| The Maritime Security Forum is pleased to provide you with a product, in the form of a daily newsletter, through which we present the most relevant events and information on naval issues, especially those related to maritime security and other related areas. It aims to present a clear and concise assessment of the most recent and relevant news in this area, with references to sources of information. We hope that this newsletter will prove to be a useful resource for you, providing a comprehensive insight into the complicated context of the field for both specialists and anyone interested in the dynamics of events in the field of maritime security. |
How US & Israel Tracked Down Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s Secret Compound
MS Daily brief-03 March 2026
- MS Daily Brief-en
- PHASES OF THE ATTACK ON IRAN AND MULTIDOMAIN WARFARE
- FOUR YEARS OF WAR IN UKRAINE
- Iran’s air defence system
- The need to reevaluate maritime doctrine following the introduction of maritime drones into the Romanian Navy
- Artificial Intelligence in Defense: Between Technological Enthusiasm and Operational Reality
- 2026 – Will the Munich Security Conference be without expectations?
READ AND ANALYZE THE MARITIME SECURITY FORUM
PHASES OF THE ATTACK ON IRAN AND MULTIDOMAIN WARFARE
Contents
The US-Israel war against Iran: what maps tell us about the crisis in the Middle East – video 1
News from Ukraine | Huge success on the front! Russia loses ground | News from Iran. 1
US attacks on Iran were triggered by Israel’s plan to launch an attack, says Rubio. 1
US-Israel war against Iran dramatically expands in the Middle East 4
Hegseth says US will not ‘get bogged down’ in Iran, but does not rule out sending troops. 7
Trump says war with Iran will last four to five weeks, but could last “much longer”. 10
Starmer says Britain will not join “regime change from the sky” in Iran. 14
Spain refuses to allow the United States to use joint military bases to attack Iran. 16
The crisis in the Middle East is driving up oil prices and could lead to higher inflation. 20
Pete Hegseth sets the tone for Trump’s politically incorrect war against Iran. 22
France will increase its nuclear arsenal and European cooperation on armaments, says Macron 23
Navantia and Fincantieri sign memorandum of understanding for European patrol corvette project 29
Does the war in Ukraine mark the return of the tank?. 30
President Macron has announced that France intends to expand its nuclear arsenal 31
Risks to underwater infrastructure and methods of protection. 32
CUI vulnerability to hybrid warfare and “grey zone” actions. 33
Collaborative responses and international initiatives. 33
Improving surveillance and monitoring. 34
Reducing technologies and integrating unmanned platforms. 34
Specialised surveillance vessels. 34
Integrated approach and operational concepts. 34
Resilience and repair capability. 35
Understanding China’s national security decisions. 35
The US-Israel war against Iran: what maps tell us about the crisis in the Middle East – video
BREAKING NEWS: US B-1 bombers destroy Iranian missiles; Qatar shoots down Iranian fighter jet | TBN Israel
News from Ukraine | Huge success on the front! Russia loses ground | News from Iran
US attacks on Iran were triggered by Israel’s plan to launch an attack, Rubio says
Democrats are troubled by Trump’s reason for ordering pre-emptive strikes due to concerns about Tehran’s retaliation
Chris Stein in Washington
Tuesday, 3 March 2026, 03:50 CET
Israel’s decision to attack Iran and the certainty that US troops would be the target of retaliation forced the Trump administration to launch pre-emptive strikes, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a new explanation for Washington’s surprise entry into the conflict.
The reason sparked mixed reactions from top members of Congress, who on Monday evening received their first briefing from the Trump administration since it ordered the air campaign to begin over the weekend.
Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine spoke with lawmakers behind closed doors on Capitol Hill ahead of a vote expected later this week in the House of Representatives on a war powers resolution that presents an unlikely opportunity to force Trump to end hostilities against Iran.
“It was very clear that if Iran were attacked by anyone — the United States, Israel or anyone else — it would respond and retaliate against the United States,” Rubio told reporters at the Capitol.
“We knew there was going to be Israeli action. We knew that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively strike before they launched those attacks, we would suffer greater losses.”
JD Vance said in an interview with Fox News on Monday evening that the US goal was to ensure that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
“The president wants to make it clear to the Iranians and the world that he will not rest until he achieves this extremely important goal of ensuring that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons,” the vice president said.
Vance was the member of Donald Trump’s administration most opposed to military intervention and spoke less often about US actions in Iran than Rubio.
Since the beginning of the conflict, the United States and Israel have carried out waves of air strikes in Iran, and Tehran has retaliated with drone and missile attacks against US-aligned countries in the Middle East.
The air campaign has killed several top Iranian military and political leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US military has acknowledged the deaths of six service members, while the Iranian Red Crescent Society said more than 500 people had been killed in the country.
Reactions to the administration’s explanation for going to war were divided along party lines, with Republicans rushing to defend Trump’s gambit, while Democrats condemned what they see as an unnecessary conflict with unclear objectives.
“This is Trump’s war. It is a war of choice. He has no strategy, he has no endgame,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said before entering the briefing.
Upon leaving, Schumer said lawmakers present asked “a lot of questions,” but found the officials’ answers “completely and totally insufficient. In fact, at least for me, that briefing raised more questions than it answered.”
Mark Warner, the Democratic vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was concerned about the implications of the US allowing Israel to essentially force it into a new war.
“There is no imminent threat to the United States from the Iranians. There is a threat to Israel.
If we equate a threat to Israel with an imminent threat to the United States, then we are in uncharted territory,” Warner said.
On Monday evening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News that Iran had built new underground bases “that would make their ballistic missile programmes and their atomic bomb programmes immune in a matter of months.”
“If action is not taken now, it will not be possible to take action in the future,” he said.
Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons.
In recent interviews with the press, Trump has outlined various war aims, including destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities and its navy, preventing the country from developing nuclear weapons, and cutting off Tehran’s support for proxy forces elsewhere in the Middle East.
Rubio, however, mentioned only two objectives to reporters: destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities and its navy. After the classified briefing, Warner said he was unsure what Trump’s ultimate goal was.
“I think the president needs to come before Congress, and indeed the American people, and decide, of these four or five objectives that have been laid out, what is the real objective?” the Virginia senator said.
“What is the objective? What is our exit plan? What obligations do we now have to the Iranian people if they rise up based on his call to take to the streets? And what is the imminent threat to US interests that caused this conflict?”
Mike Johnson, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives and a close ally of Trump, defended the president’s course of action, saying he had ordered a “defensive operation.”
“Israel was determined to act in its own defence, with or without American support. Why? Because Israel was facing what it considered to be an existential threat,” Johnson said.
Although the goal of the war, he said, was not “to go in and remove the regime,” he nevertheless welcomed the ayatollah’s death.
“That happened, and in my view, it’s an important development for freedom-loving people around the world,” Johnson told reporters, speaking alongside the Republican chairmen of the House Intelligence and Appropriations committees — the latter’s presence indicating that lawmakers may soon be asked to approve additional defence funds needed in the context of the war.
Trump ordered the attack on Iran without first seeking permission from Congress, although Rubio said a group of lawmakers known as the Gang of Eight — composed of Democratic and Republican leaders from each chamber, as well as the top lawmakers from both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees — was briefed before the attack began.
The House of Representatives is set to consider a war powers resolution later this week that, if passed, would compel Trump to end hostilities against Iran. The resolution faces major obstacles to passage. Republicans control both chambers of Congress and rarely oppose Trump in significant numbers.
Even if Congress approves the resolution, Trump could veto it, and Congress could only override that veto with a two-thirds majority vote.
Previous resolutions on war powers introduced in this Congress have been voted down, and Johnson said he is confident that the latest one will not be adopted by the House of Representatives.
“The idea that we would take away the authority of our commander-in-chief, the president, to carry out this mission, is frightening to me. It’s dangerous,” Johnson said. “I’m definitely optimistic and I believe we have the votes to defeat it.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/02/rubio-us-attack-israel-iran
The US-Israel war against Iran is dramatically expanding in the Middle East
US allies in the Gulf states are under attack from Iranian missiles and drones, while three US fighter jets were accidentally shot down by Kuwait
Jason Burke in Jerusalem and William Christou in Beirut
Monday, 2 March 2026, 19:18 CET
The war in the Middle East triggered by the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran escalated dramatically on Monday, with casualties and destruction reported in at least nine countries, including major strikes on Tehran.
Israeli and American warplanes launched a new series of strikes on Iran, where the Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS) said more than 500 people had been killed since the start of the conflict.
Israel also launched an intense series of attacks in Lebanon after Hezbollah struck northern Israel in retaliation for Saturday’s Israeli attack, in which Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed.
Iranian attacks on oil infrastructure and other targets were reported across a 1,200-mile area of the region, with damage reported from the Gulf of Oman, where a bomb-laden drone boat exploded against an oil tanker, to Cyprus, targeting a British military base.
The US military said Kuwait’s air defence accidentally shot down three US F-15E fighter jets during an Iranian attack. All six crew members were safely recovered. Video footage showed one of the planes spiralling out of the sky with one engine on fire until it hit the ground and exploded in a fireball.
Black smoke rose above the area around the US embassy in Kuwait, where there was a massive presence of security forces, ambulances and firefighters.
Loud explosions were heard in Dubai and Samha in the United Arab Emirates, and in Doha, the capital of Qatar. Saudi Arabia shut down its largest refinery after drone attacks caused a fire there, one of many oil facilities that became targets.
In the first attack targeting US allies in Europe, a drone struck the British air base Akrotiri in Cyprus during the night. The UK and Cyprus said the damage was limited and there were no casualties.
A burning plane falling from the sky in Al Jahra, Kuwait. Kuwait’s Defence Ministry said several US planes had crashed and the pilots were safe. Photo: Social Media/Reuters
The effort to remove Iran’s leadership is the biggest foreign policy gamble in decades.
US President Donald Trump repeated his calls for Iranians to rise up and overthrow their leaders and said the air campaign could last for weeks, telling CNN that the “big wave” of attacks was yet to come.
“We are destroying them… The big wave hasn’t even come. The big one is coming soon,” Trump told the television network.
In the first public statements by an administration official since the war began on Saturday, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said the US’s objectives were to destroy Iran’s navy, ballistic missile production and nuclear weapons potential.
He reiterated that the US would not get bogged down in the conflict, saying that the American operation was not a “democracy-building exercise” and that “this is not Iraq. This is not endless.”
The US military said B-2 stealth bombers struck Iran’s ballistic missile facilities with 2,000-pound bombs. Trump said 10 Iranian warships had been sunk and that the Iranian navy headquarters had been “largely destroyed.”
War with Iran escalates: what is Trump’s ultimate goal? – Latest news
In Iran, where residents blocked motorways to flee cities as bombs fell, there was uncertainty about the future and emotions ranging from fear to euphoria.
One Tehran resident said Monday’s bombing of the capital was the heaviest yet and seemed to be more indiscriminate, with missiles striking across the city. He said hospitals and clinics were among the damaged buildings. “We are becoming like Gaza,” he said.
Another resident, Hosna, a 45-year-old lawyer, said: “Every time we hear the noises [of explosions], we get scared for a second. But we feel some joy and excitement every time we hear a hit.”
The IRCS estimated the death toll in Iran at 555 and said more than 130 cities across the country had been attacked. Israeli officials said Monday’s attacks targeted command and control centres and senior leaders of the ruling regime. In Israel, 11 people were killed, and in Lebanon, 52, according to authorities.
On Monday evening, the Israeli military said it had launched a new series of attacks on Tehran, shortly after issuing an evacuation warning to the city’s residents.
Two loud explosions were reported near the headquarters of Iran’s public television station IRIB. The Israeli army said it had “struck and destroyed” the complex.
European allies distanced themselves from Trump’s initial decision to go to war, saying it did not meet the legal threshold for responding to an imminent threat. However, they later said they would participate to help suppress Iran’s ability to retaliate after Tehran struck their allies.
A senior White House official told Reuters that Washington would talk to Tehran at some point, but not yet.
“President Trump has said that the potential new leadership in Iran has indicated that it wants to talk and that it will eventually talk. For now, Operation Epic Fury continues unabated,” the official said.
It remains unclear what the long-term prospects are for Iran in terms of rebuilding its leadership and replacing the 86-year-old Khamenei.
Iran’s president-elect, Masoud Pezeshkian, said on Sunday that a leadership council consisting of himself, the head of the judiciary and a member of the powerful Guardian Council had temporarily taken over the duties of the supreme leader.
In a post on X Monday, Ali Larijani, the powerful head of Tehran’s supreme national security council, said Iran would not negotiate with Trump, who had “delusional ambitions” and was now concerned about American casualties.
“Iran, unlike the United States, has prepared for a long war,” he wrote.
In Jerusalem, explosions shook windows, while missiles fired by Iran toward central Israel were intercepted.
An Israeli military spokesman said that since Sunday there had been fewer attacks against Israel, which he attributed to Israeli strikes that had degraded Iran’s military capabilities. Hezbollah had made “a big mistake” by “joining Iran’s war,” he said.
Shipments through the Strait of Hormuz — where about a fifth of the world’s oil trade passes along the Iranian coast — were halted after Iran’s threats and attacks on oil tankers. Oil prices rose by double digits on Monday, and stock markets fell.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said on Sunday that they had struck three American and British oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and that they had attacked military bases in Kuwait and Bahrain with drones and missiles.
Shipping data showed that hundreds of ships, including oil and gas tankers, had dropped anchor in nearby waters.
On Monday evening, an IRGC general threatened to “burn any ship” that tried to sail through the Strait of Hormuz.
“We will also attack oil pipelines and will not allow a single drop of oil to leave the region. The price of oil will reach $200 in the coming days,” said General Sardar Jabbari.
Global air transport was also severely disrupted as air strikes kept major airports in the Middle East closed.
The UN nuclear watchdog had no indication that Israeli and American attacks on Iran had hit any nuclear facilities, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, said on Monday, despite Iran’s envoy saying that one had been targeted the day before.
Iran’s nuclear programme is among the reasons cited by Israel and the US for the attacks, arguing that Iran was getting too close to the ability to eventually build a nuclear bomb.
However, what remains of Iran’s nuclear facilities after the two armies attacked them in June appears to have been largely spared in this campaign so far.
“We have no indication that any of the nuclear facilities … have been damaged or hit,” Grossi said in a statement to a meeting of his agency’s 35-nation board of governors.
Hegseth says US will not “get bogged down” in Iran, but does not rule out sending troops
Defence Secretary refuses to set a timeline for the duration of the operation in his first public statements since the attacks
Andrew Roth and Joseph Gedeon in Washington
Monday, 2 March 2026, 17:15 CET
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth called the joint US-Israeli strikes in Iran “the most lethal and precise air campaign in history,” indicated that the US does not intend to bring about a democratic transition in Iran, and refused to set a clear timeline for the duration of the US operation.
In the first public statements by an administration official since the war began on Saturday, Hegseth also said that the US has no “troops on the ground” in Iran, but that he would not speculate on what “we will or will not do.” He also said that four members of the US military had been killed by a ballistic missile that had managed to penetrate allied air defences.
However, speaking shortly afterwards, Donald Trump said he did not rule out sending US ground troops to Iran “if necessary”.
In an interview with the New York Post, the president said: “I have no reservations about ground troops — as every president says, ‘There will be no ground troops’. I’m not saying that… I’m saying ‘probably no need for them’ [or] ‘if necessary’.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Monday that the US attacked Iran not because Tehran was preparing a pre-emptive missile strike, but because the US feared Iran’s retaliation after Israel launched an imminent attack to assassinate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
“There was definitely an imminent threat, and we know that if Iran had been attacked and we believed it was going to be attacked, it would have come after us immediately, and we weren’t going to sit back and take the hit,” Rubio said.
Earlier, US officials had told reporters that they had information that Iran was planning a pre-emptive strike using its ballistic missiles and that the threat to US interests in the region was “intolerable.”
Speaking at the Pentagon, Hegseth said the US objectives were to destroy Iran’s navy, ballistic missile production and nuclear weapons potential. He repeatedly said that the US would not get bogged down in conflict, saying that the American operation was not a “democracy-building exercise” and that “this is not Iraq. This is not endless.”
At the same time, he said he would not predict how long it would take Trump to declare the mission accomplished. “President Trump has all the freedom in the world to talk about how long it might or might not take,” Hegseth said when asked about the US exit strategy. “Four weeks, two weeks, six weeks. It could be sooner, it could be later.”
The Pentagon statements were the first made by US officials other than Trump in more than 48 hours since the attacks that killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US had established local air superiority over Iran by suppressing Iranian air defences, which “will not only enhance the protection of our forces, but also allow them to continue operations over Iran.” He did not give a timeline for the operation, but said it was “not a one-day operation” and that the fighting would be difficult. “We expect additional casualties,” he said.
Trump authorised the strikes on Friday, Caine said — earlier than previously known and shortly before leaving on a trip to Corpus Christi, Texas. In remarks to reporters outside the White House on Friday, Trump indicated he was still open to negotiations, though at that point he appeared to have already authorised the strike.
Caine detailed how the US Cyber Command and Space Command acted first, blocking Iranian communications and sensor networks, before more than 100 aircraft – fighters, tankers, bombers and drones – were launched simultaneously from land and sea. Two aircraft carrier strike groups, the Lincoln and the Ford, were involved, and B-2 stealth bombers flew in from the continental United States.
The press conference took place shortly before the markets opened on Monday, when a sharp drop in stocks is expected due to concerns about rising oil prices as the conflict rapidly spread to at least nine countries in less than 10 hours. Iran launched ballistic missiles and one-way attack drones at Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan and Oman, and major shipping companies suspended operations through the Strait of Hormuz.
Hegseth vehemently defended the attacks, stating that “we did not start this war, but under Trump’s presidency we are ending it.”
“It seems that the regime that chanted ‘death to America’ and ‘death to Israel’ has received death from America and death from Israel,” Hegseth said. “This is not a so-called ‘war for regime change,’ but the regime has certainly changed.”
He also praised Israel as a “capable partner,” while mocking the US’s “traditional allies” who “wring their hands and clutch their pearls… about the use of force.”
Hegseth, who regularly attacked “political correctness” in the military, welcomed an American operation that was conducted “entirely on our terms, with maximum authority.”
“No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy-building exercises, no politically correct wars,” he said.
“We fight to win and we don’t waste time or lives, as the president warned, an effort of this magnitude will include casualties.”
Asked if the US has troops on the ground in Iran, Hegseth replied, “No, but we’re not going to get into specifics about what we will or will not do.”
Hegseth was asked several times about US objectives and how long it would take to achieve them. “In terms of timing, I would never set a timeline from our perspective,” Hegseth said. “The commander-in-chief sets the [operational] tempo of this fight, as I said, according to his conditions. And we will make sure that Admiral Cooper and his team have everything they need, not just to defend themselves. The best defence is a good offence.”
Asked for more details on the deaths of four US military personnel during the operation, Hegseth indicated that they had been hit by a ballistic missile attack. “We have incredible air defence systems… From time to time, one of them — which we unfortunately call a ‘squirter’ — can get through. And in this case, it happened to hit a fortified tactical operations centre, but these are powerful weapons.
“At times like these, as we commemorate and care for them and their families, we strengthen our resolve to ensure that we do this properly,” he added.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/02/hegseth-iran-war-first-remarks
Trump says war with Iran will last four to five weeks, but could last “much longer”
The president says he has ordered strikes to thwart Tehran’s nuclear goals — and abruptly shifts to talk of the White House ballroom
David Smith in Washington
Monday, 2 March 2026, 20:55 CET
Donald Trump outlined four targets in Iran and said the US campaign was designed to last four to five weeks, but could “last much longer”.
On Monday, the US president offered his most extensive comments yet on the war, going beyond two video messages and a series of brief telephone interviews with reporters, which offered sometimes contradictory objectives.
Trump, however, undermined the seriousness of his remarks by abruptly shifting to promoting his plans for a new ballroom at the White House, boasting that it would be “the most beautiful ballroom in the world,” completed “under budget” and “ahead of schedule,” at “400 million dollars or less.”
Donald Trump comments on the curtains and ballroom at the White House during the Medal of Honour ceremony
The noise of construction work on the ballroom could be heard during the Medal of Honour ceremony in the East Room, where the president attempted to justify Saturday’s intervention, which killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and dismissed criticism that he was likely to “get bored” and move on.
Trump said he ordered the attack on Iran to thwart Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, which were “growing rapidly and dramatically” and “posed a very clear and colossal threat to America and our forces stationed abroad.”
The president claimed without evidence that Iran “would soon have missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America” — a claim disputed by national security experts. Trump added that other countries supported US efforts to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, but “simply didn’t have the courage to say so.”
The president then took aim at his predecessor and rival. “I was very proud to cancel President Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal,” he said. “It was a horrible, horrible, dangerous document. They would have had nuclear weapons three years ago and they would have used them. But I won’t let that happen.”
Trump said the Iranian regime has a history of attacking the US and killing Americans, including with roadside bombs. “This was our last chance to strike — which we are doing right now — and eliminate the intolerable threats posed by this sick and sinister regime.”
He said the war aims include destroying Iran’s ballistic capabilities, annihilating its navy and preventing it from possessing nuclear weapons. Trump said a third aim is a long-standing US goal, namely preventing Iran from supporting militant groups in other parts of the region.
The president noted the loss of four American servicemen in combat to date, adding: “In their memory, we continue this mission with fierce and unwavering determination to crush the threat this terrorist regime poses to the American people.”
Trump continued: “We are already well ahead of our projections, but however long it takes, it’s okay, whatever it takes, we will always continue, and we have done so from the beginning.
“We predicted four to five weeks, but we have the capacity to continue much longer than that. We will do it… Someone in the media said that we would probably get bored after a week or two. No, we are not bored. I never get bored, if I got bored, I wouldn’t be here now. I guarantee you that. To go through what I had to go through.”
During the ceremony, the Medal of Honour was awarded to three military personnel, including Sergeant Michael Ollis, who died in Afghanistan. But Trump’s comments about the ballroom caused a stir on social media.
Susan Glasser, editor at the New Yorker, posted on X: “He brags about his ‘beautiful ballroom’ while he should be explaining the grim decision to go to war. It’s one of the most tactless things I’ve ever seen from a US president, including this one…”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/02/trump-war-iran
Trump news in brief: President proposes objectives but no end date for military offensive against Iran
Trump said the military campaign could “last much longer” than the initial estimated four to five weeks, amid spreading violence and chaos in the Middle East — Monday’s top US political news in brief, 2 March
The Guardian team
Tuesday, 3 March 2026, 03:00 CET
Donald Trump outlined four objectives in Iran and said the US campaign was designed to last four to five weeks but could “last much longer”.
On Monday, the US president offered his most extensive comments yet on the war, going beyond two video messages and a series of brief telephone interviews with reporters, which offered sometimes contradictory objectives.
However, Trump undermined the seriousness of his remarks by abruptly shifting to promoting his plans for a new ballroom at the White House, boasting that it would be “the most beautiful ballroom in the world,” completed “under budget” and “ahead of schedule,” for “400 million dollars or less.”
Trump said he ordered the attack on Iran to thwart Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, which were “growing rapidly and dramatically” and “posed a very clear and colossal threat to America and our forces stationed abroad.”
This was a different justification from the one offered later on Monday by Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. After a closed-door meeting with members of the US Congress, Rubio told reporters that Israel’s decision to attack Iran and the certainty that American troops would be the target of a response forced the Trump administration to launch pre-emptive strikes.
Rubio’s explanation worried some US lawmakers.
“There was no imminent threat to the United States from the Iranians,” said Mark Warner, the Democratic vice-chairman of the Senate intelligence committee. “There was a threat to Israel. If we equate a threat to Israel with an imminent threat to the United States, then we are in uncharted territory.”
Trump says war with Iran will last four to five weeks, but could last “much longer”
The president claimed without evidence that Iran “would soon have missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America” — a claim disputed by national security experts. Trump added that other countries supported US efforts to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, but “simply didn’t have the courage to say so.”
US-Israel war against Iran spreads dramatically across the Middle East
The war in the Middle East triggered by the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran expanded dramatically on Monday, with casualties and destruction reported in at least nine countries in less than 10 hours.
Israeli and American warplanes launched a new series of attacks in Iran, where the Iranian Red Crescent Society said more than 500 people had been killed since the start of the conflict. Israel also launched an intense wave of attacks on Lebanon after Hezbollah struck northern Israel in retaliation for Saturday’s Israeli attack, in which Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed.
Three American fighter jets accidentally shot down over Kuwait
Three American fighter jets were accidentally shot down over Kuwait on Monday morning in an apparent “friendly fire” incident, military officials said. All six crew members ejected safely.
According to a statement from US Central Command (Centcom), Kuwait’s air defences fired on the F-15 fighter jets during a combat mission on the third day of the conflict, following the launch of American and Israeli air strikes on Iran on Saturday.
Britain “waited too long” to allow the US to use its air bases to attack Iran, Trump says
Britain “waited too long” to allow US forces to use its air bases to attack Iran, Donald Trump said.
The US president added that he was “very disappointed” with Keir Starmer over the British government’s agreement to cede sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius as a means of preserving the status of the British-American air base on Diego Garcia, part of the archipelago in the Indian Ocean.
Trump’s neck rash caused by ‘preventative’ skin treatment, White House says
Donald Trump was seen with a rash on the side of his neck during Monday’s Medal of Honour ceremony, further fuelling speculation about the president’s health.
What else happened today:
- Melania Trump on Monday became the first wife of a sitting world leader to chair the UN Security Council, calling on member states to protect children’s access to education, days after Iranian media reported that an air strike killed at least 165 people at a girls’ school in southern Iran.
Texas officials continue to investigate a weekend massacre at an Austin bar by a man wearing a hoodie with the words “Allah’s property” as a potential act of terrorism, amid growing fears of further attacks following US air strikes on Iran.Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, spent $1.2 million of taxpayer money per day to open and operate the notorious immigrant prison known as Alligator Alcatraz, according to court documents obtained by the independent investigative news site Florida Tributary.Videos of Bill Clinton, former US president, and Hillary Clinton, former US secretary of state, answering questions about convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were released Monday by a House committee investigating the former financier’s case.Donald Trump said on Monday that he would attend the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner for the first time as president.
- Ryan Zinke, a Republican from Montana who served as interior secretary during Donald Trump’s first administration, said he would not seek a fifth term in the House of Representatives, citing health reasons.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/02/trump-news-at-a-glance-latest-today
Starmer says Britain will not join “regime change from the sky” in Iran
Prime Minister defends use of British bases for defensive actions, but says Britain has learned from Iraq experience that a “well-thought-out plan” is necessary
Monday, 2 March 2026, 17:32 CET
Keir Starmer has issued his strongest criticism yet of Donald Trump’s action in Iran, saying that Britain does not believe in “regime change from the sky”.
The Prime Minister said Britain would not join Israel and the US in offensive strikes against Iran, but defended his decision on Sunday night to allow the US to carry out defensive strikes on Iranian missile bases from RAF bases, saying it was “the best way to protect British interests and British lives.”
While MPs urged Starmer not to allow Britain to be dragged further into the conflict, Starmer suggested he had reservations about US actions and existing plans for the period after the attacks.
“We all remember the mistakes in Iraq and we have learned from those lessons. Any action by the UK must always have a legal basis and a viable and well-thought-out plan,” he said. “That is the principle we applied to the decisions we took over the weekend.”
He said he would not risk the lives of British military personnel unless an operation had an “appropriate legal basis”.
The US president said on Monday he was “very disappointed” in Starmer for blocking his use of two British bases to carry out strikes on Iran, adding: “It seems he was concerned about legality.”
Speaking in the House of Commons, Starmer said the UK was deploying aircraft and allowing the use of bases for defensive purposes because Iran had launched attacks on UK allies in the region in retaliation.
“It is clear that Iran’s outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies and cannot be ignored,” Starmer said. “Our decision is based on the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies and the protection of British lives. It is in accordance with international law.”
He said the RAF had intercepted an Iranian drone attack heading for a coalition base in Iraq where British forces were stationed. Two drones were also launched at the British base in Cyprus, RAF Akrotiri. Starmer said they were launched before Sunday evening’s statement on the use of British bases by the US.
Defence Secretary John Healey said the damage was minimal, but that Britain was moving families living at RAF Akrotiri to alternative temporary accommodation in Cyprus. The base is not being used to launch US attacks.
A Cypriot news agency reported that the damage to the air base was caused by small low-flying drones launched by Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy group in Lebanon — but the British Ministry of Defence has not officially confirmed this.
Starmer had not previously expressed explicit opposition to Saturday’s initial wave of American and Israeli attacks on Iran, which killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader, and other senior Iranian leaders.
Since then, Iran has launched a series of retaliatory missile and drone attacks on a range of targets in the Gulf and Middle East, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman.
The UK is expected to allow the US to use RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands to bomb Iranian “missile cities”, places where Iran’s most dangerous weapons, high-speed ballistic missiles, are stored and from where they can be launched.
The attacks would require the use of American heavy bombers using so-called bunker-buster munitions, with British bases being preferred by the US Air Force because they are closer to Iran than the US.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Starmer was using international law as a pretext to justify his weak position and accused him of making a U-turn after the scale of Iran’s retaliation became clear.
“Today, the President of the United States took the extraordinary step of publicly rebuking the Prime Minister, saying he took too long to grant access,” she said. “We are told that this hesitation and delay is due to concerns about international law. But I fear that this explanation simply does not hold water. International law has not prevented our allies from stating clearly and unequivocally where they stand.”
Starmer said: “We believe that the best way forward for the region and the world is a negotiated solution in which Iran agrees to abandon any aspirations to develop nuclear weapons and ceases its destabilising activity across the region. This has been the long-standing position of successive British governments.
“President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to engage in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in the national interest of the UK; that is what I have done and I stand by that position.”
But, he said, Britain could not stand by while British citizens in the Gulf, as well as British bases, were being endangered. He said there were about 300,000 British citizens in the region, including those in transit, and that airports and hotels where British citizens were staying were being hit.
He said Gulf leaders had asked the UK to do more to defend them. “Moreover, it is my duty, the highest duty of my office, to protect the lives of British people,” he added.
Starmer said it was not possible for British Typhoon and F-35 aircraft to intercept all Iranian attacks and that was why he gave the US permission to destroy the missiles in their depots or at their launch sites.
He added that this “will prevent Iran from launching missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, endangering British lives and hitting countries that were not involved.”
The Prime Minister said he wanted to ensure that British citizens stranded due to the closure of airspace “can return home as quickly and safely as possible.” He said the Foreign Office would send rapid response teams to the region, particularly the United Arab Emirates, and that British citizens should register.
Spain refuses to allow the United States to use joint military bases to attack Iran
The refusal to allow the use of bases in Rota and Morón comes after Pedro Sánchez condemned the US-Israel action
Sam Jones in Madrid
Monday, 2 March 2026, 15:52 CET
Spain has refused to allow the US to use jointly operated military bases on its territory to attack Iran, as Madrid has stepped up its criticism of the “unjustified and dangerous military intervention”.
Spain’s socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez explicitly condemned the “unilateral military action” of the US and Israel against Iran, warning that it contributes to “a more hostile and uncertain international order” . The criticism was reinforced by his government’s refusal to allow the United States to use bases in Rota and Morón to continue attacks against Iran.
José Manuel Albares, Spain’s foreign minister, said on Monday that although the government wants “democracy, freedom and fundamental rights for the Iranian people,” it will not allow its bases to be used in the ongoing military action under any circumstances.
“I want to be very clear and very concise,” he told Telecinco. “The bases are not being used — nor will they be used — for anything that is not provided for in the agreement [with the US] or for anything that is not provided for in the UN Charter.”
Defence Minister Margarita Robles was equally categorical, stating that none of the bases had been used in the US military operation. “There is an agreement with the US on these bases, but our understanding is that operations must comply with international legal frameworks and that there must be international support for them,” she told reporters.
Maps compiled by flight tracking website Flightradar24 showed that 15 US planes had left Rota and Morón since the US and Israel began their attacks over the weekend. At least seven of the planes landed at Ramstein air base in Germany.
US defence officials declined to comment on the reasons for the departure.
On Saturday, Sánchez said that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s offensive was making the world more unstable and called for a lasting political solution to the conflict.
He returned to the subject in a speech delivered on Sunday in Barcelona. “Today, more than ever, it is essential to remember that we can be against an ugly regime — as the whole of Spanish society is against the Iranian regime — and, at the same time, against an unjustified and dangerous military intervention that violates international law,” he said.
Sánchez’s direct condemnations will not please Trump, who last year criticised Spain for refusing to accept NATO’s proposal that member states increase their defence spending to 5% of GDP. But the Spanish prime minister’s comments are consistent with his status as a European leader who does not hide his opinions. Sánchez has been among the most vocal European critics of both Israel’s war in Gaza and the EU’s response to it.
Other European leaders have tried to hedge their bets on Trump’s latest attempt to secure regime change abroad. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially did not allow US forces to use Diego Garcia or any British air bases because of doubts about the legality of the strikes. But he changed his position on Sunday after Iran launched a series of missile and drone attacks on targets in the Middle East, one of which hit a British air base in Cyprus.
In a joint statement with France and Germany published on Sunday, the UK said: “We will take action to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, including by taking necessary and proportionate defensive measures to destroy Iran’s ability to launch missiles and drones at their source.”
Trump reacted to the change in position by saying that Britain had waited “too long” to allow US forces to use its bases.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who is due to meet Trump in Washington on Tuesday, said he understood the “dilemma” over how to respond to Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and oppress its own people.
He added: “So we will not lecture our partners on military strikes against Iran… Despite all doubts, we share many of their goals.”
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called for a lasting “diplomatic” solution to the crisis in Iran, adding that the bloc would make sustained efforts to prepare “for the consequences of these recent events.”
Iran’s Shahed drones brought terror to the skies of Ukraine – now they are being used in the Middle East
The bulky and noisy Iranian-made unmanned attack drones have struck buildings in Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and elsewhere
- The US-Israel war against Iran – live updates
- A visual guide to the attacks on Iran and Tehran’s response
Dan Sabbagh Defence and security editor
Monday, 2 March 2026, 21:16 CET
The noisy, delta-winged Shahed 136 drones, worth $50,000 and manufactured in Iran, have long been an unwelcome presence in Ukraine’s skies.
Now, in the last 48 hours, hundreds of the distinctive weapons have struck Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and the entire Gulf region, as Tehran seeks to intimidate and impose costs on the US’s regional allies.
A video recording from Bahrain shows a delta-wing drone flying towards a tower block at night, the sound of its engine clearly audible, before crashing terrifyingly into the building, burning debris falling beyond the balcony window. It is possible that the apartment did not survive the direct hit.
More than 1,000 drones — many of them likely Shahed 136s — have targeted Iran’s Gulf neighbours since the US and Israel first attacked Tehran on Saturday morning.
On Monday afternoon, the United Arab Emirates said it had been attacked by 689 drones and shot down 645 – meaning 44 drones, just over 6% of the total, got through.
The Shahed 136 models are 3.5 metres long and have a wingspan of 2.5 metres. Their relatively low cost and ease of manufacture, especially compared to ballistic missiles, of which Iran could only produce a few dozen per year before the American and Israeli bombings began, means that drones are likely to remain a feature of the conflict for some time.
Most Shahed 136 drones are relatively slow, although faster jet-powered variants have been spotted in Ukraine, and can carry an explosive payload of around 50 kg – enough to damage a skyscraper, but not enough to bring it down.
However, the noise they make, their large size and their terminal dive easily cause terror.
A second video, also from Bahrain, clearly shows a single delta-wing drone flying over the centre of the naval base that houses the US Fifth Fleet, before successfully crashing to hit and destroy a radar dome.
Shahed drone attacks have also been reported in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, and possibly at an RAF base in Akrotiri, Cyprus.
They have a range of up to 1,250 miles (2,000 km) and are usually pre-programmed on complex flight paths, flying at low altitude to try to avoid radar detection.
But in Ukraine, there is growing evidence that they can be remotely piloted by operators, allowing them to change course at the last minute.
Shahed 136s were designed in Iran at the end of the last decade and were first spotted in July 2021 in an attack on an Israeli tanker, the Mercer Street, in which a British and a Romanian national were killed.
They may have been used earlier, in September 2019, against Saudi oil facilities in Abqaiq and Khurais.
But the drones, originally designed by Shahed Aviation Industries Research Centre, an Iranian company that the US claims is subordinate to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, spread as a result of their use by Russia in the war in Ukraine in the autumn of 2022.
Initially exported, Iran later shared the design to allow Russia to manufacture large numbers of drones at a factory in Yelabuga, on the Volga River.
Russia typically attacks Ukraine using coordinated swarms of up to 800 Shahed 136 drones, similar-looking Gebera decoys, and a small number of cruise and ballistic missiles in an effort to overwhelm Kyiv’s air defences so that the more lethal missiles can get through.
However, most of the Shahed videos from the Gulf this weekend show isolated drones that have passed through air defences, rather than a swarm attack.
In Ukraine, Shahed has been most effective at hitting static targets, particularly utility infrastructure, leading to a national electricity and heating crisis this winter, affecting hundreds of thousands of homes or more.
Iran could be successful if it copies this tactic: on Monday morning, the Ras Tanura refinery, the largest in Saudi Arabia, was damaged after a drone attack caused a fire, forcing it to shut down.
Although it has not been confirmed that the weapon used was a Shahed, it had the same explosive effect.
The crisis in the Middle East is driving up oil prices and could lead to higher inflation
Heather Stewart, Economics Editor
The effects of the prolonged conflict between the US and Iran could also lead to higher interest rates and affect economic growth
Monday, 2 March 2026, 14:02 CET
The impact of the deadly and unpredictable conflict in the Middle East on the global economy will be felt immediately and strongly through rising oil prices.
Prices rose on Monday as markets had their first chance to digest the weekend’s tit-for-tat attacks. A barrel of Brent crude was trading at around $79 (£59) at midday in London, up about $6 or 8.5% on the day.
The price had already risen significantly this year, from just over $60 in January, as tensions between the US and Iran escalated. Natural gas prices also rose, with waterways being a vital artery for the supply of liquefied natural gas. Benchmark natural gas prices in Europe rose 38% on Monday, exacerbated by state-owned QatarEnergy announcing it was halting production at two locations following drone attacks.
As highlighted by the economic impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, rising energy costs are quickly reflected in consumers’ pockets and have wider knock-on effects on the cost of almost all other products.
Net energy importers in Asia and Europe, including the UK, will be hit hardest by the price increases. The United States, with its shale oil reserves and strategic oil reserve, should be better able to protect itself — although a prolonged period of higher costs could discourage the Federal Reserve from implementing the interest rate cuts that Donald Trump so badly wants.
The extent to which energy prices will rise will depend on the scale of disruptions to traffic on the crucial supply route through the Strait of Hormuz, as well as the risk of direct attacks on energy infrastructure in the region.
Tankers are already refusing to use the Strait of Hormuz, which carries about 20% of global oil supplies, and insurers, perhaps unsurprisingly, are reluctant to provide coverage. Some reports on Monday suggest that ships are also avoiding the Suez Canal as the conflict engulfs the entire region. This could lead to increased transport costs for goods other than crude oil.
Economists at Goldman Sachs suggest that in a worst-case scenario, where the Strait of Hormuz is completely blocked for a month, oil prices could rise by up to $15 per barrel – although this could be partially offset by increased supply through other routes. The OPEC+ producers’ cartel has already signalled a modest increase in quotas.
This new rise in oil prices comes at a difficult time for policymakers, just when many thought they had finally defeated the dramatic rise in inflation that followed the resumption of supply chains after the Covid pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Central banks usually “overlook” short-term supply shocks, such as temporary increases in oil prices, but some of them – including the Bank of England in the United Kingdom – remain concerned about rising inflation.
The probability of an interest rate cut at the bank’s next meeting on 19 March fell to 69% on Monday morning from around 80% last week amid the risk of further price rises.
In addition to the effects of more expensive oil, economies in the Middle East – including Dubai, for example – that have promoted themselves as attractive destinations for global tourism and business may find it difficult to maintain their image after images of the Iranian attacks were broadcast around the world.
But, assessing the damage on Monday morning, economists said the vital question for the global economy was whether oil prices would continue to rise and how long that rise would last.
“The duration of the shock matters as much as its magnitude,” said Neil Shearing, chief economist at the consulting firm Capital Economics. “If prices recover over the next few months — either because the conflict calms down or because producers increase output to compensate for any disruption — then the impact on inflation in developed markets is likely to be modest and short-lived.”
However, if oil prices rise to $90-100 per barrel and remain at that level, inflation in developed markets would be up to 0.8% higher than expected, central banks might be forced to start raising interest rates again, and consumers would be affected, which would slow economic growth.
This is certainly not the scenario Trump wants, but few would bet that this unpredictable conflict will end soon.
Pete Hegseth sets the tone for Trump’s politically incorrect war against Iran
In a combative press conference, the Pentagon chief avoided questions about the objectives of the American military operation in Iran
Andrew Roth in Washington
Monday, 2 March 2026, 19:49 CET
Let Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News anchor who now runs the Pentagon, redefine the massive US-Israeli military operation in Iran as an act of resistance against political correctness: the first regime change war of the Maga era.
In a combative press conference at the Pentagon on Monday, Hegseth brought his anti-PC ethos to bear in defending exactly what Donald Trump said he didn’t want: to involve the US in a major intervention in the Middle East with no clear exit strategy.
But this will not be like the wars of the previous generation, Hegseth insisted. Operation Epic Fury is being conducted “on our terms, with maximum authority” and without “our traditional allies wringing their hands and clutching their pearls, hesitating and procrastinating over the use of force.”
When it comes to war, the Trump administration is a descendant of the US’s endless wars in the Middle East. Both Hegseth and JD Vance served in Iraq, and Trump has often prided himself on being a persistent critic of that war.
Vance, in particular, has been an indicator of the administration’s tendency to lean toward military action, warning in an interview with the Washington Post against “overlearning the lessons of the past.” Just because a president failed in a military conflict doesn’t mean we can never engage in military conflict again.
As of Monday, both Hegseth and Trump himself had said they did not rule out sending troops on the ground — leaving open the possibility of an expanded mission, despite their assertions that they are not in Iran to facilitate a democratic transition, much less to engage in “nation building.” And Israeli attacks in Lebanon, as well as Iranian ballistic missile attacks across the region and the deaths of four members of the US military, indicated that the war could escalate into a regional conflict.
But Hegseth was convinced that this time things were different.
“It’s not Iraq. It’s not endless. I was there in both cases,” he said. “Our generation knows better, and so does this president. He called the last 20 years of nation-building wars a mistake, and he’s right. This is the opposite.”
The real problem, Hegseth suggested, was not that the US had been drawn into a protracted war in the Middle East under the false pretext of eliminating a global threat. This weekend, senior administration officials said the US must attack Iran because its ballistic missiles pose an “intolerable” threat and that Iran is preparing for a pre-emptive strike. (In briefings to Congress, Trump administration officials did not suggest that an attack was imminent, and Israel has publicly stated that it started the war because of an “operational opportunity” to kill Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader).
But the administration has learned different lessons from the Iraq war. Hegseth indicated that the rules and objectives that dictated military action in Iraq were the real problem: too focused on democratic transition, too restrictive in allowing the US to intervene with maximum force. This time, he said, there would be no “stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy-building exercises, no politically correct wars.”
What the US really needed was a leader with fewer rules, with the ability to act as he pleased and without a code to prevent him from doing so.
“What [Trump] has shown he can do, and what other presidents don’t seem to have the ability to do — Joe Biden didn’t even know what he was doing — is to look for opportunities, exits and escalations for the United States that create new opportunities to execute what we need on our own timeline,” Hegseth added, without giving a firm timeline for when US troops might declare mission accomplished.
Trump’s ever-changing rhetoric has left observers confused about the US plan in Iran. In the last 48 hours, the president has told reporters in phone calls that the war could last a few days or that he intends to continue for four weeks, that the US has identified several potential successors to Khamenei and that, in fact, the initial attacks killed them all.
But this press conference — the first held by an administration official in more than 48 hours since the conflict began — did not address any specifics. It was background music to show that the administration was defiant, while Hegseth avoided direct questions about the US timeline for leaving Iran, whether the US would send troops on the ground, and what Trump would consider to be the achievement of US objectives.
When asked by NBC News whether the administration would stick to the four-week timeline suggested by Trump himself, Hegseth called it “a typical NBC question.” Then, he said, it could take two weeks, four weeks or six weeks.
“We are fighting to win and we are not wasting time or lives, as the president warned, an effort of this magnitude will include casualties. War is hell and always will be,” Hegseth added.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/02/pete-hegseth-trump-iran-military
France will increase its nuclear arsenal and European cooperation on armaments, says Macron
French president says Paris could deploy nuclear-capable fighter jets in countries such as Germany and Poland
Jon Henley European correspondent
Monday, 2 March 2026, 20:41 CET
France will increase the size of its nuclear arsenal for the first time in decades and significantly step up nuclear weapons cooperation with eight European allies, including Britain, as part of a “major reinforcement” of its deterrence doctrine, Emmanuel Macron said.
Amid growing concern among European leaders about the US’s wavering commitment to help defend the continent, the French president said on Monday that Paris could deploy nuclear-capable Rafale fighter jets to partner countries such as Germany and Poland.
However, he specified that there would be no sharing of decision-making on the use of the country’s nuclear weapons, with the “final decision” remaining the responsibility of the French president and the “definition of [France’s] vital interests” also remaining “sovereign”.
In a speech delivered at the Île Longue nuclear submarine base in Brittany, Macron said that the “period of geopolitical turmoil, fraught with risks” meant that France, the EU’s only nuclear power, must strengthen its deterrent power “in the face of multiple threats”.
Modernising the country’s arsenal was “essential,” Macron said, adding that he had decided to order an increase in its size. France’s estimated 290 nuclear warheads, a number that has not changed since 1992, constitute the fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world, after Russia, the US and China.
“My responsibility is to ensure that our deterrent force maintains – and will maintain in the future – its guaranteed destructive power,” said the French president, who is the supreme commander of the country’s armed forces.
He added that France would not specify how many nuclear warheads it has in its arsenal or how many it intends to add, and that this increase is necessary to maintain it. “This is not an arms race,” he insisted.
“It is essential that our adversaries, or combination of adversaries, cannot even contemplate the possibility of striking France without the certainty that they will suffer damage from which they will never recover.”
Members of the French navy await Macron’s arrival at the nuclear submarine base in Crozon, France, on Monday. Photo: Yoan Valat/EPA
Macron cited Russia’s war against Ukraine, which entered its fifth year last month, China’s expanding military power and recent changes in US defence strategy as reasons why Europe must take more direct responsibility for its own security.
Announcing the “gradual implementation of what I would call ‘advanced deterrence’,” Macron said France must now “consider our deterrence strategy within the European continent, with full respect for our sovereignty.”
In unspecified circumstances, French “strategic assets” could be deployed in other European countries, he said, referring to France’s nuclear-capable Rafale aircraft. Discussions on enhanced cooperation have already begun with the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden and Denmark, he added.
The new model would allow France’s strategic deterrent force to be “spread across the European continent” to “complicate the calculations of our adversaries,” Macron said. The doctrine could also involve “the conventional participation of allied forces in our nuclear activities,” he added.
Bruno Tertrais, deputy director of the French think tank FRS, said Macron’s speech was “the most important update of French nuclear deterrence policy in 30 years” and a “significant step forward.”
Donald Trump’s rapprochement with Russia over the war in Ukraine and his tougher stance towards traditional US transatlantic allies have shaken European governments, which have long relied on the US to deter potential adversaries.
Macron’s long-planned speech went ahead despite the escalating conflict around Iran because “the violence in the Middle East shows the importance of France’s power and independence in dealing with growing threats,” a French official said.
Macron has previously proposed mutualising France’s nuclear arsenal, including at last month’s Munich Security Conference, where he said a “rearticulation” was needed to reflect Europe’s “special cooperation … and common security interests”.
Earlier this month, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he had held “preliminary discussions” with Macron on the nuclear issue. France and Britain also adopted a joint declaration in July on “coordinating” the two nations’ nuclear forces.
France and Germany said in a joint statement on Monday after Macron’s speech that they had set up a “high-level nuclear coordination group” as part of an agreement that they said “will complement, not replace, NATO’s nuclear deterrence.”
The two countries said they “agreed to take the first concrete steps, including Germany’s conventional participation in French nuclear exercises and joint visits to strategic sites, as well as the development of conventional capabilities with European partners.”
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said in a social media post that he was in talks with Paris and European allies on the French proposals, adding: “We are arming ourselves together with our friends so that our enemies never dare to attack us.”
Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson also confirmed Sweden’s intention to participate in the discussions. “Strengthening Europe’s overall defence capability has not been so important since the Second World War,” he said.
Kristersson noted that the talks would take place “in dialogue with the US” and NATO, an organisation Sweden joined in 2024. “As long as Russia possesses these weapons and threatens its neighbours, democracies must be able to deter them,” he said.
China’s two sessions will reveal Xi’s economic and defence plans, as military purge casts a shadow
Top politicians will meet to set growth targets, focusing on technological autonomy amid growing competition from the US
Amy Hawkins Senior China Correspondent
Tuesday, 3 March 2026, 02:44 CET
Thousands of delegates will arrive in Beijing this week for China’s two annual sessions, one of the most important events in the country’s political calendar and a rare opportunity for the global media to see Beijing’s top lawmakers up close.
The two sessions are simultaneous meetings of the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), an advisory body.
Of the two meetings, the NPC, China’s legislature, is more important. It has the power to amend the constitution, appoint people to political positions, enact laws and approve the budget. In 2018, the NPC amended China’s constitution to remove term limits for the president, and in 2023, the NPC elected Xi Jinping to an unprecedented third term in office.
However, in modern China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is more powerful than any state body, and the NPC is, in fact, an automatically approving parliament that has never voted against any item on the agenda. The real decisions are made by the CCP in separate meetings.
Nevertheless, the opening of the CPPCC on Wednesday and the NPC on Thursday will be full of pomp and solemnity. The NPC is the forum where the government publishes its annual activity report, presenting its objectives for the coming year, including the GDP growth target, which this year is expected to fall below 5% for the first time.
But this year’s session is also particularly important because it marks the official launch of the 15th Five-Year Plan, the economic planning document that sets out Beijing’s priorities for 2026-2030.
“These will be two unusually busy sessions,” says Ruby Osman, senior policy advisor at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.
“The two sessions usually tell us what Beijing wants to do in the next 12 months. This year, they will also set out a much broader strategy for navigating a decisive period of geopolitical and technological change,” she says.
Osman added that there is likely to be a “mismatch” between the priorities of the government’s annual work report and the long-term goals of the five-year plan, which “will clarify that Beijing sees innovation capacity — and the ability to protect itself from US pressure — as China’s real structural challenge.”
The period 2026-2030 is a key time frame for China’s strategic goals. Xi wants the military to be capable of launching a successful attack on Taiwan by 2027 and needs a self-sufficient economy that is resilient to potential sanctions to support this scenario. Taiwan is an autonomous island that Beijing claims as part of its territory and has not ruled out using force to “reunify” it with the CCP-led People’s Republic of China.
To this end, the 15th Five-Year Plan is expected to focus on industrial autonomy. China wants to increase its ability to produce the most advanced semiconductors domestically, mitigating the force of US sanctions aimed at curbing China’s technological progress, particularly in artificial intelligence and military applications.
But the spectre of recent high-level purges in the military will loom large over any defence strategy. Xi recently placed his top general, Zhang Youxia, under investigation on suspicion of corruption, a highly unusual move that came after years of growing unrest in the world’s largest military force. A recent article published by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC, found that more than 100 senior officers have been purged or potentially purged since 2022, a number that researchers described as “staggering”.
On Thursday, the NPC leadership announced that it had revoked the NPC membership of nine military delegates, without giving reasons for the expulsions, according to a report published by the Xinhua news agency.
“Xi’s military purges will leave empty seats where senior officers once sat — a stark reminder that political loyalty is non-negotiable and that even high-ranking generals are expendable if they fall out of favour with the supreme leader,” said Neil Thomas, a researcher on Chinese politics at the Asia Society think tank.
Beyond the political intrigue, this year’s two sessions will reveal a series of economic indicators for the coming year. Most important is the annual GDP growth target, which is estimated to be around 4.5% this year, the first time it has fallen below 5%. Analysts say this reflects a shift in Beijing’s priorities towards technological autonomy, even if it comes at the expense of rapid growth.
This may be appropriate for what Beijing sees as an uncertain geopolitical future, particularly with regard to the US. However, China’s domestic problems, such as high youth unemployment and an ageing population, will not be solved by focusing efforts on niche, specialised sectors while other important sectors of the economy, such as real estate, continue to struggle.
Iran boasts of hitting three American and British oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz
Attacks on oil tankers and chain reactions in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz
Attacks claimed by Iran
Iran has declared, through the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), that it has launched missile attacks on three oil tankers flying the American and British flags or operated by companies from the United States and the United Kingdom ( ) in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz area. This information was broadcast through Iranian media channels and news agencies.
The motivation behind the attacks
In an official statement, IRGC representatives said that the commercial vessels targeted were considered “violators” of Iran’s national interests. The attacks were justified as a response to military operations carried out by the US and Israel in the region, according to Al Jazeera.
Lack of official confirmation and unclear details
To date, the US and UK authorities have not officially confirmed the attacks on the oil tankers. There is no clear data on the extent of the damage, the exact location of the incidents or any casualties.
Rumours about the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier
For nearly an hour, information circulated on social media that the American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln had been hit. The US Central Command quickly denied these rumours, stating that although missiles had been launched, they did not endanger the aircraft carrier, which continues to carry out its missions, including launching aircraft towards targets in Iran.
Security measures for maritime transport
The global shipping company MSC has decided to take precautionary measures, instructing all ships in the Persian Gulf area or heading towards this region to take shelter in designated areas until further notice. In addition, MSC has suspended all cargo bookings to the Middle East globally.
Monitoring the situation and communicating with customers
MSC has stated that it is closely monitoring developments and working with the relevant authorities to ensure the safety of its operations. Bookings to the Middle East will resume as soon as the security situation improves. The company’s customers will be promptly informed of any alternative ports for unloading cargo if the situation requires further adjustments to operations.
The information in this article is in the public interest and is obtained from open public sources.
Maritime Security Forum
Navantia and Fincantieri have signed a memorandum of understanding for the European patrol corvette project
Spanish shipbuilder Navantia and its Italian counterpart Fincantieri have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to jointly coordinate and execute the European Patrol Corvette (EPC) project.
The EPC is an important initiative within PESCO, being one of the most ambitious European actions in the field of defence. The project is supported by the European Defence Fund (EDF) through the Multimission Patrol Corvette (MMPC) programme. The main goal is to design and develop a modern, modular, multifunctional and interoperable corvette.
The project is coordinated by Italy, Spain, France and Greece, involving an extended consortium of 46 companies from 12 European countries. This pan-European collaboration provides diverse expertise and resources to achieve the EPC’s ambitions.
The EPC is currently in its first phase, known as Call 1, which was approved by the EDF in 2021. This phase aims to finalise the certified design and build a prototype platform for each of the two planned versions: the combat vessel, with full multifunctional capabilities, and the patrol vessel, intended for long-range operations.
In the 2023 call, the EDF allocated €154 million for the second phase (Call 2) of the EPC project. This will allow the design process to continue and the prototyping of the corvettes to begin.
Maritime Security Forum
The Belgian army has succeeded in capturing a Russian tanker from the Shadow Fleet in the North Sea for the first time
The Belgian armed forces seized the Russian-linked tanker Ethera in the North Sea in a coordinated operation with France, marking Belgium’s first direct action against Moscow’s shadow fleet. This move reflects the intensification of European sanctions aimed at limiting revenues from Russian oil.
The Belgians, supported by the French authorities, intercepted and detained the Ethera, escorting it to the port of Zeebrugge for official detention under EU sanctions. The operation, codenamed “Blue Intruder,” involved troops inserted from NH-90 helicopters to quickly secure the ship and prevent sabotage.
Ethera is on the EU and US sanctions lists due to its involvement in Russian energy exports and complex transnational connections that make it part of the shadow fleet. The action highlights Belgium’s ability to carry out risky maritime missions and signals Europe’s commitment to enforcing economic sanctions with credible force. France’s involvement underscores NATO interoperability in managing hybrid threats.
The seizure extends pressure on the financial infrastructure supporting Russia’s military efforts in Ukraine and may increase systemic risk for maritime operators. At the same time, Belgium is turning sanctions compliance into a strategic demonstration, testing both the legal resilience of EU restrictions and European political will to combat opaque transport networks.
Maritime Security Forum
Does the war in Ukraine mark the return of the tank?
The military technological revolution and the limits of static defence in modern conflicts
The importance of developing anti-missile and anti-drone platforms
The development of sophisticated anti-missile and anti-drone platforms could reintroduce manoeuvre warfare in Ukraine — and modern warfare planning in general.
Lessons from the past: the Spanish Civil War as a testing ground
It is difficult to find a more challenging work than Mine Were of Trouble, Peter Kemp’s memoir of his service with General Francisco Franco’s Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War. While the Soviet-backed Spanish Republic enjoyed media sympathy and the support of most international volunteers, the Nationalists (backed by Nazi Germany) emerged victorious after a long and painful conflict.
Kemp points out that the war served as a testing ground and incubator for new technologies and tactics – as in many other “proxy wars” between great powers. In the case of Spain, the label “proxies” requires some nuance: the Nationalists were not initially anyone’s proxies, but ended up collaborating with Germany out of necessity, as their opponents were receiving massive support from Moscow. Thus, the conflict provided an opportunity to assess what works and what does not on the battlefield.
The Germans, called in by Franco, used the conflict to perfect aerial bombing – notorious in Guernica – and to develop tools and tactics that would later become essential to Blitzkrieg-type offensives. A relatively small number of German tanks and bombers, used with maximum efficiency, broke through Republican lines at strategic points, facilitating rapid advances behind them.
Military revolutions often happen quietly, but the success of German tactics did not go unnoticed by the German high command. However, it is unclear whether future adversaries learned the right lessons. France’s persistence in relying on the Maginot Line shows that these lessons were not really assimilated.
Static defence and the risks of over-reliance. The modern army relies too much on static defence
The current situation is not entirely different from the past. Europeans are now focusing on creating “drone walls”. However, this strategy can be dangerous: static or quasi-static defence is relatively easy to identify, study and neutralise through proper planning, technological innovation and tactical flexibility. Even organisations such as Hamas – which operate complex underground supply chains – have managed to identify and disable Israel’s high-tech defences around Gaza. Although it took years of infiltration and surveillance, they exploited the weaknesses in the system. The attack on 7 October demonstrates that static technological defences, while useful, cannot replace a prepared population, constant vigilance, anticipation of enemy intentions, and rapid reaction forces in reserve.
The role and limitations of static defence
Static defence certainly has its role: it is relatively inexpensive, can delay the adversary and adds operational complexity. However, the decision to rely almost exclusively on static defence risks being a major mistake. When this defence is overwhelmed or saturated, it becomes essential to have a reserve of manoeuvrability to respond to surprises. In addition, as the experience of Ukraine has shown, the whole of society must be prepared and armed to resist invasion, create delays and limit the effectiveness of the invading forces.
Maritime Security Forum
President Macron has announced that France intends to expand its nuclear arsenal
Expansion of the French nuclear arsenal: decision and context
President Emmanuel Macron has officially announced that France will increase its nuclear arsenal, citing heightened international geopolitical risks. The announcement was made during a visit to a military base housing ballistic missile submarines, highlighting the strategic role of these capabilities in the national defence system.
The motivation behind the decision
Emmanuel Macron justified his decision by citing the fundamental responsibility to guarantee France’s deterrent capability. He stated that maintaining and strengthening nuclear power is an essential condition for the security of the state, especially in the current context of increased geopolitical tensions.
France’s position within the European Union and globally
France is the only nuclear power within the European Union, with approximately 290 nuclear warheads. In terms of arsenal, France ranks fourth in the world, behind only Russia, the United States and China. According to SIPRI and FAS data, Russia has 4,309 warheads, the US has 3,700, and China has 600.
Maritime Security Forum
Some leaders in the Trump administration and the Pentagon are concerned that tensions with Iran could escalate uncontrollably: Report
Trump administration and Pentagon concerns about conflict with Iran
More and more members of the Trump administration, as well as officials within the Pentagon, are expressing serious concerns about the possibility that a US attack on Iran could spiral out of control. They fear that the operation could lead to a dangerous de tion of US air defence stocks, according to reports in The Washington Post, which cites sources close to the situation.
Tense atmosphere and uncertainty
One of the publication’s interlocutors described the atmosphere within US institutions as “intense and paranoid,” highlighting the high level of stress and uncertainty among the personnel involved.
Duration of the conflict and implications for stocks
Another source pointed out that there are fears about the duration of the conflict, estimating that the operation could last much longer than a few days. They mentioned that many have not fully realised the implications for defence stocks, which could be significantly affected. Estimates indicate a duration of up to six weeks for the operation, while previous statements by President Trump suggested a period of four weeks or even less.
Maritime Security Forum
Risks to underwater infrastructure and methods of protection
Vulnerability of critical underwater infrastructure: recent developments and risks
Incidents in the Baltic Sea and off the coast of Taiwan have highlighted the fragility of critical underwater infrastructure (CUI) in the face of attacks or interventions by malicious actors. Although threats to such infrastructure have existed for a long time, the growing importance of underwater assets to the global economy requires greater attention to be paid to identifying risks and formulating appropriate responses. There is now greater awareness of the strategic role of this infrastructure and the nature of the risks it faces, but solutions to mitigate the dangers are still under development.
Although underwater infrastructure is generally hidden from public view, it comprises a variety of assets that support daily economic activity. CUI includes three main categories of infrastructure located on the seabed:
- Submarine communications cables: These are the successors to copper telecommunications cables and now form a global network of submarine fibre optic cables, handling huge volumes of data and providing global, regional and national communications.
- Submarine power cables: These insulated copper cables facilitate the interconnection of national and regional electricity grids and create essential links to offshore wind farms, contributing to the transition to green energy.
- Oil and gas pipelines: These networks connect production fields to end markets, often over long distances, and are vital for the transport of energy resources.
Critical underwater infrastructure is installed, owned and operated by both public and private entities, which can lead to duplication, redundancy and a lack of standardisation. The location and nature of this infrastructure increase its exposure to attacks and disruptions, with the lack of significant physical protection and its extension into isolated areas making surveillance difficult. Furthermore, the concentration of infrastructure in key nodes, such as land entry points, provides opportunities for hostile actors to cause disproportionate disruption with major financial costs. For example, the explosions of the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022 generated direct costs of over EUR 1 billion.
A history of risk and attacks
Attacks on submarine infrastructure have a long history. During the First World War, Imperial Germany and the British Empire sought to disrupt and disable their opponents’ submarine telegraph cables. British control of the seas was decisive, and the destruction of the German network limited communications and exposed these links to interception, contributing to the decryption of the Zimmermann telegram, which hastened the US entry into the war. Later, NATO’s interception of Soviet submarine cables during the Cold War provided valuable intelligence.
Although hostile attacks on CUI are a permanent risk, they do not pose the most significant threat. A RAND Corporation study shows that 40% of known disruptions are caused by fishing and 15% by natural factors such as storms. However, recent incidents have demonstrated the potential for malicious interference, such as the cutting of underwater cables connecting Taiwan’s Matsu Islands to Formosa in February 2023, in the context of the presence of Chinese ships. In Europe, the Baltic region has suffered significant disruptions since the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war. Towards the end of 2024, the disruption of the BCS East-West Interlink, C-Lion1 and Estlink 2 cables was attributed to hybrid warfare actions sponsored by Russian intelligence services, although there is no definitive public evidence of hostile intent.
CUI vulnerability to hybrid warfare and ‘grey zone’ actions
The vulnerability of critical underwater infrastructure (CUI) is illustrated by the increase in incidents that fall within the so-called “grey zone” or hybrid warfare. In this context, actions such as deliberately cutting a cable under the pretext of an “error” – such as “accidentally” dragging a commercial ship’s anchor – or damaging a pipeline for supposedly unknown reasons, can be easily masked by plausible deniability. The damage caused and the resulting disruption may be disproportionate to the effort expended, and the direct consequences often remain limited. Moreover, the international legal framework, including maritime law, has failed to keep pace with these dynamics, leaving uncertain ground for preventive action outside territorial waters. A telling example is the November 2025 decision of the Helsinki District Court, which found it impossible to prosecute the crew members of the ship involved in the Estlink 2 incident due to jurisdictional limitations stipulated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Low-level actions, which fall into a grey area and are committed by state-sponsored actors, have the potential to cause significant damage, but they do not represent the full range of threats to CUI. Rapid developments in accessible technology, such as unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs), raise new prospects: terrorist groups or criminals could target underwater infrastructure for their own purposes. At the other end of the spectrum, the possibility of a large-scale attack on CUI as part of a phase preceding conventional military conflict cannot be ruled out. For example, the activities of the Russian Navy’s oceanographic research vessel RFS Yantar for Project 22010, focused on mapping underwater communications cables in European waters and beyond, provide the information necessary for potential attacks. In December 2025, General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, British Lord of the First Sea, highlighted in the Financial Times Russia’s investments in underwater research infrastructure, including deep-sea submersibles, thereby increasing the risk to critical UK cables and pipelines. Here too, the legal capacity to counter such surveillance activities, carried out outside territorial waters, is extremely limited.
Collaborative responses and international initiatives
Awareness of the risks to CUI has led to a rapid intensification of action at both national and cross-border level, particularly in Europe, where the risks are particularly acute. The European Union has focused its efforts at the policy level, while NATO has taken concrete steps: in February 2023, a Strategic Coordination Cell for Critical Underwater Infrastructure was created in Brussels, followed in May 2024 by the establishment of the Maritime Centre for Critical Underwater Infrastructure Security, with a more operational approach, at the headquarters of NATO’s Allied Maritime Command (MARCOM) in Northwood, near London. This centre functions as a networking and knowledge hub focused on CUI, supporting MARCOM commander decisions, force deployment and coordination of relevant actions.
The Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), led by the United Kingdom and also based in Northwood, also plays an important role in CUI protection. JEF brings together ten NATO members from the Nordic, Baltic and North Sea regions, providing a rapid reaction force and resources to deter and respond promptly to incidents, thus complementing NATO activities. In 2023 and 2024, the JEF increased its focus on CUI protection by organising dedicated exercises – such as the optional JEF NORDIC WARDEN response exercise in 2024, which involved ships and aircraft from JEF participants, covering CUI from the North Atlantic to the Baltic Sea.
Beyond Europe, CUI protection remains a national responsibility, even though the interconnected nature of the infrastructure would call for a common approach. However, events in Europe have generated global awareness. For example, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has included measures in the ASEAN Digital Plan 2025 to increase the resilience of submarine cables and facilitate transnational repairs. At the same time, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) – Australia, India, Japan and the US – launched the Quad Partnership for Cable Connectivity and Resilience programme at its summit in May 2023, aiming to strengthen CUI protection. It remains to be seen to what extent this initiative will withstand potential shifts in international political orientation.
Developing practical capabilities for the protection of critical underwater infrastructure (CUI)
The above analysis highlights that, in Europe, there is already an advanced strategy for a collaborative approach to threats to critical underwater infrastructure (CUI). However, the effectiveness of this response depends on complementing the strategic dimension with the acquisition of appropriate equipment, which is essential for identifying and managing hazards.
Improving surveillance and monitoring
A key requirement is to increase the surveillance capacity of infrastructure, which covers vast areas and is often located in isolated and hostile areas. To meet these challenges, various technological solutions have been implemented or are under development:
- Use of satellite imagery to monitor potentially hostile surface vessel activity;
- The use of unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) for remote surveillance of the seabed;
- Installation of fixed sensors for rapid detection of anomalies.
Technological progress is rapid. For example, in November 2024, Thales and FEBUS Optics signed an agreement to integrate distributed fibre optic sensing (DFOS) technologies into the BlueGuard sonar system, facilitating acoustic monitoring along the entire length of CUI segments.
Downsizing technologies and integrating unmanned platforms
An important direction is the miniaturisation of sonar technologies for their integration into unmanned platforms. In December 2025, SEA was awarded a contract to supply KraitArray systems to Liquid Robotics for installation on USV Wave Gliders. These compact sonars offer high-quality acoustic performance, enhancing the ability of autonomous platforms to provide information relevant to CUI protection.
Specialised surveillance vessels
Advanced monitoring is complemented by the acquisition of specialised surveillance vessels that can deploy and support new technological equipment. RFA Proteus, introduced by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in 2023, exemplifies this trend. Its ability to operate diverse underwater vehicles gives the UK the ability to deter and respond effectively to underwater threats. Other European countries, such as Denmark, have recently announced similar plans to increase regional response capabilities.
Integrated approach and operational concepts
Although progress is notable, the development of appropriate operational concepts for CUI protection is still necessary. The vast and dispersed nature of the infrastructure requires an integrated approach that combines:
- Traditional assets (manned ships, submarines, aircraft);
- New technologies (unmanned vehicles, artificial intelligence).
A relevant example is the Royal Navy’s CABOT Project, with two distinct phases:
- Atlantic Net: Interim capability, based on unmanned vehicles and AI for acoustic analysis, allowing manned resources to focus on other missions.
- Bastion Atlantic: Comprehensive solution, integrating manned and unmanned ships, submersibles and aircraft (including Type 26 platforms, P-8A Poseidon, Type 92 ASW USV and Type 93 “Chariot” UUV).
The project has the potential to expand to regional allies, such as Norway, due to strategic cooperation and the acquisition of similar platforms.
Resilience and repair capability
Although the CABOT Project is still in its early stages, it is clear that underwater infrastructure will remain an attractive target for hostile actors. Thus, resilience and rapid repair capabilities are becoming essential components of defence. The availability of specialised transport for repairs can be a major constraint in responding to concerted attacks. In this regard, the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on National Security Strategy has recommended the acquisition of a sovereign cable repair vessel by 2030.
Effective information sharing and cooperation with private sector owners of critical infrastructure are vital, as is aligning builders and operators with national interests. The United States, for example, has taken steps to prevent Chinese companies from dominating the installation of submarine cables amid fears of espionage.
Specialised vessels for CUI surveillance
In the context of intensifying threats to critical underwater infrastructure (CUI), several navies have begun to introduce specialised surveillance vessels. These vessels are designed to enhance the monitoring and protection of strategic infrastructure, representing a direct response to the complexity and diversity of current risks. A relevant example is the RFA Proteus, a British vessel that entered service in 2023, highlighting ongoing efforts to strengthen the defence of critical infrastructure. [Copyright Crown 2023]
Conclusion
Analysing recent developments in threats to CUI, it can be seen that the world is entering a new phase marked by amplified and increasingly varied risks. Although the danger is widely recognised and coordinated measures are being taken at European level to prevent and combat these challenges, the development of innovative technologies and operational concepts remains essential. These efforts offer the prospect of significant advances in surveillance and detection, but success depends on an integrated approach that goes beyond simple command and control operations to also involve commercial and legal areas. The challenge remains substantial, and continuous efforts are needed to ensure the effective protection of critical underwater infrastructure.
Maritime Security Forum
Understanding China’s National Security Decisions
An introductory guide for US policymakers
In October 2020, Chinese officials became concerned that the US military might provoke a war as part of an effort to influence the 2020 US presidential election. Although these concerns about a US attack had no real basis, the scale of China’s fears became so strong that it prompted senior US officials to assure them that no attack was being prepared.
This October 2020 incident highlights the difficulty and importance of understanding the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) perceptions and national security decisions. A deeper understanding of the PRC’s decisions by the US would allow for more effective competition and contribute to greater stability in the US-China relationship. However, understanding China’s decisions can be challenging, and the United States has frequently encountered difficulties in the past. Without strategic empathy—understanding a rival’s perspectives, motivations, and constraints to inform and improve one’s own decisions—it is much harder to anticipate a competitor’s actions and identify opportunities to influence its decisions.
This paper presents an introductory guide for US policymakers on decision-making regarding China’s national security, describing a basic framework that identifies three universal elements (information, analysis, and authority) that shape how governments make policy decisions. The authors map this framework to China’s national security decision-making ecosystem, drawing on historical examples to illustrate recurring dynamics. These basic elements help identify patterns in China’s decision-making process and prompt American decision-makers to consider what Chinese decision-makers are likely to know, how they will interpret available information, and who in the system makes which decisions.
Understanding China’s National Security Decisionmaking: file:///C:/Users/lears/Downloads/RAND_PEA3715-1.pdf
Source: here
Greece deploys IDE frigates and F-16 fighter jets to defend Cyprus from Iranian drones and missiles
Greece has deployed the FDI frigate FDI HN Kimon, the Hydra-class frigate Psara, and two F-16 Block 52+ fighter jets to Cyprus to establish a layered air and maritime defence posture. This move strengthens deterrence in the Eastern Mediterranean, as drone and missile threats related to regional escalation increase the risk to Cypriot territory and allied facilities.
Greece is sending two front-line frigates and a pair of F-16 fighter jets to Cyprus to immediately add a layered air and naval defence screen as drone and missile threats expand in the eastern Mediterranean. This move places Greece’s advanced sensors, electronic warfare systems, and rapid-response interception capability at the western approaches to the island, where recent alerts and confirmed strikes have underscored how quickly regional escalation can translate into direct risk to Cypriot territory and allied facilities. Athens’ decision signals that it now treats the Cypriot theatre as an operational perimeter requiring active protection and integrated command coordination, rather than symbolic solidarity.
Kimon’s Aster SAMs and modern radar provide wide-area tracking and interception against aircraft, cruise missiles and drones. Psara adds point defence with Sea Sparrow missiles, Phalanx CIWS, a 127 mm gun and CENTAUR EW for UAV detection and jamming. F-16 Block 52+ fighter jets extend the patrol and interception range (Image source: Greece and French Ministry of Defence).
This deployment takes place in the context of increasingly widespread confrontation dynamics related to US and Israeli strikes against Iran and the growing number of drone incidents across the wider Levant corridor. Cyprus is within operational reach of long-range, one-way attack UAVs and cruise missile trajectories originating from multiple axes in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. The warning interval for such threats can be dramatically compressed, especially against low-signature systems flying at low altitude. For Greece, the consolidation of Cyprus serves both as an advanced defence and as a deterrent signalling that Athens will not allow security vacuums to emerge on the island.
Athens has deployed the FDI HN Kimon frigate and the Hydra class frigate Psara, along with two F-16 Block 52+ fighter jets from the Hellenic Air Force. The selection reflects a deliberate overlap of top-tier area air defence, combat-proven escort capabilities, electronic counter-UAS capability, and responsive air power.
Kimon represents the most advanced surface combat aircraft currently entering Greek naval service. As part of the FDI HN programme, the ship integrates a modern active electronically scanned array radar system capable of simultaneously tracking multiple air and surface threats at extended ranges. Its combat management system is designed for network-centric operations, enabling sensor fusion, cooperative engagement and real-time data exchange with allied assets. The frigate’s vertical launch system provides significant magazine depth for Aster family surface-to-air missiles, enabling sustained air defence operations against both conventional threats and high-speed missiles.
In the context of Cyprus, Kimon functions as an advanced air defence node. Positioned west of the island, it can extend radar coverage over maritime approaches, detect low-altitude threats earlier than land-based systems, and coordinate engagements with fighter aircraft. Its advanced electronic warfare suite adds resilience against jamming and deception tactics, while also contributing to the detection of UAV control signals and emissions. The ship’s architecture allows for future upgrades, ensuring adaptability to evolving drone and missile technologies.
Psara complements Kimon with a proven platform optimised for multi-threat environments. With a displacement of approximately 3,350 tonnes and capable of speeds up to 30 knots, the Hydra-class frigate is equipped with layered weaponry, including a 127 mm Mk 45 naval gun, Phalanx close-in weapon systems, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and a 16-cell vertical launch system for Sea Sparrow class interceptors. This configuration provides credible point and area air defence while maintaining anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare capabilities.
What makes Psara particularly relevant to the current mission is the integration of the CENTAUR counter-drone system. This Greek-developed electronic warfare capability combines passive detection sensors with active jamming functions designed to disrupt UAV command links and navigation systems. In drone-saturated environments, the ability to neutralise threats electronically before consuming expensive missiles is operationally decisive. It conserves interceptor inventories while maintaining defensive coverage against massive UAV attacks at low cost. Previous Psara deployments in high-risk maritime areas have validated this approach under real operational conditions.
The deployment of two F-16 Block 52+ fighter jets adds the flexibility and speed necessary for dynamic air defence. Powered by the F100-PW-229 engine and equipped with advanced radar and targeting systems, these aircraft are capable of conducting combat air patrols, rapid interception missions and visual identification of ambiguous tracks. Conformal fuel tanks extend their range, allowing sustained patrols over and around Cyprus without frequent refuelling.
Tactically, fighter aircraft extend the defended footprint beyond radar horizons on ships. They can intercept hostile drones or aircraft before weapon launch, escort high-value transport or evacuation flights, and provide additional airborne early warning when integrated with naval and land-based sensors. The synergy between frigate-based radar tracking and fighter-based engagement capability forms a distributed air defence network with improved reaction time and engagement flexibility.
Greece’s deployment serves several purposes. First, it strengthens deterrence by signalling that Cyprus is integrated into a broader Greek defensive framework capable of rapid reinforcement. Second, it bolsters NATO’s southeastern flank at a time when instability in the Middle East risks spilling over into the eastern Mediterranean. Third, it demonstrates Greece’s growing ability to project modernised naval and air assets beyond its immediate territorial waters, reflecting the broader modernisation trajectory of the Hellenic Armed Forces.
The combination of Kimon, Psara, and F-16 aircraft is well suited to counter the specific set of threats facing Cyprus: low-cost drones, potential cruise missile trajectories, and ambiguous air trajectories in congested airspace. Kimon provides high-performance detection and engagement depth, Psara provides cost-effective resilience against UAS and escorts, and fighters provide speed, discrimination and flexible response.
If regional tensions escalate further, the deployed resources provide credible defensive depth capable of absorbing and mitigating a sustained drone campaign. If tensions stabilise, the mission will nevertheless have served as a real-world validation of Greece’s emerging integrated air and maritime defence architecture. In either scenario, Athens has chosen to deploy not symbolic forces of presence, but operationally relevant combat systems designed to defend airspace, secure maritime lines of communication, and strengthen deterrence in a theatre increasingly defined by drone warfare and the dynamics of rapid escalation.
Source: here