Hürmüz'de tanker saldırıları sonrası ABD İran'a yaptırımları sıkılaştırdı, üslerini İsrail'e taşımayı planlıyor
Hürmüz Boğazı'nda bir petrol tankerine 'bilinmeyen mermi' isabet ettiği ve İran'ın en az üç gemiye saldırdığı bildirildi. Olaylar, ABD ile İran arasında sağlanan ateşkesi ve barış çabalarını tehlikeye attı. İran saldırıların 'sistemlerindeki bir arıza' olduğunu öne sürerken, Washington iddiaları reddetti ve saldırıların durmasını talep etti. ABD, saldırıların ardından İran'a yönelik geçici petrol yaptırım muafiyetini iptal etti ve İran'daki 80 hedefe hassas mühimmatla hava saldırısı düzenledi. Ayrıca Körfez ülkelerindeki ABD üslerine yönelik saldırılar nedeniyle bu üslerin İsrail'in Necef Çölü'ne taşınması gündeme geldi. Bu adımlar, İran'a yönelik ekonomik ve askeri baskıyı artırırken, bölgedeki gerilimi tırmandırdı. Pakistan Başbakanı Şahbaz Şerif ve diğer aktörler, tarafları itidale çağırarak 'güçlükle kazanılan barış kazanımlarını' korumaya davet etti. Hürmüz Boğazı küresel enerji arzı için kritik önem taşıdığından, yaşanan tırmanış uluslararası diplomaside yeni bir krize yol açtı.
This summary is currently in Turkish; automated English translation is coming soon.
Bağlam, hikayenin etrafındaki ülke + lider + komşu hikaye ağına dayanılarak AI tarafından üretildi. Olgu içerikleri için her zaman üstteki kaynak linklerine başvurun.
Bu gündemi takip et
ABD gelişmelerini kaçırma — ücretsiz kaydol, günlük brifinginde gör.
Timeline
latest: 18 Jul- Security07 Jul, 05:33
Oil tanker hit by 'unknown projectile' in Strait of Hormuz region, says maritime agency
An “unknown projectile” struck and caused a fire on an oil tanker off the coast of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz on Monday, British maritime security agency United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said. The incident occurred near one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes, despite a ceasefire between the United States and Iran and ongoing efforts to secure a lasting peace agreement. The maritime agency said the incident took place eight nautical miles east of Limah, Oman. “A tanker has reported being hit by an unknown projectile on the port side causing a fire, whilst travelling southbound,” UKMTO said in a post on X. The agency said there were no reports of casualties or environmental damage. “Vessels are advised to transit with caution and report any suspicious activity to UKMTO,” the agency added, saying authorities were investigating. US news outlet Axios reported late on Monday that Iran had “fired at least two missiles at commercial ships”, citing two unnamed US officials. One of the officials told the outlet that a second ship was also struck, and had been damaged significantly. AFP has not been able to independently confirm the Axios report. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to an AFP request for comment. The Strait of Hormuz was at the centre of tensions during the Middle East war, when Iran blockaded the waterway and a number of commercial vessels came under attack, sending global energy prices sharply higher. The United States responded with its own naval blockade and later launched retaliatory strikes against Iran after accusing Tehran of targeting commercial shipping. Maritime traffic resumed after Washington and Tehran signed the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding last month, aimed at ending the conflict and reopening the strategic route. However, Iran has insisted there will be no return to pre-war arrangements, under which vessels could pass freely through the strait. Tehran has warned ships against using routes outside a corridor it has authorised along its coastline. The Strait of Hormuz is the main maritime gateway for energy exports from the Gulf to international markets, particularly in Asia. Around 20 million barrels of crude oil passed through the waterway each day in 2024, accounting for roughly one-fifth of global crude, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
- Security07 Jul, 20:30
US revokes Iran oil waiver after Hormuz tanker attacks
The United States revoked a temporary sanctions waiver for Iranian oil Tuesday after three tankers were struck in the Strait of Hormuz, raising pressure on Tehran as it negotiates with Washington over ending the Middle East war. The US Treasury Department canceled a license announced in June that had allowed Iran to produce, sell and deliver crude oil and related products through August 21. "Iran's actions in the Strait were wholly unacceptable to the United States and will be met with consequences," a US official told AFP.
- Diplomatic08 Jul, 10:53
US-Iran on dangerous path to blowing up MOU over Hormuz
For the second time since the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed, Washington and Tehran have slipped back into direct military confrontation. The United States struck “80 targets in Iran with precision munitions” after Iranian forces fired on several ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz without prior coordination with Tehran. The scale of the American strikes reportedly far exceeded the previous U.S.-Iran exchange, suggesting that Washington sought not merely to retaliate but to reestablish deterrence. The United States also reimposed sanctions on Iranian oil sales, reversing one of the central concessions of the MOU. The IRGC, in turn, claimed to have attacked 85 U.S. military sites across the region, including the Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain and Ali Al-Salem Air Base in Kuwait, and said eight were destroyed. At the heart of the dispute are two competing interpretations of the MOU. Tehran's reading is that while the Strait of Hormuz is to remain open, all commercial traffic during the 60-day interim period must be coordinated with Iran as the parties negotiate a permanent maritime arrangement. Washington, by contrast, interprets an "open" Strait to mean that vessels may transit either the Iranian or Omani shipping lanes without coordinating with Iran. For Tehran, this is not a technical disagreement but a strategic one. Iranian officials fear the United States is using the MOU to erode Iran's control over the Strait by rejecting any requirement for coordination and, in effect, establishing an alternative corridor that could remain open even if war resumes. Such an arrangement would deprive Iran of what many of its strategists regard as its single most important source of leverage in a future conflict: the credible ability to disrupt maritime traffic through Hormuz. From Tehran's perspective, commercial shipping can resume without surrendering that leverage—but only if all vessel movements continue to be coordinated with Iran, thereby reinforcing its nominal authority over the waterway. Washington counters that the text of the MOU does not explicitly require ships to obtain Iranian authorization before transiting the Strait. Instead, it assigns Iran responsibility for ensuring the safe passage of commercial vessels, a distinction the United States argues falls short of granting Tehran operational control over all maritime traffic. Paragraph 5 of the MOU states: "Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days." Following the previous round of fighting, the two sides explored a compromise under which commercial vessels would coordinate their transit with both Iran and a designated Gulf Cooperation Council state. Under such an arrangement, ships would notify Tehran while also reporting to a GCC maritime authority, balancing Iran's demand for oversight with Washington's desire to avoid granting Tehran exclusive control. The talks, however, appear never to have been finalized before they were suspended for the funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. During that pause, several commercial vessels—with their AIS transponders switched off—attempted to transit the southern shipping corridor without notifying Tehran. Iran viewed these voyages as a direct challenge to its interpretation of the MOU and responded with force. Both sides are clearly testing each other's red lines. If the dispute were solely about ensuring the safe passage of commercial shipping, vessels could simply transit through the Iranian shipping lane. Tehran has not prevented ships from using the northern corridor. Instead, the insistence on using the southern corridor without notifying Iran appears designed to challenge Tehran's claim that it exercises authority over the Strait—a claim the United States and most Gulf states have long rejected. Beyond questions of transit tolls or administrative fees, no country in the region is eager to legitimize Iranian control over one of the world's most strategically important waterways. The current confrontation is therefore less about navigation than about sovereignty and strategic leverage. This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The compromise discussed before the talks were suspended offers a sensible way out. Requiring vessels to notify both Iran and a designated GCC maritime authority would defer the sovereignty dispute without prejudging its outcome, allowing commercial traffic to continue while negotiations over a permanent arrangement proceed. Sacrificing the entire MOU—and the far more consequential regional framework it could ultimately produce—over the question of who nominally manages the Strait for the next few weeks would be a costly and unnecessary mistake. The question now is whether the dual-notification arrangement can still be revived after the exchange of fire over the past 12 hours, or whether this latest escalation has closed the diplomatic window altogether. The coming hours are likely to provide the answer. One final observation: by responding with both military force and the reimposition of sanctions on Iranian oil exports, Washington appears intent on establishing escalation dominance—not merely deterring further Iranian action but demonstrating its willingness to raise the costs far more sharply than Tehran. The contrast with the first post-MOU confrontation in the Strait is striking. This time, the U.S. response has been substantially more severe, suggesting that Washington is seeking to redefine the deterrence equation before negotiations can resume. There is, however, a danger in Washington's decision to rescind the general license permitting the purchase of Iranian oil. The license was intended to serve as one of the MOU's principal incentives for Tehran to remain committed to the agreement. But an incentive is only as valuable as its credibility. Even before this latest escalation, Iran had struggled to attract new buyers. Many governments and companies were reluctant to enter long-term arrangements because they feared negotiations would collapse and the license would expire without renewal. That uncertainty alone diminished the commercial value of the concession. From Washington’s perspective, Iran’s alleged violation of the MOU is serious and warrants a response. But if the United States is seen as issuing and withdrawing the license too readily, potential buyers may conclude that access to Iranian oil is too politically volatile to justify the risk. That would weaken one of Washington’s most important sources of leverage. The less valuable the license becomes in the marketplace, the less valuable it becomes at the negotiating table—and the less the United States can demand in return for restoring it. This article was republished from Trita Parsi's Substack
- Security08 Jul, 17:24
Pakistan urges US, Iran to exercise restraint after overnight strikes
Pakistan on Wednesday expressed deep concern over escalating tensions in the Middle East and called on the US and Iran to exercise restraint following mutual overnight strikes. Efforts to end the Middle East war have suffered a setback following an escalation of hostilities after Iranian attacks on ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Iran struck at least three ships in recent days, prompting extensive US strikes on Iranian targets on Tuesday, followed by retaliatory attacks by Iran on Gulf countries. In a statement, the Foreign Office (FO) noted that “a renewed conflict is in no one’s interest”. “Pakistan calls on all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from any actions that may further undermine regional peace and stability. There is no alternative to continued engagement, dialogue and diplomacy to achieve [a] shared goal of peace in the region,” the statement added. “Pakistan urges all sides to uphold their respective commitments under the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which remains an enduring foundation for understanding, mutual respect and shared prosperity for the region and beyond.” The FO added that Islamabad remained ready to continue playing its role as a mediator between Washington and Tehran. Pakistan has played a central role in mediating between the US and Iran this year and has been repeatedly praised by the Trump administration for its involvement. This is not the first time the US and Iran have exchanged strikes despite a ceasefire being in place since April. Last month, the US carried out attacks in Iran in response to what US President Donald Trump said was the downing of a US Apache helicopter. In retaliation, Iran said it attacked bases and other targets in the Gulf. Over a week after the strikes, the Islamabad MoU was signed, which gave both sides 60 days to negotiate a comprehensive agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme and related issues. It also mandates a complete halt to military operations on all fronts. However, earlier today at the Nato summit in Ankara, Trump said that the ceasefire was “over”, adding, “It’s just a waste of time dealing with them. I’ll let our wonderful negotiators keep talking if they want, but I don’t see it. I don’t like these people.” He further warned that the US would hit Iran “hard” tonight.
- Security09 Jul, 07:58
İran'ın Körfez ülkelerine saldırılarının ardından ABD üslerinin İsrail'e taşınması gündemde
Körfez ülkelerindeki Amerikan üslerine yönelik İran saldırılarının ardından, Washington ve Tel Aviv yönetimlerinin bölgedeki ABD askeri üslerini İsrail'in güneyindeki Necef Çölü'ne taşımayı planladığı bildirildi.
- Security09 Jul, 11:50
ABD'nin askeri üslerini İsrail'e taşıyacağı iddiası
Washington ve Tel Aviv yönetimlerinin Körfez ülkelerindeki Amerikan üslerine yönelik İran saldırıları nedeniyle bölgedeki ABD askeri üslerini İsrail'in güneyindeki Necef Çölü'ne taşımayı planladığı kaydedildi.
- Security10 Jul, 17:58
PM Shehbaz calls on Iran, other parties not to jeopardise ‘hard-earned peace gains’
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Friday called on Iran and all other parties involved in the Middle East conflict to exercise restraint following an escalation in tensions between Washington and Tehran. Efforts to end the Middle East war have suffered a setback following an escalation in hostilities after Iranian attacks on ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Iran struck at least three ships in recent days, prompting extensive US strikes on Iranian targets on Tuesday and Wednesday, which were followed by retaliatory attacks by Iran on Gulf countries. According to the Prime Minister’s Office, the premier issued the call during a telephone conversation with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, during which he expressed “deep concern” over the escalation and “underscored the urgent need to restore regional peace and stability”. “He called on Iran and all other parties to exercise restraint and refrain from any action that could jeopardise the hard-earned peace gains achieved over the past few months,” the statement added. The prime minister stressed the importance of upholding the commitments made under the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), describing it as an enduring framework for promoting mutual understanding, respect and shared prosperity in the region and beyond. Reaffirming Pakistan’s commitment to regional peace, PM Shehbaz assured Pezeshkian of Islamabad’s readiness to continue playing an “honest and sincere role” in facilitating dialogue and supporting all peace efforts between Washington and Tehran. During the call, the Iranian president thanked the premier, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, Chief of Defence Forces and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir and other senior Pakistani leaders for attending the funeral ceremony of late supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “He also reaffirmed Iran’s commitment to peace and appreciated Pakistan’s constructive support and sincere efforts for regional stability,” the statement read. The PMO added that both leaders also reviewed the implementation of decisions made during Pezeshkian’s visit to Islamabad last month and agreed to expedite follow-up actions. PM Shehbaz also conveyed his regards and best wishes to current supreme leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, while both leaders agreed to “remain in close contact and continue consultations on matters of mutual interest and regional peace”. Earlier this week, Pakistan expressed deep concern over escalating tensions in the Middle East and called on the US and Iran to exercise restraint following mutual overnight strikes. In a statement, the Foreign Office noted that “a renewed conflict is in no one’s interest”. “Pakistan calls on all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from any actions that may further undermine regional peace and stability. There is no alternative to continued engagement, dialogue and diplomacy to achieve [a] shared goal of peace in the region,” the statement added. This is not the first time the US and Iran have exchanged strikes despite a ceasefire being in place since April. Last month, the US carried out attacks in Iran in response to what US President Donald Trump said was the downing of a US Apache helicopter. In retaliation, Iran said it attacked bases and other targets in the Gulf. Over a week after the strikes, the Islamabad MoU was signed, which gave both sides 60 days to negotiate a comprehensive agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme and related issues. It also mandates a complete halt to military operations on all fronts. However, at the Nato summit in Ankara on Wednesday, Trump said that the ceasefire was “over”, adding, “It’s just a waste of time dealing with them. I’ll let our wonderful negotiators keep talking if they want, but I don’t see it. I don’t like these people.” He further warned that the US would hit Iran “hard” that night, and Washington and Tehran traded strikes for a second consecutive day. US forces said the latest attacks against Iran were aimed at “their ability to threaten the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz”, citing recent strikes against commerical ships in the waterway.
- Security11 Jul, 00:20
US insists Iran commit to stopping attacks in Hormuz, American officials say
Iran has told Washington that recent attacks on shipping in the strait were from "an errant part of their system," one senior official said.
- Security13 Jul, 07:49
After the US-Iran MoU: Diplomacy’s unfinished business
Barely four weeks after the signing of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU) that brought an uneasy halt to one of the most dangerous confrontations between the two rivals in decades, missiles are once again crossing the Gulf, commercial shipping is retreating from the Strait of Hormuz and oil prices are again inching upwards. Over the past 24 hours, the confrontation has entered its most dangerous phase since hostilities resumed last week, with both sides sharply intensifying military operations. Overnight, the US carried out a fresh wave of precision strikes against military and petrochemical infrastructure across southern Iran, targeting facilities in the oil-producing Khuzestan province as well as sites around Bandar Abbas, Qeshm Island and Bushehr. It employed aircraft, naval assets and — for the first time in the campaign — sea drones to degrade Iran’s air defence, missile and coastal capabilities. Open-source imagery has corroborated damage to the Omidiyeh airbase and to a building within the Bushehr nuclear complex. A projectile falls at an unknown location, during what US Central Command says are strikes on Iranian military targets, in this screengrab taken from a handout video released on July 11, 2026. — Reuters Iran responded with ballistic missile strikes against facilities linked to US military presence in Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan, while simultaneously maintaining pressure in the Strait of Hormuz through anti-ship missile activity and continued interference with commercial shipping. These exchanges have further reduced vessel traffic through the waterway to single digits, reinforcing a pattern that has become increasingly evident over recent days, whereby Washington has relied on long-range precision strikes against Iranian military infrastructure while Tehran has sought to exploit geography and asymmetric maritime capabilities to impose costs and disrupt navigation. Who will control the Strait of Hormuz? These developments are unsurprising because the MoU was never intended to resolve the dispute that resulted in the conflict; instead, it merely suspended fighting long enough for negotiations on the more difficult political questions to begin. The latest escalation is, therefore, less a collapse of diplomacy than a reminder of diplomacy’s unfinished business. One of the issues left unresolved by the MoU, and which has now brought both sides back to the brink, is the question of who will ultimately determine the rules governing navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the main maritime gateway for energy exports from the Gulf to international markets. The controversy has stemmed from the language of the fifth clause, under which Iran undertook, “using its best efforts”, to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels for an initial 60-day period while also committing to restoring normal traffic after removing military and technical obstacles, including demining operations. More significantly, however, the clause stipulated that Iran would conduct dialogue with Oman “to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf littoral states, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz”. Vessels are seen anchored in the Strait of Hormuz, off the port city of Khasab on Oman’s northern Musandam Peninsula on May 17, 2026. — AFP This carefully negotiated formulation has become the principal source of disagreement. Washington has interpreted the reference to international law as reaffirming the longstanding principle of freedom of navigation through an international waterway. In contrast, Tehran has placed greater emphasis on the reference to the sovereign rights of the coastal states, arguing that any future governance arrangement must recognise the authority and security concerns of the littoral countries, particularly Iran. The phrasing of the clause made the signing of the MoU possible, but it essentially postponed the dispute to a later date. Tehran believes that the military advantage it had gained during the conflict entitles it to establish stricter oversight of maritime movement through waters adjoining its coastline so that routes previously used, in its view, for facilitating hostile military operations could no longer function without greater scrutiny. Washington, by contrast, maintained that freedom of navigation through one of the world’s principal commercial arteries could never be surrendered to the preferences or security perceptions of any single state because accepting such a precedent would carry implications far beyond the Gulf. Those competing assumptions have now emerged as the principal fault line of the post-war order. It is, therefore, important that the renewed violence should not be viewed simply through the prism of another exchange of missiles because the military dimension just points to the contest over sovereignty, strategic influence and competing interpretations of the clause for governing the Strait. From the moment the MoU was signed, both sides appeared to recognise that it represented a temporary pause rather than a permanent settlement. Consequently, they quietly used the intervening weeks to prepare for the contingency each believed was likely. Iran restored damaged infrastructure, replenished military stocks and expanded oil exports, while Washington rotated forces, repaired military facilities, reinforced regional deployments and rebuilt strategic reserves. Who has the upper hand? Having done all that, neither side, however, is still capable of imposing its preferred outcome through military means. The US undoubtedly retains overwhelming superiority in precision strike capability, intelligence assets and long-range power projection, enabling it to target Iranian air defence systems, coastal military infrastructure, logistics facilities, missile sites and energy infrastructure with considerable effectiveness. Yet that military superiority continues to be checkmated by geographical constraints because Iran’s control of the northern coastline, together with its deployment of mobile missile batteries, drones, fast-attack craft and coastal surveillance systems, enables it to generate sufficient uncertainty to disrupt commercial shipping without matching American conventional capabilities. Air defence interceptions are seen in the sky above Doha on July 12, 2026. — AFP Iran, furthermore, has once again demonstrated its ability to impose costs rather than secure a decisive victory by complicating maritime traffic, threatening regional military facilities and sustaining asymmetric pressure across the confined waters of the Gulf. However, Tehran cannot establish a stable maritime arrangement acceptable to the US, its Gulf neighbours and the international community. Ironically, the continued operation of the Strait also remains essential for Iran’s own economic recovery and post-war reconstruction. As a result, what is being witnessed is an uneasy equilibrium in which one side possesses the ability to punish while the other retains the ability to disrupt, yet neither can escape the confrontation, leaving both capable of prolonging the conflict without fundamentally resolving it. The commercial consequences have followed almost immediately. Shipping companies have reduced transits through the Strait of Hormuz, insurance costs have risen and oil markets have once again begun pricing geopolitical uncertainty into global energy supplies; not because physical shortages have yet materialised but because prolonged uncertainty over the governance of the waterway itself introduces risks that markets invariably seek to anticipate. Alternative export infrastructure through Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates may offset part of the disruption, but no existing network possesses the capacity to fully substitute the enormous volumes that ordinarily pass through the Hormuz, making prolonged instability economically costly not only for the region but also for major energy-importing economies across Asia and Europe. This frame grab taken from AFPTV video footage on July 12, 2026 shows a cargo ship anchoring near the Strait of Hormuz off the eastern coast of the United Arab Emirates at Khor Fakkan. — AFP This is precisely why the current confrontation cannot be resolved exclusively through military conflict. The central question is no longer whether either side can strike harder, but whether both can eventually agree upon a framework that simultaneously accommodates Iran’s security concerns as the principal northern littoral state while preserving internationally accepted principles governing commercial navigation through one of the world’s most strategically important waterways. How Pakistan’s role should evolve That also explains why, even as military exchanges have intensified, diplomacy has quietly continued behind the scenes. For Pakistan, which invested considerable diplomatic capital in facilitating the April ceasefire and the signing of the MoU, the latest escalation carries lessons that extend beyond the immediate conflict. Islamabad should neither regard the renewed fighting as evidence that the outcome of its mediation could not be sustained nor assume that the signing of the MoU completed its diplomatic task. Bringing adversaries to the negotiating table was a considerable achievement, particularly at a moment when military escalation appeared to be overtaking diplomacy, but ceasefires are inherently transitional instruments whose durability depends upon the political architecture that follows them. That architecture remains incomplete. Pakistan’s contribution should, therefore, evolve from crisis mediation towards encouraging sustained political engagement, supporting technical negotiations where appropriate and working alongside regional actors, particularly Oman, whose geographical position and diplomatic credibility make it indispensable to any future arrangement governing the Strait. Such an approach would not only reinforce Pakistan’s diplomatic relevance but would be more realistic as recent events have underscored a broader reality, which is that wars can be paused through diplomacy, but lasting peace depends upon resolving the disputes that produced them in the first place. Header image: A man walks next to a symbolic mockup of an Iranian missile and an Iranian flag at Imam Hussein Square in Tehran, Iran, July 12, 2026. — Reuters
- Security16 Jul, 06:44
ABD'de İsrail'e 3,3 milyar dolarlık askeri yardımın kesilmesini öngören tasarı reddedildi
ABD Temsilciler Meclisi, İsrail'e yıllık 3,3 milyar dolarlık askeri yardımın kesilmesini öngören yasa tasarısını oy çokluğuyla reddetti.
- Security16 Jul, 06:47
ABD Kongresi kararını verdi: İsrail'e dev yardım sürecek
ABD Temsilciler Meclisi, İsrail'e her yıl verilen 3,3 milyar dolarlık askeri yardımın kesilmesini öngören yasa tasarısını büyük farkla reddetti. Cumhuriyetçi Thomas Massie'nin sunduğu teklife 104 milletvekili destek verirken, 314 üye karşı çıktı, 10 üye ise çekimser kaldı.
- Security18 Jul, 10:08
ABD'den İsrail'e sessiz destek! 'Askeri üslere konuşlanacak'
İsrail ordusundan yapılan açıklamada, söz konusu kararın sivil ulaşım rotalarındaki olası yoğunluk ve aksamaları en aza indirmek amacıyla alındığı belirtildi. ASKERİ ÜSLERE YÖNLENDİRİLECEK Açıklamada, yakıt ikmal uçaklarının İsrail'deki askeri üslere yönlendirilmesi kararının İsrail ordusuyla koordinasyon halinde ABD tarafından alındığı kaydedildi. İsrail'in yaz dönemindeki uçuş iptallerini ve gecikmeleri önlemek amacıyla ülkenin dünyaya açılan kapısı niteliğindeki Ben-Gurion Havalimanı'ndaki ABD'ye ait yakıt ikmal uçağı sayısını daha önce 20 ile sınırlandırdığı da hatırlatıldı. NE OLMUŞTU? ABD yönetiminin, İran'a yönelik saldırıların kapsamının genişletilmesi olasılığı çerçevesinde İsrail'e onlarca ilave yakıt ikmal uçağı göndermeyi planladığı basına yansımıştı. ABD'nin halihazırda Ben-Gurion Uluslararası Havalimanı ile Ramon Havalimanı'nda yaklaşık 60 yakıt ikmal uçağının bulunduğu ve ilave yakıt ikmal uçaklarıyla bu sayının ABD-İsrail/İran Savaşı'nın başlangıcındaki seviyeye çıkarılmasının hedeflendiği öne sürülmüştü. Öte yandan İsrail, Ben-Gurion Havalimanı'na ABD yakıt ikmal uçaklarının inişini yasaklama kararı almış, Washington yönetiminin itirazlarının ardından söz konusu karardan geri adım atmıştı.
Milliyet
Okumaya devam et
ilgili gelişmeler- Aynı ülke gündemicanlı
İran Avrupa hedeflerini gündeme aldı; Hürmüz trafiği dibe vurdu
Temmuz sonunda ABD'nin hava saldırılarına ara vermesi ve İran'ın aynı şekilde karşılık vermesiyle başlayan görece sükunet, Hürmüz Boğazı'ndaki anlaşmazlık nedeniyle kalıcı olmadı. İran Dışişleri Bakanı Abbas Araghchi, Washington'ın mutabakat zaptını ihlal ederek alternatif koridor açtığını öne sürdü; Umman ile yeni seyir hatlarına ilişkin görüşmelerin son aşamada olduğunu ancak boğazın yeniden açılması için ABD'nin koşulları kabul etmesi gerektiğini söyledi. 11 Ağustos'ta ABD ve Husiler gemilere yönelik yeni saldırılar bildirdi; 12 Ağustos'ta Hürmüz'den geçen gemi sayısı 8'e düşerek bir haftanın en düşük seviyesini gördü. Petrol fiyatları yükselirken küresel hisse senetleri geriledi. Savaşın askeri ve bölgesel yansımaları da derinleşiyor. Washington Post, ABD'nin beş ayda 45 MQ-9 Reaper İHA kaybettiğini ve maliyetin 1,3 milyar doları bulduğunu aktardı. New York Times, Pentagon'un önleyici füze stoklarının azaldığını, İran'ın ise ABD savunma sistemlerini aşabilen yeni taktikler geliştirdiğini yazdı; Trump mühimmat sıkıntısı iddialarını reddetti. İran'ın Bulgaristan'daki Bezmer Hava Üssü ve Kıbrıs'taki İngiliz Akrotiri Üssü dahil Avrupa'daki ABD askeri hedeflerini vurmayı değerlendirdiği belirtiliyor. Pakistan ordusu da Çin üzerinden İran'a füze sevkiyatı yapıldığı haberlerini yalanladı.
ABD28 olay18 sa önce - Aynı ülke gündemicanlı
İsrail'de Erdoğan kompleksi: Filistin davasının yankıları
Milliyet yazarı Aslıhan Altay Karataş'ın haberine göre, Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan AK Parti iktidarı boyunca Filistin davasını sahiplenerek İsrail'e yönelik eleştirilerini sürdürdü. Erdoğan'ın 2009 Davos'ta dönemin İsrail Cumhurbaşkanı Şimon Peres'e yönelik 'One Minute' çıkışı Ortadoğu'daki popülaritesini artırdı. İsrail'in 7 Ekim 2023'te başlattığı Gazze saldırılarına da dünyada en sert tepki gösteren liderler arasında yer aldı. Haber, İsrail'de Erdoğan'ın bu duruşuna ilişkin bir 'kompleks' oluştuğunu öne sürüyor. Bölgedeki diplomatik ve siyasi dengeler açısından Erdoğan'ın Filistin konusundaki tutumu, Türkiye-İsrail ilişkilerinde gerilim unsuru olmaya devam ediyor.
ABD1 olay1 gün önce - Aynı ülke gündemicanlı
Pezeşkiyan: İran, dünya zaferini kabul etmişken savaşı bitirmeli
ABD1 olay26 dk önce - Aynı ülke gündemicanlı
NATO: İran'dan Gelebilecek Tehditlere Karşı Hazırız
NATO, İran'ın Avrupa'daki ABD üslerine saldırı planladığı yönündeki haberlerin ardından açıklama yaptı. İttifak, İran'dan gelebilecek tehditlere karşı tüm müttefiklerini savunacağını bildirdi. Açıklama, İran'ın Avrupa'daki ABD askeri varlığına yönelik iddiaların gündeme gelmesinden sonra geldi. NATO'nun bu çıkışı, ittifakın kolektif savunma ilkesine bağlılığını ve İran kaynaklı risklere karşı caydırıcılık yaklaşımını yansıtıyor.
ABD1 olay1 gün önce - Aynı ülke gündemicanlı
ABD, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi Başkanı Tomoko Akane'ye Yaptırım Uyguladı
ABD Dışişleri Bakanı Marco Rubio, Salı günü Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi (UCM) Başkanı Tomoko Akane ile kıdemli bir dava avukatına yaptırım uygulandığını açıkladı. Bu adım, Trump yönetiminin Lahey merkezli mahkemeye yönelik kampanyasının son tırmanışı olarak değerlendiriliyor. UCM, 2002 yılında savaş suçları, soykırım ve insanlığa karşı suçları kovuşturmak üzere uluslararası toplum tarafından kurulmuştu.
ABD13 olay38 dk önce - Aynı ülke gündemicanlı
ABD'nin nükleer şemsiyesindeki kırılma müttefikleri alternatif arayışa itti
On yıllardır güvenliklerini büyük ölçüde ABD'nin nükleer güvencesine dayandıran ülkeler, Washington'ın savunma politikasındaki yeni yaklaşımın ardından hesaplarını gözden geçiriyor. Avrupa'dan Asya'ya birçok müttefik, nükleer şemsiyenin kapanma ihtimaline karşı alternatif güvenlik arayışlarına yöneldi. Uzmanlar, ABD'nin garantilerindeki bu kırılmanın küresel güvenlik mimarisinde önemli sonuçlar doğurabileceğini belirtiyor. Nükleer koruma beklentisinin zayıflaması, müttefik ülkeler için bağımsız nükleer kapasite geliştirme veya farklı ittifak arayışları gibi seçenekleri gündeme getiriyor. Bu gelişme, yeni bir nükleer silahlanma döneminin kapısını aralayabilir.
ABD2 olay2 sa önce