Speaking to UK broadcasters before departing Qatar, Starmer described NATO as a longstanding defensive alliance that has underpinned transatlantic security for decades, while acknowledging that European members must increase their financial contributions.

His remarks came in response to renewed criticism from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has threatened to withdraw from the alliance following disagreements with NATO partners over participation in the U.S.-Israel war against Iran.“It is in America’s interests. It’s in European interests,” Starmer said, emphasizing the alliance’s role in maintaining collective security.

The British leader’s visit included stops in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, where discussions centered on sustaining a temporary ceasefire between the United States and Iran and addressing disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime corridor for global energy supplies.

Starmer said he held a phone call with Trump late on Thursday, during which he conveyed regional concerns, particularly regarding the continued closure of the strait. Although the waterway was expected to reopen under the ceasefire agreement announced earlier this week, recent Israeli strikes on Lebanon and disputes over compliance have delayed progress.

He added that the United Kingdom is working to assemble a coalition of more than 30 countries to coordinate diplomatic and military efforts aimed at restoring safe navigation through the chokepoint.

In a separate interview, Starmer expressed frustration over the economic impact of geopolitical tensions, citing volatility in energy prices. He drew comparisons between the influence of Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on global markets, stating that fluctuations in energy costs were placing pressure on households and businesses.

The Strait of Hormuz handles a significant share of the world’s oil shipments, and prolonged disruption has raised concerns among governments and markets about supply stability and price volatility.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the address in a post on X late Tuesday, stating that Trump would speak at 9:00 p.m. to outline developments related to Iran.

The announcement came shortly after Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that U.S. forces could withdraw from Iran within “two or three weeks,” indicating that military objectives were nearing completion.

His remarks suggested that a withdrawal timeline would not necessarily depend on reaching a negotiated agreement with Tehran.The address is expected to provide further clarity on the administration’s strategy as the conflict continues to affect regional stability and global energy markets.

The White House did not release additional details on the content of the speech.The Iran conflict, which began in late February, has involved sustained U.S. military operations alongside escalating tensions across the broader Middle East.

Speaking at the White House, Trump said the withdrawal would proceed regardless of whether an agreement is reached with Tehran, adding that U.S. objectives in the conflict were nearing completion.

“We’re finishing the job, and I think within maybe two weeks, maybe a couple of days longer,” Trump said, indicating that the decision to leave would not hinge on negotiations.

“Whether we have a deal or not, it’s irrelevant.”The conflict, which began on Feb. 28, has disrupted global energy markets, with Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic. Trump linked a potential easing of fuel price pressures to a U.S. withdrawal, suggesting that regional dynamics would shift once American forces exit.

He also urged other countries to secure their own energy supplies, signaling a reduced U.S. role in safeguarding maritime routes. “If France or some other country wants to get oil or gas, they’ll go up through the Hormuz Strait and fend for themselves,” Trump said.

In a social media post earlier in the day, Trump reiterated that position, telling countries facing shortages to “go get your own oil,” while asserting that Iran had been significantly weakened.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the coming days would be “decisive” in the conflict, without ruling out the possibility of ground operations. He added that the United States had undertaken extensive efforts to ensure navigational access through the Strait of Hormuz, though he emphasized that future responsibility would not rest solely with Washington.

Hegseth also confirmed an unannounced visit to U.S. forces operating under Central Command, declining to disclose locations for security reasons.Trump said U.S. forces would withdraw once Iran is deemed incapable of developing a nuclear weapon for a prolonged period, framing the campaign as aimed at degrading Tehran’s military and nuclear capabilities.

The remarks come amid strained coordination with allies, many of whom have declined U.S. requests for military support to reopen key shipping lanes.

The administration’s stance suggests a shift toward limiting direct U.S. involvement in securing global energy transit routes despite ongoing instability in the region.

Curtis, speaking alongside fellow lawmakers including Jeanne Shaheen, said Taiwan should draw lessons from Hong Kong, where Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law in 2020 following unrest, a move critics say curtailed freedoms.

The visit comes as President Lai Ching-te seeks approval for an additional $40 billion in defence spending, a proposal backed by Washington but currently stalled in the opposition-controlled parliament.

Taiwan’s government says the funding is necessary to strengthen deterrence against China, which claims the island as its territory. Opposition parties have expressed support in principle for defence measures but have resisted approving what they describe as open-ended commitments.

Curtis said Taiwan risked misjudging Beijing’s intentions if it ignored the trajectory of Hong Kong since its return to Chinese rule in 1997 under a framework guaranteeing autonomy.“My biggest worry for Taiwan is that they underestimate the intentions of China,” Curtis said, urging vigilance despite aspirations for peace.

China has simultaneously stepped up engagement with Taiwan’s opposition. Beijing has invited Cheng Li-wun, leader of the Kuomintang, to visit, a trip she has described as a “peace mission.”

Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council said China’s objective of annexation had not changed and cautioned against what it called “illusions” about peace, reflecting ongoing tensions across the Taiwan Strait.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said discussions over the past two days had raised the prospect of a “complete and total resolution of hostilities in the Middle East.” Speaking later to reporters before departing Florida for Memphis, he described the talks as “very, very strong,” adding that negotiators had reached agreement on “almost all points.”

Trump said U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who had previously engaged in negotiations with Iran, held discussions with a senior Iranian official on Sunday evening and were expected to continue talks on Monday. He declined to identify the Iranian interlocutor, stating only that it was not the country’s supreme leader, and said Washington was engaging with “the man who I believe is the most respected and the leader.”

Reporter for Axios said officials from Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan had separately met Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, suggesting a coordinated mediation effort. Iran’s foreign ministry acknowledged unspecified “initiatives” aimed at reducing tensions, according to the Mehr news agency, and reiterated that Tehran expected Washington to participate directly in any negotiations as a principal party to the conflict.

The diplomatic push comes hours before a previously signaled U.S. deadline that had raised the prospect of escalation targeting Iranian energy infrastructure, a move widely seen as carrying significant regional and economic risks.

Trump said he had communicated with Israel, describing the U.S. ally as supportive of ongoing diplomatic efforts. A source briefed on Israeli planning said Washington had kept Israel informed of its contacts with Tehran and indicated that Israel was likely to mirror the U.S. pause by suspending any targeting of Iranian power plants and related infrastructure.

Trump’s comments helped ease immediate concerns of escalation, with oil prices falling and stock markets recovering as investors reassessed geopolitical risk. The prospect of a temporary halt in strikes on energy assets signaled a reduced likelihood of near-term disruption to regional supply.

Diplomatic contacts are expected to continue in the coming days as intermediaries seek to bridge remaining gaps between Washington and Tehran.

Speaking in London, Albanese said the meeting was a chance to discuss the “strongly building” support for AUKUS between the two allies but would not be drawn on the position of U.S. President Donald Trump.

The AUKUS pact, sealed in 2021, aims to provide Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines from the next decade to counter China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific region.

Trump’s administration is undertaking a formal AUKUS review led by Elbridge Colby, a top Pentagon policy official and public critic of the agreement.

Asked if his meeting with Starmer gave him increased confidence that AUKUS would proceed, Albanese said: “I have always been confident about AUKUS going ahead.

“Every meeting I’ve had and discussions I’ve had with people in the U.S. administration have always been positive about AUKUS,” he said, according to an official transcript.

Under AUKUS – worth hundreds of billions of dollars – Washington will sell several Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra, while Britain and Australia will later build a new AUKUS-class submarine.

Australia and Britain signed a treaty in July to bolster cooperation over the next 50 years on AUKUS.

During his visit, Albanese is also expected to meet with King Charles, Australia’s official head of state.

For India, it is a declaration that the era of passive absorption is over. For the world, it’s a test case in modern warfare doctrine.

In a rare public commentary from a senior U.S. military scholar, John Spencer—executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute and coauthor of Understanding Urban Warfare—has described India’s four-day military campaign, Operation Sindoor, as “a decisive victory in modern warfare.” Writing on Wednesday, Spencer called the operation “a model of limited war with clearly defined ends,” asserting that it could redefine how nations respond to state-sponsored terrorism in the nuclear age.

Operation Sindoor was launched by India on May 7, 2025, in response to a deadly terror attack in the tourist town of Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22. The massacre, which killed 26 Indian civilians, mostly Hindu pilgrims, was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a group widely recognized as a proxy of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and backed by Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Unlike previous Indian responses, this time there was no diplomatic wait-and-see. India struck back with calibrated military action, marking a major departure from its historically cautious approach.

“This was not merely a symbolic gesture,” Spencer wrote. “It was decisive power, clearly applied.”

A New Doctrine Revealed

What makes Operation Sindoor unique, Spencer argued, is the strategic doctrine that underpinned it. While India has not formally declared the operation over, military activity has halted in what officials are calling a “stoppage of firing”—a careful semantic choice that avoids the term “ceasefire” and underscores India’s desire to retain initiative and control.

“The halt in operations is not the end,” Spencer emphasized. “It is a pause. India holds the initiative. If provoked again, it will strike again.”

According to Spencer’s analysis, India achieved four major strategic objectives:

Destroying Terror Infrastructure: Precision strikes targeted key terrorist hubs in Bahawalpur, Muzaffarabad, and Muridke—well beyond the Line of Control.

Demonstrating Military Superiority: India’s ability to launch and defend against retaliatory strikes—including a massive Pakistani drone swarm—highlighted the growing prowess of its domestically developed and internationally supported air defense systems.

Restoring Deterrence: By responding forcefully yet limiting escalation, India signaled to both adversaries and the international community that terror attacks would no longer go unanswered.

Asserting Strategic Independence: India acted without seeking Western mediation or U.N. intervention, a move that signaled its readiness to set and enforce its own red lines.

Four Days That Changed the Region

The timeline of Operation Sindoor was rapid and deliberate:

• May 7: Indian Air Force conducted nine high-precision strikes deep inside Pakistani territory.
• May 8: Pakistan retaliated with a massive swarm drone attack, largely intercepted by Indian air defenses.
• May 9: India escalated with attacks on six Pakistani military airbases and UAV coordination hubs.
• May 10: India declared a halt in operations, maintaining the ability to resume at any moment.

This sequence, Spencer notes, was textbook execution of limited warfare—a campaign designed to achieve political and strategic goals without sliding into open-ended conflict.

“This wasn’t just tactical success,” he wrote. “It was doctrinal execution under live fire.”

Modi Doctrine: “No More Nuclear Blackmail”

The boldness of India’s response also lay in its public messaging. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statements during the operation signaled a sharp turn from the past.

“India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail,” Modi declared. “India will strike precisely and decisively at the terrorist hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail.”

Spencer interprets this as India laying down a new strategic doctrine—one that separates nuclear deterrence from proxy terrorism, and no longer allows the threat of nuclear escalation to paralyze its counter-terror responses.

Critics of the operation—both domestic and foreign—have raised concerns about potential escalation or destabilization. However, Spencer counters that these critiques overlook the deliberate restraint India displayed.

“India retaliated forcefully but stopped short of full war,” he wrote. “That’s not recklessness—that’s control. It’s the foundation of modern deterrence.”

A Model for Limited War?

Spencer’s praise is significant not just for its content but for its source. As a leading expert on urban warfare and military doctrine, his words will likely be studied in military academies worldwide.

“In an era defined by ‘forever wars’ and cycles of violence without strategic direction, Sindoor stands apart,” Spencer wrote. “It offers a model of limited war with clearly defined ends, matched ways and means, and a state that never relinquished the initiative.”

This could have broader implications for global counter-terrorism strategy. If the international community accepts India’s precedent—that terror attacks emanating from a neighboring state will be treated as acts of war—it could signal a seismic shift in the rules of engagement for statecraft under the nuclear umbrella.

The Next Phase

What happens next remains uncertain. India has not demobilized its forces and retains a high alert status across its western front. Pakistan’s public response has been muted, likely due to the scale of its internal damage and lack of international support. Both countries have avoided crossing nuclear red lines, but the threat of further conflict remains.

Spencer ends his essay with a stark warning—and a call to attention for other democracies facing state-sponsored terrorism:

“India didn’t just respond to an attack. It changed the strategic equation.”

Operation Sindoor, he argues, will not just shape India’s national security policy—it may well influence global strategic thinking about limited war, deterrence, and the role of conventional force in a nuclear world.

For India, it is a declaration that the era of passive absorption is over. For the world, it’s a test case in modern warfare doctrine. And for Pakistan, it’s a reminder that the old playbook may no longer offer protection.

This is not just India’s victory, Spencer concludes. “This is deterrence restored. This is a doctrine revealed. And it should be studied by all nations confronting the scourge of state-sponsored terrorism.”

To Dean, the implications are not just unrealistic, but dangerous.

In a compelling commentary that has stirred debate across diplomatic and analytical circles, Aimen Dean — former MI6 operative inside Al-Qaeda, author of Nine Lives, and now a respected political analyst and podcaster — has sounded the alarm over what he describes as Israel’s “Buffer Illusion” in southern Syria. His critique goes beyond routine regional analysis and touches upon a broader, deeply rooted issue: the dangerous confluence of fantasy-driven geopolitics and expansionist ambitions.

Dean, whose insider knowledge of Middle Eastern militancy and intelligence lends weight to his views, draws attention to a strategy being quietly nurtured within Israel’s far-right establishment — the idea of carving out a so-called “Druze Corridor” from southern Syria to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The plan, as he outlines, is riddled with strategic absurdities and moral hazards.

A Strategy of Buffers within Buffers

Dean begins with an explanation of the “buffer zone” concept — a long-standing tool of geopolitical defense. In its classical form, a buffer is a neutral or allied territory intended to serve as a cushion against external threats. But Dean argues that Israel’s ultra-right government has taken the idea to impractical extremes, creating a doctrine in which each buffer demands a buffer of its own, resulting in an endless nesting of expansionist outposts.

He describes this approach as “a game of strategic nesting dolls that soon loses all clarity.” The original objective of safeguarding national security becomes overshadowed by an increasingly untenable geographic ambition — one that defies not only logic but the basic realities of the land and its people.

The Druze Dilemma in Southern Syria

Nowhere is this “Buffer Illusion” more visible than in Israel’s covert interest in Suwayda, a Druze-majority province in southern Syria. With a population of roughly 380,000, Suwayda has historically remained on the fringes of Syria’s broader conflicts, maintaining a cautious distance from both government and opposition forces. Some factions within the Druze community — reportedly with Israeli encouragement — are now flirting with the idea of forming an independent Druze state.

To Dean, the implications are not just unrealistic, but dangerous. He warns that such aspirations are not merely about community self-determination but could be a front for creating a pro-Israel entity that ultimately seeks to physically link up with the Golan Heights — forming what he dubs the “Druze Corridor.”

But standing in the way of that ambition is a significant obstacle: the Sunni Arab-majority province of Daraa. Home to more than 1.3 million people, Daraa lies directly between Suwayda and the Golan, making the dream of a contiguous Druze corridor a demographic and geographic impossibility.

“You cannot simply leapfrog over a million people,” Dean writes, “many of whom are fiercely tied to their ancestral lands.” Any attempt to do so, he warns, would require forced displacement or large-scale violence — a move that could cost tens of thousands of Israeli lives and ignite a region-wide conflagration.

A Strategic Blunder in the Making

Dean sharply criticizes the lack of strategic foresight in entertaining such scenarios. He suggests that Israel’s current political leadership — emboldened by ideological rigidity and military confidence — is toying with plans that defy logic and disregard regional sensitivities.

He questions the endgame of such a policy: “Is it truly about security, or is it about reshaping Syria’s south to Israel’s liking under the guise of minority protection?” If so, he warns, the move could backfire disastrously by inflaming sectarian tensions and undermining Israel’s broader diplomatic standing.

Dean offers a hypothetical but thought-provoking counterstrategy for the Syrian government, now reportedly under President Farouq al-Shara’: grant Suwayda its independence, if that is what its people desire. The catch, however, is clear — such an entity would be landlocked, resource-poor, and wholly dependent on Damascus and Amman for basic sustenance and international recognition.

“If independence is what they demand, let them test the waters of sovereignty,” Dean states. “No blood need be shed. Let them go, not out of weakness, but out of strength and confidence.”

He argues that doing so would strip Israel of any pretext for military intervention and would reveal whether the Druze nationalist push is about genuine autonomy or strategic alignment with Israel.

No Corridor, No Fantasy

Dean’s analysis culminates in a stark warning: “There is no corridor. There never was.” Geography and demographics, he insists, are not variables that can be negotiated away. “No strategic imagination, no military maneuver, no political manipulation can erase geography or overwrite demographics.”

His commentary serves as a sobering reminder that policies rooted in wishful thinking — especially in the volatile Middle East — often lead to unintended consequences. In the case of the Druze Corridor fantasy, the cost of pursuing illusion over reality may prove far greater than any perceived security benefit.

As regional dynamics continue to shift, Dean’s words resonate as a cautionary tale against ideological overreach and the perils of ignoring the immutable truths of land and people.

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, disclosed that he had inadvertently been added to a Signal chat involving senior Trump administration officials discussing a planned military strike on Houthi targets in Yemen.

The disclosure raised significant concerns over national security, the handling of classified information, and potential violations of the Espionage Act. Here are five key takeaways from this unfolding controversy:

1. The Group Chat and Its Unintended Guest

Goldberg revealed that he was unexpectedly invited to a Signal chat by someone identified as Michael Waltz, believed to be Trump’s National Security Advisor and former Florida congressman. On March 13, he was added to a conversation about U.S. military operations in Yemen.

The chat reportedly included top Trump administration officials such as Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Additionally, key Trump allies, including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and senior adviser Stephen Miller, were also present.

Goldberg did not announce his presence nor attempt to conceal it, appearing as “JG” in the chat, similar to other participants who used initials. He initially suspected a hoax but later confirmed the authenticity of the messages.

2. Security Implications and Legal Concerns

Goldberg stated that he was privy to operational details of the attack, including specific targets, weapons to be deployed, and the sequence of strikes—two hours before they took place on March 15.

He refrained from publishing those details but warned that if adversaries had gained access, American military personnel and intelligence operations could have been put at risk.

The use of Signal for discussing a military strike may have violated the Espionage Act, which regulates the handling of national defense information. Additionally, the setting of messages to auto-delete raises questions about whether official records laws were breached.

3. Internal Divisions and European Policy Debates

The chat messages also revealed Vice President Vance’s concerns about the U.S. intervening in Yemen. Vance reportedly expressed doubts about the necessity of the strike, noting that Europe had more at stake in protecting trade routes like the Suez Canal.

“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance reportedly wrote, referencing Trump’s long-standing demand that European nations take greater responsibility for their own security.

Secretary Hegseth responded, agreeing with Vance’s frustration over European “free-loading,” but insisted that the U.S. had no alternative but to act.

4. Political Fallout and Reactions

Democratic leaders swiftly condemned the episode. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz criticized Hegseth for “texting out war plans like invites to a frat party.” Senator Elizabeth Warren labeled the breach “blatantly illegal and dangerous beyond belief.”

Republicans were left scrambling. Senate Majority Leader John Thune called for a review, stating, “We’ve got to run it to ground and figure out what went on there.” Senator John Cornyn described the situation as “a huge screwup.”

5. Trump Defends Waltz Amid Controversy

Despite the scandal, President Trump expressed continued confidence in Waltz. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “The President has the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.”

However, whether the administration’s response will be sufficient to quell bipartisan concerns remains uncertain as scrutiny intensifies over how national security information was handled in this extraordinary breach.