Follow us on social

US pier operations suspended as parts break off in 'high sea states'

US pier operations suspended as parts break off in 'high sea states'

Troubles continue just days into the opening of the $320M military project

Reporting | QiOSK

UPDATE: 5/27: Military vessels supporting the trident pier anchored to the beach in Gaza broke off during "high sea states" and are now being recovered, according to the Pentagon in a briefing Tuesday. In addition, sections of the pier need rebuilding after another piece broke off earlier Tuesday. The pier will therefore be removed from its anchored position and be moved to the Israeli port of Ashdod for repairs. Operations will cease, as this will take over a week, according to the Dod. So far, over 1,000 metric tons of aid has been delivered to the staging ground at the beach. It is not clear how much, if any, of the aid is actually getting into the Gaza population from the warehouses there.

UPDATE 5/26: The support system for the U.S. military's humanitarian pier broke off amid choppy waters Saturday and was moored in two places, on the beach near the pier and on a Israeli beach at Ashdod, according to Pentagon officials:

Four boats stabilizing the $320 million structure detached, U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for military operations in the Middle East, said Saturday. Two of them floated northward, eventually landing on the beach in Ashdod, Israel, it said. Two others are now anchored on the beach near the pier, the military said, adding that the dock is still operational despite the damage. It said that no U.S. military personnel would enter Gaza.

“Efforts to recover the vessels are under way with assistance from the Israeli Navy,” U.S. Central Command said.

Officials also said that three service members were hurt in accidents on the pier this week, one seriously, but they have offered no additional details. Story developing.



ast week, the U.S. military finally completed a long-awaited temporary pier to bring aid into Gaza, which American officials hope will alleviate the famine gripping the besieged region. There’s just one catch: None of that aid has actually been distributed to starving Palestinians.

After desperate locals looted an initial convoy of aid Saturday, officials have had to rethink their approach to distributing the life-saving supplies. The shipments are now headed to a warehouse from which they will be distributed to humanitarian groups “in the coming days,” a Pentagon spokesperson said Tuesday. (“Conditions permitting,” he added, in an apparent reference to the fact that the pier can only operate in exceptionally calm waters.)

The messy start to the pier’s operations appears to confirm the frustrations of many humanitarian groups, which have attacked the $320 million plan as a distraction from more serious efforts to bring aid into Gaza. Jeremy Konydnyk, a former White House public health official who now runs Refugees International, slammed the effort as “humanitarian theater.”

“The pier doesn't solve the major bottleneck in Gaza: aid access for last-mile delivery,” Konydnyk argued. In his telling, the key questions are about whether aid groups can safely access their warehouses and move without fear of attack by Israel or Palestinian armed groups.

“The pier has sucked up a huge amount of diplomatic and political energy at huge financial cost — yet has delivered little and is irrelevant to the fundamental last-mile access impediments,” he continued.

As Konydnyk noted, the Israeli military has complicated efforts to deliver aid with its invasion of Rafah, a city in southern Gaza that previously served as a key node for humanitarian groups. Israeli forces have pushed nearly a million Palestinians from the city in recent weeks, and the United Nations says its operations in the area are now on the verge of collapse.

The expanding Rafah operation has almost entirely stopped imports of aid through crossings in Gaza’s south, according to the UN. Despite Israeli promises to increase the flow of aid, only 132 humanitarian trucks have gone through southern land crossings in the past 17 days. Aid agencies say no fewer than 500 trucks of aid are needed daily in order to slow a growing famine.

The pier has so far fallen far short of filling that gap, distribution issues aside. The U.S. has only gotten 569 tons of aid into Gaza in five days of operation — the equivalent of about 20 fully-loaded trucks.

And lurking behind all of these concerns is the possibility that the pier could drag the U.S. into the Gaza war directly. Palestinian militants fired on the staging area during construction, leading Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to admit that U.S. soldiers could find themselves exchanging fire with Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Given these risks, it’s well past time to give up on the pier plan, according to Michael DiMino, a former CIA analyst who now works as a fellow at Defense Priorities.

“We need to stop the reckless theatrical performance that is this Gaza pier immediately,” DiMino wrote.


US military releases photos of pier to deliver aid to Gaza (Reuters)
Reporting | QiOSK
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

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.