Defense

June 27 (UPI) — The United States attacked Iranian drone sites Saturday morning, and Iran hit Bahrain in response.

In Bahrain, two one-way attack drones hit the country, according to the New York Times. One was shot down by a ground-launched air-defense weapon, a U.S. official told the Times, and the other landed without harm in a remote airfield.

“This constitutes a flagrant violation of its sovereignty, a blatant threat to the safety of citizens and residents,” Bahrain’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

The United States used six F35 and F16 Air Force jets to hit four Iranian sites in the strait, an anonymous official told The Times.

Ebrahim Azizi, a conservative Iranian lawmaker, said in a social media post that the U.S. attacks on Friday were a “reckless violation of the cease-fire” and warned that the attacks would lead the United States to “retreat and regret.”

Azizi added that the strikes show that President Donald Trump “has no commitment to the principles of negotiations.”

On Friday afternoon, Trump ordered strikes on Iran after it staged a drone strike on a shipping vessel transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The president had made vague threats on Iran and said that the country had attacked ships in the strait.

Vice President JD Vance, who has been handling the negotiations, posted on X that the United States had honored the MOU.

“If they have disagreements about how the MOU is being applied, they can pick up the phone,” he posted. “But violence will be met with violence.”

Saturday morning, another ship was hit in the strait by an “unidentified projectile” damaging its bridge but causing no injuries to the crew, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations Center. The organization didn’t say who launched the attack.

Mohsen Rezaei, a former Iranian military chief who advises Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, accused the United States of “continuing to create tensions” in the strait. “The response to the violation of any article of the memorandum of understanding will be swift and decisive,” he said in a post on social media, The Times reported.

June 26 (Asia Today) — South Korean Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back will meet Japanese Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi at the Defense Ministry headquarters in Seoul on Sunday morning, the ministry said Friday.

Koizumi will visit South Korea as part of reciprocal ministerial diplomacy following Ahn’s trip to Japan in January.

During the visit, the ministers are scheduled to inspect aircraft operated by the South Korean Air Force’s Black Eagles aerobatic team, hold bilateral talks and take part in a security dialogue with young people from both countries.

They will also discuss ways to strengthen defense exchanges and cooperation between South Korea and Japan.

The meeting will come about one month after Ahn and Koizumi held bilateral talks on May 30 on the sidelines of the 23rd IISS Asia Security Summit, commonly known as the Shangri-La Dialogue, in Singapore.

It will be the first visit to South Korea by a Japanese defense minister specifically for bilateral talks since 2015, according to the ministry.

Koizumi is also scheduled to pay his respects at Seoul National Cemetery during the trip. He is expected to meet South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun on Sunday.

— 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=20260626010009329

Egypt’s foreign ministry used carefully calibrated language on Monday to restate a familiar position: unwavering support for Sudan’s “unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity” and for its “national institutions, particularly the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).” Framed as a rejection of “parallel entities” seeking to form an alternative government in exile, the statement is another sign that Cairo is tying its Sudan policy ever more tightly to General Abdel Fattah al‑Burhan and the SAF as the country’s civil war grinds into yet another year.

Behind the diplomatic phrasing lies a blunt political choice. Since the outbreak of fighting between the SAF and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in April 2023, Egypt has emerged as one of the army’s main regional backers, both politically and—according to multiple reports—quietly in security terms. Egyptian officials insist they are defending Sudanese state institutions against militia fragmentation and external meddling, a message they repeat in multilateral forums and joint communiqués with Burhan’s Transitional Sovereignty Council.

From Cairo, the stakes in Sudan are seen as existential rather than abstract. Egyptian analysts routinely describe the stability of their southern neighbour as a vital national security concern, citing fears of refugee flows, arms smuggling and jihadist safe havens along the porous border. Control of the Nile is an even deeper driver: since the 2019 fall of Omar al‑Bashir, Egypt has intensified security and military coordination with Khartoum to counter Ethiopia’s upstream Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and preserve its historic water share.

There is also a clear regime‑security affinity, however misguided that affinity might be. Burhan, a career officer who trained in Cairo and maintains close ties with Egyptian generals, represents a familiar authoritarian model for President Abdel Fattah el‑Sisi, himself a former general who came to power after a coup in 2013. Supporting the SAF fits Egypt’s long‑standing pattern of siding with Sudan’s army “whoever is in charge of it,” and buttresses Cairo’s broader preference for strong central militaries over messy civilian transitions across the region.

Officially, Egypt insists it is not a party to Sudan’s war. Sisi has repeatedly pledged “non‑interference,” and Cairo frames its role as limited to mediation, humanitarian aid, and hosting millions of Sudanese fleeing the conflict. Egyptian troops captured by the RSF at Merowe airbase in April 2023 were described as participants in pre‑scheduled joint exercises, not combat operations, a spin that few international observers bought.

The line between deterrent presence and de facto involvement has become increasingly blurred. Analysts note years of intensifying joint drills, intelligence cooperation and arms ties between the two militaries since 2019. Think‑tanks and regional media have reported unconfirmed Egyptian airstrikes on RSF positions and possible targeting of gold‑mining camps in northern Sudan, amid allegations by RSF leaders that Cairo is providing drones and tactical support to the SAF—claims Egypt denies. The pattern points towards at the very least a protective security umbrella for Burhan’s forces, far beyond the strict neutrality Cairo proclaims.

Yet in Burhan Egypt is backing a very risky partner. By hinging its Sudan strategy almost entirely on the SAF and Burhan’s sovereignty council, Egypt is betting on a man and an institution that look increasingly incapable of reunifying the country. The war has left tens of thousands dead, displaced over 14 million people, and pushed parts of Sudan towards famine, with the army losing and regaining territory in a grinding stalemate against the RSF. Burhan’s own legitimacy is deeply contested: he led the 2021 coup that derailed a fragile civilian‑military power‑sharing agreement, and his government is widely seen by pro‑democracy groups as a continuation of military dominance rather than a path to elections.

Cairo’s categorical rejection of “parallel governments” sounds like a defence of state unity, but in practice it risks delegitimising genuine civilian coalitions seeking to organise outside the SAF‑RSF binary. By equating Sudan’s “national institutions” with the existing military leadership, Egypt narrows the political horizon and sidelines the broad civilian forces that led the 2018–2019 uprising—precisely the actors most likely to provide a sustainable, inclusive settlement. If the SAF continues to fragment on the battlefield or loses further territorial control, Cairo may find that its red lines have locked it into defending a shrinking power centre with dwindling popular backing.

There is also a long‑term reputational cost. Egypt positions itself as a mediator through formats such as the “Quad”, and hosts conferences of Sudanese civil and political actors in Cairo. But as long as its public diplomacy is tethered to explicit promises that it “will not be lax or late in supporting the legitimate Sudanese government” under Burhan, that positioning is scarcely credible. On the contrary, Egypt has decisively and actively allied itself to Sudan’s military junta.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has restored the flow of oil and natural gas after more than 100 days of disruption, but the crisis has already left a lasting mark on global energy markets. The prolonged closure exposed the vulnerability of the world’s energy supply chain and has prompted governments to reconsider how they secure fuel supplies.

Analysts say the crisis mirrors the impact of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which transformed global energy policy by encouraging conservation, diversification, and strategic stockpiling. While today’s energy system proved more resilient, the Hormuz disruption may accelerate a broader shift away from fossil fuels.

What Happened?

The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies normally pass, remained effectively closed for more than three months during the US Israeli conflict with Iran.

Despite the disruption, global markets avoided a severe supply crisis through rapid rerouting of cargoes, the release of strategic reserves, reduced Chinese imports, and shifting demand patterns.

However, analysts say these emergency measures were only temporary. Energy inventories fell sharply during the crisis, and markets were approaching a critical point before shipping resumed.

Why the Crisis Matters

The Hormuz disruption demonstrated that even today’s highly interconnected global energy system remains vulnerable to geopolitical conflict.

Unlike previous crises, the world avoided a complete energy collapse because governments, traders, and shipping companies quickly adapted. Nevertheless, the episode exposed the limits of those emergency responses and reinforced concerns about overreliance on a single strategic chokepoint.

The crisis is expected to influence long term energy investment decisions far beyond the Middle East.

Lessons From the 1973 Oil Embargo

The 1973 Arab oil embargo fundamentally changed global energy policy after oil producing nations restricted exports to countries supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

The embargo caused oil prices to surge, triggering inflation and prompting governments to adopt fuel efficiency standards, develop domestic oil production, establish strategic petroleum reserves, and create the International Energy Agency.

Rather than ending fossil fuel use, the crisis encouraged countries to consume energy more efficiently while reducing dependence on imported oil.

A New Energy Strategy Emerges

The Hormuz crisis appears to be driving another major strategic shift, particularly across Asia.

Countries heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil and gas are increasingly prioritizing energy security over low fuel costs. Governments are expected to expand strategic petroleum reserves while accelerating investment in domestic renewable energy, nuclear power, and alternative fuel sources.

India, Pakistan, Japan, and South Korea are among the countries reviewing long term strategies aimed at reducing exposure to overseas energy disruptions.

Europe Continues Its Energy Transition

Europe entered the Hormuz crisis after already reshaping its energy system following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The loss of Russian energy supplies forced European countries to cut gas consumption, diversify imports, and rapidly expand renewable energy capacity.

The latest Middle East disruption is expected to reinforce that trend by encouraging further investment in clean energy and energy efficiency while reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.

Investment Trends Support the Shift

Global investment patterns already suggest that energy markets are evolving.

According to the International Energy Agency, worldwide energy investment is projected to reach 3.4 trillion dollars this year, with much of the growth directed toward renewable energy, electricity infrastructure, battery storage, and grid resilience rather than new oil production.

Electric vehicle sales continue to rise rapidly across Europe, Latin America, and Asia Pacific, while Chinese solar panel exports have surged across Africa and Southeast Asia.

Governments are also increasing spending on energy efficiency, with around 20 countries introducing new conservation measures directly in response to the Hormuz crisis.

Why It Matters

The Hormuz crisis has reinforced that energy security is becoming just as important as energy affordability.

Rather than relying solely on global oil markets, governments are increasingly pursuing diversified energy systems that combine fossil fuels with renewables, nuclear power, strategic reserves, and domestic production.

This transition is expected to influence investment, industrial policy, and international trade for years to come.

Future Outlook

Oil and natural gas are expected to remain central to the global economy for decades, particularly in transportation, manufacturing, aviation, and power generation.

However, future growth in fossil fuel demand may become significantly slower as governments invest more heavily in renewable energy, electric vehicles, battery storage, and efficiency improvements.

The Hormuz crisis may ultimately be remembered not as the event that ended the oil era, but as the moment many countries accelerated preparations for a more diversified energy future.

Implications

The Hormuz crisis is likely to have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate recovery in oil and gas flows. Governments that experienced supply disruptions are expected to place greater emphasis on energy security, even if it comes at a higher economic cost. This could accelerate the expansion of strategic petroleum reserves, diversify import sources, and increase investment in domestic energy production, including renewables, nuclear power, and critical energy infrastructure.

For oil exporters in the Gulf, the crisis may strengthen the case for developing alternative export routes that bypass the Strait of Hormuz, reducing dependence on a single maritime chokepoint. Import dependent economies, particularly across Asia, are also likely to rethink long term procurement strategies by securing more flexible supply contracts and expanding storage capacity.

Financial markets are also expected to assign a higher geopolitical risk premium to energy prices. Even after shipping has resumed, investors may continue to price in the possibility of future disruptions, increasing volatility across oil, gas, shipping, and insurance markets. The crisis could also accelerate capital flows into technologies that reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, including electric vehicles, battery storage, hydrogen, and energy efficiency.

Analysis

The Hormuz crisis may ultimately prove more significant for what it revealed than for the physical disruption it caused. Although global energy markets demonstrated remarkable resilience, that resilience depended on temporary measures such as drawing down inventories, rerouting cargoes, reducing consumption, and relying on spare production capacity. These mechanisms bought time rather than solving the underlying vulnerability of the global energy system.

Unlike the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which primarily forced consuming nations to improve efficiency while expanding fossil fuel production elsewhere, today’s crisis occurred at a time when commercially competitive alternatives to oil and gas already exist. Renewable energy, electric vehicles, battery storage, and advanced power grids have matured into viable strategic assets rather than purely environmental investments. As a result, governments are increasingly viewing clean energy not only as a climate policy but also as a national security priority.

Another important distinction is the shift in investment behavior. Historically, supply disruptions often encouraged greater investment in oil exploration and production. Following the Hormuz crisis, however, a growing share of capital is moving toward energy diversification instead of simply increasing fossil fuel output. This suggests policymakers increasingly see reducing oil dependence as a more sustainable way to improve resilience than expanding strategic reserves alone.

The crisis also exposed a structural imbalance in global energy markets. While production remains concentrated in politically sensitive regions, demand growth is increasingly centered in Asia, leaving major importers highly exposed to geopolitical instability. Countries such as India, Pakistan, Japan, and South Korea may therefore pursue parallel strategies of securing diversified hydrocarbon supplies while rapidly expanding domestic renewable generation, nuclear power, and energy storage.

Perhaps the most important takeaway is that energy security has overtaken cost as the dominant driver of policy decisions. For decades, governments largely optimized their energy systems for affordability and efficiency. The Hormuz disruption demonstrated that the cheapest energy source can quickly become the most expensive if geopolitical events interrupt supply. That realization is likely to reshape government policy, corporate investment, and global energy trade for years to come.

The crisis does not signal the immediate end of the oil era. Oil and natural gas will remain indispensable for transportation, petrochemicals, aviation, heavy industry, and electricity generation in many regions. However, it may represent an inflection point where the trajectory of fossil fuel demand begins to flatten as countries systematically reduce their strategic dependence on imported hydrocarbons. In that sense, the Hormuz crisis could be remembered less as an energy supply shock and more as the catalyst that accelerated the next phase of the global energy transition.

With information from Reuters.

SEOUL, June 26 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un oversaw tests of a new rocket launcher system and other weapons as part of a plan to bolster firepower along the inter-Korean border, state-run media reported Friday, highlighting Pyongyang’s continued effort to modernize conventional weapons capable of threatening the Seoul metropolitan area.

The new weapons, tested at an undisclosed location Thursday, included an upgraded 240mm 24-tube multiple rocket launcher with an automated guidance system and an extended range of 56 miles, the official Korean Central News Agency reported.

Also tested were shells for a 155mm self-propelled howitzer with an extended range of 40 miles and a special warhead for a tactical ballistic missile. KCNA said the warhead was “aimed at inflicting fatal damage on major targets including airfields, ports and power facilities of the enemy.”

Kim described the launches as a demonstration of the “great technological progress” made in implementing the party’s policy of “bringing about a change in the fire posture on the southern border.”

He added that the policy was intended not only to strengthen defenses but also to build a “deadly and destructive offensive posture to make no enemy dare to confront.”

Seoul, home to more than 10 million people, lies roughly 30 miles from the border, while the surrounding Gyeonggi Province is one of South Korea’s most densely populated and industrialized regions.

The tests come amid an extended push by Pyongyang to harden its military posture toward South Korea. Last month, Kim called for strengthening frontline defenses along the border to create an “impregnable fortress,” and Thursday’s weapons tests appear to represent the firepower component of that broader effort.

North Korea has ramped up fortification work near the Military Demarcation Line inside the DMZ, including the installation of barbed-wire fencing and preparations for mine-laying operations. South Korea’s Defense Ministry on Monday called the activity a violation of the armistice agreement that ended fighting in the 1950-53 Korean War.

Earlier this week, Pyongyang also commissioned its first 5,000-ton destroyer, the Choe Hyon, which Kim said is armed with nuclear-capable missiles. Images released by state media appeared to show missile launchers and radar systems resembling those found on Russian warships, prompting speculation that Pyongyang has received technical assistance from Moscow.

North Korea has deployed troops, artillery and weapons to support Russia’s war in Ukraine and is widely believed to be receiving financial support and advanced military technology in return.

While South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has sought to ease tensions with North Korea since taking office last year, he has also called for strengthening Seoul’s military capabilities in response to Pyongyang’s expanding weapons programs.

On Friday, South Korea’s Defense Ministry unveiled a plan to rapidly expand the military’s drone and counter-drone capabilities, citing lessons from modern conflicts and North Korea’s growing military cooperation with Moscow.

“Since North Korea is currently receiving technology transfer from Russia, we decided that we urgently need to proactively respond to various changes in the war operation environment,” Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back said at a press briefing.

The plan calls for acquiring 20,000 low-cost reconnaissance and loitering drones by 2030 while accelerating the deployment of homegrown K-Lucas long-range suicide drones. It also includes expanded counter-drone capabilities, including laser weapons, high-power microwave systems and interceptor drones designed to defeat low-cost aerial threats.

As part of the strategy, South Korea aims to train 500,000 “drone warriors” across the army, navy, air force and marines. Ahn said drones should become “a universal means of combat” across the armed forces, with every soldier eventually able to operate them “like a second personal weapon.”

June 25 (UPI) — A cargo vessel in the Strait of Hormuz was attacked Thursday, prompting officials to halt the evacuation of sailors stranded in the chokepoint by the war.

It was unclear who attacked the cargo ship. According to the British navy’s United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations office, the vessel was struck on its starboard side by an unknown projectile at about 5:40 p.m. local time. It was about 7 1/2 nautical miles southeast of Dahit, Oman, when it was attacked, it said.

The vessel’s bridge sustained damage, but no casualties or environmental impact were reported.

Following the attack, the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization paused its evacuation operation in the Strait of Hormuz.

“I have decided to temporarily pause its implementation in order to reconfirm that the necessary safety guarantees continue to be in place for the ships on our evacuation list and all those in the region,” IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez said in a statement.

The war, which began Feb. 28, left some 11,000 sailors stranded in and around the Strait of Hormuz, a vital energy shipping route. The IMO announced the evacuation operation Tuesday, after the United States and Iran agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding that seeks to pave a path to ending the war.

Under the U.N. plan, a number of vessels have already been evacuated.

The vessel struck Thursday was not transiting the Hormuz under the IMO’s evacuation framework, the U.N. agency said.

Though it unclear who was responsible for the attack, the Iran’s U.S.-sanctioned Persian Gulf Strait Authority, newly created by Tehran to oversee and manage the strait, issued an advisory Thursday, stating it is not responsible for the protection of vessels transiting “outside designated routes.”

“Any consequences arising from unauthorized routing shall be the sole responsibility of the vessel owner, charterer and master,” it said.

Control of the strait has been a focus of ongoing U.S. efforts to end the war.

Iran effectively closed the strait after being attacked Feb. 28, causing energy prices to surge and threatened nations with worsening energy crises.

Since then, Iran has attempted to maintain control of the strait and has sought to impose fees on ships that transit it.

The United States is seeking to secure free maritime travel through the strait as part of the MOU. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is currently in the Middle East trying to sell the MOU to allied nations.

However, the Institute for the Study of War said in a report Thursday night that Iran’s alleged attacks and threats directed at vessels in the strait “advance its objective of establishing control over the waterway” as well as “undermine international efforts to guarantee safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.”

“Iran is using military threats and economic incentives to try to convince Gulf states to support its efforts to control the strait, but the Gulf states appear to be resisting Iranian pressure at present,” it said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 24 (UPI) — Senate lawmakers have approved a war powers resolution directing President Donald Trump to halt U.S. hostilities with Iran or seek congressional authorization.

The Senate voted 50-48 on Tuesday, with four Republicans — Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky — joining their Democratic colleagues in passing H.Con.Res. 86. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., was the only Democrat to vote against the measure.

The measure’s legal force was disputed. Though concurrent resolutions are non-binding, Democrats argue H.Con.Res. 86 is binding because it was adopted under the War Powers Resolution.

Either way, the measure shows the deepening fissure in support among Trump’s Republican Party for the war his administration unilaterally launched in late February.

Democrats have been forcing repeated war powers resolution votes for months, most of which have been stonewalled by Republicans. But GOP support for the war has waned as it has dragged on, culminating Tuesday when the Senate approved the measure that the House narrowly passed 215-208 earlier this month.

“Both chambers have now made clear that the president cannot continue this war of choice and must cease all hostilities against Iran,” Rep. Gregory Meeks, the resolution’s sponsor and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Tuesday after the vote.

“Regardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the Executive complies with the will of Congress.”

Democrats argue that the U.S. war with Iran — as well as other military actions taken by Trump, including attacks on suspected drug-trafficking boats in international waters — is illegal as Congress has not authorized war, a power the Constitution gives to Congress.

Trump has responded that he does not need authorization, and any war powers resolution is moot due to the fragile U.S.-Iran cease-fire that went into effect in early April.

Amid the cease-fire, Trump has been seeking an agreement to end the war, and his administration was actively negotiating terms with Iran when the vote was held Tuesday.

In a social media statement, Trump lambasted Congress over the vote, saying it was informing Iran that the United States does not support him while hee has “Iran on the ‘ropes,’ ready to go down for the fall.”

“Four Republican Losers voted with the Dumocrats,” he said, while calling the measure “poorly timed and meaningless.”

“These Senators have just made my job more difficult, but I will get it done, one way or the other, because I always get it done.”

SEOUL, June 23 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un called for accelerating the expansion of North Korea’s nuclear forces, citing increasingly hostile military cooperation between Seoul and Washington and an unstable global security environment, state media reported Monday.

Kim led a plenary meeting of the Ninth Central Committee of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea from Saturday through Monday to review progress on national goals for the first half of the year and outline priorities for the remainder of 2026, according to the official Korean Central News Agency.

The meeting reaffirmed Pyongyang’s commitment to strengthening and expanding its nuclear forces, describing them as “the core of the military sovereignty of the country” and the foundation of its war deterrent.

“To thoroughly exercise the position of a nuclear weapons state is the most correct and unique way to actively and confidently cope with the unpredictable international military and political situation,” KCNA said.

North Korea passed a law declaring itself a nuclear-armed state in 2022. Kim later amended the country’s constitution to enshrine the permanent growth of its nuclear arsenal, calling the status “irreversible.”

The remarks come weeks after Kim toured a newly inaugurated nuclear fuel production facility and vowed to continue expanding the country’s fissile material at an “exponential rate.”

In an address to the meeting, Kim said it was necessary to bolster North Korea’s defense capabilities in response to an increasingly volatile international environment.

“Wars, bloodshed and political and economic instabilities are becoming a daily occurrence in the world due to the gangster-like and unlimited geopolitical greed and misuse of strength,” Kim said, according to KCNA.

The North Korean leader criticized the U.S.-South Korea military alliance, citing regular joint military exercises and Seoul’s pursuit of a nuclear-powered submarine.

Kim also singled out the allies’ Nuclear Consultative Group, which met in Seoul earlier this month, calling it a “nuclear war body” and accusing Washington and Seoul of developing plans for a nuclear strike against North Korea.

He further accused Japan of transforming itself into a “war state” and warned that military buildups in Northeast Asia were heightening regional tensions.

In addition to expanding the country’s nuclear program, Kim outlined broader military modernization goals, including construction of a 10,000-ton strategic guided missile cruiser, expansion of munitions production and the development of new naval facilities. He also called for completing ongoing efforts to harden the border with South Korea.

The remarks come as North Korea continues extensive fortification work near the Military Demarcation Line inside the DMZ, including the installation of barbed-wire fencing and preparations for mine-laying operations.

South Korea’s Defense Ministry on Monday called the activity a violation of the armistice agreement that ended fighting in the 1950-53 Korean War.

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

“In particular, it is essential to thoroughly adhere to the principle of struggle against the enemy set forth by our party which defined the ROK as the most hostile state,” Kim said, using the official acronym for South Korea.

The remarks underlined Pyongyang’s continued rejection of South Korean President Lee Jae Myung’s outreach efforts since taking office last year.

Last week, Lee said he discussed North Korea with U.S. President Donald Trump during the Group of Seven summit in France, arguing that sanctions had failed to halt Pyongyang’s nuclear development and suggesting a more phased approach.

Trump met Kim three times during his first term and has repeatedly said he would be open to meeting the North Korean leader again since returning to office.

“President Trump said it was time to pay attention to the North Korea issue again,” Lee said.

The disruption caused by the Iran war and the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz has prompted countries around the world to reconsider their energy security strategies. Governments that suffered economic damage from supply shortages and soaring prices are now looking to build larger strategic oil and gas reserves, potentially creating demand for hundreds of millions of additional barrels over the coming years.

Hormuz Crisis Exposed Energy Vulnerabilities

The near-total closure of the Strait of Hormuz disrupted around one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies for more than three months, sending shockwaves through energy markets.

Brent crude prices surged to nearly $120 a barrel as import-dependent economies faced rising fuel costs, supply uncertainty and growing inflationary pressures.

Emergency Reserves Helped Stabilize Markets

One of the key factors preventing a deeper energy crisis was the release of strategic petroleum reserves.

All 32 members of the International Energy Agency agreed to a record release of 400 million barrels from emergency stockpiles, helping offset supply disruptions and ease pressure on global markets.

The coordinated action highlighted the importance of maintaining large emergency reserves during major geopolitical crises.

China’s Stockpile Strategy Pays Off

China emerged from the crisis in a stronger position than many other major importers due to its massive strategic petroleum reserve.

The country has spent years building what is believed to be the world’s largest emergency oil stockpile, estimated at more than one billion barrels.

During the conflict, China significantly reduced crude imports, allowing it to avoid buying large volumes of oil at elevated prices and limiting the economic impact of the disruption.

Import-Dependent Economies Face Greater Pressure

Countries with limited strategic reserves faced much greater challenges.

Several Asian economies relied on emergency measures such as:

• Fuel subsidies
• Consumption restrictions
• Reduced working hours
• Energy-saving programs

The experience exposed vulnerabilities among countries heavily dependent on Middle Eastern energy supplies without substantial emergency stockpiles.

India Eyes Larger Strategic Reserves

India is among the countries most likely to expand its emergency storage capacity.

As the world’s third-largest oil importer and one of the fastest-growing energy consumers, India currently holds reserves covering only a small fraction of its import needs.

Meeting International Energy Agency standards would require hundreds of millions of additional barrels of storage capacity.

Recent plans under consideration suggest New Delhi is moving toward expanding its strategic petroleum reserve network.

Pakistan Also Reviewing Energy Security

Pakistan, which relied heavily on Middle Eastern oil and LNG imports before the conflict, is also examining ways to increase domestic storage capacity.

The Hormuz disruption underscored the risks facing countries that lack sufficient reserves to absorb prolonged supply interruptions.

Australia Moves to Address Reserve Gap

Australia, long criticized for failing to meet International Energy Agency stockpile requirements, has announced plans to significantly increase fuel reserves.

The move reflects a broader recognition that energy security has become a national security issue amid growing geopolitical uncertainty.

Europe Considers Additional Gas Storage

Europe already maintains extensive gas storage infrastructure to manage winter demand.

However, the war has renewed concerns about dependence on imported LNG, particularly as the region increasingly relies on overseas suppliers.

Additional government-controlled gas storage facilities may become part of future energy security planning.

Gulf Producers Seek Overseas Storage

The lessons of the Hormuz disruption are also influencing major energy exporters.

National oil companies in the Gulf are exploring opportunities to expand storage capacity outside the region to maintain export flexibility during future crises.

Additional overseas storage could help producers continue serving customers even if regional shipping routes face disruptions.

Oil Market Impact

The expansion of strategic reserves worldwide could create substantial new demand for crude oil and refined products.

At the same time, emergency reserves that were depleted during the conflict will need to be replenished.

Together, reserve rebuilding and new storage programs could generate demand for roughly one billion barrels over the coming years, providing support for global oil prices even if overall supply growth remains strong.

What It Means for Global Energy Security

The Hormuz crisis has reinforced a lesson many governments learned during previous energy shocks: supply security can be just as important as supply availability.

Countries are increasingly viewing strategic reserves not as emergency assets to be used rarely, but as a core component of economic and national security planning. The crisis has also demonstrated how large stockpiles can provide governments with flexibility to reduce imports during periods of market stress and extreme prices.

Analysis

The most significant consequence of the Iran war may not be the temporary spike in oil prices but the long-term shift in how countries manage energy security. The conflict exposed a clear divide between nations with large strategic reserves and those forced to absorb the full impact of supply disruptions. China emerged as a model for energy resilience, while countries such as India and Pakistan were reminded of their vulnerability to geopolitical shocks.

If governments follow through on plans to expand storage capacity, the global oil market could gain a major new source of structural demand. Reserve construction and replenishment may help absorb future supply surpluses and provide a floor for prices, particularly during periods of weak economic growth.

At the same time, larger strategic stockpiles could make future oil shocks less severe. Countries with substantial reserves are better positioned to reduce imports during crises, dampening demand spikes and limiting extreme price volatility. In the longer term, the world could emerge from the Hormuz crisis with a more resilient energy system, but one in which strategic stockpiles play a much larger role in shaping oil demand, trade flows and government policy.

With information from Reuters.

June 22 (UPI) — China announced Monday that it is adding 10 U.S. defense companies to its export control list, restricting business with those firms.

The move prohibits Chinese companies from exporting certain items to those companies, including drones, robotic hardware and software that is used for defense and national security capabilities. There are also items for nonmilitary uses that are restricted.

The companies added to the export control list are: AVEOX, Red Cat Holdings, Teal Drones, IMSAR, Jaia Robotics, Ball Aerospace and Technologies, Oshkosh Defense, L3Harris Maritime Services, MP Materials and USA Rare Earth.

“Exporters are prohibited from exporting dual-use items to the aforementioned 10 entities, and any organization or individual from any country or region is prohibited from transferring or providing dual-use items originating in China to the aforementioned entities; any ongoing related export activities must be immediately ceased,” the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced.

The Chinese Finance Ministry also announced that 46 U.S. companies are banned from participating in government procurement projects. Many of those companies are also defense contractors.

Companies that are banned from participating in government procurement projects include Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and General Atomics.

Both bans take effect immediately, however China has included some flexibility in situations where exporting is “truly necessary.”

China’s new trade restrictions are in response to the Pentagon accusing a number of Chinese companies of aiding its military. The Pentagon updated its list of companies believed to be aiding the Chinese military earlier this month, blocking the Department of Defense from awarding direct contracts to those companies.

The update included the additions of Alibaba Group, Baidu and BYD, a Chinese automaker.

Diplomatic sparring between Ukraine and Belarus escalated sharply on 19 June, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky demanded that Belarus dismantle communications infrastructure allegedly used by Russia to extend the range of its strike drones. Zelensky has offered a week for such removals to take place, reportedly saying, “I am giving a week for it to be withdrawn; otherwise, we will do it ourselves.” This marks a severe deterioration in relations since Belarus allowed Russian forces to cross Ukraine’s northern border using Belarusian territory in 2022. Following Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine’s northern regions, Belarus has not enabled further assaults from its own territory but has actively aided Russian efforts, in part, by allowing drones to operate over Belarusian territory to strike Ukrainian targets with less warning. These increased tensions follow recent statements from Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko aimed at easing tensions, stating, “If Volodymyr Oleksandrovych was offended, I apologize to him for those words… Perhaps I shouldn’t have spoken so sharply about it. But, on the other hand, he should understand, as we often say: you get what you give.” As Zelensky applies pressure to Russia’s key European ally, Lukashenko’s response may determine whether his country will begin to withdraw support or play a larger part in this war.

Belarus’ Assistance in Putin’s Invasion

Belarus has played a vital role in Russia’s aggression since 2022, remaining one of Moscow’s most important enablers throughout the war. On the opening days of the conflict, 45,000 Russian soldiers crossed into the capital region of Kyiv. Since Russia’s withdrawal from northern Ukraine, Belarus has remained a tacit supporter of the invasion, finding auxiliary ways to support its key strategic ally’s actions in Ukraine without directly becoming involved itself. While weapons transfers and diplomatic support aid Moscow’s war effort, Belarus’ most valuable contributions come from two primary sources. First, Belarus’ expansive border with Ukraine. The two countries share a border that stretches over 1,000 kilometers. The existence of a Russian ally on Ukraine’s northern border introduces the risk of another attack from this direction, requiring the dedication of over 100,000 soldiers to the defense of a region that may not become active for the duration of the war. Second, neutral airspace was made available to long-range strike drones. Without this advantageous lane of attack, Russian drones, such as the Geran-2, must spend hours loitering over Ukrainian territory, where they are exposed to interception attempts while trying to reach their targets. Additionally, and central to Zelensky’s latest ultimatum, Belarus has reportedly allowed Russia to build a network of relays along Ukraine’s border to expand the range of its strike drones, allowing greater operational reach and improved resistance to electronic warfare.

Belarusian Capabilities

Threats made without the capability to enforce them are functionally pointless, suggesting that Zelensky believes Ukraine occupies a militarily advantageous position relative to Belarus. This warrants analysis of Belarus’ military capabilities to determine whether they pose a threat to Ukraine. As of 2022, Belarus reportedly maintained an active-duty army of approximately 48,000 soldiers, with inactive trained reserves and additional supporting personnel amounting to another 300,000 people. The country fields 1,200 main battle tanks and 3,400 other armored fighting vehicles, although it is unclear how many remain in active service. Many of these vehicles are of questionable utility, with Belarus operating mainly vintage Soviet equipment and few vehicles having been modernized to contemporary standards. The Belarusian Air Force fares slightly better, fielding 48 front-line fighter aircraft, of which 16 are new Su-30SM/SM2 airframes. The war and its rapidly changing dynamics have forced Belarus to invest in the modernization of its armed forces. However, in contrast to many Western modernization programs, which frequently involve high-value equipment deals, Belarusian efforts have focused more heavily on improving infantry capabilities. Belarus currently funds several programs for procuring modern armored vehicles and has recently made new equipment purchases from Russia, including the nuclear-capable intermediate-range ballistic missile known as Oreshnik. More transformative, however, are efforts to reform the country’s mobilization system and employment of experienced Wagner mercenaries to train Belarusian soldiers in drone-centric combat techniques. This could be interpreted either as an inability to afford more comprehensive reforms or as a deliberate shift away from traditional reliance on armored formations in favor of unmanned systems. Regardless of the motivation, these programs demonstrate substantive efforts to improve the military readiness of a vital ally to Russia.

Ukrainian-Belarusian Diplomatic Efforts

Zelensky’s demand follows months of escalating tensions between Belarus and Ukraine, contrasting Belarus’ traditionally ancillary role in Ukrainian foreign relations. Due to Belarus’ refusal to participate directly in combat operations, Kyiv had little incentive to press diplomatic issues and antagonize its northern neighbor. Until the recent flare-up, it was in Ukraine’s interest to keep Belarus on the sidelines while accepting the reality of Belarusian aid and weapons transfers that benefited Russia. Relations between the two countries followed a repeated cycle of saber-rattling, military posturing, de-escalation, and periods of calm. Lukashenko has repeatedly offered his services as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, although Kyiv has rejected these offers because of Belarus’ close ties to Moscow. Tellingly, despite Belarus aiding its aggressor, Ukraine has maintained diplomatic ties with Minsk throughout the conflict. Lukashenko further offered to open bilateral talks with Kyiv in late 2025 in an attempt to reduce rising tensions. These efforts failed to bear fruit as relations deteriorated to their lowest point since the beginning of the war in May 2026. Following the construction of additional drone launching facilities in Belarus and an increase in Russian drone strikes, Ukrainian diplomacy shifted towards the application of direct pressure. Kyiv’s announcement that it had identified more than 500 strategic Belarusian targets in the event of conflict culminated in Zelensky’s ultimatum to dismantle Russia’s drone relay network within a week. The ultimatum suggests that Ukraine is abandoning its previous strategy of managing tensions with Belarus in favor of direct pressure. It also followed the largest Ukrainian drone strike on Moscow to date. Viewed in that context, Zelensky appears to be leveraging Ukraine’s growing long-range strike capabilities while simultaneously attempting to disrupt a component of Russia’s own drone warfare infrastructure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Times staff writer James Risen contributed to this story.

The Chinese strategy employs research and intelligence institutions working to foster closer ties between Iranian national security institutions and the Egyptian military, aiming to undermine the American presence in the Middle East. Prominent among these institutions are the Middle East Studies Institute at Shanghai International Studies University, the China Institute of International Studies, and the Center for West Asian and African Studies. These Chinese research centers, which shape China’s relations with countries in the region and the Gulf, include the Middle East Studies Institute at Shanghai International Studies University (SISU), which directs studies related to security and defense issues and facilitates direct dialogue between think tanks in Iran and research centers in Egypt. Another example is the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS), which reports directly to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and works to engineer diplomatic plans that align Egypt’s strategic interests with the objectives of Tehran and resistance movements in the region. Chinese think tanks and intelligence agencies also rely on a number of People’s Liberation Army-backed space intelligence companies, such as MizarVision and EarthEye. These Chinese companies have provided high-resolution satellite imagery and intelligence data to support operations targeting US bases in the Gulf and the Middle East. These Chinese entities coordinate and plan operations through various mechanisms and initiatives officially launched by China, most notably the Global Security Initiative (GSI). Beijing also uses forums, such as the China-Arab Cooperation Forum, to pressure Middle Eastern and Gulf countries to withdraw foreign forces and end US hegemony in the Gulf and the Middle East. This is framed as ending direct interference in the internal affairs of countries in the region. Beijing is also seeking to establish permanent overseas bases, most prominently the Djibouti naval base in East Africa, to support its regional alliances and ensure the continuity of global supply lines for Chinese interests and investments within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative.

The relationship between Chinese military and intelligence think tanks and the Egyptian army is highlighted by their shared goal of countering American hegemony and expelling US military bases from the Gulf and the Middle East. China is strengthening its strategic cooperation with the Egyptian army as part of the Djibouti-UAE-Egypt axis, with Beijing relying on Cairo as a key launching pad to secure maritime navigation and reduce American military influence. Beijing is utilizing its strategic institutions and think tanks to provide technological and logistical support to the Egyptian army, aiming to create a regional power capable of maintaining strategic balance in the region against American hegemony and interventions. This escalating security and strategic relationship between the Egyptian and Chinese armies rests on several key pillars, most notably intelligence and military partnership. China aims to train the Egyptian military elite through Egyptian military academies and coordinate threat assessments and mutual monitoring of the military movements of the United States and its allies in the Gulf and the wider region. With the implementation of several joint exercises between the two sides, the Chinese vision crystallized in the (Civilization Eagles maneuvers), which brought together the air forces of China and Egypt. This paves the way for the transfer of military technology and the integration of Chinese systems with Egyptian defenses independent of the West, along with the localization of Chinese military industries in the heart of Cairo. China is negotiating with the Egyptian Ministry of Defense to develop local manufacturing capabilities and transfer defense technology. There are also reports of integrating Chinese systems into Egyptian systems to reduce Egypt’s dependence on American-supplied weaponry. Beijing seeks to create a counterweight to American hegemony in the Middle East and the Gulf. China sees Egypt’s refusal to host any American military bases as a cornerstone of its strategy, relying on the Egyptian and Emirati armies to guarantee regional security as an alternative to the traditional American presence in the Gulf and the Middle East.

Chinese research, military, and intelligence think tanks are working to engineer an asymmetric strategic partnership to end American hegemony in the Middle East and the Gulf. Chinese think tanks, military research centers, and intelligence agencies are operating according to a clear strategic vision aimed at building asymmetrical partnerships in the Middle East and the Arabian Gulf to reduce American influence and establish a multipolar world order. Beijing provides Tehran with technical and intelligence support to deter Washington, while simultaneously seeking to strengthen military cooperation with Egypt as a pivotal regional power. This strategy aims to diminish American influence and secure China’s vital economic interests. The Chinese strategy in the region rests on several pillars, most notably its strategy toward Iran and its technical and intelligence support for the country. China has secretly supplied Iran with advanced satellite technology from its BeiDou satellite system, bypassing Western and American GPS systems, as well as sophisticated air defense systems. This has significantly enhanced the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s ability to monitor and target American military bases in the region and the Gulf.

The objectives of Chinese think tanks, political, strategic, military, and intelligence research centers become apparent here, as they attempt to plan a path to link Iran to China’s Belt and Road Initiative and transform Iranian military pressure into a tool for destabilizing the US bases deployed in the region and the Gulf. The convergence between China and the Egyptian military is highlighted through the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries. Beijing is inclined to strengthen military cooperation with Egypt, capitalizing on its political stability and its geographic location controlling vital maritime trade routes, and to transfer advanced Chinese military technology to Egypt. Beijing has revealed its desire to be a major supplier of equipment to the Egyptian army, such as the J-10 aircraft. This aims to increase Egypt’s strategic maneuvering room and reduce the dominance of Western weaponry.

The stability achieved by the Egyptian leadership is a fundamental pillar supporting the comprehensive strategic partnership, as Beijing seeks to secure its economic and military interests with a stable and influential regional power. Therefore, China is investing in the Belt and Road Initiative, for which the Suez Canal is a vital artery in the Middle East. Cooperation extends to the exchange and transfer of military technology, joint military manufacturing, advanced air defense systems, and the evaluation of potential acquisitions of modern Chinese fighter jets. Furthermore, joint air exercises have been conducted, with the Egyptian Armed Forces carrying out their first-ever joint air exercise, dubbed Eagles of Civilization with China, involving multi-role fighter aircraft from both countries, underscoring the deepening defense partnership between them.

In this context, China relies on the Egyptian military within the framework of its strategic and African axis to counter American influence. For China, Egypt represents its strategic gateway to the African continent and a cornerstone in its maneuvers against the US Africa Command (USAFRICOM). In addition to joint military exercises, China and Egypt have conducted joint air force drills, a clear indication of an unprecedented military rapprochement that has drawn close American scrutiny. With China’s move to transfer technology and arms deals to Cairo, it is positioning itself to support the Egyptian army with advanced air defense systems, such as the HQ-9B. This enhances Egypt’s air deterrence capabilities and forms part of strategic military deals aimed at reducing dependence on the United States and its Western allies. On the other hand, China relies on Iran as a deterrent and direct driver, exerting pressure on American bases in the region. Iran represents the spearhead of China’s brinkmanship policy against American military bases in the Gulf, Iraq, and Syria, with Tehran threatening to strike them should any regional conflict erupt. In conjunction with the economic and diplomatic alliance between Beijing and Tehran, China uses emerging alliances, such as the BRICS group and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), to establish Iran’s political foothold. It sometimes resorts to mediation policies as a tool to reduce the likelihood of a direct confrontation with Iran, which could harm its commercial interests, such as China’s sponsorship of Pakistani mediation efforts between Iran and the United States to stop the war against Iran and allow the Strait of Hormuz to be opened to global trade and navigation.

China’s major objectives in the Middle East lie in a strategy of attrition against the United States. China uses Iranian actions as a clever pressure tactic to test and deplete American military technology without direct involvement in wars of attrition, while simultaneously attempting to create a new regional order. Here, Chinese intelligence agencies coordinate networks of overlapping interests to push countries toward understandings that transcend the American security umbrella, paving the way for the future withdrawal of foreign military bases. The pillars of China’s strategy for alternative hegemony are based on asymmetric partnerships. Beijing focuses on presenting itself as a reliable economic and technological partner without political conditions or interference in internal affairs, unlike the American model based on conditionality and direct military alliances. With China’s emphasis on the economy as a gateway to security, it utilizes the Belt and Road Initiative and its massive investments in infrastructure and ports, such as the Khalifa Port in the UAE and the Port of Duqm in Oman, to solidify its strategic presence and transform economic dependence into long-term geopolitical influence. With Beijing’s use of security diplomacy and mediation, Chinese decision-making centers have adopted a common security approach and offered political mediation, such as sponsoring the Saudi-Iranian agreement, to solidify Beijing’s role as an international peacemaker and portray the United States as a destabilizing force through the militarization of the region. This is coupled with China’s technological and intelligence penetration of the region and the Gulf, where Chinese partnerships focus on transferring 5G technologies, artificial intelligence, and space cooperation with Gulf states. This grants Beijing intelligence-gathering capabilities and allows it to connect the region’s vital systems to the Chinese technological infrastructure. Chinese think tanks and intelligence agencies are planning to cautiously fill the void, as China avoids direct military confrontation with Washington in the region and prefers to capitalize on the Gulf states’ desire to diversify their partnerships and hedge against the gradual decline of American interest in the Middle East.

Accordingly, we analyze that China’s military strategy in the Middle East and Africa relies on building defense partnerships with diverse objectives. It utilizes the Egyptian army as a pivotal regional power to bolster its influence and counterbalance the American presence through advanced training cooperation while simultaneously leveraging its relationship with Iran to exert pressure on American bases, particularly in the Gulf, and secure its oil interests all within a comprehensive policy aimed at dismantling American hegemony in the region.

June 19 (Asia Today) — North Korea marked the second anniversary of its defense treaty with Russia on Friday by calling the agreement an “essential legal weapon” for achieving global strategic stability and pledging to further strengthen bilateral ties.

The Rodong Sinmun, the newspaper of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party, published an article titled “The Power of the North Korea-Russia Alliance Is Being Demonstrated More Forcefully” to commemorate the anniversary of the treaty.

The newspaper described the agreement as “a reliable guarantee” for establishing a new international order and securing a brighter future for humanity.

“It is the unwavering position and will of the government and people of our republic to permanently expand and develop the traditional North Korea-Russia friendship through close and multifaceted solidarity in all fields on the basis of the new interstate treaty,” the newspaper said.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in Pyongyang on June 19, 2024. The agreement includes a mutual defense clause requiring either country to provide assistance if the other comes under armed attack.

The Rodong Sinmun said the treaty had led to an unprecedented increase in communication across politics, economics, culture, defense, diplomacy and security.

It also said cooperation had expanded in trade, science and technology, education, public health and the arts.

The newspaper cited the construction of a North Korea-Russia friendship hospital, the resumption of direct flights between Pyongyang and Moscow and North Korea’s participation in Russia’s war against Ukraine as results of the closer relationship.

“The victory of the sacred common cause of the peoples of North Korea and Russia is certain,” it said. “The great friendship between the two countries, forged in blood and growing stronger by the day, will remain immortal.”

North Korea has sent troops and weapons to support Russia’s war against Ukraine. Pyongyang and Moscow have presented their military cooperation as an implementation of the strategic partnership treaty.

Separately, Kim Yo Jong, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and a senior Workers’ Party official, condemned a Group of Seven statement calling for the denuclearization of North Korea.

In a statement Thursday, Kim accused the G7 leaders of repeating what she called an outdated demand and said denuclearization was a matter that had been permanently closed.

“The nuclear weapons we acquired to defend ourselves after being subjected to constant and persistent nuclear threats from our adversaries should cause concern to no one except those who intend to harm us,” Kim said.

She said North Korea’s nuclear status was written into its constitution and portrayed the country’s arsenal as a defensive and retaliatory capability.

“Possession of nuclear weapons is our core interest that must be firmly defended, and denuclearization is an irreversible line that can never be crossed,” Kim said.

She warned that challenging the core interests of what she called a nuclear-armed state would be “the worst and most disastrous choice.”

South Korea’s Unification Ministry reiterated that Seoul remains committed to pursuing North Korea’s denuclearization through a phased and realistic approach.

“Our position remains unchanged that, based on reality, we must develop phased and feasible measures that are acceptable to both sides to achieve a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula,” Deputy Ministry spokeswoman Jang Yun-jeong said at a regular briefing Friday.

— 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=20260619010006805

For decades, satellites have provided critical data for military activities in active and non-active combat zones. One of the most significant integration of space-based technologies emerged in missile defense systems during the Cold War. Satellite constellations provided critical data on the launch sites and trajectories of ballistic missiles. The US Defense Support Program (DSP) was the first program to launch satellite constellations to detect heat signatures of Soviet ICBMs with infrared sensors. The Soviet Union launched the first generation of early warning systems under OKO satellite constellations against US missile threats. These systems of satellite constellations allowed both the US and the USSR to maintain a close watch over each other’s strategic capabilities and allowed for much needed early warning that upheld mutual deterrence between the two powers.

Fast forward to the current era, today’s missile defense systems have shown a very limited success rate against hypersonic missiles. The tracking and interception capabilities of current missile defense systems have remained effectively limited due to speed, maneuverability, and depressed flight of hypersonic missiles. Traditional missile defense systems have been outmaneuvered by hypersonic missiles, which increases the threat level due to their capability to reach and hit targets with a high success rate. Modern hypersonic missiles can still be detected with infrared sensing during their boost phase, but Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs) are extremely difficult to track and intercept primarily due to their maneuverability. The radar-evading capabilities of HGVs affect the strategic calculus by shrinking detection and reaction time duration during crises and conflicts.

As a remedy, the US has introduced the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensors (HBTSS) to counter the threat of HGVs and Hypersonic Cruise Missiles (HCMs). The HBTSS will be a major component of the US Golden Dome missile defense project. It is a layered network of command-and-control systems, interceptors, and space-based sensors to build an advanced layer of missile defense system. What makes HBTSS different from traditional missile defense systems is the satellite constellation, which provides real-time tracking data of missiles. Traditional defense systems like Space Based Infrared System (SBIR) could detect the launch of missiles, but HBTSS can detect, track, and possibly predict the target of the missile.

Because HGVs present a unique challenge due to low flight path and maneuverability and often operate under the coverage of conventional radars, which make it difficult for traditional defense systems to detect. HBTSS relies on space-based sensors, which can detect and track continuously from space. Theoretically, it can be called a space-based missile defense system reflecting the growing strategic importance of space in the military domain. It relies on an interconnected satellite network that can work as a kill web across the globe against the threat of hypersonic missiles.

HBTSS is an emerging strategic shift as it starts a new era of space weaponization with a layer of satellites for enhanced detection and tracking. A reliable space-based tracking system bolsters a state’s capabilities to deal with the threat of hypersonic missiles with improved early warning and missile tracking systems, and reduces the threat of surprise attacks from an adversary. Although missile forces hold great impact on deterrence stability, the induction of HTBSS will question the effectiveness of missiles during crises and conflicts if a more advance missile defense system is introduced. This will provide a wider view from space with more accuracy and precision, and increase the vulnerability of missile forces of states.

Because ground-based nuclear forces are considered vulnerable, many countries have developed second-strike capabilities, particularly at sea, to preserve deterrence even after absorbing an initial attack. But the development of HBTSS undermines the survivability of a state’s missile forces with an enhanced detection and tracking system. Even though the United States and Russia continue to maintain certain crisis management and risk reduction mechanisms, including hotlines and military deconfliction channels, the suspension of New START has weakened the broader framework of strategic stability. While in conflict-prone regions like South Asia, India and Pakistan possess a more limited and less institutionalized set of confidence-building measures (CBMs), making crisis management in South Asia particularly challenging due to emerging technologies.

The peaceful use of outer space depends on the intent and actions of major powers. Sometimes measures taken for self-defense can also prompt a proportionate reaction in the form of countermeasures. The strategic impact of HBTSS on the missile forces may lead to more advance, fast, and lethal missiles for survivability. The development of HBTSS will not end the arms race, it will intensify the arms race with countermeasures.

June 19 (Asia Today) — South Korea is seeking to transform its defense industry into a national growth engine by integrating military procurement, weapons exports, advanced technology and industrial policy, government and industry officials said Friday.

Officials at a public-private seminar in Seoul rejected the long-standing argument that growing foreign orders could divert production capacity from the South Korean military and delay domestic weapons deliveries.

Instead, they said an analysis of about 2,000 South Korean defense companies found that exports increased factory utilization, encouraged investment in research and production facilities and eventually reduced manufacturing costs.

The findings were presented at a seminar titled “A New Leap Forward in Acquisition and the Defense Industry,” held at the Fairmont Ambassador Seoul in the city’s Yeouido financial district.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration organized the event as it marked the 20th anniversary of its establishment.

Participants included lawmakers, officials from the defense, industry, science and small-business ministries, defense company executives and academic researchers.

They called for an end to treating military procurement and defense exports as separate policy areas.

Lee Yong-cheol, minister of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, said South Korea’s annual defense exports had grown from about $250 million when the agency was established to $15.4 billion last year.

“Defense exports are no longer merely a supplement to domestic military procurement,” Lee said. “They have become a central growth engine driving the Republic of Korea as a whole.”

Lee said South Korea also needed to move beyond selling individual weapons.

He proposed combining weapons with energy systems, infrastructure, maintenance, repair and overhaul services and other forms of industrial cooperation.

“The era of selling weapons as stand-alone products is over,” Lee said. “We will transform the K-defense paradigm through cross-industry package cooperation.”

Lawmakers from South Korea’s governing and opposition parties pledged bipartisan legislative support for faster procurement and stronger financing for small and midsized defense companies.

They said a system that can take about 15 years to plan, develop and deploy a weapon is not suitable for an era in which artificial intelligence, drones and robotic systems evolve rapidly.

Participants also cited research indicating that financial instability among smaller suppliers, rather than export production, was a more important cause of delivery delays.

They called for expanded government-backed financing to prevent small manufacturers in the defense supply chain from being overwhelmed by debt and working-capital shortages.

Study links exports to stronger domestic production

South Korea’s defense industry has long debated whether large export contracts weaken or strengthen the country’s own military procurement.

Critics have warned that foreign orders could occupy production lines and delay the delivery of weapons to South Korean forces.

Supporters have argued that exports create economies of scale, preserve production capacity and lower the price paid by the South Korean military.

Research presented at Friday’s seminar supported the second view.

A team led by researchers from Myongji University analyzed data from about 2,000 South Korean defense-related companies.

The analysis found that increasing exports produced an immediate rise in factory utilization. Higher utilization was then associated with greater investment in research, development and production facilities.

Researchers said the benefits became more evident about three years after an export increase.

The analysis identified improvements in operating profit, lower production costs and greater independence in critical technologies after that period.

Repeated production also allowed factory workers and engineers to improve their skills and reduce defects, a process commonly described as a learning effect.

At the same time, producing weapons in larger quantities spread fixed development and manufacturing expenses across more units.

Researchers said those effects increased the competitiveness of South Korean products in foreign markets while potentially lowering the cost of weapons purchased by the South Korean military.

Industry experts cited South Korea’s large exports of K2 tanks and K9 self-propelled howitzers to Poland as an example.

They said the contracts increased domestic production, helped reduce unit costs and accelerated work on upgraded models.

Kim Myung-keun, an executive at Hyundai Rotem, said the company achieved economies of scale after receiving Poland’s large K2 tank order.

“Mass production lowered costs, reduced the acquisition cost for our own military and accelerated the development of upgraded models,” Kim said.

Yoon Byung-jo, an executive at SNT Motiv, said repeated production generated through large export orders also strengthened technical capabilities on factory floors.

“The learning effect accumulated by technicians during repeated production is the most powerful tool for reducing defects in critical components and increasing technological independence and localization,” Yoon said.

Lee Jung-hyun, a Myongji University professor involved in the study, said the analysis did not identify export volume as the principal cause of delayed deliveries.

“The real causes of delivery delays were companies’ debt ratios and financial soundness,” Lee said. “Exports instead improved operating profits and technological capabilities after a time lag of about three years.”

Lee said the government should strengthen the financial stability of smaller defense companies rather than restrict exports.

Officials seek to shorten 15-year procurement cycle

Government officials said South Korea’s traditional weapons acquisition process is too slow to keep pace with civilian advances in AI, drones, robots and human-machine teaming systems.

Weapons programs can take about 15 years from initial planning through development and operational deployment.

Officials said that schedule risks delivering technology that has already become outdated by the time it reaches military units.

Won Jong-dae, an assistant defense minister, said the existing system had become a national security obstacle.

“In the age of AI and drones, an acquisition process that takes 15 years is an impediment to security,” Won said.

He said the government would seek legislation tentatively called the Advanced Defense Capabilities Projects Act to shorten the process from initial requirements planning through deployment.

Kim Seong-su, a senior research and development official at the Science and Technology Ministry, said innovation in the civilian sector was advancing more quickly than military technology.

Kim called for an adaptive research and development system that would allow mature commercial technologies to be introduced into the military without passing through the full conventional development process.

The acquisition agency said it plans to expand rapid-introduction programs, particularly for drones and AI-related technologies.

The programs would allow the military to test and deploy promising civilian products more quickly while making adjustments based on operational experience.

Jeong Hwan, chief executive of infrared sensor manufacturer i3system, said smaller companies with advanced commercial technologies often cannot withstand the military’s complicated testing requirements and lengthy acquisition schedule.

He urged the government to make rapid acquisition programs more flexible and accessible to technology companies.

Financial support sought for smaller suppliers

Officials said South Korea must also strengthen small and midsized companies that produce components and materials for major weapons manufacturers.

Park Yong-soon, a senior official at the Ministry of SMEs and Startups, said the research presented Friday showed that financial weakness was a major source of supply-chain disruption.

Park said the government would shift policy toward stronger financial support for vulnerable suppliers and seek to increase the share of domestic defense revenue generated by small companies.

Smaller companies currently account for about 18% of South Korean defense industry sales. The government aims to raise the proportion to 25%.

Officials said those businesses can face severe cash-flow pressures because defense contracts require lengthy development, testing and certification before companies receive full payment.

The problem can become more serious when a small supplier must expand production rapidly to meet a major overseas order.

Park said the government must ensure that otherwise competitive companies do not collapse because they cannot obtain sufficient operating capital.

Park Dong-il, a senior official at the Industry Ministry, also warned that South Korea’s export portfolio remained concentrated in ground weapons.

More than 60% of the country’s defense exports come from land-based systems, he said.

Park said the government would work to diversify the industry into aerospace, next-generation satellites and advanced naval vessels while strengthening the domestic manufacturing and component ecosystem.

South Korea plans national security export packages

The acquisition agency said future export efforts would go beyond individual tanks, aircraft or artillery systems.

The government plans to package defense products with energy projects, transportation and industrial infrastructure, information and communications technology, maintenance services and technology transfers.

Officials described the approach as exporting an integrated security platform rather than a single weapon.

They cited Poland as a model.

South Korean arms agreements with Warsaw have included not only K2 tanks, K9 howitzers and other weapon systems but also plans for local production, technology cooperation, training and long-term maintenance.

An industry official said future transactions could involve building a partner country’s broader security and industrial system.

“The business will no longer be about exporting one tank,” the official said. “It will become a platform business that exports an entire national security system.”

Such packages can help importing countries create domestic jobs, develop supply chains and maintain weapons locally.

They can also give South Korean companies access to long-term revenue from training, spare parts, upgrades and depot-level maintenance after the initial sale.

The approach, however, requires coordination among several ministries because infrastructure, export financing and industrial cooperation extend beyond the authority of the acquisition agency.

Kim Il-dong, deputy minister of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, said procurement and exports should be viewed as two sides of the same coin.

Kim said the acquisition agency could not achieve South Korea’s defense industry goals on its own.

He called for coordinated action by the defense, science, industry and small-business ministries to develop the sector as a strategic national industry.

Seoul targets 5% share of global defense market

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration said it aims to increase South Korea’s share of the global defense market to at least 5% and establish the country as one of the world’s four largest defense exporters.

Officials said South Korea’s defense industry had already approached the global top five based on its 2025 export performance.

Future growth will depend on moving beyond the country’s current strength in tanks, armored vehicles and artillery, they said.

The government plans to support companies working in AI, space systems, drones, advanced ships and autonomous and human-machine teaming technologies.

It also wants to foster globally competitive defense startups and companies capable of reaching valuations of more than $1 billion.

Officials and industry representatives said South Korea’s defense sector had completed an initial period of quantitative growth and now needed to focus on technology, productivity and supply-chain resilience.

“The past 20 years were a period of quantitative growth in which K-defense built weapons capabilities from the ground up,” seminar participants said. “The next 20 years should be remembered as an era of qualitative growth centered on AI, space, drones and unmanned systems.”

They said military procurement and the defense industry should no longer be treated as separate areas.

Instead, both should be viewed as parts of a single strategic industry supporting South Korea’s security, technological development and economic growth.

— 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=20260619010006831

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 19 (UPI) — Scheduled talks to implement the U.S.-Iran memorandum aimed at de-escalating their war have been postponed, Switzerland said Friday, hours before the meeting was to be held.

Bern’s Foreign Ministry said the planned talks have been “postponed.” Neither a reason nor a new date was given.

“Switzerland remains ready to facilitate these talks,” it said in a statement. “The relevant preparatory work at Burgenstock is continuing.”

U.S. President Donald Trump signed the memorandum of understanding Wednesday while in Paris.

Though all of its specifics have not been made public, the MOU stipulates certain conditions, such as the United States lifting its naval blockade and Iran permitting commercial passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

The first round of negotiations on the MOU’s implementation was scheduled for the mountaintop resort of Burgenstock for Friday. The location had been proposed by mediators Pakistan and Qatar, as well as the United States and Iran, with Switzerland to act as a facilitator in the process.

The cause for the postponement was not initially clear.

A White House spokesperson told reporters in a statement that Vice President JD Vance would not be departing the United States to attend the Swiss negotiations.

The spokesperson said that plans for the talks had not been finalized and their logistics had “never been simple or predictable.”

“We look forward to beginning technical talks as soon as possible,” the spokesperson said.

This is a breaking story.

June 19 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has awarded the Medal of Honor to three veterans, honoring their acts of heroism in battle in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

At a White House ceremony on Thursday, Trump awarded the nation’s highest military honor to retired Marine Corps Maj. James Capers Jr. and retired Army Maj. Nicholas Dockery. He also awarded the medal posthumously to Marine Corps Col. John Ripley, who died in 2008, with the honor accepted by his son, Tom Ripley.

Trump opened his remarks by touting the stock market and lower oil prices, then appeared to joke that he wanted to award himself the nation’s highest military honor but was told he could not. He then introduced Capers, saying he was the first Black Marine in history to receive a battlefield commission during wartime when he was promoted to second lieutenant during the Vietnam War.

Capers was awarded the medal for his “acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty” in the spring of 1967, when he led a four-day reconnaissance patrol that made contact on three separate occasions with a superior enemy force, and on the final day, was ambushed, the White House said in a release.

Trump said Capers was hit by an explosion that sent him into a tree, “ripping open his abdomen.” His body was pierced by 17 pieces of shrapnel and his leg was broken, but despite his injuries, he refused to be extracted before his men were safe.

Trump said that Capers was recommended for the award that year, but his commanding officer died before he could sign the paperwork.

“That’s a bad break. But now you’re doing it. This is maybe, this is better,” he said, adding that “The nation kept you waiting far too long.”

Ripley was also awarded the medal, though posthumously, for acts of heroism during Vietnam. The White House said Ripley played a pivotal role in halting a major North Vietnamese mechanized assault by destroying a bridge in the village of Dong Ha.

Trump described Ripley as completing five trips to move explosives into position on the bridge while under gunfire.

“When John detonated the explosives, the bridge collapsed into the river, crushing the advance and saved the hope of a free Vietnam for Easter morning,” the president said.

Dockery received the medal for actions taken to save his platoon in Kapisa Province, Afghanistan, on Oct. 2, 2012.

Trump said about 150 Taliban fighters ambushed Dockery’s platoon that fall day as they were guarding the governor’s compound. For more than four hours, he fought the Taliban, risking his life on several occasions to protect and evacuate three wounded members of his platoon, according to the White House.

Trump said Dockery personally rescued members of his platoon and at one point killed a Taliban fighter and detained two others, and killed two others in a separate confrontation. He also administered CPR on one of his platoon members whom he found unconscious “until the sergeant’s heart kicked back in,” Trump said.

“As we approach the 250th anniversary of our founding, we remember that we owe everything to heroes like those we celebrate today — men who went willingly to the darkest and most dangerous corners on Earth to defeat evil so we could live free,” Trump said.

“That’s exactly what happened. These are great men, great people.”