Defense

May 19 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s fast-growing defense industry is confronting a major new obstacle in the U.S. market as the Pentagon fully implements strict cybersecurity certification requirements across its global supply chain.

The U.S. Department of Defense has begun enforcing the final version of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, or CMMC, program, requiring all companies participating in U.S. defense contracts to meet specific cybersecurity standards.

Industry officials warn that Korean defense firms unable to obtain certification could be excluded not only from exports to the United States but also from ship maintenance, repair and overhaul projects and future joint weapons development programs.

The certification system applies not only to primary contractors but also to subcontractors supplying parts and components.

Even companies with advanced technology and competitive pricing can be blocked from bidding if they fail to meet required cybersecurity levels.

For many South Korean defense firms, the most critical threshold is CMMC Level 2, which is required for handling Controlled Unclassified Information, or CUI, tied to U.S. military programs.

The requirement is considered especially important for South Korea’s ambitions to participate in U.S. Navy ship maintenance and repair projects, as well as broader bilateral defense cooperation initiatives.

Defense analysts say the new rules are becoming a de facto trade barrier across Western defense markets.

“Losing access to the U.S. market effectively means being pushed out of the global defense supply chain,” one industry expert said.

Defense Acquisition Program Administration has launched information sessions and consulting support programs in response to growing industry concerns.

The agency is working with regional defense innovation clusters, the Korea Defense Industry Association and the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality to help companies prepare for certification.

But smaller suppliers say the burden remains overwhelming.

Industry estimates suggest that achieving Level 2 certification can cost companies from hundreds of thousands to several million dollars due to infrastructure upgrades, consulting fees and final audits. Preparation alone can take more than a year.

Large defense contractors have already formed dedicated task forces, but many second- and third-tier suppliers lack both funding and cybersecurity specialists.

Because the CMMC system requires certification across the entire supply chain, failure by even a single subcontractor could jeopardize broader export opportunities involving larger Korean defense firms.

Additional complications stem from differences between U.S. and South Korean encryption standards.

One key CMMC requirement involves use of cryptographic modules certified under U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines known as FIPS standards.

Many South Korean defense companies, however, rely on domestic encryption systems validated under the country’s K-CMVP framework overseen by intelligence and defense authorities.

Industry experts are calling for government-level negotiations between Seoul and Washington to seek mutual recognition or equivalency between Korean and U.S. encryption standards.

Some officials argue such talks could be linked to ongoing negotiations over a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement between the two allies.

Concerns are also growing over South Korea’s lack of domestically accredited third-party CMMC assessment organizations, forcing companies to rely on U.S.-based auditors and raising concerns about defense technology exposure.

Analysts say South Korea’s defense industry must now treat cybersecurity as strategically important as weapons performance itself if it hopes to become a top-tier global arms exporter.

— 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=20260519010005245

WASHINGTON, May 19 (UPI) — President Donald Trump‘s move to build a national missile defense system would leave millions of Americans vulnerable to nuclear attack despite the program’s exorbitant cost, the author of a new scientific report said at a press conference Tuesday outside the U.S. Capitol.

The report simulated a “best case scenario” in which the Golden Dome system shot down 80% of incoming missiles, said Ira Helfand, the report’s main author and a co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, an anti-nuclear weapons organization.

Under those circumstances, more than 300 warheads still would reach the United States, the report found, and that Russia would have a 95% chance of being able to destroy any one of 132 major population centers in which a combined 75 million Americans live.

“Let’s be clear what Golden Dome is: a vanity project of one person, Donald Trump,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., using Trump’s chosen moniker for the missile defense system. McGovern was one of two Massachusetts lawmakers who led the press event.

“We must suffer the Trump arch, the Trump ballroom, the Trump battleship and now Trump’s Golden Dome. Each are the egotistical fantasies of an aging man who needs psychiatric care,” McGovern said.

Soon after taking office in 2025, Trump directed the Defense Department to develop a homeland air and missile defense system. The order called for protecting the U.S. “against ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles and other next-generation aerial attacks from peer, near-peer and rogue adversaries.”

This initiative, later named Golden Dome for America, echoes earlier missile defense efforts, such as President Ronald Reagan‘s Strategic Defense Initiative, commonly known as Star Wars. It was never fully build or deployed.

“Building an effective and reliable shield against any realistic attack by nuclear-armed ICBMs is technologically infeasible for the foreseeable future,” said Laura Grego, a physicist who specializes in nuclear security at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“But also attempting to build one would be hugely expensive — wasting time and resources — and accelerate the nuclear arms race.”

The report was released by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Back from the Brink, all advocates for abolishing nuclear weapons.

The press conference came after a Congressional Budget Office report released last week found that a missile defense system designed to counter a small-scale nuclear attack would cost $1.2 trillion.

A more robust system in line with Trump’s aspirations of “ending the missile threat to the American homeland,” would come with a $3.6 trillion price tag, according to a 2025 estimate by the American Enterprise Institute, a right-of-center think tank. Trump initially offered a price tag of $175 billion for the project.

“The Golden Dome is fool’s gold,” said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. “It’s a gold-plated boondoggle that will enrich defense contractors and ignite a new nuclear arms race.”

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, told Medill News Service that he did not agree with the report’s conclusion that the Golden Dome would be too ineffective and costly to justify. On the contrary, Scott said, nuclear modernization efforts underway by U.S. rivals required a response.

“The weapons coming from China and Russia are faster and stronger,” Scott said. “And we have to be able to pick them up faster.”

Between 2014 and 2024, the estimated number of Chinese nuclear warheads doubled, from 250 to roughly 500, according to the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

China, however, has maintained a no-first-use policy since it first detonated a nuclear weapon in 1964, which commits Beijing to only employ its nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack by another country.

When asked about claims made by Helfand and others at the press conference that the Golden Dome would spur a new global nuclear arms race, Scott disagreed again.

“It’s a defensive system,” he said, “not an offensive system.”

The planned outlays for the Golden Dome come in tandem with other Trump administration priorities that have raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill, including a $1.5 trillion defense spending package for 2027, $400 million for a new White House ballroom that will sit atop a bunker and $29 billion so far for the war in Iran.

At the same time, in its proposed budget, the White House moved to cut non-defense discretionary spending by 10%. The spending category comprises public health, scientific research and scores of other domestic programs.

At Tuesday’s press conference, Markey said the United States doesn’t have trillions of dollars to waste on a system that “is not going to protect the American people,” and he decried funding cuts to social programs that “actually do provide security for families in their own homes.”

May 19 (UPI) — The Trump administration has issued temporary Russia sanctions relief for a third straight month, extending a waiver allowing the delivery and sale of Russian oil already loaded onto tankers at sea amid the ongoing energy crisis cause by the U.S. war with Iran.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the 30-day reprieve on social media, saying it will “provide the most vulnerable nations with the ability to temporarily access Russian oil currently stranded at sea.”

“This extension will provide additional flexibility, and we will work with these nations to provide specific licenses as needed. This general license will help stabilize the physical crude market and ensure oil reaches the most energy-vulnerable countries,” he said in a statement.

The United States has imposed thousands of sanctions on Russia since it invaded Ukraine in February 2022, in an effort to cut it off from a lucrative revenue source to fund its war.

The sanctions relief — first issued on March 5 to permit the sale of Russian crude to India before being broadened March 12 — may have helped Russia generate ab additional $150 million per day in oil revenue, or $3.3 billion to $5 billion in the month of March alone, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in mid-April that about $10 billion worth of Russian oil was at sea, condemning the sanctions relief by stating “every dollar paid for Russian oil is money for the war.”

Democrats and Ukrainians have been sharply critical about the sanctions relief, describing it as undercutting their years of work to try to hobble Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ability to make war.

Following the announcement of the extension on Monday, Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts described the waiver as “delivering another dangerous and indefensible gift” to Putin.

“Every additional dollar the Kremlin earns from this license helps Putin finance his illegal war against Ukraine and kill innocent Ukrainians,” the Democratic pair said in a joint statement.

The Trump administration initially issued the waiver as oil prices surged in response to the war in the Middle East, which began Feb. 28 when the United States and Israel launched joint attacks on Iran.

Shaheen, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Warren, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, criticized the Trump administration over its reasoning that the waiver is to support vulnerable countries, stating that justification “would be more credible had it not launched this war, or if it had used policy tools to limit the prices Russia could push on those countries.”

“Instead, the Trump administration has helped Russia charge more for its oil cargoes by removing the risk of sanctions,” they said.

“Continuing to show weakness like this will only invite more aggression and put a just end to the war in Ukraine further away.”

May 19 (UPI) — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he has imposed additional sanctions against Cuba, with more to come in the days and weeks ahead, as the Trump administration ratchets up the pressure on the communist government of President Miguel Diaz-Canel.

The sanctions announced Monday by the U.S. State Department target 11 Cuba officials and three Cuban security and intelligence entities, freezing any assets under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibiting U.S. persons from doing business with them.

Agencies blacklisted were Cuba’s Ministry of Interior, the National Revolutionary Police Force and its Directorate of Intelligence, Havana’s primary foreign intelligence agency.

Officials hit included the heads of the Revolutionary Police Force as well as various ministers, the chief of staff of military counterintelligence, the chief of the Central Army of Cuba, the chief of the Eastern Army of Cuba, and the president of Cuba’s National Assembly for People’s Power, among others.

Rubio described them as “Cuban regime elites” and officials who have been involved in repressing the Cuban people.

“Regime-aligned actors such as those designated today bear responsibility for the suffering of the Cuban people, the failing Cuban economy and the exploitation of Cuba for foreign intelligence, military and terror operations,” he said in a statement, while warning that more sanctions “can be expected” in the following days and weeks.

“Today’s designations further restrict the Cuban regime’s ability to suppress the will of the Cuban people.”

Late Monday, Diaz-Canel lashed out at the United States over the sanctions, saying no one in Cuba’s government, political party or military institutions has any assets or property to protect under U.S. jurisdiction — and the Trump administration knows this.

“The anti-Cuban rhetoric of hate tries to make people believe such things exist in order to justify the escalation of its total economic war,” he said in a social media statement.

“That’s why we will continue to denounce, int he firmest and most energetic way possible, the genocidal siege that seeks to strangle our people.”

He described Trump’s Cuban policy as “collective punishment” and “an act of genocide,” calling on the international community to prosecute those responsible for it.

President Donald Trump has been targeting Havana with sanctions and economic restrictions since early this year, when he declared a national emergency concerning Cuba on the grounds that it has aligned with “numerous hostile countries, transnational terrorist groups and malign actors adverse to the United States.”

Trump has blocked Venezuelan oil shipments to Cuba, adding to the decades-old economic embargo and worsening the island nation’s energy crisis. The country’s fuel oil stocks have run dry, according to officials, and blackouts are common.

Trump has repeatedly raised the prospect of military action against Cuba and has stopped short of directly calling for regime change as he seeks to extend the United States’ influence across the Western Hemisphere.

Cuba blames the United States for its current economic and energy situation, and the sanctions came as its foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, on Monday, defended Havana’s right to self-defense in response to reports that claimed the island nation had purchased drones from Russia and Iran.

While some Republicans, including Sen. Rick Scott and Rep. Carlos Gimenez, both of Florida, celebrated the sanctions, several Democrats have condemned the Trump administration’s broader campaign, accusing it of manufacturing a pretext for war.

Reps. Delia Ramirez of Illinois and Nydia Velazquez of New York lambasted the administration in a joint statement, accusing it of attempting to justify another “unauthorized and unlawful military invasion,” seemingly referring to the U.S. military abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January and Trump’s late February strikes on Iran, which triggered a war later halted by a fragile cease-fire.

“For the Trump administration, the goal is another military incursion. They will justify their actions by claiming it serves the freedom of Cubans,” the Democratic pair said, calling on Congress to pass a war powers resolution to curb Trump’s ability to make war without congressional authorization.

“Today, we must act to stop the destructive ambitions of imperialists and warmongers.”

Welcome back to the Times of Troy newsletter, where USC and Notre Dame are back at the bargaining table — as you first read in this space last Monday — and also back to bickering about who’s to blame for blowing up their century-old rivalry in the first place. One step closer to order being restored!

I have less faith in the rest of college football and its leadership, which now appears to be mobilizing around a playoff format that’s almost universally disliked by actual consumers of college football. The 24-team playoff is a great deal for coaches, who want to be able to point to as many playoff berths as possible for job security. It’s probably a good deal for athletic directors, digging through couch cushions for extra NIL dollars. And for the TV networks, it’s especially juicy. Twenty four teams means more than double the number of games, and each of those games is pulling in an average of between 10 million and 20 million viewers. That’s a lot of eyeballs and a lot of advertising dollars. (For everyone but ESPN, which currently has exclusive rights up to 14 teams.)

It’s also a good deal for Notre Dame, whose athletic director Pete Bevacqua came out this week in support of the 24-team playoff in an interview with the Athletic. The Irish would essentially assure themselves of a bid in most years, which, per Bevacqua, would make it easier to clear the way for USC and Notre Dame to play again.

Big Ten commissioner Tony Pettiti has been leading the charge on the 24-team playoff. So while USC athletic director Jennifer Cohen hasn’t said anything about her preference, it would be a surprise to hear her publicly oppose what the rest of the conference has been pushing.

But why do we have to push anywhere? Why do we have to keep fixing the playoff? And if you must keep tinkering with college football, well, there are plenty of ways to fix it that won’t water down the product and devalue the regular season the way playoff expansion does. Plus, who’s to say that after two seasons at 24 teams, the conference commissioners don’t decide they want to expand again? To 28 teams? To 36 teams?

The 12-team playoff already makes a lot of money. But like everything now, it has to make the most possible money or be as big as possible. I actually long for the days when college football’s leaders did whatever they could to keep the game from changing.

Now it’s the only thing that feels inevitable these days around college football.

Back to school

Marqise Lee at his graduation ceremony.

(USC)

Marqise Lee stepped to the lectern Friday, in full cap and gown, looked out over a full crowd at Galen Center, and cleared his throat. For so many reasons, the former USC wideout still couldn’t quite believe he was standing there.

Growing up, no part of Lee thought that college would even be available to him. He was brought up in the most difficult of circumstances in Inglewood. Separated at a young age from his sister and his mother, who was deaf. Thrust alone into the foster care system. He ended up living in a motel for three years.

When he did make it to USC, class hadn’t been a priority. Football was his focus from the start, and it would ultimately lead him to the NFL, where he’d never really taken the idea of returning to school that seriously. A counselor would try to convince him on a few occasions and even got him onto campus to set up a schedule.

“But it just never happened,” Lee told me.

Then, his football career ended, and his daughters started getting older. They never got to see him play football. He started thinking about what it would mean to show them what he could accomplish. So Lee decided to go back.

It wasn’t easy at first. He was taking five classes, a full course load. He felt uncomfortable being the oldest student in the class.

“When I first sat in there,” he said, ”I was like, I really don’t need to come back.”

His statistics class, especially, was daunting. He looked for any reason to leave. Then, he thought of his daughters.

“To go back to school and tell my daughters, yeah, I went back, but I wasn’t successful — and expect them to succeed?” Lee said. “Yeah, I can’t.”

But before long, Lee found that he actually liked his classes now. He enjoyed the group projects where he used to only do the bare minimum.

After sloughing off his final semester the first time around at USC, Lee needed at least three B’s and two A’s. No easy feat at USC.

Lee ended up getting A’s across the board. At the end of the semester, the school asked him to be the speaker at its student athlete commencement. Which is what led Lee to that stage, where he delivered a hell of a speech Friday.

“It was just like, this is something that you never ever dreamed about,” Lee said. “You never dreamed about graduating from college. So like to get that done was amazing. And then, I have an opportunity to sit up here and say to these kids and get them prepared for their future, by at least letting them understand where I come from and how hard it is. So they know that we actually can fight through anything that comes our way.”

Next up for Lee?

“I’m about to try and go get my master’s degree after this,” he said.

Cofie’s plans changing?

Jacob Cofie reacts after a layup and a foul during a win over Washington State last season.

(Steve Galluzzo / For The Times)

A month ago, USC basketball announced that Jacob Cofie, one of its starters from last season, planned to return next season. It was a huge coup for Eric Musselman, who had a grand total of two returning players in two seasons as USC’s coach.

Cofie decided to still take part in the G League scouting combine. But in the process, he became one of five players who earned invites to the NBA scouting combine last weekend.

While in Chicago, Cofie was asked if he’d considered keeping his name in the draft. And he didn’t say no. “I’m leaving that up to my agent right now,” he said.

But even with the combine invite, I don’t expect that Cofie could climb any higher than the second round of this NBA draft. And depending on where he would be drafted, if he’s drafted at all, he might actually stand to make more at USC in revenue sharing dollars and NIL.

Cofie has nine days, technically, to make a decision. But I expect we’ll hear sooner than that on his future, and I’d be shocked to hear he’ll be spending next season anywhere but USC.

—USC baseball locked up the fourth seed in the Big Ten tournament. But what about hosting a regional? The Trojans managed to take one of three against Oregon to at least lock up a bye until Friday in the Big Ten tournament. But right now, USC is likely on the outside looking in at hosting its first NCAA regional since 2002. All that could change with a run in the Big Ten tournament. Doing so, though, probably means pulling off an upset of No. 1 UCLA. If USC wins its first tournament matchup against whomever emerges out of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan State and Purdue, then the Bruins will almost certainly be on tap. Win that game, and their hosting fate could change fast.

—Pete Carroll is coming back to teach “The Game of Life” at USC. The former USC coach delivered the commencement address for the Marshall School of Business last Friday, and in the process, announced that he’ll be making his triumphant return as Professor Pete next school year. A spot in Carroll’s class was one of the most coveted on campus in his first go-round — good luck getting off that waitlist the second time!

—Honor Fa’alave Johnson, USC’s top commit in 2027, reaffirmed his plans to sign with USC. That was after a group of USC coaches flew down to the safety’s hometown of San Diego via helicopter. Not a bad way to show you mean business — especially as Texas was doing its best to flip Fa’alave Johnson.

—Some Big Ten championship results from the weekend: The USC men finished fourth in the Big Ten track and field championships, while the USC women finished third. Meanwhile, women’s rowing placed sixth at their Big Ten championships.

What I’m Reading This Week

Patrick Radden Keefe writes for the New Yorker.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

It’s a quiet time for new TV, so I took the radical step of picking up a new book this week. (Crazy, I know.) That said, I’m always game for reading something new from New Yorker staff writer Patrick Radden Keefe, who, for my money, is one of our greatest living nonfiction writers. His latest book, “London Falling” follows an American family investigating the death of their 19-year-old son, who they find was living a secret life within London’s criminal underworld mysteriously before he jumped mysteriously from a building into the Thames River in 2019.

Keefe is a tremendous reporter and writer, capable of turning a nonfiction narrative into a roller coaster, page-turning story that reads like a crime novel. This book, like “Say Nothing” and “Empire of Pain” before it, is one I won’t forget any time soon.

Scheduling note

I said I’d be off this week, however the Lee graduation was so nice that waiting to report on it seemed wrong. But the newsletter will be on hiatus the next two weeks.

In case you missed it

NCAA to expand March Madness fields to 76 teams

A star pitcher at USC, he was cut after six years in the minors. Then Banana Ball came calling

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 18 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has renewed his threats of mass violence against Iran, warning Tehran that “the Clock is Ticking” as the stalemate in talks to end the war shows no signs of ending.

In a statement on his Truth Social platform on Sunday night, Trump wrote: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them.”

“TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

The two-sentence statement echoed the scale of violence he threatened April 7, shortly before the cease-fire was announced, when he warned Iran to make an agreement to end the war or “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

Trump has been seeking an agreement with Iran to end the war since the conflict was halted April 8 with a cease-fire to permit negotiations.

Those negotiations have progressed little if at all since talks broke down in Islamabad in mid-April.

An Iranian proposal recently sent to the United States was rejected by Trump, who told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday en route to Washington from China that he looked at it and found the first sentence unacceptable.

“Well, I looked at it, and if I don’t like the first sentence, I just throw it away,” Trump said.

Asked what the first sentence was, Trump replied, “An unacceptable sentence.”

Trump said he is seeking a lengthy suspension of Iran’s nuclear program, stating that two decades may comply with his demands but “it’s got to be a real 20 years.”

According to Iranian state media Press TV, Iran’s proposal calls for a comprehensive end to the war, full compensation from the United States for damages, the removal of sanctions, the release of frozen Iranian assets and recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency reported the United States responded with five demands: no compensation, no unfreezing of assets, the handover of 881.8 pounds of uranium to the United States, only one nuclear facility remaining active and making a halt to the war on all fronts conditional on negotiations.

In response to Trump’s threat on Sunday, Brig. Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi, senior spokesman for Iran’s Armed Forces, called Trump “delusional,” the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

“Repeating any foolishness to compensate for America’s disgrace in the third imposed war against Iran will bring no consequence other than receiving more crushing and severe blows for that country,” Shekarchi said.

He warned Trump if the United States resumed its attacks, “the assets and decayed army of that country will face new, offensive, surprising and stormy scenarios.”

May 18 (UPI) — Taiwanese President William Lai Ching-te said Taiwan would not do anything to trigger confrontation with China but vowed the island would never allow itself to be traded away or give up sovereignty.

In an online post Sunday, Lai said that “as a responsible party in the region and across the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan will not provoke or escalate conflict,” but neither would it yield to pressure to relinquish its “national sovereignty and dignity, or its democratic and free way of life.”

Lai’s statement came after Beijing warned U.S. President Donald Trump to be “extra cautious” over Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a breakaway province, saying it could result in clashes and potential conflict that could place the entire Sino-U.S. relationship “in great jeopardy.”

Speaking aboard Air Force One on his way back to Washington from his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump said he had “made no commitment” either way on the Taiwan question or an $11 billion deal to sell arms to the island that was sent to Congress for approval in December.

Trump said he and Xi had discussed the arms deal in depth and that he would make a determination on whether it would go through “over the next fairly short period of time.”

“I’m going to say I have to speak to the person that right now is, you know, you know who he is, that’s running Taiwan,” Lai’s name apparently having slipped his mind.

Trump also strictly adhered to Washington’s long-held position of strategic ambiguity by refusing to answer questions over whether the United States would come to Taiwan’s aid militarily, were it attacked.

Beijing wants reunification and has not ruled out retaking Taiwan by force, particularly if it declared independence.

Back in the United States, Trump appeared to urge caution over Taiwan independence, telling Fox News on Friday that while nothing in the United States’ policy on Taiwan had changed, he wasn’t “looking to have somebody go independent.”

“I’m not looking to have somebody go independent. And, you know, we’re supposed to travel 9,500 miles to fight a war. I’m not looking for that. I want them to cool down. I want China to cool down,” he said.

Although the United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei in favor of Beijing in 1979 and acknowledged there is only one China of which Taiwan is a part– the so-called “One China” policy it follows to this day — the Taiwan Relations Act requires it to treat any effort to alter Taiwan’s future by force as a threat to peace in the region and U.S. interests.

The legislation requires the United States to provide the island with arms to defend itself and for the United States to maintain its own capacity “to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.”

However, there is no guarantee of committing U.S. troops to help defend the island.

In his post, Lai expressed gratitude for the United States’ “continued support” for peace in the Taiwan Strait, as well as ongoing military assistance.

“Given China’s unwavering commitment to the use of force to annex Taiwan and its continued military expansion in an attempt to alter the regional and cross-strait status quo, the United States’ continued arms sales to Taiwan and its deepening of U.S.-Taiwan security cooperation, even to the point of necessity, are crucial elements in maintaining regional peace and stability,” wrote Lai.

SEOUL, May 18 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un convened a meeting with commanding officers from across the country’s armed forces and called for strengthening frontline defenses along the border with South Korea to create an “impregnable fortress,” state-run media reported Monday.

Kim held the meeting at the headquarters of the ruling Workers’ Party Central Committee on Sunday, the official Korean Central News Agency said. It was the first known gathering of all division and brigade commanders since Kim took power in 2011.

Kim called for the “rapid modernization of the military and technical equipment of our army” and stressed the need to adapt military training to the changing nature of modern warfare, KCNA said.

He emphasized the country’s “territorial defense” policy, including “strengthening the first-line units in the southern border and turning the border line into an impregnable fortress,” according to the report.

KCNA said Kim outlined plans to reorganize the military structure and bolster frontline and other major units with upgraded weapons and technology as part of efforts to strengthen deterrence.

Earlier this month, North Korea announced plans to deploy new 155 mm self-propelled howitzers to three battalions assigned to long-range artillery units along the southern border this year.

The meeting comes as Pyongyang hardens its military posture toward Seoul and formally abandons decades-old reunification language.

North Korea recently revised its constitution to remove all references to reunification with South Korea, cementing Kim’s push to redefine inter-Korean ties as relations between two separate states.

The two Koreas remain technically at war because the 1950-53 Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty.

South Korea’s Unification Ministry assessed Monday that the meeting appeared aimed at encouraging the military while reinforcing ideological discipline and modernization efforts.

“North Korea has adopted a two-state stance, and there appear to be trends in that regard,” ministry spokesman Yoon Min-ho said at a regular press briefing. “We will continue to closely monitor related trends in the future.”

Asked whether the North’s latest moves could escalate the situation along the border, Yoon said Seoul would continue efforts to reduce military tensions and build trust on the Korean Peninsula.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has sought to reduce tensions since taking office in June, including by dismantling border propaganda loudspeakers and calling for renewed dialogue, but Pyongyang has largely ignored the overtures while continuing to expand its military capabilities.

On Monday, the Unification Ministry released its annual white paper, which defined Seoul’s new “Korean Peninsula peaceful coexistence policy.”

The policy is based on principles President Lee outlined in August, including respecting North Korea’s system, rejecting unification by absorption and avoiding hostile acts.

There’s no denying that Loyola’s lacrosse program is best in Southern California and could be that way for years to come with the number of elite young players participating.

On Saturday night, the Cubs (16-3) won their latest Southern Section Division 1 championship with a 14-6 win over Santa Margarita. The Cubs have won three title since the sport was adopted as a championship event in the Southern Section. Defense has been Loyola’s strength all season.

Senior defenders Chase Hellie and Everett Rolph and junior goalkeeper William Russo led one of the best defenses in program history under coach Jimmy Borell.

Senior Cash Ginsberg finished with five goals and junior North Carolina commit Tripp King finished with two goals.

Orange Lutheran won Division 2 boys over Edison and Windward won Division 3.

In girls Division 1, Mira Costa upset top-seeded Santa Margarita 12-6.

Every major war in the Middle East has left the region permanently altered in ways that nobody fully anticipated at the time. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war created a refugee crisis whose consequences are still being negotiated seventy-eight years later. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran reorganized the entire regional security architecture around a new fault line that nobody had planned for. The 2003 US invasion of Iraq created a vacuum that Iran filled faster and more effectively than anyone in Washington had anticipated, reshaping the balance of power across the Levant in ways that took a decade to fully understand.

The 2026 Iran war belongs in that category. Not because the outcome is clear, it is not, and the ceasefire that is currently holding is fragile enough that anyone claiming certainty about what comes next is not paying close enough attention. But because the war has already crossed several thresholds that cannot be uncrossed, set several precedents that will shape behavior for years, and broken several assumptions that the regional order was quietly depending on without anyone fully acknowledging it.

Here are seven dynamics that will define the Middle East that emerges from this war, whenever the shooting finally stops for good.

1.      Iran Survives, But the Rules It Played By Are Gone

2.      The Gulf Has Been Permanently Unsettled

3.      The Normalization Project Is Frozen

4.      The US-Israel Relationship Has a New Fracture

5.      China Emerged as the Indispensable Power

6.      The Nuclear Domino Is Now Spinning

7.      The Gulf’s Self-Image Is Broken, and Rebuilding It Will Take a Generation

During his first year, U. S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive negotiating style led to some gains with other countries, but when it comes to Iran, this approach seems to be failing. Instead of softening his stance, Trump has shown increasing frustration over the ongoing crisis, which has lasted for 11 weeks, and his tough tactics might hinder efforts to end the conflict that is impacting the global economy.

Analysts believe that one key issue is the Iranian leaders’ need to maintain their image at home, complicating any negotiations. Despite the U. S. and Israeli strikes weakening Iran’s military, Iran still controls the important Strait of Hormuz, allowing it to exert significant influence. Trump’s strategy has been marked by extreme demands and mixed messages, which may not lead to a quick resolution. His desire to frame any outcome as a U. S. victory, while expecting total defeat for Iran, poses further challenges, as no government, including Iran’s, can afford to be seen as surrendering.

The deadlock with Iran happens as Trump faces domestic pressures, including rising gasoline prices and low approval ratings due to an unpopular war ahead of the midterm elections. White House spokesperson Olivia Wales defended Trump’s tactics, claiming that he is a skilled negotiator and suggesting that Iran is becoming more desperate for a resolution.

In a notable threat, Trump warned on social media of destroying Iran’s civilization if a deal is not reached. He later backed down but has repeated his threats to damaging Iranian infrastructure. Trump’s harsh language towards Iranian leaders has continued, and while he claims Iran is on the verge of collapse, the Iranian response has been to portray their endurance as a victory.

Inside the White House, there has been no effort to moderate Trump’s messaging. Polls show his core supporters remain behind him, but some former allies now criticize his extreme threats and the ongoing conflict.

Some of Trump’s strongest statements on his Truth Social platform have come at crucial moments, like when he announced a blockade of Iran’s ports, which led to Iranian retaliation and threatened a fragile ceasefire. He recently rejected a peace proposal from Iran, calling it a “piece of garbage. ” Analysts like Dennis Ross said Trump’s lack of consistency in messaging undermines his intentions. During a visit to Beijing, Trump avoided harsh comments on Iran, focusing instead on relations with China, an ally of Iran.

Some experts believe it would be beneficial for Trump to lower his rhetoric if he truly wants to resolve the conflict. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Saeed Khatibzadeh, criticized Trump for talking too much. Trump claims that his unpredictability is a negotiation tactic, which has sometimes worked in trade discussions. However, in situations like the military actions in Venezuela and the Gaza ceasefire talks, his pressure tactics had positive outcomes.

Despite his desire to seem dangerous in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, analysts say this strategy is unlikely to succeed, given the entrenched nature of Iran’s leadership and their pride. Trump’s threats may have strengthened Iran’s current hardline rulers, who trust him even less after U. S. attacks during negotiations. Nate Swanson, a former State Department official, noted that the expectation of Iran capitulating under pressure is a misconception.

Barbara Leaf pointed out that Trump’s approach has been based on a misunderstanding of Iran’s resilience. Some experts warn that his tactics could backfire, making Iran more determined to develop nuclear capabilities for self-protection. There is a mismatch in timelines, as Trump prefers quick deals while Iran often prolongs negotiations. Academic Abdulkhaleq Abdullah suggested that Iran’s inflexibility is a bigger issue than Trump’s statements. Trita Parsi argued that Iranian leaders might see Trump’s unpredictable behavior as a sign of desperation, leading them to wait him out.

With information from Reuters

May 15 (UPI) — CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s visit to Havana this week opened a new political chapter inside and outside Cuba, with analysts and opposition figures interpreting the meeting as a sign of direct pressure from Washington on a regime battered by massive blackouts, fuel shortages and an increasingly deep economic crisis.

The trip marked an unusual development in bilateral relations. The Cuban government confirmed that a U.S. delegation led by Ratcliffe met with his counterpart Thursday at Cuba’s Interior Ministry.

Washington had requested the meeting, which was approved by “the leadership of the Revolution,” according to the state-run newspaper Granma.

The CIA released photos of the meeting — “the most significant milestone so far in the two months of opaque negotiations taking place between Washington and Havana,” Spanish newspaper El País reported.

In another twist, according to reports by CBS News, USA Today and NBC News, a U.S. Justice Department official said the United States is considering formally charging former Cuban President Raul Castro over a 30-year-old incident in which the Cuban government shot down two aircraft operated by Cuban exile group Brothers to the Rescue.

The Ratcliffe visit, which lasted a brief time, was not announced in advance. He him Air Force plane flew from Joint Base Andrews in Maryland and returned hours later.

For decades, the Cuban government systematically accused opposition figures, independent journalists and dissidents of acting as agents or collaborators of the CIA. However, it was the regime itself that officially announced the meeting with agency director.

“The Cuban government announced the CIA visit first. For Cubans, that means important things are happening or about to happen,” Sebastián Arcos, acting director of the Institute for Cuban Studies, told UPI.

“This increases expectations and anxiety inside and outside the island.”

Energy has become the central focus of Cuba’s crisis. Ratcliffe arrived on the island precisely as Cuba declared a total energy collapse, formally running out of diesel fuel because of the U.S. naval blockade, while multiple technical failures at thermoelectric plants have left millions of people without electricity for up to 22 hours a day.

According to posts shared by activists and users on Facebook, protests have spread across the Cuban capital for four consecutive nights, while reports of internet outages in areas where gatherings have taken place have increased, Diario de Cuba reported.

Professor Jorge Piñón, director of the Latin America and Caribbean Energy Program at the University of Texas’ Energy Institute, said the visit by the CIA chief to Cuban territory “puts on the table what the rules of the game are from the point of view of the United States,” amid a crisis he described as “hour zero” for Cuba’s energy system.

Piñón told UPI that Cuba has practically exhausted its fuel reserves at storage facilities, ports and refineries, while thermoelectric plants operate on the verge of technical collapse.

The consequences extend far beyond the lack of electricity.

Piñón warned that the crisis affects ground transportation, water and food distribution, agriculture and even humanitarian operations by religious organizations that lack diesel to transport aid.

The deterioration of the electrical system also stems from structural problems accumulated over decades. Cuba depends on thermoelectric plants more than 40 years old, many adapted to burn extra-heavy domestically produced oil with high levels of sulfur and contaminating metals.

According to Piñón, that fuel accelerates the deterioration of already obsolete equipment, generating a “vicious cycle” of temporary repairs and new breakdowns.

He said the island produces about 40,000 barrels a day of heavy crude, but needs about 100,000 barrels a day to cover its energy demand, leaving a critical deficit of refined fuels mainly intended for transportation.

At the same time, Professor Raúl Rodríguez, director of the Center for Hemispheric and United States Studies at the University of Havana, described a society marked by daily exhaustion, uncertainty and the progressive deterioration of living conditions.

He told UPI that prolonged blackouts affect food preservation, access to drinking water and hospital operations.

The crisis also has deep economic consequences. Tourism, one of Cuba’s main sources of foreign currency, operates at less than 50% of capacity, affecting employment and the flow of resources into the country.

Rodríguez estimated that about 300,000 workers linked to the tourism sector face direct impacts from the economic slowdown.

Additional problems include health and environmental issues stemming from the lack of fuel for fumigation, garbage collection and basic urban services. The academic warned of growing risks of mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue and chikungunya.

Despite intensifying social unrest, the experts agreed that the crisis will not necessarily lead to an immediate political change.

Rodríguez argued that protests over blackouts and shortages “do not constitute, by themselves, a trigger capable of provoking regime change,” due to the absence of an organized political alternative with social legitimacy.

Piñón, meanwhile, said that although signs of social exhaustion exist, the country currently lacks leadership capable of channeling a political transition or with enough authority to organize a possible post-crisis scenario.

According to press reports, the U.S. demands delivered directly by the CIA director focus on an ultimatum conditioned on deep and immediate structural changes.

Washington is demanding that the Cuban government carry out political reforms toward democratization, release all political prisoners and fully open the economy to the private sector.

“From the information that has emerged, the CIA director traveled to Cuba to deliver an ultimatum: either you move, or the United States will,” the Institute for Cuban Studies’ Arcos said.

The reaction of Miguel Díaz-Canel’s government has reflected pragmatism forced by extreme economic suffocation and the collapse of basic services on the island.

Although Havana agreed to receive the CIA delegation to avoid a violent social outcome, it formally maintains its rhetoric defending national sovereignty, rejecting political conditions that threaten the socialist system.

Cuban officials used the meeting to present evidence that the island does not represent a threat to U.S. security, demanding in return its removal from the list of state sponsors of terrorism and an end to the naval blockade preventing fuel shipments from reaching the island.

Describing the country’s daily deterioration, Cuban writer Leonardo Padura recently portrayed Cuba as a nation where old social protections have collapsed, while the political structure remains intact.

In an essay published on the website La Carta de las Ideas, Padura recalled that July 2021 protests represented an unprecedented social explosion on an island historically marked by strong surveillance and state control mechanisms.

The government response, he wrote, was a severe “order to fight” accompanied by exemplary judicial proceedings aimed not only at punishing, but also at discouraging future public expressions of dissent.

Padura said that precedent helps explain why, despite economic and social conditions now being even worse than in 2021, street demonstrations have been more limited than many outside Cuba expected.

Another expert thinks the United States will dominate as Cuba sinks into crisis.

“The CIA currently has the upper hand. Without the CIA, [President Donald] Trump can do nothing, and [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio knows nothing because he has never even been to Cuba,” Lillian Guerra, professor of Cuban and Caribbean history and director of the Cuba Program at the University of Florida, told UPI.

Guerra argued that the agency holds a dominant position over the Cuban state because of its understanding of the regime’s “theater and discourse of lies and subterfuge” amid the crisis.

Guerra said “nobody is buying” the government’s official explanations anymore and warned that Cuban authorities “are running out of time” as public frustration grows across the island.

She added that the meeting shows Washington is negotiating with Cuba’s “real leaders” linked to the Ministry of the Interior, a structure she described as more powerful than the Revolutionary Armed Forces and primarily focused on preserving political control.

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.