news

El-Shenawy was incensed ‌after Al-Ahly’s ​appeal for a penalty following ​a handball in stoppage time was denied.

Al-Ahly goalkeeper ⁠Mohamed El-Shenawy ⁠has been handed a four-match ban after striking a referee on ⁠the head following a 1-1 draw with Ceramica Cleopatra, the ⁠Egyptian Pro League said on Thursday.

The Egypt international, who was on the bench for Tuesday’s game, was incensed ‌after Al-Ahly’s appeal for a penalty following a handball in stoppage time was denied.

“He handed a four-match ban and fined 50,000 Egyptian pounds [$942] for assaulting the ⁠referee by pushing or ⁠pulling,” the league said in a statement.

The ban means ⁠El-Shenawy, who is expected to be Egypt’s starting ⁠goalkeeper at the World ⁠Cup in North America, will be sidelined until the final week of the league ‌playoffs.

Al-Ahly are third on 41 points, five points behind leaders Zamalek.

United States President Donald Trump’s disdain for NATO allies dates back to even before he became president the first time. From anger over their relatively low defence spending to — more recently — threats to take over Greenland, the territory of fellow NATO member Denmark, the American leader has long left the alliance on edge.

But the decision of NATO allies not to join Trump’s war on Iran has deepened the fracture to unseen levels, say analysts. This week, Trump called their lack of support a stain on the alliance “that will never disappear”. Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany put it even more bluntly, hours later: The conflict “has become a trans-Atlantic stress test”.

That back and forth underscores a central question exposed by the Middle East crisis that experts say NATO can no longer put off: can the transatlantic alliance survive, especially if the US pulls out?

“There will be no return to business as usual in NATO, during neither this US administration nor the next one,” said Jim Townsend, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “We are closer to a break than we have ever been.”

Trump can’t pull the US out of the alliance on a whim.

To formally do so, he needs a two-thirds majority in the US Senate or an act of Congress — scenarios that are unlikely to come to pass any time soon, with NATO still enjoying broad support among many legislators in both major American parties.

But there are other things Trump can do. The US has no obligation to come to the aid of allies should they come under attack. The treaty’s Article 5 states members’ collective‑defence obligation, but it does not automatically force a military response — and there is scepticism among allies over whether Washington would ever come to help.

The US can also move the about 84,000 American troops spread across Europe out of the continent. The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that Trump was considering moving some US bases from countries deemed unhelpful during the Iran war and transferring them to more supportive countries. He could close down US military bases and cease military coordination with allies.

Since US security guarantees to Europe have undergirded NATO since its founding, such disengagement would do enough damage.

“He doesn’t need to leave NATO to undermine it; by just saying he might, he has already eroded its credibility as an effective alliance,” said Stefano Stefanini, former Italian ambassador to NATO from 2007 to 2010 and former senior adviser to the Italian Presidency.

Still, allies are not helpless. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine revealed the weakened state of European defence industries and their deep reliance on the US. That, coupled with the numerous diplomatic crises in the US-NATO partnership – including Trump’s threat to take control of Greenland – has pushed European allies to invest more in defence capabilities. Between 2020 and 2025, member states’ defence expenditure increased by more than 62 percent.

However, areas where Europe suffers from overdependence on the US include the ability to strike deep into enemy territory, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, space-based capabilities such as satellite intelligence, logistics and integrated air and missile defence, according to a report by the International Institute for Security Studies (IISS).

These challenges remain considerable. It will take the next decade or more to fill them and about $1 trillion to replace key elements of the US conventional military capabilities. Europe’s defence industries are struggling to ramp up production quickly, and many European armies can’t hit their recruitment and retention targets, the IISS report said.

Still, some experts believe a European NATO is possible. Minna Alander, an analyst at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, says NATO has, over the years, become a structure for military cooperation between European countries.

“NATO can therefore survive the Iran war — and even a US withdrawal — as European members have an incentive to maintain it, even if in a radically different form,” Alander said.

For some, the deadline is 2029. That is when Russia may have reconstituted its forces sufficiently to attack NATO territory, according to estimates by Germany’s chief of defence, General Carsten Breuer. “But they can start testing us much sooner,” Breuer said in May last year, ordering the German military to be fully equipped with weapons and other material by then. Others estimate that Moscow could pose that threat as early as 2027.

And what about the US — would it do better without NATO?

According to Stefanelli, the former ambassador, the debate about NATO is often “twisted” to portray the alliance’s raison d’être as solely in function of protecting Europe from Russia, as a US favour to the continent.

NATO was a network of alliances born at the onset of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. For decades, the US fought to attract into the alliance as many countries as possible, treating those that refused as friends of the enemy.

Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, NATO invoked for the first and only time Article 5 to rally behind Washington and sent troops to fight in Afghanistan. Thousands of servicemen died there, including nearly 500 from the United Kingdom, and dozens from France, Denmark, Italy and other countries.

And during the war in Iran, European bases were beneficial staging sites for the US military — even if many countries publicly distanced themselves from the conflict.

“NATO served US interests and Trump comfortably overlooks these aspects,” Farinelli, the former ambassador, said. “Europe has its own responsibility by not investing in defence and creating strong dependence, but thinking that NATO serves only European strategic interests is simply not true.”

Taipei, Taiwan – Opposition leader Cheng Li-wun and Chinese President Xi Jinping have met in Beijing, where both leaders stated their opposition to Taiwan independence and expressed a desire for a “peaceful” resolution to the long-running dispute over the island’s future.

They posed for photos at the Great Hall of the People and exchanged public remarks, in addition to holding their closed-door meeting.

Cheng is the highest-ranking Taiwanese leader to meet Xi since President Ma Ying-jeou talked with the Chinese leader in Singapore in 2015. They met again in China two years ago when Ma was a private citizen.

Both Cheng and Ma are members of the Kuomintang, the conservative-leaning Taiwanese political party that advocates for greater engagement with China by Taiwan’s self-ruled democratic government.

During her public remarks, Cheng stressed that Chinese and Taiwanese leaders should work to “transcend political confrontation and mutual hostility”.

“Through the unremitting efforts of our two parties, we hope the Taiwan Strait will no longer become a potential flashpoint of conflict, nor a chessboard for external powers,” Cheng said, according to an English translation.

“Instead, it should become a strait that connects family ties, civilisation and hope – a symbol of peace jointly safeguarded by Chinese people on both sides,” she said.

Cheng’s remarks were sprinkled with well-known Chinese Communist Party talking points, praising its success in eradicating absolute poverty to its goal of achieving the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”

“During their open-door meeting, Xi also emphasised Taiwan and China’s shared history and culture, stating that “people of all ethnic groups, including Taiwanese compatriots,” had “jointly written the glorious history of China.”

“All sons and daughters of China share the same Chinese roots and the same Chinese spirit. This originates from blood ties and is deeply embedded in our history – it cannot be forgotten and cannot be erased,” Xi said.

He added that together with the KMT and other members of Taiwanese society, Beijing was ready to “work for peace” across the Taiwan Strait.

Both leaders said they oppose “foreign meddling” in Taiwan-China relations – a reference to US interference – while Cheng suggested that she would slow Taiwan’s military build up, according to Wen-ti Sung, a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub.

“She talked about the ‘institutional arrangement for war prevention,’ which was a euphemism for saying that under her leadership, the KMT would not be seeking a defence and deterrence-oriented approach to war prevention,” he told Al Jazeera.

The message, in short, was that “Taiwan ought to slow down on defence buildup and buying US arms,” Sung said.

Taiwan’s military expansion has been a hotly debated issue in the legislature, where the KMT has for months blocked a $40bn special budget to acquire US weapons. The opposition party alleges that the defence bill is too large and too vague. It offered a smaller $12bn alternative instead.

Writing on Facebook ahead of the meeting, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) wrote that the KMT continues to “deliberately avoid cross-party negotiations” while delaying approval of the special defence budget.

Lai said that his government also supports peace, but not “unrealistic fantasies”. Despite promises of peace from Xi, China has steadily ramped up its military presence in the waters and airspace around Taiwan in recent years. Since 2022, China’s armed forces have had six rounds of multi-day live-fire military drills in the Taiwan Strait, the 180-kilometre wide waterway dividing Taiwan from mainland Asia.

“History tells us that compromising with authoritarian regimes only sacrifices sovereignty and democracy; it will not bring freedom, nor will it bring peace,” Lai wrote on Facebook.

China accuses the ruling DPP’s leadership of pushing a “separatist” agenda. The DPP advocates for a distinct Taiwanese identity and, over the past decade, has tried to raise Taiwan’s profile on the world stage — which has provoked anger in Beijing.

The Chinese leadership cut off formal contact with Taipei shortly after the DPP came to power in 2016, although it continues to communicate through different groups, including the KMT.

That is partly why Cheng’s trip to China has been viewed with scepticism in some corners of Taiwan, particularly among the ruling DPP.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Cheng sidestepped questions of whether she supported Taiwanese and Chinese unification, but said her main goal was to seek “reconciliation” based on shared history and culture.

However, the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party have not always got along.

They fought a bloody civil war from the 1920s to the 1940s during China’s republican era, only pausing to fight the Japanese during the Second World War.

The KMT-led Republic of China government later retreated to Taiwan, a former Japanese colony, in the late 1940s, vowing to one day return to China. The conflict was never fully resolved. The CCP continues to claim Taiwan as a province, and remains committed to annexing it one day, peacefully or by force.

Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council – which sets Taiwan’s policy towards China – said this week that Cheng’s talking point that Taiwan and China are “one family” mischaracterises Taiwan’s sovereignty dispute as an internal disagreement rather than one between two governments.

While still formally known as the Republic of China, Taiwan has undergone a cultural and political sea change since democratisation in the 1990s, accompanied by a rise in Taiwanese nationalism.

In 2025, a national identity survey by the National Chengchi University in Taiwan found that 62 per cent of respondents identified as “Taiwanese”, up from 17.6 per cent in 1992, the first year of the survey.

The percentage of respondents who identify as “Taiwanese and Chinese” has fallen from 46.4 per cent to 31.7 per cent over the same period, while respondents identifying as “Chinese” fell from 25.5 to 2.5 per cent.

Senegalese prime minister Ousmane Sonko criticised Donald Trump, accusing him of plunging the world into “chaos” by starting a war on Iran, and questioned whether the world is now less safe under Trump’s leadership.

Lawmakers scrapped presidential age limit last year, allowing incumbent Ismail Omar Guelleh to compete for another term.

Voters in Djibouti are heading to the polls to choose their next president, with incumbent leader Ismail Omar Guelleh expected to easily secure a sixth term after politicians last year scrapped presidential age limits.

Just over 256,000 voters are eligible to cast ballots in Friday’s election between Guelleh, 78, and his only opponent, Mohamed Farah Samatar, the leader of the Unified Democratic Centre (CDU), a party with no seats in parliament.

At city hall, where Guelleh is due to vote, only a handful of voters had turned up when the doors opened, with turnout remaining generally low in the early hours, AFP reported. In the capital, Djibouti City, some polling stations opened late, the news agency said.

Human rights groups have accused authorities of abuses and repressing freedom of political activity. The government has denied the allegations. Two of the main opposition parties have boycotted elections since 2016.

Polling stations will close at 6pm local time (15:00GMT). Provisional results are expected shortly after or by Saturday morning, according to electoral authorities, as reported by the state-run news agency.

Several international organisations are observing voting, including the African Union (AU), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the League of Arab States.

Guelleh has governed the small nation in the Horn of Africa since 1999, when he succeeded Hassan Gouled Aptidon, the founding president of the country with about a million people.

Guelleh won re-election in 2021 with 98 per cent of the vote.

‘We have preserved peace’

Though Guelleh was originally ineligible to stand in this election due to age limits, politicians removed the restriction last year, paving the way to extend his 27-year rule.

“The scrapping of term limits in Djibouti is less about electoral competition and more about preserving regime continuity in a highly strategic state,” Mohamed Husein Gaas of the Raad Peace Research Institute told the Associated Press news agency.

“While it raises concerns about democratic backsliding, external actors are likely to prioritise stability given Djibouti’s critical role in Red Sea security and global trade routes, especially amid ongoing tensions in the Middle East,” he said.

Stability was key in Guelleh’s election campaigning.

“Let us remember we have managed to maintain the stability of our country in an unstable region. We have preserved peace when others have descended into chaos,” he said last month.

Djibouti hosts important military bases for the United States, France, China and other powers, earning it a reputation as the country with the most foreign military bases. It is also an important port hub for landlocked neighbours such as Ethiopia.

Since 2023, several commercial ships damaged in attacks by Houthi fighters in Yemen have docked there.

Min Aung Hlaing seeks to ‘enhance’ international relations and ties with ASEAN after coup plunged Myanmar into chaos.

Myanmar’s coup leader Senior General Min Aung Hlaing has been sworn in as the country’s new president, five years after he ousted an elected government and triggered a civil war.

In his inauguration address in the capital Naypyidaw on Friday, he said that “Myanmar has returned to the path of democracy and is heading towards a better future”, while acknowledging the country still has many “challenges to overcome”.

Min Aung Hlaing was voted to the top office last week in a landslide victory by the pro-military parliament, formalising his grip on power. He was among three candidates nominated for the post; the two runners-up became vice presidents.

The 69-year-old general seized power in 2021 from Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, placing her under arrest and causing violence, protests and demonstrations that sent Myanmar spiralling into chaos.

The coup prompted a mass civil disobedience movement and the formation of anti-coup armed groups, to which the military responded with brutal force. Myanmar was subsequently suspended from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

In his address on Friday, Min Aung Hlaing said they “will ‌enhance ‌international relations and strive to restore normal relations” with ASEAN.

Friday’s inauguration ceremony was attended by representatives from the neighbouring nations of China, India and Thailand as well as 20 other countries, according to the AFP news agency.

Lopsided parliamentary election

Min Aung Hlaing’s election has been decried as a farce by democracy watchdogs.

The new president’s pledge to “grant appropriate amnesties to support social reconciliation, justice and peace”, with political prisoners pardoned and civil servants who quit in protest invited back to their posts, has similarly been dismissed as cosmetic.

Min Aung Hlaing’s transition from top general to civilian president followed a lopsided parliamentary election in December and January, won in a landslide by an army-backed party and derided by critics and Western governments as a sham.

The pro-military Union Solidarity and Development Party won more than 80 percent of parliamentary seats contested, while serving members of the armed forces occupy unelected seats making up a quarter of the total.

Voting did not take place in swaths of the country, which have been seized by rebels battling the military and rejecting the vote, further undermining Min Aung Hlaing’s mandate, according to rights monitors.

Meanwhile, the civil war that has racked Myanmar for much of the last five years rages on, with anti-military groups, including remnants of Aung San Suu Kyi’s party and longstanding ethnic minority armies, forming a new combined front to take on the military.

But the human cost is staggering; the International Conflict Monitor (ACLED estimates more than 96,000 people have been killed, while the United Nations says at least 3.6 million have been displaced since the coup in 2021.

Moscow and Kyiv signal a short Easter truce as diplomacy stalls and war pressures mount.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has announced a 32-hour ceasefire for Orthodox Easter, with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirming that Ukraine will honour it.

The Kremlin said on Thursday that the pause in fighting will begin at 4pm Moscow time (13:00GMT) on Saturday and run until midnight on Sunday, covering Easter celebrations observed in both countries.

“We proceed on the basis that the Ukrainian side will follow the example of the Russian Federation,” the Kremlin said in a statement.

It added that Defence Minister Andrei Belousov had instructed Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov to halt military operations during the period. Russian forces, however, would remain ready to respond to any violations.

Zelenskyy said Ukraine had already proposed a similar pause and would act in kind.

“Ukraine has repeatedly stated that we are ready for reciprocal steps. We proposed a ceasefire during the Easter holiday this year and will act accordingly,” he wrote on Telegram.

“People need an Easter without threats and a real move towards peace, and Russia has a chance not to return to attacks even after Easter.”

Hours after the announcement, the governor of Dnipropetrovsk region said Russian artillery and aerial attacks had killed two people.

“The enemy attacked three districts of the region almost 30 times with drones and artillery,” Oleksandr Ganzha said on Telegram on Friday.

This weekend’s planned ceasefire echoes a similar, short-lived pause declared by Moscow last year, which both sides accused each other of breaching.

The ceasefire comes as wider diplomatic efforts to end the war remain stalled, with attention in Washington shifting towards escalating tensions in the Middle East.

Difficult months ahead

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow had not discussed the Easter proposal in advance with the United States, nor did it signal any immediate revival of three-way peace talks.

Despite the limited pause, humanitarian channels between the two sides remain active. Speaking from Moscow, Al Jazeera’s Yulia Shapovalova said Russia and Ukraine recently carried out another exchange of soldiers’ remains.

“Moscow handed over the remains of 1,000 Ukrainian soldiers to Kiev in exchange for 41 bodies of the Russians,” she said.

“More than 500 bodies of Russian servicemen have been returned this year during these regular exchanges and over 19,000 bodies of Ukrainian soldiers have been returned to Kiev,” she added.

These exchanges, often mediated by Turkiye, remain one of the few functioning lines of communication between the warring sides, alongside periodic prisoner swaps.

Zelenskyy has repeatedly pushed for temporary ceasefires, including a halt to attacks on energy infrastructure, but said Moscow had largely rejected proposals. He added that Ukraine now faces growing pressure, both on the battlefield and from international partners.

“This spring–summer period will be quite difficult politically and diplomatically. There may be pressure on Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said. “There will also be pressure on the battlefield.”

He warned that the coming months could prove decisive, as Kyiv confronts both sustained Russian attacks and shifting geopolitical priorities among its allies.

“I believe it will be very difficult for us until September.”

Former world heavyweight boxing champion Tyson Fury says he’s “still got it” as he pledged to focus on the task at hand in his latest return to the ring.

Following a 15-month absence, 37-year-old Fury (34-2-1, 24 KOs) is up against 36-year-old Russian-born heavyweight Arslanbek Makhmudov (21-2, 19 KOs) in a bout at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium on Saturday.

The pair spoke during a pre-fight news conference in London on Thursday, hours after the chief executive of Croke Park said the 80,000-capacity Dublin venue wanted to stage the long-awaited Battle of Britain super-fight between Fury and fellow former world heavyweight champion Anthony Joshua.

Fury and Joshua have almost fought on several occasions, only for contract disputes, fitness issues and losses elsewhere to derail previous attempts to get them into the same ring.

Their camps had reportedly been close to an agreement before Joshua decided to take time out from boxing following a car crash which led to the deaths of two close friends in December.

The 36-year-old Joshua is now back in training and was at Derek Chisora’s defeat by Deontay Wilder last Saturday.

Fury insisted on Thursday: “I don’t want to mention names when I’ve got a dangerous fighter in front of me. The rest can get a hiding but I need to give Makhmudov a hiding first.”

He added: “Like I said when Daniel Dubois was fighting Anthony Joshua [in 2024], everybody said and all the boxing brains said, ‘AJ will knock him out inside three rounds,’ and they were overlooking him. ‘Are you going to fight Tyson next?’

“And I said you better put some respect on Dubois’ name because he’s going to chin him and that’s what happened. So, I won’t fall down that same hurdle and trap.”

Nevertheless, he did hint at future plans for 2026 when he spoke on Ring’s YouTube channel later on Thursday.

“As far as I am concerned, I will focus on this big Russian fella, then Anthony Joshua and maybe a third fight [with Oleksandr Usyk],” Fury said.

‘Bored of the normal life’

Fury retired after his second successive loss to world champion Usyk at the end of 2024 and went a year without a fight before revealing his latest comeback on January 4.

“People always question retirement for me,” said Fury, who on Thursday reiterated the inspiration for this return was the death of Joshua’s friends because “you have got to live every day like it is your last”.

He added: “I’ve retired five times before and meant it wholeheartedly. I’ve come back four times successfully and we’ll see if it’s five.

“Make no mistake when I retire I have zero intention of returning but I miss the game. However, after a few months I am bored of the normal life. Dropping the kids off at school, taking the dogs for a walk, that kind of stuff. I miss everything that comes with big fights.”

John Fury, Tyson’s father and long a familiar figure in the corner as his son rose through the boxing ranks, said last month that a trio of gruelling fights against Deontay Wilder meant the ‘Gypsy King’ is “past his best”.

“Tyson has been gone since the Deontay Wilder fights, they finished him … Makhmudov is a problem for Tyson, said John Fury.

But Tyson said on Thursday: “I’ve never lost my speed of reactions. I’ve still got it. 100 percent.”

Makhmudov says wrestling a bear once was ‘enough’

The Russian-born fighter, meanwhile, played down suggestions that Fury, “a great boxer”, would be hampered by a recent lack of competitive ring time.

“It’s not a problem for him because of his experience,” said Makhmudov, who briefly grabbed Fury in a playful bear hug.

“Maybe it’s the opposite because he can recover from hard fights in the past.”

Makhmudov has created some buzz ahead of the fight by posting a video that showed him wrestling a 2.9m (9 feet 8 inch), 419kg bear in woods outside of Moscow nearly two years ago – an encounter he says taught him to confront fear.

“It was very terrible. Not just scary, but really crazy terrible,” Makhmudov told the Press Association this week.

“Since I was a kid I have liked a challenge, that’s why I did that just to test myself to see how I would feel in that crazy situation.

“You only understand its strength when you’re close to it. In one second you can become like meat, just meat, just like that.

“It’s not comparable with human stuff. It’s like a natural disaster, I cannot explain it, it’s crazy.

“It is good preparation for boxing because you have to control your emotions and your fear. You have to beat your fear, beat your phobias. For that it was good, but one time is enough!”

Even though a fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States and Israel has been announced, it’s going to be a long time before prices of oil and gas come back to pre-war levels, experts say.

In response to the US-Israeli attacks, Iran choked off the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel linking the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas exports pass from the Middle East, mainly to Asia and also to Europe.

It also attacked energy infrastructure in several Gulf countries, leading to soaring prices of not just energy but also of byproducts like helium, used in a range of products like tiles used in homes and semiconductor equipment. Fertilisers that rely on some of these inputs were hit too, impacting sowing seasons.

As a result, consumers the world over, but particularly in developing countries of Asia and Africa, have felt the brunt of those shortages and soaring prices. The question on many minds: Now that there is a ceasefire in place, how quickly will prices normalise?

“Anyone who tells you they know the answer to that question is lying,” said Rockford Weitz, professor of practice in maritime studies at The Fletcher School at Tufts University. “It’s too early to tell when we return to normal.”

There needs to be a predictable and stable flow of cargo through the strait before markets can stabilise, experts say.

“What we’re seeing is the biggest disruption in the history of global oil markets,” said Weitz.

Before this conflict, approximately 120-140 ships passed through the Strait of Hormuz every day. On Wednesday, only five vessels crossed the strait, while seven passed through the waterway on Thursday.

That shows why “to get back to normal is going to be a while”, Weitz told Al Jazeera. “And it’s too complicated to know at this stage when that will happen, as it requires collaboration with the great powers [US, China and Russia], but also regional powers [UAE, Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan]. It’s hard to say when it will end, as there are so many parties who can make it not happen.”

There is also some concern that developments, like Iran charging a toll fee to allow ships to pass through and skyrocketing insurance fees, will keep oil prices high.

“There are reports that Iran is charging fees to tankers going through the Hormuz Strait,” US President Donald Trump wrote on TruthSocial Thursday.

“They better not be and, if they are, they better stop now.”

But experts agree that those fees, rumoured to be about $2m per vessel, are not enough to move the needle on oil prices.

“What is causing oil prices to rise is not insurance. It’s about getting tankers through. Tolls won’t be the cost driver,” said Weitz.

‘Signs of strain’

Some of that reality was on display with the reopening of the strait, showing “signs of strain just hours after the ceasefire was announced”, said Usha Haley, W Frank Barton Distinguished Chair in international business at Wichita State University.

Compounding that problem was the fact that some countries, including Iraq, had shut down production because of limited storage capacity, further taking oil supplies offline.

“That will take weeks and months to reopen,” Haley added.

“It’s going to be a contested reopening … LNG [liquefied natural gas] will take months to rebalance because of the hits to infrastructure, and can take three to six months to normalise if everything else remains normal. And it’s not.”

Slower growth

On Thursday, International Monetary Fund managing director Kristalina Georgieva warned that the fund will downgrade its forecast for the world economy next week from the current expectation of 3.3 percent. “Growth will be slower – even if the new peace is durable,’’ Georgieva said.

While the war has hit most economies, “it hasn’t really affected the two primary [US] targets – Russia and China. Russia, in fact, has benefitted enormously, and Chinese ships have been allowed to go through,” said Haley.

The US has hit Russia with multiple sanctions for its war on Ukraine, including capping sales of Russian oil to undercut its income stream. Similarly, the first Trump administration put tariffs on China and curbed US exports of certain high-end technology, measures that were held up under the administration of former US President Joe Biden and further ratcheted up by Trump last year with his tariffs blitz.

But amid the war on Iran and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the US temporarily eased some sanctions on Russian oil, and countries desperate for crude have since paid far higher prices to Moscow than the subsidised energy that President Vladimir Putin’s government was previously offering them.

“We [the US] really need to decide what we want to do long-term, who our targets are. There’s got to be some coherence to what we want to do.”

For now, “an overhang of greater risk premium of supplies out of the Gulf means oil prices will remain higher than what they were before the attack started”, said Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

While it’s possible that some of the blocked oil and oil products could be released soon, providing a short boost of supplies in the coming days and weeks, “that would be a temporary support” and is still conditional on the ceasefire holding and converting to a broader deal, said Ziemba.

For now, she’s keeping an eye on Iraq to see if it strikes a side deal with Iran. Iraq, long a proxy battleground between the US and Iran, can produce at least 3.5 million barrels of oil per day, production that it had shut off because of limited storage capacity, said Ziemba.

Should that come back online, it will help oil flows and, eventually, prices. But the uncertainty of the truce and the history of attacks on Iraq mean that the future of the country’s oil production remains unclear. “In that environment, who wants to invest in scaling up production?” Ziemba wondered.

A U.S. Navy MQ-4C Triton surveillance drone disappeared abruptly and unexpectedly from online flight tracking sites after declaring an in-flight emergency while flying over the Persian Gulf today. The uncrewed aircraft was also tracked rapidly losing altitude right beforehand, prompting widespread questions about its fate. This comes just two days after the United States and Iran agreed to a still very fragile ceasefire, which is heavily contingent on the reopening of the highly strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Online flight tracking data shows the MQ-4C had just completed a roughly three-hour-long flight over the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz and appeared to be returning to base at Naval Air Station Sigonella in Italy. The online tracking shows the Triton had just crossed into Saudi Arabian airspace before making a sudden turn to the northeast in the direction of Iran. Available data also shows the drone rapidly descended from a typical cruising altitude of around 50,000 feet down to below 10,000 feet.

The MQ-4C’s transponder was broadcasting (or “squawking”) the code 7700, which is a general declaration of an in-flight emergency, at the time. The code, by itself, does not offer any indication of what that the emergency might be or how serious the situation is. There are also unconfirmed reports that the Triton initially sent out another code, 7400, which is used to declare a loss of connectivity between a drone and its controllers on the ground.

The MQ-4C had otherwise been publicly visible online from the moment it left Naval Air Station Sigonella in Italy. Tritons have been flying sorties over the Middle East, as well as other locales, from Sigonella regularly since 2024.

As of 2025, the Navy had 20 of these drones in service in total, with plans to acquire seven more. The service received funding to purchase the final pair of drones in Fiscal Year 2024, at which time the estimated unit cost for each one was pegged at just over $238 million.

When reached for more information by TWZ, the office of the Chief of Information (CHINFO), the U.S. Navy’s main public affairs office, declined to comment. We have also reached out to the U.S. Navy’s regional commands in the Middle East and Europe, as well as U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).

At the time of writing, there does not appear to be any official comment about the MQ-4C from Iranian authorities.

The MQ-4C is a derivative of the RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drone optimized for long-duration overwater missions. The Navy actually operated a small number of RQ-4A drones in a service-specific configuration called the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance-Demonstrator (BAMS-D). When the program started in 2003, BAMS-D’s main task was to help pave the way for Triton’s arrival. However, the Navy ended up flying the drones operationally in the Middle East and out into the Indian Ocean for 13 years. Iran notably shot down a BAMS-D drone as it flew over the Gulf of Oman in 2019.

The Triton’s original sensor package was centered on an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar with surface search and synthetic aperture modes. A synthetic aperture radar (SAR) capability allows for the capturing of satellite-like images, day or night, in virtually any atmospheric conditions, which is not possible with optical sensors. The drones do also have electro-optical and infrared video cameras in a turret under the nose, as well as electronic support measures systems for collecting electronic intelligence passively.

More recently, the Navy has been working with prime contractor Northrop Grumman to expand the MQ-4C’s electronic and signals intelligence (ELINT/SIGINT) capabilities.

The drones can work in concert with P-8A Poseidon crewed maritime patrol planes, which have their own extensive sensors and networking suites, and carrier strike groups down below.

Tritons are likely to play an especially important role in monitoring activity in and around the Persian Gulf amid the current ceasefire with Iran. As noted, the safe transit of commercial ships in and out of the Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz is a central factor in the continued stability of that arrangement. It is also expected to be a major topic of discussion in future diplomatic negotiations between the United States and Iran. So far, Iran is still severely throttling maritime traffic through this critical waterway.

LONDON, April 9 (Reuters) – Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned ships to keep to a route passing through its territorial waters when crossing the Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz as traffic on Thursday remained well below 10% of normal volumes.

— Idrees Ali (@idreesali114) April 9, 2026

As mentioned, MQ-4Cs have already been flying regular surveillance patrols in the region for years now. There were separate rumors of a Triton going down in the Gulf of Oman back on February 22. That also followed the disappearance of one of the drones from online flight tracking sites after squawking 7700. However, no rapid loss of altitude was recorded in that case.

A U.S. official subsequently told TWZ that reports of an MQ-4C loss on or about February 22 were “not true.” Open-source flight-tracking site Flightradar24 also posted a pointed statement on X on February 27 saying that they had tracked the Triton returning to a base in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The very next day, U.S. and Israeli forces launched their combined operation against Iran.

US official told me this morning those claims were “not true.”

— Howard Altman (@haltman) February 27, 2026

Flightradar24’s post on February 27 also highlighted general gaps in tracking coverage in the region. Deliberate GPS jamming and other types of electronic interference are also common in the region, and even more so in the context of the latest conflict with Iran.

As noted, Iran has demonstrated an ability to target higher-flying U.S. drones in the past with the shootdown of the BAMS-D. That incident prompted significant questions about the survivability of Global Hawk and its derivatives, though these drones were never designed for missions into contested territory.

Smoke Trail From Shot Down Global Hawk

After some five weeks of U.S. and Israeli strikes, Iran’s air defense capabilities have been substantially degraded, but they do still present real threats, at least in certain envelopes. That being said, to be clear, there are no hard indications whatsoever that hostile fire was in any way a factor in whatever happened to the MQ-4C flying over the Persian Gulf today. The status of that drone, in general, remains unknown.

Still, incidents like this are likely to continue to draw immense attention, at least for the immediate future, amid the shaky ceasefire between the United States and Iran. That arrangement is currently set to remain in place for two weeks, and there is great uncertainty about what may happen afterward. Negotiations about a more lasting end to the recent hostilities are set to begin in Pakistan this weekend.

We will continue to provide more details about the fate of the MQ-4C if and when they become available.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Washington and Tehran accuse each other of not honouring truce agreement.

Shipping remains at a standstill in the Strait of Hormuz despite the ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran, dampening hopes for a resolution to one of the worst global energy disruptions in history.

Only a handful of vessels have transited the critical strait since Washington and Tehran on Tuesday announced a two-week pause in fighting, according to ship tracking data.

Five vessels crossed the strait on Wednesday, down from 11 the previous day, and seven transited on Thursday, according to data from market intelligence firm Kpler.

More than 600 vessels, including 325 tankers, are still stranded in the Gulf due to the blockage of the strait, according to Lloyd’s List Intelligence.

“While some vessel movement has resumed, traffic remains very limited, compliant shipowners are likely to stay cautious, and safe transit capacity is expected to remain constrained at maximum 10–15 passages a day if the ceasefire holds, without consideration of tolls applied,” Kpler trade risk analyst Ana Subasic said in an analysis on Thursday.

The waterway, which usually carries about one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies, typically handled about 120-140 transits before the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran on February 28.

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump accused Iran of failing to live up to its part of the ceasefire agreement, which includes a commitment to allow “safe passage” through the waterway for two weeks.

“Iran is doing a very poor job, dishonorable some would say, of allowing Oil to go through the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“That is not the agreement we have!”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi earlier accused the US of not honouring the deal, warning, in reference to Israel’s ongoing attacks on Lebanon, that it had to choose between a ceasefire or “continued war” via its ally.

“The world sees the massacres in Lebanon,” Araghchi said in a post on social media.

“The ball is in the US court, and the world is watching whether it will act on its commitments.”

After plummeting on the back of the ceasefire announcement, oil prices have begun to tick up as markets digest the reality that maritime traffic remains effectively halted despite the truce.

“This moment requires clarity. So let’s be clear: the Strait of Hormuz is not open,” Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, the CEO of the United Arab Emirates’ state-run oil company, ADNOC, said in a social media post on Thursday.

“Access is being restricted, conditioned and controlled. Iran has made clear – through both its statements and actions – that passage is subject to permission, conditions and political leverage. That is not freedom of navigation. That is coercion.”

Brent crude, the international benchmark, stood at $96.39 as of 02:00 GMT on Friday, after falling below $95 a barrel on Wednesday.

Asia’s main stock markets opened higher on Friday, following overnight gains on Wall Street driven by hopes of a resolution to the war.

Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 was up 1.8 percent in early trading, while South Korea’s KOSPI and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index were up about 2 percent and 1 percent, respectively.

Police pushed back protesters in Venezuela’s capital as they demanded an increase to the minimum wage of 130 bolivars ($0.27) per month. Earlier this week, Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, promised ‘a responsible increase’ in salaries by May 1, but didn’t disclose the amount.

The industry body, UK Pet Food, estimates that we spend some £380 million a year on bird food. Separate figures suggest that amounts to more than 150,000 tonnes annually – enough to sustain three times the breeding populations of the ten commonest garden species if they relied on it alone all year round.

Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warns ‘time is running out’ amid Israel’s continuing attacks on Lebanon.

In this episode of TWZ: Special Access, Jamie Hunter visits the world-famous Edwards Air Force Base, the heart of the USAF’s flight test operations, in California’s Mojave Desert, to fly a mission in a KC-135 that’s become known as the “Ghost Tanker.” 

This is the U.S. Air Force’s only dedicated test tanker that’s instrumented to certify new aircraft types to tank from a flying-boom-equipped, in-flight refueling aircraft. It was recently seen conducting aerial refueling trials with the new B-21 Raider bomber.

Operated by the Air Force Reserve Command’s 370th Flight Test Squadron, this KC-135 is the Air Force Test Center’s flagship. It forms the centerpiece of an elite tanker test team at Edwards that performs a critical role in supporting a wide range of flight-testing.

We Fly With A Famous USAF Tanker Test Squadron | Riding With The KC-135 Known As “The Ghost”

Contact the host: Jamie.Hunter@teamrecurrent.io

The government of Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa has surged its tariffs on the neighbouring country of Colombia to 100 percent, effective May 1.

On Thursday, Ecuador’s Ministry of Production issued a statement blasting Colombia for failing to adequately address drug-trafficking and border security.

It was the latest salvo in an ongoing cross-border dispute between the right-wing Noboa and his left-wing counterpart in Colombia, Gustavo Petro, who have been feuding for months.

“After noting the lack of implementation of concrete and effective measures regarding border security on the part of Colombia, Ecuador is obliged to take sovereign actions,” the Ministry of Production wrote in its statement.

It justified the tariff hike as a necessary incentive to “confront the presence of drug trafficking on the border”.

“For Ecuador, security, as well as the fight against corruption and drug trafficking, are a non-negotiable priority,” the ministry said. “This measure reaffirms the country’s commitment to protecting its citizens and safeguarding the integrity of its territory.”

Already, Noboa had slapped Colombia with 50 percent tariffs on its exports to Ecuador as of March. That, in turn, was a spike from a 30 percent tariff rate announced in January and implemented in February.

Just over an hour after the new tariff rate was announced, Petro responded on social media that Ecuador’s actions were causing the collapse of the Andean Pact, a regional free-trade agreement whose origins stretch back to the 1960s.

“This is simply a monstrosity, but it signifies the end of the Andean Pact for Colombia. We have no business there anymore,” Petro wrote.

He called on Colombia to shift its focus away from its Andean trading partners and towards Mercosur, a trade alliance helmed by Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and Bolivia.

“The Foreign Minister must initiate the process for us to become full members of Mercosur and steer us — with greater vigor — toward the Caribbean and Central America,” Petro added.

The escalating tensions between Ecuador and Colombia come within the final months of Petro’s presidency. Elected in 2022, Petro is Colombia’s first left-wing president and a former rebel involved in the country’s six-decade-long armed conflict.

But his government has faced stiff opposition from right-wing political movements both domestically and abroad.

Leaders like Noboa and United States President Donald Trump have repeatedly condemned him for not doing enough to tackle the illicit drug trade, despite historic drug seizures during Petro’s term in office.

Just last November, Petro’s government seized a shipment of cocaine worth roughly $388m, the largest drug bust in a decade.

But Petro has also championed a policy he calls “Total Peace”, which involves negotiations with rebel groups and criminal networks to put an end to the country’s internal conflict.

Trump and Petro have been at odds over multiple issues, including US immigration policies and its boat-bombing campaign in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

In September, however, the Trump administration took the extraordinary step of decertifying Colombia as an ally in its “war on drugs”, saying that it had “failed demonstrably” in its efforts.

Then, in October, Trump sanctioned Petro and his family, blaming the Colombian president for having “allowed drug cartels to flourish”.

Noboa has echoed Trump’s stance on several foreign policy issues, including its pressure campaign on another left-wing government, Cuba.

He was among the right-wing leaders in Latin America to join Trump’s “Shield of the Americas” coalition, designed to confront criminal networks and cartels in the region.

In announcing the initial volley of tariffs in January, Noboa claimed his country had shown a “genuine commitment” to combatting drug trafficking, while Colombia had not.

“We have made genuine efforts to cooperate with Colombia, even while facing a trade deficit exceeding $1bn annually,” Noboa wrote.

Colombia remains the world’s largest producer of cocaine, a persistent trend that has existed since before Petro’s presidency.

But other factors have aggravated tensions between the two neighbours.

On Wednesday, for instance, Ecuador recalled its ambassador from Colombia over statements Petro made about its imprisonment of left-wing politician Jorge Glas, calling the former vice president a “political prisoner”.

Noboa had warned earlier in the week that he considered such rhetoric an “assault on [Ecuador’s] sovereignty”. He had previously faced criticism for authorising a raid on Mexico’s embassy to arrest Glas, which prompted Mexico to sever its relations with Ecuador.

Petro, meanwhile, has accused Noboa of bombing close to the Colombian border, as part of joint military operations with the US. Colombian officials have said they recovered 27 charred bodies from the border region.

Since Ecuador first imposed its tariffs, Colombia has suspended cross-border energy sales, which have been vital in helping Ecuador’s government navigate electricity shortages prompted by recent droughts. It has also issued retaliatory tariffs on certain Ecuadorian products.

Jonny Clayton came from 5-2 down to beat Michael van Gerwen 6-5 and claim his third nightly win to move top of the Premier League.

Van Gerwen missed four match darts in total as the Welshman reeled off four straight legs to take the win in Brighton.

Victory takes Clayton, who began the evening in third, three points above Luke Littler after the world champion was beaten by Stephen Bunting in the quarter-finals and failed to add to his points tally.

While Van Gerwen had the edge both in terms of average and checkout percentage in the final, Clayton produced when it mattered as he made the seven-time champion pay for failing to wrap up the match at 5-2 and 5-4 and forced a decider.

Clayton then finished it in style, hitting two 180s in the leg before sealing it on double 16.

“I thought the game was over at 5-2 up for Michael,” Clayton told Sky Sports.

“He missed, he gave me a chance. You’ve got to take chances. That last leg was probably my best of the game.

“I’m back on top of the table, Luke Littler can start chasing me again.”

Despite falling just short of a first nightly win since the opening week in Newcastle, Van Gerwen’s run to the final helped him shore up his play-off place and open up a four-point gap to fellow Dutchman Gian van Veen in fifth.

In a statement read out on television, Mojtaba Khamenei said Tehran will ‘demand compensation’ for damages due to the war.

Iran’s supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has claimed a “final victory” in the war with Israel and the United States, as a fragile ceasefire continues to be threatened by Israel’s continuing offensive on Lebanon.

Marking 40 days since his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in a US-Israeli attack on the first day of the war, Khamenei said in a statement on Thursday that, over the course of the war, Iran had “astonished the world”.

Khamenei, 58, who has not been seen or heard from since the war began, said in a statement read out on television that Tehran was not seeking war but was fighting for its legitimate rights.

“We will certainly not leave the criminal aggressors who attacked our country unpunished,” he said, adding that Iran will “demand compensation for all damages, as well as the blood of the martyrs and the wounded”.

Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively blockaded since the war broke out on February 28 and has become a key sticking point in US-Iran proposals to end the war, Khamenei said that his country will move towards a “new phase” without elaborating.

On Wednesday, the US and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire in a deal mediated by Pakistan to allow for negotiations to take place, after attacks on Gulf nations and the near-closure of the Strait of Hormuz had caused fears of a longer conflict whose impact would be felt long after it ended.

As part of the ceasefire, Iran agreed to allow shipping to pass through the important waterway, with reports that Tehran would impose a toll on ships transiting the strait to fund the country’s reconstruction efforts.

Yet, Khamenei warned that Iran was ready to respond if attacks were to end the pause in hostilities.

“Our hands are on the trigger,” he said.

However, a devastating wave of Israeli air strikes across Lebanon on Wednesday killed more than 300 people, threatening the US-Iran truce amid disagreement on whether Beirut was part of the agreement.

While Iran and Pakistan state that Lebanon was part of the deal, the US and Israel have said that it was not. World leaders have also called for Lebanon to be part of the agreement, urging for peace in the region.

Still, Khamenei said that while they did not start the war, they will not “renounce our legitimate rights under any circumstances, and in this respect, we consider the entire resistance front as a whole,” an apparent reference to Lebanon.

On Saturday, delegations from Iran and the US are expected in Pakistan to hold talks on ending the war.

America’s long-range kamikaze drone, a reverse-engineered clone of the Iranian-designed Shahed-136, was used in combat for the first time during Operation Epic Fury. Before the Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) was known to exist,The War Zone made a detailed case for the Pentagon to mass produced this exact aircraft. Now the U.S. military says LUCAS is a huge success – with CENTCOM’s top officer calling it “indispensable,” – and wants many more of them, we wanted to know more about how these weapons were first developed. One former Pentagon official who pushed for their creation, a drive that began under the Biden administration and came to fruition under Trump, gave us unique insights into LUCAS and its genesis.

Michael C. Horowitz served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Force Development and Emerging Capabilities and Director of the Emerging Capabilities Policy Office in the Pentagon between 2022 and 2024 under the Biden administration. Now a senior fellow for technology and innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations and director of Perry World House and Richard Perry professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Horowitz spoke to us Wednesday. He provided unique insights into why it took so long for the U.S. to fully embrace the use of a weapon that has proved devastating in Ukraine and now across the Middle East, and how it could be used in the future against China.

Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Q: When did the U.S. first obtain a Shahed from Ukraine and what were your thoughts?

A: It was early 2024 essentially. One of the things my office did was look at what were the emerging capabilities that may be in the services and where there might be a lot of potential, but for whatever reason, weren’t getting the support that they needed. And in May 2024, the question of a potential for this came across my desk.

Q: How did Russia’s experience in Ukraine inform your decision about pursuing such a weapon at the time?

A: Given that we were in the era of precision mass and that the U.S. arsenal has been entirely made up of these exquisite, expensive, difficult to produce capabilities, there was interest in finding lower-cost alternatives – more attritable, more autonomous kinds of systems. And at that point, the world was now familiar with the capabilities of the Shaheds from the thousands that Russia had been launching against Ukraine. And Russia was starting to work on the capability that we now call the Geran-2, their version of the Shahed. The idea was that these should be a complement to the more exquisite, expensive, difficult-to-produce weapons. That this country should be producing these lower-end, precise mass systems for itself. The LUCAS, in some ways, was emblematic of that category, but not necessarily the only plausible example.

Q: What was your argument for using these weapons and what was the pushback, if any, and if so, from who?

A: I don’t think that there was pushback. Nobody looked at this and said ‘Oh, that’s a terrible idea.’ But this is just not something that the United States had done before. We were starting to see growing interest in this kind of thing, conceptually, through something like the Replicator initiative, which my office had also promoted. We were trying to push for funding and capabilities, but it was just a very different kind of thing. It wasn’t a ‘let’s produce the best version of something.’ It was ‘let’s invest in a very much lower-cost capability where the idea is that the quantity has quality of its own.’

Q: What did you think when you first saw the LUCAS concept?

A: I thought that this was exactly the kind of system that we had been looking for in a world where defense procurement needed to become more risk-acceptant and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, given all of the well-known munitions shortages. Even the idea of reverse-engineering a Shahed seemed like an obviously good idea, in some ways, Iran had already perfected. What could we do?

Q: The Wall Street Journal reported that the LUCAS was a mock-up at the time it was selected over other more mature systems. Can you say why?

A: I don’t know the answer to that. As the DASD for Force Development and Emerging Capabilities, my job was to try to figure out, given the different strategies, what were capabilities that we should be pursuing. So something like the LUCAS was right in the wheelhouse that my office was looking for and trying to move money toward, but the specifics of the vendor and how all that was chosen, is a question for Research and Engineering (R&E).

Q: Who did you have to try to convince to pursue this?

A: The amount of money involved was really small given the scale of the Pentagon budget. But because it wasn’t anything that anybody had planned to spend money on, it involved having to go to [Pentagon] elements like R&E and the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), and going to the military services, and making the case that this was an important capability that the joint force needed, and that could potentially be developed very quickly.

Q: How much money are you talking about? Millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds?

A: To the best of my recollection, it was tens of millions.

Q: Who in the Pentagon made the decision to push this forward while you were there?

A: Eventually, we successfully persuaded then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks that, especially at the price point, this was a risk worth taking.

By the way, just to be clear about one thing, [Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Prototyping and Experimentation] Alex Lovett is really the hero of this story in many ways. He both discovered the concept and moved it forward even after all of the original team that supported the LUCAS had left the government. He did incredible work in R&E in making the LUCAS a reality. The people who really deserve the credit are Alex, the CENTCOM team that accelerated it and Arizona-based SpektreWorks, the company that made it.

Q: When the Biden administration left office, where was the LUCAS program?

A: It was moving forward, but not yet a fielded capability. The Trump team deserves credit for seeing the potential and moving this forward and getting it done.

Q: Why has the U.S. been so slow to adopt these types of weapons?

A: Because I think that the American military since the end of the Cold War was built on having the best capabilities. And the idea was that even if we have small numbers of systems, our systems are so good that it doesn’t matter. And it took a while to get the services out of that [mindset] and for people to embrace the idea that second-best military capabilities might have real value. Especially given the very real risk of major conflict.

Q: How could weapons like LUCAS fill in the U.S. magazine depth?

A: I think the math would suggest that building 400 Tomahawks would give you 46,000 LUCAS rounds. And so if you think about this range of capabilities that includes something like LUCAS and like other really super low-cost systems – up through the like family of affordable mass missiles that the Air Force is working on – you’re just talking about like a whole new level of depth in the magazine for the American military.

This is absolutely necessary for the U.S. to continue to compete successfully in the Indo-Pacific in particular, but also in general, as we’re seeing in the Iran context. But the system had been designed for so long to only procure small numbers of the best systems, and it was challenging to [change that]. There’s now a lot of momentum behind that, but it was challenging to get things moving in the other direction.

Q: What was your reaction when CENTCOM first announced that it stood up a LUCAS drone unit and again, when they were first used in combat during Epic Fury.

A: CENTCOM has been on the leading edge of experimentation for years. I saw that firsthand when I was in the Pentagon and so I was not surprised that CENTCOM was leading the way in experimenting with and figuring out what the concepts for use would be for something like the LUCAS and I was not surprised to see CENTCOM figuring out how to apply it successfully in Epic Fury.

Q: What were your thoughts when they were first used in combat?

A: It was a great illustration of how the Pentagon can move fast in developing and fielding emerging military capabilities when it chooses to, but the incentives just haven’t been aligned to do it that way for decades.

Q:  CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper told me LUCAS drones were indispensable. How much do you know about how they were used in Epic Fury, and what are some of the target sets that you think they should be used against?

A: I genuinely don’t know the answer to that. I think someone inside the conflict would be in a better position to answer that.

Q: What would your recommendation be about how they should be used and against what kinds of targets?

A: These weapons are accurate. They’re just pretty easy to shoot down. So in some ways, you could either imagine using these against military targets in large volumes to try to overwhelm defenses, or you could use them in combination with more exquisite weapons to try to trick adversarial defenses and clear the path, in some ways, for more exquisite weapons.

Q: The Russians are doing that in Ukraine, both to overwhelm systems, but they’ve been a very effective strike weapon. If you were still at the Pentagon, how would you recommend they be used in a campaign like Epic Fury and across the military as a whole. And how widely should they be fielded, and what would be ideal numbers? 

A:  It would not be for somebody like me to decide given my role. But these are essentially inexpensive precision weapons, so any target you would be comfortable using a precision weapon against, in theory, you could use LUCAS against. What’s important is that any weapon has been through the testing and evaluation cycle so you can prove that it works effectively and reliably.

Q: Images released by CENTCOM show what appears to be a gimbaled camera system mounted on its nose and, most importantly, a miniature beyond-line-of-sight satellite datalink mounted on the spine of some LUCAS drones. Being able to be controlled dynamically after launch at great distances, do you see these as a strike weapon to hit moving targets, targets of opportunity and operate in swarms?

A: The missions you could use a weapon like LUCAS for is a software question as much as a hardware question. There’s no reason in principle it couldn’t be used to hit moving targets, or in coordination.

Q: How widely should they be fielded by the U.S. military? What are ideal numbers?

A: I think incredibly widely. This is whether it is LUCAS specifically, or related precision systems. I think if you are looking for the trade space to increase defense production short term – over a couple of years period, as opposed to a decade – are in these lower-cost capabilities that you can scale through more commercial manufacturing. So I would think that there’s an opportunity to have tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of these kinds of systems to complement exquisite capabilities like Tomahawk.

Q: With a far smaller warhead, they wouldn’t replace Tomahawk, though, right?

A: The LUCAS is a much smaller weapon than the Tomahawk, among other things. It’s not a replacement. What we need is a high-low mix with both types of systems.

Q: How would they be helpful in a fight against China?

A:  If you think about the potential range that LUCAS variants could get to – if you look at the max range of the Geran-2 or the Shahed – and then we could do better. I think that means that you now have new attack vectors and the ability to flood the space with munitions in a way that could substantially complicate Chinese defenses.

Q: The LUCAS drone used by CENTCOM was developed by SpektreWorks in cooperation with the U.S. military. Did you ever work with them?

A: No.

Q: SpektreWorks received a $30 million contract in Fiscal Year 2025 from the Accelerate the Procurement and Fielding of Innovative Technologies (APFIT) program to provide procurement funding for innovative projects that have completed development and are ready to transition into operational use. Is APFIT helpful in speeding up the procurement process for LUCAS-type drones?

A: APFIT is a bridge to production for capabilities that are ready to start scaling but not yet programs of record. So APFIT funding is a starting point not the end point.

Q: What are the bottlenecks for the production of LUCAS drones?

A: I think the supply chain issues for the LUCAS and other precise mass systems are different than those facing AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM) OR AGM-158 Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). That you can make them with modified commercial manufacturing means that the constraints are simply lower from a production perspective.

Q: What can the government do to speed up the process of  procuring LUCAS-type drones?

A:  The government should speed up the process by pursuing a Liberty Ship model. Since the government owns the IP, you can have lots of vendors produce the Lucas simultaneously and then increase orders with the vendors who excel the most.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Washington, DC – Preliminary data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has found that international development aid from its members dropped by about 23 percent from 2024 to 2025.

Much of that decline was attributed to a major shortfall in funding from the United States.

The forum, which includes many of the the largest economies across Europe and the Americas, said on Thursday that the US saw a nearly 57 percent drop in foreign aid in 2025.

The OECD’s four other top contributors — Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and France — also saw declines in their foreign aid assistance.

The report marked the first time foreign development assistance from all five of the OECD’s top donors simultaneously declined. The total assistance for 2025 totaled only $174.3bn, down from $214.6bn the year before, representing the largest annual drop since the OECD began recording the data.

OECD officials warned the dramatic decrease comes at a time when global economic and food security has been cast into doubt amid the stresses of the US-Israeli war with Iran.

“It’s deeply concerning to see this huge drop in [development funding] in 2025, due to dramatic cuts among the very top donors,” OECD official Carsten Staur said in a statement.

Thursday’s preliminary data shows that only eight member countries met or exceeded their funding from 2024.

“We are in a time of increasing humanitarian needs,” Staur added, citing growing global uncertainty and extreme poverty. “I can only plead that DAC donors reverse this negative trend and start to increase their [assistance].”

The data covers the 34 members of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which provide the vast majority of global foreign assistance.

But the numbers offer an incomplete picture of global development aid, as it fails to include influential non-DAC members including Turkiye, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and China.

The data tracked by the OECD distinguishes official development assistance from other forms of aid, including military funds.

US drives ‘three-quarters of the decline’

In its preliminary assessment, the OECD noted that the US “alone drove three-quarters of the decline” in 2025, the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term.

Trump has overseen widespread cuts to the US’s aid infrastructure, including dissolving the US Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of a wider effort to shrink government spending.

The US contributed about $63bn in official development assistance in 2024, which was cleaved to just short of $29bn in 2025, according to OECD.

Research this year from the University of Sydney has suggested that cuts to US funding over the past year have corresponded with an increase in armed conflict in Africa, as state resources grow more scarce.

Other experts have noted that the slashed assistance is likely to prompt upticks in cases of HIV-AIDS, malaria and polio.

Analysts at the Center for Global Development have projected that the US cuts were linked to between 500,000 and 1,000,000 deaths globally in 2025 alone. A recent article published in the medical journal The Lancet found that a “continuation of current downward trends” in development funding could lead to over 9.4 million new deaths by 2030.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has maintained it is transforming, not eschewing, the US aid model.

In recent months, it has struck a handful of bilateral assistance agreements with African countries that it says are in line with its “America First” agenda.

But while the details of such deals have not been made public, critics note that some negotiations appear to have involved requests for African countries to share mineral access or health data.

‘Turning their backs’

Oxfam, a confederation of several non-governmental aid organisations, was among those calling on wealthy countries to change course following Thursday’s report.

“Wealthy governments are turning their backs on the lives of millions of women, men and children in the Global South with these severe aid cuts,” Oxfam’s Development Finance Lead Didier Jacobs said in a statement.

Jacobs added that governments are “cutting life-saving aid budgets while financing conflict and militarisation”.

As an example, he pointed to the US, where the Trump administration is expected to request between $80bn and $200bn for the US-Israeli war with Iran, which has currently been paused amid a tenuous ceasefire.

The administration has separately requested a historic $1.5 trillion for the US military for fiscal year 2027.

“Governments must restore their aid budgets and shore up the global humanitarian system that faces its most serious crisis in decades,” Jacobs said.