标签： Asia

On Thursday, Bloomberg News reported that U.S. Central Command (Centcom) has formally requested authorization from the U.S. Department of Defense to deploy the U.S. military’s highly classified Dark Eagle hypersonic missile system to the Middle East. The request comes amid shifting military positioning from Iran that has outmaneuvered existing American strike capabilities, opening the door for a potential first-ever operational use of the long-delayed advanced weapon against targets deep within Iranian territory, while keeping U.S. deployment platforms well outside the range of Iran’s existing air defense networks.

The impetus for Centcom’s request traces to new intelligence confirming Iran has relocated its ballistic missile launch facilities beyond the strike range of the U.S. Precision Strike Missile, a supersonic surface-to-surface weapon fired from the Army’s High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). With these assets now out of reach of current conventional strike options, U.S. military leaders have turned to the untested Dark Eagle system, which boasts an officially cited range of more than 2,776 kilometers—more than enough to hit targets across Iran from regional deployment positions.

If the request gains approval, this deployment would mark the first operational fielding of the Dark Eagle, a program that has faced years of development delays. The weapon could see active combat use if the Trump administration moves forward with new offensive strikes against Iran. Parallel reporting from Axios on Thursday confirmed that President Donald Trump has already received briefings from Centcom outlining plans for a new round of attacks on Iranian targets. According to Axios’ sources, U.S. military planners have drafted proposals for “short and powerful” strikes focused on key Iranian infrastructure, a move shaped by the ongoing deadlock in diplomatic peace talks between the two sides.

The proposed deployment of the $15 million-per-unit Dark Eagle has already drawn skepticism from defense analysts. Originally designed to counter advanced integrated air defense systems operated by nuclear-armed major powers China and Russia, the weapon is vastly overengineered for the Iranian threat environment, experts note. This mismatch has raised questions about the strategic and financial wisdom of expending one of the U.S.’s limited stockpiles—currently only eight completed Dark Eagle missiles exist, per Bloomberg’s reporting—against a country President Trump has repeatedly publicly described as already militarily defeated.

Despite longstanding claims from the Trump administration that the U.S. maintains unchallenged air superiority across Iranian airspace, a recent incident underscores Iran’s still-functional defensive capabilities: earlier this month, Iranian air defenses successfully shot down a U.S. F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet. At present, direct large-scale combat between U.S. and Iranian forces has paused under a fragile, informal ceasefire, with both sides shifting their focus to maritime pressure campaigns in strategic waterways. The U.S. and Iran have each seized commercial vessels in the Gulf of Oman and Indian Ocean in recent weeks as both seek to assert dominance over the Strait of Hormuz, the critical chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s global oil supplies pass.

Military analysts widely agree that both powers are using the current ceasefire window to rearm, regroup, and reposition their forces for potential future conflict, as diplomatic efforts to reach a permanent end to hostilities remain completely deadlocked. In recent weeks, new reporting has shed light on external military support to Iran: Middle East Eye was the first outlet to confirm that Iran has received advanced air defense systems from China, and a subsequent New York Times report added that Beijing may also have shipped shoulder-fired anti-air missiles to Tehran.

The three-month-long conflict has already taken a significant toll on U.S. military capabilities, multiple official and media reports confirm. The New York Times reported earlier this month that sustained combat operations have drastically depleted U.S. global ammunition stockpiles, forcing the Pentagon to reallocate critical military stockpiles originally positioned for deterrence missions in Asia and Europe to the Middle East. Both offensive and defensive weapons systems have been drawn down, including the same Precision Strike missiles now rendered less effective by Iran’s relocation, as well as Patriot air defense interceptor missiles. On Wednesday, the Pentagon confirmed that direct war costs to the U.S. have already reached $25 billion.

This week, President Trump rejected a proposed peace deal put forward by Tehran that would have addressed non-nuclear disputes first while deferring negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. As the conflict enters its third month, multiple diplomats and analysts speaking to Middle East Eye warn that a lasting negotiated resolution may be out of reach, largely due to the Trump administration’s refusal to offer the sanctions relief that Iran has made a core requirement for any final agreement.

A high-stakes legal battle over the UK government’s effort to reinstate a terror ban on direct action group Palestine Action has drawn public support from more than 1,000 academics, activists and public intellectuals, led by over 100 UK-based law professors who have openly defended their solidarity with the group. When the Court of Appeal opened hearings on the government’s appeal this week, activists delivered a concise seven-word open letter signed by the group to the court: “We oppose genocide, we support Palestine Action.” Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr confirmed receipt of the correspondence and read its text aloud in open court.

In a joint statement emailed to independent news outlet Middle East Eye, seven of the signing law professors laid out their reasoning for the unprecedented public show of support. Coming of age in the decades following the Second World War, the academics emphasized that the post-Holocaust promise of “never again” must carry tangible meaning. As legal scholars, they added, they are bound to defend core principles of the UK judicial tradition: specifically, the long-held right of juries to hear the full facts of a case and deliver acquittals based on independent judgment and conscience, a right they argue is threatened by the blanket ban on the group.

The professors stressed that their support is limited to nonviolent action, framing their backing of Palestine Action as rooted in opposition to what they describe as genocide in Gaza. They noted that the group targets UK-based weapons manufacturers that supply components used in Israeli military operations, and called on all people of conscience to join their stand against the ban.

Beyond the 100+ law academics, the letter counts high-profile public figures among its signatories, including veteran leftist commentator Tariq Ali, philosopher Judith Butler, Irish author Sally Rooney, and climate activist Greta Thunberg.

The legal clash dates back to July 2024, when the UK Labour government designated Palestine Action as a proscribed terrorist organization. The designation criminalizes membership in the group and public expressions of support, with penalties reaching up to 14 years of prison time. In February of this year, a lower court ruled the initial ban unlawful, prompting the government to file the current appeal to reverse that ruling.

Since the ban first took effect, more than 3,000 people have been arrested for challenging the designation, with pensioners making up the overwhelming majority of those detained. Legal representatives for Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori argued this week that the ban has had a disproportionate discriminatory impact on British Palestinians who organize against Israeli military actions in Gaza. They also criticized the Home Office for failing to provide the group with advance notice of its proscription, a step required under the UK’s 2000 Terrorism Act.

James Eadie KC, the barrister representing the Home Office, pushed back against the criticism, arguing that prior notification was unnecessary in this case. He told the court that Palestine Action is a loose, decentralized grouping, creating practical barriers to identifying who should receive formal notice ahead of a ban, and that the court should accept these practical constraints as justification for skipping the requirement.

The proceedings include a controversial closed-door session held this Thursday, during which government lawyers will present classified evidence to judges that will not be made accessible to Palestine Action’s full legal team. While a security-cleared special advocate hired by the group will attend the session to argue on Palestine Action’s behalf, the advocate is barred from sharing any details of the classified evidence or discussion with the rest of the group’s legal team, even though they are employed by the organization.

The Court of Appeal is expected to deliver its final ruling on the government’s appeal in the coming weeks. The outcome of the case will carry major implications for the future of pro-Palestinian advocacy in the UK, as well as for the scope of government authority to designate activist groups as terrorist organizations under counter-terrorism law.

A new partisan firestorm has erupted on Capitol Hill this week after two U.S. lawmakers from opposing parties jointly introduced a congressional resolution that seeks to formally condemn high-profile online political commentators Hasan Piker and Candace Owens over repeated allegations of antisemitic rhetoric. The measure was brought forward by Democratic Representative Josh Gottheimer and Republican Representative Mike Lawler, who level claims that the left-leaning Piker, a leading Twitch streamer, and right-wing podcaster Owens have deliberately amplified dangerous antisemitic narratives across digital platforms, which the pair argue has directly fueled the rising tide of violent attacks targeting Jewish people, community institutions and religious sites across the United States.

According to the text of the resolution, Piker has repeatedly deployed antisemitic language, most notably through public expressions of support for Hamas, the militant group officially designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government. For Owens, the resolution accuses her of circulating toxic conspiracy theories including false claims that Israel exercises complete control over the U.S. federal government, pushing unsubstantiated assertions that ancient Jewish religious texts instruct believers to hate non-Jewish people, and publicly questioning the veracity of testimony from Holocaust survivors.

Piker was quick to push back against the allegations in an official statement provided to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, denouncing the resolution as a cynical bad-faith political maneuver. “They are once again conflating legitimate critics of Israel with actual antisemites,” Piker said. “They would rather complain about fake antisemitism in defense of Israel than call out the real sources of Jew hatred with a full chest.” He added that his entire professional career has been dedicated to combating all forms of bigotry, including antisemitism, and he would not stop this work despite the politically motivated resolution crafted to satisfy partisan donors.

The streamer doubled down on his criticism in a public Instagram Story, calling out Lawler’s history of opposing war powers restrictions. He highlighted that Lawler previously voted against a resolution designed to limit then-President Donald Trump’s authority to launch military conflict against Iran — a measure that ultimately failed to pass — asking rhetorically, “DID THIS DICKHEAD PUSH BACK THE WARPOWERS RESOLUTION TO PUSH THIS INSANE BILL?!” Piker also shared multiple critical posts about the resolution from X (formerly Twitter) to his own audience to amplify widespread pushback against the measure.

As of press time, Owens has not issued any public response to the resolution, and Middle East Eye has reached out to both commentators for additional comment that has not yet been received.

The resolution has sparked widespread backlash across social media, where thousands of users have slammed the initiative as nothing more than performative politics, questioning why elected officials are prioritizing the condemnation of private digital commentators when the country faces multiple pressing national crises. Many critics have argued that congressional condemnation of two private citizens over their speech sets a dangerous precedent for overreach by the federal government. “Yeah Candace and Hasan suck, why does congress need to do this at all though?” one user asked on Reddit, noting that the congressional attention would almost certainly boost the two commentators’ profiles and audience sizes.

Other users echoed the concern over inappropriate government overreach. “Fuck antisemitism, but I think it’s really inappropriate for congress to condemn private citizens like this,” one commenter wrote. “I don’t need nanny state BIG government doing my hating for me,” another added. Many commentators pointed to the nation’s ongoing affordability crisis, with one user posting, “Nobody can afford to eat I don’t give a fuck about what a twitch streamer says in a free country.”

A large portion of the criticism directed at the resolution centers on its conflation of legitimate criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism, particularly in the case of Piker. Many critics have asked why lawmakers are wasting legislative time condemning a private streamer for criticizing Israel instead of condemning what they describe as ongoing genocidal actions by the Israeli government.

Multiple social media users have also highlighted the politically loaded timing of the resolution, introducing it as the U.S. grapples with a severe cost-of-living crisis worsened by the unpopular U.S.-Israeli military engagement in Iran. “You wouldn’t know it, but we’re at war with Iran, gas is hurling towards $5/gallon, and SCOTUS (Supreme Court) just gut the Voting Rights Act,” noted Kyle Blomquist, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress, in a social media post that was widely shared across platforms. Many ordinary Americans echoed this frustration, sharing their own struggles with skyrocketing prices for basic necessities including gas, groceries and housing, noting that lawmakers appear to be ignoring these urgent daily concerns.

Gottheimer and Lawler, both well-known staunch supporters of Israel, have a history of pushing pro-Israel legislation on Capitol Hill. Last year, the pair introduced the International Governmental Organization (IGO) Anti-Boycott Act, a bill that would have effectively criminalized organized boycotts of the state of Israel. That bill was ultimately pulled from consideration in May 2025 after significant backlash from right-wing politicians and independent podcasters who opposed the measure on free speech grounds.

Against a backdrop of escalating diplomatic friction between Paris and Tel Aviv, newly released European Union data confirms that France retained its position as the largest supplier of military export licenses to Israel in 2024, even after Israel officially announced it would cut off future weapons procurement from the European nation.

The official EU statistics, published Wednesday, detail that France approved a total of €362 million (equivalent to $424 million) in arms export licenses for Israel last year. Germany ranked second on the list with $198 million in approved licenses, while Greece followed in third place with $133 million, per the dataset.

Reporting from EUobserver breaks down the composition of France’s 2024 export approvals: most licenses covered military components and defense software, but the shipment totals also include €122 million ($143 million) worth of ammunition and an additional €18 million ($21 million) for explosive ordnance, ranging from bombs and torpedoes to rockets and guided missiles.

This continued high volume of arms exports comes despite a sharp shift in Israel’s official procurement policy toward France. Back in March 2024, the Israeli government announced it would end future state security procurement from France, citing what it described as Paris’ “hostile” policy stance toward the country. Israeli public media incorrectly linked the decision to French support for a United Nations resolution calling for an arms embargo on Israel – a vote that France ultimately abstained from – as well as new restrictions on Israeli defense entities participating in French military trade shows.

According to reporting from The Jerusalem Post, the policy shift does not invalidate existing, previously signed contracts, and private sector firms from both sides remain permitted to finalize new commercial agreements.

Tensions around defense exhibition access boiled over in June 2025, when French event organizers initially barred five Israeli arms manufacturers that specialized in offensive weapons from entering the Paris Air Show. The exclusion prompted immediate pushback from Israeli officials, who levied accusations of antisemitism against French authorities. After extensive diplomatic negotiations, four of the five Israeli companies were ultimately allowed to set up exhibition booths at the event. By November of the same year, all Israeli arms manufacturers were granted full permission to participate in Milipol, France’s major internal security and defense trade show.

The unaligned dynamic – Paris continuing to approve hundreds of millions in arms exports even as Israel publicly cuts procurement ties – highlights the complex, often contradictory nature of EU-Israeli defense relations amid ongoing regional conflict and shifting diplomatic priorities across the bloc.

A shocking antisemitic stabbing attack in a heavily Jewish London neighborhood has ignited a fierce national debate over the future of pro-Palestine protests in the United Kingdom, after the country’s top independent reviewer of terrorism legislation called for an immediate halt to such demonstrations.

The incident unfolded Wednesday afternoon in Golders Green, north London, where two Jewish men — aged 34 and 76 — were stabbed by a suspect wielding a large blade. A 45-year-old Somali-born British national was taken into custody shortly after the attack, and both victims are projected to make a full recovery. The Metropolitan Police confirmed the suspect has an established record of serious violence and documented mental health conditions, and was first referred to the UK’s Prevent counter-extremism program back in 2020. Investigators also noted the attack appears to be linked to a separate altercation that took place in southeast London several hours earlier.

In the wake of the violence, Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of UK terrorism legislation, publicly called for a moratorium on all ongoing pro-Palestine marches during an interview with Times Radio. Hall argued that the current climate has created conditions where these demonstrations inevitably foster antisemitic rhetoric and demonization of Jewish communities. He pushed back against what he described as insufficient government action, saying that offering only statements of solidarity and supporting police investigations is no longer adequate.

“It pains me to say this, but I think we may have reached a point where we need to have a moratorium on the sorts of marches that have been happening,” Hall said, adding that the government must be willing to take bolder action to address rising antisemitism across the country.

Hall’s remarks drew immediate and sharp pushback from the Stop the War coalition, a prominent group that has supported ongoing pro-Palestine demonstrations. The organization condemned the Golders Green attack and all forms of antisemitism and racism unequivocally, but rejected attempts to tie the violence to peaceful pro-Palestine protests. The coalition noted that many Jewish people have participated in the marches themselves, framing the demonstrations as legitimate displays of solidarity with Palestinian civilians caught in the Israel-Hamas conflict, not the “hate marches” labeled by right-wing political figures.

Attempts to criminalize the protests, which reflect majority public opinion on the conflict in the UK, or falsely link them to racist attacks targeting Jewish communities, are scurrilous and must be rejected, the group added.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the Golders Green attack “utterly appalling”, and the UK government announced Thursday it would allocate an additional £25 million to boost security for Jewish communities across the country. This announcement comes amid a documented surge in antisemitic incidents across the UK in recent months: Metropolitan Police has recorded dozens of antisemitic hate crimes, including multiple arson attacks, over the past 30 days alone.

Hall’s call for a moratorium also comes amid ongoing controversy over the government’s sweeping crackdown on pro-Palestine activism. In December, both the Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police announced they would arrest demonstrators for chanting the phrase “globalise the intifada” or displaying it on protest placards; three protesters were formally charged on related offences in January. Pro-Palestine activists have repeatedly denied that the term, which translates from Arabic to “uprising”, is inherently antisemitic or a call for violence, and many British Jews have been visible, prominent participants in pro-Palestine marches across the country.

The debate also overlaps with a separate ongoing legal battle over the government’s designation of direct action group Palestine Action as an illegal terrorist organization. The High Court recently ruled the government’s ban unlawful, and the administration is now appealing that ruling. In his newly released annual report, Hall himself raised significant red flags about the ban, noting it exposed “real uncertainty” over whether non-violent property damage alone should be classified as a terrorist offence.

Hall warned that the broad wording of current UK terrorism law, without clearer legal guardrails, risks drawing legitimate protest activity into terrorism policing — even in cases where there is no intent to harm human life. “There is no legal authority on what ‘serious damage to property’ means,” Hall wrote, noting the vague definition could stretch to encompass minor cases of criminal damage depending on how courts interpret the legal threshold. While Hall argued it would be unthinkable to remove property damage from the terrorism statute entirely, he recommended that lawmakers narrow the legal test, for example by requiring proof of risk to life, a proven connection to national security threats, or explicit exemptions for non-violent protest activity.