World
Here’s the latest.
The military conflict between India and Pakistan expanded in the days after the first airstrikes that followed a deadly terrorist attack last month on the Indian-controlled side of the disputed Kashmir region.
The confrontation was the latest escalation of a decades-long conflict over Kashmir, a scenic valley in the Himalayas that is wedged between the two nations. Kashmiris have rarely had a say in their own fate.
Here is a history of the dispute.
1947
Fraught Beginnings
Contention over Kashmir began nearly as soon as India and Pakistan were formed.
In 1947, Britain divided India, its former colony, into two countries. One was Pakistan, with a Muslim majority. The other, made up mostly of Hindus, kept the name India. But Kashmir’s fate was left undecided.
Within months, both India and Pakistan had laid claim to the territory. A military confrontation ensued. The Hindu ruler of Kashmir, who had at first refused to abdicate his sovereignty, agreed to make the region part of India in exchange for a security guarantee, after militias from Pakistan moved into parts of his territory.
What followed was the first war that India and Pakistan would fight over Kashmir.
Years later, in 1961, the former ruler of Kashmir passed away in Bombay. In an obituary, The New York Times summarized his decision to cede the territory to India in words that would prove true for decades to come. His actions, the article said, had contributed to “a continuing bitter dispute between India and Pakistan.”
1949
A Tenuous Cease-Fire
Militants killed 26 tourists on April 22
Militant attack
on April 22
Militant attack
on April 22
Militants killed 26 tourists on April 22
In January 1949, the first war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir concluded after the United Nations intervened to broker a cease-fire.
Under the terms of the cease-fire, a line was drawn dividing the territory. India would occupy about two-thirds of the area, and Pakistan the other third.
The dividing line was supposed to be temporary, pending a more permanent political settlement.
1965
War Breaks Out Again
Tensions were already high between India and Pakistan in the summer of 1965. There had been a skirmish between their forces along the border earlier in the year, in an area south of Kashmir.
When Pakistan conducted a covert offensive across Kashmir’s cease-fire line in August, the fighting quickly escalated into a full-scale war. The clash was short-lived — only about three weeks long — but bloody.
In January 1966, India and Pakistan signed an agreement to settle future disputes through peaceful means.
But the peace would not last.
1972
An Official Division
After a regional war in 1971 that led to the creation of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India decided to revisit the unsolved issue of Kashmir.
In December 1972, the countries announced that they had resolved the deadlock over Kashmir’s cease-fire line. But little changed besides the designation. The temporary cease-fire line from 1949 became an official “line of control.” Each country retained the section of Kashmir that it had already held for more than 20 years.
While the agreement did little to change the status quo in Kashmir, it came with an aspiration to improve the volatile relationship between India and Pakistan.
Reporting on the deal from New Delhi, a Times correspondent wrote of the two countries: “Official sources here indicated that they were satisfied with the settlement, which they said had been reached ‘in an atmosphere of goodwill and mutual understanding.’”
1987
The Rise of Insurgency
During a period of particular political turmoil — aggravated in 1987 by disputes over local elections that many thought were rigged — some Kashmiris turned to militancy, which Pakistan would eventually stoke and support.
Over the next decade or so, state police in Kashmir recorded tens of thousands of bombings, shootouts, abductions and rocket attacks.
That violence began to moderate around the 2000s, but the years of intense insurgency had further eroded the fragile relationship between Pakistan and India.
1999
Peace Talks Come Up Short
As a new millennium neared, India and Pakistan seemed poised to establish a more permanent peace.
In a gesture of goodwill, Pakistan’s prime minister hosted his Indian counterpart for a weekend of jocular diplomacy in February 1999. No Indian prime minister had visited Pakistan in a decade.
The summit — between the leaders of adversaries that each now had nuclear arms — produced signed documents affirming their mutual commitment to normalizing relations.
“We must bring peace to our people,” Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, said at a news conference, as Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India smiled at his side. “We must bring prosperity to our people. We owe this to ourselves and to future generations.”
Three months later, their countries were at war. Again, Kashmir was the point of discord.
Fighting broke out after infiltrators from Pakistan seized positions within the Indian-administered part of Kashmir. India claimed that the infiltrators were Pakistani soldiers, which Western analysts would also come to believe. Pakistan denied that its forces were involved, insisting that independent freedom fighters were behind the operation.
The war ended when Mr. Sharif called for the infiltrators to withdraw (he maintained all along that they were not Pakistani forces and that Pakistan did not control them). A few months later, Mr. Sharif was deposed in a military coup led by a Pakistani general who, it was later determined, had directed the military incursion that started the war.
2019
India Cracks Down
After the war in 1999, Kashmir remained one of the world’s most militarized zones. Near-constant unrest in the territory brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war several times in the years that followed.
The last major flare-up was in 2019, when a bombing in Kashmir killed at least 40 Indian soldiers. Indian warplanes conducted airstrikes in Pakistan in retaliation, but the conflict de-escalated before becoming an all-out war.
A more lasting move came later that year, when the Indian government stripped Kashmir of a cherished status.
For all of Kashmir’s modern history — since its Hindu ruler acceded to India — the territory had enjoyed a degree of autonomy. Its relative independence was enshrined in India’s Constitution. But in August 2019, India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, rolled back Kashmir’s privileged status.
The crackdown came with a quick succession of draconian measures: Thousands of Indian troops surged into the territory. Internet connections were severed. Phone lines were cut. Mr. Modi’s government began directly administering the territory from New Delhi, and it imprisoned thousands of Kashmiris, including political leaders who had long sided with India in the face of separatist militancy.
The government’s heavy-handed approach stunned observers around the world. But the results, as far as India was concerned, justified the means. A new era of peace seemed to ensue. Acts of terrorism declined. Tourism flourished.
It was an illusion.
2025
A Terrorist Attack
On April 22, militants shot and killed 26 people, mostly tourists from different parts of India, near Pahalgam, Kashmir. Seventeen others were wounded. It was one of the worst terror attacks on Indian civilians in decades.
Almost immediately afterward, Indian officials suggested that Pakistan had been involved. Mr. Modi, the prime minister, vowed severe punishment for the attackers and those giving them safe haven, though he did not explicitly mention Pakistan. Pakistan swiftly denied involvement and said it was “ready to cooperate” with any international inquiry into the terrorist attack.
But India was not placated.
Its retaliatory move came on Wednesday. India said it struck sites in Pakistan and on Pakistan’s side of Kashmir, after it accused Pakistan of being involved in the April attack. Pakistan denied those claims and vowed to retaliate, and witnesses and Indian officials said that at least two Indian jets had crashed.
The clashes on Friday escalated into the two archrivals’ most expansive military conflict in decades. India said that Pakistan had launched attacks using drones and other weapons along its entire western border, while Pakistan rejected those claims. Shelling and gunfire was exchanged on both sides of the disputed border, blacking out towns and killing civilians.
Mujib Mashal, Salman Masood and John Yoon contributed reporting.
A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.
Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s
Carries 110 pounds of explosives
One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.
Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.
Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.
Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.
In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.
Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.
Air-based strikes
In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.
A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
Two to three interceptors fired per drone
These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.
The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.
Anti-drone defense systems
One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.
A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.
When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.
Ship-based anti-missile defenses
Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.
A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.
Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.
“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.
Ground-based anti-missile defenses
The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.
A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
Patriot missile defense system
Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.
But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.
Ground-based guns
Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.
A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.
Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar
Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds
Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.
Interceptor drones
There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.
A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.
Merops system: Surveyor drone
Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.
The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.
Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.
The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.
Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.
“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”
World
Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A Russian gunman was killed by special forces Saturday in Ukraine after opening fire at a supermarket in Kyiv, killing six people and wounding 14 others — including a 12‑year‑old boy.
The 58-year-old shooter long resided in the Donetsk region and was born in Moscow, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.
He took at least four hostages, killed one of them, and fatally shot four others on the street, Zelenskyy said. Another woman died at a hospital from her injuries.
Graphic video captured by witnesses showed the gunman shooting at a victim within close range on the street. Other bodies were seen lying on the pavement and in courtyards.
The gunman was seen walking with a weapon on the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)
MANHUNT UNDERWAY AFTER GUNMEN STORM CHICK-FIL-A LEAVING 1 DEAD
Ukranian special forces stormed the convenience store after 40 minutes of failed negotiations, according to Klymenko.
At least fourteen people were wounded in the attack, though officials cautioned the number may rise as people continue to seek medical assistance.
Among the injured is a 12‑year‑old boy and a supermarket security guard, according to Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko.
The gunman was pictured dead in the convenience store. (Obtained by Will Stewart)
NINE DEAD, 13 WOUNDED IN SECOND TURKISH MASS SHOOTING IN TWO DAYS
Zelenskyy said the shooter also set fire to an apartment prior to the attack, though it is unclear if any injuries resulted from the arson.
“My condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post. “…We wish all the wounded a swift recovery.”
The gunman had previously been prosecuted for criminal offenses, but held a valid weapons permit, according to authorities. Investigators from the National Police and the Security Service of Ukraine are investigating.
The gunman was seen holding and shooting a weapon in the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)
GUNMAN OPENS FIRE AT HIGH SCHOOL IN TURKEY, WOUNDING AT LEAST 16
Ukraine’s security service labeled the attack an act of terrorism.
“All available information about him and the motives behind his actions is being thoroughly investigated,” Zelenskyy said. “Every detail must be verified.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
One of the shooter’s neighbors, Hanna Kulyk, 75, described him as an “educated, refined man,” who lived alone and did not socialize often.
“You’d never guess he was some kind of criminal,” Kulyk told The Associated Press.
Top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf says US naval blockade of Iran’s ports is ‘a clumsy and ignorant decision’.
Published On 18 Apr 2026
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC) says the Strait of Hormuz is closed and that any ship that attempts to pass through the waterway will be targeted, a dramatic reversal less than 24 hours after the critical shipping lane was reopened.
In a statement carried by Iran’s Student News Agency, the IRGC navy said on Saturday the strait will be closed until the United States lifts its naval blockade on Iranian vessels and ports. It said the blockade was a violation of the ongoing ceasefire agreement in the US-Israel war on Iran.
list of 4 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
“We warn that no vessel of any kind should move from its anchorage in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and approaching the Strait of Hormuz will be considered cooperation with the enemy, and the offending vessel will be targeted,” it said.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and a senior negotiator in talks between Washington and Tehran on ending the war, said in a television interview that “the Strait of Hormuz is under the control of the Islamic Republic”.
“The Americans have been declaring a blockade for several days now. This is a clumsy and ignorant decision,” he added.
The reassertion of control came just hours after Iran had briefly reopened the strait, in line with a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Oil prices dropped on global markets after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the waterway was “completely open for all commercial vessels.”
More than a dozen commercial ships passed through the waterway before the IRGC reversed course.
Iranian gunboats reportedly fired on two commercial ships on Saturday, according to United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO). India’s Ministry of External Affairs also said that two Indian-flagged ships were involved in a “shooting incident” in the strait.
Some merchant vessels in the region received radio messages from the IRGC Navy, warning that no ships were being allowed through the strait.
US President Donald Trump said Tehran could not blackmail Washington by closing the waterway and warned that he would put an end to the ceasefire if a deal before its expiry on Wednesday is not reached. Trump added that the naval blockade would “remain in full force”.
Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, meanwhile, said the navy was ready to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.
‘Two competing blockades’
Al Jazeera correspondent Zein Basravi said that Iran and the US are back where they were the previous day.
“Less than 24 hours ago, world leaders were praising what they thought was a breakthrough in this conflict, hoping Iran was signalling a confidence-building measure by opening the Strait of Hormuz, potentially leading to a ceasefire deal and a permanent end to the war,” he said.
“As disappointed as people may be, this isn’t entirely surprising. What we’re seeing now is a return to square one,” he added, saying there are now “two competing blockades in place”.
Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, said Iran was using the strait to send a message.
“It’s clear that Iran is dealing with a situation in which they are not sure what’s on the table. So the Strait of Hormuz is once again the only space for engagement, even if it’s a negative engagement. And it’s the space where they are sending and conveying messages to the Americans, showing their leverage,” he said.
-
New Jersey6 minutes agoNearby shooting interrupts 13-year-old’s birthday party in Paterson; 1 killed, 3 injured
-
New Mexico12 minutes agoCalm and warmer conditions move into New Mexico
-
North Carolina18 minutes agoMemorial service held for former Miss North Carolina Carrie Everett
-
North Dakota23 minutes ago
Richard D. Langowski Obituary April 16, 2026 – Tollefson Funeral Home
-
Ohio30 minutes agoThree Buckeyes Who Proved They Belong at Ohio State Spring Game
-
Oklahoma36 minutes agoOklahoma’s Jahsiear Rogers ‘Knew It Was Time to Showcase’ His Talents In Spring Game
-
Oregon42 minutes agoOregon Tight End Jamari Johnson Speaks Openly About New Role
-
Pennsylvania48 minutes agoPennsylvania State Police investigating incident in Salisbury Township
