Follow us on social

Marines

Reports: US Marine Rapid Response Unit heading to conflict zone

These are separate from 2,000 troops put on standby for Israel-Gaza already.

Reporting | QiOSK

The Pentagon has sent a U.S. Marine rapid response unit consisting of 2,000 Marines and sailors to the region "to send a message of deterrence to Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah" in the conflict in Israel-Gaza, according to reports early Tuesday morning.

According to CNN, the unit will join the two U.S. carrier groups in the Eastern Mediterranean. The U.S.S. Gerald Ford is already there; the U.S.S. Dwight Eisenhower left for the region this week. From CNN:

The 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), which specializes in tasks such as amphibious operations, crisis response, humanitarian assistance, and certain special operations, had been stationed near Kuwait in recent weeks as part of a scheduled exercise there. But it departed early “as a result of emerging events,” Capt. Angelica White, a spokeswoman for the unit, told the Marine Corps Times on Wednesday.

This comes on the news Monday that a "defense force" of 2,000 individuals including "service members with a variety of capabilities and specialties, including providing medical support and handling explosives" has been "picked" and put on shortened pre-deployment status but was not going anywhere, yet. A Wall Street Journal report by Nancy Youssef had more detail:

"...the Pentagon decision signaled it is preparing to support Israeli troops should Israel launch a ground incursion into Gaza. It is unclear how many of those troops, should they be deployed, would go into Israel. But the officials said that at least some of them could enter the country to support Israeli forces. A predeployment order doesn’t mean the troops will certainly deploy but rather shortens the time troops need to be ready to move."

Reports say this handpicked defense force is separate from the rapid response unit sent to the region.

Meanwhile, the carrier groups can carry about 10,000 personnel between the two of them and bring significant firepower and strategic capabilities to bear. The U.S.S. Ford, aside from its fighter aircraft and missiles, sails with the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser Normandy, and the Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers Hudner, Ramage, Carney, and Roosevelt. These ships carry surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, and anti-submarine warfare capabilities.

The U.S.S. Eisenhower carries fighter jets, helicopters and intel, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft.

This story is developing


U.S. Marines with Charlie Battery, Battalion Landing Team, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit during a simulated embassy reinforcement at Kin, Okinawa, Japan, Sept. 12, 2020. (U.S. Marine Corps video by Lance Cpl. Colton K. Garrett)
U.S. Marines with Charlie Battery, Battalion Landing Team, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit during a simulated embassy reinforcement at Kin, Okinawa, Japan, Sept. 12, 2020. (U.S. Marine Corps video by Lance Cpl. Colton K. Garrett)
Reporting | QiOSK
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

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.