An Israeli air strike on Tuesday killed Iranian security chief Ali Larijani, one of the most important figures inside Iran’s regime, who had survived the initial decapitation strikes of the ongoing war in the Middle East. Israel says it also targeted leaders of Iran’s Basij paramilitary force in overnight strikes at a time in which the regime has been working to consolidate its power over the Iranian population. Meanwhile, Europe has largely rebuffed President Trump’s demand that it join the war, and Iran has struck yet another commercial ship near the Strait of Hormuz and drone attacks forced the UAE to close its airspace overnight Monday. It’s day 18 of the Iran war and there’s a lot going on: Below are the latest updates, reporting, commentary, and analysis.

Graham on Trump: ‘I have never heard him so angry in my life.’

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a full-throated supporter of the war in Iran criticized Europe for not wanting to provide support in the Strait of Hormuz. Graham said he spoke to Trump today about the news, claiming, “I have never heard him so angry in my life.”

“The arrogance of our allies to suggest that Iran with a nuclear weapon is of little concern and that military action to stop the ayatollah from acquiring a nuclear bomb is our problem not theirs is beyond offensive. The European approach to containing the ayatollah’s nuclear ambitions have proven to be a miserable failure,” Graham wrote on social media.

He continued, “The repercussions of providing little assistance to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning are going to be wide and deep for Europe and America. I consider myself very forward-leaning on supporting alliances, however at a time of real testing like this, it makes me second guess the value of these alliances. I am certain I am not the only senator who feels this way.”

Leavitt responds to Joe Kent’s Iran war claims

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt took to social media to address Joe Kent’s resignation letter, saying his missive contained “many false claims.”

“As President Trump has clearly and explicitly stated, he had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first. This evidence was compiled from many sources and factors. President Trump would never make the decision to deploy military assets against a foreign adversary in a vacuum,” she wrote.

Leavitt said that Kent’s assertion that Trump decided on military action in the region at Israel’s behest is “ both insulting and laughable.”

“President Trump has been remarkably consistent and has said for DECADES that Iran can NEVER possess a nuclear weapon,” she said. “As someone who actually witnesses President Trump’s decision-making process on a daily basis, I can attest to the fact that he is always looking to do what’s in the best interest of the United States of America — period.”

Israeli assessment finds that Iranians will “get slaughtered” in potential uprising

An internal Israeli government assessment found that Iranians will likely face mass casualties if the nation’s citizens take to the streets in an attempt to overthrow the government. The Washington Post has more:

The cable, circulated by the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem on Friday, relayed an Israeli assessment that Iran’s regime is “not cracking” and is willing to “fight to the end” despite the Feb. 28 killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the ongoing U.S. and Israeli bombing campaign.The regime killed thousands during wide-scale anti-government demonstrations earlier this year. If large numbers of Iranians return to the streets, Israeli officials say “the people will get slaughtered” because the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s principal military force, “has the upper hand,” according to the cable. The document’s authenticity was verified by two State Department officials.Despite the grim forecast, Israeli officials said they hoped for a popular revolt and urged the United States to prepare to support protesters if that happens, according to the cable.

The cable, circulated by the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem on Friday, relayed an Israeli assessment that Iran’s regime is “not cracking” and is willing to “fight to the end” despite the Feb. 28 killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the ongoing U.S. and Israeli bombing campaign.

The regime killed thousands during wide-scale anti-government demonstrations earlier this year. If large numbers of Iranians return to the streets, Israeli officials say “the people will get slaughtered” because the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s principal military force, “has the upper hand,” according to the cable. The document’s authenticity was verified by two State Department officials.

Despite the grim forecast, Israeli officials said they hoped for a popular revolt and urged the United States to prepare to support protesters if that happens, according to the cable.

As one expert recently told our Benjamin Hart, there is a very good chance that civilian lives aren’t a primary concern in Israel’s destabilization strategy.

What it’s like to be next to an air strike

The Pentagon and IDF show off their precision air strikes all the time, but this horrifying video really illustrates how dangerous any air strike can be for anyone who just happens to be nearby:

A newly released Iran dashcam video captures the moment a huge strike targets a complex housing the provincial and cyber police force in Hamedan as a large plume of smoke engulfs the car.Date: 7 MarchLocation: 34.825355, 48.530862Strike: 34.824677, 48.529354@GeoConfirmed pic.twitter.com/ApWmh2lzws— Shayan Sardarizadeh (@Shayan86) March 16, 2026

A newly released Iran dashcam video captures the moment a huge strike targets a complex housing the provincial and cyber police force in Hamedan as a large plume of smoke engulfs the car.Date: 7 MarchLocation: 34.825355, 48.530862Strike: 34.824677, 48.529354@GeoConfirmed pic.twitter.com/ApWmh2lzws

Why did they target Larijani?

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour reports:

A source familiar with private plans & discussions tells me Ali Larijani was, for the US & Israel, the most favored transitional candidate as of Sept 2025, but became a target early Feb 2026. The source said Larijani became a target when he:• Pushed for crackdown on protesters; • Took front seat in lashing out at US/Israel; • Assumed key role in strategizing the IRGC kinetic actions, in particular against GCC states.

A source familiar with private plans & discussions tells me Ali Larijani was, for the US & Israel, the most favored transitional candidate as of Sept 2025, but became a target early Feb 2026.

The source said Larijani became a target when he:

• Pushed for crackdown on protesters;

• Took front seat in lashing out at US/Israel;

• Assumed key role in strategizing the IRGC kinetic actions, in particular against GCC states.

Tonight’s celebrations and potential protests in Iran

The New York Times’s Farnaz Fassihi points out tonight’s possible flashpoint, as it’s the night Iranians celebrate the ancient festival of Chaharshanbe Suri:

The news of Ali Larijani’s killing comes with Iran already on edge and anti-government protests are expected on Tuesday night. That is also the beginning of the Nowruz holiday celebrations, which normally involve people gathering in the streets and jumping over bonfires. Iran’s government has issued warnings to people, in text messages and on state television, to remain inside and not take to the streets, saying Israel’s agents were planning to turn the celebration into chaos and unrest.

The news of Ali Larijani’s killing comes with Iran already on edge and anti-government protests are expected on Tuesday night. That is also the beginning of the Nowruz holiday celebrations, which normally involve people gathering in the streets and jumping over bonfires. Iran’s government has issued warnings to people, in text messages and on state television, to remain inside and not take to the streets, saying Israel’s agents were planning to turn the celebration into chaos and unrest.

And Israel’s IDF is promoting how it has been striking the paramilitary Basij forces who typically crack down on protests.

'حمله به ایست بازرسی در خیابان پیروزی #تهران ساعت ۱۱:۳۰'فرستنده‌ای که ویدیوها رو با شرح بالا فرستاده نوشته: سه بسیجی [کشته] شدند.سه‌شنبه ۲۶ اسفند #Iran #Tehran pic.twitter.com/wSZo89qtAv— Vahid Online (@Vahid) March 17, 2026

'حمله به ایست بازرسی در خیابان پیروزی #تهران ساعت ۱۱:۳۰'فرستنده‌ای که ویدیوها رو با شرح بالا فرستاده نوشته: سه بسیجی [کشته] شدند.سه‌شنبه ۲۶ اسفند #Iran #Tehran pic.twitter.com/wSZo89qtAv

Rejected Trump says thanks, but no thanks

After days of seeking military support from other nations in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump is saying the United States actually doesn’t need their help defending the waterway, thank you very much. Here’s what he said on TruthSocial:

The United States has been informed by most of our NATO “Allies” that they don’t want to get involved with our Military Operation against the Terrorist Regime of Iran, in the Middle East, this, despite the fact that almost every Country strongly agreed with what we are doing, and that Iran cannot, in any way, shape, or form, be allowed to have a Nuclear Weapon. I am not surprised by their action, however, because I always considered NATO, where we spend Hundreds of Billions of Dollars per year protecting these same Countries, to be a one way street — We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us, in particular, in a time of need. Fortunately, we have decimated Iran’s Military — Their Navy is gone, their Air Force is gone, their Anti-Aircraft and Radar is gone and perhaps, most importantly, their Leaders, at virtually every level, are gone, never to threaten us, our Middle Eastern Allies, or the World, again! Because of the fact that we have had such Military Success, we no longer “need,” or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance — WE NEVER DID! Likewise, Japan, Australia, or South Korea. In fact, speaking as President of the United States of America, by far the Most Powerful Country Anywhere in the World, WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!

The United States has been informed by most of our NATO “Allies” that they don’t want to get involved with our Military Operation against the Terrorist Regime of Iran, in the Middle East, this, despite the fact that almost every Country strongly agreed with what we are doing, and that Iran cannot, in any way, shape, or form, be allowed to have a Nuclear Weapon. I am not surprised by their action, however, because I always considered NATO, where we spend Hundreds of Billions of Dollars per year protecting these same Countries, to be a one way street — We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us, in particular, in a time of need. Fortunately, we have decimated Iran’s Military — Their Navy is gone, their Air Force is gone, their Anti-Aircraft and Radar is gone and perhaps, most importantly, their Leaders, at virtually every level, are gone, never to threaten us, our Middle Eastern Allies, or the World, again! Because of the fact that we have had such Military Success, we no longer “need,” or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance — WE NEVER DID! Likewise, Japan, Australia, or South Korea. In fact, speaking as President of the United States of America, by far the Most Powerful Country Anywhere in the World, WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!

The drones (and the drone videos) are coming

Frightening how unready we are for these threats. https://t.co/4arIvknWym— Shashank Joshi (@shashj) March 17, 2026

Frightening how unready we are for these threats. https://t.co/4arIvknWym

Johnson says Joe Kent is wrong on Iran war

House Speaker Mike Johnson addressed Joe Kent’s resignation at a press conference Tuesday morning, casting doubt on the former counterterrorism official’s claim that there was no imminent threat from Iran that justified the United States’s involvement.

“I’m on the Gang of Eight. I got all the briefings. We all understood that there clearly was an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability and they were building missiles at a pace that no one in the region could keep up with,” Johnson said.

The speaker continued, “The commander-in-chief and his administration had a very difficult decision to make. I don’t know where Joe Kent is getting his information, but he wasn’t in those briefings clearly because the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and everyone, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Caine—they had exquisite intelligence and we understood that this was a serious moment for us.”

More on the risk of killing Larijani

Vali Nasr shakes his head:

Larijani’s replacement will be appointed by IRGC. With every assassination U.S. and Israel engineering greater radicalization of Iran’s leadership. It will makes for a bleak future for Iran, Iranians, the region and ultimately makes it far more difficult for U.S. to disentangle itself from endless conflict in the region.

Larijani’s replacement will be appointed by IRGC. With every assassination U.S. and Israel engineering greater radicalization of Iran’s leadership. It will makes for a bleak future for Iran, Iranians, the region and ultimately makes it far more difficult for U.S. to disentangle itself from endless conflict in the region.

INSS’s Danny Citrinowitz adds that “just because something is operationally feasible doesn’t mean it is strategically wise”:

Recent actions, from discussions around targeting Khamenei to the elimination of figures like Larijani may in practice be pushing the Iranian system toward greater radicalization. Some will argue that if the objective is regime change, there is no alternative but to remove key figures. That logic only holds if such actions actually lead to the regime’s collapse. If the system survives, however, and figures like Rezaei, Vahidi, or Abdollahi consolidate power, the likely outcome is not a more moderate Iran—but a harder, more militarized regime. In that scenario, Iran’s trajectory could begin to resemble a North Korea–style military dictatorship: more insular, more extreme, and more reliant on its strategic weapons capabilities. That is a risk that needs to be weighed carefully. Bottom line is that tactical successes can carry significant strategic costs. Without a credible pathway to political change, actions that remove relatively pragmatic actors may ultimately produce a more dangerous and less predictable adversary.

Recent actions, from discussions around targeting Khamenei to the elimination of figures like Larijani may in practice be pushing the Iranian system toward greater radicalization.

Some will argue that if the objective is regime change, there is no alternative but to remove key figures. That logic only holds if such actions actually lead to the regime’s collapse. If the system survives, however, and figures like Rezaei, Vahidi, or Abdollahi consolidate power, the likely outcome is not a more moderate Iran—but a harder, more militarized regime. In that scenario, Iran’s trajectory could begin to resemble a North Korea–style military dictatorship: more insular, more extreme, and more reliant on its strategic weapons capabilities. That is a risk that needs to be weighed carefully.

Bottom line is that tactical successes can carry significant strategic costs. Without a credible pathway to political change, actions that remove relatively pragmatic actors may ultimately produce a more dangerous and less predictable adversary.

And the New York Times’s Farnaz Fassihi reports that Larijani was in fact a moderate among the hardliners:

Larijani had opposed the succession of Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s supreme leader and had lobbied the council of clerics that elected him to consider changing their vote for a more moderate choice. Doing so would have been a way to signal to the Iranian public and foreign governments that Iran was changing direction from the hardline policies of the late Ayatollah Khamenei. Larijani’s death will likely embolden the hardline faction and the generals of the Revolutionary Guards who believe the regime’s survival requires doubling down on its tactics, rather than displaying any flexibility.

Larijani had opposed the succession of Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s supreme leader and had lobbied the council of clerics that elected him to consider changing their vote for a more moderate choice. Doing so would have been a way to signal to the Iranian public and foreign governments that Iran was changing direction from the hardline policies of the late Ayatollah Khamenei. Larijani’s death will likely embolden the hardline faction and the generals of the Revolutionary Guards who believe the regime’s survival requires doubling down on its tactics, rather than displaying any flexibility.

So that’s a ‘no’ right?

PARIS, March 17 (Reuters) - President Emmanuel Macron said France would never take part in operations to unblock the Strait of Hormuz, and that France was carrying on with work to prepare a coalition that could provide freedom of navigation once hostilities ended.— Idrees Ali (@idreesali114) March 17, 2026

PARIS, March 17 (Reuters) - President Emmanuel Macron said France would never take part in operations to unblock the Strait of Hormuz, and that France was carrying on with work to prepare a coalition that could provide freedom of navigation once hostilities ended.

Drone launches down, but not out

At War on the Rocks, Kelly A. Grieco observes that Iran launching fewer drones doesn’t mean it can’t launch more:

First, it could reflect tactical recalibration. Moscow is reportedly sharing with Tehran drone tactics developed in Ukraine, including coordinated routing strategies designed to evade air defenses, as well as overhead satellite imagery to improve targeting. Tehran could be using this time to learn, adapt, and refine its strategy and tactics.Second, Iran’s lower daily launch rates could reflect deliberate stockpiling for larger coordinated attacks later. Russian strikes in Ukraine have at times followed a similar pattern. Moscow has repeatedly accumulated ballistic missiles and drones before launching punishing attacks designed to saturate Ukrainian defenses and force the expenditures of interceptors faster than they can be replenished. If Iran is applying the same lesson, the decline in daily launches could reflect stockpiling rather than depletion.Third, operational priorities may also be shifting toward the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has warned ships not to transit the strait, saying that vessels “could be at risk from missiles or rogue drones.” These are not idle threats.  …Finally, Tehran may have simply concluded that a lower, sustained launch rate is sufficient to maintain coercive pressure on Gulf states while conserving inventory for a conflict that could last months. A strategy of attrition does not require maximum effort every day.

First, it could reflect tactical recalibration. Moscow is reportedly sharing with Tehran drone tactics developed in Ukraine, including coordinated routing strategies designed to evade air defenses, as well as overhead satellite imagery to improve targeting. Tehran could be using this time to learn, adapt, and refine its strategy and tactics.

Second, Iran’s lower daily launch rates could reflect deliberate stockpiling for larger coordinated attacks later. Russian strikes in Ukraine have at times followed a similar pattern. Moscow has repeatedly accumulated ballistic missiles and drones before launching punishing attacks designed to saturate Ukrainian defenses and force the expenditures of interceptors faster than they can be replenished. If Iran is applying the same lesson, the decline in daily launches could reflect stockpiling rather than depletion.

Third, operational priorities may also be shifting toward the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has warned ships not to transit the strait, saying that vessels “could be at risk from missiles or rogue drones.” These are not idle threats.  …

Finally, Tehran may have simply concluded that a lower, sustained launch rate is sufficient to maintain coercive pressure on Gulf states while conserving inventory for a conflict that could last months. A strategy of attrition does not require maximum effort every day.

Netanyahu releases video about killing Larijani

“This morning, we eliminated Ali Larijani,” Netanyahu said in the video, describing Larijani as “the boss of the Revolutionary Guards, that group of gangsters that effectively runs Iran.”

“Alongside him, we also eliminated the commander of the Basij – they are the gangsters’ assistants who are terrorizing the population in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities,” he continued.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, today:"This morning, we eliminated Ali Larijani. Ali Larijani is the boss of the Revolutionary Guards, that group of gangsters that effectively runs Iran. Full remarks >>https://t.co/JA31GReiEn pic.twitter.com/qs30854KtX— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) March 17, 2026

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, today:"This morning, we eliminated Ali Larijani. Ali Larijani is the boss of the Revolutionary Guards, that group of gangsters that effectively runs Iran. Full remarks >>https://t.co/JA31GReiEn pic.twitter.com/qs30854KtX

Netanyahu also revealed that he had spoken to President Trump yesterday, saying that Israel is “helping our American friends in the Gulf.”

“I spoke at length with President Trump on this matter yesterday. There is cooperation between our air forces and navies, between myself and President Trump and his staff. We will assist both through indirect attacks, which create immense pressure on the Iranian regime, and through direct actions,” he said. “There are many more surprises. ‘By stratagems, you shall make war.’ We will not reveal all the stratagems here, but as I told you, there are many.”

All four living presidents have denied talking to Trump about Iran

On Monday, President Trump made a curious claim, saying that his Iran war operations have gotten the vote of approval from an unnamed former president. “I spoke to one of the former presidents who I actually like. I actually speak to some. I do like some people, it’d be shocking. And he said, ‘I wish I did what you did,’” Trump said. “Other presidents, somebody should’ve done it. 47 years this went on.”

When pressed on which of the four living presidents he was referring to, Trump declined to say. But NBC News reports that sources close to former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden all deny such a conversation took place:

An aide for George W. Bush told NBC News that “they haven’t been in touch,” while an aide to Bill Clinton told NBC News that whoever Trump was referring to was not Clinton.An Obama aide said “no recent conversations” have taken place between Barack Obama and Trump, and a source familiar with the matter said the former president Trump was referring to was not Joe Biden.

An aide for George W. Bush told NBC News that “they haven’t been in touch,” while an aide to Bill Clinton told NBC News that whoever Trump was referring to was not Clinton.

An Obama aide said “no recent conversations” have taken place between Barack Obama and Trump, and a source familiar with the matter said the former president Trump was referring to was not Joe Biden.

You can watch videos of Trump’s wild comments yesterday here.

Last night’s tanker strike

Iranian forces struck a tanker in the Gulf of Oman tonight, the first successful attack east of the Strait of Hormuz in nearly 2 weeks. The tanker was anchored off the UAE's only operational oil export port outside of the Persian Gulf. pic.twitter.com/1IBEZhzZCB— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) March 17, 2026

Iranian forces struck a tanker in the Gulf of Oman tonight, the first successful attack east of the Strait of Hormuz in nearly 2 weeks. The tanker was anchored off the UAE's only operational oil export port outside of the Persian Gulf. pic.twitter.com/1IBEZhzZCB

What will Larijani’s death mean for the war, and for Iran?

Nothing good, SWP Berlin analyst Hamidreza Azizi writes. Larijani, a powerful longtime regime operator, was one of the only people who was best situated to interface between multiple spheres of the regime and the war:

If reports that Israel has killed Ali Larijani are confirmed, this would represent a significant loss for the Islamic Republic. Larijani was a true insider of the Islamic Republic who spent decades at the center of power and who understood how the system actually works. Figures with that level of experience and institutional background are relatively rare in Iran’s current political elite. One important aspect of his role was that he helped manage the political and strategic dimension of the ongoing war. In other words, beyond the military campaign itself, someone still has to shape the messaging, signal intentions, and communicate with external parties. Larijani was a figure capable of doing that while remaining fully trusted by the system. His death would therefore not cripple Iran’s decision-making structure, as the system is designed to absorb such losses. But it would remove one of the people who helped connect the political, diplomatic, and security sides of strategy. In wartime, that kind of coordination is particularly valuable. There is also a broader elite dimension. Larijani was one of the few figures who could navigate between different currents inside the system. Losing him could gradually narrow the circle of experienced political managers and shift influence further toward more military-oriented actors. In terms of the war itself, the immediate impact would likely be limited operationally. But politically it could harden attitudes inside Tehran and reinforce the narrative that the war is an existential struggle aimed at eliminating the entire leadership of the Islamic Republic. At the same time, Larijani was also among the type of insiders who could play a role in any future political settlement. Losing figures like him can make it more difficult to eventually manage negotiations or shape the political exit from the war. Overall, Larijani belonged to a very small group of insiders who knew how to manage both the war and the politics around it. Losing people like that makes the system more rigid, more security-driven, and ultimately less flexible in how it fights – or how it eventually ends – the war.

If reports that Israel has killed Ali Larijani are confirmed, this would represent a significant loss for the Islamic Republic. Larijani was a true insider of the Islamic Republic who spent decades at the center of power and who understood how the system actually works. Figures with that level of experience and institutional background are relatively rare in Iran’s current political elite.

One important aspect of his role was that he helped manage the political and strategic dimension of the ongoing war. In other words, beyond the military campaign itself, someone still has to shape the messaging, signal intentions, and communicate with external parties. Larijani was a figure capable of doing that while remaining fully trusted by the system.

His death would therefore not cripple Iran’s decision-making structure, as the system is designed to absorb such losses. But it would remove one of the people who helped connect the political, diplomatic, and security sides of strategy. In wartime, that kind of coordination is particularly valuable.

There is also a broader elite dimension. Larijani was one of the few figures who could navigate between different currents inside the system. Losing him could gradually narrow the circle of experienced political managers and shift influence further toward more military-oriented actors.

In terms of the war itself, the immediate impact would likely be limited operationally. But politically it could harden attitudes inside Tehran and reinforce the narrative that the war is an existential struggle aimed at eliminating the entire leadership of the Islamic Republic.

At the same time, Larijani was also among the type of insiders who could play a role in any future political settlement. Losing figures like him can make it more difficult to eventually manage negotiations or shape the political exit from the war.

Overall, Larijani belonged to a very small group of insiders who knew how to manage both the war and the politics around it. Losing people like that makes the system more rigid, more security-driven, and ultimately less flexible in how it fights – or how it eventually ends – the war.

National Counterterrorism Center director resigns, citing Trump’s Iran war

Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced that he is resigning from his position effective immediately. In a letter to President Trump, Kent said that while he supports the “values and the foreign policies” that Trump ran on throughout his political career, he cannot “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.”

“As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives,” Kent wrote.

After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today.I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this… pic.twitter.com/prtu86DpEr— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) March 17, 2026

After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today.I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this… pic.twitter.com/prtu86DpEr

Less than ideal conditions on the U.S. supercarrier Gerald Ford

The New York Times has new details about the fire that broke out in the U.S.S. Gerald Ford last week and took more than 30 hours to extinguish. The aircraft carrier is entering its 10th month of deployment after being redirected from its position in the Caribbean to help support ongoing operations in the Middle East:

The fire started in the ship’s main laundry area last Thursday. By the time it was over, more than 600 sailors and crew members had lost their beds and have since been bunking down on floors and tables, officials said.The U.S. military’s Central Command said two sailors received treatment for “non-life-threatening injuries.” People on the ship reported that dozens of service members suffered smoke inhalation. And in the category of non-life-threatening, but still not ideal, many sailors have not been able to do laundry since the fire.

The fire started in the ship’s main laundry area last Thursday. By the time it was over, more than 600 sailors and crew members had lost their beds and have since been bunking down on floors and tables, officials said.

The U.S. military’s Central Command said two sailors received treatment for “non-life-threatening injuries.” People on the ship reported that dozens of service members suffered smoke inhalation. And in the category of non-life-threatening, but still not ideal, many sailors have not been able to do laundry since the fire.

Israel announced on Tuesday that it had killed Iran’s top national security chief, Ali Larijani, and the head of of Iran’s Basij paramilitary force, Gholamreza Soleimani. Larijani’s death is a big deal, as the New York Times reports:

Mr. Larijani, 67, who Israel’s defense minister said on Tuesday was believed killed in an overnight strike, has in effect been running the country behind the scenes. Since Feb. 28, when Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and a number of other senior officials, were killed in U.S.-Israeli strikes, Mr. Larijani emerged as a defiant public voice of the Iranian government, regularly condemning the United States and Israel on social media.There has been no official comment so far from Iran on Israel’s claim that Mr. Larijani was killed.A trusted confidant of Ayatollah Khamenei, Mr. Larijani was among a group of officials whom the supreme leader tasked with devising a plan to ensure the Islamic Republic would survive if he were assassinated, according to senior Iranian officials and members of the royal guards.

Mr. Larijani, 67, who Israel’s defense minister said on Tuesday was believed killed in an overnight strike, has in effect been running the country behind the scenes. Since Feb. 28, when Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and a number of other senior officials, were killed in U.S.-Israeli strikes, Mr. Larijani emerged as a defiant public voice of the Iranian government, regularly condemning the United States and Israel on social media.

There has been no official comment so far from Iran on Israel’s claim that Mr. Larijani was killed.

A trusted confidant of Ayatollah Khamenei, Mr. Larijani was among a group of officials whom the supreme leader tasked with devising a plan to ensure the Islamic Republic would survive if he were assassinated, according to senior Iranian officials and members of the royal guards.

U.S. embassy in Baghdad targeted by drones, rockets again overnight

When the C-RAM at the U.S. Embassy intercepts a drone attack and stops a local football match. ⚽🚨 pic.twitter.com/WDzDuSX8f6— Mustafa Salim (@Mustafa_salimb) March 16, 2026

When the C-RAM at the U.S. Embassy intercepts a drone attack and stops a local football match. ⚽🚨 pic.twitter.com/WDzDuSX8f6

The U.S. embassy in Baghdad was targeted by a minimum of five drones as well as rockets early Tuesday morning. Reuters has more:

A Reuters witness saw at least three drones ⁠heading in the direction of the embassy. The ​C-RAM air defence system shot down two of them ​while a third struck inside the embassy compound, from which fire and smoke could be seen rising, the witness said.An ​explosion was heard in the Iraqi capital, another ​Reuters witness said.U.S. embassy mobile phones were switched off when Reuters ‌called ⁠seeking comment.

A Reuters witness saw at least three drones ⁠heading in the direction of the embassy. The ​C-RAM air defence system shot down two of them ​while a third struck inside the embassy compound, from which fire and smoke could be seen rising, the witness said.

An ​explosion was heard in the Iraqi capital, another ​Reuters witness said.

U.S. embassy mobile phones were switched off when Reuters ‌called ⁠seeking comment.

US 🇺🇸 C-RAM system intercepts projectile launched at the US embassy in Baghdad, Iraq 🇮🇶, by Iran 🇮🇷-backed militias pic.twitter.com/qVGuewyLzU— Aleph א (@no_itsmyturn) March 16, 2026

US 🇺🇸 C-RAM system intercepts projectile launched at the US embassy in Baghdad, Iraq 🇮🇶, by Iran 🇮🇷-backed militias pic.twitter.com/qVGuewyLzU

European foreign ministers have rebuffed Trump

Over the weekend, President Trump has upped the pressure on European nations, demanding that they provide military support in the Strait of Hormuz in order to keep the key shipping route open amid threats from Iran and suggesting that noncompliance would be “very bad for the future of NATO” in an interview with Financial Times.

But European leaders don’t appear keen on rushing to aid the United States overseas. Politico has more from a recent gathering of European Union foreign ministers:

Among the ideas floated was expanding the mandate of the EU’s naval mission — Aspides — to allow European warships to be sent to patrol the strait between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.But after hours of closed-door talks about the war in Iran, Europe’s foreign envoys made clear they see this as America’s problem to solve.“Europe has no interest in an open-ended war,” EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas said Monday evening after the meeting. “This is not Europe’s war, but Europe’s interests are directly at stake.”Although there was a “clear wish” among ministers “to strengthen” the EU’s naval mission in the Middle East, “there was no appetite in changing the mandate,” Kallas said, referring to sending warships to the strait.“Extending this mandate to cover the Strait of Hormuz … there was no appetite from the member states to do that,” she repeated. “Nobody wants to go actively in this war.”

Among the ideas floated was expanding the mandate of the EU’s naval mission — Aspides — to allow European warships to be sent to patrol the strait between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

But after hours of closed-door talks about the war in Iran, Europe’s foreign envoys made clear they see this as America’s problem to solve.

“Europe has no interest in an open-ended war,” EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas said Monday evening after the meeting. “This is not Europe’s war, but Europe’s interests are directly at stake.”

Although there was a “clear wish” among ministers “to strengthen” the EU’s naval mission in the Middle East, “there was no appetite in changing the mandate,” Kallas said, referring to sending warships to the strait.

“Extending this mandate to cover the Strait of Hormuz … there was no appetite from the member states to do that,” she repeated. “Nobody wants to go actively in this war.”

Sign Up for the Intelligencer Newsletter

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

© Daily Intelligencer