Global Pulse

博客

  • Saudi and UAE showcase public display of unity after months of strained relations

    Saudi and UAE showcase public display of unity after months of strained relations

    After months of escalating public disputes that exposed deep rifts between the two Gulf monarchies, senior media officials from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates released synchronized social media statements Tuesday affirming the long-standing fraternal bonds between their nations and their shared commitment to unity under wise leadership.

    The coordinated posts, published on platform X at exactly 7:00 pm Riyadh time, came from Saudi Minister of Media Salman al-Dosary and Abdulla bin Mohamed Alhamed, chairman of the UAE National Media Authority.

    In his statement, Dosary framed the bilateral relationship as a connection rooted in shared history and common heritage that binds the two peoples together, rather than merely a formal diplomatic agreement between governments. He added that social media platforms bear a responsibility to push back against any actors that seek to spread false narratives about the state of Saudi-UAE relations, emphasizing that all public content about the ties between the two countries must prioritize factual accuracy.

    For his part, Alhamed stressed that Saudi Arabia and the UAE share a single collective destiny, and that the two states operate through close coordination and a unified strategic vision to build a future of shared prosperity for both their peoples and the broader Gulf region. Both statements reiterated that all media coverage from the two countries should center exclusively on these positive, unifying aspects of the bilateral relationship.

    The public display of unity comes after more than six months of growing tensions that spilled into public view, driven by divergent national interests on multiple critical regional and economic issues. Disagreements between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have simmered for years, but recent disagreements have become impossible to conceal, most notably over oil policy, the future of the Yemeni conflict, and the appropriate response to the Israel-Iran conflict that has shaken regional security.

    The first high-profile public escalation came in December, when a Saudi air strike hit a shipment of UAE military supplies bound for the Southern Transitional Council, a Yemeni separatist faction that Abu Dhabi openly backs. Following that incident, tensions boiled over into the public sphere, with influential social media accounts, political pundits and state-aligned news outlets from both nations engaging in weeks of heated public feuds. By March, the UAE moved to restrict access, blocking the official X account of Saudi-owned major news network Al-Arabiya.

    The rift widened further during the regional conflict sparked by Iran’s strikes on Israel, a confrontation that put Gulf states at direct risk of escalation. The UAE adopted a sharply hawkish stance, reportedly carrying out dozens of unacknowledged air strikes against Iranian targets – exposing a far deeper and earlier involvement in the conflict than the international community had previously recognized. Saudi Arabia, by contrast, opted for a more hedged, pragmatic approach: it condemned Iran’s attacks on fellow Gulf states and agreed to open the King Fahd Air Base in Taif to U.S. forces, while also working quietly through diplomatic channels in Islamabad to push for negotiated de-escalation with Tehran.

    In May, the UAE announced its departure from OPEC, the Riyadh-led intergovernmental oil production cartel that has coordinated global oil supply for decades. Shortly after withdrawing, Abu Dhabi moved to sharply ramp up its own crude oil production, a move that put it in direct competition with Saudi Arabia’s production cut policies aimed at supporting global oil prices.

    By July, independent regional outlet Middle East Eye described the two neighboring powers as being “embroiled in an economic war of attrition”, with international business leaders reportedly drafting contingency plans to prepare for a potential further breakdown in bilateral relations that could disrupt cross-border trade and investment. In recent weeks, reports have emerged confirming that Saudi financial authorities have delayed or blocked a growing number of money transfers to UAE-based accounts, stoking fears that the political rift was already starting to damage commercial ties between the two economic hubs.

    Multiple sources told the Financial Times that payments from Saudi banks to Dubai-based accounts held by UAE companies and foreign individuals have been repeatedly returned or put on hold since May, often without any formal explanation from Saudi regulators. One Western executive at a Dubai-based healthcare firm told the outlet that Saudi banks had blocked and returned multiple payments from a long-standing Saudi client starting in mid-May. In response to queries, Saudi Arabia’s central bank denied implementing any “direct restrictions on specific countries” in its oversight of cross-border payments.

    The push for renewed unity comes as the region faces growing shared security threats. In recent days, Gulf Cooperation Council Secretary General Jasem Mohamed Albudaiwi joined senior diplomats from both Saudi Arabia and the UAE to call for coordinated regional action in response to rising Iranian-linked attacks and Houthi threats to impose a full maritime blockade on Saudi shipping lanes.

    On Monday, the Saudi-led military coalition operating in Yemen announced it would respond to Houthi threats against commercial shipping with “decisive force”, after the Yemeni rebel group formally declared a naval blockade on Saudi ports. Just this Thursday, the UAE officially condemned a recent Houthi attack targeting the Saudi-flagged cargo vessel Encelad as it transited the Red Sea, calling on the international community to enforce existing UN Security Council resolutions – including Resolution 2216 on Yemen and Resolution 2722, which protects freedom of navigation in the Red Sea.

    The synchronized media statements Tuesday were preceded by a public signal of rapprochement just an hour earlier, when Turki Alalshikh, advisor to the Saudi Royal Court and head of Saudi Arabia’s General Entertainment Authority, posted a previously unshared photograph on X. The image shows Saudi Defence Minister Khalid bin Salman and UAE Vice President Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan standing with their arms around one another, both smiling. Alalshikh captioned the post: “Saudi Arabia and the UAE: a story of brotherly relations and a deeply rooted partnership.”

    Anwar Gargash, diplomatic advisor to the UAE president, reposted the image with an proverbial caption nodding to the value of unity: “The spears refuse, when gathered, to be broken… and when they part, they break one by one.”

  • Trump backtracks on Saudi nuclear deal, demands Israel normalisation

    Trump backtracks on Saudi nuclear deal, demands Israel normalisation

    In a surprise shift announced Thursday, former U.S. President Donald Trump has revised his stance on the landmark U.S.-Saudi Arabia civil nuclear cooperation deal, stating that final approval of the agreement will only move forward if Riyadh agrees to normalize diplomatic relations with Israel as part of the Abraham Accords.

    Writing on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump clarified the parameters of the proposed deal, emphasizing that the agreement would strictly limit Saudi Arabia’s nuclear activities to civilian non-military applications, barring any uranium enrichment capabilities. “The Civil Nuclear Deal (There will be no enrichment of material!)… pertains only to non-military use such as the ones that Iran and UAE (and others) already have, will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords,” Trump posted. He added that Washington does not oppose the development of civilian, non-enrichment nuclear facilities in the kingdom.

    The framework for this nuclear partnership was officially unveiled by the U.S. Department of Energy just one day before Trump’s announcement, with the agency describing the 10-year agreement as a cornerstone for long-term bilateral cooperation between Washington and Riyadh. According to the DOE’s statement, the deal is designed to lay the groundwork for a multi-billion-dollar long-term partnership that advances core U.S. economic and strategic priorities, including global nuclear nonproliferation goals. Under U.S. law, the agreement now heads to Congress for a 90-session-day review period, during which lawmakers have the authority to block the deal from taking effect.

    The agreement paves the way for Saudi Arabia to construct civilian nuclear power reactors using U.S. nuclear technology, a development that has already sparked fierce opposition from Israel and pro-Israel advocacy groups operating in the United States. Earlier unconfirmed reports had suggested the deal could allow Saudi Arabia to conduct domestic uranium enrichment without committing to the strict rapid inspection protocols that Washington has long demanded of Iran’s nuclear program. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has previously pushed back against these concerns, affirming that any nuclear agreement with Riyadh would not contribute to the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

    Saudi Arabia has for months maintained a firm position on Israeli normalization, stating publicly that it will not establish full formal relations with Israel without a binding, credible roadmap that leads to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. This requirement puts Riyadh directly at odds with the condition Trump has now attached to the nuclear deal, creating a new point of tension in the complex trilateral dynamic between the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

  • Iran says it will pursue ‘eye for an eye’ as US attack near Iraq border kills two

    Iran says it will pursue ‘eye for an eye’ as US attack near Iraq border kills two

    Tensions across the Middle East have surged to new heights this week, after the United States carried out its 12th consecutive day of strikes on Iranian territory, prompting Tehran to formalize a retaliatory “an eye for an eye” defense doctrine in response to explicit threats from former President Donald Trump to target Iranian civilian infrastructure.

    Iranian state media confirmed Thursday that a U.S. strike on the border town of Shalamcheh, which lies along Iran’s frontier with Iraq, left two civilians dead and at least 11 others injured. The strikes also extended to Bushehr, the site of Iran’s only operational civilian nuclear power plant, where two U.S. missiles impacted the area.

    U.S. Central Command has publicly confirmed the 12th straight night of offensive operations, framing the campaign as an effort to “further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten civilian mariners and commercial vessels transiting regional waters.”

    In a provocative social media post, Trump laid out an explicit new red line for future U.S. action: every time Iran targets a vessel moving through the Strait of Hormuz — the strategically critical global chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s total oil and liquefied natural gas supplies transit — the U.S. will destroy key Iranian civilian infrastructure. “Any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by Missile, Rocket, Drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT,” Trump wrote.

    Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi pushed back immediately on the social platform X, making clear Tehran’s new position: “Our defense doctrine is clear: eye for an eye. Any aggression against Iran, including our infrastructure, will compel a powerful and decisive response.” He added that any third party providing support to the U.S. campaign would also be treated as a legitimate target for retaliation.

    Iranian military spokesperson Mohammad Akraminia, speaking on state television, reinforced this stance, noting: “The armed forces’ retaliatory attacks will continue as long as the US attacks on the country’s infrastructure and coastal areas continue.”

    Retaliatory strikes have already spread beyond Iran’s borders. On Thursday morning, both Jordan and Kuwait confirmed they intercepted incoming attacks, which Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) confirmed targeted U.S. military assets hosted in both countries. The Iranian army announced it deployed “destructive drones” to strike multiple U.S. facilities across Kuwait, including ammunition and logistics depots at Camp Doha, fuel storage tanks at Ali al-Salem Air Base, and an ammunition depot at Camp Arifjan.

    In the Strait of Hormuz itself, the IRGC announced it had halted three transiting oil tankers on Thursday, asserting full control over the waterway. “The Strait of Hormuz is under our control… and any ship that is deceived by the US and intends to pass without coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran will suffer the same fate,” the corps said.

    The conflict has now expanded to the Red Sea, where Yemen’s Houthi movement — which recently entered the fray and declared a blockade on Saudi ports — claimed responsibility for missile and drone strikes on two Saudi oil tankers overnight. The Houthi movement identified the targeted vessels as the *Encelia* and the *Layla*. UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), the British body that monitors naval security in the region, confirmed the master of one tanker reported being struck by an unidentified projectile roughly 70 nautical miles southwest of Saudi Arabia’s Al Shuqaiq, adding that the projectile sparked a fire that the crew was working to extinguish. Saudi Arabia has confirmed the *Encelia* was hit, but has not yet issued comment on the second tanker.

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Iran of manipulating the Houthis into joining the conflict, saying, “The Houthis largely were smart and stayed out of all this throughout the conflict, but they now apparently have gotten themselves suckered into this, going after Saudi Arabia and their ships. I hope they will de-escalate, because I think the Houthis, frankly, got snookered into this thing by the Iranians.”

    As regional powers move to contain the escalation, Oman announced Thursday it is facilitating the resumption of de-escalation talks between the Houthi movement and the Saudi government to lower tensions in the Red Sea and Yemen.

  • Rights groups sue France over inaction on financial ties to illegal Israeli settlements

    Rights groups sue France over inaction on financial ties to illegal Israeli settlements

    In a landmark legal challenge that tests global compliance with international law, five leading human rights organizations have brought a case against the French government before the Conseil d’État, France’s highest administrative court, accusing Paris of failing to uphold its binding legal obligations to block French corporate financial activity in Israel’s illegally occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).

    The suit, filed Wednesday, directly calls out the French government for refusing to implement the binding recommendations laid out in a landmark July 2024 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). That historic ruling confirmed that Israel’s decades-long presence in the OPT violates international law, and mandated that all UN member states take proactive steps to prevent any economic activity that serves to entrench the illegal occupation. In the months following the ICJ’s ruling, a number of European Union member states including Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain have already moved to enact targeted regulatory measures to crack down on commercial and financial activity tied to Israeli settlements in the OPT. But France has not taken any substantive action beyond formally recognizing the state of Palestine last September and issuing a verbal declaration that the Israeli occupation is illegal. On the policy front, Paris has only issued non-binding warnings to French businesses operating in the West Bank, noting that their activities could carry a risk of international law violations, without imposing any enforceable restrictions.

    Named as respondents in the suit are France’s prime minister and multiple cabinet ministers with oversight over trade, economic affairs, and foreign policy. Legal representatives for the claimants argue that the French government’s deliberate inaction itself violates French and international law, and are asking the high court to order immediate intervention to compel Paris to enact binding regulatory measures. These requested measures include the creation of a mandatory public registry of all French entities operating in illegal Israeli settlements, formal prohibitions on all trade and public financial support for activities linked to settlements, and a ban on companies with settlement ties from accessing French government procurement contracts.

    James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, which provides legal advisory support to the five nongovernmental organizations bringing the challenge, emphasized that the ICJ left no ambiguity about member states’ legal responsibilities. “International law only has force if states are prepared to implement it in practice,” Goldston said.

    The five claimant organizations are the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Jurists for the Respect of International Law (JURDI), the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), La Ligue des Droits Humains (LDH), and Law for Palestine. In their court filing, the groups presented documented evidence showing that multiple French companies continue to operate across key sectors in the OPT, including transportation, construction, finance, and commercial services. One high-profile example cited is Egis Rail Group, which the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has already listed for its role in constructing Jerusalem’s light rail system, a project that connects West Jerusalem to Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem.

    Legal proceedings are expected to take up to 12 months to reach a final ruling. Following the initial filing this week, the process will enter a written procedural phase: the named government ministers will first file a formal response to the claims, after which the claimants will submit a rebuttal brief. Once this written exchange is complete, a public hearing will be scheduled before the Conseil d’État, a step that typically takes several months for high-stakes administrative cases of this nature.

    If the claimants prevail, legal analysts note the ruling would set a critical global precedent that clarifies how national governments are required to regulate corporate conduct tied to serious breaches of international law. Tayab Ali, director of the ICJP, outlined the stakes of the challenge in a press statement from the claimant groups, noting that the case “seeks to move beyond expressions of concern toward accountability, asserting that international legal obligations must be enforceable before independent courts.”

    Rights groups and independent United Nations experts have long documented that Israel generates significant financial profit from its illegal occupation of the OPT, leveraging its military and administrative control over Palestinian land, natural resources, and industries to entrench its economic grip, while continuing to expand illegal settlements and advance de facto annexation across the West Bank.

  • UK secretly considered suspending Israel trade deal during Gaza famine

    UK secretly considered suspending Israel trade deal during Gaza famine

    A secret internal trade policy review conducted by the British government, which examined whether to suspend Israel’s tariff-free trade access to UK markets, was hidden from Parliament and the general public before officials ultimately opted to keep the preferential agreement in place, according to reporting from Sky News.

    The review was commissioned in August 2025 by the Department for Business and Trade during Keir Starmer’s tenure as prime minister. At that time, widespread famine was already unfolding across the besieged Gaza Strip, a humanitarian catastrophe widely documented as a deliberate consequence of Israeli restrictions on food, water and aid access to the territory.

    Ministers launched the impact assessment against a backdrop of rapidly growing global outcry over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, as well as its accelerating expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, entrenched apartheid governance over Palestinian populations, and ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian communities across occupied territories. Three months prior to the review, the ruling Labour party had already paused negotiations for an expanded bilateral free trade agreement with Israel, after then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy called remarks from Israel’s defense minister — who openly stated the goal of “cleansing” Gaza and “destroying what’s left” of the enclave — “repellent” and “monstrous”. Despite this public rebuke, the existing 2019 UK-Israel Trade Partnership Agreement, which grants tariff-free entry to nearly all Israeli goods entering the UK, remained fully intact.

    When the question of modifying the trade deal was raised in Parliament that October, then-Trade Minister Chris Bryant defended the government’s choice to retain preferential access. He argued that existing export ties to Israel supported thousands of UK domestic jobs, and warned that suspending the agreement would carry risks of unpredictable outcomes and major economic harm to British businesses. What Bryant did not disclose during the parliamentary debate is that he has longstanding deep ties to Labour Friends of Israel, a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group within the UK Labour party. Bryant previously served as vice chair of the organization, and has accepted all-expenses-paid trips to Israel funded jointly by the group and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    The existence of the classified impact assessment only came to light after advocacy organization Global Justice Now submitted a formal freedom of information request to the Department for Business and Trade. Even following the confirmation that the review took place, government officials have refused to release any details about the assessment’s scope, its findings, its scheduled timeline, or any policy outcomes that came from the internal examination.

    The secret review unfolded at a moment of mounting global pressure for targeted economic measures against Israel over its actions in Palestinian territories. Around the same time the UK conducted its internal assessment, the European Union faced growing public and political demands to suspend portions of its own trade agreement with Israel, and ultimately tabled a proposal to roll back some of Israel’s preferential trade concessions. The UK review also came more than one year after the International Court of Justice issued a landmark ruling requiring all UN member states to end any trade or commercial activity that supports Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise in occupied Palestinian land.

  • Albania police teargas protesters against Trump-linked resort

    Albania police teargas protesters against Trump-linked resort

    On a tense Thursday in Albania’s capital Tirana, security forces deployed tear gas and water cannons to disperse hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the country’s parliament building, capping more than a month of sustained public anger over a luxury coastal tourism development linked to the Trump family. What began as a targeted environmental campaign against construction in a protected coastal wildlife reserve has grown into a broader protest over government transparency, public corruption, and misallocated public funds, uniting environmental activists, opposition politicians, and ordinary citizens against the ruling administration.

    The wave of daily demonstrations first launched in late May, sparked by plans to build a sprawling luxury resort complex connected to Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the daughter and son-in-law of former U.S. President Donald Trump. The proposed development is located on a protected, unspoiled stretch of Albania’s Adriatic coast, in a protected nature reserve that hosts endangered loggerhead turtle nesting grounds and stable flamingo colonies on an adjacent uninhabited island. Scientists and local environmental activists say preliminary site work has already caused irreversible ecological harm, destroying critical habitats already at risk.

    Marine biologist Olsi Nika, who leads the prominent Albanian environmental NGO EcoAlbania, described the damage from early construction activities as “an absolute biodiversity massacre.” The site’s once-pristine coastal ecosystems, scientists confirm, have been permanently altered, eliminating nesting areas for loggerhead turtles, a species classified as threatened with extinction globally. The project’s location inside a protected natural and cultural heritage zone has amplified public outrage, with critics arguing the government bypassed environmental regulations and public oversight to advance a deal that benefits connected interests.

    Thursday’s clashes broke out as protesters attempted to push through heavy police security cordons to reach the parliament entrance. By the end of the day, Albania’s health ministry confirmed six police officers and 11 demonstrators suffered minor injuries and were treated at local Tirana hospitals. The demonstration was timed to coincide with a parliamentary vote on a 4 million euro ($4.6 million) public subsidy for a Kanye West concert held in Tirana earlier in July, a decision that further enraged a public already frustrated by the government’s handling of the resort project.

    In the chaotic parliamentary session, the subsidy was ultimately approved by 80 votes, all from the ruling Socialist Party, which holds a majority in the 140-seat unicameral legislature. Prime Minister Edi Rama had previously committed to the public funding, arguing it was required to prevent the high-profile concert from being canceled. For protesters, the approval of large public spending for a celebrity concert while pushing forward an environmentally destructive private resort project underscored what they call the government’s lopsided, non-transparent priorities.

    The project has become a major flashpoint for discontent in Albania, drawing thousands of nightly protesters through at least mid-July, according to on-the-ground reporting from Agence France-Presse. Clashes between demonstrators and police have occurred repeatedly in recent weeks outside parliament, with protesters previously throwing eggs at lawmakers as they entered the building. The development’s ties to the Trump family have also drawn international attention to the conflict, turning a local environmental dispute into a globally watched case of conservation versus high-profile development.

    No official crowd counts have been released by the Albanian government, but AFP journalists on site estimate thousands of people have joined the sustained daily protests through more than a month of action. Critics say the project highlights broader concerns about corruption and lack of accountability in Albania’s government, with environmental harm serving as the most visible trigger for widespread public anger that continues to roil the country’s political landscape.

  • US panel says to loosen restrictions on popular peptide despite safety concerns

    US panel says to loosen restrictions on popular peptide despite safety concerns

    A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has sparked intense controversy after voting Thursday to recommend rolling back restrictions on the buzzy wellness industry peptide BPC-157, a decision that splits public health experts and opens new debate over untested compounded drugs. The recommendation came during a two-day gathering where the committee is evaluating whether seven understudied peptides should be added to the FDA’s approved bulk compounding list, a designation that lets specialized compounding pharmacies produce custom peptide formulations for wider public access.

    Peptides, short amino acid chains that form the building blocks of proteins, occur naturally in the human body. But synthetic versions like BPC-157 have exploded in popularity in mainstream wellness circles, promoted by social media influencers and A-list celebrities as a miracle solution for everything from injury recovery to overall bodily optimization, despite a near-total lack of rigorous human clinical trial data to back up those claims.

    Critics have already raised alarms over the composition of the advisory panel, noting that current U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—himself a public proponent of peptide use who says he has taken peptides to treat personal injuries—stacked the committee with appointees holding deep financial and professional ties to the growing peptide industry. The peptides now under review, which also include TB-500 and Semax, were previously restricted from compounding by the administration of former president Joe Biden, largely due to the absence of proven safety and effectiveness data from formal human trials.

    Even before the panel’s vote, unregulated access to these peptides remained widespread. Consumers can already purchase the substances online from chemical suppliers marketed as “for lab use only,” and the products are regularly promoted across social media platforms among wellness trend followers, biohackers, and high-profile public figures including Kennedy.

    The final vote on BPC-157 ended 8-6 in favor of adding the peptide to the approved compounding list, with one panel member abstaining. The outcome directly contradicts the formal warnings issued by FDA career scientists, who have repeatedly emphasized that BPC-157 lacks sufficient data to confirm it is safe or effective for human use.

    Panel members who opposed the recommendation stood by their objections during the open meeting. Elizabeth Rebello, a practicing pharmacist and anesthesiologist, told the committee she voted against the move “because of the lack of efficacy data” and ongoing “safety concerns.” Fellow no-voter Brian Lee added: “I think this endorsement can be potentially harmful, and I cannot in good conscience vote yes.”

    The majority of voting panelists justified their support for loosening restrictions by citing arguments of “medical freedom” and the “greater good” of expanding patient access to experimental treatments.

    The vote followed hours of testimony from stakeholders on both sides of the debate, including stark warnings from FDA career scientists against expanding access to untested BPC-157. Peter Lurie, president of the nonpartisan Center for Science in the Public Interest and a former FDA official, urged the panel to maintain existing restrictions, arguing that the recommendation “is inconsistent with the FDA’s own standards for pharmacy compounding, poses dangers to consumers, and removes incentives for developing new pharmaceutical products through the standard drug approval process.” Lurie went on to frame the unregulated peptide industry as a landscape rife with “pseudoscience and grift.”

    On the opposing side, telehealth firms including Hims & Hers argued in favor of easing restrictions, warning that keeping tight limits on compounded peptides will only push consumers to purchase unregulated products from unvetted gray market sellers, increasing rather than reducing safety risks.

    It is important to note that not all synthetic peptides carry the same level of risk: common treatments such as insulin and GLP-1 are well-studied, with well-documented risk and benefit profiles that have been confirmed through years of clinical research. By contrast, the injectable synthetic peptides promoted by wellness influencers and biohackers have never completed the large-scale, controlled clinical trials the FDA requires to formally confirm safety and effectiveness for consumer use.

    The advisory panel will continue its review of the six remaining peptides over the second day of the scheduled meeting. While the committee’s final recommendations are not legally binding for the FDA, the agency has a long-standing history of giving substantial deference to advisory panel guidance when setting regulatory policy.

  • Saudis must recognise Israel for nuclear deal, says Trump

    Saudis must recognise Israel for nuclear deal, says Trump

    A new twist has emerged in the long-awaited US-Saudi civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, with President Donald Trump publicly confirming that the entire deal hinges on Riyadh formally joining the Abraham Accords, the 2020-brokered deal that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump clarified key terms of the framework, emphasizing that the agreement, which is strictly limited to non-military nuclear development, will not allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium on its own territory – a point that addresses widespread concerns about potential nuclear proliferation in the volatile Middle East.

    The unprecedented condition, first outlined by Trump in private discussions with Saudi leadership, has not yet been confirmed as a formal binding clause in the still-unreleased agreement text, and the Saudi government has not issued an official response to Trump’s public announcement as of press time. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on Thursday that Trump has repeatedly raised the requirement with Saudi officials during past negotiations. “He has said if they don’t join the Abraham Accords, the deal is off,” Leavitt stated, adding that diplomatic discussions with Saudi counterparts will continue in the coming weeks.

    Trump’s announcement comes one day after the bilateral agreement was officially unveiled, which has already drawn sharp criticism from nonproliferation experts and some members of Congress from both major political parties. Critics warn that opening the door to Saudi civilian nuclear development could create a pathway for the kingdom to pursue a nuclear weapons program down the line, exacerbating tensions in a region already grappling with long-running nuclear standoffs. While Trump’s Republican Party holds majority control of both the Senate and House of Representatives, meaning deal opponents lack the votes to block congressional approval, the concerns have added new scrutiny to the framework.

    According to a statement from the US Department of Energy, the agreement establishes two core binding documents: a peaceful nuclear cooperation pact and a bilateral safeguards agreement. Together, the department says, these documents lay the legal groundwork for what is expected to become a decades-long, multi-billion-dollar partnership that advances both US economic and strategic priorities, with nonproliferation as a central stated goal. The full agreement will now be sent to Congress for a mandatory review period before it can take effect. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also confirmed Thursday that it is aware of the plan and is preparing to implement verification measures once a formal request is submitted. “We look forward to receiving the request for such verification and to working with the US and KSA in ensuring the implementation of those measures,” an IAEA spokesperson said.

    The Abraham Accords, first negotiated during Trump’s first presidential term in 2020, marked a historic breakthrough in Middle East diplomacy, with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain becoming the first Arab nations to normalize formal relations with Israel in decades. Since the initial agreement was signed, Sudan, Morocco and Kazakhstan have also joined the framework. Saudi Arabia has long held firm that it will not normalize relations with Israel or join the accords until a sovereign Palestinian state is established, though US officials have signaled they are pushing for a breakthrough that would break this decades-long stalemate.

    Israeli officials have broadly welcomed Trump’s announcement, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office noting on social media platform X that Saudi membership in the accords “would be an historic leap forward for peace in the Middle East.” The prime minister’s statement did not address the nuclear deal itself, but Israeli Economy Minister Nir Barkat has previously said the country would accept Saudi civilian nuclear power. Still, some prominent Israeli figures have raised sharp alarms. Former Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman argued that “Every military nuclear program begins with a civilian one,” echoing nonproliferation experts’ concerns. Notably, Israel is widely believed to possess an arsenal of nuclear weapons, though it has maintained a decades-long policy of neither confirming nor denying this status.

    The nuclear file has been the center of a years-long standoff between Western powers and Iran, which has repeatedly denied Western accusations that it seeks to develop nuclear weapons. For its part, Saudi Arabia has walked a careful line on nuclear ambitions: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom’s de facto ruler, told CBS News in 2018 that Riyadh had no plans to pursue a nuclear bomb, but warned that “without a doubt if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.”

    Prior to Trump’s announcement, US media reports had speculated that the draft agreement could allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium domestically – a capability that can be used to produce fuel for civilian power reactors, but also can be refined to create the core material for nuclear weapons. Trump’s explicit rejection of that possibility has pushed back against those reports, but nonproliferation experts still warn that allowing domestic enrichment would represent a major shift in US policy. Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East programme at US-based think tank Defense Priorities, noted that “The US has never done that before. We have never helped another country enrich on their own soil.” Kelanic added that allowing domestic enrichment creates significant risk, because “if you can produce your own nuclear fuel, you become a much bigger risk” for developing nuclear weapons.

    Beyond strategic nonproliferation goals, the agreement also promises major economic benefits for US firms, with the Department of Energy confirming it will open broad access for American companies to participate in Saudi Arabia’s growing civilian nuclear energy program, as the kingdom seeks to expand its power generation capacity to support its long-term economic diversification plans.

  • Secret Service agent in Vance’s team under investigation over alleged leak

    Secret Service agent in Vance’s team under investigation over alleged leak

    A United States Secret Service agent tasked with protecting Vice President JD Vance has been placed on administrative suspension and is the subject of an active probe following allegations of unauthorized disclosure of classified protective details, the agency confirmed in a public statement Thursday.

    While the exact nature of the leaked information remains undisclosed to the public, the Secret Service confirmed the case has prompted a potential criminal investigation centered on claims that the agent breached operational protocols and compromised sensitive information security frameworks. “Any conduct that potentially threatens the safety of a protectee will not be tolerated,” agency spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi emphasized in the statement.

    The suspension comes at a moment of escalating risk for the agency, whose top leadership has repeatedly sounded alarms over a dramatic, unprecedented surge in recorded threats against individuals under Secret Service protection—including President Donald Trump, the most high-profile protectee of the U.S. government. The White House has declined to offer any on-the-record comment regarding the ongoing investigation, consistent with standard protocol for active law enforcement probes.

    Vice President Vance and his immediate family are mandated to receive 24/7 continuous Secret Service protection as part of standard coverage for the nation’s second-highest executive office. The disclosure of the leak probe came just one day after Secret Service Director Sean Curran delivered a stark warning about the agency’s operating environment, telling reporters that current conditions represent the most dangerous he has encountered during his 24-year career in law enforcement.

    Speaking to media ahead of the rescheduled Friday White House Correspondents’ Dinner, a high-profile annual event attended by dozens of top U.S. officials, Curran described the current national threat level as “off the charts.” “The environment has become very volatile, and that’s just across the board,” Curran said. “The threat picture and environment is as large as I’ve ever seen it.”

    Data from the agency underscores the scale of the surge: since the start of the current calendar year, Secret Service investigators have opened nearly 10,000 separate threat investigations targeting protected officials, a jump that outpaces recent years by a significant margin. Agency officials attribute the sharp increase to a convergence of multiple evolving risk factors, including a surge in hostile rhetoric and threats shared online, the growing threat of lone-wolf actors motivated by ideological extremism, interference efforts from foreign adversaries, and a rising number of threats from individuals experiencing acute mental health crises.

    Notably, the agency also highlighted a major shift in how threats are communicated: online platforms have now fully displaced traditional channels such as handwritten letters as the primary source for reported threats against public officials, creating new challenges for monitoring and mitigation for the Secret Service’s overstretched investigative teams.

  • Kozo Okamoto, Japanese militant who took part in a 1972 Tel Aviv airport attack, dies in Beirut

    Kozo Okamoto, Japanese militant who took part in a 1972 Tel Aviv airport attack, dies in Beirut

    BEIRUT — Kozo Okamoto, the Japanese radical militant who participated in one of the deadliest attacks targeting Israeli civilians more than 50 years ago, has died at the age of 78 in the Lebanese capital Beirut, according to an official announcement from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Palestinian faction that hosted and protected Okamoto for decades. The PFLP, the second-largest faction within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), confirmed that Okamoto passed away on Thursday following a long undisclosed illness.

    After his release from Israeli custody, Okamoto settled permanently in Lebanon, where he lived under the protection of Palestinian leftist groups and made only a handful of public appearances over nearly 40 years. Within PFLP circles, he was known by the alias Ahmad al-Yabani, meaning Ahmad the Japanese. In a formal statement released after his death, the PFLP praised Okamoto’s decades-long commitment to the Palestinian cause, framing his life as one defined by sacrifice for anti-Israel struggle. “His journey was marked by immense sacrifices spanning decades on the battlefields of struggle in support of the Palestinian cause,” the group said, adding that Okamoto “never compromised nor faltered but remained steadfast to his principles.”

    Okamoto’s legacy is inextricably tied to the 1972 attack on Tel Aviv’s former international airport, a coordinated joint operation between the PFLP and the Japanese Red Army (JRA), a violent ultra-leftist guerrilla group founded in 1971. On May 30, 1972, Okamoto and two JRA comrades flew to Tel Aviv from a European departure point, retrieved their luggage packed with hidden rifles and grenades, and opened fire on crowds in the airport terminal. The assault left 26 people dead and dozens more injured. Okamoto’s two collaborators were killed during the response to the attack, while Okamoto was wounded and taken into Israeli custody.

    Convicted of multiple counts of murder and sentenced to life in Israeli prison, Okamoto served only 12 years of his sentence before being released in 1985 during a large-scale prisoner exchange between Israel and Palestinian guerrilla factions. Following his release, he was granted political asylum in Lebanon, where he remained until his death. Over the course of his decades in Lebanon, Tokyo repeatedly demanded that Lebanese authorities extradite Okamoto to Japan to face justice, but Beirut consistently rejected these requests, as Okamoto had become a celebrated figure among many Lebanese and across the Arab world for his alignment with the Palestinian struggle against Israel.

    Okamoto’s life in Lebanon was not without legal incident. In 1997, Lebanese security forces arrested Okamoto and four other Japanese citizens who had been living illegally in the country, sheltered by Palestinian and leftist Lebanese groups during the chaos of the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War. After a high-profile trial, the four other Japanese detainees were transferred to Japanese authorities in 2000, while Okamoto became the first person ever to receive formal political asylum status from the Lebanese government. During his 1997 trial, Okamoto famously testified that he identified as “an Arab resistance fighter.”

    The most high-profile public appearance Okamoto made during his time in Lebanon came in May 2022, when he attended a commemoration event at a Beirut cemetery — the resting place of many prominent Palestinian militants — to mark the 50th anniversary of the 1972 airport attack.

    Beyond the 1972 airport attack, the JRA claimed responsibility for multiple high-profile terrorist attacks across the globe during the 1970s, including the 1975 seizure of the U.S. Consulate in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The PFLP, for its part, is a radical Palestinian faction that first gained global notoriety for the 1970 simultaneous hijacking of four Western civilian airliners, and later for the 1976 hijacking of an Air France flight traveling from Tel Aviv to Paris that was diverted to Entebbe, Uganda. Today, PFLP leader Ahmed Saadat remains one of the most prominent Palestinian figures held in Israeli custody; he was imprisoned for his alleged role in organizing the 2001 assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi, an ultranationalist politician who openly advocated for the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Israeli-controlled territory.