标签： Asia

A coalition of over 120 Democratic representatives in the US House has launched a formal inquiry into the Pentagon’s potential deployment of artificial intelligence systems during a controversial airstrike that destroyed an elementary school in southern Iran. The bipartisan group, spearheaded by Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), submitted a detailed letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demanding transparency regarding AI’s involvement in target selection, intelligence assessment, and legal determinations during Operation Epic Fury.

The congressional inquiry follows a New York Times investigation revealing Pentagon investigators had preliminarily concluded US forces were responsible for the Minab school bombing that killed at least 175 people, predominantly children. The lawmakers specifically questioned whether the Maven Smart System—an AI targeting platform—identified the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ school as a potential target, and if so, whether human operators verified its accuracy before authorization.

This development occurs amid confirmed US military utilization of advanced AI tools in its operations against Iran, conducted in coordination with Israeli forces who have extensively employed artificial intelligence in Gaza conflict zones. Admiral Brad Cooper, head of US Central Command, recently publicly acknowledged that warfighters are ‘leveraging a variety of advanced AI tools’ to process vast data streams rapidly, enabling faster decision-making than adversarial capabilities.

NBC News corroborated these developments, reporting the Pentagon’s operational use of Palantir’s AI systems—partially powered by Anthropic’s Claude AI—to identify potential targets. Secretary Hegseth has consistently advocated for integrating artificial intelligence as the cornerstone of American combat operations, while simultaneously dismantling initiatives aimed at reducing civilian casualties and publicly dismissing established rules of engagement as ‘stupid’ constraints.

The Democratic legislators characterized the mass civilian deaths as ‘alarming yet unsurprising’ given the current administration’s demonstrated disregard for legal frameworks governing military engagements. They emphasized that under international humanitarian law, civilian infrastructure including schools and hospitals ‘may under no circumstances be the object of attack’ and must remain protected domains throughout conflicts.

In a landmark legal decision underscoring Australia’s heightened vigilance against foreign espionage, Sydney-based business consultant Alexander Csergo has been found guilty of violating the nation’s foreign interference statutes. The 59-year-old professional was convicted on Friday for supplying intelligence reports to individuals he reasonably should have identified as operatives for China’s Ministry of State Security.

Operating under the pseudonyms ‘Ken’ and ‘Evelyn,’ the suspected intelligence officers established contact with Csergo through LinkedIn in 2021 while he was working in Shanghai as a communications and technology consultant. Posing as representatives of a Chinese think tank, the pair engaged Csergo to produce detailed handwritten analyses on sensitive topics including national defense strategies, security protocols, political developments, and mining sector intelligence.

The prosecution successfully demonstrated that Csergo accepted monetary compensation in exchange for these reports, which encompassed discussions about the strategically significant AUKUS trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This defense agreement involves the provision of nuclear-powered submarine technology to Australia, representing a cornerstone of regional security architecture.

Despite defense arguments claiming Csergo utilized exclusively open-source information and fabricated claims about interviewing high-profile figures including Kevin Rudd (Australia’s former Prime Minister and current U.S. Ambassador), the jury determined the consultant had acted with reckless disregard for national security. Csergo has been released on temporary bail pending sentencing deliberations scheduled for Monday, where prosecutors will seek his immediate detention. The conviction carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.

This case represents only the second successful prosecution under Australia’s 2018 foreign interference legislation, which initially drew diplomatic condemnation from China when enacted. The laws were specifically designed to counter covert influence operations and espionage activities targeting Australian interests.

In a significant strategic repositioning, the United States has initiated the relocation of components from its Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea to reinforce its military capabilities in the Middle East. This decision, confirmed by multiple officials to the Washington Post and South Korean media outlets, comes amid intense hostilities between US-Israeli forces and Iran, now entering its twelfth day.

The relocation follows reports that Iranian strikes have potentially destroyed a critical THAAD radar installation in Jordan—a $300 million asset crucial for ballistic missile detection. Originally deployed to South Korea in 2017 as a deterrent against North Korean nuclear threats, the THAAD system has long been a point of geopolitical friction. Its presence provoked strong opposition from local South Korean communities and drew sharp criticism from China, which viewed the system’s powerful radar as a threat to its regional security and a tool for espionage.

Each THAAD battery, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, represents a substantial investment at approximately $1 billion per unit. The system employs hit-to-kill technology to neutralize short and medium-range ballistic missiles at high altitudes, even beyond Earth’s atmosphere. With only eight operational systems globally—two already stationed in the Middle East (Jordan and Israel)—the redistribution underscores mounting pressure on US missile defense resources.

According to Professor John Nilsson-Wright of Cambridge University, this move indicates the urgent need to compensate for the heavy expenditure of missile defense assets amid Iran’s sustained attacks. Iranian forces have launched over 500 ballistic missiles, straining interception capabilities and raising concerns about inventory depletion.

South Korean President Lee Jae-myung publicly acknowledged his government’s opposition to the withdrawal, stating that while Seoul objects, it lacks leverage to prevent the move. Despite assurances that the relocation won’t undermine South Korea’s deterrence strategy, analysts note unusual diplomatic tension between the allies.

China’s Foreign Ministry reaffirmed its longstanding objection to THAAD deployment on the Korean Peninsula. Although Beijing may perceive the relocation as a favorable development, experts like Professor Ian Chong from the National University of Singapore caution that only permanent removal would constitute a strategic victory for China.

Meanwhile, North Korea remains silent, though observers warn that Kim Jong Un might seize the opportunity to test South Korean defenses with limited provocations. The broader implication, experts note, is whether prolonged engagement with Iran will critically impair the US’s ability to respond to contingencies in other regions, particularly the Indo-Pacific.

The Trump administration is confronting intense bipartisan criticism for its contradictory positions on Iran’s national security threat and the economic impact of rising energy prices. This scrutiny emerges amidst ongoing military engagement with Iran, which has triggered significant global oil market disruptions.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt ignited controversy by directly contradicting earlier administration warnings about Iranian aggression. Leavitt emphatically denied on social media that Iran ever posed a homeland security threat to the United States, specifically refuting reports that Iran might target California with drone strikes. Her statement directly contradicted previous assertions from President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had characterized the Iranian threat as “imminent” and justification for military action.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy highlighted this contradiction, noting the administration’s simultaneous dismissal of Iranian threats while pursuing military conflict that has driven gasoline prices to unprecedented levels. The national average for regular gasoline has surged from $2.94 to $3.57 per gallon within a month, representing a 21% increase directly attributable to the conflict.

The administration’s economic messaging has undergone a remarkable reversal. After campaigning on promises to lower energy prices and end Middle Eastern conflicts, President Trump now asserts that higher energy prices benefit the United States due to its status as a net oil and gas exporter. This position has drawn sharp criticism from conservative commentators and economists, including Trump supporter Peter Schiff, who questioned why the president previously promised lower oil prices if he now believes higher prices are advantageous.

The military action has produced significant geopolitical consequences, with Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz and disrupting approximately 20% of global oil and gas shipments. Despite a historic release of 400 million barrels of emergency oil reserves by International Energy Agency members, Brent crude prices have surpassed $100 per barrel, illustrating the conflict’s substantial impact on global energy markets.

A significant upheaval is unfolding within President Donald Trump’s Religious Liberties Commission as Sameerah Munshi, the sole Muslim woman serving on its advisory board, has tendered her resignation. Middle East Eye has obtained her resignation letter, which states her departure is a direct protest against the White House’s dismissal of anti-Zionist Catholic commissioner Carrie Prejean-Boller from the panel.

The controversy stems from Prejean-Boller’s removal, which she revealed via social media platform X, attributing it to her vocal opposition to Israel’s military actions in Gaza and her anti-Zionist stance, which she insists is not antisemitic. This dismissal followed a widely circulated video from a February commission meeting featuring a heated debate where Prejean-Boller argued that Catholicism and Zionism are incompatible.

In her resignation letter, Munshi powerfully questioned the state of religious freedom, writing, ‘If we are not free in America to abide by our religious beliefs and hold fast to them despite others’ disagreement, then in what country are we free to do so?’ She further leveled serious accusations, claiming certain commission members exhibited hostility and mockery towards the Muslim faith.

The commission’s structure reveals a notable lack of Muslim representation at the commissioner level, the panel’s top tier. All three involved Muslims, including Munshi, held only advisory roles appointed by the administration. Munshi detailed a pattern of isolation that began after she testified in September 2025 about the constitutional right to protest Israel’s actions in Palestinian territories, after which she claims she was no longer provided witness lists before hearings.

The bond between Munshi and Prejean-Boller formed following that testimony, with Munshi describing her as a rare conservative who ‘really respects Muslims.’ Munshi’s resignation is also motivated by the recent U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran, which her letter condemns as ‘unlawful killing of children and civilians.’

Allegations from a Heritage Foundation member suggested Munshi provided Prejean-Boller with talking points, which Munshi firmly denied, explaining she was merely recording as requested to ensure her colleague’s comments were captured. Prejean-Boller, emotionally recounting her experience to MEE, stated she felt compelled to speak for Palestinians and described her removal as ‘un-American,’ expressing absolute disgust with the president for what she sees as a betrayal of the American people and the Constitution.

The commission now faces scrutiny from lawmakers from both parties investigating potential violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) concerning balance, transparency, and fair representation, compounding existing legal challenges from religious groups questioning the panel’s motives.