Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Iran ceasefire deal a temporary win for Trump – but it comes at a cost

    Iran ceasefire deal a temporary win for Trump – but it comes at a cost

    Just 90 minutes before a self-imposed deadline that would have triggered massive U.S. airstrikes against Iranian energy and transportation infrastructure, a last-minute de-escalation has pulled the region back from the brink of full-scale war. On Tuesday Washington time, U.S. President Donald Trump announced via his social media platform that Washington and Tehran had made substantial progress toward a definitive peace agreement, and he had approved a 14-day ceasefire to create space for negotiations to move forward.

    The ceasefire is not a one-sided commitment: it requires Iran to also suspend all offensive operations and fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical oil chokepoint, for unimpeded commercial shipping. Tehran has publicly confirmed it will meet these conditions. The breakthrough comes as a surprise to many global observers, since earlier the same day, Trump had issued an unprecedented, inflammatory threat that he would wipe out Iranian civilization “never to be brought back again” – a statement that shattered long-held norms of diplomatic rhetoric from sitting U.S. presidents.

    It remains unconfirmed whether this extreme threat pushed Iran to accept a ceasefire it had rejected in earlier talks. What is undeniable is that the president’s rhetoric marks a profound break from decades of U.S. diplomatic practice. Even if the temporary ceasefire paves the way for a lasting peace deal, experts say Trump’s threats and the brief conflict have already reshaped how the international community views the United States. A nation that long positioned itself as a global guarantor of stability is now seen as destabilizing the core foundations of the existing international order, as Trump, who has built his political brand on breaking domestic norms, extends that approach to global diplomacy.

    Domestically, the president’s comments have sparked sharp bipartisan backlash. Congressional Democrats have been quick to condemn the threats, with some even calling for Trump’s removal from office. “It is clear that the president has continued to decline and is not fit to lead,” Congressman Joaquin Castro posted on X. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, added that any Republican who refuses to vote to end the Iran war will be held responsible for all consequences of the conflict.

    While most members of Trump’s own party have rallied around him, defections are far more widespread than in most previous controversies. Georgia Republican Congressman Austin Scott, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, publicly rejected the president’s rhetoric, telling reporters “The president’s comments are counter-productive, and I do not agree with them.” Normally loyal Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson called a full-scale bombing campaign a “huge mistake,” while Texas Congressman Nathaniel Moran wrote on social media that he could not support threatening the destruction of an entire civilization. “This is not who we are, and it is not consistent with the principles that have long guided America,” Moran said. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, a frequent critic of Trump, added that the threat “cannot be excused away as an attempt to gain leverage in negotiations with Iran.”

    The White House has already pushed back against critics, arguing that Trump’s high-stakes leverage worked to force Iran to the negotiating table. In his ceasefire announcement, Trump claimed the U.S. had “met and exceeded” all of its initial military objectives in the conflict. U.S. airstrikes have degraded Iran’s conventional military capabilities and killed multiple top Iranian regime leaders, though the Islamic fundamentalist government remains in power.

    Many core U.S. objectives remain unfulfilled, however. The status of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile – the core material for a potential nuclear weapons program – remains undisclosed, and Iran still retains significant influence over regional armed proxies including Yemen’s Houthi rebels. Even if Iran fully opens the Strait of Hormuz, the crisis has underscored Tehran’s ability to disrupt global energy supplies by closing the chokepoint, strengthening its geopolitical leverage going forward.

    In his official response to the ceasefire announcement, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Aragchi confirmed Iran would suspend its defensive operations and allow safe commercial passage through the Strait of Hormuz, coordinated with Iranian armed forces. He added that the U.S. had accepted the general framework of Iran’s 10-point peace proposal, which includes full withdrawal of U.S. military forces from the Middle East, lifting all economic sanctions on Iran, war reparations from the U.S., and formal Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. It remains unclear whether Trump will agree to any of these sweeping demands, leaving the 14-day negotiation period facing major potential pitfalls.

    For the immediate term, the ceasefire delivers a political win for Trump, who followed through on his high-stakes threat to force a negotiation. But the truce is only a temporary pause in hostilities, not a permanent resolution. The full long-term cost of the president’s unprecedented rhetoric, the conflict, and the norm-breaking that preceded the ceasefire will not be clear for years to come.

  • Trump-backed Republican Clay Fuller wins election to replace Marjorie Taylor Greene

    Trump-backed Republican Clay Fuller wins election to replace Marjorie Taylor Greene

    A high-stakes special runoff election in northwest Georgia has delivered a critical win for Republicans and former President Donald Trump, with Clay Fuller projected to claim the vacant 14th Congressional District seat over Democratic challenger Shawn Harris. The victory, called by major election observers including CBS News, the BBC’s U.S. partner, shores up the Republican Party’s fragile 217-214 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives – a margin so narrow that a single flipped seat could upend the party’s legislative agenda.

    The race was triggered earlier this year when Marjorie Taylor Greene, the district’s former Republican congresswoman and once a staunch Trump ally, resigned after breaking publicly with the former president. Fuller, a lieutenant colonel in the Georgia Air National Guard and a former White House fellow during Trump’s first term, will immediately step into office to serve the remainder of Greene’s term, which expires in January 2027. He will not get a grace period, however: he must immediately launch a new campaign to defend the seat in November’s midterm general elections, where he is widely expected to face Harris once again.

    The path to Tuesday’s runoff began with an all-candidate special election held on March 10, where a crowded field of Republican contenders split the conservative vote. In that initial contest, Harris edged out Fuller by a narrow margin, but no candidate reached the 50% vote threshold required to win outright, forcing the head-to-head runoff.

    Political observers across Washington monitored the race closely as a critical bellwether for Trump’s remaining influence over the Republican base ahead of November’s midterms. Fuller’s rise to become the GOP’s consensus candidate was driven almost entirely by Trump’s early and unwavering endorsement. In a last-minute appeal to voters on the eve of the election, Trump took to social media to urge turnout, writing, “I am asking all Republicans, America First Patriots, and MAGA Warriors, to please GET OUT AND VOTE for a fantastic Candidate, Clay Fuller, who has my Complete and Total Endorsement!”

    Political science professor Andra Gillespie of Emory University noted that Trump’s endorsement of Fuller, rather than a more hardline MAGA-aligned candidate, was a deliberate strategic calculation. “In general, part of President Trump’s strategy in endorsing Fuller was this recognition that the most red meat, MAGA-affiliated candidate in this particular instance, might be off-putting to voters in the middle,” Gillespie explained. “This was an attempt to not lose those voters.”

    For Democrats, the race represented a rare pickup opportunity in a deeply conservative district. Democrats argued that low off-cycle turnout, a common dynamic in special runoffs, would play to their advantage if they could mobilize enough Democratic and independent voters. The party invested early in the race: former Democratic presidential candidate and cabinet secretary Pete Buttigieg held a public town hall with Harris in March to boost his name recognition and turnout. After advancing to the runoff, Harris reached across party lines to court voters who had supported other Republican candidates in the March special election, saying, “Everybody who voted for any other candidate […] I want to talk to every last one of them, and say: ‘Give me a chance.’”

    Gillespie noted ahead of the vote that a Harris win would have required a series of unlikely missteps from Fuller and a massive Democratic turnout effort. “Several things had to go right for Harris – and wrong for Fuller – for the Democrat to win this race,” she said.

    Geographically, Georgia’s 14th Congressional District stretches from the outer northwestern suburbs of Atlanta all the way to the Tennessee state line. It is a mostly rural constituency that has long been a safe Republican seat, though it holds small but concentrated pockets of Democratic support in the Atlanta-adjacent suburbs and around the city of Rome. With Fuller’s win, the district remains in Republican hands, reinforcing the party’s narrow control of the House as the country heads into a contentious midterm election cycle that will determine control of Congress for the next two years.

    Fuller’s policy positions align closely with Trump’s national agenda, most notably his hardline stance on curbing illegal immigration and advancing mass deportation policies, a key priority for the former president’s base.

  • North Korea launches a second projectile in 2 days, Seoul says

    North Korea launches a second projectile in 2 days, Seoul says

    South Korea’s joint military command confirmed Wednesday that North Korea has conducted a second projectile launch off its eastern coastline, coming just one day after a similar unidentified weapons test near the country’s capital area. The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff did not release additional details on the latest launch, including estimates of how far the projectile traveled or confirmation of what type of weapon system was tested.

    The launch activity follows a key weapons development announcement made earlier this week by North Korea: state reports confirmed leader Kim Jong Un personally oversaw testing of an upgraded solid-fuel engine designed for strategic weapons, a development Pyongyang framed as a major breakthrough for its national military arsenal.

    Solid-fuel missile technology represents a significant strategic advancement over older liquid-fuel systems. Unlike liquid-fuel weapons, which require on-site fueling immediately before launch and cannot remain stationary for long periods, solid-fuel missiles are far easier to transport, can be deployed faster, and are much harder for enemy intelligence agencies to detect and destroy prior to launch. This latest engine test marks the first test of its kind conducted by North Korea in seven months, and aligns directly with Kim Jong Un’s stated goal of developing a more maneuverable, stealthier missile force capable of striking targets across the United States and its regional allies.

    According to South Korean lawmakers who attended a closed-door briefing this week, Seoul’s National Intelligence Service has assessed that the solid-fuel engine work is part of a broader effort to develop a more powerful intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of carrying multiple independent nuclear warheads.

    North Korea has accelerated its expansion of nuclear and conventional weapons capabilities since high-stakes denuclearization negotiations between Kim Jong Un and former U.S. President Donald Trump collapsed in 2019. During a ruling Workers’ Party Congress held in January of this year, Kim indicated Pyongyang remained open to the possibility of dialogue with the U.S., but set a key condition: Washington must abandon its demand that North Korea commit to nuclear disarmament before any formal talks can resume.

  • Plan to scrap presidential elections puts Zimbabweans at loggerheads

    Plan to scrap presidential elections puts Zimbabweans at loggerheads

    A bitter political battle is unfolding in Zimbabwe over a sweeping set of proposed constitutional changes that have reignited fears of authoritarian backsliding, just decades after the end of Robert Mugabe’s decades-long authoritarian rule. At the heart of the conflict is a draft bill championed by the long-ruling Zanu-PF party, which has held uninterrupted power since Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980. If passed, the legislation would upend the country’s electoral system, stripping ordinary voters of their three-decade-old right to directly elect the president and shifting that power exclusively to parliament. It would also extend both presidential and parliamentary terms from five years to seven, delay the 2028 general election to 2030, and allow sitting President Emmerson Mnangagwa—whose second and constitutionally mandated final term was set to end in 2028—to remain in office for an extra two years.
    Mnangagwa first rose to power in 2017, when a military-backed coup ousted Mugabe, who had ruled the country for 37 years. Mnangagwa went on to win disputed presidential elections in 2018 and 2023, and the proposed changes now have opposition leaders sounding the alarm over what they call a calculated power grab. “This is a coup, a slow coup that is unfolding in Zimbabwe,” Tendai Biti, a veteran opposition figure and former finance minister who now leads the Constitution Defenders Forum, told the BBC.
    Biti’s warning comes amid a growing crackdown on opposition voices ahead of parliamentary consideration of the bill, which is expected to pass in the coming weeks. The campaign to advance the changes first launched in 2024, with supporters rallying behind the slogan “2030 – he will still be the leader.” In the lead-up to recent public hearings held to gather public input on the draft legislation, Zimbabwean police banned more than a dozen opposition events aimed at organizing against the bill. Biti himself has been released on bail after being charged with holding an unauthorized public meeting. Last month, Lovemore Madhuku, leader of the opposition National Constitutional Assembly, said he was beaten by masked attackers while police stood by and did not intervene.
    Tensions boiled over during the public hearings, which drew thousands of attendees to a Harare sports arena. While speaker after speaker voiced support for the bill and called for Mnangagwa to stay in office beyond 2028, chaos erupted when critics attempted to speak. Opposition lawmaker and lawyer Fadzayi Mahere told the BBC that Zanu-PF supporters instigated commotion, including pushing, shoving, physical fighting, theft of mobile phones, and forced deletion of footage of the unrest to silence opposing views. Zanu-PF spokesperson Patrick Chinamasa rejected the accusations, arguing that the ruling party has no need for violence because it holds majority public support, and instead blamed the opposition for the unrest, saying opponents refuse to accept that their views are not widely shared.
    Zanu-PF officials have forcefully defended the proposed overhaul, framing it as a pragmatic, cost-saving reform that will reduce the political violence that has plagued popular presidential elections for decades. “There’s nothing that stops us to change, to go to another system that’s less costly, less controversial,” Chinamasa said, noting that electoral violence linked to direct presidential votes is not unique to Zimbabwe. He added that the changes are intended to preserve the political stability and ongoing economic development that the country has seen since Mnangagwa took office in 2018, and dismissed claims that the bill marks a permanent power grab, saying “When his time is up we will choose other leaders.” Zanu-PF also argues that the changes comply with the country’s 2013 constitution, claiming the two-term limit for presidents remains intact, and that only the length of each term is being adjusted, eliminating the need for a public referendum as required for term extensions.
    But critics counter that the bill directly violates the 2013 constitution, a document that was the product of years of activism to curb executive power after Mugabe’s rule. The 2013 charter restricts presidents to two terms and explicitly requires any extension of term limits to be approved by voters in a public referendum, with a second separate referendum required if a sitting president wants to benefit from an extended term. Opposition leaders say the proposed changes roll back hard-won democratic gains and open the door to a complete elimination of term limits down the line. “If they can get away with two years what stops them from getting away with 20 years?” Biti said. Critics add that the changes would recreate the over-powerful “imperial presidency” that activists fought to end during Mugabe’s tenure, and that the shift to parliamentary presidential elections will entrench Zanu-PF’s permanent hold on power, as the party already controls a parliamentary majority.
    Even within Zanu-PF, the proposal faced initial internal opposition, but the most prominent internal critic, Blessed Geza—commonly known by his nickname “Bombshell”—died earlier this year, clearing a path for the bill to move forward. The deep divide over the proposed amendments has laid bare the persistent polarization that defines Zimbabwe’s modern political landscape, pitting a ruling party that has held power for 44 years against an opposition that says the country is sliding back into the authoritarian patterns of the Mugabe era. “They are making the mistake that Mugabe made. That of closing [the democratic] space absolutely,” Biti said.

  • White House denies it is considering using nuclear weapons in Iran

    White House denies it is considering using nuclear weapons in Iran

    Tensions around US-Iran relations have spiked dramatically in recent days after a series of escalating, incendiary statements from senior US leadership, capped by a chaotic back-and-forth over whether the Trump administration is open to deploying nuclear weapons against the Islamic Republic.

    The controversy began unfolding last week, as US President Donald Trump adopted a sharply erratic policy tone toward Iran, swinging unexpectedly between public expressions of optimism that a new bilateral deal could be reached and harsh, violent threats targeting the country. On Sunday, the president took to his Truth Social platform for an expletive-filled post, ordering Iranian officials to immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global maritime chokepoint — and warning that Tehran would face “hell” if it refused to comply.

    As the Tuesday deadline Trump imposed for the strait’s reopening approached, the president doubled down on his rhetoric with an unprecedented apocalyptic warning. In a Truth Social post Tuesday evening, he declared that if Iran failed to meet his demand, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” Adding to the gravity of the threat, he framed the moment as a historic turning point, writing, “We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World.”

    Shortly after the president’s statement, Vice President JD Vance, during an official visit to Hungary, added fuel to the speculation around potential extreme military action. Vance argued that Tehran must recognize that the US maintains powerful, unused military capabilities in its arsenal, saying “The president of the United States can decide to use them, and he will decide to use them if the Iranians don’t change their course of conduct.”

    Vance’s comment, paired with Trump’s earlier warning that an entire civilization faced annihilation, led widespread international analysis to interpret the vice president’s remarks as a veiled reference to the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran. Any deployment of nuclear weapons against human targets would mark a historic breaking point: it would be the first use of the technology by any state since the US dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the close of World War II. The catastrophic humanitarian and environmental impact of nuclear weapons, paired with the risk of uncontrollable regional and global escalation, has meant no nuclear-armed state — of which there are nine globally — has chosen to deploy these arms in conflict over the nearly 80 years since 1945.

    Within hours of the speculation emerging, the White House issued a blunt and public denial on its X (formerly Twitter) account pushing back against the inference. In an unusually profane rebuke to those reporting the connection, the administration wrote: “Literally nothing @VP said here ‘implies’ this, you absolute buffoons.”

    The rapid sequence of conflicting statements has deepened international concern over the Trump administration’s approach to the already volatile Persian Gulf region, with observers warning that unguarded, apocalyptic rhetoric risks raising the risk of miscalculation on both sides that could spiral into unintended conflict.

  • Kharg struck as Trump threatens to wipe out Iranian civilization

    Kharg struck as Trump threatens to wipe out Iranian civilization

    On Tuesday, mere hours before his self-declared deadline for a negotiated agreement to reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz, former and current U.S. President Donald Trump delivered an extraordinary public threat to permanently erase Iran’s entire national civilization — remarks that legal and policy experts have universally characterized as a clear admission of genocidal intent. The threat was posted directly to Trump’s personal Truth Social platform, as U.S. military forces escalated a widening air campaign targeting Kharg Island, Iran’s central oil export terminal that underpins the country’s energy economy. Multiple regional defense reports add that U.S. and Israeli forces also carried out overnight airstrikes against key bridge infrastructure across Iran, as part of a broader offensive launched in late February that has already killed thousands of Iranian civilians and combatants.

    In his social media post, Trump declared: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World.”

    Leading global policy and legal experts were quick to condemn the remark, framing it as a violation of both U.S. domestic law and international humanitarian norms. Brian Finucane, senior advisor for the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group, drew public attention to 18 U.S. Code § 1091, the federal statute that bars U.S. nationals from committing acts of genocide both within the United States and on foreign soil. Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Washington D.C.-based Center for International Policy, confirmed that the public threat meets the legal threshold for genocidal intent as defined by the same U.S. genocide statute, which prohibits actions intended to destroy a national group in whole or in part. Williams added that if any Iranian civilians are killed as a result of military action carried out following this threat, both Trump and any officials aiding him would be legally culpable for genocide. Former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth echoed this assessment, noting that the threat itself constitutes an unlawful act under international law.

    Speaking to NBC News, Roth emphasized that Trump’s threat amounts to a public call for collective punishment that targets the Iranian people, not just Iranian military forces — a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. “Attacking civilians is a war crime. So is making threats with the aim of terrorizing the civilian population,” Roth said. He called on U.S. military personnel to refuse unlawful orders and for members of the U.S. Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against Trump to remove him from office.

    Adil Haque, a professor of international law at Rutgers University, echoed these calls on Tuesday, urging the global community to intervene immediately to stop Trump from launching what he described as a catastrophic, criminal assault on a nation of more than 90 million people. “Soldiers must refuse unlawful orders. Members of Congress must call for impeachment and removal. Every American who loves their country must speak out. Enough is enough,” Haque stated.

    Trump’s arbitrary 8 p.m. Eastern Time deadline centers on his demand that the Iranian government fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the critical maritime chokepoint through which roughly 20 million barrels of crude oil and a large share of the world’s liquefied natural gas flowed daily before the outbreak of the current conflict. The U.S. president has already threatened massive airstrikes on Iranian power plants, energy infrastructure and national bridge networks if no agreement meets his deadline by the specified time. This threat marks an escalation of rhetoric Trump has deployed over recent days: on Sunday, he publicly demanded Iran “open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell,” and has previously bragged he would bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages.” When asked about potential war crimes committed during U.S. operations in Iran, Trump told reporters Sunday he was unconcerned, stating that “the time the Iranian people are most unhappy … is when those bombs stop.”

    In response to the escalating threats, Iranian officials have rejected international calls for a temporary 45-day ceasefire proposed by regional mediators led by Pakistan, with participation from Egypt and Turkey, and have insisted on ironclad guarantees that both the U.S. and Israel will end all current attacks and commit to no future aggression against Iran. “We only accept an end of the war with guarantees that we won’t be attacked again,” Mojtaba Ferdousi Pour, head of Iran’s diplomatic mission to Cairo, told The Associated Press, confirming the government’s rejection of the temporary truce proposal. Pour added that Tehran cannot trust Trump, who Iranian officials have repeatedly accused of using nuclear negotiations as a cover to extract political concessions and buy time to prepare for expanded military operations.

    That pattern of behavior was borne out most recently in February, when Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, the lead mediator for U.S.-Iran peace talks, confirmed that a comprehensive peace deal was within reach just hours before Trump ordered the launch of large-scale airstrikes on Iran. Prior to the February 28 outbreak of the current U.S.-Israeli offensive against Iran, Iranian negotiators had been willing to make unprecedented concessions on the country’s civilian nuclear program. Multiple U.S. presidential administrations dating back to George W. Bush, including Trump’s first term in office, have formally concluded that Iran is not actively pursuing development of nuclear weapons. Notably, the U.S. and Israel first launched large-scale airstrikes against Iran during ongoing negotiations in summer 2025, mirroring the 2026 pattern of breaking off talks for military action.

    A senior anonymous Iranian official speaking to Drop Site News on Monday offered insight into the government’s rejection of a temporary ceasefire, noting that the Trump administration is facing mounting domestic U.S. legal and political constraints over its prosecution of the war, as well as pressure to stabilize volatile global financial markets, creating a need for a short-term pause in hostilities. “Our assessment indicates that this proposal has been drafted solely on the basis of the mediators’ perception of the minimum demands of the parties for halting the war,” the official said. “Tehran does not consider a temporary ceasefire to be a logical course of action, inasmuch as the window for the United States’ exit from the conflict has already been delineated. Should the requisite political will exist, the parties are in a position to establish a permanent ceasefire and thereafter concentrate their efforts on diplomacy.”

  • Beijing warns against Japan’s plan to ease restrictions on arms exports

    Beijing warns against Japan’s plan to ease restrictions on arms exports

    In a stark official rebuke, Beijing has issued a serious warning over Tokyo’s incoming plan to roll back long-standing restrictions on Japanese arms exports, a shift that China says signals the country’s growing drift toward an offensive, expansionist national security posture that demands sharp vigilance from the global community. The statement comes amid widespread opposition, both within Japan and across the international community, to the policy change that would upend 70 years of post-World War II constraints on Japanese military activity.

    Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning outlined China’s position during a routine Tuesday press briefing, confirming that the warning follows confirmed reports that Japanese officials are set to revise the nation’s Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology as early as this month. The current framework, first introduced in 2014, strictly limits Japanese defense exports to five non-lethal categories centered on logistical support, including search-and-rescue gear and transportation equipment.

    The proposed revision would fundamentally rewrite these rules: it would open the door for exports of fully lethal weapons as a general rule, create carve-outs that allow arms shipments to nations actively involved in armed conflict, and replace the requirement for advance parliamentary approval with a far weaker after-the-fact notification system.

    Mao emphasized that concern over the shift is not limited to China. Leading international academics and prominent, forward-thinking figures within Japan have already raised urgent alarms, noting that the revision marks a paradigm shift in Japan’s post-war arms policy that would dismantle key guardrails built after 1945 specifically to block a return of Japanese militarism. The move, she added, directly violates the core spirit of binding international legal agreements forged in the aftermath of World War II, including the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and Japan’s own formal Instrument of Surrender. It also runs counter to the letter and spirit of Japan’s own pacifist post-war constitution, Mao said.

    Compounding the controversy, official polling previously conducted by the Japanese government itself confirms that a majority of Japanese citizens oppose rolling back arms export restrictions. Mao noted that this mounting shift is no accident: it is the deliberate product of campaigning by Japan’s right-wing political forces, which have openly pushed to rewrite the nation’s defense posture into one defined by offensive power and territorial expansion. Accelerated remilitarization in Japan is no longer a distant risk, she stressed—it is an established reality, backed by formal policy changes and concrete actions already put in place.

    This growing trend represents a direct threat to peace and stability across the East Asian region, Mao argued. She called on Japanese leaders to undertake sincere reflection on their nation’s history of militarist aggression, uphold the peaceful commitments the country made in the post-war era, act with far greater caution in military and security policy, and reverse course before traveling further down a dangerous, wrong path.

    Xiang Haoyu, a senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, expanded on the regional and global risks of the policy shift. He explained that Japanese right-wing forces have long used the rhetoric of “national normalization” and “independent self-defense” as a cover to gradually chip away at the constraints imposed by Japan’s pacifist constitution and the post-WWII international order designed to prevent another catastrophic conflict.

    The push to ease arms export rules, framed by Tokyo as a response to external security threats, actually reflects an outdated Cold War-era zero-sum ideology and advances Japanese strategic goals of geopolitical containment and confrontation, Xiang said. If Japan moves forward with full liberalization of lethal arms exports, the ripple effects will be felt across the globe for decades to come.

    Most immediately, the change will dramatically raise the risk of a new regional arms race across the Asia-Pacific, Xiang warned. Increased flows of Japanese weaponry into already tense, sensitive geopolitical hotspots will likely inflame existing territorial and political disputes, create new conflict flashpoints, and cause irreversible damage to hard-won regional peace and stability.

    Beyond the Asia-Pacific, the wider proliferation of Japanese arms will also weaken the global international arms control framework that has limited the spread of deadly weaponry since the end of the Cold War, Xiang added. No matter what justifications Japanese politicians offer for their policy shift, they cannot obscure the hidden strategic motives and severe risks that come with rolling back arms export rules and pursuing full remilitarization, he said.

    The warning from China coincides with widespread public pushback within Japan itself: on Sunday, more than 6,000 Japanese citizens gathered in central Tokyo to protest the government’s push to ease arms export rules and advance sweeping military expansion, voicing deep anxiety over the dangerous direction the nation is taking.

  • Newlywed wife of US soldier freed by ICE after detention at military base

    Newlywed wife of US soldier freed by ICE after detention at military base

    Just days after tying the knot, a United States Army service member’s newlywed wife, detained by federal immigration agents at her husband’s Louisiana military base, has been freed from custody, closing a tense five-day saga that ignited fierce debate over the Trump administration’s hardline immigration crackdown and its treatment of military families.

    Twenty-two-year-old Annie Ramos, an undocumented immigrant who arrived in the U.S. from Honduras when she was just 22 months old, was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on April 2 during a routine visit to the base. The couple had traveled from Houston to the facility to complete paperwork for a military spouse ID and activate Ramos’ benefits, with plans to welcome her onto the base ahead of the Easter holiday. After the pair presented all required documentation—including their marriage license, Blank’s military ID, Ramos’ Honduran passport and birth certificate—agents moved to place Ramos in handcuffs, before transporting her off-base in a military vehicle.

    For Staff Sgt. Matthew Blank, a five-year Army veteran with deployments already under his belt in the Middle East and Europe who is set to begin pre-deployment training later this month, the arrest turned the happiest week of his life into a nightmare. Ramos spent her five days in detention held alongside hundreds of other immigrants facing deportation under the administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies.

    Following her release on Tuesday, Blank expressed overwhelming relief at reuniting with his wife. “I feel awesome. Relieved, so relieved. These have been the worst days of my life,” he told *The New York Times*, which first broke the story. “I can’t wait to carry my wife into our home and start our lives together. I’m complete and ready to serve our country. And it’s her country, too.”

    Ramos, a biochemistry undergraduate student, has framed her long-held goal as building a life of dignity in the only country she has ever known as home. “All I have ever wanted is to live with dignity in the country I have called home since I was a baby,” she said in a statement to the BBC. “I want to finish my degree, continue my education, and serve my community – just as my husband serves our country with honor.” Moving forward, she said her focus will be on resolving her immigration status, completing her degree, and building a future with Blank.

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has confirmed Ramos has no legal immigration status in the U.S., and did not respond to repeated requests for comment on her current status from the BBC Tuesday. In a statement following the arrest, ICE defended its actions, saying “Being in detention is a choice. We encourage all illegal aliens to take control of their departure with the CBP Home App,” noting that the government offers financial support and free one-way travel for immigrants who agree to self-deport.

    A last-minute push from political advocacy and congressional intervention secured Ramos’ release. Sen. Mark Kelly, whose Arizona constituency includes Blank’s family members, personally reached out to the sergeant to pledge his support, and subsequently spoke to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin about the high-stakes case. Following Ramos’ release, Kelly criticized the administration’s policies that led to the ordeal. “I’m happy Annie is back with her husband and family where she belongs. They never should have gone through this painful process, but far too many families like theirs are because of this administration,” Kelly told the BBC.

    Public records show Ramos entered the U.S. illegally in 2005, and a final removal order was issued after she failed to appear at an immigration hearing decades ago—an event that occurred when she was still an infant. Legal experts, speaking to CBS News, the BBC’s U.S. media partner, note that the current administration has broken with longstanding precedent that prioritized leniency for immediate family members of active-duty service members in immigration enforcement cases.

    Immigration and military family advocates have condemned Ramos’ detention, warning that targeting military spouses for deportation risks eroding troop morale and betrays core U.S. values. Gaby Pacheco, president of TheDream.US, a leading scholarship provider for undocumented immigrant youth, called the case a stark wake-up call for policymakers and the American public. “Detaining a 22-year-old biochemistry student who has lived here for two decades and is married to a U.S. Army staff sergeant preparing for deployment doesn’t make us safer – it weakens a military family, undermines our basic values, and exposes how far we’ve fallen as a nation,” Pacheco said.

  • US says military goals against Iran largely achieved, sets talks deadline

    US says military goals against Iran largely achieved, sets talks deadline

    In a joint press appearance held in Budapest alongside Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on Tuesday, United States Vice President JD Vance laid out a critical update on Washington’s military campaign against Iran, announcing that core American military objectives against Tehran have been almost fully completed. During the address, Vance issued a stark warning to the Iranian government: the window to enter into negotiations with the US is rapidly closing, and failure to engage will bring even deeper economic hardship for the country.

    Vance emphasized that the US will maintain ongoing pressure to roll back Iran’s ability to produce advanced weapons. He officially confirmed that US military forces carried out targeted strikes against military infrastructure on Iran’s strategic Kharg Island, but was quick to clarify that the strikes intentionally avoided hitting energy facilities, aligning with operational parameters the US had established ahead of the action.

    Outlining the two possible paths forward for Iran, Vance said that the White House believes the ongoing conflict could be brought to a swift conclusion if Tehran makes the right choice. The first option, he outlined, sees Iran abandon its support for what the US labels terrorist activity across the Middle East and re integrate into the global economic system. The alternative, Vance noted, is long-term, crippling economic isolation for the country.

    The US has set a firm deadline for Iran to respond to the negotiation offer: 8:00 pm US Eastern Time, giving Iranian authorities roughly 12 hours from the announcement to deliver a formal response. Vance added that the US holds out hope for a positive response that would clear the way for the resumption of unimpeded global oil shipments through the vital Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint that carries nearly a fifth of the world’s daily oil supply.

    “While military force remains a valid option on the table if Iran refuses to adjust its behavior, it is by no means the outcome we prefer,” Vance added.

    Beyond the discussion of US-Iran tensions, Vance also touched on bilateral relations between the US and Hungary, noting that Washington is eager to build a robust cooperative partnership with Budapest, particularly on issues of cross-continental energy security and energy independence. He pushed back against what he described as heavy-handed pressure from Brussels-based European Union bureaucrats, or “Eurocrats,” on Hungary over its independent policy choices, and confirmed that the US maintains multiple active channels of collaboration with the Hungarian government despite EU objections.

    Vance also questioned the energy policy approaches adopted by many Western European nations, pointing out that many regional leaders warn of a widespread energy crisis while refusing to back Hungary’s independent energy strategy. He highlighted that Hungary’s approach has succeeded in keeping domestic energy prices lower than the levels seen in much of Western Europe.

    Hungary has long held the position that it must retain access to relatively low-cost Russian fossil fuels to sustain its economy, a stance that puts it at odds with broader European Union efforts to cut nearly all energy dependence on Russia following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Vance concluded by reaffirming that the US supports Europe’s long-term prosperity and collective energy independence, noting that Hungary’s chosen policy path can actually help strengthen energy security across the entire European continent.

  • Exclusive: Staff in Karim Khan’s office write in support of his return to ICC

    Exclusive: Staff in Karim Khan’s office write in support of his return to ICC

    A growing rift has emerged at the highest levels of the International Criminal Court (ICC), as a majority of staff from the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) have publicly thrown their support behind Prosecutor Karim Khan, pushing for his immediate return to official duties amid mounting allegations that the ongoing misconduct investigation into him has been politicized. The development comes as the court’s governing body, the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) Bureau, nears its deadline for a preliminary assessment of the claims against Khan, who has been on administrative leave since May 2024 while facing unproven sexual misconduct allegations that he has repeatedly and strenuously denied.

    The unfolding controversy traces back to a multi-layered investigation launched after allegations against Khan surfaced. First, the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) conducted an inquiry, collecting testimony and evidence from both the accusers and Khan. After reviewing the OIOS report, an independent panel of judges appointed by the ASP Bureau issued a landmark ruling last month that cleared Khan of any wrongdoing. The panel found that the OIOS investigation had failed to produce any conclusive evidence of misconduct or breach of duty, noting that most claims relied on unsubstantiated hearsay rather than direct proof, and fell far short of the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard of proof required to sustain a finding of misconduct.

    In a surprise move that has alarmed legal observers, a majority of the 21-member ASP Bureau voted last Wednesday to disregard the independent judges’ clearing of Khan, voting to open their own separate assessment of the allegations based on the inconclusive UN report. The motion to set aside the judicial finding was backed by 15 states, mostly from Western and European blocs: Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Ecuador, Finland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, New Zealand, Poland, Slovenia, South Korea, and Switzerland. Legal experts have already warned that the decision to overrule the independent judicial panel’s conclusion risks turning the misconduct probe into a politically motivated process, rather than an impartial legal review.

    Now, internal documents obtained exclusively by Middle East Eye reveal that two separate anonymous letters from large groups of OTP staff have been sent to the ASP presidency in recent weeks, pushing back against efforts to oust Khan. The first letter, sent on March 31, one day before the key ASP Bureau vote, was submitted through an official staff channel on behalf of a ‘sizeable group’ of OTP staff, aligning with the judges’ conclusion that no misconduct was proven and calling for Khan to resume his responsibilities.

    A second, more explicit letter sent a week later on Tuesday went further, openly identifying the signatories as ‘a majority of staff of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor from different regional and gender backgrounds.’ The letter reaffirms the staff’s commitment to an independent, rule-of-law accountability process that is free from outside pressure, noting that ‘if the findings of the Panel of Judges lack evidence against the Prosecutor, then we welcome his return.’

    The staff also pushed back against public narratives that have painted Khan as an unpopular leader within the OTP, praising his tenure over the past years for delivering ‘unprecedented successes’ in the office’s core work. The letter stressed that disagreements over leadership style from a small minority of staff are not the subject of the investigation, and should not be used to undermine Khan’s position. Most critically, the majority of OTP staff warned that they are witnessing ‘concerning signs of political interventions and individual agendas’ that are driving a coordinated smearing campaign against Khan, and applying undue pressure on public opinion, the Bureau, and the ASP as a whole.

    The letter argued that the timing and goals of these campaigns are transparent: they are designed to force the ASP Bureau to ignore the objective judicial findings of the panel that the Bureau itself created, and reach a preordained conclusion against Khan. The staff also pushed back on an earlier statement from the ICC Staff Union Council, which claimed that ‘many OTP staff’ were suffering from heightened anxiety and even panic over the process. The majority letter rejects the Staff Union’s claim that it speaks for ‘many’ staff as inaccurate, noting that a large share of OTP employees support both the rights of the prosecutor and the complainant, calling for a fair process for all parties.

    The controversy has been further complicated by the revelation that an anonymous letter opposing Khan, claiming that the UN allegations are incompatible with his continued leadership, was read out in full to the ASP Bureau during last week’s meeting, while the pro-Khan letter from the majority of OTP staff was not shared with the body. The anti-Khan letter was later published in full by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), but questions remain about why only the critical letter was presented to decision-makers. Middle East Eye has requested comment from the ASP on this discrepancy, and has not yet received a response.

    In their first public statement on the matter last Thursday, Khan’s legal team confirmed that the prosecutor has still not received any official correspondence from the ASP Bureau regarding the investigation. The lawyers emphasized that the UN inquiry never made any conclusive findings of misconduct across its 137 conclusions, and that the independent judges correctly ruled that the available evidence did not prove any misconduct or breach of duty of any kind. ‘If it is the case that this conclusion has instead been set aside, it raises cogent and troubling questions about whether political considerations have been allowed to displace legal judgment,’ the statement said.

    Observers have long linked the pressure campaign against Khan to his aggressive pursuit of war crime investigations in Gaza, which has put him in direct conflict with Israel and its Western backers. Khan and other ICC officials have been the target of an escalating intimidation campaign since he opened the Gaza investigation, including the imposition of US sanctions on Khan, his two deputies, and multiple ICC judges, following the court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

    A Middle East Eye investigation last August documented a years-long campaign of pressure against Khan, including threats from prominent politicians, coordinated media leaks of the sexual misconduct allegations timed to coincide with key steps in the Gaza investigation, and even unconfirmed reports of a Mossad surveillance team operating in The Hague that raised fears for Khan’s personal safety. Pressure built first in April 2024, ahead of Khan’s application for arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, intensified again that October, one month before the warrants were issued, and ramped up further in early 2025 when Khan began moving toward arrest warrants for additional senior Israeli officials, which coincided with new media leaks of the sexual misconduct allegations. The Trump administration imposed new sanctions on Khan in February 2025, and Khan took leave in mid-May, shortly after an initial attempt to suspend him failed, and amid the ongoing UN investigation.

    The ASP Bureau is required to submit its preliminary assessment of the allegations by this Thursday, with a final ruling on the misconduct claims expected in early June. If the Bureau recommends a finding of serious misconduct, the full 123-member ASP will first hold a vote to determine whether Khan committed serious misconduct, less serious misconduct, or no misconduct at all. A finding of any level of misconduct requires a two-thirds majority vote of the states present and voting. If the ASP votes to confirm serious misconduct, a second vote will be held on whether to remove Khan from office, which requires an absolute majority of 63 votes from the 123 member states.