deal

The Kawhi Leonard era might soon be over in Los Angeles.

A deal to send the seven-time NBA All-Star forward back to Toronto, where he won his second NBA title, is in the works, according to a person with knowledge of the situation who is not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

The trade — which the Clippers hope to land All-Star forward Brandon Ingram, shooting guard Gradey Dick, two first-round draft picks, a pick swap and two second-round picks — would mark the end of another promising-but-empty chapter in the franchise’s ringless history.

Leonard, a Moreno Valley native who won his first title with the San Antonio Spurs, joined his hometown Clippers as a highly coveted free agent in July 2019 after leading Toronto to its first championship in a classic one-and-done season.

“The front office was very transparent, they want to win,” Leonard said at his introductory Clippers news conference on July 24, 2019. “Just the opportunity for us to build our own, to make history — they haven’t been to a final, haven’t won a final — that was something big and exciting for me to make my decision.”

The Raptors were in the same championship-less boat before Leonard saved them. The Clippers, meanwhile, are still trying to get over the hump.

Leonard averaged 25.1 points, 6.4 rebounds, 4.1 assists and 1.7 steals over six seasons with the Clippers and was selected to four All-Star teams, four All-NBA teams and two All-Defensive teams. Leonard averaged a career-high 27.9 points while playing 65 games last season.

Yet most will only remember that Leonard’s tenure in the City of Angels netted zero Larry O’Brien trophies and instead plenty of load management and one ongoing salary cap circumvention investigation. The Clippers, of course, have been accused of paying Leonard $28 million through an endorsement deal with bankrupt sustainability company Aspiration.

Whether there was salary cap circumvention or not, L.A. truly went all-in on its latest bid to win a title to no avail, as encapsulated by the infamous Paul George-Shai Gilgeous-Alexander deal that accompanied the launch of the Leonard era.

Unfortunately for the Clippers, Leonard, George and the era’s other big-name players were rarely healthy or at their peaks when the lights were brightest. And in Oklahoma City, Gilgeous-Alexander led the Thunder to its first title and developed into a two-time league MVP, all before his 28th birthday.

Hindsight is 20/20.

The Clippers, though, did come as close to a ring as ever before, reaching the Western Conference finals for the first time in franchise history in 2021. However, Leonard tore his anterior cruciate ligament during that run and left L.A. and the NBA wondering “What if?” — the everlasting theme of Steve Ballmer’s ownership of the Clippers.

Leonard played at least 65 games just twice over his seven seasons in L.A. and missed the 2021-22 season entirely because of the ACL tear. The Clippers won only three playoff series with Leonard, with no series victories to show for over his final five seasons in L.A.

And in arguably the Clippers’ most healthy playoff run with Leonard — during the 2020 NBA bubble — L.A. blew a 3-1 lead to the Denver Nuggets in the Western Conference semifinals, spoiling a matchup against the Lakers, the ultimate victors of the COVID-shortened season, in the conference finals.

Clippers forward Kawhi Leonard tries to go up for a shot while defended by Warriors guard Stephen Curry during a play-in game in April.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

The Clippers had their moments with Leonard, like when he posted a career-best and franchise-record 55 points against the Detroit Pistons in 2025.

If anything, the future Hall of Famer sure appeared to enjoy his time back home, which was a major reason why Leonard initially turned down a royal life in Canada to play for Southern California’s other team.

Besides free agency opening on Tuesday, the timing does add up for Leonard’s trade, as Clippers president of basketball operations Lawrence Frank has steered the franchise through a refreshing youth movement over the past year.

“Yeah, plan’s still win with Kawhi,” Frank said last week. “But the bigger plan is — we understand we’re not a contender. We’re competitive. How are we going to get back to contention?”

During the 2025-26 season alone, L.A. sent a 40-year-old Chris Paul into retirement; traded 36-year-old guard James Harden to Cleveland for 26-year-old guard Darius Garland; traded 29-year-old center Ivica Zubac to the Indiana Pacers for two first-round picks, a second-round pick, 24-year-old center Isaiah Jackson and 24-year-old guard Bennedict Mathurin; and liked what it saw from up-and-comers like center Yanic Konan Niederhauser and guards Kobe Sanders and Jordan Miller.

And just last week, the Clippers selected 19-year-old Illinois guard Keaton Wagler fifth overall in the draft — via the Zubac trade — instead of packaging the pick for a veteran star.

“You can learn a lot. Like you said, he has a lot of experience,” Wagler said of possibly playing with Leonard. “He’s won championships and played in finals and won a lot of games and played a lot of seasons. Just being able to learn from him and see what it takes to become that caliber of a player.”

Presumably a bummer for Wagler, he and Leonard might not be teammates in L.A.

Leonard’s last game with the Clippers was symbolic of his tenure with the franchise. In a home play-in loss to the Warriors on April 15, L.A. led Golden State for most of that contest — and by as much as 13 — before Leonard and his running mates went cold late, ending their fun season early.

“Let me cry about this loss a little bit more,” Leonard said about his future with the Clippers after that blunder. “We’re going to have our discussions when that time comes.”

Staff writer Broderick Turner contributed to this report.

Britain’s culture minister may challenge Paramount Skydance’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — presenting a potential speed bump to David Ellison’s plan to wrap up his $111-billion deal by September.

Earlier this month, Paramount secured the U.S. Justice Department’s blessing to buy the Warner assets, which include CNN, HBO, Cartoon Network, Animal Planet and the Warner Bros. film and TV studios in Burbank.

Paramount also must win the approval of British and European regulators, who are known for drilling deeply into media matters because of their influence on society.

Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority took a preliminary step this month by opening an investigation into Ellison’s proposed merger.

On Tuesday, Lisa Nandy, Britain’s secretary of state for culture, media and sport, notified Parliament that she was inclined to intervene in the blockbuster deal.

In a written statement, Nandy cited her ability to weigh in on “public interest grounds,” due to concerns about maintaining a competitive media market in Britain.

“The UK’s move to intervene in the Paramount–WBD deal confirms what we’ve been saying for months. The real regulatory risk was never in the US — it’s in Europe,” Forrester VP Research Director Mike Proulx said Tuesday in a statement.

While Nandy cautioned she has not made “a final decision on intervention at this stage,” she has invited Paramount and Warner Bros. to respond to her concerns by Monday.

Lisa Nandy, Britain’s secretary of state for culture, media and sport, has said she may intervene in the deal on “public interest grounds.”

(Alishia Abodunde / Getty Images)

Paramount did not offer immediate comment.

The company owns CBS News, children’s channel Nickelodeon and Channel 5, one of the largest over-the-air television broadcasters in the United Kingdom.

Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, Cartoon Network and TNT Sports, which broadcasts the Olympics, Champions League and Premier League soccer matches.

“I am conscious that the proposed acquisition is global in nature,” Nandy wrote in her statement. “In reaching this decision, my focus has been, and will remain, on the UK public interest and the range of services available to UK audiences, including Channel 5, TNT Sports, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and CNN International, as well as Paramount+ and HBO Max.”

If Nandy decides to intervene, the Office of Communications, known as Ofcom, would launch an assessment of the deal. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also would determine how the merger might reshape the competitive landscape.

Teams from the two companies have been huddling for months to plan for the melding of the two operations as soon as Paramount receives all of its regulatory approvals.

Australia, New Zealand, China, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Serbia, France and Italy have already given their approvals to the deal.

Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is planning to contribute $10 billion to help the billionaire Ellison family pull off the merger, which would make the Saudi royal family a significant, although passive, equity owner. In addition, the royal families of Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to each contribute $7 billion in equity financing.

The Federal Communications Commission must evaluate the foreign ownership stakes due to Paramount’s holding of CBS broadcast licenses. U.S. antitrust regulators already have concluded the combination would not violate federal anticompetition laws.

Approval had been expected because President Trump — who has friendly ties with Ellison and his father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison — favors the deal.

Trump has been eager for changes at CNN.

The U.S. government stopped short of asking Paramount to make concessions or divestitures. Many expect that Paramount may have to reconfigure its children’s television holdings abroad due to the proposed combination of two large players — Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.

Nandy suggested that Britain also should scrutinize the impact of combining two major streaming services, HBO Max, a Warner property, with Paramount+.

HBO programming, including “Game of Thrones,” “Boardwalk Empire” and “Succession,” has long been popular in Britain.

A coalition of state attorneys general, led by California‘s Rob Bonta, also is expected to challenge the deal, in part, due to concerns about news media consolidation. Bonta’s office has said the matter remains under review.

Opposition to the deal has been building in the U.S. for months. A group of Hollywood activists — led by actors Jane Fonda and Mark Ruffalo — have spearheaded a “block the merger” campaign that now has support from more than 5,000 entertainment workers.

The group’s open letter calls on Bonta to take action to thwart the Ellison expansion effort. Paramount’s Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim has blasted the campaign, calling it “fear-mongering” and a partisan distortion of antitrust law.

Forrester’s Proulx noted differences in attitudes toward the deal among the various constituencies.

“For U.S. consumers, this merger has become a proxy fight about political influence and control of media,” Proulx said. “In the UK, it’s being treated as a structural competition issue where regulators, not consumers, will decide how this deal plays out and how long it takes.”

A UK airport is going back on the market just months after its first sale fell through.

The 350-acre site, which has suffered millions in losses at the expense of the taxpayer, is up for grabs for a second time.

Gloucestershire Airport in Staverton was put up for sale last year by joint owners Cheltenham Borough Council and Gloucester City Council, with an asking price of £25million.

However an agreed deal with the preferred bidder fell through, after the terms of the proposal changed.

The councils have now agreed to put the airport on the market for a second time and are said to be “hopeful” that it can be successfully sold.

Estate agent, Savills, has been appointed to head up the process.

WE’RE GOING TO IBIZA

New beach bar inspired by Ibiza to open on popular UK beach

NEXT STEP

Europe’s ‘longest stepping stones’ spanning 220ft are opening in UK this year

It’s hoped a buyer who can offer growth and investment for the space will be found.

Gloucestershire Airport has been hailed as a “vital economic and aviation asset for our county and region” by the City Council.

It’s also been confirmed that there has been “considerable interest from potential investors” in recent weeks, making it the “right time” to put the airport back up for sale.

The airport is still in operation, with the Cheltenham-based site offering charter services for private jets and helicopters.

Flying lessons are also operated from the airport as well as gift experiences like hot air balloon flights.

Speaking on the decision during a recent council meeting, Rowena Hay, leader of Cheltenham Borough Council, said: ”We are hopeful this renewed sale process will attract the right partner for the airport’s future, which remains our key priority.

“We will work with partners and stakeholders to update as the new sale process proceeds.”

Everton are close to agreeing a deal with Chelsea to sign winger Tyrique George following his loan spell.

The 20-year-old spent the second half of last season on loan on Merseyside, with an option to buy for £25m, but Everton have renegotiated an upfront fee to one with add-ons.

George made 11 appearances for Everton, starting once, but impressed manager David Moyes during his four-month spell at the club.

In May Moyes described him as “an excellent boy” with an “excellent work-rate” when asked about the possibility of a permanent move before the final match of the season.

With the deal for George close, Everton are finalising a £16m deal for Middlesbrough midfielder Hayden Hackney.

Attacking midfielder Merlin Rohl is also set to make his loan move permanent following a successful spell from SC Freiburg last season, while Idrissa Gana Gueye and Seamus Coleman have departed after their contracts expired.

George, who came through Chelsea‘s academy, has been available for transfer for the past 12 months.

He held talks with RB Leipzig last summer, while a £22m move to Fulham collapsed on transfer deadline day in September 2025.

Chelsea, meanwhile, are continuing their squad rebuild under new manager Xabi Alonso.

They have signed Marco Palestra from Atalanta and retain interest in Crystal Palace‘s Maxence Lacroix, Como’s Jacobo Ramon and Rayo Vallecano full-back Pep Chavarria.

However, the club are also looking to reduce the size of their squad after finishing 10th in the Premier League and failing to qualify for European competition.

That means fewer matches and reduced revenue from broadcasting and matchdays, while Chelsea remain under a Uefa settlement agreement for the next three seasons after breaching financial regulations last summer.

Player sales are therefore likely, with Real Madrid interested in Enzo Fernandez, while Como and Inter Milan are among the clubs keen on Trevoh Chalobah.

The futures of Benoit Badiashile, Tosin Adarabioyo and Wesley Fofana also remain uncertain, along with forwards Alejandro Garnacho and Liam Delap.

Hezbollah calls the deal a surrender as Israeli forces stay put and continue striking the south.

Israel has resumed air strikes on southern Lebanon, only days after signing a US-brokered agreement meant to end its war with the country.

The strikes came on Sunday, two days after the framework was signed in Washington following five rounds of talks.

Each side is presenting the same document as a victory on its own terms, and the deal has been rejected by Hezbollah and by far-right Israelis, raising immediate doubts over whether it can hold.

Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA) reported a series of attacks in the south on Sunday, a day after the Lebanese Ministry of Health said one person was killed in an Israeli attack there, the first death since the deal was signed.

Israeli aircraft were also active, with NNA reporting drones flying over the northeastern city of Baalbek and warplanes staging what residents described as a mock raid over nearby highlands.

Israel said its forces were targeting members of Hezbollah, the Lebanese armed group, near the buffer zone its troops occupy inside the country.

The Israeli military also announced that one of its soldiers had been killed in combat in the south. It named him as Captain David Hazutt, 21, a platoon commander in the Golani Brigade, an elite infantry unit, and said a second soldier was lightly wounded.

Israel’s military chief approved continued operations in the zone, saying they were in line with the ceasefire.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday called the agreement “historic” and “a massive blow to Iran and Hezbollah”.

An agreement was struck between Lebanon and Israel on Friday in Washington, which was described cautiously by United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio as “the beginning of the beginning”.

At the time, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said that the agreement “aims to achieve Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territories”.

The text appears not to require Israel to unconditionally withdraw from Lebanon, instead linking any pullback to the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Saturday that Israeli forces were preparing for an extended stay in the buffer zone, and would remain as long as the group held on to its weapons.

Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected the deal in a statement on Saturday, calling it “humiliating” and “a surrender of sovereignty” and saying his fighters would not leave the battlefield.

Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah member of parliament, said on Sunday that any move by the Lebanese army to enforce the agreement would push the country towards internal conflict, as supporters of the group protested across the capital against the deal.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s far-right national security minister, said the deal handed Hezbollah a “lifeline” and dismissed the idea that Lebanon’s army could disarm the group. He said he had opposed the agreement in cabinet for weeks and would continue to do so.

The war began on March 2, when Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel in response to the killing of Iran’s supreme leader in US-Israeli strikes.

Israel answered with heavy air raids and a ground invasion. More than 4,200 people have been killed in Lebanon since then, according to the country’s Health Ministry.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday that Washington should force Israel to stop its strikes and pull out of the areas it occupies in Lebanon, citing a separate understanding he said was binding on both Israel and the United States.

Israel and Lebanon have agreed on a new framework agreement after four days of marathon talks in Washington, DC, brokered by the United States, trying to end the months-long conflict.

Israel has been occupying almost 20 percent of Lebanese territory in the south and has killed more than 4,000 people since fighting erupted on March 2. A previous bout of fighting ended in a ceasefire in November 2024, but Israel carried out almost daily attacks and refused to end its occupation in breach of the deal.

The new deal, however, does not specifically call for the withdrawal of the Israeli forces and instead ties it to the disarmament of Hezbollah – a condition repeatedly rejected by the Iran-backed armed group.

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem on Saturday rejected the framework agreement, calling it “null and void”. Hezbollah has demanded that Israel first end its occupation.

Hezbollah supporters flooded the streets of the capital, Beirut, on Friday evening to oppose the deal.

So, what is the new agreement, which does not include Hezbollah, and can it lead to peace in Lebanon?

What’s in the Israel-Lebanon agreement?

After the trilateral signing in Washington, the US Department of State released the text of the agreement, which talks of a “sequenced process” that will see the Lebanese army restore “effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups” – a clear reference to Hezbollah.

The deal does not mandate Israeli withdrawal from the fifth of Lebanese land it occupies. Instead, the framework notes that Israel shall “progressively redeploy” out of Lebanon, offering two “pilot zones” where the Lebanese military “will gradually assume full and effective security responsibility”.

“One [pilot zone] is south of the Litani River and outside the security zone altogether, and the other is north of the Litani – a small area in the expanded security zone that we conquered in the last two weeks, and which the [Israeli military] says it does not need,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later said in a statement.

Once these conditions are met, “Lebanese civilians will be able to safely return to these areas under the exclusive control of Lebanese state authorities,” the framework says. More than 1.2 million people have been forcefully displaced.

Israel says that successfully returning southern Lebanon to Lebanese government control would “eliminate any future need for [Israeli military] action or presence in Lebanon” and “[declared] that it has not territorial ambitions in Lebanon”.

The Lebanese government has signed that it rejects “the claims of any state or non-state actor to use force on its behalf without its explicit authorization,” deeming such attacks “illegal” and “contrary to Lebanese national interests”.

How have parties to the conflict reacted to the agreement?

Israel

Netanyahu issued a video statement shortly after the agreement was announced, stressing that the framework would allow the Israeli military to remain in the occupied Lebanese land.

“We will maintain [the buffer zone] until Hezbollah disarms and as long as there is a threat to the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said.

It is also a partial, momentary win for Netanyahu, who faced intense domestic criticism after the US and Iran sidelined Israel to sign the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, which mandates an end to hostilities in Lebanon as well.

Lebanon

President Joseph Aoun expressed gratitude to Trump and other regional mediators after the signing of the trilateral agreement, which he hailed as “the first step on the path to restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty”.

In a statement from the Lebanese presidency, Aoun noted that the framework also “marks the beginning of the road to fructify [Lebanese citizens’] sacrifices, so that they may return to their fully liberated land”.

His statement has done little to tamp down the tensions in the capital, where supporters of Hezbollah took to the streets, burning tyres and blocking a road leading to the airport.

Hezbollah

Though the armed group is not a party to the agreement, and was not present at the negotiating table, its posture and actions will dictate where the conflict heads in the future.

The Hezbollah leader on Saturday condemned proposals to tie the Israeli withdrawal to the group’s disarmament. “Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of the resistance throughout Lebanon is a very dangerous proposition that crosses all red lines,” he said.

“The framework agreement in Washington is humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty,” he said.

He added that the framework agreement should be replaced by the Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding (⁠MoU) signed on June 15.

Earlier, Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah representative in the parliament, said Lebanese authorities would not be able to enforce the framework agreement unless, with US support, “they go to civil war”.

In a televised speech before the agreement was signed, Qassem said that Hezbollah would hold its weapons closer, ready to fight Israel for Lebanon, if the Lebanese state fails to do so.

The Iran-US MOU called for the “territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon” – a similar wording has been used in the framework agreement.

United States

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Washington’s point person in Israel and Lebanon talks, announced an “immediate” $100m donation by the US towards humanitarian assistance in coordination with the UN.

At the signing ceremony at the State Department in Washington, Rubio appeared to acknowledge the limited scope of the agreement, calling it “the beginning of the beginning.”

“There’s a lot of work ahead. We don’t in any way underestimate the difficulty of the task ahead, but we understand the importance of it, how vital it is, and we are honored to have played a part in bringing this together,” he said.

Two previous ceasefire agreements brokered by Washington failed to stop the fighting in Lebanon, as well as the Islamabad MOU, signed by President Trump and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian, earlier this month.

Iran

Though Tehran is yet to officially react to the agreement, its state media has been pressing against the deal.

Fars news agency noted that the agreement is essentially the US permitting Israel to violate the first clause of the Islamabad MOU, which mandated the cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon.

Does the Israel-Lebanon agreement contradict the Islamabad MOU?

Analysts point towards two direct contradictions between the preliminary deal signed by the US and Iran, and the latest agreement between Israel and Lebanon.

In short, the Islamabad MOU mandates the end of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, with no conditions – while the Israel-Lebanon agreement ties it to Hezbollah’s disarmament.

Israel has not adhered to any of the ceasefire agreements, including earlier ones, and continued with its assault on Lebanese territories. On Saturday, Lebanese state news agency NNA reported that the Farah amusement park intersection in Nabatieh al-Fawqa was targeted by an Israeli drone strike.

Israel has killed at least 4,192 people in Lebanon since the start of the war on Iran four months ago.

Secondly, the Islamabad MOU does not refer to or mention any of the Iran-backed proxy armed groups among its listed clauses to take forward the negotiations to end the war.

Tahani Mustafa, a visiting fellow on the Middle East and North Africa programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera that Israel and Washington would “definitely use the fact that Hezbollah refuses to disarm and capitulate to blame Hezbollah for derailing the entire process”.

Mustafa further added that Israel “has also proven that it is acting in bad faith, which really gives no confidence to Hezbollah to disarm or capitulate in the way that is being demanded.”

Washington is not blame-free either, she noted, arguing that “the American negotiators actively work behind the scenes to try and decouple Lebanon and Iran.”

“This has really just been something that both the Israelis and the Americans have attempted to cook up behind the scenes and once again obfuscating the blame for its failure,” she told Al Jazeera.

Can a deal work if Hezbollah rejects?

This is not the first time that Hezbollah’s disarmament is on the table – and the existing challenges remain. The 2024 deal also called for Hezbollah’s disarmament, but it could not be achieved as Israel continued to attack Lebanon and refused to withdraw its troops in breach of the deal.

Alon Pinkas, an Israeli former ambassador and consul general in New York, says he is “very doubtful and sceptical” that this will work out because the deal is between Israel and Lebanon with the US; the issue here is Hezbollah.”

Iran’s linking of the Lebanon conflict to the maturation of an agreement with the US, Pinkas says, “complicates things [because] Netanyahu said that [Israel] would not yield to any linkage to Iran and that Israel would defend itself in Lebanon”.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said that the agreement is an “existential threat” to Hezbollah’s presence.

“Without Hezbollah’s consent, this is not going to happen,” Hashem said. “This is going to be a recipe for another confrontation. The Lebanese government isn’t capable of imposing this deal. It’s not the de facto force on the ground.”

Los Angeles officials have reached a tentative agreement with organizers of the 2028 Olympic Games laying out the process for reimbursing the city for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in public services.

The agreement, which still needs approval from Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council, would require the privately run Olympic organizing committee LA28 to provide the city with funding in advance to cover services that are ineligible for reimbursement from the federal government, such as traffic control and trash pickup.

The two parties would take a somewhat different approach for police protection at high-security venues. Under the proposed arrangement, the city would seek reimbursement from the federal government for security costs at those locations, said City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo, the city’s top negotiator.

If the federal government does not provide full reimbursement for those security costs, the city would seek to tap LA28’s contingency funds to cover the difference, Szabo said.

“This deal ensures the 2028 Games will have the City services needed to be safe and successful, while protecting the taxpayers from footing the bill,” he said in a statement.

Paul Krekorian, executive director for Bass’ Office of Major Events, praised the agreement.

“Mayor Bass’ priority is that the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games be fiscally responsible, protect taxpayers, and benefit Angelenos for decades to come,” he said. “This agreement helps deliver that commitment.”

Negotiations between the city and LA28 have played out behind closed doors over the last year, even as critics have grown increasingly vocal about the potential for taxpayers to be saddled with huge payouts if the Games fail to generate a profit. If organizers experience significant losses, the city would be on the hook for the first $270 million and possibly more after that.

Szabo acknowledged that under that scenario, the city would be far less likely to recoup all of its security costs if the federal government failed to provide full reimbursement.

Under an agreement finalized in 2021, the organizing committee must reimburse the city for any services that go beyond what would be provided on a normal day at a variety of locations, including parts of downtown L.A., Exposition Park, Venice and elsewhere.

President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” included $1 billion for security, planning and other costs associated with the Olympics. Nevertheless, some elected officials have voiced fears that money might not materialize once the Games are over, or that the city’s security expenses could exceed that amount.

The tentative deal, known as an Enhanced City Resources Master Agreement, goes before the council’s ad hoc committee on the Olympic Games on Tuesday, then to the full council.

Even with the agreement, many of the details surrounding taxpayer services during the Olympics and Paralympics will remain unresolved for at least a year.

The two sides still have to finalize agreements spelling out the services that will be provided at each venue by July 2027. They also must agree on the cost of those services by Oct. 31 of the same year.

According to a summary of the agreement released by the city Friday, Los Angeles World Airports, the Port of Los Angeles and the Department of Water and Power would need to enter into their own service agreements with LA28.

LA28 and the city were supposed to have a tentative agreement in place last fall. The negotiations dragged out for an additional nine months, in large part because of the “inherent complexity of the 2028 Games,” Szabo said in a memo he co-wrote with Sharon Tso, the city’s chief legislative analyst.

Under the terms of the 2021 agreement, LA28 must create a $270-million contingency fund that can be distributed as a surplus if the Games make money, or be used to cover any losses in the event of a shortfall.

The proposal unveiled Friday calls for the five-year-old agreement to be amended to ensure that those contingency funds can be used to cover the city’s costs in the event that other revenue is not enough to pay for certain city services provided during the Games.

The money from that contingency fund would be distributed to the city only after LA28 covers its own costs, according to the city’s summary.

If LA28 does make money, it would not be allowed to distribute its surplus funds to any other organization until after it has covered its financial obligations to the city, according to the tentative agreement.

Jacie Prieto Lopez, LA28’s vice president of communications and public affairs, said in a statement that her organization is pleased to forward the agreement to the council for consideration.

“We proudly stand behind this agreement which delivers on our commitment to execute a safe, secure, and fiscally responsible Games that benefits Los Angeles for decades to come,” she said.

Defenseman Brandt Clarke has agreed to a five-year, $37 million deal to stay with the Kings.

The Kings announced the deal Friday for Clarke, the eighth overall pick in 2021 who has grown into the new cornerstone of their defense.

Clarke had career highs of eight goals and 32 assists while playing in all 82 regular-season games last season for the Kings, who lost in the first round of the Stanley Cup playoffs for the fifth consecutive year. He was third in the NHL with 185 blocked shots, and he finished fourth on the LA roster in scoring.

The 23-year-old Clarke spent parts of the past four seasons with the Kings, but has been an NHL regular for only two years. Kings general manager Ken Holland still saw enough to lock down the mobile defenseman through the 2030-31 season.

The Kings hired Peter Laviolette as their head coach earlier this month, and Clarke’s offensive skill fits well into the team’s possible evolution away from its traditional defense-first mentality to a more aggressive club under Laviolette.

Clarke was the Kings’ most prominent restricted free agent heading into the summer, but Holland also must make decision on unrestricted free agents Andrei Kuzmenko and Scott Lawton.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom reached an agreement Friday with legislative leaders on a $351.7-billion state budget in his final year as governor, a spending plan that uses a tax windfall to avoid major cuts and lessen California’s chronic deficit in the years ahead.

The deal provides nearly $2 billion in state revenue next year through tax hikes on corporations, new levies on software sales and a revamped tax on managed healthcare organizations. Lawmakers and the governor continue major investments in education, healthcare and agreed to increase spending on subsidized childcare and affordable housing.

“We want to leave the next governor not only a balanced budget, but a budget that is substantially structurally sound, and we’re going to accomplish that,” Newsom said in an interview Friday. “We were very cautious in terms of new spending,”

The agreement ends weeks of lobbying by outside interests and negotiations among lawmakers and the governor at the state Capitol about how to handle a surge of income tax collected on stock market gains related to artificial intelligence.

Early forecasts last June projected a $12.6-billion deficit in 2026-27, according to the California Department of Finance. Updated predictions now suggest the state will end the year with a surplus of $4.5 billion.

Democrats, following Newsom’s lead, are tucking away $6.4 billion for future years, which allows the governor to knock down a deficit previously projected through 2027-28 and assuage criticism about his spending habits.

But economists say the fix and revenue increase is likely only temporary.

Spending in California has generally exceeded revenue growth during Newsom’s tenure in the governor’s office, creating a chronic shortfall. Despite the extra funding, the budget continues a trend of relying on reserves, shifting funds, borrowing and suspending debt payments to balance state spending.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office, the nonpartisan fiscal advisor for lawmakers, has warned of a roughly $10-billion gap between the amount of money the state brings in and spends, which could grow dramatically worse if the stock market turns downward. The LAO has said the existence of any operating deficit during a revenue boom is a red flag and that the state is “ill-prepared” for even a modest decline.

Christopher Thornberg, an economist and founder of the consulting firm Beacon Economics, said it’s business as usual in Sacramento.

“They love increasing spending. But it seems politically impossible to go the other way,” Thornberg said. “We’ve seen this play out over and over again.”

Lawmakers and the governor offered a different take and asserted that their decision to put the $6.4 billion into a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, and ask voters to allow them to store more money in the rainy day fund are examples of prudent budgeting.

“You see us save more and you see try to address the immediate needs of our community, but also the structural budget that potentially awaits us,” said Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) in an interview. “We are forecasting a moment where we will need to address these issues and we want to start now to think about the future as well.”

Under a progressive tax structure, the state budget is dependent on income taxes paid by the ultra-rich on earnings largely from capital gains. The set up leaves California vulnerable to the unpredictable nature of the stock market, dramatic swings in revenue and, in recent years, reliant on poor projections.

Negotiations at the state Capitol included an agreement on a constitutional amendment that seeks to offset the revenue highs and lows.

If approved by voters on the statewide ballot in November, the amendment would raise a cap on mandatory deposits into the rainy day fund from 10% to 20% of general fund revenue. The measure would also allow lawmakers to exempt money they put into the rainy day fund and the temporary holding account from state spending limits.

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration. Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers.

With few exceptions, the limit applies to most appropriations of tax revenue, including when lawmakers put money away in the rainy day fund and other reserves.

Newsom said the change will leave the state in a much better position to weather the volatility. Though calls for tax reform remain in California, the governor said being able to place more money into the reserves could ultimately solve the state’s budget challenges.

“The one thing missing is the one thing that I think we finally landed, which is the change in the reserves,” Newsom said. “It changes the political dynamic, where now you’re not exchanging general fund priorities.”

Republicans criticized the proposed constitutional amendment, which passed in a budget trailer bill this week, for failing to require that excess revenue pays down the state’s $22 billion in unemployment insurance debt.

State Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) called it a missed opportunity.

“It does not require debt payment to go to the UI debt,” Strickland said. “It facilitates more spending, exempting reserve deposits from the state spending limit.”

As part of the negotiations, lawmakers agreed to delay some healthcare cuts that would have required monthly premiums for immigrants and eliminated dental care. The deal adopts a Medi-Cal asset test of $21,000 on July 1, 2027, instead of a $2,000.

The budget agreement includes a provision requiring California’s next governor to develop options to reduce taxpayer subsidies for corporations whose employees receive state-sponsored healthcare through Medi-Cal instead of the company’s health plan. The plan is aimed at raising revenue to offset federal cuts that are expected to leave millions of Californians without access to healthcare.

The California Department of Finance said state reserves are expected to total $28.8 billion under the 2026-27 budget.

GREENBELT, Md. — Former Trump administration national security adviser John Bolton pleaded guilty on Friday to illegally retaining classified information, sealing a deal with federal prosecutors that could allow him to avoid a prison term.

Bolton, who became an outspoken critic of President Trump after serving in the Republican’s first administration, is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 28 by U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Greenbelt, Md.

Bolton pleaded guilty to a single count of illegally retaining classified information. His plea agreement with the Justice Department may enable him to avoid time behind bars, but the judge ultimately will decide his punishment.

The plea agreement recommends capping any prison sentence at five years but the judge isn’t bound by that part of the deal. Bolton can withdraw his guilty plea if the judge issues a longer prison sentence or a fine greater than $2.25 million.

Bolton was charged last October with 18 counts of either retaining or disseminating classified information, including diary-like notes that he shared with relatives as he wrote a memoir about his career in government.

Other Trump adversaries have been charged with federal crimes during his second term in the White House. While some of those cases have collapsed under judicial scrutiny and amid claims of political retribution, Bolton didn’t mount a vigorous defense against his charges before cutting a deal.

FBI agents searched Bolton’s Maryland home and Washington, D.C., office last August, but the investigation began before Trump returned to the White House in January 2025.

Bolton served for more than a year in Trump’s first administration before getting pushed out in 2019. He later published a book called “The Room Where it Happened” that presented an unflattering portrait of Trump’s leadership.

The Trump administration fought unsuccessfully to block the book’s release, claiming it contained classified information that could jeopardize national security. Trump derided Bolton as a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.”

Bolton’s indictment focused on notes that he shared with his wife and daughter rather than the contents of his book. After sending one document, Bolton wrote in a message to his relatives, “None of which we talk about!!!” In response, one of his relatives wrote, “Shhhhh,” prosecutors said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Doha, Qatar – Gulf states have welcomed a breakthrough agreement between the United States and Iran to end a war they never wanted.

Six countries – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman – form the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which was created in 1981 following fears of the perceived expansionist ambitions of the new Iranian government.

Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Israel has attempted to isolate Iran and its wide network of regional proxy groups. But in a twist of irony, Israeli aggression in this pursuit has pushed some Gulf states closer to Tehran.

When Israel and the US launched strikes on Iran on February 28 – and Tehran responded by attacking Gulf states – they were again forced to reassess their relationship with their neighbour.

Gulf relations with Iran, at present, appear more shaped by realism than reconciliation, but this approach could help them navigate the uncertain road ahead.

“The ongoing conflict … compelled the Gulf states to pursue a more pragmatic relationship with Tehran, one that will include enhanced dialogue to deter conflict,” Farah al-Qawasmi, a researcher at the Gulf Studies Center at Qatar University, told Al Jazeera.

Embracing de-escalation – not Iran

All six GCC member states have welcomed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Iran and the US last week. But this is shaped more by the Gulf states wanting the war to end rather than a newfound trust of Iran.

“An agreement between the two parties is being [highly] advocated by the Gulf states in [an] attempt to prevent and contain regional conflicts,” al-Qawasmi said.

Shortly after the US and Iran agreed in 2015 to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – putting guardrails on Tehran’s nuclear programme – Gulf states remained sceptical about their neighbour.

The current war has only heightened these suspicions, but it has also seen regional states seek diplomacy with Tehran rather than military confrontation, despite Iran directly attacking Gulf cities.

“The Gulf states still feel like diplomacy is better than using force to get a deal … to change Iran’s behaviour and to insulate them from Iran’s destabilising actions,” Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer on security studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

Pinfold points out that Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz via drones and missiles, not nuclear weapons, making dealing with that threat a priority for Gulf states rather than Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Gulf states will want a more comprehensive agreement between Iran and the US, rather than the nuclear-focused JCPOA, said Pinfold.

“If you talk to people in Gulf capitals, they will tell you that the nuclear programme is a tomorrow problem for them,” he said.

“The today problem is Iran’s use of drones and proxies to destabilise and undermine the sovereignty of Gulf states, but also states throughout the region.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s three-day tour of the Gulf, which ends Thursday, is seen as a way of allaying these fears and assuring the GCC that Tehran will not be strengthened by the agreement.

Seat at the table

Mehran Haghirian, the director of research and programmes at the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation, believes Gulf states are in a better position to guide the outcome of the current US-Iran talks than in 2015.

“They are at the heart of the negotiations,” Haghirian said regarding the Gulf states’ role in the current talks.

In its role as a co-mediator, Qatar is essentially representing the GCC and their interests during the talks, while articles five and six of the Iran-US MoU place Gulf states at the centre of the agreement.

Among the biggest concerns for the GCC are the future of the Strait of Hormuz, with Tehran demanding tolls on shipping, and calls for the creation of a regional investment fund for Iran.

“There really cannot be any new Hormuz authority by Iran that would not include other GCC countries,” Haghirian told Al Jazeera.

US Vice President JD Vance claimed last week that the investment fund would be financed by the Gulf coalition, but Rubio said this week that regional allies would not be asked to contribute to any reconstruction fund for Iran.

Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani has described the reported $300bn figure as “aspirational” in an interview with the Financial Times, while no Gulf state has yet said if it will contribute to the fund.

‘Maximum pressure era’

The analysts stress that the GCC is not a monolith – with Gulf states having contrasting and changing approaches towards Iran.

Oman, Qatar and Kuwait were broadly supportive of the JCPOA. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain were more sceptical, but even these states publicly backed the agreement, said Haghirian.

When Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA in 2018, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain believed they had “found a partner in DC”.

That led to a “maximum pressure era” that brought a period of brinkmanship in the region, said Haghirian.

Suspected Iran-linked attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq-Khurais oil facilities and vessels off the coast of Fujairah in 2019 were “the initial reaction by the Iranians to that maximum pressure” campaign, he added, but paradoxically, this also triggered a recalibration of relations.

The UAE and Iran restored ties in 2022, and a China-brokered Saudi-Iran agreement took place in 2023.

“That was enough of a reason for Saudi Arabia [and] the UAE, particularly, to basically restructure their approach towards Iran,” Haghirian said.

The war and accelerated pragmatic rapprochement

While Israel has used war to attempt to increase its presence in the Gulf region – reportedly sending an Iron Dome battery to the UAE – other Gulf states view both Iran and Israel as unsettling forces in the region.

“Israel started the war, which was a destabilising act, and then Iran escalated by targeting the Gulf states, which was in turn a destabilising act,” Pinfold said.

Despite this, the Gulf states targeted by Iran still demonstrated patience and pragmatism in dealing with their neighbour.

Qatar, for example, has played a leading role in mediating between the US and Iran, even after being on the receiving end of Iranian drone and missile attacks.

“All six got attacked, and that’s really a level of foreign policy decision-making that is very difficult for any state to be able to really undertake, considering the fact that it was a military attack,” Haghirian said.

“But again, this pragmatism came out within this context to engage Iran and to actually speak for themselves at these negotiations. This war has really initiated a complete rebalancing of the entire region.”

June 24 (UPI) — Democratic lawmakers accused the Trump administration Wednesday of seeking to push through a multimillion-dollar arms deal with Turkey by bypassing congressional review, the latest executive action critics say usurps the lawmakers’ authority.

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he was informed by the Trump administration late Tuesday that it would bypass congressional review of an arms sale to Turkey worth more than $700 million.

“The State Department did not even attempt to justify its decision,” Meeks said in a statement.

“It did not invoke any emergency authority, did not present a written rationale and for months refused to make a good-faith effort to brief me on implications of the sale for the U.S.-Turkey relationship, Turkey’s continued possession of the Russian S-400 system and other regional security concerns,” he continued.

“It simply informed my office that it would immediately proceed with a formal notification of the sale.”

Turkey is a U.S. ally and NATO member with a robust defense industry. However, it’s led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an increasingly authoritarian leader who has maintained ties with Russia and whose government uses the Kremlin’s S-400 Triumph missile defense system.

The United States and NATO opposed Turkey’s adoption of the S-200 system, and Washington removed Turkey from the F-35 fighter program in 2019 during Trump’s first administration.

Meeks called the decision to bypass congressional review “yet another deeply troubling example of this administration’s open contempt for Congress’ oversight authority.

“There can be no pretense that this was urgent or unavoidable,” he said, stating the items will not be delivered to Turkey for years.

“This was a deliberate choice to shut Congress out and to treat legitimate oversight as an inconvenience to be brushed aside.”

Trump is scheduled to visit Turkey early next month. During a White House press conference alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Tuesday, he praised Erdogan as “a great friend.”

Erdogan is known to be seeking to acquire U.S.-made fighter jets, including the F-35. Asked if he was planning to announce a potential deal when he visits Ankara, Trump replied: “I’m going to probably do something that’s going to make him very happy.”

It was unclear if jets were part of the arms deal.

UPI has contacted the State Department for comment and to detail the contents of the sale.

Democrats and other critics of President Donald Trump have repeatedly accused his administration of bypassing Congress through executive orders and unilateral decisions, particularly in its use of the military.

The Trump administration has faced staunch criticism from opponents for launching a war against Iran in late February without congressional authorization. Democrats have frequently argued that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war.

Democrats have also criticized the administration’s use of the military to attack suspected drug-trafficking boats in the Pacific and Caribbean without congressional authorization.

The first round of talks between high-level officials from Iran and the United States in Switzerland has ended, mediators say, with the two sides agreeing on a roadmap towards a final deal to end their more than 100-day war.

Iran and the US agreed to set up communication lines to keep the vital Strait of Hormuz open and end fighting in Lebanon at the marathon talks that ended on Monday, according to mediators.

The teams, led by US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, opened talks on Sunday as part of a two-month negotiating period set out under a preliminary deal agreed last week.

Mediators Pakistan and Qatar said the negotiators reached agreement on a “roadmap towards reaching a final deal within 60 days” with technical talks to continue for the rest of the week at the Swiss resort of Burgenstock.

“Encouraging progress has been made, including the creation of a mechanism for further technical talks,” they said, detailing a contact channel set up to “avoid incidents and miscommunication” over the Strait of Hormuz.

A “deconfliction cell” between the parties and authorities in Lebanon has also been agreed to prevent fighting from erupting there again, they said.

Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid, reporting from Lucerne, Switzerland, said mediators hailed the constructive engagement, adding that the working groups formed by the negotiators are to begin work immediately.

“A lot of work still remains to be done, and it is not yet clear how these groups will be formulated, in which capacity they will work or what format any future meeting will take,” he said.

Tehran essentially had blocked the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation against the joint attacks by Israel and the US on February 28 that touched off the war.

Lebanon was pitched into the conflict as Iran-aligned Hezbollah attacked Israel in response to the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, prompting Israel to launch a wide-scale bombing campaign and ground invasion of southern Lebanon.

After a series of false starts, Washington and Tehran last week finally signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the war, which included a provision to end fighting in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah.

But there have been repeated clashes and Israeli attacks in Lebanon since, which prompted Iran to say days after it had reopened the Strait of Hormuz that it would again close the waterway, through which about a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies transited before the war.

“Tireless Pakistani and Qatari mediation has delivered major progress to end Lebanon War,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on X after the talks in Switzerland.

“Oil and petrochem exports are waived, blockade lifted, some frozen assets released, and major reconstruction & development plan launched for Iran. 1st real test: Lebanon deconfliction cell,” he wrote.

Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas, reporting from Tehran, said Iran achieved most of what it wanted in the talks in Switzerland because it had conditions for starting the technical talks.

“They were saying that the memorandum of understanding – particularly Articles 1, 10 and 11 – had to be initiated and implemented for the technical talks to move forward,” he said, referring to the sections on ending fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon; waiving US sanctions on Iranian energy exports; and releasing frozen Iranian assets.

“So now that they have decided that technical talks in Switzerland are going to continue throughout the whole week, we see that there is progress,” he added.

Trump’s threats

The roadmap was agreed after a shaky start to the negotiations. Iran’s delegation walked out in response to US President Donald Trump’s threats on Sunday to attack Iran over its support for Hezbollah.

“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble,” Trump wrote on social media, apparently referring to Hezbollah. “If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!”

Iran hit back with a warning of its own.

“They would do better to be careful with their statements; our armed forces are ready to respond to them in a different manner. No matter what they say, we are the ones who act,” Iran’s chief negotiator, Ghalibaf, said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, said Israeli troops would remain in southern Lebanon “as long as necessary” and promised that he would “not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons”.

By Sunday evening, there had been no reports of Israeli attacks or continued fighting as some residents of southern Lebanon cautiously returned to their homes.

The fighting between Israel and Hezbollah has repeatedly threatened to derail peace efforts.

On Friday, planned US-Iranian talks were postponed after Israel launched deadly attacks in Lebanon following the deaths of four of its soldiers in combat.

Israel’s military chief visited troops on Sunday in southern Lebanon, where he said Hezbollah was in a “very difficult position”.

“Hezbollah has suffered a severe and significant blow, and we are committed to remaining prepared to continue operating and prevent its rebuilding,” Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir said.

The overall death toll from the fighting in Lebanon has surpassed 4,100 since it escalated on March 2, the Ministry of Public Health said.

‘Historic meeting’

Vance had earlier hailed “a historic meeting” in Switzerland.

Even as Trump was threatening Iran, Vance told reporters the US president had “asked us to turn over a new leaf to transform our relationship with the people of Iran”.

Flanked by US negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Vance added: “The question before us now is how much more can we accomplish together?

“Can we turn over a new leaf? Can we change relations in the Middle East permanently?

“Or do we go back to doing things the old way, which is not our preference, but it’s certainly very much something that can happen.”

Lebanon aside, there has been no indication that Iran’s support for armed groups across the region, which has long drawn the ire of the US and Israel, would be addressed in the negotiations.

Speaking on Sunday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stressed that Tehran would not relinquish its right to enrich uranium although he repeated Iran’s denial that it seeks nuclear weapons.

“We can also state in writing that we have no intention of building a bomb,” he said.

WASHINGTON — Bobby Ray Inman’s bizarre withdrawal as the defense secretary nominee provides a glimpse into a peculiar Washington phenomenon–the insider who has spent so long behind the scenes that he is unprepared for the glare of the public limelight.

For more than 20 years, first as a Navy admiral and later as director of the National Security Agency and then deputy CIA director, Inman was part of a cadre of people who exercise great power in government but are insulated from the give-and-take of daily political life.

Inman’s remarks in announcing his withdrawal Tuesday and interviews with some of his friends suggest that the retired admiral was unequipped to step into the public arena. Despite his stated reasons, that lack of exposure to public life has emerged as the most plausible explanation for Inman’s abrupt turnabout.

“We thought: ‘He’s an insider–he probably knows the rules of the game.’ But he didn’t,” said Stephen H. Hess, a Brookings Institution political analyst. “We were all caught off guard by that.”

William Safire, the New York Times columnist accused by Inman of mounting unfair attacks, said Wednesday that he suspects Inman withdrew because he and other journalists were working on stories that might have damaged Inman’s chances for winning confirmation.

In his column appearing today, Safire wrote that Inman might have been worried by probes into reports that Inman had used a source on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff to help “manipulate” unsuspecting senators during Inman’s time at the CIA.

Inman had blamed a “new McCarthyism” in the press and the threat of a “partisan attack” by Republicans for his decision, but the media coverage and the GOP were overwhelmingly favorable toward him.

There were other ingredients as well: By Inman’s own admission, he did not thirst for the post. “I did not want a job in Washington,” he said in an interview.

He said he accepted Clinton’s offer because, as a career military officer, he found it difficult to refuse a presidential request.

Friends suggest that Inman’s longtime insecurities, apparently stemming from his days as a clumsy, bespectacled youngster, may have played a part by prompting him to overreact to fears that his reputation was being besmirched.

Inman’s experience is not unique in Washington politics. Others who have made the transition–notably Dwight D. Eisenhower, who went from five-star general to President, have had similar adjustments to make, although Eisenhower managed it more deftly.

Being an admiral or general provides a degree of insulation that often is a handicap for a would-be politician. Few are willing to criticize a senior military officer, especially in public.

And someone who has spent the bulk of his career as an intelligence officer is even more protected. By nature, the chiefs of the nation’s intelligence agencies stay in the background, even while advising presidents, briefing congressional leaders and influencing policies.

Especially during the Cold War, the bulk of their contact with the outside was behind closed doors–with lawmakers or reporters respectfully grateful for any morsel of information they were given.

Inman’s circumstances, and his own talents, accustomed him to receiving nothing but plaudits. Presidents, lawmakers and even the press praised him lavishly, extolling his brilliance and wisdom. Hardly an unkind word was to be found.

What Inman actually had to face during his few short weeks as defense secretary-designate was mild:

* A potential flap over his failure to pay Social Security taxes for a housekeeper peaked a few hours after it was announced, leaked by the White House to head off any serious brouhaha. The issue had been a major element in toppling two candidates for top Justice Department posts.

* News stories, backed up by bankruptcy records, noted his mixed performance in various business ventures. The articles were brought on mainly by Inman’s statements that he planned to bring more business techniques to government.

As Inman eventually admitted, the only real criticism came from a handful of columnists. News coverage and most editorials were heavy with praise; Inman said Tuesday that the working press had treated him fairly.

Inman did “more to besmirch his own reputation in his press conference than the press or the Republicans ever did,” Hess said. “Most people think his response bordered on the bizarre.”

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), whom Inman accused–apparently without foundation–of spearheading a GOP attack against him, offered perhaps the unkindest cut of all:

“I think it’s probably a break for President Clinton that he didn’t get the job, the way he carried on yesterday,” the senator said Wednesday on CBS-TV’s “This Morning” program, in a view shared by some White House aides.

Times staff writer James Risen contributed to this story.

BEIRUT, Lebanon, June 19 (UPI) — The Iran war may be over, but southern Lebanon is likely to remain a battlefield and a bargaining chip in regional negotiations, despite Lebanon’s inclusion in the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States — a provision Israel rejected to preserve its freedom of action against Hezbollah, analysts said.

Violence in southern Lebanon subsided after the United States and Iran announced a 14-point preliminary agreement to end hostilities, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and begin nuclear talks under a 60-day extended ceasefire.

The MOU was signed remotely on Wednesday by U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, two days ahead of a formal signing ceremony scheduled to take place in Switzerland.

Rather than a cessation of hostilities, southern Lebanon witnessed a sharp escalation in fighting, with Israel intensifying its airstrikes and Hezbollah targeting Israeli forces seeking to seize the strategic Ali Taher hill in the Nabatiyeh district. Both sides traded accusations of violating the ceasefire established under the MOU.

The overnight exchange left 47 people dead, including women and children, and 97 others wounded in Israeli strikes on several areas of Lebanon, including Nabatiyeh and the eastern Bekaa Valley. Four Israeli soldiers, including a lieutenant colonel, were also killed by Hezbollah fire.

Israeli airstrikes continued beyond a new ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, brokered by the United States and Qatar with Iranian assistance, and set to take effect at 4 p.m. Friday.

It remains to be seen how long this new truce will last, as is the case with the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, given ambiguities in the MOU and differing interpretations of its clauses.

Israel, which rejected Trump’s “betrayal” and the agreement with Iran, is seeking to change the arrangement by force in order to preserve its freedom of action against Hezbollah threats in southern Lebanon. It also seeks to maintain control of a security zone in southern Lebanon and is not willing to withdraw its forces unless its northern region is secured and safe.

Riad Tabbarah, Lebanon’s former ambassador in Washington, said Israel believes it has the right, as it usually does, to modify the agreement on the ground after “accepting it on paper, so as not to annoy Trump.”

“This is exactly what they did last time, and what they do every time,” Tabbarah told UPI. “Today, they are doing the same.”

He was referring to the Nov. 27 ceasefire agreement brokered by the United States and France to halt the war that began when Hezbollah opened a support front for Gaza on Oct. 8, 2023.

Despite the truce, Israel continued to carry out strikes against Hezbollah, which refrained from retaliation for 15 months as it sought to reorganize its ranks before resuming fighting on March 2 in support of Iran.

The March escalation increased the human and material toll in Lebanon after Israel applied what was described as a “scorched earth” policy to empty border areas of residents and render them uninhabitable.

More than 3,980 people have been killed and 12,001 injured in the past 109 days, with 1.2 million displaced under Israeli evacuation orders. Large areas were devastated, including the complete destruction of 70 villages and heavy damage to infrastructure.

It would be “pure imagination and illogical” to think that Israel would easily withdraw and relinquish the security zone it is building in southern Lebanon, intended to prevent anyone from crossing its border and carrying out kidnappings like Hamas did from Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, according to Tabbarah.

What could stop the frustrated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from sabotaging Trump’s efforts to finalize a lasting peace deal with Iran and continuing his military campaign in Lebanon?

The tension between Trump and his administration on one side, and Netanyahu and his government officials on the other, over the Iran deal “is growing, and we need to wait and see how it will develop,” said Lebanese former foreign minister Fares Boueiz.

As for Iran, Boueiz noted that as long as it believes it is benefiting from the deal with Trump, it “won’t do anything to jeopardize the understanding.”

“It is clear that the U.S.-Iran war is over, with no winner and no loser and no complete victory for anyone,” he told UPI. “The next 60 days will determine whether a final agreement is reached and whether Netanyahu will be able to obstruct it.”

The fear that Lebanon remains an open battlefield and a bargaining chip has grown, despite Iran’s pledge to Hezbollah that it will not proceed with the MOU talks if Israel fails to observe a full ceasefire in Lebanon and withdraw from the southern region.

Lebanese retired Maj. Gen. Abdul Rahman Chehaitli argued that the war in south Lebanon was “an Iran-Israel war sponsored by the U.S.”

“Now that Iran has reconciled with the U.S., signed an agreement, and is negotiating, the battle is over for them,” Chehaitli said in an interview with UPI. “This means that Lebanon should work toward a solution with Hezbollah and engage in serious negotiations to secure Israel’s withdrawal and end any illegitimate armed presence.”

Lebanon, which opted for U.S.-mediated direct talks with Israel to end the war despite Hezbollah’s objections, is preparing for another round of diplomatic talks with Israel scheduled to take place in Washington next week.

While Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem has set new terms for the talks, saying they should be limited to “mutual security,” Israel is insisting on disarming the Iran-backed group and keeping it away from its borders.

Hezbollah has also been pushing to drop the Lebanon-Israel direct negotiations in favor of the U.S.-Iran track.

“Hezbollah can say whatever it wants, but Lebanon should negotiate on its own,” Chehaitli said, adding that the militant group “is concerned about the day after, seeking security guarantees or immunity.”

Lebanon has no option but to negotiate its way out of the war, but the process will be long, and southern Lebanon will remain under Israeli fire and a bargaining chip in Iran’s hands until a final deal with Washington is reached, according to some analysts.

Tabbarah argued that Israel did not go through all this war only to back down, while Iran seeks a high price in return for Hezbollah and its other regional armed proxies.

“I don’t think Iran will go to war again. It will find a formula to save face for its armed militias,” he said, adding that the U.S., on its part, will have to restrain Israel and force Netanyahu to accept a full ceasefire in Lebanon.

He explained that a decision by Trump to stop U.S. military assistance to Israel, or “anything of the sort,” would be a serious step.

Tabbarah, however, warned that the solution “is not for tomorrow unless Israel drops its dream of establishing Greater Israel.”

Khatibzadeh tells Al Jazeera diplomacy is way forward, but US must ensure that Israel stops its attacks on Lebanon.

Iran’s deputy foreign minister says Tehran wants to continue the diplomatic process with Washington, if the United States is serious about respecting their agreement and ensures Israel abides by the terms of the memorandum of understanding (MoU).

“We are ready to move forward step by step, if the other party demonstrates the same seriousness,” Saeed Khatibzadeh told Al Jazeera Arabic in an interview on Friday.

His comments came after talks between the US and Iran that were due in Switzerland on Friday were called off, and US Vice President JD Vance cancelled his planned trip there.

Earlier, officials including mediators Pakistan and Qatar said the two sides would meet in Burgenstock to begin negotiations on a host of issues as outlined in the MoU signed between the US and Iran this week.

Reports said the talks may have been called off after intense fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon on Friday. Lebanon’s health ministry said Israeli attacks killed at least 47 people since midnight.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Khatibzadeh denounced the latest Israeli attacks in Lebanon, saying Israel’s “continued war-making” would have “serious and immediate consequences”.

He said Iran was seeking “peace on all fronts, including Gaza”, and explained that Lebanon had been included in the MoU because of its direct connection to the conflict.

Article 1 of the MoU explicitly states that ending the war in Lebanon is an integral part of the broader ceasefire arrangement across all fronts.

“There will be no peace or stability in Lebanon and the region without ending the occupation and Israel’s commitment to international law,” Khatibzadeh added.

On the Strait of Hormuz, he said Iran would continue to provide navigation services in coordination with Oman and in accordance with international law.

He added that Tehran would not impose passage fees during the 60-day period outlined by the agreement, but said a new mechanism for managing the waterway would be introduced afterwards and presented to regional countries.

Khatibzadeh also said that any future agreement must include the release of all frozen Iranian funds.

Esmaeil Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s ministry of foreign affairs, said on Friday that the necessary consultations involving the US deal are being carried out through mediators, and that if the conditions for starting negotiations are met an official announcement will be made.

Regarding the Lebanon ceasefire required for talks between the US and Iran to continue, a Hezbollah official told Al Jazeera that the ceasefire would hold if Israel abided by it.

Israel’s ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter said on X: “Israel remains firmly committed to an immediate ceasefire. If Hezbollah honours the agreement and ceases its hostilities, they will be met with quiet”.

WASHINGTON — Most Americans continue to disapprove of how President Trump is handling Iran, while his overall presidential approval holds steady, according to a new AP-NORC poll that was conducted as he suggested a deal with Iran had been reached.

The poll points to just how unpopular the war, which began Feb. 28, has been with Americans even as the Republican president turned abruptly from threatening Iran to reopening negotiations. Support for his handling of the war remains lopsidedly partisan. About two-thirds, 65%, of U.S. adults disapprove of how Trump is handling issues with Iran. But while the vast majority of Democrats and independents view Trump’s actions negatively, only 28% of Republicans are unhappy.

Americans’ views on how the president is handling Iran are roughly in line with his overall job approval, which stands at 37%, unchanged from an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May.

The new survey was conducted June 11-17, just after Trump called off threats to escalate the war with Iran. The poll was fielded as Trump announced a deal with Iran and authorized an end to the U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, concluding just before the deal was signed Wednesday.

Approval of Trump’s actions on Iran has been low over the past few months. But in interviews, some Republicans also weren’t pleased with the outcome of this week’s agreement, which gives Iran an immediate benefit, allowing it to sell its oil freely again.

The deal also reopens the strait without tolls for two months, restarts talks between the U.S. and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program and calls for Tehran to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

David Farrington, a 79-year-old Republican-leaning independent in Fort Worth, Texas, “doesn’t have any love lost” for Iran, but he’s frustrated the agreement focused on the strait and didn’t deliver more on the country’s nuclear weapons program.

“Any agreement regarding the strait is hardly what I would consider a recognizable concession on the part of Iran,” Farrington said. “So, I consider that some fluff that attempts to make this agreement look better when it’s not.”

Trump’s approval on Iran remains flat

Only about one-third of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling Iran in the new poll, in line with May.

Donald McBride, a 28-year-old independent in Plano, Texas, is frustrated that Trump has not maintained his campaign promise to keep America out of foreign wars. McBride voted for Trump but he opposed going to war with Iran.

“I would like the war to end,” he said. “The original objective of the war was to end the Iranian regime, and that’s just not possible. I don’t really know why we’d continue fighting.”

The poll suggests most Americans want action in Iran to wrap up. Even with an agreement on the horizon, 53% of U.S. adults said American military action against Iran had “gone too far,” only a slight decline from 59% in March.

About 4 in 10 Republicans, though, said in the latest poll that action has been “about right,” and 37% said it had not gone far enough.

Joan Jones, a 64-year-old independent in northwest Florida, believes the United States’ actions in Iran have been necessary to address the threat Iran posed.

“Those attacks are ultimately to protect us from nuclear attacks,” Jones said. “I think we have to go through that … and eliminate that worry so we don’t have that hovering over us.”

Few approve of Trump’s approach on Israel

About one-third, 34%, of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling Israel.

Tensions have been rising between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump as the president criticizes recent Israeli attacks in Lebanon, which jeopardized negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

James Huffman, a 69-year-old Republican in Medway, Ohio, thinks Trump is taking the wrong strategy when it comes to Netanyahu.

“Netanyahu is not going to do everything Trump wants. He’s going to do what he wants,” Huffman said. “I just don’t think it’s effective.”

Only about one-third approve on the economy

About one-third of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s approach to the economy. That’s in line with last month, and continues a challenging stretch for Trump on the issue.

Jones, the Florida independent, is more optimistic than most. She said she can hardly leave the house some hours without getting stuck in the traffic of tourists headed to the beach on vacation. She also spots lines around the block for Starbucks, McDonalds and Chick-fil-A in her community — all signs to her that the economy is doing well overall.

“I think President Trump’s policies are contributing to a better economy,” Jones said.

Other Republicans are more skeptical, a troubling sign for a president who prides himself on his business acumen. Only 69% of Republicans approve of how he’s handling the economy, slightly lower than the 78% who approve of how he’s handling the presidency overall.

Patricia Bailey, a 42-year-old Republican in Parkersburg, West Virginia, sees an economy where prices have gotten out of control. “I just said the other night, ordering pizza is for rich people,” she said. Bailey voted for Trump but added, “He’s kind of let me down a little bit.”

Even if high prices preceded Trump, Bailey doesn’t think he’s lived up to his pledge to improve the economy.

“I think he got so distracted with the war that he forgot some old promises,” she said.

Sanders and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press.

The AP-NORC poll of 3,040 adults was conducted June 11-17 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

The MQ-9 Reaper and its associated Predator-B family of drones are in an interesting spot these days. On one hand, they are receiving new, highly relevant capabilities and missions at an accelerating pace. They also just proved to be an absolutely star asset for hunting and killing key targets, such as missile launchers and air defenses, deep inside Iran. On the other hand, their vulnerability to air defenses, not even modern ones, is glaring, with major losses in Iran and Yemen. Yet the USAF’s chronic lack of commitment to replace the MQ-9 has left it with dwindling stocks and nothing better to do the job.

Within this jumbled and often misunderstood narrative, one new capability stands out from the rest that would give the MQ-9 extreme value today and for years to come. This is turning the MQ-9 into a radar-toting airborne early warning (AEW) platform for detecting and tracking aircraft, drones, and missiles. A Reaper in this exact configuration just flew for the first time recently.

The MQ-9 sortie in question was the product of a partnership between General Atomics and Saab, with Saab, already a leader in AEW systems, providing the podded radar system named LoyalEye. This initial test flight took place on May 19th, and a full demonstration of the pairing’s capabilities is planned for next year.

GA-ASI President David R. Alexander stated the following about the MQ-9 AEW capability:

“AEW for MQ-9B will offer critical aloft sensing to defend against tactical air munitions, guided missiles, drones, fighter and bomber aircraft, and other threats. Operational availability for a medium-altitude, long-endurance UAS is the highest of any military aircraft, and as an unmanned platform, its aircrews are not put into harm’s way.”

For many years now, I have discussed how the most glaring new mission set for a medium altitude, long-endurance drone is AEW. The idea is relatively simple in concept. Take a cost-effective drone that can fly at medium altitudes for long periods and bolt on some radar pods capable of air moving-target indicator (AMTI) functionality. Then configure the datalinks (both line-of-sight and beyond line-of-sight) aboard the aircraft to send the information the pods collect back to controllers, who also remotely operate the drone and the pods from the ground. Such an unmanned aircraft could fly its missions at relatively low cost, and operate in a distributed manner, near where its surveillance capabilities are needed most. Above all else, it would be able to persist for very long periods of time — think of loitering over its launch location for the better part of a day or more — providing persistent long-range look-down radar surveillance, which has never been more important than it is today.

One-way attack munitions, also known as long-range kamikaze drones, are a massive threat to confront on many levels. These unmanned aerial systems blur the definition between cruise missiles and drones. In this case, cruise missiles are also part of the same problem set. While the question of how to shoot down relatively cheap one-way attack drones cost-effectively gets a lot of attention, just spotting them in order to engage them at all, especially at a distance, is also a challenge. Their small signatures and low-altitude flight profiles, as well as their slow speed, can make it so ground-based sensors don’t detect them until it’s almost too late, and aging airborne sensors also have limitations in doing so.

The moment of one of Russian strikes with Shahed/Geran-type long-range OWA-UAVs in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro on Tuesday.

According to Ukrainian emergency services, at least 12 people have been wounded as a result of today’s attack. https://t.co/3lnQazYpWl pic.twitter.com/N7PdwrsK0I

— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) September 30, 2025

This is where an advanced look-down airborne radar is critical. It can spot these objects from above at long distances and separate them from the ground clutter. The problem is that airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) manned platforms are hugely expensive, resource intensive, and are the very definition of high-value, low-density assets. Many of them can only operate from longer runways, meaning they can only be based far away from where the threats are. Even then, they are top targets, as we saw earlier this year in Saudi Arabia, and their airfields are prime targets too, which can leave them trapped or destroyed on the ground.

The USAF has a dwindling number of geriatric E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, which, despite upgrades, are not the best at spotting low-flying drones. The USAF is now moving begrudgingly forward with stalled E-7 procurement, but these aircraft are also very complex, expensive, and labor-intensive platforms that need long runways to operate from. The Navy has the E-2D Hawkeye, which is more modern and capable in some regards, and less in others, but is also not available in vast numbers as they have other critical taskings, especially to support carrier air wings. These aircraft are better suited to operate from remote forward airfields, and having a smaller logistical and crew footprint, but still require far more support than an MQ-9. Overall, these crewed aircraft are also increasingly vulnerable to long-range air defenses, and, while their sensor range is generous, it is still limited, making their utility questionable in a peer state conflict.

For higher-end missions, where command and control is a major part of what AEW&C platforms will be called upon to do, directing air wars and coordinating defenses, while also supplying networking support, a pod-equipped MQ-9 cannot replace an E-7 or E-2. For providing critical surveillance, especially in areas where there are gaps in crewed AEW&C coverage, or in places that just don’t require that level of support, the AEW-capable MQ-9 is a very attractive solution. Even pushing these uncrewed sensor nodes forward, into higher-threat areas, under certain circumstances, to provide high-fidelity radar coverage where no crewed platform would ever be risked, is a real use case. An MQ-9 is far more expendable than a manned AEW&C asset from human life, cost, and recovery operation requirements (combat search and rescue) perspectives.

The truth of the matter is that even if the E-7 replaces all 15 remaining E-3s, and even if the Navy adds E-2 Hawkeyes, in a future distributed conflict, there is no way these aircraft can give all the coverage needed, persistently, day and night, while providing surveillance for all threatened locales. Not even close. This is especially true as relatively cheap one-way attack drones, such as the Shahed-136, can travel over a thousand miles, drastically expanding potential threat areas at a very low cost to the enemy.

This is where the podded MQ-9 can shine, with a detachment of a few of these aircraft providing persistent coverage (“orbits”) over key areas 24/7 while retaining a small logistical footprint. This would also directly support the USAF’s Agile Combat Employment (ACE) combat doctrine, where small groups of tactical aircraft will move quickly from one forward location to another in hopes of staying ahead of an enemy’s targeting cycle. While that may be the goal, these traveling road-shows of airpower will still need persistent look-down coverage, especially if they are positioned deeply within the enemy’s striking range. AEW&C aircraft will not be able to provide this coverage persistently (if at all). AEW MQ-9s could, and they could drastically increase the situational awareness, range, and overall effectiveness of other key defensive capabilities, such as surface-to-air missile systems and fighter aircraft, with the targeting data they provide.

General Atomics is also turning the MQ-9 family into drone killers themselves with the addition of laser-guided rockets. This could result in ‘hunter-killer’ teaming, where the AEW MQ-9 spots the threat and the laser-guided rocket-equipped MQ-9 intercepts and destroys it. Just the AEW MQ-9 on its own can also use its powerful MTS electro-optical sensor turret to visually identify potential enemy aircraft once they get close enough, allowing for a non-cooperative friend or foe identification capability.

Mojave STOL: Real. Rugged. Ready Today.

You can even look to the recent fighting in the Middle East, which saw Iran barrage allied bases on the Arabian Peninsula with one-way attack munitions and low-end cruise missiles. Reapers with LoyalEye pods could have provided persistent look-down radar coverage over threatened areas, especially as the USAF’s dwindling and rickety AEW&C fleet was overtasked. They could have also created a radar picket line across the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, and eastern Iraq, providing high-fidelity look-down radar coverage and a true early warning screen for Iranian weapons heading towards their target areas, all without putting a crew at risk.

Now, it’s worth noting that the USAF envisions a future where AEW and general AMTI sensing is largely migrated to an orbital layer of satellites, and they are actively working to realize this capability, which would be absolutely revolutionary if fully realized. Yet, as of now, it’s still an if, and it will take years to fully come to fruition. Even then, relying on a space layer alone for this absolutely critical capability would be a huge vulnerability. Backing it up with a lower-end, flexible airborne solution will likely remain critical for a long time to come. AEW MQ-9s can help efficiently fill out a high-low AEW/airborne moving target indicator mix. This is especially true as the platform itself, the MQ-9, can be reconfigured for a huge range of other missions when AEW capabilities are not in high demand, so the USAF isn’t left with a single mission asset.

The AEW MQ-9s can also provide their capabilities here at home. America is dealing with a tough future when it comes to defending the homeland, and providing look-down radar capabilities is a major part of adapting to this reality. Outside of tethered aerostats, which have not proven to be a large-scale workable solution yet, AEW MQ-9s would provide flexible, efficient and persistent capabilities in areas where it may be needed, especially in times of heightened defense, like major public events and during a crisis.

The AEW MQ-9s can also provide their services during large force employment training exercises, including going some way to emulate more capable crewed AEW&C platforms, at least with target track generation, when those manned AEW&C assets are not available. They could also be very valuable in an opposition forces ‘red air’ role, which has historically been sorely lacking in AEW, especially as AEW capabilities proliferate around the globe, particularly with America’s primary pacing threat, China.

The naval side of this is a big deal too. The fact that General Atomics is modifying the MQ-9 family to operate from large deck amphibious assault ships and carriers presents another huge opportunity. It could provide LHA/LHDs with a truly organic fixed-wing AEW asset for the first time — one that doesn’t require large flight crews and that can loiter above the amphibious strike group for very long periods of time. This is becoming more important as enemy missile and drone technology evolves. Having to rely on surface combatants and a small contingent of fighter aircraft, if any at all, for air defense is limiting and can impart extra risk at inopportune times, especially in littoral environments. During a major conflict, these ships could operate too far out to sea to make land-based AEW support plausible and those assets will be over-tasked as it is. AEW MQ-9 seems like a relatively glaring off-the-shelf solution to this problem. It’s also worth noting that the USMC already operates the MQ-9 and integrating it into the shipboard Air Combat Element (ACE) of a Marine Air-Ground Task Force should be relatively straightforward.

Introducing MQ-9B STOL

AEW configured examples could also be extremely useful for the Marines’ Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) concept, which mirrors elements of the USAF’s ACE doctrine, but goes beyond just the aerial fight. Marines deployed forward in the enemy’s ring of fire under EABO will need look down protection more than pretty much anyone else, which the AEW MQ-9 could provide at low risk. The MQ-9 family is already capable of short field operations and that is only being enhanced with new STOL (short-takeoff-and-landing) members of the MQ-9 family, meaning they can fly from small, austere airstrips and could maintain sortie rates even if those airstrips receive partial damage.

For supercarriers, the AEW MQ-9 could augment the E-2D, providing constant look down radar coverage for the entire carrier strike group when E-2s are not up. This would deeply benefit the CSG’s entire air warfare mission, providing critical sensor data to Aegis warships, fighters, and the carrier. They could also augment E-2D coverage during high-threat periods of vulnerability, including putting additional sensor coverage farther away from the CSG over high-risk vectors of attack. We discussed in detail how an AEW capable version of the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray could also serve in this general capacity.

All of this is from a very American point of view, but the AEW MQ-9 concept may be most attractive to foreign air arms that currently have no dedicated AEW capabilities at all, or are looking to augment the limited capacity they do have. Fielding a traditional AEW&C force is very expensive, even for a small cadre of crewed platforms, limiting the realistic application of such a force even if the country can afford it to begin with. AEW MQ-9 could help ‘democratize’ AEW and allow many allies to field such a capability, which a coalition force during multi-national operations could also benefit from, including the U.S. In this way, AEW MQ-9 could be a huge win not just for countries in need of this kind of capability at a lower price point, but also for the U.S., as this kind of sensor information will become far more widespread, putting less pressure on its own organic AEW force. This could be leveraged both in peacetime for surveillance and monitoring, but especially in a crisis.

Just look at what’s happening with the drone threat to Europe for instance. MQ-9s with the radar pods could provide sustainable airborne surveillance for NATO countries. Think of the AEW MQ-9 as the F-5 Freedom Fighter of AEW capabilities. And once again, these allies would be able to use the MQ-9s in many different ways when not configured for the AEW mission, including peacetime monitoring and patrols not related to airborne moving target tracking.

As it sits now, Japan has already expressed interest in the AEW MQ-9 and many other nations are sure to follow.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the idea of AEW functionality on an uncrewed platform isn’t exactly new. It has been experimented with before and China is thought to have added some of this functionality to its far more advanced high-altitude, long-endurance drones. But providing a robust, off-the-shelf solution for the more accessible and flexible medium-altitude, long-endurance drone class, and especially the most proven of all types in this class on the planet, the MQ-9 family, makes glaring sense for an extremely wide set of potential users, including the United States.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

Al Jazeera’s Dominic Kane explains that the EU won’t lift crucial sanctions on Iran until a formal nuclear agreement is reached. The bloc’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas also clarified that human rights-related sanctions will continue regardless.