Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • British activist Anas Altikriti questions UAE surveillance operation

    British activist Anas Altikriti questions UAE surveillance operation

    On a frigid winter morning years ago, officers from London’s Metropolitan Police arrived at the West London home of Anas Altikriti, a veteran Iraqi-born British anti-war and pro-reform activist. Altikriti was traveling abroad at the time, and only learned of the visit when one of his sons called to alert him that police were searching for him. The seasoned political activist, confused by the unexpected visit, initially brushed off the news—until officers returned two days later, this time with far more insistence.

    When Altikriti followed up and called the police back, he received a chilling revelation: the force had issued him an Osman Notice, a formal alert to individuals when authorities judge their life is at imminent risk. Shaken by the news, he pressed for critical details: should he move his family to safety? Was he facing a targeted plot? Who was behind the threat? To every question, police had no answer. They told Altikriti they could share no further information, leaving him only with an ominous, unsubstantiated warning and no official protection.

    It would take a full decade for Altikriti to uncover the full scope of what was happening. A British news team showed him a leaked dossier that laid bare a prolonged, granular foreign intelligence surveillance operation tracking his every movement. The files included photographs of his London home, his personal vehicle, and detailed internal WhatsApp messages from the surveillance team documenting his daily routine: from his daily commutes and school runs with his children to his scheduled lectures at a local mosque. The foreign government behind the operation, the documents confirmed, was the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

    For Altikriti, the UAE’s hostility toward him came as no surprise. A prominent public voice who founded the London-based Cordoba Foundation think tank, formerly led the Muslim Association of Britain, and served as a senior official with the Muslim Council of Britain, Altikriti has long been an outspoken critic of authoritarian rule across the Gulf region. He publicly supported the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings, condemned autocratic governance in Gulf states, and repeatedly advocated for imprisoned Emirati political reformers, stoking official anger in Abu Dhabi.

    While suspicion of UAE interest had lingered for years, seeing concrete evidence of a sustained surveillance operation on British soil hit Altikriti with unexpected force, he told Middle East Eye in an interview. As the initial shock faded, one overriding question pushed to the forefront of his concerns: what did British authorities know about this operation?

    Altikriti says he has no trouble accepting that the UAE would target him for his political views. What he cannot reconcile is how a foreign government could run an extensive surveillance campaign inside the United Kingdom without British knowledge—or with British knowledge that was kept hidden from him. “If they knew, why is it that they didn’t tell me or at least warn me or protect me?” he asked. “Or if they didn’t know, that in itself would be a catastrophe in its own right.”

    As a British citizen who has never been charged with a crime, questioned by authorities, or broken UK law, Altikriti says he holds a clear expectation that the British state will protect his basic rights. “I expect that my civil liberties would be protected, my freedom would be guaranteed,” he said. That core freedom, he argues, includes the right to criticize foreign governments and voice political opinions without being targeted by a foreign power on UK soil. “I would be guaranteed safety, at least, if nothing else, to air my views, to criticize whomever I wish to criticize whilst constantly throughout my entire life abiding by the law.”

    The alleged surveillance, he argues, raises far broader questions about the unregulated scope of foreign influence in British public life. “A rogue, dictatorial, authoritarian regime such as the United Arab Emirates could actually reach into our society and infringe upon the civil liberties and freedoms and rights of citizens as well as organisations,” he said. Altikriti notes that the UAE has also targeted other British organizations, including his own Cordoba Foundation, through defamation and coordinated attacks, meaning his experience is not an isolated incident. The core systemic question, he says, is whether foreign governments can freely target British citizens and groups inside the UK—and what accountability the British state will demand in response.

    Looking back to the 2010s Osman Notice he received, Altikriti says the vague, incomplete warning was deeply inadequate, particularly when he was raising two young children at the time. Police told him his life was at risk, but offered zero details about the source of the threat or what precautions he could take to stay safe. “Besides just handing me this Osman notice, as though this is a box that we’ve ticked, nothing whatsoever,” he said. That experience has gained new gravity in light of the leaked surveillance documents, he says, noting it is now clear British police were aware some threat was active. If the threat was severe enough to issue an Osman Notice, he argues, it is unacceptable that he was given no further context or protection. “The police not telling me that there is an actual threat, there is someone who is actually plotting against my life, I think is just absolutely unbelievable.”

    Altikriti says he has never doubted why he drew the UAE’s attention: his long-held political views put him in direct conflict with the Gulf state’s ruling leadership. When the Arab Spring swept the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, Altikriti emerged as a high-profile supporter of pro-democracy movements across Egypt, Tunisia and other regional states, a stance that represented a direct threat to the political standing of Gulf monarchies including the UAE. “They found that extremely threatening to their own standing,” he said. The UAE made its displeasure clear in the years that followed, withdrawing invitations for Altikriti to visit and having embassy officials warn him against returning to the country. “So the fact that I’m in their bad books is of no surprise to me.”

    What did shock him, he says, was the extreme extent of the UAE’s alleged actions on UK soil. For more than a decade, dozens of Emirati pro-democracy reformers have remained imprisoned in the UAE, and Altikriti’s public advocacy for their freedom further angered Abu Dhabi. “The fact that I have stood by them, the fact that I’ve spoken up for them as much as I can has angered the United Arab Emirates,” he said. “And apparently they want to silence me at any particular cost.”

    Altikriti’s concerns ultimately circle back to the deep existing alliance between the UK and the UAE. The two countries maintain extensive economic, political and security ties, and the UAE has built a substantial public and economic footprint across the UK, with major investments in British football clubs, major sporting events, cultural institutions, financial markets and banking. Altikriti argues the question is not whether the UK should cut ties entirely with the UAE, but whether Britain should set clear boundaries for that relationship that protect the rights of its own citizens.

    “The fact that the United Arab Emirates is one of our strongest allies is unbecoming of our own government, of our own society,” he said. He argues that the UK’s close relationship with Abu Dhabi should not come at the cost of British citizens’ fundamental rights. “If the government truly believes in freedom and civil liberties and human rights and the like, then they should take a different stand.”

    That different stand, he says, must start with a full public investigation—one that examines not just the specific surveillance operation targeting him, but the full extent of UAE influence over British politics and foreign policy. Altikriti acknowledges his own experience is minor when compared to far more severe human rights abuses the UAE has been accused of committing against dissidents at home and abroad. “My story… pales in comparison to the crimes committed by the UAE regime,” he said. But that, he insists, is no reason to dismiss what happened on UK soil; it is all the more reason to examine the case closely.

    Altikriti says he hopes UK political leadership will confront the issue head-on, and he has specifically called on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to challenge the status quo of the bilateral relationship. “We could be friends,” Altikriti said. “But friends do not come without conditions.” Those conditions, he argues, are straightforward: the UAE must respect British citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms, and end all covert interference in British domestic life.

    For years, claims that the UAE targeted Altikriti could be dismissed or debunked, he says. But the leaked documents, which include direct photographs, internal correspondence, and surveillance team communications, have proven the operation was real. The reason for the targeting is no longer a mystery; Altikriti already understands why he was in the UAE’s crosshairs. The only question that remains unanswered is what the British government knew—and what it will do now. “Either they support the United Arab Emirates in its dictatorial ways, and as such they should come forth and say so,” he said. “Or if they truly believe in freedom and civil liberties and human rights and the like, then they should take a different stand.”

  • How much could Trump’s ‘economic D-Day’ hurt Iran?

    How much could Trump’s ‘economic D-Day’ hurt Iran?

    Nearly half a year has passed since U.S. President Donald Trump first promised a rapid resolution to the escalating standoff with Iran. Today, the confrontation between the two nations remains locked in a stalemate, with neither a clear military breakthrough nor a viable negotiated settlement on the horizon.

    In a bid to break this impasse, the Trump administration has announced a sweeping new pressure campaign it has dubbed “economic D-Day.” Under the proposed framework, any nation that continues to maintain commercial ties with Iran will face severe, far-reaching economic penalties from the United States. This escalated move comes as the White House doubles down on economic coercion after other tactics failed to deliver the desired outcome.

    For decades, Iran has weathered successive waves of U.S. sanctions, and as the current conflict drags on, the country has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to withstand severe economic strain and adapt to intense pressure. That track record leaves a critical open question: can this new round of sanctions succeed where all prior U.S. strategies have fallen short?

    Full details of the new U.S. economic pressure campaign have not yet been made public. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has confirmed that the full framework will be unveiled during a scheduled press conference on August 24. Speaking in an interview with CNBC, however, he made clear that Washington’s crackdown will extend to all nations—whether traditional U.S. allies or geopolitical rivals—that the administration accuses of propping up Iran’s economy. “You are either with us or against us,” Bessent stated, adding that if any nation insists on engaging in business with Iran, from facilitating money transfers to purchasing Iranian oil or conducting maritime trade transfers, the full weight of the U.S. Treasury and the entire U.S. government will be brought to bear to enforce penalties against them.

    Vice President JD Vance has framed the new sanctions as a defining “new phase” of the confrontation, arguing that economic pressure represents the most effective tool currently available to the U.S. Appearing on the *Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show*, Vance claimed that “They’re going to try to apply economic pressure to us, but what has been true over the last couple of weeks is that they felt a lot more pressure than we have. We’re going to keep that going because we think that’s the best way to ultimately achieve the final objective.”

    U.S. sanctions against Iran date back to the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979. The pressure campaign intensified dramatically after the first Trump administration withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 nuclear agreement reached between world powers and Tehran to limit Iran’s nuclear program. Since the start of the current conflict, the administration has already rolled out Operation Economic Fury, a two-pronged initiative that combines Treasury-coordinated sanctions targeting the Iranian regime’s financial flows with a naval blockade of Iranian ports.

    Geostrategy experts say the latest announcement of “economic D-Day” stems directly from the White House’s growing frustration that existing tactics have not achieved Trump’s goals. “This is really a recognition that the U.S. is almost stuck in this war,” explained Imran Bayoumi, a geostrategy expert at the Washington-based Atlantic Council and a former policy advisor to the U.S. Department of Defense, in an interview with the BBC. “It’s another try at economic pressure. We’ve not seen a clear strategy laid out by the administration with either military or economic tools. The question of what the U.S. is trying to achieve is still unanswered.”

    Michael Parker, an eight-year veteran of the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and a leading expert on economic sanctions, noted that the new strategy is designed to expand the scope of existing sanctions by targeting third countries that still trade with Iran and rely on access to the U.S. dollar. “Thus far, the U.S. has largely used the threat of these secondary sanctions against foreign financial institutions to encourage compliance with sanctions policy,” Parker said. “But this is a lever that is sort of unexplored insofar as targeting anything touching the U.S. dollar that is also touching Iran.” He pointed to foreign financial institutions that facilitate sanctions evasion by Iran or channel funds directly to the Iranian government as key potential targets.

    While it remains unclear how Iran will respond to the latest round of sanctions, sanctions specialists have noted that Iran has a long track record of adapting quickly to circumvent restrictions. Iranian actors have honed sophisticated workarounds, including the use of unregistered “shadow” oil tankers and front companies that do not appear on U.S. sanctions blacklists. “You keep seeing new names popping up, because Iran is adapting really quickly,” said Mohammed Hammouda, an export control and sanctions manager at the London Stock Exchange. “Whatever sanctions one does, they find a new road around it. Sanctions are all on paper, but the hard work is behind the scenes. There are teams worldwide trying to impose sanctions and identify those parties involved, which is why Iran has to try to adapt.” Hammouda added that Iran’s adaptive tactics often leave sanctions enforcement teams constantly playing catch-up to the country’s workarounds.

    The ultimate effectiveness of the new sanctions will depend largely on how targeted third countries respond. Potential targets include U.S. allies such as Turkey and Iraq, as well as major economic power China. “Some of this is out of Iran’s hands,” Parker explained. “Iran’s ability to evade or avoid sanctions is, in large part, contingent on other countries and financial institution’s willingness to give them access to the formal banking system. Sanctions are only as powerful as the willingness of targeted countries to comply with American foreign policy objectives, or face potentially painful sanctions on trade involving the U.S. dollar.”

    Many experts question whether major powers will agree to comply with the U.S. crackdown. “I can’t really see China agreeing to that, for example,” Bayoumi noted, adding that “These states have all been able to navigate their own interests with the Trump administration. The underlying point is that this is just another tool. But the broader question of strategy remains. Absent that, I’m not sure this is going to change anything long term.”

  • Why the US economy is ringing alarm bells

    Why the US economy is ringing alarm bells

    This summer, Americans have been distracted by a slate of major cultural and sporting events: the 250th anniversary of the United States, Taylor Swift’s high-profile wedding, and the men’s football World Cup. But beneath the fanfare, mounting economic pressures have been bubbling to the surface, culminating this week in a sobering milestone that has drawn alarm from policymakers and economists at home and abroad: America’s gross national debt has officially surpassed the $40 trillion mark.

    Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, notes that the nation’s journey from zero to its first $1 trillion in debt stretched nearly 200 years, with that 1981 milestone prompting a public warning from then-President Ronald Reagan. In a televised address to the nation, Reagan framed the $1 trillion threshold as a critical wake-up call for fiscal responsibility. Today, 45 years later, the U.S. spends more than $1 trillion annually just on interest payments for its accumulated debt, a stark shift that underscores how rapidly federal borrowing has grown.

    The $40 trillion threshold was widely anticipated by analysts, who trace the rapid expansion of the national debt back to consecutive spending surges under both the Donald Trump and Joe Biden administrations. Decades of ballooning costs for social safety net programs and other federal expenditures have outpaced government revenue, which has been eroded by successive rounds of major tax cuts. Large-scale emergency borrowing to respond to systemic crises, including the 2008 global financial crash and the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, added trillions more to the national balance sheet. More recently, steep interest rate hikes implemented to tame post-pandemic inflation have drastically increased the cost of servicing existing debt, turning a gradual rise into an accelerating crisis.

    When Trump first took office in 2016, the national debt stood just below $20 trillion, meaning the total has doubled in less than a decade. Data from the Congress Joint Economic Committee puts the current rate of growth at roughly $90,000 per second, or $7.8 billion per day.

    Eric Swanson, an economics professor at the University of California, Irvine and former senior Federal Reserve economist, explains that today’s debt landscape is far more precarious than it was 10 years ago, largely due to the current interest rate environment. U.S. long-term interest rates are now at multi-decade highs, a shift driven in part by persistent inflation concerns and in part by investor anxiety over the unprecedented scale of federal government borrowing.

    Competition for investor capital has also tightened: major technology firms are borrowing massive sums to fund artificial intelligence development, directly competing with the U.S. government for bond buyers. This has forced the Treasury to offer higher yields to attract investment, further increasing borrowing costs.

    Wharton School economist and former global investment chief Mohamed A. El-Erian points out that higher interest rates make deficit funding exponentially more expensive. Year-over-year, federal interest payments on the national debt have risen 15%, and now account for nearly 20% of total federal tax revenue — a larger share than the entire U.S. defense budget.

    The nation is also rapidly approaching the statutory $41.1 trillion debt ceiling, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects total national debt will climb to roughly $64 trillion by 2036 if current spending and revenue patterns hold.

    Despite the alarming numbers, economists emphasize the situation is not yet at a critical breaking point. As the world’s largest economy and with the U.S. dollar retaining its status as the global reserve currency, the U.S. has far more fiscal breathing room than other nations facing high debt levels, El-Erian says. Right now, he describes the moment as a flashing yellow warning light, not a flashing red crisis signal.

    Swanson adds that other advanced economies currently carry higher debt-to-GDP ratios than the U.S. America’s current debt equals 126% of its annual gross domestic product, a share lower than G7 peers Japan and Italy. Even so, Swanson warns that investor appetite for U.S. government bonds is diminishing, creating a vicious cycle: the government must offer ever-higher yields to attract buyers, which in turn increases overall debt and servicing costs.

    The ripple effects of America’s debt crisis do not stop at the U.S. border. Higher U.S. borrowing costs inevitably push up borrowing costs for governments, businesses and households across the globe. “What happens in the US never stays in the US,” El-Erian notes.

    For American households, the impact will hit directly in the form of higher interest rates for mortgages, auto loans and credit card balances, with low-income households bearing the brunt of the burden. There is also a secondary inflationary effect: businesses pass their own higher borrowing costs on to consumers via elevated prices for goods and services. Ultimately, MacGuineas says, “the impact of the debt finds its way to the pocketbooks of people one way or another.”

    Recent U.S. economic data shows growth has slowed in recent months but remains solid, a positive sign for fiscal stability. El-Erian explains that stronger economic growth generates higher tax revenue, which can cover government spending and interest payments, gradually easing the long-term debt burden if growth holds. If growth stalls, however, the U.S. will be forced to consider more difficult policy adjustments, including tax system reform, spending cuts, or in a worst-case scenario, debt restructuring.

    So far, the federal government has relied on targeted financial engineering to calm bond markets: on Wednesday, the Treasury Department launched a debt buyback program intended to boost bond demand and push down long-term borrowing costs. The effect was short-lived, however, with long-term yields climbing back to recent highs just one day later.

    With upcoming congressional midterm elections, the White House is under intense pressure to demonstrate progress on economic issues, with affordability ranking as the top concern for U.S. voters. Yet major structural reforms remain politically unappealing, and El-Erian says he is skeptical that policymakers will take meaningful action to address the deficit in the near term. “I don’t see anything happening that is going to significantly lower the deficit over the next two to three years,” he says. “If you look at the political talk, it’s about tax cuts.”

  • US closure bill costs GYG, business posts $26m annual loss

    US closure bill costs GYG, business posts $26m annual loss

    Australian-born Mexican-inspired fast food chain Guzman Y Gomez (GYG) has formally pulled the plug on its high-risk ambition to break into the highly competitive U.S. restaurant market, revealing the failed venture has left the business with a $26.7 million full-year statutory net loss after accounting for exit costs. The Sydney-founded chain released its full-year 2024-2025 financial results on Friday, which showed the U.S. exit dragged the company into the red, with $67.3 million in total costs tied to winding down its eight Chicago locations.

  • Australian spending defies cost-of-living crisis, stoking RBA rate hike fears

    Australian spending defies cost-of-living crisis, stoking RBA rate hike fears

    Against a backdrop of cooling national property prices and broad cost-of-living pressures that have squeezed household budgets across Australia, new consumer spending data has revealed an unexpected resilience in discretionary spending that is putting the Reserve Bank of Australia’s (RBA) rate cut outlook to the test.

    Data compiled by Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), drawn from transaction records of more than 7 million of its retail customers, shows overall household spending climbed 0.6% in July, marking the second consecutive monthly gain. Ten of the 12 tracked spending categories recorded growth, with non-essential discretionary spending driving most of the uptick. Recreation spending led all categories with a 1.1% monthly increase, followed closely by hospitality spending which rose 1.0% over the same period.

    CBA economists attribute this surprise growth in discretionary outlays to a sustained shift among Australian households toward prioritizing experience-based spending, a trend that held strong even in the face of broader budget pressures. July’s packed calendar of major global and domestic events, including the men’s FIFA World Cup and the wide release of the blockbuster film *The Odyssey*, gave an extra boost to spending on leisure and hospitality. Household goods spending also saw solid gains, supported by targeted promotional campaigns across major Australian e-commerce marketplaces.

    “Despite ongoing pressure on household balance sheets, families continue to carve out space in their budgets for discretionary experiences,” explained Ashwin Clarke, CBA’s senior economist. “This strength in non-essential spending signals that households are still willing to open their wallets rather than hunker down and build up savings. That definitely raises the risk that consumer spending will not cool as quickly as the RBA has projected.”

    Even with the current uptick in consumption, year-to-date spending growth remains weaker than the pace recorded in 2025. Clarke noted that while near-term spending has held up better than expected, long-term headwinds including slowing wage growth, declining property values, and still-elevated inflation are expected to drag on consumption growth in the coming quarters. “We still expect household spending to slow, it just may take longer than initially projected,” he said. “The underlying fundamentals for household consumption are fairly weak. But if spending fails to decelerate over the next six months in line with the RBA’s forecasts, it will leave the central bank uncomfortable and could prompt it to consider another interest rate hike to dampen demand.”

    Clarke added that the current strength in discretionary spending has been partially enabled by temporary easing in costs for essential goods and services: “We’ve also seen a growing number of listed consumer firms note in recent earnings outlooks that more shoppers are becoming value-conscious, hunting for discounts and trading down to cheaper alternatives. On top of that, weaker spending on essentials, particularly utilities, plus temporary lower fuel prices in recent months, have freed up small amounts of room in household budgets for leisure spending.”

    The surprise spending surge comes as Australia’s property market continues to cool faster than most analysts predicted. National home prices fell 0.7% in July, the steepest monthly decline recorded nationwide since December 2022. ANZ economists Madeline Dunk and Adam Boyton project that capital city property values will drop 4.3% across the 2026 calendar year, followed by a further 3.4% decline in 2027. Sydney, Australia’s largest property market, is forecast to see prices drop as much as 14.5% from their recent peak.

    Clarke said falling property values are one of the key factors that will likely drag consumer spending lower moving forward. “Income growth has been slowing for the last several quarters, and we expect that trend to continue, especially with persistent inflation and the lagged economic impacts of global conflicts,” he said. “History shows that when housing prices decline, households tend to pull back on spending. Falling equity in their biggest asset makes consumers feel less wealthy, and lower transaction volumes in the property market also cut related spending on moving, renovations and new household goods. Combined, these factors will almost certainly slow consumption.”

    The latest CBA spending data aligns with recent commentary from RBA deputy governor Andrew Hauser, who warned this week that inflation remains well above the central bank’s 2-3% target band, and demand across the economy needs to cool further to bring price growth under control. The RBA has raised interest rates three times already in 2026 to dampen excess demand.

    “Monetary policy needs to bring inflation down, which is why we have raised rates three times this year, but it can only achieve that by reducing pressure on capacity and demand across the economy,” Hauser told the Queensland Futures Institute Annual Regions Summit in Brisbane. “That means slightly slower growth in consumption, slightly slower growth in employment. We’ve seen a little bit of that progress so far, but we are going to need to see more to get inflation back to target. This is not a slump, not a depression, but it will be slower growth than we have seen in the past.”

    Hauser reiterated the RBA’s dual mandate to keep inflation between 2 and 3% while maintaining full employment, adding that domestic demand remains a key contributor to ongoing price pressures. “Inflation is too high,” he said. “Everywhere you look people say prices are too high, cost pressures are too strong. While some of that is driven by global factors, some of it does come from domestic demand here in Australia.”

  • AFL 2026: Gold Coast Suns coach Damien Hardwick on Ben King’s potential exit

    AFL 2026: Gold Coast Suns coach Damien Hardwick on Ben King’s potential exit

    Uncertainty continues to swirl around the future of star Gold Coast Suns forward Ben King, with Suns head coach Damien Hardwick confirming the club is prepared to explore trade options if the restricted free agent confirms his intention to depart in the coming weeks. King’s emotional post-match celebration following the Suns’ 16-point victory over St Kilda at Marvel Stadium on Thursday night has fueled widespread speculation that his seven-season tenure on the Gold Coast is drawing to a close. After kicking the match-winning goal and finishing the game with three total majors, the 24-year-old spearhead was visibly tearful as the team sang their club song, a moment widely interpreted as a farewell to the club that drafted him in 2018. Over his seven seasons with the Suns, King has scored 315 career goals, establishing himself as one of the league’s most reliable young key forwards. But the Victorian native has long been tipped to request a move back to his home state, and recent reporting indicates Hawthorn has emerged as the leading suitor, after early speculation linked him to Collingwood. Under AFL free agency rules, the Suns hold the right of first refusal on any contract King signs with a rival club: if the Suns choose to match the competing offer, King will be forced to move via trade, rather than leaving as an unrestricted free agent. Hardwick acknowledged the situation in his post-match press conference, framing the impending decision as a standard part of the league’s current free agency system. “Look, it is what it is, that’s free agency, that is what our game is, we have the last right of refusal, so that’s obviously something we will consider,” Hardwick told reporters. “He was obviously quite emotional post game, so it might possibly be his last game, we’re not quite exactly sure. Once I know, you guys will know – he will make his thoughts clear.” While the club waits for King to formalize his decision, Hardwick said the Suns’ list management team has already begun preparing for a potential departure, pointing to the club’s existing pipeline of young attacking talent as a solid foundation to build on. “But obviously we’ve got some younger players, we’re really excited about Ethan Read, we’re really excited about Jed Walter. We’ve got Jamarra Ugle-Hagan who’s had a pivot year, he’ll be better when he comes back,” Hardwick said. The coach also openly acknowledged that a King exit would leave the Suns needing to add experienced attacking depth, even issuing a public call for available veteran forwards. “We probably need another experienced player, so if there’s any experienced forward out there that wants to come to our footy club, give me a call,” he said. When asked specifically about the possibility of targeting out-of-favour GWS Giants goalkicker Jesse Hogan as a replacement for King, Hardwick declined to comment on any specific targets, noting the club’s priority remains on the current 2025 season. “Oh, look, we’ll make list management decisions throughout the year sort of thing. We’ll work our way through that process, once again, head is firmly in this year. We know what we need moving forward, so we’ll discuss that,” he said.

  • How Harry and Meghan are ending their ‘American dream’

    How Harry and Meghan are ending their ‘American dream’

    For years, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle framed their departure from the British royal family as a bold gamble to chase privacy, financial independence, and a new version of the American dream on the sun-soaked outskirts of Los Angeles. Now, that carefully constructed chapter is drawing to a close, prompting a close examination of the life the high-profile couple built in the heart of Hollywood. As BBC correspondent Shaimaa Khalil explores, the pair’s experience in Southern California reveals a complicated gap between the promise of their cross-Atlantic move and the reality of life as globally recognized public figures operating outside royal structures. When the couple stepped back as working royals in 2020, they traded the strict protocols and constant media scrutiny of palace life for a gated mansion in Montecito, a quiet, upscale enclave nestled between Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. Their stated goal was clear: escape the intrusive British tabloid culture that had plagued their relationship, build their own commercial brand independently, and carve out a normal life for their two young children. For a time, that vision appeared to be taking shape. They landed lucrative multi-year deals with streaming giant Netflix and podcast platform Spotify, launched their nonprofit Archewell, and positioned themselves as outspoken advocates for mental health, racial justice, and gender equity. But in recent months, cracks in that foundation have become impossible to ignore. Their Spotify deal ended early in 2023 after just one season of their flagship podcast, and their Netflix projects have failed to deliver the breakout cultural impact both sides initially anticipated. At the same time, the couple has been unable to escape the relentless public attention they sought to leave behind. Every personal detail, from their family dynamics to their public appearances to their internal disagreements, remains a staple of global media coverage. Even in their secluded Montecito compound, privacy has remained elusive. As they wind down the operations and public profile they built in Southern California over the past four years, analysts and commentators are reassessing whether the “American dream” they set out to achieve was ever truly attainable for two of the most famous people in the world. Khalil’s reporting delves into the shifting priorities of the couple, the missteps that derailed their initial Hollywood ambitions, and what the end of this chapter means for their public legacy and personal futures going forward.

  • Trump wants to be friends with Kim – but South Korea could pay the price

    Trump wants to be friends with Kim – but South Korea could pay the price

    The annual Ulchi Freedom Shield joint military exercises between South Korea and the United States, which included participation from 18,000 South Korean troops and 11 additional allied nations, came to an abrupt and unplanned end on Friday, with only half of the scheduled maneuvers completed. The halt came just days after former U.S. President Donald Trump made a surprise announcement that he had ordered the Pentagon to slash the size of the drills dramatically. Trump’s decision, which framed the annual exercises as “inappropriate and hostile” to North Korea and an unnecessary financial drain on the United States, caught key U.S. allies completely off guard.

    South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun attempted to frame the early termination as a joint, mutually agreed-upon call, but publicly admitted that Seoul officials had no advance warning of Trump’s plan to scale back the drills. For Seoul, the joint exercises have long been viewed as a core pillar of the U.S.-South Korea alliance, a tangible demonstration of American commitment to defending South Korea against potential aggression from Pyongyang. While South Korea has voluntarily agreed to pause or scale down drills in the past to create space for diplomatic outreach to North Korea, Trump’s sudden, unilateral decision has severely eroded Seoul’s confidence in Washington as a reliable security partner, according to Jo Bee-yun, Senior Research Fellow at the Atlantic Council.

    The unilateral move has also sparked anxiety among other U.S. regional allies including Taiwan and Japan, both of which rely heavily on American security guarantees to counter growing regional threats. Experts warn there is now widespread fear that Trump could go even further: drawing down the 27,000 U.S. troops permanently stationed in South Korea, or even abandoning the decades-long U.S. policy goal of complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, all without consulting the South Korean government.

    The Korean Peninsula remains technically in a state of war, as no formal peace treaty was signed following the 1950–1953 Korean War. Until 2024, North Korean ideology centered reunification with the South as a core goal, a goal that leader Kim Jong Un formally abandoned that year. Despite the shift in reunification policy, Pyongyang has not eased its threats against Seoul. Just days before this year’s exercises began, North Korea launched ballistic missiles toward Japanese territory, repeated warnings that it would exercise its right to use nuclear weapons if threatened, and launched additional missile tests on Thursday, just one day before the drills were halted early.

    Beyond security disagreements, the Trump administration has increasingly tangled South Korea in overlapping trade and foreign policy disputes. Trump has openly criticized Seoul for refusing to join U.S. military action against Iran, and has repeatedly complained that the $1 billion annual contribution South Korea makes to cover the cost of hosting U.S. troops is insufficient. Additional grievances include claims that Seoul has dragged its feet on fulfilling a pledged $350 billion investment in the U.S. and discriminates against American companies operating in South Korea. The merging of trade disputes and national security concerns has led growing numbers of analysts and policymakers in Seoul to call for South Korea to reduce its long-standing dependence on the U.S. for security.

    Cheong Seong-chang, vice president of the Seoul-based Sejong Institute think tank and a prominent advocate for South Korea developing its own independent nuclear deterrent, argues that while Seoul should maintain its alliance with the U.S., it must “take steps to acquire its own nuclear deterrence” to counter growing North Korean threats. While a majority of the South Korean public now supports developing an independent nuclear arsenal, the current South Korean government has maintained that acquiring nuclear weapons is unnecessary, and would damage the country’s existing network of security alliances. That position could shift rapidly if the U.S. continues to reduce its security footprint in East Asia, analysts note.

    South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, who has prioritized repairing inter-Korean relations, has sought to frame Trump’s decision as a positive step for regional diplomacy. In a post on X, Lee praised the move, writing, “I believe this was a bold decision that is the result of your deep consideration to achieve peace.” Lee also pledged to increase South Korea’s defense spending, and said he “fully agrees” with Trump’s position that South Korea should take greater responsibility for its own national security.

    This is not the first time Trump has taken unexpected unilateral action on Korean Peninsula diplomacy during his presidency. Back in 2018, Seoul worked behind the scenes to facilitate the first ever meeting between a sitting U.S. president and Kim Jong Un, viewing Trump’s unorthodox approach to diplomacy as both a risk and an opportunity. Immediately after that 2018 summit, Trump suddenly announced a full suspension of joint U.S.-South Korea drills. A second planned summit in 2019 collapsed without any agreement after Kim refused to dismantle all of North Korea’s nuclear facilities. While Trump and Kim held a brief, widely publicized photo-op meeting at Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone later that year, no substantive nuclear negotiations have taken place between the two sides since.

    It was South Korea that bore the worst consequences of the failed 2019 diplomatic push. North Korea demolished the inter-Korean liaison office on its territory, cut off all official communication with Seoul, passed a new law punishing the distribution of South Korean media with the death penalty, and formally codified the right to use nuclear weapons in its national constitution.

    Trump has repeatedly insisted he shares a warm “great relationship” with Kim, telling reporters Wednesday, “He likes me.” But Kim Yo Jong, Kim Jong Un’s powerful sister and top advisor, issued a public statement casting doubt on that claim. She said North Korea had no knowledge of any recent contact between Kim and Trump, adding that the claim “must be the only thing I am unaware of in our foreign policy.” She also reaffirmed North Korea’s long-held position that it will never abandon its nuclear arsenal, arguing that the country’s nuclear program maintains regional military balance and stability. On the scaling back of the joint drills, Kim Yo Jong said the move “doesn’t merit our country’s interest nor comment,” and added that it does nothing to change the exercises’ “hostile and offensive nature,” according to state media reports.

    While Trump has announced he expects to meet Kim Jong Un again later this year, few regional experts believe another summit will produce any meaningful progress. Kim has strengthened strategic ties with both Moscow and Beijing in recent years, with North Korea now supplying billions of dollars worth of artillery shells and missiles to Russia for its war in Ukraine, as well as an estimated 13,000 combat troops. Though North Korean troops have suffered thousands of casualties in Ukraine, they have gained substantial frontline combat experience, particularly in drone warfare, that has strengthened the country’s overall military capability. North Korea’s key non-negotiable demand for any new summit is that the U.S. formally accepts it as a nuclear-armed state, a concession Trump has not publicly indicated he is willing to make, leaving little incentive for Pyongyang to negotiate.

    The early halt to the drills is already a major strategic concession for North Korea, and also aligns with long-held Chinese objections to the exercises, which Beijing views as a threat to its own regional security. Analysts warn the move could open the door to further demands from Pyongyang at a time when North Korea is militarily stronger than ever. North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests, and has developed intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the continental United States. For South Korea, which faces a persistent and growing threat from the North, the U.S. alliance remains a matter of survival. “There isn’t much South Korea can do to defend itself against the North on its own,” Jo Bee-yun notes, making the U.S. alliance “a matter of life-and-death.”

  • Army will shut down a unit in Europe focused on learning drone warfare

    Army will shut down a unit in Europe focused on learning drone warfare

    In a move that follows a sudden leadership shakeup at the top of the U.S. Army, a specialized drone warfare battalion based in Europe has been ordered to abandon its experimental unmanned warfare mission and return to its roots as a traditional airborne infantry unit, multiple anonymous defense officials confirmed Thursday. The unit, part of the 173rd Airborne Brigade with installations across Italy and Germany, had spent nearly a year refining drone tactics pioneered by Ukrainian forces in their ongoing conflict with Russia, building a reputation as the service’s leading test bed for frontline unmanned technology.

    The specialized battalion was first stood up last November, bringing together 600 trained soldiers to operate as a dedicated deployable drone unit that could support any theater of operations where unmanned capabilities were needed. As recently as May 2025, Army public affairs highlighted the brigade’s work at its custom first-person view (FPV) drone lab at Italy’s Caserma Del Din, where soldiers designed and built their own attack drones, adapted systems to resist electronic jamming, and even experimented with artificial intelligence integration — a priority championed by current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. At the time, brigade commander Col. Joshua Gaspard noted troops were eager to leverage the lessons widely visible from Ukraine’s battlefields, saying service members “see videos of FPV drones in Ukraine all over Instagram and the news media” and were excited to deploy these cutting-edge systems themselves.

    The order to disband the unit came from Gen. Christopher LaNeve, the Army’s current acting chief of staff, who took the top uniformed role in April after Hegseth abruptly fired his predecessor, Gen. Randy George. The decision marks a shift from the priorities George set during his tenure, when the former service chief made widespread integration of unmanned systems a core pillar of Army modernization through the Army Transformation Initiative, which sought to get new drone capabilities into the hands of all frontline troops, not just specialized detachments.

    The disbanding order comes even as ongoing conflict in the Middle East has underscored the urgent need for the U.S. military to expand its own drone warfare expertise, drawn from Ukraine’s experience. Iranian-made low-cost Shahed drones have been used to attack commercial and military shipping, strike regional bases, kill U.S. troops, down an Army helicopter, and force American forces to expend large stockpiles of expensive advanced air defense interceptors to counter the cheap, numerous unmanned threats. As of March this year, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed Kyiv was already sharing its drone countermeasure and tactical expertise with five nations in the Middle East and Gulf region, with the U.S. and European states also requesting Ukrainian support.

    In the weeks before George’s ouster, Army insiders widely expected the drone battalion to continue its experimental work after completing two planned major exercises in Germany scheduled for this month and next. A senior official familiar with internal deliberations noted that while the exercises had always been framed as a culminating evaluation event for the unit, most defense planners under George anticipated the battalion’s mission would be extended following the drills.

    In an official statement, the Army clarified that the drone unit will wrap up its scheduled exercises as planned, then compile all findings from its year-long experimentation to share with Army force design planners to inform future unmanned systems development. “The unit was tasked to study and absorb lessons from dedicated unmanned systems forces, including those developed by the Ukrainian armed forces, and to provide that feedback to the Army in support of the Department’s direction to accelerate U.S. military drone dominance,” the service said in its statement.

    LaNeve, who saw a rapid career advancement after Hegseth took office, previously served as George’s deputy before ascending to the top role. He was commanding U.S. Eighth Army in South Korea when he publicly welcomed President Donald Trump back to office at the 2025 inauguration Commander in Chief Ball, and was tapped for the vice chief of staff role by Trump last October before being elevated to acting chief in April. In a strategic guidance memo published Wednesday, LaNeve argued that “the next war will not look like our last” and called for faster innovation that pairs troop ingenuity with advanced technologies including autonomy and artificial intelligence. Notably, however, the memo makes no mention of drone development, and closes by emphasizing “timeless truths in war,” framing the ideal future Army as a force “disciplined, lethal, and relentless — an Army that closes with and destroys the enemy, leaving no doubt about the will and power of the United States.”

  • ‘We are starving’: Palestinians besieged by settlers in West Bank homes run out of food

    ‘We are starving’: Palestinians besieged by settlers in West Bank homes run out of food

    As the siege on three Palestinian homes in the occupied West Bank town of Qusra stretches into its 12th day, 15 trapped civilians including young children face rapidly dwindling food supplies, with growing evidence that Israeli soldiers are aiding settler efforts to seize the properties.