testing

NEW YORK — U.S. and Israeli officials are privately casting doubt on projections from the Trump administration that the war with Iran could end within a matter of weeks — instead warning that a months-long campaign may be required to destroy the country’s ballistic missile capabilities and install a pliant government, multiple sources told The Times.

The prospect of extended combat creates new political risks and uncertainties for President Trump, whose penchant for dramatic, short-term military operations has suddenly given way to a full-scale assault on the Islamic Republic, shocking a MAGA base that for years supported his calls to end forever wars in the Middle East.

One Israeli official told The Times — despite internal guidance among Israeli officials to adhere to the U.S. president’s stated time frame — that the war “definitely could be longer” than the four-week window that Trump repeatedly offered to reporters.

A U.S. official said that in private conversations, top administration officials presume the campaign will require a longer runway now that remnants of Iran’s government have chosen to resist rather than acquiesce to Washington.

Protracted war was always a possibility. Trump was presented with U.S. intelligence assessments gaming out the potential conflict that emphasized how highly unpredictable the results of an attack would be — an analysis the intelligence community believes has borne out on the ground in the chaotic early days of the conflict.

A longer conflict could create diplomatic space between Trump and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has advocated for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic for over 30 years.

The Israeli leader has succeeded in convincing Trump to take military actions in Iran that American presidents have rejected for decades, from bombing its nuclear facilities to assassinating its leadership, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in an opening strike over the weekend.

Goal of regime change fades

Yet, mere days into the war, White House officials have all but ceased references to a democratic spring that could sweep Iran’s government aside.

A set of four U.S. goals for the mission no longer calls for changing the regime itself. Still, Netanyahu’s government remains keen on replacing the government, and the nation’s longest-serving premier sees the current war as his best opportunity to do so, one official said.

Speaking with reporters Tuesday, Trump rejected reports that the Israelis had convinced him to launch the attack.

“No, I might have forced their hand,” Trump said. “Based on the way the negotiations were going, I think they were going to attack first, and I didn’t want that to happen. So if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand, but Israel was ready, and we were ready, and we’ve had a very, very powerful impact because virtually everything they have had been knocked out.”

In a series of interviews this week, Trump said he had been given projections of a four- or five-week war, while noting he is prepared to go longer if necessary.

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official who is Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said that projecting a deadline to the conflict at its start would be a strategic mistake for the Trump administration, as it would in effect give Iran’s remaining leadership an end date to wait out the fighting.

“Successive presidents have shown that America has strategic attention deficit disorder,” Rubin said. “If that was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s especially true under Trump. He imposed a ceasefire on Gaza that let Hamas survive to fight another day; they still haven’t disarmed.”

The duration of the war will depend, in part, on Iran’s ability to resist and defend its remaining capabilities — but also on the president’s willingness to accept an outcome that leaves the Islamic Republic in place.

That decision has not yet been made by Trump, who has vacillated between calls for a democratic uprising across Iran — and U.S. military options to support resistance groups inside the country — as opposed to a shorter campaign that cripples Iran’s political leadership and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“I can go long and take over the whole thing, or end it in two or three days and tell the Iranians, ‘See you again in a few years if you start rebuilding,” Trump told Axios.

One of Israel’s primary goals is to effectively eliminate the country’s ballistic missile program, and progress on that score is ahead of schedule, another source familiar with the operation said. “Things are going very well at the moment,” the source added. “Great pace.”

An Israeli military source noted to The Times that the stated goal of the mission is to significantly degrade, but not necessarily destroy, Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, a goal the source said could be accomplished within Trump’s preferred time frame.

“Israel was quite unhappy Trump ordered the [June 2025] 12-day war ended when it did,” said Patrick Clawson, director of the Iran program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He said he expected the current war would “take time” to comprehensively set back Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, after a series of Israeli missions in 2024 against the missile program failed to set them back by more than a matter of months.

“Some Israelis think before the recent strikes, Iranian production was fully restored,” Clawson said. “So a really comprehensive attack on Iranian missiles is an important Israeli objective.”

The Maduro model

But no one inside the Islamic Republic system has emerged so far to serve in a supplicant role to Trump in the way that Delcy Rodríguez has stepped in as acting president of Venezuela, after U.S. forces captured that country’s strongman president, Nicolás Maduro, in an audacious overnight raid in January.

Since then, the Stars and Stripes have flown alongside the Venezuelan tricolor at government buildings in Caracas, where senior Trump administration officials have been welcomed to discuss lucrative opportunities in Venezuela’s oil industry.

Trump is now looking for an Iranian counterpart to Rodríguez, he said Tuesday, suggesting he is willing to keep the Islamic Republic in place despite encouraging its citizens to rise up against their government.

“Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “We had some in mind from that group that is dead. And now we have another group. They may be dead also. Pretty soon we’re not gonna know anybody.”

“I mean, Venezuela was so incredible because we did the attack and we kept the government totally intact,” he added.

Dennis Ross, a veteran diplomat on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations, expressed doubt that Trump would be willing to proceed with a months-long campaign, regardless of Israel’s aspirational objectives.

“I believe President Trump doesn’t define clear objectives so he can decide to end the war at a time of his choosing, and declare the objective at that point, announcing we have achieved what we sought to do,” said Ross, noting that finding a figurehead in Iran as he did in Venezuela was always “a long shot.”

“Unilaterally, he could declare we made the regime pay a price for killing its citizens, and we have weakened Iran to the point that it is not any longer a threat to its neighbors,” Ross added. “He could then say, if Iran continues the war, we will hit them even harder.”

In an update to our exclusive in-depth feature on Shield AI’s hugely ambitious X-BAT vertical takeoff and landing drone ‘fighter,’ the firm tells us that they will begin flight testing near Newton, Kansas, this year.

Armor Harris, Senior Vice President and General Manager of the company’s growing aircraft division, who is also the ‘father’ of X-BAT, told us on the floor of AFA’s Warfare Symposium in Denver today that the aircraft’s central differentiator, its ability to launch and recover vertically, will be a central focus of early flight testing.

Latest on X-BAT VTOL ‘fighter’ drone from Shield AI’s Armor Harris

The stakes are incredibly high for Shield AI when it comes to X-BAT. They are trying to do something nobody else is offering in the high-performance air combat drone sector. X-BAT could drastically change the flexibility and survivability of advanced uncrewed tactical airpower, but achieving stealth, a large combat radius, a relevant payload, and doing it all at a cost that doesn’t send the DoW running is no easy task, especially for a young airframer like Shield AI. Now doing all that and launching and recovering it vertically from basically anywhere, that’s a whole other level.

X-BAT: Earth Is Our Runway

With such a lofty goal comes doubters who think Shield AI is reaching outside their capabilities with the X-BAT concept. Surely these include competitors who would have a hard time arguing for their air combat solutions if X-BAT were to exist in operational form and capable of the things Shield AI claims.

We will keep you up to date as X-Bat progresses toward flight test.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

F1’s bosses agreed at a meeting of the F1 Commission rules-making body on Wednesday they would assess data from this final test at a further meeting to decide whether action needed to be taken in the short term.

Concern arises from the fact the new engine rules have tripled the power provided by the electrical part of the engine but left the batteries more or less the same size as last year, and removed one of the devices used to recover energy.

This had led to cars that are energy starved and forced the teams to find new ways to harvest sufficient electrical energy to produce the best performance. The rules governing energy recovery are also highly complex.

That in turn has required drivers to perform behaviours that have been described as “counter-intuitive” to optimise lap time.

These include not going flat out put of the final corner before a qualifying lap, lifting and coasting on a qualifying lap, and even not accelerating at full power at the end of a lap because it was more advantageous to use the energy elsewhere.

However, drivers have generally been positive on the handling characteristics of the new cars, and a number of top drivers all told BBC Sport they are still driving to the limit of grip, and driver ability will still be as crucial as ever.

Domenicali said: “Don’t be worried about the energy management. We’re going to solve that. If we need to solve it, by the way.”

He has spent his time in Bahrain having a series of discussions with individual drivers about the sport, including Verstappen.

And he added: “Max wants and does care about Formula 1 more than anyone else. He has a way of putting the point that he wants to say in a certain way.

“Max will be part of the future of Formula 1 and of course it’s very important that we listen to him and all the top drivers that are very important in this sport.”

Domenicali also said F1 was looking at introducing new sporting elements on Fridays, expanding on the approach that led to sprint-race weekends, which feature two qualifying sessions rather than one, and a shorter race on the Saturday in addition to the grand prix on Sunday.

He has already previously said F1 is considering increasing the number of sprint events beyond the current six.

Domenicali added: “Feedback from the fans, from the people attending the track, the promoter, [is] that people want to see action, real action during the three days.

“People want to see already on Friday something that is sporting – qualifying, points, whatever it is.

“So, it is true that there is the trend to go in the direction of, even if it is not a sprint every weekend.”

Wolff’s remarks come in the context of an ongoing row over the legality of the Mercedes engine.

Rivals believe Mercedes have found a loophole that allows them to run the engine above the permitted compression ratio.

This – a measurement of the cylinder displacement between the two extremes of the piston stroke – is limited to 16:1, and the rules dictate it will be measured at ambient temperature with the engine at rest.

Mercedes’ rivals believe they have found a way to use materials technology and thermal expansion to run the engine to a higher ratio and are pushing for a rule clarification before the start of the season next month.

Mercedes have not denied they are doing this, but insist the engine is legal.

Rivals have claimed the trick is worth as much as 0.3secs per lap, while Wolff said the gain was “a few horsepower – in England you would say a couple, which is more like two and three.”

He added: “Lobbying from the other engine manufacturers has massively ramped up over the last few months.

“I mean, secret meetings, secret letters to the FIA, which obviously there is no such thing as secret in this sport.

“Everybody was a little bit too excited about the performance of the Mercedes engine-powered teams.

“And I think that our colleagues from the other brands have been carried away a little bit that this could be embarrassing, which I don’t think it is at all.”

On the prospect of the rules changing before the start of the season, he said: “There is a governance process. And if that governance were to vote for an engine regulation change, you just have to take it on the chin.”

But he said: “The very essence of Formula 1 is to find performance, to attract the best engineers and the best people, give them freedom to develop regulations and once it goes for you and another time it goes against you.”

Williams team principal James Vowles, who is a Mercedes customer, said: “The PU that we have in the car is completely compliant with the regulations. This is a meritocracy where the best engineering outcome effectively gets rewarded as a result, not punished as a result.

“Right now, I don’t think there is a person in the pit lane that can tell you what is the best PU. We are focused on one detail.

“My hope is that sense prevails and we as a sport recognise that we are here to be a meritocracy. The best engineering solution wins as a result of it and therefore we are where we are right now.”

The U.S. government has accused China of secretly conducting at least one “yield-producing nuclear test” in recent years despite the country having a stated moratorium on such activities. Last year, U.S. President Donald Trump announced plans to engage in new nuclear testing “on an equal basis” with China and Russia, but it remains unclear what that might mean and what action has been taken. The new test allegation also comes as American officials continue to call for a new nuclear arms control treaty that includes China to succeed the New START agreement with Russia, which sunset yesterday.

“Today, I can reveal that the U.S. government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tons,” Thomas DiNanno, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said during a speech at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, Switzerland this morning. “The PLA [China’s People’s Liberation Army] sought to conceal testing by obfuscating the nuclear explosions because it recognized these tests violate test ban commitments.”

China is a signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), but has never ratified it. The same is true of the United States. Both countries have stated self-imposed moratoriums on yield-producing nuclear testing. The CTBT does not prohibit sub-critical testing, which does not involve a full-fledged nuclear reaction. China’s last acknowledged critical-level nuclear test was in 1996. The last U.S. test of that kind was in 1992.

“China has used decoupling – a method to decrease the effectiveness of seismic monitoring – to hide its activities from the world,” DiNanno added. “China conducted one such yield-producing nuclear test on June 22nd of 2020.”

The CTBT’s primary verification method is a global network of hundreds of seismic monitoring stations.

As an aside, the last official nuclear test in Russia came in 1990, just before the fall of the Soviet Union. The United Kingdom, France, India, and Pakistan also conducted yield-producing nuclear tests at various points in the 1990s. North Korea is the only country known to have conducted such tests since 2000, with the detonation of five devices in separate instances between 2006 and 2017.

The video below offers an excellent graphical representation of the extent of known nuclear testing, covering detonations between 1945 and 1998.

A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 – by Isao Hashimoto

At the time of writing, the U.S. government does not appear to have provided further details about the newly alleged Chinese nuclear testing. When American officials arrived at their current assessments about these activities is also unclear.

The U.S. State Department made no mention of any such testing in China in its most recent routine international arms control compliance report, published in April 2025. That report did reiterate previous U.S. accusations that Russia has engaged in supercritical nuclear testing in violation of its commitments to multiple test ban treaties, something DiNanno also highlighted in his speech today. Russia is a signatory to the CTBT and had previously ratified it. Russian President Vladimir Putin revoked that ratification in 2023 after the country’s parliament, or Duma, passed a law approving that action.

The Pentagon’s annual report to Congress on Chinese military developments, published in December 2025, also makes no mention of Chinese nuclear testing.

President Trump may have alluded to this allegation in an interview with CBS News‘ “60 Minutes” last November.

“They [China and Russia] don’t go and tell you about it,” Trump said. “You know, as powerful as they are, this is a big world. You don’t necessarily know where they’re testing. They — they test way under — underground where people don’t know exactly what’s happening with the test.”

“You feel a little bit of a vibration. They test and we don’t test,” Trump continued. “But Russia tests, China — and China does test, and we’re gonna test also.”