分类: politics

  • Labor lashes Pauline Hanson over One Nation housing policy confusion

    Labor lashes Pauline Hanson over One Nation housing policy confusion

    Australia’s political landscape has erupted in fresh criticism of One Nation after internal contradictions and public confusion gutted the right-wing populist party’s controversial new housing policy, which targets foreign-owned property across the country. Two key figures from both the ruling Labor Party and opposition Liberal-National Coalition have united in condemnation, calling the proposal unworkable and highlighting the deep disarray within One Nations’s policy drafting process.

    Amanda Rishworth, Australia’s Employment Minister and senior Labor Party MP, laid out the governing party’s criticism in an interview with Sky News on Sunday. She argued that One Nation leader Pauline Hanson’s flagship proposal — which would require foreign owners of Australian residential property to sell their holdings within a fixed period, or face government repossession — is fundamentally unworkable, and even One Nation’s own parliamentary representatives cannot answer basic questions about how the policy would operate.

    The policy’s rollout last week was plagued by immediate confusion. Senior crossbencher Barnaby Joyce initially told reporters the mandate would extend to permanent residents of Australia holding property, only to reverse his position just hours later, clarifying that permanent residents would be exempt from the forced sale rule. Rishworth pointed to this back-and-forth as proof that One Nation lacks the discipline to craft viable policy, even on a high-priority issue like housing affordability.

    “If One Nation wants to be taken seriously as a political force, they’ve got to put in the work to develop coherent, actionable policy,” Rishworth said. “They correctly identify that housing affordability is a major problem for Australian people, but their proposed solution is total chaos. They keep pulling half-baked ideas together on the fly that simply will never work. That’s the core issue with One Nation: I understand why voters disillusioned with the major parties are looking for alternatives, but they don’t actually have real, workable solutions to the problems they highlight.”

    Rishworth acknowledged widespread voter discontent with the center-right Liberal Party that has driven disaffected supporters to One Nation, noting “pretty clear signs” of a shift, but declined to weigh in on the internal rivalry between the two parties. “On most key issues, the two are really just two sides of the same coin,” she added. She also called out One Nation for failing to release costing analysis for the housing policy and other signature proposals, saying the party has offered only excuses for the omission.

    For the opposition, Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson also labeled One Nation’s proposal shocking during his own Sky News appearance. Wilson argued that forcing law-abiding property owners — many of whom pay taxes and contribute to local Australian economies — to sell their homes and leave the country is a disturbing overreach that exposes One Nation’s true governing priorities.

    “It’s quite shocking that One Nation’s core agenda here is simply to evict people from their homes and expel them from the country,” Wilson said. “These are people acting in full compliance with Australian law, they’re local property owners contributing to our communities. This says something really distressing about what their objectives would be if they held government power. It’s a remarkably aggressive approach to people who are already here paying their taxes.”

    Wilson, however, defended the Coalition’s own controversial migration policy that would bar permanent residents from accessing the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and other federal welfare programs, even though many permanent residents pay federal income and other taxes. He drew a clear distinction between the Coalition’s policy and One Nation’s proposal, noting that the Coalition’s welfare changes would be grandfathered for existing residents and would not include forced home sales or expulsion.

    “Our focus is on ensuring that people who come to Australia commit to the country and contribute to it,” Wilson explained. “We don’t believe it’s in the best interest of anyone — existing Australians or new migrants — for people to actively seek out welfare immediately upon arrival. This is a very different approach from what One Nation is proposing.”

    Confusion around One Nation’s policy persisted into the weekend, when One Nation Senator Sean Bell failed to clarify key outstanding details during a Sydney radio interview on 2GB. When pressed on whether the government would actually repossess properties if owners failed to sell within Hanson’s proposed two-year window, Bell evaded the question, only stating that it is “perfectly reasonable” to prioritize home ownership for Australian citizens. Interview host Mark Levy cut the conversation short after Bell failed to provide clear answers, saying the party needed to get its own story straight first.

  • ICC states should respect judges’ report on prosecutor, says Norway’s deputy foreign minister

    ICC states should respect judges’ report on prosecutor, says Norway’s deputy foreign minister

    As the International Criminal Court (ICC) approaches a critical vote that will decide the future of its chief prosecutor Karim Khan, Norway’s deputy foreign minister Andreas Kravik is calling on member states to prioritize established procedural rules to prevent harmful perceptions that the review process has been politicized. In an exclusive interview with Middle East Eye (MEE) conducted ahead of the Monday voting deadline for the ICC Assembly of States Parties (ASP) Bureau, Kravik emphasized that institutional respect for pre-set protocols for investigating misconduct allegations is non-negotiable to protect the court’s global integrity.

    The unfolding controversy stems from sexual misconduct allegations brought against Khan in May 2024, which the prosecutor has repeatedly and forcefully denied. After the original complainant declined to cooperate with the ICC’s internal investigative body, the ASP commissioned an independent UN-led probe, whose findings were then passed to a three-judge panel appointed by the 21-member ASP Bureau for a formal advisory review. In March, MEE reported that the judge’s panel reached a unanimous conclusion: the UN investigation had failed to produce evidence confirming any wrongdoing by Khan. In a striking departure from standard process, however, a majority of Bureau members voted weeks later to disregard the panel’s assessment, opening the door to a finding of serious misconduct against Khan.

    Legal experts have already warned that the Bureau’s rejection of the independent judges’ advisory opinion creates significant risk that the entire misconduct inquiry will be seen as politically motivated, a threat to the court’s legitimacy that Norway says it cannot accept.

    “What we have said is that the ICC needs to look at this case in conformity with the procedures that have been established for examining such allegations of misconduct,” Kravik told MEE during the interview at the Norwegian foreign ministry in Oslo. “Because otherwise, there will be at least a perception of politicisation of the process. And that would hurt the integrity of the court. That’s something that we cannot afford, especially in this time when the court is under real pressure by other states and where certain states are trying, at the best of their ability, to portray the court as a politicised entity not operating in conformity with core principles of international law.”

    Norway has been a member of the ICC since the court’s founding under the Rome Statute in 2002, but it holds no seat on the current ASP Bureau. Kravik confirmed that Norway has not been granted access to the highly confidential UN and judicial panel reports, and is not privy to closed-door Bureau deliberations. Even so, based on credible public and off-the-record briefings on the probe’s outcomes, Kravik said the judges’ independent conclusion should carry full legal weight in the decision-making process for both the Bureau and the full 125-member ASP.

    “We haven’t seen the full reports. But we understand that there has been an investigation by the UN entity responsible for carrying out such investigations,” Kravik shared in a forthcoming episode of MEE’s *Expert Witness* podcast. “The conclusions of that report have been transferred to a legal panel comprising three judges, and they have looked at it, and their conclusion is that there are no grounds for taking certain actions against the prosecutor, at least in terms of alleviating him from his responsibilities as prosecutor. From my vantage point, without getting ahead of the curve, it seems that that is a sensible conclusion.”

    Kravik stressed that Norway will make a final, fact-based determination on the matter if the vote advances to the full ASP, but that procedural integrity remains the country’s top priority. “For us, the most important thing here is that the procedures that have been established are respected and that all individuals, also the prosecutor, are entitled to the judicial safeguards enshrined in those judicial guarantees that are giving guidance to these processes,” he added.

    If the Bureau ultimately recommends a finding of serious misconduct against Khan, the full 125-member ASP will hold two consecutive votes: first to uphold the misconduct finding, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass, and a second vote to decide whether to remove Khan from office permanently. The ongoing misconduct probe has plunged the court into an unprecedented state of institutional uncertainty, with persistent media leaks about the unproven allegations further eroding stability around Khan’s leadership.

    Khan has already made clear that if the ASP votes to remove him, he will file an appeal with the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT), the independent body that handles employment-related appeals from ICC staff. Last month, former International Court of Justice judge Abdul Koroma issued a legal opinion shared with all ICC member states warning that the ILOAT could order Khan’s reinstatement and order the ICC to pay up to €1.5 million ($1.74 million) in damages if his removal is found to be improperly justified.

    The controversy surrounding Khan comes against a highly charged geopolitical backdrop: the prosecutor’s ongoing war crimes investigation into Israeli officials over alleged atrocities in Gaza has already drawn intense pushback from the United States and its allies, who have sought to disrupt the ICC’s work. Elected as ICC chief prosecutor by the ASP in February 2021, the British barrister has overseen investigations into alleged serious international crimes committed by leaders across the globe, securing arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Myanmar’s junta leadership, and Taliban officials in Afghanistan. None of the US, Russia, or Israel are ICC member states, but the court holds jurisdiction over crimes committed by their nationals on the territory of ICC member states.

    In 2024, the Trump administration imposed retaliatory economic sanctions on Khan over his investigative work, measures that were later expanded to target two deputy prosecutors, eight ICC judges, the UN special rapporteur on Palestine, and multiple Palestinian NGOs that submitted evidence to the court. Russian courts have also issued an in absentia arrest warrant for Khan in retaliation for his work.

    In his interview with MEE, Kravik reaffirmed Norway’s unwavering support for the ICC and its commitment to enforcing all outstanding arrest warrants, including the one issued for Netanyahu. “The fact that some third states who aren’t party to the court have decided to sanction court officials for just doing their jobs is unconscionable,” he said. “We are in close discussions with our European partners, but also partners beyond Europe, about how we should oppose these actions taken primarily by the US. As a state party, we are committed to doing everything we can to ensure that those who are working for the court can do so without being subjected to sanctions or any other measures that try to prevent them from carrying out their functions under the court’s mandate.”

  • Hegseth attacks Europe over ‘invasion’ of migrants on its beaches in D-Day speech

    Hegseth attacks Europe over ‘invasion’ of migrants on its beaches in D-Day speech

    Eighty-two years after the largest seaborne invasion in modern history, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used the anniversary of the 1944 D-Day landings in Normandy, France, to launch a sharp public rebuke of European nations’ handling of irregular migration, drawing widespread pushback for tying the historic military operation to contemporary immigration debates.

    Hegseth’s address, delivered on the very beaches where Allied troops from the U.S., United Kingdom, and Canada gave their lives to liberate Northwestern Europe from Nazi occupation, claimed that modern European coastlines are now facing a different kind of incursion. “Sadly, today, different European beaches are stormed by different dangerous ideologies,” he told the assembled crowd. “Beaches in Spain, in Italy, in Greece and Bulgaria. Boats and men arrive. When will European capitals do something about that invasion?”

    The U.S. defense secretary also argued that post-WWII European leaders have grown complacent in protecting the hard-won freedom secured by D-Day casualties. “The men who fought and died here restored freedom to Europe,” Hegseth said. “That freedom must be maintained by this generation of leaders and war fighters or what they fought for was merely temporary. Freedom is not free.”

    Irregular migration across the Mediterranean and English Channel has been one of the most polarizing political issues across Europe for more than a decade. Sea arrivals of asylum seekers and migrants to mainland Europe hit a peak in 2015, when United Nations figures recorded more than one million crossings of the Mediterranean. More recently, between April 2025 and March 2026, a total of 169,341 irregular sea arrivals were recorded across the UK, Greece, Italy, Spain and Cyprus, with approximately 23% of those arrivals crossing to the UK. For the first five months of 2026, 9,142 people crossed the English Channel from France to the UK in small boats, marking a 38% drop from the same period in 2025.

    Hegseth’s comments are not an isolated incident: they reflect a coordinated pattern of criticism of European migration policy from senior officials in the second Trump administration. Just days before the D-Day anniversary, U.S. Vice President JD Vance linked the 2025 fatal stabbing of 18-year-old British student Henry Nowak in Southampton to what he called a “mass invasion of migrants”, calling for “righteous anger” in response. Downing Street pushed back forcefully against Vance’s remarks, condemning outside interference in British domestic politics, and noting that the Nowak family had explicitly requested their son’s death not be exploited to sow political division.

    President Donald Trump himself has repeatedly attacked European immigration approaches, telling the United Nations General Assembly last year that European countries were “going to hell” due to what he labeled “uncontrolled migration”. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer rejected Trump’s claims as “not right”, though he has acknowledged that irregular small boat crossings remain a pressing policy challenge his government is working to address.

    In December 2025, the Trump administration released its updated National Security Strategy, which went even further, warning that if current migration trends continue, Europe would be “unrecognisable in 20 years or less”, claiming that the continent’s longstanding economic challenges are “eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilisational erasure”.

    At home, the Trump administration has centered restrictive anti-immigration policy as a core pillar of its domestic agenda. Since taking office in January 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have carried out thousands of arrest operations targeting undocumented migrants living in the country, advancing the administration’s promise of sweeping immigration enforcement.

  • Police arrest supporters of banned group ahead of rally in Pakistan-administered Kashmir

    Police arrest supporters of banned group ahead of rally in Pakistan-administered Kashmir

    The contested Himalayan region of Kashmir, split between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan since their 1947 independence from British rule, has entered a new phase of political unrest following a government crackdown on a prominent opposition group. Officials and witness statements confirm that Pakistani Kashmir police took into custody dozens of supporters of the outlawed Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) on Saturday, one day after regional authorities in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, formally banned the organization over threats to public order and national security.

    The ban and subsequent arrests are the culmination of weeks of escalating tensions between the regional government and JAAC, which has organized a series of demonstrations in recent years demanding expanded public services and greater political rights for local residents through a 38-point charter of demands. Last year, negotiations between JAAC representatives, regional government officials, and Pakistan’s federal government resulted in 36 of the group’s 38 demands being formally accepted by authorities. These included key calls for subsidized wheat and lower-cost electricity, two of the group’s top priorities for improving local livelihoods.

    Regional Prime Minister Faisal Mumtaz Rathore has repeatedly stated, both before and after the ban was enacted, that his administration remains open to sitting down with JAAC leadership to resolve the two remaining sticking points. One of these unresolved issues centers on a demand for 12 reserved legislative assembly seats specifically for Kashmiri refugees who have settled in the region. Despite the government’s offer of continued dialogue, the regional government confirms JAAC has rejected calls to cancel a mass protest march scheduled for Tuesday, and is insisting all 38 of its original demands be met in full before any de-escalation.

    Authorities have deployed additional security personnel across Pakistan-administered Kashmir to prepare for the planned demonstration, amid a history of violent unrest linked to JAAC’s actions. Just last year, clashes between JAAC supporters and security forces left multiple people dead, including several on-duty police officers. Tensions flared again over the weekend: JAAC claimed Saturday that two of its members were wounded when police opened fire during the arrest operations. However, local Kashmir police have refuted this claim, stating that the shooting incident occurred overnight when unidentified armed men opened fire on officers after failing to stop their vehicle when ordered.

    Kashmir has remained one of the most volatile flashpoints in South Asia for more than 75 years, with both India and Pakistan claiming the entire region as their sovereign territory. Two of the three full-scale wars the two nations have fought since independence have been waged over control of Kashmir, and cross-border tensions in the region remain a constant source of concern for global security.

  • Hegseth invokes immigration and ‘invasion’ in D-Day speech in France

    Hegseth invokes immigration and ‘invasion’ in D-Day speech in France

    Normandy, France — The 82nd anniversary of the 1944 D-Day landings, a landmark event that marked the start of Western Europe’s liberation from Nazi occupation, became the stage for a heated political intervention by senior Trump administration officials over the weekend, drawing swift condemnation for framing migration as an existential threat to the freedom Allied troops fought to secure.

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered his address from the hallowed grounds of the Normandy American Cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer, where more than 9,000 U.S. service members killed during the invasion are buried. In his speech, he drew a provocative parallel between the 1944 Allied amphibious landing that freed Europe and what he framed as a modern-day “invasion” reaching European shores. Though he never explicitly used the word “immigration” in his remarks, his language left little room for ambiguity: he referenced “different dangerous ideologies” storming Europe’s beaches today, naming coastlines in Spain, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria where migrant boats regularly arrive, and challenged European leaders to act before it is too late.

    Hegseth’s comments align closely with broader Trump administration pressure on European governments over migration policy, border security, and the Trump White House’s criticism of what U.S. officials claim is unfair censorship of nationalist and far-right political voices across the continent. A December 2024 update to the Trump administration’s national security strategy amplified this framing, warning that Europe faces the risk of “civilizational erasure” and could become “unrecognizable” to current generations within two decades if current trends continue.

    The controversy did not end with Hegseth’s speech. Separate remarks by U.S. Vice President JD Vance drew sharp rebuke from 10 Downing Street, the official office of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Vance had linked the fatal stabbing of 18-year-old British student Henry Nowak in Southampton to immigration, a claim that fell apart under basic factual scrutiny: both Nowak and his suspected killer are British citizens. Starmer’s spokesperson issued a clear public condemnation of Vance’s inaccurate and exploitative comments in the wake of the tragedy.

    The dual controversies have thrown a spotlight on the Trump administration’s increasingly sharp rhetorical approach to European migration issues, turning a solemn commemoration of wartime sacrifice into a platform for advancing nationalist policy priorities that have divided transatlantic allies.

  • Colombia’s presidential runoff could impact the future of the Amazon rainforest and fossil fuels

    Colombia’s presidential runoff could impact the future of the Amazon rainforest and fossil fuels

    BOGOTA, Colombia — As Colombians prepare to head to the polls for the June 21 presidential runoff, the nation stands at a crossroads that will ripple far beyond its borders, with outcomes that will reshape the future of the Amazon rainforest, the country’s energy trajectory, and the rights of Indigenous communities that have stewarded the forest for centuries. The two candidates on the ballot represent diametrically opposed visions for the nation, forged in the policy legacy of current leftist President Gustavo Petro and shaped by an unexpected endorsement from former U.S. President Donald Trump.

    On one side is Sen. Iván Cepeda, a close ideological ally of Petro who analysts broadly agree would carry forward the outgoing administration’s landmark climate and social priorities. Cepeda has centered his campaign on upholding Indigenous territorial rights, expanding aggressive Amazon conservation efforts, and accelerating Colombia’s transition away from fossil fuel dependence — a policy shift that has positioned Petro’s government as one of the world’s most outspoken leaders on global climate action.

    Under Petro, Colombia banned new oil and gas exploration contracts, ruled out any expansion of fracking — a controversial extraction method linked to widespread environmental harm — and made history earlier this year by hosting the first-ever global summit dedicated to the worldwide transition away from coal, oil and gas. Cepeda has repeatedly affirmed his commitment to building on this work, steering the country toward expanded renewable energy production and blocking new development of fossil fuel reserves in ecologically sensitive Amazon regions.

    Facing Cepeda is conservative lawyer Abelardo de la Espriella, who earned a high-profile endorsement from Trump ahead of the runoff. De la Espriella has built his campaign platform around promises to boost public security and accelerate economic growth, with a core policy pledge to expand Colombia’s profitable extractive industries, including opening new areas to fracking and full development of the nation’s untapped underground fossil fuel and mineral reserves. Trump has praised de la Espriella’s hardline law enforcement stances, framing the candidate’s victory as critical to healthy U.S.-Colombia relations — a relationship that has been strained under Petro, who has clashed repeatedly with Trump over migration policy, climate action and security cooperation. Earlier this year, the two leaders traded public insults on social media after Petro barred U.S. deportation flights carrying Colombian migrants from landing in the country, prompting Trump to threaten sweeping tariffs and visa restrictions before a last-minute compromise was reached.

    While both candidates have paid lip service to valuing Amazon conservation, experts say the race boils down to a clear binary: one path prioritizes protecting the rainforest’s intact ecosystems, while the other prioritizes productive resource exploitation. “On issues of climate, this is a choice between prioritizing green energy and reinvigoration of fossil fuels,” explained Elizabeth Dickinson, deputy director for Latin America at the International Crisis Group, a nonpartisan global think tank.

    Colombia is home to more than a third of the Amazon rainforest, the world’s largest tropical forest and a critical global buffer against worsening climate change. In recent decades, the forest has come under growing pressure from accelerating deforestation, illegal gold mining, drug trafficking activity, and the gradual impacts of a warming planet. Under Petro, the administration has worked to curb these threats by expanding Indigenous participation in environmental governance and strengthening coordinated conservation action across Amazon basin nations, turning Colombia into a global voice for rainforest protection.

    Still, supporters of expanded extractive development argue that Colombia remains heavily reliant on oil and gas revenues to fund public services and drive economic growth, warning that a rapid wind-down of fossil fuel production would create unsustainable strain on national public finances and slow job creation. This fundamental tension between longstanding economic dependence on extractive industries and urgent global demands for environmental action will define the agenda of whichever candidate takes office.

    The race’s competing visions also extend to public security, a top voter concern amid growing criminal activity in the Amazon. In recent years, illegal gold mining, coca cultivation for the cocaine trade, and unregulated deforestation have expanded rapidly across large swathes of the rainforest, with much of this activity controlled by transnational armed criminal groups that have turned environmental destruction into a highly lucrative business model. “The greatest threat to conservation of the Amazon ecosystem is the expansion of organized crime,” Dickinson noted. “The challenge for both of these candidates will be to hold back that criminal expansion into these industries.”

    To address this crisis, Cepeda has pledged to continue Petro’s flagship “Total Peace” policy, which seeks to reduce violence through negotiated dialogues with guerrilla groups, drug trafficking organizations, and other armed actors. Supporters of the approach argue it offers the most sustainable path to reducing bloodshed, but critics counter that some criminal groups have used the negotiation process to consolidate territorial control and expand their illegal operations. Even under Petro, violence against environmental defenders has remained at crisis levels: Colombia consistently ranks as one of the deadliest countries in the world for climate and land activists, despite the administration’s pro-conservation agenda.

    De la Espriella, by contrast, has promised a hardline security response centered on increased military deployment and reasserting full state authority over contested Amazon territories. But human rights advocates warn that aggressive militarization would disproportionately harm Indigenous communities, whose lands have long been caught between armed groups and state forces. “The history of militarization of Indigenous peoples throughout the Amazon, but especially Colombia, has been devastating,” said Gimena Sánchez, Andes director at the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights-focused nonprofit.

    For Indigenous and local communities that call the Colombian Amazon home, the race’s stakes could not be higher. Many community leaders emphasize that effective environmental protection cannot be separated from meaningful social investment in the territories where more than one million people live. Alex Rufino, a member of the Ticuna Indigenous people based in the Amazonian city of Leticia, argues that national policy discussions often overlook the daily challenges facing forest residents, including widespread lack of access to quality education, healthcare, adequate housing and formal employment.

    These unmet social needs, Rufino explained, drive many of the activities that fuel deforestation and environmental destruction: without viable economic alternatives, many local residents turn to coca cultivation, illegal mining, and other activities tied to criminal groups that destroy the forest. Stronger social investment, he said, would give residents viable alternatives to these destructive economies. The impacts of climate change and environmental destruction are already impossible to ignore in the region: recent years have seen severe droughts that dropped Amazon river levels to historic lows, killing thousands of fish and endangered pink river dolphins, while illegal mining has left widespread mercury contamination that has been detected in fish consumed by local communities, creating long-term health risks for residents.

    As policymakers in Bogota debate energy policy, security strategy and economic growth, Amazon community leaders say the next Colombian administration must prioritize centering the voices of the people who have protected the forest for generations. For Rufino, that means recognizing the Amazon is not merely a reserve of natural resources to be extracted, but a living home to Indigenous and local communities that have been its most effective stewards for centuries. “The dialogue should focus on speaking from the Amazon and with the Amazon,” he said. “With the people. With young people. With women. With elders.”

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content.

  • Iran says staff blocked from entering US after players given World Cup visas

    Iran says staff blocked from entering US after players given World Cup visas

    As the 2026 joint North American World Cup approaches, a bitter diplomatic dispute between the United States and Iran has spilled onto the global football pitch, just 10 days ahead of Iran’s opening group stage match.

    The controversy broke hours after Washington officially confirmed that all Iranian national team players had been cleared for travel to the tournament to be co-hosted by the US, Canada and Mexico. On Friday, US authorities stated they had issued entry visas to all players and what they classified as “necessary support staff” ahead of Iran’s first fixture in Los Angeles on June 15. However, US officials also made a pointed assertion that Iran would not be permitted to “abuse this system to sneak terrorists into the United States under false pretences”.

    Tehran has hit back hard at the visa restrictions, with Iran’s embassy in Turkey issuing a scathing statement accusing the US of “politically biased interference in sport”. The embassy confirmed that a large share of the team’s managerial, executive and technical backroom staff – members the Iranian side describes as integral to the team’s participation – have been blocked from receiving entry visas. Iranian state-affiliated media has further specified that the head of Iran’s national football federation and his deputy are among those denied entry, a snub that Tehran calls a deliberate escalation of discriminatory treatment against the Iranian delegation. The Iranian embassy called the US’s earlier announcement of visa clearance for the team a “whitewash”, adding that “You have now escalated the deliberate and discriminatory treatment against Iran’s national football team to its highest level.”

    Iran has formally called on FIFA, the global governing body of football, to step in and mediate the dispute to protect the principles of neutrality in international sport.

    This unprecedented World Cup already carries historic context: it marks the first time a host nation has accepted the national team of a country with which it is currently at war. Iran qualified for the 48-team tournament back in March 2025, finishing top of its qualification group nearly a year before open conflict broke out between the two nations. In late May, in anticipation of visa difficulties, Iran relocated its pre-tournament training base from Tucson, Arizona to Mexico to avoid potential disruptions.

    Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed Congress that no members of Iran’s delegation linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s powerful military branch, would be granted entry. The policy has created further friction, as several players in the Iranian national squad have completed mandatory military service with the IRGC, placing their own participation in potential jeopardy despite earlier US confirmation that all players had received visas.

    After facing England in Los Angeles on June 15, Iran is scheduled to play two additional group stage matches: against Belgium in Southern California and against Egypt in Seattle, Washington.

  • Pope calls for end to polarisation on Spain visit

    Pope calls for end to polarisation on Spain visit

    Pope Leo XIV launched a landmark seven-day state visit to Spain on Saturday, opening his trip with a urgent call to reject deepening societal division in a country already roiled by fierce political debate over immigration policy. The U.S.-born pontiff, who has drawn repeated public criticism from former U.S. President Donald Trump over his outspoken anti-war stances, delivered his opening address from Madrid’s Royal Palace, where he was formally welcomed by King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia. In his remarks, he pushed back against what he called “polarising narratives” and “sterile simplifications” that have split public opinion, framing peace as a core message that should resonate across ideological divides.

    “At present unfortunately [the message of peace] strikes some as naive and others as confrontational,” Leo told the gathered crowd of political, royal and religious leaders, “but should instead be welcomed by those who do not shut themselves off in preconceived ideologies.” The pontiff also extended public praise to Spain’s left-wing government led by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, commending the country for its “faithful adherence to international law and multilateralism” and its “active commitment to peace and solidarity among peoples.” Sánchez has made clear international stances that have put him at odds with global leaders: he has clashed repeatedly with Trump over policy toward Iran and with the Israeli government over the ongoing war in Gaza. Notably, even Santiago Abascal, leader of the far-right anti-immigration party Vox, joined attendees in standing and applauding the pope’s speech. Vox, which is Spain’s third-largest political force, has led fierce opposition to Sánchez’s relatively liberal immigration approach, a policy that also puts the Spanish government at odds with many of its fellow European Union allies.

    Beyond the central focus on immigration, the visit will tackle two other defining and sensitive issues for the Catholic Church in Spain: addressing decades of clerical sexual abuse and re-engaging a growing cohort of young people who have drifted away from organized religion. Speaking to reporters aboard his plane ahead of landing, Leo described clerical abuse as an “open wound” for the Church, echoing ongoing efforts to confront the long history of abuse that has been hidden by Church hierarchy for decades. A 2023 official report from Spain’s national ombudsman estimates that roughly 200,000 minors have suffered abuse at the hands of Church representatives since 1940. In March of this year, Sánchez’s government and the Spanish Catholic Church reached a landmark agreement to compensate surviving victims, ending years of institutional opacity and resistance from Church leadership. King Felipe VI praised the pope’s “clarity and firmness” on the abuse issue, noting that these qualities are “essential in the process of healing and reparation of the damage inflicted.”

    On Saturday evening, Leo is set to lead a large prayer vigil near Real Madrid’s iconic Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, where organizers expect roughly 400,000 attendees, the vast majority of whom are young people. The pontiff said he was encouraged by growing signs of renewed interest in the Catholic Church among younger generations, noting that many young people are “realise there’s an emptiness, and a lack of a sense of meaning, and perhaps my visiting is helping to awaken even further something.” His visit coincidentally overlaps with a run of concerts in Madrid by global pop star Bad Bunny, a scheduling overlap that has led some cultural commentators to frame the moment as a choice between secular pop culture and spiritual faith for young attendees. Leo pushed back against this framing with characteristic good humor, saying “I think many will see Bad Bunny. But I think there will also be a few here to see the pope. And that says something.”

    On Sunday, more than one million people are expected to gather in central Madrid for a public mass led by the pontiff. After the Madrid events, Leo will travel to Barcelona to bless the newly completed tower of the Sagrada Família Basilica, which will become the tallest church in the world upon completion. The visit will conclude with a stop in the Canary Islands, the Spanish archipelago off the coast of West Africa that has become the primary entry point for irregular migrants arriving in Europe from Africa, after dangerous multi-week crossings. Leo and Sánchez will jointly honor the thousands of migrants who have died attempting to reach European shores. UN data from the International Organization for Migration shows that 1,172 migrants died or went missing along the Canary Islands route in 2025, a number only marginally lower than the 1,215 deaths recorded in 2024.

    Spanish security forces have deployed more than 15,000 personnel from the national police and Guardia Civil, alongside local law enforcement, to manage events and ensure security during the high-profile visit. The trip marks a shift from the papacy of Leo’s predecessor, Francis, who largely avoided visits to Europe’s traditional strongholds of Catholicism — including Spain, where rates of regular religious observance have plummeted in recent decades. The visit will also make history when Leo becomes the first pope to address the Spanish parliament, an unprecedented step that underscores the historic nature of his trip.

  • Scores of Ukrainian drones target St Petersburg in attack Russia calls ‘unprecedented’

    Scores of Ukrainian drones target St Petersburg in attack Russia calls ‘unprecedented’

    In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing conflict that has gripped Eastern Europe since 2022, Ukraine launched what Russian authorities have labeled an “unprecedented attack” using drones targeting locations in and around St. Petersburg, timed to coincide with the final day of Russia’s flagship annual international economic forum. This major offensive came just 24 hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected a long-awaited call for direct, face-to-face peace talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, setting off a new cycle of military action amid stalled diplomatic efforts.

    Russian regional officials confirmed that more than 140 unmanned aerial vehicles were intercepted and shot down across the Leningrad Oblast, the administrative region surrounding St. Petersburg. In an extraordinary step not seen since the full-scale invasion began, St. Petersburg Governor Alexander Beglov issued an urgent order for all local residents to stay indoors throughout the attack, a directive that underscored the severity of the incursion deep into Russian territory.

    Shortly after the strikes, Zelenskyy confirmed the operation via a social media video post, framing the action as a proportional and just response to repeated Russian attacks on Ukrainian territory. He detailed that Ukrainian military forces targeted Russian weapons arsenals and a key Russian naval base located in Kronstadt, a strategically significant port just off the St. Petersburg coast. The drone sortie marked an extraordinary 1,000-kilometer deep strike into Russian heartland, demonstrating Ukraine’s expanding long-range strike capabilities. Zelenskyy added that a second target, an oil storage depot in Russia’s southern Krasnodar Krai, roughly 500 kilometers from the Ukrainian border, was also successfully hit in coordinated operations.

    The attack capped off three days of rapid diplomatic developments. On Thursday, Zelenskyy released an open letter formally calling for direct one-on-one negotiations with Putin to end the full-scale war Russia launched in February 2022. He argued that waiting for external intervention, specifically renewed focus from the United States, was a strategic mistake that only prolonged the conflict. A day later, during his keynote address at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, Putin flatly rejected the overture. He reaffirmed Russia’s longstanding position that formal peace negotiations must precede any ceasefire agreement, and stated that Russia would only end military operations once all of its stated war goals had been achieved. Those goals, Moscow has repeatedly made clear, require Ukraine to cede full control of four partially occupied regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia—and permanently abandon its bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

    Alongside the strike on St. Petersburg, Ukrainian drone operations have intensified in Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine in recent weeks, specifically targeting Russian military logistics networks. In occupied Luhansk Oblast, the Moscow-installed puppet administration was forced to suspend intercity bus service along two major motorways, issuing a public warning for locals to avoid the routes “for security reasons” following a string of successful Ukrainian strikes. The administration also suspended regional commuter rail service and implemented a ban on group travel for minors across the occupied region. This disruption comes despite Putin’s prior claims that Russia holds full and complete control over the self-proclaimed “Luhansk People’s Republic.”

    Speaking to the BBC, one regional security analyst noted that the scale of Ukraine’s targeting campaign has been substantial: since the start of May, Ukrainian drones have destroyed or damaged more than 200 military cargo trucks and over 30 fuel tankers supporting Russian frontline operations, severely straining Russian supply lines in occupied areas.

  • Bernadette Chirac, formidable former first lady of France who built power of her own, dies at 93

    Bernadette Chirac, formidable former first lady of France who built power of her own, dies at 93

    PARIS – Bernadette Chirac, the unflappable, politically sharp former first lady of France who stood beside President Jacques Chirac throughout his 12-year tenure at the Élysée Palace from 1995 to 2007, has passed away at the age of 93. French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed her death on Saturday, noting that he and First Lady Brigitte Macron learned of her passing with “great sadness,” honoring her as a transformative figure in French history whose decades of charity work touched the lives of millions of citizens. “A great lady of the heart has departed,” Macron stated in his official tribute.

    For over half a century, Bernadette Chirac was the steady anchor of her husband’s decades-long political ascent, which saw him rise through parliamentary ranks, serve two terms as prime minister, hold 18 years as mayor of Paris, and ultimately claim the French presidency in 1995. Far from being limited to the largely ceremonial role of a presidential spouse, Bernadette built an independent political legacy of her own, earning widespread attention both for her quiet influence over her husband’s administration – and for her dry, unapologetic handling of his well-documented reputation as a womanizer, a topic she would later address with unusual candor.

    In 1998, when swarmed by photographers in the rural department of Corrèze amid rumors that Jacques Chirac had been unreachable the night of Princess Diana’s death because he was with a famous actress, Bernadette stepped out of her car and delivered a characteristically sharp quip: “Calm down. I’m not Claudia Cardinale. Or Lollobrigida.” The moment encapsulated the quick wit and unshakable poise that would define her public image for decades.

    To much of the French public, she was long known for her iconic, almost institutional public persona: perfectly coiffed blond hair, a structured handbag slung over her arm, an upright posture in every official photograph, paired with tailored Chanel suits, dark sunglasses, a distinct nasal tone, and biting, memorable judgments. But this popular caricature never captured the full scope of her ambition or skill: beneath the polished exterior was a relentless worker and shrewd political operator, one of the only spouses of French presidents to build an independent base of political power entirely her own.

    Born Bernadette Thérèse Marie Chodron de Courcel in Paris on May 18, 1933, she came from a privileged, devout Catholic family with deep roots in French public life: her paternal lineage included soldiers, industrialists, and diplomats, and one of her uncles served as an aide to Charles de Gaulle during wartime London. The turning point of her life came during her studies at the elite Sciences Po university in Paris, where she met Jacques Chirac, a charming, politically ambitious young man whose hunger for power would shape their shared life for decades.

    The couple married in March 1956, and their 63-year union was, in Bernadette’s own words, a lifelong lesson in endurance. While Jacques was famous for his easy warmth, charisma, and instinctive connection with voter crowds, political observers noted Bernadette’s strengths were far different: she was disciplined, socially formidable, devout, exacting, and often unforgettably witty. Catholic philosopher Jean Guitton once called her “the last queen of France,” a label she did little to push back against.

    Her husband’s well-known reputation as a womanizer was an open secret in French political circles, and after years of heartache, Bernadette chose to address it with characteristic dry humor. “At first, it was hard. I was very heartbroken, and then I got used to it,” she shared in a television documentary years later. “I told myself that was how things were and that I had to accept it with as much dignity as possible.”

    When she was sent to manage her husband’s rural political stronghold in Corrèze while he pursued power in Paris, she far exceeded expectations of merely maintaining the seat. She was elected municipal councilor of the small town of Sarran in 1971, won a seat as a general councilor for Corrèze in 1979, and held that position until 2015, building deep grassroots loyalty over four decades.

    Her influence grew exponentially after Jacques Chirac won the presidency in 1995. While the role of first lady in France holds no formal constitutional power, Bernadette turned her position at the Élysée into a space where her approval carried serious political weight. She was known for being unwaveringly loyal to allies, unforgiving to rivals, and deeply attuned to the unspoken dynamics of political life – understanding that electoral success depends as much on personal debts, grudges, and alliances as it does on speeches and opinion polls. In doing so, she carved out a space for legitimate female authority within a heavily male-dominated political culture that had long refused to share power, quietly refusing to be reduced to nothing more than “the wife of” the president. By 2023, her legacy and persona were prominent enough to inspire a major commercial film: the comedy *Bernadette*, focused on her years at the Élysée, starred legendary French actress Catherine Deneuve in the title role.

    Bernadette kept her deepest personal grief largely private from the public eye. The Chiracs’ elder daughter, Laurence, developed severe anorexia after contracting meningitis as a teenager, survived multiple suicide attempts, never fully recovered her health, and died in 2016 at the age of 58. This devastating personal experience led Bernadette to the charity work that would eventually redefine her public image. In 1994, she took leadership of a medical charity that collected loose change to support children receiving care in French hospitals. Over the next 25 years, she transformed the organization and became the public face of pediatric hospital care, endearing herself to millions of French families who had previously seen her as aloof. She led the charity until 2019, when she handed over leadership to Brigitte Macron, becoming honorary president of the organization.

    Long before her retirement from public life, Bernadette had firmly established herself as a political force in her own right. “My husband no longer does politics, but I do,” she told reporters after Jacques Chirac left the presidency in 2007. She famously gave Dominique de Villepin, an Élysée official she distrusted, the cutting nickname “Nero,” yet was also widely reported to have helped broker the reconciliation between her husband and Nicolas Sarkozy, the former protégé who had betrayed Jacques Chirac politically to claim the presidency. Her 2001 memoir *Conversation*, co-written with journalist Patrick de Carolis, sold hundreds of thousands of copies and introduced the French public to a far more frank, funny, and independent woman than many had previously assumed.

    After Jacques Chirac left the Élysée, his health declined rapidly and he withdrew from public life, but Bernadette retained her sharp voice and wit well into old age. When asked by reporters how her husband was doing, according to French media, she delivered a characteristically dry one-liner: “He keeps the dog.”

    Eventually, age and cumulative grief pulled her out of public view. When Jacques Chirac died in 2019, she was too frail to take part in the large public farewell attended by French and international leaders honoring his legacy. On Saturday, the Élysée Palace announced that President Macron would invite the French public to pay tribute to Bernadette Chirac in a public space opposite the presidential palace.