Iranian women’s football player in Australia reverses asylum claim after talking with teammates

Iranian women’s football player in Australia reverses asylum claim after talking with teammates



Members of Iran's women's football team walk as they arrive at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport after taking part in the AFC Women's Asian Cup Australia 2026 tournament in Australia. — AFP pic

Wednesday, 11 Mar 2026 1:33 PM MYT


SYDNEY, March 11 — An Iranian women’s football team member who sought sanctuary in Australia has changed her mind after speaking with teammates, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said today.


Seven members of Iran’s visiting women’s football team had claimed asylum in Australia after they were branded “traitors” at home over a pre-match protest.

One player and one support member sought sanctuary before the side flew out of Sydney to Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday evening in emotional scenes, joining five other athletes who had already claimed asylum.


Burke said in parliament on Wednesday that he had since been advised one of the group “had spoken to some of the team mates that left and changed their mind”.


“She had been advised by her teammates and encouraged to contact the Iranian embassy,” he said.

“As a result of that, it meant the Iranian embassy now knew the location of where everybody was.”


The remaining players have been moved from a safe house to another location, he said.

The travelling squad arrived in Malaysia early Wednesday morning after flying out from Sydney, AFP photos at Kuala Lumpur International Airport showed.

There were fears male minders travelling with the team might try to prevent other women seeking asylum.

Burke said each player was separated from the squad at Sydney Airport and given time to mull the offer in private.

Australian officials had “made sure this was her decision,” he said, referring to the Iran team member who had changed her mind. — AFP

Iran launches major attacks on Israel and Gulf states as global oil markets reel

Iran launches major attacks on Israel and Gulf states as global oil markets reel



An Iranian missile flies toward Israel, amid the US-Israel conflict with Iran, as seen from Jerusalem today. — AFP pic

Wednesday, 11 Mar 2026 1:19 PM MYT


TEHRAN, MArch 11 — Iran unleashed a wave of attacks against Israel and Gulf nations today, including targeting a Saudi oilfield, as reports of a proposed record release of oil reserves helped calm markets and prices.

The war sparked by US-Israeli strikes on Iran has spread across the region and beyond, causing spiking energy costs, fuel rationing, and even school closures.


G7 leaders will meet by video conference later Wednesday to discuss the war’s economic consequences, particularly the “energy situation,” the French presidency said, and the International Energy Agency will decide on a proposal for its largest-ever oil reserve release, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The United States on Tuesday said it was hitting Iranian ships capable of mining the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial passageway for oil that has been effectively closed by Iranian threats.


The US military posted video footage of Iranian boats blasted apart, saying it had destroyed 16 minelayers near the strait through which one-fifth of the world’s oil passes.


“If for any reason mines were placed, and they are not removed forthwith, the Military consequences to Iran will be at a level never seen before,” President Donald Trump wrote on social media.

Trump faces mounting political risks over the surging cost of oil, months before US elections. Crude prices spiked five percent late Tuesday, before turning lower Wednesday after the reserve release report.


Trump has said the US military could accompany tankers through the strait, but his administration acknowledged that a post by the energy secretary announcing a first such escort was untrue.

Early Wednesday, the UK maritime agency said a container ship off the coast of the United Arab Emirates had been hit by an “unknown projectile,” illustrating the ongoing risks to transport through the region.

With an eye on jittery markets, Trump on Monday said the war would be short, although his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, then said Tehran would be hit by unprecedented fire on Tuesday.

Not seeking ceasefire

The Israeli-US attacks came weeks after Iranian authorities ruthlessly crushed mass protests, although the United States and Israel say they are not necessarily seeking to topple the Islamic republic.

Iranian authorities warned against dissent at home, with the country’s police chief saying protesters will be be viewed and dealt with as “enemies”.

“All our forces are also ready, with their hands on the trigger, prepared to defend their revolution,” said national police chief Ahmad-Reza Radan in comments aired by IRIB.

Tehran also intensified its assault on targets in the region, with the government announcing it carried out its own “most intense and heaviest” salvo, firing missiles for three hours at cities across Israel.

AFP journalists heard air raid sirens and explosions in Jerusalem. Emergency services reported no immediate injuries, although Channel 12 said several people were hurt in Tel Aviv. New salvos were reported early on Wednesday, with no reports of injuries.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said they also fired on Bahrain and Iraqi Kurdistan, both of which have a heavy US presence, and also targeted a US air base in Kuwait, Iranian media said.

Kuwait said it had downed eight drones, without offering further details.

Drones and ballistic missiles were also intercepted elsewhere in the Gulf, including multiple drones heading to the Shaybah oil field in Saudi Arabia, its defence ministry said.

Earlier, Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, a former top commander in the elite Revolutionary Guards, said in an English-language post on X: “Certainly we aren’t seeking a ceasefire.”

“We believe the aggressor must be punished and taught a lesson that will deter them from attacking Iran again,” he added.

Seven US military personnel have been killed and about 140 injured since the start of the war, according to the Pentagon.

Fright in Tehran

The United States and Israel launched the war on February 28 with an attack that killed Iran’s veteran leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His son Mojtaba Khamenei has been named his successor, though he has yet to appear in public.

In Tehran, one woman in her 40s said she found some reassurance in her impression that the bombings “don’t target ordinary buildings”.

But she said, “The noise of the bombings is extremely disturbing.”

Iran’s health ministry said on March 8 that more than 1,200 people had been killed, and over 10,000 civilians injured.

The conflict has spread as far as Sri Lanka, where US forces torpedoed an Iranian ship, and Australia, which said Wednesday it granted asylum to two more members of the Iranian women football team.

Iraq and Lebanon, both home to Iran-backed fighters, have become proxy grounds in the war.

In Iraq, Iranian-linked groups said Tuesday that five of their fighters died in strikes they blamed on the United States.

In Lebanon, hundreds of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands have fled their homes following Israeli airstrikes and ground operations targeting Iran-backed Hezbollah.

New Israeli strikes were reported in Beirut’s southern suburbs on Wednesday, with the health ministry saying another five people had been killed in the southern town of Qana.

An Israeli strike also hit a central Beirut neighbourhood on Wednesday morning, state media reported.

Iran complained to the United Nations that four of its diplomats died in a strike on a seafront hotel in central Beirut on Sunday, which Israel said was aimed at “key commanders” from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

The effects of the war are being felt globally, with the UN trade and development agency warning of rising costs for essentials like fuel and food hitting the world’s most vulnerable people.

In Egypt, which increased the cost of fuels by up to 30 percent, mother-of-six Om Mohamed fretted about the future.

“We were barely getting by as it is. I don’t know how people will manage,” she told AFP at a Cairo market. — AFP

The decapitation that didn’t kill: When escalation becomes Iran’s weapon — Abbi Kanthasamy

The decapitation that didn’t kill: When escalation becomes Iran’s weapon — Abbi Kanthasamy


Tuesday, 10 Mar 2026 6:26 PM MYT


MARCH 10 — War in the age of precision missiles is supposed to be neat. Surgical. Decisive. A bunker disappears. A command centre evaporates. A leader is eliminated and the system collapses behind him like a tent without its pole.

That was the theory.


When the United States and Israel launched their coordinated strike on Iran — an operation that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — the message was unmistakable. The strike was meant to decapitate the regime, fracture its command structure, and shock Tehran into paralysis. The campaign itself—known in Israeli planning circles as ‘Operation Lion’s Roar’ — targeted leadership, military infrastructure, and strategic assets across Iran.

For a brief moment, it appeared to be a textbook display of modern warfare.


Then the missiles started flying.


Within hours, Iran unleashed waves of ballistic missiles and drones across the Middle East. Air-raid sirens echoed across Israeli cities. Interceptors streaked across the skies above the Gulf. American bases from Qatar to Kuwait braced for incoming threats. Oil markets jolted, airports shut down, and insurers scrambled to recalculate the risks of doing business in a region that had suddenly rediscovered war.

The war had escaped the laboratory.


Iran’s response was not random retaliation. It was strategy. Tehran has reached for a tool historically favoured by weaker powers confronting stronger militaries: horizontal escalation.



A woman holds a placard with an image of Iran’s new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei alongside late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on the day of a gathering to support Mojtaba Khamenei, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran March 9, 2026. — Reuters pic

Instead of trying to defeat the United States or Israel in a direct military contest — a fight Iran would almost certainly lose — it widened the battlefield. Missiles and drones have targeted not just Israel but American bases and infrastructure across the Gulf. Shipping lanes are under threat, energy infrastructure is vulnerable, and global markets are now watching every development with nervous intensity.

The geography of the war has expanded dramatically.

American forces in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates suddenly find themselves inside the conflict’s blast radius. Gulf capitals that had carefully marketed themselves as islands of stability are now part of the battlefield narrative. Even incidents involving commercial infrastructure — ports, airports, and hotels — carry enormous reputational costs for economies built on tourism, finance, and global trade.

The message from Tehran is simple: if Iran burns, the region burns with it.

This strategy plays directly into one of the world’s most fragile economic pressure points — the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply moves through that narrow channel of water each day. Even the perception of instability there sends shockwaves through global markets.

Already, shipping disruptions and military tensions around the strait have rattled energy markets and threatened global supply chains.

In other words, Iran does not need to win militarily. It only needs to raise the cost of war high enough that its enemies begin to reconsider.

History suggests that this approach can work.

The United States has encountered this dynamic before. During the Vietnam War, American airpower dominated the battlefield. Washington dropped staggering quantities of bombs across North Vietnam, convinced that overwhelming force would break Hanoi’s will.

Instead, North Vietnam widened the conflict.

The Tet Offensive of 1968 transformed what had been a distant military campaign into a political earthquake in Washington. Although the offensive was costly for communist forces, it shattered the perception that victory was near. Public opinion shifted. Political pressure mounted. The strategic calculus changed overnight.

The United States did not lose Vietnam on the battlefield. It lost the political war that surrounded it.

Something similar unfolded during NATO’s bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999. Western leaders expected a short, decisive air campaign to compel Belgrade to capitulate. Instead, Serbian forces escalated their campaign in Kosovo, triggering a humanitarian catastrophe that forced NATO into a far longer and more complicated intervention.

Airpower shocked. But politics decided.

Iran appears to have absorbed these lessons well.

Tehran’s strategy is not about destroying American forces or defeating Israel outright. It is about stretching the conflict across multiple arenas — military, economic, political, and psychological. Each new arena introduces more actors, more risks, and more opportunities for miscalculation.

The longer the war lasts, the more complicated it becomes.

Energy prices begin to climb. Shipping insurers panic. Investors grow nervous.

Governments across the region must weigh their alliances against domestic pressures from populations that may not share their leaders’ strategic priorities. Even in Washington, prolonged conflict in the Middle East has a habit of colliding with domestic politics in unpredictable ways.

War expands beyond generals and missiles.

It reaches parliaments, trading floors, and television screens.

That is precisely where Iran wants the fight to go.

Time is the currency of this strategy. In short wars, military capability dominates the equation. In long wars, endurance matters more. The side that can tolerate instability longer often gains the advantage — even if it is weaker on paper.

Recent analysis suggests Iran may already be shifting into precisely this mode: a strategy of endurance combined with targeted disruption of energy flows and regional stability.

What began as a dramatic decapitation strike has therefore produced a paradox.

Israel and the United States achieved a remarkable tactical victory. They demonstrated intelligence reach, technological superiority, and the ability to strike at the very heart of Iran’s leadership.

But tactical brilliance is not the same as strategic success.

The strike that removed Iran’s leader also created the conditions for a wider regional confrontation — one in which Tehran may possess unexpected advantages. By expanding the conflict across geography, economics, and politics, Iran has transformed the battlefield itself.

The question now is no longer who can strike hardest.

It is who can endure the storm that follows.

And history suggests that storms, once unleashed, rarely obey the intentions of those who started them.

Aramco warns of ‘catastrophic consequences’ for world oil markets as Iran vows to block all Gulf exports

Aramco warns of ‘catastrophic consequences’ for world oil markets as Iran vows to block all Gulf exports



Smoke rises following a strike on the Bapco Oil Refinery on Sitra Island, Bahrain on March 9, 2026. — Reuters pic

Tuesday, 10 Mar 2026 3:46 PM MYT


DUBAI, March 10 — Saudi Arabia’s Aramco, the world’s top oil exporter, said ‌on Tuesday that there would be “catastrophic consequences” for the world’s ​oil markets if the Iran war continues to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

The disruption has not only upended the shipping and insurance sectors but ​also promises to have drastic domino effects on aviation, agriculture, automotive and other industries, Aramco CEO Amin Nasser told reporters on an earnings call.


Nasser noted global inventories of oil were at a five-year low and said the crisis will lead ‌to drawdowns at a faster rate, adding that it was critical ⁠that shipping in the strait ⁠resumed.

“There would be catastrophic consequences for ⁠the world’s oil markets and the ⁠longer the ⁠disruption goes on, and the more drastic the consequences for the global economy,” he said.


Nasser also said a small fire from ⁠an attack last week on Aramco’s Ras Tanura refinery, its largest domestically, was quickly extinguished and brought under control, adding that the refinery was in the process of being restarted.



Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said on Tuesday they would not allow “one litre of oil” to ⁠be shipped from the Middle East if U.S. and Israeli attacks continue, prompting a warning from President Donald Trump that ⁠the US would hit Iran much harder if it blocked exports from ⁠the ⁠vital energy-producing region.

His comments come after Aramco reported a 12 per cent drop ​in annual profit mainly due to lower ​crude prices. It also announced ‌it would repurchase up to US$3 billion worth of ​shares in its first-ever buyback. — Reuters

Two more Iranian women footballers seek asylum in Australia after pre-match protest

Two more Iranian women footballers seek asylum in Australia after pre-match protest



Australian Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke (right) listens to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese speaking at the House of Representatives in Parliament House, Canberra, June 27, 2024. — AFP file pic

Wednesday, 11 Mar 2026 10:08 AM MYT


SYDNEY, March 11 — Two more members of Iran’s visiting women’s football team have claimed asylum in Australia after they were branded “traitors” at home over a pre-match protest, the government said today.

One player and one support member sought sanctuary before the side flew out of Sydney on yesterday evening, joining five other athletes who had already claimed asylum, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said.

“When I met with them, I made the same offer that I had made the five players the night before,” Burke told reporters.

“Those two women were reunited with the five other players.”


The rest of the travelling squad arrived in Malaysia this morning after flying out from Sydney, AFP photos at Kuala Lumpur International Airport showed.

There were fears male minders travelling with the team might try to prevent other women seeking asylum.


Burke said each player was separated from the squad at Sydney Airport and given time to mull the offer in private.

Iranian-Australian migration agent Naghmeh Danai spoke to five players earlier this week to discuss their options to stay in Australia.

“We tried our best to make this happen,” she told AFP today.

Strict surveillance

“They were under lots of pressure here. They did not have permission to talk to anyone.

“Under strict surveillance from the Iranian government officials within the team as team leaders or internal security,” she said.

Iranian players fell silent as the anthem played ahead of a tournament match in Australia last week, an act seen as a symbol of defiance against the Islamic republic.

A presenter on Iranian state TV branded the players “wartime traitors”, fuelling fears they faced persecution, or worse, if they returned home.

Five players, including captain Zahra Ghanbari, slipped away from the team hotel in the early hours of Tuesday morning to claim asylum in Australia.

The government had spent days in secret talks with the players, who were whisked to a safe house after leaving their hotel on the Gold Coast.

Iran’s football federation said the players had been kidnapped and coerced into staying in Australia.

“After the game, unfortunately, the Australian police came and intervened, removing one or two of the players from the hotel, according to the news we have,” federation boss Mehdi Taj said on Iranian state television.

Although the side sang Iran’s anthem—an ode to the glory of the Islamic republic—in later matches, human rights activists warned the damage was done.

“The members of the Iranian Women’s National Football Team are under significant pressure and ongoing threat from the Islamic Republic,” said Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late shah of Iran.

“I call on the Australian government to ensure their safety and give them any and all needed support,” he said on social media. — AFP

‘Welcome to hell’: How white supremacist content is radicalising teens in South-east Asia

‘Welcome to hell’: How white supremacist content is radicalising teens in South-east Asia



Head of Indonesian Child Protection Commission (KPAI) Margaret Aliyatul Maimunah holds a ‘toy firearm’, with text written using wite-out, as evidence is displayed during a press conference following explosions that occurred at a mosque inside a school complex during Friday prayers last year, at the Jakarta police headquarters in Jakarta November 11, 2025. — Reuters pic

Wednesday, 11 Mar 2026 7:00 AM MYT


SINGAPORE, March 11 — When police detained an Indonesian teenager accused of bombing his high-school campus in Jakarta in November, he had a life-size toy rifle inscribed with “welcome to hell” and the names of white supremacist mass killers.

The November 7 attack, which injured 96 people, may have been the first in the country inspired by white supremacists but police fear it won’t be the last.

At least 97 youths — the youngest just 11 — are being monitored after coming under the influence of content glorifying mass violence and white supremacists spread largely on messaging app Telegram, Indonesian police told Reuters in March.

At least two were planning acts of violence following the Jakarta bombing, according to the police.

And it’s not just Indonesia. Across South-east Asia — home to hundreds of millions of people of different ethnicities and faiths — police are grappling with a surge in teenagers plotting violence inspired by white supremacists such as Christchurch mosque attacker Brenton Tarrant, according to interviews with security officials in Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines.


Singapore’s domestic intelligence agency has detained four youths since December 2020 on grounds that they subscribed to “violent far-right extremism ideologies” and were planning attacks. Far-right extremism has since been named by the city-state’s Internal Security Department (ISD) as a top threat.

None of the teenagers Singapore and Indonesia are monitoring are white. Some were plotting attacks they believed would protect the existing racial and religious composition of their countries, according to ISD statements on the detentions. Others, three Indonesian security officials say, were inspired by the violence of far-right attackers, even if they didn’t have similar grievances.


In every instance in Singapore and Indonesia reviewed by Reuters, the teenagers were alleged by authorities to have been radicalised through social media posts and communities.

Many of the young people who have been detained or placed under monitoring appear to be disillusioned and lonely individuals “turning towards a nihilistic worldview after being radicalised by far-right messaging”, said Pravin Prakash, who researches South-east Asia at the Centre for the Study of Organised Hate, a Washington think-tank.

The Jakarta suspect, according to Indonesian authorities, had posted online video footage of his campus alongside Nazi symbols and text that appeared to be inspired by “Highway to Hell” from the rock band AC/DC: “Don’t need no reason, ain’t nothing I’d rather do. I am on the highway to hell and all my friends are going to be there.”

Telegram groups, in particular, had provided the young people with a sense of belonging, according to Indonesian police.

That platform often doesn’t take action on content that authorities have reported as extremist, said police commissioner Mayndra Eka Wardhana, a spokesman for the counter-terrorism squad.

Telegram spokesman Remi Vaughn said in response to questions that the platform “has an open channel of communication with Indonesian authorities” and “removes any content that breaches Telegram’s terms of service whenever reported.”

Telegram “supports the right to peaceful free speech, but calls to violence are explicitly forbidden,” Vaughn added.

South-east Asian security and police agencies are coordinating efforts, marking the first regional cooperation on this type of radicalisation, according to officials from Singapore and Indonesia.


Killer memes

All the Indonesian teens authorities identified as being radicalised were affiliated with the “true crime community”, a popular internet subculture.

In channels linked to the community, users share memes and other content that glorifies killers like Tarrant, whose name was found on the Jakarta suspect’s toy rifle, according to screenshots shared with Reuters by police and a separate review of four such groups.

Some online posters also traded bomb-making tutorials and egged each other on toward violence, screenshots of their conversations show.

White supremacist content has also spread across other platforms, though often with a localised twist. Posts, for instance, may feature South-east Asian iconography alongside Nazi symbols.

Reuters viewed hundreds of such videos from South-east Asian users on TikTok showcasing racist caricatures of Chinese people and other minorities such as Rohingya Muslims alongside phrases like “TCD,” or “Totally Cheerful Day” and “TRD,” or “Total Refreshing Day.”

The phrases appear to be code calling for “Total Chinese Death” or “Total Rohingya Death”, said Saddiq Basha of Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), who has tracked such content since 2024.

One popular video by an Indonesian user featuring the hashtag #TCD has been viewed over 542,000 times. The creator did not respond to a request for comment.

Western white supremacist groups have used phrases like “TND/Totally Nice Day” and “TJD/Totally Joyful Day” to advocate the extermination of black and Jewish people, according to anti-discrimination groups like the Anti-Defamation League.

TikTok removed the Indonesian user’s post, as well as similar content identified by Reuters, after the news agency sent the platform questions about its moderation policies.

“There is no place on our platform for those dedicated to spreading beliefs or propaganda that encourage violence or hate,” a company spokesman said.

Two people working on online-safety teams at TikTok told Reuters they were not familiar with the existence of policies on moderating posts that featured localised takes on white supremacist slogans and had been unaware of such content. They were interviewed on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to media.

The TikTok spokesman said the platform blocks “certain keywords from appearing as search suggestions to reduce their visibility if we find that they are being used as coded language” and consults with South-east Asian advisors on online safety.

Tech companies have focused on moderating Islamist content in South-east Asia, sometimes to the point where they fail to account for other extremist posts, said Chasseur Group director Munira Mustaffa, who has advised South-east Asian governments and social media platforms on combating extremism.

“While the concept of neo-Nazism lies in the assertion that the white race reigns supreme, these ideas are easily adaptable into local context,” she said, adding that teens who successfully carry out attacks believe they will gain status in their online communities.

Among the youths authorities say were radicalised by algorithms is Nick Lee Xing Qiu, who was detained last year by the ISD as an 18-year-old on suspicion of plotting attacks against Singapore’s Malay Muslim minority.

The agency said algorithms on unspecified platforms had recommended far-right extremist content to him.

Reuters couldn’t reach Lee, who is being held under a law that permits his detention without trial. The news agency also couldn’t identify a legal representative to direct questions to.

Lee and another teenager, who was separately detained and has not been named, self-identified as “East Asian supremacists”, ISD said in statements about their cases.

The youths had in their online posts referenced the neo-Nazi “great replacement theory” — which posits that white populations are being forcibly replaced by minorities — and claimed to be inspired to fight back, according to ISD.


Youth rehabilitation

Mayndra, the Indonesian counter-terrorism official, said authorities were worried that teenagers radicalised by the violence of extremist content could be targeted by “terror groups” for recruitment.

Many of the teenagers in detention or under monitoring in Indonesia and Singapore are under the age of majority or have not successfully perpetrated acts of violence.

The Jakarta bombing suspect, for instance, is being held by child protective services while authorities construct their case, according to police spokesman Budi Hermanto.

The suspect has not been charged or entered a plea, the official said.

“My hope, if it’s possible, is do not punish him, just give him counselling so he can be a better person,” Rudianti, a family member of the Jakarta suspect who goes by one name, told Reuters.

Indonesia this month announced plans to restrict social-media access for children under the age of 16, in a move that Mayndra said would also help combat youth radicalisation though it was not a complete solution.

In Singapore, authorities have turned to the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) to work with some teenagers detained for plotting far-right attacks. The non-profit was set up by Muslim scholars in 2003 to rehabilitate suspected Islamist militants and is staffed by volunteer educators.

The group counsels young detainees and prepares them for national exams, said Ahmad Helmi Bin Mohamad Hasbi, an RRG counsellor and expert on radicalism at RSIS.

RRG worked with Singapore’s first far-right extremist detainee, who was held in 2020 at the age of 16 for allegedly planning machete attacks on two mosques. He was released from rehabilitation in 2024.

Groups like RRG will have to contend, however, with the speed at which some South-east Asian extremists are gaining influence globally.

Just a month after the Jakarta bombing, a 15-year-old Russian was accused of stabbing a Tajik migrant child to death in the Moscow area.

The Russian had written a manifesto, which was published on Telegram and authenticated by researchers with the Global Project on Hate and Extremism, a US-based non-profit.

In it, the Russian suspect labelled the Indonesian teen a hero. He also argued that if non-white youths could execute such attacks, white supremacists should be capable of more. — Reuters

Military Watch: 

U.S. Begins Withdrawing THAAD Missile Defence Systems From South Korea to Replenish Losses in War with Iran

North America, Western Europe and Oceania , Missile and Space

Military Watch Magazine Editorial Staff

March-10th-2026

---

Missile Launchers From THAAD System

United States officials speaking to the Washington Post on March 10 confirmed that the U.S. Army has begun moving parts of its THAAD anti-missile system from South Korea to the Middle East, a week after South Korean sources first reported that a withdrawal of components of THAAD systems, and possibly full systems, was under consideration. This follows confirmation from South Korean government sources on March 9 that U.S. Army MIM-104 Patriot long range air defence systems have also been prepared  for redeployment from South Korea to the Middle East, and that heavy U.S. aircraft transport planes, likely C-17s, have flown to Osan Air Force Base to move them. The U.S. Army had previously redeployed two Patriot systems and approximately 500 personnel from South Korea to the Middle East between March and October 2025, which reinforced defences at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. These systems were then relied on to blunt Iranian strikes on the facility on June 23, albeit with less success than the U.S. Armed Forces initially claimed.

Surface-to-Air Missile Launchers From MIM-104 Patriot System

Unconfirmed reports from Western sources have indicated that anti-ballistic missile interceptors from the Patriot and THAAD systems had already been withdrawn from South Korea to shore up stocks at Middle Eastern facilities preceding the initiation of attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel on February 28. The decision to make further withdrawal from Korea is an indicator of the extent of losses of key radar and missile defence systems, and the sustained intensity of Iranian counterattacks, which there are multiple indications have significantly exceeded Western expectations. South Korea is the only foreign country that hosts a permanent foreign deployment of U.S. Army THAAD systems, which were initiated in 2016, with the systems’ location so close to Chinese territory having been considered an invaluable strategic asset by the United States. 

Launchers From U.S. Army THAAD System in South Korea

The THAAD system’s AN/TPY-2 radar has provided the capability to peer almost 3,000 kilometres into Chinese territory, with South Korean security commentator and retired navy captain Yoon Sukjoon referring to it as “part of the U.S.’ global anti-China united front... a strategic tool for containing China from one of the closest countries.” While it appeared likely that the U.S. Army would withdraw only interceptors for THAAD systems to replenish stockpiles in the Middle East, the destruction of two AN/TPY-2 radars in the region have raised the possibly that radars in Korea will also be withdrawn. South Korean sources, including President Lee Jae-myung, have highlighted these withdrawals as an indicator of the necessity of reducing reliance on the United States for security.  

AN/TPY-2 Radar From THAAD System in Jordan Destroyed in Engagements with Iranian Forces

The stockpiles of interceptors for THAAD systems are far from sufficient of a sustained conflict with an adversary with advanced ballistic missile capabilities, with only approximately 600 interceptors having been in service in the U.S. Army at the beginning of 2025, of which over 150 were expended during under 12 days of hostilities with Iran from June 13-25, 2025, despite just a single system having been deployed to defend Israel. The deployment of two systems, one in Israel and a second in Jordan, and the far greater intensity of Iranian strikes, has led analysts to estimate that the Army likely has approximately 200 or less interceptors remaining, with a significantly lower figure remaining possible. The withdrawal of almost all remaining interceptors in South Korea thus remains likely. The viability of replenishing these interceptors after hostilities with Iran cease will depend on multiple factors, including the state of the U.S. economy after the war, and the successes the U.S. may or may not have in expanding production of interceptors to replenish wartime expenditures. The consequences for the balance of power in Northeast Asia remain significant, highlighting how the global scale of the U.S. military presence, when combined with significant shortfalls in stockpiles and production capacities, can led to events in one theatre seriously influencing others.  

US-Israel war on Iran: A brief history of mission creep and false promises

US-Israel war on Iran: A brief history of mission creep and false promises


The history of modern wars shows how easily leaders meet the rhetorical burden of justification while avoiding the strategic burden of ending a war on terms that do not create the next one

Graves being prepared for the victims, mostly children, after an Israeli-US strike at a girls' elementary school in Minab, Iran, March 2, 2026 [Iranian Foreign Media Department via AP]

By Awad Joumaa
Published On 9 Mar 2026


Wars rarely begin as “forever wars”.

Leaders sell a short, controlled operation with a defined target. But mission creep turns that pitch into a pattern – retaliation cycles, credibility politics, alliance pressures and market shocks – that pull those governments deeper into a crisis and make stopping the assaults harder.

Governments start with narrow goals (“degrade”, “disrupt”), then drift towards open-ended aims (“restore deterrence”, “force compliance”) – objectives their airpower cannot conclusively deliver.

When the rationale for war becomes abstract, the endpoint becomes negotiable.

How wars become open-ended

The bombs falling on Iran follow a long history of interventions by the United States abroad. President Donald Trump, reportedly encouraged by a military operation in January that abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, boasted of helping to rebuild Venezuela.

However, Venezuela remains embroiled in a protracted political and economic crisis.

In the case of Iran, US allies in Europe were more sceptical as they invoked the lessons for the West from the 2003-2011 Iraq war.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez warned that Western leaders were “playing Russian roulette” by threatening Iran while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz urged restraint and warned against destabilising the country.

Their message was that a “limited” military operation is often a pitch for the first few days of a conflict, not a description of what comes next.



How oil is at the center of the US-Israel war with Iran


But the US insisted it still controlled the narrative – and the events unfolding in the Middle East.

Trump said the US-Israel campaign in Iran could last “four to five weeks”, adding that the war has the “capability to go far longer than that”. That formulation – “short if it goes well, longer if it must” – is one of the oldest accelerants of mission creep.

Why mission creep happens and why it’s hard to contain

Mission creep is a chain reaction. It is accelerated by several factors:

Retaliation ladders: Each side’s “measured response” becomes the other side’s justification for the next strike, quickly shifting the war’s goals and timelines.

Domestic politics, allies and markets: These factors accelerate the slide into open-ended campaigns.

Leaders keep redefining success instead of pausing the attacks because admitting limits to their strategy could mean weakness. Allies add to the pressure as war coalitions fragment under stress, prompting states to take escalatory steps to prove reliability or avoid blame.

Finally, markets act as accelerants as energy prices, shipping insurance, trade disruptions and inflation become part of the ongoing war, forcing leaders to manage the economic effects of the war back home.

Credibility traps: These deepen the crisis as leaders shift focus from concrete tasks (hitting enemy sites, destroying military stockpiles) to abstract goals, such as “resolve” and “deterrence”. Analysts warned that states take risks to defend a war’s credibility even when underlying interests are limited.

Pivoting aims: When initial results disappoint, leaders pivot towards behavioral or political aims, like restoring deterrence or weakening a regime – objectives that airpower alone cannot deliver, turning the “operations” into “systems”.

The historical pattern


From Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Syria, Gaza and now Iran, the pattern of mission creep is clear.

Korean War: US President Harry Truman framed the 1950 aggression as ensuring collective security, but the conflict escalated into a three-year war, entrenching a long-term US military position in South Korea. The fighting ended with an armistice in 1953, leaving the war technically unresolved.

Vietnam War: US escalation of the war, triggered when the US military reported an attack on one of its warships in the Gulf of Tonkin, expanded an initial “response” into a long and costly conflict whose aims kept shifting. The war, which included large-scale aerial herbicide spraying, ended with a US withdrawal in 1973 and the collapse of South Vietnam in 1975. Later investigations revealed that the Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened.

Iraq and Syria: The First Gulf War in 1991 ended quickly, but the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq set off a conflict that latest nearly nine years. The invasion, sold on claims of weapons of mass destruction, continued with new goals, like political stabilisation, after the original justification collapsed.

Similarly, the 2014 campaign against ISIL (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq, despite aiming to avoid a large ground war, still embedded the US in a long-running deployment, illustrating incremental escalation.

Historian Max Paul Friedman noted that successive US presidents repeat the mistake of believing overwhelming military power can substitute for a viable political endgame. While the US has the capacity to “smash up states”, ensuring and installing a better replacement is a far rarer case.

While Trump claims the war in Iran could end in weeks, history – as we saw above – warns us otherwise.



US public approval of Iran war hits 27 percent, lower than Vietnam War


Israel learning from its sponsor

Israel is learning the war playbook from its biggest sponsor: the US, which historically has set a clear pattern on selling a military escalation as “security”, wins the first few battles but then struggles to control what comes next.

Since the 1970s, the so-called Israeli “security” wars have been reshaping the Middle East.

Like the US, Israel’s war on Lebanon is an example of mission creep with a regional twist: Operations framed as border security are repeatedly expanded into deeper campaigns, triggering long-term blowback from forces like Hezbollah.

In 1978, Israel invaded southern Lebanon in what became known as Operation Litani. The United Nations Security Council responded with Resolution 425, calling on Israel to withdraw and creating a peacekeeping force, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

In 1982, Israel launched a broader invasion that reached Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, and ended up occupying parts of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah then emerged as a central actor in resisting the Israeli occupation in the south, which continued until 2000.

UNIFIL’s own historical record ties its mandate and continuing presence to that escalation cycle and the repeated failure to stabilise Lebanon’s border.

In the 1990s, Israel ran major military campaigns in Lebanon. These episodes sharpened a pattern that still shapes the region: Leaders promise to restore deterrence quickly, but deterrence becomes a permanent file rather than an outcome.

In 2006, the Israel-Hezbollah war lasted for 33 days and destroyed major infrastructure in Lebanon. The war ended with UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for the cessation of hostilities and an expanded monitoring architecture centred on UNIFIL. Diplomats still treat 1701 as a cornerstone framework whenever escalation between Israel and Lebanon spikes precisely because none of the deeper political problems disappeared.

This history matters now because it shows how “bounded” campaigns create new systems: new armed actors, new front lines, new “deterrence” doctrines and a permanent state of tension and escalation.


Gaza: A genocidal war without an end date

Gaza illustrates a corrosive form of mission creep: military operations that are bound to fail with each round of escalation manufacturing the next.

After initial messaging in October 2023 suggested a swift campaign, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the end of that year that the war would continue for “many more months”. He has since dragged it into its third calendar year, leading to catastrophic civilian losses and accusations of genocide.

While human rights groups and UN experts have said Israel has committed genocide or carried out genocidal acts, Israel has rejected the characterisation.

Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu, former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and late Hamas commander Mohammed Deif over the war.



Trump-Netanyahu’s 'war in search of a strategy'


What Iran war tells adversaries and allies

Without a clear and credible political end goal, any military action turns into a loop, morphing an “operation” into a “system”.

Rhetoric that accelerates such escalation includes the language of “imminent threat”, which compresses debate and makes a pause (truce, ceasefire) appear reckless.

In Iran’s case, Western leaders have also used nuclear warnings for decades. If a threat is permanently kept “only weeks away”, a war can be permanently presented as “necessary”.

As US and Israeli bombs rain down on Iranian territory, Washington is telling its adversaries – and allies – about energy, shipping and regional stability risks. Meanwhile, their European allies are reaching for the Iraq war analogy early on to avoid being dragged into a conflict that may have outgrown its sales pitch, as was seen with several nations condemning the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on the first day of the war.

The lesson is not how to run a war “better”. It is that leaders often sell a war as “limited” to win permission to start one. Then they incentivise escalation and punish restraint.

The history of modern wars shows how easily leaders meet the rhetorical burden of justification while avoiding the strategic burden of ending a war on terms that do not create the next one.

When war becomes a system, the hardest decision is no longer how to start one but how to stop it.

Which US and Israeli military companies (MERCHANTS of DEATH) are profiting from the Iran war?

Which US and Israeli military companies are profiting from the Iran war?

Defence stocks reach all-time highs, driven by need to produce billions of dollars of weapons systems.



By Hanna Duggal and Mohamed A. Hussein
Published On 9 Mar 2026


The biggest defence companies in the United States have agreed to “quadruple production” of what President Donald Trump describes as “exquisite class” weaponry after a meeting at the White House.

The meeting on Friday was attended by the chief executives of RTX (formerly Raytheon), Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, L3Harris Missile Solutions and Honeywell Aerospace, all of which are sitting on billions of dollars of order backlogs, some of which dwarf the gross domestic products (GDPs) of several nations.

The US is already the world’s largest military spender at nearly $1 trillion in 2025, exceeding the combined total of the next nine countries. Trump aims to increase this amount to $1.5 trillion by 2027.

Billions of dollars have already been spent by the US on weapons in the war with Iran, making war a highly profitable business for defence contractors.

Last week, stock prices for major arms-producing companies in the US have all risen, including for Northrop Grumman (up 5 percent), RTX (up 4.5 percent) and Lockheed Martin (up 3 percent).

So which weapons are being used in the war in Iran and which defence contractors are benefitting from this rapidly intensifying conflict?

Which weapons is the US using against Iran?

According to the US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM), Operation Epic Fury has drawn on more than 20 distinct weapons systems across air, sea, land and missile defence forces.

Missiles, munitions and missile systems

The Tomahawk missile has been the Pentagon’s long-range strike weapon of choice for three decades. The missiles travel at subsonic speeds, hugging the terrain at low altitude to avoid radar detection. They have been fired from Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the Arabian Sea, with each destroyer capable of carrying more than 90 Tomahawks.

(Al Jazeera)


The US has also launched the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) for the first time against Iranian targets from M-142 HIMARS systems in desert terrain. The short-range ballistic missile is capable of hitting targets 4002km (250 miles) away.

On the defensive side, Patriot missile batteries and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems have been positioned to intercept Iran’s retaliatory strikes with Patriots handling shorter-range cruise missiles and low-altitude threats while THAAD intercepts ballistic missiles at higher altitudes in the final phase of their descent.

(Al Jazeera)

Drones

The assault on Iran has also seen the debut of the Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS), a one-way attack drone built by SpekreWorks and modelled on Iran’s own Shahed drone. At $35,000 per unit, LUCAS represents a deliberate pivot towards cheaper, more expendable munitions. It costs far less than the MQ-9 Reaper drone, which has also been deployed and costs up to $40m per aircraft to manufacture. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it shot down a Reaper on March 1.

Strike performance

The US is using B-1 bombers, B-2 stealth bombers, F-15 fighter jets, F-22 Raptor jets and F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters to strike Iranian ballistic missile facilities and underground bunkers using 900kg (2,000lb) bombs to destroy Tehran’s stockpiles.

(Al Jazeera)

Reconnaissance

According to local news sources, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets were spotted on board the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, which is positioned in the Arabian Sea. The aircraft are used to jam enemy radar, communications and missile guidance systems. The P-8A Poseidon plane is also being deployed to carry out surveillance and reconnaissance across sea and land and has been detected circling around the Strait of Hormuz, according to flight path data.

Last month, the US Air Force also deployed E-3 Sentry AWACS radar aircraft to the Middle East, which provide real-time battlefield awareness. US Air Force RC-135 spy planes, such as the Cobra Ball and Rivet Joint variants have also been flying intelligence-gathering missions out of bases in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, monitoring Iranian missile launches, radar systems and communications.

Naval assets

The USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R Ford aircraft carriers have anchored US naval presence in the Arabian Sea and Mediterranean, respectively, while a fleet of Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers are providing both offensive firepower and missile defence with their Aegis systems.

(Al Jazeera)

Who makes the weapons being used against Iran?

Boeing makes the B-1 bomber, F-15s, EA-18G Growlers, P-8A Poseidon and the RC-135 with modifications provided by L3Harris Technologies.

Northrop Grumman makes the B-2 stealth bombers and provides radar technology to E-3 Sentry AWACS.

Lockheed Martin makes F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters, F-22 Raptor jets, THAAD systems, M142 HIMARS, MGM-140 ATACMS missiles and the PrSM.

The Raytheon division of RTX Corporation makes Tomahawk missiles and MIM-104 Patriot missile systems.

SpektreWorks produces LUCAS one-way attack drones.

General Atomics Aeronautical produces the MQ-9 Reaper drones.

Huntington Ingalls Industries built the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R Ford.

(Al Jazeera)

What are the biggest military companies in the world?

In 2024, the top 100 defence companies in the world made more than $679bn of revenue, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).


US firms dominate with almost half ($334bn) of the revenues, followed by China ($88bn), the United Kingdom ($52bn), Russia ($31bn) and France ($26bn).

(Al Jazeera)


European heavyweights, such as the UK’s BAE Systems, Italy’s Leonardo, the trans-European Airbus, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall, all occupy positions within the top 20 companies with many growing off the back of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The table below breaks down the top 100 arms-producing companies around the world.

What are the biggest defence contractors in the US?

According to SIPRI’s report, 39 US contractors are on its list of the top 100 defence companies, dwarfing China’s eight groups, which have the second most contractors featured in the top 100.

The top five US defence companies are:

Lockheed Martin: The world’s largest defence contractor was formed in 1995 through a merger of Lockheed and Martin Marietta. In 2024, it generated $68.4bn in revenue. It has contracts with the US government to manufacture aircraft, such as the F-35, missiles and space systems. Its Department of Defense contracts are worth tens of billions of dollars. This year, the company signed an agreement with the US government to accelerate the production of the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement for air defence missiles.

RTX: It was formed in 2020 after a merger between Raytheon and United Technologies. The three main segments of the business are focused on producing missile systems, jet engines and avionics for the US military and commercial airlines. In 2024, $43.6bn of the company’s revenue came from defence.

Northrop Grumman: The contractor was formed in 1994 after Northrop’s acquisition of Grumman. The company generates revenue from the manufacture of stealth aircraft, such as the B-21 Raider, space systems and nuclear modernisation programmes for the US Air Force and government. In 2024, $37.9bn of its revenue came from defence.

General Dynamics: It develops nuclear submarines, battle tanks, armoured vehicles and the Gulfstream business jet. In 2024, $33.6bn of its revenues came from defence.

The Boeing Company: The aircraft maker was founded in 1916. Most of its revenue comes from the production of commercial aircraft, defence programmes and space systems such as its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, AH-64 Apache and Chinook helicopters and the P-8 Poseidon. In 2024, $30.6bn of its revenue came from defence.

(Al Jazeera)

What are Israel’s biggest defence contractors?

According to SIPRI’s report, three Israeli contractors are on its list of the top 100 defence companies. The Israeli defence industry is experiencing a surge in exports with highly advanced military technology taking the helm.

Elbit Systems: Israel’s largest defence company specialises in drones, surveillance systems, battlefield electronics and military optics. In 2024, $6.3bn of its revenue came from defence.

Israel Aerospace Industries: The state-owned defence and aerospace company specialises in missile defence systems, satellites, combat drones and radar technology. In 2024, $5.2bn of its revenue came from defence.

Rafael: The company is also state-owned and is behind Israel’s much-lauded Iron Dome missile defence system. It also provides precision-guided munitions. In 2024, $4.7bn of its revenue came from defence.

(Al Jazeera)

US defence stocks have surged in recent years

According to SIPRI, global defence spending jumped 9.4 percent in 2024 to $2.7 trillion. In addition, NATO members have pledged to increase their annual defence budgets from 2 percent to 5 percent of their GDPs by 2035, adding hundreds of billions of dollars in annual spending.

To replenish rapidly depleting stockpiles of munitions being used in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, major weapons contractors are investing billions in new orders, responding to increased demand and driving up their stock prices.

The chart below shows the increase in stock prices of the largest US defence contractors from March 2023 to March 2026. RTX has seen the biggest rise at 110 percent, followed by Northrop Grumman at 60 percent, General Dynamics at 57 percent, Lockheed Martin at 37 percent and Boeing at 5 percent.