operations

The U.S. Air Force has concluded what it describes as a “critical exercise” with Anduril’s YFQ-44 Fury ‘fighter drone’ prototype, flown out of the base that is the heart of flight testing, the legendary Edwards Air Force Base, California. The drills involved the Air Force’s Experimental Operations Unit and were intended to demonstrate how CCAs can be deployed and sustained in a contested environment. For the exercise, the YFQ-44A flew from Edwards back to Anduril’s Southern California test site.

As well as the Experimental Operations Unit (EOU), which falls under Air Combat Command (ACC), the exercise involved personnel from Air Force Materiel Command’s (AFMC) 412th Test Wing. This wing is headquartered at Edwards Air Force Base, and the squadrons attached to it are responsible for flight testing of virtually all the aircraft in the Air Force’s inventory.

Multiple sorties were flown — we have asked Air Combat Command for more details on exactly how many and their scope. The exercise took place last week, according to Anduril’s vice president of autonomous airpower, Mark Shushnar.

The YFQ-44 is one of two designs now being developed as part of the first phase, or Increment 1, of the Air Force’s CCA program. The other is General Atomics’ YFQ-42A Dark Merlin. We have reached out to Edwards to see whether the YFQ-42 was originally expected to take part in the exercise before its recent takeoff accident.

Imagery published by the Air Force shows a YFQ-44A carrying inert AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) on pylons under the wings, something that we first saw earlier this year, during captive-carry evaluations, as you can read about here. It should be noted that the Fury, at least as it exists now, does not have an internal munitions bay.

The primary function of the exercise was to explore the practicalities of what the Air Force calls the Warfighting Acquisition System. This framework is intended to speed the delivery of CCAs to operational units by enabling operators to get their hands on the drones earlier in the program. In this way, they can refine tactics and procedures before deliveries to the front line.

ACC has stressed in the past how it wants CCAs to operate seamlessly within the existing command structures and legal frameworks that govern all Air Force weapons systems.

“This experimental operations event was executed by EOU members from start to finish. Every sortie generated and flown was done with a warfighter, not an engineer or test pilot, kicking the tires and controlling the prototypes,” explained Lt. Col. Matthew Jensen, EOU commander. “We are learning by doing, at a speed and risk tolerance accepted by the USAF’s most senior leaders, to ensure CCA is ready to operate and win in the most demanding combat environments.”

Above all, the sorties stressed operational and logistical procedures for using CCAs in a contested environment. The issue of logistics is a critical one, including how CCAs will get to the area of operations and how they will be maintained in the field.

According to Shushnar, Anduril’s Menace-T command, control, communications, and compute (C4) solution was used as the main ground element for YFQ-44A flight operations during the exercise. “EOU operators used Menace-T’s ruggedized laptop to upload mission plans, initiate autonomous taxi and takeoff, task the aircraft while in flight, and manage post-flight data ingestion and checks,” he explained. “That enabled the EOU to conduct operations out of a simulated forward operating base, successfully launching, recovering, and turning YFQ-44A without the infrastructure of a large, established base.”

This is entirely in line with the Air Force’s drive toward short-notice and otherwise irregular deployments, often to remote, austere, or otherwise non-traditional locales. Agile Combat Employment (ACE) is the term the service currently uses to describe a set of concepts for distributed and disaggregated operations.

While the warfighters of the EOU were at Edwards to carry out the practical aspects of CCA employment, exploring tactics, techniques, and procedures, the 412th Test Wing, meanwhile, was on hand to gather data from the test events.

“By uniting the distinct test authorities of AFMC and the operational authorities of ACC, officials were able to fast-track the event, enabling groundbreaking, hands-on experimentation by operators at a uniquely early stage of development,” the Air Force explained in a media release.

“The collaboration we saw in this exercise is the cornerstone of our acquisition transformation. By embedding the operators from the EOU with our acquisition professionals, we create a tight feedback loop that lets us trade operational risk with acquisition risk in real-time,” said Col. Timothy Helfrich, portfolio acquisition executive for fighters and advanced aircraft. “This isn’t just a test; it’s a demonstration of how we are adopting a more agile process. An 85 percent solution in the hands of a warfighter today is infinitely better than a 100 percent solution that never arrives.”

The CCA program is viewed as a pathfinder for the Warfighting Acquisition System, and success with this could lead to the same approach being employed to get other systems into operational service much more quickly than in the past.

The Air Force has not yet determined whether it will procure one or both Increment 1 CCA designs at scale. Whichever option it selects is expected to become its first operational “fighter drones,” built to carry live munitions into combat alongside crewed aircraft.

CCAs will also extend the sensor coverage of the crewed fighters they accompany. More broadly, the Air Force views them as a way to add vital combat mass and unlock new tactical options, particularly in high-end conflicts against adversaries like China. Back in late 2024, Brig. Gen. Douglas “Beaker” Wickert, commander of the 412th Test Wing, told TWZ that, “[the-then Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall] “has been very clear that we are out of time, that our Air Force has never been older or smaller than it is right now, and that the People’s Liberation Army has been specifically designed to defeat us.”

“The investments we’re making right now in modernization and testing for the USAF are designed for success and aimed at changing Chairman Xi’s calculus about pushing back aggressively against the international rules-based order. What we are doing here and across USAF flight-testing is extremely consequential.”

Since then, Wickert has moved on to become Director of Air, Space and Cyberspace Operations at AFMC, but the test wing’s remit remains the same. Meanwhile, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force has doubled down on its rapid expansion, including many of its own CCA programs.

If all goes to plan, the completion of this recent exercise at Edwards could well be a key milestone in fielding a combat-ready force of CCAs and go some way toward realizing the Air Force’s ambition for a new capability that should extend the reach and the survivability of its crewed aircraft.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Mérida, April 8, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Energy multinational Shell is reportedly in advanced negotiations with the Venezuelan government to expand its operations in the country’s offshore natural gas fields

According to Reuters, the London-based oil and gas giant is seeking rights to exploit four major fields in Venezuelan waters near the maritime border with Trinidad and Tobago.

Shell wants to move beyond the 4.2 trillion cubic feet (tcf) Dragon field project, which it is set to develop alongside Trinidad’s National Gas Company (NGC) after receiving a 30-year license from the Venezuelan government in December 2023.

The company is currently targeting three additional fields that, together with Dragon, comprise the Mariscal Sucre project: Río Caribe, Patao, and Mejillones. The four fields represent approximately 12 tcf of reserves combined.

Shell likewise aims to accelerate operations in the 7.3 tcf Loran field, which forms part of the Loran-Manatee cross-border reservoir with Trinidad. The firm is already developing the Manatee side in Trinidadian waters, and spokespeople referred to Loran, which remains largely untapped, as an “attractive investment opportunity.” 

If the deals are finalized, Shell would gain access to a combined resource base of approximately 20 tcf of Venezuelan natural gas, with plans to process it into liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Trinidadian facilities.

Shell CEO Wael Sawan stated during the late March CERAWeek conference in Houston that the company could reach a final investment decision (FID) on at least two Venezuelan projects “before the end of this year, if afforded the right fiscal and legal frameworks.” Sawan added that there is “a long way to go” before the projects launch but that he was “encouraged” by recent progress.

A primary hurdle in the current negotiations is the status of the Río Caribe and Mejillones fields, which had partial ownership stakes previously assigned to Rosneft and then transferred to Russian state-owned Roszarubezhneft in 2020. Both fields have remained largely untouched.

In a statement to Reuters, a Shell spokesperson confirmed that the Russian part-ownership is “a problem” but expressed confidence in overcoming it.

For its part, the government of Trinidad and Tobago has maintained a supportive stance toward the integration of Venezuelan gas into its domestic infrastructure. Port of Spain possesses significant idle capacity at its Atlantic LNG facility, partly owned by Shell, due to declining domestic production in recent years.

The Trinidadian Energy Chamber recently expressed optimism that the expanded Shell projects in Venezuelan waters would “boost [Trinidadian] exports and generate much-needed foreign currency.”

However, the recent negotiations have drawn internal scrutiny. Former Energy Minister Kevin Ramnarine noted that while the deals will benefit Trinidad’s LNG exports, it effectively transitions the country into a gas importer.

The acceleration of talks for natural gas concession projects in Venezuelan waters follows the January 2026 reform of the Caribbean nation’s Organic Hydrocarbon Law. The pro-business overhaul granted private corporations significant benefits in terms of reduced fiscal responsibilities and increased control over operations and sales.

In addition to offshore natural gas ventures, Shell additionally signed agreements to take over light and medium-crude projects in the Punta de Mata Division in eastern Venezuela.

For the Dragon Project, the proposed development plan involves drilling subsea wells in Venezuelan waters and tying them to the Hibiscus platform off the north coast of Trinidad. The Loran field is expected to be linked to the Manatee platform.

Alongside Shell, BP had also previously progressed in talks to exploit the Cocuina-Manakin joint field. Both energy corporations recently received US Treasury licenses to negotiate contracts with Caracas under restricted conditions.

The Nicolás Maduro government had suspended all joint natural gas projects with Trinidad in late 2025 after the Kamla Persad-Bissessar government openly supported the Trump administration’s Caribbean military build-up ahead of the January 3 military strikes against Venezuela. Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores were kidnapped by US special forces.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The rescue of the F-15E weapon systems officer (WSO) missing in Iran after his fighter was shot down was one of the most complex and dangerous missions the U.S. military can undertake. These kinds of operations can come in many forms. In this case, before the WSO was finally recovered from the mountain crevice where he was hiding, a forward arming and refueling point (FARP) deep inside enemy territory had to be rapidly set up and secured so that it could act as a staging area for the aircraft, equipment and troops taking part in the mission. This is an exact mission set U.S. special operations forces train for extensively.

To get more insights about how such a FARP would be set up and operated, we reached out to Kyle Rempfer, a former Special Tactics Squadron (STS) airman who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. STS units are an elite cadre of operators who work to control aircraft in the air, including from airfields they establish deep inside contested territory, and direct airpower onto the enemy, among other duties, including rescuing personnel trapped behind enemy lines. They are often paired with special operations units, such as SEALs, Delta Force and Rangers, to bring their unique skills to their missions.

Air Force Special Tactics – the Air Force’s ONLY Special Operations Ground Force

Rempfer, a journalist and former colleague of the author at Military Times, offered unique insights into the process as someone who trained for these missions.

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

Q: What happens in the Special Tactics Squadron level when the word comes out that there’s an aircraft down deep into enemy territory? 

A: By this point in the campaign, Air Force Special Tactics teams – which are made up of combat controllers (CCTs) and pararescue jumpers (PJs) – would have surveyed or identified scores of Iranian runways and austere airfields that can be used for landing zones or drop zones down the line. Even if CCTs hadn’t set foot on these sites, they’d have pulled imagery of the locations and started using tools like AutoCAD, a surveying and mapping software, to sketch out the dimensions of an airfield and identify what type of aircraft could land there. Is this a site that could only work for a light short take off and landing (STOL) aircraft, or could we land something bigger like a C-17? Those types of questions are on their minds. And since this event appears to have happened near the Isfahan nuclear facility, it can be assumed that Special Tactics has been scoping out landing zones in that area since at least this war started, maybe far earlier. 

For this mission, the Special Tactics team just needed someplace to land a couple of MC-130J Commando IIs. Those are designed to infiltrate and exfiltrate special operations troops into and out of the hinterlands, so an agricultural runway intended for crop-spraying planes would fit the bill in terms of dimensions. But on the ground, the soil strength might not hold up for repeat landings, or perhaps the recent weather has eroded the area or left it muddy. That can have an impact, and there are tools like dynamic cone penetrometers that Special Tactics teams use to assess soil strength. They’ve used those and a host of other tools to scout airfields all around potential conflict zones in Africa, northern Iraq, Syria, etc., but given the tight security in Iran, that probably was not feasible to do in advance here. So the soil strength might have been a known-unknown going in. 

Q: What would happen once the FARP is set up?

A: They can do these fast. Everything is prestaged, even inside the MC-130. AH-6 Little Bird helicopters were probably offloaded and taking off within minutes, not hours, and beaming toward the WSO’s beacon. At that point, the team at the FARP site is pulling security and talking to all the aircraft overhead. Those pilots and aircrews are using sensors to monitor all the roadways that plausibly lead to the site, and potentially even putting warheads on those roadways to make them unusable. We know there were some diversionary bomb drops as part of the rescue, so they could also take that time to put big potholes in the roads.

Q: Can you talk about what systems, personnel and equipment would have secured the site?

A: The people who are surveying and setting up the landing zone and FARP are probably CCTs [Combat Control Teams] from the 24th Special Tactics Squadron. They would have had imagery to look at ahead of the mission, but you might not know what level of stress the ground can take until you physically get there. CCTs are trained to inspect that, blow up obstacles on the runway if needed, scan enemy activity around the landing site, etc., and then set up the austere airfield to start accepting planes and helos. They might not have had time to do a full-on reconnaissance mission, of course. 

CCTs have dirt bikes, something like a Kawasaki KLR 250, that they can drive up and down the airstrip for quickly setting up lights and visually inspecting the terrain. The lights they’d use to create the airstrip would be set up to infrared mode so only people with night vision devices can see them. This isn’t the early days of Afghanistan, though, and night vision devices have proliferated to such a degree that infrared lights are no longer the game changer they once were. However, it still prevents civilians from seeing the operation at night, and that is important given reports that Iranian state media was mobilizing the population to look for the downed airman. 

Q: Who would be brought in for force protection?

A: The CCTs of course are not alone at the landing zone. They had DEVGRU (SEAL Team 6) for security and dozens of aircraft backing them up with an absolutely jarring amount of aerial firepower. CCTs are usually also certified JTACs so they can manage the aircraft stacks not just for landing the MC-130s and AH-6s returning from the WSO rescue, but also the dozens of aircraft overhead that can fire at targets as necessary.

Q: Reports indicate that the WSO climbed up a 7,000 foot crevice and hid out there with intermittent communications while the Iranians were looking for him. How does that complicate things? And what would the team on the ground be doing?

A: I imagine that all the communications would have been encrypted – not anything that the Iranians could listen in on. For the guys on the ground, the biggest situation is monitoring to make sure that other forces aren’t approaching the area and protecting that forward arming and refueling site, because while it’s not a base, for all intensive purposes it is the center of mass of the most U.S. forces, the safest zone you have. So basically probably just protected that site. 

Q: What would be happening in the air?

A: You would have ISR assets that would be scanning the area, and not just the immediate area, but probably any roads and highways leading up to where that FARP site was set up. They would be watching anyone who could possibly be approaching. 

That whole area would just be soaked with ISR assets, and I know the Iranians knocked out two Reaper drones during the operation. So presumably, there was plenty of ISR. 

There would be a mix of attack and surveillance aircraft. There would be dozens of aircraft available for this mission. That is great for the team on the ground, but just like an air traffic control tower at Ronald Reagan Airport in DC can be overburdened, so will the JTAC who’s on the ground controlling all these different pilots and aircrews calling in to report threats they’ve spotted, relay their fuel or munitions status, report radio chatter they’re picking up from the ground, etc. This could require multiple JTACs on the ground, and probably also pilots in A-10s or F-35s who can act as an extra layer of forward air control in the sky, handling aircraft check-ins and keeping track of specific assets so the JTACs on the ground aren’t losing their minds mind handling a massive air stack behind enemy lines. 

Most CCTs also have a JTAC certification, so they can help call in airstrikes as needed to protect the FARP site. And attack aircraft, like A-10s, or multi-role fighters, like F-35s, also have pilots who are certified as Forward Air Controller (Airborne) — or FAC(A). The E-3 can also provide a command and control function to help manage this complex battlespace. 

Q: How difficult is a mission like this? What are the dangers?

A: This would have been a hot refueling site, with engines running refueling, and you’re doing all that blacked out, and you have to probably keep the amount of radio chatter on the ground to a minimum because you don’t know if maybe Iran does have something where they can break through the encryption. 

So I would imagine that the danger is even more than just the IRGC coming in and shooting at you. The danger is  the technicalities that you’re dealing with, with the forward  arming and refueling sites and all these aircraft moving around under night vision in blacked out conditions in a tight area. It’s a small airfield, you have to keep your signature low.

Thankfully, they were able to get more aircraft in to usher everyone out. But that just shows how even what they were dealing with, the runway probably wasn’t built to handle these kinds of aircraft, or not maintained. 

Clearly this kind of operation – where you’re coming in, setting up an airfield, whether it’s for a follow-on parachute jump or even just air landing more troops and supplies – would be repeated in most of the other scenarios people are talking about. For instance, going in and digging out Iran’s enriched uranium. I think it would have to be pretty similar. You would send in a special tactics team with some Ranger recce guys, and the Ranger reconnaissance company would maybe parachute in, and check out the airfield, and they would start bringing in the MC-130s. It’s going to be a remote, austere airfield. It’s not going to be easy to land aircraft there, it’s not going to be well maintained, and you’re going to run into a lot of problems on the ground with aircraft. 

In addition to the fixed-wing planes, the U.S. also destroyed a reported four Little Birds on the way out. Imagine if you’re trying to do sustained operations bringing aircraft in, that all those aircraft are wearing down that obscure runway as you’re coming in, and you’re having more and more troops flow in. Your signature is going to be bigger and it’s going to be there for a longer time. 

So this is how you create a window into a country to conduct follow-on operations. In this case, it was just to look for one guy and pick him up. But, they’re obviously looking at runways and airfields all across the country, whether they’re actual runways that are in use by the Iranian government or municipal governments, or if they’re just like roads that they can use or dirt fields that they think they can land on. So this rescue mission was probably a snapshot into larger operational planning.

Q: After the rescue of the pilot, the search for the WSO seemed to turn fairly quickly from a traditional PJ mission to a Tier One rescue operation. Can you talk about that transition and how those two fit together?

A: That’s right. From my understanding, there were two missions. The first was a traditional CSAR mission that was launched in daylight immediately after the F-15E went down. This likely involved the PJs from a rescue squadron that was on standby. They were aboard HH-60W Jolly Greens and had refueling support from an HC-130J. That mission is obviously very risky and time sensitive. They’re flying low and slow, in daylight, and vulnerable to ground fire. We saw people shooting at them with small arms, which probably won’t do much barring really lucky shots, but the crews are still exposed to man portable air defense systems (MANPADS).

You can see Iranians firing small arms at the CSAR aircraft in the following video.

This initial CSAR package successfully recovered the F-15E pilot, who would have had a beacon and survival radio. But obviously the WSO was still at large. Perhaps they knew his location but couldn’t get to him before the region came alive like a bees’ nest – with everyone from locals to actual security forces scouring the scene. At that point, it appears the mission shifted from a more traditional CSAR operation conducted by a rescue squadron to something we’re actually more familiar with from Afghanistan and Iraq – Tier One raids into denied territory. This makes sense to me because this was the single most important mission going on, and it makes sense to flood this with assets to successfully pull off a second pick up. In a bigger war, I doubt downed aircrew can expect JSOC rescue parties every time one of them goes down. 

A lot of people were surprised that MC-130s and AH-6s were used for this, but it actually reminds me a lot of the early Afghanistan missions Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) conducted in fall 2001, before the Taliban fell. At least one of these involved Air Force Special Tactics CCTs parachuting into a remote part of Afghanistan, setting up a dirt airstrip, landing two MC-130s, off-loading a couple of Little Birds and then flying those around all night striking Taliban targets.

This rescue raid isn’t too different. It sounds like Air Force Special Tactics CCTs surveyed the airfield in advance – maybe in person, maybe just using satellite imagery – and then brought in the MC-130s that held the AH-6s to actually conduct the rescue that grabbed the WSO. This sort of scheme makes sense given the distance inside Iran. The MC-130s can bring extra fuel and ammunition to set up a mini-special ops refueling and re-arming site.

One thing to note here is why the commandos reportedly blew up the MC-130s on the way out. If the government’s version of events is accurate, this might have been because the runway was not suitable for the MC-130s and those planes got stuck or damaged landing there. The CCTs may have known this was a possibility but determined it was the least bad option. There’s also the possibility the aircraft were more damaged by enemy fire than we’ve been told. We may never know. 

Q: What would be the biggest danger from the Iranians? Indirect fire like artillery? Drones?

A: Hard for me to say. If the team had the element of surprise, which it seemed to, then the Iranians would have been caught off guard enough that they didn’t have time to stage artillery or have drones already scanning the area. In that case, I could see the biggest threat being local police or civilians stumbling upon the site early in the mission. As the operation gets underway, the noise signature would probably attract more and more attention. And then you have IRGC teams speeding to the scene. If they’re moving fast, they might only have small arms, maybe some belt-fed machine guns, small caliber mortars, and potentially MANPADs. The longer the U.S. team was on the ground, the more time Iran had to rush forces to the scene and that’s when things appeared to get dicey, the Army’s Delta Force reportedly had to blow in place the MC-130s and call in a quick reaction force (QRF) for pickup. 

Because people keep asking, the WSO was extracted on little birds flying STS and DEVGRU. Smoke checked 9 EKIA on tgt. The QRF that got called in for the FARP was from Delta. https://t.co/mmCbzrRjys

— Jack Murphy (@JackMurphyRGR) April 5, 2026

This is also why having so many aircraft overhead would be useful. Not only are those planes there to strike targets, they can listen to enemy communications and local civilian radio chatter, they can use their sensors to scan all the routes leading up to the airfield, and they can use jamming and spoofing to befuddle the Iranian response. All that helps buy time. 

Q: What kinds of geospatial tools would have been used to find and prep the site and carry out the mission?

A: I imagine in advance of this mission the airfields and runways in this area were pre-scouted using satellite imagery. I’m probably too out of date to go into specifics even if I wanted to, but we have very high resolution satellite imagery that’s available in the commercial space and is very impressive. Additionally, aircraft can fly over sites and scan the terrain using LIDAR to build 3D maps of the environment. Suffice to say, the CCTs would have a great picture of the environment before going in, but being physically on the ground shows new problems — can the soil hold up to landing an MC-130? How fine is the sand? When the AH-6s take off, are they creating a brown-out environment? 

In an ideal scenario, the CCTs could parachute in before the main mission, conducting a high-altitude, high-opening (HAHO) jump and then confirming on the ground that the site will work to land an MC-130. We don’t know if that’s what happened, but if the reporting is accurate that an MC-130 got stuck and had to be blown up in place, then perhaps they made a mistake or – my bet – they knew the runway was rough and accepted the risk.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

March 30 (UPI) — The United States has reopened its embassy in Caracas, Venezuela, after seven years, marking a concrete step toward restoring diplomatic relations between the two countries, according to an official statement released by the U.S. mission.

In that statement released Monday, the U.S. representative in Venezuela, Laura Dogu, confirmed that Washington “formally resumed operations” in Caracas, signaling the return of permanent diplomatic staff and the beginning of a new phase in bilateral relations.

The announcement comes weeks after a key symbolic gesture: the raising of the U.S. flag at the diplomatic compound on March 14, exactly seven years after it was lowered in 2019, when both countries broke relations.

Venezuelan media reported that the ceremony was led by Dogu, who said the act marked “a new era” in bilateral ties.

According to members of the diplomatic mission, the reactivation will allow resumption of key functions, such as engagement with political actors and civil society, outreach to the business sector and rebuilding facilities, with the aim of restoring consular services in the future.

The United States closed its embassy in Caracas in March 2019 amid Venezuela’s political crisis. Since then, diplomatic management had been handled through the United States External Office for Venezuela based in Bogotá.

Although the embassy has resumed operations, the full restoration of consular services and the appointment of an ambassador have not yet been announced, indicating the process remains in an initial phase.

The resumption of operations takes place in a context of gradual rapprochement between both governments after recent political changes in Venezuela and could have implications in areas such as energy, migration and trade relations.

The plans, which fall short of a full invasion, could involve raids by special operations and conventional infantry troops, The Washington Post reported.

The Pentagon is preparing for weeks of limited ground operations in Iran, potentially including raids on Kharg Island and coastal sites near the Strait of Hormuz, according to United States officials quoted by The Washington Post newspaper.

The plans, which fall short of a full invasion, could involve raids by special operations and conventional infantry troops, the Post reported on Saturday, exposing US personnel to Iranian drones and missiles, ground fire, and improvised explosives.

Whether President Donald Trump would approve any of those plans remains uncertain, according to the report.

“It’s the job of the Pentagon to make preparations in order to give the Commander in Chief maximum optionality. It does not mean the president has made a decision,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, responding to questions over the Post report.

The Trump administration has deployed US Marines to the Middle East as the war in Iran stretches into its fifth week, and has also been planning to send thousands of soldiers from the army’s 82nd Airborne to the region.

On Saturday, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said about 3,500 additional soldiers arrived in the Middle East on board the USS Tripoli.

The sailors and marines are with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit and arrived in the region on March 27, along with “transport and strike fighter aircraft, as well as amphibious assault and tactical assets”, according to CENTCOM.

Officials speaking to The Washington Post said discussions within the administration over the past month have touched upon the possible seizure of Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub in the Gulf, and raids into other coastal areas near the Strait of Hormuz to find and destroy weapons that can target commercial and military shipping.

According to the report, one person said the objectives under consideration would probably take “weeks, not months” to complete, while another put the potential timeline at “a couple of months”.

The Pentagon had not responded on Saturday to the Post’s requests for comment. Iran has yet to respond to the report.

The report comes as Pakistan, which shares a 900km-long (559-mile) border with Iran, mediates between Washington ‌and Tehran, hosting two days of talks starting on Sunday with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Egypt.

Iranian threats

The Iranian parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said on Sunday the “enemy openly sends messages of negotiation and dialogue and secretly plans a ground attack”.

“Unaware that our men are waiting for the arrival of American soldiers on the ground to set fire to them and punish their regional partners forever. Our firing continues. Our missiles are in place,” the Tasnim news agency reported, quoting Ghalibaf.

“Our determination and faith have increased. We are aware of the enemy’s weaknesses, and we clearly see the effects of fear and terror in the enemy’s army.”

It was not clear whether Ghalibaf was responding to the Post report.

On Wednesday, Ghalibaf had warned that intelligence reports suggested that “Iran’s enemies” ⁠were planning to occupy an Iranian island with support ‌from an unnamed country in the region.

He said any such attempt would be met with targeted attacks on the “vital infrastructure” of the regional country – which he did not name – that assists in the operation.

Tasnim quoted an unnamed military source as saying on Wednesday that Iran could open a new front at the mouth of the Red Sea if military action takes place on “Iranian islands or anywhere else in our lands”.

The source told Tasnim that Iran can pose a “credible threat” in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, ⁠which lies between Yemen and Djibouti.

Tasnim later quoted an “informed source” claiming that Yemen’s Houthi rebels, backed by Iran, are prepared to play a role “if there is a need to control the Bab al-Mandeb Strait to further punish the enemy”.

March 16 (UPI) — The Israeli military announced Monday that soldiers were conducting “limited and targeted ground operations” in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah, amid its larger war against the militant organization’s backer, Iran.

Israeli troops were reported in Lebanon earlier this month, but Monday’s announcement appears to formalize and broaden the mission. The language in the announcement was also consistent with other reports that Israel may be planning to significantly expand its ground operation.

“This activity is part of broader defensive efforts to establish and strengthen a forward defensive posture, which includes the dismantling of terrorist infrastructure and the elimination of terrorists operating in the area, to create an additional layer of security for residents of northern Israel,” the IDF said in a social media statement.

Israel has been attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon for years, and launched a ground operation there in October 2024 that ended with a fragile cease-fire, with both sides accusing the other of violations. Fighting erupted again late last month after the United States and Israel launched a war against Iran.

Specifics about the ground operation were minimal, including the day it began, with the IDF stating on Telegram that the troops entered Lebanon “in recent days.”

Troops from the 91st Division are conducting what the Israel Defense Forces called “limited and targeted ground operations” against Iran-backed Hezbollah strongholds.

Videos of the operation taken from apparent night-vision cameras worn by the soldiers and distributed by the IDF online show Israeli forces and military vehicles seemingly operating in southern Lebanon.

The operation was aimed at enhancing the forward defense area and was part of broader efforts to strengthen Israel’s forward defensive posture, the IDF said, which is consistent with reporting by Axios that Israel plans to seize all of Lebanon south of the Litani River and will be a major operation.

The IDF said airstrikes were conducted before the soldiers of the 91st Division moved in, with a Hezbollah site attacked on Saturday. Troops on Sunday searched the area and found a storage facility housing dozens of rockets, explosive devices and guns, it said in a Monday update on the operation.

Photos included in the release show rockets laid upon a couch inside a debris-filled residence.

Two Hezbollah operatives were also killed, it said, stating the militants had advanced on the Israeli troops.

“The IDF will continue to operate with determination against the Hezbollah terrorist organization following its deliberate decision to attack Israel on behalf of the Iranian regime,” the IDF said.

“The IDF will not tolerate any harm to the residents of the State of Israel.”

The Israeli army says its forces are striking key sites in southern Lebanon, as fierce clashes with Hezbollah continue near the town of Khiam.

The Israeli military says its troops have begun ground operations in southern Lebanon as fighting against Hezbollah intensifies around the strategic southern town of Khiam.

At least three air strikes struck the city of Khiam, Al Jazeera Arabic reported on Monday.

Khiam, a stronghold of Hezbollah, is strategically located and is seen as a gateway to southern Lebanon. The latest war started after Hezbollah fired rockets in response to the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Hezbollah had not attacked Israel since the 2024 ceasefire despite repeated Israeli violations of the United States-brokered deal.

On Monday morning, two Israeli air raids targeted the town of Yater, Al Jazeera Arabic reported. There were no immediate reports of casualties or damage.

Israel also launched raids on Burj Qalawiya, Sultaniya and Chaqra, also in southern Lebanon, according to Al Jazeera Arabic. Two raids were also conducted on the towns of Qantara and as-Sawana.

The Israeli army, in a post on X, said on Monday that its troops in recent days were “focused on ground operations on key targets in southern Lebanon to expand the forward defence area”.

“This operation is part of the effort to establish the forward defence, which includes destroying terrorist infrastructure and eliminating terrorists,” it added.

Importance of Khiam

Khiam sits on high ground just a few kilometres from the Israeli border and the Litani River, giving it a commanding view over northern Israel and nearby Lebanese plains.

Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr said a “major battle was under way” in and around Khiam. “The elevation of Khiam for both sides gives them a strategic advantage,” she said.

Moreover, Khodr noted the town lies on a “long and important junction … a road that leads to the eastern and western sectors of southern Lebanon”.

“One of the roads leads to the Bekaa Valley too in eastern Lebanon, another area where Hezbollah has influence,” she said.

“What Israel has been trying to do is really cut the supply lines and the difficult capabilities of Hezbollah, so it’s unable to bring in more weapons and fighters to areas south of the Litani River.”

More than 800,000 people, including women and children, have been forced to flee from their homes as the Israeli army issued evacuation orders for many neighbourhoods in southern Lebanon, as well as the capital, Beirut.

Israeli attacks in Lebanon have so far killed at least 850 people, among them 107 children and 66 women.