As U.S. and Israeli forces strike deep inside Iran — reportedly targeting senior regime officials including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian — the question of who would lead Iran if the Islamic Republic collapses is no longer theoretical.

Iran has retaliated with missile barrages against U.S. positions across the Middle East, and while Iranian state media says top leaders remain alive and have been moved to secure locations, the direct targeting of political and military leadership marks a dramatic escalation.

Yet despite the intensity of the moment, regional analysts say there is no obvious successor poised to take control of the country.

The real power center: security forces

Experts consistently point to one determining factor: whether Iran’s coercive institutions — particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — fracture or consolidate.

If the IRGC remains cohesive, the most likely outcome is not democratic transition but a harder, more openly security-dominated system. A clerical reshuffle or military-led consolidation could preserve much of the existing power structure even if key figures are removed.

If, however, segments of the IRGC or regular armed forces defect or splinter under pressure from war and internal unrest, a political opening could emerge.

At this stage, there is no confirmed evidence of widespread security defections.

Reza Pahlavi: visible but long in exile

One of the most prominent opposition figures abroad is Reza Pahlavi, son of Iran’s last shah. He has lived outside Iran since the 1979 revolution and has spent decades advocating for a secular, democratic system.

In a recent statement, Pahlavi called the U.S. strikes a ‘humanitarian intervention’ and urged Iran’s military and security forces to abandon the clerical regime. He declared that the Islamic Republic is ‘collapsing’ and called on Iranians to prepare to return to the streets at the appropriate time.

But while Pahlavi has name recognition and support among parts of the diaspora, his actual base of support inside Iran is difficult to measure. He has not lived in the country for more than four decades, and many Iranians remain divided over the legacy of the monarchy.

Analysts note that symbolic visibility — including chants heard during past protests — does not necessarily translate into the organizational infrastructure needed to govern a country of nearly 90 million people.

Maryam Rajavi and the NCRI: organized but controversial

Maryam Rajavi, leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), has taken a different approach. Her organization announced a provisional government framework aimed at transferring sovereignty to the Iranian people and establishing a democratic republic based on her longstanding ten-point plan.

In a subsequent message, Rajavi called on ‘patriotic personnel in the armed forces’ to stand with the Iranian people and urged regime forces to ‘lay down their arms and surrender.’ She also rejected both clerical rule and what she described as ‘monarchical fascism,’ an apparent reference to restorationist movements linked to the former royal family.

The plan calls for dissolving the IRGC and other security institutions, separating religion from the state, abolishing the death penalty, guaranteeing gender equality and holding elections for a constituent assembly.

The NCRI presents itself as a ready governing alternative.

But the group — closely associated with the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) — remains deeply controversial. Its history of armed struggle and years spent in exile have led many analysts to question the depth of its support inside Iran, particularly among younger generations.

While some Western political figures have expressed backing over the years, domestic legitimacy remains uncertain.

No clear heir apparent

Despite bold statements from opposition figures, experts caution that Iran’s future leadership is more likely to be shaped inside military barracks and security compounds than in exile press conferences.

Four decades of repression have hollowed out internal political alternatives. No widely recognized civilian leader inside Iran has emerged with cross-factional legitimacy.

If the regime’s leadership were to fall quickly, the immediate struggle would likely be among security elites — not between rival exile figures.

For now, analysts say, Iran has competing visions but no consensus successor. Whether the country transitions toward a new political system, hardens into military rule or experiences prolonged instability will depend less on declarations abroad and more on whether the regime’s core power structures fracture from within.

The first missile in the U.S. arsenal used against Iranian targets in Saturday’s pre-dawn strike was the Tomahawk, a long-range cruise missile launched from Navy ships and submarines.

About half the length of a standard telephone pole, the Tomahawk flies at the speed of a commercial airliner and can carry a 1,000-pound warhead about the distance from Washington, D.C., to Miami.

Fired from destroyers or submarines positioned hundreds of miles away, the missiles allow a president to respond rapidly to a crisis without sending pilots into contested airspace or deploying ground forces. 

The Tomahawk has become a go-to option for limited military action because it offers precision and flexibility while keeping the U.S. footprint small. The missiles can hit fixed targets with high accuracy, reducing the risk of broader escalation. 

Presidents of both parties have used Tomahawks in the opening hours of military operations, from strikes in Iraq in the 1990s to more recent operations in Syria and elsewhere. 

Defense officials and military analysts say the weapon’s long range, reliability and relatively low risk to American personnel make it an attractive first strike option when the White House wants to send a message quickly but stop short of a wider war.

That combination of speed, distance and precision has kept the Tomahawk at the center of U.S. military planning for decades.

Manufactured by defense titan Raytheon — now RTX — the Tomahawk has been a mainstay of the Navy’s arsenal since the 1980s. It was first used in combat during the 1991 Gulf War and has since become a go-to option for presidents seeking to strike from long range without putting U.S. service members in harm’s way.

‘Year in and year out, administration in and administration out, it’s the long-range land attack cruise missile that presidents reach for first in a crisis,’ Thomas Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Fox News Digital.

But heavy use has taken a toll. ‘We’ve been using them far more frequently than we’ve been producing them,’ Karako said.

Prior to Saturday’s operation, the missile was used in June 2025 during a U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Overall, the Tomahawk has been deployed more than 2,350 times.

At roughly $1.4 million apiece, the Tomahawk missile has an intermediate range of 800 to 1,553 miles and can be launched from more than 140 U.S. Navy ships and submarines. 

The Tomahawk strike was just one piece of a broader U.S. military posture in the region.

Ahead of the strikes, the U.S. military amassed what Trump previously called an ‘armada’ in Iran’s backyard. Mapped out across the Persian Gulf and beyond, the deployment tells its own story, one of calculated pressure backed by credible capability.

The deployment coincided with indirect negotiations between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s disputed nuclear program. Trump has warned that the regime must fully dismantle its nuclear infrastructure or face consequences.

At the center of the U.S. presence are two aircraft carrier strike groups — the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford — each supported by guided-missile destroyers and cruisers and capable of sustained air and missile operations.

More than a dozen additional U.S. warships are also operating in the region in support roles, according to defense officials.

It was not immediately clear how or when Tehran might respond, though Iranian leaders have previously warned of retaliation in the event of direct U.S. military involvement.

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, both progressive ‘Squad’ members, lashed out at President Donald Trump on Saturday in response to his decision to strike Iran. 

‘Trump has launched an illegal regime change war,’ Omar posted on X. ‘As someone who has survived the horrors of war, I know military strikes will not make us safer; they will inflame tensions and push the region further into chaos.’

Omar, who fled Somalia as a refugee as a young child, added, ‘When we abandon diplomacy, we choose destruction.’

Tlaib reacted on social media to a clip of Trump acknowledging that there may be American casualties in this attack. 

‘He doesn’t care about our loved ones in the military,’ Tlaib posted on X in a message that was reposted by Omar. ‘He doesn’t care about the fact that Americans don’t want this war.’

‘He doesn’t care about the Iranian people. He is corrupted. Don’t fall for the lies.’

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York also slammed President Donald Trump for abandoning diplomacy in favor of launching an attack against Iran, predicting the outcome will be ‘catastrophic.’

‘The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,’ Ocasio-Cortez said.

‘Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead. President Trump flippantly acknowledged the possibility of American casualties, stating ‘that often happens in war,’’ she continued. ‘Mr. President: this was not an inevitability. This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people.

Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, another progressive House member associated with the informal ‘Squad’ group, called Trump’s actions an ‘illegal war’ in a post on X.

‘Yet again, an American president is sending other people’s kids to risk their lives in a senseless regime change war,’ Casar said. 

The U.S. and Israel launched the joint attack just after 9 a.m. local time in what the Pentagon has dubbed ‘Operation Epic Fury.’

In video remarks posted to Truth Social, Trump addressed the Iranian people directly and told them to ‘seize control of [their] destiny.’

‘The hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take,’ Trump said. ‘This will be, probably, your only chance for generations. For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No President was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a President who is giving you what you want.’

While Trump focused some of his message on empowering the people of Iran, he stated that the intent of the operation is to ‘defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime,’ which he described as ‘vicious’ and ‘very hard, terrible people.’

Trump also said that while there may be American casualties as a result, the mission is ‘noble’ as it is aimed at stopping a ‘wicked, radical dictatorship’ from threatening American national security interests and destabilizing the Middle East.

Fox News Digital’s Michael Sinkewicz and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report

President Donald Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Saturday, after launching joint attacks on Iran, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Saturday morning. 

‘President Trump monitored the situation overnight at Mar a Lago alongside members of his national security team,’ Leavitt posted to X on Saturday. ‘The President spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu by phone.’ 

Trump announced in a Truth Social video message at 2:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time that the strikes had been launched, and addressed the Iranian people directly, telling them to ‘seize control of (their) destiny.’ 

Leavitt continued on X that Secretary of State Marco Rubio provided congressional notification to the ‘Gang of Eight,’ which is a bipartisan group of top congressional intelligence leaders, and that administration security leader continue to monitor the situation. 

‘Prior to the attacks, Secretary Rubio called all members of the gang of eight to provide congressional notification, and he was able to reach and brief seven of the eight members. The President and his national security team will continue to closely monitor the situation throughout the day.

Gang of Eight Democrats have rebuked the operation, including Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., who serves as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. 

‘Everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame,’ Himes wrote in a statement. ‘As I expressed to Secretary Rubio when he briefed the Gang of Eight, military action in this region almost never ends well for the United States, and conflict with Iran can easily spiral and escalate in ways we cannot anticipate. It does not appear that Donald Trump has learned the lessons of history.’ 

Tensions have been flaring with Iran for months. The U.S. launched a series of strikes on that nation’s nuclear program in June, before returning to the table for negotiations over the program. 

In the lead-up to Saturday’s strikes, Trump had warned that the regime needed to fully dismantle its nuclear infrastructure or face consequences.

Trump celebrated in his video message early Saturday morning directed at Iranians that the ‘hour of your freedom is at hand.’

‘Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take,’ Trump said. ‘This will be, probably, your only chance for generations. For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No President was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a President who is giving you what you want.’

Arab nations are sounding off against Iran after the regime launched strikes against U.S. interests in neighboring countries in the region in retaliation for U.S.-Israeli joint strikes against Iran’s leaders.

The Iranian response targeted all U.S. bases in the Gulf, except for U.S. bases in Oman, Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin reported, since the Omani foreign minister had tried to mediate the nuclear talks in Geneva, even flying to Washington, D.C., to meet Vice President JD Vance at the White House on Friday to try to avert what is quickly turning into a regional war.

Griffin reported that approximately 40 missiles had landed in Israel. Meanwhile, the U.S. military in Iraq intercepted at least one missile targeting U.S. facilities. Additionally, Iran appeared to hit the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, but no casualties were reported.

Iran also launched missiles at Saudi Arabia and Jordan, where the U.S. has squadrons of advanced fighter jets, Griffin reported.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates were among the Gulf states that condemned the Iranian strikes, with many saying they reserve the right to defend themselves and respond accordingly to attacks on their sovereign territories.

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said it reserves its ‘full right’ to defend itself after what it described as Iranian aggression targeting Qatari territory. Its Defense Ministry said it ‘successfully thwarted a number of attacks targeting the country’s territory’ after multiple rounds of alerts sounded. Authorities reported no immediate injuries or damage in residential areas.

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry said it affirmed ‘its full solidarity with and unwavering support for the brotherly countries’ and warned of ‘grave consequences resulting from the continued violation of states’ sovereignty and the principles of international law.’

The United Arab Emirates’ Ministry of Defense said the country ‘was subjected to a blatant attack involving Iranian ballistic missiles,’ adding that air defense systems ‘successfully intercepted a number of missiles.’ Authorities said falling debris in a residential area caused ‘one civilian death of an Asian nationality’ and material damage.

The ministry called the attack ‘a dangerous escalation and a cowardly act that threatens the safety of civilians and undermines stability,’ and stated the UAE ‘reserves its full right to respond.’

Jordan’s foreign minister wrote a series of posts on X, saying that King Abdullah II ‘condemns the attack on the territories of Jordan, and any attacks on Arab countries,’ expressing Jordan’s ‘solidarity with the brotherly Arab countries in confronting any aggressions that affect their sovereignty, security, and stability.’

Lebanon’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it also ‘strongly condemns the Iranian attacks,’ adding that it ‘affirms its full solidarity with these fellow Arab States and firmly rejects any violation of their sovereignty, any threat to their security, or any action undermining their stability.’

Meanwhile, the Omani Foreign Ministry condemned the U.S.-Israeli operation against Iran.

‘The Ministry of Foreign Affairs expresses the Sultanate of Oman’s profound regret over the military operations launched by Israel and the United States of America against the Islamic Republic of Iran, warning of the danger of the conflict expanding into consequences that cannot be rectified in the region,’ the Omani Foreign Ministry said in a statement, according to X’s translation.

‘The Sultanate of Oman considers this action to be in contravention of the rules of international law and the principle of resolving issues through peaceful means rather than hostile means, the shedding of blood, and calls on all parties to immediately suspend military operations, while urging the United Nations Security Council to convene an urgent meeting to impose a ceasefire and for the international community to take a clear stance in support of international law,’ it added.

Fox News Digital’s Efrat Lachter contributed to this report.

Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran, described the joint U.S.-Israeli attack on the country as promised ‘aid’ and an act of ‘humanitarian intervention’ by President Donald Trump.

Following the reported strikes, Pahlavi urged Iranians to abandon the regime and called on security forces to defect.

‘Moments of destiny lie ahead of us,’ Pahlavi wrote in a statement on social media. ‘Even with the arrival of this aid, the final victory will still be forged by our hands. It is we, the people of Iran, who will finish the job in this final battle. The time to return to the streets is near.’

Pahlavi declared that the Islamic Republic is collapsing.

He framed the reported strikes as assistance directed not at Iran itself, but at its ruling clerical establishment and urged the U.S. to ‘exercise the utmost caution’ to preserve civilian lives.

‘The aid that the President of the United States promised to the brave people of Iran has now arrived,’ Pahlavi wrote. ‘This is a humanitarian intervention; and its target is the Islamic Republic, its repressive apparatus, and its machinery of slaughter — not the country and great nation of Iran.’

Pahlavi issued a blunt warning to Iran’s military, police and security services, urging them to break ranks with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

‘Now that the Islamic Republic is collapsing, my message to the country’s military, police, and security forces is clear: You have sworn an oath to protect Iran and the Iranian people — not the Islamic Republic and its leaders,’ he wrote.

‘Your duty is to defend the people, not a regime that has taken our homeland hostage through repression and crime. Join the people and help bring about a stable and secure transition. Otherwise, you will go down with Khamenei’s sinking ship and his regime.’

His appeal mirrored past opposition efforts to persuade Iran’s security forces to switch sides — a move that could determine whether protests spread or the regime tightens its grip.

While predicting imminent change, Pahlavi stopped short of urging immediate street demonstrations. He warned citizens to remain in their homes and stay vigilant so that when he announces an ‘appropriate time,’ Iranians can ‘return to the streets for the final action.’

‘We are very close to final victory,’ he wrote. ‘I want to be by your side as soon as possible so that together we can take back and rebuild Iran.’

He also indicated he would maintain communication even if authorities moved to restrict internet or satellite access — a tactic Iranian officials have used during prior waves of unrest.

Pahlavi thanked Trump for what he characterized as support while again urging caution to avoid civilian casualties.

‘I now ask you to exercise the utmost caution to preserve the lives of civilians and my compatriots,’ he wrote, adding that ‘the people of Iran are your natural allies and those of the free world.’

Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, has lived in exile since the 1979 Islamic Revolution toppled Iran’s monarchy and established the Islamic Republic.

In recent years, he has sought to position himself as a unifying opposition figure during waves of anti-regime protests, including demonstrations sparked by economic turmoil and the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022.

Denmark will head to the polls March 24 after Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called a snap parliamentary election, a move widely viewed as an attempt to consolidate rising public support tied to her handling of tensions with President Donald Trump over Greenland.

Frederiksen announced the early vote Wednesday, arguing Denmark needs political clarity at a time of mounting geopolitical pressure. According to Reuters, she said the country faces ‘a serious foreign policy situation,’ adding voters should have a say in how Denmark navigates it.

Her center-left Social Democratic government has seen a lift in opinion polls in recent weeks after taking a firm stance that Greenland is not for sale and that Danish sovereignty is non-negotiable. 

The dispute with Washington has reshaped the domestic political conversation, pushing Arctic security and national sovereignty to the forefront of Danish politics.

Frederiksen, who has led Denmark since mid-2019, has spent much of the past year managing the fallout from Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland, the vast Arctic island that is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Tensions escalated sharply last month when Trump threatened to impose new tariffs on Denmark and several other European Union countries.

Trump has argued that the United States needs control of the North Atlantic island for national security reasons, citing increased activity by Russia and China in the Arctic. The region has grown in strategic importance as melting ice opens shipping routes and access to natural resources, intensifying competition among major powers.

The standoff appeared to ease after Trump announced that a framework agreement to strengthen Arctic security had been reached in talks with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. After that announcement, U.S., Danish and Greenlandic officials began technical discussions on implementing the arrangement, focusing on security coordination rather than any change in sovereignty.

Throughout the crisis, Frederiksen and other senior Danish officials repeatedly emphasized that Greenland’s status is not up for negotiation. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference earlier in February, Frederiksen cautioned that she did not believe the crisis had fully passed and suggested Washington could still harbor ambitions to annex the island.

According to The Guardian, Danish commentators have described the prime minister’s polling boost as a ‘Greenland bounce,’ reflecting growing domestic approval of her firm posture toward Washington.

Frederiksen’s decision to call early elections appears aimed at converting that surge into a renewed mandate. Denmark’s next general election had not been scheduled until later this year, but the prime minister argued that the current security climate justifies seeking fresh voter backing.

Greenland, home to roughly 56,000 people, has long been strategically significant due to its location between North America and Europe. The United States maintains a military presence there at Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base. Any suggestion of U.S. acquisition has historically been sensitive in both Copenhagen and Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.

Euronews reported that Frederiksen’s government has stressed cooperation with allies while firmly rejecting any negotiations over Greenland’s sovereignty. European leaders have signaled support for Denmark, reinforcing the view that Arctic stability is increasingly central to NATO and EU planning.

Opposition parties have criticized the timing of the snap election, arguing that Frederiksen is seeking a political advantage during a moment of heightened nationalism. Others, however, have largely backed the government’s line on Greenland, suggesting that the sovereignty issue may transcend traditional party divides.

The March 24 vote will determine whether Frederiksen can strengthen her coalition or voters shift the parliamentary balance. It will also serve as a broader test of how Danes believe their country should manage its relationship with Washington as Arctic security becomes a defining issue of global competition.

Afghanistan and Pakistan exchanged significant cross-border fire Thursday in an escalation of hostilities along their shared border, according to multiple reports.

The clashes came after the Taliban said it launched retaliatory strikes on Pakistani military positions, while Islamabad said it was responding to unprovoked fire in the area.

Reuters reported that both forces clashed for more than two hours along their roughly 2,600-kilometer (1,615-mile) border, threatening a ceasefire that had been agreed to in 2025 after fighting.

Thursday’s flare-up came after Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan earlier this week, with Taliban officials saying the strikes killed at least 18 people, Reuters reported Feb. 24.

Pakistan said it targeted militant hideouts and rejected claims that civilians were targeted.

The Taliban described an ‘extensive’ military operation against Pakistani army positions in response to the strikes.

‘In response to repeated provocations, extensive preemptive operations have been launched against Pakistani military positions along the Durand Line,’ Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid wrote on X.

 In a separate statement, he said ‘specialized laser units’ were operating at night.

Taliban military spokesman Mawlawi Wahidullah Mohammadi also said in a video shared with Reuters that the ‘retaliatory operation’ began Thursday evening.

Mujahid said ‘numerous’ Pakistani soldiers had been killed and some were also captured. Reuters said it could not independently verify those claims.

In another post on X, Mujahid said, ‘The cowardly Pakistani army has bombed some places in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia. Praise be to God, no one was harmed.’  

Pakistan has since rejected the Taliban’s account. 

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said on X that the Afghanistan Taliban’s ‘unprovoked action along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border’ was given an ‘immediate and effective response.’

The ministry said Taliban forces had ‘miscalculated and opened unprovoked fire on multiple locations’ along the border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The post said the fire was being met with an ‘immediate and effective response by Pakistan’s security forces.’

‘Early reports confirm heavy casualties on the Afghan side with multiple posts and equipment destroyed,’ the ministry said. 

‘Pakistan will take all necessary measures to ensure its territorial integrity and the safety and security of its citizens.’

Pakistani security sources also told Reuters that 22 Taliban personnel had been killed, and several quadcopters were shot down.

The fighting follows Pakistan’s accusations that the Taliban is sheltering TTP militants behind a surge in violence and suicide attacks. 

The Afghan Taliban denies the claim. A day before February’s strikes, Pakistani officials said they had ‘irrefutable evidence’ that militants were launching attacks from Afghan soil, Reuters reported.

A Senate Republican warned Thursday that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s primary focus is shedding American blood as U.S.-Iran relations continue to simmer. 

‘The ayatollah not only thinks that I’m going to hell because I don’t agree with his religion — he wants to kill me,’ Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on the Senate floor Thursday.

‘He wants to kill Americans and the Israelis and anybody who does not believe in his jihad and drink our blood out of a boot,’ Kennedy continued. ‘And he’s acted on that, and that’s not acceptable.’

Kennedy’s message comes as tensions with Iran are escalating. At the core of the issue is Iran’s capability and Khamenei’s desire to build a nuclear weapon.

President Donald Trump gave the country’s leadership roughly 10 to 15 days to reach a nuclear agreement and warned that the inability to strike a deal could lead to U.S. military action in the region.

He renewed that edict during his State of the Union address earlier this week.

‘I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror … to have a nuclear weapon,’ Trump said.

Kennedy cautioned that if the Trump administration were to broker a deal, it would need to have guardrails.

‘If we make a deal with Iran, let’s make sure we have a protocol to enforce it because, in my experience in watching the Ayatollah through the years, I wouldn’t trust this man if he was three days dead,’ he said.

Lawmakers are wrestling with the exact nature of what a strike could look like and whether Congress should weigh in before Trump makes a decision.

Senators Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., expect that their Iran war powers resolution will hit the Senate floor next week, which would curb Trump’s ability to strike the country without Congress’ approval.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the most important aspect of the Iran negotiations was ‘to prevent them from having nuclear capability.’

‘But there are also other threats that they represent in the region, and we have a big presence in that region, as you know. So, I think they’re looking at and working through what the options might be,’ Thune said. 

‘In my view, if you’re going to do something there, you better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change.’

Pakistan’s defense minister declared an ‘open war’ with Afghanistan on Friday after the two sides exchanged heavy fire along their shared border on Thursday, according to multiple reports.

Defense Minister Khawaja Mohammad Asif said in a post on X that Pakistan had hoped the Taliban would bring stability after NATO’s withdrawal, but instead accused the group of turning Afghanistan ‘into a colony of India’ and ‘exporting terrorism.’

‘Our patience has now run out. Now it is open war between us,’ he said.

The clashes came after the Taliban said it launched retaliatory strikes on Pakistani military positions, while Islamabad said it was responding to unprovoked fire in the area.

Reuters reported that both forces clashed for more than two hours along their roughly 2,600-kilometer (1,615-mile) border, threatening a ceasefire that had been agreed to in 2025 after fighting.

Thursday’s flare-up came after Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan earlier this week, with Taliban officials saying the strikes killed at least 18 people, Reuters reported Feb. 24.

Pakistan said it targeted militant hideouts and rejected claims that civilians were targeted.

The Taliban described an ‘extensive’ military operation against Pakistani army positions in response to the strikes.

‘In response to repeated provocations, extensive preemptive operations have been launched against Pakistani military positions along the Durand Line,’ Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid wrote on X.

 In a separate statement, he said ‘specialized laser units’ were operating at night.

Taliban military spokesman Mawlawi Wahidullah Mohammadi also said in a video shared with Reuters that the ‘retaliatory operation’ began Thursday evening.

Mujahid said ‘numerous’ Pakistani soldiers had been killed and some were also captured. Reuters said it could not independently verify those claims.

In another post on X, Mujahid said, ‘The cowardly Pakistani army has bombed some places in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia. Praise be to God, no one was harmed.’  

Pakistan has since rejected the Taliban’s account. 

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said on X that the Afghanistan Taliban’s ‘unprovoked action along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border’ was given an ‘immediate and effective response.’

The ministry said Taliban forces had ‘miscalculated and opened unprovoked fire on multiple locations’ along the border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The post said the fire was being met with an ‘immediate and effective response by Pakistan’s security forces.’

‘Early reports confirm heavy casualties on the Afghan side with multiple posts and equipment destroyed,’ the ministry said. 

‘Pakistan will take all necessary measures to ensure its territorial integrity and the safety and security of its citizens.’

Pakistani security sources also told Reuters that 22 Taliban personnel had been killed, and several quadcopters were shot down.

The fighting follows Pakistan’s accusations that the Taliban is sheltering TTP militants behind a surge in violence and suicide attacks. 

The Afghan Taliban denies the claim. A day before February’s strikes, Pakistani officials said they had ‘irrefutable evidence’ that militants were launching attacks from Afghan soil, Reuters reported.