Iran

America’s war on Iran has already cost the US nearly $110 billion. Now, the Trump administration wants another $67 billion, even after declaring victory. Al Jazeera’s Emma Withrow breaks down the growing price tag.

The U.S. war with Iran escalated again Thursday as Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen attacked two Saudi Araian oil tankers in the Red Sea, causing global oil prices to surge amid fears of yet another vital energy corridor being choked off by the conflict.

The attacks came after the Trump administration threatened additional strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure while pushing a new deal to help Saudi Arabia develop a nuclear energy program of its own. Also Thursday, four Republicans in the U.S. House joined Democrats in a vote to halt the American military campaign absent congressional approval. Senate Republicans blocked a similar measure.

The price of oil hit $100 a barrel for the first time since May, increasing the financial pressure on Americans at the gas pump and the political pressure on President Trump to end a war he promised would last weeks but has persisted for months. At least 18 U.S. service members have died in the war.

The Houthis, who control the populous northwest of Yemen, receive arms and training from Tehran but had remained largely on the sidelines since the U.S. and Israel launched the war. Their latest strikes complicate already fraught negotiations between the U.S. and Iran after the collapse of a ceasefire this month amid renewed hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz, the other major energy passageway choked by the conflict.

The Houthis had this week announced a naval blockade of Saudi ships in the Red Sea, which stretches along Saudi Arabia’s western flank. That blockade centered on the Bab al Mandeb strait, the only southbound route for Saudi tankers headed to Asian markets.

Tanker traffic has already been heavily diminished in the Persian Gulf along Saudi Arabia’s northeast flank and between it and Iran, because of Iran’s threats to vessels traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia had diverted its oil exports to its Red Sea ports and out the Bab al Mandeb, dispatching some 4.5 million barrels via that route per day.

In a social media post Thursday, Trump said that if the Houthis continue attacking ships in the Red Sea, the U.S. “will hold Iran responsible” because the Houthis are an Iranian proxy, and inflict “major military punishment” on the Houthis and Iran.

He said he was “very disappointed” in the Houthis, “in that they have, until now, acted very professionally and smart” amid the Iran war.

At a later event Thursday, Trump said the U.S. is “doing extremely well” against Iran, which he accused of having “evil intentions.”

Democrats in the House and Senate cited the war’s spread to the Red Sea as yet another reason that Congress should act to pass a war powers measure to halt the president’s military campaign. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who led the unsuccessful effort in the Senate, cited the expansion while recalling how Trump had claimed victory in Iran as far back as March.

“If we won back in March, why are more Americans getting killed in July? If we won back in March, why is the Strait of Hormuz closed? If we won back in March, why is the war expanding as Houthis attack ships transiting the Bab al Mandeb strait in the Red Sea? If we won back in March, why are oil and gas prices and diesel prices shooting through the roof again, imposing costs on every American family?” Van Hollen said. “Is that their definition of winning?”

The Houthis’ military spokesman, Yahya al-Sarea, said the group’s forces conducted “a qualitative military operation” targeting two Saudi oil tankers with missiles and drones for what he said were violations of the Houthis’ blockade on the Red Sea.

The Houthis have accused Saudi Arabia of imposing a blockade on airports and seaports in northwestern Yemen, where most of the country’s population lives and which the Houthis otherwise control. They also blamed Saudi Arabia for an attack this month on Sanaa’s airport to prevent the landing of a plane carrying a Houthi delegation returning from the funeral of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed at the start of the war.

Al-Sarea said that in addition to striking the two tankers, the Houthis forced 10 other ships to turn back from their passage, will “continue their naval operations against the Saudi enemy” and will “continue imposing the equation of blockade against blockade.”

The escalation of the war — and the shock wave it sent through global energy markets — added to regional uncertainty already being stoked by the Trump administration’s announcement Wednesday that it had agreed to work with Saudi Arabia to develop a civilian nuclear program.

That announcement, after years of U.S. attempts to block nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, sparked widespread concern in Washington, where lawmakers will vote on the deal, and in Israel, which has long feared a nuclear arms race in the region.

Trump administration officials said the deal would “uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation,” with American firms developing the program. But they provided few details, and questions immediately arose about the absence of clear inspection protocols or any requirement that Saudi Arabia first normalize diplomatic relations with Israel.

On Thursday, Trump said the deal would be conditioned on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords and establishing diplomatic ties with Israel. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later said that Trump had not talked to Saudi leaders since making that condition public, but that they would have to agree to it or “the deal is off.”

Leavitt said that Trump had raised the matter with Saudi leaders in the past, and that it is something Trump “feels very strongly about.”

Asked whether Israel pressured the president to impose the condition, Leavitt said, “Not to my knowledge.”

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress that the Iran war has already cost the U.S. $37.5 billion. House Republicans on Wednesday pushed through a $1.15-trillion defense policy bill to fund the war moving forward. Most Democrats voted against the measure in protest of the war, and it faces stiff opposition in the Senate.

Trump in recent days has tried to deny polls showing plummeting support for the war among Americans. On Wednesday, before attending the dignified transfer of the bodies of U.S. service members killed in the war to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Trump claimed Americans don’t want high gas prices but “aren’t against the war.”

On Tuesday, Trump posted statistics showing that more U.S. service members died in past wars, which Democrats denounced as disrespectful to those killed in the current conflict.

The Houthis seized control of the Yemeni capital in 2014, along with much of Yemen’s populous northwest. Their advance triggered a devastating Saudi-led campaign to dislodge them. Since 2022, the two sides have been in a stalemate, though tensions have been rising again in recent months.

Mohammed al-Basha, founder of the Basha Report, a U.S. risk advisory firm focused on the Middle East and Africa, said the Houthis’ latest escalation comes as their influence is growing because of the increased importance of Bab al Mandeb while the Strait of Hormuz is choked off by Iran.

“This is their moment, because with everything happening in the Strait of Hormuz, Bab al Mandeb quadrupled in importance. By exerting maximum pressure in this period, they can maximize the effect of any kinetic action they’re trying to do,” Al-Basha said.

“Their narrative is very aggressive. They want war. And they feel that because they want war and sense that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia don’t, that they will submit to their demands.”

The US president’s threat comes after another day of Iranian attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan.

United States President Donald Trump says he may launch the largest strikes on Iran yet after Tehran carried out another wave of retaliatory attacks on US allies in the Gulf, including hitting a telecommunications tower in Kuwait.

In remarks to US news website Axios on Thursday, Trump said he was “considering a massive attack” that would be “bigger than ever before”.

“I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it,” Trump said.

The threat raises the stakes yet again in a weeks-long military confrontation in which the US has attacked Iran for 12 straight nights, including hitting bridges and tunnels, according to Iranian media reports.

Iran’s retaliatory attacks have rippled throughout much of the Gulf, sparking fears of a worsening energy crisis.

The spiralling conflict has all but destroyed an interim peace deal signed by the US and Iran last month.

‘Eye for an eye’

Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi warned on Wednesday that Tehran would retaliate “an eye for an eye” against any future attacks, including those on Iran’s infrastructure.

After another night of US attacks on Wednesday, Iran responded with missile and drone attacks on Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait on Thursday.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said the attacks in Jordan and Kuwait targeted and hit US military assets.

The IRGC also acknowledged attacking a telecommunications tower in Kuwait, saying it was in retaliation for US attacks on telecommunications towers in Iran.

In a statement addressing the Kuwaiti people directly, the IRGC insisted that the US, not Iran, had breached the Gulf state’s “territorial integrity and sovereignty”.

Later on Thursday, Kuwait said that its Abdali border crossing with Iraq had also come under attack by “hostile drones”.

“The armed forces’ retaliatory attacks will continue as long as the US attacks on the country’s infrastructure and coastal areas continue,” said the Iranian army’s spokesperson, Mohammad Akraminia.

Houthis attack Saudi tankers

Meanwhile, Yemen’s Houthi rebels further expanded the confrontation on Thursday by firing at two Saudi tankers in the Red Sea, leading to broad international condemnation and a spike in global oil prices.

“The situation is getting out of control. It is teetering on the edge of the unimaginable,” United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told a meeting of the Security Council. “One crisis feeds another. One escalation triggers the next.”

The Houthis have declared a blockade of Saudi Arabian ports, destabilising a second key global shipping route: the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.

The Strait of Hormuz has been effectively shut since the US and Israel launched the war on Iran in late February.

Reporting from Sanaa, Yemen, Al Jazeera’s Yousef Mawry cited Houthi sources as saying that the facilities of Saudi Arabia’s national oil company Aramco “could become a future target” of the Houthis if Riyadh does not lift its own blockade on Houthi-controlled ports.

The international oil benchmark Brent crude surged past $100 a barrel on Thursday for the first time in May, in what analysts said could have an even greater impact on the global economy.

“Much of the world’s spare production capacity has already been used, while strategic and commercial oil inventories are lower than when the war began, leaving the market with fewer buffers against a prolonged supply disruption,” said Janiv Shah, vice president of the Rystad Energy consultancy.

Iran on Thursday threatened RAF Fairford in the U.K. after claims emerged that U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers launched from there attacked the Islamic Republic on Tuesday. RAF Fairford is a major hub for U.S. military aircraft, with strategic assets, like the B-1s, being forward deployed to the base and tactical and other assets often using it as a pit stop during flights ‘across the pond.’ As an example, Iran’s threat came hours after two EA-37B Compass Call electronic warfare jets arrived at the base from the United States.

“The American aggressor army, which used to launch cruise missiles from its vessels in the Indian Ocean in its aggression after the official resumption of the war, with the end of the missile reserves of the aforementioned vessels, yesterday switched to using B1 planes flying from Fairford Air Base, England,” the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-connected Tasnim news outlet claimed on Telegram. “As the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated, any base that is used to invade Iran’s territory is our legitimate goal.”

Asked about the threats, British officials told us that the country is prepared to defend itself.

 “Our Armed Forces are ready to keep the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attacks, whether it’s on our soil or from abroad,” a government official told TWZ. “The UK stands ready 24/7 to defend itself. This includes through operating a layered approach to air and missile defense, provided by Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force assets equipped with a range of advanced capabilities, working closely with our NATO allies.”

“In the Defense Investment Plan we have made air and missile defense a priority after years of underfunding, dedicating £790 million to enhance protection of the UK homeland and overseas bases from air, drone and missile threats,” the official added. “That is complemented by more than £2 billion of funding to deliver further air defense and counter-drone capabilities, and to upgrade and sustain our Typhoon fleet.”

Iranian officials did not specify how they would strike RAF Fairford, and it is unclear how they could. In March, Iran reportedly fired two missiles at Diego Garcia, a joint U.S.-U.K. base on an island in the Indian Ocean. That’s about 2,400 miles away, or about the same distance as Fairford is from Iran. However, one missile was reportedly shot down by a U.S. warship while the other failed in flight. Given that, whether Iran could actually launch a successful attack on Fairford using those weapons is questionable at the least. Far more likely, if Iran would actually even try anything at all, would be a near-field attack like Operation Spider Web launched by Ukraine in June 2025 against Russian bombers using short-range drones hidden in trucks near airfields. One-way attack drones launched from vessels at sea is another very real attack vector Iran has trained for and equipped itself to execute, a threat you can read all about here.

You can see video of one of those strikes below.

The threats came after Axios reported that B-1B bombers from the base took part in Tuesday’s strikes on Iran. TWZ cannot independently confirm that and CENTCOM declined comment. However, open-source trackers made that claim early Wednesday morning before the Axios story was published.

Bomber Run 63 – Ops Beginning Again? #IranWar‌ #FreeIran‌

Overnight, B-1B “Lancer” bombers flying from RAF Fairford (EGVA) conducted strikes in Iran as the US ramps up operations again. Although 2 bombers launched, it appears it was pre-planned that only 1 of them would… pic.twitter.com/Q7Ic3Ahqk3

— DefenceGeek 🇬🇧 (@DefenceGeek) July 22, 2026

As we noted earlier and have discussed in the in the past, RAF Fairford has served as a major hub for aircraft heading to the region as well as long-range bomber missions on Iran.

“U.S. Air Forces in Europe operating locations, including the 501st Combat Support Wing at RAF Fairford, routinely host transient U.S. military aircraft in accordance with access, basing, and overflight agreements with Allies and partners,” an Air Force spokesperson told us in response to our questions about the Compass Calls.

The EC-37s landed shortly after 7 a.m. British Summer Time (BST), or about 2 a.m. EDT, according to local aviation photographer Matt Belcher, who was kind enough to share photos he took of the aircraft.

The Compass Calls are heavily modified Gulfstream G550 business jets. They leverage the Conformal Airborne Early Warning (CAEW) configuration developed first for the Israel Defense Forces, which has large ‘cheek’ fairings on either side of the fuselage, among other distinctive features.

The Air Force is planning to procure 10 of these jets to replace the aging and decreasing fleet of turboprop EC-130H Compass Call planes, of which only four remain. The 43rd Electronic Combat Squadron flew the first training sortie for the EA-37B on May 2, 2025, and one made the type’s maiden voyage to Europe in January.

Many of the EA-37B’s mission systems are directly ported over from the EC-130H, which is why the two very different aircraft share the same nickname. Both aircraft are designed to provide critical stand-off jamming support, including against enemy radars and communications systems. They also have a secondary intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) function given their ability to spot, track, and geolocate various types of emitters.

The EA-37B also offers new capabilities that go beyond what is found on the EC-130H. The Air Force has said in the past that the aircraft’s designation reflects its ability to not only attack, but also destroy certain targets, as you can read more about here.

The Compass Calls had previously been deployed to RAF Mildenhall in the early days of Operation Epic Fury. On April 1, CENTCOM announced for the first time that they had been used in combat as part of Epic Fury. The possibility that they are returning to the region, or adding additional electronic warfare capabilities to the total force deployed there, can be considered a potential indicator of what’s to come. These are often the last assets we see move into place ahead of major combat operations.

All this comes as the U.S. is building up forces amid increasing intensity of attacks on and by Iran and President Trump’s statement to Axios today that “I am considering a massive attack. Bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it.”

In addition, Houthi attacks on Saudi ships in the Red Sea raise the specter of a U.S. military response there. 

“I am considering a massive attack. Bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it”, Trump told me https://t.co/AZnZNyEPrP

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) July 23, 2026

Last week, we reported that at least 12 F-16 Fighting Falcons were deployed to Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan from Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany. Other aircraft have rotated into the CENTCOM area of operations as well.

Going for GOLD: 4 flts of 3x “SP” F-16CJ (TABOR11,21,31,41) are inbound to Muwaffaq Salti AB, Jordan (OJMS) from Spangdahlem AB, Germany (ETAD). 4x KC-135R/T “GOLD” team tankers are up to support the movement.

This #Coronet East (#CE097) returns the ftrs from the 480th Squadron… pic.twitter.com/IkL6HKkrOe

— Aux OSINT (@AUX_OSINT) July 17, 2026

In addition, “special-operations forces have deployed to the region from their U.S. bases,” The Wall Street Journal reported, citing flight-tracking data and U.S. officials. “Squadrons of jet fighters have been staged across the Middle East, and bomber aircraft at bases in the U.S. and U.K. are on high alert to ramp up operations, according to one of the officials.”

Beyond aircraft, “more than 150 medics have arrived at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany in recent days,” the Journal added. The hospital is the primary location for treating troops injured in combat in the Middle East.

The U.S. has been surging forces toward the Middle East, giving Trump options to expand the Iran war

Among the things moving/on alert:
-fighter squadrons
-special operations forces
-medics
-long-range bombers https://t.co/peSx70S85v w/ @laraseligman

— Shelby Holliday (@shelbyholliday) July 22, 2026

Other assets have been rotated out, like the B-52 Stratofortress bombers that departed from Fairford earlier this month. The U.S. also returned F-22 Raptors that were flying out of Ovda Air Base in Israel back to the United States. Other aircraft, such as A-10s and F-15Es, have also returned home from or have been replaced in the CENTCOM region. So clearly there is a lot of shifting of aviation assets taking place even amid current operations.

While adding new forces to Europe and the Middle East does not necessarily mean that Trump will dramatically escalate the conflict, it gives him options to do so. In addition, the public nature of some of these movements also has a messaging effect, letting Tehran and the Houthis know that Trump is ordering more assets to the region.

Regardless, the direct threat against RAF Fairford, no matter how nebulous, is new and will certainly be taken seriously by security officials at the installations and others in region.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Ali al-Zaidi will hold talks with senior Iranian officials on bilateral cooperation, shared interests and security.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi is in Iran on his first official visit since assuming office in May.

The Iraqi News Agency (INA) on Thursday said al-Zaidi and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian oversaw the signing of several agreements and memoranda of understanding (MoUs) pertaining to foreign affairs, finance, the economy and energy in Tehran.

Speaking at a joint meeting of senior Iranian and Iraqi delegations in Tehran, al-Zaidi thanked Iran for helping Iraq in its fight against the ISIL (ISIS) group, and reaffirmed his country’s commitment to security cooperation with Tehran, saying that Iraq would not accept hostile action against Iran by any party.

“Iraq will never forget Iran’s support in the fight against the [ISIL/ISIL] terrorist group,” he said, according to Pezeshkian’s office.

Pezeshkian said a comprehensive strategic cooperation plan would serve as a roadmap for expanding relations between Tehran and Baghdad, stressing that the security of the two neighbouring countries was closely linked.

Over the course of the two-day visit, al-Zaidi will hold talks with other senior Iranian officials on bilateral cooperation, shared interests and regional security, he said on X.

“We will meet with senior officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran to discuss issues of mutual interest, bilateral cooperation, regional developments, and ongoing efforts to consolidate security and stability across the region,” he said.

“Iraq and Iran are bound by historic and civilizational ties, shared borders, and common interests. These enduring bonds call for continued engagement in a spirit of dialogue, cooperation, and mutual respect in a manner that promotes sustainable development and prosperity for the peoples of both countries, while contributing to security and stability at the regional and international levels.”

Iraq remains heavily reliant on Iranian natural gas and electricity, while bilateral trade exceeds $12bn annually, making it one of Iran’s largest trading partners.

A deep religious bond also exists between the two countries, as millions of Iranian Shia pilgrims cross the border to visit Iraq’s holy sites every year. During the week-long funeral held for Iran’s slain Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei earlier this month, the procession travelled through the Iraqi Shia pilgrimage cities of Najaf and Karbala.

The Iranian government has also cultivated close ties with influential Shia parties and armed groups in Iraq that form the backbone of Iraq’s security forces.

Political analyst Ghaleb Al-Daami told Al Jazeera that al-Zaidi’s visit came as Baghdad tries the difficult task of maintaining relations with both the warring parties, the United States and Iran.

Al-Daami said the main objectives of al-Zaidi’s visit were to tell Iran to stop its support for armed groups in Iraq and to deliver a message from the US, which has expressed support for Iraq acting as a mediator amid the US war on Iran.

United States President Donald Trump agreed to a 30-year nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia on Wednesday that would see Washington transfer nuclear technology to the Gulf kingdom.

This has drawn concerns that if the deal comes to fruition, it could spark a nuclear arms race across the Middle East amid reports that Riyadh would be able to enrich its own uranium, a necessary step in acquiring nuclear weapons.

US officials have stressed the proposed deal would serve civilian nuclear purposes, although exact details of the agreement have not been made public.

It has now been tabled in the US Congress for a review, but is expected to survive resistance from Democrats.

Here’s why some are concerned about the agreement:

Could this spur a nuclear arms race in the region?

Analysts have raised concerns about whether the proposed deal could lead to Saudi Arabia seeking to develop military-grade uranium, which the US Energy Department has not yet confirmed.

Some analysts have warned this could open the door to spurring an arms race with other regional powers.

Saudi Arabia has long voiced its intention to use nuclear energy for power generation, but in 2018, de facto leader Mohammad bin Salman told CBS that Riyadh would “without a doubt” develop a nuclear weapon if Iran did the same.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted on Thursday that the deal would not lead to nuclear proliferation, as US contractors would handle the project, allowing Washington to monitor it. US nuclear reactor designer Westinghouse is believed to be a major contractor.

Former Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman said in a post on X on Wednesday that Israel must oppose the deal with “all our might.”

“We must all understand that Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear programme will end in nuclear weapons and lead to a mad arms race across the entire Middle East,” he posted.

Israel, which developed a nuclear arsenal in the 1960s, has long sought to stop Arab countries and other regional countries from gaining their own nuclear weapons.

Is there a risk of nuclear reactors being attacked in strikes?

Some others have also raised concerns over possible nuclear leaks amid the tensions in the Middle East.

Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, for example, has seen some of its outer facilities hit in the US and Israel’s war on Iran. Iran too has hit the perimeter of the United Arab Emirates’ Barakah nuclear power plant in a drone strike.

None of these strikes hit the nuclear plants’ reactors, but analysts say allowing more such facilities in the Middle East when tensions are so high is a mistake.

Damage to a reactor’s core could release highly radioactive gases, causing immediate catastrophic damage within a 20- to 30-kilometre (12- to 18-mile) radius.

Nuclear accidents at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant in 2011 and Chornobyl in Ukraine in the former Soviet Union in 1986 are cautionary stories.

Could Saudi Arabia have access to sensitive material?

That’s unclear for now.

Highly enriched uranium and spent nuclear reactor fuel are key components of nuclear bombs.

According to US media, the agreement includes a clause providing for a “black box” uranium enrichment facility that would be situated in Saudi Arabia but run by US companies.

A joint study by the two countries, set to last two years, will determine whether such a facility is needed, or if Saudi Arabia should import commercial-grade low-enriched uranium.

“That’s really the concern,” Matthew Kroenig, a fellow with the Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera, saying there’s been no such arrangement anywhere else in the world.

“What does the US really mean by a ‘black box’? So will the US bring its engineers there full time, forever? Realistically, the Saudis will be involved, they will learn the tech, and they could kick out the US in the future,” Kroenig said.

Washington could be seeking to model Moscow’s agreement with Turkiye and Egypt, where Russian contractors manage active nuclear power plants, including the needed uranium and the highly radioactive spent fuel from the reactors.

The difference, Kroenig pointed out, is that Russia does not enrich the uranium in those cases.

On the other hand, the UAE, which runs a civilian nuclear programme that has been held up as a gold standard for non-proliferation, imports all of its low-enriched uranium from France, the United Kingdom and Russia among other countries.

Kroenig suggested that the US could be using the two-year study as a negotiating tactic, noting that the same claims of impact studies have been used to stall South Korea’s requests to enrich its own uranium.

“The deal doesn’t immediately speak about uranium enrichment, so my hope is that this is a negotiating tactic and that after two years the US will say ‘oh no, this doesn’t make sense right now’”, he said.

The Senate was also expected to vote on War Powers resolution, in largely symbolic move attempting to reign in Trump.

Four Republicans in the United States House of Representatives have again joined Democrats in voting to constrain President Donald Trump’s power to wage war against Iran.

The resolution passed on Thursday, nearly a week after three US military personnel were killed by an Iranian attack on a base in Jordan, with a 214-208 vote. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said Democrats will also force a War Powers vote in the Senate on Thursday.

Both the House and Senate had previously passed a resolution in June that called on Trump to seek congressional approval before launching further attacks. However, because the resolution was passed as a so-called “concurrent resolution”, it was not sent to Trump’s desk.

Even if the measure had been passed as a joint resolution, requiring it to be sent to Trump for approval, the president could veto it. Overriding such a veto requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

Democrats have said the latest resolution sends an important message that lawmakers oppose Trump’s approach to the war, which has re-escalated after a ceasefire broke down in early July.

Both the US and Iran have traded 12 days of consecutive attacks, with some analysts warning an even greater US escalation may be on the horizon, as Trump has repeatedly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure and a possible ground invasion.

“This is a vote that requires us to find the strength to do what is right for the American people, and to send the clearest, even stronger message to this president of the United States that the United States Congress, the House of Representatives, is reasserting our authority over war,” Representative Pramila Jayapal said from the House floor on Wednesday.

“This war must end,” she said.

Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war, something it has not done since World War II, although presidents can commit forces in instances of pressing self-defence.

Trump has argued that the culmination of Iran’s actions since 1979 represents such an imminent threat, a claim many constitutional law experts have rejected.

Under the 1973 War Powers Act, presidents must receive congressional approval within 60 days of committing troops. While the US-Israel war with Iran began on February 28, the Trump administration claimed that hostilities had “terminated” following a temporary pause in fighting reached in April.

War powers experts and some members of Congress have said the attempted workaround flouts the law. The administration again notified Congress that fighting had resumed before the most recent round of attacks.

In a statement on Thursday, David Janovsky, acting director of The Constitution Project at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), said the House vote “reaffirmed what people across the country have been saying all along: We want no part in an illegal war”.

“Contrary to the administration’s claims, the latest hostilities are not a new war. We’re now months past the constitutional deadline for the administration to end this unauthorised war,” he said.

He also noted that the House on Tuesday approved a sprawling $1.15 trillion defence bill that includes tens of billions more in funding for the war. The Senate has not yet voted on the package.

“If Congress is serious about bringing an end to this prolonged conflict, it must also refuse the administration’s request to fund it,” he said.

The conflict in Yemen has entered a new chapter with a declaration by the Houthis that they are imposing a maritime siege on all shipping to Saudi Arabia.

The Yemeni rebel group, also known as Ansar Allah (or supporters of God), has attacked a number of Saudi tankers in the Red Sea.

This development has placed the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, the strategic waterway that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the wider Indian Ocean, at the heart of the war between the United States and Iran, and amplifies pressure on global trade routes.

The Iranian-backed Houthis, who seized Yemeni capital Sanaa in 2014, have threatened to close the strait, the route through which much of Europe’s energy supplies pass. It is also a key passage for imports to Saudi Arabia.

The Houthis’ decision to announce a maritime blockade cannot be separated from the turmoil created by the ongoing war between Washington and Tehran, which erupted on February 28 when the US and Israel attacked Iran.

Houthis raise stakes for Saudi’s support

On Monday, Yemen’s internationally recognised government claimed responsibility for an air strike on Sanaa airport, saying that it was a measure to prevent an Iranian plane from landing in Yemen’s Houthi-controlled capital. But the Houthis blamed Saudi Arabia for it.

The Houthis responded by firing missiles into Saudi Arabia – a key backer of the Aden-based Yemeni government – and later upped the stakes by announcing a naval blockade on the kingdom.

These developments mark a major escalation in Yemen’s civil war. Saudi Arabia, which has sought in recent years to avoid a new war on its southern borders, is facing a more complex equation with the threat shifting from land to sea, and the targeting of one of the most important alternative routes for its oil exports.

All of this raises the question: will this escalation cause a new confrontation between the Yemeni government and the Houthis? And if so, what does the balance of power look like between the Houthi and government sides after more than a decade of war? Has the balance changed enough to increase the odds of a military resolution to the conflict?

There has been talk of potential escalations in recent years, but this now seems more likely, especially since it intersects with local, regional and international events and the return of the US-Iran war.

The Yemeni government has restructured its military with a single decision-making centre, and regional messages suggest the military option has not been shelved, as was once thought.

So, will retaking Sanaa return to the table as a military objective to be thought of seriously, and what does that mean practically? And how ready are the parties, especially the Yemeni government, for battle?

The structure of government-affiliated forces

The anti-Houthi camp today comprises the National Army as the official framework of the Ministry of Defence, in addition to new formations with independent commands, such as the Giants Brigades, and the Guardians of the Republic forces in al-Makha, or Mocha, in the west.

These different groupings – all on the anti-Houthi side in the conflict – have emerged over the years due to the weakening power of the central government, the growth of independent figures, and the backing of regional countries.

The number of National Army personnel in the field is estimated at about 400,000, according to recent statements by the Defence Ministry. Its organisational structure includes Yemen’s seven military regions, but troop deployment is concentrated in Marib, Taiz and the country’s southern and eastern governorates, as a result of Houthi control over vast parts of the country’s northwest, including Sanaa.

Also backing the army are the Emergency Forces, comprising between 30,000 to 40,000 personnel, and the Homeland Shield Forces, created in 2022 with between 30,000 and 40,000 recruits, and tasked with taking over camps in Hadramout and the southern governorates in December 2025, following the defeat of separatist forces who previously controlled those areas.

Fighting late last year between the Yemeni government and affiliated forces on one side, and United Arab Emirates-backed separatists on the other, has led to changes in Yemen’s south and west.

After the defeat of the 75,000-strong separatist Southern Transitional Council, following a Saudi intervention on the side of the government and the withdrawal of the UAE from Yemen, the group’s organisational cohesion has been impacted. But they have not been disarmed, and remain in many locations in the south, with some elements absorbed – even if nominally – into government structures.

Another formerly-UAE backed force, the Tariq Saleh-led Guardians of the Republic, is estimated to number about 20,000 fighters. They are stationed primarily on the Red Sea coast and are considered among the most heavily armed formations, due to the past Emirati support.

The Giants Brigades are among the most prominent combat formations in the anti-Houthi camp, with an estimated 20,000 fighters and a presence on the Red Sea coast, in Aden, and in some southern areas.

Consequently, the total size of the forces affiliated with the government and the anti-Houthi camp is estimated at more than 500,000 personnel, albeit with a clear disparity in levels of training, discipline and institutional integration.

Quality of armament and military equipment

The types of weapons held by these forces do not differ as significantly as the level of their operation and management. The National Army relies on conventional weapons inherited from the Yemeni army pre-war, including light and medium weapons, armoured vehicles, tanks and field artillery, alongside various communication and transport capabilities.

The Homeland Shield Forces, backed by Saudi Arabia, are considered among the most relatively well-equipped modern formations. They rely on tactical vehicles, light armoured vehicles, and superior communication systems suited for rapid deployment missions and the protection of institutions.

The Emergency Forces rely on light to medium armament focused on urban operations and rapid deployment missions, more akin to a field military force with rapid intervention duties, combining a security character with combat capability.

The Giants Brigades rely on medium and heavy armament, armoured vehicles and fire support units, and they are recognised for their capability to conduct offensive ground operations compared with other forces.

As for the formations affiliated with the Southern Transitional Council, they rely on diverse weaponry, though readiness varies as a result of the organisational changes they have undergone.

In recent years, the majority of government forces have also developed their drone capabilities, both within regular units and some irregular formations. These assets are now used for reconnaissance and surveillance missions, and occasionally for limited tactical support.

Balance of power with the Houthis

Official military records in Sanaa indicate that Houthi-affiliated army units comprise more than 200,000 fighters and can also mobilise tens of thousands of members from their volunteer Popular Committees for rapid intervention and support.

However, these figures, much like the military rosters in the government camp, may not accurately reflect the actual combat strength on the ground due to the inclusion of reserve or inactive names in registries.

Although government-affiliated forces may possess more manpower, the balance of power in Yemen is not determined solely by numbers.

Despite sustaining significant damage to its forces and assets from US and Israeli strikes over the past few years, the Houthi side benefits from a more centralised command structure and possesses experience in managing asymmetric warfare.

This is in addition to possessing missile, drone and maritime threat capabilities that have proven their impact in the Red Sea and the Bab-al-Mandeb Strait. It appears that the military balance in Yemen is more a balance of organisational and war management rather than a balance of weaponry and numbers.

Readiness of government forces for a major battle

Indicators suggest government forces are capable of engaging in defensive battles, holding territory or managing extensive security deployments. However, they face significant challenges should they consider launching a large-scale offensive.

The most prominent of these challenges was the multiplicity of military decision-making centres – before Saudi Arabia assumed control of this decision-making following the UAE’s withdrawal – and the varying levels of training and discipline, compounded by the difficulty of operational coordination.

Geography is also a factor, as the Houthis’ control over the mountainous northwest grants them a defensive advantage, whereas government forces are dispersed across multiple fronts, limiting their ability to mobilise at a decisive point.

The scenario of entering Sanaa

So far, there are no clear public indications that any international power, including the US, has adopted a declared plan to support a large-scale military operation to take Sanaa.

Although Houthi attacks in the Red Sea have elevated the level of international interest in the Yemeni file, the international strategy has been focused on degrading Houthi capabilities related to the sea and smuggling, rather than on a ground offensive. However, reports have emerged from sources within the Yemeni state regarding a possibility of waging a war against the Houthis with US support.

If an operation towards Sanaa is considered, its success would require complex conditions, most notably unifying the government’s military command, providing broad domestic and regional political cover, and ensuring the ability to manage the city after seizing control of it. Some of these conditions may have already been met.

Has Saudi Arabia provided cover to confront the Houthis?

The Yemeni government’s military decision-making is largely tied to Saudi political and military support, and any broad move against the Houthis remains contingent upon Riyadh. But Riyadh has preferred to focus on protecting the kingdom’s southern borders, securing shipping lanes and preventing the expansion of the Houthi threat deep into Saudi territory.

It seems that Saudi strategy has previously leaned towards managing the conflict rather than resolving it, by combining limited military pressure, diplomatic moves and de-escalation tracks to reduce the security and economic costs of the war.

The Saudi position may have shifted recently in light of international and regional events, particularly concerning the security of navigation in the Red Sea. Riyadh may be pushed to re-evaluate its options regarding the Yemeni file, and the one currently on the table may be a military one.

The European Central Bank kept interest rates unchanged on Thursday, holding steady as it waits to see how much of a lingering energy shock from the Middle East conflict will feed through into eurozone inflation.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The ECB’s governing council held the deposit facility rate at 2.25%, with the main refinancing rate staying at 2.4% and the marginal lending facility at 2.65%.

Monetary policy for the eurozone is set through these three key interest rates, with the deposit facility rate serving as the main benchmark.

“The outlook for energy prices, while highly volatile, currently stands close to the baseline of the June Eurosystem staff projections and well above the levels recorded prior to the conflict in the Middle East,” the central bank’s statement read.

“Uncertainty remains high and the full inflationary impact of the energy shock has yet to play out. The Governing Council is therefore closely monitoring the intensity and duration of the shock, as well as its indirect and second-round effects,” it added.

The decision follows confirmation last week that eurozone inflation eased to 2.8% in June from May’s 3.2%, the first decline this year, with core price growth slowing to 2.4%.

The pause comes just six weeks after the ECB raised rates for the first time in nearly three years, responding to a war-driven energy shock that had pushed inflation to its highest since September 2023.

ECB President Christine Lagarde has been careful to keep the door open.

At the central bank’s Sintra forum, Lagarde insisted June’s move was not an “insurance hike” but a response to a genuine inflation problem, with projections showing a return to the 2% target only in late 2027, and only if monetary policy tightened further.

Lagarde also refused to pre-commit to a path, saying “forward guidance is not currently in the cards.”

July is not a forecasting round and economists at ING, for example, had argued the bank would prefer to wait for September’s fresh projections, when they see a second hike as the more realistic outcome.

The complication is that the shock behind June’s hike is back.

Oil neared $120 a barrel in March before sliding to around $72 after an interim peace agreement at the end of June, but the truce has frayed badly this month, with the US and Iran exchanging fresh strikes, attacks on tankers and renewed sanctions pushing Brent back above $90 a barrel.

A prolonged rise in energy prices would feed through to household bills and headline inflation in the second half of the year, precisely the second-round effects central bankers currently fear.

The ECB and its peers

As the chart shows, Frankfurt tightened from previously being far below its peers.

The Federal Reserve’s target range sits at 3.50% to 3.75% and the Bank of England’s rate at 3.75%, while the Swiss National Bank is parked at zero.

Both of the ECB’s larger counterparts decide again next week.

The Fed announces next Wednesday, with futures markets assigning roughly an 89% probability to a hold, according to CME’s FedWatch tool, after June’s unanimous decision and projections signalling no cuts this year.

The Bank of England follows the next day, on 30 July, with new forecasts in tow and economists overwhelmingly expect a hold at 3.75%, although a Reuters poll found nearly 40% see at least one hike before year-end, after two policymakers voted for an increase to 4% in June.

For now, the ECB is the only major Western central bank to have actually raised rates in this cycle.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says Iran will continue to ‘pay the price’ for what he said was the failure to stick to agreements, telling reporters that President Trump’s policy is ‘a head for an eye’.

The United States continued to hit Iran for a 12th consecutive night early on Thursday, and Iran retaliated, striking targets across the Gulf, particularly in Kuwait and Jordan.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Thursday that an explosion set a tanker ablaze in the Strait of Hormuz after it attempted to navigate the southern route off the coast of Oman.

Here is a recap of what happened on Wednesday night and Thursday.

Where did the US attack Iran?

US Central Command (CENTCOM) said at 02:30 GMT on Thursday that it concluded the latest round of strikes against Iran.

It targeted Iranian military targets, including maritime capabilities, missile and drone storage facilities, coastal surveillance sites and air defence assets, CENTCOM said, without specifying what areas in Iran were struck.

A local official told the Mehr news agency that US missiles struck the area around a passenger terminal in Shalamcheh, a western city near the Iraqi border. Two people were killed in the attack, the deputy governor of Iran’s Khuzestan province told the state broadcaster IRIB on Thursday. Local media also reported that 11 people were injured.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assidi reported from Iranian capital Tehran that overnight strikes targeted at least three cities in the southwestern province of Khuzestan. This included the city of Ramshir, where an asphalt facility was reported to have been targeted.

In Hormozgan province, explosions were heard in the city of Sirik, which overlooks the Strait of Hormuz, Assidi reported.

He added that the governor confirmed an overnight attack in Bushehr on a power substation near the city’s nuclear power plant. This resulted in a few hours of power outage in the city.

IRIB also reported that explosions were heard in Iran’s Jask.

The Tasnim news agency reported that a US missile hit a location on the outskirts of the city of Andimeshk.

Two naval search and rescue vessels were hit and seriously damaged in a US attack on Iran’s Hormozgan, the ISNA news agency reported, citing the province’s Ports and Maritime Administration.

Where did Iran hit back?

Kuwait

The IRGC claimed attacks on US assets in Kuwait on Thursday.

It said it had “attacked and destroyed a large warehouse of military equipment, a Patriot missile defence system, and a hangar of American MQ9 drones” at Ali Al Salem airbase.

Addressing the Kuwaiti people, the IRGC insisted that it was the US, not Iran, that had “violated your territorial integrity and sovereignty”.

It said its attacks were aimed at US bases, territory it described as beyond the control of Kuwait’s own border guards.

“So it is America that has violated your territorial integrity and sovereignty, not us. We are attacking lands occupied by the American army, an army that knows nothing but crime,” the IRGC said.

Jordan

Later on Thursday, the IRGC claimed attacks on US assets in Jordan, saying it had “destroyed a radar of the American THAAD missile defence system with lightning strikes”.

“A Patriot system and a C-RAM radar were also targeted and destroyed, and the fuel tanks of the American base were set on fire,” it said.

The IRGC added that “a large helicopter equipment warehouse and a helicopter repair and maintenance shed were also set on fire and destroyed”.

Addressing the Jordanian people, it insisted that its actions did not violate Jordanian sovereignty, arguing that the US military presence infringes on local authority and that targeting US forces was a legal and necessary response.

What happened in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea?

The IRGC said an explosion set a tanker on fire in the Strait of Hormuz.

In a statement carried by Iranian media, it said two other vessels quickly turned back following the explosion.

The IRGC claimed the three ships were acting under US orders and had “intended to pass through the mine-laid route south of the Strait of Hormuz”.

“The powerful IRGC Navy emphasises that the Strait of Hormuz is under our control and that as long as America’s evil deeds in the region continue, it is completely closed and no oil tanker will enter or exit [the strait],” it warned.

“Any ship that is deceived by America and intends to pass through without coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran will suffer the same fate.”

The UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre said a ship was targeted 70 nautical miles (130km) off the Saudi coast, causing a fire on board. There was no mention of casualties among the crew.

The Houthis, meanwhile, claimed a major operation against two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea, called the Encelia and the Layla. The Saudi SPA news agency confirmed the Encelia was hit.

The Houthis said they targeted those two tankers with cruise and ballistic missiles as well as drones, causing huge balls of fire and devastation.

The Houthis framed the attack as part of a tit-for-tat campaign against Saudi Arabia. They are calling it a “siege-for-siege”. They said it has been 12 years since Saudi Arabia has been imposing a siege on the Yemeni people, and that it is now time for Yemen and the Houthis to respond in kind. Riyadh has rejected Houthi claims that it had besieged Yemen.

The Philippines is hosting a meeting of foreign ministers from Southeast Asia.

They are expected to address regional security issues, including the civil war in Myanmar and the territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

But renewed fighting between the US and Iran has overshadowed the gathering.

Ministers have called for hostilities to end.

The conflict has hit Asia hard – disrupting its energy and food supplies, international commerce and raising fears of a global economic slowdown.

Will it also affect ASEAN’s efforts to tackle issues within the region?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Richard Heydarian – Political Scientist and Author of Indo-Pacific: Trump, China and the New Struggle for Global Mastery

Phar Kim Ben – Professor in ASEAN studies at International Islamic Univeristy of Malaysia and former Director of Political & Security Community at ASEAN Secretariat

Don McLain Gill – Lecturer at De La Salle University and Indo-Pacific Research fellow with Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada

US and Iran trade new threats as more explosions are reported in Iranian cities, including Sirik, Ahvaz and Bushehr.

WASHINGTON — The House adopted a Republican-only $95-billion budget proposal Wednesday, a long-shot effort to fund the Iran war and other White House priorities over objections from Democrats and a few GOP holdouts in a final push before the midterm elections.

House Republicans were divided over the plan, with conservatives wary because there are no offsetting budget cuts. But Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) plunged ahead, viewing the go-it-alone process as the best chance to usher President Trump’s priorities through the split Congress, despite skepticism in the Senate.

The vote tally was 216-214, with two Republicans and one independent joining Democrats in opposition.

“Just bullets and bombs to finish the job,” said Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Democrats argued the money should be spent at home, particularly on efforts to lower costs for Americans.

“Republicans plan to spend tens of billions of dollars on Trump’s failed war in Iran,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic caucus, said this week. “Think about what we could spend with these resources instead.”

Congress is at a standstill over the U.S. war against Iran — unable to stop Trump’s military strikes, but not having authorized the use of American military force — and politically torn over having to provide billions of taxpayer dollars to pay for it. Most Americans disapprove of Trump’s Iran strategy, according to a recent AP-NORC poll.

The budget battle comes as Trump attended the dignified transfer of four service members killed in the Middle East, bringing the military death toll to 18. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators at a fiery hearing this week that the Pentagon is running short of cash, despite a massive $150 billion one-time allotment in last year’s big budget bill.

Even as the House action advanced the resolution, Johnson’s strategy faces uncertainty in the Senate.

The package has $60 billion for the Pentagon and $13 billion for other national security needs, $12 billion for farmers struggling under Trump’s tariffs and $10 billion for voting law changes aligned with the SAVE America Act and proof-of-citizenship requirements that are Trump’s top priority.

Republicans are relying on the budget reconciliation process, which enables approval on a majority vote in Congress, bypassing the Senate’s ability to filibuster the measure to stall or kill it.

Once rare, the reconciliation process is now Johnson’s preferred strategy for pushing proposals through Congress. It’s the way Republicans approved Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill last summer and funded Homeland Security this year over Democrats’ refusal to fund Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

“No matter how you feel about current events, these funds are necessary to ensure our fighting forces remain ready, our troops are paid and our nation is safe,” said Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said, “Republicans have literally ripped food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors and veterans to sustain the Trump war machine.”

Among those opposed was Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, a former Republican turned independent who said he felt any war funding bill should be bipartisan. He also wanted to ensure Congress had a “much higher level of involvement” in bringing the war to an end, and he said this proposal did not set that process in motion.

Republicans Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio also voted against.

This is the third time GOP leaders have relied on reconciliation, dubbing this version 3.0, and it’s a lengthy process. If the House approves the budget resolution, it next goes to the Senate for a round-the-clock session to consider politically tough amendments — something senators would rather avoid in an election year.

The budget resolution sets out instructions for the various committees to draft legislation, which Johnson hopes could be done this summer, with final voting on the package once lawmakers return after the August recess.

Senators pan House’s budget and have their own ideas

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has been noncommittal on the House package that also divides his own GOP majority, with some Republican senators preferring more money for the military and others demanding the costs be offset with cuts elsewhere.

“We’ll see,” Thune said this week.

Thune’s focus, at the moment, is avoiding another government shutdown. He wants the Senate to approve a stopgap funding measure, called a continuing resolution, to provide routine government funding before lawmakers leave for the summer break.

If senators are unable to reach agreement on government funding, Thune has said he may hold onto the House’s budget resolution and use it later in the fall as a way to push the resolution through the Senate over objections. He wants to prevent a federal shutdown when current funds expire on Sept. 30.

“It’s a possibility that, if necessary, we could pull that budget resolution passed by the House and use it to fund government,” Thune said. “I hope that’s not necessary.”

Thune has also clashed with Trump over the president’s push for the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship for voting. The measure, while popular among Trump’s most ardent supporters, does not have enough support among Senate Republicans for passage.

It’s already against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections and experts warn the proposed new rules could make it more difficult for eligible Americans to cast ballots.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has agreed to work with Saudi Arabia to develop a civilian nuclear program, a watershed moment following a years-long effort to curb the proliferation of nuclear technology in the Middle East.

The announcement comes as President Trump has vowed to continue executing a war against Iran over its own nuclear ambitions. On Wednesday, the president warned he would target a bridge or power plant for every commercial vessel Iran fires upon in the Strait of Hormuz, after earlier this week threatening to strike a new facility Tehran is reportedly building to conceal its continued nuclear work.

The Saudi deal stoked surprise and immediate concern across Washington, where lawmakers are expected to have a vote on the matter, as well as in Israel, itself a nuclear power that has long feared an atomic arms race could grip the region.

A Saudi nuclear program has long been tied to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear work, which successive U.S. administrations have said extends beyond civilian purposes. After Iran struck a nuclear deal with world powers in 2015, Saudi Arabia vowed to match whatever nuclear capabilities Tehran was allowed to keep.

In the decade since, U.S. officials had tried to keep Saudi Arabia from developing its own program, fearing it would fuel nuclear competition across the Middle East. But it became a consistent and central point of negotiation between the two allies.

Both the Trump and Biden administrations ultimately offered to support a limited, monitored program as part of a broader deal to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, hoping that a diplomatic breakthrough would mitigate the risks of an arms race.

But the agreement secured this week left skeptics in Washington and the region unclear what the United States had secured in return.

The deal comes after Trump told reporters this week that the goal of resuming war with Iran was to prevent them from ever obtaining nuclear weapons, a challenge that has vexed the international community since the outset of the century.

U.S. presidents have long sought to prevent Middle Eastern countries from acquiring technologies that could be used to build weapons of mass destruction. The 2003 invasion of Iraq over false claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs prompted Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi to abandon his nuclear work. Over the next two decades, the United States and Israel also targeted Syria’s nuclear and chemical weapons programs under Bashar al-Assad.

But Iran’s slow march to nuclear weapons capability, enriching uranium near to weapons-grade with no clear civilian or scientific ends, has prompted other countries in the region to question whether they, too, might need similar capabilities to counterbalance a historic foe. Israel, which views the Islamic Republic and its nuclear program as existential threats, is widely believed to possess its own nuclear weapons.

Hours after the nuclear deal was reported by the Wall Street Journal, the White House was silent on the details and Trump administration officials were left scrambling when asked by lawmakers and reporters for answers.

While traveling in Manila, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters he was aware of the news reports, but deferred to the White House to provide more public information.

When pressed about the risks of such a deal, Rubio said he would not “opine directly on the agreement,” but said the United States “is not going to reach any agreement with any country in the world that leads to the risk of proliferation.”

The White House confirmed the deal Wednesday afternoon.

Back in Washington, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he has not yet seen the agreement with Saudi Arabia.

The deal, which would last 30 years and involve American firms developing the program, is expected to be submitted for review to Congress. Lawmakers will consider the deal as they grow increasingly uneasy about the Trump administration’s handling of an expanding Iran war, which Trump and Israel launched, arguing for the need to wipe out Tehran’s capabilities to build nuclear weapons.

As the war enters its fifth month, Trump has continued to defend the military efforts and has dismissed the idea that war is unpopular among Americans as they feel the economic effects.

“Americans aren’t against the war,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday. “Americans don’t want high gasoline prices but they’re not against the war.”

Trump’s remarks were made as he traveled to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to attend a dignified transfer of U.S. service members killed in the war. Asked what he would say to the families who lost their loved ones, Trump said he’d tell them they’re loved.

“All I’m going to say is, we love you. We love your child, and that’s what they are to them. They’re their children. There’s no games, no nothing,” Trump said. “That’s their child, and all you can do is throw out your heart.”

Earlier in the day, Trump said the United States will destroy a bridge or power plant in Iran each time it shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for the global energy supply.

Trump’s threat to target bridges and power plants would mark yet another escalation that could affect civilians in the region.

Hasan Ghashghavi, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, denied Trump’s claim on Tuesday that Iran was requesting negotiations, saying in a statement on X that it was “in no way consistent with the facts.”

“It seems that Trump, in order to extricate himself from the quagmire he’s trapped in, should seek better paths,” he wrote. “Repetitive lies no longer even bring about short-term market relief.”

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

Tehran, Iran – Iran’s judiciary has announced several executions this week linked to unrest over recent months, as part of a campaign against those accused of trying to “create divisions” during the war with the United States.

The judiciary’s official news outlet on Wednesday announced the execution of Mehdi Khanaki, who was identified as an “active element of a terrorist group” arrested during nationwide protests in January.

State television showed security forces raiding a home in Karaj near Tehran, where several handguns, ammunition and explosives were allegedly found. A “revolutionary court” in the city tried him for “operational action in favour of the Zionist regime, the United States and hostile groups”, among other things.

On Sunday, two more men were executed in connection with a 16-defendant case arising from deadly protests in Isfahan, in central Iran, on January 8. The authorities said the men played a role in the killing of several police officers, but foreign-based activists have countered the state narrative and alleged a lack of due process and the use of torture.

The protests started last December 28 in central Tehran over economic issues but quickly morphed into nationwide expressions of frustration at the establishment, as in previous rounds of demonstrations.

The authorities refer to the unrest, when thousands were killed across the country, mostly on the nights of January 8 and 9 , as a “coup” orchestrated by the US and Israel.

They also reject findings by Amnesty International and other international human rights organisations that security forces carried out “mass unlawful killings on an unprecedented scale” during a total internet and communications shutdown.

Tens of thousands have been arrested in the aftermath of the protests, as well as the US-Israeli war that started on February 28 .

The Coordinating Council of Iranian Teachers’ Trade Associations, a non-governmental body inside Iran, last week condemned what it called “intensified prison sentences and continued pressure on teachers’ guild activists” by the authorities.

Security-related offences follow a law passed after the 12-day war with Israel in June 2025, which aims to more severely punish “espionage” and other actions perceived to be cooperating with “enemies” and undermining national security.

Hundreds of Iranians, including businessmen and celebrities based in Iran and abroad, have also had their entire assets confiscated by the state.

State TV also periodically airs “confessions” from people arrested or executed for those charges.

The latest was broadcast on Monday, when a young man with a blurred-out face could be seen saying he posted Instagram stories that opposed the Islamic Republic during the current war. Tehran’s police force said the unidentified man released “norm-breaking and anti-homeland content” online in an attempt to “damage the psychological security of the society”.

“I made a mistake and I will not repeat it. I am now sure that we must all now stand together to build Iran, nobody else has a right to commit an aggression against our country,” he said.

On July 13 , Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence released a list of “hostile media” that included dozens of media networks, 61 individual “human-media” figures and 310 accounts or online pages. It warned that sending photographs, video or information to a listed outlet, person or account can trigger a prison sentence and permanent exclusion from public employment, unless authorities invoke a more serious charge.

‘Infiltrators’

The message goes along with rhetoric of steadfastness and togetherness that has been repeatedly emphasised by Iranian authorities during the war.

Earlier this week, Mojtaba Khamenei, who was selected as Iran’s new supreme leader in March after his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in the opening salvo of the war, called for a “sacred unity” among the people and political factions.

Speaking during a televised meeting on Monday with President Masoud Pezeshkian and senior clerical judges in the judiciary, Chief Justice Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei doubled down on the same message – complete with heavy religious undertones.

“We must not allow devils among humans and jinn to infiltrate the ranks of believers and our people to create division and schism,” he said.

The judiciary chief said these “alarmists, rumour-spreaders, hypocrites and infiltrators” would not all declare themselves as such, instead disguising themselves as insiders who would set people against each other.

This comes as the US increasingly points to alleged rifts among Iranian authorities, and categorises them into a faction that wants to keep fighting, especially over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, and another group that wishes to reach a negotiated resolution soon in order to stop the country from being destroyed.

Iranian authorities have rejected such classifications.

US Secretary of State says Iranian control over Strait of Hormuz sets ‘dangerous precedent’, as attacks continue.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio says his country is willing to negotiate an end to the war on Iran but accuses Tehran of not being “serious” about talks.

“The United States remains open and willing to engage in positive and constructive negotiations and discussions, provided that the commitments made are honoured,” Rubio said about Iran at an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting in Manila on Wednesday.

“The problem we’re having right now is that they’re not serious about talks. If they’re serious, we’re serious. If they’re not, then we will do what’s necessary to protect our interests and also the interests of our allies,” he added in the Philippine capital.

This comes as the US launched attacks against Iran for an eleventh consecutive night, with explosions heard in several parts of the country.

As the war continues to disrupt two of the world’s most important routes for the transport of energy, Rubio stressed that he was against Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz.

“If we create a precedent in the Middle East where a nation state can decide that they are going to control an international waterway, charge a toll, and if you don’t pay them blow up your ships, we have created a very dangerous precedent, which will repeat itself in other parts of the world, including in this region,” he said.

“At its core, it’s very simple. Iran demands the right, which they do not have under any existing legal mechanism, to control the transit of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.

“There is a fundamental principle about freedom of navigation that is threatened,” he added. “That cannot be allowed to happen.”

Rubio also discussed the US’s relationship with ASEAN member states, saying it is a matter of national interest for Washington and that the security and prosperity of the US and Southeast Asia are closely interconnected.

“I believe very much that the future and the story of the 21st century will be written in this region and by how events unfold here,” he said.

On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump renewed his threats to, again, attack Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz “pretty soon”. Iran promised it would retaliate.

Iran’s Khatam Al-Anbiya military command said in a statement on Tuesday that it would “consider it as an expansion of war in the region” if such an attack were carried out. The statement said it could lead to strikes on “all the interests of America, its allies and supporters”.

Fifty people have been killed and 500 wounded in the recent US attacks on Iran, a health ministry official said.

July 21 (UPI) — U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told a Senate committee Tuesday that the financial cost of the Iran war has now reached about $37.5 billion according to Defense Department estimates.

Lawmakers questioned Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine during a Senate Appropriations Committee meeting as the Pentagon and President Donald Trump are seeking up to $70 billion in emergency military funds.

This is in addition to the $1.5 trillion the Pentagon has requested in the upcoming defense budget. Trump has also asked for about $18 billion more in emergency funds for unrelated programs, including $11 billion for agriculture. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins was also present at the hearing, although the focus remained on military spending.

Some Senate lawmakers, both Democrats and some Republicans, questioned the need for the money on top of the defense request and the roughly $150 billion in additional funding the military received through Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the committee’s top Democrat, said the request for emergency funds “may be better understood as an attempt toskirt the normal appropriations process.”

“The problem is not a lack of money, but poor planning,”Murray said. “So I’ll be blunt. The truth is, your request does not make a lotof sense.”

Hegseth, in response, blamed “gross negligence and neglect”by the Biden administration.

Some asked about Iran’s military capabilities and theobjectives of the war, as Hegseth and Trump have both previously said that the war had been won. The defense secretary also said in the early days of the war that Iran’s military had already been “destroyed and made combat-ineffective.”

Hegseth said that he never meant that Iran would be unable to launch any attack. He said he meant Iran “can lob missiles, but it’s not an effective military.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Ala., asked Hegseth if the Trump administration believes it does not need authorization from Congress to continue the war. Hegseth replied that the administration believes it already has the authority it needs.

The hearing lasted more than three hours and ended in a shouting match between Hegseth and Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., who questioned the war’s objectives, called Hegseth a “failure” and said the Trump administration has created another “forever war.”

Hegseth responded by telling Peters “shame on you” and saying he has “Trump derangement syndrome.”

As the U.S. continues to expend offensive and defensive munitions in the fight against Iran, the Pentagon’s top leaders are testifying before the Senate today about how to pay for the war, including to replace $21 billion in strike weapons and air defense interceptors already used. The appearance of War Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine comes as resumed hostilities have entered an 11th day and President Donald Trump renewed threats to attack Iran’s deeply buried Pickaxe Mountain facility.

Hegseth and Caine are appearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee to explain why the extra money is needed. It is included in a nearly $90 billion supplemental budget request made by the White House last month. Of that, the administration is seeking $67.1 billion to address “operational costs incurred by the Department of War (DoW) during OEF [Operation Epic Fury], including funding for military personnel and readiness expenses, operational costs to rebuild stocks expended by DOW, classified programs, and other key expenses,” the White House stated. 

As we noted earlier, the largest line item in the request is $21 billion for the munitions fired off during the conflict. We have frequently highlighted concerns over U.S. stocks of high-end offensive missiles and bombs and air defense interceptors and the difficulty in replacing them.

An official told The Washington Post that “the expansion of U.S. operations will be limited by dwindling stockpiles of air defense and long-range munitions and constraints on the ability to surge more troops and aircraft into the area because of battle damage.

Meanwhile, the money being used to fund the conflict is having a cascading downstream effect on the U.S. military.

“The funding crunch is already leading the Pentagon to limit training and maintenance that help maintain military readiness,” The Washington Post reported, citing four current and former officials. 

After U.S. strikes on Iran’s largest nuclear facilities last year, both President Trump and the White House were adamant that the Middle East nation’s nuclear program had been destroyed.

“Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!” Trump wrote on social media.

“Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News,” the White House wrote in a press release.

A year later, the U.S. and Iran are five months into a war Trump said would be over in weeks. Iran has gained leverage by seizing control of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital energy corridor, and the U.S. has been forced to the negotiating table as global gas prices have spiked — including again this week after a ceasefire agreement collapsed.

And Trump — facing mounting criticism that he has pushed the U.S. into another “forever war” despite campaigning on doing exactly the opposite — is leaning back into the notion that Iran presents an unacceptable nuclear threat and strikes are needed, namely at another Iranian nuclear facility known as Pickaxe Mountain.

“Pickaxe is a possible target for a nice big fat shot right near the front door,” the president recently said on “The Hugh Hewitt Show.” “We’re going to take out Pickaxe Mountain. Tell the Iranians to be ready.”

Pickaxe, a heavily fortified facility deep underground that would be difficult to penetrate even with powerful “bunker buster” bombs, was not targeted during last year’s 12 Day War between Iran and the U.S. and Israel, nor in the full-scale war of the last five months.

However, it is less than two miles from Natanz, one of Iran’s primary nuclear enrichment facilities, which was struck both last year and this year. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israeli intelligence believes Iran moved thousands of uranium-enrichment centrifuges into Pickaxe last fall — bolstering its ability to reconstitute a nuclear program that threatens the U.S. and regional allies.

Trump’s sudden focus on Pickaxe as a suspected hub of Iranian nuclear activity, which comes as his administration is trying to justify its continued entanglement in its unpopular war there, is an acknowledgment that two prior military campaigns and years of attempted diplomacy by his administration have failed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Few experts ever bought into the Trump administration’s claims that Iran’s nuclear program had been completely destroyed, and even Trump and his closest allies have walked some of those comments back — including in discussions about Iran’s ability to retrieve and repurpose enriched material buried at Natanz and other targeted sites.

Some experts have cited construction activity around Pickaxe as evidence Iran is continuing to develop the facility in violation of recent agreements with the U.S., but have said the exact nature of the work isn’t known. They’ve also wondered if the Trump administration intends to use the work there to lay the groundwork for a broader, boots-on-the-ground war effort that would be unpopular in the U.S. but necessary to truly accomplish Trump’s stated goal of ending Iran’s nuclear program for good.

The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based think tank, said last week that it wasn’t clear “if Iran still plans on installing a large-scale assembly facility” at Pickaxe Mountain “given the destruction of Iran’s centrifuge program,” but “if Iran starts to rebuild its centrifuge manufacturing capability, it could plan to install a smaller centrifuge assembly facility in Pickaxe Mountain able to serve a nuclear weapons program.”

The space under the mountain, the institute said, may be “large enough to also hold a centrifuge enrichment plant capable of producing weapon-grade uranium” and is “likely large enough to also hold certain nuclear weaponization activities such as making weapon-grade uranium metal and shaping it into nuclear weapon components.”

Retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel, the former head of U.S. Central Command, told The Times that Iran has had a substantial amount of time to relocate equipment since the bombings of last year and has “demonstrated that they are savvy on these kinds of things,” and the U.S. “should be serious about it and try to confirm the intelligence.”

And “if there have been centrifuges that have been moved there and are underground and spinning and developing nuclear bomb grade materials,” he said, “we should be very, very concerned about that.”

Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, said it is true that Iran is continuing its enrichment program in clandestine ways that present an ongoing threat and that “the war is not going the way the president wanted.” He also said Iran’s activity around Pickaxe helps Trump justify the war — and its possible expansion.

Radd said Iran has used the war to block independent inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and reconstituted some of its nuclear capabilities in the process, including as talks with the U.S. shifted from its nuclear program to the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump and the U.S., meanwhile, have “vacillated” between trying to “manage” the Iranian nuclear program by reining in enrichment, to trying to “neutralize” the program with targeted attacks on its nuclear infrastructure. Radd said that “even though his rhetoric is there,” Trump hasn’t had “the resolve or the ability or the mandate” to move to fully eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, because that would require “much more forceful intervention” than the American public is willing to accept, such as U.S. troops on the ground in Iran.

He said he wonders now if the president’s talk about Pickaxe is part of a shift in that direction — or at least threatening it — after Trump and his advisors realized that the current cycle of war, negotiations and then more war is giving Iran the time it needs to reconstitute its nuclear program.

“I’m wondering if that is just a threat, or if it’s a genuine option that the president is actually considering,” Radd said.

Under Senate questioning Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined to say whether American bombs were capable of destroying whatever is under Pickaxe Mountain.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration urged Congress on Tuesday to approve roughly $70 billion in emergency defense funding to sustain U.S. military capabilities amid its escalating war against Iran, warning that without it the Pentagon could face “critical shortfalls” disrupting its readiness.

The request comes as the United States and Iran have traded strikes for 10 consecutive days in a renewed conflict, deepening concerns in Washington over an expanding war that could inflame the global economy and trap the president in a quagmire.

The collapse of a ceasefire agreement and the sudden resumption of war have raised alarms within the Pentagon over its ability to protect U.S. forces and assets in the Middle East over a prolonged conflict, with defensive munitions in dangerously short supply, two Defense Department officials told The Times.

Yet the administration is facing bipartisan skepticism from lawmakers over the continuation of a war unpopular with a vast majority of Americans, over which they have had little oversight, and that in recent days has led to deaths of U.S. soldiers.

Those tensions became clear as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee to make their case for the tens of billions of dollars and offer their first in-depth public remarks about the war since May.

Hegseth told senators the United States is at a “moment where we cannot afford inaction,” while Caine argued the funding request is coming to Congress “while time is still on our side.”

“It is critical that we stay ahead of our adversaries and we must have the funds before we are out of time,” Caine said.

Hegseth said the war is now expected to cost Americans $37.5 billion, up from a $29-billion estimate from early May. The war, initially projected by President Trump to last four to five weeks, is now entering its fifth month.

With no end in sight, senators from both parties signaled frustrations with the administration’s plans.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said Democrats will not support more funding for the war.

“This administration’s refusal to explain what it is doing, or how this war is protecting Americans, its refusal to seek authorization from Congress, and its expectations that Americans will just pay for it all without any explanation or transparency is disrespectful,” she said.

Republican lawmakers also confronted Hegseth and Caine on several fronts.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told the Pentagon leaders that lawmakers “need some proper answers and some straight talk” about the administration’s plans to ensure Iran does not choke traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Asked whether Iran would impose tolls on merchant vessels passing through the vital waterway, Caine said it was a “hypothetical” scenario — a response Kennedy rejected.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also put pressure on Hegseth, as she asked him whether the administration was still taking the position that it needed no authorization from Congress to continue hostilities against Iran.

“Senator, I know there’s a long-standing legal debate on this particular topic, but we certainly at the department share the position with the White House that we have all the necessary authorities at this moment,” Hegseth said.

Murkowski’s remarks come just weeks after Republicans joined Democrats in both the House and Senate in voting to reassert Congress’ constitutional role over the war, underscoring the simmering tensions over Trump’s decision to sideline Congress in the matter.

Hours before the hearing, Trump downplayed concerns over the war’s effect on the midterm elections and further threats in the war, as Houthis, the Iran-backed militia in Yemen, declared a maritime blockade Monday on Saudi Arabia.

“So far, it hasn’t happened. It might happen but we take care of things, if something like that happens,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

Trump maintained that Iranian leaders are “desperately” trying to reach a deal to end the war but said he has no interest in meeting with them until he is convinced the talks will be “meaningful.”

“If we left right now, it would take Iran 20 to 25 years to rebuild. We are not finished at all,” Trump said. “We are not leaving right now.”

A protester interrupts Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as he testifies at Tuesday’s hearing.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

Asked if he thought Iran was trying to have an effect on the midterm elections by threatening the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said, “probably.”

“It won’t have any impact on me,” he said. “The election, I can’t think about that having to do with this.”

An agreement reached in June between the United States and Iran proposed an end to a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports and to U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports in exchange for Tehran allowing unfettered commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. But the agreement fell apart, with Iran firing on commercial vessels and pursuing a toll system for transit that had not existed before the war started.

The deal was supposed to set up a structure for more detailed negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, a prime target of the U.S. campaign launched in February in partnership with Israel.

Much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was degraded in a U.S. strike conducted last year that targeted three major facilities. But the fissile material required to build nuclear weapons remains in the country, under the watch of U.S. satellite surveillance. Iran has vowed to continue pursuing civilian nuclear work.

“How about these people? They’re in this because of nuclear weapons, and they’re trying to possibly reconstitute a site? We’ll hit that site. Any site where they’re even thinking about nuclear — we’ll be hitting it very, very powerfully,” Trump said.

As the war expands, there’s been heightened concern about the infrastructure that civilians in neighboring countries rely on for water and power.

Iranian officials said U.S. strikes hit the Bunji desalination plant on Iran’s southeastern coast, leaving 20 villages — where some 10,000 people reside — without water, according to reports from Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim.

Meanwhile, the Kuwaiti government said its power plants and desalination plants were struck by Iran on Monday — the fourth consecutive day of attacks on a key source of drinking water for the small desert nation.

The attacks spurred the Kuwaiti government over the weekend to launch an ad campaign calling on residents to reduce their water and power usage, especially during peak hours between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m.

A concerted campaign targeting desalination plants would be devastating both for Iran and the Persian Gulf nations it has peppered with drones and missiles since the start of the war.

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia are among the world’s eight most water-stressed countries. Israel ranks 9th, while Iran is 14th, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Water Resources Institute.

All of them suffer from “absolute water scarcity,” according to metrics used by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture organization.

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.