united states

Rights groups have slammed United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for saying that “no quarter” will be shown to Iran, as the US and Israel continue their military campaign against the country.

“We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies,” Hegseth told reporters on Friday.

Under the Hague Convention and other international treaties, it is illegal to threaten that no quarter will be given.

Domestic laws, such as the 1996 War Crimes Act, also prohibit such policies. US military manuals likewise warn that threats of “no quarter” are illegal.

Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, a think tank, said Hegseth’s comments appear to run afoul of those standards.

“These comments are very striking,” Finucane told Al Jazeera over a phone call. “It raises questions about whether this belligerent, lawless rhetoric is being translated into how the war is being conducted on the battlefield.”

But Hegseth has publicly dismissed concerns about international law, claiming he would abide no “stupid rules of engagement” and no “politically correct wars”.

His rhetoric has provoked concern among some experts that measures designed to prevent civilian harm are being ignored in favour of a campaign of “maximum lethality”.

Hegseth’s remarks also come after a US strike on a girls’ school in southern Iran that killed more than 170 people, most of them children. The war has left at least 1,444 Iranians dead and millions more displaced.

‘Inhumane and counterproductive’

Prohibitions against declaring “no quarter” go back more than a century, part of an effort to impose restraints on conduct during war.

The Nuremberg trials after World War II upheld that legal standard, as Nazi officials were prosecuted, in some cases, for denying quarter to enemy forces.

“The basic idea is that it’s both inhumane and counterproductive to execute people who have laid down their arms,” said Finucane.

He added that the “mere announcement” of “no quarter” from a government official can itself be a war crime.

The US and Israel have already faced allegations of violating international law during their war against Iran. Experts have condemned their initial strike on February 28 as “unprovoked”, deeming the conflict an illegal war of aggression.

Iranian officials also protested after a US submarine sank a military vessel, the IRIS Dena, off the coast of Sri Lanka, as it returned from a ceremonial naval exercise in India. That attack killed at least 84 people.

While warships are considered legal military targets, Iran has said that the ship was not fully armed, raising questions about whether it could have been interdicted rather than sunk.

US forces also purportedly declined to help rescue sailors from the Dena, even though the Geneva Convention largely requires aid to the shipwrecked. The Sri Lankan navy ultimately helped collect survivors from the wreckage.

Responding to the attack, Hegseth described the sinking of the ship as a “quiet death”. He also told reporters, “We are fighting to win.”

US President Donald Trump himself remarked that he asked why the ship had been sunk, not captured.

“One of my generals said, ‘Sir, it’s a lot more fun doing it this way,’” Trump said.

‘Serious red flag’

The US military has faced criticism for killing civilians in military operations for decades.

That includes during the so-called “global war on terror”, when airstrikes resulted in thousands of civilian deaths, including a 2008 attack on a wedding party in Afghanistan.

Even before the war with Iran, the Trump administration had faced accusations that it violated international law by attacking alleged drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

At least 157 people have been killed in those attacks since they started on September 2.

The Trump administration, however, has never identified the victims nor presented evidence against them. Scholars have condemned the attacks as a campaign of extrajudicial killings.

Analysts say that the Pentagon’s policies of emphasising lethality at the expense of human rights concerns has carried over into its war against Iran.

“Death and destruction from the sky all day long. We’re playing for keeps. Our warfighters have maximum authorities granted personally by the president and yours truly,” Hegseth said during a briefing on March 4.

“Our rules of engagement are bold, precise and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it.”

Sarah Yager, the Washington director at Human Rights Watch, called such rhetoric alarming.

“I’ve been engaging with the US military for two decades, and I’m shocked by this language. Rhetoric from senior leaders matters because it helps shape the command environment in which US forces operate,” Yager said.

“From an atrocity-prevention perspective, language that dismisses legal restraints is a serious red flag.”

While the impact of Hegseth’s rhetoric on combat operations is not certain, a recent report from the watchdog group Airwars found that the pace of the US and Israeli assault on Iran has far outstripped other military operations in modern history.

Reports indicate that the US dropped nearly $5.6bn worth of munitions in the first two days of the war alone. Airwars says the US and Israel hit more targets in the first 100 hours of the Iran war than in the first six months of the US campaign against ISIL (ISIS).

Following Hegseth’s remarks on Friday, Senator Jeff Merkley condemned the Pentagon chief as a “dangerous amateur”. He cited the attack on the Iranian girls’ school as an example of the consequences.

“His ‘no hesitation’ engagement rules set the stage for failing to distinguish a civilian school from a military target,” Merkley wrote in a social media post.

“The result, more than 150 dead schoolgirls and teachers from an American missile.”

MEXICO CITY — Cuba has begun direct talks with the United States in an effort to solve “bilateral differences” between the two countries, Cuban President Miguel Díaz Canel said Friday.

The comments, broadcast nationwide in Cuba, are the first confirmation of bilateral talks between two governments that have been fierce adversaries for almost 70 years, since Fidel Castro’s revolution toppled the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista.

What exactly the talks are about remains unclear, but the Trump administration—which has choked off oil supplies to the island, triggering a severe energy crisis—has been insisting that Cuba’s communist government must change.

In a statement released on social media, Díaz Canel said, “The primary purpose of this conversation is, firstly, to identify the bilateral problems that require a solution—based on their severity and impact—and, secondly, to find solutions for these identified problems.”

Rumors of direct talks between the two nations have been circulating for months, but neither Washington or Havana had confirmed the talks until now.

On Tuesday, the Cuban ambassador to the United States, Lianys Torres Rivera, told The Times that the Cuban government was “ready to engage with the U.S. on the issues that are important for the bilateral relations, and to talk about those in which we have differences.”

Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, have been insistent that the current government must change.

“It may be a friendly takeover, it may not be a friendly takeover,” Trump told Latin American leaders gathered in Florida on Saturday.

“It wouldn’t matter because they’re down to, as they say, fumes. They have no energy. They have no money. They’re in deep trouble,” Trump said.

Trump responded to the Cuban leader’s willingness to negotiate on Friday morning by amplifying a news article with the headline:”Cuba confirms talks with Trump officials, raising hopes for US deal.” He posted that on his Truth Social account.

Rolling blackouts, shortages of food and medicine, a lack of gasoline and other shortfalls have become everyday occurrences on the island, home to 10 million. Images of uncollected garbage rotting on Havana’s streets have been broadcast across the globe. A lack of jet fuel has bludgeoned the critical tourism sector.

“The status quo is unsustainable,” Rubio said last month. “Cuba needs to change…And it doesn’t have to be change all at once. It doesn’t have to change from one day to the next.”

The Cuban announcement comes 13 days after the U.S. attacked Iran and two months after U.S. forces, deployed by Trump, deposed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, a longtime Cuban ally, and brought him to New York to face drug trafficking charges.

Miguel Diaz-Canel says discussions held to find solutions ‘through dialogue’ as Washington tightens oil blockade.

Cuban ⁠officials have ⁠held talks with the United States government to seek solutions to the crippling ⁠blockade imposed by Washington, President Miguel Diaz-Canel said, as the Trump administration’s threats to take over the Caribbean nation escalate.

“These talks have been aimed at finding solutions through dialogue to the bilateral differences ‌we have between the two nations,” Diaz-Canel said in a video aired on national television on Friday.

Diaz-Canel said “international factors have facilitated these exchanges”.

He said no petroleum shipments have arrived on the island in the past three months, which he blamed on the US energy blockade.

Critical oil shipments from Venezuela were halted after the US attacked the South American country and abducted President Nicolas Maduro.

Cuba’s western region was hit by a massive blackout last week, leaving millions without power.

The talks come days after President Donald Trump levelled his latest threat at Cuba, saying the White House’s plans for the Caribbean nation may include a “friendly takeover”.

‘Impact tremendous’

Diaz-Canel added that Cuba, which produces 40 percent of its petroleum, has been generating its own power but that it hasn’t been sufficient to meet demand.

He said the lack of power has affected communications, education and transportation, and that the government has had to postpone surgeries for tens of thousands of people as a result.

“The impact is tremendous,” he said.

The president added that the aim was “to determine the willingness of both parties to take concrete actions for the benefit of the people of both countries”.

“And in addition, to identify areas of cooperation to confront threats and guarantee the security and peace of both nations, as well as in the region,” he said.

For decades, severe US economic sanctions on Cuba have crippled its economy and cut it off from global trade. In response, Cuba has depended on oil supplies from foreign allies, including Mexico, Russia and Venezuela.

Six days after the commencement of Operation Epic Fury, President Trump took to Truth Social to announce, in the context of the ongoing joint American-Israeli military campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran: “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” In the same post, the president seemed to equate such “unconditional surrender” with “the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader” to lead Iran, which would enable the country to come back from the “brink of destruction” and emerge “stronger than ever.”

Just three days after announcing “unconditional surrender” as his goal, Trump, speaking on March 9 in Doral, Fla., proclaimed that the end of the war will happen “very soon.” One might be forgiven for experiencing some whiplash — especially because earlier that same day, Trump told Fox News he was “not happy” with Iran’s naming of a new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. In fact, around the same time he was demanding “unconditional surrender” the prior week, Trump had already called Khamenei the younger “unacceptable.”

What exactly is going on here?

Trump is a conservative nationalist, which means his general approach to foreign policy and his specific foreign policy “excursions” are guided by his view of how best to secure the American national interest. Accordingly, since Operation Epic Fury started, Pentagon press briefings featuring Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine have repeatedly emphasized empirical metrics for measuring success, such as Iranian naval vessels sunk, Iranian air force planes shot down, Iranian ballistic missile silos and launch sites destroyed and so forth.

Trump hasn’t said it explicitly, but the Trump administration’s goal — and thereby, definition of victory — in Operation Epic Fury seems clear enough: the neutralization of Iran as an active, ongoing threat to the United States and our interests. If nothing else, at least, that is how victory in the current campaign should be defined.

That does still raise at least one pressing question, though, especially in the context of exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi’s call to the Iranian people to prepare for “the decisive stage of our final struggle”: Where does that most controversial of foreign policy goals, “regime change,” fit into the puzzle?

At this point, it is undeniable that wholesale regime change is the most desirable outcome for the conflict in Iran. The pursuit of regime change as a goal unto itself is often now disparaged, coming in the aftermath of the failed neoconservative boondoggles earlier this century. But it ought to be axiomatic that there are some foreign regimes that behave in a manner that redounds to the American national interest, and there are some foreign regimes that behave in a manner that is contrary to the American national interest. It is natural and logical that we would wish for the latter types of regime to be heavily reformed or outright replaced — especially with the local populace leading the way.

Perhaps even more to the point: One does not take out a 37-year-ruling despot like Ali Khamenei, as the American and Israeli militaries did in the opening hours of the present operation, and not hope for full-scale regime change. All people of goodwill should be hoping for that outcome — for the Iranian people to rise up like lions and throw the yoke of tyranny off their necks once and for all, delivering a long-sought victory for the American national interest in the process.

But it’s entirely possible full-scale regime change won’t happen. The people of Iran just witnessed tens of thousands of their countrymen brutally gunned down during the anti-regime uprisings of late December and early January. They are an unarmed populace facing Nazi-esque regime jackboots, in the form of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij paramilitary.

All of that, then, raises one final question: Is it possible for there to be victory in Operation Epic Fury, and for the Iranian regime to be neutralized as a threat to the United States and our interests, if there isn’t full-scale regime change in Tehran?

In theory, the answer is yes. Venezuela provides a model.

Delcy Rodríguez, the current leader, is a hardened Marxist-Leninist in the mold of her predecessors Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. But Rodriguez has been fully cooperative with the United States since the astonishing January operation to extract Maduro for the simple reason that she has no real choice in the matter: She remains in power, yes, but only on the condition of an “offer” presented by Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio that, to borrow from Vito Corleone in “The Godfather,” Rodríguez “can’t refuse.” Rodríguez has thus been fully cooperative in areas such as American oil extraction and the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the United States.

In theory, a similar arrangement is possible with a decimated, chastened regime in Tehran. And some experts predict that such an arrangement will characterize the regime in Iran a year or two from now. In practice, however, there is the ever-thorny problem that has frustrated and perplexed Westerners for decades when they attempt to reason with zealous Islamists: They do not fear death. A socialist like Delcy Rodríguez can, ultimately, be reasoned with; an Islamist like Mojtaba Khamenei (or his successor), perhaps not.

The cleanest solution to the Iran quagmire at this particular juncture — and the one that most clearly fulfills Trump’s “unconditional surrender” victory criterion — is indeed full-scale regime change. That is certainly the outcome that would be best for the neutralization of the Iranian threat and the corresponding advancement of the American national interest. I’m far from certain it will happen. But like many, I pray that it will posthaste.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer

A drone attack on a joint French-Kurdish base in northern Iraq has killed one French soldier and wounded several others. Iran-aligned armed groups have been carrying out attacks against US and coalition forces in the region.

Gulf countries, including Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, have declared force majeure on gas exports following the United States-Israel war on Iran, now in its third week, and the disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, as Tehran has retaliated across the region, targeting US assets.

QatarEnergy was among the first to halt production, shutting down gas liquefaction on March 2 and sending ripples through global energy markets. Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Bahrain’s Bapco Energies followed days later, while India invoked emergency measures to redirect gas supplies to priority sectors.

Oil prices also soared to more $100 a barrel as war intensified and uncertainty grew over energy shipments through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints.

Here’s what we know about force majeure and what Gulf countries invoking it means for global oil and gas markets.

What is force majeure?

Force majeure, from the French meaning “superior force”, is a clause in contracts that allows a party to be excused from its obligations when an event beyond its control prevents performance.

This legal move can allow a party to suspend its obligations temporarily, be released from them partially or fully, or adjust them to reflect the new circumstances.

Why are Gulf countries invoking force majeure?

Companies in Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain have invoked it following severe disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz caused by US-Israeli military strikes against Iran that started on February 28.

Following these attacks, a commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on March 2 that the Strait of Hormuz was closed and warned that any vessel attempting to pass through would be attacked, a statement echoed by Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, on Thursday.

As a result, Gulf companies started invoking force majeure, in order “to avoid paying damages or other financial penalties under their contracts”, Ilias Bantekas, a professor of transnational law at Hamad bin Khalifa University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera.

“These companies are most likely unable to fulfil their obligations, for example, to deliver shipments of oil and gas to other countries, or for shippers to transport them across the Arabian Gulf,” he said.

Does war automatically qualify as force majeure?

No. For war to qualify as force majeure, it must either be covered by the contract or actually prevent one or both parties from performing their obligations.

Companies and states typically include force majeure clauses that define which events qualify, meaning that when force majeure is invoked, the parties rely on provisions they previously agreed upon.

“War can always be foreseen, but perhaps not at the level at which it is being waged right now,” Bantekas said, adding that under general contract provisions, ships carrying goods are usually expected to find another route, “even if it is more costly to them”.

“What we could never have foreseen is that the Strait of Hormuz could be closed to shipping altogether, even if Iran were attacked in the brutal way it is now. I think that, on its own, could be sufficient to constitute a force majeure event,” he said.

“However, only a court would have the authority to make a definitive determination as to whether this kind of war, under these particular circumstances, amounts to force majeure,” he added.

Will LNG and oil markets be affected?

Yes. QatarEnergy’s declaration of force majeure alone has already significantly disrupted the global LNG market, as Qatar accounts for nearly 20% of global supply.

Gas prices soared immediately following the country’s halt of gas production, and global gas markets are expected to experience shortages for weeks, if not longer.

“The lack of visibility over the likely duration of force majeure, and of the broader military conflict, is injecting extreme uncertainty into global oil, gas and LNG prices,” Seb Kennedy, global gas and LNG analyst, told Al Jazeera.

“Prices will necessarily keep rising as volumes are withheld from the market, until price pain triggers demand destruction in price-sensitive areas of the economy,” he noted.

Which other countries have invoked force majeure?

On Tuesday, India invoked force majeure to redirect gas supplies from non-priority sectors to key users after disruptions to liquefied natural gas shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, according to a government notification.

But India’s measures are a “domestic demand-management response”, Kennedy said, as its government is relocating its limited gas supplies internally “to protect critical sectors such as households, small businesses, power generation and city gas distribution”.

Kennedy said the move reflects the difficult choices facing LNG-dependent economies, where governments may prioritise households and power generation over industrial users.

This prioritisation of LNG for domestic use “highlights the tough choices facing LNG-dependent countries”, he noted.

Aside from India, Omani trading house OQ also declared force majeure to a customer in Bangladesh after the Qatari supply was halted.

How will this affect US and European markets?

US LNG exporters are likely to benefit from the disruption. Analysis by Energy Flux estimates that US LNG exporters could generate about $4bn in windfall profits in the first month of the disruption alone.

If the situation persists, “US LNG windfall profits could reach $33bn above the pre-Iran average within four months. Over eight months, that figure rises to $108bn,” says Kennedy.

These gains largely come at the expense of European consumers, Kennedy notes, as Europe is the main destination for US LNG and remains heavily reliant on those supplies to refill gas storage and ensure winter supply security.

European stock markets fell last week, while the region’s natural gas prices rose sharply again.

What does this mean for Asian markets?

Major Asian economies such as India, China and South Korea rely heavily on imported LNG.

On the other hand, Southeast Asia alone has significant fossil fuel resources, but the region still depends heavily on imported oil and gas, much of which is transported through the Strait of Hormuz.

“Wealthier buyers such as Japan and South Korea can generally outbid others to secure cargoes during periods of extreme scarcity,” Kennedy said, noting that price-sensitive importers, especially in South and Southeast Asia, tend to be “forced out of the market” whenever prices soar, “leading to demand destruction, fuel switching, or industrial curtailment”.

“In that sense, the crisis does not hit all LNG importers equally: It becomes a contest of balance sheets as much as a question of physical supply.”

Can force majeure be challenged?

If a force majeure clause is written in the contract, then it stands because the parties have consented to it.

Contrary to that, if it has not been written in the contract, then any unforeseen event would potentially be open to legal challenge, and it becomes a matter of convincing the courts that the event could never have been foreseen and that it makes obligations on one of the parties impossible to perform.

“However, in the present circumstances, the stronger parties – the ones waiting for deliveries of oil and gas elsewhere in the world – may actually be harming themselves if they refuse to accept force majeure,” Bantekas said.

“Doing business with Gulf countries could become more difficult in the future, and premiums would likely rise significantly. So, I do not think they will be taking these matters to court,” he noted.

Heavy Israeli strikes have hit Tehran, Iran, as its allies launch attacks across Gulf states, and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has been severely disrupted, sending global oil prices soaring.

Meanwhile, political pressure is mounting in Washington as the conflict spreads across the region.

Here is what we know about what has been happening in the past 24 hours:

In Iran

Supreme leader speaks: Appointed last week following the assassination of his father, Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has issued his first statement, warning that attacks on Israel and US military assets and infrastructure in the Middle East will continue unless bases hosting US forces in the region are closed.

Heavy strikes on Tehran: The Israeli military has launched a new “extensive wave” of air attacks on Iran’s capital, Tehran, leaving the city covered in thick smoke on Friday morning.

Strait of Hormuz closure and surging oil prices: The Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, is closed, causing Brent crude oil prices to surge past $100 per barrel. The strait, which falls into the territorial waters of Iran and Oman, is the only waterway to the open sea available to oil and gas producers in the Gulf. Iran has stated that the strait is under Iranian control and US-and Israel-linked ships are banned. Other vessels must receive Iranian permission to pass.

Civilian casualties: Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, said at least 1,348 civilians have been killed, with victims ranging in age from eight months to 88 years old.

In Gulf countries

Regional retaliation and attacks: Iran has launched waves of drones and missiles towards Gulf countries that host US military assets and troops, and has targeted oil tankers and facilities.

Bahrain: The nation has reported intercepting 114 missiles and 190 drones since the war began on February 28.

Saudi Arabia: The country intercepted 10 drones over its eastern region and later destroyed an additional 28 drones that breached its airspace.

Attacks on the UAE: The country has strongly condemned Iranian strikes on the region, and said they have hit Dubai International Airport and some hotels.

Evacuations: Australia has ordered all “non-essential” officials to leave the United Arab Emirates and Israel, and urged its citizens to evacuate the Middle East while it is still safe to do so

Qatar’s response: Qatar’s airspace is officially closed, but Qatar Airways has scheduled more than 140 special flights to help repatriate stranded residents and citizens.

Qatar has strongly rejected Israeli media claims that it intentionally paused liquefied natural gas (LNG) production to manipulate US energy prices; officials clarified that the suspension was actually forced by an Iranian drone attack.

In the US

Trump claims war moving ‘rapidly’: US President Donald Trump told reporters the war against Iran was moving “very rapidly”.

“It’s doing very well, our military is unsurpassed,” he said at the White House, not directly responding to the latest comments from Iran’s new supreme leader.

Domestic opposition: More than 250 US organisations have signed a letter calling on Congress to halt funding for the war. They argue the $11.3bn spent in the first six days of the conflict is diverting crucial funds from urgent domestic needs, such as food benefits.

No ‘need’ for ground troops in Iran: US Senator Lindsey Graham has played down the possibility of US troops being deployed to Iran, but suggested the war could continue for some time. “I don’t see this conflict ending today,” the Republican senator told reporters in Washington, DC.

In Israel

New missile wave launched at Israel: The Israeli military said early on Friday that Iran had fired a new barrage of missiles towards Israel, and instructed people in affected areas to head to shelters.

Israel strikes Basij force: Israel’s military said it had struck checkpoints set up in Tehran by the Basij force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as part of efforts to undermine control by the authorities.

Regime change: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel can create conditions for regime change, but it is up to Iran’s people to take to the streets. He also said Israel is aiming to stop Iran from moving nuclear and ballistic projects underground.

In Lebanon, Iraq

Downed US aircraft: A US KC-135 refuelling aircraft crashed in western Iraq. While the Islamic Resistance in Iraq claimed it shot the aircraft down using air defence systems, US Central Command (CENTCOM) stated the aircraft went down in “friendly airspace” and was not the result of hostile fire.

Iraqi port closures: Iraq has shut its port operations after an Indian crew member was killed during an attack on a US-owned oil tanker in Iraqi waters.

Six French soldiers hurt: A drone attack wounded six French soldiers in Erbil, in Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region, President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday.

Deadly attacks in southern Lebanon: Israeli bombardments continue on southern towns and villages. A strike on the village of Arki, near Sidon, killed nine people, including five children.

Mounting death toll and mass displacement: Lebanese officials have reported that at least 687 people have been killed in Israeli attacks on Lebanon since last Monday, including 98 children. The intense bombardments have displaced an estimated 700,000 to 750,000 people from their homes.

Protesters in Athens have marched to the US Embassy to condemn the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, joining protests held worldwide over the escalating conflict.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said several Iranian nuclear scientists were killed in Israeli strikes. He also said a “new path of freedom” for Iran was approaching and told Iranians the country’s future ultimately depends on them.

Iran’s UN ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani said Tehran will not close the Strait of Hormuz and remains committed to freedom of navigation. His remarks came after Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei said the waterway would remain closed to pressure Iran’s enemies. 

Washington, DC – In September, the United States began launching dozens of deadly military strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific.

Nearly half a year later, remarkably little is known about the strikes. The identities of the nearly 157 people killed have not been released. Any purported evidence against them has not been made public.

But a group of United Nations and international law experts are hoping to change that on Friday, when they testify at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

The international hearing will be the first of its kind since the strikes began on September 2, and rights advocates hope it can help lead to accountability as individual legal cases related to the strikes proceed.

Steven Watt, a senior staff lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union’s human rights programme, said the goal of the hearing will be threefold.

“Our ask will be to conduct a fact-finding investigation into what’s going on,” Watt said.

The second aim, he continued, would be “to assert or to arrive at a conclusion that there is no armed conflict here”, in what would be a rebuke to US President Donald Trump’s previous claims.

Finally, Watt said, he hopes the proceedings will yield long-sought transparency from the Trump administration on “whether or not they have a legal justification for these boat strikes”.

“We don’t think there are any,” Watt added.

‘We don’t know the names’

The experts set to testify at Friday’s hearing said the IACHR has a unique mandate to uncover the truth behind the US strikes.

The commission, based in Guatemala City, Guatemala, is an independent investigative body within the Organization of American States, of which the US was a founding member in 1948.

While the Trump administration has claimed it has a right to carry out the deadly attacks as part of a wider military offensive against so-called “narco-terrorists”, rights groups have decried the campaign as a series of extrajudicial killings.

They argue that Trump’s deadly tactics deny those targeted of anything that approaches due process.

Legal experts have also dismissed Trump’s claims that suspects in drug-related crimes are equivalent to “unlawful combatants” in an “armed conflict”.

Few details have emerged from the air strikes. Several families have come forward, however, to informally identify the dead as their loved ones.

Victims are said to include 26-year-old Chad Joseph and 41-year-old Rishi Samaroo, who were sailing home to Trinidad and Tobago when they were killed in October, according to relatives.

A complaint filed against the US government said both men travelled often between the islands and Venezuela, where Joseph found work as a farmer and fisherman, and Samaroo laboured on a farm.

The family of Colombian national Alejandro Carranza, 42, have also said he was killed in September when the US military attacked his fishing boat off the country’s coast.

The US has yet to confirm the victims’ identities, and only two survivors have ever been rescued in the 45 reported strikes.

A clearer picture of what happened will be a significant step towards accountability, according to experts like Watt.

“[The IACHR] is uniquely positioned to identify who all these persons are,” Watt said. “We just know the numbers from the United States. We don’t know the names or the backgrounds of these people.”

The IACHR has launched a range of human rights investigations in recent decades, including probes into the 2014 mass kidnapping of 43 students in Iguala, Mexico, and a series of murders in Colombia from 1988 to 1991 dubbed the Massacre of Trujillo.

The commission has also examined US policies, including extrajudicial detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during its so-called “global war on terror”.

The IACHR has the power to seek resolutions to human rights complaints or refer them for litigation before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Just last week, the court ordered Peru to pay reparations to the family of a woman who died during a government-led forced sterilisation campaign in the 1990s.

The Carranza family has filed its own complaint to the IACHR, and the families of Joseph and Samaroo have also lodged a lawsuit against the US in a federal court in Massachusetts.

Angelo Guisado, a senior staff lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), said a fuller accounting of the US actions is needed to prevent future abuses. He is among the experts testifying on Friday.

“You can’t normalise assassinating fishermen off the coast of South America,” Guisado told Al Jazeera. “That’s just sadistic and an abomination to the rules-based order that we’ve created.”

“So we hope that the commission can do some investigation.”

A war against ‘narco-terrorists’?

One of Guisado’s goals for Friday’s hearing will be to unpack the Trump administration’s argument that the attacks are necessary from a national security standpoint.

Even before the US strikes began, the Trump administration began framing the Latin American drug trade as an existential threat to the US.

As part of that re-framing, the administration borrowed messaging from its “global war on terror”, taking the unorthodox approach of labelling several cartels “foreign terrorist organisations”.

Speaking last week at a meeting of Latin American leaders, White House security adviser Stephen Miller maintained there is no “criminal justice solution” to drug cartels.

Instead, he affirmed that the US would use “hard power, military power, lethal force, to protect and defend the American homeland”, even if that meant carrying out deadly operations throughout the Western Hemisphere.

Guisado, however, noted that the administration has admitted that the targeted boats were largely carrying cocaine, not the highly addictive fentanyl responsible for the majority of US drug overdoses.

He explained that the administration has done little to prove its claims that drug traffickers are part of a coordinated effort to destabilise the US.

Such hyperbolic language, Guisado added, could be used as a smokescreen to conceal illegal actions.

“When you invoke national security interest, it seems as if scrutiny and any legitimate analysis or condemnation gets pushed to one side in favour of an ersatz martial law,” Guisado said.

“The idea that you could just proclaim anyone a narcoterrorist and do whatever you want with them is just so repugnant to our system of fairness, justice and law.”

Watt, meanwhile, said he hopes the IACHR will draw a clear “line in the sand”, separating drug crimes from what is conventionally considered an armed conflict.

He also would like to see the IACHR clearly outline the US’s human rights obligations.

“But even if there was an armed conflict — of which there isn’t — the laws of war would prohibit the type of conduct that the United States is engaging in here,” Watt explained.

“It would be an extrajudicial killing. It would be a war crime.”

Transparency or accountability

Friday’s hearing will only be an initial step towards accountability, and critics question how effective the IACHR will ultimately be.

The US has regularly shrugged off human rights probes at international forums, and it is not party to entities like the International Criminal Court in The Hague, raising barriers to the pursuit of justice.

Despite being a member of the OAS, the US has also not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, one of the organisation’s founding documents.

It is, therefore, unclear how binding any IACHR decisions could be, although Watt argued that it is “longstanding jurisprudence of the commission that the declaration imposes obligations on non-ratifying member states”.

Still, legal experts said Friday’s hearing may yield clarity on the Trump administration’s legal argument for the boat strikes.

The IACHR has said US government representatives are set to appear at the hearing.

To date, the US Department of Justice has not released the Office of Legal Counsel’s official reasoning for the boat strikes, considered the foundational legal document for the military actions.

A separate memorandum from that office addressed the US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3, which it framed as a drug enforcement action.

That memo touched on the boat strikes, but it only served to raise further questions about Trump’s rationale.

“This will be an opportunity for the United States to put its case before the commission,” Watt said.

“But of course, it depends on US cooperation,” he continued. “They’re going down there, but it’ll be interesting to see what they actually say”.

WASHINGTON — Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, vowed retaliation Thursday against the United States and Israel and signaled that Tehran will continue to choke off the world’s most critical oil route, as the war strained global energy markets and raised new security concerns in the United States.

In his first public remarks since U.S.–Israeli strikes killed his father, former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Mojtaba Khamenei swore revenge. The new leader, notably, did not appear in person for the televised statement. Instead, his written words were read aloud on Iranian state media.

“We will never retreat and vow to avenge the blood of our martyrs,” he said. “Our revenge will be never ending, not only for the late supreme leader, but also for the blood of all of our martyrs. … Those who killed our children will pay the price.”

The new leader expressed condolences to families who lost children in a strike on a girls school in Minab that killed more than 165 people, many of them children. He also warned that the war could expand, declaring that the continuation of the conflict “depends on the interests of the parties.”

The Associated Press, citing two sources, reported that outdated intelligence likely led to the United States carrying out the deadly missile strike on the elementary school. U.S. Central Command relied on target coordinates for the strike using outdated data provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency, according to a person familiar with the preliminary finding.

Khamenei indicated that Tehran would maintain its blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, a key choke point through which 20% of the world’s oil supply is shipped. He also said he believes in friendship with his country’s neighbors, but that attacks on U.S. military installations in the region will continue. He described maintaining pressure on the passage as a necessary part of Iran’s war strategy.

His remarks came as attacks continued to disrupt shipping and energy infrastructure across the Persian Gulf. The war sent oil up 10% Thursday as hostilities in Iran drag on.

Reports from the region said Iranian forces have intensified strikes on vessels attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, leaving hundreds of ships stranded at its entrances and rattling global oil markets.

Two oil tankers were struck by explosives in Iraqi waters near the port of Basra. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed responsibility for the attacks, which killed at least one crew member and set both vessels ablaze, according to the Associated Press. A third unnamed vessel was reported to have been struck by an “unknown projectile” near Dubai and Jebel Ali, causing a small fire, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations reported.

The latest incidents come after drone strikes targeted fuel storage facilities across the Gulf, including at energy sites in Bahrain and at the port of Salalah in Oman, an important hub for tankers seeking to bypass the Strait.

“They will pay the price. We will destroy their facilities,” Khamenei said. “It is necessary to continue our defensive activity, including continuing to close the Strait of Hormuz.”

New York City, United States – Rising prices on the back of US-Israel strikes on Iran are adding to the economic pressure facing US consumers despite efforts by US President Donald Trump to paint the war as a success.

On Wednesday, Trump declared, “We won – in the first hour it was over.”

Trump’s declaration comes even as the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, cutting off oil from the Gulf amid warnings from Iran, which continues to strike ships, that oil could reach $200 per barrel.

Oil prices spiked above $100 per barrel on Sunday and again today.

The magnitude of the economic pressure on consumers will depend on how long the war lasts and, crucially, how soon shipping traffic can return to the Gulf.

“If it drags on and especially if it remains at this intensity, prices will be higher, and more volatile for consumers,” said Rachel Ziemba, an adjunct senior fellow at the think tank Center for a New American Security.

“If it ends quickly, and it’s a credible and stable end, then we could see prices fairly quickly normalising”.

If the war lasts more than a few weeks, however, observers say the US economy is more likely to see deepening impacts, like 1970s-style “stagflation” or a recession.

When might we see a recession?

On Thursday, the International Energy Agency said in a report that “the war in the Middle East is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”

According to Sam Ori, who directs the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, in the past, when oil prices have reached 4 percent to 5 percent of gross domestic product and stayed elevated, “that’s always triggered a recession.”

The US will not hit that threshold as quickly as it would have in the 1970s, when its economy was more deeply dependent on foreign oil, Ori said, but added he expected a recession if prices remained about $140 a barrel for most of the year.

Alternatively, “the indefinite closure of the Strait of Hormuz would so vastly exceed that number, it would not take a year,” he said.

Ori, who used to run an oil shock war game for US officials, said he would have been “laughed out of the room” if he had proposed a scenario where the strait was closed for six months, because many analysts see it as “too big to fail”.

Ori says that assessment is still likely, but recent developments “are chipping away at that level of certainty”.

The Gulf, which separates the Arabian Peninsula and Iran, provides more than one-fifth of the world’s oil supply via tanker ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

The severity of that threat to the global economy is the “strongest indicator that this is going to get resolved pretty fast, because it’s impossible to fathom what would happen if it didn’t”, Ori said.

He added that the conflict has now entered a phase in which it may be moving out of US control, especially as some countries have turned off the oil wells as they run out of storage.

While those events have now been baked into oil prices, the things that he is on the lookout for include “successful mining of the strait, some kind of structural blockage, or a battlespace development that binds the US into a longer, drawn out conflict”, outcomes that could signal a total loss of the strait for an unknown amount of time and create the “conditions for a complete meltdown”.

Higher prices

The war is already driving petrol prices up for US consumers.

Patrick DeHaan, who leads petroleum analysis for the app GasBuddy, said that the national average as of Wednesday is now $3.59 per gallon ($0.95 per litre) – up 65 cents since February.

The highest increases are near the coasts, where US petrol, diesel and jet fuel supplies are more easily diverted to meet global demand, according to DeHaan.

An end to the conflict could lower petrol prices within weeks, DeHaan said, but “every week that this goes on, we could see another 25 to 40 cent increase”.

Robert Rogowsky, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, said lower-income people in particular, “will pay the price for this inflationary burst”.

As the war continues, it will also nudge up prices for consumer goods.

Peter Sand, chief analyst for freight intelligence platform Xeneta, said the backup at the Strait of Hormuz is already causing congestion at ports worldwide.

In the short term, consumers should not feel much of a pinch, Sand said. But if the conflict lasts for a month, some goods will be delayed, “and of course, the price tag on those goods also goes up.”

The war also means that the Red Sea, mostly closed in 2025 due to Houthi attacks, will likely stay closed throughout 2026, Sand said. It was expected to reopen, which could have lowered consumer prices.

Oil and oil byproducts from the Gulf are also used directly in consumer goods, like plastics, pharmaceuticals and fertilisers. Shortages now may mean higher prices later.

Fertilisers from the Gulf, for example, are needed soon for spring planting. Delays could affect crops next year.

A shortage of helium from the Gulf could also impact semiconductor manufacturing, delaying car manufacturing and other industries, Ziemba said.

The spectre of 1970’s-style ‘stagflation’

Higher consumer prices could increase the risk of “stagflation”, when stagnant economic growth occurs alongside high unemployment and high inflation.

That is how the US economy responded to the oil price shocks of the 1970s.

Severin Borenstein, faculty director of the Energy Institute at the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, said, “There’s certainly concern about stagflation again.”

That combination of high inflation plus high unemployment, Borenstein said, “is just really tough for the Fed to deal with”.

“They can either juice the economy or slow it down, and the two problems call for opposite solutions”, Borenstein said.

The Fed can lower interest rates to prompt spending and hiring, which can make inflation worse, or it can raise interest rates to lower inflation, which can slow hiring.

Ziemba said higher oil prices likely point to “inflation remaining stickier, which means it’s harder for the Fed to cut interest rates.”

As a result, “mortgage rates and other long-term interest rates might be stuck at their current levels,” Ziemba said. Mortgage rates, which were at 5.99 percent on February 27, are up to 6.29 percent as of March 12.

Even if the war ends tomorrow, it may already be accelerating longer-term shifts.

Rogowsky called US attacks on Iran “an injection of adrenaline” into a realignment already under way, as middle powers seek to reduce their reliance on the US.

That realignment “will affect our terms of trade, which will have a distinct impact on our economy”, Rogowsky said.

Logistics consultant David Coffey said for some businesses, the war is expediting conversations about risk. “They may have been assuming ‘Yes, there’s risk in the Middle East,’ but they may not have been assuming that this would kick off”, Coffee said.

Making supply chains more secure could raise costs for consumers, he said.

Military spending and the US budget

Meanwhile, Heidi Peltier, a senior researcher at Brown University’s Costs of War Project, said war also means long-term expenses around debt payments and veterans’ healthcare.

“We have spent at least $1 trillion in interest on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – and rising, because it’s not like we’ve paid off any of that principal”, Peltier said.

Military spending, she said, also tends to create fewer jobs than government investment in education or healthcare. “If we’re spending money on this, what are we not spending money on?” Peltier asked.

The United States military is “not ready” to accompany oil ships through the Strait of Hormuz, a top official in President Donald Trump’s administration says as Iran continues to block the strategic waterway.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the CNBC business news channel on Thursday that the markets are experiencing a “short-term disruption”, predicting that the war would go on for “weeks, not months”.

Despite Trump’s repeated threats, Iran has largely succeeded in shutting down the strait, which links the Gulf to the Indian Ocean. The closure has sent oil prices soaring.

Wright described the effects of the crisis as “short-term pain for long-term gain”, arguing that the US is “destroying” Iran’s ability to threaten the energy market.

Last week, Trump suggested that the US Navy would escort ships through the Gulf, but Wright said on Thursday that the move “can’t happen now”.

“We’re simply not ready. All of our military assets right now are focused on destroying Iran’s offensive capabilities and the manufacturing industry that supplies their offensive capabilities,” the energy secretary said.

“We don’t want this to be a brush-off for a year or two. We want to permanently destroy their ability to build missiles, to build roads, to have a nuclear programme.”

His comments came as Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, affirmed in his first public comment since being selected to succeed his assassinated father, Ali Khamenei, that the Strait of Hormuz should remain closed during the war.

“The will of the people is to continue effective and deterrent defence,” Khamenei said in a written statement. “The tactic of closing the Strait of Hormuz must also continue to be used.”

The Iranian military has said it would “welcome” the US Navy escorting oil ships, suggesting it is prepared to strike US forces in the narrow waterway.

On Wednesday, three commercial vessels were attacked near the strait.

Wright announced earlier this week on social media that the US Navy had escorted an oil ship through the strait, then quickly deleted the post. The White House subsequently confirmed that the claim was not true.

It is not clear why the statement was released and then retracted.

Assurances by US officials that Washington would open the strait have temporarily calmed markets, only for prices to spike again.

The price of a barrel of oil peaked at about $120 on Sunday, up from about $70 before the US and Israel launched the war on February 28. It has been yo-yoing between $80 and $100 for the past few days.

In addition to the marine blockade, Iran has targeted oil installations across the Gulf.

As one of the world’s largest oil producers, the US is largely self-sufficient. But possible shortages in Asia and Europe have put a strain on prices globally.

According to data from the American Automobile Association, the average price of one gallon (3.78 litres) of petrol in the US is now $3.60, up from $2.94 last month.

Rising energy prices could fuel inflation and affect the cost of basic goods, including food.

But Trump suggested on Thursday that the US is benefitting from skyrocketing oil prices.

“The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” the US president wrote in a social media post.

“BUT, of far greater interest and importance to me, as President, is stopping an evil Empire, Iran, from having Nuclear Weapons, and destroying the Middle East and, indeed, the World.”

Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, and Trump reiterated for months before the current conflict that US strikes against Iranian facilities in June had “obliterated” the country’s nuclear programme.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has laid out terms for ending the war with the United States and Israel in what analysts say is a possible sign of de-escalation from Tehran as the US-Israel war on Iran entered its 13th day on Thursday.

In a post on Wednesday on social site X, Pezeshkian said he had spoken to his counterparts in Russia and Pakistan, and that he had confirmed “Iran’s commitment to peace”.

“The only way to end this war – ignited by the Zionist regime & US – is recognizing Iran’s legitimate rights, payment of reparations, and firm int’l guarantees against future aggression,” Pezeshkian wrote.

This is a rare posture from Tehran, which has maintained a defiant stance and initially rejected any possibility of negotiations or a ceasefire when war broke out nearly two weeks ago.

Pezeshkian’s statement comes as pressure mounts on the US to halt what has become a very costly mission. Analysts say speculation from Washington that Iran would quickly submit after the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were misguided.

Tehran is likely going to determine the end of this war, not the US or Israel, because of its ability to inflict economic pain broadly, they say.

Amid a military pummelling by the US and Israel, Iran has launched heavy retaliatory strikes at US assets and other critical infrastructure in Gulf countries, upsetting global supplies. It has also adopted what analysts call “asymmetric” tactics – such as disrupting the critical Strait of Hormuz and threatening US banking-linked entities – to inflict as much economic pain on the region and wider world as it can.

This is what we know about Pezeshkian’s stance and what the pressures are on both sides to draw the conflict to a close, quickly.

What has the war cost so far?

Economically, both sides have weaponised energy. Israel first targeted Iran’s oil facilities in Tehran on March 8, prompting an outcry from global health experts over the potential risk of air and water pollution.

Iran has, meanwhile, tightened its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz shipping route – the only route to open sea for oil producers in the Gulf – with its military promising on Wednesday that it has the capabilities to wage a long war that could “destroy” the world economy.

Attacks on ships in the strait, through which about 20 percent of global oil and gas traffic normally passes, have effectively closed the route.

Oil prices rocketed above $100 per barrel late last week, up from around $65 before the war, with ordinary buyers feeling the increases at pumps in the US, Europe and parts of Africa.

On Wednesday, Iran upped the ante, saying it would not allow “a litre of oil” to pass through the strait and warned the world to expect a $200-per-barrel price tag.

“We don’t know how quickly it’ll revert back,” Freya Beamish, chief economist at GlobalData TS Lombard, told Al Jazeera. “We do think it’ll revert back to $80 in due course, but the ball is to some degree in Iran’s court,” she said, adding that because Iran needs oil revenue, the price hikes are expected to be time-limited.

The International Energy Agency agreed on Wednesday to release 400 million barrels from the emergency reserves of several member states but it is not yet clear what impact that will have, nor how quickly this quantity of oil can be released.

Tehran has also been accused of directly attacking oil facilities in neighbouring countries this week. Iraq shut all its oil port operations on Thursday after explosive-laden Iranian “drone” boats appeared to have attacked two fuel tankers in Iraqi waters, setting them ablaze and killing one crew member.

A drone was filmed striking Oman’s Salalah oil port on Wednesday, although Tehran has denied involvement.

What are Iranian officials saying about ending the war?

There has been conflicting messaging from the Iranian leadership.

Iran’s elite army unit and parallel armed force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), continues to show defiance, issuing threats and launching attacks on Israel and US military assets and infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf countries.

However, the political leadership has appeared more inclined towards diplomacy, analysts say. On Wednesday, President Pezeshkian said that ending the war would take the US and Israel recognising Iran’s rights, paying Iran reparations – although it’s unclear how much is being asked for – and providing strong guarantees that a future war will not be waged.

In a video recording last week, he also apologised to neighbouring countries for the strikes and promised that Iran would stop hitting its neighbours as long as they do not allow the US to launch attacks from their territory.

“I personally apologise to the neighbouring countries that were affected by Iran’s actions,” the president said, adding that Tehran was not looking for confrontations with its neighbours.

However, it is not known how much sway the political leadership has over the IRGC. Hours after the president’s apology last week, air defence sirens went off in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain, as strikes continued on the Gulf.

So, what is Iran’s actual position?

“Iran wants to go to the end to make sure that the United States and Israel never attack Iran again … so this has to be the final battle,” Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas explained.

Indeed, the IRGC sees this as an existential war, but the timing of Pezeshkian’s statement about ending the conflict also shows Tehran is pressured economically, politically and militarily, Zeidon Alkinani of Qatar’s Georgetown University told Al Jazeera.

“These differences and divisions [between IRGC and political leaders] always existed even prior to this war but we may notice it now more, given the fact that the IRGC believes that it has the right to take the front seat in leading this regional war, which is why a lot of the statements and positions are contradicting with the official ones from Pezeshkian,” he said.

The IRGC reports directly to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and not to the country’s political leadership. That council is led by Ali Larijani, a top politician and close aide to the late supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who analysts describe as a “hardliner”.

In a post on X on Tuesday, Larijani responded to threats from Trump about attacks on the Strait of Hormuz, saying: “Iranian people do not fear your hollow threats; for those greater than you have failed to erase it … So beware lest you be the ones to vanish.”

The newly elected supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, was once in the IRGC and was put forward by the unit as the next ayatollah after his father was killed on the first day of the war, analysts say. He is thus not expected to follow the reformist, diplomatic ideals of President Pezeshkian and other political leaders which his father managed to marry with the IRGC militarised stance, they say.

What do the US and Israel say about ending the war?

There have also been conflicting messages from the Trump administration and Israel regarding when the war mission on Iran, codenamed Operation Epic Fury, is likely to end.

Trump told US publication Axios on Wednesday that the war on Iran would end “soon” because there’s “practically nothing left to target”.

“Anytime I want it to end, it will end,” he added. He had said earlier on Monday that “we’re way ahead of our schedule” and that the US had achieved its goals, even as speculation mounts about a possible US ground mission.

On the other hand, Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Wednesday that the war would go on “without any time limit, for as long as necessary, until we achieve all the objectives and decisively win the campaign”.

Analysts say Trump’s stance that the conflict will be quick reflects increasing pressure on his administration ahead of upcoming mid-term elections in November.

Trump’s advisers privately told him this week to find a quick end to the war and avoid political backlash, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal. That came as polls from Quinnipiac University and The Washington Post suggested that most Americans are opposed to the war in Iran.

In his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to lower prices, and inflation had stabilised at 2.4 percent ahead of the war, according to government data released on Wednesday. Analysts speculate the conflict will likely push it back up.

The US spent more than $11.3bn in the first six days of the war, Pentagon officials told lawmakers in a classified briefing on Tuesday, Reuters reported this week – nearly $2bn a day.

The Washington-based think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), estimated that the war cost Washington $3.7bn in its first 100 hours alone, or nearly $900m a day, largely due to its expenditure on costly munitions.

“It’s quite ironic that [Trump] chose a war that would make affordability worse, not better,” Rebecca Christie, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank, told Al Jazeera’s Counting the Cost.

“Every time the US loses even one object, air defence or a plane or something like that, that represents an awful lot of money that could have been used on some of these issues that have an impact on people’s day-to-day lives in the United States.”

United Nations refugee agency says forced displacement likely to increase as US and Israel continue deadly strikes across Iran.

More than three million people have been displaced in Iran since the United States and Israel launched a war against the country late last month, the United Nations says, as concerns mount over a worsening humanitarian crisis.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said on Thursday that as many as 3.2 million people – representing between 600,000 and one million Iranian households – have been forcibly displaced since the war began on February 28.

“Most of them are reportedly fleeing from Tehran and other major urban areas towards the north of the country and rural areas to seek safety,” UNHCR official Ayaki Ito said in a statement.

“This figure is likely to continue rising as hostilities persist, marking a worrying escalation in humanitarian needs.”

The US and Israeli militaries have continued to bombard Iran despite mounting international condemnation and calls for de-escalation.

More than 1,300 people have been killed in US-Israeli attacks across the country to date, according to the latest figures from Iranian officials.

While the US and Israel have said they are targeting Iranian leaders as well as military and nuclear infrastructure, Iran says thousands of civilian sites, such as schools and hospitals, have been attacked.

Iran’s Deputy Health Minister Ali Jafarian told Al Jazeera on Thursday that medical teams have been responding to a growing number of casualties as strikes on urban areas have intensified in recent days.

“Most of these people are civilians,” Jafarian said, adding that more than 30 hospitals and health facilities have been damaged due to the attacks.

On Thursday, explosions were heard in several parts of the capital, Tehran, and other Iranian cities as the strikes continued.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi said rescuers were digging through mounds of rubble as several multistorey apartment buildings were heavily damaged in recent attacks on a hard-hit eastern neighbourhood of Tehran.

“We saw bodies taken out [of the rubble] … and the situation was far beyond what I can call disastrous,” Asadi said.

Iran has responded to the US-Israeli assault by launching a barrage of missiles and drones at US bases and other sites in countries across the wider Middle East region.

It has also shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical Gulf waterway through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil transits, raising serious concerns of disruptions to global energy supplies.

Despite United States President Donald Trump’s repeated declarations of victory in the US-Israeli war on Iran, Tehran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel and US military assets in the region have continued, upending global financial and energy markets.

“We’ve had two decades to study defeats of the US military to our immediate east and west. We’ve incorporated lessons accordingly,” Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote in a post on X on March 1, the day after US and Israeli strikes on Tehran killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian officials.

“Bombings in our capital have no impact on our ability to conduct war,” he wrote.

According to analysts, Iran has made use of “asymmetric” warfare tactics while striking the US and Israel. So, are Tehran’s war tactics working?

Here’s what we know:

What is ‘asymmetric’ warfare?

When the balance of capabilities is unequal in a conflict – as it is in relation to weapons in this one – the weaker party can turn to unconventional methods of warfare, John Phillips, a British safety, security and risk adviser and a former military chief instructor, told Al Jazeera.

This is known as “asymmetric” warfare.

This can include the use of guerrilla tactics, terrorism, cyberattacks, use of proxies and other indirect tools, Phillips said, in order “to offset conventional inferiority, avoid the enemy’s strengths, and exploit vulnerabilities in political will, logistics, and legal or ethical constraints”.

“Iran is conventionally weaker than the US and Israel, but relatively strong compared to many neighbours,” he said.

“What makes Iran distinctive is not that it uses these methods at all, but that they sit at the centre of its grand strategy rather than at its margins.”

Why is Iran using asymmetric warfare?

In the ongoing war between Iran and the US-Israel, Washington and Tel Aviv have been using expensive missiles and drones to attack Iran and to intercept missiles Iran has fired back. The Patriot and THAAD defence systems, for example, which launch interceptors to take out incoming drones and missiles, can cost millions of dollars for each missile they fire. This compares with the $20,000-$35,000 cost of each Iranian Shahed drone.

As a result, the US has reportedly spent $2bn a day in its war on Iran and there are fears it could run out of interceptor missiles altogether if the war goes on for more than a few weeks.

It is therefore in Iran’s interests to focus on holding out against strikes and protecting its own weapons supplies while it does so, military experts say.

However, Phillips explained that precision strikes and sabotage by Israel and the US have demonstrated that Iran is not able to fully shield its missile, drone and nuclear‑related assets, while sanctions and domestic pressures have limited its capacity to sustain a very high‑tempo confrontation.

“As a result, Iran’s asymmetric approach is best understood as an effective ‘survival and leverage’ mechanism that produces a chronic, costly ‘shadow war’, rather than a path to decisive regional hegemony or victory,” he said.

Iran began using asymmetric warfare techniques following the 1979 Iranian revolution, which overthrew Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

“Instead of trying to match high‑end aircraft, precision munitions, or blue‑water fleets, [Iran] has built a ‘forward deterrence’ posture that operates in the grey zone between war and peace,” Phillips said.

“This is backed by large inventories of ballistic and cruise missiles, mass‑produced drones [often handed to proxies], cyber-operations, and a posture of underground, dispersed and hardened facilities that make preemption difficult and preserve some retaliatory capability.”

What asymmetric tactics has Iran been using?

Enemy depletion tactics

Since US-Israeli strikes on Iran began on February 28, Tehran has launched a wave of ballistic missiles targeting Israel and US military bases across the Gulf region.

Using a mix of short and medium-range ballistic missiles, as well as drone swarms through this defence system, Iran aims to deplete Israeli and US interceptor stockpiles.

Economic warfare

Iran has shut down the Strait of Hormuz through which about 20 percent of global oil and gas supplies are shipped. Linking the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, the strait is the only waterway to the open ocean available to Gulf oil producers.

On Thursday, Iran attacked fuel tankers in Iraqi waters. Instability in and around the Strait of Hormuz drove Brent crude oil prices past $100 a barrel last week, with wild swings ongoing, prompting fears of a global energy crisis.

Iran has also targeted civilian infrastructure like airports and desalination plants which are crucial for water supply in the region, and it has launched drones targeting oil depots.

War on global finance

Meanwhile, on Wednesday this week, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) threatened to attack “economic centres and banks” with links to United States and Israeli entities in the Gulf region after what it claimed was an attack on an Iranian bank, with the war in its 12th day.

Since then, many banks like Citibank and HSBC in Qatar, have begun shutting, further threatening global financial stability.

Top technology companies such as Google, Microsoft, Palantir, IBM, Nvidia and Oracle, as well as the listed offices and infrastructure for cloud-based services, are also located in several Israeli cities and in some Gulf countries, which Iran has also threatened to attack.

Use of proxies

Iran has aimed to keep the much more powerful US military and its allies off balance through proxies in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. Hezbollah in Lebanon, for example, has fired missiles and drones into northern Israel since March 2 as part of Iran’s retaliatory strikes.

“At the core of this [asymmetric] approach is a network of proxies and partners – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq, groups in Syria, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen – which receive weapons, training, funding and ideological guidance from Iran,” Phillips said.

These actors allow Tehran to threaten Israeli and US forces, as well as regional shipping lanes, on multiple fronts, “often with a degree of deniability and at a fraction of the cost of deploying its own regular forces”, Phillips noted.

‘Mosaic’ defence system

Iran has organised its defensive structure into multiple regional and semi-independent layers instead of concentrating power in a single command chain that could be paralysed by a decapitation strike. This concept is most closely associated with the formation of the parallel military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), particularly under former commander Mohammad Ali Jafari, who led the force from 2007 to 2019.

The doctrine has two central aims: to make Iran’s command system difficult to dismantle by force, and to make the battlefield itself harder to resolve quickly by turning Iran into a layered arena of regular defence, irregular warfare, local mobilisation and long-term attrition.

What damage have these tactics done to the US and Israel?

Iran’s asymmetrical playbook has made the war more expensive for the US. It has been forced to spend money on replacing stockpiles of expensive missiles like Tomahawks and defensive systems such as Patriot and THAAD interceptors.

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the first 100 hours alone of Operation Epic Fury – the codename for the US-Israeli assault on Iran – cost the US approximately $3.7bn, mostly unbudgeted. Israel, already reeling from the economic strain of its prolonged wars in Gaza and Lebanon, faces mounting domestic pressure as daily sirens force millions into bunkers.

While the Pentagon has not yet announced an official estimate for the cost of the war, late last week, two congressional sources told US broadcaster MS NOW that the war is costing the United States an estimated $1bn a day.

A day later, Politico reported that US Republicans on Capitol Hill privately fear the Pentagon is spending close to $2bn a day on the war.

Meanwhile, officials from President Donald Trump’s administration estimated during a congressional briefing this week that the first six days of the war on Iran had cost the US at least $11.3bn, a source familiar with the matter told the Reuters news agency.

Reporting from Washington, DC, following the publication of the CSIS analysis last week, Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan said the Pentagon had put together a $50bn supplemental budget request in order to replace Tomahawk and Patriot missiles and THAAD interceptors already used in the first week of the war, along with other equipment that had been damaged or worn out so far.

Are Iran’s tactics working?

To a certain extent, they are.

According to a report by The Soufan Center, the “pattern of Iranian counterattacks suggests a layered operational approach designed to generate pressure on Gulf states, create regional disruption on land, sea, and air, while simultaneously attempting to exhaust US and allied defensive resources”.

“Tehran appears to be fighting a war of endurance: prolong the conflict, expand the economic battlefield, make the costs increasingly prohibitive, ration advanced capabilities, and impose steady human and financial costs on its adversaries. All with the hope that political tolerance erodes faster in Jerusalem and Washington than in Tehran,” the report noted.

This may be working. Questions about the cost of the war are already causing a political headache for the Trump administration in Washington.

Congress’s House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference last week that President Donald Trump is “plunging America into another endless conflict in the Middle East” and “spending billions of dollars to bomb Iran”.

“But they can’t find a dime to make it more affordable for the American people to go see a doctor when they need one,” he said. “Can’t find a dime to make it easier for Americans who are working hard to purchase their first home. And they can’t find a dime to lower the grocery bills of the American people.”

Trump won the presidency in 2024 largely on the back of a promise to handle the rising cost of living and he faces mid-term elections this year. It is likely that the cost of the war will not play well with voters, analysts say.

In Israel, opposition politician Yair Golan has also criticised his government’s economic management of the war.

In a post on X on Sunday, he wrote: “The war with Iran has been planned for months. The fact that the Israeli government has not prepared an orderly economic plan to support citizens during the war period is a disgrace.

“The serving and working public should not be the one footing the bill for the war out of its own pocket while billions of shekels go to the evading and non-working sector,” he said, adding that the opposition will soon replace the government.

Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that at a fraction of the cost – and despite a significant technological gap – Iran has demonstrated an ability to hold the global economy at risk, to pressure Washington into “blinking first”.

“A steady stream of inexpensive drones and limited missile strikes can disrupt the thriving economies of Israel and the Gulf, sending shockwaves through energy markets and ultimately translating into higher prices at American gas stations,” he said.

Phillips, the British safety, security and risk adviser, said the strategy has worked in important but limited ways.

“It has helped the Islamic republic survive intense sanctions, clandestine campaigns and periodic strikes while maintaining a credible ability to hit US bases, Israeli territory and Gulf infrastructure, which in turn raises the political and military cost of any attempt at regime-change war,” he said.

“Iran’s reach – stretching from Lebanon and Syria to Iraq and Yemen – allows it to shape crises, quickly raise the stakes of local conflicts, and force adversaries to devote substantial resources to missile defence, counter‑UAV systems, naval protection and regional coalition management,” he noted.

“However, there are clear constraints and growing problems. Key proxies such as Hezbollah and various militias have suffered leadership and infrastructure losses; the network has become more fragmented and sometimes less controllable, increasing the risk of unwanted escalation even as its coherence as an instrument of policy erodes,” he added.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi shows the aftermath of US-Israeli airstrikes on a residential neighbourhood in Iran, where rescue teams have been searching for survivors among the rubble.

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.

Lawmakers express concerns as Trump officials project $50bn more may be needed for Iran war funding.

Officials from President Donald Trump’s administration have estimated during a congressional briefing this week that the first six days of the war on Iran had cost the United States at least $11.3bn, a source familiar with the matter told the Reuters news agency.

That figure, from a closed-door briefing for senators on Tuesday, did not include the entire cost of the war, but was provided to lawmakers as they have clamoured for more information about the cost.

Several congressional aides have said they expect the White House to soon submit a request to Congress for additional funding for the war. Some officials have said the request could be for $50bn, while others have said that estimate seems low.

The administration has not provided a public assessment of the cost of the conflict or a clear idea of its expected duration. Trump said during a trip to Kentucky on Wednesday that “we won” the war but that the US would stay in the fight to finish the job.

The $11.3bn figure was first reported on Wednesday by The New York Times.

The human cost

The US-Israeli war on Iran has so far killed about 2,000 people, mostly Iranians and Lebanese, as the conflict has spread across the Middle East, with Iranian retaliatory strikes on neighbouring countries hosting US assets, sending energy prices soaring.

The United Nations children’s agency (UNICEF) says the “intensifying conflict” has killed or wounded 1,100 children, creating a “catastrophic” situation for millions of children across the Middle East.

About 800,000 people have already been displaced in Lebanon by relentless Israeli bombardment.

Administration officials also have told lawmakers that $5.6bn of munitions were used during the first two days of strikes.

Members of Congress, who may soon have to approve additional funding for the war, have expressed concern that the conflict will deplete US military stocks at a time when the defence industry was already struggling to keep up with demand.

Democratic lawmakers have demanded public testimony under oath from administration officials about the Republican president’s plans for the war, including how long it might last and what his plans are for Iran once the fighting has stopped.

Trump on Wednesday said the war with Iran may end “soon” because there is “practically nothing left” for the US military to bomb. He did not provide any evidence for that claim.

The UN Security Council has passed a resolution put forward by Gulf Cooperation Council members calling on Iran to halt its attacks on Gulf countries. The measure was adopted with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions, while no member states voted against it.

‘Supercell’ thunderstorms hit Illinois and Indiana, after eight people killed by tornadoes in US Midwest last week.

Two people have been killed in tornadoes in the Midwest region of the United States amid a spate of extreme weather, according to authorities.

At least four tornadoes touched down as intense “supercell” thunderstorms swept across northern Illinois and northwestern Indiana on Wednesday, according to the National Weather Service (NWS).

“Supercells” are the rarest form of thunderstorms. They are known to be particularly devastating for their prolonged durations and their “high propensity to produce severe weather, including damaging winds, very large hail, and sometimes weak to violent tornadoes”, according to the NWS.

In Indiana, local officials said an elderly couple had been killed when a tornado hit their home in the town of Lake Village.

Several residents in the wider Newton County were rescued by emergency responders, as the storm knocked down at least 70 utility poles and left some roads impassable.

In a video posted to social media late Tuesday, Sheriff Shannon Cothran warned people about trying to access the damaged areas.

“Please do not come here. Do not try to help right now,” Cothran said, standing in front of the couple’s destroyed home.

Parts of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio remained on tornado watch into the afternoon.

About 40km (25 miles) east of Lake Village, another tornado touched down in Kankakee County, Illinois, late Tuesday.

Officials said the tornado caused extensive damage as it travelled across the suburb of Aroma Park. At least nine people were injured, but no deaths were reported, according to local officials.

Cassidy Sinwelski, 23, told The Associated Press that the storm hit Kankakee harder than expected.

She and her husband took shelter in their home’s bathroom.

“We went into the bathroom, got a piece of plywood, and within minutes, I closed my eyes, the lights flickered, and we just — there was nothing,” Sinwelski said.

Then came loud rumbles and the sound of shattering glass.

“I just kept crying out for God, because I didn’t know what else to do,” she said.

The latest round of extreme weather comes after eight people were killed by tornadoes in the US states of Michigan and Oklahoma last week.