Iran-China Missile Deal Advances Amid IRGC Drills and Deadly Helicopter Crash

 By Palestine Chronicle Staff

China’s CM-302 supersonic anti-ship missile, reportedly set for sale to Iran, carries a 290-kilometer range and is designed to evade naval defenses. (Illustration: Palestine Chronicle)

Iran edges toward Chinese anti-ship missile deal as drills intensify and nuclear talks approach critical stage.

Key Developments

• Iran is close to finalizing a deal with China to purchase CM-302 anti-ship cruise missiles.
• The supersonic missiles have a reported range of 290 kilometers and are designed to evade naval defenses.
• The IRGC launched large-scale ground and naval drills along Iran’s southern coast amid rising US tensions.
• An Iranian army helicopter crashed in Isfahan province, killing four, including two civilians.
• US President Donald Trump extended time for nuclear negotiations but warned of severe consequences if talks fail.
• Israeli officials are reportedly seeking billions more in defense funding in preparation for a possible confrontation with Iran.

Missile Deal

Iran is nearing the completion of a significant arms agreement with China to acquire CM-302 anti-ship cruise missiles, according to a Reuters report citing six informed sources.

The deal, if finalized, would mark a major enhancement of Iran’s naval strike capabilities at a moment of heightened regional tensions. While Reuters could not determine the number of missiles involved, the financial terms, or the delivery timeline, the report states that negotiations are “close to completion.”

The CM-302 is a supersonic, sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missile with an estimated range of 290 kilometers. Designed to fly at low altitude and high speed, it is intended to penetrate advanced naval air-defense systems.

Two weapons experts told Reuters that the deployment of such systems would “significantly bolster Iran’s offensive capabilities,” potentially posing a serious threat to US naval assets stationed in the region.

The United States Navy maintains 11 aircraft carriers globally, several of which are deployed according to rotational schedules. Alongside the USS Gerald R. Ford, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group has been dispatched to the Middle East in recent weeks, underscoring Washington’s growing military footprint in the Persian Gulf.

Although Beijing has not publicly confirmed the deal, the reported negotiations align with deepening military and economic cooperation between Tehran and Beijing under a long-term strategic partnership agreement.

IRGC Drills

As the missile negotiations reportedly advance, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has intensified its military exercises along the southern coastline.

According to Fars News Agency, various IRGC Ground Force units participated in the “1404 Combined Exercise,” aimed at enhancing “combat readiness” in view of what Iranian officials describe as escalating threats.

The drills included the deployment of micro-drones, loitering munitions, and the Shahed-136 drone system. Fars reported that Rezvan loitering munitions identified targets before assigning strike missions to suicide drones, which then hit pre-designated sites.

Special forces units carried out mock shoreline defense operations, utilizing artillery with proximity-fused shells and conducting shore-to-sea strikes. Brigadier General Mohammad Karami, commander of the IRGC Ground Force, stated that forces implemented “pre-designed measures” across missile, artillery, drone, armored, and mechanized sectors.

In a separate exercise, newly integrated missile systems were tested. According to IRGC commanders cited by Fars, these systems feature updated navigation technology, “pinpoint strike accuracy,” and enhanced warheads capable of penetrating fortified positions.

The exercises followed a large-scale naval drill in the Strait of Hormuz overseen by Major General Mohammad Pakpour, reflecting a coordinated demonstration of Iran’s multi-domain deterrence posture.

Nuclear Talks

The military maneuvers coincide with renewed diplomatic engagement. A third round of indirect nuclear negotiations, mediated by Oman, is scheduled for Thursday in Geneva.

Iranian government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said Tehran “prefers diplomacy over war” but would deploy “all tools of deterrence to prevent any miscalculation.”

She stressed that military readiness remains a priority, asserting that adversaries are attempting to portray Iran as weak through psychological warfare.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi warned that while “enemies may be able to start a war,” they would not control its outcome, adding that Iran would exercise its inherent right to self-defense under the UN Charter if necessary.

On the US side, President Donald Trump said reports suggesting imminent military action were “written incorrectly,” emphasizing that the decision to enter any war “belongs to me alone.”

Trump indicated he prefers a negotiated agreement but warned that failure would result in “a very bad day for Iran.” He also dismissed reports that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine opposed military action as “misleading news and pure fabrication.” However, he acknowledged that military leaders generally “do not want war.”

According to reports, Trump has granted his envoys additional time to pursue negotiations in Geneva, even as the Pentagon continues its substantial force buildup in the region — the largest since 2003.

China’s Foreign Ministry has called for restraint, stating that escalating tensions in the Middle East are “not in the interest of any party” and urging resolution through dialogue.

Meanwhile, Israeli media report that security officials are pressing for billions of additional shekels in defense spending to prepare for a possible new confrontation with Iran.

Helicopter Crash

Amid these strategic developments, another accident unfolded inside Iran.

An Iranian army helicopter crashed during a training mission in the Dorcheh area of Isfahan province, killing four people, including the pilot, co-pilot, and two civilians working at a wholesale market.

Mehr News Agency reported that the aircraft went down within the compound of a fruit and vegetable market. Authorities have not yet announced the cause of the crash.

Our Strategic Assessment

The convergence of missile procurement, large-scale military drills, nuclear negotiations, and US force deployments signals a region operating at the edge of confrontation.

Iran appears to be pursuing a dual-track strategy: reinforcing its deterrence posture while maintaining diplomatic engagement. The reported CM-302 deal would enhance Tehran’s capacity to threaten US naval dominance in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz — strategic chokepoints critical to global energy markets.

At the same time, Iranian officials consistently frame their military buildup as defensive and aimed at preventing “miscalculation.” This narrative emphasizes sovereignty and deterrence rather than aggression.

Washington’s approach appears similarly bifurcated. While military deployments and warnings of “military options” project coercive leverage, the extension of negotiation timelines indicates reluctance to trigger a prolonged regional war.

The risk calculus is complicated by Israeli military planning and domestic political dynamics in both Washington and Tehran. Any misstep — whether an incident at sea, a failed negotiation round, or unilateral escalation — could rapidly widen the conflict.

Yet the broader strategic picture suggests that all major actors understand the catastrophic costs of full-scale war. The coming days in Geneva may therefore prove decisive — not only for the nuclear file but for the stability of the entire Gulf region.

(Fars, Mehr, Al-Jazeera, Anadolu, Al-Mayadeen, Kan, PC, US Media)

The Death of Law: Israel’s Permanent State of Exception is a Warning to the World

 By Ramzy Baroud

Israel’s exception has become its system of rule. (Design: Palestine Chronicle)

Israel has already created that void. In the hands of a genocidal settler-colonial society, the state of exception is a relentless nightmare that will not stop at the borders of Palestine.

While many nations occasionally resort to a “state of exception” to deal with temporary crises, Israel exists in a permanent state of exception. This Israeli exceptionalism is the very essence of the instability that plagues the Middle East.

The concept of the state of exception dates back to the Roman justitium, a legal mechanism for suspending law during times of civil unrest. However, the modern understanding was shaped by the German jurist Carl Schmitt, who famously wrote that the “sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” While Schmitt’s own history as a jurist for the Third Reich serves as a chilling reminder of where such theories can lead, his work provides an undeniably accurate anatomy of raw power: it reveals how a ruler who institutes laws also holds the power to dismiss them, under the pretext that no constitution can foresee every possible crisis.

It is often argued that Israel, a self-described democracy, still lacks a formal constitution because such a document would force it to define its borders—a problematic prospect for a settler-colonial regime with an insatiable appetite for expansion. But there is another explanation: by operating on “Basic Laws” rather than a constitution, Israel avoids a comprehensive legal system that would align it with the globally accepted foundations of international law. Without a constitution, Israel exists in a legal vacuum where the “exception” is the rule. In this space, racial laws, territorial expansion, and even genocide are permitted so long as they fit the state’s immediate agenda.

Isolating specific examples to illustrate this point is a daunting task, primarily because nearly every relevant pronouncement from Israeli officials—particularly during the genocide in Gaza—is a textbook study in Israeli exceptionalism. Consider Israel’s relentless assault on UNRWA, the UN-mandated body responsible for the survival of millions of Palestinian refugees. For decades, Israel has sought the dismantling of UNRWA for one reason: it is the only global institution that prevents the total erasure of Palestinian refugee rights. These rights are not mere grievances; they are firmly anchored in international law, most notably via UN Resolution 194.

While UNRWA is not a political organization in a functional sense, its very existence is profoundly political. First, it stands as the institutional legacy of a specific political history; second, and more crucially, its presence ensures the Palestinian refugee remains a recognized political entity. By existing, UNRWA preserves the status of the refugee as a subject with the legal right to demand a return to historic Palestine—a demand that the “state of exception” seeks to permanently silence.

In October 2024, Israel unilaterally legislated the closure of UNRWA, once more asserting its “exception” over the entire framework of the United Nations. “It is time the international community (…) realizes that UNRWA’s mission must end,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already declared on January 31, 2024, signaling the coming erasure. This rhetoric reached its physical conclusion on January 20, when the UNRWA headquarters in occupied Jerusalem were demolished by the Israeli military in the presence of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

“A historic day!” Ben-Gvir announced on that same date. “Today these supporters of terror are being driven out.” This horrific act was met with bashful responses, mute concerns, or total silence by the very powers tasked with preventing states from positioning themselves above the law.

By allowing this Israeli “exception” to stand unchallenged, the international community has effectively sanctioned the demolition of its own legal foundations.

In the past, Israeli leaders masked their true intentions with the language of a “light unto the nations,” projecting a beacon of morality while practicing violence, ethnic cleansing, and military occupation on the ground. The genocide in Gaza, however, has stripped away these pretenses. For the first time, Israeli rhetoric fully reflects a state of exception where the law is not just ignored, but structurally suspended.

“No one in the world will let us starve two million citizens, even though it may be justified and moral until they return the hostages to us,” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich admitted on August 5, 2024. This “justified and moral” stance reveals a localized morality that permits the extermination of a population as an ethically defensible act. Yet Smotrich also lied; the world has done nothing practical to dissuade Israel from its savage pulverization of Gaza.

The global community remained idle even when Smotrich declared on May 6, 2025, that Gaza would be “entirely destroyed” and the population “concentrated in a narrow strip.” Today, that vision is a reality: a genocide-fatigued population is confined to roughly 45% of the territory, while the remainder stays empty under Israeli military control.

Netanyahu himself, who has stretched the state of exception beyond any predecessor, defined this new reality during a cabinet meeting on October 26, 2025: “Israel is a sovereign state… Our security policy is in our own hands. Israel does not seek anyone’s approval for that.” Here, Netanyahu defines sovereignty as the raw power to act—genocide included—without regard for international law or human rights.

If all states adopted this, the world would fall into a lawless frenzy. In his seminal State of Exception, Giorgio Agamben diagnosed this “void”—a space where law is suspended but “force of law” remains as pure violence. While his recent stances have divided the academic community, his critique of the exception as a permanent tool of governance remains an indispensable lens for understanding the erasure of Palestinian life.

Israel has already created that void. In the hands of a genocidal settler-colonial society, the state of exception is a relentless nightmare that will not stop at the borders of Palestine. If this “exception” is allowed to become the permanent regional rule, no nation in the Middle East will be spared. Time is of the essence.

– Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of eight books. His latest book, ‘Before the Flood,’ was published by Seven Stories Press. His other books include ‘Our Vision for Liberation’, ‘My Father was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth’. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA).

Pentagon Warns of Prolonged Iran War: Strategic Pause or Calculated Ruse?

 By Palestine Chronicle Staff

Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose office reportedly issued a rare warning about the risks of a prolonged military campaign against Iran. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons. Illustration: The Palestine Chronicle)

Pentagon warns prolonged Iran war risks casualties and strain, as Tehran insists it seeks diplomacy but will defend itself if attacked.

Key Developments

• The Wall Street Journal reported that senior Pentagon officials warned President Donald Trump about risks of a prolonged military campaign against Iran.
• US military options range from limited strikes to a multi-day air campaign that could destabilize Iran’s leadership.
• Defense officials cautioned that extended operations could strain US air-defense systems and munitions stockpiles.
• Trump publicly denied reports suggesting internal opposition to military action but confirmed he prefers a deal if possible.
• Iran reiterated its commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty while warning it would respond forcefully to any attack.

Pentagon Raises Concerns

Senior US defense officials have cautioned President Donald Trump about the potential consequences of a prolonged military operation against Iran, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal.

The newspaper reported Monday that General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been among those voicing concerns during internal Pentagon discussions and National Security Council meetings. Other defense leaders, the paper noted, have echoed similar reservations regarding the scope and sustainability of several options under review.

According to current and former officials cited by the Journal, military leaders have warned that some of the proposed plans could expose US and allied forces to casualties, strain air-defense resources, and significantly stretch American military capacity.

The options being discussed reportedly range from limited, targeted strikes to a multi-day air campaign that could aim to destabilize or even topple Iran’s leadership.

While each scenario carries inherent risk, defense officials warned that an extended operation could “significantly drain U.S. munitions stockpiles and air-defense systems,” potentially complicating Washington’s ability to defend regional allies if Tehran retaliates.

The Journal further reported that heavy use of high-demand weaponry—particularly air-defense interceptors already in limited supply—could affect US readiness for other contingencies, including a potential confrontation with China.

According to the report, General Caine is widely regarded as a trusted adviser to the president, and his assessments are expected to factor into Trump’s ultimate decision. Military leaders, the paper noted, are tasked with outlining casualty estimates, logistical demands, and operational costs before any action is taken.

Trump, however, has not yet reached a conclusion.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told the Journal that Trump values input from across his national security team and described Caine as a respected adviser. She added that the president considers a range of perspectives before determining what best serves US security interests.

Trump Denies Rift

The Pentagon’s caution comes amid reports that Trump has oscillated between military escalation and diplomatic engagement.

According to Al-Jazeera, Trump dismissed reports suggesting internal opposition to military action, stating that such accounts were “written wrong.” He emphasized that the decision to enter any war “belongs to him alone.”

Trump also rejected claims that General Caine opposed a strike on Iran, describing such reporting as “misleading news and pure fabrication.” He acknowledged that Caine, like other military leaders, “does not want war,” but asserted that “victory would be easy if a military decision is taken.”

Despite earlier indications that he was leaning toward military action, Trump has granted his envoys additional time to pursue negotiations with Iran. According to Axios, cited by Al-Jazeera, the president agreed to allow US envoy Steve Witkoff and senior adviser Jared Kushner more time for talks in Geneva, insisting on “exhausting all avenues” before resorting to force.

A senior US official told Reuters that Witkoff and Kushner are scheduled to meet an Iranian delegation in Geneva on Thursday.

Diplomacy, however, is unfolding against the backdrop of what US officials describe as the largest American military buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

US aerial refueling aircraft arrived at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport on Monday evening, according to Israeli Channel 12 and Channel 13. The arrival coincides with heightened regional tensions and Trump’s warning that military action could follow if a deal is not reached within 10 to 15 days.

An aircraft carrier strike group is operating in the region, and a second carrier has been positioned in the Mediterranean, marking a significant projection of US air power.

Tehran Signals Defiance

Iran has rejected allegations that it is pursuing nuclear weapons and reiterated its commitment to international obligations.

Speaking at the Geneva Disarmament Forum, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Iran remains committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), describing it as the “cornerstone of the global nonproliferation and disarmament.”

Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, he said, is “inherent, non-negotiable, and internationally guaranteed.” He insisted that Tehran “neither possesses nuclear weapons, nor has it sought to acquire them, nor does it intend to do so in the future.”

Gharibabadi emphasized that any sustainable negotiation must be based on “mutual respect, equal treatment, and the non-selective implementation of international rules.”

At the same time, he warned that Iran is prepared to “defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and its people,” including exercising its “inherent right of legitimate defense in accordance with the UN Charter.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also warned that Iranian forces could target US naval assets if attacked.

Meanwhile, Russia has expressed alarm at the prospect of military escalation.

Leonid Slutsky, head of the Russian parliament’s international affairs committee, warned that any US attack on Iran could trigger “dangerous collective confrontation.” He called for resolving disputes through negotiations rather than war and emphasized respect for state sovereignty and international law.

Slutsky stated that Russia seeks a multipolar global order and warned against unilateral military actions that bypass international institutions.

Strategic Assessment

The publication of internal Pentagon concerns in The Wall Street Journal, alongside similar reporting in other major US outlets including The Washington Post, is itself strategically significant.

The leaks come at a moment when the United States has nearly completed the visible stages required to carry out a major military operation: carrier strike groups are in position, aerial refueling assets have arrived in Israel, and regional force posture has reached levels not seen since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In military terms, the operational architecture appears largely in place.

This raises an important question: does the surfacing of cautionary assessments signal that Washington is backtracking — or is it part of a calculated maneuver?

If it reflects genuine hesitation, then it suggests that new variables may be influencing decision-making inside the Pentagon and the White House.

The Wall Street Journal reported that defense officials warned a prolonged campaign could strain munitions stockpiles, expose US and allied forces to casualties, and complicate broader strategic readiness.

Those warnings imply that operational costs may be higher than initially assumed. There may also be classified intelligence assessments regarding Iranian retaliation capabilities, regional escalation dynamics, or vulnerabilities of US bases and assets that are not publicly known but are shaping internal deliberations.

A second possibility is that the publication of these risks serves a strategic purpose — a calibrated signal intended either to pressure Tehran diplomatically or to create ambiguity before a potential strike. Public debate over operational risks can sometimes function as part of a broader information strategy, especially when diplomacy and deterrence are unfolding simultaneously.

However, if this is intended as deception, its effectiveness is uncertain. The United States has previously conducted strikes during periods of negotiation, and Iranian officials have repeatedly warned that they are alert to the possibility of military action being launched under diplomatic cover. Tehran’s leadership has signaled that it views threats and negotiations as parallel tracks rather than mutually exclusive ones.

Iran has also publicly prepared for retaliation scenarios. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned that Iranian forces could target US naval assets if attacked. Such statements suggest that Tehran is not interpreting negotiations as a guarantee of restraint.

In that context, the leaks may indicate not strategic theater but genuine tension within US policymaking circles. Military planners are tasked with outlining worst-case outcomes, including escalation pathways that could expand beyond initial objectives. A limited strike could evolve into a sustained confrontation if retaliation triggers follow-on responses. A multi-day air campaign, as reported by the Journal, would risk deepening US entanglement in a conflict whose end-state remains uncertain.

At the same time, the visible military buildup increases pressure on all sides. It narrows diplomatic space while heightening the consequences of miscalculation.

Whether the Pentagon’s caution represents backtracking or tactical messaging, one reality remains clear: the infrastructure for war is largely in place. The decision now rests on political calculus — weighing deterrence credibility, domestic considerations, alliance coordination, and the unpredictable nature of escalation.

The coming days will reveal whether the published warnings reflect an internal brake on escalation or merely a pause before a decision already nearing its final stage.

(US Media, PC, AJA, Anadolu, Israeli Media, Iranian Media)