By James Johnson

The US government, long a proponent of advancing technology for military purposes, sees artificial intelligence as key to the next generation of fighting tools.

Several recent investments and Pentagon initiatives show that military leaders are concerned about keeping up with – and ahead of – China and Russia, two countries that have made big gains in developing artificial-intelligence systems. AI-powered weapons include target recognition systems, weapons guided by AI, and cyberattack and cyberdefense software that runs without human intervention.

The US defence community is coming to understand that AI will significantly transform, if not completely reinvent, the world’s military power balance. The concern is more than the military. As Chinese and Russian technologies become more sophisticated, they threaten US domination of technological innovation and development, as well as global economic power and influence.

Military leaders see the threat to US technological leadership coming from two main sources: A&nbsp;rising and ambitious China and a mischievous and declining Russia. Taken together, these forces challenge global stability.

The nature of the threat

A 2018 Pentagon report noted that technological developments could change the types of threats facing the US, which might include space-based weapons, long-range ballistic missiles and cyberweapons.

A February 2019 analysis warned that China’s investments in its military’s AI systems – in particular, those supporting robotics, autonomy, precision munitions and cyber warfare – threaten to overtake the United States. Chinese government agencies are working closely with the country’s civilian businesses to keep on top of fast-changing technological developments.

In addition, some Chinese and Russian projects have developed military AI systems specifically aimed at what they perceive as US technological weaknesses. For instance, swarms of armed AI-enhanced drones might locate and attack the secure computer systems countries rely on to control and launch their nuclear weapons.

Pentagon’s response

So far the Pentagon’s actions have been largely bureaucratic, rather than concrete. It has released a Defense Department-wide strategy document that articulates broad principles for the development and use of AI in future warfare. The military has established a Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, which is tasked with accelerating the delivery and adoption of AI.

But projects with names like “the Third Offset,” “Project Maven” and the “AI Next Campaign” have minimal funding. Leaders have released few details about what they will actually do.

Working with Silicon Valley

The Pentagon has also established the Defense Innovation Unit, with permission to circumvent the cumbersome military purchasing process, to coordinate with Silicon Valley and bring new technologies into military use relatively quickly.

That unit has sparked discussions about the potential for the Chinese military to acquire and use US-designed technologies, which led to the US&nbsp;bans on doing business with many Chinese technology firms.

Many experts consider it possible for China to surpass the US&nbsp;in the development and use of AI. However, China trails the US in several ways. The United States has the world’s largest intelligence budget; the most popular hardware, software and technology companies; and the most advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, both offensive and defensive. I and other experts expect these advantages to preserve US&nbsp;technological leadership for now, at least – but perhaps not forever.

(James Johnson is Postdoctoral Fellow in Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-the-us-losing-the-artificial-intelligence-arms-race-124969">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

By James Johnson The US government, long a proponent of advancing technology for military purposes, sees artificial intelligence as key to the next generation of fighting tools.

By James Johnson The US government, long a proponent of advancing technology for military purposes, sees artificial intelligence as key to the next generation of fighting tools. Several recent investments and Pentagon initiatives show that military leaders are concerned about keeping up with – and ahead of – China and Russia, two countries that have made big gains in developing artificial-intelligence systems. AI-powered weapons include target recognition systems, weapons guided by AI, and cyberattack and cyberdefense software that runs without human intervention. The US defence community is coming to understand that AI will significantly transform, if not completely reinvent, the world’s military power balance. The concern is more than the military. As Chinese and Russian technologies become more sophisticated, they threaten US domination of technological innovation and development, as well as global economic power and influence. Military leaders see the threat to US technological leadership coming from two main sources: A rising and ambitious China and a mischievous and declining Russia. Taken together, these forces challenge global stability. The nature of the threat A 2018 Pentagon report noted that technological developments could change the types of threats facing the US, which might include space-based weapons, long-range ballistic missiles and cyberweapons. A February 2019 analysis warned that China’s investments in its military’s AI systems – in particular, those supporting robotics, autonomy, precision munitions and cyber warfare – threaten to overtake the United States. Chinese government agencies are working closely with the country’s civilian businesses to keep on top of fast-changing technological developments. In addition, some Chinese and Russian projects have developed military AI systems specifically aimed at what they perceive as US technological weaknesses. For instance, swarms of armed AI-enhanced drones might locate and attack the secure computer systems countries rely on to control and launch their nuclear weapons. Pentagon’s response So far the Pentagon’s actions have been largely bureaucratic, rather than concrete. It has released a Defense Department-wide strategy document that articulates broad principles for the development and use of AI in future warfare. The military has established a Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, which is tasked with accelerating the delivery and adoption of AI. But projects with names like “the Third Offset,” “Project Maven” and the “AI Next Campaign” have minimal funding. Leaders have released few details about what they will actually do. Working with Silicon Valley The Pentagon has also established the Defense Innovation Unit, with permission to circumvent the cumbersome military purchasing process, to coordinate with Silicon Valley and bring new technologies into military use relatively quickly. That unit has sparked discussions about the potential for the Chinese military to acquire and use US-designed technologies, which led to the US bans on doing business with many Chinese technology firms. Many experts consider it possible for China to surpass the US in the development and use of AI. However, China trails the US in several ways. The United States has the world’s largest intelligence budget; the most popular hardware, software and technology companies; and the most advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, both offensive and defensive. I and other experts expect these advantages to preserve US technological leadership for now, at least – but perhaps not forever. (James Johnson is Postdoctoral Fellow in Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Is the US losing the artificial intelligence arms race?

Microsoft Corporation&nbsp;has won the Pentagon's $10 billion cloud computing contract, the Defense Department said on Friday, beating out favourite Amazon.com Inc.

The contracting process had long been mired in conflict of interest allegations, even drawing the attention of President Donald Trump, who has publicly taken swipes at Amazon and its founder Jeff Bezos. Trump in August said his administration was reviewing Amazon's bid after complaints from other companies.

The Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure Cloud (JEDI) contract is part of a broader digital modernization of the Pentagon meant to make it more technologically agile. Specifically, a goal of JEDI is to give the military better access to data and the cloud from battlefields and other remote locations.

Oracle Corp&nbsp;had expressed concerns about the award process for the contract, including the role of a former Amazon employee who worked on the project at the Defense Department but recused himself, then later left the Defense Department and returned to Amazon Web Services.

In a statement, an Amazon Web Services (AWS) spokesman said the company was "surprised about this conclusion."

The company said that a "detailed assessment purely on the comparative offerings" would "clearly lead to a different conclusion," according to the statement.

AWS is considering options for protesting the award, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Although the Pentagon boasts the world's most potent fighting force, its information technology remains woefully inadequate, according to many officials.

Officials have complained of having outdated computer systems and being unable to access files or share information as quickly as they might be able to in the private sector.

"If I am a warfighter, I want as much data as you could possibly give me," Lieutenant General Jack Shanahan, the director of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, told reporters in August describing the importance of the contract.

Some companies were concerned that a single award would give the winner an unfair advantage in follow-on work. The Pentagon has said it planned to award future cloud deals to multiple contractors.

This week, US&nbsp;Defense Secretary Mark Esper removed himself from reviewing the deal due to his adult son's employment with one of the original contract applicants, IBM Corp. IBM had previously bid for the contract but had already been eliminated from the competition.

Microsoft said it was working on a comment. IBM and Oracle did not immediately return requests for comment.

In a book slated for publication October&nbsp;29, retired Navy commander Guy Snodgrass, who served as a speechwriter to former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, said Trump called Mattis and directed him to "screw Amazon" by preventing it from bidding on the JEDI contract, according to an excerpt of the book seen by Reuters ahead of its release.

"We’re not going to do that," Mattis later told other Pentagon officials, according to the excerpt. "This will be done by the book, both legally and ethically."

Snodgrass declined to comment pending the release of his book.

In a statement announcing Microsoft as the winner, the Pentagon underscored its view that the competition was conducted fairly and legally.

"All (offers) were treated fairly and evaluated consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Prior to the award, the department conferred with the DOD Inspector General, which informed the decision to proceed," it said.

Microsoft shares were up 3 per cent&nbsp;to $144.98 in after-hours trading after the news. Amazon shares were down 0.92 per cent&nbsp;to $1,745.12.

The Pentagon said it had awarded more than $11 billion across 10 separate cloud contracts over the past two years.

"As we continue to execute the DOD Cloud Strategy, additional contracts are planned for both cloud services and complimentary migration and integration solutions necessary to achieve effective cloud adoption," the Pentagon said.

Microsoft Corporation has won the Pentagon's $10 billion cloud computing contract, the Defense Department said on Friday, beating out favourite Amazon.com Inc. The contracting process had long been mired in conflict of interest allegations, even drawing the attention of President Donald Trump, who has publicly taken swipes at Amazon and its founder Jeff Bezos.

Microsoft Corporation has won the Pentagon's $10 billion cloud computing contract, the Defense Department said on Friday, beating out favourite Amazon.com Inc. The contracting process had long been mired in conflict of interest allegations, even drawing the attention of President Donald Trump, who has publicly taken swipes at Amazon and its founder Jeff Bezos. Trump in August said his administration was reviewing Amazon's bid after complaints from other companies. The Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure Cloud (JEDI) contract is part of a broader digital modernization of the Pentagon meant to make it more technologically agile. Specifically, a goal of JEDI is to give the military better access to data and the cloud from battlefields and other remote locations. Oracle Corp had expressed concerns about the award process for the contract, including the role of a former Amazon employee who worked on the project at the Defense Department but recused himself, then later left the Defense Department and returned to Amazon Web Services. In a statement, an Amazon Web Services (AWS) spokesman said the company was "surprised about this conclusion." The company said that a "detailed assessment purely on the comparative offerings" would "clearly lead to a different conclusion," according to the statement. AWS is considering options for protesting the award, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters. Although the Pentagon boasts the world's most potent fighting force, its information technology remains woefully inadequate, according to many officials. Officials have complained of having outdated computer systems and being unable to access files or share information as quickly as they might be able to in the private sector. "If I am a warfighter, I want as much data as you could possibly give me," Lieutenant General Jack Shanahan, the director of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, told reporters in August describing the importance of the contract. Some companies were concerned that a single award would give the winner an unfair advantage in follow-on work. The Pentagon has said it planned to award future cloud deals to multiple contractors. This week, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper removed himself from reviewing the deal due to his adult son's employment with one of the original contract applicants, IBM Corp. IBM had previously bid for the contract but had already been eliminated from the competition. Microsoft said it was working on a comment. IBM and Oracle did not immediately return requests for comment. In a book slated for publication October 29, retired Navy commander Guy Snodgrass, who served as a speechwriter to former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, said Trump called Mattis and directed him to "screw Amazon" by preventing it from bidding on the JEDI contract, according to an excerpt of the book seen by Reuters ahead of its release. "We’re not going to do that," Mattis later told other Pentagon officials, according to the excerpt. "This will be done by the book, both legally and ethically." Snodgrass declined to comment pending the release of his book. In a statement announcing Microsoft as the winner, the Pentagon underscored its view that the competition was conducted fairly and legally. "All (offers) were treated fairly and evaluated consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Prior to the award, the department conferred with the DOD Inspector General, which informed the decision to proceed," it said. Microsoft shares were up 3 per cent to $144.98 in after-hours trading after the news. Amazon shares were down 0.92 per cent to $1,745.12. The Pentagon said it had awarded more than $11 billion across 10 separate cloud contracts over the past two years. "As we continue to execute the DOD Cloud Strategy, additional contracts are planned for both cloud services and complimentary migration and integration solutions necessary to achieve effective cloud adoption," the Pentagon said.

Microsoft beats Amazon for Pentagon's $10 billion cloud computing contract

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-heading-in-wrong-direction-with-syria-incursion-us-defence-secretary-mark-esper-257941">United States&nbsp;Defence Secretary Mark Esper</a> is expected to focus on Turkey's recent offensive into northeastern Syria and the future of the fight against Islamic State when he meets with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) partners in Brussels this week, but he has limited options in dealing with either issue.

Earlier this month, US&nbsp;President Donald Trump announced that he&nbsp;would be withdrawing their&nbsp;troops from northeastern Syria, clearing the way for Turkish troops to launch an offensive against Kurdish fighters in the area.

Since then, Trump has said he will keep a small number of troops in parts of northeastern Syria where there is oil. Russian military police started deploying on Syria's border with Turkey on Wednesday under a deal with Ankara to drive Kurdish fighters from the region.

Last week, Esper said he would press NATO allies "to take collective and individual diplomatic and economic measures in response" to Turkey's incursion into northeastern Syria, even as critics have pointed out that Trump's decision enabled the Turkish offensive.

In a speech on Thursday in Brussels before the NATO meeting, Esper is expected to call out Turkey's actions.

According to prepared remarks, Esper will say Turkey's actions jeopardise the progress made in Syria.

Statements by the Pentagon criticising Turkey in the past month have had little impact on Ankara.

Rachel Rizzo, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security think-tank, said Esper has few options to punish NATO member Turkey at NATO.

"As far as NATO-level punishment, I don't see really what is possible," Rizzo said.

She said Trump's initial decision to pull out of northeast Syria was seen in Europe as enabling Turkey to carry out the incursion and the latest sign that they could not rely on the Trump administration.

A number of European countries have suspended weapons sales to Turkey.

French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday decried NATO's inability to react to what he called Turkey's "crazy" offensive and said it was time Europe stopped acting like a junior ally when it came to the Middle East.

Germany's defence minister has told lawmakers she wants to get the U.N. Security Council to approve a safe zone in northern Syria.

Trump has defended his decision to move most troops out of Syria. He said on Wednesday that the ceasefire in northern Syria is now permanent and lifted sanctions on Turkey as a result. 
 
Future of ISIS fight

The American pullout from northeastern Syria has raised concern that it could allow a resurgence of Islamic State militants.

Esper is expected to meet with counterparts from Germany, France and Britain to discuss how the fight against Islamic State militants can continue and what it would look like, a senior US&nbsp;defence official said.

Many US&nbsp;lawmakers, both Democrats and Trump's fellow Republicans, have expressed dismay over Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria, clearing the way for Turkish troops to battle Kurdish forces who for years helped US&nbsp;troops fight Islamic State militants, taking the brunt of the casualties.

The fate of Islamic State militants in Syrian Kurdish prisons remains up in the air.

A senior Trump administration official said while most ISIS (Islamic State) fighters remained under lock and key, it appeared that a small number had escaped from prisons.

United States Defence Secretary Mark Esper is expected to focus on Turkey's recent offensive into northeastern Syria and the future of the fight against Islamic State when he meets with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) partners in Brussels this week, but he has limited options in dealing with either issue.

United States Defence Secretary Mark Esper is expected to focus on Turkey's recent offensive into northeastern Syria and the future of the fight against Islamic State when he meets with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) partners in Brussels this week, but he has limited options in dealing with either issue. Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump announced that he would be withdrawing their troops from northeastern Syria, clearing the way for Turkish troops to launch an offensive against Kurdish fighters in the area. Since then, Trump has said he will keep a small number of troops in parts of northeastern Syria where there is oil. Russian military police started deploying on Syria's border with Turkey on Wednesday under a deal with Ankara to drive Kurdish fighters from the region. Last week, Esper said he would press NATO allies "to take collective and individual diplomatic and economic measures in response" to Turkey's incursion into northeastern Syria, even as critics have pointed out that Trump's decision enabled the Turkish offensive. In a speech on Thursday in Brussels before the NATO meeting, Esper is expected to call out Turkey's actions. According to prepared remarks, Esper will say Turkey's actions jeopardise the progress made in Syria. Statements by the Pentagon criticising Turkey in the past month have had little impact on Ankara. Rachel Rizzo, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security think-tank, said Esper has few options to punish NATO member Turkey at NATO. "As far as NATO-level punishment, I don't see really what is possible," Rizzo said. She said Trump's initial decision to pull out of northeast Syria was seen in Europe as enabling Turkey to carry out the incursion and the latest sign that they could not rely on the Trump administration. A number of European countries have suspended weapons sales to Turkey. French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday decried NATO's inability to react to what he called Turkey's "crazy" offensive and said it was time Europe stopped acting like a junior ally when it came to the Middle East. Germany's defence minister has told lawmakers she wants to get the U.N. Security Council to approve a safe zone in northern Syria. Trump has defended his decision to move most troops out of Syria. He said on Wednesday that the ceasefire in northern Syria is now permanent and lifted sanctions on Turkey as a result. Future of ISIS fight The American pullout from northeastern Syria has raised concern that it could allow a resurgence of Islamic State militants. Esper is expected to meet with counterparts from Germany, France and Britain to discuss how the fight against Islamic State militants can continue and what it would look like, a senior US defence official said. Many US lawmakers, both Democrats and Trump's fellow Republicans, have expressed dismay over Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria, clearing the way for Turkish troops to battle Kurdish forces who for years helped US troops fight Islamic State militants, taking the brunt of the casualties. The fate of Islamic State militants in Syrian Kurdish prisons remains up in the air. A senior Trump administration official said while most ISIS (Islamic State) fighters remained under lock and key, it appeared that a small number had escaped from prisons.

Pentagon chief looks to focus on Turkey, Syria at NATO but has few good options

US&nbsp;forces that crossed into Iraq as part of a<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hope-to-find-answers-to-all-complicated-questions-putin-after-meeting-erdogan-in-sochi-257563"> pullout from Syria </a>do not have permission to stay and can only be there in transit, the Iraqi military said on Tuesday.

US&nbsp;Defense Secretary Mark Esper said, however, that Washington aimed eventually to bring the troops withdrawing from Syria back to the United States.

The Iraqi military statement contradicted the Pentagon's announcement that all of the nearly 1,000 troops withdrawing from northern Syria are expected to move to western Iraq to continue the campaign against Islamic State militants and "to help defend Iraq".

"All US&nbsp;forces that withdrew from Syria received approval to enter the Kurdistan Region so that they may be transported outside Iraq. There is no permission granted for these forces to stay inside Iraq," the Iraqi military said.

Esper said Washington's objective was for the troops not to remain in Iraq.

"The aim isn't to stay in Iraq interminably, the aim is to pull our soldiers out and eventually get them back home," Esper said at the Prince Sultan Air Base near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Esper said the details had not yet been worked out on how long the US&nbsp;troops would stay in Iraq and he would be having discussions with his Iraqi counterpart on Wednesday.

It is unclear whether the US troops will use Iraq as a base to launch ground raids into Syria and carry out air strikes against Islamic State militants.

The additional US&nbsp;troops would add to the more than 5,000 American troops already based in the country, training Iraqi forces and helping to ensure that Islamic State militants do not make a comeback.

"Not&nbsp;a mercenary&nbsp;force"

Esper, speaking in front of a Patriot missile battery where he was meeting US&nbsp;troops, said Saudi Arabia had agreed to help underwrite the deployment to the kingdom. He did not provide details on what specifically Saudi Arabia had agreed to pay for.

The United States has deployed thousands of additional military forces in recent months to bolster Saudi defences, including an air expeditionary wing and air defence personnel.

That includes radar systems, Patriot missiles and support personnel to bolster Saudi Arabia’s defenses after the largest-ever attack on the kingdom’s oil facilities on Sept. 14.

Some experts have criticized President Donald Trump's administration for saying that Saudi Arabia will pay for the deployment of US&nbsp;troops to the Kingdom, suggesting it makes the US&nbsp;military a mercenary force.

Trump has repeatedly said that Saudi Arabia would pay for the recent US&nbsp;deployments.

"We are not a mercenary force," Esper said.

"Mercenary forces do things for the pay, we are doing this (to).. help defend our allies, second to deter Iran so we don't have increasingly bad behavior, and third defend the international rules-based order," he added.

US forces that crossed into Iraq as part of a pullout from Syria do not have permission to stay and can only be there in transit, the Iraqi military said on Tuesday.

US forces that crossed into Iraq as part of a pullout from Syria do not have permission to stay and can only be there in transit, the Iraqi military said on Tuesday. US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said, however, that Washington aimed eventually to bring the troops withdrawing from Syria back to the United States. The Iraqi military statement contradicted the Pentagon's announcement that all of the nearly 1,000 troops withdrawing from northern Syria are expected to move to western Iraq to continue the campaign against Islamic State militants and "to help defend Iraq". "All US forces that withdrew from Syria received approval to enter the Kurdistan Region so that they may be transported outside Iraq. There is no permission granted for these forces to stay inside Iraq," the Iraqi military said. Esper said Washington's objective was for the troops not to remain in Iraq. "The aim isn't to stay in Iraq interminably, the aim is to pull our soldiers out and eventually get them back home," Esper said at the Prince Sultan Air Base near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Esper said the details had not yet been worked out on how long the US troops would stay in Iraq and he would be having discussions with his Iraqi counterpart on Wednesday. It is unclear whether the US troops will use Iraq as a base to launch ground raids into Syria and carry out air strikes against Islamic State militants. The additional US troops would add to the more than 5,000 American troops already based in the country, training Iraqi forces and helping to ensure that Islamic State militants do not make a comeback. "Not a mercenary force" Esper, speaking in front of a Patriot missile battery where he was meeting US troops, said Saudi Arabia had agreed to help underwrite the deployment to the kingdom. He did not provide details on what specifically Saudi Arabia had agreed to pay for. The United States has deployed thousands of additional military forces in recent months to bolster Saudi defences, including an air expeditionary wing and air defence personnel. That includes radar systems, Patriot missiles and support personnel to bolster Saudi Arabia’s defenses after the largest-ever attack on the kingdom’s oil facilities on Sept. 14. Some experts have criticized President Donald Trump's administration for saying that Saudi Arabia will pay for the deployment of US troops to the Kingdom, suggesting it makes the US military a mercenary force. Trump has repeatedly said that Saudi Arabia would pay for the recent US deployments. "We are not a mercenary force," Esper said. "Mercenary forces do things for the pay, we are doing this (to).. help defend our allies, second to deter Iran so we don't have increasingly bad behavior, and third defend the international rules-based order," he added.

US forces withdrawing from Syria have no approval to stay: Iraq

The Pentagon is considering keeping some US troops near oilfields in northeastern Syria alongside Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to help deny oil to Islamic State militants, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Monday.

The Pentagon is considering keeping some US troops near oilfields in northeastern Syria alongside Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to help deny oil to Islamic State militants, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Monday. US troops are crossing into Iraq as part of a broader withdrawal from Syria ordered by President Donald Trump, a decision that allowed Turkey to launch an offensive against the SDF which for years was a US ally battling Islamic State. More than 100 vehicles crossed the border into Iraq early on Monday from the northeast tip of Syria, where Turkey agreed to pause its offensive for five days under a deal with Washington. The truce expires late on Tuesday, just after Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan is set to discuss next steps in the region at a meeting in Russia with President Vladimir Putin. Speaking to reporters during a trip to Afghanistan, Esper said that, while the US withdrawal was under way, some troops were still with partner forces near oilfields and there had been discussions about keeping some of them there. He said that was one option and no decision had been made "with regard to numbers or anything like that". The Pentagon's job was to look at different options, he added. "We presently have troops in a couple of cities that (are) located right near that area," Esper said. "The purpose is to deny access, specifically revenue to ISIS (Islamic State) and any other groups that may want to seek that revenue to enable their own malign activities." Trump's shift has opened a new chapter in Syria's more than eight-year war and prompted a rush by Turkey and by the Damascus government and its ally Russia to fill the vacuum left by the Americans. His decision has been criticised in Washington and elsewhere as a betrayal of Kurdish allies who had fought for years alongside U.S. troops in a region rich in oil reserves and farmland. The New York Times reported late on Sunday that Trump was now leaning in favour of a new military plan to keep about 200 U.S. troops in eastern Syria near the Iraq border. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "Necessary steps" Turkey is seeking to set up a "safe zone" as a buffer against the YPG militia, the main component of the SDF. Ankara sees the YPG as a terrorist group due to its links to Kurdish insurgents in southeast Turkey. Erdogan has said Ankara will resume its assault in Syria when the deadline expires on Tuesday if the SDF has not pulled back from its proposed zone, which spans much of the border. "We will take up this process with Mr Putin and after that we will take the necessary steps" in northeastern Syria, Erdogan told a forum in Istanbul hosted by broadcaster TRT World on Monday, without elaborating. Erdogan has also said Turkey will set up a dozen observation posts in the "safe zone", prompting criticism from Iran. "We are against Ankara's establishing of military posts in Syria," Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi told a weekly news conference on Monday broadcast live on state TV. "The issues should be resolved by diplomatic means ... Syria's integrity should be respected," said Mousavi, whose country is a staunch ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

US mulls leaving some troops in Syria to guard oil: Pentagon

US&nbsp;Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Saturday (October 19) that all of the nearly 1,000 <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-troops-in-northern-syria-ordered-to-leave-country-us-official-255927">troops withdrawing from northern Syria</a> are expected to move to western Iraq to continue the campaign against Islamic State militants and "to help defend Iraq."

"Certainly (to) be discussed at a military level is what does the next phase of the counter ISIS campaign look like," Esper told reporters en route to the Middle East.

It is unclear whether the US&nbsp;troops will use Iraq as a base to launch ground raids into Syria and carry out airstrikes against Islamic State militants.

The Pentagon has begun removing all its troops in northern Syria, a US official said Monday, after President Donald Trump ordered them to leave in the face of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/turkey-threatens-to-crush-kurds-in-case-they-fail-to-withdraw-before-tuesday-257002">Turkey's attacks on Kurds in the area</a>.

Nearly 1,000 troops will vacate the country, leaving behind only a small contingent of 150 in the southern Syria base at Al Tanf, the official said.

"We are executing the order," the official told AFP.

Last Sunday Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Trump had ordered the withdrawal of the remaining troops deployed in northern Syria, with the US seeking to avoid getting caught between two allies.

But Esper did not make clear whether the troops would simply pull back to a position further south or quit the country completely.

Trump's critics accuse him of abandoning the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, who Ankara says support Kurdish rebels inside Turkey.

US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Saturday (October 19) that all of the nearly 1,000 troops withdrawing from northern Syria are expected to move to western Iraq to continue the campaign against Islamic State militants and "to help defend Iraq.

US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Saturday (October 19) that all of the nearly 1,000 troops withdrawing from northern Syria are expected to move to western Iraq to continue the campaign against Islamic State militants and "to help defend Iraq." "Certainly (to) be discussed at a military level is what does the next phase of the counter ISIS campaign look like," Esper told reporters en route to the Middle East. It is unclear whether the US troops will use Iraq as a base to launch ground raids into Syria and carry out airstrikes against Islamic State militants. The Pentagon has begun removing all its troops in northern Syria, a US official said Monday, after President Donald Trump ordered them to leave in the face of Turkey's attacks on Kurds in the area. Nearly 1,000 troops will vacate the country, leaving behind only a small contingent of 150 in the southern Syria base at Al Tanf, the official said. "We are executing the order," the official told AFP. Last Sunday Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Trump had ordered the withdrawal of the remaining troops deployed in northern Syria, with the US seeking to avoid getting caught between two allies. But Esper did not make clear whether the troops would simply pull back to a position further south or quit the country completely. Trump's critics accuse him of abandoning the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, who Ankara says support Kurdish rebels inside Turkey.

All United States troops withdrawing from Syria expected to go to Iraq: Pentagon chief

The senior United States&nbsp;defence official for Asia said on Tuesday the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/firmly-oppose-us-house-of-representatives-insistence-on-passing-hong-kong-democracy-act-china-256179">US wants China</a> to improve its enforcement of sanctions on North Korea and take other steps to press Pyongyang to be more constructive in talks with the United States.

Randall Schriver, the US&nbsp;assistant secretary of defence for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs, told a Washington conference there had been some slippage in sanctions enforcement by China, particularly when it came to controlling ship-to-ship transfers of banned goods in its waters.

"We want them to do better," Schriver said.

"At a minimum, sanctions enforcement, but I think there are other ways China could help pressure Pyongyang into being a more constructive participant in the talks, should they resume, and we are just not seeing this right now."

Schriver, who spoke at an event organised by the Jamestown Foundation, was referring to efforts by the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-sees-no-difference-with-us-on-trade-deal-256089">United States to revive talks</a> aimed at persuading North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons.

Responding to Schriver's comments, China's foreign ministry said on Wednesday it has always fulfilled its duty pertaining to resolutions on North Korea from the U.N. Security Council.

"China has been persistent in earnestly carrying out its duty in the resolutions related to North Korea. The concerned countries should all also completely carry out (the Security Council's) aforementioned resolutions," said Geng Shuang, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, at a daily press briefing.

"The Korean Peninsula's denuclearisation discussion is at a critical moment. We hope that all the concerned sides will continue to uphold the hard-earned ease in tensions and momentum in dialogue, (and) equitably push for progress in a political solution," he said.

Earlier this month, the United States and North Korea held their first working-level talks since a failed summit in February between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but the North Koreans accused the US&nbsp;side of inflexibility and have yet to say if they will attend another round.

China is North Korea's neighbour and main ally. It is a signatory to tough U.N. sanctions on Pyongyang over its past nuclear and missile testing but has urged the United States to adopt an approach more conducive to dialogue and suggested that sanctions relief be considered.

The senior United States defence official for Asia said on Tuesday the US wants China to improve its enforcement of sanctions on North Korea and take other steps to press Pyongyang to be more constructive in talks with the United States.

The senior United States defence official for Asia said on Tuesday the US wants China to improve its enforcement of sanctions on North Korea and take other steps to press Pyongyang to be more constructive in talks with the United States. Randall Schriver, the US assistant secretary of defence for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs, told a Washington conference there had been some slippage in sanctions enforcement by China, particularly when it came to controlling ship-to-ship transfers of banned goods in its waters. "We want them to do better," Schriver said. "At a minimum, sanctions enforcement, but I think there are other ways China could help pressure Pyongyang into being a more constructive participant in the talks, should they resume, and we are just not seeing this right now." Schriver, who spoke at an event organised by the Jamestown Foundation, was referring to efforts by the United States to revive talks aimed at persuading North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons. Responding to Schriver's comments, China's foreign ministry said on Wednesday it has always fulfilled its duty pertaining to resolutions on North Korea from the U.N. Security Council. "China has been persistent in earnestly carrying out its duty in the resolutions related to North Korea. The concerned countries should all also completely carry out (the Security Council's) aforementioned resolutions," said Geng Shuang, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, at a daily press briefing. "The Korean Peninsula's denuclearisation discussion is at a critical moment. We hope that all the concerned sides will continue to uphold the hard-earned ease in tensions and momentum in dialogue, (and) equitably push for progress in a political solution," he said. Earlier this month, the United States and North Korea held their first working-level talks since a failed summit in February between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but the North Koreans accused the US side of inflexibility and have yet to say if they will attend another round. China is North Korea's neighbour and main ally. It is a signatory to tough U.N. sanctions on Pyongyang over its past nuclear and missile testing but has urged the United States to adopt an approach more conducive to dialogue and suggested that sanctions relief be considered.

United States wants China to press North Korea to be more constructive in talks: Pentagon official

The United States said on Sunday it will withdraw its remaining 1,000 troops from northern Syria in the face of an expanding Turkish offensive while Syria's army struck a deal with Kurdish forces to redeploy along its border with Turkey, both major victories for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The developments illustrate Washington's waning influence over events in Syria and the failure of the US policy of keeping Assad from reasserting state authority over areas lost during the more than eight-year conflict with rebels trying to end his rule.

The developments also represent wins for Russia and Iran, which have backed Assad since 2011 when his violent effort to crush what began as peaceful protests against his family's decades-long rule of Syria exploded into a full-blown civil war.

While the US withdrawal moves American troops out of the line of fire, the return of Syrian soldiers to the Turkish border opens up the possibility of a wider conflagration should the Syrian army come in direct conflict with Turkish forces.

The Turkish onslaught in northern Syria has also raised the prospect that Islamic State militants and their families held by the Kurdish forces targeted by Turkey may escape - scores were said to have done so already - and permit the group's revival.

The remarkable turn of events was set in motion a week ago when U.S. President Donald Trump decided to withdraw about 50 special operations forces from two outposts in northern Syria, a step widely seen as paving the way for Turkey to launch its week-long incursion against Kurdish militia in the region.

Turkey aims to neutralize the Kurdish YPG militia, the main element of Washington's Kurdish-led ally, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which has been a key US ally in dismantling the jihadist "caliphate" set up by Islamic State militants in Syria.

Ankara regards the YPG as a terrorist group aligned with Kurdish insurgents in Turkey.

ERDOGAN OUTLINES WIDER OPERATION

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday said the offensive would extend from Kobani in the west to Hasaka in the east and extend some 30 km (19 miles) into Syrian territory, with the town of Ras al-Ain now in Turkish control.

US Defense Secretary Mike Esper said the United States decided to withdraw its roughly 1,000 troops in northern Syria - two U.S. officials told Reuters it could pull the bulk out in days - after learning of the deepening Turkish offensive.

It was unclear what would happen to the several hundred US&nbsp;troops at the American military outpost of Tanf, near Syria's southern border with Iraq and Jordan.

Another factor behind the decision, Esper indicated in an interview with the CBS program "Face the Nation," was that the SDF aimed to make a deal with Russia and Syria to counter the Turkish onslaught. Several hours later, the Kurdish-led administration said it had struck just such an agreement for the Syrian army to deploy along the length of the border with Turkey to help repel Ankara's offensive.

The deployment would help the SDF in countering "this aggression and liberating the areas that the Turkish army and mercenaries had entered," it added, referring to Turkey-backed Syrian rebels, and would also allow for the liberation of other Syrian cities occupied by the Turkish army such as Afrin.

The fighting has sparked Western concerns that the SDF, holding large swathes of northern Syria once controlled by Islamic State, would be unable to keep thousands of jihadists in jail and tens of thousands of their family members in camps.

The region's Kurdish-led administration said 785 Islamic State-affiliated foreigners escaped the camp at Ain Issa but the British-based war monitor Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, citing sources in the camp, said around 100 people had escaped.

Erdogan dismissed the reports and told the state-run Anadolu news agency that accounts of escapes by Islamic State prisoners were "disinformation" aimed at provoking the West.

SANCTIONS THREAT

Trump, who has come under withering criticism for the U.S. withdrawal, including from his fellow Republicans, placed the onus on the Kurds and Turkey to restrain the Islamic State fighters and blamed European nations for not taking back their own citizens.

"Turkey and the Kurds must not let them escape. Europe should have taken them back," Trump wrote on Twitter. "They will never come to, or be allowed in, the United States!"

Turkey also said Turkish and allied Syrian rebel forces seized a highway some 30-35 km (18-22 miles) into Syrian territory, which would sever a major artery linking the Kurdish-run regions of war-torn Syria's north.

An SDF official said clashes were going on along the road.

New reports of civilian casualties surfaced. A Turkish airstrike in Ras al-Ain killed 14 people including 10 civilians on Sunday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said. The SDF said a "civilian convoy" had been targeted.

Turkey's stated aim is to carve out a "safe zone" inside Syria to resettle many of the 3.6 million Syrian war refugees it is hosting. Erdogan has threatened to send them to Europe if the EU does not back his assault.

But the Turkish offensive has triggered international alarm over its large-scale displacements of civilians as well as U.S. domestic criticism that Trump has effectively abandoned the US Kurdish allies. Trump argues that the United States should withdraw from "endless" Middle East wars and protect its own borders.

Turkey now faces threats of possible sanctions from the United States, a NATO ally, unless it calls off the incursion.

Two other NATO allies, Germany and France, have suspended arms exports to Turkey, and French President Emmanuel Macron was convening an emergency defense cabinet meeting on Sunday to discuss options regarding the offensive.

A U.S. State Department spokesman said Washington was studying "extremely troubling" reports that a Kurdish politician and captured Kurdish fighters were killed by Turkish proxy forces amid the offensive.

More than 130,000 people have been displaced from rural areas around Tel Abyad and Ras al Ain as a result of the fighting, the United Nations said.

The planned evacuation of U.S. forces came a week after Trump spoke by telephone with Erdogan and then abruptly shifted policy and withdrew about 50 U.S. troops deployed to support Kurdish forces in the campaign against Islamic State.

"In the last 24 hours, we learned that (the Turks) likely intend to extend their attack further south than originally planned, and to the west," Esper said. "We also have learned in the last 24 hours that the ... SDF are looking to cut a deal, if you will, with the Syrians and the Russians to counter-attack against the Turks in the north."

Syrian state media reported that the Syrian army has begun deploying its troops to northern battlefronts to confront "Turkish aggression" on Syrian territory.

Esper called the situation "untenable" for U.S. forces, saying he spoke with Trump on Saturday night and that the president directed the U.S. military to "begin a deliberate withdrawal of forces from northern Syria".

Erdogan told reporters that Turkish forces and their Syrian rebel allies had besieged Tel Abyad, a key border town west of Ras al-Ain. They later advanced into the centre of Tel Abyad where the situation was calm and they were conducting search operations, a Reuters witness said.

Erdogan also said Turkish-led forces had killed 440 SDF fighters so far and captured 109 square km (42 square miles) of terrain, including 17 villages around Tel Abyad and four villages around Ras Al Ain.

The United States said on Sunday it will withdraw its remaining 1,000 troops from northern Syria in the face of an expanding Turkish offensive while Syria's army struck a deal with Kurdish forces to redeploy along its border with Turkey, both major victories for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The United States said on Sunday it will withdraw its remaining 1,000 troops from northern Syria in the face of an expanding Turkish offensive while Syria's army struck a deal with Kurdish forces to redeploy along its border with Turkey, both major victories for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The developments illustrate Washington's waning influence over events in Syria and the failure of the US policy of keeping Assad from reasserting state authority over areas lost during the more than eight-year conflict with rebels trying to end his rule. The developments also represent wins for Russia and Iran, which have backed Assad since 2011 when his violent effort to crush what began as peaceful protests against his family's decades-long rule of Syria exploded into a full-blown civil war. While the US withdrawal moves American troops out of the line of fire, the return of Syrian soldiers to the Turkish border opens up the possibility of a wider conflagration should the Syrian army come in direct conflict with Turkish forces. The Turkish onslaught in northern Syria has also raised the prospect that Islamic State militants and their families held by the Kurdish forces targeted by Turkey may escape - scores were said to have done so already - and permit the group's revival. The remarkable turn of events was set in motion a week ago when U.S. President Donald Trump decided to withdraw about 50 special operations forces from two outposts in northern Syria, a step widely seen as paving the way for Turkey to launch its week-long incursion against Kurdish militia in the region. Turkey aims to neutralize the Kurdish YPG militia, the main element of Washington's Kurdish-led ally, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which has been a key US ally in dismantling the jihadist "caliphate" set up by Islamic State militants in Syria. Ankara regards the YPG as a terrorist group aligned with Kurdish insurgents in Turkey. ERDOGAN OUTLINES WIDER OPERATION Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday said the offensive would extend from Kobani in the west to Hasaka in the east and extend some 30 km (19 miles) into Syrian territory, with the town of Ras al-Ain now in Turkish control. US Defense Secretary Mike Esper said the United States decided to withdraw its roughly 1,000 troops in northern Syria - two U.S. officials told Reuters it could pull the bulk out in days - after learning of the deepening Turkish offensive. It was unclear what would happen to the several hundred US troops at the American military outpost of Tanf, near Syria's southern border with Iraq and Jordan. Another factor behind the decision, Esper indicated in an interview with the CBS program "Face the Nation," was that the SDF aimed to make a deal with Russia and Syria to counter the Turkish onslaught. Several hours later, the Kurdish-led administration said it had struck just such an agreement for the Syrian army to deploy along the length of the border with Turkey to help repel Ankara's offensive. The deployment would help the SDF in countering "this aggression and liberating the areas that the Turkish army and mercenaries had entered," it added, referring to Turkey-backed Syrian rebels, and would also allow for the liberation of other Syrian cities occupied by the Turkish army such as Afrin. The fighting has sparked Western concerns that the SDF, holding large swathes of northern Syria once controlled by Islamic State, would be unable to keep thousands of jihadists in jail and tens of thousands of their family members in camps. The region's Kurdish-led administration said 785 Islamic State-affiliated foreigners escaped the camp at Ain Issa but the British-based war monitor Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, citing sources in the camp, said around 100 people had escaped. Erdogan dismissed the reports and told the state-run Anadolu news agency that accounts of escapes by Islamic State prisoners were "disinformation" aimed at provoking the West. SANCTIONS THREAT Trump, who has come under withering criticism for the U.S. withdrawal, including from his fellow Republicans, placed the onus on the Kurds and Turkey to restrain the Islamic State fighters and blamed European nations for not taking back their own citizens. "Turkey and the Kurds must not let them escape. Europe should have taken them back," Trump wrote on Twitter. "They will never come to, or be allowed in, the United States!" Turkey also said Turkish and allied Syrian rebel forces seized a highway some 30-35 km (18-22 miles) into Syrian territory, which would sever a major artery linking the Kurdish-run regions of war-torn Syria's north. An SDF official said clashes were going on along the road. New reports of civilian casualties surfaced. A Turkish airstrike in Ras al-Ain killed 14 people including 10 civilians on Sunday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said. The SDF said a "civilian convoy" had been targeted. Turkey's stated aim is to carve out a "safe zone" inside Syria to resettle many of the 3.6 million Syrian war refugees it is hosting. Erdogan has threatened to send them to Europe if the EU does not back his assault. But the Turkish offensive has triggered international alarm over its large-scale displacements of civilians as well as U.S. domestic criticism that Trump has effectively abandoned the US Kurdish allies. Trump argues that the United States should withdraw from "endless" Middle East wars and protect its own borders. Turkey now faces threats of possible sanctions from the United States, a NATO ally, unless it calls off the incursion. Two other NATO allies, Germany and France, have suspended arms exports to Turkey, and French President Emmanuel Macron was convening an emergency defense cabinet meeting on Sunday to discuss options regarding the offensive. A U.S. State Department spokesman said Washington was studying "extremely troubling" reports that a Kurdish politician and captured Kurdish fighters were killed by Turkish proxy forces amid the offensive. More than 130,000 people have been displaced from rural areas around Tel Abyad and Ras al Ain as a result of the fighting, the United Nations said. The planned evacuation of U.S. forces came a week after Trump spoke by telephone with Erdogan and then abruptly shifted policy and withdrew about 50 U.S. troops deployed to support Kurdish forces in the campaign against Islamic State. "In the last 24 hours, we learned that (the Turks) likely intend to extend their attack further south than originally planned, and to the west," Esper said. "We also have learned in the last 24 hours that the ... SDF are looking to cut a deal, if you will, with the Syrians and the Russians to counter-attack against the Turks in the north." Syrian state media reported that the Syrian army has begun deploying its troops to northern battlefronts to confront "Turkish aggression" on Syrian territory. Esper called the situation "untenable" for U.S. forces, saying he spoke with Trump on Saturday night and that the president directed the U.S. military to "begin a deliberate withdrawal of forces from northern Syria". Erdogan told reporters that Turkish forces and their Syrian rebel allies had besieged Tel Abyad, a key border town west of Ras al-Ain. They later advanced into the centre of Tel Abyad where the situation was calm and they were conducting search operations, a Reuters witness said. Erdogan also said Turkish-led forces had killed 440 SDF fighters so far and captured 109 square km (42 square miles) of terrain, including 17 villages around Tel Abyad and four villages around Ras Al Ain.

US to pull last troops from north Syria; Syrian army to redeploy on border

US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Sunday that President Donald Trump had ordered the withdrawal of up to 1,000 troops from northern Syria, as the number of people fleeing a Turkish assault soared to 130,000.

US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Sunday that President Donald Trump had ordered the withdrawal of up to 1,000 troops from northern Syria, as the number of people fleeing a Turkish assault soared to 130,000. "I spoke with the president last night after discussions with the rest of the national security team and he directed that we begin a deliberate withdrawal of forces from northern Syria," Esper told CBS's Face the Nation. Esper told Fox News that the number of troops being pulled back totalled "less than a thousand." "I can't give a timeline because it changes hourly. We want to make sure that we do so in a very safe, deliberate manner, that we deconflict things as we go with those folks on the ground and immediate area." Fighting has engulfed the area since Wednesday when Ankara launched a long-threatened offensive against the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who it considers "terrorists" linked to insurgents inside Turkey. Trump has been accused of abandoning a loyal ally in the fight against IS after ordering American special forces to pull back from the border. The UN humanitarian agency OCHA said an exodus sparked by the fighting had grown to 130,000 people and it was preparing for that figure to more than triple. US troops near the northern border came under artillery fire from Turkish positions on Friday, the Pentagon said, warning that the US was prepared to meet aggression with "immediate defensive action." The US military confirmed an explosion within a few hundred meters of its post near the town of Kobani, in an area "known by the Turks to have US forces present." "We find ourselves as we have American forces likely caught between two opposing advancing armies and it's a very untenable situation," Esper told CBS. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced Friday that Trump had authorized -- but not yet activated -- new sanctions to dissuade Turkey from further offensive military action. "We can shut down all US dollar transactions with the entire government of Turkey," Mnuchin told ABC on Sunday. "It's something we may do. There's full authority and something at a moment's notice the president can tell me to do."

Pentagon says up to 1,000 US troops to withdraw from northern Syria

The United States announced the deployment of additional American military forces to Saudi Arabia on Friday to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/explosion-sets-ablaze-iranian-oil-tanker-near-saudi-port-report-255149">bolster the kingdom's defences</a> after the September 14 attack on its oil facilities, which Washington and Riyadh have blamed on Iran.

The large deployment, which was first reported by Reuters, includes fighter squadrons, an air expeditionary wing and air defence personnel, the Pentagon said. Together with the 200 forces to Saudi Arabia announced last month, the deployment totalled about 3,000 troops, it said.

US-Iran tensions have risen to new highs since May 2018, when the Trump administration withdrew from a 2015 international nuclear accord with Tehran that put limits on its nuclear programme in exchange for the easing of sanctions.

As Trump reinstated US sanctions, increasing pressure on the Iranian economy, there have been a series of attacks that Washington and close allies have blamed on Iran, including the attack on the world's biggest crude oil-processing facility. Iran denies responsibility.

In a bid to better shield Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon said it was sending two additional Patriot batteries and one Terminal High Altitude Area Defence system (THAAD).

US Defence Secretary Mark Esper told reporters the deployments were designed to deter Iran.

"We thought it was important to continue to deploy forces to deter and defend and to send the message to the Iranians: Do not strike another sovereign state, do not threaten American interests, American forces, or we will respond," Esper told reporters during a press briefing.

Trump said the United States would not bear the expense of the deployment. "Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing," he told reporters.

Some of Trump's Republican allies have called for retaliatory strikes, which the president has so far declined to carry out.

It was unclear whether some of the newly announced troops might replace other American forces expected to depart the region in the coming weeks or months.

The Pentagon has yet to announce, for example, whether it will replace the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group when it eventually wraps up its deployment to the Middle East.

Esper declined to say whether the carrier, which itself includes thousands of troops and massive firepower, would be replaced.

The deployment is part of a series of what the United States has described as defensive moves following the attack on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities last month, which rattled global energy markets and exposed major gaps in Saudi Arabia's air defences.

Iran has responded to previous US troop deployments this year with apprehension. It denies responsibility for the attack on Saudi Arabia as well as attacks on oil tankers earlier this year.

The additional deployment comes as many members of Congress have questioned the longstanding US-Saudi security alliance and backed several efforts - which have failed so far - to stop Trump from selling arms to the kingdom without congressional approval or providing support to the Saudi-led military coalition fighting in Yemen.

Criticism of close US-Saudi ties under Trump increased last year after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Eleven Saudi officials are on trial in Riyadh for the murder, which took place inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

The United States announced the deployment of additional American military forces to Saudi Arabia on Friday to bolster the kingdom's defences after the September 14 attack on its oil facilities, which Washington and Riyadh have blamed on Iran.

The United States announced the deployment of additional American military forces to Saudi Arabia on Friday to bolster the kingdom's defences after the September 14 attack on its oil facilities, which Washington and Riyadh have blamed on Iran. The large deployment, which was first reported by Reuters, includes fighter squadrons, an air expeditionary wing and air defence personnel, the Pentagon said. Together with the 200 forces to Saudi Arabia announced last month, the deployment totalled about 3,000 troops, it said. US-Iran tensions have risen to new highs since May 2018, when the Trump administration withdrew from a 2015 international nuclear accord with Tehran that put limits on its nuclear programme in exchange for the easing of sanctions. As Trump reinstated US sanctions, increasing pressure on the Iranian economy, there have been a series of attacks that Washington and close allies have blamed on Iran, including the attack on the world's biggest crude oil-processing facility. Iran denies responsibility. In a bid to better shield Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon said it was sending two additional Patriot batteries and one Terminal High Altitude Area Defence system (THAAD). US Defence Secretary Mark Esper told reporters the deployments were designed to deter Iran. "We thought it was important to continue to deploy forces to deter and defend and to send the message to the Iranians: Do not strike another sovereign state, do not threaten American interests, American forces, or we will respond," Esper told reporters during a press briefing. Trump said the United States would not bear the expense of the deployment. "Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing," he told reporters. Some of Trump's Republican allies have called for retaliatory strikes, which the president has so far declined to carry out. It was unclear whether some of the newly announced troops might replace other American forces expected to depart the region in the coming weeks or months. The Pentagon has yet to announce, for example, whether it will replace the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group when it eventually wraps up its deployment to the Middle East. Esper declined to say whether the carrier, which itself includes thousands of troops and massive firepower, would be replaced. The deployment is part of a series of what the United States has described as defensive moves following the attack on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities last month, which rattled global energy markets and exposed major gaps in Saudi Arabia's air defences. Iran has responded to previous US troop deployments this year with apprehension. It denies responsibility for the attack on Saudi Arabia as well as attacks on oil tankers earlier this year. The additional deployment comes as many members of Congress have questioned the longstanding US-Saudi security alliance and backed several efforts - which have failed so far - to stop Trump from selling arms to the kingdom without congressional approval or providing support to the Saudi-led military coalition fighting in Yemen. Criticism of close US-Saudi ties under Trump increased last year after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Eleven Saudi officials are on trial in Riyadh for the murder, which took place inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

US says deploying more forces to Saudi Arabia to counter Iran threat

Congressional Democrats slapped subpoenas Monday on the Pentagon and White House budget office as part of their advancing impeachment probe, demanding documents tied to President Donald Trump's withholding of military aid to Ukraine.

The chairmen of three House panels leading the impeachment investigation are seeking information related to Trump pressing his Ukrainian counterpart to uncover dirt on 2020 US presidential contender Joe Biden -- and the alleged conditioning of aid on that favour.

The chairmen ordered Defence Secretary Mark Esper and Office of Management and Budget acting director, Russell Vought, to hand over the documents by October 15.

The materials are "necessary for the committees to examine... the reasons behind the White House's decision to withhold critical military assistance to Ukraine that was appropriated by Congress to counter Russian aggression," they said.

Failure to comply "shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry," wrote House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, foreign affairs panel head Eliot Engel and oversight committee head Elijah Cummings.

Pentagon officials last week "proactively" issued an internal directive to retain documents potentially related to the investigation, Defense Department spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell said.

"As we've stated previously, we are prepared to work with Congress and other relevant parties on questions related to the issue of Ukrainian aid as appropriate," she told AFP.

Democrats have heaped pressure on the Trump administration since launching the impeachment investigation, including last week when subpoenas were delivered to the White House and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Democrats also obtained a string of text messages between US diplomats that showed the Trump administration's effort to pressure Ukraine into investigating Biden and his son Hunter, and that some diplomats in the text chain expressed concern that such actions were inappropriate.

One of the diplomats, US envoy to the European Union Gordon Sondland, a major donor to Trump's 2016 campaign, heads to Capitol Hill Tuesday for a deposition before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testifies before the panel Friday.

Yovanovitch was removed earlier this year for resisting White House pressure to get Kiev to investigate Biden, according to US media reports.

Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid for months but it was eventually released to Ukraine.

The subpoena for documents, and the congressional appearances focus in part on Trump's July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.&nbsp;

A released memorandum of the call shows the two leaders discussed Zelensky's desire to receive the military aid, followed by Trump asking for a "favour" and then bringing up Biden.

Details of the call emerged last month in an explosive whistleblower complaint by an unidentified intelligence official.&nbsp;

The complaint alleged that he or she learned about details of the call from other personnel and that White House officials aware of the gravity of what had transpired on the call moved to "lockdown" all records of it.

Meanwhile, a second whistleblower has come forward, one with first-hand information of the events that triggered the impeachment investigation, the informant's lawyer said Sunday.

Congressional Democrats slapped subpoenas Monday on the Pentagon and White House budget office as part of their advancing impeachment probe, demanding documents tied to President Donald Trump's withholding of military aid to Ukraine.

Congressional Democrats slapped subpoenas Monday on the Pentagon and White House budget office as part of their advancing impeachment probe, demanding documents tied to President Donald Trump's withholding of military aid to Ukraine. The chairmen of three House panels leading the impeachment investigation are seeking information related to Trump pressing his Ukrainian counterpart to uncover dirt on 2020 US presidential contender Joe Biden -- and the alleged conditioning of aid on that favour. The chairmen ordered Defence Secretary Mark Esper and Office of Management and Budget acting director, Russell Vought, to hand over the documents by October 15. The materials are "necessary for the committees to examine... the reasons behind the White House's decision to withhold critical military assistance to Ukraine that was appropriated by Congress to counter Russian aggression," they said. Failure to comply "shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry," wrote House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, foreign affairs panel head Eliot Engel and oversight committee head Elijah Cummings. Pentagon officials last week "proactively" issued an internal directive to retain documents potentially related to the investigation, Defense Department spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell said. "As we've stated previously, we are prepared to work with Congress and other relevant parties on questions related to the issue of Ukrainian aid as appropriate," she told AFP. Democrats have heaped pressure on the Trump administration since launching the impeachment investigation, including last week when subpoenas were delivered to the White House and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Democrats also obtained a string of text messages between US diplomats that showed the Trump administration's effort to pressure Ukraine into investigating Biden and his son Hunter, and that some diplomats in the text chain expressed concern that such actions were inappropriate. One of the diplomats, US envoy to the European Union Gordon Sondland, a major donor to Trump's 2016 campaign, heads to Capitol Hill Tuesday for a deposition before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testifies before the panel Friday. Yovanovitch was removed earlier this year for resisting White House pressure to get Kiev to investigate Biden, according to US media reports. Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid for months but it was eventually released to Ukraine. The subpoena for documents, and the congressional appearances focus in part on Trump's July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. A released memorandum of the call shows the two leaders discussed Zelensky's desire to receive the military aid, followed by Trump asking for a "favour" and then bringing up Biden. Details of the call emerged last month in an explosive whistleblower complaint by an unidentified intelligence official. The complaint alleged that he or she learned about details of the call from other personnel and that White House officials aware of the gravity of what had transpired on the call moved to "lockdown" all records of it. Meanwhile, a second whistleblower has come forward, one with first-hand information of the events that triggered the impeachment investigation, the informant's lawyer said Sunday.

US Democrats subpoena Pentagon docs in impeachment inquiry

US Defence Secretary<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-blacklists-iranian-oil-tanker-adrian-darya-sanctions-captain-246781"> Mark Esper</a> said on Thursday he currently had no plan on his desk to seize the Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya 1, which is at the centre of a dispute between Tehran and Western powers.

The tanker, which is loaded with Iranian crude oil, appears to have turned off its transponder in the Mediterranean west of Syria.

The vessel, formerly named Grace 1, was detained by British Royal Marine commandos off Gibraltar on July 4 as it was suspected to be en route to Syria in violation of European Union sanctions.

Gibraltar released the Iranian vessel on Aug. 15 after receiving formal written assurances from Tehran that the ship would not discharge its 2.1 million barrels of oil in Syria.

"We do not talk about plans, but currently I have no plan right now sitting on my desk to do such a thing," Esper told reporters in London when asked if there was any plan to seize the ship.

Washington has warned any state against assisting the ship, saying it would consider that support for a terrorist organisation, namely, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

US officials have told Reuters that taking any military action like boarding the vessel was not being seriously considered by the United States as it would likely lead to an escalation that would increase tensions.

Esper said he was in favour of efforts by France and other countries to get Iran to hold talks.

"My personal view, but I'm not the lead for this, it's the State Department, is if the French and others can get the Iranians to come to the table to talk, that would be a good thing," he said.

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday left the door open to a possible meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the upcoming UN General Assembly in New York.

The United States has been pressing Iran with sanctions since last year, when Washington abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, often referred to as the Iran nuclear deal.

While European countries, including France, have been trying to push Iran to remain in compliance with the deal, offering proposals such as a $15 billion credit line for Iran to do so, Trump administration officials said on Wednesday they were sceptical of such manoeuvres.

US Defence Secretary Mark Esper said on Thursday he currently had no plan on his desk to seize the Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya 1, which is at the centre of a dispute between Tehran and Western powers.

US Defence Secretary Mark Esper said on Thursday he currently had no plan on his desk to seize the Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya 1, which is at the centre of a dispute between Tehran and Western powers. The tanker, which is loaded with Iranian crude oil, appears to have turned off its transponder in the Mediterranean west of Syria. The vessel, formerly named Grace 1, was detained by British Royal Marine commandos off Gibraltar on July 4 as it was suspected to be en route to Syria in violation of European Union sanctions. Gibraltar released the Iranian vessel on Aug. 15 after receiving formal written assurances from Tehran that the ship would not discharge its 2.1 million barrels of oil in Syria. "We do not talk about plans, but currently I have no plan right now sitting on my desk to do such a thing," Esper told reporters in London when asked if there was any plan to seize the ship. Washington has warned any state against assisting the ship, saying it would consider that support for a terrorist organisation, namely, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. US officials have told Reuters that taking any military action like boarding the vessel was not being seriously considered by the United States as it would likely lead to an escalation that would increase tensions. Esper said he was in favour of efforts by France and other countries to get Iran to hold talks. "My personal view, but I'm not the lead for this, it's the State Department, is if the French and others can get the Iranians to come to the table to talk, that would be a good thing," he said. US President Donald Trump on Wednesday left the door open to a possible meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the upcoming UN General Assembly in New York. The United States has been pressing Iran with sanctions since last year, when Washington abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, often referred to as the Iran nuclear deal. While European countries, including France, have been trying to push Iran to remain in compliance with the deal, offering proposals such as a $15 billion credit line for Iran to do so, Trump administration officials said on Wednesday they were sceptical of such manoeuvres.

Pentagon chief says he currently has no plan to seize Iranian tanker Adrian Darya 1

Eighteen years after the assassination of revered anti-Taliban commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, his only son is hoping to continue the mission against the insurgents by jumping into Afghanistan's chaotic political fray.

With America seemingly on the brink of a deal with the Taliban that would see the Pentagon slash its troop presence in Afghanistan, 30-year-old Ahmad Massoud wants to galvanise anti-Taliban groups and stop the emboldened fighters from ushering in a new wave of hardline Islam.&nbsp;

Following in the steps of his father, who rallied various groups under the banner of the United Front -- also known as the Northern Alliance -- the younger Massoud wants to build a grand coalition of anti-Taliban elements that can oppose the insurgents politically at first, and militarily if necessary.&nbsp;

"I really pray and hope that Afghans and Afghanistan never see another bloodshed," Massoud told AFP in an interview at a family home in Kabul.

"God forbid. But if it comes, not just myself, but there are... hundreds of thousands of young people who are like me. We are ready to pick up guns."

Massoud plans to officially launch his political movement on September 5 in Panjshir, his family's original home valley north of Kabul that neither the Soviets nor the Taliban ever conquered.

Lion of Panjshir

In a fractious country where a grim gallery of brutal warlords and squabbling grifters is woven into the political tapestry, Afghans still cling to Ahmad Shah Massoud as a unifying figure who could have led the country to a Taliban-free future, were it not for his murder by Al-Qaeda operatives.

Dubbed the "Lion of Panjshir", the elder Massoud still emblazons billboards, blast walls, car windows and even coffee mugs in the capital and across the country.&nbsp;

"He was a one-of-a-kind character in Afghan history and I don't think anyone can be like him," Massoud said in fluent English, tinged with a slight London accent from seven years in Britain.&nbsp;

But comparisons to the mujahideen commander are inevitable, especially in a country where the baton of power often passes seamlessly from father to son, and where unifying political figures are vanishingly rare.

Massoud, who returned to Afghanistan in 2016, also bears more than a passing resemblance to his dad, especially since growing a beard and donning the same sort of beige pakol, or Afghan woollen hat, that his father sported.

The elder Massoud was assassinated aged 48, when his son was 12, two days before the seismic events of 9/11 that would forever shape Afghanistan's history and trigger the US-led invasion to hunt Osama bin Laden and topple his Taliban hosts.

After his father's death, Massoud finished his schooling in Iran then moved to England to train as an officer at the country's Sandhurst military academy -- his second choice after failing to get into West Point in New York -- before completing two degrees in London.

'Nothing can protect you'

As Massoud sees it, a planned US-Taliban deal fails to tackle the shortcomings of Afghanistan's political apparatus -- a vicious, winner-takes-all system where absolute power is always the goal -- and instead rewards an extremist movement for their tenacity.

"Unless we go to a process which distributes power to everyone, which decentralises power in Afghanistan, we cannot solve any problems," he said.

"It's going to give a sense of triumph and victory to the Taliban... That's the real fear, that we are legitimising, we are giving hope for the terrorist groups across the world".

Massoud thinks the US has been too quick to grant concessions to the Taliban while excluding other Afghans in the peace talks, leaving the militants poised to expand their influence into any void left by departing American forces.

"It is not an Afghan-led process," Massoud said.

"It's something happening between America and the Taliban, between the regional powers and the Taliban. Where (are) the Afghans?"

The US insists the deal with the Taliban is contingent on talks between the insurgents and the Afghan government, and that Afghanistan's issues will only be resolved through "intra-Afghan" dialogue.

Massoud warned that a precipitous American troop pullout could lead to a collapse of Afghanistan's security forces, where corruption and poor leadership remain prevalent.

Already, he is seeing various groups and militias in Panjshir and elsewhere re-arm and organise ahead of the US draw-down.

"Unfortunately the government is not capable to continue fighting against the Taliban," Massoud said.

As for any concern he may have for his own safety as he steps into Afghanistan's spotlight, Massoud, who has five sisters, is fatalistic.

"Everything about your death has already been determined by God," he said with a smile.

"When the time comes, nothing can protect you."

Eighteen years after the assassination of revered anti-Taliban commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, his only son is hoping to continue the mission against the insurgents by jumping into Afghanistan's chaotic political fray.

Eighteen years after the assassination of revered anti-Taliban commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, his only son is hoping to continue the mission against the insurgents by jumping into Afghanistan's chaotic political fray. With America seemingly on the brink of a deal with the Taliban that would see the Pentagon slash its troop presence in Afghanistan, 30-year-old Ahmad Massoud wants to galvanise anti-Taliban groups and stop the emboldened fighters from ushering in a new wave of hardline Islam. Following in the steps of his father, who rallied various groups under the banner of the United Front -- also known as the Northern Alliance -- the younger Massoud wants to build a grand coalition of anti-Taliban elements that can oppose the insurgents politically at first, and militarily if necessary. "I really pray and hope that Afghans and Afghanistan never see another bloodshed," Massoud told AFP in an interview at a family home in Kabul. "God forbid. But if it comes, not just myself, but there are... hundreds of thousands of young people who are like me. We are ready to pick up guns." Massoud plans to officially launch his political movement on September 5 in Panjshir, his family's original home valley north of Kabul that neither the Soviets nor the Taliban ever conquered. Lion of Panjshir In a fractious country where a grim gallery of brutal warlords and squabbling grifters is woven into the political tapestry, Afghans still cling to Ahmad Shah Massoud as a unifying figure who could have led the country to a Taliban-free future, were it not for his murder by Al-Qaeda operatives. Dubbed the "Lion of Panjshir", the elder Massoud still emblazons billboards, blast walls, car windows and even coffee mugs in the capital and across the country. "He was a one-of-a-kind character in Afghan history and I don't think anyone can be like him," Massoud said in fluent English, tinged with a slight London accent from seven years in Britain. But comparisons to the mujahideen commander are inevitable, especially in a country where the baton of power often passes seamlessly from father to son, and where unifying political figures are vanishingly rare. Massoud, who returned to Afghanistan in 2016, also bears more than a passing resemblance to his dad, especially since growing a beard and donning the same sort of beige pakol, or Afghan woollen hat, that his father sported. The elder Massoud was assassinated aged 48, when his son was 12, two days before the seismic events of 9/11 that would forever shape Afghanistan's history and trigger the US-led invasion to hunt Osama bin Laden and topple his Taliban hosts. After his father's death, Massoud finished his schooling in Iran then moved to England to train as an officer at the country's Sandhurst military academy -- his second choice after failing to get into West Point in New York -- before completing two degrees in London. 'Nothing can protect you' As Massoud sees it, a planned US-Taliban deal fails to tackle the shortcomings of Afghanistan's political apparatus -- a vicious, winner-takes-all system where absolute power is always the goal -- and instead rewards an extremist movement for their tenacity. "Unless we go to a process which distributes power to everyone, which decentralises power in Afghanistan, we cannot solve any problems," he said. "It's going to give a sense of triumph and victory to the Taliban... That's the real fear, that we are legitimising, we are giving hope for the terrorist groups across the world". Massoud thinks the US has been too quick to grant concessions to the Taliban while excluding other Afghans in the peace talks, leaving the militants poised to expand their influence into any void left by departing American forces. "It is not an Afghan-led process," Massoud said. "It's something happening between America and the Taliban, between the regional powers and the Taliban. Where (are) the Afghans?" The US insists the deal with the Taliban is contingent on talks between the insurgents and the Afghan government, and that Afghanistan's issues will only be resolved through "intra-Afghan" dialogue. Massoud warned that a precipitous American troop pullout could lead to a collapse of Afghanistan's security forces, where corruption and poor leadership remain prevalent. Already, he is seeing various groups and militias in Panjshir and elsewhere re-arm and organise ahead of the US draw-down. "Unfortunately the government is not capable to continue fighting against the Taliban," Massoud said. As for any concern he may have for his own safety as he steps into Afghanistan's spotlight, Massoud, who has five sisters, is fatalistic. "Everything about your death has already been determined by God," he said with a smile. "When the time comes, nothing can protect you."

Afghanistan: Son of famed anti-Taliban commander Ahmad Shah Massoud steps into spotlight

The Pentagon said on Thursday it was discussing military escorts for vessels in the Gulf, one day after armed <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/britain-and-us-will-regret-detaining-our-oil-tanker-irans-elite-revolutionary-guards-deputy-commander-234959">Iranian boats threatened a British</a> oil tanker.

The White House's nominee to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said Washington was attempting to put together a coalition "in terms of providing military escort, naval escort to commercial shipping."

"I think that that will be developing over the next couple weeks," Milley told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Tensions in the Gulf have increased in the past few weeks, with <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iranian-vessels-impeded-passage-of-commercial-ship-in-strait-of-hormuz-turned-away-after-verbal-warning-uk-234877">Iran's economy in free fall</a> following the re-imposition of US sanctions after President Donald Trump pulled out from a 2015 international agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program.

The rapid chain of events further complicates Britain and other European allies' efforts to salvage the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement despite the US withdrawal.

Watch Video:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iranian-boats-tried-to-intercept-british-tanker-235001/embed" width="560" height="350" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" autoplay=1 allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

Milley's statement came after London accused Tehran on Thursday of deploying three military vessels to "impede the passage" of a 274-meter (899-foot) BP tanker, the British Heritage.

"We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region," a Downing Street spokesman said.

Iran's menacing of the BP supertanker on Wednesday appeared to be in retaliation for Britain's seizure of the Iranian Grace 1 tanker off Gibraltar on July 4.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards denied involvement in the British Heritage incident but said the United States and Britain would "strongly regret" British detention of the fully-loaded Iranian tanker off Gibraltar for violating sanctions on Syria, allegedly the planned recipient of its cargo.

Washington and Riyadh previously blamed Iran for allegedly using limpet mines to blow holes in Gulf-area ships in May and June, and Trump came close to ordering an attack on Iran in retaliation.

Officials in Britain and France would not confirm the discussions on a tanker escort operation.

Both, like the United States, maintain a constant naval presence in the Gulf. But London and Paris have been reticent to join in Washington's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran to force it to pull back on its involvement in conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.&nbsp;

British media reported that the possible deployment of more Royal Navy ships to the region was "being looked at" in the aftermath of the newest incident.

But in France, a government official told AFP that they were not planning for the moment to expand their presence in the Gulf.&nbsp;

"France is on a course of de-escalation," the official said.

"Sending additional military assets to the region does not seem useful to us."

A joint effort would reprise the 1987-1988 US-led operation to protect Kuwaiti oil tankers from Iranian attacks during the Iran-Iraq war.

The Pentagon said on Thursday it was discussing military escorts for vessels in the Gulf, one day after armed Iranian boats threatened a British oil tanker. The White House's nominee to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said Washington was attempting to put together a coalition "in terms of providing military escort, naval escort to commercial shipping.

The Pentagon said on Thursday it was discussing military escorts for vessels in the Gulf, one day after armed Iranian boats threatened a British oil tanker. The White House's nominee to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said Washington was attempting to put together a coalition "in terms of providing military escort, naval escort to commercial shipping." "I think that that will be developing over the next couple weeks," Milley told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Tensions in the Gulf have increased in the past few weeks, with Iran's economy in free fall following the re-imposition of US sanctions after President Donald Trump pulled out from a 2015 international agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program. The rapid chain of events further complicates Britain and other European allies' efforts to salvage the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement despite the US withdrawal. Watch Video: Milley's statement came after London accused Tehran on Thursday of deploying three military vessels to "impede the passage" of a 274-meter (899-foot) BP tanker, the British Heritage. "We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region," a Downing Street spokesman said. Iran's menacing of the BP supertanker on Wednesday appeared to be in retaliation for Britain's seizure of the Iranian Grace 1 tanker off Gibraltar on July 4. Iran's Revolutionary Guards denied involvement in the British Heritage incident but said the United States and Britain would "strongly regret" British detention of the fully-loaded Iranian tanker off Gibraltar for violating sanctions on Syria, allegedly the planned recipient of its cargo. Washington and Riyadh previously blamed Iran for allegedly using limpet mines to blow holes in Gulf-area ships in May and June, and Trump came close to ordering an attack on Iran in retaliation. Officials in Britain and France would not confirm the discussions on a tanker escort operation. Both, like the United States, maintain a constant naval presence in the Gulf. But London and Paris have been reticent to join in Washington's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran to force it to pull back on its involvement in conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. British media reported that the possible deployment of more Royal Navy ships to the region was "being looked at" in the aftermath of the newest incident. But in France, a government official told AFP that they were not planning for the moment to expand their presence in the Gulf. "France is on a course of de-escalation," the official said. "Sending additional military assets to the region does not seem useful to us." A joint effort would reprise the 1987-1988 US-led operation to protect Kuwaiti oil tankers from Iranian attacks during the Iran-Iraq war.

Attempting coalition military, naval escort for commercial ships in the Gulf: Pentagon

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/very-stupid-guy-donald-trump-renews-attack-on-uk-ambassador-theresa-may-234370">US President Donald Trump</a>'s administration on Tuesday threatened he would veto a massive defence bill being considered by the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-of-representatives-votes-to-repeal-obamacare-11249">House of Representatives</a>, saying it provides less money than he wants for the military and disagreeing with some of its policy provisions.

The version of the National Defence Authorization Act, or NDAA, up for a vote in the Democratic-led House sets $733 billion in military spending, $17 billion less than Trump's fiscal-year 2020 budget request.

The Republican-led Senate last month passed its version of the measure, authorizing $750 billion for the Pentagon. Once the House passes its bill, the two chambers must come up with a compromise bill, which must pass both before being sent to the White House for Trump to sign into law or veto.

The administration objected as well to provisions in the House bill seeking to stop Trump from spending billions of dollars to build a wall on the US border with Mexico after he declared a national emergency to go ahead with construction without Congress' approval.&nbsp;

It also opposed the bill's proposed imposition of stricter limits on the deployment of US troops to work along the border and the curtailing of Trump's ability to transfer money from one project to another without consulting Congress.

Trump's promise to build a border wall was a feature of his 2016 presidential campaign and has been a theme of his bid for re-election in 2020.

The administration also objected to a range of provisions including some related to nuclear weapons, Trump's plan for a "Space Force" and restrictions on detentions at the military prison at the Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, including a proposed ban on additional transfers to the prison in Cuba.

The House is expected to vote on the NDAA later this week.

It was not immediately clear that it would pass. Trump's fellow Republicans may vote no and could be joined by many of the more liberal House Democrats, who object among other things to increasing defence spending without doing more to avoid waste at the Pentagon.&nbsp;

One of the few pieces of major legislation passed every year, the NDAA becomes a vehicle for a broad range of policy measures, as well as determining everything from military pay levels to which ships or aircraft will be modernized, purchased or discontinued.

US President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday threatened he would veto a massive defence bill being considered by the House of Representatives, saying it provides less money than he wants for the military and disagreeing with some of its policy provisions.

US President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday threatened he would veto a massive defence bill being considered by the House of Representatives, saying it provides less money than he wants for the military and disagreeing with some of its policy provisions. The version of the National Defence Authorization Act, or NDAA, up for a vote in the Democratic-led House sets $733 billion in military spending, $17 billion less than Trump's fiscal-year 2020 budget request. The Republican-led Senate last month passed its version of the measure, authorizing $750 billion for the Pentagon. Once the House passes its bill, the two chambers must come up with a compromise bill, which must pass both before being sent to the White House for Trump to sign into law or veto. The administration objected as well to provisions in the House bill seeking to stop Trump from spending billions of dollars to build a wall on the US border with Mexico after he declared a national emergency to go ahead with construction without Congress' approval. It also opposed the bill's proposed imposition of stricter limits on the deployment of US troops to work along the border and the curtailing of Trump's ability to transfer money from one project to another without consulting Congress. Trump's promise to build a border wall was a feature of his 2016 presidential campaign and has been a theme of his bid for re-election in 2020. The administration also objected to a range of provisions including some related to nuclear weapons, Trump's plan for a "Space Force" and restrictions on detentions at the military prison at the Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, including a proposed ban on additional transfers to the prison in Cuba. The House is expected to vote on the NDAA later this week. It was not immediately clear that it would pass. Trump's fellow Republicans may vote no and could be joined by many of the more liberal House Democrats, who object among other things to increasing defence spending without doing more to avoid waste at the Pentagon. One of the few pieces of major legislation passed every year, the NDAA becomes a vehicle for a broad range of policy measures, as well as determining everything from military pay levels to which ships or aircraft will be modernized, purchased or discontinued.

Trump threatens veto of House defence bill over spending levels, Mexico wall

The Pentagon said on Tuesday that President Trump's celebration of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/4th-july-celebrations-battle-tanks-arrive-in-washington-trump-promises-incredible-flyovers-biggest-ever-fireworks-232578">US Independence Day,</a> which included bringing tanks and equipment to Washington, cost the military at least $1.2 million.

Two Bradley fighting vehicles flanked Trump during his July Fourth speech last week. Trump told stories about each military branch before separate, dramatic flyovers of their respective military aircraft.

Trump, a Republican who was inspired to stage the flashy affair after seeing a similar display in France, dismissed concerns ahead of the ceremony about the expense and militaristic overtones of the event outside the 97-year-old Lincoln Memorial, a symbol of national unity.

"The total cost of the Department's support to the 'Salute to America' event was $1.2 million," the Pentagon said in a statement.

In addition to the cost to the military, the Washington Post reported last week that the US National Park Service had diverted $2.5 million in park entrance fees to help pay for the event.

The actual cost for the Pentagon is likely higher, since the Pentagon said funding for the aircraft demonstrations came from the military services' training budgets.

It was not immediately clear if all of the $1.2 million was for the cost of transporting equipment like two Abrams tanks and two Bradley fighting vehicles from Fort Stewart in Georgia for the celebration.

The military did not immediately provide a breakdown of the cost. Simply flying the B-2 bomber for an hour costs about $122,000, according to the Air Force.

On Monday, Trump said such an event would take place in the future.

"Based on its tremendous success, we're just making the decision - and I can think we can say we've made the decision - to do it again next year, and, maybe we can say, for the foreseeable future," Trump told reporters.

The July Fourth holiday celebrates the US founders’ declaring independence from Britain in 1776.

The Pentagon said on Tuesday that President Trump's celebration of US Independence Day, which included bringing tanks and equipment to Washington, cost the military at least $1.

The Pentagon said on Tuesday that President Trump's celebration of US Independence Day, which included bringing tanks and equipment to Washington, cost the military at least $1.2 million. Two Bradley fighting vehicles flanked Trump during his July Fourth speech last week. Trump told stories about each military branch before separate, dramatic flyovers of their respective military aircraft. Trump, a Republican who was inspired to stage the flashy affair after seeing a similar display in France, dismissed concerns ahead of the ceremony about the expense and militaristic overtones of the event outside the 97-year-old Lincoln Memorial, a symbol of national unity. "The total cost of the Department's support to the 'Salute to America' event was $1.2 million," the Pentagon said in a statement. In addition to the cost to the military, the Washington Post reported last week that the US National Park Service had diverted $2.5 million in park entrance fees to help pay for the event. The actual cost for the Pentagon is likely higher, since the Pentagon said funding for the aircraft demonstrations came from the military services' training budgets. It was not immediately clear if all of the $1.2 million was for the cost of transporting equipment like two Abrams tanks and two Bradley fighting vehicles from Fort Stewart in Georgia for the celebration. The military did not immediately provide a breakdown of the cost. Simply flying the B-2 bomber for an hour costs about $122,000, according to the Air Force. On Monday, Trump said such an event would take place in the future. "Based on its tremendous success, we're just making the decision - and I can think we can say we've made the decision - to do it again next year, and, maybe we can say, for the foreseeable future," Trump told reporters. The July Fourth holiday celebrates the US founders’ declaring independence from Britain in 1776.

'Salute to America': US Independence Day celebration cost military $1.2 million, confirms Pentagon

The Pentagon said on Tuesday a recent Chinese missile launch in the disputed South China Sea was "disturbing" and contrary to Chinese pledges that it would not militarise the disputed waterway.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-warship-sails-in-disputed-south-china-sea-amid-trade-tensions-220018">South China Sea</a> is one of a growing number of flashpoints in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/us-china-trade-war-points-to-the-real-crisis-that-global-leaders-must-confront-at-g20-summit-231112">US-China relationship</a>, which include a trade war, US sanctions and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/decoding-report-which-raises-concerns-over-china-attacking-taiwan-190996">Taiwan</a>.

China and the United States have repeatedly traded barbs in the past over what Washington says is Beijing's militarization of the South China Sea by building military installations on artificial islands and reefs.

A US official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said China tested multiple anti-ship ballistic missiles over the weekend.

"Of course the Pentagon was aware of the Chinese missile launch from the man-made structures in the South China Sea near the Spratly Islands," Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Dave Eastburn said.

"I'm not going to speak on behalf of all the sovereign nations in the region, but I'm sure they agree that the PRC's behaviour is contrary to its claim to want to bring peace to the region and obviously actions like this are coercive acts meant to intimidate other (South China Sea) claimants," Eastburn added. PRC is an acronym for the People's Republic of China.

China has not confirmed the missile tests and on Tuesday the foreign ministry declined to comment, referring questions to the defence ministry, which did not respond to a request for comment.

The Chinese government has said that the military was carrying out drills between the Spratly and Paracel Islands starting last weekend and ending on Wednesday, warning other shipping not to enter a designated area.

China's claims in the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year, are contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

News of the China missile test was first reported by NBC News.

The Pentagon said on Tuesday a recent Chinese missile launch in the disputed South China Sea was "disturbing" and contrary to Chinese pledges that it would not militarise the disputed waterway.

The Pentagon said on Tuesday a recent Chinese missile launch in the disputed South China Sea was "disturbing" and contrary to Chinese pledges that it would not militarise the disputed waterway. The South China Sea is one of a growing number of flashpoints in the US-China relationship, which include a trade war, US sanctions and Taiwan. China and the United States have repeatedly traded barbs in the past over what Washington says is Beijing's militarization of the South China Sea by building military installations on artificial islands and reefs. A US official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said China tested multiple anti-ship ballistic missiles over the weekend. "Of course the Pentagon was aware of the Chinese missile launch from the man-made structures in the South China Sea near the Spratly Islands," Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Dave Eastburn said. "I'm not going to speak on behalf of all the sovereign nations in the region, but I'm sure they agree that the PRC's behaviour is contrary to its claim to want to bring peace to the region and obviously actions like this are coercive acts meant to intimidate other (South China Sea) claimants," Eastburn added. PRC is an acronym for the People's Republic of China. China has not confirmed the missile tests and on Tuesday the foreign ministry declined to comment, referring questions to the defence ministry, which did not respond to a request for comment. The Chinese government has said that the military was carrying out drills between the Spratly and Paracel Islands starting last weekend and ending on Wednesday, warning other shipping not to enter a designated area. China's claims in the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year, are contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. News of the China missile test was first reported by NBC News.

China's missile test in South China Sea 'disturbing': Pentagon

After&nbsp;Pentagon confirmed that Iran had shot down its <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/irans-borders-represent-our-red-line-revolutionary-guard-head-hossein-salami-228935">surveillance drone on Thursday</a>, US President Trump tweeted saying Iran had made a "very big mistake".

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Iran made a very big mistake!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1141711064305983488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"This country will not stand for it, that I can tell you," Trump told reporters.&nbsp;

Pentagon insisted that the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-military-drone-shot-down-in-international-airspace-by-iranian-missile-official-228888">drone was brought down</a> in international airspace and not over Iran as claimed by Iran's Revolutionary Guard head&nbsp;Hossein Salami.

"Iranian reports that the aircraft was over Iran are false," US Central Command spokesman, Navy Captain Bill Urban, said in a statement, adding,"this was an unprovoked attack on a US surveillance asset in international airspace."

Iran, on the other hand, said the shooting down of the US drone was&nbsp;"a clear message" from the "defenders of the borders". Iran will "respond to all foreign aggression and our reaction is, and will be, categorical and absolute," Salami added.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-dispatch-daniele-pagani-on-iran-shoots-down-us-drone-229013/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The incident reportedly occurred near the Strait of Hormuz, just a week after attacks on two tankers in the strategic waterway.

"The borders represent our red line," said Salami.

"We declare that we are not looking for war but we are ready to respond to any declaration of war," he added. "Any such violations of Iran's borders are strongly condemned ... We warn of the consequences of such illegal and provocative measures," said ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi.

The United States has blamed Iran for last week's tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman, a charge denied by Iran.

Oil prices surged after Trump's tweet. US benchmark West Texas Intermediate climbed 6.3 per cent to $57.13 a barrel, while Brent futures in London gained 4.7 per cent to $64.69 a barrel as tensions escalated between Iran and US.

After Pentagon confirmed that Iran had shot down its surveillance drone on Thursday, US President Trump tweeted saying Iran had made a "very big mistake". Iran made a very big mistake!

After Pentagon confirmed that Iran had shot down its surveillance drone on Thursday, US President Trump tweeted saying Iran had made a "very big mistake". Iran made a very big mistake! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 20, 2019 × "This country will not stand for it, that I can tell you," Trump told reporters. Pentagon insisted that the drone was brought down in international airspace and not over Iran as claimed by Iran's Revolutionary Guard head Hossein Salami. "Iranian reports that the aircraft was over Iran are false," US Central Command spokesman, Navy Captain Bill Urban, said in a statement, adding,"this was an unprovoked attack on a US surveillance asset in international airspace." Iran, on the other hand, said the shooting down of the US drone was "a clear message" from the "defenders of the borders". Iran will "respond to all foreign aggression and our reaction is, and will be, categorical and absolute," Salami added. The incident reportedly occurred near the Strait of Hormuz, just a week after attacks on two tankers in the strategic waterway. "The borders represent our red line," said Salami. "We declare that we are not looking for war but we are ready to respond to any declaration of war," he added. "Any such violations of Iran's borders are strongly condemned ... We warn of the consequences of such illegal and provocative measures," said ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi. The United States has blamed Iran for last week's tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman, a charge denied by Iran. Oil prices surged after Trump's tweet. US benchmark West Texas Intermediate climbed 6.3 per cent to $57.13 a barrel, while Brent futures in London gained 4.7 per cent to $64.69 a barrel as tensions escalated between Iran and US.

Iran made a very big mistake, says Trump after Revolutionary Guard shoots down US drone

Acting Defence Secretary <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-picks-ex-boeing-executive-shanahan-as-defense-secretary-217433">Patrick Shanahan</a> has withdrawn from consideration to head the US military, President Donald Trump said on Tuesday, adding that Shanahan wanted to spend more time with his family.

Taking Twitter to announce, Trump said the secretary of the Army, Mark Esper, will be named as the new acting defence secretary.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
....I thank Pat for his outstanding service and will be naming Secretary of the Army, Mark Esper, to be the new Acting Secretary of Defense. I know Mark, and have no doubt he will do a fantastic job!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1141027595380826118?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Esper had been considered a leading contender for the job if Shanahan was ultimately not confirmed.

The sudden withdrawn has come as surprise as Shanahan was expected to be confirmed by senators and Trump both.

In May former White House spokesperson, Sarah Sanders had said that President Trump intends to nominate&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-plays-important-role-in-afghan-peace-process-acting-us-defence-secretary-217162&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjYopOMrJDiAhXR7HMBHQr2DvMQFjACegQIBRAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1Y3Uknh9v8Ni71efCGGM5h">Patrick M&nbsp;Shanahan&nbsp;</a>to be the secretary of defence

"Based upon his outstanding service to the country and his demonstrated ability to lead, President Trump intends to nominate&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-plays-important-role-in-afghan-peace-process-acting-us-defence-secretary-217162&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjYopOMrJDiAhXR7HMBHQr2DvMQFjACegQIBRAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1Y3Uknh9v8Ni71efCGGM5h">Patrick M Shanahan&nbsp;</a>to be the secretary of defence," Sanders had said in a statement.

Shanahan, 56, was thrust into the role in an acting capacity in January after Jim Mattis abruptly resigned over policy differences with Trump.&nbsp;

Former Boeing executive, Shanahan had been under investigation by the Pentagon inspector general for allegedly seeking preferential treatment of Boeing while at the Defence Department but he was cleared of wrongdoing in April.&nbsp;

Shanahan has been serving in an acting capacity since the start of the year, making him the longest acting defence secretary ever. He joined Boeing in 1986 and spent more than three decades there, working on the 737 and 787 Dreamliner commercial aeroplanes.&nbsp;

Shanahan was also the president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems and worked on the Apache, Chinook and Osprey military aircraft.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

&nbsp;

Acting Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan has withdrawn from consideration to head the US military, President Donald Trump said on Tuesday, adding that Shanahan wanted to spend more time with his family.

Acting Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan has withdrawn from consideration to head the US military, President Donald Trump said on Tuesday, adding that Shanahan wanted to spend more time with his family. Taking Twitter to announce, Trump said the secretary of the Army, Mark Esper, will be named as the new acting defence secretary. ....I thank Pat for his outstanding service and will be naming Secretary of the Army, Mark Esper, to be the new Acting Secretary of Defense. I know Mark, and have no doubt he will do a fantastic job! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2019 × Esper had been considered a leading contender for the job if Shanahan was ultimately not confirmed. The sudden withdrawn has come as surprise as Shanahan was expected to be confirmed by senators and Trump both. In May former White House spokesperson, Sarah Sanders had said that President Trump intends to nominate Patrick M Shanahan to be the secretary of defence "Based upon his outstanding service to the country and his demonstrated ability to lead, President Trump intends to nominate Patrick M Shanahan to be the secretary of defence," Sanders had said in a statement. Shanahan, 56, was thrust into the role in an acting capacity in January after Jim Mattis abruptly resigned over policy differences with Trump. Former Boeing executive, Shanahan had been under investigation by the Pentagon inspector general for allegedly seeking preferential treatment of Boeing while at the Defence Department but he was cleared of wrongdoing in April. Shanahan has been serving in an acting capacity since the start of the year, making him the longest acting defence secretary ever. He joined Boeing in 1986 and spent more than three decades there, working on the 737 and 787 Dreamliner commercial aeroplanes. Shanahan was also the president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems and worked on the Apache, Chinook and Osprey military aircraft. (With inputs from agencies)

Patrick Shanahan withdraws from consideration to be US defence secretary

US military releases new pictures of Oman Gulf terror attack; says it incriminate Iran

Boeing Co has signed a $6.5 billion deal with U.S. military for Joint Direct Attack Munition tail kits, spares, repairs and technical services, the Pentagon.

Boeing signs $6.5 billion deal with Pentagon

Boeing has signed $6.5 Bn deal with US' Pentagon. Watch this video to know more.

Boeing signs $6.5 Bn deal with Pentagon

Executives from <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/united-technologies-raytheon-to-create-120-billion-aerospace-and-defence-giant-225977">United Technologies and Raytheon</a> said Monday their merger would benefit the Pentagon and other customers but the proposed deal garnered immediate skepticism from President Donald Trump.

The two companies, which unveiled a "merger of equals" on Sunday, said combining would boost development of faster weapons systems, connected aircraft and other envelope-pushing products, while saving the Pentagon and other customers money.

But Trump, who has shown more willingness than past US presidents to haggle with defense contractors and interject himself into the private sector in general, emerged as a potential question mark, telling CNBC Monday that he was "concerned" by the merger.

"When I hear they're merging, does that take away more competition? It becomes one big fat beautiful company," he told CNBC.

"But I have to negotiate, meaning the United States has to buy things and does that make it less competitive? Because it's already non-competitive."

Moments after Trump's comments, United Technologies Chief Executive Gregory Hayes said on CNBC that the two companies currently have almost no overlap and that their combination would not dent competition.

"We are looking forward to talking to the president later today," Hayes said. "Once he understands the benefits of this merger and what it is going to do to reduce the costs of the government and what it's going to do for jobs in this country, I think he's going be supportive."

Technology race

The UTC merger with Raytheon would transform the two companies into a single conglomerate with varied but well-established brands, each in the top tier of its specialty. The two companies together would have about $74 billion in 2019 sales, according to the announcement.

Raytheon is best known for its Patriot air defense systems, which gained fame during the first Gulf War, and its Tomahawk cruise missiles, often the first weapons fired from US navy ships in recent conflicts.

UTC is a big player in the aeronautics industry with its Pratt &amp; Whitney engines, which are used in civil and military aircraft, including the F-35 multi-role stealth fighter, considered among the most advanced combat aircraft in the world.

Combing the companies will result in annual savings of $1 billion by year four, about half of which could go to the US government, the companies said.

Those savings are one reason the US Department of Defense "is going to really like this deal," Hayes told analysts on a conference call.

The companies' pitch also emphasized the upside in terms of technological breakthroughs through an $8 billion research and development budget, 60,000 engineers and 38,000 active patents.

Technology is no longer changing in "a linear fashion," Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy told analysts, saying the speed of change is "exponential" in many instances.

"We're starting to see significant increases in technology growth in multiple areas that affect our business," Kennedy said. "So we believe that we need to invest in technology and that capability."

Expertise from UTC's Pratt &amp; Whitney business on thermal management could have applications in Raytheon's defense products, while Raytheon's understanding of cybersecurity to boost commercial aviation, he added.

A note from Morningstar praised the deal, saying the "combined company will benefit from increased scale, complementary technology that plugs the gaps of each separate company's portfolios, and a portfolio that can offset a slowdown in either end market's spending growth."

Morningstar added it does not expect "any significant hurdles on the regulatory front, given that both firms have minimal overlap in terms of their underlying businesses."

A Credit Suisse note also alluded to "limited product overlap" but said the economic benefits of the deal "seem modest" and that the promised $1 billion in annual cost savings appear "somewhat questionable."

Shares of Raytheon rose 2.2 percent in late-morning trading to $189.97, while United Technologies lost 1.6 percent and was trading at $130.00.

Executives from United Technologies and Raytheon said Monday their merger would benefit the Pentagon and other customers but the proposed deal garnered immediate skepticism from President Donald Trump.

Executives from United Technologies and Raytheon said Monday their merger would benefit the Pentagon and other customers but the proposed deal garnered immediate skepticism from President Donald Trump. The two companies, which unveiled a "merger of equals" on Sunday, said combining would boost development of faster weapons systems, connected aircraft and other envelope-pushing products, while saving the Pentagon and other customers money. But Trump, who has shown more willingness than past US presidents to haggle with defense contractors and interject himself into the private sector in general, emerged as a potential question mark, telling CNBC Monday that he was "concerned" by the merger. "When I hear they're merging, does that take away more competition? It becomes one big fat beautiful company," he told CNBC. "But I have to negotiate, meaning the United States has to buy things and does that make it less competitive? Because it's already non-competitive." Moments after Trump's comments, United Technologies Chief Executive Gregory Hayes said on CNBC that the two companies currently have almost no overlap and that their combination would not dent competition. "We are looking forward to talking to the president later today," Hayes said. "Once he understands the benefits of this merger and what it is going to do to reduce the costs of the government and what it's going to do for jobs in this country, I think he's going be supportive." Technology race The UTC merger with Raytheon would transform the two companies into a single conglomerate with varied but well-established brands, each in the top tier of its specialty. The two companies together would have about $74 billion in 2019 sales, according to the announcement. Raytheon is best known for its Patriot air defense systems, which gained fame during the first Gulf War, and its Tomahawk cruise missiles, often the first weapons fired from US navy ships in recent conflicts. UTC is a big player in the aeronautics industry with its Pratt & Whitney engines, which are used in civil and military aircraft, including the F-35 multi-role stealth fighter, considered among the most advanced combat aircraft in the world. Combing the companies will result in annual savings of $1 billion by year four, about half of which could go to the US government, the companies said. Those savings are one reason the US Department of Defense "is going to really like this deal," Hayes told analysts on a conference call. The companies' pitch also emphasized the upside in terms of technological breakthroughs through an $8 billion research and development budget, 60,000 engineers and 38,000 active patents. Technology is no longer changing in "a linear fashion," Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy told analysts, saying the speed of change is "exponential" in many instances. "We're starting to see significant increases in technology growth in multiple areas that affect our business," Kennedy said. "So we believe that we need to invest in technology and that capability." Expertise from UTC's Pratt & Whitney business on thermal management could have applications in Raytheon's defense products, while Raytheon's understanding of cybersecurity to boost commercial aviation, he added. A note from Morningstar praised the deal, saying the "combined company will benefit from increased scale, complementary technology that plugs the gaps of each separate company's portfolios, and a portfolio that can offset a slowdown in either end market's spending growth." Morningstar added it does not expect "any significant hurdles on the regulatory front, given that both firms have minimal overlap in terms of their underlying businesses." A Credit Suisse note also alluded to "limited product overlap" but said the economic benefits of the deal "seem modest" and that the promised $1 billion in annual cost savings appear "somewhat questionable." Shares of Raytheon rose 2.2 percent in late-morning trading to $189.97, while United Technologies lost 1.6 percent and was trading at $130.00.

Big US defence merger touts tech, but Trump has questions

The acting Pentagon chief confirmed Sunday that the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-he-was-not-told-of-request-to-move-uss-john-mccain-out-of-sight-222761">White House had requested the hiding of a warship</a> bearing the name of late Senator John McCain during a visit by Donald Trump to Japan.

In Washington, White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said the request probably was made by somebody on the president's advance team but no one would be fired for it.

US media reported that efforts were made to obscure the USS John S. McCain's name during <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trade-beef-aside-trump-and-abe-bond-over-burgers-sumo-and-golf-221840">Trump's visit to an American military facility</a> last week, accusations denied by acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and the president.

But Shanahan said Sunday that the president's staff had contacted the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/japan-to-buy-105-f-35-us-stealth-warplanes-donald-trump-221898">Japan-based 7th Fleet of the US Navy</a> and given "the directive that the USS John S McCain should be hidden from view".

"That directive was not carried out," Shanahan told media while flying to Seoul for the third leg of his week-long tour of Asia.

Shanahan said he commissioned an investigation led by the Pentagon chief of staff upon learning of the incident.

"There is no room for politicising the military," he added. "I'll deal with this in an appropriate manner."

Shanahan's spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Joe Buccino, said the Pentagon had already lodged a protest at a White House meeting on Friday.

"Secretary Shanahan directed his chief of staff to speak with the White House military office and reaffirm its mandate that the (Pentagon) will not be politicised," Buccino said.

Mulvaney, in comments on NBC's "Meet the Press," acknowledged the request was probably made by someone on the White House advance team but said it was "not an unreasonable thing to ask."

"Is someone going to get fired for this? No,” he said.

Watch: In eventful trip to Japan, Trump inks mega defence deal with Abe

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trumps-eventful-trip-to-japan-ink-mega-defence-deal-with-abe-222103/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

McCain feud

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-tries-to-pick-twitter-fight-with-dead-john-mccain-204623">Trump had a combative political relationship with McCain</a>, who died last August and was taken prisoner and tortured during the Vietnam war.&nbsp;

According to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the story, Shanahan was aware of concern about the ship's name and "approved measures to ensure it didn't interfere with the president's visit."

Those measures included hanging a tarpaulin over the ship's name, the Journal said. The tarpaulin was removed before Trump arrived, but a barge was moved closer to the ship, blocking the view of its name.

Crew serving aboard the 154-metre (505-foot) vessel, whose uniforms bear the ship's name, were prevented from attending a speech Trump delivered from a neighbouring ship, media reports said.

Shanahan denied any involvement when asked by reporters on Thursday.

Trump insisted the same day that he would not have ordered hiding the vessel from view during his visit, and said he "couldn't care less" whether a Navy destroyer bore the name of his late rival.

The acting Pentagon chief confirmed Sunday that the White House had requested the hiding of a warship bearing the name of late Senator John McCain during a visit by Donald Trump to Japan.

The acting Pentagon chief confirmed Sunday that the White House had requested the hiding of a warship bearing the name of late Senator John McCain during a visit by Donald Trump to Japan. In Washington, White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said the request probably was made by somebody on the president's advance team but no one would be fired for it. US media reported that efforts were made to obscure the USS John S. McCain's name during Trump's visit to an American military facility last week, accusations denied by acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and the president. But Shanahan said Sunday that the president's staff had contacted the Japan-based 7th Fleet of the US Navy and given "the directive that the USS John S McCain should be hidden from view". "That directive was not carried out," Shanahan told media while flying to Seoul for the third leg of his week-long tour of Asia. Shanahan said he commissioned an investigation led by the Pentagon chief of staff upon learning of the incident. "There is no room for politicising the military," he added. "I'll deal with this in an appropriate manner." Shanahan's spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Joe Buccino, said the Pentagon had already lodged a protest at a White House meeting on Friday. "Secretary Shanahan directed his chief of staff to speak with the White House military office and reaffirm its mandate that the (Pentagon) will not be politicised," Buccino said. Mulvaney, in comments on NBC's "Meet the Press," acknowledged the request was probably made by someone on the White House advance team but said it was "not an unreasonable thing to ask." "Is someone going to get fired for this? No,” he said. Watch: In eventful trip to Japan, Trump inks mega defence deal with Abe × McCain feud Trump had a combative political relationship with McCain, who died last August and was taken prisoner and tortured during the Vietnam war. According to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the story, Shanahan was aware of concern about the ship's name and "approved measures to ensure it didn't interfere with the president's visit." Those measures included hanging a tarpaulin over the ship's name, the Journal said. The tarpaulin was removed before Trump arrived, but a barge was moved closer to the ship, blocking the view of its name. Crew serving aboard the 154-metre (505-foot) vessel, whose uniforms bear the ship's name, were prevented from attending a speech Trump delivered from a neighbouring ship, media reports said. Shanahan denied any involvement when asked by reporters on Thursday. Trump insisted the same day that he would not have ordered hiding the vessel from view during his visit, and said he "couldn't care less" whether a Navy destroyer bore the name of his late rival.

Pentagon confirms push to hide USS John McCain from Trump during Japan visit

Asserting that the strategic partnership between<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/trump-to-end-trade-privileges-for-india-on-june-5-223286"> India and the US </a>has strengthened significantly during the past two decades, the Pentagon on Friday told the Congress that both countries recognise the importance of the Indo-Pacific to global trade and commerce and share a common outlook on the region.

The Indo-Pacific region contributes two-thirds of global growth in the gross domestic product (GDP) and accounts for 60 per cent of the global GDP.&nbsp;

This region includes the world's largest economies- the United States, China and Japan- and six of the world's fastest-growing economies - India, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal and the Philippines.

A quarter of US exports go to the Indo-Pacific. Exports to India and China have more than doubled over the past decade due to free and open trade routes through the air, sea, land, space and cyber commons that form the current global system.

"Both countries recognise the importance of the Indo-Pacific to global trade and commerce and acknowledge that developments in this region will shape the larger trajectory of the rules-based international order,"&nbsp;the Pentagon said in an Indo-Pacific Strategy Report to the Congress amidst China flexing its muscles in the South China Sea.

India, through its "Act East"&nbsp;policy, continues to make significant security, economic and development investments to secure the vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region, said the report which is a comprehensive articulation of its role within a whole-of-government strategy for the Indo-Pacific region.&nbsp;

As an implementation document, the report provides clarity on the US National Defence Strategy as it applies to the region and highlights the role of allies and partners in implementing our shared vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific.

Noting that the Indian Ocean Region is at the nexus of global trade and commerce, with nearly half of the world's 90,000 commercial vessels and two thirds of global oil trade travelling through its sea lanes, it said the region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies on Earth and is home to a quarter of the world's population.

While the region offers unprecedented opportunity, it is also confronting a myriad of security challenges, including terrorism, transnational crime, trafficking-in-persons, and illicit drugs.&nbsp;

To combat these challenges, the United States seeks opportunities to broaden and strengthen partnerships with India, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Bangladesh and Nepal to respond to shared regional challenges, the report said.

The US and India maintain a broad-based strategic partnership, underpinned by shared interests, democratic values and strong people-to-people ties, it said.

"The US-India strategic partnership has strengthened significantly during the past two decades, based on a convergence of strategic interests, and the United States and India continue to use their deepening relationship to build new partnerships within and beyond the Indo-Pacific,"&nbsp;the Pentagon said.

Noting that in June 2016, the US designated India a "Major Defense Partner,"&nbsp;a status unique to India, the Pentagon said the designation seeks to elevate the US defence partnership with India to a level commensurate with that of the United States' closest allies and partners.

The establishment of the US-India 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue in September 2018 also serves as a tangible demonstration of our commitment to promoting the shared principles of a free and open Indo-Pacific, it said.

According to the Pentagon, the US continues to pursue a range of initiatives with India to enable cooperation, strengthen their inter-operability, and establish a strong foundation for defence trade, technology sharing, industrial collaboration, and broader cooperation on defence innovation.

The signing of the Communications, Compatibility and Security Agreement in 2018 represents a significant development in our military-to-military relationship, facilitating greater inter-operability and real-time secure information-sharing. Department of Defense and the Indian Ministry of Defence are increasing the scope, complexity, and frequency of our military exercises.

Later this year, the US and India will conduct their first tri-service exercise, it said.&nbsp;

Asserting that the strategic partnership between India and the US has strengthened significantly during the past two decades, the Pentagon on Friday told the Congress that both countries recognise the importance of the Indo-Pacific to global trade and commerce and share a common outlook on the region.

Asserting that the strategic partnership between India and the US has strengthened significantly during the past two decades, the Pentagon on Friday told the Congress that both countries recognise the importance of the Indo-Pacific to global trade and commerce and share a common outlook on the region. The Indo-Pacific region contributes two-thirds of global growth in the gross domestic product (GDP) and accounts for 60 per cent of the global GDP. This region includes the world's largest economies- the United States, China and Japan- and six of the world's fastest-growing economies - India, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal and the Philippines. A quarter of US exports go to the Indo-Pacific. Exports to India and China have more than doubled over the past decade due to free and open trade routes through the air, sea, land, space and cyber commons that form the current global system. "Both countries recognise the importance of the Indo-Pacific to global trade and commerce and acknowledge that developments in this region will shape the larger trajectory of the rules-based international order," the Pentagon said in an Indo-Pacific Strategy Report to the Congress amidst China flexing its muscles in the South China Sea. India, through its "Act East" policy, continues to make significant security, economic and development investments to secure the vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region, said the report which is a comprehensive articulation of its role within a whole-of-government strategy for the Indo-Pacific region. As an implementation document, the report provides clarity on the US National Defence Strategy as it applies to the region and highlights the role of allies and partners in implementing our shared vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific. Noting that the Indian Ocean Region is at the nexus of global trade and commerce, with nearly half of the world's 90,000 commercial vessels and two thirds of global oil trade travelling through its sea lanes, it said the region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies on Earth and is home to a quarter of the world's population. While the region offers unprecedented opportunity, it is also confronting a myriad of security challenges, including terrorism, transnational crime, trafficking-in-persons, and illicit drugs. To combat these challenges, the United States seeks opportunities to broaden and strengthen partnerships with India, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Bangladesh and Nepal to respond to shared regional challenges, the report said. The US and India maintain a broad-based strategic partnership, underpinned by shared interests, democratic values and strong people-to-people ties, it said. "The US-India strategic partnership has strengthened significantly during the past two decades, based on a convergence of strategic interests, and the United States and India continue to use their deepening relationship to build new partnerships within and beyond the Indo-Pacific," the Pentagon said. Noting that in June 2016, the US designated India a "Major Defense Partner," a status unique to India, the Pentagon said the designation seeks to elevate the US defence partnership with India to a level commensurate with that of the United States' closest allies and partners. The establishment of the US-India 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue in September 2018 also serves as a tangible demonstration of our commitment to promoting the shared principles of a free and open Indo-Pacific, it said. According to the Pentagon, the US continues to pursue a range of initiatives with India to enable cooperation, strengthen their inter-operability, and establish a strong foundation for defence trade, technology sharing, industrial collaboration, and broader cooperation on defence innovation. The signing of the Communications, Compatibility and Security Agreement in 2018 represents a significant development in our military-to-military relationship, facilitating greater inter-operability and real-time secure information-sharing. Department of Defense and the Indian Ministry of Defence are increasing the scope, complexity, and frequency of our military exercises. Later this year, the US and India will conduct their first tri-service exercise, it said.

India, US strategic partnership has strengthened significantly: Pentagon

The Trump administration must temporarily halt the use of some Defence Department funds for a border wall with Mexico, a judge ruled on Friday, because the money was not specifically authorised by Congress for construction of the barrier.

The order blocks the use of $1 billion from the Department of Defence in Arizona and Texas, out of $6.7 billion that Trump administration said it planned to direct toward building the wall.

"The position that when Congress declines the Executive's request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds 'without Congress' does not square with the fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic," Haywood Gilliam Jr, a US judge in California, wrote in the order.

Separately, Gilliam denied a preliminary injunction against the border wall sought by a coalition of sixteen states but said they could move forward with their case.

Spokespeople for the Department of Homeland Security, Pentagon and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Trump has said the wall is needed to address a crisis of drugs and crime flowing across the border into the United States.

The ruling adds to Trump's frustrations with federal court orders blocking his initiatives for cutting illegal immigration, a policy area he will focus on in his 2020 re-election bid.

In February, after a protracted political battle and a government shutdown, Congress approved $1.38 billion for construction of "primary pedestrian fencing" along the border in southeastern Texas, well short of Trump's demands.

To obtain the additional money, Trump declared a national emergency and his administration said it planned to divert $601 million from a Treasury Department forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion earmarked for Department of Defense counternarcotics programs and $3.6 billion from military construction projects.

The House of Representatives, more than a dozen states and two advocacy groups asked US District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland, California to block the transfer of funds to prevent the wall construction.

They argue the administration cannot use funds Congress has specifically denied and cannot construct a barrier that was not authorized, nor can the administration work outside the geographic area identified by Congress.

"This is a win for our system of checks and balances, the rule of law, and border communities," the American Civil Liberties Union tweeted.

The wall funding faced another court challenge on Thursday, in a case brought by the House of Representatives in a federal court in the District of Columbia. The lawmakers have said the diversion of $6.1 billion in Defense Department funds violates the separation of powers doctrine laid out in the US Constitution.

The Trump administration must temporarily halt the use of some Defence Department funds for a border wall with Mexico, a judge ruled on Friday, because the money was not specifically authorised by Congress for construction of the barrier.

The Trump administration must temporarily halt the use of some Defence Department funds for a border wall with Mexico, a judge ruled on Friday, because the money was not specifically authorised by Congress for construction of the barrier. The order blocks the use of $1 billion from the Department of Defence in Arizona and Texas, out of $6.7 billion that Trump administration said it planned to direct toward building the wall. "The position that when Congress declines the Executive's request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds 'without Congress' does not square with the fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic," Haywood Gilliam Jr, a US judge in California, wrote in the order. Separately, Gilliam denied a preliminary injunction against the border wall sought by a coalition of sixteen states but said they could move forward with their case. Spokespeople for the Department of Homeland Security, Pentagon and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump has said the wall is needed to address a crisis of drugs and crime flowing across the border into the United States. The ruling adds to Trump's frustrations with federal court orders blocking his initiatives for cutting illegal immigration, a policy area he will focus on in his 2020 re-election bid. In February, after a protracted political battle and a government shutdown, Congress approved $1.38 billion for construction of "primary pedestrian fencing" along the border in southeastern Texas, well short of Trump's demands. To obtain the additional money, Trump declared a national emergency and his administration said it planned to divert $601 million from a Treasury Department forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion earmarked for Department of Defense counternarcotics programs and $3.6 billion from military construction projects. The House of Representatives, more than a dozen states and two advocacy groups asked US District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland, California to block the transfer of funds to prevent the wall construction. They argue the administration cannot use funds Congress has specifically denied and cannot construct a barrier that was not authorized, nor can the administration work outside the geographic area identified by Congress. "This is a win for our system of checks and balances, the rule of law, and border communities," the American Civil Liberties Union tweeted. The wall funding faced another court challenge on Thursday, in a case brought by the House of Representatives in a federal court in the District of Columbia. The lawmakers have said the diversion of $6.1 billion in Defense Department funds violates the separation of powers doctrine laid out in the US Constitution.

Judge blocks some funds Trump sought for US-Mexico border wall

Acting US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan will meet China's defence minister at an Asia defence forum in Singapore, a senior US defence official said on Friday, at a time of strained relations between Beijing and Washington over trade and security.

Tensions between China and the United States have intensified in the past year, over an ongoing trade war and over the disputed South China Sea and US support for self-ruled Taiwan, which China claims as its own.

"We're doing a pull aside (meeting) with the Chinese counterpart at Shangri-La," said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe will deliver a speech on June 2 at the Shangri-La Dialogue, the first time since 2011 that a Chinese defence minister will be at the forum, having in recent years sent lower-level officials.

"We've got a relationship with China that contains elements of both competition and cooperation," the senior US&nbsp;defence official said.

Shanahan's predecessor Jim Mattis met Wei in Singapore last year.

Separately on Friday, the Pentagon said US and Chinese officials met in Washington earlier this week.

"The dialogue emphasized a constructive, results-oriented military relationship with a focus on maintaining open and clear communication, especially in times of crisis," a Pentagon statement said. The two sides discussed topics that included the South China Sea and North Korea.

Acting US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan will meet China's defence minister at an Asia defence forum in Singapore, a senior US defence official said on Friday, at a time of strained relations between Beijing and Washington over trade and security.

Acting US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan will meet China's defence minister at an Asia defence forum in Singapore, a senior US defence official said on Friday, at a time of strained relations between Beijing and Washington over trade and security. Tensions between China and the United States have intensified in the past year, over an ongoing trade war and over the disputed South China Sea and US support for self-ruled Taiwan, which China claims as its own. "We're doing a pull aside (meeting) with the Chinese counterpart at Shangri-La," said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe will deliver a speech on June 2 at the Shangri-La Dialogue, the first time since 2011 that a Chinese defence minister will be at the forum, having in recent years sent lower-level officials. "We've got a relationship with China that contains elements of both competition and cooperation," the senior US defence official said. Shanahan's predecessor Jim Mattis met Wei in Singapore last year. Separately on Friday, the Pentagon said US and Chinese officials met in Washington earlier this week. "The dialogue emphasized a constructive, results-oriented military relationship with a focus on maintaining open and clear communication, especially in times of crisis," a Pentagon statement said. The two sides discussed topics that included the South China Sea and North Korea.

Shanahan to meet Chinese counterpart in Singapore: US official

Hours after the United States announced that it will deploy 1500 additional troops to the Middle East as a "protective measure", Iranian Foreign Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-troop-boost-threat-to-international-peace-iran-foreign-minister-mohammad-javad-zarif-221514">Mohammad Javad Zarif </a>on Saturday deemed the move "extremely dangerous for world peace", state media reported.

In an interview to IRNA just before his departure to Tehran at the conclusion of his two-day visit to Pakistan, Zarif said that the US was levelling baseless allegations against Iran to justify its aggressive policy towards the country.

The top Iranian diplomat added that the move would only "simmer tensions" in the Persian Gulf regions. In a press briefing on Friday afternoon, Pentagon officials had informed that about 600 troops have already arrived in the Middle East with the Patriot battery, a defence system designed to track and destroy incoming missiles, while the remaining 900 troops will be deployed to mainly operate intelligence surveillance radar and drones.

The move had come hours after the US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo confirmed the approval of USD 8.1 billion in arms transfers to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates amid hostilities with Iran. The equipment includes aircraft support maintenance; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; munitions and other supplies reported Sputnik.

US military is increasing its presence in the Middle East. Recently, the country deployed carrier strike warships and B-52 bombers off the coast of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates to counter an alleged and unexplained threat from Iran.

Hours after the United States announced that it will deploy 1500 additional troops to the Middle East as a "protective measure", Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Saturday deemed the move "extremely dangerous for world peace", state media reported.

Hours after the United States announced that it will deploy 1500 additional troops to the Middle East as a "protective measure", Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Saturday deemed the move "extremely dangerous for world peace", state media reported. In an interview to IRNA just before his departure to Tehran at the conclusion of his two-day visit to Pakistan, Zarif said that the US was levelling baseless allegations against Iran to justify its aggressive policy towards the country. The top Iranian diplomat added that the move would only "simmer tensions" in the Persian Gulf regions. In a press briefing on Friday afternoon, Pentagon officials had informed that about 600 troops have already arrived in the Middle East with the Patriot battery, a defence system designed to track and destroy incoming missiles, while the remaining 900 troops will be deployed to mainly operate intelligence surveillance radar and drones. The move had come hours after the US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo confirmed the approval of USD 8.1 billion in arms transfers to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates amid hostilities with Iran. The equipment includes aircraft support maintenance; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; munitions and other supplies reported Sputnik. US military is increasing its presence in the Middle East. Recently, the country deployed carrier strike warships and B-52 bombers off the coast of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates to counter an alleged and unexplained threat from Iran.

US move to deploy additional troops 'threat to world peace': Iran FM

At least 300 fighters from Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), designated a global terror organisation by the US and the UN, are active in war-torn Afghanistan, a Pentagon report has said.

The report also identified LeT among the three terrorist groups posing the greatest threat to the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/washington-considering-duties-on-countries-that-undervalue-currency-221192"> US </a>and its allied forces in<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/afghan-foreign-ministry-lauds-indias-role-in-afghan-peace-process-220479"> Afghanistan.</a>

The LeT was responsible for the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008 that killed 166 people.&nbsp;

Among the 20 prominent terrorist organisations active in Afghanistan, LeT ranks fifth in terms of fighters along with al Qaeda and Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, stated the Pentagon report, 'Lead Inspector General for Operation Freedom's Sentinel', for the quarter ending March 31.

The report said the Department of Defence "identified the Haqqani Network, the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba as groups that present the greatest threat to the US and allied forces in Afghanistan".&nbsp;

The report also stated that an estimated 300 LeT and 1,000 Islamic Emirate High Council operatives are active in the war-torn country.&nbsp;

The ISIS-K, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and Haqqani network with an estimated 3,000-5,000 fighters each top the list of terrorist groups active in Afghanistan, it said.&nbsp;

At least 300 fighters from Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), designated a global terror organisation by the US and the UN, are active in war-torn Afghanistan, a Pentagon report has said.

At least 300 fighters from Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), designated a global terror organisation by the US and the UN, are active in war-torn Afghanistan, a Pentagon report has said. The report also identified LeT among the three terrorist groups posing the greatest threat to the US and its allied forces in Afghanistan. The LeT was responsible for the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008 that killed 166 people. Among the 20 prominent terrorist organisations active in Afghanistan, LeT ranks fifth in terms of fighters along with al Qaeda and Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, stated the Pentagon report, 'Lead Inspector General for Operation Freedom's Sentinel', for the quarter ending March 31. The report said the Department of Defence "identified the Haqqani Network, the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba as groups that present the greatest threat to the US and allied forces in Afghanistan". The report also stated that an estimated 300 LeT and 1,000 Islamic Emirate High Council operatives are active in the war-torn country. The ISIS-K, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and Haqqani network with an estimated 3,000-5,000 fighters each top the list of terrorist groups active in Afghanistan, it said.

Around 300 LeT terrorists active in Afghanistan: Pentagon

The&nbsp;US&nbsp;Department of Defense is considering a&nbsp;US&nbsp;military&nbsp;request to&nbsp;send&nbsp;about&nbsp;5,000&nbsp;additional troops to the&nbsp;Middle&nbsp;East&nbsp;amid increasing tensions with Iran, two&nbsp;US&nbsp;officials&nbsp;told Reuters on Wednesday.

Tehran and Washington have this month been escalating rhetoric against each other, following&nbsp;US&nbsp;President Donald Trump's decision to try to cut Iran's oil exports to zero and beef up the&nbsp;US&nbsp;military&nbsp;presence in the Gulf in response to what he said were Iranian threats.

The&nbsp;officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the request had been made by&nbsp;US&nbsp;Central Command, but added that it was not clear whether the&nbsp;Pentagon&nbsp;would approve the request.

The<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pentagon-seeks-to-use-funds-to-transport-lodge-taliban-members-in-search-of-ceasefires-219334">&nbsp;Pentagon&nbsp;</a>regularly receives - and declines - requests for additional resources from&nbsp;US&nbsp;combatant commands throughout the world.

One of the&nbsp;officials&nbsp;said the requested&nbsp;troops&nbsp;would be defensive in nature.

It is unclear if any specific request will ultimately be presented to the White House. The request for&nbsp;5,000&nbsp;additional&nbsp;troops&nbsp;was first reported by Reuters.

This appeared to be the latest request for additional resources in the face of what&nbsp;US officials&nbsp;have said are credible threats from Iran against&nbsp;US forces and American interests in the&nbsp;Middle&nbsp;East.

The United States has not publicly shown any evidence of what the specific intelligence on the Iranian threat is.

The&nbsp;Pentagon&nbsp;declined to comment.

"As a matter of longstanding policy, we are not going to discuss&nbsp;or speculate on potential future plans and requests for forces," Commander Rebecca Rebarich, a&nbsp;Pentagon&nbsp;spokeswoman, said on Wednesday.

Acting&nbsp;US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said on Tuesday that while threats from Iran in the&nbsp;Middle&nbsp;East&nbsp;remained high, deterrence measures taken by the&nbsp;Pentagon&nbsp;had "put on hold" the potential for attacks on Americans.

The&nbsp;US military&nbsp;accelerated the deployment of a carrier strike group to the&nbsp;Middle&nbsp;East and sent bombers and Patriot missiles to the region earlier this month in response to what Washington said were troubling indications of possible preparations for an attack by Iran.

The US&nbsp;government sources told Reuters last week they believe Iran encouraged Houthi militants or Iraq-based Shi'ite militias to carry out attacks on tanker ships off the United Arab Emirates.

Trump has warned that Iran would be met with "great force" if it attacked&nbsp;US&nbsp;interests in the&nbsp;Middle&nbsp;East.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that Iran's youth will witness the demise of Israel and American civilization.

The US Department of Defense is considering a US military request to send about 5,000 additional troops to the Middle East amid increasing tensions with Iran, two US officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

The US Department of Defense is considering a US military request to send about 5,000 additional troops to the Middle East amid increasing tensions with Iran, two US officials told Reuters on Wednesday. Tehran and Washington have this month been escalating rhetoric against each other, following US President Donald Trump's decision to try to cut Iran's oil exports to zero and beef up the US military presence in the Gulf in response to what he said were Iranian threats. The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the request had been made by US Central Command, but added that it was not clear whether the Pentagon would approve the request. The Pentagon regularly receives - and declines - requests for additional resources from US combatant commands throughout the world. One of the officials said the requested troops would be defensive in nature. It is unclear if any specific request will ultimately be presented to the White House. The request for 5,000 additional troops was first reported by Reuters. This appeared to be the latest request for additional resources in the face of what US officials have said are credible threats from Iran against US forces and American interests in the Middle East. The United States has not publicly shown any evidence of what the specific intelligence on the Iranian threat is. The Pentagon declined to comment. "As a matter of longstanding policy, we are not going to discuss or speculate on potential future plans and requests for forces," Commander Rebecca Rebarich, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said on Wednesday. Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said on Tuesday that while threats from Iran in the Middle East remained high, deterrence measures taken by the Pentagon had "put on hold" the potential for attacks on Americans. The US military accelerated the deployment of a carrier strike group to the Middle East and sent bombers and Patriot missiles to the region earlier this month in response to what Washington said were troubling indications of possible preparations for an attack by Iran. The US government sources told Reuters last week they believe Iran encouraged Houthi militants or Iraq-based Shi'ite militias to carry out attacks on tanker ships off the United Arab Emirates. Trump has warned that Iran would be met with "great force" if it attacked US interests in the Middle East. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that Iran's youth will witness the demise of Israel and American civilization.

Pentagon mulling US military request to send 5,000 troops to Middle East: Officials

Iraqis have endured successive wars but spiralling tensions between Washington and Tehran have many convinced that new conflict looms between their key allies and that they will pay the price.

In Washington, some commentators shrug off the bellicose talk towards Tehran saying it will abate when President Donald Trump reins in his hawkish national security adviser John Bolton to avoid a new -- and potentially far larger -- foreign military commitment.

But in Baghdad, the Pentagon's deployment to the Gulf of a carrier group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln accompanied by B-52 bombers have many people persuaded the US threats are very real.

In March 2003, warplanes from the Lincoln flew sortie after sortie over Iraq in the "shock and awe" bombing blitz that signalled the start of the US-led invasion.

The carrier had first deployed to the region in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War which ousted Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait.

In May 2003, it was from Lincoln's flight deck that president George W Bush announced the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq in front of a large banner proclaiming: "Mission Accomplished".

The victory declaration was to prove horribly premature, but to Iraqis, the nuclear-powered carrier remains a potent symbol of Washington's readiness to use its formidable military might.

The Lincoln "does not move just for the sake of exerting psychological pressure", said civil rights activist Aysar Jarjafji.

"It is deployed for a reason and returns home only when it has accomplished its mission," she said.

Iraq 'first loser'

Columnist Hussein Rashid agreed. "There is no question about it, there will be war," he said.&nbsp;

"And Iraq will be the first loser.&nbsp;

"The Abraham Lincoln bombed Iraq. We have a bad memory of that."

Taxi driver Abu Hammudi too believes war is coming.&nbsp;

It is Ramadan and the streets of Baghdad are largely deserted during the day as Muslims await the iftar meal that marks the end of their dawn-to-dusk fast.

"The city is empty, it's like wartime," he said.

"I remember perfectly well how Baghdad was bombed in 1991. It was a horrific night. No one had expected it to happen but it did."

Like many taxi drivers in Baghdad, Hammudi drives an Iranian-manufactured yellow Saipa.

The neighbouring countries, which have centuries-old religious and cultural ties, have massively expanded cross-border trade since the US-led overthrow of Saddam's regime, which fought a devastating 1980-88 war against Iran.

Trump strongly disapproves and has piled huge pressure on Iraq to reduce its economic dependence on it neighbour since he abandoned his predecessor Barack Obama's 2015 nuclear deal with Iran last year.

'Interests at stake'

But in Iraq, the Trump administration faces the hard reality that US military trainers and contractors work in the same ministries and businesses as those of Iran.

"American interests are present in Iraq and militias linked to Iran are also present here," said Jarjafji, sipping an after-iftar drink at a Baghdad cafe.

She was referring to Iraq's Hashed al-Shaabi paramilitary force, which is dominated by Iranian-trained Shiite militias.

Those Iranian military trainers, like their US counterparts working with the regular army, played a major role in helping Baghdad defeat the Islamic State group fighters who overran much of the north and west of Iraq in 2014.

But it those same Iranian-trained militias which Washington said on Thursday pose the "imminent" threat to US personnel in Iraq that prompted the latest military deployments.

Washington has blacklisted Iran's Revolutionary Guards -- the parallel army which provides the training -- as a "terrorist" organisation.

Iraqi militia commanders on Thursday dismissed the US allegation as a "provocation" and "psychological warfare".

And Washington's assessment of the immediacy of the threat is not shared by all of its allies in the coalition it forged to fight IS.

"There has been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria," British coalition spokesman Major General Chris Ghika said on Tuesday.

Iraqi university professor Issa al-Abbadi said he was still hopeful that the realities on the ground would lead moderate voices to prevail.

"There could be a deal. Interests are at stake," he said of the uneasy coexistence between Washington and Tehran in Iraq.&nbsp;

"Victory in war is in avoiding it."&nbsp;

Iraqis have endured successive wars but spiralling tensions between Washington and Tehran have many convinced that new conflict looms between their key allies and that they will pay the price.

Iraqis have endured successive wars but spiralling tensions between Washington and Tehran have many convinced that new conflict looms between their key allies and that they will pay the price. In Washington, some commentators shrug off the bellicose talk towards Tehran saying it will abate when President Donald Trump reins in his hawkish national security adviser John Bolton to avoid a new -- and potentially far larger -- foreign military commitment. But in Baghdad, the Pentagon's deployment to the Gulf of a carrier group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln accompanied by B-52 bombers have many people persuaded the US threats are very real. In March 2003, warplanes from the Lincoln flew sortie after sortie over Iraq in the "shock and awe" bombing blitz that signalled the start of the US-led invasion. The carrier had first deployed to the region in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War which ousted Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In May 2003, it was from Lincoln's flight deck that president George W Bush announced the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq in front of a large banner proclaiming: "Mission Accomplished". The victory declaration was to prove horribly premature, but to Iraqis, the nuclear-powered carrier remains a potent symbol of Washington's readiness to use its formidable military might. The Lincoln "does not move just for the sake of exerting psychological pressure", said civil rights activist Aysar Jarjafji. "It is deployed for a reason and returns home only when it has accomplished its mission," she said. Iraq 'first loser' Columnist Hussein Rashid agreed. "There is no question about it, there will be war," he said. "And Iraq will be the first loser. "The Abraham Lincoln bombed Iraq. We have a bad memory of that." Taxi driver Abu Hammudi too believes war is coming. It is Ramadan and the streets of Baghdad are largely deserted during the day as Muslims await the iftar meal that marks the end of their dawn-to-dusk fast. "The city is empty, it's like wartime," he said. "I remember perfectly well how Baghdad was bombed in 1991. It was a horrific night. No one had expected it to happen but it did." Like many taxi drivers in Baghdad, Hammudi drives an Iranian-manufactured yellow Saipa. The neighbouring countries, which have centuries-old religious and cultural ties, have massively expanded cross-border trade since the US-led overthrow of Saddam's regime, which fought a devastating 1980-88 war against Iran. Trump strongly disapproves and has piled huge pressure on Iraq to reduce its economic dependence on it neighbour since he abandoned his predecessor Barack Obama's 2015 nuclear deal with Iran last year. 'Interests at stake' But in Iraq, the Trump administration faces the hard reality that US military trainers and contractors work in the same ministries and businesses as those of Iran. "American interests are present in Iraq and militias linked to Iran are also present here," said Jarjafji, sipping an after-iftar drink at a Baghdad cafe. She was referring to Iraq's Hashed al-Shaabi paramilitary force, which is dominated by Iranian-trained Shiite militias. Those Iranian military trainers, like their US counterparts working with the regular army, played a major role in helping Baghdad defeat the Islamic State group fighters who overran much of the north and west of Iraq in 2014. But it those same Iranian-trained militias which Washington said on Thursday pose the "imminent" threat to US personnel in Iraq that prompted the latest military deployments. Washington has blacklisted Iran's Revolutionary Guards -- the parallel army which provides the training -- as a "terrorist" organisation. Iraqi militia commanders on Thursday dismissed the US allegation as a "provocation" and "psychological warfare". And Washington's assessment of the immediacy of the threat is not shared by all of its allies in the coalition it forged to fight IS. "There has been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria," British coalition spokesman Major General Chris Ghika said on Tuesday. Iraqi university professor Issa al-Abbadi said he was still hopeful that the realities on the ground would lead moderate voices to prevail. "There could be a deal. Interests are at stake," he said of the uneasy coexistence between Washington and Tehran in Iraq. "Victory in war is in avoiding it."

War talk grips Iraq as storied US carrier returns to Gulf

pentagon

Pentagon, News on Pentagon, stories on Pentagon, articles on Pentagon, Pentagon stories at Wion, Pentagon news, Pentagon latest news