Last October, CNN interviewed a former advisor to ousted Syrian president Bashar al-Assad who told the outlet that Tice, a veteran Marine Corps captain and freelance reporter, had died in 2013. Debra Tice describes the event as a “crash” that sent her health into a tailspin. She became unable to eat, losing weight and becoming so weak she couldn’t leave the house, she said. Gastroenterologists and other physicians, she said, ultimately concluded that her symptoms were based in trauma, not disease.

Beyond the reports that her son was dead, Tice said she was blindsided by a wave of condolence cards and messages, not only to her, but also to her other six children.

“It was the first time that they had all kind of been pinged, and a lot of it was kindness,” Tice told Military Times on Aug. 14, the day after the anniversary. “But, this mom was like, ‘Don’t touch my children.’”

Tice rejects the account of Assad’s advisor, Bassam Al-Hassan, noting that he failed an FBI polygraph. No physical proof exists that Austin Tice is no longer alive.

The Tice family has in recent months called for an investigation of the possibility that Austin was moved from Syria to Iran under the control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has managed some secret detention facilities in Syria. They’ve emphasized that they want the U.S. to reach out to Iran amid negotiations over the ongoing conflict to ask for full information sharing on Austin’s case.

“Our government needs to be asking what they know about Austin every time they’re with them [at the negotiating table],” she said.

For Debra Tice, the next objective is clear: meet in person with Jay Clayton, the newly confirmed director of National Intelligence, who was sworn in earlier this month.

“I really don’t know anything about him, but I just wanted to share with him how important his role is in getting Austin out,” she said.

Recently departed DNI Tulsi Gabbard had taken the unprecedented step of allowing the Tice family to review all the information the government had collected on Austin – eight four-inch binders covering the period from his abduction to October 2024, she said. In addition to various documented medical issues and times Austin had been moved, Tice said, she saw what she believes is evidence that he could have been recovered by the State Department shortly after he was first abducted.

To date, Tice said, she has only ever met with one Secretary of State: Antony Blinken, who in 2024 offered a $10 million bounty for information about Austin’s whereabouts. Debra Tice maintains that decision was unhelpful because it tends to flood channels with bad info.

She’d like Clayton, the new DNI, to open the binders again and show the family anything learned since October 2024. She’s also hoping to make international trips: she’d like to connect with Israel’s office of the national coordinator for hostages and the missing, an office parallel to the State Department’s special presidential envoy for hostage affairs. She also hopes to make a second trip to Syria, she said, as well as a new journey to the Vatican to meet with Pope Leo XIV.

“I’m just getting everything warmed up again,” Tice said, “And reminding people that, you know, I’m still trying to find my son.”

Task Force Falcon Strike will utilize one-way attack drones composed of unmanned systems from above, on and below the sea, managed by U.S. military support staff and regional partners, according to a Thursday release.

The move to launch this unit follows CENTCOM’s establishment of Task Force Scorpion Strike in December 2025, a Middle East-based task force equipped with one-way attack drones as the military strived to integrate drone technology across the services.

“Task Force Falcon Strike will expand on Scorpion Strike’s success given the tremendous innovation happening among our regional allies and partners,” Adm. Brad Cooper, CENTCOM commander, said in the release. “Integrating and deploying our new capabilities together will help us rapidly realize the new possibilities that are on the horizon.”

Scorpion Strike was the first to launch an aerial attack drone from a U.S. Navy warship last December, the month of its announcement. The unit also deployed one-way unmanned aerial systems during Operation Epic Fury and during strikes on Iranian port facilities in July with unmanned attack vessels at sea, the statement highlights.

CENTCOM began consulting with and officially inviting regional partners to join Falcon Strike, aiming to expand attack-drone capabilities across the Middle East into a “unified multi-domain, multinational deterrent.”

“The United States military has a lot of strong partnerships and friends in the region,” Cooper said. “We are collectively stronger when we integrate and deploy new capabilities together.”

The release did not specify which regional partners CENTCOM is working with on the unit.

Personnel from the U.S. Special Operations Command Central, located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, will lead Falcon Strike’s staff of U.S. and regional representatives after it launched Scorpion Strike, the release states.

The announcement comes as the U.S. continues its war with Iran, which has depleted the U.S. munitions stockpile and caused military leaders to weigh the possibility of developing cheaper anti-drone technology at a faster pace.

The warning envisaged attacks on the energy facilities, oil fields, refineries, electricity grids, water infrastructure, transport networks and other strategic assets of Washington’s closest Arab allies, according to a senior Iranian official.

The message, part of a broader Iranian effort to deter further U.S. military action by raising the prospect of severe economic disruption across the Gulf, was delivered through a flurry of high-level diplomatic contacts after Trump threatened on July 28 to strike Iran’s energy network and infrastructure, the sources said.

Two senior Iranian officials, two Gulf sources and a senior regional diplomat with knowledge of the discussions said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke with his Saudi, Turkish and Qatari counterparts, as well as Pakistan’s army chief. All spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Araqchi urged Washington’s Gulf allies to use their influence with Trump to dissuade him from launching renewed strikes, the senior diplomat said, warning that any attack on Iran would prompt retaliation against U.S. assets and critical infrastructure across the Gulf.

His message was consistent in every conversation, the diplomat said: “We’re ready to retaliate, but finding a diplomatic solution is the best way to avoid wider escalation and destruction across the region.”

“The Iranian warning was unequivocal: if America targeted Iran’s infrastructure, they would retaliate by striking Gulf energy facilities and other regional targets,” one Gulf source said.

The diplomatic campaign underscores how Iran is seeking to turn Gulf vulnerability into leverage, confronting regional governments with the prospect that any renewed U.S.-Iran confrontation could place the infrastructure underpinning their economies directly in the firing line.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman subsequently spoke with Trump, urging him to delay military action, return to negotiations, secure a ceasefire and pursue a diplomatic settlement, the senior diplomat and Gulf sources said.

The warning was intended for every Gulf state, another Gulf source said, but was conveyed primarily through Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In recent years, Iran has repaired ties with its Gulf neighbours, including its former regional rival, Saudi Arabia.

Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia have all urged Washington to resume talks with Tehran and avert renewed conflict amid Iranian warnings that another round of U.S. strikes could “turn the region into a fireball,” the second Iranian official said.

On Aug. 2, Trump said he agreed to cancel the attack on Iran “subject to being able to rapidly make a deal”.

THREATS OF WIDER REGIONAL ESCALATION

“Saudi Arabia believes further escalation will only bring more destruction,” the first Gulf source said. “That is why it urged Trump to give diplomacy a chance.”

While urging Washington to pursue diplomacy, Riyadh also made clear it would defend itself if threatened. The second Gulf source said Saudi Arabia warned that any attack on its territory would be met with a military response.

Ali Shihabi, a Saudi analyst close to the Royal Court, said the kingdom’s assessment is that further escalation is unlikely to achieve the desired result.

“The Kingdom believes a combination of proportionate military responses and sustained pressure on Iran in the Strait of Hormuz offers the strongest path toward a practical diplomatic settlement,” Shihabi said.

Iran’s clerical leadership has repeatedly demanded the closure of U.S. military bases in the Gulf and called on Gulf Arab states to stop sharing intelligence with Washington, which Tehran believes has been used to facilitate attacks against it.

“They still remember Saudi Arabia’s Aramco,” he added, referring to the September 2019 drone and missile attacks on the Abqaiq and Khurais facilities that temporarily knocked out more than half the kingdom’s crude oil production and exposed the vulnerability of Gulf energy infrastructure.

“The enemy continues to threaten Iranian infrastructure. If Iran suffers damage, it will inflict far greater damage in return,” added the Iranian official who cited the target list including power grids and refineries.

From Tehran’s perspective, Trump now faces two unpalatable choices, the senior Iranian official said: escalate a conflict that could engulf the Gulf and disrupt global energy supplies, or accept a negotiated outcome that falls short of the decisive victory Washington seeks.

One of the principal obstacles to an agreement, the senior regional diplomat said, is Washington’s reluctance to allow Tehran to emerge claiming victory.

“The United States wants something it can present as proof that it won the war,” the diplomat said.

The missiles are principally the Army’s surface-to-surface weapons, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). The U.S. has used “virtually all” of these weapons, according to two of the sources.

The degree to which the military is running out of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles has not been previously reported.

The long-range munitions are an important part of the military’s arsenal, allowing accurate strikes from a safe distance. U.S.-supplied ATACMS have played a key role in the war in Ukraine, allowing Ukrainian forces to attack targets inside Russia. The PrSM is a newer, more advanced generation that will replace the ATACMS, which have a shorter range.

Analysts say such weapons — which cost over $1 million each — would also be important in any conflict with China.

The sources declined to say how many of each munition the U.S. had left.

President Donald Trump launched the Iran war jointly with Israel in February, predicting that the conflict would last a short time.

But as the war drags on, the three people familiar with the matter expressed worry that the falling missile supplies could limit the U.S. ability to deter adversaries, including Russia and China.

A fourth person familiar with the matter said that while Central Command — which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East — has nearly used up the land-based missiles it had before the war began, it has been able to reload from U.S. military supplies elsewhere in the world.

The sources interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Asked for comment on the stockpile data, the White House issued a statement from Trump, saying the U.S. had “far more munitions than anyone in the world” and “far more than we need.”

“Our defense companies are, at this moment, making more munitions than they have ever made before, in addition to expanding their plants and equipment at record levels,” Trump said.

Analysts agree that certain munitions, including artillery shells and several types of missiles, are being produced at record levels but caution that supplies might far short of what is needed for a prolonged war.

Lockheed Martin, which makes the ATACMs and PrSMs, along with the anti-ballistic missile THAAD system, did not immediately respond to questions about Trump’s statements or about supply levels.

Raytheon, which makes Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors, two important U.S. weapons, also did not immediately respond.

Responding to a request for comment, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said: “America’s military is the most powerful in the world and has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the President’s choosing. We have executed multiple successful operations across combatant commands while ensuring the U.S. military possesses a deep arsenal of capabilities to protect our people and our interests.”

The supply figures have circulated inside the federal government over the last week during tense conversations inside the Trump administration about how much longer the U.S. can continue striking Iran without drawing down the stockpile to levels that would limit the military’s ability to respond to crises elsewhere.

WARNINGS OVER WEAPONS SUPPLIES

One of the sources said the drawdown of the ATACMS and PrSM stockpiles reflected a decision by the Trump administration to avoid riskier ways of attacking Iranian targets, such as by using piloted aircraft to drop bombs.

Because these weapons allow the military to attack targets from a distance, analysts say they would be valuable in a war against an adversary with strong air defenses, such as China.

They have been used to strike targets inside Iran, according to a March report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

According to the report, PrSM stockpiles were low to start with, since it is a relatively new munition, but the U.S. military has ordered a large number of them for 2027. The Army has said that ATACMS are being phased out and that production is shifting to the newer PrSM missiles.

Military leaders have for weeks warned the president that stockpiles of defensive weapons — including Patriot interceptors, which are effective against ballistic missiles — were dwindling, said two of the sources.

Last week, several media outlets reported Trump had decided not to launch another massive offensive inside Iran in part because his military advisers had warned about the U.S. stockpile.

A U.S. official disputed those accounts, saying Trump chose not to move forward with another attack because of pressure from Gulf states.

The Middle East conflict has sparked intense debate about Trump’s authority to prosecute hostilities against Iran without congressional authorization. No request for a declaration of war or an authorization to use military force has been submitted to Congress.

DEFENSIVE WEAPON STOCKS ARE ALSO DIMINISHED

Last week, CSIS published a report estimating that between February and July about 65% of Patriot interceptors had been expended and that the number of THAAD ballistic missile interceptors in U.S. stockpiles was at least 38% lower than at the start of the war.

Patriots and THAADs are systems that detect and destroy incoming missiles and are among the most effective in the country’s arsenal.

While Reuters has not seen the supply figures, those numbers match internal U.S. data, two of the sources said.

The U.S. also burned through a little less than half of its global supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are generally launched from ships, since the start of the war, one of the sources said.

Reuters could not independently verify that number.

The Tomahawk is a Navy weapon, launched from destroyers, cruisers and submarines, and has long served as the sea service’s principal means of striking heavily defended targets without risking pilots.

Raytheon, a unit of RTX, has reached a tentative multi-year agreement with the Pentagon aimed at boosting Tomahawk production, alongside increases in other munitions, as Washington races to rebuild stockpiles.

Although its mandate expires at the end of the year, the future of the security arrangements in southern Lebanon remains highly uncertain, with multiple options still under consideration.

Part of UNIFIL’s international civilian staff was evacuated during the escalation of the conflict that reignited on March 2, while military personnel remained on the ground and continued operations.

“UNIFIL has a mandate until Dec. 31, 2026, and our mission will continue until then,” UNIFIL spokesperson Kandice Ardiel said.

While rumors, public statements and various proposals have emerged about next steps, no clear plan has taken shape.

On June 2, UN Secretary-General António Guterres submitted three options to the UN Security Council, all of which would significantly reduce the number of peacekeepers deployed in southern Lebanon.

Guterres outlined scenarios that would see a light, medium or more substantial presence, with troop numbers ranging from 900 to 1,500 or 3,000, alongside varying numbers of military observers and reserve forces.

However, the UN Security Council has yet to reach a decision and could ultimately opt for a course of action different from the three proposed alternatives.

“The Security Council is currently examining the options. We will wait and see what decision it makes,” Ardiel said. “For us, the priority remains continuing to implement our mandate, and creating the conditions for a smooth handover to whatever comes next.”

There is no timeline yet, but as the end date nears, the risk is that southern Lebanon will be left with a security vacuum.

The three options, meanwhile, are not the only proposals on the table. Over the past few months, several countries have expressed interest in maintaining an international presence in southern Lebanon.

Following a proposal by Italy and France to form a post-UNIFIL multinational coalition — put forward during the bilateral summit held in Antibes in late June — Germany was the last EU country to join the call for an EU force to replace UN peacekeepers in the border area.

The European External Action Service also proposed a three-year civilian and military mission, not as a replacement for UNIFIL but to strengthen the Lebanese authorities and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in enhancing territorial control and border security.

However, any scenario is further complicated by Israel’s continued presence in Lebanese territory and its ongoing military operations in border villages, despite the ceasefire currently in place.

UNIFIL and Resolution 1701, which brought an end to the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, have been largely absent from both the initial and now-defunct U.S.-Iran agreement, which included a ceasefire in Lebanon, and the security arrangements outlined in the framework agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel in Washington.

The framework agreement foresees the implementation of “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon that would be placed under LAF control and cleared of Hezbollah presence and weapons before the Israeli withdrawal, which would take place upon verification.

How such verification should be carried out remains unclear, while UNIFIL has not been brought into the discussion. So far, Israel has withdrawn from only one of the two agreed pilot zones. Israeli and Lebanese representatives are set to meet again in Rome on Aug. 4.

Regardless of outcomes, UNIFIL will cease operations on Dec. 31. As the mission’s mandate expires, the tasks outlined under Resolution 1701, including monitoring the cessation of hostilities and supporting the deployment of the Lebanese army south of the Litani River, will come to an end, even though the UN Security Council resolutions would technically remain in place.

On a practical level, this means UNIFIL will no longer be on the ground to monitor, report and coordinate daily between the parties, but will instead dismantle its bases and withdraw after nearly five decades of operations.

The Lebanese government has made no secret of its preference for maintaining an international presence along the border.

Officer-in-charge of the United Nations Special Coordinator to Lebanon (UNSCOL) Jean Arnault recently received a delegation representing 86 members of the Lebanese Parliament who signed a petition addressed to the UN secretary-general for the renewal of UNIFIL’s mandate, expressing their concerns about the consequences of the withdrawal.

According to Paul Salem, a non-resident senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former president and CEO of the Middle East Institute, the Lebanese state and the LAF should be able to assume full responsibility instead of relying on an additional international force.

“The time to rely on others is over,” he said. “The LAF should be supported in gradually assuming full responsibility for security, not by bringing in another international force. They are certainly not ready yet, but that should be the end goal, rather than perpetuating the current model.”

According to Salem, from a realpolitik perspective, UNIFIL has not been particularly effective. At least half of the mission’s positions are currently located in areas occupied by Israel, affecting peacekeepers on the ground and delaying or blocking freedom of movement.

“Other countries should step in to support Lebanese authorities, not only the United States, but also the Gulf states, Turkey and Europe,” he concluded. “Everyone should help the LAF through training, resources, equipment and recruitment, rather than by maintaining a presence on the ground.”

The poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, also showed the Republican president’s approval rating ticking higher to 37%, up 3 points from last month when his rating tied the lowest of his presidency.

Trump has offered shifting objectives for the conflict such as aiding Iranians to topple their leaders, taking out Iran’s ballistic-missile capabilities and preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The poll found that 69% of Americans — including four in 10 Republicans — think Trump has not “clearly explained the goals of U.S. military involvement in Iran.”

White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales said Trump will not make decisions based on “fluid opinion polls” and reiterated the president’s resolve to prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“What matters most to the American people is having a commander in chief who takes bold action to keep them safe,” Wales said.

Approval of the conflict has been below 40% since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on February 28 — a stark contrast to the opening months of other recent conflicts.

While each had different context, the Iraq War from 2003 to 2011 had the support of about 70% of Americans in its early months. During the early days of the Afghanistan War, which lasted from 2001 to 2021, about 90% of the country backed the war, according to polling by Gallup.

‘No idea’ why US at war

Public disapproval of the war is weighing on Trump and his Republican Party ahead of the November midterm elections when the president’s allies will defend slim majorities in the U.S. Congress.

“It’s not clear why we started a war with them. I have no idea,” said Alex Womack, a retired turbine repair specialist from Stockbridge, Georgia, who became a Republican in part because he liked how Republican President George H.W. Bush handled the Gulf War in 1991.

Womack, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps during that conflict, said his support for Trump has ebbed because of the war. “I don’t think he’s doing very well, personally,” he said.

To date, 18 American soldiers have died in the conflict while thousands have died in Iran and in Lebanon, where Iran-allied fighters have battled Israeli forces.

The war has pushed gasoline prices sharply higher, a blow to the finances of many Americans. Gasoline prices are averaging just over $4 a gallon nationwide, up from about $3 a gallon just before the war started on February 28.

“This puts pressure on the party in a myriad of ways, all of them bad,” said Alex Conant, a Republican political strategist and a White House spokesman during the presidency of George W. Bush. “The White House officials have been saying since January that they need to win economic arguments. It’s hard to win the economic arguments when you’re clearly focused on foreign policy.”

Independent registered voters in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll said they were favoring the Democratic congressional candidate over the Republican by 36% to 20%. Independent voters also favored Democrats over Republicans on economic policy, the poll found.

Trump vowed to stay out of wars

In campaigning for the 2024 presidential election, Trump said he would keep the U.S. out of enduring conflicts. He initially estimated the Iran war would last four to five weeks. He has bristled over comparisons to other wars, including the Vietnam War, which lasted two decades and claimed the lives of more than 58,000 U.S. soldiers.

Rhyan Anderson, an independent from Fairburn, Georgia, who voted for Trump in 2024, said he thinks Trump should focus on domestic problems rather than on helping Israel or other allies.

“My biggest thing is just focus on the people who are actually in the country,” said Anderson, who works two jobs in security and data collection and said he voted for Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. “I know we have allies and things like that, but there’s a lot of people here that really need help.”

Since mid-March, the Reuters/Ipsos survey has asked respondents whether they support or oppose military strikes on Iran. At that time, 37% said they supported the war.

That compared to 27% approval on the day the war began, when the Reuters/Ipsos survey also gave respondents the option to choose unsure, which 29% did.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos survey, which was conducted online and nationwide, gathered responses from 1,246 U.S. adults and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction.

Using publicly available information on missile expenditures, production rates and estimated U.S. inventories, the Washington-based think tank estimates the U.S. has expended about 65% of its Patriot inventory, leaving fewer than 1,000 interceptors remaining. The analysis also estimates U.S. inventories of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, interceptors have declined by about 38%, leaving an estimated 234 to 278 interceptors.

CSIS concluded the greater strategic risk is not sustaining the current conflict but responding to another high-intensity contingency before Patriot and THAAD inventories can be rebuilt. According to the analysis, depleted inventories could force the U.S. and its coalition partners to accept greater operational risk during air-defense operations by conserving interceptors or prioritizing only the highest-value threats.

Patriot interceptors are among the U.S. military’s primary defenses against ballistic missiles and are used to protect troops, military installations and allied populations from incoming attacks. During the Iran conflict, Patriot and THAAD systems helped defend U.S. forces and partner nations against ballistic missile attacks, although some missiles penetrated air defenses and caused casualties and damage.

In the assessment, CSIS analysts Mark Cancian and Chris Park wrote that U.S. forces expended large quantities of air-defense interceptors during the initial phase of Operation Epic Fury, leaving significantly fewer missiles available as operations resumed.

“There are no good alternatives to Patriot and THAAD for ballistic missile defense,” the duo concluded in their report.

Their findings further detail that rebuilding depleted interceptor inventories will take multiple years, raising readiness concerns for other theaters.

The Pentagon has not publicly confirmed the inventory estimates contained in the CSIS analysis and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Army this week awarded Lockheed Martin a contract worth up to $58.6 billion to produce Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement, or PAC-3 MSE, interceptors through fiscal 2032. The multiyear agreement is intended to expand production capacity as demand for the air-defense missile continues to grow.

“It takes several years to produce a missile. If you put money into the system today, you wouldn’t get a missile for three or four years. Sometimes even five,” Cancian told the BBC. “What we’re getting now are missiles that were funded in 2023.”

That production timeline, CSIS said, leaves a near- to medium-term window of risk if the U.S. is forced to respond to another major conflict before interceptor stockpiles are restored.

The purchase, valued at $60-$70 million, is one of Tehran’s largest-known efforts to strengthen its short-range air defenses since the outbreak of its war with the U.S. and Israel, which exposed gaps in Iran’s ability to protect military sites and strategic infrastructure.

The contract covers the purchase of between 300 and 400 man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS, including Chinese-made QW-12 and FN-16 missiles, the sources said.

The deal was signed with Zhongqing Baoshang International Investment, a Hong Kong-based company that the sources said was acting as an intermediary between the Iranian side and the Chinese supplier.

IRAN REARMING AFTER MONTHS OF WAR

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. Iran’s foreign ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

“The relevant reports are completely groundless,” China’s Foreign Ministry said. “China has consistently played a role in promoting peace and ending the conflict.”

Queried about the deal at a regular press conference in Beijing on Thursday, Chinese defense ministry spokesperson Jiang Bin said he was “not familiar with the relevant situation”.

Beijing-based Zhong Qing Bao Shang Group, the parent company of Zhongqing Baoshang International Investment, did not immediately respond to an email request for comment on Tuesday.

Iran’s reported rearming efforts come after months of fighting in which the U.S. and Israel have struck facilities linked to its missile, drone and air defense programs, and Tehran responded with barrages of ballistic missiles and drones.

The conflict has highlighted the challenge of defending fixed military and strategic sites against advanced aircraft and precision-guided weapons.

Washington abruptly suspended two weeks of bombardment on Saturday, but President Donald Trump said strikes would resume if negotiations failed to end the five-month-old conflict, which has in theory been in a state of ceasefire since April.

Responding to this article, Trump said Iran receiving such equipment from China would be surprising given what he said were assurances from Chinese President Xi Jinping not to get involved in the war on Iran’s behalf.

“I mean, things like that happen, but that would be surprising. [Xi] told me very strongly he wouldn’t partake, but he knows I’d be quite disappointed,” Trump said on Wednesday in response to a question about this report.

The delivery of hundreds of MANPADS would significantly expand Iran’s inventory of short-range air defense weapons and underscore how military ties with China are deepening.

The sources cautioned that, although the agreement had been signed, delivery schedules, quantities and other implementation details could still change.

Under a plan agreed by the parties, deliveries will initially be by air from Urumqi in western China, then transiting through Pakistan to Iran, according to the sources, who did not clarify whether the transfers would take place by air or by road.

“Speculations of Pakistan being involved in supply of Air Defense weapons to Iran from China are absolutely concocted and false,” Pakistan’s military public relations wing ISPR said.

A spokesperson for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry did not respond to requests for comment.

SOURCES: CHINA, IRAN EYE LAND ROUTES FOR DELIVERY

While Iran has invested heavily in the past two decades in missiles, drones and radar, military experts say portable air defense systems are important because they can be dispersed quickly, operated by small teams and relocated frequently, making them less vulnerable than fixed air defense batteries.

A European security source said authorities in his country were aware of several contracts under discussion involving the possible sale of QW-series MANPADS to Iran, including QW-12, QW-18 and QW-19 systems.

A second security source, in the Middle East, said Iran had been seeking to purchase QW-12 and QW-18 missiles, but they were unaware that a deal had already been concluded.

The QW-12 and FN-16 are shoulder-fired, infrared-guided surface-to-air missile systems designed to engage low-flying aircraft, helicopters and drones. Their mobility allows them to be deployed rapidly around military installations, energy infrastructure and other sensitive sites.

Defense analysts regard the QW-12 as less capable than newer QW variants, including the QW-18 and QW-19, but say the systems can still provide an effective layer of short-range protection against drones and low-flying targets.

Two Western intelligence sources and an Iranian official said Tehran had also explored the use of overland routes to move Chinese military supplies and dual-use components more discreetly and reduce the risk of disruption.

The procurement highlights the Islamic Republic’s continuing reliance on a combination of domestic weapons production and foreign suppliers despite years of sanctions and restrictions on defense related imports.

Reuters previously reported that Iran was close to securing a separate agreement with China to acquire anti-ship cruise missiles, according to people familiar with those negotiations. Reuters could not determine whether the agreement went through.

The House’s version of this provision, known as Section 219, proposes further integration between the U.S. defense industrial base and Israel’s. It comes amid a dramatic shift in U.S. public opinion about military aid to Israel.

Both the House and Senate versions of the provision would shift the model of security cooperation the U.S. and Israel now employ.

Though there is already co-production between the two countries on weapons systems, those efforts historically have been limited to defensive systems like the Iron Dome. The House version creates an executive agent position within the Pentagon who would seek out and advocate for co-production opportunities.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., tried unsuccessfully to pass an amendment striking the measure when the bill was being debated in committee last month. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has also been a vocal opponent.

Proponents of the measure, including House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers, R-Ala., have argued it “actually improves oversight and accountability of these programs by designating a single official responsible for them.”

Elias Yousif, fellow and acting director of the Conventional Defense Program at the Stimson Center, said the provision could create a situation in which there would be less oversight than traditional foreign military aid, which must be approved by Congress.

“There are all these ways in which co-production’s more ill-defined nature means that it creates opportunities for the executive branch to navigate the regulatory environment more easily,” Yousif said.

John Ramming Chappell, an advisor on legal and policy issues in the Center for Civilians in Conflict’s U.S. program, said he was unsure how the U.S. could benefit from the change.

“Expanding cooperative projects with Israel gives Israel more leverage over the United States and makes it even more difficult to promote accountability in the relationship as US and Israeli government priorities diverge and clash,” Chappell said. “Beyond that, it’s unclear how much the U.S. will actually benefit from cooperative projects, they haven’t historically been subject to meaningful oversight, and they expose the U.S. to potential national security risks.”

Despite passing in the House, the Senate version of the NDAA — including its version of Section 219, titled Section 1217 — could face a tougher battle. Several Democratic senators have said they will not vote on the NDAA until there is debate about the measure.

“The Senate’s bill has stalled, and next steps remain unclear, but it’s likely that Senate and House stakeholders [will] negotiate a compromise bill with the presumption of including some version of this provision,” Chappell said. “While Congressman Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, has expressed his opposition to the provision, it’s unclear if he’s going to push to remove it in negotiations.”

If the NDAA passes with a measure like the House’s Section 219 or the Senate’s 1217, legislators have some leverage over how exactly it could play out, Yousif said.

They “need to be much more forceful about closing regulatory gaps that the administration has used in the past to circumvent accountability and transparency,” Yousif said. “Whether that means definitional gaps on what constitutes assistance and what doesn’t, or demanding more transparency mechanisms, reporting requirements — I think those are all opportunities and potential levers that lawmakers and others have.”

The team, dubbed Task Force Talon Synapse, is slated to launch in the “coming weeks,” according to a Tuesday release, and will focus on incorporating AI applications into intelligence support, protecting critical infrastructure and monitoring the regional security environment.

“This will be a historic milestone as we work with one of our most capable regional partners to rapidly deliver evolving AI advancements to our warfighters,” Adm. Brad Cooper, CENTCOM commander, said in the statement.

“Together, we and our Emirati partners share a strong commitment to adopting AI applications that will foster innovation at speed and scale,” he continued.

The Abu Dhabi-based unit will be made up of around 20 American and Emirati personnel with AI, data and cybersecurity expertise, the announcement says.

The task force’s creation was discussed last year by Cooper and UAE National Security Advisor Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed al-Nahyan, per the release.

During a trip to the region last month, CENTCOM and AI industry leaders gathered together as well.

For almost a decade, the UAE has strived to accelerate its defenses with AI capabilities through collaborations, like with Anduril to coproduce advanced autonomous drones.

In March 2025, the White House hosted al-Nahyan, who views adopting artificial intelligence as a national responsibility. The talks focused on bilateral relations between the two countries, AI and emerging technology, according to a UAE release at the time of the official visit.