分类： politics

In a landmark ruling that has sent shockwaves across India, nine sitting police officers have received death sentences for the brutal 2020 custodial killing of a father and son in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, a case that reignited national debate over endemic police brutality in the country.

The two victims, 58-year-old P Jeyaraj and his 38-year-old son Benicks, were taken into custody in June 2020 for the alleged offense of violating national Covid-19 lockdown rules by keeping their small mobile phone retail shop open past the mandated curfew. Within days of their detention, both men were dead while still in police custody.

During Monday’s sentencing hearing, the presiding judge laid bare the horrific details of the abuse the pair suffered. The judge confirmed that Jeyaraj and Benicks were stripped naked and systematically tortured in front of each other by the accused officers, in a clear violation of every principle of lawful detention. In scathing remarks directed at the convicted officers, the judge stated that the assault was carried out with explicit intent to kill, calling the incident a blatant abuse of the state authority entrusted to the men.

The judge rejected any calls for leniency, noting that all nine officers are formally educated, and that their age or personal family circumstances could not justify a reduced sentence. “They attacked unarmed civilians who posed no threat to them. They do not deserve forgiveness,” the judge added.

Last month, all nine officers were formally found guilty of murder by the court. Under Indian legal procedure, the convicted personnel retain the right to file an appeal against both the conviction and their death sentences with a higher judicial bench.

In total, 10 police officers were arrested immediately following the deaths in 2020. One of the accused died from complications related to Covid-19 later that same year, leaving nine to stand trial.

When news of the custodial deaths first emerged four years ago, the incident sparked widespread public protests across Tamil Nadu. State opposition legislators were among the first crowds to take to the streets to demand accountability for the deaths. High-profile public figures, including Congress party opposition leader Rahul Gandhi and star Indian cricketer Shikhar Dhawan, added their voices to the calls for justice via social media platforms, amplifying the national outcry.

Beyond the immediate calls for punishment, the 2020 killings pushed the long-simmering issue of custodial abuse and police brutality in India back to the center of national public discourse. Human rights organizations have documented that hundreds of people die in police or judicial custody across India every year, with many of these deaths linked to systematic torture. Rights advocates note that the use of abuse to force confessions from suspects has become a normalized, entrenched part of policing culture in many parts of the country.

Earlier in 2024, a group of independent United Nations human rights experts issued a public call for India to implement sweeping, comprehensive reforms to bring its national policing practices in line with binding international human rights standards. Tuesday’s sentencing marks one of the most high-profile convictions of police personnel for custodial killing in recent Indian history, with activists watching closely to see whether the ruling will pave the way for broader systemic changes.

Tensions between the United States and Iran escalated dramatically this week after former and current U.S. President Donald Trump issued explicit threats to carry out large-scale strikes against Iranian civilian infrastructure, drawing sharp condemnation from Iranian officials and even pushback from some members of the U.S. political and policy community.

Trump first made the incendiary remarks during an Easter Sunday interview with Fox News, where he issued an ultimatum to Iranian leadership: unless Tehran reached a new deal with Washington on his timeline and fully reopened the Strait of Hormuz by 8 p.m. ET that same day, he would order widespread bombings across the country. “You’re going to see bridges and power plants dropping all over their country,” Trump stated, adding that he was also “considering blowing everything up and taking the oil.” The threat followed an aggressive, profanity-laced post on his Truth Social platform, where he demanded Iran “open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.”

In response to the threats, top Iranian diplomatic officials have labeled Trump’s statements as open incitement to war crimes and potential genocide, citing international law to back their claims. Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, outlined the legal case against the threatened strikes in a social media post Monday, noting that deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure such as power plants and bridges are explicitly classified as war crimes under Article 8(2)(b) of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, as well as Article 52 of Protocol I to the 1977 Geneva Conventions.

Gharibabadi emphasized that as the highest-ranking U.S. official, Trump bears individual criminal responsibility for his open threat to violate international humanitarian law, a liability that holds before both the ICC and any competent national court. He also warned that if Trump follows through on the attack, his name will be “etched in history as a supreme war criminal,” and confirmed that Iran would deliver a “decisive, immediate, and regret-inducing response” to any aggression.

Esmail Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, echoed that condemnation, calling Trump’s threats evidence of “a criminal mindset.” Speaking to reporters Sunday, Baghaei called the comments “an express public incitement for war crimes and crimes against humanity—and, I would say, for genocide.” He added that threatening attacks on a nation’s critical energy infrastructure amounts to putting the entire civilian population at deliberate risk of harm.

The threats come amid an ongoing U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran that began on February 28, which has already caused extensive damage to Iranian civilian and public service facilities. Iran’s deputy health minister confirmed Monday that more than 360 healthcare, education, and research centers have been damaged or destroyed in strikes to date, with dozens of medical personnel killed in the attacks.

Critics within the United States have also joined Iranian officials in decrying Trump’s threatened strikes as unlawful war crimes. U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, criticized the administration’s underlying strategy, which reportedly calls for striking civilian sites to spark public unrest and force regime change. “But just think about the insanity of this plan: kill tens of thousands of civilians in order to cause a national panic,” Murphy wrote on social media. “Bombing to induce political panic IS A WAR CRIME.”

Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, went further, arguing that any congressional lawmaker who supports additional war funding for the conflict or opposes efforts to reassert congressional war powers limits on the administration would be complicit in the threatened and already committed war crimes. He called Trump an “unhinged and unfit Commander in Chief.”

The sharp escalation of rhetoric comes as quiet diplomatic efforts, partially mediated by Pakistan, are underway to negotiate a 45-day ceasefire that would create space for longer-term talks to end the ongoing conflict. Axios has reported that the ongoing diplomatic push is viewed by mediators as “the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states.”

On a Sunday in eastern England, law enforcement officers took seven people into custody during a demonstration held just outside RAF Lakenheath, a British base long leased to the United States military that military analysts now connect to a US fighter jet downed over Iran just two days prior. The arrests mark a sharp flashpoint in a growing controversy over the UK government’s role in supporting the US-led war on Iran, unfolding against a tangled legal backdrop over the status of the activist group the arrestees are accused of supporting.

Military observers have confirmed that the F-15E strike fighter shot down by Iranian forces on Friday matches the profile of aircraft permanently stationed at RAF Lakenheath, the largest US fighter operations hub in Europe, which is home to the 48th Fighter Wing. Both UK Ministry of Defence and US Central Command officials have declined to comment on Iranian claims that the aircraft originated from this Suffolk base. Independent verification from The New York Times, citing senior Royal United Services Institute air power analyst Justin Bronk, adds weight to these claims: Bronk found that wreckage markings published by Iranian state-linked news agency Tasnim align directly with the markings of the 494th Fighter Squadron, a unit permanently based at Lakenheath.

Local anti-war activists have monitored air traffic at the base closely since the outbreak of the war, and have documented sustained sortie activity linked to strikes on Iran. In the week leading up to the jet’s downing, activists recorded unusual movements: five F-35C stealth fighters landed at Lakenheath on March 24, and more than 20 aircraft departed the base on the morning of April 2, according to local anti-war group claims. Peter Lux, organizer of the Lakenheath Alliance for Peace, told reporters on Sunday that his group has tracked between 116 and 118 US bombers departing the base for combat missions since the war began. Lux argued that as a British military facility on UK sovereign territory, the UK government holds full legal responsibility for all operations launched from its grounds. “We need the accountability of those bases, particularly with what’s going on in Iran, which the British government have said they’re not happy about because of international law,” Lux said. The six-day 24-hour vigil organized by his group outside the base concluded on the same day as the arrests.

The seven detainees – five men and two women – were arrested on suspicion of acting in support of Palestine Action, a direct-action group that organizes demonstrations against Israeli war crimes. The legal status of the organization remains contested: Keir Starmer’s Labour government opted to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organization in July 2025, but the UK High Court ruled earlier this year that this proscription was unlawful. The government has since appealed the ruling, creating an unusual legal limbo that law enforcement has had to navigate.

In a statement following the arrests, a Suffolk Police spokesperson clarified that the force is required to enforce existing law as it stands currently, rather than pending the outcome of the government’s appeal. “Although the High Court found the proscription of Palestine Action to be unlawful, it also confirmed that the impact of that judgement will not take effect until the government’s appeal has been considered,” the spokesperson explained, adding that the force “has a duty to enforce the law without fear or favour” and will take appropriate action when offences are suspected.

The controversy over activity at RAF Lakenheath is part of a wider breakdown of British policy on the war in Iran, marked by repeated U-turns from Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government. When the US-Israeli invasion of Iran first began, Starmer initially banned the US from launching combat strikes from the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. That position flipped within just 48 hours, when Starmer approved US use of the base for strikes targeting Iranian missile sites, framing the move as a purely defensive measure. Two weeks later, Starmer announced a second reversal, approving US use of all British bases for strikes targeting Iranian sites in operations meant to protect commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

Despite Starmer’s repeated concessions that have allowed expanded US war operations from UK territory, former US President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked Starmer’s leadership, even going so far as to suggest that the decades-long “special relationship” between the US and UK is in jeopardy.

RAF Lakenheath is not the only British base being used to support US strikes on Iran. US combat aircraft have also launched missions from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, southwest England, while nearby RAF Mildenhall – another Suffolk-based facility that supports US Air Force operations – has seen a surge in activity over the past week. On March 31, two US EA-37B Compass Call electronic warfare aircraft were photographed landing at Mildenhall.

The growing involvement of British bases in the war has sparked serious retaliatory threats from Tehran. Speaking to Times Radio the previous Wednesday, Iranian ambassador to the UK Seyed Ali Mousavi confirmed that the Iranian government is “considering” targeted strikes on British military bases in retaliation for the UK’s support for US operations.

A controversial claim from former U.S. President Donald Trump that Washington supplied weapons to Iranian anti-government protesters via Iranian Kurdish groups has been uniformly rejected by senior leaders of every major Iranian Kurdish opposition faction, in statements collected by independent outlet Middle East Eye.

During an interview with Fox News Sunday, Trump asserted, “We sent guns to the protesters, a lot of them. And I think the Kurds took the guns.” This comment represented the latest shift in the former president’s inconsistent public positioning on Kurdish involvement amid the ongoing U.S.-Israeli war on Iran that launched on February 28.

Just weeks earlier, in early March, Trump told Reuters he openly backed Kurdish forces launching an offensive against the Iranian government, a remark that came alongside widespread unconfirmed media reports claiming the Central Intelligence Agency was secretly arming Iranian Kurdish factions. Within days, however, Trump walked back that support, telling reporters he had explicitly blocked any Kurdish military involvement, saying “They’re willing to go in, but I’ve told them I don’t want them to go in.”

Top figures from every major Iranian Kurdish armed opposition group have now directly refuted Trump’s latest weapons claim. Siamand Moeini, a senior leader of the armed Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), told Middle East Eye, “We as PJAK, as I know, have not received anything. As for others, I cannot answer.”

Hana Yazdanpanah, foreign relations coordinator for the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), emphasized that her group’s only armaments date back to its multi-year campaign against the Islamic State. “We still have our old Kalashnikov that we fought ISIS with for five years and the weapons they abandoned after its defeat,” she said, adding, “We have received no single weapon from the US at this time.”

Mustafa Mawloudi, deputy secretary-general of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (PDKI)—a group based in Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan Region—also denied both receiving weapons and smuggling armaments to activists in Iranian Kurdistan, which Kurdish groups refer to as Rojhalat. “A proof of this is that we cannot send arms through Iraq to our people,” Mawloudi explained, noting that cross-border arms transfers would create immediate legal complications with Iraqi authorities. He also stressed that armed action would fundamentally change the nature of popular protest, saying, “protesters cannot demonstrate with weapons: That would be a war, not a protest.”

Kako Alyar, a member of the Politburo of the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan, said the group had no advance knowledge of Trump’s comments and confirmed no weapons had been received. “We weren’t in touch during the protests regarding giving weapons to the Kurds, and the Komala party has not received any weapons,” Alyar said.

Babasheikh Hosseini, secretary-general of the Iraq-based Khabat Organisation of Iranian Kurdistan Struggle, added that his group has never held official meetings with U.S. representatives. “There have been some talks with mediators with one or two friends, but we have not sat down for a meeting,” he said. Hosseini also noted that most of the group’s existing armaments were destroyed in Iranian regime airstrikes on its bases, saying, “Our money, weapons and equipment have been burned and destroyed.”

Iranian Kurdish opposition groups, which collectively command roughly 6,000 armed fighters, have stayed out of the ongoing U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. The inconsistent, shifting statements from the U.S. administration have left Kurdish faction leaders confused and surprised, according to on-the-ground reporting.

The weapons claim references nationwide anti-government protests that swept Iran in late December, which lasted roughly two weeks before being violently crushed by Iranian state forces amid a nationwide internet shutdown. Rights group Amnesty International estimates Iranian authorities killed thousands of protesters during mass crackdowns on January 8 and 9, while the Iranian government says hundreds of its security personnel were killed in clashes during the unrest. Shukriya Bradost, an Iranian Kurdish security analyst based in the region, told Middle East Eye that no weapons were delivered to Kurdish groups or Iranian activists during those protests.

Bradost questioned the logic of Trump’s claim, noting that untrained civilian protesters would have no practical use for covert weapons supplies. “Who would receive these weapons and what was the plan for the protesters? To start a civil war or to fight back? The protesters who don’t know how to use weapons or do not have any training,” she said. As of the current stage of the U.S.-Israeli war, no new large-scale anti-government protests have been reported inside Iran, and no armed attacks by civilian activists on Iranian security forces have been documented.

Long-running cross-border Iranian attacks targeting Iranian Kurdish opposition bases in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region have intensified since the war launched on February 28. PDKI data confirms more than 650 missile and drone strikes have been launched on targets in the Kurdistan Region since February 28, leaving 14 people dead and 93 wounded. Five of those killed were members of Iranian Kurdish opposition groups, including fighters from PAK, Komala, and Khabat. Most recently, a Kurdish security source confirmed three separate drone strikes targeted PDKI bases in Koya, Erbil Province, just this past Sunday. On March 13, a drone strike on Khabat Organization positions in the Bashiqa Mountains northeast of Mosul killed two party members.

Senior Iraqi Kurdish commander Sirwan Barzani previously rejected Western media claims that Iraqi Kurdish authorities were facilitating Iranian Kurdish fighters crossing the border into Iran to carry out attacks, echoing the current denials of weapons supplies.

Tensions between the United States and Iran have reached a boiling point in 2026, with open military conflict erupting after decades of escalating hostility, covert interference, and broken diplomatic opportunities. What began as a 1953 CIA-backed coup to oust a democratically elected leader has evolved into one of the world’s most volatile geopolitical standoffs, with global energy supplies and regional security hanging in the balance.

The foundational rift between the two nations dates back to the early 1950s, when Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh moved to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, redirecting fossil fuel profits away from foreign corporate control and toward domestic public investment. Fearing Soviet influence would spread across the Middle East and disrupt global oil flows, the U.S. joined the United Kingdom in launching Operation Ajax, a covert operation that toppled Mossadegh and installed a pro-Western government under the autocratic Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. For the next 25 years, the U.S. backed the Shah’s repressive rule, with his secret police force SAVAK violently crushing domestic dissent while many Iranians struggled in poverty amid the Shah’s corruption and lavish spending.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution shattered this fragile status quo. After the Shah fled Iran for cancer treatment, exiled Shiite leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to overthrow the monarchy and establish the current Islamic Republic. When U.S. President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to enter the U.S. for specialized medical care that same year, enraged Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 52 American hostages for 444 days. The crisis led to the permanent severing of formal diplomatic ties between the two nations and set the stage for decades of open hostility.

Over the following decades, repeated clashes and mutual accusations deepened the divide. In 1980, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, launching an eight-year war that killed more than 600,000 people; the U.S. tacitly backed Hussein, turning a blind eye to Iraq’s use of illegal chemical weapons against Iranian forces to counter the newly formed anti-American Islamic regime. By 1984, Washington officially designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism, imposing a strict arms embargo that led to a secret scandal just years later: the Reagan administration was found to have illegally sold weapons to Iran to fund anti-socialist Contra rebels in Nicaragua, a controversy that rocked the Reagan presidency. In 1988, a U.S. Navy warplane shot down an Iranian civilian passenger jet, Iran Air Flight 655, killing all 290 people on board. While the U.S. called it an accidental error, Iran viewed the incident as deliberate aggression, and tensions remained high.

Over the next three decades, tentative overtures for reconciliation repeatedly fell apart. A brief opening emerged in 1997, when moderate Iranian president Mohammad Khatami expressed respect for the American people and called for people-to-people exchanges, but hardline opposition from Iran’s supreme leadership blocked formal progress. Just five years later, President George W. Bush labeled Iran part of an “Axis of Evil” alongside Iraq and North Korea, ending any immediate hopes of detente. In 2002, an exiled opposition group revealed Iran had been operating secret nuclear facilities in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, sparking global alarm; over the following years, the U.S. and Israel launched the Stuxnet cyberattack to disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment program, slowing its nuclear progress. A 2003 Iranian offer for comprehensive talks on nuclear issues, terrorism, and regional stability was rejected by hardliners in the Bush administration, and the opportunity for reconciliation faded when hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected Iranian president two years later.

The most significant breakthrough came in 2015, when the Obama administration negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), widely known as the Iran nuclear deal, alongside China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom. Under the agreement, Iran drastically limited its uranium enrichment program and allowed unfettered international inspections in exchange for relief from crippling economic sanctions. For three years, international inspectors repeatedly confirmed Iran was complying with the deal’s terms, but President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement in 2018, reimposing harsh sanctions and escalating tensions once again.

Tensions boiled over in 2020, when a U.S. drone strike killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, the second most powerful figure in Iran’s government, leading Iran to launch ballistic missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq. After the 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel worsened regional tensions, Trump’s second presidential term in 2025 opened with new nuclear negotiations, but Israeli airstrikes on Iran derailed talks, leading the U.S. to launch its own strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025. By early 2026, what had been decades of covert and low-intensity conflict erupted into open war: U.S. and Israeli airstrikes in Operation Epic Fury killed Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei and other senior leaders, prompting Iran to strike targets across the Persian Gulf and disrupt shipping through the critical Strait of Hormuz, turning a decades-long bilateral rivalry into a full-scale regional conflict.

HANOI — In a key institutional step for Vietnam’s legislative branch, the country’s National Assembly formally elected Tran Thanh Man to the position of chairman on Monday, according to state sources. The election, which took place in the Vietnamese capital, marks a new leadership appointment for the country’s top lawmaking body. The announcement of the outcome was updated on April 6, 2026, confirming the result of the vote held by the legislative assembly. As the chairman of the National Assembly, Tran Thanh Man will lead the body’s legislative work, oversee its operational agenda, and fulfill the core constitutional responsibilities associated with the role. This leadership transition aligns with Vietnam’s established legislative governance procedures, bringing a new presiding officer to the national legislature that shapes the country’s policy and legal framework.