Iran is behaving less like a defeated power than a government convinced it can outlast the West, while Russia continues pressing NATO and Israel signals that it may be prepared to finish what Washington started. Increasingly, these conflicts look like parts of the same war.

By Chuck Holton

The news from the Middle East and Europe is becoming harder to divide into separate stories. Iran is under severe military and economic pressure but continues to act aggressively. Russia is supporting Tehran while prosecuting its war against Ukraine. NATO is increasingly concerned about the possibility of a direct confrontation with Moscow, and Israel is openly signaling that its campaign against the Iranian regime may not be finished.

Taken individually, each development is serious. Taken together, they point toward something much larger: the conflicts involving Iran, Russia, Israel, Ukraine, Europe and the United States are increasingly interconnected, while the West remains dangerously reluctant to acknowledge what that means.

President Donald Trump said this week that there are no talks or conversations scheduled with the Islamic Republic of Iran and that the naval blockade remains in effect. Yet Iran is hardly behaving like a country that considers itself beaten. Iranian officials have begun speaking about the war in the past tense and portraying the outcome as a victory that has established Iran as a dominant regional power.

That rhetoric would be easier to dismiss if Tehran were simultaneously showing signs of military submission. Instead, according to the developments covered in Wednesday's broadcast, Iran launched missiles and drones against the United Arab Emirates. The UAE subsequently announced that trade, commercial exchanges and financial transactions with Iran had been halted until further notice. Because the UAE had remained an important outlet for Iranian commerce despite the blockade, the decision could impose substantial additional economic pressure on Tehran.

Iran has undoubtedly suffered military damage. Its naval and air capabilities have been degraded, and its ability to manufacture weapons has been disrupted. But degraded is not the same as destroyed. Iran retains significant manpower and, critically, continues to possess the ability to produce drones and missiles. Drone production is especially difficult to eliminate because comparatively simple systems can be manufactured in dispersed facilities without the enormous industrial infrastructure required for sophisticated aircraft or warships.

The other problem is that Iran is not operating alone. Russia has reportedly continued providing Iran with military equipment and components, including shipments as recently as late July. Moscow has several reasons to want Tehran to survive. Iran consumes American attention and resources, creates additional problems for Washington's allies and contributes to instability that can help keep global oil prices elevated—a considerable advantage for an economy such as Russia's that depends heavily on energy exports.

The relationship runs both ways. Russia and Iran have supported one another while confronting different parts of the Western alliance, and that makes it increasingly misleading to analyze Ukraine and the Middle East as entirely separate conflicts. The same governments are appearing on the same sides, exchanging resources and benefiting strategically from one another's wars.

Israel Is Sending a Different Message

While Washington appears hesitant about its next move, Israel's rhetoric suggests preparation for further action. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government has a structured plan containing "many surprises" designed to undermine the Iranian regime and enable change. He also directly addressed members of the Revolutionary Guard, warning that those who continue participating in the regime's repression are in Israel's sights while telling those who lay down their weapons that they would not be harmed.

Netanyahu then addressed the Iranian people themselves, saying Israel does not seek Iran's destruction or division but wants to see the country liberated from tyranny and eventually restored to peaceful relations with Israel. His language sounded less like the conclusion of a military campaign than preparation for another phase of it.

That creates an increasingly important question for Washington. President Trump has repeatedly used strong rhetoric about the consequences Iran would face if it continued its belligerence. Iran has continued its belligerence, yet the United States has not carried out major new strikes in recent weeks. Deterrence depends not simply on possessing military power but on convincing an adversary that stated consequences are credible. Every threat that goes unenforced makes the next threat easier to ignore.

Israel may therefore conclude that it cannot wait indefinitely for the United States. Netanyahu's remarks strongly suggest that his government has additional targets and plans already prepared. Whether Washington participates, assists indirectly or simply gets out of the way could become one of the defining strategic decisions of the next phase of the conflict.

NATO and Russia Move Closer to Confrontation

In this special interview, I sit down with an Iranian software engineer and anti-IRGC activist living in the UK who shares a perspective few people in the West ever hear. We discuss the growing opposition to the Iranian regime, what ordinary Iranians think about the current war, why many no longer support the Islamic Republic, and what could happen if the regime eventually falls. Whether you agree with every conclusion or not, this conversation offers a rare firsthand look into how one Iranian dissident views his country's future.

Become a Supporter

The threat environment around President Donald Trump has reached a level I have never seen before—and new reporting about what happened during his trip to Turkey shows just how serious it has become.

When Trump left Ankara after meeting with NATO leaders on July 8, the public was initially told that he had used an older Air Force One for nostalgic reasons. Then we heard that the newer aircraft was unavailable. After that, reports suggested that security concerns had influenced the decision.

Now we are learning that the situation was much more dramatic.

According to new reporting, American and Israeli intelligence had picked up a credible Iranian threat against the president’s aircraft. The danger was considered serious enough that the Secret Service and the military carried out the kind of deception you would expect to see in a Hollywood thriller.

Trump boarded the older Air Force One with members of the press pool and his staff. Everyone aboard was reportedly instructed to close the window shades. A catering truck then pulled alongside the aircraft as though it were delivering food.

Instead, the president got into the truck.

The vehicle carried him across the tarmac to a smaller, less conspicuous government aircraft—a C-32A—which then flew him out of Ankara. Many of the people traveling with him apparently did not know what was happening until later.

Think about that for a moment. The president of the United States had to slip off Air Force One in a catering vehicle and leave a NATO summit aboard a smaller decoy aircraft because the Iranian threat was considered credible enough that officials feared his plane could be attacked.

That tells us at least two things. First, Iran’s threats against President Trump cannot be dismissed as empty propaganda. Second, the United States cannot afford to assume that every NATO ally can provide a secure operating environment simply because its flag appears on the right list in Washington.

Israel reportedly helped identify the threat. If that intelligence contributed to getting the president home alive, Americans ought to remember it.

Why Are Missile Batteries Guarding a Golf Course?

The extraordinary precautions did not end in Turkey.

Recent images from Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, show Avenger short-range air-defense systems positioned nearby and surrounded by concertina wire. These Humvee-mounted systems carry Stinger missiles and a .50-caliber machine gun.

That is not normal golf-course scenery.

The Avenger is designed to protect troops and critical assets from low-flying aircraft, helicopters, and other aerial threats. If officials are deploying that kind of equipment while the president plays golf, they are not worried only about a hobbyist accidentally flying a DJI drone into restricted airspace.

They are preparing for the possibility of a deliberate attack.

The obvious threat is a small commercial or homemade drone modified to carry explosives. These aircraft can fly low, move quickly, and approach from directions that make them difficult to detect. They are also cheap. That creates an ugly economic problem: firing a Stinger missile costing hundreds of thousands of dollars at a drone worth a few hundred or a few thousand dollars is wildly inefficient.

But if that drone is headed toward the president, nobody is going to worry about the price of the missile.

The harder problem is engagement range. A small drone can be difficult to detect and hit before it gets close enough for an explosion—or even falling debris—to injure the person being protected. A manually aimed machine gun is not an ideal answer to a dinner-plate-sized target moving at highway speed. Missiles also have practical limitations at very short distances.

That is why presidential protection now requires a layered counter-drone system: radar and other sensors to detect the aircraft, electronic systems to disrupt or seize control of it, directed-energy weapons to damage its electronics, and kinetic weapons as the final line of defense.

After the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania—where the attacker had reportedly flown a drone over the venue before climbing onto a roof—the Secret Service accelerated its counter-drone efforts. That was necessary, but it also revealed how far behind the United States had allowed itself to fall.

The Drone War Is Already Here