“Europe needs leadership, not vassals.” Spain’s deputy prime minister openly challenges Brussels over its response to Trump’s Iran war.

Yolanda Díaz Accuses Brussels of ‘Servile’ Stance as Rift Deepens Over U.S.–Israeli Campaign.

Spain’s Deputy Prime Minister Yolanda Díaz has accused European Union leaders of allowing themselves to be “held hostage” by U.S. President Donald Trump over the escalating war with Iran, warning that Brussels’ approach risks deepening public disillusionment with the bloc.

In an interview published Thursday by Politico, Díaz described the European Union as “an orphan at a moment of historic gravity,” arguing that it should assert an independent foreign policy rather than defer to Washington.

She criticized what she called a “servile” attitude toward the United States, saying such deference is misguided because Trump “does not respect those who attempt to be his vassals.”

Her remarks reflect mounting tensions within Europe over how to respond to the U.S.–Israeli military campaign against Iran. Díaz labeled the intervention “completely illegitimate” and faulted European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for failing to swiftly condemn the strikes.

The criticism comes as Madrid’s standoff with Washington intensifies. Trump has threatened to cut off trade with Spain after Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez refused to allow U.S. forces to use joint military bases for operations against Iran and rejected NATO’s new 5% of GDP defense spending target as excessive.

Sánchez has insisted Spain will not be “complicit” in actions it views as harmful to global stability.

Earlier this week, Spain permanently withdrew its ambassador from Israel and downgraded diplomatic relations, further underscoring its opposition to the campaign.

Díaz also took aim at German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, criticizing him for remaining silent during a White House meeting in which Trump threatened Spain. She argued that Europe needs stronger leadership at a time of geopolitical upheaval.

The Iran conflict has exposed wider fractures within the EU. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, despite maintaining cordial ties with Trump, has described the strikes as evidence of a “crisis of international law.” Other European governments have called for restraint but stopped short of direct condemnation.

As the war reshapes alliances and energy markets, Díaz’s intervention highlights a deeper question confronting Europe: whether the bloc can maintain strategic autonomy in an era of renewed great-power confrontation — or whether internal divisions will leave it reacting to events driven from Washington.

Explosions in Dubai. A U.S. military plane down in Iraq. And the Middle East war shows no sign of slowing.

Smoke Rises Over Financial Hub While U.S. Central Command Confirms Refueling Aircraft Downed in “Friendly Airspace”.

Explosions rattled parts of Dubai early Friday as thick black smoke billowed across the skyline of the Gulf financial hub, while U.S. forces confirmed the crash of a military aircraft in Iraq amid an intensifying regional conflict.

Authorities in Dubai said a fire broke out in the Al Quoz industrial district after debris from what officials described as a “successful interception” struck the façade of a building in central Dubai. The city’s media office said there were no reported injuries. Smoke drifted across the skyline, visible as far as the sail-shaped Burj Al Arab hotel.

Police cordoned off the affected area, preventing journalists and bystanders from approaching the scene. Witnesses reported hearing blasts before the fire erupted, though officials have not released further details about the interception.

Separately, U.S. Central Command confirmed that a KC-135 refueling aircraft crashed in what it described as “friendly airspace” in Iraq. The command said the incident was not caused by hostile or friendly fire. At least five crew members were aboard the aircraft, according to a U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity. A second aircraft involved in the incident landed safely.

Rescue operations were ongoing.

The developments came as the U.S.–Israeli military campaign against Iran entered another volatile phase. Israeli forces launched new strikes on Tehran and Beirut, while Iranian-backed groups continued attacks across the region.

President Donald Trump said the United States was “totally destroying” Iran’s ruling system “militarily, economically and otherwise,” describing the campaign as his “great honour.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used his first press conference since the start of the war to defend the joint offensive and issued a thinly veiled warning toward Iran’s new leadership.

In Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan region, French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed that a French soldier was killed in a drone attack near Erbil — the first French military fatality of the conflict. Several others were wounded during training operations with Iraqi forces.

The violence has also raised tensions at NATO facilities. Sirens were reported at Incirlik Air Base in southern Türkiye, where U.S. troops are stationed, though officials offered no immediate explanation.

As oil markets remain volatile, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Washington plans to escort vessels through the Strait of Hormuz once it secures full air superiority and degrades Iran’s missile capabilities.

For now, smoke over Dubai and the downed aircraft in Iraq underscore the widening reach of a conflict that is increasingly touching multiple fronts — military, economic and diplomatic — across the Middle East.

Pentagon Tells Lawmakers Initial Price Tag Exceeds $11.3bn, With Broader Costs Still Uncounted.

Six days. $11.3 billion. And that may be only the beginning. How much will this war really cost?

The war against Iran has already cost the United States more than $11.3 billion in its first six days, according to Pentagon officials who delivered a classified briefing to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The figure, first reported by The New York Times and confirmed by the Associated Press and the Guardian, represents the most detailed cost assessment Congress has received so far. Yet officials cautioned that the total does not capture the full scope of spending tied to the opening phase of the conflict.

According to two people familiar with the briefing, the $11.3 billion estimate largely reflects munitions expenditures. It does not include broader operational costs such as troop deployments, medical care, logistics, or the replacement of aircraft and equipment lost during combat.

In the early days of the campaign, the United States spent roughly $2 billion per day on munitions, the Guardian reported previously. That daily cost later declined to around $1 billion as the Pentagon shifted to less expensive weapons. Officials expect the per-day cost to fall further unless fighting escalates.

The initial wave of strikes relied heavily on high-end precision-guided weapons, including the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon, a glide bomb priced between approximately $578,000 and $836,000 per unit. The U.S. Navy purchased about 3,000 of those munitions nearly two decades ago.

As the operation continued, the military increasingly turned to cheaper alternatives such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM. While the smallest JDAM warhead costs roughly $1,000, the guidance kit that transforms conventional bombs into precision weapons adds about $38,000 per unit.

The growing price tag comes as President Donald Trump faces mounting scrutiny from lawmakers questioning both the duration and the strategic objectives of the conflict. The Pentagon has declined to comment publicly on the campaign’s overall cost.

What remains unclear is how much higher the true bill will climb. Beyond weapons, war brings sustained logistical commitments: maintaining naval strike groups in the region, rotating troops, sustaining air operations, and covering medical and reconstruction expenses.

With oil markets volatile and economic pressures building at home, the financial burden of the conflict is becoming a central part of the debate in Washington.

The $11.3 billion figure offers the first concrete measure of the war’s cost. It may also prove to be only the opening installment.

As Moscow Deepens Support for Tehran, the Iran Conflict Risks Becoming a Direct U.S.–Russia Confrontation.

If Russia is helping Iran target U.S. forces, this isn’t just a Middle East war anymore — it’s something far more dangerous.

The most unsettling question about the war with Iran is no longer how it ends in Tehran, but whether it quietly expands toward Moscow.

Reports that Russia is supplying Iran with intelligence, satellite imagery and technical guidance on drone warfare suggest the conflict may be evolving into something Washington has long tried to avoid: a proxy confrontation with a nuclear power.

For decades, U.S. presidents have sought to prevent exactly this scenario. From the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961 to the Cuban Missile Crisis that followed, American leaders learned how quickly regional miscalculations can escalate into global standoffs.

President John F. Kennedy ultimately defused that crisis through restraint and backchannel diplomacy, aware that nuclear brinkmanship leaves little margin for error.

Today, the geopolitical terrain is more fragmented — and arguably more volatile.

If Moscow is indeed sharing battlefield insights with Tehran, including expertise on Shahed-style drones that Russia has used extensively in Ukraine, then the Kremlin is no longer a distant observer. It becomes an indirect participant in a conflict where American forces are deployed and already absorbing casualties.

That changes the strategic equation.

President Donald Trump has publicly described his conversations with Vladimir Putin as constructive, even suggesting the Russian leader wants to be “helpful” on the Middle East. Yet intelligence-sharing allegations, if accurate, undermine the premise that Moscow is neutral — let alone cooperative.

Russia has incentives to prolong the crisis. A widening Middle East war diverts Western focus from Ukraine, complicates NATO coordination, and strains global energy markets. It also places Washington in the uncomfortable position of confronting two adversarial theaters at once.

The deeper risk lies in escalation dynamics. Proxy wars often begin with deniable support — intelligence feeds, weapons transfers, tactical advice — before evolving into direct confrontation. The United States and the Soviet Union spent decades managing that risk in Vietnam, Afghanistan and across the Cold War periphery.

But today’s environment lacks the stabilizing guardrails of structured superpower diplomacy. Communication channels are thinner. Mutual trust is minimal. Domestic political pressures are higher.

If Iranian forces, bolstered by Russian expertise, inflict sustained harm on U.S. troops or Gulf allies, the pressure for retaliation could expand beyond Iran itself. Conversely, if Washington escalates against Tehran while Moscow feels strategically cornered in Ukraine, retaliation could take asymmetric forms elsewhere.

This is how great-power entanglements grow — not through deliberate design, but through cumulative miscalculation.

The Iran war may have begun as a targeted campaign against nuclear and military infrastructure. Yet the emerging Russian dimension introduces a second layer of confrontation, one that reaches beyond the Gulf.

The frightening possibility is not simply a prolonged regional war. It is the normalization of a U.S.–Russia proxy battlefield in the Middle East — with nuclear-armed states once again testing each other’s limits.

History suggests such moments demand caution, clarity and disciplined diplomacy.

Whether those qualities prevail now will determine whether this conflict remains regional — or becomes something far harder to contain.

This isn’t just another Middle East war. It may be the moment the post–Cold War world finally gives way to something harsher.

How the U.S.-Israeli Campaign Could Accelerate the Collapse of Post–Cold War Stability.

The war against Iran was presented in Washington and Jerusalem as a defensive necessity — a move to eliminate a nuclear threat before it materialized. U.S. and Israeli officials argued that Tehran was edging dangerously close to weapons capability. Yet as the bombing campaign unfolded, it became clear that nuclear concerns were only part of a larger geopolitical reckoning.

This conflict is not simply another chapter in the Middle East’s long history of violence. It may represent the next phase in a transformation that began in 1991, when the United States launched Operation Desert Storm and, almost simultaneously, the Soviet Union collapsed. That moment marked the beginning of what many called the “unipolar era” — a period of unrivaled American dominance.

The decades that followed were defined by intervention and instability: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the upheavals of the Arab Spring, the Libyan intervention, the Syrian civil war. Each crisis drew in new actors. Each reshaped regional balances. And each left behind unresolved consequences.

Now, the confrontation with Iran pushes that trajectory further.

Donald Trump had campaigned on reducing American entanglements abroad. Yet Iran posed a different challenge. It is not a peripheral actor but a central pillar of regional politics — a state of nearly 90 million people with deep influence across Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Attempting to dismantle such a power inevitably alters the entire system.

In Tel Aviv, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has framed the campaign as a historic opportunity to eliminate a long-standing threat.

In Washington, some believed a sharp, decisive blow might trigger internal collapse in Tehran. But rapid regime implosion has not occurred. Instead, the conflict has widened, energy routes have been disrupted, and the global economy has absorbed fresh shocks.

The deeper impact may lie in the norms being reshaped. The targeted killing of Iran’s supreme leader marked a dramatic escalation in statecraft. What was once reserved for non-state militant leaders has now been applied to the head of a sovereign state. That precedent will not be forgotten.

Nor will the erosion of multilateral procedure. Where past interventions at least sought the veneer of United Nations backing, today force is justified openly through necessity and strength. International law appears increasingly secondary to strategic calculation.

For many governments watching from afar, the lesson may be stark: nuclear deterrence is no longer optional insurance but essential political survival. Countries that feel vulnerable could accelerate their own military programs, deepening a cycle of proliferation.

At the same time, a new regional architecture may be taking shape. One pillar would be Israeli military predominance. Another would be tighter economic integration between Israel and Gulf monarchies, with the United States positioned as guarantor and beneficiary.

Türkiye remains an independent actor, yet still embedded within NATO structures.

But history offers caution. The collapse of Iraq’s regime in 2003 produced not stability but prolonged chaos. Even if Iran’s leadership were weakened or transformed, the aftermath could prove more destabilizing than the war itself.

The broader trend is unmistakable. Power politics is resurging. Bilateral leverage is favored over multilateral consensus. Military capability is again central to national strategy.

The post–Cold War order, built on assumptions of liberal expansion and cooperative security, appears increasingly fragile. Replacing it with something durable will require more than force.

The war on Iran may not only redraw the Middle East. It may accelerate the transition to a harsher global era — one in which strength defines security, deterrence defines survival, and the old rules no longer reliably apply.

“Any time I want it to end, it will end,” Trump says. But with 140 U.S. troops wounded and Hormuz under threat, is the war slipping beyond script?

Mounting U.S. Casualties, Oil Shock and Drone Strikes Complicate White House Narrative of Quick Victory.

After nearly two weeks of intense U.S.-Israeli strikes, President Donald Trump now sounds increasingly eager to bring the Iran war to a close — even as American casualties mount and Tehran finds asymmetric ways to retaliate.

In an interview with Axios, Trump predicted the conflict would end “soon,” insisting there was “practically nothing left to target.” Days earlier, he had suggested the campaign might last four to six weeks.

At other moments, he has demanded regime change in Tehran and vowed that Iran’s next leader would require his approval — a position that now looks complicated by the swift elevation of Mojtaba Khamenei.

The battlefield picture is more complex than early triumphalism suggested. The Pentagon disclosed that 140 U.S. service members were wounded in the initial phase of the campaign that killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior Iranian commanders. While American firepower has devastated key military sites, Iranian forces and allied militias are adapting.

According to U.S. officials and analysts, Tehran is attempting to booby-trap the Strait of Hormuz — the artery for roughly one-fifth of global oil shipments — and has launched drone attacks targeting American positions, including facilities used by U.S. personnel in Iraq’s Kurdish region.

Iran’s strategy appears less about conventional victory than attrition. Even a weakened adversary can impose costs. An exiled Iranian analyst described the regime as a “patient threat” — one willing to endure punishment while probing for vulnerabilities.

Inside Washington, the definition of “winning” remains unsettled. Some Republicans argue Trump can declare success after degrading Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and exit before the conflict deepens.

Others press for more decisive action. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said the administration anticipated Iranian retaliation, though he characterized it as a sign of desperation.

Meanwhile, economic pressures are building. Oil prices have swung sharply, retirement portfolios have whipsawed, and gasoline costs have climbed. Trump has warned Iran it would be struck “TWENTY TIMES HARDER” if it blocks Hormuz, but markets remain sensitive to even partial disruption.

Beyond strategy, the war has revived domestic political fault lines. Trump campaigned on ending “forever wars,” and divisions have emerged within his base between interventionists and isolationists.

Iran may not be able to defeat the United States militarily. But survival alone would allow Tehran to claim resilience. For Trump, ending the conflict swiftly could convert a volatile campaign into a political asset — and prevent a drawn-out war that tests both American patience and economic stability.

Illegal war? Iranian responsibility? Naval deployments to Hormuz? France walks a diplomatic tightrope as the Middle East burns.

Paris Questions Legality of U.S.-Israeli Strikes but Stops Short of Full Condemnation as Gulf Tensions Rise.

Nearly half a century after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini broadcast revolutionary messages from a village outside Paris, France once again finds itself entangled in Iran’s fate — this time as a cautious Western power navigating an escalating regional war.

President Emmanuel Macron has struck a careful balance. He has questioned the legality of the U.S.-Israeli assault on Iran, describing it as outside international law, yet has also argued that Tehran “bears primary responsibility” for the crisis because of its refusal to compromise on nuclear issues.

That calibrated position reflects a broader European dilemma. Paris has avoided the blunt condemnations issued by Spain, but it has also resisted fully endorsing Washington’s campaign. Analysts say the French leadership views military action — particularly regime change — with skepticism shaped by history.

“We have the precedent in Iraq,” said Laure Foucher of the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique. “We know where that led.”

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump have spoken openly about dismantling Iran’s ruling system, French officials argue that external military force cannot resolve the deeper political and nuclear questions.

At the same time, France is preparing for spillover. Macron has ordered 10 warships to deploy to the eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, reinforcing earlier naval movements meant to safeguard shipping lanes and protect approximately 400,000 French citizens living across the Middle East.

The mission, Macron emphasized, is defensive — an escort and support operation rather than an offensive posture.

The stakes are not abstract. France maintains defense partnerships with several Gulf states and retains deep historical ties to Lebanon, where fighting between Israel and Hezbollah threatens further destabilization. Macron has urged regional leaders to prevent Lebanon from being pulled fully into the war and pledged support to Lebanese armed forces.

At home, public opinion appears uneasy. Many French citizens see the U.S.-Israeli strikes as legally questionable and potentially destabilizing. Others, including segments of the Iranian diaspora in France, remain divided — some hoping the conflict weakens Tehran’s leadership, others warning that war will not deliver freedom.

For Macron, the challenge is strategic as well as moral. France seeks to uphold international law, preserve alliances, secure trade routes and avoid being drawn deeper into a widening confrontation.

In a conflict defined by hard power, Paris is attempting to exercise restraint without isolation — walking a diplomatic fine line between solidarity with partners and skepticism about the war’s trajectory.

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.