major

Many TUI customers due to fly in the next few days will be awaiting news of whether their flights and package holidays are cancelled. The travel operator has now issued a major update on the situation

TUI has cancelled more flights to Cyprus as a UK Royal Navy warship heads for the region.

Sir Keir Starmer said HMS Dragon – a Type 45 Destroyer – will be sent to that section of the Mediterranean. The PM has also spoken with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides to let him know the UK is also “sending helicopters with counter-drone capabilities”.

It comes a day after the runway of the British air base in Cyprus, RAF Akrotiri, was hit by a drone. The Ministry of Defence said it caused “minimal damage”.

Today, flights to Cyprus’s two commercial airports were cancelled, with easyJet, Ryanair and TUI scrapping services. This afternoon, German travel giant TUI issued a major update on its coming Cyprus flights.

The spokesperson said: “In light of the evolving situation in the Middle East, we have taken the decision to cancel the four TUI Airways flights scheduled to travel to Cyprus on Wednesday, 4 March. We appreciate this may be disappointing news for those due to travel, and we are truly sorry for the disruption to our customers’ holiday plans. Our customer service teams are fully mobilised, and every affected customer will be contacted directly to discuss the options available to them.

“We want to reassure all customers that we are closely monitoring developments and keeping the situation under constant review.”

As for next steps, TUI has said: “Customers will be contacted directly and offered the option to amend their booking fee-free, with a rebooking incentive, or to receive a full refund.”

It also confirmed that its next TUI Airways flights to Cyprus are scheduled to operate on Saturday (March 7). TUI said: “At this stage, these flights are planned to run as normal. However, we continue to monitor the situation closely and, as it remains dynamic, schedules may be subject to change.”

Passengers flying out on Saturday should keep an eye on TUI’s travel alert page, as well as check its app for updates, and keep up to date with international news.

Flights cancelled on Wednesday, 4 March:

• TOM7318 – East Midlands Airport to Paphos
• TOM6312 – Cardiff Airport to Paphos
• TOM6354 – Bournemouth to Paphos
• TOM2336 – Manchester to Paphos

TUI’s website also has advice for customers currently in Cyprus. It says: “The safety of our customers is always our top priority. Our teams are working with our airline partners to monitor the situation and make arrangements to bring you back to the UK once it is safe to do so. We are working though bookings in date order and will call you to discuss your options. However, if you would prefer, please call us on 0203 451 2688.

“If you choose to call us, please be aware that we are receiving an exceptional volume of calls and there may be some delay in your call being answered.”

READ MORE: TUI, Emirates, British Airways and easyJet latest updates on when flights might resumeREAD MORE: TUI issues update for Brits impacted by Middle East travel advice

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) does not currently advise against travel to Cyprus, but many airlines have been cancelling their flights in light of the current situation.

The FCDO advises that Brits planning a holiday in Cyprus should sign up to FCDO Travel Advice email alerts, monitor local news, and regularly review departure plans as the situation can change rapidly.

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

Ensure our latest stories always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.

MAJOR changes to train ticket rules will be rolled out next month in a bid to stop fare dodgers.

The new conditions for refunding tickets will come into effect on April 1.

From April, passengers will be unable to get a refund on Off-Peak and Anytime train tickets after 11:59pm the day before travel.

This means travellers who change their plans last minute will not be able to get their money back.

Rail bosses said that the new rule was to clamp down on fraud that has cost the network around £40million a year.

They said fare dodgers had been claiming refunds on tickets that were not scanned through barriers, even if they made the journey.

PULL A PINT

Historic English train station opens pretty new pub as part of £27m upgrade

GO PARTY

Butlin’s plans huge 90th birthday party next month, with family holidays from £188

The current rules allow ticket holders to get refunds of up to 28 days after the day of travel, if the ticket has not been used.

But this leaves many travellers who might have to cancel their train journey a day before, due to illnesses or cancelled events, with no opportunity of a refund.

Rail Minister, Lord Peter Hendy, said: “Deliberate fare dodging has no place on our railways.

“It drains much-needed revenue and undercuts the trust of passengers who play by the rules.

“Changing refund rules will help stamp out fraud, keeping money in the railway – which will ensure we can deliver an improved railway with passengers at its heart.”

Bridgerton returned for its long-awaited fourth outing on Netflix, bringing Benedict Bridgerton’s love story to life at last.

Bridgerton’s showrunner has finally addressed rumours that there are plans to recast some of its key characters going forward.

Two years after Penelope Featherington (played by Nicola Coughlan ) and Colin Bridgerton ( Luke Newton ) became official, the Netflix period drama returned to delve into Benedict Bridgerton’s (Luke Thompson) journey.

As expected with the free spirited second eldest son, his story wasn’t going to be a simple one as Benedict fell for maid Sophie Baek (Yerin Ha) but luckily, they managed to get their happy ever after.

Something that has troubled some fans though is the fact that season one’s Daphne Bridgerton (Phoebe Dynevor) has failed to return to the show since the second series.

Much to some fans’ disappointment, Daphne didn’t even show up at the funeral of sister Francesca Bridgerton’s (Hannah Dodd) husband John Stirling (Victor Alli).

The same can be said for her husband Simon, Duke of Hastings (Rege Jean-Page) who hasn’t been in Bridgerton since it first launched in 2020.

Their lack of absence has led viewers to question if Daphne and Simon could be recast for future series so their characters can feature in the show.

However, showrunner Jess Brownell has shut down this speculation, explaining why she wouldn’t want to axe Dynevor and Jean-Page from the Bridgerton universe.

“We are not interested in recasting the characters,” she told Variety.

“I think it would [be] a disservice to everything Regé and Phoebe set up in season one, and all the beautiful work they put into those characters.

“We would love to potentially have them back at some point, but I think, logistically, we want to make sure we bring them back when we have something really meaty for them.

“To have them come back to say a line at a funeral and just prove that they were there, it wouldn’t feel right for many reasons.”

Brownell went on to add that she would love to “bring everyone back at some point in the future” but given the cast’s increasingly busy schedules, this may become a challenge.

Since leaving Bridgerton behind, Dynevor has starred in films including erotic thriller Fair Play, political drama Anniversary and conspiracy thriller Inheritance, to name a few.

Meanwhile, Jean-Page has been in spy thriller Black Bag, fantasy film Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves and The Gray Man.

They aren’t the only ones who have been busy away from the Netflix hit as Anthony Bridgerton’s Jonathan Bailey has since gone on to star in Jurassic World Rebirth and the Wicked franchise.

But if Bridgerton ever did come to an end, could the final series bring the entire original cast back together again?

Bridgerton is available to watch on Netflix.

FLYING in economy usually makes you think of leg pain thanks to limited space.

But one airline’s economy seats are known for having the opposite.

Japan Airlines is often considered as having one of the best and most spacious economy seats in the world, having won the Skytrax award for ‘Best Economy Class Airline Seat’ for six consecutive years.

For example, Japan Airlines has a seat pitch – that’s the distance between seats – of up to 86cm.

Other airlines usually have up to a maximum of 81cm.

The seats are also wider on a Japan Airlines flight, with the Boeing 787 Dreamliners using a 2-4-2 configuration, rather than 3-3-3.

Read more on travel inspo

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

SUN SWAP

I’ve visited Florida 50 times… my holiday costs less than a European all-inclusive

This allows each seat to have an extra 5cm of room, reaching up to 48cm in total width.

There’s more room between armrests as well, ranging from 45cm to 48cm.

Seats also have 13-inch 4K entertainment screens, adjustable headrests, power outlets and built-in cup holders.

The food on board is next level too, as Japan Airlines collaborates with leading Japanese restaurants to create their in-flight meals.

And Brits can experience this as well…

Japan Airlines runs long-haul flights from London Heathrow to a number of destinations including Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima, Fukuoka, Nagoya and Okinawa.

Japan Airlines flights from the UK usually start from around £700 return.

Last year, travel writer Jacob Lewis tried out the first cabin seats with built-in speakers, which were on Japan Airlines aircraft.

He said: “Settling into my private business class suite, I felt nervous as I queued up The Super Mario Bros Movie on my massive 24-inch 4K monitor.

“But it turns out my fears of disturbing my neighbours‘ peace were unfounded.

“Even with explosions raging at full volume through the headrest speakers, you couldn’t hear a peep from the aisle.

“I thoroughly tested this theory by enthusiastically blasting some aggressively peppy J-pop, but again, the audio seemed to be tuned perfectly to keep it confined to my seat.

“The speakers will truly come into their own if you’re the kind who likes to fall asleep to music or a movie.”

He also added that the rest of the cabin felt futuristic.

He said: “Each seat now comes with fully closing doors featuring translucent panels that feel private without being claustrophobic.

“There’s wireless charging built right into the console (no more wrestling with cables mid-flight) and a handy wardrobe space to store your shoes before you step inside, Japanese style, along with your jacket.

“The seat itself features pressure-dispersing cushions that make you forget you’re in an airplane seat at all, and the cabin crew will fetch a nice squishy memory foam-style mattress when it’s time to sleep.”

In other airline news, British Airways launches £2 flights to two European destinations – with a catch.

Plus, British Airways launches European holiday sale with 25% off flights and £200 off breaks – here are the best deals.

US President Donald Trump says American forces have begun “major combat operations” in Iran alongside Israel, aiming to eliminate what he described as imminent threats from the Iranian regime and defend the American people.

A major airport sparked debate around airport dress codes when it announced it wanted to become the “world’s first Crocs-free AND pyjama-free airport”, and travellers have been left divided by the X post

A major airport has ignited controversy over appropriate airport clothing with an X post declaring “We’ve had enough.” Tampa International Airport took to X (formerly Twitter ) yesterday (February 26) with an announcement claiming it aspired to become the “world’s first Crocs-free AND pajama-free airport”.

The post opened with the declaration “We’ve seen enough. We’ve had enough.” before stating “The madness stops today.” The airport took aim at travellers sporting pyjamas in broad daylight, encouraging people to have a “difficult conversation” with relatives who might be guilty of such a fashion misstep, reports the Express.

While the airport went on to confirm to USA Today that the post was lighthearted, it nevertheless triggered a discussion about appropriate flying attire and whether dress codes ought to be enforced.

Its statement explained: “Tampa International Airport regularly shares lighthearted, satirical social media content as part of our ongoing effort to engage with our followers. Today’s post about ‘banning’ pajamas was another playful nod to day-of-travel fashion debates. We encourage our passengers to travel comfortably and appreciate our loyal followers who enjoy the online humor.”

While airports typically don’t enforce dress codes, there have been cases where passengers have been refused boarding or removed from planes based on their attire. In 2024, two women sporting crop tops were removed from a Spirit Airlines flight leaving Los Angeles after declining to cover up with their jumpers.

In 2025, the budget carrier updated its contract of carriage, warning that travellers who are “barefoot or inadequately clothed” could face boarding refusal or removal from the aircraft. Spirit’s terms and conditions specify this includes “see-through clothing; [being] not adequately covered; exposed breasts, buttocks, or other private parts”.

The airline also prohibits clothing and body art deemed “lewd, obscene, or offensive in nature” and states it may refuse boarding to passengers with “an offensive odor unless caused by a qualified disability”.

British airlines and airports haven’t yet introduced clothing regulations, apart from suggestions to dress comfortably, though certain airport lounges do have dress codes. No1 Lounges, which operates facilities at major hubs including London Gatwick and Heathrow, states on its website: “Yes, we have a dress code in place. We ask all our guests to wear smart-casual clothing.

“Our dress code stipulates that we reserve the right to refuse admission to anyone wearing clothing which we deem to be unsuitable. This includes themed or fancy-dress outfits, clothes with slogans that may cause offence, sports shirts, beach flip flops, vests, and clothing that exposes midriffs or upper thighs.

“Our My Lounge spaces are designed to be a little more relaxed and informal, encouraging guests to dress comfortably and express their individuality. Casual clothing, trainers, flip flops, and athleisure are welcome at My Lounge.” The policy does clarify, however, that unsuitable items such as fancy dress are still banned in these areas.

Despite its tongue-in-cheek tone, Tampa International Airport’s social media post ignited discussion about appropriate flying attire. One commenter enthused: “I love this! Let’s go back to the way it was in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s!”, accompanied by vintage photographs showing impeccably dressed passengers from bygone eras.

READ MORE: Little-known passport rule could see you turned away at the airportREAD MORE: Brits in holiday hotspot face ‘blood rain’ as Saharan dust cloud batters Europe

Another countered: “I’ll dress nice again when we’re not treated like cattle at the airport and on the plane.” While contributor questioned: “How are you even classifying clothing as pajamas to begin with? Are sweatpants, yoga pants, children wearing soft clothes pajamas?”.

Would you back dress codes at airports and on airplanes? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Ensure our latest stories always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.

Artificial intelligence could deliver the productivity surge policymakers have been hoping for since the global financial crisis. But even if it does, economists caution that faster growth will not be enough to solve the mounting debt burdens weighing on advanced economies.

Public debt already exceeds 100% of GDP across most rich nations and is projected to rise further as ageing populations strain pension and healthcare systems, interest bills climb and governments ramp up defence and climate spending. Against that backdrop, AI is increasingly being framed as a potential fiscal lifeline.

The reality is more complicated.

Productivity: The “Magic” Ingredient-With Limits

Economists broadly agree that sustained productivity growth can dramatically improve fiscal dynamics. Higher output boosts tax revenues without raising tax rates, makes existing debt easier to service and reassures bond investors worried about long-term solvency.

At the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), modelling suggests that if AI meaningfully raises labour productivity and if employment also expands public debt across member countries could be about 10 percentage points lower by the mid-2030s than otherwise projected. Even then, debt would still climb to roughly 150% of GDP on current trajectories, up from around 110% today.

In the United States, best-case projections from several economists suggest debt could rise more gradually, to roughly 120% of GDP over the next decade rather than accelerating more sharply. But that still represents historically elevated levels.

As one economist put it, productivity is “like magic” for fiscal sustainability yet today’s debt challenges are too large for productivity gains alone to offset.

Demographics: The Structural Headwind

The fundamental constraint is demographic.

Ageing populations mean fewer workers supporting more retirees, pushing up pension and healthcare costs. In the United States, Social Security alone accounts for roughly one-fifth of federal spending, and benefits are indexed to wages. If AI lifts wages, it may simultaneously increase future benefit obligations.

Slowing immigration in some countries, particularly the U.S., compounds the issue by limiting labour force growth. If AI boosts output per worker but the total number of workers stagnates or declines, overall fiscal relief may be limited.

In short, AI may buy time but it does not reverse the demographic arithmetic driving long-term deficits.

Growth vs. Interest Rates: A Delicate Balance

For debt sustainability, what matters is not just growth, but the relationship between growth and borrowing costs.

If AI-driven productivity pushes economic growth above interest rates for a sustained period, governments can stabilise or even reduce debt ratios more easily. But if faster growth also lifts real interest rates for example, because higher productivity raises returns on capital then debt servicing costs could rise in parallel.

This debate is already unfolding among policymakers at the Federal Reserve, where officials are assessing whether AI could permanently raise the economy’s potential growth rate.

Bond markets will be decisive. Since the pandemic, investors have shown a willingness to punish governments perceived as fiscally profligate. Higher yields can quickly offset any growth dividend from technological gains.

Employment and Wages: The Distribution Question

Much depends on how AI reshapes labour markets.

If AI complements workers and creates new categories of employment, tax revenues may rise meaningfully. But if automation displaces workers faster than new jobs are created, or if profits accrue disproportionately to capital rather than labour, fiscal gains could disappoint.

Capital income is often taxed more lightly than wages. A productivity boom concentrated in corporate profits rather than payrolls may widen inequality without generating proportionate public revenue.

On the spending side, governments might benefit from efficiency gains in public administration. Yet history suggests higher growth can also lead to higher spending demands from infrastructure upgrades to social transfers.

No Substitute for Fiscal Reform

Even in optimistic scenarios where AI lifts U.S. growth closer to 3% annually for an extended period, debt ratios are projected to stabilise at elevated levels rather than return to pre-crisis norms.

In pessimistic scenarios where AI disappoints or a recession strikes before productivity gains materialise debt trajectories could worsen significantly, potentially reaching levels that trigger market instability.

The consensus among economists is clear: AI can ease fiscal pressure, but it cannot substitute for structural reforms. Addressing entitlement sustainability, improving tax efficiency and managing spending priorities remain central.

A Race Against Time

There is also a sequencing risk. If financial markets grow nervous about fiscal trajectories before AI-driven gains are realised, borrowing costs could spike. In that case, the productivity dividend may arrive too late to calm bond investors.

Technological revolutions historically take time to diffuse across economies. Infrastructure, regulation, workforce training and corporate adoption all shape how quickly productivity benefits materialise.

For debt-laden economies, the gamble is that AI’s boost will be large, broad-based and timely. That is possible but far from guaranteed.

AI may help governments breathe easier. It will not absolve them of the harder political choices required to put public finances on a sustainable path.

With information from Reuters.

Jonathan Majors is ready to stage his comeback — by teaming up with the Daily Wire.

The actor is reportedly filming his first movie since being found guilty of assaulting and harassing a former girlfriend in 2023. According to Deadline, production on the untitled action movie from the Daily Wire and Bonfire Legend begins this week in South Carolina.

Written and directed by “Run Hide Fight” filmmaker Kyle Rankin, the movie is described as “in the vein of ’80s and ’90s action movies ‘Red Dawn’ and ‘Toy Soldiers,’ ” per the outlet. In addition to starring in the film, Majors will also serve as an executive producer, the entertainment outlet reported.

“You’re not going to BELIEVE what we’re doing,” right-wing pundit and Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shaprio said in a Thursday post on X sharing the news. On Facebook he claimed, “This movie is going to be WILD.”

Majors was a Hollywood star on the rise when he was arrested on charges of assault, strangulation and harassment in March 2023. The “Creed III” and “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” actor was swiftly dropped from projects, his management company and his public relations team. Once poised to be the next central villain in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, he was also dropped by Marvel Studios following his conviction.

Majors avoided jail time and has since married fellow actor Meagan Good after a brief engagement.

In addition to Shapiro, who will be producing for the Daily Wire, Dallas Sonnier will be producing for Bonfire Legend. Neither company has shied away from courting disgraced Hollywood talent trying to revive their careers.

Among the Daily Wire and Bonfire Legends’ previous joint projects is “Terror on the Prairie,” the 2022 western starring Gina Carano. The “Mandalorian” actor was fired by Disney in 2021 for “her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities” that the company called “abhorrent and unacceptable.” (Carano filed a lawsuit against Disney alleging wrongful termination in 2024. The lawsuit was settled in August.)

TWO major UK train stations are shutting down for 22 days over the summer.

Southern Eastern Railway will carry out engineering works which will affect journey time for 10,000 commuters.

From Sunday 26 July to Sunday 16 August, Charing Cross and Waterloo East stations will be closed for essential track and bridge repairs.

Officials say the closures are part of a £20 million overhaul that’ll see nearly 1,800 metres of old, worn-out track ripped up and replaced between Waterloo East and Charing Cross.

Customers have been advised that their journeys might be different and take longer.

Routes to London will remain open but will instead be diverted to other stations.

PARK IT NOW!

Fuming caravan park owners and visitors demand Labour scrap tax on staycations

CONTENDER READY!

Inside the huge new UK Gladiators experience where you run the gauntlet

Southeastern services into Charing Cross will be redirected to Victoria, Cannon Street and Blackfriars stations.

Some trains will be terminating at London Bridge while tickets will be accepted on alternative rail routes, London Underground and buses.

The ageing track, which was last replaced more than 35 years ago, has caused repeated faults on the approaches to Charing Cross.

This has led to hundreds of hours of delays, leaving frustrated commuters stuck on platforms or stranded on packed trains.

As well as ripping up and replacing worn-out track, engineers will tackle drainage upgrades at Waterloo East and carry out vital structural repairs to Hungerford Bridge.

The three-week closure is expected to prevent future shutdowns during bank holidays and weekends and will deliver more reliable service.

Scott Brightwell, Director of Operations and Safety, South Eastern Railway, said: “We know closing Charing Cross and Waterloo East for 22 days is a significant change and we’re sorry for the disruption it will cause.

“This is not a decision we’ve taken lightly. We’ve looked long and hard at every possible option and although none of them are without impact, a single summer closure is the least disruptive and most efficient way to carry out this vital work.”

So, here we are, once again. The United States has flooded the Middle East with combat capabilities. A massive investment has already been made in airframe hours, manpower, and naval resources in preparation for what could be the biggest initial military action America has taken in more than 20 years. Such an operation is not without absolutely massive risks. Iran has prepared for this day for many decades, and so many questions remain outstanding. Glaring ones. Ones that impact the globe and especially those tasked with fighting what could very well be a bloody war that has, at least at this time, highly opaque goals.

Let’s talk about those questions.

What is the goal?

This is the biggest unknown. What are we getting into here? Aside from the possibility that this is a giant feint — a hammer and anvil tactic to force a diplomatic outcome — there have to be clear military goals. Would an air campaign be focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear program alone? There are limitations to achieving that goal with airpower. Israel, too, is well aware of this. Is this goal to be paired with absolutely neutering Iran’s military-industrial base, along with its existing combat capabilities? That would seem more likely, but doing so would require a much larger, sustained operation.

There have also been reports that the White House is eyeing a limited operation in order to force Iran to make a deal. This seems wildly reckless both on a military and diplomatic level, and I doubt these reports are true. The Pentagon would never recommend this. It would ruin any element of surprise and the cumulative impact of using everything at its disposal to shock, blind, and deafen Iran’s command and control. It would also likely result in Iran counter-attacking, which sets off a chain of events that will be hard to pull back from.

Then there is regime change. That term comes with immense baggage for obvious and totally relevant reasons. Even if this goal is achieved — the collapse of the current regime — mainly through strikes, what comes next? Is there a plan in place for who will succeed Khamenei, and what would that group’s own goals be? How would they seize power when the power vacuum appears? Or will decapitating the regime throw Iran into civil war or even worse, a country controlled by the fanatical IRGC, which, on paper, would seem to be a prime candidate with the might and infrastructure to assume control.

In other words, could lopping off the head of the snake just see another, even more gruesome serpent take its place?

We don’t know the intelligence or what is going on clandestinely to see that such a risky operation has any chance of long-term success. Without a solid plan, such a move would seem to only invite more risk.

And once again, obtaining this level of transformation largely via airpower is a highly questionable proposition, at best. There is absolutely no appetite domestically to engage in another ground war in the Middle East, so that option is a non-starter, which is a good thing, as America’s track record in this regard is terrible.

Finally, as we have mentioned before, the U.S. military has a lot of combat capability now in the region, and more that can strike from afar, but there doesn’t appear to be enough to sustain a long campaign with a wider set of objectives. So this may limit what can be achieved.

That brings us to the next question.

What will Israel’s role be?

I think it’s safe to assume that Israel will be involved deeply in any major military operation the United States executes against Iran. Frankly, for any sustained campaign, based on the airpower capabilities in the region, America will need Israel’s help, and for that to be en masse.

Israel brings hundreds of fighter aircraft, unique munitions, and more to the fight. Supported fully by America’s tanker force, Israel’s tactical airpower will be far more effective than it was during the 12 Day War less than a year ago. Combining forces fully to achieve a common outcome is more powerful than the sum of its parts in this case.

Beyond traditional airpower, leveraging Israel’s intelligence would be critical. Traditional intelligence products from Israel will be key in achieving any outcome faster in an air war. The same can be said for the flow of U.S. information in Israel’s direction. Still, operating seamlessly is very tough in such a complex, long-range combat scenario. While Israel and the United States have repeatedly trained on smaller scales for this type of operation, doing it on a massive scale is a different story. How the tasking orders would be assigned and deconflicted would be very interesting to watch.

But even above the traditional combat power and intelligence Israel can offer such a mission, Israel’s deep presence on the ground in Iran will be arguably of the greatest value. Nobody is anywhere as deeply embedded inside Iran as Israel. And this will impact the full gamut of potential operational scenarios.

Case in point is the Mossad’s novel operation to take out Iran’s air defenses in key areas using operatives on the ground equipped with one-way attack drones and loitering anti-tank guided missiles. While suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses is largely thought to be relegated to the role of airpower, it is anything but limited to just this domain. And Israel proved this on an unprecedented level in the opening stages of the air war in June. Those near-field attacks on Iranian air defense sites allowed standoff munitions, drones, and eventually manned aircraft to make it to their targets, firmly setting the momentum in Israel’s favor during the opening parts of the campaign. It wouldn’t be that surprising if this is repeated, at least in some altered fashion, during whatever could happen in the coming days.

Mossad operatives on the ground also worked to assassinate the cream of Iran’s nuclear scientist corps during the operation, mainly using drones launched from near their targets. We would likely see a similar operation take place against military and regime leadership in the opening stages of the looming conflict, if it comes to pass. There are no indications that the United States has anywhere near this capability working inside Iran.

As we have discussed for years, Israel would likely be willing to put special operations units on the ground to seize and destroy absolutely critical hardened targets, such as nuclear sites or possibly individuals hidden within regime bunkers, that are not capable of being destroyed from the air. The United States could as well, but the political risks would be far higher if such an operation went awry.

Finally, it is worth noting that going to war alongside Israel against Iran brings additional diplomatic risks in the region, although these have waned in recent years as Arab countries have become far less hostile to the Jewish State. These Arab states also could see a massive benefit from a successful campaign that rejiggers the status quo in the region and ends Iran’s troublesome influence throughout it. Still, the economic disruption alone could be large, especially if the war carries and if Iran actively works to deny access to the Persian Gulf.

Real dangers

We have not seen modern Iran fight for its very life against the United States or even Israel. On paper, Iran can do immense damage to the region. Yes, it can close and mine the Strait of Hormuz, causing massive repercussions that could last long after the war ends, a possibility which you can read about here. This is a well-understood danger. But above even that, Iran has an absolutely huge inventory of standoff weapons — specifically cruise missiles, long-range one-way attack drones, and most importantly, ballistic missiles. On the latter, there is a broad misconception that Israel wiped out Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

During the 12 Day War, Israel was concerned with Iran’s long-range ballistic missiles — MRBMs and IRBMs. These are also the easiest to find, fix, and destroy. They are large and their launchers are vulnerable because of it, especially during the pre-launch fueling stage. The location of the storage areas for these missiles is well known, including the missile cave complexes, some of which have the ability to launch the missiles through apertures in launch room ceilings. By hitting the entry and exit points of these facilities, these weapons are not destroyed but they are trapped inside.

In addition, Israel focused their interdiction ‘missile hunting’ efforts on these long-range weapons that threaten its homeland. They were also the weapons that had to be exposed as they were employed in retaliatory strikes during the war. The shorter-range stuff didn’t need to be as it was largely not used.

To make this clear, Iran’s far more plentiful short-range ballistic missiles that threaten American bases in Gulf Arab allied states were not heavily targeted. The same can be said for the shorter-range drones and cruise missiles.

So no, these capabilities were not knocked out by any means, and they are also by far the easiest for Iran to disperse and hide. This makes hunting for them from the air extremely problematic. This is especially true when Iran enters into a combat state, where it distributes these missiles, which are largely loaded onto common truck platforms, into population centers and hidden under pretty much anything. They can also shoot and scoot much faster than their long-range counterparts.

The IRGC-N took a massive delivery of anti ship missiles for coastal defense

Note the dual tube launcher in the pics, which we’ve never seen before. Seems to be a new anti ship new cruise missile. Sadly no information was given besides pics

My guess is possible supersonic AShM pic.twitter.com/i7i0z8uFc0

— Iran Defense commentary (unofficial) (@IranDefense) August 9, 2024

With all of America’s intelligence capabilities, finding and destroying these weapons from the air will be extremely challenging. Even the relatively meager arsenal belonging to Yemen’s Houthis proved vexing for the U.S. military after many months of sustained ‘hunting.’ The Houthis continued to get off successful coastal launches throughout these operations. The scale of the Iranian threat is exponentially larger, and the country has more complex terrain to hide these weapons.

Iran’s shorter-range standoff weapons number in the thousands. They have the ability to saturate the best defenses on earth and lay waste to prized targets across the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, and deeper into allied Arab nations. This not only makes nearby basing of U.S. aircraft and personnel problematic, but it greatly increases the cost of any war the United States could execute against Iran.

We have seen what it took to defend against just one volley of Iranian short-range ballistic missiles. It resulted in the largest volley of Patriot interceptors in history. Even that defensive action wasn’t entirely successful at rebuffing the attack, let alone repeated ones that would include layers of drones, as well as cruise and ballistic missiles.

Footage of a US/Qatari PATRIOT surface to air missile system conducting a large ballistic missile engagement over Al-Udeid this evening, salvoing out dozens of PAC-3 interceptors at incoming Iranian ballistic missiles. pic.twitter.com/a7OHrs9svr

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 23, 2025

There is also a risk to American warships, even those that are operating far out to sea. Iran has shown it has the ability to launch long-range anti-ship weaponry not just from its coasts and warships, but from unassuming seaborne platforms, including using containerized missiles and drones. The farther U.S. Navy vessels have to operate from Iranian territory also means their missiles won’t be able to penetrate as far into the country. A carrier’s air wing will need additional tanking support to get to its targets, and sortie rates will be lowered.

These capabilities, along with the possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz, drastically increase the chances of expanding the conflict by pulling Arab countries into it, as well, which would complicate, not help the cause, at least in many respects.

Iran knows full well where American aircraft are currently based, and they will throw everything they have at these sites. This includes America’s sprawling airbase in Jordan that is packed with tactical airpower. They know what defenses are there and have an understanding of what it will take to overwhelm them if they get the chance to do so. So the idea that we could not see mass losses of aircraft and other materiel, and even lives, on the ground, even when striking from afar, is not reality.

The same can be said about an air war. The U.S. has the most advanced air combat capabilities on earth, but ‘shit happens,’ especially during war. Even the Houthis nearly downed U.S. fighter aircraft optimized to destroy enemy air defenses. But regardless of defenses and the state of Iran’s air defense overlay, putting Americans over Iran, and repeatedly over days and weeks, is a risk. Aircraft can malfunction and mistakes can be made. When that happens, it will require even more risk to push combat search and rescue assets into the area to try and recover the crew. In other words, regardless of America’s outstanding air warfare capabilities, there is still a real risk involved in any operation over Iran.

Finally, if Iran is really backed into a corner, and especially if its most extremist elements remain in play, it could resort to weapons of mass destruction. Specifically, chemical weapons and rudimentary radiological ones (dirty bombs) could be used in a dying gasp of the regime. If they did this, it would mean a certain end for the sitting power structure in the country, but if that is going to happen anyway, they could lash out in horrible ways. There is debate as to whether Iran would, or even could, actually do this, but historically, the regime in Tehran is no stranger to the use of chemical weapons.

Defending Israel again

Iran did not run out of long-range ballistic missiles during the 12 Day War, either. They ran out of ones available for launch, and they likely saw real degradation in their ability to launch those accessible due to Israel’s interdiction efforts and disarray in Iranian command and control after nearly two weeks of being bombarded. Since that war, Iran has been pumping out more of these missiles at a high rate, despite Israel’s attacks on missile production-related targets. Some of these weapons are quite advanced, proving their ability to penetrate the IDF’s multi-tier integrated air defense system, the most advanced one on Earth, an air defense capability you can read all about here.

At the same time, the 12 Day War saw the United States and Israel burn through stocks of advanced interceptors, especially the mid-course or near mid-course intercept-capable ones. These weapons take years to produce and cost many millions of dollars each. Israel’s coveted Arrow system was reported to be running low on interceptors towards the end of the war, although how accurate those reports were is in question. The U.S. military burned through a large portion of its THAAD interceptors and many of the U.S. Navy’s prized SM-3 interceptors. This is on top of Israel ripping through countless Stunners fired by David’s Sling. The U.S. also fired a considerable number of PAC-3 Patriots and air-to-air missiles during the conflict while defending in areas outside of Israel from missile and drone attacks. But it’s the stockpile of the upper tier of missile defense interceptors that is most concerning.

If Iran was truly fighting for its life and knowing the end could be near, how many missiles will it send at Israel, and how many interceptors are available to defend against those barrages? Iran also has become increasingly savvy on what tactics to employ and where in order to overwhelm Israel’s defenses. While targeting has focused, at least to a degree, on military and governmental targets, if this was an all-out conflict, it’s likely Iran would just concentrate on population centers with whatever it has to throw at the cause.

The U.S. stockpile of advanced munitions is already a real concern after multiple campaigns to defend Israel, the long and violent standoff in the Red Sea, and the war in Ukraine. This is especially true for its more advanced interceptors, which are also in extreme demand among allies globally. This is all happening as the threat from China is growing more concerning by the day. A war in the Pacific will consume stocks of these weapons at a vastly higher rate than anything we have seen before. If those magazines run dry, it could mean the difference between winning and losing in that critical theater. And remember, these weapons take years to produce and cost many millions of dollars each. So it’s not like you can just say, ‘we’ll buy more.’ Of course, we will, but we won’t get those weapons for years, even as expansion of production is now underway across the DoW’s munitions portfolio.

So the cost of taking on Iran is not just in money and assets, and especially blood, it’s the opportunity cost of expending precious weapons in a war of choice that would be essential in a war of necessity that could erupt at any time.

Wild cards

There are capabilities and war plans we know nothing about. It may be possible that the United States thinks it can break Iran’s command and control capabilities so quickly that it can preempt many of its most dangerous weapons from being used in large quantities. This could come in the form of cyber attacks, other forms of espionage, electronic warfare, and exotic weaponry — and more likely a combination of the above. It could also be the orchestration of an insider coup-like scenario.

There is also the possibility that the United States thinks Iran’s military apparatus would simply collapse under a full combined aerial assault by the U.S. and Israel. A possible decapitation of the regime is another factor here.

If this is the case, and Iran’s warfighting capabilities can be left largely unused, then the risk equation changes. But this is a massive bet to make, and just how certain whatever measures are used will have the exact crippling effects intended could mean the difference between go and no-go for a major campaign.

In other words, we really don’t know what the United States and Israel still have up their sleeves. And maybe they have nothing that would cause such a dramatic effect at all. Instead, hitting them traditionally fast and hard, along with cyber, espionage, electronic warfare, and everything else, will be needed to erode Iran’s ability to fight back over time.

Regardless, the United States and Israel have prepared for exactly this eventuality for decades, so there certainly are bound to be some surprises. Of what magnitude is the question.

What if a deal is made, but Israel doesn’t think it’s good enough?

It’s possible that the game tree could expand in such a way that the United States makes a nuclear deal with Iran, but it does not address the long-range missile threat, or even the nuclear program, to a sufficient degree in Israel’s eyes. If this occurs, there is still the chance that Israel goes it alone and tries to do as much damage as possible to both of these elements. In some ways, this could be played to America’s advantage as it could deny being involved in the conflict and work to see if the deal sticks even after Israel’s kinetic action. In this case, American resources would be used to defend Israel, but not participate in the attack.

This may sound far-fetched, but it really isn’t an impossibility. Especially if Trump realizes how much of a commitment achieving something meaningful via an air campaign could become, as well as the risks of what comes after on the ground in Iran.

Whether a nuclear deal would even survive such a situation is unclear, but it’s possible.

Why now?

In the end, these are the fundamental questions Trump has to be asking himself and his aides: Is going to war with Iran really worth the risks, both the known ones and unknown ones, and what is the goal in doing so? Is that goal readily attainable and at what cost?

These questions also bleed directly into the political arena. Trump claimed to be the President that would get America out of wars, not start them, and especially ones that seem like they could spiral out of control relatively easily, resulting in much longer-term commitments. While he has had some stunningly successful military victories as of late, and there is a danger for politicians to think it will always turn out a similar way, that can change very quickly. If America wakes up to seeing a U.S. pilot being dragged through the streets of Tehran, any support for this conflict could quickly evaporate.

Above all else, the question has to be asked, why now? What has prompted the idea of declaring war on Iran at this moment? Yes, the protests and the brutal deaths of thousands at the hands of the regime seemed to have moved Trump, but that was subsequently used as a pretext for nuclear negotiations, not to correct human rights abuses.

In addition, Trump has declared repeatedly that he destroyed Iran’s nuclear program after the B-2 strikes in June. So why, just eight months after that action took place, is the United States about to go all-in against Iran over its nuclear program? We have heard anecdotes about possible threats of Iran starting the nuclear program back up, the threat posed by the enriched uranium they already have, and the possibility that they could develop new, longer-range missiles that could hit the U.S. one day, maybe. Yet nothing has been presented in a concrete manner as to why doing this right now is essential. It doesn’t match Trump’s long-standing political rhetoric at all.

There is obviously much the public doesn’t know, but the risk-reward equation seems like a uniquely puzzling one with this crisis, at least at this time.

If Iran doesn’t make a deal, it seems clear that Trump has put himself in a position where he will either have his bluff called or he will need to commit to an air war against Iran.

What happens from that historic split in the road is really anyone’s guess.

Including the Pentagon’s.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com