Today

Trump’s $45m military parade, marking US Army anniversary, goes ahead despite widespread backlash, storm forecast.

A massive military parade is set to roll through Washington, DC, as United States President Donald Trump marks his 79th birthday with a contentious show of force that coincides with the US Army’s 250th anniversary, as nationwide “No Kings” protests are held against Trump policies in more than 2,000 cities and towns.

The Washington, DC event on Saturday hastily added to the Army’s long-planned celebration, has drawn criticism for its cost, timing, and overt political overtones. There will not be a “No Kings” protest in the US capital to avoid confrontations.

The parade unfolds against a febrile, tense national backdrop. This past week, Trump deployed US Marines to manage protests in Los Angeles over aggressive immigration raids. He also activated the California National Guard without the governor’s consent, provoking legal challenges and accusations of federal overreach.

The military parade will begin at the Lincoln Memorial and snake down Constitution Avenue, flanked by security fences and watched closely by armed personnel at 6:30pm local time (22:30 GMT).

Nearly 6,200 soldiers will march, joined by 128 military vehicles – including 60-tonne M1 Abrams tanks – and 62 aircraft. A parachute jump, a concert headlined by Lee Greenwood, and fireworks are planned to cap off the night.

Trump announced on social media that the parade would proceed “rain or shine”, brushing off concerns over forecast thunderstorms and nationwide protests.

The National Weather Service has warned of possible lightning, which could force delays. Officials say they are prepared to evacuate the National Mall if necessary.

Despite assurances from the White House, the event has triggered backlash over its projected $45m price tag and fears of militarisation of domestic politics.

Critics argue that the use of heavy armoured vehicles risks damaging infrastructure, prompting the Army to install steel plates along the route to protect roads.

A recent poll by the Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs Research found that 60 percent of Americans believe the parade is not a worthwhile use of public funds. Among those polled, 78 percent who expressed no strong opinion about the parade itself still disapproved of the expense.

Massive snowploughs have been stationed to block traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue, turning the thoroughfare into a pedestrian zone filled with food stalls and souvenir vendors. The festival atmosphere includes fitness competitions, military equipment displays, and a ceremonial cake-cutting.

‘No Kings’ rallies

Civil rights groups accuse the Trump administration of using military assets to intimidate and suppress dissent.

Protesters planning to take part in the demonstrations said they oppose Trump’s deeply divisive policies. The organisers’ website said the administration has “defied our courts, deported Americans, disappeared people off the streets, attacked our civil rights, and slashed our services”.

Since Trump’s inauguration, the administration has sent immigrants to foreign prisons, set immigration arrest quotas, clashed with courts, slashed government jobs and proposed reductions to social services.

Although no demonstrations are formally scheduled in Washington, organisers of nationwide “No Kings” rallies say the parade reflects Trump’s personal ambition and ego, rather than any genuine tribute to the armed forces.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly reaffirmed that the event would proceed regardless of weather or criticism. However, lightning could lead to sudden delays and crowd evacuations.

The military spectacle is divided into historical segments, with troops and equipment representing different eras of US Army history.

An estimated 200,000 people are expected to attend. The parade will conclude with Trump swearing in 250 new or reenlisting troops and a dramatic skydiving display by the Army’s Golden Knights.

While the Army insists the event is about heritage and honouring service, critics argue the spectacle veers uncomfortably close to a political rally with troops as props.

Bath: De Glanville; Cokanasiga, Ojomoh, Redpath, Muir; Russell, Spencer (c); Obano, Dunn, Du Toit; Roux, Ewels, Hill, Pepper, Reid.

Replacements: Annett, Van Wyk, Stuart, Molony, Bayliss, Carr-Smith, Donoghue, Barbeary.

Leicester: Steward; Radwan, Kata, Woodward, Hassell-Collins; Pollard, Van Poortvliet; Smith, Montoya (c), Heyes; Henderson, Chessum, Liebenberg, Reffell, Cracknell.

Replacements: Clare, Cronin, Cole, Rogerson, Ilione, Youngs, Volavola, Perese.

Sin bin: Montoya (28 mins), Cole (69 mins)

Referee: Karl Dickson

Israeli fire and air strikes have killed at least 58 Palestinians across the Gaza Strip, many of them near an aid distribution site operated by the United States-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), according to local health authorities, the latest deaths of people desperately seeking food for their hungry families.

Medics at al-Awda and Al-Aqsa hospitals in central Gaza, where most of the casualties were moved to, said at least 15 people were killed on Saturday as they tried to approach the GHF aid distribution site near the so-called Netzarim Corridor.

The rest were killed in separate attacks across the besieged and bombarded enclave, they added. Since the GHF started operations last month, at least 274 people have been killed and more than 2,000 wounded near aid distribution sites, according to a statement by the Gaza Ministry of Health.

The GHF said they were closed on Saturday. But witnesses said thousands of people had gathered near the sites anyway, desperate for food as Israel’s punishing 15-week blockade and military campaign have driven the territory to the brink of famine.

‘Execution sites’

Al Jazeera’s Tareq Abu Azzoum, reporting from Deir el-Balah, said Palestinians are starting to see GHF distribution hubs as “execution sites,” considering the repeated attacks there. But people in Gaza “have run out of options, and they are forced to travel to these dangerous humanitarian spaces to get aid”.

Israel imposed a full humanitarian blockade on Gaza on March 2 for 11 weeks, cutting off food, medical supplies and other aid.

It began allowing small amounts of aid into the enclave in late May following international pressure, but humanitarian organisations say it is only a tiny fraction of the aid that is needed.

There has been no immediate comment by the Israeli military or the GHF on Saturday’s incidents.

The GHF – a United States and Israel-backed organisation led by Johnnie Moore, an evangelical Christian who advised US President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign – began distributing food packages in Gaza on May 27, overseeing a new model of aid distribution which the United Nations says is neither impartial nor neutral.

Israel and the United States say the new system is intended to replace the UN-run network. They have accused Hamas, without providing evidence, of siphoning off the UN-provided aid and reselling it to fund its military activities.

Israel has also admitted to backing armed gangs in Gaza, known for criminal activities, to undermine Hamas. These groups have been blamed for looting aid.

UN officials deny Hamas has diverted significant amounts of aid and say the new system is unable to meet mounting needs. They say it has militarised aid by allowing Israel to decide who has access and by forcing Palestinians to travel long distances or relocate again after waves of displacement.

Later on Saturday, the Israeli military ordered residents of Khan Younis and the nearby towns of Abasan and Bani Suheila in the southern Gaza Strip to leave their homes and head west towards the so-called humanitarian zone area, saying it would forcefully work against “terror organizations” in the area.

More than 80 percent of the Gaza Strip is now within the Israeli-militarised zone, under forced displacement orders, or where these overlap, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). The UN estimates that nearly 665,000 people have been displaced yet again since Israel broke the ceasefire in February.

Israel’s war on Gaza and its population has killed more than 55,290 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to health authorities in Gaza, and flattened much of the densely populated Strip, which is home to more than two million people. Most of the population is displaced and malnutrition is widespread.

Despite efforts by the United States, Egypt and Qatar to restore a ceasefire in Gaza, neither Israel nor Hamas has shown willingness to back down on core demands, including that Israel implement a permanent ceasefire and not restart the war.

The exchanges are part of agreements reached by the warring sides during talks in Istanbul earlier this month.

Ukraine and Russia have swapped prisoners of war (POWs), the warring sides said, after Moscow also handed over the bodies of 1,200 Ukrainian soldiers to Kyiv.

“We continue to take our people out of Russian captivity. This is the fourth exchange in a week,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on social media on Saturday.

The Russian Ministry of Defence posted on Telegram that another group of Russian servicemen was returned “from the territory controlled by the Kyiv regime” in accordance with the agreements reached by the two sides in Istanbul earlier this month.

Photos published by Zelenskyy on Telegram showed men of various ages, mostly with shaved heads, wearing camouflage and draped in Ukrainian flags.

Some were injured, others disembarked from buses and hugged those welcoming them, or were seen calling someone by phone, sometimes covering their faces or smiling.

Moscow’s Defence Ministry released its own video showing men in uniforms holding Russian flags, clapping and chanting “Russia, Russia”, “Glory to Russia” and “Hooray”, some raising their fists in the air.

The Russian soldiers are in Belarus, where they are receiving medical treatment before being transferred back to Russia, the Defence Ministry said. The ministry did not say how many POWs were involved in the latest swap.

However, Russian state media reported, citing sources, that Moscow had not received any of its war dead back from Kyiv, echoing a statement Russia made on Friday when it said it had returned the bodies of 1,200 slain Ukrainian soldiers and received none of its own.

Ukraine earlier on Saturday confirmed it had received the bodies of its soldiers killed in action.

The latest POW exchange between Russia and Ukraine came after Moscow alleged that Kyiv had indefinitely postponed the swap of wounded and seriously ill POWs and those under the age of 25, as well as the return of the bodies of thousands of soldiers on each side.

The swap came as Russia intensified its offensive along the front line, especially in the northeastern Sumy region, where it seeks to establish a “buffer zone”. Zelenskyy claimed Russia’s advance on Sumy was stopped, adding that Kyiv’s forces have managed to retake one village.

Meanwhile, the two sides are no closer to any temporary ceasefire agreement as a concrete step towards ending the war despite some initial momentum from the United States President Donald Trump who now appears to be losing patience in his campaign for a truce, even suggesting the two be left to fight longer, like “children in a park“, before they are pulled apart.

The image of Donald Trump shaking hands with Ahmad al-Sharaa, Syria’s current leader, in Riyadh is one that, until recently, would have seemed unimaginable. Al-Sharaa, once on the U.S. most-wanted list with a $10 million bounty for information leading to his capture, now stood alongside Trump to discuss Syria’s future. This meeting, along with Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Syria, raises a fundamental question: Is America’s war on terror a principled, genuine fight—or a tool serving Washington’s shifting political interests?

A Puzzling Encounter
Trump’s meeting with Ahmad al-Sharaa during his highly publicized Middle East tour sparked regional and global astonishment. Al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, was the leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, a group the U.S. designated as a terrorist organization in 2013, offering $10 million for information on him. Following the meeting, Trump announced plans to normalize relations with Syria’s new government and lift sanctions, calling it an opportunity for a “fresh start” for the war-torn nation. This shift stands in stark contrast to the 2013 U.S. stance, when Jabhat al-Nusra was a prime target in the global war on terror.

The White House defended this move as pragmatic, citing al-Sharaa’s role in toppling Bashar al-Assad and his apparent moderation as the leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a rebranding intended to distance the group from its al-Qaeda past. Yet the image of Trump shaking hands with a former most-wanted figure—especially in light of past U.S. actions—was deeply unsettling.

The Soleimani Paradox: A Tale of Selective Justice
To understand the implications of Trump’s meeting with al-Sharaa, we must revisit the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force. Soleimani played a central role in fighting ISIS, particularly in Iraq and Syria, where his forces aided local militias in retaking territory. Despite this alignment with U.S. priorities, the Trump administration ordered his assassination via drone strike in Baghdad, justifying it by citing his support for groups like Hezbollah and alleged threats to U.S. interests.

The contrast is stark: Soleimani, who battled ISIS and extremist groups, was killed; al-Sharaa, once the head of an al-Qaeda affiliate, is now a diplomatic partner. This contradiction suggests that U.S. counterterrorism policy is less about eliminating extremism and more about advancing strategic interests. Soleimani’s death disrupted Iran’s regional influence—a long-standing U.S. objective—while al-Sharaa’s new role aligns with Washington’s aim to stabilize post-Assad Syria without direct military involvement.

A History of Convenient Alliances
Trump’s meeting with al-Sharaa is not an anomaly but part of a broader pattern in U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, the U.S. supported Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets—some of whom, like Osama bin Laden, later formed al-Qaeda. In the 1980s, Washington backed Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, despite his clear record of atrocities, because Iraq served as a counterweight to Tehran.

In 2025, Trump’s Middle East strategy mirrors this tradition. His visit to Saudi Arabia—where he signed a $142 billion arms deal and emphasized confronting Iran—underscored a focus on strengthening allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel while selectively engaging former foes like al-Sharaa. The lifting of sanctions and talk of normalization signal a pragmatic shift, prioritizing stability and economic opportunity over old terrorist designations. This realpolitik approach aligns with Trump’s deal-making rhetoric, such as his readiness to negotiate with Iran—if it abandoned its nuclear ambitions and support for “terrorism”—even while threatening “maximum pressure.”

The Mask Slips from the War on Terror
America’s war on terror, launched after 9/11, has long been portrayed as a moral struggle against extremism. But the meeting with al-Sharaa exposes its instrumental nature. By engaging with a former terrorist leader, the U.S. reveals that its “terrorist” labels are often temporary, shifting when political or economic interests arise. Trump’s handshake with al-Sharaa sends a message to regional players: the U.S. is willing to overlook past crimes for strategic gain—a signal that may encourage other groups to pursue legitimacy through cosmetic political changes.

By contrast, the assassination of Soleimani shows the other side of that coin. His killing wasn’t just about counterterrorism—it was a strategic blow to Iran, a regional rival. Soleimani’s forces played a key role in defeating ISIS in Iraq, yet the terrorist label overshadowed his contributions to a shared objective.

A Policy of Expedience
The photo of Donald Trump shaking hands with Ahmad al-Sharaa is more than just a diplomatic snapshot—it’s a window into the dual nature of America’s counterterrorism policy. When a former al-Qaeda commander is embraced as a partner, but a general who fought ISIS is eliminated by U.S. drones, the message is clear: terrorism is a label used for convenience, not conviction. It reveals a truth the West rarely admits—principles become negotiable when interests are at stake.

As the Middle East enters a new chapter, the world watches and wonders: Is America’s war on extremism truly about security—or just another move in a geopolitical chess game for regional and global dominance?

Most bodies are charred or mutilated, and the local authorities are working to identify them by matching DNA samples.

At least 270 bodies have been recovered after a London-bound Air India plane crashed in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad, as a rescue team continues to search the site of India’s worst aviation disaster in three decades.

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, with 242 people on board and 125,000 litres of fuel, lost altitude seconds after takeoff on Thursday and crashed into a residential area, killing all but one on board and at least two dozen others on the ground.

Dhaval Gameti, a doctor at Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad, told The Associated Press news agency on Saturday that they have received 270 bodies so far.

Most bodies were charred or mutilated, and the local authorities are working to identify them by matching DNA samples as their relatives waited to perform their last rites. Authorities said it normally takes up to 72 hours to complete DNA matching.

Nearly 10 bodies – not of the passengers – found at the crash site have been returned to their families after identification, a local official told Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the media.

Of the 242 passengers and crew on board the Air India plane, 169 were Indian nationals, 53 were British, seven were Portuguese, and one was Canadian.

The lone survivor, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, 40, is under observation at the Civil Hospital for his impact wounds. Gameti said he was “doing very well and will be ready to be discharged any time soon”.

India’s Civil Aviation Minister, Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu, said the flight’s digital data recorder, or the black box, was recovered from a rooftop near the crash site by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), which is leading the investigation into the crash. He said the government will look into all possible theories of what could have caused the crash.

The AAIB said it was working with “full force” to extract the data, which is expected to reveal information about the engine and control settings. Meanwhile, forensic teams are still looking for a second black box.

Jeff Guzzetti, an aviation safety consultant and former crash investigator for both the US National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Aviation Administration, told the AP the investigators should be able to answer some important questions about what caused the crash as soon as next week as long as the flight data recorder is in good shape.

Guzzetti said the investigators are likely looking into whether wing flaps were set correctly, the engine lost power, alarms were going off inside the cockpit, and if the plane’s crew correctly logged information about the hot temperature outside, and the weight of the fuel and passengers. Mistakes in the data could result in the wing flaps being set incorrectly, he added.

There are currently about 1,200 of the 787 Dreamliner aircraft worldwide, and this was the first deadly crash in 16 years of operation, according to experts. The United States planemaker Boeing, whose planes have been plagued by safety issues on other types of aircraft, said it was in touch with Air India and stood “ready to support them” over the incident.

Israel has launched an unprovoked assault on Iran, including strikes on nuclear facilities and assassinations of several senior military commanders and scientists. In front of the world’s media, however, the Netanyahu government is spinning the attack as “preemptive”.

Contributor:
Negar Mortazavi – Host, The Iran Podcast

On our radar:

This past week, phone and internet services virtually collapsed across Gaza, as Israel repeatedly bombed transmission stations and communication towers.

Meenakshi Ravi explains how Gaza now risks digital isolation.

Showdown in LA: A very Trumpian spectacle

President Trump has turned Los Angeles into an ideological battleground amid protests against anti-immigration raids. His mobilisation of the National Guard and marines – without the approval of California’s state government – has produced made-for-TV images of the kind likely to appeal to the MAGA faithful.

For many others, it is yet another sign of a dangerous turn away from civil liberties under his presidency.

Featuring:
Branko Marcetic – Staff writer, Jacobin
Sarah Mehta – Senior policy counsel, ACLU
Jose Olivares – Investigative journalist
Will Swaim – Podcast host, Radio Free California

Saint Catherine’s Monastery of Sinai, perched amid the stark landscape of the Sinai Peninsula, is more than a monument of Christian antiquity. It stands today as a living testament to the enduring spiritual and diplomatic role of Greece within the Orthodox world, a quiet but formidable projection of Greek soft power that resonates across the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond.

A silent beacon of Greek diplomacy

Far removed from the centers of modern diplomacy, the monastery’s Greek-speaking monastic community and steadfast commitment to Byzantine liturgical tradition transform it into a unique spiritual and cultural outpost. It exemplifies the principle that soft power does not always emerge through overt political maneuvering but often through the quiet constancy of spiritual guardianship and cultural authenticity.

This presence enables Greece to project a moral authority and cultural leadership that transcend national boundaries. As a spiritual bridge linking the ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, the monastery fosters relationships of trust and mutual respect, relationships built not on political expediency but on the bonds of faith and tradition. This role is particularly significant in an era marked by shifting alliances and the increasing entanglement of religious and geopolitical interests.

Through the Monastery, Greece affirms its position as a custodian of Orthodox heritage and as a stabilizing force in the region. Its spiritual authority and cultural resonance serve as subtle yet powerful tools of statecraft, enabling Greece to foster dialogue, unity, and a sense of continuity within the Orthodox landscape.

The challenge of the Russian Exarchate

The relevance of the monastery’s soft power role has grown even more pronounced in recent years, as new challenges emerge within the Orthodox world. Foremost among these is the creation of the Russian Patriarchal Exarchate of Africa, an assertive move by the Russian Orthodox Church to expand its jurisdiction into territories historically aligned with the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Although this development does not directly involve Saint Catherine’s Monastery, it reshapes the broader Orthodox environment, highlighting the use of ecclesiastical structures as instruments of geopolitical influence. The Russian initiative underscores how religious identity and geopolitical strategy have become deeply intertwined—posing challenges for Greece as it seeks to maintain a stabilizing and mediating role within Orthodoxy.

For Greece, this underscores the urgency of preserving the monastery’s autonomy and Greek character. It is a reminder that spiritual heritage can be both a shield and a platform for diplomatic engagement. a means of counterbalancing external interventions that risk deepening divisions within Orthodoxy.

A strategic spiritual outpost for a fractured world

Saint Catherine’s Monastery thus emerges as a linchpin in Greece’s ecclesiastical diplomacy, a discreet yet resilient bastion of Hellenic presence and Orthodox unity. Its continued independence is not merely a matter of cultural preservation; it is a strategic necessity. In a region where spiritual and geopolitical rivalries increasingly overlap, the monastery’s enduring witness to faith and Greek identity becomes a vital asset for Athens.

The recent diplomatic initiatives, including the visit of Foreign Minister George Gerapetritis to Egypt, underscore this recognition. By reaffirming its commitment to the monastery’s unique status, Greece sends a broader message that it remains a quiet but influential actor, leveraging spiritual heritage to foster stability and to protect the fragile balance of the Orthodox world.

Saint Catherine’s Monastery is far more than a relic of the past. It is a living expression of Greece’s diplomatic and spiritual mission in the Orthodox East, a mission that transcends temporal concerns and speaks to the heart of Hellenic identity. Amid emerging challenges such as the Russian Exarchate and broader regional volatility, the monastery’s quiet testimony to spiritual continuity and Greek cultural presence affirms Greece’s enduring mission: to serve as a custodian of Orthodoxy and as a bridge of stability in a fractured world.

In the lexicon of modern diplomacy, Saint Catherine’s Monastery stands as both a symbol and an instrument—projecting an image of a nation that values spiritual heritage, cultural authenticity, and the deep bonds of Orthodoxy that connect peoples across borders.

Washington, DC – After taking the oath of office for his second term in January, United States President Donald Trump said he would push to “stop all wars” and leave a legacy of a “peacemaker and unifier”.

But six months in, missiles are flying across the Middle East after Israel attacked Iran, risking an all-out regional war that could drag US troops into the conflict.

The Israeli strikes on Iran, which Trump has all but explicitly endorsed, are now testing the president’s promise to be a harbinger of peace.

They are also dividing his base, with many right-wing politicians and commentators stressing that unconditional support for Israel is at odds with the “America First” platform on which Trump was elected.

“There is a very strong sense of betrayal and anger in many parts of the ‘America First’ base because they have truly turned against the idea of the US being involved in or supporting any such wars,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute, a US think tank that promotes diplomacy.

“They have largely turned sceptical of Israel, and they strongly believe that these types of wars are what cause Republican presidencies to become failures — and what causes their broader domestic agenda to be compromised.”

‘Drop Israel’

Several conservatives questioned the Israeli strikes on Friday, warning that the US must not be dragged into a war that does not serve its interests.

Influential conservative commentator Tucker Carlson — seen as a major figure in Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement — said the US should not support the “war-hungry government” of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“If Israel wants to wage this war, it has every right to do so. It is a sovereign country, and it can do as it pleases. But not with America’s backing,” the Tucker Carlson Network morning newsletter read on Friday.

It added that a war with Iran could “fuel the next generation of terrorism” or lead to the killing of thousands of Americans in the name of a foreign agenda.

“It goes without saying that neither of those possibilities would be beneficial for the United States,” the newsletter said. “But there is another option: drop Israel. Let them fight their own wars.”

Republican Senator Rand Paul also cautioned against war with Iran and slammed hawkish neoconservatives in Washington.

“The American people overwhelming[ly] oppose our endless wars, and they voted that way when they voted for Donald Trump in 2024,” Paul wrote in a social media post.

“I urge President Trump to stay the course, keep putting America first, and to not join in any war between other countries.”

Right-wing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene also sent a message suggesting that she opposes the strikes. She has previously cautioned Trump against attacking Iran based on Israeli assertions that Tehran is about to acquire a nuclear weapon.

“I’m praying for peace. Peace,” she wrote on X. “That’s my official position.”

While many of Israel’s supporters have cited the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, the government in Tehran has long denied pursuing a nuclear weapon. Trump’s own intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, testified in March that the US “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”.

Charlie Kirk, a key Republican activist and commentator who is a staunch Israel supporter, also voiced scepticism about engaging in a war with Iran.

“I can tell you right now, our MAGA base does not want a war at all whatsoever,” Kirk said on his podcast. “They do not want US involvement. They do not want the United States to be engaged in this.”

Israel’s attacks

Hours before Israel started bombing Iran on Friday — targeting its military bases, nuclear facilities and residential buildings — Trump said that his administration was committed to diplomacy with Tehran.

“ Look, it’s very simple. Not complicated. Iran can not have a nuclear weapon. Other than that, I want them to be successful. We’ll help them be successful,” Trump said at a news conference on Thursday.

A sixth round of denuclearisation talks between US and Iranian officials was set to be held in Oman on Sunday.

Nevertheless, on Friday, Trump told reporters he had known about Israel’s attacks in advance. He did not indicate he had vetoed the bombing campaign, though Secretary of State Marco Rubio did describe Israel’s actions as “unilateral”.

Instead, Trump put the onus for the attacks on Iran, saying its officials should have heeded his calls to reach a deal to dismantle the country’s nuclear programme.

“I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come,” Trump wrote in a social media post.

Parsi said that, at the outset, Trump wanted to reach a deal with Iran, but his demands for Tehran to end uranium enrichment led to a deadlock in the talks.

“Instead of pursuing the negotiations in a reasonable way, he adopted the zero enrichment goal, which predictably would lead to an impasse, which predictably the Israelis used to push him towards military strikes and escalation,” he told Al Jazeera.

Parsi added that he believed Trump engaged in deception over the past week by pushing diplomacy while knowing that the Israeli strikes were coming.

“Trump deliberately made statements in favour of diplomacy, in favour of not having Israel attack, leading everyone to think that, if there is an attack, it would happen after the six rounds of talks on Sunday,” he said. “Instead, it happened sooner.”

The ‘America First’ base

While the Israeli strikes garnered some criticism in Congress, many Republicans and Democrats cheered them on.

But a key part of Trump’s base has been a segment of the right wing that questions the US’s unconditional support for Israel.

“They really are representative of a solid constituency within the Republican Party, especially if you look at younger individuals,” said Jon Hoffman, research fellow in defence and foreign policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Hoffman pointed to a recent Pew Research Center survey that suggested 50 percent of Republicans under the age of 50 have an unfavourable view of Israel.

“Among the electorate itself, the American people are sick and tired of these endless wars,” he told Al Jazeera.

Foreign policy hawks who favour military interventions dominated the Republican Party during the presidency of George W Bush, who launched the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

But those two conflicts proved to be disastrous. Thousands of US soldiers were killed, and many more were left with lasting physical and psychological scars. Critics also questioned whether the wars advanced US interests in the region — or set them back.

The nation-building project in Iraq, for instance, saw the rise of a government friendly to Iran and the emergence of groups deemed to be a threat to global security, including ISIL (ISIS).

In Afghanistan, meanwhile, the Taliban returned to power in 2021, almost exactly two decades after the group was ousted by US forces. The US-backed Afghan government quickly crumbled as American troops withdrew from the country.

During his campaign for re-election in 2024, Trump tapped into the anger that the two conflicts generated. On multiple occasions, he sketched an alternative timeline where, if he had been president, the collapse of the Afghan government would have never occurred.

“We wouldn’t have had that horrible situation in Afghanistan, the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country,” Trump said at one October 2024 rally in Detroit.

The US president also slammed his Democratic opponent Kamala Harris for her alliance with Dick Cheney, who served as Bush’s vice president, and his daughter Liz Cheney, criticising them as “war hawks”.

“Kamala is campaigning with Muslim-hating warmonger, Liz Cheney, who wants to invade practically every Muslim country on the planet,” Trump told another crowd in Novi, Michigan. He added that Dick Cheney “was responsible for invading the Middle East” and “killing millions”.

But critics say Trump’s posture towards the Israeli strikes in Iran risks embroiling him in his own Middle East conflict.

Hoffman, for instance, pointed to the closeness of the US-Israel relationship and the persistence of officials within the Republican Party who have been pushing for conflict with Iran for decades, like Senator Lindsey Graham.

“There is a tremendous risk of the United States being dragged into this war,” Hoffman said.

Hossein Salami, who was appointed to lead the IRGC in 2019, among the most senior figures killed by Israel.

Hossein Salami, the commander of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was among the senior Iranian officials killed in Israel’s sweeping air strikes that began on Thursday.

A longtime confidant of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Salami rose up the ranks in Iran, becoming head of the IRGC in 2019, when he replaced Mohammad Ali Jafari.

Like many of his contemporaries, Salami’s formative years came during the Iran-Iraq war that pitted the neighbours against each other and killed hundreds of thousands of people between 1980 and 1988.

Salami began his IRGC career during the war and is reported to have fought in several battles and held leadership positions.

His wartime experience gave him a badge of legitimacy that was one of the reasons he was then able to rise through the IRGC ranks. By 2005, Salami had been appointed as commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force, where he was responsible for ballistic missile and drone development, before being appointed deputy commander-in-chief of the IRGC in 2009.

Sanctions

As is the case for many in the upper echelons of the Iranian military apparatus, Salami was subject to sanctions in 2007 by the United States for his role in missile development. The United Nations Security Council also sanctioned him for the same reason the year before.

Salami was also subject to Canadian sanctions for his role in subduing antigovernment protests in 2022, while the European Union sanctioned him for his involvement in supplying drones to Russia for military operations in Ukraine.

During his leadership of the IRGC, Iran strengthened the so-called “Axis of Resistance”, a group of allied countries and groups across the Middle East who were funded or acted in coordination with the IRGC, including Syria under the Bashar al-Assad regime, the Lebanese group Hezbollah, the Palestinian group Hamas, Yemen’s Houthi rebels and allied Shia groups in Iraq.

“We shall fight them [our enemies] on the global level, not just in one spot,” Salami was quoted as saying. “Our war is not a local war. We have plans to defeat the world powers.”

Death

“With hearts filled with sorrow and grief, we mourn the unjust martyrdom of the loyal and steadfast commander, Major-General Hossein Salami, the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,” the IRGC said in a statement reported by IRNA, the Iranian news agency, on Friday.

Salami died in an air strike, according to Iranian media. The attacks killed many of the top military figures in Iran and notable nuclear scientists. Iran has responded by attacking Israel with ballistic missiles – the very weapon Salami had such an important role in developing for the country.

After Salami’s assassination, Ahmad Vahidi was announced as his successor.

“On a human level you will have gaps of knowledge when you assassinate people who decide military strategy, are fluent in multiple languages, have personal networks and charisma within the command chain,” Reza H Akbari, Middle East and North Africa programme manager at the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, told Al Jazeera.

“But it’s difficult to destroy an existing structure that goes with existing nuclear knowledge and the command chain within the military and security apparatus of the country.”

Yet another exciting session of the ‘Understanding AI Program’ presented by the Silkroad 4.0 Platform, the International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) and their consortium of partners (such as Modern Diplomacy, ICCD, D-8, IAF, THC, and the like), the focus turned to how AI is reshaping global security, defence strategies, and geopolitical power dynamics. This session, under the theme of “Defensive Modernisation as the Technology Driver”, offered timely and insightful discussions that bridged military innovation with ethical, legal, and global implications.

The 3rd round of mesmerising lectures explored various critical themes: how human presence-eliminating technologies are altering security doctrines, the geopolitical implications of multi-spatial tech reach, and the legal and ethical challenges in regulating AI across borders. Other discussion points included sovereignty and security in the digital age, the role of AI in major military confrontation theatres, and the urgent need for global governance frameworks to manage this transformation.

The first keynote guest, Ambassador Ali Goutali, of the Jeddah-based OIC, brought a diplomatic and scholarly lens to the conversation. With over two decades of ambassadorial service and a strong academic background, Ambassador Goutali reminded us of the dual nature of AI. He described AI as a force of promise — for knowledge-sharing among nations, early warning systems for pandemics, and enhanced surveillance — but also one of equal risk. Ambassador warned that AI, if unchecked, could dismantle governments and destabilise wisdom-based governance.

This top MENA diplomat from Tunisia called for the establishment of global conventions on AI use, similar to the Geneva Conventions, to protect humanity and maintain ethical boundaries. His conclusion was clear: more member states must actively engage in AI protocols to prevent future misuse.

Multi-spatial and multidimensional nature of future wars

In the second keynote, former Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of Croatia Admiral Davor Domazet-Lošo shared his insights on evolving military doctrines. A former combat commander, and later prolific author on military strategy, Admiral Domazet-Lošo explored the rise of information warfare. He warned that such warfare blocks a person’s ability to think independently — an effect that can be seen even among world leaders. He cited China’s AI capabilities as being significantly ahead of the United States and spoke of China’s “deep seek” AI system, which, in his words, embodies the true potential of artificial intelligence. He emphasised that AI-driven military strategy is now operating in hyper-real time, reducing detection and response time from one hour to mere seconds (doctrines of real time shifting to the network doctrines of hyper-real time). The goal for all militaries, he suggested, is to discover, decide, and destroy — faster than ever before.

Hyper-real time warfare naturally blurs the boundary between perception and action, where information dominance and computational speed become as critical as kinetic force. This doctrine will surely raise significant ethical, legal, and strategic challenges, including concerns over human oversight, escalatory dynamics and de-escalatory potentials, false data entries and accuracy and speed of mistake detection and correction – hence an entire reliability of real-time data streams.

Based on his previous exchanges (on the trajectory of Asian security) with the ‘Understanding AI’ program originator, prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, Admiral Lošo singled out the military theatre more neuralgic than the current ones in Eastern European and Middle East: “The hyper real-time potential of combat in Indo-Pacific, so packed with mega-demographies and mega-economies, hence projection drives is possible yet still avoidable. It would be a sobering study in technological velocity and strategic ambiguity to analyse every perspective thoroughly. Unlike the Adriatic or even Mediterranean, where engagements are relatively constrained by geography and proximities of all sorts, the Indo-Pacific – especially Malacca Straits and South China Sea – is a volatile mesh of overlapping claims, promising yet imperfect unmanned systems, (inadequately tested) hypersonic threats, and AI-driven targeting loops.

In such an environment – including the inner seas of archipelagic states of Indonesia and the Philippines, but also Malaysia and VietNam, decision cycles will be compressed to seconds, not hours, with autonomous swarms and satellite-linked ISR platforms dictating the tempo. As a former Chief-of Staff, admiral and combat army officer of a historic naval country (right between Ancient Greece and Roman Empire, Phoenicians and Venetians), I would note with high concern how conventional naval doctrine falters when even milliseconds of latency could determine the survivability of a ship—raising critical questions about control, accountability, and escalation in a digitally saturated battlespace where the line between provocation and war is algorithmically blurred.“

Takeaways from Singapore