Today the US Navy lost a F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet — worth at least $67 million — when it fell off the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier as it took a hard turn to avoid Houthi fire.
The USS Truman is stationed in the Red Sea as part of the U.S.’ ongoing anti-Houthi campaign, also known as Operation Rough Rider.
“The F/A-18E was actively under tow in the hangar bay when the move crew lost control of the aircraft. The aircraft and tow tractor were lost overboard,” a statement from the Navy read. “Sailors towing the aircraft took immediate action to move clear of the aircraft before it fell overboard. An investigation is underway.”
The Navy emphasized Monday that the Truman Carrier Strike Group, which has been targeted repeatedly by the Houthis, “remain[s] fully mission capable.”
To date, the U.S. has spent about $3 billion in its recent anti-Houthi campaign since it began in mid-March, hitting over 800 targets in Yemen, and killing hundreds of civilians, in the process. And now, the accidental loss of a fighter jet instantaneously adds tens of millions to that total.
The billions the U.S. has spent in this campaign have resulted in questionable outcomes. CENTCOM says its efforts have degraded Houthi fighting capacities; yet CNN reporting from last month suggested the campaign has only had limited results against them. Earlier this month the New York Times reported that in closed briefings, “Pentagon officials have acknowledged that there has been only limited success in destroying the Houthis’ vast, largely underground arsenal of missiles, drones and launchers.”
Critically, the U.S. says its anti-Houthi campaign is about ensuring ships can go through the Red Sea without getting attacked by them. But they’re hitting at a group with other objectives, namely, pressuring U.S. ally Israel to stop its onslaught against the Gaza strip. All the while, prospects of renewed civil war in Yemen — which the U.S. has said it could be open to participating in — have only grown.
Stavroula Pabst is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft.
Top image credit: An F/A-18C Hornet assigned to the Checkerboards of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 312 launches from the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) in 2010. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Apprentice Tyler Caswell)
No Pope had ever kissed the feet of leaders, begging them to bring peace to their country. But in April 2019, Pope Francis surprised South Sudan and the entire world when he did just that to President Salva Kiir, Vice President Riek Machar, James Wani Igga, Taban Deng Gai, and Rebecca Nyandeng De Mabior; a gesture that clearly expressed his belief that the Pontiff of the Catholic Church must be a committed and unwavering peacemaker.
Pope Francis spoke about peace until his very last breath. In his brief message before the Urbi et Orbi blessing on April 20, Easter Sunday, he mentioned peace 10 times, remembering the Holy Land and the gift of all Christians celebrating Easter on the same day, in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, the Southern Caucasus, the Balkans, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and South Sudan, the Sahel, the Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region, and also Myanmar.
His memory of specific countries and regions was accompanied by his concern for freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and respect for the views of others. He stressed that no peace is possible without true disarmament. The call was “to care for one another, to increase our mutual solidarity, and to work for the integral development of each human person.”
These were not only his last words. These were the words of an entire life and of an entire pontificate. Even the name chosen, “Francis,” was a sign of his commitment to peace and the poor. No Pope before him had used that name, the name of a poor friar from Assisi who, in 1219, was bold enough to counter the Crusaders and meet Sultan Malik al-Kamil in Damietta, Egypt.
Indeed, Pope Francis spoke about peace, invited peace, and worked for peace even and especially when few did so — much like his chosen namesake. He was the first Pope to visit the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, the first to develop a personal friendship with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed Al-Tayyeb, the same way he was friends with Rabbi Abraham Skorka in Argentina. He expressed the same personal touch through his frequent calls to the only Catholic church in the Gaza Strip.
Yet, his ministry was not only about personal relationships and feelings. It was made of bold steps for the world such as the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” the first document to be signed by both a Catholic Pope and a Grand Imam of Al-Azhar. It was signed 800 years after St. Francis visited Sultan Malik al-Kamil and marked a dramatic turn in the relationship between Muslims and Christians.
It was also bold to declare, as he did in Nagasaki, Japan, that “the use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral, just as the possession of nuclear weapons is immoral.” The opposition of the Catholic Church and prior Pontiffs to nuclear weapons had been clear but Pope Francis’ statement went beyond; we must imagine a world without nuclear weapons, we must imagine a world in peace.
And he was equally bold when he denounced the arms trade, repeatedly condemning those who profit from war in his address to the United States Congress in September 2015, saying, “why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money; money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.”
For his boldness and love of peace, Pope Francis was openly criticized, even mocked. This was especially true when he tried to open a path to peace in Ukraine by sending Cardinal Matteo Zuppi to Kyiv, Moskow, Washington, and Beijing. In that context, peace was and has been a dirty word, but in his words and actions, Francis insisted that peace remain central, underlining the value of the human person, of peoples, over and against the destructive power of violence.
Similar resistance emerged against his stance in favor of the dejected, migrants, and prisoners. Pope Francis was caring. He was aware of the trials and tribulations of many, and, aware, he cared for them and invited others to do the same.
He made himself a pilgrim of peace, travelling the globe, witnessing to peace and spreading the invitation widely. He traveled to many countries where the Catholic population was a minority and was always welcomed with great warmth and appreciation. He made the world smaller, weaving it together in a time of further distances and higher walls.
He went from South Sudan, where he told the leaders, “future generations will either venerate your names or cancel their memory, based on what you now do,” and then to Iraq, where he met Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf saying, “peace does not demand winners or losers, but brothers and sisters who, despite misunderstandings and past wounds, choose the path of dialogue.”
Francis was undetered, and worked tirelessly and repeatedly. In May 2014, then-Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with him in the Vatican and recently, after one year of Israeli offensive in Gaza, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Palestinian Minister for Foreign Affairs Nasser Al-Kidwa presented Pope Francis with their proposal to end the war devastating their nations. Throughout the conflict, Pope Francis, as in Ukraine, centered the lives of the suffering, choosing to call the only Catholic church in Gaza personally every day, demonstrating, in a most concrete way, his care and concern.
Many are mourning after his death. He was mourning with many while he was alive.
When he visited the Community of Sant’Egidio in Rome in 2014, he coined 3 Ps to capture its charisms — prayer, the poor, and peace. In this synthesis was both a description and invitation; an invitation to many to make these the pillars of their life.
Pope Francis made peace through prayer and care for the poor. He did so until the very end of his earthly journey and continues to invite all to do the same.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump meets with China's President Xi Jinping at the start of their bilateral meeting at the G20 leaders summit in Osaka, Japan, June 29, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Trump is considering a significant reduction of the extraordinarily high tariffs on China that followed a dizzying tit-for-tat spiral between the two countries in early April.
China was the only country to immediately retaliate against Trump’s draconian “liberation day” tariffs, and Trump’s intolerance for that self-assertion led to 145% tariffs on the U.S. side and 125% tariffs on the Chinese side — tantamount to severing economic relations overnight between the world’s two most important economic powers.
Trump’s public softening is a hopeful sign because the tariff confrontation could all too easily tip over into an irreparable break between the United States and China, ultimately developing into large-scale violence. Yet significant obstacles stand in the way, and both sides have already taken damaging steps that undermine the possibility for de-escalation. Regardless of what happens with the tariff rate, if the Trump administration successfully pushes major third countries to exclude China from their economies, conflict is likely to spin out of control.
Commentators have been slow to focus on the danger of U.S.–China conflict. Many have grown complacent as the conflict became familiar and seemingly contained to small-scale antagonistic measures and empty diplomatic discussions. Trump’s conflicts with allies, his tariff campaign against the whole world, and his attacks on liberal institutions at home have drawn all the attention.
Yet we now stand in a moment of acute danger. Against a years-long background of growing economic, military, and philosophical tensions, the trade war threatens to unleash a series of escalatory dynamics across all realms in the U.S.–China relationship.
Already under the first Trump and Biden administrations, the gradual formation of adversarial geopolitical blocs was underway. Biden’s consolidation and systematization of Trump 1’s exclusionary policies toward China had convinced the Chinese leadership of immovable American hostility to China’s interests. Then, Trump stacked his administration with a fractious national security and international economic team whose only point of agreement was the need for confrontation with China.
Trump himself, however, offered hope of escaping a devastating international conflict. His enthusiasm for dealmaking, his admiration of Xi Jinping, and his hostility to the dogmas of American primacy that animated the Biden administration all created an opening to move the relationship off its trajectory toward permanent hostility. Beijing recognized the possibilities and from the moment of Trump’s election victory began informally floating ideas on what China could offer to Trump’s priorities, seeking a reliable connection in Trump’s notoriously fluid inner circle, and inquiring into how a negotiation process could be structured.
The biggest obstacle was not Trump’s team, which he has cowed into obedience, but his desire to cow China, too.
Rather than responding to Beijing’s outreach, Trump hit China with an initial 10%t tariff increase in early February, claiming it was punishment for China’s indirect involvement in the fentanyl trade. Media coverage focused on even larger punitive tariffs directed at Canada and México, but these were quickly withdrawn while those on China remained. Trump repeated the same routine in early March, again sparing Canada and México while raising tariffs on China another 10%.
China responded with considerable restraint to both rounds, still seeking to preserve space for negotiation. Already under Biden, China had begun cooperation on limiting fentanyl inputs, so Chinese leaders were skeptical that this was the real issue. With increasing urgency, Beijing sought to determine what Trump actually wanted. But no response was forthcoming.
Then came the “liberation day” tariffs, with a 34% increase applied to China, and Beijing fundamentally changed its approach. China’s leaders seem to have concluded that Trump simply wants to demonstrate his own power by debasing China, as he has done to countries ranging from Canada to Colombia to Ukraine. This is clear in China’s repeated condition for talks: they “must proceed in a manner of sovereign equality on a foundation of mutual respect.”
The Chinese Communist Party’s entire foreign policy legitimacy and ideology are built on the claim that it remade China so that it could finally stand up against the depredations of foreign powers. Chinese diplomats’ emphasis on respectful treatment, often expressed through a preoccupation with diplomatic protocol and a sharp antipathy toward U.S. attempts to discredit China, grows from this foundation.
Even as he mulls the possibility of reducing the crippling tariff rates he imposed, Trump continues to say that China will have to be the one to request it. “China wants to make a deal. They just don’t know how quite to go about it,” Trump said shortly after tossing away the chance for talks and breaking the economic relationship. “You know, it’s one of those things they don’t know quite — they’re proud people.”
Over the last two weeks, he and close advisers like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have repeatedly expressed such sentiments. In response, China has shown openness to talks but insists it will not negotiate at the point of a gun. China is also looking for a clear process in the talks and some sense of an agenda from the United States. Most recently, China’s Commerce Ministry suggested that Trump could resolve the impasse by removing all “unilateral tariff measures.”
As the two trade accusations in public, in the background both are moving in the most dangerous direction possible: to force the rest of the world to choose one or the other. In its talks with other countries that were targeted on “liberation day,” the Trump administration is demanding that they sever economic ties with China. China responded by arguing that other countries would be short-sighted to make deals with a bully and promising “equivalent countermeasures” against any country that sacrifices Chinese interests as the price for access to the United States.
We are now stuck in the absurd spectacle of the world’s two most powerful leaders acting like children who want to make up but who insist that the other take the first step. The longer this impasse lasts, the less likely we will avoid cascading escalation into conflict.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: King Abdullah of Jordan in Amman. (Ahmad A Atwah/Shutterstock)
On Wednesday, the Jordanian government declared that it had banned the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist movement that has long been active in the kingdom.
The announcement followed arrests last week of 16 members of the group for allegedly plotting an attack inside Jordan. The interior minister stated that the group and all its affiliated activities were illegal.
It was not immediately clear what impact the ban would have on the Islamic Action Front, the political party affiliated with the Brotherhood, which won a plurality of votes in last fall’s parliamentary election. The party tried to distance itself from the Brotherhood during a press conference on Wednesday, saying it would continue to operate as an independent political party with no affiliation and “within the limits of the law.”
Following the Hamas attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, and Israel’s subsequent campaign to bomb and blockade Gaza, the Islamic Action Front became significantly more vocal in its longstanding criticism of Israel, as well as of the 1994 Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty. The party’s critique reflected widespread rage among Jordanians, approximately half of whom are originally from historic Palestine, provoked by Israel’s brutal military campaign in Gaza, which has killed more than 50,000 people, mostly women and children.
That anger has been expressed in frequent public demonstrations as well as a widespread boycott of American and European products, due to these countries’ support for Israel’s actions.
The IAF translated public dissatisfaction with the Jordanian government’s perceived complicity in Israel’s war into electoral success in last September’s parliamentary elections. In a statement to the Jordan News in response to the banning of the Brotherhood, Zaki Bani Irshaid, the former secretary general of the Islamic Action Front, criticized the government’s decision for stoking internal division at a time when Jordan faced an existential threat from Israel’s creeping annexation of the West Bank. If Israel tried to force the three million Palestinians who live in the West Bank across the border into Jordan, the continued rule of King Abdullah and the Hashemite monarchy would likely be seriously threatened.
Anger at the king’s perceived willingness to effectively acquiesce to Israel’s destruction of Gaza raises questions as to why he outlawed the Brotherhood now, which risks provoking greater unrest. The announcement was made while a Saudi delegation, including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was visiting Amman, prompting speculation that Abdullah may have wished to demonstrate his anti-Islamist bona fides.
The Saudi government has waged a years-long campaign against the Saudi Muslim Brotherhood as it attempts to transform its approach to Islam under the auspices of MbS’s Vision 2030. Jordan has long relied on Saudi Arabia, as well as the United States, for financial support. Last year, Riyadh completed a $250 million aid package for Jordan. With U.S. President Donald Trump having suspended the $1.45 billion the U.S. annually sends to Jordan, Abdullah is likely eager to secure other sources of funding.
Yet this is not the first time that Abdullah has targeted the group. In a 2013 interview, he described the Brotherhood as “run by wolves in sheep’s clothing.” In 2015, the government helped to orchestrate a split between the group’s so-called “hawks” and “doves,” allowing the latter to retain control of all of the Brotherhood’s assets. In 2016, the government closed the offices of the so-called “hawks,” after preventing them from holding elections for the group’s internal leadership. All of these reflect Abdullah’s general suspicion of the Brotherhood and its popularity.
Yet historically, the Jordanian branch of Brotherhood was known as the “loyal opposition.” In contrast to the repression suffered by the original Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and some of its branches elsewhere around the region, the Jordanian monarchy has tolerated the group, which in turn avoided openly challenging the king’s rule. The group itself is as old as Jordan itself — both of them were established in 1946.
During the reign of King Hussein (1952-1999), the group was permitted to operate, including by running schools and charities and other social services. His son Abdullah took the throne not long before the 9/11 attacks transformed the U.S. approach to the Middle East. Abdullah was eager to partner with Washington, including by hosting CIA “black sites” for the detention, interrogation, and torture of suspected Al Qaeda militants and assisting in the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
As counter-terrorism dominated the U.S. security agenda, Abdullah sought to portray himself as a “moderate Muslim partner” against violent extremism. Under the rubric of “moderate Islam” versus “extremist Islam,” Abdullah, like many regional leaders, falsely portrayed Islamist movements, despite their explicit rejection of violence, as supportive of terrorism, if not the actual perpetrators, and thus essentially equivalent. Under this framework, Abdullah could more easily depict the Brotherhood as suspect.
His latest move to repress the group likely reflects his concern that opposition to his ongoing partnership with Israel is growing. Across much of the Middle East, Arab publics continue to watch in horror as Israel violated its ceasefire with Hamas and then returned to pounding Gaza with renewed ferocity while simultaneously preventing all aid, food, or medicine from entering the territory since March 2. In the intervening 53 days, the risk of acute malnutrition has grown, with the UN World Food Program warning that hundreds of thousands of people are at risk.
Abdullah’s crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood will likely do little to quell his population’s growing frustration as more children succumb to starvation in Gaza.
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.