作者: admin

  • UK defence minister quits with stinging rebuke of PM Starmer

    UK defence minister quits with stinging rebuke of PM Starmer

    In a shocking move that has sent ripples through British politics, Defence Secretary John Healey stepped down from his post Thursday, launching a blistering rebuke of Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the UK Treasury over what he calls insufficient funding commitments for national defence. The sudden exit comes after months of repeated delays to the Labour government’s much-anticipated 10-year Defence Investment Plan (DIP), a policy framework the prime minister has yet to publicly release.

    In a resignation letter published on his X social media account, Healey made clear his frustrations with the leadership: “You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.” He added that after warning Starmer he would not sign off on a DIP that failed to deliver adequate funding for British armed forces, he had no choice but to resign, warning that the underfunded proposal would leave Britain “less safe” amid growing global security risks.

    Within hours of Healey’s announcement, two more members of the defence team resigned: Armed Forces Minister Al Carns, who has previously been named as a potential Labour leadership contender, and Pamela Nash, a senior aide to Healey. The resignations mark a significant blow to Starmer’s already fragile authority, coming just one week ahead of a critical by-election that could open the door to a leadership challenge.

    Starmer responded quickly to Healey’s departure, pushing back against the criticism in a reply letter. The prime minister insisted his proposed spending plans would allow the UK armed forces to undergo necessary transformation and modernization, adding, “I will always do what is needed to keep our country safe.” He has repeatedly reaffirmed his commitment to publishing the DIP ahead of the NATO summit scheduled to take place in Turkey on July 7, despite repeated delays that have frustrated defence industry stakeholders and security experts.

    Starmer’s centre-left Labour government took power in July 2024, ending 14 years of Conservative Party rule. It campaigned on a promise to increase defence spending and prioritize NATO alliance commitments, a pledge that comes as Russian threats to European security grow and former U.S. President Donald Trump continues to pressure NATO allies to shoulder more of the cost of collective defence, reducing reliance on Washington.

    The prime minister has publicly pledged to raise UK defence spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product starting next year, with planned increases to 3% by 2029 if Labour wins re-election, and a final target of 3.5% by 2035. But behind the scenes, media reports have long pointed to deep internal discontent over the fine print of the spending plan. Healey revealed in his letter that he only received full access to the DIP draft earlier this week, and the proposal only projects defence spending will reach 2.68% of GDP by 2030, falling far short of public commitments. A source close to the former defence secretary added that the Treasury’s offer failed to set any firm timeline for reaching the 3% spending target. Calling the current proposal inadequate for Britain’s current security challenges, Healey said the plan fell “well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time”.

    Tan Dhesi, Labour MP and chair of the UK Parliament’s Defence Select Committee, urged the government to treat Healey’s warning “with the utmost seriousness”, describing the resignation as “a grave moment” for the government.

    The political pressure on Starmer is already mounting ahead of next Thursday’s by-election in the Makerfield parliamentary constituency, where Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is running for a seat. Both Burnham and former Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who resigned last month in the wake of disastrous local election results for Labour, have confirmed they would run in any future Labour leadership contest, though no challenge has formally been launched yet. While Healey has also been named as a potential leadership contender, there is no immediate evidence linking his resignation to leadership plotting.

    Political analysts warn the resignations have exposed deep divisions within Starmer’s government that further erode his standing. Patrick Diamond, a politics professor at Queen Mary University of London, told AFP the development “underlines that Starmer has become a lame duck prime minister who cannot get decisions through his own government”.

    Ed Arnold, senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a leading UK defence and security think tank, noted that Healey’s resignation “creates a sequence of political headaches” for Starmer. The prime minister must first quickly fill the vacant defence secretary post, then work to shore up internal support to finally get the delayed defence investment plan over the line for publication ahead of the NATO summit, a task that has grown far more difficult in the wake of the resignations.

  • UN experts, MSF condemn crackdown on women by Afghan morality police

    UN experts, MSF condemn crackdown on women by Afghan morality police

    In recent days, escalating tensions have gripped the western Afghan city of Herat after the Taliban’s Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (PVPV) rolled out new restrictive rules targeting women, banning public exposure of feet and the use of makeup. The heavy-handed crackdown that followed has drawn sharp international condemnation from United Nations independent experts and Doctors Without Borders (MSF), amid reports of civilian casualties, mass detentions, and mounting harm to women’s access to basic services.

  • US attack kills three Indian sailors in Gulf of Oman

    US attack kills three Indian sailors in Gulf of Oman

    In a sharp escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran that has sent ripples across global maritime security, three Indian crew members have been confirmed dead following a U.S. military strike on a Palau-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman, India’s federal shipping minister announced Thursday.

    The attack on the MT Settebello unfolded late Tuesday, after U.S. Central Command (Centcom) accused the vessel of repeatedly ignoring instructions from American forces while violating Washington’s ongoing blockade on Iranian ports by carrying Iranian crude oil. Of the 24 Indian nationals on board the tanker, 21 crew members have been pulled to safety, but three initially reported missing were confirmed dead after search teams recovered and identified their remains, said Union Minister Sarbananda Sonowal.

    Calling the deaths a devastating loss for India’s broader maritime community, Sonowal confirmed that the Modi administration is extending full support to the bereaved families of the deceased. “I have directed officials to prioritize immediate repatriation of the rescued crew and the swift return of the mortal remains of the deceased so their final rites can be carried out,” the minister added. In direct response to the fatal strike, New Delhi summoned the deputy chief of the U.S. mission in India to register its objection.

    This attack marks the third U.S. strike on commercial vessels off the Omani coast in less than a week, as Washington ramps up enforcement of its blockade of Iranian maritime trade. Just one day before the strike on the MT Settebello, U.S. forces targeted another Palau-flagged tanker with an Indian crew, the Marivex, in the same region, also citing non-compliance with U.S. instructions. All 24 crew members of that vessel were rescued by Omani military forces, and all Indian personnel were confirmed unharmed. On Thursday, India confirmed a third suspected U.S. strike hit the asphalt tanker Jalveer off Oman’s coast; the Royal Navy of Oman is coordinating the evacuation of all crew to the port of Shinas, with no reports of Indian casualties as of Thursday evening.

    The surge in U.S. maritime operations comes against a backdrop of rapidly escalating cross-border hostilities between Washington and Tehran, which reignited earlier this week following the downing of a U.S. military helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz—a critical global chokepoint through which 20 percent of the world’s crude oil and 20 percent of its liquefied natural gas transit daily. Since the outbreak of the latest conflict in late February, Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, prompting the U.S. to impose a full naval blockade on Iranian ports that launched on April 13. Centcom reported Wednesday that since the blockade began, U.S. forces have disabled eight non-compliant vessels, redirected 134 compliant ships, and allowed 42 vessels carrying humanitarian aid to pass through the restricted area.

    In the wake of the helicopter downing, U.S. President Donald Trump launched new strikes on Iranian military infrastructure across the country overnight Wednesday into Thursday, with Iranian media reporting explosions in key areas including Bandar Abbas, Qeshm, and Minab near the Strait of Hormuz, as well as multiple locations near Tehran. Iranian media reported at least three people were wounded in Tehran province. Trump defended the strikes Wednesday, accusing Tehran of dragging out ceasefire negotiations and claiming Iran had “played us for suckers,” saying the country “will have to pay the price.”

    Iran’s foreign ministry issued a sharp condemnation of the U.S. strikes Thursday, saying the attacks had rendered the nearly two-month-old ceasefire “practically meaningless” and holding Washington fully responsible for any “extremely serious consequences” of the escalation. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) retaliated within hours, launching strikes on U.S.-linked military targets in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan, extending the cycle of violence across the Middle East.

  • ‘Illegal and immoral’: How Luxembourg became the EU hub for Israeli war bonds

    ‘Illegal and immoral’: How Luxembourg became the EU hub for Israeli war bonds

    On September 1, 2025, a low-profile administrative ruling from the financial regulator of one of Europe’s smallest nations ignited an escalating legal and political firestorm that continues to gain momentum across the continent. The Luxembourg Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) greenlit a prospectus for Israel’s diaspora bond program, clearing the way for the sale of “Israel Bonds” to retail investors throughout the entire European Union.

    This approval came after the program was forced to relocate its regulatory base from Ireland, where sustained cross-party and civil society pressure – rooted in accusations that the bonds fund Israeli military operations in Gaza – pushed the US-based issuer, the Development Corporation for Israel (DCI), to seek a new host within the bloc. Under existing EU financial rules, issuers are permitted to request that prospectus approval authority be transferred to the financial regulator of another member state, a mechanism DCI exploited after departing Ireland. What followed this transfer has been widely described as procedurally irregular: the CSSF opted not to consult Luxembourg’s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs before signing off on the controversial prospectus, even amid fierce global political backlash against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

    Addressing an Amnesty International-organized conference in Luxembourg last May 2026 focused on the grand duchy’s potential legal liability, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese issued a scathing rebuke of the approval. “The sale of these bonds is illegal under international law because it goes directly to funding the genocide,” Albanese stated. “International law demands that all financial actors must abstain from direct links to human rights crimes. Those who authorized the bond sale are complicit. This is morally and legally indefensible.”

    To contextualize the growing outcry, it is critical to distinguish DCI’s Israel Bonds from standard Israeli sovereign debt. Unlike conventional government bonds sold almost exclusively to large institutional investors, Israel Bonds are marketed directly to retail buyers, religious institutions, and municipal public funds, often leveraging transnational diaspora networks and appeals to political solidarity. DCI’s own marketing material, released around the time of the CSSF approval, made no attempt to obscure the bonds’ core purpose: funding Israel’s wartime state budget. According to DCI’s official website and Instagram account, the program has raised $7.7 billion for the Israeli government since the October 7, 2023 attacks.

    All proceeds flow into Israel’s general treasury with no spending restrictions at a time when the country’s military spending has surged from roughly 20% to more than 30% of total government expenditure. Unlike typical war-time sovereign debt, which demands high risk premiums from investors, Israel Bonds carry a yield of only around 4%, despite Israel running a fiscal deficit equal to nearly 7% of its GDP. As a detailed new report prepared by a multi-disciplinary team of legal scholars, economists, and financial regulation experts explains, this gap is filled by what the authors term a “patriotic premium”: buyers motivated by solidarity rather than rigorous financial analysis accept below-market returns, while remaining largely unaware of the full legal and financial risks they are taking on.

    The report, presented at the same Amnesty conference where Albanese spoke, outlines severe legal and reputational risks for Luxembourg, as well as unaddressed dangers for retail investors. Its legal argument is anchored in three 2024 provisional measures orders from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which have all confirmed the plausibility of claims that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, alongside the ICJ’s July 2024 advisory opinion that requires all UN member states to refrain from providing assistance to Israel’s unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory.

    “The processing of Israel Bonds in EU markets is undeniably a grave violation of international law,” Shahd Hammouri of Law for Palestine, a keynote speaker at the conference, told Middle East Eye. “This act cannot be justified by appeals to financial or bureaucratic proceduralism.” Hammouri emphasized that Luxembourg’s regulator already held discretionary authority under EU prospectus rules to reject approval on public interest and peace and security grounds, and its failure to exercise that power amid clear risks of complicity in international crimes constitutes a direct breach of legal duty. She went further, noting that decision-makers who approved the prospectus could even face personal criminal liability for aiding and abetting acts of genocide.

    The report draws a striking historical parallel to Luxembourg’s own financial history: between 1967 and 1975, Luxembourg’s Kredietbank issued approximately $625 million in loans to apartheid South Africa, and European loans to the apartheid regime were processed through the Luxembourg Stock Exchange before global pressure eventually led to widespread sanctions. Today, the report notes, the international legal framework binding Luxembourg is far stronger, anchored in binding ICJ rulings rather than incremental political pressure.

    The contradiction at the heart of this controversy is amplified by a key timeline detail: Luxembourg formally recognized the State of Palestine on September 22, 2025, just three weeks after the CSSF approved the Israel Bonds prospectus.

    The May 2026 Amnesty conference, which gathered more than 200 attendees including legal experts, activists, and parliamentarians from across Europe, produced five concrete actionable demands to be implemented over the next 6 to 12 months, with the most urgent deadline falling this coming September, when the annual prospectus renewal is due. Irish Senator Alice-Mary Higgins, who helped lead the campaign that forced the bond program out of Ireland, stressed that neither Ireland nor Luxembourg should facilitate the upcoming renewal. “If no EU member state agrees to approve the prospectus after Luxembourg rejects renewal, these bonds will effectively be barred from the entire European single market,” she explained. Higgins also pushed back against the common government tactic of hiding behind regulatory independence, arguing that “claims that the government cannot intervene because regulators are independent are not an acceptable excuse.”

    Franz Fayot, a Luxembourgish MP from the centre-left LSAP party, told the conference that his team has commissioned two independent legal opinions – one from the University of Luxembourg and one from Utrecht University in the Netherlands – both of which concluded that Israel’s violations of international law are undisputed, and that Luxembourg cannot remain inactive. “It is very clear that Luxembourg still has the power to act, through economic sanctions and through regulation of its financial sector, which is our biggest leverage,” Fayot said. He added that an upcoming cross-party parliamentary debate organized with the Greens and Left party will produce concrete policy proposals, including motions and potential draft legislation to hold the current government accountable.

    To date, Luxembourg’s centre-right coalition government has responded to mounting pressure with deliberate evasion. When questioned in parliament in late May 2026, ministers refused to comment on whether the CSSF’s approval triggered Luxembourg’s international legal responsibility, repeatedly citing the regulator’s statutory independence. When asked whether the government would intervene to block a renewal, ministers repeated the same position: the CSSF acts with full autonomy, and the executive cannot interfere with its decision-making. This same line was repeated by officials during street protests organized by the newly launched Stop Israel Bonds campaign outside the finance ministry, and in earlier press briefings in early 2026.

    The CSSF for its part has insisted its role is purely procedural: it only assesses whether the information contained in the prospectus is complete, consistent, and comprehensible, and that approval does not constitute an endorsement of the economic merits of the bonds or the solvency of the issuer. Critics argue this technicalist framing is legally untenable. “Hiding behind procedural technicality does not erase responsibility,” Anas Obeidat, a Luxembourg-based activist and co-author of the report, told Middle East Eye. “Legal and financial distancing mechanisms cannot be used as a shield against accountability for facilitating the financing of war crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

    The controversy also carries uncomfortable implications for Luxembourg’s broader financial branding. The small country has invested heavily in positioning itself as Europe’s leading hub for sustainable finance and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investment. While Norway’s massive sovereign wealth fund – a global benchmark for ESG investing – has already divested from companies linked to Israel’s unlawful occupation, alongside a growing number of other European financial institutions, Luxembourg’s own public pension fund remains invested in multiple companies listed on a UN database of businesses supporting Israeli settlements. The report notes that the CSSF’s approval of Israel Bonds places Luxembourg’s carefully cultivated ESG reputation under significant reputational and political strain.

    A lawsuit against the CSSF is already being prepared in Luxembourg, challenging the regulator’s failure to force adequate disclosure of risks to investors, mirroring a similar case already filed against the Central Bank of Ireland before the program’s transfer. The cross-border Stop Israel Bonds campaign, launched at the May conference, is coordinating civil society pressure across Luxembourg, Ireland, and the broader EU to prevent the program from simply relocating to Germany or another willing host if Luxembourg rejects renewal.

    With the September 2026 renewal deadline fast approaching, the core question remains: will Luxembourg’s government continue to insist its hands are tied by regulatory independence, or will pressure from its own parliament, civil society, and international legal experts force a policy shift before the prospectus comes up for a new vote. As Martina Patone, another co-author of the report, put it: “The findings in this report are not unknown to European governments. But putting them on the record reminds future generations of what was done, and hopefully holds accountable those who chose to look away in the present.”

  • Drones, lone wolves, rowdy fans: US security officials ready for World Cup

    Drones, lone wolves, rowdy fans: US security officials ready for World Cup

    As the 2026 FIFA World Cup — the largest edition in tournament history, co-hosted by the United States, Mexico, and Canada — gets underway, top U.S. homeland security officials have outlined a sweeping multi-layered security plan for all 78 matches hosted across 11 American cities, while acknowledging lingering concerns over unpredictable lone wolf attacks and unruly international fan behavior.

    The first U.S.-hosted match of the tournament, pitting the host nation against Paraguay, is scheduled for June 12 at Inglewood, California’s SoFi Stadium, kicking off 38 days of play that will conclude with the final on July 19. In comments to Fox News’ *Fox and Friends* just hours before the tournament’s opening kickoff, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin emphasized that authorities have done everything in their power to secure match venues. “We feel like we’re as safe as we can possibly be,” Mullin said, noting that every venue will have dedicated crowd control protocols and anti-drone countermeasures. However, he added a key caveat: “But we can’t control… the lone wolf.”

    Mullin explained that the highest area of vulnerability lies in so-called “soft zones” outside the secured perimeter around stadiums, where crowds gather before and after matches. To mitigate this risk, he said local and state law enforcement agencies will maintain a visible, flexible presence in these outer areas to respond quickly to any incident, reaffirming that “the games are going to be very secure.”

    Drawing a comparison to the United States’ most-watched annual sporting event to put the World Cup’s scale in perspective, Mullin noted the tournament will deliver what amounts to 78 Super Bowls over just 38 days. Many matches will draw crowds larger than the annual NFL championship, he added, with a projected global audience of 1.4 billion viewers — far outstripping the 250 million who tune into the Super Bowl annually.

    Andrew Giuliani, head of the White House World Cup Task Force, detailed key new security upgrades this week during an appearance at the Washington-based Atlantic Council. A core addition is full anti-drone coverage for every U.S.-hosted match, backed by a $500 million federal grant that funded specialized training for local and state officers to counter unauthorized drone incursions. The need for this measure was underscored by recent incidents at other major global events: a French National Assembly report recorded 355 unauthorized drone intrusions during the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, resulting in 81 arrests.

    Giuliani noted that the 2026 World Cup marks the first time the United States has hosted a global sporting event of this scale since the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. As of the tournament’s opening, he confirmed there are no credible active threats against the event, but authorities are maintaining constant, intensive monitoring. “I can tell you that a big part of my day gets spent in a SCIF” — a sensitive compartmented information facility, the secured room used to discuss classified intelligence — Giuliani said, adding that “the intelligence community is tripled down looking at this World Cup, and we’ll continue to monitor it between now and whenever the final goal is scored on July 19th.”

    Much of the on-the-ground security responsibility falls to local police departments, which face the unique challenge of adapting to the different crowd dynamics of international soccer, compared to the more reserved crowds the majority of U.S. officers are accustomed to managing at NFL games. The 2024 Copa America, held in the U.S. as a warm-up event for the World Cup, exposed this gap: stadium security and local officers were caught off guard by the more boisterous behavior of international soccer fans. Giuliani told ESPN that many common celebratory behaviors from international fans may look like a riot to officers who only have experience with domestic U.S. sports crowds, requiring adjusted training and expectations.

    Local departments have rolled out targeted adaptations to address this gap. The Philadelphia Police Department, for example, will equip all officers working matches with body cameras that feature live translation capabilities, to streamline communication with foreign fans who do not speak English. Philadelphia, a city with deep historical significance to the United States, will host six matches during the tournament — including a Round of 16 matchup on July 4, which coincides with 250th anniversary celebrations of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The city’s Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5 president Roosevelt Poplar told ESPN that the department has implemented mandatory overtime for all officers during the “all hands on deck” tournament period, with a focus on ensuring officers are prepared for the extended 39-day operational window. “We want to make sure our officers are mentally prepared to handle the long 39 days this is going to be,” Poplar said.

  • World Cup kicks off in Mexico with Shakira, local performers and vibrant fans

    World Cup kicks off in Mexico with Shakira, local performers and vibrant fans

    The 2026 FIFA World Cup, the first 48-team edition of global football’s flagship tournament, officially launched on Thursday at Mexico City’s iconic Azteca Stadium, marking four decades since the nation last hosted the competition’s opening match. Against a backdrop of months of preparation challenges—from large-scale infrastructure renovations at the city’s airport and the historic Azteca venue, to widespread public protests and ongoing concerns about regional cartel violence—football fans and organizers set aside pre-tournament tensions to celebrate the start of the month-long competition.

    Thousands of cheering supporters packed into the 100-year-old stadium, many decked head-to-toe in Mexico’s signature green, white and red team colors, brimming with anticipation for the first match of the tournament between co-host Mexico and South Africa. For first-time World Cup attendee Javier Pérez, who traveled to the capital with his entire family to secure coveted hospitality tickets, the energy inside the stadium overshadowed every logistical headache and pre-event worry that marked the months leading up to kickoff.

    “It’s a unique experience. I have never been to a World Cup before so to bring my family is wonderful,” Pérez told reporters ahead of the ceremony. “I just want Mexico to get off on the right foot, win today and score a load of goals! And then we’ll see how far we can go!”

    The opening celebration drew a lineup of global music superstars that blended Latin culture with global hitmakers, headlined by Colombian global icon Shakira. She was joined on the Azteca stage by fellow Colombian star J Balvin, Nigerian Afrobeats pioneer Burna Boy, Venezuelan Latin hitmaker Danny Ocean, and iconic Mexican rock frontman Fher Olvera. In a nod to the opening match’s teams, Mexican singer Alejandro Fernández—son of legendary Mexican crooner Vicente Fernández—delivered a stirring performance of Mexico’s national anthem, while Grammy-winning South African breakout star Tyla performed her country’s anthem before taking the field.

    Tyla, who already holds a World Cup credit for her 2026 official tournament track “Game Time,” will reprise her performance role on Friday for the U.S. opening ceremony in Los Angeles, where she will share the stage with pop star Katy Perry, rapper Future, Blackpink’s Lisa, and Brazilian pop icon Anitta. Canada will also hold its own opening celebration Friday for matches hosted on its territory, as the 2026 tournament is split across the three North American co-hosts.

    The Azteca ceremony leaned heavily into Mexico’s rich indigenous heritage, with dozens of performers wearing traditional handcrafted indigenous garments, while other dance troupes wore all-gold regalia and carried oversized golden footballs across the pitch. When the 90-minute celebration drew to a close and the opening match kicked off, thousands of elated fans tossed their traditional Mexican sombreros into the air, embracing the once-in-a-generation moment of hosting world football’s biggest event on home soil after 40 years of waiting.

  • She survived an Israeli raid that left babies decomposing. Now she awaits treatment

    She survived an Israeli raid that left babies decomposing. Now she awaits treatment

    On the eve of the October 2023 outbreak of war in Gaza, Palestinian mother Samar Hammad welcomed her youngest daughter into the world. She named the baby Nour – Arabic for “light” – a name filled with quiet hope for a new life. What Hammad could never have foreseen in that moment was that just hours after her daughter’s birth, this tiny child would be thrown into a fight for survival, caught in the collapse of Gaza’s healthcare system under Israeli military advance.

    Nour was born perfectly healthy, Hammad recalled in an interview with Middle East Eye from her displacement tent in central Gaza City. Barely hours after the new mother and baby returned home, Israeli bombardment hit near their neighborhood, damaging a nearby building. Within a day, Nour began slipping into unconsciousness. With her condition worsening by the minute, Hammad rushed the newborn to al-Nasr Children’s Hospital in Gaza City. Doctors quickly delivered a grim diagnosis: Nour was suffering life-threatening complications from inhaling toxic gases released by the nearby bombing, and she was dying.

    As Israeli forces pushed deeper into Gaza, intense fighting closed in around al-Nasr, one of the first medical facilities targeted by the Israeli military. For more than a month, Nour lay in a hospital incubator, repeatedly losing oxygen as constant shelling cut off power and supplies to the facility. “The shelling was relentless,” Hammad said. “Nour was in an incubator with several other newborns. She repeatedly lost oxygen and had to be resuscitated.” At one point, doctors told Hammad there was nothing more they could do – the life support machines keeping Nour alive were only postponing the unavoidable.

    In her desperation, Hammad begged staff to let her hold and breastfeed her dying daughter. After repeated requests, the medical team relented. Within minutes of being held in her mother’s arms, Nour’s vital signs began to improve. “The machines started showing a response,” Hammad said. “The doctors were shocked. They told me it was like a miracle.”

    As Israeli forces surrounded the hospital, staff ordered all parents of incubator newborns to evacuate, assuring them their infants would remain protected. Every other mother fled south, leaving their babies behind. But Hammad refused. “I told the doctors I couldn’t leave my daughter behind,” she said. After more urgent pleas, doctors agreed to release Nour into Hammad’s care, warning that Israeli troops were advancing rapidly and the choice put both their lives at risk. “They gave her to me at my own responsibility,” Hammad recalled. “I carried her and walked out.” She fled al-Nasr on 9 November 2023.

    Later that same day, Israeli forces struck the hospital and cut off oxygen to the neonatal intensive care unit. The following day, all staff were ordered to evacuate, forcing them to abandon non-transferable infants who relied on incubators and life support to survive. Israeli troops occupied the hospital for roughly three weeks. When medical workers returned during a temporary ceasefire on 28 November, they found four incubator babies dead. Nour was the only known survivor from the neonatal ward – saved by her mother’s refusal to leave her behind.

    But survival only marked the start of a new, endless ordeal for Hammad and Nour. After escaping al-Nasr, Hammad carried her limp newborn from one damaged medical facility to the next seeking care, before becoming trapped in a school-turned-shelter for displaced people amid intensifying fighting. “She cried constantly,” Hammad said. “People would tell me to make her stop because the tanks were surrounding us, and they were afraid soldiers would hear her.”

    Eventually, the pair reached al-Ahli Arab Hospital (commonly called Baptist Hospital), where a CT scan revealed Nour had developed brain calcification. Doctors told Hammad the condition was most likely caused by inhalation of phosphorus gas from the bombardment, and that Nour would require ongoing, intensive physiotherapy to recover. For six months, Hammad brought Nour for daily treatment at Gaza City’s al-Wafa Hospital, clinging to the hope that therapy would reverse the damage.

    Securing medical care was only one layer of the daily struggle. Like tens of thousands of Gaza families trapped under siege, Hammad faced the constant threat of hunger and thirst. After the 7 October 2023 attacks, then-Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant announced a “complete siege” of Gaza, promising “no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” would enter the enclave. While Gaza had been under an Israeli blockade since 2007, this total restriction cut off all essential supplies, triggering catastrophic shortages that pushed the region’s already crumbling healthcare system to total collapse and worsened an already catastrophic humanitarian crisis. Multiple human rights organizations have concluded that Israel has used mass starvation as a weapon of war and a tool of forced displacement, designed to push civilians out of northern Gaza. By late 2025, the Palestinian Ministry of Health recorded at least 453 Palestinian deaths from severe malnutrition in Gaza – 150 of them children.

    “I would walk for hours, sometimes up to seven hours every day, searching for water,” Hammad said. On one of these treks, carrying an empty bottle across bombed-out streets, an elderly displaced man saw her desperation. Three hours later, he found her again and secretly filled her bottle from his own family’s limited reserve. “Water was extremely scarce and almost unavailable; the man had to hide the water bottle in his clothes to secretly fill it,” Hammad said. “As soon as I got the water, I prepared her milk. She drank it and finally fell asleep after hours of crying and inability to sleep.”

    Despite the constant danger and deprivation, Hammad refused to flee south. Reports of systematic abuse against displaced Palestinians at Israeli military checkpoints left her too terrified to attempt the journey, and she feared Nour’s fragile health would not survive the trip. Slowly, as Nour began to move her limbs and grasp small objects, Hammad allowed herself a sliver of hope. “She was improving, but the doctors told me she needed to be urgently evacuated for treatment abroad, which was nearly impossible at the time,” she said.

    In December 2024, Hammad heard that a respected paediatrician at northern Gaza’s Kamal Adwan Hospital might be able to help Nour. She risked her life to travel to the facility, only to find the doctor was overwhelmed by a flood of injured patients. Staff told her to return two days later for an appointment – but when she came back, Israeli forces had stormed the hospital and detained the doctor, Dr Hussam Abu Safiya. According to his legal team, Abu Safiya has been subjected to repeated torture in detention, lost 40 kilograms, suffered severe health decline, and has recently been moved to solitary confinement.

    Hammad has continued to fight to secure Nour a spot for evacuation for specialist treatment abroad, but Israel’s strict blockade keeps almost all Palestinians trapped in Gaza. Nour was officially approved for medical transfer to Italy, but like tens of thousands of other critically ill Gaza patients, she has spent months stuck on a waiting list. The Palestinian Ministry of Health reports that at least 17,757 people requiring urgent life-saving care abroad have received official medical referrals, including roughly 4,000 children. Severe Israeli restrictions mean the vast majority will never leave.

    Though Israel agreed to a limited reopening of the Rafah crossing with Egypt in February 2026, allowing up to 50 patients per day to exit Gaza, only 1,204 patients had been evacuated through Rafah and the Kerem Shalom crossing by 20 May. After more than two and a half years of fighting for Nour’s life, Hammad says her daughter’s future now hinges on a decision she can never control.

    “I have managed to rescue Nour from imminent death in the incubator, found water and milk for her during the harshest times, and took her to hospitals for physiotherapy throughout two years of genocide,” Hammad said. “Now her health is hanging on an Israeli permit that would determine whether she can improve or remain disabled for the rest of her life.”

  • Mourinho named Real Madrid coach on three-year deal

    Mourinho named Real Madrid coach on three-year deal

    In a move that has sent shockwaves across global football, La Liga and 15-time European champions Real Madrid confirmed Thursday that iconic Portuguese manager Jose Mourinho will return to the Santiago Bernabeu as first-team head coach, penning a three-year contract that will keep him at the club until June 30, 2029. The 63-year-old veteran will officially step into his new role on July 13, the opening day of Real Madrid’s preseason campaign, taking over from interim coach Alvaro Arbeloa.

    Mourinho’s appointment comes on the heels of back-to-back trophy-less seasons for the Spanish giants, who have fallen behind domestic powerhouse Barcelona in recent campaigns. The move also follows a highly successful, if underrated, recent spell at Portugal’s Benfica, where Mourinho led the club through an entire unbeaten Primeira Liga season, even as the side ultimately finished third in the table. Benfica confirmed Wednesday that Real Madrid has paid a €15 million ($17.25 million) transfer fee to secure the manager’s release.

    This marks a full-circle moment for Mourinho, who previously held the Real Madrid head coaching position between 2010 and 2013. During his first tenure at the club, he cemented his legacy by delivering La Liga, Copa del Rey, and Spanish Super Cup titles, all while leading the club through one of the most heated rivalry periods in modern football against Pep Guardiola’s all-conquering Barcelona side. It was under Mourinho’s stewardship that Real Madrid became the first La Liga club in history to hit 100 points in a single season during the 2011–12 campaign, a landmark achievement that still stands as one of the most impressive in Spanish football history.

    Yet Mourinho’s first spell at the Bernabeu was not without controversy. The manager’s confrontational, iron-fisted leadership style divided the club’s dressing room: while some players including his predecessor Arbeloa remained fiercely loyal throughout his tenure, others clashed openly with the Portuguese coach. That reputation for controlling dressing room dynamics is exactly why Real Madrid has turned to him now, following a chaotic 2024–25 season marked by widespread internal conflict and tactical disarray. High-profile incidents included a physical altercation between midfielders Fede Valverde and Aurelien Tchouameni in May that left Valverde requiring hospital treatment, and three consecutive managers – Carlo Ancelotti, Xabi Alonso, and Arbeloa – failed to find a stable tactical balance that could integrate star attackers Vinicius Junior, Kylian Mbappe, and Jude Bellingham without disrupting the team’s overall structure.

    Real Madrid president Florentino Perez, who was re-elected to his post earlier in June after promising to bring Mourinho back to the club, has long credited the manager with laying the foundational work for the club’s six Champions League titles won in the years after Mourinho’s first departure. In comments made on Spanish television back in May, Perez reaffirmed that belief, setting the stage for Thursday’s official announcement.

    For Mourinho personally, the move marks a dramatic return to the pinnacle of European club football after several years plying his trade at lower-profile top-flight sides. The manager first rose to global stardom after leading a unfancied Porto side to a surprise Champions League title in 2004, before moving to Chelsea where he claimed back-to-back Premier League titles in 2005 and 2006, famously dubbing himself “The Special One” amid his instant dominance of English football. He followed that historic run with an unprecedented treble at Inter Milan in 2010, capped by another Champions League crown, which earned him the Real Madrid job the same year.

    After leaving Real Madrid in 2013, Mourinho returned to Chelsea for a second spell, claiming another Premier League title in 2015, before inconsistent results led to shorter, less successful tenures at Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur, and Roma. He still added to his trophy haul during this period, winning the EFL Cup and Europa League with Manchester United in 2017 and the inaugural Europa Conference League with Roma in 2022. Most recently, he was sacked by Turkey’s Fenerbahce in August 2025 after the club was eliminated by Benfica in a Champions League qualification play-off, and he was appointed as Benfica’s manager just one month later, setting the stage for his rapid return to the Bernabeu.

  • Why does the US have Iran’s Kharg Island in its sights?

    Why does the US have Iran’s Kharg Island in its sights?

    More than three months into open conflict between the United States and Iran, the strategic Persian Gulf outcrop of Kharg Island has reemerged as a critical flashpoint, driven by shifting public rhetoric from former President Donald Trump over potential seizure of the facility that underpins Iran’s entire oil export economy.

    In an early Thursday post on his Truth Social platform, Trump escalated aggressive rhetoric against Tehran, claiming the US would seize Kharg Island and other key Iranian oil infrastructure assets in the “not too distant future,” assuming full control over Iran’s entire oil and gas markets. He even suggested a major strike on Iran could come that same night. Hours later, however, during an interview on Fox News, the president softened his stance, clarifying that seizing the strategic terminal has long been his “preference” — a move he claimed would generate massive economic profit for the US — but he acknowledged doubts that the American public has the “stomach” for a large-scale ground operation, and ruled out deploying American boots on the ground. Shortly after that interview, Trump announced he was canceling planned airstrikes on Iran, citing incremental progress in ongoing negotiations with Tehran.

    This is not the first time Trump has publicly floated seizing Kharg Island. Two months ago, shortly after the outbreak of US-Iran hostilities, Trump first stated he wanted to take control of Iran’s oil reserves and was actively evaluating a plan to seize the island. On March 13, US forces launched large-scale airstrikes across Kharg Island, with Trump claiming American warplanes had “totally obliterated” every military target on the outcrop, but deliberately held off on striking the island’s critical oil processing and export infrastructure.

    Located just 15 nautical miles off Iran’s southern coast, Kharg Island is far more than a small rocky outcrop: it is the undisputed economic lifeline of Iran. Ninety percent of Iran’s total crude oil exports pass through the island’s purpose-built terminal, pumped via underwater pipelines from mainland oil fields and loaded onto ultra-large crude carriers capable of carrying up to 2 million barrels of oil. Unlike Iran’s shallow mainland coast, Kharg Island’s proximity to deep Gulf waters allows these massive vessels to dock directly at its long jetties, from which they transit through the Strait of Hormuz to the island’s largest export market, China. Beyond national revenue, the terminal also provides a critical stream of income to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Iranian military and paramilitary force leading much of the country’s combat operations.

    Speculation about a potential US ground operation to seize the island has circulated for months. In a March interview with the *Financial Times*, Trump reiterated his interest in seizing the facility, noting “we could take it very easily” because he did not believe Iran had sufficient defenses to repel a US attack, but acknowledged that any long-term occupation would require a sustained US military presence. Multiple sources confirmed to CBS News, the BBC’s US partner, that Pentagon planners have already drafted detailed contingency plans for deploying ground forces to Kharg Island. While both the Pentagon and White House have refused to publicly comment on specific deployment plans or operational timelines, they have repeatedly confirmed that a ground seizure remains an active military option on the table.

    Security analysts agree that seizing Kharg Island would deliver a devastating blow to Iran’s war capacity. As BBC Security Brief analyst Mikey Kay explains, taking control of the terminal would effectively cut off a core economic lifeline for the IRGC, severely restricting the organization’s ability to fund and sustain ongoing combat operations. Beyond crippling Iranian oil exports, a US seizure would also give the American military a strategic forward operating base from which to launch additional strikes against targets on the Iranian mainland, and could provide Washington with critical leverage to force Tehran to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to global commercial shipping.

    That said, military analysts warn that any attempt to seize and hold the island would face significant operational challenges. Aaron Maclean, national security analyst for CBS News and host of the *School of War* podcast, notes that any US landing force would need to travel long distances to reach the island, whether via naval amphibious assault or airborne insertion, creating exposed vulnerability before troops can secure a beachhead.

    Iranian officials have issued stark public warnings about any attempt to seize the island or attack Iran’s energy infrastructure. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has stated that Iranian forces are “waiting for American soldiers” and would “rain fire” on any invading ground force. A senior Iranian military official also told local media that Iran would target all commercial shipping in the Red Sea in the event of a US ground invasion.

    In response to persistent threats of attack and seizure, Iran has significantly reinforced its defenses on Kharg Island in recent months, US intelligence sources confirmed to CNN. Tehran has deployed additional military personnel and advanced air defense systems to the outcrop, including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, and has laid extensive underwater traps surrounding the island, including anti-personnel and anti-armor mines to repel amphibious landings.

    Trump has repeatedly stated he has held off on targeting the island’s oil export pipelines to avoid long-term damage to Iran’s civilian economy, telling reporters in mid-March that “we can do that on five minutes’ notice. It’ll be over. Just one simple word, and the pipes will be gone too. But it’ll take a long time to rebuild that.”

    Following the March 13 airstrikes, US Central Command (Centcom) confirmed that its forces had targeted more than 90 separate Iranian military sites on the island, including naval mine storage facilities, missile bunkers, and other military installations, while deliberately preserving all oil infrastructure. Iranian state media corroborated that the terminal’s critical oil export facilities suffered no damage, noting that strikes were limited to air defense positions, a naval base, an airport control tower, and a helicopter hangar. Ehsan Jahanian, political deputy to the governor of Iran’s Bushehr province, told the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency that oil exports continued uninterrupted immediately after the strike. Iranian military officials issued a stark warning after the attack: any strike on Iranian energy infrastructure would result in the immediate destruction of all oil and energy assets belonging to companies working with the United States across the region. The US conducted a second round of airstrikes on Kharg Island’s military targets in early April, again holding off on striking oil and gas infrastructure, and Iranian state media reported that the terminal’s critical maritime export facilities suffered only minimal damage.

    Analysts warn that any large-scale US operation to destroy or seize Kharg Island’s oil infrastructure would represent a dramatic escalation of the conflict, with massive global consequences. A successful seizure or destruction of the terminal would immediately take most of Iran’s oil exports off the global market, sending already elevated international crude prices soaring even higher. It would also almost certainly prompt Iran to expand its ongoing drone campaign against Gulf Arab states and commercial shipping, potentially striking critical civilian infrastructure including desalination plants that supply drinking water to millions of people across the Gulf region.

  • Israeli MP Ariel Kellner declares Turkey an ‘enemy state’

    Israeli MP Ariel Kellner declares Turkey an ‘enemy state’

    A sharp war of words between senior Israeli and Turkish leaders has pushed already strained bilateral relations to a new boiling point, with top Israeli officials openly labeling Turkey an enemy state amid a growing geopolitical split over the ongoing Gaza conflict and competing influence across the Middle East.

    The latest escalation began when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivered a forceful address this week, arguing that Israel’s ongoing military operations in Syria and Lebanon had grown so aggressive that they now pose a direct security threat to Turkey. Erdogan went further, framing Israeli actions as a risk to global stability, and declared that halting Israeli military expansion was a universal moral duty for the international community.

    That speech drew immediate and harsh pushback from Israeli leaders aligned with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling right-wing Likud party. First, Knesset member Ariel Kellner openly branded Turkey an enemy state “for all intents and purposes” during an interview with Israeli outlet Galei Israel radio. Kellner doubled down on his criticism, describing Erdogan as a dictator with expansionist ambitions to rebuild an Islamic caliphate, saying “He is a very dangerous person who hates Israel to the core.” He called on both Israel and Western governments to formally recognize Erdogan as a global security threat.

    Netanyahu himself followed up Kellner’s remarks with an equally scathing rebuke, labeling Erdogan an antisemitic dictator. This verbal escalation is not an isolated incident: just weeks before Kellner’s comments, Israeli Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar became the first senior cabinet member to publicly call for treating Turkey as an official enemy, warning that Ankara could emerge as Israel’s next major military adversary. “If Turkey chooses the path of war with us, it will undoubtedly pay a very heavy price. Israel knows how to defend itself and how to harm those who harm it,” Zohar stated.

    The sharp exchange of accusations comes against a years-long backdrop of deteriorating bilateral ties. Turkey has positioned itself as one of the most vocal international critics of Israel’s military campaigns in Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon. Relations hit a new low in May 2024, when Ankara formally cut official trade ties with Israel and joined South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

    Despite the formal embargo, limited trade has continued through indirect third-party channels, with total bilateral trade volume reaching $924 million in 2025 according to trade data. Energy cooperation also remains intact, with Azerbaijani crude oil transported via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline continuing to flow to Israeli markets through Turkish ports.

    International reaction to the rising tensions has been mixed. When asked to comment on Erdogan’s recent statements, former U.S. President Donald Trump pushed back against criticism, telling reporters “He’s a very good friend of mine, and we’ve worked very well together. I like him a lot.”

    Analysts note that the current rhetorical escalation reflects a deeper structural rift between the two nations, rooted in competing regional ambitions, disagreements over the future of Syria, and clashing positions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict that have only widened as the Gaza war drags on into its second year.