Defense

June 18 (Asia Today) — Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has left open the possibility of deploying the Self-Defense Forces to the Strait of Hormuz following an agreement between the United States and Iran to end hostilities.

“Nothing has been decided at this point,” Takaichi said Wednesday when asked about a possible deployment during a news conference marking the end of the Group of Seven summit near Évian-les-Bains, France, Japanese media reported Thursday.

Takaichi said Japan must closely examine the U.S.-Iran agreement and conditions in the region before making a decision.

The Strait of Hormuz is a critical shipping route for crude oil from the Middle East. Instability in the waterway could directly affect shipping, energy prices and Japanese industry because the country relies heavily on imported energy.

The U.S.-Iran agreement has shifted Japan’s immediate focus from preventing further fighting to securing freedom of navigation and considering its role in post-conflict efforts.

Even after fighting ends, naval mines and other threats to commercial vessels could remain. Japan would then have to determine whether its involvement should be limited to diplomatic support or include operations by the Maritime Self-Defense Force.

Security in the Strait of Hormuz and other major shipping routes was among the issues discussed at the G7 summit.

Japan faces the challenge of coordinating with its allies and partners while keeping any military involvement within the limits imposed by its pacifist Constitution.

“We will continue every possible diplomatic effort, including those related to reconstruction,” Takaichi said of the situation in the Middle East.

She said Japan would consider necessary measures to secure freedom of navigation through the strait and “steadily carry out what we are capable of doing,” including diplomatic efforts.

Britain, France and other countries have called for the unconditional reopening of the waterway and indicated that mine-clearing operations could be required. Japan has signaled its willingness to participate in a related joint statement.

Takaichi said Japan’s participation in such a statement would remain within constitutional limits.

The central issue is how extensively the Self-Defense Forces could participate.

Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution prohibits the use of force except in circumstances involving the country’s right to self-defense. Mine-clearing operations conducted while fighting continues could therefore be viewed as the use of force against the country that placed the mines.

Clearing mines left behind after a cease-fire, however, may be permitted under Japan’s Self-Defense Forces Act.

Japan deployed Maritime Self-Defense Force minesweepers to the Persian Gulf after the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. The mission marked the Self-Defense Forces’ first operational deployment overseas and became a turning point in Japan’s debate over its international security role.

Takaichi’s remarks did not amount to an immediate deployment decision. They indicated, however, that Japan could consider participating in maritime security operations depending on implementation of the U.S.-Iran agreement and conditions in the Strait of Hormuz.

Japan’s possible role in the post-conflict Middle East – whether limited to diplomatic and reconstruction support or expanded to include Maritime Self-Defense Force operations – is expected to remain a major foreign and security policy issue.

— 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=20260618010006401

June 18 (UPI) — The U.S. military on Thursday lifted naval blockades in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, with reports showing that shipping vessels have departed the region through the Strait of Hormuz.

U.S. Central Command said in a series of posts on X that, following direction from President Donald Trump, blockades on maritime traffic along the coasts of Iran have ended.

Centcom noted, however, that the U.S. Navy will stay in the “general area” to be sure that “all aspects” of the peace agreement signed by the United States and Iran “are adhered to, obeyed and in full force and effect.”

Trump signed the agreement Wednesday at the Palace of Versailles in France after the G7 Summit wrapped up, which included among its 14 points reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which is a vital shipping route for the region and much of the world.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had signed the deal earlier in the day.

“American forces are not impeding the transit of vessels to or from Iranian ports,” Centcom said in one of the posts on X on Thursday.

“All U.S. military blockade efforts have ceased,” it said.

At least 12 energy tankers transited the Strait on Thursday, reopening a sailing route through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply is shipped around the globe, CNBC and the New York Post reported.

Among the vessels that transited the Strait were three Saudi Arabian supertankers, which together are carrying six million barrels of crude oil and are the kingdom’s first tankers to sail the shipping route since before the three-month-long U.S.-Iran war launched in February.

Vice President JD Vance also told reporters that more than 12 million barrels of oil had shipped through the Strait overnight Wednesday after the deal had been signed.

China officially objected through its Foreign Ministry to the Japanese draft resolution to increase armaments and abandon Japan’s post-World War II commitment not to rearm its military, as approved by the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan during its general council meeting. The draft resolution proposed amending three key security documents, which are the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the Medium-Range Defense Forces Enhancement Plan. It was to be submitted to the Japanese government and parliament for further discussion. Chinese authorities officially rejected and objected to the draft, deeming it a threat to their national security and their spheres of direct influence in Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the Indo-Pacific region. They considered it a radical escalation of Japan’s security strategy, detrimental to Chinese national security and to the global security initiative proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Here, the revision of Japan’s three security documents, represented in the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and Defense Force Enhancement Plan, represents a strategic shift away from its post-war pacifist constitution toward more proactive and independent military policies. The nature of this shift is evident in Tokyo’s easing of restrictions on lethal weapons exports and its reorientation of its armament toward counter-offensive capabilities and missile development. Under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s administration, the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan has adopted a proactive approach, reshaping Japanese industries and institutions to address the greatest strategic challenge posed by China. The updated National Security Strategy has already fundamentally altered the country’s pacifist military doctrine by disarming the Japanese military and preventing its rearmament since World War II, a move that has drawn staunch opposition from China, which seeks to protect its own national security. The most significant amendments to the three Japanese security documents included Japan’s acknowledgment of its ability to double and enhance its counter-strike capabilities. This was achieved by allowing Japan to possess long-range missiles capable of striking enemy targets before launch. Simultaneously, Japanese authorities approved doubling defense spending, raising the military budget to 2% of GDP.

China objected to the Japanese draft resolution, which aimed to increase Japanese armament and militarize the region and global supply chains, and threatened to escalate the situation. Beijing strongly condemned these trends, describing them as new militarism. A key point of contention for China was what Chinese intelligence and military circles perceived as a warning of Japanese and foreign interference in Taiwanese affairs, as China considers Taiwan an integral part of its territory. Beijing condemned the Japanese leadership’s statement that any emergency in Taiwan is an emergency for Japan, describing a potential Chinese military intervention in Taiwan as an act of aggression. Here, Beijing rejects Japan’s new military approach, characterized by advanced military deployment. China has officially protested and taken countermeasures against Japan’s plans to deploy defensive missiles on Yonaguni Island, located only about 110 kilometers from Taiwan. China has strongly accused Japan of violating its commitments, arguing that this new Japanese military expansion violates Tokyo’s international obligations and its pacifist constitution. China has warned Japan that it will pay a heavy price if it intervenes militarily in the Taiwan Strait.

Chinese intelligence, military, security, and defense circles link Japan’s armament activities in Taiwan to American interference in Chinese affairs through its network of allies in the Asian region, such as Japan, given its close alliance with Washington. Here, Japan defends its military rearmament against China, with several of its officials sending political and security warnings to China. They argue that, given the uncertainty in Japan stemming from US policies and the fluctuating stance in Washington, Japan seeks to bolster its own capabilities and build regional alliances (with the Philippines, Australia, and NATO) to expand deterrence against Beijing and maintain regional security from a Japanese perspective. Strategic circles in Tokyo view the potential fall of Taiwan to China as a direct and existential threat to Japanese national security and vital shipping lanes, making the protection of the Taiwan Strait a fundamental component of Japan’s updated defense doctrine.

For these reasons, China’s decisive response was seen as a challenge to its national security, especially given Japan’s de facto official classification of Beijing as the greatest and most unprecedented strategic challenge to its security. This classification was further reinforced by Japanese authorities’ approval of developing military production, strengthening domestic defense industries, and easing restrictions on arms exports. This is where the dimensions of China’s official rejection and objection lie, as it is considered a violation of the pacifist principle enshrined in the Japanese military doctrine, which was internationally and regionally agreed upon after World War II for Japan’s disarmament. Beijing believes that Tokyo is abandoning its pacifist constitution and returning to a militaristic path, while Japan exaggerates the narrative of a China threat. Beijing accuses Japan of fabricating flimsy pretexts to justify its military expansion and arsenal, which threatens China’s regional security. Therefore, China warned that these Japanese steps to increase armament undermine peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and jeopardize the principles of China’s global security initiative. China also registered its objection to Japan’s exclusionary approaches to its initiative based on shared and sustainable security. Furthermore, China linked this Japanese escalation in its confrontation with China in the region to the sensitive issue of Taiwan and the close alliance between the United States and Japan, while categorically rejecting Japanese interference in Taiwan’s affairs and considering the island’s security an integral part of China’s national security.

Iran’s government has portrayed the interim agreement with the United States as a victory that ended months of conflict and prevented further escalation. The deal halted a war that saw U.S. and Israeli airstrikes, disruptions to trade, and severe economic damage across Iran.

However, interviews with ordinary Iranians reveal a starkly different picture. Many citizens say years of sanctions, combined with the recent conflict, have left them struggling with rising prices, declining living standards, and deep uncertainty about the future. While the fighting may have stopped for now, many remain unconvinced that the agreement will bring meaningful economic relief or lasting stability.

Economic Hardship Continues to Dominate Daily Life

For many Iranians, the ceasefire has not changed the reality of daily economic struggles.

Business owners, students, and workers interviewed across the country described a population focused on survival rather than recovery. Many reported cutting household spending, reducing social activities, and adjusting to higher living costs. Small businesses continue to face weak consumer demand, while young people increasingly worry about their economic prospects.

The war added another layer of pressure to an economy already weakened by years of international sanctions, inflation, and limited foreign investment. As a result, many citizens see little immediate prospect of improvement even if the ceasefire holds.

Divided Views on the Outcome of the Conflict

The agreement has exposed a clear divide between the government’s narrative and public sentiment.

Supporters of the Islamic Republic view the deal as proof that Iran resisted external pressure and preserved its political system. Some hardliners argue that the country emerged stronger and demonstrated resilience despite military and economic pressure.

Many ordinary citizens, however, are less focused on geopolitical outcomes and more concerned about living standards. For them, the key measure of success is whether the agreement leads to lower prices, economic opportunities, and greater stability. So far, few appear convinced that such changes are imminent.

Concerns Grow Over Political Freedoms

Beyond economic concerns, many Iranians fear that the post war environment could lead to tighter political controls.

Some citizens believe the government may use the conflict and national security concerns to justify stronger oversight and restrictions. These fears are particularly pronounced in regions populated by ethnic minorities, where previous protests have often been met with heavy security responses.

There is also uncertainty about whether public frustration over economic conditions could trigger future demonstrations. While many people remain cautious after previous crackdowns, underlying grievances over jobs, inflation, and political freedoms remain unresolved.

The ceasefire may have reduced the immediate threat of war, but it has done little to address the deeper challenges facing Iran. Public opinion appears increasingly shaped by economic realities rather than political declarations of victory.

The government may benefit in the short term from ending the conflict and avoiding further military escalation. However, lasting stability will depend on whether authorities can deliver tangible economic improvements and restore public confidence.

The biggest challenge for Tehran is that expectations remain extremely low. Many Iranians do not see the ceasefire as a turning point but rather as a temporary pause in a broader cycle of economic hardship and political uncertainty. If future negotiations fail to produce sanctions relief, investment, and economic recovery, public frustration could continue to grow despite the end of active conflict.

Stakeholders

• Iranian government and political leadership
• Iranian citizens and businesses
• United States
• Israel
• Ethnic minority communities in Iran
• International investors and energy markets
• Regional governments monitoring stability in the Middle East

What’s Next

Attention will now shift to negotiations aimed at turning the interim agreement into a permanent settlement. Iranian leaders will seek economic benefits and sanctions relief, while Washington is expected to push for further commitments on security and nuclear issues.

Domestically, the government faces the challenge of managing economic expectations and maintaining stability. Whether the ceasefire translates into meaningful improvements for ordinary Iranians may ultimately determine how the agreement is judged inside the country.

With information from Reuters.

June 15 (UPI) — South Korea’s Hyundai Rotem said Monday that the company is showcasing its AI-powered anti-drone technologies at Eurosatory 2026, a defense fair that takes place in Paris this week.

The affiliate of Hyundai Motor Group noted that it has publicly unveiled the system designed to counter unmanned aircraft, including drones, for the first time.

The solution aims to protect troops and military assets from drone attacks by combining AI-driven threat detection and automated response functions, according to Hyundai Rotem.

The firm said that the platform can assess a wide range of battlefield scenarios in real time, analyzing various factors such as the type, distance and altitude of incoming threats to determine the most effective countermeasures.

Built around an unmanned turret platform, the multi-layered defense solution integrates both soft-kill and hard-kill capabilities, Hyundai Rotem said.

The growing importance of such technologies has been recognized by recent conflicts, including the wars in Ukraine and Iran.

Hyundai Rotem is also displaying an export-oriented version of its K2 main battle tank at the exhibition. It has emerged as one of South Korea’s most successful defense exports, as Poland purchased hundreds of the tanks over the past few years.

“By strengthening our capabilities in AI-based protection solutions, including multi-layered defense systems, we will further diversify our business portfolio and enhance our presence in the global market,” Hyundai Rotem said in a statement.

“We will continue to advance key protection and unmanned technologies geared toward preserving human lives, reinforcing our leadership and competitive edge in the defense industry,” it added.

The share price of Hyundai Rotem rose 2.16% on the Seoul bourse on Monday, while the benchmark KOSPI jumped 5.2%.

June 15 (UPI) — California’s Edwards Air Force Base said eight crew members are believed dead following the Monday crash of a B-52 Stratofortress.

The base confirmed the B-52 Stratofortress, which was carrying a crew of eight, crashed shortly after takeoff at 11:20 a.m. Monday morning.

“Initial indications are that the crash was not survivable,” the base said in a release posted to X.

Emergency response personnel were on scene working to account for all eight crew members.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and unit members at this time,” the post said.

The airfield was closed following the crash and all incoming aircraft were diverted.

“All non-commercial visitor passes have been suspended until further notice to allow the installation to focus entirely on emergency response operations,” the base said in an earlier post.

Video captured nearby the base shows a plume of black smoke rising over the Mohave Desert.

Edwards Air Force Base, located about 100 miles north of Los Angeles, frequently hosts test flights for new and experimental Air Force and NASA aircraft.

The base said more information on the crash will be provided as it becomes available.

The preliminary memorandum represents the first formal framework outlining how Washington and Tehran intend to move from military confrontation toward diplomacy.

While many details remain unpublished, statements from U.S., Iranian and Pakistani officials provide a broad outline of the deal’s structure.

Rather than resolving every dispute immediately, the agreement establishes a phased process aimed at reducing tensions first and addressing more difficult issues later.

The approach reflects the reality that both sides were able to reach consensus on ending hostilities more easily than on the underlying disputes that fueled the conflict.

Phase One: Ending the Fighting

The first stage focuses on immediate de-escalation.

According to mediator Pakistan, both sides have agreed to permanently halt military operations across all fronts.

The formal memorandum is expected to be signed in Switzerland, after which implementation would begin.

The objective of this phase is straightforward: stop active hostilities, reduce the risk of escalation, and create space for broader negotiations.

This represents the most immediate achievement of the agreement and is likely the reason markets reacted positively.

Reopening the Strait of Hormuz

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is arguably the agreement’s most significant economic provision.

The waterway serves as one of the world’s most important energy transit routes and has been at the center of global concerns throughout the conflict.

Both sides indicate that commercial shipping will resume following the signing of the memorandum.

The restoration of maritime traffic could:

• Increase global oil supply.
• Reduce shipping disruptions.
• Ease pressure on energy prices.
• Lower inflation risks for major economies.

However, questions remain over how the route will be governed.

Iran has suggested it will coordinate management of traffic with Oman, potentially giving Tehran a more formal role in overseeing one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.

That issue could become a future source of diplomatic friction.

The Nuclear Issue Has Been Deferred

The most controversial subject in the negotiations remains unresolved.

Rather than settling the nuclear dispute immediately, both sides appear to have agreed to address it during a 60-day negotiation period.

According to Iranian officials, Tehran would freeze nuclear activities during that time by halting additional enrichment and refraining from expanding facilities.

The long-term future of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains unclear.

Washington continues to emphasize inspections and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Tehran continues to insist that its nuclear program is peaceful and seeks recognition of its right to maintain civilian nuclear activities.

These competing positions are likely to dominate the next phase of talks.

Sanctions Relief Could Shape the Success of the Deal

Economic issues may ultimately prove as difficult as nuclear negotiations.

Iran expects meaningful sanctions relief as part of any final settlement.

Iranian officials have spoken about:

• Temporary waivers on oil sanctions.
• The release of frozen assets.
• Financial support mechanisms.
• A pathway toward lifting U.S. and international sanctions.

The Trump administration has signaled a more cautious approach.

Washington has indicated that sanctions relief will depend on Iranian compliance and future negotiations rather than automatic implementation.

This difference highlights one of the central tensions in the agreement: each side expects benefits on different timelines.

Lebanon Remains a Flashpoint

The agreement’s treatment of Lebanon illustrates how regional conflicts have become intertwined.

Iran views a ceasefire in Lebanon as a critical component of the broader settlement.

Lebanese political leaders have welcomed the inclusion of Lebanon in the framework.

Israel, however, has made clear that it does not consider itself bound by all aspects of the agreement and intends to maintain military positions in areas it views as strategically important.

This creates uncertainty about whether the Lebanon component can be implemented as envisioned.

The issue could quickly become one of the first tests of the agreement’s durability.

Why This Matters

The memorandum matters because it shifts the conflict from the battlefield to the negotiating table.

The agreement addresses several immediate concerns:

• Rising energy prices.
• Shipping disruptions.
• Escalating regional instability.
• Growing economic uncertainty.

At the same time, it leaves the most difficult questions unresolved.

This means the framework should be viewed as the beginning of a diplomatic process rather than its conclusion.

Its success will depend on whether negotiators can transform temporary understandings into binding commitments.

Key Stakeholders

• United States
• Iran
• Pakistan (mediator)
• Israel
• Lebanon
• Oman
• European powers
• Gulf Arab states
• International energy markets
• Global shipping industry
• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and nuclear inspectors

What to Watch Next

• Formal signing of the memorandum in Switzerland.
• Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
• Progress during the 60-day negotiation period.
• Discussions on Iran’s nuclear program.
• Decisions regarding sanctions relief.
• Reactions from Congress and international partners.
• Israeli actions in Lebanon and other contested areas.

The memorandum creates a framework for de-escalation, but its long-term success remains uncertain.

If implemented effectively, the agreement could stabilize energy markets, reduce regional tensions, and create momentum for broader diplomatic engagement.

However, many of the issues that triggered the conflict remain unresolved.

Nuclear enrichment, sanctions, regional security arrangements, and competing strategic interests are all likely to generate difficult negotiations.

The coming 60 days will therefore be more important than the announcement itself.

They will determine whether the framework becomes a durable peace process or merely a temporary pause in a conflict whose underlying disputes remain intact.

Analysis

The structure of the agreement reveals a pragmatic calculation by both Washington and Tehran.

Rather than attempting to solve every dispute at once, negotiators prioritized issues where agreement was achievable: ending active hostilities, reopening shipping routes, and creating a mechanism for future talks.

This approach reflects the political realities facing both governments.

For President Trump, reducing energy prices and ending a costly conflict addresses growing domestic pressure. For Iran, halting military operations while preserving room to negotiate on sanctions and nuclear issues offers a path to economic relief without immediate capitulation.

Yet the framework’s greatest strength may also be its greatest weakness.

By postponing the hardest questions, the agreement creates momentum for diplomacy but also leaves significant room for disagreement later. Nuclear enrichment, sanctions relief, and regional security arrangements are not peripheral issues—they are the core disputes that drove the conflict.

As a result, the memorandum should be viewed less as a peace treaty and more as a diplomatic bridge. It lowers immediate risks and creates opportunities for negotiation, but it does not yet resolve the strategic rivalry between the United States and Iran.

Whether this becomes a historic breakthrough or a temporary truce will depend on what happens after the signatures are placed on the document. The real negotiations are only beginning.

With information from Reuters.

Behind a veil of good-natured diplomacy, American adversaries are exploiting the conflict in Iran by gaining insights, strategic lessons, and geopolitical power while the United States wages feckless war against the Middle Eastern theocracy. Beyond the bombings, the blockade, and the oil prices, Russia and China keenly watch how America struggles, succeeds, and scrambles. In doing so, these adversaries are leveraging the conflict to challenge America’s readiness, aid its adversaries, and gain invaluable intel on America’s successes and failures.

The concept of observing a conflict to acquire critical intelligence on how to best conduct combat is not unique to the war in Iran. For example, in the Russo-Ukrainian War, America has gained indispensable knowledge on the most and least effective tools of 21st-century warfare, including information on the power of unmanned aerial systems. With the war in Iran, though, Russia and China are the scientists, and America is the experiment. The Middle East is now a testing ground for cutting-edge drone swarm technologies and a catalyst for how smaller powers can effectively deny their adversaries from accomplishing their objectives—a lesson that China is certainly eager to learn about for a possible conflict over Taiwan. Therefore, when America wages war against Iran, there are consequences that are crucial to recognize, and one of those consequences is that the United States is inadvertently empowering and informing its adversaries.

Maintaining its signaled commitment of multipolarity and geopolitical neutrality, China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning commented, “…China…has been making active efforts to promote ceasefire and peace…we will continue playing an active role in restoring…tranquility to the Middle East…” Reality demonstrates that this is false. China is discreetly gaining intelligence on the U.S. military’s readiness, pacing, and warfighting strategies. Furthermore, China has directly supported Iran, providing anti-missile weaponry, building blocks for ballistic missiles, and invaluable military intelligence to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Instead of promoting peace and tranquility, these actions are designed to empower Iran and keep America locked in the struggle, weakening the country and allowing China to acquire more intelligence on U.S. readiness. Despite China’s claimed intentions, it’s clear that the nation is bolstering Iran’s strength and sustaining its defenses. Even from a domestic point of view, these actions are increasing domestic American division and the depletion of America’s defense resources. The conflict with Iran is not limited to Iran; by proxy, it’s with America’s foremost adversaries, too.

Similarly, Russia has provided critical support to Iran in the form of targeting intelligence, which Iran couldn’t have otherwise acquired. Shahed drones, assets that have proven to be exceptionally effective against western defenses, are manufactured in Russia’s Alabuga Special Economic Zone and are being provided to Iran by Russia. Contradicting these actions, a statement by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared that the country “…stands ready to assist in advancing peaceful solutions grounded in international law, mutual respect, and a balanced consideration of interests.” But equipping Iran with efficacious tools of war is not a peaceful solution. Giving the nation targeting information cannot be construed as a neutral or geopolitically insignificant act. In reality, America’s adversaries are taking an active, hands-on approach to the war in Iran, indirectly but clearly aiding the nation and actively working against U.S. goals.

In response to this tacit yet significant aid to Iran, the natural response for America should be to publicly highlight the hostile actions of its adversaries. But the United States has been hesitant, if not downright unwilling, to do so. For example, Matthew Whitaker, the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, commented that “China certainly is not participating and is not aiding and abetting the Iranian demise…” Separately, he claimed, “There’s no indication that we can talk about publicly that the Russians are participating with the Iranians.” Public investigations, though, have proven both those assertions false. The trepidation of the United States to clearly and confidently condemn its adversaries’ belligerence in the region is an enormous blunder of strategic communications. Contrasting this, Russia and China have simultaneously and aggressively pursued campaigns of condemnation to weaken America’s global power. For example, Russia has often claimed that certain U.S. support to Ukraine may constitute an act of war; China strongly condemned recent American intervention in Venezuela as violating the international laws by which America claims to be guided. U.S. adversaries are eager and willing to strategically undermine and criticize U.S. actions, yet America is unwisely unwilling to do the same.

Russia’s and China’s cooperative aid to Iran demonstrates that the conflict is, in many senses, between world powers. A new ‘axis of resistance’ against Western liberalism is developing, and allowing American adversaries to act without denunciation is a failure of strategic communications and allows these nations to act with undeserved impunity. As the United States continues to wage war against Iran, it’s crucial to recognize that every bomb America drops, every mission American soldiers complete, and every destroyed military asset is a datapoint that U.S. adversaries will exploit. Russia’s and China’s critical support to Iran is hostile and counter to American goals; ignoring this is strategically imprudent. Beyond the explosions, America’s adversaries are watching—and acting. It’s the responsibility of the United States to expose those actions for what they really are.

With its recent Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Delhi, the Quad has again shown it remains active, defying widespread rumours of collapse.

While the Japanese and Australian foreign ministers highlighted their countries’ strong relations with India and the Quad’s central role in shaping the Indo-Pacific security architecture, Marco Rubio’s four-day visit to India was the most noteworthy aspect, as he repeatedly emphasized the significance of Indo-US relations.

Speculations about the Quad’s potential dissolution, reminiscent of developments in the 2000s, were fuelled by the postponement of the leaders’ summit, President Trump’s apparent lack of interest, and a more conciliatory approach toward China. Even so, the meeting reaffirmed the US’s ongoing engagement in the region and its support for the Quad.

The Quad’s momentum currently faces its principal challenge not from India’s or the US’s relations with Australia and Japan, but from a complicated Indo-US relationship.

Two factors show why India-US relations are central to the Quad’s minilateral framework.

Over the past year, India has faced unprecedented criticism from the US administration, particularly from President Trump, who has been critical of India on trade and security fronts. Issues such as tariff disputes, H-1B visa restrictions affecting Indian professionals, deepening US relations with the Pakistan Army, and increased US involvement in Bangladesh and Nepal have contributed to growing distrust about the US’s willingness to cooperate with India and promote stability in the Indo-Pacific.

In response to several contentious statements by President Trump directed at India, Rubio’s visit served as a diplomatic effort to restore bilateral relations. His repeated emphasis on India’s role as a strategic partner signalled a commitment to improving ties. While a single visit cannot resolve all tensions from the past year, it reassures India and reduces the risk of further deterioration.

The Quad Foreign Ministers’ meeting became feasible only after India and the US undertook concerted efforts to revive bilateral relations. Notable examples include India’s invitation to the US to attend the AI Impact Summit in February 2026, ongoing trade agreement negotiations, and the US decision to invite India to the Pax Silica initiative. The meeting occurred only after a certain level of normalization had been achieved. Even so, a leaders’ summit is unlikely unless President Trump and Prime Minister Modi demonstrate a clear commitment to advancing India-US relations.

Second, without proactive American engagement, Japan, Australia, and India may develop their own trilateral regional strategies, perhaps with some Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and Singapore. However, the impact of such an alternative would be limited and localized. Japan could take a greater role in sustaining and rebuilding regional economic frameworks, replicating the Trans-Pacific Partnership experiment. Still, due to constitutional and capacity constraints, Tokyo is unlikely to replace Washington as the region’s primary security guarantor soon.

Although the Quad’s resilience is maintained by the agency and commitment of Australia, India, and Japan rather than by exclusive US leadership, strong US involvement in the Indo-Pacific security mechanism will remain a cornerstone of the Indo-Pacific architecture.

China’s persistent assertive behaviour remains the central factor. It continues to employ coercive tactics and expand its influence in regions critical to the US and its partners, so the original motivations for revitalizing the Quad remain relevant. Although the US approach to China is evolving, the fundamental dynamics of US-China relations remain unchanged. In the long term, Washington will require frameworks such as the Quad to maintain stability in the Indo-Pacific and prevent the erosion of its strategic influence. Consequently, the Quad is likely to remain central to regional strategy, with India as a key partner.

The US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau’s statement that the US is not going to make the same mistakes with India that it made with China 20 years ago must not guide Indo-US relations. The US needs India as much as India needs the US, and unlike China, India-US relations rest on shared values – democracy, freedom of speech, multiculturalism, and a common vision of maintaining a rules-based liberal international order. Both countries require mutually beneficial cooperation to advance their strategic objectives. Other Quad members and Indo-Pacific stakeholders also depend on collaboration between Washington and New Delhi to maintain strategic equilibrium and preserve the bloc’s cohesion.

The US regards India as a responsible stakeholder and a regional counterweight to China, especially after the limited outcomes of President Trump’s recent visit to China. Conversely, India depends on the US for advanced technology, strategic investments, and long-term defense needs. This mutual dependence makes both countries indispensable to each other, and significant short-term trade diversification is unlikely. Even if achieved, it would likely harm both parties.

The US must strengthen its engagement in the Indo-Pacific by leveraging the Quad and its member states to develop an effective regional strategy. Closer strategic coordination among Quad partners, particularly with India, is essential to this effort.

June 11 (UPI) — U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey resigned on Thursday after criticizing his government for spending “well short” of what it should on the military.

Healey resigned from the position in a letter addressed to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, which was posted on X, because the country’s Defense Investment Plan does not meet requirements and could “reduce the readiness of our forces.”

Hours after Healey’s resignation, junior defense minister Al Carns also resigned from his post because of his own concerns about the “level of investment I know to be inadequate to the task,” NBC News reported.

Starmer said after Healey quit that he is “proud of our record on funding” and that he believes the funding plan that has been agreed to between the Parliament and Defense ministry “will provide the resources our military needs to keep us safe,” The BBC reported.

The prime minister has in recent weeks been called on to resign after less than great election results last month, and Healey is the second member of his cabinet to resign recently after former health secretary Wes Streeting quit because he’d “lost confidence” in Starmer.

In addition to Healey and Carns, Starmer’s parliamentary assistant to the Defense Ministry also left her role over “delays and difficulties” to fund the United Kingdom’s military readiness goals.

“We came into government recognizing Britain faced a new era of threat which demanded a new era for defense,” Healey wrote in the letter.

“Since then, you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nations needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats,” he wrote.

Starmer on Thursday named former security minister Dan Jarvis to be the secretary of defense, whose job it will be to finalize the new defense funding plan, which is reportedly expected to be about half of the $37 million the ministry had requested.

Among the goals that had been set out in the most recent U.K. strategic defense review were increases in ammunition stockpiles, next-generation warplanes, drones and updated submarines.

June 11 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said Thursday that the United States may take control of Iran’s oil and gas industries like it did in Venezuela earlier this year.

Trump posted the threat on social media, warning that the United States will continue attacking Iran after a series of airstrikes on Wednesday.

“The United States will be hitting Iran (Whose Navy, Air Force, Radar, Anti Aircraft, and all other forms of Defense, together with most of its offensive capability, are GONE!), VERY HARD TONIGHT,” Trump wrote. “At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets, much like we have with Venezuela, which is working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America.”

About 90% of Iran’s crude oil shipments were exported from Kharg Island before the United States and Israel launched the war on Feb. 28.

The United States has launched strikes on Kharg Island during the Iran war but it has not seized control of any of its oil and gas infrastructure yet.

Trump further discussed taking control of Iranian infrastructure during an appearance on Fox News on Thursday morning.

“Look, my preference has always been take Kharg Island,” he said. “I don’t think America has the stomach for that. I think they’d like to see us come home, but we did it with Venezuela. Venezuela’s worked out great for everybody.”

Fighting has heightened again between the United States and Iran with Iran shooting down a U.S. helicopter earlier this week near the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. military launched what it is calling “self-defense strikes” on Iranian military surveillance, communication systems and air defense targets.

U.S. Central Command said Wednesday that the strikes were “in response to Iran’s unwarranted and continued aggression.”

Trump has said for weeks that Iran and the United States are close to reaching a peace agreement, saying at several points Iran wanted to reach a deal. Fighting between Iran and Israel paused over the weekend after Trump urged both sides to stop exchanging fire.

The United States continues to enforce a blockade on ships using Iranian ports on the Strait of Hormuz.

June 11 (UPI) — The United States and Iran traded attacks Wednesday night for a second straight day with American forces hitting multiple military, surveillance and radar installations in southern Iran and Iran hitting back at its Persian Gulf neighbors.

U.S. Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy assets deployed precision munitions against Iranian “military surveillance capabilities, communication systems, and air defense sites across Iran” posing a threat to U.S. forces and international commercial ships transiting regional waters,” U.S. Central Command said in a statement on X.

Tomahawk missiles were fired from the guided-missile destroyer USS Michael Murphy.

“The strikes are in response to Iran’s unwarranted and continued aggression,” added CENTCOM.

Bahrain’s Interior Ministry reported a second night of airborne attacks and condemned what it called “sinful Iranian aggression” after an 11-year-old girl was injured.

“Vehicles caught fire and houses were damaged in Hamad Town and Manama due to falling debris of drones interception. Civil Defense and National Ambulance have taken necessary measures,” the ministry said Thursday morning in an online post accompanied by photos of burnt-out cars, blast damage and firefighters tackling blazes.

In a post on X in the early hours of Thursday, the Kuwait Army said its air defense systems were “currently intercepting hostile aerial targets.”

Royal Jordanian Air Force warplanes intercepted and downed 20 Iranian missiles headed toward the Azraq region in Zarqa Governorate, east of the capital, Amman.

In a statement issued Thursday via the National Center for Security Crises and Management, the General Command of the Jordan Armed Forces-Arab Army said debris from downed missiles fell in multiple locations but that there were no injuries or damage.

Meanwhile, the Indian government confirmed the deaths of three Indian crew members missing from the Palau-flagged oil tanker, M/T Settebello, a day after it was struck by the U.S. military in the Gulf of Oman, through which vessels transiting the Hormuz Strait must transit.

“Sadly, three Indian seafarers initially reported missing are now confirmed dead after bodies have been located and identified. This is a profound loss to our maritime family. The Modi government stands firmly with the bereaved during this difficult hour and is fully committed to supporting the next of kin,” Ports, Shipping & Waterways Minister Sarbananda Sonowal wrote on X.

“I have directed officials to ensure immediate repatriation of the rescued crew members and swift return of the mortal remains of the deceased for their final rites.”

CENTCOM said a U.S. aircraft fired precision munitions into the vessel’s engine room Wednesday after the vessel, which it said was violating the United States’ blockade by attempting to ship oil from Iran, failed to comply with instructions from U.S. forces.

June 8 (UPI) — Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., introduced a bill Monday that seeks to limit the Department of Defense’s use of artificial intelligence in lethal strikes.

The Human Authority in Lethal Operations Act would establish guardrails and oversight for the use of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons and surveillance systems that use AI. Schiff said the department’s use of AI in recent months shows there is an “urgent need” for the legislation.

“There are good reasons to use AI technology to advance our national security,” Schiff said in a statement. “However — just as with any tool, we cannot depend on technology alone to guide us, particularly when the risks of harm can be fatal. My legislation would protect Americans from unlawful domestic surveillance, ensure that humans in the chain of command exercise responsibility for the use of any lethal technology, and maintain strong ethical protections in the deployment of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons.”

The bill requires the disclosure of designated commanders who give orders to use force that involve autonomous weapons systems and maintain records of the decision-making process, including how targets are selected.

The bill also requires autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons systems to be put through a review process and prohibits the Pentagon from using AI to surveil people who are doing constitutional activities, such as protesting. The Pentagon would also be barred from purchasing personal data on Americans if doing so would violate the act.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., is preparing a separate bill proposal related to AI use in defense.

Welcome back to the Times of Troy newsletter, where USC baseball’s charmed season came to a devastating end in the bottom of the ninth of a decisive Super Regional matchup with North Carolina on Sunday. But no matter how brutal it may have been in the moment — with black-stained tears streaming down Trojan cheeks in Chapel Hill — the fact that USC was in position to have its heart broken at all is a testament to what Andy Stankiewicz has built in his four seasons at the helm.

It was barely a year ago that I sat with Stankiewicz in an unfinished concrete dugout at new Dedeaux Field, discussing the importance of building a foundation for a program that had lacked one for so long. The metaphor wrote itself at the time. His team was on the cusp of clinching its first NCAA berth in a decade, just as its new stadium was finally rounding into form. But as triumphant as that tournament invite would be when it finally happened, Stankiewicz was already thinking bigger.

“We want to build this thing for the long haul,” he said then. “And to build a home, you have to build a strong foundation so it can withstand the weather. The same thing applies here. I want to be here for a long time. This is where I grew up. This is where I’d love to be.”

A year later, the foundation hasn’t just been built. The house is finished. The front door is open. All that’s left is for the Trojans to walk through it.

They had their chance Sunday in Chapel Hill. Andrew Johnson twirled another postseason gem. The Trojan bats, again, delivered in big moments, with clutch solo shots from Kevin Takeuchi and Andrew Lamb. Through 8.2 innings, USC had given up just a single run.

But the bullpen, which had been one of the Trojans’ few weak points all season, couldn’t finish the job. Sax Matson came in for just a single pitch and was pulled. Adam Troy faced three batters, walked one who scored and was pulled in the middle of a 3-0 count for another. Chase Herrell faced four batters after that, walked one and gave up two other hits, including the walk-off winner.

Just two outs stood between the Trojans and a trip to Omaha. At one point, all they had to do was catch a fouled pop fly to send the game to extras.

“That was a tough one,” Stankiewicz said after. “As best we can, we’re gonna move forward. But again, I got some disappointed young men in our dugout. As the head coach, you think, ‘Dang it, what could I have done differently?’”

Surely, the Trojans coach might be thinking all season about how close his team was to reaching that next rung as a program. The truth, though, is it’s a wonder they got here this fast in the first place. USC won 48 games, its most in a quarter century. It had to climb its way back from the loser’s bracket in its regional, then, on the road in Chapel Hill, it took one of the national title favorites to the brink.

Not only that, but USC rose to that level in a still-unfinished stadium, without anything resembling the NIL firepower that other college baseball teams, particularly in the SEC and ACC, are wielding. USC has tried to make up for that by funding more scholarships, but when other teams are handing kids hundreds of thousands more in NIL offers, it makes competing with the Joneses especially difficult.

Stankiewicz has managed to make it work, anyway. And as more talent rolls into Troy, there’s every reason to believe that we’ll look back on this moment, not as a devastating end, but the start of something particularly special for USC baseball.

“We got to the finals of the Regional last year. Now the finals of a Super Regional,” Stankiewicz said. “We’re not going away.”

Calling all questions …

With the summer here and college sports now on hold for the next two months, it’s a perfect time to answer any questions you have about the upcoming year at USC. So please send anything on your mind about Trojan sports to ryan.kartje@latimes.com. When the newsletter returns in a couple of weeks, I’ll answer the best ones in this space.

USC pitcher Andrew Johnson.

(Laura Wolff / For The Times)

—A standing ovation for Johnson, whose pitching performance through the postseason was nothing short of Herculean. Johnson spent most of the season as the Trojans’ forgotten No. 3 option in the rotation, with Mason Edwards and Grant Govel ranking among the best pitchers in the nation. But it was Johnson who came up the biggest in the postseason. Twice he pitched well in relief, only to throw seven-plus innings two days later. This felt like a breakthrough moment for Johnson, who should pair with Govel to give USC an outstanding 1-2 punch on Fridays and Saturdays next season.

—There’s been talk about alternate jerseys at USC over the last several years. The conversation about alternates actually dates back to before Jennifer Cohen took over as athletic director. But as was the case before, the conversation has been tabled for the time being. Athletic departments are always looking for added revenue these days, but the juice just hasn’t been worth the squeeze to date, considering the many fans that would surely be offended by changes to the Trojans’ classic uniforms.

Olympic sports spotlight

After going on a tear to close out the season, USC women’s golf was on the precipice of snagging the school’s second national title this year … before it ran into a buzzsaw in No. 1 Stanford.

But an NCAA runner-up finish is still a great result for a program that hasn’t won an NCAA title since 2013. The Trojans have now finished second six times in their past 38 seasons, which is to say they’ve been the runner-ups basically 15% of the time over the last four decades.

That’s a lot of years being the bridesmaid, not the bride. But there’s no reason to think that Justin Silverstein, the Big Ten’s Coach of the Year in 2026, shouldn’t have this program back in the mix as soon as next season.

What I’m Watching This Week

Matthew Rhys and Stephen Root in “Widow’s Bay.”

(Apple)

If you’re in the mood for something creepy, boy do I have the content for you. “Widow’s Bay” on Apple TV follows Mayor Tom Loftis, played by Matthew Rhys, who’s desperate to revive his struggling island community of Widow’s Bay. But the locals on the island are convinced the town is cursed, and don’t necessarily approve of bringing tourists into the mix.

As you might imagine, the locals appear to be right. And Loftis finds himself in some horrifying situations. Enough to convince me that maybe this isn’t the best show to be watching alone, late at night. But if that’s in your wheelhouse, then this is as good as it gets.

In case you missed it

USC’s College World Series hopes shattered in heartbreaking loss to North Carolina

Q&A: As costs rise, AD Jennifer Cohen says USC is well-positioned amid college sports chaos

Ed Orgeron is returning to LSU as member of old USC pal Lane Kiffin’s staff

Until next time …

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

Taiwan has accused China of carrying out a “provocative act” after Chinese Coast Guard vessels conducted patrols in waters east of the island. The operation followed announcements by Japan and the Philippines that they would begin formal talks on maritime boundary delimitation, a move Beijing views as involving waters linked to Taiwan.

Chinese state media described the deployment as a special maritime law-enforcement operation. Taiwan responded by dispatching Coast Guard vessels, which reportedly warned the Chinese ships away from restricted waters. Defence Minister Wellington Koo characterized the patrols as both a challenge to Taiwan’s sovereignty and an example of “cognitive warfare” aimed at reshaping perceptions of territorial control.

The incident comes amid sustained Chinese military activity around Taiwan, including frequent air and naval operations. Taiwan is also monitoring the movements of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning, which is operating in the Western Pacific near waters east of the Philippines.

Why It Matters

The patrols represent more than a routine maritime operation. They signal China’s growing willingness to extend its presence beyond the Taiwan Strait and into areas east of Taiwan that have traditionally been viewed as strategically important for the island’s defence.

The move also demonstrates Beijing’s opposition to emerging regional cooperation among U.S. partners and allies. The maritime boundary discussions between Japan and the Philippines reflect increasing efforts among regional states to clarify maritime rights and strengthen coordination in contested waters.

For Taiwan, Chinese Coast Guard activities present a complex challenge. Unlike military operations, law-enforcement patrols operate within a legal grey zone that allows Beijing to advance territorial claims without triggering a conventional military confrontation. Such actions can gradually normalize China’s presence in disputed areas while increasing pressure on Taiwan’s security apparatus.

The incident further highlights the growing integration of maritime, legal, and information-based strategies in China’s approach to territorial disputes across the Indo-Pacific.

Stakeholders

Taiwan

• Protecting maritime sovereignty and territorial claims.
• Maintaining freedom of navigation and security in eastern waters.

China

• Expanding operational presence around Taiwan.
• Reinforcing sovereignty claims through maritime law-enforcement activities.

Japan

• Engaged in maritime boundary discussions with the Philippines.
• Monitoring Chinese activities that could affect regional security.

Philippines

• Seeking greater legal clarity over maritime boundaries.
• Increasing security cooperation with regional partners.

United States

• Maintaining stability in the Taiwan Strait and broader Indo-Pacific region.
• Supporting freedom of navigation and regional deterrence efforts.

Regional Security Partners

• Including Australia and other Indo-Pacific states concerned about changing maritime dynamics.

Strategic Implications

The patrols illustrate China’s increasing reliance on so-called “grey-zone” tactics, which fall below the threshold of open military conflict while steadily advancing strategic objectives. By deploying Coast Guard vessels rather than naval forces, Beijing can challenge Taiwan’s authority while reducing the risk of immediate military escalation.

The incident also reflects the expanding geographical scope of cross-strait competition. Traditionally concentrated in the Taiwan Strait, tensions are increasingly extending into the Western Pacific, where control of maritime approaches carries significant strategic value for both China and Taiwan.

Furthermore, the timing of the operation suggests that Beijing is seeking to influence regional maritime diplomacy. By responding directly to Japan-Philippines boundary discussions, China is signaling its opposition to initiatives that could strengthen legal and political frameworks contrary to its territorial claims.

The episode reinforces concerns among regional governments that maritime disputes are becoming increasingly interconnected, linking Taiwan, the East China Sea, and the South China Sea into a broader strategic contest.

What’s Next?

Several developments warrant close attention in the coming weeks:

• Taiwan is likely to increase coordination between its military and Coast Guard to strengthen maritime surveillance and response capabilities.
• China may continue deploying Coast Guard vessels east of Taiwan as part of a sustained effort to normalize its operational presence in the area.
• Japan and the Philippines are expected to proceed with maritime boundary discussions despite Beijing’s objections, potentially drawing further diplomatic responses from China.
• Increased activity by the Liaoning carrier group could provide additional indications of China’s broader military objectives in the Western Pacific.
• The United States and regional partners may intensify maritime monitoring and security cooperation to deter unilateral attempts to alter the status quo.

Future outcomes

The incident reflects a broader shift in regional security dynamics, where maritime law-enforcement operations are increasingly being used as instruments of strategic competition. Rather than relying solely on military pressure, China is employing a combination of legal, political, and operational tools to reinforce its territorial claims and shape the regional security environment.

For Taiwan, the challenge extends beyond the immediate presence of Chinese vessels. The longer-term concern lies in preventing the gradual normalization of Chinese activities in areas that Taipei considers vital to its sovereignty and security. As regional actors deepen cooperation on maritime governance and security, incidents of this nature are likely to become an increasingly important indicator of the evolving balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.

With information from Reuters.

June 7 (UPI) — The Israel Defense Forces confirmed it struck military targets in western and central Iran on Monday in retaliation for a wave of airstrikes launched against the Jewish state by Tehran hours earlier.

“A short while ago, the Israeli Air Force struck military targets belonging to the Iranian terror regime in western and central Iran. Details to follow,” the IDF said in a post on Telegram as a fragile cease-fire in the Iran War continued to unravel.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, meanwhile, confirmed the attack, according to the semi-official Mehr News Agency.

“The Zionist enemy has attacked targets on our country’s soil using air-launched ballistic missiles,” the IRGC said.

Official Iranian media also said residents in neighboring Iraq heard explosions in parts in the capital Baghdad while unidentified objects were seen over the Iraqi city and in Beirut.

The strikes against Iran came just hours after the Islamic regime lobbed missiles into northern Israel for the first time since the beginning of the cease-fire, which came into effect on April 8.

Tehran said those strikes were in response to Israeli bombings targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Iranian missiles, which the IDF said had been intercepted, were the first direct attack on Israel since the cease-fire.

The attacks follow an announcement on Sunday that Israel had launched strikes at alleged Hezbollah targets in Beirut — attacks which it has continued throughout the cease-fire — and some of which have been in suburban neighborhoods.

U.S. President Donald Trump, who reportedly has been briefed on Iran’s actions, told Iran “that’s enough, get back to the table” for peace negotiations, Fox News reported.

“The Israeli army must stop its attacks on southern Lebanon and the suburbs, and if it expands its attacks to that region or responds to Iran’s action, it will face more devastating and regrettable blows,” General Ali Abdollahi, head of Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya command, said in a statement.

Trump has reportedly also told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold back after the Iranian strikes, which Netanyahu agreed to on the condition that Hezbollah — which is funded by the Iranian regime — not launch strikes into northern Israel from Lebanon.

The United States and Iran have been negotiating an end the war for more than a month, as a cease-fire has mostly held but the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked, preventing the shipment of oil and other products from the Middle East.

The quarter mark of a season isn’t necessarily a make-or-break point, but for the Sparks, it was starting to feel like it was close to it.

An 89-72 win over the expansion Portland Fire on Sunday to close a 1-2 homestand felt more necessary than the Sparks might have wanted to admit. But after struggling on the road before losing consecutive games at home against Las Vegas and Dallas amid a three-game losing streak, the Sparks needed something to go right.

Especially defensively, where the Sparks had seemingly been getting worse. They had their best defensive game of the season Sunday, holding Portland to 36% shooting — the second-lowest mark against them this season.

Kelsey Plum finished with 16 points and six assists and Nneka Ogwumike had a double-double with 20 points and 17 rebounds. Dearica Hamby had 22 points with 12 rebounds, a solid response for the veteran forward following her struggles in recent games.

Before the game, coach Lynne Roberts admitted that she would consider benching some players if things didn’t improve.

“That’s the stage we’re at,” she said. “So that’s where we’re at. So stay tuned.”

The Sparks (5-6) stuck with their usual rotation and held the Fire to 72 points, the fewest they’ve allowed in a game this season.

Plum didn’t register a shot attempt until early in the third quarter when she hit a mid-range jumper to go ahead 45-43. The Fire defense smothered her, and while Erica Wheeler and Ogwumike made some shots early, the Sparks mostly didn’t make Portland (6-7) pay for doubling up their star.

The Sparks went on an 8-0 run in the first quarter while the Fire struggled to make shots around the rim.

But the Sparks’ offense went cold in the second quarter, allowing Portland to come back to lead by two at halftime. Portland also dominated on the boards to get extra possessions.

The Sparks adjusted to open the third quarter with six consecutive points. Portland struggled to hold on to the ball and turned it over nine times in the third quarter, allowing the Sparks to outscore them 23-12.

Portland couldn’t recover and the Sparks capitalized on turnovers to pull ahead by as much as 18.

The Sparks will play at the Seattle Storm (3-9) next on Wednesday.

June 6 (UPI) — The United States said it intercepted several Iranian ballistic missiles and drones shot toward the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, Bahrain and Kuwait Friday night.

The U.S. Central Command said seven missiles were fired toward Kuwait and Bahrain Friday after it shot down four Iranian drones headed toward the strait. It said six of the missiles were intercepted and one didn’t reach its target.

Bahrain and Kuwait said there were no injuries, but Kuwait said there was some “material damage.”

The Kuwaiti Army, attributed to the official spokesperson for its defense ministry Brigadier General Saud Abdulaziz Al-Otaibi, posted on X: “The armed forces detected and responded at dawn today to 7 hostile ballistic missiles within Kuwaiti airspace, which were intercepted over several residential areas, resulting in the fall of some debris.

“The Iranian criminal aggression caused material damage with no human casualties.”

CENTCOM also said there were no American casualties.

“There are currently no reports of harm to U.S. personnel, and Iranian claims of damaging U.S. 5th fleet headquarters in Bahrain are false,” CENTCOM said in a press release.

Kuwait and Bahrain called the strikes a violation of their sovereignty and a threat to regional security. Egypt, Jordan and Qatar also condemned the strikes Saturday.

Iran said it launched the strikes against U.S. military bases in the region after the United States struck Iran. CENTCOM said it hit coastal surveillance radar sites in Goruk and Queshm Island “to defend against further maritime attacks.”

Iran called the U.S. attacks a “flagrant” violation of the cease-fire, which has been in place since April. It said the American side “not only lacks the will to reduce tensions,” but “seriously endangers the security of the region.”

“These facilities are tasked with safeguarding the country’s border security and ensuring the security of navigation in international waterways,” the Iranian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “The attack constitutes a clear violation of the April 8 ceasefire and an act of military aggression against the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Iran said the U.S. strikes violate international law.

“This action, which comes as a continuation of the hostile and provocative conduct of the U.S. regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran, demonstrates the complete disregard of the U.S. ruling establishment for the fundamental principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations,” the foreign ministry said.

Tehran also said the U.S. is responsible for “all the effects and consequences of these illegal actions, as well as any possible escalation of tension.”

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard claimed the clash started when the U.S. military tried to “illegally” escort oil tankers through the waterway, which Iran has largely closed off during the war.

The Gulf Cooperation Council condemned the Iranian missile attacks Saturday.

“These treacherous Iranian terrorist acts represent a dangerous and irresponsible escalation, a blatant violation of all international laws and norms, and a direct threat to regional stability,” Jasem Mohamed Albudaiwi, secretary general of the Gulf Cooperation Council, said in a statement.

The Gulf Cooperation Council, formed in the 1980s, is an economic pact that includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

“The Council countries stand in a united and steadfast position alongside the Kingdom of Bahrain and the State of Kuwait, fully supporting all measures and steps they undertake to protect their security, safeguard their sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as ensure the safety of their peoples,” Albudaiwi said.

WASHINGTON — The House passed legislation Thursday that would aid Ukraine and sanction key segments of the Russian economy, overriding objections from Republican leaders who warned the bill would undermine negotiations designed to achieve a comparable but stronger result.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., seeks to cement U.S. assistance for Ukraine by providing more than $1 billion in security and reconstruction aid. It would make another $8 billion available for Ukraine’s defense through loans.

The 226-195 vote is a sign of impatience with President Trump’s approach to the war and represents the House’s second major foreign policy break with Trump this week. The day before, the House, for the first time, approved a war powers resolution aimed at halting U.S. military action against Iran.

Supporters were able to force action on the Ukraine bill by gathering 218 signatures on a discharge petition, a legislative tool that allows a majority of the House to effectively bypass leadership.

Once rarely successful, House members have used the petition tool this Congress to pass bills on releasing the government’s files on Jeffrey Epstein and to extend health care subsidies to many of those who get health coverage through the Affordable Care Act, though the latter measure faltered in the Senate.

Meeks said the question before the House was simple. Would it help Ukraine negotiate from a position of strength or help Russia outlast American resolve?

“We all want this war to end,” Meeks said. “The question is how. Will we abandon Ukraine and force it into a terrible deal? That is what Vladimir Putin is counting on. Or will this body live up to the commitments we’ve made since the start of this war?”

The vast majority of Republicans opposed the measure. Rep. French Hill, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he is a steadfast supporter of Ukraine. However, the Arkansas Republican said the House was confronted with a flawed, outdated measure that actually calls for less funding for Ukraine security assistance compared to what Congress had agreed to as part of this year’s defense policy. Another section could lead to a decrease in defense spending by some NATO members, he warned.

Rep. Brian Mast, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he believed the bill was “a cudgel to fight against President Trump.”

“This bill, in my opinion, is an unserious bill that was crafted basically a year-and-a-half ago,” Mast, R-Fla., said.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., broke with most of his Republican colleagues in voicing support for the measure.

“Are we going to stand with good or are we going to stand with evil? That’s what this is about tonight,” he said.

In the end, 18 Republicans, 207 Democrats and one independent voted for the bill. Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar joined with 194 Republicans in voting against it.

Lawmakers want to send a message

Supporters are hopeful that the House’s passage of the Ukraine bill would put pressure on the Senate to do the same. But they also know the Senate likely won’t go along unless Trump endorses the bill.

“It’s probably not going to get 60 votes in the Senate, but it’s going to hopefully force the Senate to address the issue,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., who signed the discharge petition and voted for the bill. “It’s going to send a great message to the soldiers of Ukraine.”

He said the vote would also send a message to Putin that “we do have a pulse here, that we do care about Ukraine and that we are going to utilize our authority to help them.”

As the war has dragged on, it’s gotten more difficult for supporters of Ukraine in Congress to provide additional financial support to help Ukraine defend itself.

The U.S. has approved some $195 billion for the Ukraine response, according to the latest quarterly inspector general report for Operation Atlantic Resolve, with roughly a quarter of that going to replenish weapons stockpiles for the U.S. military. The last major legislation designed to bolster the Ukraine response occurred in April 2024, though modest amounts have since been included in annual appropriations bills.

Republican leaders tried to stop the bill

Republican leaders urged their members to oppose the legislation. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said there are good-faith negotiations between members of Congress and the White House to boost Ukraine. He described the negotiations as complicated.

“I think they are going to yield positive results, but you set that back if you pass legislation that doesn’t go as far as the negotiations are going,” Scalise said.

The war that followed Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbor is more than four years old, with no end in sight. In recent days, both sides have sought an edge by launching long-range missile strikes.

U.S.-led peace efforts have fizzled out as the sides made no progress on key differences and after the war in Iran grabbed Washington’s attention. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accepted an unconditional ceasefire demanded by Trump, but Putin refused.

Action in the Senate on Ukraine has revolved around a bill that would impose sweeping tariffs and secondary sanctions on countries that purchase Russia’s oil, gas, uranium and other exports, which are crucial to financing Russia’s military. But the bill has languished.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

PHOENIX — Dodgers manager Dave Roberts had a decision to make.

Before the Diamondbacks’ Ketel Marte delivered the walk-off blow to the Dodgers — a towering home run off reliever Tanner Scott, punctuated by a bat flip — Roberts had to choose whether to send Shohei Ohtani to the plate as a pinch-hitter.

In a 3-2 loss, Ohtani, who didn’t start after two-way duties the day before, remained in the dugout.

“It has to be the right spot,” Roberts said.

The defensive picture complicated the calculus.

If Scott had thrown a scoreless inning and sent the game into the 10th, Roberts planned to have Ohtani pinch hit for Miguel Rojas, the third batter due up.

In the ninth, however, unless Ohtani replaced designated hitter Will Smith (who ended up hitting a two-out double), Roberts would have had to put in a defensive replacement for the bottom half of the inning.

“I didn’t want to go two innings trying to figure out how to play defense with Shohei then being out of the game,” Roberts said.

Roberts already had been forced to use the rest of his bench.

Third baseman Max Muncy exited in the fifth inning after a collision at first base, and Santiago Espinal replaced him. When rookie left fielder Ryan Ward walked in the seventh inning, the speedier and more defensively sound Alex Call replaced him on the bases. And in the eighth, the right-handed hitting Rojas pinch-hit for Alex Freeland against Diamondbacks left-hander Brandyn Garcia.

Arizona’s Ketel Marte, center, celebrates with teammates as he steps on home plate after hitting a walk-off home run against the Dodgers on Thursday.

(Christian Petersen / Getty Images)

The Dodgers had Andy Pages, Kyle Tucker and Smith — none of whom were candidates to be pulled for a pinch-hitter — due up in the ninth. But after Smith hit a two-out double, leaving first base open, the Diamondbacks surely would have intentionally walked Ohtani if he pinch-hit for Espinal.

Then, the Dodgers would have had to reconfigure their defense, likely moving first baseman Freddie Freeman to third, catcher Dalton Rushing to first base and Smith behind the plate, forfeiting the designated hitter spot.

That would mean a shaky defensive lineup with the game still on the line in the ninth, with pitchers forced to hit if it went into extra innings.

So, instead, Roberts saved Ohtani.

“Once we get into extra innings, then I would fire that bullet,” Roberts said.

The Dodgers, however, didn’t get to extra innings. Scott struck out the first batter he faced. Then he threw a fastball down and in to Marte, who managed to get the barrel of his bat to it.

“You’ve got to tip your cap,” Scott said. “He’s a good hitter. Should I have gone up and in? Yeah. Or just a slider. I knew he was going to be aggressive.”

Ohtani dealing with blister

Ohtani has been dealing with a small blister on the middle finger of his right hand for his last couple starts, Roberts said.

“I don’t expect it to affect him going forward,” Roberts said Thursday afternoon, the day after Ohtani held the Diamondbacks to two hits in six scoreless innings. “Even [Wednesday], if we wouldn’t have tacked on, he would’ve stayed in there.”

Roberts pulled Ohtani after the Dodgers pulled out to a seven-run lead in the top of the seventh inning.

Roberts also said he didn’t believe the blister affected Ohtani’s command last week, when he threw six hitless innings against the Rockies but issued four walks and hit a batter.

“When his command has been off, I think it’s a bigger thing than just a blister,” Roberts said. “Because it’s a small blister. That’s just when his mechanics are out of whack.”

June 4 (UPI) — The United States on Thursday leveled sanctions against Cuban Miguel Díaz-Canel, members of former President Raul Castro‘s family, the Cuban military and other organizations as it continued a crackdown on the country’s communist government.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the measures against Diaz-Canel the others in a statement, asserting they are being targeted because they “fund the [Cuban] regime and its efforts to mobilize its radical revolutionary movements in the United States and around the world.”

The Cuban president, Rubio said, poses a threat to U.S. national security, while the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Cuba, with its “many majority holdings and subsidiaries,” is also now “considered blocked.”

Other organizations newly added to the sanctions list are the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples, or ICAP, Amistur Cuba S.A., Committees for the Defense of the Revolution and Minera La Victoria S.A.

The individuals sanctioned include Alejandro Castro Espin, the former head of the Cuban intelligence services and the son of Raul Castro, and Raul Alejandro Castro Calis, Castro Espin’s son.

“For decades, Cuba has been the world capital for radical left-wing terrorism,” Rubio asserted. “The regime in Havana has recruited, trained and backed violent Marxist and ‘third-worldist’ movements across our hemisphere and beyond.

“Today, we are targeting the network that enables and funds Cuba’s subversive and radical operations.”

In a stated response, Diaz-Canel said the latest sanctions are “illegitimate” and are “aimed at reinforcing the blockade measures and the scenario of conflict between Cuba and the United States.

“This political blindness is added to the coercive measures applied in recent weeks against our country, designed to harm the Cuban people,” he added. “The aggressiveness and perversity of the Yankee government will clash with our determination to confront the worst scenarios and resist the imperialist onslaught.”

The newly issued sanctions are the latest in a series of moves designed to ratchet up pressure on the Cuban government.

The Trump administration has set a Friday deadline for foreign companies to sever ties with GAESA, the business conglomerate run by Cuba’s Armed Forces, sparking a mass exodus of tourism-related businesses from the island nation.

Meanwhile, Cuba is struggling with the effects of a January 2026 executive order issued by U.S. President Donald Trump imposing a fuel blockade against the nation on national security grounds.

The move has resulted in shortages of electricity, fuel, medicine and medical supplies across Cuba, according to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the World Health Organization, which says emergency care, blood banks, laboratories, immunization programs and maternal and child health services have all been “severely disrupted.”

Russia’s influence across its traditional sphere of influence is facing growing challenges as the war in Ukraine continues to consume military, economic and diplomatic resources. For decades, Moscow maintained strong ties with former Soviet states through security guarantees, energy supplies and economic integration. However, several longtime partners have increasingly sought closer relations with the West, raising concerns in the Kremlin about the erosion of its geopolitical position.

One of the most notable examples is Armenia, a longtime Russian ally that has recently deepened engagement with the United States and Europe while exploring a path toward eventual European Union membership.

What Happened

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned Armenia that pursuing closer integration with the European Union could come at a significant economic cost. Ahead of Armenia’s parliamentary elections, Putin suggested that Yerevan could lose access to discounted Russian oil and gas if it continues moving toward the EU.

The warning comes as polls indicate that the party of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who has pursued a more Western-oriented foreign policy, is likely to perform strongly in the vote.

Russia has already taken measures that many observers view as pressure tactics, including temporary restrictions on certain Armenian exports and warnings about possible reductions in economic cooperation.

Why Armenia Is Moving Closer to the West

Relations between Moscow and Yerevan have cooled significantly in recent years. Armenia signed a partnership agreement with the United States last month and has taken legislative steps that could eventually support EU membership aspirations.

Pashinyan’s government argues that Armenia must diversify its international partnerships and reduce its dependence on any single power. Supporters of closer Western ties point to economic opportunities, political reforms and security cooperation as key motivations behind the shift.

Russian officials, however, view Armenia’s growing engagement with Western institutions as part of a broader effort by the United States and Europe to weaken Moscow’s influence in the South Caucasus region.

Russia’s Wider Struggle to Retain Influence

The dispute with Armenia highlights a broader challenge facing Russia as it attempts to preserve its global standing while remaining heavily focused on the war in Ukraine.

Across multiple regions, Moscow is confronting increasing competition from Western powers. In Europe, countries once considered friendly to Russia are strengthening ties with the European Union and NATO. In the Balkans, political pressure is growing on governments that have traditionally maintained close relations with Moscow.

Russia also faces challenges in Moldova’s breakaway region of Transdniestria, where pro-European political forces are gaining influence. In Central Asia, Moscow is closely watching expanding Western engagement in a region it has long regarded as part of its strategic sphere.

Beyond its neighborhood, Russia’s relationships with partners such as Cuba, Venezuela and Iran are being tested as geopolitical dynamics shift and Western pressure intensifies.

What Comes Next

The outcome of Armenia’s parliamentary election will be closely watched in both Moscow and Western capitals. A victory for Pashinyan’s party could strengthen Armenia’s efforts to deepen ties with Europe and the United States, potentially leading to further tensions with Russia.

For the Kremlin, the situation represents a broader strategic dilemma. As the war in Ukraine continues without a clear resolution, Russia must balance military commitments with the need to maintain influence among traditional allies increasingly exploring alternative partnerships.

The coming months are likely to reveal whether Moscow can preserve its position in regions it has long considered part of its sphere of influence or whether Western engagement will continue to reshape the geopolitical landscape across Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and beyond.

With information from Reuters.