Military

President Donald Trump on Friday said he would designate the Strait of Hormuz a territory of the United States “pretty soon” as the status of the waterway, a global chokepoint through which a fifth of global oil and gas passes, remains under a military and diplomatic deadlock.

Iran has fired back, dubbing Trump’s threats as “nonsense” as the memorandum of understanding signed between the two in June expires on Sunday.

Tehran has blocked the passage to leverage it as a global economy kill switch, while Washington has maintained a military naval blockade against Iran’s ports, choking its economy further.

In the apparent game of who blinks first – though Trump says negotiation with Iran “is like chess” – the US president’s military rhetoric has also followed a pattern throughout the ongoing war, which began on February 28. On many occasions, he has threatened to attack Iran only to pull back at the eleventh hour.

So, can the US actually make the Strait of Hormuz its territory? And what does that even mean?

What has Trump said?

“After we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated, pretty soon I’ll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States,” Trump said during a speech at a police academy in New York.

Referring to the naval blockade, Trump went a step further to suggest that the Strait of Hormuz is already a US territory. “Essentially, that’s what it is,” he added.

“We have the blockade. No ships get through unless we want them to,” he said.

Iran maintains that it controls the waterway — and despite the US claims, some vessels have transited the passage despite the blockade, maritime navigation data shows.

“It’s clear the US president, with a chuckle as he said that, even himself, is not taking this particularly seriously,” said Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Washington, DC.

“These are the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. But what the US president likes to do is get under the skin of adversaries, and, in this case, it’s Iran,” she said.

“What we should point out, though, is what the US president is not backing down on is the fact that there is a naval blockade by the United States in effect in the Strait of Hormuz, and that is ongoing.

How has Iran reacted to it?

Several Iranian officials have sharply reacted to Trump’s remarks. The head of the judiciary came out with furious rhetoric, calling the US president criminal and feather-headed, his remarks “nonsense” and saying the Strait of Hormuz belongs to Iran.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, also responded, saying, “The Strait of Hormuz cannot be seized by tweet, nor by aircraft carrier, nor by issuing an order, nor by an election speech.”

“The Strait of Hormuz has been Iranian, is Iranian, and will remain Iranian; this strait will only be closed and opened under Iran’s command, and as long as you do not accept the reality of defeat and cease your fanciful delusions, Iran will continue to enforce the blockade,” he added.

Meanwhile, Iran has been holding talks with Oman, the only other coastal country in the strait, to reach a settlement on the management of maritime traffic in the strait. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in comments carried by the Iranian Students’ News Agency, said negotiations between Tehran and Muscat “may reach a conclusion soon”.

The reopening of the waterway, however, is a separate issue, Araghchi said, where Washington has to adhere to promises made in the June memorandum of understanding, including removal of the naval blockade and sanctions on Iran.

That is the new Iranian position on the ongoing war, where Tehran is now seeking these US concessions for mere reopening of the waterway, which were originally conditions for ending the war.

Is Trump’s claim even practical?

First, sovereignty does not exchange hands over a mere unilateral presidential proclamation.

For instance, Trump had earlier threatened to send US boots to Iran’s Kharg Island to take over the key Iranian oil export hub in the Gulf. Tehran then responded by saying that its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would be waiting for them, “with fingers on the trigger”. Trump had previously also threatened to take over Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark.

Bruce Fein, associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, says Trump is constitutionally powerless to annex on his own.

“A treaty ratified by the Senate or statute is constitutionally required to annex territory, as with the Louisiana Purchase or annexation of Hawaii or Panama Canal or acquisition of Puerto Rico or the Philippines in ending the Spanish-American War.

If he goes ahead with annexation, Fein says, it would “constitute the crime of aggressive war under international law, including the UN Charter”.

Natalie Klein, a specialist in international law and associate dean at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said, “Essentially the only way Trump’s claim could have any plausibility under international law would be if the US was asserting control over the Strait as an occupying power perhaps comparable to the authority the US exercised over Japan immediately after World War II.”

“But in that scenario, the US would need to have military control over Iran or at least its coastal areas.”

Trump’s war on Iran is also widely unpopular in the US, where the president and his fellow Republicans are seeking to defend their narrow congressional majorities in November’s midterm elections. Barely 35 percent of Americans approve of the war, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Several US media publications have reported that Washington is running short on munitions, including the crucial Patriot antimissile interceptor. Petrol prices have also increased, and are now averaging more than $4 a gallon – a major issue for Americans.

Last week, US Vice President JD Vance said the Trump administration’s top priority in the war was to control increasing petrol prices, while stopping Iran’s supposed race to a nuclear weapon now comes second.

Tehran has also attacked its neighbours in the Gulf, which analysts say are aimed at forcing the regional countries to push Washington into a corner at the negotiating table.

Even Iran does not enjoy unfettered sovereignty over the strait as a whole, under international laws, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but only some coastal sites near its own borders.

The UNCLOS recognises coastal-state sovereignty over territorial waters, but limits that territorial sea to 12 nautical miles (22km), and notes that ships enjoy a right of passage that “shall not be impeded”.

The Strait of Hormuz is in international waters, sandwiched between the coasts of Iran and Oman. At its narrowest point, the strait is only about 21 nautical miles (39km) wide — and the two countries’ 12-nautical mile territorial seas overlap across it.

While neither the US nor Iran has ratified UNCLOS, the convention’s rules on international straits are widely regarded as customary law.

Paul Musgrave, an associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said Trump usually makes such statements primarily to speak to a US audience, especially his support base.

It is important to remember, he added, that Trump is a product of US reality TV and is, at the end of the day, a “showman”.

“This is a guy who speaks big. You have to take him seriously in some cases but not literally,” Musgrave cautioned.

Trump cannot be taken seriously, especially in this case because making the strait US territory is physically and legally impossible, he said. But the statements do show that Trump is determined not to back down from Iran and accept defeat in the months-long war, he added.

A United States aircraft carrier, the USS George Washington, has begun to depart the western Pacific Ocean, leaving its port in Da Nang, Vietnam, for an anticipated deployment to the Middle East.

The ship is expected to replace the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is currently participating in the US-Israeli war against Iran.

The vessel’s movement on Saturday comes amid mounting concerns about the conditions on board the USS Lincoln, sparked by reports of sailors attempting to jump overboard.

The USS Lincoln has been deployed without a port stop for more than 266 days, a record duration for the Navy. It houses about 5,000 sailors and Marines.

In the wake of reports about supply shortages and mental health strain on the ship, US President Donald Trump and acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao indicated that the vessel would be rotated. The Pentagon has not confirmed, however, that the USS Lincoln will be replaced by the USS Washington.

The department historically has not commented on movements of key military assets, citing security concerns.

Analysts note that the USS Washington’s departure from the Pacific leaves no US aircraft carrier in the strategically significant region, where the US has long acted as a bulwark against China’s might.

Back-and-forth over conditions

Members of the Trump administration have spent much of this week batting away reports about deteriorating conditions on the USS Lincoln.

US media outlets have carried reports not only of sailors attempting to leap from the vessel, but also of diminishing hygiene supplies and paltry food, as well as issues with plumbing and waste disposal.

Several US senators have called for more information about the conditions on board and the reason for its record-setting deployment.

Since leaving San Diego, California, last November, the USS Lincoln has been sent to support military operations in Venezuela, before leaving for the Middle East shortly thereafter.

Its deployment was supposed to end in May. But after the US and Israel launched a war against Iran in February, its mission was extended indefinitely.

The war with Iran has shown no signs so far of ending, though fighting has remained largely subdued in recent days. Talks have stalled over issues including control of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway for global trade.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump downplayed concerns about the ship, saying instead the length of the aircraft carrier’s deployment was “not nearly enough”.

A day earlier, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said conditions on board had been “completely misrepresented”.

In a separate statement on Friday, Cao maintained the issues on board the ship were not dire, but he acknowledged “a small number of mental health cases were treated with no loss of life”.

He added that meal plans had been adjusted “when fresh resupply was unavailable”, but not a single meal had been missed.

“There is no question our young men and women have been pushed to their limits  — but they have never broken,” he said.

Still, some analysts say Iranian attacks have taken a toll on US military assets across the region, particularly a US Navy base in Bahrain. That has likely complicated typical resupply and maintenance procedures for aircraft carriers like the USS Lincoln.

Concerns about China

News of the USS Washington’s shift from the Pacific has spurred concern that its departure may further harm US deterrence against China. It was not clear if or when another carrier would be deployed to the region.

Bryan Clark, a former Navy submariner and defence analyst at the Hudson Institute, a think tank, told The Associated Press that Beijing may try to project strength in the aircraft carrier’s absence to unnerve US allies in the region.

“They’re using this as part of the narrative to demonstrate to the Philippines, to Japan, to Indonesia and others that the US is not the big dog in the western Pacific any more,” Clark said.

“They would just prefer that countries in the region decide that China is the bigger power and the US is not able to guarantee their security any more.”

Clark added he did not believe the change would in and of itself embolden China to launch an attack on Taiwan, the self-governing island it claims as its own.

Still, the shift comes as the US contends with a reported depletion in both its offensive and defensive weapon supplies as a result of the war with Iran.

Those shortages have already piqued concerns of a declining US ability to serve as deterrence against military aggression. Critics point out that a country like China, unlike Iran, has advanced military technology and a sprawling air force, which could pose a challenge to the US military.

Like the USS Lincoln, the USS Washington is a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. It has the capability to carry more than 6,000 passengers and about 90 aircraft.

Aug. 14 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Andy Burnham imposed a temporary ban on the sale of disposable barbecues and deployed military personnel on Friday in a battle against widespread wildfires across the country.

Speaking from the hard-hit West Midlands of England, Burnham said the measures were made necessary by continuing waves of hot weather and extreme drought.

“We cannot accept this as the new normal,” he said in a video address while recounting how fires the region “have destroyed homes, forced people to evacuate and left firefighters injured while protecting others.”

Much of England and Wales remains in a deep drought and is facing another period of extreme heat a day after the Met Office reported temperatures reaching 100.6 degrees in London for the fifth-hottest day on record in the nation’s history, the British leader noted.

“Farmers are watching crops fail and firefighters have faced hundreds of wildfires in a matter of weeks,” he said. “This is what climate change looks like here and now.”

The prime minister said the barbeque ban, emergency funding for fire and rescue services and deploying military support were decided during a meeting of COBRA, the government’s emergency response committee, earlier this week.

But, he added, “we also have to tackle the causes of climate change and make Britain more resilient to the extreme weather we’re already experiencing. We shouldn’t just accept this as inevitable and I don’t.”

The British government has already announced plans to support the development of nine new water reservoirs and improve resilience to future droughts, floods and extreme weather, as well as a investment of nearly $135 million million “to strengthen the country’s response to wildfires and extreme weather.”

Thursday’s extreme temperatures meant Britain this year has already seen the most number of days reaching or exceeding 97 degrees (four days) and 98 degrees (three days), as well as equaling 2022 for seeing two days of 100 degrees.

As the weekend began, forecasters predicted a gradual cooling from north to south across the country but with much-needed rainfall remaining scarce.

“A front moving south eastwards across the U.K. on Monday and Tuesday could bring northern areas some rain but amounts of rain in the south will be small at most and the majority will fall over Northern Ireland and Scotland,” Steven Keates of the Met Office said in a release.

“The next meaningful rain forecast for these very dry areas could be towards the end of next week as an area of low pressure influences our weather from the southwest.”

A new poll shows Lula leading Bolsonaro, but the gap has closed ahead of Brazil’s high-stakes presidential election.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has retained his lead over right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro ahead of October’s election, according to a new poll.

A Quaest survey published on Friday found Lula would take 43 percent of the vote in a simulated run-off, against 40 percent for Bolsonaro, effectively a statistical tie given the poll’s two-point margin of error.

The result marks a narrowing from an earlier Quaest poll on August 5, which had put Lula ahead by a wider five-point margin, 44 percent to 39 percent.

In a first-round scenario, Lula leads more comfortably with 38 percent, followed by Bolsonaro at 31 percent. Three other candidates trail far behind: Renan Santos and Ronaldo Caiado each polled at 4 percent, and Romeu Zema at 2 percent.

Under Brazilian electoral rules, if no candidate secures more than half the valid votes in the first round, the top two finishers advance to a run-off.

Flavio Bolsonaro, the eldest son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, has emerged as the standard-bearer for Brazil’s right after his father was barred from running in the election.

The elder Bolsonaro was ruled ineligible for office after Brazil’s top electoral court found he had abused his power while in office. He was later convicted separately over a plot to overturn his 2022 election loss to Lula.

The poll, conducted by Quaest between August 10 and 13, surveyed 2,004 people and was commissioned by the Brazilian media group Globo.

Lula launched his re-election bid on August 2 at the Workers’ Party convention in Sao Paulo, casting himself as a defender of Brazilian “sovereignty” as pressure from the administration of United States President Donald Trump looms over the race.

He called for increased defence spending and pledged to shield Brazil’s reserves of rare earths and other critical minerals from foreign control. “I want to be prepared, so that no one invades this country,” he said.

He warned that China, the US and France would not get access to Brazil’s mineral wealth without respecting the country’s sovereignty. He also told the convention: “In Brazil, we do not accept anyone sticking their nose where it does not belong.”

Trump has maintained close ties with the Bolsonaros. In June, Lula warned Trump not to interfere in the presidential race.

“Don’t meddle in the Brazilian elections, because the Brazilian elections are a Brazilian problem, just as American elections are their business, not mine,” Lula said.

With the race tightening two months out from the vote, the results so far have shown a competitive presidential race, even as Lula continues to hold a narrow structural advantage heading into the final stretch of the campaign.

Members of the US Congress have called for a probe into conditions amid reports of sailors attempting to jump ship.

United States President Donald Trump has dismissed concerns about conditions on board the USS Abraham Lincoln during its lengthy deployment as part of the US-Israel war with Iran.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump rejected the assertion that the families of those on board the aircraft carrier are worried about their loved ones. “No, they’re not,” Trump said.

When asked if the aircraft carrier had been deployed too long, Trump replied: “No, no, no, not nearly enough.”

His remarks follow a series of reports this week, documenting supply shortages and mental health strain on the USS Abraham Lincoln. That includes accounts of individuals attempting to jump from the ship.

The aircraft carrier left in November from a base in San Diego, California, and it has since been involved in January’s military operation against Venezuela and, more recently, the war against Iran.

Its deployment was expected to end in May, but that timeframe has been extended. It has spent more than 250 days at sea without a port stop, setting a record for the US Navy. More than 5,000 sailors and Marines are housed on board.

Several US lawmakers have since called for an inquiry into conditions on board the ship. One Democratic senator, Ruben Gallego, has also called on the Navy to allow a bipartisan delegation to visit the ship to assess the state of affairs.

Still, the Trump administration has repeatedly denied worsening conditions on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

On Friday, a US official told Al Jazeera the Navy had “not observed an increase in suicidal ideations or attempts aboard the ship”.

The official added that there were five chaplains, one psychologist, one social worker, three “behavioral health technicians”, and one “embedded integrated prevention coordination (EIPC) counselor” on board the vessel. There is also an emotional support dog on board.

‘What military objective?’

While Trump downplayed the length of the deployment, he did confirm reports that the aircraft carrier will be swapped out in the near future.

“That ship is moving right now or very shortly, and it’s being replaced with another very similar ship,” Trump said on Friday.

In a letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth earlier this week, Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, asked for information on conditions on the boat, including what metrics the Navy was using to measure the mental health of the crew.

“What military objective is the continued deployment of the Lincoln intended to achieve in Iran, and how does the Department assess whether the carrier’s continued presence is necessary to accomplish that objective?” he asked.

The focus on conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln come as diplomatic efforts to end the US-Israeli war in Iran show no signs of breakthrough. The war began with a US and Israel-led offensive on February 28.

In June, the US and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that called for an immediate pause to the fighting.

But last month, the memorandum collapsed amid a dispute over the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for trade.

The subsequent escalation saw the US re-impose its naval blockade on Iranian ports and Iran constrict traffic through the strait once more.

Iran has since focused its diplomatic efforts on reaching an agreement with Oman over travel routes in the waterway, which is a key artery for oil, natural gas, fertiliser and other goods.

One week on from Saudi ⁠⁠Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye signing their ⁠joint defence agreement, the Turkish defence ministry revealed more details about the alliance on Thursday. They include plans to hold ⁠⁠joint military exercises and to deepen cooperation between their defence industries.

The bid to deepen security cooperation between three of the biggest economies among Muslim-majority countries comes amid heightened military tensions and conflicts in the Middle East.

Over the course of the US-Israeli war on Iran, Saudi Arabia has been repeatedly hit by Iran, which says it is targeting US military assets in the Gulf.

Pakistan’s ⁠⁠foreign ministry said that the agreement states ⁠⁠that an armed ⁠⁠attack on any one of the ⁠⁠three countries would be ⁠⁠regarded as an ⁠⁠attack against them all –  similar to NATO’s Article 5 collective defence clause.

At a weekly briefing in the Turkish capital Ankara on Thursday, the Turkish defence ministry said the pact’s fundamental goal was to ensure defence and military ties were put on a “more institutional and sustainable” footing.

“Under the accord, strategic political and military mechanisms plan to be established involving the defence ministers, foreign ministers, and chiefs of general ⁠⁠staff/armed forces commanders and that coordination among the three countries will ⁠⁠be conducted at the highest level,” it said.

What do we know about the Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, Pakistan pact?

It follows a visit by Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, accompanied by army chief Asim Munir, to Saudi Arabia to perform the Umrah pilgrimage in Mecca.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also travelled to Saudi Arabia on Friday to meet Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Turkiye, which has NATO’s second-largest army, has said the pact with nuclear-armed Pakistan and major oil ‌‌exporter Saudi Arabia was open to expansion – Egypt has been touted as a potential candidate — and did not seek to replace any existing alliances.

How have similar defence pacts fared?

The mutual defence pact is similar to several others in the region and beyond, yet many have had mixed records in practice.

Such alliances have the potential to deter large-scale interstate wars against their members, analysts say. But their effectiveness drops once conflicts move into a ‘grey zone’, which can include military occupation, settlements, internal repression or proxy violence.

Experts say they often serve merely as a signal of a strengthened political alliance rather than being a true collective defence.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), 1949

NATO grew largely out of Cold War fears of aggression and expansionism by the Soviet Union.

The US, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom signed the initial treaty on April 4, 1949.

The group has expanded into a 32-member alliance, with Sweden being the most recent member two years ago.

Many argue that NATO was a factor behind the Soviet Union’s reluctance to directly attack Western European member states during the Cold War, and vice versa with the Warsaw Pact.

The US also entered multiple bilateral treaties with different countries in the 1950s and 1960s. This provided Washington with strategic reassurances to its pact partners and went some way to shape their domestic and foreign policies.

A key provision of the NATO treaty, the so-called Article 5, states that if one member of the alliance is attacked in Europe or North America, it will be considered an attack on all members. That effectively put Western Europe under the ‘nuclear umbrella’ of the US.

NATO has invoked Article 5 only once in its history, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the US.

According to NATO, the alliance plays an important role in fighting “terrorism”.

Arab League Joint Defence and Economic Cooperation Treaty, 1950

The League of Arab States, or Arab League, was established in 1945 to promote economic, political and social cohesion among emerging Middle Eastern states Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

It came amid the formation of Israel and its threats to countries in the region.

In 1950, Arab states signed a mutual defence treaty, stating that an attack on one is an attack on all – at least on paper.

Inter‑American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, 1947

Following the Second World War and the start of the Cold War, leaders in the Americas signed this treaty in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, also known as the Rio Treaty.

Its core principle was that an attack on one member country counts as an attack on all.

This treaty was invoked during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and the September 11 attacks in 2001.

The ANZUS Treaty, 1951

In September 1951, the US, New Zealand and Australia signed a treaty pledging to meet the common dangers in the Pacific region.

Following the September 11 attacks, ANZUS was invoked for the first time.

In 1986, the United States suspended its ANZUS security obligations to New Zealand over Wellington’s anti‑nuclear policy. This effectively froze New Zealand out of the alliance, while US–Australia cooperation continued.

US-Japan Security Treaty, 1951

The US and Japan pledged in a bilateral agreement to act and meet the common danger in case either of them faced an armed attack.

This agreement was signed in 1951 in San Francisco alongside the World War II peace treaty.

While the treaty was never invoked, about 50,000 US military personnel are stationed in Japan.

US-South Korea Mutual Defence Treaty, 1953

Following the end of the Korean War, the US and South Korea pledged to help each other from external armed attacks. This treaty came into effect in 1954.

While it was never invoked, it gave the US a legal framework to station about 28,500 troops in South Korea.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)’s Peninsula Shield Force 1984

The GCC is a political and economic alliance of six countries in the Arabian Peninsula: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The GCC was established in Saudi Arabia in 1981, aiming to promote economic, security, cultural and social cooperation between the six member states.

In 1984, the GCC established a standing coalition land force, the Peninsula Shield Force, tasked to defend the six-member states amid the Iran-Iraq War.

It is composed of infantry, armour, artillery and combat support elements from each of the states, with 40,000 personnel.

The 2000 Joint Defence Agreement was signed to develop a joint military industry for arms manufacturing.

In September 2025, when Israel attacked Hamas leaders in Qatar, the GCC pledged to “activate a joint defence mechanism”.

Treaty on European Union (TEU), 2009

The modern EU was officially formed in 1993 in the Netherlands with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty.

In 2009, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) created the mutual defence obligation which was signed into EU law.

Under Article 42(7) of the TEU, if one EU member is the victim of “armed aggression”, others have an obligation to aid and assist by all the means in their power.

France has invoked this clause only once, in 2015, following the Paris attacks that killed 130 people. Other EU members provided bilateral military support — including deployments to French‑led operations abroad — so that France could redeploy troops to strengthen security at home.

Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), 2002

The CSTO is a Russia-led military alliance that includes some former Soviet republics.

Established in 2002, its members comprise Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Belarus.

Article 4 of the CSTO states that aggression against one is considered aggression against all, with an obligation to provide necessary aid, including military.

The CSTO has deployed troops once, in 2022 in Kazakhstan upon the request of Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev to help manage demonstrations caused by rising fuel prices.

North Korea has intensified its criticism of Japan’s military expansion and its growing security cooperation with the United States and South Korea, portraying the developments as a threat to regional stability.

More than a dozen North Korean state media attacks since early July have focused on Japan’s defence buildup, including its acquisition of long range weapons, rising military spending and closer security ties with Washington and Seoul.

The campaign has also coincided with unusual silence from Pyongyang over its own recent missile launches, raising questions about what North Korea is trying to achieve with its latest messaging.

Why Is North Korea Targeting Japan?

North Korean statements have focused heavily on Japan’s acquisition of counter strike capabilities, its testing of U.S. made Tomahawk cruise missiles, increased defence spending and its annual defence white paper.

Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, warned last week of “additional military options” in response to what she described as Japan’s transformation into a military power.

North Korea’s KCNA later described Japan’s 2026 defence white paper as a document aimed at justifying military expansion and preparing for what it called a “re invasion.”

Pyongyang has also criticised the annual U.S. South Korean Ulchi Freedom Shield military exercises, accusing Washington, Seoul and Tokyo of developing what it called a “nuclear alliance.”

The United States and South Korea maintain that the exercises are defensive.

How Has Japan Changed Its Defence Policy?

Japan announced in 2022 that it planned to double defence spending to 2% of gross domestic product in response to growing security concerns involving China, Russia and North Korea.

A major part of that expansion has involved acquiring long range missile capabilities, including U.S. made Tomahawk cruise missiles capable of striking targets more than 1,000 km away.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s government is expected to revise Japan’s national security strategy this year, potentially leading to further increases in defence spending and investment in drones and domestic weapons production.

For Pyongyang, these developments represent a significant change in Japan’s traditional defence posture and provide another basis for portraying the regional security environment as increasingly hostile.

Is North Korea’s Campaign Really About Japan?

Analysts say Japan is only one part of a broader strategic message.

Park Won-gon of Ewha Womans University said North Korea is attempting to frame Northeast Asia as a confrontation between two opposing camps.

The objective, he said, is to create a U.S. South Korea Japan versus North Korea China Russia framework.

Such a narrative could serve several purposes for Pyongyang. It can strengthen North Korea’s argument that its nuclear weapons are necessary for self defence, while also encouraging closer political and military support from China and Russia.

South Korea’s Unification Ministry has expressed a similar assessment, saying North Korea appears to view Japan’s changing security posture, South Korea’s plans for nuclear powered submarines and trilateral military cooperation as part of a broader shift in the regional balance of power.

Why Is North Korea Silent About Its Missile Tests?

One of the more unusual aspects of the latest campaign is that North Korean state media has remained silent about recent missile launches.

North Korea conducted ballistic missile tests last week and again this week, but state media has not reported them, despite the launches being condemned by South Korea, Japan and the United States.

That differs from Pyongyang’s usual practice of publicising missile tests shortly after they take place.

Analysts believe the launches may have involved improvements to existing missile systems rather than entirely new weapons, making them less valuable as domestic propaganda.

Shin Jong-woo of the Korea Defense and Security Forum suggested that some tests could involve upgraded short range ballistic missiles developed with Russian technical assistance and potentially intended for Russia.

Another possibility is that North Korea does not want to publicise launches that could be connected to prospective military exports.

What Role Does Russia Play?

North Korea’s expanding military relationship with Russia is increasingly important to understanding its weapons development.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has repeatedly accused Russia of using North Korean missiles in Ukraine and Pyongyang of supplying Moscow with missiles, ammunition and troops.

Analysts say cooperation with Russia may also be helping North Korea improve the performance and accuracy of its missile systems through battlefield experience and technical assistance.

Recent launches could therefore represent tests of upgraded variants before they are deployed by North Korea or potentially supplied to Russia.

Analysis: What Is Pyongyang Trying to Achieve?

North Korea’s intensified criticism of Japan appears to be part of a broader attempt to reshape the strategic narrative around the Korean Peninsula.

By portraying the United States, South Korea and Japan as an increasingly integrated military and nuclear bloc, Pyongyang can present its own weapons development as a defensive response rather than an independent escalation.

The strategy also fits North Korea’s growing alignment with China and Russia. As security cooperation between Washington, Seoul and Tokyo deepens, Pyongyang has an incentive to emphasise the emergence of rival blocs and strengthen its position within the opposing camp.

Japan’s military expansion therefore provides North Korea with a useful political target. The immediate issue may be Japanese defence policy, but the larger objective is regional positioning.

If Japan continues expanding its military capabilities while U.S. South Korean and Japanese security cooperation deepens, Pyongyang is likely to use those developments to justify further weapons development and closer cooperation with Beijing and Moscow. The result could be a reinforcing cycle in which each side’s security measures become evidence for the other side that greater military preparedness is necessary.

With information from Reuters.

Pyongyang has accused the US of pushing the world ‘to the brink of nuclear war’.

North Korea has denounced major United States-South Korea military drills set to start next week as a provocation that heightens tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

The US-Japan-South Korea military cooperation is turning into a nuclear alliance, and North Korea will respond to a new level of threat with a new level of deterrent, a spokesperson for North Korea’s Foreign Ministry said on Friday, according to Pyongyang’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

Pyongyang routinely denounces military drills in the south as a provocation that heightens tensions.

The drills – named “Ulchi Freedom Shield” – are due to start on August 17 and will last until August 27. They will incorporate exercises to counter drones, GPS disruption, and cyberattacks as the US and its allies adapt to North Korea’s evolving capabilities.

“The US announced that the forthcoming exercises are quite different from the ones of the past five years and intended to master the ability of fighting a war on the basis of the new aspects of modern warfare,” the North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesperson said in the statement.

“It is our consistent principle of ensuring security to respond to a new level of a threat with a new level of a deterrent,” the statement, published by KCNA, added.

Lessons learned in Russia-Ukraine

North Korea sent an estimated 12,000-15,000 soldiers to fight for Russia in its war against Ukraine, and the country is now thought to be preparing the deployment of another 10,000.

Thousands died, but the deal provided North Korea with valuable battlefield experience, as well as payment in arms, energy and direct financial support, according to reports.

Colonel Ryan Donald, spokesperson for the US and South Korean Combined Forces Command, said this week that North Korea’s deployment to the European war had changed the threat his soldiers may face on the Korean Peninsula.

“They’ve taken those lessons they learned there and brought them back to North Korea,” he told reporters. “Our training accounts for that threat.”

Pyongyang’s Foreign Ministry statement said the US-South Korea drills are being staged “at a time when military and political situation is becoming more serious with each passing day in Europe, the Middle East and other parts of the world”.

North Korea also said on Friday that it would further strengthen its nuclear deterrence, accusing the US of lowering its threshold for nuclear weapons usage and pushing the world “to the brink of nuclear war”.

On Wednesday, North Korea fired a ballistic missile towards the sea off the Korean Peninsula’s east coast, just six days after firing another missile.

The Ulchi Freedom Shield drills will include 18,000 South Korean soldiers and counterparts from the 28,500-strong US contingent in the country.

A series of Houthi attacks in recent weeks, which are among the deadliest in years, is raising fears that Yemen could be sliding back towards all-out war as conflict spreads across the Middle East.

A 2022 truce led to the end of heavy fighting between the pro-Iranian Houthis and Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces, which had been ongoing since September 2014.

But a series of clashes over the last month between the two sides – intensifying in the last two weeks – has led to civilian and military casualties and threatened to reignite the war.

Here is what we know.

What are the latest attacks?

The Houthis have killed a number of civilians in a series of attacks on the government-controlled west coast port of al-Makha, also known as Mocha.

There was also an attack on a commercial vessel in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait on Tuesday, which Yemen’s coastguard said killed six people and injured 10 others. The Houthis said the vessel was carrying weapons.

It followed the Houthis targeting Yemeni government military sites in eastern Yemen with drones and rockets, killing at least 30 government soldiers and causing further clashes. The Houthis have also attacked Saudi Aramco’s Jazan oil refinery.

In response, Rashad al-Alimi, chairman of the Presidential Leadership Council (PLC), said the internationally -recognised government would not accept “a new truce that reproduces previous experiences”.

“No action by the Houthi militias will go unanswered or unchecked,” al-Alimi said, according to Yemen’s Saba news agency.

But he also appeared to leave space for a political way back, saying the Houthis could still “lay down their arms, engage in political life and compete through the ballot box on an equal footing with all other Yemenis”.

What is behind the latest tensions?

The Houthis seized the capital Sanaa in 2014 and have since fought a war with the government for control of the country.

Although the intensity of the war declined significantly after the 2022 truce, no comprehensive peace settlement followed.

The fragile status quo came under increasing pressure after the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran on February 28 .

On July 13 , Yemeni government forces – which are backed by Saudi Arabia – attacked Sanaa airport, reportedly to prevent an Iranian aircraft carrying a Houthi delegation from landing. The government accuses Iran of arming the Houthis.

The rebel movement responded by launching missiles towards Saudi Arabia. Then, on July 20 , the Houthis announced a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia, threatening oil shipments diverted towards the Red Sea and attacking Saudi Aramco facilities in Jizan and Yanbu.

Is Saudi Arabia changing its approach?

As the attacks have intensified, Saudi Arabia has begun to take a more proactive approach to its security – both in Yemen and across the region, according to experts.

Some analysts believe the prospect of the Houthis ultimately blocking Bab al-Mandeb – the narrow strait connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean – may have helped push the Saudis to change their strategy.

Saudi Arabia was somewhat insulated from Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz because it could use its East-West Pipeline to transport oil from fields in the east to the Red Sea, bypassing the strait.

If the Houthis were to severely restrict shipping through Bab al-Mandeb, that would threaten the Red Sea route for one of the world’s largest oil exporters.

Last month, Riyadh announced a new international alliance intended to protect shipping in the Red Sea from Houthi attacks. Dozens of countries were invited, with the kingdom saying 13 had agreed to participate.

It is also deepening its security relationships with Pakistan and Turkiye through a new joint defence agreement, while Saudi coordination with Washington also appears to be strengthening.

The Saudi Defence Minister, Khalid bin Salman, recently met US Vice President JD Vance amid reports that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had secured US support for potential military action against the Houthis.

But in Yemen, the shift in the Saudi position may have been more visible when the Saudis intervened against the United Arab Emirates-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) at the end of last year. That allowed Yemen’s fractious anti-Houthi coalition to coalesce around the Yemeni government and present a more united front against the rebels.

Simon Mabon, professor of international relations at Lancaster University in the UK, said Saudi policy on the issue has changed significantly.

“After years of attempting to de-escalate and work towards an accommodation with the Houthis, Riyadh appears to have concluded that approach is no longer viable,” Mabon told Al Jazeera.

“Saudi Arabia’s concern has become particularly acute because conflict around the Strait of Hormuz has increased the importance of alternative oil and shipping routes through the Red Sea.”

But rather than trying to totally defeat the Houthis and retake the capital Sanaa, Mabon said Saudi Arabia and the Yemeni government now appear to be focused on pushing Houthi forces away from the coast.

“That’s a marked shift from what we had been seeing previously,” he said.

Could Pakistan and Turkiye be drawn into the war?

The Saudi-Pakistan-Turkiye agreement potentially raises the stakes of any further Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia.

Al Jazeera’s Yousef Mawry, reporting from Sanaa, said the latest attacks were being interpreted by some experts as a direct defiance of the new defence pact.

Pakistan has been directly affected by the recent escalation. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said three Pakistanis were killed and another person injured in a Houthi attack on a vessel in the Red Sea.

“Pakistan strongly condemns the Houthi attack on a non-combatant commercial vessel,” Dar said, adding that the government was in contact with Saudi and Yemeni authorities.

But experts say the defence pact does not mean that Pakistani or Turkish troops will join the war in Yemen on behalf of their ally.

Wolfgang Pusztai, a security policy and defence analyst, told Al Jazeera that the agreement so -far is “just ink on paper”.

What role is Iran playing?

Iran has long cultivated a so-called “axis of resistance” of governments and groups opposed to Israel and the United States, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, armed groups in Iraq and Syria and the Houthis in Yemen.

The Houthis supported Iran towards the end of March by launching attacks towards northern Israel and have since threatened to expand their operations in the Red Sea.

Last month, Iran reportedly asked the Houthis to prepare to close the Red Sea oil route if the US attacked Iranian power infrastructure.

A source close to the Houthis told Reuters that missiles and drones had been positioned near the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in Yemen’s highlands overlooking Hodeidah and the Gulf of Aden.

Mohammed Albasha, a Yemeni American analyst and former spokesperson for Yemen’s embassy in Washington, said the Houthis’ attacks on Saudi Arabia should therefore also be understood within the broader US-Iran confrontation.

“By threatening Saudi shipping there, the Houthis can increase pressure on both Riyadh and Washington, while supporting Iran in its wider confrontation with the United States,” Albasha said.

Is another all-out war imminent?

Analysts say the crucial question is whether the latest attacks are intended to pressure the Saudi and Yemeni governments, or whether the Houthis believe they are simply taking the initiative in a new potential ground war.

The Houthis also say Saudi Arabia is using the port of al-Makah to reinforce and resupply government forces and believe Riyadh and its Yemeni allies are preparing an offensive against Houthi-held territory.

Nadwa Al-Dawsari, Associate Fellow at the Middle East Institute, said those fears may be fuelling the current escalation.

“Since January, there has been significant progress towards bringing Yemen’s different government forces under a more unified command,” Al-Dawsari told Al Jazeera.

“Government forces have also demonstrated growing air capabilities, carrying out air and drone strikes against Houthi missile and drone launchers and other military sites.”

“The Houthis’ objective in this recent escalation is to disrupt these preparations before government forces are ready, degrade their capabilities and force them onto the defensive.”

Ultimately, she said, the Houthis are trying to shape the rules of any coming confrontation so that “if escalation takes place, it happens on their own terms”.

While a Saudi-led ground offensive is not inevitable, the Houthis have also shown over the past decade that they cannot be defeated by air power alone, Mabon said.

“Yemen’s mountainous terrain makes a ground campaign exceptionally difficult, while Riyadh has little appetite to become trapped again in a prolonged war,” he said.

A Saudi-backed offensive led by Yemeni government forces is still more plausible than a large Saudi ground deployment, he added.

The consequences of major fighting on the ground between the two sides will inevitably mean that civilians will suffer most.

“Amidst all of this, the tragedy is that people in Yemen are paying the price,” Mabon said.

“It wasn’t long ago that Yemen was facing one of the worst humanitarian crises since the Second World War. People are struggling, and continued fighting will make it far worse.”

Ukraine has reported an acute shortage of Patriot interceptors since the US went to war with Iran in February.

Russian forces have struck Ukraine’s Izmail port in southern Odesa, setting off a fire, authorities said, a day after Kyiv pounded Russia’s Novorossiysk port.

In a statement on the Telegram app early on Thursday, the Izmail Regional State Administration said Russian forces struck “port infrastructure”, causing damage and a fire.

It said emergency personnel were at the scene to extinguish it.

Izmail, close to the Romanian border, is home to Ukraine’s largest Danube port, handling grain and other commodities.

The attacks came as Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told CNN that the country needs 5 percent of the United States’s Patriot interceptor missiles to get through the winter and 10 percent to destroy all of Russia’s ballistic projectiles.

Russia has recently been firing barrages at the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, roughly once a week, killing civilians and damaging or destroying homes.

In one attack, Ukraine failed to intercept any of the 28 ballistic missiles launched at it.

Zelenskyy said Ukraine this year “had two and a half times less interceptors than we had in 2025”.

“Russia has two times more ballistic missiles per month than they had before,” he said. “This year, I’m asking American partners to sell me 5 percent of missiles [that] they have in their stocks.”

“If they sell us 5 percent, we will go through the winter and save people’s lives,” he added. “If they can sell us 10 percent, we will destroy all the Russians’ ballistic missiles. I have 1 percent.”

Ukraine has reported an acute shortage of Patriot interceptors since the US and Israel launched the war on Iran in February, diverting supplies of the advanced systems.

Ballistic missiles are much harder to intercept than cruise missiles or drones because they move faster and follow steep trajectories.

On Wednesday, Ukraine’s air force said it would stop publishing detailed figures on Russian ballistic missile strikes as Ukrainian forces struggle to intercept Russia’s heightened attacks.

The restrictions concern “the number of targets launched, shot down, suppressed or those that failed to reach their targets,” air force communications chief Yurii Ihnat said on Facebook. Real-time warnings would continue unchanged, he added, and the air force would keep providing generalised figures on Russian missile launches.

Last month, Russia fired more than 450 missiles at Ukraine, nearly 200 of them on ballistic trajectories.

Asked if the US had responded to his requests, Zelenskyy said he hopes that he gets the interceptors.

“From 1 percent to 5 percent, I have some months and millions [of] phone calls and anything else,” he said. “I do some things which I can’t even share. It doesn’t mean that it’s out of the law. But I can’t speak about it.”

In one of the more unusual examples yet of where Ukraine is sourcing military hardware, a Danish military museum has begun transferring vehicles from its own collection for use in the war against Russia. Panzermuseum East, a privately run museum in Denmark specializing in Soviet and Warsaw Pact armor, announced that it has delivered its first batch of armored vehicles to Ukraine.

“We have now completed the first shipment of vehicles to Ukraine. The first one to be picked up was our fine BMP-1, and the second was the MT-LB SNAR-10. We hope they’ll last a long time and make a difference,” the museum said on social media today.

The museum describes itself as Scandinavia’s largest collection of vehicles, uniforms, and equipment from the former Eastern Bloc.

The donation includes a BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle and an MT-LB amphibious tracked armoured fighting vehicle fitted with the SNAR-10 battlefield surveillance radar. This is an uncommon artillery reconnaissance variant that was designed to detect troop movements, vehicles, and artillery fire while directing friendly fires.

While governments across Europe have emptied Cold War stockpiles to support Kyiv, it is considerably rarer to see museum exhibits making the journey to the front. The transfer underscores the increasingly varied mix of equipment finding its way into Ukrainian service after more than four years of high-intensity warfare.

Entering service in the late 1960s, the BMP-1 is among the most iconic Soviet armored fighting vehicles ever built. Although obsolete by modern standards, Ukraine already operates the type in significant numbers, meaning integrating another example should be straightforward, assuming it remains mechanically sound.

The BMP-1 was a revolutionary design when it appeared, becoming the world’s first true infantry fighting vehicle by combining mobility, armor, and the ability for infantry to fight from within the vehicle. Armed with a 73mm low-pressure gun, a coaxial machine gun, and a 9M14 Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) anti-tank missile launcher, it was designed to accompany tanks across the battlefield while carrying an eight-man infantry squad. More than 20,000 were built, and the vehicle was exported widely across the Warsaw Pact and beyond, spawning numerous variants and licensed copies.

Today, its armor and armament are outdated, but it continues to be prized on account of its amphibious capability, ease of maintenance, and the availability of extensive stocks of spare parts and upgrade packages.

Despite being more than half a century old, the BMP-1 continues to demonstrate its utility on modern battlefields. Reflecting sustained demand for the Soviet-designed infantry fighting vehicle, Slovakia’s STV Machinery secured a contract to serially produce newly manufactured BMP-1 hulls for an unnamed foreign customer. The company says the hulls will incorporate modern armor materials and updated production techniques, with manufacturing capacity expected to reach up to 100 vehicles annually, underscoring the enduring value of the platform.

Previously, there have been known BMP-1 transfers to Ukraine from Greek stocks (40 BMP-1A1s, delivered from October 2022 onwards), and from Slovak stocks (30 BVP-1s, from November 2022). Another 56 upgraded ex-East German BMP-1s were provided by the Czech Republic.

The more intriguing donation is the MT-LB SNAR-10. Based on the ubiquitous MT-LB multipurpose tracked vehicle, the SNAR-10 carries a ground surveillance radar intended primarily for artillery spotting and battlefield reconnaissance. The system can detect moving vehicles, troop concentrations, explosions, and shell impacts, helping artillery units adjust fire and build battlefield awareness.

Exactly what condition either vehicle is in is unclear. Museum vehicles are often maintained in running condition, particularly at private collections that conduct demonstrations, but they also lack military equipment, sensitive electronics, or functional weapons. The museum has not disclosed whether the vehicles required refurbishment or modification before transfer.

The donation nevertheless reflects a broader trend that has become increasingly apparent throughout the conflict. Ukraine has sourced equipment from virtually anywhere it can be found. Beyond government transfers, Kyiv has received privately donated vehicles, civilian pickups converted into military transports, restored Soviet-era equipment, commercially purchased armored vehicles, and even aircraft and helicopters acquired through unconventional channels.

As traditional Cold War reserves continue to shrink across Europe, previously overlooked sources of compatible Soviet-designed equipment have become increasingly valuable. Private collections, museums, training establishments, and industrial storage yards have all become potential sources of hardware that can be returned to operational service.

The SNAR-10 is especially noteworthy because it represents a relatively niche capability rather than simply another armored hull. Battlefield surveillance radars remain useful assets for locating enemy activity, adjusting indirect fire, and supporting reconnaissance, even if newer drone-based systems increasingly perform many of the same functions. Even if the SNAR-10 is delivered without an operational radar, it would still be useful for its MT-LB chassis.

More broadly, whether these two vehicles ultimately see frontline service, are used for training, or serve as sources of spare parts remains unknown.

However, the museum’s wording (“first shipment”) strongly suggests more donations for Ukraine may already be planned.

Beyond the BMP-1 and SNAR-10 that have now gone to Ukraine, the Panzermuseum East collection remains packed with Warsaw Pact hardware, including T-72 and T-55 main battle tanks, a PT-76 amphibious light tank, a 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled howitzer, BRDM reconnaissance and anti-tank vehicles, BTR-60 command vehicles, and more. The museum also displays dozens of Cold War military trucks, field support vehicles, artillery pieces, and other specialist equipment.

Examples of foreign museums releasing collection vehicles for Ukrainian military use remain uncommon but not unheard of. Ukrainian museums have also returned equipment to military units, based on available reports, as well.

Britain’s Tank Museum did not donate vehicles, but it helped Ukraine by giving Cook Defense Systems — which also produces tracks for the British-made Challenger 2 main battle tank — access to its Soviet vehicle collection, manuals, and physical components to reverse-engineer tracks and sprockets for T-72s, BMPs, and MT-LBs. You can read more about that here.

The departure of these armored vehicles from a Danish museum floor for an active war zone is another reminder of the extraordinary lengths Ukraine and its supporters continue to go to sustain the country’s war effort, and of how almost any usable piece of Soviet-designed equipment can still find new life on today’s battlefield.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

SEOUL, Aug. 11 (UPI) — North Korea fired a ballistic missile toward the East Sea on Wednesday, the militaries of Seoul and Tokyo said, its second such launch in less than a week as the United States and South Korea gear up to kick off their major summertime joint military drill.

The missile was fired from the Wonsan area on North Korea’s east coast at around 6 a.m., South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a text message to reporters.

“The detected North Korean missile flew over 700 kilometers (435 miles), and South Korea and the U.S. are currently conducting a detailed analysis regarding its exact specifications,” the JCS said.

The military did not specify the type of missile involved, although the distance the projectile traveled falls within the range of short-range ballistic missiles.

South Korean and U.S. intelligence authorities tracked and shared information on the launch from its initial stage, while Seoul also exchanged information related to the ballistic missile with Japan, the military added.

“Under a robust South Korea-U.S. combined defense posture, the military is closely monitoring North Korea’s various movements and maintaining the capability and readiness to overwhelmingly respond to any provocation,” the JCS said.

Japan’s Defense Ministry also detected the launch, saying the missile flew about 429 miles, reached a maximum altitude of roughly 56 miles and fell outside Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi condemned the launch at a press briefing, saying the North’s weapons tests “threaten the peace and security of our country, the region, and the international community.”

Koizumi said the launch violated relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions and noted that Japan had lodged a strong protest with North Korea through diplomatic channels at its embassy in Beijing.

Hawaii-based U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said it detected the launch and was consulting with regional allies and partners.

“Based on current assessments, this event does not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel or territory, or to our allies,” the command said in a statement.

The launch came days before the United States and South Korea are set to begin their annual summertime joint military drills. The 11-day Ulchi Freedom Shield exercise kicks off Monday and will focus on preparing for evolving threats from North Korea, military officials said earlier this week.

North Korea routinely denounces the allies’ joint exercises as rehearsals for an invasion and frequently responds with weapons tests. On Thursday, Pyongyang fired a short-range ballistic missile toward the East Sea.

The allies stressed that the joint exercise is defensive in nature.

“We’re up here today announcing Ulchi Freedom Shield to the entire world before it even starts,” U.S. Forces spokesman Col. Ryan Donald said at a press briefing Monday. “UFS is not a pretext, it’s not a provocation. It’s a transparent, longstanding defensive training event.”

Pyongyang conducts second weapons test in less than a week as Seoul, Washington gear up for annual military exercises.

North Korea has launched a ballistic missile towards the Sea of Japan, according to Seoul and Tokyo, marking the second such test from Pyongyang in less than a week.

The launch on Wednesday came as South Korea and the United States announced plans to hold their annual Ulchi Freedom Shield military drills starting on August 17.

“Our military detected at around 6:00 am [21:00 GMT Tuesday] a ballistic missile launched by North Korea from the Wonsan area towards the East Sea,” South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a message to reporters, referring to a body of water also known as the Sea of Japan.

South Korea’s military said the missile flew more than 700km (435 miles).

It said it has boosted its surveillance posture and that it was closely exchanging information on the launch with Washington and Tokyo.

Japan’s Defence Ministry said on social media that the suspected ballistic missile had “already fallen”, without providing further details.

“North Korea has never simply let a South Korea-US joint military exercise pass without a response,” Lim Eul-chul, a North Korea expert at Kyungnam University, told the AFP news agency.

“This is a message that Pyongyang is closely watching the upcoming drills and could stage a provocation if it deems one necessary.”

US-South Korea drills

The Ulchi Freedom Shield training is to start on Monday and run for 11 days. Its scale will be similar to previous years, with 18,000 South Korean soldiers taking part, according to South Korea’s military.

North Korea has in previous years denounced the exercises as a rehearsal for invasion, and responded to the drills with weapons tests and harsh rhetoric. Seoul and Washington, however, have repeatedly said their training is defensive in nature.

On August 6, South Korea, the US and Japan detected the launch of a short-range ballistic missile from North Korea in what was Pyongyang’s first ballistic weapons testing activity since late June.

North Korea did not confirm the reported launch.

Pyongyang has ratcheted up its criticism of Tokyo’s defence policy, issuing statements at least seven times since July.

On Tuesday, North Korean state media condemned Japan’s latest defence white paper as a “re-invasion-minded” document, saying it “groundlessly described” Pyongyang as ⁠the greatest strategic challenge to “justify its reckless arms buildup”.

North Korea has also been accused of playing a more active role in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Tuesday that Moscow had used a North Korean ballistic missile during an attack that killed seven workers at a Ukrainian steel plant in the southeastern city of Zaporizhzhia.

Washington, DC – A year after United States President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Washington, DC, opinions are mixed among residents, politicians and experts about the mission’s success.

Thousands of troops were deployed to DC in August 2025 as part of Trump’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force after he declared a crime emergency in the city.

The arrival of the soldiers triggered immediate opposition from many DC residents, with protests throughout the year. The advocacy group Free DC organised 11 days of demonstrations culminating in a protest outside the White House on Tuesday against what the group calls a “hostile military occupation”.

“I think Trump should go ahead and let them go home,” Ybonne Coles, a 60-year-old restaurant worker who was born and raised in the capital, said on a hot August day in Farragut Square as several soldiers patrolled nearby.

“They ain’t doing nothing but walking,” said Coles. “That money could go towards organisations to help people that really need help.”

The deployment has also faced resistance from legal officials, who have questioned its constitutionality.

On September 4, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the Trump administration over the deployment, which the lawsuit claimed was an illegal use of military force for law enforcement purposes in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

US District Judge Jia Cobb ruled to end the deployment on November 20, but a federal appeals court later granted the administration’s request for a stay on the order as litigation continues.

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, whose administration Trump blamed for what he described as soaring crime rates, similarly criticised the legality of the deployment.

“We use the Guard to respond to emergencies. We use the Guard for large-scale events. We do not use the Guard to police our local laws,” Bowser said at a DC conference in October.

As the deployment approached its one-year mark, federal officials announced a “summer surge” of National Guard troops in advance of the 250th anniversary celebrations in the capital, requesting an additional 1,500 troops.

‘Peaceful and tranquil’

Not everyone opposes the National Guard’s presence.

Aaron Taslitz, a 30-year-old teacher who also works as a bike courier in DC, said that, though he would prefer that military resources be used on something more urgent than roaming the streets of the capital, he does feel safer with them around.

“For the most part, they’ve kept things peaceful and tranquil here,” he said, as he took a break from his morning bike ride in Dupont Circle.

Trump has often railed against DC, calling it “one of the most unsafe cities anywhere in the world” and claiming that since the Guard was brought in, crime has dropped by 88 percent.

However, the precise impact of the National Guard’s presence on crime in Washington, DC, remains unclear.

A report from the Niskanen Center in May found that the deployment has had no significant impact on violent crime, which has been in consistent decline in the district over the past few years.

Although the report found notable reductions in property crimes, it showed a limited impact of the troop presence on “opportunistic” crimes.

“They’re not trained police officers,” explained Richard Hahn, a co-author of the report. “The best thing a National Guard member can be, in terms of a crime deterrent, is a sentinel.”

Troop patrol zones have also concentrated in “high-traffic” areas, including tourist hubs like the National Mall and Union Station.

“Violent crime really concentrates in specific places in DC,” said Hahn. “And those are places where, by and large, the Guard was not deployed.”

Currently, 4,636 soldiers are deployed to the DC mission, including nearly 700 from the DC National Guard and thousands from various other state guards, according to a Joint Task Force-DC spokesperson. The largest out-of-state contributors are Georgia, South Carolina and Mississippi.

Despite the high number of troops, local news stations in DC have reported a notable absence of troops east of the Anacostia River, where several neighbourhoods post some of the highest violent crime rates in the city.

Commanding General Leland D Blanchard II indicated in a news conference on August 3 that patrol zones would shift in the coming weeks, but declined to provide further details.

‘Unnecessary’ use of force

A Senate investigation and report, authored by Senators Gary Peters and Andy Kim in February, also expressed concerns that the deployment risked harming local trust in law enforcement, politicising the armed forces and reducing troop preparedness.

The report further identified a threat to civilian privacy posed by the Guard’s software tools, including social media monitoring systems Meltwater and Cision, and the Palantir Technologies platform Maven Smart System.

The National Guard has also faced multiple lawsuits since the deployment began last August.

On July 29, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a claim on behalf of retired US Army captain Anna King after members of the Idaho National Guard violently detained her in May for allegedly assaulting an officer two days earlier.

King has denied the allegation and instead believes she was detained for her vocal criticism of the Guard’s presence in the city.

“What you see here is an aggressive use of force that was totally unnecessary and totally disproportionate,” said Michael Perloff, a lawyer representing King, “and this illustrates the broader concerns with the reliance on the National Guard to patrol this district.”

While no official cost has been reported for the first year of the operation, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security reported an annual estimate of $602m.

In July, the Pentagon announced plans to keep the Guard in DC through the end of Trump’s term. According to an estimate obtained by Senator Elizabeth Warren, the deployment will cost an additional $1.4bn from October 2026 to January 2029.

The figure comes on top of an already steep deployment cost so far.

One service member from the Indiana National Guard, who was deployed for a few months as part of the DC mission in November and asked not to be named, expressed mixed feelings about his time patrolling the streets of DC.

“My time there was to help the citizens of DC,” said the soldier, adding that he took pride in providing this service.

“It didn’t matter who they were, what they were doing – I was just there to help in any way that I could,” he said. “I’ve seen people impacted by us in a positive light.”

At other times, though, he said he had his doubts about the mission, noting especially low morale in his unit while they were away from their families during the holiday season.

“There were days when I was like, ‘What are we doing here? We’re not really doing anything.’”

Leaders of Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement last Friday, pledging to strengthen collective deterrence against any act of aggression and stating that an armed attack on any one of the three would be regarded as an attack on all.

The pact comes as the three countries navigate growing regional tensions, including concerns over Israel’s expanding military reach and Iran’s regional influence.

Together, these countries form a sizeable military bloc. Riyadh is a top oil exporter, Ankara has NATO’s second-largest military, and Islamabad is the only nuclear-armed Muslim country.

In this explainer, Al Jazeera breaks down their combined land, air and naval strength.

Joint land, air and naval strength

Together, the three countries combine nearly 1.4 million active military personnel, 3,400 aircraft, 6,000 tanks and more than 340 naval assets according to the 2026 Global Firepower Index, which ranks the defence capabilities of 145 countries.

The index scores each country’s potential war-making capability across land, air and sea, drawing on factors including manpower, equipment, natural resources, finances and geography.

• Manpower: Combined, the three countries include about 1.4 million active personnel, backed by large paramilitary and reserve forces. Pakistan provides the largest pool of active personnel at 660,000, followed by Turkiye at 481,000 and Saudi Arabia at 247,000.
• Air power: Together they operate 3,415 military aircraft including fighter jets, helicopters, transporters and training military aircraft. Pakistan possesses some 1,397 aircraft, followed by Turkiye at 1,101 and Saudi Arabia with 917.
• Land forces: The three countries field some 6,046 tanks and more than 179,000 armoured vehicles, alongside thousands of artillery systems and multiple-launch rocket systems. Pakistan has the highest number of tanks at 2,677, Turkiye has 2,284 and Saudi Arabia, 1,085.
• Naval power: Their combined fleets include 344 naval assets, including 33 frigates, 24 corvettes and 22 submarines. Turkiye comes out top here with 192 naval assets, followed by Pakistan’s 120 and Saudi Arabia’s 32.
• Defence spending: Their combined defence budgets amount to about $124.4bn annually. Saudi Arabia has the largest military budget of the three at $63.9bn in 2026, while Turkiye set aside $51.4bn and Pakistan $9.1bn according to Global Firepower.

Complementary military powers

Andreas Krieg, an academic, security analyst and political risk consultant specialising in the Middle East and North Africa, said the pact’s significance lies in how the three countries’ different capabilities could complement one another.

“Saudi Arabia contributes capital, geography, infrastructure and political convening power. Turkiye contributes an increasingly sophisticated defence-industrial base, drones, missiles, sensors, electronic warfare, naval systems and NATO-derived military expertise,” he said.

Meanwhile, Pakistan contributes manpower, a large professional military establishment, operational experience, defence production and nuclear capability.

What does the alliance mean for each country?

For Saudi Arabia, the pact diversifies its defence partnerships beyond the United States, adding Turkiye’s advanced military capabilities and Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent, amid growing threats to vital maritime corridors such as the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb.

Pakistan is one of nine states that possess nuclear weapons, which it first tested in 1998. The country of more than 250 million people relies heavily on China for its arms imports.

Turkiye, which joined NATO in 1952, has no nuclear weapons of its own but hosts US warheads under NATO nuclear-sharing arrangements.

David Des Roches, a former director of Arabian Peninsula affairs in the US Department of Defense, told Al Jazeera that the deal also serves Saudi arms diversification amid Western export unpredictability, since Turkiye and Pakistan can supply items like 155mm artillery shells at scale.

For Turkiye and Pakistan, it opens Saudi financial markets for their defence industries – both have manufacturing capacity exceeding what their own economies can sustain.

Zaid M Belbagi, managing partner at Hardcastle Advisory, told Al Jazeera that, for the US, the stakes are high. “Pakistan is a recipient of US aid, Saudi Arabia is the largest foreign buyer of US military equipment, and Turkiye is NATO’s second-largest army after the United States – so the spectre of the US within this agreement is quite interesting,” he said.

Krieg added that the US remains highly important, particularly for intelligence, advanced missile defence, and high-end military technology – but said that regional actors want to convert their own resources into usable power rather than purchasing from Washington.

“The old model was overwhelmingly hub-and-spokes, with Washington at the centre and individual states looking primarily to the United States for security. What is emerging now is horizontal connectivity between regional powers,” said Krieg.

Which other countries could join the pact?

Egypt is the only country whose potential membership has been publicly raised by a signatory. Turkiye’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan called Egypt a “natural partner” and said he expected Cairo to join once technical issues are resolved.

Krieg said Egypt’s military weight, strategic geography and control of the Suez Canal would make it a significant addition to the pact.

But Cairo may be wary of binding military obligations and the impact on its existing agreements, analysts said. “Egypt may join only if the language protects its aid relationship with Washington, doesn’t undermine existing alliances and peace treaties, and maintains its own freedom to decide when and where it fights,” said Karim Elgendy at Chatham House.

China’s test of a nuclear-capable missile into the Pacific has exposed the growing divisions among Pacific island nations over the increasing militarisation of a region they have sought to preserve as an “Ocean of Peace”.

The July launch, China’s first known ballistic-missile test into the Pacific since September 2024, took place just hours after Fiji and Australia signed a major defence treaty, marking Fiji’s first formal alliance. The timing highlighted the increasingly complex security environment in a region where China, the United States and their allies are competing for influence.

More than a month after the test, Pacific Islands foreign ministers were unable to agree on a collective statement condemning Beijing’s missile launch, despite individual leaders expressing concern about the growing military presence in the region.

Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko described the test as “totally inappropriate”, while stressing that China remained a close friend and ally of Papua New Guinea. He said Beijing had provided advance notice of the launch but had not given details about where the missile would land.

China defended the test, saying it had been conducted safely and urging countries not to over-interpret the launch.

Growing Military Activity in the Pacific

The missile test came after a year of increasingly visible military activity across the Pacific, a region that has become a major arena of strategic competition between the United States and China.

Chinese naval deployments and live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea have coincided with U.S.-allied military exercises around Guam and Hawaii. Warship visits and expanding security partnerships have also increased across the region.

The United States retains a substantial military presence in the Pacific, including in Hawaii, Guam and the Marshall Islands.

For Pacific island governments, the growing military presence creates an increasingly difficult choice. Security partnerships can provide valuable capabilities for surveillance, disaster response, policing and training, but they can also increase the possibility that Pacific territory and waters become incorporated into wider strategic competition.

Tuvalu permanent foreign secretary Pasuna Tuaga expressed concern about the broader militarisation of the region, including security arrangements such as the AUKUS partnership between Australia, Britain and the United States.

Pacific Nations United in Principle but Divided in Practice

Pacific leaders endorsed the Ocean of Peace Declaration in September 2025, committing themselves to protecting the region and strengthening international peace and security.

The initiative reflected a long-standing desire among Pacific states to ensure that their security agenda is not dictated by larger external powers.

The defence agreement between Australia and Fiji, known as the Ocean of Peace Alliance, emerged from this broader regional framework.

But the growing number of security partnerships has created an inherent contradiction. Pacific governments want greater security capabilities while simultaneously opposing the militarisation of their region.

Australia and other partners argue that defence cooperation can strengthen regional resilience. Critics, however, fear that expanding bilateral arrangements could eventually leave Pacific nations with less influence over how their territory, waters and infrastructure are used.

Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Rick Houenipwela said the regional agenda must remain “conceived by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific and only by the Pacific.”

Yet the failure to produce a unified response to China’s missile test demonstrated just how difficult that principle is to implement.

China Divides Regional Consensus

The disagreement over the missile test reflects the different political and economic interests of Pacific island nations.

Kiribati and Nauru, which have deepened their relations with Beijing after switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan, did not support the wording of the proposed statement, according to an official familiar with the discussions.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters blamed foreign influence for the failure to reach consensus, although he did not identify a particular country.

The disagreement demonstrates that Pacific nations do not share a uniform approach toward China.

Some governments see Beijing as an important economic and diplomatic partner, while others are increasingly concerned about its military activities and the strategic implications of its expanding regional presence.

At the same time, many Pacific governments remain wary of becoming closely aligned with either China or the Western powers.

The Security Dilemma Facing the Pacific

The central problem for Pacific nations is the tension between security and strategic autonomy.

Countries require surveillance capabilities, military training, disaster-response mechanisms and other security resources. Defence partnerships can provide those capabilities.

But greater reliance on external powers can also make it more difficult for Pacific governments to maintain an independent regional agenda.

Fiji Foreign Minister Sakiasi Ditoka acknowledged this tension, saying countries wanted to be free from “war-making paraphernalia” while also recognising that some security capabilities helped keep them safe.

Fiji’s participation for the first time in U.S.-led RIMPAC military exercises further illustrates this balancing act.

The country is simultaneously promoting the idea of an Ocean of Peace while becoming more involved in established regional security structures.

Analysis: The Pacific Is Becoming a Strategic Battleground

The significance of China’s missile test goes beyond the launch itself. It has exposed the growing gap between the Pacific’s aspiration to remain an “Ocean of Peace” and the strategic realities surrounding it.

The region is increasingly being shaped by competing security partnerships, military exercises and the expanding strategic presence of major powers. China is becoming more active militarily, while the United States, Australia and their partners are strengthening their own defence relationships.

For Pacific island states, the challenge is therefore not simply whether to oppose China’s military activities. It is how to respond to them without allowing the Pacific’s security agenda to become dominated by great-power rivalry.

The failure to agree on a common statement is particularly significant because regional unity is one of the Pacific’s strongest tools for maintaining its diplomatic autonomy. When governments cannot agree on how to respond to a major security development, external powers gain greater room to shape the regional agenda.

At the same time, completely rejecting security partnerships would leave many Pacific states without capabilities they consider increasingly necessary. The result is a difficult balancing act: accepting enough external security assistance to address genuine threats while preventing those partnerships from transforming the region into a military theatre.

China’s missile test therefore exposes a deeper strategic dilemma. The more Pacific states seek security through external alliances, the greater the risk that the region becomes militarised; yet the more they reject those partnerships, the harder it may become to respond to an increasingly competitive security environment.

The upcoming Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting in Palau is likely to bring these questions back to the centre of regional diplomacy. The key issue will be whether Pacific nations can establish a collective security approach that protects their interests without allowing the strategic competition between China and Western powers to define the future of the region.

With information from Reuters.

SEOUL, Aug. 10 (UPI) — The United States and South Korea will kick off a major joint military exercise next week, both countries announced Monday, as they prepare for evolving North Korean threats and the transfer of wartime operational control from Washington to Seoul.

The annual Ulchi Freedom Shield exercise will take place Aug. 17-27 and will incorporate “realistic threats, including lessons learned from recent conflicts … to further strengthen the Alliance’s readiness and capabilities through combined, joint, all-domain operations,” the militaries said in a joint statement.

“The exercise will also serve as an opportunity to support ongoing preparations for a conditions-based wartime operational control transition, consistent with alliance agreement,” the statement added.

South Korea is looking to complete the handover of wartime command from the United States before President Lee Jae Myung’s five-year term ends in 2030. Last week, Seoul’s Defense Ministry presented its plan at a presidential briefing and reaffirmed a push to verify the combined forces’ “full operational capability,” or FOC, ahead of a meeting of the allies’ defense chiefs this fall.

FOC certification is the second phase of a three-stage operational control, or OPCON, transition plan.

“If the agreed-upon criteria are met, we anticipate being able to recommend the timing for the Future Combined Forces Command’s FOC certification and the transition at this year’s Security Consultative Meeting,” South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman Capt. Jang Do-young said in a press briefing. “We are concentrating all our efforts toward this goal.”

U.S. Forces Korea spokesman Col. Ryan Donald stressed that OPCON discussions are managed through established bilateral channels and stopped short of endorsing that timeframe.

“I will not get ahead of those formal bilateral assessments or speculate on timelines,” he said.

Some 18,000 South Korean troops will take part in this year’s UFS, Jang said. U.S. Forces Korea did not disclose the number of participating troops.

The exercise will include live field maneuvers, computer simulation-based command post exercises and related civil defense drills. It will also draw on the changing nature of warfare seen in recent conflicts, including threats from drones, GPS jamming and cyberattacks, officials said.

Donald added that North Korea’s military cooperation with Russia, including its deployment of troops to help Moscow in its war against Ukraine, will be factored into the exercise.

“DPRK soldiers have deployed and fought in Ukraine and they’ve taken those lessons they learned there and brought them back to North Korea,” Donald said, using the official acronym for North Korea. “That changes the DPRK capability and our training accounts for that threat.”

The allies did not disclose the number of field training exercises that will be held this year. Local media reports have said that 14 such drills at the battalion level or higher are planned, down from 39 held during last year’s exercise.

Jang said combined field training would be conducted throughout the year in a “balanced” manner, rather than concentrated during UFS.

President Lee, who took office in June of last year, has sought to improve frayed relations with Pyongyang, and the shift in field training has been seen as an effort to lower tensions.

North Korea routinely denounces the allies’ joint exercises as rehearsals for an invasion and frequently responds with weapons tests. On Thursday, Pyongyang launched a short-range ballistic missile toward the East Sea, Seoul’s military said.

The allies stressed Monday that the exercise is defensive in nature.

“We’re up here today announcing Ulchi Freedom Shield to the entire world before it even starts,” Donald said. “UFS is not a pretext, it’s not a provocation. It’s a transparent, longstanding defensive training event.”

In addition to U.S. and South Korean forces, personnel from 11 other member states of the United Nations Command will join the exercise, Donald said, while the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission will observe to monitor compliance with the Armistice Agreement.

The U.S.-led UNC plays a key role in maintaining and enforcing the armistice agreement that halted fighting in the 1950-53 Korean War, with duties that include controlling DMZ access and communicating with the North Korean military.

Turkiye wants to expand its newly formed defence pact with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to include more countries, says Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, citing President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

“Under our president’s vision, we should not remain limited to three countries. We should grow and, if necessary, bring all countries under this umbrella,” Fidan told state news agency Anadolu, according to a report published on Saturday.

Turkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on Friday signed the Mecca Joint Deterrence Agreement, in what analysts say could be a step towards a new security architecture in the region.

So who could join the pact next, and what would an expanded alliance mean for regional security?

What does the pact do?

The Mecca defence pact builds on a previous agreement reached between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan a year ago.

Regional officials have suggested that the pact could eventually expand to include other countries, strengthening its role as a mechanism for collective security and deterrence.

The pact’s central feature is a NATO-like stipulation that an attack on any one of the three states would be treated as an attack on all of them although the details have yet to be fleshed out.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said the allies will decide through consultations what degree, form and format of support they would ask for in the event of an attack but no country would be considered a threat as long as a member state is not attacked.

Turkish and Saudi officials have stressed that the pact is not meant to supplant any other strategic alliances or relationships while Turkiye, which is a member of NATO, has said the agreement does not target any country, including Iran.

Which countries could join next?

Egypt is the only country whose potential membership has been publicly raised by an official from one of the pact’s signatory countries.

Fidan described Egypt as a “natural partner” and said he expects Cairo to formally join once “technical issues” are ironed out.

“I believe that at the next stage, Egypt will also be among us in the alliance,” Fidan said. “We already act towards one another as if we were alliance members.”

Ali Bakir, professor of international relations, security and defence at Qatar University, said Egypt’s inclusion would “significantly increase the pact’s political weight, regional influence and operational effectiveness” if it materialises.

What might stand in the way of Egypt’s membership?

Egypt already has a solid working relationship with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye, with which it is part of a group called the R4, which consults on regional issues. Egypt has also recently developed stronger military ties with Turkiye despite previous tensions over the Egyptian military’s 2013 overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi, the conflict in Libya and the discovery of gasfields in the Eastern Mediterranean.

But analysts said Cairo may be wary of the potential military obligations that could come with a binding defence treaty with states whose interests do not always align with its own as well as the implications for its existing peace treaties.

“Egypt may join only if the language protects its aid relationship with Washington, doesn’t undermine existing alliances and peace treaties, and maintains its own freedom to decide when and where it fights,” Karim Elgendy, associate fellow at Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, told Al Jazeera.

“If the pact stays a political framework with room to calibrate each response, Cairo can live with it and may eventually sign. If it hardens into an obligation that could pull Egyptian forces into someone else’s war, the answer is likely to be negative,” Elgendy said.

Technical issues holding Egypt back could be both “legal and operational”, Elgendy added. “On the legal side, Egypt needs to know exactly what it is committing to defend, and it will want assurances so that a signature never reads as a commitment against Israel or as taking Ankara’s side in Libya and the Eastern Mediterranean,” he said.

For Bakir, Cairo’s decision will come down to how it weighs the benefits of membership against the diplomatic complications.  Egypt’s decision on whether to join the pact will hinge on the level of “strategic value” it believes it brings as well as its ability to “manage relations with countries whose interests” contrast with or even “actively oppose” the alliance, he said.

Ahmed Aboudouh, an associate fellow with Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, told Al Jazeera that while Egypt broadly shares the trilateral pact’s security concerns, it “does not share its underpinning threat perception” and may be resistant to “security commitments”.

“Cairo’s preference is to be part of overlapping regional security arrangements that are narrow in scope and are issue-related … rather than being entangled in defence commitments with elevated risks/cost,” Aboudouh said.

He added that Egypt may still opt to join the pact in the future but it would be a “complex decision”.

Which other countries could join?

Several officials have suggested other Gulf countries could eventually join the alliance.

In a post on X, former Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani expressed hope that all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would “take the initiative to join” the pact. In addition to Saudi Arabia, the GCC includes Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Fidan also spoke about the alliance bringing in more regional countries, saying some nations, which he did not name, had already expressed interest. “Under our president’s vision, we should not remain limited to three countries. We should grow and, if necessary, bring all countries under this umbrella,” Fidan said.

Among the Gulf states, Elgendy said, “the names to watch first are Qatar and Kuwait.”

Both countries are “close to all three signatories” and “have the strongest motive to buy extra insurance” after feeling “exposed” during the United States-Israel war on Iran and by Israel’s strike on Doha in September, he said.

Bakir similarly identified Qatar as the “most natural” Gulf state to opt in with Kuwait another possible candidate. He also said Azerbaijan, Syria and Jordan could also join “relatively quickly”.

Elgendy expressed scepticism about the pact transforming into a broader bloc. “This looks like a coalition of the willing that will grow on a case-by-case basis, shaped by each capital’s own risk calculus,” he said.

US Vice President JD Vance claims Washington has “destroyed” Iran’s nuclear programme and degraded its military, as Tehran demands US compensation and an end to the naval blockade before reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye have signed a joint defence pact.

It is an alliance that analysts say highlights Riyadh’s desire to diversify its defence partnerships, expanding to Ankara and Islamabad.

The pact was announced at a time of increased regional tension.

Yemen’s Saudi-backed government has launched a military operation against the Iran-aligned Houthis following a series of attacks, while Iran and the US have yet to reach a final deal to end the war.

The trilateral Mecca pact raises questions about the effectiveness of the decades-long US military presence in the Gulf. Does this alliance offer a viable alternative to the security umbrella promised by Washington?

Presenter: Anna Burns-Francis

Guests:

Abdulaziz Alghashian – Senior non-resident fellow at the Gulf International Forum

David Des Roches – Professor at the Thayer Marshall Institute

Zaid M Belbagi – Managing partner at Hardcastle Advisory