Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Another Russian oil facility burns after Zelenskyy touts Ukraine’s drone reach

    Another Russian oil facility burns after Zelenskyy touts Ukraine’s drone reach

    In a significant escalation of Kyiv’s cross-border long-range strike campaign, Ukraine has confirmed it carried out a drone attack on a critical oil facility deep in the Ural Mountains of Russia, more than 1,500 kilometers from Ukrainian territory, marking one of the farthest-reaching strikes in the more than four-year-old full-scale invasion. The target, located in Russia’s Perm region, was an oil pumping station operated by Transneft, Russia’s state-owned pipeline monopoly, which serves as a key hub for the country’s oil transportation network. Ukraine’s security service, the SBU, confirmed it orchestrated the strike as part of Kyiv’s systematic effort to disrupt Russia’s energy infrastructure and cut off revenue that funds its invasion.

    Multiple Russian sources have acknowledged the incident, though local authorities have offered limited details. Perm Governor Dmitry Makhonin only confirmed that an unspecified industrial site was hit by a drone, triggering a large blaze. This strike follows closely on the heels of a third attack on Russia’s Tuapse oil refinery and Black Sea terminal in less than two weeks, which forced mass civilian evacuations and prompted Russian President Vladimir Putin to warn of potential severe environmental damage. By Wednesday, Russian officials stated the Tuapse fire had been contained.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy publicly acknowledged the expanding scope of Kyiv’s long-range strike operations in a Telegram post Wednesday, alongside unverified footage showing a massive column of black smoke rising over a rural area near an urban settlement. Though he did not explicitly name the Perm facility, Zelenskyy made clear Ukraine is entering a new phase of targeting Russian war capacity. “We will continue to increase these ranges,” he stated, noting the 1,500-kilometer straight-line distance of the Perm strike and framing the attacks as a tactic to cut off the Kremlin’s access to critical oil revenue that sustains its war effort. Zelenskyy later praised the SBU for the precision of the operation, echoing claims from the security service that most oil storage tanks at the Perm hub were engulfed in flames. To date, none of Ukraine’s claims about the strike’s scale or damage have been independently verified by third-party outlets.

    The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) released an analysis this week noting that Kyiv’s escalating strikes on Russian energy infrastructure are specifically designed to block unexpected financial gains Moscow has secured from a U.S. sanctions waiver, at a time when global energy supplies remain constrained by geopolitical conflict. The think tank added that Ukraine is effectively exploiting a key structural vulnerability of Russia: its vast territory stretches thousands of kilometers, creating an enormous attack surface that Russia’s overstretched air defense systems cannot fully cover. “Ukrainian forces will likely continue to exploit the large attack surface of Russia’s deep rear and overstretched Russian air defenses to launch more frequent and larger strikes against Russian oil infrastructure and military assets, supported by increased Ukrainian domestic drone production,” the ISW’s analysis read.

    This strike comes amid a landmark shift in Ukraine’s defense production capacity. After relying heavily on Western military aid for the first years of the war, Kyiv has now ramped up domestic drone manufacturing to the point that it is reporting a surplus of some weapons systems, and is poised to share drone technology and expertise with partner nations around the world. In a Telegram post Tuesday, Zelenskyy confirmed that Ukraine is now producing a surplus of up to 50% for some types of weapons, and that military cooperation projects are already active with partners across the Middle East, Gulf states, Europe, and the Caucasus. These partnerships cover joint production and supply of drones, missiles, related software, and defense technology, Zelenskyy said, adding that Kyiv has also submitted a formal proposal to the U.S. for expanded joint cooperation on drones, multi-domain defense systems, and other weaponry.

    On the same day as the Perm strike, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed its air defenses intercepted 98 Ukrainian drones overnight across multiple Russian regions and Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula Moscow illegally annexed in 2014. Meanwhile, Russia continued its own campaign of near-nightly long-range strikes on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, killing and wounding civilians across multiple regions. In Ukraine’s northeastern Kharkiv region, regional prosecutors confirmed eight people were wounded in an overnight attack. In neighboring Sumy region, officials reported a 60-year-old woman died from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by a Russian strike. In the southern Odesa region, Russian forces hit the port city of Izmail, damaging critical infrastructure and a district hospital. Ukraine’s air force reported it intercepted 154 of the 171 drones Russia launched in the overnight wave of attacks.

  • South Korean court sentences ex-President Yoon to 7 years for charges including resisting arrest

    South Korean court sentences ex-President Yoon to 7 years for charges including resisting arrest

    A key ruling on Wednesday from a South Korean appellate court delivered another heavy legal blow to impeached former president Yoon Suk Yeol, sentencing him to seven years in prison for obstruction of justice and a series of procedural violations tied to his short-lived 2024 declaration of martial law. The new conviction comes on top of a life sentence Yoon already received earlier for rebellion charges stemming from the unprecedented authoritarian power grab that pushed South Korea’s democracy into its most severe crisis in decades.

    The Seoul High Court’s judge Yoon Sung-sik laid out the details of the guilty verdict in court, documenting that the conservative former leader intentionally skipped a legally required full Cabinet meeting before announcing martial law on December 3, 2024. To hide the violation of constitutional procedure, Yoon falsified official government documents, the court ruled. It also found that after Yoon was impeached and removed from office, he deployed presidential security personnel as what the ruling described as “a private army” to block law enforcement from executing an arrest warrant against him. Yoon stood silent throughout the verdict delivery and offered no public comment after the ruling.

    This appellate decision reverses an earlier ruling from a lower court issued in January. The lower court had originally sentenced Yoon to five years in prison, but partially cleared him of abuse-of-power charges connected to the Cabinet meeting procedural violation, ruling he could not be held responsible for the absence of two invited Cabinet members. The Seoul High Court overturned that partial acquittal, convicting Yoon on all counts before the court. The judge emphasized that by convening only a small selection of loyalists to simulate a full Cabinet meeting, Yoon violated the constitutional rights of nine Cabinet members who were either uninvited or unable to attend the sham gathering.

    Yoon’s short-lived martial law decree sent immediate shockwaves through South Korea’s political and economic systems. The move triggered weeks of national turmoil that paralyzed domestic lawmaking, disrupted high-stakes diplomatic operations, and caused significant volatility in South Korea’s financial markets. The political crisis only began to stabilize after liberal opposition leader Lee Jae Myung won a snap presidential election in June 2025.

    The timeline of Yoon’s removal and legal process began on December 14, 2024, when the liberal-controlled National Assembly voted to impeach Yoon and suspend him from presidential powers. The Constitutional Court formally removed him from office in April 2025. After his suspension, Yoon refused to comply with a Seoul District Court detention warrant for questioning, leading to a tense public standoff in early January 2025. When dozens of criminal investigators arrived at the presidential residence to execute the warrant, they were turned away by barricades and Yoon’s security detail. Yoon was finally taken into custody later that month, only to be released by a separate court in March, and re-arrested on new charges in July. He has remained in custody since July, as a series of overlapping criminal trials against him continue to move through South Korean courts.

    Wednesday’s ruling comes one day after the same Seoul High Court issued an upward adjustment to the prison sentence of Yoon’s wife, Kim Keon Hee, increasing her original term to four years. Kim was convicted on charges including accepting bribes in the form of luxury gifts from the Unification Church, a religious organization that sought favorable political treatment from Yoon’s administration, and participating in a multi-million dollar stock price manipulation scheme.

    In a separate ongoing criminal trial last week, federal prosecutors formally requested a 30-year prison sentence for Yoon over another serious allegation: that he ordered South Korean military drones to conduct provocative flights over Pyongyang in 2024 to intentionally escalate cross-border tensions with North Korea. Prosecutors argue Yoon engineered the crisis to create a domestic pretext that would justify his declaration of martial law.

  • Russia to hold Victory Day parade without military equipment for 1st time since invading Ukraine

    Russia to hold Victory Day parade without military equipment for 1st time since invading Ukraine

    For the first time since Russia launched its full-scale incursion into Ukraine in 2022, Moscow will forgo rolling armored vehicles, artillery, and nuclear missile systems across Red Square for its iconic annual May 9 Victory Day parade, the Russian Defense Ministry announced in a statement released late Tuesday. The event, which marks the 81st anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat in World War II, will proceed without the traditional procession of military equipment and exclude cadet participants, with the ministry only citing the “current operational situation” as justification for the change and offering no additional details.

    The scaled-back parade will still include marching contingents of service members from all branches of Russia’s armed forces and the country’s military higher education institutions, as well as the signature ceremonial flyover of military aircraft, the ministry confirmed.

    Victory Day, which commemorates the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in the 1941–1945 Great Patriotic War, stands as Russia’s most widely revered secular national holiday. Unlike many divisive events in modern Russian history, the legacy of World War II victory unites political factions across the ideological spectrum, and the Kremlin has long leveraged this shared national sentiment to bolster collective pride and reinforce Russia’s standing as a major global power. The Soviet Union suffered an estimated 27 million civilian and military casualties during the conflict, a catastrophic loss that remains etched deeply into the Russian national collective psyche.

    For more than 25 years of his leadership, President Vladimir Putin has elevated May 9 celebrations to a central symbolic pillar of his administration, and has repeatedly invoked the legacy of World War II to frame and justify his current military campaign in Ukraine.

    Last year’s parade marked the largest display of Russian military might since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, drawing more international heads of state to Moscow than any event in the previous decade. High-profile global leaders including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico attended the 2025 event, which featured more than 11,500 marching troops and over 180 pieces of military hardware. The display included frontline equipment actively used in Ukraine, such as main battle tanks, armored infantry vehicles, and artillery systems, alongside strategic assets including Yars intercontinental ballistic missile launchers armed with nuclear warheads and military drones. A full squadron of fighter jets also conducted the traditional flyover over Red Square.

    In advance of last year’s parade, Putin announced a unilateral 72-hour ceasefire in Ukraine starting May 7, and Russian authorities shut down cellular internet access across Moscow for multiple days to reduce the risk of targeted Ukrainian drone strikes on the capital. The 2024 parade, by contrast, was already significantly scaled back, with a reduced troop contingent, far less equipment on display, and no aerial flyover component.

  • Trial begins for 4 Indonesian service members charged over acid attack on activist

    Trial begins for 4 Indonesian service members charged over acid attack on activist

    On Wednesday, a high-stakes military trial got underway in Jakarta for four Indonesian military intelligence personnel, charged with carrying out a brutal acid attack on a leading human rights advocate that has reopened long-simmering national debates over unaccountable violence within the country’s armed forces. The defendants include three navy marines and one air force officer — Sgt. Edi Sudarko, First Lt. Budhi Hariyanto Widhi Cahyono, Capt. Nandala Dwi Prasetya, and Air Force First Lt. Sami Lakka — all assigned to the Strategic Intelligence Agency of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI). They face charges of aggravated premeditated assault stemming from the March 12 attack, which carries a maximum sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment if the court returns a guilty verdict. The target of the attack was Andrie Yunus, a 27-year-old human rights lawyer and senior campaigner with KontraS, the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence, one of Indonesia’s most prominent human rights organizations.

    The attack unfolded as Yunus rode his motorcycle through central Jakarta on the evening of March 12, when assailants threw a vial of hydrochloric acid directly at his face. Prosecutor Mohammad Iswandi told the court that the assault left Yunus with chemical burns covering 20% of his body and permanent damage to 40% of his right cornea, resulting in total loss of vision in that eye. Iswandi confirmed that Yunus has undergone multiple emergency and reconstructive surgeries and remains in ongoing recovery, preventing him from attending the opening session of the trial. “The actions of the defendants who threw chemical liquid on Andrie Yunus, resulting in the loss of sight in his right eye and severe burns with no hope of complete recovery, were inappropriate actions for members of the TNI,” Iswandi told the court. Prosecutors have framed the attack as a coordinated act driven by personal motive, alleging the four assailants carried out the assault “to teach him a lesson and deter him from making disparaging remarks about the TNI.” Two of the defendants suffered minor acid splashes to the face and eyes during the attack, and all four declined to enter objections to the charges after prosecutors read the full indictment. Presiding judges have scheduled the next session of the trial for May 6, when witness testimony will begin.

    The handling of the case has drawn sharp criticism from domestic and international human rights groups, which have raised objections to both the official personal-motive narrative and the decision to try the defendants in a closed military court rather than an open civilian tribunal. Usman Hamid, executive director of Amnesty International Indonesia, argues that authorities have deliberately narrowed the scope of the investigation to only the four accused, offering no transparency into potential higher-level involvement. Hamid noted that there is no documented personal or professional connection between Yunus and the four defendants, and evidence shows official military assets were used to carry out the attack. “It is difficult to accept that state facilities were used solely for personal revenge,” Hamid said, warning that opaque handling of the trial risks eroding already fragile public trust in Indonesia’s military accountability mechanisms.

    Yunus has long been a leading voice against military impunity in Indonesia, campaigning for security sector reform and expanded civil liberties. Last year, he was a prominent organizer of widespread protests against proposed revisions to Indonesia’s military law that would expand the TNI’s role in domestic civilian governance, and colleagues confirm he has faced repeated threats and intimidation tied to his advocacy work. The attack and subsequent trial have drawn immediate comparisons to the 2004 assassination of Munir Said Thalib, the iconic human rights advocate and founder of KontraS, who was poisoned with arsenic on a flight to Amsterdam. While a handful of low-level actors were convicted in Munir’s murder, activists have long argued that the masterminds behind the killing were never identified or prosecuted, leaving the case a persistent symbol of military impunity in the country.

    Widespread public and civil society pressure to uncover the full chain of command behind the attack on Yunus has prompted a response from Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, a former army general who took office with pledges to strengthen institutional accountability. Prabowo has pledged to hold all those responsible to account and confirmed he is considering establishing an independent fact-finding commission to investigate any unaddressed links to the attack. For rights advocates, the outcome of Yunus’s trial will serve as a critical test of the TNI’s stated commitment to accountability more than 25 years after the fall of longtime dictator Suharto. Following Suharto’s ouster in 1998, the Indonesian military formally withdrew from domestic politics, and a series of reforms were implemented to strengthen civilian oversight of the armed forces. But activists say persistent cases of unaccountable violence against critics and human rights campaigners show those reforms have yet to deliver on their promises.

  • King Charles to stress UK-US cultural, trade ties in New York

    King Charles to stress UK-US cultural, trade ties in New York

    As the four-day state visit of Britain’s King Charles III and Queen Camilla to the United States enters its third day, the British monarch will center his Wednesday itinerary in New York on reinforcing the deep cultural and economic bonds that have long defined the UK-US relationship, at a moment when the two allies’ so-called “special relationship” faces growing friction. The visit, which opened in Washington D.C. with a warm formal greeting from President Donald Trump for the royal couple, has been overshadowed from the start by escalating tensions over the ongoing conflict involving Iran. The New York leg of the tour will kick off with a solemn act of commemoration: the King and Queen will lay a wreath at the 9/11 Memorial, marking 25 years since the 2001 terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 people. In an address to the U.S. Congress delivered the previous day, Charles reflected on the global impact of that tragedy, noting “This atrocity was a defining moment for America and your pain and shock were felt around the whole world.” He added, “We stood with you then. And we stand with you now in solemn remembrance of a day that shall never be forgotten,” framing his speech as a call for unified action among Western powers. Following the wreath-laying, Charles is set to meet with 9/11 first responders and family members of those killed in the attacks. A lifelong advocate for environmental action and sustainable land management, the King will then tour an urban sustainable farming initiative that combines food access work with youth mentorship to address systemic food insecurity in New York City. While the King visits the agricultural project, Queen Camilla will carry out a separate engagement at the New York Public Library, where she will mark the 100th anniversary of A.A. Milne’s beloved fictional character Winnie-the-Pooh. She is expected to present the library with a custom-made plush toy of Roo, Pooh’s young friend from the Hundred Acre Wood. Later in the day, King Charles will gather with transatlantic business leaders — including investors, startup founders and industry executives — at an event dedicated to highlighting the deep interconnectedness of the British and American economies. This engagement comes at a sensitive moment: just weeks earlier, Trump threatened to walk back a bilateral trade agreement that currently mitigates the impact of U.S. tariffs on British goods, in a rebuke of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s refusal to back the U.S.-led war effort against Iran. The final public event of Charles’s New York schedule will be a reception celebrating the work of The King’s Trust, the monarch’s long-running youth charity, while also showcasing the output of British and American cultural industries. Tight security measures have been implemented across New York for the royal visit, coming just days after an alleged assassination attempt targeting Trump at a Washington D.C. press gala. Zohran Mamdani, New York City’s leftist mayor, will not hold a private meeting with the King but will join him for the 9/11 commemoration ceremony. So far, British officials have expressed satisfaction with the ceremonial welcome extended to Charles and Camilla during their time in the U.S., which has included a 21-gun salute, a military flyover by U.S. fighter jets, and a formal state banquet hosted at the White House. Trump has adopted a warm, jovial tone toward the royal couple, even joking that his Scottish-born mother had a teenage crush on Charles. This amicable tone stands in sharp contrast to Trump’s sharp public criticism of Starmer over the UK’s refusal to join the Iran conflict, a disagreement that created diplomatic friction in the lead-up to the state visit. In his landmark address to Congress — the first by a British monarch since Queen Elizabeth II spoke to the body in 1991, delivered amid celebrations of the 250th anniversary of American independence from British rule — Charles sought to smooth over existing disagreements between the two nations. “Whatever our differences, whatever disagreements we may have, we stand united in our commitment to uphold democracy,” he told assembled lawmakers. He emphasized that the modern UK-US partnership “was born out of dispute, but no less strong for it,” framing the alliance as resilient enough to withstand temporary policy rifts.

  • King Charles III and Queen Camilla visiting 9/11 Memorial and other NYC landmarks as part of US trip

    King Charles III and Queen Camilla visiting 9/11 Memorial and other NYC landmarks as part of US trip

    LONDON, NEW YORK – Three days into their landmark first state visit to the United States as Britain’s reigning monarch and queen consort, King Charles III and Queen Camilla will arrive in New York City on Wednesday, a mid-trip stop that carries deep symbolic and diplomatic weight amid the 250th anniversary of American independence. This occasion marks the first time a sitting British monarch has visited New York since the late Queen Elizabeth II’s 2010 trip, drawing close international attention to the royal couple’s packed schedule of commemorative, charitable and diplomatic activities.

    The visit’s New York leg opens with a solemn wreath-laying ceremony at the National September 11 Memorial, timed ahead of the 25th anniversary of the 2001 terror attacks. During the event, the royal couple will meet with first responders who survived the attacks and family members of those killed, with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and other high-ranking local and national dignitaries also in attendance.

    Following the memorial service, the royal pair will split for separate, themed engagements tailored to their individual public priorities. Queen Camilla will travel to the New York Public Library, where she will officially donate a new stuffed Roo doll to the institution’s iconic collection of original Winnie-the-Pooh toys. The donation comes as the beloved children’s literary franchise celebrates its centennial this year. The five original plush toys already on display at the library – Winnie-the-Pooh, Piglet, Tigger, Eeyore and Kanga – once belonged to Christopher Robin Milne, son of Winnie-the-Pooh creator A.A. Milne, and directly inspired the characters that appear in Milne’s classic 1920s children’s books. Donated to the library in 1987, the collection has become one of the most popular centerpieces of its world-famous children’s literature holdings. Roo, the young son of Kanga in the original stories, was the only original character plush that has not survived to the present day.

    For his part, King Charles will first tour a community after-school urban farming program that supports young people impacted by food insecurity, aligning with his long-standing focus on sustainability and youth opportunity. He will then hold a meeting with top business and finance leaders in Manhattan, before the couple reunites for a reception hosted by The King’s Trust, the global youth charity Charles founded in 1976 to support vulnerable young people across the Commonwealth and beyond.

    This four-day U.S. visit is King Charles’ first state visit to the country since he acceded to the throne following his mother’s death in 2022. The late Queen Elizabeth II completed four full state visits to the United States during her 70-year reign. The trip was scheduled to mark the 250th anniversary of the United States’ declaration of independence from British rule, a milestone that diplomats have framed as an opportunity to celebrate the long-standing close alliance between the two nations.

    The royal couple has already completed multiple high-profile events in Washington D.C. earlier this week. On Monday, they joined President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump for a formal tea at the White House. A day later, King Charles held a closed-door bilateral meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office, before delivering a rare address to a joint session of U.S. Congress – an honor only granted to a handful of foreign heads of state, and the first time a British monarch has addressed Congress since Queen Elizabeth II’s 1991 speech. The day concluded with a formal state dinner hosted by the Trump administration at the White House.

    After wrapping up their New York engagements, the royal pair will travel to Virginia for additional stops before returning to the White House on Thursday for a formal farewell ceremony hosted by President Trump. Following the conclusion of his U.S. visit, King Charles will travel alone to Bermuda for his first visit to a British Overseas Territory as reigning monarch.

  • How the King and Queen spent their second day in the US

    How the King and Queen spent their second day in the US

    On the second day of their official visit to the United States, the British King and Queen took center stage at a prestigious state dinner hosted at the White House, where a deeply symbolic gift exchange underscored the longstanding ties between the two nations. In a moment that blended military history with modern diplomatic goodwill, the King presented the U.S. President with a unique, meaningful artifact: a bell originally from HMS Trump, the World War II submarine that shares his name. The gesture carried layers of historical resonance, connecting the present-day royal visit to the shared wartime legacy that binds Britain and the United States, turning a routine diplomatic gift into a memorable reflection of decades of alliance. The second day of the trip, capped by the formal state dinner, continued the royal couple’s program of diplomatic engagement, with the gift exchange emerging as the key highlight of the occasion.

  • Former US officials criticise Pentagon silence on deadly Iran school attack

    Former US officials criticise Pentagon silence on deadly Iran school attack

    Two months after a deadly missile strike hit a primary school in Minab, Iran, during the opening phase of the US-Israeli military campaign on February 28, a group of five former senior US officials have publicly condemned the Pentagon for its prolonged refusal to acknowledge potential American responsibility for the incident, which killed 168 people including roughly 110 children per Iranian government figures.

    The Pentagon has issued only one public update since the strike, stating that the incident remains under investigation. When the BBC submitted a series of detailed questions about the strike and allegations of institutional secrecy, a Pentagon spokesperson repeated only that the inquiry is ongoing, noting that additional information would be released once it becomes available. Independent US media reporting in early March, however, has cited unnamed military sources confirming that preliminary investigative work suggests American forces likely struck the school by accident, though no final formal conclusion has been released. Those same reports trace the error to outdated target coordinates provided by a US intelligence agency; the missile was intended for an adjacent Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) military base, a target the Pentagon has repeatedly refused to confirm was on its list of pre-planned February 28 strikes, despite publicly disclosing details of dozens of other targets hit during the opening of the war.

    The BBC has independently verified authentic video footage showing a US Tomahawk missile striking the IRGC base adjacent to the destroyed school, corroborating the core claims of the earlier anonymous media reports. In contrast to the Pentagon’s current two-month silence, a BBC analysis of three high-profile past cases of civilian fatalities from US military operations found that in every instance, the Pentagon released substantial, detailed information to the public in less than 30 days.

    Retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former top legal adviser at US Central Command (CENTCOM) during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and one of the critics of the current response, called the Trump administration’s approach a “striking departure” from long-standing Pentagon standard operating procedures. VanLandingham noted that past US administrations, regardless of party, at least paid public lip service to upholding the laws of war and commitments to accountability. What is missing from the current administration’s statements, she argued, is any pledge to take responsibility and take steps to prevent similar civilian tragedies in the future.

    Wes Bryant, a former senior advisor for precision warfare and civilian harm mitigation at the Pentagon’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence who left the department last year after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth drastically cut staffing for the civilian harm unit, told the BBC that the Pentagon’s current investigative process itself confirms officials already know US forces were responsible. Bryant explained that formal investigations are only launched after a preliminary inquiry confirms two key facts: that civilian harm occurred, and that US forces were operating in the area and could have caused the incident. “From a process standpoint… that just points even more to the fact that they know already that the US caused this or else they wouldn’t be doing this investigation, and they just don’t want to acknowledge it or speak to it,” Bryant said, adding that the complete refusal to comment on any details of the incident is “unacceptable.”

    One anonymous former senior defense official agreed that while complex civilian harm investigations can take extended time, the level of secrecy in this case is entirely unwarranted. “But this is a case where… it’s unusually opaque in that I can tell from the situation it’s actually not that complicated,” the official told the BBC. “Normally the Pentagon would take immediate [or] relatively fast responsibility and then probably require a longer period of time to provide all the details, so to me it’s problematic.”

    Top congressional Democrats have repeatedly pressed Hegseth for answers, starting with a basic confirmation of whether US forces carried out the strike. The BBC has reviewed two formal response letters sent by the Pentagon on Hegseth’s behalf, neither of which answers any of the Democrats’ core questions. A most recent April 2 letter only confirmed that an investigating officer outside the CENTCOM chain of command has been appointed, and that results would be shared after the inquiry concludes. When the BBC reached out to 15 Republican members of Congress, including top leaders of House and Senate national security committees, all declined to comment on the administration’s handling of the strike. Only one Republican senator, John Kennedy of Louisiana, has publicly broken rank, telling the *New York Times* in March that “I think we made a mistake. It was a terrible, terrible mistake.”

    During closed-door congressional briefings on Iran war operations, Pentagon officials have repeatedly declined to answer questions about the Minab strike, citing the ongoing investigation. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, called that response “pathetic and completely inadequate,” confirming that officials have refused to admit US responsibility even in private.

    The pattern of silence from current administration officials lines up with public comments from President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly denied any knowledge of evidence linking US forces to the strike and without evidence blamed Iran for the deaths. On March 7, Trump claimed Iran was responsible for the strike. Days later, when asked about verified video of a US Tomahawk hitting the adjacent military base, he claimed he had not seen the footage and falsely asserted that Iran also possesses Tomahawk missiles. When pressed later about reports that a preliminary probe found US forces were responsible, he again said he had no knowledge of the incident. Hegseth similarly told the BBC in March that “All I can say is that we’re investigating that. We of course never target civilian targets.”

    To contextualize the current response, the BBC compared the Minab incident to three prior high-profile cases of civilian deaths from US strikes across different administrations: the 2021 Kabul airport drone strike that killed 10 civilians including seven children, the 2015 MSF hospital bombing in Kunduz that killed 42 people, and the 1991 al-Amiriyah shelter bombing in Baghdad that killed 408 civilians. In all three cases, even when the US initially denied responsibility, senior officials acknowledged the strike and released substantial public details within a month at most, contrasting sharply with the two-month silence in the Minab case.

    Annie Shiel, a former State Department official focused on civilian harm reduction who now serves as US Advocacy Director for the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), noted that the appointment of an external investigator is at least a nominal step toward procedural independence, but argued that any US role should be acknowledged publicly even before the full investigation concludes. Shiel added that past US administrations have often been forced to reverse initial denials after independent reporting confirms US responsibility, a pattern the current administration seems intent on avoiding by saying nothing at all.

    Independent corroboration of the strike’s details has been further complicated by the Iranian government’s refusal to grant independent investigators or journalists access to the blast site. The UN Fact Finding Mission on Iran announced March 17 that it had formally requested access to Minab but been denied permission to visit.

    Charles O Blaha, a 32-year veteran of the US foreign service and former director of the State Department’s Office of Security and Human Rights, now a senior advisor to Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), said the administration’s lack of transparency most likely stems from a reluctance to contradict President Trump, who already publicly and falsely blamed Iran for the strike. Blaha called Trump’s claim “really far-fetched and very clearly not true,” adding that the silence also reflects the administration’s broader pattern of dismissing any negative news about the Iran war as unpatriotic.

  • Jerome Powell: Fed chair who stood up to Trump set to finish tenure on top

    Jerome Powell: Fed chair who stood up to Trump set to finish tenure on top

    For a soft-spoken, careful-worded central banker, Jerome Powell has carved out an unexpected place in modern U.S. political history: one of the few public figures to stand firm against relentless pressure from former (and current) President Donald Trump, and emerge on top as he prepares to wrap up his tenure as Federal Reserve Chair. On Wednesday, Powell will take the podium for what is widely expected to be his final press conference as head of the world’s most influential central bank, closing out a turbulent term marked by repeated attacks from the Republican president that many observers now agree Powell ultimately prevailed against.

    The turning point came last week, when the U.S. Department of Justice announced it would drop the unprecedented investigation into Powell and the Federal Reserve over alleged cost overruns on a headquarters renovation project. The probe was first revealed by Powell himself in January, when he warned that the inquiry was part of a broader pattern of threats and pressure from the Trump administration. The investigation gained new traction amid Trump’s attempt to oust sitting Fed Governor Lisa Cook over unproven mortgage fraud allegations, but key Republican Senator Susan Collins (per internal reporting) vowed to block any Trump nominee to replace Powell unless the probe was terminated. Powell also hardened his position in March, announcing he would refuse to step down from the Fed’s Board of Governors — where his term as a member runs through January 2028, regardless of his chair tenure — as long as the investigation remained open.

    Now that the probe has been dismissed, all attention shifts to Powell’s next move: whether he will remain on the Fed Board after stepping down as chair, an unusual but not unprecedented move that would block Trump from filling the board seat with his own nominee. EY-Parthenon chief economist Gregory Daco argues that Powell is more likely than not to stay on, noting that the decision would be driven by a desire for institutional continuity, not partisan gain. “The rationale is institutional continuity, not politics,” Daco explained.

    Powell’s path to this moment has been marked by tumult from start to finish. A 73-year-old former investment banker with deep cross-partisan policy experience, he was first tapped to lead the Fed by Trump in 2018, replacing outgoing chair Janet Yellen. It did not take long for tensions to emerge: Trump attacked Powell repeatedly for raising interest rates to cool a overheating economy, hurling verbal insults that were unprecedented for a sitting president attacking an independent central bank.

    When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, Powell led the Fed in a dramatic, swift response, cutting benchmark interest rates to near zero and rolling out sweeping emergency support measures that are widely credited with preventing a far deeper global economic collapse. After President Joe Biden nominated Powell for a second term in 2021 — a nod to his commitment to central bank independence even from the opposite party — Powell oversaw another tough policy turn: a series of aggressive rate hikes starting in 2022 to curb post-pandemic inflation, followed by cautious rate cuts beginning in 2024 as inflation cooled and the Fed adjusted to the economic impact of Trump’s new sweeping tariffs.

    After Trump won re-election and returned to the White House, the attacks on Powell resumed, with Trump branding the Fed chair a “numbskull” and a “moron,” and even suggesting he could be dismissed over “fraud” linked to the $2.5 billion renovation project that formed the basis of the now-dismissed Justice Department probe. In recent months, Powell has shown willingness to compromise on certain policy priorities aligned with the Trump administration, most notably rolling back the Fed’s climate-related financial oversight work. But his refusal to back down on defending the Fed’s independence, experts say, has already cemented his legacy.

    “He will be seen as the guy who stood up for the independence of the Fed, and the rule of law,” Brookings Institution senior fellow David Wessel told AFP, adding that Powell’s resistance will leave a lasting mark as “a Fed chair with a spine.”

    Prior to joining the Fed as a governor in 2012, an appointment from then-President Barack Obama, Powell worked as a scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and earlier in his career he served as a Treasury Department official under Republican President George H.W. Bush.

  • ‘I’ve got a plane’: Pauline Hanson gifted private plane amid Rineheart criticism

    ‘I’ve got a plane’: Pauline Hanson gifted private plane amid Rineheart criticism

    Australia’s controversial One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has announced she will now travel via a privately donated Cirrus G7 aircraft, valued at up to $2 million, after a coalition of high-profile donors pooled contributions to gift the plane to the party ahead of the 2028 federal election. In an exuberant social media post shared Wednesday, Hanson confirmed the full donation of the single-engine aircraft, highlighting that the new asset will let her expand outreach to regional communities across Australia. “Yes it was donated. Yes I’m super happy. Yes it’s fast. Yes it’s amazing. Yes it means I can visit more regional towns across the country more often,” Hanson wrote in the post, describing the sleek Cirrus G7 aircraft as “sexy” in subsequent remarks. The $2 million plane was funded through three blocks of major contributions: a $1 million “investment” from Melbourne-based stockbrokers Angus and Sarah Aitken, who Hanson called “patriotic Australians”, followed by $500,000 donations each from former Northern Territory chief minister Adam Giles and prominent geologist and climate sceptic Ian Plimer. Both Giles and Plimer are currently employed by billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart, a long-time backer of conservative and climate-skeptic political causes in Australia. Hanson made clear the donated plane is a critical boost to One Nation’s campaign preparations ahead of the 2028 federal poll. “Their faith and investment in One Nation is an enormous help towards our next federal campaign and I can’t thank them enough,” she said, adding that the party still needs to raise additional funds before the December donation cutoff to challenge what she labelled the ruling “uni-party” establishment. The announcement comes after Hanson faced widespread public criticism and journalistic scrutiny over her previous use of Rinehart’s private jet. British-Australian newspaper The Guardian previously reported that Hanson failed to declare five private flights on Rinehart’s jet over a six-month period, a violation of federal political disclosure rules. In her Wednesday announcement, Hanson leaned into the tension with the publication, joking, “Yes it’s going to annoy the Guardian”. She also added a characteristically provocative line about the new aircraft, saying she would not be conducting a Welcome to Country ceremony every time the plane lands at a regional airport. The donation renews debates over large-scale private funding of Australian political parties, particularly from high-net-worth donors with strong ideological positions on climate and resource development policy.