US President Donald Trump has indicated he is considering scaling back the underway unprovoked aggression towards Iran, even as the crisis surrounding the Strait of Hormuz remains unresolved.
In a post on his Truth Social platform on Friday, Trump claimed the United States was close to achieving the military goals sought by the aggression.
“We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East.”
He listed, what he called, degrading Iran’s missile capability and industrial base, and protecting US allies in the region.
The remarks flew in the face of the Islamic Republic’s robust underway retaliation, codenamed Operation True Promise 4, that keeps taking larger portions of hostile targets under the country’s firepower.
US military positions throughout the region, including in Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, have been subjected to sustained counterstrikes.
The retaliation has also struck sensitive and strategic locations across the occupied territories, including those lying in Tel Aviv, the holy occupied city of al-Quds, Haifa, Be’er Sheva, considered a technological hub, and the Negev Desert.
On the issue of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has closed to enemy vessels as well as ships belonging to those cooperating with the adversaries since the onset of the aggression, Trump suggested the US might step back from direct responsibility.
“The Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations who use it — The United States does not.”
Commenting on the remarks, American outlet Axios acknowledged that efforts to reopen the strait have proven difficult.
It cited Trump’s advisors as pointing to his frustration due to limited allied support, despite his alleging military victory.
The US has sought to form a coalition to secure the strait, asking NATO allies and others to contribute naval and air assets. Most have declined to commit forces, and some have only backed a political statement supporting the effort.
Trump has retorted to allies over their reluctance, calling NATO countries “cowards” and saying that without US backing, NATO is “a paper tiger.”
Meanwhile, disruptions to global oil flows continue to drive up energy prices.
What if the state that claims global military supremacy is now confronting a conflict it cannot win on its own terms?
President Trump’s repeated assertions that the US could defeat Iran and force it to surrender are now colliding with battlefield realities and geopolitical fissures that suggest otherwise. The very premise of a quick and decisive US victory is unravelling in real time, raising profound questions about American strategy, alliance cohesion, and power in a multipolar age.
The Illusion of Swift Victory in Tehran
President Trump’s pronouncements on Iran have been starkly ambitious. On multiple occasions he has touted rapid success and overwhelming military might in confronting Tehran — insisting that the US does not need British help to prevail and that Iranian forces will be “hit very hard.” Yet these claims increasingly look detached from both strategic reality and on‑the‑ground dynamics.
The US military doctrine has traditionally relied on superior air power and technological edge to achieve rapid dominance. In early March 2026, the Pentagon publicly stated that operations against Iran’s missile, air, and naval capabilities were underway, though officials stopped short of conceding a quick end to the campaign. But the timeline Trump once floated — nominally four to five weeks — has already blurred into ambiguity, with the White House acknowledging potential extensions and evolving objectives primarily because of the failure to achieve quick objectives. They thought that the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader would cause the regime to fall. That did not happen, forcing the US and Israel to rethink the nature and the duration of the campaign.
The expectation that air campaigns alone could cripple Iran’s military infrastructure — or compel unconditional political submission — misreads Tehran’s defensive resilience and strategic depth. A recent classified report from the US National Intelligence Council found that even large‑scale US use of force is unlikely to dismantle Iran’s entrenched political and military leadership. That insight undercuts the notion that a blitz of strikes can replace the complex sociopolitical calculus of regime transformation. The council’s document, drafted late last month, builds on work by the C.I.A. that assessed that a complete change of government was unlikely even if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, was killed in a US-led military operation.
Iran’s responses have also defied Washington’s expectations. Despite extensive targeting, Iranian forces have not capitulated; they have continued missile and drone strikes on US and allied targets across the Gulf region. Rather than collapse, Tehran appears to be adapting, leveraging both conventional responses and strategic signaling to blunt American efforts and maintain a posture of deterrence. Reports in the Western media show significant Iranian success in repeatedly targeting US military bases. Taken together, these developments erode the core of the Trump administration’s confidence in quick, decisive military outcomes, thus setting the stage for a campaign that may extend far beyond initial projections without achieving strategic objectives. As such, President Trump has now stopped threatening “certain death” to Iran and its people.
Eroding Alliances and Strategic Overreach
A second blow to US fantasies is the fraying of Western and regional support that Trump and his advisers presumed would form the backbone of sustained operations. Trump’s suggestion that the US does not need British assistance belies deeper tensions within the transatlantic alliance over legal responsibility, operational strategy, and political backing for war.
Across Europe, capitals are deeply divided over the US-led escalation. Spain has resisted aligning its military fully with Washington’s campaign, and the US leadership has grappled with legal and planning complications related to base access, epitomizing a broader transatlantic unease over the wisdom and legitimacy of war with Iran. These disagreements have reduced the coherence of NATO‑era cooperation, complicating US expectations for collective action.
The US’ handling of Gulf states has also strained ties with regional partners. Officials in several Gulf kingdoms privately expressed frustration at the lack of prior notification before strikes on Iranian territory and at US reliance on Gulf air defenses to intercept Iranian missiles with limited American support. This undercuts longstanding assumptions about the reliability of regional alignments and may incentivize some states to hedge their security calculations.
Domestically, American public opinion is also shifting in ways that undermine unilateralist ambitions. Polling suggests historically weak support for the operation against Iran, with a significant portion of the public expressing opposition and frustration at the perceived readiness of U.S. forces to engage in protracted conflict. This internal division complicates political sustainment of a drawn‑out campaign, particularly given the toll of casualties and financial costs that would accrue over time. Collectively, these fissures — within alliances, among regional partners, and on the home front — highlight the weakening of America’s hegemonic posture and raise questions about its ability to marshal durable coalitions in pursuit of major strategic objectives.
A Crisis of America’s Own Making
The deeper problem is not Iran’s resilience or the alliance falling apart; it is the strategic trap Washington has walked into. According to testimony before Congress, Pentagon officials repeatedly warned that Tehran posed no imminent threat of attacking the US directly. Yet the Trump administration chose to escalate, interpreting cautious intelligence as justification for preemptive strikes and forceful posturing. The result is a war the US did not need to fight, at a cost that will reverberate far beyond the battlefield.
This miscalculation is more than a tactical error; it is a strategic misstep that is reshaping global perceptions of American power. Allies are questioning Washington’s judgment, adversaries are emboldened, and the credibility of US deterrence is being tested. The costs are not just measured in military engagements or financial outlays; they are being paid in influence, alliances, and leverage in other regions of the world. The campaign against Iran is eroding the very hegemonic posture the US has relied on since the end of the Cold War.
The longer the conflict drags on, the more entrenched this erosion becomes. The US now faces a geopolitical deadlock of its own making: a situation where victory is unlikely, withdrawal risks loss of prestige, and every subsequent action is constrained by the consequences of a war initiated without necessity. What started as an assertion of American strength may ultimately be remembered as a cautionary tale of overreach, misreading intelligence, and underestimating both the limits of force and the resilience of regional actors.
In short, the crisis is not just in Iran. Rather, it is in Washington itself. A nation confident in its global supremacy has stumbled into a conflict that threatens to unravel the assumptions underpinning that supremacy, leaving the US not just challenged militarily, but on a path to strategic downfall.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affair
The US-Israeli strikes on Iran have entered their fourth week, with Washington’s operations against Iran veering into contradictory directions. While US President Donald Trump has publicly said his intention is to gradually “wind down” military operations, media reports say that the US Department of Defense has made comprehensive preparations for the potential deployment of ground forces inside Iranian territory. A Chinese expert says that the US is currently putting on a show of toughness, yet its real intent is to bring this unsustainable war to a face-saving end.
The US is “getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East,” Trump said in a Truth Social post late Friday.
Yet the Pentagon’s planned actions stand in stark opposition to President Trump’s claim of phasing out military operations.
US military officials said that about 2,500 additional Marines aboard three warships are heading to the Middle East, the New York Times (NYT) reported.
The Marines, who will deploy next month, are from the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit based at Camp Pendleton, California, and the U.S.S. Boxer amphibious ready group, per the NYT.
The US actually has come to realize that it has overcommitted and overextended itself in this war, which is increasingly detrimental to its own interests, Li Weijian, a vice president of the Chinese Association of Middle East Studies, told the Global Times on Saturday.
Yet it is unwilling to acknowledge the reality of its situation or its inability to prevail, and seeks to preserve its dignity by deploying troops, Li added.
It is by no means the first time that the US has struck a defiant tone in regard to this war. Trump told reporters on Friday that he is not interested in a ceasefire with Iran, CNBC reported. “We could have dialogue, but I don’t want to do a ceasefire,” Trump said from the White House South Lawn before departing for Florida. “You know you don’t do a ceasefire when you’re literally obliterating the other side.”
Additionally, CBS News reported that the Trump administration has been strategizing methods and options to secure or extract Iran’s nuclear materials, according to multiple people briefed on the discussions.
The timing of any such operation — if President Trump were to order it — remained unclear Friday night, per CBS News.
Such tactics of the US are intended to send a clear message to Iran that “it is not incapable of responding to the situation,” Li said, adding that the reality is that the US has already expended far too much.
Iranian strikes on military bases used by the US in the Middle East caused about $800m in damage in the first two weeks of the war, a new analysis shows, BBC News reported on Saturday.
A significant portion of the damage was caused by a strike on a US radar for a THAAD missile defence system at an air base in Jordan, per the report.
The US is also seeking to draw more countries into this conflict. Trump said Friday that “it would be nice” if Japan, China and other countries that are highly dependent on energy imports from the Middle East join his efforts to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the Mainichi reported on Saturday.
Trump also assailed NATO allies on Friday over their lack of support for the US-Israel war against Iran, calling the longtime US allies “cowards,” Reuters reported.
Unwilling to concede defeat and unable to make an outright withdrawal, the US, amid mounting pressure, has sought to leverage the influence of other countries to pressure Iran into making concessions, according to Li.
The US ought to recognize that the war it has waged against Iran together with Israel is inherently unjust, that its isolation is no accident, and that it must bear the consequences for all of this, Li added.
The Trump White House plagiarized its justification for attacking Iran from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the main DC outfit promoting war with Tehran. The think tank was originally founded to “enhance Israel’s image,” and partners closely with the Israeli government.
The Trump Administration appeared to plagiarize its official justification for its war on Iran, copying almost word-for-word a document originally produced by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a pro-war think tank with close ties to Israeli intelligence which was originally founded to “enhance Israel’s image.”
The FDD document was authored by Tzvi Kahn, the former assistant director for policy and government affairs at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
A March 2, 2026 statement issued by the White House accusing Tehran of 44 instances of terrorism against American citizens is “virtually identical” to the list published by FDD in June 2025, analyst Stephen McIntyre noted Thursday.
While the White House did make superficial alterations to the text, they largely consisted of appending the label “Iran-backed” to every mention of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. In the few instances where Trump administration officials bothered to make significant changes to the original FDD list, the edits were almost always made in service of “ratcheting up the underlying allegation,” McIntyre concluded.
Among the most egregious examples was a 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, which FDD originally said merely that Hezbollah al-Hejaz was “deemed responsible” for. In the White House version, however, the group’s responsibility was “asserted as factual,” explained McIntyre, noting that serious questions about the incident remain unanswered to this day. “Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Perry subsequently wondered (along with many others) whether Khobar Towers should have been attributed to Al Qaeda,” he wrote.
A 2009 investigation by journalist Gareth Porter based on interviews with over a dozen former CIA, FBI and Clinton administration officials demonstrated that the FBI’s inquiry into the Khobar Towers attack was precooked to blame Iran, when Al Qaeda was mostly like the culprit. Porter found that Shia citizens of Saudi Arabia had been tortured into confessing to the crime by Saudi secret police.
While the White House declined to join FDD in blaming Iran for the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, it echoed the Israel-oriented organization in blaming Tehran for 603 military deaths in Iraq, which both documents attributed to “Iran-backed militias.” But there are major discrepancies with the figure, which amounts to 60% of the total US combatant deaths attributed to Iran. As McIntyre noted, such a claim is “not made in the State Department annual reports on Global Terrorism.”
At least four of the Americans the Trump administration claims were killed by Iran had served in Israel’s military. These included a US citizen who died while invading Lebanon in 2006 and two Americans in the IDF’s Golani brigade who were killed while invading Gaza in 2014. The fourth American, who was born in Israel and had also served in the Golani brigade, was killed amid violent reprisals against settlers in the West Bank in 2015.
A number of the claims are undermined by the very sources they cite, including a December 2019 incident in which the Trump administration insisted “Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah terrorists killed an American civilian contractor and wounded several U.S. service members in a rocket attack at K1 Air Base in Kirkuk, Iraq.” But the Reuters article cited by the White House as proof that Iran was responsible made no such claim, explicitly cautioning that “no group has claimed responsibility for the attack.” In reality, Reuterssuggested the attack was the work of “Islamic State militants operating in the area [who] have turned to insurgency-style tactics.”
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said at the time that “we don’t know” how operationally involved Iran was in the January 28 attack that killed three US troops, “but it really doesn’t matter.”
“We have FDD”: Israel’s favorite Washington cutout
In tax documents filed with the IRS upon its founding in 2001, FDD was originally named EMET, which is Hebrew for “truth.” The fledgling outfit described its mission as working to “enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations.” It changed its name soon after, presumably to sound less overtly Israeli.
FDD has since emerged as the leading Washington-based think tank pushing the US toward war with Iran. During the first Trump administration, FDD participated in a $1.5 million dollar State Department initiative to attack critics of the policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran. At the time, FDD was openly promoting a military assault on Iran. The think tank’s staff are brought to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee more than those of any other think tank, invariably to advance conflict with Tehran.
During a 2017 conference of the Israeli American Council in Washington DC, then-Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs Sima Vakhnin-Gil was recorded by undercover journalist James Kleinfeld during a private breakout session. The Israeli military-intelligence official named FDD as a partner in a covert campaign to spy on Americans involved in Palestine solidarity activity.
“This is something that only a country can do the best,” Vakhnin-Gil said. “We have FDD. We have others working on this.”
The Israeli American Council was sponsored by a billionaire who has also been a top donor to the FDD: the Sheldon and Miriam Adelson Foundation. Since the death of Sheldon Adelson, his Israeli widow, Miriam, has emerged as the top donor to Trump’s political campaigns. Having donated hundreds of millions to Trump and his allies, Adelson clearly expected him to wage war on Iran on behalf of Israel, according to conservative former Fox News host Megyn Kelly.
Since Trump thrilled his Israel-aligned donors by attacking Iran, FDD has provided the White House with more than talking points for justifying war on Iran. It has also proposed civilian targets in Iran for the US military to strike. These included the Tehran oil depot which Israel bombed on March 8, causing massive fires that shrouded the city of 9 million in toxic fumes.
After the strike triggered a wave of punishing retaliatory Iranian attacks on oil infrastructure in US-allied countries in the region, Trump advisors expressed regret. “We don’t think it was a good idea,” one told Axios. But by then, it was too late to avoid escalation. They had followed the FDD-authored, Israeli-designed script into a quagmire.
UK media has whitewashed Israel’s attempt to kill British war journalist Steve Sweeney and his Lebanese cameraman Ali Rida while they were broadcasting live from southern Lebanon on 19 March.
Footage shot by Rida shows Sweeney giving a news report about a previous Israeli strike when he realizes another strike is headed towards them. He quickly ducks as the missile is seen exploding as it hits the ground just meters behind him.
Sweeney was treated at the hospital to remove shrapnel from the bomb that was embedded in his arm.
While reporting on the strike, the BBC used a headline stating, “Missile lands next to presenter during live report from Lebanon.”
The headline did not mention that Israel had fired the missile, nor did it describe Sweeney as a journalist or war correspondent, while implying the strike was only random or simply an accident.
The Independent newspaper described the incident in a similar way, writing “A missile landed just a few feet away from a British journalist as he was reporting live from Lebanon.”
“Footage shared by Russian state broadcaster RT on Thursday (19 March) shows Steve Sweeney, its Lebanon bureau chief, running for cover as an explosion detonated behind him,” The Independent added, also failing to mention Israel had launched the strike.
The Daily Mail, a British tabloid, acknowledged Israel’s role, but referred to Sweeney’s statement that Israel tried to kill him as only a “claim.”
“British journalist Steve Sweeney has claimed Israel ‘tried to kill him’ in a targeted airstrike that left him and his cameraman with minor injuries,” the Daily Mail wrote.
The New York Post and CNN used similar headlines, omitting mention of Israeli responsibility, while taking Israel’s claims at face value that its military does not target journalists in the body of the article.
“Insane moment missile blows up just feet away from reporter in Lebanon,” stated the New York Post headline.
CNN wrote, “News crew narrowly escapes strike in southern Lebanon,” while publishing only the video and no other details on its website.
BBC, The Independent, and Daily Mail reports ignore Israel’s deliberate killing of Lebanese journalists covering Israeli war crimes since 2023.
The targeting of Sweeney and Rida came just one day after Israel assassinated Al Manar journalist Mohammad Sherri and his wife in a brutal strike on Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, as part of a series of deadly attacks that killed at least a dozen.
During its previous war on Lebanon – which started in 2023 and ended in a so-called ceasefire in 2024 – the Israeli army murdered three Lebanese journalists with an airstrike as they slept at a media guesthouse in southeast Lebanon.
“The 3:00 am airstrike turned the site – a series of chalets nestled among trees that had been rented by various media outlets covering the war – into rubble. Cars marked ‘PRESS’ were overturned and covered in dust and debris, and at least one satellite dish for live broadcasting was totally destroyed,” AP reported.
The strikes killed camera operator Ghassan Najjar and broadcast technician Mohammed Rida of Al Mayadeen TV, and camera operator Wissam Qassim, who worked for Hezbollah-affiliated Al Manar TV.
“The journalists thought they were safe because this south Lebanon area wasn’t in Israel’s evacuation zone,” PBS journalist Leila Molana-Allen wrote on X.
Molana-Allen, who is also currently reporting from Lebanon, said the journalists had given details of their movements to UN peacekeepers to send to the Israeli military.
“Turns out the IDF [Israeli military] used that info to bomb them while they were all inside asleep,” Molana-Allen reported.
Lebanese journalists had already been working for almost a year under the shadow of Israel’s killings of Reuters video journalist Issam Abdullah on 13 October 2023 and Al Mayadeen journalist Farah Omar, her cameraman Rabih al-Maamari, and their assistant Hussein Akil on 21 November 2023.
All four were killed reporting from the Lebanon–Israel border area after the war between Lebanon and Israel began on 8 October 2023, the next day after the launch of Hamas’s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
A Reuters investigation concluded that Abdullah was killed and six others were injured when Israeli troops fired two tank shells directly at a group of journalists from Reuters, AFP, and Al Jazeera who were filming at an open spot one kilometer from the border.
A record 129 journalists and media workers were killed worldwide in 2025, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported, with Israel responsible for two-thirds of the deaths, including many it killed in Gaza.
An anti-Zionist group has claimed responsibility for a fire at a warehouse belonging to a defense firm linked to Israel’s Elbit Systems in the Czech Republic.
The Earthquake Faction, which describes itself as “an internationalist underground network,” posted a video purportedly showing the arson attack on an industrial facility in the Czech town of Pardubice on Friday, along with images of the burned-out building.
It said the site was used to “develop weaponry used by the Zionist entity to massacre people daily in Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, and across West Asia.”
Firefighters extinguished the blaze, no injuries were reported, and police said there was no danger to the public. Officials said the incident is being treated as a suspected terrorist attack.
The facility is operated by LPP Holding, a Czech arms manufacturer producing civilian and military equipment. In 2023, the company announced cooperation with Israel’s Elbit Systems on drone development.
Headquartered in Haifa, the firm is Israel’s largest defense manufacturer, specializing in unmanned systems, precision weapons, and electronic warfare equipment.
The Czech Republic, an EU and NATO member, is a close ally of Israel. Czech officials have supported US and Israeli military actions against Iran and condemned Iranian missile and drone attacks.
The funds requested by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth would last roughly 160 days—or about five months, Sputnik calculates.
As of March 20, the expenditures exceeded $25.5 billion, according to the real-time Iran War Cost Tracker.
Tracker bases its estimate on a Pentagon briefing: $11.3 billion for the first six days, then about $1 billion a day—roughly $11,500 per second. But the real cost may be much higher.
Pentagon ‘Has No Idea of Real Cost’
US may have spent over $10 billion on air-defense systems in the first 48 hours, argues Jennifer Kavanagh of the Defense Priorities think tank, as quoted by The New York Times.
That’s because Iran’s low‑cost, asymmetric attacks are forcing expensive defenses like THAAD (about $12.7 million per interceptor) and Patriot (about $3.7 million) to be used to shoot down drones and missiles.
Three-week conflict could cost taxpayers $60–130 billion, five weeks up to $175 billion, and eight weeks around $250 billion, two anonymous US officials told The Intercept. The Pentagon “has no idea of the real cost,” one added, and the operation’s duration remains uncertain.
US Weapon Systems Lost So Far
While the Pentagon hasn’t confirmed total equipment losses, media reports offer a glimpse:
$1.1B—AN/FPS-132 early-warning radar system destroyed at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar
$282M—three F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets lost in Kuwait
$20M—two AN/GSC-52B satellite communications terminals destroyed at the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet HQ in Manama, Bahrain
$30M—three additional radar domes were destroyed at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait
$500M—AN/TPY-2 radar, part of the THAAD anti-ballistic missile system
$300M/$500M—AN/TPY-2 radar and support equipment destroyed at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, Jordan
$330M+—11 MQ-9 Reaper drones lost
$560M—seven KC-135 Stratotankers: one crashed in Iraq, another damaged in a supposed collision; five reportedly damaged at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia
~$100M—F-35 fighter jet, recently damaged by Iranian fire
The UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and Canada issued a joint statement on 20 March in support of a potential “coalition” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, while specifying “no commitment” to a concrete military role.
“We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the strait,” the close US allies announced.
The joint statement did not, however, touch on any military involvement or the commitment of any forces to the initiative.
One political reporter writing for Axios said the statement was “largely a gesture to placate [US] President [Donald] Trump, who has railed against allies for declining to help secure the strait and warned that a failure to do so could undermine the future of NATO.”
The allies condemned attacks on commercial vessels and energy infrastructure, citing “the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces,” and called on Tehran to “cease immediately its threats, laying of mines, drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block the strait.”
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said no state is considering “a military mission to forcibly break the Iranian blockade,” adding the EU favors “diplomacy and de-escalation.”
She clarified that any contribution would apply to a “post-conflict phase” and require agreement among all parties.
Other governments echoed this position, with Germany confirming “no military participation,” while France said its deployments remain strictly defensive.
The UK ruled out a NATO mission, focusing instead on negotiations, though it has sent planners to coordinate options.
Despite the political backing and global panic over soaring energy prices , maritime data shows the strait is only partially restricted, as roughly 90 vessels crossed in early March.
Iran has established a controlled “safe” shipping corridor through its territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz, allowing only approved vessels – mainly from countries like India, Pakistan, China, Iraq, and Malaysia – to transit after IRGC vetting, while ships linked to the US or Israel are effectively excluded.
Access is currently negotiated on a case-by-case basis but is moving toward a formal system requiring detailed disclosures of ownership and cargo, often coordinated through intermediaries and, in at least one case, involving a reported $2-million payment.
So far, at least nine vessels have used the route, which passes near Larak Island for inspection, but traffic remains minimal.
The US remains largely the only country carrying out direct military operations, deploying forces and striking Iranian positions along the strait, as well as conducting offensive strikes inside Iran.
Earlier US-led efforts to secure regional shipping routes followed a similar trajectory, with coalitions struggling to gain meaningful participation as several allies refused or limited involvement, leaving only a small number of naval deployments.
Efforts to secure maritime routes during the Israeli genocide on Gaza in 2024 faced the same constraints, as US and EU resources proved insufficient to deter Yemeni strikes across the Red Sea.
Officials had warned that strikes on Yemen were “not contributing to the solution,” while Yemeni attacks on vessels continued, raising pressure on global trade routes.
Yemeni forces maintained their stance as a support front for Gaza, persisting with attacks until Washington ended its campaign under an Omani-brokered truce, with President Trump claiming Yemeni forces “don’t want to fight anymore.”
Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, has warned the United Kingdom that permitting the United States to use British military bases amounts to “participation in aggression.”
In a phone call with UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Araghchi criticized Britain’s “negative and biased approach” toward ongoing US-Israeli military actions against Iran. He also condemned London’s decision to grant the US access to key military installations for operations targeting Iranian missile sites.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had authorized the use of RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean for what officials described as “defensive” strikes against Iranian positions.
In a statement posted in Farsi on Telegram, Araghchi said he had conveyed to Cooper that such actions “will definitely be considered as participation in aggression and will be recorded in the history of relations between the two countries,” adding that Iran “reserves its inherent right to defend the country’s sovereignty and independence.”
Britain’s role in the war
While the United Kingdom did not participate in the initial attacks on Iran, it later permitted the United States to use British military bases to conduct what officials claimed were “defensive operations”, the BBC reported.
British fighter jets have also been deployed to the region, where they have reportedly intercepted missiles and drones launched by Iran toward regional countries allied with the United States.
The UK aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales has been placed on advanced readiness, though Cooper declined to confirm whether it would be sent to the Middle East.
Another British warship, HMS Dragon, which has air-defense capabilities, is expected to be deployed to the Mediterranean to strengthen protection around RAF Akrotiri, the UK’s strategic air base in Cyprus.
The deployment plans come after a small drone reportedly struck a runway at RAF Akrotiri earlier this week, causing what the British Ministry of Defense described as minimal damage.
Israel’s veiled threat to Moscow came just after Russian media warned traffic cameras in Moscow were vulnerable to the same exploits that Israel reportedly used to monitor Ayatollah Khamenei’s residence before assassinating him.
Israeli military spokeswoman Anna Ukolova has drawn outrage in Moscow after threatening that Russian authorities who “wish Israel ill” could be subject to “elimination,” while suggesting Israel could hack into Russian closed-circuit television cameras to identify and track targets.
Asked by a journalist with Russian radio broadcaster RBC whether Israel had access to Russian traffic cameras, Ukolova declined to answer directly but warned that “Khamenei’s elimination shows our capabilities are serious” and that “no one who wishes us harm will be left aside.”
She added, ominously, “I hope Moscow does not wish Israel ill right now – I’d like to believe that.”
In response to a post by Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin, who wrote that the IDF spokeswoman threatened that “Russian authorities [will] be killed if they take [an] anti-Israel position,” Ukolova claimed Dugin was spreading “fake news.” But she declined to clarify how her remarks had been incorrectly interpreted.
Ukolova’s statements came just days after it was revealed that a large number of Russian CCTVs were potentially using BriefCam – an Israeli video analysis software that closely matches the description of a program the Netanyahu regime reportedly deployed to track Iranian movements outside the home of Iran’s Supreme Leader before they assassinated him during their February 28 sneak attack.
On March 12, Russian outlet Mash revealed that the Israeli software BriefCam “has been used in Russia by private providers since the 2010s.” Founded at Israel’s Hebrew University in 2007, BriefCam uses AI to let users “review hours of video in minutes” and “make [their] video searchable, actionable and quantifiable.” In 2024, BriefCam was absorbed by a Dutch subsidiary of the Canon Group named Milestone Systems, which publicly pledges to “amplify what organizations of any size can see, do and achieve with video.”
“Our patented VIDEO SYNOPSIS® technology condenses hours of surveillance into a short summary by overlaying multiple events—each tagged with its original timestamp—onto a single frame, letting you filter them by object type and attributes,” the company’s BriefCam page crows. An analysis by Al Jazeera revealed those attributes include “gender, age group, clothing, movement patterns and time spent in a given location.”
Originally deployed by Israel’s Ministry of Housing and Construction to safeguard illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem, BriefCam has been used by governments all over the world, including those in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Pakistan, Israel, Mexico, United Arab Emirates, Canada, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Brazil, Germany, South Africa, Netherlands, Australia, Japan, India, Spain, Taiwan. It’s also been deployed in the US, with police in Hartford, Connecticut adopting the software in 2022. In 2025, a French court found the government’s use of BriefCam was illegal, citing multiple violations of French and European privacy laws.
As of publication, BriefCam appears to be incorporated into dozens of so-called “video monitoring systems,” including Milestone’s own VMS XProtect surveillance system.
A promotional video shows the numerous surveillance systems that BriefCam operates within.
According to the Russian outlet Mash, a number of prominent Moscow businesses, institutions, and buildings use VMS XProtect surveillance system, including the Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Biophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a 72-story skyscraper named “Eurasia,” and a huge exhibit space known as the Zotov Center. Though Milestone officially ended operations in Russia in 2022 amid the war in Ukraine, Mash reports that some software distributors in Russia “still offer to install the hacked software and hide this in the documents.”
The spokesperson for the Iranian armed forces, Khatam al-Anibya Central Headquarters, Lieutenant Colonel Ebrahim Zolfaghari, warned on Thursday that Iran’s strikes against energy infrastructure in the region are not over.
He stressed that further strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure would trigger an even stronger response that would target enemy assets and those of the allies of Iran’s enemies. Zolfaghari warned that future responses would not stop until adversary energy assets are “completely destroyed”.
SAMREF refinery in Yanbu under attack
On Thursday, an aerial attack targeted the Saudi Aramco-operated SAMREF refinery in Yanbu, an industry source told Reuters, in the latest escalation in the Gulf following US-Israeli strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure.
The SAMREF refinery, a joint venture between Saudi Aramco and Exxon Mobil, was struck in the Red Sea port city of Yanbu. The source claimed the attack caused minimal impact, with no immediate reports of significant disruption to operations.
It is worth noting that Gulf states have largely maintained limited and tightly controlled disclosures regarding attacks on critical infrastructure and US-linked military assets on their territory. Official statements have overstated the interception of incoming missiles and drones, often highlighting high success rates, while offering little detail on damage or operational disruption. The United Arab Emirates has even claimed that debris from interceptions hit its facilities and caused huge plumes of smoke to rise in al-Fujairah, instead of admitting that its defenses failed to intercept drones.
On Wednesday night, Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Defense also reported that it successfully intercepted ballistic missiles targeting assets in Riyadh. Meanwhile, footage taken by migrant workers in the area showed multiple direct impacts.
Numerous energy facilities and assets in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar were struck overnight.
Iran responds in kind to all
Iranian officials have repeatedly said that security can either be achieved for all or for none, emphasizing that insecurity in Iran will lead to insecurity across the region.
The attacks on US-linked energy facilities follow a series of US-Israeli strikes targeting Iran’s energy infrastructure, including the strategic South Pars gas field. In response, Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IGC) issued evacuation warnings for multiple oil and gas facilities across Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, explicitly naming the Yanbu refinery among its targets.
Yanbu has emerged as a critical export hub since Iran effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz for US-Israeli-linked vessels and products earlier in the war. The waterway, through which roughly a fifth of global oil supply typically passes, has long been a cornerstone of international energy flows.
With Hormuz disrupted, Yanbu and the UAE’s al-Fujairah port became key alternative outlets. However, Fujairah has also come under repeated attacks in recent days, forcing suspensions of operations.
Targeted assets
QatarEnergy reported that Iranian missile strikes on the Ras Laffan industrial city, home to the country’s primary liquefied natural gas processing facilities, caused “extensive damage”. A nearby vessel was also damaged in an attack in the morning.
UAE authorities halted operations at the Habshan gas facility following the alleged interception of a drone attack.
An oil refinery in Kuwait was targeted in a drone strike this morning, sparking a “limited” fire, according to state media. The fire at the Mina Al-Ahmadi refinery was reportedly contained, and there were no reports of injuries, according to the Kuwait News Agency. The oil refinery is located about 500 kilometers south of Kuwait City. It is one of the largest oil refineries in the region, with a petroleum production capacity of 730,000 barrels per day.
With key export terminals under mounting strain and alternative routes repeatedly disrupted, the escalation led by Trump and Netanyahu appears to have further compounded, rather than resolved, the very crisis their initial aggression set in motion, deepening instability across global energy markets.
By Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA | Strategic Culture Foundation | 30.03.2015
The United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia became very uneasy when the Yemenese or Yemenite movement of the Houthi or Ansarallah (meaning the supporters of God in Arabic) gained control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa/Sana, in September 2014. The US-supported Yemenite President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi was humiliatingly forced to share power with the Houthis and the coalition of northern Yemenese tribes that had helped them enter Sana. Al-Hadi declared that negotiations for a Yemeni national unity government would take place and his allies the US and Saudi Arabia tried to use a new national dialogue and mediated talks to co-opt and pacify the Houthis.
The truth has been turned on its head about the war in Yemen. The war and ousting of President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi in Yemen are not the results of «Houthi coup» in Yemen. It is the opposite. Al-Hadi was ousted, because with Saudi and US support he tried to backtrack on the power sharing agreements he had made and return Yemen to authoritarian rule. The ousting of President Al-Hadi by the Houthis and their political allies was an unexpected reaction to the takeover Al-Hadi was planning with Washington and the House of Saudi. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 