Defense

May 15 (Asia Today) — South Korea and the United States signed a letter of intent Friday to cooperate on drone and counter-drone systems, South Korea’s Defense Ministry said.

The agreement was signed at the ministry’s headquarters in Seoul by Jun Joon-beom, director general of the Defense Artificial Intelligence Planning Bureau, and Patrick Mason, deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Army for defense exports and cooperation.

Under the agreement, the two sides will work to build a joint supply chain for drone and counter-drone systems and strengthen cooperation on standardization.

The U.S. Defense Department plans to consider registering Korean-made products on an online platform for drone and counter-drone transactions that it aims to establish this year.

South Korean officials said the platform could allow both countries to purchase and operate Korean-made systems, improving interoperability and reducing logistics costs.

The two countries also plan to cooperate on common standards for drone and counter-drone systems to improve the efficiency and compatibility of combined South Korea-U.S. operations.

In the near term, they will seek to adopt a common battery standard for small drones. They will also exchange information and conduct joint research toward a shared standards system.

“We hope the signing of this letter of intent will accelerate the establishment of common standards and certification systems for drone and counter-drone systems,” Jun said.

Mason said allies such as South Korea could overcome existing acquisition barriers and quickly field efficient and interoperable drone systems.

“We will ensure that the best available technologies are provided to South Korean and U.S. combined warfighters,” Mason said.

Before the signing ceremony, Won Jong-dae, South Korea’s deputy defense minister, met U.S. officials and said the agreement marks the beginning of the South Korea-U.S. alliance evolving into a “drone alliance.”

Won said the ministry would work with related agencies, including the Industry Ministry and the Transport Ministry, to build a stable joint supply chain between the two countries.

Jang Ji-hyung, head of the technical research division at the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality, said the agency would play a central role in producing practical results from drone and counter-drone cooperation.

The two defense authorities plan to form a working-level consultative body to continue cooperation.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260515010004281

May 15 (UPI) — Representatives of both parties in the House on Friday demanded to know why the Department of Defense stopped deployment of troops to Poland, and top Army leaders didn’t have clear answers.

House Armed Services Committee members said the halting of troop deployment with no notice was a surprise to Congress, Politico reported. They had a hearing Friday with top Army leaders who gave them few answers.

“I just want to say this is a slap in the face to Poland; it’s a slap in the face to our Baltic friends,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said. “It’s a slap to the face of this committee.”

The deployment was a long-planned rotation of 4,000 troops based in Texas, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth put a sudden stop to it.

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., on Friday questioned Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who said the rotation was canceled “just a couple days ago,” though acting Army Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve said the decision was made in the “last two weeks.”

Neither man gave an explanation for the decision.

“We don’t know what’s going on here, but I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about, particularly since there’s been no statutory consultation with us,” committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., told Driscoll and LaNeve.

On Thursday, acting Pentagon press secretary Joel Valdez said the decision was “not an unexpected, last-minute decision.”

“I don’t see how [the Pentagon] statement can be true,” Scott said.

LaNeve confirmed that some equipment was already in Europe or en route when Hegseth canceled the deployment.

Driscoll said the Army can adjust its plans based on the preferences of regional commanders or the secretary of defense.

“This is not meant to hide the ball; this is to say this type of conversation is going on throughout the year every single year,” he said.

On April 30, President Donald Trump decided to remove 5,000 troops from Germany after German Chancellor Friederich Merz said the United States was “humiliated” by Iran.

Trump has often complained about NATO, but he has called Poland a “model ally” for its move to spend more on defense. In September, Trump said he would support Poland and stand with Warsaw “all the way” after the candidate he backed, Karol Nawrocki, won the election for president.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said Army leaders should be able to give a straight answer to Congress.

“The only answer I’ve got is, ‘Well, that’s what they told us to do.’ OK, why?” Smith asked the Army leaders. “If there’s some strategy behind it, then you guys ought to know and you ought to be able to communicate it to us.”

Bacon said that Polish officials were “blindsided” by the move, which he learned from a phone call from Poland.

“They called me yesterday, they did not know, they were blindsided,” The Hill reported Bacon told Driscoll and LaNeve. “These are some of our best allies, and they had no idea. They still don’t know what the plan is.”

Bacon said he knew the Army leaders didn’t make the decision, but he called it “reprehensible” and “an embarrassment to our country … what we just did to Poland.”

He added, “I know I may not represent 100% of people in this committee, but I think I represent the views of the vast majority. We disagree. … We’re sending a terrible message to Russia and to our allies.”

Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Wash., said, “When we take that many troops away, it says that we are not a reliable ally.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy strongly condemned Russia after a missile strike on a residential apartment building in Kyiv killed at least 24 people, including three children.

The attack occurred during one of the heaviest aerial bombardments on the Ukrainian capital this year and further intensified international concern over the continuing war between Russia and Ukraine. Rescue operations continued for more than a full day before emergency workers completed searches through the destroyed structure in Kyiv’s Darnytskyi district.

The strike formed part of a broader wave of Russian drone and missile attacks across Ukraine that officials say targeted multiple regions over consecutive days.

Zelenskiy Visits the Site of the Attack

Zelenskiy visited the destroyed apartment building on Friday, laying red roses at the site and meeting rescue workers who had spent more than twenty eight hours searching for survivors beneath the rubble.

In remarks shared through social media, the Ukrainian president praised emergency responders for their continuous efforts and accused Russia of deliberately destroying civilian lives.

According to Zelenskiy, the missile strike effectively destroyed an entire section of the residential building. Ukrainian officials stated that initial analysis suggested the attack involved a recently manufactured Russian Kh 101 cruise missile.

The Ukrainian leader once again appealed to international allies for stronger air defence support and increased pressure on Moscow.

Heavy Civilian Casualties

Kyiv authorities declared Friday a day of mourning in memory of the victims. Flags across the capital were lowered to half mast, and public entertainment events were cancelled or postponed.

The Interior Ministry reported that rescue teams removed approximately 3,000 cubic meters of rubble during the operation. Hundreds of emergency personnel participated in the search efforts.

Officials confirmed that 24 bodies were recovered from the site, while approximately 30 people were rescued alive. Nearly 50 individuals were injured, and hundreds required psychological support following the attack.

The deaths of children among the victims further intensified public grief and anger across Ukraine.

Russia Intensifies Air Campaign

Ukrainian authorities stated that Russia launched more than 1,500 drones along with dozens of missiles during attacks carried out over two consecutive days this week.

The strikes extended beyond Kyiv and affected western regions of Ukraine located far from active frontline combat zones. Officials reported that six people were killed during attacks in western Ukraine on Wednesday.

The scale of the aerial assault highlights Russia’s continuing ability to conduct large coordinated attacks despite prolonged international sanctions and battlefield losses.

Moscow did not immediately comment specifically on the apartment building strike. Russia consistently denies deliberately targeting civilians, although residential buildings, hospitals, schools, and energy infrastructure have repeatedly been damaged throughout the conflict.

Ukraine Also Conducts Cross Border Attacks

The conflict has increasingly involved reciprocal long range attacks by both sides.

Russian regional officials stated that Ukrainian drone strikes killed four people, including a child, in the Russian city of Ryazan. Authorities reported damage to apartment buildings and an industrial facility during the incident.

Ukraine has expanded drone operations against targets inside Russia over the course of the war, aiming to disrupt military infrastructure, industrial production, and logistical operations linked to Moscow’s military campaign.

These developments reflect the increasingly transnational nature of the conflict, with civilian populations on both sides facing growing security risks.

The Continuing Humanitarian Crisis

The attack on Kyiv underscores the severe humanitarian consequences of the war, which began with Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced since the start of the conflict, while repeated strikes on civilian infrastructure have damaged homes, hospitals, schools, transportation systems, and energy networks across the country.

International organizations and human rights groups have repeatedly raised concerns about civilian casualties and the destruction of non military targets during the war.

At the same time, the prolonged conflict has placed enormous economic and psychological pressure on Ukrainian society as cities continue to face the threat of missile and drone attacks.

Analysis

The deadly strike on Kyiv demonstrates how the war between Russia and Ukraine continues to evolve into a prolonged campaign involving large scale aerial warfare and attacks far beyond frontline battle zones.

For Ukraine, the attack reinforces the urgent need for stronger air defence systems capable of intercepting missiles and drones before they reach urban areas. Zelenskiy’s renewed appeals to allies reflect growing concerns that Ukraine’s defensive capabilities remain under intense strain as Russia increases the scale and frequency of aerial assaults.

For Russia, sustained missile and drone attacks appear aimed at weakening Ukrainian morale, exhausting defence systems, and increasing pressure on the government through continued civilian disruption.

However, such attacks also carry significant international consequences. Civilian casualties, especially involving children and residential buildings, strengthen global criticism of Moscow and may encourage additional military and financial support for Ukraine from Western allies.

The conflict additionally illustrates the changing character of modern warfare, where advanced missiles, drones, and long range strikes allow both sides to target infrastructure and urban centers far from traditional battlefields.

Despite ongoing diplomatic discussions in various international forums, there remains little indication of a near term political settlement. Instead, the war increasingly appears locked in a prolonged phase of escalation, attrition, and humanitarian suffering.

The strike on Kyiv therefore stands not only as a tragic individual event but also as a broader symbol of the continuing devastation caused by one of the most consequential conflicts in modern Europe.

With information from Reuters.

May 14 (UPI) — The U.K.’s Maritime Trade Operations said Thursday that a Honduran-flagged vessel was seized by Iran northeast of Fujairah, United Arab Emirates.

The Hui Chuan, described by UKMTO as a “floating armoury,” was in the Gulf of Oman when it was seized by Iranian forces. The vessel is moving toward Iranian waters.

UKMTO said in a statement that the seizure was reported about 38 nautical miles northeast of Fujairah.

“The CSO has reported that the vessel has been taken by unauthorized personnel [whilst] at anchor and is now bound for Iranian Territorial Waters,” UKMTO said in its report. “UKMTO continue to investigate.”

The vessel had been anchored in the Gulf of Oman for about a month. Its operators said it was storing weapons used to protect ships from pirate attacks.

The Hui Chuan is at least the second vessel to be attacked on the Gulf of Oman in as many days. On Wednesday, the Indian-flagged vessel Haji Ali sank off the coast of Oman after an explosion.

Security firm Vanguard said the explosion was believed to have been caused by a “drone or missile.”

Tensions in the Persian Gulf remain high during an uneasy ceasefire between the United States and Iran. The United States has imposed a naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, pursuing any vessels using Iranian ports. Iran has meanwhile threatened vessels traversing the strait since the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran on Feb. 28.

May 13 (UPI) — The remains of a second U.S. soldier who went missing during exercises in Morocco earlier this month have been recovered, the U.S. military said Wednesday evening, ending a joint U.S.-Morocco search.

The remains of Spc. Mariyah Symone Collington, 19, of Tavares, Fla., were located and retrieved Tuesday from a coastal cave roughly 1,640 feet from where she and 27-year-old 1st Lt. Kendrick Lamont Key Jr. are believed to have fallen into the ocean, U.S. Army Europe and Africa said.

Key’s remains were located and recovered Saturday.

“The loss of Spc. Collington is a profound loss for the 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command,” Brig. Gen. Curtis King, commanding general of the 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command, said in a statement.

“Her recovery closes the search for our two missing soldiers, but our commitment to caring for their families, friends and teammates continues. We are grateful to the U.S. and Moroccan forces for their professionalism and support throughout the search.”

Key and Collington went missing May 2 near the Cap Draa Training Area, a coastal military training site near Tan-Tan, located in southwestern Morocco about 342 miles southwest of Marrakech, where they were participating in African Lion 26, this year’s iteration of the U.S. military’s largest Africa-based exercise.

Their disappearance was not related to active training. Military officials believe they fell into the Atlantic Ocean near cliffs during a recreational hike. They were reported missing the night of May 2 after a base-wide head count, prompting a joint U.S.-Moroccan search.

U.S. military officials said Collington’s remains were transported via helicopter by the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces to the morgue of Moulay El Hassan Military Hospital in Guelmim, about 80 miles northeast of Tan-Tan.

Moroccan and U.S. forces conducted a “dignified carry” at the military airport in Guelmim on Tuesday, and the remains of Key and Collington have departed Morocco for the United States, USAREUR-AF said.

“Spc. Collington was a bright light in this battalion,” said Lt. Col. Chris Couch, the 5-4 ADAR battalion commander.

“To the soldiers who knew her best and served alongside her each day, she was a treasured friend whose loss leaves a deep and profound void on our team.”

The world today is no longer witnessing isolated geopolitical crises. From Ukraine and West Asia to Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, almost every major flashpoint bears the imprint of an expanding strategic contest between the United States and China. The emerging order increasingly resembles a “Cold War 2.0” — though very different in structure, methods and consequences from the US-Soviet rivalry of the 20th century.

Unlike the earlier Cold War1.0, the present contest is not defined by ideological blocs alone. The US and China remain deeply intertwined economically, technologically and financially even as they posture against each other militarily, diplomatically and strategically. It is therefore a paradoxical competition: adversarial coexistence under conditions of mutual dependence.

The forthcoming summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing assumes significance far beyond bilateral optics. It is not merely about tariffs or trade balances. It is about whether the world’s two largest powers can manage competition without pushing the international system into prolonged instability.

Cold War 2.0: Similarities and Differences

There are unmistakable similarities between the old Cold War and the current strategic rivalry. Technology races, military posturing, proxy theatres, sanctions, espionage, supply-chain wars and ideological narratives are again shaping global politics. Taiwan today resembles what Berlin once symbolised during the original Cold War — a potential trigger point with global implications.

Yet the differences are even more important.

The US and Soviet Union operated largely in separate economic ecosystems. In contrast, America and China remain deeply integrated through trade, manufacturing, investment flows and technological supply chains. As a result, Cold War 2.0 is less about total decoupling and more about selective disengagement, strategic denial, and competitive coexistence. China’s rise has also changed the nature of power transition; unlike the Soviet Union, China is economically embedded within the global capitalist system while simultaneously challenging Western strategic dominance. Beijing does not seek immediate overthrow of the international order; rather, it seeks gradual restructuring of global institutions and norms to reflect Chinese power and preferences.

Because of this interdependence, direct conflict is expensive for both parties. As a result, selective disengagement, strategic denial, and competitive coexistence are more important in Cold War 2.0 than total decoupling.

The nature of power transitions has also changed as a result of China’s growth. China, in contrast to the Soviet Union, both challenges Western geopolitical dominance and is economically integrated into the global capitalist system. Beijing aims to gradually restructure international institutions and norms to reflect Chinese strength and preferences rather than topple the current international order.

Trump’s Return: Strategic Pressure with Transactional Flexibility

President Trump’s return has introduced a more personalised and transactional dimension to US-China relations. His approach combines aggressive economic nationalism with pragmatic deal-making. Trump views geopolitics substantially through the prism of economic leverage, tariffs, industrial revival and negotiated advantage.

During his earlier tenure, Trump launched the trade war against China, challenged Chinese technological expansion and questioned assumptions of unlimited globalisation. In his second term his tariff rhetoric and coercive stance seems tampering down by Beijing’s stiff retaliation and domestic vows through courts; hence appears focused on “managed competition” rather than ideological confrontation.

Current indications suggest that Trump seeks three broad objectives from Beijing:

• Reduction of trade imbalances and greater market access for American companies.
• Chinese restraint regarding Iran, fentanyl precursors and strategic technology transfers.
• Taiwan and Indo-Pacific tensions should be relatively stable to prevent unchecked escalation. At the same time, Trump appears willing to negotiate tactical understandings with Beijing if they produce visible economic or political gains domestically.

This reflects an important distinction between traditional American strategic establishments and Trump’s worldview. Washington’s institutional security establishment and deep state often sees China as a long-term systemic challenger. Trump, however, also sees Beijing through the lens of bargaining opportunity. This creates unpredictability both for allies and adversaries.

Xi Jinping’s China: Strategic Patience and Controlled Assertiveness

If Trump represents transactional nationalism, Xi Jinping represents centralised strategic continuity with greater diplomatic maturity.

Beijing’s military modernisation, naval expansion, technological aspirations, and Belt and Road outreach reflect a long-term strategy aimed at reducing dependence on the West while enhancing China’s centrality in global affairs. Under Xi’s leadership, China has evolved from a cautious economic power into an increasingly assertive geopolitical actor. Beijing’s long-term objective to lessen reliance on the West and increase China’s influence in world affairs is reflected in its military modernisation, navy expansion, technological aspirations, and Belt and Road outreach.

Xi’s leadership style is marked by centralised authority, ideological discipline and strategic patience. Unlike the short electoral cycles of Western democracies, China’s leadership can pursue long-duration geopolitical objectives with consistency.

Beijing today appears more confident than during Trump’s first presidency. Despite economic headwinds, demographic pressures and property-sector challenges, China has strengthened domestic technological capabilities and diversified export networks.

China’s approach to global dominance differs fundamentally from America’s traditional model.

The United States historically exercised leadership through alliances, military presence, financial systems and institutional influence. Its dominance relied substantially on coalition-building and normative legitimacy, an approach, which seems to be eroding under President Trump, America First/America only agenda.

China’s model is more infrastructure-centric, economically transactional and state-driven. Beijing prefers influence through trade dependency, technology ecosystems, strategic investments and manufacturing centrality. It avoids formal alliances but expands leverage through economic penetration and calibrated coercion.

In essence, Washington exports political influence backed by military power to dislodge all potential competitors; Beijing exports economic dependency backed by state capacity aims at not dislodging potential markets to include U.S., EU and India.

The Taiwan Factor and Indo-Pacific Competition

No issue captures Cold War 2.0 more sharply than Taiwan.

For China, Taiwan remains a core sovereignty issue tied to national rejuvenation. For the United States, Taiwan represents strategic credibility, Island chain dominance in the Indo-Pacific and the larger balance of power against China.

Neither side currently appears to seek direct military confrontation. Yet both are steadily preparing for prolonged strategic competition around Taiwan. China continues military signalling and grey-zone pressure, while the US strengthens Indo-Pacific partnerships and defence arrangements.

Trump’s Beijing visit is therefore expected to prioritise “stability management” rather than dispute resolution. Beijing seeks assurances against perceived American encouragement of Taiwanese independence and military capacity building, while Washington seeks deterrence against coercive reunification efforts.

With recent claims of President Trump on Greenland, Canada, and Panama and actions in Venezuela, he doesn’t have any moral leverage to lecture China on Taiwan, because his security concerns over these areas are woefully short of Chinese security concerns of Island chains. Thus the reality of Cold War 2.0 is more of escalation management more than genuine reconciliation, as competition remains.

The Real Issue: Supply Chains and Technology Agendas

Artificial intelligence, semiconductors, rare earths, cyber systems, quantum technologies and critical supply chains have become strategic weapons. Economic security is increasingly inseparable from national security.

America still leads in advanced innovation ecosystems, financial influence and military alliances. China dominates large parts of manufacturing, industrial supply chains and infrastructure scalability.

The contest is therefore asymmetric. Washington seeks to slow China’s technological ascent through export controls and alliance-based restrictions. Beijing seeks self-reliance through indigenous innovation and strategic diversification.

Simultaneously, both nations are competing to shape global narratives.

The US projects democratic resilience and rules-based order. China projects efficiency, development delivery and non-interference. Many countries in the Global South increasingly engage both sides pragmatically rather than ideologically.

US-Israel War on Iran: Uneasy Calm Amid Strategic Contestation

China and the United States both need  regional stability in Middle East to avoid economic shockwaves and disruption of global energy flows, but their strategic intentions are quite apart. Trump led America’s action plan, duly influenced by Israeli lobby includes military action, coercive deterrence, and the retaining American strategic dominance in West Asia, especially Petro-dollar domination. China, on the other hand, is attempting calibrated balance, openly supporting de-escalation while covertly defending its long-term geopolitical, economic, and energy links with Tehran.

Beijing will refrain from any overt alignment that could lead to direct conflict with Washington, but it is unlikely to desert Iran. China seems confident that it can endure supply chain crisis in Strait of Hormuz longer than Trump and Iran. In any case a over-engaged US with depleted reserves works towards Chinese strategic advantage.

The larger strategic picture shows for Beijing, the crisis offers an opportunity to project itself as a responsible stabilising power while gradually expanding influence through economic leverage and diplomatic positioning; as a result, the likely outcome is not cooperation in the classical sense, but competitive crisis management—limited convergence to avoid uncontrolled escalation, while China advances through strategic patience, economic penetration, and calibrated diplomacy. Demonstrating credibility and deterrence to adversaries, such as China, is another goal for Washington in the Iran theatre.

Thus, Iran becomes yet another arena in which China gains through strategic patience, economic penetration, and calibrated diplomacy, while the US primarily depends on military power and a weakening alliance structures.

Likely Outcomes of the Trump–Xi Engagement: Competitive Coexistence, Not Resolution

Expectations from the Trump–Xi engagement must remain realistic and free from rhetorical overstatement. The structural contradictions driving US–China rivalry — Taiwan, technological dominance, supply chain control, military competition, sanctions regimes and competing visions of global order — are too deep to be resolved through summit diplomacy alone. At best, both sides may seek temporary stabilisation of tensions to avoid simultaneous economic disruption and strategic overstretch. Therefore, the likely outcome is not reconciliation, but managed confrontation under conditions of deep interdependence.

Trump’s pressure tactics may slow certain aspects of China’s technological rise and compel tactical adjustments, but they are unlikely to reverse Beijing’s long-term strategic trajectory or ambition for greater influence in global governance structures.

Equally, China is not positioned to replace the United States as a singular global hegemon, as yet. Internal economic pressures, demographic decline, debt vulnerabilities, trust deficits and the absence of robust alliance structures remain important constraints on Chinese power projection.

Consequently, the more plausible scenario is a prolonged strategic contest marked by partial economic bifurcation in critical technologies, competing digital and AI ecosystems, intensified military signalling in the Indo-Pacific, and expanded geopolitical competition across the Global South through infrastructure financing, trade dependency, arms transfers and narrative warfare.

Emerging World Order: What should remaining World Do?

Cold War 2.0 will not produce a neat bipolar world nor purely multipolar. Unlike the 20th century, today’s international system is multipolar, economically interconnected and technologically diffused. Middle powers such as India, regional blocs and strategic swing states will play increasingly important roles in shaping outcomes through strategic balancing avoiding bloc politics. The aim remains to avoid collateral damage in a competition, which neither U.S. nor China can decisively win in the foreseeable future.

The prudent course lies in strategic autonomy backed by economic resilience, technological self-reliance, diversified partnerships and flexible diplomacy. Nations will increasingly pursue sector-specific alignments while resisting pressure to become instruments of either camp’s maximalist strategic narratives.

In this evolving landscape, Trump’s coercive unilateralism and “America First” orientation may paradoxically accelerate the very multipolarity Washington seeks to resist. Many nations, including close American partners, increasingly seek strategic hedging against unpredictability in US policy, even while remaining cautious of China’s expanding influence and coercive economic practices

Cold War 2.0 is unlikely to end through a dramatic collapse or military victory. It will instead remain a long geopolitical test of endurance, adaptability, economic resilience and strategic patience in an era of competitive coexistence, issue based cooperation and crisis management below the threshold of military confrontation.

Trump’s leadership may make the contest louder, sharper and more transactional, while Xi’s China may continue pursuing calibrated expansion with long-term strategic discipline. Yet the underlying structural reality remains unchanged: the US–China rivalry is here to stay, and the rest of the world must learn to navigate carefully between pressure and prudence, rhetoric and reality, competition and coexistence.

BEIJING — The Trump administration has repeatedly framed the war in Iran as a quick, winnable fight, vowing to defeat the Islamic Republic “totally and decisively” — incomparable to the “dumb” wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But from China’s perspective, the parallels are clear.

“You can blow everything up — destroy it all,” one Chinese official told The Times, describing the Americans, “but you don’t have a strategy.”

President Trump arrives in Beijing this week for talks with a Chinese government that is confident as ever in its ascendance on the world stage, taking stock of its leverage and still baffled the U.S. administration chose yet another costly war in the Middle East.

China has watched as the United States, over seven weeks of fighting an outmatched enemy, has depleted nearly half of its stockpiles of high-end munitions — including its THAAD and Patriot batteries — and fired its Army chief of staff, among other Pentagon leaders, who had warned of critical shortages.

Marco Rubio, Trump’s national security advisor and secretary of State, has said the military operation that started the war known as Operation Epic Fury “is over.”

But the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most vital commercial waterways, remains effectively shuttered. Iranian attacks in the region continue. And talks between Washington and Tehran have failed to reach a diplomatic agreement to bring a definitive end to the conflict.

“The Chinese have high regard for the operational proficiency of U.S. forces, but they recognize that, thus far at least, the Trump administration has not achieved its core objectives in going to war with Iran,” said David Ochmanek, a former deputy assistant secretary of Defense now with the Rand Corp.

The war has given Beijing an opportunity, Ochmanek said, “to double down on the claim they have made for the past year and a half that the [People’s Republic of China], not the U.S., is a force for global stability.”

The war has allowed China to demonstrate some diplomatic prowess. An initial ceasefire reached between the United States and Iran last month was only clinched after Beijing pressured Tehran to agree. And China’s advocacy for an open strait — rejecting Iranian attempts to impose a toll system — while opposing the U.S. war itself has allowed Beijing to maintain leverage with both sides.

It has also inflicted costs. Allies of Beijing noticed when the government did not leap to the defense of Tehran at the start of the war. And China has its own vested interest in a free and open waterway, where nearly 50% of the country’s crude oil imports pass through each day.

Building up to the start of the war and throughout its initial weeks, Washington diverted significant military assets from Asia — where Trump’s own national security strategy says they are needed most — to the Middle East.

The USS Abraham Lincoln was redirected from the South China Sea, along with scores of advanced missile interceptors from South Korea and Japan and nearly the entire U.S. inventory of long-range air-to-surface missiles in the Pacific.

Policy experts at the Pentagon were brought in to discuss a potential invasion of Kharg Island, the jewel of Iran’s oil industry, to draw lessons from planning a defense of Taiwan, according to a Defense official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. A Marine expeditionary unit was sent from Okinawa to the region for the potential operation.

Chinese officials and analysts have been candid in their assessments of U.S. hard power, impressed by a military they acknowledge remains the best in the world.

But Beijing sees a persistent flaw in U.S. strategy: the belief that military strength alone can reshape political realities, a view further weakened by the pressures on a democratic government whose public grows impatient with wars that drag on beyond days or weeks.

China’s autocracy is free from accountability to the public — and anyway has confidence that Chinese public opinion would be on its side if it were to launch a major military operation against its main target, Taiwan.

But there are lessons of caution to be learned from the Americans, as well.

Over the last year, the Taiwanese Navy has been practicing the rapid deployment of cheap and domestically produced smart mines for the sea — a potential bulwark against enemy blockades of ports and hostile invasion forces.

It is the type of asymmetric warfare that has so far frustrated the U.S. military in the Strait of Hormuz, protracting a war that Trump vowed would last a month or less.

Taiwan, too, would confront Beijing with political realities that military force cannot erase. Nearly 90% of the Taiwanese people oppose a Chinese takeover, and about 60% say they would resist it at all costs.

“Chinese analysts see two things at once,” said Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “They are impressed by U.S. military reach, precision and operational capability, but they also see a familiar pattern of American power struggling to translate battlefield success into a durable political outcome.”

That matters for Taiwan, Singleton said, “because China’s own military modernization has borrowed heavily from the American model, relying heavily on joint operations, high-tech precision strikes, decapitation concepts and information dominance.

“If the world’s most experienced military can still struggle to convert military pressure into political success,” he added, “Beijing has to ask whether the [People’s Liberation Army] could do better in a far more complex Taiwan scenario.”

May 12 (UPI) — A nonpartisan office said Tuesday that President Donald Trump‘s proposed Golden Dome missile defense system could cost $1.2 trillion over two decades – far more than the $175 billion he said it would cost last year.

The Congressional Budget Office said in a report that this analysis isn’t based on final blueprints, as full details of the system’s architecture haven’t been announced, Time reported. It said this estimate shows the price of “one illustrative approach rather than an estimate of a full Administration proposal.”

The CBO said that acquisition costs for the system would alone cost more than $1 trillion, and of that, about 70 percent of the cost would be for the interceptor layer, orbital weapons meant to destroy missiles after they’re launched, The Hill reported. This would include about 7,800 satellites.

Gen. Mike Guetlein, the Pentagon official in charge of the project, said in March that it would cost about $185 billion. The CBO report said that this difference in estimated price may mean that the “objective architecture is more limited” for the project than the system accounted for by the CBO, The Hill reported.

Congressional Republicans have earmarked $25 billion for the project in the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The Pentagon has asked for $17 billion more in a reconciliation bill this year.

The Trump administration’s fiscal 2027 budget request, which includes $750 billion earmarked for the Golden Dome system, says the system “keeps Americans safe, while using innovative program management and acquisition approaches to prudently employ taxpayer dollars,” The Hill reported. Trump has said he wants the system operational by the end of his term.

The CBO said the system it used in its estimate could counter a limited attack but would be overwhelmed by a large-scale one, Time reported. Israel’s similar air-defense system, often called the Iron Dome, has intercepted missiles from Iran and other localized groups but is meant for a smaller area and shorter-range threats, as opposed to the United States’ need to defend a much larger area from long-range attacks, it said.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., requested the CBO report. He said Tuesday that the report shows the Golden Dome project “is nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans” that will “do little to advance American national security.”

WASHINGTON — A man accused of storming the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner while armed with guns and knives pleaded not guilty on Monday to charges that he attempted to kill President Trump and fired a shotgun at a Secret Service officer who tried to stop the attack.

Cole Tomas Allen was handcuffed and shackled and wearing an orange jail uniform when he appeared in federal court for his arraignment. Allen didn’t speak during the brief hearing. One of his attorneys entered the plea on his behalf.

Allen’s lawyers are asking U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden to disqualify at least two top Justice Department officials from direct involvement in prosecuting him because they could be considered victims or witnesses in the case, creating a potential conflict of interest.

Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro were attending the event when Allen ran through a security checkpoint and fired a shotgun at a Secret Service officer, authorities said. In a court filing last week, Allen’s attorneys argued that it creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest for Blanche and Pirro to be making any prosecutorial decisions in the case.

McFadden, a Trump nominee, didn’t rule from the bench on that question but asked Allen’s attorneys to elaborate on the possible scope of their recusal request. Defense attorney Eugene Ohm said the defense likely would seek to disqualify Pirro’s entire office from involvement in the case. Ohm acknowledged that a bid to disqualify the entire Justice Department would be unlikely.

“That would be quite a request,” the judge said.

McFadden gave prosecutors until May 22 to respond in writing to the defense’s request. The judge asked the government to specify whether it believes Pirro and Blanche could be considered victims in the case.

“That might add some clarity here,” McFadden said.

In their filing, Allen’s attorneys suggested that the appointment of a special prosecutor might be warranted.

Allen is scheduled to return to court on June 29.

A Secret Service officer was shot once in a bullet-resistant vest during the April 25 attack at the Washington Hilton hotel, which disrupted and ultimately prompted an early end to one of the highest-profile annual events in the nation’s capital. The officer fired five shots but didn’t hit anybody, authorities said.

Allen, 31, of Torrance, was injured but was not shot.

Besides the attempted-assassination count, Allen also is charged with assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon and two additional firearms counts. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted of the attempted assassination charge alone.

Allen was placed on suicide watch after his arrest, but jail officials removed him from that status after several days. Allen’s attorneys complained that he had been unnecessarily confined in a padded room with constant lighting, repeatedly strip searched and placed in restraints outside his cell.

Allen told FBI agents that he didn’t expect to survive the attack, which could help explain why he was deemed to be a possible suicide risk, a Justice Department prosecutor has said.

Allen was outfitted with an ammunition bag, a shoulder gun holster and a sheathed knife when he took a photo of himself in his room at the hotel just minutes before the attack, according to prosecutors. In a message that authorities say sheds light on his motive, Allen referred to himself as a “Friendly Federal Assassin” and alluded obliquely to grievances over a range of actions by Trump’s Republican administration.

Authorities have alleged that Allen on April 6 reserved a room for himself at the Hilton where the event would be held weeks later under its typical tight security. He traveled by train cross-country from California, checking himself into the hotel a day before the dinner with a room reserved for the weekend.

Trump was rushed off the stage by his security team at the Saturday night event and appeared at the White House two hours later, still in his tuxedo, to talk about the attack and the suspect.

“When you’re impactful, they go after you. When you’re not impactful, they leave you alone,” the president said. “They seem to think he was a lone wolf.”

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

May 11 (UPI) — The remains of one of two U.S. soldiers who disappeared during exercises in Morocco earlier this month have been recovered, the U.S. military said, as the search continues for the other soldier.

A Moroccan military search team found the remains of 1st Lt. Kendrick Lamont Key Jr. at 8:55 a.m. Saturday, the U.S. Army Europe and Africa announced Sunday.

USAREUR-AF said Key’s remains were found along the shoreline of the Atlantic Ocean within 1 mile of where the two soldiers are believed to have disappeared.

His remains have been transported by the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces via helicopter to the morgue of Moulay El Hassan Military Hospital in Guelmim, located about 265 miles southwest of Marrakesh.

Next of kin have been notified and plans are underway to repatriate his remains, officials said.

“Our hearts are with his family, friends, teammates and all who knew and served alongside him,” Brig. Gen. Curtis King, commanding general of the 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command, said in a statement.

“The 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command family is grieving, and we will continue to support one another and 1st Lt. Key’s family as we honor his life and service.”

Key, 27, and a second U.S. soldier went missing May 2 near Cap Draa Training Area, a coastal military training site near Tan-Tan, during African Lion 26, this year’s version of the U.S. military’s largest Africa-based exercise.

Their disappearance is unrelated to the exercises, with military officials believing the pair may have slipped off a cliff during a hike near the training range.

The pair were reported missing at 9 p.m. May 2 during a base-wide head count, and a search was launched.

U.S. military officials said they worked with Moroccan forces, concentrating intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets in the search, which involved more than 1,000 U.S. and Moroccan military and civilian personnel.

The search effort continues for the remaining missing soldier, they said.

Key was from Richmond, Va., and was a platoon leader assigned to Charlie Battery, 5th Battalion, 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command.

USAREUR-AF said he was known at Charlie Battery, which he joined last year, for “the care he showed for his soldiers, his commitment to others and the relationships he built across the formation.”

“Kendrick embodied the highest standards of service as a selfless, inspirational leader whose unwavering dedication to his soldiers and their development leaves an enduring legacy within our ranks,” Lt. Col. Chris Couch, commander of 5-4 ADAR, said in a statement.

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger issued an online statement of condolence.

“Adam and I join Virginians across our Commonwealth in extending our deepest condolences to his family, friends and loved ones,” she said.

To be the best, you have to beat the best, and the Sparks aren’t quite there.

In their season opener, the Sparks couldn’t build momentum against defending champion Las Vegas and fell 105-78 behind a remarkably efficient shooting day from the Aces.

Las Vegas shot 63% from the floor and the Sparks had few answers. Nneka Ogwumike had 19 points and 10 rebounds in her return to the Sparks, and Kelsey Plum opened her campaign with 27 points. Reigning WNBA MVP A’ja Wilson led the Aces with 19 points and Jackie Young picked up 20 points and nine assists. Chennedy Carter had 22 points in her first WNBA game since 2024.

Plum scored 11 of her points in the fourth quarter, but by then the Aces had opened a 20-plus point lead.

The Aces were coming off a 33-point blowout opening day loss to Phoenix on Saturday but showed no sign of fatigue.

Las Vegas (1-1) pounded the paint early with 26 points in the first half and 14 free throws to seven from the Sparks (0-1). They also shot 68.8% in the opening quarter to lead 29-14.

But the Sparks’ offense also seemed a bit out of sorts, with nine turnovers in the opening half that the Aces turned into 10 points. Las Vegas opened the second quarter on an 18-5 run.

The Sparks narrowed the deficit to one by halftime following an Ogwumike three-pointer and backhand layup late in the second. But mostly, the Sparks’ defense activated, forcing 10 turnovers, led by two steals apiece from Ariel Atkins and Erica Wheeler to fuel the comeback.

The Aces expanded their lead back to nine following a pair of turnovers from Atkins and Plum.

Last season, the Sparks had the worst defense in the WNBA, giving up 88.2 points per game. Defensive woes haunted them once more with 33 points allowed on 73.7% shooting in the third quarter, allowing the Aces to pull away.

Even with 15 offensive rebounds to the Aces’ six, the Sparks’ offense wasn’t efficient enough to compete. The Sparks also only got seven from the bench, with Wheeler shooting one for 11 in 20 minutes.

The Sparks host Indiana (0-1) on Wednesday night.

May 10 (UPI) — Iran has communicated its response Sunday through a mediator to a proposal by the United States to end the war, its state media reports.

The Islamic Republic News Agency reported Sunday that Iran’s response has been sent through Pakistan, which has mediated talks between Iran and the United States. IRNA did not share details about what the response was.

“According to the proposed plan, negotiations at this stage will focus on the issue of ending the war in the region,” IRNA said.

The war has centered on the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, with U.S. and Iranian forces continuing to exchange fire in the Persian Gulf region as recently as Saturday.

“We will never bow our heads before the enemy, and if talk of dialogue or negotiation arises, it does not mean surrender or retreat,” Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian posted on social media Sunday. “Rather, the goal is to uphold the rights of the Iranian nation and to defend national interests with resolute strength.”

Mike Waltz, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said on Fox News on Sunday that he expects President Donald Trump to remain firm that Iran must abandon its nuclear program.

“We’ll see what the Iranians just came back with overnight in terms of their response to our very clear red line,” Waltz said.

May 8 (UPI) — Russia and Ukraine on Friday confirmed a three-day cease-fire and prisoner swap, which they said was agreed to after their leaders spoke with U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump announced in a post on Truth Social that the countries agreed to pause the conflict Saturday through Monday, and for both country to swap 1,000 prisoners each that have been captured during the four-year war.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed the agreement in a post on X, and said that he has instructed his team to “promptly prepare everything necessary for the exchange.”

Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov also confirmed the deal, saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin found it acceptable and that Russia “welcomes” it, Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency reported.

The deal comes less than a day before Russia celebrates Victory Day, its annual commemoration of the allied powers victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.

“This request was made directly by me, and I very much appreciate its agreement by President Vladimir Putin and President Volodymir Zelenskyy,” Trump said in the post, referring to calls he placed to both leaders and which they confirmed.

“Hopefully, [the cease-fire] is the beginning of the end of a very long, deadly, hard fought War,” Trump said. “Talks are continuing on ending this Major Conflict, the biggest since World War II, and we are getting closer and closer every day.”

The cease-fire in the biggest land war in Europe since World War II will include “a suspension of all kinetic activity,” as well as countries returning 1,000 prisoners each to one another.

Zelensky said there had been appeals and signals about a potential cease-fire to start on Saturday because of Victory Day, which motivated it to negotiate the pause and pursue the return of Ukrainians held during the war.

“An additional argument for Ukraine in determining our position has always been the resolution of one of the key humanitarian issues of this war — namely, the release of prisoners of war,” he said. “Red Square is less important to us than the lives of Ukrainian prisoners who can be brought home.”

Ushakov said that Trump, during the call with Putin, emphasized that Russia and the United States were allies during World War II, pointing to Victory Day as a potential date to start a cease-fire.

“An agreement on this matter was reached during our telephone contacts with the U.S. administration,” Ushakov said. “In turn, U.S. representatives were in contact with Kyiv.”

Just weeks after Justin Bieber’s well-received Coachella headline gig, the singer played a small private event for tech, entertainment and defense industry moguls. Executives at controversial firms, such as surveillance tech giant Palantir, were also on the bill.

Bieber was a headliner at WNDR, entertainment executive Jeffrey Katzenberg’s invitation-only confab at the Rosewood Miramar in Montecito last week. The programming for the event was first reported by Puck.

The ultra A-list talks and guests included director James Cameron and former Disney CEO Bob Iger, YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, FIFA President Gianni Infantino, Oprah Winfrey and Julia Roberts, comedians Chris Rock and Trevor Noah and artist Jeff Koons on a panel discussion with LACMA chief Michael Govan.

Bieber, meanwhile, performed a Wednesday poolside set for attendees at the Rosewood. The “Swag” singer reportedly became the highest-paid headliner in Coachella history last month, and its most lucrative merch seller.

Representatives for Bieber did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While there was lighter programming (like a karaoke party with pop producers StarGate and a talk about snacks with chef Nancy Silverton), the bill included talks and cameos from major weapons and surveillance technology firms noted for their support for — or deep engagement with — the Trump administration.

One panel featured Anduril Industries’ Palmer Luckey, who recently welcomed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to its Southern California headquarters. “We are rebuilding the Arsenal of Freedom,” Hegseth said after the Anduril visit.

Palantir Chief Executive Alex Karp led another talk. Palantir’s AI-driven defense and surveillance software has faced scrutiny around how tech like its Maven Smart System may have been used to target civilians in the Iran war.

Karp also published a recent book, “The Technological Republic,” where he wrote that “We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?”

Katzenberg’s WNDR conference is one of several recent multi-discipline, ultra-elite gatherings hosted by CEOs, including Jeff Bezos and Eric Schmidt. Katzenberg founded his investment firm WndrCo in 2017.

May 7 (UPI) — U.S. Central Command said Thursday that American forces struck Iranian military sites responsible for “unprovoked” missile, drone and boat attacks on U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz.

“U.S. forces intercepted unprovoked Iranian attacks and responded with self-defense strikes as U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers transited the Strait of Hormuz to the Gulf of Oman,” CENTCOM said in a statement.

CENTCOM said Iran had targeted the USS Truxtun, the USS Rafael Peralta and the USS Mason.

“No assets were struck,” it said.

The U.S. strikes targeted the Bandar Abbas and Qeshm ports near the strait, CBS News and CNN reported, each citing unnamed U.S. officials.

The attacked Iranian facilities included “missile and drone launch sites; command and control locations; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance nodes,” according to CENTCOM.

After the U.S. vessels had transited the strait, President Donald Trump promptly took to social media to post a warning to Iran.

“Missiles were shot at our Destroyers, and were easily knocked down,” he wrote. “Likewise, drones came, and were incinerated while in the air. They dropped ever so beautifully down to the Ocean, very much like a butterfly dropping to its grave! A normal Country would have allowed these Destroyers to pass, but Iran is not a Normal country. They are led by LUNATICS.”

Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy said in a statement carried by Iranian state-owned outlet Press TV that it attacked the U.S. warships in response to an alleged U.S. cease-fire violation as well as a U.S. attack on an Iranian tanker near the Iranian city of Jask.

Iranian forces caused “significant damage” to the U.S. warships, it said.

A spokesperson for the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters also said the Iranian strikes were in response to the “aggressive, terrorist and outlaw” U.S. military, Press TV reported.

The attacks come after Trump earlier this week called off Project Freedom, a U.S. military operation to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz, as Washington and Tehran try to reach an agreement to end the war.

Despite the attacks, Trump told reporters that the fragile cease-fire that halted the war that began in late February was still intact.

“They trifled with us today. We blew them away,” Trump told reporters Thursday evening.

“If there’s no cease-fire, you’re not going to have to know. You’re just going to have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran.”

The ceasefire between the US and Iran has been in place for nearly four weeks. The Strait of Hormuz has not been at peace for a single day.

This week pushed that contradiction to its most dangerous point yet. The United States launched Project Freedom, a naval escort operation designed to guide roughly 2,000 ships stranded on either side of the Strait through to open water. Iran said any ship attempting passage without IRGC permission would be fired on. Within hours, both sides were claiming to have hit the other, the UAE was scrambling missile alerts for the first time since the ceasefire began, an oil refinery in Fujairah was on fire, and commercial aircraft bound for Dubai were turning around mid-air.

As of Tuesday evening, Trump announced Project Freedom would be paused “for a short period of time” to see if an agreement with Iran could be reached. Secretary of State Rubio told reporters the US was now in a “defensive” posture. Twenty-four hours earlier, both sides had been shooting and denying it simultaneously.

Here is what we know, what is contested, and what it means.

What Is Project Freedom and Why Did the US Launch It?

Trump announced the operation on Sunday, framing it in humanitarian terms, an effort to free the seafarers and cargo companies that had done nothing wrong and were caught between two governments fighting a war neither had formally ended. About 2,000 ships have been stranded on either side of the Strait since late February, unable to move without IRGC permission, which Iran began requiring and charging for after the ceasefire took effect.

The US had already begun a naval blockade of Iranian ports on April 13. Project Freedom was the next escalation — a direct challenge to Iran’s assertion that the Strait was now under its operational control. Trump described it as a “humanitarian gesture.” Iran described it as a violation of the ceasefire and an act of military aggression in a sensitive oil region that affects the economies of countries around the world.

Two American-flagged merchant ships successfully transited the Strait on Monday with US Navy escort. A Danish shipping company confirmed one of its vessels crossed with US military protection. But the transit did not go smoothly.

Did Iran Attack a US Warship? What the Claims Say

By Monday afternoon, the competing narratives had become almost impossible to untangle, which is itself part of the story.

Iran’s Fars News Agency reported a US warship had been hit by two Iranian drones after refusing to turn back from the Strait. CENTCOM denied any warship had been hit. US Admiral Brad Cooper said CENTCOM forces had sunk six IRGC vessels that tried to interfere with Project Freedom. Trump later said seven. Iran’s state broadcaster then reported that Tehran had launched an investigation and its preliminary conclusion was that the vessels the US claimed to have sunk were not IRGC boats at all, they were two small civilian craft carrying passengers from Oman to the Iranian coast, and five civilian passengers had been killed. The US has not commented on that claim and it has not been independently verified.

Why Iran Attacked the UAE in 2026: The Fujairah Strike Explained

The UAE’s Ministry of Defense said its air defenses engaged 15 ballistic missiles, three cruise missiles, and four drones launched from Iran on Monday, the first Iranian attacks on the UAE since the ceasefire took effect on April 8. One drone struck an oil refinery in Fujairah, wounding three Indian nationals and setting the facility ablaze. Four missile alerts were issued across the country, sending residents to shelter. Commercial aircraft bound for Dubai and Abu Dhabi turned around in mid-flight.

Iran’s position was that the Fujairah attack was not a premeditated strike on the UAE but a consequence of what it called US military adventurism in the Strait. An Iranian military official said the Islamic Republic had no preplanned programme to attack UAE facilities, and that what happened resulted from the US attempt to create an illegal passage through restricted waters. The UAE’s Foreign Ministry rejected that framing entirely, condemning what it called renewed terrorist and unprovoked Iranian attacks on civilian sites, and warning it reserves the full right to respond.

Why the Attack Claims Cannot Be Independently Verified

One detail worth noting is the shifting count of Iranian vessels supposedly sunk. Admiral Cooper said six. Trump said seven. No independent observer has confirmed either figure, and Iran has denied any IRGC boats were hit at all. This pattern: each side claiming damage inflicted while denying damage received, with no neutral verification , has run throughout the conflict and is not unique to this week’s exchange. What is different now is that the Strait is supposed to be under a ceasefire, and the exchanges are happening in a waterway where 2,000 civilian ships are anchored and waiting to see who wins the argument.

How the Hormuz Escalation Is Threatening Iran Ceasefire Talks in 2026

Trump’s decision to pause Project Freedom on Tuesday is significant precisely because of how quickly it followed the launch. The operation began Sunday. By Tuesday, with the UAE under attack, Iranian drones targeting ships in the Strait, and competing claims circulating with no resolution, the White House stepped back. Rubio reframed the entire mission as defensive rather than offensive, and a new UN Security Council resolution on freedom of navigation was announced, co-authored by Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. A previous similar resolution was vetoed by China and Russia, and the outlook for this one is no clearer.

The pause does not resolve the underlying problem. The Strait remains contested. Iran still insists ships must seek IRGC permission and pay for transit. The US still insists the Strait is international water under international law. Two thousand ships are still stranded. And the ceasefire that is supposed to govern all of this is being tested in ways its text was never designed to handle.

The attacks this week did not happen in isolation from the negotiations still technically underway. Pakistan has been trying to bring the US and Iran back to a second round of talks after the Islamabad discussions collapsed on the nuclear question in April. Every exchange of fire, every competing claim, every missile alert in Abu Dhabi makes that second round harder to convene and harder to trust once convened.

As Shahram Akbarzadeh, a professor in Middle East and Central Asian politics at Deakin University, told Al Jazeera: “We see escalation after escalation against the backdrop of shuttle diplomacy. Such attacks, even if they are aimed to be contained, risk exploding into another major combat.” Neither the Americans nor the Iranians want a return to full-scale war, Akbarzadeh said, but neither is prepared to show weakness. “This dynamic has locked them in a perpetual conflict and in desperate need of a circuit breaker.”

The circuit breaker Pakistan offered in April produced a ceasefire. That ceasefire is now generating its own escalation cycle, in twenty-one miles of water, over a question neither side has answered: who controls the Strait of Hormuz, and on what terms does the world’s most important waterway reopen.

Two thousand ships are waiting for the answer.

Chinese military and intelligence analyses for 2025 and 2026 indicate that China views the expansion of the Egyptian Armed Forces in establishing numerous naval and air bases, such as the Bernice and Gargoub bases, with strategic interest. Beijing considers this trend, spearheaded by the Egyptian political leadership under President El-Sisi and the Egyptian Ministry of Defense, a vital component of a comprehensive strategic partnership between Egypt and China, aimed at securing shared interests in strategically vital regions. Chinese intelligence and military agencies view the Egyptian expansion in establishing military bases, such as the Mohamed Naguib base, the July 3 base, and bases east and west of the Suez Canal, as part of a comprehensive Chinese strategy to develop the Egyptian Armed Forces and enhance their deterrent capabilities against Beijing’s adversaries in the region. This perspective aligns with Beijing’s view of Egypt as a key strategic partner in Africa and the Middle East. The Chinese military establishment’s vision for this Egyptian military development of air and naval bases up to 2026 can be detailed, as follows: Supporting the Egyptian political leadership’s vision, from a Chinese perspective, of Egyptian military development under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, is seen as a serious attempt to modernize the army and transform it into a smart deterrent force capable of protecting national security and the country’s economic interests. This aligns with China’s +1 strategy (localization), as China seeks to leverage the development of Egyptian bases to become centers for localizing Chinese military technology in Egypt, particularly in the areas of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as the Wing Loong and advanced air defense systems, such as the HQ-9B.

In this context, China views Egypt’s expansion in establishing military bases, such as the Mohamed Naguib Base, the July 3 Base, and the bases east and west of the Suez Canal, with strategic interest as a crucial element in strengthening the comprehensive strategic partnership between Cairo and Beijing. China considers these Egyptian military bases, especially those located on the Mediterranean Sea and near the Suez Canal. Bases like the July 3rd Air Base serve as vital support points for protecting China’s commercial interests and the routes of its Belt and Road Initiative, which passes through the Egyptian Suez Canal. Egypt represents a cornerstone in China’s 21st-century strategy. Therefore, China aims to bolster Egypt’s deterrent capabilities (a defense partnership). Chinese military officials believe that modernizing the Egyptian armed forces through these naval and air bases and localizing Chinese defense industries in Cairo, in accordance with President Sisi’s vision, enhances the independence of Egyptian military decision-making, paves the way for multipolarity, supports developing countries in the Global South, and contributes to regional stability. Relations between Egypt and China have moved beyond mere arms deals to the localization of Chinese technology within Egypt, enabling Egypt to confront regional challenges more effectively and creating a kind of regional balance of power. Here, Beijing, by supporting Egyptian military expansion through these bases, aims to create a strategic balance in the region amidst a growing Egyptian-Chinese rapprochement seen as an alternative to or complement to traditional partnerships with the West. This can be inferred from the military exercises. The air capabilities and joint military exercises between Egypt and China are reflected here. Joint air exercises, such as Eagles of Civilization 2025, and cooperation at Wadi Abu Rish Air Base are Egyptian-Chinese joint training exercises aimed at exchanging expertise in air combat and protecting maritime routes. This coincides with Egypt’s interest in military and arms deals with China, such as the J-10C. Other Egyptian military negotiations with China regarding the purchase of advanced submarines, known as the Yuan class, are also underway. This reduces Egypt’s military dependence on Washington and the West and strengthens the Chinese presence in the Egyptian military arsenal. This reflects a convergence of military visions between the two countries, with China supporting Egypt’s efforts to modernize its military infrastructure. The new bases are considered a cornerstone for securing shared interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

Beijing also aims to strengthen the comprehensive strategic partnership. Here, the Chinese vision extends beyond mere arms deals; it views this as a core partnership aimed at establishing a broad military alliance with Egypt to develop the Chinese military Silk Road. This includes joint operational planning and training exercises, as demonstrated in the Civilization Eagles 2025 maneuvers. China seeks to effect a comprehensive shift in the regional balance of power. Chinese intelligence believes that establishing bases and developing naval and air forces will grant Egypt strategic independence and reduce its dependence on the West. This, in turn, opens the door for China to enhance its influence in the region through defense cooperation, thereby securing shared Chinese and Egyptian military interests. Beijing considers securing Egyptian bases for maritime routes (the Suez Canal) and the Red Sea to be in line with Chinese economic and security interests within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. In general, the Chinese military establishment views Cairo as working to build a strong regional pivot point, and Beijing sees this expansion as an opportunity to deepen defense and technological ties with Cairo, paving the way for the formal declaration of a Chinese-Egyptian military Silk Road partnership.

China views the new Egyptian military bases as a means of protecting its strategic interests within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. These bases, particularly those located on the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Suez Canal, occupy vital maritime chokepoints, and China considers them a guarantee for the security of its international trade routes. The relationship between Egypt and China has evolved from mere arms purchases to the localization of defense industries, such as the production of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and electronic warfare systems, increasing Egypt’s military reliance on Chinese technology. These Egyptian military bases, which enhance Egypt’s rapid deployment capabilities, align with China’s interests in establishing a multipolar regional order that reduces American influence in the Middle East. Chinese intelligence, military, defense, and security reports indicate a qualitative shift in Egyptian military doctrine. Chinese military institutions affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army analyze that Egyptian military bases, such as the July 3rd base, provide strategic depth and protection for economic assets (gas fields and the Dabaa nuclear power plant), thus contributing to the economic stability in which China participates. For this reason, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is seeking to train and qualify the Egyptian military elite through the Military Academy for Advanced Studies as an alternative to Western and American training.

The Chinese intelligence and military establishments view the Egyptian army’s expansionist vision in establishing naval and air bases within Egypt as part of the development strategy adopted by the Egyptian Armed Forces and the political leadership of President El-Sisi. This strategy aims to complete the modernization of the Egyptian Armed Forces and advance the Chinese military Silk Road with Egypt’s assistance. China supports the Egyptian Armed Forces’ efforts to modernize Egyptian military infrastructure, considering the new Egyptian military bases a cornerstone for securing China’s shared interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea. China views these new Egyptian military bases, particularly on the Red Sea, as essential for securing Chinese trade routes (the military/maritime Silk Road) and mitigating risks. In addition to the significant role Egypt plays for China as a regional power center and a key player in the balance of power, relevant military circles in Beijing analyze the modernization of the Egyptian army as a center of gravity for stability in the Middle East and Africa. A strong and stable army serves China’s interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. Therefore, China translates its vision into tangible support, including modernizing Egypt’s military infrastructure to align with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative in its maritime, air, and naval components and equipping it with advanced weapons systems.

Based on the preceding understanding and analysis, we conclude that the new Egyptian military bases (naval and air) are considered, according to the Chinese military and strategic vision, strategic strengths. Their benefits extend beyond Egypt, securing China’s commercial and military interests in the Mediterranean and Red Seas. They also provide a Chinese technological alternative in a region previously dominated by Western and American platforms, paving the way for China’s gradual expansion of its military Silk Road initiative.

May 4 (UPI) — A man accused of leaking classified military information to a Washington Post reporter will be released on home detention ahead of his trial next year, a judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Judge Michael Maddox ordered the Justice Department to release Aurelio Perez Lugones to be held on home detention until his trial in February.

Lugones, whose location would be monitored and blocked from using internet-connected devices, is charged with leaking classified information to Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, Politico and The New York Times reported.

Natanson’s home was raided in January by the FBI, with the agency seizing two laptop computers, a cell phone and a Garmin Watch as it investigated Lugones, who was a systems administrator at the Pentagon with a top-secret security clearance.

He allegedly had been taking classified reports home and keeping them before passing some to Natanson, which motivated prosecutors to suggest he could send more information to her if she was not held in jail until the trial.

“The government has no way of knowing what he has retained and what he is able to provide to others,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia McLane said during the hearing.

“The person he was communicating with is still employed and has a willingness to accept classified and national defense information … The receptacle of additional national defense information is still available to the defendant,” she said.

The controversial search of a journalist’s home was triggered by stories Natanson wrote about various national security issues, including one that noted the more than 1,000 sources she had cultivated during the course of her reporting.

Magistrate Judge William Porter approved the search warrant, though he was not told about a federal law that restricts the government from raiding reporters and news organizations, and has said he would go through Natanson’s records for things related to the national security case.

Lugones attorney pushed back on the prosecutors’ assertion that he has “a historical Rolodex of classified information in his head,” and that he’d lost his job, top-secret clearance and access to classified information.

The prosecutors said, however, that the information Lugones retained and passed to Natanson “was not old information.”

“This was current information regarding military movement in the Caribbean, in the Gulf and specifically with Venezuela,” McLane said during Monday’s hearing.

“We have a man who has thrown everything away in an attempt to get back at the administration,” she said.

Calling the prosecution’s argument for holding Lugones in jail speculative, Maddox ordered his release and set a trial date of Feb. 22.

Welcome back to the Times of Troy newsletter, where the spring sports calendar is quickly coming to a close at USC. Saturday saw a trio of Trojan teams upended in the NCAA tournament. The women’s beach volleyball team fell in a brutal quarterfinal shutout by No. 5 Florida State. Men’s volleyball faltered in the second round to No. 3 Hawaii, and the men’s tennis team was shut out 4-0 by No. 9 Oklahoma.

But at USC, there’s a lot of excitement about what’s coming next. The year ahead is a critical one, and not just for Lincoln Riley and the football program. Eric Musselman enters Year 3 with no tournament invites to date, but the most talent he’s had yet as USC’s men’s basketball coach, while the women’s basketball program could be more talented next season than it has ever been.

That abundance of star power has made for a much different offseason for Lindsay Gottlieb this spring. At this time last year, the women’s basketball coach was scrambling to put pieces together in the transfer portal after JuJu Watkins’ knee injury derailed the Trojans’ plans of a title run. The vibes …. were not great. Two promising young guards, Avery Howell and Kayleigh Heckel, left. Some potential transfers who hoped to play with Watkins went elsewhere. All setting up for an up-and-down season.

But with Watkins set to return to full-go this summer and a trio of five-star prospects set to join her, Gottlieb entered this offseason facing polar opposite circumstances. Watkins is set to retake her throne as the most dominant player in women’s college basketball. Jazzy Davidson, already the national freshman of the year, should only get better as a sophomore. And Saniyah Hall, the nation’s top recruit in 2026, would be the best player on most college basketball teams. She may only be the Trojans’ No. 3 next season.

So when Gottlieb set out to survey the transfer portal this spring, she wanted to take a much more selective, intentional approach to building out an already-stacked roster.

“We wanted players that fit,” Gottlieb said. “It takes the person to have the courage to understand that they can really contribute with these really talented players that we have. And also a humility to know that we’re trying to win a national championship, so you’ve got to [be] confident and believe in your abilities. But it can’t necessarily be where they want something crafted around them only, you know? Because we’re trying to win a national championship.”

Pania Davis with Florida State last season.

(Gary McCullough / Associated Press)

She wanted more size, to split time with five-star freshman Sara Okeke at center and found 6-foot-6 center Pania Davis, a towering rim protector who played last season at Florida State.

“We were studying the best bigs that fit us, and 6-6 just jumps out at you,” Gottlieb said. “The way she moves we were really excited about.”

Gottlieb also set out to add an experienced guard in the portal after nearly all of USC’s backcourt depth departed in the offseason and landed on one that she’d known since her first year as the Trojans’ coach.

Gottlieb met Ryann Bennett at a camp during that first season, and when she became available last month after two seasons at UC Davis, her skills just happened to fit USC’s needs perfectly.

“She’s just a really good all-around player,” Gottlieb said. “She can create and pass. She plays some point guard. I don’t think she’s going to be afraid of taking or making a big shot.”

USC could add another player or two in the portal from here, Gottlieb said, but she also doesn’t want to upset the balance that she has right now, on a roster that should already be among the best in the nation.

The question now isn’t so much who USC adds, but how Gottlieb will manage the needs of a roster full of star players. Though, she scoffs at any concern that there’s only one ball to be shared among USC’s star-studded group.

“There’s one ball for South Carolina. There’s one ball for LSU. There’s one for UCLA,” Gottlieb said. “We’ve gotta play in a way that values winning. I don’t think it should take away anyone’s individual skills. But the priority has to be playing the best possible basketball.”

A joyous title run

USC women’s water polo players celebrate after defeating California for the NCAA title last month.

(Derrick Tuskan / NCAA)

The first season that Casey Moon took over USC’s water polo program, he freely admits that “I fell on my face.”

The Trojans lost in the NCAA tournament quarterfinals of the 2024 season, their worst finish in decades. And in the weeks that followed, Moon tried to step back and reevaluate what he wanted to be as a head coach. He had no choice but to be away from the pool, which was under construction all summer.

“The thing that kept coming up,” Moon says, “is this aspect of joy.”

Two years later, Moon has USC water polo back on top again, winners of their seventh national title. He and his players say “joy” is the reason why.

“We’re really unserious, and I think it helped us a lot this year,” said goalkeeper Anna King, who had a career-high 14 saves in the national title win. “We’re trying jokes the whole time. 
We’re just, like, making fun of each other. We keep it light.”

Maggie Johnson, a senior attacker, points to a moment between the third and fourth quarters of USC’s narrow title win over California.

“We are up by one, and they zoom in on our huddle, and we’re all just dancing,” Johnson said. “And I think that just encapsulates, like, what our team is.”

—The NCAA is primed to change its eligibility rules in a big way. The new rules would eliminate the notion of “redshirts” or eligibility waivers — and hopefully stop the cascade of legal challenges — by giving athletes five years to play, with only few exceptions. Eligibility issues have been a disaster as of late for the NCAA, and president Charlie Baker said last week that he’s “pretty optimistic” that the changes will pass when a vote happens later this month. Lincoln Riley has said in the past that he favors the five-year rule, though it’s been a while since we asked.

—The Big Ten distributed a record $1.7 billion in 2024-25, USC’s first year in the league. That was a 55% increase from the previous year, before USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon joined and the most money ever distributed by a college football conference. And from that pile of conference cash, USC should bring in somewhere between $76 million and $80 million. That’s nearly three times as much as the school got in its last year of the Pac-12. In case you needed reminding why USC left.

—USC lost a key member of its football front office. Zaire Turner came with general manager Chad Bowden in 2025 to be the Trojans’ new director of recruiting operations and played a key part in putting together the nation’s No. 1 class in 2026. Now, after a year, Turner, a Dallas native, is off to Southern Methodist where she’ll be senior director of recruiting.

—USC baseball notched its second straight Big Ten sweep. That brings the Trojans to 37-12 on the season, which still leaves them within striking distance of second place in the Big Ten with one conference series — and two overall — remaining in the regular season. With five more wins out of their seven remaining games, the Trojans would lock up their best regular season in a quarter century.

—A shout-out to USC women’s golf, who I unfortunately overlooked in last week’s newsletter, even after they’d won the school’s first Big Ten title and 10th conference title overall. And not just that, sophomore Jasmine Koo won the individual Big Ten title. She was already the winningest player in USC women’s golf history, but added her most distinguished honor yet by becoming the school’s eighth individual conference champion.

What I’m watching this week

Oscar Isaac as Josh Martin, Carey Mulligan as Lindsay Crane-Martin in “Beef.”

(COURTESY OF NETFLIX)

When its first season debuted on Netflix in 2023, there weren’t many shows out there that could build anxiety-inducing tension quite like “Beef.” And I’m happy to report that it’s still got it.

Season 1, which starred Ali Wong and Steven Yeun, centered on a road-rage dispute that escalated out of control. Season 2 has a totally new story, even better actors — Oscar Isaac and Carey Mulligan are the couple at the center of the beef — and even higher stakes. This time, a younger couple played by Charles Melton and Cailee Spaeny witness Isaac and Mulligan, who run the country club they work at, get into a raging fight, the optics of which don’t look so great.

This problem maybe could’ve been solved with a little communication. But judging by the name of the show, you can probably guess which direction it went.

In case you missed it

More March Madness: NCAA basketball tournaments reportedly set to expand to 76 teams

Until next time …

That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at ryan.kartje@latimes.com, and follow me on X at @Ryan_Kartje. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

May 4 (UPI) — An oil tanker was struck late Sunday near the Strait of Hormuz, the second attack on a vessel in the Persian Gulf in about eight hours.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations said in a statement that it received a report of a tanker being hit by unknown projectiles as the vessel was about 78 nautical miles north of Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, near the northern tip of Oman’s Musandam Peninsula by the Strait of Hormuz.

The attack occurred at about 11:40 p.m. local time, it said, adding that all crew were safe and there was no environmental impact from the strike.

The tanker was not identified.

The oil tanker was struck a little more than eight hours after a bulk carrier was attacked by “multiple small craft” in the same region.

The UKMTO said the unidentified bulk carrier was attacked Sunday afternoon about 11 nautical miles west of Sirik, Iran. All crew were reported safe.

The agency is advising vessels to transit the Strait of Hormuz with caution.

The maritime security threat level in the strait remains critical as the United States is enforcing a blockade of Iranian ports in response to Iran restricting which vessels can transit the strait.

The attacks come as U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday vowed to “free” cargo ships trapped in the Persian Gulf since the U.S.-Israel war against Iran began on Feb. 28.

In his Truth Social post, Trump said Project Freedom would begin Monday with the goal of helping ships sailing under neutral flags navigate the strait. Few specifics on how the operation will work were given.

More than two dozen vessels have reportedly been attacked in the strait since the war began.