Exclusive – Mediterranean Tells Tales of Migrant Tragedy

Refugees on a boat after being rescued by the Aquarius in the Mediterranean Sea. (AFP)
Refugees on a boat after being rescued by the Aquarius in the Mediterranean Sea. (AFP)
TT

Exclusive – Mediterranean Tells Tales of Migrant Tragedy

Refugees on a boat after being rescued by the Aquarius in the Mediterranean Sea. (AFP)
Refugees on a boat after being rescued by the Aquarius in the Mediterranean Sea. (AFP)

Two boxes, one red, the other blue, summarize the migration crisis in the Mediterranean. The first holds life-jackets and blankets, while the other holds a number of body bags for the victims.

Some 630 men, women and children of all ages stared death in the face and survived. They spent 48 hours on the MS Aquarius, a rescue ship operated since 2016 by SOS Mediterranee and Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), until a safe harbor agreed to receive them. As water and food supplies continued to drop, European pressure mounted and the Italian government continued to bar the ship from docking on its shores. Madrid finally announced that it was ready to receive the ship in Valencia.

Condemnations rose from both sides of the Mediterranean and many wondered what had happened to “European values.” The Aquarius has since then transformed into a symbol of a new European age, that of the plight of migrants. Asharq Al-Awsat spent a day on the Aquarius, which is currently docked in the French port city of Marseille, and met several members of its crew.

The vessel was built by the German navy in the 1970s and was, until 2009, operated as a fishery protection vessel in the North Atlantic. It was decommissioned in 2009 and picked up as a rescue ship in 2016 and it has eventually become one of the Mediterranean’s most famous vessels.

It has so far carried out 235 rescue operations, making up 20 percent of total rescues by non-government agencies and 6.4 percent of total operations since 2016. One day of operations costs some 11,000 euros (12,800 dollars), 90 percent of which are provided by donations. It is manned by dozens of sailors and professional rescuers. Some are volunteers, while others earn a salary for their work.

These figures may seem hefty, but they pale in comparison to the number of migrants and refugees that were saved by the Aquarius in two and a half years. It has saved a total of 29,318 people with the help of the Libyan and Italian navies, as well as 9,075 people transferred to the ship from other rescue vessels.

Clement, a French rescuer in his mid-20s, has been part of the Aquarius crew since the early months when it kicked off its operations. He wondered restlessly from the Marseille harbor: “What are we doing here? We cannot help save lives here.”

This dejection is shared by the majority of the crew. The vessel has since June 29 been forced to remain in the harbor after it was refused entry by each of Italy and Malta. Clement added, however, that “we are taking advantage of this time to update our equipment” before setting sail again in a few days.

Life or death trip

The Aquarius had since the early days of its operations worked closely with the Italian navy that used to provide it with the coordinates of migrant inflatables or vessels at sea. The new government, however, took a decision a few weeks ago to halt this assistance. The Aquarius crew spends an hour and a half a day in searching for migrants, whether by using marine radar or simply the naked eye.

Clement explained that the key to the success of any rescue mission at sea is maintaining the passenger calm.

“Once one passenger begins to panic, then others will follow and they may begin to throw themselves into the deep and cold water even if they do not know how to swim,” he added.

Once a vessel is reached, a “cultural mediator” approaches the migrants and asylum-seekers to calm them down and they are then given life-jackets. Rescue missions such as these could take up to an hour and a half. The longer it takes to complete a rescue, the higher the chances of death or hypothermia become.

Clement also spoke of burns the passengers may have suffered due to a mix of spilled fuel and seawater in their flimsy vessels. He said these burns were the most common injuries among the rescued. Once, on board, they receive the required treatment. Another common medical condition suffered by the migrants is hypothermia. The rescued are given blankets and hot tea to help their body temperature return to normal.

The birth of Miracle

With a broad smile, Amoin, an MSF midwife from the Ivory Coast, recounted how she took part in Aquarius’ last rescue off the Libyan coast. The operation saw the birth of a child, the sixth to be born on the vessel. He was named Miracle after all the suffering his mother had to endure to make it safely on to the Aquarius.

Amoin, who has worked for over three decades in the humanitarian field, takes care of all the women and children on the ship. They are accommodated in private rooms away from the men. Their chambers have signs in Arabic, English and French that provide a hot line for victims of sexual violence.

The Aquarius boasts two modest clinics for pregnant women or the wounded. It is not, however, equipped to carry out surgical operations or take out bullets from wounds. In very dangerous cases, said Clement, medical airlifts are called in to evacuate the wounded.

Halt in Italian coordination

The primary responsibility of any ship at sea, regardless of its nature, is to save people in distress and send them to safe shores.

In his map-strewn cabin, Italy’s Nico Stalla, spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat about the new challenges facing the Aquarius after Italy decided to stop helping rescue ships.

He started off his career at the ship in November 2016 as a sailor and rescuer. In March 2017, he became in charge of coordinating all search and rescue missions. His daily tasks include assigning missions to the crew, which is comprised of people from 17 countries.

The Aquarius’ last mission was particularly harsh for Stalla for in addition to the usual challenges that accompany any rescue, he had to contend with the Italian government’s decision to stop coordinating with rescue ships.

“We always had close ties with coordination center in Rome and Italy always considered the Aquarius a central part of rescue operations,” he said. He also condemned instructions for rescue ships to stay away from vessels in distress “until the Libyan coastguard arrives at the scene.” He deemed such a decision as a violation of all sea and international laws.

He said that Europe’s policy of backing Libyan rescue missions in international waters only helps the continent secure its borders at the expense of saving lives. Stalla added that the asylum-seekers are being forced to return to unsafe regions, namely Libya, which is suffering from its own armed conflict

This latest European policy has led to a spike in deaths in the Mediterranean, he revealed. June witnessed the greatest number of deaths in years, even though the number of asylum-seekers heading to Italy had dropped more than 70 percent compared to 2017.

SOS Mediterranee and other organizations have spoken against the Libyan coastguard assuming control of rescue missions for several reasons, he added, most important of which is that it is not properly equipped to carry out these operations.

The coastguard only boasts a couple of patrol boats. Italy donated four such boats in 2017, but only two are operational at a single time, said Stalla. Moreover, the methods used are not suitable for carrying out large-scaled rescues of dozens of people, let alone hundreds.



Behind The Scenes: US-Israeli Military Decisions Shaping Iran's War

US CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper meets Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt-Gen. Eyal Zamir during his visit to Israel (Israeli Army)
US CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper meets Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt-Gen. Eyal Zamir during his visit to Israel (Israeli Army)
TT

Behind The Scenes: US-Israeli Military Decisions Shaping Iran's War

US CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper meets Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt-Gen. Eyal Zamir during his visit to Israel (Israeli Army)
US CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper meets Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt-Gen. Eyal Zamir during his visit to Israel (Israeli Army)

Although US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have made the ultimate war and ceasefire decisions regarding Iran, The Jerusalem Post revealed the details and extent to which Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, US Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, and CENTCOM Chief Admiral Brad Cooper have been the next most dominant figures.

In many ways, Zamir was key to convincing Caine and Cooper that such a war was feasible, such that they would support it, or at least not oppose it.

Caine was then critical in convincing Trump that such a war was viable, while precisely describing risks and second and third order considerations, even as the US chairman himself held doubts about significant aspects of the war, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Caine has also hovered over Trump's decisions to repeatedly announce unilateral ceasefires with Iran out of concern that any upping the ante on the military playing field could cost him in both American lives and politically.

When Netanyahu made an emergency flight to Washington to meet with Trump around 11:00 am on February 12 to try to convince him to go to war with Iran, as the US president had started to move away from that option, he presented a four-step plan.

The four steps were: First, assassinating Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his top military and intelligence officials. Second, pounding Iran's ballistic missile and drone capabilities. Third, helping foment an uprising within Iran against the regime, and fourth, transforming the uprising, plus possibly a ground attack by the Kurds who straddle Iran and Iraq, into regime change.

None of the three high commanders really believed in steps three or four, but Zamir was willing to roll the dice to see what might come of it, the Jerusalem Post said. Caine and Cooper were ready to go in for the first two steps and hold their noses regarding efforts at steps three and four.

It was not a coincidence that Israel was assigned to bomb Iran's top leaders and thousands of Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij command centers and locations, as well as Iranian military threat capabilities, while US forces stayed more focused almost exclusively on Iranian capabilities.

Trump, to some extent under the influence of Caine (with Cooper supporting in the background), kept the US out of direct military involvement in regime change.

Sources have indicated to the Jerusalem Post that Israeli efforts to influence Trump and when and how to go to war have also heavily focused on Caine.

Zamir, Mossad Director David Barnea, and Israeli Army Intelligence Chief Maj. Gen. Shlomi Binder also visited Washington leading up to Netanyahu's February 12 White House sales pitch to make their case directly to a variety of officials, but collectively especially to Caine.
In some ways, Cooper was easier to convince than Caine, the report said.

This is partially true because Cooper did not try as much as his predecessor, Erik Kurilla, to influence the decision of whether to go to war or not, focusing more on being the architect of what the different options of going to war would look like.

Right Timing

Zamir was very successful in bringing on board Caine and Cooper, and then indirectly Trump, in the sense of convincing them that the timing was right.

The Post has learned that Zamir made a sophisticated and nuanced argument to Caine, Cooper, and others, which reached Trump.

The argument acknowledged that in theory Israel and the US could wait some period of months, as Iran had not yet crossed a redline threshold of a volume of ballistic missiles which the Israeli army would have trouble with. After all, Israel's original plan was not to attack Iran's ballistic missile program until sometime between June and November 2026.

However, Zamir said that Iran was racing forward too fast.

Iran was producing an additional 200-300 ballistic missiles per month. It had replaced about half of its lost missiles and half of its lost missile launchers in only eight months, getting back up to 2,500 missiles.

In Zamir's understanding, waiting another six months could mean an Iran with 3,700-4,300 missiles, and waiting another year could mean 4,900 to 6,100 missiles.

The report said it could also mean much more damage, could lead to Israeli difficulties with its volume of missile interceptors at a much earlier point, and collectively force Israel and the US to cut short their attacks on Iran's missile and other capabilities much earlier than what might make sense strategically.

Adding on that if Israel and the US wanted to take a real shot at regime change, that February was a unique moment to build on the January Iranian domestic protests, the Post understands that Zamir argued that February was a unique moment to go to war. This was true despite Israel's original plan for an attack in later 2026.

Two Main Failures

The report held Zamir, Caine and Cooper responsible for two main failures, the first being the inability to stop Iranian missiles.

It said only days into the war, Zamir, Caine, and CENTCOM were telling the public that missile fire was down 70-90%. The expectation was that within a week or two, it would be down to a drizzle. But while missile fire did drop to a medium level, the fading to a drizzle never happened.

None of the top Israeli or American officials anticipated how rapidly Iran would be able to unearth its underground missile launchers, which the allies had caused to be neutralized with cave-ins.

Pre-war estimates were that cave-ins would neutralize such missiles for the rest of the war, whereas in many cases, the Post has learned that Iran has developed bulldozer teams and techniques to uncover caved-in missile teams or silos within less than a day.

Also, Iran spread its surviving missile crews throughout its vast country, making it nearly impossible to track them down efficiently, and adjusted its missiles such that over 70% of them included cluster munitions, which the Israeli army was much less ready to defend against.

The second potential failure of Caine and Cooper relates to Hormuz.

The report found that neither Caine nor Cooper raised their voices loudly and decisively about the Hormuz nightmare scenario, again preferring to provide neutral advice to a US president, who clearly was out of his depth in aspects of this conflict.

The two of them could have seen this scenario coming, and so their choice, despite their heavy potential influence, to not raise the alarm loudly enough leaves them with some contributory fault in not better preparing Trump and the US.

The fact that the US needed to wait several weeks into the war before troops were in place to do something about Hormuz, if necessary, was a massive strategic miss.

In fact, the US could have even deployed forces into the Hormuz area the day the conflict started, as opposed to focusing on sinking large Iranian naval vessels first.

Overall, the report found that the military campaign pitched by Zamir and approved by Caine and Cooper succeeded more than might have been expected upfront, with notable exceptions regarding the continuity of medium-level ballistic missile threats and regarding Hormuz.

It said the military gains into long-standing strategic achievements is now more in the hands of the political and diplomatic leaders than the generals.


Hormuz Crisis Throws Spotlight on World's Largest 'Chokepoint' - the Malacca Strait

FILE PHOTO: A container ship enters the Singapore Strait for the Strait of Malacca, as tourists stand at mainland Asia's southern most point in Johor, Malaysia November 12, 2016. Picture taken November 12, 2016.  REUTERS/Henning Gloystein/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A container ship enters the Singapore Strait for the Strait of Malacca, as tourists stand at mainland Asia's southern most point in Johor, Malaysia November 12, 2016. Picture taken November 12, 2016. REUTERS/Henning Gloystein/File Photo
TT

Hormuz Crisis Throws Spotlight on World's Largest 'Chokepoint' - the Malacca Strait

FILE PHOTO: A container ship enters the Singapore Strait for the Strait of Malacca, as tourists stand at mainland Asia's southern most point in Johor, Malaysia November 12, 2016. Picture taken November 12, 2016.  REUTERS/Henning Gloystein/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A container ship enters the Singapore Strait for the Strait of Malacca, as tourists stand at mainland Asia's southern most point in Johor, Malaysia November 12, 2016. Picture taken November 12, 2016. REUTERS/Henning Gloystein/File Photo

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has forced policymakers in Asia to face questions over the security of other maritime chokepoints, including the Strait of Malacca, which is the world's busiest waterway for international trade.

Importance of The Malacca Strait

The 900-km (550-mile) long Malacca Strait, bounded by Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, provides the shortest sea route from East Asia to the Middle East and Europe, according to Reuters.

It carries nearly 22% of the world's maritime trade, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This includes oil and gas shipments from the Middle East to the energy-hungry economies of China, Japan and South Korea.

Malacca is the largest “oil transit chokepoint” in the world and the only one that outpaces Hormuz, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

In the first half of 2025, some 23.2 million barrels of oil per day were transported through the Malacca Strait, accounting for 29% of total maritime oil flows. The next largest chokepoint, Hormuz, saw about 20.9 million bpd pass through.

More than 102,500 ships, mostly commercial vessels, transited through the Malacca Strait in 2025, up from around 94,300 in 2024, data from Malaysia's ⁠Marine Department showed. These include most tankers, but some very large vessels avoid the strait because of draught restrictions and go south around Indonesia instead.

This route allows the Strait of Malacca to be bypassed if it were closed, but it adds to journey time that would delay shipments and drive up prices.

Concerns About Strait of Malacca

At its narrowest point in the Phillips Channel of the Singapore Strait, the Malacca Strait is only 1.7 miles (2.7 km) wide, creating a natural bottleneck, as well as potential for collisions, grounding, or oil spills.

Some parts of the strait are relatively shallow, with a depth of 25-27 meters restricting the largest vessels, but even very large crude carriers (VLCCs) measuring more than 350 meters long, 60 meters wide, and with a draft of more than 20 meters, make the transit.

For years, the strait has been a hotbed of piracy and attacks on merchant vessels. Last year saw criminal attacks spike to at least 104, but these have fallen off in the first quarter of this year, according to the ReCAAP ⁠Information Sharing Centre, an organization established by regional governments to combat piracy.

The narrow and congested waterway has been strategically important to Beijing, with around 75% of China's seaborne crude oil imports passing through it from the Middle East and Africa, data from tanker tracker Vortexa shows.

The Iran crisis has crystallized long-standing worries about how chokepoints such as Malacca could be affected if a conflict breaks out in the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait, where another 21% of global maritime trade transits, according to CSIS.

Malaysian authorities say the Malacca Strait is also a growing spot for illegal ⁠ship-to-ship transfers, where oil is shifted between tankers at sea to obscure its origin.

Officials Assurances

Indonesian Finance Minister Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa made waves on Wednesday by openly musing about ways countries could impose tolls on ships as a way to monetize the strait, before noting that such an arrangement is not possible.

When asked about the risks of tolls or other restrictions on movement in ⁠the strait, Singapore Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan told CNBC that the nations along the strait share a strategic interest to keep it open, and have agreed not to collect tolls.

He also said Singapore had assured the United States and China that the right of passage was guaranteed for all and it would not participate in any efforts to ⁠block the strait or impose tolls.

Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan told a forum on Wednesday that no unilateral decisions can be made about the strait and that Malaysia is on the same page with Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand, and they conduct joint patrols to ensure the waterway remains open.


A 60-Day Deadline Could Pressure Trump on Ending the Iran War

US Air Force personnel perform maintenance on bomber at UK's RAF Fairford (EPA)
US Air Force personnel perform maintenance on bomber at UK's RAF Fairford (EPA)
TT

A 60-Day Deadline Could Pressure Trump on Ending the Iran War

US Air Force personnel perform maintenance on bomber at UK's RAF Fairford (EPA)
US Air Force personnel perform maintenance on bomber at UK's RAF Fairford (EPA)

Washington - Robert Jimison

Over nearly eight weeks of war in Iran, Republicans in Congress have turned back repeated efforts by Democrats to halt the operation and force US President Donald Trump, who began the conflict without congressional authorization, to consult with lawmakers on the military campaign.

But some Republicans have signaled that a key statutory deadline in the coming weeks could be an inflection point when they will expect the president to either wind down the conflict or seek congressional approval to continue it.

Democrats have tried and failed several times to invoke a provision of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a law aimed at curbing a president’s ability to wage war without congressional approval, to challenge the conflict in Iran.

The latest defeat came on Wednesday, when Senate Republicans blocked such a measure for the fifth time since the war began.

Yet the law also establishes a set of deadlines, the first of which is coming on May 1, that could increase the pressure on the Trump administration in the coming days. Here is what the law says about how long a president can continue to direct US forces in a conflict without congressional approval.

The 60-Day Mark

When the United States began joint strikes with the Israeli air force on Feb. 28, the president said he was acting under his authority as commander in chief to protect US bases in the Middle East, and to “advance vital United States national interests.”

He said the action was taken in “collective self-defense of our regional allies, including Israel.”

Many Democrats disputed that justification and have continued to argue that Trump acted illegally.

White House officials and most Republicans on Capitol Hill say he is operating within the bounds of the war powers statute, which sets a 60-day clock for a president to remove American forces from hostilities without congressional authorization to use military force.

Although the war began at the end of February, Trump formally notified Congress of the operation on March 2, starting the 60-day period that ends on May 1.

Some Republicans have already signaled they will not support any extension beyond 60 days.

Senator John Curtis, Republican of Utah, wrote in an opinion essay earlier this month that he “will not support ongoing military action beyond a 60-day window without congressional approval.”

Other Republicans, including Representative Brian Mast of Florida, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that the president could lose significant support if the conflict continued into May.

Moments after Republicans just barely blocked a war powers resolution in the House last week, Mast said there could be “a different vote count after 60 days,” alluding to the May 1 deadline.

A 30-Day Extension

Under the statute, once the initial 60-day deadline passes, the president’s options for continuing a military campaign without congressional approval become limited.

At that point, Trump would effectively have three choices: seek congressional authorization to continue the campaign, begin winding down US involvement or give himself an extension.

The law allows a one-time, 30-day extension of the deployment if the president certifies in writing that additional time is necessary to facilitate the safe withdrawal of US forces, but it does not grant authority to continue waging an offensive campaign.

Congress Can Authorize the War

Lawmakers also have the option at any time of granting explicit permission for Trump to continue the operation by passing an authorization for the use of military force.

Such measures have become the primary way Congress approves military campaigns short of a formal declaration of war, something that has not been done since World War II.

While Republicans have largely united in blocking Democrats’ attempts to halt the war, it is unclear whether the same unity exists when it comes to affirmatively authorizing the conflict.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, has said she is working with a group of senators on a formal authorization for the use of military force against Iran, but has yet to introduce the resolution.

Congress has not voted in favor of using military force since 2002, when lawmakers authorized it against Iraq.

Murkowski was an early critic of the administration’s lack of transparency around the objectives, costs and timeline for the war, and said that her goal with an authorization vote would be to reassert congressional authority and require the administration to be held to firm parameters for the operation.

Why Trump Might Ignore the Deadlines

Administrations led by presidents of both parties have long argued that the Constitution gives broad authority to the commander in chief, meaning that the limits the war powers law places on the president are unconstitutional.

In 2011, President Barack Obama continued a military engagement in Libya beyond the 60-day mark, arguing that the law did not apply because “US operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve US ground troops.”

Though that prompted bipartisan backlash at the time, some lawmakers anticipate that the Trump administration could make a similar argument about Iran.

During his first term, Trump similarly balked at the law in 2019 when he vetoed a bipartisan resolution both chambers had passed that sought to end American military involvement in Yemen’s civil war. He argued then that the measure was an “unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities.”

Still, ignoring the deadline could pose a political problem for Republicans, which so far has given the administration broad latitude to carry out the war without congressional involvement, including any formal oversight.

“Many Republicans are on record having set the 60-day mark as somehow legally important,” said Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who has been among the Democrats offering resolutions aimed at limiting the president’s ability to continue the war without congressional authorization. “So I do think it will be harder for Republicans to continue to look the other way once we are out of the 60 days.”

The New York Times