Russia

Medvedev, who arrived in the US after leaving the UAE via Oman amid Iranian attacks, ends world number one’s 16-match run.

Daniil Medvedev has handed top-seeded Carlos Alcaraz his first loss of the year and advanced to the final at the Indian Wells Open after arriving at the tournament from the midst of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

The 11th-seeded Medvedev advanced with a 6-3, 7-6 (3) victory on Saturday and will face second-seeded Jannik Sinner, who beat Alexander Zverev 6-2, 6-4 in the California-based tournament.

Alcaraz had won 16 straight matches this year, including titles at the Australian Open and Qatar Open, but Medvedev ended the possibility of an Alcaraz versus Sinner final.

Medvedev had dropped his last four meetings against Alcaraz, including a loss in the Indian Wells final in 2024. This was Medvedev’s first victory over him since the US Open semifinals in 2023.

The Russian player was stuck in the United Arab Emirates for three days following his title win at the Dubai Tennis Championship on February 28, the day the United States and Israel attacked Iran to launch a region-wide conflict.

Medvedev’s participation in the premier US West Coast-based tournament looked doubtful after he was unable to leave Dubai for two days due to airspace closure.

The 30-year-old was able to exit on the third day by crossing over into Oman by land after a six-hour drive along with fellow players Andrey Rublev and Karen Khachanov.

From Oman, the players boarded a flight to Istanbul before leaving the Turkish city to arrive in the US two days before their opening matches at Indian Wells.

“You feel like you’re in a Hollywood movie,” Medvedev told the Russian media outlet Bolshe of his multi-leg journey to arrive at the tournament that he seemed likely to miss.

Medvedev had been scheduled to play in the Eisenhower Cup, a one-night Tie Break Tens doubles event alongside fellow Russian Mirra Andreeva on March 3, but missed the exhibition event.

Meanwhile, Sinner made quick work of Zverev in the second semifinal, beating the German in one hour, 23 minutes. Sinner notched six aces against the fourth-seeded Zverev.

Zverev won his first eight points on serve. But Sinner broke Zverev in the fifth and seventh games to secure the first set. Sinner now leads the head-to-head series against Zverev 7-4.

Neither Medvedev nor Sinner has dropped a set yet in this tournament. Sinner has won his last three matches against Medvedev, including the US Open quarterfinals in 2024.

In the women’s doubles final, Taylor Townsend and Katerina Siniakova beat Anna Danilina and Aleksandra Krunic 7-6 (4), 6-4. The victory marked Townsend’s first at Indian Wells and Siniakova’s second. Siniakova also won in 2023 alongside longtime partner Barbora Krejcikova.

In the men’s doubles final, Guido Andreozzi and Manuel Guinard topped Arthur Rinderknech and Valentin Vacherot 7-6 (3), 6-3. In mixed doubles, Belinda Bencic and Flavio Cobolli beat top-seeded Gabriela Dabrowski and Lloyd Glasspool 6-3, 2-6, 10-7.

Contradicting his secretary of State and other top officials, President Trump on Saturday suggested without evidence that China — not Russia — may be behind the cyberattack against the United States and tried to downplay its impact.

In his first comments on the breach, Trump scoffed at the focus on the Kremlin and minimized the intrusions, which the nation’s cybersecurity agency has warned posed a “grave” risk to government and private networks.

“The Cyber Hack is far greater in the Fake News Media than in actuality. I have been fully briefed and everything is well under control,” Trump tweeted. He also claimed the media are “petrified” of “discussing the possibility that it may be China (it may!).”

There is no evidence to suggest that is the case. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo said late Friday that Russia was “pretty clearly” behind the attack.

“This was a very significant effort and I think it’s the case that now we can say pretty clearly that it was the Russians that engaged in this activity,” he said in the interview with radio talk show host Mark Levin.

Officials at the White House had been prepared to put out a statement Friday afternoon that accused Russia of being “the main actor” in the hack, but were told at the last minute to stand down, according to one U.S. official familiar with the conversations who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

It is not clear whether Pompeo got that message before his interview, but officials are now scrambling to figure out how to square the disparate accounts. The White House did not immediately respond to questions about the statement or the basis of Trump’s claims.

Throughout his presidency, Trump has refused to blame Russia for well-documented hostilities, including its interference in the 2016 election to help him get elected. He blamed his predecessor, Barack Obama, for Russia’s annexation of Crimea, has endorsed allowing Russia to return to the Group of 7 of nations and has never taken the country to task for allegedly putting bounties on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

Pompeo in the interview said the government was still “unpacking” the cyberattack and some of the details would likely remain classified.

“But suffice it to say there was a significant effort to use a piece of third-party software to essentially embed code inside of U.S. government systems and it now appears systems of private companies and companies and governments across the world as well,” he said.

Though Pompeo was the first Trump administration official to publicly blame Russia for the attacks, cybersecurity experts and other U.S. officials have been clear over the past week that the operation appears to be the work of Russia. There has been no credible suggestion that any other country — including China — is responsible.

Democrats in Congress who have received classified briefings have also affirmed publicly that Russia, which in 2014 hacked the State Department and interfered through hacking in the 2016 presidential election, was behind it.

It’s not clear exactly what the hackers were seeking, but experts say it could include nuclear secrets, blueprints for advanced weaponry, COVID-19 vaccine-related research and information for dossiers on government and industry leaders.

Russia has said it had “nothing to do” with the hacking.

While Trump downplayed the impact of the hacks, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has said it compromised federal agencies as well as “critical infrastructure.” Homeland Security, the agency’s parent department, defines such infrastructure as any “vital” assets to the U.S. or its economy, a broad category that could include power plants and financial institutions.

One U.S. official, speaking Thursday on condition of anonymity, described the hack as severe and extremely damaging.

“This is looking like it’s the worst hacking case in the history of America,” the official said. “They got into everything.”

Trump had been silent on the attacks before Saturday.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Brian Morgenstern told reporters Friday that national security advisor Robert O’Brien has sometimes been leading multiple daily meetings with the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the intelligence agencies, looking for ways to mitigate the hack.

He would not provide details, “but rest assured we have the best and brightest working hard on it each and every single day.”

The Democratic leaders of four House committees given classified briefings by the administration issued a statement complaining that they “were left with more questions than answers.”

“Administration officials were unwilling to share the full scope of the breach and identities of the victims,” they said.

Pompeo, in the interview with Levin, said Russia was on the list of “folks that want to undermine our way of life, our republic, our basic democratic principles. … You see the news of the day with respect to their efforts in the cyberspace. We’ve seen this for an awfully long time, using asymmetric capabilities to try and put themselves in a place where they can impose costs on the United States.”

What makes this hacking campaign so extraordinary is its scale: 18,000 organizations were infected from March to June by malicious code that piggybacked on popular network-management software from an Austin, Texas, company, SolarWinds.

It’s going to take months to kick elite hackers out of the U.S. government networks they have been quietly rifling through since as far back as March.

Experts say there simply are not enough skilled threat-hunting teams to identify all the government and private-sector systems that may have been hacked. FireEye, the cybersecurity company that discovered the intrusion and was among the victims, has already tallied dozens of casualties. It’s racing to identify more.

Many federal workers — and others in the private sector — must presume that unclassified networks are teeming with spies. Agencies will be more inclined to conduct sensitive government business on Signal, WhatsApp and other encrypted smartphone apps.

“We should buckle up. This will be a long ride,” said Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and former chief technical officer of the leading cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. “Cleanup is just Phase 1.”

Florida became the first state to acknowledge falling victim to a SolarWinds hack. Officials told the Associated Press that hackers apparently infiltrated the state’s healthcare administration agency and others.

SolarWinds’ customers include most Fortune 500 companies, and its U.S. government clients are rich with generals and spymasters.

If the hackers are indeed from Russia’s SVR foreign intelligence agency, as experts believe, their resistance may be tenacious. When they hacked the White House, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the State Department in 2014 and 2015 “it was a nightmare to get them out,” Alperovitch said.

The Pentagon has said it has so far not detected any intrusions from the SolarWinds campaign in any of its networks — classified or unclassified.

The war in the Middle East is exposing how dependent the world is on a handful of strategic chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz – a narrow waterway in the Gulf – is closed.

The longer this goes on, the faster the global energy map could be reshaped.

From Europe to Asia, countries are facing mounting supply risks and the threat of an inflation shock.

If the conflict between the US, Israel and Iran drags on, alternatives will be hard to find.

But, Russia is shaping up to be a major beneficiary, with soaring prices filling Moscow’s coffers despite Western sanctions.

WASHINGTON — Russia is emerging as one of the few early economic beneficiaries of the war with Iran, as disruptions to energy infrastructure drive up demand for Russian exports and the world casts its gaze to the Middle East and away from Moscow’s war in Ukraine.

The U.S. and its European counterparts slapped severe sanctions on Russia in March 2022, barely a month into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The effect was a stranglehold on Russia’s exports, depriving Putin’s war effort of at least $500 billion, experts say. But over the last week, as President Trump’s war in the Middle East choked energy markets worldwide, the White House began easing its restrictions on Moscow.

“It is traitorous conduct for you to help Russia,” California Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) said on X, demanding the Trump administration reverse course. “Russia is giving intelligence info to Iran that helps Iran target American forces.”

Crude droplets rained over Tehran after Israeli airstrikes decimated oil depots, draping the Iranian capital in a dense smog. Iranian counterattacks have also targeted refineries and oil fields in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Crude oil prices have surged, and traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has all but ceased, sending energy importers in search of alternate sources.

Those spikes are giving Russia, one of the world’s largest oil and gas exporters, a rare advantage. After spending a decade as the world’s most sanctioned nation over his aggression in Ukraine, Putin is finally starting to regain some leverage in global markets.

“In the current economic situation, if we refocus now on those markets that need increased supplies, we can gain a foothold there,” Putin said at a meeting at the Kremlin on Monday, according to Russian state media. “It’s important for Russian energy companies to take advantage of the current situation.”

On March 4, the Treasury Department issued a temporary 30-day waiver allowing Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil. The appeal by the Trump administration was described as a way to ease demand for Mideast oil, but was criticized as a reversal of sanctions placed against Putin meant to deny him the capital needed to fund his occupation of eastern Ukraine.

Now, Moscow is poised to press that advantage further, after Trump said Monday he will further lift sanctions on oil-producing countries to ease the trade friction and reintroduce additional oil and gas supplies. The only countries with U.S. oil sanctions are Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

“So, we have sanctions on some countries. We’re going to take those sanctions off until this straightens out,” Trump said at a news conference at his golf club in Doral, Fla. “Then, who knows, maybe we won’t have to put them on — they’ll be so much peace.”

The surprise concession to Moscow comes as reports suggest Russia is assisting Iran in targeting U.S. personnel.

Trump’s announcement followed an unscheduled hourlong call with Putin about the situation in the Middle East.

The war has also set the stage for Russia to make gains in Ukraine, as hostilities draw the global spotlight away from Kyiv and its struggle to hold back the bigger Russian army. U.S.-brokered talks between the two adversaries have been sidelined as Washington shifts focus to its war in Iran.

“At the moment, the partners’ priority and all attention are focused on the situation around Iran,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on X. “We see that the Russians are now trying to manipulate the situation in the Middle East and the Gulf region to the benefit of their aggression.”

Putin is unlikely to intervene militarily on Iran’s behalf, according to Robert English, an international foreign policy expert at USC. Instead, Putin is expected to play his position carefully, reap the economic rewards, and keep focused firmly on Ukraine at a time when key air defense systems are diverted from Ukraine to the Persian Gulf.

“Russia is winning the Iran-U.S.-Israel war, at least so far. Oil and natural gas prices have soared, filling Putin’s Ukraine war chest,” he said. “Russia is gathering forces for a big spring offensive in Eastern Ukraine, and it’s not even front-page news.”

Ukraine has dispatched drone interceptors and ordered its anti-drone experts to pivot from their war with Russia to help Western allies help intercept Iranian attacks. Zelensky’s allegiance may not pay off, English said.

“When will Ukraine see the benefits of helping the U.S. with anti-drone technology? No time soon, apparently,” he said.

Even several weeks of interruption in Gulf energy supplies could bring the largest windfall to Russia, the Associated Press reported, citing energy analysts.

The economic turmoil caused by the war has exposed vulnerabilities in Europe’s energy system, particularly its lingering dependence on Russian fuel.

Despite sanctions, the European Union remains a major purchaser of Russian natural gas and crude oil. Russian gas accounted for approximately 19% of E.U. gas imports in 2025. Allied Europeans have agreed to completely stop importing Russian liquefied natural gas, oil and pipeline gas by late 2027.

Putin expressed no desire Monday to rescue the European market now that U.S.-Israeli escalations and Iranian retaliation have choked oil production and shipping. The Russian president instead proposed to divert volumes away from the European market “to more promising areas” like the Asia-Pacific region, Slovakia and Hungary, which he said were “reliable counterparties.”

European leaders have been criticized for being “stunned, sidelined, and disunited” since hostilities began in late February. Excluded from the initial military planning by the U.S. and Israel, Europe entered the conflict with gas storage at only 30% capacity, the lowest levels in years. Instead of bold action, English said, European leaders have quarreled over internal divisions and rivalries.

“Sky-high energy prices are the underlying cause of many of these frictions, as Europe struggles now more than ever to find affordable alternatives to the cheap Russian petroleum,” English said.

Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, told European leaders in Brussels on Tuesday that rising energy prices and the world’s shifting attention risk strengthening the Kremlin at a critical moment in the war in Ukraine.

“So far, there is only one winner in this war,” Costa said. “Russia.”

Ukrainian and Russian officials have claimed battlefield successes in the more than four-year war, as Russian air attacks on Ukraine continue.

At least four people were killed in Russian attacks on the Ukrainian town of Sloviansk, regional authorities said on Tuesday.

The governor of Sloviansk, Vadym Filashkin, confirmed the death toll on Tuesday and said 16 others were wounded, including a 14-year-old girl. He said Russian forces dropped three guided bombs on the city.

There was no immediate comment from Moscow on the attack.

Overnight drone strikes on three other Ukrainian cities wounded at least 17 people, including two children, emergency services said.

Ukraine’s air force said that it shot down 122 out of 137 drones that Russia launched during the night.

Warring parties claim advances

Ukrainian forces have recently retaken nearly all the territory of the southeastern Dnipropetrovsk industrial region during a counteroffensive, driving Russian troops out of more than 400 square kilometres (150sq miles), Major-General Oleksandr Komarenko said in an interview published Tuesday by local media outlet RBC-Ukraine.

He described the overall situation on the front line as difficult but under control, with the heaviest fighting continuing near Pokrovsk in eastern Ukraine and Oleksandrivka in the south, where he said Russian forces have concentrated their main effort.

There was no independent verification of his description of the military situation.

The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, said late Monday that recent Ukrainian counterattacks “are generating tactical, operational and strategic effects that may disrupt Russia’s spring-summer 2026 offensive campaign plan”.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that Russian forces have extended their gains in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, whose capture Moscow has made one of the goals of its invasion. Ukraine controlled about 25 percent of the Donbas six months ago, but it now holds just 15-17 percent, Putin said.

In Russia, the governor of the border region Bryansk, said a Ukrainian missile strike on Bryansk city had killed at least six people and wounded 37 others.

Alexander Bogomaz said those killed were civilians and that the wounded were admitted to the Bryansk Regional Hospital.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the attack hit a Russian missile plant.

At the same time, a United Nations investigation found that the deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 had amounted to “crimes against humanity”.

The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for President Vladimir Putin and five other Russian officials in 2023 over the alleged illegal deportation of children, which Moscow denies and said it has been evacuating people voluntarily from a warzone.

Trilateral talks ‘next week’

United States special envoy Steve Witkoff told the CNBC news outlet on Tuesday that the next round of trilateral talks between Ukraine, Russia and the US would likely be “sometime next week”.

Trilateral talks were first held in January in the United Arab Emirates; a second meeting was held in February in Geneva, Switzerland. Last year, Russia and Ukraine also held three rounds of talks in Turkiye, yet so far the two countries remain no closer to a deal as key issues, including Russia’s control of Ukrainian territory, are yet to be resolved.

Moscow has repeatedly said it would only agree to a deal that allows it to retain the territories it has seized, while Ukraine has said its territory must be returned in any deal.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Turkiye was prepared to host the next round of trilateral talks after speaking with his Turkish counterpart, President Tayyip Erdogan, on Tuesday.

Vladimir Putin has presented multiple proposals to mediate the conflict in Iran, according to the Kremlin. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that the proposals are “still on the table,” emphasizing Russia’s readiness to help reduce tensions.

Peskov noted that any diplomatic solution requires coordination across multiple parties and agreements, signaling that Moscow intends to play a careful, measured role rather than rushing into mediation. This framing underscores Russia’s attempt to position itself as a credible intermediary while retaining influence over the conflict’s trajectory.

Recent Putin-Trump Contact

The remarks came after a phone call between Putin and Donald Trump on Monday, in which Putin reportedly offered options to end the Iran war quickly. Trump publicly said that Putin “wants to be helpful,” but added that resolving the Ukraine conflict would be an even more useful contribution.

The exchange highlights how Russia’s involvement in Iran is intertwined with its broader geopolitical interests, particularly in Europe and the Middle East. Moscow’s dual focus on positioning as a mediator and protecting its strategic priorities in Ukraine illustrates its careful diplomatic balancing act.

Russia-Iran Relations and Strategic Calculations

Russia maintains a strategic partnership with Iran, which provides it leverage in regional energy and security affairs. While Moscow has condemned U.S. and Israel military actions against Iran, it has also economically benefited from the resulting surge in oil prices.

Reports that Russia may have shared targeting intelligence with Tehran have drawn scrutiny, although Peskov declined to confirm or deny them. By avoiding direct comment, Russia preserves operational flexibility and manages international perceptions, allowing it to maintain influence with Iran while publicly projecting a mediating stance.

Analytical Perspective: Mediation Amid Strategic Interests

Russia’s position reflects a calculated effort to balance diplomacy and national interest. Keeping mediation proposals publicly “on the table” serves several purposes:

1. Diplomatic Leverage: By signaling willingness to mediate, Russia positions itself as a necessary interlocutor for any resolution, increasing its bargaining power with both the U.S. and Iran.
2. Strategic Buffering: Moscow preserves its ties with Tehran, protecting a partner in the Middle East while benefiting from higher oil prices amid global supply shocks.
3. Geopolitical Messaging: The Kremlin is communicating to the West that Russia can influence outcomes in the Middle East, reinforcing its image as a global power capable of shaping crises beyond its immediate borders.

This approach highlights a broader Russian strategy: maintain engagement in multiple theaters simultaneously Ukraine, Iran, and energy markets while avoiding overt entanglement that could provoke direct confrontation with the U.S. or NATO.

Conclusion: Patient Diplomacy as a Strategic Tool

Moscow’s emphasis on patience and coordination indicates that Russia is playing the long game, using mediation as a tool to expand influence rather than as a purely humanitarian effort. Analysts suggest that this approach allows Russia to extract maximum strategic advantage, balancing its regional partnerships, energy interests, and global standing, while leaving room to maneuver depending on how the Iran conflict evolves.

Russia’s dual role as both potential mediator and strategic partner to Tehran exemplifies the complex interplay of diplomacy, energy politics, and military calculation in the Middle East.

With information from Reuters.

Antonio Costa says Russia benefits from soaring global energy prices and attention being diverted from war in Ukraine.

European Council President Antonio Costa has said Russia is the only country benefitting from the US-Israeli war on Iran, as global energy prices soar and attention from Moscow’s four-year conflict with Ukraine is diverted.

Now in its 11th day, the war has spiralled rapidly throughout the region as Iranian forces hit back at US and Israeli targets, as well as facilities in the Gulf. It has also slowed oil and natural gas flows through the strategic Strait of Hormuz to a near standstill, pushing fuel prices upwards and threatening far-reaching impacts on a number of industries.

“So far, there is only one winner in this war – Russia,” Costa said in a speech to European Union ambassadors in Brussels on Tuesday.

“It gains ‌new resources to finance its war against Ukraine as energy prices rise. It profits from the diversion of military capabilities that could otherwise have been sent to support Ukraine. And it benefits from reduced ⁠attention to the Ukrainian front ⁠as the conflict in the Middle East takes centre stage.”

Costa stressed the need for the EU to protect ⁠the international rules-based order, which he said was now being challenged ⁠by the United States, ⁠and for all parties in the Middle East to return to the negotiating table.

“Freedom and human rights cannot ‌be achieved through bombs. Only international law upholds them,” he said. “We must avoid further escalation. ‌Such ‌a path threatens the Middle East, Europe, and beyond.”

The US and Israeli attack on Iran triggered the biggest spike in oil prices on Monday since the turmoil following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Costa’s comments came as the Kremlin said all parties wanted to continue US-mediated Russia-Ukraine peace talks, but that no date or venue had been agreed yet for the next round.

Russia and Ukraine held three rounds of talks in Turkiye last year and have conducted several more US-mediated sessions in Abu Dhabi and Geneva this year. But they remain far apart on key issues, especially on Russia’s demand for Ukraine to cede control of the whole of its eastern Donetsk region.

On Monday, US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, held their first phone call of the year, during which they discussed the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

The Kremlin said the possibility of lifting US sanctions on Russian oil had not been discussed in any detail with Washington, but that US actions were aimed at stabilising global energy markets.

Following this call, Putin said Russia, the world’s second-largest oil exporter and holder of the biggest natural gas reserves, was ready to work again with European customers if they wanted to return to long-term cooperation.

Before the Ukraine war, Europe was buying more than 40 percent of its gas from Russia. By 2025, combined sales of pipeline gas and LNG from Russia accounted for only 13 percent of total EU imports.

Also on Monday, Trump said his administration would lift some sanctions on oil-producing countries to keep energy prices down – though he did not say which ones.

Washington currently maintains sanctions on the oil sectors of Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

The Reuters news agency, citing multiple unnamed sources, reported that Trump was considering easing sanctions on Russia as part of his plans to keep oil prices down.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week announced a 30-day waiver on sanctions on Russian oil sales to India to help it cope with the cuts to Middle East supply.

Dozens of civilians, including children, wounded by an Iranian drone strike in Bahrain. France deploying warships to secure shipping commerce in the Strait of Hormuz. Australia taking heat from President Trump over its handling of the Iranian women’s soccer team. Markets across Asia plunging as the price of oil surged.

Lebanon reporting half a million people displaced by fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. The U.S. State Department telling nonessential staff to get out of Saudi Arabia after attacks there killed workers from India and Bangladesh. Ukrainian anti-drone experts turning their attention from their war with Russia to help intercept Iranian attacks. The defense minister of ever-neutral Switzerland saying his country believes the U.S.-Israeli war violates international law.

In less than two weeks, the Trump administration has instigated a truly global conflict — and with no quick and clear path to resolution, despite Trump insisting to congressional Republicans gathered at his Miami resort Monday that it would be a “short term excursion.”

“Short term! Short term!” Trump said in a bullish speech about the conflict, in which he said “the world respects us right now more than they have ever respected us before.”

“We’re counting down the minutes until they will be gone,” he said of Iran’s remaining leadership, while adding that the U.S. “will not relent” until Iran is “totally and decisively defeated.”

The war is not isolated to Iran, though it has certainly caused devastation there — with more than 1,300 deaths reported and toxic clouds from strikes on fuel depots hovering over Tehran, a city of some 10 million people.

The war’s effects also are not limited to the Middle East, though they are widespread there — as Israel has pushed into Lebanon and Iran has launched a wave of retaliatory strikes on U.S. allies across the Persian Gulf. The fighting has grounded regional air traffic, threatened desalination facilities that provide drinking water to millions and undermined the safe reputation of modern metropolises such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Unlike the recent U.S. incursion into Venezuela to capture and oust President Nicolás Maduro, the U.S. war on Iran has been met with stiff resistance militarily, drawn in a slew of allies, reignited proxy battles, drastically destabilized the oil trade and shifted dynamics between the U.S. and other major powers such as China and Russia.

China, which gets upward of 50% of its crude oil imports through the Strait of Hormuz, has largely stayed out of the conflict, though China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Sunday that the war “should never have happened” and “benefited no one.”

Trump said Monday that the U.S. is less harmed by strait disruptions, and was “really helping China” by securing the strait.

Russia, meanwhile, has emerged the lone winner of energy disruptions in the region, said Robert David English, a UCLA international policy analyst — as the Trump administration considers reducing oil sanctions on Russia to take pressure off of Mideast sources.

Trump said he had a “good talk” with Russian President Vladimir Putin about Iran on Monday. He also said the U.S. was going to suspend sanctions against other countries in order to alleviate strain on oil markets while the Iran conflict persists, but did not provide specifics.

The scope of the war has been dictated in part by Iran, which has historically limited its responses to U.S. strikes but warned after the U.S. bombed its nuclear sites last summer that it would treat any new attacks — large or small — as an act of war, and respond in kind.

Its strikes on U.S. facilities and allies throughout the region reflect that strategy, and are aimed in part at making the war more politically costly for the U.S. by straining global markets and its regional allies, experts said.

However, “you can’t attribute the increasingly global characteristics of the conflict solely to an Iranian strategy, because wars in this region tend to spill over the longer they last, with unintended consequences” including “bringing in all kinds of actors that don’t want to be involved,” said Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology who teaches courses on Iran and Middle East politics at the UCLA International Institute.

That can serve as a deterrent to starting wars in the region, he said, but “also makes them more difficult to wind down.”

The surge in oil prices to nearly $120 a barrel Monday — before a remarkable reversal to below $90 by the time U.S. stocks closed — is one of the furthest-reaching effects of the war, and one that clearly had Trump’s attention.

“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace. ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!” Trump wrote on social media Sunday.

How long prices will remain elevated or volatile is a matter of debate, but Trump’s “short term” projections have been undercut by increasing strikes on oil and gas facilities in the region.

“If you can tolerate oil at more than $200 per barrel, continue this game,” Ebrahim Zolfaghari, a spokesperson for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Sunday.

Prices at the pump have surged for average Americans, some of whom were attracted to Trump’s candidacy because of his promises to avoid foreign wars and focus on driving down the cost of living for U.S. citizens.

Now, Trump and other administration officials are facing questions about their own role in putting the world at war, and offering various different justifications. They’ve asserted without proof that the U.S. faced an imminent threat of attack from Iran. Trump has repeatedly hinted that his goal was removing the government.

President Trump speaks at the Republican Members Issues Conference on Monday at Trump National Doral Miami in Doral, Fla.

(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)

In the meantime, Iran has shown no signs of bowing to Trump, rejecting his calls for “surrender” and for him to have a say in naming their next leader. Iran installed Mojtaba Khamenei after Trump said the hard-liner son of the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be “unacceptable.”

The choice was hailed by the president of Azerbaijan and the leader of Yemen’s Houthi rebels, among other allies.

To date, seven U.S. service members have been killed in the conflict, according to U.S. officials. Every day, U.S. taxpayers are on the hook for nearly $1 billion in war costs, according to one estimate. Democrats have slammed Trump for both.

“This war is coming from the same President that is building a $400 million ballroom in the White House. The same President that says $100 for a barrel for oil is worth it. The same President that doubled healthcare premiums for millions of Americans. But we have money for another endless war?” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) wrote Monday on X.

Other world leaders focused on the global economic impact.

Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which transports about 20% of the world’s oil, has nearly halted, while producers in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates ceased oil operations without open routes for export.

In response, French President Emmanuel Macron suggested French and other allied naval assets could escort oil tankers in the strait, shifting the security burden there from Washington onto Europe, leaving European vessels vulnerable to hostilities and potentially drawing the European Union deeper into the conflict.

Already, they’ve agreed to allow the U.S. to use bases in their territories, though the U.S. and Spain got into a spat after Spain rejected U.S. use of its bases and Trump threatened U.S. trade with the country.

Macron on Monday also threw additional military support behind Cyprus, following a meeting with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis at a Cyprus air base.

France will dispatch an additional 11 warships to operate across the eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, Macron said, after an Iranian drone struck a British military base on Cyprus on Monday.

“When Cyprus is attacked, it is Europe that is attacked,” Macron said.

Located just 150 miles from Israel in the eastern Mediterranean, the island of Cyprus has emerged as a strategic — and exposed — nerve center in the U.S. offensive against Iran. It hosts vital British military bases and acts as an intelligence, surveillance, and logistics hub in countering Iranian influence and proxy attacks.

Britain’s Defense Secretary John Healey said Monday that the United Kingdom was conducting air defense to support the UAE, and that Typhoon jets had taken out two drones — one over Jordan and the other headed to Bahrain.

Trump suggested Monday that the U.S. was on the path toward victory, but acknowledged it had not accomplished all of its goals.

“We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough,” he said — adding the conflict will end “pretty quickly.”

He said Iran had been “very foolish, very stupid” when it attacked its neighbors, hurting its own chances of success in resisting the U.S.

“Their neighbors were largely neutral, or at least weren’t gonna be involved, and they got attacked,” Trump said. “And it had the reverse effect. The neighbors came onto our side, and started attacking them.”

Iran may still attempt to widen the conflict’s economic and geopolitical impact to keep up pressure and push for a ceasefire in its favor, but that could also backfire, said Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations.

“Iran’s becoming increasingly like North Korea in this sense,” he said, “isolating itself further.”

Russian president spoke as oil prices surged past $100 per barrel, reaching levels unseen since start of Ukraine war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Russia is ready to conditionally supply oil and gas to Europe as the US-Israeli war on Iran brings shipments through the Strait of Hormuz to a halt.

The Russian president said in televised comments on Monday that Moscow was ready to work again with European customers, which largely stopped buying from his country in a bid to stop funding its war on Ukraine, if they wanted to return to long-term cooperation.

European countries, however, have spent the past four years sharply reducing their reliance on Russian oil and gas in response to Moscow’s war in Ukraine and subsequent European Union and Group of Seven (G7) sanctions.

The EU banned maritime imports of Russian crude in 2022, while Russia’s pipeline exports to Hungary and Slovakia have been effectively halted since January due to damage to the Druzhba oil pipeline via Ukraine.

“If European companies and European buyers suddenly decide to reorient themselves and provide us with long-term, sustainable cooperation, free from political pressures, free from political pressures, then yes, we’ve never refused it. We’re ready to work with Europeans too,” said Putin at a meeting with government officials and heads of Russia’s top oil and gas producers.

He said that Russian companies should take advantage of conflict in the Middle East, which has seen Iran effectively halt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s key oil transit chokepoints that carries roughly a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas.

The Russian president spoke as oil prices exceeded $100 per barrel on Monday, reaching peaks unseen since he launched his country’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Brent crude, the international benchmark, rose by more than 30 percent on Sunday, at one point topping $119 a barrel, as fears grew of prolonged disruption to global energy supplies.

G7 nations said on Monday that they were prepared to implement “necessary measures” in response to surging global oil prices, but stopped short of committing to release emergency reserves.

Putin’s comments came hours after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban urged the European Union to suspend sanctions on Russian oil and gas to counter prices sent soaring by the war in the Middle East.

Last week, Putin had instructed the government to consider switching remaining Russian oil and gas flows away from Europe, before the European Union starts enforcing its decision to completely ban Russian fossil fuels.

Before the Ukraine war, Europe was buying more than 40 percent of its gas from Russia. By 2025, combined sales of pipeline gas and LNG from Russia accounted for only 13 percent of total EU imports.

The loss of the European market during the Ukraine war forced Russia to sell oil and gas at steep discounts to Asia.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that Kyiv could provide defensive systems as well as assistance to civilians and American soldiers “deployed in certain countries” in the Middle East as the war in Iran continues.

He has reportedly proposed an exchange of Ukrainian defensive technology to combat Iranian drones in return for advanced US defensive systems to use in the war against Russia.

The US-Israel-Iran conflict, which started 10 days ago when the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran and killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has continued to escalate. Iran has responded with strikes on Israel and US military assets and other infrastructure in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

As Gulf and other Middle Eastern states continue to attempt to intercept incoming drones and missiles with US-supplied air defences, the US has asked Ukraine to contribute some of its own air-defence systems.

Here is what we know.

What has the US requested from Ukraine and why?

The US has asked for Ukraine’s help in defending Washington’s allies in the Middle East against Iranian missile attacks on infrastructure and US military assets, Ukraine’s president confirmed last week.

At the moment, the US is using air defence systems such as the Patriot, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries and Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, to intercept Iranian drones and missiles targeting its military assets in the region. The Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) and PAC-3 are advanced surface-to-air missile defence systems.

However, these types of systems are extremely expensive, costing millions of dollars for each interceptor missile fired, and there are concerns that supplies of US interceptor missiles could run low.

“We received a request from the United States for specific support in protection against ‘shaheds’ in the Middle East region,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post on March 5.

Shahed drones, particularly the Shahed-136, are Iranian-designed “kamikaze” or loitering munitions which are very low cost compared to the interceptors being used by the US. Costing roughly $20,000-$35,000 each, these GPS-guided drones are about 3.5m (11.5 feet) long and fly autonomously to pre-programmed coordinates to strike fixed targets with explosive payloads. They blow up as they hit their targets.

Over the course of the Iran war, Shahed-136 drones have targeted Middle Eastern countries including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE where US military assets and troops are hosted. Experts estimate that Iran has thousands of these drones.

Iran has also been supplying Moscow with many thousands of Shahed drones during Russia’s war on Ukraine.

During the course of Russia’s four-year war on Ukraine, Ukraine’s domestic arms industry has been forced to innovate, building low-cost interceptor drones priced at roughly $1,000 to $2,000 to counter Russian attacks with imported Iranian Shahed-136s.

Kyiv is now mass-producing these low-cost interceptor drones.

“The role of Shahed-type drones in long-range attacks has become more prominent in Ukraine after Russia took Iranian technology, improved it, and built it in previously unimaginable numbers,” Keir Giles, a Eurasia expert for the UK-based think tank Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.

What has Zelenskyy said?

Zelenskyy has posted several statements on social media confirming that he is ready to help Middle Eastern countries defend their territories by providing technical expertise.

“Ukrainians have been fighting against ‘shahed’ drones for years now, and everyone recognises that no other country in the world has this kind of experience. We are ready to help,” he wrote on X on March 5.

“I gave instructions to provide the necessary means and ensure the presence of Ukrainian specialists who can guarantee the required security.

“Ukraine helps partners who help ensure our security and protect the lives of our people.”

It is understood that Ukraine is in talks with several Middle Eastern countries about this.

On Monday, Zelenskyy said Ukraine has deployed interceptor drones and a team of specialists to help protect US military bases in Jordan.

Zelenskyy wrote on X that he has also spoken directly to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) about “countering threats from the Iranian regime”.

He also said he had spoken with the leaders of Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE.

Zelenskyy has repeatedly stressed that Ukraine must not weaken its own air defences. However, it is mass-producing this equipment now, and may well be able to afford to share.

“The fact that there are surplus capabilities ready to be sent to the US and the Middle East is unsurprising because Ukraine has led this innovation,” Giles said.

Zelenskyy has therefore proposed an exchange of air defence systems with the US ones being used in the Middle East.

“We ourselves are at war. And I said, completely frankly, that we have a shortage of what they have. They have missiles for the Patriots, but hundreds or thousands of ‘shaheds’ cannot be intercepted with Patriot missiles – it is too costly,” Zelenskyy said.

“Meanwhile, we have a shortage of PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles. So, when it comes to technology or weapons exchange, I believe our country will be open to it.”

Zelenskyy may also have good political reasons for extending help, analysts say.

“The US has declined support for Ukraine on the ground that it had insufficient supply of air defence munitions, and now more of those Patriots have been fired in the Middle East in a few days, than have been supplied to Ukraine in four years,” Giles said.

“Zelenskyy will be aware that in providing this assistance, he is not only shaming the US, but also directly supporting potential friends and partners in the Middle East, who before now have been ambivalent to the situation in Ukraine,” Giles said.

Who else has sent defensive backup to the Gulf?

European countries including the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy have pledged to provide defensive backup to Gulf nations over the past week. Additionally, Australia said it was deploying military assets to the region.

Wary of becoming directly involved in the US-Israeli war on Iran, European countries have nevertheless been drawn into the conflict by attacks on a British base on Cyprus in the Mediterranean and Iranian strikes on Western allies in Gulf countries that host US troops in military bases.

What will happen next?

Just as Ukraine is getting involved in the war, Russia might too, say experts.

“We should not be surprised if before long, as well as Russian technology in Iranian drones, we see Iran launching Shaheds manufactured in Russia,” Giles said.

He described Russia as a “primary beneficiary of current US actions,” pointing to how the surge in oil prices, the relaxation in US curbs on Russian energy exports to keep crude and gas prices under control, and the diversion of air defence munitions from Europe to the Middle East all helped Moscow. These, he said, “are all lifelines for Russia”.

Middle Eastern crises seldom stay localized. They frequently go well beyond the battlefield in terms of politics, strategy, and psychology. Officials in Beijing, Moscow, Taipei, and Kyiv will be keeping a tight eye on events surrounding Iran today, in addition to those in Tehran, Washington, and Tel Aviv. Power perceptions are shaped by situations like this, and in international politics, perception can be almost as important as actual power.

The current state of affairs presents an unsettling question for China and Russia. A large-scale military operation against a prominent regional actor will unavoidably send signals about the balance of power in the international system if it continues without significant opposition from other big states. The Middle East is not where those signals will end. They will visit other geopolitical hotspots, like Taiwan and Ukraine, where credibility is crucial to deterrence.

Iran has progressively evolved into more than simply another diplomatic friend in Beijing’s eyes. It now plays a part in China’s larger Eurasian economic and strategic strategy. Beijing has been building energy and transportation networks that connect western China to the Arabian Sea through projects like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Chinese planners considering long-term energy security have taken note of the geographical proximity of the Pakistani port of Gwadar to Iran’s Jask Oil Terminal.

Beijing has long sought variety, which these lines provide. Chinese strategists have been concerned about dependence on maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca for decades. The energy lifelines of the second-largest economy in the world could be threatened by any interruption there. Iran fits into China’s attempt to lessen that vulnerability because of its location and resources. Trade in energy has already strengthened ties between the two nations. Iran has quietly emerged as a major supplier of cheap crude to China in spite of U.S. sanctions. Both nations are able to avoid some aspects of the Western financial architecture since many of those transactions go through China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System and are settled in renminbi.

However, the partnership has grown beyond oil. Beijing and Tehran signed a long-term strategic agreement in 2021 with the goal of working together on infrastructure, energy, and technology for decades. Later, China backed Iran’s admission to groups like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Then came a diplomatic surprise: Beijing assisted in mediating the reestablishment of ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023, a development that surprised many Western observers.

Taken together, these actions indicated a significant development. China was starting to portray itself not only as a regional economic force but also as a diplomatic player with the ability to influence its political environment.

That ambition makes the current moment particularly sensitive for Beijing. Governments in the Middle East and a large portion of the Global South frequently evaluate great powers based on their actions during times of crisis rather than their words during times of peace. Some capitals may discreetly reevaluate how reliable such support would be in an actual security crisis if China seems unwilling to protect the strategic environment surrounding its alliances.

The ramifications go well beyond Iran. Chinese officials have made it clear time and time again that they would not support Taiwan’s formal independence efforts and will not allow outside meddling in the Taiwan Strait. The legitimacy of those warnings is just as important to deterrence as military prowess. Some Washington policymakers may assume that China is unlikely to take more aggressive action in other areas if Beijing’s response to significant geopolitical shocks involving its partners primarily consists of diplomatic criticism.

Russia faces a different—but no less consequential—set of calculations. Moscow has positioned itself as a major Middle Eastern political mediator for the majority of the last ten years through its military engagement in Syria. Russian soldiers established a key base on the Mediterranean coast and assisted in stabilizing Bashar al-Assad’s regime starting in 2015. From such a vantage point, Moscow participated in almost all meaningful discussions regarding the future of the area.

However, that impact has been diminished. The political landscape has drastically changed as a result of the fall of the Syrian government and the growing power of actors supported by the West in Damascus. In addition to losing a strategic ally, Russia has also lost a significant portion of the regional clout it developed over the course of almost 10 years of diplomatic and military engagement.

In that context, Iran now occupies a far more important place in Moscow’s strategic thinking than it once did. Defense and energy cooperation are two areas where the two nations’ relationship has grown. Iranian drones have contributed to Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, establishing a clear connection between the conflict in Eastern Europe and events in the Middle East. The message would reverberate much beyond the immediate battlefield if Iran were to sustain a significant military defeat at the hands of a concerted operation by the United States and Israel. While opposing major powers stayed mostly on the sidelines, observers from all around the world would see that Washington still had the capability to change regional dynamics.

These impressions build up in geopolitics. Credibility develops gradually, frequently over years, but it can deteriorate rapidly. Some governments may start to doubt the geopolitical benefit of aligning with Moscow if Russia seems incapable—or unwilling—to react when a close ally is under severe strain. However, competing nations might feel more confident to test Russian interests in other disputed areas, such as the Black Sea or Ukraine. However, Moscow’s choices are far from straightforward. In order to lessen the impact of Western sanctions, Russia has been fostering stronger commercial connections with a number of Gulf governments in recent years. Openly supporting Iran might make those relations more difficult. But staying completely silent runs the danger of conveying a contrary message: that when tensions rise, Russian alliances provide little strategic defense.

It seems unlikely that either China or Russia will move quickly to engage in direct combat. There would be significant risks of escalation. However, great-power competition seldom relies solely on choices made on the battlefield. There are plenty of other ways to be influential. Both nations have permanent seats in the UN Security Council. They can guarantee that any military action is politically disputed on the international scene by imposing debates, contesting legal justifications, and introducing resolutions, even symbolic ones. Beyond the Security Council, diplomacy is also important. Sovereignty and non-intervention have long been valued in nations like South Africa, Brazil, and India. Even if it doesn’t instantly change the situation on the ground, coordinated pressure from a larger group of states could influence how the issue is portrayed worldwide.

Another option is economic levers. The energy markets continue to be extremely vulnerable to geopolitical shocks. Major exporters continue to have the power to affect supply and pricing decisions by working with producers in organizations like OPEC+. Even little changes can serve as a reminder to the globe that regional conflicts have far-reaching economic repercussions. Great powers are also capable of sending quieter signals. Regional balances are not changing in isolation, as seen by intelligence collaboration, defensive technology transfers, and conspicuous naval deployments in nearby waterways. These actions convey that other important actors are keeping a close eye on them even while they avoid open confrontation.

Ultimately, this moment’s significance goes well beyond Iran. Expectations about how power functions in the international system are gradually shaped by incidents such as these. The precedent starts to take hold if armed action consistently reshapes regional orders without significant opposition from opposing nations. That precedent unavoidably affects Taiwan’s future for China. For Russia, it relates to both the larger security balance throughout Europe and the continuing conflict in Ukraine. Credibility is crucial in both situations.

Moments like this become inevitable tests if Beijing and Moscow want to maintain an international system where power is more widely spread. It is not always necessary to escalate conflict in order to respond. It often involves proving that significant changes in regional power will not happen completely unchallenged through diplomacy, economic pressure, and strategic signaling. There is meaning in silence as well. In places far from the Persian Gulf, how Tehran interprets that silence now could influence strategic decisions tomorrow.

Pentagon asserts US forces are tracking Russian-Iranian operations amid escalating conflict in the region.

Washington has downplayed reports that Russia is sharing intelligence with Iran about United States targets across the Middle East amid the burgeoning US-Israel war on Iran, first reported by The Washington Post.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a CBS 60 Minutes interview on Friday, said the US is “tracking everything” and factoring it into battle plans when asked about the reports Moscow was aiding Tehran.

Since the war began on February 28, Russia has passed Iran the locations of US military assets, including warships and aircraft, three officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told The Washington Post.

“It does seem like it’s a pretty comprehensive effort,” one of the sources told the newspaper.

Meanwhile, anonymous officials told The Associated Press news agency that US intelligence has not uncovered that Russia is directing Iran on what to do with the information, as the US and Israel continue their bombardment and Iran fires retaliatory salvoes at US assets and allies in the Gulf.

Hegseth said the United States is “not concerned” about the reports, also downplaying the possibility that Russia’s assistance could be putting US citizens in harm’s way.

“The American people can rest assured their commander-in-chief is well aware of who’s talking to who,” Hegseth said.

“And anything that shouldn’t be happening, whether it’s in public or back-channelled, is being confronted and confronted strongly.”

He continued: “We’re putting the other guys in danger, and that’s our job. So we’re not concerned about that. But the only ones that need to be worried right now are Iranians that think they’re gonna live.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Friday also claimed to reporters that “[the report] clearly is not making any difference with respect to the military operations in Iran because we are completely decimating them.”

Leavitt declined to say if Trump had spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin about the reported intelligence sharing or whether he believed Russia should face repercussions, saying she would let the president speak to that himself.

First signs of Moscow’s involvement

Trump, for his part, on Friday evening berated a reporter for raising the matter of the report when he opened the floor to questions from the media at the end of a White House meeting about how paying student-athletes has recalibrated college sports.

“I have a lot of respect for you, you’ve always been very nice to me,” the US president said to Peter Doocy, the Fox News reporter.

“What a stupid question that is to be asking at this time. We’re talking about something else.”

The intelligence is the first indication that Moscow has sought to get involved in the war that the US and Israel launched on Iran a week ago.

Asked whether Russia would go beyond political support and offer military assistance to Iran, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said there has been no such request from Tehran.

“We are in dialogue with the Iranian side, with representatives of the Iranian leadership, and will certainly continue this dialogue,” he said on Friday.

Pushed on whether Moscow has provided any military or intelligence assistance to Tehran since the Iran war’s start, he refrained from comment.

Russia has tightened its relationship with Iran as it looked for badly needed missiles and drones to use in its four-year war against Ukraine. But the pair have long maintained friendly relations, even while Tehran has faced years of isolation from the West over its nuclear programme and its support of proxy groups in the Middle East.

March 6 (UPI) — Russia is helping Iran by giving it intelligence on American troops, ships and aircraft during the U.S. and Israeli assault on the Middle Eastern nation.

The intelligence Iran has received on potential U.S. targets in the region — naval vessels, military bases and the locations of other American assets — has largely been provided using Russia’s massive space-based surveillance apparatus, CNN reported.

It remains unclear exactly what or how much Russia has helped Iran with but The Washington Post, which was the first to report that one of the United States’ longest-running adversaries is assisting the Iranian regime, reported that one its sources said the assistance “does seem like it’s a pretty comprehensive effort.”

Additionally, sources told NBC News that the intelligence could potentially be used to help Iran locate American assets in the region, though there has been no indication that Russia has actually helped direct Iranian attacks against U.S. interests there.

One source that was briefed on the intelligence reported by all three news organizations told CNN that despite Russia’s appearance that it is staying out of the widening conflict in the Middle East, it “still likes Iran very much.”

Dara Massicot, expert on the Russian military at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told The Post that Iran’s “very precise hits on early warning radars or over-the-horizon radars” indicated they were methodically targeting U.S. assets in an effort to undermine American command and control.

When asked by reporters on Friday, President Donald Trump replied that the U.S. is doing “very well” in its plans against Iran and said it was “a stupid question … to be asking at this time.”

“Somebody said, how would you score it from zero to 10?,” NBC News reported Trump said. “I’d give it a 12 to a 15. Their army is gone. … Their navy is gone. Their communications are gone. Their leaders are gone. Two sets of their leaders are gone. They’re down to their third set. Their air force is wiped out entirely. Think of it.”

U.S. intelligence also reportedly suggests that China is considering getting involved in the conflict, with financial assistance, spare parts and missile components potentially being on the table as it worries about access to Iranian oil that it heavily relies on.

Kyiv, Ukraine – As Washington’s Middle Eastern allies use US-made Patriot air defence systems to shoot down Iranian missiles and drones, Ukraine is about to face a dire shortage of ammunition for them.

And Russian President Vladimir Putin is sure to exploit the shortage of pricey guided missiles the truck-mounted Patriots launch at machinegun speed to down his pride and joy, Russia’s ballistic missiles that he once declared were “indestructible”, experts have told Al Jazeera.

The Patriots were developed in the 1970s to down Soviet missiles whose modifications Russia still rains on Ukraine.

The supply of Patriots to Ukraine began in 2023 and was initially limited to several batteries stationed in the capital, Kyiv. The location of the systems was constantly changed to protect them from Russian attacks.

The Patriots utilise advanced radars to detect targets flying at supersonic speeds and launch their guided missiles with the sound that resembles super-fast electronic beats – up to 32 missiles per minute.

But the noise – along with thunderous shockwaves that follow split-second, sun-bright explosions – made Ukrainians feel safe during harrowing, hours-long Russian assaults that have targeted civilian areas and involve hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles.

Within weeks after their deployment, the Patriots intercepted Russia’s Kinzhal (Dagger) intercontinental ballistic missiles that are launched by supersonic fighter jets and fly in the Earth’s stratosphere.

The interceptions disproved Putin’s earlier claims that the Kinzhals made any Western air defence systems “useless”.

The safety, however, came with a hefty price tag – each Patriot guided missile costs several million dollars, and their manufacturing never exceeded more than 900 units a year.

‘Tomorrow’s problem’

Some 800 guided missiles have been used to repel Iranian aerial attacks within just three days after Tehran began raining its missiles and drones on almost a dozen nations, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Thursday.

“Ukraine has never had this many missiles to repel attacks,” Zelenskyy said, reiterating his readiness to dispatch Ukrainian experts and drone interceptors to help Gulf nations counter the attacks.

The shortage of guided missiles is, however, not immediate and may occur in several weeks.

“This is not today’s problem, this is tomorrow’s problem,” Volodymyr Fesenko, head of the Kyiv-based Center for Applied Political Studies (Penta) think tank, told Al Jazeera.

But the problem may become catastrophic.

In recent days, Moscow stopped attacking Ukraine with drones and missiles – a sign of amassing them for massive raids in the near future, Fesenko said.

“Russia’s most obvious actions would be to bleed Ukraine’s stock of Patriot missiles dry to inflict maximal damage on us through massive missile attacks,” he said.

Kyiv already faces a less critical problem with the shortage of missiles for Western-supplied F-16 fighter jets that proved effective in downing Russian missiles.

“The problem is less critical, but also vital for us,” Fesenko said.

Ukraine has experienced a shortage of Patriot missiles before.

Last summer, when the US and Israel struck Iranian nuclear sites, the Pentagon stopped the Patriot missiles’ supply as it was “auditing” its own stocks.

The suspension of Patriot interceptors and HIMARS multiple rocket launchers left Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, including thermal power stations and transport hubs, more vulnerable to Russian attacks.

Russia’s tactics of indiscriminate aerial strikes have been tried and tested over the past four years.

Moscow starts an air raid with drones and decoy drones to make Ukrainian air defence units use as many Patriot missiles as possible.

It then launches several more waves of attack drones and ballistic and cruise missiles.

As to upcoming attacks, “the question is that this time, it won’t be energy infrastructure, but whatever other targets the Kremlin will want to choose”, Kyiv-based analyst Igar Tyshkevych told Al Jazeera.

He referred to devastating attacks on energy and central heating facilities that left millions of Ukrainians without power and heat this winter, triggering health problems and deaths from hypothermia.

Russia already targets sites unprotected by Patriots: Military expert

Meanwhile, Israel and the European nations that pledged to transfer their stock of Patriot missiles to Ukraine are reluctant to do so now.

“Considering the general instability, I don’t think that many nations will open up their stock and pass it on to us,” Tyshkevich said.

Since the supplies of Patriots began, the US-Russian technological battle has kept raging on, according to the former deputy head of Ukraine’s general staff of armed forces, who for decades specialised in air defence.

“There is a confrontation in engineering,” Lieutenant-General Ihor Romanenko told Al Jazeera.

“Russians change something, Americans together with our experts change something else, because remaining on the old [technological] level means losing the battle before it begins.”

Russian engineers “modified software making the [Iskander-M] missiles able to manoeuvre mid-air, and the modernisation largely complicated the operation of the few Patriot systems that we have to destroy them,” Romanenko said.

The Patriots, however, have not become a Ukraine-wide aegis against the Russian strikes.

Ukraine has fewer than a dozen batteries, while Kyiv said it needed at least 25.

Russians “already know that we have but a few Patriot batteries against their ballistic missiles, so they were hitting the sites that had not been covered by the Patriots, or where they had not been deployed,” Romanenko said.

Luckily, Ukraine has an alternative.

A handful of French-Italian SAMP/T systems with solid-fuel anti-aircraft missiles have been deployed to Ukraine since 2023 and showed the advantages of their radars and “engagement logic” with high-speed targets.

While a Patriot battery requires up to 90 support servicemen and takes half an hour to deploy, SAMP/Ts require about a dozen.

But their ability to down modified Russian missiles will have to be battle-tested, Romanenko said.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s increasingly daring drone and missile strikes deep inside Russia destroy or damage their arm depots and plants producing drones and missiles.

In recent weeks, they hit the Admiral Essen, a Russian frigate capable of launching Kalibr cruise missiles from the Black Sea, nine air defence systems in Russia-occupied Donetsk and Crimea, and Russia’s only plant that produces fibre-optic cable for drones.

Foreign Minister Cho Hyun said Friday that Ukraine has assured him that two North Korean soldiers captured while fighting alongside Russia will not be repatriated to Moscow.

Cho made the remarks during a parliamentary session, responding to a lawmaker’s question regarding the captives who remain in Ukrainian custody since they were captured during combat on Russia’s side in the front-line Kursk region in January last year.

Earlier this month, Rep. Yu Yong-weon of the main opposition People Power Party said after visiting Ukraine that Russia had included the two soldiers on its list of prisoners it demanded be released in a prisoner-of-war (POW) exchange.

“I have received confirmation from my Ukrainian counterpart that the soldiers will not be repatriated (to Russia),” Cho said. “There is no need to worry about the possibility of them being sent back to North Korea or Russia.”

Asked to confirm whether the soldiers were on the POW exchange list, Cho avoided giving a straight answer, indicating that Ukraine would not share such details with Seoul.

Cho stressed that disclosing any details about the soldiers could jeopardize their safety, adding that the foreign ministry is making every effort to ensure their safety and bring them to South Korea in accordance with the Constitution.

Through media interviews, the soldiers have expressed their intention to come to South Korea rather than being sent back to the North.

Yu has called for sending a presidential envoy to Ukraine to discuss their defection, saying their repatriation to Pyongyang cannot be ruled out.

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

“I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”
— Donald Trump, in his victory speech Nov. 6, 2024

It’s bad enough that President Trump has broken that oft-repeated pledge and unilaterally started a war, without engaging either Congress or the American public. And that, by his war of choice against Iran, he has in the most perilous way to date betrayed his signature “America First” standard, at least as longtime proponents Marjorie Taylor Greene, Megyn Kelly, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and others mean it, and as many people thought he did too.

What’s even worse than Trump’s mendacity about stopping foreign wars is the broader truth that his war on Iran underscores: In the major theaters of U.S. foreign policy — the Mideast, Europe and Asia — he is essentially letting foreigners set his course, America’s course. And to state the obvious: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping do not have America’s interests at heart.

It has long been a defining contradiction of Trump that the wannabe strongman repeatedly shows himself to be in thrall to the world’s actual strongmen. His affinity for them has for years puzzled observers in this country and abroad. Trump strikes a pose — say, on negotiating with Iran about its nukes program, promising peace in Ukraine, hitting China with tariffs — only to crumple after a phone call, a meeting or a slap back from his opposite number.

It’s always hard for a person without a strong core to maintain a stand.

Obviously different factors are at play in Trump’s relationships with Israel, a U.S. ally, with longtime adversaries Russia and China and, more specifically, with each nation’s leaders. But all three cases reflect a personalization of foreign policy that is dangerously unique to Trump. For him, it’s less “what’s good for my country” than “what’s good for me” and “who likes me.” Time and again, he’s been explicit about that.

For all Trump’s cosplaying as a strongman, he shows his weakness as a national leader when he lets foreign counterparts share the wheel with him. As a consequence, he’s driving America erratically at best. At worst, he’s steering into another costly, bloody “forever war” of the sort he railed against for decades.

He’s gone in a direction in the Middle East that, polls show, pluralities or even majorities of Americans didn’t want to go. Trump has received none of the initial rally ’round support that past presidents enjoyed after initiating military operations. That’s a hazardous place to be domestically. Most Republicans are behind Trump on the war, but not by the usual high numbers. After all, it was disgust with forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that sent many people flocking to Trump’s “America First” banner to begin with.

For years he warned that other presidents and presidential candidates would start a war in Iran, World War III even. Yet here we are. And after days of what Kelly derided on air as the “10,000 different explanations” that Trump has given for attacking Iran and killing its top political and military leaders, on Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphatically provided just one: Because Israel was going to strike Iran first, the United States had to join the attack to protect U.S. personnel and assets in the region from Iran’s retaliation.

Cue the blowback in MAGA world: “He’s flat out telling us that we’re in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand,” MAGA pundit Matt Walsh lashed out online. And then Trump contradicted his secretary of State on the rationale for the attacks. Yet Rubio wasn’t the only one citing Israel’s plans as the war’s predicate. So did House Speaker “MAGA Mike” Johnson. On Tuesday, Trump himself said he had to act fast because the Iranians “were getting ready to attack Israel.”

As Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, responded, “If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the United States, then we are in uncharted territory.”

Similarly, in June, Trump ordered a devastating one-off strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities to support Israel’s 12-day war against Iran. For months after, Netanyahu hounded Trump to stop the subsequent peace talks with Iran and go back on offense with Israel. So now Trump has complied, striking even as negotiations with Iran were ongoing. Sen. Lindsey Graham, the once respected Republican from South Carolina, offered his sycophantic spin: “Bibi and Trump are the modern Roosevelt-Churchill combination.”

The latters’ grave sites surely trembled.

As for Asia, Trump talks a good game against China, and, yes, he’s imposed big tariffs. But just as often he’s backtracked, often after talking with Xi. Trump’s admiration of the Chinese autocrat and his eagerness to please him is palpable. In fact, in dealing with Xi, Trump in both of his terms has violated his own words in “The Art of the Deal”: “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.”

No one is more worried about Trump’s regard for Xi than the Taiwanese, living under threat from China. Just recently Trump delayed arms sales to Taiwan approved by Congress lest he upset Xi ahead of their Beijing meeting in April.

In Europe, meanwhile, Trump continues to be played by Putin at the “peace” table to end Russia’s war in Ukraine — the war that candidate Trump said he’d settle in a day. More than a year later, he continues to harangue Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky to make concessions to the invader, never demanding anything from Putin.

Most heinously, Trump’s 28-point “peace” plan last November incorporated everything that Putin/Russia dreamed of extracting from Ukraine, and for good reason: The proposal came from Moscow, passed from Putin’s flunky to Trump’s. That followed Trump’s humiliating summit with Putin last August in Alaska, giving the globally reviled Russian an American stage and pageantry and serving no purpose for the United States, only for Trump the showman. All the while, Russia continued ravaging Ukraine.

So much for Trump’s election promise. He doesn’t stop wars (his repeated claims to the contrary). But he does start them.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Russia and China, Tehran’s two most powerful diplomatic partners, have labelled the US-Israeli war on Iran that has killed more than 1,000 people a clear violation of international law.

President Vladimir Putin called the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday a “cynical violation of all norms of human morals”.

China’s Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi told his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Saar, that “force cannot truly solve problems” as he urged all sides to avoid further escalation.

Russia and China jointly requested an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

The reaction reflects the close relationship between Iran, Russia, and China. Moscow and Beijing have signed bilateral deals and expanded coordination through joint naval drills, projecting a united front against what they describe as a US-led international order that has long sought to isolate them.

Yet despite their sharp rhetoric, neither has indicated a willingness to intervene militarily to support Iran.

Russia-Iran: Strategic partners, not military allies

In January 2025, Russia and Iran signed a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty covering areas from trade and military cooperation to science, culture, and education.

The agreement deepened defence and intelligence coordination and supported projects such as transport corridors, linking Russia to the Gulf through Iran.

The pair carried out joint military drills in the Indian Ocean as recently as late February, the week before the US and Israel attacked Iran.

However, when the war began, Moscow was not obliged to respond as the treaty did not include a mutual defence clause, meaning it stopped short of forming a formal military alliance.

Andrey Kortunov, the former director general of the Russian International Affairs Council and a member of the Valdai Discussion Club, a Russian foreign policy think tank, told Al Jazeera via videolink from Moscow, that Russia’s 2024 mutual defence treaty with North Korea is an example of a “more binding” agreement on military support.

He said that, under that agreement, Russia would be obliged to join North Korea “in any conflict the country might get involved in”, whereas with Iran, “it just mentioned that both sides agreed to abstain from any hostile actions in case the other side is engaged in conflict”.

Kortunov said Russia is unlikely to take direct military action in support of Iran because the risks would be too high.

He added that Moscow appears to be “prioritising the United States mediation in the conflict with Ukraine”, and noted that Russia has previously taken a similar approach by criticising US actions in places like Venezuela after the US military attack and arrest of its President, Nicolas Maduro, in January.

Although the treaty clearly states that Russia is not obliged to intervene, he said some of his contacts in Tehran have expressed a “degree of frustration”, and there had been an “expectation that Russia should somehow do more than just diplomatic moves in the United Nations Security Council or in other multilateral forums”.

China–Iran ties and their limits

In 2021, China and Iran signed a 25-year cooperation agreement aimed at expanding ties in areas such as energy, while also drawing Iran into China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Jodie Wen, a postdoctoral fellow at the Centre for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University in China, who has travelled frequently to Iran, told Al Jazeera that the relationship is widely viewed in Beijing as pragmatic and stable.

“From the political side, we have regular exchange,” she said over the phone from Beijing, adding, “on the economic side, the cooperation is very deep; many enterprises have investments in Iran.”

Yet she stressed that Beijing has long drawn clear limits around the partnership, particularly regarding military involvement.

“The Chinese government always adheres to not interfering in other countries’ issues … I do not think the Chinese government would send weapons to Iran,” she said.

Instead, Beijing’s role is more likely to focus on diplomacy and crisis management.

“I think China is trying its way to talk with the US side and Gulf countries to keep calm,” she said.

That clarity about the relationship, she added, has helped build trust in Tehran.

Even so, she noted the relationship is not symmetrical.

Vessel-tracking service Kpler estimates that 87.2 percent of Iran’s annual crude oil exports go to China, underscoring how economically significant China is for Tehran, while Iran remains a relatively small partner in China’s global trade.

Dylan Loh, an associate professor in the Public Policy and Global Affairs programme at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, told Al Jazeera that he believes China’s role regarding Iran “has evolved into a protective one, accelerating its mediation effort to prevent a regional collapse that would threaten its own regional economic and security interests”.

“I think there will be some assessment of how to lower the political risks and what sorts of options are available; truth be told, this re-think already started after [the US attack on] Venezuela,” he said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin accuses Ukraine of carrying out a ‘terrorist attack.’

A Russian tanker carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG) has sunk in the Mediterranean between Libya and Malta, as Moscow accused Ukraine of attacking the vessel.

The Libyan port authority said the tanker was hit by “sudden explosions followed by a massive fire, which ultimately led to its complete sinking” on Tuesday night north of the port of Sirte, Libya.

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Ukraine of attacking the gas carrier.

“This is a terrorist attack. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this kind of thing,” Russia’s Putin told a reporter from Russian state television on Wednesday, accusing Kyiv of responsibility.

There was no immediate comment from Ukraine.

Russia’s Transport Ministry said that the Arctic Metagaz, which had been carrying LNG from the Arctic port of Murmansk, was attacked by Ukrainian naval drones launched from the coast of Libya.

It said the 30 crew members, all Russian nationals, were safe, and thanked Maltese rescue services.

“We qualify what happened as an act of international terrorism and maritime piracy, a gross violation of the fundamental norms of international maritime law,” the ministry said.

According to an advisory from Libya’s maritime rescue agency, the Arctic Metagaz sank in waters between Libya and Malta after catching fire on Tuesday night.

It warned vessels to avoid the site where the carrier sank and asked them to report any pollution in the area.

The Libyan port authority said the ship was carrying an estimated 62,000 metric tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) on its way to Port Said, Egypt.

Egypt’s Petroleum Ministry has denied any connection with the tanker.

“The tanker is not listed under any contracts to supply or receive LNG cargoes to Egypt,” the ministry said.

The Arctic Metagaz has been sanctioned by the United States and the European Union as part of Russia’s fleet of ageing tankers that carry oil and gas exports around the world, skirting Western restrictions.

Ukraine has frequently targeted Russian oil refineries and other energy infrastructure in an attempt to deprive Russia’s war machine of funding.

In December, Ukraine said it had hit a Russian tanker with aerial drones in the neutral waters of the Mediterranean Sea, in what was the first such strike there in Russia and Ukraine’s more than four-year war.

March 4 (UPI) — A Russian liquefied natural gas tanker sank in the Mediterranean Sea on Wednesday after catching fire from what Russian officials said was an attack by Ukrainian drones.

Libyan port officials said there were explosions on the ship and it ultimately erupted in flames between Libya and Malta. The tanker was carrying about 62,000 metric ton of liquefied natural gas.

Thirty crew members were rescued and no deaths have been reported, TASS Russian News Agency reports.

Ukraine‘s security service has not commented on the incident.

The Russian Transport Ministry said in a statement that the tanker was attacked by unmanned Ukrainian boats.

The tanker was about 130 nautical miles north of the Sirte, Libya, port when it sank. It departed from the port of Murmansk, Russia.

“We qualify what happened as an act of international terrorism and maritime piracy, a gross violation of the fundamental norms of international maritime law,” the Russian Transport Ministry said in a statement.

“Such criminal actions, carried out with the connivance of the authorities of European Union member states, must not remain without assessment by the international community.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin echoed the statement of the transport ministry, calling it a “terrorist attack.”

The ministry adds that the tanker was operating in “full compliance with all international regulations.”

China’s foreign minister tells Israel to end attacks; Russian FM Lavrov says no sign Tehran seeking nuclear bomb.

Russia and China have criticised the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, with Moscow saying it had seen no evidence that Tehran was developing nuclear weapons, and Beijing demanding an immediate halt to the joint attacks.

Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang ⁠Yi told his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Saar, on Tuesday that the attack on Iran came as negotiations between Washington and Tehran had “made significant progress, including addressing Israel’s security concerns”, China’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

“Regrettably, this process has been interrupted by military action. China opposes any military strikes launched by Israel and the US against Iran,” Wang told the Israeli foreign minister during a phone call, according to the ministry.

“China calls for an immediate cessation of military operations to prevent the further escalation and loss of control of the conflict,” Wang said.

“Force cannot truly solve problems; instead, it will bring new problems and serious long-term consequences,” he added.

According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Saar agreed to a request from Wang to take “concrete measures to ensure the safety of Chinese personnel and institutions” in Iran.

The call on Tuesday with Israel and Beijing’s apparent efforts to stabilise the spiralling regional situation followed calls Wang made on Monday to discuss the conflict with the foreign ⁠ministers of Iran, Oman and France.

‘US doesn’t attack those who have nuclear bombs’

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also criticised the US and Israel on Tuesday, saying their war on Iran could lead to the very outcome they claimed they wanted to prevent: nuclear proliferation.

Lavrov told a news conference that the logical consequence of the US and Israel’s actions could be that “forces will emerge in Iran… in favour of doing exactly what the Americans want to avoid – acquiring a nuclear bomb”.

“Because the US doesn’t attack those who have nuclear bombs,” Lavrov said.

Lavrov also said that Arab countries could now join the race to acquire nuclear weapons, given the experience of recent days and “the nuclear proliferation problem will begin to spiral ⁠out of control”.

Israel is widely seen as the Middle East region’s only nuclear-armed state, which it neither confirms nor denies.

“The seemingly paradoxical declared noble goal of starting a war to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons could stimulate completely opposite trends,” he said.

Lavrov, who said that Moscow had still seen no evidence that Iran was developing ⁠nuclear weapons, spoke with his Iranian counterpart, ⁠Abbas Araghchi, on Tuesday, and said that Russia stood ready to help find a diplomatic solution to the conflict, while rejecting the US and Israel’s use of “unprovoked military aggression” in the region.

As the US and Israel launched their first strikes on Iran on Saturday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry accused the close allies of carrying out a “premeditated and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state”.

The two countries had hidden their true intention of regime change in Tehran “under the cover” of negotiations to normalise relations with Iran, the ministry said.

The US and Israel were “swiftly pushing the region toward a humanitarian, economic, and potentially even radiological disaster”, the ministry warned.

“Responsibility for the negative consequences of this manmade crisis, including an unpredictable chain reaction and spiralling violence, lies entirely with them,” the statement added.

Russia has faced its own accusations of aggression against a sovereign state after it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a war now in its fifth year.

WASHINGTON — Amid the chaos in Kabul, politicians and pundits have declared the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan a defeat from which U.S. influence may never recover.

“Biden’s credibility is now shot,” wrote Gideon Rachman, chief oracle of Britain’s Financial Times.

“A grave blow to America’s standing,” warned the Economist.

But take a deep breath and remember some history.

When South Vietnam collapsed after a war that involved four times as many U.S. troops, many drew the same conclusion: The age of U.S. global power was over.

Less than 15 years later, the Berlin Wall came down, the Cold War began to end, and the United States soon stood as the world’s only superpower.

The lesson: A debacle like the defeat in Kabul — or the one in Saigon two generations earlier — doesn’t always prevent a powerful country from marshaling its resources and succeeding.

I’m not dismissing the tragedy that has befallen the Afghans or the damage that U.S. credibility has suffered. When President Biden told a news conference that he had “seen no questioning of our credibility from allies,” he sounded as if he was in denial — or, perhaps worse, out of touch.

No questioning? How about the question from Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the British Parliament’s defense committee: “Whatever happened to ‘America is back’?”

Or the complaint from Armin Laschet, the German conservative who could be his country’s leader after elections next month: “The greatest debacle NATO has experienced since its founding.”

Whether he likes it or not, Biden has repair work to do.

The first step, already underway, is making sure the endgame in Kabul doesn’t get any worse.

That means keeping U.S. troops on the ground until every American is out, as Biden has promised. It also requires an energetic effort to evacuate Afghans who worked with the U.S. government and other institutions, even if that requires risking the lives of some American troops. Those Afghans trusted us; if we abandon them, it will be a long time before we can credibly ask the same of anyone else.

And, of course, the administration needs to prevent Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from replanting themselves in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. If the United States fails at that — the original reason we invaded the country almost 20 years ago — Biden’s decision to withdraw will justly be judged a fiasco.

There’s repair work to do beyond Afghanistan, too.

“We’ve got to show that it would be wrong to see American foreign policy through the lens of Afghanistan,” Richard N. Haass, president of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations and a former top State Department official, told me.

The United States has more important interests that need attention and allies that need reassurance, he said.

“The most important thing is to deter our major foes,” he said, referring to China, Russia and Iran.

“This is a moment to strengthen forces in Europe, mount more freedom of navigation operations [by the U.S. Navy] in the South China Sea,” he said. “This is a good time to say we’re serious about our commitment to Taiwan,” which China periodically threatens.

Biden took a step in that direction in his recent interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, listing Taiwan along with South Korea and Japan as places where the U.S. “would respond” to an attack.

If anything, Haass and other foreign policy veterans say, the questions about American credibility are likely to make Biden react more strongly to the next few challenges overseas.

“The most intriguing question is what effect this episode has on Biden’s thinking,” suggested Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Will he think: ‘I’ve got to be tougher with the Iranians now? Do I have to signal to a country like Taiwan that I’m prepared to protect American interests there?’”

But the notion that American influence has been fatally damaged is overblown, he argued.

“There have been many other instances in which U.S. credibility has been diminished, but our phone continues to ring,” Miller said.

Biden and his aides already know most of this. The premises of his foreign policy — reviving U.S. domestic strength, revitalizing U.S. alliances, and focusing on vital interests like China and Russia — provide a foundation for recovery.

“My dad used to have an expression: If everything is equally important to you, nothing is important to you,” the president said last week. “We should be focusing on where the threat is the greatest.”

The test Biden faces now is whether he can execute that strategy — and show that he’s credible where it matters most — more successfully than in his botched withdrawal from an unwinnable war.