标签： Asia

In a series of recent public announcements that have dominated Iranian domestic political discourse, top military and political figures have formally cemented a fundamental shift in the country’s long-standing military doctrine, moving from a historically defensive posture to an active, offensive strategy targeting U.S. military assets across the Middle East. This policy shift follows a key leadership reshuffle ordered by new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who appointed six new senior military commanders to replace officers killed in recent strikes carried out by Israel and the United States. While low-level discussions of a potential doctrine change had circulated for months, the new appointments have pushed the topic to the forefront of national media coverage and public debate.

Brigadier General Alireza Sheikh, deputy commander of Iran’s regular army, outlined the new strategic framework to reporters this Wednesday, pointing to recent cross-border strikes on bases belonging to Kurdish opposition groups as a tangible example of the new approach in action. Dismissing former U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent political statements as empty bluffs designed to mislead Iranian public opinion and disrupt strategic planning, Sheikh emphasized that the updated doctrine allows Iran to respond proportionally to threats and, critically, to take pre-emptive action when necessary. “This marks a clear evolution from our previous purely defensive posture to a doctrine centered on deterrence through proactive action,” Sheikh explained.

Weeks before the army’s official announcement, Mehdi Mohammadi, a senior advisor to Iran’s parliament speaker, had already previewed the new strategy, citing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) unprompted strike on U.S. military bases in Jordan on July 29 as proof of the policy change. “Iran no longer confronts its adversaries according to the old rules of engagement,” Mohammadi stated. “Surprise, rapid strikes targeting enemy sensitive infrastructure are now core components of our national war strategy.” He also rejected widespread speculation of an unwritten ceasefire between Tehran and Washington, tied to ongoing bilateral talks mediated by Oman over navigation governance in the Strait of Hormuz. “Over the past week, many analysts assumed that ongoing Omani-mediated talks would leave Iran unwilling to take action unless attacked first,” Mohammadi noted. “Events on the ground have proven that calculation completely wrong.”

The Omani-mediated talks, which aim to establish a new navigation oversight mechanism for the strategically critical strait, are unfolding against growing pressure from Iran’s powerful conservative and ultraconservative political blocs. These factions are pushing for Tehran to leverage its geographic control over the Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly 20% of the world’s traded oil passes — as a economic and military weapon against the U.S. and its regional allies. On Tuesday, Tehran’s principlist mayor Alireza Zakani, a former IRGC member with close ties to the country’s conservative establishment, reiterated calls for abandoning all talks with the U.S. and weaponizing the strait immediately. “If America wants to enjoy unimpeded access to the Strait of Hormuz, it must pay appropriate compensation,” Zakani argued. “If Qatar wants to use this waterway, it must release our frozen sovereign funds. Tightening access to this vital route will force Europe to think twice before imposing new sanctions on Iran.”

Leading conservative outlet Resalat Daily doubled down on this position in a recent front-page report headlined “The Drawn Sword of Hormuz in Iran’s Hand”, arguing that the strait should not return to the pre-attack status quo that existed before recent U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets. The publication framed a potential closure of the strait as a fully proportional response to repeated military aggression from the U.S. and what it called the “Zionist regime”, as well as the ongoing U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports. In its conclusion, the report stressed that unchallenged Iranian control over the waterway must be maintained permanently: “This drawn sword must always remain in Iran’s hands, so that peace and security are guaranteed through strength, not through begging.”

Not all Iranian political analysts and public figures support the new offensive doctrine and conservative push to weaponize the strait, however. Majid Tafreshi, a prominent independent political analyst and researcher of contemporary Iranian history, drew a parallel between today’s domestic political tensions and the period leading up to Iran’s 1988 acceptance of UN Resolution 598, which ended the eight-year brutal war with Iraq. Backed by Western military and intelligence support, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Iran’s oil-rich southern provinces in 1980, starting a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands of people on both sides before Iran agreed to a ceasefire in 1988 under the leadership of founding Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini. Tafreshi criticized hardline factions pushing for open, continuous conflict with the U.S. today, noting that identical factions pushed to continue the war with Iraq long after it became clear that a negotiated end was in Iran’s national interest.

Tafreshi also pushed back against the hardline portrayal of legendary Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani — who was assassinated in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad in 2020 — as a figure who exclusively favored military confrontation. This popular narrative among hardliners contradicts Soleimani’s actual political record, Tafreshi argued. “Even Qassem Soleimani believed in dialogue and negotiation. He was first and foremost a diplomat who only took up arms when no other option remained,” he explained. “Yet some factions have reinvented him as a fictional action hero — a Rambo, Zorro, or Spider-Man who solves all problems exclusively through war.”

As the debate between factions over how to confront the U.S. and Israel drags on, leaving the country stuck in a prolonged “neither war nor peace” status quo, reformist-leaning outlet Sazandegi Daily has sounded the alarm over growing economic harm inflicted on ordinary Iranians by the U.S. naval blockade. The outlet’s recent on-the-ground reporting found that cargo activity at Shahid Rajaee Port, Iran’s largest maritime import and export terminal, has plummeted in recent weeks, leaving the facility far quieter and emptier than at any point in recent memory. If the blockade continues, the report warned, the impact will soon reach household kitchen tables, with store shelves quickly running out of essential imported goods.

While Iran shares extensive land borders with neighboring states that can be used to import goods, the report noted that overland transport is exponentially more expensive and time-consuming than maritime shipping, a cost difference that will disproportionately harm working-class Iranian households. “Store shelves are the last place a supply crisis becomes visible to ordinary people,” the report concluded. “The first warning signs appear much earlier, along the waterfront, among idle cranes, empty berths, and missing containers. If cargo does not arrive today, that absence will show up on Iranian dinner tables in just a few months.”

Fresh controversy has erupted over Western intelligence credibility and regional security tensions in the Middle East, with Iran publicly accusing the United States of repeatedly making catastrophic decisions driven by flawed and unreliable intelligence—including the full-scale war Washington launched against Tehran. The accusations come amid new reporting that confirms Central Intelligence Agency analysts themselves dismissed as unconvincing an Israeli warning that claimed Iran planned to assassinate former president Donald Trump during his NATO summit visit to Ankara, Turkey, yet the unsubstantiated tip still triggered a dramatic emergency security operation.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi laid out the country’s criticism in a post on the social platform X Thursday, arguing that Washington has a long track record of dangerous miscalculations rooted in systemic intelligence failures. “Worse than fake news is fake intelligence,” Araghchi wrote, adding that recent U.S. moves in the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz amount to “an even bigger miscalculation” than past errors.

The new details of the flawed intelligence tip were first broken by Middle East Eye and later confirmed by The Washington Post. Turkish national security officials, for their part, have privately labeled the Israeli warning a deliberate ruse, crafted to derail ongoing diplomatic negotiations between Turkey and Iran, according to the reporting. Israel passed the unvetted intelligence to the CIA, but agency analysts concluded the claim lacked credibility and explicitly warned senior Trump administration officials of its low reliability. Despite that internal assessment, the warning still prompted an urgent security scramble: Trump was secretly moved from his scheduled aircraft to an alternate military plane on the Ankara tarmac and flown out of the country immediately. Trump has since publicly confirmed the operation, saying he simply followed the guidance of his security detail.

Beyond the intelligence dispute, conflicting claims over control of the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most vital global energy chokepoints, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s daily oil supplies pass—have amplified regional tensions. Just one day after Trump claimed the U.S. holds “total control” over the waterway, Hossein Taeb, commander of the Basij paramilitary unit linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, pushed back sharply on the assertion. “Today you see that the Strait of Hormuz is under the management and control of the Islamic Republic, and our country continues on its path in complete security,” Taeb stated, according to Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency. “The Americans saw the power of the Islamic revolution,” he added.

In a separate rebuke of Western powers, Araghchi also called out France and other European governments for what he described as blatant hypocrisy on human rights. These nations have repeatedly condemned Iran’s response to domestic anti-government protests, he noted, while offering unwavering support to Israel amid its military campaign in Gaza that Iran and many other global actors have labeled a genocide. “Countries like France should stop lecturing the world about ‘human rights’ and international law. The hypocrisy is blatant and embarrassing,” Araghchi wrote. “Your backing of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and aggression against Iran, has destroyed whatever moral high ground you imagined you had.”

Separately from the regional diplomatic clashes, a separate controversy has emerged over the prolonged deployment of the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which has been deployed to the Middle East for nine consecutive months, with 250 straight days spent at sea without a port call—marking the longest uninterrupted deployment of any modern U.S. aircraft carrier. The carrier was redirected from planned exercises in the South China Sea to the Middle East in late January, as the Trump administration built up its military footprint ahead of launching its war on Iran. In recent weeks, reports of unacceptable living and mental health conditions aboard the vessel have sparked bipartisan concern in Washington.

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal has publicly demanded answers from U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Navy leadership over the deteriorating situation. “The Trump Admin must explain what they are doing to support sailors on the USS Abraham Lincoln who have been continuously at sea for nearly 7 months,” Blumenthal wrote on X. “Widespread reports of supply shortages, plumbing issues, deteriorating mental health & more demand immediate attention.”

Military media outlets including Navy Times and Stars and Stripes have documented the severity of the crisis, reporting that multiple sailors have already attempted to jump overboard as harsh conditions and unrelenting psychological pressure pushed crew members to their breaking point. Stars and Stripes also shared the account of one military spouse, who told officials her husband had sent her a message saying “he hopes he doesn’t wake up tomorrow.” More than 5,000 sailors and Marines are currently assigned to the vessel, and military family advocacy groups and members of Congress have repeatedly raised alarm over the prolonged deployment’s impact on personnel wellbeing.

An investigation by independent news outlet Middle East Eye (MEE) has uncovered that the UK Charity Commission has issued formal regulatory advice to the trustees of London’s Edgware United Synagogue, after the charitable venue hosted a real estate event in June that advertised properties in illegally built Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories.

The controversy first came to public light on June 15, when MEE published its initial report revealing that units in illegal Israeli settlements were promoted as part of the Great Israeli Real Estate Event, held at the synagogue one day prior. After the report was published, event organizers acknowledged that the promotion of settlement properties did occur, but claimed the incident was an accidental oversight.

Hours after MEE’s publication, the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) – a UK-based legal organization focused on Palestinian rights – filed a formal complaint with the UK’s national charity regulator. The complaint called for an urgent compliance investigation into the synagogue over its role in hosting the event, arguing that the charity had allowed both its premises and institutional resources to be used for a commercial activity that promoted properties in territory widely recognized as illegally occupied. The filing emphasized that organizers and the synagogue had already been notified of serious legal, regulatory and reputational risks tied to promoting settlement properties before the event went ahead. The complaint stated that by allowing the event to proceed, trustees linked the synagogue’s charitable status and reputation to illegal activity that violated UK regulatory standards for charitable organizations.

On July 28, the Charity Commission issued its formal response to the complaint, a copy of which has been viewed by MEE. In its response, the regulator confirmed that it had reviewed all evidence submitted, held discussions with the synagogue’s trustees, and ultimately issued formal regulatory advice and guidance under Section 15(2) of the 2011 UK Charities Act. This section of legislation grants the commission authority to issue binding, formal guidance to charity trustees to ensure future compliance with charity law. The commission noted that trustees are required to incorporate this guidance into their future decision-making, and confirmed that the case is now formally closed. The regulator also thanked ICJP for bringing the issue to its attention.

In an interview with MEE, an ICJP spokesperson acknowledged that the commission’s action sends a clear signal to UK charities that they cannot dismiss credible legal warnings over the use of their premises or resources to support activities tied to illegal Israeli settlements. However, the organization also criticized the regulator for stopping short of opening a full statutory inquiry, arguing that the response was insufficient given the severity of the incident. The spokesperson noted that while the guidance requires all UK charity trustees to conduct more thorough legal due diligence, assess regulatory and reputational risks, and prevent charitable assets from being used in ways that violate legal obligations, the commission failed to take the robust action needed to uphold charity law and maintain public trust in the UK charitable sector. ICJP believes the gravity of the conduct should have warranted stronger regulatory intervention.

MEE has reached out to Edgware United Synagogue requesting comment on the commission’s decision, and had not received a response at the time of publication. The controversy extends beyond the charity investigation: in June, UK’s then-Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper announced that government ministers had asked the UK Advertising Standards Authority to open its own separate investigation into the Great Israeli Real Estate Event.

Multiple Israeli developers and real estate firms participated in the June event, openly advertising units in settlements universally recognized as illegal under international law. Israeli developer Harey Zahav promoted projects in Kfar Eldad, an illegal settlement located south of Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank, and Teneh Omarim, another illegal settlement near Hebron. Leading Israeli agency Tivuch Shelly included listings for the illegal West Bank settlement of Ma’ale Adummim in its event brochure, marketing a new development as just 10 minutes from Jerusalem. Another firm, Jerusalem Real Estate, advertised projects in French Hill and Ramat Eshkol, both illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem.

In a landmark confirmation issued Thursday, Turkey has for the first time publicly announced its participation in a newly formed multinational maritime security coalition tasked with protecting unimpeded navigation in the strategically critical Red Sea. This formal commitment marks a tangible deepening of cooperation between Ankara and Riyadh, coming just one week after the two nations signed a landmark trilateral defence agreement with Pakistan during a summit held in Mecca.

Turkey’s Ministry of National Defense laid out the step-by-step progression of coordination on the initiative in an official public statement. The process began with a technical working session hosted in Riyadh on July 28, focused specifically on safeguarding free passage through the Bab al-Mandab Strait— a chokepoint that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and handles roughly 10 percent of global traded goods. That initial discussion was followed by a high-level meeting of the three nations’ joint chiefs of staff on July 30, the statement confirmed. On the same day Turkey issued its formal confirmation, a new coordination meeting focused on finalizing the coalition’s structure was underway in Jeddah, with Turkish representatives in attendance.

The defence ministry emphasized that ongoing collaborative work with Saudi authorities is centered on two core goals: de-escalating long-running tensions across the broader Gulf region and guaranteeing that global trade flows through the waterway remain uninterrupted. The trilateral security pact signed last week between Ankara, Riyadh and Islamabad includes binding collective security commitments, meaning an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. Multiple diplomatic sources based in Ankara told Middle East Eye that the Red Sea coalition is set to be the first major area where the new Turkey-Saudi security partnership is put into practice.

Saudi Arabia first announced the formation of the 13-nation alliance last month, a response to rising security threats in the region. The move came shortly after Yemen’s Houthi movement declared a maritime blockade targeting Saudi shipping in mid-July, a move that disrupted oil shipments that had been rerouted through the Red Sea following temporary disruptions at the Strait of Hormuz. In addition to the three founding trilateral pact members, the coalition counts Bahrain, Bangladesh, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Somalia and Yemen as participating members. The headquarters of the new security alliance will be based in Riyadh, the Saudi capital.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a bombshell new report released Thursday, the Trump White House has laid out detailed claims that dozens of nations are facilitating a widespread scheme to route exports through third-party countries to evade steep U.S. import tariffs, with annual losses to American tax revenue estimated between $19 billion and $26 billion. The report places a sharp focus on China, which the administration says adjusted its trade practices after the 2018 introduction of sweeping U.S. tariffs by shifting goods to a network of intermediate countries stretching from North America’s Mexico to Southeast Asia’s Malaysia for basic packaging and limited assembly. This so-called transshipping practice created a misleading statistical picture that showed declining U.S. direct imports from China, while allowing Beijing to keep expanding its manufacturing sector in a pattern that the administration argues threatens U.S. factory output and domestic manufacturing employment. White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told reporters during a press conference call that China routes its tariff-evading exports through more than 40 different countries, though he emphasized the report’s core critique centers on third-party nations enabling the evasion, rather than solely blaming China. “For years, the great transshipment scam has let communist China launder its exports,” Navarro said in prepared comments during the call. The release of the high-stakes report comes just weeks ahead of a planned September visit to the U.S. by Chinese President Xi Jinping, an encounter that comes after Donald Trump spoke glowingly of Xi during Trump’s own 2025 trip to Beijing earlier this May. While Chinese officials have repeatedly framed the U.S.-China bilateral relationship as one rooted in “strategic stability,” the Trump administration’s report argues that Beijing’s state-backed export policies for manufactured goods have created economic disruptions for key industrial sectors across North America, Europe, Japan and other major global economies, including the U.S. auto, metals, and electronics industries. Beyond China, Navarro noted that other major economies including India have also been linked to transshipping practices designed to dodge U.S. tariffs. He added that all new trade frameworks negotiated by the Trump administration will now include strict enforcement provisions that impose meaningful penalties on trade partners that tolerate or facilitate tariff-evading transshipment. The Trump administration has imposed broad, high tariffs on imported goods from most major trading partners over its term, applying the import taxes equally to long-standing U.S. allies and strategic rivals alike to protect domestic manufacturing. Independent economic analysts have noted that these tariffs have simultaneously created new, sustained inflationary pressures for American consumers that have offset some of the economic benefits for domestic producers. The White House report draws on both government and private sector trade data to produce a wide range of estimates for the total annual value of transshipped goods, putting the figure somewhere between $34.2 billion and $303 billion per year. To calculate the projected annual tax revenue loss, analysts used a midpoint estimate of $75 billion in annual transshipped goods. To counter the practice, Navarro confirmed that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has already launched a prototype detection program that leverages artificial intelligence to identify false origin declarations. When an importer is caught falsifying a product’s country of origin, the agency can apply retroactive tariffs to all of the entity’s imports dating back 12 months. The Trump administration’s tariff policies have faced a cascade of legal challenges during its second term, with the U.S. Supreme Court striking down several unilateral tariff orders back in February. Despite persistent criticism of the policies, the administration points to shifting trade data as a sign of progress: the U.S. still runs a global trade deficit, but the 2025 year-to-date deficit of $371 billion is roughly $189 billion lower than the deficit recorded during the same period one year prior.