Global Pulse

标签： Asia

亚洲

  • Doctor charged with ‘spreading false news’ in Egypt after highlighting obstetric violence in hospitals

    Doctor charged with ‘spreading false news’ in Egypt after highlighting obstetric violence in hospitals

    In a case that has ignited widespread public debate over systemic mistreatment of women in Egyptian healthcare, Egyptian physician Omnia Swedan has been granted release on bail, just two days after her arrest over a viral social media post detailing alleged obstetric violence at a prominent public university hospital.

    Swedan, a former medical trainee, was taken into custody on Tuesday from her home in Damanhour, following a formal complaint filed by Alexandria University Hospitals against her. Her arrest came one day after she published a candid, first-hand testimony on her personal Facebook page recounting four deeply disturbing incidents of abuse she witnessed during her two-month placement in the obstetrics and gynaecology ward of El Shatby Hospital, part of the Alexandria University network, in 2020. She described the working environment she encountered as “hell.”

    Before her arrest, Swedan edited her initial post to clarify that her goal was not to spread misinformation, but to draw urgent attention to poor working conditions and harmful clinical practices in the ward, and to advocate for the safety of all female patients. The unreported incidents she outlined run the full gamut of what the global medical community defines as obstetric violence—encompassing physical, verbal and psychological abuse, dehumanizing treatment, and neglect of patients during pregnancy, labor, delivery and postpartum care.

    Among the four accounts Swedan shared was an alleged sexual assault against a 19-year-old first-time mother in labor. In another high-profile case, a rape survivor accompanied by a police officer arrived at the hospital seeking a medical examination, contraception and HIV prophylaxis, but was turned away solely because of her clothing and the fact that she smoked cigarettes. A third woman in active labor was reportedly slapped by a physician for crying out in pain, while nursing staff shamed her with cruel, hostile comments. The fourth incident involved a six-month pregnant woman who arrived at the hospital with a visible bruise around her eye (signaling domestic assault) and her umbilical cord protruding from her body. Hospital staff refused to treat her or file a mandatory domestic violence report unless she produced a marriage certificate—putting her at severe risk of life-threatening complications including pregnancy-related sepsis and pre-eclampsia. Swedan ultimately chose to admit the woman under her own personal liability to get her the care she needed.

    News of Swedan’s arrest sparked immediate outrage across Egyptian social media, triggering a national reckoning with obstetric violence as hundreds of women and healthcare workers stepped forward to share their own parallel experiences at both public and private hospitals across the country. Many of these accounts corroborated Swedan’s original allegations, with reports ranging from financially motivated unnecessary caesarean sections and sexual harassment to physical abuse and the controversial “husband stitch” — an unconsented extra suture performed during episiotomy repair, widely criticized as unnecessary and harmful.

    Multiple Egyptian human rights organizations quickly condemned Swedan’s arrest, including the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), which called for her immediate unconditional release. Lobna Darwish, head of EIPR’s gender and women’s rights program, told reporters that the abusive practices Swedan exposed are not isolated to El Shatby Hospital, but a widespread systemic issue. She criticized the Egyptian state’s tendency to frame matters of urgent public concern as security threats, rather than addressing the root problems they reveal.

    In an official statement released amid growing public pressure, Alexandria University pushed back against the criticism, asserting that patient dignity, safety, and adherence to professional medical ethics are non-negotiable core principles for all of its facilities. The institution noted that all patients hold the right to file formal complaints, and that it would launch full investigations into any properly documented reports with verifiable evidence, taking appropriate legal and disciplinary action where needed.

    Following her bail release Wednesday evening after a hearing before the Alexandria Public Prosecution’s eastern branch, the case remains open as authorities continue their investigation into charges of spreading false news and improper use of social media against Swedan. While the physician has been granted temporary release, the conversation she started about systemic obstetric violence continues to gain traction across Egypt, with activists and survivors pushing for long-overdue healthcare reforms to protect women from mistreatment.

  • India’s rapidly expanding cash transfers need to be cheaper and smarter

    India’s rapidly expanding cash transfers need to be cheaper and smarter

    As the world’s fastest-growing major economy, India has increasingly turned to direct cash transfer programs to shield its most vulnerable populations from extreme poverty. Over the past 10 years, these targeted cash handouts — initially focused on women and farmers — have evolved into a central pillar of the country’s anti-poverty strategy, with allocation growth outpacing spending on longstanding flagship welfare schemes.

    New data compiled by Indian policy research groups illustrates just how dramatic this expansion has been. According to ProjectDEEP, an organization focused on advancing evidence-based cash policy across India, combined federal and state funding for cash transfer initiatives has surged more than 20-fold since 2015, climbing from less than $2 billion to nearly $30 billion today. These outlays now account for just under 1% of India’s total GDP and more than 10% of all national social sector spending, a larger share than traditional food security and employment guarantee programs.

    The reach of these programs has also expanded sharply in just five years. Crisil Intelligence data shows that as of 2026, 17 of India’s 28 states plus the federal territory of Delhi now offer regular monthly cash transfers to eligible residents. That is up from only four states back in 2019. While critics often dismiss the schemes as politically motivated vote-grabbing or wasteful spending, analysts say they have emerged as an effective tool to address two of India’s most persistent economic challenges: sluggish household consumption and long-term structural unemployment.

    Monthly transfer amounts vary by state, ranging from 1,000 rupees (roughly $10.5) to 2,500 rupees per beneficiary. A 2026 Crisil report found that the median 1,500-rupee monthly transfer covers 74% of regular monthly spending for the bottom 20% of rural households, and 51% for low-income urban households, creating a much-needed new buffer for household consumption at a time of widespread economic volatility. This safety net has proven particularly valuable amid persistent inflation driven by high global energy prices and disruptions to agricultural output from the El Niño weather pattern, the report added.

    In recent years, the scope of these programs has expanded beyond women and farmers to target another vulnerable group: unemployed youth. Nearly 10 state governments, including Bihar — India’s poorest state — have launched new cash transfer schemes for jobless young people seeking work, with almost all of these programs launched within the past three years. “Unemployment is a particularly big question in India, with the rise of AI and climate shocks making income streams more uncertain. These schemes are typically designed to create bridge income,” explained Pankhuri Shah, co-founder of ProjectDEEP, in an interview.

    For all their short-term benefits in stabilizing household finances, the rapid growth of cash transfers has sparked growing concerns about unsustainable fiscal costs for state governments. India’s annual Economic Survey, a pre-budget policy document published by the federal government, has identified these expanding programs as a key driver of growing fiscal stress across states, noting that half of all states running cash transfer programs currently operate with a revenue deficit. Crisil data shows that gross state market borrowing jumped 15.2% year-over-year in fiscal 2026 — a faster rate of increase than borrowing by the federal government — and 12 states offering cash transfers recorded double-digit growth in borrowing. A 2025 analysis by Axis Research found that most cash transfer programs are funded either by cutting spending in other areas or by expanding state deficits, meaning rising outlays for cash transfers are coming at the direct cost of reduced investment in other priority areas. The Economic Survey warns that this trend leaves increasingly limited room for productive capital spending that generates long-term income growth, and calls for regular independent reassessments of all active programs.

    Shah agrees that structural gaps in program design remain a major unaddressed issue. Most current cash transfer schemes have no set end date, and their primary impact is short-term consumption stabilization rather than helping low-income households permanently exit poverty. “Impact assessment is virtually non-existent and that leads to big gaps in design,” Shah said. For example, if a program’s stated goal is to support elderly consumption but only provides 200 rupees per month, the benefit is too small to deliver meaningful impact and needs to be revised. Shah also noted that policymakers need to evaluate when cash transfers can replace inefficient in-kind subsidies, such as livestock, maternal care kits, or energy and agricultural equipment subsidies. Streamlining benefits this way could cut administrative costs and eliminate overlapping payments to the same beneficiary, making the entire system more financially sustainable. There is already proven precedent for this approach: when India converted its LPG cooking gas subsidy from in-kind distribution to direct cash transfers, the policy saved the country between $7 billion and $8 billion, according to ProjectDEEP analysis.

    Pilot programs run by research organizations like ProjectDEEP are already testing alternative design models that could boost the long-term impact of cash transfers. In 2022, Shah and her team launched an experiment in drought-prone Krishanpur, Maharashtra, giving a one-time lump-sum transfer of 65,000 rupees to 50 low-income households, rather than spreading payments out in small monthly installments. Over three years, the program expanded to six additional villages, with more than $500,000 in private corporate funding deposited directly into the bank accounts of 3,500 low-income families across India. The results have been promising: nearly 90% of participating households used the lump-sum funds to invest in long-term livelihood improvements, pay down high-interest debt, and build permanent income-generating assets. For example, Shobha, a rural woman from Maharashtra’s Shelkui village, used her transfer to buy a small flour grinder. The investment cut down on time and travel costs she previously spent getting grain milled in a nearby town, while also creating a new steady source of additional income for her family. Unlike monthly transfers that only cover daily consumption needs, the lump sum acted as seed capital to kick off a cycle of self-sustaining investment. Comparative research from Kenya has found similar results, with lump-sum transfers delivering a higher rate of return per dollar spent than incremental monthly payments.

    Shah argues that as cash transfers become politically entrenched and their fiscal costs continue to rise, Indian policymakers need to adopt more creative design models that prioritize investment in long-term self-sufficiency rather than just short-term consumption support. However, scaling this model nationwide poses significant practical challenges. “A lump sum is irreversible, so targeting must be near-perfect. A large amount concentrates the risk of capture and misuse. Also, the cost must be borne by the government within a single budget year,” explained Dr. Vidya Mahambare, an economics professor at the Great Lakes Institute of Management in Chennai. Mahambare added that at its core, the Indian government cannot rely on cash transfers to solve the country’s biggest economic challenges. “Cash can cushion consumption, but it cannot substitute for employment. And once families become dependent on transfers, they are very difficult to withdraw,” she said. For the many Indian states that have already locked themselves into expansive, costly welfare promises, this balancing act between short-term support and long-term fiscal and economic sustainability remains one of the most pressing policy challenges they face.

  • Exclusive: ICC member states to vote on Karim Khan probe in New York on 24 July

    Exclusive: ICC member states to vote on Karim Khan probe in New York on 24 July

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) is set to face a pivotal moment on July 24, when 123 member states will gather in New York City for a historic special vote that will decide the future of sitting chief prosecutor Karim Khan, multiple diplomatic sources have confirmed exclusively to Middle East Eye. The vote stems from misconduct allegations that have roiled the global court, and will mark the final step in a process that has already sparked deep controversy over institutional process and political interference.

    The path to this special session began in May 2024, when unpublicized allegations of sexual misconduct against Khan first emerged. Khan has repeatedly and forcefully denied all wrongdoing connected to the claims. When the original complainant declined to cooperate with the ICC’s internal investigative mechanisms, the court’s governing body, the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), commissioned an independent probe led by the United Nations. Over the course of more than a year, UN investigators collected and vetted evidence, with their findings then passed to a panel of independent judges appointed by the ASP Bureau — the 15-member executive steering committee of the ICC’s member states.

    Working to the strict legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the judicial panel delivered a unanimous ruling in March 2025, following three months of review of the 150-page UN investigative report and its 5,000 pages of supporting evidence. In a conclusion viewed by Middle East Eye, the panel confirmed that the evidence presented “do not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the relevant framework.”

    In a move that has alarmed legal observers, however, the ASP Bureau simply set aside the judicial panel’s independent finding when it met on June 8. By a qualified majority vote, the Bureau moved to suspend Khan from his post, and in a confidential decision obtained by MEE, a two-thirds majority of voting Bureau members went a step further, formally recommending a finding of “serious misconduct” against the prosecutor. That recommendation cleared the way for the full ASP to hold a final vote on the matter, scheduled for the New York special session this month.

    Under the ICC’s existing governing rules, the 125-member ASP is the sole body with authority to issue a final binding determination on the misconduct allegations and rule on whether to remove Khan from office permanently. When member states convene, they will first vote on whether to uphold the Bureau’s recommendation, with three possible outcomes on the table: a finding of serious misconduct, a finding of less serious misconduct, or a ruling that no misconduct occurred. Any finding of misconduct will require approval from a two-thirds majority of member states present and casting a vote.

    If a majority endorses a finding of serious misconduct, the ASP will move to a second, separate vote on whether to remove Khan from his position permanently. To remove the prosecutor, the motion will need the support of an absolute majority of all 125 ICC member states — a minimum threshold of 63 votes.

    The entire process has thrown the ICC into a state of unprecedented institutional uncertainty, with unregulated media leaks about the allegations compounding instability around Khan’s leadership. Legal experts have raised sharp alarms about the Bureau’s decision to disregard the independent judicial panel’s finding, warning that the move risks turning a disciplinary process into a politicized exercise that undermines the court’s credibility.

    Critics have also drawn attention to the timing of the allegations, which have unfolded alongside a sustained diplomatic campaign by the United States and its allies to block Khan’s ongoing investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israeli officials in Gaza, where the UN and multiple human rights groups have documented widespread civilian death and humanitarian catastrophe.

    Khan, a British barrister who was elected as the ICC’s third chief prosecutor in February 2021, has made pursuing high-profile cases against sitting and former heads of state a central priority of his tenure. His office has secured arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin over the illegal invasion of Ukraine, for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over actions in Gaza, for junta leaders in Myanmar accused of genocide against the Rohingya people, and for senior Taliban officials over targeted attacks on Afghan civilians.

    Khan’s aggressive pursuit of these high-stakes cases has already triggered retaliation from major non-member states. In 2025, the Trump administration reimposed and expanded harsh economic sanctions on Khan, later extending the measures to target two deputy prosecutors, eight sitting ICC judges, the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, and multiple Palestinian non-governmental organizations that provided evidence to the court’s Gaza investigation. Russian courts have also issued an arrest warrant for Khan in absentia in retaliation for the Putin warrant. The ICC holds jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of its member states, even when the accused are nationals of non-member countries like the United States, Russia, and Israel.

  • World Cup: New Zealand’s viral soccer star Tim Payne signs with Olimpia in Paraguay

    World Cup: New Zealand’s viral soccer star Tim Payne signs with Olimpia in Paraguay

    WELLINGTON, New Zealand — In a career turn that traces back to an unexpected viral spotlight during the 2022 FIFA World Cup, New Zealand men’s soccer defender Tim Payne has formally confirmed he will continue his professional career at one of South America’s most storied clubs, Paraguay’s Club Olimpia, on a one-year contract.

    Payne’s rapid rise from relative obscurity to global social media fame began when Argentine soccer influencer Valen Scarsini, known publicly by his handle El Scarso, highlighted him during the World Cup as the tournament participant with the smallest personal social media following. At the time, the defender had only 4,700 followers on his Instagram account. Within days of the influencer’s video going viral, that number skyrocketed to 5.8 million, turning Payne into an overnight name among soccer fans worldwide.

    This sudden surge in global profile caught the attention of professional clubs across multiple South American nations and North America, with sides from Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Mexico all registering formal interest in securing Payne’s signature. On Friday, Payne verified an earlier report from the Associated Press confirming his deal with the Paraguayan giants, closing out a seven-year tenure with Australia’s A-League side Wellington Phoenix, where he made 149 first-team appearances.

    Reflecting on his departure from the only professional club he had called home for nearly a decade, Payne called the choice to move a difficult one. “To the fans, my teammates, and all those who have supported me throughout my career, through the highs and the lows, thank you,” he said in a statement Friday. “Without you I would not be here representing my country at the World Cup — the very pinnacle of the sport.”

    For Payne, the move to Club Olimpia represents a long-sought chance to test his abilities against elite competition outside of Oceania and Australia. “I’ve always pushed myself to be the best footballer I can be,” he explained. “To test myself at the very top of South American football, competing in the Copa Libertadores and the Copa Sudamericana, is one of the most incredible opportunities I could have asked for as a professional.”

    Club Olimpia is no stranger to continental success, most recently claiming its 48th Paraguayan Primera Apertura title, cementing its status as one of the most decorated clubs in South American soccer. Payne highlighted the club’s legacy as a core reason he jumped at the opportunity. “Club Olimpia is one of the biggest clubs in South America, with an incredible history, passionate supporters and ambitions that match its stature,” Payne said. “I am looking forward to rising to that challenge.”

  • Trump presents the Medal of Honor to 3 veterans for heroism in Vietnam and Afghanistan

    Trump presents the Medal of Honor to 3 veterans for heroism in Vietnam and Afghanistan

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a solemn and moving White House ceremony Thursday, former President Donald Trump presented the Medal of Honor, the U.S. military’s highest decoration for valor, to three veterans whose extraordinary acts of bravery saved countless lives and turned the tide of enemy advances during conflicts in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

    Two of the honorees, retired Marine Corps Maj. James Capers Jr. and Army Maj. Nicholas Dockery, accepted the award in person, while the third, retired Marine Corps Col. John W. Ripley, received the honor posthumously more than 15 years after his 2008 passing. Opening the ceremony, Trump paid tribute to the three men, saying, “These are great men, great people. We thank you and we will never, ever forget you.”

    At 88 years old, Capers was recognized for his selfless leadership during a fatal 1967 Vietnam ambush. What began as a routine reconnaissance mission targeting a suspected North Vietnamese Army base camp quickly devolved into days of brutal close-quarters combat in the thick, unforgiving Vietnamese jungle. On the fourth day of the operation, Capers’ small team was surrounded and outnumbered by enemy fighters, and a hidden land mine blast left the major with a broken leg and severe abdominal wounds. Despite his life-threatening injuries, Capers insisted on retaining command after receiving a dose of morphine, Trump recounted. “He took over like nobody’s ever seen before,” the former president said.

    Capers immediately called in targeted air support to repel the attacking force, and when a rescue helicopter arrived to evacuate the unit, he insisted all wounded Marines be loaded onto the aircraft before he boarded himself. A heartfelt, unscripted moment unfolded during the medal presentation: after pinning the Medal of Honor around Capers’ neck, Trump adjusted the decoration to sit straight against the veteran’s chest, pulling him forward in a gesture of respect. The 88-year-old, who had held a composed expression up to that point, broke into a warm smile when Trump grinned back at him.

    The second posthumous honor went to Ripley, celebrated for a one-man mission that halted a massive North Vietnamese advance in 1972. When more than 30,000 enemy troops and 200 tanks advanced toward a critical strategic bridge in the village of Dong Ha, Ripley took on the high-risk task of destroying the crossing single-handedly. Over five grueling hours, he repeatedly climbed across the bridge’s exposed steel beams while under constant enemy fire, placing a total of 500 pounds of explosives in key positions. “John completed not one, not two, but five such trips,” Trump noted, calling Ripley a “very strong guy.” After placing the final charge, Ripley said a prayer before triggering the detonation, sending the entire bridge collapsing into the river below and stopping the enemy advance in its tracks. Ripley’s three sons and other extended family members attended the ceremony to accept the medal on his behalf.

    The final living recipient, Dockery, was honored for his extraordinary courage during a 2012 Taliban ambush in Afghanistan’s Kapisa Province, where his platoon was tasked with guarding a local compound. Outnumbered by an estimated 150 attacking insurgents, Dockery immediately sprinted across open, enemy-exposed ground to rally his scattered troops, then set out to locate missing service members. After carrying one wounded soldier out of active gunfire, he spotted two enemy fighters moving to kill a second wounded American troops trapped in an alley. Dockery eliminated the two insurgents before administering CPR to the wounded soldier, restoring his breathing, according to his official citation.

    After calling in mortar support to target enemy positions, Dockery used his own body to shield the wounded soldier from incoming blast shrapnel. After hours of intense urban combat, Dockery deployed smoke grenades to mark enemy positions for U.S. attack gunships, and he refused to leave the battle site until every last wounded service member had been evacuated to safety. “You were the last man to depart the battlefield that day,” Trump told Dockery. “and you left it a legend and a hero.”

  • Israeli drones hit Lebanon soon after Trump, Iran sign peace deal

    Israeli drones hit Lebanon soon after Trump, Iran sign peace deal

    On Thursday, just hours after the United States and Iran signed a landmark memorandum of understanding to guide negotiations ending a regional war launched in late February, the Israeli military launched two targeted drone strikes across southern Lebanon, leaving one person dead and three others injured, according to local official media.

    Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency confirmed the details of the attacks: the first strike hit the town of Beit Yahoun, where an Israeli drone dropped an explosive device that wounded two local residents. A second attack targeted a vehicle at a roundabout connecting the villages of Kfartebnit and Arnoun, killing one passenger and leaving a second in critical condition.

    The unprovoked attacks have immediately raised urgent questions about the future of the new US-Iran peace deal, whose text explicitly includes provisions for Lebanese security and requires an immediate end to all military operations across the country. The MOU, signed by both leaders during a diplomatic gathering in France late Wednesday, formalizes a binding commitment to end all active hostilities on every front—including Lebanon—between the two nations and their respective allies. It also requires all signatory parties to abandon threats of force, respect each other’s territorial sovereignty, and guarantee the full territorial integrity and political independence of Lebanon.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long faced accusations of actively working to derail diplomatic progress between Washington and Tehran, and he has openly defied the terms of the new framework, refusing to issue any commitment to withdraw Israeli military forces currently occupying large swathes of southern Lebanon. Since Israeli military operations against targets in Lebanon began on March 2, Lebanese official data records that nearly 3,800 people have been killed in these attacks, hundreds of whom are children.

    Reuters reported Thursday that Israeli officials are currently holding closed-door negotiations with the United States to push for permission to maintain a permanent military presence in southern Lebanon. An anonymous senior Israeli official close to Netanyahu told the outlet that the Israeli government would not back away from its demands, including keeping troops deployed in the strategic area south of Lebanon’s Litani River. A second senior Israeli official added that the final outcome of these negotiations will depend entirely on whether US President Donald Trump is willing to pressure Israel into compliance, by threatening concrete repercussions if Jerusalem refuses to adhere to the interim peace pact’s terms.

    During a press conference held Wednesday, one day after the MOU was signed, Trump struck a diplomatic tone when speaking about Netanyahu, calling the Israeli leader “a very good man” and an “amazing prime minister.” He did, however, acknowledge the ongoing rift over Lebanon, saying, “We have a little dispute over Lebanon. I say, ‘You can do a little softer touch, Bibi. You don’t have to knock down a building every time somebody walks into it that’s from Hezbollah.’”

    Iran has already issued a clear warning that the entire MOU will be invalidated if Israel refuses to fully withdraw all its forces from Lebanese territory and end all military attacks. Speaking Thursday, Esmaeil Baqaei, spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, said that the United States bears full responsibility for forcing Israel to uphold the commitments Washington made to Tehran in the signed document, saying “It is the responsibility of the US to force Israel to respect the US commitments to Iran in this document.”

  • Israel ‘will be at war with Syria sooner or later’, says Likud minister

    Israel ‘will be at war with Syria sooner or later’, says Likud minister

    A senior far-right Israeli cabinet member from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party has stoked regional tensions this week with explosive comments forecasting that Israel will ultimately go to war with Syria, and outlining a sweeping new anti-Israel alliance he claims is taking shape across the Muslim world.

    Amichai Chikli, Israel’s Minister of Diaspora Affairs, laid out his controversial assessment in a series of radio interviews conducted across Wednesday and Thursday, framing the emerging bloc as a far greater threat to Israeli national security than Iran and its recently finalized ceasefire agreement with the United States.

    Chikli centered his criticism on the new government led by Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, claiming its jihadist ideological roots tied to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, paired with its stated goal of securing the unification of Jerusalem, make peaceful coexistence with Israel impossible. From that foundation, he argued that a full military confrontation between Israel and Syria is inevitable. “There is no way that a jihadist regime rooted in Isis and al-Qaeda, whose aspiration is the unification of Jerusalem, can live in peace alongside the State of Israel,” Chikli stated.

    The minister went on to identify a three-country coalition he calls the “radical Sunni axis of evil”, made up of Pakistan, Turkey, and Qatar. In remarks to Israel’s Army Radio, he emphasized that this unreported new alliance poses a far more acute danger to Israel than Tehran, even as he acknowledged that Iran has secured major strategic gains through its U.S.-brokered ceasefire. “What is far more troubling is the new axis emerging in the Middle East,” Chikli explained.

    He argued Pakistan and Turkey earned their place in the bloc through their outsized influence during U.S.-Iran negotiations, while he dismissed Qatar as the global public relations mouthpiece for jihadist movements during an interview with Kol Barama Radio. Chikli reserved his sharpest criticism for Ankara, describing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s regional ambitions as “an extremely dangerous combination” for Israel. He claimed Turkey has effectively installed a protectorate over much of Syria, and doubled down on his assessment by saying “Turkey and Syria are ten thousand times more concerning than Iran.”

    Chikli’s comments come amid a sharp upward trajectory in bilateral tensions between Ankara and Jerusalem. Erdogan earlier this month declared that Israel’s ongoing military strikes in Syria and Lebanon constitute a direct threat to Turkish national security, stating that “Israel must be stopped, this is the duty of humanity.” Just weeks prior, Turkish Interior Minister Mustafa Ciftci publicly called for the “liberation” of Jerusalem, further ramping up rhetorical hostility between the two countries.

    Chikli is not an outlier in his hardline stance toward Turkey among senior Israeli political figures. Last week, fellow Likud lawmaker Ariel Kellner officially labeled Turkey an “enemy state,” while Israeli Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar argued last month that Israel must reclassify Turkey as an enemy state, warning that Ankara would face devastating consequences in any future conflict with Israel. Even former Israeli Prime Minister and opposition figure Naftali Bennett backed that framing back in February, declaring that “Turkey is the new Iran.”

    Outside of his regional security assessments, Chikli used his recent media appearances to defend a high-profile far-right British political agitator. After UK police detained Tommy Robinson, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, and seized his electronic devices upon his return from a trip to Russia, Chikla called the action an attack on free speech. “One of Britain’s clearest voices against real Islamic terrorism is now being hunted under anti-terrorism laws. At this rate Britain will become the second Islamic Republic in Europe,” he claimed.

    Chikli also pushed back against the idea that the region is set for a long period of peace after two and a half years of continuous conflict. When asked if Israelis could expect an extended period of calm, he said he hoped for that outcome but did not expect it to hold. He argued that Turkey has open regional ambitions that directly undermine Israeli interests, though he was careful to clarify that Israel has no intention of capturing the Turkish capital of Ankara, and would welcome lasting peace with both Syria and Turkey. He closed by referencing the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel as a lesson: “When the enemy says something, I listen.”

    For years, Chikli has worked to build close working relationships with far-right political figures and governments across the globe, aligning with their anti-Islam and anti-immigration policy platforms.

  • World Cup what to know: U.S. back in action vs. Australia, Brazil works to rebound

    World Cup what to know: U.S. back in action vs. Australia, Brazil works to rebound

    The 202X FIFA World Cup continues its group stage slate this Friday, June 19, with four compelling matches spanning four U.S. host cities, packed with underdog ambition, star injury suspense, and redemption narratives that have soccer fans across the globe tuning in. From a U.S. men’s national team seeking to build on a stunning opening win to five-time champions Brazil looking to bounce back from a lackluster draw, the day’s action delivers no shortage of storylines to follow.

    Kicking off the day at 3 p.m. EDT in Seattle, the United States will face Australia, coming off a breakout opening performance that has sent fan expectations skyrocketing. The Americans delivered a 4-1 thrashing of Paraguay last time out, with Folarin Balogun notching a brace and Gio Reyna adding a third goal – a result that far outstripped even the most optimistic projections for the side. Star winger Christian Pulisic served as the catalyst for the team’s three first-half goals in that match, but was pulled at halftime after suffering a calf strain in pre-tournament training that has kept him sidelined from full team workouts for four straight days.

    Pulisic, who wears a compression sleeve on his injured left calf, joined his teammates for a pre-match warmup huddle Thursday before completing individual fitness work in the gym, leaving his availability for the Australia match in question heading into kickoff. Midfielder Weston McKennie noted that the AC Milan attacker is desperate to take the field and that both the player and team medical staff are working overtime to get him fit, but would not speculate on a final call for the match. Australia, for its part, enters the contest with its own momentum after a polished 2-0 win over Turkey in its opener, with goals from Nestory Irankunda and Connor Metcalfe. The Socceroos are making their sixth consecutive World Cup appearance, and will look to pull off an upset against the host nation in front of a raucous Seattle crowd.

    The second match of the day, kicking off at 6 p.m. EDT in Foxborough, Massachusetts, sees Scotland face off against North African powerhouse Morocco. For Morocco, the match comes on the heels of a 1-1 draw with Brazil – a result that felt underwhelming for a side that has rapidly emerged as one of men’s soccer’s most dangerous underdogs after its historic semifinal run at the 2022 Qatar World Cup. Moroccan midfielder Azzedine Ounahi made clear that the team’s ambitions go far beyond holding elite sides to draws, saying “We didn’t come to the U.S. to just play against Brazil. We came in to go even farther than we did in Qatar in 2022.”

    Scotland, by contrast, enters with confidence after a 1-0 opening win over Haiti that put the side in position to reach the knockout round for the first time in modern history. Head coach Steve Clarke acknowledged that Morocco is a far stiffer test than his side’s first opponent, but embraced the underdog label that Scotland will carry into the match: “Against difficult opponents we have to be very good. We’re a little more comfortable as underdogs. … Sometimes Scotland prefers it that way.”

    The night’s third match, scheduled for 8:30 p.m. EDT in Philadelphia, sees Brazil take on Haiti, as the five-time World Cup champions look to rebound from a flat, uninspiring 1-1 draw with Morocco in their opening fixture. Brazil struggled out of the gate against Morocco, with early jitters leaving the side outplayed until a 32nd-minute equalizer from Vinícius Júnior salvaged a share of the points. Head coach Carlo Ancelotti acknowledged the team’s rocky start, saying “We were a bit anxious at the beginning. Nerves were all over the place.”

    Even without star Neymar, who is sidelined with his own calf injury, Brazil carries a massive talent gap over Haiti, and will face mounting pressure to deliver a dominant win to reassert their status as legitimate title contenders – a title they have not claimed since 2002. For Haitian fans, the match carries mixed emotions, as the small Caribbean nation has long held deep affection for Brazilian soccer culture.

    Closing out the day’s action at 11 p.m. EDT in Santa Clara, California, Turkey and Paraguay will face off in a critical must-win match for both sides, who sit at the bottom of Group D after opening round losses. Paraguay’s fan base has already expressed frustration with the side following its 4-1 lopsided loss to the United States. Striker Mauricio scored the team’s only goal in that defeat, and will be counted on to deliver another clinical performance to get his side’s first points of the tournament. Turkey, making its first World Cup appearance in 24 years, dominated possession against Australia in its opener – holding 72% of the ball and outshooting the Socceroos 30-9 – but failed to find the back of the net, leaving the side desperate for a first win to keep its knockout stage hopes alive.

    All four matches will be broadcast across Fox, Telemundo, and Peacock, with the final Turkey-Paraguay fixture airing on FS1. The day’s action continues a packed group stage that has already delivered its share of upsets and surprises, with more expected as teams fight to secure their spots in the knockout round.

  • Iran gets Trump concessions, empty promises in return for little

    Iran gets Trump concessions, empty promises in return for little

    In a recent diplomatic development that has sent ripples across global geopolitics, the leaders of the United States and Iran have signed a 14-point memorandum of understanding (MOU) designed to end active hostilities between the two nations, as well as halt Israel’s ongoing military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon. But according to analysis from Jessica Genauer, Academic Director of the Public Policy Institute at UNSW Sydney, the agreement is rife with critical structural flaws, unfulfillable promises, and one-sided concessions that leave the U.S. with few tangible gains while abandoning key regional allies and endangering long-term regional stability.

    Genauer frames the deal as a classic “emperor has no clothes” moment: despite the Trump administration’s loud claims of a historic diplomatic victory, the agreement delivers almost no new benefits to the U.S. that were not already in place before the outbreak of war. Even the limited nuclear concessions offered by Iran are nothing new, she argues, and the U.S. has given up significant leverage in exchange for almost no meaningful progress on core national security priorities. Beyond that, the MOU abandons long-standing U.S. partners, most notably Gulf Cooperation Council states, while sidelining core Israeli security interests and ignoring the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. Worse, many of the core commitments laid out in the document are impossible for the U.S. to deliver on, particularly pledges around broad sanctions relief and the unfreezing of billions in Iranian assets held around the world.

    Breaking down the most problematic provisions of the MOU, Genauer first examines the clause calling for an immediate and permanent end to all military operations across all fronts, including Lebanon. A glaring oversight here is that the agreement never mentions the two primary parties to the Lebanese conflict — Israel and Hezbollah — and neither side was consulted before the clause was added to the MOU. The text also fails to clarify whether the ceasefire requires a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, a step that is all but politically impossible for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to implement. A solid majority of the Israeli public supports continued military pressure on Hezbollah and retaining control over southern Lebanon to eliminate the group’s cross-border threat. While a temporary ceasefire may hold in the short term, Genauer concludes the underlying conflict will almost certainly reignite in the near future.

    Next, the MOU includes a provision requiring Iran to allow unimpeded, fee-free safe passage for commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz for a 60-day period, a clause Genauer calls deeply problematic. In effect, the agreement explicitly concedes Iran’s right to begin charging shipping fees for passage through the strait once the 60-day window expires — a major win for the Iranian regime that upends decades of international consensus around free navigation through the critical global energy chokepoint. This provision places Gulf states and Oman in an extraordinarily difficult position: the agreement includes no binding security guarantees to protect these nations from Iranian aggression, leaving them with little choice but to accept Iran’s demand for fees to keep their energy and commodity exports flowing.

    The MOU also includes a commitment from the U.S. and unspecified regional partners to develop a $300 billion fund for Iranian post-conflict reconstruction and economic development. Genauer notes the U.S. is highly unlikely to contribute any of its own funding to the initiative, meaning the entire burden will fall on Gulf regional partners. For Iran, this provision creates a powerful new coercive tool: Tehran can pressure Gulf states to fund the reconstruction plan, threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz and resume cross-border attacks if they refuse. Faced with a choice between paying billions or enduring sustained economic and security damage, most Gulf states will likely concede to Iran’s demands. This dynamic also pushes Gulf nations into a delicate position with the U.S.: while they remain dependent on Washington for military security and will not openly break with the U.S., they are almost certain to pursue deeper diplomatic and economic partnerships with other global powers, particularly China, to hedge their bets.

    On the critical issues of sanctions relief and unfreezing Iranian assets, two core pledges laid out in points 7 and 11 of the MOU, Genauer highlights that the U.S. simply cannot deliver on most of its promises. Washington can only lift unilateral U.S. sanctions and unfreeze assets held directly on U.S. territory, which make up a tiny fraction of Iran’s total frozen assets globally. The agreement requires the U.S. to also cancel United Nations Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sanctions resolutions, a step that is completely outside Washington’s unilateral control. What’s more, the U.S. did not consult with its allies who hold the vast majority of Iran’s frozen assets before signing the MOU, leaving no clear path to pressure those allies to release the funds.

    Finally, on the nuclear issue that has been at the center of U.S.-Iran tensions for decades, the MOU delivers almost no new progress. The agreement only reaffirms Iran’s existing pre-war commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, and deliberately omits any ban on Iranian uranium enrichment — a core long-standing red line for U.S. negotiators. The only concrete nuclear provision requires Iran to dilute its existing stockpiles of enriched uranium under IAEA supervision in exchange for sanctions relief, and the text only commits both sides to “discuss the issue of enrichment” at some future date. Genauer notes it is extremely unlikely that a more detailed, binding agreement on enrichment will be reached within the 60-day window outlined in the MOU; any future negotiations would take months at a minimum, and a final deal is far from guaranteed. Despite this lack of progress, the U.S. has already agreed to offer sweeping sanctions relief, representing a major one-sided concession to Tehran.

    This analysis, originally published in *The Conversation* under a Creative Commons license, offers a critical, detailed breakdown of the gaps and risks of the new U.S.-Iran diplomatic agreement.

  • Why US presidents end up cursing Benjamin Netanyahu

    Why US presidents end up cursing Benjamin Netanyahu

    For nearly 30 years, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has built a legacy of clashing with sitting U.S. presidents, leaving even the most powerful leaders in the world reaching for expletives to express their frustration. A candid new analysis traces this long-running pattern of tension, revealing how Netanyahu’s strategic choices and the unique structure of U.S.-Israel relations have repeatedly put the two allies at odds – with escalating consequences that now threaten Israel’s long-standing bipartisan support in America.

    The string of high-profile friction stretches back to 1996, when Netanyahu met newly elected U.S. president Bill Clinton for the first time. After Netanyahu delivered a lengthy, unsolicited lecture on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, an exasperated Clinton turned to his aides afterward asking, “Who the fuck does he think he is? Who’s the fucking superpower here?”

    Relations between Netanyahu and Barack Obama were hostile from the start, and deteriorated rapidly after Obama launched negotiations for a landmark nuclear deal with Iran. In a 2011 open-mic incident years before the deal was finalized, then-French president Nicolas Sarkozy described Netanyahu to Obama as “a liar,” to which Obama replied: “You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day.” Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg later documented that Obama’s senior staffers privately referred to Netanyahu with the scathing insult “chickenshit.”

    Most recently, the pattern repeated with Donald Trump in June 2024, after Netanyahu ordered a military strike on Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. Concerned the attack would upend a fragile pending agreement to end escalating conflict with Iran, Trump lashed out publicly, saying Netanyahu has “no fucking judgment.” Even current president Joe Biden has joined the long list of frustrated leaders, with reports indicating Biden called Netanyahu a “fucking liar” over his management of the devastating post-October 2023 war in Gaza.

    While many observers attribute this repeated friction to Netanyahu’s stubborn, single-minded personality, the analysis argues there is a deeper structural explanation rooted in the unique nature of U.S.-Israel relations. Unlike other foreign leaders who clash with U.S. presidents, sitting American chief executives cannot simply dismiss Netanyahu or cut off U.S. military and diplomatic support for Israel, thanks to the powerful, well-organized pro-Israel constituencies that exert major influence over U.S. domestic politics.

    Netanyahu has actively leveraged this dynamic to advance his own policy goals, mobilizing U.S. domestic pro-Israel groups to pressure sitting presidents when their priorities diverge from his. In 1998, for example, when Clinton pressured Netanyahu to cede territory in the Israeli-occupied West Bank during a Washington visit, Netanyahu spoke the night before his meeting with Clinton to 1,000 members of the pro-Israel Christian right, a core constituency that openly opposed Clinton’s agenda, and held separate meetings with top Republican leaders. When Clinton met him the next day, he dryly noted, “I know where you were last night.”

    This strategy reached new heights during the Obama administration, when Netanyahu rallied broad opposition within U.S. political circles to derail Obama’s Iran nuclear deal. Whenever Obama pressured Netanyahu to curb settlement expansion in the West Bank, Netanyahu stoked domestic U.S. political backlash that ultimately forced Obama to back down rather than absorb the political cost of confrontation.

    In recent years, Netanyahu has doubled down on this approach by making a deliberate strategic choice to align himself closely with the U.S. Republican conservative right. This partisan alignment has amplified tensions with Democratic presidents, who have historically been more willing to challenge Israeli policy, and has turned U.S. support for Israel into an increasingly divisive partisan issue – a shift that critics warn has already eroded support for Israel among the American left.

    The 2024 clash with Trump marks a major turning point, however: it is the first time a sitting Republican president has openly and harshly criticized Netanyahu, undermining the core of his long-standing partisan strategy. The analysis argues that over the past year, Netanyahu overextended his influence, pushing aggressively to draw the U.S. into a direct military confrontation with Iran, a goal he has pursued for decades. From Trump’s perspective, Netanyahu maneuvered the U.S. into a costly, intractable conflict that damages U.S. economic and global interests, and Netanyahu refuses to prioritize a quick cease-fire that would ease global economic pressure.

    Today, the consequences of Netanyahu’s decades-long strategy are playing out against a dramatically shifted backdrop. Broad public support for Israel across the U.S. political spectrum has collapsed amid mounting casualties from the Gaza war, and even traditionally pro-Israel conservative voters are growing frustrated over the economic harm of the escalating regional conflict. Netanyahu now finds that his partisan alignment has left his country with no solid base of bipartisan support in the U.S. The article concludes that future Israeli leaders will likely look back at Netanyahu’s approach and share the frustrated assessment that led Trump to reach for a curse word – that the long-serving prime minister lacked the judgment to protect Israel’s most critical alliance.