilize global markets. However, tolerating selective Iranian control risks weakening American credibility and altering the regional balance of power in Tehran’s favor.

The current situation also exposes the limits of military power in resolving structural geopolitical disputes. Even if active fighting declines, the underlying contest over maritime control, energy security, and regional influence will likely persist.

Ultimately, the future of the Gulf may increasingly depend not on battlefield victories, but on who shapes the rules governing the movement of energy through the Strait of Hormuz. If selective Iranian control becomes normalized, the region could enter a prolonged era of economic coercion, strategic competition, and recurring confrontation.

With information from Reuters.