Iran

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department last week outlined a concise set of military objectives in President Trump’s war against Iran, claiming its ultimate goal is to dismantle Tehran’s ability to project power beyond its borders. Yet it may be targets the Pentagon has largely left unacknowledged that offer the clearest insight yet into Trump’s true intentions.

U.S. military strikes have focused on Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and nuclear programs, as well as its naval assets, according to U.S. Central Command. But strikes have also increasingly targeted Iran’s internal security forces, used by the Islamic Republic to suppress public dissent, according to an analysis from the Institute for the Study of War and the Critical Threats Project shared with The Times.

The strikes have targeted at least 123 headquarters, barracks and local bases operated by Iran’s paramilitary organizations, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Basij militia. Regional police forces, primarily in the capital region around Tehran and in western Iran, near areas dominated by Kurdish groups hostile to the Iranian government, have also been targeted.

Some of those groups are being armed and supported by the U.S. intelligence community, a U.S. official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly.

Nicholas Carl, with the Critical Threats Project, said the pattern indicates the campaign is already underway to set the conditions for a revolution.

“As we are going after these repressive institutions, we are degrading the ability of the regime to monitor its population, to repress its population,” Carl said. “And so it looks as though the strike campaign may be organized around trying to erode the ability of the regime to repress in those areas.”

Analysts said that strikes against internal forces could be greater than they have measured thus far, noting the difficulty of tracking targets in the war based on publicly available data due to an internet blackout strictly enforced by the Iranian government.

An explosion erupts after strikes near Azadi Tower close to Mehrabad International Airport in Tehran on Saturday.

(Atta Kenare / AFP / Getty Images)

The quieter side of the U.S. campaign suggests a political strategy by the Trump administration that goes beyond simply containing the Iranian government, and may instead aim to lay the groundwork for its overthrow.

Trump and his top aides have been inconsistent in their messaging on their goals for the war, vacillating between calls for regime change and far shorter ambitions, such as an Islamic Republic that remains in power under leadership more acquiescent to the United States.

Before the war began, Trump was presented with an intelligence assessment that large-scale military action was unlikely to topple the Iranian government, two sources familiar with the assessment said. The assessment led analysts at the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon all to advise the White House against proceeding with the operation. The intelligence analysis was first reported by the Washington Post.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Greasing the wheels for domestic unrest, for insurgency or revolution could serve other strategic purposes for the Trump administration beyond effecting regime change, adding new sources of pressure on an Islamic Republic that, if still intact by war’s end, would face renewed internal pressures at a moment of historic weakness.

Rob Malley, lead negotiator on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and special U.S. envoy for Iran under President Biden, said that a sustained U.S. campaign that cripples Iran’s ability to maintain domestic control could mean “the regime collapses, in the sense that it can no longer, genuinely and effectively, govern the entirety of the country.”

“Right now, what Trump is saying suggests an extremely ambitious, extremely long-term, extremely perilous campaign that will only end with Iran’s surrender, and it’s very hard to see Iran surrendering,” Malley said. But the campaign may already be working. “Their communications have certainly been penetrated — they cannot meet without being targeted by Israel or the United States,” he added.

A woman holds a portrait of the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at a protest Saturday by medical professionals outside Gandhi Hospital in Tehran, which was damaged in an airstrike earlier this week.

(Majid Saeedi / Getty Images)

“Either the regime stays in place weakened, bloodied, finding it harder to govern a more fragmented, chaotic country,” Malley continued, “or the regime no longer can govern.”

An Israeli official did not deny that internal security forces were being targeted, although the official said that Israel was focused on assassinating Iran’s political and security leadership — “tiers one, two and three,” the official said. The vast majority of the strikes against internal security services thus far have been conducted by the United States.

“Our goal is to weaken the ayatollah regime, to a point where the Iranian people can choose their fate,” the official told The Times. “It’s still not at the point where they can do that, but there is work still to be done.”

By all accounts, the campaign against Iran’s military assets has achieved success. Iranian ballistic missile attacks against Israel and U.S. forces and allies in the region have decreased by 90% after just a week of combat, Defense officials said. Drone strikes have decreased by 83%. Over 30 Iranian vessels, including those used as launching pads for drones and aircraft, have been destroyed — a significant number for Iran’s aged and ill-funded naval fleet.

Trump could simply declare victory based on these results alone, said Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special representative for Iran in 2020.

“They will get weaker as they use up resources and we bomb more and more relevant sites. Already air traffic is starting up again,” Abrams said, noting that commercial flights in the region began resuming this weekend. “So I doubt that the president will need a protracted campaign.”

But that would leave the regime in place, leaving open the possibility of a revanchist Islamic Republic that could reconstitute its military and crack down further on democratic protesters — an outcome that could create political backlash for Trump, Abrams said, after losing U.S. service members in combat.

A woman jogs amid closed shops in south Tel Aviv on Saturday.

(Olympia de Maismont / AFP / Getty Images)

“The outcome remains entirely in doubt — regime collapse after a wave of protests, civil war, a deal that leaves the regime in place behind a new face,” Abrams added. “A real test for Trump would arise if there is a wave of protests as in January, and the regime again starts shooting. Can he do nothing? Unlikely.”

In his initial speech announcing the start of the campaign, Trump addressed the people of Iran, telling them to shelter in their homes until the U.S. bombing campaign concludes.

“When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations,” the president said. “For many years, you have asked for America’s help. But you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let’s see how you respond.”

But the president’s message grew muddled over the course of the last week, after he offered conflicting goals in a series of interviews with reporters.

He at once said he was expecting to hand-select the next ayatollah, after assassinating Iran’s longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, in the opening salvo of the war. In other interviews, he said that the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign had killed many of the potential leaders that Washington could have worked with.

On Friday, Trump called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” He did not specify whether he was referring to a surrender of Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missile program, or on control over the country itself, and in a subsequent interview, said it could simply mean “when Iran no longer has the ability to fight.”

Over the last week, Kurdish leaders have shared accounts of Trump and his top aides reaching out to them and encouraging their involvement in the war, including a ground incursion in western Iran from Iraqi Kurdistan. But the president seems to have placed that effort on hold for the time being. “The war is complicated enough without having — getting the Kurds involved,” he told reporters Saturday aboard Air Force One.

At Central Command headquarters on Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters that Trump maintains his promise to the Iranian people at the outset of the war, that a time will come for an uprising.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addresses the audience as President Trump listens during “The Shield of the Americas Summit“ on Saturday, a gathering with heads of state and government officials from 12 countries in the Americas at the Trump National Doral Golf Club in Doral, Fla.

(Roberto Schmidt / Getty Images)

“No one’s done more than President Trump to reopen the opportunity for those who want a free Iran to do so,” Hegseth said. “Ultimately, it’s common sense, as he said up front, don’t go out and protest while bombs are dropping inside Tehran and elsewhere. There will come a moment where he determines, or they determine, that it’s time to seize that advantage.”

Suzanne Maloney, vice president and director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution and an expert on Iran, said she expects the government to survive the U.S. assault, “still easily able to outgun and outmaneuver any challenges from the streets.”

But a concerted, prolonged campaign could change that assessment.

“Of course, months of full-scale war certainly could also break the system,” Maloney said, adding: “I don’t think the short-term result would be a stable transition to a more liberal system — but rather a collapse of the state itself, and at least for some period of time, a dangerous vacuum of power and order in the heart of the Middle East.”

They knew he was going to break. And they leaned into it.

That’s the only explanation for this week’s Ryan Gosling-hosted episode of “Saturday Night Live,” which at times felt more like an inside cast joke than a typical “SNL” episode. But maybe it’s the “Project Hail Mary” actor’s innate charm or that there were genuine laughs to be mined from Gosling breaking character again and again throughout the show (as he did just two years ago) that made it somehow work.

Gosling kept his cool for the most part in a well-executed monologue that focused on next week’s host and musical guest Harry Styles, who was sitting in the front row and inadvertently driving Gosling to distraction with his coolness. But after that, it was a short trip to Giggle Town as Gosling tried valiantly to play a flamboyantly dressed disruptor at a wedding who keeps tapping his glasses so the bride and groom (and others) will kiss.

In a fantasy sketch, he played one of three very dumb cyclops who can’t solve easy riddles, much to the dismay of two maidens — one of them, the usually unflappable Ashley Padilla, caught the giggles from Gosling and couldn’t stop laughing. Padilla and Gosling were a teacher and principal in another sketch reading passed notes out loud that, according to text on screen, were swapped out since rehearsal, causing both to crack up uncontrollably. It was the first “SNL” sketch in a long time, not counting “Weekend Update,” that felt like a prank on the performers.

Gosling stayed in character for the most part as an annoyed hotel patron who’s been overcharged for visits from the “Goo Goo Man.” And he had less opportunity to lose his cool in some pre-taped sketches, one a violent and sad Willy Wonka parody, the other about a sentient and weird treatment for psoriasis, “Otezla.”

Whether you enjoyed the episode would depend a lot on your tolerance for “SNL” performers breaking character and causing cast members to do the same. Gosling may be one of the few hosts who can get away with it since by this point, it’s his fourth time hosting and it’s completely expected.

The show concluded with “Lies,” a video sketch from Please Don’t Destroy’s Martin Herlihy in which, among other things, Herlihy stole Colin Jost’s identity by wearing a giant head modeled after the “Weekend Update” host.

Musical guests Gorillaz performed their 25-year-old hit “Clint Eastwood” with Del the Funky Homosapien and new song “The Moon Cave” with Asha Puthli, Anoushka Shankar and Black Thought. A memorial card before the goodbyes honored Sandy Wernick, Adam Sandler’s longtime manager, who died this week.

Jost returned as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who was introduced doing a keg stand (but full of Sprite, he claimed), before launching into an explainer about the conflict in Iran. “We’re treating Iran like the breathalizer in my car and blowing it the hell up!” he said. He paraphrased Papa Roach’s “Last Resort” (“Cut Iran into pieces!”) and described the U.S. in Iran as not a war but a “situationship” where if the United States gets bored, it will go hook up with Cuba next. After shouting out “Grand Theft Auto,” Megan Fox’s return to Instagram and Quagmire from “Family Guy,” Hegseth introduced former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, whom he said was “reassigned under the bus.” Noem (Padilla) said she wasn’t fired, she self-deported and will soon be working out of a WeWork outside of Denver. “As I told my plastic surgeon, the work is never done,” she said, “you miss 100% of the dogs you don’t shoot.” It must be said: it was a relief to have a cold open that didn’t feature a rambling President Trump.

In his monologue, Gosling began going through the motions of singing a song about Earth (with a planetary model hanging down as a visual) before getting distracted by pop star Harry Styles in the front row. Styles, next week’s “SNL” host, said he just wanted to get a feel for it. Before long, smitten cast members, including Sarah Sherman and a cameraman wearing an I (Heart) Harry shirt who kept focusing on Styles, proved too much for Gosling, who called off a big song and dance number featuring most of the cast in silver space attire. Gosling started to sing “Sign of the Times” which is featured in his film “Project Hail Mary” before realizing it’s a Harry Styles song. “I’m just Ken!” Gosling flailed. Cast members consoled him, including a kiss on the cheek from Mikey Day that sent Gosling into a spontaneous giggle attack. Gosling thanked Kenan Thompson for coming out to support him. “We just came to get a better look at Harry,” Thompson replied.

Best sketch of the night: Riddle me this, why are these cyclops so dumb?

In a sketch based on a fictional book, “The Treasure of Darlor,” three cyclops led by Gosling must get past two maidens (Padilla and Veronika Slowikowska) in order to get the key to a cave that will grant them, presumably, the treasure of the book’s title. But the cyclops can’t solve the simplest of riddles and the increasingly exasperated maidens, who’ll be free once a riddle is solved, can’t get them to stop approaching the cave or from making terrible guesses. It’s hard to tell how far off script the sketch went once Gosling and Padilla began breaking character, but the characters are so silly and dumb that precision actually doesn’t matter too much and the result is a ramshackle hilarity as they keep going in semantic circles.

Also good: No notes. Seriously, no more notes, please

Maybe this was funnier for those on stage than for those watching at home, but the audacity of a sketch in which material is swapped out before air time (as we’re told in an on-screen warning) to unaware cast members and the host, breathed life into what would have otherwise been a pretty routine sketch about a teacher (Padilla) and a principal (Gosling) trying to discipline unruly students. Padilla almost never breaks in sketches; she’s a rock-solid performer, but without any advance knowledge of the jokes in notes she had to read out loud, she simply crumbled. Gosling never had a chance. The jokes in the notes are not all great, but they’re enough to have their intended effect on the two performers. The laughing becomes infectious.

‘Weekend Update’ winner: Pastor Update was really itemizing those backstage snacks

The next best thing we might get to a new “What Up With That?” sketch might be Thompson as Pastor Update, the official pastor to “Weekend Update” who was joined by his bandleader Teddy (James Austin Johnson). The two brought some soulful rumination on catered snacks and beautiful women with big foreheads. When Michael Che asked for something a little more uplifting, Pastor Update instead went after Che’s online habits, praying he “gets off his laptop looking at them nasty pictures on the computer.” The laptop, he sang, has been infected with so many nasty viruses it sounds like a lawnmower starting up.

Footage captured a massive fire raging at the Shehran oil depot on the outskirts of northern Tehran following an Israeli attack late Saturday night. The Israeli military claimed responsibility for striking fuel storage and related sites it alleges are affiliated with the Iranian armed forces.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE report more attacks despite assurance from Iran’s president that the strikes will stop.

United States President Donald Trump has posted on social media that he does not need the United Kingdom to deploy aircraft carriers to the Middle East, amid the ongoing war with Iran.

Saturday’s post on Truth Social follows a statement from the UK’s Ministry of Defence that one of its two flagship aircraft carriers, the HMS Prince of Wales, has been placed on “high readiness”.

“The United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East,” Trump wrote.

“That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer — But we will remember. We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!”

The post, with its reference to the UK as a “once great ally”, signals a deepening rift between the two countries that has emerged since Trump returned to office last year.

The divide appears to have deepened over the past week, as the US and Israel continue to hammer Iran as part of a war they launched on February 28.

The conflict has sparked fears across the Middle East, as retaliatory strikes from Tehran target US allies across the region.

Already, an estimated 1,332 people have been killed in Iran, and the US has confirmed the deaths of six of its service members. More deaths have been reported in countries like Lebanon, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq.

The UK government has increased its involvement in the war on Iran, widely considered illegal under international law.

The UK Defence Ministry, for instance, said on Saturday that the government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer had allowed the US to use its military bases for what it termed “limited defensive purposes”.

The bases include RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and the Diego Garcia site in the Chagos Islands, located in the Indian Ocean. Initially, there had been reports that Starmer had blocked the US use of the bases.

In the immediate aftermath of the initial US-Israeli strike, Starmer appeared to blanche at the prospect of joining the war.

He and the leaders of France and Germany issued a joint statement, underscoring that any actions they might take would be defensive in nature.

“We will take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at their source,” the joint statement said.

“We have agreed to work together with the US and allies in the region on this matter.”

But Starmer has had to push back on domestic criticism both for and against joining the war.

On Monday, he told the UK Parliament, “We are not joining the US and Israeli offensive strikes”, citing the need to protect “Britain’s national interest” and “British lives”.

The war in Iran remains largely unpopular in the UK. The polling firm Survation conducted a survey over the last week of 1,045 British adults, in which 43 percent of respondents called the war not justifiable.

When asked if they supported Starmer’s initial decision not to allow the US to use UK bases, 56 percent of respondents approved. Only 27 percent said it was the wrong choice.

Thousands of protesters gathered outside the US Embassy in London on Saturday to call for an end to the ballooning conflict.

The US president, meanwhile, has upped his criticism of Starmer over the past week, further fraying relations with the UK government.

On March 3, for instance, Trump held an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, in which he said repeatedly he was “not happy with the UK”.

Of Starmer, Trump said, “This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with.”

Trump has long admired Churchill, and last year installed a bust of the late UK wartime leader in the Oval Office, just as he had during his first term.

By contrast, Trump has issued a flood of criticism against Starmer, particularly for his 2024 decision to transfer control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

The transfer came after the International Court of Justice found the UK acted unlawfully in 1965 by separating the islands from Mauritius to create a separate colony.

The deal with Mauritius allows the US and the UK to maintain a military base on Diego Garcia, part of the archipelago.

However, Trump has repeatedly slammed the transfer, writing on social media that “giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”.

Tensions between the US and UK also rose in January after Trump told Fox News that NATO allies had “stayed a little off the front lines” during the US war in Afghanistan.

Starmer had responded that he found Trump’s comments “to be insulting and frankly appalling”.

The Trump administration has signalled it is pivoting away from its traditional European allies in favour of more politically aligned countries.

At a summit on Saturday with right-wing Latin American leaders, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared to praise the attendees while casting shade on other allies.

“At a time when we have learned that, oftentimes, an ally, when you need them, maybe may not be there for you, these are countries that have been there for us,” Rubio told the summit.

WASHINGTON — Signs of division emerged in Iran’s leadership Saturday as U.S. and Israeli strikes continued battering targets throughout the country, with Tehran sending mixed signals on whether it would keep attacking Washington’s Arab allies entering the war’s second week.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian began the day offering an apology “on behalf of Iran to the neighboring countries affected,” promising to halt the attacks that have affected nearly every nation in the Middle East. But strikes continued within hours, hitting Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, and Pezeshkian quickly issued a statement walking back his remarks.

President Trump vowed on social media to “hit Iran very hard” on Saturday, shortly before flying to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware for the dignified transfer of six service members killed in the war.

Speaking at a summit of Latin American leaders in Miami before his trip to Delaware, the president said the fallen service members were heroes “coming home in a different manner than they thought they’d be coming home.” He said it was “a very sad situation,” and he pledged to keep American war deaths “to a minimum.”

And Israel launched its own wave of fresh attacks against Iran while taking incoming fire from Hezbollah, Iran’s allied force in Lebanon, that set off sirens in Tel Aviv. Reports of a fire at a major oil refinery outside Tehran sparked fears the conflict was only escalating, marking the first attack on Iran’s energy infrastructure, if confirmed.

The burst of activity over the weekend underscored that Trump’s unexpected war with Iran, launched alongside Israel just a week ago, is continuing at full force with no sign of slowing.

Missile and drone strikes by Iran against Arab nations, targeting U.S. military assets in the region as well as civilian targets, including hotels and airports, have been an effort by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to pressure regional governments to in turn press Trump to end the U.S. air campaign. The strikes have jolted markets worldwide and sent the price of oil soaring.

President Trump salutes Saturday as soldiers carry the coffin of Sgt. Declan Coady, 20, of West Des Moines, Iowa. Coady and five others were killed in a drone strike in Kuwait.

(Roberto Schmidt / Getty Images)

While the attacks have decreased substantially over the course of the week, with U.S. Central Command recording a 90% decrease in ballistic missile launches and an 83% drop in drone attacks as of Friday, Iranian strikes are still penetrating regional air defenses. One drone hit the world’s busiest airport, in Dubai, on Saturday, dashing hopes that flights could resume from the regional hub.

Hours after Pezeshkian’s apology, Iran’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement vowing to continue strikes on territories that host U.S. offensive forces. Iran’s Defense Ministry said that its strategic stockpile of munitions was sufficient to sustain a protracted campaign. And a Revolutionary Guard spokesperson issued a statement addressing Trump, calling him “the corrupted island man,” referring to his former friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the late sex offender who allegedly trafficked girls to his private island.

“The ground and the map of the war is in our hands,” the Revolutionary Guard official said. “This will continue.”

In his videotaped remarks, Pezeshkian also rejected Trump’s call for Tehran’s “unconditional surrender.” Trump later said he would be satisfied reaching a point at which Iran is no longer capable of fighting back.

“The idea of Iran surrendering unconditionally is a dream they will take to their graves,” Pezeshkian said.

A member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts, a council of 88 clerics responsible for naming the country’s supreme leader, was quoted in local state media vowing to select a new ayatollah within the next day, more than a week after U.S. and Israeli forces assassinated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the opening salvo of the war.

Trump has said he expects a say in that decision, preemptively rejecting the late supreme leader’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who is seen as the most likely successor.

Mojtaba Khamenei is seen as even more ideological than his father, with deep ties throughout Iran’s security apparatus — and with a potential vendetta against Trump, on the heels of U.S. forces killing much of his family.

Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council who formerly served as the late Khamenei’s top advisor, said in his first remarks since the ayatollah’s killing that his assassination was unprecedented. “The price for this is not small,” Larijani said.

“They shouldn’t think we’ll let America quickly sweep this under the rug and say, ‘We hit, now let’s move on,’” Larijani continued. “Things will only resolve when they understand they no longer have the right to violate Iran, and when they compensate the Iranian people for their losses.”

More that 1,200 people have been killed in Iran since the war began, according to Iranian officials.

“He killed and martyred our leader,” Larijani added. “We’re not letting it go.”

The president of the United Arab Emirates spoke for the first time on the widening war in the Middle East as Iran continues to strike Gulf countries hosting US military assets with drones and missiles.

“The UAE has thick skin and bitter flesh – we are no easy prey,” said Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in comments aired by Abu Dhabi TV on Saturday as he visited wounded patients in a hospital.

He added the UAE is in “a period of war” but would “emerge stronger”.

In a social media post, Sheikh Mohamed said the UAE, which has seen attacks affecting hubs such as airports, tourist attractions, and the US consulate in Dubai, is prepared to confront “threats” against the “security and the protection of all citizens”.

One driver was killed when debris from an intercepted projectile slammed into his vehicle, Dubai’s Media Office said, describing the victim as Asian but providing no further details.

Sheikh Mohamed’s comments were aired as the region entered a second week of war sparked by a major US-Israeli attack on Iran.

Earlier, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian offered an apology to neighbouring nations for launching strikes on their countries housing US military bases. His comments were swiftly contradicted by Iranian judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, also a member of the interim leadership council.

“Evidence from Iran’s armed forces shows that the geography of some countries in the region is openly and covertly at the disposal of the enemy,” he said. “The heavy attacks on these targets will continue.”

Pezeshkian himself rolled back on his remarks that Gulf countries would not be targeted unless attacks originated from their territories, caveating that while his country emphasised “the preservation and continuation of friendly relations,” Iran still has an “inherent right” to defend itself against US-Israeli aggression.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also clarified the leader’s comments on X, saying, “President Pezeshkian expressed openness to de-escalation within our region – provided that our neighbours’ airspace, territory, and waters are not used to attack the Iranian people.”

Iran retaliates after attack on water supplies

All the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman – have been targeted because of the presence of US assets within and around their borders.

In the Gulf, the deadly attacks have caused major disruption to flights, closure of airspace, and heavy knock-on impacts on oil-and-gas production reverberating across the world.

On Saturday, Iranian state media reported the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps targeted US forces at Bahrain’s Jufair airbase in retaliation for an attack on a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island.

Araghchi called the US attack on the plant a “dangerous move with grave consequences”, accusing the US of committing a “blatant and desperate crime”, which affected the water supply to 30 villages.

Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, later said the attack was carried out with support from one of the airbases in a southern neighbouring country, stressing nations will not enjoy peace as long as the US has bases in the region.

Harlan Ullman, a senior adviser with the Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera that attacks on water supplies could bring “greater chaos” to the Gulf.

“About 95 percent of all water in the Gulf comes from desalination,” he said. “If Iran wants to target desalination and water installation plants, they can bring the Gulf to a halt.”

Other attacks on Gulf

The UAE, a US ally and home to US military installations, has been the most heavily targeted nation in the Gulf during the war.

The Emirati Ministry of Defence said on Saturday it was targeted with 16 ballistic missiles and more than 120 drones.

Hours after Pezeshkian’s apology, the IRGC said their drones struck a US air combat centre at al-Dhafra airbase near Abu Dhabi, capital of the UAE.

Later, an unidentified object was intercepted near Dubai airport, the world’s busiest for international traffic, forcing it to briefly suspend operations.

Iranian attacks also hit Abu Dhabi airport, the upmarket Palm Jumeirah development, and the Burj Al Arab luxury hotel over the past week, while drone debris caused a fire at the US consulate in Dubai.

Also on Saturday, Qatar’s armed forces intercepted a missile attack, according to the Ministry of Defence. No immediate details were released about possible damage or casualties.

In Saudi Arabia, the defence ministry said a ballistic missile landed in an uninhabited area after being launched towards Prince Sultan Air Base, southeast of Riyadh, which hosts US troops.

Kuwait also reported intercepting a drone while the country’s national oil company announced a “precautionary” cut to its production of crude because of Iranian attacks and threats to the Strait of Hormuz, a key transit point for Gulf hydrocarbons.

Iran to select new supreme leader

Posting on social media on Saturday, US President Donald Trump warned his country would hit Iran “very hard” and threatened to expand strikes to include new targets.

Speaking at an event hosting Latin American leaders in Miami, Florida, Trump said on Saturday his country’s forces sank 42 Iranian navy ships in three days.

Israel launched what its military described as a new wave of strikes on Tehran and Isfahan. The military said on Saturday that more than 80 fighter jets completed a wave of strikes on Iranian army sites, missile launchers and other targets.

In a statement, the army said targets hit in Iran included missile storage sites, ballistic missile launchers and military facilities linked to Iran’s security forces.

Among the attacks, it said it struck 16 aircraft at Tehran’s Mehrabad airport, which belonged to the Quds Force branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard overseeing its foreign operations.

The Israeli military reported missiles were fired from ‌Iran at Israel on eight different occasions on Saturday, setting off air raid sirens in parts of the country and actioning air defences.

Iranian state media reported Saturday that the IRGC hit a Marshall Islands-flagged tanker in Hormuz.

Iran’s Assembly of Experts will be meeting in the next 24 hours to choose a new supreme leader, according to assembly member Ayatollah Mozafari.

Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, has rejected Trump’s demands to have a say in selecting Iran’s new supreme leader.

DORAL, Fla. — President Trump said Saturday that the United States and Latin American countries are banding together to combat violent cartels as his administration looks to demonstrate it remains committed to sharpening U.S. foreign policy focus on the Western Hemisphere even while engaged in war in the Middle East.

Trump encouraged regional leaders gathered at his Miami-area golf club to take military action against drug trafficking cartels and transnational gangs that he says pose an “unacceptable threat” to the hemisphere’s national security.

“The only way to defeat these enemies is by unleashing the power of our militaries,” Trump said. “We have to use our military. You have to use your military.” Citing the U.S.-led coalition that confronted the Islamic State group in the Middle East, the Republican president said that ”we must now do the same thing to eradicate the cartels at home.”

The gathering, which the White House called the “Shield of the Americas” summit, comes two months after Trump ordered an audacious U.S. military operation to invade Venezuela and capture its president, Nicolás Maduro, and whisk him and his wife to the United States to face drug conspiracy charges.

Looming even larger is Trump’s decision to launch a war on Iran with Israel a week ago, a conflict that has left hundreds dead, convulsed global markets and unsettled the broader Middle East.

Trump’s time with the Latin American leaders was limited: Afterward, he set out for Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to be on hand for the dignified transfer of the six U.S. troops killed in a drone strike on a command center in Kuwait. They were killed one day after the U.S. and Israel launched their war on Iran.

Trump called the American deaths a “very sad situation” and praised the fallen troops as “great heroes.”

With the summit, Trump aimed to turn attention to the Western Hemisphere, at least for a moment. He has pledged to reassert U.S. dominance in the region and counter what he sees as years of Chinese economic encroachment in America’s backyard.

Trump also said the U.S. will turn its attention to Cuba after the war with Iran and suggested his administration would cut a deal with Havana, underscoring Washington’s increasingly aggressive stance against the island’s communist leadership. “Great change will soon be coming to Cuba,” he said, adding that “they’re very much at the end of the line.”

Cuban officials have said on several occasions that they were open to dialogue with the U.S. as long as it was based on respect for Cuban sovereignty, but they have never confirmed that such talks were taking place.

Who was there

The leaders of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago joined the U.S. president at Trump National Doral Miami, a golf resort where he is set to host the Group of 20 summit later this year.

The idea for a summit of like-minded conservatives from across the hemisphere emerged from the ashes of what was to be the 10th edition of the Summit of the Americas, which was scrapped during the U.S. military buildup off the coast of Venezuela last year.

Host Dominican Republic, pressured by the White House, had barred Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela from attending the regional gathering. But after leftist leaders in Colombia and Mexico threatened to pull out in protest — and with no commitment from Trump to attend — the Dominican President Luis Abinader decided at the last minute to postpone the event, citing “deep differences” in the region.

The Shield of the Americas moniker was meant to speak to Trump’s vision for an “America First” foreign policy toward the region that leverages U.S. military and intelligence assets unseen across the area since the end of the Cold War.

To that end, Ecuador and the United States conducted military operations this week against organized crime groups in the South American country. Ecuadorean and U.S. security forces attacked a refuge belonging to the Colombian armed group Comandos de la Frontera in the Ecuadorean Amazon on Friday, authorities reported.

This joint fight against drug traffickers “is only the beginning,” said Ecuador’s president, Daniel Noboa.

Notably missing at the summit were the region’s two dominant powers — Brazil and Mexico — as well as Colombia, long the linchpin of U.S. anti-narcotics strategy in the region.

Trump grumbled that Mexico is the “epicenter of cartel violence” with drug kingpins “orchestrating much of the bloodshed and chaos in this hemisphere.”

“The cartels are running Mexico,” Trump said. ”We can’t have that. Too close to us. Too close to you.”

The challenge from China

Trump made no mention of his administration’s position that countering Chinese influence in the hemisphere is a top priority for his second term.

His national security strategy promotes a “Trump corollary” to the 19th century Monroe Doctrine, which had sought to ban European incursions in the Americas, by targeting Chinese infrastructure projects, military cooperation and investment in the region’s resource industries.

The first demonstration of the more muscular approach was Trump’s strong-arming of Panama to withdraw from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and review long-term port contracts held by a Hong Kong-based company amid U.S. threats to seize the Panama Canal.

More recently, the U.S. capture of Maduro and Trump’s pledge to “run” Venezuela threaten to disrupt oil shipments to China — the biggest buyer of Venezuelan crude before the raid — and bring into Washington’s orbit one of Beijing’s closest allies in the region. Trump is scheduled to travel to Beijing later this month to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

For many countries, China’s trade-focused diplomacy fills a critical financial void in a region with major development challenges that include poverty reduction and infrastructure bottlenecks. In contrast, Trump has been slashing foreign assistance to the region while rewarding countries lined up behind his crackdown on immigration — a policy widely unpopular across the hemisphere.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted the leaders for a working lunch after Trump left for the event in Delaware. The lunch gave Kristi Noem, whom Trump fired as Homeland Security secretary on Thursday, the chance to make her debut in her new role as a special envoy for the newly formed Shield of the Americas.

“We want our hemisphere to be safer, to be more sovereign, and to be more prosperous,” Noem told the leaders.

Madhani, Goodman and Richer write for the Associated Press. Madhani and Goodman reported from Doral and Durkin Richer from Washington. AP writer Gabriela Molina in Quito, Ecuador, contributed to this report.

This past week, the United States and Israel launched a war on Iran under the banner of regime change. But as the war escalates and with Iran firing missiles at US bases across the region and at Israel – questions are mounting over how far this conflict could spiral.

This week on UpFront Redi Tlhabi challenges former National Security Adviser and former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton on why he believes that a diplomatic end to the war would be a mistake, and we speak to Joe Cirincione, author of, Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before it is Too Late, about the risk of nuclear proliferation.

A SOUTHWEST Airlines flight has been diverted and forced to do an emergency landing after a mid-air security threat.

Flight 2094 from Nashville to Fort Lauderdale was forced to cut the journey short and land at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport at 9:06pm on Friday night.

While thousands of feet in the air, a security threat was reported which saw tactical cops storm the aircraft upon landing and detain a passenger.

A video allegedly taken on board the flight showed the moment a man was dragged off the flight by the Atlanta Police Department.

The clip shared on X showed terrified passengers with their hands raised above their heads as cops cuffed a passenger and took him off the aircraft.

The text on the clip claimed that there had been a bomb threat but this has not been commented on by the airline or police.

In a statement, Southwest said the diversion came due to a “possible security matter.”

“We appreciate the professionalism of our flight crew and sincerely apologize to our customers for the significant delay,” the spokesperson said.

“Nothing is more important to Southwest than the safety of its customers and employees.”

The Atlanta Police Department confirmed it worked with federal partners to attend to “last night’s incident” at the airport.

The nature of the security threat and if the passenger removed will face any charges remains unclear.

It is not known if the passenger is still in police detention.

Officials have not commented if any dangerous items were found onboard.

After the police activity, all passengers boarded another plane and continued their journey to Fort Lauderdale where they arrived safely just before 3:30am.

The airline has apologized to all affected passengers.

It comes as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) remains on shutdown over funding disagreements which former Security Secretary Kristi Noem said is “endangering national security.”

The DHS has been shut down since February 14 which Noem said has negatively impacted and put huge pressure on TSA and border patrol.

In addition to this, Republicans have warned that the country is under an increased domestic terror threat due to the recent US-Israeli strikes on Iran.

“Now is the time to be vigilant at home and to ensure that all of our doors are locked, so to speak,” Speaker Mike Johnson, warned on Wednesday as he discussed the continued shutdown.

“Senate needs to fund the TSA. They’ve had them the Coast Guard, FEMA and Cybersecurity CISA on shut down for 3 weeks. We will surely see more of this,” one viewer of the footage from the diverted aircraft said.

“Unfortunately there’s going to be a lot more of this coming,” another said.

The war in Iran has put a spanner in the works for travel plans with many countries now off-limits – here are six replacement destinations for people looking to change their March getaway

There have been many knock-on effects of the Iran war which ignited a week ago. While no means the most important, a disruption to travel plans has been one factor to consider.

Parts of the Middle East have been popular with British tourists, particularly Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. The cities offer almost year-round sunshine, incredible hotels and luxury breaks that entice UK tourists to snap up trips in their droves.

Those destinations, along with a host of other hotspots in the Middle East and Mediterranean, are now effectively no-go zones, at least temporarily.

Fortunately travel writer Annabelle Thorpe has compiled a list of six possible destinations to book your holiday to instead.

Athens

The expert recommends swapping Cyprus for the iconic Greek capital. Athens is pretty quiet in March which means the famous Acropolis and the Parthenon are likely to be virtually crowd-free.

March is considered ‘shoulder season’ in Athens with fewer crowds and more pleasant temperatures as the mercury normally hovers around 16-17C.

There are direct flights from five airports – Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City – with a range of carriers including easyJet, Ryanair and Wizz Air.

Seville

If you had a trip to Istanbul in the pipeline, Annabelle says consider going to Seville instead. The city in the south of Spain is famed for its Moorish palace, Gothic cathedrals and flamenco dancing.

Seville enjoys daytime highs of around 22C in March, making for a cool contrast before the stifling summer heat. Visitors can also enjoy the blooming orange trees and the preparations for the Easter festivities.

Most London airports as well as Manchester, Birmingham and Edinburgh offer direct flights to the city.

Tunis

If Amman, the capital of Jordan, was on your travel list, the expert suggests making a beeline for Tunis instead. The ancient city, the capital of modern day Tunisia, offers an incredible blend of Mediterranean charm, French colonial history and Arab heritage.

It also boasts a UNESCO-listed medina along with the ancient ruins of Carthage. Daytime highs in the city are a pleasant 20C.

Direct flights depart from Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted, with Tunisair the main carrier.

Marrakech

Annabelle recommends trading in the UAE’s glitzy malls for a spot of shopping in Marrakech’s world famous medina instead. It’s a great spot to shop for cashmere shawls, handmade jewellery, antiques, spices and much more.

Away from the hectic souks, there is Jardin Majorelle, a one-hectare botanical landscape garden, and the bustling Jemaa El Fna Square. Temperatures can reach a pretty steamy 25C in March but many riads have pools to allow their visitors to cool off.

Several airports fly direct to the Moroccan city, including major London hubs and Manchester, Birmingham and John Lennon Airport in Liverpool among others.

Gran Canaria

Bodrum has long been popular with Brits seeking winter or early spring sun. But with its proximity to the war zone, Annabelle called on tourists to try out Gran Canaria instead.

The island is the third-largest and second-most-populous island of the Canary Islands. March highs reach around 22C, but the sun-drenched beaches along with the duty-free shopping and nightlife make it a rival for Turkey’s holiday resorts.

Over 15 airports offer direct flights to the island’s capital Las Palmas, including London’s hubs and Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and Bristol.

Nice

One of the big draws of Dubai is its city-beach combination. Many British tourists enjoy soaking up the sun before enjoying some shopping. The travel expert puts forward Nice, on the French Riviera, as an alternative to the popular UAE city.

The Promenade des Anglais sweeps along a four-mile stretch of seafront, and that couples with the open-air bars and restaurants make for a heady mix.

You can catch direct flights from most London hubs along with Manchester, Edinburgh and Belfast.

In recent days, tensions over the U.S. war in Iran have steadily mounted.

Polls have shown the campaign is widely unpopular. An entire flank of Trump’s MAGA base has criticized it as a clear departure from the “America First” mantra Trump has long espoused. Leaders within the Trump administration have pushed against claims it was about regime change, framing it instead as a necessary response to imminent threats.

Trump, meanwhile, has struck a decidedly defiant tone — offering few of the reassurances or rationalizations that past presidents have offered in the initial stages of war, and sounding more unbothered than embattled.

He has lamented American casualties but also seemed to shrug them off — along with additional deaths he expects to come and potential attacks on the U.S. homeland — as the simple cost of war, saying, “Some people will die.”

He has ignored concerns the war will turn into another unending Middle East quagmire, while openly flirting with taking over Cuba too.

Undermining his administration’s own messaging that the war is not about regime change, Trump wrote in a social media post Friday that there would be “no deal” with Iran without “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” and new Iranian leadership “ACCEPTABLE” to him.

Sticking a thumb in the eye of his “America First” defectors, he said the U.S. and its allies are going to “work tirelessly” to make Iran “economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before,” adding, “MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN (MIGA!)”

In the last week, Trump has instigated or been forced to navigate a stunning cascade of political threats. In addition to attacking Iran, he fired his Homeland Security secretary in charge of his signature immigration campaign, faced newly detailed allegations — which he denied — that he sexually assaulted a child alongside Jeffrey Epstein, saw his attorney general subpoenaed by fellow Republicans in Congress, and watched American jobs numbers drop as gas prices spiked.

And yet, Trump has also managed to avoid complex questions about those issues — the most pressing before his administration — and despite Democrats and some of his own supporters lashing out over them.

“I’ve seen a lot of Presidents fall short of their promises but I’ve never seen any President just doing the opposite of everything promised on purpose. Prices, Epstein, wars. Just absolutely racing to betray his voters,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on X.

“This is Israel’s war, this is not the United States’ war. This war is not being waged on behalf of American national security objectives, to make the United States safer or richer,” said Tucker Carlson, one of Trump’s longtime allies.

Carlson said Trump committed U.S. forces to fighting in Iran for no other reason than because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “demanded it,” even though it “certainly wasn’t a good idea for the United States” and the Trump administration had “no real plan” for replacing the Iranian leadership it has now toppled.

The White House defended Trump’s actions across the board in statements to The Times on Friday.

On Iran, it said Trump “is courageously protecting the United States from the deadly threat posed by the rogue Iranian regime — and that is as America First as it gets.” On departing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, it said Trump “has assembled the most talented and competent cabinet in history,” and “continues to have faith in his Administration.”

On the economy, they said the Trump administration “is doing its part to unleash robust, private sector-led economic growth with tax cuts and deregulation,” and that Trump “has already initiated robust action” to control oil prices even amid the Iran war. And on the Epstein files, they said the latest claims unveiled “are completely baseless accusations, backed by zero credible evidence.”

Trump has also spoken out in defense of his handling of the various crises facing his administration — but not nearly with the sort of detail and solemnity that wartime presidents usually speak, experts said.

At his only public event on Friday — a nearly two-hour round-table with national leaders and sporting officials about college athletics — he ridiculed members of the media who asked about Iran and Noem.

“What a stupid question that is to be asking at this time,” he said, when asked about reports that Russia was helping Iran target and attack Americans there. “We’re talking about something else.”

When pressed as to why he was spending so much time talking about college sports when so much else is going on in the country and the world, Trump briefly talked about Iran — saying “people are very impressed by our military” and that the U.S. is now “more respected than we’ve ever been” — before concluding the event.

Jennifer Mercieca, a political historian and communications professor at Texas A&M and author of “Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump,” said she was surprised Trump didn’t make a stronger case for going to war in Iran during his recent State of the Union speech, and that he hasn’t been more aggressive about making the case for war since, including by using traditional language about bolstering American values around the world.

“In comparison to other presidents in a similar situation trying to lead a nation into war, that is surprising to me — and unusual,” she said.

Also unusual is the low public support for the war, Mercieca said, given that, since World War II, there has generally been high public approval for U.S. war efforts at their start.

Mercieca said she wonders if there is a correlation between Trump’s not providing a more vigorous rationale for the war and the low public approval for it — or perhaps between the low approval and the brash descriptions of the war as a merciless campaign of destruction and vengeance from others in the administration, such as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

She said Hegseth and others have shown a “lack of decorum, a lack of honor or dignity [in] their way of behaving, especially when we’re talking about warfare and human lives.”

Jack Rakove, a Stanford University professor emeritus of history and political science, said Trump’s posture is fitting with his character since he first entered politics and before, as he “can never take responsibility for anything that appears to be a mistake” and is “obsessed with the idea of appearing tough and tough-minded.”

Rakove said he does not believe, as some critics have suggested, that Trump launched the war in Iran specifically to distract from the Epstein files, which as of Thursday included newly released FBI descriptions of several interviews in which a woman accused Trump and Epstein of sexual assault in the 1980s when she was a child. Her accusations have not been verified.

But Rakove said he does wonder to what degree Trump is consciously pushing chaos in order to ensure that no one detrimental issue for him politically captures the public’s attention for too long.

Mercieca said Trump has always been “uniquely good at controlling the public conversation,” but that power has been tested recently by the Epstein files — which have held the public’s attention despite his repeatedly saying that “we should move on from that, that we should stop talking about it, that he’s been exonerated.”

She said Trump’s instinct in the current moment to push ahead aggressively despite waning support for his economic policies, his immigration policies and his war in Iran could be related to his desire to return people’s attention to his agenda, but is also in line with his long-held desire to go down in history — including by making big moves.

“I think he’s very much trying to leave his mark on the White House, I think he’s trying to leave his mark on the nation, I think he’s trying to leave his mark on the world, and I think war is a way that leaders have traditionally done that throughout history,” she said.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has apologised for attacking neighbouring countries, in a pre-recorded address released on state television. Within minutes of the statement’s release, an explosion was heard over Doha, as attacks on Gulf nations continue.

Pentagon asserts US forces are tracking Russian-Iranian operations amid escalating conflict in the region.

Washington has downplayed reports that Russia is sharing intelligence with Iran about United States targets across the Middle East amid the burgeoning US-Israel war on Iran, first reported by The Washington Post.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a CBS 60 Minutes interview on Friday, said the US is “tracking everything” and factoring it into battle plans when asked about the reports Moscow was aiding Tehran.

Since the war began on February 28, Russia has passed Iran the locations of US military assets, including warships and aircraft, three officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told The Washington Post.

“It does seem like it’s a pretty comprehensive effort,” one of the sources told the newspaper.

Meanwhile, anonymous officials told The Associated Press news agency that US intelligence has not uncovered that Russia is directing Iran on what to do with the information, as the US and Israel continue their bombardment and Iran fires retaliatory salvoes at US assets and allies in the Gulf.

Hegseth said the United States is “not concerned” about the reports, also downplaying the possibility that Russia’s assistance could be putting US citizens in harm’s way.

“The American people can rest assured their commander-in-chief is well aware of who’s talking to who,” Hegseth said.

“And anything that shouldn’t be happening, whether it’s in public or back-channelled, is being confronted and confronted strongly.”

He continued: “We’re putting the other guys in danger, and that’s our job. So we’re not concerned about that. But the only ones that need to be worried right now are Iranians that think they’re gonna live.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Friday also claimed to reporters that “[the report] clearly is not making any difference with respect to the military operations in Iran because we are completely decimating them.”

Leavitt declined to say if Trump had spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin about the reported intelligence sharing or whether he believed Russia should face repercussions, saying she would let the president speak to that himself.

First signs of Moscow’s involvement

Trump, for his part, on Friday evening berated a reporter for raising the matter of the report when he opened the floor to questions from the media at the end of a White House meeting about how paying student-athletes has recalibrated college sports.

“I have a lot of respect for you, you’ve always been very nice to me,” the US president said to Peter Doocy, the Fox News reporter.

“What a stupid question that is to be asking at this time. We’re talking about something else.”

The intelligence is the first indication that Moscow has sought to get involved in the war that the US and Israel launched on Iran a week ago.

Asked whether Russia would go beyond political support and offer military assistance to Iran, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said there has been no such request from Tehran.

“We are in dialogue with the Iranian side, with representatives of the Iranian leadership, and will certainly continue this dialogue,” he said on Friday.

Pushed on whether Moscow has provided any military or intelligence assistance to Tehran since the Iran war’s start, he refrained from comment.

Russia has tightened its relationship with Iran as it looked for badly needed missiles and drones to use in its four-year war against Ukraine. But the pair have long maintained friendly relations, even while Tehran has faced years of isolation from the West over its nuclear programme and its support of proxy groups in the Middle East.

Explosions shake Tehran as US-Israel attacks intensify, marking eight days of conflict and retaliation from Iran.

Huge explosions have hit several locations across Iran, including the capital, Tehran, as the war that has ignited the Middle East entered its eighth day.

The United States-Israeli attacks sent up clouds of dark smoke in the Iranian capital early on Saturday, and Tehran retaliated by firing missiles at Israel.

The US has warned of a forthcoming bombing campaign that officials said would be the most intense yet in the weeklong conflict, which has already killed at least 1,230 people and is set to cause further casualties daily.

Much of the region has become embroiled in the war, with Tehran not only launching retaliatory strikes on Israel but hitting US assets across the Gulf.

Israel’s military said early on Saturday it had started a “broad-scale wave of strikes” on targets in Tehran.

“Iranians are now waking to day eight since the initiation of the US-Israeli air strikes targeting different facilities and places across the Iranian capital and elsewhere in the country,” said Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, reporting from Tehran.

Continuous attacks have been occurring since midnight, he said.

“According to the latest reports, Mehrabad, which is one of the two main airports in the Iranian capital, was targeted. The nearby area was said to be affected, as well,” said Asadi.

Meanwhile, attacks have been taking place in other cities across the country – targeting not just military areas or political centres, but also residential areas, schools and hospitals, he added.

Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, told the UN Security Council on Friday that the US and Israel are bombing civilian areas in his country, stating: “These acts constitute clear war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

The continued fighting comes as US President Donald Trump’s administration approved a new $151m arms sale to Israel after Trump said he would not negotiate with Iran without its “unconditional surrender”.

Iran’s UN ambassador said the country would “take all necessary measures” to defend itself.

Iran’s strategy to ‘keep Israelis in shelters’

Meanwhile, Iran has continued to strike back at Israel.

The Israeli military said early on Saturday that it had detected another round of Iranian missile fire headed towards Israel, and a series of explosions were heard in Tel Aviv following the launches from Iran.

Missiles were also detected heading towards other parts of the country, including southern Israel.

“Since midnight, the Israelis have detected at least five ballistic missile launches coming into Israel from Iran,” said Al Jazeera’s Nida Ibrahim, reporting from Ramallah in the occupied West Bank.

“They have led millions of Israelis into shelters throughout the night, which is something that Israeli analysts say the Iranians are intending to do to put more pressure on the Israeli government – by keeping Israelis in shelters and by keeping these missiles launching coming at different times.”

Islamabad, Pakistan – The reverberations of a war in which US-Israel attacks have killed more than a thousand people in Iran, including the country’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, and Iranian missiles and drones have fallen on Israel in retaliation, are being felt deeply in Pakistan.

Six Gulf countries have also come under Iranian missile and drone attacks, putting Pakistan in a tough position.

The country shares a 900-kilometre (559 miles) border with Iran in its southwest, and millions of its workers are residents in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations.

Since September last year, Islamabad has also reinforced its decades-long ties with Riyadh by signing a formal mutual defence agreement that commits each side to treat aggression against the other as aggression against both.

As Iranian drones and ballistic missiles continue to target Gulf states, the question being asked with increasing urgency in Pakistan is what Islamabad will do next if it finds itself pulled into the war.

Islamabad’s answer so far has been to work the phones furiously, engaging regional leaders, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

When US-Israeli strikes killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on February 28, Pakistan condemned the attacks as “unwarranted”. Within hours, it also condemned Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Gulf states as “blatant violations of sovereignty”.

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, who was attending an Organisation of Islamic Cooperation meeting in Riyadh when the conflict began last week, launched what he later described as “shuttle communication” between Tehran and Riyadh.

Speaking in the Senate on March 3, and at a news conference later the same day, Dar disclosed that he had personally reminded Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi of Pakistan’s defence obligations to Saudi Arabia.

“We have a defence pact with Saudi Arabia, and the whole world knows about it,” Dar said. “I told the Iranian leadership to take care of our pact with Saudi Arabia.”

Araghchi, he said, asked for guarantees that Saudi soil would not be used to attack Iran. Dar said he obtained those assurances from Riyadh and credited the back-channel exchange with limiting the scale of Iranian strikes on the kingdom.

On March 5, Iran’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Alireza Enayati, said his country welcomed Saudi Arabia’s pledge not to allow its airspace or territory to be used during the ongoing war with the US and Israel.

“We appreciate what we have repeatedly heard from Saudi Arabia – that it does not allow its airspace, waters, or territory to be used against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said in an interview.

But only a day later, during early hours of March 6, Saudi Arabia’s defence ministry confirmed it intercepted three ballistic missiles targeting the kingdom’s Prince Sultan Air Base. And hours later, Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir was in Riyadh, meeting Saudi Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, where they “discussed Iranian attacks on the Kingdom and the measures needed to halt them within the framework” of their mutual defence pact, the Saudi minister said in a post on X.

As the war escalates, analysts say that Pakistan’s tightrope walk between two close partners could become harder and harder.

A defence pact under pressure

The Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, signed on September 17, 2025, in Riyadh by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif alongside army chief Asim Munir, was the most significant formal defence commitment Pakistan had entered into in decades.

Its central clause states that any aggression against either country shall be considered aggression against both. The wording was modelled on collective defence principles similar to NATO’s Article 5, though analysts have cautioned against interpreting it as an automatic trigger for military intervention.

The agreement followed Israel’s September 2025 strikes on Hamas officials in Doha, an event that shook confidence in US security guarantees across the six Gulf Cooperation Council states: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan has maintained a military relationship with Saudi Arabia for decades, according to which an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 Pakistani troops remain stationed in the kingdom.

Now the pact is being tested under conditions neither side anticipated.

Umer Karim, an associate fellow at the Riyadh-based King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, called Pakistan’s current predicament the outcome of a miscalculation.

Islamabad, he argued, likely never expected to find itself caught between Tehran and Riyadh, particularly after the China-brokered rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023.

“Pakistani leaders were always careful not to take an official plunge vis-a-vis Saudi defence. It was done for the first time by the current army chief, and though the potential dividends are big, so are the costs,” Karim told Al Jazeera.

“Perhaps this is the last time the Saudis will test Pakistan, and if Pakistan doesn’t fulfil its commitments now, the relationship will be irreversibly damaged,” he added.

In 2015, it declined a direct Saudi request to join the military coalition fighting in Yemen, following a parliamentary resolution that the country must remain neutral.

Aziz Alghashian, senior non-resident fellow at the Gulf International Forum in Riyadh, pointed to that episode. “The limitation of the Saudi-Pakistan treaty is clear. Treaties are only as strong as the political calculations and political will behind them,” Alghashian told Al Jazeera.

But Ilhan Niaz, a professor of history at Islamabad’s Quaid-e-Azam University, said that if Saudi Arabia feels sufficiently threatened by Iran to formally request Pakistani military assistance, “Pakistan will come to Saudi Arabia’s aid.”

“To do otherwise would undermine Pakistan’s credibility,” he told Al Jazeera.

The Iran constraint

The complicating factor for Pakistan is that it cannot afford to treat Iran simply as an adversary if Riyadh calls for military assistance.

The two countries share a long and porous border, maintain significant trade ties, and have recently stepped up diplomatic engagement. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian visited Islamabad in August 2025, and the two governments maintain a range of formal and backchannel contacts.

Niaz acknowledged that Tehran has also been “a difficult neighbour”, pointing to the January 2024 exchange of cross-border strikes initiated by Iran as evidence of the relationship’s unpredictability.

Even so, he said Pakistan had “vital national interests” in ensuring Iran’s stability and territorial integrity.

“The collapse of Iran into civil war, its fragmentation into warring states, and the extension of Israeli influence to Pakistan’s western borders are all developments that greatly, and rightly, worry Islamabad,” he said.

The domestic fallout from the US-Israel strikes and Iran’s response has already been immediate.

The army was deployed and a three-day curfew imposed in Gilgit-Baltistan after at least 23 people were killed in protests across Pakistan following Khamenei’s assassination. The protests were driven largely by Pakistan’s Shia community, estimated to make up between 15 and 20 percent of the 250 million population, which has historically mobilised around developments involving Iran.

Pakistan’s violent sectarian history adds another layer of risk.

The Zainabiyoun Brigade, a Pakistan-origin Shia militia trained, funded and commanded by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has recruited thousands of fighters from Pakistan over the past decade. While many fought in Syria against ISIL (ISIS), many Syrians activists accuse them of committing sectarian violence.

Two years ago, Pakistan’s northwestern Kurram district, the Zainabiyoun’s primary recruitment ground, saw more than 130 people killed in sectarian clashes in the final weeks of 2024 alone.

Pakistan formally banned the group in 2024, but many believe the designation has done little to dismantle its networks.

Analysts warn that fighters hardened in Syria’s civil war could, if Iran’s conflict with Pakistan’s Gulf partners deepens, shift from a defensive to an offensive posture on Pakistani soil.

“Iran has significant influence over Shia organisations in Pakistan,” Islamabad-based security analyst Amir Rana, executive director of the Pak Institute of Peace Studies, told Al Jazeera. “And then you have Balochistan, which is already a highly volatile area. If there is any confrontation, the fallout for Pakistan would be severe.”

Pakistan’s Balochistan province borders Iran, and has been ground-zero for a decades-long separatist movement. “That reality cannot be ignored,” Muhammad Khatibi, a political analyst based in Tehran, said, pointing out that geography itself constrains Islamabad’s choices.

“Any perception that Islamabad is siding militarily against Tehran could inflame domestic sectarian divisions in ways that a full-scale regional war would make very difficult to contain,” Khatibi told Al Jazeera.

What are Pakistan’s options?

Analysts say direct offensive military action against Iran, such as deploying combat aircraft or conducting strikes on Iranian territory, is not a realistic option for Pakistan, given its domestic constraints.

Rana describes Islamabad’s current posture as an attempt to placate both sides.

“Iran’s primary threat is through air strikes using drones and missiles, and that is an area where Pakistan can help and provide assistance to Saudi Arabia. But that would mean Pakistan becoming a party to the war, and that is a major question mark,” he said.

He added that the most viable option for Pakistan could be to provide covert operational support to Saudi Arabia while maintaining diplomatic engagement with Iran.

Alghashian also agreed; he identified air defence cooperation as the most concrete role Pakistan could play — it would be both “militarily meaningful and politically defensible”

“They could help create more air defence capacity,” he said. “This is tangible, it is defensive, and it is in Pakistan’s interest that Saudi Arabia becomes more stable and prosperous.”

Karim, however, warned that the window for Pakistan’s balancing act may be closing faster than Islamabad realises.

“As the situation reaches a tipping point and as Saudi energy installations and infrastructure are hit, it is only a matter of time that Saudi Arabia will ask Pakistan to contribute towards its defence,” he said.

He added that if Pakistan deploys air defence assets to Saudi Arabia, doing so could leave its own air defences dangerously exposed, while deeper involvement could carry political costs at home.

For now, Islamabad’s strongest card remains diplomacy, using its access to both Riyadh and Tehran and the trust it has accumulated. Khatibi said Pakistan should protect that position “at all costs”.

“Pakistan’s most realistic positioning is as a mediator and leveraging its relationships with both sides. It is highly unlikely that Pakistan deploys forces into an anti-Iran coalition. The risks would outweigh the benefits,” he said.

The stakes for Pakistan

The scenario least favourable to Islamabad would be a collective Gulf Cooperation Council decision to enter the war directly, and the warning signs are mounting.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have both declared that Iranian attacks “crossed a red line”.

A joint statement issued on March 1 by the United States, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE said they “reaffirm the right to self-defense in the face of these attacks.”

For Pakistan, such an escalation could carry serious consequences.

Economically, with millions of Pakistani workers living and earning their wages in Gulf states, remittances from the region provide crucial foreign exchange for an economy still recovering from a balance of payments crisis.

Khatibi said any prolonged regional war that disrupts Gulf economies would directly affect Pakistan’s financial position.

“Energy prices could also spike, adding further strain,” he said, noting Pakistan’s heavy dependence on Gulf states for its energy needs.

Pakistan is also simultaneously managing its own military confrontation with the Afghan Taliban which began two days before the US-Israel strikes.

Karim warned that deeper involvement in the regional conflict could trigger internal instability.

“Sectarian conflict,” he said, “can reignite, taking the country back to the bloody 1990s. The government already has lean political legitimacy, and such an occurrence will make it even more unpopular.”

Alghashian also highlighted Pakistan’s reluctance to be drawn into the conflict.

“Saudi Arabia does not want to be in this war and is getting dragged into it. Pakistan will also certainly not want to be dragged into somebody else’s war that they didn’t want to be dragged into. It just wouldn’t make any sense,” he says.

But Niaz said that if the crisis eventually forces Islamabad to choose, the calculus may become unavoidable.

“If Tehran forces Pakistan to choose between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the choice would unquestionably be in favour of the Saudis.”

The Gulf states have spent years trying to broker peace between Iran and the West: Qatar brokered nuclear talks, Oman provided back-channel diplomacy, and Saudi Arabia maintained direct dialogue with Iran through 2024 and into 2025. Iran attacked them anyway. The idea that the Gulf states have a responsibility, a moral one, to protect Iran from the consequences of its actions because of good neighbourliness is now grotesque in context. Iran did not return good neighbourliness. Iran returned ballistic missiles.

Iran’s position is based on three propositions. First, that Iran acted in lawful self-defence pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter; that host countries relinquished territorial sovereignty by allowing US military bases on their territory; and that the definition of aggression in Resolution 3314 justifies the attack on those bases as lawful military objectives. Each of these propositions is legally flawed, factually skewed, and tactically wrong. Collectively, they add up to a legal argument that, if accepted, would ensure that the Gulf is permanently destabilised, the basic principles of international law are destroyed, and, in a curious twist, the very security threats that Iran is reacting to are reinforced.

The self-defence claim does not meet the required legal threshold

The UN Charter, in Article 51, permits the use of force only in self-defence against an “armed attack”, and this term is not defined by reference to the state invoking it. The International Court of Justice, in cases such as Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States) (1986) and Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States) (2003), has interpreted the requirement of an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter restrictively. The Court distinguished between the most grave forms of the use of force, which qualify as armed attacks triggering the right of self-defence, and less grave uses of force that do not. Accordingly, not every use of force, such as minor incidents or limited military activities, amounts to an armed attack. In this light, the mere presence of foreign military bases in Gulf states, maintained for decades under defence agreements with host governments, would not in itself constitute an armed attack against Iran.

Necessity and proportionality are also part of customary international law, requiring that self-defence be necessary and proportional. Iran has not demonstrated either. Targeting the territory of other sovereign Arab states in response to the policy decisions of the United States is neither necessary, since diplomatic and United Nations avenues are still available, nor proportional, since it imposes military consequences on states that are not a party to any conflict with Iran.

Critically, Article 51 also has a mandatory procedural element, in that any state employing self-defence is immediately required to notify the Security Council. Iran has consistently evaded this requirement in each of its escalatory actions. While this may seem to be a minor element, it is in fact the means by which the international community is able to verify and check self-defence claims. A state that evades this requirement is not employing Article 51. It is exploiting the language of Article 51.

Iran’s reading of Resolution 3314 is a fundamental distortion

The provision of Article 3(f) of the Annex to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (1974) states that an act of aggression includes the “action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State”. Iran could rely on this provision to hold the Gulf states that host United States military bases liable for any act of aggression committed from their territories against Iran. Nevertheless, the mere presence of military bases is not sufficient to hold them to be lawful military objectives; this will depend on their actual contribution to military activities against Iran based on the rules of international humanitarian law.

Thus, such an Iranian reading would be wrong on three distinct legal grounds.

First, Resolution 3314 is definitional in nature. The resolution was adopted to assist the Security Council in determining when aggression has taken place, not to confer upon states the unilateral power to punish states deemed to have committed aggression through the use of force. The resolution itself, in Article 2, asserts the power of the Security Council to make the determination of what constitutes aggression. The self-application of Article 3(f) of the resolution is therefore bypassed altogether.

Second, Article 3(f) speaks of the active launching of an attack, not the passive hosting of a military base. The legal distinction is fundamental. A state, in signing a defence treaty with another and hosting the latter’s troops on its soil, is engaging in a measure of sovereignty. A state, actively launching, coordinating, or enabling military strikes against a third party, is engaged in a different matter altogether. Iran has not credibly shown this latter case. The presence of US troops or bases in the Gulf has been a fact for decades, and this has not constituted armed aggression against Iran under any legal standard.

Third, even if Article 3(f) were applicable, the appropriate course would be to bring the matter to the Security Council, not to launch unilateral military strikes. General Assembly resolutions do not override the Charter. Iran cannot rely upon a non-binding resolution defining terms to override the Chapter VII requirements for the use of force or the clear criteria of Article 51.

Sovereignty cannot be dictated by a neighbour’s strategic preferences

Iran, in invoking the principle of good neighbourliness, asks the Arab Gulf states to deny the United States basing rights. Good neighbourliness is a two-way principle, and it does not allow for interference in the internal affairs of other states, certainly not interference in the decisions of other states simply because they are deemed inconvenient to the interfering state. All UN states possess the inherent right to conclude defence treaties with whomever they choose, and this is so regardless of the opinion of their neighbours.

The asymmetry of Iran’s position is striking and self-disqualifying. Iran itself has active military relationships with Russia and China. Iran arms, finances, trains, and supports the activities of non-state military actors in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force operates openly in various states, and this has been extensively documented in United Nations Panels of Experts reports, as well as other international monitoring reports. According to the standards that Iran applies to the Gulf states, any state that hosts the activities of the IRGC, the transfer of Iranian arms, or the coordination of Iranian proxies on its soil would be engaging in aggression against third parties. Iran will not accept this principle when it is applied to itself. A legal principle that is unacceptable to the party to whom it would be applied is not a legal principle at all; it is a political tool.

A doctrine that defeats Iran’s own strategic interests

From the perspective of international relations theory, Iran’s position follows the logic of offensive realism, which seeks to remove the external balancing architecture of regional neighbours by claiming it to be hostile in nature. However, this approach is empirically self-defeating.

Under balance of threat theory, states react to offensive capability, geographic proximity, and aggressive intentions. Iran’s doctrine, in asserting the right to strike any state that hosts forces it perceives as a threat, drives each and every threat variable to maximum levels for each and every state in the region. The obvious consequence, evident in the data, is that the states in the region and external powers are becoming more, rather than less, securely integrated. The Fifth Fleet’s permanent base in Bahrain, the UAE’s negotiations over F-35s, Saudi Arabia’s deployments of THAADs, and Qatar’s expansion of the Al Udeid base are reactions to Iran’s escalation, not causes of it.

From the perspective of constructivism, the legitimacy of a legal argument is also partly based on the normative credibility of the state that presents the argument. The record of Iran’s compliance with IAEA regulations, including the enrichment of uranium to a purity level of 60 percent or more in 2023–2024, interference with inspections, the removal of monitoring cameras, and the overall violation of the non-proliferation regime, has undermined the credibility of the state significantly. A state that is itself a violator of the legal regime cannot claim the role of a law-abiding state seeking protection under the norms of the legal regime.

Iran’s legal rationale was always theoretically wrong. What has occurred since February 28, 2026, has made Iran’s actions morally and politically wrong. Iran did not simply target US military assets. The reality of the situation is now documented and undeniable. Ballistic missiles and drones were launched against Gulf states in the opening days of the conflict. This marked the first time one actor had simultaneously attacked all six GCC states. Iran escalated its attacks in deliberate stages. Day 1: Iranian missiles were fired against military bases. Day 2: Iranian missiles were fired against civilian infrastructure and airports. Day 3: Iranian missiles were fired against the energy sector. Days 3 and 4: The US Embassy in Riyadh was attacked by Iran. International airports in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Kuwait were attacked by Iranian missiles, resulting in the suspension of flights throughout the region. Videos from Bahrain documented an Iranian Shahed drone attacking an apartment building. This is not self-defence. This is the collective punishment of sovereign nations that went to extraordinary lengths to avoid the conflict.

The rationale provided by Iran falls flat when one considers the actions Iran itself took. Its doctrine held that only targets involved in the preparation or launch of an attack against Iran were legitimate targets. Civilian airports are not military bases. Hotels in Palm Jumeirah are not military command centres. An apartment complex in Manama is not a weapons storage facility. By Iran’s own stated legal rationale, none of these targets was legitimate, yet they were attacked. This was not a legal doctrine at all; it was a pretext for coercion, and the conduct of war revealed this to be the case.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

As the United States and Israel’s war on Iran unfolds over the coming days and weeks, the scale of the fallout for the global economy will be measured at the petrol pump.

The biggest threat the conflict poses to global economic health lies in rising energy prices.

Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian attacks on key energy production facilities in Qatar and Saudi Arabia have paralysed a substantial chunk of the world’s energy supply.

For a global economy already rattled by US President Donald Trump’s tariffs and what many see as his unravelling of the post-World War II order, much now depends on how long the disruption lasts.

A sustained surge in energy prices would drive up the cost of everyday goods.

Central banks would then likely raise borrowing costs to curb inflation, dampening consumer spending and dragging down economic growth.

“It’s really a question on how long the disruption of flows through the Strait of Hormuz lasts and whether there will be destruction of physical assets,” said Anne-Sophie Corbeau, an analyst at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

“For the moment, the market is pricing a short disruption and no destruction. But that may change in the future. We simply do not know right now how this whole crisis ends.”

While Iran’s threats to shipping have halted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the conduit for one-fifth of the world’s oil, crude prices have seen relatively modest gains so far.

Brent crude hovered about $84 a barrel on Friday morning, US time, up about 15 percent compared with pre-conflict prices.

That gain pales in comparison with past crises.

During the 1973-74 oil embargo led by OPEC’s Arab members, prices quadrupled in just three months.

Since then, the world’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil has declined substantially.

Today, the US is the biggest producer globally, producing some 13 million barrels a day, more than Iran, Iraq and the UAE combined, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

But if supply disruptions extend beyond a few weeks, oil prices could rise precipitously.

Storage capacity constraints

The seven oil-producing Gulf nations – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – are likely to run out of crude oil storage capacity in less than a month if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, according to an analysis by JPMorgan Chase.

With storage capacity depleted, producers would be forced to cut production.

“While there will be some capacities elsewhere, and some options to use pipelines rather than shipping, it is incredibly difficult to replace the sheer volume as we are talking about an average of 20 million barrels of oil per day that usually cross the Strait of Hormuz,” said Sarah Schiffling, a supply chains expert at the Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki.

“This important maritime chokepoint provides very significant leverage in the global economy.”

This week, Goldman Sachs analysts estimated that global oil prices will likely hit $100 a barrel – a threshold not seen since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine – if shipping through the waterway stays at the current reduced levels for five weeks.

In an interview published by The Financial Times on Friday, Qatar’s energy minister Saad al-Kaabi warned that producers in the region could halt production within days and that oil could soar as high as $150 a barrel.

Such increases would reverberate through the global economy.

The International Monetary Fund has estimated that global economic growth is reduced by 0.15 percent for every 10 percent rise in oil prices.

The pain would not be spread evenly.

About 80 percent of the oil shipped through the strait goes to Asia.

India, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, which are all highly dependent on foreign energy imports, would be among the economies most vulnerable to spikes in the cost of necessities such as food and fuel.

“The effect would be felt in Asia and Europe in particular,” said Lutz Kilian, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

“Some countries, such as China, have ample oil reserves to help weather a temporary outage, while others do not.”

Liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is also shipped through the strait and has fewer alternative suppliers outside the region than crude oil, has already seen much steeper price rises.

European prices of LNG surged by as much as 50 percent on Monday after state-run QatarEnergy, which ships about one-fifth of global supply through the waterway, announced a halt to production following drone attacks blamed on Iran.

“Gas will be more impacted because the market was still relatively tight and stocks are low in Europe as we are at the end of winter; also, there is no replacement for the LNG lost,” Corbeau said.

Prolonged uncertainty

With US President Donald Trump signalling that he intends to continue the assault on Iran for at least several more weeks, the extent to which Tehran is willing – or able – to keep the strait closed will be critical to the global economy.

At least nine commercial vessels have been targeted in attacks in or near the strait since the start of the conflict, prompting multiple insurance firms to cancel coverage for vessels in the Gulf.

While traffic through the strait has not halted, it is down about 90 percent compared with normal levels, according to ship tracker MarineTraffic.

“The uncertainty itself is probably the most dangerous part. Supply chains hate uncertainty,” Schiffling said.

“It is possible to plan for almost anything, but not knowing what will happen makes it really challenging to adapt operations.”

On Wednesday, Trump said he had ordered the US International Development Finance Corporation to start insuring shipping lines in the region in order to keep trade flowing.

Trump also said the US Navy could begin escorting vessels through the strait if necessary.

“As long as Israel and the US are able to suppress Iranian drone and missile attacks in the strait to the point that the bulk of the oil tankers gets through, and as long as the United States provides back-up insurance for shippers and their cargo, the global economy may make it through this war without a recession,” Kilian said.

“On the other hand, if there is a severe disruption of oil traffic, the economic costs will grow the longer the disruption lasts.”

March 6 (UPI) — Russia is helping Iran by giving it intelligence on American troops, ships and aircraft during the U.S. and Israeli assault on the Middle Eastern nation.

The intelligence Iran has received on potential U.S. targets in the region — naval vessels, military bases and the locations of other American assets — has largely been provided using Russia’s massive space-based surveillance apparatus, CNN reported.

It remains unclear exactly what or how much Russia has helped Iran with but The Washington Post, which was the first to report that one of the United States’ longest-running adversaries is assisting the Iranian regime, reported that one its sources said the assistance “does seem like it’s a pretty comprehensive effort.”

Additionally, sources told NBC News that the intelligence could potentially be used to help Iran locate American assets in the region, though there has been no indication that Russia has actually helped direct Iranian attacks against U.S. interests there.

One source that was briefed on the intelligence reported by all three news organizations told CNN that despite Russia’s appearance that it is staying out of the widening conflict in the Middle East, it “still likes Iran very much.”

Dara Massicot, expert on the Russian military at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told The Post that Iran’s “very precise hits on early warning radars or over-the-horizon radars” indicated they were methodically targeting U.S. assets in an effort to undermine American command and control.

When asked by reporters on Friday, President Donald Trump replied that the U.S. is doing “very well” in its plans against Iran and said it was “a stupid question … to be asking at this time.”

“Somebody said, how would you score it from zero to 10?,” NBC News reported Trump said. “I’d give it a 12 to a 15. Their army is gone. … Their navy is gone. Their communications are gone. Their leaders are gone. Two sets of their leaders are gone. They’re down to their third set. Their air force is wiped out entirely. Think of it.”

U.S. intelligence also reportedly suggests that China is considering getting involved in the conflict, with financial assistance, spare parts and missile components potentially being on the table as it worries about access to Iranian oil that it heavily relies on.

We’re in the early weeks of Lent, the 40 days when Christians are called to rededicate themselves to good — and the Trump administration seems to be having a good time making its war with Iran seem like a bunch of tweens playing a game of “Call of Duty.”

Where Jesus called on believers to go through life as meekly as possible, the White House keeps pumping out social media posts mixing footage of American forces blowing up the Iranian regime with everything from SpongeBob SquarePants to Iron Man to “Grand Theft Auto.” While Proverbs warned “every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth — who loves to flash his bad tattoos that reference the Crusades — gives superlative-drenched speeches on the supposed glories of this war that make him sound more bloodthirsty than Count Dracula.

Even though Christ mandated that people not loudly pray in public “like the hypocrites,” President Trump gladly let a gaggle of pastors lay hands over him in the Oval Office this week as one intoned God “continue to give our President the strength that he needs to lead our nation as we come back to one nation under God.”

Which God: Yahweh or Trump?

During last month’s National Prayer Breakfast, the president bragged that because of him, “religion’s back now hotter than ever before.” Perhaps the most un-Christian man to ever serve as commander in chief has continually wrapped himself in the mantle of Jesus — and too many Christians have ignored the Good Book’s repeated warnings against false prophets and cheered him on.

Flannery O’Connor could have written an entire novel on Christian hucksters just from Year One of the second coming of the Trump administration.

As the Iran war ratchets up with no end in sight, this devotion to Trump is veering into idolatry.

Pastor Greg Laurie — most famous for holding Harvest Crusade revivals in Southern California for the past generation — wrote online that Trump’s Iran campaign “is cause for us to sit up and pay attention” because he feels it lines up with End Times prophecy about the Middle East descending into war just before the Second Coming. The nonprofit Military Religious Freedom Foundation revealed it has received hundreds of complaints from troops about their superiors claiming that what’s going on is biblically ordained.

Meanwhile, South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters that what’s happening “is a religious war” that “will set the course of the Middle East for a thousand years” — the exact time period that the Book of Revelation stated Christ will reign until Satan returns. Some Trump supporters have even compared their savior to Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who freed the Israelites from the yolk of the Babylonians and of whom the Book of Isaiah called God’s “anointed” and would “subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor.”

The Bible is not all kumbaya. But from the Old Testament to the New, it consistently preaches for the faithful to humble themselves, to help the poor and downtrodden. Trump’s version of Christianity instead preaches no mercy for those against him, demands followers exalt him above everything, celebrates the gaudy instead of the godly.

This Lent is magnifying his apostasy like never before.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine speak during a press briefing at the Pentagon on Wednesday in Washington.

(Konstantin Toropin / Associated Press)

It’s a time to fast from our excesses; Trump continues to push forth a White House redesign that will make the Palace of Versailles look as flashy as a mud hut. Those of us who partake in Lent are asked to repent of our sins; Trump is doubling down on them like they’re McDonald’s fries. We are supposed to reflect on our wrongdoings and ask for forgiveness from the Almighty and those we wronged — has Trump ever done that?

We’re also supposed to practice almsgiving and assist those less fortunate than ourselves as a way of honoring Christ, who pointed out that giving so it costs you is the only way to give. Trump has always brayed that he’s ultimately looking out for the common man — but instead of helping the millions of people whom his economy was already leaving behind before the Iran campaign, he’s shrugging off their woes and asking Americans to buckle up and weather price spikes and simply believe in him.

Or is that Him?

Conservative Christian leaders have continually landed on the wrong side of American history, from slavery to imperialism, Jim Crow to women’s rights. That’s why it’s not surprising — but still disappointing — that a Pew Research Center poll released earlier this year found 69% of white evangelicals think Trump has done a good job. Fifty-two percent of white Catholics feel the same, compared with just 23% of Latino Catholics, even though Pope Leo XIV has consistently decried American foreign and domestic policy.

Lent also is the time that Christians remember that the pain of Christ’s death leads to the hope that is Easter. That’s why for this Lent, may Christians repent of Trump like never before.

War has always been a time for propaganda, of demonizing the enemy and pumping up your side. It is a sad, tragic affair, with death and carnage and endless mourning. Children die. War is not a thing to be celebrated, even if it were necessary. And there’s a big if around this latest one, even if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei deserved his downfall and Iranians in their country and abroad rightfully celebrate.

But history’s greatest warriors know — to quote the conclusion of the Oscar-winning biopic “Patton” — that glory is fleeting. Trump, Hegseth and their ilk are not them. They are the men that Psalms asked God to deliver us from, the warmongers who “imagine mischiefs in their heart” and “continually” seek violence. To see how this administration and its supporters are preening right now reminds me of what Johnny Cash once sung: sooner or later, God‘s gonna cut you down.

Let’s just hope the rest of us are spared when that happens. If you pray, please do. (And not to Trump).

Lionel Messi has been criticised for meeting US President Donald Trump and applauding his latest brief on the Iran war at a White House event honouring the Argentinian superstar and his Inter Miami team.