Oil chokepoints, burning ships, and missiles over Gulf skies. Is this now a war of global economic attrition?

Tehran Targets Commercial Vessels and Dubai Airport as Energy Supplies Tighten and Oil Markets Tremble.

Iran sharply escalated its campaign across the Gulf on Wednesday, striking commercial vessels and targeting transport infrastructure, including Dubai’s international airport, as U.S. and Israeli forces intensified air operations against Iranian military sites.

The widening attacks mark a shift toward economic warfare. Iranian officials warned of a prolonged “war of attrition,” signaling that energy flows from the oil- and gas-rich region would remain under threat.

Three merchant ships were struck in Gulf waters on Wednesday, according to maritime security monitors, bringing the total number of vessels hit since the conflict began to 14. Crews were evacuated from a Thai-flagged bulk carrier after an onboard explosion sparked a fire.

A Japanese-flagged container ship and a Marshall Islands-flagged freighter also sustained damage.

Meanwhile, Kuwait reported intercepting eight Iranian drones, and Saudi Arabia said it shot down five drones headed toward the Shaybah oil field. Hundreds of vessels remain stalled near the Strait of Hormuz, which carries roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards declared that not “a single litre of oil” would pass through the strait until U.S. bombing ceases. Iranian officials warned oil prices could surge to $200 per barrel if regional instability continues.

In Washington, Donald Trump offered mixed signals. He told Axios the war would end “soon” because there was “practically nothing left to target,” but vowed to continue strikes if necessary. Israel’s defense minister, Israel Katz, said the campaign would proceed “without any time limit” until objectives were achieved.

The International Energy Agency has urged the release of 400 million barrels of emergency reserves — potentially the largest coordinated action in its history — in an attempt to stabilize markets. Yet there is no sign that commercial shipping can resume safely through Hormuz.

The conflict’s humanitarian toll continues to mount. In Lebanon, where Israeli forces say they are targeting Hezbollah infrastructure, the United Nations reports more than 750,000 internally displaced. In Iran, funerals for senior commanders drew large crowds in Tehran, even as nightly airstrikes send residents fleeing the capital.

U.S. Central Command says Iranian missile and drone launches have declined sharply following strikes on manufacturing facilities. Adm. Brad Cooper confirmed that the military is using advanced artificial intelligence tools to accelerate targeting decisions, though he stressed that humans retain final authority over strikes.

For now, the war shows no clear path to de-escalation. What began as a military campaign against Iran’s strategic capabilities has expanded into a direct contest over trade routes, energy flows and global economic stability. The Gulf’s chokepoints — once geopolitical pressure valves — are now at the center of a confrontation with worldwide consequences.

A NATO member pulls its ambassador. Trade threats from Washington. Is Spain reshaping Europe’s stance on Israel and Iran?

Madrid Permanently Withdraws Ambassador as Rift Deepens Over Iran War.

Spain has permanently withdrawn its ambassador from Israel, formally downgrading diplomatic relations as tensions mount over the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.

The decision, announced Tuesday, follows months of deteriorating ties between Madrid and West Jerusalem. Spain’s government said the Israeli mission will now be headed by a chargé d’affaires rather than a full ambassador — a move signaling a sustained cooling of relations rather than a temporary recall.

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has emerged as the most outspoken Western critic of Israel’s recent military actions. He said Spain would not be “complicit in something that is bad for the world simply out of fear of reprisals,” in a clear rebuke of the ongoing offensive.

The downgrade was proposed by Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares and approved by Spain’s Council of Ministers.

Tensions between Spain and Israel were already strained before the Iran war. Madrid recalled its ambassador last September after banning ships and aircraft carrying weapons to Israel during its Gaza campaign. Israeli officials denounced that move as discriminatory and politically hostile. Spain has also formally recognized Palestinian statehood — another flashpoint in bilateral relations.

The latest rupture extends beyond Israel. Madrid has refused to allow the United States to use joint Spanish military facilities for operations connected to the Iran conflict, drawing criticism from Donald Trump.

The U.S. president has publicly threatened trade consequences and criticized Spain for failing to meet NATO’s new defense spending target of 5% of GDP.

Despite the rhetoric, Albares insisted relations with Washington remain “normal,” noting that both countries’ embassies continue operating without disruption.

Spain now stands largely alone among major Western powers in issuing direct condemnation of the strikes on Iran. Most European governments have limited themselves to calls for restraint and de-escalation.

The diplomatic downgrade signals that Madrid’s position is not a short-term protest but a strategic recalibration. Whether that stance isolates Spain within NATO — or encourages broader debate inside Europe — remains to be seen.

A close Trump ally. A NATO partner. Now a public warning. Has Europe’s unity on Iran begun to crack?

Italian Prime Minister Says U.S.-Israeli Strikes Reflect “Dangerous” Trend Outside International Law.

ROME — Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni delivered her sharpest rebuke yet of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran on Wednesday, describing the conflict as part of a troubling pattern of unilateral military actions “outside the scope of international law.”

Speaking before the Senate, Meloni framed the Middle East war as another symptom of what she called a broader structural crisis in the international system — one already destabilized by Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

“It is in this context,” she said, “that we must also place the American and Israeli intervention against the Iranian regime.”

The remarks mark a notable shift in tone from Rome. Meloni, a conservative leader with close ties to U.S. President Donald Trump, has largely aligned Italy with its transatlantic allies. Her government had faced criticism from opposition lawmakers for appearing reluctant to directly question Washington’s role in the conflict.

Italy now joins Spain as one of the few European countries to publicly voice explicit concern over the legality of the campaign. Most European governments have stopped short of direct criticism, instead urging de-escalation and restraint.

Yet Meloni’s speech balanced caution with firmness toward Tehran. She reiterated that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, warning that such an outcome would undermine the global non-proliferation framework and expose Europe to “dramatic repercussions for global security.”

The war, now in its 12th day, has expanded beyond Israel and Iran, disrupting roughly one-fifth of global oil and gas flows and drawing in Gulf states hosting Western forces. Meloni confirmed that Italy is providing air-defense assets to Gulf partners targeted by Iranian strikes.

“This is not only because they are friendly nations and strategic partners,” she said, “but because tens of thousands of Italian citizens are in the region — and around 2,000 Italian soldiers are stationed in the Gulf.”

Her intervention highlights the increasingly delicate position of European leaders: balancing alliance commitments with growing unease over the war’s legal and geopolitical consequences. By linking the Iran conflict to the broader erosion of international norms, Meloni signaled that Rome views the crisis not as an isolated flare-up — but as part of a more dangerous global pattern.

Whether her words foreshadow a broader European reassessment remains to be seen. For now, Italy has made clear it supports deterrence against Iran’s nuclear ambitions — but not without questioning the path chosen to achieve it.

Eleven nuclear aircraft carriers. A $1 trillion defense budget. And a war watched in real time. Is America’s floating power projection unstoppable—or increasingly exposed?

From the $18 Billion USS Gerald R. Ford to the Battle-Tested USS Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Aircraft Carriers Dominate the Iran Conflict.

With a defense budget projected at $1.01 trillion for 2026—nearly 40 percent of global military spending—the United States has once again placed its most iconic weapon at the heart of war: the nuclear aircraft carrier.

From the sleek deck of the $18 billion USS Gerald R. Ford to the battle-hardened USS Abraham Lincoln, America’s carrier fleet has become the unmistakable face of its campaign against Iran. No other country operates anything comparable. The U.S. Navy fields 11 nuclear-powered carriers—more than the combined fleets of China, Britain, France, India, Italy and Spain.

The Ford, the largest warship ever built, stretches 337 meters and carries up to 90 aircraft. It can launch 160 sorties a day—and surge to 270. Onboard is a floating city: 4,500 personnel, a full hospital, nuclear reactors capable of powering the ship for decades, and the ability to remain at sea for months.

Commissioned in 2017, then-President Donald Trump hailed it as “the future of naval aviation.” Since then, it has rotated through the Mediterranean, the Caribbean and now the Middle East, serving as both deterrent and launch platform.

Yet in the current Iran conflict, it is the older Abraham Lincoln—commissioned in 1989—that has carried much of the operational load. Upgraded to host F-35 stealth fighters, it operates in the Arabian Sea, launching sorties as part of the U.S.-Israeli campaign.

Iranian officials have claimed missile strikes against it—claims swiftly denied by U.S. Central Command.

Aircraft carriers have long been as much psychological instrument as military asset. In 2003, President George W. Bush delivered his “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard the Lincoln—an image that later became synonymous with premature victory.

Today, they project dominance. But they also raise questions.

China’s development of anti-ship ballistic missiles and long-range precision weapons has sparked debate within military circles about whether carriers remain invulnerable in a modern battlefield. No U.S. carrier has been sunk since World War II. But analysts warn that complacency could prove dangerous.

For now, however, these floating airbases remain central to Washington’s strategy: flexible, mobile, operating without reliance on foreign airfields. They symbolize American reach—and American resolve.

In a war defined by missiles, drones and economic disruption, the most visible star remains a 100,000-ton reminder of U.S. power: steel, nuclear energy and jet engines, cutting across open sea.

President Floats Waiving Oil Sanctions, Naval Escorts in Hormuz as Markets Whipsaw and Pressure Mounts.

End the war “very soon”? Lift oil sanctions? Escort tankers through Hormuz? Trump signals a pivot — but vows harsher strikes if Iran escalates.

President Donald Trump signaled Monday that the U.S.-Iran war could wind down “very soon,” while floating the possibility of waiving certain oil-related sanctions and deploying the U.S. Navy to escort tankers through the Strait of Hormuz.

The remarks, delivered at his Doral resort in Florida, come amid volatile energy markets, rising gasoline prices and mounting political pressure at home.

Trump said the operation was ahead of schedule but not likely to conclude this week. He claimed U.S. forces had struck thousands of targets and sharply reduced Iran’s missile and drone capabilities, calling military objectives “pretty well complete.”

At the same time, he warned of bombing “at a much, much harder level” if Tehran disrupts oil flows through the strait — the artery for a fifth of global crude and LNG shipments.

“We’re looking to keep oil prices down,” Trump said, adding he could waive “certain oil-related sanctions” to reduce prices. He offered no specifics but acknowledged discussing the topic with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Washington has imposed wide-ranging restrictions on Russia’s energy sector over Ukraine, including a price cap and sanctions on major producers. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has previously suggested targeted waivers; last week, Indian refiners were temporarily allowed to purchase Russian oil already at sea.

Markets reacted swiftly. U.S. stocks rebounded after Trump first hinted to CBS that the conflict might be nearing its end. Oil futures, which had spiked above $119 a barrel earlier in the day, retreated below $90 post-settlement.

Group of Seven finance ministers said they stand ready to support global energy supplies, including potential stockpile releases, though France cautioned there is no agreement yet to tap emergency reserves.

Still, risks remain acute. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively constrained, and major Gulf producers have trimmed output. Trump said the Navy and partners could escort tankers “if needed,” and he warned that if Iran blocks the strait, it would face retaliation “TWENTY TIMES HARDER.”

On the ground, the conflict shows no sign of immediate ceasefire. Casualties have mounted across Iran, Israel and parts of the Gulf. Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has pledged continuity.

U.S. officials maintain they can sustain operations indefinitely, even as domestic concerns over inflation and fuel costs intensify ahead of November’s midterms.

Trump now faces a delicate balance: deliver “ultimate victory” while stabilizing energy markets and containing the war’s regional spillover. Whether sanctions relief and naval escorts mark a genuine pivot — or tactical messaging amid market turbulence — may determine how soon this conflict truly ends.

Missiles fly. Militias strike. But one force is waiting. Why haven’t the Houthis entered the war — yet?

Hezbollah and Iraqi Militias Escalate Strikes, but Houthis Stay on Sidelines as US Carrier Nears Red Sea.

As the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Tehran enters its second week, Iran’s network of regional militias has stepped up attacks — but stopped short of unleashing a coordinated, all-out confrontation.

Analysts say that restraint may be deliberate.

Across Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, Iranian-backed groups have fired missiles and drones at Israeli targets and U.S. facilities. Hezbollah moved early, launching attacks after the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iraqi Shia militias have struck U.S. diplomatic and military sites, including in Baghdad and Jordan.

Yet the Yemen-based Houthis — among the most heavily armed and battle-hardened of Iran’s allies — have not reopened hostilities against American or Israeli targets since the current phase of the war began.

Why Kharg Island Could Become Donald Trump’s Decisive Lever Against Iran.

One small island. Ninety-four percent of Iran’s oil exports. No U.S. boots on Tehran’s streets. Is this Trump’s ultimate pressure point?

In 1988, long before he entered politics, Donald Trump mused in an interview that if Iran fired “one bullet” at American forces, he would “do a number on Kharg Island” and “go in and take it.” At the time, it sounded like bravado.

Nearly four decades later, that obscure reference is drawing renewed scrutiny.

Antonio Costa Rebukes Ursula von der Leyen as European Leaders Split on US-Israeli Strikes.

“Freedom cannot be achieved through bombs.” Europe’s top officials are no longer speaking with one voice.

A sharp public divide has emerged at the top of the European Union over the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, exposing tensions over diplomacy, international law and Europe’s global role.

Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, rebuked European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday, declaring that “freedom and human rights cannot be achieved through bombs.”

His remarks followed von der Leyen’s speech a day earlier at the EU Ambassadors Conference in Brussels, where she suggested that the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could “open a path towards a free Iran.” She also questioned whether Europe could continue to anchor itself to what she described as a fading “rules-based international order.”

Costa took a different tone, insisting the EU must defend international law and remain committed to diplomacy. His intervention underscored the institutional divide: while the Commission often pushes strategic positions, the European Council — representing member states — operates by consensus, particularly on foreign policy.

Von der Leyen argued that Europe’s “well-intentioned attempts at consensus” could hinder the bloc’s credibility. Yet consensus is embedded in EU treaties, and member states have struggled for months to align on issues ranging from Ukraine funding to defense spending and sanctions on Russia.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has frequently blocked joint initiatives, including a €90 billion loan package for Ukraine. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has positioned himself against what he calls Europe’s “rearmament,” and has emerged as one of the strongest critics of the U.S.-led strikes on Iran.

Sanchez’s stance has drawn criticism from U.S. President Donald Trump, who recently threatened trade measures against Spain.

The split highlights a broader strategic dilemma: whether Europe aligns firmly with Washington’s military posture or doubles down on diplomatic engagement. As the Middle East conflict widens, the EU’s internal divisions risk weakening its ability to shape outcomes — and to speak with a unified voice on the global stage.