Iranian strikes on a US military base in Jordan damaged several American aircraft but caused no reported US casualties, according to a report on the latest escalation in the Iran conflict.

The overnight attack targeted the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, where US military aircraft are stationed. According to reporting cited by Reuters, an A-10 Thunderbolt II suffered significant damage, including the loss of a wing, while around eight F-15 fighter jets sustained minor damage.

The damaged F-15s were subsequently returned to service, while the condition and future of the heavily damaged A-10 remained under assessment.

US Aircraft Hit at Jordan Air Base

The reported damage represents a significant strike against US military assets outside the immediate battlefield in Iran.

The Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, located in eastern Jordan, is an important US military facility in the region. Its location gives American forces access to operations across the Middle East.

The latest attack demonstrates the continued ability of Iranian forces to threaten US military infrastructure despite extensive American and allied air operations against Iran.

No American military personnel were reported killed or wounded in the latest strike.

A-10 Suffers Major Damage

The A-10 Thunderbolt II, commonly known as the Warthog, was reportedly among the aircraft hit in the attack.

The aircraft suffered substantial damage, with one wing destroyed. The A-10 is primarily designed for close-air support and has been a longstanding component of US military aviation.

The extent of the damage means the aircraft's future operational status could be different from the F-15s that were quickly restored to service.

Eight F-15s Reportedly Damaged

Around eight F-15 fighter aircraft also suffered damage during the attack, although the reported damage was less severe.

The aircraft were subsequently returned to service, according to the Reuters report.

The incident nevertheless highlights the risks faced by US aircraft operating from regional bases as Iran continues to launch missiles and other attacks against American and allied targets.

Strike Comes Amid Wider Regional Escalation

The attack is part of a broader escalation in the US-Iran conflict, which has increasingly affected military installations, commercial shipping and energy markets across the Middle East.

Iranian attacks have extended beyond Iran and Israel to targets and infrastructure linked to US forces and regional partners. The continuing hostilities have also created uncertainty around shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and other critical maritime routes.

Oil prices have remained above $100 a barrel amid concerns over prolonged disruptions to energy supplies. Reuters reported that Brent crude was on course for its first weekly close above $100 since May, while geopolitical tensions continued to drive market volatility.

No Clear End to Conflict Yet

The latest strike comes even as President Donald Trump continues to defend the US decision to launch military action against Iran.

Trump said on Friday that he had no regret about starting the war and claimed he would make the same decision again. He has also predicted that the conflict will end after the US midterm elections.

However, the continued attacks and damage to US military assets indicate that the conflict remains active, with no immediate political settlement apparent.

The Associated Press reported that the United States has made progress in reopening the Strait of Hormuz and reducing Iran's oil exports, but the war remains unresolved and costly.

Military Pressure Continues

The damage at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base adds another complication for Washington as US forces maintain a large military presence across the region.

For Iran, continued attacks on US bases and military infrastructure provide a means of demonstrating that it can still impose costs despite the pressure of the US-Israeli campaign.

For the United States, protecting regional bases and maintaining operational aircraft will remain critical as the conflict continues.

The latest incident therefore underlines the gap between political statements about an eventual end to the war and the military reality on the ground, where attacks and counterattacks remain ongoing.

Iran has escalated its confrontation with the United States by launching ballistic missiles toward a US military base in Jordan and claiming that its forces captured an American unmanned underwater vessel in the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

The developments have added fresh pressure to an already volatile Middle East conflict and sent oil prices sharply higher. Brent crude moved close to $100 a barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate crude also climbed as markets assessed the risk of further disruption to oil production and shipping through the Gulf.

Iran Targets US Base in Jordan

Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it launched missiles at a US military facility near Al Azraq in Jordan.

Jordanian and US officials said most of the incoming missiles were intercepted and reported no casualties from the strike at the time of reporting. Iran, however, claimed that its attack caused significant damage.

The strike represents another expansion of the conflict beyond Iran's immediate territory, with US military assets and regional allies increasingly becoming targets.

The escalation follows US military action against Iranian oil tankers after Washington said Iran had attacked a US Navy vessel. According to Reuters, the US destroyed five Iranian oil tankers in response.

Iran Claims Capture of US Underwater Vessel

Adding another unusual dimension to the confrontation, Iran has claimed that its forces seized an American unmanned underwater vehicle near the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian state media described the vessel as a sophisticated or advanced US Navy asset and presented the seizure as a military and intelligence success.

The United States has disputed that description. US officials said the underwater system was an older unmanned vessel that had malfunctioned and was no longer operational. Washington also indicated that it did not carry sensitive sonar or radar equipment.

The competing descriptions have turned the incident into another point of information warfare between Washington and Tehran.

Why the Strait of Hormuz Matters

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most important energy chokepoints, connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the wider Arabian Sea.

Any sustained disruption in the waterway can quickly affect global oil markets because large volumes of crude and petroleum products move through the region.

The current confrontation has already affected commercial shipping, with vessels facing increased risks from missiles, drones, mines and attacks on tankers. A prolonged disruption could force energy exporters to rely more heavily on alternative routes and could increase transportation and insurance costs.

Oil Prices Approach $100

Oil markets reacted immediately to the latest escalation.

Brent crude rose to around $99 a barrel, while WTI reached about $94.34, marking a fourth consecutive session of gains, according to Reuters.

The market is pricing in a growing risk premium because of uncertainty over supplies from the Middle East. Concerns have increased after attacks involving Iranian tankers, shipping routes and energy infrastructure across the region.

Analysts have warned that a prolonged disruption could push prices substantially higher if crude exports are curtailed for an extended period.

Houthi Attacks Add to Energy Risk

The latest Iranian action comes alongside attacks by Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen.

The Houthis have targeted locations in Saudi Arabia, including areas containing oil infrastructure. Reuters reported that the attacks injured dozens of people and further raised concerns about the security of regional energy supplies.

The combination of attacks on shipping, oil infrastructure and military facilities is creating a broader security problem for Gulf energy markets.

Conflict Enters More Dangerous Phase

The latest developments indicate that the conflict is increasingly affecting military, maritime and energy infrastructure simultaneously.

For the United States, securing freedom of navigation and maintaining regional military positions remain central concerns. Iran, meanwhile, has sought to demonstrate that it can impose costs on US forces and disrupt the economic routes on which its adversaries depend.

The danger for global markets is that even a limited military incident could have wider consequences if it affects commercial shipping through Hormuz.

For now, traders are closely watching whether the confrontation produces further attacks on tankers or energy infrastructure. Any sustained interruption to Gulf exports could turn the current oil-price spike into a much broader global energy shock.

The US Department of Defence has reported that 774 American service members have been killed or wounded since the start of the country's war against Iran, with the latest Pentagon data showing 756 troops wounded in action and 18 killed. The updated figures come amid criticism over delays and changes in the way the US military has reported casualties from the conflict.

According to the Defence Casualty Analysis System (DCAS), the combined figures under the Operation Epic Furycategory and a separate “Overseas Operations” section show 756 wounded service members. The Pentagon's database lists 18 deaths connected to the operation, taking the total number of killed and injured personnel to 774. The latest update added about 50 wounded service members to the previously reported figures. The Pentagon established the “Overseas Operations” category for casualties linked to the conflict beginning July 7, the same day US forces resumed airstrikes against Iran. Washington has said those strikes followed Iranian attacks targeting shipping and tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

Pentagon faces casualty reporting scrutiny

The latest figures have renewed attention on the Pentagon's handling of casualty data during the Iran conflict. The Defence Department previously faced criticism from media organisations and Democratic lawmakers after the number of service members listed as killed and wounded in its database temporarily declined. The Pentagon attributed those changes to what it described as “temporary data disruptions”.

The department has also faced questions over why information about wounded personnel was not disclosed more quickly. According to reports cited in the supplied material, US officials have pointed to security considerations for delays in releasing some casualty information. The updated database now provides a substantially higher number of wounded troops than earlier public figures suggested.

Iran conflict continues

The casualty update comes as Washington's military operations against Iran continue amid uncertainty over diplomatic efforts to ease the conflict. Earlier this week, US President Donald Trump notified Congress that hostilities had resumed, giving US forces and the US Central Command theatre another 60 days to conduct military operations with congressional approval.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a major flashpoint in the confrontation because of its importance to global energy shipments. The US has linked its renewed military action to attacks on commercial shipping in the region, while negotiations aimed at easing tensions and reopening the waterway have faced difficulties.

Trump has also announced a major economic campaign against Iran as Washington increases pressure on Tehran. The US administration has described the planned measures as an unprecedented financial offensive designed to restrict Iran's ability to generate revenue and access international financial networks.

The latest Pentagon casualty figures therefore provide a clearer picture of the human cost to US forces as the conflict enters another phase. With military operations continuing alongside economic pressure and strained diplomatic efforts, further changes to the casualty figures are possible as the Pentagon updates its database and verifies reports from the battlefield.

The Pentagon has dismissed Stars and Stripes publisher Max Lederer, editor-in-chief Erik Slavin and Middle East reporter Lara Korte, citing insubordination, days after the military newspaper reported concerns about conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier. The three were given separation notices on Friday, with Lederer and Slavin receiving five days to appeal, according to CBS News and Associated Press reports. 

The dismissals have intensified a dispute between Pentagon leadership and Stars and Stripes over the newspaper's editorial independence. Slavin said he was dismissed after participating in a CBS interview in which he defended the publication's independence and objected to any potential military interference in its reporting. Korte, who also took part in the interview, said she was fired for insubordination after stating that she worked for Stars and Stripes rather than the Pentagon, the administration or any policymaker. The Pentagon has cited insubordination as the reason for the dismissals, while the employees have linked the action to their defence of independent journalism. 

The action follows a period of growing tension over the future of Stars and Stripes. Lederer, who had served as publisher for 19 years, had announced earlier this week that he planned to retire on September 30, saying his understanding of the newspaper's mission differed fundamentally from the direction of the Department of Defense. The Pentagon has been pushing to modernise the publication and refocus its coverage, with chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell previously describing the effort as bringing Stars and Stripes into the 21st century and moving its content away from what officials characterised as "woke distractions." About half of the newspaper's roughly $29 million annual budget is funded by taxpayers, while its average daily readership is estimated at about 1.4 million. 

The dispute gained further attention after Stars and Stripes and other military publications reported on concerns surrounding the USS Abraham Lincoln, including complaints from family members about sailors' mental health and difficult living conditions during the carrier's extended deployment. The carrier, carrying about 5,000 sailors and Marines, has spent more than 200 consecutive days at sea and began its journey back to San Diego this week after a nine-month deployment. Reports have included concerns over shortages of basic supplies, water contamination, plumbing problems, deck safety and mental-health pressures. U.S. military officials have pushed back against some of the reporting, while Adm. Brad Cooper publicly praised the crew's resilience. 

The latest dismissals have prompted concerns from press-freedom advocates and lawmakers about the newspaper's ability to maintain editorial independence while receiving substantial Pentagon funding. National Press Club President Mark Schoeff Jr. called the firing of Slavin troubling, while Democratic senators have separately questioned the Pentagon's placement of an active-duty Navy captain in a senior leadership role at Stars and Stripes. Navy Capt. William Urban, who was recently installed in a leadership position, has said he is committed to editorially independent journalism serving service members, their families and the wider military community. 

Questions over the operational strain on the US Navy are growing after reports of poor living conditions, supply shortages and prolonged deployments surfaced aboard several American warships, including the USS Abraham Lincoln, USS George Washington, USS George HW Bush and USS Boxer.

The concerns come as the US Navy continues to manage demanding deployments linked to the Iran conflict as well as its wider commitments in the Indo-Pacific and other regions. While some allegations have been disputed by US military authorities, the reports have renewed debate over whether the Navy is being stretched beyond its personnel and logistical capacity.

Concerns Spread Beyond Lincoln

The latest controversy follows reports involving the USS Abraham Lincoln, where sailors and their families raised concerns about lengthy deployments, deteriorating morale and shortages of basic supplies.

The carrier has reportedly spent more than 250 consecutive days at sea. Families of sailors have described difficult conditions, including limited access to food and basic personal-care products, broken toilets, mouldy showers and long working hours.

Reports also emerged that several sailors had attempted to go overboard amid concerns about their mental health and the pressure of an extended deployment.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has disputed descriptions of the conditions aboard the Lincoln, calling some reports “completely misrepresented”, while acknowledging that certain deployments can be longer and more difficult than others.

USS George Washington Under Scrutiny

The controversy has now extended to the USS George Washington, which is expected to replace the Abraham Lincoln.

Author and investigator Seth Harp has published images purportedly showing poor conditions aboard the carrier, including a dirty bathroom floor, corroded pipes and a toilet containing brownish liquid.

Separate messages attributed to a sailor also alleged shortages of fresh food. The sailor reportedly said that the ship had been relying heavily on frozen meat because fresh produce could deteriorate during the supply process.

The allegations have added to concerns about whether prolonged deployments are placing pressure on the Navy's ability to maintain normal standards of accommodation and supplies.

Problems Reported on Other Ships

The USS George HW Bush has also been mentioned in reports about shortages and morale.

According to an account cited by independent journalist Aaron Parnas, a family member of sailors aboard the carrier alleged that the ship had been at sea for 146 days and had inadequate supplies of food, water and soap. The account also described declining morale among personnel.

Another incident involved the USS Benfold, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer operating in the Indo-Pacific.

CNN reported that the ship suffered an engineering casualty involving its generators on July 24. According to US Navy Commander Matthew Comer, the incident affected the vessel's ability to manoeuvre and disrupted galley services, toilets, air conditioning and potable water.

The ship reportedly remained affected for several days while operating in the hot conditions of the South China Sea.

USS Boxer Allegations Disputed

Reports have also raised concerns about conditions aboard the USS Boxer, a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship deployed to West Asia.

A family member of a sailor alleged that female service members were facing shortages of essential hygiene products and were rationing supplies.

However, US Naval Forces Central Command rejected the allegation.

The command said reports of a shortage of women's hygiene products aboard the Boxer were false. It stated that the vessel had made four port visits since leaving San Diego in March and had spent less than two months at sea since its latest stop.

According to the command, feminine hygiene supplies remained available through the ship's store and medical facilities.

Pressure From Global Deployments

The different reports have emerged against the backdrop of growing demands on the US Navy.

American naval forces are required to maintain operations in multiple strategic theatres while supporting military operations connected to the Iran conflict. Extended deployments place additional pressure on crews, maintenance schedules, food supplies and other logistical systems.

Aircraft carriers and large warships are designed for prolonged operations, but lengthy periods without adequate port access can create additional challenges for both sailors and support networks.

The reports therefore raise questions not only about individual vessels but also about the broader sustainability of the Navy's current operational tempo.

Calls for Greater Oversight

The allegations have prompted calls for closer scrutiny from lawmakers.

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal has written to Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao seeking answers over conditions facing sailors.

The concerns also come as the US Navy faces the challenge of maintaining its global presence while managing increasingly demanding deployments.

Not every allegation has been independently verified, and the Navy has rejected some of the claims, particularly those concerning the USS Boxer. However, the emergence of complaints involving multiple vessels has intensified questions about sailor welfare, logistics and operational readiness.

For the US Navy, the challenge is increasingly twofold: maintaining its military commitments while ensuring that the personnel operating its ships have adequate food, sanitation, rest and basic supplies during extended deployments.

The Donald Trump administration is expanding its military campaign against drug trafficking networks in Latin America, moving beyond strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats and exploring joint operations with regional militaries against criminal groups on land.

The proposed shift could mark a significant escalation in Washington's security policy in the Western Hemisphere and is likely to test how much direct US military involvement governments across Latin America are prepared to accept.

From Boat Strikes to Land

The United States has carried out more than 60 strikes against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, with more than 200 people reportedly killed in the operations.

The Trump administration has accused the targeted vessels of transporting drugs and linked their crews to organisations it describes as “narco-terrorist” groups.

The boat campaign has drawn criticism over the evidence made public by Washington and questions surrounding the legality of the strikes.

The administration now wants to extend a similar approach to land-based targets, potentially involving US personnel alongside Latin American forces.

Hegseth Names Four Countries

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Honduras were among the countries working with Washington on military operations against organised criminal groups.

Hegseth made the remarks during a military exercise in Panama and said the US wanted to apply the approach used against suspected drug boats to criminal targets on land.

However, the statement has already faced pushback. Guatemala has denied agreeing to joint military operations with the United States.

Colombia Could Be Key Test

Colombia could become one of the most important testing grounds for the new strategy.

Hegseth said Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella had sought greater US military involvement in the fight against armed groups, including the National Liberation Army (ELN).

Direct US support for operations against groups such as the ELN would represent a significant change from Washington's traditional role in Colombia, which has largely involved intelligence, weapons, training and other forms of security assistance.

Military operations in areas populated by civilians could also create additional risks. Armed groups may abandon established camps and move into towns and communities, making them more difficult to target while increasing the possibility of civilian casualties.

Sovereignty Raises Concerns

The biggest challenge for Washington could be political rather than military.

Latin American governments have generally welcomed US intelligence, equipment and training, but allowing American forces to conduct direct combat operations on their territory is considerably more sensitive.

Ecuador has expanded security cooperation with Washington and conducted joint operations, but voters rejected a proposal in a 2025 referendum to permit foreign military bases in the country.

Guatemala has also signalled limits to the proposed strategy. President Bernardo Arévalo has denied agreeing to joint US military operations and said such an arrangement would require congressional approval.

Mexico has similarly resisted allowing US forces to conduct military operations against drug cartels on Mexican territory, despite extensive security cooperation between the two countries.

Trump’s Harder Drug Policy

Since returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump has pursued a tougher approach towards organised crime and drug trafficking in Latin America.

Washington has designated 20 Latin American criminal groups as foreign terrorist organisations and increased military and intelligence cooperation with governments fighting organised crime.

The administration argues that stronger military action is necessary against criminal networks that have become increasingly powerful and violent.

Critics, however, say the expanded campaign could create legal and diplomatic complications, particularly if US forces become directly involved in combat operations outside American territory.

Can Military Force Deliver Results?

The proposed strategy also faces questions about whether military action can permanently weaken drug trafficking networks.

Criminal organisations and armed groups have historically adapted to military pressure. Destroying bases and camps may force fighters and traffickers to relocate rather than eliminate the networks themselves.

There is also a risk that armed groups could move closer to civilian populations, complicating military operations and increasing the potential for civilian casualties.

For Latin American governments, the political calculation is equally difficult. Leaders facing rising crime may welcome US intelligence and equipment, but a visible American military presence could trigger nationalist opposition.

A Broader US Strategy

The expansion of the campaign goes beyond counter-narcotics operations. It also reflects Trump's broader effort to strengthen US influence across the Western Hemisphere.

Washington wants regional governments to cooperate more closely on organised crime, migration, border security and other strategic issues.

Whether Latin American governments agree to deeper military cooperation will determine how far the new strategy can go. For now, the proposed shift from sea-based strikes to land operations represents a major test of both US military policy and regional sovereignty.

The United States is set to withdraw its remaining military forces from Iraq by September 30, 2026, marking the end of a US military presence that began with the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi announced the deadline on Wednesday following a meeting with US Central Command Commander General Brad Cooper. The move follows an agreement between Washington and Baghdad to wind down the US-led military mission against the Islamic State (ISIS).

September 30 Set as Final Deadline

According to a statement from the Iraqi prime minister's office, September 30 will be the "fixed and final date" for ending the military mission of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS in Iraq and completing the departure of coalition forces.

The statement said October 1 would mark a new phase for Iraq, with the country free of foreign military forces.

The Iraqi government also linked the withdrawal to its objective of ensuring that weapons remain under the exclusive control of the state, describing this as an important condition for the country's next phase of development and stability.

US Confirms Planned Withdrawal

A US official also confirmed to The Associated Press that Washington expects to complete the withdrawal by September 30. However, the official did not disclose how many American troops currently remain in Iraq or where personnel could be redeployed.

The official said the United States, Iraq and coalition partners had made significant progress against ISIS and that Iraqi security forces would now take the lead in counterterrorism operations.

This includes Iraq's national security forces as well as the Peshmerga and other security forces in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region.

From Invasion to Counterterrorism

The US military presence in Iraq has gone through several major phases since the 2003 invasion.

American troop numbers peaked at more than 170,000 in 2007, during the height of counterinsurgency operations. The last US combat troops left Iraq in December 2011.

However, the rise of ISIS in 2014 changed the situation. After the extremist group captured large parts of Iraq and Syria, US forces returned at the request of the Iraqi government as part of an international campaign against ISIS.

Coalition military operations against ISIS eventually ended in 2021, although American personnel continued to remain in Iraq in an advisory and counterterrorism capacity.

US Bases Came Under Attack

The remaining US military presence has faced renewed security challenges in recent months.

American bases in Iraq have been targeted repeatedly since the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran on February 28. Most US troops had already withdrawn from bases across Iraq last year, but a presence remained in the northern Kurdish region.

The final withdrawal therefore comes amid a broader reshaping of the US military footprint in West Asia.

Focus Shifts to Bilateral Ties

The Iraqi government said its discussions with the United States now point towards a relationship focused increasingly on economic cooperation, security coordination and mutual sovereignty rather than a large-scale foreign military presence.

The announcement represents a major transition for Iraq after more than two decades of American military involvement.

For Washington, the withdrawal reflects the changing nature of its mission after the territorial defeat of ISIS. For Baghdad, it represents an effort to assert greater control over national security while maintaining cooperation with the United States in other areas.

The September 30 deadline will now be closely watched as Iraq prepares for the final phase of the US military withdrawal.

Two US Army soldiers were killed on Wednesday after an AH-64E Apache attack helicopter crashed in a rural area near Salado in Bell County, Texas, during a routine military operation, authorities said.

The helicopter, which was based at nearby Fort Hood, came down in an open field about 70 miles north of Austin. The crash triggered a large grass fire and briefly prompted authorities to evacuate residents from nearby areas as emergency crews worked to contain the blaze.

Officials said the identities of the two soldiers have not yet been released. The Army follows a standard notification procedure in which the next of kin are informed before the names of service members killed in an incident are made public.

Crash Reported Near Salado

Emergency services began receiving 911 calls shortly after 1:30 pm local time following reports that a military helicopter had gone down in a rural field.

First responders rushed to the crash site, where they found both crew members dead. The aircraft was identified as an AH-64E Apache, one of the US Army's principal attack helicopter variants.

The helicopter was operating from Fort Hood, a major US military installation in central Texas, when the crash occurred.

Authorities have not indicated that any other aircraft were involved in the incident.

Grass Fire Forces Evacuation

The impact caused a significant grass fire around the crash site. Flames spread through the surrounding field, prompting local authorities to temporarily evacuate nearby residential areas as a precaution.

Firefighters and aerial tanker aircraft were deployed to control the blaze. Emergency crews eventually contained and extinguished the fire.

Officials said no homes or other civilian structures were damaged in the incident.

Bell County Sheriff's Office spokesperson Cliff Coleman said Fort Hood personnel were working at the scene alongside local emergency responders.

Cause Still Unknown

The cause of the helicopter crash remains under investigation.

Military authorities have not yet determined whether mechanical problems, weather conditions, human factors or another issue contributed to the accident. Investigators are expected to examine the aircraft wreckage, flight records, maintenance information and other evidence as part of the inquiry.

Brigadier General Ethan Diven, acting commanding general at Fort Hood, said the immediate priority was securing the crash site and assisting emergency responders.

"Our thoughts are with the crew and their families as we await further information," Diven said.

The investigation will also seek to establish the circumstances leading up to the helicopter's final moments and whether any technical or operational issues were reported before the crash.

Texas Governor Offers Condolences

Texas Governor Greg Abbott expressed condolences to the families of the two soldiers and the broader Fort Hood community following the crash.

"Texas is forever indebted to those who serve our state and nation," Abbott said.

The deaths add to a long history of military aviation accidents involving training and operational flights, where authorities typically conduct detailed safety investigations before drawing conclusions about the cause.

Army Launches Investigation

The US Army's Criminal Investigation Division, along with aviation safety and inspection teams, has launched a formal investigation into the crash.

Investigators are expected to secure and examine the crash site while collecting information from military personnel and emergency responders who arrived after the incident.

The identities of the two soldiers will be released after their families have been officially notified.

The crash comes as Fort Hood and other US Army installations continue routine aviation operations involving helicopters used for training, transport and combat readiness. Authorities have not suggested that the incident was connected to hostile activity.

The investigation is ongoing, and officials are expected to release further information as investigators establish what caused the Apache helicopter to crash.

The United States has intensified its maritime blockade of Iran even as President Donald Trump signals a shift away from further military escalation and towards economic pressure on Tehran. The latest development comes amid growing questions over the sustainability of Washington’s military campaign and the availability of weapons for a prolonged conflict.

US Central Command said on Monday that American forces had so far disabled two vessels and redirected 55 others as part of the blockade. US troops also boarded two ships to enforce compliance with the restrictions.

The developments followed Trump's remarks that Washington was now taking a more measured approach to negotiations with Iran. Speaking to Axios, Trump said the US was “low-keying” talks while allowing economic pressure on Tehran to increase. He also claimed that Iran was facing severe economic difficulties and lacked sufficient funds to pay its military personnel.

Blockade Puts Pressure on Tehran

The US blockade has emerged as one of Washington's main tools for putting pressure on Iran without launching another major round of strikes.

Trump has argued that the restrictions are worsening Iran's economic crisis, particularly at a time when the country is already dealing with inflation and shortages. The pressure also reportedly contributed to Iran agreeing to an interim peace arrangement.

However, the effectiveness of the strategy remains uncertain. Iran has spent years adapting its economy and supply networks to Western sanctions, allowing it to maintain essential trade despite restrictions imposed by the US and its allies.

US Military Faces Limitations

The shift towards economic pressure is also taking place against the backdrop of limitations within the US military campaign.

Reports have indicated that the US missile stockpile has fallen to levels that could make a sustained large-scale campaign against Iran difficult. The shortage has emerged as one of the factors behind Trump's decision to pause a planned offensive and favour negotiations.

The situation presents the administration with a difficult choice. Continuing large-scale military operations could put additional pressure on US weapons stocks, while stepping back without securing a political agreement could be portrayed as a failure to achieve Washington's stated objectives.

Trump Under Political Pressure

The conflict is also unfolding as the US approaches the mid-term elections. Rising fuel prices and broader economic concerns have increased political pressure on the Trump administration.

Petrol prices in the US have remained above $4 per gallon, adding to cost-of-living concerns. The conflict has also contributed to economic uncertainty at a time when the American labour market was already showing signs of weakness.

Recent surveys indicate that voters are increasingly concerned about the economy, with Democrats gaining an advantage over Republicans on the issue. This could make an eventual resolution of the Iran conflict particularly important for the administration ahead of the elections.

Can Maximum Pressure Work?

Trump's renewed emphasis on economic pressure reflects his long-standing “maximum pressure” approach towards Iran. The strategy is based on the assumption that severe economic costs can eventually force Tehran to accept US demands.

There are signs that the blockade is hurting Iran. Reports have pointed to acute financial difficulties, with Iranian officials warning about pressure on food, medical supplies and other essential imports if the restrictions continue.

Yet economic pressure does not automatically translate into political capitulation.

Iran has previously demonstrated an ability to function under sanctions, while its leadership has repeatedly prioritised maintaining strategic autonomy. The country's resilience could therefore make it difficult for Washington to force a quick settlement through economic measures alone.

A High-Stakes Standoff

Trump's decision to reduce the emphasis on immediate military escalation could lower the risk of another major confrontation in the region. At the same time, the continued blockade means the pressure campaign remains active.

For Washington, the challenge will be to use economic leverage without triggering a wider regional escalation or becoming locked into an open-ended confrontation.

For Tehran, the immediate priority will be to manage the economic impact while maintaining its negotiating position.

The coming weeks are likely to determine whether Trump's pivot from military escalation to economic pressure can produce a diplomatic breakthrough—or simply prolong the confrontation with Iran.

US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine has reportedly urged senior officials in President Donald Trump’s administration to explore an “off-ramp” from the ongoing conflict with Iran, amid concerns that further military escalation could produce limited results and carry significant risks.

According to a CNN report citing three sources familiar with the discussions, Caine has raised concerns with senior members of Trump’s national security team, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. The sources reportedly said the general believes some of the military options being considered could backfire and that air power alone may not be sufficient to achieve the objectives set by the president.

General Raises Concerns

The reported discussions come as Trump has continued to emphasise the strength of the US military while remaining reluctant to commit American ground forces to Iran.

Trump has indicated that sustained air strikes could pressure Tehran into accepting a deal on US terms. However, according to the CNN report, Caine and some other senior officials privately believe that achieving the administration’s desired outcome through air power alone could prove difficult.

One source described Caine as seeking an “off-ramp” from the conflict, suggesting that the military leadership is examining alternatives that could reduce the risk of a wider escalation.

Focus on Military Limits

Caine has reportedly warned about the potential consequences of expanding military operations, including concerns over the availability of US munitions.

Two sources cited by CNN said Caine discussed the possible downsides of further escalation during a White House meeting with Trump and other senior officials late last month.

At the same time, the general reportedly made clear that the US military could inflict significant damage on Iran if the president ordered further operations. The concern, according to the report, is whether such military action would ultimately deliver the political objectives Washington is seeking.

Caine’s Position Not Confirmed

Caine’s spokesperson, Joseph Holstead, declined to comment on the reported private discussions.

“We do not discuss the Chairman’s confidential conversations with the President, the Secretary, or other senior leaders,” Holstead told CNN, while also rejecting what he described as anonymous characterisations of those conversations.

The White House, meanwhile, defended Caine’s role within the administration and praised his contribution to Trump’s national security team.

A White House official told CNN that Caine provides the president with information and military options, while the final decisions remain with Trump.

Trump Avoids Ground War

Trump has repeatedly appeared cautious about sending US ground troops into Iran. His approach has instead centred on using American air power and military pressure to force Tehran toward negotiations.

The reported concerns within the military leadership highlight the difficulty of achieving political objectives through air strikes alone.

A sustained bombing campaign could damage Iran’s military infrastructure, but determining whether it would force Tehran to accept Washington’s demands is a separate question.

Diplomatic Exit Under Discussion

The reported search for an “off-ramp” does not necessarily indicate that Washington is abandoning its military strategy. Rather, it suggests that senior officials are considering ways to prevent the conflict from developing into a broader and potentially prolonged war.

For the Pentagon, the challenge is to balance Trump’s demands for military pressure with concerns over resources, escalation and the limits of air power.

The situation could therefore put increased emphasis on diplomatic channels if military operations fail to produce the desired outcome.

For now, there has been no official confirmation from the White House or Pentagon that a formal plan to end the conflict has been adopted. The reported discussions instead indicate that senior US officials are weighing multiple options as Washington assesses the next phase of the war with Iran.

US President Donald Trump has dismissed reports suggesting that America's military operations against Iran are straining its weapons stockpiles, asserting that the United States possesses "far more munitions than anyone in the world" and faces no shortage of ammunition.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump rejected media reports that ongoing operations in West Asia had increased pressure on key missile inventories, including Patriot air defence missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and SM-3 interceptors.

"We have far more munitions than anyone in the world, and far more than we need," Trump said.

Reports Raise Inventory Questions

Recent reports by The Wall Street Journal and CNN suggested that the pace of US offensive strikes and missile defence operations had prompted military officials to closely monitor supplies of advanced interceptor systems.

However, according to the reports, US Central Command officials believe current stockpiles remain sufficient while pre-emptive strikes against Iranian missile sites could reduce future demand for interceptors.

Trump Says Iran Is Losing Capability

Rejecting concerns over US military supplies, Trump instead claimed Iran's missile capabilities were rapidly weakening due to sustained American and Israeli operations.

"They're running out, and they're running out of areas to shoot them because they're being decimated," Trump said, referring to Iran's missile launch infrastructure.

AI Images Shared on Social Media

Trump also shared several AI-generated images on his social media platform, Truth Social, depicting attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure and oil tankers.

The digitally created posts included fictional images of strikes on Kharg Island, Iran's primary crude oil export terminal, and graphics suggesting the seizure of Iranian oil tankers. The posts do not depict actual events.

The remarks signal the administration's continued hardline approach toward Tehran amid heightened regional tensions and ongoing military operations.

The United States carried out another round of military strikes against targets in Iran on Monday, marking the ninth consecutive night of military operations amid continuing regional hostilities. According to the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), the strikes targeted multiple military facilities, including command centers, air defense systems, missile infrastructure, and drone launch sites.

The latest wave of operations comes as tensions between the United States and Iran remain elevated, with military activity continuing across several parts of the Middle East. Officials said the strikes were aimed at degrading military capabilities considered relevant to ongoing operations, although the full extent of the damage has not yet been independently verified.

Following the reported strikes, local reports from northwestern Iran indicated that a fire broke out at a missile facility near Tabriz. Residents in the area claimed flames were visible after explosions were heard. The reports have not been independently verified, and Iranian authorities have not publicly released a detailed assessment of the reported damage at the time of writing.

The missile complex is widely reported to be associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, one of Iran's principal military organizations responsible for missile and aerospace operations. However, there has been no independent confirmation regarding the operational status of the facility following the reported attack.

According to CENTCOM, the latest strikes were directed at military objectives that included command-and-control facilities, integrated air defense systems, missile launch infrastructure, and drone launch sites. U.S. officials stated that the operations were intended to reduce military capabilities linked to ongoing regional security concerns.

Military analysts note that targeting such infrastructure is generally intended to limit an adversary's operational capacity by disrupting command networks and reducing the ability to launch missiles or unmanned aerial systems. However, independent assessments regarding the effectiveness of the strikes are still awaited.

While military operations continued inside Iran, the United States also confirmed the death of one of its service members in neighboring Iraq. According to CENTCOM, the soldier was killed while participating in an operation to safely dispose of an unexploded Iranian drone in northern Iraq.

The U.S. military stated that another American service member was injured during the same incident and is currently receiving medical treatment. Officials did not immediately provide additional details regarding the circumstances surrounding the operation or the condition of the injured soldier.

With the latest casualty, the reported number of U.S. military personnel killed during the current conflict has risen to 17, according to figures released by the U.S. military. Authorities have expressed condolences to the family of the deceased service member while reaffirming their commitment to ongoing operations in the region.

The death highlights the continuing dangers faced by military personnel even after active combat operations have concluded. Unexploded drones, missiles, and other explosive devices remain significant hazards during post-strike clearance operations, requiring specialized explosive ordnance disposal teams.

The broader regional security situation remains highly volatile, with military actions and countermeasures continuing across multiple locations in the Middle East. Governments and international observers continue to monitor developments closely amid concerns that the conflict could have wider geopolitical consequences.

Analysts believe that sustained military operations by both sides increase the risk of further escalation, particularly if strategic military infrastructure continues to be targeted. Diplomatic efforts aimed at reducing tensions have so far shown limited progress as military engagements continue.

The ongoing conflict has also prompted heightened security measures across several neighboring countries, where governments remain alert to the possibility of cross-border security incidents. Military installations, diplomatic facilities, and critical infrastructure throughout the region continue to operate under increased security protocols.

International organizations and several world leaders have repeatedly urged restraint and called for diplomatic dialogue to prevent further escalation. Humanitarian agencies have also expressed concern over the broader impact of continued military operations on regional stability and civilian populations.

Despite these appeals, military operations have continued, with both sides maintaining defensive and offensive activities. Independent verification of battlefield developments remains difficult because of restricted access to many affected areas and the rapidly evolving security situation.

As the conflict enters another phase, international attention remains focused on developments in Iran, Iraq, and the wider Middle East. Officials are expected to continue assessing the impact of the latest strikes while monitoring the regional security environment for any further escalation or diplomatic developments.