分类: politics

  • Denmark says it hopes to start deporting migrants to non-EU ‘return hubs’ as early as next year

    Denmark says it hopes to start deporting migrants to non-EU ‘return hubs’ as early as next year

    Five leading European nations are pushing forward with a controversial plan to establish external asylum processing and deportation hubs outside the European Union, with Denmark confirming it aims to launch the first non-European facilities as early as 2027. The high-stakes meeting, hosted by Copenhagen this Friday, brought together migration and foreign policy leaders from Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and Greece to coordinate progress on the initiative, which received formal approval from EU legislators back in June.

    Under the new EU framework, individual member states or small coalitions are permitted to negotiate bilateral or collective agreements with third countries to host rejected asylum seekers, rather than deporting migrants directly back to their countries of origin. The policy, often referred to as ‘return hubs,’ represents a major shift in how the bloc approaches irregular migration, shifting processing and detention infrastructure outside the EU’s 27-nation border.

    Opening the summit, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen framed the plan as a pragmatic response to a shared policy challenge, arguing that the bloc cannot allow individuals without legal residency status to remain in European countries indefinitely. He added that the initiative also includes a cooperative component, noting that partner third countries would offer irregular migrants a second chance to build new lives outside the EU. The five-nation coalition has already been in active negotiations with several national governments, most of them located across Africa, to secure host agreements for the facilities, acting as pioneers for the broader EU-wide adoption of the model.

    Denmark’s Immigration and Integration Minister Morten Bødskov shared a concrete timeline for the plan in an interview with Danish public broadcaster DR, published ahead of the summit. Bødskov confirmed that negotiations with potential third-country hosts have entered a critical phase, with the goal of having fully operational return hubs up and running by 2027. Austrian asylum and migration minister Bart van den Brink echoed this urgency, telling reporters in Copenhagen that Friday’s meeting marks the next key step toward delivering the offshore facilities in the coming years.

    The plan has already drawn interest from potential host nations: in early August, a Rwandan government spokesperson told local media that negotiating to host the facilities would be a natural step, adding that Rwanda is open to hosting rejected asylum seekers who cannot settle in other countries.

    However, the initiative has faced widespread condemnation from global and regional human rights groups, which warn that offshoring migration control creates unacceptable risks for the rights of detained asylum seekers. Critics point out that external facilities would be far harder for international monitors to access, creating gaps in oversight that could lead to abuse.

    Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, argued that vague promises of compliance with international human rights law are insufficient to protect vulnerable people. ‘States need to commit to the guardrails necessary to prevent setting up human rights black holes,’ he said in an emailed statement.

    Brussels-based migration rights organization PICUM also condemned the Copenhagen meeting, with director Michele LeVoy rejecting framing the plan as an innovative solution to migration pressures. ‘Outsourcing migration control is an old tactic to simply move people out of sight and evade human rights obligations,’ LeVoy said. Contributions to this report came from Associated Press journalists Philipp Jenne in Vienna and Sam McNeil in Brussels.

  • UK will ‘resolutely uphold’ Falklands self-determination, Miliband says

    UK will ‘resolutely uphold’ Falklands self-determination, Miliband says

    Decades of tense sovereignty dispute over the South Atlantic Falkland Islands (known as the Malvinas in Argentina) have reignited, after Argentine President Javier Milei recently made new claims to the territory and threatened sanctions against international companies moving forward with planned oil exploration near the archipelago.

    Milei used a national address Thursday to double down on Argentina’s longstanding territorial claim, arguing that the Falkland Islands are historically and legally part of Argentina. He claimed that the “winds of change” are shifting in Argentina’s favor, and warned that the proposed Sea Lion oil development off the islands’ coast poses a “clear and present danger” to his country’s interests. If Argentina does not act quickly, Milei asserted, foreign companies will gain permanent access to what he calls Argentina’s offshore oil reserves – a development he said the nation would never accept.

    The president announced plans to impose new sanctions on companies involved in the exploration project, though details of how or how broadly these restrictions will be applied have not yet been released. Argentine law already allows for sanctions against energy firms operating in projects Buenos Aires does not authorize in the disputed territory.

    The project at the center of the latest dispute is a partnership between UK-based Rockhopper Exploration and Israeli energy firm Navitas Petroleum, which plans to begin commercial oil extraction at the Sea Lion field by 2028. Located roughly 130 miles off the Falklands coast, the field holds an estimated 1.7 billion barrels of high-quality crude oil – nearly six times the volume of the North Sea’s major Rosebank oil field. In a joint statement released Friday, the two companies confirmed they hold valid exploration licenses granted by the Falkland Islands government, with full backing from the UK government. The firms added that current political tensions will not delay their project timeline.

    In response to Milei’s remarks, senior UK officials have issued a unified, firm rebuke, reaffirming the UK’s commitment to upholding the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. Writing on the social platform X Friday, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said the UK would “resolutely uphold” the self-determination of the islanders, and the territory will remain British because that is the overwhelming democratic will of its residents.

    Defence Secretary Wes Streeting echoed that position, describing the UK’s commitment to the Falklands as “absolute and unshakeable.” Streeting argued that Milei’s statement has more to do with domestic political positioning in Argentina than it does with the actual status of the disputed islands. Downing Street also issued a formal reaffirmation of the UK’s longstanding stance: the Falklands will remain a British Overseas Territory for as long as the islands’ residents wish to keep that status. A Downing Street spokesperson noted that economic threats against the Falklands from Argentine governments are not new, and added that the islanders’ right to self-determination explicitly includes the right to develop and exploit their own natural resources.

    The current dispute comes more than 40 years after the 1982 Falklands War, and the sovereignty of the South Atlantic archipelago remains a deeply divisive issue between London and Buenos Aires. In a 2013 referendum held on the islands, 99.8% of resident voters cast ballots in favor of remaining a British Overseas Territory, with just three votes against the option.

    The latest diplomatic tension also drew comment from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who hinted Thursday that the U.S. would not side with the UK in any future military conflict over the Falklands. Trump claimed the U.S. would not back the UK because Britain did not support him during what he described as his “war with Iran.” Trump’s remarks come as he previously confirmed that the U.S. position on the Falklands dispute is one of multiple policies currently under review.

  • Nigel Farage’s party suspends top officials after undercover sting makes foreign funding claims

    Nigel Farage’s party suspends top officials after undercover sting makes foreign funding claims

    LONDON – A major controversy has shaken the right-wing anti-immigration party Reform UK, after two senior party figures were suspended from their roles on Friday. The move follows the release of undercover footage showing the pair appearing to discuss plans to accept large political donations from a foreign national, which would violate longstanding British electoral regulations.

    The suspended officials are Dan Jukes, a senior personal adviser to Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, and James Orr, the party’s national policy head and a theologian based at the University of Cambridge. In an official statement, the party confirmed that both individuals have stepped down from their positions temporarily, while an internal party investigation into the allegations moves forward.

    The damaging footage was first broadcast Thursday by UK broadcaster Channel 4. The video was obtained by investigative journalism group Verbatim, which set up a sting operation: an undercover reporter posed as the UK-based son of a wealthy American financier, while an actor played the role of the U.S. donor. In one clip recorded during a lunch that also included Farage, Jukes outlines a plan to route a £500,000 ($675,000) donation from the American financier through the reporter, in what would be an apparent workaround for foreign donation bans.

    A second set of undercover footage captures Orr discussing separate arrangements to have the U.S. donor cover the cost of public opinion polling commissioned by Reform UK. In the conversation, Orr openly acknowledged the party’s lack of domestic financial backing, telling the undercover reporter that “we just don’t have British-resident donors, British entities, that would support us.”

    Under UK electoral legislation, national political parties are prohibited from accepting any donations from individuals who are not registered UK voters, or from companies that are not formally registered in the United Kingdom. The timing of the scandal has placed a heavy cloud over Reform UK’s annual national conference, which kicked off Friday in Birmingham, central England and was scheduled to run through Saturday.

    Farage has moved quickly to contain the fallout, forcefully denying that the party has broken any electoral rules or accepted what he has called “dodgy money.” He has instead launched a counter-accusation, claiming the entire operation was a case of journalistic entrapment orchestrated by what he described as foreign-funded climate activist groups. Verbatim operates as an offshoot of the Centre for Climate Reporting, a non-profit investigative organization that states its work is funded through public grants and independent donor contributions.

    Speaking to London-based radio station LBC, Farage downplayed the comments captured on tape. “They got a couple of our contractors to say things that perhaps should not have been said,” he told the outlet. “And as a result of that, you know, they have been removed this morning. And yeah, you know, I’m not happy about it.”

    Britain’s governing Labour Party and the centrist opposition Liberal Democrats both said they had formally submitted the allegations to London’s Metropolitan Police for criminal investigation. The Electoral Commission, the independent UK body that regulates campaign finance and elections, confirmed Friday it was reviewing all available materials related to the case in line with its statutory regulatory powers, and that it remains in regular contact with the Metropolitan Police about the matter.

    Reform UK was first established in 2018 under the name the Brexit Party, created to advance a hard, clean break from the European Union. It rebranded to its current name in 2021, and has since refocused its platform on anti-establishment and hardline anti-immigration messaging. The party has seen rapid growth in both membership and public support in recent years, despite holding only 8 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. It has repeatedly outperformed polling expectations, and secured a major victory in May 2024 local elections, a result that triggered internal panic within the Labour Party and ultimately led to the replacement of then-leader Keir Starmer, with Andy Burnham becoming the new prime minister.

    Even before this latest scandal, however, Reform UK had faced mounting setbacks. The party lost several consecutive parliamentary by-elections in recent months, and has long faced lingering questions over the sources of its funding. Farage himself stepped down from his House of Commons seat in July, amid an ongoing parliamentary ethics investigation into an undeclared £5 million gift he received from a Thailand-based cryptocurrency billionaire in 2024, just before he won election to parliament.

    Farage rejected the scrutiny, choosing to run in a snap by-election for his vacant seat to let voters decide his political fate. He won the August contest handily, though the election was widely dismissed as a pointless political stunt by his opponents, with all other major UK political parties choosing to boycott the vote.

  • US diesel prices hit an all-time-high

    US diesel prices hit an all-time-high

    American drivers are now facing historic cost burdens at fuel pumps, with record-breaking diesel prices pushing household and industry expenses higher as the ongoing US-Israel conflict with Iran continues to squeeze household budgets across the nation.

    New data released by the American Automobile Association (AAA) confirms the national average price of a gallon of diesel has reached $5.85 — a dramatic jump from $3.71 just one year prior, and a new all-time high that surpasses the price spike triggered by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This sharp upward trend began immediately after the Iran conflict escalated in late February, tracking closely with skyrocketing wholesale crude oil costs driven by supply chain disruptions.

    The root of the supply shortage traces back to movement restrictions through the Strait of Hormuz, the critical chokepoint off Iran’s southern coast that carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s daily oil trade. In response to the outbreak of war, Iran has effectively closed the waterway, cutting off a major artery for global crude supplies and sending market prices soaring.

    To address voter anger over rising fuel costs, US President Donald Trump has announced a new energy agreement with Venezuela, which the US invaded in January, promising the deal will deliver substantial relief for American consumers at the pump. Under the terms of the deal, revealed Saturday, 17 strategic Venezuelan oil fields holding 65 billion barrels of proven oil reserves will be opened for development. Interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez states the project will bring more than $100 billion in direct investment to Venezuela, plus an additional $209 billion in tax revenue over the lifespan of the project. A senior US official confirmed to CBS News, the BBC’s US partner, that the US government will hold a 55% controlling stake in the joint venture, which will be operated by an experienced private sector partner with existing operations in Venezuela.

    Despite the optimistic framing from the White House, energy analysts have voiced significant skepticism about the deal’s ability to lower fuel prices quickly or resolve longstanding challenges that have blocked large-scale investment in Venezuela’s oil sector for decades. Many question whether the agreement can overcome years of underinvestment, regulatory uncertainty, and infrastructure decay that have kept Venezuelan oil production far below its potential.

    The skyrocketing fuel costs have already had a major political impact, with just months to go before November’s critical midterm elections. Rising prices at the pump have fueled widespread frustration among US voters, and recent Reuters/Ipsos polling reflects this discontent: President Trump’s national approval rating has dropped to just 33%, and only 31% of American adults express support for his handling of the Iran conflict.

    Price hikes are not evenly distributed across the country, AAA data shows. Drivers in Western US states face far steeper costs than consumers in other regions, a gap driven by differing state fuel taxes and longer transportation distances from major domestic oil production hubs. For example, Washington state currently boasts the highest average diesel price in the nation at $6.81 per gallon, up from $5.03 per gallon just 12 months ago. Diesel is not the only fuel hitting American pocketbooks: average national gasoline prices have also climbed to a historic $4.15 per gallon, up from $3.20 a year ago, pushing up costs for personal travel and goods transportation across every sector of the economy.

  • How could US-Iran conflict end? Three experts give their views

    How could US-Iran conflict end? Three experts give their views

    After seven months of open conflict between the United States and Iran, hopes for an immediate breakthrough peace deal have once again faded, as both sides exchange targeted strikes and dig in with uncompromising public rhetoric. The latest escalation comes just days after Washington announced a sweeping new phase of its campaign: a total economic blockade designed to punish not only Iran but also any third-party nations that continue to conduct trade with Tehran.

    The core goal of this new pressure campaign, US officials say, is to force Iran back to the negotiating table and end its repeated disruptions to commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint that has been effectively closed to large-scale commercial traffic since the conflict began between the US, Israel and Iran in February. The June Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), a tentative framework negotiated by both sides that was supposed to lead to a permanent ceasefire and full peace agreement within 60 days, officially expired at the end of August without any progress toward its stated goals.

    To unpack the current stalemate and the potential trajectory of the conflict, three leading regional security experts from major international think tanks shared their analysis of the shifting dynamics on and off the battlefield.

    Jason Campbell, a Senior Fellow at the Washington DC-based Middle East Institute, argues that the biggest source of ongoing uncertainty is the lack of clear, fixed US strategic goals for the conflict. “The White House is constantly re-evaluating what political outcomes it is willing to accept,” Campbell explained. Early planning assumed that limited military action would deliver a quick US victory, but that assumption has failed to materialize, leading the US to test a mix of military pressure and economic coercion.

    Currently, Campbell says the Biden administration appears comfortable with a state of controlled stasis: maintaining the broad economic blockade while carrying out periodic targeted strikes to limit Iran’s ability to disrupt shipping through the strait. US officials are betting that the new round of harsh sanctions will weaken Tehran’s position enough to force it back to negotiations on US terms. In recent weeks, US forces have managed to open a limited shipping channel through the strait, enough to avoid a catastrophic global oil price spike or broader economic collapse, but these incremental gains fall far short of the original US objectives when the conflict launched. For Campbell, the most likely outcome is that Iran will demand major concessions to reach a deal, terms that will remain politically unacceptable for the current US administration.

    Dr. Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi, an Associate Fellow with Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Programme in London, says the latest US strikes and sanctions have not changed Iran’s core calculations about the conflict. “Tehran is already preparing for tighter economic pressure and a continuation of the sporadic on-off attacks we have seen over the past two months,” Tabrizi noted. Iran’s strategy remains to respond to US attacks in a proportionate way, avoiding actions that would trigger a full-scale regional war while refusing to back down.

    The new economic squeeze will undoubtedly deepen harm to Iran’s economy, which has already been battered by months of conflict and has long struggled with deep structural problems — instability that was already visible in large-scale anti-government demonstrations in December and January earlier this year. Even so, Tabrizi says there is no indication that economic pressure will push Iran’s leadership to change its position or make concessions at the negotiating table any time soon. That does not mean Tehran has ruled out a path to de-escalation, but rather that it is waiting for the US to return to the terms of the June MoU or offer concrete concessions of its own. “Tehran does not want to cave in to US pressure or alter its own approach in response to sanctions or additional attacks,” Tabrizi added.

    Nicholas Hopton, a Distinguished Fellow in international security at the Royal United Services Institute in London and former UK ambassador to Iran, argues that the latest escalation of military action will not force Iran to surrender, and economic pressure is unlikely to work as intended. That is because major trade partners of Iran including China and Russia refuse to back Washington’s unilateral sanctions, allowing Tehran to maintain critical economic ties even under the blockade. “Iran can continue to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz — they have a thumb on the jugular of the global economy,” Hopton noted.

    When it comes to the question of the White House’s exit strategy, Hopton argues the framework for a solution already exists in the June MoU. If Washington returns to negotiate the full deal outlined in that agreement, it would deliver what the US frames as a victory: weakening hardline factions within Iran’s Islamic Republic and creating international guarantees that Tehran will not develop a nuclear weapon. The core provision of the MoU — lifting all US sanctions on Iran — would over time weaken the influence of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), which dominates large swathes of Iran’s economy. Opening Iran to broad new global economic engagement would gradually drive radical political and social change, resulting in an Islamic regime that is fundamentally different in its approach and priorities, Hopton explained.

    Reaching that outcome will not be easy, however, given the IRGC’s deep penetration of Iran’s economy. It would also require significant strategic patience from the US and its partners, a commodity that is in very short supply at this stage of the conflict. “For the time being, I think we’re going to carry on with a messy, inconclusive situation that is bad for everyone,” Hopton concluded.

  • War lingering, Pentagon extends Mideast troop deployments into ’27

    War lingering, Pentagon extends Mideast troop deployments into ’27

    Three years into a deeply contentious, costly and unpopular U.S. military campaign against Iran, the U.S. Pentagon has confirmed plans to extend deployments of American troops, fighter jet squadrons and naval warships in the Middle East well into next year, with some ground forces potentially remaining as late as 2027, according to an exclusive Wall Street Journal report published late Wednesday.

    The development marks a stark reversal of early promises from top Trump administration officials, including Pentagon Chief Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump himself, who both repeatedly insisted the military assault on Iran would conclude quickly. Under the newly unveiled plan, the U.S. will maintain a force of roughly 50,000 service members in the region, a posture designed to preserve presidential flexibility for future policy shifts, the report notes, citing internal correspondence that military leadership sent to family members of deployed personnel. The document also confirms that elements of the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne Division could remain stationed in the Middle East through 2027.

    Intriguingly, the report adds that Trump – who has drawn widespread criticism for falsely claiming Iran is a “dead” country – is currently holding closed-door discussions with senior advisors about formally declaring the Iran war over, even as cross-border airstrikes continue, thousands of U.S. troops remain deployed in theater, and the administration continues to ramp up crippling economic sanctions on Tehran.

    Critics across policy and advocacy circles have rapidly condemned the administration’s handling of the conflict, calling the open-ended deployment a confirmation that the war was both unnecessary and illegal from its outset. “The Trump administration seems to excel at bombing schools and weddings,” Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group, wrote in commentary Wednesday. “Winning the illegal and unnecessary war with Iran – not so much.”

    Hegseth has publicly thrown his support behind a new strategy that relies on “periodic” targeted bombings across Iran to keep commercial ship traffic moving through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint. But independent analysts warn this approach would lock the U.S. into a permanent state of low-intensity conflict with Iran with no clear off-ramp.

    Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued earlier this week that Trump’s current posture appears tailored to upcoming midterm elections: he is leaning toward maintaining a limited, low-level conflict through the vote, pursuing neither a diplomatic breakthrough to end the standoff nor allowing tensions to spiral into full-scale all-out war. “Iranian officials say, both publicly and privately, that they expect the U.S. and Israel to resume full-scale hostilities after the midterms regardless of the impact of the so-called D-Day sanctions,” Parsi noted in his analysis. “Regional diplomats have largely reached the same conclusion.” Parsi added that if sanctions gradually weaken Iran’s economy while global markets adjust to new trade patterns through the Strait, a prolonged pause in major operations will work against Tehran’s interests. That dynamic, he warned, could push Iranian leadership to launch dramatic military escalation in the run-up to the election, taking advantage of what they see as Trump’s domestic political vulnerability.

    The human and economic cost of the conflict continues to mount. To date, the war has killed thousands of Iranians – including hundreds of civilian children – along with at least 18 U.S. service members. For average American households, the conflict has driven an extra $1,200 in annual costs, primarily due to spiking global energy prices that have pushed gasoline costs to record highs. When asked about this financial burden on American families, Trump has publicly stated he does “not think about Americans’ financial situation” when making policy decisions about the Iran war.

    The open-ended conflict has also paved the way for the Trump administration to push for a record $1.5 trillion military spending budget for the upcoming fiscal year, a request that has amplified fears among critics that the U.S. is settling into a permanent “forever war” in the Middle East focused on Iran.

    In a public analysis published Wednesday, the National Iranian American Council outlined the growing risk of prolonged conflict for civilians on both sides. “Washington is betting that sustained military and economic pressure will eventually force Tehran to retreat,” the organization wrote. “Iran appears to be betting that it can survive long enough to force Washington to do the same. For ordinary Iranians, American servicemembers, and civilians across the region, the danger is that testing those two assumptions will require a much longer and more destructive war.”

  • Myanmar’s Min Aung Hlaing visiting Vietnam as he seeks to normalize relations with ASEAN

    Myanmar’s Min Aung Hlaing visiting Vietnam as he seeks to normalize relations with ASEAN

    HANOI, Vietnam — Myanmar’s military-backed government leader Min Aung Hlaing has arrived in Hanoi for high-stakes talks with top Vietnamese officials, marking the latest step in his years-long campaign to repair Myanmar’s fractured regional standing and court much-needed foreign capital amid widespread international isolation.

    This diplomatic outreach comes more than five years after Min Aung Hlaing, then serving as Myanmar’s army chief, seized power in a February 2021 coup that ousted the democratically elected government led by Aung San Suu Kyi. The takeover triggered widespread global condemnation, years of diplomatic shunning, and a brutal nationwide civil conflict that has persisted to this day, following a deadly military crackdown on mass anti-coup protests that spawned a widespread armed resistance movement.

    Since his controversial swearing-in as president in April 2024, following an election widely dismissed by critics as a sham to cement the military’s permanent grip on power, Min Aung Hlaing has ramped up his global diplomatic schedule. Prior to this Vietnam visit, he has undertaken official trips to India, China, Laos, Thailand, and more recently, Eurasian nations including Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Russia, where he has held one-on-one meetings with national leaders and hosted business forums focused on attracting foreign direct investment to Myanmar.

    Vietnam holds unique significance for Myanmar’s military leadership: the two Southeast Asian countries share decades of deep military-to-military ties, including formal defense cooperation agreements. Vietnam’s state-owned military telecommunications conglomerate Viettel also holds a major stake in Mytel, one of Myanmar’s largest domestic telecom operators, which is partially owned by entities linked to Myanmar’s military.

    Despite these longstanding connections, bilateral economic ties between the two nations have weakened sharply in recent years. Official data shared by Min Aung Hlaing with Vietnamese Foreign Minister Le Hoai Trung during their August meeting in Naypyidaw shows bilateral trade plummeted from $853 million in 2020, the final full year before the coup, to just $590 million in 2025, and only reached $335 million in the first half of 2026, according to Vietnam’s foreign ministry.

    According to Myanmar’s state-run MRTV television, Min Aung Hlaing departed the country’s capital Naypyidaw on Friday morning for the visit. During his time in Hanoi, he is scheduled to hold formal talks with Vietnamese President To Lam and other senior Vietnamese government leaders, alongside attending an investment-focused business forum accompanied by members of his cabinet.

    This trip marks Min Aung Hlaing’s third official visit to an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member state as he works to rebuild Myanmar’s standing within the 11-nation regional bloc. Following the 2021 coup, ASEAN barred Min Aung Hlaing from the bloc’s top-level summits for years over his failure to implement a 2021 consensus peace plan designed to de-escalate post-coup violence in Myanmar.

    Western governments have maintained broad sanctions and diplomatic shunning of Min Aung Hlaing and his inner circle since the 2021 coup, in response to the ouster of the elected government and widespread human rights violations documented by independent monitors during the ongoing civil conflict.

  • Vance: US investigating strike on Iran wedding ‘very fully’

    Vance: US investigating strike on Iran wedding ‘very fully’

    In a White House press briefing Thursday, U.S. Vice President JD Vance confirmed that American authorities are conducting a full investigation into reports that a U.S. military strike hit a wedding gathering on Iran’s southern coast earlier this week, killing at least four civilians and wounding more than a dozen others. The incident marks one of the most severe escalations in tensions between Washington and Tehran since the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding in Islamabad just over two months ago.

    Vance, who previously led U.S. negotiation teams with Iran in both Islamabad and Lucerne, told reporters he had received regular updates on the ongoing investigation, while casting doubt on initial reporting from Iranian state media. “Iranian state media has not been a reliable source of information about what has unfolded in this conflict to date, so I am extremely skeptical of their claims,” he said. The vice president emphasized that the U.S. military has a long-standing policy of avoiding civilian targets in combat operations. “We never have targeted civilians, and we never will. Unfortunately, accidents do happen in conflict. When our military makes an error, we conduct full reviews to improve our procedures going forward, which is why this investigation is proceeding thoroughly,” he added.

    During the briefing, Vance implicitly confirmed that no active diplomatic channels currently exist between Washington and Tehran, when he did not push back against reporters’ framing of the issue as occurring amid a total diplomatic breakdown. He did, however, push back on characterizations of the current situation as an open war. “Major combat operations are not ongoing right now, and they have not been for quite some time,” he said. “I would not call this a war. There is no active, widespread shooting at this moment.”

    Despite this framing, Vance spent much of the nearly hour-long briefing justifying the continued deployment of U.S. military power in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint where tensions have spiked sharply since late February. Since U.S. and Israeli operations against Iran began on February 28, Iran has implemented a blockade of vessels linked to the U.S. and Israel in the waterway, its most potent leverage in the current standoff. In response, the U.S. Navy imposed a counter-blockade in April.

    “Just yesterday, we moved 15 million barrels of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, even as Iran continues to fire on commercial shipping,” Vance noted, questioning the global community’s lack of action. “What has any other country done to address this? Why is the United States the only nation willing and able to guarantee that global energy markets remain supplied?” Minutes later, he offered a blunt answer to his own question: “We are the only country in the world that can maintain control over this critical waterway. If we do not step up, no one else will.”

    Vance offered a blunt message to Tehran: “Stop acting like crazy people.” His remarks came hours after Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref warned that the alleged strike has forced Tehran to rewrite its security and defense calculations, and that Iran will launch an “asymmetrical, multi-layered” response to the attack. Iran has a history of targeting U.S. regional assets across the Gulf, including in Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, and Jordan. In a post on X Thursday, Aref issued a stark warning to the U.S. economy: “Americans should begin stockpiling gasoline and fuel. Dark months await the American economy.”

    Outlining U.S. strategy moving forward, Vance said Washington faced two clear choices. “We could withdraw entirely from the region, which would leave the entire world far worse off, with no guaranteed access to global oil and gas supplies. Or we can accept that Iran will continue attacking shipping, and take whatever steps are necessary to prevent their actions from triggering a global energy crisis,” he said. Vance added that Gulf nations have explicitly told Washington that a full permanent withdrawal from U.S. military bases in the region – which have expanded dramatically since the 1991 Gulf War – would be a catastrophic outcome for regional security. Even so, the future of forces evacuated from these bases earlier this year remains unclear; 18 U.S. military personnel have been killed in operations since the current conflict began.

    Speaking at a separate panel hosted by Democracy in the Arab World Now (Dawn) Thursday, former U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency officer Harrison Mann said he does not expect U.S. forces to ever return to the Gulf bases they vacated earlier this year, including installations in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and eastern Saudi Arabia. “This conflict has turned those bases into an even greater political liability for the ruling monarchies of the region,” Mann explained. He added that the U.S. could eventually consolidate its regional military posture in Israel – a shift that would bring its own risks, as Iran-aligned groups like Lebanon’s Hezbollah maintain rocket capabilities that can reach all of Israel.

    Vance confirmed Thursday that the White House has no set timeline for de-escalation, a notable shift from earlier administration pledges that gasoline prices would drop significantly by the first week of September. That promise has yet to materialize. He added that the U.S. is not planning its strategy around an expectation that Iran will act responsibly or negotiate in good faith. “Our approach is to use all tools at our disposal to meet two core goals: first, eliminate the threat of an Iranian nuclear program, and second, guarantee that global energy markets remain adequately supplied,” he said.

    At the Dawn panel, Center for International Policy senior non-resident fellow Negar Mortazavi explained that Iran has shifted its strategy after what it views as a misstep from an earlier ceasefire. In June 2025, after Israel launched an attack on Iran, Tehran agreed to a ceasefire within 12 days, a move Mortazavi said Iran now sees as overly hasty. “They accepted the ceasefire too quickly, which is why the conflict reignited for a third time this past February,” she said. “Now, their doctrine has shifted: they have adopted a far more offensive, aggressive posture.”

    Mortazavi added that Iran has also drawn lessons from its past dealings with President Donald Trump. “Publicly and privately, Iranian officials say that when they back down to Trump, he only escalates further. But when they stand their ground and escalate in response, he backs off – and they have multiple examples of this dynamic,” she said.

    One of the core tools the U.S. is deploying against Iran is an expanded package of sanctions, unveiled last week by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Dubbed “Operation Economic Outcast,” the new sanctions regime aims to cut off all of Iran’s economic enablers and asphyxiate the Iranian economy, according to Bessent, who added that Trump has been holding conversations with global allies to secure their participation in the effort. The administration has not yet named which countries have agreed to join, nor released a timeline for full implementation.

    When asked Thursday which countries have stepped up to support the sanctions beyond the UAE, Vance said a broad coalition has formed, even if many participants prefer to keep their involvement private. “Turkey, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, much of the Gulf Arab coalition – we have support from countries all across the world. Many just aren’t willing to say so publicly,” he said. On the question of China, Iran’s closest global ally that has long helped Tehran evade U.S.-led financial restrictions, Vance struck a far more conciliatory tone. “We have held a number of conversations with the Chinese, and frankly, they have been responsive to several of our requests,” he said. “Say what you will about China, but they do not shoot at commercial shipping to advance their interests in international disputes. In that regard, they have proven far more responsible.”

    Vance’s remarks come ahead of a planned state visit to the U.S. by Chinese President Xi Jinping, scheduled for later this month.

  • Argentine leader says oil firms working off Falklands face sanctions

    Argentine leader says oil firms working off Falklands face sanctions

    Decades after a brutal 1982 armed conflict that claimed nearly 1,000 lives, the long-running sovereignty dispute over the Falkland Islands (known as Las Malvinas to Argentina) has reignited, with Argentine President Javier Milei unveiling aggressive new steps to advance his country’s claim to the British overseas territory in the South Atlantic.

    In a nationally televised address this week, Milei confirmed he would move forward with sanctions targeting international oil companies planning exploration work off the archipelago’s coast. His announcement centers on the Sea Lion oilfield, a massive untapped reserve holding an estimated 1.7 billion barrels of crude, where a British and an Israeli energy firm are scheduled to launch exploratory drilling in the coming months. Milei framed the upcoming project as a direct threat to Argentina’s territorial claims, warning that delaying action would give energy companies the permanent physical infrastructure to extract resources that Argentina asserts rightfully belong to the country.

    “Winds of change are blowing across the globe that favor our claim to the Falklands,” Milei told the Argentine public, pointing to growing signals that the United States is prepared to revise its longstanding policy of neutrality in the decades-old dispute. The Argentine leader emphasized that former U.S. President Donald Trump has openly flagged the possibility of a U.S. position shift if the United Kingdom fails to meet its NATO defense spending commitments, and added that current U.S. officials are reassessing Washington’s historical stance on the sovereignty issue. “This is not empty rhetoric,” Milei said. “U.S. leaders understand that Argentina is a reliable partner and a valuable ally for the decades ahead. The Falklands are Argentinean — historically, legally, and irrefutably.”

    Milei also used the address to announce plans to construct a new Argentine naval base in Tierra del Fuego, the southernmost province of Argentina, located just a short distance from the Falkland archipelago. While details of the proposed sanctions remain unclear, existing Argentine legislation already enables the government to impose restrictions on any company participating in unauthorized energy projects on the islands.

    The sovereignty dispute stretches back more than 200 years, but erupted into open conflict in 1982, when Argentine military forces invaded the islands to stake a territorial claim. The UK deployed a naval task force that retook control of the archipelago after a 74-day conflict that left 255 British service members, three Falkland island residents, and 649 Argentine soldiers dead. In a 2013 referendum held on the islands, 99.8% of residents voted overwhelmingly to remain a British overseas territory, reaffirming their right to self-determination. The UK has repeatedly stood by that result, reiterating this week that Falkland islanders are British citizens with an unassailable right to determine their own political future. BBC News has reached out to the UK government for additional comment on Milei’s latest announcement.

    Recent developments have introduced new uncertainty to the dispute, particularly shifting signals from the United States. In a GB News interview Thursday, Trump was asked whether the U.S. would intervene to support the UK in a potential future escalation of the dispute. The former president replied that the UK had “not been there to help me” during tensions between the U.S. and Iran, echoing his earlier warnings that a U.S. neutrality revision is on the table if the UK does not increase its defense spending. Just hours before Milei’s national address, a senior U.S. State Department official sparked further speculation by posting a photo of her meeting with Milei on social media with the caption: “Exciting things are happening in the Western Hemisphere.”

    If exploration proceeds as planned at Sea Lion, production is on track to launch in 2028, marking the first large-scale commercial extraction of the archipelago’s offshore oil reserves — a development Milei warned would fundamentally change the territorial status quo if Argentina does not act quickly.

  • Rights groups press lawmakers to scrap provision to merge US and Israeli militaries

    Rights groups press lawmakers to scrap provision to merge US and Israeli militaries

    A coalition of 56 civil rights and advocacy organizations has launched a formal push to persuade congressional leaders to remove a contested policy provision from the upcoming 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would deepen institutional military technology cooperation between the United States and Israel. The demand was delivered in a public letter addressed to the top leaders of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, a copy of which was reviewed by Reuters.

    The provision, numbered Section 219 in the House-passed version of the annual defense policy bill and re-designated Section 1217 in the separate Senate version, would formalize a new permanent framework called the United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. This framework would create formal structures for joint development ventures, technology licensing agreements, and co-production partnerships based on U.S. soil. The House version of the full NDAA advanced out of the lower chamber in July, and the legislation now awaits a full vote and reconciliation in the Senate.

    Signatories to the critical letter include prominent global and domestic groups such as Amnesty International, the National Lawyers Guild, and a coalition of both Arab-American and Jewish-American advocacy organizations. In the text of the letter, the groups argue that expanding Israeli influence within the U.S. defense technology ecosystem carries severe risks, at a moment when U.S. strategic interests increasingly diverge from Israeli policy and public opinion across the U.S. has shifted sharply against unconditional military support for the Israeli government.

    The letter explicitly condemns Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip and ongoing settler violence in the occupied West Bank, accusing Israel of widespread violations of international humanitarian law. The groups argue these documented violations should rule out any expansion of formal military cooperation between the two nations. The push to remove the provision comes as the existing 10-year memorandum of understanding granting Israel $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid is set to expire in 2028, opening up broader debates about the future shape of U.S. security assistance to Israel.

    The push to strike the provision is not limited to advocacy groups: a bipartisan group of House lawmakers already attempted to remove the text via amendment earlier this year. The amendment, introduced by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California, failed to advance to a floor vote before the House passed its version of the NDAA.

    The legislative process for the annual NDAA, which must pass to fund all Pentagon operations for the coming fiscal year, requires both chambers to reconcile their differing versions into a single compromise text before it can be sent to the president for signature or veto. The Senate version of the provision, introduced by Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Republican Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina in a bipartisan push, goes further than the House text: while the House version only requires the U.S. Secretary of Defense to appoint an executive agent to coordinate bilateral efforts, the Senate version mandates ongoing formal consultation with the Israeli Minister of Defense on cooperation efforts.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has framed the initiative as a transformative shift that would move Israel beyond its status as a recipient of U.S. foreign aid to a full, equal strategic partner. Crucially, once codified, the permanent cooperation framework could not be unilaterally withdrawn by future U.S. presidents, locking in the bilateral integration for decades. While many elements of the close defense cooperation outlined in the provision already exist in practice through long-standing Pentagon agreements with Israel, the text would codify this collaboration into law and grant Israel formal input into U.S. defense and national security decision-making processes.

    The provision was first introduced in the House by Texas Republican Representative Ronny Jackson, who served as former President Donald Trump’s White House physician during Trump’s first term. Jackson, who retained his senior Navy rank during the Biden administration after it was briefly lowered following allegations of inappropriate sexual comments and alcohol-related misconduct, saw the language adopted into the final House bill.

    Under the terms of the proposed initiative, the U.S. Secretary of Defense would be required to formalize joint cooperation across a range of high-priority technology areas: counter-drone systems, missile and air defense, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and cyber and electronic warfare. The explicit policy goal of the provision is to reduce Israel’s long-term dependence on direct U.S. foreign military aid. Within one year of the provision entering into force, the Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a public report to Congress detailing all activities carried out under the initiative and their ongoing assessment.

    Beyond the 56 groups signing the Thursday letter, another Washington-based policy advocacy group, A New Policy — co-founded by former State Department whistleblower Josh Paul — has already publicly called for lawmakers to vote down the initiative, warning it poses direct risks to U.S. national security. In a detailed policy brief, the group argued the framework exposes sensitive U.S. military capabilities to heightened counterintelligence risks, normalizes the use of technologies developed in the context of occupation and civilian harm, puts U.S. defense companies at a competitive disadvantage relative to Israeli firms, and deepens U.S. legal and reputational exposure without any clear strategic justification, while also reducing transparency around ongoing U.S. military support for Israel.

    Israel currently remains the largest single recipient of U.S. foreign military assistance, receiving billions of dollars annually in commitments that were first negotiated during the Obama and Biden administrations.