war

He was asked if now is a good time to open an ISA or not

Martin Lewis has offered some advice on how you could organise your savings. He explained the practical tip amid the current uncertainty surrounding the economic impact of the Iran conflict.

The major war has already triggered a surge in oil prices, with fears of long-term consequences for food production and global economic growth.

Mr Lewis was questioned on his BBC podcast about whether now is an opportune moment to open a stocks and shares ISA, given that markets are struggling. When share prices fall, it can present a prime opportunity to invest, as your funds could increase in value when the market bounces back. But if prices decline further, the worth of your holdings could also drop. In response, Mr Lewis outlined the general principle to bear in mind.

He said: “If you’re talking about investing for a long term money that you don’t need for five years and you’re going to do that in a nice spread of investments, like a global tracker fund or an S&P tracker or FTSE tracker, then you just have to accept that you will never know when the perfect time to put money in is.”

£1,000 savings tactic

Nevertheless, he did reveal one strategy you could use to reduce the risk posed by market volatility. Mr Lewis said: “Let’s just imagine you’re putting £10,000 in a stocks and shares ISA, and you’re putting it away for a long time.

“You could put £10,000 in now but you could arrange with the provider that it sits in its cash part. You can hold it in cash, within a stocks and shares ISA, for the moment.

“You could say I’ve got £10,000, over the next 10 months, I’d like you to buy £1,000 a month of that tracker fund that I’m putting my investment into. It’s called pound-cost averaging.

“Because you’re drip feeding the money in, that helps smooth out the short-term volatility of buying at the right moment. So if you’re worried about that volatility, you might want to adopt that tactic.”

Mr Lewis continued in saying that in reality nobody can predict the optimal time to invest. He said: “They are unknowable in the short term, but in a broad spread of investment over the long term, on the balance of probabilities, investing will outperform saving.

“So don’t let the volatility put you off, but you might want to spread the time that you’re putting the money in.”

Major changes to ISA allowances

Savers may also want to note that major changes to ISA allowances are on the horizon. Currently, you can deposit up to £20,000 each tax year, which can be divided as you wish between cash ISAs and stocks and shares ISAs.

From April 2027, you will only be permitted to save up to £12,000 as you choose. The remaining £8,000 will only be available for deposits into investment-based accounts.

Savers aged 65 and over will be exempt from the new regulations, retaining the existing £20,000 allowance. ISAs are entirely tax-free, with no tax liability on any interest earnings or investment gains within these accounts.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and United States President Donald Trump have said that the Strait of Hormuz is open to commercial vessels.

Araghchi declared on Friday that the strategic waterwat was “completely open” in line with the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon that took effect the previous day.

Trump affirmed on social media that the strait was open, later claiming that Iran had agreed to “never close the Strait of Hormuz again”. However, he also posted that the US naval blockade on Iranian ports would “remain in full force”.

In parallel, France and the United Kingdom hosted a meeting in Paris involving about 40 countries, which agreed to play a role in restoring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz once the US-Israeli war on Iran stops.

The blocking of tankers from using the strait, through which about 20 percent of the world’s crude flows on a typical day, has led to a global surge in fuel prices.

World leaders have welcomed the news with cautious optimism amid mixed messages from the US and Iran:

United States

“The Strait of Hormuz is completely open and ready for business and full passage, but the naval blockade will remain in full force and effect as it pertains to Iran, only, until such time as our transaction with Iran is 100% complete,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Minutes later, he issued another post saying the US Navy’s blockade on Iranian ships and ports “will remain in full force” until Tehran reaches a deal with the US, including on its nuclear programme.

Later, Trump told the news agency AFP that a deal to end the war on Iran was “close”, saying there were “no sticking points” left between Washington and Tehran.

Iran

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted on X that the strait was “declared completely open” and would remain open for the remaining period of the 10-day Israel-Lebanon ceasefire, which took effect overnight Thursday into Friday.

Some Iranian state media reports later appeared to contradict Araghchi’s announcement, with a senior military official telling state media that only nonmilitary vessels would be allowed to transit with permission from the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy.

The Fars news agency, which is close to the IRGC, noted a “strange silence from the Supreme National Security Council”, the de facto top decision-making body in the country, as the status of the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, remains unknown.

United Kingdom

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer cohosted a summit on a potential military mission to secure the Hormuz Strait with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on Friday, with about 30 to 40 countries participating in person or by video conference.

On the sidelines, Starmer cautiously welcomed news of the strait’s reopening but said it must become “both lasting and a workable proposal”.

He said the UK and France would lead a “strictly peaceful and defensive” multinational mission to protect freedom of navigation as soon as conditions allow.

France

Speaking after the gathering, Macron said, “We all demand the full, immediate and unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz by all parties.”

“We all oppose any restrictions or system of agreements that would, in effect, amount to an attempt to ⁠privatise the strait – and, of course, any toll system,” he added.

Macron’s office said roles for members of the international coalition working to reopen the strait could include “intelligence, mine-clearing capabilities, military escorts [and] communication procedures with coastal states”.

Germany

Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Germany could contribute mine clearance and intelligence capabilities to the international mission, but would need parliamentary support and a ″secure legal basis″ such as a UN Security Council resolution.

He said he wanted US involvement in the international mission to secure shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. “We believe this would be desirable,″ he said.

Trump later appeared to rebuff his overtures, saying on social media that he had received a call from NATO, but declined its assistance in no uncertain terms.

Finland

Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who participated in the Paris summit, said on X, “We welcome Iran’s announcement on opening the Strait. Lasting solutions require diplomacy,”

United Nations

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio ⁠Guterres on ⁠Friday welcomed the opening ‌of Strait of Hormuz by Iran ⁠and said ⁠it was “a ⁠step in the ⁠right ⁠direction”.

International Maritime Organisation

Arsenio Dominguez, secretary-general of the UN shipping agency said, “We are currently verifying the recent announcement related to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, in terms of its compliance with freedom of navigation for all merchant vessels and secure ‌passage.”

Shipping companies

The Norwegian Shipowners’ Association said several things had to be clarified before any ships can transit the strait, including the presence of mines, Iranian conditions and practical implementation.

“If this represents a step towards an opening, it is a welcome development,” said Knut Arild Hareide, CEO of the association, which represents 130 companies with some 1,500 vessels.

A spokesperson for Germany’s Hapag-Lloyd Shipping Company said, “We are now beginning to assess the new situation and the risks involved … For the time being, therefore, we are still refraining from passing through the strait.”

In a statement, Denmark’s Maersk said: “We have noted the announcement. The safety of our crew, vessels and customers’ cargo remains our priority. Since the outbreak of the conflict, we have followed the guidance of our security partners in the region, and the recommendation so far has been to avoid transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

“Any decision to transit the strait will be based on risk assessments and close monitoring of the security situation, with the latest developments also included in the ongoing assessments.”

Markets

Oil prices plunged after Iran’s announcement that passage for commercial vessels would remain “completely open” for the duration of a 10-day ceasefire in Lebanon.

“This news is having an immediate impact on markets,” said Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB. “This is the biggest development so far during the ceasefire, and it gives hope that the war will end soon, and supply chains will return to some normality.”

Shipping companies said several things had to be clarified, including the presence of mines, Iranian conditions, practical implementations.

Shipping companies have cautiously welcomed Iran’s announcement that the Strait of Hormuz is open but said they would require clarifications, including about the risk of mines, before vessels move through the entry point to the Gulf.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the Strait of Hormuz was open to all commercial vessels during a 10-day Lebanon ceasefire accord, prompting a fall in oil and other commodity prices while stock markets rose.

All commercial ships, including United States vessels, can sail through the strait, although their plans need to be coordinated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a senior Iranian official told the Reuters news agency.

Transit would be restricted to lanes which Iran deemed safe, adding that military vessels were still prohibited, the official said.

“We are currently verifying the recent announcement related to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, in terms of its compliance with freedom of navigation for all merchant vessels and secure passage,” said Arsenio Dominguez, secretary-general of the United Nations shipping agency, the International Maritime Organization.

The Norwegian Shipowners’ Association said several things had to be clarified before any ships could transit the strait, including the presence of mines, Iranian conditions and practical implementation.

“If this represents a step towards an opening, it is a welcome development,” said Knut Arild Hareide, CEO of the association which represents 130 companies with some 1,500 vessels.

Shipping association BIMCO cautioned members on returning to the strait.

“The status of mine threats… is unclear and BIMCO believes shipping companies should consider avoiding the area,” said Jakob Larsen, BIMCO’s chief safety and security officer.

The threat posed by mines in parts of the strait is not fully understood, and avoidance of the area by ships should be considered, a US Navy advisory on Friday, seen by Reuters, also said.

German shipping group Hapag-Lloyd on Friday said it was working for its ships to sail through the strait “as soon as possible”, but added that several questions remained.

“Our crisis committee is in session and will try to resolve all open items with the relevant parties within the next 24-36 hours,” it added.

Its Danish peer Maersk said it was closely monitoring the security situation and would act based on its risk assessment.

France’s CMA CGM and Norwegian oil tanker group Frontline declined to comment.

A recent route imposed by Tehran through its territorial waters near Larak Island would present navigational challenges even if vessels were not required to pay a toll, and would raise questions regarding compliance and insurance, said Matt Wright, lead freight analyst at data intelligence firm Kpler.

US President Donald Trump on Friday said Iran had agreed to never close the strait again, and that it was removing sea mines from it.

One of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints, disruption in the strait has forced shipping companies to suspend sailings, reroute cargo and rely on costly workarounds to keep goods moving in and out of the Gulf.

Iran says ‘passage for all commercial vessels through Strait of Hormuz’ open during the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire.

The Strait of Hormuz is “completely open” for all commercial vessels and will remain so during the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire, Iran’s foreign minister has said.

“In line with the ceasefire in Lebanon, the passage for all commercial vessels through Strait of Hormuz is declared completely open for the remaining period of ceasefire,” Abbas Araghchi said in a post on X on Friday.

A 10-day ceasefire was agreed between Israel and Lebanon late on Thursday.

The passage of ⁠vessels through the ⁠strait will be on the coordinated route as ⁠already announced by ⁠Ports and ⁠Maritime Organisation of Iran, Araghchi added.

United States President Donald Trump confirmed in a social media post that the strait was “completely open and ready for business and full passage”.

More to come…

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi discusses the prospect that the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon could lead to a comprehensive deal between the US and Iran to end regional hostilities.

Until recently, President Trump always found a way to fail forward, through a combination of spin, threats, payoffs and bluster.

OK, that’s the simplistic interpretation. The fine print tells a less-glamorous story: a man born on third base who spent decades insisting he’d hit a triple.

Still, it’s hard to argue with success. When Trump entered politics, he redefined the rules of the game. Rivals who tried to outflank him on policy detail, ideological consistency and institutional norms found themselves either vanquished or assimilated by the Borg.

By my lights, only once during Trump’s admittedly chaotic first term did he run into something that his playbook couldn’t at least mitigate or parry: the COVID-19 pandemic. For the final year of his presidency, reality refused to negotiate, and political gravity reasserted itself. It turns out, viruses aren’t susceptible to the Art of The Deal.

But then, miraculously, Trump wriggled through legal jeopardy, bulldozed his way past more conventional Republicans and Democrats, and re-emerged victorious in 2024.

If anything, that comeback reinforced the idea that Trump could survive anything by virtue of his playbook.

By the start of his second term, he’d made impressive headway in co-opting not only individuals but also major institutions within big tech, the media and academia.

Even in foreign affairs, Trump’s sense that any problem could be solved via force, intimidation or money was confirmed when he captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and installed Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, as a sort of puppet leader. Everyone has a price, right?

Unfortunately for Trump, no. Not everyone does.

Lately, the president has encountered a different kind of resistance — adversaries motivated by something bigger and more transcendent than money, power or the avoidance of pain.

In dealing with Iran, for instance, Trump has confronted people operating under a wholly different set of incentives. It’s a regime guided by a mix of ideology, radical religious doctrine and long-term strategic interests that don’t always align with short-term material gain.

(Now perhaps, having punished Trump enough already, Iran will finally come to the negotiating table. But even if that happens, it will have occurred after exacting a steep price — so steep, in fact, that it may already be too late for Trump to plausibly claim a win.)

It turns out, you can’t easily intimidate or pay off a true believer who isn’t afraid to die and believes they have God on their side.

A similar (though obviously not morally equivalent) dynamic is now also on display in the form of Trump’s skirmish with Pope Leo XIV, a man who commands moral authority. He opposes the war in Iran (“Blessed are the peacemakers”) and has demonstrated a stubborn refusal to back down to Trump’s attempts at bullying.

“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” Leo said during a tour of Africa. It’s a remark that the American pope seemed to implicitly be aiming at the American president.

Here’s what Trump doesn’t understand: There are still pockets of the world where concepts like faith and national identity outweigh tangible incentives. Where sacrifice and suffering are an accepted part of the plan.

When facing these sorts of foes, Trump’s usual operating system starts to look less like a cheat code and more like a category error.

But he can’t see this because Trump is always prone to a sort of cynical projection — of assuming everyone views the world in the same base, carnal, corrupt way he sees it.

Whether it was his incredulity that Denmark wouldn’t sell Greenland, rhetoric that seemed to discount the motivations of those who serve and sacrifice in the military, or his affinity for nakedly transactional gulf states, the pattern is familiar: a tendency to view decisions through a cost-benefit lens that not everyone shares.

To be fair, that lens has often served him well. In arenas where power, money and leverage dominate, Trump’s approach is eerily effective.

But after years of taming secular, “rational” opponents, he is fighting a two-front war against people who see their struggles as moral and spiritual.

They aren’t stronger in a conventional sense. But they are, in a very real sense, less susceptible to Trump’s methods.

For perhaps the first time in his life, Donald Trump finds himself facing adversaries who aren’t just immune to his usual Trumpian playbook but are playing a different game altogether.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

The global air travel crisis has spread further as Lufthansa and KLM became the latest airlines to announce flights axed to and from major destinations, including London Heathrow

Hundreds of flights have been cancelled by two major airlines amid warnings Europe has just a “few weeks” of jet fuel left.

Germany’s flag carrier airline Lufthansa is suspending its CityLine services from tomorrow, including flights to and from London, in response to rocketing kerosene costs and an ongoing trade union dispute. Netherlands’ KLM meanwhile confirmed it had cancelled 160 flights over the next month, as the industry grapples with an ‘unprecedented’ oil shock triggered by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

It comes after the head of the world ’s energy watchdog has warned that Europe only has six weeks’ supply of jet fuel because of the Middle East conflict.

READ MORE: TUI update for passengers worried about risk of ‘fuel shortages’READ MORE: Jet2 issues Spain warning over four popular destinations

Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), warned there could be flight cancellations “soon” if oil supplies remain restricted by the war, with Iran and the US jostling for control for the vital Strait of Hormuz waterway.

Mr Birol said the conflict is causing “the largest energy crisis” the world has “ever faced”, with Asian nations such as Japan, India and China that rely on energy from the Middle East currently on “the front line”. But he warned that the impact would then “come to Europe and the Americas”, likely as soon as late May. Tourists are encouraged to continue to check before they travel.

Lufthansa’s CityLine services, which fly to a number of destinations across Europe including London, Paris, Frankfurt, Florence, Kraków, Stockholm and Copenhagen, will be cancelled from Saturday. Multiple daily services from Heathrow have already been pulled from the schedule.

A statement from Lufthansa last night said: “In view of significantly increased kerosene prices, which have more than doubled compared to the period before the Iran war, as well as rising additional burdens from labour disputes, the implementation of the corporate strategy is being partially accelerated.

“As a first, immediately effective step, starting the day after tomorrow, the 27 operational aircraft of Lufthansa Cityline will be permanently removed from the schedule to reduce further losses at the loss-making airline.”

Ongoing strikes by pilots and cabin crew belonging to German trade unions have already grounded approximately 90% of all Lufthansa Group flights on the worst days this week, with cancellations reported at Heathrow, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Newcastle, and Glasgow.

KLM announced “a number of adjustments to its flight schedule for the coming month” on routes which are “no longer financially viable to operate”. The Dutch airline said this was due “rising kerosene costs”, adding: “There is no kerosene shortage.”

Meanwhile, schedule data published by AeroRoutes this week showed that Norse Airlines has cancelled bookings for its planned Los Angeles flights this summer from London Gatwick, Paris Charles de Gaulle, and Rome Fiumicino.

Jet prices have more than doubled since the beginning of the Iran war on February 28, causing the largest wave of cancellations at many major international airports since the Covid pandemic.

OFFICIALS have warned that there is just weeks of jet fuel supplies left before airlines start running out.

Earlier this week, the head of the International Energy Agency warned that vital supplies remain blocked by conflict in Iran – as a result, many airlines have already started axing routes.

The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is holding up major supply chains which has led to a huge hike in fuel costs – and shortages.

ACI Europe, which represents European airports, said the key trade route must open within three weeks or fuel reserves will run drastically low.

In response, a number of major airlines have been cancelling flights in preparation for shortages – with thousands affected.

Here are the major eight airlines that have already cut back on their routes…

SHORE WINS

How to bag yourself a stunning British seaside holiday break for just £49

TRIP UP

The Sun’s travel experts reveal their best EVER holidays & how you can do them too

United Airlines

United Airlines said that five per cent of flights would be cancelled in the second and third quarters of 2026.

With up to 5,000 flights a month – working out to around 4,000 domestic and 800 international routes – this means it affects around 250 flights a month.

United Airlines has the world’s largest airline fleet with more than 1,075 aircraft.

Scandinavian Airlines

SAS was the first major airline in Europe to axe flights because of of the cost of fuel going up.

It said in mid-March that it would cancel 1,000 flights throughout April.

Lufthansa

Lufthansa‘s subsidiary airline CityLine is to cease operations due to both the Iran crisis and ongoing strike action.

The division ran business flights between European airports but will ground its entire fleet of 27 aircraft. 

Flight routes typically connected London to Frankfurt and Munich.

It will also cut six planes from its international fleet after the summer holiday season, warning that the cutbacks could last into winter.

KLM

Dutch airline KLM has cancelled 160 flights for the coming month, but has said it will affect less than 1 per cent of its schedule

The airline insists there is no shortage of jet fuel, saying the move is purely down to spiralling costs.

A KLM spokesperson said: “Passengers affected by these changes will be rebooked onto the next available flight.

“KLM expects a busy May holiday period and is making sure passengers can travel to their holiday destinations as planned.”

Cathay Pacific

Cathay Pacific has confirmed that two per cent of passenger flights will be cancelled from May 16 to June 30.

This will affect a number of regional routes, as well as longer-haul connections to destinations across Australia and South Asia.

Its budget airline HK Express is set to cut six per cent of flights due to increased costs.

Air New Zealand

Air New Zealand announced in March that it will be cutting back on flights over the next two months.

Chief Executive of Air New Zealand Nikhil Ravishankar said the airline would see roughly a five per cent reduction in its services which would continue until the beginning of May 2026.

This reduction equates to around 1,100 flights which in turn will affect 44,000 passengers out of its 1.9million.

Norse

Norse Atlantic Airways has removed all flights to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) from its summer schedule.

A spokesperson said: “Due to the continued increase in fuel constraint risks, fuel prices, and the resulting impact on our operating costs, we have had to make the difficult decision to suspend our LAX operations this summer, May to October.”

Norse operated a summer route from London Gatwick to LA.

British Airways

British Airways will drop its service from London Heathrow to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia permanently from April 24, 2026.

The airline had been operating a four flights a week service since November 2024.

BA said the terminating of the service was due to a shift in demand rather than fuel costs as hasn’t axed any flights because of that so far.

Virgin Airways

Virgin Atlantic announced earlier this month that it would be permanently scrapping its London flight to Riyadh from April 7, 2026.

It said some of the reasons were the “evolving situation in the Middle East” and “operating costs.”

Here’s why you should book your summer holiday now – easyJet boss says.

And here are the European holiday destinations Brits are flocking to instead of Turkey and Egypt due to Iran crisis.

Donald Trump has indicated that the conflict with Iran could conclude “soon,” citing progress in negotiations and a possible meeting between the two sides in the coming days. A temporary ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon has added to cautious optimism, though the broader regional situation remains unstable. The war, which began with U.S.-Israeli military action, has had sweeping geopolitical and economic consequences.

Ceasefire in Lebanon:
A 10-day truce between Israel and Lebanon has come into effect, offering a brief pause in cross-border hostilities. However, early reports of violations underline the fragility of the arrangement. Hezbollah, aligned with Iran, has been urged by Washington to maintain restraint during this critical window.

Diplomatic Breakthrough Efforts:
Backchannel diplomacy, with Pakistan playing a mediating role, has reportedly led to progress on key issues. Talks are expected to produce an initial memorandum of understanding, potentially followed by a comprehensive agreement within weeks. Engagement between U.S. and Iranian officials is likely to intensify in the immediate term.

Global Economic Shock:
The conflict has disrupted global energy flows, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of the world’s oil supply passes. This has triggered sharp oil price fluctuations and raised concerns about a broader economic slowdown, even as markets show signs of stabilizing on hopes of a resolution.

Nuclear Issue as Core Dispute:
Iran’s nuclear program remains the central obstacle in negotiations. Washington is pushing for long-term restrictions, while Tehran seeks shorter commitments and the lifting of sanctions. Bridging this gap will be critical to securing a durable settlement.

Political Pressures and Regional Stakes:
The war has created domestic political challenges for Trump, particularly ahead of upcoming elections. At the same time, regional actors are closely watching the outcome, as any agreement will shape the balance of power and security dynamics across the Middle East.

Analysis:
Momentum toward a deal is clearly building, but the situation remains precarious. The ceasefire in Lebanon and progress in diplomacy suggest a window of opportunity, yet unresolved issues, especially around nuclear limits and sanctions relief, could still derail negotiations. Trump’s urgency reflects both strategic calculation and domestic political pressure, while Iran appears willing to engage but not at any cost. If a preliminary agreement is reached, it would mark a significant de-escalation, but sustaining peace will require careful management of deep-rooted tensions and competing interests on all sides.

With information from Reuters.

‘We can do whatever we want’.
US President Donald Trump has described the war on Iran which has killed more than 2,000 people as a ‘little diversion’. Speaking in Las Vegas, he said it was ‘going swimmingly’ and ‘should be ending pretty soon’.

WASHINGTON — An effort to ramp up U.S. weapons production and build more ships, planes and drones will require a massive upfront investment, President Trump’s budget director told a House committee Wednesday.

The testimony from Russell Vought jump-starts the White House’s push to increase defense spending to nearly $1.5 trillion in the next budget year, up from nearly $1 trillion this year, while cutting health research, heating assistance and scores of other domestic programs by about 10% overall. Such cuts do not cover mandatory spending, which includes such programs as Social Security and Medicare.

The debate over Trump’s proposal underscored the sharp divide that will shape some of the most significant policy debates going into a midterm election that will give voters the ultimate say on the direction of the country.

“For the industrial base to double or triple and build more facilities, not just add shifts, it requires multiyear agreements to purchase into the future,” Vought told lawmakers. “That cost has to be booked in this first year.”

The White House is calling for about $1.1 trillion for defense through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. An additional $350 billion would come through a separate bill that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes.

Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democratic member of the committee, said he believes in a strong national defense. But he said the idea of increasing defense by more than 40% while cutting programs that people need shows that the Republican administration’s priorities are “out of whack.”

The committee chairman, Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), predicted the hearing would be more “amped up” than usual, and that proved to be true, beginning with his opening statement focused on criticizing Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency. Arrington said he did not know of any president in his lifetime who “inherited such a complete and utter mess as President Trump did in January of last year.”

Since then, Arrington said, Trump has secured the border, cut taxes and constrained nondefense spending.

It was the beginning of several back-and-forths at the hearing.

“You know how bad this economy is when we hear Joe Biden being invoked, we hear trans people being invoked. I was waiting for Jimmy Carter to be blamed next,” Boyle said in response to Arrington’s opening remarks.

Boyle said consumer confidence is plummeting under Trump and noted a gas station he passed in Philadelphia recently was selling gas at $4.11 a gallon versus less than $3 a gallon some six weeks ago because of Trump’s “war of choice in Iran.”

Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) called the proposed defense spending increase shocking.

“We’ve never in the history of this country seen spending like this, paid for by slashing healthcare, education and housing,” Balint said. “Mr. Vought, yes or no, is $350 billion for the war in Iran lowering costs for Americans?”

“It is certainly not defunding child care. We fully fund child care in this budget,” Vought said, not directly answering the question.

Balint went on to incorporate Trump’s “America first” mantra in her questioning.

She said that $350 billion could pay for an enhanced health insurance tax credit for 10 years and that her constituents are asking how the country can continue to spend money on wars and not find a solution to helping people afford healthcare.

Vought said the president has made clear he was not going to let Iran have nuclear weapons, missiles and a navy that affect U.S. national security.

“He is doing what is necessary to keep us safe, while at the same time trying to pursue diplomacy so that we can get out of wars and lower those costs over time,” Vought said.

Vought said it was unclear how much the administration would seek to fund the war during the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30. That money would be part of an emergency supplemental spending bill and would be on top of the funds the White House is seeking to boost defense spending next year.

“Would it be more than $50 billion?” asked Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas).

“We’re still working on it,” Vought said. “I don’t have a ballpark for you.”

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, leading a Pentagon prayer meeting, quoted a fictional bible verse taken from a violent monologue in Quentin Tarantino’s 1994 film “Pulp Fiction,” originally delivered by actor Samuel L. Jackson just before his character shoots a helpless man to death.

The secretary used the prayer to frame the war in Iran as an act of divine justice, the same justification Jackson’s character cites in the film before pulling the trigger.

Hegseth told the audience at a monthly Pentagon worship service held Wednesday that he learned the prayer from the lead mission planner of a team called “Sandy 1,” which recently rescued downed Air Force crew members in Iran.

Hegseth said the verse is frequently spoken by combat search-and-rescue crews, who call the prayer “CSAR 25:17, which I think is meant to reflect Ezekiel 25:17” from the Bible.

“And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to capture and destroy my brother,” Hegseth recited. “And you will know my call sign is Sandy 1, when I lay my vengeance upon thee.”

The infamous Ezekiel 25:17 speech from “Pulp Fiction” is almost entirely a screenwriter’s creation; only the final refrain is loosely inspired by the actual biblical verse. The majority of the monologue in Tarantino’s film is adapted from the opening of the 1976 Japanese martial arts film “The Bodyguard,” with action star Sonny Chiba.

Hegseth’s minute-long prayer closely followed those scripts, with only the last two lines resembling language from the Bible. In Hegseth’s version, he replaced “and they shall know that I am the Lord,” from the book of Ezekiel with the call sign for a U.S. A-10 Warthog aircraft.

Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said some outlets accused Hegseth of mistaking Jackson’s Golden Globe-winning performance with actual scripture, and called that narrative “fake news.”

“Secretary Hegseth on Wednesday shared a custom prayer, referenced as the CSAR prayer, used by the brave warfighters of Sandy-1 who led the daylight rescue mission of Dude 44 Alpha out of Iran, which was obviously inspired by dialogue in Pulp Fiction,” Parnell wrote on X. “However, both the CSAR prayer and the dialogue in Pulp Fiction were reflections of the verse Ezekiel 25:17, as Secretary Hegseth clearly said in his remarks at the prayer service. Anyone saying the Secretary misquoted Ezekiel 25:17 is peddling fake news and ignorant of reality.”

Hegseth has frequently used his prayer sessions to call for violence in the ongoing Iran war. In last month’s sermon, he asked God to “grant this task force clear and righteous targets for violence.”

The services are not mandatory, a senior defense analyst with knowledge of Pentagon operations told The Times, but some who work closely with Hegseth’s office feel an “implied pressure” to attend and “fill seats.”

The effect — some feel — is less attention on the Pentagon’s wartime efforts, and more on supporting political stunts, according to the source, who is not authorized to speak to the media and requested anonymity.

“We have managers and leaders that are missing mission critical work to go listen to ‘Pulp Fiction’ quotes,” the source said. “It delays our ability to make operational, mission related war-fighting decisions.”

The prayer came amid an ongoing clash between the Trump administration and Pope Leo XIV, who has spoken out in recent weeks against the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran. Statements from the Vatican were met with a series of reprisals from President Trump, who said he doesn’t “want a pope” who criticizes the president of the United States.

On Thursday, the pope released a statement against military leaders who conflate war with divinity.

“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic, and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” he said.

WASHINGTON — If the U.S. and Iran aren’t able to soon come to a deal to end the war or extend the ceasefire that expires next week, the Trump administration is setting the stage to shift its war campaign toward a more economic-focused effort aimed at choking Tehran into submission rather than relying on bombs alone.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters at a White House briefing Wednesday that the U.S. plans to ramp up economic pain on Iran, and said the new moves will be the “financial equivalent” of a bombing campaign.

The threat of secondary economic sanctions on countries doing business with people, firms, and ships under Iranian control — including allies like the United Arab Emirates and competitors like China — represents an escalation of sanctions that the U.S. is already employing.

Bessent said the administration has “told companies, we have told countries that if you are buying Iranian oil, that if Iranian money is sitting in your banks, we are now willing to apply secondary sanctions, which is a very stern measure. And the Iranians should know that this is going to be the financial equivalent of what we saw in the kinetic activities.”

Treasury Department warns China, Hong Kong, the UAE and Oman

The warning comes the day after the Treasury Department sent a letter to financial institutions in China, Hong Kong, the UAE, and Oman, threatening to levy secondary sanctions for doing business with Iran, and accusing those countries of allowing Iranian illicit activities to flow through their financial institutions.

It’s part of an economic playbook that President Trump still can use to pressure Iran to accept U.S. proposals to limit its nuclear ambitions, a person familiar with the administration’s thinking told the Associated Press. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss private discussions on the record.

Privately, the argument being made to Trump is that the Iranians think they can weather the storm — but if they cannot pay their loyalists, that could pressure Iran to the table.

And some in the administration believe there are still more economic targets that can be hit that would put the economic hurt on Iran, including bonyads, the charitable trusts that account for a significant percentage of the Iranian economy.

Bessent told reporters that two Chinese banks have received warnings about handling Iranian money. Trump is preparing to visit Beijing next month for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Bessent also said that Iran’s Gulf neighbors are now willing to look at freezing Iranian money in their banks because of Iran’s aggression during the war.

Daniel Pickard, a sanctions attorney, said imposing secondary sanctions could result in “diplomatic and economic blowback” from allies that could hurt efforts to build coalitions against Tehran.

“A lot of our trading partners have been outspoken in regard to their opposition to the conflict in Iran,” Pickard said. “Most economic sanctions professionals would agree that when you get more people on the team, the chances of your economic sanctions being effective are greater.”

On Wednesday, the U.S. imposed sanctions on an oil smuggling network connected to the deceased senior Iranian security official Ali Shamkhani, who was a close advisor to the former Supreme Leader of Iran. Sanctions include dozens of individuals, companies, and vessels involved in secretly transporting and selling Iranian and Russian oil through front companies, many of which are in the UAE.

“Treasury will continue to cut off Iran’s illicit smuggling and terror proxy networks,” Bessent said in a statement. “Financial institutions should be on notice that Treasury will leverage all tools and authorities, including secondary sanctions, against those that continue to support Tehran’s terrorist activities.

The administration believes the momentum has shifted

Trump administration officials have also signaled growing confidence that the ceasefire and a blockade of shipments from Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz have shifted momentum in Trump’s favor.

Iran has endured tens of billions of dollars in damage during the bombardment to the country’s infrastructure — including setbacks to its oil industry, the heart of its fragile and long-isolated economy — that could take years to repair.

Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday said Trump “doesn’t want to make, like, a small deal. He wants to make the grand bargain.”

“That’s the trade that he’s offering,” Vance said. “If you guys commit to not having a nuclear weapon, we are going to make Iran thrive.”

The president’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, offered a more caustic assessment of the moment, suggesting that Trump had “played the checkmate move” on Iran by implementing the blockage in the strait.

“If Iran chooses the path of a deal that’s great for the world, that’s great for everybody. If Iran chooses the path of economic strangulation by blockade, then the world will pass Iran by,” Miller said in a Fox News appearance Tuesday evening. “New energy routes will be established. New supply chains will be established. Other nations throughout the region — throughout the world, and especially America — will power the world and Iran will become a footnote.”

Some Republicans are skeptical that more sanctions will work

Some Republicans believe that any tactic to exert more pressure on Tehran is worth trying.

“I would support anything,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). “If the administration came up with the ideas, I would support all of the above. More pressure, the better.”

Others were skeptical, noting that Tehran was already facing a litany of economic penalties that had little impact on its behavior.

“I’m not sure if it’s sanctions that’ll do it. I think we’re putting some pretty heavy sanctions on right now,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Banking and Armed Services Committees. “I personally am just not optimistic that we actually can fix this thing without a regime change.”

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, a think tank that has been critical of Trump’s decision to launch the war, says that Trump had been “politically cornered and strategically constrained” before he announced the ceasefire. But now, Parsi argues, Trump may have altered the difficult dynamic and created a situation where “Iran now appears to need an agreement more than the United States does.”

“The window now open offers Tehran a chance to convert battlefield leverage into lasting strategic gain,” Parsi wrote in a new analysis. “To let it close would mean forfeiting not just incremental progress, but the possibility of reshaping its economic and geopolitical position. By contrast, the United States, having already secured a tenuous exit ramp through the ceasefire, has less at stake in the short term.”

Hussein, Madhani, Weissert and Kim write for the Associated Press.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry on Thursday confirmed that the United States and Iran were in discussions – through Islamabad – to hold a second meeting between their negotiators to end their now nearly seven-week war, with a fragile ceasefire announced on April 8 days away from expiring.

But it added that no date had been set for that next round of negotiations, even as Islamabad stepped up a parallel diplomatic push to keep the process alive.

“Who will come, how big the delegation will be, who will stay, and who will go is for the parties to decide,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tahir Andrabi told reporters in Islamabad, referring to what upcoming talks might look like. “As a mediator, it’s important for us to keep the talks confidential. We had the details and information of the talks entrusted to us by the negotiating parties.” 

Speaking of the first round of talks on April 12 in Islamabad, which concluded without a deal, Andrabi said: “There was neither a breakthrough nor a breakdown.”

The spokesperson confirmed that nuclear issues remained among the key subjects under discussion, but declined to elaborate.

His comments came as Pakistan’s civil and military leadership is travelling across the region in what some observers have begun calling the “Islamabad Process”, reflecting the government’s attempt to frame negotiations as an ongoing diplomatic effort rather than a one-off engagement.

Parallel diplomatic tracks

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif arrived in Doha on Thursday, the second stop of a four-day regional tour that began with Jeddah on Wednesday, and will see him visiting Antalya next.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Asim Munir arrived in Tehran on Wednesday with a delegation that included Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi.

Munir was received at the airport with a warm hug from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said he was “delighted” to welcome the field marshal and expressed gratitude for Pakistan’s “gracious hosting of dialogue”.

On Thursday, Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led Tehran’s delegation at the Islamabad talks, also met Munir.

Reza Amiri Moghadam, Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, said at an event in Islamabad that Tehran would not consider any venue other than Pakistan for talks with Washington.

“We will do talks in Pakistan and nowhere else, because we trust Pakistan,” he said.

Muhammad Faisal, a Pakistani security analyst and scholar at the University of Technology Sydney, said the parallel outreach reflected a deliberate division of labour.

“Pakistan’s strategy appears to be dual-tracked: PM Sharif is reassuring Gulf allies and attempting to build a broader support coalition, while CDF Munir is engaged in hard negotiations between the two sides to narrow gaps between Iran and the US, with an eye on extending the ceasefire and reaching a broader understanding,” he told Al Jazeera.

Reports that Munir might travel to Washington, DC after Tehran were denied by security officials, who called them “speculative”. Andrabi said he was not aware of any such development.

In Jeddah on Wednesday, Sharif met Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and expressed “full solidarity and support” for the kingdom following regional escalation, according to Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry. The crown prince praised what Riyadh described as the “constructive role” played by both Sharif and Munir.

In Doha, Sharif met Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and discussed “the regional situation, particularly in the Gulf region”, underscoring “the importance of de-escalation, dialogue and close international coordination to ensure peace and stability”, the prime minister’s office said.

From Doha, Sharif heads to Antalya with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar. They are expected to meet counterparts from Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and potentially Egypt on the sidelines of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum on April 17.

Regional security push

The Antalya meeting is part of a broader diplomatic effort. Turkiye is preparing to host talks on a regional security platform involving Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

It would be the third such meeting in a month, following earlier rounds of talks in Riyadh and Islamabad.

The goal is to establish a platform for regular, structured cooperation on regional security issues, the officials said, stressing the discussions are distinct from current efforts to end the Iran war.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan confirmed that discussions were under way, but said no agreement had been finalised.

“This pact is necessary so that countries can be assured of one another,” he told the state-run Anadolu Agency on Monday.

Turkiye also reaffirmed support for the US-Iran peace process on Thursday.

“We will continue to provide the necessary support for the ongoing ceasefire to turn into a permanent truce and eventually lasting peace, without becoming more complex and difficult to manage,” the Defence Ministry said, adding that it expected “the parties will be constructive in the ongoing negotiation process”.

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said senior officials from the four countries had also met in Islamabad earlier this week to prepare recommendations for Antalya.

Ceasefire under strain

The two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan on April 8, which halted attacks in Iran and the Gulf, is due to expire on April 22. While still holding, it is under increasing strain.

A US naval blockade on Iranian ports remains in place, with the US Central Command saying its forces had turned away nine ships as of Wednesday.

Kamran Yousuf, an Islamabad-based journalist and expert on diplomatic affairs, said he expected the ceasefire to be extended.

“I would be really surprised if the current ceasefire is not extended. There is little appetite on both sides to go back to war. There are enough signs on the ground that if there is no deal before the truce expires, the ceasefire will be extended,” he told Al Jazeera.

Faisal offered a more cautious assessment, warning that failure to secure a second round would shift Pakistan’s role.

“Pakistan’s mediation will not collapse immediately, but Islamabad’s role will change from mediator to crisis manager. If hostilities resume, Pakistan will focus again on brokering a ceasefire,” he said.

Despite uncertainty, signals from both Washington and Tehran have remained cautiously optimistic.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said further talks would “very likely” take place in Islamabad, adding, “We feel good about the prospects of a deal.”

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said multiple messages had been exchanged with Washington through Pakistan since April 12.

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that talks could resume within two days and that Washington was “more inclined to go” to Pakistan.

Sticking points remain

The path to a second round remains complicated by unresolved disputes.

Iran has insisted that Lebanon be included in any agreement, arguing that ongoing Israeli strikes there, which have killed more than 2,000 people and displaced 1.2 million, cannot be separated from the wider conflict.

On April 14, the United States convened a trilateral meeting in Washington with the ambassadors of Israel and Lebanon, the first direct engagement between the two sides since 1993.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio mediated the talks, which both sides described as “productive”, but no ceasefire or follow-up meeting was agreed.

Washington has maintained that any Lebanon deal must remain separate from US-Iran negotiations, rejecting Tehran’s position. On Thursday, Israel said its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would speak on the phone with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun — but Beirut had not confirmed any plans for a telephone conversation. The two countries do not have formal diplomatic relations.

At Thursday’s briefing, Andrabi aligned Pakistan with Iran on this issue.

“Peace in Lebanon is essential for US-Iran peace talks,” he said, adding that “signs of improvement on the Israel-Lebanon front over the past two days are encouraging.”

Yousuf said a Lebanon ceasefire would send an important signal to Iran.

“Extending the ceasefire to Lebanon will be an important confidence-building measure, a signal from the US that it is serious about a second round. It will also give Tehran good reason to return to the table,” he said.

But he added that the deeper challenge remained Iran’s nuclear programme.

“The nuclear issue is at the heart of the real problem. The flurry of shuttle diplomacy initiated by Pakistan is aimed at bridging the gap between the two sides,” he said.

Grace Wermenbol, a former US national security official and senior visiting fellow at the German Marshall Fund, said Washington’s approach to Lebanon would hinge on Trump’s willingness to pressure Israel.

“A clear pathway to a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon exists,” she told Al Jazeera. “The question is whether Trump will be willing to apply the pressure necessary on Israel to halt its military offensive and allow the Lebanese government to continue its military disarmament efforts. So far, and this is also true for the months preceding the latest escalation between Israel and Hezbollah, we have not seen this pressure materialise.”

The Strait of Hormuz remains another major obstacle.

The waterway, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil passes during peacetime, has effectively been blocked by Iran since early in the war, except for ships belonging to countries that have struck individual deals with Tehran.

Starting Monday, the US imposed its own naval blockade on the strait, to prevent any Iran-linked vessel from passing through.

“Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as the primary issue in US-Iranian negotiations. Opening it is crucial to easing upward pressure on oil prices and instilling confidence in global markets,” Wermenbol said.

She added that Tehran appeared to be betting Washington would eventually back down.

“There is no easy military option here,” she said. “The only way to resolve this issue and remove the threat to maritime traffic will need to involve a diplomatic deal.”

A EUROPEAN airline is axing all flights with immediate effect.

Lufthansa‘s subsidiary airline CityLine is to cease operations due to both the Iran war and ongoing strike action.

The airline – which operates some flights to and from the UK – will be grounding 27 aircraft from April 18.

Flight routes typically connect London to both Frankfurt and Munich.

It isn’t clear how this will affect passengers just yet, as to whether they will offer alternative routes or refunds.

They said in a statement, according to local media: “As a first, immediately effective step, the 27 operational aircraft of Lufthansa CityLine will be permanently removed from the flight programme starting the day after tomorrow, in order to reduce further losses at the loss-making airline.”

Read more on travel inspo

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

ALL IN

I found the best value all inclusive London hotel… just £55pp with free food & booze

CityLine was due to cease operations by 2028, but has since decided to close this month instead.

Sun Travel has contacted Lufthansa for comment.

Lufthansa’s main airline has also announced that it will be grounding four Airbus jets and two Boeing jets for good, by the end of the summer, which are mainly used for longer flights.

Lufthansa will reduce short and medium-haul flights by five aircraft from this winter as well, while long-haul capacity will be reduced by six.

Till Streichert, chief financial officer of Lufthansa Group, also said: “The goal is to focus our short- and medium-haul platforms more clearly and make them more competitive.”

The announcement follows hundreds of flight cancellations this week following pilot strike action.

Union Vereinigung Cockpit called the strike action over pension disputes and yesterday announced that the strike action would be extended by two days.

Pilots first walked out on Monday leading to hundreds of flights being cancelled, including many from the UK.

Cabin crew also walked out yesterday and today.

Around 34 flights were cancelled to and from the UK yesterday and with an average flight usually carrying around 150 passengers each, more than 5,000 Brits could have been impacted.

When further strike action was announced, VC president Andreas Pinheiro said: “The situation remains unchanged; there is absolutely no movement on the employers’ side.

“For us, this is not about political power struggles or egos, but about sustainable solutions.”

In a statement, the airline told passengers earlier this week: “Lufthansa and Eurowings are working intensively to keep the impact on passengers as low as possible.

“We are trying to have as many flights as possible operated by other airlines within the Lufthansa Group and by partner airlines.

“However, despite these efforts, flight cancellations are unavoidable.

“Travelers who are affected by an irregularity will be informed accordingly, provided their contact details are stored in the booking.

“We ask passengers to check the status of their flight before setting out on their journey.

“We apologize for the inconvenience caused by the disproportionate and very short-notice strike announcement.”

The airline has told passengers that if their flight is cancelled, they will be able to rebook once free of charge or have their ticket refunded.

In other flight news, here’s the first look at one airline’s new onboard bunk beds which even economy passengers can book.

Plus, a major UK airline is set to hike flights by up to £360 as they warn jet fuel prices have ‘never been this high’.

The developments following the 12-day war between Iran and Israel did not lead to de-escalation, but rather to a redefinition of the conflict on a much broader scale. While volatile negotiations between Tehran and Washington continued, the gap between the two sides’ expectations deepened. Ultimately, this gap led to a decision at the White House based on an optimistic assessment: To enter a limited conflict and force Iran into a rapid retreat.

But the battlefield quickly shattered that assumption. The war that was meant to be short, controlled, and manageable turned into a 40-day war of attrition, one that not only failed to achieve the initial objectives of the United States but imposed heavy military, economic, and political costs.

The key question is: What caused this deep disconnect between initial assessments and reality? To answer that question, this article focuses on pre-war miscalculations and decisive variables during the conflict.

1- Incorrect generalisation of the 12-day war experience

Washington assumed Iran’s behavioural pattern from the short war with Israel would repeat, but this time the level of direct US involvement was far higher. Iran adjusted its response accordingly, most notably by playing the Strait of Hormuz card. According to published reports from a US situation room meeting on February 12, General Keane, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned of the risks of closing the strait, but Trump rejected the general’s assessment and assumed Iran would surrender before reaching that point. On the ground, however, the Strait of Hormuz became a decisive factor in disrupting both economic and military calculations.

2- Neglecting Iran’s strategic shift

The US still assumed Iran’s main target would be Israel, but this time Tehran focused on US bases across the region. The UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Jordan were placed directly on Iran’s target list.

3- Miscalculating Iran’s military and defensive capabilities

Iran’s gradual advances in missile technology, operational precision and air defence systems were not sufficiently accounted for in Washington’s calculations. The US did not believe Iran’s air defences could down its fighter jets or that Iranian missiles could disable the advanced radars at Gulf Arab states’ bases. Battlefield developments revealed a real leap in Iran’s offensive and defensive capabilities, imposing high costs on the US Air Force and seriously challenging its air superiority.

4- Wrong predictions about Iran’s domestic situation

One of Washington’s key assumptions was the outbreak of instability or internal collapse. Intelligence reports from December led them astray, convincing Trump that with widespread assassinations and the activation of public protests, Iran lacked the necessary resilience. In practice, however, a state of war led to social cohesion and strengthened the spirit of resistance. The reason lies in the “civilisational variable”, the role of historical identity and behavioural patterns within Iranian society, which, in times of crisis, through modern activism and mass street presence, shape national resistance. Washington mistook a “battle for national survival” for “political protests”.

5- Underestimating the cohesion of the “axis of resistance”

The US expected Iran-aligned groups to play a marginal role, but their operational coordination drastically increased battlefield complexity. The “axis of resistance” lined up in a unified front against the US, while NATO failed to provide effective support for Washington, revealing fractures in Washington’s traditional alliances when faced with costly crises.

6- Growing domestic and international pressure

The continuation of the war was met with opposition inside the US – from media criticism by former Trump supporters and figures like Tucker Carlson to human rights protests over attacks on civilians, particularly the Minab school tragedy, which quickly eroded the moral legitimacy of the operation in global public opinion, including within the US.

Meanwhile, the expansion of the war into the region caused oil prices to surge past $120, raising serious concerns and analyses about $200 oil, placing heavy economic pressure on US households.

On the international stage, the veto of Bahrain’s proposed resolution by Russia and China, along with the independent stances of some Western allies, dramatically increased the political cost of the war for Washington.

7 – Signs of fractures within US military decision-making structures

Command disagreements grew increasingly severe. The widespread dismissal of senior generals – including the army chief of staff and several other commanders – in the middle of the war was like a major earthquake at the Pentagon. This was no simple administrative reshuffle; it reflected a deadlock in modern military doctrine, which negatively impacted operational continuity.

Taken together, these errors – from misreading Iran’s behaviour and strategic evolution to ignoring simultaneous domestic and international pressures – placed the US in a position where accepting Iran’s terms after 40 days to begin negotiations became the only realistic option.

In the end, this war stands as a clear example of strategic deadlock: Where the gap between optimistic initial estimates and battlefield realities fundamentally alters the course of events.

It is an experience that will likely be discussed and revisited for years to come in Washington’s strategic circles.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Kharkiv, Ukraine – Hushruzjon Salohidinov, 26, was working as a courier in Saint Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city and President Vladimir Putin’s hometown.

But last year, the Tajik man and practising Muslim says he was arrested while picking up a parcel which police claimed contained money stolen from elderly women.

Salohidinov says he never interacted with the alleged criminals, but nevertheless spent nine months in the Kresty-2 pre-trial detention centre about 32km (20 miles) from the city, while a judge refused to start his trial because of the “weak evidence” against him.

But instead of releasing him after that, prison wardens threatened to place him in a cell with HIV-infected inmates who, they said, would gang-rape him – unless he “volunteered” to fight in Ukraine.

“They said, ‘Oh, you’ll put on a skirt now, you’ll be raped,’” Salohidinov, who has raven black hair and a messy full beard, told Al Jazeera at a centre for war prisoners in northeastern Ukraine, where he is now being held, having been captured in January this year by Ukrainian forces.

Using a carrot-and-stick tactic, the wardens also promised him a sign-up bonus of 2 million rubles ($26,200), a monthly salary of 200,000 rubles ($2,620) and an amnesty from all convictions.

So, in the autumn of 2025, Salohidinov signed up as he “saw no other way out”.

Officials in Kresty-2, St Petersburg’s prosecutors’ office and Russia’s Ministry of Defence did not respond to any of Al Jazeera’s requests for comment.

‘Catching migrants’

Salohidinov is just one of tens of thousands of labour migrants from Central Asia coerced by Russia to become soldiers as part of the Kremlin’s nationwide campaign, according to human rights groups, media reports and Russian officials.

Hochu Jit, a Ukrainian group that helps Russian soldiers surrender, has published verified lists of thousands of Central Asian soldiers like Salohidinov.

“They are literally sent to be killed, no one considers them soldiers that need to be saved,” the group wrote in a 2025 post on Telegram. These soldiers’ life expectancy on the front line is about four months. “Losses among them are catastrophic,” the group reported.

With its low birthrate and large oil wealth, Russia has for years been a magnet for millions of labour migrants from ex-Soviet Central Asia, especially Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

The campaign by the Kremlin to force Central Asians to fight in Ukraine dates back to 2023 – the year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – when police began rounding up anyone who didn’t look Slavic and charging them with real or imagined transgressions such as a lack of registration, expired or “fake” permits or blurred stamps on their documents. Sometimes, migrants are simply bused straight to conscription offices.

In 2025, Al Jazeera interviewed another Tajik man who said he had been detained with an expired work permit and was then tortured into “volunteering” while being subjected to countless xenophobic and Islamophobic slurs from his officers.

Migrants say they are abused, tortured and threatened with jail or having their entire families deported.

“The main way of recruiting as many migrants as possible is pressure on them with threats of deportation,” Alisher Ilkhamov, the Uzbekistan-born head of the London-based Central Asia Due Diligence think tank, told Al Jazeera.

Sometimes, migrants are simply duped.

Salohidinov said one serviceman in his squad was an Uzbek who “didn’t speak a word of Russian” and was fooled into “volunteering” while signing papers at a migration centre.

In their reports about “catching” migrants, officials frequently use derogatory terms about them, and also when they describe men who have obtained Russian passports but skipped registration at conscription offices. Since the Soviet era, such registration has been obligatory for all men and, since 2024, a newly naturalised Russian national can lose his citizenship if he fails to do it.

“We’ve caught 80,000 such Russian citizens, who don’t just want to go to the front line, they don’t even want to go to a conscription office,” chief prosecutor Alexander Bastrykin said in May 2025, referring to the migrants’ alleged patriotic sentiments.

He boasted that 20,000 Central Asians with Russian passports were herded to the front line in 2025.

The year before, he said 10,000 Central Asians had been sent to Ukraine.

Such remarks resonate with the Russian public that lives with “a high level of xenophobia in the stage of fear and helplessness,” Sergey Biziyukin, an exiled opposition activist from the western city of Ryazan, told Al Jazeera.

“For them, such phrases from Bastrykin are a form of sedative.”

What makes Central Asians easy targets is that they hail from police states, which depend on Moscow politically and economically, observers say.

“While the migrants are frightened into signing contracts, their motherland doesn’t really pay any attention,” Galiya Ibragimova, an Uzbekistan-born, Moldova-based regional expert, told Al Jazeera.

Despite hefty signup bonuses and relentless propaganda, the number of Russians who want to fight in Ukraine fell by at least one-fifth this year, and Moscow will strive to recruit more Central Asians, she said.

‘We’ll have our fingers broken’

After signing the contract and leaving his debit card with his sign-up bonus with his parents, Salohidinov was sent to the western city of Voronezh for three weeks of training that did little to prepare him for the war.

“We just kept running back and forth with guns,” he said.

Their drill sergeants, he says, told the conscripts that the standard-issue flak jackets, helmets, boots and flashlights were of subpar quality and urged them to pitch in a million rubles ($13,100) each for “better” gear.

The incident corroborates reports on dozens of similar cases in Russian military units.

Salohidinov was ordered to work in a kitchen – and was verbally abused and beaten for the slightest transgression.

Of 28 men in his unit, 21 were Muslims – but their ethnic Russian officers ignored their pleas not to have pork in meals, repeating a decades-old practice of ignoring religion-related dietary restrictions dating back to the Soviet army.

The commanders demonised Ukrainians, telling them “that if we surrender, we’d be tortured, have our fingers broken, maimed, get [construction] foam up our a**, have our teeth yanked out one by one, have our arms broken”, Salohidinov says.

In early January this year, the conscripts were bused to the Russia-occupied Ukrainian region of Luhansk.

Salohidinov says he was tired, frightened and disoriented – Ukrainian drones were “always” above them and a grenade explosion nearby damaged his left eardrum.

‘Glad I got captured’

On the fourth day of his service, Salohidinov was ordered to run beyond Ukrainian positions as part of Russia’s new tactic to send two or three servicemen to infiltrate the porous front line.

The mission was suicidal because the terrain was open, dotted with landmines and the bodies of dead Russian soldiers, while Ukrainians were firing machineguns and flew drones above them.

“I ran and ran and saw we were being shot at,” he said. “Me and my commander decided to surrender voluntarily instead of dying for nothing.”

They detached their assault rifles’ magazines, raised their hands and yelled they were surrendering.

What followed was “a calm feeling, beautiful”, he said. “They fed us, let us have a smoke, gave us food and water and even cake.”

Now, Salohidinov hopes to return to Tajikistan and panics at the thought of being made part of a prisoner swap – these have taken place several times each year – and returning to Russia because he would be sent back to the front line.

Tajikistan and other Central Asian nations have never endorsed Russia’s war in Ukraine, but nor have they openly criticised it.

In August 2025, Tajikistan’s Prosecutor General Habibullo Vohidzoda declared that no Tajik national would be charged for fighting in Ukraine.

So, what Salohidinov needs right now is an extradition request.

“I’m even glad that I got captured, because I’m not fighting anyone now, not risking anything,” he said. “I’ll even say thanks to Ukraine for taking me prisoner.”

The Tajik embassy in Kyiv did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Americans could be forgiven if they’re unaware that President Trump recently performed one of his most essential tasks and sent his annual budget request to Congress, though months late and stunningly incomplete.

After all, so much else has been dominating the news lately: the Mideast war that Trump promised not to start. Price rises he’d vowed to end. His repeated insults of Pope Leo XIV. His portraying himself as Jesus Christ, then lying about having done so. An incompetent attorney general to fire. And the president’s actual priorities — plans for a $400-million White House ballroom and a massive “Triumphal Arch” nearby!

It’s a lot.

Once again, as in Trump’s first term, the public and press are inattentive to the nation’s fiscal health relative to past years. But that reflects the president’s own disengagement with reconciling spending and revenue — this from a president many Americans voted for based on his purported prowess as a businessman. For decades back to Ronald Reagan’s time, so-called deficit wars in Washington were a big story. Now, even Republicans in Congress complain of Trump’s absence from the fiscal fray as they struggle to belatedly finish this year’s budget work that was due last fall, and to end a weeks-old partial government shutdown, before turning to the budget for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1.

Yet it’s worth paying attention to U.S. budgets even if Trump won’t, for the sake of our children and grandchildren who’ll inherit the bills. In one document, a federal budget reflects the nation’s priorities. And these days, in the perennial guns-versus-butter debate, Trump has made his feelings all too plain.

“We’re fighting wars,” he told a group at the White House on April Fools’ Day. “We can’t take care of day care … Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.”

Forget that Trump swore to end wars. Or that last year, long before he went to war against Iran, he cut $1 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid and other healthcare programs in his misnamed “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Yes, budgets can be boring, especially to a president with a famously short attention span. Trump and many of us Americans are distracted constantly by all the shiny objects he throws at the national consciousness by his words, acts and social media postings at all hours.

Yet the budgetary trend is clear to anyone bothering to look: As president, Trump is once again exacerbating the nation’s unsustainable course of piling up debt. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, among other credible sources, debt is now approaching the highest level in U.S. history, which was reached during World War II. It already surpasses the size of the entire economy and threatens higher borrowing costs and reduced investments.

For all the achievements Trump likes to claim — ending eight wars in a year! — here’s one that’s real: He is on a path to break his own record for the most debt in a single presidential term, $8.4 trillion in Trump 1.0, which was nearly double the increase under President Biden.

Need further proof of Trump’s brazen mendacity? Of course you don’t, but here it is: In the face of the well-documented budget record, Trump declared both this year and last year to a joint session of Congress, on national television, that he would balance the federal budget —“overnight,” he said in February.

The inequitable tax cuts and big spending increases for the military and immigration crackdowns that Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress enacted last year are significantly greater than in his first term, and are driving up the debt despite Republicans’ deep healthcare cuts. Just months after Trump took office, the ratings firm Moody’s downgraded the nation’s sterling credit rating for the first time in more than a century.

And now, in his new budget request, Trump seeks to inflate military spending from under $1 trillion when he regained office to $1.5 trillion, for the biggest year-to-year increase in military budgets since World War II.

This fiscal irresponsibility is happening at the worst possible time. For the last quarter of the 20th century, presidents and Congresses of both parties annually debated how to reduce deficits and several times reached consequential multi-year deals, culminating during the second Clinton term in four straight years of surpluses. (Those surpluses ended — wait for it — with Republicans’ tax cuts and war spending during the George W. Bush administration.)

Politicians back then were moved not just by the deficits of their time — deficits that, as a share of the economy, were less than half what they are now. They also were responding to experts’ warnings of a demographic tsunami by the 2020s: With the aging of the huge baby-boomer population, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would greatly increase even as the workforce whose payroll taxes support those programs shrank. Today the number of people 65 or older is almost three times what it was 50 years ago, and rising.

This reckoning is upon us, though you wouldn’t know it as Trump keeps calling for cutting revenue and spending more for lawless wars, immigration raids and monuments to himself. Barring bipartisan action, in 2033 Social Security’s retirement fund and Medicare’s hospital fund will no longer be able to cover beneficiaries’ full claims, according to their trustees’ annual report, necessitating reduced benefits or shifts of money from other worthy programs.

Trump did put Vice President JD Vance in charge of a “war on fraud.” But that holds about as much promise as Elon Musk’s fiscal fiasco — remember DOGE? — that cost money instead of cutting $2 trillion as promised.

Like other problems, Trump likely will leave the fiscal follies to his successor, who, should he or she win two terms, would preside as Social Security and Medicare become insolvent. I’ve yet to hear any of the early 2028 presidential aspirants — or Trump — address or be asked about that.

Let the debate, belatedly, begin.

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

The US has spent decades trying to squeeze Iran economically.
Six weeks into the Middle East conflict, Tehran is still standing.
US and Israeli attacks on infrastructure, industry and trade have damaged Iran’s sanctioned economy even further.

But oil revenues have kept flowing, giving the regime a financial cushion.

The Strait of Hormuz is now at the centre of this economic battle; whoever controls it controls the pressure.

At the negotiating table, sanctions relief, billions in frozen assets and war reparations are all at stake.

Meanwhile, millions of Iranians are bearing the brunt of inflation, shortages and a collapsing currency.

The benchmark US equity indices surged to new territory entering price discovery, reflecting a market that appears to be looking past immediate geopolitical risks in favour of potential de-escalation and corporate strength.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

On Wednesday the S&P 500 closed 0.8% higher at 7,022 points, up on the day and surpassing its previous peak from January of this year.

The S&P 500 is now 11% higher since it bottomed on 30 March and after it first dropped 9% during last month.

The Nasdaq Composite also posted a record, rising 1.6% to over 24,000 points while the Dow Jones Industrial Average edged 0.15% lower and continues significantly below its all-time high.

The advance comes despite persistent headwinds.

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for roughly one-fifth of the global oil supply, has been severely disrupted since late February following Iranian actions and a subsequent US naval blockade.

Traffic has dropped sharply, with Iran declaring the strait closed to vessels linked to the US, Israel and their allies.

The US Central Command also confirmed its blockade of Iranian ports took full effect earlier this week, stating that “ten vessels have now been turned around and ZERO ships have broken through since the start of the US blockade on Monday”.

Oil prices, while easing in the last two weeks, remain elevated.

At the time of writing, Brent crude stands at around $96.5 per barrel and WTI at $92.5, still well above pre-war levels and contributing to inflationary concerns.

The International Monetary Fund has responded by lowering its global growth outlook. In its latest World Economic Outlook, released on Monday, the IMF cut the 2026 forecast to 3.1% from 3.3% previously projected, citing energy price spikes and supply disruptions.

Headline inflation is now seen at 4.4% for the year, under a reference scenario assuming a short-lived conflict, with risks of even weaker growth and higher prices if tensions escalate and prolong.

The modest decline in energy prices followed reports that the two-week ceasefire is holding and that fresh talks between the US and Iran could resume soon.

US President Donald Trump also indicated that negotiations for lasting peace might restart by the end of the week.

Investors appear to be pricing in an eventual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a contained negative impact of the war in general.

Speaking to Euronews, Alan McIntosh, chief investment officer of Quilter Cheviot Europe, explained that “although the first round of talks led to no agreement, a likely extension of the ceasefire gives optimism that an early resolution can be reached”.

“Assuming a fairly swift end to hostilities and a resumption of oil shipments, the economic damage to global inflation and growth should be fairly limited,” he added.

Why US indices defy the odds

Analysts point to several factors behind the market resilience.

Hopes of a swift end to hostilities have encouraged risk-taking, while corporate America is showing strength. Bank executives highlighted a strong US consumer and a healthy pipeline for deals and initial public offerings.

Earnings expectations for the first quarter have been revised higher, with S&P 500 companies now forecast to report combined profits of over $605 billion (€513bn), up from earlier estimates.

Tech shares, particularly those linked to AI, provided additional support. The Nasdaq’s outsized gain reflected renewed enthusiasm for growth-oriented stocks even as broader economic projections softened.

McIntosh told Euronews that “the capital spending boost relating to AI shows no sign of slowing down so this continues to support US economic growth. We have just started the US quarterly results season and so far there is limited evidence of a negative impact from the current Middle East conflict”.

The indices also include defence companies that have all performed well with the war in the backdrop pushing governments, in particular the US, to increase military budgets.

History also offers context for the current rebound. In past US-involved wars, equity markets have frequently experienced short-term volatility followed by recovery and gains.

During the 2003 Iraq War, for example, the S&P 500 rose over 25% in the first full year after the invasion began.

The Gulf War of 1990-1991 saw an initial 11% decline in the index, but a strong relief rally followed the swift coalition victory, delivering positive returns in the subsequent year.

Similar patterns emerged in the Korean War and Vietnam War eras, where stocks posted solid long-term advances despite prolonged uncertainty.

Data compiled by the Royal Bank of Canada and other sources indicate that, across multiple conflicts, equities rose in the first year of hostilities around 60% of the time.

Markets have tended to focus on eventual outcomes rather than immediate shocks, rewarding resolution and economic adaptability. The latest record for the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq underscore this enduring pattern.

While risks remain if the Iran conflict worsens, investors are currently betting that diplomacy and corporate fundamentals will prevail.