分类: politics

  • ‘We will rise again’: A new generation of Tunisians prepare for Ennahda’s return

    ‘We will rise again’: A new generation of Tunisians prepare for Ennahda’s return

    Five years have passed since Tunisian President Kais Saied consolidated sweeping executive authority and dismantled the country’s post-Arab Spring democratic framework, but supporters of Tunisia’s largest Islamist movement, Ennahda, say the group is not finished — it is gearing up to rebuild and reemerge from the toughest crackdown in its modern history.

    For many of the movement’s younger activists, the half-decade of targeted repression that followed Saied’s 2021 power grab is not the final chapter of Ennahda, but just the latest episode in a 40-year history defined by imprisonment, exile and systematic political persecution. Far from breaking the movement, they argue, the crackdown has pushed Ennahda to confront its past strategic mistakes, renew its internal leadership and lay the groundwork for a political future beyond Saied’s authoritarian rule.

    “The idea that Ennahda has been defeated and that Tunisians no longer want Islamic parties is simply not true,” said 23-year-old Ahmed, a resident of Ettadhamen, a working-class Tunis suburb with deep historical roots of support for Islamist political movements. “More and more young people want a movement that is rooted in Islam, a movement that speaks to our identity and will stand up for Muslims being oppressed across the world. We are witnessing a resurgence and we will rise again.”

    Ahmed’s public optimism stands in sharp contrast to the stark reality of Ennahda’s current position. Since Saied suspended Tunisia’s elected parliament on July 25, 2021, Ennahda’s iconic leader Rached Ghannouchi and dozens of senior opposition figures have been imprisoned, while much of the movement’s top leadership has faced prosecution or forced exile. Once the dominant political force in Tunisia’s decade-long democratic transition, Ennahda is weaker today than at any point since the overthrow of former authoritarian ruler Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in 2011. Yet even amid this unprecedented pressure, few within the movement accept that its political journey is over.

    Founded in the early 1980s, Ennahda first emerged as Tunisia’s leading Islamist opposition movement under Ben Ali’s repressive regime, with thousands of its members imprisoned, tortured or forced into exile. When the 2011 Arab Spring uprising toppled Ben Ali’s 23-year authoritarian rule, the movement reentered public political life and won the country’s first democratic elections, positioning itself as a global model of what its leaders called “Muslim democracy.”

    Unlike many Islamist groups across the Middle East and North Africa, Ennahda long argued that Islam and democratic governance were complementary, not incompatible. Over decades of political evolution, the movement shifted away from framing itself as a strictly Islamist party toward what Ghannouchi described as a party of “Muslim democrats,” formally committed to political pluralism, constitutional rule and peaceful transfers of power. At its landmark 2016 national congress, Ennahda formally separated its political and religious activities, ruling out the use of mosques as platforms for partisan campaigning.

    Rather than advocating for the full implementation of Islamic sharia law as state law, Ennahda framed religion as a source of moral guidance for Tunisian society, while upholding democratic institutions, competitive multi-party elections and an independent judiciary as the legitimate foundation of governance. The movement’s official manifesto enshrined commitments to civil liberties, equal citizenship and political pluralism, positions that set it apart from many more hardline Islamist parties across the region. This gradual, moderate evolution won cautious backing from Western governments, which saw Tunisia as the only lasting success story of the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings. Following Ennahda’s 2011 election victory, the U.S. State Department said it looked forward to working with the newly elected government to build a “democratic future,” while the UK Foreign Office welcomed the country’s free and fair polls and pledged long-term support for the democratic transition.

    For Ennahda’s founding leadership, Tunisia represented a rare chance to prove that political Islam and inclusive democratic governance could coexist. But that vision was quickly tested by the harsh realities of governing. Though Ennahda never held power alone, governing instead in successive coalitions with secular political partners, Tunisia’s economy stagnated, youth unemployment remained persistently high, and successive governments failed to deliver the widespread economic improvements many Tunisians expected after the 2011 revolution. Over time, Ennahda became the public face of popular frustration with the slow pace of change during the democratic transition, creating a political opening that Saied exploited to cast himself as an outsider who would sweep away the corrupt old political class.

    Saied’s July 2021 power grab reshaped Tunisia’s entire political landscape almost overnight. Ennahda supporters widely agree the movement’s biggest failures were not ideological, but strategic. They argue that years of prioritizing consensus-building with secular rivals and attempting to reassure domestic and international critics ultimately left the democratic system Ennahda helped build after 2011 vulnerable to authoritarian rollback. A key example of this miscalculation came during the 2019 presidential runoff: after Ennahda’s own candidate was eliminated in the first round, the movement refused to back polarizing media magnate Nabil Karoui and instead threw its support behind Saied. At the time, many party leaders viewed Saied as the safer, more neutral option, dismissing Karoui as a controversial figure too closely tied to the old Ben Ali-era political establishment.

    Ahmed Gaaloul, a senior Ennahda official, says the movement seriously underestimated both the determination of its domestic and regional opponents, and the willingness of Tunisia’s international partners to accept the dismantling of the country’s democratic institutions. “We believed that no one would dare overthrow a democratic system that Tunisians had sacrificed so much to build,” he said. “We misread the moment.” He added that while regional powers hostile to the Arab Spring had worked to undermine Tunisia’s democratic transition, both Europe and the U.S. failed to step in to defend the country’s democratic gains. “The fragmentation and weakness was mainly in Europe,” he said. “They did not defend our democracy.” Instead, Gaaloul argues, Western governments increasingly accepted the narrative that Tunisia’s democratic experiment had failed, while turning a blind eye to Saied’s authoritarian reversal. “The whole democracy that survived for 10 years after the revolution was being let down,” he said.

    For many of Ennahda’s younger members, this experience has sparked a broad internal reassessment of the movement’s long-standing approach to power. The arrest of most of Ennahda’s senior leadership has accelerated internal debates over whether the consensus-focused politics that defined the post-2011 transition ultimately left the movement open to being dismantled. “Many of us respect what Ennahda achieved after the revolution, but we also think it compromised too much,” said Hatim, a 28-year-old engineer and Ennahda member. “We spent years trying to appease everyone at the expense of our own party. Now, the younger generation, including myself, want leaders who are confident enough to pursue their programme instead of always making concessions. We don’t want endless consensus if it means abandoning our Islamic values.”

    This view is increasingly widespread among younger Ennahda activists, many of whom argue the movement spent decades expending enormous energy proving to secular and international critics that political Islam could coexist with democracy, only to watch those same democratic institutions dismantled by Saied. Former Ennahda MP Maher Madhioub says the past five years of repression have given the movement space to reflect on its past mistakes. “Ennahda was not born in a government or one of the state’s institutions, but out of the huge sacrifices of its members over more than four decades,” he said. “It was born as a civil, public and universal movement. It won some elections and lost others, but it has always stood with the Tunisian people’s aspirations for liberty, dignity and justice. Governing was always a means to an end, not an end in itself.”

    If Tunisia eventually restores democratic politics, Madhioub says Ennahda will reemerge as a changed movement. “There is no doubt that it has learned a lot from what happened,” he said. “It will be more confident in itself, its choices and its competent members, and it will take all its responsibilities.”

    Whether a democratic opening will come anytime soon remains deeply uncertain. Saied continues to enjoy strong backing from neighboring Algeria, whose President Abdelmadjid Tebboune recently described Tunisia’s security as inseparable from Algeria’s own, and pledged to defend Tunisia against “any threat.” The remarks, made just days after the fifth anniversary of Saied’s power grab, underscore continued regional support for the Tunisian president despite growing international criticism of his authoritarian rule.

    Even so, Ennahda members hold little expectation of an imminent return to power. They say their current priority is preserving the movement’s grassroots organizational networks, supporting imprisoned members and their families, and preparing for the day when Tunisia’s political space eventually reopens. “We haven’t left the political scene and are still here,” said Mohamed, a 31-year-old small business owner. “But in the future we expect the movement to speak more forcefully about what is happening beyond our borders. Whether it’s Palestine, Sudan or other crises affecting Muslims, Ennahda should have a stronger voice and stand up for people facing oppression. We want a leadership that will challenge others that are harming Muslims. We will not accept silence for the sake of diplomacy.”

    Despite five years of systematic repression, Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, argues Ennahda remains too deeply rooted in Tunisian civil society to disappear entirely. “Ennahda specifically, and moderate Islamist parties in general, are here to stay,” he said. “Any real democracy in Tunisia or in the Arab world cannot exclude such an important and critical part of society. I do think there will be a place for Ennahda in a new democratic Tunisia, just like there will be a place for all other Islamic and secular political movements.”

    For Ennahda’s supporters, the movement’s future ultimately depends not on when it returns to government, but on whether Tunisia restores democratic rule. “People thought we had disappeared before,” Madhioub said. “If Ennahda wins the first democratic elections held after the end of this terrible coup, it will be because it learned from what happened.”

  • US President Donald Trump set for Irish visit next month

    US President Donald Trump set for Irish visit next month

    U.S. President Donald Trump is gearing up for a high-profile two-day visit to the Republic of Ireland next September, blending diplomatic commitments, a major ceremonial event, and a personal passion for golf at his own coastal resort. The upcoming trip, which marks Trump’s first return to Ireland since his first presidential term in June 2019, has already triggered extensive security planning across both the Irish capital Dublin and rural County Clare, where his Trump International Golf Links is located.

    According to details obtained by BBC News Northern Ireland, the working itinerary for the visit sees Trump arriving in Dublin first aboard Air Force One, before moving to high-level diplomatic meetings. The confirmed first engagement is a bilateral discussion with Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin at Farmleigh House, the Irish prime minister’s official state guesthouse located within Dublin’s Phoenix Park. A second meeting with Irish President Catherine Connolly at her official residence Áras an Uachtaráin, also situated within Phoenix Park, remains unconfirmed, a key point of note given Connolly has publicly criticized Trump on multiple occasions in the past.

    One of the core ceremonial events of the Dublin leg will be the sod-turning ceremony for the new U.S. Embassy facility in Dublin’s upscale Ballsbridge neighborhood. The groundbreaking event marks a key milestone in the long-planned relocation of the United States’ diplomatic mission in Ireland, drawing attention to ongoing U.S.-Irish bilateral relations. After concluding his engagements in Dublin, Trump will travel west to County Clare to fulfill his long-stated goal of attending the 2025 Irish Open, which is being hosted at his own Trump National Golf Club Doonbeg.

    An avid golf enthusiast, Trump first publicly confirmed his intention to attend the tournament during a pre-recorded video address to the U.S. Embassy’s Fourth of July celebration earlier this summer. In the remarks, broadcast to the crowd on a large screen, Trump highlighted the deep ties between the United States and Ireland, saying, “There’s nothing better than Irish-American friendship and I have a beautiful place over there – it’s one of the best, most beautiful golf courses anywhere in the world.” He added that he was eager to watch top-ranked competitors including Rory McIlroy, the defending Irish Open champion and 2025 Masters winner, and top Spanish golfer Jon Rahm, a standout on the European Ryder Cup team. “It’ll be something very, very special,” he said of the tournament.

    The 2025 Irish Open will run from September 10 to 13 at the Doonbeg course, with a stacked field that includes many of the world’s top golfers. McIlroy, who will defend the title he claimed at the tournament in 2024, previously played a round with Trump at the course in early 2025. Security officials across Ireland are already preparing for the visit, which will require large-scale coordinated operations in both County Clare – a region Trump has visited multiple times before – and the capital Dublin, as authorities work to secure all venues on the president’s working itinerary. While final adjustments to the schedule are still being made, the trip stands as a notable example of high-level bilateral engagement between the U.S. and Ireland, blending diplomatic business with the U.S. president’s personal interests.

  • Russian anti-war politician says he has fled the country

    Russian anti-war politician says he has fled the country

    A prominent Russian opposition figure who built his political profile on an anti-war platform has left Russia for exile in France, becoming the latest critic of Vladimir Putin’s government to be forced out of the country amid a sweeping crackdown on dissent.

    Boris Nadezhdin, 63, announced his new location in a video message posted to Telegram on Monday, filmed in front of Paris’ iconic Eiffel Tower. “Hi everyone. I have some good news. I’m alive and free. Unfortunately, I’m not in Russia at the moment,” he told viewers in the clip, adding that he would outline his future plans after taking time to assess his situation. “Right now, I need to get my bearings and figure out what to do next. I’ll write about my plans later.”

    Nadezhdin first rose to international attention two years ago when he launched a bid for the Russian presidency, centering his entire 2024 campaign on a call to end the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. His platform also pushed for a reset of diplomatic relations between Russia and Western nations, and he argued that millions of Russian voters already opposed the Kremlin’s current trajectory of authoritarianism and militarism.

    Though his criticism of Putin was relatively measured, leading some political analysts to speculate he might be permitted to run to lend a veneer of legitimacy to the election, the Russian Central Electoral Commission ultimately blocked his candidacy just weeks before voting began. Officials claimed more than 15% of the voter signatures submitted with his application were invalid, a ruling Nadezhdin contested unsuccessfully. He was not the only opposition voice sidelined: all credible alternative candidates were barred from the 2024 race, which Putin won in a landslide to secure a fifth term in office. A 2020 constitutional amendment reset the Russian president’s term limits, clearing the way for Putin to stay in power until 2036, with the next presidential election scheduled for 2030 when he will be 78.

    Earlier this year, Nadezhdin announced he would launch another campaign, this time running for a seat in Russia’s lower parliamentary chamber, the Duma, in the upcoming September elections. That move triggered a fresh wave of legal and regulatory action from the Russian government. Last month, the country’s Ministry of Justice designated Nadezhdin a “foreign agent” — a designation that would have automatically barred him from running for office, and comes with widespread social and economic restrictions for anyone labeled under the law.

    The accusations against Nadezhdin included claims he spread misinformation about the Russian government and encouraged public participation in unapproved anti-government protests. He also faced a separate charge of “displaying extremist symbols” linked to an image of late opposition leader Alexei Navalny that appeared for 10 seconds on a reposted video on his social media accounts in November 2023. Nadezhdin has dismissed the charge as absurd.

    Weeks before his departure, Nadezhdin spoke to BBC Russian from an undisclosed location, describing his political prospects as “vague” after he was forced to abandon his parliamentary campaign. He argued at the time that for any active politician, participating in elections is the core of political engagement: “If you’re a politician, you should participate in politics while you have the opportunity. How do you participate in politics? By participating in elections.”

    Nadezhdin also previously told the BBC that as the Russian economy has fallen into deeper crisis and the Kremlin has expanded internet restrictions for millions of domestic users, ordinary Russians are increasingly connecting their daily hardships — from rising food prices to failing healthcare to restricted digital access — directly to Putin’s policy choices.

    Today, the Kremlin maintains almost complete control over Russia’s political landscape, with virtually no space allowed for legitimate opposition to challenge the country’s current leadership. Nearly all major opposition figures who could offer voters an alternative to Putin’s rule have been imprisoned, forced into exile, or killed.

  • A Putin critic leaves Russia after he is barred him from running for parliament

    A Putin critic leaves Russia after he is barred him from running for parliament

    On Monday, 63-year-old Russian opposition figure Boris Nadezhdin, a vocal critic of Moscow’s military campaign in Ukraine who attempted to challenge President Vladimir Putin in the 2024 presidential election, announced he has departed Russia for exile in Paris. The exit comes after a year of escalating official crackdowns that blocked him from participating in this fall’s national parliamentary election.

    In a video message posted to the messaging platform Telegram, Nadezhdin stood in front of Paris’ iconic Eiffel Tower to share the news of his departure. “Good news: I’m alive and free. Unfortunately, not in Russia for the time being,” he stated, noting that he now plans to assess his options and map out his next steps moving forward.

    Nadezhdin’s path to exile began in early 2024, when he launched a long-shot presidential campaign centered on an explicit call for an end to the war in Ukraine. He managed to gather the thousands of voter signatures required to appear on the March 2024 ballot, but Russia’s Supreme Court ultimately disqualified him by ruling that more than 9,000 of his submitted signatures were invalid. The ruling left Putin with only nominal opposition in the election, which he won handily to secure a fifth presidential term.

    A veteran of Russian politics who first entered government in the 1990s as an adviser to current top Putin aide Sergei Kiriyenko, Nadezhdin went on to serve as a national lawmaker and later a municipal councilor. Before his exit, he was one of the last high-profile critics of the Kremlin still residing within Russian borders.

    Following his disqualification from the presidential race, Nadezhdin launched a bid for a seat in the State Duma, Russia’s lower parliamentary house, vowing to continue his opposition campaign even after the Russian Justice Ministry branded him a “foreign agent” in July 2024. The designation subjects recipients to heightened government surveillance and carries severe social stigma in Russia.

    Later that same month, a Russian court levied a fine of roughly $13 against Nadezhdin on charges of displaying “extremist symbols” — a charge Nadezhdin dismissed as entirely baseless. The charges stemmed from a 2023 online video that briefly included an image of Alexei Navalny, the late opposition leader who was convicted of extremism in a case widely condemned by international observers as politically motivated.

    The combination of the foreign agent label and the extremism-related conviction formally barred Nadezhdin from running in September’s parliamentary election, a contest widely expected to be tightly controlled by the Kremlin. The ruling United Russia party is seeking to retain its overwhelming majority in the Duma, with its only nominal opponents being small parties that consistently align with the Kremlin on key policy matters.

    This electoral cycle comes amid growing signs of public fatigue with the ongoing war in Ukraine, as widespread fuel shortages and deepening economic strain erode public support. Observers note this shifting public mood has led Russian authorities to narrow their tolerance for even token political opposition, leaving little space for dissenting voices to participate in the formal political process.

    Before his exit, Russian police briefly detained Nadezhdin over the extremism charge, and he was formally barred from leaving the country at the time. It remains unclear from Monday’s video announcement whether the travel ban has since been lifted, or if Nadezhdin crossed the border despite the restriction.

    Nadezhdin’s exit adds to a growing wave of dissent that has been driven out of Russia since the Kremlin launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In the wake of the invasion, Russian authorities dramatically expanded a nationwide crackdown on anti-war speech and political dissent, targeting independent media, human rights groups, civil society organizers, and critics of the Putin government. Hundreds of dissidents have been imprisoned on politically motivated charges, while thousands more have fled the country to avoid prosecution.

  • Court fight begins over South Africa’s land law that irks the Trump administration

    Court fight begins over South Africa’s land law that irks the Trump administration

    JOHANNESBURG — Legal arguments over South Africa’s polarizing Expropriation Act, a land reform policy that has severely strained bilateral ties between Pretoria and the former Trump administration, got underway in the Western Cape High Court on Monday. The judicial challenge marks a critical flashpoint in the country’s decades-long effort to redress historical injustices stemming from the apartheid era.

    Enacted last year by President Cyril Ramaphosa, the Expropriation Act forms the cornerstone of the South African government’s push to address the deep-rooted land dispossession and systemic economic inequality that defined 40 years of white minority apartheid rule, which formally ended in 1994. Under the legislation, the national government gains the authority to seize privately held land when doing so serves the public good. It also allows for expropriation without financial compensation in cases where negotiations over a fair purchase price collapse. Government officials have repeatedly emphasized that the law does not permit arbitrary land seizures, and that its core goal is to bring underutilized private land into productive use to benefit historically disadvantaged Black South African communities.

    The law has sparked fierce domestic and international backlash. Then-U.S. President Donald Trump claimed the legislation was crafted to specifically target white South African farmers, and used the policy as justification to cut all U.S. financial aid to South Africa and place steep new trade tariffs on the country. The Trump administration also moved to grant asylum to Afrikaner farmers—descendants of Dutch and other European settlers who arrived in South Africa more than 300 years ago—who claimed they faced systemic persecution, a claim the South African government rejects.

    Leading the domestic legal challenge is the Democratic Alliance, South Africa’s main opposition party that currently holds a seat in the country’s national unity government. The party has joined forces with multiple civil society and lobby groups to contest the law’s constitutionality. Other parties to the lawsuit include the Institute for Race Relations, which argues the law fails to establish sufficient protections for private property rights, and AfriForum, a prominent Afrikaner advocacy organization.

    On the opening day of proceedings, legal representatives for the challengers argued that the Expropriation Act directly violates foundational protections for private property enshrined in South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution, which explicitly bans the expropriation of land without just compensation. Court proceedings are scheduled to continue through the end of this week, but there is no clear timeline for when judges will issue a final ruling. Judicial observers note the ruling could take weeks or even months to be delivered, as the court weighs the complicated constitutional and societal questions at the heart of the case.

  • Russian Embassy in Rome blames Ukraine for deadly Italian restaurant bombing in Moscow

    Russian Embassy in Rome blames Ukraine for deadly Italian restaurant bombing in Moscow

    A deadly bombing that ripped through an upscale Moscow restaurant over the weekend has sparked a sharp diplomatic accusation, with Russia’s Embassy in Rome placing responsibility directly on Ukrainian authorities on Monday. The Saturday evening attack on the Balzi Rossi restaurant, a popular dining spot located on the ground floor of one of Moscow’s iconic Stalin-era skyscrapers, has left five people dead and 19 others injured, according to the Russian Embassy’s statement.

    In the scathing public statement, the diplomatic mission labeled the attack as the work of “Kyiv terrorists,” framing the incident as a deliberate campaign to intimidate Italian citizens working in Russia. The bombing was intended, the embassy argued, to send a clear message that Italians based in Russia are intentional targets and could face violence as the next victims. The statement also noted that the restaurant’s Italian head chef and his team escaped unharmed, crediting the vigilance and self-sacrifice of a Russian security guard for their survival.

    Initial official reports from Russia’s National Anti-Terrorism Committee, the inter-agency body that oversees domestic security responses, put the death toll at three immediately after the blast, with 21 people reported injured. The committee confirmed that the explosive device was brought into the venue by a female attacker, who died alongside a security guard that intercepted her and a restaurant guest. It did not, however, identify a suspected mastermind or state who the intended target of the attack was. To date, the Russian Foreign Ministry has not responded to requests to clarify the discrepancy between the updated death toll and the initial official count, nor has it issued an independent statement confirming the embassy’s claims. Ukraine has not issued any immediate comment in response to Russia’s accusations.

    Unconfirmed local media reports have circulated in the hours after the attack claiming that the strike targeted a senior Russian military general celebrating a birthday at the restaurant. Multiple Russian outlets have named the alleged intended target as Colonel-General Alexander Chaiko, recently appointed to lead Russia’s aerospace forces. These claims have not been verified by independent third-party observers.

    This latest bombing fits a pattern of targeted attacks on Russian soil that Moscow has repeatedly blamed on Kyiv since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022. Following a string of earlier strikes on senior military and political figures earlier this year, Russian federal security officials announced sweeping measures to tighten protective security for high-ranking government and military personnel.

    The list of high-profile attacks stretches back more than two years. In December 2024, a scooter bomb killed Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, commander of Russia’s nuclear, biological and chemical protection forces — one of the few such attacks that Ukraine openly acknowledged responsibility for. That same year in April 2025, a car bomb that Russia blamed on Kyiv killed Lieutenant General Yaroslav Moskalik, a deputy chief of the Russian General Staff’s main operational department; Ukraine did not claim the attack but suggested it was behind the strike. In December 2024, a car bomb attack in southern Moscow killed Lieutenant General Fanil Sarvarov, head of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff’s Operational Training Directorate, which Ukraine did not comment on. Earlier this year, Lieutenant General Vladimir Alexeyev, deputy head of Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency, survived an assassination attempt that left him shot three times at his Moscow apartment, an attack Ukraine denied involvement in.

    Beyond senior military officials, two other high-profile figures linked to the Kremlin have been killed in attacks on Russian soil: Daria Dugina, daughter of prominent ultranationalist thinker Aleksandr Dugin, and Vladlen Tatarsky, a widely followed pro-Kremlin military blogger. Ukraine denied any role in Dugina’s death and has declined to confirm or deny involvement in Tatarsky’s killing.

  • Moroccan king’s letter confirms naming of major highway in honour of Trump

    Moroccan king’s letter confirms naming of major highway in honour of Trump

    Nearly five years after the Trump administration upended decades of international consensus on Western Sahara by formally recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed territory, Rabat has moved to honor the former U.S. president with a high-profile naming gesture. Morocco’s state-run press agency has released a previously unannounced letter from King Mohammed VI to Donald Trump, confirming that the strategic 1,055-kilometer Tiznit-Dakhla highway that stretches into Morocco-occupied Western Sahara will be renamed in Trump’s honor.

    The honor was first revealed by Trump himself last week, when the former president posted a message of thanks to King Mohammed on his Truth Social platform, alongside a video highlighting the nearly $1 billion infrastructure project. Until the royal letter’s publication over the weekend, Moroccan officials had not publicly confirmed the decision. In the correspondence dated July 2, King Mohammed described the renaming as a deeply personal gesture of respect, noting that the decision is rooted in gratitude for Trump’s landmark 2020 policy shift.

    That 2020 policy change came as part of a broader brokered deal between the two nations: Morocco agreed to normalize diplomatic relations with Israel, in exchange for the U.S. breaking with longstanding global neutrality to recognize Rabat’s claim over the entire Western Sahara region. In his letter, the Moroccan monarch emphasized that this decision will hold a permanent place in Moroccan collective memory, writing that Trump’s “historic recognition… of Morocco’s sovereignty over its Sahara” would “forever be etched in the memory of Moroccans, from generation to generation.” He added that while bilateral ties between Morocco and the U.S. have long been defined by close friendship and steady loyalty, the relationship has grown more dynamic and productive than ever during Trump’s two presidential terms.

    The highway itself is framed by Moroccan authorities as a critical strategic corridor connecting the northern and southern areas of the country, a designation that aligns with Rabat’s formal position that Western Sahara is an integral part of Morocco, referred to officially as the kingdom’s “southern provinces.”

    The Western Sahara dispute is one of the longest-running territorial conflicts on the African continent, spanning more than 50 years. The territory was a Spanish colony until Spain’s withdrawal in the 1970s, and the United Nations still classifies it as a non-self-governing territory pending a final resolution. Morocco controls and claims most of the territory, while the Algeria-backed Polisario Front leads an armed independence movement for the indigenous Sahrawi people, controlling a smaller portion of the region. The UN has long advocated for a binding referendum that would allow Sahrawi residents to determine their own future, but that vote has never been held.

    International stances on the dispute have shifted in recent years. The African Union formally recognizes the independence of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, while many European nations maintained a neutral position for decades. In recent years, however, key powers including the United Kingdom and Spain have publicly backed Morocco’s proposal for regional autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty, rejecting full independence for the territory.

    In his Truth Social post, Trump expressed enthusiasm about the honor, writing that he looks forward to traveling the full length of the renamed highway someday in the near future.

  • Ghana parliament backs tough cocoa farm protections, with up to 20 years in prison

    Ghana parliament backs tough cocoa farm protections, with up to 20 years in prison

    ACCRA, Ghana — A controversial piece of legislation that imposes harsh criminal penalties, including decades-long prison sentences, on cocoa farmers who convert their land to other uses without explicit government authorization has been approved by Ghana’s parliament, according to a full copy of the bill reviewed by the Associated Press.

    Lawmakers passed the new regulatory measure on Thursday, but full details of the legislation were not released to the general public until late Sunday. Ghanaian President John Mahama has not yet given his final signature to enact the bill into law.

    Under the proposed legislation, all existing and future cocoa farms across Ghana would be designated as protected national assets. Any repurposing of this land for non-cocoa agricultural or industrial activity without formal government approval would be classified as a criminal offense, a provision that has already drawn sharp pushback from farming advocacy groups and smallholder producers.

    Moses Djan Asiedu, who serves both as an active cocoa farmer and the administrator of the Ghana Cooperative Cocoa Farmers and Marketing Association Limited, called the draft law unfair in its current form. Asiedu explained that the vast majority of Ghanaian cocoa producers invest their own private capital to purchase land, clear vegetation, and maintain cocoa plantations for years before they begin turning a profit, all while receiving minimal financial or infrastructural support from the national government.

    “If cocoa is recognized as a critical national asset, then the government has a responsibility to support farmers to cover their core production costs,” Asiedu told reporters.

    The harshest penalties outlined in the bill are reserved for the conversion of cocoa land to illegal gold mining, a widespread practice that has drawn growing government concern in recent years. Farmers convicted of converting cocoa farms to unauthorized mining operations would face prison sentences ranging from 10 to 20 years, plus substantial fines levied per cocoa tree destroyed in the conversion process.

    Cocoa production is the backbone of the West African regional economy, supporting hundreds of thousands of smallholder livelihoods across Ghana and neighboring Ivory Coast. For Ivory Coast, the world’s top cocoa producer, cocoa bean exports account for roughly 40% of the country’s total annual export revenue. In Ghana, the second-largest global producer of cocoa, cocoa exports contribute nearly 15% of the nation’s total export earnings.

    To shield smallholder producers from volatile global commodity pricing, Ghanaian government regulators set a fixed purchase price for cocoa beans at the start of every planting season. The vast majority of beans are sold through government-licensed buying agents to insulate producers from sudden price shifts in international futures markets.

    This year, however, global cocoa markets have seen unprecedented volatility. After a major surge in cocoa futures prices that pushed contract values above $12,000 per metric ton in 2024 — the highest level recorded in decades — the market corrected sharply, crashing to roughly $4,000 per ton as new supply growth outpaced lagging global demand.

  • US faces new pressure to build weapons without China’s rare earth magnets

    US faces new pressure to build weapons without China’s rare earth magnets

    Against a backdrop of rising geopolitical friction with China and depleting U.S. military stockpiles fueled by ongoing conflict in the Middle East, a small U.S. startup is stepping into a gap that has long left American defense supply chains vulnerable to external control. Phoenix Tailings, a small refinery based in Exeter, New Hampshire, is pioneering a new approach to domestic critical mineral production by extracting high-value rare earth elements from legacy mining waste, also known as tailings, a solution that could cut years off the timeline to build a sovereign U.S. supply chain.

    For decades, China has held a near-monopoly over the processing and separation of critical minerals—inputs essential to everything from advanced fighter jets to precision-guided missiles, electric vehicle batteries, and radar systems. Even as the U.S. has raced to unwind this dependence by developing domestic mining operations, most new projects are still years away from full production. Extracting usable minerals from existing mine waste, however, offers a near-term bridge to meet soaring demand, industry leaders say.

    Phoenix Tailings currently operates out of a modest office park facility, but the company has secured a $500 million loan from the U.S. Pentagon to construct a massive new expansion called the Freedom Facility, named for its mission to free the U.S. and its Western allies from Chinese influence in the rare earth sector. Construction of the new plant will take 14 to 18 months, and when fully operational, it will boost the company’s annual production capacity from just 200 kilograms to 120 tons of processed critical metal—enough to meet a large share of U.S. defense demand for high-priority minerals like samarium.

    Inside the company’s current facility, technicians clad in heat-resistant hazmat suits and sealed face masks use a low-emission electrolysis process to separate pure rare earth metals from mining waste powder. The end product, a grayish mixture of neodymium and praseodymium, is used to manufacture high-strength permanent magnets that power F-35 fighter jets, Tomahawk cruise missiles, THAAD missile defense systems, military drones, and radar arrays. As Anthony Balladon, Phoenix Tailings co-founder and chief commercial officer, puts it: a $150 million advanced weapons system is entirely useless without the $20,000 to $30,000 in critical minerals it requires.

    The urgency of this supply chain overhaul has accelerated sharply in recent months. Ongoing conflict in the Middle East has drawn down U.S. munitions stockpiles at an unprecedented rate, and the newly escalating tensions with Iran have further stretched already thin inventories. A May 2025 analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank, warns that it could take at least three years to replenish stockpiles of key systems such as Tomahawk cruise missiles, Patriot interceptors, and THAAD defense systems. Shortfalls not only leave the U.S. and its Middle Eastern allies more vulnerable in the current conflict, but also leave the U.S. with diminished firepower for any potential future confrontation with China.

    Last month, former President Donald Trump added new pressure to the sector with an executive order tightening restrictions on defense contractors sourcing critical mineral components from China. The order also curtails the Pentagon’s ability to issue waivers for contractors that claim domestic supplies are unavailable, making it mandatory for all critical materials used in U.S. military equipment to be sourced from the U.S. or allied nations. “It is the policy of the United States that not only the finished equipment deployed by our military, but also the critical materials and components necessary to manufacture, maintain, sustain, and repair that equipment, are sourced domestically or from allied nations,” the July 20 order states.

    Major defense contractors have signaled they are working to adjust their supply chains. Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor, said in a statement that it “continuously assesses the global rare earth supply chain to ensure access to critical materials that support our customers’ missions.” Other leading firms including Raytheon Technologies and Northrop Grumman declined to comment on their supply chain adjustments to AP.

    Balladon acknowledges that scaling domestic production to meet demand in the required timeline is a significant challenge. “It will be a tall order and a challenge to replenish these stocks and scale up in the time frame needed to meet defense demand and regulations,” he said. Still, the company is moving forward quickly, with plans to boost output to 5 tons within three months, and reach full 120-ton capacity by 2027 or 2028 at the latest.

    Phoenix Tailings is not the only firm shifting supply chains away from China. Rochester, New York-based magnet manufacturer Arnold Magnetic Technologies, which supplies critical components for precision-guided weapons, has for years relied on Chinese-sourced samarium. Today, the company is sourcing its samarium from a restarted rare earth operation in La Rochelle, France, where Belgium-based chemical firm Solvay has resumed processing rare earths from legacy mining waste that was abandoned when China dominated the global market in the 2000s. After China weaponized its rare earth monopoly in 2025 by restricting exports during the U.S.-China trade war, Solvay restarted processing operations at the site, ramping up output to meet growing demand from both European and North American defense and industrial clients. While Solvay’s materials come at a higher cost than Chinese alternatives, Arnold CEO Matt Blake notes that the magnets represent a tiny share of total weapons system costs, making the price increase negligible.

    Not all critical mineral supply gaps are close to being filled, however. Brodie Sutherland, CEO of Patriot Critical Minerals Corp., which is developing domestic tungsten mining operations in the U.S., warns that the U.S. remains fully dependent on imports for tungsten, with China controlling roughly 80% of global mine supply and an even larger share of downstream processing. With a 2027 Pentagon deadline to eliminate Chinese tungsten from defense supply chains approaching, Sutherland says U.S. production will take years to ramp up, leaving the Department of Defense reliant on existing stockpiles, recycling, and limited alternative sources in the near term.

    Despite these headwinds, Balladon remains optimistic that U.S. companies and allied partners can meet the challenge. “Ultimately, with the right support and partners across the industry, we think we can make it happen,” he said.

  • Will Israel build a stealth fighter jet?

    Will Israel build a stealth fighter jet?

    During a recent press briefing on his visit to the White House in Washington, senior Israeli official — widely believed to be Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — outlined an ambitious new national defense plan: to develop an indigenously built stealth fighter jet paired with a purpose-built unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV). The core driver behind this initiative, Netanyahu has repeatedly emphasized in recent public remarks, is to eliminate Israel’s reliance on foreign military suppliers, whose political goodwill can no longer be taken for granted.

    This long-simmering anxiety over supply chain vulnerability has been sharply amplified by a string of recent disruptions. The United Kingdom has suspended key military exports to Israel, while France has deliberately interfered with defense hardware shipments and blocked Israeli participation in major European defense exhibitions including Eurosatory and the Paris Air Show. These incidents add to a decades-long pattern of intermittent supply delays from the United States across multiple presidential administrations, including cutoffs of critical equipment such as Hellfire missiles, precision bombs, JDAM guidance kits, and tank ammunition under both the Obama and Biden administrations. Most recently, hostile remarks from senior figures in the current Trump administration, including Vice President J.D. Vance, have further stoked Israeli concerns about the reliability of outside suppliers.

    According to Netanyahu’s outline, the full development program is expected to take 10 years to complete. But the initiative faces steep structural and financial challenges, rooted in Israel’s own history of domestic aerospace development.

    Israel has a decades-long track record of building its own fighter aircraft, with mixed results. Its first domestic program, the Nesher, was developed as a derivative of the French Mirage 5, pairing a French Snecma jet engine with additional Israeli and American components. The platform served effectively in the Israeli Air Force until it was replaced by its successor, the Kfir, and updated Nesher jets were later exported to Argentina, where they saw combat action against British vessels during the 1982 Falklands War. The Kfir, the next iteration of Israel’s domestic fighter program, incorporated upgraded American avionics and a General Electric J-79 engine — the same powerplant used in the U.S. F-4 Phantom. The Kfir has been exported to multiple countries, including Colombia, Ecuador, and Sri Lanka; while Ecuador retired its fleet in 2012 after 30 years of service, seven upgraded Kfirs remain in active service with Sri Lanka as of 2026.

    But Israel’s most ambitious prior domestic fighter effort, the Lavi program, ended in dramatic cancellation. Launched as an all-weather, 4.5-generation fighter platform, the Lavi quickly suffered massive cost overruns that consumed more than half of U.S. foreign military assistance allocated to Israel in the 1980s. The Israeli military openly opposed the project, arguing that its ballooning budget was crowding out other critical defense priorities, including the Merkava main battle tank and national air defense systems. At the same time, U.S. aerospace firms viewed the Lavi as a low-cost competitor to their own F-16 and F/A-18 platforms, and lobbied the Reagan administration to withdraw funding support. In 1987, the Israeli cabinet voted 12-11 (with one abstention) to cancel the program, a decision that remains controversial in Israeli defense circles to this day, with many viewing it as a devastating missed opportunity for the country’s domestic aerospace sector.

    Today, the new stealth fighter and UCAV program faces many of the same obstacles that doomed the Lavi, alongside new challenges. Any full indigenous stealth development would almost certainly still require access to American or European propulsion technology, with the U.S. being the only viable major supplier. The finished aircraft would also directly compete with offerings from major American defense primes including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics, meaning U.S. opposition would likely mirror the lobbying that derailed the Lavi. To move forward, Israel would likely need to negotiate a joint venture with U.S. industry or agree to export restrictions to ease competitive concerns.

    Financially, the massive price tag of a full stealth development program would put significant strain on Israel’s national budget, threatening funding for other urgent defense priorities such as Iron Dome and other advanced air defense systems and precision smart weapons production. Additionally, Israel’s leading defense firms — including Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Elbit Systems, and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems — are already operating at full capacity to meet existing order demands and ongoing acute security requirements.

    Against this backdrop, development of a standalone UCAV has emerged as a potentially more feasible alternative. Israel already has extensive experience integrating advanced unmanned aerial systems with its fleet of F-35 Adir stealth fighters, and UCAVs offer inherent stealth and performance advantages over manned platforms: removing the cockpit and pilot life support systems reduces radar cross-section, and unmanned platforms can withstand extreme G-forces that would incapacitate human pilots.

    Even a UCAV program, however, would still face major hurdles. Like a manned stealth fighter, it would require an American-built powerplant, and the U.S. is already far along in development of its own Loyal Wingman collaborative combat aircraft (designated the F-47), which is scheduled to reach initial operating capability by 2030. The U.S. platform is designed specifically to augment the combat capability of F-35s, absorbing risk during strikes on heavily defended high-value targets such as enemy air defenses and command nodes, and will eventually complement the U.S. Air Force’s upcoming sixth-generation NGAD air dominance fighter that will replace the F-22 Raptor.

    Ultimately, defense analysts conclude that Israel lacks the industrial depth, manufacturing capacity, and financial resources to develop both a manned stealth fighter and a new UCAV from scratch. A more pragmatic path could involve converting existing manned aircraft platforms into unmanned combat platforms, reducing development costs and timelines. As Israeli leaders weigh this critical strategic decision for the future of the country’s domestic defense aerospace sector, they will need to balance long-term strategic goals of supply independence against near-term budget realities and pressing security requirements. Most analysts expect that Israel will ultimately abandon plans for a fully indigenous manned stealth fighter, and will restructure its UCAV ambitions to align with its financial constraints and operational needs.

    This analysis was contributed by Stephen Bryen, former U.S. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, and appears originally in his newsletter *Weapons and Strategy*.