Protesters clashed with Albanian police at the site of a luxury holiday resort being built with the backing of Jared Kushner – Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Large demonstrations also took place in Tirana on Friday as opposition to the $5.7 billion project near protected wetlands grows.
Published On 13 Jun 202613 Jun 2026
Share
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.
EXPLAINER
Tensions have escalated between Iran and Israel while ongoing diplomatic efforts have failed to yield a lasting peace deal.
Published On 8 Jun 20268 Jun 2026
Iran and Israel were on Monday locked in tit-for-tat missile attacks, as the fragile ceasefire that has held in place since April 8 appeared closer to collapse than at any point in the past seven weeks.
These escalating hostilities between Iran and Israel come as the United States-Israel war on Iran enters its 101st day on Monday.
Here is what is happening:
New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill has imposed a curfew and deployed state police outside Newark’s Delaney Hall immigration detention centre after nights of clashes between protesters and ICE agents.
Published On 31 May 202631 May 2026
Share
The war that Donald Trump declared won last month looks rather different from the inside of the Pentagon. The resulting stalemate has drained American military stockpiles, emboldened Iranian commanders, and left the US with far worse options than before the conflict began.
The administration’s triumphalist framing has struck a jarring note among those who have spent careers studying the Iranian military and the limits of American power projection. Declaring victory when the enemy is still standing, still armed, and still controlling the waterway you went to war over is not a strategy. It is a wish dressed up as a press release.
At the heart of the impasse are two demands that Tehran has consistently and categorically rejected. Iran will not surrender what it regards as its sovereign right to develop its uranium program, and it will not yield control of the Strait of Hormuz. Those two positions were Iran’s red lines before the fighting started. They remain Iran’s red lines now. Nothing in between has changed.
What has changed is the arithmetic of munitions. The United States entered this conflict with a military built around expensive, technologically sophisticated weapons systems, precision instruments that take years to design, years more to manufacture, and that have now been expended at a rate the American defense industrial base is poorly positioned to replenish. Iran, by contrast, relies on a dispersed network of robotic small boats, undersea mines, tactical ballistic missiles, and unmanned systems. These weapons are cheap, simple, and easy to produce at scale.
The United States essentially deployed a Ferrari into a demolition derby. The Iranians didn’t need high-end technology; they just needed a relentless volume of cheaper assets to overwhelm the defense.
Trump, for his part, has shown no appetite for nuance. “We have totally obliterated their military capacity, there’s nothing left, believe me, nothing,” he told supporters at a rally in Georgia. Pentagon planners reviewing the same battlefield data have reached a rather different conclusion.
The American strikes produced mixed results. Iran does not maintain a conventional naval fleet or a modern air force in the Western sense. Its control of the strait rests not on destroyers or fighter wings but on a distributed, resilient system of asymmetric capabilities. The Iranian systems that dispersed into the terrain absorbed the strikes and began reconstituting almost immediately. Defense analysts point out that the Iranians have adapted from what they observed, replenished their stocks, and may now be better positioned than when the conflict began.
The strategic picture is further complicated by the political pressures that shaped the original decision to go to war. Analysts describe a decision driven less by tactical opportunity than by commitments made to Israeli leadership and to influential pro-Israel donors whose support was central to Trump’s political coalition. The result was a military campaign calibrated to political timetables rather than operational logic.
READ: Israeli premier expresses concern over US handling of Iran nuclear file in call with Trump: Report
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a member of the Armed Services Committee, called the conduct of the conflict “a case study in how not to use military force.” Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, before his defeat in his primary, was more pointed: “We went in without a declaration of war, without a clear objective, without an exit strategy, and now we’re supposed to celebrate because we used up half our missile inventory and the Iranians are still there.”
The regional picture adds further complexity. Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf monarchies are acutely aware of their own exposure. A major Iranian strike on above-ground oil and desalination plants could critically impede the GCC’s government’s ability to maintain economic prosperity. The GCC states have no appetite for an escalation that leaves their vital water infrastructure in ruins. While they favor the containment of Iran, preventing a regional war is a matter of sheer survival.
The broader strategic damage extends well beyond the Gulf.
The conflict has exposed, with uncomfortable clarity, the brittleness of an American military model that prioritized theoretical sophistication over the practical demands of sustained combat. The long-overlooked vulnerability of the missile supply chain has now emerged as the primary constraint on future American options. Restoring that capacity, according to officials, will require years of industrial retooling.
Washington has come to realize that Iran acutely recognized US vulnerabilities, designing asymmetric systems specifically to deplete America’s most expensive capabilities with its cheapest assets. This is not a temporary setback; it is a structural crisis.
For now, President Trump appears caught between the political cost of acknowledging stalemate and the military risk of a second round of strikes that the Pentagon itself doubts would achieve different results. The operational pause is not a logistical necessity. The forces are forward-deployed and ready. The pause is a search for a rationale, a way to resume the fight that does not require the White House to explain why the first attempt failed.
By most accounts, the search has not yet succeeded.
OPINION: The bell tolls in Beijing: Xi’s warning and the shadow of Thucydides
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
WASHINGTON — When the U.S. Supreme Court sharply curtailed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last week, Democrats in Washington had a message: The rules of redistricting have changed, and California — the nation’s biggest blue bastion — may have a further role to play.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Democrats should “play by the same set of rules” as Republicans. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) vowed to fight in “the Deep South and all over the country.” And Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, was blunt: “I’ll take 52 seats from California, I sure would. And 17 seats from Illinois.”
The calls for action came as Republican governors in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississipppi and Tennessee called special legislative sessions to redraw congressional maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Florida has also approved new maps that could give the GOP four more seats in the House, and President Trump urged other Republican states to follow suit.
The Republican response has intensified the pressure on Democrats to act, including those in California — where the ruling could upend not just congressional maps, but also legislative and local races.
“We can’t allow this national gerrymandering effort of Republicans to go unanswered,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach). “If Republicans go for it, I think we have to leave all options on the table.”
For now, California’s response is far from settled.
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) cautioned against “accelerating a race to the bottom.”
(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)
The chair of the California Democratic Party said there are no current plans to redraw maps — just months after voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing a mid-decade redistricting backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The Democratic consultant who drew the state’s current congressional district boundaries says an all-blue map, while possible to create, would probably hurt Democrats more than help them in the long run. And some of the state’s congressional Democrats are worried the impulse to match Republican partisan efforts would be bad for the American electorate.
“Rather than accelerating a race to the bottom, the next step is to dial it down because you can reach a point of no return,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), one of the state’s most prominent Black lawmakers. “And that’s where we’re headed.”
What California decides — and when — will matter at the national level. With 52 congressional seats, no state has more to offer Democrats in a redistricting war. But experts, lawmakers and party officials say the path forward is more complicated than the calls from Washington suggest.
That’s in part because California already acted. In 2025, voters approved Proposition 50, which drew new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. The new maps, which could yield as many as 48 Democratic seats out of 52, are already in effect, and voters have begun receiving their mail-in ballots.
Going farther is not currently on the table — at least not yet.
“We have yet to fully win the seats in the map that was drawn in 2025. It seems a step too far to say we’re going to go back to the drawing board and redraw the map,” said Rusty Hicks, the chair of the California Democratic Party.
Hicks said it doesn’t mean the issue could not become part of a future discussion, but he said Democrats in other states should not look past what California has already done.
“We’re trying to pick up 48 of them. How much more do you want us to pick up? You want us to make it 52 blue? Well, you all should get into the fight,” Hicks said. “You all should pick up some seats. Let’s all do this together, because California cannot do it alone, it will take the rest of the country.”
Others are not convinced the most aggressive option makes the strategic sense in California.
Paul Mitchell, the Democratic redistricting consultant who drew California’s Proposition 50 congressional maps, said the push for a 52-0 delegation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how a partisan map would perform in the state over time.
“A 52-to-zero map would have the potential of backfiring,” Mitchell said. “In 2026, we could pick up 52 seats. But then in 2028 or 2030 — a bad year for Democrats, let’s say — Democrats lose 11 of those seats. You’ve drawn these districts so demonically to a Democratic advantage in a good year that in a bad Democratic year, they don’t have the ability to withstand the challenge.”
The political debate over congressional maps has so far dominated the conversation in Washington. But legal scholars and redistricting experts say the ruling could also have consequences in California’s city hall, school board and county supervisor races.
The justices’ ruling, decided by the court’s conservative majority, says states cannot consider race to create majority-minority electoral districts while allowing them take partisan interests into account.
“A purely partisan map is actually more defensible now than one drawn with racial considerations,” said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA. “It turns the world on its head.”
The ruling now puts at risk any district drawn at any level of government that relied on the Voting Rights Act to justify its boundaries, Hasen said.
And in California, that uncertainty extends to districts drawn under the state Voting Rights Act, which extends protections for minority voters beyond the federal law, he said. The state law was not directly at issue in the Supreme Court ruling, but Hasen argues the court’s reasoning could provide new legal grounds to challenge the state law as potentially unconstitutional.
Cities including Santa Monica and Palmdale have faced lawsuits alleging their at-large City Council elections diluted the Latino vote. Palmdale settled its case and agreed to switch to district-based elections; Santa Monica’s case is ongoing. Hasen argued that the cities, as well as other bodies, such as school boards, could now return to court to challenge whether district maps drawn as a result of the California Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional.
“That has not been tested yet,” he said, but he fears the same arguments made to challenge the federal Voting Rights Act could be made against the state law.
At the state level, Republican strategist Matt Rexroad sees the ruling affecting the California Legislature as well. He argues the boundaries drawn for the state Assembly and Senate districts are racial gerrymanders.
“Those legislative lines, I would argue, are unconstitutional,” Rexroad said. “And those lines are probably going to change by 2028.”
But Rexroad’s biggest concern goes beyond any single set of maps: It is the future of California’s independent redistricting commission, the nonpartisan body he has spent years defending.
Rexroad sees a scenario in which the national political environment gives California Democrats little incentive to return the map-making power to the commission. If Republican states continue to aggressively redraw maps, Democrats will have another justification to keep power in the Legislature’s hands, the same argument made to pass Proposition 50, he said.
“I don’t think the California redistricting commission has ever been in greater jeopardy than it is right now,” he said.
J. Morgan Kousser, a historian who has testified as an expert witness in voting rights cases for 47 years, said California’s commitment to the commission may depend on how aggressive Republican states act in redistricting.
“If we go back to an all-white South in Congress, California may not go back to a fairness standard,” Kousser said. “It may not disarm. It may rearm.”
Mitchell, the redistricting consultant, said that he hopes California and other states choose the path of disarmament and that there is a national push for independent commissions in every state.
“This isn’t good for anybody,” he said. “This was all basically a nerd war over lines that didn’t actually improve any districts anywhere.”
Published on
The EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is scheduled to meet his US counterpart Jamieson Greer on Tuesday amid rising tensions between the bloc and the US following President Donald Trump’s announcement of a potential 25% tariff on EU automobiles.
The discussions, scheduled ahead of a G7 trade ministers’ meeting in Paris, were planned before President Trump’s latest tariff threat, Euronews has learned.
But they now give both sides an opportunity to ease tensions after Trump signalled measures that would breach the EU-US trade deal agreed last summer in Turnberry, Scotland, between Trump and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, which caps US tariffs on EU goods at 15%.
On Monday, the Commission sought to project a sense of calm.
“It’s not the first time we have seen threats,” Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said, adding: “We remain very calm, focused on enforcing the joint statement in the interests of our companies, of our citizens.”
Trump’s threat came after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticised the US approach to the war in Iran, and after Washington announced the withdrawal of 5,000 US troops from Germany, further straining transatlantic relations.
German MEP Bernd Lange (S&D), chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, told Euronews on Monday that Trump’s threats were aimed specifically at German car manufacturers.
The US president also accused the EU of moving too slowly to implement the agreement.
“Since day one we are implementing the Joint Statement [the EU-US deal] and we are fully committed to delivering on our shared commitments,” Regnier said, adding that the EU was seeking predictability in the EU-US trade relation.
The Turnberry deal is currently being negotiated between EU governments and lawmakers before it can enter into force on the EU side. Co-legislators must still agree on the modalities for cutting EU tariffs on US goods to zero, as outlined in the agreement.
MEPs have nonetheless introduced safeguards to ensure the EU is not the only party adhering to its commitments and to protect the bloc from future US threats.
The Commission reiterated Monday that if the US takes measures that are “inconsistent” with the trade deal, all “options” remain open.
Last year, during the trade dispute that followed Trump’s return to power, the EU executive prepared a package targeting €95 billion worth of US products, though the measures were later suspended.
At the time, several EU countries also urged the use of the bloc’s anti-coercion instrument, which enables the EU to respond to economic pressure from third countries with a wide range of trade defence tools, including restrictions on licences and intellectual property rights.