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

The Pentagon said on Thursday that it had asked Congress for the authority to help fund lodging and transportation for Taliban members who were interested in negotiating local ceasefires with the Afghan government, as the Washington seeks an end to the more than 17-year-old war.

Last year, the Taliban observed an Afghan government ceasefire over the three-day Eid al-Fitr festival, leading to unprecedented scenes of government soldiers and militants embracing on front lines, and raising hopes for talks.

Since then however, fighting between the Taliban and US-backed Afghan government has intensified, even as talks between Washington and the militant group have continued.

"In cases where lodging and transportation would be required to facilitate the participation of all required parties to negotiate a local peace deal, the funds could be used for the purpose," Pentagon spokeswoman Commander Rebecca Rebarich said.

She said the Pentagon was seeking "to lay the groundwork in anticipation of opportunities to facilitate talks with the Afghan government to find a way to end the war." She said until now no funds had been used and the Pentagon did not provide further details of possible funding.

A bill passed this week by the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense barred the U.S. government from using money to pay for the expenses of Taliban members taking part in the peace talks with the United States, unless the talks included members of the Afghan government or did not restrict the participation of women.

The bill has still not passed the full House Appropriations Committee and it is unclear whether lawmaker's would approve the Pentagon's request.

So far, Afghan government officials have been sidelined from talks between Washington and the Taliban.

Rebarich said that the Defense Department was not reimbursing local insurgent groups taking part in the talks.

"The United States also supports local peace initiatives between the Afghan government and insurgent groups looking to cease hostilities against the Afghan Government and coalition forces," she said.

Rebarich added that the request for this authority was made by the commander of US&nbsp;forces in Afghanistan following the June 2018 ceasefire.

US&nbsp;and Taliban negotiators wrapped up their sixth round of peace talks on Thursday with "some progress" made on a draft agreement for when foreign troops might withdraw from Afghanistan.

The Afghan government has expressed frustration about not being included in talks with the Taliban and the limited information Kabul is being provided by Washington.

"The government does not feel that they have been briefed enough," Roya Rahmani, Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States, told reporters in Washington this week.

"If a peace is to be negotiated and to be durable, it cannot keep on going on without the presence of Afghan people," Rahmani said.

The Pentagon said on Thursday that it had asked Congress for the authority to help fund lodging and transportation for Taliban members who were interested in negotiating local ceasefires with the Afghan government, as the Washington seeks an end to the more than 17-year-old war.

The Pentagon said on Thursday that it had asked Congress for the authority to help fund lodging and transportation for Taliban members who were interested in negotiating local ceasefires with the Afghan government, as the Washington seeks an end to the more than 17-year-old war. Last year, the Taliban observed an Afghan government ceasefire over the three-day Eid al-Fitr festival, leading to unprecedented scenes of government soldiers and militants embracing on front lines, and raising hopes for talks. Since then however, fighting between the Taliban and US-backed Afghan government has intensified, even as talks between Washington and the militant group have continued. "In cases where lodging and transportation would be required to facilitate the participation of all required parties to negotiate a local peace deal, the funds could be used for the purpose," Pentagon spokeswoman Commander Rebecca Rebarich said. She said the Pentagon was seeking "to lay the groundwork in anticipation of opportunities to facilitate talks with the Afghan government to find a way to end the war." She said until now no funds had been used and the Pentagon did not provide further details of possible funding. A bill passed this week by the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense barred the U.S. government from using money to pay for the expenses of Taliban members taking part in the peace talks with the United States, unless the talks included members of the Afghan government or did not restrict the participation of women. The bill has still not passed the full House Appropriations Committee and it is unclear whether lawmaker's would approve the Pentagon's request. So far, Afghan government officials have been sidelined from talks between Washington and the Taliban. Rebarich said that the Defense Department was not reimbursing local insurgent groups taking part in the talks. "The United States also supports local peace initiatives between the Afghan government and insurgent groups looking to cease hostilities against the Afghan Government and coalition forces," she said. Rebarich added that the request for this authority was made by the commander of US forces in Afghanistan following the June 2018 ceasefire. US and Taliban negotiators wrapped up their sixth round of peace talks on Thursday with "some progress" made on a draft agreement for when foreign troops might withdraw from Afghanistan. The Afghan government has expressed frustration about not being included in talks with the Taliban and the limited information Kabul is being provided by Washington. "The government does not feel that they have been briefed enough," Roya Rahmani, Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States, told reporters in Washington this week. "If a peace is to be negotiated and to be durable, it cannot keep on going on without the presence of Afghan people," Rahmani said.

Pentagon seeks to use funds to transport, lodge Taliban members in search of ceasefires

Proposal by Pentagon officials suggests deployment nearing Gulf War levels if Iran were to expedite nuclear program or targets US forces.

White House said to review plan to send up to 120,000 troops to Middle East

Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido said on Saturday he has asked his envoy to the United States to meet with Pentagon officials to "cooperate" on a solution to the South American country's political crisis.

Guaido, the leader of the opposition-controlled National Assembly, added he had received word from China that the country would join a diplomatic effort between European and Latin American countries, known as the International Contact Group on Venezuela, to negotiate an end to the crisis.

In January, Guaido invoked the OPEC nation's constitution to assume an interim presidency, arguing President Nicolas Maduro's 2018 re-election was illegitimate. He has been recognized by most Western and Latin American countries, but Maduro has retained the support of allies China, Russia and Cuba.

Guaido's effort to oust Maduro so he can take power and call new elections has stalled in recent weeks, after an attempted military uprising on April 30 was put down. Guaido told an Italian newspaper this week that he would "probably" accept a US military intervention if the United States proposed it.

"We have instructed our ambassador Carlos Vecchio to meet immediately ... with the Southern Command and its admiral to establish a direct relationship," Guaido said at a rally in Caracas on Saturday. "We have said from the beginning that we will use all the resources at our disposal to build pressure."

Representatives of the US Southern Command and Vecchio did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump administration officials have repeatedly said that "all options are on the table" to oust Maduro, who calls Guaido a US puppet seeking to oust him in a coup.

The Southern Command said in a tweet on Thursday that it was prepared to discuss "how we can support the future role" of Venezuelan armed forces leaders who "restore constitutional order," when invited by Guaido.

Venezuela's Information Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino separately said on Saturday that a US Coast Guard ship had entered Venezuelan territorial waters, which he said "we will not accept."

A Southern Command spokesman had said on Friday that a US Coast Guard vessel was conducting a "counterdrug detection and monitoring mission" in "international waters" in the Caribbean Sea on May 9.

Guaido was speaking at a rally in support of opposition lawmakers who have been arrested, taken refuge at foreign embassies in Caracas, and been threatened in recent days amid a broad crackdown by Maduro against congress after the April 30 uprising.

Most Latin American countries, as well as the European Union, have expressed opposition to potential military intervention in Venezuela. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said last week the contact group is prepared to begin a "mission at the political level" in Caracas.

Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido said on Saturday he has asked his envoy to the United States to meet with Pentagon officials to "cooperate" on a solution to the South American country's political crisis.

Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido said on Saturday he has asked his envoy to the United States to meet with Pentagon officials to "cooperate" on a solution to the South American country's political crisis. Guaido, the leader of the opposition-controlled National Assembly, added he had received word from China that the country would join a diplomatic effort between European and Latin American countries, known as the International Contact Group on Venezuela, to negotiate an end to the crisis. In January, Guaido invoked the OPEC nation's constitution to assume an interim presidency, arguing President Nicolas Maduro's 2018 re-election was illegitimate. He has been recognized by most Western and Latin American countries, but Maduro has retained the support of allies China, Russia and Cuba. Guaido's effort to oust Maduro so he can take power and call new elections has stalled in recent weeks, after an attempted military uprising on April 30 was put down. Guaido told an Italian newspaper this week that he would "probably" accept a US military intervention if the United States proposed it. "We have instructed our ambassador Carlos Vecchio to meet immediately ... with the Southern Command and its admiral to establish a direct relationship," Guaido said at a rally in Caracas on Saturday. "We have said from the beginning that we will use all the resources at our disposal to build pressure." Representatives of the US Southern Command and Vecchio did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump administration officials have repeatedly said that "all options are on the table" to oust Maduro, who calls Guaido a US puppet seeking to oust him in a coup. The Southern Command said in a tweet on Thursday that it was prepared to discuss "how we can support the future role" of Venezuelan armed forces leaders who "restore constitutional order," when invited by Guaido. Venezuela's Information Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino separately said on Saturday that a US Coast Guard ship had entered Venezuelan territorial waters, which he said "we will not accept." A Southern Command spokesman had said on Friday that a US Coast Guard vessel was conducting a "counterdrug detection and monitoring mission" in "international waters" in the Caribbean Sea on May 9. Guaido was speaking at a rally in support of opposition lawmakers who have been arrested, taken refuge at foreign embassies in Caracas, and been threatened in recent days amid a broad crackdown by Maduro against congress after the April 30 uprising. Most Latin American countries, as well as the European Union, have expressed opposition to potential military intervention in Venezuela. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said last week the contact group is prepared to begin a "mission at the political level" in Caracas.

Venezuela's Guaido seeks US Pentagon cooperation to solve political crisis

Acting US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan made his second trip to the US-Mexico border on Saturday as the Pentagon looks to develop a longer-term plan to support President Donald Trump's immigration policies.

Shanahan travelled to McAllen, Texas, to meet with officials and visit a migrant processing facility and Border Patrol station, two days after the White House announced Trump's intention to nominate the former Boeing Co executive as defence secretary.

"We're not going to leave until the border is secure," Shanahan told about two dozen border patrol officials as hundreds of detained migrants waited in tents to be processed.&nbsp;

Shanahan was accompanied by another acting secretary, Kevin McAleenan, who leads the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after a shake-up instigated by Trump, whose hard-line immigration policies have not stemmed a rising tide of migrants.

On Friday, the Pentagon said Shanahan approved the transfer of $1.5 billion to build more than 80 miles (130 km) of barriers on the border, part of a patchwork project after Trump failed to secure funding from Congress for a complete border wall.

Trump has been eager to have the US military play a larger role on the border and, despite some criticism from lawmakers, Pentagon officials say they are looking to create a long-term plan for assistance.

Shanahan told a small group of reporters travelling with him that military assistance would not continue "indefinitely," but that it would be in place longer than months.

The Pentagon has tapped a two-star Army general to work with DHS to look at what military support will be needed in the future. Shanahan said he expected a plan from the general in the next few weeks.

"(It is about) getting us out of this à la carte tasking where, 'Hey, we need 50 guys to do this, 50 guys to do that,'" a senior defence official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official said the idea was to look out over a timeline of at least two years.

The official added that the Pentagon was reviewing a recent request from DHS to provide housing for detained migrants.

"What we're hopful&nbsp;to do is have, in fairly short order for the secretary of Homeland Security, a much more predictable, comprehensive plan for the next couple of years," the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, said earlier this week.

There are currently about 4,500 US service members on the border, and they are authorized to be there until through September.

Democratic criticism

The decision to transfer the $1.5 billion for border funding came on top of a March transfer of $1 billion in military money to fund the wall, which Democratic lawmakers criticized sharply.

Lawmakers have hinted they may respond by putting new restrictions on the Pentagon's authority to move money around.

Shanahan said he understood Congress could take that authority away from the Pentagon and said he was unsure how to ease concerns. "I don't have a good answer for how we're going to balance it. It is a predicament," he said.

The Pentagon is weighing which projects from the military construction budget will be affected to help pay up to $3.6 billion for the wall and whether there is a military need for it.

Acting US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan made his second trip to the US-Mexico border on Saturday as the Pentagon looks to develop a longer-term plan to support President Donald Trump's immigration policies.

Acting US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan made his second trip to the US-Mexico border on Saturday as the Pentagon looks to develop a longer-term plan to support President Donald Trump's immigration policies. Shanahan travelled to McAllen, Texas, to meet with officials and visit a migrant processing facility and Border Patrol station, two days after the White House announced Trump's intention to nominate the former Boeing Co executive as defence secretary. "We're not going to leave until the border is secure," Shanahan told about two dozen border patrol officials as hundreds of detained migrants waited in tents to be processed. Shanahan was accompanied by another acting secretary, Kevin McAleenan, who leads the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after a shake-up instigated by Trump, whose hard-line immigration policies have not stemmed a rising tide of migrants. On Friday, the Pentagon said Shanahan approved the transfer of $1.5 billion to build more than 80 miles (130 km) of barriers on the border, part of a patchwork project after Trump failed to secure funding from Congress for a complete border wall. Trump has been eager to have the US military play a larger role on the border and, despite some criticism from lawmakers, Pentagon officials say they are looking to create a long-term plan for assistance. Shanahan told a small group of reporters travelling with him that military assistance would not continue "indefinitely," but that it would be in place longer than months. The Pentagon has tapped a two-star Army general to work with DHS to look at what military support will be needed in the future. Shanahan said he expected a plan from the general in the next few weeks. "(It is about) getting us out of this à la carte tasking where, 'Hey, we need 50 guys to do this, 50 guys to do that,'" a senior defence official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official said the idea was to look out over a timeline of at least two years. The official added that the Pentagon was reviewing a recent request from DHS to provide housing for detained migrants. "What we're hopful to do is have, in fairly short order for the secretary of Homeland Security, a much more predictable, comprehensive plan for the next couple of years," the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, said earlier this week. There are currently about 4,500 US service members on the border, and they are authorized to be there until through September. Democratic criticism The decision to transfer the $1.5 billion for border funding came on top of a March transfer of $1 billion in military money to fund the wall, which Democratic lawmakers criticized sharply. Lawmakers have hinted they may respond by putting new restrictions on the Pentagon's authority to move money around. Shanahan said he understood Congress could take that authority away from the Pentagon and said he was unsure how to ease concerns. "I don't have a good answer for how we're going to balance it. It is a predicament," he said. The Pentagon is weighing which projects from the military construction budget will be affected to help pay up to $3.6 billion for the wall and whether there is a military need for it.

US defence secretary visits US-Mexico border as Pentagon eyes longer-term plan to support Trump's immigration policy

The Pentagon announced Friday that it is deploying an amphibious assault ship and a Patriot missile battery to the Middle East to bolster an aircraft carrier force sent to counter alleged threats from Iran.

The USS Arlington, which transports marines, amphibious vehicles, conventional landing craft and rotary aircraft, and the Patriot air defence system will join the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/b-52-bombers-to-be-part-of-us-forces-sent-to-middle-east-over-iran-concerns-216934"> B-52 bomber task force</a> headed toward the Gulf after intelligence reports suggested Iran was planning some sort of attack in the region.

The deployment is "in response to indications of heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against US forces and our interests," the Pentagon said in a statement.

"The Department of Defense continues to closely monitor the activities of the Iranian regime, their military and proxies," it said.

"The United States does not seek conflict with Iran, but we are postured and ready to defend US forces and interests in the region."

On Sunday US President Donald Trump's national security advisor John Bolton announced the deployment of the Lincoln group and bombers saying he wanted to send a "clear and unmistakable" message to Iran about any attack against the US or its partners in the region.&nbsp;

Washington though has not elaborated on the alleged threat, drawing criticism that it is overreacting and unnecessarily driving up tensions in the region.

Iran dismissed the deployment of the Lincoln as old news but followed it with an announcement that it would suspend some of its commitments under the landmark 2015 nuclear deal with major powers abandoned by Washington last year.

Amid the rising tensions, Trump said Thursday he is open to talks with Tehran's leadership.

"What I would like to see with Iran, I would like to see them call me," Trump told reporters at the White House.

The Pentagon announced Friday that it is deploying an amphibious assault ship and a Patriot missile battery to the Middle East to bolster an aircraft carrier force sent to counter alleged threats from Iran.

The Pentagon announced Friday that it is deploying an amphibious assault ship and a Patriot missile battery to the Middle East to bolster an aircraft carrier force sent to counter alleged threats from Iran. The USS Arlington, which transports marines, amphibious vehicles, conventional landing craft and rotary aircraft, and the Patriot air defence system will join the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a B-52 bomber task force headed toward the Gulf after intelligence reports suggested Iran was planning some sort of attack in the region. The deployment is "in response to indications of heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against US forces and our interests," the Pentagon said in a statement. "The Department of Defense continues to closely monitor the activities of the Iranian regime, their military and proxies," it said. "The United States does not seek conflict with Iran, but we are postured and ready to defend US forces and interests in the region." On Sunday US President Donald Trump's national security advisor John Bolton announced the deployment of the Lincoln group and bombers saying he wanted to send a "clear and unmistakable" message to Iran about any attack against the US or its partners in the region. Washington though has not elaborated on the alleged threat, drawing criticism that it is overreacting and unnecessarily driving up tensions in the region. Iran dismissed the deployment of the Lincoln as old news but followed it with an announcement that it would suspend some of its commitments under the landmark 2015 nuclear deal with major powers abandoned by Washington last year. Amid the rising tensions, Trump said Thursday he is open to talks with Tehran's leadership. "What I would like to see with Iran, I would like to see them call me," Trump told reporters at the White House.

US builds deterrent force against possible Iranian attack; sends assault ship, missiles to Mideast

pentagon

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