分类： politics

While global headlines have focused heavily on U.S. military activity in the Strait of Hormuz, a quieter but strategically significant development is unfolding at Turkish shipyards: the accelerated construction of MUGEM, Turkey’s first fully domestically built aircraft carrier. The project, which only formally launched in August 2025 with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in attendance, is already outpacing initial timelines, surprising regional and international defense observers.

Last week, Turkish Naval Forces Commander Admiral Ercüment Tatlıoğlu confirmed that the vessel’s hull will be completed nearly a year ahead of the original schedule, with the entire carrier projected to be finished by the end of 2026 and fully operational by 2030. When complete, MUGEM will be the largest warship ever constructed in Turkey, boasting a 60,000-ton displacement and a total length of 285 meters. These specifications put it ahead of France’s Charles de Gaulle, the Mediterranean’s current largest flagship, which measures 261 meters and displaces 42,500 tons. Designed with a short take-off system, the carrier will be capable of hosting up to 60 aircraft, a mix of domestically produced platforms following Turkey’s 2019 expulsion from the U.S.-led F-35 stealth fighter program.

The push to speed up MUGEM’s construction comes against a backdrop of rising geopolitical friction in the Eastern Mediterranean, with Ankara facing increasing alignment among regional rivals Israel, Greece, and Greek-administered Cyprus. Tensions between Turkey and Israel have escalated sharply in recent months, with senior Israeli political figures, including popular opposition leader Naftali Bennett – a likely candidate for future prime minister – publicly framing Turkey as “the next Iran” in recent international appearances. Following two rounds of direct conflict between Israel, Iran, and the U.S., Ankara has already accelerated a slate of domestic defense projects, including air defense systems, unmanned military platforms, and the domestic KAAN fifth-generation fighter jet program.

Defense analysts widely frame the carrier’s accelerated development as a direct response to shifting regional security dynamics. “The warming relations between Greek Cyprus and Israel have turned their alignment into an increasingly effective and aggressive posture,” explained Meysune Yasar, an academic specializing in Turkish naval power, in an interview with Middle East Eye. “Turkey is becoming increasingly isolated in the Eastern Mediterranean, making this aircraft carrier both an additional military capability and a core strategic necessity.” Unlike previous Turkish naval projects focused on coastal defense, Yasar notes that Ankara views MUGEM as a strategic deterrent against potential hostile state actors in the region, even as the vessel is designed for open-sea operations.

Plans for a Turkish domestic aircraft carrier are not a new development, with early conceptual work stretching back to the 1990s. Former Turkish navy admiral Yankı Bağcıoğlu told MEE that the Turkish navy first developed a blue-water deployment concept in 1993, which included plans for light aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and transatlantic power projection capabilities. The project only moved from concept to formal development around 2017, following a comprehensive strategic study on the future of Turkey’s naval forces, when the need for a full-sized carrier moved to the top of Ankara’s defense priorities.

The expulsion from the F-35 program forced Turkey to restructure its air wing plans for MUGEM, turning entirely to domestic alternatives. Today, the Turkish military plans to deploy a mixed air group consisting of the domestically built stealth-capable Kızılelma unmanned fighter, the Hürjet light combat aircraft, a future naval variant of the KAAN fifth-generation fighter, and the Bayraktar TB3 drone – which already has proven AI-assisted short take-off capability operational on Turkey’s existing drone carrier TCG Anadolu.

The rapid progress on MUGEM also carries broader implications for Turkey’s role within NATO and European security architecture, according to former Turkish ambassador Alper Coşkun, now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. As the U.S. pressures NATO allies to increase defense spending and signals a potential reduction of its security commitment to Europe, Coşkun argues that the carrier will strengthen Turkey’s geopolitical standing and bargaining power within the alliance. “But these capabilities come at a cost,” he noted. “It could also fuel existing regional tensions and trigger new threat perceptions among neighboring states.” Following the 2020 Eastern Mediterranean tensions between Turkey and Greece, France signed a mutual defense pact with Athens, a shift Coşkun says Ankara must manage to avoid unintended escalation with regional and European powers.

While Israel’s current naval capabilities are largely limited to enforcing the blockade on Gaza and conducting small-scale special operations, defense experts have also raised questions about the survivability of large surface vessels like MUGEM amid modern asymmetric warfare. The 2022 war in Ukraine and recent conflicts involving Iran have exposed critical vulnerabilities of large aircraft carriers to small attack drones and ballistic missiles, most notably demonstrated when an F/A-18E Super Hornet was swept overboard from the USS Harry S. Truman after the carrier executed a high-speed evasive maneuver to avoid Houthi missile fire in the Red Sea last April. American carriers have largely stayed outside the range of Iranian missiles during recent conflicts, a precaution that underscores the risks facing large capital ships in contested waters. To counter these threats, Turkey has designed MUGEM with a layered defense suite including a vertical launching system, close-in weapons systems, and remote weapons systems tailored to asymmetric threats.

Construction progress has been driven by Turkey’s ability to leverage multiple domestic shipyards to simultaneously manufacture large modular mega-blocks of the vessel, cutting months off the original timeline. In March, Istanbul Shipyard Commander Rear Admiral Recep Erdinç Yetkin told Turkish state television that the prefabricated flight ramp for the carrier has already been completed, and will undergo testing at a domestic airport later this year.

Beyond the Eastern Mediterranean, Ankara also views MUGEM as a tool to protect Turkey’s expanding overseas interests. Turkey has built a growing military and economic footprint across North Africa – most notably in Libya – and has expanded investments in the Horn of Africa, including energy drilling off Somalia’s coast and plans for a new space launch facility in the country. A fully operational aircraft carrier would provide a flexible power projection capability to safeguard these expanding overseas commercial and strategic interests.

Despite the broad strategic consensus behind the project, not all Turkish defense experts support prioritizing MUGEM at this stage, even those who support the long-term goal of a domestic carrier. Bağcıoğlu, now deputy chair of Turkey’s main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), argues that the timing is ill-advised given Turkey’s current constrained economic resources. He notes that Turkey already operates an airbase in Northern Cyprus that functions as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the heart of the Eastern Mediterranean, and that pressing defense needs should take priority.

“We should prioritize urgent needs such as the KAAN fighter jet project, since we currently lack sufficient advanced combat jets, as well as expanding air defense systems to protect critical infrastructure and building modern destroyers,” Bağcıoğlu explained. He added that MUGEM will require a full carrier strike group to operate effectively – including accompanying submarines, early warning aircraft, logistics ships, and escort helicopters – capabilities that Turkey does not currently possess. Instead, Bağcıoğlu argues Ankara should first complete construction of eight planned Istanbul-class frigates (only one of which is currently in service) and eight planned Tepe-class anti-air warfare destroyers (only one of which is under construction), while modernizing Turkey’s existing four Barbaros-class frigates. “Once those priorities are addressed, we wouldn’t even need an aircraft carrier,” he said.

Yasar pushes back on this criticism, arguing that Turkey can phase in funding for all required defense capabilities over time, and that MUGEM will deliver long-term strategic benefits. “I absolutely believe an aircraft carrier will create significant strategic impact in our neighborhood, and it will act as a critical force multiplier for Turkey’s overseas interests in the long run,” she said.

Canberra, Australia – Six months after a terror attack at a Hanukkah celebration on Sydney’s Bondi Beach left 15 people dead, a landmark government inquiry into surging antisemitism across Australia has tabled its first interim report, calling for immediate national action on tighter firearms regulation to prevent similar atrocities.

The deadly December 14, 2025, attack was carried out by father and son pair Sajid and Naveed Akram, who used firearms legally registered to Sajid, an Indian-born Australian permanent resident. Authorities have confirmed the assault was inspired by the Islamic State group. Sajid was killed by responding police at the scene, while his son survived his injuries and faces charges including 15 counts of murder, 40 counts of attempted murder, and terrorism-related offenses. Naveed has not entered any pleas to the accusations.

In response to the attack, the federal government convened the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion to investigate the rising trend of anti-Jewish hate crimes and develop policy responses. On Thursday, Royal Commissioner Virginia Bell released 14 formal recommendations in the commission’s first interim update, with five of those proposals remaining classified and undisclosed to the public for national security reasons.

The report explicitly highlights a dramatic spike in antisemitic incidents across Australia dating back to the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7, 2023. It further warns that the U.S.-Israeli military strikes on Iran in February 2025 amplified existing security risks for Australian Jewish communities, raising the likelihood of targeted attacks against Jewish people and sites.

Central to the commission’s unclassified recommendations is a push for sweeping nationwide gun reform. Key proposals include implementing nationally uniform firearms regulations, launching a federally coordinated gun buyback program, restricting non-citizen permanent residents from holding gun licenses, capping individual gun ownership at a maximum of four weapons, and introducing periodic mandatory reviews of all active gun licenses. The federal government has proposed splitting the cost of the gun buyback initiative with Australia’s six states and two territories, though some state governments have already rejected contributing to the program’s funding.

The current proposed restrictions on gun ownership for non-citizens would have blocked Sajid Akram from legally purchasing or holding firearms prior to the attack, a fact that has underscored the urgency of the commission’s recommendations for national policymakers.

Addressing reporters following the report’s release, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that his federal government had committed to adopting all recommendations that fall under federal jurisdiction, and would work collaboratively with state and territorial leaders to advance the full package of reforms. Albanese tied the proposed changes to the 30th anniversary of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, a mass shooting that killed 35 people and led to one of the world’s strictest national firearms agreements, which effectively banned rapid-fire rifles across the country.

“Thirty years after that landmark reform, our nation is measurably safer because of the hard choices we made then,” Albanese said. “This new reform is equally necessary, and I will continue to engage constructively with state and territory leaders to deliver it.”

Albanese emphasized that while the inquiry confirms risks to Australian Jewish communities have grown, it found no urgent overhauls to existing security frameworks are required to maintain public safety. He noted that rising antisemitism is not unique to Australia, but a global trend that demands coordinated government action. To that end, the federal government has already allocated AU$102 million (equivalent to roughly US$73 million) to upgrade security infrastructure at Jewish community sites, including synagogues, schools and community centers. These funds are administered by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the peak representative body for Australian Jewish communities.

Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive of the council, described the inquiry’s interim report as a critical milestone in addressing the widespread trauma the Bondi Beach attack left in the Australian Jewish community. “Our community carries deep trauma, and there are still many unanswered questions about what happened,” Ryvchin told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. “This is an important first step toward the day when Jewish Australians can gather for Hanukkah, for any community event, and feel safe, knowing they will not be targeted. That is the goal we are working toward, and it will take time to get there.”

Full public hearings for the royal commission are scheduled to open next Monday, as the inquiry continues its work examining the root causes of rising antisemitism and developing long-term policy recommendations for social cohesion and community safety.

UNITED NATIONS — As the United Nations launches a high-stakes review of global nuclear non-proliferation efforts, the top leader of the body tasked with enforcing the global ban on nuclear testing has issued an urgent warning: any resumption of nuclear tests by major nuclear powers including the United States and Russia could trigger an unstoppable cascade of testing across the globe. Robert Floyd, executive secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), laid out this stark assessment during a press briefing with U.N. correspondents on Wednesday.

Floyd’s warning comes in the wake of mounting tensions that emerged late last year, when the world’s two largest nuclear-armed states — the U.S. and Russia — both openly floated the possibility of resuming nuclear testing, a move that sent shockwaves through the international non-proliferation community. “That is a spiral that we do not want to see start, because it may never be able to be stopped, Floyd emphasized, highlighting the irreversible risk of breaking the decades-long de facto moratorium on tests.

Three decades have passed since the CTBT first opened for global signatures back in 1996. Floyd noted that in the century prior to the treaty’s adoption, more than 2,000 nuclear tests had been conducted across the world. Since 1996, that number has dropped to fewer than a dozen, with six of those tests carried out by North Korea — a sharp decline that demonstrates the treaty’s quiet, ongoing impact on global security, even in its current provisional state.

Despite this progress, the CTBT has yet to formally enter into force. The treaty’s rules require ratification by 44 specific nuclear-capable states to take full legal effect, and nine of those countries have not completed this step. Among the holdouts, the United States, China, Iran, Egypt and Israel have signed the treaty but not ratified it; India, Pakistan and North Korea have neither signed nor ratified; Russia, which completed ratification years ago, took the unprecedented step of revoking its ratification in 2023.

Against this backdrop, the U.N.’s ongoing review of the separate Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) puts renewed focus on the fragility of the global nuclear order. This year’s review is already shaped by geopolitical tension, particularly over Iran’s nuclear program, which former U.S. President Donald Trump has cited as justification for past aggressive action against Tehran.

Floyd has been pushing for coordinated action from the world’s major powers to break the current deadlock. He told reporters that he recently traveled to Moscow for high-level talks, where he argued to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that an unconstrained return to nuclear testing runs counter to the national interest of every country on Earth. He has also held talks with U.S. State Department officials, and said he is eager to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to advance the treaty’s goals. Floyd proposed that a joint ratification push by China, Russia and the United States would be a transformative, confidence-building step that could put the CTBT on track for full implementation.

Currently, both China and Russia have publicly reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing. However, since 2019, the U.S. State Department has repeatedly raised public concerns about what it says are suspicious nuclear-related activities in both countries. Late last year, Trump leveled accusations that Russia and China were already conducting covert tests, and announced he had ordered the U.S. Defense Department to prepare to resume U.S. testing to match what he claimed other powers were doing.

In response to Trump’s announcement, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov clarified Russia’s position: Moscow would only resume its own nuclear testing if Washington broke the moratorium first.

Floyd also pushed back against any claims that secret testing could go undetected, noting that the CTBT’s global monitoring network is a highly sophisticated system capable of picking up even very small nuclear detonations anywhere on the planet. For any state seeking to develop a functional nuclear weapon, testing is a mandatory step — and if any country moves forward with a test, “if they did it will be known to all, Floyd said.

The warning comes as global leaders grapple with growing nuclear risk, from rising great power competition to escalating regional tensions, making the preservation of the global testing moratorium a core priority for international security in the coming years.

A high-stakes legal battle over the UK government’s ban on the direct-action advocacy group Palestine Action reached the Court of Appeal this week, with lawyers for the group’s co-founder arguing the proscription has inflicted disproportionate harm on Palestinian communities across Britain campaigning against Israeli military operations in Gaza.

Appearing before judges on Wednesday, Raza Husain KC, counsel for Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori, told the court the ban has fostered a pervasive “culture of fear” among British Palestinians and rights advocates aligned with their cause. In written submissions, Husain emphasized that the designation as a terrorist group has hit British Palestinians particularly acutely: their right to speak out and organize has been chilled and criminalized at a moment when their families and communities in Gaza face widespread destruction.

Husain referenced testimony submitted to the court from Dr. Aimee Shalan, chair of the British Palestinian Committee, to contextualize the widespread harm of the ban. Shalan documented that even before proscription, Palestinian community members involved in advocacy work regularly faced intimidation, including false accusations of being terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. The added designation has amplified this pressure dramatically, Husain explained, creating a chilling effect that pushes far more people to self-censor far beyond what any formal legal requirement would demand—even for those who face no immediate risk of prosecution.

Counsel for Palestine Action also levelled criticism at the Home Office for failing to provide the group with advance notice of its terrorist designation, a step explicitly required under the UK’s 2000 Terrorism Act. Husain noted that the overwhelming majority of Palestine Action’s protest activity falls under the category of peaceful, low-level civil disobedience: common actions include sit-ins and physical lock-ons, with only a small faction of activists having engaged in more serious property damage. He acknowledged one high-profile 2025 incident in which two activists breached the perimeter of Royal Air Force Brize Norton in southern England and sprayed military aircraft with red paint, but argued that criminal damage targeting military infrastructure has historically never been classified as terrorism under UK law. “Criminal, yes, terroristic no,” Husain told the court.

Fellow counsel Owen Greenhall KC added that UK authorities already had a range of less extreme legal measures available to address any unlawful activity by group members, including criminal charges for property damage, trespassing claims, and civil injunctions. A full terrorist proscription, he argued, was an unnecessary and disproportionate overreach.

Representatives of the Home Office pushed back against these arguments in court, with James Eadie KC, counsel for the department, contending that prior notice was not required in this specific case. Eadie argued that Palestine Action is a “disparate group” with no clear central leadership structure, creating practical barriers to identifying who should receive formal advance notification. He also noted that the case involves core concerns of national security and public safety, arguing that pre-notification would have created an unacceptable risk of activists taking pre-emptive action to evade the ban.

The appeal itself challenges a landmark February 2026 High Court ruling that sided with Ammori and struck down the Home Office’s proscription of Palestine Action as unlawful. The High Court found that the government’s ban violated the department’s own established policies and disproportionately interfered with the fundamental human rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. While High Court judges rejected framing Palestine Action as an entirely non-violent group, acknowledging evidence of criminal damage and confrontational actions during protests, they ultimately concluded that a full ban would cause unacceptable harm to civil liberties—especially for British residents seeking to express solidarity with Palestinians.

Earlier in the week, Eadie argued that the initial High Court ruling ignored the UK’s democratic governance structures by blocking the government’s attempt to designate the group. The Home Office contends the lower court’s judgment was legally flawed, and that it undermines the government’s ability to respond to what it calls escalating protest activity linked to the group. Eadie noted that the proscription decision, made by former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, received formal parliamentary approval via an affirmative resolution process, meaning it carried clear democratic legitimacy. He argued the High Court gave insufficient weight to this statutory and democratic framework that underpins the Home Secretary’s proscription powers.

The Court of Appeal is expected to deliver its final ruling in the coming weeks. The proceedings included a closed-door session scheduled for Thursday, where government lawyers will present classified evidence to judges that will not be made available to Palestine Action’s legal team. A special advocate with security clearance to view the secret material has been appointed to represent the group’s interests during the closed session, but procedural rules bar the advocate from sharing any details of the evidence or discussion with Palestine Action’s main legal team, even though they work on behalf of the group.

At the core of the case is a deeply contentious question that has divided UK public and political life: where should the legal line be drawn between militant protest action and terrorist activity, and what trade-offs should be accepted between national security protections and fundamental civil liberties for political advocacy?

Six activists linked to the pro-Palestinian advocacy group Palestine Action made a dramatic procedural move on Wednesday, choosing to represent themselves during their trial over an August 2024 raid on an Israeli-owned Elbit Systems manufacturing facility near Bristol’s Filton area. The group, facing charges of criminal damage for the break-in, said court rulings left their defence lawyers unable to continue representing them, forcing them to deliver their own closing remarks to the jury. Only one defendant, 23-year-old Samuel Corner, retained his legal counsel; Corner faces an additional additional charge of grievous bodily harm with intent for allegations he struck a police officer with a sledgehammer during the incident.

Many of the activists spoke through tears, their voices shaking with emotion as they laid out their motivations directly to the jury. In her address, 29-year-old Charlotte Head explained that court decisions left her barrister unable to continue her representation, and warned the jury that planned UK government reforms seek to eliminate jury trials entirely. “They are afraid of the power you hold as a jury,” Head told the assembled court.

Head has pleaded not guilty to the criminal damage charge, arguing her actions were legally justified because the facility produced weapons. Though the court ruled that events following October 2023 are irrelevant to the proceedings, Head referenced the ongoing conflict in Gaza implicitly, tying her actions to the broader crisis. She described her prior experience volunteering with migrants and refugees in the Calais refugee camp in France, where she said she witnessed violence that she believes was funded by UK government money. Extending that argument, she claimed the UK is complicit in the Gaza crisis by allowing Israeli weapons manufacturers to operate on British soil.

“The devastation I had witnessed in Calais was happening on an exponential scale,” Head said. “Watching a genocide live-streamed on my phone, I couldn’t sit back and do nothing when I knew once again our government was directly involved.”

Head told the jury she exhausted all conventional channels of political advocacy before joining the Palestine Action action: she wrote to her Member of Parliament, receiving only an automated reply, and joined mass national protests, even as civilian areas in Gaza continued to be destroyed. She became involved with the group during a protest encampment outside London’s Hackney Town Hall, where activists called on the local council to divest from Israeli arms companies. After months of peaceful campaigning that produced no change, she said, “I had no other choice, no other options were available because we tried them all.”

In her own closing address, 22-year-old Zoe Rogers echoed Head’s argument, pointing to evidence presented during the trial that confirmed Elbit Systems manufactures weapons for Israel on UK soil, and that British research and development has played a critical role in the Israeli military. She noted that the Filton facility targeted in the raid has been visited by the Israeli ambassador and holds official export licenses to ship weapons to Israel, framing the company as the “backbone of the Israeli military.” Like Head, Rogers said she and her co-defendants had tried every legal, democratic avenue to end UK support for Israeli arms manufacturing, and none of those efforts succeeded.

Rogers drew attention to what she called a pattern of censorship throughout the three-week trial, telling jurors “you might have noticed certain words have been blacklisted, that, until our speeches, the word ‘genocide’ hasn’t been said once. It’s almost as if topics of conversation have been banned.” She accused prosecution officials of suppressing the reality of the facility’s role in the Gaza conflict rather than debating the facts of the case. “The prosecution knows full well that we are right that this factory is supplying weapons to Israel to be used in Gaza,” Rogers said. “They are choosing to suppress the truth rather than contest it.”

The activist acknowledged that she faces major personal consequences including potential prison time that she has much to lose, but confirmed she intentionally planned to be arrested during the raid. She reminded jurors that they must be certain of the defendants’ guilt to convict, asking “How can you be sure, when you know that you haven’t heard the whole truth?” Breaking down in tears as she concluded her address, Rogers added, “There’s one thing you can be sure of, I’m proud, so proud I took part in this.”

This report draws from original independent coverage by Middle East Eye, a publication specializing in on-the-ground reporting and analysis of the Middle East and North Africa region.