Weapons

June 8 (UPI) — Ukrainian forces struck oil depots in Russian-occupied Crimea as well as other command and ammunition locations in Russia, the Ukrainian military said.

The strikes took place late Sunday, the general staff of Ukraine‘s military said in a Facebook post Monday, according to a translation by Ukrinform.

The Grushevaya oil depot in Krasnodar Krai and the Feodosia and Semikolodezyanskaya oil depots in Crimea were among the targets hit during the attacks, The Kyiv Independent and Ukrinform reported. Ukraine also struck the Krasny Line Production Dispatch Station in Volgograd oblast, which supplies oil to the Volgograd refinery and the Sheskharis export terminal.

Ukrainska Pravda reported that the Grushevaya oil depot is one of the largest oil storage facilities in the Caucasus, holding between 1.3 tons to 1.5 tons of petroleum. The site is used to store and transport oil for maritime export and generates a large amount of revenue for Russia.

There were large fires and billowing smoke reported at the oil depots said to be hit.

The strikes hit Russian drone command posts in various locations in Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Kursk oblasts. The military also said it hit areas with concentrations of Russian personnel in Donetsk, Zaporizhizhia and Sumy oblasts.

The Russian military said it struck down 310 Ukrainian drones overnight throughout Russia, Crimea, and the Black and Azov Seas.

North Korea has released photos of Kim Jong Un inspecting huge munitions at a weapons factory ahead of Chinese president Xi Jinping’s visit. Pyongyang has ordered missile production capacity to be doubled in the next five years.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang on Sunday is significant for one reason.

It’s not that they are meeting: The two men met in Beijing just a year ago when China held a massive military parade to mark 80 years since Japan surrendered unconditionally to Allied forces, bringing an end to the second world war.

What’s surprising is that Xi is travelling at all.

The Chinese leader has not travelled to Pyongyang since 2019, having steadily cut down his travel in recent years, and world leaders like US President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin generally come to him these days.

“We need to remember that Xi Jinping has not really travelled abroad that much,” William Yang, Crisis Group’s senior analyst for Northeast Asia, told Al Jazeera. “The growing trend is foreign leaders heading to Beijing to meet with him.

“For Xi Jinping to be the one who decides to travel to Pyongyang, it shows the level of significance that China attaches to this trip.”

Xi averaged about 14 trips a year between 2013 and 2019, but dropped to approximately six a year between 2022 and 2025, according to the Asia Society. In 2020, he made just one overseas trip, and in 2021, he made none, as China grappled with the COVID-19 pandemic.

He may be travelling now, though, amid concerns about North Korea’s relationship with Russia, Yang said.

Senior partner no more?

Traditionally, Beijing played the role of senior partner in the China-North Korea relationship, with North Korea heavily dependent on China for as much as 95 percent of its trade, according to one 2022 estimate from the National Committee on North Korea, a US-based nonprofit.

That dynamic has been changing since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, however. North Korea has provided Russia with critical weapons, artillery and manpower and is credited by observers with helping to keep Moscow’s war machine going.

South Korea’s Institute for National Security Strategy, a government-funded research institute, estimates that since 2023, Moscow has paid North Korea as much as $14.4bn for troop deployments and the export of “artillery, shells, and guided and ballistic missiles”.

The report said that North Korea may only have received between $580m and $1.5bn of that in the form of “goods”, which means there is a “significant possibility that the majority of the payment from Moscow was in the form of ‘sensitive military technology or related precision parts and materials that are difficult to observe via satellite’,” according to a translation.

Although China shares a mutual defence treaty with North Korea, it is still wary of North Korea acquiring new military technology, Yang said.

“Beijing has always been very careful about providing military assistance to North Korea because they do not see a militarily stronger North Korea as necessarily in its favour,” he said. “A North Korea that is militarily emboldened through its relationship with Russia could be a potential source of disruption to the balance of power and status quo on the Korean Peninsula.”

North Korea has already carried out eight missile launches since the start of the year, and in May unveiled a new AI-guided tactical cruise missile, according to North Korean media and the US Naval Institute.

Earlier this week, North Korean state media also released photos of Kim touring a new “weapons-grade nuclear materials” factory, which would be used to expand Pyongyang’s nuclear capability at an “exponential rate”.

Fluctuating tensions

North Korea has technically been at war with South Korea since 1950, with the conflict suspended by a 1953 armistice agreement. The two countries are divided by a 250-kilometre-long (155-mile-long) Demilitarized Zone, splitting the Korean Peninsula.

Tensions have fluctuated dramatically over the years, reaching a recent low point in 2024 when Kim abandoned the long-term goal of Korean unification.

He has largely cut off communications ever since, according to observers. On Friday, South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it hopes that Xi’s trip will “play a constructive role in addressing issues related to the Korean Peninsula” – suggesting that Seoul may have lobbied the Chinese leader to try to smooth over relations.

South Korean Minister of Unification Chung Dong-young separately told reporters last month that he expects the two leaders to discuss a possible meeting between Kim and Trump later in the year.

Xi may also be alarmed by other security developments in East Asia, including news of a possible military-logistics ‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌support pact between South Korea and Japan, which was raised at the Shangri-La Dialogue of regional defence officials in Singapore last weekend.

While China and South Korea’s relationship fluctuates, its ties with Japan are acrimonious due to longstanding grievances dating back to Imperial Japan’s occupation of China in the 1930s and 1940s. Beijing has also objected to recent moves by Tokyo to expand its de facto military.

Pro-Palestine activists interrupted an army recruitment event during German Armed Forces Day. They climbed onto a tank and unfurled a banner reading ‘Genocide with German weapons’ and named Rheinmetall, a key arms supplier to Israel’s military.

Read more

Hamas says it will not hand over its weapons right now, resisting ongoing disarmament demands and stating that the ultimate fate of its military arsenal will be decided following comprehensive discussions with other Palestinian factions.

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, Husam Badran, a member of the Hamas political bureau, offered an inside look into the group’s proposed solutions to the stalled negotiations, introducing the concept of a long-term hudna (truce).

“When this Palestinian committee [the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG)] comes to take over the Gaza Strip, there will be no visible weapons in the streets and alleys of Gaza except the official weapons belonging to this committee, which is the official Palestinian police, ” Badran told Al Jazeera. “There will be no armed manifestations like the ones we were accustomed to in the Gaza Strip.”

But he clarified that this did not mean a formal surrender of arms.

“We are not talking about handing them over; we are talking about, at least, weapons not being visible except for the official weapons of the Palestinian police,” he said. “The details of this matter will be discussed within a national framework.”

The Hamas stance comes as an informed source told Al Jazeera that the group is preparing to send its delegation to Cairo for renewed talks, which are set to begin this weekend. Hamas had briefly delayed its participation to demand a halt to ongoing Israeli assassinations—such as the recent killings of military commanders Izz al-Din al-Haddad and Mohammed Odeh—to ensure a more favourable negotiating environment.

The disarmament of Hamas and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza remain the biggest sticking points in the United States-brokered October 2025 ceasefire plan.

Factional consensus in Cairo

The upcoming Cairo meetings will gather eight key Palestinian factions to form a unified national stance. Badran confirmed the attendance of representatives from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), the PFLP-GC, the National Initiative, the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), and the Democratic Reform Current affiliated with the Fatah movement.

These talks aim to salvage the ceasefire originally proposed by United States President Donald Trump. However, Badran noted that Israel has failed to implement even 30 percent of its phase one obligations, making any transition to subsequent phases impossible.

“We are talking about humanitarian aid … the Rafah crossing mechanism, the infrastructure, and the assassinations,” Badran explained. “The idea was a comprehensive ceasefire, but around 1,000 people have been killed. Saying Israel implemented even 30 percent is an overstatement.”

Only 150 to 250 aid trucks are entering the Gaza Strip daily instead of the agreed-upon 600, while the critical infrastructure for electricity, hospitals and fuel remains completely decimated.

The ‘disarmament’ deadlock

While Palestinian factions demand the fulfilment of these phase one survival metrics, Israeli officials and Nickolay Mladenov, the high representative for Gaza on Trump’s “Board of Peace”, are conditioning the transition to phase two on the disarmament of armed groups.

To break the deadlock, Mladenov recently presented a 15-point “roadmap” built by the ceasefire guarantors. In a May 2026 briefing to the United Nations Security Council, Mladenov defended the plan, emphasising that its architecture rests on a strict principle of reciprocity and verification. Addressing Palestinian concerns, Mladenov clarified that the roadmap explicitly dictates that “no Palestinian armed group will be required to transfer its weapons to Israel”. Instead, the decommissioning of weapons would be gradual, sequenced, and Palestinian-led, with all arms transferred to the NCAG.

Mladenov outlined that this disarmament process is tied directly to an Israeli military pullback. The plan commits Israel to a phased withdrawal of its forces to Gaza’s perimeter on an agreed timetable, conditional upon verified progress on decommissioning and the deployment of an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to act as a buffer.

Mladenov warned the UNSC of the severe consequences of rejecting the roadmap. With 85 percent of Gaza’s buildings damaged or destroyed, he stressed that “reconstruction financing will not follow where weapons have not been laid down”. Without an agreement, he cautioned, Gaza will remain divided, with Hamas holding administrative control over less than half the territory.

‘Negotiation time’ and Israeli expansion

However, Palestinians view this 15-point framework as a stalling tactic designed to extract concessions while Israel deepens its occupation. Palestinian political analyst Wissam Afifa told Al Jazeera that Israel is exploiting “negotiation time” to exhaust the population through continuous escalation.

“They shifted from Trump’s 20 points to a new square, the 15-point square, which revolves entirely around one single clause: disarmament,” Afifa explained. He noted that the Palestinian resistance has been cornered and asked to make major concessions without real guarantees, while the Israeli government uses the talks to advance its territorial goals.

According to Afifa, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is weaponising the negotiations for domestic electoral gains, expanding Israel’s control from 60 percent of Gaza to 70 percent or more. This expansion is happening while oversight mechanisms, such as the Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC), have completely failed and paralysed the monitoring process.

“We are facing a scenario where the occupation has reshaped the ceasefire on its own terms,” Afifa said, adding that Mladenov has in effect adopted the Israeli and American vision by demanding disarmament without offering a clear political horizon for “the day after”.

The National Committee hurdle

This ongoing expansion complicates the transition of power. Amid accusations that Hamas is clinging to power, the group’s spokesperson, Hazem Qassem, reiterated that Hamas is fully prepared to hand over all governance and security responsibilities to the Cairo-based National Committee. Badran confirmed that Hamas has prepared all necessary administrative and security files for the transfer.

However, the NCAG itself faces massive operational barriers and has become, as Afifa described, a “hostage” to Israeli pressure.

A member of the committee, speaking to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity, firmly denied reports that the body would enter Gaza soon, outlining strict conditions for assuming power. The committee categorically refuses to operate behind the Israeli-controlled “Yellow Line” or to cooperate with Israeli-backed armed militias currently operating in the Strip, the source said.

Furthermore, the source stressed that the committee will not enter Gaza until the International Stabilization Force is deployed in the buffer zones separating Israeli forces from Palestinian areas.

While the political deadlock continues, the human toll mounts. Mladenov acknowledged in his UN briefing that ceasefire violations continue to kill civilians and obstruct humanitarian access.

Since the ceasefire took effect, ongoing Israeli military actions have killed 933 Palestinians and injured 2,868, raising the total death toll since October 2023 to 72,942, with 172,967 people injured.

Members of Congress are looking to block the U.S. Navy from starting construction of the first nuclear-powered Trump class battleship until the service provides assurances that key weapon systems are “sufficiently mature.” The battleships are to be armed with railguns, high-power laser directed energy weapons, and other advanced weapons that have yet to be fully proven out. Legislators are also looking to compel the Navy to devise a strategy for future subvariants of the FF(X) frigate, including the potential for a version with a built-in Vertical Launch System (VLS). TWZ was first to confirm that the initial FF(X) design would lack a VLS, a decision that has prompted questions and criticism.

The battleship and frigate provisions are included in an early draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2027 Fiscal Year, which the House Armed Services Committee released late yesterday. The Trump class battleship and FF(X) are set to be some of the Navy’s top shipbuilding priorities in the coming years.

Tying the battleship construction timeline to weapon system progress

The section in the proposed legislation regarding the Trump class battleship is brief, reading as follows:

“The Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract or other agreement that includes a scope of work for the construction of the lead ship of the Battleship program until the date on which the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the weapon systems planned for inclusion in such lead ship are at a sufficiently mature technology readiness level.”

The provision does not name any particular weapon systems or define what level of “technology readiness” would be accepted as “sufficiently mature.”

The Navy currently plans to arm the 35,000-ton-displacement Trump class battleships with a mixture of nuclear and conventional missiles, an electromagnetic railgun, a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns, various laser directed energy weapons, and additional weapon systems for close-in defense. The missiles, which will include hypersonic types, are to be loaded inside very large VLS arrays.

In terms of technological maturity, the railgun presents particular questions. Between 2005 and 2021, the Navy had an active railgun program. Despite promising developments, plans for an at-sea test were repeatedly pushed back before the entire effort was shelved. Major technical hurdles were cited as a key factor in that decision. The railgun itself was effectively placed in storage at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico.

However, it emerged earlier this year that the Navy had conducted a new round of testing of the railgun at WSMR in February 2025. Whether the Navy has any plans to pick up where it left off with this prototype design, which was developed by BAE Systems, or pursue a new one remains unclear. General Atomics, which previously supported U.S. Army railgun efforts, has publicly expressed interest in being involved in arming the Trump class.

While the Navy has been very active in developing and fielding laser directed energy weapons, this is another area where the service has faced continued challenges in expanding their operational use. The plans for the Trump class specifically call for a 300-kilowatt-class laser, which is far more powerful than any of the designs the Navy has integrated on its warships to date. The service currently has eight Arleigh Burke class destroyers with the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN), as well as another one of those warships with the High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS). HELIOS is a 60-kilowatt-class design, though there has been talk about scaling up its power rating to 150 kilowatts. ODIN’s power rating does not appear to be officially confirmed, but it is understood to be significantly lower than that of HELIOS. You can read more about all of this here.

The Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missile, another key component of the future Trump class arsenal, is also still in development. The first test launch from a warship, the stealth destroyer USS Zumwalt, is expected to come next year. IRCPS is the Navy half of a joint program with the U.S. Army, which is working to field a land-based version of the same missile. The Army refers to its complete weapon system as the Dark Eagle. The Army had suffered significant setbacks in the past with the Dark Eagle, but the service had blamed those issues on the launcher rather than the missile.

More context about what planned weapons systems for the Trump class may have prompted the House Armed Services Committee to include this section in the draft NDAA are likely to emerge as the proposed bill is refined. Nuclear propulsion and other planned aspects of the ship could present their own challenges during development and production. The U.S. Navy has not procured a nuclear-powered surface combatant of any kind since the Cold War.

For its part, the Navy has said it will leverage significant prior work on weapons and other systems to help reduce risk and ensure the battleship program remains on schedule.

“We intend to, with all we can do, use pull-through technologies, [including] things from that we’ve worked on with DDG(X),” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said at a hearing earlier this month. “It will have the SPY-6 radar. It will have the Baseline 10 Aegis combat system. It will pull through, of course, the A1B Ford class reactor plant and all the design that goes with that. The only thing inherently new to it will be the actual hull itself, and so most of the fixtures in it. And I would say the directed energy [weapons] and up gunning, that will also be new.”

One of the “mistakes that we’ve done before, quite frankly,” is “we’ve started to build before the design is mature enough,” the CNO also said at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2026 in April. “And we want to make sure that we’re at [sic] least a very, very high level – I won’t try to give a percentage, but you can think like 80% or more design – before the first weld is done.”

The Navy is understood to still be in the very early phases of laying out the Trump class design.

The provision in the draft NDAA could easily delay the start of work on the first of these battleships, which could set back the entire schedule for the program. As it stands now, the Navy is looking to order the lead ship, set to be named the USS Defiant, in Fiscal Year 2028. With an estimated price tag of $17 billion, this ship would cost more than each of the next three Ford class aircraft carriers, and is not expected to enter service in 2036. The Navy also currently plans to buy 14 more battleships between Fiscal Years 2029 and 2055. As TWZ has previously explored in detail, many significant questions remain about the future of the Trump class, including whether the program will ultimately come to fruition at all.

Plans for future FF(X) frigate subvariants

In its current form, the draft NDAA would also require the Secretary of the Navy to “submit to the congressional defense committees a strategy for the iterative development of the FF(X) class frigate” within 180 days of the bill becoming law. The Secretary would also be compelled to provide a briefing to update legislators on their progress in devising this strategy within 90 days.

The strategy would have to include the following:

• “Information on the estimated timeline for each planned variant (commonly known as a ‘‘Flight’’) of the FF(X) class frigate”
• “Details on the integration of additional capabilities for future Flights of the frigate, such as vertical launch systems or improved sensors, and implications for the space, weight, power, and cost of the hull form.”
• Any additional mission sets or combat functions that may be added to the concept of operation for FF(X) class frigates.”

The Navy has already confirmed that the FF(X) design will based on that of the Legend class cutter currently in service with the U.S. Coast Guard. As mentioned, the fact that the first of these frigates, at least, will lack a VLS array has raised significant questions about this program.

The FF(X) configuration that has been shown so far will have essentially the same integrated armament as the Navy’s much-maligned Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). The limitations of both subclasses of LCS explicitly led the Navy to pursue the Constellation class frigate. Despite the Constellation class being based on the established Franco-Italian Fregate Europea Multi-Missione (FREMM; European Multi-Mission Frigate in English), repeated design changes turned the program into a boondoggle. It was finally cancelled last November.

The Constellation class would have featured a 32-cell Mk 41 VLS array. There had already been a debate about whether this was sufficient VLS capacity to meet operational requirements, something TWZ previously explored in detail.

The Navy’s current stated vision for the Flight I FF(X) configuration is to utilize containerized weapons and other systems to make up for gaps in integrated capabilities. The frigates are also expected to act as motherships for future fleets of uncrewed surface vessels, which could provide additional distributed weapons and sensor capabilities and capacity.

“While Flight I of the FF(X) Class (currently planned as at least the first 2 ships) does not incorporate a traditional fixed VLS battery, it retains the capability to deploy VLS-equivalent payloads through modular, mission-tailored configurations,” according to the Navy’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. “This approach provides an inherent growth path for VLS and other capabilities through containerized solutions in early flights, reinforcing the platform’s adaptability while mitigating cost, schedule, and integration risks associated with fixed VLS installation.”

A containerized VLS, in particular, would be far more limited in capacity than a traditional built-in Mk 41 and Mk 57 array.

At the same time, the Navy’s budget documents make clear that there are already plans for “studies for future flights [that] will consider expanded capabilities including Vertical Launch Systems, and Anti-Submarine Warfare systems.”

Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), the shipbuilder behind the Legend class design on which the FF(X) will be based, has shown multiple concepts for derivatives with integrated VLS arrays and other additional capabilities in the past, as seen in the video below.

Patrol Frigate Variants – Information Video

When it comes to the battleship and FF(X) provisions in the draft NDAA, it is also important to remember that this legislation is not yet finalized and could easily change in the weeks and months ahead. The House’s version of the bill will also need to be reconciled with what the Senate puts forward, a process often marked by lengthy negotiations. The House and Senate will both need to pass the finalized version, and then the President has to sign it into law.

As the name makes clear, the battleship program is of particular significance to President Donald Trump, which will be an important factor in these processes. Even before his first term, Trump had expressed interest in returning battleships to the Navy’s combat fleets, but there had been no indications of any formal moves to pursue this ship before last year. With the schedule the Navy has laid out now, major decisions about how to proceed in the production of these ships, if at all, will fall to the next administration. There are already massive competing priorities, and some members of Congress have already questioned whether the battleship effort is the best use of available resources.

It’s also worth noting here that Trump has long been very outspoken when it comes to Navy shipbuilding design decisions, especially from an aesthetic perspective.

The House Armed Services Committee has at least taken steps now toward putting a hold on production of the first Trump class battleship until it is confident that key weapon systems are mature, as well as pushing the Navy to lay a formal plan for future versions of the FF(X) frigate.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Iran is ready to reassure the international community that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons or instability in the region, President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Sunday, Anadolu reports.

“Prior to the martyrdom of Ayatollah (Ali) Khamenei, Iran’s late Leader, we declared — and we reiterate now — that we are ready to assure the world we do not seek nuclear weapons,” Pezeshkian said in remarks carried by state-run news agency IRNA.

“It is rather Tel Aviv that is driving regional instability,” he said, accusing Israel of pursuing a vision of “Greater Israel.”

Iranian negotiators will never compromise on the country’s “honor and dignity,” added Pezeshkian.

His remarks came a day after US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.

Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely.

READ: Iran shoots down Israeli spy drone in country’s south: Report

During the 39-day war with Iran, the U.S. used so many key offensive and defensive weapons that it will take three or more years to rebuild some of these stocks to pre-war levels, according to a new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The report, compiled by Mark F. Cancian and Chris H. Park, highlights concerns we raised long before and during Operation Epic Fury about the rapid expenditure of critical munitions and how that could affect a potential future fight against China. U.S. military leaders have suggested that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could be in a position where it would feel confident in launching an invasion of Taiwan by 2027.

The warning light on America’s magazine depth was blinking red long before Epic Fury. The stockpiles, especially of Standard Missile-3s (SM-3) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors, were degraded by more than a year of combat in the Red Sea region with the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels and several efforts to defend Israel. U.S. support for Ukraine, meanwhile, drained off supplies of Patriot air defense interceptors. We will address these issues in more detail later in this story. The weapon expenditure figures in the CSIS report only address Epic Fury, not previous U.S. engagements in the Middle East.

The most drastic setback to U.S. inventories involved the use of Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles (TLAMs) and THAAD and Patriot interceptors, according to CSIS. The think tank derived its expenditure figures from an internal analysis, which TWZ cannot independently verify.

Tomahawks

The exact amount of Tomahawks on hand is secret, however, researchers at CSIS calculated that prior to the Feb. 28 launch of Epic Fury, the U.S. had about 3,100 TLAMs. CSIS said it based its estimates on Fiscal Year 2027 Pentagon budget documents.

CSIS estimated that U.S. forces lobbed more than 1,000 TLAMs at Iran during the conflict, or about a third of the entire inventory as assessed by the think tank.

Making up that supply will take some time. Tomahawk procurement “averaged 86 missiles in the past 10 fiscal years (FY 15–FY 26), with most orders coming from the Navy,” CSIS noted. 

While Raytheon, which makes the missiles, has a goal of increasing capacity to produce more than 1,000 Tomahawks per year, “the recent annual production rate is less than 200 because of small past orders,” according to the think tank. “Existing orders will begin replacing the 1,000+ Tomahawks expended during the Iran War, but will not be enough to fully restore inventories to pre-war levels.”

Another factor to consider are foreign military sales, with nearly 800 due to Japan, Australia and the Netherlands.

THAAD

CSIS estimated that before the war began, the U.S. had about 400 THAAD interceptors and used between 190 and 290 during the war to protect American and allied interests. According to The Washington Post, about 200 were deployed defending Israel in particular.

The Army “has requested 857 THAAD interceptors in FY 2027,” CSIS explained. “Their deliveries, projected to start in mid-2029, will complete the replacement of Iran War usage by the end of calendar year 2029.”

The delivery timelines in the budget documents “imply that THAAD production is at the current surge rate of 96 interceptors a year,” the report states. “With additional facilities and tooling, Lockheed Martin plans to expand production capacity to 400 a year, a needed increase to fulfill large U.S. procurement orders and those of allies.”

The strain on the reservoir of THAAD interceptors is something we brought up last year during the 12-Day-War between Israel and Iran, when reports suggested that the U.S. Army fired off about 150 to protect Israel.

PATRIOT

At the start of the war, there were about 2,500 Patriot interceptors in the U.S. inventory, according to CSIS, though its accompanying chart does not specify which variant. During the course of the conflict, between 1,060 and 1,430 Patriots were fired. We don’t know what that tally includes, but we do know that PAC-2 and PAC-3 series interceptors have been employed in the latest conflict with Iran.

Current production PAC-3 MSE “is around the baseline rate of 650 interceptors per year, with half the deliveries going to the United States and the rest to allies and partners,” CSIS postulated. 

Under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is committed to boosting Patriot annual production to 2,000.

“Because U.S. procurement in the last decade has averaged 225 missiles per year, deliveries from prior years will not be enough to fully replace expenditures,” CSIS cautioned. “For that, the United States will need to wait for the 3,203 Patriot missiles requested in the Army’s FY 2027 budget. These are projected to start delivery in May 2029.”

As we have previously noted, between U.S. usage and commitments to Ukraine and nearly 20 other nations, there have long been concerns about the supply of Patriot interceptors. Still, the Pentagon has maintained that it has sufficient supplies.

SM-3 and SM-6

Before Epic Fury, the U.S. Navy had about 400 SM-3s, capable of intercepting ballistic missiles in space, and used upwards of about 250, according to CSIS. There were about 1,250 Standard Missile-6s (SM-6), which can intercept air-breathing and ballistic missile targets, as well as attack targets on land and at sea, in the arsenal and between 190 and 370 were launched.

These munitions will take about two years to replenish to pre-war levels, CSIS estimated.

“Both missiles have lengthy production lead times,” the think tank explained. “The Missile Defense Agency and the Navy requested large quantities in the FY 2027 budget: 78 SM-3 Block IBs, 136 SM-3 Block IIAs, and 540 SM-6s. These orders will take between 36 and 39 months to begin deliveries once Congress provides appropriations.”

“Because of the small size of past orders, inventories will not return to pre-war levels until early 2029 despite the relatively low usage in the campaign,” CSIS pointed out.

Our prior reporting pointed out that concern over the magazine depth of these missiles, especially the SM-3, became acute after that munition was used for the first time during the massive April 2024 Iranian missile and drone barrage against Israel. The SM-3s proved so successful that the Navy’s top official in May 2024 called for more to be made after production had been curtailed on some variants. At the time, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA) wanted to end procurement of SM-3 Block IB variants by the end of 2024 and limit its buy of the follow-on Block IIAs to just 12 per year through Fiscal Year 2029.

The fight against the Houthi rebels of Yemen from October 2023 to early 2025 exacerbated these magazine depth issues for both of these Navy missiles. The aforementioned 12-Day War saw another 80 SM-6s used to defend Israel, further depleting supplies.

JASSMs

There were more than an estimated 4,000 stealthy air-launched Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) in the U.S. arsenal before the war and U.S. aircraft fired off more than 1,100 of them. However, though heavily used, there will be “large deliveries from recent procurements.”

“U.S. forces began this campaign with a sizable JASSM inventory,” according to CSIS. “The Air Force has procured large quantities of these long-range cruise missiles since the 2000s—on average, nearly 500 a year for the past decade. To deliver these orders, current production appears to be already at the surge rate unlike the other munitions discussed in this article. Further, the missile was not used in operations until 2018. Thus, while over 1,100 JASSMs were expended, U.S. inventories will recover fairly quickly as past orders are delivered.”

PrSMs

The ground-launched Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) is the longer-ranged tactical ballistic missile successor to the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). It was used for the first time during Epic Fury.

The inventory of these missiles, however, “is limited as it is a relatively new system with deliveries beginning in 2023,” CSIS highlighted, estimating that there were fewer than 100 prior to the war. During the conflict, between 40 and 70 were used, the think tank posited.

“Lockheed Martin has been scaling up PrSM production, setting an annual target of 400 units last year and announcing further increases under the framework agreement with the Trump administration.

Asked about the CSIS report, the Pentagon did not express concerns.

“America’s military is the most powerful in the world and has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the president’s choosing,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement to TWZ. “We have executed multiple successful operations across combatant commands while ensuring the U.S. military possesses a deep arsenal of capabilities to protect our people and our interests.”

Despite Parnell’s statement, the expenditure of weapons in Epic Fury is having a cascading effect on supplies. Last week, for instance, Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao testified before the Senate that the U.S. is pausing arms sales to Taiwan because of the war with Iran. 

“Right now we’re doing a pause in order to make sure we have the munitions we need for Epic Fury,” Cao told Sen. Mitch McConnell.

America’s reputation as an arms provider had already taken a hit when it cut off supplies of Patriots and other weapons to Ukraine last year over concerns about the U.S. stores. Deferred or slowed deliveries are common among other allied customers as well now.

The president’s $1.5 trillion FY 2027 defense budget “reflects these magazine depth concerns,” CSIS suggested. “A war supplemental for additional munitions funds is expected as the DOD seeks to replace what was expended in Operation Epic Fury and then build inventories above the pre-war levels. The administration has also signed a series of framework agreements with industry to expand munitions production capacity, which could expedite future deliveries.”

Tensions around the world bring into question whether even expedited timelines for production of these weapons is adequate to meet near-term future needs. As we mentioned earlier in this story, there are concerns that China could move on Taiwan over the next few years, a conflict that could draw in the U.S. There are other flashpoints in the Pacific that could touch off a China fight. 

Beyond that, there are always concerns about threats from North Korea, which continues to build up its military. Russia, meanwhile, is fighting a war in Ukraine that Europe is worried could spill across the continent. Any of these potentials, plus those we don’t even know about yet, would further draw down U.S. supplies should it get into a shooting war.

Meanwhile, there is a non-zero chance that even more of these weapons could be expended should the U.S. and Iran resume hostilities. Just last night, a U.S. official told us that CENTCOM swatted down four Iranian drones and fired on a ground control station in Bandar Abbas about to launch a fifth.

CENTCOM said Kuwaiti forces intercepted a ballistic missile Iran launched in response.

With the shaky ceasefire marred by these intermittent kinetic exchanges and the peace negotiations sputtering on, a new drain on U.S. weapons stockpiles remains a real possibility.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Less than a year after we got our first proper look at China’s wing-in-ground effect (WIG) craft, dubbed the ‘Bohai Sea Monster,’ the aircraft has appeared again, with evidence that it has a combat role, likely including launching weapons. We can also confirm that, contrary to some earlier assessments, the craft is powered by four turboprop engines, rather than turbofans. This confirms our original analysis that the craft may have propeller engines as opposed to jets.

The Bohai Sea Monster was first identified by submarine warfare analyst HI Sutton in June 2025. The aircraft, with its distinctive flying-boat hull and joined v-tail, was spotted on a pier on the Bohai Sea, at the northwestern end of the Yellow Sea. The following month, better imagery appeared, showing the craft on the water, but without its propellers fitted, adding to speculation that it might be jet-powered.

New images show the Bohai Sea Monster in greater detail, including its powerplants, which appear to be regular turboprops, rather than a hybrid-electric propulsion system, something that would make a lot of sense for an aircraft of this kind. Each of the four engines drives a three-bladed propeller.

Perhaps even more interesting is the appearance under each wing of a pair of hardpoints, which appear to be intended to release stores. Potentially, these pylons could be used to mount external fuel tanks or sensor pods. However, they appear to be fitted with shackles, which would clearly indicate a plan to release stores. While some kind of search-and-rescue payload, such as life-raft containers, is a possibility, the military paint scheme and PLA doctrine point more to the craft being armed with some kind of offensive weapons. Air-launched drones could be another payload, with this being an area of growing interest for the Chinese military.

The development raises questions about some reports that this is a “civilian” program nominally tied to the China Coast Guard, although cover stories of this kind are hardly unusual for Chinese military programs.

At the very least, the Bohai Sea Monster is certainly not a pure transport craft. Some kind of multi-role platform is also a strong possibility.

There is also the possibility, one that we raised in the past, that the Bohai Sea Monster is actually a subscale demonstrator, one that’s intended to prove out the WIG concept. If successful, this could then lead to a much larger craft and one that would, of course, have a different powerplant and much greater payload — including weapons.

The Bohai Sea Monster’s broad similarities to the now-abandoned, U.S.-designed Liberty Lifter could also point to the Chinese craft being a subscale technology demonstrator.

Notably, subscale demonstrators of flying boats are nothing new. Indeed, Germany built one to trial the flight characteristics of its planned Dornier Do 214 transatlantic flying boat back in World War II. In the 1950s, the Soviet Union built a single example of its first jet-powered flying boat, the Beriev R-1, before the same company fed this experience into the much larger and more ambitious Be-10 Mallow.

As for WIG craft in general, these were extensively explored by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, leading to some enormous vehicles, including anti-ship strike platforms and assault craft, which even saw some military service. In Russian parlance, they are known as Ekranoplans.

A video showing the Soviet Lun class missile-armed Ekranoplan:

Video Lun class Ekranoplan (Caspian)

Post-Cold War, the WIG concept fell from favor, but it has made something of a return in more recent years. These craft are able to skim the dense air above the surface of the water with relatively high efficiency and speed, while most are also capable of less-efficient higher-altitude flight.

In the context of the Pacific, specifically, WIG craft are seen as a potential partial answer to some of the challenges of fighting in that theater. This includes moving cargoes (including very heavy ones), as well as personnel and materiel to far-flung locations that may not be served by runways. In the process, large distances may need to be covered, and fast. It is for the logistics mission that the U.S. military was looking to the Liberty Lifter.

There is also the very important fact that, by skimming low over the water, a WIG craft can stay below the radar horizon, avoiding the gaze of surface- and land-based sensors. At the same time, it is immune to mines, submarines, and other hazards that can threaten even relatively safe waters. These advantages have to be weighed up against an airframe that remains generally vulnerable in a heavily contested combat zone.

For China, a platform of this kind would also be very useful, especially in the highly strategic South China Sea. In peacetime, a WIG craft could be used to support bases in the region, as well as search and rescue, and other missions. In a conflict, the same types of craft could perform rapid resupply, as well as surveillance, in island chains and littoral regions.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is expected to be a recipient of the AG600 amphibious flying boat, which could perform similar missions. Unlike most militaries, the PLA has never fully moved away from operating flying boats, most recently the SH-5, a handful of which were completed, primarily for anti-submarine warfare, but were apparently withdrawn in recent years.

When it comes to an armed WIG craft, even in its current size, the Bohai Sea Monster could be a very useful sea control platform, undertaking both anti-submarine warfare and anti-shipping strike over regional distances, perhaps as a more ‘tactical’ counterpart to the AG600 and shore-based types. It would still be large enough to accommodate sensors, with up to four torpedoes or smaller anti-ship missiles carried underwing. Depth charges are another possibility.

Such a craft would be suitable for local patrols of littoral areas, as well as support of special forces, etc. A smaller WIG craft would also be valuable for combat search and rescue (CSAR), likely to be a key mission should China go to war in the Pacific.

Of course, a scaled-up Bohai Sea Monster would be much more capable across all these kinds of missions. It would likely offer the capacity for an internal stores bay, as well as a heavier payload, a more comprehensive sensor suite, and a longer range.

Exactly what role the Bohai Sea Monster will ultimately fill, and whether it represents an operational platform or merely a stepping-stone toward something far larger and more capable, remains unclear.

However, its reappearance with apparent weapons-carrying provisions strongly suggests China is exploring far more than a niche transport or utility aircraft. Instead, it points to a broader effort to revive and adapt the WIG concept for modern military operations in the Pacific, where speed, range, payload, and access to austere maritime areas could all prove critical.

At the same time, the craft joins a growing list of highly ambitious and sometimes novel Chinese aerospace and naval programs that are emerging at a remarkable pace, often revealing themselves only in fragments before their true purpose becomes apparent.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

EXPLAINER

US and Iran continue mediated talks, exchanging draft proposals aimed at reaching a formal agreement.

Iran and the United States are continuing mediated talks aimed at ending the conflict, with Iranian media reporting that both sides are exchanging messages and draft proposals to establish a formal framework for an agreement.

Al Jazeera’s correspondent Almigdad Alruhaid reported from Tehran that Pakistani officials were engaged in “intense mediation activity” between the two countries.

The diplomatic push comes as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said there were “some good signs” for a possible breakthrough. However, US President Donald Trump also warned Washington could take “very drastic” action if Iran refuses to give up its uranium stockpiles.

Here is what we know:

In Iran

• ‘War crime’ on medical research centre: Iran has accused the US and Israel of committing a “war crime” by bombing the Pasteur Institute of Iran early in the war, after The Lancet journal warned that the attack severely damaged a key pillar of the country’s public health system.

• Thousands rescued from rubble: The Iranian Red Crescent said its aid workers rescued more than 7,200 people trapped beneath rubble during US and Israeli attacks, sharing footage of survivors being pulled from destroyed buildings for the first time.

War diplomacy

• Nuclear ‘red lines’ must shift: Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said the US and Iran will need to move beyond conflicting “red lines” on Tehran’s nuclear programme for negotiations to make progress. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Bandow said both sides must be willing to compromise and continue serious talks if they want to avoid further escalation and move away from war.
• Rubio sees ‘good signs’ in talks: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said negotiations with Iran have shown “some progress”, while cautioning that it remains unclear whether a deal can be reached in the coming days. Rubio said President Donald Trump still prefers a diplomatic agreement, but warned Washington has “other options” if talks fail.
• Pakistani mediation efforts intensify in Tehran: Al Jazeera’s Alruhaid said senior Pakistani officials are engaged in “intense mediation activity” in Tehran as efforts accelerate to prevent further escalation. While one senior Iranian official said negotiators were close to a deal and working on draft texts, another source cautioned it was still too early to say whether a final agreement was within reach.

In the US

• US forces at ‘peak readiness’:  CENTCOM said the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group remains at “peak readiness” in the Arabian Sea, sharing images of warplanes taking off as Washington maintains pressure on Iran amid ongoing mediation efforts.

• US reportedly suffers major Reaper drone losses: Iran has destroyed more than two dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones operated by US forces since the conflict began, according to Bloomberg News. The reported losses are estimated at $1bn, nearly 20 percent of the Pentagon’s pre-war inventory.
• US pauses Taiwan arms sales: Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao told a Senate hearing that Washington has paused a $14bn arms sale to Taiwan to ensure the US has enough munitions for its military campaign against Iran, a move Republican Senator Mitch McConnell called “distressing”.

In Lebanon and Palestine

• Israeli strike kills two in southern Lebanon: The Israeli military said it carried out an air raid that killed two people near the Lebanon-Israel border, after detecting what it described as “suspicious movement” in southern Lebanon.
• US sanctions allies of Hezbollah: The US has imposed sanctions on nine people accused of helping Hezbollah undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty and obstruct efforts to disarm the group, including Lebanese politicians, security officials and Iran’s ambassador-designate to Beirut.

• Palestinian envoy condemns aid blockade: Palestine’s UN envoy Riyad Mansour said Israel is continuing to collectively punish more than two million Palestinians through its blockade on aid and ongoing attacks, warning the world must not become “accustomed to seeing Palestinians killed”.

• US urges humane treatment of flotilla detainees: According to Al Jazeera’s Ali Harb, the US State Department said activists detained by Israeli forces after attempting to break the Gaza blockade “must be treated humanely and consistent with international law”, while also reiterating Washington’s opposition to the flotilla movement.

Nine American destroyers stand at the vanguard of the U.S. Navy’s efforts to integrate laser weapons into the battlefield of the future. Lasers and other directed energy (DE) weapon systems went from an elusive dream to reality over the past decade, which TWZ has covered extensively. We’ve now compiled the most complete public accounting of the warships equipped with operational systems today, where they’re deployed, and what they can do.

The U.S. military is moving aggressively to reduce reliance on expensive single-use munitions, and laser weapons are oft-touted as part of a long-term solution. The recently released FY2027 budget reflects the urgency, with billions appropriated for scaled directed energy research and development (R&D) programs. “DE capabilities offer an inexpensive cost-per-shot alternative to conventional systems, increased magazine depth, and enhanced defense-in-depth,” budget documents state. The volume of high-end munitions expended during Operation Epic Fury, previous engagements with Iran, and the fight in and around the Red Sea against the Houthis, not to mention the near half-decade-long war in Ukraine, has sparked debate around the status and depth of U.S. stockpiles, driving renewed interest and investment in low-cost, reusable alternatives.

Countering swarms of cheap Iranian drones and missiles during extended combat operations presents a new challenge for America’s Arleigh Burke class destroyers, which are limited by how many missiles can be packed into 90 or 96 vertical launch system (VLS) cells and can only be reloaded at friendly ports with proper gear. Lasers, in contrast, do not face the same constraints, although the services have faced significant hurdles in fielding operational systems in the past.

The Navy has armed nine guided-missile destroyers with shipboard solid state lasers (SSLs) for self-defense since we reported on the first in November 2019. “The Navy has placed directed energy systems on nine ships and is working to expand testing and employment in the fleet,” a U.S. Navy official confirmed to TWZ. However, the official declined to discuss current operations when asked if the systems were employed against Iranian forces in the Middle East.

While the U.S. has several SSL programs in various stages of testing and development, two primary systems are operational on warships today: the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN), and the High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS). TWZ has covered both systems in detail before, which you can read about here and here.

ODIN, the first SSL scaled across multiple destroyers, features a low-powered laser designed to work as a “dazzler” to blind or confuse the electro-optical and/or imaging infrared seekers on incoming weapons, such as one-way attack drones, throwing them off course. The system can also neutralize cameras and sensors used for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) deployed aboard enemy ships, submarine masts, crewed aircraft, and drones. Initially, ODIN was installed on eight ships, but one unit was transferred for training to Naval Surface Warfare Center Port Hueneme from USS Kidd (DDG-100), which is completing a two-year maintenance availability in Everett, WA.

Two ODIN-enabled destroyers are on combat deployments in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR). USS Spruance (DDG-111), part of the five-ship Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and the independently deployed USS John Finn (DDG-113) are operating in the Indian Ocean supporting ongoing operations against Iran. USS Gridley (DDG-101), the only other ODIN-equipped DDG underway, is in the South Atlantic Ocean escorting aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-68) to her new homeport at Norfolk. The four other destroyers are at their respective homeports in San Diego and Yokosuka, as depicted in the graphic at the top of this post.

The far more powerful but less numerous HELIOS system, integrated solely on USS Preble (DDG-88), is a 60-kilowatt (kW) class laser weapon capable of knocking down smaller unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and burning holes in fast inshore attack craft (FIAC), as well as functioning as a dazzler like ODIN. The system, which also carries the designation Mk 5 Mod 0, provides a low cost-per-shot capability to address anti-surface warfare and counter-ISR threats, while fully integrating with the Aegis Combat System. Lockheed Martin has previously discussed scaling the power rating up to 150kW.

Preble, the only destroyer currently equipped with HELIOS, is forward-deployed and at homeport in Yokosuka, Japan. During a demonstration last year, Preble successfully disabled four incoming drones. Funding for additional tests and maintenance was included in the FY2027 budget.

The Navy has also installed other experimental high-energy laser directed energy weapons on ships in the past, such as the Laser Weapon System Demonstrator tested aboard USS Portland, and test-fired a LOCUST laser from an aircraft carrier for the first time last year. The latest budget request supports R&D for several programs, including a containerized 150kW Joint Laser Weapon System (JLWS) for cruise missile defense, the Joint Beam Control System (JBCS) technology to develop a 300-500kW laser, and upgrades for the High Energy Laser Counter Anti-Ship Cruise Missile Project (HELCAP).

Regardless, while laser weapons are very attractive for all the reasons listed earlier in this article, their application remains limited by various factors. Laser weapons capable of downing drones and disabling small boats have a range measured in single miles, at best, so they are only capable of providing close-in defense. This is further impacted, and heavily so, by atmospheric conditions. They also need to have their beam dwell on the target for extended periods of time in order to burn a hole in it. As a result, their ability to rapidly engage targets, and especially at range in all weather conditions, is very limited. Thermal and power supply restrictions also impact their ability to make rapid follow-up shots. Finally, lasers remain finicky pieces of technology and are full of delicate components, which has impacted reliability in the field.

Still, even with all these limitations, these systems are improving and their range, reliability, and power will increase over time. As a result, they will only become a more important part of naval warfare in the coming years, with hopes that their ability to rapidly down faster-flying missiles isn’t too far over the horizon.

Contact the author: ian.ellis-jones@teamrecurrent.io

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced tough questions Tuesday from Republican and Democratic lawmakers about the Trump administration’s end game for the Iran war, the cost of the conflict and its impact on diminishing U.S. weapons stockpiles.

For his part, the Pentagon chief softened his tone from hearings before Congress nearly two weeks ago, notably avoiding the same pointed criticism of lawmakers in his opening remarks as he outlined the Trump administration’s efforts to ramp up production of weapons and other military capabilities.

Even so, Hegseth insisted that the military has plenty of missile defense systems and other munitions for the Iran war or future conflicts as both Republicans and Democrats hammered him with those concerns.

“I take issue with the characterization that munitions are depleted in a public forum,” Hegseth said. “That’s not true.”

The cost of the Iran war has risen to about $29 billion, the vast bulk of which — $24 billion — is related to replacing and repairing munitions but also includes operational costs to keep forces deployed, Pentagon comptroller Jay Hurst said. That’s up from $25 billion that he told lawmakers nearly two weeks ago.

The powerful House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees that oversee defense spending are holding back-to-back hearings to review the Trump administration’s 2027 military budget proposal, which calls for a historic allocation of $1.5 trillion. The discussions in the House quickly veered into the handling of a war that appears locked in a stalemate as higher fuel prices pose political problems for Republicans in the midterm congressional elections.

Hegseth and Caine face bipartisan pushback on munitions stockpiles

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told Hegseth that the “question must be answered at the end of this crisis: What have we accomplished and at what cost?”

“This administration has not presented Congress with any kind of clear or coherent strategy week to week, day to day, hour to hour,” DeLauro said. “The rationale shifts, the objectives change. The end game is ill-defined when it is defined at all.”

California Republican Rep. Ken Calvert, the House subcommittee’s chair, also asked about the impact of the Iran war on military funding as well as the U.S. military’s weapons stockpiles.

“Questions persist about whether we are building the depth and reliance required for a high-end conflict,” Calvert said.

Minnesota Rep. Betty McCollum, the defense subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, pressed Hegseth on whether the military has a plan to draw down troops in the Middle East if Congress passes so-far-unsuccessful efforts to end the Iran war.

“We have a plan to escalate if necessary,” Hegseth said. “We have a plan to retrograde if necessary. We have a plan to shift assets.”

He said he would not reveal any next steps publicly. Noting repeated questions from lawmakers over the military’s weapons stockpiles, drawn down from the Iran war, Hegseth said the concerns have been “unhelpfully overstated” and that “we have plenty of what we need.”

He said the defense industry has been told to “build more and build faster,” blaming the military industrial base’s inadequate capacity on previous administrations and U.S. aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Trump administration faces pressure from impact of the Iran war

President Trump is facing increasing pressure from the economic shocks of Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping corridor where 20% of the world’s oil normally flows. The U.S. military in turn has blockaded Iranian ports and the two sides have traded fire, with American forces thwarting attacks on their warships and disabling Tehran-linked oil tankers.

Trump said Monday that the ceasefire is on “massive life support” and criticized Iran for its latest proposal, pointing to his demands that Iran significantly limit its nuclear program.

“I would call it the weakest right now after reading that piece of garbage they sent us,” Trump said.

The Republican president also said he wanted to suspend the federal gas tax to help Americans shoulder surging fuel prices. He has previously said higher costs are worth it to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Tuesday’s hearings are giving a mostly new group of lawmakers the chance to grill or applaud Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the planning and execution of the war.

The Senate hearing later Tuesday will include Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican whose reelection this year is far from guaranteed. She voted with Democrats on an effort to halt the conflict late last month, saying she wants to see a defined strategy for bringing the war to a close.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, another Republican on the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, has voted against the string of unsuccessful war powers resolutions but spoken of the need for congressional authorization so Americans will know the war’s limits and objectives.

He also will face plenty of friendly Republicans, including the Senate subcommittee’s chair, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and perhaps the Iran war’s biggest booster in Congress, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Finley, Toropin and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

May 11 (UPI) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said his department will “review” comments made by Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., about the U.S. military’s weapons stockpiles.

Hegseth’s renewed criticism into Kelly came in response to the senator’s appearance Sunday on CBS’ Face the Nation. Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, said he received Pentagon briefings and it was “shocking … how deep we have gone into these magazines.”

“We’ve expended a lot of munitions. And that means the American people are less safe. Whether it’s a conflict in the western Pacific with China or somewhere else in the world, the munitions are depleted,” Kelly said.

In a post on X on Sunday evening, Hegseth questioned whether Kelly violated his oath by discussion the matter publicly.

“Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a *CLASSIFIED* Pentagon briefing he received,” Hegseth said in his post, promising to have the Pentagon’s legal counsel review the comments.

Kelly said the information he shared wasn’t classified because Hegseth spoke on the topic during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Armed Services last week.

“We had this conversation in a public hearing a week ago and you said it would take ‘years’ to replenish some of these stockpiles. That’s not classified, it’s a quote from you.”

Kelly also shared a video of Hegseth’s comments from the hearing in his response on X.

The two leaders have been embroiled in a legal battle after Hegseth tried to censure and demote Kelly from his military rank over comments he made in November telling service members that they have the right and duty to ignore “unlawful orders” made by the Trump administration. Hegseth also sought to reduce Kelly’s retirement pay, calling his remarks “seditious.”

The same tiny tungsten cubes that spray out of Israeli bombs, causing devastating internal injuries to people in Gaza are being found in wounded civilians in Lebanon, war surgeon Dr Tahir Mohammed says. He draws parallels between what Israel is doing in both places and describes the weapons as “indiscriminate”.

Pyongyang says its status as nuclear-armed state ‘will not change based on external rhetorical claims’.

North Korea’s envoy to the United Nations has declared that Pyongyang will not be bound by any treaty on atomic weapons and that no external pressure will change its status as a nuclear-armed state.

Ambassador Kim Song’s statement – carried by state media on Thursday – came as the United States and other countries criticised North Korea’s nuclear programme at the ongoing UN conference reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Pyongyang withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and has since conducted six nuclear tests, promoting multiple UN Security Council sanctions.

The country is believed to hold dozens of nuclear warheads.

“At the 11th NPT Review Conference currently under way at UN headquarters, the United States and certain countries following its lead are groundlessly calling into question the current status and exercise of sovereign rights,” Kim said, according to the official Korean Central News Agency.

“The status of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a nuclear-armed state will not change based on external rhetorical claims or unilateral desires,” he added.

“To make it clear once again, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will not be bound by the Non-Proliferation Treaty under any circumstances whatsoever.”

He continued that the country’s status as a nuclear-armed state has been “enshrined in the constitution, transparently declaring the principles of nuclear weapons use”.

North Korea has long insisted that it will not give up its nuclear arsenal, describing its path as “irreversible” and pledging to strengthen its capabilities.

It has sent ground troops and artillery shells to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and observers say Pyongyang is receiving military technology assistance from Moscow in return.

The nine nuclear-armed states – Russia, the US, France, the United Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – possessed 12,241 nuclear warheads in January 2025, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported.

The US and Russia hold nearly 90 percent of nuclear weapons globally and have carried out major programmes to modernise them in recent years, according to SIPRI.

The nuclear issue has been at the heart of the US and Israel’s war on Iran, with US President Donald Trump saying that Tehran – a signatory to the NPT – can never have a nuclear weapon.

Iran denies seeking an atomic weapon and has long demanded Washington acknowledge its right to enrich uranium.

The U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force are working on a new “Compact Variant” of the AIM-9X Sidewinder. The smaller Sidewinder is being developed with a focus on increased magazine depth when carried internally by “advanced aircraft,” while also offering improved range and performance.

The Navy manages the Sidewinder program in cooperation with the Air Force. The Navy is asking for $83.3 million for work on the AIM-9X Compact Variant (CV) in its 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. The AIM-9X CV is also mentioned in the Air Force’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, but with the caveat that it does not plan to contribute funding explicitly toward its development until Fiscal Year 2028.

Current-generation Block II and Block II+ subvariants AIM-9X are already highly capable imaging infrared (IIR) guided anti-air missiles. They have thrust-vectoring, high-off-boresight targeting, lock-on-after-launch, and other capabilities that you can read more about in detail here.

Risk reduction work on the AIM-9X CV has already been underway since Fiscal Year 2025. However, the new version does not appear to have been mentioned by name in prior Navy or Air Force budgets. Previous funding was contained under the umbrella of the larger System Improvement Plan IV (SIP IV) upgrade effort.

“The AIM-9X CV repackages the SIP IV technology into a compact airframe optimized for internal carriage on advanced aircraft with improved kinematic performance,” according to the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request. “The program will deliver increased capability to the warfighter with greater standoff range, increased aircraft weapon station capacity, and maintains inner boundary performance.”

In Fiscal Year 2027, the goal is that “the program will advance hardware and software designs. This effort will focus on design and development of critical hardware components and compatibility with advanced platforms,” the budget documents add. “The overall scope includes platform integration, material and energetics studies, and extensive modeling, simulation, and analysis. Activities will also incorporate system safety analysis, the establishment of requisite integration and test environments, risk- reduction testing, and other engineering efforts necessary to mature the complete system baseline.”

The Navy and Air Force budget documents do not offer any further details about the AIM-9X CV’s configuration, or how it will achieve “greater standoff range” and “improved kinematic performance” in a more compact package. How truncated the AIM-9X CV’s airframe, as well as its control surfaces, might be compared to existing versions is also unknown. The core AIM-9X design is already relatively short and narrow by anti-air missile standards at just under 10 feet long and five inches in diameter (not including its fins). For comparison, all variants of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) are some 12 feet long and have bodies that are around seven inches in diameter.

The Navy and the Air Force previously considered developing a Block III variant of the AIM-9X, which could have included a highly loaded grain rocket motor. Though the Block III effort was shelved, at least publicly, the Navy has continued to make significant investments in this kind of rocket technology with a general eye toward improved range and performance for future missiles.

“The Next-Generation Highly Loaded Grain project team has matured the technology and seeded the development of future mission-modular propulsion systems that can increase weapon ranges by up to 1.5x while maintaining inner boundaries for short-range and time-critical missions,” according to one factsheet detailing notable achievements by NAVAIR’s Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCAD) in 2023.

The benefits of greater reach and better kinematic performance, even in the AIM-9X’s existing form factor, are clear-cut. As the Navy and Air Force budget documents highlight, putting all that in a smaller package offers additional value from a magazine depth perspective. If an aircraft can carry multiple AIM-9X CVs on stations that can only accommodate one standard-size version, that means more engagement opportunities per sortie without any change to the rest of the loadout.

This is all especially important for stealthy aircraft that carry stores in internal bays with rigid dimensions when flying in their most low-observable configurations. As an example of what this means in practical terms, Lockheed Martin has spent years now working to develop a capability called Sidekick to increase the total number of AIM-120s that F-35s can carry in their weapons bays from four to six. Even so, that upgrade will only apply to A and C variants of the jet, as the bays on the B model are smaller to begin with.

The expectation that the AIM-9X CV will offer improved capabilities over its predecessors is also significant. The Air Force, in particular, has explored several concepts for air-to-air missiles that are smaller than Sidewinder, but which have generally been understood to trade range and/or performance for added magazine depth.

All of this brings us to the matter of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) type drones, which impose additional constraints on weapons integration simply by virtue of their overall size and maximum takeoff weight. As described now, the AIM-9X CV might be well-suited for arming CCAs, which will have more limited internal and external stores capacity, overall, compared to traditional crewed tactical jets. Being able to load them with more total missiles per sortie, and increase their reach at the same time, would be a major boon.

The Air Force just recently started weapons integration work as part of its CCA program using Anduril’s YFQ-44A Fury, which does not have an internal bay. Fury has been seen so far conducting flight tests loaded with a pair of inert AIM-120s, one under each wing.

The YFQ-44A is one of two designs the Air Force is currently flight testing under the first phase, or Increment 1, of its CCA program. The other is General Atomics YFQ-42A Dark Merlin, which can carry stores internally. The Air Force has also been experimenting with other relevant drone designs in recent years, including Kratos XQ-58A and Boeing’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat, the former of which also has an internal payload bay. More recently, the service assigned the YFQ-48A designation to Northrop Grumman’s Talon Blue drone.

It is worth noting here that the development of the MQ-28 originally began for the Royal Australian Air Force, which has conducted at least one live-fire AIM-120 shot from one of those drones. The Ghost Bat carried the missile externally in that test. Future versions of the design are set to include internal weapons bays.

Uncrewed MQ-28 Ghost Bat showcases its combat capability

Back in the United States, the Marine Corps’ first CCA is set to be a variant of the XQ-58, and the service is also leveraging the YFQ-42A to support its CCA plans. The Navy is still early in the process of exploring potential carrier-based CCA designs.

The AIM-9X CV might also open up other kinds of new operational possibilities. A compact anti-air missile could provide defensive capability against incoming missiles for larger aircraft. This is something the Air Force has been particularly interested in, including as a way to help better protect aerial refueling tankers.

The compact version’s overall benefits could make it attractive for employment as a surface-to-air weapon, as well. Full-size AIM-9Xs are already an interceptor option for several ground-based air defense systems in service or otherwise on the market globally today, including the U.S. Army’s Enduring Shield.

With the development of the AIM-9X CV now fully out in the open, more details about the missile’s design, as well as how the Navy and Air Force might plan to field it, may now begin to emerge.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

“I have all the cards,” posted the White House on its X account on Sunday, alongside an image of President Donald Trump holding playing cards from the Uno game, in a message appearing to signal Washington’s confidence in its ongoing war on Iran.

Uno is a card game in which the winner is the first to get rid of all their cards.

The post came after Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that the US military would begin guiding ships stranded around the Strait of Hormuz by the war on Monday, in a sign that the conflict could further escalate, despite the near-month-long fragile ceasefire. Tehran has been effectively blocking nearly all shipping from the Gulf for more than two months, after the US and Israel attacked Iran two months ago, disrupting global energy supplies.

“We have told these countries that we will guide their ships safely out of these restricted waterways, so that they can freely and ably get on with their business,” Trump said, dubbing the campaign “Project Freedom”. “They are merely neutral and innocent bystanders!”

The president added that US negotiators were engaged in “very positive discussions” with Tehran, which could lead to “something very positive” without further elaboration.

Iran, however, reacted by insisting that the security of the waterway was in the hands of its armed forces, and warned that “any safe passage and navigation in any situation” should be “carried out in coordination with the armed forces”.

On Monday, the Iranian Fars news agency reported that a US warship had been hit by two Iranian drones, the claim was denied by US Central Command.

So what leverage do the US and Iran hold over each other, and what happens next?

In response to Trump’s “I have all the cards” social media post, Iran’s Consulate General in Hyderabad, India, posted its own image on X.

“Yes, we have less cards,” Iran’s consulate in the Indian city of Hyderabad wrote on X, together with a photo of an Iranian military spokesperson holding four Uno cards compared to Trump’s five, pointing out that usually holding all the cards means you are losing, not winning, in the game of Uno.

In response to Trump’s “Project Freedom” declaration, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned that ships deemed to be in breach of its rules in the Strait of Hormuz “will be stopped by force”, while insisting there has been no change in how it manages traffic through the strategic waterway.

On Monday, it issued a new map of the Strait of Hormuz with boundaries extending further to the east than its previous one, and said any ship travelling between the two sides must coordinate with the IRGC first.

“There has been no change in the management process of the Strait of Hormuz,” spokesperson Sardar Mohebbi said, adding that vessels that comply with the “transit protocols issued by the IRGC Navy” will be “safe and secure”.

“Other maritime movements that are contrary to the declared principles of the IRGC Navy will face serious risks. Violating vessels will be stopped by force,” he said.

What leverage does the US have over Iran?

Sanctions

The United States’ most enduring source of leverage over Iran remains its sanctions regime, which was launched in 1979 when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini declared Iran an Islamic Republic.

Successive US administrations over the past 47 years have hit Tehran with a series of financial restrictions targeting Iran’s banking, oil exports and access to international markets – the US says the sanctions are a response to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Sanctions have significantly constrained Iran’s economy, limiting government revenue and contributing to inflation and currency depreciation. Measures enforced through the US Treasury also deter other countries and companies from engaging with Iran, further strangling its economy.

The economic pressure has been central to US strategy towards Iran, particularly during its attempts to force Tehran back to negotiations over its nuclear programme, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Military power

Beyond economics, the US maintains overwhelming military superiority, especially air power. Aircraft carriers, long-range bombers and precision strike capabilities give Washington the ability to target Iranian infrastructure with relatively low risk to its own forces.

US bases across the Gulf, as well as military partnerships with regional allies – most notably Israel – reinforce this advantage.

American forces, together with the Israeli army, have killed more than 3,000 people, and struck thousands of sites across Iran in the current war, including Iran’s energy and nuclear sites.

Naval blockade

Since mid-April, the United States has enforced a widespread naval blockade of Iranian ports and ships. The operation began on April 13 after talks between Washington and Tehran collapsed, with US forces ordered to stop or divert vessels entering or leaving Iranian ports.

US forces have since intercepted or turned back dozens of ships, and seized a container ship, the Touska. On Monday, the US announced that its crew had been repatriated to Iran from Pakistan, where they were taken after their ship was captured in the Gulf of Oman last month.

According to Trump, the blockade is designed to choke Iran’s oil exports, its main revenue source.

US officials say the measures have severely disrupted Iran’s trade, which relies heavily on sea routes.

What leverage does Iran have?

Strait of Hormuz

The vital waterway is Iran’s most significant strategic asset, the narrow passage ships one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies in peacetime.

Tehran has effectively closed the strait since the war began on February 28, sending global oil and gas prices soaring and energy markets into turmoil. Iran has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to target shipping, seize vessels, or conduct military exercises, demonstrating its ability to close or restrict the strait.

The result is soaring energy prices globally, forcing many countries to implement severe austerity measures to soften the blow.

Last week in the US, the average price of a gallon (3.8 litres) of gasoline (petrol) rose to $4.30, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), up from less than $3 before the war.

Surging energy costs have driven up inflation and deepened economic uncertainty in the US, compounding Trump’s political troubles amid overwhelming disapproval for the war amongst Americans.

Even if the US does begin escorting ships through safely – the threat from mines or Iranian strikes may be enough to prevent tankers from attempting to sail, experts say. Insurance companies are also unlikely to underwrite voyages.

Regional allies

Iran’s network of allied groups across the Middle East is another asset that Tehran relies on heavily. These include armed groups in Iraq and Syria, as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen

Through these groups, Iran has exerted pressure indirectly, targeting US interests and allies without engaging in direct confrontation.

One critical threat Iran has previously made is for the Houthis to disrupt shipping in the Bab al-Mandeb, another vital maritime chokepoint linking the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.

The Houthis, an Iran-aligned group in Yemen, have previously targeted shipping in this area, most notably during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, further raising concerns about the security of global trade routes.

Roughly 4.2 billion barrels of crude oil and refined petroleum liquids flowed through the strait in 2014, accounting for about five percent of global supply.

Cheap drones and cluster bombs

While nowhere near the military capabilities of the US, Iran’s investment in missile and drone programmes has proven to be an effective means of deterrence. That is particularly through its ability to threaten regional US bases and impose significant costs on regional countries hosting American assets involved in military operations against Tehran.

While the US undoubtedly has a more sophisticated and powerful arsenal at its disposal, the interceptors it uses to combat Iranian drones cost around $4 million each, while Iran’s Shahed drones can be mass-produced at $20-50,000 each.

Furthermore, Iran’s ballistic missiles have proved capable of breaching Israel’s much-lauded “Iron Dome” defence system on several occasions. Iran has also dropped cluster bombs, which divide before they can be intercepted, making them much harder to stop.

So does the US really hold the most cards?

Michael Clarke, visiting professor at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, said Trump’s overwhelming conventional military strength has failed to translate into strategic leverage on the ground.

“President Trump thinks he is a great poker player,” Clarke told Al Jazeera. “He thought America’s sheer destructive potential put all the ‘cards’ in his hand” when starting the war on Iran.

But Iranian forces have consistently disrupted US expectations through asymmetric tactics, he said.

“At every turn, the Iranians have come up with asymmetric tactics – vicious, reckless tactics – that have negated everything the Americans have tried to do,” Clarke noted, describing a pattern in which traditional US military superiority has been blunted by unconventional responses.

Despite significant American forces and assets in the region – including “no fewer than three US Carrier Strike Groups, two Marine Expeditionary Units, hundreds of combat aircraft and thousands of troops”, Clarke argued that Washington has struggled to find an effective use for its multi-billion-dollar resources at its disposal.

Moreover, he said, domestic pressure on Trump is growing. Trump “can’t find a way to use them [US forces] that will make any real difference to the current stalemate in the limited time he has before his own MAGA base concludes he has lost the game”.

Clarke also highlighted the willingness of Iran’s IRGC to escalate tensions. “Whatever this war might do to Iranian society, the IRGC is prepared to gamble with its own existence in the fight,” he added.

May 2 (UPI) — The United States has started warning allies that delivery of weapons systems are likely to be delayed because stockpiles have been drained during the war in Iran.

The Department of Defense has warned several allies in Europe — including the United Kingdom, Poland, Norway and Estonia — that there will be delivery delays for several missile systems, Breaking Defense and The Financial Times reported.

The delays, which may also spread to deliveries to Asian allies, have been linked to growing concerns about the numbers of U.S. weapons used since the war in Iran started.

Concerns have also come up as to whether lower stockpiles could affect the United States’ ability to defend itself and its allies.

The Department of Defense already has been relocating weapons from bases in other parts of the world both to the U.S. stockpile and for use in the Iran war, which President Donald Trump noted on Friday.

“All over the world, we have inventory,” he said. “And we can take that if we need it.”

Among the weapons systems that could be affected are the HIMARS and NASAMS missile systems, shortages of which were reported in Estonia and Norway in April.

The president of Finland also said in recent days that some U.S. weapons stockpiles normally stored in the country have been rerouted, which lines up with Trump’s comments yesterday.

In Asia, Japan and South Korea are reportedly bracing for delays beyond the ones it already has not received, including Patriot missile interceptors and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Delays that have already happened, and the potential for more, could affect foreign nations’ reliance on weapons manufactured by the United States, experts have said.

“Japan already was deeply frustrated with delivery delays for systems they have paid for,” former Pentagon official Christopher Johnstone told the Financial Times.

“This reality will drive Japan, South Korea and other allies to focus more heavily on indigenous and non-American options, even in areas where U.S. equipment is clearly superior,” he said.

The reports of delays come after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday told members of the Senate Arms Services Committee that he is aware of concerns about the stockpile after two months of an intense campaign in Iran.

In response to questions about the Pentagon’s request for a nearly 50% increase in its budget, Hegseth noted that some of the increase is because of weapons used during the war, and that it could take “months and years” to fully replenish the stockpile.

Trump has asked defense companies to “quadruple” their manufacturing pace, but there are limits to how much production can be sped up, according to industry experts.

Russia has continued heavy attacks on Ukraine for the past 24 hours, with several coming overnight on Thursday and in the early hours of Friday. At least one person has been killed and several have been injured.

A Russian drone attack overnight damaged port infrastructure in Ukraine’s southern Odesa region and wounded two people in the Black Sea port city of Odesa, regional Governor Oleh Kiper said on Friday morning.

Two high-rise residential buildings were damaged in the attack, which destroyed apartments and caused fires, Kiper wrote on the Telegram messaging app.

“This night, Russia again massively attacked the civilian infrastructure of the Odesa region: two people were injured,” he said.

Kiper noted that two multistorey residential buildings in Odesa were damaged by drone strikes. Apartments were destroyed and fires broke out at the sites of the hits, and all necessary assistance was being provided to the victims.

The Russian army also attacked the Black Sea shipbuilding town of Mykolaiv with drones, Mayor Oleksandr Sienkevych reported on Facebook.

“As a result of the impact, there is damage in the private sector, and a fire also broke out,” he wrote. He warned residents that the threat is ongoing and urged people to remain sheltered.

On Thursday night, Ukraine launched its fourth drone attack in the past week on Russia’s Black Sea port of Tuapse, as it continues to target Russian energy infrastructure in a bid to halt oil revenues.

“In Tuapse, as a result of a drone ⁠attack by the ⁠Kyiv regime, a fire broke out on the territory ⁠of the seaport ⁠terminal,” the General ⁠Headquarters in the Krasnodar Region reported on Telegram. It ‌added that emergency crews were working at ‌the ‌site.

Russia hits central Ukraine

The Russian army attacked three districts of the Dnipropetrovsk region in central Ukraine “almost 20 times” with drones and artillery, the head of the Regional Military Administration (OVA), Oleksandr Ganzha, wrote on Telegram.

Ganzha reported that infrastructure was damaged in Kryvyi Rih, where one person was injured.

Ukraine’s news outlet Interfax reported that there were strikes on the Synelnyky district, the Dubovykivska and Petropavlivska communities, where a garage and a car were burned, and residences were damaged.

In the Nikopol district, communities in Nikopol, Marhanetska and Chervonohryhorivska have been affected. A private house was occupied and infrastructure, a petrol station, an administrative building and buses were damaged, Interfax reported.

In Kherson, attacks by drones have continued for the past 24 hours in Kherson, Zymivnyk, Komyshany and Zelenivka.

The head of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry, Yaroslav Shanko, wrote on Telegram: “Over the past day, 4 settlements in the Kherson community have been subjected to enemy attacks. As a result of Russian attacks in the Kherson community, 1 person was killed and 8 were injured.”

Private houses and multistorey buildings, an administrative building, warehouses, buses and civilian cars have been damaged.

Sikorsky unveiled a new incarnation of its Armed Black Hawk helicopter at the Army Aviation Warfighting Summit in Nashville last week. TWZ’s Jamie Hunter spoke with Sikorsky’s Matt Isaacson about how this expands mission sets and provides greater flexibility for the Black Hawk, while minimizing the need for separate types with an air arm’s H-60/S-70 fleet.

​Check out our full tour of the aircraft and its weapons:

The H-60 Black Hawk Gunship Evolves With New Wings And Weapons

Contact the author: tyler@twz.com

Canada on Wednesday announced $5 million in funding for international efforts aimed at identifying and eliminating chemical weapons remaining in Syria, Anadolu reports.

“Today, the Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of Foreign Affairs, announced Canada’s contribution of $5 million to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) through Canada’s Weapons Threat Reduction Program,” the Global Affairs Canada said in a statement.

Noting that the OPCW will use the contribution to verify the scope of Syria’s former chemical weapons program, the readout added that the funding will also be used to investigate past uses of such weapons, and prepare for the safe destruction of remaining stockpiles, in line with the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The statement said the work is considered critical to “Syria’s long-term stability,” advancing accountability and reducing the risk to civilians of any future chemical weapons use.

“This contribution is part of Canada’s long-standing support to the OPCW to uphold the global ban on chemical weapons and strengthen international accountability,” it added.

United States President Donald Trump has said a nuclear agreement currently being negotiated with Iran will be “far better” than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which he withdrew from in 2018 during his first term in office.

The original 2015 accord took roughly two years of negotiations to reach and involved hundreds of specialists across technical and legal fields, including multiple US experts. Under it, Iran agreed to restrict the enrichment of uranium and to subject itself to inspections in exchange for the relaxation of sanctions.

But Trump took the US out of that pact, calling it the “worst deal ever”. Before the initial US-Israeli strikes on Iran at the end of February, the US had made new demands – including additional restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear programme, the restriction of its ballistic missiles programme and an end to its support for regional armed groups, primarily in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.

Trump’s latest remarks come amid growing uncertainty about whether a second round of talks will proceed in the Pakistani capital Islamabad, as a two-week ceasefire between the US-Israel and Iran approaches the end in just a day.

So, what was the JCPOA, and how did it compare to Trump’s new demands?

What was the JCPOA?

On July 14, 2015, Iran reached an agreement with the European Union and six major powers – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the US, and Germany – under which these states would roll back international economic sanctions and allow Iran greater participation in the global economy.

In return, Tehran committed to limiting activities that could be used to produce a nuclear weapon.

These included reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium by about 98 percent, to less than 300kg (660lb), and capping uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent – far below weapons-grade of 90 percent, but high enough for civilian purposes such as power generation.

Before the JCPOA, Iran operated roughly 20,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges. Under the deal, that number was cut to a maximum of 6,104, and only older-generation machines confined to two facilities, which were subject to international monitoring.

Centrifuges are machines which spin to increase the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope – enrichment – in uranium, a key step towards potential bomb-making.

The deal also redesigned Iran’s Arak heavy water reactor to prevent plutonium production and introduced one of the most intrusive inspection regimes ever implemented by the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In exchange, Iran received relief from international sanctions which had severely damaged its economy. Billions of dollars in frozen assets were released, and restrictions on oil exports and banking were eased.

The deal came to halt when Trump formally withdrew Washington from the nuclear deal in 2018, a move widely criticised domestically and by foreign allies, and despite the IAEA saying Iran had complied with the agreement up to that point.

“The Iranian regime supports terrorism and exports violence, bloodshed and chaos across the Middle East. That is why we must put an end to Iran’s continued aggression and nuclear ambitions. They have not lived up to the spirit of their agreement,” he said in October 2017.

He reimposed crippling economic sanctions on Tehran as part of his “maximum pressure” tactic. These targeted Iran’s oil exports, as well as its shipping sector, banking system and other key industries.

The goal was to force Iran back to the negotiating table to agree to a new deal, which also included a discussion about Tehran’s missile capabilities, further curbs on enrichment and more scrutiny of its nuclear programme.

What has happened to Iran’s nuclear programme since the JCPOA?

During the JCPOA period, Iran’s nuclear programme was tightly constrained and heavily monitored. The IAEA repeatedly verified that Iran was complying with the deal’s terms, including one year after Trump announced the US’s withdrawal from the agreement.

Starting in mid-2019, however, Iran began incrementally breaching the deal’s limits, exceeding caps on uranium stockpiles and enrichment levels.

In November 2024, Iran said it would activate “new and advanced” centrifuges. The IAEA confirmed that Tehran had informed the nuclear watchdog that it planned to install more than 6,000 new centrifuges to enrich uranium.

In December 2024, the IAEA said Iran was rapidly enriching uranium to 60 percent purity, moving closer to the 90 percent threshold needed for weapons-grade material. Most recently, in 2025, the IAEA estimated that Iran had 440kg (970lb) of 60-percent enriched uranium.

What are Trump’s latest demands for Iran’s nuclear programme?

The US and its ally, Israel, are pushing Iran to agree to zero uranium enrichment and have accused Iran of working towards building a nuclear weapon, while providing no evidence for their claims.

They also want Iran’s estimated 440kg stock of 60pc enriched uranium to be removed from Iran. While that is below weapons-grade, it is the point at which it becomes much faster to achieve the 90 percent enrichment needed for atomic weapons production.

Iran has insisted its enrichment effort is for civilian purposes only. It is a signatory to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

In March 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, testified to Congress that the US “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”.

On Sunday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in a strongly worded statement, said Trump had no right to ⁠⁠”deprive” Iran of its nuclear ⁠⁠rights.

What else is Trump asking for?

Restrictions on ballistic missiles

Before the US-Israel war on Iran began, Tehran had always insisted negotiations should be exclusively focused on Iran’s nuclear programme.

US and Israeli demands, however, extended beyond that. Just before the war began, Washington and Israel demanded severe restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile programme.

Analysts say this demand was at least partly triggered by the fact that several Iranian missiles had breached Israel’s much-vaunted “Iron Dome” defence system during the 12-day war between the two countries in June last year. While Israel suffered only a handful of casualties, it is understood to have been alarmed.

For his part, Trump has repeatedly warned, without evidence, about the dangers of Iran’s long-range missiles, claiming Iran is producing them “in very high numbers” and they could “overwhelm the Iron Dome”.

Iran has said its right to maintain missile capabilities is non-negotiable. The JCPOA did not put any limits on the development of ballistic missiles.

However, a United Nations resolution made when adopting the nuclear agreement in July 2015 did stipulate that Iran could not “undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons”.

Ending support for proxy groups

The US and Israel have also demanded that Iran stop supporting its non-state allies across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and a number of groups in Iraq. Together, these groups are referred to as Iran’s “axis of resistance”.

In May last year, Trump said Tehran “must stop sponsoring terror, halt its bloody proxy wars, and permanently and verifiably cease pursuit of nuclear weapons”, during a GCC meeting in Riyadh.

Three days before the war on Iran began in February, during his State of the Union address to Congress, Trump accused Iran and “its murderous proxies” of spreading “nothing but terrorism and death and hate”.

Iran has refused to enter a dialogue about limiting its support for these armed groups.

Can Trump really get a new deal that is ‘much better’ than the JCPOA?

According to Andreas Kreig, associate professor of Security Studies at King’s College, London, Trump is more likely to secure a new deal that closely resembles the JCPOA, with “some form of restrictions on enrichment, possibly with a sunset clause, and international supervision”.

“Iran might get access to frozen assets and lifted sanctions much quicker than under the JCPOA, as it will not agree to a long drawn-out, gradual lifting of sanctions,” Krieg pointed out.

However, he warned that the political landscape in Tehran has hardened. “Iran now is a far more hardline and less pragmatic player that will play hardball at every junction. Trump cannot count on any goodwill in Tehran,” he said.

“The IRGC is now firmly in charge… with likely new powerful and tested levers such as the Strait of Hormuz,” he said, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which operates as a parallel elite military force to the army and has a great deal of political and economic power in Iran. It is a constitutionally recognised part of the Iranian military and answers directly to the supreme leader.

Overall, Krieg stressed, the US-Israel war on Iran “leaves the world worse off than had Trump stuck to the JCPOA”, even if a new compromise is eventually reached.

Moreover, since the revocation of the JCPOA, the US and Israel have waged two wars on Iran, including the current one. The 12-day war in June last year included attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites and killed more than 1,000 people.

Attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure have continued since the latest war began on February 28, including on the Natanz enrichment facility, Isfahan nuclear complex, Arak heavy water reactor, and the Bushehr nuclear power plant.

Nevertheless, King’s College’s Krieg said there is still room for a negotiated outcome if Tehran and Washington scale back their demands.

“Both sides can compromise on enrichment thresholds, and on temporary moratoriums on enrichments. But Iran will not surrender its sovereignty to enrich altogether, and the Trump administration will have to meet them halfway,” he said.

“While the Iranians will commit on paper not to develop a nuclear weapon, they will want to keep R&D [research and development] in this space alive.”

Economic incentives will be central, he added. “Equally, Iran would want to get immediate access to capital and liquidity. Here, the Trump administration is already willing to compromise.”