Reuters World News - US troops, Israel's targets, IRGC, Mullin and the Fed

Episode Date: March 19, 2026

The U.S. weighs sending thousands more troops to the Middle East. Signs of an Iran strategy split emerge between the U.S. and Israel. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards tighten their grip on wartime decision-making. Trump's Homeland Security nominee Markwayne Mullin testifies before the Senate. And the Fed keeps rates unchanged amid an uncertain economic outlook. *This episode has been updated to correct the spelling of Jon Ossoff.* Listen to the Morning Bid podcast ⁠⁠here⁠⁠. Sign up for the Reuters Econ World newsletter ⁠⁠here⁠⁠. Listen to the Reuters Econ World podcast ⁠⁠here⁠⁠. Visit the Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit megaphone.fm/adchoices to opt out of targeted advertising. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hi, I'm Carmel Crimmons in Dublin. It's Thursday, March 19th. Today, the US considers sending thousands more troops to the Middle East. Signs of a split emerge between the US and Israel on Iran. A clash between senators and the new homeland security nominee. And the Fed leaves rates unchanged as it expects inflation to climb. This is Reuters World News, bringing you everything you need to know from the front lines in 10 minutes. seven days a week. We start with a Reuters exclusive and a possible new phase in the Iran war. The Trump administration is considering sending thousands of U.S. troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East. That's according to a U.S. official and three more people familiar with the matter.

The deployments could provide President Trump with more options in the Iran war, now well into its third week. For more on those options, here's Phil Stewart. So these options include things that folks have been talking about for days. You know, would Trump send troops in maybe to secure Iran's enriched uranium so that he can ensure that Iran will, as he says, never have a nuclear weapon? It also includes Karg Island, you know, where Trump has, you know, targeted military sites in a round of attacks last week, but, you know, stayed away from targeting their oil infrastructure. And some experts say, if he were to occupy that island, he could really put a lot of pressure on Tehran to negotiate or capitulate maybe. But really what we're looking at here is President

Trump's stated intent to have the Strait of Hormuz open for commerce so that oil can move through this critical waterway that accounts for about 20% of global crude trade. And what that might mean is a number of things, a lot of naval forces, air forces, but one of the options that's being examined could involve deploying ground forces to Iran's shoreline. Phil says what's being weighed doesn't follow the old playbooks. I think one of the big things right now is to understand that when people talk about boots in the ground, what they're not talking about is an Iraq-style invasion or an Afghanistan-style invasion. What we're hearing from our sources is, you know, really at this point, anyway,

much more limited in kind of the goals and the scope. It's much more limited. Meanwhile, President Trump says an angry Israel violently laughing, out and attacked Iran's major gas field, adding in a social media post that the US did not have advanced knowledge of the move and ruling out any further such attacks by Israel unless Iran retaliates. The attack on the huge South Pars gas field drove oil prices higher and prompted a threat by Iran to attack oil and gas targets across the Gulf. Iran's strikes hit Qatar gas fatalities and targeted the Saudi capital Riyadh. We spoke with Reuters Israel and Palestinian

Territory's bureau chief, Rami Ayyub, who says Israel's stepped-up campaign raises questions about whether the U.S. and Israel are starting to drift apart on strategy. I think yesterday's events point towards potentially different desired end states by the U.S. and Israel, or perhaps different levels of tolerance for chaos. For the Israelis, they are, or they've made pretty clear in private conversations that they're content with C&A.N. a certain level of chaos in Iran, a decapitation, as they say, of Iran's leadership that could result in allowing space for Iranians to take over their country. In reality, analysts agree that what you'll see is chaos in the streets, a lack of clear governance. From Israel's perspective, that's okay.

From the perspective of the U.S., which is much more exposed to global oil markets and has to deal with the broader regional and global fallout of chaos in one of the world's most important countries for energy. The U.S. is very much not on board to see a prolonged period of chaos in Iran. And so I think what you're likely to see in the days and weeks ahead is perhaps more clarity from Israel and the U.S.

on what their desired end states should be. Israel has killed another senior Iranian figure, intelligence minister Ismail Khatib, a day after killing powerful security chief Ali Larajani. Larijani's death in particular has complicated Tehran's decision-making, thinning out Iran's pool of experienced power brokers. Our Middle East editor, Edmund Blair, says that despite loss of some of their top commanders,

Iran's revolutionary guards have tightened their grip on wartime decision-making. Well, the revolutionary guards are traditionally the ideological organization that have been the pillar of the Islamic Republic. But what we seem to have seen post the killing of Ali Khomeini is the guards really taking control of Iran's direction now. It certainly appears from our sources that it was the guards that helped propel Ali Khomeini's son, Mujahibah Khomeini, into the new role of supreme leader taking on his farm. mother's mantle. So as we go forward, we may see more names emerge, officials, the kind of power brokers within the system, but that does not necessarily mean that they are the ones taking the decisions as it seems the guards are really in the driving seat at this point.

And Edmund says, as far as the Revolutionary Guard is concerned, it appears they are treating the conflict as an existential threat to Iran. And it's almost as if they've determined that the only way they're going to survive this crisis is by making the cost so high for others. That is probably why we have seen the Islamic Republic deliver on the kind of threats. It has long made, such as closing the Strait of Hormuz. That has been a threat that's regularly been made, but even under intense pressure previously, it has never acted on it, because it is such a significant, such a major action. But this time, it has acted. I think, I think seeing their hardline approach shows that at least front and centre for them,

this is a battle for survival, and that's how they're acting. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, senators grilled top US intelligence officials about Iran. Georgia Senator John Ossoff asked Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about the justification for Operation Epic Fury. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, yes or no. Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.

False. This is the worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely objective and independent of political considerations. It was Gabbard's first major public appearance since the war began. And in a separate hearing, Trump's pick to be the new Homeland Security Secretary, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, faced his colleagues in a tense hearing. I just wonder if someone who applauds violence against their political opponents is the right person to lead an agency that has struggled to accept limits to the proper use of force.

That's Republican Rand Paul calling out Mullen for saying he understood why Paul's neighbor physically attacked him in a high-profile incident in 2017. Mullen walked back comments he made after federal agents killed Alex Preti in Minneapolis. He had called him a deranged individual. Like I said, they're sometimes going to make a mistake and I own it. That one, I went out there too fast. I was responding immediately without the facts. That's my fault.

That won't happen as Secretary. The Federal Reserve is keeping interest rates unchanged. New Fed projections show they still anticipate one rate cut this year, even as oil prices surge, and inflation runs hotter than policymakers expected. Fed Chair Jerome Powell says the central bank is watching oil-driven inflation closely, but isn't ready to shift policy. Correspondent Howard Schneider has more.

on why? One, they see some higher inflation coming along, so there's no reason to cut more. And second, they really don't know what the heck is going to happen, given the fact that the U.S. and Israel are bombing a major oil producer, and that that has taken like 20 percent of global oil production kind of offline in essence and bottled it up in the straight of four moves where it can't get anywhere because of the war. So what does that mean? It means you see stock markets down a couple percentage points. That can all be a hit to consumption. That weighs on one side. On the other hand, prices are going to go up. Ones that rely on fuel anyway, which a lot of things do. So there's a lot in motion, a lot they don't know. And the one thing that stuck with me from Fed chair Jerome Powell's

press conference is that back in the pandemic, they held off issuing economic projections. at one meeting and said, we just don't know enough to say anything. It would just be a shot in the dark. And he said, look, we didn't do that this time, but we were tempted. And there was an argument for it because, you know, there's just so much in motion right now, so much we don't know, that you have to take these projections with a grain of assault. One thing Powell made clear, however, he plans to stick around as head of the U.S. Central Bank until a criminal investigation into the Fed is resolved.

He made official something a lot of people have suspected, which is that if that investigation is still open, when his time as Fed Chair ends, and after Kevin Warsh is confirmed as the new chair, he plans to stay until the investigation is, as he put in well and transparently over-finished kaput. For more econ and markets news, tune into our sister podcast morning bid available wherever you get your podcasts. For more on any of the stories from today, check out roiders.com or the Reuters app. Don't forget to follow us on your favourite podcast player. If you're listening on a smart speaker, just ask for the latest news from Reuters seven days a week. We'll be back tomorrow with our daily headline show.