Moscow proposed a quid pro quo to the U.S. under which the Kremlin would stop sharing intelligence information with Iran, such as the precise coordinates of U.S. military assets in the Middle East, if Washington ceased supplying Ukraine with intel about Russia. Two people familiar with the U.S.-Russia negotiations said that such a proposal was made by Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev to Trump administration envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner during their meeting last week in Miami. The U.S. rejected the proposal, the people added. They, like all other officials cited in this article, were granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussions. Nevertheless, the sheer existence of such a proposal has sparked concern among European diplomats, who worry Moscow is trying to drive a wedge between Europe and the U.S. at a critical moment for transatlantic relations. U.S. President Donald Trump has voiced anger over the refusal of allies to send warships in the Strait of Hormuz. On Friday, he lambasted his NATO allies as “COWARDS“ and said: “we will REMEMBER!” The White House declined to comment. The Russian Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. One EU diplomat called the Russian proposal “outrageous.” The suggested deal is likely to fuel growing suspicions in Europe that the Witkoff-Dmitriev meetings are not delivering concrete progress toward a peace agreement in Ukraine, but are instead seen by Moscow as a chance to lure Washington into a deal between the two powers that leaves Europe on the sidelines. On Thursday, the Kremlin said that the U.S.-mediated Ukraine peace talks were “on hold.” Russia has made various proposals about Iran to the U.S., which has rejected them all, another person familiar with the discussions said. This person said the U.S. also rejected a proposal to move Iran’s enriched uranium to Russia, which was first reported by Axios. Russia has expanded ‌intelligence-sharing and military cooperation with Iran since the war started, a person briefed on the intelligence said. The Wall Street Journal first reported the increase and wrote that Moscow is providing satellite ⁠imagery and drone technology to help Tehran target U.S. forces in the region. The Kremlin called that report  “fake news.” Trump hinted at a link between the intelligence-sharing with Iran and Ukraine during a recent interview with Fox News, saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin “might be helping them [Iran] a little bit, yeah, I guess, and he probably thinks we’re helping Ukraine, right?” The U.S. continues to share intelligence with Ukraine, even as it has reduced other support. Washington briefly paused the exchanges last year after a disastrous Oval Office meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. That abrupt halt to U.S. intelligence sharing triggered a chaotic scramble among allies and exposed deep tensions in the partnership with Kyiv. One European diplomat sought to downplay the risk of the Russian proposal, noting that French President Emmanuel Macron had said in January that “two-thirds” of military intelligence for Ukraine is now provided by France. Still, intelligence-sharing remains a last crucial pillar of American support for Ukraine after the Trump administration stopped most of its financial and military aid for Kyiv last year. Washington is still delivering weapons to Ukraine but under a NATO-led program where allies pay the U.S. for arms. Deliveries of critical air defense munitions, however, are under strain amid the U.S.-Israel war with Iran.  Most recently, the Trump administration decided to ease sanctions on Russian oil to alleviate pressure on oil markets, causing strong concern and criticism from  European leaders like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Hans von der Burchard reported from Berlin, Felicia Schwartz and Diana Nerozzi from Washington and Jacopo Barigazzi from Brussels.

U.S. President Donald Trump did not commit to a definitive timeline for the war in Iran, saying in a Friday interview that the fighting would end when he feels it “in my bones.” Trump told Fox News Radio that he didn’t think the war “would be long.” But he suggested that only he will know when it will be over, saying the conflict will end “when I feel it, feel it in my bones.” The Trump administration has sent mixed signals on the length of the war, with senior administration officials suggesting at times that the war could last anywhere from days to months. Trump on Friday said he expected the conflict to end soon but added that it could also continue indefinitely if necessary. The president dismissed reports that the U.S. was facing a munitions shortage. “Nobody has the technology or the weapons that we have,” Trump told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade. “We’re way ahead of schedule. Way ahead.” He later said the U.S. had “virtually unlimited ammunition. We’re using it, we’re using it. We can go forever.” While the president suggested the decision to end the war will ultimately be based on his personal judgment, he said he was consulting with senior advisers, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. “Operation Epic Fury will continue until President Trump, as Commander-in-Chief, determines that the goals of Operation Epic Fury, including for Iran to no longer pose a military threat, have been fully realized,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement when asked for comment. Earlier on Friday, Hegseth suggested victory was a certainty and attacked the press for what he viewed as unfriendly media coverage about the war. Trump also sought to downplay any economic ramifications of the conflict, saying the U.S. economy was the greatest in the world and would “bounce right back, so fast.” The Trump administration has sought to quell concerns over rising oil and gas prices after U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran began in February. The war triggered the largest oil supply disruption in history and cost $11 billion in its first week, according to the Pentagon. The president’s messaging around the run-up in crude prices has caused a potential public relations nightmare for the oil industry. “The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” Trump wrote Wednesday on Truth Social.

Top military officials warned the Pentagon unsuccessfully last year not to gut oversight offices that limit risk to civilian casualties and investigate responsibility for their deaths, such as the recent strike on an Iranian girls’ school that killed hundreds of children. Then-Central Command chief Erik Kurilla and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown pushed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth not to slash the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence and other similar initiatives at American command posts, according to Wes Bryant, the Pentagon’s former chief of civilian harm assessments and two other people familiar with the matter. Opponents of the move, which also included Adm. Christopher Grady — the former vice chair of the Joint Chiefs — argued that the staff were critical to preventing risks to civilian populations before U.S. strikes and to probing deadly Pentagon attacks, according to the people, and would ultimately save resources for military operations. Hegseth instead chose to reduce the number of employees working on the issue from 200 to less than 40. The high level of opposition to the cuts, which has not been previously reported, hints at the tension between top military officials and their civilian leader over the rules of engagement in combat, which the Pentagon chief has called “stupid.” It also comes as preliminary reports suggest the U.S. may have accidentally targeted the elementary school, which killed more than 170 students and is the largest U.S.-led killing of civilians in decades. “As it turns out, when you kill less civilians, you tend to be putting your resources toward killing the enemy,” said Bryant, who served in the Biden and Trump administrations. “When they spend weeks or longer tracking some guy and then finally killing him, and then realize he’s just an aid worker, look at all those resources they spent, all that time, the funding, wasted munitions too, and assets wasted on the wrong person.” The revelation of previous backlash also follows Hegseth’s announcement this week that he would further cut the lawyers who advise commanders of an operation’s legality, known as judge advocate generals. He already fired many of those Army, Navy, and Air Force lawyers in the first days of the administration. The decision to dismantle the civilian casualty offices could intensify criticism as more details emerge about the school struck next to an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps base in the opening hours of the U.S.-Israeli operation. Democrats have used the incident to call for Hegseth’s resignation. Kurilla, who later became one of the Pentagon’s point people for U.S. military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program in June 2025, sent a classified memo up the Defense Department’s chain of command opposing the cuts, according to one of the people. The person, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity out of fear of retribution. But the Pentagon center and similar offices at the combatant commands were slashed by more than 90 percent, according to a current and former official, and a person familiar with the effort. Central Command’s branch that examines potential civilian harm was slashed from 10 people to just one. Joint Special Operations Command, which oversees the ongoing attacks against alleged drug runners off the Venezuelan coast, had its civilian harm office eliminated entirely. The special operations command, which was then led by Vice Adm. Frank Bradley, also pushed back on the cuts, according to the people. U.S. Central Command declined to comment. U.S. Special Operations Command, which Bradley leads, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not respond to requests for comment. The Defense Department’s civilian harm offices are “undergoing a strategic reassessment to inform its future reorganization” the Pentagon said in a statement, with the aim of integrating the functions directly into the combatant commands. “The department continues to recognize the importance of civilian harm mitigation and remains confident in our military’s ability to strike with precision while minimizing civilian casualties.” Brown, who was fired by Hegseth in February 2025, said he had “nothing to provide” and added that the decision was made after his ouster. Kurilla did not respond to requests for comment. Grady could not be reached for comment. The renewed attention to the gutted offices comes as the conflict nears its third week with no clear end date. Hegseth said Friday at a press conference that the new Iranian leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is “wounded and likely disfigured” and portrayed the war as largely contained. Iran’s effort to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a fifth of the world’s oil flows through, was “something we are dealing with” Hegseth said. “No quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” The Pentagon continues to build up forces in the Middle East and is moving additional Marines and warships to the region, according to a defense official. They should arrive in the coming days from the Pacific. The Wall Street Journal first reported the deployment. Hegseth’s comments followed the death of six American service members whose refueling plane collided with another aircraft in western Iraq. At least 13 U.S. troops have died in the war and according to Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, more than a thousand Iranians. Tensions within the Pentagon over the gutted offices are likely to continue. “I do know that there are people, not a small amount of people inside the Pentagon itself, that are behind [civilian harm mitigation and response],” said Bryant, the former official. “It said ‘civilian protection,’ and that’s woke,” Bryant said, referencing Hegseth’s efforts to root out diversity and equity programs he believes undermines the military’s core missions. “Ultimately, it was going to be cut.”

The war in Iran is tearing through the Pentagon’s budget at nearly $1 billion a day, but lawmakers are in no rush to approve more money for the Trump administration’s expanding Middle East conflict. Top Republicans say the White House hasn’t made the case that it’s facing any financial difficulties with the war, so don’t feel pressure to boost the Pentagon’s $1 trillion budget. And Democrats are unlikely to support the plan at all, which would make securing the votes to pass a supplemental package an uphill climb. That leaves the White House with a difficult task, particularly in a fraught midterm election year. Administration officials will have to spend significant time and political capital to push through a hugely expensive supplemental spending bill — for a war that’s largely unpopular with the American people — even as the administration tries to burnish its affordability bona fides. And the sluggish timetable means any extra Iran war money likely runs into the president’s plans to supersize the defense budget next year. “I don’t think there is any urgency at this moment,” said Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense panel. “The urgency is in starting to educate Congress as to why we need a supplemental at all. Once we do that, it’ll make passing it easier.” Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said the supplemental package “is still coming together” and won’t arrive on Capitol Hill until the end of the month at the earliest. But Congress won’t act on it right away, he said. And key appropriators said it could take weeks — or months — to get the funding request passed. Fellow appropriator Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) said he is anxious to get lawmakers reviewing the supplemental request, but predicted that passage “will not happen quickly.” He pointed to the Pentagon’s massive funding package approved last year as evidence that the military won’t face financial problems anytime soon. “Even if the department doesn’t need the money right away, it would be good for Congress to have oversight on how it is being spent there,” Moran said. Acting Pentagon budget chief Jay Hurst said Thursday that $11 billion is a “ballpark number” for just the first week of the military campaign against Iran. Once Congress does begin to weigh the proposal, Senate Democrats have a veto of their own on the legislation — if they can stick together. At least seven Democratic senators are needed to reach the chamber’s 60-vote threshold to advance major bills, meaning a unified caucus can block additional funding. And at least one Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, said he would oppose any Iran supplemental. He said he is hearing from farmers in his state impacted by rising oil costs that stem from the war — and thinks Congress should be focused on domestic issues. “I’m against borrowing money from China to finance the war in the Middle East,” Paul said. “We’ve got a lot of problems in our country that we need to fix.” Paul’s opposition means Senate Majority Leader John Thune would need at least eight Democrats to cross party lines on the issue. But most Democrats say they’re not going to endorse more money for a war they oppose, particularly after the Pentagon received an extra $150 billion last year as part of the GOP-passed budget reconciliation measure. “There will be broad resistance in the Democratic Caucus to allowing a supplemental to serve as a back door authorization of war, because the president has still never given an address to the nation explaining this conflict,” said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, the top Democrat on the panel that controls Pentagon spending. But time may not be on the administration’s side. Recent polls show Americans are skeptical of the war. President Donald Trump’s MAGA base is concerned about taking the focus off domestic issues. And the costs are mounting at a blistering pace as American forces use high-priced munitions and engage in thousands of hours of strikes with gas-guzzling aircraft. Senate Armed Services ranking member Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said the chances for passing a multibillion-dollar supplemental depend on the war’s economic impact and battlefield success at the time of the vote. “A lot of it depends upon the environment,” he said. “If we’re still seeing incredible increases in gas prices and we’re seeing the conflict getting more costly, particularly in terms of casualties, I think people will be very reluctant.” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) acknowledged the potential for a political fight, but also said Congress can’t simply push a supplemental bill for Iran off indefinitely. “We’re there, and we have to sustain it,” he said. “The last thing we want to do is not have the resources to keep the region as settled as possible when you have 40,000 personnel there on a full-time basis.”

The U.S. spent about $11 billion last week on the Iran war, a Pentagon official said Thursday, offering the first public estimate of the conflict’s cost — and one Democratic lawmakers insist is much higher. Jules Hurst III, the Defense Department’s acting comptroller, said the figure was a “ballpark number” during a defense summit in Washington. His office is working on a more comprehensive figure for a supplemental budget request, he said, which the Pentagon plans to submit to the White House and Congress in the coming days. “We’re looking to make sure we make the right investments and capabilities,” Hurst said. “So it’s not just replacing things, but buying new things too.” That total, for comparison, is nearly enough to build a new naval warship, such as the Ford-class aircraft carrier. The Pentagon has given lawmakers preliminary estimates of operational costs, such as munitions expenditures and flight costs, he said, declining to go into specifics. Lawmakers have said they expect the Iran supplemental request to reach at least $50 billion, based on their conversations with administration officials. The White House and Pentagon have not confirmed that number. The administration also hasn’t set a firm end date for military operations in Iran. Trump has said the operation could last for four weeks or more, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has refused to place a timeline on the missions. Outside analysts have offered varying estimates on the expense of Operation Epic Fury, which enters its third week on Saturday. An analysis from the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Security put the cost of the first 100 hours of air and naval strikes at $3.7 billion. The conservative American Enterprise Institute has calculated the operational costs so far at between $11.2 billion and $14.5 billion. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense panel, was among the Democrats who doubted that figure was high enough. “I don’t know whether that also includes all the operational costs of the ships, planes, fuel, staff time,” he said. “If they were to come back to us and say, ‘This is how much we have spent on this operation,’ it would have to include months of preparation and deployment, as well as munition stockpile restoration, magazine refilling, as well as operating costs.”

The war with Iran is sucking up expensive U.S. air defense munitions that Ukraine desperately needs, putting future deliveries at risk and threatening Kyiv’s ability to counter Russian ballistic missile attacks. The U.S. and Gulf allies have burned through hundreds of Patriot missiles shooting down Iranian ballistic missiles and attack drones, eating up stockpiles that might have gone to Ukraine. The dynamic has put the Trump administration’s expanding war against the Iranian regime in direct conflict with Kyiv’s reliance on contracts for U.S.-made air defenses, according to interviews with 10 top European officials and two U.S. lawmakers. Those allies fear that Russia will seize the initiative by attempting to lay waste to more of Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure and try to move the front lines while the U.S. and Europe are distracted with a separate war — and stockpile concerns — of their own. “If [Vladimir] Putin was feeling any pressure to negotiate before, and it’s not clear he was, it’s gone for now,” said a EU official. “The U.S. is distracted and burning through some of the weapons Europe wants to purchase for Ukraine. … It’s a very gloomy scenario.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday warned of impending shortages. The overall deficit of missiles for Patriot systems “is not because of this war in the Middle East,” Zelenskyy told WELT, part of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which includes POLITICO. But “this war will have [an] influence on decreasing the number of missiles, decreasing the opportunity to get more missiles” for Ukraine. The scale of attacks against American and allied forces in the Gulf is beyond anything seen in decades. The United Arab Emirates’ defense ministry said Tuesday that Iran had launched 1,475 drones, 262 ballistic missiles and eight cruise missiles at the country since the war began, many of which were met with U.S.-made Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missiles. More than 1,600 of those drones and missiles were brought down — underscoring the intensity of the air defense fire. A Bloomberg Intelligence report estimated that the U.S. and its partners in the region have fired as many as 1,000 PAC-3 Patriot interceptors at Iranian missiles and drones since the start of the war, a number that dwarfs the replacement rate for the expensive — and hard to produce — weapon. The missiles take months to manufacture, and the war in Ukraine has led to allies across the globe rushing to put in new orders. Lockheed Martin agreed in January to triple its production of Patriot missiles — in part due to demands from the Trump administration — going from about 600 annually in 2025 to 2,000 to meet exploding worldwide demand. But it will take several years for the company’s factories to expand capacity sufficiently to meet any new requirements. “There’s a lot of confusion on that question, of what the priorities are going to be for Ukraine versus the Middle East, and specifically, how long and how high the demands are for these munitions,” said U.S. Sen Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat and Ukraine ally. “Europeans are frustrated that we’re not more forthcoming in terms of our production capacity, and that the difficulty of ramping up production is used as an excuse for failing to provide more.” In the years before conflicts erupted in Europe and the Middle East, the U.S. only produced about 270 Patriot missiles a year, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Industry has a long way to go before it can meet expected demand. “It goes without saying that Ukraine will be affected as the U.S. will prioritize national needs” in the coming months, an official from a NATO country said. The official, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive national defense issues. One German official said that “sluggish” deliveries of weapons to Ukraine in November and December have significantly contributed to the destruction of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. And that could just be the start. “The worry is that [Donald] Trump will break agreements, withhold supplies, and that Putin will ruthlessly exploit this,” the official said. Allies also are increasingly concerned about skyrocketing prices for sought-after American weapons. “Some prices of weapon systems are clearly doubled,” said a second official from a NATO country. “That’s the ballpark and degree of price issues we are having.” Beyond the near-term scramble for air defenses, Europeans are worried that the broader Ukrainian arms pipeline could be in jeopardy as U.S. forces — and their allies — expand their arsenals amid escalating conflict in the Middle East. The U.S. and NATO set up the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List, or PURL, last year as a way to keep weapons flowing into Ukraine, including helping Kyiv procure much-needed Patriot air defense interceptors. The Trump administration stopped American military aid for Ukraine last year, and PURL has served as a way to keep the spigot open. It allows European countries to buy American equipment and then donate it to Kyiv. Finnish defense secretary Antti Häkkänen said his government has “emphasized there has to be some kind of a European industry pillar, and Ukrainian pillar,” that would allow some manufacturing to move from the U.S. to the continent so Ukraine can quickly get what it needs. Stefanie Bolzen at WELT, Joe Gould and Eli Stokols contributed to this report.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are preparing to confront a staggering price tag for the war in the Middle East after closed-door briefings this week detailed the rapid consumption of expensive munitions and the lack of any firm deadline for the end of the military campaign. Asked how much the Iran offensive would cost, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) didn’t sugarcoat it. “A lot,” he replied. Senior Republicans privately expect President Donald Trump’s administration to request tens of billions of dollars for the Middle East conflict and other military needs from Congress in the coming days, with some GOP lawmakers hearing estimates that the Pentagon is spending as much as $2 billion a day on the war. Three F-15E jets shot down by friendly fire in Kuwait are estimated to cost $100 million alone. But Trump officials in private briefings have declined to give lawmakers any specific numbers, according to six congressional Republicans granted anonymity to describe the internal discussions. A White House request for supplemental funding could further balloon once it hits Capitol Hill, according to four other people with direct knowledge of the matter. Farm-state Republicans want an additional $15 billion in tariff relief for farmers, while others float adding tens of billions of dollars in wildfire aid to get enough Democratic support to pass the massive bill. The prospect of a growing new spending measure has GOP leaders bracing for a messy internal fight, with fiscal hawks who have long decried “forever wars” and bloated Pentagon budgets deeply unsettled by some of the cost estimates flying around on Capitol Hill. At the very least, some are planning to demand offsetting spending cuts. “I haven’t seen any specifics … but if it’s unpaid-for, I generally have an issue,” Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho) said. Another House Republican granted anonymity to describe the conversations among GOP hard-liners said, “It’s not a ‘hell no,’ but it should be offset somehow.” The topic is now looming over next week’s House Republican policy retreat, which kicks off Monday with a speech from Trump at the president’s resort in Doral, Florida. If the administration sends its formal funding request in the coming days, House GOP leaders will be forced to confront the issue head on. At least some are expressing unqualified early support for any administration request. House Foreign Affairs Chair Brian Mast (R-Fla.), for instance, said in an interview this week he is ready to support an emergency funding bill spending tens of billions of dollars on the Iran operation alone. That sentiment could be challenged by the congressional Republicans who are privately wary of the open-ended timeline and shifting rationales for the war. One House Republican recently remarked that Trump’s pledge to do “whatever” it takes, including entertaining boots on the ground, sounded like “President Lyndon Johnson going into Vietnam.” Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, a vulnerable Pennsylvania Republican, noted that “as much as we need to neutralize their capabilities to continue to attack us, we do also need to make sure that we don’t get dragged into a forever war.” Asked in an interview if Congress is ready to approve a $50 billion Pentagon funding package, Speaker Mike Johnson replied that he didn’t know the specific number yet but Congress would pass the bill “when it’s appropriate and get it right.” “We’re waiting on the White House and [the Pentagon] to let us know, but we have an open dialogue about it,” Johnson said. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who is attuned to the spending concerns among the fiscal hawks inside the GOP ranks, demurred when asked about the potential for a $50 billion package. “We’re still just in the first few days of this conflict, and there’s no ask yet from the Department of War for a supplemental,” Scalise said in an interview Wednesday. He referenced the laborious talks ahead: “When that time comes, we’ll obviously have very serious conversations, because it’s important that the Department of War have the tools they need to keep America safe.” A bigger potential headache is brewing for Johnson as members of his conference debate whether additional military funding should go in a much-discussed but long-shot budget reconciliation bill. That could move to Trump’s desk along party lines without Democratic support, but only if Republicans are almost completely unified. House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said in an interview this week he expected the chamber to move forward on an initial emergency funding bill but that a second filibuster-skirting megabill could contain additional Pentagon spending, along with some possible offsetting cuts. “It’s not just for the current conflict,” Arrington said. “There are things that need to be retooled fundamentally at the Defense Department, and the president’s team is making a really good case for that.” Rep. Ralph Norman, one GOP hard-liner who has objected in the past to big Pentagon budgets, now says he would “absolutely” support a $50 billion bill without offsets. “I don’t like it, but with what this president’s doing with income — the GDP is increasing, the money he’s bringing in for other investments — to handicap him on that, that’s a problem,” said Norman, who is running for South Carolina governor and seeking Trump’s support. In the Senate, some GOP appropriators are cautioning that any war funding bill will be a big lift — and warning the administration to get specific, and fast. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a senior member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the “administration should not be taking anything for granted.” “If they come to us at the end of the month and say, ‘This is what we want, and basically, deliver the votes’ … it’s not a winning strategy, in my view,” she said. “You’ve got to start making the case.” Katherine Tully-McManus and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

American allies are watching in disbelief as the Pentagon reroutes weapon shipments to aid the Iran war, angry and scared that arms the U.S. demanded they buy will never reach them. European nations that have struggled to rebuild arsenals after sending weapons to Ukraine fear they won’t be able to ward off a Russian attack. Asian allies, startled by America’s rate of fire, question whether it could embolden China and North Korea. And even in the Middle East, countries aren’t clear if they will get air defenses from the U.S. for future priorities. Nearly a dozen officials in allied nations in Asia and Europe say they can’t win. The Trump administration has put them under extreme political pressure to raise defense budgets and buy American weapons — from air defense interceptors to guided bombs — only to quickly burn through those munitions in a war of its own. “It shouldn’t be a secret to anyone that the munitions that have been and will be fired are the ones that everybody needs to acquire in large numbers,” said one northern European official. Weapons production is a complex process that takes years of planning and runs through a supply chain riddled with bottlenecks. Trump’s reassurances that the U.S. has a “virtually unlimited supply” of munitions to fight Iran has done little to soothe allies’ fears. “It is very frustrating, the words are not matching the deeds,” said an Eastern European official, who like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “It is pretty clear to everyone that the U.S. will put their own, Taiwan’s, Israel’s, and hemisphere priorities before Europe.” The joint U.S.-Israel war, officials warn, could accelerate the distancing between America and its allies when it comes to defense. The European Union already has approved rules to favor its own arms-makers over American contractors — risking tens, if not hundreds of billions in future U.S. sales. Even major companies, such as the German drone-maker Helsing are touting “European sovereignty.” Poland, a longtime American ally, has bought tanks and artillery from South Korea instead of U.S. contractors such as General Dynamics. It’s been a wake-up call for officials in Asia and Europe who once took Pentagon arms sales for granted. “The Europeans still live in a dream world in which the U.S. is a gigantic Walmart, where you buy the stuff and you get it immediately, and that is simply not true,” said Camille Grand, a former top NATO official who now heads the Brussels-based Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe. Allies in the Pacific — where China has built the world’s largest Navy and now has missiles that can attack American troops on Guam — are worried that the Pentagon will run out of ammunition in Iran and won’t have any left to deter a war in Asia. “It’s natural that the longer the conflict, the more urgent the supply of munitions and its inevitable for the U.S. to mobilize its foreign assets to maintain the operation,” said a Washington-based Asian diplomat, who warned it would affect “readiness” in the region. The fears of depleted weapons stockpiles extend to the U.S., where some Pentagon officials are warning about the state of the military’s munitions stockpiles, according to a congressional aide and two other people familiar with the dynamic. Defense Department officials warned Congress this week that the U.S. military was expending “an enormous amount” of munitions in the conflict, according to two of the people familiar with the conversations. The congressional aide briefed by the Pentagon said the U.S. was using precision strike missiles and cutting-edge interceptors in “scary high” numbers despite the Iranian military’s relative weakness. The weapons also include Tomahawk land-attack missiles, Patriot PAC-3 and ship-launched air defenses fired by the Navy. “The idea of doing a larger campaign with Iran was not on anyone’s mathematical bingo card as we were looking at munitions implications,” said a former defense official. “I struggle to see a way that layering on the Iran element makes the math problem get any better.” The Pentagon referred questions to the White House. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said Iran’s retaliatory ballistic missile attacks had fallen by 90 percent because of U.S. strikes. “President Trump is in close contact with our partners in Europe and the Middle East, and the terrorist Iranian regime’s attacks on its neighbors prove how imperative it was that President Trump eliminate this threat to our country and our allies,” she said. But some defense hawks in Congress are worried. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Wednesday on the Senate floor that the military is “not prepared” to deter aggression from both Russia and China at once due to the munitions shortfall. McConnell did not reply to a request for comment. Trump said in a social media post that he met with defense executives on Friday, including Boeing, Northrop Grumman, RTX, and Lockheed, who agreed to quadruple their production of “Exquisite Class” weapons. He did not explain which systems that entailed or how the U.S. planned to rapidly build factories, hire workers and increase weapons production. Some allies worried about weapons are hoping that’s more than an empty promise. “It seems that U.S. defense primes are still challenged to produce at the speed of demand,” said Giedrimas Jeglinskas, a Lithuanian member of Parliament who is also a former deputy Defense minister. “We welcome any effort by the administration to incentivize defense companies to get into war mode of production.” Others cautioned that the defense industrial base can’t be turned on with a switch to start mass producing the sophisticated missiles and air defenses that the U.S. and its allies desperately need. “There’s always this idea that there is a world in which we just have to go World War II,” said Grand, the former NATO official. “But [in] World War II, producing Sherman tanks was pretty close to producing tractor engines. Producing a Patriot is not pretty close to producing a Tesla.” Paul McLeary contributed to this report.

The State Department is adding resources to evacuate stranded Americans in the Middle East, and the Pentagon is scrambling to increase the number of U.S. troops gathering intelligence for operations — the latest indications that the Trump administration was not fully prepared for the broader war it is now facing. Amid criticism that the administration has been too slow to alert U.S. citizens that they should leave or help those then caught in the maelstrom, the State Department is sending extra staff to Athens to aid U.S. citizens, according to a current and former department official familiar with consular issues. A State Department official familiar with the process said Wednesday morning that the top leaders in the department had taken charge of the evacuation operation, much of which would typically be handled by consular and bureau officials. U.S. Central Command, meanwhile, is asking the Pentagon to send more military intelligence officers to its headquarters in Tampa, Florida, to support operations against Iran for at least 100 days but likely through September, according to a notification obtained by POLITICO. It’s the first known call for additional intelligence personnel for the Iran war by the administration, and a sign the Pentagon is already allocating funding for operations that may stretch long beyond President Donald Trump’s initial four-week timeline for the conflict. The rush to add people and resources to support efforts that are often organized well in advance of U.S. military action highlights how the Trump team had not fully anticipated the wide fallout of the war it launched alongside Israel on Saturday. “What we’ve seen is a completely ad hoc operation where it appeared that nobody actually understood or believed that military action was imminent,” said Gerald Feierstein, a former senior U.S. diplomat who dealt with the Middle East. “It seems like they woke up on Saturday morning and decided that they were going to start a war.” The U.S. executed a massive and multi-pronged operation with Israel that targeted Iranian security infrastructure and killed off the country’s supreme leader and other top officials. But American and Israeli officials have not yet articulated a clear end goal for the operation. Trump and his aides also have struggled to offer solid reasons why the strikes had to happen now. Iran has retaliated by firing on U.S. and other targets across the Middle East. At least six U.S. troops died at port in Kuwait, raising questions about whether their facility had been fortified well enough against the apparent drone strike. Some U.S. diplomatic facilities have also been struck, and concerns are rising that the U.S. and its Middle East allies could run low on munitions. Several of the people interviewed for this article were granted anonymity because the issue is sensitive and in some cases they were not authorized to speak publicly. The Pentagon is also trying to ship more air defenses to the region, especially smaller, less expensive counter-drone systems that the department has been developing over the last several years, a U.S. official said. The strike that killed the American troops is of particular concern for war planners because it came from a relatively cheap Shahed drone that can often fly below existing radars. The U.S. is, at least right now, using missiles that cost as much as several million dollars to defeat the drones, which cost a fraction of that. Iran has thousands of such drones in its stockpiles, and dozens of them have already punched their way through existing air defenses. Many of the counter drones the U.S. could respond with have not been used in combat, the official added, since American forces have not faced a drone threat this pervasive up to this point. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But the limited preparation to assist Americans wanting to leave the region has had the most immediate impact. While at least two U.S. embassies — in Lebanon and Israel — began sending staff and their families out in the final days before the strikes, most diplomatic missions in the region did not make such moves until after the war began. It also was Monday before the State Department issued its first major alert to Americans, urging them to “depart now” from 14 countries in the region. By that point, it was hard to get a ticket out because airspace closures had led to numerous canceled flights. The department has since expanded its alerts and evacuations to at least two other countries, Cyprus and Pakistan. “It’s been a complete dereliction of duty,” said Jeffrey Feltman, a former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon who oversaw the evacuation of thousands of American citizens from that country in 2006. “Iran is a menace without question, but there was no imminent threat to us, and yet [Trump has] left thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans in harm’s way without planning how to get them out.” The State Department official familiar with the process said relatively few people at the department had been read in on the war plans. That may have contributed to the challenges on evacuation orders and travel alerts, the official acknowledged. The goal is to stabilize the situation as quickly as possible. That includes staffing up in Athens, and potentially additional places if the crisis worsens. The additional staff can help Americans who arrive on charter or other flights if they need to renew their passports, loans to help them buy tickets or even temporary lodging, the current and former State Department official familiar with consular issues said. The State Department said in a statement that a 24-7 task force set up Saturday morning had helped more than 6,500 Americans abroad with guidance on security and travel options. State also noted it had issued travel alerts to Americans about the region starting in January, though those alerts were relatively routine for a region with many turbulent spots. Dylan Johnson, the assistant secretary of State for global public affairs, wrote on X Wednesday morning that since Feb. 28, the day the war began, “over 17,500 American citizens have returned to the United States from the Middle East.” But that number appeared to include many Americans who’d left without any assistance from the State Department. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that the president had told regional leaders “that we expect their help” in getting Americans home. “The administration is already rapidly chartering flights free of charge and booking commercial options, which we expect to become increasingly available as time goes on and the success of this mission further comes to fruition,” she said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about its broader preparations for the impact of a spreading war in the Middle East. The Trump administration has, in general, cut back the number of people involved in its national security policymaking process and reduced the meetings that would normally loop in many departments and agencies. Aside from Rubio and a handful of his top aides, much of the State Department has been left in the dark about many key decisions. Rubio also serves as national security adviser, meaning he spends much of his time at the White House. Still, current and former U.S. diplomats pointed out that the possibility the U.S. would go to war in the Middle East was not exactly a secret. The administration spent weeks dramatically ramping up its military presence in the region and issuing warnings to Iran. So people at the State Department, including political appointees in the consular affairs bureau, should have known to reduce embassy staffing and urged Americans to leave the region many days or weeks ago, some argued. “There was no reason not to prepare staff departure plans as this was ongoing, particularly since the Defense Department knew the likely Iranian military responses,” the former State Department official familiar with consular services said. “They also could have started messaging to the region about the fluid security situation.” Democrats have seized on the evacuation debacle to lambast the Trump administration. It was something of a reversal: Republicans ripped the Biden administration over its handling of the evacuation of Americans and Afghan allies in the final days of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) called for oversight hearings on the State Department’s alleged failure to plan for aiding Americans in the region. “A core function of our foreign policy is to keep Americans safe,” Coons said in a statement. “Thus far, the president’s response to this reckless incompetence has simply been ‘that’s the way it is.’” In a letter shared with POLITICO, Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urged Rubio on Wednesday to “take more concrete steps to facilitate the departure” of American citizens and embassy personnel now in harm’s way amid the widening conflict. The lawmakers want Rubio to explain by Friday how decisions are being made about which countries require departures and what criteria determine the use of charter planes versus the need for military aircraft. They also asked what alternative evacuation options are being considered amid frequent airspace closures, among other efforts. The letter was spearheaded by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.). Several governors, including California’s Gavin Newsom, New York’s Kathy Hochul and Illinois’ JB Pritzker, have also been communicating with State Department staffers to get updates on Americans stranded in the region as the governors field calls from panicked residents. Governors’ staff questioned what the administration is doing to bring Americans back, including whether charter or military aircraft are being considered, according to a person familiar with the discussions. “Americans are stranded abroad, and we all have a responsibility to do everything in our power to safely get them home,” Pritzker wrote in a letter to Rubio on Wednesday. Daniella Cheslow, Oriana Pawlyk, Cheyanne Daniels, Shia Kapos, Nick Reisman and Jeremy B. White contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump once won the loyalty of his base by promising no new wars. That promise now rings hollow for many, especially after his decision to strike Iran last week. Since the attacks began Saturday, six U.S. service members have been killed. Oil prices are rising. Gulf states are fielding Iranian counterattacks. It is a striking escalation by a president who seems increasingly emboldened by a series of successful military attacks since his return to the Oval Office. As the Middle East tumbles into uncertainty, it’s unclear what the administration’s endgame is, who Iran’s next successor could be or even when the war might end. To get a better understanding of how things might unfold, we convened a roundtable of top POLITICO reporters who cover the White House and Trump’s foreign policy — and have been closely following the administration’s moves. The discussion featured defense reporter Paul McLeary, White House reporter Diana Nerozzi, diplomatic correspondent Felicia Schwartz and energy reporter James Bikales. The group discussed the United States’ diminishing weapons stockpile, responses from ally countries and the political implications of starting yet another war in the Middle East eight months before the midterm elections. Here’s what they shared. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Eight months ago, the U.S. struck Iran, and here we are again. What’s different about the administration in 2026 and the recent attacks it is carrying out now? Paul McLeary: Unlike the first Trump administration, which was filled with people he didn’t know or trust, this time around it is stacked with Trump loyalists who have a good understanding of how he operates. They’re moving fast on international issues because they know his time is limited by the midterms and are embracing the fact that presidents may be constrained by courts and Congress at home, but can act as they see fit overseas. Felicia Schwartz: I think they are also very inspired by past successes. At the end of Trump’s first term, he killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leader Qassem Soleimani — something the so-called foreign policy blob and regional allies warned would inflame the Middle East. He got the same feedback about his plans to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the embassy, which he did in 2018 without major blowback. Add to that what he and his team see as the success of the Venezuela operation, and you have a very emboldened president who likes to wield power militarily. Diana Nerozzi: I agree. Trump is facing his last term as president and is feeling inspired by his successful capture of Maduro. The administration sees Iran as the number one sponsor of global terror, and taking out the Iranian government cripples their connections with foreign adversaries like Russia and China. Trump has spoken about his desire to leave a global mark and foreign policy legacy, and regime change in Iran would contribute to that greatly. James Bikales: On the energy side of things, the administration feels it has a little more leeway to act in ways that could disrupt the global oil market because the U.S. has cemented its place as a net crude exporter in the last few years. That’s helped keep oil prices lower and more stable since Trump took office, even with the conflicts in the Middle East and Venezuela. On the other hand, Trump has been laser-focused on keeping gas prices low — and the attack on Iran certainly won’t help with that. On that note, James, how soon are gas prices going to be affected by the conflict? What’s the worst-case scenario, and how would that occur? Bikales: It really depends on how long this conflict lasts. The main issue driving up oil prices has been the disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, where 20 percent of global crude flows pass through every day. We’ve already seen oil prices jump significantly over the past few days as a result, and it won’t be long until that starts showing up for American consumers at the gas pump. Some analysts have predicted that if the conflict lasts more than three or four weeks, we could see triple-digit oil prices — which would be a major shock to the system and have a lot of cascading effects. Diana, the administration’s messaging has been muddled, with officials offering a range of rationales for starting the war now, from nuclear weapons to Iran’s crackdown on democracy to payback for the 1979 hostage crisis. Why has the administration’s messaging been so haphazard? Nerozzi: The reason for the apparent mixed messages is the variety of voices who are speaking on the rationale. There is the president, who has been very open to reporters’ questions, but with that openness comes a lot of different answers. Then there is Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth and other administration officials. The reason is all of those combined. But more immediately, the administration argues the attacks were launched because of the refusal of Iran to negotiate honestly about nuclear weapons. Two administration officials went into detail yesterday about how the Iranians were “playing games” in negotiations, were really hiding nuclear material further underground, and were not going to come to the table honestly. That, coupled with the crackdown on protests and Iran’s hostile actions towards the U.S. over the past decades, pushed Trump over the edge. McLeary: The Iran attacks are also another way to undo what Republicans see as the signature disaster of the Obama years — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action deal with Iran. Trump has made it a priority to unwind virtually everything that Obama and Biden pushed through during their terms. Schwartz: I thought it was interesting that the administration chose not to go on the Sunday shows or do the usual things like a live prime-time address to justify the action to the nation. Seemed like they acted first, then worked on the messaging. And it’s shifted as Congress, the public and the Republican base have reacted to it. Secretary Rubio, for example, said that the U.S. assessed that its assets in the Middle East would be attacked if Israel were to go ahead, and Israel was planning to go ahead, so it may as well join. But the perception that Israel dragged Trump into war hasn’t played well. Felicia and Diana, do we know who has influenced Trump most on Iran? Is it someone in the administration, like Rubio or Hegseth? Or is it someone outside, like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? Schwartz: Our reporting and that of our colleagues suggest that Netanyahu did have a big influence. Sen. Lindsay Graham, a longtime Iran hawk, has been pressing Trump on this since he returned to office. I think the Venezuela success, that there was a model for something resembling regime change, helped to push him over the line. The U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee was also a strong proponent. On top of that, while there were not many other loud cheerleaders, none of the national security team was lobbying hard against it. Nerozzi: The administration has been very careful to not reveal who exactly is in Trump’s ear on Iran. Trump has a very close relationship with Netanyahu, and the U.S. has been working side-by-side with Israel on the attacks, so the prime minister did play a role. But I believe Trump had his sights set on Iran from the beginning, and the actions of the Iranians in the negotiations and killing protesters made Trump irate enough to pull the trigger. Who are the top succession candidates in Iran right now? Does the White House have its eye on anyone, especially since Trump has said the people the administration had in mind were killed in the strikes? Schwartz: While the situation is still fluid, the son of the now deceased Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has emerged as a frontrunner to replace his father. His son, Mojtaba Khamenei, is known for having close ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps. Other candidates that have emerged include Alireza Arafi, part of the current transition council named in the elder Khamenei’s absence, and Seyed Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution that established the Islamic Republic. The administration and Israel are hoping that by targeting Iranian security forces and regime targets, they can create the conditions for a different kind of government to take the place of the current system. But the regime still controls the military and the weapons, so that is very unlikely. Nerozzi: Trump has refused to say whether the U.S. has anyone in mind as a successor, which leads me to believe they are not in that point of thinking quite yet. He said he is open to Reza Pahlavi in response to a reporter’s question. But the general response from the administration has been that the leaders they had in mind have been killed, and that the main focus right now is to take out the Iranian military. Some Pentagon officials were worried about dwindling weapons stockpiles even before the attack. Paul, at what point could this deplete munitions enough to make the U.S. more vulnerable? McLeary: The munitions being used are expensive and take months to make, and while the stockpiles are deep, they’re not unlimited as Trump and Hegseth have indicated over the past several days. There’s little capacity for the defense industry to ramp up production any time soon — workforce issues and thin supply chains make a quick ramp-up almost impossible. The U.S. can handle a campaign like this for several weeks before it becomes a major issue. The worry is that precision bombs meant to be sold to allies would suffer first, if the Pentagon wanted to redirect them back to its own warehouses. That could cause a major break with key NATO allies who are already looking for alternatives to the U.S. defense industry. European allies don’t seem sure what to think about this war. Do you think they will oppose it, sit on the sidelines or eventually get behind it, Felicia? And how are U.S. allies in the Middle East responding? Is there some discomfort among Arab states with being on the same side of a war as Israel? Schwartz: No one in Europe is sad to see the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and many governments there share Washington’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles and support for regional proxies. They would have preferred to see the U.S. deal with this diplomatically, as these governments are generally more cautious than Trump is, and they are closer to Iran than we are and might feel the fallout more quickly. That being said, once Iran responded so forcefully and began hitting civilian targets throughout the Gulf, where many European citizens live and do business and many countries have military assets, they have generally supported the U.S. campaign. As for the Middle East, their discomfort isn’t about being on the same side as Israel. Many of these countries have had strong intelligence and military relationships with Israel for years, drawn together by the common threat of Iran. Some countries, like the UAE and Bahrain, have formalized and publicized these ties. Their unease is that Iran is targeting their people and infrastructure, and they worry about their own ability to defend themselves in a prolonged war. Unlike Israel, which has sirens and shelters, these countries don’t have any warning systems or protections for the public. And they are worried about their own air defense supplies. Nerozzi: In the Middle East, Iran striking neighboring Arab nations could be an opportunity for the U.S. to form stronger alliances with those who were critical of the strikes on Iran. The Arab nations are being brought into the war via the Iranian counterstrikes, and the Gulf states are finding themselves being directly impacted by Iran. Bikales: European countries are also very concerned about the impact of the war on energy prices — they remember well the impacts of the price shock after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine just a few years ago. We’ve already seen natural gas prices skyrocket in parts of Europe after Qatar shut down some of its LNG export facilities, so that’s just another reason Europe wants this fighting over quickly. But Trump has said the military campaign against Iran could last four to five weeks, even longer. Does the U.S. have an endgame? If so, what is it? Nerozzi: Trump gave the four-to-five-week deadline. Today, Pete Hegseth said, “We are just getting started.” There is no stated endgame 100 percent, but Hegseth said the U.S. and Israel are targeting Iranian military generals and are “finding, fixing and finishing the missiles and defense industrial base of the Iranian military.” At the end of the day, the U.S. has been firm that they don’t want to see Iran acquire a nuclear weapon, so the end may come when they feel satisfied enough with the destruction of the Iranian military and their enriched uranium. McLeary: Defense officials have so far outlined tactical successes and goals like taking out the Iranian Navy and ballistic missile sites and nuclear facilities, but we haven’t heard anything about the “day after” if the Iranian regime is to collapse. Destroying the Iranian ability to strike outside its borders is a goal, but without a larger strategic vision of what they want Iran to look like going forward, those goals don’t necessarily solve the larger issues of having a hostile regime in power in Tehran. Schwartz: When Trump first announced the campaign, he talked about regime change. That’s now more of a nice-to-have. As the administration has refined its message, officials have described Iran’s ballistic and other advanced missiles as a shield that it is building up rapidly and would eventually prevent the U.S. from doing anything about its nuclear program. So they want to eliminate Iran’s missile program, destroy its navy so it can’t harass American and other vessels at sea and end their support for proxies. But in terms of what should Iran look like next year, what role should it play in the region and other long-term strategic objectives, those are unclear. And while the regime is at its weakest point, it continues to have a monopoly on weapons and violence. That will be hard for the U.S. to destroy from the air. On Diana’s point about enriched uranium, that is another one they have not really spelled out how they will address. They did what they could militarily to target Iran’s nuclear program last June. All of Iran’s enriched uranium is buried under rubble. I think on that point, they want to pressure Iran to do what it hasn’t so far accepted: commit to zero enrichment and ship all of its remaining enriched material out of the country. Bikales: We’ve reported that the Trump administration went into the conflict with little plan to deal with the ensuing oil price spike. Essentially, they hoped the conflict would be over quickly, and prices would fall back naturally. In the last couple of days, they’ve had to scramble to start putting together a plan to calm the markets. In some ways, that gives Iran an opening. Tehran knows that President Trump is very focused on lowering prices at the pump, especially ahead of the midterms, so it could use oil prices as leverage to force his hand in potentially ending the war. James, speaking of oil, Iran has said it has closed the Strait of Hormuz. Is that possible? And what are the implications of making it challenging to travel through? Is there a workaround? Bikales: The short answer is no. Iran has fairly limited naval capabilities, especially after the initial wave of U.S. strikes, so it hasn’t mined or physically closed the strait in any way. That being said, it has warned ships not to try to transit it, and it has fired on some tankers, which has led insurance companies to cancel coverage and hike rates, essentially bringing traffic through the strait to a halt. The Trump administration announced a plan Tuesday to offer naval escorts and government risk insurance to those tankers, and we will be watching in the coming days whether that gets shipping moving again. One important thing to note: Iran itself exports much of the crude it produces through the Strait of Hormuz, so shutting it down could hurt its own economy — as well as that of its primary customer, China. Schwartz: I am very curious to see how the market will react to the government provision of insurance for ships, and whether it will make a real dent, given the environment. Bikales: It’s certainly a creative strategy from a U.S. perspective, but even with insurance, I’m not sure I would want my ship trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz right now if I were a ship owner. McLeary: Iran does possess the capability to mine the Strait or use drones to harass ships passing through it. If they launched a drone swarm at an American warship, it would be difficult for the ship’s air defenses to knock multiple drones down at once. So the situation remains incredibly dangerous and uncertain. Paul, the White House has pushed back on the language around this military operation. Is the U.S. in a war? And how does this military campaign in Iran affect Trump’s avowed goal of focusing more on the Western Hemisphere, like Venezuela and Cuba? Schwartz: Time to cue the meme, it’s only a war if it’s from the war region of France. McLeary: The war question is much like the Department of Defense rebranding itself as the Department of War! Call it what you want, but shooting at another country is an act of war, full stop. As far as the Western Hemisphere goes, the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group — which was pulled from the Mediterranean in October to head to the Caribbean — is back in the Mediterranean, along with its destroyer escort ships. One can argue that those ships were never needed to intercept speedboats, but one can also argue that moving the ships away from the Caribbean undercuts the recently released National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategy, which gave scant attention to the Middle East in favor of the Western Hemisphere and a homeland security focus. In the end, strategy papers are just that — pieces of paper — once a president casts his gaze elsewhere. Schwartz: There are 50,000 American troops in the Middle East right now, and six have died so far. And Trump has told us to expect more of that. I think the average person sees this as a war, whatever the administration wants to call it. This all means a lot is at stake for the GOP right now: Trump’s approval ratings are poor, the attacks are fairly unpopular and midterms are coming. How do you think this will play out politically for Republicans? Democrats? Nerozzi: Polls are showing that the majority of Americans disapprove of the strikes, but a large majority of Republicans, around 75 percent, are in support. The GOP is going into the midterms with a disadvantage due to being the incumbent. The outcome of the war in the next few months may sway public opinion to be more in favor of the war, but it could also push voters away, especially if things go south. Trump will have to deliver internationally and domestically for Republicans to surge ahead and keep both the Senate and House. Schwartz: Voters rarely vote primarily on foreign policy, but drawn-out wars or the rising prices from them contribute heavily to the vibes leading into the election and how people feel about the direction of the country. If Trump can keep this to a few weeks and the fallout minimal, maybe it will be a blip that won’t carry through to the midterms. It could also present Democrats with an opportunity to curry favor with voters if gas prices climb further upward and inflation gets worse as a result. McLeary: War is always unpredictable. Americans tend to rally around the flag in times of conflict, even if we haven’t seen that happen yet in the case of Iran. Part of the reason is that the White House simply hasn’t bothered to make the case to the American people. That said, think back to George W. Bush winning re-election in 2004 when Iraq was going terribly and dozens of troops were being killed by roadside bombs every month while fighting — yes — Iranian-backed Iraqi militias. A lot will depend on how quickly Trump can get out of the fight. I don’t sense a lot of patience for a long war launched by a president who campaigned on “no new wars.” Bikales: President Trump has made energy affordability a key piece of his message heading into the midterms — in fact, just a few hours ahead of the strikes, he was in Corpus Christi, Texas, touting record U.S. oil production and lower prices at the pump. Democrats see an opening on that issue now with Iran, and they’ve already launched attacks that Trump is more focused on foreign wars than keeping energy prices down. So far, Republicans have largely dismissed those concerns, saying that prices will fall back naturally. But even if global crude prices fall, gas prices tend to be slower to recover — and we’re only eight months from the midterms.