Hegseth focused on the Pentagon’s victories Tuesday, alternating between throwing jabs at former officials and praising President Donald Trump. The conference lasted fewer than 25 minutes, and he answered few questions from the gallery. 

Hegseth said the impeachment articles — brought forth Monday by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie — constitute a politically motivated “farce,” directed at service members.

“Politicians in Washington have accused the sailors and pilots who struck narcoterrorist boats of war crimes for doing their job,” he said, later equating his own impeachment possibility with potential repercussions for service members. “This resolution is the next step. Put the secretary on trial today and then men and women who carried out those orders tomorrow.”

Hegseth painted himself as a champion for the troops, saying, “If they want to come for the warriors, they’re going to have to come through me.”

The proceedings came shortly after Republicans’ massive losses in the midterm elections, which Vice President JD Vance blamed on the war in Iran. Hegseth addressed Vance’s comments, saying that the war was “a necessary undertaking.”

Hours after Hegseth’s conference, Vance took to social media in support of the defense secretary, calling the question of whether Hegseth carried out impeachable offenses “absurd,” and saying that “impeachment has become a ridiculous show that stands in for actual policymaking.” Vance said lawmakers were targeting Hegseth because he “took on bureaucracy at the Pentagon,” not the war with Iran.

Massie brought eight articles of impeachment against the defense secretary. The Kentucky congressman accused Hegseth of going to war with Iran without congressional authorization; continuing the war after lawmakers directed the withdrawal of U.S. forces; continuing to fight beyond the War Powers Resolution’s allowed timelines; ignoring laws to minimize civilian harm; directing the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife; retaliating against Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., over his public statements; ordering deadly strikes against suspected drug traffickers at sea; and starting an illegal war in Yemen. 

Hegseth briefly addressed the specific accusations, calling them “partisan policy disagreements from people who want to politicize our military.” He said none of the actions constituted high crimes, but rather “the job well done.” 

“As for the articles themselves, Iran, the cartels, Maduro, Yemen — every one was a lawful operation ordered by the Commander in Chief, then ordered by myself, notified to Congress, and executed by American warriors who did their jobs,” Hegseth said. 

The defense secretary praised the success of Operation Epic Fury — the U.S.’s campaign against Iran — claiming that Iran’s navy and more than 80% of its nuclear industrial base were destroyed. Hegseth also claimed that Iran started the war 47 years earlier. 

Late last week, U.S. Central Command posted a plea on social media and a reward of up to $20 million for information about Iran’s nuclear program. 

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., will decide if lawmakers vote on each article individually or all eight as a whole. Many Democrats have expressed support for Hegseth’s removal, as have some Republicans, who currently hold a slim majority in the House.

Representatives have two legislative days to vote. A simple majority in favor of impeachment would send the matter to the Senate for a trial, where a two-thirds majority would be required to convict and remove Hegseth. 

There is no set timeline for an impeachment. If the House votes to impeach, the Senate’s trial could begin in the next legislative session, when Democrats take control of Congress.

Trump has been vocal about his support for Hegseth. On Monday, he called Massie a “loser” and a “sick guy,” saying, “There’s something wrong with him, actually. Now he’s after Pete Hegseth. He doesn’t like Hegseth, but really, what has Hegseth done?” 

Massie lost his primary run for re-election to a Trump-backed contender in May. 

Hegseth first announced the press conference while speaking with reporters Monday after delivering smoldering remarks against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, as well as progressive academia, at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. He told reporters that the people who sought to remove him disagreed “with success,” later shifting the focus to the soldiers who carried out Pentagon policy decisions.

“If you want to take issue with what we did in Epic Fury or Rough Rider or nabbing Nicolás Maduro, you’re taking issue with the troops and what they accomplished, which is historic,” he said.

Before Tuesday, Hegseth’s most recent press conference was conducted May 5, amid the U.S.’s ongoing war with Iran.

The Unite for Veterans Coalition is hosting a gathering on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol to mark Veterans Day on Wednesday. There, veterans, family members and advocates plan to voice their support for Hegseth’s impeachment, organizers said.

Natalie Oliverio contributed to this report.

The two airmen are listed under the “non-hostile” category in the Pentagon’s recently updated Defense Casualty Analysis System, or DCAS, meaning their deaths are not related to direct combat operations. One of the deaths was illness- or injury-related, and the other is listed as “pending,” according to the DCAS.

One airman was an active-duty service member, an Air Force spokesperson told Military Times, while the other was in the Air National Guard.

Although typical Department of Defense policy dictates that the names of deceased service members be released to the public 24 hours after next of kin notifications, the Air Force has yet to announce their identities. The spokesperson declined to comment on why their names have been withheld thus far and if the service has been in contact with their families.

Both airmen were white men and mid- to senior-enlisted personnel in E5 to E9 grades, according to DCAS. One was between 31 and 35, while the other was over 35.

One of the airmen passed away in the U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility, which spans from Northeast Africa across the Middle East to Central and South Asia, the spokesperson said.

The other airman died in the United States; however, the spokesperson declined to comment on where the second airman was operating out of and how they were transported to the U.S.

CENTCOM referred Military Times to the Air Force when asked for comment.

The airman whose death is listed as “pending” is under investigation currently, the spokesperson said, but did not specify by which department.

Another service member whose death was listed as “pending” in DCAS was an Army captain who suffered a medical incident while aboard a military flight on the way to Saudi Arabia in late September.

DCAS lists both of the airmen’s deaths under the Overseas Operations category, instead of Operation Epic Fury, with a Pentagon official telling Military Times it is because the U.S. deems Epic Fury as concluded. The Overseas Operations lists the start date as July 7, aligned with the continued U.S. pressure campaign against Iran.

Officials have been tight-lipped on the exact date Epic Fury was considered terminated, but a defense official previously specified May 5 to Military Times.

The Pentagon’s classification of the operation as an Overseas Operation category faced criticism from Democratic members of Congress, who accused Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth of trying to hide the casualties.

The Overseas Operation category now includes eight service members: four listed as hostile and four as non-hostile. Combining the two categories together makes for a total of 23 service members who have lost their lives since the war in Iran began on Feb. 28, with the Epic Fury category listing 15. 

In total, 866 service members have been wounded in action since the war’s beginning across both categories. That includes 417 under Operation Epic Fury and 449 in Overseas Operations, according to DCAS.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its estimate, which has not been shared publicly.

The disclosure about the rising cost of the Iran war comes as Republicans wrestle with the political fallout of the unpopular conflict ahead of the November 3 election that will determine control of Congress for the next two years.

The war’s impact on global energy costs has weighed on support for Republican candidates and hurt President Donald Trump’s approval ratings. Trump’s Republican Party holds a narrow majority in both chambers of Congress.

The Pentagon’s latest estimate was tied to the operational costs of carrying out the war, with a projected cost of more than $29 billion to replace expended munitions used in the conflict.

More than $6 billion would be needed to replace military equipment and so-called “platform losses,” which include the loss of aircraft and drones during the war.

Trump launched the Iran war jointly with Israel in February, predicting ​that the conflict would last a short time.

Trump’s initial strategy in the Iran war focused on first using expensive, high-end precision missiles to bomb Iran’s defenses so it could later use less expensive munitions, including gravity bombs like the air-launched JDAMs, which are plentiful.

But an April ceasefire gave time for Iran to dig out underground storage facilities, bringing back online some Iranian defenses, as well as missiles and drones that had been inaccessible.

Trump has since imposed a naval blockade on Iran to starve it of oil export revenue and held out the possibility of restarting combat operations after the midterm elections. US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, say the Pentagon has been planning to restart heavy fighting if ordered to do so.

The latest Pentagon estimate compares to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s July estimate of $37.5 billion for the cost of the war.

While the figures include a host of operational costs, from flight operations to cyber support, the US military’s Iran war cost estimates did not clearly account for the massive expense expected to repair damage to US bases sustained by Iranian missile and drone attacks.

Diesel averaged $6.35 a gallon on Monday, just below the record $6.53 set in September, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The economy is the top issue heading into the Nov. 3 midterms, with 84% of registered voters calling it “very important” to their vote and 54% saying the same of energy policy, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Sept. 28 to Oct. 4.

“The president decided to pin this problem not on Putin, but on me. Explaining to his people that because of this, diesel prices in America are going up. That is completely untrue,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said of Trump’s recent claims that Ukraine’s attacks on Russian refineries were to blame for the price increases.

Trends in federal data back up the Ukrainian president, showing that the steep initial rise in diesel prices followed the start of the Iran war — not Ukrainian strikes on Russian production infrastructure.

U.S. diesel stayed below $3.90 a gallon from August 2025 until the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran began Feb. 28, then jumped nearly 25% in a week to $4.86, according to the Energy Information Administration.

“This crisis has its roots in the Middle East. Everyone understands that perfectly well. Everyone knows how to do the math,” Zelenskyy said on Oct. 12, quoting his remarks to the Warsaw Security Forum. “If Russia accounts for 2.2% of global diesel supplies, what impact can it have on the price? That’s how negligible it is.”

Even Moscow’s senior officials agree.

“The key guarantee of full stabilization of this market is the speediest normalization of the situation around the Persian Gulf, overcoming the conflict around Iran,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Borisenko told reporters Oct. 12.

The International Energy Agency confirmed in an Oct. 14 report that easing Russia’s diesel export ban is unlikely to materially change global supplies because Russia lacks the working refinery capacity.

Critics of the deal

The diesel sales will barely move American prices before the vote, but the deal would benefit Russia disproportionately and cost Kyiv one of its few levers against the Kremlin, according to the Institute for the Study of War and the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.

The current situation gives Moscow deeper diplomatic ties with Washington — economic cooperation that continues despite Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s more vulnerable energy grid — as well as more money for its war chest and the prospect that U.S. pressure will halt Ukraine’s strikes on its refineries that help fund the war, experts at both institutions said.

“The diesel agreement gives Putin an opportunity to advance economic cooperation with Washington before any settlement in Ukraine,” Carnegie senior fellow Tatiana Stanovaya wrote on Oct. 14. “Economic agreements can coexist with unchanged demands on Ukraine and continued military pressure.”

The Kremlin is also using the deal to win U.S. support for its negotiating position with Ukraine, part of a recurring effort to offer Washington economic incentives it claims are unrelated to the war “in order to extract concessions from the U.S. regarding the war,” ISW said.

Critics in Kyiv and Washington, including members of Trump’s own party, warn the deal will put more oil money in Russian hands and disproportionately impact Ukraine. Zelenskyy told the Warsaw Security Forum that the country has “just one oil refinery,” while Russia has 32 major refineries, according to the International Energy Agency.

Four Republican and three Democratic senators urged the Trump administration Oct. 11 to “immediately reverse course,” saying in a joint statement that “the United States should not provide Putin with a financial lifeline while Russia continues to kill Ukrainian civilians.”

Two days later, 12 senators from both parties, including Republicans Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, wrote to Trump in a letter that the deal will have “a negligible impact on fuel prices” and “is a gift to our adversary and a betrayal of our Allies.”

“Putin is looking for a way to get the United States to pressure Ukraine to stop striking those refineries,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., wrote the day the deal was announced.

Not enough to offset losses

Ukraine’s strikes have taken some Russian diesel off the market.

Russian diesel production fell by nearly 30% as attacks on refineries intensified, the International Energy Agency said in a Sept. 17 analysis.

The estimated gross value of Russia’s seaborne crude shipments hit a wartime high of $2.76 billion this week, up roughly $430 million from the week before, Bloomberg reported. 

No strikes on Russian refineries were reported last week, and the lull has allowed Moscow to boost processing rates, likely diverting crude that would otherwise have been exported, the outlet reported.

But the Gulf’s losses are far larger. Diesel exports from the region dropped to 390,000 barrels a day in August, just over a quarter of prewar levels, according to International Energy Agency figures.

Russia’s promised deliveries won’t close that gap.

The first shipment equals just about 2% of U.S. diesel demand over a month, CNBC reported. Goldman Sachs estimated the first two months of deliveries would cut wholesale prices on the U.S. Gulf Coast by just $1 to $2 a barrel, or roughly 2 to 5 cents a gallon.

“Now we can see how cash will start flowing back into Russia through the diesel deal,” Zelenskyy told reporters at a European Union summit in Brussels on Oct. 16, according to Reuters.

“This diesel deal will never be enough to offset the impact of the Strait of Hormuz on global markets. But it will put more money straight into Putin’s pocket to fund this war.”

Trump eased sanctions on Russian diesel after an Oct. 9 call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying in a Truth Social post that Russia would supply hundreds of thousands of tons of diesel fuel “immediately” and that diesel prices would come down “IN RECORD NUMBERS, AND FAST!”

The same day, U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner told Ukrainian negotiators in Miami that the White House hoped the diesel deal would soften Moscow’s stance on peace talks. Witkoff met Putin for in-person negotiations last week for the ninth time since February 2025.

Kyiv offered to refrain from striking Russian refineries if Moscow stopped hitting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, Zelenskyy said Oct. 11.

Ukraine paused refinery strikes at Trump’s request, but Russia kept hitting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, prompting Kyiv to resume its own counterattacks, Zelenskyy told the Financial Times on Oct. 15.

“We’re done,” he said.

Within days of Trump’s sanction announcement, Ukrainian officials accused Washington of pressuring Kyiv to capitulate by withholding missile warnings and throttling the military’s essential Starlink connectivity, intelligence that Zelenskyy said “helps save people’s lives.”

Trump denied any interruption in missile warnings or Starlink service, but Ukrainian officials have stood by their account, prompting Zelenskyy to say he felt betrayed by the U.S.

Both have since been restored, Zelenskyy said Saturday, but Russia’s attacks have not let up.

Russia fired 16 ballistic missiles and more than 280 drones at Ukraine overnight Monday into Tuesday, targeting “energy, logistics and ordinary urban infrastructure” almost everywhere, Zelenskyy said.

The barrage came as the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine concluded that Russian authorities had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity through attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday, Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., asked Army Secretary Mark Esper: Should he be confirmed as the next secretary of defense, would he align his foreign policy views more closely with former Defense Secretary James Mattis or President Trump ― as a rift between the two ultimately led to Mattis’s resignation late last year.

“I don’t know where to pick between the two,” Esper said. “But clearly, I share Secretary Mattis’s views, and I’ve expressed that publicly.”

The Pentagon has been without a full-fledged leader for more than seven months, since Mattis left the building citing disagreements over the importance of strong international alliances to U.S. national security.

“My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues,” Mattis wrote in his resignation letter.

Esper doubled down on those sentiments during the hearing, also echoing a willingness to resign that was laid down last week by Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley in his own confirmation hearing to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“I’m fully committed to that,” Esper said of a diplomatic world order led by the U.S. “I think that is the one thing that’s certainly under threat, from Russia, and certainly China. I see the big picture, if you will.”

After Mattis’s exit, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan stepped up into the acting role, and was nominated to replace him permanently. But that plan fell apart in late June, when Shanahan resigned after allegations of domestic abuse surfaced in documents from his 2011 divorce, and Esper spent three weeks as acting defense secretary in his place.

Committee chairman Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., had expressed a goal to hold a vote on Esper’s nomination Thursday, but that could be delayed to next week if any senators plan to vote against Esper.

“Most of us were very discouraged by the resignation of Secretary Mattis,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said. “And what we’ve hoped for is a successor who can show the same level of candor, and principle, and a willingness to remain independent even in the most challenging of circumstances.”

Lawmakers talked up Esper’s vast experience, from serving as an infantry officer on active duty, then in the National Guard and Army Reserve, as well as in national security at a D.C. think tank, as an executive at defense contractor Raytheon, at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.

“If you are confirmed, you will help oversee national security policy for a president whose temperament and management skills are challenging, and likely very different from your own,” Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., told Esper. “While I may not agree with the president on many issues, I do want him to be surrounded by leaders who can give thoughtful advice and counsel.”

Esper leaned on the National Defense Strategy, the much-lauded, bipartisan policy put together under Mattis, in his response.

“The goal is to deter war, and this can only be done with a strong, modern, and ready military that has overmatch in all domains,” Esper said. “Our adversaries must see diplomacy as their best option because war with the United States will force them to bear enormous costs.”

But lawmakers also expressed concern about 14 top Pentagon jobs that are still without a confirmed official, including currently the secretary and deputy secretaries of defense.

“I’m concerned that the Defense Department may be adrift in a way I have not seen in my whole time on Capitol Hill,” Reed said. “It is my hope that you will work with the White House to impress upon them the importance of filling these positions.”

Esper has a track record of rooting out waste, starting with dozens of hours spent combing through every Army program with Milley last summer. They adjusted some acquisitions and canceled others, adding up with $25 billion in savings.

And at the unit level, Esper released more than a dozen memos reducing non-mandatory training requirements and other administrative tasks for Army leaders in the field, after years of complaints about their burden on readiness ― up to and including the legendary weekend safety brief, and doing away with glowing PT unless soldiers were running on busy roads or at night.

“The bottom line is this: in an era of mounting fiscal challenges and competing demands, we must actively seek ways to free up time, money, and manpower to invest back into our top priorities,” he said.

And he answered for past actions as Army secretary ― like giving up $1 billion set aside for Army personnel funding to support President Trump’s border wall project.

“I think in many ways, it’s just one of those things we do — whether it’s putting out wildfires in California, helping with hurricane recovery in Texas or Puerto Rico, flooding along the Mississippi,” he said. “It’s one of those things we provide to other parts of the government, to the American people.”

But Reed fired back, asking Esper to recognize the distinction between providing manpower support and shuffling around funds ― funds that the Army had pleaded to Congress would be necessary to grow and support the Army.

Looking ahead, Esper shared some of the plans in the works to address aggression from Iran. That includes Operation Sentinel, he said, which has already been briefed to the Senate Armed Service Committee.

“Whereby we do passive patrolling, if you will, in the Strait of Hormuz, Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, to deter any provocative acts by the Iranians or the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps].”

Lawmakers challenged Esper to a host of other commitments, including:

• Addressing the toxic effects of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, formerly used in a firefighting foam on bases that has seeped into ground water around military installations.
• The Fairness for Veterans Act, a 2017 initiative to streamline discharge upgrades for service members with a post-traumatic stress diagnosis that could have resulted in misconduct that got them separated from the military.
• Reforming military housing, both in management and in physical condition. Esper began this effort as Army secretary, following widespread reports of dangerous and unhealthy conditions at on-base housing facilities, largely ignored by the private corporations who manage them.
• Extending his recusal from working on deals with Raytheon, his former employer ― as he had during his time as Army secretary. Esper said that he intends to stay within legal and policy ethics regulations if working with Raytheon. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., expressed concerns about corruption involving his relationship with Raytheon, and the possibility that he would return to a defense industry job following his time at the Pentagon.
• Sorting out what shape a Space Force, as a separate military service, will take.
• Making efforts to protect active duty service members and their families from being deported, as well as ensuring transitioning service members know how to apply for citizenship as veterans, if they have not already started the process.

“It’s obvious from listening to both sides of the aisle here, from my colleagues Sen. Kaine and also Chairman Inhofe, that based on their direct observation and work with you, both of them think you’re an all-star. I tend to agree …” Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., told Esper. ” … you’re going to need to be an all-star.”

In a statement, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana W. White indicated Sunday’s attack, which occurred around 9 a.m. local time about 200 miles southwest of Mogadishu, was undertaken as part of the Trump administration’s goal to “systematically dismantle” al-Shabaab. It came in direct response to recent attacks on local forces, she said.

Separately, U.S. officials described the target as a command and logistics node located within one of al-Shabaab’s strongholds where the group has “cemented its control” and established the means to shelter other unidentified “radical terrorists.” Speaking to The Associated Press, Somali President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed said the operation occurred in Sakow, which is well inland and home to a terrorist training camp.

The Pentagon has come to view al-Shabaab with increasing concern, in large part because the group remains capable of carrying out deadly attacks on civilians and the alliance of African military forces fighting the group. Since late-2016, militants have overrun three bases in Somalia “by amassing large numbers of fighters and attacking in overwhelming numbers,” U.S. military officials said, growing its combat capability in the process by looting heavy weapons and small arms, armored vehicles and explosives.

U.S. officials won’t say precisely how many American troops are in Somalia now. The number is believed to be a few hundred.

But in a sign of how aggressively the U.S. military aims to address this threat, it recently dispatched a one-star Army general to coordinate the campaign there. Brig. Gen. Miguel A. Castellanos was hand selected by U.S. Africa Command chief Gen. Thomas Waldhauser “to help synchronize efforts between international military partners, pull various agencies together and develop momentum to change the dynamic of Somalia,” according to a news release announcing the shift. The Mogadishu Coordination Cell, as it’s called, is based at the city’s airport, it says.

And last month, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis signaled Washington’s willingness to consider deploying additional U.S. troops to Somalia should the troubled African nation seek greater military aid to combat al-Shabaab. At the time, no such request had been made by the Somali government, but Mattis’ openness about entertaining such a possibility highlights the Trump administration’s evolving perspective on how aggressively it should support indigenous forces willing to fight mutual adversaries.

The Pentagon’s strategy there, as with other regions where a lack of governance has allowed terror groups to take root, centers on training and advising — or “working by, with and through our allies,” as officials now characterize it. It also entails direct counter-terror assistance, a more-dangerous mission led by elite special operations forces. On May 5 it resulted in the first American combat deathin Somalia since the early 1990s.

Andrew deGrandpre is Military Times’ senior editor and Pentagon bureau chief. On Twitter: @adegrandpre

.

Mattis addressed the Pentagon press corps to explain how the U.S.-led coalition has endeavored to meet President Donald Trump’s directive, issued at the beginning of his administration, to bring greater force to bear on ISIS in Syria and Iraq and, it is hoped, to disrupt the group’s ability to gain a foothold elsewhere. The secretary was flanked by his top general, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford, and the ISIS coalition’s presidential envoy, Brett McGurk.

The trio cited data points intended to showcase progress: more than 55 percent of ISIS territory has been retaken in Syria and Iraq; more than 4 million people have been liberated. “And not one inch of territory seized from ISIS has been recaptured by them,” they noted.

“Our strategic approach,” Dunford said, “is to cut the connectivity between ISIS affiliates and associates, … their illicit resources and their message. Our objective is to drive down ISIS’s capability to a point where local forces, with tailored support from the international community, are able to provide security. And we’re doing this today in Libya, Somalia and Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan.”

Yet despite their confident tone, some important questions remain.

It’s unclear, for instance, the extent to which U.S. troops will be needed long term. There are fewer than 10,000 Americans spread between Syria and Iraq, with thousands more deployed close by in Jordan and Kuwait. Mattis is said to be negotiating plans for leaving a residual force spread between various Iraqi military facilities, but he indicated Friday a desire to avoid an open-ended commitment in Syria where, combined with the Islamic State’s murderous tyranny, a ferocious civil war has displaced millions.

“I’m not willing to sign up for that. That’s not our intent,” Mattis replied when asked whether American personnel could remain in Syria indefinitely. “We’re there to drive ISIS to its knees. … There’s got to be a political solution to the larger issues there. It’s not going to be U.S. troops at the point of a gun making that happen.”

It’s also unclear when the group’s de facto capital in Raqqa might fall, an eagerly awaited development that would be seen as a symbolic victory for the coalition and a blow to ISIS given its ambition to establish a caliphate. Backed by U.S. military advisers and American firepower, thousands of Arab and Kurdish fighters have nearly encircled the city, but Mattis declined to offer an assessment beyond to say it will be difficult once local forces enter Raqqa, and that he intends to afford commanders the time they need to completely isolate those inside so they cannot flee.

“What will it look like when we say that we’ve got success?” Mattis said. “I think what we’ll see is the local security forces, police, that sort of organization that can handle it. … Police can’t handle a force that’s driving tanks and using artillery, or has thousands of fighters in mobile vehicles that allow them to range far and wide.”

And there’s also the matter of stabilizing these areas once ISIS is gone. Again, though, no easy answers.

Such planning is underway, McGurk said, but there is much that’s yet to be resolved. The focus, he said, is on low-cost, locally led projects that will enable displaced people to return home. Establishing local police forces will be an important piece of that, but so will restoring water and electricity.

“Stabilization is not nation building,” McGurk added, using a term that’s become synonymous with the mostly fruitless, years-long military occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. “We’re not attempting to dictate political outcomes nor is it long-term reconstruction where projects are chosen by outsiders often with no connection to the local community, costing and often wasting billions of dollars.”

Like the Islamic State’s stronghold of Mosul in Iraq, Raqqa is heavily fortified and the coalition is bracing for a gritty, months-long fight through dense urban neighborhoods. After those cities are liberated, commanders will turn their attention to other areas where ISIS has amassed. In Syria, that includes a swath of territory stretching to the southeast from Deir el-Zour, through an open valley along the Euphrates River, to the Iraqi border town of al-Qaim.

Syria’s embattled president, Bashar al Assad, has indicated he intends to reassert government authority in that region, making the Russian military vitally important to ensure the anti-ISIS campaign can continue without interference, officials said. Russia and the U.S. have established deconfliction zones throughout the country. The phrase refers both to times and locations where both militaries agree not to impede one another’s objectives.

“We are looking for the Russians to work with the regime” as the U.S. and its allies begin to concentrate on ISIS territory in the mid-Euphrates valley, Dunford said. The chairman alluded to a plan that’s being co-developed among officials in Washington and Moscow to further “ensure that we can continue to take the campaign to ISIS and ensure the safety of our personnel.”

He declined to elaborate, but characterized Russians’ response as “enthusiastic.”

Another area of increasing concern is in southern Syria, where on Thursday the U.S. struck Assad loyalists as they advanced on an American training camp — apparently in defiance of Russian demands for them to stand down. Mattis said Friday that it appears these fighters were affiliated with Iran, which along with the militant group Hezbollah continues to back Assad in his conflict with an anti-government opposition. “I don’t know there were Iranians on the ground, but Iranian-directed forces,” he added.

“Iran’s activities [in Syria] have not been helpful. They’ve been hurtful,” said Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general whom many believe was forced out as the head of the U.S. Central Command because he objected to President Obama’s pursuit of a nuclear accord with Tehran. “They’ve extended a war that should have ended long ago.

“I’ve been in a lot of refugee camps over my years on active duty from — from the Dalmatian Coast to Africa and other places, seen boat people pulled out of the water off Vietnam. I have never seen refugees as traumatized as I’ve seen come out of Syria. Never. And Iran bears no little responsibility for that situation.”

Andrew deGrandpre is Military Times’ senior editor and Pentagon bureau chief. On Twitter:

.

Thursday’s incident underscores, once again, the complex dynamic facing U.S. forces inside of war-torn Syria. It comes six weeks after President Donald Trump ordered a retaliatory attack on Assad’s military for its alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians. At the time, U.S. officials accused Russia of being complicit but have since begun to work more closely with Moscow hoping to establish areas that are protected from violence. For now, both sides appear to be taking that seriously.

“We are not increasing our role in the Syrian civil war, but we will defend our troops,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters Thursday at the outset of a meeting with the Swedish defense minister.

This was despite #Russian attempts to dissuade pro-regime movement towards At Tanf, #Coalition aircraft show of force, & warning shots2/3

— Inherent Resolve (@CJTFOIR) May 18, 2017

There are believed to be approximately 900 American military personnel in Syria. Most are concentrated in the north, assisting local forces who are focused on liberating cities and towns occupied by the Islamic State. U.S. officials said Thursday that the Americans on the ground in At Tanf were training anti-ISIS units.

But some clandestine American units are training entities who oppose Assad as well, and it’s believed some of that work occurs in At Tanf. The border town is the site of significant activity dating back more than a year. Just last month, for instance, ISIS militants attacked a facility housing U.S. special operations forces as they trained opposition fighters. With the aid of airstrikes, the Americans repelled the attack, killing between 20 and 30 attackers.

Many analysts believe the town is a transfer station connecting the Syrian government with its supporters in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, where Hezbollah is based. Linking the corridor would provide a stable land transit route to resupply the regime and bolster its proxies.

“The stated intent of that pro-regime convoy was to reopen the Damascus-Baghdad highway,” said Jennifer Cafarella, a Syria expert at the Institute for the Study of War. “I think [they] intended to test U.S. resolve and found it appropriately intact when it comes to force protection.”

Andrew deGrandpre is Military Times’ senior editor and Pentagon bureau chief. On Twitter:  @adegrandpre.  Shawn Snow is a staff writer and Military Times’ Early Bird editor. On Twitter:  @SnowSox184. 

Col. Gen. Sergei Rudskoi of the military’s General Staff said the coalition was trying to “completely destroy critical infrastructure in Syria and complicate post-war reconstruction as much as possible.”

A U.S.-backed Syrian opposition force has insisted it is taking care to preserve vital infrastructure as it steps up military operations in northern Syria ahead of a push on Raqqa, the de facto capital of the ISIS group’s self-styled caliphate.

Rudskoi further claimed that coalition jets had destroyed four bridges over the Euphrates River in Syria and hit the Tabqa dam to the west of Raqqa.

The collapse of the dam would cause an “ecological catastrophe” and lead to “numerous” civilian deaths, he said.

On Monday, the U.S.-led coalition reiterated that it is taking every precaution to ensure the integrity of the dam. “To our knowledge, the dam has not been structurally damaged,” it said on its Twitter account.

A spillway north of the structure is under control of the U.S.-backed and Kurdish-led opposition group known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, and can be used to relieve pressure behind the dam, the coalition told The Associated Press in an email on Sunday.

Engineers who used to work at the site have expressed doubt that the spillway could accommodate the water flow but said it will still take at least a month for the lake to reach critical levels if the gates are not opened. IS has warned that the dam’s main gates are out of service, causing water levels to rise.

Pressure on ISIS has intensified in recent months as the group has suffered a series of battlefield reverses in both Syria and neighboring Iraq.

This still image taken from drone footage posted online Monday, March. 27, 2017 by the Aamaq News Agency, a media arm of the Islamic State group, shows the Tabqa Dam, in Raqqa, Syria.

Photo Credit: Aamaq News Agency via AP

With SDF forces to the north and west of Raqqa, a push on the city is shaping up to be the next major battle. Last week, U.S. aircraft ferried hundreds of SDF fighters, as well as American artillery and military advisers, behind ISIS lines.

President Bashar Assad’s government has objected to U.S. involvement, saying that American forces are not authorized to be on Syrian soil. For its part, Moscow prefers seeing Syrian government forces leading the assault on Raqqa.

Activist groups said Monday the city itself has been without electricity and municipal water for three to five days.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the cuts are due to the fighting around Tabqa Dam, 40 kilometers (25 miles) west of Raqqa.

Rudskoi said Tuesday that Syrian government forces, with Russian military assistance, are making progress against ISIS. Russia has been Assad’s main backer and has played a key role in turning the tide of war in his favor.

Syrian forces now control of territory up to 16 kilometers (13 miles) around the historic town of Palmyra, Rudskoi said, adding that they recently seized control of high ground held by ISIS along a highway connecting Palmyra and the capital, Damascus.

Syrian troops fully recaptured Palmyra earlier this month after a push that saw ISIS defenses crumble and their fighters flee in the face of artillery fire and intense Russia-backed airstrikes. The Syrian government had seized the town from Islamic State militants last March, only to lose it again 10 months later.

Separately on Tuesday, reports emerged that an agreement has been reached for the surrender and evacuation of four besieged areas in Syria.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the agreement stipulates the evacuation of the rebel-held Damascus suburbs of Madaya and Zabadani, besieged by government forces and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters for the past two years, in return for the evacuation of the northwestern villages of Foua and Kfarya, which have been besieged by insurgents since early 2015.

Some 60,000 people live in the four besieged areas, according to the U.N.

Muhammad Darwish, a doctor from Madaya, confirmed an agreement to evacuate rebels had been struck and that it would likely be implemented a week from now. He said the evacuation was voluntary, and that civilians could stay.

The Washington-based Siege Watch monitoring group said in a series of Tweets that the deal, which would result in massive forced population transfers, was mediated by Iran and signed in Qatar.

Such deals have become common in Syria, where rebels surrender following years of siege and bombardment, and are allowed safe passage to opposition-held areas further north in return.

The Syrian government has rejected allegations that such deals amount to the forced displacement of civilians.

Associated Press Writer Philip Issa in Beirut contributed to this report.

“Obviously, having a revanchist Russia and a surging China concentrates the mind,” said Col. Dan Sullivan, chief of staff for the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory.

This April, the Navy and Marine Corps will hold an exercise at Camp Pendleton, California, that will test more than 100 proposed technologies to help Marines find and exploit gaps in enemy defenses as part of amphibious operations, which will include drones, communications equipment and remote-control amphibious vehicles, officials said at a media roundtable on Thursday.

When Sullivan joined the Marine Corps, he said, the U.S. military had a monopoly on precision-guided munitions and unmanned aircraft and it took both air and sea supremacy for granted. 

But as the U.S. fought lengthy counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, its adversaries surged ahead technologically.

“Certainly, there was no deliberate negligence on our part,” Sullivan said. “It’s just that we kind of had our hands full there for a while. When the Soviet Union collapsed, China was still poor, that was an anomaly of history in the 1990s. History is back.”

A joint Navy-Marine Corps task force will determine which technologies the Marines will further test during a military exercise this fall at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, officials said.

Modern weapons can destroy ships and landing craft hundreds of miles from shore, and now even non-state actors such as Houthi rebels in Yemen have access to anti-ship missiles, remote control boats and other weaponry that could pose a major threat to any Marine amphibious operation.

The Marine Corps Operating Concept released in September indicates how the Corps plans to challenge such weapons. The concept includes a vignette to show what an amphibious operation would look like in 2025.

In the vignette, the Marine aviation commander says he knew that the Marines could not destroy all of the enemy’s coastal and air defenses, “But we could create ‘bubbles’ for small periods.”

The intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technology being tested in April is meant to help create such bubbles by finding gaps in enemy defenses where Marines can send manned and unmanned forces, said Maj. Jim Foley, with the Ellis Group, the Marine Corps’ think tank that explores future warfighting scenarios. 

Another tactic would be to use a “swarm” of unmanned aircraft, submarines and vehicles as decoys to tie up the enemy’s resources in a diversion while Marines land elsewhere, Foley said.

With the types of unmanned systems and sensors being tested, the Marines can greatly increase the number of places where they can come ashore, said Doug King, director of the Ellis Group. Swarms of unmanned aircraft can also protect Marines as they land on enemy beaches, he said.

“Think about it this way: I’m maneuvering ashore, potentially in a boat,” he said. “What’s flying overhead is an unmanned swarm, that as soon as somebody radiates, gives off a signature, that swarm is just going right after them.”