Global Pulse

博客

  • Trump has no path to victory against Iran

    Trump has no path to victory against Iran

    Six months after the United States and Israel launched their second open military conflict against Iran, the Trump administration has stuck to a carefully crafted public narrative: the Islamic Republic is on the brink of collapse, Washington is on course for a clear win, and the economic and human costs of the war will be short-lived. But as the conflict stretches on far longer than the White House initially predicted, that storyline is becoming increasingly unsustainable. Rising global fuel prices, dwindling US military stockpiles, and broad public opposition among American voters — who are set to voice their discontent in upcoming November midterm elections — have exposed the gap between the administration’s claims and on-the-ground reality.

    Despite facing crippling combined military and economic pressure, and the high-profile loss of a senior state leader, Iran has refused to capitulate. The regime retains its full fighting capacity, maintains the ability to escalate retaliatory attacks across the region, and has rejected all attempts to force Tehran into accepting Washington’s sweeping political demands. While US and Israeli strikes have inflicted massive widespread destruction across the country, they have failed to compel Iran’s leadership to bend to US terms. The core question that lingered before the first strike, and has become unavoidable after six months of conflict, is not whether the US can inflict more damage on Iran — it is whether that additional damage will ever translate into a meaningful, achievable political victory for Washington.

    Last week, President Donald Trump downplayed the entire conflict as “small potatoes,” continuing a pattern of minimizing the human and financial toll that has already far outstripped his administration’s initial projections. As of this report, the war has claimed the lives of 18 American service members and left more than 750 others wounded, with the total cost to US taxpayers clocking in at no less than $37.5 billion. For Iran, the human and infrastructure toll has been exponentially higher.

    According to data from Iran’s Ministry of Health, at least 3,468 Iranians had been killed and more than 26,500 injured in US and Israeli strikes by June 10. Civilian casualties have been a consistent feature of the conflict: documented incidents include a February airstrike on an elementary school in Minab and a September attack on a wedding gathering in southern Iran that left dozens dead. By April, the Iranian Red Crescent recorded that more than 125,000 civilian properties had sustained damage, including roughly 100,000 private homes damaged or destroyed. Iran has also submitted a formal list of 134 damaged cultural heritage sites to UNESCO, and independent reporting from Reuters has verified widespread damage to historic structures and protected heritage locations across the country.

    Crucially, Iran has proven it can inflict meaningful, sustained costs on US forces in the region. One independent analysis found that Iranian retaliatory strikes have damaged 15 US military sites across the Middle East, damaging critical infrastructure including troop barracks, aircraft hangars, fuel storage depots, fixed-wing aircraft, radar systems, communications equipment, and air defense networks. While US Central Command has publicly disputed the scale of the reported damage, the strikes have laid bare the vulnerability of stationary US facilities in the region and the heavy cost required to defend them against constant Iranian missile and drone attacks.

    Harrison Mann, associate director for campaigns at the anti-war advocacy group Win Without War and a former US Army officer and intelligence official, told the International Policy Journal that the Trump administration — and likely the Pentagon itself — seriously overestimated the ability of US and Israeli forces to quickly subdue Iran’s military establishment. “They were never able to locate or destroy the majority of Iran’s drones and missiles, nor destroy enough of its air defenses that US aircraft could fly freely over the entire country,” Mann explained. He added that Trump has learned a hard lesson: “It’s not possible to fight a prepared, 21st-century military — even one objectively weaker than America’s — and still conceal the costs from the public like previous US military interventions in the region.”

    This asymmetric dynamic defines the entire conflict. Iran has no need to defeat the United States using conventional military means to achieve its core goal. To deny Washington a decisive political victory, Iran only needs to preserve its governing institutions, maintain sufficient retaliatory capacity, and make continued warfare costly enough that the US cannot impose its preferred outcome at an acceptable price for American taxpayers and voters.

    The Trump administration claims it has severely degraded Iran’s missile, naval, and nuclear capabilities, but tactical military gains do not equate to a final political victory. Iran continues to launch retaliatory strikes, disrupt commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and reject Washington’s main negotiating demands. Further escalation by the US would only expand this stalemate, driving up costs for both sides without delivering a decisive end to the conflict.

    A growing anti-war movement within the United States has cast increasing doubt on the war’s stated objectives, questioned its constitutional legitimacy, and grown weary of mounting costs. Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the Center for International Policy, told the International Policy Journal that Trump is facing unprecedented public and congressional pushback over his war on Iran. “The possibility that he may not get an annual National Defense Authorization Act from Congress for the first time in the 65-year history of such legislation is a major governing failure reflecting his massive strategic failure in the Persian Gulf,” Williams said.

    While Trump initiated the conflict, US constitutional structure gives Congress the power to cut off funding for military operations. Article I of the US Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war and control federal appropriations. The House of Representatives has already passed its version of the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, which would authorize roughly $1.15 trillion in spending, nearly all of it earmarked for military and nuclear defense activities. The bill has not yet completed the full legislative process.

    This NDPA legislation is separate from the administration’s broader $1.5 trillion defense budget proposal, which includes $1.15 trillion in discretionary defense funding plus an additional $350 billion in proposed mandatory defense spending. “Trump is clearly refusing to take the loss, but that doesn’t make it any less real or costly,” Williams said. “Lawmakers opposed to this reckless military adventurism need to stand strong and continue to deny Trump’s record $1.5 trillion military budget request and other attempts to fund and deepen this disastrous war of choice.”

    Williams noted that Congress has multiple tools to push back: it could tie further war funding to explicit congressional authorization, require the Trump administration to publicly disclose the war’s full human and financial costs and clear objectives, or set a legal deadline after which military operations cannot continue without renewed congressional approval.

    Iran cannot match the combined military might of the United States and Israel, but it holds key strategic advantages: favorable geography, a defensive strategy tailored to counter a far stronger adversary, the benefit of fighting on its home territory, and a leadership that views the conflict as an existential fight and has already proven willing to absorb massive costs rather than surrender. After six months of relentless pressure, Washington is no closer to achieving its core policy demands than it was on day one. The US can continue to strike targets and degrade Iranian capabilities, but unless that pressure shifts Iran’s core political calculations, further escalation will only lead to more destruction without a negotiated settlement.

    That does not mean Iran has closed the door on diplomacy. Iranian officials have repeatedly stated they are prepared to return to the previously negotiated June memorandum of understanding if Washington recommits to its terms, leaving a diplomatic off-ramp open to end the conflict. If the US refuses to return to the agreement, however, Iran appears prepared to continue escalating attacks until Washington grows weary of the conflict or concludes that diplomacy carries a lower cost than continued war. For Tehran, escalation is not an alternative to negotiations — it is a tool to force the US back to the bargaining table.

    Six months into the war, the Trump administration has yet to outline a clear path to a lasting political victory. Trump retains the military capacity to escalate the conflict further, but without an achievable end state, further escalation will only deepen the mounting costs of a war that Washington still cannot bring to a conclusive end.

  • Oil hits $109/bbl as photos show major damage to Saudi pipeline

    Oil hits $109/bbl as photos show major damage to Saudi pipeline

    Growing anxiety over a potential global energy crisis has intensified following new details about severe damage inflicted by a drone attack on a critical Saudi Arabian oil pipeline last week. As first reported by The Associated Press on Monday, the kingdom’s East-West Pipeline – a key artery that moves crude oil from production centers to Red Sea export terminals – will remain out of operation for multiple weeks after the strike that occurred last Thursday.

    Anonymous regional officials confirmed to the AP that full repairs, which include work on a major pumping facility impacted in the attack, will take between three and five weeks to complete. Saudi authorities have pinned responsibility for the assault on Iran-aligned militias operating from Iraqi territory. Satellite imagery published over the weekend confirmed extensive fire damage to the targeted pumping station, undercutting early attempts to downplay the severity of the incident.

    The pipeline had taken on outsized strategic importance in recent months. Saudi Arabia began rerouting most of its oil exports through the East-West Pipeline to the Red Sea after the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s busiest traditional chokepoint for Middle Eastern oil shipments, was effectively closed to most commercial traffic following the outbreak of war between the United States and Iran in February, launched under former U.S. President Donald Trump. This shift made the pipeline the sole viable route for most of Saudi Arabia’s export volumes.

    According to a Monday report from The Guardian, if repairs are not completed within a matter of days, Saudi Arabia will deplete its available stored crude oil allocated for export, a disruption that could remove up to 4% of total global oil supply from international markets.

    Energy analysts warn this disruption could not come at a worse moment for already strained global energy systems. In a Monday market analysis for Bloomberg, senior energy correspondent Alex Longley noted that global markets have already faced persistent volatility for months, driven by the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict and the continuing Russia-Ukraine war that has scrambled European and global energy flows. “Whatever happens, the oil market will need a quick fix,” Longley wrote. “It’s currently screaming for barrels.”

    Even a rapid repair of the pipeline would not immediately ease sky-high energy prices, analysts caution. Multiple overlapping disruptions continue to block alternative supply routes: the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, Houthi forces in Yemen have significantly escalated attacks on commercial oil shipping moving through the Red Sea, and the U.S. has shown no willingness to pursue a diplomatic resolution with Iran that could reopen Hormuz to traffic.

    The Houthi movement gained additional leverage over Red Sea shipping last Thursday, when it seized the key Yemeni port city of Mocha from Saudi-backed government forces. The capture of the port strengthens the group’s ability to launch attacks on vessels transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, another critical chokepoint for Red Sea energy trade.

    News of the pipeline’s prolonged shutdown immediately roiled global energy markets on Monday. During intraday trading, international benchmark Brent crude spiked above $109 per barrel in response to the revelations. The price surge has already translated to heavier cost burdens for consumers, particularly in the United States. New data released Monday by the American Automobile Association (AAA) shows the average U.S. retail gasoline price now stands at $4.32 per gallon, while diesel prices – a key driver of broader logistics and food costs – hit a new record high of $6.23 per gallon.

  • Houthi attacks expose gaps in Pakistan’s defence pact with Saudi Arabia

    Houthi attacks expose gaps in Pakistan’s defence pact with Saudi Arabia

    Over the past several months, Pakistan has steadily expanded its diplomatic footprint, positioning itself as a regional mediator to de-escalate tensions between Washington and Tehran. This diplomatic push reached a landmark milestone last month, when Islamabad joined Saudi Arabia and Turkey to sign a historic trilateral Joint Defence Agreement in Mecca, Islam’s holiest city.

    Signed on August 7, the pact’s core mutual defense clause mirrors NATO’s Article 5, stipulating that an armed attack against any one signatory will be considered an attack against all three. While the clause has drawn immediate comparisons to the NATO collective security framework, regional analysts have long warned against interpreting the text too literally.

    That warning became relevant just one month after the signing, when Iran-aligned Houthi forces launched a large-scale barrage of drones and missiles into Saudi Arabia on September 8. The attack targeted critical military and energy infrastructure, turning the pact’s abstract security commitment into an urgent, high-stakes operational test for Pakistan and Turkey.

    In the days following the strike, neither Islamabad nor Ankara launched direct military counter-operations alongside Riyadh. Instead, both countries opted for firm diplomatic statements of solidarity, highlighting a growing tension between political alliance commitments and direct military involvement that has left Pakistan walking a geopolitical tightrope between its Saudi alliance and fragile neighborly ties with Iran.

    Shortly after the Houthi attack, Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif publicly reaffirmed that Pakistan remained bound by the terms of the pact and would honor its commitments if needed. But just days later, foreign ministry spokesperson Sajjad Haider Khan clarified that direct military action against the Houthi movement was not under active consideration. “Pakistan has signed a joint defence agreement, which is a fact… But as of now, there is no discussion of this kind,” Khan stated during his September 10 weekly media briefing in Islamabad.

    This carefully calibrated response exposes the delicate balancing act Pakistan must maintain. Pakistan has maintained a longstanding military presence in Saudi Arabia and has significantly deepened bilateral defense cooperation in recent years. Under a separate 2025 bilateral Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, Saudi Arabia confirmed in April that Pakistani troops, including Pakistan Air Force fighter jets and support aircraft, had deployed to King Abdulaziz Air Base to bolster regional security amid rising tensions.

    But Pakistani officials and independent experts alike draw a clear distinction between providing defensive support to protect Saudi territory and infrastructure, and joining offensive military operations against Houthi forces inside Yemen. One senior Pakistani official with expertise in Gulf affairs notes that this current dilemma echoes a similar crisis Islamabad faced back in 2015, when parliament voted to stay neutral rather than join the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthis in Yemen, a decision that severely strained bilateral ties with Riyadh at the time.

    Today, both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia appear united in their determination to avoid being dragged into a wider regional conflict that could draw in Iran, the United States and Israel, according to regional security experts. Qamar Cheema, head of the Islamabad-based Sanober Institute think tank, explains that neither country wants to see the existing conflict spill over onto Saudi territory. “This alliance will fight with state actors and work as a deterrent and a clear case of strategic depth, which Saudi Arabia is searching for,” Cheema told Middle East Eye, adding that Riyadh is keen to avoid a repeat of past crises that disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

    Maintaining this careful balance between defensive support and active offensive participation could grow increasingly difficult if Houthi missile strikes against Saudi Arabia escalate. The geopolitical flashpoint has already shifted to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, where the Houthis announced a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia back in July, a strategy they describe as “blockade for blockade” launched in response to Saudi restrictions on Houthi-controlled infrastructure in Yemen. The move followed a cycle of escalation that included strikes on Sanaa Airport and repeated Houthi drone and missile attacks on Saudi energy facilities.

    According to Pakistani officials, Riyadh has now concluded that political negotiations with the Houthis are no longer viable, forcing the kingdom to prepare for a protracted military engagement. Pakistan has already joined the Saudi-led Multinational Maritime Defence Alliance, which launched in Riyadh at the end of July with military representatives from more than 40 countries in attendance. Fourteen nations including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan have backed the initiative to protect commercial shipping lanes through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Beyond that, Pakistan also participates in ongoing regional maritime security operations through the U.S.-led Combined Task Force 150, a multinational naval coalition that patrols the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

    For Pakistan, the immediate top priority remains avoiding escalation. But a senior Pakistani official warned that if Houthi strikes intensify and cause mass casualties among Pakistani troops deployed at strategic sites inside Saudi Arabia, growing public and political pressure in Islamabad could force the government to abandon its current neutral stance. That scenario would turn the current ambiguity surrounding Pakistan’s commitments into a direct, high-stakes test of the trilateral pact.

    Cheema notes that attacking the Houthis is not a viable option for Pakistan at this stage. Having positioned itself as a regional peacemaker, Islamabad is currently prioritizing diplomatic dialogue to contain the broader crisis, particularly because closure of the Strait of Hormuz or disruption of Gulf of Aden shipping would put critical global supply chains and energy routes at severe risk.

    For Pakistan, the most complicated factor in this entire strategic equation is its long border with Iran. The two countries share a 900-kilometer porous border, and both governments have worked for years to contain cross-border friction that flared into open exchange of missile strikes back in January 2024. If Pakistan were to launch offensive operations against the Iran-aligned Houthis, it would risk reigniting open conflict with Tehran, and experts warn that direct engagement with an Iranian proxy force would severely damage bilateral ties and create new security threats along Pakistan’s already volatile western frontier.

    Domestic stability adds another layer of complexity. Pakistan is home to one of the world’s largest Shia populations outside of Iran, many of whom follow religious guidance from Tehran under the Wilayat-e Faqih doctrine. While Pakistan’s military was able to contain internal unrest following the reported killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in U.S.-Israeli airstrikes in February, sectarian sensitivities remain a persistent constraint whenever relations with Iran deteriorate.

    Economic risks also compound Pakistan’s strategic dilemma. Pakistan relies heavily on Middle Eastern energy imports and unimpeded access to critical shipping corridors such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. Regional instability can quickly translate into economic disruption at home: recent Middle East hostilities already triggered a sharp spike in Pakistani domestic fuel prices within the span of a single week.

    Beyond geopolitical and domestic challenges, the trilateral alliance also faces structural hurdles rooted in differing threat perceptions across the three member states. Pakistan’s primary security focus remains its long-running border tensions with India, with additional concerns over cross-border militancy from Afghanistan’s Taliban regime adding a second layer of security priorities. Saudi Arabia’s core priorities are focused on protecting its own territory, energy infrastructure and maritime shipping lanes, while managing threats from Iran and non-state armed groups such as the Houthis along its southern border. Turkey’s security perimeter extends even further, across Syria, Iraq, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Caucasus.

    These divergent priorities raise a fundamental question: would each member state be willing to accept major economic and geopolitical costs to defend another member in a conflict that it does not view as a core threat to its own national security? This operational friction is further compounded by the fact that the three countries use disparate military hardware platforms. Saudi Arabia relies heavily on sophisticated U.S. and Western-supplied defense systems. Pakistan operates a mix of Chinese-origin and Western equipment, while Turkey has invested heavily in developing its own indigenous defense industry.

    The trilateral agreement itself remains a work in progress. Senior defense ministers and military officials from the three countries met in Istanbul on August 31 to agree to establish a permanent secretariat based in Saudi Arabia and pledged to deepen cooperation on defense technology development. But experts note that the pact currently exists as a general policy framework rather than a fully integrated military command structure. Specific details on how the alliance will operate, including provisions for air defense assistance, intelligence sharing, protection of Saudi military installations and rules for participation in offensive operations against the Houthis, have yet to be finalized.

    “A lot of institutional development is required at the moment, particularly in inter-military planning and interoperability among the armed forces of the three countries,” Cheema said, adding that the three nations also need to establish clear, agreed procedures for responding to threats from both state and non-state actors. Pakistan’s foreign ministry spokesperson Khan acknowledged these limitations last week, describing the agreement as an “umbrella agreement” whose institutional mechanisms will take time to fully develop. “At this stage, I don’t think we should be discussing this topic in the context of its operationalisation,” he told journalists.

  • A history of Bob Mackie’s designs: in pictures

    A history of Bob Mackie’s designs: in pictures

    The world of high fashion is mourning the loss of one of its most iconic and influential creators, Bob Mackie, who passed away at the age of 87. Over a decades-long career that spanned the evolution of Hollywood from the golden age to the modern era, Mackie built his legacy crafting bold, glamorous couture defined by his signature combination of sparkling embellishments, plush feathers, and intricate hand beading, dressing every generation of A-list stars along the way.

    Mackie’s talent caught the eye of the entertainment industry almost immediately. At just 21 years old, he earned an early career credit for sketching the form-fitting nude illusion dress that Marilyn Monroe wore when she delivered her legendary, sultry performance of “Happy Birthday Mr. President” to President John F. Kennedy in 1962 — a design that remains one of the most famous garments in pop culture history more than 60 years later.

    Throughout the second half of the 20th century, Mackie collaborated with some of the biggest names in music and film, creating custom pieces that amplified their public personas and made history at red carpets and on stage. In 1975, he worked with Elton John to design a showstopping sequinned baseball uniform that the superstar wore for his landmark performance at Los Angeles’ Dodger Stadium, a look that remains synonymous with John’s over-the-top 1970s era. His decades-long creative partnership with Cher, one of his most famous muses, began in the 1970s: in 1978, she posed for portraits in a sleek bugle-beaded Mackie gown, kicking off a collaboration that would produce countless iconic looks. By 1985, the pair walked the Met Gala red carpet together, with Cher turning heads in a long-sleeved gilded bodysuit designed to look like sparkling leaves wrapping around her frame. Three years later, she commanded attention at the 1986 Oscars in one of Mackie’s most daring designs: a black diamond-cut lattice ensemble paired with a dramatic feather headdress.

    Other 20th century stars flocked to Mackie for his ability to blend drama, glamour, and personality into every garment. Spanish entertainer Charo stepped out in a full glittering sequin Mackie gown in 1980 Los Angeles, while Tina Turner brought a disco-inspired sequined Mackie design to her 1982 London performance. At the 1991 Academy Awards, Madonna made a splash in a jewel-encrusted strapless Mackie gown offset by a luxurious fur stole that wrapped across her arms. By the turn of the century, Mackie remained a go-to for industry royalty: Diana Ross walked the 2001 American Fashion Awards red carpet arm-in-arm with the designer, wearing a sapphire-toned sparkly Mackie gown under a statement fur coat, and Beyoncé wowed audiences at the 2005 Kennedy Center Honors in Mackie’s fiery iconic flame-themed performance gown.

    Far from being a relic of 20th century Hollywood, Mackie’s vision continued to resonate with 21st century stars, proving the timelessness of his bold, glittering aesthetic. Miley Cyrus brought vintage Mackie back into the spotlight when she wore a retro minidress by the designer for her 2023 New Year’s Eve television special, and later paid explicit tribute to him at the 2024 Grammy Awards in a shimmering silver Mackie creation. Zendaya graced the 2024 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame red carpet in a showstopping Mackie gown criss-crossed with rhinestones, gold, and white bugle beads, while Sabrina Carpenter leaned into nostalgic Mackie glamour at the 2024 MTV Awards in a pearl and crystal-embellished gown that nodded to Madonna’s famous 1990 Oscar look.

    Nicknamed the Sultan of Sequins, the Rajah of Rhinestones, and the Guru of Glitter by fans and peers alike, Bob Mackie leaves behind a legacy of designs that balance timeless appeal with bold, unapologetic daring. His ability to create pieces that felt fresh and exciting, even when they drew inspiration from bygone eras of glamour, cemented his status as one of the most influential fashion designers in entertainment history.

  • AI regulation faces political deadlock as calls grow for Congress to act

    AI regulation faces political deadlock as calls grow for Congress to act

    The debate over artificial intelligence safety and federal regulation has erupted into open conflict across the U.S. political landscape this week, with deep divisions between the White House, congressional leaders, and even within industry and policy circles over whether new guardrails are needed to rein in rapidly advancing AI technology.

    On Monday, President Donald Trump delivered a blunt rejection of growing calls to slow AI development and impose government oversight. Taking to social media, he dismissed warnings that AI could pose existential threats to humanity as a “HOAX”, arguing that the only guardrails the sector requires is a “strong and smart” sitting president.

    Trump’s uncompromising stance has predictably split Capitol Hill along partisan lines, and all but dashed hopes of moving forward with new AI safety legislation before the November 2026 midterm elections. Senior congressional Democrats and top AI industry leaders have directly pushed back against the president’s position, issuing urgent warnings about unregulated AI growth and demanding immediate congressional action.

    With Republicans holding majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the party remains largely aligned with Trump’s opposition to new federal controls, making passage of any regulatory bill virtually impossible in the current legislative session. Even if a bill were to advanced through both chambers, Trump’s public rejection of regulation means he would almost certainly veto any measure, eliminating any path for executive approval this year.

    Beyond partisan opposition, a rapidly approaching congressional recess has created an additional, immediate barrier to action. The House is scheduled to adjourn at the end of this week, remaining out of session until after the midterm elections in early November. Top Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, are demanding that the recess be delayed to allow time to vote on AI safety safeguards.

    “Congress should not leave town until something is done decisively to protect the safety and the wellbeing of the American people,” Jeffries told reporters Monday. A coalition of House Democrats has sent a formal letter to Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, who holds sole authority to decide whether to delay the recess, urging extra time for debate on AI regulation. “Reasonable minds may disagree about precisely how Congress should regulate this rapidly evolving technology. We cannot disagree about the imperative for Congress to act,” the letter reads. Even some Republican lawmakers, including Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, have publicly called for a special session to address AI risks.

    Still, congressional observers see almost no chance the recess will be delayed or a special session called. When pressed by reporters Monday, Johnson gave no indication he would move forward with a vote this week, calling AI regulation a “very complex issue”. He noted that Trump would soon host AI industry executives at the White House to discuss corporate responsibility for safety, emphasizing that the priority is pushing AI companies to self-regulate rather than enacting new federal laws. “We want to emphasise the necessity of [AI companies] providing safe products and self-regulating,” Johnson said, adding only that Congress may potentially play a role at some future, unspecified date.

    Compounding the legislative gridlock is a lack of consensus even among lawmakers who agree regulation is needed. Congressional Democrats are divided on what form AI oversight should take, and even if the party flipped control of both chambers in November’s midterms, there is no guarantee that a unified bill could move forward quickly. Lawmakers have already put forward a wide range of competing proposals on Capitol Hill, from mandatory independent safety reviews and a federal “kill switch” for high-risk AI models, to a complete moratorium on new AI data center construction put forward by Senator Bernie Sanders.

    Bipartisan talks are ongoing on two separate leading proposals. In the Senate, Republican Majority Leader John Thune and Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar are drafting a bill that would require major AI companies to submit to federal oversight. “You don’t want to stifle innovation,” Thune explained Monday, “but I think you also want to make sure that the more advanced threats can be mitigated.” In the House, Democratic Congresswoman Lori Trahan has worked for months with Republican Congressman Jay Obernolte on the bipartisan Frontier Act, which would grant the federal government authority to halt deployment of an AI model if officials confirm it poses an “imminent catastrophic risk”, and require independent third-party audits of leading AI research labs. Trahan told the BBC that time is running out for congressional action, warning that AI will eventually reshape every corner of American life. “The federal government needs to put guardrails in place. I don’t think we have any more time to wait. This is all hands on deck,” she said, while acknowledging that no movement is likely this week.

    Most Republican policymakers have coalesced around the position that AI companies should bear primary responsibility for managing safety through self-regulation, a view echoed by many conservative allies of the president. David Sacks, one of Trump’s top AI advisors, told CBS News Monday that warnings of existential AI risk from industry insiders have been wildly overblown. “I think this is becoming a panic,” Sacks said. He argued that the onus falls entirely on AI developers to ensure their products are safe, pushing back against Anthropic co-founder Dario Amodei — who has publicly called for a slowdown in advanced AI development, warning the technology grows “more powerful by the day”. “If you can’t control it, then don’t do it,” Sacks said of Amodei’s position.

    Industry and policy experts are also split on the path forward. Some analysts agree that in the absence of congressional action, AI companies must take the lead on responsible self-governance. “You might want an act of Congress, and I would love a congressionally mandated regime that requires safety and testing and bias testing,” said Asad Ramzanali, director of AI & Technology Policy at Vanderbilt University. “But absent that action, the companies have autonomy.” Other observers have expressed skepticism that the recent wave of warnings from AI leaders is rooted in genuine public safety concern, rather than strategic positioning. Trevor Traina, a tech executive who served as a diplomat during Trump’s first term, argued that most ordinary Americans have yet to encounter harmful uses of AI, and suggested leading AI developers are using safety warnings to gain competitive advantage. “We’re relying on the tweets of a half-dozen people who are all vying for perceived supremacy. The cynic in me thinks, ‘Are they really concerned, or are they trying to prove which model is the most awesome?’” Traina said.

    Many policy analysts agree that meaningful federal AI regulation is not on the horizon in the near future. Alexandra Reeve Givens, CEO of the non-profit Center for Democracy and Technology, noted that the Trump administration has already implemented a fully voluntary framework for AI companies to submit their models for government assessment — but the details of the framework remain classified, with no public transparency or clear legal standards governing the process. Appeals to release the framework publicly have been ignored by the administration, Givens said.

    Combined with a lack of partisan consensus and political will on Capitol Hill, the administration’s approach has made passing binding AI legislation extremely difficult. “There is no question that federal legislation is challenging in this climate, but Congress also has to grapple with which of the many types of AI risk need to be addressed,” Givens said. “It’s not that AI is ungovernable, it’s that each risk needs a tailored approach.”

  • Mahmoud Khalil sues Columbia University for allowing harassment that led to his ICE arrest

    Mahmoud Khalil sues Columbia University for allowing harassment that led to his ICE arrest

    On a Monday press conference in New York City, former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, alongside a campus pro-Palestine student group and its leader, launched a new federal lawsuit against the elite Ivy League institution, accusing it of enabling systemic discrimination that directly cleared the path for his 2025 arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    Joining Khalil as co-plaintiffs are the Palestine Working Group (PWG)—a student organization based at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA)—and PWG president Mohammed Ibrahim Zubairi. Named as defendants in the suit are Columbia’s Board of Trustees and SIPA Dean Keren Yarhi-Milo. The legal filing outlines that the university displayed deliberate indifference to repeated reports of severe, sustained, coordinated harassment targeting the plaintiffs, singling them out because of their pro-Palestine advocacy, their Arab and Muslim identities, their national origins, and their status as non-U.S. citizens. Court documents identify Khalil as a Palestinian Muslim holding Algerian citizenship, and Zubairi as a Pakistani Muslim with Pakistani citizenship.

    Khalil, a former U.S. green card holder married to a U.S. citizen, was taken into ICE custody in March 2025 as part of the Trump administration’s campaign targeting non-citizens deemed to hold anti-Israel rhetoric. Plainclothes agents revoked his student visa and green card during the arrest, and he remained detained in an ICE facility for 104 days—a period that forced him to miss the birth of his first child. He was ultimately released on a federal court order pending the outcome of federal proceedings against him, and his case quickly garnered international public attention.

    In remarks to reporters Monday, Khalil emphasized the lawsuit does not blame the university for ICE’s actions directly, but for creating conditions that made his detention possible. “If only I had legal support [from the university] before my detention, I don’t think ICE would have came and kidnapped me,” he said. “That’s why I’m not suing Columbia for what ICE did. I’m suing them for all the groundwork that they did before my abduction to make my abduction possible. Because without Columbia’s intentional disregard to my safety, I don’t think ICE would have came after me.”

    The legal complaint details that in the five months after mass pro-Palestine protests erupted across Columbia’s campus in 2024 in response to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, Khalil, Zubairi, and other PWG members repeatedly reported harassment and doxxing targeting pro-Palestine students to university administrators, including directly to SIPA’s dean. According to the suit, school officials failed to intervene to stop the ongoing, pervasive harassment, and instead retaliated against PWG: university leaders repeatedly labeled the group’s events as security threats, unreasonably disrupting its ability to operate as a recognized student organization. Khalil added that he had met repeatedly with university leadership in the months before his arrest to plead for protection for the campus Palestinian community, but his requests were ignored. He also noted that the university ultimately banned two leading pro-Palestine student groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, after the protests began.

    “Our safety and well-being did not serve the ideological project [Columbia’s] Board of Trustees was protecting, so they traded us away,” Khalil told reporters.

    In a statement provided to Middle East Eye in response to the new lawsuit, a Columbia spokesperson reaffirmed the university’s stated commitment to campus safety. “Creating a campus environment where every member of our community feels welcome, supported, and safe is fundamental to who we are as a University,” the emailed statement read. “It is also a responsibility we take seriously. Columbia is committed to protecting our community from discrimination and harassment, and responding promptly and appropriately when concerns arise.”

    Monday’s lawsuit marks the second major legal action against Columbia over alleged anti-Palestine discrimination in as many months. Last month, a separate group of current and former Palestinian students and staff filed suit in New York State Supreme Court, seeking monetary damages under New York City’s Human Rights Law, which bans discrimination based on race and national origin, among other protected characteristics. That complaint alleges that Columbia has subjected Palestinian students, faculty, and staff to unequal treatment in the period following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and the subsequent Israeli military campaign in Gaza. Plaintiffs in that case accuse the university of actively amplifying racially, ethnically, and politically motivated targeting of Palestinians, failing to protect Palestinian community members from harassment, and subjecting pro-Palestine activists to biased, unfair disciplinary proceedings. One key allegation in that suit notes that Columbia hired private investigators to surveil students who participated in a March 2024 campus event called “Resistance 101,” after which six students were suspended and removed from university housing.

    Both legal actions come after more than two years of ongoing controversy surrounding Columbia’s handling of campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza. In July 2025, Columbia reached a settlement agreement with the Trump administration to end federal investigations into alleged violations of anti-discrimination law and restore frozen federal research funding. Under the terms of that deal, the university agreed to pay $200 million to the U.S. government and an additional $21 million to resolve an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation into antisemitism claims from Jewish employees. Columbia did not admit any wrongdoing nor accept the federal government’s finding that it had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The university also settled a separate lawsuit brought by Jewish plaintiffs in February 2026, which alleged Columbia had failed to protect Jewish and Israeli students from antisemitism on campus.

    Palestinian student activists and free speech advocates have for years repeatedly accused Columbia of disproportionately disciplining students and faculty who voice opposition to Israeli policy, a pattern that the new federal lawsuit brings to federal court.

    This report is from Middle East Eye, an independent media outlet focused on coverage of the Middle East, North Africa and global affairs related to the region.

  • Mass nesting brings swarms of turtles to Mexican beach

    Mass nesting brings swarms of turtles to Mexican beach

    In a remarkable annual natural phenomenon, thousands of sea turtles have swarmed to La Escobilla Beach in the Mexican state of Oaxaca for a mass nesting event that unfolded over just 48 hours, according to officials from the local wildlife sanctuary.

    La Escobilla Beach is one of the most critical nesting sites in the world for olive ridley turtles, a species classified as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Mass nesting, also known as arribada (arrival in Spanish), is a unique reproductive behavior where thousands of female turtles emerge from the ocean simultaneously to lay their eggs on the same stretch of sand.

    Sanctuary management teams have reported that this year’s arrival aligns with historical nesting patterns, and ongoing monitoring efforts are already underway to protect the nesting females and their clutches from potential threats including predators, human disturbance, and coastal erosion. Local conservation groups work year-round to maintain the protected status of this beach, which has become a vital stronghold for the long-term survival of this iconic marine species.

    This natural event also draws attention to the importance of coastal conservation efforts in Mexico, as climate change and habitat loss continue to pose challenges to sea turtle populations globally. The successful mass nesting at La Escobilla is seen as a positive indicator of the effectiveness of current conservation strategies in the region.

  • Nato jets down drone that entered Lithuanian airspace

    Nato jets down drone that entered Lithuanian airspace

    In an overnight security operation that underscores heightened vigilance along NATO’s eastern flank, NATO fighter pilots intercepted and destroyed an unauthorized drone that breached Lithuanian airspace, according to an official announcement from Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda.

    Lithuanian authorities confirm the unmanned aircraft most likely crossed into southern Lithuania, close to the nation’s second-largest city Kaunas, from neighboring Belarus shortly after midnight local time on Tuesday. President Nausėda confirmed the outcome of the operation in an official post published to the social platform X, writing simply, “A drone that just entered Lithuanian airspace was destroyed by NATO fighter jets.”

    As of Tuesday, the exact origin and operator of the downed drone remain unconfirmed, a spokesperson for Lithuania’s national crisis management center clarified to reporters. Hours before the intercept, drone intrusion warnings had activated across the capital city Vilnius and its surrounding suburban areas.

    Lithuania’s Ministry of Defense highlighted the rapid, coordinated response to the incursion, crediting both Lithuanian armed forces personnel and Italian pilots assigned to the permanent NATO Air Defence Mission for their quick action. In his social media statement, President Nausėda emphasized the critical importance of this level of readiness amid Moscow’s ongoing full-scale invasion of Ukraine. “With Russia intensifying its aggression against Ukraine, such readiness is vital for our region,” he wrote. “Together with our NATO Allies, Lithuania will defend its airspace.”

    Moscow has not yet issued any public comment on the Tuesday incident. The incursion comes amid a string of similar unauthorized drone sightings across the Baltic region in recent weeks, and against a geopolitical context that has placed heightened scrutiny on NATO’s eastern border security. Lithuania shares extensive southern and eastern border territory with Belarus, a longstanding close military and political ally of Russia that has openly supported Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

    This most recent incident is not the first drone incursion recorded in Lithuania this month. On September 13, reports of an unidentified unmanned object crossing into Lithuanian airspace from Belarus prompted an investigation, which concluded the object likely traversed Lithuanian territory before exiting into Russian airspace. That earlier incursion did not reach the threshold to trigger national air threat alerts, authorities confirmed.

    Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, unauthorized military drone incursions into sovereign European airspace have grown steadily more frequent. In May of this year, a drone alert in Vilnius forced residents to seek emergency shelter, disrupted commercial air traffic and suspended regional rail services for a brief period. So far in 2024, NATO fighter jets have been scrambled multiple times to intercept and down stray Ukrainian drones that accidentally crossed into the airspace of fellow Baltic NATO members Estonia and Latvia. Ukraine has repeatedly attributed these accidental cross-border incursions to Russian electronic warfare systems, which Moscow uses to hijack and redirect the flight paths of Ukrainian unmanned aircraft away from their intended targets.

    Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia all gained membership in NATO in 2004, and as alliance members, they are protected by Article 5, the cornerstone collective defense provision that codifies that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against the entire alliance. This security framework has anchored increased NATO military presence and air patrol operations across the Baltic region since 2014, when Russia first annexed Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula, and has been further reinforced following the 2022 full-scale invasion.

  • Supreme Court blocks Trump’s plan to restrict mail-in ballots

    Supreme Court blocks Trump’s plan to restrict mail-in ballots

    In a high-stakes legal ruling that marks a major political setback for former President Donald Trump and his administration, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a controversial plan to tighten restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of the 2026 November midterm elections. The nation’s highest court voted to leave in place a temporary injunction issued by a lower federal judge, which halted the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from implementing the new rules for mail-in ballots put forward by the Trump White House. The outcome marked a surprise split among the court’s conservative wing, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the court’s liberal majority to uphold the block, even as he signaled openness to ruling in the administration’s favor after the election cycle concludes.

    The policy at the center of the legal battle originated from a March executive order signed by Trump, who has long claimed widespread electoral fraud plagues U.S. elections. The order directed USPS to only deliver mail-in ballots to voters who appear on official state citizen registration lists, a change that critics warned would disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters. Multiple states joined voter advocacy groups to challenge the rule in court, arguing that the Trump administration’s overreach into election administration violated states’ constitutional authority to manage their own electoral processes.

    In his concurring opinion, Kavanaugh acknowledged that there was a reasonable argument that the final policy could fall within the statutory authority granted to USPS. However, he wrote that implementing the new regulation just months before a national election would qualify as arbitrary and capricious, writing that disrupting the election process so close to voting date carried unacceptable risks for voters. Only two conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, dissented from the majority ruling. In their dissent, Alito and Thomas dismissed the legal challenge to Trump’s executive order as a long-shot “Hail Mary pass” unlikely to succeed in future litigation, arguing that USPS holds broad statutory authority to regulate the delivery of mailed materials, including election ballots.

    This ruling comes amid ongoing national debate over voting access and election integrity, with mail-in voting emerging as one of the most polarizing election policy issues in U.S. politics since the 2020 presidential election. This is a developing breaking news story, with additional details expected to be released in coming updates. Readers can access real-time updates via the BBC News mobile app, or by following @BBCBreaking on X for the latest alerts.

  • Attack on Saudi Arabian pipeline may cut four percent of world’s oil supply

    Attack on Saudi Arabian pipeline may cut four percent of world’s oil supply

    A recent drone strike targeting Saudi Arabia’s critical East-West Pipeline has triggered major disruptions to global oil markets, with industry assessments indicating repairs could take five to six weeks to complete, according to senior industry sources cited by Reuters. The outage removes approximately 4 million barrels per day of Saudi crude – equal to 4% of total global oil supply – from international markets, sending energy prices soaring across the board at the start of the trading week.

    On Monday, Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil pricing, climbed 3% to trade near the $108 per barrel mark. This upward momentum follows a sharp rally last week, driven by a rapid Houthi offensive that secured the group full control of Yemen’s side of the Bab el-Mandeb, a strategically vital Red Sea chokepoint through which millions of barrels of Saudi oil are shipped daily.

    Market analysts warn that publicly quoted benchmark prices do not fully capture the extreme cost increases being passed on to commercial buyers, particularly for refined petroleum products such as diesel. Gregory Brew, a leading energy analyst at risk consultancy Eurasia Group, noted on social platform X that physical cargoes of Omani crude are currently selling for as high as $121 per barrel, while Murban crude loaded at the United Arab Emirates’ Fujairah port is trading at $131 per barrel – far above benchmark levels.

    The sudden price spike comes at a particularly fragile moment for the global economy, which is already struggling to rein in persistent high inflation and adapt to sharply higher borrowing costs across major developed and emerging markets.

    In comments made on Monday, former U.S. President Donald Trump pushed back against claims that rising diesel prices stem from the ongoing U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, instead blaming attacks on energy infrastructure carried out by Russia and Ukraine. He added that the two nations have reached an agreement to temporarily halt such targeting operations.

    New satellite imagery published by analytics firm Vantor on Sunday confirms extensive damage to a key pumping station along the East-West Pipeline at al-Mesabaah, located southeast of the Saudi city of Medina. Last week, Saudi officials stated the drone attack was launched from Iraqi territory, where a network of Shia-majority militias aligned with Iran operate. Both the Yemeni Houthi movement and Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) are part of Iran’s so-called “Axis of Resistance” alliance, though the Houthis exercise a greater degree of operational independence from Tehran than other member groups.

    For both Iran and the Houthis, the disruption of the pipeline represents a significant strategic gain, as it lays bare critical security vulnerabilities in Saudi Arabia’s energy export infrastructure. The Houthis are seeking to leverage their recent battlefield gains to expand the territory under their control in Yemen, while Iran aims to strengthen its strategic dominance over the Strait of Hormuz, another chokepoint through which roughly 20% of global oil trade passes.

    The East-West Pipeline has served as a critical bypass for Saudi oil exports for decades. Constructed in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War specifically to offer an alternative route around the Strait of Hormuz, the pipeline runs from Saudi Arabia’s giant Gulf coast oil fields to the Red Sea export terminal at Yanbu. In recent years, it has allowed Saudi Arabia to maintain roughly two-thirds of its pre-conflict export volumes despite a de facto blockade imposed by Iran on Gulf shipping through Hormuz, carrying 4 million bpd for international markets before the attack.

    Beyond the immediate pressure on Saudi Arabia, the pipeline shutdown is also prompting warnings for other Gulf Cooperation Council states that have invested in alternative export routes to avoid dependence on the Strait of Hormuz. The United Arab Emirates currently operates a smaller pipeline that terminates at Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman to bypass Hormuz, but that infrastructure sits far closer to Iranian territory than Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline, raising questions about its own vulnerability to similar attacks.