分类: politics

  • Hezbollah drones limiting 80 percent of Israeli troop assaults in Lebanon

    Hezbollah drones limiting 80 percent of Israeli troop assaults in Lebanon

    Israel’s public broadcaster Kan has released a bombshell assessment from military insiders confirming that Hezbollah’s expanding drone arsenal has crippled up to 80% of Israeli offensive operations targeting southern Lebanon, reshaping the dynamics of the ongoing cross-border conflict.

    According to Kan’s Monday reporting, Israeli military estimates make clear that Hezbollah’s unmanned aerial vehicles have dramatically constrained Israeli troop movements across southern Lebanon and have directly contributed to mounting Israeli battlefield casualties. A critical supply gap has worsened the problem: Israel’s anti-drone defense systems are only allocated to a small fraction of frontline troops, forcing commanders to scrap most planned daytime operations entirely to avoid devastating drone strikes.

    The growing threat posed by these drones has become a top priority crisis for Israel’s national government, prompting officials to assemble a dedicated cross-sector task force bringing together military commanders, defense industry specialists, and civilian technology experts to accelerate development of effective counter-drone systems.
    Israeli military intelligence sources told Kan that Hezbollah has also overhauled its operational model in the wake of Israeli assassinations of multiple high-ranking commanders from its elite Radwan Force. Moving away from a rigid centralized command-and-control structure, the group has shifted to decentralized, cell-based guerrilla warfare. Small autonomous Hezbollah units now move between southern Lebanese villages, carrying out opportunistic targeted attacks on Israeli forces with far greater operational flexibility than before.

    The advance of Hezbollah’s drone program is not a recent development: last month, Israeli outlet Ynet News first reported that the group had carried out major upgrades to its drone fleet, most notably the widespread adoption of fiber-optic tethered first-person view (FPV) drones for offensive operations against Israeli troops. Unlike larger, more expensive long-range missiles, these FPV drones are low-cost, easily assembled, and modified locally in southern Lebanese workshops. Local technicians add custom components including reinforced landing skids, high-resolution cameras, and lethal explosive payloads to convert the commercially derived platforms into effective weapons.
    The key fiber-optic upgrade has proven particularly devastating to Israeli defense efforts. Tethering the drone directly to its ground control station via a fiber-optic line eliminates the need for vulnerable radio signals to transmit control data and video feed. This not only makes the drones far harder for Israeli electronic warfare systems to detect, but also blocks Israeli jamming attempts that would otherwise disable the aircraft.

    In response to the escalating threat, Israel’s cabinet last week approved $700 million in emergency emergency defense funding earmarked exclusively for developing and deploying countermeasures against Hezbollah’s drones. The approved plan includes two core components: the installation of new fixed radar systems along Israel’s entire northern border to detect incoming small drones, and the procurement of five million specialized shotgun rounds engineered to shoot down low-altitude, short-range unmanned aircraft.

    The ongoing cross-border hostilities have already unleashed a catastrophic humanitarian crisis across Lebanon. Since Israeli large-scale operations began on March 2, more than 3,000 Lebanese people have been killed in Israeli strikes, and another 9,301 have been wounded. The violence has displaced at least 1.6 million people – roughly one-fifth of Lebanon’s total population. Though a ceasefire was first announced on April 16 and extended last week, Israeli forces have continued to conduct near-daily airstrikes across Lebanese territory.

  • Exclusive: Trump postponed US attack in Iran after ‘Hajj warning’

    Exclusive: Trump postponed US attack in Iran after ‘Hajj warning’

    Exclusive reporting from Middle East Eye has confirmed that US President Donald Trump has put a planned military offensive against Iran on hold this week, after urgent warnings from key Gulf Arab allies and his own senior administration officials that an attack during the annual Islamic Hajj pilgrimage would trigger widespread regional instability. Two high-ranking Gulf officials, speaking on condition of anonymity due to restrictions on discussing closed-door diplomatic communications, shared details of the pressure campaign that swayed the US president. Their accounts reveal that officials emphasized a strike during the sacred religious period would spark a major political crisis across Gulf Cooperation Council states, leaving hundreds of thousands of pilgrims from across the globe stranded in the middle of their journey. They also warned that an attack timed to coincide with the Hajj, which leads directly into the major Islamic festival of Eid al-Adha, would cause lasting and severe harm to the United States’ already strained reputation across the entire Muslim world. A senior US official with direct knowledge of internal debates within the Trump administration has independently confirmed these discussions took place, adding that the president’s own national security team warned that restarting military hostilities against Iran at this juncture would carry significant long-term reputational damage for Trump himself. The United States previously launched military strikes against Iran during the holy Islamic month of Ramadan, but a strike during the Hajj carries unique logistical and political risks for Saudi Arabia, the host nation that welcomes roughly one million international pilgrims to the annual religious gathering each year. This year’s Hajj is scheduled to open on 24 May and run for six days, with hundreds of thousands of pilgrims already on the ground in Saudi Arabia in preparation for the rituals. Beyond Saudi Arabia, disruptive risks from a US attack would extend to major Gulf air travel hubs in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as the South Asian and East Asian nations that send large contingents of pilgrims to the event. All three officials who spoke to Middle East Eye agree that the pause in military planning is temporary: they widely expect offensive operations to restart in the coming weeks once the Hajj period concludes. The US has a documented recent history of using deceptive signaling and tactical misdirection to lull Iranian leadership into a false sense of security ahead of strikes. The February 2026 attack, which launched the current conflict, came after Washington claimed it was making meaningful progress on diplomatic negotiations with Tehran in Geneva. Earlier this week, Trump publicly acknowledged the delay, confirming on his Truth Social platform that Gulf leaders had directly requested he hold off the planned strike. “I have been asked by the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, and the President of the United Arab Emirates, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, to hold off on our planned Military attack of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Trump wrote. He added that the allied leaders “believe a Deal will be made” in lieu of military action. The ongoing conflict between the US, Israel and Iran began on 28 February 2026, when joint US-Israeli strikes launched open hostilities. Iran responded immediately with missile attacks targeting US military bases and allied interests across Gulf states. Tehran has issued clear public warnings that any new strikes against its civilian and energy infrastructure by Washington and Tel Aviv will be met with retaliatory attacks on Gulf state infrastructure, and will draw the conflict beyond the borders of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman have been among the most vocal regional actors pushing to prevent further escalation, as the ongoing Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz — one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints — has already severely cut into oil and liquefied natural gas exports from these nations. Independent assessments of Washington’s initial February offensive widely judge it to have failed in its core strategic goal: despite the killing of long-time Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the attack did not succeed in toppling the Iranian government. Khamenei’s son and successor, Mojtaba Khamenei, has led Iran through weeks of sustained bombardment, with the regime maintaining control of the country and retaining its large arsenal of ballistic missiles. The Israeli government, which views Iran as its most dangerous regional rival, has continued to lobby Trump aggressively to restart offensive operations, even as internal US intelligence and military assessments flag severe risks to American service members and the global economy. Citing reporting from the *New York Times*, US Pentagon officials have highlighted two major obstacles that threaten the success of any new US offensive: growing shortages of critical military munitions, and major improvements in the sophistication of Iranian air defense tactics that have made US airstrikes far less effective than initial planning anticipated.

  • Israeli minister says Turkey should be treated as ‘enemy state’

    Israeli minister says Turkey should be treated as ‘enemy state’

    Tensions between Israel and Turkey have surged to new heights in recent weeks, following Israel’s interception of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla that departed from Turkish waters, and a provocative statement from a top Israeli cabinet member calling for Ankara to be formally recognized as an enemy state.

    Israeli Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar made the remarks in an interview with local outlet Srugim on Monday, tying his comments directly to the Global Sumud Flotilla, a humanitarian mission that set sail from the Turkish port of Marmaris earlier this week to deliver aid to blockaded Gaza. Israeli military forces launched raids to intercept the flotilla shortly after it departed.

    “We must begin to treat Turkey as an enemy state,” Zohar stated in the interview. He doubled down on the aggressive rhetoric, warning that if Turkey elects to pursue military conflict with Israel, it will face catastrophic consequences. “If Turkey chooses the path of war with us, it will undoubtedly pay a very heavy price. Israel knows how to defend itself and how to harm those who harm it,” the minister added.

    Zohar also repeated an unsubstantiated claim that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has publicly stated his intention to build a military force to conquer Israel. While Erdogan has emerged as one of the most vocal international critics of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, he has never made any such public declaration of intent to wage war against the country. Drawing a comparison to Iran, long framed as Israel’s top regional adversary, Zohar argued that Turkey would face an even worse outcome than Iran if it pursues confrontation. “There were Iranians who thought the same thing, and look where they are now. If the Turks think the same thing, they will be in a much worse situation,” he said.

    Zohar’s comments came immediately after Israeli forces intercepted multiple flotilla vessels in international waters following their departure from Turkey. Initial Israeli media reports claimed the flotilla was split into European and Turkish-flagged groups, and that the Israeli military intended to separate vessels by nationality to target Turkish craft. However, mission organizers quickly rejected these claims as deliberate misinformation, noting that none of the vessels in the Global Sumud Flotilla fly the Turkish flag.

    “The Israeli military is fabricating an outright lie to isolate specific vessels and invoke past incidents – specifically the 2010 lethal assault on the Mavi Marmara, with which GSF has no affiliation,” organizers said in a statement.

    The interception of the aid mission has drawn widespread international condemnation, with Turkey’s foreign ministry issuing a sharp rebuke of Israeli actions. “Israel’s attacks and intimidation policies will in no way prevent the international community’s pursuit of justice and solidarity with the Palestinian people,” the ministry said in an official release.

    This latest exchange is part of a steady escalation of tensions between the two regional powers that has been building for months. Israeli politicians from both the ruling coalition and opposition have increasingly framed Turkey as a growing threat, matching the rhetoric long directed at Iran. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, now a leading opposition lawmaker, labeled Turkey “the next Iran” during a Washington conference in February.

    Regional analysts have echoed this framing, noting that growing friction over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and competing regional influence in Syria has positioned Turkey to replace Iran as Israel’s primary regional rival. Writing in Israeli newspaper Maariv last month, columnist Boaz Golani argued that Iran will eventually be forced out of its role as Israel’s “great enemy”, and that either Turkey or Pakistan is poised to take its place. The escalating rhetoric from senior Israeli officials has reinforced this shifting regional dynamic, raising fears of further confrontation between the two countries in the coming months.

  • The deadly plane attack at the centre of Castro’s indictment

    The deadly plane attack at the centre of Castro’s indictment

    More than three decades after a fatal incident that reshaped decades of Cuba-United States relations, US authorities have unveiled criminal charges against former Cuban leader Raúl Castro, centering on the 1996 downing of two civilian aircraft off Florida’s coast that killed all four people on board. The attack, carried out by Cuban military fighter jets, triggered one of the most severe crises between the two nations, a rift whose impacts continue to ripple through bilateral ties to the present day.

    The two small Cessna planes targeted in the strike belonged to Brothers to the Rescue, an organization founded by Cuban exiles based in Miami, Florida. The February 24, 1996, incident left all four passengers — three US citizens and one Cuban national — dead instantly when the jets opened fire over the waterway separating Cuba and the US. At the time of the attack, Raúl Castro served as Cuba’s Minister of the Armed Forces, placing him at the center of international condemnation that followed the strike. The incident immediately derailed tentative diplomatic outreach between Havana and the Bill Clinton administration, and prompted the US to ramp up economic sanctions against the government led by Raúl’s older brother, Fidel Castro. Though Raúl Castro formally stepped down from the Cuban presidency and Communist Party leadership in 2021, the 94-year-old still retains significant behind-the-scenes influence on the island, making the timing of the indictment particularly sensitive amid Cuba’s current ongoing crises.

    To understand the roots of the 1996 incident, context of Cuba’s 1990s economic collapse is critical. After the Soviet Union, Cuba’s primary economic and political backer, dissolved in 1991, the island entered a devastating period of crisis marked by widespread food shortages, rolling blackouts, and acute fuel scarcity. This hardship drove thousands of Cubans to attempt risky sea crossings to Florida to reunite with family members already settled in the US. “Suddenly, everyone started looking for anything that floated to try to reach Florida,” Cuban historian and former diplomat Juan Antonio Blanco told BBC Mundo of the period — a crisis many observers draw direct parallels to between Cuba’s current economic and energy turmoil.

    It was in this context that Brothers to the Rescue was formed in Miami, led by now 85-year-old Cuban exile José Basulto. The group’s original mission was to conduct flights over the Florida Straits to locate makeshift vessels carrying Cuban migrants, share their coordinates with the US Coast Guard for rescue, and drop emergency supplies of food and water to those adrift. Over time, however, the group expanded its activities beyond search and rescue, according to Cuban political scientist Carlos Alzugaray, who spoke to BBC Mundo from Havana. “They stopped doing what they said they wanted to do, which was helping to rescue rafters, and started entering Cuban airspace and dropping leaflets over Havana,” Alzugaray explained. The Cuban government quickly labeled Brothers to the Rescue members as terrorists, repeatedly condemning the air incursions and arguing the group posed a clear threat to national security.

    Basulto, who has personally led multiple incursion missions, rejects the terrorism label entirely. He argues the Cuban government’s anger stemmed not from any security threat, but from the content of the leaflets: they carried text from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document banned in Cuba at the time. On the day of the fateful 1996 mission, three Brothers to the Rescue planes took off from Florida for what was intended to be a routine patrol over the straits. Over a six-minute window, Cuban fighter jets intercepted and shot down two of the small aircraft. Basulto, piloting the third plane that escaped the attack, recalled the chaos of the moment: “I looked to the right and saw the smoke in the distance from one of the planes being shot down. I immediately looked at Sylvia Iriondo [a volunteer on the mission] and said to her, ‘we’re next.’” Basulto said his aircraft was the primary target, as he was the group’s founder and leader.

    The Cuban projectiles nearly completely destroyed the two downed civilian craft, leaving little physical evidence behind. Basulto maintains both planes were in international waters north of Havana when they were attacked — a claim corroborated by both the International Civil Aviation Organization and the Organization of American States, which formally accused Cuba of violating international law in the strike. The Cuban government has never backed away from its position that the downing occurred within its sovereign airspace.

    Blanco, who was serving as a Cuban diplomat in Havana at the time of the incident, has described the strike as a pre-planned ambush orchestrated by Fidel Castro. He claims Fidel Castro had advance intelligence of the mission’s schedule, flight paths, and personnel, thanks to a mole embedded within Brothers to the Rescue. In Blanco’s account, Fidel Castro held ultimate political responsibility for the operation, while Raúl Castro, as armed forces minister, oversaw its execution. A leaked recording, published on Brothers to the Rescue’s website in 2006, allegedly captures Raúl Castro walking Cuban journalists through details of the operation he commanded; while exiled Cuban officials and independent experts have confirmed the recording’s authenticity, BBC Mundo has not independently verified the tape.

    Scholars and observers continue to debate the full motivations behind the Cuban government’s decision to shoot down the planes. The official Cuban position frames the strike as a legitimate response to repeated violations of its sovereign airspace by a group it labels a hostile security threat. But many outside analysts argue the decision was rooted in major political calculations. Blanco, who participated in backchannel diplomatic communications between Havana and Washington in the 1990s, argues Fidel Castro orchestrated the attack to derail tentative talks on normalizing bilateral relations that were taking place in the months before the strike, as the Clinton administration explored a potential diplomatic breakthrough ahead of Clinton’s expected second term. Blanco argues Fidel Castro feared that any normalization of ties with Washington would spark pressure for political and economic reform that would undermine his authoritarian grip on power. “Shooting down the planes made it impossible for Clinton to enter into any kind of rapprochement afterwards,” he explained.

    In the wake of the attack, the incident triggered the most serious Cuba-US crisis since the end of the Cold War, and set the trajectory of bilateral relations for decades into the 21st century. Clinton condemned the attack “in the strongest terms,” and the United Nations Security Council issued a formal condemnation of the use of lethal force against civilian aircraft in flight. The US responded by significantly expanding economic sanctions on Cuba, a move Havana decried as unprecedented economic and diplomatic aggression. Domestically, the incident also led to a sharp intensification of repressive policies on the island, according to Blanco, who described it as a return to harsh, Stalinist-era governance. Havana has consistently refused to pay compensation to the families of the victims, who ultimately received a $93 million settlement from the US government drawn from frozen Cuban regime assets.

    Today, more than 30 years after the downing, the case retains enormous symbolic and political weight, both within Cuba and across the large Cuban exile community in the US. The unsealing of the indictment against Raúl Castro comes as Cuba faces a new wave of overlapping economic and energy crises, spurred by harsh sanctions imposed during the Donald Trump administration and the recent loss of critical support from Venezuela following the ouster of former leader Nicolás Maduro in January, making the new legal action an especially fraced development for the island’s government.

  • Irish foreign minister slams treatment of detainees by Israel

    Irish foreign minister slams treatment of detainees by Israel

    A major international diplomatic row has erupted following Israel’s interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla, a mission carrying symbolic aid to blockaded Gaza that ended with dozens of activists detained, including more than a dozen Irish citizens. The crisis intensified after Israel’s far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir shared a video of himself confronting the bound detainees, triggering condemnation from world leaders and even rare public criticism from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    The video, posted to Ben-Gvir’s social media account, shows activists kneeling on the ground with their hands tied behind their backs. The Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF) confirmed that Irish citizen Catriona Graham, one of the detainees, can be heard shouting “free Palestine” at the opening of the footage. Ben-Gvir is seen waving an Israeli flag while taunting the captured activists, a gesture that has drawn widespread global rebuke.

    In an unusual break from his normally coalition-aligned position, Netanyahu publicly criticized Ben-Gvir’s conduct, saying the minister’s actions were “not in line with Israel’s values.” The prime minister added that he has ordered relevant government bodies to speed up deportation proceedings for all detained activists, framing them as “provocateurs.”

    Irish officials have led international calls for the immediate release of all detainees. Foreign Affairs Minister Helen McEntee confirmed that Ireland’s ambassador to Israel has already secured formal demands for guarantees that all Irish citizens in detention will have access to consular support and their welfare protected. “I have also demanded their immediate release,” McEntee said. Taoiseach Micheál Martin, Ireland’s prime minister, went further, saying he was “appalled at the shocking behaviour” of Ben-Gvir, adding that the Israeli government’s actions in intercepting the flotilla and detaining activists amount to a breach of international law. Martin announced he plans to raise the incident at the European Union level to coordinate a broader bloc response.

    Among the 12 detained Irish citizens is Dr. Margaret Connolly, sister of Irish President Catherine Connolly. In total, 430 participants from more than 40 countries joined the GSF mission, which departed Turkey last Thursday with over 50 boats. The flotilla carried only a token amount of humanitarian aid, with its core goal being to draw global attention to the catastrophic living conditions facing Palestinian civilians in war-ravaged Gaza, which has been under heavy Israeli military bombardment and blockade since the October 7 2023 Hamas attacks. Israeli officials have dismissed the mission as a “PR stunt at the service of Hamas.”

    The fallout from the incident has spread far beyond Israel and Ireland, with multiple world leaders condemning the treatment of detainees. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni called the activists’ treatment “intolerable,” noting that multiple Italian citizens are among the detained, and said the actions violate basic human dignity. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot expressed France’s “indignation” at Ben-Gvir’s conduct and demanded a formal explanation from Israeli authorities. Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand described the video footage as “deeply troubling.”

    Domestic criticism of Ben-Gvir has also emerged in Israel. Former Israeli minister Alan Shatter, who currently sits on the board of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations, called for Ben-Gvir to be “unceremoniously dismissed from Israel’s cabinet and ministerial office.” Israeli legal rights group Adalah confirmed Wednesday that all activists were being held at Ashdod port after being brought into Israeli territory “entirely against their will.” The group announced its legal team would file challenges to the detentions in court and push for the immediate release of all flotilla participants. A GSF spokesperson has also joined international calls demanding the immediate release of all detained crew members.

  • Bolivia says protesters trying to ‘disrupt democratic order’

    Bolivia says protesters trying to ‘disrupt democratic order’

    Bolivia is currently grappling with a deepening political crisis, as weeks of mass anti-government demonstrations have pushed the new center-right administration of President Rodrigo Paz into a defensive standoff with opposition groups and even neighboring nations. In an official address to the Organization of American States (OAS) on Wednesday, Bolivian Foreign Minister Fernando Aramayo issued a sharp rebuke of protesters demanding Paz’s resignation, claiming their coordinated actions — including widespread roadblocks and mass marches — are a deliberate attempt to destabilize the country’s democratic institutions.

    The unrest, which has stretched on for weeks, has drawn participation from thousands of farmers, unionized laborers, miners, and public school teachers across the Andean nation. Protesters have coalesced around a list of grievances: galloping inflation that has eroded household purchasing power, persistent fuel shortages that have crippled daily life, and widespread opposition to what they frame as Paz’s pro-business free-market policy agenda, a sharp departure from the 20 years of socialist rule that preceded his administration.

    Paz, who took office less than six months ago after winning a national election, campaigned on a pledge to pull Bolivia out of its worst economic crisis in four decades. In a controversial policy move aimed at shoring up the country’s plummeting dollar reserves, he eliminated long-standing, generous government fuel subsidies. To date, however, the reform has failed to deliver on its core promise of stabilizing fuel supplies — a key campaign issue that has become the most visible flashpoint of public anger.

    Tensions boiled over on Monday in the capital city of La Paz, where riot police clashed with thousands of demonstrators attempting to march on government buildings to demand the president step down. Running battles between officers and protesters stretched on for hours. While a fragile calm has returned to La Paz in the days since, the broader national situation remains deeply tense and unstable.

    The current crisis also carries the lingering shadow of former socialist president Evo Morales, the Indigenous coca farmer who launched Bolivia’s decades-long left-wing shift in the mid-2000s. Paz’s administration has directly accused Morales of fomenting a coup to overthrow the new government. Morales, 66, who served three terms in office before attempting an unsuccessful political comeback last year, currently lives as a fugitive in his coca-growing stronghold of Chapare, where he has hidden since late 2024. He is wanted by Bolivian authorities on charges of having a sexual relationship with a minor during his time in office, which he has denied. Morales has publicly expressed solidarity with the ongoing protests, and his supporters fear authorities are preparing imminently to move to arrest him.

    International tensions have also flared alongside the domestic unrest. The United States has thrown its full weight behind Paz, who is part of a growing wave of newly elected right-wing leaders across Latin America, and has echoed the Bolivian government’s claims that the demonstrations amount to an illegal coup. On Wednesday, the Bolivian government announced it would expel Colombia’s ambassador to the country, citing unacceptable interference in Bolivian internal affairs by Colombian left-wing President Gustavo Petro. Petro had previously taken to social media to frame the Bolivian protests as a “popular insurrection” against “geopolitical arrogance”, a remark that drew fierce condemnation from La Paz. In response to the expulsion, Petro slammed the move, arguing it was evidence of ideological extremism on the part of Paz’s government.

    Beyond the political sparring, the unrest has inflicted severe harm on ordinary Bolivians. Widespread roadblocks erected by demonstrators have severed supply chains across the country, disrupting the transport of fuel, food, and critical medicine, leading to acute shortages in urban and rural areas alike. “We have almost nothing left,” 43-year-old Sheyla Caya told AFP while waiting in a long queue to buy chicken in La Paz this week. “It’s impossible to even find an egg.”

  • Russian jets ‘dangerously’ intercept RAF spy plane over Black Sea

    Russian jets ‘dangerously’ intercept RAF spy plane over Black Sea

    In an incident that marks the most aggressive Russian aerial action against a British military aircraft since 2022, two Russian fighter jets carried out repeated, high-risk intercepts of an unarmed Royal Air Force (RAF) surveillance plane over the Black Sea last month, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) has confirmed.

    The close-proximity encounters forced the RAF RC-135W Rivet Joint aircraft into a dangerous situation: one Russian Su-35 fighter closed in so rapidly that it triggered the spy plane’s onboard emergency safety systems and forced its autopilot to disengage, leaving the crew to manually regain control of the aircraft. A second Russian jet, a Su-27, conducted six separate low-altitude passes directly in front of the RAF aircraft, coming within just six meters (19 feet) of the plane’s nose.

    UK Defence Secretary John Healey has publicly condemned the intercepts as “unacceptable”, while praising the RAF crew for what he called their “outstanding professionalism” in navigating the life-threatening encounter without incident. The MoD emphasized that this encounter represents the gravest escalation in Russian aerial aggression against NATO-aligned aircraft in the Black Sea region since September 2022, when a Russian pilot fired two air-to-air missiles at an RAF Rivet Joint operating in the same international airspace.

    Officials confirmed that the RAF spy plane was carrying out a routine, pre-planned international flight when the interception occurred, as part of NATO’s ongoing mission to reinforce security along the alliance’s eastern flank. Healey stressed that the reckless actions of the Russian pilots created a clear and unnecessary risk of catastrophic aerial accident, with the potential to rapidly escalate tensions between Russia and the NATO alliance.

    “This incident is another example of dangerous and unacceptable behaviour by Russian pilots, towards an unarmed aircraft operating in international airspace,” Healey said in a statement. “These actions create a serious risk of accidents and potential escalation. This incident will not deter the UK’s commitment to defend Nato, our allies and our interests from Russian aggression.”

    Both the MoD and the UK Foreign Office have formally contacted the Russian embassy in London to protest the encounter and demand condemnation of the pilots’ actions. The MoD noted that the intercept comes amid a broader pattern of growing Russian aggression near critical European infrastructure, pointing to recent increased Russian submarine activity around undersea British energy and communications cables in the North Sea.

    The 2022 missile incident, which Russia initially tried to blame on an accidental technical malfunction, has since been confirmed by three senior Western defence sources to have been a deliberate, if misordered, attack. The sources told the BBC that the Russian pilot launched the two missiles after receiving an unclear command from a Russian ground control station; the first missile missed the RAF aircraft, contradicting Moscow’s original claims of a system malfunction. At the time, the UK publicly accepted Russia’s explanation to avoid immediate escalation.

    The RAF’s RC-135W Rivet Joint, operated by the service’s No. 51 Squadron from its base in Lincolnshire, is a specialized signals intelligence platform. According to RAF official documentation, the aircraft is fitted with cutting-edge sensor technology designed to intercept and analyze electromagnetic signals across a wide spectrum, delivering real-time strategic and tactical intelligence to NATO and UK military command.

  • US military jets and drones tracked near Cuba as tensions continue

    US military jets and drones tracked near Cuba as tensions continue

    In a deliberate show of pressure targeting Cuba’s communist government, the United States military has openly broadcast the position of its surveillance aircraft operating near the island via public plane-tracking platforms, in a move that comes as bilateral tensions between the two nations surge to multi-year highs. Analysis of open flight data from Flightradar24 conducted by BBC Verify confirms that since May 11, at least five U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon surveillance planes and three MQ-4C Triton surveillance drones have conducted regular operations in Caribbean airspace close to Cuba, with some missions bringing the aircraft within just 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the island’s coastline.

    Military aircraft do not always broadcast their position during all stages of flight, meaning public flight tracking data cannot capture the full scope of U.S. surveillance activity off Cuba’s coast. This stepped-up deployment of intelligence-gathering assets follows a sharp escalation of tensions in recent months, after Washington imposed a de facto oil blockade on the Caribbean island nation. Recent reporting from news outlet Axios has further stoked friction, claiming Havana has obtained drones capable of striking the U.S. mainland. Cuba’s foreign minister has rejected the claim, stating the country “neither threatens nor desires war” and accusing Washington of constructing a “fraudulent case” to justify military intervention.

    In a direct address to the Cuban people delivered on Wednesday, the anniversary of Cuba’s independence from the United States, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio framed a “new relationship” for the Cuban public, blaming the island’s “unimaginable hardships” on its communist leadership rather than the U.S.-led fuel blockade. Security analysts say the intentional decision to keep flight transponders active — making the missions visible to the public — is a core part of the U.S. strategy. UK-based drone expert Dr. Steve Wright notes that the move is almost certainly deliberate, designed to send a clear signal that the U.S. maintains constant surveillance to sustain its pressure campaign.

    The ongoing oil blockade has already triggered a severe humanitarian and economic crisis on the island, with widespread fuel shortages sparking rolling national power blackouts and small-scale public protests. U.S. President Donald Trump has ramped up pressure on Havana further, calling on the Cuban government to “make a deal” and threatening that the U.S. could intervene in the country just as it did in Venezuela earlier this year, when it captured sitting President Nicolás Maduro.

    BBC Verify’s tracking of the flights details the pattern of surveillance operations: on May 11, one P-8A Poseidon reached the 50-mile mark off southern Cuba, continuing operations into the following day when it flew north of Havana before returning to its home base in Jacksonville, Florida. On May 15, two MQ-4C Triton drones carried out operations off southern Cuba, following a flight path nearly identical to one previously used by a P-8A Poseidon.

    Mark Cancian, a retired U.S. Marine Corps colonel and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told BBC Verify that the repeated, consistent flight routes are primarily intended to spot incoming fuel ships approaching Cuba from the south, with a secondary focus on vessels approaching from the north. He emphasized that none of the surveillance flights have entered Cuban airspace over land, so the operations do not represent preparation for a full-scale invasion. Cancian also added that the increased frequency of the missions is almost certainly not routine, as the U.S. military has a limited number of P-8A and MQ-4C assets available for deployment globally.

    To contextualize the current surge in activity, BBC Verify compared recent data to operations between February 1 and 7 of this year, when only one P-8A flew near Cuba, with no comparable MQ-4C Triton activity recorded off the island’s coast. A U.S. Air Force RC-135V Rivet Joint reconnaissance aircraft did carry out two passes near the island during that February period, but operations were far less frequent than they have been since mid-May.

    Wright echoed the broader assessment that the surveillance is targeted at preventing Venezuela — a key ally of Cuba — from breaking the blockade and shipping fuel to the island. Analysts from defense intelligence firm Janes reached the same conclusion, noting that there has been a general uptick in U.S. intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sorties near Cuba since February. “The fact that these flights are visible through open-source tracking tools suggests they are intended to deter attempts to break the oil blockade and apply pressure on the Cuban government,” Janes told BBC Verify.

  • Barney Frank: One of the first openly gay US congressmen dies aged 86

    Barney Frank: One of the first openly gay US congressmen dies aged 86

    Veteran American politician Barney Frank, a transformative figure who reshaped both national financial policy and LGBTQ+ representation in Congress, has passed away at the age of 86. Multiple U.S. media outlets confirmed the former Democratic congressman died peacefully Tuesday night, months after entering hospice care at his Maine residence in April.

    Over his 32-year tenure representing southern Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives (1981–2013), Frank built a legacy defined by two landmark contributions: advancing civil rights for marginalized communities and leading post-2008 financial regulatory overhaul. As one of the first openly gay members of Congress and the first to enter a same-sex marriage while in office, he broke long-standing barriers for LGBTQ+ representation in American politics.

    Frank’s most consequential policy work came in response to the 2008 Great Recession, triggered by the subprime mortgage collapse. He co-authored the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act alongside former Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd. Signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010, the legislation created new independent regulatory bodies, tightened oversight of large financial institutions, and implemented sweeping protections for consumers – the most comprehensive update to U.S. banking rules since the Great Depression. In 2018, the Donald Trump administration rolled back a portion of Dodd-Frank’s restrictions, a change Time Magazine labeled the decade’s “biggest rollback of bank rules.”

    On civil rights, Frank was a vocal critic of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which banned openly gay and lesbian service members from serving, and lobbied aggressively for its repeal. He also led a years-long push for federal legislation to outlaw workplace discrimination against LGBTQ+ workers, a goal that was not achieved during his time in office. In a 2011 interview with The Boston Globe ahead of his retirement, Frank summed up his approach to combating prejudice: “Prejudice is based on ignorance, and the best way to counterbalance it is with a living example, with reality.”

    Close associates remembered Frank as a principled leader committed to public service. “He was, above all else, a wonderful brother. I was lucky to be his sister,” Frank’s sister Doris Breay told NBC Boston. Jim Segel, Frank’s former campaign manager, confirmed the former congressman had accepted his declining health and was at peace in his final months. “He certainly left a mark, and he was a leader on civil rights, on gay rights, on leading other marginalized communities, and then he helped the country get through the 2008 financial crisis, which was the most significant recession, almost since 1930,” Segel told Axios.

    In the weeks before his death, while receiving hospice care, Frank spoke with multiple national media outlets to reflect on his decades of public service, assess the current political climate, and share his thoughts on the future of the American left. Even amid frustration with contemporary politics, he retained a measured hopefulness: “I’m filled with disgust at the current state, but optimism that it’s going to get better,” he told CNN’s Jake Tapper earlier this month.

  • UK eases sanctions on Russian jet fuel and diesel imports

    UK eases sanctions on Russian jet fuel and diesel imports

    In a politically charged move that has drawn sharp criticism from domestic opponents and global allies alike, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s newly elected Labour government has moved to ease sanctions on imports of Russian-derived jet fuel and diesel, framing the policy as a necessary buffer to shield British consumers from skyrocketing energy costs amplified by ongoing Middle East conflict.

    The newly approved indefinite trade licence, which permits imports of Russian crude oil processed through refineries in third countries like India, is set to undergo periodic reviews, according to the UK’s Department of Business and Trade. Alongside this, the government issued a temporary licence that relaxes existing sanctions on liquefied natural gas originating from specific Russian production facilities. This adjustment comes as the government prepares to fully implement a previously announced ban on Russian crude-derived imports, first unveiled in October 2024.

    Starmer defended the adjustment during a press briefing Wednesday, stressing that the targeted changes do not represent a rollback of existing sanctions against Moscow. “This is not a question of lifting existing sanctions in any way whatsoever, and we will continue to work with our allies on further sanction packages,” he stated, adding that the two short-term licences are designed to phase in the full ban gradually while avoiding sudden price shocks for UK households and businesses.

    The decision has immediately ignited fierce domestic political pushback. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch condemned the move, accusing Starmer of “choosing to buy dirty Russian oil” and arguing that revenue from these fuel sales will directly fund Moscow’s military offensive against Ukraine, where thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since the 2022 full-scale invasion.

    The controversy also extends to the international stage. The policy aligns with a similar decision from the United States, which last Monday extended a sanctions waiver for Russian oil cargoes already in transit for a second time. That waiver was put in place after escalating Middle East tensions — driven by the conflict between Israel and Iran that has disrupted global energy supplies — pushed crude prices to multi-year highs. However, the EU has openly criticized the US waiver extension, with EU economics commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis noting at a recent G7 finance ministers meeting that the current moment is not the time to reduce economic pressure on Russia. The UK was a participant in that meeting, where the policy drew international scrutiny.

    UK officials have offered conflicting framing of the change in recent days. Treasury minister Dan Tomlinson defended the adjustment to Sky News, framing it as a step to protect core UK national interest amid the current global energy crisis. “The government has announced this time-limited change to the rules around oil and refining given the extremes of the impacts of the conflict in Iran, and the impact of it washing up on our shores,” he said. That framing was later echoed by trade minister Chris Bryant, who apologized to Members of Parliament for the government’s “clumsy” rollout of the new policy, and committed to keeping the approved licences as “temporary as possible.”

    The current energy market volatility traces back to Iran’s decision to effectively close the Strait of Hormuz — a critical chokepoint that carries roughly 20% of the world’s daily oil supplies — in retaliation for US-Israeli strikes launched in February. While commercial traffic has slowly resumed in the waterway during a recent ceasefire, market uncertainty has kept prices elevated. As of Wednesday, Brent North Sea crude, the global benchmark for oil prices, was trading close to $110 per barrel, a level far above pre-Middle East conflict averages.

    The UK first imposed a sweeping sanctions regime against Russia shortly after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Those measures included restrictions on Russian oil and energy exports, alongside sanctions targeting more than 3,000 Russian individuals and business entities. Wednesday’s policy adjustment has reopened fierce debate over how Western nations balance energy security for domestic consumers with the goal of maintaining collective pressure on Russia over its war in Ukraine.