分类： politics

In a Tuesday announcement posted to his Truth Social platform, former U.S. President Donald Trump has extended an existing two-week ceasefire in the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, though he has ordered U.S. military forces to maintain a strict naval blockade of the country and remain on high alert for potential renewed hostilities.

The ceasefire extension comes just two weeks after Trump threatened to destroy Iran’s “whole civilization” hours before the initial truce took effect. In his post, Trump framed the extension as a response to two key factors: the deep internal political fragmentation within Iran’s government, and a formal request from Pakistan’s top military leader Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to delay new attacks to allow Iranian officials time to draft a unified negotiating proposal.

“I have therefore directed our Military to continue the Blockade and, in all other respects, remain ready and able, and will therefore extend the Ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are concluded, one way or the other,” Trump wrote in the statement, offering no fixed end date for the extended truce.

The U.S. naval blockade was implemented after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global chokepoint for international fossil fuel trade connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. Over the weekend, Trump confirmed that U.S. forces had seized the Touska, a 900-foot Iranian-flagged cargo vessel, as part of the blockade operation.

Regional and policy analysts have painted a grim picture of the current stalemate, warning that the lack of trust between Washington and Tehran leaves the door open for sudden conflict resumption. Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, assessed that the current arrangement aligns with the most likely outcome: a frozen conflict with no major breakthroughs. “No deal, no sanctions relief, no nuclear compromise, no return to war, while Iran continues to control the strait,” Parsi said, noting that Trump achieves his core goal of exiting full-scale war while Iran fails to secure its top demand of sanctions lifting, leaving the region in an unstable limbo.

While the United Nations has welcomed the ceasefire extension – with a spokesperson for Secretary-General António Guterres calling it “an important step toward de-escalation and creating critical space for diplomacy and confidence-building between Iran and the United States” – Iranian officials have rejected the status quo and pushed back against the continued blockade.

Drop Site News co-founder Jeremy Scahill reported Tuesday that an anonymous Iranian official confirmed Iran’s core position remains unchanged: full lifting of the U.S. naval blockade is a non-negotiable precondition for any further negotiations. An advisor to Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf went further, telling Reuters chief national security reporter Phil Stewart that the ceasefire extension is meaningless, and may even be a U.S. tactic to buy time for a surprise offensive. The advisor added that maintaining the blockade is equivalent to military bombardment, and must be met with a military response from Iran.

Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, warned that after two surprise attacks on Iranian soil, hardline factions in Tehran are now pushing for pre-emptive military action against U.S. military and commercial vessels operating near the Strait of Hormuz. “Trust between the sides remains at zero and renewed war could break out at any time,” Toossi stressed. He also dismissed Trump’s framing of the extension as a response to Pakistan’s request, noting “Pakistan isn’t deciding whether the U.S. goes to war with Iran. They’re a conduit, not a driver. More a convenient excuse and diplomatic cover than having any sort of actual influence over Trump on Iran.”

In a pre-extension op-ed for The Guardian, Toossi argued that Iranian officials have little incentive to offer major concessions after holding their ground through the initial U.S.-Israeli offensive. “Having fought what they see as an existential war with the US and Israel and held their ground, Iranian officials see little reason to rush into major concessions. The priority is not a sweeping deal, but reducing the risk of war while preserving core sources of power, from Hormuz to its nuclear program,” he wrote. Toossi added that the most likely long-term outcome is not a full peace deal, but a fragile interim arrangement that manages rather than resolves the conflict, with Iran betting that global economic pressure from energy market disruptions will eventually force the U.S. to back down.

The human and economic costs of the two-month conflict continue to mount. Climate advocacy group 350.org estimates that global consumers and businesses have paid an extra $158.6 billion to $166.9 billion in fuel costs over the first 50 days of the war alone, driven by supply disruptions and price volatility. Since the U.S. and Israel launched their initial offensive in February, thousands of people have been killed across Iran and the broader region, and tens of thousands of Iranian civilian infrastructure sites have suffered significant damage.

Ahead of the United Kingdom’s May 7 local elections, exclusive data obtained by Middle East Eye shows more than 1,600 candidates across major and minor political groups have signed a pro-Palestine rights pledge organized by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC). The commitment, which binds signatories to advance Palestinian rights through their elected office, puts candidates at odds with the national Labour government’s official policy that bans local council boycotts of Israeli-linked businesses.

The core of the PSC pledge requires elected officials to push for local councils to divest public pension funds and other administered assets from companies complicit in Israel’s violations of international law. Signatories also vow to oppose all forms of council complicity in normalizing Israel’s actions, and commit to upholding what the pledge calls the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights, as well as supporting accountability for alleged Israeli crimes of genocide, military occupation, ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

Breakdown of the signatory data reveals a stark partisan divide. More than 1,000 Green Party candidates, over 200 Labour aspirants, more than 200 independent candidates and small local party groups, along with a handful of Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates have added their names to the pledge. This divide plays out across key battleground councils, many of which are expected to see major shifts in control following the election, which is being framed as the first major national electoral test since Keir Starmer took office as prime minister in July 2024.

In Camden, the London borough that contains Starmer’s own parliamentary seat, 33 Green candidates signed the pledge, while not a single Labour candidate did. In east London’s Newham, where Labour holds 56 of 66 current council seats and faces a strong challenge from left-wing and Green challengers, only five Labour candidates signed, compared to 28 Greens and 19 Newham Independents. In Hackney, where polls indicate Labour is likely to lose its long-held council majority to the Greens, 31 Green candidates including the party’s mayoral hopeful Zoe Garbett signed, while just two Labour candidates joined.

Similar gaps appear across regions of England. In the northern city of Bradford, 16 Greens, 12 members of the independent Your Bradford Independents Group and six Labour candidates signed. In the Midlands’ largest city Birmingham, 27 Greens, four independents and only one Labour candidate committed to the pledge. In Newcastle, where Labour holds 34 of 78 seats and risks losing control to a coalition of Greens and independents, two Greens and five Labour candidates are signatories.

The pledge comes amid growing tensions between grassroots pro-Palestine activists and the national Labour government, which earlier this year doubled down on a 2016 national policy prohibiting local councils from implementing procurement boycotts targeting Israeli firms and businesses that trade with Israel. In January, Communities Secretary Steve Reed issued a formal warning to Labour-run councils, noting that municipalities could face legal action if they move forward with boycotts of Israeli-linked businesses.

Despite the national warning, a growing grassroots movement across UK local government has pushed for divestment over the past two years. Multiple local authorities have passed votes to cut ties with companies that profit from Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or supply arms to Israel, and several major councils including Islington, Lewisham, Wandsworth and Caerphilly have already removed companies listed by the United Nations as operating in occupied Palestinian territories from their pension fund portfolios.

PSC deputy director Peter Leary emphasized that the widespread support for the pledge demonstrates cross-party backing for Palestinian rights, even as many national party leaderships reject divestment. “Councillors who can get their councils to stop all complicity – such as divesting pension funds that are linked to companies that are enabling Israel’s crimes – can play a crucial role, and voters at these local elections will be looking carefully to see who stands on the side of freedom and justice for Palestine,” Leary said.

Green Party national elections coordinator Faaiz Hasan framed the divestment push as a link between international policy and domestic economic pain, noting that the ongoing conflict in Gaza and tensions across the Middle East have exacerbated the UK’s cost of living crisis. The Greens are campaigning for local councils to divest pension funds not just from companies linked to human rights abuses in Palestine, but from fossil fuel companies and arms manufacturers that profit from conflict and climate damage, Hasan added.

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, now heading the Your Party which backs independent local candidates across the UK, said his party’s challengers stand in stark contrast to right-wing alternative parties, campaigning on domestic progressive policies including free school meals, expanded social housing and the insourcing of public services, while unapologetically opposing the Labour government’s stance on Gaza. “They will be standing fearlessly against this government’s shameful complicity in genocide,” Corbyn said.

The May 7 election will see more than 5,000 council seats across 136 local authorities contested, with the conflict in Gaza and UK foreign policy toward Israel emerging as one of the most salient issues in the campaign.

In an unexpected announcement that underscores ongoing turmoil in top U.S. defense leadership, the Pentagon disclosed Wednesday that United States Navy Secretary John Phelan is leaving his post effective immediately. The departure makes Phelan the first leader of a U.S. military branch to exit office during President Donald Trump’s second term, and adds to a growing string of high-profile departures and ousters among top defense officials.

No official explanation has been offered for the sudden exit of the Navy’s top civilian leader, which comes at a tense moment for the service: the U.S. Navy is currently enforcing a blockade of Iranian ports and intercepting vessels tied to the Tehran government across global waters, amid a fragile ceasefire in an ongoing regional conflict.

Phelan’s exit is the latest in a wave of leadership reshuffles at the Department of Defense, coming just weeks after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed General Randy George, the Army’s highest-ranking uniformed officer. Since assuming office last year, Hegseth has removed a number of other top generals, admirals and senior defense leaders from their posts.

The abruptness of Phelan’s departure was highlighted by his public schedule just one day prior: on Tuesday, he spoke to a large gathering of sailors and defense industry representatives at the Navy’s annual Washington D.C. conference, and held press briefings to outline his upcoming policy agenda for the service.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Phelan confirmed the leadership change in a social media post, announcing that Undersecretary Hung Cao would take over as acting Navy Secretary immediately.

Cao, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. Navy with combat deployment experience, is no stranger to Republican politics. As a Trump-endorsed candidate in 2024, he mounted an unsuccessful bid to unseat Democratic Senator Tim Kaine in Virginia’s U.S. Senate race. Cao first came to the U.S. as a child refugee, fleeing communist rule in Vietnam with his family in the 1970s. During his Senate campaign, he drew sharp criticism of the Biden administration, comparing Cold War-era Vietnam’s communist government to Biden’s leadership. In a campaign video, he claimed the U.S. was “losing our country,” blaming Biden for the criminal investigations into former President Trump and highlighting issues including border security and retail crime.

Before his nomination as Navy Secretary by Trump in late 2024, Phelan had no prior military service nor previous civilian leadership experience within any branch of the U.S. armed forces. A prominent major donor to Trump’s 2024 campaign, Phelan made his career as the founder of Rugger Management LLC, a private investment firm. His only formal connection to the U.S. military prior to taking office was an advisory role with Spirit of America, a non-profit organization that provides support for defense initiatives focused on Ukraine and Taiwan.

As of Wednesday evening, The Associated Press had not succeeded in reaching Phelan’s office for a comment on his sudden departure.

A joint investigative journalism investigation by Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates has ignited fierce public and political backlash across the United Kingdom, after uncovering that 12 leading British higher education institutions have contracted a private intelligence firm led by former military intelligence officials to monitor pro-Palestine student protesters and academic staff. Since 2022, the 12 universities – including globally renowned institutions such as the University of Oxford, Imperial College London, University College London and King’s College London, alongside the University of Sheffield, University of Leicester, University of Nottingham, and Cardiff Metropolitan University – have paid Horus Security Consultancy Limited at least £440,000 (equivalent to roughly $594,000) for the surveillance work. The firm, which brands itself as a “leading intelligence” provider, was tasked with scanning public and private social media accounts of campus community members to track expressions of solidarity with Palestine, as well as compiling purported counter-terrorism threat assessments for the institutions. The investigation also documented specific cases of targeted surveillance: a 70-year-old Palestinian scholar, Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi, who was invited to deliver a guest lecture at Manchester Metropolitan University in 2023, was placed under monitoring by Horus agents, alongside a pro-Palestine PhD candidate studying at the London School of Economics. Speaking out about the experience, Abdulhadi condemned the arbitrary surveillance as a fundamental violation of academic freedom and due process. “You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty… but they actually made an assumption of guilt and started investigating me because of my scholarship,” she said. Abdulhadi further questioned what scholars must self-censor in their research and teaching to avoid what she called “this unwarranted, unfair and unjust scrutiny and surveillance.” Founded in 2006 as an internal project within the University of Oxford’s own campus security department, Horus is currently overseen by Colonel Tim Collins, who has held the role of director at the firm’s parent company since 2020. Collins has a well-documented history of controversial public positions: he has publicly called for the deportation of non-British citizens who participate in what he labels “misbehaving” protests, and has repeatedly claimed that pro-Palestine demonstrations across the UK are the product of a “Russian/Iranian orchestrated media campaign.” Multiple human rights and international experts have decried the surveillance program as a dangerous attack on civil liberties. Gina Romero, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for freedom of peaceful assembly and association, warned that the use of artificial intelligence by private firms to harvest and analyze personal student data raises “profound legal concerns” and has created a “state of terror” among student activists who wish to exercise their right to peaceful protest. Orlaith Roe, public affairs and communications officer at the UK-based International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), described the revelations as deeply alarming. “It is deeply frightening that some of the UK’s most respected universities have paid a private firm run by former military intelligence officials to surveil their own students and academics, particularly those in the pro-Palestine movement,” Roe said. She added that the UN special rapporteur’s characterization of the surveillance as creating a “state of terror” should be a urgent wake-up call for anyone who defends the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly in the UK. “This is not an isolated incident, but part of a troubling pattern of targeted monitoring of dissent in the UK – and without urgent scrutiny, it will not be the last,” Roe warned. Longtime UK MP and former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who leads the Your Party political grouping, echoed these criticisms, arguing that the surveillance program is the latest sign of the UK sliding toward authoritarian surveillance policies. “Britain is becoming a surveillance state,” Corbyn told Middle East Eye. “This is yet another disturbing example of an increasingly draconian crackdown on Palestinian solidarity. Universities are meant to encourage students to learn, not intimidate them into silence.” As of the publication of the investigation, neither Horus Security Consultancy nor most of the universities named in the report have responded to multiple requests for comment from journalists. On its official website, Horus claims it adheres to “the strongest ethics in whatever we do, and are fully transparent and legally compliant in whatever territory we operate in.”