作者: admin

  • US singer D4vd to go on trial for murder in death of teen

    US singer D4vd to go on trial for murder in death of teen

    A Los Angeles judge has formally ordered rising U.S. musician D4vd, born David Anthony Burke, to face a criminal trial on charges of murder and sexual abuse connected to the 2025 death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez. The binding ruling caps a five-day preliminary hearing that saw prosecutors call 12 witnesses, present graphic photographic evidence, and lay out their case as the victim’s family observed court proceedings.

    Authorities first discovered Hernandez’s remains last September inside a Tesla registered to an address linked to 21-year-old Burke. The emerging music artist has repeatedly denied all charges against him, entering a not guilty plea earlier in the legal process. His formal arraignment is scheduled for August 31, with the full trial set to kick off no later than 90 days after that court appearance.

    Prosecutors have laid out a detailed narrative of the alleged crime, claiming Burke carried out a prolonged pattern of sexual abuse against the teen before murdering her. They argue the killing was motivated by Hernandez’s threat to expose his inappropriate relationship with a minor, an act that would have ruined Burke’s multi-million dollar entertainment career. Court records introduced during the hearing include threatening text messages Hernandez sent to Burke on April 22, 2025, amid a heated argument over his friendship with another girl. The messages, laced with expletives, included threats to kill Burke, strangle him, fabricate lies to tell her father, and end both his career and his life.

    According to prosecution testimony, the day after sending those messages, Hernandez traveled to Burke’s private residence in Hollywood via an Uber that Burke himself arranged to pick her up. Prosecutors allege that immediately after she arrived at the property, Burke fatally stabbed her before dismembering her body to cover up the crime.

    The case has sent shockwaves through the U.S. music industry, where Burke had built a growing fanbase and commercial success in recent years. Legal proceedings are moving forward on a tight timeline as both sides prepare for a high-profile trial that will draw widespread public and media attention.

  • Trump says ‘good chance’ of progress in Iran talks as foes hold fire

    Trump says ‘good chance’ of progress in Iran talks as foes hold fire

    A fragile three-day ceasefire between the United States and Iran has raised cautious hopes for diplomatic progress, after 13 consecutive nights of renewed US airstrikes brought the two long-standing adversaries back to the brink of open conflict. In remarks made aboard Air Force One on Monday, former President Donald Trump expressed guarded optimism that a negotiated peace deal could end the months-long war that broke out in late February with a joint US-Israeli military campaign that sent shockwaves across the Middle East and global energy markets. “I think there is a good chance that something could happen,” Trump stated, adding that he retained patience to see diplomatic efforts through. If talks fail, however, the president confirmed the US would quickly resume its previous military operations.

    Trump pushed back against growing concerns over dwindling US ammunition stockpiles five months into the conflict, asserting that the US military retains more than sufficient munitions, including mid-range weaponry, to sustain any future operations. Despite Trump’s claims of ongoing negotiations, Iranian officials have pushed back publicly on any active talks with Washington. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei clarified Monday that while mediators may relay communications between the two sides, Tehran is not currently engaged in direct negotiations with the US. Baqaei also launched a scathing attack on US policy in the region, comparing Washington’s conduct over recent years to that of a “mafia gang” that rejects international rules and norms.

    Even as the US and Iran hold their fire, regional instability persists. On Monday, Saudi Arabia’s defense ministry announced it had intercepted multiple drones launched from Iraqi territory by Iran-aligned militant groups, targeting key Saudi oil facilities. While no group immediately claimed the attack, Riyadh called on Iraqi authorities to crack down on militant groups operating from its soil to prevent further incursions. Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi has since ordered a full investigation into Saudi Arabia’s claims. Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels later claimed responsibility for a separate drone strike on Saudi oil infrastructure, launched in retaliation for recent Saudi drone incursions, though Riyadh has not yet responded to the claim. Pakistan, which has served as a key mediator in efforts to de-escalate the conflict, condemned the attacks, warning they pose a severe threat to regional peace and security. In a separate development, the Israeli military announced it intercepted two unmanned aerial vehicles near the Jordanian border, and is currently working to trace their origin. Israel has not taken part in the latest round of fighting between the US and Iran.

    The ceasefire has delivered immediate relief to global energy markets, which have been roiled by tensions around the Strait of Hormuz – the world’s most critical chokepoint for global oil and gas trade. Global stock markets rallied on Monday, while benchmark Brent crude prices tumbled 6% to settle around $86 per barrel, bringing much-needed respite to Gulf shipping operators and the global energy industry.

    Despite the diplomatic opening, the future of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz remains the single largest hurdle to a lasting peaceful resolution. Iran has repeatedly insisted on full regulatory control over the waterway, and in recent days the country’s powerful Revolutionary Guards have halted multiple commercial vessels attempting to transit outside Tehran’s designated shipping lane, with six such vessels detained as of Monday. Tehran confirmed it has held recent discussions with Oman, the other major littoral state bordering the strait, to establish joint principles and operational mechanisms to ensure commercial shipping safety. Back in June, Muscat and Tehran announced they would discuss imposing transit service fees for the strait – a proposal that has been firmly opposed by Washington. Recent tensions between Oman and Iran flared after Muscat announced commercial vessels could transit the strait through Omani territorial waters, a move that prompted Iranian forces to attack transiting ships. Baqaei confirmed Monday that the US is not involved in the recent Oman-Iran discussions, reiterating Tehran’s position that Washington has no role to play in regulating the strait.

  • UK Supreme Court says no state immunity for Bahrain in surveillance case

    UK Supreme Court says no state immunity for Bahrain in surveillance case

    In a landmark ruling that sets a critical precedent for holding foreign states accountable for transnational repression, the UK Supreme Court has dismissed a appeal by the government of Bahrain for state immunity in a hacking case brought by two exiled Bahraini pro-democracy dissidents. The 3-2 majority decision cleared the way for a full civil damages claim to proceed, a outcome that opposition campaigners have described as a watershed moment for activists targeted by authoritarian regimes outside their home borders.

    The two claimants, Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed, launched their legal battle at London’s High Court back in 2020. Both long-term exiles opposed to Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa royal family, they allege that Bahraini intelligence operatives planted malicious spyware on their personal laptops in 2011, while the devices were located on UK soil. The surveillance, they claim, allowed Manama to track not just their own activities in exile, but also collect information on other overseas critics of the Bahraini government. The pair are seeking financial compensation for deliberate psychiatric harm inflicted by the years of unlawful monitoring.

    Writing in a post-ruling statement, Shehabi, who has spent decades in exile for his pro-democracy advocacy, called the decision the end point of a grueling multi-year legal fight. “It has taken many long and difficult years to reach this moment. The hardest part of being targeted by state-sponsored hacking is the feeling that nowhere is safe,” he said. The veteran dissident framed the ruling as a victory that extends far beyond his own case, extending to every activist targeted by authoritarian governments operating beyond their official national boundaries. He dedicated the outcome to the people of Bahrain and the families of those killed during the kingdom’s post-2011 crackdown on dissent, who he said lost their lives under torture and repression solely for demanding justice and an end to authoritarian rule.

    The legal action comes against a long backdrop of sustained repression of opposition voices in Bahrain, which intensified after the 2011 Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings that swept across the Middle East and North Africa. In the wake of those protests, Bahraini authorities launched a widespread crackdown that led to the arrest of thousands of pro-democracy campaigners and activists. The repression has not been limited to the kingdom’s borders: security services have repeatedly been documented targeting exiled dissidents who have built new lives in Europe, the UK, and North America.

    Mohammed, the second claimant, echoed Shehabi’s praise for the court’s decision, noting that he has been targeted by the Bahraini regime since he was a teenager, experiencing torture, imprisonment, and transnational pursuit. He dedicated the ruling to political detainees still held in Bahraini prisons, who continue to face abuse behind bars. “Today should give them hope that accountability is possible,” he said. Bahrain’s government has repeatedly and categorically denied all allegations of hacking and unlawful surveillance put forward by the two dissidents.

    Legal analysts note that the ruling marks a significant shift in how UK courts address transnational repression, confirming that acts of espionage and harm committed on UK soil by foreign states cannot be shielded by claims of state immunity. For pro-democracy campaigners, the outcome opens a new pathway for legal recourse for activists targeted by foreign governments on British territory.

  • Trump says Iran war talks taking place during lull in strikes

    Trump says Iran war talks taking place during lull in strikes

    Three full days have passed without direct military exchanges between the United States and Iran, and U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that what he describes as “very friendly negotiations” are underway to de-escalate the ongoing regional conflict, expressing public optimism that a lasting end to hostilities could be reached soon.

    Speaking to reporters traveling with him aboard Air Force One this Monday, Trump laid out his outlook for the diplomatic process. “I think there’s a good chance that something positive could happen,” he stated. But the president also issued a clear warning: if the current negotiating efforts collapse, the U.S. will immediately resume the large-scale military operations it was conducting before the current lull in fighting began.

    Iran’s government has directly pushed back on Trump’s claim, denying that any direct negotiations with the United States are taking place at this time.

    Trump explained that he made the decision to halt U.S. airstrikes on Iranian targets last Friday at the request of third-party nations mediating between the two adversarial sides, who asked for additional time for diplomatic dialogue to progress. Following the U.S. pause, Iran also suspended its own cross-border and regional attacks, creating the current calm.

    This de-escalation comes after nearly two consecutive weeks of daily U.S. airstrikes and tit-for-tat retaliatory attacks between the two powers, which completely unraveled the ceasefire agreement that was reached between the two sides back in June. At the time the U.S. resumed strikes, the U.S. military stated its operations were explicitly aimed at degrading Iran’s capacity to disrupt commercial shipping moving through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global chokepoint that carries roughly a fifth of the world’s daily oil supplies.

    Market hopes for a lasting de-escalation triggered a sharp drop in global crude oil prices on Monday, with benchmark prices falling more than 9% at one point to hit $87.59 per barrel as traders priced in lower risk of supply disruptions.

    During his remarks on Air Force One, Trump also addressed recent media reporting suggesting that five months of continuous combat operations have left U.S. military ammunition stockpiles depleted. The president rejected these claims outright. “We have a lot of ammunition. We have a lot of the mid-level stuff too, more than we could ever use, no matter what,” Trump said. “But we have a lot. I’d like to have more.”

    He added that U.S. defense manufacturers are ramping up production of a range of military equipment, most notably Patriot anti-ballistic missile systems, one of the most in-demand defensive weapons produced by the U.S. defense industry. “That system is going up. We have a lot,” he noted.

    White House spokesperson Anna Kelly doubled down on the administration’s stance in a separate statement, saying the U.S. military “has more than enough munitions, ammo, and stockpiles to serve all of President Trump’s strategic goals and beyond.” She also emphasized that Operation Epic Fury, the codename for the U.S.-led military campaign against Iran, “has exposed what happens when you mess with the United States.”

    “Even still, the president has urged our defence contractors to constantly produce more made-in-America weapons, which are the best in the world,” Kelly added.

    The current round of open hostilities between the two powers dates back to February 28, when the United States and Israel launched coordinated opening strikes against Iranian targets. Tehran quickly retaliated, launching a wave of missile and drone attacks targeting U.S. military bases and other assets across Gulf Cooperation Council states, as well as military and civilian targets inside Israel.

    In June, Iran and the U.S. signed a memorandum of understanding that committed both sides to halt all offensive military operations, reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, and work toward a comprehensive permanent peace agreement over the course of 60 days. That truce collapsed on July 13, after Iranian forces launched attacks on commercial tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz. In response, Washington resumed large-scale air strikes against Iran and reimposed a strict naval blockade on all of Iran’s commercial ports.

    Tehran retaliated with a series of coordinated attacks on U.S. military facilities and bases across the Middle East, which killed four active-duty American soldiers. According to Iran’s Ministry of Health, U.S. airstrikes carried out in the period since hostilities resumed have killed dozens of Iranian civilians and military personnel.

  • As the US pauses the war with Iran, is Trump really running out of weapons?

    As the US pauses the war with Iran, is Trump really running out of weapons?

    In a high-profile appearance earlier this month at the Pennsylvania Defense and Innovation Summit, U.S. President Donald Trump stood alongside chief executives of the nation’s largest defense contractors and delivered a clear, urgent call: ramp up weapons production and accelerate manufacturing timelines to rebuild dwindling stockpiles.

    Addressing a gathering of arms industry leaders at the U.S. Army War College, with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at his side, Trump emphasized, “We have the best quality in the world, but we need a little more speed.” The Trump administration framed the summit as a core component of a dual strategy to rejuvenate domestic defense manufacturing and strengthen the country’s warfighting capacity, what Hegseth has called America’s “arsenal of freedom.”

    What went largely unmentioned during the summit, however, is the core driver of this new push: massive stockpile depletion from nearly 40 days of intense combat during this year’s Operation Epic Fury in Iran, paired with ongoing tit-for-tat cross-border strikes in the region. To date, the U.S. government pegs total war costs at $37.5 billion, the vast majority of which has gone toward expended munitions. By the time a fragile ceasefire took hold on April 8, U.S. forces had struck more than 13,000 targets across Iran and intercepted more than 1,700 Iranian drones and ballistic missiles, White House data shows.

    Today, U.S. offensive strikes against Iran are paused to allow diplomatic negotiations to proceed. A recent New York Times report revealed that Trump’s military advisors urged him to abandon plans for conflict escalation, warning that further action would only deepen stockpile shortfalls. The president has pushed back on these concerns, telling The Wall Street Journal, “We have far more munitions than anyone in the world, and far more than we need.”

    The issue of depleted stockpiles has been a point of internal tension within the administration for months. Last month, Hegseth rejected claims that supplies were running low. But his position shifted dramatically last week, when he told the Senate Appropriations Committee the Pentagon requires an additional $87 billion to address “critical shortfalls” in equipment and munitions.

    While exact figures for expenditure and remaining stockpiles remain classified, publicly available analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington D.C.-based think tank, outlines a stark landscape of depleted inventories that cannot be quickly replenished. “It depends on the munition, but one to five years [to manufacture a single advanced missile] is the bottom line,” explained Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and senior CSIS adviser who researches defense stockpiles. “And there’s nothing you can do to speed that up.”

    The munitions most heavily drawn down during the Iran conflict fall into two critical categories: long-range land-attack systems and air and missile defense interceptors used to neutralize incoming Iranian attacks. The most widely used offensive weapon was the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM), a sea-launched precision weapon capable of striking targets more than 1,000 miles inland, allowing the U.S. to destroy hardened military sites like command bunkers without risking manned aircraft. CSIS estimates more than 1,000 Tomahawks were fired during the operation, and stockpiles may not return to pre-war levels until 2031. Each new TLAM variant costs approximately $2.6 million.

    On the defense side, the Patriot interceptor — a ground-based missile designed to shoot down aircraft, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles — saw the heaviest use. CSIS estimates that as many as 1,430 Patriots were fired during the conflict, drawn from a pre-war stock of roughly 2,330. Each Patriot interceptor costs around $4 million, a steep price to pay to shoot down low-cost Iranian drones that only cost between $20,000 and $50,000 apiece. Like Tomahawks, Patriots require years to replace: “If you put funding into production today, you wouldn’t take delivery of finished missiles for three or four years. Sometimes even five,” Cancian said, noting that current deliveries are for missiles funded back in 2023.

    The more advanced Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, which offers longer range and higher-altitude intercept capabilities than the Patriot, was also deployed. Pre-war stockpiles of THAAD interceptors were already limited, with CSIS estimating that 190 to 290 interceptors were fired from a pre-war total of 360. Only nine THAAD batteries exist globally, seven of which are operated by the U.S. Sustained expenditure leaves open the risk that U.S. forces could lack this critical capability for defending against ballistic missile threats from major powers like Russia, China, or North Korea.

    This depletion comes at a particularly sensitive geopolitical moment, ahead of the so-called “Davidson window” — a timeframe when many U.S. military planners assess that China is more likely to move to take control of self-governing Taiwan, which Beijing claims as a breakaway province. The concept originated from a 2021 congressional hearing where then-Indo-Pacific commander Admiral Philip Davidson warned a Chinese invasion could come “within six years,” and then-CIA Director William Burns echoed the assessment in 2023, predicting China would be militarily prepared by 2027.

    Cancian warns that current stockpile shortfalls create a “window of vulnerability” that leaves the U.S. without the full inventory of preferred munitions it would need for a large-scale Pacific conflict. This unpreparedness, he argues, increases the risk that U.S. forces would be outmatched by China’s massive arsenal of advanced missiles and aircraft. U.S. officials note China has closely studied U.S. air defense operations during the Iran conflict, and has invested heavily in advanced missile technology including hypersonic glide vehicles far more capable than Iran’s conventional missiles and low-cost drones, alongside developing large-scale drone swarm tactics.

    Not all analysts frame depleted stockpiles as a pure liability, however. Jacob Olidort, a former CIA analyst and former Middle East policy adviser at the Pentagon, argues that the use of these weapons in combat sends a powerful deterrent signal. “Weapons create deterrence, not merely because nations have them, but also because they demonstrate a willingness to use them,” said Olidort, now director for American security policy at the America First Policy Institute. He added that the U.S. campaign’s success in eroding Iran’s military capabilities in a compressed timeframe sends a clear message to other adversaries, including China, about American military prowess.

    The tension between preserving U.S. stockpiles and supplying allied nations already played out publicly ahead of the Iran conflict, when Trump rejected Ukrainian requests for Tomahawk missiles in October 2025, citing the need to protect U.S. reserve inventories. That episode previewed the difficult trade-offs now shaping debate over U.S. global military posture. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told the BBC in March that the Iran conflict has exacerbated critical weapons shortages for his country, which is facing relentless Russian drone and missile strikes and urgently needs additional Patriot air defense systems.

    Zelensky outlined the stark mismatch between production and demand: the U.S. produces roughly 60 to 65 Patriot missiles per month, or 700 to 800 per year — and 803 Patriots were expended on the first day of Operation Epic Fury alone. More recently, Trump surprised European officials by announcing a deal that would allow Ukraine to produce Patriot missiles domestically, a licensing arrangement already in place with Germany and Japan.

    Some defense analysts see the dual lessons from Ukraine’s war against Russia and the U.S. campaign against Iran as a catalyst for rethinking how the U.S. designs and produces air defense systems. Elaine McCusker, a 13-year veteran of the Pentagon who now works as an expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said these experiences could drive development of cheaper, mass-produced alternatives to complement high-cost advanced interceptors. “We’ve known for a long time that we don’t want to be shooting $6 million interceptors at $1,000 drones,” she said. “I think we now have more focus on that solution, and more people focusing on manufacturing more attritable solutions that don’t cost so much.”

    Even with significant stockpile drawdowns, there is little immediate concern that the U.S. would run out of munitions if the Iran ceasefire collapses — not because U.S. stockpiles are unlimited, but because Iran’s stockpiles and production capacity are in far worse shape. “The United States military has more than enough munitions, ammo, and stockpiles to serve all of President Trump’s strategic goals and beyond, and Operation Epic Fury has exposed what happens when you mess with the United States,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. “Even still, the president has urged our defence contractors to constantly produce more made-in-America weapons.”

    Recent U.S. strikes carried out by Central Command have focused heavily on degrading Iran’s ability to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the vital global oil shipping lane that has seen repeated blockades by both sides. After waves of U.S. and Israeli strikes, Iran’s military losses far outpace American losses, and the country has almost no ability to quickly replenish its lost weapons systems. “A lot of commentary portrays Iran as having an almost unlimited amount of weaponry,” said Jason Brodsky, policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran. “I think we have to realise that there are limitations there, and that the U.S. has degraded their defence industrial base to a very significant extent.” Brodsky added that Iran’s capacity to mass-produce missiles, drones and other critical weapons has been largely destroyed.

    Brodsky noted that Iran’s remaining stockpiles are now concentrated almost entirely on its ability to threaten shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a capability that is rapidly fading. “The Iranian regime is running out of time here,” he said. For the Biden administration, the ongoing, manageable conflict with Iran remains the immediate priority, even as officials acknowledge that ignoring long-term stockpile challenges would be irresponsible. “The Indo-Pacific is a more distant threat right now,” Brodsky said. “Policymakers have to prioritise, and the Middle East right now has the president’s attention.”

    For now, every missile fired against Iranian targets, delivered to Ukrainian frontlines, or held in reserve for a potential Taiwan conflict draws from a steadily shrinking national inventory. The U.S. is betting that it can manage current commitments while defense manufacturers ramp up production to replenish stockpiles over the coming years.

  • North America wildfires burn millions of acres in western US and Canada

    North America wildfires burn millions of acres in western US and Canada

    Across the western expanse of North America, a growing climate-driven crisis is unfolding as dozens of intense wildfires scorch vast swathes of land in two major regions: the U.S. state of Oregon and Canada’s western province of British Columbia. Fueled by steadily climbing regional temperatures that have dried out vegetation and turned vast forested areas into tinder, these uncontrolled blazes have already consumed millions of acres of land, and show no signs of slowing their advance.

    The ongoing wildfire season, which has become increasingly severe in recent decades amid global climate shifts, has put local communities, emergency response teams, and ecological systems under extreme strain. Rising temperatures create a feedback loop that exacerbates fire risk: higher heat evaporates moisture from soil and plant life, making even normally resilient forests far more flammable. With warm weather patterns persisting across the Pacific Northwest, fire managers have warned that the spread of active blazes will likely continue in the coming weeks.

    This disaster is not contained within a single national border. Both Oregon and British Columbia share extensive ecological corridors and weather systems, meaning smoke and fire risk can cross international boundaries, impacting air quality and public health across a far wider area than the burned zones themselves. As emergency crews work around the clock to contain the blazes and evacuate at-risk communities, the event underscores the growing threat that climate change poses to wildfire frequency and severity across western North America.

  • Sudan RSF leader ‘unleashes’ fighters after army gains in Kordofan

    Sudan RSF leader ‘unleashes’ fighters after army gains in Kordofan

    The long-running brutal civil conflict in Sudan took a sharp new turn this week, after Rapid Support Forces (RSF) commander Mohamed Hamdan Daglo ordered his fighters to operate with full freedom, just days after the Sudanese army reclaimed control of a strategic highway connecting the capital Khartoum to the contested city of El-Obeid in North Kordofan.

    Daglo, whose paramilitary force has already been formally accused of carrying out genocide in Sudan’s western Darfur region, announced the new order in a pre-recorded video address released to the public on Monday. “From today, I no longer hold the reins, I have released the reins to you,” he told frontline RSF fighters, a declaration that came just 24 hours after the Sudanese army pushed RSF fighters off the critical 400-kilometer highway after a multi-day offensive.

    For weeks, United Nations officials have issued urgent warnings that the RSF was preparing a large-scale assault to encircle and seize El-Obeid, the largest city in the Kordofan region, raising fears of widespread mass atrocities against the civilian population. The ongoing conflict between Daglo’s RSF and Sudanese army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, which broke out in April 2023 between the two former coup allies, has already triggered what the United Nations describes as the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. Aid worker estimates place the total death toll from the conflict at more than 200,000 people, with millions more displaced and facing acute hunger across the country.

    The RSF traces its origins back to the notorious Janjaweed militia, which carried out widespread mass killings and ethnic cleansing in Darfur during the early 2000s. Last year, the RSF completed its full takeover of Darfur, an offensive that UN investigators confirmed bears all the “hallmarks of genocide”. After consolidating control over Darfur, the RSF turned its attention to neighboring Kordofan, where it has been locked in a deadly stalemate with the Sudanese army for months. Both sides have carried out relentless drone strikes in the region, which have killed more than 1,000 civilians since the start of 2024.

    Two anonymous Sudanese army sources confirmed to Agence France-Presse on Monday that after days of steady advances across North Kordofan, army forces successfully pushed RSF fighters west of the Khartoum-El-Obeid highway over the weekend. El-Obeid, a critical crossroads hub that currently hosts around one million people including hundreds of thousands of displaced people from other conflict zones, sits at the intersection of two key trade and military routes: a north-south highway connecting Khartoum to Sudan’s southern border, and an east-west corridor linking RSF-held Darfur to army-controlled central and eastern Sudan. For months, both factions have fought to cut off the other’s supply lines around the city.

    On Monday, the Sudanese army released footage showing Burhan visiting Jabrat al-Sheikh, one of the last RSF strongholds along the recaptured highway, flanked by the top leaders of the two main allied militias that supported the army’s offensive: Darfur governor and Joint Forces commander Minni Minawi, and Sudan Shield Forces commander Abu Aqla Kaykal.

    For civilians trapped in El-Obeid, where hundreds of thousands of people are already in desperate need of life-saving humanitarian aid, the reopening of the highway has raised tentative hopes of improved access to food and basic goods. Sabreen Mohamed, a long-time El-Obeid resident, told AFP that “the highway opening means goods can flow” into the besieged city. For most of the war, civilians have been forced to rely entirely on a single eastern route leading to the White Nile, a road that is regularly targeted by deadly RSF drone attacks, and remains closed to large-scale civilian movement.

    Early on Tuesday, RSF drone strikes hit multiple locations inside El-Obeid, destroying the local branch of the Agricultural Bank of Sudan and the headquarters of the local lawyers’ association. No casualties were reported in the attack, but the damage to key public infrastructure underscores the ongoing risk to civilian life in the city. Mohamed dismissed the strikes as the “death throes” of the retreating RSF, noting that retaliatory attacks on civilian targets have become a predictable pattern after every army advance. “We’re used to it, every time the army advances, they retaliate against North Kordofan,” she said.

    While both the army and the RSF have been credibly accused of committing war crimes, including indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas, the army is broadly viewed more favorably by civilians in regions that have born the brunt of RSF atrocities. El-Obeid was fully besieged by the RSF from the start of the war in April 2023 until February 2024, when the army first broke the siege. Since then, repeated RSF attacks on roads, residential neighborhoods and critical infrastructure including power stations have deepened the humanitarian crisis, with the UN confirming that only a small fraction of the city’s population has consistent access to enough food.

  • The tough choices Andy Burnham faces on Iran war as US pushes for more UK involvement

    The tough choices Andy Burnham faces on Iran war as US pushes for more UK involvement

    When Andy Burnham campaigned to become Britain’s prime minister, he centered his platform on a sharp pivot to domestic priorities, promising a break from the previous Keir Starmer administration’s foreign policy approach that had alienated much of the party’s base. But barely seven days into his tenure, a sudden dramatic escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran has forced the new leader to confront an unexpected geopolitical crisis that immediately throws his policy agenda off course and tests his political judgment.

    In the lead-up to taking office, Burnham had already signaled a clear break from Starmer’s stance on Middle Eastern affairs. He issued a public apology for Labour’s early backing of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and announced his government would explore banning imports of goods produced in Israeli-occupied settlements. Political observers widely framed the remarks as a calculated move to win back disillusioned Labour voters who had abandoned the party over its perceived unwavering pro-Israel policy amid the Gaza humanitarian crisis. No one anticipated, however, that a major US-Iran escalation would arrive before Burnham could advance any of his promised domestic reforms.

    As the new government moved to rapidly assess its position, Burnham immediately opened diplomatic consultations with key Gulf allies over the weekend. In a phone call with United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the prime minister thanked the UAE leadership for its ongoing support for the roughly 200,000 British citizens residing in the country amid rising regional unrest. He also spoke with Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, where he commended the two nations’ deep defense partnership—a cooperation that saw British fighter jets deploy to defend Qatar against Iranian missile strikes earlier this year. Finally, Burnham reaffirmed UK backing for Kuwait against potential Iranian attacks in a call with Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Meshal.

    The central political and diplomatic challenge for Burnham, however, remains his fraught relationship with US President Donald Trump. Earlier this year, Trump and former prime minister Starmer entered a very public falling out after Starmer delayed approval for US forces to use British military bases to launch strikes against Iranian missile sites. Trump responded with relentless public criticism and mockery of Starmer on social media, creating an extremely tense dynamic between the two allies.

    Complicating Burnham’s choice is stark public opposition: a YouGov poll released just last week found a majority of British voters oppose allowing the US to use UK military bases to launch attacks on Iranian targets. To avoid a high-profile clash with Trump that would overshadow the start of his premiership, Burnham would have to openly contradict the will of the British public. Ultimately, the new prime minister opted to maintain Starmer’s original policy, granting the US access to RAF Fairford, a Royal Air Force base in Gloucestershire, to carry out strikes on Iranian missile infrastructure.

    Critics have already argued Burnham failed his first major test of standing up to the White House. The prime minister pushed back on these accusations in a weekend interview, declining to say he trusts Trump and insisting he will not hesitate to publicly call out the US president when their positions diverge. While the decision has helped Burnham avoid an immediate public confrontation with Washington, it has opened the UK up to new security risks.

    The Burnham government maintains that US strikes on Iranian missile sites are defensive in nature, meaning Britain is not party to any offensive military action against Iran. That interpretation is rejected outright by Tehran. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) last week labeled Britain an “accomplice” to US aggression and warned that it considers British military bases in the region legitimate military targets.

    In response to Iran’s threat, new British Defence Secretary Wes Streeting affirmed that the UK is “ready to respond to any attacks Iran wishes to wage against this country or our allies and we will continue to do that.” Streeting clarified that “we have not joined and will not join offensive US military action in Iran. That’s an area where we have not agreed with the United States. But when it comes to securing maritime freedom and free commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, that’s where we are absolutely aligned.”

    Over the weekend, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a call with Streeting, where he reportedly urged the UK to host a London summit for a new multinational maritime coalition tasked with protecting commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global chokepoint for energy trade. Hegseth also confirmed he would attend the summit if it moves forward. The proposal faces significant headwinds, however: major European nations have so far been reluctant to join the effort, fearing it will draw them deeper into the escalating conflict.

    The previous Starmer government had committed to deploying British naval assets to the strait only after a lasting ceasefire was in place. But Streeting announced over the weekend that the UK is now prepared to lead a naval mission “when the conditions are right.”

    It remains uncertain whether the proposed summit will actually take place, but analysts warn the Burnham government could struggle to resist growing US pressure to deepen British involvement in the conflict if hostilities continue to escalate. If the UK does expand its role, it will face renewed criticism from opposition groups including the Green Party, which has opposed granting the US access to British bases for strikes on Iran from the start.

    Green Party leader Zack Polanski slammed Burnham’s position in comments Sunday, saying: “The illegal war in Iran should do a lot more than ‘concern’ Andy Burnham. And if he’s not holding back – when is he going to tell Donald Trump that the UK wants nothing to do with this war and to ban the US military from UK soil?”

    Burnham also faces growing unrest within his own party: many Labour backbenchers who supported his bid for the premiership have already called on him to take a much firmer stance against Israel’s actions in Gaza, and are likely to oppose deeper involvement in the US-Iran conflict. Last week alone, 80 cross-party MPs and peers—including dozens of Labour politicians—issued an open letter urging Burnham to formally recognize Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide, impose sanctions on Israel, and ban all trade that supports illegal Israeli settlements.

    The issue of UK-Israel military cooperation also creates internal tension: last year, while serving as Starmer’s health secretary, Wes Streeting privately accused Israel of committing war crimes and backed imposing sanctions on the country. Now, Streeting is facing growing calls from within his own party to suspend Britain’s long-running secret military agreement with Israel.

    Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, predicted in an assessment that Burnham will largely maintain the cautious path set by his predecessor. “I think Prime Minister Burnham will continue to navigate a similar policy to his predecessor, namely that he will not wish to have British forces engage actively on any war on Iran and will continue to allow limited use of RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia,” Doyle said. On the topic of the UK’s potential role in the Strait of Hormuz, Doyle added: “There may be some sort of role in terms of de-mining and escorting in a very defensive capacity, but not one that is offensive. I think that’ll be where they draw the line.”

    For the Burnham government, which campaigned on putting domestic issues front and center, the sudden escalation of Middle Eastern conflict has already created an unavoidable early crisis. What the new prime minister hoped would be a first week focused on his domestic agenda has instead become a high-stakes balancing act: caught between majority public opposition to deeper involvement, pressure from the left of his own party to take a harder line against both the US and Israel, and relentless pressure from Washington to back the US campaign against Iran. For a new administration eager to set its own agenda, the crisis has already emerged as a severe early political and diplomatic headache that will not fade anytime soon.

  • Trump defends tariffs in hard-hit Michigan as Canada tax hike looms

    Trump defends tariffs in hard-hit Michigan as Canada tax hike looms

    On a high-stakes campaign-focused stop in Michigan, a critical Rust Belt battleground that shifted to Republican control in 2024, former and current U.S. President Donald Trump doubled down on his signature economic agenda, defending the sweeping tariffs that have roiled the state’s dominant automobile manufacturing sector.

    Speaking to workers at a General Motors facility in Milford, Trump framed his so-called “historic” tariff measures as a transformative intervention for American auto manufacturing, arguing that the import levies are pushing multinational companies to shift production facilities back to U.S. soil from overseas locations. “The rule is straightforward: Build your trucks or cars outside the United States and you’ll pay a fee for the right to sell them here and profit,” Trump told the assembled crowd Monday. “Build your plant in Michigan or anywhere else in America and produce the vehicles right here at home, and you’ll face no tariff at all.”

    The White House sought to back up the president’s claims ahead of his appearance, pointing to a $6 million investment in domestic U.S. manufacturing by General Motors, alongside smaller production commitments from other major U.S.-based automakers including Ford, Stellantis and Detroit Diesel as tangible proof of the policies’ success.

    But the reality on the ground in Michigan tells a far more complicated story. The state’s economy is deeply interconnected with neighboring Canada, the United States’ largest trading partner in the auto sector, which has been targeted by a series of escalating Trump administration tariffs. Under current rules, a 25% levy applies to non-U.S. content in Canadian-assembled passenger vehicles and auto parts that do not meet origin requirements under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), with additional tariffs on imported steel that have pushed up production costs for domestic manufacturers across Michigan. Tensions are set to rise further in August, when the administration plans to implement a planned increase to 50% tariffs on a range of Canadian goods, including finished automobiles. Canada has already retaliated with matching 25% tariffs on U.S.-built vehicles and non-compliant auto content, creating a tit-for-tat trade dispute that has disrupted cross-border supply chains.

    Official labor data underscores the growing economic strain on the state. Over the 12-month period ending this past June, Michigan added just 500 net new jobs, a stark contrast to booming growth in other major industrial states like Texas, which added nearly 178,000 jobs over the same window. In May, Michigan’s unemployment rate ticked up to 5.1%, placing it among a small group of just seven U.S. states with unemployment rates at or above 5%. A recent TD Bank analysis also found that vehicle production fell across all three North American nations last year, with Canada recording the steepest drop at 5.4%, prompting major automakers to restructure their cross-border production networks.

    For Michigan communities, the trade friction has been compounded by broader economic headwinds: persistent inflation, soaring gas prices driven by the ongoing conflict in Iran, and slowing consumer demand for new vehicles have all combined to deepen economic anxiety across the state.

    Undeterred by the grim economic data, Trump used his appearance to frame his policies as a long-overdue win for blue-collar auto workers, blaming decades of “globalist” policies from previous Washington administrations for selling out American manufacturing jobs. “Now, at long last, Michigan finally has a president who stands up for Michigan autoworkers,” he said.

    The president’s Michigan visit, which comes as he ramps up rally-style campaign events to boost Republican candidates ahead of November’s midterm elections, coincided with a landmark moment in cross-border infrastructure: the official opening of the new Gordie Howe International Bridge, which connects Detroit and Windsor, the core auto manufacturing hubs of the U.S. and Canada. The first commercial truck carrying auto parts bound for Michigan crossed the bridge just hours before Trump spoke at the GM plant, a symbolic moment that highlights both the deep interconnectedness of the two nations’ auto sectors and the growing trade tensions that threaten that relationship.

  • US mother’s mental health was getting ‘worse and worse’ before her children’s  murders, ex-husband says

    US mother’s mental health was getting ‘worse and worse’ before her children’s murders, ex-husband says

    The closely watched murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, a Massachusetts woman accused of killing her three young children in January 2023, has begun with starkly conflicting narratives about her mental state in the months leading up to the tragedy. The case, which is scheduled to unfold over several weeks, has already sparked debate over mental health care access and postpartum complications, after Clancy’s legal team launched an insanity defense centered on claims of severe psychosis.

    Clancy, 32, faces three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and does not dispute that she caused the children’s deaths, but argues she was not criminally responsible due to her mental condition at the time. If convicted, she will be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

    The first witness called to the stand was Patrick Clancy, Clancy’s ex-husband, who delivered emotional testimony about his wife’s gradual mental decline in the months before the killings. Patrick told jurors that Clancy had long struggled with anxiety and depression, and had intermittently sought treatment from medical providers while taking multiple psychiatric medications. He recalled that Clancy had shared growing suicidal thoughts with him, and that her condition steadily deteriorated despite efforts to adjust her care, including switching to a new psychiatrist when her original treatment failed to improve her symptoms.

    By December 2022, one month before the children’s deaths, Patrick said Clancy’s mental health entered a severe downward spiral. “She started to lose a lot of weight, and she became very depressed, and she was having a really hard time,” he testified, adding that watching her struggle was an incredibly stressful experience. “She kept getting worse and worse.”

    Prosecutors have rejected the defense’s framing of the tragedy, arguing that Clancy made a deliberate, calculated choice to kill her children and was fully aware of her actions when she carried out the attack. In opening remarks, Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham told the 12-member jury that Clancy acted “intentionally, rationally, and swiftly to accomplish a very specific goal – to kill.” “She is criminally responsible for the murders, because the evidence will prove to you that she knew exactly what she was doing,” Buckingham said, prompting a visible emotional reaction from Clancy, who shook and cried in the courtroom as the prosecution described her children.

    The defense has pushed back aggressively against the prosecution’s narrative, painting Clancy as a loving, involved mother who had no motive to harm her children, and whose breakdown was the result of untreated severe postpartum psychosis – a rare, life-threatening emergency that impacts approximately 1 in 1,000 new mothers after childbirth, according to the UK National Health Service. Symptoms of the condition include delusions, hallucinations, extreme mood swings, and cognitive confusion, and Clancy’s legal team argues that she was completely overcome by psychosis at the time of the killings.

    “This is a woman that did not get the medication, did not get the medical treatment, that she so deserved,” defense attorney Kevin Reddington told the jury. While prosecutors asked jurors not to frame the trial as a broader debate on women’s mental health care, Reddington pushed back on that framing, telling the court “It sure as hell is,” arguing that the core question of the trial is what was happening in Clancy’s mind at the time of the deaths. In opening arguments, the defense displayed graphic evidence of Clancy’s subsequent suicide attempt, including photos of her self-inflicted wounds, the weapon she used, and images of her intubated in a hospital bed after the attack.

    Over the coming weeks, both sides will call a wide range of witnesses, including law enforcement officers, first responders, family members, friends, and psychiatric experts, to build their cases for the jury. The case has already drawn widespread attention for its disturbing details, and for its focus on gaps in mental health care for postpartum people, a leading public health advocacy topic across the United States.

    A public warning accompanies all coverage of the case: this story includes distressing details of violence, child death and suicide. Anyone experiencing suicidal thoughts or mental distress is encouraged to reach out to a local medical provider or a global support organization such as Befrienders Worldwide, which maintains a directory of support services across the world at www.befrienders.org.