Global Pulse

博客

  • Houthis told EU they have no intention to attack European ships: Report

    Houthis told EU they have no intention to attack European ships: Report

    As Yemen’s Houthi movement consolidates territorial gains across key Red Sea waterways, the group has delivered a formal assurance to the European Union that it has no plans to target European-flagged or owned vessels, according to reporting from the Financial Times.

    The reassurance came in a written correspondence addressed to the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, delivered in the wake of a rapid, weeks-long Houthi offensive that seized the strategic Red Sea port city of Mocha and control of the Arabian Gulf flank of the Bab al-Mandeb strait—one of the world’s most vital maritime chokepoints for global trade.

    Diplomatic analysts frame the Houthi outreach to the EU as part of a deliberate strategic strategy: by reassuring outside powers that they are not targets, the movement seeks to isolate Saudi Arabia, its primary adversary in the long-running Yemeni conflict, and prevent a broad international coalition from forming against it. The Houthis have repeatedly clarified that their ongoing Red Sea blockade is restricted exclusively to vessels linked to Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s internationally recognized government, which Riyadh backs.

    The Houthi advance along the Red Sea coast prompted Saudi Arabia to request direct military support from the United States, a long-standing security partner, but no assistance was ultimately provided. U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed earlier this month that the Houthis had explicitly communicated they have no desire to enter into direct conflict with the U.S., and Reuters has confirmed that Omani-brokered talks between U.S. and Houthi officials have already taken place.

    The Houthi message to the EU also highlights the outsized strategic importance of the Red Sea to European economic and energy security. Context for the current tensions includes a revelation that ahead of a planned 2025 U.S. bombing campaign against the Houthis, U.S. Vice President JD Vance privately complained that launching strikes on the group would amount to “bailing out Europe” at U.S. expense.

    It is no secret that the Red Sea serves as a non-substitutable artery for global trade: before the recent escalation of regional conflict, roughly one-third of all global container shipping transited the waterway, carrying energy cargo from Gulf producers to European markets and manufactured goods from East Asia to the Eurozone. Europe is already far more exposed to regional supply disruptions than many other major economies, following a recent attack on Saudi Arabia’s critical East-West Pipeline, which Riyadh blames on Iraqi militias. After that attack, Saudi energy giant Aramco notified European refiners that it would cancel scheduled October crude shipments, though the kingdom has since restored full operations to the pipeline, Reuters reported.

    Beyond its request to Washington, Riyadh has also sought security backing from its new defence partners under the recently agreed Mecca Pact: Pakistan and Turkey. While Pakistan maintains a small contingent of troops and weapons systems on Saudi territory, neither Islamabad nor Ankara have committed to entering the Yemeni conflict to support Riyadh.

    That has left European powers to step up their own security deployments to protect critical energy infrastructure. Greece already operates a Patriot air defence system at the Saudi Red Sea port of Yanbu, a major oil export terminal. On Thursday, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that Paris would deploy additional “military means” to shield the Yanbu terminal from potential Houthi attacks, clarifying that the deployment would not draw France into open conflict.

    “We are going to send military resources, that is to say, soldiers, radar systems and defence systems, to protect this site,” Macron told French media, adding, “but not to get us involved in any conflicts.”

  • Green Party leader Zack Polanski: ‘I’m an anti-Zionist’

    Green Party leader Zack Polanski: ‘I’m an anti-Zionist’

    On a heated Thursday evening hustings event focused on the upcoming Holborn and St Pancras parliamentary by-election, Green Party of England and Wales deputy leader Zack Polanski made British political history: he became the first leader of a major contemporary UK political party to openly declare himself an anti-Zionist. The event, co-hosted by two prominent pro-Israel groups—the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the London Jewish Forum— quickly grew tense as Polanski, who is himself Jewish and the Green Party’s candidate in the 8 October London by-election, laid out his unflinching views on the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict.

    When asked directly by event organizers whether he identified as a Zionist, Polanski did not hesitate to answer. “I’m an anti-Zionist, which I know is difficult for people in this room to hear… I think countries have always been ideas and I think things change over time,” he told the assembled audience, most of whom held pro-Israel positions. Pressed further on whether he views Zionism as a racist ideology, Polanski framed his stance around the on-the-ground impacts of the movement for Palestinians: “If you’re defining Zionism as the displacement and genocide of the Palestinians, which is how in practice Zionism has become in truth, then that is racist.”

    Polanski doubled down on his characterization of Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza, which has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, telling the crowd that “Many genocide scholars around the world recognise it as a genocide, and calling it that is not antisemitic.” Minutes earlier, after he referenced what he called “apartheid and genocide” in the occupied Palestinian territories, his remarks drew loud boos from audience members. Polanski acknowledged the backlash immediately, saying “Well, I know that that’s not popular in this room.”

    As audience members shouted back that labeling Israel’s actions as genocide is indeed antisemitic, Polanski pushed back against the common framing that conflates criticism of the Israeli state with antisemitism, arguing that this conflation ultimately puts Jewish communities across the world at greater risk. “I think as the Jewish community we need to come together to recognise when we call that antisemitic, we are making ourselves as Jewish people less safe,” he said. He rejected the idea that all Jewish people bear collective responsibility for the Israeli government’s actions, stressing that “We cannot hold Jewish people responsible for what happens in Israel. And when we conflate those things, that’s when the danger happens.” These closing remarks won partial applause from the room. One audience member pushed back, noting that the term “genocide” was coined in the wake of the Holocaust, the systematic Nazi murder of 6 million European Jews.

    As local journalist Richard Osley documented, all candidates contesting the by-election were asked the same opening question: a direct yes-or-no request to state whether they are Zionists. Labour candidate Sagal Abdi-Wali, who is vying to succeed Labour leader Keir Starmer in the seat and drew criticism after skipping a Muslim community event earlier that week, declined to give a direct answer, only responding “I believe in a two-state solution.” Liberal Democrat candidate Patrick Stillman confirmed his identification as a Zionist, saying “As I understand it, it’s for a Jewish state and a right to exist, I think that’s important, so yes I am.” Conservative contender Ewan Cameron and Reform UK candidate Pete Newman, a former police officer, both also stated they were Zionists.

    After Polanski’s public declaration of anti-Zionism, multiple audience members pushed him with hostile questions, including “Where do the Jews go?” and “You’re not impartial if you’re an anti-Zionist, are you?” While some past leaders of major British political parties—including former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and mid-20th century prime ministers Clement Attlee and Herbert Asquith—expressed opposition to Zionist goals in varying forms, Polanski is the first to explicitly embrace the label of anti-Zionist in modern British politics.

    To provide context for the debate, the Zionist movement emerged in late 19th century Europe, as Jewish communities faced violent, state-sponsored antisemitism and widespread pogroms across the continent. In 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, which publicly committed the UK to supporting the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then a territory ruled by the Ottoman Empire since 1516. After Britain seized control of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire in 1918 during World War I, Jewish people made up just 5 to 6 percent of the territory’s total population. That number grew steadily in the decades leading up to World War II, as the British government supported the migration of Jewish refugees fleeing European antisemitism to British Mandatory Palestine. In 1948, the state of Israel was declared, realizing the core goal of Zionism—but this achievement came at a devastating cost to the Palestinian people, who experienced the Nakba, or “catastrophe”: an estimated 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly displaced from their ancestral land and homes to make way for the new Jewish state.

  • Zaidi calls for economic investment in Iraq as Salam urges Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon

    Zaidi calls for economic investment in Iraq as Salam urges Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon

    On the opening sidelines of the 79th United Nations General Assembly on Friday, the heads of government of two crisis-battered Middle Eastern nations — Iraq and Lebanon — took the global stage to outline their administrations’ policy agendas, laying out starkly different priorities shaped by their unique domestic and regional challenges. While Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi centered his address on anti-corruption crackdowns and a broad push to attract global foreign investment, Lebanon’s Prime Minister Nawaf Salam focused his remarks on demanding an end to Israeli occupation of sovereign Lebanese territory and addressing the catastrophic humanitarian fallout of months of cross-border conflict.

    Both leaders share a diplomatic alignment generally viewed as favorable to Washington, and their mandates both prioritize consolidating state authority and strengthening independent judicial institutions, but their political backgrounds differ dramatically. Zaidi, a relatively young former businessman and banker with limited prior political experience, took office earlier this year amid ongoing efforts to reset Iraq’s post-occupation trajectory. Salam, by contrast, boasts a decades-long career in international law and diplomacy, including a term as a judge at the International Court of Justice, and assumed his post in 2024.

    For Lebanon, the immediate existential challenge remains the illegal Israeli occupation of more than 600 square kilometers of southern Lebanese territory seized since the escalation of regional conflict following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on southern Israel. Following the February 28 launch of the US-Israeli campaign against Iran, Israel expanded its military incursion into southern Lebanon, and a June report from *The Times of Israel* confirmed Israel has no plans to withdraw from the over 1,000 square kilometers of territory it has seized across Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. Since Hezbollah began rocket strikes in response to Israel’s Gaza offensive, Israeli military operations have killed nearly 9,000 Lebanese people and displaced more than one million southern Lebanese residents from their homes.

    Salam made clear that Lebanon cannot achieve full sovereignty and national unity until Israel withdraws all forces to the country’s internationally recognized borders, in line with the 1949 General Armistice Agreement and UN Security Council Resolution 1701. “Lebanon is affected by developments in its surroundings. That does not mean, however, that we accept its becoming once again an arena for the conflicts of others or a bargaining chip in their hands,” Salam told the assembled delegation in New York. “Lebanon’s future will not be decided on its behalf, nor may its security and stability become the price of settlements concluded in its absence.”

    In addition to full withdrawal, Salam outlined four core non-negotiable demands: the release of all Lebanese detainees held by Israel, the safe and dignified return of all displaced residents to their homes and communities, and full reconstruction of all infrastructure destroyed by Israeli bombardment. To advance these goals, he confirmed Lebanon has agreed to enter US-mediated negotiations with Israel led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, but stressed that tangible action matters far more than symbolic agreements. “The success of any agreement is measured not by declared intentions but by fulfilment of commitments,” Salam said. “What is required today, therefore, is to complete the translation of this framework into practical steps within a clear timetable and with a verification mechanism that ensures the implementation of all its provisions.”

    Addressing the longstanding issue of non-state military factions in the country, including the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement, Salam reaffirmed his government’s commitment to extending full state authority across all Lebanese territory, noting that only the Lebanese state should legally hold weapons. He also called for expanded humanitarian and development aid from the UN and broader international community, emphasizing that his administration has followed through on its domestic reform commitments to earn international support. “The war has left behind a vast humanitarian crisis in Lebanon,” he said. “We are shouldering our responsibility for reform… We are entitled to ask the international community to shoulder, in turn, its responsibility to ensure respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty.”

    Halfway across the regional political landscape, Iraq’s prime minister framed his address around a very different set of goals: transitioning Iraq away from its decades-long reliance on oil revenues and rebranding the country as a stable, attractive destination for global direct investment. Zaidi first laid out this economic agenda during a July appearance at the Iraqi American Chamber of Commerce in Washington D.C., and doubled down on that vision at the UN. “Here, from the United Nations, we say to the world: Invest with Iraq. Iraq has resources, markets, a good location, and the necessary will to build a new economy,” he said Friday.

    Since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, oil revenues have accounted for roughly 90% of the country’s annual state budget, with all proceeds held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — requiring US approval for all cash shipments into the country, a dynamic that has limited Baghdad’s full economic sovereignty. To break this rentier economic model, Zaidi’s administration plans to expand private sector activity across key non-oil sectors: agriculture, manufacturing, technology, transportation, energy infrastructure and non-oil exports.

    To lay the groundwork for increased global investment, Zaidi’s government has already prioritized two critical domestic reforms: a sweeping nationwide crackdown on systemic corruption, and the disarmament and consolidation of Iran-backed militias that have long operated outside of state control. Zaidi framed the post-coalition era of Iraq’s relationship with Western strategic partners as a turning point: “With the end of the international coalition’s mission in Iraq, we are moving our relationship with our strategic partners to a new phase, moving from military cooperation to economic and development cooperation in service of our common interests.”

    Beyond economic diversification, the Iraqi government plans to expand crude oil production aligned with Iraq’s massive proven reserves, develop untapped natural gas fields, and expand domestic refining capacity for energy derivatives. Zaidi’s long-term vision for Iraq is to reemerge as a global energy hub, leveraging its geographic position to advance regional and global stability. He highlighted the ongoing development of a cross-regional energy corridor connecting Iraq to Turkey, Jordan and Syria, which would serve as a direct energy gateway to European markets. “Economic interests create prosperity,” he said. “When the countries of the region are connected through ports, railways, power lines, trade, and investment, they have a greater interest in preserving stability.”

    Without explicitly naming the seven-month US-Israeli campaign against Iran that has upended regional security, Zaidi expressed measured concern over the ongoing crisis impacting regional maritime navigation. He closed by laying out Iraq’s overarching regional vision, built on mutual sovereignty and cooperation rather than conflict. “Iraq’s vision is based on contributing to the region’s transition from conflict to integration, from competition to cooperation, from resource depletion to investment in development,” Zaidi said. “We extend our hands to everyone on the basis of respect for sovereignty, non-interference, good neighbourliness, strengthening mutual interests, and adopting dialogue as a means to address differences.”

  • Who gets to be Italian? The rise and rise of Islamophobia in Italy

    Who gets to be Italian? The rise and rise of Islamophobia in Italy

    On a recent Sunday in Rome, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni stood before hundreds of young activists from her Brothers of Italy party, framing a heated debate over national identity around the country’s public school classrooms. Drawing a sharp line between who she considers insiders and outsiders in Italian society, Meloni told attendees at Fenix, the annual youth gathering of Brothers of Italy, that it was unacceptable for native Italian children to feel marginalized as minorities in their own schoolrooms.

    Just three days later, Meloni’s right-wing administration turned rhetoric into policy: the government approved a full ban on face-covering Islamic garments including burqas and niqabs in all Italian schools, and imposed a binding 30% cap on non-citizen students or students with limited Italian proficiency enrolled in the first year of primary, middle, and high school. Meloni defended the new rules as pragmatic, common-sense measures designed to support integration rather than divide communities. The policy announcement lands as Italy prepares for a 2027 national general election, with immigration, the role of Islam in public life, and national identity already emerging as defining flashpoints for the country’s political right.

    The new rules immediately spark urgent practical and ethical questions: how exactly do Italian authorities distinguish between “foreign” and “Italian” students, and who bears the brunt of these new restrictions? Italy already had non-binding guidance recommending a 30% ceiling for non-citizen pupils, and the country’s classification of students relies entirely on citizenship status rather than place of birth or long-term residence. Unlike many European nations, Italy’s citizenship system is rooted primarily in jus sanguinis, or citizenship by blood descent, meaning children born and raised in Italy to non-Italian parents almost never automatically gain Italian citizenship at birth. As a result, thousands of third-generation immigrant youth who have never lived anywhere else remain officially classified as foreign citizens on school records – a fact that critics say makes Meloni’s cap inherently discriminatory.

    Meloni’s policy shift is not occurring in a vacuum. Tensions over immigration and the presence of Islam in Italy have escalated rapidly in recent weeks across the country. Just one week before the prime minister’s announcement, a hostile banner reading “Your integration is our ruin” was hung outside a public school in Mestre, the mainland district of Venice that is home to a large Bangladeshi community. Nearby, at a public park where local Muslims gather for weekly Friday prayers, graffiti reading “No Islam” alongside Christian crosses was painted on the ground and a local wooden structure.

    The vandalism coincided with a bitter, ongoing dispute over plans by Mestre’s Bangladeshi community to build a permanent mosque and Islamic cultural center on the site of an abandoned sawmill. The community has already purchased the land, but the project requires formal planning approval from local authorities, and opposition from right-wing politicians has turned the proposal into a national culture war flashpoint.

    Anna Maria Cisint, a right-wing Lega party Member of the European Parliament and one of the mosque project’s most outspoken opponents, has repeatedly campaigned against the construction of new Islamic places of worship across Italy. In February, at a Lega protest outside the proposed Mestre site, Cisint vowed that the mosque would never be built if right-wing parties retained power. On the same Sunday Meloni announced her school policies, Cisint spoke at Lega’s decades-old symbolic annual rally in the northern Italian town of Pontida, where she shared the stage with four activists from Nemesis, a French far-right group that identifies as feminist. The activists arrived wearing full-face Islamic veils, removed them on stage as the crowd chanted “take it off”, and Cisint used the moment to frame Islam as an existential threat to Italian identity. “We will never allow them to Islamise our home. Never,” she told the assembled crowd.

    The parallel rhetoric from Meloni in Rome, Cisint in Pontida, and anti-Muslim vandals in Mestre underscores a growing convergence of hardline anti-immigrant, anti-Islam messaging across Italy’s right wing. At the same time, a new far-right faction is pushing the entire political spectrum further to the right, intensifying competition for right-wing voters ahead of 2027.

    Roberto Vannacci, a former Italian army general who rose to national prominence after publishing a book attacking immigration, feminism, and LGBTQ+ rights, won a seat in the European Parliament in 2024 running as a Lega candidate. He soon split from the party to launch his own far-right movement, Futuro Nazionale, which has made “remigration” – the forced expulsion of existing immigrants from Italy – a core policy pledge. Recent opinion polls show Futuro Nazionale polling at around 8% ahead of the 2027 election, while Salvini’s Lega, the party Vannacci left, has fallen below 6%. The shifting poll numbers have amplified competition for right-wing voters, pushing all parties to adopt harderline positions on immigration and national identity.

    Against this backdrop, Vannacci made one of his most explicit arguments yet about immigration and citizenship during a September 18 urban security conference in Turin organized by a police union. He argued that Italy should never relax its strict citizenship rules to make it easier for immigrants to naturalize. “We cannot allow an immigrant to become an Italian citizen so easily because then this citizen votes,” Vannacci said. “And when he votes, he does not vote for the good of Italian citizens but for his own good.” When pressed on whether he was simply concerned that naturalized citizens would not support his party, Vannacci doubled down: “I’m not afraid that they won’t vote for me. I’m afraid that they won’t vote for Italy.”

    Vannacci’s comments lay bare a core contradiction at the heart of the current debate: how can a child born and raised entirely in Italy be classified as a permanent outsider to the nation? Advocates for immigrant rights say the new policies are deeply harmful to youth who have never known any other home. Fioralba Duma, an Italian-Albanian activist with the campaign group Italians Without Citizenship, says Meloni’s framing erases the reality of thousands of young people who are Italian in every way except for a legal technicality. “It is sad, because you realise how little responsibility those in power take when dealing with such important issues, and how little they do to protect children and guarantee them equal opportunities,” Duma told Middle East Eye. “Our struggle started 10 years ago – and for many people even earlier – but instead of reducing the number of people who are foreigners only on paper, that number continues to grow every year. We used to talk about newly arrived migrants. Today we are talking about third generations: the grandchildren of immigrants, born in Italy.”

    A 2025 referendum aimed at reforming Italy’s strict citizenship rules highlighted the divide over this issue. The ballot measure would have cut the required period of legal residency for non-EU adults seeking citizenship from 10 years to five. While roughly two-thirds of voters who cast ballots supported the reform, overall turnout hit only 30% – far below the 50% threshold required for the result to be legally binding, leaving the existing restrictive rules in place.

    Critics, including Italian Muslim community leaders, argue that the current focus on school caps and niqab bans is little more than political propaganda that distracts from pressing economic issues and targets a marginalized community over a non-existent problem. Ahmed Vall, president of the Islamic Community of Rome, said that there are virtually no cases of school-aged girls wearing niqabs in Italian classrooms. “Petrol is approaching three euros a litre, and she is talking about girls wearing the niqab at school when there are no girls wearing the niqab at school,” Vall said. His organization has already pledged to challenge the new measures through legal action, noting that it has already filed a complaint against Lega MEP Silvia Sardone for confronting and filming a woman wearing a niqab in Turin.

    Rula Mohamed, another activist with the Islamic Community of Rome, said that anti-Muslim sentiment in Italy has reached extreme levels after years of being normalized by political rhetoric and media coverage. “What we are seeing today is the extreme result of something that has been cultivated for years,” she said. “This climate has been built not just by the right wing, but through years of Muslims being portrayed in the media as dangerous and incompatible with Italian society. That has been compounded by the failure of much of the centre-left to seriously confront Islamophobia.”

  • What is kratom, the ‘gas station heroin’ alarming officials in the US?

    What is kratom, the ‘gas station heroin’ alarming officials in the US?

    For millions of Americans living with unmanaged chronic pain, the herbal product kratom has emerged as a controversial, unregulated lifeline — but a recent incident involving two deceased college students has reignited long-simmering debates over its safety and legal status across the country.

    Jeffrey Deaver, a 58-year-old retired timber cutter from Washington state, is one of many kratom users who swear by the plant’s pain-relieving effects. After years of severe, unrelenting hip and knee pain that failed to respond to conventional medical treatments, and while he waited for scheduled joint replacement surgeries, Deaver turned to kratom on a recommendation. Wary of its unknown effects at first, he began with small doses, gradually increasing his intake until his pain subsided. Describing the outcome as nothing short of a miracle, Deaver said the herb allowed him to sleep through the night and return to daily function, adding that he cannot imagine managing his condition without access to it.

    Kratom, a tropical tree native to the rainforests of Southeast Asia including Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, has a centuries-long history of traditional use as a natural stimulant, typically brewed as a tea for workers to combat fatigue. It was first introduced to the U.S. consumer market as a dietary supplement around 2016, and its popularity has skyrocketed over the past decade, with users purchasing over-the-counter kratom in pill, powder, or concentrated liquid form from convenience stores, gas stations, vape shops, and online retailers.

    This week, new public warnings have been issued after investigators found packaged kratom in the possession of two deceased University of Mississippi students. While authorities have not linked the herb directly to the students’ deaths, the discovery has drawn renewed attention to the risks of unregulated kratom consumption. Unlike pharmaceutical drugs, kratom is not overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and its legal status varies widely across the country, with 11 states having enacted full bans, including Massachusetts, which issued a temporary emergency ban just last month.

    Medical experts warn that the unregulated nature of the U.S. kratom market poses the greatest threat to public health. Dr. Shane Speights, dean of the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University, explained that unlike the low-concentration loose-leaf kratom used traditionally in Southeast Asia, most products sold in the U.S. are highly concentrated formulations. Because they are classified as dietary supplements rather than controlled substances, there is no federal oversight of ingredients, dosing, or manufacturing standards. “There’s no way to know exactly what you’re getting,” Speights said. “An unregulated producer could mix any compound into a product, market it as kratom, and no authority would check its contents before it reaches consumers.”

    Kratom’s active chemical compounds, such as 7-Hydroxymitragynine, interact with the brain’s dopamine system to produce effects similar to narcotic opioids. At low doses, it acts as a stimulant, producing a caffeine-like energy boost, which has led some users to turn to it to wean off of harder opioids like fentanyl. At higher doses, it produces intense euphoria and a sense of being high, and can also trigger hallucinations. The most serious risk, Speights noted, is central nervous system depression at high doses, which can lead to cardiovascular collapse and respiratory failure — the primary cause of kratom-related deaths.

    Addiction treatment specialists add that dependence and withdrawal are common side effects of regular kratom use. Jana Wu, director of clinical integration at Mountainside addiction treatment center, explained that users quickly develop a tolerance to kratom, requiring increasingly larger doses to achieve the same effect, leading some to consume up to 20 pills per day. “Kratom addiction destroys personal relationships and careers,” Wu said. “I’ve seen patients lose their jobs and spend thousands of dollars a month to support their habit.”

    Efforts to enact a federal ban have stalled for years. In 2016, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) moved to classify kratom as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, the same category as heroin and LSD, citing “an imminent hazard to public safety.” But the agency abandoned the plan months later after the Department of Justice received tens of thousands of public comments opposing the ban from chronic pain patients and advocacy groups.

    Since the failed federal ban, regulatory action has been left to individual states. Recent efforts include a lawsuit filed by Arizona against a company selling kratom-infused beverages, and anti-kratom advocacy groups are pushing for more state-level bans, calling unregulated kratom a “gas-station drug that is poisoning American communities.” On the other side of the debate, pro-kratom groups such as the American Kratom Association support bans only on synthetic products mislabeled as natural kratom, rather than a full ban on the herb itself.

    Internationally, regulatory frameworks also vary: kratom is fully illegal in the United Kingdom, legal status differs across European Union member states, and even in its native Malaysia, sale and consumption have been banned under the country’s 1952 Poisons Act. For users like Deaver, however, the debate over regulation leaves their access to pain management in limbo, highlighting the deep divide over how to balance individual access to alternative pain treatment with public health safety.

  • Israel quietly lifts block on night flights at Syria’s airports

    Israel quietly lifts block on night flights at Syria’s airports

    Two major Syrian international airports, located in the capital Damascus and the country’s second largest city Aleppo, have resumed accepting nighttime commercial flights after months of restrictions, following an unpublicized shift in Israeli policy that removed its long-standing blockade on the activation of critical air navigation infrastructure, multiple regional officials confirmed to Middle East Eye in recent briefings.

    Last Thursday, Syria’s General Authority for Civil Aviation and Transport publicly announced it had finalized installation of new air navigation systems, including ILS/DME and DVOR/DME technology. These tools are designed to support precision aircraft landings during nighttime operations and low-visibility conditions, such as heavy fog and extreme storms, expanding the airports’ operational capacity beyond their previous daylight-only restrictions.

    What the public announcement did not disclose, however, is the months-long diplomatic and security standoff that delayed the activation of the already-installed equipment. Regional diplomatic sources told Middle East Eye that to bring the new navigation systems online, technicians were required to conduct calibration test flights across a 50-kilometer radius surrounding Damascus International Airport — a requirement Israel repeatedly blocked for more than six months. One senior regional official familiar with the negotiations said Israeli authorities issued an explicit ultimatum: they would shoot down any small aircraft conducting the calibration flights within that zone.

    The shift in Israeli control of territory around the Syrian capital following 2024 military operations changed the security calculus for the standoff. Prior to 2024, Israel’s formal border area was located roughly 60 kilometers from Damascus, putting the entire required test flight zone outside of direct Israeli occupied territory. After Israeli forces seized and occupied Mount Hermon earlier this year, they extended their area of control to within just 25 to 40 kilometers of the Syrian capital, putting the original calibration flight zone directly within range of Israeli military positions.

    A breakthrough was ultimately reached through a technical adjustment rather than a formal diplomatic agreement. Engineers and aviation technicians determined that calibration tests could be completed successfully within a reduced 25-kilometer radius, rather than the originally planned 50-kilometer zone. Syrian authorities officially notified Israel of their plan to conduct the restricted tests, and the Israeli government chose not to issue a formal objection or response, effectively allowing the work to move forward, a second regional official confirmed.

    This quiet compromise comes amid broader regional diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions between Israel and neighboring powers, after a series of provocative Israeli moves raised alarm in Western capitals. Earlier this year, Israel already opposed the deployment of a new civilian air traffic control radar system, the HTRS-100 manufactured by Turkish defense firm ASELSAN, at Damascus International Airport. Israeli officials argued at the time that the system would limit their military’s freedom of operation in Syrian airspace, despite the Syrian government confirming the radar was intended solely for civilian air traffic management.

    Regional diplomats assess that Israel’s decision to step back from its blockade on the navigation systems is a deliberate move to reduce tensions after a controversial Israeli airstrike last month targeting a Syrian airbase near the Turkish border. That strike drew sharp criticism from U.S. officials, who warned that the strike raised the risk of an accidental military confrontation between Israel and Turkey, a NATO member.

    In response to rising cross-tension risks, U.S. special envoy Tom Barrack has led recent diplomatic efforts to establish a formal trilateral deconfliction mechanism to prevent unintended clashes. Following these diplomatic pushes, Israel took steps to restore bilateral ties with Turkey, appointing a new charge d’affaires to its embassy in Ankara. While the envoy will remain based in Israel for ongoing security concerns, Israeli officials confirmed he will make regular trips to the Turkish capital to hold consultations with Turkish government officials.

  • Why an international arrest warrant didn’t stop Netanyahu’s US trip

    Why an international arrest warrant didn’t stop Netanyahu’s US trip

    When the International Criminal Court issued an international arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year, many global observers assumed that any cross-border trip by the leader would end in his detention. But when Netanyahu traveled to the United States to address the United Nations General Assembly in New York, no arrest took place — leaving many people around the world asking why the warrant never led to enforcement during the high-profile visit.

    To unpack this outcome, it is first necessary to break down the structural limitations of the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant framework. Unlike domestic law enforcement agencies, the ICC does not have its own standing police force that can execute warrants across sovereign borders. Instead, it relies entirely on cooperation from member states to carry out arrests on their territory. Even for countries that have formally joined the ICC, political considerations and bilateral diplomatic relationships often override legal obligations to enforce a warrant.

    The United States holds a unique position in this dynamic, as it has never been a member of the International Criminal Court, and has long-standing legal and political policies that reject the court’s jurisdiction over American personnel and allied foreign leaders. Washington has repeatedly made clear that it does not recognize the ICC’s arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and has no legal obligation to comply with it. As the host country for the United Nations headquarters in New York, U.S. law enforcement authorities are the only agencies with the power to carry out arrests on UN premises, outside of the UN’s limited internal security jurisdiction.

    Another key factor is the long-standing security and diplomatic alliance between the U.S. and Israel. The Biden administration has repeatedly reaffirmed its unwavering support for Israel amid ongoing regional conflicts, and has publicly criticized the ICC’s warrant as unjust and counterproductive to regional peace efforts. For U.S. officials, arresting a visiting allied head of government would represent an unprecedented rupture in bilateral relations, a outcome that no sitting U.S. administration would be willing to entertain regardless of legal arguments from the ICC.

    Even beyond U.S. policy, the precedent of sovereign immunity plays a major role in this outcome. As the sitting head of government of a sovereign state, Netanyahu retains full sovereign immunity under international law when traveling on official diplomatic business, including to attend a session of the UN General Assembly. Many legal scholars argue that this immunity supersedes the ICC arrest warrant under existing international conventions, even for states that recognize the court’s authority.

    This case has laid bare the deep gap between the ICC’s formal authority to issue arrest warrants and the practical ability of the court to enforce those warrants against powerful leaders backed by major global powers. It has sparked renewed debate about the effectiveness of international justice mechanisms, and how political power dynamics often shape whether international law is enforced in high-profile cases.

  • Zelensky says Russia has widened attacks to hit Ukraine’s data centres

    Zelensky says Russia has widened attacks to hit Ukraine’s data centres

    As Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth year, Moscow has expanded its military campaign to systematically target Ukraine’s digital and civilian critical infrastructure, leaving four dead after a recent drone strike on a Kyiv business hub and triggering widespread connectivity disruptions across the country.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed that Friday’s strike on the Inkom business center in central Kyiv killed four civilians and damaged a data facility operated by Ukrainian internet provider Datagroup. Within hours of the attack, Russia’s defense ministry issued a formal statement confirming it had targeted the site, claiming the data center was being utilized by Ukraine’s military intelligence wing for operational purposes. Independent verification by the BBC has confirmed visual footage of the severe damage to the multi-story business building that housed Datagroup’s operations.

    The strike is part of a broader, coordinated Russian effort to disable Ukraine’s digital ecosystem, a campaign that Zelenskyy says is designed to inflict maximum disruption on the daily lives of ordinary Ukrainian citizens. “All this affects people’s ability to stay connected, study, work,” Zelenskyy said in a social media post Friday. “The Russians are constantly expanding their escalation operation: American and other businesses, data centres, internet providers – for Russia, all ordinary life is simply a target. It is important that the world responds to all of this and that Russia feels the response to its terror.”

    Connectivity disruptions have already rippled across Ukraine following a wave of earlier strikes earlier this week. Roughly 100,000 households across Kyiv and the surrounding region were left without internet access after Russian strikes on Wednesday, with multiple private companies already beginning the process of transferring sensitive data from damaged onshore servers to secure offshore facilities to avoid total data loss. Even in cities hundreds of kilometers from Kyiv, the impact of the digital infrastructure attacks was felt: in the northwestern city of Lutsk, all electronic public transport information boards went dark on Friday after the strike knocked out core data services the system relies on. Local city officials directly attributed the outage to damage from the Kyiv attack.

    Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha emphasized that Russia’s targeting of data centers goes beyond disrupting everyday life, threatening systems that save lives. “Rapid alerts about missile and drone threats are essential – they save lives. This is critical civilian infrastructure… It is not a military target. It is essential to keeping everyday life functioning,” he said Wednesday.

    While Ukrainian defense technology advisor Serhii Beskrestnov acknowledged that local connectivity disruptions are likely to continue and that consumer internet costs may rise to cover repair and rebuilding expenses, he sought to reassure the public that a total nationwide blackout of internet services is not possible. Beskrestnov stressed that Ukraine’s digital network was built with a highly decentralized architecture, meaning that even with targeted strikes on major facilities, the country “will not be left without internet access.” Datagroup also moved quickly to limit service disruption, confirming that all of its offerings continue to operate via preconfigured backup infrastructure while technical teams assess the full extent of the damage from Friday’s strike. Russia’s defense ministry added that it has targeted a range of other major digital and telecommunications facilities across Ukraine in recent days, including facilities operated by New-Telco, United DC, Kyivstar and Parkovyi.

    The shift to targeting digital infrastructure comes as Russia has already ramped up strikes on other critical civilian systems ahead of the approaching winter months, including energy generation facilities and railway lines, in a bid to break Ukrainian public resilience. Ukraine has responded with its own long-range strikes targeting Russian oil refineries and military logistics hubs, arguing that these sites support Russia’s war financing and operational capacity.

    The escalation of Russian attacks on infrastructure connected to Ukraine has spilled beyond Ukraine’s borders, raising new alarm among NATO member states about potential hybrid attacks targeting European infrastructure. In a separate development Friday, Polish prosecutors announced they had opened a formal investigation into an arson attack on a Starlink satellite internet station in the Polish village of Wola Krobowska that occurred on Wednesday. The station is part of a network that routes internet connectivity from Europe to Ukraine, using SpaceX’s Starlink satellite systems that have become a critical communication lifeline for Ukraine throughout the war. Poland’s national prosecutor’s office said there is reasonable suspicion that the perpetrators carried out the attack on the orders of Russian intelligence services; Moscow has not yet issued any comment on the allegation.

    In recent weeks, multiple NATO countries have issued warnings that Russia is preparing to launch a series of hybrid attacks on critical infrastructure in European allied states to test Western commitment to supporting Ukraine, claims Moscow has repeatedly denied. Earlier this month, German authorities blamed Russian actors for an attempted drone attack on Leipzig/Halle Airport, while French authorities have ordered a sweeping national plan to harden security for critical infrastructure and defense industry sites across the country.

  • Two arrested after people seen mysteriously emerging from various New York City sewers

    Two arrested after people seen mysteriously emerging from various New York City sewers

    A routine security response in New York City has intersected with high-stakes global event preparations, after local law enforcement apprehended two of three men spotted emerging from an underground sewer manhole just blocks from the hotel where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to stay during the annual United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

    The incident unfolded at approximately 4:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, when first responders were dispatched to the scene after reports of unauthorized individuals exiting the manhole. Law enforcement sources from the New York Police Department (NYPD) confirmed that all three men fled the location immediately after being spotted, but investigators were able to take 26-year-old Kevin Rodriguez and 25-year-old Samuel Reveron—both Queens residents—into custody a day later. The pair now face criminal charges of conspiracy and trespassing.

    In an official statement shared with the BBC, the NYPD noted that unauthorized entries into the city’s sewer system have become an increasingly common occurrence in recent months. In most cases, people enter the underground network after major storm events to search for discarded valuables and scrap metal that gets washed into the pipes. “This incident fits that same criteria, but out of an abundance of caution given the U.N. General Assembly and the sensitivity of the location, the NYPD is conducting additional security sweeps with our federal partners,” the department’s statement read.

    Court records from the pair’s initial hearing Friday morning show that both Rodriguez and Reveron entered not guilty pleas to all charges against them, and were subsequently released from custody pending future court proceedings. The third man involved in the incident remains at large as of press time.

    This arrest is far from an isolated case: New York City law enforcement has documented a string of similar unauthorized sewer entries across multiple boroughs since the start of 2024. In August alone, two separate incidents were recorded: one captured a single person emerging from a Queens manhole in the early hours of the day, while another found three people dressed in work overalls and fitted with headlamps climbing out of a manhole near midtown Manhattan’s Penn Station, one of the city’s busiest transit hubs. Back in May, surveillance cameras in South Brooklyn recorded a small group moving a manhole cover to climb down into the city’s sewer network.

    City officials have repeatedly warned that unauthorized entry into New York’s sewer system is both a criminal offense and an extreme safety hazard. The enclosed, confined space of sewer pipes carries constant risks of exposure to toxic fumes and sudden flash flooding that can trap and kill anyone inside. “For these reasons, members of the public should never enter a pipe, drain, catch basin, manhole, or outfall,” the city’s Department of Environmental Protection told the BBC in a prior statement. The danger of unregulated manhole activity was tragically demonstrated earlier this year, when a pedestrian woman in Midtown Manhattan died after stepping into an unsecured open manhole while exiting her vehicle.

  • U2 celebrate 50th anniversary at the school where they formed

    U2 celebrate 50th anniversary at the school where they formed

    Half a century after four teenage strangers gathered around a Dublin kitchen to form what would become the world’s most iconic rock bands, U2 has returned to where their journey started. On September 25, 2026, exactly 50 years after their first audition, the legendary quartet played a surprise seven-song set for current students on the playground of Dublin’s Mount Temple Comprehensive School – the same institution where all four members were pupils in the mid-1970s.

    Stepping onto the temporary stage built in the playground, frontman Bono greeted the cheering crowd with a playful quip: “We’ve escaped from the lab. How’s the experiment working for you?” Though most of the school’s current students were not alive when U2 reigned as the world’s biggest band, the reception was nothing short of hero worship. Young fans waved hand-painted signs reading “I love U2”, “It’s a beautiful day – no school”, and “Bono, my mum says hi!” as the band launched into a career-spanning set that pulled from five decades of hits, alongside their brand-new single *Silencio*.

    The set included staples *I Will Follow*, *Vertigo*, *With Or Without You*, *Beautiful Day*, *Out of Control* and *One*, and even featured guest accompaniment from student musicians of Ireland’s Music Generation education programme – an initiative U2 helped found and fund 15 years ago. During the performance, teachers at first had to pull down students who had climbed onto their classmates’ shoulders for a better view, but many soon dropped their discipline and joined in the dancing. Standing on the ground where U2 played their very first debut gig in 1976, Bono was visibly overcome with emotion, pausing mid-speech before managing to express his gratitude: “Thanks for, er… Yeah… I didn’t… Wow.”

    The band’s origin story, shared in new interviews with BBC News, is equal parts messy chance encounter and happy accident. It all began when 14-year-old drummer Larry Mullen Jr pinned a handwritten note to Mount Temple’s noticeboard that read simply: “Drummer seeks musicians to form band.” Mullen Jr. revealed the idea was never actually his – it was his frustrated father, tired of his son practicing alone at home, who pushed him to find collaborators. “I wasn’t very good at many things, and playing the drums was included in that. So I think he, out of frustration, said I should try and play with other people,” Mullen Jr. explained, with Bono joking in response: “And unfortunately, he got the three of us.”

    Auditions were held just a few days later, on 25 September 1976, in the Mullen family kitchen. Bono, then going by his birth name Paul Hewson, was 16 and nearly skipped the audition entirely – he thought he was too old to fit in with a group of younger students. It was only a ride from his friend Reggie Manuel on a rickety old Yamaha DX100 motorbike (which Bono jokes he still tells people was a Harley Davidson) that convinced him to attend. The first rehearsal was far from promising: there was more chatting than playing, future bassist Adam Clayton was selected more for his “best hair” than his (non-existent) bass skills, and Bono – who hoped to play guitar – forgot to bring his instrument. But even that chaotic first day had a hint of what was to come: halfway through the rehearsal, a group of screaming young fans already tried to climb the Mullen family garden wall. Clayton recalled that moment sealed the deal for him: “Larry already had a fan club, and we thought, ‘Well, if he’s got a fan club, that looks pretty good to us. Maybe if we hang out with this guy, it might stretch a little further.’” Mullen Jr. infamously turned a garden hose on the crowd, a move he still defends as playful kindness on a hot day, leading Bono to joke: “It’s been the story of our lives ever since. He doesn’t even want to have fans, but we quite like them.”

    From that humble kitchen starting point, the band that was first called Feedback, then The Hype, and finally U2 would go on to conquer the world. They have sold more than 175 million records worldwide, packed stadiums across every continent, and reinvented rock stadium touring with boundary-pushing productions like the 1992 Zoo TV Tour, which revolutionized the use of large video screens and multimedia backdrops for live shows. Over decades, they shifted from scrappy punk upstarts to arena rock icons, then embraced electronic and dance experimentation on 1990s albums *Achtung Baby*, *Zooropa* and *Pop*, never sticking to one sound. Guitarist The Edge, born Dave Evans, credits the band’s 50-year longevity to their lack of formal musical training: “It’s been a guiding light, in some ways, the limitations of the band. We’re in this place where, musically, we never know what’s about to happen. It can fall apart or it can become something extraordinary. And that’s the beauty of U2.” A core decision to split all earnings equally among the four members has also helped them stay close for five decades.

    Back at Mount Temple on Friday, Bono paid tribute to the school that nurtured the band’s early days, dedicating the performance to the late school councillor Jack Heaslip, who later served as a traveling chaplain for U2’s tours before passing away from motor neurone disease in 2015. He noted that the support of teachers allowed the band to realize their potential right where they were: “maybe all we needed was around us, just under our feet.”

    The surprise homecoming gig also doubled as a launch pad for U2’s next chapter. Ahead of the show, the band officially announced their 16th studio album, *Carnaval de Luz*, set for release this November. The record will cap off a three-part project that began with February’s fiery *Days of Ash* EP, which addressed global crises including ICE killings in the U.S., the war in Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict, followed by April’s softer *Easter Lily* EP. The band describes *Carnaval de Luz* as “a messy, provocative, sacred collection of songs”, with Bono promising “loud guitars, deep bass [and] ecstatic rhythms.” The album’s closing track, *Torn*, holds extra historic weight: it was co-written with country icon Dolly Parton, and marks Parton’s final recorded performance before her death last month. The track is described as “a tender country song detailing broken family ties, that holds wider resonances.” BBC News will publish a full interview with the band about the new album and *Torn* in the coming weeks.