分类： politics

West Bengal, one of India’s most politically charged states, is poised to enter an unprecedented new era this weekend, as one of its most controversial and battle-tested politicians prepares to take the highest office. Suvendu Adhikari, leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and once the closest confidant of outgoing Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, will be sworn in as the state’s new chief minister on Saturday, capping a decades-long political climb that has upended the region’s power dynamics.

The BJP’s landslide victory in the 2026 West Bengal assembly election, which saw the party claim 207 of the chamber’s 294 seats, brought an end to 15 years of rule by Banerjee’s All India Trinamool Congress (TMC). It also marks the first time the Hindu nationalist BJP has secured power in the state, a political milestone long sought by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s national government.

Adhikari’s path to the chief minister’s office did not start with the BJP. Born in 1970 into one of coastal West Bengal’s most influential political clans in Purba Medinipur district, he cut his political teeth with the Indian National Congress before switching to the TMC in the party’s early years as an opposition bloc challenging the long-dominant Left Front. Building on the political network established by his father, veteran Member of Parliament Sisir Adhikari, Adhikari rose through the TMC ranks on the back of grassroots organizing and a reputation for unflinching political combat.

His breakout moment came during the 2007 Nandigram land acquisition protests, a mass movement against the Left Front government’s plan to seize farmland for industrial development. Violent clashes during the agitation fatally weakened the Left regime and cleared the way for Banerjee’s TMC to win power in 2011, and Adhikari—who led much of the on-the-ground organizing—emerged as the TMC’s most effective young operator. For more than a decade after that, he was viewed as Banerjee’s heir apparent, her most trusted lieutenant across the state.

The relationship between the two leaders began to fray in 2016, when Adhikari was caught up in a high-profile sting operation controversy. Secret videos released ahead of that year’s state election appeared to show Adhikari accepting cash from a fake investor in his office, allegations he forcefully denied, questioning both the authenticity and context of the leaked footage. Tensions continued to mount in the years that followed, until Adhikari made his dramatic break: defecting to the BJP in 2020, just months ahead of the 2021 state election.

The 2021 vote proved to be a turning point for Adhikari’s national profile. Contesting the Nandigram seat against his former mentor Banerjee, he pulled off a shocking upset that defeated the sitting chief minister in her own backyard. Though the BJP lost the overall election that year, Adhikari’s win cemented his status as Banerjee’s primary rival and elevated him to the top of the state BJP’s leadership.

Five years later, Adhikari has led the party to an even more historic upset. In the 2026 election, he not only retained his Nandigram seat, but also defeated Banerjee in her decades-long stronghold of Bhabanipur, helping the BJP secure a commanding majority across the state. The win marks a stunning reversal for the BJP, which was once a marginal political force in West Bengal.

But Adhikari’s ascent has never been without controversy. Critics have long painted him as a polarizing figure who has deployed inflammatory, communal rhetoric to deepen political divisions in the state. In 2021, the Election Commission of India issued a formal notice to Adhikari after a campaign speech where he allegedly referred to Banerjee as “Begum” and claimed voting for her was equivalent to supporting a “mini-Pakistan.” Last year, he sparked national outrage when he declared that a BJP government would “physically throw Muslim MLAs out of the assembly” after winning the 2026 election. The remarks drew widespread accusations of hate speech from the TMC, led to a privilege motion against him, and resulted in his suspension from the state assembly. He has also faced intense condemnation for unsubstantiated claims that medicines distributed at TMC-run medical camps were designed to reduce the state’s Hindu population through birth control.

Even as Adhikari prepares to take office, the state has already been roiled by post-election unrest. Earlier this week, a close personal aide to Adhikari was shot and killed by unidentified assailants near his home, in what BJP leaders have called a targeted political assassination. The killing has amplified long-running concerns about political violence in the state, which has surged amid the bitter rivalry between the BJP and TMC.

Beyond security concerns, Adhikari inherits a state facing deep structural economic challenges. For decades, West Bengal has lagged behind other major Indian states in attracting large-scale private investment, and youth unemployment remains a persistent, pressing issue that the BJP centered its 2026 campaign around. He also takes control of a state deeply divided by years of partisan conflict, with frequent outbreaks of election-related violence and allegations of political intimidation on both sides.

To his supporters, however, Adhikari is a leader cut from a different cloth than India’s elite, Delhi-based political class: a grassroots organizer deeply rooted in local communities, with a relentless drive to deliver on the BJP’s campaign promises. They celebrate his combative campaigning style as a much-needed change from the status quo that defined TMC’s 15-year rule. Now, as he prepares to take the oath of office, Adhikari faces his greatest test yet: transitioning from a firebrand opposition leader to a chief executive capable of uniting a divided state, attracting investment, creating jobs, and governing one of India’s most politically volatile regions.

China’s largest aerospace manufacturer, Aviation Industry Corp of China (AVIC), is set to implement ongoing upgrades and customer-specific customizations for its export-focused J-10CE advanced fighter jet, aligning the platform with the unique operational requirements of international clients, according to the aircraft’s chief designer.

Li Jun, a senior researcher at the Chengdu Aircraft Design and Research Institute — one of AVIC’s key Sichuan-based subsidiaries — outlined the jet’s development roadmap during a public media briefing held Thursday as part of an open-house event hosted by the institute and Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group. Li noted that the J-10CE, the first export-exclusive variant of the J-10 fighter family, retains substantial room for technological advancement and is projected to remain a competitive, market-relevant platform for a minimum of 20 to 30 years of service.

“ We are ready to export this aircraft to any friendly nation that aligns with our development vision, provided their procurement requests meet China’s relevant national laws and regulations, ” Li stated.

The Chengdu-based AVIC units are responsible for developing and manufacturing some of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force’s most capable combat aircraft, including the entire J-10 fighter family and the fifth-generation J-20 stealth fighter fleet. The J-10CE has already been acquired and entered active service with the Pakistan Air Force, marking the platform’s first international deployment.

Li emphasized that the J-10CE is built to adapt to a wide range of mission profiles, from establishing air superiority to executing precision ground strike operations. The platform can be modified to accommodate the unique operating environments and operational demands of different buyer nations, with flexible optional payload packages available to meet specific customer needs.

Compared to earlier generations of J-10 aircraft, the J-10CE delivers a generational leap in combat system technology, emerging as a fully multi-role operational platform. Early J-10 models were only compatible with roughly 10 types of armament, while the J-10CE can carry dozens of different weapons tailored for air-to-air, air-to-ground, and air-to-sea combat missions, Li explained.

The jet’s avionics suite has also received a full generational upgrade, headlined by an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar that can rapidly detect and track multiple targets, outperforming older mechanically scanned radar systems by a significant margin. Additional advanced capabilities include network-centric cooperative combat operations, beyond-visual-range engagement of multiple targets in high-intensity contested electromagnetic environments, multi-mode precision strike capability, and superior performance in medium- and low-altitude close-range dogfights.

Beyond delivering the fighter jet itself, AVIC provides international clients with a complete end-to-end combat ecosystem that includes early warning, command and control, and electronic warfare infrastructure. Li pointed to the J-10CE’s proven real combat record — credited with shooting down multiple hostile aircraft while sustaining zero operational losses — as clear proof of the platform’s capabilities and the strength of its supporting combat systems.

Zhang Xuefeng, a retired People’s Liberation Army Air Force officer and independent military technology analyst, noted that China’s advanced fighter aircraft portfolio, led by the J-10 series, is reshaping the global defense trade market through a set of unique competitive advantages. Zhang explained that Chinese fighter jets offer exceptional cost-effectiveness: while Western-made advanced fighters typically carry a price tag of hundreds of millions of dollars per unit, Chinese alternatives deliver comparable combat performance at a far more accessible price point. Additionally, China can tailor full defense packages to fit a wide range of buyer budgets, matching the diverse operational and financial needs of nations across the global spectrum.

Zhang added that China also holds a unique capability to export fully integrated end-to-end weapon systems, including a complete lineup of airborne armaments and electronic warfare infrastructure. “ We can deliver compatible airborne early warning aircraft and supporting data links that enable full digital modernization of a buyer nation’s entire combat force structure, ” he said.

A high-profile retrial of six pro-Palestine activists linked to a 2024 raid on a UK facility operated by Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems has concluded with four convictions, triggering fierce condemnation from legal teams, family members, and human rights advocates over what they decry as a politically skewed, unfair judicial process.

On 6 August 2024, the six activists carried out a direct action at Elbit Systems’ plant near Bristol, leading to charges including criminal damage, violent disorder, and assault against law enforcement. After a first trial that ended with a full acquittal on aggravated burglary charges and mixed outcomes for other counts, the CPS opted to retry the group on the outstanding criminal damage charge. Two activists – 31-year-old Jordan Devlin and 22-year-old Zoe Rogers – were ultimately cleared of criminal damage in the retrial, which concluded at London’s Woolwich Crown Court last Tuesday.

The four found guilty are 30-year-old Leona Kamio, 23-year-old Samuel Corner, 21-year-old Fatema Rajwani, and 29-year-old Charlotte Head. All were convicted unanimously on criminal damage charges connected to the raid. Corner faced an additional charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent for hitting a police officer with a sledgehammer; he was acquitted of the more severe count, but found guilty by an 11-1 majority verdict of the lesser offence of inflicting GBH without intent. Following the initial trial, the CPS also dropped all outstanding violent disorder charges against the four convicted activists.

Prior to the first trial’s conclusion, all six defendants spent 18 months in pre-trial detention – a period that far exceeds the UK’s standard custody time limits ahead of trial. They were granted bail in February this year, and legal representatives confirm none of the activists have breached any bail conditions in the months since their release. Despite this track record of compliance, Justice Andrew Johnson ruled to remand the four convicted activists back into custody immediately after the guilty verdicts were returned, to await their sentencing scheduled for 12 June.

In justifying his remand decision, Johnson argued there were “substantial grounds” to believe the four would reoffend, noting that their closing statements made it clear they still viewed their actions as morally justified. The ruling left Rajwani and Head visibly distraught, with the pair breaking down in tears in the dock.

Defence legal teams have roundly rejected the justification for remand. Mira Hammad, representing Kamio, pointed out that the evidence presented in the retrial is identical to the evidence available when Johnson granted bail back in February, with no new factors to justify a change in custody status. Audrey Cherryl Mogan, counsel for acquitted defendant Zoe Rogers, called the decision “shocking”, emphasizing that the activists had fully complied with all bail requirements, providing tangible proof that they posed no risk of reoffending or failure to attend court.

Family members of the activists have gone further, denouncing the custody decision as cruel and politically motivated. Clare Hinchcliffe, mother of Zoe Rogers, told reporters outside Woolwich Crown Court that the 18 months the group spent in pre-trial detention without conviction already amounts to a sentence equivalent to that for a four-year criminal offence. “The cruelty of that and the spite of that just takes my breath away,” Hinchcliffe said, adding that the entire trial had been shaped by political influence and unfair restrictions on what evidence jurors were permitted to hear. In a social media post, Hinchcliffe added that Rogers found the convictions of her co-defendants devastating, and that Rogers had said she would not have shed a tear if all six had been found guilty.

Speaking to reporters after the verdict, Rogers said her convicted co-defendants should not be behind bars, and added that she does not fault the jury, given that critical context was withheld from them throughout the proceedings. Devlin, who was also acquitted, publicly admitted he had damaged drone equipment at the facility, calling the act an honour. He argued that his acquittal came about after missing security camera footage – including footage showing him being struck in the face by a security guard during the raid – backfired for the prosecution, and that the conviction of his co-defendants is a travesty of justice, noting “the damage to Elbit weapons they’re accused of was to save Palestinian lives.”

Beyond the convictions and remand decision, the case has sparked major constitutional controversy over judicial restrictions on defence argument and ongoing contempt of court proceedings against lead defence counsel Rajiv Menon KC. From the outset of the first trial, Justice Johnson barred defendants from presenting evidence about their motivations connected to Elbit’s role supplying arms to Israel for its military campaign in Gaza, instructing jurors that their views on Israel’s actions in Gaza were irrelevant to the case. He also barred defence lawyers from reminding jurors of their long-established right to acquit defendants based on conscience, a legal principle known as jury equity, which dates back to the 1670 Bushell’s Case that established jury independence in English common law.

During his closing statement in the first trial, Menon – who represents Head in both trials – read the inscription on a Bushell’s Case plaque at London’s Old Bailey, and argued that it was ridiculous to expect jurors to ignore the wider context of the activists’ actions, including Elbit’s role in Gaza. Justice Johnson ruled that Menon’s speech defied the court’s pre-trial directions, leading to contempt of court proceedings against the barrister. Menon has challenged the ruling, and the case is now awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeal.

Veteran human rights barrister Michael Mansfield KC, who has worked alongside Menon on high-profile public inquiries including the Grenfell Tower fire and Hillsborough disaster, called the proceedings against Menon unprecedented. “I’ve been at the bar for well over 50 years, and I am unaware of any case where counsel has been accused of contempt of court,” Mansfield told Middle East Eye. He noted that even if no punishment is ultimately issued, the contempt allegation itself already risks damaging Menon’s reputation and ability to practice. He added that the case creates a dangerous chilling effect, adding that the court’s handling of the issue – which was processed publicly rather than through the standard internal professional route through the Bar Council – is extraordinary. Garden Court Chambers, Menon’s chambers, echoed these concerns, saying the prosecution is “wholly without historical precedent” and undermines the core principle that defendants in high-profile political cases are entitled to robust, committed legal representation.

Towards the end of the retrial, the defendants took the unusual step of dismissing their legal team and delivering their own closing statements. Head told jurors that court restrictions had prevented her defence team from representing the group fairly, adding that proposed UK government reforms to eliminate jury trials in many cases are rooted in fear of the power that juries hold: “They are afraid of the power you hold as a jury,” she said. Rogers echoed the criticism of evidence restrictions, telling jurors that throughout the three-week trial, key terms including “genocide” had been effectively blacklisted from court proceedings, with no mention of the word permitted until the closing statements by the defendants.

Outside the court, the Metropolitan Police imposed a Section 14 order banning demonstrations near the Woolwich Crown Court building during the trial. Nine supporters were arrested in April for breaching the order after holding signs reminding jurors of jury equity, a move that came despite a recent High Court ruling that found a similar placard held by activist Trudi Warner was protected free speech and did not improperly influence juries.

The Judicial Office declined to comment on the case when approached by Middle East Eye. Ahead of the 12 June sentencing, the defence has called for full disclosure of the value of damage claimed by Elbit Systems, noting the prosecution has cited an unsubstantiated figure of £1 million from an anonymous witness, with no disclosure of the witness identity or itemized list of damaged property. Justice Johnson has said sentencing will be based on an assessment of offence seriousness rather than a strict financial value of damage, and the defence has urged the judge to consider that the action targeted an arms manufacturer supplying weapons to Israel, arguing the context requires a different assessment than an attack on an unrelated civilian business.

Israel’s military chief of staff Eyal Zamir has put forward the name of controversial senior commander Barak Hiram to serve as military secretary to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to Israeli outlet Ynet. The nomination has reignited debate over far-right ideological shifts within the country’s top military ranks, given Hiram’s long record of divisive actions and hardline political views tied to the ongoing war in Gaza.

Hiram is one of two final contenders for the position, which will be vacated by outgoing official Roman Gofman, a close ally of Netanyahu who is widely expected to take over as head of the Mossad intelligence agency. The other candidate for the role is Tal Politis, a senior leader in the Israeli Navy.

Hiram first became a polarizing public figure immediately after the October 7 attacks led by Hamas, when he ordered Israeli tank forces to fire on a residential home in Kibbutz Beeri where Hamas fighters were holding Israeli civilian captives. Of the 15 hostages inside the building during the strike, only two survived the incident. Despite widespread public outcry over the deadly incident, Hiram has repeatedly defended his decision, noting in subsequent media interviews with outlets including *The New York Times* and Israel’s Channel 12 that the operation also killed multiple Hamas militants.

Months before Israel launched its full ground invasion of Gaza, Hiram also laid out an uncompromising stance on eliminating the group, stating publicly that the Israeli military could not fully destroy Hamas’ infrastructure and governing institutions without a full ground incursion and reoccupation of Gaza territory. That position put him firmly in line with the most hardline elements of Netanyahu’s governing coalition.

Even amid sustained criticism over the Kibbutz Beeri incident, Hiram has continued to climb the military leadership ladder. He was later appointed to lead the Israeli military’s Gaza Division, and was previously reported by Israeli media to be in consideration for the role of head of the military’s Operations Directorate, one of the most powerful positions in the entire Israeli armed forces.

In 2024, then-Israeli military chief Herzi Halevi issued a formal reprimand to Hiram over the unauthorized demolition of a university building in central Gaza City. Israeli media confirmed the demolition was carried out without approval from senior command, and military assessments found the structure did not pose any immediate threat to Israeli troops deployed in the area. Later that same year, while Hiram commanded the Gaza Division, a unit under his leadership was linked to the killing of 15 Palestinian aid workers and paramedics in the Tel al-Sultan neighborhood of Rafah. No formal disciplinary or legal action has ever been brought against Hiram in connection with that killing.

In 2025 comments tied to ongoing hostage release negotiations with Hamas, Hiram echoed hardline Israeli government and military positions that calling for holding humanitarian aid access to Gaza hostage as leverage, stating that captive Israelis held by Hamas would only be freed “through pressure.”

Critics warn that Hiram’s potential promotion to a key post in Netanyahu’s immediate office comes as part of a broader trend of growing influence for far-right ideologues and West Bank settlement supporters within Israeli military leadership. One high-profile example of this shift is Avi Bluth, the current head of the military’s Central Command, who generated global outrage earlier this year for publicly boasting that Israeli forces were killing Palestinians at a rate “not seen since 1967.”

Investigative reporting from Israeli newspaper Haaretz has shed additional light on Hiram’s long-held hardline views: the outlet confirmed that Hiram expressed ideological alignment with far-right extremist Meir Kahane during his youth. Kahane, who infamously advocated for the forced expulsion of all Palestinians from Israel and occupied Palestinian territories, saw his Kach movement banned in Israel and designated as a terrorist organization by multiple governments. A former high school classmate told Haaretz in May 2025 that a “Greater Israel” expansionist vision was core to Hiram’s beliefs even as a teenager.

Haaretz further reported that Hiram previously lived in an unauthorized Israeli settler outpost in the occupied West Bank, before moving to the formal Israeli settlement of Tekoa, located southeast of Bethlehem, where he currently resides. When Hiram took command of the Gaza Division in August 2024, his inaugural speech drew sharp condemnation from liberal Israeli voices, when he framed the ongoing war in Gaza as a generational opportunity to advance a Zionist vision of greater Israeli control over the territory. “Our steadfastness stands in complete contrast to the Israeli culture that has developed here, which seeks everything now,” Hiram said in the address, adding that the war offered a chance to secure Israel’s future and advance “the shared Zionist vision for which we longed, prayed, and hoped over thousands of generations.”

Against the backdrop of a historic performance by right-wing Reform UK in the 2025 UK local elections, one of the party’s high-profile controversial candidates has fallen short of re-election, drawing new attention to the hardline pro-Israel stances running through the party’s ranks.

Alan Mendoza, who had served as a Conservative Party councillor in Westminster before defecting to Reform UK in 2024, was unseated in Thursday’s vote for the Abbey Road ward. A top global affairs adviser to Reform UK, Mendoza also holds two prominent and divisive roles outside of electoral politics: executive director of the conservative Henry Jackson Society think tank, and president of the United Kingdom branch of the Jewish National Fund (JNF UK).

JNF UK, a registered British charity that qualifies for tax relief on all public donations, has long faced international criticism for its actions that facilitate the displacement of Palestinian communities and support for Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank—settlements widely recognized as illegal under binding international law. Internal organizational accounts reviewed by independent outlets show that between 2015 and 2018, JNF UK transferred more than £1 million ($1.36 million) to Hashomer Hachadash (HH), a Zionist militia active in the occupied Palestinian territories. Leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz has reclassified HH as Israel’s largest militia, marking its rapid growth from a small fringe right-wing group to a major armed actor in the region. JNF UK’s honorary patron is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Mendoza’s defeat comes as Reform UK has secured unprecedented gains in this cycle of local elections. As of Friday afternoon, the party had already won control of more than 440 council seats across the country, with vote counts still ongoing in many areas. The gains have come at the cost of the centrist Labour Party, which has lost hundreds of incumbent seats and held just over 260 newly won seats at the time of reporting.

Mendoza is far from the only Reform UK candidate to have pushed extreme anti-Palestinian rhetoric this election cycle. According to recent reporting from Byline Times, another Reform candidate, evangelical pastor John Quintanilla, made incendiary remarks in a November 2025 sermon, claiming that the very concept of “the land of Palestine” is a fabricated media lie invented by former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whom he incorrectly labeled an Egyptian. Quintanilla also went on to make broad anti-Islam claims, asserting that every region conquered by Islamic forces throughout history has only been left with poverty, conflict, and social darkness. Multiple other Reform UK lawmakers and candidates have publicly declared unqualified support for Israel’s actions in the Middle East amid rising international scrutiny.

A cache of leaked confidential recordings published by independent investigative outlet Hondurasgate and Spanish news platform Canal Red has pulled back the curtain on coordinated American and Israeli lobbying efforts to advance geopolitical and economic interests in Honduras, while laying the groundwork to undermine progressive administrations across Latin America.

The multi-part inquiry, carried out by a team of anonymous Honduran investigative journalists, centers on 37 authenticated voice messages collected from the encrypted messaging platforms WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram. Hondurasgate confirms the recordings underwent independent forensic analysis to verify their authenticity before being released to the public.

Among the most explosive allegations in the leak is the claim that Israeli lobbying played a decisive role in securing then-US President Donald Trump’s 2025 December pardon for former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez. Hernandez, who was convicted by a US federal court on large-scale drug trafficking charges and sentenced to 45 years in federal prison, was released from custody following the controversial pardon.

Beyond the pardon, the leaked conversations expose pre-planned coordinated disinformation campaigns designed to target the sitting left-leaning governments of Mexico and Colombia. The recordings also detail the full scope of the foreign-backed political scheme to reshape Honduras’s leadership landscape:

Shortly after Hernandez’s pardon, Trump publicly endorsed then-Honduran presidential candidate Nasry Asfura, who was locked in a tight race against centrist contender Salvador Nasralla. Trump issued an explicit threat during the campaign, warning that the US would cut all economic aid to Honduras if Asfura failed to win the election. Voice messages from Asfura, captured after private closed-door meetings at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, outline the core policy priorities the US and Israeli backers pushed for: opening a new permanent US military base on Honduran territory, expanding large privatized “economic development” zones across the country, and creating favorable regulatory conditions for major American artificial intelligence firms to invest and operate.

According to the investigation’s findings, Asfura’s presidency was never intended to be the end goal of the plot. Instead, insiders framed his election as a temporary transitional step that would clear the way for a politically rehabilitated Juan Orlando Hernandez to return to the Honduran presidency in the next national election cycle, with full backing from Washington and Jerusalem.

In a January 20 voice note included in the leak, Hernandez explicitly stated that “the prime minister of Israel is going to support us” in the plan, adding that “they [Israelis] had everything to do with my departure and negotiation” — a clear reference to the behind-the-scenes work that secured his US pardon. In a separate March 14 recording, Hernandez confirmed that the financial lobbying effort for his pardon was funded by “a group of rabbis and from people who supported Israel.”

The leaked conversations also reveal internal power struggles within the planned coalition: Hernandez sent instructions to the president of Honduras’s National Congress, Tomas Zambrano, detailing how to undermine Asfura’s authority from within with covert financial and political support from Israeli partners. “I sent you the people of Israel, they sent you money. I’m the one doing the lobbying,” Hernandez told Zambrano in the message.

The investigation also uncovered plans for a coordinated cross-regional disinformation operation. Hernandez and Asfura discussed launching a state-funded “digital journalism unit,” with additional financial backing from Javier Milei, the US-aligned right-wing president of Argentina. The explicit goal of this unit is to produce and spread negative media content targeting the administrations of Mexico and Colombia. Milei, who has significantly deepened Argentina’s diplomatic and economic ties to Israel with US backing, has already drawn international attention for his plan to relocate Argentina’s Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move aligned with US and Israeli foreign policy priorities in the Middle East.

Tensions between the Trump administration and Colombian President Gustavo Petro, a left-leaning leader who has been openly critical of US policy in the Middle East, escalated sharply in September 2025. The US government announced it would revoke Petro’s entry visa shortly after he spoke at a pro-Palestine demonstration in New York City, where he urged US service members “not to point their guns at people” and “disobey the orders of Trump.”

This reporting was originally made available by Middle East Eye, a media outlet dedicated to independent, in-depth coverage of the Middle East, North Africa, and global affairs connected to the region.