Iran

Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and members of his family were killed in a joint US-Israeli air strike in February.

Iran has marked the second day of funeral processions for its late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Masses of supporters came to view his body despite a sweltering heatwave, with water misters installed at Tehran’s Grand Mosalla Hall and volunteers distributing cold drinks to mourners.

The Iranians have come out on top after the conflict. They have demonstrated themselves as a pure and united nation by not dividing into small factions during the recent militarily confrontation with the United States and Israel. The Americans and Israelis were seemed to be launching a shock and awe strategy against the Iranians to overwhelm them and easily bring down their regime. 

However, they were unable to accomplish their task, resulting in social pressure from within the United States, as 61% people were not in favor of launching a war of choice against Iran while the escalation concluded in huge financial setbacks for both the U.S and Israel.

According to John Kiriakou – the former CIA officer, Trump was told by the Israeli Prime Minister that they could easily topple the regime of Iran due to prevailing social unrest at that time. But the Iranians remained intact and united, rallying behind their government. This shattered Americans and Israelis ambitions.

On the day Americans and Israelis launched an unprovoked aggression against Tehran, Iran imposed a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which made Iran to maintain upper hand throughout the confrontation and sustain its position against the enemy.

Strait of Hormuz was open before 28^th February, but during the war it was observed that the United States presented its closure as a cause of war, whereas it was obviously a consequence of the war. In addition to this context, Tehran laid a lot of mines in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz to hinder the flow of maritime trade across the strait.

From the beginning, the Iranians adopted a military strategy called Mosaic Defense, in which they decentralized their defense system, dividing their military into 31 factions which were able to take any decision on spot without asking from the central command of Tehran. This gave their military to take sudden military decisions and hit military targets as per their choice. This strategy significantly helped the Iranians hold the upper hand in the conflict, maintain their position, and stand firm against their enemy.  

The Iranians also pursued the strategy of asymmetric warfare, attacking with cheap Shahed-136 drones and using different types of missiles to overwhelm the enemy. They used drones of worth around  20000 to 50000 $ while the Americans and Israelis were using expensive defensive equipment of worth 1 million to 4million dollars.

Iran fought Americans forces using a strategy called horizontal warfare, broadening the conflict across the Middle East by attacking Americans bases in the region and making the region increasingly vulnerable and unstable for the other countries there. This helped Iran consolidate their hard power in the region.

Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) eliminated the most expensive radars of the US situated in different countries of the region. They blew up AN/FPS-132 and AN/TPY-2 Radar systems of the US in Qatar and Jordan respectively. 

Along with that, they decimated American 5^th fleet headquarter in Bahrain, which held 75% of the US military power in the region, resulting in heavy losses for Washington. Furthermore, Iran inflicted pain on more than dozen American bases in the Middle East. 

It was seemed that Tehran converted this war into a war of attrition by slowly weakening the Americans over time. They were fully prepared for this protracted war but it did not go in favor of the United States, as Washington was unable to afford a protracted war at lot. 

Therefore, President Trump was increasingly perceived as pursuing a deal with Tehran over time, emphasizing that a deal was in progress and would be reached soon.  As a result, president trump had to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Tehran on 17^th June 27, 2026 to save the world economy from another Great Depression.

The extent which Washington achieved its objectives remain open to debate. These goals included the overthrow of the regime, the de-weaponization of Iran, and the weakening of the country’s strategic potential.  

According to the U.S political scientist Robert Pape, Iran has emerged as the fourth center of power, following the US, China, and Russia. It was obvious that Iran had been preparing for possible military misadventure by the U.S and Israel since 1979. 

One of the crucial steps that Iran took after the Islamic revolution was the creation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) parallel to its national army. Consequently, it had huge leverage over the US and Israel during overall confrontation.

Moreover, this military confrontation between the U.S and Iran gave huge advantage to Tehran, making its position stronger in the regional politics and globally. Resultantly, Tehran has achieved what it had been unable to gain over the last 47 years. It successfully gained the removal of sanctions, the release of its $24B frozen assets, dominance over the Strait of Hormuz, and recognition as a regional power. Apart from that, it still retains its regional proxies and ballistic missile program. 

While the Americans and Israelis miscalculated the war, assuming that they could win a quick and decisive victory by decapitating the regime. For that they orchestrated a plan to quickly topple the regime through a shock-and-awe campaign and they wanted to place people on the top that were subservient to them. However, the Iranian military emerged as a key deterrent against the adversary and made the pursuit of Washington’s objectives complicated.

Military command issues threat a day after Qatari mediators hailed ‘positive progress’ in indirect US-Iranian talks.

Iran’s military command has threatened ships that attempt to cross the Strait of Hormuz using unapproved routes with a “forceful response,” casting new doubt over trade flows in the critical conduit for global energy supplies.

Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters issued the threat on Thursday, a day after Qatari mediators hailed indirect negotiations between US and Iranian officials as making “positive progress” towards a peace deal.

“Any failure to comply with and depart from the designated route or disregard for the navigation protocols of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Strait of Hormuz will be met with an immediate and forceful response from the armed forces, and will endanger the security of the offending vessels,” the military command said in a statement carried by the country’s semi-official Tasnim news agency.

While Tehran did not specify what prompted the warning, it came after US Central Command (CENTCOM) on Wednesday said it had presided over a security dialogue in Bahrain during which regional leaders expressed their commitment to the “free flow of commerce” in the strait.

Iranian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Kazem Gharibabadi hit out at CENTCOM’s statement on Thursday, saying the forum “cannot establish legal order and security for the Persian Gulf”.

“The region’s security will be ensured through the end of interventions and the US withdrawal from the area, respect for countries’ sovereignty, and acceptance of new geopolitical realities – not under the military umbrella of America,” Gharibabadi said in a post on X.

The Strait of Hormuz, which facilitated about one-fifth of the global trade in oil and liquefied natural gas before the US-Israel war on Iran began in late February, has become a major sticking point in Washington and Tehran’s talks aimed at turning their fragile ceasefire into a lasting peace.

While Iran agreed to make its “best efforts” to arrange the safe passage of ships in the strait in the memorandum of understanding it signed with the US on June 17, Tehran has repeatedly threatened to attack ships that do not use its preferred route close to the Iranian shoreline.

At least 49 attacks on commercial vessels have been recorded in the strait since the start of the war on February 28, according to MarineTraffic.

Most of those incidents, including drone attacks on a Singapore-flagged cargo ship and Panama-flagged merchant vessel on Thursday and Saturday, respectively, have been blamed on Tehran.

While transits through the waterway have risen since US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed their MoU on June 17, they remain far below the roughly 130 daily crossings that took place before the conflict.

At least 45 vessels crossed the strait on Wednesday, up from 34 on Tuesday, according to MarineTraffic data.

After dropping to pre-war levels on Thursday on reports of productive talks in Doha, oil prices largely held steady as markets opened in Asia on Friday.

Brent futures for August delivery stood at $72.07 per barrel as of 02:30 GMT, after dropping below $71 for the first time since the war the previous day.

ROME — President Trump’s attacks on Italy’s premier have had an unintended consequence.

After Trump questioned Italy’s reliability as a wartime ally and claimed Giorgia Meloni had groveled for his attention, European leaders rallied to Meloni’s side, thawing what had been a frosty relationship over her hard-right political roots.

It is the latest example of how the often divisive American president is helping to draw Europe closer together.

European leaders are finding more reasons to coordinate on defense, tariffs and foreign policy as they confront wars in Ukraine and Iran, a ballooning trade deficit with China, and threats from Russia. That leaves Trump, who has often preferred to negotiate with European countries individually, with less ability to do so, analysts say.

“Most of the mainstream leaders realize that Europe is getting squeezed between China and America, and so, if not now, then when?” said Sudha David-Wilp, vice president at the German Marshall Fund. “They need to act as a bloc in order to maintain Europe’s place in the world.”

This newfound European unity could be tested next week at a NATO summit in Turkey.

European leaders rally around Meloni

Meloni’s spat with Trump has helped her strengthen ties with European leaders once wary of her party’s post-fascist roots.

A pivotal moment came in March when she wouldn’t allow U.S. bombers headed to the Middle East to use a base in Sicily without parliamentary approval.

For years before then, France and Germany often kept Meloni outside the small-group talks that helped shape Europe’s response to major foreign policy crises. That persisted into 2026 amid disagreements over the Russian war on Ukraine, including Meloni’s rejection of a proposal by Britain and France to send European troops there following a possible ceasefire.

But Trump’s escalating attacks on Meloni — who called Trump’s criticism of Pope Leo “unacceptable” — helped shift the dynamic, prompting European leaders to rally around her.

After all, they, too, have been on the receiving end of Trump’s barbs.

Meloni was firmly in the fold at a late June meeting in Berlin with the leaders of Germany, France, Britain and Poland. And she met the next day with French President Emmanuel Macron in southern France — the first bilateral summit since the pandemic.

Europe’s nationalist parties are adjusting

Even nationalist parties across the continent once aligned with Trump are recalibrating their stances because his trade policies and war with Iran are proving unpopular with voters.

In France, far-right leader Jordan Bardella recently blasted U.S. actions as “foreign interference” and described Trump as “erratic” and “extremely unsteady.” Bardella had previously welcomed Trump’s brand of nationalism as a “wind of freedom.”

In Germany, leaders of the far-right Alternative for Germany party have criticized the U.S. military campaign against Iran. The co-leader of the party, Tino Chrupalla, said in March he was “extremely disappointed” with Trump, whom he had viewed as a politician who would avoid new conflicts.

The changing rhetoric comes as elections approach, putting more focus on domestic issues.

“This pushes everyone to consider a European horizon more than an international one,” said Lorenzo Castellani, a political analyst and professor at Rome’s LUISS University,

Beyond Europe’s biggest powers

These dynamics are playing out beyond the European Union, from the Arctic Ocean to the Balkans.

When Trump threatened to take Greenland by force, protests erupted in its capital, Nuuk, and in the Danish capital of Copenhagen. Leaders across the political spectrum bristled at the threatened infringement of European sovereignty and feared it could shatter the already stressed NATO military alliance.

In Albania, a luxury development being planned that is linked to Trump’s family business has become a major political issue, drawing protests in June.

The political risks of close alignment with Trump were perhaps most clearly illustrated in Hungary. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — long regarded as Trump’s closest ally in the European Union — was voted out of office in April despite support from the U.S. president and prominent figures in the MAGA movement.

An analysis by the consultancy Maplecroft suggested that negative perceptions of the Trump administration may have weighed on Orbán politically.

Meloni’s balancing act

Though Meloni remains closely aligned with Trump on issues like immigration and security, she has long diverged from him on Ukraine. Her steadfast support for Kyiv made her more palatable for European leaders and has been a key factor in forging a more united European front toward the U.S.

During their public spat last month, Meloni said her friendship with Trump came with a heavy political cost.

In her response to his accusation that she had “begged” to be photographed with him while at the recent G7 summit in France, she wrote on social media: “As for my popularity, being your friend has certainly not helped it, nor does it depend on my relationship with you.”

A recent Pew Research Center survey found that Trump is deeply unpopular in Italy. According to the survey, 83% of Italians have no confidence in Trump’s ability to do the right thing regarding foreign affairs. His handling of a range of issues — including Iran, tariffs, and U.S. immigration policies — received a low level of support.

With a national election due by 2027 — and possibly as early as next spring — Meloni faces mounting political pressures, including fallout from the unpopular Iran war and her former ties to Trump.

Voters across Europe could hold their own politicians accountable for the actions of an American president beyond their control, said Castellani, the political analyst.

“At a certain point, when voters see the price of gasoline rising because of a war perceived as distant, they ask Meloni for the bill, not Trump.”

Zampano and McNeil write for the Associated Press. McNeil reported from Brussels. AP writers Sylvie Corbet in Paris, Geir Moulson in Berlin, and Justin Spike in Budapest, Hungary, contributed to this report.

An estimated 10 million mourners attended Iran’s first Supreme Leader’s funeral in 1989, making it one of the world’s largest gatherings. As Iran prepares for the funeral of Khamenei, it’s expecting even bigger numbers.

Maritime monitoring service TankerTrackers.com said on Thursday that a ship which Iranian media reported had run aground in the Strait of Hormuz has in fact been stuck in the same spot since March and is part of an operation managed by the notorious Iranian oil magnate Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani.

Here is what we know about Shamkhani, whom the US and EU allege is a central figure in Iranian and Russian shadow fleet operations, generating billions of dollars of oil revenues for both, and what happened to his ship in the Hormuz strait.

What do we know about the stranded ship?

On Thursday, TankerTrackers.com reported that the ship that Iranian media said had run aground in the Strait of Hormuz after using a “US-suggested route” has actually been stuck in the same spot since March.

It identified the vessel as the Arista, and reported that while it is Comoros-flagged, it is in fact part of an operation managed by the sanctioned Iranian oil magnate Shamkhani.

Who is Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani and what are the allegations against him?

Shamkhani is an Iranian oil shipping magnate who has multiple Western sanctions imposed on him. He is the son of the late Ali Shamkhani, a senior political adviser to Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ali Shamkhani led the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) for a decade until 2023, making him the second-longest-serving security chief since 1979 after former President Hassan Rouhani, who was SNSC secretary for nearly 16 years.

He was reportedly killed in the first Israeli-US strikes on Tehran on February 28 , which triggered the war with Iran and also killed Khamenei, whose funeral begins tomorrow.

In March, the Sarajevo-based Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) reported that following an investigation, Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani and his brother had used aliases and Caribbean “golden passports” to amass a $29m million property portfolio in Dubai.

The US Treasury, which has sanctioned the Shamkhani shipping empire, says it is part of a massive Iranian and Russian oil smuggling ring and that the Comoros‑flagged Arista aground in Hormuz is part of that network.

How does Shamkhani’s oil shipping operation work?

According to the US Treasury, the Shamkhani network makes use of “front” companies to buy Iranian and Russian oil for which it falsifies shipping documents. It switches the oil between vessels frequently via its shipping operations and sells the oil on to buyers who pay for it via their own front companies to obscure the flow of money.

Additional profits are funnelled through hedge funds and other money-laundering operations, the US Treasury alleges.

It said Shamkhani relies on a mix of crude oil, oil product and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) tankers to generate billions of dollars for the Iranian and Russian regimes.

According to the European Commission, Shamkhani “uses the company Milavous Group Ltd to blend crude oil with various petroleum products from Russia and to rebrand for exporting purposes, thereby concealing their origin”.

Shamkhani is not known to have responded publicly to these allegations.

What sanctions have been imposed on Shamkhani?

Shamkhani was first sanctioned by the US last July, amid a large number of Iran-related sanctions. In April, the US Treasury Department announced additional sanctions on Shamkhani’s network.

“Treasury is moving aggressively with Economic Fury by targeting regime elites like the Shamkhani family that attempt to profit at the expense of the Iranian people,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

A statement from the US Treasury added that Shamkhani “heads a multi-billion dollar Iranian and Russian petroleum sales empire that enriches a family connected to the highest echelons of the Iranian regime at the expense of the Iranian people”.

The European Union sanctions tracker website says Shamkhani is also subject to EU sanctions, describing him as “a businessperson active in the Russian oil trade and a central player in Russia’s so-called ‘shadow fleet’.”

Russia’s shadow fleet is a network of hundreds of ageing, poorly regulated oil tankers that Russia uses to export crude and fuel while evading Western sanctions imposed after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

An August last year, the UK government also announced sanctions against Shamkhani including an asset freeze, director disqualification and travel ban. Minister for the Middle East Hamish Falconer said: “The UK is announcing sanctions against those who operate on behalf of Iran, fuelling its attempts to undermine stability in the Middle East and global security.

“Iran’s reliance on revenues from trading networks and connected organisations enables it to carry out its destabilising activities, including supporting proxies and partners across the region and facilitating state threats on UK soil.”

U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers departed from RAF Fairford in the U.K. today, marking the end of a deployment to support the war against Iran. The flights come as the U.S. and Iran are still working toward a peace deal amid a shaky ceasefire occasionally marred by flare-ups of tit-for-tat attacks. However, there has been no mass bombardment of Iran since the April 8 ceasefire.

The departure was captured in video and still images by local aviation photographers, two of whom shared their work with us. Andy Riddle told us that six B-52s left RAF Fairford today in two waves of three. The first left at 10:15 a.m. local time and the second at about 2:20 p.m., noted Riddle, whose work can be found on his @Andyyyyrrrr X account.

B-52s land in the UK for Iran Ops

As we noted at the time, at least three of the bombers arrived at Fairford on March 8. It’s unclear when the others arrived. Both U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) declined comment.

In our previous reporting, we pointed out that during their time at Fairford, the B-52s operated at a high tempo, striking targets inside Iran. All told, the U.S. claims it struck 13,000 targets, though there is no way for us to know how many involved B-52s from Fairford.

You can see one of those jets leaded with stealthy JASSM cruise missiles in a photo shared with us by another local aviation photographer, who uses the @Saint1Mil X account.

Meanwhile, a dozen B-1 Lancer bombers remain at the base, according to @Saint1Mil.

Since the military won’t comment, we can’t say for sure why the BUFFs left Fairford, but the move comes after both the U.S. and Iran promised to hold off on further tit-for-tat strikes after the latest round that threatened the fragile ceasefire.

The flights also took place on a day when the U.S. and Iran concluded a round of indirect talks. However, there were no signs that the parties made headway toward a lasting peace. Instead, they focused “on issues that they had supposedly resolved two weeks ago,” Reuters reported.

“Sources said negotiators for the two countries spent two days in Doha discussing maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and financial incentives for Iran, two pillars of the initial agreement ​they signed in June, rather than more difficult topics that framework was supposed to tee up.”

The most difficult of these are the future of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its stockpile of enriched uranium.

Despite the ongoing talks, President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to resume bombing Iran. He also has “weighed a return to all-out war with Iran, holding multiple conversations in recent days with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine on more strikes, but has decided to stick with diplomatic talks for now,” The Wall Street Journal reported, citing U.S. officials familiar with the discussion.

The departure of the B-52s won’t preclude Trump from ordering a new round of strategic aviation attacks. Aside from the remaining B-1s, the Air Force can launch B-52s, as well as B-2 and B-1 bombers from the U.S. to strike Iran as it did during Epic Fury. However, having the B-52s stationed at a base like Fairford much closer to the action helps to cut down on flight times, wear and tear on the aircraft and crews, and increases the generation of sorties.

As we have frequently reported, given that the U.S. began building up forces in the region in January, many of the ships, aircraft and troops will have to ‘retrograde’ out of the CENTCOM area of responsibility in the coming weeks and months. We’ve already seen aircraft like A-10 Thunderbolt II close attack jets, F-22s, F-15Es and other assets return from the region. As a result, the future of the American footprint there remains a question mark even as negotiations continue. Reinstating a large force once it has been even partially drawn down, assuming there is the will to do so, would take time and would put extreme stress on a force structure that has seen constant surges of deployments over the last year.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Brent falls below $71 a barrel amid reports of progress in talks to end the war.

Oil prices have fallen to levels not seen since the start of the US-Israel war on Iran amid rising hopes for a breakthrough in negotiations aimed at sealing a permanent peace deal.

Brent crude fell more than 1 percent on Thursday to below $71 a barrel, returning the international benchmark to pre-war prices.

Brent futures for August delivery stood at $70.82 per barrel as of 04:30 GMT, lower than at any point since February 27.

Following the latest drop, Brent prices are down more than 38 percent from their post-war peak of more than $126 a barrel on April 30.

The slide came after Qatar, a key mediator between Washington and Tehran, said that US and Iranian officials had made “positive progress” in indirect talks aimed at resolving issues related to their memorandum of understanding (MoU) on ending the war.

US President Donald Trump also cast a positive light on the talks on Wednesday, saying the “denuclearisation of Iran is moving along well”.

Vandana Hari, the founder of the Singapore-based oil market analysis provider Vanda Insights, said a steady uptick in oil flows out of the Gulf and “cautiously optimistic geopolitical sentiment” had driven prices lower.

“Several key issues in the MoU remain unresolved, but the two sides appear to have backed off confrontation on the issue of the interim Hormuz transit regime, at least for the time being,” Hari told Al Jazeera.

“I expect crude to continue grinding lower until the backlog of stranded barrels has cleared, and prices could even swing into oversold territory,” she said.

“The real test of normalisation of Persian Gulf supply will come after that, necessitating fresh supply-demand balance recalibration.”

Shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for one-fifth of the global trade in oil and liquefied natural gas in peacetime, has shown tentative signs of recovery in recent days after a sharp decline following attacks on two commercial vessels in the waterway on Thursday and Saturday.

At least 40 vessels transited the strait on Tuesday, according to data from MarineTraffic, up from 27 crossings on Monday and 22 on Sunday.

Maritime traffic nonetheless remains far below its pre-war level of roughly 130 daily crossings amid persistent concerns about safety in the waterway.

While Iran agreed to make its “best efforts” to arrange the safe passage of vessels in the MoU it signed with the US on June 17, Tehran has since repeatedly claimed the sole right to control movement through the strait.

At least 49 attacks on commercial vessels have been recorded in the strait since the start of the war, according to MarineTraffic, most of which were claimed by Tehran or blamed on its forces.

July 1 (UPI) — Envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and their Iranian counterparts are planning to meet with Qatari negotiators Wednesday for ongoing peace talks.

On Tuesday, Witkoff and Kushner met with the prime minister of Qatar, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani. They are scheduled to meet with him again today.

Iran and Qatar have said that there will be no direct, high-level meetings between United States and Iranian officials and that all discussions will be through Qatari intermediaries, The New York Times reported. Today’s negotiations will be about the cease-fire agreement and getting it implemented, a spokesperson told The Times.

Iran’s negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, in an interview with Iran’s state media Tuesday, laid out the most important provisions of the memorandum of understanding signed on June 17.

Ghalibaf said the most important prerequisite provisions to Iranian negotiators were Articles 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11, CNN reported.

Article 1 demands an end to all fighting, including in Lebanon. Israel and Lebanon signed a cease-fire agreement on Saturday, but Hezbollah hasn’t agreed to it.

Article 4 says that the United States must lift its naval blockade and Iran must allow shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. Navy is no longer blocking the strait but it still has a presence there. Article 5 says that Iran will allow passage through the strait with no tolls for 60 days.

The next two articles are about Iranian money and oil sales. Article 10 says the U.S. will allow waivers for Iran to sell its oil, which has happened – at least for 60 days. And Article 11 says that the United States will make frozen Iranian assets available, which is unclear. The United States has said that Iran must fulfill its commitments first.

Traffic through the strait is picking up, with 34 ships passing through on Tuesday, CNN said, though that’s far from pre-war levels, which saw about 100 per day.

June 30 (UPI) — American and Iranian delegates arrived Tuesday in Doha, Qatar, for “technical talks” to discuss the memorandum of understanding that created a cease-fire between the two countries.

Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari said Tuesday that these are not high-level talks.

Unlike the recent talks in Switzerland with Vice President JD Vance and Iranian chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, these will be led by U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi. They will not meet in person and the talks will be mediated by Qatari officials. President Donald Trump‘s son-in-law Jared Kushner also participated.

Witkoff and Kushner met with the prime minister of Qatar, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani.

The discussions will “produce documents that will be elevated to principles in the high-level meetings to agree upon,” al-Ansari said.

Some of the topics expected to come up are: Financial restrictions and lifting sanctions on Iran, how to establish the free flow of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, the future of Iran’s nuclear program, the potential release of Iran’s frozen assets and regional security, CNN reported.

A recent uptick in attacks in the strait could make the talks more contentious.

Iran insists that the MOU gives it authority over the strait and has threatened ships that don’t travel on Iranian-mandated routes.

“If vessels pass through other routes, we will oppose it, we will try to prevent it, and if anything happens to those vessels, the responsibility will be their own,” Gharibabadi said on Monday, according to Iranian state media.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Tuesday that the discussions will be about the MOU.

“What will probably take place in Doha tomorrow is a discussion with the Qatari side on the implementation of some provisions of the memorandum of understanding, including the provision concerning the release of Iran’s restricted assets,” Baghaei said.

The latest data from the Statistical Centre of Iran (SCI) shows the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the period 22 May–21 June 2026 was 88.6% higher than in the corresponding period a year earlier. In practical terms, a household that spent 100 monetary units on the same basket of goods and services a year ago would now need to spend approximately 189 monetary units to purchase that basket.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Economists attribute the sharp increase in prices to a combination of long-standing structural challenges and more recent pressures. These include weak economic management, persistent fiscal and monetary imbalances, the continued impact of international sanctions, subdued growth prospects, heightened uncertainty in the business environment and widening fiscal deficits. More recently, military conflict and heightened regional tensions have placed further strain on Iran’s economy by increasing investment risks, disrupting economic activity and adding pressure on public finances.

Statistical Centre versus Central Bank figures

Alongside the figures published by the Statistical Centre of Iran (SCI), the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) has reported different inflation estimates. According to the CBI, year-on-year inflation reached 83.1% at the end of the period 22 May–21 June 2026, while the annual inflation rate stood at 57.7%.

These estimates differ from those published by the SCI, which reported an annual inflation rate of 62.0% and a year-on-year inflation rate of 88.6% for the same period.

The gap between the two sets of estimates amounts to 4.3 percentage points for annual inflation and 5.5 percentage points for year-on-year inflation. Such discrepancies are not unusual in Iran and have recurred over recent years.

The differences largely reflect variations in methodology, including the composition of household consumption baskets, the weighting assigned to individual goods and services, and data collection and sampling techniques. Although both institutions seek to measure changes in the general price level, methodological differences can lead to materially different inflation estimates.

Despite these statistical differences, both sets of figures point to the same underlying trend: Iran is experiencing one of its most severe episodes of inflation in decades. Persistently rapid price growth has become a structural feature of the economy rather than a temporary shock.

Inflation accelerates from 52% to nearly 90%

Recent data indicate that inflationary pressures have continued to intensify rather than ease. Year-on-year inflation increased from 52.6% in December 2025 to approximately 68% in February 2026, before rising further to 88.6% for the period 22 May–21 June 2026.

This trajectory suggests that inflationary pressures have become increasingly entrenched, reflecting deeper structural imbalances rather than a temporary or purely monetary phenomenon.

International forecasts also point to a challenging outlook. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects that Iran’s annual inflation rate will average around 68.9% in 2026, placing the country among the highest-inflation economies in the world. At the same time, the IMF forecasts a contraction in real GDP of around 6.1%, indicating continued pressure on economic activity.

Short-term price dynamics are also noteworthy. The Consumer Price Index increased by 5.9% over a single month, from 22 April–21 May 2026 to 22 May–21 June 2026 (the periods corresponding to the Iranian months of Ordibehesht and Khordad, respectively).

A monthly increase of this magnitude illustrates the speed at which prices are rising, making it increasingly difficult for households to maintain purchasing power and plan their finances.

Exchange-rate depreciation and inflation

Iran’s inflation surge – one of the most severe experienced by the country since the Second World War – has been closely associated with the sharp depreciation of the rial. Inflation has eroded the currency’s purchasing power, while successive declines in the rial have, in turn, fuelled further inflation by increasing the cost of imports and raising inflation expectations.

At the beginning of the year, the US dollar traded at around 1.35 million rials on Tehran’s open market. Following the start of US and Israeli air strikes against Iran on 28 February, the exchange rate rose to approximately 1.72 million rials per US dollar.

During the conflict, the exchange rate temporarily strengthened to around 1.46 million rials per US dollar as economic and commercial activity slowed, reducing demand for foreign currency. However, after Donald Trump threatened further US air strikes against critical Iranian infrastructure on 7 April, the rial came under renewed pressure, with the exchange rate weakening to around 1.63 million rials per US dollar.

Following the announcement of a ceasefire, the exchange rate recovered to approximately 1.525 million rials per US dollar. However, as economic activity resumed and Iranian officials estimated war-related damage at around US$300 billion, the rial weakened sharply again, with the exchange rate reaching a record 1.9 million rials per US dollar.

The subsequent signing of a memorandum of understanding between Tehran and Washington led to a temporary appreciation of the rial, bringing the exchange rate back to around 1.53 million rials per US dollar. Renewed tensions between Iran and the United States, however, pushed the exchange rate higher once again, approaching 1.7 million rials per US dollar.

These developments illustrate the extent to which exchange-rate movements have become a key transmission channel for inflation in Iran. Fluctuations in the rial affect not only the domestic cost of imported goods and production inputs but also the inflation expectations of households and businesses, reinforcing upward pressure on prices.

An uneven burden

Inflation has not affected all segments of society equally. Official data show that lower-income households have experienced a greater erosion of purchasing power than higher-income groups.

Year-on-year inflation reached 108.1% in rural areas, compared with 85.2% in urban areas. This disparity is particularly significant because lower-income households typically spend a larger share of their income on essential goods and services, especially food, leaving them more exposed to rising prices.

From a distributional perspective, inflation acts as an implicit tax, disproportionately reducing the real incomes of households with the least capacity to save, invest or protect themselves against rising prices.

Food at the centre of the cost-of-living crisis

The steepest price increases have been recorded in categories most closely associated with everyday household spending. Official statistics indicate that food prices have more than doubled compared with the same period a year earlier.

Year-on-year inflation reached 173.8% for tobacco, around 178% for meat, poultry and related products, approximately 152% for milk, cheese and eggs, and around 139% for bread and cereals.

Non-food categories have also recorded substantial price increases. Prices for furniture and household equipment rose by more than 111%, while transport costs increased by over 103%.

These figures suggest that the inflationary shock extends well beyond food prices. Alongside the rising cost of everyday essentials, households are also facing substantially higher costs for household goods and transport, further eroding purchasing power and placing increasing pressure on household budgets.

Wages fall behind the cost of living

One of the clearest consequences of sustained inflation is the widening gap between wages and the cost of meeting basic living expenses.

According to the Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA), the official minimum monthly wage for the current year was set at 166.255 million rials (approximately €85), while representatives at a meeting of the Supreme Labour Council on 13 March 2026 estimated that a minimum household living basket would cost around 450 million rials (approximately €225) per month.

On this basis, the official minimum wage covers only around 37% of the estimated cost of a basic living basket, leaving a shortfall of approximately 63%.

The figures illustrate how rapid inflation has eroded real wages. Although nominal wages have increased over time, they have failed to keep pace with the rising cost of essential goods and services, placing increasing pressure on household living standards.

More broadly, Iran’s inflation challenge extends beyond rising prices alone. A combination of persistent inflation, currency depreciation and weakening purchasing power has created a self-reinforcing cycle that continues to undermine household finances and economic stability.

The United States’ head of homeland security said he “danced a happy dance” when Iran were eliminated from the World Cup.

Iran missed out on qualifying from the group stage on goal difference after having a stoppage-time winner against Egypt disallowed for a marginal offside.

Coach Amir Ghalenoei said his team were the “most oppressed” at the tournament amid the backdrop of the country’s conflict with the US and Israel.

Iran’s training base was switched from Arizona to Tijuana in Mexico before the World Cup began and they faced travel restrictions throughout.

Despite Saturday’s 1-1 draw with Egypt, Iran still had a chance of qualifying as one of the eight best third-placed teams.

But their elimination was confirmed when Algeria and Austria played out a dramatic 3-3 draw on Sunday.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said: “I’m just glad they’re done, and they’re not coming back.

“I was so happy when we were able to pull their visas and said they could leave the US soil, and I might’ve sung a song or two or maybe even danced a happy dance.”

He added: “There wasn’t a single team that we had to spend more time dealing with than Iran.”

Iran were only permitted to enter the US the day before their first two matches and had to leave on the same day as the game, under the terms of their visas.

Those restrictions were eased for their final group game in Seattle, allowing them to arrive two days early, but they again had to return to Tijuana after Saturday’s match.

Iran coach Ghalenoei said that the US, co-hosts of the World Cup with Canada and Mexico, had “treated us very unfairly” and that his squad had been given “less than half” the training window it needed to prepare.

Iran captain Mehdi Taremi added: “This kind of tension undermines the joy of the World Cup. I felt the tension from the first moment we arrived.”

US president says a meeting with Iran will take place in Doha today, but Tehran says there are no plans for talks in the coming days.

US president says talks will take place on Tuesday, but Tehran has not confirmed the negotiations in Doha.

President Donald Trump says a meeting will take place between Iran and the United States in Qatar on Tuesday, suggesting that diplomacy is still on track despite the recent military skirmishes in the Gulf.

Trump’s announcement on Monday came less than two hours after a top Iranian official said that technical talks over the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Washington and Tehran “are not planned” for this week.

“IRAN HAS REQUESTED A MEETING. IT WILL TAKE PLACE TOMORROW IN DOHA!” Trump wrote in a social media post.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said the meeting would take place after conditions are met, without providing details.

“Although consultations with Qatar, including regarding the follow-up of the implementation of the other party’s commitments, are ongoing as usual, the news from some media outlets that technical talks of the working groups will be held in Doha cannot be confirmed,” Gharibabadi told Tasnim news agency.

The two statements from Washington and Tehran appear to contradict each other, but it is possible that a breakthrough finalising the meeting occurred after Gharibabadi’s comment.

Iran, however, has not confirmed that talks have been scheduled.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, will lead the US negotiating team in Doha.

“Special Envoy Witkoff and Jared Kushner will be flying to Doha for high-level meetings this week as we continue to discuss the memorandum of understanding,” she told Fox News.

Leavitt added that technical talks will take place on the sidelines of the high-level negotiations.

The US and Iran reached a deal to end the war earlier this month, kicking off a 60-day period of negotiations over the thorniest issues in the relationship – Tehran’s nuclear programme.

But the deal has been tested by Israel’s continuing attacks in Lebanon and Iran’s assertion of control over the Strait of Hormuz.

The first sentence of the 14-point MoU calls for a full ceasefire in Lebanon, “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty” of the country.

But the US has sponsored a separate agreement between the Lebanese government and Israel that conditions Israeli withdrawal on the disarmament of Hezbollah across the country.

Hormuz has been another sticking point. Iran has rejected routes through the strait outside of its control and fired at ships passing through lanes not designated by Tehran.

The US has struck Iranian positions near the waterway, to which Iran responded with missile and drone attacks against American bases in Bahrain and Kuwait.

But diplomatic and de-escalation efforts appear to continue, despite the trading of attacks.

“As far as we’re concerned, we’re holding up our end of the ceasefire,” Leavitt said on Monday, but she warned that “violence will be met with violence” if Iran attacks commercial ships or US interests.

On Monday, Trump hailed the drop in oil prices that followed the deal, which lifted Tehran’s blockade on Hormuz and eased US sanctions on Iran’s energy products.

“GAS PRICES COMING DOWN, FAST! REPORT ANY ABUSES AT RETAIL LEVEL,” the US president wrote on his Truth Social platform.

The average price of one gallon (3.8 litres) of gasoline in the US has dropped to $3.86, down from a peak of $4.56 in May. It was less than $3 before the war.

Washington and Tehran have agreed to stop attacks and renew talks in the Qatari capital, Doha, Axios reports.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in the military for planning and operations as a decision support tool at multiple stages. The US’s use of Anthropic’s Claude model against Iran marks a significant moment in the history of warfare. Integrated via Palantir’s Maven Smart System, AI-supported intelligence analysis, target identification, and operational simulations enabled planners to process information faster than human capabilities. While analysts have framed this as an “AI war,” the more significant shift lies in the growing influence of algorithmic systems in shaping military decision-making architectures.

Admiral Brad Cooper, who led Operation Epic Fury, said that AI systems processed massive amounts of intelligence and surveillance data, allowing commanders to gain insights within seconds. This is part of a wider movement to shift more complex intelligence tasks to algorithmic systems, raising questions about transparency, oversight, and reliance on algorithmic assessments.

This is also observed in other conflict zones, but in different operational roles. In Gaza, Israel’s Lavender system, developed by Unit 8200, assisted in the targeting of 37,000 suspected individuals, based on reported affiliations, using AI. Structural strikes and real-time tracking were made possible through the use of additional tools like “The Gospel” and “Where’s Daddy?” These systems reduced human review into quick, seconds-long “stamp of approval” decisions, moving targeting to machine-driven validation. In Ukraine, AI tools were used to assist in drone operations and battlefield analysis by training datasets. Initial programs, like Project Maven, relied on manually labeling 150,000 images. Currently, the Brave1 has enabled over 100 defense-tech firms to train combat AI on millions of annotated images from ongoing missions to improve these AI models.

The modern battlefield produces unprecedented volumes of data from interwoven sensor networks, drones, satellite imagery, and localized communications streams. This information comes at high speed and volume, which can overload the human brain. AI is being used to deal with this information overload, but there are concerns about the accuracy of AI-driven assessments and how much human oversight might be required to rely on AI. Military officials emphasize that humans have the final authority, but systematic integration poses challenges to oversight quality. The other predicament is automation bias, a psychological phenomenon in which a human operator, particularly under pressure or high stress, is likely to rely on the system’s recommendations. Therefore, striking a balance between speed and responsibility, ethical judgment, and accountability in the use of force is a key challenge.

Another area of concern pertains to legal and ethical issues. International humanitarian law is based on the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. With the growing use of AI in military operations, it becomes more difficult to apply these principles, thereby making accountability and scrutiny more difficult. The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that, when algorithmic systems provide input for analysis, targeting, or operational planning, it is hard to assign responsibility for any errors. Even with humans “in the loop,” the black-box nature of machine learning limits transparency and complicates legal review. It is not just a theoretical problem; it has been seen in practice. In the early US campaign against Iran, an AI-assisted missile struck a girls’ school near an IRGC compound, killing 120 children, likely due to a classification error. Anthropic’s CEO’s admission of limited awareness over Claude’s use in the strike highlights a broader issue. AI developers are fully aware of the risks associated with delegating autonomous functions to AI, yet they continue to promote its adoption. As AI assumes greater decision-making roles, concerns over misidentification and the possibility of AI acting against human directives are often overshadowed by narratives emphasizing its benefits.

For Pakistan, these developments are neither distant nor theoretical. In a region where crises can escalate quickly, AI-enabled decision support offers advantages but also carries risks. It improves situational awareness and accelerates analysis but compresses decision time, limits verification, and heightens the risk of miscalculation. Considering both, Pakistan is accelerating efforts to build AI capacity and strengthen its supporting infrastructure. At the policy level, this translates to a recognition that successful adoption is not just about adopting algorithms but about enhancing data governance, institutional maturity, and a skilled workforce capable of embedding AI into decision-making processes. Thus, Pakistan’s approach remains focused on leveraging AI to bolster human judgment in intelligence fusion, surveillance, logistics, and cyber defense.

There is a clear lesson from the academic literature and initial operational experience: algorithmic systems are transforming military information processing. However, as their role in decision-making grows, they also entail bias, error propagation, lack of transparency, and overreliance on machine-generated recommendations. AI, therefore, must be used as a support system, with humans retaining final decision-making responsibility. This requires investment in training, auditability, and institutional safeguards to ensure that human decision-makers are meaningfully engaged, rather than merely present in form. The future of warfare will likely be defined not by machines acting alone, but by humans making increasingly time-pressured decisions shaped by machine-generated insights. The central strategic challenge is not whether to adopt algorithmic tools, but how to ensure that their speed never outpaces sound judgment.

Tehran, Iran – Iran’s national football team has once again failed to realise the dream of reaching the knockout phase of the World Cup, with the wartime 2026 tournament stirring up a wide range of emotions among Iranians inside and outside the country for different reasons.

Team Melli ended its seventh appearance in the tournament after a 1-1 draw in Seattle on Friday against Egypt left them in third place in Group G, with only three points gleaned from three draws.

The team was eliminated a day later, after a series of other match results left them just outside of the tournament’s eight third-placed teams advancing to the next stage after FIFA expanded from 32 to 48 teams.

“This was very unlikely to happen, I couldn’t believe how we got out again, with just one spot away from advancing,” Milad, a resident of Tehran who watched all matches impacting Iran’s run at the World Cup, told Al Jazeera.

The circumstances were so peculiar that, among other things, they left the head coach pondering divine intervention, and state television accusing other teams of cheating and collusion.

During the Egypt match, centre-back Shoja Khalilzadeh appeared to score a 93rd-minute winner that would have automatically sent Iran into the Round of 32, but VAR ruled it out after a few centimetres of his right foot were offside.

A member of the coaching staff had his nose broken after another staff member inadvertently headbutted him during emotional group celebrations of the goal before it was overturned.

Khalilzadeh’s goal celebration included posing with sunglasses, so Egypt – which advanced to the knockout phase – later taunted him with an Instagram picture of striker Mohamed Salah giggling while wearing sunglasses.

A disgruntled head coach Amir Ghalenoei told state television during a live post-match interview that he believed everyone enjoyed the match, but at times it seemed like “God was at odds with us” due to the lack of good luck – which also included Iran scoring three VAR-overturned goals during the competition, the highest of any team.

He also blamed tough conditions faced by the players and the entire staff during an unprecedented World Cup campaign, in which the main host country, the United States, has been at war with a participating nation, Iran, for the past four months.

The US military bombed several islands in the Strait of Hormuz in Iran’s southern waters just hours before kick-off in the Iran-Egypt match.

Football federation officials, as well as other staff and media personnel, were denied visas to travel to the US for the tournament, on grounds that included their alleged affiliation with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the force running war and politics in Iran.

The playing squad was only allowed in under unusually tight restrictions, and had to be mostly based in Mexico’s Tijuana instead of the originally designated Tucson in Arizona.

They had to enter the US within 24 hours of a match and leave on the same day, with only a slight easing allowing them to arrive two days early for the Seattle match.

‘Completely mad’

After the Egypt match, Iran needed just one of three things to go their way: Croatia had to lose to Ghana, but it won 2-1; DR Congo had to fail to beat Uzbekistan, but won 3-1; and Algeria vs Austria had to produce a winner, but the match ended 3-3.

Hours before the Algeria-Austria match, Javad Khiabani, a sports presenter infamous for decades of eccentric football commentary, released a video message in Arabic, addressed to the “Muslim brothers in Algeria”. He asked them to defeat Austria and allow Iran, a Muslim-majority country that has suffered war, to advance.

Other hosts of Iranian state television and radio channels broadcasting the match live went through an emotional rollercoaster after Algeria’s Riyad Mahrez scored deep into stoppage time, creating a 3-2 result that would have sent Iran through.

“Now, a Muslim country is doing something to keep another Muslim country in the knockout stage,” shouted another ecstatic commentator, again linking the sport with religion.

He and many Iranians watching at home were devastated moments later when Austria’s Sasa Kalajdzic used his first touch of the game to equalise with a header in the box. The result benefited both teams, because it sent both into the next round, with Austria facing Spain and Algeria facing better odds against Switzerland.

Some inside and outside Iran suggested the game was rigged, but Austria’s head coach Ralf Rangnick responded to match-fixing allegations by saying: “If Alfred Hitchcock had written such a drama, I probably would have said he was completely mad”.

Killings that scarred society

For a second consecutive World Cup, Iran’s national football team did not enjoy unified support from Iranians inside or outside the country, due to the fallout from public protests against the Islamic Republic, the theocratic establishment that has governed Iran since the 1979 Revolution.

In January 2026, thousands of Iranians, including at least 230 children, were killed during nationwide anti-establishment protests that erupted across the vast country of over 90 million. The government, as with previous protests, put all the blame on “terrorists” organised by the US and Israel, but Amnesty International called it an “unprecedented deadly crackdown” by the state that also included a total internet shutdown.

Just months after the killings that scarred parts of Iranian society, some believe football players – who have all avoided commenting on the protests, but in some cases have backed the state – are not representatives of a unified Iran.

Outside the stadiums in the US during the World Cup, some anti-Islamic Republic Iranians protested using Iran’s pre-1979 lion-and-sun flag, as opposed to the official flag which features the word “Allah” in the centre, but most diaspora Iranians ended up cheering for the team in packed stadiums.

Mohammad Khakpour, a former Team Melli captain now based in the US, wrote in an Instagram post on Sunday that the fact Iranians had contrasting emotions after Iran’s elimination from the tournament carries a social message.

“When a part of the society feels that Team Melli is no longer representative of their emotions, pains or hopes, a chasm is created,” he said. “The people may not be happy from a football loss, but they may at times be happy about the collapse of an image that they do not consider to be true”.

Farhad, a 36-year-old resident of eastern Tehran, told Al Jazeera that decades from now, people may remember Team Melli not only as representing the Islamic Republic but also for the football record it left behind.

“Personally, I preferred it if they advanced, but I’m not devastated that they didn’t,” he said.

An analyst’s missed remarks and U.S. intelligence systems that weren’t connected to one another are among the missteps that investigators have surfaced while probing the cause of a missile strike on an Iranian school that killed an estimated 120 children, people familiar with the matter said.

Years before the U.S. attacked Iran at the end of February, an intelligence analyst examining information about potential future strike targets in Iran noticed changes at a site the U.S. had previously characterized as a naval facility belonging to the elite wing of the Iranian military in Minab city in the southeast of the country. It was, in fact, now an elementary school.

The analyst remarked on changes at the site in a digital intelligence tool, but that tool wasn’t linked up to the official intelligence database that the U.S. uses to develop strike targets and the information was never conveyed to military commanders, according to people familiar with the matter who declined to be named discussing sensitive topics.

On Feb. 28, when President Trump announced the start of major combat operations against Iran, a missile struck the school. The attack killed an estimated 120 children, and nearly 200 people in all, representing the worst incident of civilian harm resulting from U.S. operations in decades.

The analyst’s remarks, which one of the people familiar with the matter said were submitted in 2019, were never heeded, and the same building was reviewed several more times over the following years without anyone updating the targeting database. These discoveries are among the issues explored in a Pentagon investigation into the school strike, the people said. The results of the probe have not been publicly released.

A Pentagon official said the incident remains under investigation and that the agency has no updates to provide. On Wednesday, Trump said it may not ever be possible to determine fault and that he doesn’t think the U.S. was to blame.

The details unearthed as part of the Pentagon investigation underscore long-standing weaknesses in the U.S. military’s targeting system, one that was supposed to be improved years ago. Upgrades have instead been beset by delays, and yet they’ve grown all the more urgent with the spread of AI. Some tout the technology as a possible solution to targeting woes while others worry it could scale and accelerate the harms of war.

The investigation into the school strike was submitted in April but remains under review at U.S. Central Command, the military theater and combatant command known as Centcom that is responsible for carrying out combat operations against Iran, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.

Centcom commander Brad Cooper, a four-star Navy admiral, ordered the investigation and appointed an Air Force general from outside the command with the intention of ensuring a thorough, independent review, the person said.

The analyst’s written remarks about the school, the fact that they were entered into a digital system in 2019 that wasn’t connected to the official intelligence database and the current status of the investigation into the strike have not been previously reported. The New York Times had previously reported that an analyst noticed the building appeared to be a school several years ago and informed one other person. Targeting officials were using imagery that hadn’t been updated in seven years, according to the Times.

There are significant and long-standing gaps in how the Pentagon analyzes potential strike targets, according to former senior intelligence officials and others familiar with the matter. They declined to be named to discuss sensitive matters.

At least two intelligence database systems used for inputting remarks based on imagery, for example, have historically not been connected to the official and authoritative targeting database, people familiar with the platforms said, creating a coordination challenge that continues today.

In some cases during the mid-2010s, targeting data for historically low-priority locations where the U.S. had little historical battle experience, such as Syria, proved to be 10 or 20 years old, according to one of the former senior intelligence officials. Some intelligence staff worked double shifts and weekends at that time to manually update the system.

Starting in 2017, the intelligence enterprise undertook a similar effort to update several thousands of outdated targets in North Korea after relations between Washington and Pyongyang rapidly deteriorated, people familiar with the matter said, calling in satellites and other efforts to capture new, clear imagery as well as other types of intelligence. It took more than a year to update critical targeting information.

A legacy database known as MIDB was created in the 1980s and often relies on manual input. The Pentagon plans to replace MIDB with a machine-assisted version known as MARS that will introduce more automation.

A recently revised Pentagon doctrine outlined the challenges of integrating the many systems used to identify military targets: “The process of targeting occurs on many levels and in many locations simultaneously, yet no single interoperable solution has emerged or been established,” according to the non-public targeting document revised in April and reviewed by Bloomberg. “The entire joint targeting enterprise should seamlessly share well-understood, standardized representations of target intelligence and data and not rely on local databases.”

The MIDB and MARS systems are now both in use, but the effort to shift entirely to MARS is years behind schedule, and authoritative targeting data still relies on MIDB, according to the targeting doctrine.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2020, during Trump’s first term, described MIDB as having “long-standing deficiencies” and said it’s “unable to meet current needs.” And yet six years later, the Pentagon’s targeting doctrine still describes the system as the authoritative, all-source repository of worldwide general military and target intelligence, serving as the national database for all target lists and no-strike lists and a baseline source of intelligence on installations, facilities, military forces and population concentrations.

The characterizations of MIDB in the Pentagon’s latest targeting doctrine haven’t been previously reported.

The hope of some targeting experts is that linking digital systems and more AI will bring down targeting errors in future. An automated check against public sites such as Google Maps, for example, may help flag an anomaly for human review. The Pentagon introduced an agentic AI effort along these lines Thursday.

The Defense Intelligence Agency, an agency responsible for both MIDB and MARS didn’t directly address a request from Bloomberg for comment on MIDB’s deficiencies, delays in the MARS transition or the mislabeled school site. An agency spokesperson said its foundational military intelligence analysts conduct comprehensive analysis of infrastructure and the operational environment, drawing on all intelligence sources to produce expert intelligence analysis and produce and maintain foundational military intelligence.

Such sources can span not only satellite pictures and other imagery analysis, but also signals intelligence, human intelligence and more, the spokesperson said. Combatant commands rely on expert analytic support from these all-source analysts for operational planning and execution, including intelligence for targeting, the spokesperson said.

“DIA works in close coordination with combatant commands and Intelligence Community partners to ensure decisionmakers have the best available intelligence for our national security,” the spokesperson said in a written comment.

Under the latest U.S. targeting doctrine, military commanders are responsible for the decision to prioritize and strike a target. Along with planners, commanders are also required to distinguish between military objectives and civilian ones that are not lawful military objectives for lethal targeting.

A combatant command should establish guidance to mitigate civilian injuries and consider criteria for positive identification of a target, according to an updated section of the Pentagon’s targeting doctrine. A spokesperson for the Joint Staff, the Pentagon’s senior military staff, described that section as a “key update.”

Once a combatant command such as Centcom has assembled a target list, the joint-force commander may also initiate an additional “optional process” called target vetting to assess the accuracy of the intelligence behind the targeting, according to joint targeting doctrine reviewed by Bloomberg. As part of this process, officials would review any potential disagreements about the characterization of a target and any new imagery, the former senior intelligence officials familiar with the process said.

It would be “unthinkable” for a commander not to undertake this target vetting process for attacks planned on the opening day of a new military campaign, one of the former senior intelligence officials said. Centcom vetted targets leading up to the operations against Iran, according to the person familiar with the matter. It wasn’t clear, however, whether Centcom initiated the optional vetting process that would’ve required coordination across intelligence community agencies and a recheck of the underlying information and possibly any new imagery.

Centcom didn’t respond to Bloomberg’s request for comment on the target vetting. A spokesperson for the Joint Staff declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation.

Jack Shanahan, a former Pentagon director for defense intelligence and retired three-star Air Force general, said there is no excuse for a combatant command to not review and validate the accuracy of information provided for every targeting package. Combatant commanders have the ultimate responsibility for validating the accuracy of targets, he said.

Shanahan described targeting in an interview as a “moribund career field” that had atrophied over two decades while the U.S. military focused on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks instead of traditional combat operations. In 2017, he said, he struggled to recruit and fill targeting roles. “We knew there was a dangerous shortage in the number of trained and experienced targeting personnel and weapons effects experts,” he said. “We also knew this would become a major problem in future conventional operations.”

In the days following the Iran school strike, Trump accused Iran of conducting the attack, though he has offered no evidence. Last week, Trump said “mistakes are made and war is nasty” when asked about the strike, committed to releasing the findings of the investigation and added that he’ll accept the results.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in mid-March that the investigation “will take as long as necessary to address all the matters surrounding the incident” and that his department would “share it when we have it, absolutely.”

Dozens of members of Congress have since demanded answers about what happened. The group Human Rights Activists in Iran said it’s documented the killings of more than 1,700 civilians in the first month of the war.

Emily Tripp, director of the nonprofit group Airwars, a watchdog that logs civilian harm in conflict zones, said that her group had tracked 300 incidents of civilian harm in Iran but that it was difficult to untangle whether the U.S. or Israel was responsible for them. Trump’s own claims on social media about the U.S. being behind some attacks has made it easier for Airwars to pursue accountability, she said.

Tripp said her group refers each incident to Centcom for review. The Defense Department is behind on “every single one of their commitments when it comes to civilian protection,” she said. The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment on this specific allegation.

Bob Ashley, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the first Trump administration, is among those calling on the Pentagon to publish the results of the investigation.

“Americans know that over 100 children were killed in this strike. We need to talk to them about what happened, because their trust and confidence in us, as the Department of Defense, and as an intelligence community, matters,” Ashley said in an interview.

In a military career spanning 36 years, Ashley helped train generals, was a former commander and senior intelligence officer at the Joint Special Operations Command and Central Command and currently sits on several advisory boards for companies focused on national security.

“We have an obligation to explain the targeting process, how we apply the criteria of the laws of armed conflict and review targets to be transparent to sustain that level of trust and understanding with the American people,” Ashley said.

He said the intelligence community needs to look at what happened, scrutinize their process and ask itself: “What can we do better? What did we miss?”

Manson writes for Bloomberg.

June 28 (UPI) — The Iranian military launched fresh attacks at U.S. sites in Bahrain and Kuwait on Sunday morning amid an escalation of violence that threatens a fragile peace agreement.

Bahraini and Kuwaiti government sources said each intercepted attacks from Iran, including two ballistic missiles in Kuwait’s airspace. Bahrain said one of the strikes damaged a residential building near an international airport, The Guardian reported.

Neither country declared any casualties, The New York Times reported.

The renewed violence came after an Iranian drone struck a Singapore-flagged cargo ship while transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday. The U.S. military accused Iran of also striking a Panama-flagged tanker carrying oil on Saturday.

The United States responded Saturday with its own attacks targeting Iranian drone sites. U.S. Central Command said the strikes were “in direct response to continued Iranian aggression against commercial shipping.”

President Donald Trump announced the U.S. strikes in a post on Truth Social that also threatened further violence against Iran. He accused the country of violating a memorandum of understanding that both he and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed earlier this month.

“It is very possible that they will never learn!” Trump wrote of Iran.

“There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

Shipping via the Strait of Hormuz largely came to a halt in March after the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran beginning Feb. 28. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that under the MOU signed June 17, Iran is the sole country responsible for managing the strait.

He warned the United States against interfering in shipping through the waterway, the Times reported. He said that further interference could delay the full reopening of the strait.

“Under the memorandum of understanding, no other entity or country has any responsibility in this regard,” he said at a news conference in Baghdad.

The memorandum of understanding (MoU) the United States and Iran have signed is not a peace treaty. It is not even a credible framework for one. A vocal chorus of critics has rushed to portray it as a humiliation – evidence that President Donald Trump was manoeuvred into negotiations and extracted a poor deal from a regime that outplayed him.

That reading mistakes a mirage for reality. The Trump administration entered these talks with a precise understanding of what the Iranian regime is, what it wants and what any agreement with it is actually worth. No one in that negotiating team harbours the illusion that Tehran intends to honour commitments that constrain its core ambitions. The MоU is not a peace settlement. It is a mutually understood pause – a tactical intermission chosen by both sides for reasons that have nothing to do with trust and everything to do with time.

To grasp why, one needs only consult Iran’s unbroken record. That record is not a matter of interpretation or political dispute. It is a documented history of agreements made, commitments given and obligations systematically abandoned whenever honouring them conflicted with the regime’s objectives.

The pattern is consistent enough to constitute a doctrine: Iran negotiates under pressure, signs what is necessary to relieve that pressure and resumes its course once the immediate threat has passed.

The deeply flawed 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the most prominent recent demonstration of this cycle. Presented as a landmark of multilateral diplomacy, it was in practice a subsidised intermission – a breathing space Iran used to consolidate resources, sustain its proxy networks and continue advancing its strategic programme. The JCPOA did not change Iranian behaviour. It funded and protected it.

The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign was a direct response to that lesson: A regime of this kind cannot be managed through diplomatic lifelines. It can only be constrained by pressure severe enough to leave it no viable alternative to compliance.

The new MoU does not signal that Iran has changed. Its calculus remains what it has always been – survival and expansion, pursued through whatever tactical posture the moment requires. When pressure mounts, Iran negotiates. When pressure eases, Iran advances. Its negotiators are, by all available evidence, prepared to offer assurances they have no intention of keeping. This is not a failure of diplomatic craftsmanship. This is simply the nature of any negotiation with a regime like Iran’s.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Iranian nuclear programme. As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has repeatedly committed to transparent cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. It has repeatedly broken those commitments, blocking inspections, constructing clandestine enrichment facilities, destroying evidence and systematically deceiving the international community. The pattern is not one of occasional noncompliance. It is deliberate, sustained deception in pursuit of a single unwavering objective: the acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

A state genuinely committed to civilian nuclear energy has no need for a vast and enormously expensive domestic enrichment programme. Nuclear fuel can be purchased – from Russia, among others – at a fraction of the cost and without the international confrontation such a programme inevitably provokes.

Iran has chosen the far more costly and dangerous path for one reason: Enrichment is not a means to an end, but the end itself. Its rulers are committed to a nuclear weapon, and that commitment has survived changes in personnel, shifts in rhetoric and decades of pressure.

It will not be bargained away – and here lies the critical point that no amount of diplomatic optimism can paper over. Iran’s rulers are not pragmatic actors engaged in a conventional cost-benefit calculation. Their goals are theological and strategic in a way that places them beyond the reach of ordinary negotiation.

They do not govern in the interests of the Iranian people. The sanctions they have endured have devastated ordinary Iranians – driven up poverty, hollowed out the middle class, denied the population access to medicines and opportunity. None of that has moved the regime one degree from its course.

This is a regime that could, if it chose, transform its position entirely. It could make peace with its neighbours, normalise relations with the international community, shed the sanctions that have devastated its economy and dramatically improve the lives of Iranians. The price is not beyond reach: abandon the nuclear weapons programme, cease development of offensive ballistic missiles and end the sponsorship of terrorist proxies. Iran’s rulers have refused that bargain consistently and completely.

That is the essential context for understanding what the Trump administration is actually doing. It would be a serious misjudgement to read this MoU as evidence of American weakness or strategic confusion. The team that designed and executed the most effective pressure campaign against Iran in recent memory is not naive about this adversary.

Trump enters this pause knowing that Iran will not honour commitments that genuinely constrain it. He is not expecting otherwise. Neither side, in all likelihood, operates under any such illusion – which is precisely what makes the critics’ alarm about a “bad deal” somewhat beside the point.

You cannot be cheated by an agreement you never expected the other party to keep.

What this MoU represents is a mutually understood strategic pause, a breathing space both parties have chosen, for entirely different reasons, over immediate confrontation. Iran needs economic relief. A regime facing internal decay and a depleted treasury has strong incentives to buy time, replenish its resources and wait out what it calculates to be a finite window.

Tehran is acutely aware that Trump has roughly two and a half years remaining in office. From its perspective, survival through that period is itself a form of victory.

Washington’s calculus is different in kind. Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open is an immediate, non-negotiable goal – a choked strait means an energy price shock with global consequences. Beyond that, the US has its own repositioning to accomplish. Military inventories drawn down through recent operations are being restocked. Strategic options are being preserved and expanded.

A pause that enables that rebuilding, while avoiding a premature confrontation on unfavourable terms, is not a concession. It is preparation.

Trump has never wavered in his commitment to eliminating Iran as a strategic threat – not through wishful diplomacy, but through the kind of pressure that forecloses options. That commitment did not expire with the signing of this MoU. The question for Tehran is not whether American resolve exists but whether it can be outlasted. That is a wager the Iranian regime has made before and lost.

The international community will, as usual, observe from a careful distance. Many nations will urge Iran to be stopped while taking few steps to stop it, criticising US action and inaction with equal facility.

Trump understands this dynamic. It is the foundation of his approach to alliances – the insistence that partners bear proportionate burdens rather than simply drawing on American resolve while contributing little of their own.

The MoU will not resolve the Iranian problem. It was not designed to. When its terms expire or when Iran decides it has served its purpose, the nuclear programme will resume its advance, the proxies will be better resourced, and the Strait of Hormuz will once again become a flashpoint.

That outcome is not a possibility. Given Iran’s record, it is a near-certainty. The only consequential variable is whether the US and those willing to stand alongside it will be better positioned to act decisively when that moment arrives. Far from a mirage, the evidence suggests that is precisely what this administration is working to ensure.

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