Military

Footage shows firefighters extinguishing a massive fire after Russia launched a flurry of missile and drone strikes on Ukraine’s southern port city of Odesa early Wednesday morning. The strikes killed at least six people and wounded 20 others across the country, officials said.

United States President Donald Trump is scheduled to address a defence summit at the US Army War College on Wednesday, where he is expected to laud US investments in its armed forces that he has argued have helped add a new edge to history’s most powerful military.

But his speech comes at a time when the US’s war on Iran has significantly depleted the US military’s weapons stockpile.

The summit, which will be held in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, comes as the US has re-ignited attacks on Iran in the past week, and as Trump has threatened to continue a war that, according to recent US polls, is highly unpopular among Americans facing high costs of living.

The US has expended half of at least four of its most critical munitions since its war on Iran began on February 28, and has racked up billions of dollars in weapons expenses, analysis shows.

Replenishing low stockpiles could take anywhere between several months and several years. Analysts warn that a shrinking arsenal could put the US in a less formidable position in a potential future conflict – particularly against China.

Here’s what we know about the US weapons inventory:

What’s happening with the US-Iran war?

Following an April ceasefire between the US and Iran, and the subsequent signing of a memorandum of understanding in June, the conflict kicked off again after the US Central Command launched heavy waves of attacks on Iran’s military sites last Wednesday, saying it was aiming to degrade Tehran’s military capabilities. Huge, hourlong attacks have continued for four nights since Sunday, including on railway tracks and bridges.

Both sides traded low-intensity attacks throughout the ceasefire period. However, the US escalated air attacks last week after Iran fired on three commercial ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz – because those vessels had used a shipping route not approved by Tehran.

Each blames the other for violating the ceasefire, and at last week’s NATO leaders’ summit, Trump declared the pact with Iran over, although he said American negotiators could continue talks. Washington has also reinstated a naval blockade on Iran-linked ships trying to transit the waterway and has re-imposed sanctions on Iran.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has responded with retaliatory attacks on US military assets in Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait.

More than a dozen people have been killed in Iran since the new wave of US attacks, including civilians.

“We’re going to knock out all their power plants. We’re going to knock out all their bridges unless they get to the table and negotiate,” Trump threatened in a Fox News interview that aired on Tuesday.

Attacking civilian infrastructure is a violation of international law.

Does the US have enough weapons to keep attacking Iran?

Washington’s supplies are running low but have not reached a critical level, according to analysis of the US weapons inventory by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank.

In the 39 days of conflict between the start of the US-Iran war in February and the ceasefire in April, the US hit more than 13,000 targets, focusing mainly on using seven of its most powerful missiles and air defence systems: Tomahawk missiles, Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM), Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM), Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), Terminal High Altitude Area Defenses (THAAD) and Patriots.

For at least four of the munitions, Washington likely expended more than half of its available stockpiles, although many lower-grade alternatives are still in stock, according to CSIS. Government data on weapons inventory is classified.

Here’s how the munitions were used:

• Tomahawks – The US had about 3,000 of the long-range missiles that are fired from sea at ground targets. It likely used up more than 1,000 in the war on Iran.
• JASSM – About 4,000 of these stealthy, air-launched long-range missiles were in the US inventory before the war. About 1,100 were used in the war on Iran.
• PrSM – Supplies of the newly delivered, ground-launched long-range missiles were already low to start with, with deliveries since 2023 amounting to a total of 90. An estimated 40-70 were used in the war. One US military official claimed that the “entire” inventory had been expended.
• SM- 3 – The most expensive weapon per unit at $28m, these ship-launched ballistic missile interceptors numbered about 410 before the war. The US has used between 130 and 250 of these in the war on Iran.
• SM-6 – Also ship-launched, this missile is mainly used to intercept aircraft and cruise missiles. The US had about 1,160 stockpiled. An estimated 190- 370 have been expended in the Iran war.
• THAAD – The US had about 360 of the costly anti-ballistic missile systems by April, and between 190 and 290 were used in the war. The US has a total of 8 THAAD units or “batteries” consisting of launchers, interceptors, and radar systems.
• Patriot – An estimated 2,330 Patriots were in stock before the war, but between 1,060 and 1,430 have been expended. Some older versions may also likely be available – about 400 of them.

What does this mean?

Analysts from CSIS say that while the US may have enough to continue hitting Iran in the near-term war, it has reduced its stockpiles so significantly that it may not have enough for potential future wars, especially against a formidable rival like China.

Replenishing high-capability and costly weapons like the ones the US has used in Iran will likely take several years.

Trump and senior administration officials have publicly maintained that the US has an “unlimited” supply of weapons as the US-Iran war has raged on.

However, in March, Trump said administration officials met with the heads of US manufacturers, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Honeywell Aerospace, L3Harris Missile Solutions, and Northrop Grumman. He said all promised to “quadruple” production and that increased manufacturing was already under way.

Subsequently, in June, Trump signed the Defense Production Act, an executive order compelling US weapons manufacturers to speed up production, citing existing conditions “which may pose a direct threat to the national defense or its preparedness programs”.

An order compelling private actors to ramp up production likely reflects timeline concerns within the Pentagon, analysts note.

In the short term, Washington is also unlikely to meet demands from its allies, and may not have the capacity to supply the THAADs and Patriots that Ukraine says are crucial in its war against Russia.

Already, supply orders have hit road bumps. Japan’s order of 400 Tomahawks from Raytheon was meant to be delivered between 2025 and 2027, but US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in May that two more years could be added to the schedule.

Meanwhile, Switzerland began negotiations with France, Israel and South Korea in June to buy another missile defence system after its 2022 order from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon continued to face delays.

How long will replenishing weapons take?

Hegseth said in May that it could take “months and years” to replenish the supplies, based on the weapons system.

Analysts reckon it could take the US between one and four years to get its most exquisite munitions stockpiles back to pre-Iran war levels, even as Trump has boasted that new weapons plants are being built around the US and production is being ramped up.

Trump’s administration is set to buy large amounts of advanced munitions in its proposed $1.5 trillion 2027 defence budget – a 44 percent increase from 2026’s defence budget.

According to CSIS, estimated timelines to replenish the seven critical munitions, based on existing production facilities, are:

• Tomahawk: Between 4- 5 years (207 will be delivered in 2026, while 785 have been requested for 2027).
• JASSM: 1 year (821 to be delivered in 2026 and 821 requested for 2027).
• PrSM:  8 months (70 to be delivered in 2026 and 1,134 requested for 2027).
• SM- 3:  3 years ( 52 to be delivered in 2026 and 214 requested for 2027).
• SM-6:  3 years (125 to be delivered in 2026, and 540 requested for 2027).
• THAAD: 3 to 3.5 years (92 to be delivered in 2026, and 857 requested for 2027).
• Patriot: 3 years (172 to be delivered in 2026, and 3202 requested for 2027).

Istanbul, Turkiye – At around 19:30 GMT on July 15, 2016, a faction of the Turkish military launched a coordinated attempt to overthrow President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s democratically elected government.

But within hours, the attempted takeover involving tanks and fighter jets had been quashed. Thousands of people poured onto the streets of major cities, joining loyalist members of the army and the police, and much of the chain of command, in defeating the putschists.

The failed coup attempt 10 years ago was not only the bloodiest in Turkiye’s modern history – some 250 were killed and more than 2,200 wounded – but also a watershed moment that fundamentally changed relations between civil and military authorities in the country.

“The failure of July 15 had three pillars,” said retired Colonel Unal Atabay.

“The resistance of the people, the officers, noncommissioned officers and soldiers inside the Turkish Armed Forces who resisted the coup, and the institutional reflex of the armed forces themselves.”

Military intervention cast a long shadow over Turkish politics for decades.

The armed forces overthrew governments in 1960 and 1980; intervened through a memorandum in 1971; and forced another elected government from office in what became known as the “post-modern coup” of 1997.

Although civilian rule returned after each intervention, the military remained one of Turkiye’s most influential institutions, seeing itself as the guardian of the republic’s founding principles.

Yet that was not how the republic’s founders had envisioned civil-military relations. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and Ismet Inonu, both commanders during the War of Independence of the early 1920s, entered politics only after leaving military service.

“If the military had remained involved in politics, it would most likely have been exploited by various groups in the uncertain and weak conditions of those early years of the republic. They made the most accurate diagnosis and said that the military should stay out of politics.

Political scientist Ali Carkoglu said separation between military command and civilian politics was regarded as one of the republic’s founding principles, calling it “the most accurate diagnosis”.

Over time, however, the armed forces increasingly came to see themselves as guardians of the state, repeatedly invoking that role to justify intervention in politics.

But 10 years since the latest attempt, few experts believe Turkiye faces another conventional coup.

“You never say never,” said Howard Eissenstat, a Turkiye specialist at St Lawrence University in New York. “But to bet on a military coup in Turkiye is to lose money.”

While the military’s political role appears to have receded, the broader consequences of the post-coup transformation remain the subject of debate.

Reducing the military’s influence over politics had already become a central objective of the governing Justice and Development Party, or AK Party, after it came to power in 2002.

Following years of tension with the military establishment, the government steadily expanded civilian oversight – and the failed coup accelerated that process dramatically.

Ankara accused the network of United States-based Muslim scholar Fethullah Gulen, designated by the Turkish government as the Fethullah Terrorist Organisation (FETO), of orchestrating the coup attempt. Tens of thousands of soldiers, judges, police officers, teachers and civil servants were dismissed or arrested. Military academies were replaced by the National Defence University, command structures were overhauled, and civilian oversight of the armed forces expanded.

Atabay said these changes have fundamentally reshaped the relationship between the military, the state and society.

He added the military has strengthened its internal oversight after the coup to prevent another organised infiltration, noting that both the armed forces and wider society are now more alert to attempts to penetrate state institutions.

“External centres of power may always make such attempts,” he said. “The important thing is to detect them early, expose them and build a system that prevents them from infiltrating the state.”

For Carkoglu, however, the military cannot be examined in isolation from the broader health of Turkiye’s democratic institutions.

He said bringing the armed forces firmly under civilian authority was essential. But civilian supremacy alone, he argued, does not necessarily amount to democratic consolidation.

“It is certainly a success that civilian authority has established greater control over the military,” he said. “But if that comes at the expense of democracy, then it is, at the very least, an unfortunate outcome for Turkish politics.”

Carkoglu noted that institutions derive legitimacy not simply from who controls them, but from whether citizens trust them.

“The healthy development of trust in institutions requires competitive politics and the possibility of free expression,” he said. “Otherwise, institutions themselves begin to lose credibility.”

That debate has become increasingly prominent in recent years.

The arrests of several opposition mayors – including Istanbul mayor and presidential candidate for the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) Ekrem Imamoglu, together with investigations into other opposition politicians, have fuelled criticism from political parties and rights groups, who argue judicial processes are increasingly being used against rivals.

The government rejects those accusations, saying the investigations are conducted independently and are based solely on evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The debate has unfolded during a period of remarkable political continuity. Since coming to power in 2002, the AK Party has won every parliamentary election, most recently in 2023, when the governing People’s Alliance retained its parliamentary majority.

Rights groups, meanwhile, focus on a different legacy of the coup.

Human Rights Watch says emergency powers introduced after the 2016 coup attempt gradually evolved into broader restrictions on civil liberties. It argues the crackdown extended well beyond those responsible for the attempted overthrow, leaving many dismissed public employees unable to rebuild their professional lives even after acquittal.

The government says the measures were necessary to dismantle clandestine networks inside the state and prevent Turkiye from facing a similar threat again.

Ten years on, that effort continues. On Monday, two days before the anniversary, Turkish authorities launched coordinated operations across all 81 provinces targeting nearly 1,000 suspects over alleged links to FETO.

For the government, it was another reminder that the events of July 2016 remain an active national security issue rather than a closed chapter in the country’s history.

Military and defence analyst Alex Alfirraz Scheers says the US risks falling into an ‘escalation trap’ if it launches a ground assault in Iran because Tehran still retains a large number of ballistic missiles.

The United States carried out attacks against Iran for a third consecutive night late on Monday.

Iran has continued to hit targets in the Gulf in several waves of retaliatory strikes on Tuesday, including UAE‑flagged oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and US military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait.

Here is a recap of what has happened on Monday night and Tuesday, and what each side has said.

Where did the US attack Iran?

US Central Command, the military’s regional command known as CENTCOM, said its latest strikes began at 4:45pm ET (20:45 GMT) on Monday and were aimed at degrading Iran’s capacity to attack “innocent civilians and commercial shipping” in the strait.

CENTCOM later announced the conclusion of its strikes and said the latest round of attacks on Iran lasted five hours. It added that US forces “successfully struck military targets across Iran including Bushehr, Chah Bahar, Jask, Konarak, Abu Musa, and Bandar Abbas”.

Iranian state television and semi-official news agencies reported explosions throughout the night across the country’s southern coast, including the port city of Bandar Abbas, and on Kish and Qeshm islands, as well as the town of Jam in Bushehr province.

A projectile that struck western Bandar Abbas caused no casualties, the Fars news agency reported, citing the regional governor’s office.

What areas did Iran target?

For its part, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it had launched a wider retaliatory campaign against US allies and interests across the Gulf.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported that Iranian forces had struck several “violating” vessels in the strait, and that a US-made drone had been shot down near Bandar Abbas.

The UAE: The UAE said two of its oil tankers had been hit by Iranian cruise missiles in Omani waters in the Strait of Hormuz. The UAE added that one Indian national crew member had been killed on one of the tankers, and eight other people were wounded.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency said the IRGC hit two “offending” oil supertankers, citing an IRGC statement – apparently referring to the two UAE tankers.

Kuwait: The Iranian army said on Monday that it had carried out a drone attack on US military targets in Kuwait. In a statement posted by state broadcaster IRIB, the army said it launched drones at a US Patriot missile system, fuel tanks, a watchtower, an ammunition depot and communication systems.

Bahrain: The IRGC said it targeted “several weapons storage depots, a satellite communications centre, and a building housing US forces” at al-Juffair Base in Bahrain. It also said it had hit the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain with missiles and drones.

Air sirens have been heard four times in Bahrain on Tuesday so far.

Jordan: Jordan’s army said it shot down four missiles in Jordanian airspace that were fired from Iran, according to the official Petra news agency. After this, the IRGC said it launched ballistic missiles at US forces and key facilities at an airbase in Jordan.

In a message addressed directly to Jordanians, the IRGC insisted that the operation was aimed at the US military presence in the country rather than at Jordan or its citizens. “You know that we hold no animosity toward your country. On the contrary, we deeply love you, the noble people. You understand the pain and suffering of the Palestinian people better than any other nation, and you are aware of the crimes of the Zionist regime in the massacre of 70,000 Palestinians, including 20,000 children in Gaza, carried out with the direct involvement of the United States,” it said.

What have the US and Iran said?

US President Donald Trump formally notified Congress on July 10 that fighting with Iran had resumed on July 7, invoking his authority to keep US forces in combat for another 60 days without lawmakers’ approval.

At a news conference on Monday, Trump said Iran’s offensive capabilities were being dismantled, but he still thinks a “deal is possible” despite the return to open fighting.

Trump also repeated an earlier demand that Gulf nations help cover the cost of protecting shipping, saying Washington was “protecting a very rich portion of the world” and expected to be paid for it.

On Monday, Trump also threatened to “take out” Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, also known as Pickaxe Mountain, a suspected nuclear site near the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran.

Meanwhile, the US blockade on Iran, confirmed by the US Navy-led Joint Maritime Information Centre (JMIC), is due to begin at 20:00 GMT on Tuesday.

The US’s blockade covers Iran’s ports and terminals along the entire southern coastline, according to JMIC.

Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Committee, has warned that Iran remains steadfast in defending its red lines, following the formal introduction of a bill to manage the Strait of Hormuz.

In an X post on Tuesday, Azizi wrote: “Last night, coinciding with the downing of US drones, the ‘Strategic Action for the Security and Sustainable Progress of the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf’ bill was formally introduced in Iran’s Parliament. We remain steadfast in defending our red lines, particularly regarding the management of the Strait of Hormuz.”

What is happening to shipping in Hormuz?

Oil prices rose more than 9 percent on Monday, with Brent crude climbing to about $81 a barrel, its highest level since mid-June.

Kpler, the ship-tracking firm, said crossings through the strait fell by about 52 percent between July 10 and July 12, compared with the previous week.

Islamabad, Pakistan – A wooden panelled bookshelf behind him, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran, aimed at extending their ceasefire by creating a pathway towards long-term peace.

Sharif then held up the document for the cameras. That was June 17, the high point of a frenzied diplomatic effort led by Pakistan spanning weeks, which had culminated in the MoU that Sharif signed as a mediator.

Yet less than four weeks later, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has, in just the past few days, issued two statements expressing “deep concern” over renewed US-Iran hostilities, with the MoU Islamabad had helped pull together seemingly in shreds.

On Monday morning, the US launched the latest in a series of attacks on Iran, which responded by firing missiles and drones at multiple Gulf and Arab nations that it blamed for hosting US military bases.

Hours later, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei told reporters that mediators, including Pakistan, Qatar and Oman, remained engaged and were continuing their efforts, even as he warned that Iran would continue responding to what it viewed as US non-compliance with the MoU.

So far, those efforts have failed to slow down the fighting, even as Pakistan has pressed on with diplomatic outreach.

On Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar spoke by phone with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, telling him that dialogue and diplomacy remained “the only viable path” to resolving the crisis.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also spoke to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Friday, warning that “hard-earned” peace gains were at risk, while Dar held a separate call on Saturday with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud.

To many analysts, one question, above all, now stares at Pakistan and other mediators like Qatar: With the deep distrust between the US and Iran only further expanding following the new bout of fighting, can Islamabad or any other capital once again bring Washington and Tehran back to the negotiating table?

Repeated breakdowns

The renewed fighting marks at least the third occasion since the US-Iran ceasefire signed on April 8 appeared to have collapsed.

Days after that truce was agreed on, the breakdown of the first round of Islamabad talks led to the US imposing a naval blockade on Iranian ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The US and Iran both attacked ships in the days that followed.

Then, after the MoU was signed on June 17, Iran attacked several ships that it claimed were passing through the Strait of Hormuz without its permission, prompting another escalation with Washington.

But the Iranian tanker strikes last week appear to have raised tensions to new heights.

US attacks on Iran since then have hit at least 10 provinces, killing a soldier, several fishermen in the southern province of Hormozgan, and a firefighter in Sistan and Baluchestan, according to Iranian authorities.

A railway bridge on a trade corridor linking Iran with Central Asia and China was also struck, along with a bridge near Mashhad used by mourners travelling to former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s funeral.

The renewed hostilities have also pulled Qatar, a fellow mediator alongside Pakistan, more directly into the conflict. On Sunday, Iranian missiles and drones hit the Gulf state, with debris from interceptions injuring three people, including a child, according to Qatar’s Ministry of Interior.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has accused Washington of violating “nearly all parts” of the June agreement within 25 days of its signing, citing attacks on transport infrastructure and fishing vessels.

Baghaei said on Monday that Iran had “acted in good faith” throughout, but that “each time the other party has failed to meet its obligations, we did not uphold ours, and we will continue to act in this manner.”

Since the war began on February 28, Islamabad has played the role of mediator.

It hosted talks in April, the first time in four decades that US and Iranian officials sat in a room together.

Its army chief and interior minister have travelled to Tehran several times. In late March, Pakistan also helped secure a Chinese-backed peace framework alongside its own diplomatic efforts.

In June, it helped produce the MoU signed by Pezeshkian and US President Donald Trump, along with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, which was then discussed at the Burgenstock summit in Switzerland.

Yet analysts say Pakistan lacks the means to enforce the agreements it helps broker.

Javad Heiran-Nia, director of the Persian Gulf Studies Group at the Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran, said the MoU was never intended to resolve the underlying dispute.

“The MoU deferred key and substantive issues to future negotiations and functioned primarily as a tactical instrument to halt hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping,” he told Al Jazeera.

Iran, he said, sees control of the waterway as “a strategic asset; not merely a coercive lever, but a deterrent tool”, and appears “prepared to accept the risk of war to preserve this strategic advantage”.

Mediators, he added, lack the instruments to resolve the dispute “unless a shift in the balance of power between Iran and the United States emerges as a result of limited military engagements”, pointing to a potential US naval blockade as one of the few developments that could alter the strategic calculus.

Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum in Doha, said Pakistan’s room for manoeuvre had narrowed as both sides hardened their positions over the strait.

“Pakistan is in a situation where it is highly dependent on both parties, as it always has been, but right now, Iran is bent on establishing its control over the Strait of Hormuz,” she told Al Jazeera.

According to Thafer, there is little Pakistan can do to de-escalate while both Washington and Tehran remain in “an escalatory phase”.

“Once they feel they have reached a point where the balance tips in favour of one side or the other, then perhaps they will return to the negotiating table,” she added.

But Qamar Cheema, head of the Islamabad-based Sanober Institute, pushed back on the idea that Pakistan is operating without real tools.

He pointed to US Vice President JD Vance’s recent remarks, where he credited Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir’s role in the process, as evidence that Islamabad’s military-diplomatic channel carries real weight in Washington.

Access itself, he argued, is the instrument.

“Pakistan enjoys trust, and that’s why both sides pick up the phone and call Pakistani leadership any time to remove a stumbling block,” Cheema told Al Jazeera.

Crowded diplomacy, narrowing options

But Pakistan has not been the only diplomatic channel, and according to Heiran-Nia, the dispute over the strait was never really Islamabad’s to mediate.

“Iran had previously removed the Strait of Hormuz issue from Pakistan’s mediation agenda, as the matter was essentially bilateral between Tehran and Muscat,” he said.

Tehran, he explained, did not want the issue to be “defined within a broader negotiation package under Pakistani auspices, which would have afforded Washington room for political manoeuvre”.

Direct Iran-Oman talks followed, but “US military pressure and economic sanctions threats against Oman have placed Muscat under considerable strain, preventing meaningful progress,” according to the Tehran-based analyst.

Meanwhile, he cautioned that Sunday’s attacks on Qatar “could have adverse effects on Qatar’s mediatory role”, although Doha “does not currently appear inclined to withdraw”, adding that “Iran should not assume that Doha’s patience is limitless.”

Mustafa Hyder Sayed, executive director of the Pakistan-China Institute in Islamabad, described the GCC states as caught in an uncomfortable position.

“The GCC countries are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They want a functional relationship with Iran while not openly declining the use of their bases and territory by the United States, because they understand they cannot choose their neighbours,” he told Al Jazeera.

Meanwhile, Israel, which is not a party to the MoU, has continued military operations in Lebanon, which Tehran cites as an ongoing violation of the agreement.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Saturday that southern Lebanon “would become Gaza”, raising the prospect of further regional escalation.

Who blinks first?

Despite a week of escalating attacks, the core dispute remains unchanged.

Washington and Tehran remain divided over the same issue that stalled negotiations even before the latest round of fighting: Who controls passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and under what conditions?

Iran insists the MoU gave it authority over transit through the waterway. The US disputes that.

On Monday, Trump announced that the US was reinstating a naval blockade of Iranian ships and would charge a 20 percent tariff on all other ships trying to pass through the strait.

Yet, earlier, a possible compromise had briefly emerged.

Heiran-Nia said the parties explored a formula under which commercial vessels would coordinate passage with both Iran and a designated Arab Gulf state, allowing “both parties [to] claim a degree of victory”.

The talks stalled before reaching a conclusion, however, interrupted by the funeral of Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who was killed on the first day of the war in joint US-Israeli air strikes.

The conflict has since moved in the opposite direction, with military action aimed at shifting the balance of power rather than reviving negotiations.

“The prevailing trajectory now is the continuation of military strikes in an effort to shift the balance of power. Yet, there remains a risk that strategic calculations on either side could spiral beyond control,” Heiran-Nia said.

Thafer believes that, despite the violence, neither side has formally abandoned the MoU.

“Iran is framing this current round of escalation as a violation of the MoU rather than a reason to exit it, which means there could still be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said.

In her assessment, both sides bear responsibility for violating the agreement, from Iran’s attacks on shipping to Washington’s revocation of Iran’s oil sale licence and the military attacks. Yet the agreement remains, at least formally, in place.

Its future, she said, depends on which side ultimately gives ground over the strait. Iran retains what Thafer described as a “snapback capability” to disrupt shipping whenever it chooses.

“It is, militarily, very difficult to fully neutralise that Iranian capability. We will have to wait and see where the leverage finally sits,” she said.

Cheema, for his part, argued that Iran’s own conduct, more than any mediator’s diplomacy, is what will decide how this settles.

“Iranian authorities seem ambitious and aggressive, and are looking to take risks to project power, which makes it less likely that any agreement will reach a final conclusion. That means interventions from mediators will keep coming.”

July 13 (UPI) — Outgoing Colombian President Gustavo Petro has barred President-elect Abelardo De la Espriella from holding his inauguration at a military base, triggering an unprecedented institutional dispute that has clouded the transfer of power and underscored the country’s deep political polarization.

Citing his authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces until Aug. 7, the leftist president blocked De la Espriella’s plan to take the oath of office before military personnel.

The incoming government had sought to use the ceremony to signal a sharp break with the outgoing administration’s security policies.

“Military and police barracks are under my command until the new president is sworn in and, therefore, until that moment I am the supreme commander of the military forces,” Petro wrote on X.

In the post, Petro reiterated his claim that the incoming government “was not elected by a majority of the people,” adding that Colombia’s next president must take office during a full session of Congress “under the laws of the republic and the Constitution.”

Petro’s decision comes amid an institutional crisis and a fractured transition following the June 21 runoff election. After De la Espriella’s victory, Petro alleged electoral fraud and refused to openly recognize the legitimacy of the president-elect.

In response, De la Espriella unilaterally suspended the administrative transition process, accusing Petro of planning a coup to remain in power. International organizations and electoral authorities have validated the election, but the official transfer of information remains frozen.

De la Espriella campaigned on a “tough-on-crime” platform and promised to restore “honor and dignity” to the armed forces, arguing that they had been mistreated and demoralized by the outgoing leftist government’s policies. His request to take the oath of office at a military installation was intended as a symbolic tribute to the troops.

The confrontation highlights Colombia’s sharp political shift after four years under the first leftist government in the country’s history.

According to local media, De la Espriella’s push to hold the congressional session outside the National Capitol also tests his strength against the legislative branch.

Because his party will not hold an absolute majority in the new Congress, which takes office July 20, Petro’s veto highlights the early institutional challenges and opposition the incoming government is likely to face.

Japan is setting up its first centralised intelligence agency since World War II to try to modernise its defence capabilities against spies, foreign interference and other attacks from foreign adversaries.

Legislation to establish the new agency passed the upper house of Japan’s National Diet in May, a month after it cleared the lower house.

After decades of relying on US intelligence support and after a pacifist stance was enshrined in the Japanese Constitution, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi described this law as “a first step” towards strengthening the country’s espionage capabilities.

What is this new agency?

The legislation creates two bodies: a National Intelligence Council that will act as the government’s command centre for intelligence gathering and analysis and an agency for operations. The reform changes the existing Cabinet Intelligence and Research Office (CIRO) into a centralised National Intelligence Council and National Intelligence Bureau.

Takaichi isn’t exactly building the US Central Intelligence Agency, but The New York Times reported Western allies, including the United States, Germany and Australia, are advising the Japanese government on establishing the new spy agency.

Ken Kotani, professor at Nihon University, said he believes Japan’s new National Intelligence Council and national intelligence agency model will be original to Japan.

Sanshiro Hosaka, a research fellow at the Estonia-based International Centre for Defence and Security, said the reform is aimed at improving the Japanese government’s intelligence abilities “by strengthening coordination, reducing interagency barriers and ensuring that intelligence products better meet policymakers’ requirements”.

Why does Japan want it now?

Tokyo says it is facing threats from a number of nearby countries such as North Korea, Russia and China, and a national intelligence agency is needed to counter their efforts.

Kotani explained that Japan’s foreign and national security policy followed the US during the Cold War period. But he noted that “recently Japan has gradually pursued her own policy, especially in the Trump administration period.”

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly accused Washington’s allies of not spending enough on their own defence and on relying on American help. He has questioned US alliances and has been ambivalent about whether the world’s most powerful military would come to the defence of smaller nations.

That, Kotani said, is why “Japan needs to collect intelligence by herself.”

Japan currently lacks an antiespionage law that would make it relatively easy for foreign intelligence activities to go unpunished.

Hosaka explained that former Russian intelligence officers who operated in Japan, such as Stanislav Levchenko and Konstantin Preobrazhensky, described Japan as a paradise for spies: “During the Cold War, Soviet intelligence targeted Japanese technologies, industrial and commercial information as well as the US bases in Japan,” Hosaka explained. “As a major US ally in Asia and an advanced technological economy, Japan remains an important intelligence target for China, Russia, North Korea and others.”

Hosaka said what Japan needs “is a foreign-influence transparency law to increase the transparency of foreign actors’ lobbying activities as well as to deter illegal foreign interference. And an antiespionage law to conduct undercover operations and investigations using assumed identities.”

Why the current system isn’t working:

A major obstacle within Japan’s current decentralised structure, experts said, is that no one has the authority to force cooperation from other agencies or bodies or prevent intelligence data from being scattered.

Kotani explained that the political power of Japan’s current intelligence agency has been weak: “This was because the CIRO was not given any legal mandates on intelligence when it was established in 1952.”

Another difficulty is that under current Japanese laws, foreign representatives suspected of potential intelligence affiliations or interference are difficult to intercept because legal grounds are weak for Japanese authorities to intercept their communications or prosecute them.

The ambitions of PM Takaichi

Takaichi took office in October and has accelerated the expansion of Japan’s military and security ambitions through a number of measures, including establishing a central intelligence body.

In December, the cabinet approved its largest defence budget ever at $58bn as the Ministry of Defence said it needed to accelerate its “transformation” and would use more than $600m for building a so-called drone and laser shield to protect its southwestern region.

In April, Takaichi’s cabinet moved closer to abolishing a longstanding ban on the export of lethal weapons, such as tanks and warships.

The new direction led to antiwar protests in the streets of Japan in May. However, a Jiji opinion poll in April showed only 19 percent were opposed to the new bill to reform intelligence within the country. About 40 percent were indifferent, and the rest were in favour.

Kotani said he has noticed a lot of the old “taboo has gone” around this subject and it is no longer a topic of concern to many Japanese, He said: “Especially younger generations are not interested in such an old story.”

Why surveillance is controversial in Japan

Japan’s defeat in World War II left its citizens with distrust towards state surveillance as the wartime Special Higher Police, known as the Tokko, monitored, arrested and tortured citizens for their political beliefs.

Article 9 in its constitution, drafted in 1947 shortly after the end of the war, renounced war, and Japan has never had its own foreign intelligence service. Instead, it relied on the US.

The efforts for a new security agency have sparked some domestic criticism, but Hosaka said the latest reforms do not amount to a return to the kind of espionage apparatus that could be used against Japanese civilians.

“The legislation does not itself create significant new intelligence collection or counterintelligence powers,” Hosaka said.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has targeted US military facilities in Bahrain, claimed it has destroyed radar systems in Oman and hit Jordan and Kuwait in its latest round of overnight retaliatory strikes against the United States.

Tehran’s attacks on Monday came as a response to Washington’s escalating strikes as prospects of peace between the two countries recede.

Here is a recap of the latest attacks:

Where were the latest Iran attacks?

Oman: The IRGC said it attacked Oman as part of its latest phase of retaliation. It said it targeted “the FPS long-range aerial radar and the vessel detection radar in Oman”, adding that these radar systems were destroyed.

Bahrain: The IRGC also said it launched missile and drone attacks targeting “installations and infrastructure of the aggressive US army” in Juffair, Bahrain.

Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior said on Monday that sirens had been sounded in the country as it warned people to remain calm and head to the nearest safe place.

The IRGC earlier said it targeted several facilities at the Sheikh Isa Air Base in Bahrain.

Jordan: Jordan’s military said on Monday that it intercepted and downed “four missiles that entered Jordanian airspace” and came from Iranian territory.

Earlier, the IRGC said it targeted Jordan’s Prince Hassan Air Base with missiles and drones and set fire to several fuel depots and ammunition storage facilities.

Kuwait: The IRGC said on Monday that it also targeted a US surface-to-surface missile base in Kuwait, “setting fire to two HIMARS missile launchers and missile-packed warehouses, completely destroying them”.

HIMARS stands for high mobility artillery rocket systems, which are mobile rocket launchers manufactured by the US.

Earlier, the General Staff of Kuwait’s Army said air defence systems were engaging “hostile aerial targets” inside the country’s airspace.

It said any explosions heard were the result of air defence systems intercepting the attacks and urged the public to follow safety and security instructions.

Where was Iran hit?

The US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) earlier said it hit “dozens of targets at multiple locations with precision munitions to degrade Iran’s ability to continue attacking international shipping flowing through the Strait of Hormuz”.

These targets included “Iranian military air-defense systems, coastal radar sites, missile and drone capabilities, and small boats”, it said.

CENTCOM said it deployed “US fighter aircraft, naval vessels, one-way attack aerial drones, and one-way attack sea drones for the first time”.

Valiollah Hayati, the deputy governor for security and law enforcement in western Iran’s Khuzestan province, told the semiofficial ISNA news agency on Monday that US forces attacked at least eight locations across Khuzestan overnight.

Hayati also said one person was killed and four were injured when a projectile hit an agricultural water-pumping station in Mahshahr, according to the IRNA news agency.

Iran’s Tasnim News Agency reported on Monday that a US-manufactured LUCAS (low-cost uncrewed combat attack system) suicide drone was “accurately hit and shot down” in Bandar Abbas, a city on the Strait of Hormuz.

What has each side said?

The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement on Monday condemning the US strikes on targets in Iran.

US President Donald Trump insisted that the Strait of Hormuz was open during an appearance on the NBC TV network’s Meet the Press programme on Sunday.

“They’re very, very evil and sick people. We had meetings with them. They agreed to a deal yesterday, a perfect deal for us. No nuclear, no this, no that, no nothing. They gave up everything. And then after that, they left the room. And then within an hour, they launched a drone at a ship,” Trump said.

When did the conflict reignite?

On July 6, the IRGC struck three commercial vessels, including a Qatari liquefied natural gas tanker, off Oman. Iran accused the ships of trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz without its permission. Tehran’s interpretation of a key clause in the June memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US gives it the authority to manage traffic through the waterway.

The following day, the US said it carried out strikes on Iranian military targets. Tehran in turn responded with missile and drone attacks on military bases across the Gulf where US forces are deployed.

On Wednesday, Trump told reporters the MoU was over, and on Saturday, the IRGC said the Strait of Hormuz was closed yet again.

How has this impacted the Strait of Hormuz and shipping?

The number of vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz has fallen to its lowest level in five weeks, according to shipping data.

Six ships sailed through the strait on Sunday, according to data from the trade intelligence firm Kpler, including the Humanity and the Capetan Andreas, transporting 2 million barrels of Iranian oil and 500,000 barrels of Kuwaiti petroleum products, respectively.

Three empty tankers also entered the Gulf to load oil, according to the data.

Tehran, Iran – Several days of military attacks by the United States across Iran have marked the most intense rounds of bombardment since the two sides reached a vague memorandum of understanding last month.

US fighter jets and warships have hit hundreds of military targets and a number of civilian ones in nearly a week of strikes, with Iranian authorities reporting attacks in at least 10 provinces, mainly in southern Iran near the strategically important Strait of Hormuz.

In Tehran, life for more than 10 million people has carried on mostly as usual since the capital has not been recently attacked. But the economy is in the doldrums and the outlook is increasingly uncertain, more than four months after the US and Israel began their aerial campaign.

“Everything is too chaotic right now to guess what will happen next but it doesn’t look good,” Farshad, a 21-year-old resident of eastern Tehran, said on Sunday.

“I just really hope all-out war doesn’t start again because I don’t have the nerve for daily bombing on top of everything else,” he told Al Jazeera.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said overnight into Sunday that the Strait of Hormuz was once again considered closed due to US military intervention. Two vessels opting to transit using the Western-backed southern route near Oman, rather than Iran’s designated path to the north of the strait, had been struck, the IRGC added.

Iran said it had also attacked US interests across the region, including in Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar and Oman, in response to US strikes, as prospects for negotiations to replace military escalation remained slim.

Another Tehran citizen, Nastaran, said the overnight escalation felt more serious than previous attacks.

“I didn’t expect it would be this bad when I picked up my phone this morning to check the news,” she said. “I think there will be more attacks soon.”

Growing US aggression

The US military has been expanding its attacks over the past week.

US Central Command said more than 300 military targets were hit during three waves, including coastal surveillance, logistics, communications, as well as missile, drone and naval assets. It has not acknowledged striking civilian objectives.

As with other flare-ups over recent weeks, numerous attacks were launched on the province of Hormozgan, including the major port city of Bandar Abbas, as well as on Siri, Qeshm and Jask overlooking the strait. Port, fishing, coastal-control infrastructure and air defences were extensively bombed, reportedly killing a soldier and leaving multiple fishermen dead or wounded in separate strikes.

US projectiles have also targeted multiple areas in Bushehr province, with one attack impacting the perimeter of Iran’s only nuclear power plant without damaging it.

Provincial authorities in the southwestern province of Khuzestan said three areas were hit, but not the capital, Ahvaz. Local authorities in the provinces of Kohgiluyeh, Boyer-Ahmad and Lorestan also reported projectile attacks.

In Sistan and Baluchestan to the southeast, attacks were reported in Chabahar, Konarak and Iranshahr, where a strike on airport facilities killed a firefighter. Video recorded by a local from Chabahar and shared online showed the destruction of the city’s renowned maritime control tower.

Over the past week, the US military has launched some of its deepest strikes into Iranian territory since full-scale military operations were suspended by the “ceasefire” agreed in April.

One of them was in the northern province of Golestan, where the Aq Tekeh Khan railway bridge was struck on the Gorgan-Incheh Borun line.

Authorities said the bridge, which carries both passengers and cargo, was repaired and services resumed quickly. However, the attack showed that inland corridors could also become targets to increase pressure on Iran by limiting its trade, including imports of essential goods.

The transit route connects Iran to Turkmenistan and onwards to Kazakhstan, Russia, China as well as Eurasian rail networks. Crucially, during the US naval blockade of Iran’s southern ports, it provided an overland alternative to the Strait of Hormuz.

Last week, when assassinated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was being buried in his hometown of Mashhad in northeastern Iran, authorities said the US struck a bridge about 55km (34 miles) from the city, disrupting passenger journeys to the funeral procession.

Iranian authorities say electricity infrastructure – which Trump has repeatedly threatened with more strikes – has also been significantly impacted since the start of the war, worsening the long-running energy crisis.

The attacks have reduced Iran’s capacity for electricity generation by about 4,200 megawatts, just as summer temperatures reached 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) this week, Mohammad Allahdad, head of Tavanir, the government-owned parent company for the operation of Iran’s power grid, said on Sunday.

After the conclusion of the funeral ceremonies for Ali Khamenei, a statement from new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not been seen public since succeeding his father, emphasised the necessity for revenge.

Similar messages continue to be broadcast by state media and hardline religion-backed factions supporting the Islamic Republic, who on Sunday also cheered the death of US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. State television hailed what it called the “dispatching to hell” of a pro-war hawkish politician.

For its part, Israel has effectively undermined the MoU signed between Iran and the US on June 17 by pushing deeper into southern Lebanon and signalling readiness to return to military strikes in Iran.

Speaking to an Israeli programme on Saturday night, Defence Minister Israel Katz, who has threatened to assassinate Mojtaba Khamenei, said “southern Lebanon would become Gaza” and that the Israeli army will “apply the Rafah model” of conquest there.

Regional mediators are stepping up efforts to prevent further escalation between Iran and the US. Qatar held talks in Tehran, while Oman is proposing a plan to manage shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar explains.

Emergency crews are searching for survivors after a Russian air strike on the Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia killed at least one person and injured 29, including two children. The city’s mayor says Russian troops have advanced to just over 20 kilometres away.

Ukraine appeared to have begun large-scale strikes against Russian shadow tankers attempting to supply occupied Crimea with fuel, as an energy crisis on the peninsula worsens.

At the same time, Ukraine has continued to cause fuel shortages in Russia itself, striking refineries deep inside the country, including, for the first time, the Omsk refinery in Siberia, Russia’s largest, 2,500km (1,553 miles) from the Ukrainian border.

Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces commander Robert Brovdi said his forces had struck 19 Russian tankers, a cargo ship and a ferry between July 6 and 8, including nine tankers on the night of July 7.

Ukrainian Navy spokesman Dmytro Pletenchuk told newspaper Suspilne that Russia had rerouted fuel supplies to Crimea after Ukraine deprived it of overland routes.

“They had few options left. It’s either a land corridor or a sea connection,” Pletenchuk said. “As far as we know, they don’t use the Kerch Bridge for such transportation in the necessary volumes,” he said, referring to the bridge connecting Crimea to Russia.

Ukraine detonated a truck on the bridge in 2022, setting alight a fuel train that had been travelling alongside it and demonstrating the risk of using the bridge for large volumes of fuel.

Ukraine pivoted to attacking Crimea in the past few weeks after disabling the oil offloading terminal at Novorossiysk, on the opposite Russian coast, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told the Financial Times.

“We were slowing down the militarisation of our peninsula occupied by Russia,” he said. “We cut off the logistics and took control of the fuel and energy complex. We showed what it means to operationally control the sky at a specific point, at a specific time.”

The Ukrainian Presidential Office in Crimea said these strikes had caused “a management crisis on the peninsula”.

In Sevastopol, fuel has stopped being sold to civilians, and more than a dozen Crimean regions are suffering from electricity blackouts.

Ukraine continued strikes on the peninsula in the past week, destroying seven Sukhoi aircraft and two sheds containing Shahed aerial drones at the Saky airfield on July 3, the Kerch oil transhipment terminal on July 6 and three hangars at the Guardsman airfield on the same day.

Ukraine also kept up pressure on Russia, launching what mayor Sergei Sobyanin said was its largest strike on Moscow in two years.

More than 400 Ukrainian drones were downed while heading for the city on July 7, which was the first day of a NATO summit in Ankara.

“When our drones weren’t flying to Moscow and St Petersburg, [Russian president Vladimir]  Putin didn’t think much about it. He understood that the war was far from the Kremlin,” Zelenskyy told the Financial Times.

“When not a hundred drones, but a thousand would start flying to Moscow, and when he would feel and see this, he would be advised to move somewhere beyond the Urals. This would be a moment like a new page on the path to ending the war.

Ukraine struck several energy targets during the week, furthering its twin goals of starving Russia of petrol and export revenue from oil.

The SBU said it struck and set alight the St Petersburg oil terminal on July 4, which it described as “one of the largest oil product transshipment terminals in the Baltic region”. Zelenskyy posted video purporting to show the terminal in flames.

On Sunday, Ukraine’s General Staff said its forces had struck the Slavneft Yanos refinery in Yaroslavl, 700km (430 miles) from Ukraine, the Ust-Luga refinery on the Baltic Sea, and the Omsk Refinery. Russia’s defence ministry said it had shot down 613 of 625 Ukrainian drones detected in the airspace overnight.

Ukraine’s Air Force said that Russia had lost 42.7 percent of its refining capacity over the past year, and suffered $13.5bn of damage to oil infrastructure.

These strikes have cumulatively caused petrol and diesel shortages in the Russian market, with consumers in urban hubs lining up to fill their cars.

During the week, Ukraine also struck the Kremny EL Group in Bryansk, which it said manufactured microchips, semiconductors and other electronics for the armed forces.

Zelenskyy said the air war would prove “decisive”, because in 2026 Ukraine’s ground troops had effectively stopped Russia’s slow advance of the last two years.

Independent assessments have suggested that Russia gained a total of 97 square kilometres (37 square miles) in the first six months of the year.

“The war is ongoing, but the front line is no longer moving. When the front line is almost not moving, and the enemy cannot invade by sea, the sky remains,” Zelenskyy said.

US President Donald Trump handed Zelenskyy a major victory at the NATO summit in Ankara on Wednesday, saying he would license Ukraine to produce interceptor missiles for anti-air systems.

Zelenskyy has been campaigning for a licence to build Patriot interceptors, which he believes Ukraine can do faster and more cheaply than the US or European manufacturers.

But Zelenskyy said Patriots ultimately are not the answer for European air defence, announcing his intention to develop FREYA, a Ukrainian-designed anti-ballistic system like Patriot “but with a higher production capacity and at a lower cost”.

Is Russia losing?

Zelenskyy’s commander-in-chief warned against dismissing Russia too easily.

“It’s still too early to talk about a qualitative turning point in the war,” Oleksandr Syrskii wrote on his Telegram messaging channel. “The aggressor is showing signs of exhaustion, but retains significant offensive potential,” adding that Russia “plans to extend the front line, which already exceeds 1,250 kilometres (777 miles).”

Putin relaunched the narrative that Moscow will overrun the eastern Ukrainian region of Donetsk, four-fifths of which Russia already controls.

In a televised meeting with his top generals on July 3, Putin was told that Russia has seized 3,000sq km (1,160sq miles) of Ukraine so far this year, and “liberated” 133 settlements. His commander in chief, Valery Gerasimov, also claimed to control the cities of Kupiansk in Kharkiv, and Kostiantynivka in Donetsk.

The Institute for the Study of War, which uses geolocated footage to assess advances, estimated that Russian forces have a presence in 2.4 percent of Kupiansk and 37 percent of Kostiantynivka – and most of that in the form of infiltrations, not firm control.

The Ukrainian military has estimated the number of Russian servicemen in Kostiantynivka at between 100 and 250.

Putin was told that Russian forces seized 636sq km (245sq miles) of Ukraine in June alone. The ISW estimates the real number at 30sq km (11sq miles).

Kostiantynivka is politically important to the Kremlin because it is the first of four heavily fortified cities, including Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, which Moscow must seize to take control of Donetsk – which Putin considers a puppet state and has repeatedly prioritised.

“The capture of Kostyantynovka by the troops of the South battlegroup opens a direct road for further advance to Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, other fortified areas in the Donbas, and is, of course, the key to liberating the entire territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic,” Putin said.

The Donbas includes Donetsk and Luhansk, which Putin mistakenly claimed to have taken in its entirety.

“I understand that we should no longer speak of the Slovyansk-Kramatorsk-Kostyantynovka line, but simply of the Slovyansk-Kramatorsk line,” Putin told the gathering.

In his latest spat with a fellow NATO member, U.S. President Donald Trump condemned Spain as a “wasted cause” and “terrible partner” in the alliance. Speaking at the NATO Summit in Ankara, as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte looked on, Trump said he wanted to cut off all trade relations with Spain. While Spanish officials have stressed that relations won’t be affected, it does raise questions about the long-term status of the U.S. military presence in Spain, should the situation deteriorate further.

“We don’t want to do any trade business with Spain anymore… I’d like you to cut it off,” Trump said. “Spain is a terrible partner in NATO. They don’t participate; they don’t pay. I don’t want anything to do with Spain. Cut off all trade with Spain, please, including visits. Watch them, watch them come running back; oh, they’ll come running back.”

He continued: “We don’t have to trade with them. I don’t want to do any more trade with them… Don’t even talk to them; they’re hopeless, bad people, because you know they have everybody else going and paying and working… They’re open about it, they’re hostile about it, and let’s see how hostile they remain when they call up, and they ‘please, please, we want to trade with you, sir. We want to trade with you, sir.’ They make so much money with us, and we’re going to see that they make a lot less. I want no business with them.”

According to U.S. Congress figures, mutual trade between the two countries was worth $75 billion in 2025, and the United States made $3 billion more from the relationship than Spain.

In an effort to heal the rift, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez later insisted that relations with the United States were “very positive,” and that he had spoken to Trump.

“We talked about the World Cup… there was no tension whatsoever, on the contrary it was all very friendly,” said Sánchez.

The BBC reported that government sources in Madrid said that Spain had no plan to change their “excellent social, cultural, and economic relationship.”

The background to this is Trump’s unhappiness with the Sánchez government refusing the U.S. military permission to use its bases at Morón and Rota in Spain for missions during the war against Iran.

Another point of conflict is Sánchez’s refusal to increase defense spending to five percent of GDP, in line with NATO targets.

This is not Trump’s first threat to cut off trade relations with Spain. The same had happened back in March, in response to Sánchez’s stance on the Iran war.

While there was no change to trade between the two countries after that, were relations between the United States and Spain to worsen, the continued access to Morón and Rota would become a question.

Of the two, Naval Station Rota, in the province of Cádiz, is the most critical. It sits in a strategic position at the mouth of the Mediterranean, which is one of the world’s most important naval control points.

Described by the U.S. Navy as “the gateway to the Mediterranean,” Rota is one of the most strategically important U.S. military hubs in Europe, critical to supporting U.S. and allied naval operations across multiple theaters. The installation is central for Naval Forces Europe-Africa/Central (EURAFCENT) and the U.S. Sixth Fleet.

Located on a 6,100-acre Spanish Navy facility in southern Spain, Rota functions as a major logistical gateway linking North America with Europe, the Mediterranean, Africa, and the Middle East.

The base supports the movement of personnel, equipment, fuel, and supplies through its three operational piers, a 670-acre airfield capable of supporting U.S. Navy and Air Force aviation operations, and some of the largest weapons and fuel storage facilities in Europe.

Perhaps the highest-profile resident unit at Rota is Destroyer Squadron 60 (DESRON 60), one of three U.S. Navy destroyer squadrons permanently based outside the continental United States and the only one of these to call Europe home.

In 2024, the Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Oscar Austin arrived at Rota, as the first of two additional destroyers to join the Forward Deployed Naval Force-Europe, which will have an eventual total of six. These warships are notably modified with special defenses tailored to the European theater, as you can read about here.

Other key Navy units at Rota include Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron Seven Nine (HSM-79), the “Griffins,” flying the sub-hunting MH-60R Seahawk, and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Eight.

Turning to Morón, this airbase is located southeast of the city of Seville in southern Spain. While Naval Station Rota is a springboard for U.S. maritime forces, Morón provides a similar role for the Air Force. Its strategic position means it plays a key role as a forward operating location for air operations, rapid response missions, and contingency support across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

The base’s capabilities include airfield operations, aircraft support, logistics, maintenance, communications, security, and host-nation support, all of which are geared toward rapid deployment and sustainment of U.S. forces when and where they are needed.

Resident U.S. Air Force units at Morón, under the Third Air Force, include the 496th Air Base Squadron, a geographically separated unit (GSU) that comes under the command of the 86th Airlift Wing at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. The 86th Airlift Wing flies C-130J airlifters as well as C-21A and C-37A staff transports.

Morón also serves as a critical node in the transatlantic and transeuropean tanker bridges, making it a key logistical gateway for the massive movements that are critical to buildups in Europe and the Middle East, as well as for more routine transatlantic deployments.

As well as other U.S. Air Force assets that temporarily deploy to Morón, including from the Bomber Task Force, the base also regularly hosts deployments of U.S. Marine Corps aircraft.

Both Morón and Rota operate under the U.S.-Spain Agreement on Defense Cooperation, which allows the United States and Spain to operate alongside one another and share critical infrastructure.

Morón Air Base and Naval Station Rota remain key nodes in the U.S. military’s global posture, providing a strategically positioned bridge between Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Their combined capabilities allow U.S. forces to rapidly move, stage, and sustain aircraft, ships, personnel, and equipment across multiple theaters.

A loss of access to Morón and Rota would extend far beyond a bilateral dispute between Washington and Madrid. While the United States could maintain operations through other European and regional locations, replacing the unique combination of air, maritime, and logistical capabilities provided by the two installations would take time and impose additional strain on U.S. forces. Loss of access to these bases, especially Rota, could be one of Spain’s most powerful cards to play if Trump’s rhetoric turns into action.

More importantly, any decision by a NATO member to restrict access to critical allied infrastructure would have broader implications for the alliance, raising questions about the reliability of defense commitments and the political cohesion that underpins collective security.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Sirens blared in several cities in Jordan as Iranian missiles were intercepted. Jordanian Armed Forces confirmed at least eight missiles were intercepted.

The United States and Iran have traded attacks for a second day, straining their fragile ceasefire further after US President Donald Trump said the truce was “over”.

The US military said late on Wednesday that the attacks were aimed at Iran’s “ability to threaten the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz”.

The US struck approximately 90 military targets, including missile and drone storage as well as logistics sites along Iran’s coastline, said the Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees US military operations in the Middle East.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump called the US attacks “retribution for yesterday’s bombing of ships by Iran. If it happens again, it will get much worse!”

The latest attacks come a day after the US said it hit more than 80 targets in Iran in response to Iranian attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Thursday it carried out attacks on “key infrastructure and facilities” at bases used by the US military in Arifjan and Ali Al Salem in Kuwait, and Juffair and Sheikh Isa in Bahrain in response to the latest US bombardment.

The Iranian army later said its forces targeted a Patriot missile system in Kuwait, a satellite antenna in Qatar and US military fuel depots in Bahrain.

Kuwait’s Ministry of Defence said it was intercepting missiles and drones, while Qatar issued an “elevated security threat” alert.

The renewed fighting threatens to undermine a memorandum of understanding (MoU) the two sides agreed last month to extend an April ceasefire and gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping.

The attacks come a day after Trump said the ceasefire with Iran was “over” and criticised the Iranian leadership. However, he left the door open to more talks and suggested that any strikes would end quickly.

Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One as he travelled back to the US after attending the NATO summit in Turkiye, Trump said the Iranian side had “called a little while ago” and that they wanted “to make a deal so badly”.

US attacks across Iran

US strikes hit a railway bridge in Iran’s northeast, according to several official media, and the news agency IRNA reported strikes on a military base in coastal Bushehr, which hosts the nation’s only civilian nuclear power plant.

The Iranian railway (IRIR) said the train service on the Tehran-Mashhad line had been temporarily suspended as a result.

It said technical teams were on site to repair the damaged section so that the rail service could resume as soon as possible, adding that buses had been arranged to transport affected passengers.

Warplanes hovered over Iran’s Kish Island, and explosions rocked the port cities of Bandar Abbas, Konarak and Chabahar, part of which lost electricity, IRNA reported.

At least three people were killed in an attack on the outskirts of Ahvaz, capital of the southwestern province of Khuzestan, IRNA reported, citing the deputy governor of the region.

At least one firefighter was killed in an attack on an airport facility in Iranshahr, IRNA reported.

Iran’s Health Ministry said at least 14 people were killed and 78 others injured over the past two days.

Calls for diplomacy

In mid-June, the US and Iran signed an MoU to extend their ceasefire. It also led to the lifting of the US naval blockade of Iran and the gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

The MoU came following mediation by Pakistan and Qatar, which served as a launch point for 60 days of talks on more intractable issues, including the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, the administration of the Strait of Hormuz and access to billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds.

Since US-Israeli strikes triggered war in February, Tehran has effectively blocked the strait, threatening to hit vessels that deviate from its authorised route.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas said the US and Iran are “stuck in an equation – almost a deadlock” over the Strait of Hormuz.

“For the Americans, they say that Iran will not have control over the Strait of Hormuz. For the Iranians, control of the strait is indispensable.”

He said Iran sees control over the strait as the “ultimate deterrent, and if it gives that up, then it loses its negotiating position” with the US.

The US hopes that by targeting infrastructure that affects Iran’s ability to control the strait, including maritime traffic control centres, it will be forced to “return to the MoU”, Scott Uehlinger, a former senior CIA officer, told Al Jazeera.

United Nations chief Antonio Guterres called “on all parties to exercise maximum restraint”, as did Pakistan.

Qatari ⁠Prime ⁠Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani told Iranian Foreign ⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi in a phone ⁠call on Thursday that Iran and the US should commit to diplomacy.

Sheikh Mohammed, who is also the foreign minister, said Washington and Tehran should implement the MoU to end the war.

Iran said the two officials had spoken over the phone and “underscored the importance of using diplomatic means to resolve regional issues”.

July 9 (UPI) — North Korea on Thursday condemned expanding military cooperation between South Korea and Japan as a “foolish act courting self-destruction.”

The criticism came in a commentary by Kang Chol Su, section chief at North Korea’s Institute of Enemy State Studies, carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

“The military nexus between Japan, a war criminal state dashing toward a military giant, and the ROK has recently got more undisguised, further endangering the security situation in the Korean peninsula,” Kang said, using the official acronym for South Korea.

He cited examples including a South Korean air force squadron refueling at a Japanese military base earlier this year, as well as a joint search-and-rescue drill held last month and recent defense ministerial talks between Seoul and Tokyo.

According to Kang, the deepening security ties are aimed at concluding a military logistics agreement that would facilitate the exchange of supplies and services between the two militaries, potentially including ammunition.

“What should not be overlooked is that the security cooperation between Japan and the ROK is directed to concluding the ‘logistic support agreement’ which provides each other with munitions including ammunition in contingency,” Kang said.

Japan has long sought such an agreement with South Korea, but Seoul has proceeded cautiously because of domestic sensitivities stemming from Japan’s 1910-45 colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea has repeatedly criticized the administration of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, a hawkish conservative who took office in February, over efforts to strengthen Japan’s military and expand its regional security role.

In February, North Korean newspaper Rodong Sinmun described Japan as a “war criminal nation” and warned that Tokyo’s expanding military partnerships amounted to the formation of a “de facto military alliance” with NATO members and regional countries.

Last week, Pyongyang condemned the Resolute Dragon exercise between Japan’s Ground Self-Defense Force and the U.S. Marines as a rehearsal for war, accusing Tokyo of using the drills to strengthen its offensive military capabilities.

Kang said Japan’s growing security collaboration with South Korea and the United States was part of a broader effort to build a “triangular cooperation system” around North Korea’s nuclear issue, which he claimed was intended to militarily contain neighboring countries.

“The reality goes to prove once again that the DPRK’s continuous development of nuclear force and thorough exercise of its position as a nuclear weapons state are the only way to actively cope with the acute and unpredictably changing international situation,” Kang said, using the official acronym for North Korea.

The commentary followed a trilateral meeting Tuesday among the top diplomats of the United States, South Korea and Japan on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, where they reaffirmed their commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Photo: Juan Barreto / AFP

In 1999, Hugo Chávez coined the ‘civic-military union’ as a founding concept for the Bolivarian Revolution. At its core, he sought to blur the line between soldier and militant: the armed forces would no longer be subordinate to the civilian authorities, but become active political actors, essential not only to build and sustain the Bolivarian project, but to merge with the rest of society in conducting the nation. The old fuerzas armadas, FFAA, formed by the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the National Guard, were transformed into a single Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana, FANB. Soldiers were granted the right to vote. Officers flooded the bureaucracy and started to give orders to civilians. They were, in practice, sworn to a movement rather than a constitution.   

In its later years, chavismo stretched the phrase to unión cívico-militar-popular, supposedly integrating the whole of el pueblo into the martial body of the revolution. In 2008, Chávez created the Bolivarian Militia to provide military training to millions of civilians, and turned it into a branch of the armed forces in 2020, when it started to operate more as a propaganda and clientelism resource rather than a defensive corps. 

How, then, were Venezuela’s armed forces made “useful”?

A government and an armed forces that claim to be in union with its people were caught outside of the massive, spontaneous popular mobilization Venezuelans pulled off…

In the Maduro years, soldiers guarded the ration lines of CLAP boxes and the gasoline pumps of the country with the largest oil reserves in the world. Others were stationed in the southeast of the country to run the Orinoco Mining Arc, formally assigned to FANB, in tandem with non-state armed groups—some pocketing up to $800,000 a month in gold as bribes. The luckier or best-positioned of the bunch got handed high-ranking positions in public companies and ministries. The “popular” leg, then, was never el pueblo but its keepers, united to protect the Bolivarian Revolution and themselves over their fellow countrymen.

In the morning of June 24th, the Financial Times revealed that Caracas would acknowledge a debt of roughly 240 billion dollars and prepare for the largest restructuring on record. Hours later, two M7.2 and M7.5 earthquakes changed the landscape of the country. As the news broke, Venezuelan civilians quickly organized to save relatives, friends, and strangers. For the first forty-eight hours, a somewhat coordinated response from FANB was nowhere to be seen, even after Delcy Rodríguez said a joint staff led by a National Guard general was managing the emergency response. It was as if Venezuela didn’t have soldiers.

What the State guarded most jealously was not the living, but keeping the credit. A government and an armed forces that claim to be in union with its people were caught outside of the massive, spontaneous popular mobilization Venezuelans pulled off after the earthquake. When civilians pulled strangers from the rubble with their bare hands without waiting for an order, they proved that el pueblo is perfectly capable of being a body on its own, and most notably, that the State is not the vital organ that Chávez envisioned, but a dead weight.

So the aid had to be captured, rerouted, or rebranded. On June 27, Delcy Rodríguez ordered the militarization of roads and access points to devastated areas like La Guaira, slowing down the flow of ordinary citizens delivering supplies for survivors and machinery for those trying to find more of them. Just a day after the quake, opposition party Vente Venezuela reported that police had stopped a truck of supplies in Altamira and would let it move only if the cargo were transferred into the officials’ own vehicles, and the UCV student movement denounced that seven trucks of supplies en route from Bolívar to Caracas were seized by state agents before they could arrive.

“When you are [repressing] on the Francisco Fajardo highway, you are badasses. Show me you’re a badass here, then. Show me with a pickaxe and shovel.”

Organizers from a donation center at Escuela Francisco Pimentel were informed that CONAS, a joint unit of police commandos and National Guards, would be taking over the site and its supplies. Would they have done the same if a PSUV banner hung next to the supplies? A video shows the truck carrying the donations away belongs to SENIAT, the tax authority commanded by Diosdado Cabello’s brother for 18 years until yesterday. Even digital efforts were policed: a network matching volunteer interpreters to foreign rescue teams shut down and wiped its database after participants were allegedly harassed by DGCIM and SEBIN officers.

When the authorities did appear where they could help, soldiers and policemen scrolled on their phones, posed in front of the rubble and left before their uniforms got dirty. They were the last responders. Why so late, then so heavy? Incompetence covers part of it, but watch what the greens reached for in the most critical moments of this crisis and the reason why the ‘union’ has propped up chavismo for decades becomes clearer. 

DGCIM agents diverted an active rescue to recover an official’s rifles from a penthouse while people were still alive below. Neighbors stopped four CICPC policemen in Catia La Mar from trying to take cash found in the rubble, tearing the bills apart so they couldn’t. Chilean rescuer Francisco Lermanda says a soldier seized a colleague’s phone over suspicions of espionage after the crew videocalled their doctors to guide a rescue. At the Residencia Gradisca in La Guaira, where Mexican Topos had marked three points with signs of life, a Corpoelec crew sealed the site on a general’s order because a body, “por orden de arriba”, had to be recovered first. Our ‘protectors’ were filmed carrying off televisions and refrigerators, drinking the liquor they had found, lying on piles of donated clothes while giggling away.

When push came to shove, the union was not incompetent to protect the regime’s weapons, the regime’s secrets, the regime’s chain of command. The FANB did not forget how to save people during the earthquake. It never learned because saving people was not supposed to be part of the job. Faced with people to rescue instead of people to subdue, they stood guard over the dying. A man looking for his family among the collapsed buildings of Tanaguarena dared soldiers to be as brave as when they face dissidence: “When you are [repressing] on the Francisco Fajardo highway, you are badasses. Show me you’re a badass here, then. Show me with a pickaxe and shovel.”

Relations between North Korea and Japan remain deeply strained due to historical grievances, North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes, and growing regional security tensions. In recent years, Japan has significantly increased defence spending and accelerated military modernisation in response to North Korea’s missile launches and China’s expanding military presence.

Tokyo has adopted a new national security strategy that includes acquiring long range strike capabilities, expanding missile defence and strengthening cooperation with the United States and other regional partners. Japan says these measures are necessary to deter growing security threats, while North Korea and China have criticised them as evidence of Japan moving away from its post World War Two defensive posture.

The latest remarks come as North Korea also continues expanding its own naval capabilities and developing new missile systems.

North Korea accused Japan on Tuesday of transforming its military into an offensive force, claiming Tokyo’s overseas military ambitions are now a reality rather than a hypothetical threat.

A commentary published by the state run Korean Central News Agency criticised Japan’s defence modernisation programme, pointing to plans to develop unmanned submarines, expand long range missile capabilities and acquire advanced weapons from the United States.

The comments come amid growing military activity across East Asia as regional powers continue strengthening their armed forces.

The KCNA commentary argued that Japan is abandoning its long standing policy of maintaining forces solely for self defence.

It claimed Tokyo is developing unmanned submarines capable of carrying torpedoes and naval mines that could be deployed near neighbouring coastlines to conduct pre emptive attacks during a conflict.

The report portrayed these developments as evidence that Japan is shifting toward a more offensive military posture.

Japan’s Foreign Ministry did not immediately comment on the allegations.

North Korea also highlighted Japan’s efforts to strengthen its missile capabilities.

According to the commentary, Tokyo is pursuing domestically developed long range missiles, a new ballistic missile with a reported range of up to 3,000 kilometres, upgraded anti ship missiles and hypersonic glide weapons.

The report also criticised Japan’s acquisition of United States made Tomahawk cruise missiles as part of its broader military modernisation programme.

Japan has argued that these capabilities are intended to strengthen deterrence against growing regional threats.

The criticism comes as North Korea continues expanding its own military capabilities.

State media recently reported that leader Kim Jong Un observed the launch of a strategic cruise missile and inspected weapons systems aboard the newly built 5,000 tonne destroyer Kang Kon.

Kim has instructed that the vessel enter operational service within two months as part of efforts to strengthen North Korea’s naval combat capabilities.

Pyongyang has also commissioned another destroyer, the Choe Hyon, and announced plans to construct additional warships, including larger 10,000 tonne vessels.

The exchange of criticism reflects broader security tensions across Northeast Asia.

Japan has strengthened defence cooperation with the United States and regional partners while increasing military investment in response to North Korea’s expanding nuclear and missile programmes and China’s growing military activities.

North Korea has responded by accelerating weapons development, conducting missile launches and modernising its naval forces, further contributing to regional strategic competition.

The latest comments highlight the increasingly confrontational security environment in Northeast Asia, where military modernisation by one country is often cited by others to justify their own defence expansion.

As Japan strengthens its deterrence capabilities and North Korea continues developing advanced weapons, the risk of heightened regional tensions and military competition is likely to remain elevated.

North Korea

Seeking to strengthen its military capabilities while criticising Japan’s expanding defence posture.

Japan

Modernising its armed forces in response to growing regional security threats.

United States

Supporting Japan’s defence strategy as part of its broader Indo Pacific security framework.

South Korea

Closely monitoring military developments involving both North Korea and Japan.

Regional Neighbours

Watching the evolving security balance as military competition intensifies across Northeast Asia.

Regional attention will remain focused on Japan’s continuing defence modernisation and North Korea’s naval expansion, including the planned deployment of its new destroyers.

Any additional missile tests, military exercises or defence announcements by either country are likely to be closely monitored by neighbouring governments and could further shape the security dynamics of the Indo Pacific region.

With information from Reuters.

More than 11,000 people, including over 5,500 children, have fled escalating fighting around Sudan’s strategic city of el-Obeid over the past two weeks, according to Save the Children, as the United Nations warns that up to 500,000 civilians could be at risk if the violence intensifies. The city has become the latest focal point in a war that has already triggered the world’s largest displacement crisis.

For much of Sudan’s three-year civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), international attention has centred on Khartoum and the Darfur region. In recent weeks, however, attention has increasingly shifted to el-Obeid as fighting has intensified across Kordofan, prompting warnings from UN officials and humanitarian organisations that another acute humanitarian emergency could be unfolding.

Francesco Lanino, deputy country director for Save the Children in Sudan, said the consequences of displacement extend far beyond the loss of housing.

“For children, displacement is far more than the loss of a home,” he said. “It often means losing access to school, healthcare, clean water and the support networks that help them feel safe and protected. Many have already been displaced multiple times, and without urgent action to protect civilians, ensure humanitarian assistance can reach those in need and prevent further violence, thousands of children could be forced to flee while facing increasing risks to their safety, health and wellbeing.”

Why is el-Obeid so important?

El-Obeid, the capital of North Kordofan state, lies about 360km (224 miles) southwest of Khartoum at the intersection of roads linking central Sudan with Darfur and the country’s southern states.

That location has made it one of Sudan’s most important commercial centres and a key logistical hub for both military operations and humanitarian aid.

The city has remained under the control of the SAF, making it one of the army’s most important positions in western Sudan. Military analysts say control of el-Obeid helps shape movement along key supply routes connecting central Sudan with Kordofan and Darfur, helping explain why both the SAF and the RSF consider it strategically important.

Why has the fighting intensified now?

The battle for el-Obeid reflects a broader shift in Sudan’s war.

After the SAF regained territory in and around Khartoum earlier this year, fighting increasingly concentrated in western Sudan, particularly across the Kordofan and Darfur regions.

The RSF has expanded military pressure around el-Obeid while the army has reinforced its positions inside the city. UN officials have warned that the growing military build-up raises the risk of a wider assault, although neither side has announced plans for a full-scale offensive.

The conflict has also evolved. Drone warfare has become an increasingly prominent feature of the conflict, targeting military positions as well as infrastructure civilians rely on, including fuel depots, electricity networks and water facilities.

What are civilians experiencing?

Civilians in el-Obeid are facing mounting hardship as the fighting intensifies and essential services come under increasing strain.

Aid agencies and the United Nations say repeated attacks have disrupted electricity and water supplies, contributed to fuel shortages and driven up the prices of food and other essential goods. Damage to water infrastructure, combined with restricted humanitarian access, has also heightened concerns about waterborne diseases, including cholera.

Many of those now fleeing el-Obeid had already been displaced by fighting elsewhere in Sudan, meaning they are being uprooted for a second or even third time. Save the Children says more than half of the people displaced in the latest wave are children, underscoring the disproportionate impact the conflict is having on young people and their families.

Why are the UN and aid agencies so concerned?

The immediate concern extends beyond the fighting itself to the possibility that el-Obeid could become the next city to experience prolonged urban warfare, with civilians trapped between rival forces.

According to the United Nations, up to 500,000 civilians in and around el-Obeid could be at risk if violence escalates. The figure includes longtime residents as well as people who had already sought refuge in the city after fleeing fighting elsewhere in Sudan.

Humanitarian organisations warn that continued hostilities could further restrict the delivery of humanitarian assistance into North Kordofan at a time when many communities already face shortages of food, medicine, fuel and clean water.

The UN has also raised alarm over the growing use of drone strikes, warning that repeated attacks on civilian infrastructure are deepening the humanitarian crisis and making it harder for people to access essential services.

Why are officials comparing el-Obeid and el-Fasher?

Officials increasingly fear el-Obeid could follow the trajectory of el-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, where months of fighting left civilians trapped, humanitarian access severely restricted and basic services devastated.

The comparison does not mean el-Obeid has reached the same stage. Rather, UN officials say it highlights the risk that the city could follow a similar trajectory if fighting intensifies and civilians cannot safely leave or receive humanitarian assistance.

El-Fasher has become one of the starkest examples of the human cost of Sudan’s war. Since fighting escalated there in 2024, repeated clashes, shelling and attacks on displacement camps have forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee, while hospitals, markets and other civilian infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed. Aid agencies have repeatedly warned that restrictions on humanitarian access have deepened hunger and disease, leaving many residents with little access to food, clean water or healthcare.

UN officials fear a similar pattern could unfold in el-Obeid if military pressure continues to build. The city has become a refuge for people displaced from other parts of Sudan, meaning a major offensive could trap large numbers of civilians while further disrupting aid operations across Kordofan. Preventing another prolonged urban battle, they say, is critical to avoiding an even wider humanitarian crisis.

What could happen next?

The next phase of the conflict will depend on whether the current military pressure around el-Obeid develops into a sustained ground offensive or whether diplomatic efforts succeed in reducing hostilities and improving humanitarian access.

For the Sudanese Armed Forces, holding el-Obeid is important to maintaining its position in North Kordofan and preserving access to western Sudan. For the Rapid Support Forces, increasing pressure on the city could strengthen its military position in the region, although the outcome of any future offensive remains uncertain.

If fighting escalates, aid organisations warn that more families are likely to flee while shortages of food, clean water, fuel and medical supplies deepen. A wider battle could also further disrupt humanitarian operations across Kordofan, a region that serves as an important corridor for assistance to communities affected by the war.

More broadly, the battle for el-Obeid reflects the changing geography of Sudan’s war. As front lines shift away from Khartoum, Kordofan is emerging as one of the conflict’s most consequential theatres, carrying profound implications not only for the military balance but also for hundreds of thousands of civilians caught in the fighting.

As the latest wave of displacement illustrates, the humanitarian consequences are already unfolding. Whether el-Obeid becomes another prolonged urban battleground, or whether sustained international efforts help avert a wider assault, may determine not only the next phase of Sudan’s war but also the fate of hundreds of thousands of civilians caught in its path.

“The signs from el-Obeid are clear and unmistakable: another human rights catastrophe is unfolding in Sudan,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk warned late last week. “This is not a drill. It is a red alert that needs to land on the desks of heads of state and government around the world.”

A military airport in the southwestern city of Gwangju was selected Monday as the site for a government-led project to create a semiconductor production cluster, a presidential official said.

The selection was made in a meeting earlier in the day between government officials and top executives of leading chipmakers — Samsung Electronics Co. and SK hynix Inc. — to discuss follow-up measures for the investment project, presidential chief of staff Kang Hoon-sik said at a press briefing.

The president will hold monthly meetings to personally check the progress in the massive investment project, he added.

The envisioned chip production cluster is part of the government’s “three megaprojects” initiative, centered on large-scale investments in semiconductors, physical artificial intelligence (AI) and AI data centers in regional areas.

Under the chip cluster project, the two leading chipmakers have pledged to invest a combined 800 trillion won (US$522 billion), marking the single-largest investment plan to date in the southwestern Gwangju and Honam area.

“Through consultations with related ministries, the government will promptly finalize the (administrative) process of designating the candidate site,” Kang said.

The presidential official noted that companies proposed the military site for the production complex, describing it as an 8.3 million-square-meter track of already leveled land that would save time for preparation.

Its proximity to the city’s downtown and railway station would also facilitate easy access for workers and the transportation of goods, the official said.

Kang noted that the president has decided to hold monthly meetings to review the progress of the projects and establish a dedicated body within Cheong Wa Dae to oversee them.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Countries raise concerns after Chinese military test-launches ballistic missile from submarine in the Pacific Ocean.

China has test-fired a missile from a nuclear submarine that landed in “designated waters” in the Pacific Ocean, state news agency Xinhua reports, drawing criticism and concerns from Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

The Chinese navy test-launched the long-range ballistic missile at 12:01pm (04:01 GMT) on Monday from one of its nuclear-powered submarines in the South Pacific, Xinhua reported.

Xinhua said the test was a “routine arrangement” of China’s annual military training and was not directed at any specific target.

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong confirmed that China had notified the government of plans to conduct a sea-based missile test into the Pacific but said the action was “destabilising” to the region.

“Australia has been clear that this proposed test is in the context of a rapid military build-up by China, which is lacking in the transparency and reassurance as to intent that the region expects,” Wong told reporters at a news conference in the Fijian capital, Suva.

Japan’s government said it was notified of the missile launch and had urged China to reconsider.

“We expressed our grave concern over the Chinese military’s increased activity,” the government said, adding that Japan’s coastguard had been notified on Sunday by ⁠Chinese authorities about falling space debris that could fall within Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

The New Zealand government said it was informed of the planned launch within hours of it taking place.

“New Zealand considers this an unwelcome and concerning development. We, like our neighbours in other ‌Pacific countries, have no interest in China using the South Pacific as a testing site for missile capability,” Foreign Minister Winston Peters said in a statement.