President Masoud Pezeshkian Apologizes to Gulf States, Says Tehran Will Only Retaliate if Attacked.

An apology — and a warning. Is Iran signaling de-escalation or drawing a new red line?

Iran signaled a potential shift in its regional posture on Saturday, with President Masoud Pezeshkian announcing that Tehran will suspend strikes on neighboring countries unless attacks are launched from their territory.

In a speech broadcast on state television, Pezeshkian declared that Iran would “never surrender” to Israel or the United States as the Middle East war entered its second week. At the same time, he offered an apology to regional states hit by Iranian missiles and drones in recent days.

“I must apologize on my own behalf and on behalf of Iran to the neighboring countries that were attacked by Iran,” Pezeshkian said. He added that the interim leadership council had agreed that “no more attacks will be made on neighboring countries and no missiles will be fired unless an attack on Iran originates from those countries.”

The remarks come after Israel and the United States launched coordinated strikes on February 28 that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and triggered a broader regional conflict. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks targeting Israel and U.S. interests across the Gulf.

Pezeshkian is one of three members of an interim leadership council governing Iran following Khamenei’s death. His dual message — defiance toward Washington and Tel Aviv coupled with an overture to neighbors — suggests Tehran is attempting to contain the geographic spread of the war while maintaining a posture of resistance.

Regional capitals have been wary of being drawn into direct confrontation. Iranian strikes on Gulf cities in recent days rattled energy markets and raised fears of further escalation around critical infrastructure and shipping lanes.

By pledging to halt attacks unless provoked from neighboring territory, Tehran appears to be drawing a narrower line: retaliation will be tied explicitly to perceived participation in attacks on Iran.

Whether this declaration marks genuine de-escalation or a tactical pause remains uncertain. Much will depend on whether regional states allow their bases or airspace to be used in ongoing operations — and how Iran defines an “originating” attack.

For now, the message is calibrated: no surrender, but conditional restraint.

AP Reports Moscow Shared Information That Could Help Tehran Strike US Assets as Gulf War Escalates.

Is the Iran war quietly becoming a US–Russia proxy showdown?

Russia has provided Iran with information that could help Tehran target U.S. warships, aircraft and other military assets in the region, according to two officials familiar with American intelligence assessments.

The officials, speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the matter, cautioned that U.S. intelligence has not concluded that Moscow is directing Iran’s actions. But they said Russia has shared data that could enhance Iran’s ability to track or strike American forces as the U.S. and Israel continue bombardment inside Iran.

The disclosure, first reported by The Washington Post, marks the clearest sign yet that Moscow may be stepping more directly into the widening conflict.

President Donald Trump dismissed a question about the alleged intelligence sharing during a White House event, calling it “a stupid question.” His press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, did not deny the reports but said they were “not making any difference” to U.S. military operations.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a television interview that the United States is “tracking everything” and incorporating any foreign involvement into its operational planning.

At the Kremlin, spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that Russia remains in dialogue with Iran but declined to say whether intelligence or military assistance has been provided since the war began. He added that Tehran has not requested formal military support.

Russia’s relationship with Iran has deepened in recent years, particularly as Moscow sought drones and missiles for its war in Ukraine. U.S. intelligence previously concluded that Iran supplied Russia with Shahed attack drones and assisted in establishing drone manufacturing facilities.

The current conflict now links the two theaters more directly. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Middle Eastern governments are consulting Kyiv for expertise in countering Iranian-made drones — systems that have been used extensively against Ukrainian cities.

The development underscores how the war in Iran is intersecting with broader geopolitical rivalries. While there is no evidence of a formal Russia-Iran military alliance in this conflict, intelligence cooperation alone could complicate U.S. operations and widen the strategic stakes.

For Washington, the question is no longer confined to Tehran’s capabilities — but who may be quietly enhancing them.

Report Says US Central Command Preparing for Prolonged Campaign as Air Defenses and Intelligence Assets Surge to Middle East.

From “weeks” to potentially months — is Washington settling in for a long war?

The United States is preparing for a conflict with Iran that could last at least 100 days — and possibly through September — according to a report by Politico, citing internal planning documents and unnamed officials.

The report says US Central Command (CENTCOM), headquartered in Tampa, Florida, has requested additional military intelligence officers to sustain operations over an extended period. The move suggests that planners are bracing for a longer campaign than the four-week horizon previously outlined by President Donald Trump.

In parallel, the Pentagon is reportedly accelerating shipments of air defense systems to US installations across the Middle East. According to the outlet, officials are prioritizing lower-cost anti-drone weapons to counter Iranian unmanned aerial vehicles — a tacit acknowledgment of the financial strain imposed by firing multimillion-dollar interceptors at relatively inexpensive drones.

If accurate, the preparations point to a strategic recalibration. Sustaining high-intensity air and missile operations for months would require expanded intelligence, logistics and funding commitments — and signal that Washington expects continued Iranian resistance rather than rapid collapse.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said the alliance is not directly involved in the US-Israeli campaign but described allies as “massively supportive” and enabling US operations in the region.

The political dynamics inside Europe remain complex. The United Kingdom and Spain initially denied US access to certain military bases for operations against Iran, though London later reversed its position following public criticism from Trump. Spain has since announced it will deploy a naval frigate to Cyprus as part of a multinational effort — including Italy, France and the Netherlands — to protect a British Royal Air Force base from potential Iranian strikes.

The war began last weekend when US and Israeli forces launched coordinated airstrikes inside Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior military commanders. Iran has retaliated with missile and drone attacks targeting Israel and Western military facilities across the region.

A months-long war would reshape regional security calculations, strain Western stockpiles and raise the stakes for energy markets already rattled by instability.

For now, the official timeline remains fluid. But the logistics tell a different story: Washington appears to be preparing not for a sprint — but for endurance.

Pentagon Says Tehran’s Launches Are Declining While American Strikes Push Further Inland.

Fewer Iranian missiles — but a wider American war. Is this the turning point or the next phase?

The United States signaled a new phase in its war with Iran on Wednesday, saying Iranian missile launches have declined sharply since the opening salvos of the conflict — even as Washington prepares to expand its campaign deeper into Iranian territory.

General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon that Iran’s military capabilities have been “greatly diminished,” pointing to a drop in missile fire compared with the first days of fighting.

“We will now begin to expand inland, striking progressively deeper into Iranian territory and creating additional freedom of maneuver for US forces,” Caine said.

The comments suggest the U.S. believes it has degraded enough of Iran’s air defenses and launch infrastructure to operate with greater latitude — a significant shift from the early phase of the conflict, when Iranian barrages targeted U.S. bases and regional cities.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth struck a confident tone, declaring that the United States was “winning” the war, even as he confirmed that six American service members have been killed since hostilities began.

“We will outlast Iran,” Hegseth said.

In a notable escalation at sea, Hegseth confirmed that a U.S. submarine sank an Iranian warship off the coast of Sri Lanka — the first sinking of an enemy vessel by torpedo since World War II.

“An American submarine sunk an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters,” Hegseth said. “Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo. Quiet death.”

The incident marks a dramatic expansion of the conflict beyond the Persian Gulf, underscoring the global dimensions of the confrontation.

Analysts caution that a reduction in Iranian missile fire does not necessarily signal exhaustion. Tehran may be conserving inventory, recalibrating targets, or shifting toward asymmetric tactics — including maritime disruption or proxy operations.

For Washington, however, the message is clear: momentum appears to be shifting. By pushing strikes inland, the United States is betting that sustained pressure will further erode Iran’s command structure, logistics networks and remaining launch capabilities.

Whether that strategy compels Tehran to negotiate — or provokes a new and unpredictable phase — may determine how long this widening war endures.

Assembly of Experts Said to Select Ayatollah Khamenei’s Son Amid Reported Pressure from Revolutionary Guard.

From “gatekeeper” to supreme leader? Iran may be entering its most controversial transition yet.

Iran’s powerful Assembly of Experts has reportedly selected Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of slain Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as the next leader of the Islamic Republic, according to Iran International, which cited sources familiar with the decision. The reported vote was said to have taken place under pressure from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Senior Israeli officials said they expect a formal announcement in the coming hours. Iranian state media, however, had not confirmed the decision at the time of reporting.

The development follows the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the outset of Israel’s Operation Roaring Lion. Iranian media reported earlier Tuesday that members of the 88-member Assembly were not inside the Qom building targeted by Israeli strikes and would soon announce a successor.

If confirmed, the elevation of Mojtaba Khamenei would mark one of the most consequential and controversial leadership transitions since the 1979 revolution.

A Contested Succession

Mojtaba Khamenei, the supreme leader’s second son, is widely viewed as aligned with Iran’s hardline conservative establishment. A mid-ranking cleric who teaches Shiite theology in Qom, he has never held formal government office but is believed to have exercised considerable influence behind the scenes, particularly through close ties with the IRGC.

Outside analysts have long described him as a key “gatekeeper” within his father’s inner circle. In 2019, the United States imposed sanctions on him, arguing that he effectively represented the authority of the supreme leader despite lacking an official title.

Yet his candidacy has historically been controversial. Critics have warned that elevating him could be perceived as a hereditary transfer of power — an uncomfortable echo of the monarchy overthrown in 1979. Others have questioned whether he possesses the senior clerical standing traditionally expected for the role.

The Constitutional Framework

Under Iran’s constitution, the supreme leader is selected by the Assembly of Experts, whose members are elected but vetted by the Guardian Council — itself appointed directly or indirectly by the supreme leader. The position wields ultimate authority over the armed forces, judiciary and key state institutions.

If Mojtaba Khamenei’s selection is confirmed, it would signal not only continuity in ideological direction but also the decisive influence of the security establishment at a moment of acute national crisis.

Whether this transition consolidates power — or deepens internal tensions — may soon become clear.

From Oil Prices to Missile Stockpiles, the US-Iran Conflict Could Reshape the Battlefield in Eastern Europe.

If Washington is tied down in Tehran, what happens in Kyiv?

The widening war between the United States, Israel and Iran may appear geographically distant from Ukraine. Strategically, it is anything but. The trajectory of the Iran conflict — whether swift resolution, grinding stalemate or strategic overreach — carries direct consequences for Kyiv’s military position and political confidence.

Three broad scenarios stand out.

A quick U.S. success

If Washington forces Tehran into rapid concessions or regime restructuring, the immediate signal would be one of restored American deterrence. That could embolden U.S. policymakers elsewhere, reinforcing perceptions that American power remains decisive despite years of strain.

For Ukraine, such an outcome would likely lift morale and strengthen expectations of sustained Western backing. A demonstration of U.S. military effectiveness could reinforce confidence in Washington’s capacity to sustain pressure on Moscow.

However, there would also be economic consequences. A swift de-escalation in the Gulf would likely push oil prices lower, reducing revenue for Russia — a financial setback for the Kremlin’s war effort.

A prolonged war of attrition

A drawn-out conflict in the Persian Gulf would create a very different dynamic. Sustained missile exchanges and naval operations would consume large volumes of precision-guided munitions and air-defense interceptors — the same categories of equipment Ukraine relies on.

The U.S. and its NATO partners already face production constraints in replenishing advanced missile systems. If inventories are redirected to protect Gulf bases and allies, deliveries to Kyiv could slow further.

At the same time, prolonged instability would likely keep oil prices elevated, bolstering Russian export revenues. Higher energy income would provide Moscow with additional fiscal breathing room as it sustains operations in Ukraine.

Politically, global attention would drift. A major Middle Eastern war inevitably competes for diplomatic bandwidth, media focus and legislative funding priorities in Washington.

A stalemate

Perhaps the most complex outcome is an inconclusive standoff — one in which Washington scales back operations without achieving decisive change in Tehran.

Such a scenario could dent perceptions of U.S. leverage. For Kyiv, which depends heavily on American military and financial support, doubts about U.S. resolve or capacity would be unsettling.

At the same time, missile stockpile depletion in a stalemate scenario would still constrain Western resupply to Ukraine, regardless of political messaging.

The broader pattern is clear: the Iran war stretches U.S. resources across multiple theaters. Every interceptor launched over the Gulf is one less available elsewhere. Every additional deployment complicates long-term planning.

For Moscow, distraction and resource dilution are strategic advantages. For Kyiv, sustained focus and material flow are existential necessities.

The coming weeks in the Gulf will therefore resonate far beyond Tehran. In modern great-power competition, conflicts are rarely isolated. They overlap, interact and amplify each other — and Ukraine may soon feel the consequences of a war fought hundreds of miles away.

Cheap, fast, expendable — has the Pentagon finally embraced attrition warfare?

The United States has deployed its new Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System, or LUCAS, in combat operations against Iran — just eight months after the system was unveiled at the Pentagon.

The drone, manufactured by Arizona-based SpektreWorks, was first showcased in July 2025 during a Pentagon demonstration led by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Its battlefield debut marks a dramatic break from traditional defense acquisition cycles, which often stretch across years or even decades.

At roughly $35,000 per unit, LUCAS represents a sharp pivot toward attritable systems designed for high-volume deployment. By comparison, an MQ-9 Reaper costs between $20 million and $40 million and is intended to be reused. LUCAS, by contrast, is designed to be expendable.

U.S. Central Command said the drone’s design is modeled in part on Iran’s Shahed-136 loitering munition — a system widely used by Russia in Ukraine. The emergence of Shahed-style drones has reshaped modern conflict by enabling massed, low-cost strikes capable of overwhelming expensive air defense systems.

LUCAS uses an open architecture, allowing operators to swap payloads and communications systems depending on mission needs. It can be launched from ground platforms or vehicles and configured for strike or target-drone roles. The U.S. government owns the intellectual property, enabling potential production by multiple manufacturers, though SpektreWorks currently holds contracts.

Its rapid deployment reflects lessons drawn from Ukraine, where thousands of inexpensive drones have altered the cost equation of warfare. Pentagon officials say the system aligns with the $1 billion Drone Dominance Program authorized under the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025,” aimed at scaling U.S. production of low-cost autonomous weapons.

During development, LUCAS reportedly integrated satellite connectivity systems including Starlink, Starshield and Viasat’s MUSIC, though current operational configurations have not been disclosed. Control software enabling operators to manage multiple autonomous drones simultaneously was developed by startup Noda.

Defense analysts note that LUCAS resembles a lineage of loitering munitions that stretches back decades, including Israel’s Harpy anti-radar drone and earlier U.S. concepts from the Cold War era.

The system’s combat debut underscores a broader shift in U.S. military doctrine: speed over perfection, scale over exclusivity, and affordability over singular technological dominance.

In an era where adversaries can field swarms of inexpensive drones, the Pentagon appears to be embracing a simple reality — attrition has returned to center stage.

Saudi Defense Ministry Reports Minor Damage After Two Hostile UAVs Target Diplomatic Compound.

The war’s ripple effect reaches Riyadh. How far will the escalation spread?

Saudi Arabia confirmed Tuesday that the US Embassy in Riyadh was targeted by two hostile drones, underscoring the widening fallout from the escalating U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran.

Major General Turki Al-Maliki, spokesperson for the Saudi Ministry of Defense, said initial assessments indicate the drones caused a limited fire and minor material damage to part of the embassy compound. No casualties were immediately reported.

The incident was carried by the Saudi Press Agency, which described the damage as contained. Saudi authorities did not immediately attribute responsibility.

The attack comes amid heightened tensions across the Gulf following joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran that killed senior Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. In response, Iran and allied groups have launched missile and drone attacks across multiple countries hosting U.S. assets.

In a security alert, the U.S. mission urged American citizens in Riyadh, as well as in Jeddah and Dhahran, to shelter in place. The advisory reflects growing concern that diplomatic and military sites across the region may face further threats.

Several Gulf cities have already experienced collateral damage from intercepted projectiles and falling debris as air defense systems respond to incoming threats. The targeting of a major diplomatic compound in the Saudi capital marks another escalation in a conflict that is increasingly spilling beyond its original battlefield.

Saudi Arabia has previously condemned attacks on its territory and signaled that it reserves the right to respond to threats against its security. For now, authorities appear focused on containment.

The broader concern is strategic: as drones and missiles widen the geography of risk, even cities long considered insulated from frontline conflict are being drawn into the confrontation.