Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Australia charges man with trying to pass Ukraine military intel to Russia

    Australia charges man with trying to pass Ukraine military intel to Russia

    In a high-stakes national security operation that underscores growing concerns over foreign interference on Australian soil, federal law enforcement and intelligence officials have brought charges against a 27-year-old dual Russian-Australian citizen accused of plotting to pass sensitive Ukrainian military data to Russian intelligence agencies. The charges were officially filed on Friday, marking the eighth recent case of espionage or foreign interference-related prosecution in the country, and triggering a joint ongoing probe by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), Australia’s domestic spy agency.

    According to official allegations laid out by AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett at a public press briefing, the accused followed a pre-planned trajectory that began with military-style training on Russian territory in October 2024. After completing the training, he returned to Australia, where he allegedly maintained regular communication with individuals he believed to be connected to Moscow’s intelligence network. In 2025, the man traveled to Ukraine and successfully enlisted in the Ukrainian armed forces, a move that granted him unauthorised access to sensitive details including Ukrainian military personnel rosters, unit deployments, and operational locations, Barrett said.

    Investigators allege that once in possession of the classified information, the man made active attempts to transmit the data back to his alleged contacts working on behalf of Russian intelligence. Barrett emphasized that the alleged operation posed a direct, tangible threat to the safety and security of frontline Ukrainian service members, saying, “It is alleged this conduct created a risk to the safety and security of Ukrainian military personnel.” She added that Australian law enforcement has zero tolerance for covert foreign activity within the country’s borders, noting, “We don’t want Australia to become a safe haven for people who are undertaking foreign interference on behalf of other countries.”

    Officials confirmed that the accused, who has not been publicly identified and is reported to be unemployed, received no military training within Australia. Law enforcement teams have already executed multiple search warrants as part of the investigation, and Barrett left open the possibility of additional arrests in connection with the case. The accused is scheduled to make his first court appearance at a Brisbane court on the same day charges were filed.

    ASIO Deputy Director-General Claire McGuinness issued a sharp warning to foreign governments that engage in covert interference operations, stating, “This case should put regimes perpetrating foreign interference on notice: we have zero tolerance.”

    When contacted by Agence France-Presse (AFP) for comment, Russia’s embassy in Canberra said it had only learned of the case through public media reports. The embassy confirmed that as of Friday, no official notification or request for assistance had been received from Australian law enforcement, nor from the accused himself. “We are currently using the available channels and resources to establish the circumstances of the case,” the embassy said in a written statement.

    The case comes amid longstanding warnings from Australian security officials about aggressive Russian espionage activity targeting the country. Last year, ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess publicly identified Russia as one of the most aggressive espionage threats to Australian national security. In 2024, Australian federal police charged a married Russian-born couple with espionage on behalf of Moscow, accusing the pair of accessing classified national security material held by the Australian military. Kira Korolev, 40, and her 62-year-old husband Igor, who both hold Russian passports and had lived in Australia for more than a decade before their arrest, had obtained Australian citizenship prior to the charges being laid. Under Australian law, the offence of intentional foreign interference carries a maximum penalty of 20 years behind bars.

  • Train to nowhere? South Korea’s lonely push for peace with the North

    Train to nowhere? South Korea’s lonely push for peace with the North

    Nestled in the border town of Cheorwon, just steps from the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that has split the Korean Peninsula for nearly 70 years, the weathered platforms of Woljeong-ri Station carry a quiet, unfulfilled hope. Once a key stop on a cross-peninsula rail line connecting Seoul to the North Korean port of Wonsan, the original structure was reduced to rubble during the 1950–1953 Korean War. Rebuilt at its current site in 1988, the abandoned terminal has been reborn in recent years as a powerful symbol of the South Korean government’s ongoing push for reconciliation with Pyongyang – yet its half-finished connection to the national rail network mirrors the stalled state of inter-Korean diplomacy today.

    The Lee Jae Myung administration, which took office last year on a dovish platform of open dialogue with the North, has prioritized reviving cross-border infrastructure projects like the Woljeong-ri rail link. The long-term goal is clear: reconnecting severed transportation networks across the DMZ as a foundation for eventual political and economic integration. Lee has even offered unconditional talks with Pyongyang, including negotiations to formally end the Korean War, which has technically remained in a state of armistice for seven decades. Earlier this year, Seoul adjusted its policy approach, shifting from a strict focus on full North Korean denuclearization to prioritizing curbing further expansion of Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal – a compromise designed to open the door for dialogue. But the overture has fallen on deaf ears in the North Korean capital.

    Recent diplomatic shifts have left South Korea increasingly sidelined in regional negotiations over the Korean Peninsula, leaving the Woljeong-ri project as one of the only tangible steps Seoul can take unilaterally to advance its peace agenda. The latest turbulence began when U.S. President Donald Trump abruptly scaled back annual joint military drills with South Korea, labeling the exercises “inappropriate and hostile” to the nuclear-armed North. Trump also publicly criticized Seoul for failing to back his administration’s campaign against Iran, while announcing plans to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for a new round of talks this year – a move widely interpreted as a push for a high-profile foreign policy win ahead of U.S. midterm elections, when voter discontent over Middle East intervention has weighed on incumbent support.

    Pyongyang quickly responded to the shifting geopolitical landscape with a show of force: it test-fired roughly 10 short-range ballistic missiles just days after Trump’s announcement, while Kim Jong Un’s powerful sister ridiculed South Korea for what she called a “master-servant” unequal relationship with Washington. North Korean leadership has repeatedly cemented its position as an “irreversible” nuclear power, and in recent years has reclassified Seoul as its “most hostile” enemy, emboldened by sustained military and diplomatic support from traditional backers China and Russia (the latter of which has gained Pyongyang’s backing for its full-scale invasion of Ukraine).

    For South Korea, the new dynamic has left the government in a precarious position. Lee has publicly voiced respect for Trump’s diplomatic gambit and pledged to do “his utmost” to support U.S. peacemaking efforts, leaving Seoul with little room to advance its own outreach. “South Korea is reasonably afraid that it gets sidelined – China, Russia and now America are all engaged with Pyongyang in different ways, while Seoul is not,” explained Vladimir Tikhonov, a Korean Studies professor at the University of Oslo, in an interview with Agence France-Presse. “So, Seoul is desperate to get some opening with North Korea. But it can do very little, so far.”

    The troubled history of the Woljeong-ri project underscores just how vulnerable inter-Korean reconciliation efforts are to shifting geopolitical tides. Initial construction work on reconnecting the station to the southern rail network began in 2015, but was halted just 12 months later after North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test. Today, the planned section of track between Woljeong-ri and the southern Baengmagoji Station sits overgrown, with dense vegetation creeping across the rails and swallowing a nearby stone wall. A hand-painted sign at the site still reads: “The iron horse wants to run,” alongside the English phrase “We want to be back on track.”

    Many local residents and experts remain deeply skeptical that the project will ever lead to meaningful cross-border connection, even as the government frames it as a proactive preparation for future reconciliation. “It seems like they keep trying to reconcile with North Korea through the railway project, but from our point of view, it isn’t really practical,” said 70-year-old Cheorwon resident Moon Jae-yong. Kyungnam University professor Lim Eul-chul notes that building out South Korean infrastructure now could cut down on construction timelines if inter-Korean ties ever improve, but acknowledges the current reality: “But realistically, it is virtually impossible under the current circumstances, and everyone knows that. With few options on North Korea, Seoul has turned to projects it can pursue unilaterally.”

    Beyond its symbolic value, the project also aims to boost local tourism in a border region that has long faced economic stagnation and persistent security risks. During the administration of Lee’s hawkish predecessor Yoon Suk Yeol, Pyongyang launched repeated provocations along the border, sending trash-filled balloons across the divide and broadcasting unsettling, disruptive noises into South Korean border towns. “It was like scraping cement, or even ghost-like noises. It was really frightening,” recalled 70-year-old local resident Kim Sun-hee.

    A rusted, bombed-out locomotive left over from the Korean War still sits on display near Woljeong-ri Station, a permanent reminder of the peninsula’s violent division. For visitors like Ahn Seung-hyun, the half-finished dream of the rail project is a devastating reminder of what the two Koreas have lost: it is “heartbreaking to see,” he said. For now, Woljeong-ri Station remains a quiet monument to South Korea’s lonely, unfulfilled push for peace on the Korean Peninsula.

  • ‘Reasonable’ or a ‘hit list’? New Yorkers react to rollout of Mamdani’s tax on second homes

    ‘Reasonable’ or a ‘hit list’? New Yorkers react to rollout of Mamdani’s tax on second homes

    For millions of working and middle-class New Yorkers, achieving homeownership in one of the world’s most expensive urban centers already feels like an unattainable fantasy. Yet for a small, wealthy subset of residents and out-of-state elites, the city is not just a place for one primary residence – it is a location for a second luxury pied-à-terre. To address the city’s crippling housing affordability crisis and fund critical social programs, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has introduced a groundbreaking annual tax on high-value second homes, but the policy’s botched rollout has sparked fierce public backlash and legal challenges.

    Under the new policy, the tax applies to second homes valued at more than $5 million, as well as condos and co-ops worth over $1 million. As part of the rollout, the city published a public list of nearly one million properties that could be subject to the new levy, releasing the names and addresses of high-profile homeowners including hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin (owner of a $239 million Manhattan penthouse), filmmaker Woody Allen, former Vogue editor Anna Wintour, and actress Cynthia Nixon. Ultimately, the city issued formal tax notices to just 17,000 property owners, but the public disclosure of the broader list became the central flashpoint at a heated City Council oversight hearing held this week to examine concerns over the policy’s implementation.

    While some council members, including Gale Brewer, have voiced support for the core idea of a second home tax, they have acknowledged significant procedural flaws in how the policy was rolled out. Critics on the council have gone much further: Council member Kamillah Hanks slammed the public list as an unfair “hit list of the haves and the have-nots” that stigmatizes property ownership and creates unacceptable public safety risks, arguing that the disclosure frames legitimate homeownership as something to be ashamed of.

    The New York City Department of Finance has defended the release of the information, noting that address and ownership data is already required by law to be made public annually. But critics across the real estate sector and homeowner groups warn the aggregated list creates a dangerous tool for scammers and bad actors, putting wealthy homeowners at heightened risk of fraud, harassment, and even targeted crime. Jason Haber, leader of the American Real Estate Association, notes that the confusion and backlash around the tax has already led some prospective high-end property buyers to pause purchases in the city, a trend he argues could eventually offset the $500 million in annual projected revenue the tax is expected to generate. A group of homeowners has already filed a lawsuit demanding the city remove the nearly one million-name list from public view.

    Supporters of the policy, however, dismiss the backlash as overblown, framing the tax as a long-overdue measure to address New York’s staggering socioeconomic inequality. Dave Backer, a school finance professor, argued that wealthy opponents of the tax are protesting far more than the policy warrants. Beverly Solo, a 44-year New York resident who attended the hearing wearing a “Tax The Rich” shirt, noted that the revenue generated by the levy will fund critical public services that benefit all city residents. “It seems reasonable and fair to ask those who don’t pay full-time income taxes here, but have luxury homes here for pleasure, to contribute to the wellbeing of New York City,” she said, though she conceded the rollout of the policy had been “a mess.”

    Mayor Mamdani has stood firmly behind the policy, framing it as a fair mechanism to generate $500 million in annual revenue that will fund his campaign promises of universal child care, improved and free bus service, and other social programs targeted at New Yorkers struggling with housing and cost of living. Crucially, the policy has won the backing of New York Governor Kathy Hochul, who previously held reservations about raising taxes on state residents. Still, the rollout has faced repeated setbacks: Mamdani’s administration declined to attend this week’s oversight hearing, a decision that angered attendees. A spokesperson for the mayor explained the administration had requested to delay the hearing amid ongoing litigation over the policy, and that city officials are barred from testifying on a matter currently before the courts.

    Similar secondary property and empty home taxes have been implemented across the globe, with mixed results. In Paris, France, secondary properties face a 60% local tax surcharge that has generated billions of euros in public revenue. Vancouver, Canada introduced a 3% empty homes tax in 2017 to improve housing affordability; research found the tax raised nearly $194 million over eight years and reduced housing vacancies by 21%, but had little impact on lowering average rental costs. In 2022, San Francisco voters approved an empty homes tax, but the policy was found unconstitutional by a court following a lawsuit from real estate groups, and remains tied up in appeals.

    Even some prominent supporters of the New York policy acknowledge that the public disclosure of the property list was an unforced error. Morris Pearl, a former BlackRock managing director and chair of Patriotic Millionaires, a group of wealthy Americans who support higher taxes on the rich, noted that “the mayor himself … sort of unnecessarily antagonises people occasionally.” Still, Pearl says he stands firmly behind the policy itself, arguing that claims the tax will drive away wealthy investment are absurd: “Someone who owns a residence that is not their primary residence that’s worth more than $5m has the ability to pay more than most New Yorkers do.” As litigation moves forward, the future of both the controversial tax rollout and the policy itself remains undecided.

  • US, South Korean militaries wrapping up drills early, a day after North Korea’s missile barrage

    US, South Korean militaries wrapping up drills early, a day after North Korea’s missile barrage

    In a surprising conciliatory move aimed at paving the way for renewed diplomacy with North Korea, the United States and South Korea have wrapped up their annual Ulchi Freedom Shield military drills six days ahead of the original schedule this Friday. This scaled-down exercise was first ordered abruptly by former U.S. President Donald Trump just days before the drills kicked off this Monday, when he instructed the Pentagon to “substantially reduce” the scope and duration of the long-planned training.

    Trump cited two core justifications for the last-minute change: his self-described positive personal rapport with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and South Korea’s refusal to back U.S. policy amid heightened tensions over the war in Iran. However, the goodwill gesture failed to win over Pyongyang, with Kim Yo Jong — the powerful and influential sister of Kim Jong Un — rejecting the overture just two days before the early conclusion of the drills. In her public statement, Kim Yo Jong argued that merely trimming the length and size of the exercises does nothing to alter their fundamental “provocative, aggressive nature,” which North Korea has long framed as a rehearsal for an invasion of its territory.

    Following through on its pre-stated threat to respond to the drills, North Korea launched a volley of roughly 10 short-range ballistic missiles into the sea the day after Kim Yo Jong’s statement. The U.S. Pacific Command quickly assessed that the missile launches did not present an immediate threat to U.S. territory or its regional allies, while reaffirming Washington’s unwavering commitment to defending the American homeland and its partnership with South Korea.

    The rejection of the U.S. overture has dimmed prospects for an early resumption of nuclear diplomacy between Washington and Pyongyang, which collapsed in 2019 after earlier high-profile talks failed to deliver breakthroughs. Since the diplomatic stalemate began, Kim Jong Un has moved to strengthen his negotiating position by upgrading North Korea’s nuclear and missile arsenals, and deepening his alignment with Russia amid its ongoing war in Ukraine. Pyongyang has repeatedly made clear it will not return to talks until the U.S. abandons its demand that North Korea commit to denuclearization as a precondition for any diplomatic negotiations.

    Observers note that despite the hardline stance, Kim Yo Jong’s public remarks struck a relatively measured tone, avoiding the fiery, hostile rhetoric that often characterizes North Korean statements. She also referenced what she described as an “excellent” relationship between Kim Jong Un and Trump, a signal that Pyongyang has not completely closed the door to future dialogue. Analysts say the approach suggests North Korea is holding out for larger concessions from Washington, including international recognition as a legitimate nuclear weapons state and widespread relief from harsh international economic sanctions.

    North Korea’s deepening military and economic cooperation with Russia — where Pyongyang has supplied ammunition and troops to support Moscow’s war effort in exchange for much-needed economic and military assistance — has also strengthened Pyongyang’s hand. This closer alignment with Russia has further allowed North Korea to gain more leverage with China, its largest trading partner, opening the door to additional support from Beijing.

    “After this strategic play has run its course, Kim may seek further economic and reputational benefits from Washington,” explained Leif-Eric Easley, a professor of international studies at Ewha University in Seoul. Easley added that such a move would likely come after the U.S. midterm elections, when then-President Trump was expected to face a weaker domestic political position and be more inclined to pursue high-profile foreign policy wins to boost his standing.

    Kim Dong-yub, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, offered a different interpretation of Kim Yo Jong’s statement. He argued that her remarks made clear North Korea’s position that the personal rapport between Kim Jong Un and Trump cannot singlehandedly move the needle on the long-stalled bilateral relationship. Kim Dong-yub added that Kim Yo Jong likely sought to pre-empt speculation that Trump’s scaled-back drills could restart diplomacy, so North Korea would not bear full blame if the diplomatic process fails to materialize.

    In a notable contradiction, Kim Yo Jong also denied Trump’s earlier claim that Kim Jong Un had responded to his request for new talks. When reporters asked Trump earlier that week if he planned to meet Kim Jong Un before the end of the year, Trump had replied, “Yeah, I will be.”

    The Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises are one of the largest annual joint military training events between the U.S. and South Korea, designed to sharpen their collective defense capabilities against potential North Korean aggression. The decision to downsize the drills has already sparked concerns among defense analysts about a potential erosion of joint operational readiness between the two allies.

  • A question looms over Harry’s return to the UK. Can he rebuild his relationship with Prince William?

    A question looms over Harry’s return to the UK. Can he rebuild his relationship with Prince William?

    LONDON – Six years after stepping back from official royal roles and relocating to Montecito, California, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle are preparing to move back to the United Kingdom with their two young children, a surprise announcement that has thrown the House of Windsor into a new period of uncertainty and quiet hope.

    The couple has already enrolled 7-year-old Prince Archie and 5-year-old Princess Lilibet in British schools ahead of the upcoming autumn term, according to reports first published by the Telegraph and The Sun late Wednesday. Multiple British outlets have confirmed the pair will reside in a private, non-royal residence outside London and will not resume the official royal duties they abandoned in 2020.

    Their decision to return comes at a pivotal moment for the British monarchy: 77-year-old King Charles III, Harry’s father, continues ongoing cancer treatment after a diagnosis in early 2024. Harry has previously spoken publicly about his fear of losing his father, and has cited a desire for his two children to build a relationship with their grandfather and experience a British upbringing as core motivations for the move. Royal historian Ed Owens, author of *After Elizabeth: Can the Monarchy Save Itself?*, notes that shifting circumstances have cleared a tentative path for the couple’s return, starting with a successful private meeting between the King, Harry, Meghan, and their children at Charles’ Highgrove estate last month. Beyond family ties, Owens adds that growing political and social division in the United States has also made the UK a more appealing place to raise the couple’s children.

    But the return has sparked immediate questions and unresolved tensions that have defined Harry and Meghan’s relationship with the royal family for nearly five years. The most pressing challenge, many experts note, is whether Harry can repair his severely fractured relationship with his older brother Prince William, the heir to the British throne. The rift opened after Harry and Meghan stepped down from their roles, and widened dramatically following a series of explosive public interviews and Harry’s 2023 memoir *Spare*, in which he accused Buckingham Palace staff of mistreatment, alleged a senior royal had made racist comments about Meghan’s unborn child, and criticized the institution of the monarchy for its rigid restrictions. That public criticism decimated what was once a close brotherly bond, and there are widespread concerns within palace circles that the couple’s high-profile return could overshadow the official work of working royals including William and his wife Catherine, Princess of Wales.

    “That will be something for the palace to deal with,” explained Craig Prescott, a constitutional and monarchy expert at Royal Holloway, University of London, in an interview with the Associated Press. “They wouldn’t want Meghan and Harry’s presence in the U.K. here to overshadow the work of the monarchy, and there will have to be some discussion and allowance for that.”

    Unresolved practical issues also hang over the move, most notably security arrangements and ongoing legal battles. For years, Harry has fought a legal challenge against the British government, which stripped him of publicly funded armed police protection when he gave up his working royal role. After losing his court challenge in May 2025, Harry told the BBC he could not imagine bringing his family back to the UK under those conditions, a stance that makes his current announcement all the more surprising. When asked about security arrangements this week, Prime Minister Keir Starmer (note: corrected from original typo Andy Burnham) described the issue as a “private matter” for the couple. Harry also faces a potential £34.5 million ($47 million) legal bill after losing a high-profile privacy lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mail last month, in which he accused tabloid journalists of phone hacking and illegal privacy intrusion.

    While the challenges to reconciliation are significant, many royal observers expect King Charles to welcome Harry and Meghan’s return. As Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Owens notes that Charles is bound by Christian teachings to prioritize forgiveness, even after years of public criticism. For William, the road to reconciliation may be rockier: Owens argues that while William may never privately forgive what he sees as Harry’s public betrayal of the royal family, tradition and his future role as head of the Church of England will require a public show of reconciliation. For now, the coming weeks will mark a critical test for the monarchy: after years of public infighting that has shaken public confidence in the institution, the royal family faces a choice between mending long-standing rifts or descending back into the chaos of public division.

    “It may be that privately William never fully forgives his younger brother for what he deems the betrayal of the family,” Owens told the AP. “But publicly, he will, because for traditional moralists, traditional Christian values, they demand that there is this public act of forgiveness, that there’s reconciliation between the brothers.” Owens added that time may help ease tensions, saying “I think time is a great healer. It creates space in a social media-saturated world. People are always looking for the next thing to talk about, and, arguably, that will be reconciliation between first of all father and son, and then potentially the two brothers.”

  • Israeli opinion article says Turkey’s Nato protection does not apply to troops in Syria

    Israeli opinion article says Turkey’s Nato protection does not apply to troops in Syria

    Two days after Israeli warplanes carried out air strikes that destroyed sections of a decommissioned military air base in northern Syria, just kilometers from the Turkish border, a high-profile opinion piece published Thursday in Israel Hayom, a leading right-wing Israeli outlet, has thrown fuel on an already volatile regional standoff over expanding Turkish military presence in Syrian territory.

    The column, written by Shay Gal, founder of the government relations and strategy firm Line of State, argues that any Turkish combat troops that deploy inside Syria would become vulnerable targets for Israeli military strikes, because NATO’s collective defense guarantee does not extend to military forces operating outside a member nation’s sovereign borders. Gal notes that Israeli security analysts have thoroughly mapped the limits of NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause, which only protects the recognized home territory of alliance members. “The treaty protects Turkish territory; Turkish troops do not carry that territory with them onto Syrian or occupied Cypriot soil,” Gal wrote.

    Gal explained that Israel’s pre-emptive strike on the Abu al-Duhur air base was a deliberate calculation to act before Turkish forces could establish a permanent foothold. “Before Turkish troops arrive, the target is infrastructure; once they arrive, striking it also risks Turkish casualties, retaliation, American intervention and confrontation with a NATO member. Those costs alter the calculation, not Israel’s authority to decide,” he added. The opinion piece frames Turkey’s growing military engagement in post-Assad Syria as an existential threat to Israeli security, pointing to Ankara’s expanding influence across the country: Turkish military teams have already scouted potential base locations at T4, Palmyra, and Hama, all of which have been struck by Israeli warplanes after the inspections.

    Gal warned that Israel is determined to avoid a repeat of the decades-long Turkish military occupation of northern Cyprus, acting to nip any permanent deployment in the region before it can mature.

    The opinion piece carries outsized political weight because Israel Hayom is owned by Miriam Adelson, an Israeli-American billionaire who is one of the largest financial donors to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s political campaigns, and Trump has publicly acknowledged that Adelson holds significant influence over his administration’s Middle East policy. That connection adds a layer of geopolitical complexity to the already fraught dynamics, as the Trump administration has significantly deepened U.S. ties with Ankara in recent months.

    The Israeli government has openly identified the administration of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as a strategic foe that seeks to undermine Israeli national security, but the tightening U.S.-Turkey alignment under Trump has created a new diplomatic balancing act for Israeli leaders. In the wake of the strike, U.S. officials have openly criticized the Israeli action.

    Tom Barrack, who serves as both U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and U.S. envoy to Syria, confirmed this week that Turkey received no advance warning of the air strikes, despite a U.S.-brokered deconfliction hotline between Israel and Ankara that has been in place in Syria for a year. Barrack told Reuters that the incident exposed a critical breakdown in communication between all parties in the region. “This underscores the need for a deconfliction mechanism involving Israel, Syria and Turkey. That is something we are actively working on to establish in order to prevent future miscommunication,” he said.

    Barrack pushed back against Israeli justifications for the strike in a post on X Tuesday, arguing that the attack constituted unnecessary escalation against the new Syrian government led by Ahmed al-Sharaa. “The Al-Sharaa government has neither adopted a predatory posture nor maintained proxy forces. It has, in fact, repeatedly indicated a preference for de-escalation with Israel,” Barrack wrote. “We are deeply concerned. [This] does not advance regional stability.”

    Official accounts from both Damascus and Ankara contradict Israeli claims that the air base was set to imminently host a Turkish combat deployment. The Syrian government issued a formal condemnation of the attack, confirming that eight precision strikes hit the base’s runway in the early hours of Tuesday local time. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group, confirmed that a Turkish military delegation had visited the airfield in the days before the strike as part of plans to reactivate the facility.

    However, Syrian officials told Middle East Eye that only a Turkish technical team was present at the base to carry out repairs to the runway and control tower, with no full combat deployment in place. “The last team tasked with reconstructing the base was there two days beforehand,” one senior Syrian official said. Officials emphasized that Turkey is assisting the new Syrian government in rebuilding national military capacity across the country, with no aggressive plans targeting Israel. “Turkey doesn’t take over every base,” the official added, noting that Ankara has actually closed dozens of small outposts in northern Syria and only maintains a handful of established permanent bases in the region.

    Israeli officials defended the strike in a statement released late Tuesday, saying that the operation was necessary to uphold the long-standing security status quo between Israel and Syria, which Damascus was set to violate by allowing Turkish troops to deploy at the base near Aleppo. Since former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fled to Russia in December 2024, Israel has launched a sustained campaign of air and ground operations across northern and western Syria, focused primarily on degrading the remaining Syrian air force infrastructure and expanding Israeli control into the UN-managed buffer zone along the shared border.

  • William and Harry: Britain’s warring royal brothers

    William and Harry: Britain’s warring royal brothers

    For decades, Princes William and Harry have been bound by shared grief and public scrutiny, but decades after the tragic death of their mother, Princess Diana, their once-close brotherly bond has fractured into an open rift that has left the British royal family and the world watching closely. Now, as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, prepares to travel back to the United Kingdom in the coming weeks alongside his wife Meghan Markle and their two young children, all attention is turning to whether the estranged siblings can finally begin to repair their broken relationship.

    The story of William and Harry’s falling out traces back to their shared childhood trauma. When Diana died in a 1997 car crash, the two boys – then 15 and 12 years old – walked behind her coffin through silent London streets, capturing the heart of a nation that mourned alongside them. Before her death, Diana had made her two beloved sons promise to always stand by each other. But almost 30 years after her passing, the brothers are no longer on speaking terms. Their last public appearance together came in September 2022, when they gathered for the funeral of their grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II.

    From early childhood, the pair was defined by their roles: William, the 44-year-old heir to the British throne, was framed as steady and charming, while 41-year-old Harry was cast as the charming, roguish spare – a label Harry would later center in his explosive 2023 autobiography. For years, their relationship remained warm: when William met Catherine Middleton at university, Harry famously welcomed her as the sister he had always wanted, and the three were often seen together in public. But the dynamic shifted dramatically when Harry introduced Meghan Markle, a divorced American former actress three years his senior, to William in 2016. According to Harry’s account in *Spare*, William’s reaction was cold, with the elder prince advising Harry against rushing into a relationship with Meghan.

    After Harry and Meghan’s 2018 wedding, the two royal couples were initially branded the “Fab Four” by the press, but tensions quickly bubbled to the surface. Harry accused William of failing to support Meghan as she adjusted to life within the rigid structures of the royal family, while tabloid outlets stoked rivalry by pitting Catherine, the beloved, refined Princess of Wales, against Meghan, framed as an unpredictable outsider. By late 2019, the rift was too big to hide: Harry acknowledged publicly in a television interview that he and his brother had gone down “different paths.” In early 2020, Harry and Meghan stepped back from their senior royal roles, eventually relocating to Montecito, California, where Harry remains in self-imposed exile.

    The gulf between the brothers only widened after two high-profile public revelations from the Sussexes. First, in a 2021 explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey, the couple leveled a series of damaging accusations against the royal family, including claims of institutional racism, and Harry claimed William only chose Catherine because she fit the narrow mold of a royal wife. Then, in 2023, Harry’s autobiography *Spare* went even further, alleging that William had physically attacked him during an argument over Meghan, and describing William as both his “beloved brother” and his “arch-nemesis.” Harry wrote that he had always been cast as the backup: “I was the shadow, the support. I was brought into the world in case something happened to Willy.”

    Even the February 2024 announcement that King Charles III – William and Harry’s father – had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment failed to bring the brothers back together. In a emotional February 2025 BBC interview, a visibly distressed Harry opened up about the rift, admitting that some members of his family will never forgive him for publishing his memoir. “Of course some members of my family will never forgive me for writing a book,” he told the outlet. Still, he added, “I would love for reconciliation.” Harry also shared that he misses the UK, and confirmed that he and Meghan had a private meeting with Charles and Queen Camilla in July, which marked the first time their children – 7-year-old Archie and 5-year-old Lilibet – had seen their grandfather since 2022. But even that private family meeting did not bridge the gap between the two brothers, and the distance between William in the UK and Harry in California has only deepened the rift.

    Now, with Harry’s upcoming visit, royal experts have differing views on the likelihood of reconciliation. Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told AFP he believes William will be deeply unhappy about Harry’s return, and is firmly opposed to any mending of ties. “I think William would be adamantly opposed to this. Because there is a very deep rift,” Fitzwilliams said. “He feels Harry has betrayed him. He’s made that clear.”

    But royal historian Ed Owens argues that reconciliation is in the best interest of both Charles and William, especially as William prepares to one day take the throne. When William becomes king and head of the Church of England, forgiving his brother will be a core Christian duty, Owens noted. “I expect it will take some time,” Owens said. But he added that William would ultimately choose to reconcile, which would allow him to project an image of benevolence and magnanimity to the public.

    As the world waits for Harry’s arrival, the question remains: will the brothers finally keep the promise they made to their mother nearly 30 years ago, or will their deep-seated anger and hurt keep them apart forever?

  • US vows to ‘collapse’ Iran with new sanctions as energy prices spike

    US vows to ‘collapse’ Iran with new sanctions as energy prices spike

    On Thursday, United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced plans to roll out what he calls the most sweeping economic sanctions ever imposed on Iran, doubling down on Washington’s campaign of maximum economic pressure against the Islamic Republic even as the ongoing conflict in the region fuels mounting global economic fallout.

    Speaking in an interview with CNBC, Bessent framed the US pressure campaign as a coordinated one-two combination of a naval blockade and unprecedented punitive measures. “It is a one-two punch. We have the blockade [on Iran], and we are going to have the toughest sanctions in history,” he said. The Treasury chief added that the new restrictions would achieve Washington’s core goal, stating bluntly: “It is going to work in Iran, and we are going to collapse this regime.” Full details of the new sanctions package are set to be released publicly this coming Monday, according to Bessent.

    Bessent’s hawkish comments came just 24 hours after former President Donald Trump, who currently leads the administration, framed the latest escalation as an “economic D-Day” for Iran. Trump issued a stark warning to third-party nations, stating that ANY country that permits its financial institutions, commercial enterprises, airports, or government agencies to provide any form of economic support to Iran will itself face severe economic retaliation.

    The administration’s latest threats come amid a key strategic shift: Washington has so far failed to establish full military control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint, and a brief ceasefire between US and Iranian forces has effectively collapsed entirely. The escalating tensions have already triggered renewed volatility in global energy markets, creating a major policy headache for the Trump administration as it works to bring down elevated borrowing costs amid persistent domestic inflation.

    On Thursday alone, Brent Crude, the global benchmark for oil prices, climbed 2% to trade at $93.41 per barrel. Beyond energy pricing, the conflict has severely disrupted global maritime shipping, sending tanker charter rates soaring over the past month. BWET, an exchange-traded fund that tracks global shipping rate movements, has surged by 98% in just 30 days as shipping companies pass on elevated risk and security costs to customers.

    When pressed to explain the sudden jump in oil prices, Bessent offered little clarity, telling reporters: “We have asymmetric information, and I’m not sure why oil has popped up on this.”

    Tensions in key waterways remain high: Iranian forces have continued to target commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, while the Houthi movement in Yemen, a key Iranian ally, has enforced a maritime blockade of Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea. For Saudi Arabia, which depends on Red Sea shipping for a large share of its oil exports, the blockade has forced the kingdom to reroute crude shipments via a pipeline through Egypt to Mediterranean export terminals.

    This is not the first round of harsh US sanctions on Iran: Washington already has extensive punitive measures in place that have severely weakened Iran’s economy. The two sides reached a temporary ceasefire extension in June that included a waiver allowing Iran to sell oil without facing new sanctions, but those restrictions were reimposed just one month later in July.

    Oil exports by sea represent Iran’s single largest source of foreign revenue, and Trump has repeatedly claimed that the existing US-led naval blockade is “extremely effective” at cutting off that revenue. China stands as Iran’s most critical economic partner, purchasing more than 80% of Iran’s seaborne crude oil exports. Middle East policy analysts widely note that for the US to fully cut Iran off from global markets, Washington would have to impose secondary sanctions on Chinese entities that continue to purchase Iranian oil.

    When asked whether the administration planned to target China with secondary sanctions, Bessent struck a confident tone, arguing that Beijing shares Washington’s interest in de-escalation. “We are confident that everyone wants the Strait reopened, and for energy prices to come back down,” he said. He went on to frame compliance with US policy as beneficial for China, adding: “Keep in mind that the Chinese get 50 percent [of their] energy from inside the Gulf. So it would do them a big service to get with the programme.”

    The United Arab Emirates, a key Gulf ally of the United States that has long served as a major financial hub for Iranian trade, announced this week that it would suspend all commercial and financial transactions with Iran. The policy shift came shortly after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a high-level phone call with UAE National Security Advisor Tahnoon bin Zayed al-Nahyan this week.

  • US sanctions more Cuban companies and officials

    US sanctions more Cuban companies and officials

    Escalating long-running tensions between Washington and Havana, the Trump administration has rolled out a fresh package of economic sanctions targeting a slate of Cuban state entities, government agencies and senior institutional leaders, senior U.S. official Marco Rubio announced this week.

    The latest tranche of penalties includes nine state-owned enterprises operating in the mining, metallurgy and construction sectors, Cuba’s national Ministry of Construction, and leading figures tied to the Havana-based Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP), a century-old institution founded by former Cuban leader Fidel Castro in 1960.

    In an official statement accompanying the announcement, Rubio accused the sanctioned individuals and entities of participating in deliberate subversive anti-U.S. activity. He claimed the grouping arranged the arrival of a new brigade of international sympathizers to Havana to coordinate with Cuban government officials, timed deliberately to align with the centennial celebration of Fidel Castro’s birth.

    Rubio further argued that the targeted actors form a core part of what he called the Cuban regime’s core mission to spread Marxist ideology, racial division and communist political violence across the globe. “Today’s designations make clear that the Trump Administration will not tolerate the Cuban regime’s efforts to fund its internal repression or continue its decades-long campaign of subversive anti-American activities,” he said.

    Founded to build intentional ties between Cuba and like-minded political and social organizations worldwide, the ICAP regularly hosts international activist delegations, who in turn organize pro-Cuban government advocacy in their home countries. But Rubio leveled serious allegations against the institute, claiming it engages in deliberate deceptive activity, corrupts U.S. citizens through misinformation, deploys espionage tradecraft, and engages in widespread malfeasance.

    Fernando Gonzalez Llort, the current president of ICAP, is among the high-profile figures targeted in the latest sanctions. Llort is a former member of the so-called “Cuban 5” spy ring, and was released from U.S. custody as part of a prisoner exchange during the Obama administration’s brief diplomatic thaw with Havana.

    This latest round of penalties adds to a sprawling existing sanctions regime that already targets top Cuban leaders across the energy, finance, and national defense sectors. Cuba’s critical tourism industry, long the single largest source of revenue for the island’s struggling government, has already collapsed to historic lows under accumulated U.S. restrictions.

    Cuban authorities have issued a sharp condemnation of the new sanctions. Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez took to social media platform X to denounce the measure, arguing that it is designed to deliberately punish legitimate Cuban businesses and inflict additional damage on the country’s already fragile economy. Rodríguez added that the new penalties will further hinder the Cuban government’s ability to deliver essential public services to its population, a sector already teetering on collapse after decades of U.S. economic blockade.

    Since the start of 2026, the U.S. has enforced a near-total oil blockade on the island. Cuba’s aging national electricity grid is almost entirely dependent on imported fuel to operate, and the blockade has forced public hospitals across the country to switch to emergency backup generators to maintain critical care. Widespread, extended power outages have already sparked rare public protests in recent months, where public dissent against the government is typically met with lengthy prison sentences.

  • ‘Loss of confidence’: Catholic Schools NSW CEO Dallas McInerney sacked amid ICAC probe

    ‘Loss of confidence’: Catholic Schools NSW CEO Dallas McInerney sacked amid ICAC probe

    In a swift development following high-stakes testimony before New South Wales’ top anti-corruption body, the chief executive of the state’s peak Catholic schools authority has been removed from his post over allegations tied to illegal electoral funding and Liberal Party branch stacking. Dallas McInerney, who led Catholic Schools NSW (CSNSW) — the organization representing 594 schools and 274,000 students across the state — was formally terminated by the CSNSW board just days after giving evidence to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

    The ongoing ICAC investigation centers on claims that McInerney violated state electoral funding laws by funneling financial resources through CSNSW to a quiet, conservative-leaning faction within the NSW Liberal Party. The faction, known as the Reformers, has been accused of engaging in branch stacking — a practice of packing local party branches with aligned members to shift internal power dynamics — specifically to amplify conservative and Christian voices within the party. The inquiry has also heard that multiple individuals linked to the Reformers faction, including one associate not formally named in the probe, carried out factional political work while on the CSNSW payroll.

    McInerney first stepped back from his leadership role earlier this year when his name was first linked to the corruption investigation. During his recent testimony, he stated publicly that he intended to cooperate fully with ICAC’s inquiry and sought to clear himself of all allegations of wrongdoing.

    The CSNSW board announced its decision in an official statement this week, confirming that it had unanimously voted to terminate McInerney’s employment after concluding it had lost confidence in his ability to lead the organization moving forward. To maintain operational stability, the board confirmed interim chief executive Peter Yates will remain in the acting role until a permanent replacement can be recruited and appointed.

    Notably, counsel assisting the ICAC inquiry, Peggy Dwyer SC, made clear in her opening remarks that there is no suggestion the CSNSW board or the broader organization bears responsibility for the actions under investigation, nor that board members had any prior knowledge of McInerney’s alleged conduct. Even so, the CSNSW statement emphasized that the allegations at the center of the inquiry remain a source of deep concern for the organization and its key stakeholders. In response to the probe, the board has committed to conducting a full, independent external review of CSNSW’s operational governance and procedures to address any gaps that may have allowed the alleged conduct to occur.