B

razil has begun consultations on possible retaliatory measures against the United States after Washington imposed new tariffs on Brazilian exports, escalating trade tensions between the two countries.

The Brazilian government said the new U.S. tariffs were “unjustified and arbitrary” and vowed to defend the country’s interests through all appropriate channels.

The consultations mark the first step in a process that could eventually lead Brazil to impose countermeasures on U.S. goods and services. No final decision has been made, and Brazilian officials are expected to hold further discussions with U.S. trade authorities before determining how to respond.

Brazil considers range of measures

The United States imposed a 25% surcharge in July on Brazilian goods, citing what Washington described as unfair trade practices. Brazil is also subject to a separate 12.5% tariff linked to allegations concerning enforcement of bans on forced labor.

Under Brazil’s “Reciprocity Law,” the government could respond with measures beyond traditional tariffs. Options under consideration include restrictions on U.S. audiovisual companies and the possible suspension of pharmaceutical and agricultural patents, according to sources cited by Reuters.

Brazilian officials are weighing the potential economic consequences, including possible disruptions to supply chains and higher domestic inflation, before deciding whether to proceed with retaliation.

Trade dispute escalates

The dispute is part of a broader expansion of U.S. tariffs under President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly argued that tariffs are necessary to address trade imbalances and protect American industries.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had previously pledged to invoke the Reciprocity Law if Washington imposed the new duties. The government has now begun the formal process by requesting further diplomatic consultations with U.S. trade authorities.

The move comes as relations between Brasilia and Washington have become increasingly strained. Brazil has described the U.S. tariffs as unjustified while seeking to defend its interests through diplomatic and legal channels.

For now, Brasilia has stopped short of imposing countermeasures. The coming consultations will determine whether the dispute can be resolved through negotiations or whether Brazil moves ahead with retaliatory actions that could further deepen trade tensions between the two countries.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

T

he Democratic primary for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat has become one of the most expensive and closely watched congressional races in recent history, with pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC and affiliated political action committees pouring more than $60 million into efforts to support U.S. Representative Haley Stevens and defeat progressive challenger Abdul El-Sayed. 

The race, which will determine the Democratic nominee to replace retiring Senator Gary Peters, has evolved into a national referendum on campaign finance, U.S. policy toward Israel and the growing influence of pro-Palestinian voices within the Democratic Party.

El-Sayed, a physician, epidemiologist and former public health official, has made opposition to outside political spending a central theme of his campaign, arguing that wealthy special interests are attempting to shape the outcome of the election. Stevens, a four-term congresswoman, has defended her record while distancing herself from the independent expenditures made on her behalf. 

According to Federal Election Commission records cited by Al Jazeera, AIPAC’s political arm, the United Democracy Project (UDP), has spent more than $30.6 million on the Michigan race, the largest expenditure by the organization in a single contest. Combined with spending by other political action committees and an estimated $6.5 million from a nonprofit advocacy group, outside support for Stevens has exceeded $60 million. 

The role of nonprofit organizations in U.S. elections

The spending has eclipsed previous records for Senate primaries and has intensified scrutiny of the role of super PACs and nonprofit organizations in U.S. elections.

AIPAC directs the United Democracy Project and is also its largest donor, contributing roughly $30 million of the PAC’s $100 million fundraising total this election cycle. The remaining funding comes largely from wealthy pro-Israel donors, including hedge fund manager Paul Singer, businessman Robert Kraft, investor Marc Rowan and entertainment executive Haim Saban, according to campaign finance disclosures. 

Additional support for Stevens has come through a network of newly established political committees and nonprofit organizations.

One of the largest, A Stronger Michigan, has spent more than $17 million and is backed primarily by the nonprofit Center Forward. Other committees, including Michigan Forward 2026, Center Forward Committee and Unite to Win, have also invested heavily in television advertising and voter outreach. Some of these groups receive funding from corporations, trade associations and nonprofits whose donors are not fully disclosed under U.S. campaign finance laws. 

Although the campaigns themselves cannot legally coordinate with independent expenditure groups, the unprecedented level of outside spending has dominated the political debate ahead of Tuesday’s primary.

Large Arab presence

At a campaign rally in Dearborn, a city with one of the country’s largest Arab American communities, supporters repeatedly criticized AIPAC rather than Stevens herself.

Michigan state legislator Alabas Farhat told supporters they would make the organization “burn” millions of dollars by electing El-Sayed, while several speakers, including Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, criticized U.S. support for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. 

El-Sayed has argued that Stevens’ campaign has become dependent on outside financial support tied to pro-Israel interests.

Speaking at a recent rally, he said America’s political system allows “billionaires and corporations and special interests like AIPAC to buy and sell politicians.” During a televised debate, he linked Stevens’ congressional votes supporting aid to Israel with the organization’s financial backing of her campaign. 

Stevens has rejected suggestions that the outside spending defines her candidacy.

During a recent debate, she argued that campaign finance reform remains a broader national issue affecting candidates across the political spectrum, saying there was little difference between super PACs supporting either campaign. Critics, however, point to the disparity in spending, noting that groups backing El-Sayed have spent only about $3.5 million. 

Strong grassroots fundraising

While outside groups have dominated television advertising, El-Sayed has outraised Stevens in direct campaign contributions from individual donors. Campaign finance records show El-Sayed has raised approximately $14.5 million compared with Stevens’ $11.9 million, reflecting strong grassroots fundraising despite the flood of independent expenditures supporting his opponent.

AIPAC has defended its involvement, saying it represents Americans who believe a strong U.S.-Israel relationship serves both countries’ interests.

The organization has rejected claims that it acts on behalf of a foreign government, describing itself as a coalition of pro-Israel Americans participating in the democratic process. In a recent message to supporters, AIPAC described the Michigan Senate contest as “critical.”

Political analysts say the outcome of the race could have implications far beyond Michigan.

A victory for El-Sayed would represent one of the highest-profile electoral successes for a progressive candidate critical of unconditional U.S. support for Israel and could signal changing attitudes among Democratic voters, particularly after months of debate over the wars in Gaza and the Middle East. Supporters argue such a result would weaken AIPAC’s influence within the Democratic Party, while opponents view the race as an important test of mainstream Democratic support for the U.S.-Israel alliance.

The contest also carries national political significance because the Michigan Senate seat is expected to be highly competitive in November. The Democratic nominee will likely face former Congressman Mike Rogers, and the outcome could help determine which party controls the U.S. Senate after the general election.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

I

ndia’s student protest movement has gained momentum online after demonstrations against examination paper leaks triggered a wave of social media posts criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government.

The protests, led by students demanding the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, intensified after a march toward Parliament on July 20 brought central New Delhi to a standstill.

According to protesters, more than 100 students were injured during a police crackdown. Police denied allegations of excessive force, but videos recorded by demonstrators circulated widely across social media platforms.

The footage showed scenes from the protests, including clashes between police and demonstrators, tear gas, baton charges, and students fleeing the area. The videos quickly spread on Instagram and other platforms, generating memes, commentary, and calls for further demonstrations.

“If nothing, we are televising our revolution,” protester Avanshika Singh told Al Jazeera during the demonstrations.

Cockroach Janta Party leads campaign

Young protesters said social media had become a central tool for documenting events and mobilizing support.

Posts criticizing the government and demanding accountability over repeated examination paper leaks have spread widely, while official posts by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party have reportedly been flooded with comments calling for the education minister’s resignation.

The protests have also inspired demonstrations in other Indian cities, including Mumbai, Bengaluru, Patna, Lucknow, and Aizawl.

The demonstrations are being organized by the Cockroach Janta Party, a political pressure group formed after remarks by India’s chief justice comparing young people to “cockroaches” and “parasites” sparked backlash online.

The group has said protests will continue peacefully until three demands are met: the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, assurances that criminal cases will not be pursued against protesters, and compensation for families of students who died by suicide following exam paper leaks and cancellations.

A reversal of social media dominance

Political analysts say the movement represents a significant shift in India’s online political landscape.

Modi and the BJP were among the earliest political forces in India to effectively use social media to build support. However, analysts say Generation Z protesters are now using the same platforms to challenge the government’s narrative.

Cultural critic Anurag Minus Verma described the protests as an example of online irony and meme culture being transformed into a political organizing tool.

“The criticism and hate directed at Modi in the capital is not only acceptable now, but even cool,” Verma told Al Jazeera.

Prime Minister Modi addressed the issue on social media, saying that “nothing is more important than the welfare and future of our youth” and noting that the government had established fast-track courts to punish those responsible for examination paper leaks.

The response was quickly challenged online by leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party, who continued to criticize the government’s handling of the crisis.

As protests continue in New Delhi, organizers say social media remains central to their strategy, allowing students to document events in real time and build support beyond the streets of the capital.

(Source: Aljazeeera English)

R

ussia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has resulted in more than 2 million military casualties on both sides, making it one of the deadliest conflicts since the Second World War, according to a new study by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The report estimates that Russia has suffered approximately 1.4 million casualties, including soldiers killed, wounded and missing, while Ukraine has endured between 525,000 and 625,000 casualties. Combined, the figures place the total human cost of the war above 2 million military casualties.

Researchers said Russia has lost around 450,000 troops killed, representing roughly 1% of the country’s population. Ukraine’s military fatalities were estimated at between 125,000 and 150,000.

Neither Moscow nor Kyiv regularly publishes official casualty figures, making independent verification difficult. However, the CSIS estimates broadly align with assessments previously released by Western governments and intelligence agencies.

The study, authored by Seth G. Jones and Riley McCabe, describes Russia’s losses as unprecedented in the post-World War II era.

“These rates are astounding,” the authors wrote, arguing that Russian fatalities in Ukraine now exceed the combined U.S. military deaths in all conflicts since World War II and are substantially higher than total Soviet and Russian military deaths across all wars during the same period.

According to the report, casualty rates have become increasingly uneven as the conflict has evolved.

During much of the war, Russian forces suffered approximately two to three casualties for every Ukrainian casualty. In the first half of 2026, however, researchers estimate the ratio has widened to nearly eight Russian casualties for every Ukrainian casualty.

The report attributes much of that shift to Ukraine’s expanding drone warfare capabilities.

Researchers said Kyiv has significantly enlarged what they describe as the battlefield “kill zone,” using drones to make it increasingly difficult for Russian forces to advance toward Ukrainian defensive positions.

“Ukraine’s defense-in-depth strategy has been effective in killing and wounding Russian soldiers, as well as limiting Russian maneuver,” the study concluded.

Recruitment challenges mount as battlefield losses increase

Beyond Ukraine’s technological improvements, the researchers identified several structural weaknesses contributing to Russia’s growing losses.

These include Moscow’s reliance on attrition warfare, shortcomings in combined-arms operations, poor tactical planning, inadequate troop training, corruption and declining morale among frontline forces.

The study also suggests Russia is no longer recruiting replacement soldiers at the same pace that it is sustaining battlefield losses, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of its military campaign.

The burden of casualties has fallen disproportionately on Russia’s poorer regions and ethnic minority communities, according to the report.

Researchers noted that economically disadvantaged regions have supplied a significant share of military recruits, with Russian independent media increasingly reporting that some remote villages have lost much of their male population during the conflict.

Although Russia has continued to mobilize volunteers through financial incentives and recruitment campaigns, the study argues that mounting casualties are placing increasing strain on the country’s manpower resources.

The report also highlights the broader historical significance of the conflict.

With military casualties now estimated to exceed 2 million, researchers said the war has likely surpassed the total casualties suffered during the Battle of Stalingrad, long regarded as one of history’s bloodiest battles.

The findings underscore the enormous human cost of a war that has entered its fifth year with no comprehensive peace agreement in sight. Despite repeated diplomatic initiatives, fighting continues across multiple fronts as both Russia and Ukraine seek military advantages while preparing for potential future negotiations.

The CSIS report concludes that although Ukraine continues to face severe military and humanitarian challenges, Russia is bearing increasingly heavy battlefield losses as technological changes, particularly the widespread use of drones, reshape the nature of modern warfare.

(Source: CNN)

T

he United States has declined to extend the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in its current form, triggering a 10-year countdown toward the trade pact’s expiration while opening negotiations aimed at reshaping North America’s trading relationship.

The decision, announced Wednesday following the agreement’s first six-year review, keeps the USMCA in force until 2036 but subjects it to annual reviews unless the three member countries agree to renew and amend the pact.

The move reflects the Trump administration’s push to bring more manufacturing back to the United States, reduce trade deficits with Canada and Mexico, and tighten rules designed to limit China’s access to North American supply chains.

“The United States did not agree to renew the USMCA in its current form,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greersaid in a statement.

“As a result, the USMCA is not renewed. The United States will continue to engage with Mexico and Canada to address the agreement’s shortcomings and our trade deficits with these countries.”

The agreement, negotiated during President Donald Trump’s first administration and implemented in 2020, replaced the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It governs approximately $1.6 trillion in annual trade among the three countries and underpins one of the world’s most integrated manufacturing and supply chains.

Although the decision does not immediately alter tariff-free trade across North America, it formally launches negotiations over revisions that Washington says are necessary to strengthen domestic manufacturing and improve economic security.

A senior U.S. administration official said bilateral negotiations with Mexico are scheduled to resume during the week of July 20 in Mexico City. The talks will focus on strengthening regional rules of origin for automobiles and other industrial products while preventing countries such as China from benefiting indirectly from preferential North American trade access.

The United States argues that stricter local-content requirements would encourage manufacturers to relocate more production and supply chains to the United States.

Mexico and Canada seek compromise amid industry concerns

Mexican Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard acknowledged that negotiations remain divided over Washington’s demands for stricter automotive content rules but expressed confidence that a compromise remains achievable.

“There is no difference that I can identify between Mexico, the United States and Canada that is so big that we cannot resolve it,” Ebrard said after holding virtual discussions with Greer and Canadian trade minister Dominic LeBlanc.

Mexico has resisted U.S. proposals requiring North American-built vehicles to contain 50% U.S.-made components, a measure that would increase the overall regional content requirement to 82%.

“We wouldn’t allow our industry to be at a disadvantage,” Ebrard said, describing protection of Mexico’s automotive sector as the central issue in ongoing negotiations.

LeBlanc said Canada would continue discussions with Washington while seeking the removal of U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, automobiles and lumber.

The Trump administration has argued that additional time is needed to address persistent U.S. trade imbalances, noting that America’s goods trade deficit reached $197 billion with Mexico and $48.3 billion with Canada in 2025.

Officials acknowledge that much of the Canadian deficit reflects U.S. energy imports, while the growing deficit with Mexico has been driven partly by manufacturers relocating supply chains from China to Mexico in response to U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods.

Although Washington hopes to negotiate revised trade protocols with both neighbors, officials indicated President Trump remains skeptical about the long-term benefits of the agreement despite having negotiated it during his first term.

Trump has repeatedly argued that the United States would perform better economically without the USMCA, even while calling it “the best agreement we’ve ever made” when it entered into force.

Undermining North America’s competitiveness

Business groups across North America have urged governments to preserve the agreement’s tariff-free framework, warning that greater restrictions could undermine the region’s competitiveness against manufacturers in Asia and Europe.

Ivan Espinosa, chief executive of Nissan, warned that requiring substantially higher U.S. content in vehicles could worsen affordability for American consumers.

“You cannot build all the parts in the U.S. The supply chain is not set up to do that,” Espinosa told Reuters. “We need something that is actually executable.”

Agricultural organizations have also urged negotiators to preserve the agreement, noting that Canada and Mexico together purchase more than one-third of U.S. agricultural exports.

Bryan Goodman, spokesperson for the Agricultural Coalition for USMCA, said the agreement remains vital for farmers, ranchers and rural communities that depend on integrated North American markets.

The coming negotiations are expected to determine whether the three countries can modernize the agreement while preserving the free trade framework that has shaped North American commerce for more than three decades.

(Source: Reuters)

C

entral banks around the world are planning to reduce their holdings of U.S. dollars over the coming decade for the first time, reflecting growing concerns over geopolitical risks and policy uncertainty surrounding the world’s dominant reserve currency, according to a new survey released on Tuesday.

The findings, published by the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF), mark the first time its annual survey has found that more central banks intend to decrease their dollar allocations than increase them over the next 10 years.

The survey, which gathered responses from 90 central banks, sovereign wealth funds and public pension funds managing a combined $10 trillion in assets, points to a gradual transformation in global reserve management as policymakers prepare for a more fragmented international financial system.

Although the U.S. dollar remains the world’s primary reserve currency and has gained around 3% this year, respondents increasingly cited political uncertainty in the United States and rising geopolitical tensions as reasons to diversify their portfolios.

The shift comes amid broader debate over the future of the global monetary system following heightened international tensions, including the recent U.S.-Iran conflict, and changing global economic dynamics.

OMFIF Senior Economist Yara Aziz said public investors increasingly regard market volatility as a permanent feature rather than a temporary disruption.

“The old assumption that public investors can wait for the environment to normalize looks increasingly unrealistic,” Aziz wrote in the report.

Gold strengthens its role in reserve management

Despite expectations of reduced dollar holdings, the survey found no clear replacement for the U.S. currency.

Instead, reserve managers are gradually expanding holdings across a wider range of currencies while significantly increasing allocations to gold.

Nearly four out of five central banks surveyed, along with 60% of public investment funds, believe the international monetary system is evolving toward a more multipolar structure in which reserve assets become more diversified.

Currencies outside the traditional major reserve group are attracting greater attention.

Respondents reported increasing allocations to the Norwegian krone and the New Zealand dollar, while interest in the British pound also continued to grow.

Central banks also maintained plans to increase holdings of the euro and China’s renminbi, although respondents said structural limitations continue to constrain both currencies from becoming dominant alternatives to the dollar.

Even so, almost all respondents viewed the Chinese yuan as an effective tool for portfolio diversification.

Gold emerged as one of the strongest beneficiaries of changing reserve strategies.

Held by 82% of surveyed central banks, the precious metal has moved to the center of reserve management policies after reaching successive record highs over recent years.

In the next one to two years, gold is expected to see the largest increase in allocations among reserve assets, with a net 30% of respondents planning to expand their holdings.

Analysts say central banks increasingly value gold as a hedge against inflation, geopolitical instability and financial market volatility.

Artificial intelligence reshapes investment strategies

Beyond reserve diversification, the survey highlighted a rapid acceleration in the adoption of artificial intelligence across public financial institutions.

More than two-thirds of central banks said they plan to expand the use of AI in the near future, while none of the advanced economy central banks surveyed indicated they were satisfied with current levels of AI deployment.

Overall, only 9% of central banks said existing AI integration met their needs.

Most institutions currently use artificial intelligence for data analysis, research and administrative functions, although adoption varies significantly between developed and emerging economies.

Nearly 90% of central banks in advanced economies already use AI, compared with just 44% of those in emerging markets.

The report also found growing investor interest in physical assets.

Almost 60% of public investment funds intend to increase allocations to infrastructure and real estate over the next two years, making them the most popular asset classes outside traditional financial markets.

Emerging markets are also attracting renewed attention

Thirty-eight percent of public funds plan to increase investment in emerging economies, up sharply from 27% in last year’s survey.

At the same time, interest in expanding exposure to developed economies declined significantly, with only one-quarter of respondents planning to increase allocations compared with nearly half a year earlier.

Despite diversification efforts, the United States and China remained the most attractive investment destinations, largely because of their leading positions in artificial intelligence development and technological innovation.

The survey suggests that while the U.S. dollar is likely to remain the world’s dominant reserve currency for the foreseeable future, central banks are increasingly seeking broader diversification through gold, alternative currencies, emerging markets and new technologies to navigate a more uncertain global economic environment.

(Source: Reuters)

M

ore than 5,300 people remain trapped in online scam compounds in Myanmar near the Thai border despite a multinational crackdown launched last year, according to a Thai-based human rights organization that has urged authorities to intensify rescue efforts.

The Civil Society Network for Human Trafficking Victim Assistance (CSNHTV) said thousands of victims continue to be held in four scam compounds located in territory controlled by the Myanmar Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), where criminal syndicates continue to operate extensive online fraud and human trafficking networks.

In a letter addressed to Thai police, the organization called for immediate action to dismantle the remaining compounds and free those still being held against their will.

According to the group, approximately 1,600 of those trapped are Chinese nationals, while around 200 are from Myanmar. Victims also include citizens of the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brazil, Russia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Zimbabwe.

“Many of these compounds have yet to be dismantled or subjected to rescue operations to free all remaining victims,” the organization said.

It warned that the criminal syndicates continue to carry out online fraud targeting victims across the world, particularly in the United States and Europe.

Multibillion-dollar criminal industry

Scam centers across Southeast Asia, especially in Myanmar and Cambodia, have evolved into a sophisticated transnational criminal industry worth billions of dollars.

Originally linked to casinos and online gambling operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, the compounds have expanded into hubs for online investment scams, romance fraud, cryptocurrency schemes and other cybercrimes targeting victims worldwide.

Many of those recruited to work in the centers were lured by false job offers before being trafficked across borders and forced to participate in online scams.

A report released by the United Nations in February found that many scam compounds are staffed by foreign nationals trafficked by organized criminal gangs and subjected to serious human rights abuses.

The report documented widespread cases of torture, sexual abuse, forced abortions, food deprivation, solitary confinement and other forms of cruel treatment used to coerce victims into carrying out online fraud.

“The litany of abuse is staggering and at the same time heart-breaking,” said Volker Türk.

Türk added that many survivors face additional hardships after escaping the compounds, often encountering disbelief, stigma or even punishment instead of receiving protection and rehabilitation.

Calls for stronger regional cooperation

Rights groups say dismantling scam compounds requires closer cooperation between governments in the region, as many operations are protected by armed groups controlling parts of Myanmar’s border areas.

Although thousands of trafficking victims have been rescued during joint operations conducted by Thailand, Myanmar and neighboring countries over the past year, humanitarian organizations warn that thousands more remain trapped, highlighting the continued reach of criminal networks exploiting vulnerable migrants through forced labor and online fraud.

(Source: Aljazeera)

A

t least 32 people have been confirmed dead and around 700 injured after two powerful earthquakes struck Venezuela, causing widespread destruction in the capital Caracas and other parts of the country, according to authorities.

The twin quakes, measuring 7.2 and 7.5 in magnitude, hit less than a minute apart about 160 kilometers west of Caracas, triggering building collapses, damaging infrastructure and prompting fears that the final death toll could rise significantly as rescue efforts continue.

Emergency crews raced through the night to search for survivors trapped beneath the rubble of collapsed buildings. Images from Caracas showed rescue workers combing through debris while families gathered anxiously near disaster sites awaiting news of missing relatives.

Interim President Delcy Rodríguez said at least 32 people had been killed and hundreds injured, though officials cautioned that casualty figures remained preliminary.

Rescue efforts intensify

Search-and-rescue teams have been deployed across affected areas, with authorities focusing on collapsed residential buildings and heavily damaged neighborhoods.

Eyewitnesses described scenes of panic and devastation. One survivor in Caracas said residents struggled to escape amid dust clouds and falling debris.

“The scene was like a horror movie,” the survivor told Reuters, describing how people climbed over rubble to reach safety.

Several aftershocks have been recorded since the initial earthquakes, complicating rescue operations and raising concerns about further structural collapses.

Thousands of deaths feared

While official casualty figures remain relatively low so far, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) system has warned that the eventual toll could be much higher.

According to updated USGS modeling, there is a 39% probability that fatalities could range between 1,000 and 10,000 people, and a 37% chance the death toll could reach between 10,000 and 100,000 if the most severely affected areas suffered extensive structural failures.

The agency also estimates economic losses equivalent to between 1% and 4% of Venezuela’s gross domestic product.

The United States announced it has activated a disaster assistance team and emergency task force to coordinate humanitarian support.

According to the U.S. State Department, Washington plans to send search-and-rescue specialists, medical supplies and humanitarian aid in cooperation with Venezuela’s interim government.

U.S. President Donald Trump said the earthquakes may have caused a “devastating number of deaths” and pledged American support for relief efforts.

Oil sector appears largely unaffected

Despite concerns about Venezuela’s energy infrastructure, authorities reported no immediate damage to major oil facilities.

Officials in Maracaibo, near the country’s main oil-producing region around Lake Maracaibo, said there were no reports of injuries or significant damage affecting petroleum operations.

Energy companies operating in Venezuela have begun assessing facilities, although industry sources warned that prolonged power outages could disrupt crude production in the coming days.

The disaster comes at a sensitive moment for Venezuela, which is undergoing a political transition following the removal of former President Nicolás Maduro earlier this year.

The country continues to face severe economic difficulties, with widespread poverty, fragile infrastructure and ongoing efforts to rebuild institutions after years of political turmoil.

As rescue operations continue and damage assessments expand, authorities fear the human and economic cost of the disaster could become one of the most severe natural catastrophes to strike Venezuela in decades.

(Source: Reuters)

A

n independent United Nations commission has accused Israeli authorities and security forces of deliberately targeting Palestinian children during the war in Gaza, actions it said amount to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The findings, released Tuesday, drew an immediate and forceful rejection from Israel, which described the report as a “libelous sham” that ignored the conduct of Hamas.

The report was issued by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and examines alleged violations committed against Palestinian children in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and East Jerusalem since the outbreak of war on October 7, 2023.

According to the commission, children accounted for approximately 30 percent of all fatalities during the Gaza conflict, a proportion significantly higher than in previous rounds of fighting. Investigators concluded that Israeli military operations caused an unprecedented level of harm to children and that evidence pointed to deliberate targeting in some cases.

“The evidence shows that Palestinian children have been deliberately targeted and killed by the Israeli security forces,” commission chair Srinivasan Muralidhar said in a statement accompanying the report.

Genocidal intent

The commission argued that the killing of children was a central factor in establishing a genocidal intent against Palestinians in Gaza. According to the report, Israeli military operations continued to result in child casualties even after a ceasefire took effect in October 2025.

Investigators said Israeli forces repeatedly employed high-payload munitions and weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated residential neighborhoods despite mounting evidence of civilian and child casualties.

The report stated that such attacks, which caused exceptionally high numbers of child deaths, indicated intentional conduct. It further argued that Palestinian children were targeted collectively because Israeli security forces viewed the broader civilian population as being associated with Hamas and other armed groups operating in Gaza.

The commission concluded that these actions contributed to efforts aimed at destroying the Palestinian population in Gaza, in whole or in part.

Thousands of children killed

According to figures cited in the report, at least 20,179 Palestinian children were killed between October 7, 2023, and October 7, 2025.

The commission noted that children represented roughly 30 percent of all fatalities during that period. By comparison, children accounted for about 24 percent of conflict-related deaths during previous Gaza conflicts in 2008–2009 and 2014.

Investigators said the scale of child deaths, combined with patterns of military operations, distinguished the current conflict from earlier wars.

The report also highlighted the broader humanitarian consequences of the conflict on Gaza’s youngest residents. It said repeated displacement, destruction of homes, shortages of food and medicine, and restrictions on humanitarian assistance severely damaged children’s health, development, and psychological well-being.

Impact on health and future generations

Beyond direct casualties, the commission found that attacks on healthcare facilities and reproductive services had long-term effects on children and families.

The report documented rising miscarriages, deteriorating conditions for newborns, and severe strain on Gaza’s medical infrastructure. Investigators warned that the destruction of healthcare services had undermined the survival prospects of infants and young children.

The commission further reported that nearly all children in Gaza now require psychological support due to trauma caused by the conflict, displacement, loss of family members, and prolonged exposure to violence.

Muralidhar said the targeting of children threatened not only individual lives but also the future existence of the Palestinian people.

“By targeting children, Israel is undermining the capacity of the Palestinian people to exist and determine their future,” he said.

C

onservative candidate Abelardo De La Espriella has secured a narrow victory in Colombia’s presidential runoff election, defeating leftist Senator Ivan Cepeda in a closely contested race that signals a significant political shift in one of Latin America’s largest economies.

According to preliminary results released by Colombia’s national registrar on Sunday, De La Espriella won 49.66 percent of the vote, while Cepeda received 48.70 percent, leaving a margin of approximately 250,000 votes with nearly all ballots counted.

The result marks a major setback for the political movement of outgoing President Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president, whose reform agenda and security policies became central issues during the election campaign.

De La Espriella, a lawyer and political newcomer, campaigned on promises to crack down on crime, revive economic growth, reduce government spending and strengthen Colombia’s oil and gas sector.

Speaking to supporters in the coastal city of Barranquilla after the results were announced, he pledged to govern for all Colombians regardless of political affiliation.

“I will govern for all Colombians, for those who voted for me and for those who chose the other candidate,” De La Espriella told cheering supporters.

His campaign centered on criticism of Petro’s administration, which he accused of failing to contain armed groups, drug trafficking and insecurity in several regions of the country. He vowed to end negotiations with rebel and criminal organizations while expanding investment in the energy sector and reducing the size of the state by as much as 40 percent.

Despite advocating major economic reforms, De La Espriella has also promised to maintain some of Petro’s most popular social measures, including a 23 percent increase in the minimum wage and assistance programs for vulnerable communities.

The president-elect also received a congratulatory call from Donald Trump, who had publicly endorsed his candidacy during the campaign. The endorsement attracted attention both inside Colombia and internationally, highlighting growing ties between conservative political movements across the Americas.

Cepeda refuses to concede immediately

Although the preliminary count favored De La Espriella, Cepeda stopped short of immediately conceding defeat.

Addressing supporters in Bogotá, the veteran leftist politician said his campaign would await the completion of Colombia’s official verification process, which involves a ballot-by-ballot review supervised by judges and notaries.

Cepeda said his campaign was contesting results from roughly 33,000 ballot boxes out of more than 122,000 nationwide.

“We are open to dialogue; we are willing to reach agreements as long as they are respectful, genuine, and reflected in political actions that benefit the nation,” he told supporters.

While acknowledging the narrow margin, Cepeda emphasized that his supporters remain a powerful political force that must be represented in future national decisions.

The close result reflects a deeply polarized electorate divided between demands for stronger security measures and support for the social and environmental reforms introduced under Petro’s government.

De La Espriella will take office facing significant political and economic challenges.

Despite winning the presidency, he is expected to encounter resistance in Congress, where Cepeda’s coalition, the Historic Pact, remains one of the largest political blocs. No party controls a majority, meaning the incoming president will likely need to negotiate extensively to pass legislation.

Analysts say this reality may force De La Espriella to moderate some of his more ambitious proposals, particularly plans to dramatically reduce government spending and reshape state institutions.

The new administration must also address mounting public debt and sluggish economic growth while balancing demands for increased security spending.

Questions have additionally been raised about De La Espriella’s business record. During the campaign, Colombian media reported that several of his companies had been dissolved or faced financial difficulties, though his legal practice remained profitable. The president-elect rejected suggestions that these issues undermine his economic credentials.

Security concerns dominated the election

Security emerged as one of the defining issues of the campaign.

Many Colombians remain concerned about growing violence linked to drug trafficking organizations, dissident guerrilla factions and criminal networks operating in remote regions.

Supporters of De La Espriella argued that a tougher approach is necessary to restore public order and combat extortion, kidnappings and narcotics trafficking.

However, critics fear his confrontational rhetoric could undermine ongoing peace initiatives and potentially reignite broader conflict in a country that has endured more than six decades of violence involving left-wing insurgents, right-wing paramilitary groups and criminal organizations.

At Cepeda’s election-night gathering, several supporters voiced concerns that Colombia could move away from reconciliation efforts pursued in recent years.

Colombia’s election adds to a broader trend across Latin America, where several countries have recently elected conservative leaders.

Voters in countries including Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Bolivia and Ecuador have shifted toward right-leaning governments amid concerns about inflation, crime and economic performance.

More than 26.3 million Colombians participated in the runoff vote, representing a strong turnout among the country’s 41.4 million eligible voters. More than 427,000 voters submitted blank ballots, often viewed as a form of protest against both candidates.

While the final certified results are still pending, De La Espriella’s victory appears set to usher in a new political era for Colombia, one focused on security, economic liberalization and closer relations with conservative governments across the region.

(Source: Reuters)

A

proposed $300 billion private investment fund aimed at revitalizing Iran’s economy has emerged as a central component of the framework agreement reached between the United States and Iran to end months of conflict, according to a source with direct knowledge of the negotiations.

The fund, which would be known as the Reconstruction and Development Fund, is designed to encourage both sides to finalize a comprehensive peace agreement by offering a powerful economic incentive for post-war recovery and long-term investment.

According to the source, more than half of the proposed funding—over $150 billion—has already been pledged by companies and financial institutions across multiple regions, including North America, Asia, the Gulf, Africa, and South America.

The initiative remains contingent on the successful completion of a final agreement between Washington and Tehran. Negotiators are expected to spend the next 60 days working on unresolved issues, including Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief, and regional security arrangements.

Economic dimension of peace deal

The investment proposal represents one of the most ambitious economic initiatives linked to a Middle Eastern peace agreement in recent decades.

Unlike traditional reconstruction packages financed by governments or international organizations, the proposed fund would be entirely privately financed.

The source familiar with the negotiations said no government money, grants, or direct public financing would be involved.

Instead, private companies and financial institutions have committed investment capital intended for projects in key sectors of Iran’s economy, including energy, transportation, logistics, manufacturing, and industrial development.

The fund is separate from ongoing discussions regarding the release of Iranian assets frozen abroad and the lifting of U.S. sanctions.

Negotiators have reportedly established distinct tracks for those issues, with separate timelines and objectives.

“This is not compensation, reparations, or a government aid package,” the source said. “It is an investment vehicle intended to unlock economic opportunities once a final settlement is achieved.”

From compensation demand to investment plan

The idea reportedly emerged after Iran initially sought substantial compensation for damage caused during the conflict.

A senior Iranian source told Reuters that Tehran had requested approximately $400 billion in compensation from the United States for wartime losses.

Washington rejected that proposal, leading negotiators to explore alternative mechanisms capable of supporting economic recovery while remaining politically acceptable to all parties.

The resulting concept focuses on investment rather than compensation.

Under the proposed structure, regional countries and international investors would contribute through various mechanisms, including financing projects directly, establishing credit facilities, guaranteeing loans, and supporting reconstruction efforts at damaged industrial and infrastructure sites.

Projects under consideration reportedly include repairs and modernization of refineries, airports, transportation networks, industrial facilities, and major manufacturing centers damaged during the conflict.

Among the sites expected to benefit is the Mobarakeh Steel complex, one of Iran’s largest industrial enterprises.

Untapped economic potential

Supporters of the initiative argue that Iran presents significant long-term opportunities for investors if geopolitical risks and sanctions barriers can be reduced.

Despite decades of economic isolation, Iran remains one of the largest economies in the Middle East.

The country possesses the world’s second-largest proven natural gas reserves and the fourth-largest oil reserves, making it a major potential energy producer.

In addition, Iran has a population exceeding 92 million people, a relatively educated workforce, extensive industrial infrastructure, and significant potential in sectors ranging from petrochemicals and mining to tourism and agriculture.

However, successive rounds of international sanctions and political tensions have largely excluded Iran from global capital markets for more than four decades.

As a result, foreign direct investment has remained limited despite the country’s economic potential.

Analysts say that if sanctions are eased and political stability improves, Iran could attract substantial foreign investment in the coming years.

While the investment initiative has generated considerable attention, its implementation depends entirely on the success of broader negotiations.

The framework agreement announced earlier this week established a 60-day period during which U.S. and Iranian negotiators will seek to reach a comprehensive settlement.

One of the most difficult issues remains Iran’s nuclear program.

According to U.S. Vice President JD Vance, access to the reconstruction fund would depend on Iran meeting strict conditions, including dismantling key elements of its nuclear program, eliminating stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, and accepting extensive international inspections.

Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear activities are intended for peaceful purposes and has rejected accusations that it seeks nuclear weapons.

The issue remains one of the most contentious points in negotiations.

C

hinese President Xi Jinping arrived in North Korea on Monday for his first visit to the country since 2019, in a move widely seen as an effort by Beijing to reinforce its influence over Pyongyang amid growing concerns about North Korea’s increasingly close military and economic relationship with Russia.

Xi’s visit comes at a critical moment for regional security in Northeast Asia, with North Korea accelerating its weapons programs, deepening cooperation with Moscow, and further distancing itself from South Korea. Analysts say the Chinese leader’s decision to travel personally to Pyongyang underscores the strategic importance Beijing places on maintaining its longstanding alliance with North Korea.

The visit marks a departure from Xi’s recent diplomatic pattern. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese president has significantly reduced his overseas travel, preferring to host foreign leaders in Beijing. Against that backdrop, his trip to Pyongyang is viewed as a strong signal of China’s commitment to preserving its role as North Korea’s most important partner.

Xi is expected to hold extensive talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on regional security, economic cooperation, and the changing geopolitical environment in East Asia.

Growing Russian influence

A key factor behind the visit is believed to be North Korea’s rapidly expanding relationship with Russia.

Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Pyongyang has emerged as one of Moscow’s most important partners. North Korea has reportedly supplied Russia with artillery shells, missiles, military equipment, and manpower to support its war effort. In return, Moscow is believed to have provided economic assistance and potentially advanced military technologies.

The partnership has generated concern in Beijing, which has historically been North Korea’s principal economic supporter and diplomatic protector. For decades, China accounted for the overwhelming majority of North Korea’s foreign trade and served as the country’s primary source of fuel, food, and investment.

While China and Russia maintain close strategic ties, Beijing is wary of losing influence over its isolated neighbor. Analysts say Xi’s visit is intended in part to ensure that Pyongyang does not drift too far into Moscow’s orbit.

“China wants to remind North Korea that it remains an indispensable partner,” regional analysts have noted. “The relationship with Russia may be useful for Pyongyang, but Beijing still offers economic and political support that no other country can fully replace.”

The growing Russia-North Korea partnership has also raised concerns about military cooperation. Experts believe Russia may be sharing technologies that could accelerate North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs, developments that could alter the security balance on the Korean Peninsula.

Concerns over military advancements

China’s leadership is believed to be closely monitoring North Korea’s recent military activities.

North Korea has conducted multiple missile tests this year and continues to modernize its arsenal. In May, state media reported the successful development of an artificial intelligence-guided tactical cruise missile, while recent images released by Pyongyang showed Kim Jong Un inspecting facilities linked to the production of nuclear materials.

The North Korean leader has repeatedly emphasized the need to expand the country’s nuclear deterrent and strengthen its military capabilities in response to what he describes as growing threats from the United States and its allies.

Although China supports North Korea as a strategic buffer separating Chinese territory from US forces stationed in South Korea, Beijing has traditionally favored stability on the peninsula over military escalation. Chinese officials fear that an emboldened North Korea could provoke regional tensions and trigger stronger military cooperation among the United States, South Korea, and Japan.

Analysts believe Xi will seek greater clarity on Pyongyang’s military ambitions and may encourage restraint to avoid destabilizing the region.

Regional security challenges

The visit also takes place amid growing concerns over shifting security dynamics in East Asia.

Relations between North and South Korea have deteriorated sharply in recent years. In 2024, Kim Jong Un formally abandoned the long-standing goal of peaceful reunification with South Korea, declaring the South a hostile state. Since then, communication channels between the two sides have largely remained frozen.

At the same time, security cooperation between South Korea and Japan has expanded. The two US allies have increased intelligence sharing and military coordination in response to North Korea’s weapons development and broader regional security concerns.

Recent discussions regarding a possible military logistics support agreement between Seoul and Tokyo have further alarmed Beijing, which views closer cooperation among US allies as part of a broader effort to contain China’s influence in the region.

Against this backdrop, Xi’s trip serves not only to strengthen bilateral ties with North Korea but also to demonstrate China’s continued role as a central actor in regional security affairs.

P

ope Leo XIV has issued the strongest apology yet by a pope for the Catholic Church’s historical involvement in slavery, acknowledging that the institution was slow to condemn the practice and at times helped legitimize it.

In his first papal encyclical, titled Magnifica Humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”), Leo said the Church had taken centuries to fully recognize slavery as incompatible with human dignity, describing the legacy as “a wound in Christian memory.”

“For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon,” the pope wrote, expressing “deep sorrow” for the suffering endured by enslaved people throughout history.

Leo acknowledged that Church authorities had, in some periods, responded to political rulers by regulating or legitimizing forms of subjugation, including the enslavement of non-Christians. He also noted that ecclesiastical institutions themselves owned slaves during the Middle Ages.

The pope said the Church only reached a “formal, absolute and universal condemnation” of slavery during the 19th century under Pope Leo XIII, after what he described as centuries of inconsistency in teaching and practice.

Strongest papal admission yet

Leo’s statement marks the clearest acknowledgment by a pope of institutional responsibility for slavery, going further than previous Vatican statements that focused primarily on the actions of individual Christians or colonial powers.

Pope John Paul II, during a 1985 visit to Africa, asked forgiveness for the suffering caused by “men belonging to Christian nations” involved in the slave trade.

His successor, Pope Francis, repeatedly condemned modern slavery and formally repudiated 15th-century papal decrees used by European colonial powers to justify conquest and enslavement.

However, those statements stopped short of directly addressing the role of the papacy itself. Leo’s encyclical is the first to explicitly state that the Church as an institution failed to act decisively against slavery for centuries.

The document also reflects on modern ethical concerns, particularly the impact of artificial intelligence and the risks of new forms of economic exploitation.

Personal historical connection

The encyclical comes amid renewed interest in Pope Leo’s own family history. Genealogical research published after his election last year revealed that the first U.S.-born pope has ancestry linked both to enslaved people and to slaveholders.

The Vatican has not announced whether further initiatives or commemorations related to the Church’s historical role in slavery are planned following the pope’s remarks.

Historians and advocates have long debated whether the Catholic Church should issue a formal institutional apology for slavery and colonial-era abuses. Leo’s statement is likely to intensify discussions within the Church and beyond about accountability, historical memory, and reconciliation.

(Source: Reuters)

T

he United States has removed Francesca Albanese from its sanctions list, reversing a controversial decision imposed during the Trump administration over her criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza and her calls for international legal action against Israeli and American officials.

The move came one week after a federal judge temporarily blocked the sanctions, ruling that the measures likely violated Albanese’s free-speech protections under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Albanese, an Italian lawyer serving as the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, had become a prominent critic of Israeli military operations in Gaza. In her role, she called on the International Criminal Court to investigate alleged war crimes involving Israeli and U.S. nationals.

She also authored a report accusing several major American corporations of complicity in what she described as Israel’s “ongoing genocidal campaign in Gaza,” drawing strong criticism from Washington and pro-Israel groups.

The sanctions, imposed in July 2025, barred Albanese from entering the United States and cut off her access to the American banking system. U.S. officials at the time said the measures were intended to counter efforts to pressure the ICC into pursuing investigations against U.S. and Israeli officials, executives, and companies.

Judge says sanctions likely violated free speech

The legal challenge against the sanctions was filed in February by Albanese’s husband and daughter, who is a U.S. citizen. Their lawsuit argued that the penalties were politically motivated and unlawfully targeted Albanese for expressing her views on Gaza and international law.

On May 13, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled in favor of temporarily blocking the sanctions. Leon stated that Albanese’s residence outside the United States did not strip her of constitutional protections in this case and suggested the administration had sought to punish her because of the “idea or message expressed” in her public statements.

Following the ruling, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control announced it would suspend enforcement of the sanctions while the court order remained in effect. The Treasury Department’s latest update now confirms Albanese has been fully removed from the sanctions list.

Neither the United States Department of State nor the White House immediately commented on the reversal.

Debate Over Gaza genocide and international accountability

The case has drawn international attention amid growing global divisions over Israel’s genocide in Gaza and efforts to pursue accountability through international courts.

Supporters of Albanese argued that the sanctions represented an unprecedented attempt by the United States to silence a U.N. official for expressing criticism of a close U.S. ally. Human rights organizations and legal experts warned that the measures risked undermining the independence of U.N. investigators and international institutions.

Critics of Albanese, however, accused her of bias against Israel and defended the Trump administration’s decision to sanction her. U.S. officials previously argued that her actions unfairly targeted Israeli and American individuals while politicizing the work of the United Nations.

The removal of the sanctions may now ease tensions between Washington and some international human rights bodies, though broader disagreements over the Gaza conflict and the role of the ICC are likely to continue.

Albanese has not yet publicly commented on the Treasury Department’s decision.

(Source: Reuters)

S

ince almost the very beginning of the attacks carried out by the US and Israel against Iran, the Strait of Hormuz has been one of the most significant factors influencing the course of the war. The Strait of Hormuz also fundamentally affects whether the current peace talks stall or progress. The most significant reason for this is that economic and commercial considerations have come to the fore amongst the global repercussions of armed conflicts today.

Since passage through international straits, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, is critical, the regime governing passage has become a significant concern. In this context, questions have arisen about whether any state has the right to close an international strait and whether restricting, closing, or imposing a blockade on international straits during wartime is legally permissible.

Given the illegality of many actions in the US/Israel-Iran conflict, it would be beneficial to clarify the legal principles governing transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital international maritime transport route, during wartime.

The importance of international straits and channels

Apart from the Strait of Hormuz, there are other straits and channels around the world that are of central importance to international maritime transport. The Strait of Gibraltar, the Turkish Straits, and the Straits of Singapore and Malacca are among the most important of these. The Strait of Gibraltar is the only maritime passageway connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the open ocean. The Straits of Singapore and Malacca are maritime passages between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea in Southeast Asia. Stretching between Singapore and the Riau Islands of Indonesia, these straits are among the busiest waterways in global maritime trade. Approximately 40 percent of the world’s merchant vessels pass through them. They form the route for most oil and raw material shipments destined for Asia’s industrial giants, such as China, Japan, and South Korea.

The Turkish Straits system, comprising the Straits of Istanbul and Çanakkale and the Sea of Marmara, is the only waterway connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. The Turkish Straits are of vital importance to the economies and military security of countries bordering the Black Sea. Currently, over 50,000 ships, including more than 10,000 tankers, pass through the Turkish Straits each year, making them crucial for the transit of food, oil, natural gas, and commercial goods.

Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important oil transit points. This strait is the sole route connecting Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain to the rest of the world, and it is also the only functional maritime transport route for oil exports from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In 2024 and 2025, more than a quarter of total global seaborne oil trade and approximately one-fifth of global oil and petroleum product consumption passed through the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, approximately one-fifth of the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade passed through the strait in 2024, primarily from Qatar. Consequently, even temporarily halting the passage of oil or LNG tankers through the strait is likely to increase global energy prices, shipping costs, and lead to significant supply delays.

Man-made waterways that connect seas are known as sea canals. The Panama and Suez Canals are the most prominent examples. The Panama Canal was constructed under the 1903 Washington Treaty between Panama and the United States and completed in 1914. Governed by the “Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and the Operation of the Panama Canal,” signed by the United States and Panama in 1977, the Panama Canal provides a direct passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Meanwhile, the Suez Canal is an artificial waterway that is approximately 190 kilometers long and connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. Transit through the canal is regulated by the Istanbul Convention, a multilateral treaty signed in 1888, which permits all ships, regardless of nationality or purpose, to pass through. The canal handles approximately 10–15 percent of global maritime trade. It serves as a critical transit point for the transport of oil, natural gas, and container freight in particular.

Transit through international straits during armed conflicts

According to international law, the right to transit through international straits during peacetime is considered a “right of innocent passage.” However, this right is not absolute, meaning the coastal state may suspend transit if it becomes harmful. This suspension does not essentially amount to a total ban on passage; rather, it is an exceptional power that the coastal state may exercise when the passage of a specific vessel or vessels becomes “detrimental” to the coastal state’s peace, security, or order. In situations where transit has become entirely harmful, exceptional circumstances may arise in which transit may be suspended entirely, provided that the suspension is not indefinite and is for reasons such as health inspections.

Unlike the right of innocent passage, the “right of transit passage” through international straits is an inalienable right recognized by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which 172 states are currently parties. According to Article 38 of the Convention, all ships and aircraft have the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded.

However, it can be said that the rules governing the right of passage through international straits change significantly during wartime. In the event of war, two situations may arise. The first situation occurs when one or more states bordering the strait is involved in the war. These straits may be characterized as “international straits involved in the war.” The second scenario is when none of the states bordering the strait are involved in the war. These straits are referred to as “neutral,” or non-belligerent, straits.

International straits involved in a war that do not consist entirely of a single state’s territorial waters, where a route passes through the high seas or exclusive economic zone, cannot be exercised by the coastal states beyond their own territorial waters.

If an international strait involved in a war consists entirely of territorial waters, then those waters also form part of the general theater of hostilities. This means that the entire strait becomes a theater of war. Subject to the relevant provisions of the laws of war, enemy ships and aircraft in these straits may be attacked, and enemy and neutral merchant ships may be stopped and seized. The coastal state has the right to deny passage to all enemy ships and aircraft.

Neutral ships

However, these straits cannot be closed to ships belonging to states that are not parties to the conflict, i.e., neutral ships. There is a prevailing view that peaceful shipping traffic should be allowed to pass through the straits with minimal disruption. While states bordering an international strait may be inclined to close it, even to peaceful shipping, if they are parties to an international armed conflict, completely closing international straits, particularly by using sea mines, would not be lawful. This was stated in the International Court of Justice’s judgment on April 9, 1949, in the Corfu Channel case. Neutral warships and merchant vessels must not be deprived of their right of passage, or their inalienable right of innocent passage, through international straits belonging to parties to an international armed conflict.

As for neutral international straits not involved in the war, transit generally takes place under peacetime conditions. According to Article 38(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a “right of transit passage” exists through neutral straits, which must not be impeded. Transit must be continuous and expeditious for the purpose of passing through the strait. As in peacetime, warships of belligerent states in transit must proceed without delay in accordance with designated sea lanes and traffic separation schemes. Belligerent warships and military aircraft transiting a neutral international strait may take all necessary measures to defend themselves.

In neutral international straits, the right of transit passage does not apply if the straits do not coincide entirely with the coastal state’s territorial waters. In these cases, vessels and aircraft of all nations enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight in the remaining corridor, even if an exclusive economic zone has been declared. In parts of the strait that are part of a coastal state’s territorial waters, ships and aircraft only have a suspensible right of innocent passage.

F

ollowing Viktor Orbán’s defeat, the elections held in Hungary attracted considerable attention in Turkey. Various predictions were made based on election assessments and comparative analyses. Analyses comparing the election winner, Péter Magyar, with Orbán, in particular, interpreted the election results through classic dichotomies, such as democracy versus authoritarianism, liberal democracy versus populism, and the right versus the far right.

However, regrettably, many of these analyses relied on these clichéd distinctions and interpretations. Furthermore, the post-liberal rise in Hungarian and international politics was analyzed from a liberal perspective, resulting in erroneous interpretations. Initial assessments such as the return of liberal democracy, the retreat of authoritarianism, and the defeat of the far right and populism demonstrate an inability to understand the true nature of the sociopolitical transformation occurring in Hungary and around the world.

The true significance of the Hungarian election results

The clearest conclusion to be drawn from the election results is that there is a significant crisis of legitimacy and trust within the political landscape, rather than an ideological shift. Orbán was defeated by another post-liberal figure who uses similar language, draws on the same social base, and shares a similar perception of the crisis. In other words, contrary to what is often assumed, the new prime minister, Magyar, is not so much a liberal democrat as he is another figure who largely represents the post-liberal current due to the rhetoric he employs and the ideological position he occupies. From this perspective, the Hungarian elections should not be viewed as a regime change or political transformation but rather as a renewal and cleansing of actors within post-liberalism itself.

More precisely, Orbán’s defeat and the winner’s profile do not, contrary to many interpretations, signify that the social demands he represented and championed have disappeared. On the contrary, the election results indicate that post-liberal tendencies persist, but the current government has lost its ability to represent these demands.

The most significant indicator of this is that the dynamics underpinning the post-liberal quest remain firmly in place. The inequalities brought about by neoliberalism, the uncertainties arising from technological transformation, and the perceived cultural disintegration caused by liberal democracy continue to generate a strong need for security and meaning across broad sections of society. People still expect a political stance that delivers public services and defends their own values.

For this reason, the election results should be interpreted as a rearticulation of the social demands represented by post-liberalism, despite the fact that these demands are being discredited with labels such as populism, authoritarianism, and far-right extremism. When Orbán’s political platform could no longer meet these expectations, the electorate did not abandon that platform. Instead, they chose a new leader whom they believed could represent it more effectively. Thus, the transformation witnessed in the Hungarian elections is more indicative of a crisis of representation being resolved than an ideological rupture. Society did not change its demands; it simply updated its choice of who would represent them.

Why did Orbán lose?

The real breaking point that led to Orbán losing his 16-year reign was not the depletion of his ideological framework. As the standard-bearer of the post-liberal movement, Orbán began contradicting his own claims. Over time, he formed a new power bloc to replace the “corrupt elites” he had criticized. This network, centered on the distribution of state resources, became the focal point of accusations of corruption and nepotism.

In foreign policy, however, his decision to replace the “corrupt EU,” which he claimed was victimizing the Hungarian people through liberal democratic impositions, opposing moral values, and neoliberal economic policies, with Putin’s Russia and Trump’s U.S. began to backfire. The hegemonic rhetoric of foreign policy suffered as a result of the increasing visibility and influence of Russia and the U.S. Indeed, anti-elitist rhetoric has lost credibility and is now perceived as merely anti-EU.

Furthermore, the deterioration in economic performance has accelerated this crisis of legitimacy. Financial pressures arising from high inflation, interventionist policies, and tensions with the EU have undermined the government’s claims of “stability” and a “protective state.” Consequently, the disconnect between rhetoric and material reality has become more apparent. Orbán, the champion of the post-liberal movement he defines as “illiberal democracy,” was unable to maintain the moral and political framework he had established. This has led to the collapse of his credibility, reliability, consistency, and moral superiority claims. All of this has driven centrist voters, who were already opposed to Orbán and predominantly reside in major cities, as well as peripheral voters, where Orbán traditionally enjoys a high concentration of support, to seek an alternative.

The political significance of Magyar

Péter Magyar’s rise and electoral victory are most significant at this juncture. Magyar is neither a radical alternative nor an outsider to the political discourse established by Orbán. However, it cannot be said that he has abandoned Orbán’s ideology and “found the right path,” as is often assumed. On the contrary, Magyar is a figure who speaks a similar language yet promises to anchor it within a more rational, balanced, and trustworthy framework.

What sets Magyar apart is his promise to rebuild the political ground represented by Orbán and sustain it more honestly and fairly. Consequently, Magyar is not a representative of a classical liberal restoration, and his frequent emphasis on the rule of law should not be interpreted as such. He neither abandons the idea of a strong nation-state within the post-liberal framework nor entirely abandons the space for debate and politics of self-valorization opened up by the Orbán era. Instead, Magyar promises to embed post-liberalism and politics of self-valorization within a more rational, institutionalized, and sustainable framework. In this respect, Magyar does not aim to abandon the “post-liberal” approach t rather to fulfill their requirements honestly and successfully. Thus, the political significance of Peter Magyar should not be assessed as an ideological break in Hungarian politics but rather as a recalibration of the same line.

Taking all this into account, Magyar can essentially be described as the leader of a populist initiative that takes the form of “anti-Orbánism.” His strategy is based on an anti-corruption narrative and the idea of “cleansing the state of a handful of corrupt Orbánist elites.” This is a powerful manifestation of populism. By projecting an ethical stance, Magyar positions himself as a central figure in rebuilding a legitimate and just order. This is precisely the area that was most eroded during Orbán’s tenure, and Magyar has succeeded in winning over peripheral voters with this approach.

The difference in approach toward relations with the EU is also a significant indicator of anti-Orbánist populism in foreign policy. Unlike Orbán, who sometimes relies on a confrontational rhetorical style, Magyar aligns more closely with the principle of “a strong Hungary, a strong Europe” as a European nation. This approach largely stems from the perspective that Europe’s strategic autonomy is achievable through strong nation-states, which is somewhat anti-Russian and anti-American. Consequently, while Magyar’s ideology is similar to Orbán’s, his practical policies diverge.

The picture that emerges within this framework clearly demonstrates the following: Magyar embraces post-liberalism and promises to rescue it from Orbán’s grasp, purify it, and rebuild it through discipline. While preserving the mobilization generated by populism, Magyar aims to rebuild the institutional and economic foundations eroded by Orbán. In this respect, Magyar represents a more refined, accountable, and enduring version of post-liberalism. He seeks to reinforce this by upholding the same social sensitivities through the rule of law, institutional balance, and economic rationality.

U

.S. President Donald Trump arrives in China this week facing mounting political and economic pressure at home, with analysts saying he now needs cooperation from Chinese President Xi Jinping more than ever as the war with Iran weighs on his presidency.

The May 14-15 summit in Beijing marks the first major face-to-face talks between the two leaders since they agreed last October to pause an escalating trade war that had shaken global markets. Expectations for the meeting, however, are far lower than during Trump’s earlier confrontations with Beijing, when he promised sweeping tariffs would force China into major concessions.

Instead of broad economic victories, analysts expect only limited agreements focused on agricultural exports, aircraft sales and mechanisms to manage future trade disputes. According to officials involved in preparations for the summit, it remains uncertain whether Washington and Beijing will even extend their fragile trade truce.

Political analysts say the shift reflects how Trump’s hardline strategy has struggled to produce clear gains. Alejandro Reyes, a professor specializing in Chinese foreign policy at the University of Hong Kong, said Trump is now searching for a foreign policy success that could restore confidence in his leadership.

“Trump kind of needs China more than China needs him,” Reyes said, arguing that the U.S. president wants to show voters he can stabilize international affairs rather than deepen global tensions.

The summit will include high-profile ceremonial events in Beijing, including meetings at the Great Hall of the People, a visit to the Temple of Heaven and a state banquet. Trump will also be accompanied by a delegation of American business leaders, including executives from Tesla and Apple, although the group is reportedly smaller than during his 2017 China visit.

Iran war reshapes Trump’s priorities

The ongoing conflict with Iran has become a central factor shaping Trump’s diplomatic agenda. Reuters reported that the president hopes China can use its influence with Tehran to help secure a deal that could reduce tensions and eventually end the war.

China remains one of Iran’s most important economic partners and continues to purchase significant amounts of Iranian oil despite Western pressure. Beijing has also maintained diplomatic relations with Tehran throughout the conflict.

The war has increasingly become a political liability for Trump. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that more than 60% of Americans disapprove of his handling of the Iran conflict, amid concerns over rising energy prices and growing instability in the Middle East.

At the same time, Beijing appears positioned to demand concessions in return for any cooperation over Iran. Analysts say China’s top priority remains Taiwan, the self-governing island claimed by Beijing.

Chinese officials and policy advisers are expected to push Trump to reaffirm opposition to Taiwanese independence and avoid actions that could strengthen Taipei diplomatically or militarily. Even subtle changes in Washington’s language on Taiwan could raise concerns among U.S. allies across Asia about America’s long-term commitments in the region.

Trade tensions remain unresolved

Despite the temporary tariff truce reached last year, major trade disputes between the world’s two largest economies remain unresolved.

China has expanded its economic leverage in recent months, particularly through tighter controls on rare earth exports — materials critical for electric vehicles, semiconductors and military equipment. Beijing has also introduced laws designed to punish foreign companies that relocate supply chains away from China.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to face legal and political challenges over its tariff policies. U.S. courts have questioned aspects of Trump’s trade measures, weakening the administration’s negotiating position ahead of the Beijing summit.

China is reportedly seeking guarantees that Washington will avoid imposing new technology restrictions and may push for the rollback of existing controls targeting advanced chipmaking equipment and memory chips.

Some analysts believe the most realistic outcome of the summit is simply maintaining stable relations and avoiding another escalation in trade tensions.

Scott Kennedy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies described the likely result as “a superficial ceasefire that is largely to China’s advantage.”

Still, for Trump, even a limited diplomatic success could help counter growing criticism over the Iran war and demonstrate that his administration remains capable of managing increasingly complex global crises.

(Source: Reuters)

W

hile nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran were ongoing, the U.S.-Israel-Iran War began with Israel’s attack on Iran, which received a green light from Trump. This attack occurred just as it had on June 13, 2025, and continued with U.S. participation. For the time being, the war has come to an end with the 15-day ceasefire declared on April 8. This ceasefire occurred because Iran administration survived despite the human casualties and damage to its infrastructure in the war. Iran simultaneously struck Israel with ballistic missiles, spreading the war to Gulf states and closing the Strait of Hormuz. Iran achieved a relative balance of power. One of the reasons for the ceasefire on the US side is Trump’s unwillingness to bear further costs.

Shortly after the ceasefire was declared on April 8, the U.S. and Iranian negotiation delegations met in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. They left Islamabad without reaching an agreement due to failing to find common ground on the conditions put forward by both sides. However, they did agree to maintain the ceasefire. However, both sides declared their resolve to return to war should no agreement be reached.

While both the US and Iran appear to agree on not prolonging the 40-day war, Israel—which initiated the war and drew the US into it—does not want to end the war or see an agreement between the US and Iran. This is because Israel has yet to achieve its objectives against Iran. Although Israel has stated that it will comply with the ceasefire, its approach to the process has unfortunately rendered the ceasefire exceedingly fragile. Israel’s stance complicates any potential agreement requiring the US to act contrary to Israel’s interests and concerns.

Just as Israel has pitted the US against Iran through its sustained campaign over the years, it does not wish for this war to end without securing maximum benefit from the situation. In other words, it wants to bring about internal turmoil or regime change that would lead to Iran’s fragmentation. To this end, Israel is attempting to poison the negotiations and render any potential agreement impossible by utilizing all its influence and power over the US administration.

Israel’s negative stance toward ceasefires is not limited to those between the U.S. and Iran. In fact, even the ceasefire with Lebanon, secured under US pressure, holds no significance for Israel. While appearing to have reached an agreement with Lebanon, Israel continues its attacks under the pretext of Hezbollah. Consequently, it is evident that Israel cannot accept ceasefires in Iran and Lebanon and is therefore trying to break them and return to war.

This study will examine Israel’s attempts to undermine ceasefires in the region separately for the Iranian and Lebanese fronts. In the conclusion, an attempt will be made to explain what Israel aims to achieve through these moves.

Israel’s approach to the ceasefire between the US and Iran

The justifications Israel cited for initiating the war against Iran are the same as those it is now citing to violate the ceasefire and, if possible, prevent an agreement from being reached. Yet, over the course of the 40-day war, it has become clear that nearly all of the claims Israel made regarding the Iranian regime were false.

Most notably, the claims that Iran was on the verge of possessing a nuclear weapon were baseless. This reinforces the argument that Israel made this claim solely to initiate the conflict. Claims that the Iranian people would not support the regime and that the regime would collapse if the religious leader were killed have also been proven false. It has also come to light that Israel deceived Trump on this matter.

However, despite all these facts, Israel continues to demonize Iran by claiming that it has the potential to acquire nuclear weapons and plans to eliminate first Israel, then the United States, and rest of West; in doing so, it seeks to prevent the establishment of mutual trust and to block any agreement with what it portrays as such an “enemy of civilization.”

Israel has done more than circulate these narratives to undermine the ceasefire. It has also pressured Trump and his administration through the Jewish lobby in the U.S. While doing so, Israel has enlisted the support of Jewish senators and members of the House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress, including senators like Lindsey Graham, who is funded by the Jewish lobby. Israel has used these tactics to persuade Trump to break the ceasefire and return to war.

Israel’s most significant assets in sabotaging negotiations with Iran have been Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, both of whom were part of the U.S. negotiating delegation. Both of these Jewish figures have close ties to the Israeli government and Netanyahu. As with the process of securing the ceasefire in Gaza, this pair relayed all discussions to Netanyahu and took no steps without his approval. Following the February 26 negotiations, Witkoff stated that “everything was on track and we could now move on to technical matters.” However, after the outbreak of war on February 28, he attempted to exonerate Israel, which initiated the war, by spreading the lie that “the Iranian delegation threatened them by claiming to possess 400 kilograms of enriched uranium and the ability to produce at least 11 nuclear bombs during the final negotiations,” thereby seeking to legitimize the war.

For this reason, the Iranian side announced that they would not accept Witkoff as head of the U.S. negotiating delegation and preferred Vice President J.D. Vance instead. Consequently, Vance chaired the negotiations in Islamabad. However, Israel did not remain idle during this process. According to media reports, Vance spoke with Netanyahu by telephone during the negotiations to convey Iran’s proposals. The negotiations stalled due to Netanyahu’s negative stance.

As can be seen, while Israel seeks to both undermine the ceasefire and prevent a potential agreement by portraying Iran as an unreliable actor, on the other hand, through its mouthpieces in the U.S. media, it has published analyses claiming that the ceasefire was a mistake, that an agreement with Iran would strengthen Iran and damage U.S. prestige, and that the best option is for the U.S. to bring Iran to heel through the use of force. Not content with this, Israel has sought to influence the U.S. public and exert pressure on the Trump administration’s decisions by mobilizing all institutions of the Jewish lobby.

The impossible ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon

Although the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, which began on November 27, 2024, is technically still in place, it is highly unlikely to be upheld due to Hezbollah’s involvement in the conflict on Iran’s behalf since March 2. Israel had also frequently violated the ceasefire, carrying out attacks—particularly in Beirut’s Dahiye district and southern regions beyond the Litani River—under the pretext of targeting Hezbollah. However, with Hezbollah’s intervention in the war, the ceasefire has officially ceased to exist.

From March 2 until the 10-day ceasefire was announced on April 17 following talks held on April 14 under U.S. facilitation and hosting, Israel used Hezbollah as usual and, following the ground operation that began on March 16, established an 8–10-kilometer buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Consequently, by the time the ceasefire took effect, Israel had occupied approximately % 6 of Lebanese territory and refused to allow the return of Lebanese civilians forcibly evacuated from the area.

One of the preconditions for the ceasefire between the US and Iran was that Israel cease its attacks on Lebanon. However, due to Israel’s continued attacks, the Lebanon issue was deemed outside the scope of the US-Iran ceasefire. Nevertheless, at Trump’s insistence, the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors were brought together in Washington to declare a ceasefire. Trump then prohibited Israel from attacking Lebanon. Although Israel did not take this ban seriously, Iran’s demand was ultimately met.

However, since the Lebanese government and army were unable to disarm Hezbollah as assigned under the ceasefire, Israel continues its attacks on the pretext that the necessary conditions have not been met.

Despite these setbacks, on April 24, before the ceasefire period expired, the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors met again in Washington under the leadership of U.S. Secretary of State Rubio. At a ceremony attended by Trump and Vance, they announced that the ceasefire had been extended for an additional three weeks more.

While the continuation of the ceasefire is positive, Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory persists, and Hezbollah has stated that it will continue to fight Israel. Thus, the ceasefire appears likely to remain on paper only. Indeed, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has stated that Lebanon will not agree to a final settlement unless Israel ends its occupation of Lebanese territory. Meanwhile, it has been leaked to the media that Trump plans to sign a peace agreement in Washington within approximately a month, with Netanyahu and Lebanese President Aoun in attendance. However, as long as Israel continues to attack Lebanon and attempt to provoke a civil war by pitting Hezbollah against other ethnic and sectarian groups, this seems unlikely to materialize.

Consequently, since Israel has not yet achieved its objectives regarding Iran, it is trying to undermine the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran to keep the war going. Although Israel appears to have agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon on paper, it is continuing its attacks under the pretext of Hezbollah. Israel is also attempting to establish a permanent presence in the territories it has occupied. As long as Israel maintains its current policy, neither a ceasefire nor lasting peace in the region will be possible.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

I

n late April, Istanbul hosted the Muslim Impact Forum, bringing together political figures, civil society leaders, and organisations from across dozens of countries. Framed as a platform for collaboration, the forum aimed to confront a recurring challenge: how can a fragmented global Muslim landscape respond more effectively to shared political, social, and humanitarian pressures?

It is a question that has become increasingly urgent. From ongoing conflicts in parts of the Muslim world to rising anti-Muslim sentiment in Western societies, the pressures are both external and internal. Against this backdrop, the forum positioned itself not simply as a space for dialogue, but as an attempt to build coordination.

The presence of senior Turkish officials reflected an effort to bridge political leadership with civil society initiatives. Mehmet Şimşek, Türkiye’s Minister of Treasury and Finance, set a high-level tone for the assembly by framing the current geopolitical turbulence as a “new normal” defined by polarization and trade fragmentation.

The macro-vision: Regional integration and the trust deficit

For Şimşek, the solution to this global instability is structural and proactive. “Can we invest in regional integration as an antidote against fragmentation?” he asked, highlighting that the world is currently suffering from a significant “trust deficit”. By positioning Türkiye as a mediator and an advocate for new trade and energy corridors, Şimşek’s address provided the macroeconomic framework for the forum’s goals: transforming sectarian and ethnic diversity into a “source of richness” rather than a cause for “perpetual conflict”.

Yet the central question remains: can such gatherings move beyond conversation? In an interview on the sidelines of the forum, Humza Yousaf, former First Minister of Scotland, framed the moment in stark terms. “Forums like this are needed now more than ever before,” he said, pointing to the “extremely difficult situations” facing Muslim communities globally.

“How do we use all of the energy, talent, money and expertise that we have as a collective Ummah, not just to solve our problems, but to make the world better for all of humanity?” For Yousaf, the issue is not a lack of capacity, but a failure to act collectively. The distinction matters: representation alone does not guarantee impact. Without access to decision-making power, presence can remain symbolic.

That diagnosis was echoed by Aazim Kidwai, director of the forum, who described fragmentation as the defining challenge. “We see Muslims fragmented. We see organizations all doing their own thing,” he said. Rather than proposing new structures, the forum’s approach is to connect existing actors, on the assumption that cooperation is already possible, but not yet realized.

The Internal Architecture: Dismantling Ego and Fear

At the core of this approach is a simple but often elusive concept: trust. While Minister Şimşek identified the “trust deficit” as a global barrier, Kidwai noted its impact on an organizational level: “When people have trust, then they sign up to work together”. Partnerships announced during the forum were presented as early steps in that direction, though the durability of such initiatives remains shaped by competing interests and institutional rivalries.

If fragmentation is widely acknowledged, its causes are less often addressed openly. Kidwai pointed to two factors that repeatedly undermine cooperation: ego and fear. “Organisations often want to retain things in their own name… their own brand,” he said. “And there’s also fear, that if they step back, someone else will take over”.

These are not purely organisational issues. They reflect deeper structural dynamics—competition for visibility, funding, and influence—that shape how institutions operate. Yousaf added that to overcome these, “We have to encourage excellence in our young people… to take leadership positions with confidence”.

The significance of the forum will ultimately be measured not by the prestige of its attendees, but by its follow-through. Grand visions of “Middle Corridors” and high-tech integration are essential, yet they remain fragile blueprints. The real test is whether the partnerships announced in Istanbul can survive the transition from the conference hall to the boardroom. The Muslim Impact Forum reflects a growing, urgent awareness that isolated responses are no longer sufficient in a polarized world. However, as the insights from Yousaf and Kidwai suggest, the “skeleton” of infrastructure cannot move without a nervous system of trust.

If global Muslim leadership is to move from conversation to coordination, it must do more than build roads and railways; it must dismantle the internal architecture of ego and fear. Only then can the “trust deficit” be bridged, turning a moment of dialogue into a movement of impact.

T

he five-month political deadlock in Iraq, which had persisted since the November 2025 elections, ended on 27 April 2026 with the announcement of a surprise candidate. The country’s largest parliamentary bloc, the Shiite Coordination Framework, nominated 41-year-old businessman Ali al-Zeydi as its candidate for prime minister, and Iraqi President Nizar Amedi officially tasked Zeydi with forming the new government. Zeydi, a figure with no political background who is seen as a ‘technocratic consensus figure’, has reignited both internal balances and the dynamics along the Washington–Tehran axis. The young prime ministerial candidate is expected to present his cabinet to parliament within 30 days.

The quota system in the shadow of crises

In Iraq, the process of forming a government has traditionally been fraught with difficulties due to the ethnic-sectarian quota system known as ‘Muhasasa’, which has been in place since the US invasion of 2003. Under this system, the presidency is allocated to the Kurds, the speakership of parliament to the Sunnis and the premiership to the Shia Arabs, despite this not being enshrined in the constitution. However, this power-sharing arrangement, particularly when combined with competition between factions within the Shia bloc and the interventions of external actors, can lead to governance vacuums lasting several months.

A similar scenario emerged during the latest crisis following the November 2025 elections. Rivalry between former prime minister Nuri al-Maliki and incumbent prime minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani brought the process to a standstill. This deadlock was only resolved when both figures withdrew their candidacies in the national interest and reached a consensus on Ali al-Zeydi, a non-political figure. Zeydi’s candidacy was approved by the majority of leaders within the Coordination Framework, thereby becoming the will of parliament’s largest bloc.

Portrait of a young businessman: who is Ali al-Zeydi?

Born in Baghdad in 1986, Ali al-Zeydi is the youngest prime ministerial candidate in Iraqi history. He studied law and finance and completed a master’s degree in banking and finance. Notably, he has never previously held any political office or served in government.

Prior to entering politics, he was a wealthy businessman at the helm of major conglomerates such as the Al-Owais Group and National Holding, spanning 15 sectors including agriculture, property, energy, logistics, education, and healthcare. Furthermore, his management of major contracts supplying food to the Iraqi army, as well as his educational investments, including Al-Shaab University, demonstrate the extent of his economic influence. However, Zeydi’s profile is not without controversy. The South Islamic Bank, of which he is chairman of the board, was subjected to sanctions in 2024 at the request of the US Treasury Department due to suspicions of money laundering and dollar smuggling. The bank was also barred from conducting dollar transactions. Some analysts have criticised this situation as an attempt to normalise and sweep under the carpet the ongoing major corruption investigations in Iraq.

Zeydi’s candidacy is seen as an attempt to maintain balance between Nuri al-Maliki and Muhammad Shia al-Sudani within the Coordination Framework. Zeydi is known to have close ties with the incumbent Prime Minister, Sudani, and his cousin, Ziya al-Zeydi, is a parliamentarian from Sudani’s coalition. This raises the question of whether Zeydi is an extension of the current system.

Nevertheless, Zeydi’s name has also been well received by other key political figures. In addition to the leaders of the Kurdish KDP and KYB parties, the Sunni Azm, Siyada and Taqaddum alliances have also congratulated Zeydi and issued messages of support. Shortly after his appointment, Zeydi met with Sunni leaders and promised to establish a government that would represent all Iraqis.

The Approach of the US, Iran and other powers

One of the key figures involved in the process was US President Donald Trump. As is well known, Trump firmly vetoed Nuri al-Maliki, the Shiite bloc’s first choice and a figure known for his close ties to Iran, threatening to cut off all support for Iraq should Maliki become prime minister. This pressure from Washington forced the Coordination Framework to back down, prompting it to reconsider its options for prime ministerial candidates.

However, Trump openly supported Zeydi’s candidacy, posting a message on Truth Social reading “Congratulations, Ali!” and inviting him to Washington once he had formed the government. This apparent green light from the US appears to be conditional on Zeydi forming a government that maintains a ‘distance from Iran’. Meanwhile, the Tehran administration initially remained silent, but Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arakchi later congratulated Zeydi, stating that they supported Iraq’s stability. Political circles are also discussing whether Zeydi’s appointment might be the result of a “mysterious” agreement between Washington and Tehran regarding Iraq, as has been the case in all prime ministerial selection processes since 2003, or whether it is a temporary step back by Iran to avoid sanctions.

One of the key figures involved in the process was US President Donald Trump. As is well known, Trump firmly vetoed Nuri al-Maliki, the Shiite bloc’s first choice and a figure known for his close ties to Iran, threatening to cut off all support for Iraq should Maliki become prime minister. This pressure from Washington forced the Coordination Framework to back down, prompting it to reconsider its options for prime ministerial candidates.

Ali al-Zeydi’s appointment to form a government has received widespread support, both within and beyond the US and Iran. In its congratulatory message, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasised the deep historical ties between the two countries and expressed a desire to develop strategic institutional cooperation further in the coming period. During a telephone conversation, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari congratulated Zeydi and they discussed the development of bilateral relations and Pakistan’s role in reducing regional tensions. Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Abu Ghait welcomed the appointment, expressing hope that the new government would fulfill the Iraqi people’s aspirations for security and prosperity.

Leaders of many Arab countries, including Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Lebanon, also telephoned al-Zeydi to offer their personal congratulations. The European Union (EU) Delegation to Iraq and British Ambassador to Baghdad, Irfan Siddiq, stated that they viewed the appointment positively and emphasized that they would continue to support Iraq’s reform, peace and development process.

The challenging process ahead for Zeydi

Securing a vote of confidence from an absolute majority of the 329-seat parliament within the 30-day legal timeframe is Ali al-Zeydi’s greatest test on the path to becoming Prime Minister. Should Zeydi succeed in forming a government, the economic crisis will be the first of many challenges he will face. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the disruption of oil exports due to tensions between the US, Israel and Iran have already severely impacted Iraq’s struggling economy.

Corruption and security issues constitute another major crisis awaiting Zeydi. Combating deep-rooted corruption and addressing the future of Shia militia groups (Hashd al-Shaabi), which operate outside the army’s full control, are among the most sensitive issues facing the new government. Political stability is another area where it remains to be seen whether Zeydi will be able to succeed, given that Iraq has been unable to achieve it for years. After all, it is unclear how influential figures such as Muqtada al-Sadr will react to this process.

Some predict that, should Zeydi fail to form a government, the Coordination Framework could propose new candidates to buy time, while others suggest that the country could be drawn into a cycle of early elections. Ultimately, it will become clear in the coming weeks whether this ‘rejuvenation’ operation in Baghdad constitutes genuine reform or merely a tactical manoever, depending on the nature of the cabinet to be formed.

This article was originally published by Middle East Africa in Turkish.

A

planned withdrawal of 5,000 US troops from Germany may appear limited in scale, but analysts warn it reflects a far broader challenge confronting NATO and European security.

The decision, announced by Donald Trump, comes amid escalating tensions between Washington and its European allies. Disputes over tariffs, disagreements on support for Ukraine, and sharp rhetoric surrounding the Iran conflict have deepened divisions across the Atlantic alliance.

The troop reduction follows criticism from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who accused the United States of mishandling tensions with Iran. In response, Trump signaled not only the withdrawal from Germany but also hinted at possible reductions in other European countries, including Italy and Spain.

Spain has already refused US requests to use its bases for operations linked to the Iran conflict, while Trump criticized both countries for what he described as insufficient support.

For years, Trump has argued that Europe relies too heavily on US military protection, frequently singling out Germany for failing to meet defense spending expectations.

A shift in US priorities

Despite the planned reduction, Germany still hosts tens of thousands of US troops, far fewer than during the Cold War, when troop levels reached around 250,000.

Officials in Washington suggest the shift reflects a broader strategic pivot. According to Pentagon leadership, the US intends to focus on regions where its military power is uniquely decisive, particularly in Asia and the Western Hemisphere.

European leaders, however, view the move as a sign of weakening commitment. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned that internal divisions now pose a greater threat to the alliance than external adversaries.

The withdrawal highlights Europe’s long-standing dependence on US military support, even as threats from Russia persist.

In response, key nations, including France, United Kingdom, and Germany, have pledged to significantly increase defense spending. Projections suggest European defense budgets could nearly double by 2030.

Yet financial investment alone may not be enough.

Europe’s defense industry remains fragmented, with multiple countries producing competing systems rather than coordinating efforts. This lack of integration drives up costs and slows development. For example, Europe manufactures several types of battle tanks, while the US focuses on a single main model, improving efficiency and scale.

Joint defense projects have also struggled. A high-profile effort between France and Germany to develop next-generation fighter jets has faced repeated delays due to disagreements over leadership and design priorities.

Capability gaps and strategic risks

One of the most urgent concerns is missile defense. European systems currently lack the scale and sophistication of US platforms such as Patriot and THAAD systems, which have been heavily deployed in recent conflicts.

At the same time, the Pentagon has canceled plans to deploy additional long-range missile units to Europe, further widening capability gaps.

The European Union is attempting to address these vulnerabilities by encouraging member states to source more defense equipment domestically. By 2030, at least half of defense procurement is expected to remain within the EU.

However, transitioning away from US systems presents risks, particularly as global demand for weapons increases amid ongoing conflicts.

A crossroads for NATO

Europe now faces a strategic choice. A faster path to rearmament would rely on continued US cooperation, but that depends on trust that appears increasingly strained.

The alternative is a slower, more independent route requiring greater spending, deeper industrial integration, and political willingness to pool sovereignty, an objective that has long proved elusive.

Despite the challenges, there are signs of progress. Defense companies such as Saab, Rheinmetall, and BAE Systems report record demand, while newer NATO members Sweden and Finland have rapidly integrated into the alliance.

Still, the withdrawal of 5,000 troops underscores a critical reality: Europe’s security architecture is entering a period of transition, with uncertain implications for the future of transatlantic cooperation.

(Source: CNN)

M

odern international law has aimed to re-establish the conscience of humanity through the normative framework constructed in the aftermath of the Second World War. However, this legal architecture is a fragile structure built upon historical traumas. Beneath this structure lies a deep fissure: the dark past that Western civilization has been unable to confront. Whilst the Holocaust originally functioned as an ethical wound at the heart of this past, its role has shifted over time; it has moved away from its function of remembrance to become a mechanism of repression. This form of collective repression, conceptualized by Carl Gustav Jung as the ‘shadow’ archetype, is becoming increasingly visible today as international law effectively loses its efficacy.

Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious and archetypes analyses the irrational layers of individuals and societies. Human beings are not confined to the level of rational consciousness; they exist alongside myths, symbols and repressed shadows. States act in a similar manner. The superficial language of international law is losing its determinative power; archetypal images are becoming the guiding force. In the case of Israel, the ‘victim archetype’ arising from the collective pain of the Holocaust is transforming into a ‘shadow archetype’ that demands absolute inviolability and derives legitimacy through violence. The Holocaust continues to be one of the most shattering collective traumas residing in humanity’s collective unconscious.

However, this trauma is gradually stripped of its meaning and reduced to the mechanism Jung termed “psychic compensation”. Repressed trauma returns in various forms within the unconscious. According to Jung, every repressed element inevitably emerges as the “shadow”. Israel does not merely limit itself to making the collective pain of the Holocaust a component of its founding identity; it sanctifies this identity, transforming it into a shield of inviolability. When assessed within the framework of Jung’s concept of the “persona”, Israel’s “victim” persona takes on the nature of an artificial mask; the shadow beneath it, with its perpetrator-like qualities, is becoming visible in Gaza.

The victim mask

Benjamin Netanyahu’s political persona aligns with Jung’s “arrogant shadow” archetype. This archetype arises from the fusion of repressed insecurities and the illusion of legitimacy produced by collective myths. Netanyahu does not content himself with positioning himself as an ordinary statesman; he presents himself as a figure imbued with historical and sacred significance. This narcissistic persona interacts with the collective unconscious, fostering irrational loyalty. The psychic intensity of the sacred—which Jung defined as the ‘numinous experience’—becomes evident here.

When this intensity finds no counterpart at the level of consciousness, it generates sacred wrath, fanaticism and, ultimately, anarchy. The elevation of the Holocaust to a sacred status immune to criticism generates violence through this very sanctity. The sanctity of the victim transforms into the legitimacy for creating new victims. This situation is explained within the framework of Jung’s principle of ‘enantiodromia’: every phenomenon turns into its opposite. The victim becomes the perpetrator; violence is perpetrated in the name of the sacred. This transformation transcends the boundaries of legal analysis. The driving forces do not operate on a rational plane; they possess mythological and archetypal qualities.

Today, international law is not limited to examining the actions and conduct of states; it must also take into account the collective unconscious archetypes that shape these acts. The sanctification of the Holocaust, the re-production of Israel as a perpetrator under the guise of a victim, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s personalisation of this unconscious mythology raise questions about the psycho-political foundations of international legitimacy. Jus cogens norms lose their effectiveness to the extent that they cannot cope with the repressed shadows of the collective unconscious.

In this situation, the future of law becomes vulnerable to the influence of myths. Myths do not dispense justice; they generate loyalty and anger. At this point, the law falls silent. Unconscious mythologies, enemy images and sacred missions are becoming decisive. Jung’s warning is clear: politics that surrenders to the mythological unconscious produces destructive results. This transformation is clearly observable in the case of Netanyahu. The victim identity is transforming into an inherent power within the perpetrator; jus cogens norms remain ineffective in the face of this irrational structure.

The mask of law

This unconscious process is becoming particularly visible through the actions in Gaza. These actions transcend the boundaries of conventional security policy; they manifest as ritualised violence stemming from collective trauma. Israel constructs its founding myth upon the Holocaust and transforms this myth into the absolute foundation of its political legitimacy. This foundation is becoming sacrosanct. The irrefutability of the Holocaust is transforming into a dogma that criminalizes criticism.

This dogmatic structure determines the political stances of the West. Rather than confronting historical responsibility, European states sanctify the trauma, rendering it untouchable. From a Freudian perspective, this situation is assessed as a masochistic tendency towards guilt. In the case of Germany, historical guilt is transforming into an irrational dependency that influences current political decisions. Like societies that deny Jung’s ‘shadow’, these states are forming a covert alliance with darkness.

At this point, Roger Garaudy’s analyses take on significance. In his work Israel, Myths and Terror, Garaudy examines the political instrumentalization of modern myths. The transformation of the Holocaust from a historical catastrophe into a sacred symbol is regarded as a harbinger of a new form of fascism. This new form operates through sanctified myths rather than military force. Israel stands as the principal beneficiary of this process. The fusion of sanctity with fascist nationalism silences the language of justice and subjects the law to dogma.

International law and crimes

International law does not operate independently of this structure. Clear war crimes such as the targeting of civilians in Gaza, the killing of children and the obstruction of basic humanitarian needs are disappearing into a legal silence. This silence bears the nature of a manifestation of the unconscious. Jung’s concept of the ‘collective shadow’ explains modern civilization’s inability to confront its own barbarism.

Israel is reproducing the trauma it suffered in the past from the position of the perpetrator. In this context, the rising student movements in Western universities represent a form of ethical resistance. These movements embody, in Jung’s words, the courage to confront the shadow. The mask of the myth is being torn away, and the sanctification of trauma is being challenged. This action possesses an ethical quality. Nurettin Topçu’s concept of the “Ethics of Rebellion” offers a powerful theoretical framework to explain this situation: the moral struggle of the self that sacrifices itself for the sake of truth.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

H

ow is the Ukraine-Russia War going? Who has suffered what losses? Which country is in the stronger position? Is Russia close to victory? Is Ukraine definitely losing? So many years have passed since the war began, and we still do not know…

There is a war between the US-Israel coalition and Iran; what is the situation for each side? How heavy are America’s losses? What is the situation in Israel? Is Iran losing? What is the capacity of the parties to continue the war? Ismail Kaani; has he betrayed Iran, been executed, fled to Israel, or is he still in his post in his country and fighting? Who attacked the girls’ school in Iran? Why are Trump and his team now denying the attack they initially admitted to? Did Iran fire missiles at neighbouring countries, or is it all a Mossad ploy to expand the front?

Once again, attempts are being made to sow seeds of discord between Turkey and Azerbaijan. There is a desire for the war to spread to encompass all countries in the region, and disinformation is being churned out ceaselessly.

It is possible to extend these events and questions to all wars and conflicts. But is it ever possible to obtain the true answers in all their stark reality?

The battle for communication during war

Our region has long been shaped by intense geopolitical tensions, wars, conflicts, proxy wars, civil wars and various forms of inter-state competition. One of the most fundamental challenges facing the public during such periods is the issue of access to reliable information. In an environment where conflicts are taking place, a significant portion of the news, images and commentary circulating are often not merely neutral accounts of events; they are also fragments of information produced, selected, framed or distorted in line with specific strategic objectives.

This situation is directly linked to the nature of modern warfare. This is because contemporary wars involve not only battles fought on physical fronts—such as space, air, land and sea—where military units confront one another, but also a comprehensive communication struggle aimed at shaping public perceptions.

In this context, the information domain has become just as significant as the military dimension of war. States, armed groups, intelligence services, international actors and, in some cases, even private communications companies seek to influence the production and circulation of information in conflict environments. The primary aim of these efforts extends far beyond merely influencing rival military forces; it targets a much broader audience.

Various objectives, such as undermining the morale of rival societies, boosting the morale of one’s own society, gaining the support of the international public, generating diplomatic legitimacy, and obscuring military failures, lie at the heart of these communication activities. Consequently, a significant portion of the information circulating during wartime functions as strategic communication tools.

Historically, it is evident that propaganda and psychological operations have been an integral part of modern states’ war strategies. Propaganda bureaus established in Europe and America during the First World War developed systematic communication techniques to mobilise public opinion. During this process, the communication tools of the era—such as newspapers, posters, cinema and radio—were utilised extensively. Subsequently, during the Second World War and the Cold War, propaganda techniques became even more institutionalised, and states’ communication strategies became an integral part of military doctrine. Today, digital communication technologies have made this process far more complex and rapid.

The impact of evolving communication

The emergence of social media platforms, in particular, has dramatically increased the speed and volume of information circulation during times of war. Whilst information reaches the public via specific editorial processes in traditional media systems, these filtering mechanisms appear to have weakened significantly in the digital environment. Social media algorithms operate not according to criteria of accuracy or reliability, but according to the logic of the ‘attention economy’. This leads to content that is emotionally striking, dramatic or provokes anger spreading much more rapidly. Consequently, the flow of information the public faces during periods of war is not only intense but also highly irregular and difficult to verify.

Another significant reason for the spread of false or distorted information in conflict environments is military secrecy and information control. A significant portion of actual data regarding military operations is naturally classified or restricted. States do not share operational details for security reasons, and the information presented to the public is often filtered to some extent. This situation creates a breeding ground for speculation to fill the gaps. At the same time, the parties to the conflict may be inclined to exaggerate their own successes, inflate their opponents’ losses, or downplay their own losses. Such rhetorical strategies have been frequently observed throughout military history and have become far more visible with the advent of modern communication technologies.

The development of digital technologies has also significantly expanded the technical scope of information manipulation. Image editing software, AI-assisted video production techniques, and visual material taken out of context have introduced new tools that make it difficult to assess the accuracy of war reporting. For example, footage from an old conflict may be presented as evidence of a new incident, or a video filmed in a different geographical location may be linked entirely to a different event. When such content spreads rapidly, particularly on social media, it can provoke strong emotional reactions among the public. However, subsequent verification efforts may reveal that the context of this content is incorrect.

Today, many people believe they are watching wars almost in real time. Footage shot on mobile phones, social media posts and live news feeds create the impression that conflicts are being followed directly and without interruption. Yet this is largely an illusion. The content the public sees is often narratives produced about the events rather than the events themselves. These narratives are presented within specific frames and lead the viewer to perceive the event from a particular perspective. Consequently, there is a significant difference between the war itself and the way it is represented in the media.

It is observed that narratives produced during periods of conflict generally take shape around specific patterns. Whilst narratives of heroism and resistance are highlighted on one side, themes of victimhood and human drama may be emphasised on the other. Furthermore, discourses portraying the opposing side as entirely irrational, barbaric or inhuman are also widely used. Such narrative patterns may be repeated in state propaganda apparatus, individual social media posts and the news language of certain media organisations. This is because people often find it easier to accept and share information that aligns with their own identities, political views, or emotional inclinations.

Information in times of war

Under all these conditions, the fundamental problem faced by ordinary citizens is an epistemological one. In other words, the issue is not merely knowing which information is true, but understanding how to access accurate information. In conflict zones, it is often impossible to arrive at absolute truths. Obtaining definitive information regarding military developments, diplomatic negotiations and the actual situation on the ground usually takes time. The true scale of many events may only become apparent months or years later. For this reason, it is important to avoid definitive judgements and to develop a certain intellectual caution when approaching information during times of war.

To make a more informed assessment of information in such an environment, certain methods can be employed. Firstly, comparing different sources is of great importance. Relying on a single media source can lead to a significant narrowing of perspective, particularly when international conflicts are involved. Comparing news reports from media organizations in different countries allows one to see how events are presented within different frameworks. Furthermore, reports from independent research institutions, academic analyses and open-source intelligence studies can also assist in making a more balanced assessment.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

T

he United States has spent an estimated $25 billion on its war in Iran so far, according to a senior Pentagon official, marking the first official public figure for the cost of the conflict.

Jules Hurst, acting comptroller at the Pentagon, disclosed the figure during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. He noted that the majority of the spending has gone toward munitions but did not provide a detailed breakdown or clarify whether the estimate includes long-term costs such as rebuilding damaged military infrastructure in the Middle East.

The figure drew a response from Democratic Representative Adam Smith, who said lawmakers had long been seeking clarity on the war’s financial toll. The $25 billion total is roughly equivalent to the annual budget of NASA.

War spending fuels economic and political concerns

The cost of the war is becoming a growing political issue in Washington, particularly with midterm elections approaching. Democrats are attempting to tie the conflict to rising living costs, as disruptions to global oil and gas supplies have driven up fuel prices and contributed to broader inflation.

U.S. gasoline prices have reached their highest level in nearly four years, according to industry data, adding to voter frustration over affordability.

President Donald Trump’s approval ratings have also declined amid the conflict. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows only 34% of Americans support the war, a drop from 38% in March.

Pentagon defends war as ceasefire holds

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the war effort, arguing that the spending is justified to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“What would you pay to ensure Iran does not get a nuclear bomb?” he told lawmakers, dismissing criticism from Democrats as defeatist.

The conflict began on February 28 with U.S. strikes on Iran. Although a fragile ceasefire is currently in place, the Pentagon has significantly increased its military presence in the region, including deploying three aircraft carriers.

So far, 13 U.S. troops have been killed and hundreds wounded in the fighting.

(Source: Reuters)

B

ulgaria’s Progressive Bulgaria coalition, led by former president Rumen Radev, was on course for a commanding victory in Sunday’s early parliamentary elections, according to near-final results released by the Central Election Commission (CEC) on Monday, raising the prospect of a single-party government in a country plagued by years of political instability.

With 87.2% of ballots counted as of 9:50 a.m. local time (0650 GMT), Progressive Bulgaria had secured 44.6% of the vote, maintaining a substantial lead over its rivals. The reformist We Continue the Change–Democratic Bulgaria coalition trailed in second place with 13.5%, narrowly ahead of the center-right GERB–SDS alliance, anchored by Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria, which stood at 13.3%.

The Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF), traditionally representing minority communities, garnered around 6.1%, while the nationalist Revival (Vazrazhdane) hovered just above the parliamentary threshold with approximately 4.4%.

A strong lead

Earlier preliminary results, based on a smaller share of counted votes, had already indicated a strong lead for Progressive Bulgaria, with support above 43%. Parallel vote counts conducted by polling agencies and reported by the state news agency BTA projected an even higher share nearing 45%, reinforcing expectations of a decisive outcome.

Seat projections based on partial results suggest Progressive Bulgaria could win around 134 seats in the 240-member National Assembly, comfortably surpassing the 121-seat threshold required to form a majority government. GERB–SDS and We Continue the Change–Democratic Bulgaria are projected to secure roughly 38 and 37 seats respectively, while MRF and Revival are expected to hold smaller blocs.

If confirmed, the result would mark a dramatic shift in Bulgaria’s political landscape, potentially ending a prolonged period of fragmentation that has seen the Balkan country hold eight parliamentary elections since 2021. Successive votes have failed to produce stable governing coalitions, leading to a cycle of short-lived administrations and caretaker governments appointed by the presidency.

Sunday’s election once again drew a crowded field, with 14 political parties and 10 alliances competing for seats. However, voter engagement remained subdued. The CEC reported turnout at just 34.63% as of 4:00 p.m. local time (1300 GMT) on election day, reflecting persistent public disillusionment with the political process.

Growing frustration with entrenched political elites

Analysts say Progressive Bulgaria’s surge reflects growing frustration with entrenched political elites and repeated governance failures. The coalition, which campaigned on promises of institutional reform, economic stability and a break from years of political deadlock, appears to have consolidated support across a broad segment of the electorate.

“The scale of this lead suggests voters are seeking a clear mandate and an end to the cycle of inconclusive elections,” said a Sofia-based political analyst. “Whether that translates into effective governance will depend on how the coalition manages internal cohesion and opposition pressure.”

Despite the strong showing, challenges remain. Bulgaria continues to grapple with economic disparities, corruption concerns and geopolitical pressures as a member of both the European Union and NATO. A decisive parliamentary majority could provide the political stability needed to pursue reforms, but expectations are likely to be high.

The CEC is required under Bulgarian law to announce final vote totals and the official seat distribution within four days of the election. The names of elected members of parliament must be published within seven days.

Until then, attention will remain focused on whether Progressive Bulgaria’s projected majority holds as the remaining ballots are counted. If it does, the result could mark the beginning of a new political chapter for Bulgaria after years of uncertainty and repeated trips to the polls.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

P

rominent left-leaning leaders from across the world are convening in Barcelona this weekend in a coordinated effort to strengthen progressive alliances and push back against the growing influence of far-right movements globally.

The gatherings are spearheaded by Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, and Brazil’s President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who are co-hosting a series of high-level meetings bringing together political leaders, activists, and civil society representatives.

The initiative, dubbed the “Global Progressive Mobilization,” aims to rally support for multilateralism, democratic institutions, and coordinated action on issues such as climate change and social inequality. Organizers say the meetings will culminate in a joint declaration outlining shared priorities and strategies.

The summit comes amid shifting global dynamics, including policy changes under U.S. President Donald Trump, whose administration’s cuts to humanitarian aid, military actions, and critical stance toward NATO have unsettled traditional alliances and prompted renewed debate over international cooperation.

Prominent leaders to attend

Several prominent leaders are expected to attend, including South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. Sheinbaum’s visit marks the first trip by a Mexican president to Spain since 2018, following years of diplomatic tensions related to historical grievances over Spain’s colonial legacy.

A parallel event organized by Spain’s ruling Socialist Party is set to draw around 3,000 participants, including current and former heads of state, hundreds of mayors, trade unions, and grassroots organizations. The two-day gathering will focus on mobilizing support for progressive policies and strengthening political networks across borders.

The meetings also reflect concerns among left-wing leaders following the rise of far-right parties in recent years, particularly after gains in the 2024 European Parliament elections. Organizers describe the Barcelona summit as a response to that trend, aiming to demonstrate that alternative political pathways remain viable.

International cooperation is important

Speaking ahead of the event, Sánchez emphasized the importance of international cooperation among progressive forces. “It is important that progressive parties and governments unite to show that there is something beyond domestic politics,” he said during a recent visit to China, where he met President Xi Jinping to discuss closer ties.

The summit follows recent political developments in Europe, including the electoral defeat of Hungarian nationalist leader Viktor Orbán, which Sánchez has pointed to as evidence that far-right momentum can be challenged.

Organizers say the overarching goal is to present a unified front against what they describe as “extreme right-wing movements” and to reinforce commitments to democratic governance and international collaboration.

The Barcelona meetings are expected to conclude with a joint statement from participating leaders, outlining coordinated efforts to address global challenges and strengthen progressive political movements worldwide.

(Source: Reuters)

S

lovenia’s newly appointed parliament speaker, Zoran Stevanović, has announced plans to hold a national referendum on whether the country should withdraw from NATO, signaling a potential shift in the country’s foreign and security policy.

Speaking to Slovenia’s public broadcaster RTVSLO, Stevanović said the vote would fulfill a campaign promise made by his political movement. “We promised the people a referendum on the issue of leaving NATO, and we will hold this referendum,” he said, emphasizing that the decision should ultimately rest with voters.

Stevanović, a leading figure in the anti-establishment Truth party, framed the proposal as part of a broader effort to reassert Slovenia’s sovereignty. He stressed that his position was not aligned with any foreign power, rejecting claims that his stance reflects pro-Russian sympathies. “I have no pro-Russian views, only pro-Slovenian ones,” he said. “Slovenia must conduct its policy independently and sovereignly.”

The speaker outlined a vision of foreign policy based on non-alignment and broad international cooperation. While advocating engagement with global powers, he cautioned against what he described as subordination to external interests. “Good relations with everyone, but in the interest of Slovenia,” he added.

Stevanović also indicated a desire to scale back Slovenia’s involvement in international conflicts, saying the country should avoid interference in foreign military and diplomatic disputes. “Slovenia never benefits from this,” he said, suggesting a more restrained approach to global engagement.

Moscow visit

In a move likely to draw attention among Western allies, Stevanović confirmed plans to travel to Moscow in the near future. He said the visit would aim to “build bridges” and promote dialogue despite growing geopolitical divisions between East and West.

The proposal to reconsider NATO membership comes at a time of heightened debate over the alliance’s future. Recent criticism from figures such as former U.S. President Donald Trump has added to questions about transatlantic unity, particularly amid ongoing geopolitical tensions and security challenges.

However, Stevanović appeared to draw a distinction between Slovenia’s NATO membership and its place in the European Union. He acknowledged that public support for leaving the EU is limited, noting that Slovenia continues to benefit from its membership in the bloc. This suggests that any push for a referendum would focus narrowly on NATO rather than a broader realignment away from European institutions.

In addition to the NATO proposal, Stevanović said his party intends to pursue other policy goals, including advocating for Slovenia’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization, further underscoring its critical stance toward international organizations.

Slovenia’s foreign policy

Stevanović’s rise to the speakership follows parliamentary elections in March that left liberal parties short of a majority. The outcome allowed a coalition of right-wing and smaller “kingmaker” parties, including the Truth party, to play a decisive role in shaping the country’s leadership.

Political analysts say the prospect of a NATO withdrawal referendum introduces a new level of uncertainty into Slovenia’s foreign policy. The country has been a member of the alliance since 2004 and has participated in various NATO missions and initiatives.

Any move to leave NATO would have significant implications for Slovenia’s security posture and its relationships with Western allies. It could also signal broader shifts within European politics, where debates over sovereignty, defense commitments, and international alignment have become increasingly prominent.

For now, it remains unclear when the proposed referendum might take place or whether it would gain sufficient political and public support to pass. Nevertheless, the announcement marks a notable development in Slovenia’s political landscape and raises important questions about the future direction of its foreign policy.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

U

.S. Vice President JD Vance has described Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s electoral defeat as “very bad” for the United States, while pledging that Washington would maintain strong relations with Hungary’s incoming government.

Speaking in an interview with Fox News on Monday, Vance acknowledged that the loss had been anticipated but expressed disappointment at the outcome. “We certainly knew there was a very good chance that Viktor would lose that election,” he said, referring to the U.S. administration’s backing of Orbán ahead of the vote. “He’s one of the few European leaders willing to stand up to the bureaucracy in Brussels.”

Vance praised Orbán’s 16-year tenure as “transformational,” portraying him as a key ally who challenged European Union policies that Washington has also criticized in recent years. Despite his concerns, Vance struck a pragmatic tone, emphasizing continuity in bilateral ties. “I’m sad that he lost. We’ll work very well, I’m sure, with the next prime minister of Hungary,” he said.

Hungary’s opposition leader Péter Magyar and his Tisza party secured a decisive victory in Sunday’s election, according to official results. Orbán conceded defeat shortly after, stating that his party would “serve our nation from the opposition,” marking a dramatic shift in Hungarian politics after more than a decade and a half of his leadership.

A blow to Netanyahu

Orbán’s defeat is also being closely watched in Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long counted the Hungarian leader among his closest European allies.

The relationship between the two leaders has been both ideological and strategic. Netanyahu publicly endorsed Orbán during the campaign, describing him in a pre-recorded message as a guarantor of “safety, security, and stability.” His son, Yair Netanyahu, has also cultivated ties with Orbán’s Fidesz party and attended campaign-related events in Budapest.

Following the election, Netanyahu referred to Orbán as a “true friend of Israel” in a social media statement, while also congratulating Magyar on his victory — signaling a careful diplomatic balancing act as Israel adjusts to the new political reality in Hungary.

The partnership between Netanyahu and Orbán has extended beyond rhetoric. In 2025, Hungary announced its withdrawal from the International Criminal Court after the court issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu related to the Gaza war. The move made Hungary one of the few countries where Netanyahu could travel without legal risk.

Orbán also played a key role within the European Union by blocking joint statements critical of Israel, leveraging the bloc’s requirement for unanimity in foreign policy decisions. His departure from power could therefore alter EU dynamics regarding Israel.

Inspiration for Israeli opposition

In Israel, Orbán’s defeat is being interpreted by opposition figures as a sign that entrenched political systems can be challenged successfully.

Efrat Rayten, a member of the left-leaning Democrat party, described the result as “a message of hope.” She argued that the outcome demonstrated that even leaders with significant control over institutions and media are not immune to electoral defeat.

“The idea that a leader who controls the institutions and the media is immune to defeat has been shattered,” Rayten told CNN. “The lesson for Israel is unity, perseverance, and faith in civil society.”

Since Netanyahu returned to power in 2023, critics have frequently pointed to Hungary under Orbán as a model of democratic backsliding. Protests against judicial reforms in Israel have often included the slogan “Israel will not become Hungary,” reflecting concerns about institutional weakening.

A March 2026 report by the Zulat think tank characterized Israel as moving toward a “partially authoritarian” system, drawing parallels with Orbán’s governance. While noting differences between the two leaders, the report argued that recent policies in Israel risk undermining democratic checks and balances.

Israel’s political landscape remains deeply fragmented

Despite the optimism among Netanyahu’s opponents, analysts caution that Orbán’s defeat does not guarantee similar outcomes elsewhere. Israel’s political landscape remains deeply fragmented, and opposition unity — cited as a key factor in Hungary’s election — has historically been difficult to achieve.

Rayten emphasized that electoral change requires sustained public engagement beyond formal political institutions. “Change does not happen only in the corridors of Parliament,” she said. “It begins in the streets, with people who refuse to give up.”

As Hungary prepares for a new government under Magyar, both Washington and Jerusalem are recalibrating their strategies. For the United States, the transition represents a test of its ability to maintain alliances despite political shifts. For Israel, it marks the loss of a reliable ally within Europe — and potentially, a symbolic moment in its own ongoing political debates.

(Source: CNN and Anadolu)

A

fragile diplomatic breakthrough halted the escalating war involving Iran after Pakistan launched an intense, last-minute mediation effort that brought United States and Tehran to the brink of direct negotiations, according to multiple sources familiar with the talks.

The ceasefire agreement came after what officials described as “intense, breathless” overnight negotiations that were close to collapse just hours earlier. The situation deteriorated sharply following an Iranian strike on a Saudi petrochemical facility, which angered Saudi Arabia and threatened to derail weeks of behind-the-scenes diplomacy.

With a deadline set by U.S. President Donald Trump fast approaching, Pakistani officials scrambled to maintain communication between Washington and Tehran. Trump had warned that continued fighting could have catastrophic consequences, raising the urgency of reaching an agreement.

Pakistan’s intervention involved direct outreach to key figures, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, and senior Iranian military officials.

After hours of high-stakes diplomacy, Iran agreed to a temporary ceasefire without preconditions and signaled willingness to enter formal negotiations.

Pakistan’s dual pressure

Islamabad played a delicate balancing role. On one hand, it conveyed its “strongest ever anger” to Tehran over the strike on Saudi Arabia, a country with which Pakistan maintains close defense ties. On the other, it pressed Washington to restrain Israel from further military action.

According to sources, Iran insisted it could not engage in talks while Israeli strikes continued. Pakistan warned U.S. officials that ongoing Israeli operations risked collapsing the entire diplomatic process.

Only after receiving assurances that Israel would scale back its attacks was Pakistan able to secure Iran’s agreement to the ceasefire.

Israeli officials reportedly opposed a truce, believing continued military pressure could further weaken Iran’s leadership. However, they ultimately deferred to Washington’s decision.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled that Israel had not yet achieved all its objectives and warned that military operations could resume if necessary.

An Israeli official emphasized that the ceasefire does not represent a permanent end to the war and does not include commitments such as lifting sanctions or compensating Iran.

Final push before dawn

As negotiations stretched into the night, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif personally urged all sides to honor a ceasefire, a move coordinated after preliminary agreement had already been reached.

Behind the scenes, discussions focused on a U.S. proposal outlining the structure of the ceasefire and the framework for future talks. Key sticking points included Iran’s demands regarding sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, its nuclear program, and regional defense arrangements.

A major breakthrough came when Iran agreed to postpone its demands and enter talks without preconditions — a concession described by sources as the most difficult part of the negotiations.

Formal negotiations are expected to begin soon, with the U.S. delegation led by JD Vance and Iranian representatives headed by Abbas Araqchi.

The talks are expected to address critical issues including Iran’s nuclear activities, missile program, and regional security concerns.

Despite the breakthrough, the ceasefire remains fragile. Officials on all sides have indicated that failure in upcoming negotiations could quickly lead to renewed hostilities.

As Sharif noted after the agreement, the overnight effort demonstrated how persistence in diplomacy can prevent even the most dire outcomes.

(Source: Reuters)

G

enocide and humanitarian crisis overshadowed what is traditionally a celebration of hope and renewal.

With fewer than 1,000 Christians remaining in the Gaza Strip, the community marked its third Easter under the devastating war that began after October 7, 2023. Many families are displaced, and churches that once hosted vibrant celebrations now hold only modest prayer services. Community members described the occasion as one of mourning rather than festivity, honoring those killed while clinging to hope for survival.

Basic necessities remain scarce across Gaza, affecting even symbolic traditions. Items like eggs—commonly decorated during Easter—are largely unavailable due to severe shortages. Longstanding restrictions, intensified during the genocide, have limited the flow of food, fuel, and essential goods into the territory, leaving residents struggling to maintain even the simplest customs.

Traditions lost, faith endures

Residents recalled how Easter once brought together families and neighbors—both Christian and Muslim—in shared celebration. Festive meals, visits to relatives, and children receiving sweets and gifts were once central to the holiday. Today, those traditions have largely disappeared, replaced by displacement, loss, and economic hardship.

Churches such as Gaza’s only Catholic parish have also suffered damage during the war, and attendance has declined as many Christians have fled. Still, those who remain continue to gather for prayer, emphasizing their deep-rooted presence in the land and their shared suffering with the wider Palestinian population.

Restricted worship and displacement

For the second consecutive year, Gaza’s Christians have been unable to travel to Jerusalem to attend services at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, one of Christianity’s holiest sites. Movement restrictions and security measures have further isolated the community during a period that typically draws pilgrims from around the world.

Meanwhile, ongoing displacement has forced many families to seek shelter in churches or temporary housing, often under difficult conditions. Elderly residents and long-time community members described a stark contrast between past celebrations filled with joy and the present reality marked by grief and uncertainty.

Despite these hardships, Gaza’s Christian community continues to observe its religious traditions in whatever way possible—holding onto faith and resilience in the face of ongoing war.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

A

s the war between the United States and Israel against Iran enters its second month with no clear path to de-escalation, China is increasingly positioning itself as a voice for peace. Yet analysts say Beijing’s actions suggest caution, raising doubts about whether it is ready to take on a central role as a mediator in one of the world’s most volatile geopolitical crises.

China’s diplomatic posture came into sharper focus this week following high-level talks in Beijing between Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. The two sides issued a joint statement calling for an “immediate ceasefire,” the swift launch of peace negotiations, and a long-term settlement backed by the United Nations.

The initiative, described by officials as a five-point proposal, also emphasized the protection of civilians, the security of critical shipping lanes, and respect for the sovereignty of all states involved. While the statement marked one of China’s most detailed responses to the ongoing war, it stopped short of outlining concrete mechanisms for achieving these goals.

Balancing diplomacy and risk

China’s approach reflects a broader strategic calculation. Under President Xi Jinping, Beijing has sought to expand its global diplomatic footprint and present itself as a stabilizing force in contrast to what it characterizes as Western interventionism. Calling for dialogue and restraint allows China to project influence without becoming entangled in the operational complexities of conflict resolution.

However, experts note that taking on a genuine peace broker role would require commitments Beijing has historically avoided. Acting as a guarantor of any agreement—ensuring compliance or responding to violations—could draw China into direct confrontation or force it to deploy military or monitoring capabilities abroad.

“China wants the credit of mediation without the burden of enforcement,” said one regional analyst, pointing to Beijing’s longstanding reluctance to engage in security alliances or military interventions beyond its immediate periphery.

Pakistan steps forward

While China has voiced support for diplomacy, Pakistan has emerged as a more active player in mediation efforts. Islamabad has offered to host talks between Washington and Tehran, leveraging its diplomatic ties with both sides. Pakistani officials have also reportedly explored the possibility of China acting as a guarantor in a future agreement, though no formal commitment has been made.

Behind the scenes, coordination appears to be ongoing. Reports indicate that Pakistani leadership has engaged with Chinese officials to discuss potential frameworks for de-escalation, including multilateral arrangements involving regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Türkiye.

Still, China has maintained a measured tone. In response to questions about a guarantor role, its foreign ministry reiterated that Beijing supports mediation efforts by “relevant parties” and is willing to play a “constructive role,” without specifying what that role would entail.

Lessons from past mediation

China’s diplomatic ambitions are not without precedent. In 2023, Beijing successfully brokered a normalization agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a breakthrough widely seen as a milestone in its Middle East engagement. That deal demonstrated China’s ability to leverage its economic ties and political neutrality to facilitate dialogue.

However, analysts caution that the current war presents far greater challenges. Unlike the Saudi-Iran rapprochement, which involved two regional rivals seeking to reduce tensions, the present war involves active military confrontation and deep-seated hostility between Iran and the United States and Israel.

Moreover, trust between the parties remains minimal. Iranian officials have indicated openness to a ceasefire only under strict conditions, including guarantees against future attacks, while U.S. leadership faces its own domestic and strategic pressures.

D

ivisions are emerging within NATO as several European countries resist supporting U.S.-Israeli military operations against Iran. The disagreement highlights growing unease across Europe about the direction and legality of the month-long war.

U.S. President Donald Trump has sharply criticized European allies, accusing them of failing to support Washington’s efforts. He described some partners as “unhelpful” and previously labeled them “cowards,” underscoring rising tensions within the alliance.

The dispute comes as the war intensifies, placing pressure on long-standing transatlantic relationships and raising questions about NATO cohesion during a major geopolitical crisis.

France and Italy restrict military cooperation

France has taken an unprecedented step by refusing to allow its airspace to be used for transporting U.S. weapons to Israel for operations against Iran. According to diplomatic sources, this marked the first such denial since the war began.

The French government said the decision was consistent with its policy since the start of the war. However, Israeli officials reacted strongly, accusing Paris of obstructing critical military logistics. In response, Israel signaled it could suspend defense procurement from France.

Italy has also imposed limits. Authorities reportedly denied permission for U.S. military aircraft to land at the Sigonella air base in Sicily en route to the Middle East. Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto later downplayed the move, saying it reflected standard procedures requiring specific authorization for operations beyond existing agreements.

Spain leads criticism of the war

Spain has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of the U.S.-Israeli campaign. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has openly questioned the strikes, while Defense Minister Margarita Robles emphasized that Spanish bases would only be used for NATO’s collective defense—not for offensive operations.

Madrid has gone further by fully closing its airspace to U.S. aircraft involved in attacks on Iran, citing adherence to international law.

Trump also criticized the United Kingdom for its limited involvement, despite its close alliance with Washington. His remarks coincided with a planned state visit by King Charles III to the United States, adding a diplomatic layer to the tensions.

Broader implications for NATO and the war

The disagreements extend beyond individual countries. Germany, which hosts the major U.S. military hub at Ramstein Air Base, initially placed no restrictions on its use. However, debate has intensified after Frank-Walter Steinmeier suggested the war may be illegal under international law.

Analysts say these fractures could weaken NATO unity at a critical moment, potentially complicating U.S. military planning and signaling a broader reluctance in Europe to be drawn deeper into the war.

As the war continues, Europe’s cautious stance reflects a balancing act: maintaining alliance commitments while avoiding escalation in a war that many leaders fear could spiral further across the region.

(Source: Reuters)

T

he Palestinian Authority on Monday strongly condemned a new law passed by the Israeli Knesset mandating the death penalty for Palestinian prisoners, calling it a war crime and a grave violation of international law.

In an official statement, Palestinian officials said the legislation breaches the Fourth Geneva Convention, which guarantees protections for civilians under occupation and ensures fair trial standards. The Authority warned that the move represents a dangerous escalation in Israeli policies across the occupied Palestinian territories, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. It urged the international community to take immediate action to halt what it described as systematic violations and to hold Israel accountable.

‘Dangerous shift’ toward extrajudicial killings

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry described the law as a “dangerous shift toward legalizing genocide” and accused Israel of institutionalizing extrajudicial executions. It said the legislation places Israel in direct confrontation with international legal norms and called for sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and the activation of accountability mechanisms through bodies such as the International Criminal Court.

Palestinian factions echoed the condemnation. The Palestine Liberation Organization said the law effectively legalizes extrajudicial killings, while the Fatah movement described it as “legalizing policies of killing” already experienced by detainees in Israeli prisons, including allegations of medical neglect and abuse.

Calls for international action grow

The Hamas movement called the legislation part of an “escalating criminal campaign” against Palestinian prisoners and urged international human rights organizations to intervene urgently. Meanwhile, Palestinian political figures, including members of the Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee, warned that the law reflects what they described as a deepening system of discrimination and repression.

The Palestinian National Initiative also called for comprehensive sanctions and boycotts against Israel, arguing that the law marks a turning point toward entrenched “racist” legislation. Officials warned that failure to act would embolden further measures targeting Palestinians and undermine prospects for stability in the region.

The legislation passed its final readings in the Israeli parliament with the support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, drawing sharp reactions across Palestinian political and civil society groups, who say the measure poses an immediate threat to the lives of Palestinian prisoners.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

S

everal European leaders have voiced strong concern and, in some cases, outright condemnation after Israeli police barred Pierbattista Pizzaballa from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to lead Palm Sunday Mass.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni described the move as an “offense” not only to believers but to all communities that value religious freedom. Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani called the decision “unacceptable” and announced that Italy would summon the Israeli ambassador for clarification.

French President Emmanuel Macron also condemned the action, warning of a growing pattern of violations affecting Jerusalem’s holy sites and calling for unrestricted worship for all religions.

Widespread condemnation across Europe

Spain, Portugal, Poland, and Malta joined the criticism, highlighting concerns over religious rights and international law.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez condemned what he called an “unjustified attack” on religious freedom, stressing that coexistence depends on tolerance. Portugal’s Foreign Ministry said the decision “deserves deep condemnation,” urging Israeli authorities to uphold freedom of worship.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki expressed strong opposition, describing the move as disrespectful to Christian traditions, while Malta’s Foreign Minister Ian Borg called for immediate reconsideration to ensure access to Christianity’s holiest site.

According to the Latin Patriarchate, Pizzaballa and Francesco Ielpo were stopped and forced to turn back while attempting to privately enter the church—marking what officials say is the first such incident in centuries.

Broader tensions over religious access in Jerusalem

The incident comes amid wider restrictions in Jerusalem, where Israeli authorities have also limited Muslim access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque for several consecutive weeks under emergency measures linked to the ongoing war with Iran.

Meanwhile, Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday Mass at St. Peter’s Square to deliver a broader message against violence, stating that “no one can use Jesus to justify war” and calling for an end to armed conflict.

The developments have intensified international scrutiny over religious freedoms in Jerusalem, a city sacred to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, as tensions continue to rise in the region.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

C

hina has deployed large numbers of obsolete fighter jets converted into attack drones at air bases near the Taiwan Strait, according to a new report that highlights Beijing’s evolving military strategy toward Taiwan. The study, published by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, draws on satellite imagery and open-source intelligence to show rows of modified J-6 aircraft positioned at six bases across Fujian and Guangdong provinces, both located close to the strategically sensitive waterway separating mainland China from Taiwan.

The J-6, a Chinese-built version of a 1950s Soviet fighter, was once a core part of China’s air force but has long since been retired from frontline service. Analysts now say that hundreds of these aging jets have been repurposed into unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), designated as J-6W drones. By removing onboard weapon systems and installing automated flight controls and navigation technology, the Chinese military has transformed these legacy aircraft into expendable strike platforms capable of carrying out high-risk missions without endangering pilots.

According to the report’s author, former U.S. naval intelligence officer J. Michael Dahm, China may have converted more than 500 of these aircraft into drones, with at least 200 already deployed near the Taiwan Strait. He told Reuters that these drones are likely to play a key role in the opening phase of any potential military operation against Taiwan. Rather than functioning like conventional remotely piloted drones, they are expected to operate more like cruise missiles—launched in large waves toward predetermined targets.

Overwhelming Taiwan’s air defense systems

Military experts believe the primary purpose of these converted drones would be to overwhelm Taiwan’s air defense systems through sheer volume. By sending large numbers of relatively inexpensive drones toward high-value targets, China could force Taiwan and its allies to expend costly interceptor missiles. This tactic, often described as a form of asymmetric warfare, seeks to exploit the imbalance between the low cost of offensive systems and the high cost of defensive countermeasures.

A senior Taiwanese security official, speaking to Reuters, said the threat posed by these drones is significant precisely because of this cost imbalance. “To prevent strikes on critical infrastructure, we will inevitably face the challenge of using expensive missiles to intercept them,” the official said. In response, Taiwan is accelerating plans to acquire new counter-drone technologies designed to neutralize such threats more efficiently.

The development comes amid rising tensions between China and Taiwan, which Beijing considers part of its territory despite strong opposition from the island’s government. China has not ruled out the use of force to achieve reunification, while Taiwan maintains that its future should be decided solely by its people. Although recent assessments by the U.S. intelligence community suggest that China is not currently planning an invasion by 2027, other defense analyses indicate that Beijing is rapidly building the capabilities needed to carry out such an operation if it chooses to do so.

A diverse mix of airpower

Experts say the deployment of J-6 drones is only one component of a broader Chinese military strategy that emphasizes a diverse mix of airpower. In a potential conflict scenario, waves of drones could be launched alongside ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, advanced fighter jets, and long-range bombers, all arriving at different speeds and altitudes. This multi-layered assault would complicate defensive efforts and create what one analyst described as an “air defense nightmare.”

Peter Layton, a former Australian air force officer and visiting fellow at Griffith University, said such an approach would aim to saturate defenses and create confusion. “There would be a lot of diverse threats all coming at once,” he said. “The goal is to overwhelm the system so that some weapons inevitably get through.” He added that the J-6 drones, despite being based on outdated technology, would still require advanced and expensive missile systems to intercept due to their speed and size.

The increasing reliance on drones reflects broader changes in modern warfare, where unmanned systems have become central to military operations. Conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine War have demonstrated the effectiveness of deploying drones in large numbers for reconnaissance, targeting, and direct attacks. These systems can often be produced quickly and at relatively low cost, making them well-suited for sustained, high-intensity conflicts.

Stealth UAVs and carrier-based unmanned systems

China has also been investing heavily in more advanced drone technologies, including stealth UAVs and carrier-based unmanned systems. Analysts believe these newer platforms could be used in conjunction with converted legacy aircraft like the J-6, creating a layered drone force capable of both high-end precision strikes and mass saturation attacks. In addition, there are indications that China is experimenting with using drones in deception operations, potentially to confuse adversaries and test defensive responses.

Despite their potential effectiveness, the deployment of J-6 drones is not without risks. The air bases where they are stationed are located relatively close to Taiwan and could be vulnerable to preemptive strikes in the event of a conflict. Nevertheless, analysts suggest that their role as expendable assets means they would likely be launched early in any military campaign, reducing their exposure to counterattacks on the ground.

The report underscores the growing complexity of the military balance in the Taiwan Strait and the increasing importance of drone warfare in shaping future conflicts. As both China and Taiwan continue to adapt to these evolving threats, the risk of miscalculation remains a concern for regional stability. For now, the presence of these converted drones serves as a stark reminder of how even outdated technology can be repurposed into a significant strategic tool in modern warfare.

(Source: Reuters)

W

hen Pakistan’s defense minister went on television at the end of February and spoke of an “open war” with the Taliban government in Kabul, he was not simply using a dramatic phrase for a familiar border clash. He was signaling that the Afghanistan-Pakistan theatre – long managed through deniable strikes, proxy groups and quiet understandings – had entered a new and more dangerous phase.

His announcement came as Pakistani warplanes hit Taliban-controlled areas near the capital and along the eastern frontier, targeting what Islamabad describes as TTP safe havens that fuel attacks inside Pakistan. For people on both sides of the border, this looked less like the start of a brand-new conflict and more like a sharp escalation in a security problem that never really went away.

Islamabad said the strikes targeted militants of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) responsible for repeated attacks across the border and inside Pakistan. Taliban authorities in Kabul countered that civilians, including women and children, were among the dead, and that Afghan sovereignty had been violated yet again by a neighbor that long used their soil as a strategic area. Both sides accused each other of sheltering militants and of turning a porous line on the map into a revolving door for armed groups.

The first theatre of the “war on terror” is now moving toward an undeclared confrontation between two governments that once cooperated closely. As this front heats up, the question becomes more concrete: in a crowded and contested international agenda, who has both the interest and the capacity to help limit the damage? Middle powers such as Türkiye are increasingly part of the answer, but their real room for maneuver is still being tested.

From counterterrorism to open war

For years, Afghanistan-Pakistan borders sat in a grey zone. Pakistani jets and artillery occasionally hit suspected militant camps across the border. Taliban leaders quietly tolerated some of these strikes, publicly condemned others and tried to manage a relationship built on decades of covert cooperation, refugee flows and shared enemies. The line between a counterterrorism operation and a cross-border skirmish was kept deliberately vague.

Late February 2026 changed the atmosphere. Pakistani warplanes bombed Taliban-held areas near Kabul and in eastern provinces, while officials spoke openly about dismantling what they describe as TTP safe havens inside Afghanistan. Taliban spokesmen responded with their own casualty figures, allegations of civilian deaths and an ultimatum: respect Afghan territory or face consequences. When both sides use language such as “open war,” the space for quiet de-escalation narrows quickly.

This is not only a matter of public rhetoric. When armed groups move across borders, governments still have a certain flexibility in how they respond and how they explain their actions. Once capitals and regular forces are engaged in a declared confrontation, domestic audiences, rival factions and external partners all push for more rigid positions. Political costs rise for any actor who wants to step back.

A nuclear shadow over a crowded map

The Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier links two nuclear-armed states and sits close to a third, India, which has its own history of war with Pakistan. It also lies on top of the supply routes, smuggling lines and ideological networks that have sustained jihadist movements since the 1980s. In a relatively small space, tribal structures, armed groups and long-standing border disputes overlap and feed into each other.

In such an environment, escalation can move faster than intentions. A few days of airstrikes and retaliatory raids might remain limited; several weeks of miscalculation could start to affect stability in Central Asia, the Gulf and even China’s Xinjiang region. Pakistani security planners are clearly aware of these linkages. Taliban commanders understand as well that allowing TTP fighters extensive freedom of action from Afghan territory increases the chance of additional punitive strikes.

The timing of this crisis matters. It comes as the U.N. Security Council is already dealing with a crowded agenda dominated by the fourth year of the Ukraine war and the unresolved consequences of the Gaza genocide. Diplomatic bandwidth in many capitals is limited. Intelligence services and foreign ministries are managing several urgent files at once. Adding Afghanistan-Pakistan to this list makes coordination harder at the very moment when it is most needed.

Where middle powers step in

At this point, middle powers come into focus. States with regional reach, flexible diplomacy and no colonial baggage in Afghanistan-Pakistan have a specific advantage. Various reports and commentaries already point to regional mediators such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as well as Türkiye and possibly the UAE. All of them have channels to Islamabad, some degree of contact with the Taliban and a clear interest in avoiding a prolonged war on the edge of the Muslim world.

Türkiye enters this picture with a record that combines alliance ties and autonomous initiatives. As a NATO member that maintained dialogue with Moscow during the Ukraine war, Ankara helped build the Black Sea grain corridor when many saw little space for compromise. On Gaza, Turkish officials engaged in back-channel contacts involving Israel, Egypt, Qatar and the United States while keeping a critical public line. In Afghanistan, Türkiye sought a role at Kabul airport after the U.S. withdrawal, signaling that it did not intend to disappear from the file when Western militaries left.

This pattern has strengthened Ankara’s claim to a certain mediation capacity. Middle powers accumulate influence not only through defense sales or summit diplomacy, but also by repeatedly entering crisis management roles when larger powers are divided or simply tired. The Afghanistan-Pakistan confrontation is another test case. For Pakistan’s leaders, a Muslim-majority partner with established defense links and personal relationships is a good option. For Taliban figures who do not want to depend on a single patron, an interlocutor that talks about security, trade and political process at the same time has clear value.

This does not mean a middle power can impose a settlement between Pakistan’s security establishment and the Taliban leadership. It does mean expectations are shifting about which actors are asked to “do something” when escalation threatens to spin out of control.

A

t least 324 children have been killed in Iran and Lebanon since the start of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, according to new figures released by UNICEF, underscoring the growing humanitarian toll of a rapidly intensifying regional war.

Speaking at a press briefing in New York on Monday, UNICEF Deputy Executive Director Ted Chaiban said that 206 children were killed in Iran and 118 in Lebanon following the outbreak of war on February 28. Additional casualties include four children killed in Israel and one in Kuwait as a result of Iranian retaliatory strikes.

In total, more than 2,100 children across the region have been killed or injured since the war began, according to UNICEF.

“Behind these numbers are parents, grandparents, teachers, brothers, and sisters,” Chaiban said. “Communities, cities, and nations are in shock.”

Deadly strike on school raises questions

Among the deadliest single incidents reported was a missile strike on a girls’ school in Iran that killed at least 168 people, including more than 100 children, according to rights groups. The attack has drawn international scrutiny amid conflicting accounts of responsibility.

While neither the United States nor Israel initially claimed responsibility, reporting by The New York Times indicated that a preliminary U.S. military investigation found the strike resulted from a targeting error.

The incident has intensified concerns over civilian protection and compliance with international humanitarian law as the war expands.

The war has also triggered mass displacement on a scale not seen in recent years. The UNHCR estimates that up to 3.2 million people in Iran have been forced to flee their homes, including approximately 864,000 children. Many have fled major urban centers such as Tehran toward northern and rural areas.

In Lebanon, more than 1 million people have been displaced, including roughly 370,000 children. Families are increasingly seeking shelter in schools, public buildings, and overcrowded temporary accommodations.

Humanitarian agencies warn that the scale of displacement is placing immense pressure on already fragile infrastructure and aid systems.

Infrastructure collapse and humanitarian strain

UNICEF officials report widespread destruction of essential civilian infrastructure, including homes, schools, and hospitals. Health systems that were already under strain are now nearing collapse, while disrupted supply chains have limited access to food, medicine, and clean water.

“Across the Middle East, around 44.8 million children were already living in conflict-affected settings before this escalation,” Chaiban noted. “The consequences of what is unfolding now will be long-lasting for them.”

Aid organizations have warned that without immediate de-escalation and increased humanitarian access, conditions for children could deteriorate further in the coming weeks.

Separately, Human Rights Watch has raised concerns about possible forced displacement in Lebanon. In an opinion piece published by Al Jazeera, researcher Nadia Hardman alleged that Israeli military operations are contributing to the strategic displacement of Shiite communities using tactics similar to those seen in Gaza and the West Bank.

“The international community can and should do better,” Hardman wrote, calling for urgent measures to prevent further civilian displacement and ensure the right of return for affected populations.

Conflicting signals on diplomacy

Amid mounting casualties, political signals regarding a potential de-escalation remain mixed. Donald Trump announced a temporary five-day halt to U.S. strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure, citing “productive conversations” aimed at ending the war.

However, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf denied that any negotiations with Washington were underway, dismissing reports of talks as misinformation intended to influence global markets.

The lack of clarity surrounding diplomatic efforts has added to uncertainty about whether a ceasefire or broader resolution may be achievable in the near term.

As the war enters its fourth week, humanitarian agencies warn that children are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden. Beyond immediate casualties, millions face long-term risks including displacement, interrupted education, and psychological trauma.

With infrastructure deteriorating and international responses still limited, aid groups continue to call for urgent action to protect civilians and prevent further escalation in a region already grappling with multiple overlapping crises.

(Source: UNICEF)

O

ver the past century, the geopolitical pulse of the Middle East has been measured in barrels of crude oil. The oil shocks of the 1970s shaped behavioral patterns within the international system, determined alliances, and established a global security architecture dependent on the flow of Persian Gulf hydrocarbons to Western industrial centers.

However, by the mid-2020s, a new agenda had emerged alongside oil: rare earth elements, especially neodymium and praseodymium (NdPr), which are part of the lanthanide series, as well as critical minerals, including battery metals such as lithium and cobalt. These materials have transcended industrial use and have become the strategic raw materials of the 21st century. The supply chain architecture of these elements across the Middle East is triggering a profound realignment of the balance of power stretching from Tehran to Riyadh.

Today, the region is no longer content with its usual role. The Middle East is striving to position itself as a vital hub for refining and extracting materials for the green and digital transformation. Undoubtedly, this transition is not uniform. It is divided by two competing visions: Iran’s alternative economic approach, which is based on self-sufficiency, and the Gulf states’ future-oriented diversification strategy, which is based on global integration. In this article, we will examine the Iran-Gulf divergence and its impact on U.S.-China supply chain security within the framework of rare earth elements (REE) and attempt to go beyond Iran-focused analyses.

Iran’s mineral “resistance”

In Tehran, the search for natural resources is a matter of survival. Although sanctions have sometimes crippled oil exports, the Islamic Republic is turning to its geological wealth. Total mineral reserves are estimated to be worth tens of trillions of dollars. The country frames this as insurance against Western isolation.

The opening of a domestic monazite processing plant in April 2025, as well as the regime’s 2023 announcement of massive lithium deposits discovered in Hamadan, are emerging as lines of defense. Nuclear, orthopedic, and warfare capabilities are critical for a state that specializes in asymmetric warfare. Permanent magnets in missile guidance systems are indispensable for the Revolutionary Guard’s sophisticated radars and electronic warfare systems, which are central to modern Iranian deterrence.

Aiming for vertical integration, Iran is seeking to build a sanctions-resistant technological-military complex starting from monazite mines in Yazd and extending to the domestic extraction of high-purity elements. This strategy is based on the comprehensive agreement signed with Russia in January 2025 and on strengthening ties with China. In essence, Tehran is trading its raw mineral potential for processing technology, thereby positioning itself within a non-Western axis of rare earth elements that challenges the U.S.-led supply security framework.

High-risk insurance in the Gulf

A different picture emerges on the opposite shore of the Persian Gulf. For Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), critical minerals are emerging as a bridge to a post-oil future. Unlike Iran’s defensive stance, the Gulf’s strategy is aggressively expansionist and collaborative.

In May 2025, Maaden and MP Materials announced a cooperation framework to develop the rare earth value chain. Then, in November 2025, a refining and separation investment materialized in Saudi Arabia through a joint venture supported by the U.S. Department of Defense. Maaden holds at least a 51% majority stake in this structure, while MP Materials and the US Department of Defense together hold up to 49%. Through this arrangement, Riyadh positions itself as a Western alternative to Chinese dominance, demonstrating an example of modern risk management. While maintaining its role in BRICS and welcoming Chinese investments in the electric vehicle sector, Riyadh is also building mineral cooperation with Washington.

The scale of capital involved is staggering. Gulf states are investing tens of billions of dollars in overseas acquisitions in Africa and Indonesia, using their existing wealth to acquire new wealth. The UAE’s $1.4 billion lithium processing plant and Saudi Arabia’s processing center in Yanbu are designed to break China’s midstream refining bottleneck. In this sense, the Gulf states are seeking a new way forward in an alternative future where internal combustion engines are obsolete.

Regional comparison: Dominance or synergy?

The divergence between the approaches of Iran and the Gulf states is creating a new source of tension in Middle Eastern security. The “Lanthanide Rift,” which stretches along the Persian Gulf, represents two irreconcilable philosophies regarding state strategy. Tehran views its mineral wealth as essential to survival and autonomy. In the Iranian economy, every gram of neodymium extracted from Yazd symbolizes resistance to Western pressure.

The ultimate goal is to secure the survival of the regime and its military self-sufficiency, ensuring that its missile and drone programs are not dependent on shipments from a hostile capital. This inward-looking strategy relies on overtly aligning with a non-Western axis, such as Russia, China, and the BRICS bloc. Rather than seeking capital in traditional markets, Iran relies on state-funded ventures and complex barter arrangements with ideological allies.

In stark contrast, the Gulf monarchies, led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are pursuing global integration and future-oriented diversification. For Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, critical minerals are tools that will propel their new energy and economies into the post-hydrocarbon era and establish them as indispensable global hubs. Unlike Iran, the Gulf states are practicing the art of multiple alignments. They leverage U.S. security guarantees and joint venture capital, as exemplified by the 2025 minerals pact with Washington. Simultaneously, they act as major trading partners and energy suppliers to China.

While Iran focuses on domestic resistance, the Gulf region is aggressively pursuing global supply chain integration. It is leveraging the pull of sovereign wealth funds to partner in the world’s most lucrative mining projects. While Tehran is exchanging goods, the Gulf is investing. This creates a regional paradox: one is building shields while the other is building bridges.

This situation points to an impending “Resource Cold War” in the region. Iran’s advances in NTE processing capacity could strengthen the “Axis of Resistance,” making Iran a more autonomous and formidable player in regional conflicts. Conversely, the Gulf’s alliance with the US on minerals could strengthen the security architecture that Iran seeks to dismantle. The U.S. State Department’s announcement of the 2026 Critical Minerals Meeting indicates that the strategic mineral stockpile, known as “Project Vault,” may increasingly rely on Gulf stability. Thus, the security of Riyadh’s mines becomes as critical to U.S. national security as the Strait of Hormuz.

I

n Germany, in September 2013, a new party narrowly missed entering the federal parliament (Bundestag) in its first election, receiving only 4.7% of the vote. The Alternative for Germany Party, or AfD for short, founded in April 2013, quickly completed the necessary registration requirements at the federal level and qualified to participate in the parliamentary elections. At the time, it was not surprising that the AfD, considered by many to be a populist, anti-European party fueled by conspiracy theories and making empty promises and threats in its political rhetoric, failed to enter parliament. Indeed, experts had stated that German voters would never show interest in such political movements.

The most unpredictable turning point in the political history of Germany, which was rebuilt after World War II, was the dismissal of the AfD after the 2013 federal parliamentary elections, and its being seen as a politically insignificant movement. This policy of ignoring the AfD shaped the political attitude towards it. It paved the way for the unstoppable rise of the AfD in Germany, which began with the 2014 European Parliament elections. At the same time, it created rifts in the German social structure, opening the way for far-right and populist movements like PEGIDA and helping the AfD to build voter support.

Far-right movements in Europe, long ignored as in Germany, began to emerge as a rooted political movement from 2010 onwards. In January 2017, the “ENF (Europa der Nationen und der Freiheit)” political group in the European Parliament met in Koblenz, Germany. This meeting witnessed some very interesting encounters and statements. Nearly 40 far-right representatives from 9 countries that had far-right parties represented in the European Parliament at the time attended this meeting.

Led by Marie Le Pen of the French Front National, the meeting also featured speakers including Geert Wilders from the Netherlands, Frauke Petry from the AfD leadership in Germany, and Matteo Salvini representing the Lega Nord in Italy. The outcome of the meeting was quite alarming: Nine far-right European parties, led by Le Pen, who describe the European Union as an oppressive regime for the European people, pledged a new European future, declaring that the current EU and world system has ended and that the construction of a new future has begun.

The Bannon effect on the European far right

Another significant event at the Koblenz meeting was the celebration of Trump’s election as U.S. President in 2017 by representatives of European far-right movements, who called for a new wave of freedom in Europe, a “European Nationalism.” Even today, many consider the Koblenz meeting, although Steve Bannon did not directly attend, to be one of the first movements in Europe within the context of his “Global Populism” network, and the first example of the European far-right movement becoming jointly visible on the international stage.

Bannon’s success in Trump’s election, his subsequent impeachment, and his then-return to Europe present a rather interesting chain of events. His active involvement in European politics through “The Movement,” a Brussels-based foundation he established in 2017, his overt efforts to create a far-right, anti-EU supergroup within the European Parliament, and the similarities between these actions and the call made by far-right political parties at a meeting in Koblenz in 2017 are all highly noteworthy.

Following the Koblenz meeting, an examination of undeniable connections reveals that Steve Bannon met with numerous far-right populist politicians and political party officials in 2018-2019. One of Bannon’s biggest admirers is the leader of the Dutch PVV party, Geert Wilders. Many other far-right or right-wing populist politicians, including Alice Weidel of the AfD, Matteo Salvini of the Lega, UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen of France, and Giorgia Meloni of Italy, also frequently met with Bannon.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Czech President Zeman are also among those who have met with Bannon in the past. His participation in Le Pen’s party general assembly in France in 2018, and his invitation to a conference in the Bundestag by the AfD, are examples of the unhidden connections within the Populist/Global Network that Bannon is trying to build.

Prior to the EU Parliament elections in May 2019, Bannon made various efforts to unite the European far right. Although his target of one-third of the vote was not achieved in the 2019 European Parliament elections, Bannon provided the European far right with an unprecedented opportunity, creating a political network of far-right and populist groups across Europe and even across the Atlantic.

Just as there was a tendency to ignore the rise of the far right, a large media outlet, looking at the results of the 2019 EU Parliament elections, lamented Bannon’s failure. However, what seemed like a failure to those trying to save the day, or even the moment, for European politics, actually brought together the European far right and populist political base. Bannon’s intervention gave further impetus to the European far right and populist movements. In Germany, the AfD became the main opposition party in the federal parliament after the 2017 Federal Parliament elections. In the 2025 elections, it increased its number of members in parliament to 152 as the main opposition party.

The far-right on the rise in Europe

In 2023, Wilders’ party PVV emerged as the leading party in the Dutch elections. In last year’s Czech elections, the right-wing populist party ANO, with Andre Babis, won as the leading party. Marine Le Pen reached the second round twice against Macron in the French presidential elections and lost, but increased her vote share each time. The party, formerly known as Front National, changed its name to Rassemblement National (RN) and won the local elections as the leading party. It is highly likely to be the leading party again in the elections to be held in March 2026. Furthermore, Le Pen is considered a sure winner of the 2027 presidential elections – providing she remains eligible to run.

The situation is no different across Europe. Far-right radical parties and right-wing populist parties, which have a significant presence in national elections, entered the EU Parliament in the 2024 elections with 187 members in three different groups. In the EU Parliament, far-right and right-wing radical parties formed a group under the name European Patriots (Patriots.eu), while anti-EU right-wing parties such as the European Conservatives and Innovators (ECR) and far-right radical parties like the AfD formed a group under the name ESN (Europe of Sovereign Nations). These far-right parties, constantly appearing to be seeking innovation and new directions across the EU, have increased their number of members in the parliament through name changes. The common characteristic of these groups is their anti-EU skeptical nature.

News that the Trump administration would focus on Italy, Austria, Poland, and Hungary leaving the EU, as outlined in the National Security Document (NSS) released in the U.S. in December 2025, sent shockwaves across Europe. While the White House denied these statements were included in the NSS, the fact that Bannon could, even years later, achieve his goal of creating an anti-European movement seems quite plausible after witnessing the examples of UKIP and Brexit.

Examinations of the released Epstein files indicate that Epstein and Bannon corresponded regularly between 2018 and 2019 regarding European politicians and the European far right and populist right-wing movements. In these communications, Bannon reportedly shared information about his influence on right-wing movements in Europe, specifying which politicians and parties he advised, and even naming the parties and politicians involved. While the AfD has not denied the portion of the conversations related to them, they have stated that the allegations of receiving advice from Bannon are untrue.

Anti-EU sentiment – ​​anti-immigrant sentiment – ​​Islamophobia

From the perspective of far-right and populist right-wing movements, it is possible to state that far-right political movements in Europe share three distinct common narratives. These narratives are: opposition to the European Union or the withdrawal of their countries from the European Union; xenophobia and hostility towards immigrants and foreigners, aiming to eliminate immigration to Europe; and the exclusion of Islam from the public sphere in Europe, imposing bans on Islam at the national level and restricting the rights of Muslims. According to AfD ideologue Björn Höcke, Muslims, considered foreign elements in Europe, should be expelled east of the Bosphorus. Bannon’s statements also periodically emphasize the need for a “very strict and aggressive stance against radical Islam.”

Another point worth emphasizing is the emboldening of far-right and populist movements in Europe following Trump’s re-election for a second term. It is noteworthy that these movements have brought Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) or America First slogans to Europe. Babis’s campaign in the Czech Republic with the slogan “Czech Republic First,” and Hungarian Prime Minister Orban’s implementation of the MEGA (“Make Europe Great Again”) slogan during Hungary’s rotating presidency, demonstrate the spread of a different kind of Trumpism across Europe.

The stance of the Visegrad countries, members of the EU, on anti-immigrant sentiment has long been well-known. In other Western European countries, anti-immigrant sentiment and the halting of immigration are at the forefront of the main election slogans of political parties. Trump’s claims that Europe will lose its identity due to immigration by the end of 2025, and that the continent is destroying itself due to an immigrant invasion, have strengthened the rhetoric of right-wing populist and far-right parties in Europe. Even at the local level, in the German state of Bavaria, the AfD party has included in its party program the possibility of establishing a special team called AFA (Refugee Search and Deportation Police), similar to ICE in the U.S., if they come to power in that state.

M

ore than 4.1 million people have been internally displaced across the Middle East since the start of the latest military escalation, the United Nations warned on Thursday, highlighting growing humanitarian needs across several countries.

Speaking at a news briefing, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said the conflict is worsening an already severe humanitarian situation in the region.

“The region is home to some of the largest numbers of people in need of humanitarian assistance globally,” Dujarric said. “More than 4.1 million people have been internally displaced in Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon and Pakistan since the beginning of the escalation.”

In addition, approximately 117,000 people have fled across international borders seeking refuge in neighboring countries.

“The recent escalation risks deepening civilian suffering and causing further damage to already fragile civilian infrastructure,” he added.

Humanitarian agencies, including the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), are continuing relief efforts while preparing to expand their response as displacement and humanitarian needs rise.

Lebanon airstrikes drives mass displacement

The situation in Lebanon remains particularly volatile as fighting intensifies between Israel and the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah.

According to the Lebanese government, more than 816,000 people have registered as displaced since the escalation began on March 2. The figure includes approximately 285,000 children. Over 125,000 displaced people are currently sheltering in nearly 600 collective centers across the country.

UN officials warned that the real number of displaced people is likely higher.

Fighting escalated sharply overnight, with large-scale military operations reported in several areas including Beirut’s southern suburbs.

The Lebanese Ministry of Public Health says at least 634 people have been killed and more than 1,500 injured since hostilities began.

The UN also raised concerns about the safety of its personnel stationed in the country. Dujarric reported that an explosion occurred roughly 15 meters from a UN position in eastern Lebanon on Wednesday, though no injuries were reported.

He stressed that all parties must respect international humanitarian law and ensure the safety of peacekeepers and civilians.

Rising casualties and infrastructure damage in Iran

In Iran, more than 1,300 people have been killed and over 17,000 injured since Feb. 28.

The escalation has also caused extensive damage to civilian infrastructure.

According to the Iranian Red Crescent Society, more than 17,000 residential buildings and over 4,000 commercial properties have been damaged. The Ministry of Education reports that at least 120 schools have been destroyed.

Iranian authorities have been providing emergency shelter in government buildings and metro stations in the capital, Tehran, while emergency teams work to support displaced residents.

The Red Crescent has activated its nationwide volunteer network, including search and rescue teams, medical services and logistics support.

Gaza conditions remain dire

In the Gaza Strip, humanitarian agencies say the situation remains critical amid continued strikes, shelling and gunfire.

According to OCHA, an overnight attack struck a displacement site in western Gaza City, killing at least one person and injuring several others. The strike also caused a fire that damaged dozens of tents sheltering displaced families.

Food security partners warn that supplies remain limited, driving up prices for fresh vegetables, firewood and cooking gas, particularly during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Humanitarian organizations say some community kitchens have been forced to alter their meal programs, while others have paused fresh food distributions due to shortages and high costs.

So far this month, approximately 400,000 people have received food rations, though aid agencies say portions were reduced by half in February after many aid trucks were turned back at the Kerem Shalom Crossing, the only operational entry point for humanitarian supplies into Gaza.

UN officials stress that humanitarian assistance alone cannot meet the growing needs without a steady flow of commercial goods into the territory.

Explosive remnants of war also continue to threaten civilians as humanitarian teams conduct assessments to identify and remove hazardous ordnance across the enclave.

O

n the morning of February 28, the U.S. and Israel launched a comprehensive military offensive against Iran, seemingly in response to Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamed al-Busaidi’s statement that ‘peace is immediately possible’ following his meeting with U.S. Vice President JD Vance. The attacks were conducted as part of a clear decapitation strategy, targeting Iran’s political and military command structure. Numerous high-ranking political and military figures were reportedly killed, including Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.

Tehran quickly retaliated with ballistic missile and drone strikes. The initial stages of the conflict revealed that the Iranian military and political response was more resilient than the U.S. and Israel had anticipated, strongly signaling that the conflict could evolve from a swift and decisive operation into a longer, multifaceted war.

U.S./Israeli sources have stated that 2,000 targets were struck within the first five days of the war. U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth appear confident about the military victory, presenting a picture of total success. The attacks are being carried out in close coordination between the two countries, with a clear division of labor: U.S. forces are focusing on military facilities, while Israel is targeting political and military leadership positions.

It seems that the U.S. is trying to cripple the country’s infrastructure, while Israel is trying to cripple its leadership and command structures. However, U.S./Israeli attacks have also hit civilian sites such as schools and hospitals, resulting in hundreds of civilian casualties.

Iran’s response

This time, the Tehran regime was caught in the conflict in a relatively better-prepared position. Iranian decision-makers had not tied all their strategic investments to the diplomatic process, and were aware that they could be targeted even during negotiations. Therefore, the element of surprise in the attack was limited. Despite heavy losses in the command structure, Iran quickly demonstrated an organized capacity for retaliation. Tehran targeted Israeli and U.S. military bases in the Gulf, diplomatic facilities, areas where U.S. troops were accommodated, and some regional airports with missile and drone salvos.

Simultaneously, Iran attempted to increase the effectiveness of its own missile operations by launching attacks aimed at destroying radar and early warning systems. Tehran’s decision to close the Strait of Hormuz was also a strategic move aimed at creating shockwaves in the international economic system by putting pressure on the global energy supply. These actions directly affect the region’s security architecture and demonstrate that, this time, Iran entered the conflict not merely as a reactor, but as a more prepared actor aiming to produce strategic results.

However, the intensity of Iran’s retaliatory attacks decreased significantly in the days that followed the initial onslaught. This may have been due to operational reasons, such as the rapid depletion of missile stockpiles or the destruction of launch sites. Alternatively, Tehran may have preferred to use its missile inventory more cautiously and strategically in order to prolong the war and engage in long-term conflict. There are significant uncertainties surrounding Iran’s actual missile capabilities, and the Tehran administration consciously exploits these uncertainties as a deterrent and an element of wartime deception.

Conversely, the targeting of U.S. military personnel in the Gulf has created a new security dynamic that pits the region’s monarchies directly against Iran. While this development is not expected to produce a direct military result in the short term, it could lead the Gulf countries, which have long had a fragmented approach to Iran policy, to adopt a more coordinated stance over time.

The risk of regionalization of war

The first regional reaction against the U.S. and Israel came from Tehran’s allies. While some elements of the Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon have become partially involved in the conflict, it seems likely that these actors, as well as the Ansarullah movement in Yemen, will increase their operational tempo in the coming days. If the war drags on, the role of these regional armed networks is expected to become increasingly decisive.

As the conflict evolves from a classic interstate battle into a war of attrition, the influence and visibility of these non-state armed groups will also grow. However, it is highly likely that the war will affect not only regional military dynamics, but also the internal political balances of Lebanon and Iraq. In particular, discussions regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah and the position of Shia actors in Iraqi politics may change in line with the war’s progress.

Conversely, attacks on the U.S. military presence in the Gulf could pave the way for more direct military responses against Iran in the Gulf if the conflict drags on, even if they don’t produce a direct response in the short term. Furthermore, security concerns arising from missile and drone attacks targeting neighboring countries are also noteworthy, despite Iran officially denying responsibility. Incidents such as these, particularly those targeting Türkiye and Azerbaijan, are considered to be developments that expand the geographical risk area of the war, indicating that the number of similar incidents may increase as the conflict continues.

The fate of the Iran war

The justification for the war against Iran by President Donald Trump and his team is becoming an increasingly debated topic in American public opinion. The conflicting objectives and reasons for involvement of government officials are obscuring Washington’s strategic aim in this conflict. At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: Does the U.S. want to change the Iranian regime, transform Iran’s regional and military behavior, or is Washington primarily involved in the war to serve Israel’s security priorities? The lack of a clear and consistent strategic framework undermines the legitimacy and sustainability of the war in domestic politics.

In contrast, the justification for the war on the Iranian side is based on a much clearer and stronger narrative. The loss of high-ranking political and military figures, including the Supreme Leader, during the attacks has caused Iranian society to view the conflict not merely as a security crisis, but also as a struggle to defend the nation and religion. This is a significant factor that strengthens Iran’s motivation for war. Furthermore, Iran has developed significant resilience and experience of conflict through years of regional wars, proxy conflicts and sanctions. Wars of attrition, in particular, are not alien to Iranian strategic culture. Therefore, if the conflict continues, Washington is likely to face progressively higher military, economic and political costs.

While U.S. military losses appear to be limited at this stage, the possibility of large-scale casualties cannot be ignored if the conflict escalates. In particular, a ground operation could dramatically increase losses and potentially cause a significant rift in American domestic politics. Such a scenario could also lead to a return to the trauma of the Vietnam War, which was a long and costly military engagement that left deep scars on the national psyche. In other words, strategic miscalculations eventually come home to roost.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

S

everal Democratic lawmakers in the United States Senate say they are increasingly concerned about the direction of the war with Iran after attending classified briefings from officials in the administration of Donald Trump.

The lawmakers say the White House has not clearly explained why the United States entered the conflict, what its long-term goals are, or how long the war might last.

Following the latest closed-door briefing on Tuesday, several senators called for public hearings to allow Americans to better understand the scope and strategy of the military campaign.

“I just came from a two-hour classified briefing on the war,” Democratic Senator Chris Murphy told reporters.

“It confirmed to me that the strategy is totally incoherent,” he said, adding that Congress has not been properly consulted about the war.

Murphy argued that if the administration had formally sought congressional authorization for the war, it likely would not have been approved.

“If the president did what the Constitution requires and came to Congress to seek authorization for this war, he wouldn’t get it,” he said. “The American people would demand that their members of Congress vote no.”

Classified briefings raise concerns

Since the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran on February 28, senior administration officials have provided several classified briefings to members of Congress about the military campaign.

Among those briefing lawmakers were Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Because the meetings are classified, lawmakers are restricted in what they can publicly disclose.

However, several Democrats said they left the briefings frustrated, arguing that officials did not provide clear answers about the war’s objectives, timeline or broader strategy.

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said the administration’s messaging appeared contradictory.

“There seems to be no endgame,” Blumenthal told reporters after Tuesday’s meeting.

“The president, almost in a single breath, says it’s almost done, and at the same time, it’s just begun. So this is kind of contradictory.”

Some lawmakers have also raised concerns that the war could eventually involve a deployment of US ground forces in Iran.

“We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here,” Blumenthal said.

“The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform and the potential for further escalation.”

Questions over civilian casualties

Several Democrats have also demanded an investigation into a strike on a girls’ school in the southern Iranian city of Minab.

Reports indicate the attack killed at least 170 people, most of them children.

Six Democratic senators earlier this week called for a formal inquiry into the incident, amid claims that US forces may have been involved in the strike.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren raised concerns about both civilian casualties and the financial cost of the war.

“The one part that seems clear is that while there is no money for 15 million Americans who lost their health care, there’s a billion dollars a day to spend on bombing Iran,” Warren told reporters.

She said Congress could potentially use its budget authority to restrict funding for the war.

“The one thing Congress has the power to do is to stop actions like this through the power of the purse,” she said.

Republican support largely intact

Despite Democratic criticism, most Republicans in Congress have supported the military campaign.

Republicans currently hold a narrow majority in the Senate, with a 53-47 advantage, giving them significant control over what legislation or debates reach the chamber floor.

Some Republican leaders say the strikes are necessary to weaken Iran’s missile program and curb Tehran’s regional influence.

Brian Mast, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, publicly thanked Trump for launching the attacks.

He said the president was acting within his constitutional authority to defend the United States against what he described as an “imminent threat” posed by Iran.

Still, a small number of Republicans have voiced concerns about the war.

Republican Senator Rand Paul criticized the administration’s shifting justifications for the war.

“We keep hearing new reasons for war with Iran — none convincing,” Paul wrote on social media.

“‘Free the oppressed’ sounds noble, but where does it end?” he said. “War should be a last resort, not our first move.”

Republican Representative Nancy Mace also warned against sending US troops into another prolonged Middle East war.

“I do not want to send South Carolina’s sons and daughters into war with Iran,” she wrote in a post online.

T

he United States said it is investigating an airstrike that killed 168 students at a girls’ primary school in southern Iran, while Israel denied any involvement in the attack.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters that Washington had launched a probe into the incident, which targeted the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ School in the city of Minab.

“All I can say is we’re investigating that,” Hegseth said when asked about the bombing. He added that the U.S. military “never targets civilian sites.”

Israeli officials also rejected suggestions that their forces were responsible. Military spokesperson Nadav Shoshani told the U.S. public broadcaster NPR that the Israeli army was not aware of any operation in the area.

“We are not aware at the moment of any IDF operation in that area,” Shoshani said. “I don’t know who’s responsible for the bombing.”

Iranian officials say the strike occurred on Saturday, the first day of joint U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran. According to local authorities, the missile struck the school directly while classes were underway.

Mohammad Radmehr, governor of Minab, said the attack killed girls between the ages of seven and 12. The blast largely destroyed the building, with sections of the concrete roof collapsing onto classrooms.

Authorities in Iran reported that 168 people were killed and at least 95 others were injured.

Eyewitnesses report second strike

Witnesses and first responders told media outlets that the site may have been struck twice. After the initial explosion, teachers reportedly moved surviving students into a prayer hall for protection. A second strike then hit the area where the children had gathered.

Such attacks are often described as “double-tap” strikes, in which a second explosion occurs after rescuers or survivors gather at the scene.

Video footage circulating online shows extensive damage to the school building and large crowds gathering outside in the aftermath. Satellite imagery also indicates that several facilities linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) located about 200 meters from the school were struck around the same time.

However, analysts and first responders said the damage pattern suggests the school itself was directly targeted rather than accidentally hit by nearby strikes.

Funerals and international reaction

Funerals for the victims were held in Minab earlier this week, with large crowds attending the burial of dozens of children. Iranian officials said the destruction was so severe that many of the victims remain unidentified and are undergoing DNA testing.

Iran has accused the United States and Israel of carrying out the attack, while both governments have said they are investigating the incident.

Meanwhile, a panel of experts from the United Nations described the strike as “deeply disturbing” and called for an independent investigation.

According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, at least 1,097 civilians have been killed across Iran since the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign began. Iranian diplomats have urged the international community to examine the incident and hold those responsible accountable.

(Source: Middle East Eye, Anadolu Agency)

A

hmad Vahidi is a senior Iranian military and political figure who has recently been appointed commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), one of the most powerful institutions in Iran. His appointment comes at a critical moment, as Iran faces a large-scale military confrontation with the United States and Israel.

Vahidi assumed leadership of the IRGC after the deaths of several senior Iranian commanders during the war with Israel and the United States. His predecessor, Mohammad Pakpour, was killed during the initial phase of the joint U.S.-Israeli attacks in February 2026. Pakpour himself had replaced Hossein Salami, who was killed earlier during the 2025 war with Israel.

This rapid turnover highlights the danger surrounding the position. The IRGC has previously lost prominent commanders, including Qassem Soleimani, the former head of the elite Quds Force who was killed in a U.S. drone strike ordered by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020.

Early career and rise in the IRGC

Vahidi has been involved with the Revolutionary Guards since shortly after the Iranian Revolution. During the 1980s he rose through the organization’s ranks, holding positions in intelligence and military leadership.

Iranian state media report that he commanded the IRGC’s external operations branch, the Quds Force, from 1988 to 1997. He later handed the role to Soleimani, who expanded Iran’s regional influence across the Middle East until his assassination in 2020.

In December 2025, Iran’s then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appointed Vahidi as deputy commander of the IRGC, positioning him as a key figure in preparing Iran’s forces for potential conflict.

Unlike some previous IRGC commanders, Vahidi has also held important civilian posts in the Iranian government.

He served as defense minister under former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and later became interior minister in the administration of President Ebrahim Raisi. His experience across both military and political institutions has given him strong influence within Iran’s security establishment.

Controversies and sanctions

Vahidi has also been the subject of international controversy. In the late 2000s, Interpol issued a red notice for him at the request of Argentina over alleged involvement in the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center, which killed 85 people. Iranian officials have denied any role in the attack.

He has also been sanctioned by the European Union and the United States over Iran’s crackdown on protests following the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody in 2022.

As IRGC commander, Vahidi now faces the challenge of leading Iran’s most powerful military force during an ongoing war while maintaining coordination among Iran’s armed forces and political leadership. Analysts say his experience within Iran’s security and political institutions may help him manage the decentralized structure of the Revolutionary Guards.

The survival of Iran’s political system is closely tied to the IRGC, making Vahidi’s leadership central to how the country responds to the current military crisis.

(Source: Aljazeera)

M

ojtaba Khamenei has emerged as a possible successor to Iran’s top leadership after the reported death of his father, Ali Khamenei, during attacks by the United States and Israel. Although no official announcement has been made, Western and Israeli media have suggested that he is among the leading figures who could assume power in the Islamic Republic.

Mojtaba Khamenei was born in 1969 and is the second son of Ali Khamenei, who ruled Iran as supreme leader for more than three decades. Unlike many political figures in Iran, Mojtaba has largely avoided public visibility. He rarely gives speeches, sermons or interviews, and many Iranians know little about his public voice despite his long-standing influence behind the scenes.

He is a cleric with the rank of hojatoleslam, a mid-level position in Iran’s religious hierarchy. While this rank is lower than that of an ayatollah, it would not necessarily prevent him from becoming supreme leader. His father also did not hold the rank of ayatollah when he was chosen as leader in 1989, and Iran’s laws were adjusted to allow his appointment.

Influence inside Iran’s power structure

Despite his low public profile, Mojtaba Khamenei is believed to wield considerable influence within Iran’s political and security establishment, particularly within the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

During the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq War, he reportedly served in an IRGC battalion, forming relationships with figures who later rose to senior positions in Iran’s military and intelligence institutions.

Over the years he is believed to have become a key intermediary between his father and the IRGC, giving him influence in strategic decisions and elite networks within the state.

Opponents of the Iranian government have long accused Mojtaba Khamenei of involvement in the suppression of political dissent, particularly during the
2009 Iranian Green Movement.

Reformists claimed he helped coordinate security forces and the Basij militia during the crackdown that followed the disputed re-election of former president
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mojtaba has also been sanctioned by the United States, and Western reports have alleged that networks connected to him control large financial assets and businesses, though these claims are disputed and often difficult to verify.

A controversial succession

If Mojtaba Khamenei were chosen as Iran’s next supreme leader, it would be historically significant. His rise would effectively create a hereditary transfer of power, something critics say resembles the monarchy overthrown in the Iranian Revolution.

Supporters inside the conservative establishment, however, view him as someone who could preserve ideological continuity and maintain strong ties with the security apparatus during a period of war and political uncertainty.

The decision does not belong to the government alone. Iran’s constitution assigns that authority to the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member council of clerics tasked with appointing and supervising the supreme leader.

Until a permanent decision is made, reports indicate that Iran is being temporarily overseen by a leadership arrangement that includes President Masoud Pezeshkian and senior judicial and clerical officials.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

T

ensions across the Middle East intensified overnight as Iran continued retaliatory strikes against U.S. assets and regional allies following joint U.S.–Israeli attacks that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of senior Iranian officials. Tehran has categorically rejected any prospect of negotiations with Washington, while Israel expanded its military campaign into Lebanon after rocket fire from Hezbollah.

Iranian missiles and drones targeted multiple locations across the Gulf, with at least one fatality reported in Bahrain. Explosions were also reported near a U.S. base outside Baghdad, and air raid sirens sounded repeatedly in Kuwait and Qatar.

Kuwaiti authorities said their air defense systems intercepted a “majority” of drones approaching the capital, adding that no casualties were reported. In Doha, loud blasts were heard as Qatari forces reportedly shifted to intercepting incoming projectiles over Gulf waters to minimize debris risks over populated areas.

The escalation follows the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes that also reportedly eliminated up to 40 senior Iranian officials, marking one of the most consequential blows to Iran’s leadership since the 1979 revolution.

Tehran rejects U.S. talks

Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s National Security Council, dismissed U.S. media reports suggesting Tehran was seeking renewed nuclear negotiations through Omani mediators.

“We will not negotiate with the United States,” Larijani wrote on social media, accusing U.S. President Donald Trump of turning his “America First” policy into “Israel First” and sacrificing American lives for Israeli ambitions.

The rejection comes amid reports that U.S. officials briefed Congress in closed-door sessions that there was no intelligence indicating Iran was preparing to attack U.S. forces before the initial strikes. According to Reuters, Pentagon officials acknowledged that while Iran posed an imminent threat to U.S. interests, there was no evidence of a planned preemptive assault.