Italian newspapers say Rubio is scheduled to meet with Pope Leo XIV and Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state. The meeting would take place one day before the anniversary of Leo’s first year as pontiff. Rubio attended the pope’s inaugural Mass as leader of the Catholic Church.

The State Department told Straight Arrow Rubio will meet with Holy See leadership to discuss the situation in the Middle East and mutual interests in the Western Hemisphere.

Leo has been outspoken in his criticism of the war in the Middle East. He and President Donald Trump have both used social media to air sharply contrasting views, prompting speculation of a rift between the two. The pope has said his remarks are not directed at any individual but reflect long-standing church positions on war and peace.

The Pope’s comment comes after Trump accused the pope of being “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy,” a response to Leo's opposition to the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran.

Trump also briefly posted, then deleted, an image on social media depicting himself in a pose resembling Jesus. The post drew criticism from some Christian leaders. Trump later said he believed the image showed him “as a doctor.”

The president has dismissed suggestions that he is in a conflict with the pope.

“I’m not fighting with him,” Trump said. “I have a right to disagree with the pope.”

Italy’s Corriere della Sera reported Rubio also hopes to meet with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and he is expected to hold talks with Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani and Defense Minister Guido Crosetto.

On Thursday, Trump threatened to withdraw U.S. troops from Italy following a dispute in late March, when Italy denied U.S. access to a military air base in Sicily. Trump issued a similar warning to Spain. On Friday, the Pentagon announced 5,000 U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Germany over six to 12 months.

Asked during a Thursday news conference whether he would take similar action against Spain and Italy, Trump said it was “probably” something he would consider.

“Why shouldn’t I?” he said. “Italy has not been of any help to us, and Spain has been horrible, absolutely horrible.”

Straight Arrow is awaiting comment from the Vatican.

Round out your reading

• First, it was the schools. Now they’re coming for your cellphone at work.
• Why one of America’s top economic forecasters is worried about a recession.
• AI companies may not be adhering to their own guidelines — with potentially deadly outcomes.
• Data centers are a thorny issue for Democrats. Maine shows us why.
• We’re building a new Straight Arrow. Help us shape our future by taking our survey.

In a statement, U.S. Africa Command said the two went missing on Saturday while participating in training exercises near the city of Tan Tan.

"U.S., Moroccan and other assets from African Lion immediately initiated coordinated search and rescue operations, including ground, air, and maritime assets," the statement read.

A U.S. military official told The New York Times the two Army soldiers were out on an early evening hike at a training range and are believed to have fallen off a cliff into the water.

This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available.

“I will soon be reviewing the plan that Iran has just sent to us, but can’t imagine that it would be acceptable,” Trump wrote in a social media post, adding that Iran “has not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years.”

While boarding Air Force One the president was asked under what constraints the U.S. would resume military strikes.

"Well, I don't want to say that. I mean, I can't tell that to a reporter," he said. " If they misbehave, if they do something bad. But right now, we'll see. But, you know, it's a possibility that could happen certainly."

The remarks come as the 60-day deadline under the War Powers Act of 1973 has been reached, with the White House not requesting authorization from Congress to continue the Iran conflict. The situation has left lawmakers divided over whether the requirement applies during an ongoing ceasefire.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators earlier this week the administration views the ceasefire as pausing the War Powers timeline, arguing the clock stops while active fighting is suspended.

“Ultimately, I would defer to the White House and White House counsel on that,” Hegseth said. “However, we are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.”

That interpretation was challenged by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who said the law does not allow for such a pause and warned the administration could already be out of compliance.

“I do not believe the statute would support that,” Kaine said. “That’s going to pose a really important legal question for the administration there.”

Under the law, a president has 60 days to conduct military operations without congressional approval. After that, the administration must obtain authorization, begin withdrawing forces or request a limited extension.

The Trump administration notified Congress of hostilities on March 2, making May 1 the 60-day mark. Some Republicans argue the president can rely on a built-in 30-day extension, while others say Congress should vote on whether to continue the war.

Trump has also suggested Iran is open to negotiations, telling reporters Thursday that “Iran is dying to make a deal,” while maintaining that Tehran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran’s state-run news agency said the country sent a new proposal for negotiations through Pakistani mediators. U.S. officials have not detailed the contents of the proposal or said whether they will seek congressional approval if talks fail to advance.

Meanwhile, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she plans to introduce legislation to authorize the war if the White House does not present what she called a “credible plan” within a week, potentially forcing a vote when the Senate returns later this month.

Round out your reading

• First, it was the schools. Now they’re coming for your cellphone at work.
• Why one of America’s top economic forecasters is worried about a recession.
• AI companies may not be adhering to their own guidelines — with potentially deadly outcomes.
• Data centers are a thorny issue for Democrats. Maine shows us why.
• We’re building a new Straight Arrow. Help us shape our future by taking our survey.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement on Friday that he expects the withdrawal "to be completed over the next 6 to 12 months," according to The Washington Post.

At a talk with students in Marsberg on Monday, Merz said the U.S. "is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership," adding that it "quite obviously went into this war in Iran without any strategy whatsoever."

"I hope that this ends as quickly as possible," Merz said.

President Donald Trump responded on Truth Social the next day that his German counterpart "doesn’t know what he’s talking about!"

"If Iran had a Nuclear Weapon, the whole World would be held hostage. I am doing something with Iran, right now, that other Nations, or Presidents, should have done long ago," Trump said. "No wonder Germany is doing so poorly, both Economically, and otherwise!"

Then on Wednesday, Trump said that the U.S. was studying and reviewing a reduction of troops in Germany.

On Saturday, Germany's Defense Minister Boris Pistorius downplayed the removal of U.S. troops from his country, Politico reported.

“It was anticipated that the U.S. might withdraw troops from Europe, including Germany," Pistorius said. "If we are to remain transatlantic, we must strengthen the European pillar within NATO.”

NATO spokesperson Allison Hart said in a statement that the organization is “working with the U.S. to understand the details” of the troop withdrawal, adding the move "underscores the need for Europe to invest more in defense," Politico reported.

European officials expressed concern, including Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who said on X "the greatest threat to the transatlantic community are not its external enemies, but the ongoing disintegration of our alliance."

"We must all do what it takes to reverse this disastrous trend," Tusk said.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that the U.S. taking troops out of Germany would embolden Russia in its war with Ukraine.

The order "is not grounded in any coherent U.S. national security policy, strategy, or even analysis," Smith said. "Trump has directed this move simply because he got his feelings hurt by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s statements criticizing his war of choice with Iran."

The Republican chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services committees put out a joint statement saying they are "very concerned" about the withdrawal of troops.

"Prematurely reducing America’s forward presence in Europe before those capabilities are fully realized risks undermining deterrence and sending the wrong signal to [Russian President] Vladimir Putin," Sen. Roger Wicker and Rep. Mike Rogers said.

And the U.S. might not be done withdrawing troops from other countries, either. Asked by a reporter if he's considering the same for Spain and Italy, as they refused to let the U.S. use their military bases in the Iran war, Trump said "probably."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked. "Italy has not been of any help to us, and Spain has been horrible, absolutely horrible."

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said the shift reflects a more challenging security environment, arguing that no country can ensure its safety on its own. 

Why the shift matters to Japan and the US

For the United States, the impact extends beyond Japan’s break from its pacifist past. 

The change could eventually ease pressure on allied weapons production, including U.S. supply chains that have been stretched by support for Ukraine, Israel and broader defense commitments. 

Japan has already begun moving in that direction. In 2023, Tokyo approved the transfer of advanced air defense systems to the U.S., allowing Washington to replenish its own stockpiles while continuing to supply military aid to Ukraine. 

Japanese officials say the broader policy shift is aimed at deepening defense cooperation and strengthening deterrence in a region shaped by pressure from China and North Korea.

How the new rules work

Japan’s National Security Council will review lethal export requests on a case-by-case basis. 

Sales will be limited to countries with existing defense agreements, and exports to nations actively engaged in conflict will generally remain barred — though the government left room for exceptions tied to national security.

The new rules also expand Japan’s role in joint defense production. With Cabinet approval, Tokyo can export weapons developed through international partnerships to third countries.  

That opens the door to future exports tied to a next-generation fighter jet program with the U.K. and Italy. Japan has also finalized an agreement to provide Mogami-class frigates to Australia, with deliveries set to begin in 2029.

Why Tokyo is moving now

The immediate impact is likely to be limited. Expanding production capacity takes time.

Over the longer term, though, the change could widen the pool of available suppliers and help support allied inventories. 

Tokyo officials are also looking to strengthen the country's own defense industry and expand its network of security partners as global alliances shift. China has criticized the move, accusing Japan of moving toward remilitarization and warning it could increase regional tensions.

What happens next

Japanese leaders plan to further define the export framework later this year when they overhaul the country's broader national security strategy. 

Officials also say they will tighten post-export monitoring, including possible on-site inspections of how export weapons are used. 

The next phase will depend on how quickly Japan can translate the policy shift into production, exports, and joint programs while managing the diplomatic fallout already building across the region.

Round out your reading

• First, it was the schools. Now they’re coming for your cellphone at work.
• Why one of America’s top economic forecasters is worried about a recession.
• AI companies may not be adhering to their own guidelines — with potentially deadly outcomes.
• Data centers are a thorny issue for Democrats. Maine shows us why.
• We’re building a new Straight Arrow. Help us shape our future by taking our survey.

On Saturday morning, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations said there were attacks on a tanker and a container ship in the strait. The tanker was fired on by two Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps boats, while an "unknown projectile" hit the container ship.

This comes a day after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced the Strait of Hormuz was open. President Donald Trump, at the time, praised the decision on Truth Social, and claimed that Iran agreed to never close the strait again.

Even though the Strait of Hormuz was declared open, Trump said a maritime blockade on ships entering or exiting Iranian ports and coastal areas would still be in place.

Since the blockade started Monday, U.S. Central Command said, 23 ships have complied with U.S. forces' mandate to turn around.

The Iranian military spokesperson cited this blockade as the reason why the strait is now closed.

Speaking to reporters on Friday afternoon, Trump said if a deal between Iran and the U.S. isn't reached before a temporary ceasefire ends, the blockade will remain.

"Unfortunately, we'll have to start dropping bombs again," Trump said.

During an executive order signing on Saturday, Trump said the U.S. is having "good conversations" with Iran, though "they got a little cute, as they have been doing for 47 years."

"They wanted to close up the strait again, you know, as they've been doing for years, and they can't blackmail us," Trump said.

However, Iran's deputy foreign minister, Saeed Khatibzadeh, told reporters no negotiations are currently scheduled.

"We are now focusing on finalising ⁠the framework of understanding between two sides," he said at a diplomacy forum in Turkey on Saturday. "We don't want to enter into any ​negotiation or meeting which is doomed to fail and which can be a pretext ​for another round of escalation."

Until a framework is agreed on, "we cannot set the date," he said.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said the army chief for Pakistan, which is mediating talks, presented new U.S. proposals to Iran on a recent visit.

These are still under review, the council said.

In any further discussions between Iran and the U.S., the council said, the latter country will have to abandon “excessive demands and adjust its requests to the realities on the ground."

Iran will maintain control over traffic in the strait until “the war fully ends," the council added, according to The Associated Press. This includes gathering information on vessels that pass through, issuing transit certificates and imposing tolls.

The discussions gained traction after Germany, which for years preferred to keep the U.S. at the center of European defense, began shifting its position under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Why Europe is preparing for a larger NATO role

The shift reflects growing concern across Europe that Washington may no longer be a dependable guarantor of the continent’s security.

The Journal reported that President Donald Trump’s threats against Greenland helped push the talks forward. More recently, Trump has complained bitterly about Europe’s refusal to back the U.S. military campaign in Iran, giving efforts to plan for a future without U.S. support new urgency.

That anxiety also surfaced publicly in February at the Munich Security Conference, where officials and analysts described a world order under strain and questioned whether the United States could still be counted on as it once was.

Straight Arrow News previously reported from the conference that its 2026 security report warned of “wrecking-ball politics” and that attendees voiced concern about whether long-standing alliances could hold.

Merz said at the conference that the rules-based order “no longer exists” and warned that Europe’s freedom is “not guaranteed.”

• 
  
  Copy URL
  
• 
  
  Save image
  
• 
  
  Email
  
• 
  
  Facebook
  
• 
  
  Twitter / X
  
• 
  
  Reddit
  

Unbiased. Straight Facts.^TM

While no country has ever fully left NATO, France withdrew from the alliance’s military command structure in 1966 under President Charles de Gaulle before returning in 2009.

What officials say Europe would have to replace

Officials involved say the discussions are not about building a separate alliance, but about shifting more NATO responsibilities to European governments. The aim is to ensure the alliance can still deter Russia and continue operating if the United States reduces its presence or support.

That would require Europeans to take on responsibilities now heavily concentrated in U.S. hands. The alliance's framework relies heavily on American dominance across key areas, including supply chains, reconnaissance and military authority. 

According to The Journal, officials are now working through practical questions about who would run key military functions if U.S. officers stepped aside, including exercises, logistics and force movement near NATO’s eastern flank.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said NATO remains “irreplaceable” for both Europe and the States.

“But it’s also clear that we Europeans must assume more responsibility for our defense, and we are doing that,” said Pistorius, according to The Journal. “NATO must become more European in order to remain trans-Atlantic.”

Finnish President Alexander Stubb said Europe is already taking on more of that burden and argued the transition should happen in a “managed and controllable way,” not through a rapid U.S. withdrawal.

How Germany’s shift changed the debate

The biggest political change appears to be in Berlin. The Journal reported that Merz began rethinking Germany’s traditional dependence on the U.S. after concluding late last year that Trump appeared willing to abandon Ukraine and that shared values were no longer clearly shaping Washington’s NATO policy.

That shift in Berlin helped bring together countries — including France, Britain, Canada, Poland and the Nordic states — for contingency discussions.

Still, the hardest gaps remain unresolved. While European governments can assume more command positions, years of relying on U.S. military power have left them short on critical capabilities. The Journal reported that Europe still lacks key strengths in intelligence, surveillance, missile warning and nuclear deterrence.

That helps explain why some of the most sensitive discussions now extend beyond conventional forces. After Trump threatened Greenland, Merz spoke with French President Emmanuel Macron about whether France’s nuclear umbrella could be broadened to protect Germany and other European allies, The Journal reported.

What Europe can do now — and what it still cannot replace

For now, the planning is informal and has not become an official NATO overhaul, The Journal reported. But officials are already considering steps that could reduce Europe’s dependence on Washington, such as increasing defense production and, in some countries, reconsidering military conscription.

Even supporters of the shift say the transition would be difficult and incomplete without the U.S. The Supreme Allied Commander Europe post remains American, and no European government can quickly replace the military, intelligence and nuclear role Washington now fills.

The Wall Street Journal reports the U.S. has positioned more than 15 warships for the operation. Ship-tracking data cited by CNN and BBC Verify shows light traffic near Iranian ports and a sharp drop in overall flow— but not a total halt.

Why the blockade falls short of full control

The U.S. is trying to squeeze Iran economically by blocking traffic tied to its ports, not by closing the Strait entirely.  But Iran still holds a key advantage: geography.

The Washington Post reports that the Strait’s narrow lanes, shallow waters, islands and elevated coastline make ships highly exposed to mines, missiles, drones and small-boat attacks. That means the real deterrent is not simply the U.S. Navy’s presence. It is the continued risk of crossing at all.

Before the war, more than 130 ships crossed the Strait daily, according to Kpler data cited by The Post. Since the ceasefire, that average has fallen to about seven a day. More than 700 vessels remain in the Gulf, according to Windward data.

How the US is enforcing the blockade

The Journal reports the U.S. is likely trying to intercept  or quarantine vessels outside the Persian Gulf, in areas like the Arabian Sea, rather than crowd warships near  Iran’s coastline. That approach reduces the danger from Iranian attacks  while still targeting ships linked to  Iranian commerce.

If a ship’s crew refuses to comply, enforcement would require specialized tactical units, like Marines or Navy SEALs, to board vessels. Former officials also told the Journal that if the U.S. actually takes control of tankers, it may need replacement crews and designated places to hold them. 

The Journal also reports Iranian-flagged ships may still attempt to pass through the Strait, potentially with armed escorts from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

CNN’s reporting suggests enforcement remains uneven and difficult. Windward analysts say outbound traffic may be easier to control than inbound vessels, especially when ships use deceptive tracking practices. 

A shipping executive told CNN the blockade should not be taken too literally.

“I would be careful not to interpret that too literally as a physical interdiction at the Strait itself,” said Bjorn Hojgaard, CEO of Anglo-Eastern.

What ship-tracking data shows so far

So far, shipping data shows both pressure and gaps in enforcement. CNN reports limited movement in and out of  Iranian ports during the first full day, but says some tankers are still transiting the Strait. 

BBC Verify reports at least four Iran-linked ships crossed after the blockade began, including vessels tied to  Iranian ports or already under U.S. sanctions. Some ship positions may also be masked through spoofing. That mixed picture helps explain continued caution across the shipping industry. . The Post reports Hapag-Lloyd is still avoiding the Strait under its current risk assessment. Analysts told the paper traffic is unlikely to rebound quickly unless operators believe the ceasefire will hold and the threat to vessels will ease. 

CNN also reports the broader dispute remains unresolved. Iran continues to link full access to the Strait  to a wider agreement  over its nuclear program, sanctions, security guarantees and other terms, while the U.S. is demanding the immediate reopening of the waterway.

More talks remain possible, but the White House has also shown little desire for a long, open-ended bargaining process.

At the same time, officials are considering limited military strikes alongside the blockade, while a return to a broader bombing campaign appears less likely given the chance of wider destabilization in the region.

Trump’s public posture combined escalation with the possibility that diplomacy could continue. He said “most points were agreed to,” but that the nuclear issue was not, leaving open the chance of more talks even as he threatened Iranian infrastructure and ordered the blockade to begin.

What the blockade would do

Trump said the Navy would begin a blockade, stop or divert vessels that paid tolls to Iran and start clearing mines from the waterway. He framed the move as a response to what he called Iranian extortion in the Strait of Hormuz.

“Any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

U.S. Central Command described the operation more narrowly. It said the blockade would begin at 10 a.m. ET on April 13 and would apply to maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports. It also noted that the military would allow commercial ships traveling through the Strait to and from other nations' ports to pass unimpeded.

Why the talks broke down

The talks in Islamabad left the core dispute unchanged. Vance said the United States had made its “red lines” clear and that Iran had chosen not to accept them. According to U.S. officials, these demands required Iran to allow toll-free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, completely dismantle its uranium enrichment capabilities, hand over its highly enriched uranium, agree to a new regional security pact and halt its funding for militant proxies like the Houthis and Hezbollah.

In contrast, Tehran's public description of the talks put the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, war reparations and the broader end of the conflict alongside the nuclear issue, showing that Tehran is negotiating over more than enrichment alone.

Each option carries risk

Each option carries obvious costs. A return to major combat could trigger another round of energy disruption after the earlier war already pushed up gasoline prices and created shortages in critical goods. A blockade also presents tactical dangers. U.S. officials cited by The Wall Street Journal cautioned that warships stationed in the tight confines off the Iranian coast would have minimal time to react to sudden drone or missile strikes.

For the White House, the domestic politics are difficult too. Higher fuel prices remain a liability, and a wider war would likely deepen criticism from voters already wary of another Middle East conflict. According to The Times, the administration is balancing pressure on Tehran against the risks of a broader war.

Some unnamed officials and analysts, according to The Journal, view a blockade as the most viable alternative for the administration, allowing it to squeeze Tehran economically without immediately committing to another massive bombing campaign. But Iran has already shown it can withstand pressure for long periods and remains defiant even after weeks of U.S. and Israeli strikes.

What comes next

For now, the administration is moving first with maritime pressure under Trump’s order and CENTCOM’s guidance. After that, the key question is whether the administration uses the blockade to force Iran back into negotiations or decides that more coercion, including limited strikes, is necessary. The current ceasefire expires on April 21, giving the White House a short window to see whether maritime pressure will change Iran’s position.

“Today, we began the process of establishing a new passage, and we will share this safe pathway with the maritime industry soon to encourage the free flow of commerce,” said Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of CENTCOM.

The movement marked the first known transit by U.S. warships through the strait since the start of the war against Iran.

The operation was not coordinated with Iran, a U.S. official told Axios.

Iranian state media characterized the transit as a violation of a ceasefire agreement and reported threats to target the ships. The U.S. official said no such warning was received.

The transit comes as the reopening of the strait remains a key provision of the U.S.-Iran ceasefire deal. The waterway, which lies off Iran’s southern coast, is a critical route for global oil shipments and broader international trade.

Shipping traffic has remained limited in the days following the ceasefire, with only a small number of vessels reported to have passed through Saturday. A U.S. official said earlier in the week that some ships had avoided the route due to intimidation concerns.

In a social media post early Saturday, President Donald Trump referenced efforts to secure the strait, stating that the U.S. was “starting the process of clearing out the Strait of Hormuz” and downplaying Iran’s military capabilities.

The Selective Service System plans to automatically register eligible men by December 2026 under a change Congress approved in the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. The move would replace the long-standing system that largely required men ages 18 to 25 to register.

The Selective Service says it exists to maintain a pool of registrants that could be used only if the president and Congress authorize a draft during a national emergency. The United States still relies on an all-volunteer force, and the last draft ended in 1973 during the Vietnam War.

The issue has also drawn political attention. When asked about the possibility of a draft amid the Iran war, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Donald Trump “keeps his options on the table.”

The change comes as the war in Iran and debate over U.S. troop commitments have raised new public questions about military readiness and the possibility of a draft.

Why automatic registration is changing now

The government has required most men ages 18 to 25 to register in case a draft is ever reinstated. Selective Service says the new law would shift that responsibility from individuals to the government by drawing on federal data sources.

Proponents say the change should save millions of dollars now spent on outreach and compliance efforts, according to the BBC. It also comes after compliance slipped. CNBC reported that 81% of eligible men registered in 2024, down from the previous year.

What changed in the law — and what remains unclear

The key legal change came in the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which the Selective Service says mandated automatic registration.

The Selective Service says the change will be implemented by integrating with federal data sources, though the agency has not specified which databases it will use. The BBC reported that most states and territories already automatically register men when they obtain a driver’s license.

That leaves major implementation details unclear. The agency has not publicly explained how it would resolve errors, exemptions or disputed records.

The Selective Service says it maintains a system that can provide manpower only “when authorized by the President and Congress.” CNBC reported that there are currently no formal plans to reinstate a draft.

Automatic registration would expand the pool of people on file, but it would not by itself activate a draft.

For many, the registration requirement is easy to ignore until the notice actually arrives.

When the Selective Service becomes personal

A couple of weeks before my 18th birthday in 2008, an envelope from the government showed up in the mail. Inside was the Selective Service paperwork — the kind of form that looks routine until you realize what it is asking of you. At the time, I had not decided whether I wanted to join the military.

Seeing that notice felt strange and unavoidable. I remember feeling confused at first, then a little uneasy. Not panicked, exactly, but aware that the paper in my hands mattered more than most mail did. It was asking me to step into a system I had not yet chosen, at a moment when my future still felt open.

What made it harder to brush off was everything happening around me. My brother was already on his third tour in Iraq, so military service was not abstract in our house. Filling out that paperwork did not feel like checking off some distant civic requirement.

At that age, I was still thinking in terms of classes, next steps and possibilities. Then this form showed up, reminding me that the country had its own ideas for me.

I signed it, and 15 months later, I decided to join the Marine Corps. With the Iraq war still going and the Selective Service notice fresh in my mind, part of me wanted to make that choice myself, instead of feeling like the government might one day make it for me.

What recruiting data shows about the volunteer force

Separate from the draft debate, recruiting data helps paint a broader picture of military readiness.

USAFacts reports that military applications hit a 40-year low in 2022, but the Pentagon estimated that 146,473 people enlisted in fiscal year 2024, up 14% from 2022’s low mark. As of April 2025, all branches except the Space Force were on track to meet or exceed their recruiting goals. The Defense Department expected to meet all 2025 recruiting goals.

In December 2025, the Defense Department described fiscal year 2025 as its best recruiting year in 15 years. According to the Defense Department, the Army exceeded its goal with 62,050 recruits; the Navy brought in 44,096; the Air Force recruited 30,166; the Space Force added 819; and the Marine Corps reached 26,600. Department officials credited faster medical screening, aptitude-improvement courses and other recruiting changes.

USAFacts notes that Congress approved several recent pay raises, including an additional 10.5% increase for junior enlistees effective in 2025. It also says the military adjusted recruiting strategies and expanded preparation programs for applicants.

USAFacts also highlighted continuing recruiting challenges. The overall size of the military is down sharply from its Cold War and Vietnam-era peaks. It says 77% of young adults are disqualified from service without a waiver, with obesity, education shortfalls and criminal or drug records among the biggest barriers. In a 2024 survey, 87% of people ages 16 to 21 said they were probably not or definitely not considering enlistment.

A federal grand jury has indicted the 40-year-old former Army employee on a charge of transmitting classified national defense information to a journalist. FBI agents arrested Williams on Tuesday.

The case combines several issues: national security law; alleged misconduct within a secretive, elite military unit; and the legal risks faced by whistleblowers who walk a thin line between exposing wrongdoing and disclosing classified information.

Williams was a central figure in a 2025 Politico article and in Seth Harp’s book “The Fort Bragg Cartel,” which described her work as a “signature reduction specialist” for a special military unit at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Her duties included helping create fake identities and front companies tied to clandestine missions. Prosecutors allege that Williams shared classified material with a reporter between 2022 and 2025 and that some of it later appeared in a news article and a book.

The case does not center on Williams’ claims of mistreatment inside the unit. Instead, prosecutors say she disclosed classified tactics, techniques and procedures linked to a special military unit at Fort Bragg.

The complaint, filed in federal court in North Carolina earlier this month, describes the material as “SECRET//NOFORN” information tied to "covert missions."

What prosecutors allege

Politico’s 2025 article, adapted from Harp’s book, presented Williams as a former employee who said she had faced severe harassment while working in Delta Force’s mission support structure. The article also described support work she said she handled, including passports, cover identities and front companies tied to clandestine missions.

Federal investigators now allege that some of the information attributed to Williams in the article and book was classified. The Justice Department said Williams worked for the unit from 2010 to 2016, held a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance, and signed nondisclosure agreements warning that unauthorized disclosures could be criminal offenses.

The Justice Department said Williams is charged under a federal law that bars the willful transmission of national defense information to someone not authorized to receive it.

Prosecutors say Williams and the journalist exchanged more than 180 messages and logged more than 10 hours of phone calls between 2022 and 2025.

The complaint says Williams worked in an operational support role with regular access to classified material, including mission procedures that investigators say could expose personnel to danger if disclosed. Authorities also point to what they describe as evidence about document sharing, including a 2022 exchange about a thumb drive that investigators say suggests Williams provided materials to the journalist.

According to the complaint and a Justice Department press release, Williams also texted the journalist on the day that both the Politico article and Harp’s book were published, saying she was worried about “the amount of classified information being disclosed.” Prosecutors further allege she sent a message saying she could be arrested and was “probably going to jail for life.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said the arrest should warn would-be leakers. Assistant Attorney General John Eisenberg said people trusted with clearances have a duty to protect classified information.

How Harp is responding

Harp has sharply disputed the government’s allegations. He called the arrest “penny-ante political theater” and described Williams as a “courageous whistleblower” who exposed gender discrimination and sexual harassment in an important military unit.

He also challenged one piece of the government’s evidence, saying the thumb drive mentioned in the complaint held a public EEOC filing that was too large to email, not classified material, according to the Guardian.

The complaint refers only to “the Journalist,” but both The Washington Post and the Guardian identified Harp as the reporter involved, noting that Williams had been quoted by name in his Politico article and in his book.

Harp was not accused of wrongdoing.

The move has faced fierce criticism from their opponents, who say they are overreacting to Trump, and from their supporters, who say they are too weak. If the ceasefire holds, Democrats may have less momentum in limiting Trump’s power to continue the war in Iran.

How have Democrats reacted?

Reactions from Democrats were mixed after Trump announced a two-week ceasefire Tuesday evening, hours after threatening to eviscerate the Iranian civilization without a deal. But many steered clear of mocking him for backing off threats for a massive attack for the fifth time. 

Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., asked her colleagues not to make “TACO” jokes — a reference to “Trump always chickens out” — about the ceasefire. She said the ceasefire was important and Democrats should focus on the loss of life it prevented. 

“I do not appreciate anyone — Democrat or Republican — taking this moment to make TACO jokes to say Trump ‘chickened out,’” Ansari wrote. “The president was threatening genocide against 90 million Iranians. I’m grateful there’s a ceasefire & scores of innocent people didn’t die tonight.”

A day earlier, Ansari appeared in an interview with MSNOW’s “All In,” where she outlined the “Trump cycle.” She said the ceasefire was a solution to a problem he created.

“This is the Trump cycle,” Ansari said. “He creates a crisis. He then tries to tell the American people that he’s solved the crisis and then he reverses course, and that’s exactly what’s happened with the ceasefire and with the Strait of Hormuz and so many details of what is happening in Iran.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., argued that the ceasefire changed nothing, saying Trump has done more than enough to justify impeachment. 

“All of these incidents, and plenty more, have clearly driven our country past the threshold for impeachment or invocation of the 25th amendment,” she wrote on X. “Whether by his Cabinet or Congress, the President must be removed from office. We are playing with the brink.”

Have Democrats missed their chance? 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on Wednesday that Democrats would force a vote on a war powers resolution once Congress returns from recess next week. Democrats tried twice last month to limit Trump’s war powers after the U.S. attacks in Iran began. Both votes failed. 

“If he restarts this war we will be in even worse shape,” Schumer wrote on X. “We must pass our War Powers Resolution to end this war for good.”

A few Republican votes would be needed to force a vote on the resolution — and to pass it. But it’s unclear whether any GOP members of Congress are willing to anger Trump during a midterm election year. A few Republicans had publicly rebuffed Trump after he wrote on social media that “a whole civilization will die. But with the deal still holding, Axios reported, those lawmakers are likely back in the fold.

Some Democrats have criticized the party for not forcing another war powers vote before the congressional recess. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said during a podcast appearance on Monday that it’s baffling that Congress is on recess while the country is in a foreign conflict. 

“We’re in one of the major wars that we’ve been in in many years for two weeks, and then Congress is out for two weeks,” he said. “Don’t you think … that we should be, every day, debating that from the House floor? That we should be voting on war powers resolutions.”

Khanna said Democrats need to fight for things they believe in and be as “relentless” as he and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., were when they pushed for the Epstein Transparency Act, which eventually became law. 

“We haven't seen Congress stand up and say, ‘No, we’re going to push back in a meaningful, assertive way,’” Khanna said. “That’s why the Federalist Papers aren’t working, because you have a pliant branch of government on war and peace, because many members of Congress are fine not having to deal with these complicated controversies.”

Iranian media agency Fars reported that the government allowed two tankers to leave the Strait “after obtaining permission from Iran," NBC News reported. However, further passages were halted because of Israel’s strikes inside Lebanon. The Israeli Defense Forces said Wednesday’s attacks were some of the heaviest leveled against the country’s northern neighbor. 

Israeli and U.S. officials said the ceasefire does not apply to Israel’s attacks in Lebanon, which they said are meant to target the militant group Hezbollah. However, this contradicts Pakistani Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who was a key mediator in the agreement, and the plan reported on by Iranian state media. 

Iran responds

Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi said the ceasefire was “clear and explicit,” pointing directly to Lebanon in a post on X. 

“The Iran–U.S. Ceasefire terms are clear and explicit: the U.S. must choose—ceasefire or continued war via Israel. It cannot have both,” he wrote. “The world sees the massacres in Lebanon. The ball is in the U.S. court, and the world is watching whether it will act on its commitments.”

The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has warned it will retaliate if Israel’s strikes continue in Lebanon. Hezbollah has also said it reserved its “natural and legal right to resist occupation and respond to its attacks,” according to The Associated Press. The militant group has not claimed any attacks on Israel since the ceasefire began. 

Has the White House responded? 

During a press conference following the reclosure, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt demanded Iran reopen the Strait. She also said that Vice President JD Vance would lead the negotiations, which are expected to continue on Friday in Pakistan. 

“Vice President Vance has played a very significant and a key role in this since the very beginning,” Leavitt said, the AP reports. “Of course, he’s the president’s right-hand man. He is the vice president of the United States. He’s been involved in all of these discussions.”

The Trump administration is presenting the war with Iran as a U.S. victory. Still, the ceasefire that took effect Tuesday leaves several major questions unsettled.

Will Iran truly allow shipping through the Strait of Hormuz? What is the status of Iran’s enriched uranium and its nuclear ambitions? And will negotiations between the U.S. and Iran produce an agreement on economic sanctions, nuclear enrichment and missile-related issues?

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the campaign a “decisive” victory, while Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine said the ceasefire is only a “pause" and that U.S. forces remain ready.

"Let us be clear," Caine said during a Pentagon briefing Wednesday, "a ceasefire is a pause and the joint force remains ready if ordered or called upon to resume combat operations with the same speed and precision as we've demonstrated over the last 38 days."

Key elements of the ceasefire are already in doubt.

According to Iran’s government-affiliated Fars News Agency, oil tankers transiting the Strait were halted on Wednesday after what it described as a violation of the ceasefire by Israel. Although Israel agreed to pause military operations in Iran, it continues to attack Hezbollah positions in Lebanon.

Why the ‘victory’ claims face an early test

The administration is arguing that the war achieved its main goals.

Hegseth said that the U.S. had rendered Iran’s military “combat-ineffective for years to come” and had “functionally destroyed” its missile program. He added that Washington is now dealing with what he called a “new regime” in Tehran.

Hegseth said Iran had “systematically” lost its top leadership, including the previous Supreme Leader and the Supreme National Security Council secretary.

However, reporting from inside Iran suggests the power structure remains heavily shaped by hard-line security figures. Iran International and the Institute for the Study of War reported that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps figures, especially Ahmad Vahidi and Ali Abdollahi, are driving key wartime decisions, while the authority of President Masoud Pezeshkian, a relative moderate, has shrunk. That suggests hard-line security actors remain central to decision-making even after the ceasefire.

Why uranium and sanctions remain unresolved

When Trump announced the military operation against Iran on Feb. 28, he used the word “nuclear” 11 times during his eight-minute speech, suggesting that preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons was a key objective. Available reporting points to a more complicated outcome.

Haaretz reported that major differences remain between Iran’s ceasefire proposal and U.S. positions, including over enrichment and sanctions. Key questions also remain over the future of Iran’s missile program, the terms of any nuclear settlement and the status of its enriched uranium.

Hegseth said Wednesday that if Iran did not surrender its uranium, the U.S. would take it by force if necessary. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran possessed about 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium as of June 2025. Iran has not publicly committed to turning it over to the Americans or other parties.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council left the fate of the country’s enriched uranium open in its proposed framework for talks, suggesting that major differences remain over enrichment, sanctions and the terms of any broader settlement.

According to an American Nuclear Society summary of IAEA reporting, U.S. and Israeli strikes last summer destroyed the aboveground pilot enrichment plant at Natanz and damaged multiple facilities at Esfahan. However, no damage was reported at Fordow.

The same summary quoted IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi saying there was no evidence Iran was building a bomb, while also warning that Iran’s large stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium and limits on inspector access remained serious concerns.

Why Hormuz remains a pressure point

The Strait of Hormuz may be the biggest sticking point in the ceasefire. The New York Times reported Wednesday that shipping through the strait remains throttled, with around 800 tankers waiting on either side and only a handful of vessels crossing since the truce took effect.

Iran’s foreign minister said passage would be possible only if coordinated with Iran’s military and subject to “technical limitations,” a formulation that has left shipowners, insurers and analysts wary.

That is not the same as restoring the prewar status quo. The Times reported that before the war, more than 130 ships crossed the strait each day; since the war began, only about 120 ships total have made the passage. Even if traffic improves, experts told The Times that shipping and fuel flows could take months to normalize.

What the next round of talks will have to resolve

With many issues unresolved, talks between the U.S. and Iran are expected to begin in Islamabad on Friday and could last up to 15 days. The immediate test is whether the ceasefire holds and whether Iran’s limited reopening of the Strait of Hormuz allows shipping to resume as normal.

The bigger test is whether Washington can turn battlefield gains into a settlement that resolves uranium, missiles, sanctions and maritime access — issues that remain unsettled even as Trump and his aides claim victory.

Still, Stefano Ritondale, chief intelligence officer at Artorias, told Straight Arrow News that Kurdish groups could play “an important role” in a broader anti-regime strategy if they draw Iranian forces toward the northwest and create openings for U.S. and Israeli strikes. Artorias aggregates intelligence data for governments and businesses worldwide.

The White House has pushed back on reports of any approved Kurdish insurgency plan. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt called such reports “completely false,” according to The New York Times.

Why Kurdish groups matter in this conflict

Iranian Kurdish groups are drawing new attention because they operate along Iran’s western border with Iraq and could, in theory, complicate Tehran’s security response. But their possible role depends on more than geography, including their military capacity, their political aims, whether outside support materializes and whether unrest spreads more broadly inside Iran.

Estimates of Iran’s Kurdish population vary, with Henri Barkey of the Council on Foreign Relations putting it at 10 million to 15 million and Chatham House’s Winthrop M. Rodgers estimating 7 million to 15 million. Both described a long history of repression in Kurdish areas.

What Kurdish groups, officials and analysts are saying

The renewed focus stems in part from recent Kurdish political coordination. Barkey wrote that five Kurdish groups agreed on Feb. 22 to form a united front. Atlantic Council expert Yerevan Saeed said the coalition initially brought together KDPI, PJAK, PAK, Khabat and one Komala faction, with the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan joining on March 4.

The Times reported that the CIA had previously provided small weapons to Iranian Kurdish forces as part of a covert effort to destabilize Iran. CNN also reported that the CIA had been working to arm Kurdish forces. The agency did not comment on the reports.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, however, downplayed U.S. reliance on the Kurds.

“None of our objectives are premised on the support of the arming of any particular force,” he said.

Ritondale told SAN that Iranian Kurdish groups are capable in the near term of “limited localized offensive operations” and insurgent-style attacks against isolated facilities operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Ground Forces and the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, known as Artesh. He said more significant operations would likely depend on logistical, intelligence and air support from the U.S. or Israel.

Khalid Azizi, a spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, told Fox News that Kurdish groups are prepared and organized but “do not have any intention” at this stage of entering Iranian Kurdistan.

"It’s very easy to start a war," Aziizi said, "but it will be more complicated how to end this war."

That caution has also appeared in official regional statements. A March 4 press release from the Kurdistan Region Presidency said President Nechirvan Barzani and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi discussed border security and regional stability, and said the Kurdistan Region “will not be part of the conflicts.”

Why analysts disagree on what Kurdish involvement would mean

The central debate is whether Iranian Kurdish groups could become a meaningful pressure point without triggering political blowback or a broader regional backlash.

Ritondale argued that some news coverage has underestimated both Kurdish military pressure and cross-sectarian cooperation during anti-regime protests. He said Kurdish groups could become a more serious pressure point by drawing Iranian forces into the northwest, degrading internal stability and opening space for protests.

Other experts were more skeptical. Barkey said reports that thousands of fighters had gathered in northern Iraq appeared unrealistic and argued that the time needed to train Kurdish rebels makes near-term action unlikely. Rodgers wrote that the groups’ real battlefield strength remains unclear, and he quoted Komala leader Abdullah Mohtadi: “We will not send our forces to the slaughterhouse.”

The Atlantic also highlighted deep uncertainty within the Kurdish camp. The magazine reported that some fighters near the Iraq-Iran border appeared eager to join the conflict, while others warned that an armed push could lead to reprisals, wider regional disorder or abandonment by outside powers. The article also described voices in Kurdish politics arguing that any durable alternative to the regime would have to emerge from inside Iran, not from an externally backed ground campaign.

Why Kurdish involvement could cut both ways

There is also disagreement over how any Kurdish move would be received inside Iran. Ritondale told SAN that Tehran would likely use a Kurdish offensive to argue that the opposition was trying to fragment the country. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies made a similar argument, writing that backing Kurdish armed groups could strengthen that narrative and help the regime portray the conflict as foreign-backed dismemberment.

At the same time, other sources framed Kurdish goals more narrowly than outright secession. Rodgers wrote that Kurdish parties say they want rights and local self-rule within a future democratic Iran. Saeed similarly wrote that the coalition’s formal goal is self-determination within Iran, even as that remains a fault line within the wider anti-regime movement.

What would signal a real shift on the ground

The clearest signs to watch are whether Kurdish groups remain in a holding pattern, whether insurgent attacks in northwestern Iran increase, whether there are reports of force buildups in Iraqi Kurdistan and whether broader protests emerge inside Iran.

Ritondale told SAN that increased insurgent-level attacks in northwest Iran and signs of a larger Kurdish force buildup would suggest the groups are moving from a theoretical option to a real operational factor. 

Azizi told Fox that the Iranian regime remains in power because “people are not on the streets and there is no alternative right now to replace this regime.”

On Monday, President Donald Trump reiterated that those threats will materialize by Tuesday night if Iran doesn’t give in to his demands.

“We have a plan, because of the power of our military, where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o’clock tomorrow night,” Trump said at a news conference, “where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding and never to be used again.”

White House officials who spoke to Axios say there is still a chance that Trump extends the deadline a fifth time, especially if he sees a deal emerging.

"If the president sees a deal is coming together, he'll probably hold off," the senior administration official told Axios. "But only he and he alone makes that decision."

However, the official said they were "skeptical" that Trump would extend the deadline this time.

How many times has the US extended deadlines? 

Since the conflict began in late February, the president has gone back on threats he made against Iran at least four times. 

The first deadline was on March 21, when Trump gave Iran 48 hours to reopen the Strait of Hormuz "without threat" or the U.S. would "hit and obliterate" Iran’s power grid. Iran said that it would retaliate by fully shutting down the Strait if the U.S. carried out its strikes.

Two days after Trump set his first deadline, he announced he would extend it after "very good and productive conversations" with Iran. However, Iran denied that those talks ever took place. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said that “no negotiations have been held with the US,” in a post on X.

“Fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped,” he wrote in his post.

Oil markets did, in fact, enjoy Trump’s announcement, with prices dropping more than 10%, according to CNBC. However, Trump’s words seemed to lose their weight the next time this happened.

How do the markets react to Trump?

On March 26, Trump again delayed increased U.S. strikes for an additional 10 days on a Truth Social post. In his post, he said Iran had requested the extension, but Iran never confirmed. 

But the delay didn’t have the same effect on the oil market this time around. Crude oil prices dipped immediately after his announcement but ended the day higher than they were. Analysts that CNBC spoke to said markets like predictability and have found that Trump doesn’t always mean what he says. 

“Trump’s escalatory tone is very much in line with his playbook: headline-driven, unpredictable, and designed to apply maximum pressure quickly,” Mohit Mirpuri, an equity fund manager at SGMC Capital, told CNBC. “Markets will need to get used to this style of policymaking for the foreseeable future while he’s in office.”

Trump made several other threats following his last deadline but hasn't technically extended it since. However, on April 5, in an expletive-laden Truth Social post, Trump gave a precise deadline for Iran — Tuesday, 8 p.m. EDT. 

As the world and its markets hold their breath, mediators are still conducting discussions in hopes of finding a breakthrough before the deadline ends Tuesday night. Trump sounded almost optimistic about the negotiations ending in a ceasefire — almost.

"There is a good chance [they make a deal], but if they don't make a deal, I am blowing up everything over there," he said.

“We have a plan, because of the power of our military, where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o’clock tomorrow night,” Trump said at a news conference, “where every power plan in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding and never to be used again.”

“It will take them 100 years to rebuild,” he added.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who appeared alongside Trump at the White House, said U.S. attacks would intensify ahead of the president’s deadline.

“Per the president’s direction, today will be the largest volume of strikes since Day One of this operation,” Hegseth said. “Tomorrow, even more than today. And then Iran has a choice.”

Hours earlier, Iranian leaders announced they had rejected the Trump administration’s ceasefire deal, saying they would support an agreement only if it guaranteed neither the U.S. or Israel would attack Iran again.  

“We are calling for an end to the war and for preventing its recurrence,” Esmail Baghaei, foreign ministry spokesperson, said, according to CNN.  

The negotiations, which officials involved say are still underway, are meant to reopen the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has effectively closed the strait since the U.S. and Israeli attacks began on Feb. 28. The strait is a major chokepoint for the world’s oil supply, handling about a quarter of total daily global oil consumption. The disruption has led to a global supply upset and caused crude oil prices to jump to more than $112 a barrel.  

Trump vows to prosecute ‘leaker,’ journalist

Trump spoke at a news conference called to discuss the rescue of two U.S. airmen after Iran shot down their plane on Friday. He threatened to prosecute a “leaker” who told reporters Friday that the plane’s pilot had been rescued while a search was continuing for the other crew member, who was rescued Sunday.

“We’ll be able to find it out because we’re going to go to the media company that released it, and we’re going to say, ‘National security, give it up or go to jail,’” Trump said.

“The person that did the story will go to jail if he doesn’t say,” Trump added.

Trump said Iranian forces downed the F-15E jet with a shoulder-fired missile and that 155 U.S. aircraft took part in the rescue mission. “Subterfuge,” he said, diverted the Iranians’ attention from the downed service member’s location.

Hegseth compared the service member’s plight to the biblical story of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

“Shot down on a Friday: Good Friday,” Hegseth said. “Hidden in a cave, a crevice, all of Saturday. And rescue on Sunday. Flown out of Iran as the sun was rising on Easter Sunday, a pilot reborn. All home and accounted for, a nation rejoicing. God is good.”

Trump characterized Iran’s military as “very talented,” “very good” and “very powerful.” These comments contradict Trump’s previous statements about Iran’s military and even comments he made Monday. 

“We've knocked out their navy. We've knocked out their air force, completely,” he said. “They have no navy, they have no air force, they have no anti-aircraft weaponry.”

Why did Iran reject the ceasefire?

The deal that Iran rejected was a 45-day ceasefire that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials said they no longer trust the U.S. because the initial Epic Fury operation began in the middle of negotiations that negotiators said were going well. 

Despite Trump demanding that Iran accept the deal, he has yet to approve it, CNBC reported. One White House official told the publication that this was “one of many ideas, ​and [Trump] has not signed off on it.”

Trump’s own conditions have been separate from those proposed by mediators. Previously, Trump had said that they would only consider a ceasefire after Iran reopened the strait. At other times, he has said it doesn’t matter to the U.S. whether the strait is opened and that other countries that import oil from the region should “take” the waterway and hold it.

Mediators had hoped the deal could lead to a permanent end to the conflict, which has ravaged the stock market and sent crude oil prices skyrocketing.

Trump had given Iran until Tuesday night to agree to the deal or the U.S. would begin attacking civilian infrastructure, like bridges and power plants — a possible war crime under international law.

The two paths forward

Although Trump’s deadline for Iran looms, he has extended previous deadlines set during the six-week war.

If the U.S. does go forward with its expanded strikes, analysts believe it would be a bitter fight. While U.S. officials have said the Iranian government has fallen, experts dispute that assessment. Experts also doubt claims that Iran is almost out of weapons. Israeli intelligence says the Iranian regime holds at least 1,000 more missiles. 

Iranian officials have also said they may begin targeting other important shipping chokepoints, such as the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, according to NPR. The strait is located between Djibouti and Yemen, which is home to the Iran-backed Houthis, who recently entered the war.

The Bab al-Mandeb Strait connects the Red Sea to the Suez Canal. Experts estimate that 10% of global trade moves through the Red Sea. 

If Trump does extend the deadline, or if Iran agrees to his demands by Tuesday evening, market analysts don’t believe consumers will see immediate relief from the issues the conflict has brought. According to CNBC, the markets aren’t confident in the supply chain anymore. 

“Even in a scenario where the Strait of Hormuz remains open, the damage to confidence and supply chains is already done — things don’t just snap back to normal,” Mohit Mirpuri, an equity fund manager at SGMC Capital, told CNBC. “Markets will likely remain headline-sensitive, with sharp swings both ways as narratives shift.”

Trump reminded Iran on social media he gave officials ten days to make a deal or open the Strait of Hormuz.

The post comes as the military continues to search for a missing airman who ejected from a fighter jet that went down over Iran. An F-15E fighter jet and an A-10 attack plane were both hit Friday by incoming fire in separate incidents, U.S. officials told The Washington Post. One of the crew members aboard the F-15, which crashed in Iran, was rescued, while the other remains missing.

The sole pilot on the A-10 was able to navigate to Kuwaiti airspace before ejecting. That pilot was reportedly rescued by U.S. forces.

IGRC's video statement

An Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps spokesperson released a video statement on Saturday saying it was "a black and humiliating Friday for the American and Zionist enemies."

Ebrahim Zolfaghari confirmed Iran's "advanced new air defense system" struck "an ultra-advanced fifth-generation American F-35 fighter jet" on Friday.

U.S. allies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, also reported Iranian attacks overnight.

On Wednesday, Trump said the U.S. military campaign against Iran could end soon, but offered no clear timeline, even as he signaled that additional strikes were imminent. In a prime-time address, he said U.S. forces are on track to complete their objectives “shortly” and repeated his claim that negotiations are underway, which Iran has denied.

Iran responded Thursday with warnings of retaliation. An Iranian military spokesman said the country would carry out “stronger, wider and more destructive” attacks against the United States and Israel. State media reported Iran’s military said the war would continue until it achieved what it called “surrender and permanent regret.”

Although Trump suggested the conflict could end in “two or three weeks,” he also made clear that more U.S. strikes were coming. The White House warned of new threats in the region, and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on Thursday, urged Americans to leave Iraq immediately, citing intelligence that Iran-aligned militias could launch attacks within 24 to 48 hours.

Recent U.S. intelligence assessments reported on by CNN says roughly half of Iran’s missile launchers remain intact and that thousands of one-way attack drones remain.

Separately, The Wall Street Journal reports that Tehran is reinforcing defenses at key sites like Kharg Island, threatening broader attacks across the Gulf and launching a mass recruitment drive as more U.S. forces move into the region.

That assessment contrasts with the more confident public statements from President Donald Trump and other administration officials. Trump said this week that Iran’s missile and drone capability had been “dramatically curtailed” and that “very few” launchers were left.

“Now in our 5th week of the campaign, it is my operational assessment that we are making undeniable progress," said Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, offering a similarly upbeat assessment.

Intelligence gaps

The difference between public messaging and intelligence reporting matters because Iran still appears capable of threatening U.S. forces, regional partners and commercial shipping. One source familiar with the intelligence told CNN that Iran remains “very much poised to wreak absolute havoc throughout the entire region.”

The Journal reports Iran is preparing not only to absorb further strikes but to widen the conflict if needed. Officials say Tehran has warned it could target  offshore oil platforms and vital infrastructure — including power plants and desalination facilities — if its territory is invaded.

“Iran intends to make any U.S. landing as costly and politically unsustainable as possible,” said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House.

The risk is especially acute around the Strait of Hormuz, where  CNN reports a large share of Iran’s coastal defense cruise missiles remains intact, preserving its  ability to threaten shipping lanes.

What officials say versus what intelligence shows

U.S. Central Command says more than 12,300 targets have been struck inside Iran, and that the country’s military capabilities have been downgraded.

Administration officials have strongly disputed reporting that Iran retains significant strength. A White House spokesperson said Iranian attacks are down sharply and described the country’s military as increasingly weakened. A Pentagon spokesperson called CNN’s reporting “completely wrong” and said U.S. strikes have dealt a “crippling” blow.

At the same time, the Wall Street Journal reported Iran is reinforcing Kharg Island with additional guided-missile systems, coastal mines, and fortified positions.  It is also expanding recruitment efforts, including drawing volunteers for support roles, including those as young as 12.

Iran is hardening for a ground fight

Taken together, the reporting suggests Iran is adapting rather than collapsing. Missile launchers remain difficult to eliminate because many are hidden  in tunnels or moved quickly between strikes.

Military analysts say Iran is preparing for a prolonged fight, drawing on tactics from its war with Iraq — including mobilizing civilians  and relying on terrain, tunnels, drones and naval forces. 

Some analysts warn  the cost of a ground invasion could be significant. Estimates suggest the U.S. would need a large troop presence to secure key areas, raising the stakes of an escalation.

No clear end in site

Trump has said the conflict could end within weeks. But some officials familiar with the intelligence assessments told CNN that timeline is unlikely. 

The next phase of the war may depend on whether fighting remains focused on airstrikes or shifts toward ground operations — a move that could significantly widen the conflict.