Global Pulse

博客

  • From Michigan to Missouri: Democratic primaries deliver mixed bag on Israel and Gaza

    From Michigan to Missouri: Democratic primaries deliver mixed bag on Israel and Gaza

    On Tuesday, voters across five U.S. states headed to the polls for Democratic Party primary elections, and while candidates debated a range of domestic and national security issues, the ongoing conflict in Gaza and U.S. policy toward Iran emerged as the most contentious fault line reshaping campaign outcomes. Although results varied widely from state to state, the contests left a mixed picture of how Democratic voters are responding to candidates’ stances on these explosive foreign policy questions.

    The most closely watched and consequential result of the night unfolded in Michigan, where progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed, former director of the Wayne County Health Department, edged out incumbent U.S. Representative Haley Stevens by a razor-thin one-percentage-point margin to secure the Democratic nomination for the state’s open U.S. Senate seat. El-Sayed secured 48.5% of the vote to Stevens’ 47.5%, capping a campaign that centered not just on progressive healthcare reform, but also on hardline shifts in immigration and foreign policy. El-Sayed campaigned on a promise to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel, abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and end what he framed as the Trump administration’s unauthorized war against Iran, warning that the conflict puts American lives at unnecessary risk by expanding regional instability without congressional approval.

    In contrast, Stevens ran a campaign highlighting Israel’s right to self-defense and argued in favor of continuing U.S. taxpayer-funded military support for the country. She drew heavy endorsements from mainstream Democratic Party establishment figures and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, and adopted a hawkish position on Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence. El-Sayed’s unapologetic criticism of U.S. policy in the Middle East struck a particular chord with the large Arab American and Muslim voting bloc concentrated in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, Dearborn, and Hamtramck. Though former President Donald Trump made unexpected gains among Wayne County voters in the 2024 presidential election—even earning an endorsement from Hamtramck’s Yemeni American mayor—former Vice President Kamala Harris still carried the county by a comfortable margin in that contest.

    In Missouri, the Democratic establishment delivered a clear win over anti-Israel foreign policy critics. Incumbent U.S. Representative Wesley Bell, a former St. Louis County prosecutor, defeated former congresswoman Cori Bush by a lopsided 22.3-point margin, with 59.2% of voters backing Bell to Bush’s 36.9%. The result blocked Bush’s bid to return to Congress after she lost the same seat in the 2024 election. Bush was one of the most prominent and outspoken congressional voices calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and she centered her entire campaign on her opposition to what she framed as Israeli genocide in Gaza and U.S. aggression toward Iran. Bell, by contrast, ran on a platform of unwavering, ironclad support for Israel and secured formal backing from AIPAC.

    In Kansas, Democratic primary voters nominated state Senator Cindy Holscher for the open U.S. Senate seat, while Republicans selected state Insurance Commissioner Vicki Schmidt to face her in the general election. The matchup sets up one of the most competitive Senate races of the cycle in a state that has been dominated by Republican control for nearly a century. Unlike the closely fought contest in Michigan, foreign policy played almost no role in Kansas’s Democratic primary, with candidates instead focusing their platforms on rural development, agricultural policy, and abortion rights.

    Virginia’s Democratic primary saw only one candidate on the ballot: former state governor and incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Warner, who leaned into his decades of experience on the Senate Intelligence Committee and framed his campaign around a focus on national security. Warner is a well-known staunch supporter of Israel and has received consistent backing from AIPAC. He has criticized the Trump administration for failing to consult Congress before launching military action against Iran, while also warning that Iran’s nuclear program poses a major ongoing threat to U.S. and global security. On the Republican side, voters picked retired Army Major General Bert Mizusawa, a former campaign advisor to Donald Trump, out of a crowded field of GOP candidates. Virginia has not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 2002, making Warner a narrow favorite in the general election.

    Finally, in Washington state, incumbent Democratic Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez successfully fended off a primary challenge from progressive candidate Brent Hennrich. Gluesenkamp Perez was endorsed by AIPAC, while Hennrich built his entire primary campaign around opposition to the lobbying group’s influence over U.S. politics. This report was produced by Middle East Eye, an outlet that provides independent, in-depth coverage of the Middle East, North Africa, and global affairs connected to the region.

  • Banned from football at home, Afghan women’s team reunite 8,000 miles away

    Banned from football at home, Afghan women’s team reunite 8,000 miles away

    In a bustling changing room in Auckland, New Zealand, 23 displaced Afghan women footballers go through their pre-match rituals. Some stretch tired muscles and lace up worn boots, while old teammates, separated by years of exile and uncertainty, embrace tightly. Midfielder Fatima Haidari turns to her squad, her voice steady and firm: “Be strong as always, because we do not just play for a team—we play for every Afghan woman denied the right to be here.” Applause fills the small room, where a tattered Afghan flag hangs on the wall and a soft patriotic hum drifts from a portable speaker. As the women join in the song, many blink back tears, their hands resting on the fabric of their matching kits. After a final huddle and a round of encouragement from their coach, they step out onto the pitch—ground that for decades, forces in their home country have insisted women do not belong.

    This gathering marks a historic milestone: it is the first time the full squad of Afghan Women United has assembled in person since FIFA’s landmark April ruling that cleared the way for the team to represent Afghanistan in future official international matches. Compiled entirely from Afghan women players who fled the Taliban takeover in 2021 and now resettled across the globe, the team traveled to New Zealand to hold a week-long training camp and compete in two unofficial friendly fixtures against the Cook Islands.

    For years, this moment seemed impossible. After the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in August 2021, the regime imposed sweeping, harsh restrictions on women and girls, barring them from secondary education, university, most professional careers, and all organized sport. The original Afghan women’s national team, founded in 2007, was immediately disbanded, and its players were forced to evacuate the country, scattering across Australia, the United Kingdom, Portugal, and other nations. Years of relentless advocacy from the players and their supporters eventually led to the formation of a refugee collective, which became Afghan Women United. With FIFA’s historic ruling, the team can now pursue qualification for major international tournaments, including the FIFA Women’s World Cup and the Olympic Games.

    For many of the players, just being able to train and compete together as a full squad is a victory years in the making. As asylum seekers and refugees spread across 10 different countries, securing coordinated travel documents and meeting in person has been an uphill battle over the past five years. For 23-year-old Manozh Noori, who now calls Australia home, the road to this gathering started as a secret on the streets of Kabul. Growing up, Noori played football with neighborhood boys, hiding her passion from her family after she secretly joined a local club at 16. Fearing her older brother, who was the family’s primary breadwinner, would disapprove, she played for six years wearing a face covering to conceal her identity, climbing the ranks to win multiple league titles, national championships, and individual awards.

    In 2018, her teammates convinced her to remove the covering for a national television interview. When the segment aired, her secret was out. “I was so scared,” Noori recalled, her voice thick with emotion as she spoke from her Auckland hotel ahead of the matches. “I turned off the electricity to try to stop my family from watching the news, but word still got to my brother. He was furious. He threatened to cut off all support for the family if I didn’t quit immediately. My mother was crying—she didn’t know how we would survive without his help.”

    Noori stepped away from the game for a short time, but eventually returned, supported by another brother living in Germany who funded her training. When the Taliban took over in 2021, she fled Afghanistan, but not before burying all her medals and trophies in her family’s garden. They remain there today. “One day I will go back and dig them out,” she says, a small smile crossing her face. Football has already given her more than trophies: two years after resettling in Australia, she was able to bring her mother and sister out of Afghanistan, allowing her sister to resume her education. “I hope my brother now realizes I am not a bad person,” she says.

    For many players on the squad, football was not just a passion—it was their lifeline through the chaos of the Taliban takeover. “If I wasn’t a footballer, I would still be in Afghanistan, one of millions of girls who are not allowed to study, speak up or choose their own future,” says 24-year-old Mursal Sadat, who also lives in Australia. Evacuated from Kabul at 19, Sadat now works as a youth football coach, a facilitator, and an advocate for refugee and women’s rights. In Afghanistan, she faced constant harassment and judgment for playing football, with people telling her no one would ever marry a female athlete. Today, she is engaged to a man still living in Afghanistan, whose entire family supports her work with the team. “They tell me, ‘You are the pride of our family. We are so lucky to have you,’” she says.

    When the team stepped onto the pitch in Auckland, steady rain poured down, but the players refused to be deterred. They have faced far harsher conditions back home. Defender Najma Arefi, 22, who now lives in Doncaster, England, remembers training in her home city of Herat when girls were only allocated the worst, hottest time slots, forcing her to practice in temperatures that exceeded 45 degrees Celsius. She persisted, and eventually helped her Herat-based team win a national championship— a victory that shifted local attitudes toward women’s football. “There were billboards of us across Herat,” she recalls. “People were proud. More families started letting their daughters play football.”

    Today, Arefi studies criminal justice at college in the UK, makes her own choices about her life, and plays football regularly. “Having that freedom is incredible,” she says. But she carries a heavy weight: guilt and grief for the millions of women and girls still trapped in Afghanistan, denied the same opportunities. “Sometimes I put too much pressure on myself, because I have to make the most of every chance I get,” she says, tears rolling down her cheeks. She credits former team founder Khalida Popal with pushing FIFA to recognize the exiled squad, calling the ruling a historic achievement that she will always be proud of.

    When approached for comment by the BBC, Taliban sports director Ahmadullah Wasiq declined to address FIFA’s recognition of the women’s team. He did extend an invitation for FIFA to visit Afghanistan and resume general football support in the country—support the global governing body largely withdrew after the Taliban takeover, and has stated will not resume until women are allowed to play.

    On the pitch, the results of the two friendlies did not go the way of the Afghan side: the Cook Islands won the first match 1-0, and claimed a second 3-0 victory three days later. But for the women of Afghan Women United, the scoreboard does not define what these matches mean. After years of exile, displacement, and being told they could not play, this gathering was their answer: they have not disappeared, and they will not be silenced. Their dream of competing on the world stage for Afghan women is just beginning.

  • Q&A: Ms. Lauryn Hill on the Diaspora Calling! festival in the UK, the Fugees’ legacy and D’Angelo

    Q&A: Ms. Lauryn Hill on the Diaspora Calling! festival in the UK, the Fugees’ legacy and D’Angelo

    Just moments before iconic musician Lauryn Hill joined an interview with The Associated Press, she and Fugees bandmate Wyclef Jean found themselves surrounded by fans in the heart of London’s Piccadilly Circus. Hanging above the crowd on the giant bright LED display of the Piccadilly Lights was a vivid, animated short film: a vibrant collage celebrating the heroes and cultural symbols of the global African diaspora, curated by Hill and created by Los Angeles-based artist Lauren Halsey.

    The core message of the public art installation was unmissable: it is a joyful tribute to shared community, interconnected culture, and the intersecting worlds of music and visual art. “The crowd was captivated,” Hill shared during the interview. Jean interjected, describing the moment as surreal. “The love was felt. It was amazing,” he said.

    This surprise public showcase served as a teaser for a far larger milestone: this week marks the first time Hill’s beloved Diaspora Calling! festival will land in the United Kingdom, 10 years after the event made its debut in Brooklyn, New York.

    Hosted by acclaimed comedian Dave Chappelle and featuring a stacked lineup of performers including Grammy-winning R&B icon Erykah Badu, rapper Giggs, Afrobeats star Fireboy DML, and reggae artists YG Marley and Zion Marley, the festival will take place at Milton Keynes’ iconic National Bowl venue. At the heart of the weekend’s programming, Hill and Jean — two-thirds of the legendary hip-hop trio Fugees — will perform their game-changing 1996 landmark album *The Score* in its entirety, to mark the record’s 30th anniversary.

    In an edited interview with the AP, Hill and Jean opened up about the festival’s origins, the enduring legacy of *The Score*, and how they hope to honor the late, influential musician D’Angelo nearly one year after his passing.

    When asked what drew the pair to bring Diaspora Calling! to the UK for the first time, Hill explained that the opportunity came organically through long-time industry partners. “We were given an opportunity by the promoters — the same promoters that do Reggae Land. He gave me the venue. And I said, ‘This is what I want to do.’ We’re basically blessed to have the opportunity. And, you know, ‘tis the season to bring people together in the name of growth, healing and pushing forward,” she said.

    Hill also confirmed that the UK stop will not be the only international edition of the festival, with more global stops firmly on the table for the future: “Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely,” she said when asked about expanding the event beyond the US and UK.

    Reflecting on how the festival’s core concept has evolved since its first Brooklyn gathering in 2016, Hill traced its origins back to a life-changing trip to Ghana early in her career. The connection she built on that trip planted the seed for a cross-continental gathering of the global African diaspora. Over decades of building community both together and separately, even when the Fugees were not actively performing or recording as a group, Hill and Jean built deep connections across diaspora communities worldwide — making now the perfect time to bring those communities together in one space, she explained.

    When it comes to curating the festival’s dynamic, cross-genre lineup, Hill says the process has been driven by respect and mutual excitement. “We put a call out to the people that we know, love and respect. And I’ve gotten so much positivity — an abundance of responses, in terms of the creative community out here wanting to participate. So that’s huge,” she said.

    The festival’s centerpiece performance, a full play-through of *The Score* for its 30th anniversary, finds the two musicians engaging with the album in a whole new way decades after its release. Both agree the record has lost none of its power or cultural resonance over 30 years, earning its place among other iconic timeless albums that shaped music globally.

    “Absolutely. That’s a timeless piece of work for us as well. Timeless. How do you feel about it, Wyclef?” Hill asked, prompting Jean to draw a parallel between *The Score* and other legendary albums that have stood the test of time, from Bob Marley’s *Exodus* to Pink Floyd’s *The Wall* and Bob Dylan’s early studio records. “That’s forever,” Jean said.

    Hill added that every performance of the decades-old record brings new energy and new meaning. “I think what is powerful about the album was that, you know, I’m a big fan of what Wyclef does. And I think he’s appreciative of what I do. So, we engage with each other’s art. And every time we perform it, even though (it’s) singing older lyrics, there’s a new energy, a new spirit. There’s a timelessness. I almost feel like we’re reclaiming timelines, healing timelines, so to speak, every time we’re performing,” she explained. Jean echoed that sentiment, noting that even after 30 years, performing the album still feels as fresh and exciting as it did the first time. “It doesn’t feel old,” Hill added.

    For Hill, performing the record at Diaspora Calling! is the perfect alignment of the album’s core ethos and the festival’s mission. “It’s kind of the pinnacle of what the Fugees were all about. Our makeup is diaspora calls. I think we were a call to a particular unity, a particular kind of reflection and a particular kind of resistance to certain ideas that we knew better than. And we wanted to channel that outside and have other people feel what we were certain about, which is that there was being and resourcefulness and incredible brilliance throughout diaspora. And that division was not really an option,” she said.

    Towards the end of the conversation, Hill reflected on the upcoming one-year anniversary of D’Angelo’s passing, after she paid tribute to the late artist alongside Roberta Flack earlier this year at the Grammys. Remembering D’Angelo as another timeless, irreplaceable creative soul, Hill said she hopes the world continues to lift up his extraordinary musical legacy, while protecting the privacy of his family. “He was good — without question,” she said.

  • After Michigan upset, Aipac looks to back Republican candidate against Abdul El-Sayed

    After Michigan upset, Aipac looks to back Republican candidate against Abdul El-Sayed

    A political earthquake shook Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary on Wednesday, as progressive challenger Abdul El-Sayed pulled off a stunning one-point victory over pro-Israel incumbent Congresswoman Haley Stevens — in a race that became the most expensive Democratic primary contest in U.S. history, fueled by more than $60 million in total outside spending, $30 million of which came from leading pro-Israel lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

    The upset marks a major defeat for AIPAC, which has built a reputation for ousting candidates it views as critical of Israel across both major U.S. parties. In 2022, the group spent heavily to unseat veteran Democratic lawmaker Andy Levin in Michigan over his support for sanctions on violent Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank; on Wednesday, Levin celebrated El-Sayed’s win, writing on Instagram, “Out with all the big money, dark money and corporate and special interest control of our politics. We the people hunger for authenticity.” Earlier this year, AIPac poured more than $4 million into defeating Republican Thomas Massie in Kentucky’s primary, after Massie voted against U.S. foreign aid to Israel, as part of a $9 million coalition effort against the incumbent.

    Now, following its $30 million investment in Stevens that ended in defeat, AIPAC has confirmed it will shift its support to the Republican candidate in the November general election. The group’s statement underscored its longstanding approach to U.S. politics: prioritizing its pro-Israel policy agenda over partisan ideological loyalty. “Our members remain determined to ensure that voters reject Dr El-Sayed and his radical anti-Israel agenda,” the statement read. “Our community is proud to support pro-Israel Democrats and Republicans who stand for our values.”

    El-Sayed, an Egyptian-American Muslim and former Detroit public health official who has never held elected office, ran a grassroots campaign defined by small-dollar donations and opposition to corporate and special interest influence in politics. According to campaign finance data from OpenSecrets, El-Sayed out-raised Stevens in small-dollar contributions in the final quarter before the primary. His campaign calculated that outside groups spent an average of $95 per vote against El-Sayed, more than 10 times the $9 per vote average of his own campaign spending.

    Critics of unlimited outside spending note that this lopsided spending is the result of U.S. campaign finance law, which allows unlimited independent expenditures by groups that do not coordinate directly with candidate campaigns. “In 95 percent of U.S. electoral races, whoever spends the most, wins,” explained Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for non-profit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. “Yes, money buys elections. It’s very effective, and that’s why these candidates work overtime continually raising money.”

    El-Sayed’s campaign gained momentum not just from his stance on Israel, but from his focus on kitchen-table issues impacting Michigan voters. He has publicly described Israel’s nearly three-year military campaign in Gaza as genocide, a framing that aligns with statements from leading human rights organizations, genocide scholars, and the United Nations, but rejected by Israel and most sitting U.S. lawmakers. This position resonated deeply with Michigan’s large Arab-American community, which played a pivotal role in driving protest votes against former President Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential election over his unwavering support for Israel amid mounting Palestinian civilian casualties that have killed tens of thousands of people. In that election, even as Wayne County backed Kamala Harris by 62 percent, heavily Arab-American suburbs of Detroit swung overwhelmingly to Donald Trump, helping Trump carry Michigan by just over one percentage point.

    Sally Howell, an Arab American Studies expert at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, noted that El-Sayed’s support rose when he shifted his messaging from critiquing AIPAC’s spending to a broader platform of getting big money out of politics and addressing local concerns. “He started talking about not getting money from DTE, the energy company here in Michigan… and this issue of the AI data centres, and how they would drive up our water bills,” Howell said. “These are issues that really matter to Michiganders across the political spectrum.”

    State Representative Alabas Farhat, who endorsed El-Sayed, said the candidate’s appeal stemmed from voter frustration with the status quo. “People in Michigan, they’re looking for leaders that are going to call out bold solutions and that are going to try and speak out against the status quo because the status quo hasn’t been working,” Farhat said. “The status quo has led to our state being 49th in unemployment. It’s led to us being 47th in third grade literacy. It’s led to our middle class having less wealth than they did in previous years. Trump came along, and he sold a false bag of goods, but he was at least willing to say things were wrong. Now comes Abdul El-Sayed, somebody who has made truth and justice two central pillars to his campaign.”

    Support for El-Sayed also came from groups advocating for Palestinian rights: the IMEU Policy Project, a three-year-old advocacy organization, contributed $400,000 to his campaign. Turnout for the primary hit historic highs, with half a million more Democratic voters turning out than in previous low-turnout primaries, according to Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel.

    In his victory speech, El-Sayed announced he had spoken with Stevens and secured her commitment to endorse him in the general election, where he will face former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers. Hertel emphasized that the party is now united to defeat Trump-backed candidates in November, a race that will decide control of the U.S. Senate. If El-Sayed wins in November, he will become the first Muslim ever elected to the U.S. Senate, and could tip the chamber’s majority to Democrats for the final two years of Trump’s second term.

    Former President Trump reacted to El-Sayed’s primary win on his social platform Truth Social, calling the challenger “a Communist loser who hates Jews and Israel,” while also framing the result as “great news for the Republican party,” claiming El-Sayed will be an easy general election opponent. Howell predicts the general election will bring a sharp, divisive campaign focused on identity rather than policy. “I think that it’s going to go a lot darker than the negative campaigning we’ve seen, and it’s going to be very anti-Arab and a lot more Islamophobic,” she said.

    For his part, El-Sayed pushed back against expected identity-based attacks in a post-win address to supporters. “It’s like, wow, he’s different,” he said, describing the likely Republican line of attack. “That’s the best you got? You can’t actually talk about what you want to do? My name is not raising your gas prices. My name is not taking us to war. My name is not the reason you can’t afford your groceries.”

    El-Sayed’s win follows a growing pattern of upsets for establishment-backed candidates by progressive Democrats across the country, from New York to New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Colorado, signaling a growing grassroots movement challenging special interest influence in U.S. elections.

  • Israel’s army to set up polling stations in occupied Gaza, Lebanon and Syria

    Israel’s army to set up polling stations in occupied Gaza, Lebanon and Syria

    As Israel gears up for its upcoming general election on October 27, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has launched preparations for a historically unusual voting arrangement: placing dedicated polling stations directly in active, occupied territories across the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Syria, military broadcaster Army Radio confirmed in a report published Wednesday. The plan, which military chief Eyal Zamir has formally ordered military leadership to implement, is designed to guarantee that frontline combat troops deployed beyond Israel’s internationally recognized borders can exercise their right to vote from their active posts.

    Army Radio framed the initiative as a step unseen in Israeli electoral politics for decades, a framing that omits the longstanding practice of Israeli soldiers casting ballots at permanent military bases located in the occupied West Bank. The groundwork for this plan was laid just last week, when Israel’s Central Elections Committee signed off on a new slate of electoral regulations that explicitly permit active-duty troops to vote from their deployed positions in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.

    Israeli online news outlet Ynet has outlined the practical adjustments for in-theater voting: since service rules prohibit soldiers from carrying personal identification documents into these three regions, voters will be verified through their military service number and a confirmation check by a fellow service member.

    The expansion of special out-of-district polling stations reflects a growing trend in Israeli elections. Over the past several years, the share of eligible voters casting ballots outside their assigned local precincts has climbed steadily, with active-duty soldiers and other security personnel making up the vast majority of voters using these special stations. Data from the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), an independent Jerusalem-based research center, shows that roughly 425,000 Israelis voted at special polling locations during the 2021 March general election. That total includes not only security service members, but also diplomats, hospitalized patients, and incarcerated citizens.

    While definitive voting pattern data for special precincts remains hard to compile, the IDI notes that the overwhelming majority of special station voters are young Israelis serving in active military roles. Political analysts widely assess that right-wing Israeli political parties draw the most support from this demographic, meaning the expanded in-theater voting option could deliver a tangible advantage to conservative blocs in the upcoming vote.

    Per official figures from the Central Elections Committee, approximately 7.3 million Israelis are eligible to participate in the October 27 contest. That pool includes nearly 550,000 first-time voters who have reached voting age since the previous national election held in late 2022. While the committee has publicly released details for special polling stations in hospitals, prisons, and Israeli diplomatic missions around the world, it has declined to disclose how many polling stations will ultimately be set up in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.

    Beyond the logistics of in-theater voting, Army Radio also shared details of a new directive from Zamir aimed at preserving the IDF’s longstanding mandate of political neutrality. Zamir has ordered all commanding officers to block active-duty soldiers and officers from engaging in partisan political campaigning on behalf of any party during the election cycle. He has additionally mandated that commanders review all correspondence distributed to troops to screen out any unauthorized partisan political messaging.

    “There is a need to uphold current regulations, orders and instructions on the issue,” Zamir stated during a meeting with senior military leadership. He added that all IDF personnel must “avoid innovations that could bring about the undermining of public trust in the IDF.”

    Zamir’s directive comes in direct response to public controversy that emerged earlier this week, when the IDF drew widespread criticism after dismissing a reserve soldier who had repeatedly posted public videos expressing personal support for the current Israeli government. The dismissal was ultimately reversed after Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz personally intervened to reinstate the service member.

  • The Iran off-ramp Trump keeps driving past

    The Iran off-ramp Trump keeps driving past

    Five months after the outbreak of the 2026 Iran conflict, the United States finds itself trapped in a familiar strategic quagmire that has plagued its past major military engagements in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Washington is too deeply entrenched to withdraw without significant political fallout, yet it lacks the leverage and military progress necessary to declare a definitive victory.

    This impasse has been amplified by the chaotic, inconsistent approach of US President Donald Trump to the conflict. Trump has flip-flopped repeatedly between issuing fiery threats of what he describes as “the biggest attack since World War II” and suddenly announcing that peace talks are “imminent” — only for Tehran to immediately deny any negotiations are underway at all. This back-and-forth is not a calculated negotiating strategy; it is public evidence of a superpower learning the hard way that overwhelming air power can reduce a nation’s infrastructure to ruin, but it cannot guarantee the political settlement that military intervention was supposed to secure.

    Long before the full-scale buildup to this conflict, foreign policy realists warned of this exact outcome: the persistent gap between what military force can destroy and what political outcomes it can deliver. Working alongside Israel, the US has successfully degraded Iran’s core military infrastructure, damaged facilities linked to Iran’s nuclear program, and eliminated multiple top Iranian military commanders. But these tactical gains have not translated into the strategic outcome Washington seeks: an Iranian government willing to surrender on terms the US can brand as victory, nor a stable regional order that does not require the US Navy to maintain a permanent, force-backed presence to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for global shipping. Already, commercial oil tankers have begun rerouting their journeys around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa to avoid the conflict zone — a shift that alone makes clear how far the conflict is from being contained, despite official Washington rhetoric.

    Trump’s instinct to seek an exit ramp from the conflict is not misdirected. Unlike many of his predecessors and foreign policy advisers, he has repeatedly pulled back from carrying out the all-out maximalist strike he often threatens, in large part due to appeals from Gulf Arab states. These nations understand far better than most Washington policymakers that a wider regional war only benefits Iran’s hardline factions and the defense contractors profiting from increased arms shipments.

    The critical flaw in Trump’s approach is his persistent reliance on empty threat-based leverage. When threats are never followed through, they quickly lose their credibility. The current public disconnect — the White House insisting talks will begin Monday, while Iran’s foreign ministry flatly denies any negotiations are scheduled — is a clear sign that Trump’s repeated threats have been so overused that Tehran no longer feels pressured to back down.

    To achieve a genuine exit from this stalemate, Washington must abandon three long-held flawed assumptions that have shaped not just this war, but nearly every US military venture in the Middle East over the past three decades.

    First, the assumption that eliminating a regime’s military capabilities will create strategic clarity, rather than strategic drift. History from Iraq to Libya shows this logic is almost always wrong. Destroying infrastructure and military assets is the easy part of military intervention; the longer bombing campaigns continue, the harder it becomes to reach a negotiated settlement. This is because hardline factions on both sides gain political and tactical power from prolonging the conflict, eroding the influence of moderates who favor a diplomatic resolution.

    Second, the assumption that regional US allies are willing to bear the costs of an American-guaranteed regional security order. Saudi Arabia’s public call by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for Trump to prioritize dialogue is a clear warning sign. The Gulf states that once quietly supported pressure on Tehran are now the ones pushing to de-escalate, because they border the Strait of Hormuz and cannot retreat across an Atlantic Ocean when the waterway closes to commercial traffic.

    Third, and the assumption Washington is most resistant to abandon, is that “no deal” is a neutral default position while the war grinds on. In reality, every week that passes without a diplomatic settlement embeds the 2026 Iran war as the permanent baseline condition of the Middle East, rather than an emergency that demands resolution. Conflicts without clearly defined endpoints almost always expand and extend themselves, becoming self-sustaining policy commitments that are harder to exit over time.

    A viable path to exit was already visible back in May and June, when Gulf states first talked Trump down from launching massive new strikes and a tentative negotiating framework nearly held. That path remains open today through the tentative Oman-brokered talks focused on securing freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

    What is missing is not opportunity, but political discipline: the willingness to accept a narrow, verifiable agreement focused on the Strait of Hormuz as a sufficient achievable objective, rather than treating it as just a stepping stone to the larger goal of total Iranian capitulation. Facing intense internal political pressure, Iran’s government will never accept total surrender at the point of a bombing threat.

    Trump built much of his political brand around criticizing the endless wars his predecessors failed to end. Escaping this conflict with a better outcome than permanent stalemate will require him to embrace the harder political work of accepting a modest, workable deal now, instead of holding out for the politically satisfying but unattainable fantasy of total Iranian surrender later. Throughout history, empires that keep waiting for that one decisive blow that will force their enemy to fold almost always find themselves still waiting, years later, mired in the stalemate they could not bring themselves to exit.

  • AI or real? BBC analyses viral China disaster videos

    AI or real? BBC analyses viral China disaster videos

    Against a backdrop of increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events globally, a new digital threat has emerged: artificially generated fake disaster footage that is spreading at alarming speed across online platforms in China, triggering tangible real-world disruptions, a new BBC analysis has found.

    As climate change drives more intense and frequent natural disasters across East Asia, bad actors have seized on generative artificial intelligence tools to fabricate seemingly authentic footage of catastrophic events including floods, wildfires and landslides. These manipulated or fully AI-generated clips quickly go viral on Chinese social media platforms, where users hungry for real-time updates on developing disaster situations share them widely before fact-checking can take place.

    The BBC’s analysis of multiple viral clips that circulated during recent extreme weather events in China highlights how easy it has become for bad actors to create convincing fake disaster content using off-the-shelf generative AI tools. Unlike traditional edited video fakes, modern AI-generated footage can mimic camera shake, on-the-ground reporter audio, and the chaotic visual texture of real breaking disaster coverage, making it extremely difficult for ordinary users to distinguish from authentic footage.

    The rapid spread of these fake videos carries significant real-world consequences. In some cases, false footage has sparked unnecessary public panic, leading to runs on grocery stores in unaffected regions and overwhelming emergency response phone lines with false reports of danger. Local disaster management officials have been forced to divert time and resources away from actual response efforts to debunk viral fake content, creating additional strains during already challenging emergency situations.

    This trend also reflects a broader global challenge: as extreme weather events become more common, the spread of AI-fabricated disaster misinformation has become a growing risk to public safety and emergency management worldwide. Experts quoted in the BBC analysis note that platform providers and regulators across the globe are still playing catch-up to develop effective systems to detect and remove AI-generated fake disaster content before it can spread widely and cause harm.

  • Marmots facing money troubles turn to OnlyFans

    Marmots facing money troubles turn to OnlyFans

    When federal funding for university research dried up, one Colorado-based biologist turned to an unexpected platform to keep his decades-long wildlife study alive: OnlyFans. What happened next turned a colony of yellow-bellied marmots into unexpected internet celebrities, all in the name of conservation science.

    Dr. Daniel Blumstein, leader of the long-running Marmot Project based at UCLA’s Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, launched the playful OnlyFans account dubbed “OnlyMarms” in a last-ditch bid to raise funds for his research program. Launched in 2024 following cuts to federal academic research grants, the project already holds a prestigious place in global scientific history: it is the second-longest continuous study of individually identified wild mammals on Earth, trailing only Jane Goodall’s legendary chimpanzee research in Tanzania.

    For more than 60 years, Blumstein and his team have studied yellow-bellied marmots, a common, non-endangered species of ground-dwelling squirrel found across North America. Unlike many high-profile conservation projects focused on at-risk animals, this long-term research fills a critical gap in ecological knowledge: tracking how population dynamics shift over time in a stable species, offering key insights into how environmental changes impact wildlife populations broadly. Despite the project’s well-documented scientific value, Blumstein confirmed to the BBC that securing ongoing federal funding had become impossible, leaving the program’s future in jeopardy.

    The unusual OnlyFans idea struck Blumstein unexpectedly while he waited in an alpine meadow for marmots to emerge from their burrows. Fresh off watching the popular TV series *Margot’s Got Money Troubles* — where Elle Fanning’s titular character launches an OnlyFans to support herself as a single parent — Blumstein had a sudden epiphany: “Marmots’ got money troubles. Maybe we should do something a little risqué.”

    He floated the idea to his research students, who embraced the concept wholeheartedly, helping him craft the playful brand OnlyMarms and set up the account. The project hit a small early snag during platform verification: OnlyFans moderators flagged the account, after Blumstein submitted his driver’s license for ID check, which did not match the account’s profile photo of a marmot. A quick explanatory email cleared up the confusion, and the team was able to start posting content.

    Contrary to OnlyFans’ reputation as a platform dominated by sexually explicit adult content, all content posted on OnlyMarms is completely family-friendly. The feed features candid, unedited videos and photos of the wild marmots going about their daily lives in the Rocky Mountains: scurrying across alpine meadows, emerging from underground burrows, interacting with one another, and basking in the mountain sun. Blumstein notes that yellow-bellied marmots are less social than their alpine marmot relatives, and female marmots actually grow more territorial and irritable as they age — a quirk that has produced some viral-worthy content, including one clip of a female marmot chasing an intruding male out of her burrow.

    Rather than naming the research subjects with human names — a practice that could introduce observational bias into the study — the team marks individual marmots with non-toxic dye and gives them quirky, informal identifiers: popular subjects include “dans_hat”, “open_kite”, and “Citroën”.

    So far, the unorthodox fundraising campaign has exceeded early expectations, raising more than $5,000 total. After OnlyFans takes its platform commission, the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory will net roughly $4,000 to put toward research costs. While Blumstein acknowledges that OnlyFans revenue will not be enough to fully offset federal spending cuts and secure the project’s long-term future on its own, he stresses that the campaign has already delivered significant value by raising public awareness of the research and its importance.

    Building on the viral attention from the OnlyMarms account, the team has also launched a new public engagement event: Fat Marmot Week, modeled after the wildly popular Fat Bear Week hosted by Alaska’s Katmai National Park. Scheduled for the end of August, the bracket-style tournament will let the general public vote for their favorite chunky marmot. As hibernating animals, marmots build up large fat reserves ahead of the long winter, so the public competition is more than just fun: “It’s fun to root for the chunkiest marmot, but behind the fun and games is a deathly serious competition against nature to pile on fat to survive the long, cold winter,” Blumstein explained in a press release announcing the event.

    The unusual campaign highlights a growing crisis in academic research: long-term ecological studies, which produce some of the most valuable data on climate and population change, are increasingly struggling to secure consistent government funding, pushing scientists to explore creative, unconventional alternatives to keep their work going.

  • Palestinian-Israeli movement calls for multinational force in occupied West Bank

    Palestinian-Israeli movement calls for multinational force in occupied West Bank

    On Tuesday, a cross-community Palestinian-Israeli grassroots political movement unveiled a urgent new campaign pushing for the deployment of a multinational civilian protection force in the occupied West Bank, as violent attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinian communities continue to escalate unchecked.

    The group behind the push, A Land for All – Two States, One Homeland, argues that rising settler aggression, paired with the Israeli government’s consistent failure to safeguard Palestinian civilians living under occupation, has made direct international intervention an unavoidable and time-sensitive priority. The formal appeal was launched during a public press conference hosted in Kafr Malik, a Palestinian village located east of Ramallah, where local residents have documented months of persistent settler attacks, limited access to their agricultural lands, and growing anxiety over forced displacement.

    Movement leaders emphasize that a deployed international protection force would not act as a replacement for a long-term political resolution or the future establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Instead, it would serve as an immediate emergency mechanism to shield vulnerable civilian populations and preserve the fragile possibility of a negotiated political settlement down the line. Branded under the slogan “Multinational Force in the West Bank — Now”, the campaign holds that verbal international condemnation of settler violence is no longer sufficient to address the crisis, and calls for a formally mandated force with authority to protect civilians and catalog human rights violations on the ground.

    Rula Hardal, Palestinian co-director of A Land for All, confirmed that the movement circulated an official statement last week to global diplomatic bodies and foreign missions operating in both Israel and Palestine, urging formal backing for the protection force deployment following the recent sharp escalation in settler attacks. Kafr Malik was selected as the press conference venue, Hardal explained, because of its central location in the West Bank, its direct experience of ongoing settler violence, and its relative accessibility and safety for both Palestinian and Israeli Jewish members of the movement compared to other at-risk Palestinian communities.

    “We are a joint Palestinian-Israeli political movement that advocates for a confederative two-state solution along the 1967 internationally agreed borders,” Hardal told reporters during the event. “But we cannot continue clinging to the outdated traditional model of a two-state solution, because the on-the-ground reality has shifted dramatically over the past three decades.” The movement’s work centers on updating and refining the two-state framework to address long-standing core issues including existing Israeli settlements, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, the status of Jerusalem, and cross-community security arrangements, all of which are detailed in the movement’s formal political platform.

    Meron Rapoport, an Israeli co-founding president of the movement, warned that security conditions in the occupied West Bank have deteriorated drastically over the past 12 months. He went as far as accusing the current Israeli government and military of advancing “a clear plan of ethnic cleansing” in the occupied territory. “We hear open plans to target Palestinian refugee camps. The writing is on the wall. The era of waiting, asking, and begging Israel to protect Palestinian lives is over,” Rapoport stated during the press conference.

    Other Israeli members of the movement echoed Rapoport’s assessment, agreeing that they no longer have confidence that Israeli authorities are either willing or able to protect Palestinian civilians living under occupation. Professor Yael Berda, co-chair of the movement’s joint board, noted that Kafr Malik specifically faces consistent, systematic threats of violence from organized settler militias. She added that the press conference was organized to demonstrate cross-community solidarity, amplify the call for international intervention, and remind the global community of its legal and moral responsibility to protect civilians at risk of mass atrocities.

    “These mass atrocities include ethnic cleansing, and we are currently seeing imminent ethnic cleansing unfolding. Abstract international pressure is no longer enough,” Berda said. “We see an Israeli government that gives full backing to settler militias, and we see a military that either lacks the capacity or the political will to rein in settler violence.”

    For residents of Kafr Malik, the event was less a forum for abstract political debate and more an opportunity to highlight the daily crisis they navigate. Local villagers shared accounts of repeated settler invasions of their lands, blocked access roads, and steadily tightening restrictions on their ability to reach and work their agricultural plots. Abdel Fattah Hamayel, a long-time resident of Kafr Malik, welcomed the solidarity visit from the joint movement.

    “We appreciate this step, and we hope it will be the foundation for broader action to help the Palestinian people confront this settler-colonial aggression,” Hamayel said. He noted that a single gathering cannot capture the full scope of suffering experienced by Kafr Malik residents, or by Palestinian rural communities across the West Bank more broadly. “This issue is no longer hidden from anyone. The current Israeli government, through its leading fascist figures, states its goals openly and clearly. Our situation is not easy, because we face two core challenges,” he explained.

    The first challenge, Hamayel said, is the lack of a coordinated official Palestinian strategy or functional institutions with the capacity to counter the violence and support Palestinian farmers whose livelihoods are under threat. The second is that all attacks are carried out with the explicit backing of Israel’s far-right government, which has emboldened settlers to abandon all restraints and moral standards, according to Hamayel.

  • Fifa admits mistakes but Infantino remains president

    Fifa admits mistakes but Infantino remains president

    Gianni Infantino has secured continued tenure as FIFA president after earning a formal vote of confidence from the organization’s senior management board during an emergency meeting held in Rabat, Morocco. The gathering was convened by Infantino himself this Wednesday, in direct response to cascading criticism over his scrapped plan to sell private stakes in top FIFA competitions, including the men’s and women’s World Cups, via a newly created subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). Four hours after discussions concluded, FIFA released an official statement confirming the board’s unified support for its leader.

    The controversy erupted after The Times broke news of the FFE proposal on July 28, triggering immediate backlash from across global football. European football’s governing body UEFA led the charge over the weekend, issuing a formal declaration that it had lost all confidence in Infantino, dismissing the FFE initiative as a “shabby, back room, opaque deal.” Criticism even extended to the highest ranks within FIFA: Secretary General Mattias Grafström, who attended the Rabat meeting, had described the entire situation as “a sad and reproachable series of events” in an internal memo circulated to FIFA staff just one day earlier. Yet in a striking reversal following Wednesday’s closed-door talks, Grafström joined the full management board in “reaffirming their full support” for Infantino’s leadership.

    As part of the meeting’s outcomes, FIFA openly acknowledged that missteps were made throughout the FFE process. The organization admitted it was never its intention to leave the FIFA Council and member associations feeling sidelined, conceding that the initiative “should have been handled differently.” Additional errors were acknowledged in how FIFA responded after the proposal was leaked to the press. FIFA has since issued formal apologies to the council and all member associations for these missteps, pledged to prevent similar missteps in the future, and announced it will launch a full internal review of the process.

    FIFA also pushed back firmly against a separate unsubstantiated report from The Times claiming Infantino had promised Morocco the right to host the 2030 World Cup final in exchange for its political backing. The organization dismissed the allegation as “false and misleading,” noting that any final decision on the 2030 final host location—co-hosted by Morocco, Spain and Portugal—will be made at a later appropriate date. The statement also added a firm warning, saying FIFA “will no longer tolerate any attacks on its integrity, good governance and due process and will take all necessary measures to protect and safeguard its name and reputation,” while also asserting that “everything that was done was done in full compliance with the FIFA regulatory framework.”

    Despite the management board’s backing, opposition to Infantino remains widespread and vocal. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose country co-hosted the 2026 men’s World Cup alongside the United States and Mexico, has publicly stated he no longer has confidence in the FIFA president. Former Portuguese football star Luis Figo, who withdrew from the 2015 FIFA presidential race against former president Sepp Blatter, has called on Infantino to step down immediately. “Infantino has debased the office that he promised to elevate,” Figo said. “It is too late to save his dignity but it is not too late to save football.”

    The 56-year-old Swiss executive has made clear he intends to stand for re-election to a fourth term, with the vote scheduled to take place at the FIFA Congress in Morocco in March 2027. Prospective challengers have until mid-November this year to nominate themselves, and any winning candidate needs to secure 106 votes from FIFA’s 211 total member associations to claim victory.

    UEFA has maintained its hardline opposition, having already threatened legal action against FIFA over the controversy. A growing number of European member associations have already withdrawn their support for Infantino’s re-election, including Wales, with England expected to formally join that camp imminently. At the height of the backlash, all 55 UEFA member associations threatened to boycott FIFA competitions if the FFE plan moved forward. However, UEFA faces a major strategic barrier to ousting Infantino: it lacks enough global support to challenge his existing power base. To date, only the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (Concacaf) has joined UEFA in criticizing the president, though it has not issued a formal no-confidence vote. While the Asian Football Confederation rejected the original FFE investment plan, it has not issued a broader public rejection of Infantino’s leadership.

    Outside of Europe, only Jordan has publicly called for Infantino to step down. By contrast, a long list of nations across Asia and Africa—Infantino’s core support base—have reaffirmed their backing in recent days, including Egypt, Morocco, Niger, Mauritania, DR Congo and the Philippines. Many of these nations have benefited from substantial funding through the original FIFA Forward development programme, the precursor to FFE, receiving up to $8 million per three-year funding cycle to support domestic football growth. For UEFA to successfully unseat Infantino, it will need to convince these countries that alternative candidates can deliver equivalent financial support while implementing greater transparency and governance reform—a challenge that Infantino’s existing loyalty among these member associations makes far more difficult. For now, despite the ongoing controversy that marks the largest threat to his decade-long tenure, Infantino appears to have survived the immediate challenge to his leadership.