分类： politics

South Korea’s former president Yoon Suk Yeol, who was removed from office earlier this year following an abortive martial law declaration, has received a 30-year prison sentence alongside his ex-defense chief Kim Yong Hyun over a scheme to inflame cross-border tensions for domestic political gain. The Seoul Central District Court delivered the verdict Friday, finding the pair guilty of orchestrating a 2024 drone operation over Pyongyang that prosecutors say Yoon ordered to escalate hostilities with North Korea and create a pretext for his authoritarian power grab.

The full written text of the court’s ruling has not been released to the public as of Friday. This conviction comes on the heels of an earlier life sentence handed down by the same court for Yoon’s conviction on rebellion charges tied to his short-lived imposition of martial law in December 2024. That initial verdict, which saw prosecutors push for the death penalty, is already the subject of appeals from both Yoon’s legal team and prosecution services.

The charges stem from three separate drone incursions over Pyongyang in October 2024, which North Korea publicly accused South Korea of launching to scatter anti-regime propaganda leaflets. At the time, then-Defense Minister Kim issued an unclear initial denial before the Defense Ministry adopted a position of neither confirming nor denying the allegations. The incident sent inter-Korean relations spiraling, though it did not escalate into open military conflict between the two neighbors.

Special prosecutor Cho Eun-suk, who led the investigation into the plot, had requested a 30-year sentence for Yoon and 25 years for Kim, who was described as a close confidant of the ousted president that helped plan and deploy forces for the December martial law declaration. Prosecutors argued the drone operation was a deliberate gambit to manufacture a crisis on the Korean Peninsula, clearing the way for Yoon to oust political opponents and consolidate sole control of the South Korean government.

Yoon’s legal team has harshly condemned the latest verdict, defending the drone flights as a proportional response to a wave of trash-laden balloons North Korea sent across the inter-Korean border earlier in 2024. The defense team has argued that the guilty verdict ultimately undermines South Korea’s national security interests, though they have not yet announced whether they will launch an appeal of the new sentencing.

Yoon’s controversial martial law declaration unfolded in the late hours of December 3, 2024, when the sitting president delivered a national televised address labeling opposition liberal lawmakers as “anti-state” forces sympathetic to Pyongyang. Yoon justified the extraordinary measure by pointing to a series of political grievances, most notably the opposition-controlled legislature’s successful impeachments of senior administration officials and cuts to his government’s proposed budget.

The emergency order lasted only six hours before opposition lawmakers were able to break through a military and police blockade at the National Assembly building and pass a unanimous vote to invalidate martial law. The result forced Yoon’s own Cabinet to reverse the declaration hours later. Yoon was immediately suspended from office, impeached by the legislature, and formally removed from power by the Constitutional Court in the months that followed. He was taken into custody in July 2025, and multiple criminal trials related to the December 2024 crisis remain ongoing.

In a series of incendiary comments posted to Truth Social and shared during a Fox News interview on Thursday, former President and current U.S. Commander-in-Chief Donald Trump doubled down on threats of expanded military action against Iran, announcing that intensified strikes would launch the same night and openly floating a plan to seize Iran’s critical Kharg Island to take control of the country’s oil and gas markets— a move that military and geopolitical analysts widely agree would require a sustained ground troop deployment.

In his Truth Social post, Trump claimed Iran’s entire naval, air, radar and air defense networks, alongside the vast majority of its offensive military capacity, had already been destroyed, writing that the U.S. would strike the country “VERY HARD TONIGHT”. The announcement came after days of ongoing U.S. strikes that have already targeted Iranian military infrastructure and accidentally damaged two water reservoirs, cutting off access to clean drinking water for roughly 20,000 Iranian civilians.

Kharg Island, the linchpin of Iran’s crude oil export network that handles approximately 90% of the country’s total crude exports, has become a repeated target of Trump’s rhetorical aggression amid soaring global oil prices, triggered by Iran’s retaliatory blockade of the Strait of Hormuz following the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli coordinated war against the country. The current energy price shock has driven U.S. inflation to its highest level in more than three years.

“At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets, much like we have with Venezuela, which is working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America,” Trump wrote in his post. During his subsequent Fox News interview, he doubled down on this framing, explicitly tying the proposed seizure to economic gain for the U.S., echoing his earlier rhetoric about the 2019 Venezuelan intervention, where he stated the goal of U.S. action was to “get the oil flowing” to American energy corporations.

“My preference has always been to take Kharg Island,” Trump told Fox News. “I don’t know that America has the stomach for it, to be honest with you. You’d make a fortune…. We did it with Venezuela. Venezuela’s worked out great for everybody. We’ve taken millions and millions of barrels of oil out of Venezuela. We’ve brought them to Houston and various other places, Louisiana. Refineries that we have that are incredible, they’ve gone 24 hours a day. Making a fortune.”

Despite this brazen framing, Trump acknowledged that recent national polling shows a strong majority of U.S. voters oppose expanded military action against Iran, and admitted he was unsure the country “has the appetite” for a ground invasion of Kharg Island. According to a May 2026 survey conducted by the Institute for Global Affairs, just 18% of U.S. adults support deploying ground troops to seize and hold the island, a policy that even a majority of Republican respondents oppose. Administration plans for a potential Kharg Island invasion were first drafted as early as March, but were shelved after U.S. military officials warned of the risk of massive American casualties, particularly after Iranian forces laid extensive anti-personnel and anti-armor mines across the island in preparation for a potential assault. Even with widespread public opposition, Trump maintained Thursday that the invasion would move forward if he chooses to approve it, saying it is “a guarantee if I want to do it.”

Geopolitical risk experts have uniformly panned the proposal as reckless and strategically senseless. Brett Erickson, managing principal of Obsidian Risk Advisors and a leading expert on sanctions and global geopolitical risk, called the plan “grim and stupid.” Erickson noted that Iranian oil exports through Kharg Island have already dropped to nearly negligible levels amid ongoing conflict and blockades, with just one cargo vessel loaded at the terminal over the past five weeks. He added that as a fixed, stationary target, the island would face constant drone and missile attacks from Iranian forces even after a U.S. seizure. “We would likely, in the absolute best case, lose hundreds of lives,” Erickson said. “Worst case? Well into the thousands. Would it change anything about the war? No. It literally would not matter. The only thing to be gained is a lot of Americans dying for an oil export hub that is not being used, and that is blockaded anyway.”

Reactions from Capitol Hill have been deeply divided, with most top Republican leaders declining to embrace the plan. House Speaker Mike Johnson, when asked by reporters about Trump’s threats, downplayed the proposal, suggesting Trump was merely sending a strategic message to adversaries and adding “I would not put too much stock in the details of that right now.”

The proposal does have support from high-profile Republican war hawks, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has been credited with pushing Trump to launch the current war against Iran at Israel’s behest. Graham, who has previously compared seizing Kharg Island to the World War II Battle of Iwo Jima — a conflict that left more than 26,000 U.S. troops wounded or killed — praised Trump for raising the idea Thursday, thanking the president for “going the extra mile to obtain a diplomatic solution to the Iranian conflict.”

Democratic lawmakers have pushed back hard against the threat, arguing that an invasion of Kharg Island without formal congressional approval would be a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution. “American troops would die during the invasion,” said Rep. Ted Lieu of California. “And then every day Iran would try to kill more American troops on Kharg Island.” Last week, Lieu joined four House Republicans and all House Democrats to pass a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block Trump from continuing military action against Iran without explicit congressional authorization. Following Trump’s latest threats, Lieu called on the Senate to immediately take up and pass the House-passed resolution.

BANGKOK – Thailand’s Bureau of the Royal Household has confirmed the passing of Princess Bajrakitiyabha Mahidob, the eldest child of King Maha Vajiralongkorn and a prominent advocate for justice reform, at the age of 47. The royal announcement, released Friday, states that the princess died Thursday evening at a Bangkok hospital, where she had received continuous medical care since collapsing from an unexpected illness three years prior.

Born in December 1978, when her father still held the title of crown prince, Princess Bajrakitiyabha built a long professional career rooted in law and public service. After completing undergraduate legal studies at Thailand’s top Thammasat University, she pursued advanced degrees at Cornell University Law School in the United States, earning a master’s in 2002 and a doctorate in 2005. Her doctoral research centered on protecting the legal rights of accused individuals, laying the foundation for her lifelong work in criminal justice reform. In recognition of her contributions, academic institutions later established Cornell Law School scholarships and a Thai-U.S. legal scholar exchange program in her name.

Following a short stint at Thailand’s permanent mission to the United Nations in New York, Princess Bajrakitiyabha returned to her home country to work as a public prosecutor. She later returned to diplomatic service, serving as Thailand’s ambassador to Austria between 2012 and 2014, before stepping back from diplomatic roles to refocus on domestic justice initiatives. In 2017, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime named her a global goodwill ambassador, and she also took on an honorary role advocating to end gender-based violence and improve outcomes for women caught up in the criminal justice system.

Her most enduring legacy is the Kamlangjai or “Inspire” project, a groundbreaking initiative designed to support the rehabilitation and reintegration of incarcerated Thai women into society after release. Her advocacy on this front ultimately pushed the United Nations General Assembly to adopt the landmark “Bangkok Rules,” a global framework outlining standards for the treatment and care of female prisoners. In a 2013 interview with the Associated Press, the princess emphasized her core belief that equitable justice and the rule of law are foundational to national progress. “Society cannot grow if there is instability and injustice,” she said. “Without the rule of law, without a good justice system, it’s always chaos. I think the rule of law is a very important pillar to development, to economic growth, and of course to human rights.”

Princess Bajrakitiyabha first fell ill in December 2022, when she lost consciousness while training dogs for a royal army exhibition. The palace later confirmed she had contracted a mycoplasma infection, a bacterial illness most commonly linked to pneumonia, that required immediate hospitalization. Limited official updates on her condition in the years following her admission fueled widespread concern among the Thai public. The 2023 royal New Year greeting card, which showed King Maha Vajiralongkorn and Queen Sithida dressed in formal black attire, was widely interpreted by Thais as a signal that her health was severely declining, and subsequent statements confirmed a gradual deterioration of her condition.

As the king’s eldest child, Princess Bajrakitiyabha’s decades of public service sparked widespread speculation about her potential future role in Thailand’s monarchy. Under current Thai succession rules, male heirs hold priority, making her younger half-brother Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti the current presumptive heir to the throne. Even so, many political analysts and royal observers long believed that her extensive experience in public affairs positioned her to take on a key role in future royal leadership, potentially serving as regent if the young prince ascended the throne early.

Princess Bajrakitiyabha is survived by her father King Maha Vajiralongkorn, her mother Princess Soamsawali, and her siblings.

A broad coalition of UK medical associations representing more than 13,000 frontline and specialist healthcare workers is demanding the British government immediately suspend implementation of a controversial set of proposals born from a review of antisemitism and racism in the National Health Service (NHS), arguing the measures disproportionately target and silence pro-Palestine speech among staff.

The review, led by the UK government’s antisemitism advisor Lord John Mann, was formally endorsed last week by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). Its key recommendations include mandatory antisemitism training for all 1.5 million NHS employees, a blanket ban on political symbols being displayed in the workplace, and a prohibition on staff attending political protests while wearing NHS uniform.

In an official response submitted to the government this Thursday, the coalition — which counts multiple associations representing Muslim, Middle Eastern, and South Asian healthcare professionals among its members — has raised grave alarms over the process that shaped the review. In an exclusive statement shared with Middle East Eye (MEE), the coalition warns that the Mann review’s proposals to address racism are being pushed forward without any meaningful consultation with affected communities or consideration of established empirical evidence on racism in healthcare.

MEE has also uncovered new details showing that several medical organizations listed in Mann’s review acknowledgements were never actually involved in developing the final recommendations. The British Islamic Medical Association is among those listed but unconsulted.

Of particular concern to the coalition is the proposed ban on political symbols, which the group describes as a “chilling” overreach that infringes on private conscience and protected lawful speech, falling far outside the bounds of legitimate regulation of professional conduct.

Longstanding NHS workforce data backs up the coalition’s broader critique: it has long documented that ethnic minority NHS staff face consistently higher rates of systemic and interpersonal racism than their white colleagues, a problem critics argue the Mann review fails to address adequately.

Roger Kline, a research fellow at Middlesex University Business School who was commissioned by the UK’s healthcare regulator, the General Medical Council (GMC), in 2018 to investigate the disproportionate representation of ethnic minority staff in fitness-to-practice investigations, shared his exclusive assessment with MEE calling the Mann review a “missed opportunity” to tackle deep-rooted racism across the NHS. Kline went further, arguing Mann was the wrong person to lead the review entirely.

As a Jewish researcher who acknowledges the urgent need to confront antisemitism, Kline argues the review erases the equally pressing crisis of Islamophobia in the NHS, creating a harmful “hierarchy of racism” that elevates one form of hate above others. He emphasized that critical speech targeting the state of Israel does not equate to antisemitism, noting “Lord Mann has been too closely aligned with defending the interests of Israel rather than that of all Jewish people.” Kline rejects the idea that pro-Palestine badges or protest attendance constitute antisemitic activity, dismissing the entire package of proposals as performative, legally vulnerable, and argues the mandated training will be “pointless and counterproductive.” He also revealed that senior NHS leaders privately agree with his assessment but fear professional retaliation for speaking out publicly.

Currently, dozens of NHS doctors are already under active GMC investigation for their pro-Palestine advocacy, including public comments at protests and social media posts. One high-profile case is that of Dr. Ranjeet Brar, a London-based vascular surgeon who was suspended from King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust earlier this year after delivering a pro-Palestine speech at a public demonstration. Brar was arrested over his remarks but ultimately released without charge, yet still faces ongoing GMC investigation. He told MEE he has endured “a long and sustained period of harassment because of my political views,” and has been falsely labeled a racist and antisemite for speaking out against what he describes as genocide in Gaza. Brar has launched a judicial review challenging the NHS and GMC’s use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, a framework that has sparked widespread global debate for its tendency to conflate legitimate criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitic hate. “I’ve exercised my right to free speech. I’ve been cleared of wrongdoing – why should my principles and beliefs be discarded for my ability to work,” Brar said.

Another case highlighting the chilling effect of current policies is that of Dr. Tamara Ali, a general practitioner based in Scotland. Last year, a patient filed a complaint against Ali over a small Palestine flag displayed in her consulting room and a pro-Palestine badge on her work lanyard. Ali was ordered by senior practice leaders to remove both items. “It was the most isolating and anxiety-provoking period of my career. I felt completely unseen,” Ali told MEE. She noted the complaint compared the Palestinian flag to a Nazi symbol and labeled it a terrorist emblem, yet no institutional leadership recognized the complaint itself as racist or Islamophobic. Ali has since filed a legal claim against her former GP practice and NHS Education for Scotland, alleging racial and religious discrimination and unlawful suppression of freedom of expression. “You can ban pins and political symbols, but you can’t ban the moral clarity people have,” she said.

Ali and Brar are co-founders of the campaign group Healthcare Workers Against Censorship, which is pursuing multiple judicial reviews targeting the growing censorship of pro-Palestine healthcare workers. One key target of their legal action is a GMC rule change that would allow the regulator to reopen investigations and reimpose sanctions on doctors who have already been cleared of wrongdoing by the GMC’s own tribunal service. Healthcare workers warn this rule change is specifically designed to target pro-Palestine advocates, pointing to the high-profile case of British-Palestinian surgeon Dr. Ghassan Abu-Sitta. After the GMC’s independent tribunal cleared Abu-Sitta of all accusations of antisemitism and glorifying terrorism, the regulator petitioned the High Court to overturn the acquittal.

Jonathan Fluxman, a retired anti-Zionist Jewish doctor who regularly participates in pro-Palestine solidarity events, told MEE that the Mann review deliberately exaggerates and single out antisemitism for special treatment while ignoring other forms of hate that impact staff. Fluxman, who has been targeted with antisemitic abuse by Zionist activists for his pro-Palestine stance at public demonstrations, argues the British government is weaponizing accusations of antisemitism to crack down on the pro-Palestine movement, in service of its official foreign policy that supports Israel. He points to a clear double standard: just weeks after the October 7 2023 attacks, the DHSC flew the Israeli flag from its headquarters and issued public statements of solidarity with Israel, while the NHS has repeatedly allowed staff to display symbols of solidarity with Ukraine. “They don’t want health workers to speak out about this because we are listened to and trusted by the public, but you can’t be neutral in genocide,” Fluxman said.

Another leading campaign group, Healthcare Workers 4 Palestine, has warned that the Mann review risks “suppressing the NHS’s long tradition of humanitarian advocacy by healthcare professionals” and confirms it is exploring legal action to block implementation of the review’s recommendations.

Thailand’s royal household has confirmed the passing of Princess Bajrakitiyabha, the eldest child of King Vajiralongkorn, who had remained in a coma for more than three years after a sudden health collapse in late 2022. The 44-year-old princess collapsed while out walking her exercise dogs in December 2022, with her medical team later linking the incident to severe cardiac arrhythmia triggered by a mycoplasma infection that had damaged her heart tissue.

In an official statement released Friday morning, the palace confirmed that despite round-the-clock, intensive care administered by a team of top medical specialists, her health steadily declined, and she died at 19:48 local time on Thursday at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn Hospital.

Born in December 1978 as the first child of King Vajiralongkorn and his first wife (and cousin) Princess Soamsawali, Bajrakitiyabha built a widely respected public profile through her legal career, diplomatic service, and advocacy work. A trained lawyer with two advanced graduate degrees from Cornell University in the United States, she began her professional career at Thailand’s permanent mission to the United Nations in New York, before returning home to take up roles in Thailand’s Attorney-General’s Department across various jurisdictions.

From 2012 to 2014, she served as Thailand’s ambassador to Austria, where she cultivated close working ties with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). It was during this period that she began her public advocacy for penal reform, focusing particular attention on the plight of vulnerable women incarcerated in Thailand’s prison system— a country that ranks among the world’s highest for female incarceration rates. After returning to Thailand, she was appointed UNODC’s Ambassador for the Rule of Law in Southeast Asia, continuing her push to reform Thailand’s criminal justice system, which has long drawn criticism for imposing disproportionately harsh sentences on people convicted of minor drug possession offenses.

In 2021, her father appointed her as chief of staff in his personal royal bodyguard unit, granting her the official rank of general. Beyond her public and professional work, Bajrakitiyabha was a known fitness enthusiast who regularly competed in long-distance running events.

Her accomplished career and the visible trust King Vajiralongkorn placed in her made her a central figure in longstanding private speculation around the Thai royal succession. Now 73 years old, King Vajiralongkorn has not formally named an heir. While traditional Thai royal convention prioritizes a male successor, a 1974 constitutional amendment explicitly opens the path for a female monarch to take the throne.

Of the King’s five sons, four from his second marriage were disowned in 1996 and have lived permanently in the United States with their mother ever since. His only remaining son, Dipangkorn, born from his third marriage, is widely considered the presumptive heir, but longstanding public (if unspoken) questions remain about his capacity to fulfill the duties of monarch, a role that carries enormous cultural and political influence across Thailand.

For many loyal Thai royalists, Bajrakitiyabha was seen as the most capable and promising candidate to succeed her father, either as reigning queen or as a regent to support Prince Dipangkorn if he ascended the throne. Her death now leaves the already murky question of royal succession unresolved, with Thailand’s strict lèse-majesté law banning any open public discussion of the future of the monarchy.

Diplomatic friction between the Philippines and China has escalated sharply after Beijing imposed targeted sanctions, including a full entry ban, on Manila’s top defense official over his public criticism of Chinese sovereignty claims in the disputed South China Sea. The development, announced by both sides this week, has cast further uncertainty over already fraught bilateral relations.

Beijing’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed Thursday that Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. and his immediate family are barred from entering mainland China, as well as the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macao. The sanctions also extend to a commercial ban, prohibiting all Chinese individuals and entities from conducting any form of business or transaction with Teodoro and his family. Beijing justified the measures as a necessary step to safeguard its core sovereignty, security and development interests, citing what it calls Teodoro’s repeated “irresponsible remarks” that have undermined Chinese interests.

Appointed to the defense portfolio by Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in June 2023, Teodoro has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of China’s geopolitical actions, both in the South China Sea and regarding the Taiwan question. Last year, he drew particular condemnation from Beijing when he publicly labeled China’s expansive claims to nearly the entire South China Sea “the biggest fiction and lie”, and made critical remarks targeting Chinese President Xi Jinping over what he called Beijing’s “aggressive and illegal” regional policies.

Beyond rhetoric, Teodoro has led major policy shifts to expand the Philippines’ security partnerships to counter Chinese assertiveness. He has overseen a deepening of defense cooperation with the United States, the Philippines’ longstanding treaty ally, including expanding annual joint combat exercises to incorporate joint naval patrols and training drills directly in the disputed South China Sea. He has also spearheaded negotiations for new visiting forces agreements with other like-minded nations including Japan, France, Canada and New Zealand, initiatives he has framed as key to boosting regional deterrence against Chinese expansion.

In response to the sanctions, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs acknowledged Friday that Beijing holds the prerogative to impose such measures, but made clear Manila’s strong condemnation of the move. The department called the sanctions “an unfriendly act that further complicates the bilateral relations” between the two neighboring nations, adding that punitive steps of this kind do nothing to foster mutual trust, support responsible management of existing differences, or create a positive foundation for future constructive diplomatic engagement.

For his part, Teodoro has pushed back against the sanctions and vowed to continue advancing Philippine national interests in the face of Beijing’s actions. In an official statement released after the announcement, Teodoro said he would remain unwavering in carrying out his duties to the Philippines, and argued that the sanctions themselves underscore the nature of Beijing’s approach to anyone who challenges its narrative. “This underscores what they do to those who speak the truth against their deception,” he said.

This is not the first time Beijing has used targeted sanctions against Philippine officials over disputes related to the South China Sea. Last year, China imposed similar measures on former Philippine senator Francis Tolentino, who authored two landmark bills that reaffirmed the Philippines’ sovereign maritime territorial claims and resource rights across its claimed exclusive economic zone, including areas of the South China Sea disputed with China. Those bills were ultimately signed into law by President Marcos Jr. Beijing has also previously imposed sanctions on U.S. and European officials over policy positions it deemed contrary to Chinese interests, including on issues related to human rights.

In a chaotic sequence of diplomatic and military developments roiling US-Iran relations, former President Donald Trump first issued a stark, escalatory threat to seize Iran’s critical Kharg Island oil export terminal this Thursday, only to rapidly walk back the pledge just hours later, acknowledging deep public and strategic uncertainty over the high human cost of such an invasion. The reversal comes amid a broader wave of escalating US military strikes against Iranian targets that have already sparked international outrage and regional pushback for de-escalation.

Trump first made the aggressive announcement via his Truth Social platform on Thursday morning, warning that “The United States will be hitting Iran… VERY HARD TONIGHT.” He went on to claim that in the near future, US forces would take control of Kharg Island alongside other major Iranian oil infrastructure assets, asserting Washington would seize full command of Iran’s oil and gas markets in a move he compared to the US’s previous intervention in Venezuela.

This is not the first time such a drastic plan has been floated: during the opening weeks of the US’s ongoing war against Iran, the Trump administration originally weighed an operation to capture Kharg Island before ultimately abandoning the proposal. Military analysts and former senior defense officials have long warned that any invasion of the strategic island would come with severe risks. When the plan was first considered, former senior US and Western military officials told Middle East Eye that while US forces could likely establish an initial beachhead on Kharg Island, invading troops would face intense defensive fire from Iranian forces while approaching, and would encounter sustained, significant challenges in maintaining control of the territory long-term.

Shortly after his social media post, Trump softened his stance during an interview with Fox News, openly acknowledging the heavy casualty projection that comes with any invasion attempt. “My preference has always been – take Kharg Island…my preference would be that. I don’t know that America has the stomach for it,” he told the outlet.

Military experts echo the assessment that a successful occupation of Kharg Island would face enormous structural hurdles, starting with regional access. Kalev Sepp, a retired US special forces officer and emeritus professor at the US Naval Postgraduate School, explained to Middle East Eye that any US invasion force would rely heavily on base access from neighboring Gulf Cooperation Council states including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. “They can’t do this without neighbouring Gulf states giving them access to bases,” Sepp noted.

Yet Gulf states that once backed US military activity at the start of the war have shifted dramatically in recent months, now prioritizing negotiated diplomacy to de-escalate regional tensions. Even the UAE, long the most hawkish Gulf state toward Iran, held direct face-to-face talks with senior Iranian officials this week aimed at reducing tensions, Bloomberg confirmed Thursday. A Gulf diplomat told Middle East Eye open-source flight tracking on X indicates the high-level meeting was held in Tehran, after an Emirati government plane linked to senior officials was spotted landing in the Iranian capital.

Beyond securing regional basing access, experts say the single biggest strategic challenge for the US would be holding Kharg Island after an initial amphibious or airborne landing. “These forces are very good at securing a foothold because they are extremely light and can move quickly. The moment they become static, they become a target that needs to be protected and supplied,” Daniel Davis, a former US Army lieutenant colonel, told Middle East Eye. “It would be a shooting gallery.”

Trump’s inconsistent rhetoric also underscores a persistent gap between his public claims about Iran’s military capabilities and on-the-ground realities. The former president has repeatedly asserted that Iran’s “Navy, Air Force, Radar, Anti Aircraft, and all other forms of Defense, together with most of its offensive capability, are GONE,” framing a potential battle for Kharg Island as an easy victory. The latest reversal also follows a similar backtrack on another escalatory threat: Trump recently walked back a proposal to attack Iran’s civilian infrastructure, a move widely classified as a war crime under international law. “I’d rather not do it, because once you do that, the people suffer,” he said after publicly threatening to bomb Iranian power plants and bridges.

Despite the rhetorical flip-flop on the Kharg Island invasion, the US has continued to escalate direct strikes against Iranian targets in violation of an April ceasefire agreement reached with Tehran. On Thursday, the US targeted a civilian drinking water facility on Iran’s southern coast, Iranian officials confirmed, leaving an estimated 20,000 local residents without access to clean running water, The New York Times reported. International law uniformly categorizes deliberate attacks on critical civilian infrastructure such as water facilities as war crimes.

In a separate strike Thursday, US forces attacked a commercial tanker transiting the Gulf of Oman, killing three Indian crew members on board. US officials justified the strike by claiming the vessel violated Washington’s blockade of the waterway. Following the attack, Oman launched a search and rescue operation for surviving crew, while the Indian government summoned the US deputy chief of mission in New Delhi to issue a formal protest over the deadly incident.

The escalating strikes come as Trump grows increasingly publicly frustrated that Iran has refused to accept US terms for ending the ongoing conflict. “The whole thing is crazy, and they’re really in submission; they just don’t know it yet,” Trump told Fox News.

Meanwhile, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced new punitive measures against Iran Thursday, vowing to seize frozen Iranian state assets to compensate Gulf allies for damage caused by Iranian retaliatory strikes. Iran has launched retaliatory attacks against Jordan, Bahrain, and Kuwait, all three of which host permanent US military bases, in response to recent US strikes. “Any damage it inflicts on our allies in the Gulf will be paid for with funds extracted from Iranian Accounts,” Bessent wrote on X. He added that “any tolls paid to the Persian Gulf Strait Authority will be offset by funds extracted from their accounts.” The authority is a new Iranian agency established to collect transit fees for vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint that Tehran has effectively closed to most commercial traffic since the early days of the war.

The escalating threats and ongoing military action come as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio prepares for an upcoming visit to Gulf states, with planned stops in Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE, Middle East Eye reported.