博客

  • GOP hawks alarmed as Trump mulls deal to end his Iran war

    GOP hawks alarmed as Trump mulls deal to end his Iran war

    Over the recent weekend, former U.S. President Donald Trump made public that he is actively considering a negotiated agreement to bring an end to the ongoing U.S. war with Iran, a development that has sparked urgent pushback from hardline, pro-conflict factions within the Republican Party.

    Per a Sunday report from The New York Times, critical details of the prospective peace deal remain deeply unclear, most notably the future of Iran’s enriched uranium program, whose status is still unresolved. Compounding the uncertainty, official statements from both U.S. and Iranian representatives have offered conflicting accounts of what the agreement would entail, confirming that extensive negotiations still lie ahead before any final pact can be reached.

    Even before a full draft of the deal has emerged, three of the Senate’s most prominent Republican Iran hawks moved on Saturday to outline sharp objections to the emerging framework. The lawmakers warned that any agreement that leaves Iran strategically stronger than it was before Trump launched military operations in late February would be unacceptable for U.S. national security.

    Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who repeatedly pressured Trump to launch military strikes on Iran in the lead-up to the war, argued that a deal that allows the Iranian government to retain power and grow its influence over time would only exacerbate existing instability across the Middle East. “If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq,” Graham wrote. He added that an agreement that lets Iran maintain future control over the Strait of Hormuz would supercharge the capabilities of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iranian-aligned Shia militias operating in Iraq.

    Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, another longstanding advocate of hardline policy toward Iran, said he is “deeply concerned” by early details of the proposed deal, singling out the risk of sanction relief for Iran while it retains the capacity to close off the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil chokepoint. “If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime – still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ – now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake,” Cruz said.

    Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi went even further in his rejection of the reported agreement, calling the rumored 60-day ceasefire that would precede final negotiations a fundamental mistake. “The rumored 60-day ceasefire – with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith – would be a disaster,” Wicker wrote. “Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught.”

    That claim drew immediate pushback from foreign policy critics of the war, starting with Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser to President Barack Obama. Rhodes flatly rejected Wicker’s assertion that the U.S. military campaign had achieved any meaningful gains. “Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury,” Rhodes wrote, “except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.”

    Rhodes’ critique was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that “everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught.”

    Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, pushed back against the hawks’ core argument that continued military pressure would force Iran to surrender. Vaez noted that hardline policymakers have already secured two wars, sweeping international sanctions, and a naval blockade that has disrupted global energy markets, yet still demand further escalation to achieve their goals. “DC’s Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy,” Vaez wrote, “and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won’t be satisfied with.”

  • Hajj pilgrims press on despite Iran war uncertainty

    Hajj pilgrims press on despite Iran war uncertainty

    For Shahid Ali and his wife, the dream of completing Hajj was decades in the making. For years, the East London couple stashed savings in a dented tin box hidden in their home, skipping vacations, putting off home repairs and cutting out all non-essential luxuries to afford the once-in-a-lifetime religious journey they hoped to take before old age stole their chance. But when open conflict broke out between Israel, the United States and Iran, what should have been a period of quiet anticipation curdled into worry and doubt.

    “My children asked us to reconsider, but we have waited our lives for this,” Ali told Middle East Eye shortly before his departure. “There was massive uncertainty after mass flight cancellations, but we never changed our plans. It still looks like we’re going.”

    Ali’s anxiety is shared by Muslim pilgrims gathering in homes and mosques across the globe ahead of this year’s annual pilgrimage to Mecca, one of the five central pillars of Islam. Yet that shared uncertainty has not stopped hundreds of thousands of worshippers from moving forward with their long-planned journeys, even as the regional conflict upends travel logistics and drives up costs.

    The ongoing conflict has already disrupted regional air travel, pushed up living costs worldwide, and forced commercial carriers to implement costly detours and new surcharges to navigate restricted airspace. Even with these disruptions, Saudi authorities announced Saturday that more than 1.5 million international pilgrims have already arrived in the kingdom for this year’s Hajj – a number that already surpasses the total international arrivals recorded in 2024.

    The shadow of geopolitical tension has hung heavily over the pilgrimage season. Earlier this week, two senior officials confirmed to Middle East Eye that former U.S. President Donald Trump delayed a planned offensive against Iran after senior Gulf allies and his own national security team warned against launching new military operations during the Hajj. In subsequent statements, Trump noted that a new agreement was “largely negotiated,” and multiple reports over the weekend indicated that Washington and Tehran are close to finalizing a 60-day extension of an existing ceasefire alongside a formal memorandum of understanding.

    For Muslims worldwide, Hajj is a sacred religious obligation that every believer is expected to complete at least once in their lifetime if they are physically and financially able. For many working-class and low-income families, saving for the journey takes decades, and waiting lists for official Hajj slots in many parts of the Global South can stretch to 10 years or more. For elderly pilgrims in particular, postponement is unthinkable: many worry they will not live long enough to get another chance.

    “There’s uncertainty everywhere now,” said Farzana Begum, a retired teacher from Birmingham who is preparing to depart for Mecca. “But if God has invited you, you cannot refuse because of politics.”

    Despite the hopeful signs of a ceasefire, the conflict has created severe logistical hurdles for travel operators and pilgrims alike. Airspace restrictions and fears of sudden escalation have forced Gulf commercial airlines to reroute all flights passing through sensitive areas of the region, with some carriers suspending routes entirely. The longer flight paths and elevated fuel costs have caused Hajj package prices to spike sharply in recent weeks, according to travel operators based in Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia.

    “Every single day the situation changes,” explained one Jordan-based Hajj organizer who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic. “Flights are being rerouted constantly, prices shift from one day to the next, and pilgrims are calling every hour asking if the journey is still safe. When the war first started, anxiety was through the roof, but that panic has mostly died down now.”

    Saudi officials have moved quickly to reassure pilgrims, emphasizing that the kingdom has put extensive contingency plans in place to ensure the safety and smooth operation of the pilgrimage. Even so, some countries with large Muslim populations have passed on the new added costs to worshippers. India, for example, has added an extra 10,000 rupees ($105) to all official Hajj packages, while Indonesia – home to the world’s largest Muslim population – has announced it will absorb the additional costs to avoid burdening pilgrims.

    While a ceasefire agreement appears imminent, concerns persist that tensions could reignite at any moment. The Gulf region hosts some of the busiest and most congested air corridors in the world, and any sudden escalation of hostilities would trigger widespread further disruption to global travel networks. Most pilgrims traveling from Europe, South Asia and Africa transit through major regional hubs including Doha, Dubai and Jeddah, leaving their travel plans vulnerable to any sudden shift in security conditions. For many, this persistent uncertainty has added a heavy layer of emotional stress to what is already an intensely spiritual and costly journey.

    At London’s Heathrow Airport earlier this week, groups of British pilgrims gathered around luggage trolleys stacked with suitcases and rolled prayer mats, waiting for their flights. Some said they were nervously refreshing news updates every few minutes ahead of departure, while others chose to avoid political coverage entirely to focus on their pilgrimage. One woman traveling with her 78-year-old mother said her entire family had begged the pair to cancel their trip and rebook for next year.

    “My brothers said we should wait another year,” she explained. “But my mother said: ‘What if I don’t have another year?’”

    This year’s Hajj is also shaped by the broader wave of turmoil roiling the Middle East. Many pilgrims preparing for the journey say they carry deep sorrow over the ongoing wars and humanitarian crises across the region, particularly the conflict in Gaza. For many, the fact that thousands of Palestinian Muslims trapped under siege and war are unable to perform Hajj this year weighs heavily on their hearts.

    “We will pray for them when we are there,” Begum said. “You cannot separate Hajj from what is happening to Muslims elsewhere.”

    Historically, the Hajj has persisted through wars, pandemics and political upheaval across the centuries. Long before the advent of commercial aviation, pilgrims traveled for months by foot, camel and ship to reach Mecca, even during periods of regional conflict. More recently, the global COVID-19 pandemic forced Saudi Arabia to restrict Hajj to only a tiny handful of domestic worshippers, the first such large-scale cancellation in modern history, leaving millions of believers around the world heartbroken.

    The return of large-scale international Hajj after the pandemic initially brought widespread renewed optimism for both travel operators and worshippers. The new tensions sparked by the Iran conflict have introduced a fresh wave of uncertainty to the pilgrimage season. Analysts note that the situation lays bare just how vulnerable global religious travel has become to sudden geopolitical shocks.

    “Hajj depends on massive international coordination across dozens of countries,” explained one Gulf-based aviation expert who requested anonymity over fears of professional repercussions. “When airspace becomes militarized or unstable, the consequences spread quickly through the entire travel network. Some pilgrims may even end up stuck in Saudi Arabia longer than planned if disruptions worsen.”

    Yet for most pilgrims, fear takes a backseat to faith. At a pre-Hajj informational seminar held at a mosque in west London earlier this week, organizers walked attendees through emergency protocols, insurance requirements and potential travel delays. Time and again, however, the conversation circled back to spiritual purpose rather than political risk. Imams leading the seminar reminded attendees that hardship has always been an inherent part of the Hajj journey.

    “The essence of Hajj is sacrifice,” one speaker told the congregation. “People throughout history traveled under far more dangerous conditions than we face today.”

    That message has resonated deeply with worshippers preparing to depart. Some pilgrims openly acknowledge they feel afraid, and many say their family members remain deeply worried for their safety. But almost none are willing to abandon plans they have spent decades of sacrifice and saving to bring to fruition.

    For Shahid Ali and his wife, canceling their journey now is unthinkable. “We don’t know what will happen in the world,” he said quietly before his departure. “There is war everywhere. But we believe if God wants us to complete Hajj, we will complete it.”

  • World Central Kitchen halves Gaza meal aid as Iran war drives up costs

    World Central Kitchen halves Gaza meal aid as Iran war drives up costs

    The largest hot meal provider in the besieged Palestinian enclave of Gaza, World Central Kitchen (WCK), has been forced to slash its daily hot meal distribution by 50 percent, a decision driven by skyrocketing food and fuel prices that stem from regional spillover effects of the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran launched in February. The non-profit made the announcement this week, with NPR first reporting the development Thursday, and warned that ballooning operational expenses have eliminated any possibility of sustaining the organization’s previous high levels of humanitarian aid.

    Prior to the cut, WCK was producing roughly 1 million hot meals daily for hungry Gaza residents. That number has now dropped to 500,000 meals per day. The scaling back of aid comes at a moment when nearly the entire population of Gaza is already dependent on external humanitarian assistance, after more than two years of Israeli military attacks and a crippling air, land and sea blockade that have completely destroyed the enclave’s local food production systems and collapsed its already fragile economy. This is not the first sign of strain for the organization: earlier this month, WCK publicly noted that growing financial pressure was already pushing it to reduce the scope of its operations.

    In an official statement, the organization clarified that it would continue to deliver hundreds of thousands of hot meals each day to vulnerable families across Gaza, and maintain one of the largest food relief operations currently active anywhere in the world. But the group emphasized that its 1 million daily meal peak, reached at the height of emergency response efforts, was never a sustainable output for the organization to maintain long term.

    “Our core mission is emergency food relief, not solving long-term food insecurity for an entire besieged population,” the statement read. “The long-term responsibility of feeding Gaza cannot rest on the shoulders of one organization alone. The people of Gaza have lost their homes, their livelihoods, and their entire economy. The world must step up – not just issue empty statements about the plight of the Palestinian people. Governments, global institutions, and international partners need to commit the sustained, reliable funding that this catastrophic crisis demands.”

    To date, it remains uncertain whether other aid groups operating in the enclave will be able to cover the gap left by WCK’s cuts. The United Nations has already issued repeated warnings that its own agencies working in Gaza are also grappling with severe funding shortfalls and rising operational costs, even as data shows one in every five people in Gaza currently survives on just a single meal per day.

    Since Israel launched its large-scale military campaign in October 2023, Gaza has been pushed into a state of extreme food insecurity and full-blown humanitarian catastrophe. A US-brokered ceasefire announced in October 2025 was meant to halt active hostilities, lift the years-long blockade, and allow unimpeded flows of aid, food, and life-saving medicine into the territory. To date, however, Israel has systematically violated the terms of the ceasefire agreement, largely maintained the blockade, and kept critical supplies of fuel, food, and medicine at severely depleted levels. Active military operations including air strikes and artillery shelling have also continued across the enclave: more than 800 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire was announced, bringing the total death toll from Israeli operations since October 2023 to more than 72,700, with over 172,000 more people wounded, many of whom lack access to adequate medical care.

  • ‘No Eid’ in Gaza for third year as livestock crisis erases holiday rituals

    ‘No Eid’ in Gaza for third year as livestock crisis erases holiday rituals

    For generations, the weeks leading up to Eid al-Adha in Gaza have been defined by the bustle of livestock markets, where breeders showcase healthy herds for families preparing to fulfill one of Islam’s most sacred religious obligations. This year, that familiar rhythm is gone entirely – reduced to a distant memory by the ongoing destruction of Gaza’s agricultural sector under Israeli military operations and a crippling, long-running blockade.

    Mazen al-Jerjawi, once one of Gaza City’s most prominent commercial livestock breeders, now operates a small café, scraping by on sales of frozen meat that trickles into the besieged enclave under strict Israeli entry limits. Where he once sold upwards of 200 head of cattle and sheep ahead of each Eid, his pastures and barns now sit empty. “No live animals are being allowed into Gaza at all,” he explained in an interview with Middle East Eye. “Israel treats the people of Gaza as if they are living here temporarily, and what is allowed is merely to ‘keep things going’ at a minimal level.”

    Eid al-Adha, one of Islam’s holiest annual celebrations, centers on the ritual sacrifice of an animal for Muslims who can afford the practice, with the meat distributed equally among family members, neighbors, and low-income community members. Before the outbreak of full-scale war in October 2023, Gaza typically imported 40,000 to 60,000 sheep and calves annually in advance of the holiday to meet consumer demand. 2025 marks the third consecutive year that Gazan Palestinians have been barred from observing this central tradition, as Israeli military actions and the ongoing blockade continue to dismantle the enclave’s basic infrastructure and economy.

    Official data from Gaza’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry confirms that more than 90 percent of the enclave’s entire livestock sector has been destroyed or rendered inoperable since the war began, a toll that has rippled across every layer of Gazan society. Along with the annihilation of local herds, Israel’s total ban on live animal imports has snapped already fragile supply chains, pushing what remains of the industry to the brink of total collapse.

    The impact on pricing has been catastrophic. Before the war, a single sacrificial sheep cost between $500 and $600. Today, the handful of surviving private animals that reach the market can fetch as much as $7,000 – a sum out of reach for nearly all Gazan families grappling with widespread unemployment and runaway inflation. Jerjawi says he has ceased selling livestock entirely, and often advises Palestinians living abroad who reach out to buy a sacrifice for relatives in Gaza to reconsider. “I tell them it’s better to buy 50 kilograms of frozen meat instead of spending all that money on one sheep,” he said. “The 20,000 shekels [$7,000] for a sheep could even help pay for a couple to get married.”

    The destruction of herds has come on multiple fronts: many animals were killed directly in Israeli airstrikes, while repeated forced displacement left breeders with no option but to abandon or hastily offload their animals. “Many of my sheep died after a nearby house was bombed,” Jerjawi recalled. “This was the case for most livestock owners; we lost them because of the strikes.” When evacuation orders forced him to flee his home, he was forced to slaughter or sell his remaining flock for a fraction of their value just to afford basic food for his own family. “We did everything we could to keep the animals alive, even feeding them pasta and whatever we could find,” he said. “In the end, how can someone care for livestock while trying to protect your wife and children?”

    Figures from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) underscore the scale of the loss: by November 2024, at least 80 percent of Gaza’s sheep and 70 percent of its goats had been killed during the war. Gaza’s Ministry of Agriculture reports that the total population of sheep and goats in the enclave has plummeted from roughly 60,000 before the war to just 3,000 today, while cattle and calves have almost entirely disappeared. Most of the surviving animals are held by nomadic herders and are not available for commercial sale during the Eid season, according to ministry spokesperson Raafat Assaliya.

    The crisis extends far beyond the loss of animals themselves: nearly all of Gaza’s livestock-related infrastructure – from barns and grazing lands to feed warehouses and veterinary clinics – has been damaged or destroyed in repeated airstrikes. Compounding this, the inability to operate water wells has eliminated any realistic path for the sector to recover, even in the short term. “This has prevented thousands of families from carrying out the Eid sacrifice, in an unprecedented situation,” Assaliya said.

    For Gazan residents, the loss of the sacrificial tradition has transformed the holiday into a muted, unrecognizable event stripped of its core meaning. Muhammed Aburiyala, a Gaza City schoolteacher who has participated in the annual sacrifice for most of his life, says it has been three years since his community experienced a true Eid celebration. “The ritual itself, and the feeling of sharing it with others, has disappeared. Without sacrifices and the ability to share, there is no Eid,” he said.

    The absence of available livestock is just one layer of a far broader food security crisis that has left most of Gaza’s population struggling to access enough food for daily survival. Even frozen meat is out of reach for many: “Many can barely secure daily meals, and some have not eaten frozen meat for more than a year,” Aburiyala said. “What enters Gaza is limited and depends entirely on the status of the crossings, which means prices remain extremely high.”

    A 2025 assessment from the UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) estimates that roughly 1.6 million people – 77 percent of Gaza’s total population – are currently facing acute food insecurity. The crisis has been exacerbated by erratic and restrictive Israeli policies on humanitarian aid and commercial imports, even during ceasefire periods, with repeated border closures that leave basic goods regularly disappearing from market shelves.

    Aburiyala argues that the blockade on livestock is a deliberate effort to dismantle Gaza’s local economy and prevent the enclave from achieving self-sufficiency. “If livestock were allowed into Gaza, it would sustain many professions – veterinarians, livestock breeders, farmers who rely on manure, butchers and restaurant owners,” he said. “This is not what Israel wants. They want to paralyze society and prevent it from becoming self-sufficient.”

    Reporting for this article was published by Middle East Eye, an independent outlet covering the Middle East and North Africa region.

  • ‘Nightmare for Israel’: Republican hawks attack Trump’s emerging Iran deal

    ‘Nightmare for Israel’: Republican hawks attack Trump’s emerging Iran deal

    A wave of rare public criticism from senior U.S. Republican foreign policy leaders has targeted former President Donald Trump over emerging details of a proposed 30 to 60-day initial ceasefire framework with Iran, with critics warning the reported deal includes sweeping U.S. concessions that would boost Tehran’s regional power and jeopardize Israeli security.

    The backlash gained momentum Sunday after Trump confirmed that a draft memorandum of understanding to end the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran was largely finalized and only waiting for formal approval. In his comments, Trump highlighted that the agreement would reopen the Strait of Hormuz — the critical global energy transit chokepoint that Iran has held effective control over since the war launched in late February — but made no mention of Iran’s nuclear program, a sharp departure from his repeated prior pledges that Tehran would never be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon.

    Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei confirmed Saturday that Tehran was putting the final touches on the preliminary framework, which would set a 30 to 60-day temporary agreement. The 14-clause draft covers core sticking points: the Strait of Hormuz status, the ongoing U.S. naval blockade of Iran, and a full ceasefire across all conflict fronts including Lebanon. Unconfirmed reports have also suggested the deal could unlock billions of dollars in previously frozen Iranian assets, but Iranian leaders have repeatedly ruled out including nuclear issues in the current round of negotiations, and senior officials have explicitly denied agreeing to give up Tehran’s existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

    Negotiations have stretched for weeks since an initial ceasefire took effect April 8, including landmark face-to-face negotiating sessions in Islamabad, but no permanent peace deal has been reached, and the Strait remains closed. The ongoing closure has triggered the most severe global oil supply disruption in modern history, amplifying pressure on all parties to reach a resolution.

    But the apparent concessions from the Trump administration have sparked deep alarm among hardline Republican foreign policy hawks, many of whom were early and vocal backers of the war. Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the most prominent Republican voices on national security, issued a stark warning Saturday that any deal that leaves Iran’s military capacity and ruling government intact would become a “nightmare for Israel.”

    Writing on social platform X, Graham argued that if a deal is reached that accepts Iran’s ongoing ability to close the Strait of Hormuz and attack critical Gulf oil infrastructure, Tehran will be viewed as the dominant power in the Middle East, fundamentally reshaping the regional balance of power in Iran’s favor.

    Graham’s criticism was quickly echoed by other top Senate Republicans, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton, who shared Graham’s comments to his own audience to amplify the rebuke. Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker called the reported 60-day ceasefire framework “a disaster,” warning that all gains from Operation Epic Fury — the Trump administration’s official name for the war on Iran — would be lost. Earlier in the week, Wicker accused anonymous White House officials of pushing Trump toward a hollow deal that holds no real value, rather than allowing him to follow through on his original goal of ending the conflict with a complete Iranian surrender.

    Senator Ted Cruz also joined the growing chorus of criticism, saying he was “deeply concerned” by leaked details of the emerging agreement. Cruz, who explicitly named Trump in his criticism while also blaming unnamed administration advisers for pushing the deal, argued that if the final outcome leaves the Islamist Iranian government in power, unlocks billions of dollars in assets for Tehran, allows Iran to continue enriching uranium and pursue a nuclear weapon, and leaves Tehran with effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, the result will be a catastrophic mistake for U.S. national security.

    Some of the sharpest criticism came from former Trump administration officials: former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo compared the emerging framework to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Obama-era nuclear deal that Republicans universally opposed. Pompeo argued the reported deal follows the exact diplomatic playbook of Obama-era negotiators Wendy Sherman, Robert Malley, and Ben Rhodes, and fails to live up to Trump’s signature “America First” foreign policy. He called for the U.S. to maintain harsh economic and military pressure on Iran instead of pursuing negotiations. Former national security adviser John Bolton went even further, dismissing all talks with Iran as “a waste of oxygen.”

    For his part, Trump has sent mixed signals on the negotiations over the past week, alternating between renewed threats of military escalation and optimistic comments about progress on a deal. Over the weekend, he shared an image of Iran covered by an American flag on social media, a clear signal of continued military pressure. In an interview with CBS Saturday, he said the two sides were “getting a lot closer” to a deal, but warned that if no agreement is reached, Iran will face a level of military punishment no country has ever experienced. Speaking to Axios, he put the odds of a deal at a “solid 50-50,” saying “I think one of two things will happen: either I hit them harder than they have ever been hit, or we are going to sign a deal that is good.”

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is currently traveling in India, echoed Trump’s optimistic tone Saturday, telling reporters that “some progress” has been made, and that negotiations are ongoing even as he spoke to reporters.

  • Dread and denial at heart of deadly DR Congo Ebola outbreak

    Dread and denial at heart of deadly DR Congo Ebola outbreak

    Deep in the mineral-rich hills of Ituri province in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, the town of Mongbwalu sits at the epicenter of a devastating Ebola outbreak that has already crossed international borders and triggered a global public health emergency. For many residents here, fear of the deadly virus is tangled up in decades of deep-seated distrust of the distant, corruption-plagued central government in Kinshasa, leaving communities split between open denial of the disease’s existence and angry criticism of an inadequate official response.

    Unlike many of her neighbors, 26-year-old Laureine Sakiya does not doubt Ebola is real—she has watched the virus kill people living near her home. Located just 100 kilometers from the Ugandan border and 200 kilometers from the unstable South Sudanese frontier, Mongbwalu is a bustling transit hub for gold miners, itinerant street vendors, and motorbike travelers navigating the region’s rutted, muddy roads, making disease surveillance and containment far more challenging.

    Within weeks of the first recorded case, the outbreak has spread to multiple neighboring provinces and reached Ugandan territory, prompting the World Health Organization to declare the epidemic a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Official data counts 322 suspected infections in Mongbwalu alone, with 86 confirmed deaths, and a national toll of more than 200 fatalities across the DRC’s 17th recorded Ebola outbreak. A critical gap in response remains: there are currently no approved vaccines or targeted treatments for the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola driving this current epidemic, leaving medics scrambling to contain transmission with limited tools.

    At Mongbwalu’s modest local hospital, tucked into a hillside surrounded by tall grass and trees, healthcare workers in full head-to-toe hazard suits, goggles and face masks scrub down floors and walls with chlorine solution, the only standard decontamination measure available. Even basic infection control infrastructure is lacking: workers rely on plastic buckets for handwashing, a stark indicator of how under-resourced the response remains. Medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders (MSF) has stepped in to provide isolation tents for suspected cases, alongside local aid groups operating on the ground.

    “This epidemic is out of the ordinary,” explained Florent Uzzeni, MSF’s coordinator based in the regional capital of Bunia. Uzzeni warned that official caseload and death tolls are almost certainly significant undercounts, as testing capacity across the outbreak zone remains extremely limited.

    Previous Ebola outbreaks in the DRC’s remote regions have been fueled by community resistance, and this event is no exception. Many locals reject the existence of Ebola entirely, with some framing the outbreak as a “mystical malady” rooted in local spiritual beliefs. Early on, the spread was worsened by a misinformation chain that became known locally as the “coffin affair.”

    The first suspected case emerged in Bunia, Ituri’s provincial capital. After the patient died, his family transported his body 80 kilometers back to Mongbwalu for burial. The region’s notoriously rough, potholed roads damaged the casket during the trip, exposing the Ebola-contaminated corpse to the people transporting it. Initial tests conducted at a provincial laboratory failed to confirm Ebola as the cause of death, allowing the virus to spread silently through the community while panic grew unchecked. It was only when samples were flown 1,800 kilometers to the national biomedical research laboratory in Kinshasa that the outbreak was officially confirmed—by which point transmission was already widespread.

    Even traditional leaders and faith healers, who hold enormous sway in remote communities like Mongbwalu, have grown alarmed by the level of denial. “I worry about those who say that this disease is invented,” said Adam Hussein, 35, a representative for local traditional faith healers, who has urged all residents to follow public health precautions to slow transmission.

    As the outbreak continues to expand across borders, public health officials warn that deep community distrust and systemic gaps in the government’s response capacity could turn this into one of the worst Ebola outbreaks in recorded history.

  • Trump tempers expectations of a Middle East deal with Iran

    Trump tempers expectations of a Middle East deal with Iran

    Hours after top U.S. diplomat Marco Rubio suggested a historic deal between the United States and Iran to de-escalate regional conflict could be reached as soon as Sunday, President Donald Trump has cooled widespread optimism, saying he has instructed his negotiation team to avoid rushing a final agreement. “Time is on our side,” Trump wrote in a social media post, adding that the current U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports would remain fully in place until any accord is fully finalized, certified, and signed by all parties. This tempered announcement came just days after Trump himself indicated the bulk of the agreement had already been negotiated, with only final touches left to resolve between Washington, Tehran, and other participating mediator nations.

    A fragile bilateral ceasefire between the United States and Iran has been in effect since April 8, as international mediators work to lock in a permanent negotiated settlement. Despite the ceasefire, tensions remain high: Iran has implemented new shipping controls in the Gulf region, while the U.S. has maintained its strict port blockade of Iranian territory. Speaking to reporters during an official visit to India on Sunday, Rubio struck an optimistic note, saying “I do think perhaps there is the possibility that in the next few hours the world will get some good news.” He added that any final agreement would launch a process that fulfills the Trump administration’s core goal: eliminating the global threat posed by an Iranian nuclear weapon.

    Israeli leadership has echoed the U.S. commitment to full nuclear dismantlement. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed Sunday that he and Trump have aligned on non-negotiable terms for any final deal: it must completely eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat. A senior anonymous Israeli official told Agence France-Presse that Trump has made clear he will not back down from his longstanding demand that Iran fully dismantle its nuclear program and remove all enriched uranium from its territory, and no agreement will be signed without meeting these conditions.

    European leaders, who have pushed for a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to lower volatile global energy prices, were quick to welcome early signs of progress Sunday. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen publicly praised “progress towards an agreement,” while British Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged to work closely with international partners to “seize this moment” for peace.

    Iranian officials have confirmed that a draft agreement exists, but clarified a key sticking point has been pushed back: negotiations over the U.S. demand to end all Iranian uranium enrichment will be deferred for 60 days after the initial ceasefire deal takes effect. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told state television that Tehran remains “prepared to assure the world that we are not seeking nuclear weapons,” though it remains unclear whether this assurance will be codified in the final text of the agreement.

    According to Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency, the draft text includes major reciprocal concessions from Washington: the U.S. has agreed to release a portion of billions of dollars in Iranian funds frozen abroad under international sanctions, and end its naval blockade of commercial ships traveling to and from Iranian ports. In exchange, the draft outlines that shipping traffic through the strategic Strait of Hormuz will return to pre-conflict levels under Iranian management, and sanctions on Iranian oil, gas, petrochemicals, and related products will be temporarily lifted during the extended negotiation period to allow Iran to sell its exports freely on global markets.

    Prominent Iranian-American academic Vali Nasr has offered a cautious take on the current draft, noting that the terms on the table appear to favor Iran, but that excessive U.S. concessions have sparked deep suspicion among Tehran’s leadership. “The deal in play looks like a win for Iran. But Tehran is not convinced that it is not a dress rehearsal for war now or in 30 days,” Nasr wrote on social media. He added, “In fact, the more generous the terms for Iran the more the suspicion that the US is not serious about peace and wants to distract Iran ahead of another attack. Iran will be focused on evidence of US military backdown.”

    On Saturday, a broad coalition of regional leaders joined a call with Trump to discuss the ongoing negotiation efforts, including the heads of state of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain, plus senior representatives from Turkey and Pakistan. Pakistan, which mediated the landmark first face-to-face talks between U.S. and Iranian delegations in April, is already positioning to host the next round of negotiations “very soon,” according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. Sharif added that Pakistan’s Army Chief Asim Munir, who just completed a two-day visit to Tehran last week, participated in Saturday’s call, which provided a “useful opportunity… to move the ongoing peace efforts forward to bring lasting peace in the region.”

    Even as diplomacy moves forward, hardline Iranian military leadership has struck a defiant posture. In a rare public appearance at Tehran’s Grand Mosalla mosque covered by state media, Ali Abdollahi, head of Iran’s central military command, reaffirmed that the country’s armed forces remain on high alert. “We are on a war footing and all our armed forces are fully ready, with all their resources and equipment, to confront any enemy,” he said. The warning comes as simultaneous Israeli strikes targeting southern Lebanon sent smoke billowing over the village of al-Mahmoudiye on May 23, underscoring the persistent volatility across the Middle East even as major power talks progress.

  • Turkish police storm opposition offices after leaders ousted

    Turkish police storm opposition offices after leaders ousted

    On a tense Sunday in Ankara, Turkish riot police launched a forcible entry into the headquarters of Turkey’s largest opposition bloc, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), just days after an appellate court invalidated the leadership of current party head Özgür Özel. The operation ignited chaotic clashes between security forces and CHP supporters, who had assembled a makeshift barricade at the building’s entrance to block police access. Thick plumes of tear gas filled the air outside the CHP compound as officers pushed through the defensive line. On-site footage captured CHP members inside the building shouting in protest, hurling objects toward the entryway, and dousing advancing officers with water hoses in a last-ditch attempt to hold the building.

    The conflict traces back to a Thursday ruling from Turkey’s appeal court, which annulled the 2025 CHP leadership primary that saw Özel oust 77-year-old former party leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. Kılıçdaroğlu, who lost the 2023 Turkish presidential election to incumbent Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been ordered to retake the leadership position per the court’s decision. The ruling also mandates a full replacement of CHP’s current executive committee, and effectively strips all recent party decisions of legal recognition. The lower court had previously thrown out claims of vote-buying surrounding the 2025 primary, a ruling the appeal court explicitly overturned in its new decision.

    Hours before the police operation, the CHP had publicly pledged to defy the controversial court order, a move widely interpreted as a further escalation of political tensions that have consolidated Erdoğan’s authority over Turkey nearly 23 years after he first took office as prime minister. As police moved into the building, Özel released an urgent video statement to social platform X declaring “We are under attack.” Following the completion of the police intervention, Özel exited the CHP headquarters and led a procession of supporters toward the Turkish parliament, where he doubled down on his opposition to the government’s actions. “From now we will be on the streets or in the squares, marching towards power,” Özel told supporters after the incursion.

    International observers have already raised alarms over the escalating crackdown on Turkey’s main opposition. On Saturday, Human Rights Watch issued a statement warning that Erdoğan’s administration is eroding Turkish democratic norms through what it described as “abusive tactics” targeting the CHP. Özel has repeatedly accused Erdoğan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of waging a deliberate campaign to eliminate all political opposition. Erdoğan, 72, currently faces constitutional limits on his presidential term, which is set to end in 2028. He can only run for re-election ahead of that deadline if the government calls early elections or successfully amends the country’s constitution to remove term limits.

    Turkey’s Justice Minister Akin Gürlek defended the court’s ruling earlier this week, framing the decision as a win for democratic governance. “[The ruling] reinforces our citizens’ trust in democracy,” Gürlek said. The incursion into CHP headquarters marks one of the most significant direct confrontations between the Erdoğan administration and the Turkish opposition in recent years, deepening divisions within the country’s already polarized political landscape.

  • Attacks on Ebola treatment centers are one of several problems affecting Congo’s outbreak response

    Attacks on Ebola treatment centers are one of several problems affecting Congo’s outbreak response

    The declaration of the ongoing Ebola outbreak in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo as a global public health emergency has laid bare the cascading, interconnected crises that are crippling authorities’ and aid groups’ efforts to contain the spread of the virus. Most vividly highlighted by recent arson attacks on two Ebola treatment centers in Ituri Province — the core of the current outbreak — these overlapping challenges range from long-running violent conflict to systemic underfunding and deep-rooted community distrust, turning what should be a coordinated public health response into one of the world’s most intractable humanitarian emergencies.

    Decades of persistent instability have left eastern Congo mired in chronic insecurity, with dozens of separate rebel factions operating across the region, many with alleged foreign backing or ties to extremist groups like the Islamic State. While Ituri Province, where the outbreak was first detected, remains nominally under Congolese government control, that authority is extremely fragile. The Ugandan Islamist Allied Democratic Forces, a faction linked to IS, has carried out consistent attacks on civilian targets across the province, and worsening insecurity in the years leading up to the outbreak already forced hundreds of medical workers to flee their posts. A pre-outbreak assessment from Doctors Without Borders described overwhelmed local health facilities and “catastrophic” living conditions across large swathes of Ituri, setting the stage for a rapid, unchallenged spread of the virus.

    The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that nearly 1 million Ituri residents have been displaced from their homes by ongoing conflict, meaning the Ebola outbreak is unfolding in a region already shattered by displacement and broken public infrastructure. Public health experts have flagged particularly high risk of explosive spread in large overcrowded displacement camps surrounding Bunia, the provincial capital where the first confirmed Ebola cases were recorded.

    As of the latest updates, Congolese authorities have recorded more than 700 suspected cases and over 170 suspected deaths, the vast majority in Ituri. The outbreak has already spilled beyond the province’s borders: cases have been confirmed in North Kivu and South Kivu, eastern provinces partially controlled by the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group, and across the international border into neighboring Uganda. This fragmented territory — with some areas under government control, others under rebel authority, and a patchwork of independent aid groups operating across all regions — has made unified, consistent outbreak response nearly impossible.

    Compounding the security and infrastructure challenges is a devastating wave of international aid cuts implemented last year by the United States and other wealthy donor nations. Public health experts say these cuts gutted local health systems’ already limited capacity to detect and respond to new infectious disease outbreaks, a critical gap in a region that has weathered more than a dozen previous Ebola outbreaks on its soil.

    Aid groups working on the ground in the outbreak zone report they lack almost all the essential supplies needed to mount an effective response: personal protective equipment for frontline health workers, diagnostic testing kits, and even body bags required for the safe burial of contagious Ebola victims. Julienne Lusenge, president of local aid organization Women’s Solidarity for Inclusive Peace and Development, which runs a small hospital near Bunia, said the group has pleaded for additional support from international partners with little result. “We only have hand sanitizer and a few masks for the nurses,” Lusenge said. Complicating matters further, this outbreak is caused by the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola, for which no widely approved vaccine or targeted treatment currently exists.

    The deepest crisis facing response efforts, however, is widespread backlash and anger from local communities, a resentment that boiled over into the arson attacks on treatment centers in Rwampara and Mongbwalu, the two hardest-hit towns in the outbreak. Colin Thomas-Jensen, impact director at the Aurora Humanitarian Initiative, explained that this anger stems from decades of neglect: local residents have endured years of violence from foreign-linked rebel groups, with little protection from their own government or international peacekeeping forces. A second major flashpoint has been strict Ebola burial protocols, which require authorities to take charge of burials to limit transmission when families would traditionally prepare bodies and host large funeral gatherings.

    Witnesses and police confirm the first arson attack in Rwampara was carried out by a group of local young people seeking to retrieve the body of a friend who had died of Ebola. The crowd accused the international aid group operating the center of covering up the true cause of death and lying about the scope of the outbreak. In response to rising spread and community unrest, Congolese authorities have now banned all funeral wakes and public gatherings of more than 50 people across northeastern Congo, and deployed armed soldiers and police to guard safe burials carried out by aid workers.

    Speaking on the overlapping emergencies derailing the response, the nonprofit Physicians for Human Rights described the situation as a perfect storm of catastrophe. “A devastating set of emergencies are converging,” the group noted, turning a public health crisis into one of the world’s worst ongoing humanitarian disasters.

  • Retirees set to convert super into ‘lifetime income’ with major bank’s new program

    Retirees set to convert super into ‘lifetime income’ with major bank’s new program

    One of Australia’s big four financial institutions, AMP, is set to launch an industry-first initiative on Monday that will allow retirees to convert their superannuation savings into guaranteed lifetime income, addressing widespread uncertainty among older Australians approaching their post-work years.

    The new product, named Lifetime Super Boost, is available to all existing AMP Super members. The program operates by creating a special concessional balance behind the scenes of a member’s account, which is calculated using the federal government’s official deeming rate — currently set at 2.75%. Over time, this concessional balance falls below the member’s actual total superannuation balance.

    When members reach retirement age, they have the option to transfer a portion of their super savings into an AMP Lifetime Retirement Income account. When Centrelink assesses eligibility for the government aged pension, the assessment is based on the lower concessional balance rather than the full value of the investment. This structure can potentially help retirees qualify for a larger government pension payment, while also allowing them to draw additional income from their separate Flexible Retirement Income account, according to AMP’s explanations of the program.

    The launch comes amid new internal data from AMP highlighting severe anxiety among Australians nearing retirement. The firm’s research found that 54% of Australians aged 58 to 60 report frequent stress or overwhelm around their retirement planning, with the same share — 50% — of 61 to 65-year-olds reporting identical negative feelings.

    Julie Slapp, AMP’s Director of Growth and Customer Solutions, noted that too many working Australians approaching retirement remain uncertain about the adequacy of their savings and how long their funds will last through their retirement years. “Australia has built one of the world’s strangest super systems,” Slapp explained. “The unmet challenge is helping members confidently turn their super into income they actually use. This offering provides the confidence of income for life, the potential for higher income, and the guidance members need to make informed decisions.” Slapp added that superannuation was “never meant to be just a balance on a screen”.

    Beyond retirement income products, AMP’s research also shines a new light on widespread concerns over aged care costs across Australia. The survey found that seven in 10 Australians over the age of 65 worry about how they will afford aged care support, as the national system currently faces an average 12-month wait for government-funded aged care services. According to AMP, for retirees eligible for high-level in-home care, the new structure could boost their total annual income by as much as 20% over two years, while helping them navigate the long waiting period for public aged care services.

    The issue of aged care access has become a high-profile political issue in Australia in recent months. Major populous states including New South Wales and Queensland have repeatedly raised alarms over hospital bed blocking, a crisis where public hospital beds are occupied by elderly patients and National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) recipients who cannot access appropriate community or aged care supports after treatment. Earlier this month, NSW Health Minister Ryan Park revealed that as many as 1,200 public hospital beds across the state are taken up by these patients — a number he said equates to the entire capacity of two large, busy Sydney hospitals.

    On the federal level, the Albanese government has made reform of the aged care sector a key policy priority, while also pursuing major cost-cutting changes to the NDIS program to address long-term budget pressures.