Costa Rica’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Manuel Tovar, was dismissed from his post last week by the country’s president Laura Fernández. Tovar was considered one of the “heavyweights” of the country’s dominant political faction, having previously served as Minister of Commerce under President Rodrigo Chávez.
The decision was made by Fernández on September 24, because, according to a statement, her foreign minister failed to inform her of an invitation to a meeting held in New York City aimed at strengthening the so-called Shield of the Americas.
Shield of the Americas is a political-military alliance led by Donald Trump that seeks to secure Washington’s geopolitical leadership in the region, and which right-wing and far-right Latin American governments have joined enthusiastically.
Right-wing President Fernández said that failing to report such an important meeting constituted an act of negligence on Tovar’s part. The Costa Rican president also said that Shield of the Americas is a “fundamental platform in the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime.”
The president did not travel to the United States to deliver her speech at the UN General Assembly because she was on an official visit to Colombia with her counterpart, the far-right Abelardo de la Espriella.
The Costa Rican presidency reported that the invitation – which was not extended to her – came from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio himself. Several heads of state from Shield of the Americas member states participated, including Javier Milei of Argentina, José Antonio Kast of Chile, Rodrigo Paz of Bolivia, Daniel Noboa of Ecuador, Irfaan Ali of Guyana, Nasry Asfura of Honduras, Santiago Peña of Paraguay, Luis Abinader of the Dominican Republic, and Keiko Fujimori of Peru, among others.
In this regard, Fernández publicly apologized to the US ambassador to the Central American country, Melinda Hildebrand: “I reiterate to your country my firm and resolute commitment to continue supporting the Shield of the Americas alliance… I regret my absence… The failure to forward that invitation from your government to me did not go unnoticed, and today the foreign minister of the Republic was dismissed,” which clearly demonstrates the enormous importance San José attaches to an invitation from Washington.
Tovar’s dismissal comes on the heels of a series of dismissals of key ministers in Fernández’s government, a development the opposition has used to highlight a certain instability in the very young administration.
“We are concerned about serious foreign policy mistakes that need to be corrected… Second, we are concerned about the stability of the cabinet: in less than five months, five senior officials – including ministers and deputy ministers – have already been dismissed. That instability is not in her best interest, nor in that of her government or Costa Rica,” said the leader of the National Liberation Party caucus.
For his part, the former foreign minister did not explain the reasons behind his decision not to inform Fernández about the invitation. In a post on X, he said briefly: “I thank Laura Fernández for the opportunity to serve the Costa Rican people from the Casa Amarilla, and I wish her every success as President of the Republic for the good of the country. Finally, I would like to commend the team at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the passion and dedication with which they undertake every mission on behalf of the country. To them, I offer my eternal gratitude. I accept this moment with great peace of mind. I will always stand by the just causes of the Costa Rican people and the international community.”
The reasons behind Tovar’s decision remain unknown, although several sectors of the opposition have raised suspicions about an alleged ulterior motive on Fernández’s part for not attending the Shield of the Americas meeting – which, if true, could reveal political and diplomatic contradictions deeper than they might appear at first glance.
The specter of a “Red-Green Alliance” seems to be haunting the strategic elites not only in the United States but also in other parts of the world these days.
The debate over this alliance between so-called Leftists and Islamists intensifies whenever a Muslim leader in the American Democratic Party secures an important nomination or an electoral victory.
It is not that these Muslim leaders in America are radical Islamists. They are essentially far-left in their political, economic, and global views and are being accepted as leaders within the Democratic Party. But they evoke apprehensions for their support of Islamists in all parts of the world on important global strategic issues.
The subject of the latest debate is Abdul El-Sayed, the progressive doctor and former Wayne County health director, who on August 4 won a historic victory in the Democratic primary in Michigan to join the Senatorial race in the upcoming November 2026 midterms.
If successful, he will be creating history as the first Muslim Senator in the history of the United States.
Of course, the Democratic Party has already seen elsewhere the rise of Muslim elected officials who often act as a bridge between progressives and Muslim advocacy groups. In the House of Representatives, there have been the likes of Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
At the local and State level, cities like Minneapolis, Dearborn, Hamtramck, and parts of New Jersey/New York now have Muslim mayors, councilors, and state legislators, many elected with support from both progressive and Muslim voter blocs.
Zohran Mamdani has taken office as New York City’s first Muslim mayor. Abdullah Hammoud is now the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan. Ghazala Hashmi has won the lieutenant governorship in Virginia.
Incidentally, the rise of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has been portrayed by experts as showing that democratic socialism and hardline anti-Israel politics are no longer marginal in America’s largest city.
His national profile, and his demand that the federal government enforce an International Criminal Court warrant against Israel’s prime minister, have forced Democrats to reconsider their traditional stance on the Middle East in general and Israel in particular.
In other words, the strategic consequences of the Leftists sharing the global outlook with that of the Islamists outfits like Hamas or countries like Iran, or rising demands of Muslims in favor of their separate legal and social systems in many European countries, seem to be reshaping Western politics, traditional national security frameworks, and geopolitical alignments.
It is worth sharing in this context the thoughts of US Army veteran and human rights activist Mansoor Hussain Laghari, who had migrated from Pakistan. He strongly warns against the “Red-Green Alliance,” characterizing it as a dangerous and underappreciated ideological convergence between the revolutionary far left and political Islamism inside Western societies.
Using his unique background as a political refugee from Pakistan and experience in the US military, Leghari says that “Political Islamism” has nothing to do with ordinary Muslims or Islam as a faith. For him, it is something that seeks to place religious authority above democratic pluralism and civil law.
Laghari notes that while the radical Left (which claims to support secularism, feminism, and LGBTQ rights) and Islamists should be natural enemies, they cooperate because they share the same targets: American power, Western democratic institutions, capitalism, traditional faith, and Israel.
As he writes, “ These movements (Leftists and Islamists) should be natural enemies. The radical Left presents itself as secular, feminist, and supportive of LGBTQ rights. Islamists often reject those principles. Yet alliances are not always built on shared values. They are often built on shared enemies.
“Both sides portray America as an imperial project rather than an imperfect constitutional republic. Both reduce complex societies to oppressors and oppressed. Both treat Western institutions as guilty until dismantled. Israel has become a powerful mobilizing symbol, but the deeper target is the political confidence and social cohesion of the United States.
“This ideology is no longer confined to campus seminars. It is entering mainstream political life. The Democratic Party remains broad, and many Democrats reject antisemitism, revolutionary socialism and political Islamism. But an increasingly influential progressive faction now treats these ideas as legitimate components of the party’s future”.
For Laghari, more than the rise of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the concern extends to “Ideas incubated in universities and activist networks (that) eventually influence city governments, congressional offices, public agencies and national-security institutions. Americans should debate these ideas openly but stop pretending that hostility toward the country’s constitutional and strategic foundations is merely youthful idealism.”
Laghari insists that Western societies must confront this Red- Green alliance with accountability and directness rather than comfortable denial, arguing that the constitutional protections of individual liberty over tribal obedience are actively worth defending.
“As a U.S. Army veteran, I learned that readiness is not measured only by weapons, aircraft or troop numbers. It also depends on national cohesion, public trust and citizens willing to serve. A military cannot remain fully effective if young Americans are taught that patriotism is shameful, service is complicity, and their country is uniquely evil.”
Many strategic analysts not only agree with Laghari but also discern the same pattern in European democracies and even India.
The following points in this regard they make are noteworthy:
One, after Trump’s victory in 2016 in the US, Brexit in the UK, the rise of the BJP in India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and right-populist governments in Europe, both Left-liberals and Islamist organizations found a common adversary and used in their parlance terms like “right-wing nationalism,” “Islamophobia,” “majoritarianism,” and “fascism.”
Their alliance uses legal and academic frameworks in these democratic countries to label valid criticism of political Islamism or extreme Leftism for promoting terrorism or anarchy as “hate speech,” effectively silencing moderate and genuinely secular reformers.
Two, by infiltrating universities, local governments, and civil society organizations, the alliance shifts institutional policies toward anti-constitutional curricula and identity-driven governance. They popularize what is called “intersectionality” — placing Muslims, Palestinians, and refugees in the same “marginalized” category as racial minorities and LGBTQ communities.
This has created institutional incentives in universities and NGOs to platform Islamist speakers under the banner of “diversity” and “anti-racism.”
As a result, antisemitism is repackaged as mainstream progressive anti-imperialism, lowering the cultural barrier to targeted violence and exclusionary politics. And universal constitutional values are being replaced with tribal, identity-based loyalty, fracturing national unity.
Three, this collusion begins in universities and then feeds into media, NGOs, and politics. Progressive NGOs, left faculty, and Muslim student groups share funding, legal aid, and media training. And, university administrations, wary of being called “Islamophobic” or “racist,” often allow protests that would be shut down for other groups.
Politically, the collusion enables the sharing of an agenda with major political parties in the name of dissent, protecting minorities, and expanding asylum/refugee programs. And that, in turn, generates narratives of state or police oppression and dangers of military modernization at the cost of social justice.
Then it becomes normal for progressives and Muslim politicians to vote and campaign together. They hold joint press conferences and share legal teams, and write joint petitions to global human rights bodies and the United Nations.
If Islamists find an ally in the Democratic Party in the US, in Europe one witnesses how Labour, Greens, and Left parties coordinate with Muslim community organizations on Gaza, policing, and counter-terror laws.
Apparently, European intelligence agencies have flagged that jihadist networks exploit progressive and anti-war protest spaces, such as climate and pro-Palestinian demonstrations, to recruit vulnerable individuals and gain mainstream legitimacy by aligning with broader, localized grievances.
The same pattern is also noticed in India.
Here, sections of left and liberal parties, student unions, liberal NGOs, and Islamist organizations have coordinated since 2019 on CAA-NRC ( Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register for Citizens), abrogation of Article 370 that had accorded special status to Kashmir, hijab cases, and “bulldozer” actions ( against the properties of hardened criminals and habitual law-breakers).
That is how domestic issues in Western democracies and countries like India are getting globalized as “human rights” issues, and hardline groups are gaining legitimacy by appearing next to mainstream left/liberals.
All this complicates a nation’s defense spending and foreign policy, forces strategic distractions, and weakens important partnerships. For instance, on Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, and the “war on terror,” Left-liberals critical of US/European/Indian foreign policy found common cause with Islamist groups who also oppose those policies.
When human rights language is used to defend individuals with extremist links, preventive policing becomes harder. Europe’s “returning fighters” problem and India’s experience with banned organizations show this. And the US, EU, and Indian foreign policy on the Middle East and counter-terror is now increasingly being constrained. Any action is immediately framed as “Islamophobic” or “imperialist”.
Viewed thus, the geopolitical alliance between Left/liberal elements and the votaries of political Islam that one sees across America, Europe, and India does present distinct challenges to the national security and social cohesion of each region. Its operational methods and societal impacts may vary from region to region based on local political landscapes, but its ideological foundation remains the same – shared opposition to the existing state apparatus.
Of course, experts point out that this alliance is “ironical” and could be “unstable” in the long run, given that Leftists and Islamists differ in their views on secularism and social rights. The Left wants progressive social change, emphasizing equality, social justice, and human rights. They are driven by secular and humanitarian concerns. But for conservative Islamists, it is traditional religious values and communal loyalty that are their principal motivations. Islamists often seek to establish states governed by Sharia.
However, despite their differences, at the moment, they are together on many aspects of global politics and are collaborating in unexpected ways. And that is said to be a matter of grave concern.
As Laghari says, “The question is no longer whether this ideological struggle has reached the United States. It has. The question is whether Americans will recognize it before the next generation inherits a country that no longer recognizes itself.”
What Laghari asks of Americans seems to be equally apt a question for Europeans and Indians as well.
The post Red-Green Alliance Begins To Hurt U.S, India & Others as Left-Islamist Affinity Reshapes Global Politics: OPED appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Automakers and aircraft manufacturers share a history that stretches back more than a century.
Many automakers have entered the production of aircraft, aircraft engines, components, and drones/UAVs, often spurred by wartime demands and by leveraging their shared expertise in engine engineering.
Big car brands such as Rolls-Royce, Renault, Ford, General Motors (GM), Chrysler, BMW, Alfa Romeo, Honda, and Fiat have been involved in aircraft engine and components production for years.
Brands such as Renault and Ford had delivered thousands of aircraft during World War II.
Swedish aviation major Saab had a flourishing car business for decades. Japanese Mitsubishi and Subaru started as aviation companies and remain active in both aviation and the automobile business.
Meanwhile, Turkish drone company Baykar started as a car garage company in Istanbul in the 1970s.
Given this shared history, it is no wonder that automobile companies have often taken inspiration from fighter jet cockpits to revolutionize their car design philosophy.
For instance, Lamborghini’s ‘red flip-cover start button,’ copied directly from aircraft and resembling a fighter jet’s missile launch button, has become the identity of the iconic supercar maker.
You have to flip up the red safety cover, exactly like aircraft weapon switches, before pressing the start button.
This feature is found in the Lamborghini Aventador, Huracán, Revuelto, Urus, and some special editions.
Even though the ‘red flip-cover start button’ offers little practical benefit, the feature has now become synonymous with Lamborghini cars, and the automaker believes that its dedicated users are unlikely to ever get tired of this feature even in the age of digital touchscreens.
The Italian supercar maker believes that this red flip start button evokes a certain emotion whenever drivers start their vehicles.
Combined with Lamborghini’s roaring and heavy engine throttle sound, this gives its riders a unique experience, akin to launching a missile from a fighter jet.
The feature was first introduced in Lamborghini’s Aventador back in 2011.
Speaking with CarBuzz earlier this week, Lamborghini’s design director Mitja Borkert said the start/stop switch found in the Temerario, Revuelto, and Urus creates “the right amount of emotions,” even though it makes the starting sequence a little slower.
Supercar performance has become easy to replicate with the rise of hybrid motors and cheaper performance parts, but Lamborghini knows that speed isn’t all that customers look for.
“For sure, there is a faster way to start the car, but is it fun?” Borkert asked.
“I think we are creating the right amount of emotions, and I think that belongs on such a car.”
However, some critics believe that this process could become a little tiresome when you have to do it over and over again.
Borkert, however, doesn’t think so.
“I don’t think so,” Borkert said, adding, “In the kitchen, you want to do something with quality. If you’re going fast, it’s not as enjoyable as when it takes a little bit of time. You need to feel a little bit involved.”
Sitting next to the latest Lamborghini Urus SE Performante at the Goodwood Festival of Speed, Borkert was keen to share that the theme is consistent across all three Lamborghini models, which brings synergy and familiarity for those with multiple Lamborghinis.
“We have the same philosophy in our supercars so that when you take your precious car out on the weekends, you’re not confused. You have an architecture that integrates you like a pilot.”
Borkert believes that features like these also make Lamborghini stand apart from its competitors.
These small physical elements remind the driver they are in a Lamborghini, even when they’re driving on electric range in the Revuelto.
Moreover, as more and more automakers replace physical switches with digital screens, Lamborghini sticking with its same old design philosophy will make its customers rejoice, he said.
“We are not the champions of screen sizes, but we have the right sizes to provide the modern visualization the driver or the pilot needs. We always keep our iconic keys, like the start/stop button,” Borkert said. When you step into a Lamborghini, you know you’re stepping into a Lamborghini – nothing else.
However, Lamborghini is not the only automobile maker that has taken inspiration from cockpit designs.
Tesla’s Aircraft-Style Yoke Steering Wheel: Tesla borrowed this idea from airplane yokes and Formula 1 cars. Instead of a round wheel, it’s a rectangular “yoke” for a more pilot-like feel.
In a Joe Rogan interview, Elon Musk noted that “they use a yoke in Formula One.” He has also described future versions of Tesla as working “like the way aircraft and modern jets are controlled.”
However, Tesla says that the rectangular yoke also offers some practical advantages, such as an unobstructed view of the instrument cluster and the road ahead and a more futuristic, immersive feel.
Musk has famously called conventional round wheels “boring” and said they block the screen.
With Tesla’s success, many iconic brands such as the Lexus RZ, Mercedes-Benz, and MG Cyberster have adopted similar Yoke-style steering wheels.
Chevrolet C8 Corvette’s Fighter-Jet-Inspired Cockpit Layout: Chevrolet designers openly said the C8 Corvette’s interior was inspired by fighter jet cockpits, low dashboard, controls wrapped around the driver, and a very pilot-centric feel.
Chevrolet design team studied jet cockpits, where controls “wrap around” the pilot. This led to the long, sloping vertical strip of physical buttons running down the high center console, creating a driver-enveloping “cockpit” that partially separates the driver and passenger, much like an aircraft.
In fact, its exterior design also drew heavily from modern fighter jets, such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, with a canopy-forward stance and aggressive proportions. Corvette has a long history of aircraft inspiration. Many astronauts owned earlier generations.
Airplane Ceiling Panels-Like Overhead Toggle Switches: The Ineos Grenadier placed many switches on the roof, just like in aircraft cockpits and military vehicles.
Tata Harrier Handbrake: Sometimes, cockpit-inspired design features look great, but aren’t received well due to large size or ergonomics.
India’s Tata Harrier’s handbrake was intentionally designed to look like an aircraft thrust lever. Tata officially described it as an “Aero-throttle styled” parking brake lever. Reviewers noted that the handbrake was deliberately designed to look like an aircraft thrust/throttle lever to give the cabin a more “cockpit-like” feel.
Though it looked distinctive, unique, and aesthetic, many users complained that the handbrake took too much space in the central console, interfered with the cup holders, felt awkward to operate, and criticized it for its poor ergonomics.
Therefore, from 2023 onwards, Tata replaced it in many of the new variants with a conventional electronic parking brake button + Auto Hold. The aircraft-style lever was discontinued.
Given the long association between automobile makers and aviation companies, it is only natural that car designers will adopt certain aircraft features to give the car a fighter jet cockpit feel.
However, such features must be adopted carefully, as they should not interfere with the overall design philosophy of the car’s interiors and must be easy to operate.
The post Straight Out of a Fighter Jet Cockpit! Lamborghini’s Red Switch to Tesla’s Yoke — How Aviation Shaped Modern Car Design appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
In a first such experiment, the P-8A Poseidon was teamed with the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial vehicle, potentially laying the groundwork for a future manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) for the US Navy and allied maritime patrol, reconnaissance, anti-submarine, and surface warfare.
Northrop Grumman and Boeing conducted the first automated, manned-unmanned mission control collaboration between the P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial vehicle in a laboratory environment, demonstrating how the two systems can share intelligence, mission planning, and execution.
“A P-8A operator issued machine-readable, machine-actionable mission tasking to a simulated MQ-4C Triton using UCI [Universal Command & Control Interface] formatted messages,” Boeing stated in an official press statement. “The P-8A cued the Triton transit to a specific area. After receiving the request, the Triton autonomously planned and executed a transit to the area, employed sensors per the tasking, processed findings onboard, and reported results back to the P-8A Poseidon.”
This approach could reduce operator workload, speed up decision-making in a contested environment, and enable more dynamic in-flight tasking without always routing through distant ground control.
Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman emphasized the broader value of the standardized approach: “Using this standardized interface, Triton can collaborate with other U.S. or allied assets sharing the same interface—cutting operator workload and accelerating commander decision-making, making integration across platforms quicker and more cost-effective. The Universal Command and Control Interface is a machine-to-machine collaboration standard based on Open Mission Systems and Autonomy – Government Reference Architecture.”
Notably, the MQ-4C Triton was originally designed to work closely with the P-8A. A maritime-optimized derivative of the RQ-4 Global Hawk, Triton offers 24-hour endurance and high-altitude, persistent surveillance over vast ocean areas with its 360° multi-function radar, electro-optical/infrared sensors, and other systems. It functions as an “unblinking eye” for continuous maritime domain awareness.
Meanwhile, the P-8A has comparatively shorter endurance but boasts higher speed and lower-altitude capability than the MQ-4C Triton. Furthermore, it is designed to conduct anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, investigate contacts of interest, support search-and-rescue, and assist in kinetic operations, among other things.
Together, the two platforms cover more ocean more persistently than either could alone, improve the common operating picture, shorten the sensor-to-shooter timeline, and make better use of limited manned aircraft and aircrew.
As a core element of the Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force, Triton transmits real-time data via satellite to ships, aircraft, and shore stations.
Until now, the two platforms have operated in a complementary but in a relatively separate manner. Triton provides broad-area maritime ISR and cues contacts of interest, such as ships or potential submarines, prompting a P-8A to investigate, prosecute, or engage.
The coordination between them has normally flowed through ground control stations, introducing latency, especially when stations manage multiple missions, operate across time zones, or sit at the end of long satellite communications chains. However, the new automated capability could essentially allow a P-8A crew to issue commands directly to the Triton, after which the drone can autonomously plan and execute the task.
This would expedite the response to unanticipated changes, such as potential threats or seemingly transient targets of interest. Moreover, automation and onboard AI handling of data collection or processing would free crews, both in the air and on the ground, to focus on higher-level decisions rather than routine tasking or sifting through raw sensor feeds.
“The key idea of teaming them is to let each do what it does best while reducing the workload on human operators. Instead of both independently searching the same ocean, the Triton can detect something unusual and automatically cue the Poseidon. It would reduce operator workload, speed up decision-making, enable more flexible and responsive manned-unmanned teaming, and leverage their complementary strengths for broader, more efficient maritime ISR and related missions,” Air Marshal Anil Khosla (retd), Indian Air Force veteran and military commentator, told the EurAsian Times.
“Triton handles the long-endurance, broad-area “look” mission persistently. Poseidon handles responsive, close-in, multi-mission work. Automated teaming lets them operate more seamlessly as a unit rather than operating in relative isolation or with slower human-mediated coordination,” he added.
In a hypothetical scenario, one manned P-8 could also team with one or more Tritons at a time, stretching limited manned aircraft hours and freeing up the Poseidon for high-value missions, such as anti-submarine warfare and responsive strikes in combat.
Only the United States and Australia currently operate both the P-8A and MQ-4C Triton. The P-8A, however, has been acquired by a wider group of nations, including the United States, India, the United Kingdom, Norway, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Germany, Canada, Singapore, and Denmark.
The UCI architecture that enables the latest P-8-MQ-4C teaming could also potentially enable Poseidon teaming with other uncrewed assets, as Northrop stated
Indian Air Force (IAF) veteran Air Marshal Anil Chopra (retd) told the EurAsian Times: “All advanced militaries are focusing on data and sensor fusion, and rapidly working on facilitating integration between different platforms, ranging from manned-manned teaming to manned-unmanned teaming, across domains. The P-8A and Triton’s MUMT merely reflect that larger pattern. The same logic extends beyond air-to-air or air-to-surface pairings into surface, subsurface, land, and space sensors and effectors. The goal is a resilient “kill web” rather than linear kill chains, with data moving freely enough that any suitable shooter or sensor can contribute.”
“In the future, the maritime surveillance aircraft could be similarly teamed with other drones, such as the Sea Guardian,” he added.
The SeaGuardian, a variant of the MQ-9 Reaper, is also designed for maritime surveillance and reconnaissance, and could be teamed with the Poseidon aircraft with some tweaks.
Earlier work has already shown related possibilities. A Boeing-led team virtually demonstrated that the MQ-25’s architecture can support ISR and tanking missions by other aircraft within the mission airspace without conventional communications to a ship-based ground control station. That demonstration included the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, P-8A Poseidon, and F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet.
There are several other examples of the US military’s efforts aimed at manned-unmanned teaming between aircraft to perform a variety of tasks. In fact, sensor fusion, edge AI, open architectures, and seamless teaming are becoming baseline requirements for competitiveness in contested areas.
The P-8A–MQ-4C laboratory demonstration is clearly a step forward.
However, its actual impact in real conditions will probably depend on how quickly the capability moves from the lab to operational skies.
“MQ-4C Triton and P-8A are the backbone of the U.S. Navy’s maritime patrol and reconnaissance force, delivering complementary capabilities unmatched by any other platforms,” Jane Bishop, Vice President and General Manager of the Global Surveillance Division at Northrop Grumman, was quoted as saying in the official statement. “This demonstration underscores the flexibility of our systems, our unwavering industry investment, and the strength of our industry relationships. Our commitment to pushing the boundaries of advanced technology ensures that the U.S. and allied nations’ operators maintain an unparalleled edge against evolving maritime threats,” he added.
The post P-8 Poseidon “Cues” MQ-4C Triton! IAF Experts Call MUM-T Teaming of U.S. Navy Assets a Revolutionary Step appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Amid reports that the US has virtually exhausted all its long-range precision munitions, as well as missile interceptors, it is becoming increasingly clear that Washington is in no position to fight a protracted war with Iran and has no real leverage over Tehran.
On August 5, CNN reported that the US military has exhausted nearly 80% of its interceptors for a key missile defense system.
“The US military has burned through nearly four-fifths of its THAAD missile inventory compared to pre-war numbers and roughly half of its Patriot interceptors since the start of the war, according to two sources familiar with the latest inventory report,” it said.
Similarly, the US has exhausted virtually the entire stockpile of highly accurate long-range missiles, such as ATACMS and PrSMs.
Consequently, any possible US-Iran ceasefire agreement is likely to be on terms favorable to Tehran.
During previous rounds of negotiations, Iran has indicated that while it is agreeable to some compromise on the nuclear issue, it will not compromise on the issue of managing the shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and charging a fee from all ships transiting the narrow maritime corridor.
For instance, according to the June 2026 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), signed between Tehran and Washington, Iran will make arrangements for the safe passage of commercial vessels “with no charge for 60 days only,” followed by dialogue with Oman and other Persian Gulf littoral states, “to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz… in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states.”
Iranian officials interpreted the limited 60-day free period plus the “maritime services” reference as implicitly allowing “service fees” for navigation, security, and environmental protection, once the 60-day window has lapsed.
While the US administration rejected this interpretation, the US media itself, including The New York Times, acknowledged that the language of the MoU was vague and that it formalized Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Again, multiple media outlets reported earlier this week that Iran and Oman are close to finalizing a deal between them for joint management of the Strait of Hormuz.
Details included Iranian management of vessel entry, joint oversight of exits near the Oman coast, and a “central corridor.”
According to a Reuters report published on August 6, Iran is seeking fees of between 5% and 7% of the price of cargoes from ships using the strait, according to the senior Iranian official. Oman is discussing fees of around 3%, while Washington wants no fees at all.
In normal (pre-war) times, the narrow waterway handled roughly 20–21 million barrels per day of crude and petroleum products, amounting to nearly one-fifth of the world’s total oil consumption and roughly 25% of seaborne oil trade.
According to a Gulf News estimate, this would generate a net profit of US$385 million per day for Iran, or up to US$140 billion per year gross.
A typical Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) can carry up to about 2 million barrels.
At an oil price of US$80/barrel, the cargo is worth US$160 million; a 7% fee would equal roughly US$11–11.2 million for that one voyage.
Given that Iran would have to spend a minimal amount of money to oversee the entry of cargo vessels into the Strait of Hormuz, most of this annual revenue of USD140 billion would be ‘net profit’ for Tehran.
Even if Iran spends USD5 billion annually on these expenses, Tehran would still pocket a net profit of USD135 billion.
That is a staggering amount.
For perspective, Egypt’s Suez Canal Authority reported US$4.67 billion in revenue for the 2025/2026 fiscal year.
The income of Egypt’s Suez Canal Authority looks meager when compared to Iran’s prospective income from the Strait of Hormuz if indeed it is able to charge a 7% fee on all cargo vessels passing the maritime corridor.
Indeed, Iran will get control of the world’s most lucrative and profitable tollway.
The disruption in the Hormuz traffic during the last four months has shown that many countries would not mind paying a fee to Tehran as long as it can ensure a steady supply of oil and LNG from the maritime corridor, even if there is no provision under the International Law (International Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS) allowing a coastal state like Iran to charge for passage through a natural waterway, impose a “toll” or a “service fee”.
In fact, according to Bloomberg, Iran has already started charging a transit fee from commercial vessels crossing the Strait of Hormuz.
The report said that Iran charged as much as USD 2 million per vessel as a transit fee, and many countries paid the fee to Tehran to let their cargo vessels pass from the narrow maritime corridor.
Reports also said that these payments were made in Chinese Yuan.
In March, Lloyd’s List reported that Iran’s IRGC ran a de facto “toll booth” system requiring vetting, clearance codes, and escorts via a controlled corridor.
Meanwhile, the Financial Times reported that transits were mostly linked to Chinese, Indian, or Gulf-linked owners, including some “dark fleet” vessels.
What’s even more is that at USD 135 billion, Iran’s profit from the Strait of Hormuz would beat some of the world’s biggest and most profitable technology companies.
For instance, in 2025, Google’s Alphabet made a profit of USD 132 billion.
Similarly, in fiscal year 2026, Nvidia made a profit of USD 120 billion. Apple made a profit of USD 112 billion. Microsoft made a profit of USD 101 billion. And Saudi Arabia’s oil major Aramco made a profit of USD 105 billion.
These are some of the world’s biggest technology and oil companies, which have reached here after years of hard work and innovation.
However, if Iran’s plans to collect a 5-7% toll fee from all commercial cargo vessels crossing the Strait of Hormuz materialize, Iran will start making more profit than these companies from the first year.
Furthermore, this would be a vicious cycle, as a toll fee of 5-7% would mean that oil prices would go up. This would also mean that insurance prices for these cargo vessels would shoot up, further increasing the oil prices.
As oil prices rise, the absolute value of Iran’s proposed 5–7% toll – calculated on cargo value – would increase in tandem. Consequently, Tehran would benefit twice over: its toll revenues would grow both from higher shipping volumes and from escalating oil prices.
Notably, Iran holds the world’s third-largest oil reserve.
In addition to this windfall gain, another condition of the June Iran-US MoU was that Washington would “undertake with regional partners to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Another condition was: “The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MoU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations.”
Estimates of the frozen assets involved ranged from roughly US$12–37 billion; however, some Iranian sources claimed that the frozen assets amounted to over USD 100 billion.
If all these conditions are met, Iran would get a windfall of over USD 500 billion within the first two years. A substantial part of this money is set to be invested in the further development of Iran’s ballistic missile program.
In effect, it could mean that a few years down the line, Iran could be a much stronger adversary, militarily as well as economically.
The repercussions of that for the US and Israel could be devastating.
The post Iran’s $500 Billion Bonanza: How Trump Could Enrich Iran More Than Apple, Nvidia & Microsoft Combined appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Login