Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • A guide to this week’s election in Zambia, a southern African country rich in critical minerals

    A guide to this week’s election in Zambia, a southern African country rich in critical minerals

    On Thursday, voters across Zambia head to the polls to decide whether incumbent President Hakainde Hichilema will earn a second five-year term, capping a contentious electoral race centered on the southern African nation’s slow progress post-debt crisis and its untapped potential as a global leader in critical mineral production. As one of the world’s top copper exporters — a commodity increasingly vital to global electric vehicle and renewable energy supply chains — Zambia’s election outcome carries both domestic and international ramifications.

    The road to this 2026 vote began in 2020, when Zambia became one of the highest-profile developing nations to default on sovereign debt repayments to China and other international creditors, a collapse exacerbated by the economic shock of the COVID-19 pandemic that put global debt sustainability for low-income countries under the international spotlight. Hichilema, who had unsuccessfully run for president five times between 2006 and 2020, won the 2021 election on a platform of economic renewal, and over his first term delivered on key structural reforms: under his leadership, Zambia successfully restructured more than $12 billion in owed debt to foreign governments and private creditors, reined in sky-high inflation, and stabilized the volatile kwacha currency. If re-elected, Hichilema has pledged to scale up Zambia’s copper production from current levels to 3 million metric tons annually by 2031 — a more than threefold increase that would push Zambia ahead of both the United States and China to become one of the world’s top copper producers.

    A total of 14 candidates are vying for the presidency, but political analysts widely identify 55-year-old Brian Mundubile, leader of the main opposition coalition Tonse Alliance, as Hichilema’s most formidable challenger. A law graduate, Mundubile was not a household name in Zambian politics until earlier this year, when he emerged as the coalition’s leader following months of internal infighting that shook the opposition bloc.

    While Hichilema’s administration can claim macroeconomic stability after years of chaos, many ordinary Zambians — in a landlocked nation of 22 million people — say they have yet to feel the benefits of recovery. Food and energy prices remain stubbornly high, and critics argue that trickle-down growth has failed to reach working-class households. “You expect a minimum of three years to be able to drive an economic agenda and turn around a country,” explained Trevor Hambayi, a leading Zambian economist. “That has passed and they’ve had five years. But these effects have not yet trickled down to the Zambian people.” During his final campaign push this week, Hichilema attempted to counter these criticisms by pledging to expand infrastructure investment in new schools, hospitals and roads to drive job growth, telling supporters, “We love you so much and this is why we are working round the clock to lower the cost of living.”

    Another key line of attack from the opposition centers on claims of shrinking democratic space. On Tuesday, the Tonse Alliance accused Hichilema’s government of orchestrating a politically motivated raid on its headquarters, where law enforcement seized campaign vehicles, communication equipment and other materials — an action the alliance says is designed to disrupt its final days of campaigning. The election has also been overshadowed by a lingering, macabre political dispute between Hichilema’s government and the family of his late predecessor, former President Edgar Lungu. The two leaders shared a deeply bitter rivalry that stretched across years: when Lungu was president, Hichilema — then opposition leader — spent four months in prison on treason charges in 2017 after his motorcade failed to yield to Lungu’s motorcade. Before Lungu’s death last year, he claimed he was effectively placed under house arrest by Hichilema’s administration and was forced to sneak out of Zambia to receive emergency medical care in South Africa.

    After Lungu died in South Africa in June 2025, a year-long legal battle erupted over where his body would be buried. Hichilema’s government demanded the body be repatriated for a state-led funeral, while Lungu’s family insisted one of the former leader’s final wishes was to avoid a state ceremony overseen by his rival. The dispute, which dominated national headlines for months, eventually went to South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal, which ruled in the family’s favor — no burial plans have been announced publicly as of election day.

    Beyond domestic politics, the election draws acute international interest from major global powers competing for access to Zambia’s rich copper and cobalt reserves, minerals that are core components of electronics, electric vehicle batteries and other clean energy technologies. China is already Zambia’s largest foreign investor, holding extensive stakes in the country’s mining sector. In recent years, the United States has also sought closer ties to access these critical minerals, though Zambia has accused the U.S. of tying approval for a proposed $2 billion bilateral health deal to mineral access concessions — a claim U.S. officials have rejected.

    Thursday’s vote is not limited to the presidency: 8 million registered Zambian voters will also cast ballots for members of the national Parliament and local government council seats. Zambia uses a 50% plus one electoral system for the presidency, meaning a candidate must win an outright majority to claim victory on the first ballot. If no candidate crosses the 50% threshold, the country will hold a second round runoff between the top two contenders in the coming weeks.

  • Trump says he switched planes after Nato summit because of possible threat

    Trump says he switched planes after Nato summit because of possible threat

    In a startling confirmation to reporters this Tuesday, former President Donald Trump has acknowledged that he was part of an elaborate last-minute plane swap during his departure from last month’s NATO summit in Turkey, arranged by the United States Secret Service and military in response to a verified potential security threat.

    “I follow the guidance of the Secret Service and the military. They instructed me to take a different flight on a different aircraft,” Trump stated. “I have no choice but to comply with their directions.”

    This public confirmation comes after weeks of media reports detailing the complex ruse pulled off on July 8 at Ankara’s international airport. According to multiple official and media accounts, Trump was filmed by television cameras boarding the standard Air Force One presidential jet, in line with his earlier announcement that he would depart on the older aircraft “for old time’s sake” after arriving in Turkey aboard a newer Boeing 747-8 provided by Qatar.

    What cameras and most people on site did not see, however, was Trump slipping off the opposite side of the jet onto a catering truck that was elevated to the plane’s entry level. He was then covertly transported to a smaller C-32A military aircraft, a modified Boeing 757 that is most commonly used by the U.S. vice president, to depart the country. To maintain the illusion that Trump remained on the original Air Force One, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth boarded the C-32A separately via external stairs to keep the flight operating under a routine appearance.

    Most journalists accompanying the presidential delegation and even several White House staff members were kept completely in the dark about the switch. After boarding the decoy Air Force One, they were instructed to close their window shades, leaving them unaware that the commander-in-chief was no longer on the aircraft with them.

    Multiple U.S. officials, speaking to CBS News—BBC’s U.S. partner—confirmed that the unprecedented security move was triggered after American intelligence detected a credible threat from Iran to launch a missile strike against the presidential aircraft. This development comes one day after the U.S. resumed targeted military strikes on Iranian positions, following the total collapse of negotiations between Washington and Tehran aimed at ending ongoing hostilities between the two nations.

    The secret plane swap has sparked public debate over potential risks, with questions raised about whether the personnel left on the decoy Air Force One were unknowingly placed in danger. But Trump pushed back against these concerns on Tuesday, emphasizing that the alternate military jet he ultimately departed on faced the greater risk.

    This is not the first time Trump has framed himself as a top target for Iran. During the NATO summit itself, he publicly stated that he was Iran’s “number one target” for attack.

  • New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says he survived a leadership vote in his own party

    New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says he survived a leadership vote in his own party

    WELLINGTON, New Zealand — Just three months out from New Zealand’s upcoming general election, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has confirmed he emerged victorious from an internal leadership confidence vote held by his center-right National Party caucus.

    The private vote was held during an emergency, hastily arranged gathering of National Party lawmakers at Wellington’s Parliament building on Wednesday. After the ballot concluded, Luxon appeared before media outlets flanked by his fellow parliamentary colleagues, delivered a short public statement and left the venue without answering any questions from assembled journalists.

    “ There was a confidence vote in my leadership this morning at our caucus meeting,” Luxon told reporters. “I had the full support of our caucus and our caucus is united and it is determined to win this election.”

    As is standard for internal party confidence ballots, the vote was conducted by secret ballot, and Luxon declined to release specific vote totals or share how many caucus members backed his continued leadership.

    This confidence vote marks the second time Luxon has called for a formal show of support from his party since April. The first vote, held earlier this year, came after the National Party recorded a significant drop in public opinion polling. This week’s vote was triggered after a series of recent public comments from Luxon that some party members have characterized as unforced missteps or gaffes.

    In an unusual move, Luxon preemptively addressed growing leadership unrest on social media Tuesday, one day before the caucus meeting. He confirmed that he would call the special session to resolve internal tensions openly ahead of the vote.

    “It is my firm belief that division and disunity are a major distraction only 90 days out from the election,” Luxon wrote on the social platform X, formerly Twitter. “I also believe this distraction is unfair to the New Zealand people, and dedicated National Party candidates, supporters and volunteers, when there is so much at stake.”

    The National Party has led a right-wing coalition government in New Zealand since the country’s 2023 general election. A former chief executive of Air New Zealand, Luxon first entered Parliament in 2020 and has served as leader of the National Party since 2021. The upcoming national election is scheduled to be held on November 7. The early confidence vote has left lingering questions about internal party unity as the National Party enters the final stretch of the election campaign.

  • Saudi Arabia opposed Egypt’s inclusion in Mecca agreement, sources say

    Saudi Arabia opposed Egypt’s inclusion in Mecca agreement, sources say

    Riyadh has blocked Cairo’s planned accession to the newly signed Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, a mutual defense pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, three anonymous Saudi sources with direct knowledge of internal negotiations told Middle East Eye. Turkey had actively pushed to include Egypt in the alliance from the earliest negotiation stages, but Saudi officials have ruled out Cairo’s membership “at least for now”, citing deepening frustration with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s government and a growing conviction that Egypt no longer delivers the strategic and military value it once provided to regional partners.

    The defense pact, signed last Friday in Islam’s holy city of Mecca, establishes a collective security framework: any armed attack against one of the three signatory states is considered an attack against all three. Saudi government officials have framed the agreement as a mechanism to boost collective regional defense capabilities, though the text remains notably vague on operational protocols, specific activation triggers, and the practical logistics of delivering joint military support during a crisis.

    According to the Saudi sources, Riyadh’s opposition stems from long-simmering bilateral tensions that have intensified in recent years. Following Sisi’s 2013 rise to power, Saudi Arabia emerged as Cairo’s largest international financial backer, injecting roughly $25 billion into Egypt’s struggling economy to stabilize it. In recent years, however, Saudi leadership has grown increasingly frustrated by what it views as a persistent lack of reciprocal support on critical regional security issues.

    One key point of contention is Egypt’s limited and inconsistent contribution to Saudi Arabia’s nearly decade-long military campaign against the Houthi movement in Yemen. Saudi officials also expressed disappointment with Cairo’s position during the 2023 U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran. Further strains have emerged from what Riyadh views as Cairo’s growing alignment with the United Arab Emirates, a shift that deepened after Abu Dhabi backed Southern Yemeni separatist groups Riyadh considers a threat to its core national security and interests.

    Two sources noted that when Iran launched attacks on UAE territory, Egypt quickly deployed fighter jets to Abu Dhabi, and Sisi has made repeated trips to meet UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed in recent years of regional conflict. No comparable gestures of support were extended to Saudi Arabia, reinforcing Riyadh’s concerns over Cairo’s strategic priorities. Saudi decision-makers also point out that Abu Dhabi has pursued multiple policies that contradict Cairo’s own stated national interests—including the UAE’s military and diplomatic involvement in Somaliland, its normalization of deep strategic ties with Israel, its backing of Ethiopia in the long-running Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam dispute, and its support for the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan’s ongoing civil war. Cairo’s continued close partnership with Abu Dhabi despite these frictions has only deepened Saudi doubts about Egypt’s reliability as a strategic ally.

    “Egypt has always been a dependent on us, on the US, and it does not give back, it just takes and takes with no return,” the former senior Saudi royal adviser, one of the three sources, told Middle East Eye. This framing echoes a broader shift in Riyadh’s assessment: under Sisi, the relationship has evolved into one where Egypt relies heavily on Gulf financial support, rather than functioning as an equal, reliable strategic partner.

    Turkey has repeatedly pushed for Egypt’s inclusion in the pact. On Saturday, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said Cairo was a “natural partner” for the alliance, and suggested Egypt could join eventually once outstanding technical issues were resolved. Multiple Turkish sources told Middle East Eye that Ankara had launched extensive diplomatic efforts to secure Egypt’s inclusion and formally submitted a proposal for Cairo’s membership. Turkish sources have claimed that once it became clear Egypt itself was uninterested in joining, the three original signatories moved forward without it.

    Saudi sources reject this account outright. The former senior Saudi adviser, who remains closely connected to the kingdom’s decision-making circles, called the claim that Egypt declined membership “laughable.” “The matter of fact is, Sisi would have been eager to join so he can reap the financial gains of this agreement, as he usually does,” he said. He added that Saudi decision-makers hold deep concerns about Sisi’s loyalty, and do not trust Cairo to the same degree they trust the leaderships of Turkey and Pakistan. The adviser did leave open the possibility of future membership, noting that “maybe in the future, if we see that there is change or improvement” in Cairo’s alignment and contributions, Riyadh could revisit the question.

    Beyond political alignment, Saudi officials argue that Turkey and Pakistan deliver far more tangible military value to the alliance than Egypt. Turkey has rapidly expanded and modernized its domestic defense industrial base in recent years, producing a wide range of advanced indigenous weapons systems. Pakistan, meanwhile, has an established, large-scale weapons manufacturing sector and one of the largest standing militaries in the Muslim world. In contrast, the sources noted, Egypt’s military-owned industrial sector is overwhelmingly focused on civilian production, and lacks comparable advanced defense technology. One source criticized the Egyptian military for prioritizing investments in civilian sectors like food processing rather than upgrading its defense manufacturing and combat capabilities. Saudi officials also question the overall combat readiness and operational effectiveness of the Egyptian armed forces.

    This assessment aligns with a broader regional shift: recent international analysis has highlighted Egypt’s diminishing role as a core regional security and diplomatic player. The Economist reported this week that Egypt, which long positioned itself as a central pillar of regional order, has increasingly been sidelined as both a mediator and a military power. For decades, Egypt was a key military partner for Gulf Arab states, most notably joining the U.S.-led coalition that expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991. Today, the sources note, even Kuwait has expressed greater interest in joining the Mecca agreement than relying on its decades-old defense partnership with Egypt for security.

    Even amid the current rejection, the former senior adviser emphasized that despite Riyadh’s current opposition, relations with Turkey—once deeply strained—are now viewed as more reliable than relations with Cairo. “The decision makers in the leadership have serious concerns about Sisi’s loyalty,” he said. “He is simply seen that he cannot be trusted, and rightly so.” In contrast, he described Riyadh’s relationships with “the Pakistanis and the Turkish brothers” as solid and aligned on core regional priorities.

    Public opposition to Egypt’s membership has also emerged on Saudi social media, with many accounts aligned with the Saudi leadership posting content arguing that Cairo does not belong in the alliance. A prominent anonymous account widely believed to be controlled by Saud al-Qahtani, a former senior aide and still close confidant of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, echoed the official Saudi position. “The door of the alliance is not open to those who only want to address their problems and benefit from it without participating in the same secure mission for the region,” the post read. “Whoever wants to join must share the same common interests of the three countries. The era of illusory entitlements, charity, and one-sided giving has passed, and the time of ‘my fate alone’ has ended, giving way to the phase of ‘our single fate’.”

    All three sources stressed that the current decision does not permanently close the door to Egyptian membership. For the immediate future, however, Riyadh remains firm that Cairo will not be included in the new regional defense pact.

  • Barred from elections, Russia’s anti-war party vows to fight on

    Barred from elections, Russia’s anti-war party vows to fight on

    On a recent Monday, Russia’s highest judicial body delivered a ruling that has shaken the last remaining vocal opposition voice against the country’s military campaign in Ukraine: the nation’s sole openly anti-war political party, Yabloko, was barred from competing in the upcoming September parliamentary elections. The decision sparked immediate outcry from roughly 100 gathered supporters outside the Supreme Court building, who raised their voices in unified chants of “Shame!” — a rare public display of dissent in a political climate that has grown increasingly restrictive.

    For 18-year-old Karina, a first-time voter and Yabloko volunteer who requested anonymity for personal security, the moment carried unexpected weight. She told reporters from Agence France-Presse that she had not witnessed such a large gathering of opposition-aligned supporters since Russia launched its full-scale offensive into Ukraine in February 2022. “I was surprised by how many people there were,” she said, describing the election ban as “simply the last straw” for a public that has grown weary of the ongoing conflict. “I think people have nothing left to lose, they aren’t willing to put up with it anymore. After all, we’re entering the fifth year, everyone is tired of it.”

    Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the Russian government has ramped up domestic political repression to levels not seen since the Soviet era. Thousands of people have been issued fines or jailed for speaking out against the military campaign, all leading opposition figures have been either imprisoned, forced into exile, or killed, and public anti-government protests have become almost nonexistent. The conflict itself has evolved into the deadliest armed conflict on European soil since World War II, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives, with all diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire effectively stalled.

    Before the Supreme Court ruling, Yabloko was the last anti-war party still legally operating within Russia. In recent months, the party has faced growing government pressure, with roughly 40 of its activists currently facing criminal prosecution. Despite the ban, Yabloko leader Nikolay Rybakov has made it clear the party has no intention of stepping back. He confirmed Tuesday that the party would file an appeal against the ruling and continue all election-related activities, regardless of the court’s decision.

    Under Russia’s mixed parliamentary voting system, 450 seats in the State Duma are split evenly between candidates elected via proportional representation from party lists and candidates elected from individual local constituencies. The Supreme Court’s ruling only prohibits Yabloko from contesting the proportional representation portion of the September vote, and Rybakov noted that 130 Yabloko members remain registered to run for individual constituency seats. It remains unclear whether those candidates will be allowed to keep their ballot access under the Yabloko party banner.

    Rybakov framed the ban as a defining moment for both his party and the future of Russian politics. “Everyone saw so many people — young people — come out to show their support,” he said. “They didn’t come just because Yabloko is wonderful: they came to support peace, freedom, and… a peaceful change in Russia.”

    Many party members have found glimmers of hope amid the setback. Marizhat Ramazanova, Yabloko’s 28-year-old social media manager, told AFP that online interest in the party has spiked dramatically in the wake of the ruling, with search queries for Yabloko across Wikipedia and major search engines jumping by 90%. “People discovered us. For them, it’s a breath of fresh air,” she said. For 30-year-old Yabloko staffer Maxim, the court decision sparked “a cocktail of emotions: disappointment and anger,” but the public show of support outside the Supreme Court left him with unexpected optimism. “The gathering outside the court gave me a sense of immense support, and that generated positive feelings,” he explained.

    Founded in 1993 by a group of pro-Western former public officials shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yabloko saw modest electoral success in the 1990s. But since 2003, as the Kremlin consolidated control over Russia’s electoral system, the party has failed to win any seats in the State Duma, with Vladimir Putin’s aligned party United Russia claiming a majority in every parliamentary election held since that time. A public opinion poll conducted earlier this year placed Yabloko’s national support at just 3%, below the 5% threshold required to enter the Duma via proportional representation.

    Still, young activists like Karina believe the ban will ultimately galvanize a new generation of Russians to push for political change. She argued that young people will soon “take the initiative themselves, they’ll replace the older politicians, new parties will form.” Looking ahead, she remains hopeful: “I believe we can steer Russia toward a better state — if not right now, then in a couple of years.”

  • Trump’s dramatic plane swap hints at personal stakes of Iran war

    Trump’s dramatic plane swap hints at personal stakes of Iran war

    A recently uncovered security operation has pulled back the curtain on the persistent personal threat Iran poses to former and current US President Donald Trump, highlighting the deeply personal stakes at the heart of the six-month ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran. New details have emerged showing that last month, following the NATO summit held in Ankara, Turkey, Trump orchestrated an elaborate decoy operation that saw him secretly switch to an unmarked alternate aircraft rather than travel aboard the iconic Air Force One 747, leaving most of the press pool and White House staff aboard the standard presidential jet as a deliberate diversion.

    Multiple US officials with knowledge of the operation have confirmed the extreme measures were taken in direct response to credible intelligence indicating Iran planned to launch a missile strike targeting Air Force One during its departure from Turkey. To complete the ruse, Trump was transported between locations and to the alternate aircraft inside an unmarked catering truck, a detail that has drawn sharp scrutiny given Trump’s long public focus on projecting unmatched strength against Iran.

    The revelation adds new context to long-documented tensions between Trump and the Iranian leadership, stretching back to his first term in office. In February 2026, a joint Israeli airstrike carried out with US approval and coordination killed Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei alongside multiple other top Iranian officials. Just one day after the strike, Trump acknowledged the personal nature of the conflict in a private phone call with ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl, saying: “I got him before he got me. They tried twice. Well, I got him first.”

    Trump has not repeated those blunt remarks publicly in the six months since the strike began, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed the framing in March comments, telling reporters: “Iran tried to kill President Trump, and President Trump got the last laugh.” Hegseth also noted that the Iranian commander who allegedly led the assassination plot targeting Trump had been killed in subsequent US strikes.

    Security experts note that extraordinary secret travel measures are not unprecedented for US presidents traveling in or near active conflict zones; past commanders-in-chief have made unannounced secret trips to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine under heavy secrecy. However, this operation marks a historic first: no prior president has implemented such a full-scale decoy ruse without at least notifying major press outlets ahead of time, under embargo agreements that delay publication until the president is safely out of range.

    Political analysts argue the months-long secrecy surrounding the Ankara operation was at least partially driven by a desire to protect Trump’s public image. The president has repeatedly claimed that Iran’s military has been thoroughly defeated and that the conflict is effectively over, so the optics of hiding from an active threat in a catering truck undermine that narrative of victory.

    The threat of Iranian assassination plots against Trump is not a new development, however. Following Trump’s 2020 order for a drone strike that killed top IRGC commander Qasem Soleimani, Iranian leaders immediately vowed revenge against the US president and senior administration officials. At one point, a public mural in Iran depicted a drone targeting Trump as he played golf at his Florida resort, making the threat explicit.

    Subsequent years have brought multiple uncovered plots against Trump, many tied directly to the IRGC. In 2022, the Biden administration uncovered an Iranian plot to target former Trump national security advisor John Bolton and issued a formal warning to Tehran. In July 2024, US law enforcement arrested Pakistani national Asif Merchant, who had alleged IRGC ties, for plotting to assassinate Trump. Four months later, Afghani citizen Farhad Shakeri was charged in a second separate assassination plot targeting the then-candidate. Merchant was convicted of the charges in March 2026, but Shakeri – who prosecutors say was directed by a senior IRGC official – remains at large.

    While those plots were foiled before they could be carried out, Trump has already faced direct physical danger multiple times. In July 2024, during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, a gunman opened fire on the stage, leaving Trump bloodied and injuring multiple attendees. Just two months later, Secret Service agents arrested an armed man hiding in trees near a Florida golf course where Trump was playing.

    New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman, who has covered Trump for decades, explained in a recent interview that these repeated threats have reshaped how the president views his conflict with Iran. “It was a galvanising moment for him,” Haberman said. “All of that in his mind becomes one big blur. For Trump himself, Iran and this feeling of being under threat is constant.”

    Multiple White House sources have confirmed Trump often jokes openly about being a top assassination target, even as the threat remains ever-present. “Nobody told me how dangerous it is to be president, and if they had told me, I probably wouldn’t have run,” Trump has told aides, according to one senior official quoted by news outlet Semafor. “And he makes comments like that in jest, but there’s a reality behind that.”

    After Trump ordered bombing strikes on Iran’s nuclear research facilities in 2025, followed by a widescale bombing campaign and naval blockade of Iran in early 2026, Tehran issued a new round of explicit threats targeting Trump personally. The president responded with a blunt warning of his own on his social platform Truth Social in July, writing: “Iran had made threats ‘to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate’ me and 1,000 missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran, with thousands more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat.”

    In the days just before Trump’s departure from the NATO summit in Turkey, Iranian leaders doubled down on their threats. At Khamenei’s funeral, attendees carried a public banner reading “#KillTrump”. A week later, a large mural on a central Tehran building depicted Trump lying in a black coffin, with the words “We will kill Trump” and “Blood for blood” painted below the image. Iran has repeatedly denied involvement in any previous plots to assassinate Trump, but the public messaging following Khamenei’s death – and rising reports of civilian casualties from US and Israeli strikes – leaves no room for ambiguity: for Iran, the conflict is far from over, and Trump remains a primary target for revenge.

    When Trump finally rejoined the press pool on the final leg of the return trip to the US, reporters pressed him about the unusual security measures, which included a Secret Service order to close all window shades on the decoy Air Force One during takeoff from Ankara. “I have read all the time I’m number one on their list,” Trump told reporters. “But if I go, you go, right?”

  • Palestinian medics in Israel face incitement over unproven patient abuse claims

    Palestinian medics in Israel face incitement over unproven patient abuse claims

    A furore has erupted in Israel after unsubstantiated allegations of mistreatment of a wounded Israeli soldier by Arab medical staff were amplified by two senior Israeli government ministers, drawing sharp condemnation from the leading representative body for Palestinian citizens of Israel, which has decried the remarks as a racist, coordinated campaign of incitement.

    The controversy traces back to claims made by relatives of an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier who was treated at Haifa’s Rambam Health Care Campus after sustaining injuries in Lebanon. Yehoshua Shani, who chairs a hardline forum that opposes a ceasefire in Gaza and advocates for continuing the Israeli military campaign in the enclave, alleged in an X post Sunday that his nephew was abused by Arab hospital employees. Shani claimed on-duty nurses, all of whom he described as “Arabic speakers”, ignored the wounded soldier’s requests for water and roughly repositioned him in bed “like a sardine”, slamming his head against the frame.

    The soldier’s brother, David Chesterman, echoed these unproven claims on Instagram. Chesterman claimed he broke down the door to his brother’s intensive care unit room after the family was denied access — a standard protocol for ICU wards globally. He alleged the soldier begged for water with no staff nearby, and that his brother described being brutally repositioned, with his head slammed into the bed by staff who did not care about his condition.

    Far-right Israeli cabinet members Israel Katz, the country’s defense minister, and Itamar Ben Gvir, national security minister, seized on the claims to call for a full investigation into the alleged misconduct, amplifying the unvetted allegations across public platforms. Katz stated that he viewed the testimonies about the treatment of wounded IDF soldiers with “great seriousness”, and confirmed he had instructed the IDF to launch an immediate, comprehensive probe into the claims alongside hospital leadership and relevant authorities. Ben Gvir added that if the claims proved true, they would amount to a “grave scandal” that should concern all Israeli citizens, and called for an uncompromised investigation that would examine whether the alleged incident constituted nationalist harassment.

    In an initial statement following the emergence of the claims, Rambam Health Care Campus said it had conducted an internal review of the incident and “rejects the claims that the patient was treated inappropriately”. But reporting from Israeli newspaper Haaretz found that many Palestinian medical professionals at the facility criticized the initial response, arguing it failed to directly push back against allegations that specifically targeted Arab staff members. One anonymous medical professional stated that the entire episode amounted to a broad attack on all Arab medical workers across Israel.

    Days later, Rambam director Dr Michal Makel sent an internal memo offering support to the hospital’s workforce. Makel wrote that any attempt to draw divisions between staff members based on their language, cultural background, or ethnic identity is unacceptable, and does not align with the institutional values of Rambam. Even this step failed to satisfy some Arab medical staff, however, with one professional telling Haaretz that clear, unwavering, and public backing from the hospital administration was required, and that the vague internal support was insulting and disappointing.

    The High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel, the primary umbrella organization representing Palestinian citizens of Israel who hold Israeli citizenship, issued a blistering condemnation of the two ministers, accusing them of weaponizing baseless claims to incite public hatred against Arab medical workers. “Fascists launch campaigns spreading lies and baseless accusations for no reason other than that those targeted are Arabs,” the committee said in a statement. It added that despite the wave of allegations, no credible evidence has been presented to prove that any Arab medical professional has discriminated against patients based on identity.

    The committee also noted that this type of racist incitement against Arab workers in the Israeli health sector is not a new development, and has been ongoing for years. It argued that the campaign stems from resentment among far-right political actors over the large share of Arab citizens employed across all tiers of Israel’s health system, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other frontline and administrative staff.

  • Watch: What is it like to travel on Air Force One with Trump?

    Watch: What is it like to travel on Air Force One with Trump?

    A surprising behind-the-scenes incident from a recent NATO summit held in Turkey has shed light on an unexpected maneuver by former U.S. President Donald Trump that caught even his embedded press corps off guard. Last month, as the summit drew to a close and leaders prepared to depart Turkish territory, Trump executed a last-minute, unannounced plane switch that left reporters assigned to travel with him none the wiser.

  • Inside the Secret Service ‘shell game’ to hide US presidents in plain sight

    Inside the Secret Service ‘shell game’ to hide US presidents in plain sight

    In early July, following the NATO summit hosted in Ankara, Turkey, a dramatic and little-known security maneuver unfolded that has now drawn fresh attention to the lengths U.S. Secret Service agents go to protect the sitting American president. On July 8, Donald Trump boarded the iconic Boeing 747 Air Force One in full view of broadcast cameras, but by the time the aircraft departed Turkish airspace, the president was nowhere on board. According to multiple security and intelligence sources, Trump was secretly smuggled off the plane via an on-board catering truck before departure, and transferred to a smaller C-32A – the military-modified variant of the Boeing 757 – which then carried him to RAF Mildenhall in the United Kingdom. The passengers who remained on the original Air Force One were unknowing decoys, with no advance indication that the president had already left the aircraft.

    This extraordinary aircraft switch is far from a one-off security trick, experts on presidential protection explain. Deception has long been a core pillar of U.S. Secret Service operations designed to confuse potential adversaries targeting the commander-in-chief. “That’s very common,” noted Ronald Kessler, an acclaimed author who has extensively covered the Secret Service’s operations and history. “There’s a long history of strategies to mislead anybody who might be trying to harm the president.”

    Smaller-scale deception tactics are already a routine part of presidential travel, even within the United States. Robert McDonald, a retired senior Secret Service agent who served on presidential protection details during the George W. Bush administration, explained that decoy assets are integrated into nearly every presidential movement. For example, presidential motorcades – which often include more than 30 security, support, press and emergency vehicles – almost always carry two identical “Beasts”, the heavily armored presidential limousine. One carries the president, while the second acts as a decoy, and the two frequently switch positions out of public view, such as under highway overpasses or in tunnel sections. “It’s what we call a shell game,” McDonald explained. “Even when we traveled from Washington D.C. to Joint Base Andrews, those two limousines would change position out of sight of anyone outside the motorcade. Different things are used to mix up the bad guy.” The order of vehicles in the motorcade is also regularly shuffled en route to obscure the president’s location from potential threats.

    The same logic applies to air travel: Marine One, the presidential helicopter, almost always travels in a formation of three identical craft, with the helicopters switching positions mid-flight to prevent hostile actors from identifying which craft carries the president. For high-risk international trips, far more elaborate deception plans are prepped and can be activated at a moment’s notice.

    Paul Eckloff, another former Secret Service agent, told BBC World Service’s *Newshour* that while full aircraft switches are not a daily occurrence, they are a permanent contingency option for executive protection teams. “When the president travels to war zones, there are frequently tactics and techniques used to create doubt in an adversary of which aircraft or which movement that he’s going to make,” he said.

    This tactic has a well-documented history in high-stakes presidential travel. In March 2000, then-President Bill Clinton flew from India to Islamabad, Pakistan, aboard an unmarked executive jet, which landed only after a decoy jet painted with full Air Force One markings touched down first. Three years later, the White House publicly announced that George W. Bush would spend Thanksgiving at his Texas ranch, only for the president to arrive secretly in Baghdad aboard a blacked-out Air Force One. More recently, in 2023, Joe Biden was quietly transported into Ukraine with only a skeleton press contingent of one reporter and one photographer, with the full details of the trip kept secret until he was safely on the ground. In all three cases, reporters aware of the plan agreed to hold their reporting until the operation was complete to protect the president’s safety.

    To date, the exact nature of the threat that prompted the Ankara deception remains undisclosed. The Secret Service has declined to comment on the incident, while the White House has neither confirmed nor denied the maneuver, only stating that it “uses every tool available to protect the president.”

    Security experts note that while comprehensive contingency plans are drafted for every presidential trip, the Secret Service maintains the flexibility to improvise tactics when new intelligence emerges, particularly when traveling abroad. According to McDonald, the decision to deploy such an extraordinary measure indicates that the threat was deemed serious by multiple U.S. security agencies. “That tells me that the threat level in Turkey was relatively substantial and quite high,” he said. “The president’s staff, the Secret Service and the White House Military Office were almost certainly immediately alerted, got together in a room, reviewed the intelligence, and put together a plan to negate the threat.”

    That assessment is shared by Marc Polymeropoulos, a 26-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency who oversaw clandestine operations across the globe and served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The key part of this is the nature of the threat, and what was so severe that the Secret Service would put forth such a deception operation,” he said. Polymeropoulos raised one key unresolved question: whether U.S. intelligence and government officials had a duty to warn the passengers who remained on the decoy Air Force One of the potential threat. “Let’s say the plane was blown out of the sky, and we knew about it,” he said. “If we know a terrorist group is going to attack a target, we warn relevant parties to prevent civilian casualties. That precedent raises questions about this case.”

    It remains unclear just how much danger the passengers on the original Air Force One faced, or if they faced any danger at all. Reporters on board the decoy aircraft noted that they were repeatedly instructed to keep their window blinds closed – a measure McDonald says is not unusual, and was intended to protect all passengers on the flight. “A large plane flying overhead where somebody could see it, with the shades up and windows illuminated, could tell somebody that it’s a particular type of aircraft,” he explained. “I appreciate the need for transparency, but [the passengers] are also part of the movement. We’ve got to make sure that you and everybody gets home safe.”

    McDonald added that the Secret Service is under no legal obligation to disclose potential threats or detail active protection operations to the public or even to non-cleared passengers, with any decision to release information resting with the White House and other senior agencies. “The Secret Service is not in the business of public relations,” he said. “We’re very good at keeping secrets, as our name says. Everybody doesn’t need to know everything.”

  • Saudi defence pact with Turkey and Pakistan sparks UAE backlash

    Saudi defence pact with Turkey and Pakistan sparks UAE backlash

    A landmark collective defense agreement signed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan has triggered an unprecedented public dispute between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, exposing long-simmering divisions over regional security strategy within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

    Dated August 7, 2026, the accord — officially named the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement — enshrines a core mutual defense principle: any armed aggression against one of the three signatory states will be considered an attack on all three. While the pact was framed by Riyadh as a step to broaden regional deterrence capabilities, it has drawn sharp pushback from prominent Emirati public figures, who challenge Saudi Arabia’s choice to build a new security architecture outside the GCC framework.

    The GCC, founded in 1981, is a 6-nation regional bloc consisting of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, all energy-rich Gulf monarchies that have long coordinated on political, economic, and security matters. Leading the Emirati criticism is Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a respected political analyst and former senior advisor to UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed. In a series of public posts on X, Abdulla questioned the strategic rationale behind the trilateral pact, arguing that prioritizing a broader regional partnership over deepening intra-GCC cooperation was a misstep.

    “Congratulations on the establishment of this alliance, but strengthening Gulf military and political cooperation and unifying the Gulf house is far more important than investing in regional military and political cooperation that includes countries whose credibility and ability to confront the Iranian-Israeli threat are not taken seriously,” Abdulla wrote. He also pressed the three signatories on a core question of alliance-building, asking, “One of the conditions for the success of any alliance is identifying the common enemy. So who is the enemy for the countries of this alliance?”

    Abdulla’s public critique drew an immediate and firm rebuttal from Saudi officials and commentators. Saudi Prince Abdulrahman bin Musaid pushed back directly against Abdulla’s claims, framing the new agreement as an exercise of Saudi Arabia’s inherent national sovereignty. “What is the problem, Doctor, if it is an alliance, a treaty, an agreement, or under any title?” the prince wrote on X. “How can this conflict with unifying the Gulf house? Is it not the right of any state to make agreements with any state or states according to what it sees as achieving its interests?”

    Fahad al-Arabi al-Harthi, chairman of the Saudi-based Asbar Centre for Studies and Research, further clarified Riyadh’s position, rejecting the characterization of the Mecca agreement as a bloc targeted at any specific nation or regional actor. He emphasized that the pact was not structured around a shared enemy, but rather focused on building collective defensive and deterrent capacity to safeguard regional security and stability against any potential threat from any origin.

    Other Saudi social media users took a more confrontational tone, pointing to the UAE’s own independent foreign policy moves that bypassed GCC coordination, most notably the 2020 Abraham Accords that normalized the UAE’s diplomatic relations with Israel. “I wonder, did the UAE inform and notify the Gulf states before its alliance with the Zionist entity?” one Saudi commenter asked.

    As the public debate escalated, Abdulla doubled down on his position, sharing a post widely interpreted as a rejection of broader pan-Arab or pan-Islamic alliances in favor of a strict, homeland-first approach to national interest. “He whose sect is more important than his homeland, there is no safety for him… He whose nation, Arab or Islamic, is more important than his homeland, there is no safety for him,” Abdulla wrote. “Belonging, loyalty, and sincerity are for the homeland alone, with no partner.”

    That post drew a sharp response from Abdulaziz al-Tuwaijri, former head of the Islamic World Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Isesco), who alluded directly to the UAE’s diplomatic ties with Israel in his reply: “Anyone who betrays and collaborates with the Zionists will never find security.”

    In a follow-up tweet, al-Tuwaijri also called out the inconsistency of the UAE’s criticism, pointing to the UAE’s own bilateral defense agreement with India and its extensive security cooperation with Israel — partnerships the UAE has pursued independently without similar scrutiny from within the GCC. He closed his post with a pointed Arabic proverb, “those who have shame are dead,” a rebuke implying that critics of the Saudi-led pact lack the moral standing to question Riyadh’s strategic choices.

    The public clash marks a rare breakdown in the usually discrete diplomatic culture of Gulf monarchies, where internal disagreements are rarely aired publicly. The dispute highlights growing rifts over how Gulf states should navigate shifting regional power dynamics, with differing visions on whether security cooperation should remain centered within the GCC or expand to extra-regional and non-GCC actors.