分类: politics

  • Iran war: What is Pickaxe Mountain and why does Trump want to attack it?

    Iran war: What is Pickaxe Mountain and why does Trump want to attack it?

    Escalating tensions in the Middle East have taken a sharp turn as former U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly threatened a forthcoming military strike on Pickaxe Mountain, a heavily fortified underground nuclear facility that lies at the heart of fresh Israeli claims about Iran’s contested nuclear program. Speaking on Tuesday, amid ongoing U.S. military operations targeting Iranian assets, Trump stated bluntly: “We’ll be hitting that area very probably pretty soon. And there’s not a thing they can do about it.”

    In response to the threat, Tehran has issued a stern warning that any attack on its sovereign nuclear facilities will trigger a broadening of the ongoing regional conflict, raising fears of a wider war that could engulf the entire Middle East. The core of the current dispute centers on Israeli allegations that Iran relocated enriched uranium stocks and advanced centrifuges to the Pickaxe Mountain facility after earlier joint U.S.-Israeli strikes damaged other key Iranian nuclear sites. Notably, Israel has yet to release any verifiable evidence to support these claims, and Trump himself has openly acknowledged that U.S. intelligence agencies cannot confirm Jerusalem’s assertion.

    Located just 1.6 kilometers south of the Natanz uranium enrichment complex in central Iran – a site that was heavily bombed by U.S. and Israeli forces in June 2025 – Pickaxe Mountain is purpose-built to withstand military attack. Carved at least 100 meters beneath the surface of Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, a mountain named for the Persian word for “pickaxe”, the facility is nearly impervious to conventional air strikes and would pose enormous challenges to any ground incursion. Construction of the site first began in 2020, following a damaging explosion at a centrifuge assembly workshop within the original Natanz complex. Iran formally notified the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that the facility was intended to manufacture centrifuges for uranium enrichment operations.

    Analysis of satellite imagery conducted by the Institute for Science and International Security reveals an extensive network of tunnels, a broad heavily guarded security perimeter, and blast-resistant concrete-reinforced entrances designed to survive heavy air bombardment. As of current reporting, construction work remains ongoing, and no public evidence has emerged to confirm that the complex has begun full operations. Satellite imagery captured by Vantor on June 21, 2026, shows visible vehicle activity at the western entrance of the tunnel complex, confirming that work at the site has accelerated dramatically in the year following the June 2025 U.S.-Israeli attacks on Natanz and other Iranian nuclear sites.

    The Center for Strategic and International Studies has outlined two leading explanations for the increased activity at Pickaxe Mountain: Iran may be accelerating completion of the declared centrifuge assembly plant it initially announced, or it has simply moved critical nuclear operations to the secured underground site after other facilities were damaged in the earlier bombings.

    A key unresolved question hangs over the fact that the U.S. and Israel chose not to target Pickaxe Mountain during their 12-day offensive against Iranian nuclear infrastructure in 2025, raising doubts about the site’s purported strategic importance to Iran’s program at that time. During that earlier campaign, Israel first struck Iran’s core nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, killing multiple civilian Iranian nuclear scientists, before the U.S. joined the conflict, launching heavier bombing raids on the same three targets. Trump initially claimed the attacks had completely “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but subsequent assessments from U.S. and United Nations experts found that while the strikes caused extensive damage, significant portions of Iran’s nuclear program survived.

    Since the 2025 offensive, Washington and Jerusalem have focused intense pressure on Iran over its existing stockpile of nearly 450 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, demanding that Tehran either surrender the material or permanently dispose of it. When pressed by reporters on whether Iran had indeed moved advanced centrifuges to Pickaxe Mountain, Trump contradicted Israel’s unsubstantiated claims, admitting: “We don’t have it on record.”

    Iran has repeatedly denied conducting any undeclared nuclear activities at the Pickaxe Mountain site. The Iranian government maintains that its entire nuclear program is oriented toward peaceful civilian energy goals, and says it plans to expand its nuclear power fleet to meet growing domestic electricity demand, freeing up more of its oil reserves for export to global markets. The latest threat of a new strike has sent shockwaves through the international community, with experts warning that further escalation could have catastrophic consequences for global energy security and regional stability.

  • Trump attends dignified transfer of four US service members killed in the Middle East

    Trump attends dignified transfer of four US service members killed in the Middle East

    A solemn, formal dignified transfer ceremony was held on U.S. soil at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to honor the remains of four American service members who recently lost their lives while serving in the Middle East. Former President Donald Trump was in attendance at the event, which adheres to longstanding U.S. military traditions for honoring fallen service members killed overseas. The four fallen troops being honored at the ceremony were identified as Tyler James Feehan, Angel Rampersad, Isabella Gonzales, and Michael Emmanuel Swinton. Dignified transfer ceremonies are a core military custom designed to pay solemn respect to military personnel who die while deployed abroad, marking their formal return to American soil with full honor and ceremony. The presence of the sitting president at the event underscores the U.S. government’s recognition of the sacrifice made by the four service members and their commitment to honoring the lives lost in the line of duty.

  • Trump to approve nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia despite regional proliferation risks

    Trump to approve nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia despite regional proliferation risks

    Two leading U.S. news outlets revealed Wednesday that former President Donald Trump has given formal approval to a three-decade civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, a deal that will grant Riyadh access to cutting-edge U.S. reactor technology despite widespread warnings that it could ignite a dangerous nuclear arms race across the Middle East with Iran.

    According to reports from both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, Trump’s pending official signature on the dual civil nuclear and security pact will clear the way for the proposal to move to the U.S. Congress for mandatory formal review. The accord is scheduled to be finalized this week by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, two officials who first held high-level talks on the framework back in April 2025, the Journal added.

    If the agreement receives final congressional approval, it will open the door for U.S. nuclear firms to earn tens of billions of dollars in revenue from constructing Saudi Arabia’s first full civilian nuclear infrastructure. At the same time, it has reignited a decades-long, bitter debate among U.S. legislators over the severe risks of nuclear proliferation spreading across the Middle East.

    The Trump administration has defended the agreement, arguing that close U.S. oversight will guarantee that Riyadh’s civilian nuclear program is never diverted to develop nuclear weapons. But critics point out that the deal fails to address core long-standing nonproliferation concerns that have divided policymakers for years. Lawmakers seeking to block the pact also face steep procedural obstacles: to override a guaranteed presidential veto, opponents would need to secure a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress, a high bar that is widely seen as difficult to reach.

    The most significant proliferation risk stems from the deal’s framework that paves the way for Saudi Arabia to develop domestic uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing capabilities – the two core processes required to produce weapons-grade material for nuclear bombs. Beyond supplying initial reactors and related technology, the agreement mandates that U.S. firms conduct a two-year feasibility study to assess whether domestic uranium enrichment in Saudi Arabia is practical. If the study concludes the project is viable, U.S. companies will build and operate the enrichment facility under a so-called “black box” model designed to keep all sensitive nuclear technology restricted from Saudi access. If the U.S. rejects moving forward with enrichment, Riyadh would be blocked from developing domestic enrichment capabilities for a 10-year period.

    Notably, the accord bypasses the enhanced safeguards protocol overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog that sets the global baseline for nonproliferation monitoring. Instead, all inspection and oversight responsibilities will be managed through a private bilateral agreement exclusively between Washington and Riyadh. Unlike the United Arab Emirates, which previously committed to the international “gold standard” nonproliferation pledge that bans nations from enriching uranium or reprocessing spent fuel on their own territory, Saudi Arabia has repeatedly refused to adopt that requirement. A congressional source who spoke with CNN also confirmed that early closed-door briefings on the deal outlined a special provision that grants Riyadh limited permission to carry out domestic fuel enrichment and reprocessing activities.

    Talks over a U.S.-Saudi nuclear accord first launched during Trump’s first presidential term, and the deal has renewed intense scrutiny over the role played by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who served as a senior White House adviser during that first term. A 2019 investigative report from House Democrats already revealed that Kushner pushed aggressively to approve nuclear technology transfers to Saudi Arabia over the explicit objections of multiple senior national security officials. This scrutiny has been amplified by questions over Kushner’s personal financial ties: Westinghouse Electric, the major U.S. nuclear services firm vying to sell reactors to Saudi Arabia, is owned by Brookfield Asset Management. That same firm orchestrated a $1.1 billion bailout for a struggling property asset owned by Kushner’s family real estate company back in 2018.

    As early as 2018, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation to block any nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, but the Trump administration continued to advance negotiations behind the scenes. That same year, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made international headlines when he stated publicly that if Iran successfully developed a nuclear bomb, “we will follow suit as soon as possible”. During initial negotiations, Saudi negotiators also made clear to the Trump administration that Riyadh would reject any deal that granted UN nuclear inspectors unfettered access to search for covert nuclear weapons activity across the kingdom.

    In a major shift from the previous Biden administration’s policy, Trump has dropped the requirement that tied U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation to Riyadh completing a full normalization of diplomatic relations with Israel, effectively decoupling the nuclear deal from the Abraham Accords framework. The final agreement, however, lays bare a stark contradiction in U.S. foreign policy: Washington continues to pressure Iran to roll back its expanding nuclear program, while at the same time enabling Saudi Arabia to build out its own civilian nuclear infrastructure with pathways to weapons-capable technology.

  • Mamdani says he doesn’t have authority to arrest Netanyahu, but US government does

    Mamdani says he doesn’t have authority to arrest Netanyahu, but US government does

    A high-stakes diplomatic and legal dispute has erupted over the expected September visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to New York City, after New York’s mayor publicly called on the U.S. federal government to enforce an outstanding International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against the Israeli leader.

    Zohran Mamdani, mayor of New York City, laid out his position in a viral two-minute social media video posted Tuesday, just hours after former U.S. President Donald Trump stated that Netanyahu would “not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America”. The video, posted to X on July 22, 2026, has already amassed more than 30 million views.

    In the clip, Mamdani made blunt allegations against Netanyahu, calling him a war crime suspect and the mastermind of what he described as a devastating genocide against the Palestinian people. He cited multiple humanitarian and human rights claims to back his stance: pointing to soaring rates of Palestinian amputees in the Gaza Strip, referencing a United Nations report that alleged Israeli forces deliberately targeted and killed Palestinian children, and claiming the prime minister is responsible for the deaths of over 73,000 people and the maiming of tens of thousands of children. Mamdani also added that Netanyahu, who Mamdani says has ordered military strikes in six countries since 2023, is also responsible for the killings of international aid workers and journalists reporting on the conflict.

    Mamdani acknowledged that the ICC’s 2024 arrest warrant against Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant is legally justified, but confirmed that his administration has reviewed all possible legal pathways and confirmed New York City lacks independent authority to execute the warrant. He clarified that after active discussions with New York’s law department, it remains unclear whether the city can order the New York City Police Department to detain a sitting foreign leader, so the power to act rests solely with the federal government.

    “My administration has reviewed every avenue available under applicable law to determine whether New York City could execute the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant if Benjamin Netanyahu came here. It is clear that we do not have the independent legal authority to enforce this warrant. The federal government, however, does, and I call on them to join the ICC and execute this warrant,” Mamdani said in the video.

    Netanyahu is scheduled to travel to New York this coming September to attend the annual United Nations General Assembly, a regular high-level diplomatic gathering hosted by the city. The ICC issued the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant in November 2024, charging both with war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Gaza starting in October 2023. The warrants marked a historic first for the 24-year-old court, as it was the first time ICC judges issued arrest warrants for senior officials allied with Western powers.

    Since the warrants were issued, the ICC has faced intense backlash, including widespread criticism, threats, and punitive measures from the United States — Israel’s closest ally. The U.S. and Israel are not signatories to the Rome Statute, the international treaty that established the ICC. All 125 countries that are party to the statute, including every member of the European Union, hold a legal obligation to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant and turn them over to the court for prosecution. However, the ICC itself has no independent enforcement powers to carry out arrest warrants, and the court cannot conduct a trial in absentia.

    Mamdani’s call to action has drawn responses from pro-Palestine activists and commentators, who have pushed the mayor to go beyond rhetoric and take tangible, within-authority actions to oppose what they describe as complicity in Israeli crimes.

    Prominent Palestinian writer and activist Mohammed el-Kurd argued that Mamdani could use his municipal platform to push for action against U.S.-based groups that fund Israeli settlement activity. “If Mamdani wants to take tangible action within the bounds of his office, he could easily urge Attorney General and other relevant authorities to go after New York-registered tax-exempt organizations that funnel tens of millions of US dollars into Israeli settler expansion and violence every year,” el-Kurd noted.

    Another activist, Nerdeen Kiswani, said the city’s treatment of Netanyahu’s visit must match Mamdani’s rhetoric, to make clear the Israeli leader is not welcome in New York. “Don’t roll out the red carpet for a wanted war criminal. Don’t use the NYPD to insulate him from public outrage. Don’t suppress the New Yorkers who take to the streets demanding accountability,” Kiswani wrote on X. “If Netanyahu is truly not welcome in New York City, that principle should be reflected in how the city treats his visit, not just in rhetoric.”

  • Burnham approves US use of UK bases for some strikes on Iran, Bloomberg reports

    Burnham approves US use of UK bases for some strikes on Iran, Bloomberg reports

    In a move that continues the policy set by his predecessor Keir Starmer, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has formally approved the United States’ use of several UK military bases to carry out what the government characterizes as “defensive” air strikes against Iran, Bloomberg News reported Wednesday.

    The decision traces back to a high-level meeting convened by Starmer this past Friday, where senior cabinet ministers and national security officials reached a provisional agreement to maintain access for US aircraft at two key facilities: the Indian Ocean base at Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford, a major air force installation in Gloucestershire. Multiple sources with direct knowledge of the meeting shared details with Bloomberg on condition of anonymity.

    After being fully briefed on the meeting’s outcome and the proposed policy, Burnham endorsed the arrangement, confirming he intends to uphold Starmer’s framework for the duration of the US’s expanded military operations against Iranian targets.

    The approval comes as US air bombardment of Iranian targets has entered its 11th consecutive night. Iranian state media has reported large explosions across multiple population centers, including the cities of Bushehr, Tabriz, Chabahar, as well as areas in the western provinces of Kurdistan and Ilam. US Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US military operations in the Middle East, has stated the strikes are targeting Iranian operations centers, logistics hubs, maritime capabilities, aircraft hangars and drone storage sites.

    Tehran has responded to the ongoing US attacks with retaliatory strikes targeting US-allied nations in the region, including Jordan, Bahrain, Syria and Kuwait.

    Burnham’s green light for continued base access is already expected to trigger significant political and public pushback in the UK. Human rights organizations have previously warned that granting the US permission to launch strikes from British territory could violate longstanding international law standards.

    Starmer first outlined his original policy in early March, framing the base access as exclusively for defensive operations. He later expanded the agreement to allow US strikes launched from UK bases to target Iranian sites connected to activity around the Strait of Hormuz, justifying the move under the legal framework of “collective self-defense” for US-aligned Gulf states.

    Yasmine Ahmed, UK director at Human Rights Watch, issued a formal letter to the prime minister pointing out that the British government’s legal justification for the policy fails to address core obligations under international humanitarian law (IHL). Ahmed referenced multiple high-profile incidents that have raised questions about US compliance with IHL, most notably a February 28 air strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in Minab, a southern Iranian city, carried out at the opening of the US-Israeli joint assault. The attack killed more than 150 people, the vast majority of them children, and a preliminary Pentagon investigation confirmed the US military was responsible for the incident.

    Burnham’s confirmation of the policy comes just days after he held a telephone conversation with former US President Donald Trump. A public readout from the UK prime minister’s office stated that during the call, Burnham “outlined the UK’s commitment to securing the movement of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.” In a post to his Truth Social platform following the call, Trump wrote that the discussion covered topics including North Sea oil, bilateral trade, the US-UK military alliance, and demining operations in the Strait of Hormuz, noting that the talks “went very well.”

  • Mamdani U-turn on threat to arrest Netanyahu citing lack of authority

    Mamdani U-turn on threat to arrest Netanyahu citing lack of authority

    A weeks-long political firestorm over a potential visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to New York City took a new turn this week, after Mayor Zohran Mamdani acknowledged he lacks the independent legal authority to carry out his earlier campaign pledge to arrest Netanyahu if he steps foot in the five boroughs.

    Mamdani, who built a portion of his mayoral campaign around sharp criticism of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and repeatedly labeled Netanyahu a war criminal, first signaled he was moving forward with exploring arrest options in an interview with The New York Times over the weekend. In that conversation, he claimed his administration was holding “active conversations” with local law enforcement to assess how to enforce the 2024 International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant issued for Netanyahu over alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip.

    But just two days later, Mamdani released a video statement posted to social media walking back that plan, confirming a full legal review of all available pathways found the city government holds no independent power to execute the international warrant. “We do not have the independent legal authority to enforce this,” Mamdani said in the video, adding that “the federal government, however, does.” He went on to call on Washington to join the ICC and move forward with executing the warrant, adding that Netanyahu remains “not welcome” in New York City, where the Israeli prime minister is scheduled to attend the United Nations General Assembly this September.

    The ICC, a permanent international court based in The Hague that prosecutes individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, issued the arrest warrant for Netanyahu in 2024 alongside a warrant for a senior Hamas commander. Legally, any nation that is a member of the ICC is required to detain and transfer any individual subject to an ICC warrant if they enter their territory — but the United States has never joined the court, creating a major legal barrier to enforcement at any level of U.S. government.

    Former President Donald Trump, who has long positioned himself as a staunch ally of Netanyahu, quickly weighed in on the controversy earlier this week. In a post to his Truth Social platform on Monday, Trump stated that Netanyahu would not be “arrested, in any way, shape or form” while he is in the U.S. He defended the Israeli prime Minister by arguing that he is fighting the Islamic Republic of Iran, which Trump falsely claimed recently killed 52,000 innocent protestors and has killed thousands of American troops over the past 47 years.

    The dispute comes as polling shows a clear shift in Democratic Party voter attitudes toward U.S. policy on Israel. A recent survey finds that 58% of Democratic voters now believe the U.S. is overly supportive of Israel, up from just 45% in 2024, a change that has helped push progressive elected officials like Mamdani to take more public critical stances on the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.

    Israeli officials have pushed back harshly against Mamdani’s comments. Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, accused the New York mayor of advancing partisan political messaging aligned with Hamas. “You were elected to serve New Yorkers, not Hamas’ propaganda,” Danon said in response to Mamdani’s initial interview comments.

  • Who is Mykhailo Drapatyi, Ukraine’s new commander-in-chief?

    Who is Mykhailo Drapatyi, Ukraine’s new commander-in-chief?

    Ukraine has installed a new top military leader amid ongoing conflict with Russia, with 43-year-old Major General Mykhailo Drapatyi taking over the role of Commander-in-Chief from Oleksandr Syrskyi. This appointment marks the third leadership shake-up for Ukraine’s armed forces since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, and it has already earned broad backing from both civilian society and rank-and-file military personnel. Drapatyi’s rise to the top position came amid public protests that initially formed to support his ally, former defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov, but eventually shifted to demand Syrskyi’s removal – with crowds chanting Drapatyi’s name in the streets. One frontline Ukrainian soldier told the BBC, “There’s no better person for this position nowadays in Ukraine.”

    Drapatyi’s reputation as a “humane and strong” commander has been built over more than two decades of military service in post-Soviet Ukraine. He graduated from the Kharkiv Institute of Tank Troops in 2004, beginning his career as a junior lieutenant, and first rose to public attention in 2014, when pro-Russian separatists seized swathes of eastern Ukraine. That May, Drapatyi led a battalion into the besieged southern city of Mariupol to free hostages held at the city’s police department. When told a kilometer-high makeshift barricade blocked the advance, he ordered his infantry fighting vehicle to smash straight through it, and the footage of the maneuver quickly went viral around the world. “I said, let’s take it by storm. This video flew around the world,” he later recalled in an interview. Later that same year, he earned further acclaim for successfully extracting encircled Ukrainian units from a contested border area in Luhansk Oblast.

    In 2021, Drapatyi returned to academic training to deepen his expertise in operational and military strategy, graduating at the top of his class that June. He was awarded a ceremonial sword of honor by then-British Ambassador to Ukraine Melinda Simmons for his performance. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, Drapatyi was already serving as deputy commander of Ukraine’s joint forces, and he immediately stepped into frontline leadership roles. He led temporary operational task forces across multiple hotly contested sectors of the front, successfully halting Russian advances toward Kryvyi Rih and overseeing the liberation of dozens of settlements in the Kherson and Dnipropetrovsk regions. By 2024, he had risen to command Ukraine’s entire Land Forces, leading operations in some of the bloodiest combat zones in eastern Ukraine.

    A defining moment for Drapatyi’s public reputation came in early 2025, when a Russian missile strike targeted a military training ground in the Dnipropetrovsk region, killing 12 soldiers and wounding 60 more. Drapatyi tendered his resignation that same day, taking personal responsibility for the “conspiracy of silence and impunity” that he said had allowed the tragedy to occur. “An army in which commanders bear personal responsibility for the lives of personnel keeps living. An army in which nobody is responsible for a loss dies,” he wrote in his resignation letter. The move was widely praised as an unprecedented demonstration of accountability among Ukraine’s senior military leadership, and President Volodymyr Zelensky declined to accept his resignation – instead appointing him commander of the Joint Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

    From that point, open speculation about tensions between Drapatyi and Syrskyi grew steadily. A senior unnamed Ukrainian officer told local media in June 2025: “Drapatyi is a relatively young general. He is gifted. He was always sent to places where the situation was extremely difficult. I do not think he has political ambitions. Yet I am sure his ambitions are not confined to the position of commander of the ground forces or the Joint Forces.” Just over a year later, Syrskyi stepped down, and expectations for Drapatyi’s tenure are running high.

    Mykola Bielieskov, a senior analyst at Ukrainian NGO Come Back Alive, notes that Drapatyi enjoys widespread popularity among rank-and-file troops, particularly among civilian volunteers who joined the military after the 2022 full-scale invasion. But Bielieskov also cautions that the new commander-in-chief will operate under severe, systemic constraints: “The Commander-in-Chief has a lot of leverage. But war is a combination of government, the president’s office, military suppliers, dependence on [Western] partners… so he’s got a tricky path before him.”

    Ceasefire negotiations with Russia remain stalled with no near-term breakthrough in sight, and Ukraine is bracing for another harsh winter of active combat. Drapatyi’s immediate priorities include shoring up Ukraine’s mobilization system to replenish frontline ranks, rooting out systemic corruption that has plagued everything from conscription processes to defense procurement, and leveraging Ukraine’s fast-growing domestic defense tech sector – which has driven key battlefield gains in recent months – to maximum effect.

    In his first public address after taking up his new post, Drapatyi acknowledged the enormous weight of his new role, promising to lead “without making loud promises, with responsibility for our decisions, and with respect” for all frontline service members. Many Ukrainians are hoping Drapatyi will bring a sharp break from Syrskyi’s tenure, which was widely criticized for relying on outdated, human-costly offensive tactics that prioritized territorial gains at the expense of troop safety.

    Analysts have warned against overestimating how quickly Drapatyi can deliver change, however. “It’s a major role and people will expect change quickly,” Bielieskov said, cautioning against “oversimplification” that can lead to unrealistic demands for sweeping progress in an impossibly short timeline. Oleksiy Kopytko, a former interior ministry adviser, echoed that note of caution, pointing to the fickle nature of public support for senior wartime leaders: “As commander-in-chief, you are worshipped and loved by all today, not loved by everyone tomorrow, and are guilty of everything the day after tomorrow, with none of your achievements mattering.” Valery Zaluzhnyi, who was removed from the post of Commander-in-Chief in 2024, also predicted that “Drapatyi will have a very difficult time. Much harder than he imagines.”

    Even so, many ordinary Ukrainians and frontline soldiers share a palpable sense of optimism about the new leadership. Some have gone so far as to say that if Drapatyi’s ally Mykhailo Fedorov is reinstated as defense minister, the pair’s combined leadership would become “Russia’s worst nightmare.” Long before taking on the role of Commander-in-Chief, Drapatyi signaled his willingness to take on entrenched problems within the military: when he resigned from his Land Forces command in 2025, he outlined a series of systemic flaws he had already targeted, ranging from combat training reform to unfair mobilization practices, corruption and broken procurement systems. “There is expected resistance, but efforts need to be stepped up,” he said at the time. Now, he will face those same challenges on a far larger national stage, with the eyes of the entire country fixed on his every move.

  • Vatican defends secrecy in sensitive abuse case involving ex-Jesuit artist Marko Rupnik

    Vatican defends secrecy in sensitive abuse case involving ex-Jesuit artist Marko Rupnik

    VATICAN CITY (AP) — In an official clarification Wednesday, the Holy See has confirmed that the canonical trial of high-profile former Jesuit priest Marko Ivan Rupnik — accused of widespread spiritual, sexual and psychological abuse against multiple women — remains actively underway, pushing back against recent Italian media reports that an acquittal had already been issued. The Vatican also defended the strict secrecy surrounding the proceedings, framing it as a necessary guardrail to protect the integrity of the church’s internal judicial process.

    Rupnik, a renowned Slovenian artist whose mosaic works adorn Vatican chapels and major Catholic basilicas across the globe, first became the center of a global clerical abuse scandal in late 2022, when multiple women and nuns came forward with abuse allegations dating back to the 1990s. The claims detailed decades of alleged dismissal of their complaints by senior Catholic leaders, a revelation that sparked intense criticism of the Vatican’s handling of adult abuse cases and drew questions about whether senior church officials, including Pope Francis, had shielded Rupnik due to his celebrity status within the church.

    The case has emerged as one of the most sensitive abuse matters facing the Holy See amid the global #MeToo reckoning over clergy misconduct. Church records show Rupnik was briefly excommunicated in 2020 after being found guilty of one of the Catholic Church’s most severe offenses: using the sacrament of confession to absolve a woman he had been sexually involved with. The Jesuit order expelled Rupnik from its ranks in 2023, following growing public pressure over the allegations.

    For months after the scandal went public, the Vatican declined to prosecute additional abuse claims from other women, citing the age of the allegations and noting that all the accusers were adults at the time of the reported abuse — a distinction rooted in longstanding Vatican policy that only classifies sexual abuse of adults as a criminal offense under church law if the victim is deemed incapable of rational consent. Facing mounting backlash over claims that the church had protected Rupnik, Pope Francis waived the church’s statute of limitations on the older allegations earlier this year, clearing the way for a full canonical trial to proceed. Rupnik retains his status as a priest, and his supporters have repeatedly denied all wrongdoing, dismissing the accusations as unproven defamation and what they have called a media “lynching.”

    Recent speculation over the case’s outcome was triggered by an Italian blog report Monday claiming judges had already issued an acquittal verdict. That report prompted a harsh rebuke from Laura Sgro, the attorney representing five of Rupnik’s accusers, who issued a scathing condemnation of the Vatican’s secretive canonical legal system. In an open letter Tuesday to the head of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — the body overseeing the trial — Sgro said her team had received no response to two years of requests for basic updates on the case’s progress. She added that the unconfirmed acquittal report had left her clients deeply discouraged and shaken, particularly since none of the accusers have ever been interviewed by the tribunal about their claims.

    In its Wednesday statement, the Vatican press office dismissed the blog’s acquittal report as “totally unfounded,” noting that judges are still in the process of reviewing evidence submitted by participating dioceses, the Jesuit order, the parties involved and public media reports. The Holy See defended its policy of confidentiality, arguing that withholding information during proceedings is required to protect the integrity of the process and prevent unnecessary harm to all individuals involved. The statement added that if the judicial panel requires additional evidence to reach a ruling, it will take proactive steps to obtain it, a comment that left open the possibility that accusers may still be called to testify.

    Responding to Sgro’s complaints about the lack of transparency — a standard expectation in public civil and criminal courts — the Vatican noted that canonical trials only address internal church matters governed by canon law, and are not intended to replace external civil or criminal judicial processes. Under the current structure of canonical abuse investigations, accusers are only classified as third-party witnesses, rather than active parties to the case. They are barred from attending secret proceedings, denied access to case files, and have no inherent right to be notified that an investigation has even been opened, let alone receive regular updates on its status. A 2019 reform by Pope Francis only grants victims the right to receive the final verdict once it is issued, with no other access to procedural information.

    Notably, the church’s canonical system has drawn repeated condemnation from independent international abuse investigations, which have consistently found that the culture of secrecy and lack of basic procedural rights for victims retraumatizes survivors. Critics point out that canon law was never designed to address the needs of abuse survivors or support their healing; the core purpose of the system is centered on protecting the institutional church, with stated goals of restoring internal order, reforming the offender and managing public scandal. Accused priests also face limited procedural protections in canonical trials, and have long raised their own concerns about secrecy and the absence of the due process rights guaranteed in public court systems.

  • ‘Momentum is still there’: The BBC at India’s ‘cockroach’ protest

    ‘Momentum is still there’: The BBC at India’s ‘cockroach’ protest

    Even as relentless downpours swept through India’s capital city of New Delhi overnight, thousands of supporters affiliated with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) have refused to abandon their demonstration, vowing that their push for change retains its full momentum. The unexpected heavy rainfall, which left many parts of the city waterlogged and disrupted routine daily life across the national capital, created significant challenges for protesters gathered at key protest sites across the city. Despite soaked clothing, uneven, muddy ground, and logistical hurdles that come with unseasonable heavy rain, the crowd has remained steadfast, choosing to continue their demonstration rather than stand down. Protesters and organizers with the movement have told reporters that the core momentum of their protest remains unbroken, with the widespread turnout through the storm serving as a demonstration of the depth of commitment among the movement’s supporters. The ongoing protest in the heart of India’s capital continues to draw attention to the group’s policy and political demands, as observers across the country monitor how the demonstration evolves in the coming days.

  • US hits Iranian island, says war cost at $37.5 bn

    US hits Iranian island, says war cost at $37.5 bn

    Escalating tensions between the United States and Iran entered a dangerous new phase this week, as U.S. forces carried out a missile strike on Iran’s Larak Island in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, just days after the Pentagon revealed the ongoing conflict has already cost American taxpayers $37.5 billion. The attack comes as President Donald Trump has pushed back against growing domestic political pressure to end the unpopular five-month hostilities, insisting Washington is “not finished” with its campaign.

    The strike on Larak Island, first reported by Iran’s Tasnim news agency Wednesday, left the full extent of damage still under investigation. It marks the latest in a sustained series of U.S. attacks on Iranian-held islands across the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz that have continued since hostilities resumed earlier this year. The U.S. military confirmed it had launched 11 consecutive nights of strikes against Iranian targets as of Tuesday, framing the operations as an effort to “further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten commercial shipping” in the critical waterway, through which roughly 20% of global oil supplies pass daily.

    The clash over the Strait of Hormuz has already derailed a preliminary diplomatic deal between the two nations, but top U.S. diplomat Marco Rubio reaffirmed Washington’s official stance Wednesday that the door remains open to a negotiated resolution. Speaking at a Southeast Asian foreign ministers’ meeting in Manila, Rubio emphasized, “We remain open to working it out in a negotiated way. But right now, they don’t seem to be serious about that.” He defended the latest U.S. strikes, arguing they were justified by Iran’s repeated attacks on commercial shipping in the strait and Tehran’s efforts to rebuild its missile and drone capabilities.

    Iran has pushed back against these claims, with foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei noting that quiet diplomatic exchanges through third-party mediators have continued despite the open conflict. He has also rejected U.S. accusations surrounding a suspected undeclared nuclear facility, calling Washington’s focus on Kolang Mountain (known as Pickaxe Mountain to Western officials) a fabricated pretext for further aggression. Located near Iran’s established Natanz nuclear complex, the underground site is suspected by Western intelligence agencies of housing a secret uranium enrichment operation – a claim Baqaei denies, saying “no nuclear activity is taking place” at the location.

    Trump has openly raised the possibility of targeting the Kolang Mountain site, a threat that has drawn sharp warnings of full-scale retaliation from Iran’s military leadership. The Khatam Al-Anbiya military command, quoted by state broadcaster IRIB, said any strike on the underground complex would be considered an expansion of the war, and promised Iran would target “all the interests of America, the allies and supporters” in response. Baqaei also accused the U.S. of violating international United Nations rules, and pointedly questioned the public absence of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi, who recently told the BBC that IAEA inspectors should already have access to the site and expect to gain entry soon to verify Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpiles.

    The cross-border escalation has spread beyond Iran’s borders in recent days, as Tehran has pressed its offensive against U.S.-allied nations across the Gulf. On Wednesday, Kuwait’s army announced it had intercepted and engaged incoming Iranian drones, while Jordan confirmed it had shot down four Iranian missiles and an equal number of unmanned aerial vehicles. Air raid sirens sounded across Bahrain, and an AFP correspondent in the capital Manama reported hearing a large explosion. The Iranian military confirmed it had targeted U.S. assets in both Kuwait and Bahrain, including air defense systems, radar installations, and administrative buildings, while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it also struck U.S. military bases in Jordan.

    The expanding conflict has also drawn in Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen, who recently threatened to blockade Saudi Arabian ports in a new escalation of regional hostilities. Trump responded to the threat, saying he would “take care of” the rebel group if they followed through on the promise. While it remains unclear how the Houthis would implement a full blockade, the threat has already roiled global energy markets: Brent Crude, the global benchmark for oil prices, jumped 4.4% on Wednesday to top $95 a barrel for the first time in six weeks.

    Maritime intelligence firm Vanguard Tech reported that two commercial tankers – one flagged to Singapore and one to Liberia – already reversed course in the Red Sea this week after loading crude at Saudi Arabia’s Yanbu port, a sign of growing market jitters. If the Houthis carry out their blockade threat, it could disrupt Saudi Arabia’s ability to route oil exports around the Strait of Hormuz, triggering far broader disruptions to the global economy. The recent exchange of fire between Saudi forces and the Houthis marks the first direct clashes between the two sides in years, endangering a fragile 2022 truce that has held largely intact until the current U.S.-Iran conflict reignited regional tensions in late February.

    Domestically, the mounting cost of the war has put significant political pressure on Trump, just months ahead of November’s U.S. legislative elections. The conflict is unpopular even among key segments of Trump’s political base, and critics have repeatedly called attention to the staggering $37.5 billion price tag that Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth confirmed earlier this week, as the administration seeks tens of billions of dollars in additional military funding for the campaign. Despite the pressure, Trump has refused to draw down U.S. involvement, telling reporters this week that “We’re not finished at all… we’re not leaving right now.”