Follow us on social

Drone

US Military says it shot down an Iranian drone in Iraq

CENTCOM appears to be in the middle of IRGC attacks against Kurdish groups blamed for fomenting protests. We ask again, what are we doing there?

Analysis | Middle East

U.S. Central Command said today that at 2 p.m. local time the U.S. military in Erbil Governate (Northern Iraq) shot down an Iranian drone engaged in an "unprovoked attack" that "appeared as a threat to CENTCOM forces in the area."

What makes this quite different from previous drone shoot-downs is that this was reportedly an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) drone. In previous exchanges in Northern Iraq and just over the border in Syria, "Iran-backed militias" have been accused of the provocations. This one goes right to the heart of the regime, which has always kept a distance from the militias on the ground and has not taken responsibility for previous attacks.

We know, however, from recent headlines that Iran has been targeting Kurdish groups it claims are responsible for fomenting the massive protests across Iran for the last 11 days. As of this afternoon, at least nine people have been killed and 24 wounded in the Erbil region, according to Al Jazeera, with that death toll expected to rise. The Iranians have been engaged in a "wave" of shelling and drone strikes, with Washington condemning them as an “assault on the sovereignty of Iraq and its people."

The CENTCOM press release did not speculate, but it seems fairly certain that today's shoot-down was related to that wave of attacks and the U.S. choosing to intervene on Iraq's behalf. That our troops are not there to defend Kurds from Iranians but under a completely different AUMF does not matter. We're there and, at this point, so integrated into the Iraqi military and security landscape that any threat to Iraq could be a "threat to CENTCOM forces." That goes for the U.S. forces still positioned in Syria.

So what happens when the Turks decide to start really pummeling the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), who are U.S. allies, as they have promised? A NATO-vs.-NATO showdown?

Perhaps there is support for U.S. forces remaining in the region to protect the sovereignty of Iraq and its people — lord knows they have earned it — but shouldn't that be up to the American people via congressional approval and oversight? That isn't the case, however. The U.S. military has remained there, in harms way, under every successive administration since the 2003 invasion, without a new AUMF. Now they are embroiled in regional disputes that bring the U.S. closer to a direct confrontation with Tehran. Is this what we want?

Congress, let's talk.


File photo of Iranian Mojer-6 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, which US military says it shot down in Northern Iraq on Wednesday. (Tasnim News/Creative Commons/Wikimedia)
Analysis | Middle East
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.