Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Israel imposes curriculum on 45,000 Palestinian students in East Jerusalem

    Israel imposes curriculum on 45,000 Palestinian students in East Jerusalem

    A sweeping expansion of Israeli education policy in occupied East Jerusalem is forcing more than 45,000 Palestinian students — roughly 38% of all Palestinian students in the city — to study under the Israeli national curriculum, a sharp, accelerated increase from enrollment numbers in recent years. Starting this week, all new first-grade and seventh-grade classes within East Jerusalem’s Israeli-run state school system will transition to the Israeli curriculum, completing the latest phase of a policy Palestinian officials describe as an unprecedented threat to their national identity.

    This rapid expansion marks a major jump from just five years ago, when only 10,347 Palestinian students attended Israeli curriculum schools. That number climbed to 27,041 by the 2025-26 school year, and now crosses the 45,000 threshold as the policy is extended to all new entering cohorts at state-run institutions.

    Palestinian students in East Jerusalem currently attend one of four school systems: schools operated by the United Nations, independent private institutions, schools run by the Islamic Waqf endowment, and Israeli municipal schools, where the new curriculum rules are now being widely enforced. The trajectory of education policy in the region has shifted dramatically since Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967: initially, the education system remained aligned with the West Bank, using a Jordanian-designed curriculum, which was replaced by a Palestinian Authority-developed curriculum in the 1990s. Today’s expansion of the Israeli curriculum represents the most significant change to that framework in decades.

    Maarouf al-Rifai, spokesperson for the Palestinian Authority’s Jerusalem Governorate, called the decision a dangerous escalation unmatched since the 1967 occupation. He framed the policy as a direct assault on the Palestinian national and cultural identity of Jerusalem residents, noting that the Israeli curriculum systematically marginalizes core elements of Palestinian history and collective narrative. Key topics such as the Nakba, the status of Palestinian political prisoners, and the centrality of Jerusalem to Palestinian identity are erased or sidelined from the curriculum, turning education into a battleground for collective memory, national consciousness, and cultural identity in the contested city.

    The curriculum expansion is not an isolated move, but part of a coordinated, systematic campaign targeting Palestinian education across East Jerusalem, Palestinian officials say. Additional restrictions have thrown the start of the new academic year into chaos for Palestinian private schools: Israel has blocked entry permits for roughly 70 West Bank-based teachers who work in East Jerusalem, and 40% of all teachers at the city’s Palestinian private schools — most of them Palestinian Christians — reside in the West Bank. In response, private schools have announced they will delay the 2026-27 academic year indefinitely until entry permits are renewed or reissued for all affected staff.

    Omar Rjoob, media director for the Jerusalem Governorate, explained to Middle East Eye that the crackdown on education ties into a broader Israeli strategy to solidify the annexation of East Jerusalem and sever the city from its geographic and cultural Palestinian roots. Long-standing barriers including Israeli military checkpoints and the separation barrier constructed in the early 2000s already cut Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank, forcing many Palestinian residents of Jerusalem to seek employment in the Israeli labor market and increasing pressure for expanded Hebrew language education over time.

    Recent policy changes have accelerated this shift: in January 2026, Israel’s parliament passed a ban barring the hiring of teachers who hold academic degrees from Palestinian Authority-affiliated universities within the Israeli education system. The rule has had an immediate, severe impact on Arabic-language education in East Jerusalem, where a large share of teaching staff graduated from Palestinian higher education institutions.

    Israeli authorities have also targeted United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) schools that serve Palestinian refugees, closing multiple campuses and seizing agency-owned educational complexes in the Shuafat and Kafr Aqab refugee camps. Israeli newspaper Haaretz confirmed that a large purpose-built UNRWA school in central Shuafat has been taken over by the Jerusalem municipality, which plans to repurpose the site to house 14 high school classes, a co-ed primary school, and five special education kindergartens.
    “This entire trajectory, with all its components, represents an attempt to re-engineer the educational landscape of occupied Jerusalem to serve the Israeli occupation’s policy goals,” Rjoob told Middle East Eye. He added that the weakening of Palestinian educational institutions, movement restrictions on teachers, and forced curriculum changes collectively threaten the Palestinian identity of young students in the city, transforming education into a tool for annexation, Judaisation, and the erasure of East Jerusalem’s inherent Arab-Palestinian character.

    The policy announcement comes as high-profile far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir prepares to launch a children’s book celebrating his political “activities and achievements” to be distributed to Israeli educational institutions. Titled *The Minister Who Didn’t Stop*, the book is scheduled to launch Tuesday, the first day of the Israeli school year, at a conference for Ben Gvir’s Jewish Power party.

  • Remarkable US oil deal puzzles analysts – and angers many Venezuelans

    Remarkable US oil deal puzzles analysts – and angers many Venezuelans

    In January, elite U.S. special operations forces entered Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro’s Caracas compound to oust him from power, and from that operation’s outset, U.S. President Donald Trump openly framed control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves as a core strategic goal of his administration. At the time, Trump stated that the U.S. would directly “run” Venezuela and oversee the sale of the country’s crude for the foreseeable future. Last Wednesday, that years-in-the-making plan came to fruition as officials signed a landmark oil agreement in Caracas that hands a U.S.-led consortium a 100-year concession to 17 Venezuelan oil fields holding a staggering 65 billion barrels of proven crude – equivalent to more than one-fifth of the South American nation’s total documented oil reserves.

    Both the Trump administration and Venezuela’s interim government led by Delcy Rodríguez have celebrated the pact as a mutually beneficial breakthrough. Trump has hailed it as “the biggest oil deal in world history,” while Rodríguez framed the agreement as a historic turning point that will bring $100 billion in foreign direct investment and generate more than $200 billion in tax revenue for Venezuela’s cash-strapped public coffers. But not all observers have shared that optimistic assessment, with sharp criticism emerging from across the ideological spectrum on both sides of the bilateral relationship.

    Elliott Abrams, Trump’s own former special representative for Venezuela and Iran, has emerged as one of the deal’s most high-profile critics. He called the agreement a terrible giveaway, arguing that Rodríguez has surrendered 20% of Venezuela’s national natural patrimony for no meaningful long-term benefit, and suggested she is merely acting to comply with demands issued by Washington. Details released in a White House fact sheet last Tuesday laid out the framework for the partnership, which pairs the U.S. government with North American Blue Energy Partners (Nabep), Venezuela’s second-largest private oil producer after U.S. energy giant Chevron. One particularly notable provision grants the U.S. government formal veto power over every appointment to Nabep’s board of directors, and requires that a majority of the consortium’s board members hold U.S. citizenship.

    For the Trump administration, the deal comes amid heightened tensions with major oil producer Iran that have pushed up global gasoline prices, and officials frame the pact as a strategic win that shifts global energy market dynamics. U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Fox Business that the agreement shifts the geopolitical center of global energy markets away from the so-called “choke points in the Middle East” and back to the Western Hemisphere. While Abrams acknowledged the strategic logic of partnering on Venezuelan oil production amid unstable Gulf supplies, he argued the one-sided terms of the deal amount to a “fever dream of what colonialism looks like.” The White House has gone even further in framing the pact’s strategic meaning, saying it formally re-establishes the Monroe Doctrine – the 19th-century principle that asserts U.S. geopolitical dominance over the Western Hemisphere – allowing Washington to “purge foreign malign influence from our backyard and ensuring American dominance in our hemisphere is never again questioned.”

    Despite the rosy framing from both governments, the deal faces significant practical and political hurdles that could derail its projected timelines and outcomes. Trump has claimed the agreement will generate profits within two to three years, but energy industry experts warn that decades of underinvestment and mismanagement have left Venezuela’s oil sector in such disrepair that a 10-year timeline is far more realistic. Luis Pacheco, an energy researcher at Rice University’s Baker Institute in Houston, told BBC Mundo that Venezuela requires roughly $100 billion in investment over eight years just to return to the oil production levels it achieved three decades ago. Beyond the upfront investment gap, Pacheco questioned the stewardship of the new revenue, asking whether the same officials who squandered Venezuela’s last major oil boom will be placed in charge of managing the new influx of capital.

    Political opposition to the deal runs deep across Venezuela’s ideological divide. Venezuela’s mainstream opposition argues the agreement deepens Trump’s ties to Rodríguez, who served as Maduro’s vice president before his ouster, and who they argue still leads the same authoritarian regime the U.S. once labeled a corrupt drug cartel. The Trump administration once surrounded Venezuela with the largest naval deployment the region has seen in modern history to pressure Maduro’s government, making the rapid pivot to partnering with his former top deputy particularly galling for opposition groups. While Nobel Peace Prize winner and leading opposition presidential candidate María Corina Machado has avoided public criticism of Trump – whose support she needs to pursue power – other opposition figures have been far more outspoken. Venezuelan economist Ricardo Hausmann accused the Trump administration in a social media post directed at Secretary of State Marco Rubio of choosing to ally with Venezuela’s oppressors rather than liberate the Venezuelan people, calling the deal an unconstitutional asset seizure struck with an illegitimate government that fails to prioritize restoring constitutional order and democratic rule. Opposition leaders also point to the lack of any clear timeline for free and fair elections in Venezuela as evidence of a broken promise.

    Criticism also comes from the Venezuelan left, where the ruling PSUV socialist party has officially backed Rodríguez, but many long-time party members view the deal as an unconditional surrender of national sovereignty. For nearly three decades, Venezuela’s socialist movement has opposed U.S. influence in the region, and many see the deal as gifting the country’s most valuable natural resource to Washington. Rafael Ramírez, who served as oil minister and head of state-owned PDVSA under iconic socialist leader Hugo Chávez, called the agreement a door opening to a new era of U.S. colonialism. The deal marks a striking reversal of the legacy Chávez built: in 2008, Chávez visited expropriated ExxonMobil oil fields in the Orinoco River Belt, where he declared defiantly that “We have the reins in our hands and we won’t ever let them go again,” denouncing previous U.S.-aligned governments for turning Venezuela into “a nation of gringos” and framing the expropriation as an end to decades of foreign theft of Venezuelan resources. Now, more than 15 years later, a successor that emerged from Chávez’s own Bolivarian movement has signed the sweeping concession with Washington and praised it as a victory for the Venezuelan people.

  • UK’s Burnham urged to address alleged UAE plot against British academic

    UK’s Burnham urged to address alleged UAE plot against British academic

    A London-based civil society leader is demanding answers from UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham over explosive allegations that the United Arab Emirates orchestrated a covert plot to assassinate him on British territory, following a months-long investigative journalism project that uncovered detailed evidence of the alleged operation.

    Last month, Britain’s ITV News published an investigation claiming the UAE committed millions of dollars to contracting a mercenary operative to target Anas Altikriti, chief executive officer of the Cordoba Foundation, a London-headquartered policy think tank focused on Middle East issues.

    The alleged plotter, Abraham Golan, a dual Hungarian-Israeli citizen who led the private security firm Spear Operations Group, traveled to the United Kingdom in December 2016 specifically to carry out surveillance on Altikriti, according to evidence gathered by ITV. The outlet obtained Emirati financial records confirming Golan, who resided in the United States, received regular payments from the UAE government during the period of the operation. These included a six-figure annual retainer plus large performance bonuses, with one $1 million payment processed just weeks before Golan’s 2016 London trip, originally tied to a separate operation in Yemen.

    ITV’s investigation, built from a trove of evidence including witness testimony, email correspondence, WhatsApp communications and financial documents, found Golan worked alongside a retired U.S. special forces operator to track Altikriti’s daily movements. Golan reached out to a British political strategist, identified by the investigation only as “Victor”, in November 2016, asking for access to networks connected to Altikriti and the Cordoba Foundation. Once in London, Golan initially offered Victor £50,000 (equivalent to $68,000 at current exchange rates) to help locate the think tank chief, later increasing the bribe to £100,000 ($136,000).

    Documents and witness accounts confirm Golan shared detailed surveillance intelligence with Victor, including photos of Altikriti’s personal residence and vehicle, custom maps with satellite imagery, and granular notes on his routine travel between home and work. During one planning meeting, Golan explicitly raised the possibility of killing Altikriti, the investigation found. When questioned about the outcome of the operation, Golan’s former special forces associate made a throat-slitting gesture to indicate assassination.

    Victor told ITV he grew increasingly alarmed by the scope and intent of the plot, ultimately cutting ties with the group once he confirmed the operation planned to end in Altikriti’s death. After the plot was uncovered, British police visited Altikriti at his London home twice to warn him his life was in imminent danger—but officers refused to share any details about the source or nature of the threat, leaving him without full context about the risk he faced.

    In a formal letter sent to Prime Minister Andy Burnham on August 21, Altikriti has laid out a series of urgent demands for transparency and action from the UK government. The activist is asking Burnham to explain how a foreign government could apparently plan an assassination on British streets without facing any diplomatic or legal consequences, and to clarify what protection the state can guarantee to individuals in his position when such threats emerge.

    Altikriti also pressed the government to release all information British intelligence and law enforcement agencies held about the 2016 plot, and to answer why he was not given full details about the threat at the time when the information would have been most critical. Addressing the UK government’s stated goal of deepening diplomatic and trade ties with the UAE, Altikriti questioned how this ambition can align with credible evidence of an Emirati assassination plot on UK soil, asking what new requirements of trust, transparency and accountability will now be applied to the bilateral relationship. He added that he is ready and willing to meet with Burnham or any relevant cabinet minister to discuss the matter in person.

    Per ITV’s reporting, Golan told the British strategist he was acting on direct orders from Abu Dhabi, which considers Altikriti and the Cordoba Foundation to be affiliated with groups labeled as terrorist organizations by the UAE government.

  • Bessent says G20 countries should also use tariffs to protect their industries from cheap imports

    Bessent says G20 countries should also use tariffs to protect their industries from cheap imports

    ASHEVILLE, North Carolina — Against a backdrop of simmering trade frictions and geopolitical division, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has launched a push to convince fellow G20 finance ministers to mirror the Trump administration’s aggressive approach to trade imbalance enforcement, centered on broad tariffs and targeted trade restrictions. Speaking on the sidelines of the three-day G20 finance minister summit, Bessent confirmed his early warning — issued at the start of Donald Trump’s second presidential term — that Washington’s new multi-layered “tariff wall” targeting Chinese goods would redirect massive volumes of Chinese exports to third-party markets across the globe has already come to pass.

    “And unfortunately, I was right,” Bessent told assembled reporters. “The rest of the world probably needs to take a hard look at what they should be doing to protect their citizens’ jobs, their manufacturing base, so that everything they do doesn’t get offshored.”

    The Trump administration’s unilateral tariff strategy has drawn widespread criticism from economists and cross-party political leaders alike, who argue the measures have driven up living costs for ordinary American consumers and disproportionately hurt U.S. trade allies rather than targeted economic competitors. Independent economic think tank the Tax Foundation has quantified this impact, finding that new tariffs rolled out by the administration across 2025 lifted the overall retail price of imported consumer goods by roughly 7 percent compared to pre-tariff price trends. Compounding this political and economic pushback, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February that the sweeping global tariffs Trump imposed using emergency presidential powers during his second term were unconstitutional, forcing the White House to overhaul its trade playbook.

    Despite the court ruling, the administration is moving forward with new trade restrictions: it is currently weighing an additional 7.5 percent tariff on all Chinese imports, following a probe into alleged excess Chinese industrial capacity and what Washington calls problematic forced-labor regulations. Bessent confirmed he held one-on-one talks with his Chinese counterpart during the Asheville summit, though he declined to share any substantive details about the content or outcome of those discussions.

    Speaking in a Tuesday interview with Fox Business commentator Larry Kudlow, who served as Trump’s top economic advisor during his first term, Bessent outlined the administration’s current posture toward Beijing: “I often say in our trade discussions with China that we do not want to pull apart from them, but we have to de-risk.” He also noted unexpected common ground between Washington and Beijing on a key Middle East security issue: “We have more in common with the Chinese on Iran than we disagree on. The Chinese agree Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. The Chinese agree that there should be freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”

    Beyond trade tensions with China, Bessent addressed growing market jitters over soaring global debt levels. Global gross debt has surged to a historic $353 trillion, with U.S. national debt hitting a record $40 trillion as of August. Fears of a sustained sell-off in U.S. government bonds have rippled through global markets in recent weeks, but Bessent sought to downplay those concerns, telling reporters “I don’t think we’re in any kind of dire situation” when it comes to bond market stability. Bessent also identified China’s 2025 record trade surplus of $1.2 trillion, as well as what he frames as excessive Chinese economic regulation, as major headwinds to balanced global economic growth.

    The summit has also been marked by geopolitical discord over Russia’s participation, as the attendance of Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov sparked widespread discomfort among Western delegations. Though Siluanov held a brief sideline meeting with Bessent on Monday, he was excluded from the G20 finance ministers’ traditional opening “family photo,” a visible snub reflecting ongoing international tensions over Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Canadian Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne told reporters the Russian minister’s presence “created a lot of discomfort around the table, not only from Canada, but from colleagues around the table. We have made sure our discomfort is being heard by colleagues with respect to who is in attendance at the meeting.”

    Valdis Dombrovskis, European Commission’s economy commissioner, echoed that sentiment during a Tuesday press briefing, saying the international community should not move to normalize economic and diplomatic relations with Moscow at this time. Associated Press reporter Rob Gillies contributed reporting from Toronto.

  • Falklands: After Netanyahu’s son backs Argentina sovereignty, Trump hints US may review UK’s claim

    Falklands: After Netanyahu’s son backs Argentina sovereignty, Trump hints US may review UK’s claim

    A long-simmering territorial dispute over the Falkland Islands, known as the Islas Malvinas to Argentina, has reemerged as a flashpoint in global diplomacy, following provocative comments from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s son and a groundbreaking shift in rhetoric from former U.S. President Donald Trump.

    Days after 35-year-old Yair Netanyahu, a U.S.-based political activist, publicly asserted in Spanish social media posts that the contested South Atlantic archipelago belongs to Argentina, Trump confirmed for the first time that Washington could open a review of its long-standing stance backing British sovereignty over the islands. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, when asked if the U.S. was reevaluating its position, Trump responded: “I always review every position – that’s just one of many.”

    The former president offered no further detail on what changes Washington might consider, but his remarks mark the first public signal from a U.S. leader that the country’s long-held position on the dispute could be up for negotiation. The 3,600 residents of the islands overwhelmingly support continued British rule, and the conflict over the territory already led to a 1982 war between Argentina and the United Kingdom that left hundreds dead on both sides.

    Yair Netanyahu’s intervention in the dispute was not rooted in the territorial question itself, but in his sharp criticism of the current British government’s stance toward Israel. In follow-up posts after his initial declaration, the activist made clear his position was a response to what he frames as British hostility toward Israel. He called the current British government “antisemitic, communist, jihadist,” and condemned the UK for its recent recognition of Palestinian statehood aspirations and criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. “I don’t care about the Falkland Islands, I care about Israel,” he wrote, adding that Argentina has remained a consistent friend to Israel, unlike the UK.

    Argentine President Javier Milei, a staunch pro-Israel leader who has made backing the Netanyahu administration a core pillar of his foreign policy amid controversial domestic economic reforms, quickly reposted Yair Netanyahu’s comments. Milei has repeatedly expressed unwavering support for Netanyahu during the Gaza conflict, has spoken of converting to Judaism, and has pledged to move Argentina’s Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move strongly aligned with the current Israeli government’s priorities.

    Even before Yair Netanyahu’s public comments, UK newspaper The Telegraph reported that pro-Israel Republican figures had already been lobbying privately in Washington to push the Trump administration to abandon its long-standing neutral stance on the Falklands dispute. Analysts note that Israel holds unprecedented influence within the Trump administration, and recent British criticism of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, its apartheid system in the occupied West Bank, and a prospective British sanctions package against Israeli officials reported earlier by Middle East Eye, have created incentive for Israel and its allies to use the Falklands dispute as leverage against the UK within the U.S. government.

    Yair Netanyahu’s comments have already sparked backlash from even pro-Israel and far-right political figures in the UK, who warn the remarks risk alienating British supporters of Israel. Right-wing pro-Israel commentator Alex Armstrong, who works for GB News, called the comments “unconstructive,” urging Yair Netanyahu to distinguish between the British government and pro-Israel constituents within the UK. Rupert Lowe, a far-right British lawmaker and vocal Israel supporter, added a firm rebuke, declaring “the Falklands are British and will remain so,” and noting that any future British government would defend the territory militarily if needed.

    A leaked Pentagon memo from earlier this year already suggested the Trump administration was considering using the Falklands dispute as bargaining leverage in trade and diplomatic negotiations with the UK, adding context to Trump’s recent comments that have upended decades of quiet agreement on the islands’ status.

  • Guinea-Bissau voters back a sweeping power shift, boosting the president and shrinking parliament

    Guinea-Bissau voters back a sweeping power shift, boosting the president and shrinking parliament

    BISSAU, Guinea-Bissau – In a pivotal vote that will reshape the West African nation’s political landscape ahead of upcoming democratic elections, national electoral authorities announced Tuesday that a majority of participating voters have backed sweeping constitutional reforms that expand presidential authority and downsize the national legislature. The referendum, held this past Sunday, comes amid a period of fragile military-led transition and deep regional political unrest, setting the stage for December’s general elections intended to restore full civilian democratic rule.

    Opposition political groups across the country had called for a widespread boycott of the vote, arguing that the proposed changes would concentrate too much unchecked power in the office of the president, opening the door to authoritarian shifts. Yet final data from the National Electoral Commission shows that among votes cast, 70% were cast in favor of the reforms, with just 30% opposing the amendments.

    The constitutional revisions fundamentally alter Guinea-Bissau’s existing semi-presidential system of government, which split executive authority between an elected president and an appointed prime minister. The ruling military junta, which seized power in November 2022 following a disputed general election, has long argued that the power-sharing arrangement was the root cause of chronic political instability that has plagued the small nation for decades. In addition to weakening the prime minister’s role and concentrating executive power in the presidency, the reforms also cut the size of the national legislature from 102 seats to 65, a change supporters frame as a cost-cutting measure to streamline governance.

    The vote unfolds against a troubling backdrop of democratic backsliding across West Africa, which has seen no fewer than a half-dozen successful military coups overthrow elected civilian governments since 2020, making the region one of the most unstable in Africa. For Guinea-Bissau specifically, the November 2022 military takeover marked its latest turn away from democratic rule, joining neighbors like Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger that have all seen soldiers seize power in recent years.

    Beyond its political turmoil, Guinea-Bissau, a country of roughly 2.2 million people, presents a stark economic paradox. According to World Bank data, it boasts the highest per capita share of natural resources of any West African nation, yet more than 50% of its population lives below the international poverty line. This deep economic inequality has compounded political divisions, with competing factions blaming one another for the country’s failure to convert its natural wealth into broad-based prosperity and stable governance.

  • Trump running out of bullets against an intractable Iran

    Trump running out of bullets against an intractable Iran

    Seven months ago, U.S. President Donald Trump launched a discretionary war against Iran, a conflict he initially framed as a quick “little excursion” that would wrap up in mere weeks. Today, that war remains mired in intractable deadlock, with no clear path to victory or exit for the United States – a outcome that has upended regional security and threatened global economic stability. The conflict, launched at the urging of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in late February, was premised on two flawed justifications: forcing Tehran to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to commercial navigation (a status quo that held before the war began) and compelling Iran to renegotiate its nuclear program. Notably, independent experts have repeatedly confirmed Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon prior to the outbreak of hostilities, undermining the core strategic rationale for the invasion. From its inception, the conflict was launched without a coherent long-term strategy. The Trump administration repeatedly downplayed expectations, echoing then-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s promises that the war would be short and low-cost, while criticizing previous U.S. leaders for getting the country trapped in protracted foreign wars. Yet administration officials badly miscalculated: they severely underestimated the Iranian regime’s resilience and preparedness to repel U.S. aggression, and failed to anticipate that Iranian society would rally together around the government in response to outside attack. Despite these early missteps, Trump has repeatedly rushed to claim premature military victory, asserting that Iran’s defensive capabilities had been wiped out and that U.S. bombings had forced Tehran to the negotiating table. These claims have quickly unraveled. Not only did Tehran rebuild its offensive capabilities far faster than U.S. intelligence projected, it also secured de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz – a critical chokepoint for global oil supplies – giving Iran a powerful leverage point to pressure Washington and the international community. By May, Iran held the strategic upper hand and refused to enter any negotiations that did not address its core non-negotiable demands: a full ceasefire across all fronts, including an end to Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon; the unfreezing of billions of dollars in Iranian assets held overseas; war reparations from the U.S.; formal recognition of Iran’s sovereign right to manage the Strait of Hormuz; and a permanent guarantee that the U.S. and Israel will abandon all threats of regime change and military action against Iran. In June, Trump signed a vaguely worded memorandum of understanding with Iran’s hardline IRGC-dominated leadership that aligned closely with many of these demands. But facing fierce backlash from senior Republican Party figures and Netanyahu, Trump quickly backed out of the agreement and renewed large-scale military strikes. For its part, Tehran made no effort to salvage the deal, recognizing that continued conflict serves its goal of inflicting political damage on Trump ahead of U.S. midterm elections. Since the collapse of the June memorandum, the Trump administration has reimposed a full blockade on Iranian ports to cut off Tehran’s oil revenue, while carrying out periodic airstrikes intended to intimidate the regime. These moves have done nothing to break the stalemate, with periodic exchanges of fire continuing this week: the U.S. launched strikes on Iran’s Larak Island, and the IRGC retaliated with attacks on U.S. military bases in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. With no substantive peace talks underway, the conflict remains in a dangerous, volatile limbo. Ahead of the approaching midterm elections, the Trump administration last week unveiled a sweeping new round of sanctions dubbed Operation Economic Outcast, labeled “Economic D-Day” by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The policy is designed to cripple Iran’s economy and force global isolation of the regime, but analysts widely expect it to fail, just as previous pressure campaigns have. Both China and Russia have already rejected the new sanctions as unacceptable, and none of Iran’s key neighboring states – including Pakistan, Iraq, and Turkey – have committed to enforcing the measures. Only the United Arab Emirates, a close U.S. and Israeli ally, has paused financial transactions and trade with Tehran. History offers little evidence that broad, unilaterally enforced sanctions force regime capitulation: the only widely cited case of successful multilateral sanctions was the campaign against South Africa’s apartheid regime. For 47 years, Iran’s Islamic government has honed strategies to evade U.S.-led sanctions, building domestic self-sufficiency and diversifying its trade network to reduce dependence on Western markets. While the Iranian public has inevitably borne the brunt of economic hardship from past sanctions, the regime has consistently survived and consolidated its control. The current round of sanctions will almost certainly deepen suffering for ordinary Iranians, but there is little reason to expect it to topple the government or force Tehran to make concessions on core demands. The ongoing standoff poses unacceptable risks to both regional and global security. Allowing the conflict to escalate further could spark a full-scale regional war, and a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz would carry catastrophic costs for the global economy. The only viable path forward, according to regional analysts, is for Washington and Tehran to return to the framework of the June memorandum of understanding and resume direct, good-faith negotiations to reach a final settlement. Quiet mediation efforts led by Pakistan and Qatar continue to work behind the scenes to bring the two sides back to the table, and a growing number of Gulf states are pushing for an end to the conflict. These regional powers have increasingly come to accept Iran as a permanent major regional actor, and are moving away from relying exclusively on the U.S. for security. In a notable sign of this shift, Saudi Arabia – the wealthiest Gulf state – recently signed a mutual defense pact with NATO member Turkey and nuclear-armed Pakistan, with several other regional states including Egypt considering joining the agreement, a move that Iran has publicly welcomed. While the path to a lasting peace remains fraught with uncertainty and obstacles, analysts agree that diplomacy is the only viable way out of the current stalemate. This commentary, written by Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Australian National University, the University of Western Australia, and Victoria University, is republished under a Creative Commons license from The Conversation.

  • Trump says US position on Falklands ‘one of many’ under review

    Trump says US position on Falklands ‘one of many’ under review

    In a development that has sparked cross-party friction in British politics, former U.S. President Donald Trump has confirmed that the United States’ longstanding ambiguous stance on the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute is “one of many” international positions currently under formal review, as the U.S. presses the United Kingdom to accelerate its planned increases to NATO-aligned defence spending.

    The confirmation follows a weeks-old report from The Daily Telegraph, which first revealed that senior U.S. defence officials were drafting a set of proposals designed to pressure NATO allies into meeting their mandatory 2% of GDP defence spending commitments. Among the leverage options reportedly under consideration was a U.S. shift away from its longstanding neutrality on the Falklands dispute, which could see Washington oppose London’s long-held sovereignty claim over the South Atlantic territory.

    The Falkland Islands, located 300 miles off the southern coast of Argentina, have been the site of a bitter sovereignty dispute between London and Buenos Aires for nearly two centuries. The dispute boiled over into open conflict in 1982, when Argentine military forces invaded the islands to stake the South American nation’s territorial claim. A 74-day British military campaign retook control of the territory, but the conflict left more than 900 people dead – 255 British service members, three civilian islanders, and 649 Argentine military personnel. For decades, successive U.S. administrations have formally recognized the UK’s de facto governance of the islands, but have declined to take an official position on the underlying sovereignty question.

    During a press briefing with reporters on Monday, BBC correspondents asked Trump directly whether his administration was actively reviewing the U.S.’s longstanding position on the dispute. Trump responded simply: “I always review every position. That’s just one of many.” He added that the UK “has got some problems, but they’ll get solved” when pressed for further comment on the link between the review and British defence spending targets.

    Trump’s remarks drew immediate pushback from senior British political figures. Dame Emily Thornberry, the Labour Member of Parliament who chairs the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, dismissed the comments as “nonsense” and called on the UK government to issue an immediate, formal response to the threat from Washington. Responding to the call during Tuesday’s parliamentary session, Foreign Office Minister Uma Kumaran reaffirmed London’s unwavering position on the dispute, telling MPs: “The UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. They are and will always remain a British overseas territory in line with the wishes of the Falkland islanders. The UK is steadfast in our support for the islanders’ rights of self-determination. Our position remains unchanged.” A UK government spokesperson added in a separate statement: “Falkland islanders are British with a right to determine their own future. The islanders have repeatedly expressed their wish to remain a British overseas territory and our commitment to them is unwavering.”

    The current debate around the Falklands is not the first time a potential review of U.S. policy has emerged. Earlier this year, an internal Pentagon email obtained by Reuters revealed the U.S. was considering a range of punitive options against NATO allies that it deemed insufficiently supportive of its military operations in Iran. The Falklands sovereignty position was one of the potential leverage tools listed in that internal correspondence, and the proposal has reemerged in recent reporting tied to the Trump administration’s pressure on NATO members to increase defence spending.

    The row over the Falklands comes as the UK’s new ruling administration works to lock in commitments to raise defence spending in line with NATO demands. New Prime Minister Andy Burnham has pledged to honour a commitment made by his predecessor, former Prime Minister Keir Starmer, to hit a target of 3.5% of GDP for core defence spending by 2035. On Tuesday, Chancellor John Healey told The Times that he would outline a clear, binding timeline to meet that 3.5% target during the next government spending review, scheduled for spring 2026. Healey added that the plan will also include an explicit target date for reaching an interim 3% of GDP spending target. Healey, who served as defence secretary under Starmer, resigned from the previous cabinet in June over a public dispute about military spending timelines, saying in his resignation letter that he was frustrated by the lack of a clear plan to hit the 3% target by 2030, his preferred timeline.

    Beyond the Falklands dispute, the Burnham administration is also facing ongoing political pressure over a stalled plan to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. The 2024 agreement, reached under Starmer, would have seen London hand over control of the Indian Ocean archipelago in exchange for a long-term lease to retain the joint US-UK military base on Diego Garcia, a key strategic logistics hub for U.S. and British military operations across the Middle East and Africa. In April, the deal was paused indefinitely after Trump withdrew U.S. support for the agreement, throwing the entire process into doubt.

    Appearing before the Commons on Tuesday, Kumaran reaffirmed that maintaining long-term operational control and security of the Diego Garcia base remains the UK government’s top priority, and that this goal is the entire foundation of the ongoing negotiations with Mauritius. She added that any funding tied to a final agreement would be covered within existing spending allocations for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. But the minister’s comments drew fierce criticism from the opposition Conservative Party. James Cartlidge, the Conservative shadow defence secretary, called the existing Chagos agreement “crazy” and said it “belongs on the ash heap of history.” He called on Burnham to “show some backbone” and scrap the deal entirely, reallocating any planned funding for the transfer to the armed forces. Conservative shadow Foreign Office minister Wendy Morton also pressed the government for clarity, noting that the Starmer administration acknowledged in April that the treaty had become “impossible to agree at political level” and asking what had changed to justify continuing negotiations. In response, Kumaran said the Burnham government would “continue to work with the US and Mauritius to find a way forward that is in the UK’s best interests and protects our national security.”

  • Germany says Russia behind Leipzig airport drone attack

    Germany says Russia behind Leipzig airport drone attack

    In a landmark public announcement that escalates tensions between Berlin and Moscow, German officials have formally named Russia as the perpetrator of an explosive drone attack last month at Leipzig/Halle Airport, a critical logistics hub supporting military shipments to Ukraine.

    The incident, which unfolded on August 4, saw an explosive-laden drone discovered near Ukrainian cargo aircraft parked at the eastern German airport. The device never detonated, investigators confirmed, after its detonator malfunctioned. Separately, probes suggest a second drone collided with a nearby cargo plane, while a third unmanned device was located in the area surrounding the airport 10 days after the initial discovery.

    Speaking at a Berlin press conference alongside German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt framed the attempted attack as fitting the long-documented blueprint of Russian hybrid operations targeting European states. He added that German authorities operate under the working assumption that further attacks on German soil are likely.

    Leipzig/Halle Airport holds unique strategic significance: it is used by the German military and NATO allies to transfer military supplies, and it also acts as a operational base for Ukraine’s Antonov Airlines, the carrier that moves the vast majority of Ukraine’s airborne cargo. That strategic role makes it a logical target for Moscow, analysts note, at a time when Germany remains one of Kyiv’s most prominent backers in its war against Russian invasion.

    In response to the confirmed Russian involvement, Wadephul announced sweeping diplomatic measures: he has ordered the closure of Russia’s consulate in Bonn, and the government will terminate the operating contract for the Russian House in Berlin, a facility long suspected by security observers of being used for Russian espionage and disinformation campaigns.

    The formal accusation and retaliatory measures have drawn immediate reaction from across the Western alliance. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte released a statement on X confirming the alliance’s full solidarity with Germany, noting that “the evidence is clear” and that he supports the actions Berlin has taken in response. The incident is scheduled to be a top topic of discussion during a meeting of European Union foreign ministers taking place in Ireland on the same Tuesday the announcement was made.

    Moscow has repeatedly denied any involvement in attacks on European soil, and in response to the new measures, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Russia would retaliate for what it calls “anti-Russian decisions”, according to Russian state news agency Interfax.

    This formal attribution marks a shift from Berlin’s previous cautious stance, which only referenced potential involvement by “foreign powers” without naming a specific actor. US media had already reported that American intelligence agencies linked the attack to Russian actors, confirming the assessment that German intelligence had privately reached.

    German officials have long warned that the country faces daily hybrid threats from hostile powers. Last week, Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has taken a hardline stance in support of Ukraine, reiterated that any actor that carries out hostile acts against German interests will “pay a price”. The German government is currently moving forward with plans to expand the legal powers of the country’s intelligence agencies, which have long been criticized for having limited authority to counter hybrid and asymmetric threats.

    The announcement comes at a sensitive domestic political moment for the Merz administration. A key regional election in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt, where the airport is located, is approaching, and polls suggest the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) could win enough support to take control of the state government for the first time in the party’s history. The AfD, Germany’s largest national opposition party, has campaigned on ending all military and political support for Ukraine and restoring normal diplomatic and economic ties with Russia.

    In a separate development that adds to growing concerns over security on German soil, German police confirmed Tuesday they are launching an investigation into the discovery of improvised explosive and incendiary devices at a power substation in the eastern state of Brandenburg. The devices damaged a power line, causing a temporary power outage in the area. No group or actor has yet been linked to the sabotage attempt, and investigations into what happened remain ongoing.

    Over the past 12 months, multiple NATO member states, Germany included, have recorded a surge in drone sightings near critical infrastructure, military bases, and industrial facilities, raising alarms across the alliance over the growing scope of Russian hybrid activity targeting Western countries.

  • ‘I have fired 40 of my agents for being corrupt’, says Nigeria’s anti-corruption chief

    ‘I have fired 40 of my agents for being corrupt’, says Nigeria’s anti-corruption chief

    Nigeria’s top anti-graft watchdog has carried out a major internal clean-up, removing more than four dozen of its own employees over allegations of corruption and financial misconduct in the three years since current leadership took office. The announcement came from Ola Olukoyede, chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), during a public briefing in the nation’s capital Abuja, where he outlined the agency’s progress and structural reforms since he assumed leadership in October 2023.

    According to Olukoyede, more than five of the dismissed staff have already been formally charged and are facing prosecution in court, while investigative case files are still being compiled for the remaining terminated employees to move forward with legal proceedings. The EFCC, Nigeria’s primary agency tasked with probing financial crimes including advance fee fraud, money laundering, and public sector corruption, regularly pursues high-profile cases against sitting politicians, senior public officials, prominent business leaders, and other figures accused of diverting or misappropriating public funds.

    In comments to reporters at the briefing, Olukoyede confirmed the scale of internal accountability measures, noting that he had personally authorized the dismissal of over 40 staff members over his three-year tenure over proven charges of corruption and financial malpractice. As part of a broader package of internal reforms to strengthen ethical standards across the agency, Olukoyede revealed that the EFCC’s existing Department of Internal Affairs has been formally rebranded as the Department of Ethics and Integrity, to reflect its renewed mandate of upholding professional integrity within the commission.

    To further mitigate risks of conflicts of interest and improper influence, the EFCC has also introduced a new mandatory policy regulating gifts and hospitality received by agency staff. The new rule requires all EFCC officers to formally declare any gifts received that exceed an undisclosed monetary threshold, a requirement that extends even to gifts sent by relatives living outside of Nigeria.

    Olukoyede emphasized the non-negotiable need for internal probity in the agency’s anti-corruption mission, stating: “You must be sure that your hands are clean. You can’t be fighting corruption when your hands are soiled with corrupt practices.” When the BBC reached out to the EFCC to request additional details on the specific allegations against the dismissed former employees, the agency declined to release further information, noting the data was not currently available for public disclosure.

    Beyond internal reforms and staff dismissals, Olukoyede highlighted a string of strong enforcement outcomes achieved during his tenure, announcing that the EFCC had recovered a record 1.23 trillion naira (equivalent to approximately $925 million or £683 million) in stolen funds, with an overall conviction rate for prosecuted cases exceeding 75% between October 2023 and July 2026.

    Breaking down the agency’s operational output, Olukoyede reported that over the 33-month period, the EFCC received 49,673 public petitions alleging financial crimes, completed investigations into 39,615 separate cases, filed 14,476 formal charges with the courts, and secured 10,872 criminal convictions. In the first half of 2026 alone, the agency secured 1,370 convictions from just 1,889 filed cases, a result Olukoyede said demonstrates the commission’s improving efficiency and focus on evidence-based prosecutions.

    “These results reflect diligence, resilience and a prosecutorial approach anchored on evidence and courtroom outcomes,” he added. Data presented at the briefing also revealed a shifting priority in the EFCC’s caseload, with a growing share of investigations now focused on cybercrime and cyber-enabled fraud, alongside traditional corruption cases involving high-profile public officials.