Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • US used more missile interceptors defending Israel than its own forces did: Report

    US used more missile interceptors defending Israel than its own forces did: Report

    New data published by The Washington Post in a Thursday report has laid bare the starkly uneven burden of missile defense operations against Iran, showing the United States has expended far more advanced interceptor assets shielding Israel than Israel itself has deployed to protect its own territory.

    According to the report, the unprecedented scale of US interceptor usage is the root cause of the critical stock shortages previously documented by Middle East Eye and other regional news outlets. The gap in available munitions has already had ripple effects across the region: during the peak of active conflict, Gulf US allies saw their requests for emergency interceptor resupplies rejected, despite Israel stepping in to deploy Iron Dome batteries and personnel to defend the United Arab Emirates, a key regional partner.

    Breaking down the volume of deployments, The Washington Post confirmed the US launched more than 200 Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) interceptors to counter Iranian attacks — a figure equal to roughly 50 percent of the Pentagon’s entire global stock of the advanced defense system. In addition to the THAAD deployments, US Navy vessels operating in the Eastern Mediterranean fired more than 100 Standard Missile-3 and Standard Missile-6 interceptors to down incoming threats.

    By comparison, Israel’s own interceptor usage was far lower. Israeli defense forces launched fewer than 100 Arrow interceptors and approximately 90 David’s Sling interceptors. Notably, the David’s Sling systems were also diverted to counter projectiles launched by Yemen’s Houthi movement and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, groups whose missile and drone arsenal is far less sophisticated than that of Iran.

    These numbers paint a clear picture of a “lopsided dynamic” at the heart of the US-Israel military alliance, the Post concluded. The revelation has sparked pushback from foreign policy analysts, with Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, describing the data as “stunning” in a post on the social platform X. “Very understandable that many view the Iran war as ‘Israel first’ when you see these statistics,” Parsi added. “The US depleted far more of its advanced missile defense interceptors inventory to defend Israel than Israel itself did.”

    The disclosure comes as Washington and Tehran hold indirect talks to finalize a proposal to end the conflict, with a fragile ceasefire currently holding across active front lines. Former US President Donald Trump has publicly threatened to resume full-scale attacks on Iran if the country does not accept his administration’s terms for a permanent ceasefire.

    But the depleted interceptor stockpiles leave the US in a strategically vulnerable position. Even before the conflict escalated, defense officials had publicly acknowledged that US interceptor inventories were already stretched thin, and the massive deployment for Israel leaves just 200 THAAD interceptors remaining in US stockpiles globally.

    The military dynamic of the conflict has centered on a race between two sides: the US and Israel have sought to destroy as many of Iran’s ballistic missiles and mobile launchers as possible inside Iranian territory, while Iran has aimed to exhaust the stockpiles of defense munitions held by the US, Israel, and their regional Gulf partners. A recent New York Times report corroborated that Iran has retained roughly 70 percent of its pre-war mobile missile launchers and 70 percent of its total ballistic missile stockpile, leaving it with substantial remaining strike capacity if conflict resumes.

    Compounding the strategic vulnerability, The Washington Post notes that if hostilities restart, the US will almost certainly be forced to take on an even larger share of missile defense duties for Israel. This additional burden stems from a recent decision by the Israeli military to take several of its own domestic missile defense batteries offline to conduct scheduled maintenance. One unnamed senior US official told the outlet that “the imbalance will likely be exacerbated if fighting restarts.”

  • Rubio embarks on another mission to ease tensions with allies during NATO meeting

    Rubio embarks on another mission to ease tensions with allies during NATO meeting

    As U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio departs for a critical NATO foreign ministers’ gathering in Helsingborg, Sweden, his core mission is clear: calm rising unease among Washington’s European allies over the Trump administration’s inconsistent approach to the transatlantic alliance and unclear plans for American troop levels across the continent.

    Friday’s gathering will coincide with separate briefings at NATO’s Brussels headquarters, where senior Pentagon leaders are set to outline the U.S. military’s long-term defense commitment to the 32-nation bloc. The meeting comes as a precursor to July’s NATO leaders’ summit in Istanbul, unfolding against a backdrop of sweeping global security uncertainty: the unresolved trajectory of the ongoing war in Iran, and stalled U.S. efforts to restart peace negotiations to end the two-year Russia-Ukraine conflict. Lingering friction also remains from President Donald Trump’s repeated public criticism of underfunding by European allies, and his controversial public interest in acquiring the autonomous Danish territory of Greenland, a NATO member asset.

    Rubio has emerged as the Trump administration’s go-to diplomat for de-escalating tensions at high-stakes allied gatherings, tasked with projecting a more measured, less confrontational tone than the president often delivers. This already marks his third such outreach mission in 2025, following February’s Munich Security Conference and a recent trip to Rome, where he met with Italian government leaders and Pope Leo XIV. That meeting came after Trump publicly attacked the American-born pontiff over his positions on street crime and U.S. policy in the Iran war.

    A major source of confusion for allies right now centers on contradictory signals about U.S. troop deployments in Europe. Ahead of his departure for Sweden, Rubio declined to answer questions about potential adjustments to the number of U.S. troops assigned to the NATO Force Model, the alliance’s core contingency defense plan for major European security crises. Just days before the meeting, the Trump administration first announced it would cancel planned deployments of thousands of troops to Poland and Germany. Then on Thursday, Trump posted a surprise reversal on social media, declaring the U.S. would deploy an additional 5,000 troops to Poland. To date, no clarification has emerged: it remains unclear whether the previously canceled deployment is being reinstated, whether the 5,000 troops represent an additive increase to rotational presence, or whether an overall drawdown of U.S. forces in Europe will still proceed from other theater locations. The Pentagon redirected all press queries to the White House, which has not issued an immediate response to requests for clarity.

    While Rubio reaffirmed his position as a self-described “strong supporter” of the transatlantic alliance, he did not soften the Trump administration’s core criticism of NATO’s response to the Iran war. He told reporters ahead of his flight from Miami that the entire administration, including the president, is “very disappointed” in the alliance’s inaction, a sentiment Rubio said should come as no surprise to any participating ally.

    In pointed remarks, Rubio called out NATO member Spain specifically for refusing to grant the U.S. access to its Spanish-based military bases for operations related to the Iran conflict. He also noted that many other allies have rejected calls to join a U.S.-led coalition to re-open and secure the Strait of Hormuz, the critical global oil shipping chokepoint that Iran has effectively closed to commercial traffic in recent months. “I know why NATO is good for Europe, but why is NATO good for America?” Rubio asked rhetorically during his pre-departure press briefing, answering his own question by pointing to the value of European bases for global U.S. power projection. “So, when that is the key rationale for why you’re in NATO, and then you have countries like Spain denying us the use of these bases, well, then, why are you in NATO?”

    Rubio added that while nearly all NATO allies formally back the U.S. position that Iran must not be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon, almost none have stepped up to back Trump’s preventive military action. “He’s not asking them to commit troops. He’s not asking them to send their fighter jets in. But they refuse to do anything, and so I think the president looks at that and says, ‘Hold on a second,’” Rubio said. “I think we were very upset about that. The president has made that very clear.”

    Top NATO officials have attempted to downplay the chaos around shifting U.S. troop plans, framing adjustments as part of long-planned reorientation that allies were notified of well in advance. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told reporters Wednesday that European allies have been aware for a full year that the Trump administration planned to withdraw some U.S. troops from the continent. Rutte said it is reasonable to expect European and Canadian members to take on greater responsibility for conventional defense of the alliance, particularly in Europe. While Rutte affirmed the U.S. will remain engaged in transatlantic security, he acknowledged that over time Washington may reallocate military resources to other global hotspots.

    U.S. General Alexus Grynkewich, the commander of both U.S. and NATO forces in Europe, echoed that message this week, saying current security commitments will not leave Europe with a defense gap, but warned allies to prepare for additional incremental U.S. troop drawdowns over the coming years. The Trump administration has repeatedly made clear to European allies that in the long term, the continent will need to take full ownership of its own security, including defense support for Ukraine against Russian aggression.

  • Tanya Plibersek defends PM after on-air dismissal of national femicide inquiry

    Tanya Plibersek defends PM after on-air dismissal of national femicide inquiry

    A heated political debate has erupted in Australia over Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s comments rejecting calls for a national royal commission into femicide, with the government’s top minister for domestic violence issues stepping forward to defend his position amid widespread public anger.

    The controversy began during a Monday radio interview on Hobart’s HIT 100.9FM, where host Christie Hayes—herself a prominent domestic violence advocate—pressed the Prime Minister on growing public demands for a national inquiry, coming off a grim week that saw four women killed in four consecutive days. When Hayes directly asked whether the government would commit to establishing a royal commission, Albanese pushed back on the utility of the formal inquiry.

    “There’s calls for a royal commission about everything,” the Prime Minister initially responded. After Hayes interjected to argue that the deaths of women at the hands of intimate partners qualified as a uniquely urgent issue, Albanese agreed on the severity of the crisis but questioned the value of a formal commission, asking, “But you’ve got to work out, what does a royal commission do besides fund lawyers?” He added that policymakers already know what solutions are needed to address the crisis, and argued the nation should prioritize immediate action over prolonged inquiry processes.

    Two days after the exchange, Hayes went public with her fierce criticism of the Prime Minister’s response, telling *The Mercury* she left the interview “shaking with anger” and accused Albanese of mansplaining the violence against women crisis to a survivor advocate.

    On Friday, Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek—whose portfolio explicitly covers family, domestic and sexual violence policy—came to Albanese’s defense in an interview with ABC Radio National, pushing back against claims that the Prime Minister is disrespectful or unconcerned about the issue, calling that characterisation “unfair.”

    Plibersek drew on Albanese’s personal history to underscore his commitment to tackling the crisis, noting that the Prime Minister witnessed domestic abuse against his own mother during childhood, a trauma he has spoken of publicly on rare occasions. “It is something that we take seriously, from the Prime Minister, right through our government,” she said.

    The minister did acknowledge the devastating severity of the national crisis, conceding that many members of the public still fail to grasp the full lifelong harm that family violence inflicts on survivors and bereaved families. Speaking from her own experience engaging daily with people impacted by abuse, Plibersek said, “I don’t think you can overstate the toll this takes, the gap that’s left when we lose someone and the lifelong impact of experiencing violence. I don’t think you can overstate how important this is. The statistics are overwhelming.”

    Plibersek added that addressing femicide and domestic violence requires more than just government policy—it demands collective cultural change across all sectors of Australian society. “Violence is learnt as respect is learnt … We need to make sure that our schools, all of our sporting clubs, all of us work together with the same message, that violence and control in relationships is never OK,” she said. The minister also has personal proximity to the issue: her own daughter Anna Coutts-Trotter survived an abusive relationship as a teenager.

  • US to send 5,000 more troops to Poland, Trump says

    US to send 5,000 more troops to Poland, Trump says

    In a sudden reversal of a recent Pentagon decision, U.S. President Donald Trump announced Thursday that the United States will deploy an extra 5,000 troops to Poland. The announcement comes just seven days after the Department of Defense scrapped a planned deployment of 4,000 troops to the Eastern European nation, leaving defense analysts and European allies scrambling to interpret the shift in U.S. military posture on the continent.

    Breaking the news via his social platform Truth Social, Trump framed the new deployment as a gesture rooted in his close personal and political alignment with Polish President Karol Nawrocki. Trump endorsed Nawrocki during Poland’s 2025 presidential election, and the Polish leader has repeatedly positioned himself as one of Trump’s most vocal European supporters. The U.S. president offered no additional clarity on whether the 5,000 additional troops represent an expansion of the original canceled deployment, a revised iteration of that plan, or an entirely separate military operation.

    The revised troop plan arrives amid a broader restructuring of U.S. military presence across Europe, driven by the Trump administration’s signature “America First” policy agenda that has prioritized reducing overall U.S. defense commitments overseas. Earlier this month, Trump followed through on a threat to withdraw 5,000 U.S. troops from Germany amid a heated public dispute with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over Washington’s approach to the ongoing conflict with Iran. Trump lashed out at Merz after the German leader suggested that U.S. negotiators had been “humiliated” during talks with Iranian officials, and the withdrawal moved forward quickly despite bipartisan pushback in Washington.

    To date, it remains unconfirmed whether the troops bound for Poland are the same forces being drawn down from Germany, or an entirely new contingent. Beyond tensions with Germany, Trump has openly criticized fellow NATO allies for refusing to back the U.S. in escalating pressure on Iran over shipping access through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint.

    The announcement comes ahead of a high-stakes NATO foreign ministers summit kicking off Friday in Stockholm, where U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will lead the American delegation. Top of the agenda for Rubio is expected to be renewed demands for NATO member states to increase their own defense spending and share more of the alliance’s collective defense burden, a longstanding priority for the Trump administration.

    Ahead of the summit, BBC reporters pressed Rubio on unconfirmed intelligence reports suggesting the U.S. plans to reduce its total available troop commitments for collective defense in the event of an attack on any NATO member. Rubio would not confirm the reports, but confirmed that “some of those issues” would be on the summit’s negotiating table, adding that Trump remains “very upset and disappointed” with the alliance over its failure to meet U.S. demands for greater burden sharing.

    The U.S. Defense Department’s initial cancellation of the 4,000-troop deployment to Poland last week sparked widespread confusion across European capitals about U.S. security commitments. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth later sought to calm those fears, framing the cancellation as nothing more than “a temporary delay” and reaffirming that the U.S. remains committed to maintaining a robust and credible military posture across Eastern Europe.

    Nawrocki, who secured Poland’s presidency with Trump’s public backing, has long positioned himself as a staunch ally of both Trump and U.S. security goals in Europe. In a January interview with BBC Radio 4’s *Today* programme, Nawrocki argued that Trump is the only global leader with the ability to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin and negotiate an end to the ongoing war in Ukraine. Despite Trump’s repeated public criticism of the NATO alliance and his fractious relationships with other European leaders, Nawrocki has consistently maintained that the United States remains the primary guarantor of collective security across Europe.

    Even within Trump’s own party, the administration’s shift on European troop deployments has drawn criticism. Multiple congressional Republicans have already spoken out against the planned withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany, warning that the drawdown risks sending a dangerous signal of weakened U.S. resolve to the Kremlin, which continues to maintain aggressive military posturing along NATO’s eastern border.

    Currently, the United States maintains its largest European military footprint in Germany, hosting more than 36,000 active-duty troops across the country. By comparison, the U.S. has roughly 12,000 troops deployed in Italy and an additional 10,000 across the United Kingdom.

  • Leading NGOs slam ‘Board of Peace’ for ‘failing’ to deliver Gaza aid pledges

    Leading NGOs slam ‘Board of Peace’ for ‘failing’ to deliver Gaza aid pledges

    On Thursday, three of the world’s most prominent international aid organizations issued a scathing rebuke of U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza, declaring the initiative a clear failure due to ongoing, widespread Israeli obstruction of humanitarian aid deliveries into the besieged enclave. Speaking at a press briefing at United Nations headquarters in New York, leaders from Oxfam, Refugees International, and Save the Children US outlined the gaping chasm between the ceasefire agreement’s promises and the grim reality on the ground six months into the deal’s implementation.

  • Maree Vermont death: Accused killer Timothy Loosemore argues fatal fire was tragedy, not murder

    Maree Vermont death: Accused killer Timothy Loosemore argues fatal fire was tragedy, not murder

    A high-profile murder trial has gotten underway in Victoria’s Supreme Court, where a 62-year-old British national accused of killing his Airbnb host after she rejected his romantic advances has firmly maintained his innocence, framing her 2023 death in a devastating house fire as an unforeseen tragedy rather than intentional murder.

    The defendant, Timothy Loosemore, entered a formal not guilty plea to one count of murder for the death of 60-year-old Maree Vermont, who died at her rural property in Goldie, a small community roughly 60 kilometers north of Melbourne, on August 5, 2023.

    Court documents and opening statements outline how the pair first crossed paths earlier that year, when Loosemore – who was undertaking a cross-country cycling trip across Australia – booked a spare room in Vermont’s home through the popular short-term rental platform Airbnb. After their initial stay, Loosemore returned to reside on the property, trading labor on Vermont’s 16-hectare plot for accommodation and meals.

    On the night of August 5, emergency responders were called to Vermont’s property after reports of a raging inferno. Vermont’s body was recovered from the burned-out home, and Loosemore was promptly charged with murder, with prosecutors alleging he killed Vermont before intentionally starting the fire to cover up the crime.

    In his opening address to the jury on Thursday, Crown prosecutor Mark Gibson laid out the prosecution’s core narrative: the killing was driven by “anger and frustration” after Loosemore was unable to accept that Vermont had rejected his desire for a romantic relationship. Gibson told jurors that Vermont had been clear about her boundaries, making her lack of interest in a relationship with Loosemore known to him, her friends, and her family. “This case in large part is about four things; rejection, ego, perverse anger and a house called the Stone House,” Gibson said. Due to the extensive damage the blaze inflicted on Vermont’s remains, coroners have been unable to formally determine an exact cause of death, a detail the prosecution has framed as a direct result of the defendant’s alleged attempt to destroy evidence.

    Responding to the prosecution’s opening the following day, defence barrister Christopher Farrington did not dispute that a devastating, terrible tragedy had taken place, but pushed back hard against the claim that the incident amounted to murder. “Mr Loosemore did not assault Maree Vermont, Mr Loosemore did not kill Maree Vermont and Mr Loosemore did not burn down her house,” Farrington told the jury.

    Farrington argued that the evidence presented over the course of the trial would raise significant, reasonable questions about both the cause of Vermont’s death and the origin of the fire, noting that multiple plausible alternative explanations exist for how the blaze ignited. He added that the prosecution’s narrative of a murder motive rooted in unrequited love is unsupported by evidence, and that the available proof cannot meet the legal standard required to prove Loosemore intended to harm Vermont.

    “The defence simply does not accept that proposition” of a murder motive built on rejected romantic advances, Farrington said.

    Prosecutors have cited key physical evidence they say links Loosemore to the crime: scratch marks on his right cheek and blood stains found on his clothing in the aftermath of the fire. The trial, which is being closely watched in Victorian legal circles, is ongoing, with further testimony and evidence expected to be presented in the coming days.

  • Turkey liquidates nearly all US Treasuries as Iran war bites economy: Report

    Turkey liquidates nearly all US Treasuries as Iran war bites economy: Report

    In a dramatic move that underscores the severe economic pressures piling up on Ankara, Turkey offloaded nearly all of its U.S. Treasury securities in March, according to estimates from Bloomberg that draw on U.S. government data. The country liquidated roughly $14 billion in U.S. sovereign debt, slashing its total holdings to just $1.6 billion – a far cry from the $80 billion peak it hit a decade ago.

    This steep sell-off is rooted in a cascade of economic shocks triggered by the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran, which has hit Turkey’s already fragile economy on multiple interconnected fronts. As a nation that imports nearly all of its energy needs, Turkey has been squeezed first by soaring global energy prices driven by regional conflict. Before the war began, roughly 14% of Turkey’s natural gas imports came from Iran; those deliveries have halted entirely following an attack on Iran’s key South Pars gas field, creating additional supply strains and cost pressures.

    The conflict has also spurred broader global inflation concerns that have pushed U.S. Treasury yields sharply higher. For Turkey, this shift translates directly to increased borrowing costs on international markets, and has made the country’s already high-risk debt far less appealing to foreign investors.

    Selling U.S. Treasuries is a standard step for emerging economies like Turkey looking to shore up their domestic currency. Nations typically draw on their holdings of U.S. debt to raise dollars, which they can then sell on foreign exchange markets to prop up the value of their own currency. Turkey’s lira has been caught in a years-long downward spiral, paired with persistent sky-high inflation that has eroded purchasing power across the country. Since the outbreak of the war on Iran, the lira has already depreciated roughly 5% against the U.S. dollar, making dollar-denominated energy imports even more costly.

    Turkish policymakers have openly acknowledged the deep uncertainty hanging over the country’s economic trajectory. In May, the Turkish Central Bank raised its 2026 inflation target from 16% to 24%, citing persistent elevated volatility. Leading global financial institutions JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank project that Turkish inflation will climb to 30% by the end of 2024.

    Separate reporting from Reuters added another context to the $8 billion portion of the sell-off: the country tapped those reserves to stabilize the lira after a Turkish court annulled the opposition party congress that elected Özgür Özel as head of the nation’s largest opposition party, removing him from his post and sparking short-term political volatility.

    While Turkey is a relatively small holder of U.S. debt compared to other major regional players – Saudi Arabia holds roughly $150 billion in U.S. Treasuries, while the United Arab Emirates holds around $114 billion – the trend of broad liquidation carries broader global implications. If a growing number of countries follow Turkey’s lead and offload U.S. sovereign debt, yields will continue to rise, pushing up borrowing costs for both the U.S. federal government and American consumers across the board.

  • Law changes and innovations to look out for at the World Cup

    Law changes and innovations to look out for at the World Cup

    For decades, the FIFA World Cup has served as a testing ground for transformative changes to international football’s rulebook, from the 1970 introduction of yellow and red disciplinary cards to the 2018 debut of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system, and the extended stoppage time framework rolled out at the 2022 Qatar tournament. As the 2026 edition – the first World Cup co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico – draws near, a new suite of law adjustments and procedural innovations is set to reshape how the game is played and officiated.

    The most surprising shift comes in the form of universal mandatory hydration breaks, a measure never before enforced for every match in World Cup history. While brief pauses for players to rehydrate have been used in past tournaments for matches played in extreme heat, 2026 will see three-minute breaks held at the midpoint of both the first and second halves, no matter the weather conditions inside the stadium. Even matches played in cool climates or under closed retractable roofs will include the scheduled stoppages.

    FIFA’s official rationale frames the rule as a commitment to prioritizing player welfare, ensuring all competing sides operate under equal match conditions regardless of their fixture’s scheduling or venue. Critics, however, have pointed out that splitting the 90-minute regulation into four distinct segments aligns World Cup match structure with popular North American professional sports, creating natural advertising windows that benefit U.S.-based broadcast partners.

    A second major expansion of existing technology comes to the VAR system, which was originally introduced only to review clear and obvious errors surrounding goals, penalty decisions, straight red cards, and cases of mistaken player identity. The International Football Association Board (IFAB), the global body responsible for setting football’s laws, has approved expanding VAR’s remit to cover two previously excluded scenarios for the 2026 tournament: second yellow card dismissals and corner kick awards.

    Going forward, VAR will now be able to review decisions to send a player off for a second bookable offense, alongside the existing scope for reviewing straight red card calls. For corner kicks, VAR can overturn what the IFAB defines as a clearly incorrectly awarded corner, as long as the review can be completed immediately without delaying the restart of play.

    To crack down on pervasive time-wasting tactics that have dragged out match durations in recent top-level competitions, new timed countdown rules will be enforced for restarts and substitutions. Following the introduction of an eight-second time limit for goalkeepers releasing the ball from hand – which results in an opposition corner if breached – 2026 will extend this framework to goal kicks, throw-ins, and substitution procedures.

    If a match official determines a team is deliberately delaying a goal kick or throw-in, a five-second visual countdown will be displayed for all spectators and officials to see. Should the restart not be completed before the countdown expires, possession will be switched to the opposing team: a delayed goal kick becomes an opposition corner, while a delayed throw-in is handed to the other side. For substitutions, players being substituted off have 10 seconds to exit the pitch after their number is displayed on the substitution board. If they fail to leave within the window, they must still exit immediately, but their replacement cannot enter the game until the next stoppage of play, at least one minute after the original substitution was called. Injured players who require play to be stopped for treatment must also leave the pitch for a minimum of one minute before they are permitted to return to action.

    The final high-profile new rule targets unsportsmanlike and disruptive behavior that has sparked controversy in recent club and continental competitions. Last month, FIFA announced that players who cover their mouths during confrontations with opponents will now be eligible for a straight red card. The rule change follows a 2024 UEFA Champions League incident where Benfica’s Gianluca Prestianni covered his mouth while speaking to Real Madrid’s Vinicius Junior, resulting in a six-match ban for discriminatory homophobic conduct. The new rule is designed to deter players from hiding abusive language from match officials and microphone systems.

    FIFA has also added new penalties for match protests, introducing red cards for any player who leaves the pitch in protest of a refereeing decision, with the same punishment applying to any team official who incites players to abandon play. In the most serious cases, FIFA states that any team that causes a match to be abandoned through protest will in principle forfeit the fixture. This clarification comes after the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations final, where Senegal players walked off the pitch in protest of a penalty awarded to Morocco. While Senegal went on to win the match after returning, the Confederation of African Football eventually stripped them of the title for violating tournament regulations by walking off.

  • US pins hopes on mediator Pakistan in push to end Iran war

    US pins hopes on mediator Pakistan in push to end Iran war

    Nearly three months after the United States and Israel launched large-scale military strikes on Iran that opened a full-scale conflict reshaping the Middle East, Washington is pinning its latest hopes on Pakistani mediation to break a months-long negotiation deadlock and reach a lasting peace agreement.

    The conflict, which began on February 28, triggered widespread regional instability, sent global energy and commodity prices soaring, and pushed the international economy to the edge of new turmoil. A ceasefire agreed on April 8 paused large-scale open fighting, but repeated rounds of talks have failed to produce a permanent deal that can fully end the crisis. On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that Washington expected new diplomatic momentum from Pakistani mediators, who were set to travel to Tehran the same day to advance talks.

    Pakistan has already emerged as a key third-party broker in the conflict, hosting the only direct face-to-face negotiations between U.S. and Iranian officials last month that were facilitated by Pakistan’s powerful Army Chief Asim Munir. Those high-stakes talks ultimately collapsed after Iran rejected what it called Washington’s “excessive demands.” In a sign of continued diplomatic push, Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi — a figure widely seen as close to Munir — made his second visit to Tehran in as many weeks on Wednesday. Iranian state media has cited anonymous sources suggesting Munir could travel to the Iranian capital as soon as Thursday, though Pakistani officials have so far offered no confirmation of the army chief’s travel plans.

    Beyond Pakistan’s mediation, China — another actor that has participated in regional efforts to end the war — announced Saturday that Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif will visit Beijing for discussions linked to the diplomatic process.

    The current standoff remains razor-thin, with U.S. President Donald Trump confirming Wednesday that negotiations are balanced on a “borderline” between a final deal and a resumption of full-scale attacks. “If we don’t get the right answers, it goes very quickly. We’re all ready to go,” Trump told reporters, adding that a deal could be reached “very quickly” or within days, but insisted Iran must provide “100 percent good answers” to U.S. demands to avoid renewed hostilities.

    Trump’s fresh pressure on Iran comes as the president faces growing domestic political pressure to resolve the conflict, as U.S. consumers face soaring energy costs tied to the ongoing regional disruption. Rubio also publicly criticized U.S. NATO allies this week for declining to back the U.S.-led campaign against Iran, saying “We were very upset about that” after allies refused to take even non-military action in support of the effort.

    For its part, Iran has remained firm in its own demands and warned it will respond aggressively if hostilities resume. Iranian chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Wednesday that “The enemy’s movements, both overt and clandestine, show that despite economic and political pressure, it has not abandoned its military objectives and is seeking to start a new war,” adding that Iran would launch a “forceful response” to any new attack. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei confirmed Tehran is still reviewing latest proposals from Washington, but repeated Iran’s core demands: the full release of billions of dollars in Iranian assets frozen abroad and an end to the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian territory.

    The most critical unresolved sticking point remains the ongoing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic global waterway that carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s daily oil and liquefied natural gas supplies, and one-third of global fertilizer shipments. While the April ceasefire paused open fighting, it did not reopen the strait, which Iran closed as a retaliatory measure after the war began. Only a tiny volume of shipping has been allowed through in recent weeks under a new Iranian toll system, and Iran’s new regulatory body for the strait has claimed territorial control extending into Emirati waters — a move that drew an immediate sharp rebuke from Abu Dhabi. Tensions between Iran and the United Arab Emirates have remained severely strained since the war began, after Iran launched missile and drone strikes on Gulf states in retaliation for the U.S.-Israeli offensive.

    As global pre-war oil stockpiles continue to deplete, fears are growing that the prolonged closure will trigger further increases in energy and food prices, worsening existing strains on the world economy. In addition to the core Iran-U.S. standoff, conflict continues to simmer on a second front in Lebanon. Lebanese state media reported Thursday that an Israeli strike damaged a hospital in southern Lebanon, where Israeli forces have continued to carry out operations, demolitions and evacuation orders even after an April 17 truce. Israel says its strikes target Hezbollah, which has continued to launch its own attacks on Israeli territory in turn.

    Hezbollah entered the war after the killing of Iran’s supreme leader in U.S.-Israeli strikes, launching retaliatory rocket fire that dragged Lebanon into the broader regional conflict. Lebanon’s health ministry says Israeli attacks have killed at least 3,089 people in the country since March 2. On Thursday, the U.S. announced new sanctions targeting nine individuals with alleged links to Hezbollah, accusing them of “obstructing the peace process in Lebanon.”

  • ‘Dread’: coral scientists fear bleaching El Nino could bring

    ‘Dread’: coral scientists fear bleaching El Nino could bring

    As climate change continues to push ocean temperatures to record highs, leading coral researchers around the globe are sounding the alarm: a potentially powerful El Nino weather pattern forecast for this year could deliver a fatal blow to reef ecosystems already reeling from repeated mass bleaching.

    Meteorological forecasters have grown increasingly confident that the cyclical climate phenomenon, which emerges every two to seven years, will return in 2025 with unusual strength. El Nino disrupts established global weather patterns, triggering severe drought in some regions and catastrophic flooding in others. For coral reefs, the most dangerous impacts stem from El Nino’s tie to elevated ocean temperatures and reduced cloud cover across many tropical basins—two conditions that directly trigger mass bleaching.

    “Every single global coral bleaching event in recorded history has coincided with an El Nino year,” noted Clint Oakley, a coral biologist at Victoria University of Wellington. He shared that he feels “dread, though not surprise” at the prospect of a strong event, which he says could prove “serious and devastating for reef systems across the world.”

    To understand why warm water poses such an existential threat to corals requires looking at their symbiotic biological relationship: corals rely on tiny algae called zooxanthellae that live within their calcium carbonate structures. The algae use photosynthesis to produce nutrient-rich food for their coral hosts, and in exchange gain a stable habitat and access to the sunlight needed for photosynthesis. The algae are also responsible for the vivid, distinctive colors that make reefs so iconic. When ocean temperatures rise too far above historical averages, however, this delicate partnership breaks down. Researchers have not yet pinpointed the exact biological mechanism that triggers this collapse, but the outcome is consistent: the algae either leave the coral tissue voluntarily or are expelled by the coral itself. Without their algae symbionts, corals are left stark white, a state called bleaching, and slowly starve because they no longer receive the nutrients the algae provide.

    If ocean temperatures drop back to safe levels quickly enough, corals can survive on stored energy reserves until the algae return. Even then, surviving bleaching leaves corals weakened, malnourished, far more susceptible to disease, and unable to allocate enough energy to reproduce. If heat stress persists or reaches extreme levels, the coral will starve to death before temperatures cool, explained Jen Matthews, a coral scientist at the University of Technology Sydney.

    Occasional localised bleaching is a natural part of reef ecosystem dynamics, and can even help cull weaker corals to make space for hardier individuals. The modern crisis stems from repeated mass global bleaching events, which have become the new normal as climate change drives steady long-term ocean warming. When reefs are hit by bleaching before they have fully recovered and had time to produce new juvenile corals to replace lost individuals, the ecosystem enters an irreversible downward spiral, Oakley said.

    The most recent global mass bleaching event was officially declared in 2024, and its impacts have already been devastating. In the Caribbean, multiple key coral species are now classified as functionally extinct, meaning they can no longer reproduce enough to sustain stable populations. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, the world’s largest reef system and the only living structure visible from space, has already lost between 15 and 40 percent of its total coral cover across different regions since 2024.

    A powerful “super El Nino” this year would add new heat stress to ocean temperatures that are already far above the safe threshold for most corals. Oakley pointed out that average global ocean temperatures over the past five years are already equal to the peak temperatures recorded during the 1998 global bleaching event, the first major mass bleaching event in modern history.

    While a small subset of coral species and individual colonies have shown natural resilience to warm water, these hardier corals are not abundant enough to replace the massive losses caused by repeated bleaching. Scientists have pursued a range of experimental interventions to protect vulnerable reefs, from nutrient gels that feed starved corals to solar shading that cools reefs during heatwaves, and even genetic engineering to breed more heat-tolerant coral strains. These innovative strategies are important, Matthews said, but ultimately they only “buy time” for reefs rather than solving the core crisis.

    Researchers emphasize that key details about this year’s El Nino remain uncertain: while an event is very likely, its exact strength and duration are still unpredictable, said Kimberley Reid, an atmospheric science research fellow at the University of Melbourne. El Nino is just one factor shaping regional ocean conditions, she added, with local ocean temperature anomalies and regional wind patterns also playing major roles in how much heat stress reefs will face.

    Even if an unusually strong El Nino does not materialise this year, the long-term outlook for global coral reefs remains grim. Roughly half of the world’s total coral cover has already been lost over the past few decades. These ecosystems are not just tourist attractions: they provide critical spawning and nursery habitat for commercial fish species that feed billions of people around the world, and act as natural sea walls that absorb storm energy and protect coastal communities from flooding and erosion.

    Matthews called the current trajectory a sobering reality. “If we don’t get our act together on climate change, then all we’re doing is buying time until our reefs, as we know them, disappear.”