Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • New allied trio militarily moves on from faltering US and Trump

    New allied trio militarily moves on from faltering US and Trump

    Against the backdrop of a stalemated Middle East conflict and growing frustration with U.S. foreign policy failures, three influential Muslim-majority nations have launched a landmark regional defense alliance that marks a dramatic shift in decades-long Gulf security dynamics.

    Last Friday, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement in Saudi Arabia, a pact structured around a NATO-style collective defense principle. The core text of the agreement states that any armed aggression against one signatory will be treated as an attack against all three, with the explicit goal of strengthening coordinated deterrence against external threats.

    The naming of the agreement, tied directly to the Islamic holy city of Mecca, sends an unambiguous signal that this is not a Western-aligned bloc. For more than 30 years, dating back to the 1990 U.S.-led liberation of Kuwait following Saddam Hussein’s invasion, Persian Gulf security has been dominated by American leadership, with U.S. ground, naval, and air forces permanently hosted across Gulf states including Saudi Arabia. This new alliance breaks with that long-standing order.

    Each member brings unique strategic capabilities to the new bloc: Saudi Arabia contributes substantial economic weight from its vast fossil fuel reserves, Turkey contributes NATO’s second-largest standing military, and nuclear-armed Pakistan offers critical deterrent capacity. Regional security analysts describe the pact as a clear breaking point in regional dependence on U.S. security guarantees.

    “The political symbolism of this summit is enormous,” explained Abdulaziz Sager, director of the Saudi-based Gulf Research Center. “Three of the Muslim world’s most powerful states have come together at a time of extreme regional uncertainty, demonstrating that middle and regional powers are increasingly willing to coordinate their own security agendas independent of outside actors.”

    Observers widely agree that eroding trust in U.S. security guarantees is the primary driver behind the new alliance. After U.S. policy led to a stalled war with Iran, Tehran has launched retaliatory strikes against U.S.-aligned Gulf states, disrupting global energy supplies and bringing parts of the world economy to the brink of standstill. Iran frames its attacks as a response to Saudi Arabia’s long-standing alignment with Washington. As Iranian strikes targeted Gulf territory, the U.S. withdrew hundreds of military personnel from regional bases, leaving Gulf leadership questioning whether decades of American security promises were ever tangible.

    Harvard economist Ken Rogoff highlighted this disillusionment during a Wall Street Journal TV discussion on the war’s impact on U.S. global influence. “Many Gulf rulers went into this conflict believing U.S. bases on their soil guaranteed their protection,” Rogoff noted. “Instead, they’ve found that those bases turned their countries into targets, with no meaningful American defense to back up the promises.”

    Not all analysts frame the pact as a full break from the U.S. Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, a Turkish foreign policy expert at the German Marshall Fund’s Ankara office, emphasized that the agreement is not yet a fully operational mutual defense pact. “This is best understood as a foundational framework for deeper strategic, military, and defense industry coordination between the three states,” he told Qatar-based Al Jazeera. All three signatories still rely heavily on U.S. military equipment, a dependence that cannot be eliminated quickly, making a complete split from Washington unlikely in the near term.

    Iran’s official reaction to the alliance mixed dismissal with calls for Muslim unity. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi argued the new bloc’s search for security was misdirected, boasting that Iran’s military had already proven its “readiness and capability” against what he called “the world’s most expensive military.” Still, he added that “when Muslims stand together, we can face every challenge from malicious outsiders head-on. It is time to rely only on ourselves and embrace true brotherhood.” Hardline Iranian lawmakers took a more confrontational stance: “Saudis must know that a paper agreement with Turkey and Pakistan will not bring them security, just as decades of dependence on the Americans did not,” wrote Iranian MP Ebrahim Rezaei. “Reform your policies so that you do not need to beg for security from others.”

    Beyond immediate security needs, each signatory pursues distinct long-term strategic goals through the alliance. For Saudi Arabia, the pact builds on years of efforts to diversify its diplomatic partnerships and expand global influence. In 2023, Saudi Arabia restored diplomatic ties with Iran, a deal brokered by China that signaled Riyadh’s growing willingness to look beyond Washington for partnerships. The kingdom has also collaborated with Russia for years to maintain stable, high oil prices, defying repeated U.S. pressure to lower prices. Riyadh has held deep distrust of U.S. commitment since Donald Trump’s first term, when the U.S. declined to retaliate against Iranian-linked attacks on Saudi oil tankers and a key domestic oil processing facility in 2019. Today, with the U.S. failing to defeat Iran and major powers China and Russia aligned with Tehran, Riyadh is testing whether new regional partners can deliver the security Washington has failed to provide.

    For Pakistan, the alliance offers an opportunity to break free of long-standing geopolitical constraints rooted in its border dispute with India and history of intervention in Afghanistan, allowing it to play a larger role in global diplomacy. Like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has deepened its strategic ties with China, participating in the Belt and Road Initiative to build a major transport corridor and Chinese-managed deepwater port on the Arabian Sea, positioned near the entrance to the Persian Gulf. While Islamabad’s previous attempts to mediate a U.S.-Iran peace deal have failed, it has maintained its bilateral relationship with Washington. The new partnership with Turkey gives Pakistan access to advanced Turkish military production and technology, while securing Islamabad a greater voice in Middle East affairs, a region where it has historically had limited influence.

    For Turkey, the alliance advances President Erdogan’s vision of restoring Turkey’s historical influence across the Middle East and Central Asia, a legacy of the Ottoman Empire that ended with World War I. The partnership places Ankara at the center of regional geopolitics, and the shared Islamic identity of the three-nation bloc adds a layer of historical legitimacy to Turkey’s regional ambitions. It also brings concrete economic benefits: Saudi Arabia already invests heavily in Turkish high-tech industry, Turkey is a core infrastructure and security partner for Saudi Arabia’s $500 billion NEOM mega-city project on the Red Sea coast, and the agreement is expected to lower trade barriers for Turkish consumer exports to the Saudi market.

    Militarily, Turkey can offer Saudi Arabia advanced drone technology and naval modernization support, and Ankara has the regional military footprint to help resolve the Houthi blockade of Red Sea shipping. Turkey already operates a naval base in Somalia and is building a new missile base on the Indian Ocean with capacity for missiles with a 1,250-mile range, putting the entire Arabian Peninsula, Red Sea shipping lanes, and Strait of Hormuz within striking distance. Turkey’s expanding regional role also puts it in direct conflict with Israeli ambitions, as analysts note: following the Gaza war, Israel has pushed to establish full military dominance across the Middle East, a goal that clashes directly with Ankara’s interests. “As Turkey deepened its involvement in regional affairs, its interests increasingly collided with Israel’s,” notes a report from the Jazeera Center for Studies. “Israel’s efforts to control Palestinian territory, dominate Lebanon, and overthrow the Iranian government all have direct negative consequences for Turkish security and economic interests.”

    Across the Middle East, the new agreement marks the most significant shift in regional security architecture in a generation, as regional powers move to take security into their own hands after decades of U.S. leadership.

  • France bans unsolicited telemarketing calls

    France bans unsolicited telemarketing calls

    France has enacted a landmark policy banning all unsolicited telemarketing cold calls from commercial businesses, a reform that consumer advocates are celebrating as a transformative win for personal privacy while triggering backlash from industry groups and raising economic alarms in neighboring Morocco.

    The new regulation, which took effect on Tuesday, applies to companies across all economic sectors, though it carves out limited exceptions: cold calls remain legal only when the outreach relates to an existing active contract between the business and the consumer, or when the recipient has explicitly given prior written consent to receive marketing communications.

    Leading French consumer advocacy organization Que Choisir Ensemble has framed the policy change as a long-overdue “small revolution” for household privacy and consumer rights. In an official statement, the group emphasized that the right to quiet privacy in one’s own home is non-negotiable, arguing that it was past time to end the constant bombardment of consumers with unwanted sales outreach. Group president Marie-Amandine Stévenin noted that intrusive consumer solicitation has become pervasive across all spaces, from in-person street pitches to online platforms, leaving people with little reprieve from constant demands to spend. Stévenin added that the organization has spent years pushing to end the widespread default assumption that any person in their private life is an automatic potential sales target. “This is a victory for consumers, the vast majority of whom do not want to receive sales calls,” she said.

    Data from a 2025 French parliamentary report underscores the widespread public anger that prompted the reform: 97% of French adults report being annoyed by unsolicited telemarketing calls, a level of cross-demographic consensus that report authors called “one of those rare issues that unites people in France.” The survey also found that 72% of French consumers receive at least one unwanted marketing call to their mobile phone every week, with 38% saying they get such calls on a daily basis.

    Not all stakeholders have welcomed the change, however. France’s direct-selling industry has pushed back against the new rules, with Frédéric Billon, head of the Fédération de la Vente Directe (FVD), France’s primary direct-selling trade group, criticizing the reforms for placing new heavy administrative burdens on small and large businesses alike. “You’ll have to obtain written consent from your customer, and you’ll also have to keep proof of that consent,” Billon told the *New York Times*, arguing that the added red tape will raise operational costs for firms across the country.

    The biggest economic fallout is projected outside France’s borders, in Morocco, where the country’s large call center industry is heavily dependent on contracts serving the French telemarketing market. Local Moroccan newspaper *Le Matin* reports that one Moroccan government minister estimates the new French restrictions could lead to as many as 50,000 job losses in Morocco’s outsourced call center sector.

    France is not the first European country to restrict cold calling: Germany, Austria and Italy already have strict limits on unsolicited telemarketing outreach. By contrast, the United Kingdom maintains a more permissive framework, where most telemarketing calls remain legal as long as the recipient has not opted out by adding their number to the national do-not-call register.

  • Hungary’s Parliament taps András Baka as president as part of Orbán-era purge

    Hungary’s Parliament taps András Baka as president as part of Orbán-era purge

    In a landmark step for Hungary’s new governing administration, the country’s national parliament voted Tuesday to confirm András Baka, a former chief justice of the Hungarian Supreme Court with a long history of pushing back against Viktor Orbán’s autocratic rule, as the nation’s new president. The vote caps weeks of political negotiation to remove an Orbán-era holdover from the presidency and advances the new government’s sweeping campaign to dismantle power structures built during Orbán’s 16 years in office.

    Lawmakers from the ruling Tisza party, led by newly installed Prime Minister Peter Magyar, cast 140 votes in favor of Baka’s confirmation and just six against in a closed secret ballot, with no abstentions. Orbán’s far-right Fidesz party, which held power for more than a decade before Tisza’s landslide April election victory, boycotted the entire voting process. Baka is scheduled to be formally sworn into office on August 19.

    While Hungary’s presidency is a largely ceremonial position, it carries meaningful legislative checks: the office holds the authority to send proposed legislation back to parliament for reconsideration or challenge bills before the Constitutional Court for judicial review. Baka’s ascension to the post follows a months-long power struggle to remove his predecessor, Tamás Sulyok, an Orbán nominee who retained his seat after refusing to step down at Magyar’s request. Tisza ultimately resolved the standoff by passing a constitutional amendment to end Sulyok’s term, which he reluctantly signed into law in July.

    Magyar’s administration, which took office in May, has moved rapidly to dismantle what it labels Orbán’s “mafia state” by removing hundreds of political appointees and institutional leaders tied to the former prime minister’s government. Key changes so far include suspending the public television and radio news service — which Magyar has described as a state-run propaganda outlet for Fidesz — shutting down the Sovereignty Protection Office, a body widely criticized by Orbán’s opponents as a tool to intimidate government critics and silence independent media. The new government has also passed sweeping judicial reforms, established a special task force to investigate allegations of financial corruption and abuse during Orbán’s tenure, and imposed strict new term limits: 12 years for members of parliament and an eight-year cap for the office of prime minister.

    Magyar’s government has framed these sweeping changes as a necessary step to restore democratic norms and institutional integrity that eroded significantly over 16 years of Fidesz rule. In response, Orbán and Fidesz have attacked the new administration’s policies as “tyrannical,” a claim that Magyar and Tisza have repeatedly rejected.

    In remarks delivered to parliament shortly after his election was confirmed, Baka criticized the record of Orbán’s four consecutive governments, identifying deep social and political polarization as one of the most urgent challenges facing the country after the former leader’s long tenure. While the new president acknowledged that past cases of illegal activity and financial misuse must be properly investigated and prosecuted to repair democratic institutions, he emphasized that Hungary’s political transition cannot be rooted in retaliation.

    “This country cannot build a common future while its citizens see each other as enemies,” Baka told lawmakers. “Political change should not mean that from now on people will have to be afraid, be silent, or feel like outsiders in their own country.”

    Baka, 74, brings decades of legal and judicial experience to the presidency. He served as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights from 1991 to 2008, before taking on the role of chief justice of the Hungarian Supreme Court in 2009. His relationship with Orbán’s government turned bitter early, when he was removed from the Supreme Court post three years before his term was set to end. Baka challenged his dismissal at the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in 2014 that Orbán’s government had violated Baka’s legal rights, finding his removal was directly tied to his public criticism of the administration’s controversial judicial reforms. Outside of his judicial work, Baka has also served as a visiting professor and lecturer at multiple prominent U.S. universities, including the University of Virginia, the University of California at Berkeley, and Columbia University.

  • The big questions in Luigi Mangione case as he returns to court

    The big questions in Luigi Mangione case as he returns to court

    With less than four weeks remaining before jury selection kicks off in the high-stakes murder trial of Luigi Mangione at a New York state court, the already nationally watched case is poised to erupt into one of the most publicized criminal spectacles in recent U.S. history. On Tuesday, Mangione is scheduled to return for a final pre-trial hearing, where long lines of supporters are expected to form hours before proceedings begin. For many of these backers, Mangione has become a symbolic figurehead for growing public anger over the soaring cost of healthcare in the United States, turning a routine criminal trial into a flashpoint for national policy debate. Online, the case has already split public discourse: supporters and critics have debated every detail of the incident, from Mangione’s alleged motives to his public persona, generating millions of posts and discussions across social media platforms.

    Prosecutors allege that in 2024, Mangione shot and killed Brian Thompson, a UnitedHealthcare executive and father of two, in a public attack in Midtown Manhattan. If convicted on the charges against him — which include second-degree murder and multiple weapons offenses — Mangione faces the possibility of spending decades in a state prison. He has entered a plea of not guilty to all counts.

    Over months of pre-trial filings and closed-door arguments, both the prosecution and defense have previewed their core strategies and legal battles, though several key questions remain unresolved ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, where Judge Gregory Carro is expected to finalize the last of the trial’s ground rules. The most significant pre-trial ruling came earlier this summer, following a multi-day December hearing focused on which evidence would be admissible at trial.

    Mangione’s defense team launched an aggressive legal push to block evidence collected by authorities following his arrest in Pennsylvania, arguing that state police violated his constitutional rights by improperly searching and seizing his personal belongings and failing to properly read him his Miranda rights before questioning. The defense secured a partial victory: the judge ruled that a gun magazine, cell phone, passport, wallet, and computer chip recovered from Mangione’s backpack cannot be presented to the jury. However, Carro ruled that two key pieces of evidence the prosecution has described as critical to their case — the alleged murder weapon and a notebook containing writings purportedly from Mangione — will be allowed to enter the trial record.

    Prosecutors have already outlined their case, which includes surveillance video capturing the moment Thompson was shot from behind by a hooded individual, as well as additional footage that investigators say tracks Mangione’s movements immediately after the attack. They have also noted they will present ballistics and fingerprint evidence that they argue links Mangione directly to the killing.

    To date, Mangione’s legal team has not publicly revealed its full trial strategy, and has not put forward a clear alternative narrative to the prosecution’s account of the shooting. “We do not have, like in ‘The Fugitive,’ the idea of the one-armed man who’s the real killer,” explained Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor, referencing the popular 1993 legal thriller. Earlier this summer, the defense floated and then quickly withdrew a proposed defense centered on extreme emotional disturbance, a legal framework under New York law that would allow the jury to reduce a second-degree murder charge to manslaughter if the defense can prove the defendant acted under the influence of an extreme and reasonably explainable emotional breakdown at the time of the killing. Many legal experts had speculated the defense might turn to an insanity plea, a separate legal standard that requires proving the defendant could not understand the nature of their actions at the time of the crime, but the defense has not moved forward with that strategy.

    Cheryl Bader, director of the Criminal Defense Clinic at Fordham University School of Law, noted that insanity defenses are rarely successful in U.S. courts. “Short of being delusional, or having no understanding of the nature of what one is doing, an insanity defence is not likely to be successful,” Bader said. Mangione’s legal team has declined to comment publicly on their trial strategy ahead of jury selection.

    Under U.S. criminal law, the burden of proof rests entirely with the prosecution, which must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt — a high legal standard that requires jurors to have no reasonable uncertainty about the defendant’s guilt. Epner explained that the trial’s outcome may hinge on how much the proceedings center on the broader national conversation around healthcare costs rather than the core question of whether Mangione killed Thompson. “The more his case is about the question of who killed the victim, the easier it is for the prosecution,” Epner said. “The more it’s about the other peripheral issues, the harder it is for the prosecution.”

    Whether the trial becomes a national public spectacle hinges in part on unresolved debates around media and public access, which the judge is expected to address on Tuesday. In recent weeks, Mangione’s legal team has raised objections to existing procedures for press entry to the court, and has criticized the lack of an overflow room to accommodate additional members of the public and press who want to observe the trial. The defense also formally requested that the entire trial be broadcast live to the public, a request that conflicts with existing New York state court rules that ban public live streaming of criminal proceedings.

    Prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office have said they have no role in setting media access procedures, and in a new court filing submitted Monday night, the DA’s office said it would defer to Judge Carro’s judgment on public access questions. The office did, however, note that adequate security protocols are required to prevent spectators from illegally recording the proceedings from any overflow space, in violation of state law. Court spokesperson Al Baker confirmed that the court is currently finalizing a plan for the trial, including arrangements for an overflow room. “We remain firmly committed to providing the greatest possible access for both the media and the public,” Baker said, adding that the court is “evaluating the complex logistical and safety considerations involved” to accommodate the high level of public interest in the case.

  • Experts deliver brutal obituaries for Trump’s failed Iran war

    Experts deliver brutal obituaries for Trump’s failed Iran war

    Top American foreign policy scholars have delivered a blunt assessment of the outcome of the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran, concluding that the U.S. has suffered a catastrophic defeat after an unauthorized military campaign launched five months prior.

    In an interview with Australian journalist Tom Switzer on Sunday, prominent University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer directly addressed what has become a defining vulnerability of the Trump administration’s position: the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy shipping chokepoints. The waterway, which carries roughly a fifth of global oil trade, has been largely closed to commercial traffic since late February, when the U.S. and Israel launched a joint bombing campaign against Iran. Today, Tehran now controls access to the strait, and is demanding shipping companies pay transit fees to reopen it – a development Mearsheimer says the White House has no leverage to reject.

    When asked why President Donald Trump appears willing to accept Iran’s terms, Mearsheimer offered a straightforward explanation: the U.S. has no remaining options to reverse its defeat. “He has no choice. He lost the war. This is a devastating defeat for the United States. Can you tell me what the United States should do to regain leverage over Iran? I actually think you can’t tell me because we have no solution,” he said.

    Mearsheimer went on to break down why Trump’s public threats to escalate military strikes against Iran carry no credibility, pointing to two critical constraints on U.S. action. First, the U.S. military has depleted its stockpiles of precision munitions after months of bombing. Second, key U.S. regional allies in the Persian Gulf have flatly rejected any further escalation, warning that Iran has publicly pledged to retaliate by destroying critical Gulf infrastructure including major oil production facilities and desalination plants that supply drinking water to Gulf populations.

    Mearsheimer’s grim assessment was echoed by Vali Nasr, a leading international affairs professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, who agreed that Tehran now holds the strategic upper hand in the conflict. Nasr argued that the era when the U.S. could force Iran into total submission via external pressure has permanently ended. He noted that Iran’s demand for concessions in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz is not overreach, as many in Washington’s foreign policy circle still claim; it is simply Tehran exercising the strategic advantage it gained after Trump launched the unprovoked war.

    “Many in the Washington foreign policy establishment had yet to understand this fact,” Nasr added. “In reality, Iran is not overplaying its hand. It’s just playing its hand.”

    Independent analysis from defense policy expert Daniel DePetris, a fellow at the think tank Defense Priorities, published Monday reinforced the scholars’ conclusions. DePetris confirmed that the U.S. has no viable alternative but to accept Iran’s current terms for transit through the strait. He traced the current crisis directly back to Trump’s decision to launch the military campaign without the required congressional authorization, a move that handed Iran an immediate strategic opportunity to leverage its geographic control of the Strait of Hormuz.

    While DePetris acknowledged that the current status quo is far from ideal for U.S. interests, he added that it became inevitable the moment the war was launched. “Trump’s war handed Iran the perfect excuse to leverage its geography, and the Iranians didn’t hesitate to do so,” DePetris wrote. “Over time, the Strait of Hormuz, in addition to Iran’s more aggressive posture toward its neighbors writ-large, has become something far more valuable: a strategic card Iran can play whenever Trump threatens to accelerate military operations.”

  • Ex-opposition leader Sussan Ley describes ‘inevitable’ end to political career, ‘self-reckoning’ in leadership spill aftermath

    Ex-opposition leader Sussan Ley describes ‘inevitable’ end to political career, ‘self-reckoning’ in leadership spill aftermath

    Nearly two months after stepping away from a quarter-century in Australian public life and losing the Liberal Party leadership to Angus Taylor, former opposition leader Sussan Ley has made her first live public television appearance, opening up about the personal reckoning that followed her political exit and her perspective on the nation’s core social values.

    Appearing Tuesday night on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s flagship current affairs program *7:30*, Ley spoke with host Sarah Ferguson about the period of transition that began on February 13, when Taylor defeated her to take the opposition leadership, bringing an end to her decades-long political career. For Ley, the end of her time in elected office was not an entirely unexpected turn — she described it as an “inevitable ending” that called for intentional self-reflection rather than resentment.

    “When I lost the leadership, and went through, you know, the inevitable ending of 25 years in public life, I knew that I needed to find my own voice,” Ley told Ferguson. “There was a political self-reckoning for me, and I went through that process. It was about finding clarity. And I did find clarity.”

    To work through that transition and recover from the burnout that accumulated over her years in office, Ley made an unorthodox choice: she embarked on a multi-week Greyhound bus trip that stretched from the northern tip of Central America all the way through the continental United States to its southern border. Far from a policy research trip, the journey was an intentional retreat from the structured demands of political life, giving Ley space to reconnect with her own voice outside of party talking points.

    “I didn’t go to America to become an expert, I went to America to look, to notice, and to quietly write,” she explained. What stuck with her most during the trip was the vulnerability and humanity of the fellow travelers she met, many of whom were also navigating major life transitions and systemic disadvantage. “There was people whose lives were in transition and disarray, and that’s what struck me from the moment I got on the first bus,” she said. “It’s hard to describe the expression on someone’s face that comes from a lifetime of being overlooked.”

    That cross-continental bus journey became exactly the reset Ley needed, allowing her to draw a definitive line under her political career and embrace the next stage of her life without lingering bitterness. The burnout she experienced after decades in public life never derailed her, she noted, and the trip helped her process that fatigue and move forward.

    “It’s allowed me to draw a line, very conclusively, under those 25 years in public life. And move to this next chapter, where I know that I will have more to say,” Ley said. “While I dealt with the effects of burnout, it didn’t bring me undone. It allowed me to move to the next chapter of my life, which is where I am now.”

    Consistent with her focus on looking forward rather than rehashing past political battles, Ley declined to dive into detailed commentary on Australia’s current political landscape or revisit the circumstances of her ousting. “There is no point in relitigating something that happened in the past,” she emphasized. “If I think about my time in politics, I’m proud of what I achieved. I don’t dwell on it, because I’m very much focused on the next chapter of my life. I will leave the political commentary to others.”

    When pressed on controversial statements about Australian multiculturalism from the right-wing One Nation party, Ley drew on her U.S. trip observations to voice firm support for Australia’s multicultural model. She argued that Australia’s approach — which accommodates cultural difference rather than demanding people erase their individual backgrounds to fit in — is a rare achievement that all Australians should celebrate.

    “I’m a huge supporter of the Australian multicultural project for the simple reason we’ve been able to achieve multicultural Australia not by erasing people’s differences, but giving them space to belong,” Ley said. “I think this is something we should all be incredibly proud of.”

  • Trump hid in catering truck in secret plane swap over Iran threat, reports say

    Trump hid in catering truck in secret plane swap over Iran threat, reports say

    In a stunning, meticulously planned security operation that has only recently come to light, former U.S. President Donald Trump executed a secret plane swap while departing last month’s NATO summit held in Ankara, Turkey, responding to what U.S. intelligence assessed as a credible Iranian missile threat against his aircraft, multiple major U.S. media outlets have reported.

    The elaborate ruse unfolded in broad daylight, with on-camera footage showing Trump boarding the decades-old legacy Air Force One jet at Ankara’s Esenboğa Airport on July 8, matching a pre-announced plan to fly out on the older aircraft “for old time’s sake”. What cameras and most onlookers did not see, however, was that after exiting the jet on the opposite side of the boarding ramp, Trump was secretly transported to a smaller, modified C-32A military aircraft — a Boeing 757 variant typically reserved for vice presidential travel — via a catering truck elevated to aircraft height, the Washington Post first reported.

    To maintain the ruse, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth boarded the empty legacy Air Force One separately via external stairs, selling the illusion that the president remained on board. Most journalists accompanying the presidential delegation, along with several junior White House staff, boarded the legacy jet and were instructed to close all window shades, remaining completely unaware that Trump had already been smuggled off the plane.

    The secret flight then took Trump first to RAF Mildenhall, a U.S. Air Force base in the United Kingdom, where he secretly transferred back to the legacy Air Force One, which had flown separately from Ankara. Press photographers on the ground captured Trump disembarking from the older jet at the British base, concealing the earlier swap from public view. From the UK, Trump transferred again to the newer Boeing 747-8 Air Force One, a jet donated to the U.S. by Qatar, to complete his journey back to Washington D.C.

    It was during this final transatlantic leg that Trump addressed ongoing threats from Iran with reporters, confirming he faced constant danger but making no mention of the secret plane swap. When asked why journalists had been told to close their window shades on the flight departing Turkey, Trump brushed off the question with a blunt warning: “Because you’re probably on a dangerous flight because of the sleazebags we have to deal with.” He reiterated his long-stated claim that he is Iran’s “number one target,” adding, “But if I go, you go, right? Perhaps someday you want to change professions.”

    The operation came just one day after the U.S. renewed military strikes against Iranian targets, following a total breakdown in negotiations between Washington and Tehran to de-escalate ongoing conflict. U.S. officials confirmed to CBS News, the BBC’s U.S. partner, that intelligence agencies had detected a specific, credible threat of an Iranian missile attack targeting Trump’s aircraft during departure from Turkey.

    Officials have previously raised security questions about the Qatari-donated Boeing 747-8, which the U.S. has spent $400 million retrofitting for presidential use. The New York Times first reported that the U.S. Secret Service had explicitly urged Trump to switch planes for the return flight from the NATO summit over unresolved security concerns about the new jet. Older legacy Air Force One aircraft are fitted with specialized laser technology designed to blind incoming anti-aircraft missiles, and it remains unclear whether the Qatari-donated jet has received all the same defensive upgrades.

    In an official statement to CBS News, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sought to downplay security concerns, saying, “The new Air Force One is perfectly safe for the President’s travels, but will receive additional upgrades and enhancements in the fall which will take approximately one month to complete.” White House Communications Director Steven Cheung declined to directly confirm or deny the reports of the plane swap, only noting that the new jet is a “state-of-the-art aircraft” fitted with robust protective measures for the president and his staff.

    The revelation of the secret operation has also reignited controversy over the leaking of sensitive national security information. After The New York Times’ initial reporting on security concerns around the Qatari jet, multiple of the outlet’s journalists were subpoenaed to testify under oath about their sources. The U.S. Justice Department confirmed to the BBC that it is currently conducting an investigation into the illegal disclosure of classified information related to the incident.

  • In rejecting Trump’s Gaza plan, Netanyahu reprises a balancing act he has mastered

    In rejecting Trump’s Gaza plan, Netanyahu reprises a balancing act he has mastered

    For every Israeli prime minister, few responsibilities carry more weight than navigating the delicate dual challenge of preserving Washington’s unwavering support while pushing back against U.S. demands that are viewed as threatening Israeli national security. No leader in Israel’s modern history has pulled off this precarious balancing act for longer than Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s longest-serving head of government. But with the ongoing conflict with Iran locked in a stalemate and U.S. President Donald Trump prioritizing winding down regional tensions ahead of American congressional elections, Netanyahu’s political tightrope walk has grown exponentially more difficult — and it is unfolding just three months before Israel’s national elections.

    On Sunday, Netanyahu formally rejected Trump’s latest proposal to break the deadlock on a long-stalled ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. In his statement, the prime minister made clear that Israeli forces would not withdraw from any part of the roughly 60 percent of Gaza that it currently controls until Hamas, the militant faction that governs the remaining 40 percent of the enclave, is fully and completely disarmed — a condition Hamas has rejected consistently for years.

    The rejection puts Netanyahu in a risky political bind: defying the same U.S. president he has repeatedly called the strongest ally Israel has ever had in the White House could erode the bilateral relationship he has long leaned on for political capital. Yet any public hint of compromise on the disarmament demand would almost certainly be fatal to his reelection bid, in a nation still reeling from the traumatic Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack that occurred on Netanyahu’s watch.

    For Trump, the standoff comes as he faces mounting pressure to deliver on his self-styled reputation as a global peacemaker. With nuclear talks with Iran stalled and global energy prices remaining elevated ahead of November’s U.S. congressional elections, the Trump administration needs visible progress on regional de-escalation. Trump’s latest Gaza proposal builds on a ceasefire framework he announced last fall, which paused large-scale Israeli military operations and secured the release of all remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas, but has failed to move toward a permanent peace agreement.

    Under the terms of the new plan, Hamas would surrender its weapons in a phased process, in exchange for a permanent end to Israeli strikes and a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. Hamas has already accepted the framework, though it has tied the surrender of its heavy weaponry to the formal establishment of an independent Palestinian state — a concession that Netanyahu’s far-right-led government and the vast majority of Israel’s political establishment reject outright.

    Netanyahu’s refusal to accept the plan puts all other elements of the ceasefire proposal on indefinite hold, including the deployment of an international peacekeeping force and the start of reconstruction for the Gaza Strip, which has been left devastated by months of conflict. Data from Gaza’s Health Ministry shows that more than 1,250 people have been killed in Israeli strikes since the initial October ceasefire took effect, though Israeli military activity has eased in recent days.

    Israeli media reports have indicated that the authority to approve new strikes in Gaza has been restricted exclusively to the Israeli army’s chief of staff, a quiet, unpublicized concession to Trump’s ceasefire push. The Israeli military declined to confirm or deny the report when contacted for comment. A senior official with the Board of Peace, the Trump-led body tasked with overseeing the ceasefire process, spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, saying that while progress has been incremental, there have been tangible gains on the ground.

    “We are focused on actions, not rhetoric or politics,” the official said. “There have been some results on the ground in the last few days, including restraint from strikes and new Israeli military procedures. There is constructive cooperation behind the scenes and our conversations continue.”

    As the election campaign heats up, the legacy of the Oct. 7 attack hangs over every political calculation Netanyahu makes. On the campaign trail, he has leaned heavily on highlighting Israeli military gains from the wars that followed the 2023 attack: Israeli forces have seized large swathes of territory across Gaza, southern Lebanon and Syria, and launched two major air campaigns targeting Iran’s military and its disputed nuclear program. But the “total victory” Netanyahu promised over Hamas in Gaza has yet to materialize, and a large share of the Israeli public continues to hold him directly responsible for the massive security failures that allowed the Oct. 7 attack to occur. Critics have also pointed to his past policy of allowing Qatar to deliver cash payments to Gaza, a strategy intended to appease Hamas that many now argue directly helped the group rearm.

    Netanyahu’s rejection of Trump’s plan has been enthusiastically embraced by his far-right coalition partners, who are expected to play a critical role in any new government he forms after the election. Jonathan Lis, diplomatic correspondent for leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noted that Trump’s priority is advancing tangible steps to rebuild Gaza, but Netanyahu’s vulnerable election position and the demands of his right-wing allies leave him unwilling to make even the smallest concession.

    Ghaith al-Omari, a former Palestinian negotiator and now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, explained that even if the White House chooses to overlook Netanyahu’s rejection, Trump cannot move the plan forward without convincing the Israeli prime minister to reverse course. In al-Omari’s assessment, Hamas has already emerged from the standoff with a strategic PR win, positioning itself as the more reasonable party in the conflict.

    Trump’s standing among Israeli voters has shifted noticeably in recent months, as his policy priorities have diverged from Netanyahu’s. During Trump’s first term in office, he enjoyed widespread popularity in Israel, thanks to unprecedented pro-Israel moves including moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That popularity held steady early in his second term, when he backed Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and joined Israel in bombing strikes on Iran. For Netanyahu, the close alliance with Trump was a major political asset, helping to shore up his domestic standing at a time when his political future was very much in doubt.

    But the two leaders’ strategic interests diverged sharply last spring. Netanyahu pushed for continued military strikes against Iran and the Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon, while Trump prioritized winding down regional conflicts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint, and ease economic pressure on global markets. Since the rift opened, Trump has said he would “likely” endorse Netanyahu ahead of the Israeli election, but has not yet issued a formal full endorsement. While a U.S. president’s endorsement still carries weight in Israeli politics, the public rift between the two leaders is complicating Netanyahu’s campaign.

    Yohanan Plesner, president of the Jerusalem-based Israel Democracy Institute think tank, noted that just a few months ago, a large majority of Israelis believed Trump prioritized Israeli security interests when making policy decisions. “This is no longer the case,” Plesner said. The once-close relationship between Netanyahu and Trump “used to be an asset, but not anymore.”

    Netanyahu has a long track record of defying sitting U.S. presidents, particularly Democratic chief executives. During his first term in office in the late 1990s, he resisted Bill Clinton’s efforts to broker a permanent peace deal with the Palestinians. In 2015, he clashed publicly with Barack Obama over the landmark Iran nuclear deal. But political analysts warn that defying Trump now carries far greater risks than past standoffs with U.S. leaders. Israel’s aggressive regional military campaigns have left it increasingly diplomatically isolated across the globe, and eroded its longstanding bipartisan support among U.S. voters, leaving Trump as one of Israel’s few remaining high-level powerful allies in Washington.

    Plesner argues that Netanyahu’s dependence on Trump is “tremendous,” and Israeli voters will punish the prime minister if he is seen as mismanaging the critical bilateral relationship. “If Trump will insist on carrying on, I think Netanyahu will have no choice but to tag along rather than take on the president, since he’s left Israel with very few diplomatic cards to maneuver,” Plesner said.

    Associated Press writers Sam Mednick in Tel Aviv, Israel, and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

  • Australia PM under fire for remarks on Japanese counterpart’s melon gifts

    Australia PM under fire for remarks on Japanese counterpart’s melon gifts

    A seemingly lighthearted podcast exchange has sparked a major diplomatic row between Australia and Japan, leaving Prime Minister Anthony Albanese mired in controversy and facing widespread demands for an official apology. The dispute centers on comments made during an episode of the comedy podcast *Bush Deep*, which was first broadcast in July, and has reignited tensions just months after Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s official visit to Canberra in May.

    During the podcast recording, host and comedian Nikki Osborne — who bills her show as a space for “wildly inappropriate” questions no other journalist would dare ask — steered the conversation toward the two premium crown melons Takaichi had gifted to Albanese during her visit. Osborne drew a crude parallel to 1990s celebrity Pamela Anderson, quipping that the two large melons evoked the entertainer’s famous figure. In response, Albanese simply commented: “She brought two, and they are beautiful.”

    When the episode first aired, the exchange received little public attention. That changed this week, however, when Shingo Yamagami, Japan’s former ambassador to Australia, published a scathing opinion piece in *The Australian* that labeled the exchange a demeaning, sexist joke that constitutes a direct insult to Takaichi and undermines the longstanding close strategic partnership between the two nations.

    Yamagami emphasized that crown melons hold profound cultural significance in Japan, where the specially cultivated fruit is considered the country’s most prized agricultural product. A single high-grade crown melon regularly retails for more than 30,000 yen, equal to roughly $188, making it a luxury gift reserved for important diplomatic and personal occasions. “The last thing [Takaichi] expected was to be so casually mocked by the trusted leader of Japan’s special strategic partner,” Yamagami wrote. He closed his op-ed with a direct rebuke: “So, prime minister, please enjoy Japan’s sweet and juicy melons without thinking about a woman’s anatomy, and instead focus on what our two countries must do together.”

    Notably, Yamagami’s tenure as ambassador in Canberra was marked by public friction with members of Albanese’s center-left Labor Party over stark disagreements on policy toward China, a point that has been highlighted by allies of the prime minister pushing back against the criticism.

    In the days following the op-ed’s publication, Australia’s conservative opposition has seized on the controversy to attack the government. Opposition Leader Angus Taylor labeled the comments an outright insult, while an opposition Member of Parliament confronted Albanese on the floor of parliament on Tuesday, demanding he apologize for what the MP called “foul-mouthed, classless comments about women.” Albanese rejected the criticism outright, telling lawmakers he “rejected the assertion of the question.” He went on to reaffirm that the Australia-Japan strategic partnership is stronger than ever under his administration, stating “Australia and Japan have never been closer. My government has taken our special strategic partnership to new heights.”

    Albanese has pushed back against claims he made the inappropriate joke, telling the BBC that the crude quip originated with the podcast host, not him. Senior members of his cabinet have rallied to his defense, arguing that critics and media outlets have deliberately misinterpreted his words. Finance Minister Katy Gallagher noted that “the remarks were not intended to be interpreted the way that our political opponents and some media outlets are reporting.” Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek echoed that sentiment, calling the negative framing “a completely unnecessary interpretation of what the prime minister said,” and adding that “people watching it for themselves can make their own minds up.”

    This is not the first controversy to stem from Albanese’s appearance on the *Bush Deep* podcast. Last month, the prime minister already faced widespread public condemnation for another comment he made during the same July episode. When Osborne asked him to play a game of “shag, marry, date” with three Australian female celebrities — Kylie Minogue, Nicole Kidman, and Rhonda Burchmore — Albanese responded “Kylie, clearly… all of the above.” The comment drew sharp public backlash, prompting Albanese to issue an immediate, unreserved public apology. Plibersek previously defended that incident as nothing more than the prime minister showing he was a fan of the pop star.

    As the debate continues, the row has put bilateral diplomatic sensitivities on public display, with both sides standing firm in their positions and no immediate sign of a resolution.

  • One Nation’s second-ever MP David Farley calls for removal of those who ‘want to bring harm’, says Aussie ‘generosity’ should be guarded

    One Nation’s second-ever MP David Farley calls for removal of those who ‘want to bring harm’, says Aussie ‘generosity’ should be guarded

    David Farley, the second lower-house Member of Parliament in Australia’s One Nation party, has used his first address to federal parliament to lay out his policy priorities, anchored by a hardline call for the rapid removal of individuals seeking to harm Australian communities and protect the nation’s longstanding culture of welcoming new migrants. Farley won a surprise victory in the May by-election for the regional seat of Farrer, replacing former opposition leader Sussan Ley to claim the seat.

    In his 20-minute inaugural speech, Farley opened by acknowledging Australia as a uniquely fortunate nation built on a diverse tapestry of racial and religious backgrounds, noting his own early schooling experience brought him together with First Nations Australians and new migrants from across the globe. He recognized that Australia’s history of inviting skilled migrants from every corner of the world who go on to become contributing citizens is a core part of the national identity, but argued that this privilege of entry must be actively protected.

    “Our national generosity, kindness, and humanity has offered the opportunity of new life to those who have been discriminated and persecuted against,” Farley told parliament. “That same generosity and kindness must be guarded and respected. As we open our welcoming doors, there are those who arrive onto our shores who want to change, and expect that change must be on us and not them. We must, with expediency and with minimal cost, remove those who want to bring harm and disrespect to this great nation of ours.”

    Farley, a long-time resident of regional New South Wales with deep roots in agriculture, centered much of his speech on the specific concerns of his rural electorate. He launched sharp criticism of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, labeling it a “failing, expensive ideology” that has failed to deliver on its core promises and cannot sustain functioning regional communities. He also hit out at the decision to end live cattle exports to Indonesia, arguing policymakers pushed the change through without fully examining the cascading harm the policy would cause across regional Australia. Farley claimed the damage extended far beyond farm gates, rippling through local transport businesses, Indigenous enterprises, regional communities, worker families, and even tourism links to Bali.

    A third-generation Australian with a lifelong background in farming, Farley drew heavily on his personal and professional experiences to frame his political philosophy. Raised in Narrandera, NSW, he recalled learning core values of accountability and collective responsibility from his local community, and keeps two formative texts — a framed copy of Rudyard Kipling’s poem *If* and a transcript of Theodore Roosevelt’s famous “Man in the Ring” speech — as reminders of those values. He left home at 17 to work in agriculture, where he said he learned that success is earned through hard work, reliability, and commitment to team goals, rather than granted by entitlement. That career also taught him what “productive capital” can achieve, and that societal progress is not created by government mandate alone.

    Looking to broader national and global challenges, Farley noted that for decades, most Australians have enjoyed relative security and prosperity under the U.S.-led post-war global order, but argued that long-held assumptions about steady access to critical goods like medicine and technology can no longer be taken for granted. He described the current global order as shifting toward a more fragmented, transactional, and multipolar system, where key resources and sectors — from artificial intelligence and semiconductors to energy, critical minerals, food, shipping lanes and supply chains — have become tools of strategic geopolitical power.

    “Australia cannot be blind, deaf, arrogant or naive about that change,” he said. “A sovereign nation must possess the productive capacity to withstand shocks and to survive on its own.” Farley stressed that this requires urgent action to shore up national energy and food security.

    Farley closed his speech by thanking One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, who first entered Australian politics in 1995, for her ongoing support. He framed his political career as a generational obligation: Australians inherit the nation built by previous generations, and hold a temporary responsibility as custodians to leave the country stronger for future generations. “That obligation between generations is at the heart of why I’m here,” he said. His 98-year-old mother, two daughters, and grandchildren were in attendance for the speech, which he closed by saying “They are not incidental to what I say today. They are the reason for it.”

    Following the speech, Hanson embraced Farley, and One Nation’s only other sitting lower house MP, Barnaby Joyce, praised the address, telling Farley “Great speech, Nailed it.” Hanson and other One Nation party representatives were in the chamber for the inaugural address. Farley also said he is willing to work across the aisle with any political party that shares the goal of leaving Australia stronger than it was inherited, noting that the challenges facing the nation are larger than any single party.