A new round of American attacks on Iranian military infrastructure signals that the conflict is far from over, while Tehran continues retaliatory strikes and pressure mounts over the future of the Strait of Hormuz.

The United States and Iran have entered another significant round of direct military confrontation, with American forces carrying out a broad series of strikes against Iranian military targets after Tehran launched attacks against U.S. positions in the region.

The latest exchange represents one of the most substantial periods of direct U.S.-Iran fighting in months. Iran retains the ability to launch missiles and drones against American forces and neighboring countries, while Washington is increasingly targeting the infrastructure Tehran needs to continue those attacks. At the same time, the Strait of Hormuz remains at the center of the conflict, with consequences extending far beyond the battlefield and into global energy markets.

According to U.S. Central Command, American forces struck Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps air-defense positions, radar systems, maritime assets, communications facilities and mine-laying capabilities.

The escalation began after the United States struck Iranian launchers reportedly preparing to deploy mines into the Strait of Hormuz. Iran subsequently targeted U.S. positions in Jordan, prompting Washington to respond with a much larger wave of strikes against sites along Iran's coast.

Iranian projectiles were also launched toward Jordan during the fighting, although most were intercepted and the remainder reportedly landed in unpopulated areas without causing casualties. The attacks demonstrate an important reality: despite the damage Iran has sustained, its military retains the ability to threaten American forces and regional partners.

One of the most significant developments in the American response was the targeting of Iranian-owned tankers. CENTCOM footage appeared to show strikes concentrated near the engine areas of the vessels, potentially disabling them while reducing the risk of a major oil spill.

The message appears straightforward: if Iran threatens commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, its own maritime assets may increasingly become vulnerable.

The Battle Over the Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz is rapidly becoming one of the most important pressure points in this conflict.

Iran is reportedly attempting to condition passage through the strait on the payment of war reparations. A statement attributed to a spokesman for the Iranian Parliament's National Security Commission said countries, companies and other entities deemed responsible for damage to Iran could be denied permission to transit unless they reach an agreement with Tehran over compensation.

Whatever Iran's practical ability to enforce such demands, Tehran understands that the strait gives it leverage far beyond its conventional military strength. Any serious disruption immediately affects shipping, insurance rates, energy markets and ultimately consumers around the world.

That creates a strategic problem for Washington. American strikes are clearly degrading Iranian radar systems, missile infrastructure and maritime capabilities, but if each Iranian attack produces only a limited American retaliation followed by another pause, Tehran may conclude that it can absorb the punishment.

One of the most revealing aspects of Iran's behavior is what it has not done. Iran still possesses weapons capable of reaching Israel, yet during this latest exchange it has concentrated heavily on American and regional targets.

The likely explanation is deterrence. Iranian leaders understand that a major attack against Israel could provoke an Israeli response considerably more severe than the calibrated exchanges Tehran has experienced with the United States.

Whether one agrees with Israel's strategy or not, the lesson is important: effective deterrence does not require an adversary to like you. It requires that adversary to believe the consequences of crossing certain lines will be unacceptable.

Can Pressure Produce Change Inside Iran?

The other major question is what happens inside Iran as military and economic pressure grows.

President Donald Trump has publicly questioned when the Iranian people will rise against their government. But calling for an uprising is much easier than creating the conditions in which one can succeed.

Iranian opposition figure Reza Pahlavi argued that the Iranian people themselves must ultimately provide the "boots on the ground," rather than foreign troops. But he also warned that civilians cannot reasonably be expected to confront heavily armed regime security forces without protection and a coherent strategy.

Pahlavi criticized the mixed message created when outside powers encourage Iranians to resist the government while simultaneously discussing negotiations with that same government. In his view, any serious attempt at political change would require a clear strategy that protects protesters and encourages defections from Iran's military and security services.

That gets to the heart of the problem. Washington must ultimately decide what it wants: containment, deterrence, negotiation, the destruction of Iran's ability to threaten its neighbors, or the end of the current regime. Those are very different objectives.

Russia's War Is Increasingly Reaching Europe

While attention remains focused on Iran, another dangerous confrontation continues to develop in Europe.

Suspected Russian-linked sabotage has raised increasingly serious questions about where covert aggression ends and open conflict with NATO begins. Recent incidents discussed in Europe include attacks against power infrastructure in Germany, including a projectile described as Russian in origin that may have been smuggled into Germany before being launched.

European governments are promising additional pressure on Moscow, while Germany is preparing further military support for Ukraine, including additional IRIS-T air-defense capabilities. But Europe faces a larger strategic problem. If Russian-directed sabotage is occurring across NATO territory, sending additional weapons to Ukraine may eventually prove insufficient as the only response.

Former British Army officer Michael Clarke argued that Ukraine must prevail and that Europe may increasingly have to ensure that outcome without assuming the United States will carry most of the burden. The larger issue is whether Moscow will be allowed to demonstrate that sustained military aggression can eventually succeed if an aggressor is simply willing to continue long enough.

That is not only Ukraine's problem. It is Europe's problem, and ultimately it is an American problem as well.

Ukraine Takes the War Deeper Into Russia

Ukraine, meanwhile, is increasingly demonstrating that Russia cannot wage a devastating war against its neighbor while assuming its own territory will remain insulated from the consequences.

President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned civilian aviation about the risks of operating over Russia as Ukrainian drone operations expand deeper into Russian territory. Dozens of flights were reportedly canceled following concerns about the safety of Russian airspace.

There is an obvious symmetry here. Ukrainian civilian aviation has effectively been shut down since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion. Ukrainians have spent years living with missile attacks, drones, destroyed infrastructure and the constant disruption of ordinary life.

Now some of those consequences are reaching Russia itself.

The scale of the fighting remains staggering, with Ukrainian sources reporting enormous monthly Russian personnel and equipment losses. Those figures should be understood as battlefield assessments from one side of an active war rather than independently verified totals, but there is little question that both countries continue paying an extraordinary price.

The resilience of ordinary Ukrainians remains just as striking. One video I showed during the broadcast captured a woman sitting at a piano inside her damaged home after a drone attack and beginning to play. It was a small moment in an enormous war, but it illustrates something statistics cannot: after years of destruction, the determination of Ukrainians to continue has not disappeared.

A More Dangerous Phase

The wars involving Iran and Russia are separate conflicts, but both expose the same strategic problem confronting the West.

Deterrence works only when threats are backed by credible consequences.

Iran continues testing how much damage it can inflict on American forces and regional partners without provoking a decisive response. Russia continues testing how far it can extend aggression beyond Ukraine without triggering a fundamentally different reaction from NATO.

The danger of escalation is real. But there is also danger in allowing adversaries to conclude that escalation works.

The United States has demonstrated that it can inflict enormous damage on Iranian military infrastructure. Ukraine has demonstrated that Russia's size does not make it immune from attack. Europe and the United States possess tremendous economic and military power.

The question is whether that power will be organized around a coherent strategy.

I'm heading to Ukraine now, where I'll be reporting from the ground on what this war actually looks like after years of fighting, what Russia's campaign is doing to Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, and how Ukrainians themselves see the next phase of the conflict.

There is plenty of commentary about these wars from thousands of miles away. In the coming days, I'll be bringing you what I can see and learn firsthand.

What are your thoughts? Let me know in the comments below. 

In the skies over Germany in 1943, an American bomber crew was defenseless and far from home. The German fighter pilot sent to destroy them made a decision that neither side would forget.

On the morning of Dec. 20, 1943, 21-year-old Second Lt. Charles “Charlie” Brown lifted a B-17F Flying Fortress from an airfield in England and headed toward Germany. Brown was flying his first combat mission as an aircraft commander with the 379th Bomb Group, and his crew’s target was an aircraft factory at Bremen. By the time the Americans turned for home, however, their bomber—nicknamed Ye Olde Pub—had been so badly damaged that simply keeping it in the air had become an accomplishment.

German anti-aircraft fire and fighters had torn into the B-17. One engine was out and others were damaged. The aircraft’s tail and control surfaces had been shredded, much of its defensive armament was no longer functioning, and several crewmen were wounded. Tail gunner Staff Sgt. Hugh Eckenrode had been killed. Brown himself was wounded, and the bomber had fallen away from the protection of its formation.

Somehow, Ye Olde Pub continued flying.

Then Brown looked out of his cockpit and saw a Messerschmitt Bf 109 alongside him.

Under ordinary circumstances, there would have been little mystery about what happened next. A lone, crippled American heavy bomber over Germany was precisely the kind of target a Luftwaffe fighter pilot was supposed to destroy. The German pilot had the weapons, the position and the opportunity to finish the job.

But Franz Stigler did not fire.

A Fighter Pilot Finds a Helpless Enemy

Stigler was an experienced Luftwaffe pilot who had already survived years of combat. When he encountered Brown's aircraft, he approached intending to shoot it down. What he found as he drew closer changed his mind.

The B-17 was barely recognizable as a combat-capable aircraft. Stigler could see enormous holes in its fuselage and the destruction around its tail. More importantly, he could see the men inside. Some were wounded, and other crewmen were trying to help them. The bomber's guns were largely silent.

To Stigler, they no longer looked like an enemy bomber crew in the middle of a fight. They looked like wounded men trying to survive.

Years later, he explained his decision simply: “I cannot kill these half-dead people. It would be like shooting at a parachute.”

That distinction mattered to Stigler because of something he had learned earlier in the war. He had been taught that a fighter pilot did not shoot an enemy airman hanging helplessly beneath a parachute. There were supposed to be limits even in combat, boundaries that separated killing an enemy who could fight back from simply executing a defenseless man.

Whatever uniform the men inside the B-17 were wearing, Stigler decided that the same principle applied to them.

It was an extraordinary decision precisely because Stigler had every reason not to make it. According to an account published by Air & Space Forces Magazine, he had already shot down two four-engine bombers that day, and another victory would have put him in position for one of Germany's highest military decorations. Deliberately allowing an enemy bomber to escape could also have brought severe punishment if his actions became known.

He let it go anyway.

An Enemy Becomes an Escort

Stigler initially tried to persuade Brown to land in Germany, where the wounded Americans could receive treatment as prisoners of war. Brown refused. Stigler then attempted to communicate another possibility: turn toward neutral Sweden.

Communication between two aircraft in flight was difficult enough. Communication between enemy pilots who did not share a radio frequency was nearly impossible. Brown could see the German gesturing but could not fully understand what he wanted.

So Stigler made another choice.

Instead of leaving the Americans to their fate, he remained beside them.

The Messerschmitt flew alongside the crippled B-17 as Brown continued toward the German coast. The sight was almost absurd: one of Hitler's fighters escorting an American bomber that had just participated in a raid over Germany. Stigler stayed with Ye Olde Pub for several miles and accompanied the bomber toward the North Sea.

Eventually, there was nothing more he could do.

Stigler pulled alongside Brown one final time, raised his hand in salute and turned back toward Germany.

Brown still had roughly 250 miles of the North Sea ahead of him. Against considerable odds, Ye Olde Pub made the crossing and landed safely at Seething in England. Of the crew aboard the B-17, Eckenrode was the only man who did not survive the mission.

Brown told his superiors what had happened during his debriefing. Stigler, meanwhile, kept quiet about what he had done. The encounter disappeared into the enormous history of a war that still had nearly two years left to run.

But Brown never forgot the German pilot.

Searching for the Man Who Spared Them

More than four decades passed.

Brown built a career after the war, but the image of the German fighter flying beside his shattered B-17 stayed with him. In 1986, he began trying to identify the Luftwaffe pilot who had spared his crew. The search eventually led him to place a notice in a publication for former German fighter pilots.

In 1990, a response arrived from Canada.

The writer was Franz Stigler.

The two men compared details that would have been difficult for anyone else to know: the location of the encounter, the condition of the aircraft, the gestures made between the cockpits and the final salute before the German fighter turned away.

Brown had found him.

The encounter that followed was perhaps even more remarkable than the one over Germany. The two former enemies became close friends. Their families grew close as well, and the pilots began appearing together publicly to tell the story of the day one of them had been ordered to destroy the other.

Their friendship was not built on pretending that the war had not mattered. Brown's crew had bombed Germany. Stigler had fought for Germany. Men on both sides had killed and watched friends die. Nothing about their later friendship erased those realities.

What connected them was one decision made when nobody would have blamed Stigler for doing exactly what the war expected of him.

He chose not to.

Honor in a Place Designed to Destroy It

It is tempting to make stories like this sentimental. That would miss what makes this one so powerful.

Stigler's decision mattered because the circumstances gave him every incentive to make the opposite choice. Nobody aboard Ye Olde Pub could have stopped him. Brown was his enemy. Germany was fighting for survival, German cities were being bombed, and Stigler himself had suffered losses during the war. Yet he decided there was still a line he would not cross.

War has a way of reducing people to categories: friendly or enemy, ally or adversary, target or threat. Military necessity often requires exactly that kind of thinking. But the danger comes when the uniform becomes the only thing one can see. Stigler got close enough to Ye Olde Pub to see something else.

He saw wounded young men.

That moment did not end the war. It did not change the strategic bombing campaign or alter the outcome of the conflict. The following morning, Americans and Germans continued trying to kill one another across Europe. But nine American airmen who might otherwise have died eventually went home because one German pilot decided that duty did not require him to abandon his humanity.

Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler remained friends for the rest of their lives. Both men died in 2008, only months apart. Their story has endured because it says something larger than either man's wartime record. Courage is not always demonstrated by pulling the trigger. Sometimes it is demonstrated by refusing to pull it when everything around you says that you should.

On a cold December day over Germany, Franz Stigler had an enemy aircraft in his gunsight and every reason to destroy it.

Instead, he escorted it home.

With Moscow building forces near Ukraine, Russian drones appearing deeper inside Europe and the Kremlin issuing increasingly explicit warnings to Britain and other NATO countries, the war is entering a dangerous new phase.

By Chuck Holton

Russia’s war against Ukraine is approaching another critical winter, but the most important developments are no longer confined to the front lines. Moscow is assembling additional forces, threatening European countries that provide weapons to Kyiv and demonstrating an increasing willingness to test how far it can go beyond Ukraine without provoking a direct response from NATO.

I’ll be heading back to Eastern Europe next week to report on this situation firsthand, including several days inside Ukraine as well as stops in Poland and Lithuania. I intend to visit some of the places where Russia’s pressure on Europe is becoming increasingly visible and to examine a question that is becoming harder for NATO governments to avoid: How much Russian aggression can take place outside Ukraine before Europe decides that the conflict has crossed a new threshold?

The timing of the trip is significant because Ukraine appears to be approaching one of the most consequential periods of the war. Russia continues to absorb enormous battlefield losses while attempting to replace men, equipment and infrastructure faster than Ukraine can destroy them. At the same time, Moscow is reportedly preparing another large mobilization for a winter campaign, while Russian forces are building up in areas that could threaten Ukraine from additional directions. In my assessment, this winter could go a long way toward determining which side ultimately emerges with the advantage.

A Mysterious American Visit to Moscow

One of the most intriguing developments came with CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s unannounced visit to Moscow. The trip was unusual not simply because America’s intelligence chief traveled to Russia, but because there appeared to be little effort to conceal it. Ratcliffe reportedly arrived aboard a conspicuous American military aircraft, spent roughly two hours on the ground and met with Russian intelligence officials before leaving. The United States has offered little public explanation for what was discussed.

Russian officials subsequently attempted to characterize the meeting as routine contact between intelligence services. I find that explanation difficult to accept. Intelligence chiefs certainly communicate with their counterparts, including adversaries, but an urgent trip to Moscow under these circumstances suggests something more serious than an ordinary exchange of information. My suspicion is that Washington wanted to deliver a message that was considered too sensitive or consequential to communicate through normal diplomatic channels.

Exactly what that message concerned remains unknown, and it is important not to present speculation as fact. It may have involved Russia’s plans in Ukraine, the possibility of escalation involving NATO, Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, or something else entirely. Given the increasingly threatening rhetoric coming from Moscow, however, it is reasonable to believe that the administration wanted the Kremlin to understand there are limits it should not cross.

The larger problem for Washington is that Vladimir Putin has spent years demonstrating that he does not view relations with the United States primarily through the lens of friendship or personal diplomacy. A former American official featured during the broadcast argued that Putin sees the United States as an adversary seeking to weaken Russia and therefore interprets unilateral concessions not as gestures of goodwill but as opportunities to demand more. Whatever one thinks of President Trump’s approach to Moscow, that is an important reality to keep in mind when dealing with the Kremlin.

Russia Is Testing Europe

While the diplomacy takes place behind closed doors, the military pressure is increasingly visible. Russian drones have been appearing beyond Ukraine’s borders, part of what I see as a broader pattern of asymmetric pressure against European countries. The transcript describes five Russian drones entering Moldova and another Shahed-type drone reaching Hungary, incidents that come as Moscow repeatedly warns European governments against providing military support to Ukraine.