作者: admin

  • Ethiopian police arrest alleged leader of multi-million-dollar trafficking ring

    Ethiopian police arrest alleged leader of multi-million-dollar trafficking ring

    Ethiopian law enforcement officials have announced a major breakthrough in the fight against cross-border human trafficking, with the arrest of 17 suspects believed to be part of a multi-million-dollar criminal ring responsible for dozens of migrant deaths and widespread abuse. The operation, which unfolded over 15 days targeting locations in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa and the eastern city of Harar, netted the alleged ringleader Mohammed Tahir, who is also known by the alias “Wordi”.

    According to Ethiopian Federal Police, the criminal network stands accused of a string of heinous crimes that date back years, including the deaths of at least 60 migrants, sexual abuse of multiple female trafficking victims, and systematic torture of Ethiopian migrants held in facilities in Yemen. Authorities estimate the gang illegally extracted more than 1 billion Ethiopian birr, equivalent to approximately $6.1 million, from vulnerable migrants and their families over the course of their operations. As of the latest update, neither Tahir nor any of his co-accused have appeared before a court to enter pleas or issued any public response to the allegations brought against them.

    On Tuesday, law enforcement published photographs of all 17 suspects to their official Facebook page, as part of their public confirmation of the arrests. Court documents and police statements outline that the gang’s trafficking route moved thousands of Ethiopian migrants from the country through Djibouti and Yemen, before ultimately delivering them to Saudi Arabia. In total, investigators allege the network facilitated the irregular movement of more than 40,000 Ethiopian migrants through this route.

    The criminal group operated out of unregulated detention warehouses in Yemen, a country that has been decimated by years of civil war, leaving a power vacuum with virtually no functional rule of law. Yemen is currently classified as facing one of the world’s worst ongoing humanitarian crises by global human rights watchdog Human Rights Watch, a context that the traffickers exploited to carry out their abuse undetected. In one of the most disturbing details of the case, police confirmed that gang members recorded videos of torture inflicted on detained migrants, sending the footage to the victims’ families back in Ethiopia to extort additional ransom payments.

    After concluding the 15-day arrest operation, investigators have finalized the case file and submitted it to Ethiopia’s Ministry of Justice for prosecution. The evidence package supporting the charges includes witness testimony collected from survivors located in both Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia, along with documentary evidence linking the suspects to the network’s operations. Both the Ethiopian Federal Police and the Ministry of Justice have declined repeated requests from the BBC for additional context on the operation, including details of how the suspects have pleaded to the charges.

    This high-profile arrest is part of a broader, intensified crackdown on human trafficking networks launched by the Ethiopian government in recent months. Just three months prior, in April, police announced the arrest of a separate trafficking ring accused of luring thousands of Ethiopian migrants with false promises of passage to Europe via Libya. According to police spokesperson Jeylan Abdi, who first shared details of the latest arrest with BBC News Amharic, that previous case is now progressing through the national court system.

    For additional reporting from across the African continent, audiences can visit BBCAfrica.com, and follow BBC Africa’s social channels on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram for the latest updates.

  • ‘America killed my son’: The Ethiopians bombed by US in Yemen prison strike

    ‘America killed my son’: The Ethiopians bombed by US in Yemen prison strike

    # A Year After Deadly US Air Strike on Yemeni Migrant Detention Center: Grief and Unmet Demands for Justice for Ethiopian Victims

    For tens of thousands of young Ethiopians trapped between persistent poverty at home and limited legal pathways to work abroad, the dangerous smuggling route across the Red Sea to Yemen is often seen as the only shot at a better future. Many set out with little more than a dream: to earn enough to lift their families out of hardship, build a stable life, and return home with dignity. For dozens of these young men, that dream ended abruptly on April 28, 2025, when a United States air strike hit a migrant detention facility in Saada, a Houthi-held region of northwest Yemen, leaving at least 68 people dead and dozens more permanently injured.

    All of those killed were Ethiopian men, most in their early 20s, who had already endured years of peril and uncertainty before the strike. Among them was 20-something Hiwot Mehari, who grew up in the war-ravaged Tsirae district of Ethiopia’s Tigray region. Born into crushing poverty with almost no access to economic opportunity in his hometown, Mehari made the fateful choice to take the smuggling route out of Ethiopia, crossing the Red Sea to Yemen with plans to eventually reach Saudi Arabia for work. He spent two years in Rago, the lawless, violence-plagued border region between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, before being captured by Saudi border security and detained in the Saada facility.

    Just 24 hours before the strike, Mehari spoke to his parents, telling them confidently, “They will release us soon and we will reunite.” The next day at noon, a neighbor delivered the devastating news to his family at their Tigray home. Mehari’s father, Mehari Akeza, says he still cannot process the loss of his son, who he waits for still. “I still can’t accept that my son is gone. I sometimes keep telling myself he will come back, and I wait for his call. How could I believe it? I wasn’t even able to properly bury my son,” Akeza told Middle East Eye in an interview, sitting alongside his heartbroken wife. His son’s mother, Mebrat Gebre, summed up the family’s agony with a question that remains unanswered: “America killed my son, my pride, why? I have never heard of a government killing prisoners for no reason.”

    Mehari’s family is far from alone in their grief. The tragedy has mirrored the pain of hundreds of other Ethiopian families who have lost young relatives to the risks of irregular migration, a crisis that continues to drive thousands of young Ethiopians toward the Gulf each month despite its dangers. Another victim of the strike, 22-year-old Tsiruy Hailu, had left Ethiopia for Yemen in 2022 to fulfill his dream of supporting his family after his father died when he was a child. As the eldest of four children, Hailu had become the family’s sole breadwinner after his father’s death. “My soul is broken, he was my all,” his mother Berhan Akeza, 47, told reporters. “He wasn’t only my son, but also the one who carried the burden of the family after his father’s death 12 years ago.” Akeza’s pain was deepened after she saw graphic footage of the destroyed detention center, showing bodies crushed under rubble. Having already survived the Tigray war, which saw United Arab Emirates drone strikes kill countless civilians, she says the trauma of her son’s death haunts her constantly: “I saw the horrific footage on someone’s mobile phone. Sometimes, I picture my son lying with his body dismembered. I can imagine how drones kill a human being.”

    Beyond the dozens killed, the strike left dozens more survivors facing permanent disability, lifelong trauma, and shattered futures. Middle East Eye spoke to three severely injured survivors, two still stranded in Yemen and one who has returned to Ethiopia, all dependent on others for basic care. Twenty-seven-year-old Haben Tuemzgi, who migrated to Yemen seven years ago hoping to save enough to open a business back home, suffered catastrophic injuries to both his legs and hands, with shrapnel still embedded in his bones that continues to cause worsening pain due to a lack of adequate medical care in Yemen. Speaking from Aden via WhatsApp, Tuemzgi described his existence as a limbo between life and death: “I am like a man between death and life. Sometimes I wish I had died instead of living like this. When I left my home, I had two legs and now I have to go back on a stretcher. Trump’s America has made all my dreams evaporate into thin air. What else can I do, I am poor. Who can sue the world’s most powerful?”

    Twenty-five-year-old Haile Wolday, another survivor, lives with constant pain from wounds to his leg and hand, saying he sees no path forward. “I have no future to see. I came here to make money and feed my family but now people are feeding me,” he said. A third survivor, who returned home to Tigray’s Gulomekeda district and requested anonymity, suffers from severe injuries to his leg and eye that require ongoing treatment he cannot afford. “I was a man with a big dream before America turned my life upside down,” he said. “I never thought that I could be a burden to my family.”

    More than a year after the strike, no progress has been made toward holding anyone accountable, providing answers to grieving families, or delivering compensation to victims and their relatives, according to Amnesty International. “One year on, US officials have failed to hold anyone accountable or even to clarify the status or outcome of the investigations they had announced a year earlier,” Erika Guevara Rosas of Amnesty International said in April. “Families of those killed in the attack on the detention centre in Yemen are still being denied basic information about what happened, [and] remain without justice for their loved ones.” The US State Department has not responded to requests for comment on the strike.

    For the families of the victims, who live in remote rural areas of northern Ethiopia that are still recovering from years of brutal war, the silence from global powers has only deepened their pain. “The world seems to have forgotten our children’s death. We want compensation,” said Hiwot Mehari’s father Mehari Akeza. Girmachew Adugna, an Ethiopian migration scholar specializing in the Horn of Africa, says the demands of grieving families are clear: “The families of Ethiopian migrants who were killed in the strike deserve justice, including a transparent investigation, accountability and appropriate compensation where warranted.” He added that Ethiopia’s current migration framework fails young men who are pushed toward dangerous irregular routes: “Existing bilateral labour agreements largely provide opportunities for domestic work for women, leaving many young men with few legal migration options. Ethiopia’s labour migration strategy should place greater emphasis on protecting the rights, safety and wellbeing of migrant workers from when they depart to when they return.”

    The strike has drawn attention to the growing irregular migration crisis in the Horn of Africa. In recent years, the Ethiopian government has sought to crack down on unregulated migration and signed bilateral agreements with Gulf states to improve working conditions for Ethiopian laborers, with the country’s labor and skills ministry reporting that more than 500,000 workers were legally dispatched abroad in 2025, and the government facilitates the repatriation of thousands of vulnerable migrants each year with the support of humanitarian groups. Still, the combination of limited decent work opportunities at home, post-conflict economic collapse in regions like Tigray, and a lack of legal migration pathways for young men continues to push thousands to take the dangerous route through Yemen. Data from the International Organisation for Migration shows that irregular migration to Yemen is rising: in June 2025 alone, more than 13,300 migrants entered Yemen, 95 percent of them from Ethiopia. Many of these migrants end up detained, abused, or killed before they ever reach their destination. For the families of the 68 young men killed in the Saada strike, the wait for justice and answers will continue, as the world’s most powerful nation remains unaccountable for their deaths.

  • Zelensky sacks Ukraine’s top army commander after days of protests

    Zelensky sacks Ukraine’s top army commander after days of protests

    In a sudden shake-up of Ukraine’s top military leadership that comes on the heels of widespread public unrest following a previous high-level dismissal, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has removed Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi from his post. The leadership change unfolds just days after Zelensky ousted popular Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, a move that already prompted spontaneous street demonstrations across multiple Ukrainian cities.

    Early speculation that tensions between Fedorov and Syrskyi contributed to Fedorov’s departure from the defense ministry has since been officially confirmed. At 35 years old, Fedorov earned broad public and political acclaim during his tenure for his work revitalizing Ukraine’s defense apparatus, modernizing the country’s armed forces, and spearheading aggressive anti-corruption initiatives within the military establishment. In contrast, 60-year-old Syrskyi has long been framed by many Ukrainian observers and political figures as a commander trained in Soviet-era military doctrine, who has repeatedly resisted calls for sweeping, modernizing reforms to Ukraine’s military structure.

    In a social media statement published late Tuesday, Zelensky publicly acknowledged Syrskyi’s service to Ukraine, specifically highlighting his critical role leading the successful defense of Kyiv during the opening days of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, alongside his contributions to other key military campaigns. Syrskyi will be succeeded by Mykhailo Drapatyi, a well-respected battle-tested general who has already gained significant popular support across Ukraine. “All decisions will be formalised tomorrow,” Zelensky added in his social media post, leaving room for further details of the leadership reshuffle to be released in the coming 24 hours.

    The series of rapid leadership changes comes at a highly sensitive moment for Ukraine, as the country continues to grapple with the ongoing full-scale war with Russia, growing domestic pressure for military reform, and public scrutiny of corruption within the country’s defense sector. Analysts note that the dismissals signal a significant shift in Kyiv’s military leadership ahead of anticipated new frontline developments in the war.

  • ‘All we wanted was to bury him’: How a Gaza family struggled to recover their dead son

    ‘All we wanted was to bury him’: How a Gaza family struggled to recover their dead son

    The tragic case of Muhammed Abu Khammash, a 29-year-old Palestinian father of three with long-standing severe psychosis, lays bare the deadly human cost of Israel’s post-October 2023 military controls and territorial division of the Gaza Strip, even after the formal ceasefire took hold.

    For years before the war began, Muhammed’s family managed his condition — marked by paranoia, delusions, and unpredictable episodes — with consistent care from the Gaza Community Mental Health Centre. During acute episodes, he would receive 2 to 4 weeks of inpatient monitoring and treatment that kept his symptoms stable. But when Israel launched its military campaign in October 2023, relentless airstrikes and widespread attacks on Gaza’s healthcare infrastructure destroyed access to this life-sustaining care. Forced to flee their home and live in overcrowded displacement tents, Muhammed’s relatives became his sole caregivers.

    As the war dragged on, Muhammed’s mental state deteriorated dramatically. Two devastating family losses pushed his condition past the breaking point: first, 20-year-old brother Marwan was killed by Israeli forces while trying to collect flour for the family during Gaza’s worsening hunger crisis, and four months later, another younger brother Osama died in an Israeli airstrike while securing aid for a local orphanage. Grief unmoored Muhammed completely. He began repeatedly begging for death, shouting Osama’s name, and attempting to slip away to the Yellow Line — the de facto boundary that splits Gaza into Israeli-controlled and Palestinian-held territories — saying he wanted to find his brother or avenge his death.

    Nine family members took turns standing constant watch over Muhammed to stop him from entering the restricted zone, a precaution that reflected the well-known risk: any Palestinian who approaches or crosses the Yellow Line is routinely shot on sight by Israeli soldiers. Yet even round-the-clock care could not hold him forever. One day, Muhammed slipped away from his family’s camp. He never came back.

    The Yellow Line, established by Israeli forces on October 10, 2023, divides more than 60% of Gaza’s total territory off-limits to most Palestinians, confining the enclave’s population of roughly 2 million people to a shrinking sliver of land where overcrowding and humanitarian need have reached catastrophic levels. Israeli forces have marked the boundary with yellow concrete blocks, in some cases extending the restricted zone further into Palestinian-held territory than the original line. Dozens of Palestinians have been killed along the boundary since the ceasefire went into effect, and the true death toll remains unknown because Israeli restrictions bar families and humanitarian workers from recovering most victims’ remains, leaving bodies to decompose in open areas for weeks or months.

    Three days after Muhammed disappeared, his father Oda Abu Khammash received the devastating confirmation: Muhammed had walked toward the Yellow Line, and Israeli soldiers had fired a shell that killed him instantly. What followed was a weeks-long ordeal to retrieve his body that Oda says was more painful than the loss of his son itself.

    Access to the killing zone was completely blocked by the Israeli military, so the family turned to intermediaries with connections to Israeli-backed armed militias that operate along the Yellow Line. First acknowledged publicly by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in June 2025, these militias were activated by Israel to undermine Hamas in controlled areas of Gaza, and have been widely accused of human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians, including extrajudicial killings, abductions, and looting of humanitarian aid. Though the militias were able to locate Muhammed’s remains, they told the family they could not recover the body without formal approval from the Israeli army — a request that was initially denied.

    As Muhammed’s body lay exposed in the open for nine days, his mother refused to accept the impasse. Defying explicit orders to stay away and the constant threat of being shot, she carried a white flag and walked to the Yellow Line every day at dawn, staying until sunset to search for her son’s remains. Again and again, Israeli forces ordered her to turn back, warning they would open fire if she advanced. Each time, she refused: “If you want to shoot me, then shoot me. I’m not leaving until I bring back my son’s body,” she told soldiers through a quadcopter loudspeaker. She returned to a relative’s home near the line each night empty-handed, her anguish captured in a Facebook post by Oda, who wrote, “I haven’t seen her for two days. Before that, I avoided seeing her so she wouldn’t ask me: ‘What kind of life is this that we have, and what meaning does it hold?’ I am tired of being pitied.”

    Nine days after Muhammed was killed, the Israeli army finally granted approval for his remains to be retrieved. The family was able to bury his remains in a grave that had been left open, waiting, for days. Photographs from local journalists show Muhammed’s mother clutching a black plastic bag holding his decomposed remains, the trauma of the ordeal still raw for the entire family.

    “ I don’t exaggerate when I say the ordeal of recovering him was even harder than losing him,” Oda told Middle East Eye, a story that reflects the widespread, underreported suffering of Gaza’s families trapped between post-ceasefire military restrictions and unrelenting loss.

  • Ukraine’s Zelenskyy fires military chief after protests and names a replacement

    Ukraine’s Zelenskyy fires military chief after protests and names a replacement

    KYIV, Ukraine — In a major shakeup to Ukraine’s military leadership amid widespread public pressure, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the dismissal of Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi from his post as commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces on Tuesday. The leadership change comes after multiple days of large-scale public demonstrations across Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, where demonstrators gathered explicitly to call for Gen. Syrskyi’s removal from the top military role.

    Shortly after confirming the dismissal via an official social media statement, Zelenskyy named Mykhailo Drapatyi as Syrskyi’s successor to lead the country’s armed forces.

    In remarks accompanying the leadership announcement, Zelenskyy emphasized that the core priority of Ukraine’s leadership and military remains unchanged: securing a full victory over invading Russian forces and shaping frontline conditions and international pressure strong enough to compel Russia to enter into negotiations for a just peace. “A significant path has been traveled, the defense of Ukraine continues, and every warrior deserves dignified treatment,” Zelenskyy added, reaffirming the country’s ongoing commitment to defending its territorial sovereignty and supporting its service members.

    The unexpected leadership shakeup marks one of the most high-profile changes to Ukraine’s military command structure in recent months, coming as the country continues to navigate a grinding war of attrition against Russian forces and shifting public sentiment over the progress of the conflict.

  • Russian warship asked to ‘clarify its intentions’ off British coast

    Russian warship asked to ‘clarify its intentions’ off British coast

    In a development that underscores rising regional military tensions in Northern European waters, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has obtained exclusive audio recording capturing a direct confrontation between a French military aircraft and a Russian warship operating off the United Kingdom’s coastline.

    The encounter unfolded when the Russian naval vessel entered the maritime area near the British coast, prompting regional military authorities to request that the warship clarify its operational intentions in the area. The recorded exchange, captured by the French aircrew patrolling the region, documents the back-and-forth communication between the French aircraft crew and the Russian warship’s command during the incident.

    This encounter comes amid a period of heightened military activity by Russian naval forces near the territorial waters of NATO member states in recent years. Defense analysts note that such close-quarters interactions between Russian military assets and Western military units have become more frequent, raising concerns about accidental escalation or miscalculation that could lead to unintended conflict.

    The BBC’s release of the exclusive audio provides a rare, unfiltered look at the kind of routine-but-tense interactions that play out over European waters as geopolitical tensions remain elevated between Russia and the Western alliance. Neither Russian defense officials nor NATO command have issued additional public comments on the specifics of this encounter beyond the exchanges captured in the recording.

  • Hezbollah faces a reckoning as support wanes in Lebanon

    Hezbollah faces a reckoning as support wanes in Lebanon

    In a move aligned with a 2025 U.S.-brokered peace agreement between Israel and Hamas, the militant group announced earlier this month it would dissolve its governing administration in the Gaza Strip, ceding formal administrative control to a U.S.-backed Palestinian national committee. While this announcement marks a historic shift in Hamas’s formal role in governing Gaza, analysts have been quick to emphasize that the change does not mandate the dissolution or disarmament of the group’s powerful military wing. Many observers warn the move may ultimately be a largely symbolic rebranding effort, noting that a genuine transfer of full security and governing authority would require dismantling Hamas’s entrenched security apparatus. Still, the development has sparked urgent regional speculation: following Hamas’s step back from formal governance in Gaza, will allied group Hezbollah face similar pressure to recalibrate its role in neighboring Lebanon?

    Hezbollah has stood alongside Hamas as a core partner in Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance” since the outbreak of Israel’s full-scale military campaign in Gaza. Like Hamas, Hezbollah has sustained heavy losses to its leadership ranks and military infrastructure amid months of cross-border clashes, but unlike some fragmented militant factions, it has retained its core organizational structure and operational military capacity. A fragile 2024 ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel collapsed earlier this year following the outbreak of open hostilities between the U.S.-Israeli coalition and Iran. Just last month, Israel and the Lebanese government signed a new ceasefire deal — negotiated without Hezbollah’s participation — that explicitly requires the group to fully disarm. Hezbollah’s leadership has publicly rejected the demand, vowing to continue armed resistance until all Israeli forces withdraw from Lebanese territory.

    Amid mounting regional and domestic pressure, Hezbollah now faces an urgent need to reevaluate its dual role as a political actor in Lebanon’s government and an armed militant proxy for Iran. The group has long navigated a fragile balance between its political legitimacy within Lebanon, its regional military activism, and its strategic alliance with Tehran. Three distinct scenarios could play out as the group navigates this turning point.

    First, Hezbollah could choose to fully transform into a purely domestic political party, abandoning its armed wing entirely. Proponents of this path argue it would grant the group renewed regional legitimacy, particularly improving strained ties with Gulf Arab states. But the shift would require a fundamental rewrite of the group’s ideological identity: Hezbollah emerged as an armed militia in the 1980s explicitly to oust Israeli occupying forces from southern Lebanon, and it has remained deeply dependent on Iranian military, political and financial support for decades. For Hezbollah’s core base of supporters, ongoing Israeli military incursions into Lebanese territory continue to justify the group’s armed status. A full transition to civilian politics would also force the group to give up its long-held strategic position as an outsider critic of Lebanon’s corrupt government, requiring it to take formal accountability for policy outcomes — a role it has never prepared to fill. For these reasons, a full disarmament and political transition is widely seen as unlikely in the short term.

    A second, more moderate path would see Hezbollah retain its military wing but rebrand it as a national defense force tasked with deterring future Israeli aggression, framing the armed apparatus as a necessary complement to Lebanon’s weak national army. This narrative has resonated with Lebanese nationalist audiences in the past, but shifting public opinion has made this strategy far riskier today. Hezbollah’s domestic popularity has plummeted in recent years, as many Lebanese blame the group for drawing the country into repeated devastating conflicts that have wrecked the already fragile national economy. A growing share of the Lebanese public, including some members of the group’s core Shiite support base, now accuse Hezbollah of prioritizing Iran’s regional geopolitical agenda over Lebanon’s national interest. If this erosion of public support continues, and the group loses the ability to deliver critical social and financial support to its base that has long cemented loyalty, disarmament pressure could emerge from within Lebanese society itself, rather than only from the U.S. and international community.

    The third and most volatile scenario is a collapse of the current Israeli-Lebanese ceasefire, leading to a resumption of full-scale open conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. A return to war could be triggered by escalating regional tensions between the U.S. and Iran, Hezbollah’s ongoing rejection of the existing ceasefire terms, or its continued refusal to disarm. While the U.S. and Israel have exerted intense pressure on Lebanon’s weak central government to forcibly disarm Hezbollah, the threat of triggering a devastating new Lebanese civil war has so far prevented the Lebanese army from taking direct military action against the group.

    Ultimately, Hezbollah’s future will be shaped less by domestic pressure alone than by its core patron: Iran. Though Hezbollah has long sought to project an image of semi-autonomy from Tehran, the group’s strategic relevance is closely tied to Iran’s regional defense architecture. For the foreseeable future, Hezbollah remains a critical asset for Iran’s projection of power in the Middle East, and until that calculation changes in Tehran, Hezbollah is unlikely to abandon its armed role or alter its current status dramatically.

  • Smotrich says US fighting Iran is ‘best for us’ and Israel will not join

    Smotrich says US fighting Iran is ‘best for us’ and Israel will not join

    Against the backdrop of a resurgent military conflict between the United States and Iran, a senior far-right Israeli cabinet official has publicly framed the ongoing fighting as an optimal strategic outcome for his country – so long as Israeli forces do not have to join the battle themselves. Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister, laid out this controversial position in public remarks delivered Tuesday at the annual Katif Conference for National Responsibility, a gathering dedicated to advancing the reestablishment of illegal Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. The comments were first carried by Israel’s public Kan News outlet.

    Smotrich, a longstanding hardliner who has repeatedly called for full Israeli reoccupation of Gaza, the imposition of permanent military rule, the establishment of civilian settlements, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian populations from the enclave, emphasized that Israel has no pressing need to enter the direct fighting. “Israel has no interest in joining the campaign – the current situation is the best for us,” he told attendees. The minister went on to clarify that while Israel prefers to sit out the direct conflict, the ultimate strategic goal for Jerusalem remains the full collapse of the Iranian government – an objective he argued the United States does not necessarily share.

    “[We] must remember that the ultimate goal of Israel, and not necessarily the United States, is to undermine and weaken the regime in Iran – to the point of overthrowing it,” Smotrich said. He added that collapsing Iran’s economy is the most efficient path to achieving that end, pointing to crippling domestic economic data as evidence that pressure is already working. “Currently, inflation in Iran is at 85 percent, food inflation of over 134 percent in a total of four months, and the Iranian rial is trading at an exchange rate of 1.9 million to the dollar – and it’s going up,” he noted. Reiterating his core position, Smotrich stressed that Israel should avoid direct entry to the war, saying that “the current situation is good for us, and there’s no point in pushing ourselves inward.”

    The current cycle of violence traces back to February 28, when Israel and the U.S. launched coordinated strikes on Iranian targets after Israeli lobbying pushed Washington to agree to open hostilities. Tehran responded with retaliatory attacks on U.S. military installations across the Middle East, and after a brief pause in major fighting, hostilities reignited earlier this month. To date, Israel has not deployed its own military forces in the direct conflict.

    In mid-June, Washington and Tehran reached a 14-point memorandum of understanding to end active military operations and launch 60 days of diplomatic negotiations. But Israeli officials immediately came out against the deal, pushing to keep the military campaign alive, and have since sought to derail the agreement by continuing Israeli attacks on Lebanon – a violation of the deal’s very first condition, which required a halt to all cross-border hostilities.

    U.S. Vice President JD Vance recently confirmed these covert efforts by Israeli officials to drag Washington away from diplomacy and into deeper conflict with Iran, speaking in an interview on the Joe Rogan podcast. “You have seen this very discreet, extremely well-funded campaign to try to derail the negotiation and try to derail the deal,” Vance said.

    While Smotrich and other Israeli officials now frame the renewed fighting as beneficial to Israel, the United States is bearing the full human and financial cost of the conflict. As of the latest updates, 17 U.S. military personnel have been killed in the fighting, at least 420 more have been wounded, and one service member remains missing in action.

    Independent cost trackers have already documented staggering financial burdens for American taxpayers and households. The Iran War Cost Tracker estimated that by June 16, the conflict had cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion. Separate data from Brown University’s Iran War Energy Cost Tracker shows that American households have paid an additional $71 billion in inflated fuel costs, equal to roughly $544 per household. With hostilities having resumed since that data was collected, analysts expect these total costs to rise significantly in the coming weeks.

  • Iran becoming the ‘forever war’ Trump promised to avoid

    Iran becoming the ‘forever war’ Trump promised to avoid

    Upon Donald Trump’s return to the White House, a core campaign pledge resonated deeply with a war-weary American electorate: he would end the era of open-ended “forever wars” that had drained the nation’s blood, treasure and political capital after the traumatic decades-long interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. For a fleeting window in mid-June, that promise appeared to be within reach, when Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that appeared to open a path away from the catastrophic military confrontation that had loomed over the Middle East for months. Global markets stabilized, regional tensions cooled, and cautious optimism spread that the two long-time adversaries had stepped back from the brink of full-scale conflict.

    That hopeful outlook faded far faster than many observers expected, a collapse that was as predictable as it was swift. US military strikes against Iranian targets have resumed, and Iran has responded in kind against American positions and its regional allies across the Persian Gulf. Most alarmingly, Iran’s Houthi proxy movement in Yemen has publicly threatened to shut down the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, a critical Red Sea chokepoint that has emerged as a key alternative transit route for Gulf oil exports, particularly those originating in Saudi Arabia.

    Even as it ramps up military pressure, Washington continues to call for a return to the negotiating table. But this back-and-forth of escalation and diplomacy is not just the failure of a single peace push—it exposes a deeper, more enduring reality: the US-Iran confrontation has evolved into a modern “grey zone conflict”, where diplomacy acts as a tool to manage perpetual low-to-medium intensity war, rather than a mechanism to end it.

    When American voters and policymakers discuss forever wars, the large-scale invasions and open-ended occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately come to mind. Those conflicts followed a familiar 20th-century script: full-scale troop deployments, prolonged territorial occupation, and costly attempts at national reconstruction that stretched across decades, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and trillions of dollars wasted. The staggering human, economic and political costs of those campaigns eventually made them unsustainable, fueling the widespread public demand for an end to forever wars that helped bring Trump back to office.

    The current confrontation with Iran follows a fundamentally different playbook. There is no serious discussion of a full-scale ground invasion or long-term territorial occupation, and no mainstream US policymaker is pushing for direct regime change in Tehran. Instead, this new form of conflict is fought through a persistent cycle of alternating low-intensity attacks and diplomatic outreach: air strikes on key targets, covert cyber operations, sweeping economic sanctions, maritime standoffs, intelligence gathering, and proxy warfare waged through allied armed groups across the region. Each round of military escalation is followed by calls for diplomacy, which then collapses into renewed confrontation, with every episode framed as an isolated crisis rather than a chapter in a far longer strategic standoff.

    Viewed as a sequence of disconnected events, these back-and-forths can seem chaotic. But when examined collectively, they represent just the latest phase of a strategic rivalry that dates back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, a conflict that has gradually evolved over four and a half decades from sanctions and covert proxy activity to increasingly direct military confrontation. The rapid unraveling of the June MoU is often blamed on simple diplomatic missteps or deep-rooted mutual mistrust, but those factors do not fully explain how quickly the agreement collapsed.

    In reality, the core provisions of the MoU themselves became flashpoints for new dispute almost immediately after it was signed. The original agreement rested on unmet expectations that regional hostilities would subside, but Israel has continued its large-scale military operations in Lebanon, creating new tensions. Washington initially signaled it would ease economic pressure on Tehran, including relaxing restrictions on Iranian oil exports and moving to unfreeze billions in frozen Iranian assets held abroad. But instead of rolling back sanctions, the US has since expanded punitive economic measures, a move that Tehran views as a clear breach of both the letter and spirit of the June agreement. From Washington’s perspective, however, the new sanctions are a justified response to what it labels continued destabilizing Iranian activity across the region.

    The dispute over maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz illustrates how even carefully negotiated agreement terms can quickly devolve into renewed confrontation. Article 5 of the MoU committed Iran to guarantee safe passage for commercial shipping through the strategic waterway, and commercial traffic did initially increase in the weeks after the deal was signed. But tensions flared when Oman, working in coordination with the International Maritime Organization and backed by US logistical and political support, established a temporary alternative shipping corridor closer to the Omani coast.

    Tehran immediately condemned the new corridor as a violation of the agreed framework, arguing it undermined Iran’s recognized authority to manage safe passage through the strait. Washington rejected this criticism, maintaining that additional security measures were necessary to protect international commercial shipping from attack. Competing interpretations of the agreement quickly turned into another flashpoint for escalation, eroding what little trust the MoU had built.

    Beyond diplomatic disagreements, the character of the conflict itself is shifting in dangerous new directions. What began as limited strikes against exclusively military infrastructure has increasingly expanded to target civilian-critical facilities, including key energy infrastructure and desalination plants that supply fresh water to millions of people across the Gulf. Critical transport infrastructure, including major bridges, has also been struck. This shift has sparked fierce debate among military analysts, who question whether operational objectives are expanding beyond limited coercive signaling—using small-scale military force to pressure Iran into policy changes—to broader, more ambitious military aims. It has also raised serious legal questions about whether some attacks violate international humanitarian law, and could even be classified as war crimes in certain circumstances.

    While this expansion of US air strikes does not mean an imminent full-scale ground invasion of Iran is on the horizon, it does reflect a steadily widening conflict whose humanitarian and economic costs increasingly fall on civilian populations on both sides of the Gulf.

    The root of the perpetual standoff lies in a simple, unresolvable incompatibility of core strategic goals between the main parties to the conflict. The US remains committed to constraining Iran’s nuclear program and its expanding regional military and political influence, while Tehran views those exact same capabilities as non-negotiable pillars of its national security and deterrence posture. For its part, Israel views any strengthening of Iran’s strategic position as an existential security threat that it cannot accept. These competing goals cannot be reconciled, no matter how skilled the negotiating parties are. The June MoU succeeded in temporarily reducing tensions, but it did nothing to address the fundamental structural divides that drive the decades-long conflict.

    This reality reshapes how we should understand the current crisis. Most public debate centers on whether the latest escalation will spiral into a full-scale regional war, a risk that cannot be entirely ruled out. But a far more likely, and far less discussed, scenario is already unfolding: the US and Iran are settling into a prolonged cycle of calibrated, low-intensity confrontation that will persist for far longer than most current forecasts anticipate.

    Ironically, the president who ran on a pledge to end America’s forever wars may now go down in history as the leader who oversaw the emergence of a new, more insidious form of forever war. This new type of conflict has no clear formal declaration, no definitive end point, and alternates between quiet lulls that remove it from global headlines and sudden bursts of violence that reignite fears of full-scale war. The greatest long-term danger is not a repeat of the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions; it is the gradual normalization of an enduring conflict that reemerges again and again in new forms, because the fundamental political conditions required for a lasting peace have never been addressed.

    This new permanent standoff represents a new normal for a US foreign policy establishment that still retains deep-seated militarist instincts, maintains a massive global military infrastructure and footprint, and prioritizes maintaining US global primacy at a time when global power is shifting toward a more multipolar international order.

  • Moldova’s parliament elects investor Vasile Tofan as prime minister to push EU membership bid

    Moldova’s parliament elects investor Vasile Tofan as prime minister to push EU membership bid

    CHISINAU, Moldova — In a landmark vote that underscores Moldova’s continued commitment to Western integration, the country’s pro-European parliament voted Tuesday to install 44-year-old businessman and investor Vasile Tofan as the new prime minister, tasking a political outsider with steering the former Soviet republic’s ongoing bid for European Union membership.

    Backed by pro-Western President Maia Sandu and her ruling Party of Action and Solidarity, Tofan secured the parliamentary approval with a clear majority: 53 lawmakers voted in favor of his appointment, 21 voted against, and another 21 abstained in the 101-seat unicameral legislature.

    Speaking to assembled legislators moments ahead of the confirmation vote, Tofan emphasized he recognized the heavy weight of his new mandate. “I understand my responsibility to fight for the interests of all Moldovans,” he said, adding that he and his incoming cabinet would govern “with integrity and the unwavering will to push Moldova forward.”

    Until his appointment to the top government post, Tofan served as a senior partner at Horizon Capital, a Ukraine-based investment firm. He brings robust international academic credentials to the role: he holds a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School, as well as both bachelor’s and master’s degrees in public administration from Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands. In a surprising remark for a new head of government, Tofan clarified that he does not plan to build a long-term career in domestic politics. “I want to finish my mandate and look back at it with pride in the things I did,” he explained.

    Tofan’s elevation comes three weeks after his predecessor, Alexandru Munteanu, stepped down in an unexpected move after just eight months in office. Munteanu’s resignation automatically dissolved the entire previous cabinet, but the former prime minister offered no explicit explanation for his departure, stating only that he could “no longer exercise my mandate in accordance with my principles and beliefs.”

    President Sandu, who nominated Tofan for the prime ministerial role, has stressed that Moldova requires a cohesive, effective governing team to advance its EU accession goals. Following the previous government’s collapse, she charged Tofan with assembling a new cabinet to take forward the country’s integration agenda.

    Geopolitically, Moldova occupies a strategic position in Eastern Europe: a landlocked nation bordered by Ukraine to the east and Romania — a member of both the EU and NATO — to the west, it gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. While the majority of its population speaks Romanian, it is home to a large Russian-speaking minority, and in recent years its clear shift toward Western integration has turned the country into a key point of geopolitical tension between Russia and the European bloc.

    Moldova made tangible progress on its accession path in recent weeks. Last month, the country and neighboring Ukraine — which is also pursuing EU membership — opened negotiations on a first cluster of five accession chapters covering the foundational values of the EU, including the rule of law, protection of fundamental rights, and the functioning of democratic institutions. Just last week, both nations moved forward again by opening a second cluster of negotiations focused on foreign relations, security and defense policy, trade rules, development cooperation, and humanitarian aid.