A fresh wave of attacks on the United Arab Emirates’ energy infrastructure has ramped up concerns over prolonged supply disruptions amid the Iran war.

It comes after the world’s largest ultra-sour gas development was struck by a drone, a fire broke out in the UAE’s Fujairah Oil Industry Zone, and another tanker was hit near the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

The UAE also reopened its airspace on Tuesday after a brief shutdown following a fire caused by an Iranian drone attack hitting a fuel tank.

Operations at the UAE’s massive Shah gas field remained suspended on Tuesday following a drone attack, which caused a fire at the facility, according to Abu Dhabi authorities. No injuries were reported from the incident.

The Shah gas field is located 180 kilometers southwest of Abu Dhabi and is operated by a joint venture between ADNOC and Occidental Petroleum Corp. It has the capacity to produce 1.28 billion standard cubic feet of gas per day and 4.2 million tons of sulfur per year.

Separately, a drone attack sparked a fire at the Fujairah Oil Industry Zone, a critically important hub for the UAE’s crude exports and bunkering operations. The Fujairah government’s media office said on Tuesday that no casualties were reported.

Fujairah, one of the world’s top hubs for storing crude and fuels, is located on the eastern seaboard of the UAE and serves as a key shipping hub for the wider region.

It has faced repeated attacks in recent weeks, underlining the vulnerability of the UAE’s only export route that bypasses the Strait of Hormuz.

Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy choke points, has virtually ground to a halt since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran on Feb. 28. Iran has retaliated by targeting ships trying to pass through the maritime corridor.

Spanning around 248 miles from onshore oil facilities at Habshan to Fujairah, the UAE’s Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline (ADCOP), or the Habshan–Fujairah oil pipeline, is estimated to handle 1.5 million barrels per day, with a reported total capacity of close to 1.8 million barrels per day.

A tanker was also struck while at anchor by an unknown projectile about 23 nautical miles east of the UAE’s Fujairah in the Gulf of Oman, according to an update published Monday from the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) center.

The incident caused minor structural damage, with no injuries to the crew and no environmental impact was reported, the UKMTO said.

The latest report comes after six vessels sustained damage in and around the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman last week as Iran warned oil prices could climb to $200 a barrel.

Oil prices were higher on Tuesday as energy market participants closely monitored ongoing supply disruptions.

International Brent crude futures with May delivery advanced 2.2% at $102.36 per barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures with April delivery rose 2.2% at $95.55.

Prices have surged about 40% during the U.S.-Iran war, reaching their highest levels since 2022, as shipping through the Strait has been severely disrupted. Brent closed above $100 for the first time in four years last week.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Tuesday that Iran’s security chief, Ali Larijani, had been killed in airstrikes overnight.

Katz said in a statement that he had been informed by the military that Larijani and the commander of Iran’s Basij forces, Gholamreza Soleimani, had both been killed, according to Reuters.

Iran has not yet confirmed the report.

Larijani was seen as the right-hand man of Iran’s late supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in strikes aimed at high-ranking Iranian officials at the beginning of the war on Feb. 28.

Iran has since retaliated by attacking its Gulf neighbors and targeting ships trying to pass through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Tehran on Sunday vowed to kill Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the U.S.-Israel war on Iran continued to threaten oil supplies in the Gulf.

“IRGC vows to pursue and kill ‘child-killer’ Netanyahu if he is still alive,” Iran’s IRNA news agency said in a post on X, referring to the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Israel in return targeted key members of Iran’s leadership over the weekend.

The Israel Defense Forces said they had “eliminated” two senior Iranian intelligence officials of the “Khatam al-Anbiya” Emergency Command.

Late on Saturday, the IDF said in a post on X that it had struck the primary research center of the Iranian Space Agency and an aerial defense system production factory.

Iran continued to retaliate against targets around the region. Israeli emergency services reported a “recent missile barrage” fired at central Israel, but said there were no known injuries.

Meanwhile, oil-loading operations in the United Arab Emirates’ port of Fujairah resumed on Sunday according to media reports, after being interrupted a day earlier due to a fire caused by falling debris from an intercepted drone.

A spokesperson for Abu Dhabi’s state oil giant, ADNOC, which operates in Fujairah, directed CNBC to the Fujairah Media Office, which did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment.

The ongoing war has effectively choked off energy supplies moving through the narrow Strait of Hormuz which separates Iran and the UAE.

On Friday, Brent crude oil futures closed above $100 per barrel for the second straight day, and the global oil benchmark has surged more than 40% since the war in Iran began.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that he directed the U.S. Central Command to carry out a bombing raid, hitting military targets on Iran’s Kharg Island for the first time. Trump threatened further strikes on Iran’s oil export hub, even as he repeatedly urged allies to deploy warships to help the U.S. secure the Strait of Hormuz.

Kharg Island has been thrust into the global spotlight because it is regarded as one of Iran’s most sensitive economic targets. The terminal accounts for around 90% of the country’s crude exports and has a loading capacity of roughly 7 million barrels per day.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi took to social media to say his country is “ready to form a committee with the countries of the region to investigate the targets that were attacked. Our attacks only target American bases and interests in the region.”

In a Telegram post Sunday, Araghchi said: “We have not targeted any civilian or residential areas in the countries of the region so far,” and added, “Occupying Kharg Island would be a bigger mistake than attacking it.”

The impact of the war is now also affecting major events in the Gulf region. Formula 1 said it has canceled the upcoming Grand Prix races in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia scheduled for April.

“While alternatives were considered, no substitutions will be made in April,” Formula 1 said in a post on X.

The prospect of a U.S. move to seize Kharg Island, a strategically vital hub often referred to as Iran’s “oil lifeline,” is considered extremely high risk, both from a geopolitical and economic standpoint.

The five-mile-long coral island, which is located about 15 miles off the coast of mainland Iran in the waters of the northern Persian Gulf, has been left untouched through nearly two weeks of U.S. and Israeli-led strikes against Iran.

The Trump administration has discussed seizing the island, according to an Axios report on March 7, citing four unnamed sources with knowledge of the discussions.

White House officials have previously said they expect oil prices to fall dramatically once Operation Epic Fury comes to an end, while White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said the president “wisely” keeps all options on the table.

Kharg Island has been thrust into the global spotlight because it is regarded as one of Iran’s most sensitive economic targets. The terminal accounts for around 90% of the country’s crude exports and has a loading capacity of roughly 7 million barrels per day.

Analysts say that any attempt to attack or seize it would require a ground troop operation, which the U.S. appears reluctant to undertake. An attack would also likely prompt a sustained increase to already soaring oil prices.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has previously refused to rule out deploying American ground forces in Iran but said the U.S. won’t get bogged down in the country.

Francis Galgano, an associate professor and military geography and environmental security specialist at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, said the location of Kharg Island is important because it sits in deep water that enables the approach of oil supertankers.

“I will put on my war hat … if the objective is to win the war (quickly), you destroy or capture Kharg immediately,” Galgano told CNBC by email, adding that any such attempt would create maximum leverage over Tehran.

Nonetheless, taking the small island would be no mean feat, Galgano said. “It would involve moving a considerable number of ground combat troops into the region … I estimate about 5,000 to take and hold the island.”

He added: “All of this of course affects global oil markets, but they are already being affected.”

Oil prices have been extremely volatile since the U.S. and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran on Feb. 28. Iran has retaliated by targeting ships trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, with several incidents reported in recent days.

The narrow waterway is a key maritime corridor that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Roughly 20% of global oil and gas typically passes through it.

International benchmark Brent crude futures with May delivery traded off by 1% at $99.45 per barrel on Friday, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures with April delivery were last seen 2% lower at $93.81.

If Kharg Island were disabled, analysts at JPMorgan said the loss of Iran’s storage buffer and the scarcity of viable export alternatives would “rapidly trigger upstream shut-ins across major southwest fields.”

“With production near 3.3 mbd and exports around 1.5 mbd, as much as half of national output could be at risk if the hub remains offline, and the previously assumed 20‑day buffer would vanish from day one,” they said in a note published Sunday.

Iran’s enormous scale and mountainous topography mean the U.S. mobilizing any conventional ground forces in the region would require hundreds of thousands of troops, according to Alex Plitsas, a senior non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank.

“Any use of ground forces would likely be limited to special operations forces for specific missions,” Plitsas said Wednesday in a note, without referring specifically to Iran’s Kharg Island.

— CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed to this report.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Thursday questioned why the U.S. Transportation Command and the State Department were not doing more to get stranded American citizens out of the Middle East amid the war with Iran.

There may still be tens of thousands of U.S. citizens stuck in the region, and the Trump administration has been too slow to act as violence spilled out of Iran into surrounding countries, the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

“Let’s be clear, the Trump administration chose this war. They planned this war for months, and they made no plans to safeguard hundreds of thousands of Americans in the region. There is no excuse for this,” Warren said.

Americans reported feeling stranded in the region in the days immediately after war broke out. A State Department warning for U.S. citizens to “DEPART NOW” to Americans in 14 countries set off a scramble, with some saying they were left to fend for themselves. Amid the criticism, the State Department said last week they were ramping up flights for American to get out of the region.

While President Donald Trump suggested earlier this week the war would end “very soon,” there is no immediate end in sight, and Americans in the region are trying to contend with an ever-evolving regional conflict.

The State Department has published regular updates on the amount of Americans relocated out of the region since Trump announced the war with Iran on Feb. 28, and on Thursday a spokesperson said nearly 47,000 citizens had returned to the U.S.

The State Department had completed more than two dozen charter flights, and at this point the number of seats offered on those flights outstrips demand, the spokesperson said. 

“While commercial flight availability across the region continues to improve, Department of State charter flight and ground transport operations continue to operate,” the spokesperson said without providing a name, responding to an email sent to the agency’s media inquiries account.

Gen. Randall Reed, commander of TRANSCOM, testified at the Thursday hearing that his command had assisted in the airlift of hundreds of Americans out of the region.

But Warren said the effort has fallen short.

“What I’m trying to understand is why you’re not doing more,” Warren asked Reed. “Because I’m hearing from my constituents who are stranded there, who’ve been stranded there for two weeks and they’re asking for help, and they’re not getting help from the U.S. government.”

While many Americans have left and some are choosing to stay in the region, others are still stuck. The State Department spokesperson said the department was “now working 24/7 to bring Americans home.”

Some lawmakers are taking matters into their own hands.

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., posted to X about a trip she took this week to the Middle East to help a family from her district that was stuck there.

“The family I traveled here for are safely home. But then I learned about more families. Hundreds of families. Thousands. Still stranded,” Mace wrote.

Congressional caseworkers, the aides who field inquiries from constituents, have similarly reported that Americans are feeling stranded and frustrated with the federal government’s response to the war.

One Senate Democratic caseworker — who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she is not authorized to speak to the press — said she has heard from constituents in places like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Israel and Kuwait. Some are tourists, others are students or Americans in the region for work, in some cases with their families. 

“People there that are in the Middle East, just wanting to leave but having absolutely no way to leave, they are scared, they are terrified and they are feeling abandoned,” the caseworker said. “Their families here are scared and terrified and wondering why the U.S. government has not already gotten their loved one home.”

Inconsistent messaging from the government did not help, the Senate caseworker, and a House Democratic caseworker, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, both said.

In the first days of the war, the guidance to Americans in the region was to shelter in place, the House aide said. But the “DEPART NOW” message on March 2 caused panic. The air space was closed in many countries in the region, making commercial flights an unlikely route home. The government provided a phone number for a help line, but that had a long wait. When they did get through, they were at times told they were on their own, the caseworker said. 

“What we were hearing from constituents was absolute panic,” the House aide said.

German arms maker Rheinmetall said it sees this year’s sales growing by as much as 45% as it reported 2025 revenue growing 29% year-over-year, missing expectations.

It also said it was in a “prime position to help the US replenish their missile stockpiles” used in the war in Iran, such as supplying critical solid rocket motors.

In a presentation to accompany earnings on Wednesday, the company said “higher spend for missile restocking and air defence” was “inevitable.”

It comes as defense companies are expected to be on the receiving end of governments’ hiked spending on military capabilities, amid increased demand due to the wars in Ukraine and Iran. Rheinmetall expects its order backlog to more than double to 135 billion euros this year.

“The tense security situation underpins the promising position of the Group, whose products are playing an increasingly important role for the increase in defence capabilities in Germany and its partner countries,” Rheinmetall said.

The defense giant, Germany’s seventh-largest company by market value, issued its 2026 outlook, which it had hinted at during a preclose call in early February.

Group sales are expected to grow by between 40% and 45% to between 14 billion ($16.26 billion) and 14.5 billion euros. Operating result margin is expected to be around 19%, up from 18.5% in 2025. Jefferies analysts called the guidance “realistic but soft.”

“The world is changing rapidly, and Rheinmetall is well prepared,” said CEO Armin Papperger in a statement.

“With our products, we will have a significant share in the increasing equipment spend of the armed forces and deliver what modern armed forces need in the 21st century.”

Shares fell 5.2% in early trading on Wednesday while the pan-European Stoxx 600 index was down 0.7%.

Sales grew by 29% over the full year to 9.94 billion euros ($11.56 billion), missing expectations of 10.53 billion euros, according LSEG estimates.

Earnings before tax and interest came in at 1.68 billion euros, compared with estimates of 1.75 billion euros, while the order backlog reached a record high of 63.8 billion euros, a 36% jump from the previous year. 

“As budget approvals resumed toward year‑end and defence spending picked up across Europe – particularly in Germany – we expect delayed programmes to convert into contracts, supporting a rebound in nominations and reinforcing the company’s already elevated backlog,” noted Morningstar analyst Loredana Muharremi ahead of the print. 

In February, the company indicated sales for this year would come in at between 13.2 billion and 14.1 billion euros, and EBIT between 2.4 billion and 2.8 billion euros, both more than 10% below expectations. Shares subsequently fell 6.5%.

Barclays analysts in February called the share move following the indicated guidance “a marked over-reaction,” saying that “expectations are high, and shares continue to be very sensitive to any information that comes out.”

Noting some confusion over the like-for-like numbers this year, given recent changes to the business structure, the analysts said that weapon and ammunition growth will remain elevated, and there is scope for its naval business to be resilient, too. 

“From a structural perspective we think nothing has really changed here: the backlog growth in 2026 will be material.”

Rheinmetall shares have risen about 540% over the past three years, as a leading provider of land systems and ammunition in Europe.

Gains, however, have moderated over the past year as some investors question whether shares have reached their full value and if growth can be sustained long-term. Coming into Wednesday trading, the stock was up just 3.4% year-to-date. 

Rheinmetall and other defense firms like Britain’s Bae Systems and Italy’s Leonardo are viewed as well-placed to capitalize on hiked spending by European governments over the next five years against a backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Rheinmetall is looking to sell its civilian automotive to focus purely on meeting demand for its defence business. It’s also now active in the naval sector following its acquisition of shipbuilder Naval Vessels Lürssen, which closed in February.

Shares of defense companies, including Rheinmetall, initially spiked after the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, killing its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It raised fears that the attacks would develop into a full-blown war engulfing the entire Middle East region, which would eventually lead to more demand for military equipment.

Senate Democrats on Tuesday rebutted President Donald Trump’s claims that the war in Iran may soon be over, warning that the U.S. risks getting dragged into another prolonged conflict in the Middle East.

The concerns from Democrats who attended a bipartisan classified briefing with military brass on Tuesday stand in stark contrast with the president, who on Monday suggested the U.S. may be nearing the completion of its operation. Trump’s statements sent slumping markets soaring and cratered oil prices that had skyrocketed in recent days.

The senators were briefed as the Trump administration continues to whipsaw between explanations, goals and timelines for the war that has seen eight U.S. service members killed in action and left the longtime leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, dead.

“What I heard is not just concerning, it is disturbing,” Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, whose members were briefed. “I’m not sure what the endgame is or what their plans are. … And if he does want to put us in a forever war, which it seems like he does, he needs to come out and let us be able to have that discussion.

“Do you think because he thinks he waves some magic wand that everything just stops? … It’s not going to stop just because he wishes it to be so,” Rosen said.

The pessimism from Democrats on an eventual U.S. end for the war it started with Israel against Iran comes as Congress awaits a potential supplemental funding request to finance the offensive. The effort has burned through billions of dollars of U.S. munitions, which will have to be refilled. Some Democrats said they would resist any request for further funding. Democrats have also balked at Trump failing to seek congressional authorization to begin the war.

“At this point, I am a hard no on a supplemental,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee. “No more money. The one thing Congress has the power to do is to stop actions like this through the power of the purse.”

“This is not a war supported by this country, and this is not a war that makes us safer,” Warren said.

Lawmakers exiting the meeting said the size of the potential supplemental package was not given. Republicans, who hold a 53-47 vote majority in the Senate, appeared willing to support more funding for the war when they left the briefing.

“Not in total dollar amounts that I’ve heard,” said Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind. “Obviously, there’s a cost to it, but the trade-off is exponentially more, and this has been a very effective operation so far.”

“We need to do whatever it takes to accomplish the mission and do it as fast as we can,” Banks said.

The Washington Post on Monday reported that the military burned through $5.6 billion in munitions in the first two days of the war that began Feb. 28. Washington-based bipartisan think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that the war is costing roughly $891 million per day.

Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., a former Navy Seal, suggested the cost is worth it.

“Iran’s been at war with us for 47 years; we’re trying to end this war,” Sheehy said, referencing the years since the Iranian regime came to power. “We’ve had two presidential administrations give billions of dollars to Iran, that’s what really cost [money].”

Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have painted a different picture of the timeline of the war than Democrats say they fear. Hegseth, at a press briefing earlier Tuesday pledged the U.S. will not enter another prolonged conflict in the Middle East, and Trump on Monday said the war would end “very soon.”

War costs are expected to only grow as the war drags on, and Democrats are warning there is no end in sight. The war dragging on could also see markets whip back and oil costs continue to soar, especially as the Strait of Hormuz, which carries roughly 20% of the world’s oil remains largely impassible.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said there was “no discussion” about the safety of passing through the Strait during the briefing while he was in attendance.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., a retired Navy captain, also said the U.S. doesn’t appear to be nearing the end of the war after leaving the meeting.

“Clearly, they do not have a strategic goal,” he said. “They didn’t have a plan, they have no timeline. Because of that, they have no exit strategy.”

Correction: This story has been revised to reflect that Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., is a former Navy SEAL. A previous version misidentified the branch of the military in which he served.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to label Anthropic a “Supply-Chain Risk to National Security” on Friday resulted in more questions than answers.

“It’s all very puzzling,” Herbert Lin, a senior research scholar at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, told CNBC in an interview.

Anthropic is the only American company ever to be publicly named a supply chain risk, as the designation has traditionally been used against foreign adversaries. But the company hasn’t received any official declaration beyond social media posts.

A formal designation will require defense vendors and contractors to certify that they don’t use Anthropic’s models in their work with the Pentagon.

The dispute centered around how Anthropic’s artificial intelligence models could be used by the military. The Department of Defense wanted Anthropic to grant the agency unfettered access to its Claude models across all lawful purposes, while Anthropic wanted assurance that its technology would not be tapped for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance.

With no agreement reached by Friday’s deadline, President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to “immediately cease” all use of Anthropic’s technology, and said there would be a six-month phaseout period for agencies like the DOD.

Experts told CNBC the supply chain risk designation is highly unusual, especially since the U.S. and Israel began carrying out strikes in Iran just hours later. A group of retired defense officials, policy leaders and executives wrote to Congress on Thursday, defending Anthropic and calling the Trump administration’s designation a “dangerous precedent.”

Anthropic’s models are still being used to support U.S. military operations in Iran, even after the company was blacklisted, as CNBC previously reported.

Talks between Anthropic and the DOD are now reportedly back on, according to the Financial Times, but there are still big questions hanging over the issue as of Thursday.

Why is the U.S. government still using Claude?

Stanford’s Lin doesn’t understand why the DOD is still using Anthropic’s models in sensitive settings if they pose such a threat. If the Trump administration really sees Anthropic as a risk to national security, he said, it wouldn’t make sense to phase out the models over an extended period of time.

“OK, wait a minute, they’re a really dangerous player for U.S. national security, so you’re going to use them for another six months? Huh?” Lin said. 

Michael Horowitz, a senior fellow for technology and innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations, said it’s “especially notable” that Anthropic’s models were used to support the U.S. military action in Iran. He said “there’s no clearer signal” of how much the Pentagon values the technology.

“Even in a situation where there is this intense feud between the company and the Pentagon, they are using their technology in the most important military operation that the United States is conducting,” he said. 

Transitioning away from Anthropic toward a new vendor takes time and comes at a significant cost in terms of efficiency, said Jacquelyn Schneider, a Hargrove Hoover fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Until recently, Anthropic was the only AI company approved to deploy its models across the agency’s classified networks. OpenAI and Elon Musk’s xAI received clearance, but their systems can’t be deployed or adopted overnight.

What’s the actual threat?

By designating Anthropic a supply chain risk, the DOD is suggesting that the company is “really bad” for U.S. national security, Lin said. But he stressed that the agency hasn’t clearly outlined what kind of threat the company poses. 

“They don’t point to any technical failing, they don’t point to any hack,” Lin said. “They say things like ‘They’re arrogant,’ and ‘We don’t want you telling the DoD what to do in some hypothetical situation that hasn’t happened yet.'”

Lin said the other punishment that Hegseth was threatening to impose on Anthropic, invoking the Defense Production Act, also contradicts the idea that the company threatens national security. 

The Defense Production Act allows the president to control domestic industries under emergency authority when it’s in the interest of national security. It could essentially compel Anthropic to let the Pentagon use its technology. 

Horowitz said he thinks the clash between Anthropic and the DOD is “masquerading” as a policy dispute. 

Months earlier, venture capitalist and White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks criticized the company for “running a sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering,” after an essay published by an executive, and conservatives have repeatedly accused Anthropic of pushing “woke AI.”

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei took a different approach than other tech executives, avoiding getting cozy with the Trump administration in its early days.

“This feels to me like a dispute that is about politics and personalities,” Horowitz said. 

Is an official designation on the way?

Anthropic hasn’t been designated a supply chain risk by any official measure, and there’s an open question as to if or when the company should expect one. Defense contractors have to decide whether they will follow Hegseth’s directive on social media or wait for more formal guidance. 

Several executives told CNBC that their companies are moving away from Anthropic’s models, and a venture capitalist said a number of portfolio companies are switching “out of an abundance of caution.” But others, including C3 AI Chairman Tom Siebel, said he doesn’t see a “need to mitigate” the technology “until it gets litigated.” 

Schneider said businesses are rational, and if they think it’s high risk to work with Anthropic, whether it’s formally declared a supply chain risk or not, they’re going to hedge and look for other partners.

“There’s all sorts of decisions that have been made within the Trump administration that, by law, require more codification,” Schneider said. “Even the example of moving from DoD to [Department of War]. That by law needs more codification, but all the contractors are using DoW.”

Even so, Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said social media posts likely aren’t enough to actually cause a designation.

“There’s a process that the statute requires, including an actual finding that Anthropic presents national security risks if it’s part of the supply chain,” he said in an interview. “I don’t think, factually, that that predicate could possibly be met here.”

Anthropic said in a statement Friday that it will challenge “any supply chain risk designation in court.”

Does this have anything to do with the U.S. strikes on Iran?

For Schneider, the war in Iran now looms large over the spat between Anthropic and the DOD. She said she’s left wondering whether the two conflicts were happening in parallel, or if they were somehow related. 

“Obviously, you’re not going to walk away from technologies that are deeply embedded in your wartime processes right before you go to war,” Schneider said.

She said planning a military operation of that magnitude would have required “a lot of sleepless nights,” so she was surprised the DOD was willing to spend such a “remarkable amount of energy” on a public clash ahead of the initial attack.

What happens next?

As the war in Iran stretches into its sixth day, Anthropic’s path forward with the DOD remains a big mystery.  

Horowitz said he would bet that the six-month off-boarding period will become a “a locus for some re-examination” within the Pentagon, especially since members of Congress and broader public markets have shown so much interest in the dispute. 

Lin expressed a similar sentiment, and said he wouldn’t bet on Anthropic’s models being out of the DOD a year from now.

Schneider is less convinced. 

“I wish I had a more definitive thought about where this is all going to go, but everything is so unprecedented,” she said. When it comes to historical examples or analogous cases, Schneider said: “I don’t have those. It’s just super limited.”

The DOD declined to comment. Anthropic didn’t provide a comment.

WATCH: Anthropic tops $19 billion in annual revenue rate

In the aftermath of the Israeli-U.S. strikes on Iran, American allies in the Persian Gulf are hearing a sound that Ukrainian soldiers have long come to dread: the foreboding hum of the Shahed-136 ‘kamikaze’ drone. 

Originating from Iran, the Shahed has already become a fixture of modern warfare, with Tehran’s strategic partner, Russia, utilizing the technology in its years-long invasion of Ukraine. 

Now, the drones — the most advanced of which is the long-ranged Shahed-136 — have become central to Iran’s retaliation strategy against the U.S. and its regional allies, with thousands unleashed so far. 

At first glance, the Shahed is unremarkable compared with cutting-edge weapon technologies, with one analyst referring to it as “the poor man’s cruise missile.” 

But while American allies have managed to intercept the vast majority of incoming drones with the help of U.S.-provided defense systems such as the ‘Patriot’ missiles, many Shaheds still managed to hit their targets. 

The United Arab Emirates Ministry of Defence said on Tuesday that out of 941 Iranian drones detected since the start of the Iran war, 65 fell within its territory, damaging ports, airports, hotels and data centers.

Analysts say the key to their effectiveness lies in the numbers. The drones are relatively cheap and easy to mass-produce, especially compared to the sophisticated systems used to defend against them. 

Those factors make the drone ideal for swarming and overburdening aerial defenses, with each drone intercepted also representing a more valuable defense asset expended. 

“The Shahed‑136, among other unmanned aerial systems, has allowed states like Russia and Iran a cheap way to impose disproportionate costs,” said Patrycja Bazylczyk, analyst with the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC.

“They force adversaries to waste expensive interceptors on low‑cost drones, project power, and create a steady psychological burden on civilian populations.” 

U.S. government reports describe the Shahed-136 as a one-way attack unmanned aerial vehicle produced by Iranian entities tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Compared with ballistic missiles, the drones fly low and slow, deliver a relatively modest payload, and are limited to mostly fixed targets, said Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told CNBC.

Public estimates suggest Shahed drones can cost between $20,000 and $50,000 apiece. Ballistic and cruise missiles, by contrast, can cost millions of dollars each.

In that sense, the Shahed and its equivalents “basically serve as ‘the poor man’s cruise missile’ offering a way to strike and harass adversaries “on the cheap,” said Taleblu.

For Iran, which faces both international sanctions and limitations on acquiring advanced weapons, that cost advantage is significant.

Meanwhile, air defense systems used by Gulf states and Israel can cost between $3 million and $12 million per interceptor, according to U.S. Department of Defense budget documents.

This cost discrepancy raises a serious issue for Iran’s enemies: Air defense systems have finite numbers of defense missiles, with each target intercepted representing a valuable asset expended.

Thus, in a war of attrition, the drones could be used by Tehran to wear down air defenses, opening them up to more damaging attacks, analysts say.

“The logic is to expend drones early while preserving ballistic missiles for the long haul,” said CSIS’s Bazylczyk.

She added that Iran’s ability to sustain mass‑drone use will depend on its stockpiles, how well it can protect or restore its supply chain, and whether the U.S. and Israel can meaningfully disrupt the flow of components or production sites. 

The U.S. has long sought to disrupt Iran’s production of the Shahed-136, and recently imposed new sanctions targeting suspected component suppliers across Turkey and the UAE.

However, Russia’s production of Shahed drones shows that such systems can be manufactured at scale during wartime and amid targeted sanctions. 

U.S. officials claim Iran had launched over 2,000 drones in the conflict as of Wednesday. However, the country is understood to have large stockpiles and may be capable of producing hundreds more each week, military experts reportedly told The National newspaper.

“Gulf countries are at risk of depleting their interceptors unless they are more prudent about when it fires those interceptors,” said Joze Pelayo, a Middle East security analyst with the think tank Atlantic Council.

“The depletion is not imminent, but it remains an urgent issue,” he said, noting. However, attacks on multiple fronts by Iranian allies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis could put stockpiles at risk of being depleted within days, he added.

Some analysts have suggested that Iran has drawn from Russia’s extensive battlefield experience with the drones, including modifications such as anti-jamming antennas, electronic warfare-resistant navigation, and new warheads.

Those warheads typically carry 30 kg to 50 kg of explosives and can pack a punch, particularly when used in large swarms, with advanced versions capable of a range of up to 1,200 miles.

Michael Connell, a Middle East specialist at the Center for Naval Analyses, said that the Shahed-136 has proven so effective that the U.S. has reverse-engineered it and deployed its own version on the battlefield against Iranian targets. 

In its Iran attacks over the weekend, the U.S. Central Command confirmed that it had used such low-cost one-way attack drones modeled after the Shahed for the first time in combat. 

With drones becoming a fixture of the modern battlefield, methods for dealing with them are also evolving.

According to Taleblu from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Ukraine has found some success in downing drones with fighter jet cannon fire, a more sustainable deterrent than missile interceptors.

Ukraine also recently pioneered the development of cheaper mass-produced interceptors, which Kyiv claims can stop the Shahed.

Gulf states are also expected to adopt more sustainable approaches. The Pentagon and at least one Gulf government are reportedly in talks to buy the cheaper Ukrainian-made interceptors.

Meanwhile, Qatar’s Ministry of Defense says it is also using its air force jets to intercept Iranian attacks, including Shahed drones, alongside ground-based air defenses.

Electronic warfare targeting the Shahed’s GPS, as well as short-range missiles and directed-energy systems such as Israel’s Iron Beam, are also significantly cheaper to operate than traditional interceptors.

Still, analysts say Gulf states currently lack fast, high-volume anti-drone capabilities. Developing and deploying such systems will likely take years, said Atlantic Council’s Pelayo.

“Countries in the Gulf hosting U.S. bases, such as Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE, benefit from an extended ability to repel drone attacks through the American-operated system, but it is still not enough against mass and sustained attacks.”

Spain has pushed back against the White House’s claim that it agreed to cooperate militarily with Washington amid the conflict with Iran, doubling down on its anti-war stance despite the U.S. president’s threat to sever trade ties.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said on Wednesday that Madrid’s position of refusing to allow the country’s military bases to be used in the ongoing Iran war had now changed.

“With respect to Spain, I think they heard the president’s message yesterday loud and clear, and it’s my understanding, over the past several hours, they’ve agreed to cooperate with the U.S. military,” Leavitt told reporters.

“The president expects all of our European allies, of course, to cooperate in this long sought-after mission, not just for the United States but also for Europe, to crush the rogue Iranian regime.”

Spain swiftly and “categorically” rejected Leavitt’s assertion, however.

“The Spanish government’s position on the war in the Middle East … and the use of our bases has not changed at all,” Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares told private radio station Cadena Ser, according to Reuters.

The chaotic messaging between two NATO allies comes shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump vowed to cut off all trade with Madrid, calling Spain “terrible” and repeating his criticism of Spain’s defense spending.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez responded on Wednesday by describing the sprawling Middle East crisis as a “disaster” and summarized his government’s position in just three words: “No to war.”

Sánchez has emerged as one of the European Union’s leading critics of U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran, having also been an outspoken critic of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Arancha González, former foreign minister of Spain, told CNBC on Thursday that Trump’s attacks on Sánchez were not the first time the U.S. president has criticized a European leader.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen have all previously been singled out by Trump.

“What do they all have in common? They have said ‘no’ or they have questioned motives by the U.S. president,” González said. She added that political leaders who stood firm were more likely to be in a better position over the long term.

González, who now serves as the Dean of the Paris School of International Affairs (PSIA) at Sciences Po, also issued a warning to Washington over Trump’s threat to sever trade ties with Madrid.

“Let me say that it would be foolish of the U.S. to have a trade embargo on a country with which it has a trade surplus. The U.S. has a trade surplus with Spain. President Trump always complains about imbalanced trade relationships. Well, here is a great trade relationship where he is a winning,” González told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Thursday.