World
How the U.S. Election Matters for the Rest of the World
Israel
Israelis, if they could, would vote by a large margin for Trump — the polls show that very clearly. But whoever wins, the long-term impact will probably be limited.
Israeli society, not to mention the government, is more opposed to Palestinian statehood and a two-state solution than it has been in decades. No U.S. president is likely to change that. President Harris would probably put more pressure on Israel to reach a cease-fire and open up talks with the Palestinians. But she would be unlikely to, say, cut off military support to Israel.
President Trump would perhaps be less bothered about Israel allowing Jewish settlers back into Gaza, as part of the Israeli government would like to do. He also talks a much more aggressive line on Iran than Harris, which pleases many Israelis. But you don’t quite know which side of the bed he’s going to wake up on. You get the sense he’s more risk averse than he sounds, and he recently appeared to rule out trying to topple the Iranian regime.
Because of that unpredictability, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may feel he can take more advantage of a Harris administration. So the internal Israeli thinking might be more nuanced than it seems.
Russia and Ukraine
This is an election that matters massively to Russia and Ukraine. Trump has said it is President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine’s fault that Russia invaded. Ukrainians worry that a President Trump would force a quick and dirty peace deal favorable to Russia. They hope a President Harris would continue to support them on the battlefield.
However, in Russia, President Vladimir V. Putin sees much less of a difference between Trump and Harris on Ukraine than we might think. He believes that both Trump and Harris are going to be less committed to Ukraine than Biden.
Putin wants a deal, something that he can call a victory. He believes that Ukraine is a puppet of the United States. So he believes he can only get that deal in a negotiation with the U.S. president. He has publicly backed Harris. That might seem disingenuous, or counterintuitive, but Putin may think he can do business with her.
There is one way in which a Trump victory would unambiguously strengthen Putin: It would mean an America that’s far less engaged in the world and in Europe, which Putin sees as his rightful sphere of interest.
China
Whoever wins, the next U.S. president will be a hawk on China. But the people I speak to in Beijing are divided about which candidate would be better for China. The trade-off centers on two issues: tariffs and Taiwan.
Chinese economic officials are very aware that Trump has called for blanket tariffs on China’s exports, which could pose a serious threat to China’s economy. This is a country that is enormously dependent on foreign demand, especially from America, to keep its factories running and its workers employed. Manufacturing creates a lot of wealth, and it offsets China’s very serious housing market crash.
Meanwhile, the Chinese foreign policy world sees advantages to Trump’s winning the election.
China feels increasingly hemmed in by U.S. efforts, particularly by the Biden administration, to strengthen alliances with many of China’s neighbors: Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, India and above all Taiwan. Harris would probably continue those efforts. Trump is much less committed to building and maintaining international alliances.
And Trump has also shown much less interest in defending Taiwan. That is very welcome in Beijing.
Europe and NATO
For Europe, this U.S. election feels like the end of an era, whatever the outcome.
Depending on whom you talk to in Europe, a Trump victory is either a nightmare or a gift. Europe’s growing band of nativists — in Hungary, Italy, Germany and elsewhere — regard Trump as the leader of their movement. If he regains the White House, he would normalize and energize their hard line on immigration and national identity.
Meanwhile, most western European leaders are deeply anxious. Trump’s talk of slapping 20 percent tariffs onto everything sold to America, including European exports, could spell disaster for Europe’s economy. And, of course, Trump has repeatedly talked about leaving NATO.
Even if the United States doesn’t formally leave NATO, Trump could fatally undermine the alliance’s credibility if he says, “I’m not going to go fight for some small European country.”
If Harris wins, there is a feeling that she, too, will be preoccupied at home and more concerned with China, and will expect the Europeans to do more for themselves. There is a palpable sense in Europe that Biden was perhaps the last U.S. president to be personally attached to an alliance forged in the Cold War.
Global trade
Donald Trump says “tariff” is “the most beautiful word in the dictionary. More beautiful than love, more beautiful than respect.”
So this election is, among other things, a referendum on the entire global trade system, with U.S. voters making a choice that could affect the entire world.
Harris, if elected, would maintain targeted tariffs on Chinese goods on national security grounds. Trump is promising something much, much more aggressive, setting tariff levels that haven’t been seen in nearly a century: 10 to 20 percent on most foreign products, and 60 percent or more on goods made in China.
This would hit more than $3 trillion in U.S. imports, and probably cause multiple trade wars, as other countries retaliate with tariffs of their own. Most economists say we could end up with more tariffs, less trade, lower income and growth — a poorer world, essentially.
Can Trump just do that? Yes, he can. He has broad legal authority. And that would mean the United States is undermining the big international trade rules that it helped to create.
South Africa
There are some interesting differences in how people in Africa see Harris and Trump. Despite the fact that Trump has vulgarly dismissed African countries, some see him as a strong leader who gets things done. In many ways he resembles a lot of autocratic African leaders.
Harris, in Africa, is known for spending time in Zambia when she was growing up, as the granddaughter of an Indian diplomat stationed there. And her being of African descent resonates very deeply. She is seen as being very much of the continent.
Biden — and presumably Harris — wants African countries to decarbonize, because many still rely on fossil fuels for energy. Trump would probably not have that focus, and so his presidency might be desirable for countries that want to continue burning coal and oil and gas, instead of being dragged kicking and screaming into the clean energy transition.
South Africa is feeling a push and pull between the West, where it has the strongest economic ties, and the alliance of BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, among others). It seems plausible that if Trump wins, he will be much more isolationist, and might have no problem watching countries like South Africa and Ethiopia draw even closer to BRICS.
Mexico
Mexico is facing significant challenges if Trump is elected. There will almost certainly be heightened tensions at the U.S.-Mexico border. Mexico is the biggest U.S. trading partner, and it could face heavy tariffs. And it will be the next-door neighbor of a president who has threatened to use the U.S. military on Mexican soil.
But Mexico anticipates a tough immigration regime whoever wins. Under President Harris, that would probably mean continuity with the Biden administration policies that have become much more restrictive over time. Migration is a shared issue. Migrants from all over the world pass through Mexico to get to the U.S. border, and the United States can’t control the flow of migrants without Mexico’s assistance.
Trump has promised to deport 11 million people, mostly to Latin America — though experts are dubious that such a feat is even feasible. But even a small number of deportations could have huge consequences throughout the region.
Mexico has some leverage. But its leaders could really be backed into a corner by an emboldened Trump. And they know it.
Climate
The stakes could not be higher. The United States has emitted more carbon than any country in history, and is the second-biggest emitter right now after China. What it does next will impact the entire world’s ability to avert catastrophic climate change.
If Harris is elected, she is likely to press ahead with Biden’s policies of shifting to renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions. Less clear is whether she will restrict oil and gas production, as the United States is now producing more oil and gas than any country ever has.
Trump, if he wins, may not scrap the Biden-era policies altogether. But he could overturn dozens of measures that regulate emissions from cars and power plants, eviscerating the country’s ability to reduce emissions fast enough.
Trump’s actions could also leave China without serious competition in renewable energy technology like batteries and electric vehicles. China is already leading that race.
Whoever wins the U.S. election, the energy transition is already in motion. But speed and scale matter. Trump could slow the transition to a crawl, with potentially disastrous consequences for the climate, and the world.
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.
-
Missouri35 seconds ago
Missouri Lottery Powerball, Pick 3 winning numbers for April 18, 2026
-
Montana7 minutes ago
Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for April 18, 2026
-
Nebraska13 minutes agoGallery: Huskers Run-Rule No. 12 USC to Take Series
-
Nevada19 minutes agoIN RESPONSE: Cortez Masto lands bill would keep the proceeds in Nevada
-
New Hampshire25 minutes agoNew Hampshire grapples with nuclear waste storage – Valley News
-
New Jersey31 minutes agoNearby shooting interrupts 13-year-old’s birthday party in Paterson; 1 killed, 3 injured
-
New Mexico37 minutes agoCalm and warmer conditions move into New Mexico
-
North Carolina42 minutes agoMemorial service held for former Miss North Carolina Carrie Everett