News Desk

WHEN pop superstar Justin Timberlake started dating actress Jessica Biel, they quickly became Hollywood’s hottest couple. 

But now, after 14 years of marriage, their relationship is going through a positively chilly phase. For long-suffering Jessica, 44, has drawn a line in the sand following a relentless string of public embarrassments, serving her husband with a brutal ultimatum to clean up his act, or she is out.

From the humiliating release of bodycam footage showing Justin’s June 2024 drink-driving arrest to fresh whispers of intoxicated antics at a Las Vegas golf tournament just weeks ago, the Cry Me A River singer’s fall from grace has pushed his wife to the edge, according to reports.

But the drama doesn’t stop there. Insiders tell The Sun that Justin pulled the plug on a $100 million NSYNC reunion, in a last stand bid to save his marriage. 

Behind closed doors, those who work closely with the couple say Jessica has been the “glue” holding the family together. 

A well-placed Los Angeles producer, who has worked closely with Jessica, tells The Sun that the actress’s marriage can sometimes be a far cry from the fairytale Justin sold the world in the 2010s.

The insider says: “Jessica is a superwoman. For the last decade, she has run the home, carried and raised two boys, continued acting and enjoyed success with a production company in Hollywood. Where she has found the time and energy to balance is staggering. She has been the glue.”

The couple’s permanent relocation to the luxury Yellowstone Club in Montana was Jessica’s way to shield their sons, Silas, 11, and Phineas, 5, from the downsides of fame.

“She took huge pride in being a hands-on mother, ensuring that her kids would be raised in the most normal way and not be impacted by LA life or Hollywood temptations and dramas,” the insider explains. 

“Her boys are the most important thing in her life, and she will do her utmost to protect them. That would have absolutely been made clear to Justin.”

But while Jessica thrives in the tranquillity of the mountains, Justin remains obsessed with the spotlight. 

His gruelling Forget Tomorrow world tour, which finally wrapped last summer after more than 100 gigs, kept him away from home for massive chunks of time and put a strain on their marriage.

Our source adds: “When the lights go out, Jessica is still a devoted, hard-working mum wanting to do the best for her kids.

“Justin is committed, but is also balancing this battle to remain a pop star and entertainer. In today’s world, if you disappear for too long, you become forgotten or irrelevant. That is something Justin would never let happen.”

This desperate need for validation, however, has come at a steep personal cost.

Jessica’s own career has been flying high. She poured her heart into her production company, Iron Ocean Productions, and her acclaimed 2025 series The Better Sister earned her a prestigious 2026 Critics’ Choice Award nomination for Best Actress. 

Yet, when her big moment arrived in January, her husband was absent from the red carpet.

“Many industry figures were shocked that Justin didn’t walk the carpet to support her,” the producer notes. 

“She had been there for him over the previous seven months. Regardless of his recent scandals, it would have been a great public display of unity.”

Justin’s erratic decision making hasn’t just alienated his wife; he has also managed to infuriate his oldest friends.

The Sun can reveal that the singer recently blew a chance to catapult himself back centre stage by walking away from an epic NSYNC 30th anniversary reunion.

The highly lucrative comeback – which included proposals for a live comeback show, a lucrative Las Vegas residency, and a documentary – could have netted the five bandmates a staggering $100 million.

A top music executive, who was intimately involved in the proposals, claimed Justin’s refusal to commit has caused bitter “disdain and disappointment” among his former bandmates.

They said: “Justin let the boys down, and really killed the chance for a special 30th anniversary adventure. The other boys were the driving forces with everyone on board initially… well, that is what they believed.”

“Pinning down Justin just could not be done. It wasn’t so much that he was saying outright no, but more just not committing. There was a real hope for something momentous and exciting to play out, which could have really put them back to the top of the music world again.”

The insider notes that the bond between the five men, who were once like brothers, has been severely damaged.

“Those five men have been friends through many highs and lows. But this took something away from that bond. Publicly, of course, they will always support Justin, but this was really seen as a wasted chance to make magic happen.”

But those close to Justin say that walking away from the NSYNC reunion was an attempt to rebalance his work with his family life and repair his relationship with his wife.

Justin’s reluctance to embark on a massive boyband tour was also undoubtedly influenced by his latest health battle. 

Last summer, the singer revealed he had been diagnosed with Lyme disease, a debilitating bacterial infection that wreaked havoc on him both mentally and physically. 

Jessica, ever the dutiful wife, stepped up to the plate.

Our source says: “Last summer Jessica really urged her husband to slow down, recover fully and seek the best medical advice. There was a huge sense that Justin really had a tough time on the road doing the dance moves and powering through so many shows with his medical issues.”

“Jessica was really kind, caring, and sympathetic. Justin’s mood and outlook was hit quite hard at the diagnosis. The reality is that his entire future as a performer is potentially on the line given how debilitating Lyme disease can be.”

Even the music executive admitted that the health crisis “must have played a key factor in him stepping back” from the NSYNC tour, though they noted that “there were projects like a doc film which would not have needed him to dance or perform”.

Despite her immense sympathy for his health struggles, Jessica’s patience with Justin’s headline-grabbing antics is running dry.

It’s not the first time he has embarrassed his wife. In 2019, The Sun revealed pictures of him drinking and holding hands with his Palmer co-star Alisha Wainwright.

Justin was forced to admit he had been drinking alcohol during the encounter, describing it as a “strong lapse of judgement” but insisted “nothing happened”.

He also added a grovelling apology to his family, writing: “I drank way too much that night and regret my behaviour. I should have known better. This is not the example I want to set for my son.”

“I apologise to my amazing wife and family for putting them through such an embarrassing situation, and I am focused on being the best husband and father I can be.”

Then in 2024, Justin was arrested for drink-driving. The police bodycam footage was released earlier this year, and shows the slurring singer complaining to cops that they were ruining his “world tour”.

Jessica distracted from the embarrassing footage and posted a loved-up snap with her husband on February 1st, captioning it: “Happy 45th to a true original. I love you baby.”

But then last week on April 18 eyewitness reports say that Justin once-again appeared intoxicated at a golf tournament in Las Vegas.

Since then, Page Six reported Jessica was ready to “pull the trigger” on the marriages, with an insider adding: “There’s not much more she can take.”

Now with an ultimatum on the table it appears Jessica is officially done playing the doting wife.

Our source said: “Knowing what a straight shooter she is, there is no way she would hold back on telling her husband exactly how she feels.”

If Justin doesn’t clean up his act, it could be Jessica saying “Bye Bye Bye” to their marriage once and for all.

Jessica and Justin’s representatives were contacted for comment. 

Japan Airlines says it will trial humanoid robots as workers at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport, with tasks including baggage handling and cabin cleaning.

In international politics, the platforms a country sits on often matter as much as what it says. For decades, Somalia was largely the subject of global security discussions, rarely a decisive participant in them. Today, that reality is changing in ways that carry symbolic weight and practical consequences.

Somalia’s recent election to the African Union Peace and Security Council (AU PSC), alongside its membership in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), marks a turning point in its diplomatic trajectory. For quite some time, Somalia was merely being discussed in the world’s most influential security forums. It is now shaping the agenda on the table.

This shift reflects more than a procedural achievement. It signals the maturity of Somalia’s diplomatic and security institutions, and the steady rebuilding of its international credibility after decades of conflict and state fragility.

For much of the past three decades, decisions affecting Somalia’s security were often made in rooms where Somali voices were either absent or marginal. External actors debated intervention strategies, sanctions regimes, peacekeeping mandates, and humanitarian responses, while Somalia struggled with internal instability.

This membership in the UNSC and AU PSC changes that dynamic fundamentally. These bodies are not symbolic; they make binding decisions, adopt resolutions, authorise peacekeeping operations, and shape international legal frameworks. For Somalia, this may seem something simple, but its impact is profound. Somalia is now part of the process that determines policies affecting its own security and development.

That participation strengthens state-building in several ways. It reinforces institutional capacity within Somalia’s foreign policy apparatus, promotes transparency and accountability through engagement with multilateral norms, and aligns Somalia more closely with international legal and diplomatic standards.

Somalia is transitioning from being a recipient of international decisions to becoming a contributor to them. Somalia’s role on these councils also carries representational significance beyond its own borders.

As a member of the UNSC and AU PSC, Somalia now occupies a rare diplomatic position. It simultaneously represents the interests of the African continent, the Arab and Muslim world, and the least developed countries (LDCs). The concerns of these categories of states have often been overshadowed by the priorities of more powerful nations. Somalia now stands for them.

Somalia’s own first experience in rebuilding institutions after conflict, managing complex security transitions, and balancing sovereignty with international cooperation enables it to advocate not only for itself, but also for broader principles: Inclusive peace processes, sustainable development approaches to security, and equitable participation in global decision-making.

Peace in the world, peace at home

President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s 2022 political manifesto, “Somalia at peace with itself, and at peace with the world”, is increasingly reflected in these recent memberships. This vision is proving effective, as Somalia’s participation in global peace decision-making demonstrates a growing alignment between its external engagements and internal stabilisation efforts.

The seats at the UNSC and AU PSC will directly reinforce Somalia’s state-building process. Active involvement in shaping international peace also reflects and supports the way peace and security agendas are being handled domestically.

A defining moment in 2026

The year 2026 represents a rare convergence of opportunity. Somalia’s simultaneous presence at the AU PSC and UNSC provides a diplomatic platform unmatched in its recent history. This dual role should enable it to act as a bridge between regional and global security frameworks. It can ensure that Somalia’s security priorities are reflected in the AU decision, and forwardly, that African priorities are reflected in global resolutions. It can also translate international commitments into regional actions that qualify for alignment with local contexts.

This not only affects diplomacy and policy discussions but offers an opportunity to advocate for real change that directly affects the daily lives of Somalis. Such issues may include counterterrorism, stabilisation support, humanitarian access, development financing, climate security, and mechanisms for inclusive politics. By shaping the content and direction of relevant resolutions, Somalia can help align international commitments more closely with national priorities.

A future shaped by participation

With greater influence comes greater responsibility. Membership in these councils demands consistency and adherence to international norms. Somalia is now ready to navigate these complex diplomatic landscapes, balancing national interests with collective global security obligations. And it is now capable of maintaining credibility through constructive engagement, principled positions, and reliable partnerships.

With Somalia now seemingly committed to momentum on these fronts, its growing international stance will become self-reinforcing. Each diplomatic success will strengthen national institutions, which in turn will enhance future influence.

Somalia’s presence at the highest levels of global and regional security governance marks a significant milestone in its long journey towards recovery and stability. It reflects years of diplomatic effort, institutional rebuilding, and gradual restoration of international trust. It also signals a future in which Somalia is increasingly defined not by crisis, but by stability.

For a country that once stood on the margins of global decision-making, this transformation is both historic and hopeful. It signals a shift from isolation to engagement, from being acted upon to helping shape outcomes.

For young Somali generations who grew up hearing that Somalia could not advance, these diplomatic achievements offer a different narrative. They inspire pride, restore confidence, and help rebuild trust in the nation’s future.

That challenge lies ahead. But after a period of turmoil, Somalia is well positioned to meet it, not as a passive observer, but as an active shaper of its own destiny. This is also part of the broader Somalia policy on defence diplomacy, founded on global collaboration and mutual interdependency.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Race Across the World stars Jo and Kush appeared on BBC’s Morning Live on Thursday

One Race Across the World star has made an unexpected admission.

The hit travel competition sees five intrepid teams embarking on the journey of a lifetime, spanning more than 12,000km across southern Europe and Central Asia. They will navigate seven checkpoints on their way to Hatgal in remote northern Mongolia.

Cousins Puja and Roshni were the first pair to be eliminated earlier this month, with more dramatic twists in store.

Sibling duo Katie and Harrison lost their lengthy lead last week, dropping all the way down to last place. In-laws Mark and Margo have charged into the lead for the first time, followed by childhood best friends Jo and Kush, and father-and-daughter pair Molly and Andrew.

Ahead of a new instalment airing on Thursday (April 30), Jo and Kush appeared on BBC’s Morning Live, where they spoke to hosts Holly Hamilton and Rav Wilding about their experience on the show.

During the interview, Kush revealed a hidden struggle he faced during the race, which viewers wouldn’t have known about.

“I think the hardest part is the fact that you sacrifice everything. You’ve got no home life, no reminders of home, no [home] comforts. Everything is to do with the race, and I think that started to get a bit consuming at times,” he said.

“You’re going to sleep and thinking about the race. Every day, every action and decision you make is to advance your race, and I really struggled with that at times. I couldn’t sleep, couldn’t function.”

Holly then discussed a show “controversy” after Jo and Kush notably decided against giving money to their competitors Molly and Andrew.

The presenter said: “There was one point, as well, where you had to make a decision about whether or not to give money to one of the other teams. There was a bit of controversy around that.”

Kush replied: “People come up to us and they’re so 50/50. I had one person come up to me a few days ago at work, saying, ‘Oh, you should have given them [the money]. Why didn’t you give them the euros?'”

Jo added: “At the end of the day, it is a competition. The game’s a game. Obviously, we love Andrew and Molly. We actually gave them the €10 back the other day, and they gave us £10 back, so we made a little transaction there!”

Tonight’s episode will see the teams face the longest leg of the race so far. They will travel through the world’s largest landlocked country, Kazakhstan, and into Uzbekistan, navigating the vast Kazakh steppe with its endless horizons and limited English speakers.

One racer soon becomes overwhelmed after a string of missed connections and fraught taxi negotiations, while another pair take part in an authentic Kazakh coming-of-age celebration.

Race Across the World is available to stream on BBC iPlayer

Beirut, Lebanon – On April 8, Ahmad Hamdi, 22, was sitting on his couch at home in Beirut’s Tallet el Khayat neighbourhood, hours after Israel had launched more than 100 attacks in under 10 minutes across Lebanon.

Then he heard the “indescribable sound” of a rocket. Ahmad jumped off the couch as the glass in his building shattered around him before more rockets hit.

Clouds of dust obscured the view from his apartment on the fourth floor. When they dispersed, he saw the building directly facing his had been reduced to a pile of rubble.

He looked back at the couch he had been sitting on. At some point between the second and fourth explosion, shards of shrapnel had hit the couch exactly where his chest had been when the first rocket struck.

“When you think of Tallet el Khayat, you feel it is safe and secure,” Ahmad told Al Jazeera. “No one would expect something like that would happen.”

Indiscriminate attacks

April 8 has become known in Lebanon as Black Wednesday. Israel’s attacks on that day killed at least 357 people across the country. Israel claimed it killed 250 Hezbollah operatives. The exact breakdown of civilians and combatants is still not known, but numerous sources looking into the day’s casualties told Al Jazeera that the attacks appeared to be indiscriminate at best and in some cases may have amounted to the direct targeting of civilians. United Nations experts have described Israel’s attacks on April 8 as “indiscriminate”.

“The method in which the attacks happened in the middle of the day with dozens of strikes all at one time without warning and when civilians were present shows recklessness in Israeli military conduct,” Ramzi Kaiss, Lebanon researcher at Human Rights Watch, told Al Jazeera.

On March 2, Israel intensified its war on Lebanon for the second time in under two years. Earlier that day, Hezbollah had responded to near-daily Israeli attacks on Lebanon for the first time since December 2024 in response to the United States and Israel’s assassination of Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Israel also invaded southern Lebanon, where it has gone about systematically destroying towns and villages in what experts – and Israeli officials – said is an effort to create an uninhabitable “buffer zone” along its border.

“Part of [Israel’s] military strategy is to create a buffer zone and no man’s land,” Bassel Doueik, the Lebanon researcher for the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) conflict monitor, told Al Jazeera. “What Israel is doing in southern Lebanon is creating a multilayered buffer zone inside Lebanese territory and that is why they are demolishing houses in towns along the border.”

Israel has not stopped attacking Lebanon since October 2023 and has violated a November 2024 ceasefire more than 10,000 times, according to the UN. Most of its attacks have been in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley in the east.

Doubts about Israel’s claims

Israel conducted 100 air strikes and dropped more than 160 bombs across Lebanon on April 8, according to ACLED.

Israel claimed the attacks targeted Hezbollah headquarters, command-and-control sites, military formations and assets of its air force unit and elite Radwan Force.

Hezbollah discontinued the practice of providing the circumstances of its fighters’ deaths in September 2024. The Lebanese group does conduct some public funerals for fighters killed during the battles in southern Lebanon, but it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of those killed, making it hard to prove or disprove Israel’s claims.

But groups investigating the April 8 attacks said the available information casts doubt on the Israeli narrative. Analysts with ACLED said they are still confirming casualties but early indications showed that only a few victims were known Hezbollah members.

“One hundred one women and children were killed on April 8,” Ghida Frangieh, a Lebanese lawyer and researcher with Legal Agenda, a Beirut-based nonprofit research and advocacy organisation, told Al Jazeera. “For this number of 250 to be correct, it means every man killed must have been a Hezbollah combatant. This is not true as we were able to document several civilian men killed during these attacks.”

Lebanese media reported on a number of those killed by Israel on April 8, including employees of local restaurants, teachers, a poet, journalists, Lebanese soldiers and a member of a Druze-majority political party.

In some cases, Israeli attacks wiped out several members of the same family. Seven members of the Nasreddine family were reportedly killed on April 8 in Hermel in northeastern Lebanon. And three generations of the displaced Hawi family, including three children, were killed in the Jnah neighbourhood bordering Beirut.

Israel ’emboldened to continue’ violations of international law

Even if Hezbollah targets were present at all of the sites struck during the April 8 attacks, researchers said the attacks should still be considered indiscriminate. And while there still may be a discrepancy over the exact numbers of Hezbollah members vs civilians killed, international humanitarian law places the burden of proof on the attacking army.

“International humanitarian law is clear: Armed forces must distinguish at all times between civilians and military objectives,” Reina Wehbi, Amnesty International’s Lebanon campaigner, told Al Jazeera. “Even when there is a legitimate military target and in order to avoid indiscriminate, disproportionate or other unlawful attacks, parties must respect the principle of precaution and do everything feasible to verify that targets are military objectives, to assess the proportionality of attacks and to halt attacks if it becomes apparent they are wrongly directed or disproportionate.”

Over the past two and a half years, Israel has regularly violated the laws of war in Lebanon and in Gaza by indiscriminately attacking civilians, targeting paramedics and journalists, and using white phosphorus. Still, experts said there is little chance Israel will be held accountable.

“For the Israeli military, there is no deterrence to committing violations in Lebanon,” Kaiss of Human Rights Watch said. “After the crimes of humanity against Gaza, countries could have immediately suspended arms sales, the transit of arms through airports, placed targeted sanctions on officials, and the US and others could have suspended arms sales, but none of that happened.”

Kaiss said Lebanon could also give jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court (ICC), of which it is not currently a member, to investigate and prosecute Israel’s crimes in Lebanon. The ICC has already issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Attacks on Beirut have temporarily halted since US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in Lebanon on April 16. But the war rages on in southern Lebanon with Israel continuing to kill civilians, including rescue workers. Israel and Lebanon have started to engage in direct negotiations despite Hezbollah’s objections in what the Lebanese state hopes will bring an end to Israel’s attacks and occupation of southern Lebanon.

But on the ground, there has been little deterrence or accountability for Israel’s crimes against civilians.

“This hasn’t happened in the last two years, so the Israeli military on the ground feels emboldened to continue,” Kaiss said.

Freedom of the press around the world has fallen to its lowest level in a quarter of a century, according to the leading Paris-based press freedom NGO, Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF), or Reporters Without Borders.

Every year, RSF publishes a World Press Freedom Index used to compare the level of freedom enjoyed by journalists and media outlets in 180 countries. Its ranking uses a five-point scale to assess a country’s level of press freedom, ranging from “very serious” to “good”.

For the first time since RSF started producing the index in 2002, more than half of the world’s countries fall into the “difficult” or “very serious” categories for press freedom – “a clear sign that journalism is increasingly criminalised worldwide”.

Only seven mostly Nordic countries are ranked with “good” press freedom, with Norway, the Netherlands and Estonia in the top three. France ranks 25th with a “satisfactory” score, while the United States ranks 64th with a “problematic” score, falling seven places since President Donald Trump took office.

RSF reports that Trump “has turned his repeated attacks on the press and journalists into a systematic policy”, citing the detention of Salvadoran journalist Mario Guevara, who was later deported, while he was documenting a protest against immigration raids, as well as the suspension of several notable public media institutions.

In Latin America, RSF highlighted the dramatic fall of Javier Milei’s Argentina (98th, -11) and of El Salvador (143rd), which has dropped 105 places since 2014 following the launch of a war against the Maras criminal gangs.

The press freedom NGO said that “Eastern Europe and the Middle East are the two most dangerous regions for journalists in the world, as they have been for 25 years”, notably putting Russia (172nd) and Iran (177th) in the bottom 10.

It added that wars and restrictions on access to information are some of the driving factors for the decline in press freedom. It cited Israel’s attacks on journalists in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and Lebanon as an example of this, ranking Israel 116th.

“Since October 2023, more than 220 journalists have been killed in Gaza by the Israeli army, including at least 70 who were slain while carrying out their work,” it said.

Broadly speaking, RSF reported that “the criminalisation of journalism, which is rooted in circumventing press law and misusing emergency legislation and common law, is proving to be a global phenomenon”.

It reported that more than 60 percent of countries – 110 out of 180 – have criminalised media workers in various ways, notably citing India (157th), Egypt (169th), Georgia (135th), Turkiye (163rd) and Hong Kong (140th) as prime examples of state-imposed crackdowns.

“Although attacks on the right to information are more diverse and sophisticated, their perpetrators are now operating in plain sight,” Anne Bocande, RSF’s Editorial Director said.

She cited “authoritarian states, complicit or incompetent political powers, predatory economic actors and under-regulated online platforms” as the main causes “for the global decline in press freedom”.

Bocande called on democratic governments and citizens to do more to end this global criminalisation of journalists, particularly through “firm guarantees and meaningful sanctions”.

“Current protection mechanisms are not strong enough; international law is being undermined and impunity is rife,” she said. “Inaction is a form of endorsement,” while concluding that “the spread of authoritarianism isn’t inevitable”.

Ant McPartlin and Dec Donnelly have had their say on the I’m A Celebrity live final, which descended into chaos when Adam Thomas was crowned champion

Ant McPartlin and Dec Donnelly have waded in on the I’m A Celebrity pay row after Jimmy Bullard raged about losing his fee for wanting to quit the show.

Ex footballer Jimmy had said he wanted full pay and that was why he decided to call out ‘I’m a celebrity get me out of here’ during a trial rather than in camp sparking a huge row with Adam Thomas. Jimmy said for his own reasons – thought to be his father’s health – he wanted to go home, but because of his contract, he would have to lose a trial rather than ask to leave early.

During an extraordinary moment in the final, Jimmy said: “Listen, Adam and all of you can be upset with me and I absolutely threw him under the bus, I get it and I’ll wear that.

“But what I don’t stand on, is someone being abusive, aggressive and intimidating, I don’t stand on that.” He then called on Ant and Dec to have their say on what happened.

Speaking for the first time in their podcast about the live fallout, Ant and Dec appeared to side with Adam as they suggested he was used as ‘collateral damage’ in Jimmy’s plan.

“Jimmy used Adam as collateral damage,” said Ant. “We tried to be professional and keep it on track. It was a real shame – we were supposed to hear from every person.

“The whole thing was weird to me,” he added. “Which is why I said quite firmly on the night said I disagree.”

Asked on the night why he quit, Jimmy said: “There were a lot of heavy reasons, which I don’t want to go into now. Also, [I told Ollie], can you talk me through my contract? Because my contract’s pro-rata. Let me give you an example, if I go home and call Adam back with me, I get full pay. That money’s big for me and my family.

“If I go home, stay in, and go back and pull the plug, I get a small percentage of that. I made my mind up in that lightbulb moment – I have to go home. Then all hell breaks loose. You can all be upset. I threw him under the bus. I absolutely get it. I’ll wear that. But what I don’t stand on is someone being abusive, aggressive or intimidating. I don’t stand on it. You didn’t show none of that. None of the C-words. You didn’t.”

The pair also clarified what happened between them and David and Jimmy in the car park, which was snapped by paparazzi.

Speaking on their podcast ‘Hanging Out with Ant & Dec’, Dec explained: “I went up to David Haye and he went ‘How brilliant was that? Wasn’t that great?’ I went well…

“It was certainly talk about TV, I wouldn’t call it great but anyway we had a laugh and we were cool and then I’ve walked off and seen Jimmy Bullard and I just shook his hand and I was like ‘look after yourself’ and he was like ‘yeah, yeah cheers, cheers, cheers’. So there was no confrontation. I wasn’t flanked by two security guards as it said in the paper.”

Setting the record straight Ant insisted there was no argument in the car park, with Dec adding: “I saw David Haye and he said ‘what about that then, hope you get some good ratings for that one.'”

Ant also added: “I just felt it was a shame the crowning moment of I’m A Celebrity South Africa couldn’t have been more celebratory. If anything, remember it for Craig Charles having a bath in the washing up bowl – that’s how I would remember it.”

Like this s tory? F or more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan has opened six overland transit routes for goods destined for Iran, formalising a road corridor through its territory as thousands of containers remain stranded at Karachi port because of the United States blockade of Iranian ports and ships trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

The Ministry of Commerce issued the Transit of Goods through Territory of Pakistan Order 2026 on April 25, bringing it into immediate effect. The order allows goods originating from third countries to be transported through Pakistan and delivered to Iran by road.

The announcement coincided with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s visit to Islamabad for talks with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and army chief Asim Munir, the latest in a series of diplomatic engagements as Pakistan seeks to mediate an end to the two-month war between Washington and Tehran.

Federal Minister for Commerce Jam Kamal Khan described the initiative as “a significant step toward promoting regional trade and enhancing Pakistan’s role as a key trade corridor”.

Iran has not publicly commented on the move, and Al Jazeera’s query to the Iranian embassy in Islamabad went unanswered.

The notification does not extend to Indian-origin goods. A separate Commerce Ministry order issued in May 2025, following the India-Pakistan aerial war that month, bans the transit of goods from India through Pakistan by any mode and remains in force.

Routes and regulations

The six designated routes link Pakistan’s main ports, Karachi, Port Qasim and Gwadar, with two Iranian border crossings, Gabd and Taftan, passing through Balochistan via Turbat, Panjgur, Khuzdar, Quetta and Dalbandin.

The shortest route, the Gwadar-Gabd corridor, reduces travel time to the Iranian border to between two and three hours, compared with the 16 to 18 hours it takes from Karachi – Pakistan’s biggest port – to the Iranian border. The Gwadar-Gabd route could cut transport costs by 45 to 55 percent compared with costs from Karachi port, according to officials.

But for Iran, firms sending their goods to the country, and transporters, all routes into Iranian territory today are viable options, with the principal maritime passage they have traditionally used – the Strait of Hormuz – blockaded by the US Navy.

Corridor shaped by conflict

The current US-Iran war began on February 28, when US and Israeli forces launched attacks on Iran.

In the weeks that followed, Iran restricted commercial navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes during peacetime, disrupting one of the most critical arteries of global trade.

Pakistan brokered a ceasefire on April 8 and hosted the first round of direct US-Iran talks on April 11, in Islamabad. The negotiations lasted nearly a day but ended without a deal. Two days later, Washington imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports, throttling Tehran’s maritime access.

A second round of talks has since stalled. US President Donald Trump cancelled a planned visit to Islamabad by special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner last weekend.

Iran has ruled out direct negotiations with Washington while the blockade remains in place, though Araghchi told Pakistani officials that Tehran would continue engaging with Islamabad’s mediation efforts “until a result is achieved”.

The transit order appears to be a direct economic response to that impasse.

More than 3,000 containers destined for Iran have been stuck at Karachi port for several days, with vessels unable to collect the cargo. War-risk insurance premiums have surged from about 0.12 percent of a vessel’s value before the conflict to roughly 5 percent, making shipping to the region too expensive for many operators.

Shifting regional dynamics

The corridor also signals a shift away from Afghanistan, whose relations with Pakistan have deteriorated sharply.

The two sides engaged in clashes in October 2025 and again in February and March this year, with skirmishes continuing along the northwestern and southwestern borders.

The Torkham and Chaman crossings have ceased to function as reliable commercial routes since tensions escalated, limiting Pakistan’s overland access to Central Asian markets.

“This is a paradigmatic shift. Pakistan’s relations with the Afghan Taliban, the de facto rulers in Kabul, have no reset switch,” Iftikhar Firdous, cofounder of The Khorasan Diary, told Al Jazeera.

“Kabul has been diversifying away from Pakistan towards Iran and Central Asia, but this move flips the equation. Pakistan can now bypass Afghanistan entirely for westbound trade. The impact on Kabul’s transit relevance and revenue is strategic, not immediate – but it is real.”

Firdous said the implications extend beyond bilateral ties.

“This corridor also reduces Pakistan’s reliance on longer maritime routes through the Gulf. Geopolitics, security, and infrastructure will ultimately determine which corridors dominate, but it places Pakistan as the main overland gateway for China-backed trade routes into West Asia and beyond,” he said.

Minhas Majeed Marwat, a Peshawar-based academic and geopolitical analyst, urged caution. “A cornered Afghanistan is a destabilised Afghanistan, and Pakistan knows better than most what that costs,” she wrote on X on April 27.

“The opportunity here is real. So is the risk. Security on the northwestern and southwestern borders remains the variable that could unravel everything. Pakistan is positioned well. It is not yet positioned safely. Those are different things.”

LOUISE Thompson is locked in a new feud with Alex Cooper after claiming the Call Her Daddy star stole her podcast name.

The former Made in Chelsea star, 36, posted a TikTok video as she began: “I don’t know how well this is going to land but I’m going to say it anyway because I’m feeling like a big, brave dog.

“I was just on Instagram, I shouldn’t be doom scrolling on my way home, and I saw a Bloomberg business post that is essentially a takedown of Unwell, which is the podcast production company set up by Call Her Daddy host Alex Cooper and her husband.

“So there have been claims they’ve been treating staff badly, they have been shouting, they’ve been disrespecting people and obviously there’s been this very public feud that Alex Cooper has had with Alix Earle.

“I’m just gonna say something, karma is a b***h. Here’s a little story that none of you guys know, so I had a meeting when I was peak unwellness shall I say, a couple of years ago with an exec that come from the US who worked with a big talent agency about doing a podcast with us.”

Louise admitted that she wasn’t mentally in the right frame of mind during the meeting but she did suggest the name ‘Unwell’.

READ MORE ON LOUISE THOMPSON

AISLE SAY!

Louise Thompson shares real reason she’s not married Ryan after 8 years engaged

LOVED BY LOUISE

Fashion fans race to buy Louise Thompson’s floral midi dress for spring

“I thought it would be a really clever play on what I’ve been through to call this new business and this new project or podcast venture, Unwell or Unwellness. I have it written in my list of notes that I wrote years ago when I was recovering early doors.

“Then I noticed four or five months later, she announces that her entire podcast thing is going to be called Unwellness and I think it’s just a little bit too suspicious that we both had exactly the same name idea, especially given that I had the conversation with people who a part of her overall management team.

“What are they saying? Copying is the highest form of flattery,” Louise concluded.

She wrote over the video: “Alex cooper nicked my brand name… and karma exists.”

The mum-of-one captioned it: “Never thought I’d share this, but in the interest of being honest… this happened and in the words of carrie Bradshaw…. I can’t help but wonder.

“Sometimes I hate how dog eat dog this industry is… but stealing names isn’t cool.”

Alex, 31, founded her Unwell network in 2023, which has extended into wellness with Unwell Hydration and the Unwell Creative Agency last year.

Louise has faced a number of health issues since the traumatic birth of her son Leo in 2021, which has culminated in her living with a stoma bag due to chronic ulcerative colitis.

She launched her own podcast, He Said, She Said, with her partner Ryan Libbey in late 2024, before joining Staying Relevant Productions this year, which is owned by her brother Sam Thompson and Pete Wicks.

The Sun have contacted Alex’s representatives for a comment.

April 30 (UPI) — Britain has expelled a Russian diplomat in retaliation for Moscow doing the same last month to a British official it accused of spying.

The tit-for-tat expulsions come as tensions rise between the two countries, with Britain accusing Russian submarines and undersea naval units in recent weeks of operating in and around British waters.

Britain’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office announced the unidentified Russian diplomat’s expulsion Wednesday in a statement, saying it had summoned Russian Ambassador to Britain Andrei Kelin to inform him of the “reciprocal action.”

“Russia’s repeated unprovoked and unjustified actions are designed to disrupt our diplomatic work and form part of a wider campaign of aggressive behavior toward the U.K.,” the office said.

“Any further action by Russia will be treated as an escalation and met with a firm and proportionate response.”

UPI has contacted the Russian Embassy in London for comment.

The expulsion is in response to Russia expelling a British diplomat late last month who the Federal Security Service accused of being a British intelligence agent involved in “intelligence and subversive activities on Russian territory.”

The FSB identified the diplomat as Albertus Gerardus Janse van Rensburg, second secretary of the British Embassy in Moscow, stating he attempted to “obtain sensitive information during informal meetings with Russian economic experts.”

Britain’s foreign office on Wednesday condemned Russia’s “unjustified decision” to expel Janse van Rensburg and “the malicious public smear campaign that followed.”

“This behavior is wholly unacceptable, and we will not tolerate harassment or intimidation of our diplomatic staff,” it said.

The expulsion comes two weeks after Britain announced on April 9 that it had detected a Russian attack submarine entering international waters in the High North to distract from undersea naval units conducting “nefarious activity over critical undersea infrastructure elsewhere.”

The operation occurred several weeks before the announcement. Britain said the activity targeted subsea fiber-optic cables, which carry more than 99% of international data traffic, including voice calls and Internet data.

British and allied military assets were deployed, forcing the Russian GUGI units and Akula-class submarine to retreat, the Ministry of Defense said.

UN experts said Wednesday that reconstruction in the Gaza Strip cannot succeed without ending Israel’s occupation and ensuring rebuilding efforts are rooted in human rights and Palestinian self-determination, Anadolu reports.

“The occupation must end, and the dispossession and discrimination against Palestinians must stop if rebuilding is to have any real chance of success,” the experts said in a statement.

Citing the Gaza Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment, they said more than 371,000 housing units have been destroyed or damaged, 1.9 million people displaced, and over 60% of the population remains homeless, with reconstruction needs estimated at more than $71 billion.

“The data confirms a pattern of structural discrimination that reconstruction efforts must urgently correct rather than reproduce,” they said, warning that women, persons with disabilities and older people face disproportionate hardship.

The experts said reconstruction must be inclusive, participatory, transparent and accountable, with Palestinians shaping decisions in line with their right to self-determination under international law.

READ: Former US official accuses Israel of genocide in Gaza, says Washington is complicit

They raised questions about governance of the process, saying the assessment does not address who would oversee reconstruction or whether the proposed “Board of Peace” by US President Donald Trump is consistent with international law.

The experts are also concerned that the assessment does not sufficiently embed human rights principles, warning that an emphasis on financial needs and infrastructure could reduce housing to mere shelter provision rather than ensuring dignity, security and long-term sustainability.

They said reconstruction could become “a race for profits” without safeguards protecting vulnerable groups.

“Reconstruction is not only about rebuilding structures – it is about restoring rights, dignity and equality,” they said.

They urged states and donors to place human rights at the center of Gaza’s reconstruction, warning failure to do so “risks entrenching injustice and prolonging the suffering of Palestinians for generations.”

READ: Israeli court extends detention of Gaza hospital director Abu Safiya ‘without charges’

PATRICK Muldoon’s tragic cause of death has been confirmed after the soap star’s sudden collapse at the age of 57.

The Days Of Our Lives and Melrose Place actor died from a heart attack, according to official records, with several underlying health conditions also revealed.

New details show Muldoon suffered a myocardial infarction – more commonly known as a heart attack – on April 19, as confirmed by his death certificate.

The document, released by the County of Los Angeles’ Department of Public Health, also listed contributing factors to his death.

These included a hereditary coagulopathy disorder, which affects blood clotting, and a pulmonary embolism – a dangerous blood clot that travels to the lungs and blocks blood flow.

The actor was cremated on Tuesday, with his occupation listed as both actor and producer.

Read more on Celebrity Deaths

SOAP STAR TRAGEDY

Days Of Our Lives & Melrose Place actor dies ‘suddenly’ at 57

RIDE OVER

Country singer David Allen Coe who penned Take This Job and Shove It dies at 86

His sister, Shana Muldoon-Zappa, had earlier shared that he died of a heart attack, posting a touching tribute alongside a final video sent to family just hours before his death.

In the clip, Muldoon is seen joking while showing a painting at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

“As always, he jokes… and yet profoundly brings all things into one moment,” she wrote.

“The joke-ster, the artist, the football player, and the intensely spiritually connected, Jesuit educated, incredible being that is Patrick Muldoon. My best friend. The best brother/son/uncle/anyone could ever possibly ask for.”

“I will have so much more to share as I know he loves this earthly realm and all he created within it,” she continued, “including all of the love and light his spirit is now receiving through all of you…. Surrounding you in light.”

Tributes also poured in from friends and co-stars, including actress Barbara Eden.

“Patrick was a sweet man who was very personable,” she said.

“I enjoyed the time we spent between takes and just enjoying each other’s company in general during the production of the film. He made the experience even more fun.”

“While the passing of a loved one is never easy,” she added, “it is especially difficult when it’s unexpected and sudden as I understand Patrick’s was. My thoughts and condolences are with his family and friends.”

Born in San Pedro, California, Patrick Muldoon shot to fame in the 1990s after launching his career while studying in the University of Southern California, where he also played football.

He first appeared on Who’s the Boss? before landing a role on Saved By the Bell after graduating in 1991.

His big break came as Austin Reed on Days of Our Lives, a role he originated between 1992 and 1995 before returning years later.

Muldoon later played villain Richard Hart on Melrose Place and starred in a string of TV movies.

On the big screen, he was known for playing Zander Barcalow in the 1997 sci-fi hit Starship Troopers.

His final film, Dirty Hands, is due for release later this year.

Away from the spotlight, Muldoon worked behind the scenes as an executive producer on a number of films and was also passionate about music, performing as lead singer of The Sleeping Masses.

Known as “Bobo” to loved ones, Muldoon is survived by his partner Miriam Rothbart, his parents, his sister and extended family.

April 30 (UPI) — On this date in history:

In 1789, George Washington was inaugurated as the first president of the United States.

In 1803, the United States more than doubled its land area with the Louisiana Purchase. It obtained all French territory west of the Mississippi River for $15 million.

In 1812, Louisiana entered the union as the 18th U.S. state.

In 1927, Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford became the first movie personalities to leave their footprints in concrete at Grauman’s Chinese Theater in Hollywood.

File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI

In 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first U.S. president to appear on television when he was shown on opening day at the New York World’s Fair.

In 1945, the burned body of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was found in a bunker in the ruins of Berlin.

In 1948, 21 countries of the Western Hemisphere formed the Organization of American States.

In 1967, Muhammad Ali was stripped of his world heavyweight boxing championship title after he refused to be drafted into the U.S. military.

In 1975, South Vietnam unconditionally surrendered to North Vietnam. The communists occupied Saigon and renamed it Ho Chi Minh City.

In 1997, Ellen DeGeneres’ character came out as gay on the popular sitcom Ellen, making it the first sitcom to feature a gay leading character. The local ABC affiliate in Birmingham, Ala., refused to air the episode so gay rights advocates arranged for a satellite downlink to beam the show.

In 1993, tennis star Monica Seles was stabbed and injured by a self-described fan of Steffi Graf during a break between games in a match against another player in Hamburg, Germany. Seles, who won nine grand-slam singles titles in her career, was out of competitive tennis for more than two years after the attack.

In 2006, rebel factions in Sudan rejected a peace agreement in the Darfur conflict. Officials estimated the fighting had killed at least 180,000 people and driven more than 2 million from their homes.

File Photo by Debbie Hill/UPI

In 2009, Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection in a key move of a restructuring plan backed by the Obama administration.

In 2012, Israel began construction of a wall that would be 23 feet high and less than a mile long on its border with Lebanon. Security officials said the concrete wall would protect residents in the Matulla area from sniper fire from nearby Lebanese villages.

In 2013, Queen Beatrix, the 75-year-old monarch of the Netherlands, signed a formal declaration abdicating in favor of her eldest son, Willem-Alexander, 46, who became the country’s first king in 123 years.

In 2019, Japanese Emperor Akihito, 85, formally abdicated his throne, becoming the nation’s first monarch to step down in 200 years. His son, Crown Prince Naruhito, ascended to the throne, starting the Reiwa era.

In 2022, country legend Naomi Judd, one half of duo the Judds, died at the age of 76.

File Photo by Frederick Breedon/UPI

Deliveries of the CH-53K King Stallion to the U.S. Marine Corps are starting to ramp up, with the planned 16-aircraft annual milestone now expected for Fiscal Year 2029. The Marine Corps also says that, for the future, they are open to developing a mine countermeasures version, something that would be able to replace the current MH-53E.

Updates on the latest developments within the Marine Corps’ CH-53K program were today provided by Col. Kate Fleeger, a program manager for the H-53 Helicopters Program, at the annual Modern Day Marine conference in Washington, D.C., at which TWZ is in attendance.

Fleeger confirmed that, while the legacy CH-53E and MH-53E are “both still healthy and viable” and critical components of the Marine Corps fleet, the focus is now very much on the CH-53K as the future of heavy lift.

Currently, four Marine Corps squadrons have CH-53Ks as part of their stable, and Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 461 (HMH-461), which was the first fleet squadron, is fully outfitted with Kilos.

“We also have our training squadron, HMHT-302, which has received multiple CH-53Ks and will continue to be a dual type/model series training squadron throughout the transition from the Echo to the Kilo,” Fleeger explained. “We also have the CH-53K in our developmental test squadron, HX-21 at Patuxent River, and with our operational test squadron, VMX-1, in Yuma, Arizona.”

With the CH-53K “rocking and rolling across the board,” the 25th example off the Sikorsky production line in Stratford, Connecticut, was delivered earlier this week. Fleeger said that the service expects to add another eight aircraft for the rest of the year. This is part of a total Marine Corps program of record of 200 aircraft, a figure that has not changed. On top of this figure, Israel has procured 12 CH-53Ks, and Fleeger confirmed that the country is “in conversations” about the potential for additional aircraft.

As part of ongoing training work, HMH-461 has been putting the CH-53K through its paces “in every clime and place in CONUS,” Fleeger said. This has included taking the aircraft on detachments at the Weapons and Tactics Instructor (WTI) school in Yuma, and in exercises out of Twentynine Palms, California.

Fleeger said she is “extremely happy with how the aircraft is performing” with the operational fleet.

Meanwhile, the CH-53K is also still being tested, with the two units covering operational and developmental tests. “We are continuing to expand the envelope of the baseline aircraft that’s been delivered to the fleet, whether it’s expansion of the envelope with the existing equipment, or whether it’s modifications that allow for additional capability moving forward, and ultimately providing those modifications to fleet aircraft,” Fleeger explained.

Part of the recent mission expansion saw one CH-53K lifted by another example of the same type, to broaden options for the Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel, or TRAP mission. The aircraft that was lifted had its gear boxes and engines removed, but this is common practice, Fleeger said. The purpose of the test was not only to set up and document the flight characteristics, but also the rigging procedures. In the test, the aircraft that provided the sling load weighed about 28,000 pounds, which is well below the 36,000 pounds maximum external load for the CH-53K.

“When you talk to the pilots that lift something like that, even something that heavy, there’s very little ‘feel’ in the cockpit that you have a significant load underneath,” she added.

One of the other elements of additional testing has involved aviation ground fuel delivery. This involved a CH-53K landing with fuel and then providing this fuel to a V-22 tiltrotor that landed next to it.

At the same time, the transition to the CH-53K has involved training pilots with four Containerized Flight Training Devices (CFTD) now delivered. “They are state-of-the-art, fully immersive environments that have some of the highest fidelity visual databases and digital acuity that you’ll see in flight simulation today,” Fleeger said.

“The pilots have every opportunity to see exactly what’s going to happen in the aircraft before they even get in the aircraft. The idea here is the first time a pilot sits in that cockpit on the flight line is kind of a non-event, because he’s basically seen everything he needs to see along the way.”

These new CFTDs consist of a mobile box with the “guts of the simulator inside.” As Fleeger explained, “Gone are the days of the big dome, fully motion-based simulators that we’ve had previously. The motion platform is no longer a big portion of what provides the training fidelity. The majority of that fidelity actually comes from the visual systems, the realism of the visual system, and the haptic cueing to the pilots.

Another training aid is the Advanced Aviation Training Device, or AATD, new for the H-53 community, but loosely based on some of the early developmental training systems that arrived with the V-22, with its interactive cockpit learning environment.

“This is a lower fidelity,” Fleeger said, “There’s just screens, computer monitors, if you will, that show the pilot the outside visuals. But the pilot also has a see-through virtual-reality goggle set that he puts on. It’s absolutely amazing technology that really allows you, with very little additional cost, to be able to get that immersive and simulated environment.”

The AATD is designed primarily as a familiarization training device or for refresher-level training. “You got a few minutes, you go spend some time in here,” Fleeger explained. “You brush up on some stuff. It can also be used for some of the more advanced activities, like tactics, techniques, and procedures development. You can get in there and try some things out before you get to the aircraft and do it in the real world.”

The AATD has been so successful at its current location in New River, close to the training squadron, that the Marines expect to expand throughout the rest of the fleet as it works through the CH-53K transition.

Concurrently, Fleeger says the service has been “very forward-leaning with our Marines in the maintenance shed and making sure that they have the training tools that they need in order to prepare for a state-of-the-art, very data-intensive, data-rich aircraft.”

Maintenance of the fleet benefits from a fully condition-based maintenance model, at least for some of the CH-53K’s components.

“We can look at the vibratory signatures, the temperature signatures on gearboxes, for example, and we can understand when that gearbox might be approaching the end of its life.” The result is that the fleet is increasingly able to manage the maintenance rather than having the maintenance manage them. They can decide when they want to change that gearbox, for example, depending on operational commitments, the amount of flight time they may have planned, the criticality of that flight time, the availability of spares, and so on.

All of this training, including shipboard evolutions, is building up toward the first operational deployment, with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, in Fiscal Year 2027. Last month, the CH-53K fleet hit 10,000 fleet flight hours, a big milestone considering there are currently only 25 aircraft in the fleet.

At this stage, there are 12 aircraft sitting on the production line in Stratford, in various phases of completion.

“The fact that there are 12 aircraft is a big improvement as we move forward in the ramp-up through low-rate initial production,” Fleeger explained.

Once Sikorsky hits the milestone of 16 production aircraft per year, this will trigger the start of the Marine Corps CH-53K transition from East Coast to West Coast, and thus across the entire heavy-lift fleet.

Fleeger said that the line will be “getting up there” toward full-rate production at the end of Fiscal Year 2028, with the milestone to be achieved in FY29.

“The East Coast squadrons will complete transition, and then the transition plan will move out to the West Coast, and we will start transitioning the West Coast squadrons there as well,” Fleeger added. The CH-53E is slated to be retired in 2032.

As for the Navy MH-53E Sea Dragon, it is slated to be withdrawn in 2027. Exactly what will happen with its primary airborne mine countermeasures mission, a general capability set that is increasingly in the spotlight, is unclear. Currently, the Navy is beefing its MH-60 Seahawk mine countermeasures capabilities to help offset the loss. Still, the unique heavy countermeasures sled-towing capability that will be gone when the MH-53E leaves the inventory is likely to be felt, as will the heaviest vertical lift capability organic to the U.S. Navy.

According to Fleeger, “there have not yet been conversations about the Navy procuring the CH-53K or producing a minesweeping variant.” However, she added that “we are certainly open to that in the future, should that need arise.”

Whether or not the CH-53K eventually adopts another new mission, the type is clearly keeping busy for the time being, as the Marine Corps looks forward to taking it on its first operational deployment next year.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Coronation Street’s Megan Walsh could be set for a brutal exit as actress Beth Nixon dropped a massive hint about her character and another villain’s fates on the ITV soap

One Coronation Street star may have given away which villain dies on the ITV soap this week.

Beth Nixon, who plays child groomer Megan Walsh, has teased the game is up for her character. Not only that, but she teased the same about another character who could die this week.

Five villains including Megan face the chop, with someone killed off in Friday’s episode. Speaking exclusively to The Mirror, Beth confessed the doesn’t fancy her survival chances.

She told us: “Megan and Theo are up there as the worst villains. The others can be redeemed but me and Theo are done for aren’t we…” So does this confirm an exit is on the way for Megan and Theo either way, and could one or both of them die?

READ MORE: Coronation Street star warns ‘dangerous’ Theo could kill again as ‘next victim revealed’READ MORE: Coronation Street star teases victim’s identity as Kit ‘figures out killer immediately’

Beth also told us how her character had to go as there was no way she could be redeemed at this point. She is keen for fans to get their justice, but admitted she would love a brutal demise for Megan.

She said: “I’d love it if Megan died a dramatic death. She would proper milk it as well wouldn’t she. But I think the best course of justice for her and what she’s done is to be punished.

“I love to see the viewers theories about what they want. I have seen a lot of people say she needs to go to prison and they don’t want her to be the victim as they want the prison exit.”

Beth also laughed off the moment Megan gets attacked, with her shown wandering round with a bloody nose. Beth said: “She’s like, look what they’ve done to me. I’m the victim, call the police now.

“She’s covered in blood. The way it cuts to her, I was having a giggle. Just wipe your face love!” Beth thinks fans will be shocked by the death when it airs.

She said: “I think the audience are gonna love it. I think they’ll jump up at the TV and scream. I’d love to see it on Gogglebox.” With it heavily hinted time is running out for Megan, Beth has loved playing the character because of how fearless she is.

She explained: “She doesn’t care. It’s so fun to play. Me in real life I’m like, ‘oh sorry’ and Megan’s just like, ‘get out the way.’ She’s so far from who I am it’s so much fun.

“I get to speak to people however I want. It is a very important storyline but it’s been made so easy for me in terms of having to deal with it. There’s been a lot of support from the team here. I’ve felt quite held with it.”

Coronation Street airs weeknights at 8:30pm on ITV1 and ITV X. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

European leaders are seeking to clarify a little-used mutual defence clause in the European Union treaty as questions grow over Washington’s long-term commitment to NATO during a deepening rift with the United States.

NATO, founded in 1949, is a military alliance of North American and European countries built on the principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all. But years of tension between Washington under President Donald Trump and its European allies have pushed European governments to place greater emphasis on their own defence capabilities.

The shift has come as Trump has repeatedly criticised NATO members over their defence spending. He has also questioned the value of the alliance and clashed with European leaders over Ukraine and Iran while threatening to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark. The latest tensions escalated after the US and Israel began their war on Iran when Trump accused allies of failing to support Washington and dismissed NATO as a “paper tiger”.

Media reports have said that the Pentagon has also prepared a memo examining options to punish allies viewed as insufficiently supportive during the Iran war. Those options reportedly include exploring the suspension of Spain, which has been particularly critical of the war, from NATO and reviewing the US position on Britain’s claim to the Falkland Islands. NATO has no formal mechanism to expel a member, but the episode has cast doubt over the alliance’s unity and revived questions about Europe defending itself without Washington.

At the heart of Europe’s bid to look for alternative security arrangements beyond NATO is Article 42.7 of the European Union’s founding treaty.

What is Article 42.7?

Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union is the bloc’s mutual defence clause. It says that if an EU member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states are obliged to provide aid and assistance by all means in their power in line with the United Nations Charter.

By comparison, Article 5 in NATO’s North Atlantic Treaty states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. It is supported by common planning and joint exercises and is underpinned by the military weight of the US.

Unlike NATO’s Article 5, however, the EU clause is not backed by an integrated military command structure, standing defence plans or a permanent force able to respond automatically and the US has no obligation to intervene.

That means it is often seen as less credible as a military guarantee in practice although it remains an important political commitment.

Who is calling for Europe to turn to Article 42.7?

Cyprus, which is an EU member but not a NATO member, has been especially eager to strengthen the clause after a drone struck a British airbase on the island during the Iran war last month. While such an incident may not have been enough to invoke NATO’s Article 5, it could raise questions about Article 42.7, particularly at a time of growing strain between the US and Europe.

Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides said leaders had agreed it was time to define how the provision would work in practice if it were triggered.

“We agreed last night that the [European] Commission will prepare a blueprint on how we respond in case a member state triggers Article 42.7,” he said on Friday at an EU summit.

French President Emmanuel Macron has also stressed that the clause should be treated as a binding commitment rather than a symbolic gesture. “On Article 42, paragraph 7, it’s not just words,” he said during a weekend visit to Greece. “For us, it is clear, and there is no room for interpretation or ambiguity.”

Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, said the bloc was drawing up a “handbook” for the use of the clause.

And EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Europe must step up its defence efforts after Trump has “shaken the transatlantic relationship to its foundation”.

“Let me be clear: We want strong transatlantic ties. The US will remain Europe’s partner and ally. But Europe needs to adapt to the new realities. Europe is no longer Washington’s primary centre of gravity,” she said at a defence conference in Brussels.

“This shift has been ongoing for a while. It is structural, not temporary. It means that Europe must step up. No great power in history has outsourced its survival and survived.”

Has the article ever been invoked?

The clause has been used only once before when France invoked it after the 2015 Paris attacks claimed by ISIL (ISIS), in which 130 people were killed and hundreds wounded.

The attacks were the deadliest in France since World War II. After Article 47.2 was invoked, other EU states shared intelligence aimed at helping French authorities unravel the conspiracy that led to the attacks.

NATO’s Article 5 has also been invoked just once – after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

But NATO’s help to the US wasn’t limited to intelligence sharing. Allies contributed tens of thousands of soldiers to the US-led war in Afghanistan. The operations lasted two decades, and more than 46,000 Afghan civilians were killed alongside 2,461 US personnel and about 1,160 non-US coalition soldiers, according to Brown University’s Cost of War project.

Can countries be kicked out or leave NATO?

Europe’s debate over its defence comes amid a string of disputes inside NATO. The reports that US officials have considered punitive measures against allies have revived questions over the alliance’s future cohesion.

Pablo Calderon Martinez, head of politics and international relations at Northeastern University London and a specialist in European affairs, told Al Jazeera that Spain cannot legally be removed from NATO.

“There is no legal mechanism to remove a member. There is, however, a mechanism through which a member can withdraw itself from the organisation,” he said.

He added that some countries have long fallen short of NATO commitments but that does not provide grounds for expulsion. A more likely scenario, he said, would be the US choosing to leave.

Carne Ross, a former British diplomat and founder of Independent Diplomat, a nonprofit diplomatic advisory group, said the deeper issue is whether Europe and Washington still share common values.

“It is abundantly clear that we do not. Trump is anti-democratic. He tried to subvert democracy, challenged the 2020 election result and whipped up a violent crowd to storm the Capitol,” Ross said.

“What more evidence do we need that the values of Europe are not shared in Washington?”

Is Europe preparing for a future without the US?

European countries have pledged to sharply increase their defence budgets with many aiming to spend 5 percent of their gross domestic products each year on their militaries.

Trump cannot withdraw the US from NATO without congressional approval, but doubts over Washington’s commitment have already unsettled many European capitals.

That has created new urgency around strengthening Europe’s own defence capabilities and building a more credible European pillar inside, or alongside, NATO.

Ross said Europe’s major powers should begin planning seriously for greater self-reliance.

“The Europeans themselves, particularly the most powerful countries – Britain, France, Germany and Italy – need to be talking about how to defend themselves without the US,” he said.

Fifty-nine years of membership, ended with a statement on a Tuesday and an effective date of Friday. The United Arab Emirates announced it will exit OPEC and OPEC+ on May 1, citing national interests, its evolving energy profile, and a long-term strategic vision that no longer aligns with the organization’s direction. The Energy Minister did not consult Saudi Arabia before making the announcement. He did not raise the issue with any other member country. He simply said the time had come. 

The timing tells the whole story. OPEC was preparing to meet in Vienna on Wednesday when the news landed. The Iran war had already wiped out 7.88 million barrels per day of OPEC’s production in March alone, resulting in the biggest supply collapse for the producers’ group in recent decades, surpassing even the 2020 Covid shock and the 1970s oil crisis. The UAE had been absorbing Iranian drone and missile attacks for weeks. The Strait of Hormuz, through which the UAE ships its own oil, has been functionally closed or severely restricted since early March. And sitting across the OPEC table was Iran, the country that had been targeting UAE infrastructure repeatedly, and Russia, which had been a steadfast partner to Iran throughout the conflict.

Walking out was not an impulsive decision. It was the logical conclusion of a calculation that had been building for years.

Why Abu Dhabi Was Already Done With OPEC 

The UAE’s frustration with OPEC production quotas is not new. The quotas have capped UAE output at around 3.2 million barrels per day, while the country has the ambition and the capacity to produce closer to 5 million barrels per day by 2027, suggesting production could almost double without OPEC’s constraints. For a country that has invested heavily in expanding ADNOC’s capacity and has the infrastructure to back it up, being told by a cartel committee how much it can produce has become an increasingly poor trade. 

The UAE’s sovereign wealth fund is so large that its economy is now more significantly tied to global economic growth than to the global price of oil. That shift in economic identity matters enormously for understanding why OPEC membership has become structurally uncomfortable. OPEC exists to keep oil prices elevated through production discipline. The UAE increasingly benefits from a growing global economy that demands more energy, more investment, and more trade, all of which are better served by producing at full capacity and building relationships with the countries that need what Abu Dhabi has to sell. 

An energy industry source familiar with the decision said the UAE felt it was “the right time to leave” and that “this decision is good for consumers and good for the world,” adding that the UAE would gradually increase production to supply global markets once freedom of navigation is restored in the Strait of Hormuz. The framing is deliberate. The UAE is not positioning itself as a cartel defector but as a responsible producer responding to a global energy emergency, which is a considerably more defensible diplomatic position. 

The Saudi Rupture Running Underneath It All

The official UAE statement was carefully worded, full of appreciation for “brothers and friends within the group” and “the highest respect for the Saudis for leading OPEC.” None of that diplomatic courtesy changes the underlying reality, which is that the UAE and Saudi Arabia have been on a collision course for some time and the OPEC exit is the most visible expression of that tension yet.

The two countries had joined a coalition to fight the Houthis in Yemen in 2015, but that coalition broke down into open recriminations in late December when Saudi Arabia bombed what it described as a weapons shipment bound for UAE-backed Yemeni separatists. That incident was the visible rupture of a relationship that had been quietly fraying for years over economic competition, differing visions for regional leadership, and diverging approaches to normalization, China, and the post-war order. Within OPEC, the two countries have clashed repeatedly over quota allocations, with the UAE consistently arguing it deserves a larger share based on its expanded capacity. 

The OPEC exit does not resolve any of those tensions. It sidesteps them entirely, which is probably the more elegant solution. By leaving, the UAE removes itself from a framework where Saudi Arabia holds dominant influence and gains the freedom to pursue its own production and partnership strategy without needing Riyadh’s agreement. That is a significant shift in the regional power dynamic, and it happened without a single confrontational statement.

What Remains of OPEC Now 

The UAE’s exit could prompt other members to follow suit, with analysts pointing to Kazakhstan as another significant producer that wants to grow beyond its current quota constraints. “If there is a time to leave, now is the time,” one Dubai-based energy consultant told CNN. 

The cartel’s power has always rested on a specific mechanism: spare production capacity held back from the market to stabilize prices. That spare capacity is concentrated almost entirely in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, with the other nine member countries possessing little to none. Removing the UAE from that equation means OPEC’s effective spare capacity narrows considerably, and the burden of price stabilization falls almost entirely on Riyadh and Kuwait City. Saudi Arabia will hold an even greater share of the cartel’s remaining leverage, but leverage over a smaller and weaker institution is not the same as leverage over a healthy one.

OPEC has lost members before, but the UAE is a much larger producer than previous departures, and its absence may over time pose an existential risk to the cartel’s sustainability. The organization that has shaped global energy politics since 1960 is now facing its most significant structural test, and it is doing so while simultaneously dealing with a historic supply shock from the Iran war, a closed strait, and a global economy pricing in the possibility that the disruption is not temporary. 

The Geopolitical Implications

Freed from production quotas, the UAE’s most immediate strategic move is likely to deepen its relationship with the countries that need its oil most urgently, and China sits at the top of that list. More production could help the UAE improve ties with oil-importing partners such as China, and given the economic damage caused by the Iran war, the prospect of maximizing energy revenues now is undoubtedly attractive to Abu Dhabi. 

The UAE-US relationship also stands to benefit. With the UAE free to leverage its spare capacity in pursuit of its own strategic interests, the move will likely strengthen the UAE-US relationship, particularly in relation to managing the strategic petroleum reserve and responding to the ongoing Hormuz supply shock. Trump has been publicly critical of OPEC for years, accusing the cartel of exploiting American military protection to keep prices artificially high. An OPEC that is smaller and weaker, with a major member now operating independently and aligned with US interests, is a more congenial arrangement from Washington’s perspective. 

For the global energy market, the picture is more complicated. Once the Strait reopens fully and UAE production ramps up without quota constraints, additional supply should exert downward pressure on prices that have been elevated since February. Whether that actually happens depends on a sequence of events, including a durable Iran settlement and the restoration of free navigation through Hormuz, that are still very much in progress.

Our Take: A Geopolitical Move Dressed as an Energy Decision 

The UAE’s OPEC exit is not primarily an energy story. It is a geopolitical statement about where Abu Dhabi sees itself in the emerging regional order, and the answer is: outside the frameworks that no longer serve its interests, and free to build the bilateral relationships that do. The exit from OPEC follows the same strategic logic as the Abraham Accords, the Huawei contracts, the US base agreement, and the China infrastructure ties. The UAE has been running a multi-alignment strategy for years, positioning itself as indispensable to every major power simultaneously, and OPEC membership was becoming a constraint on that strategy rather than an asset.

What happens to OPEC matters for energy markets in the short term. What the UAE’s departure signals about the fracturing of Gulf institutional solidarity matters considerably more for the regional order that everyone in the Middle East is trying to rebuild in the aftermath of a war that nobody fully planned for and nobody has yet fully ended.

The deeper story is what the UAE’s exit reveals about the post-war Middle East taking shape right now. The institutions that governed the region’s energy politics, security arrangements, and diplomatic alignments for decades were built in a different world, one where the Cold War defined choices, where oil producers had unified interests, and where the US sat at the center of every meaningful regional framework. That world is gone. What the Iran war accelerated, and what the UAE’s OPEC exit makes structurally visible, is that the Gulf’s most capable states are no longer willing to subordinate their individual strategic interests to collective frameworks that were designed for a regional order that no longer exists. 

Abu Dhabi did not leave OPEC because of a quota dispute. It left because it has decided that in the world emerging from this war, the countries that move fastest, align most flexibly, and free themselves from inherited institutional constraints are the ones that will define what comes next. Whether that calculation proves correct depends on what the Islamabad talks produce, how quickly the Strait reopens, and whether the ceasefire holds long enough for the region to build something more durable than a pause. But the signal Abu Dhabi sent on Tuesday was unmistakable, and every government in the region heard it.

“The Devil Wears Prada 2” opens like a knockoff of itself, with sight gags calling back to the mean quips in the 2006 hit: near-identical teal belts, a gala hailing the less-than-innovative theme “Spring Florals” and a red carpet that’s actually cerulean. Those belts, if you’ll remember, were the trigger for Meryl Streep’s Oscar-nominated speech about how her imperious fashion magazine editor in chief Miranda Priestly creates trends that trickle down to the rest of us rabble.

That first film (I’ll go ahead and anoint it a classic) followed a dowdy college graduate, Andy (Anne Hathaway), pursuing a low-level position at Runway magazine — Vogue in everything but name — as a bridge to a serious reporting career. Woe, said bridge is guarded by three trolls: fellow assistant Emily (Emily Blunt), tastemaker Nigel (Stanley Tucci) and the devil herself, Streep’s silver-haired Miranda, whose saintly last name is an ironic joke. Miranda is a riff on Vogue’s former editor in chief Anna Wintour, who used to be irritated by her caricature but eventually came around. After all, she’s getting played by Meryl Freaking Streep.

The setting was glam, the struggle relatable. Andy’s transition from sensible boots to stilettos served as a metaphor for the effort — even discomfort — it takes to chase your dreams, however they might evolve. “The Devil Wears Prada” gets celebrated for her makeover, with even Andy’s clueless boyfriend, played by Adrian Grenier, accusing her of caring about her Runway job solely for the shoes. No, it was never about the shoes. It was about respecting the workaholic she saw in the mirror.

The sequel, from returning director David Frankel and screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna, doesn’t find its own footing until it acknowledges that a Cinderella story about making it in journalism no longer fits. Gone are the days when Miranda and Nigel could casually tell their deep-pocketed publisher Irv (Tibor Feldman) that they’re junking a $300,000 photo shoot because it failed to reach their lofty standards. Likewise, Andy’s story starts when a magnate shutters her current job at a newspaper called the New York Vanguard, firing her and her colleagues for a $500-million tax write-off. (Cue the workers of at least one major Hollywood studio nodding in recognition.)

Hathaway’s Andy, smart and likable as ever, returns to a budget-slashed Runway as the features editor in charge of investigative pieces that online metrics reveal nobody reads — that is, until she breaks a celebrity engagement. Meanwhile, the internet has reduced Miranda to a meme. Her most recent viral scandal has gotten her animated into that Homer-Simpson-in-a-hedge GIF.

McKenna writes Miranda a self-aware scene where she acknowledges that her harsh reputation boosts her clout. Yet I wonder what Wintour will make of this diminished avatar pursuing the same promotion that she herself just claimed at Condé Nast as global head of content. After elevating custom couture to an art form, just the word “content” sounds like a demotion. Content is to prestige journalism what Shein is to Chanel.

Twenty years later, all of the money and power in publishing has been siphoned to the very, very rich. There seem to be as many billionaires in the script for “The Devil Wears Prada 2” as magazine assistants. Mighty Miranda must kowtow to the luxury brands and their ambassadors, whose sponsorship keeps Runway strutting, including the once-harried and humiliated Emily, who is now an executive at Dior. The tension is thicker than mink. The film franchise chooses to ignore original author Lauren Weisberger’s own 2013 follow-up novel “Revenge Wears Prada,” although I’d love to see a threequel that follows her lead and gives Blunt’s hilariously frosty Emily the center stage as she does in her third book, “When Life Gives You Lululemons.”

The storytelling is wonky, given the film’s competing needs to be Miranda-blunt about the modern magazine business while pairing marvelously with a glass of rosé. Instead of Paris, we’re now whisked to cameo-studded shindigs in the Hamptons and Milan, including a dinner party underneath Da Vinci’s mural of “The Last Supper.” (Not only is the painting’s topic apropos, Da Vinci himself butted heads with his wealthy patrons.) Much of the first half feels like we’re cooling our heels with the gang, waiting for a plot to start. There are a lot of idea threads that fray off and don’t go anywhere. Are we supposed to interpret anything from the fact that Miranda has succumbed to throwing a spring florals event — a theme she famously loathes — or are we just supposed to chuckle at the banner and move on? Also, no one in attendance is even wearing anything with flowers. Is the old gal slipping, or is the costume design?

Finally, things get going with a funeral — I won’t say whose, only that the death makes a fitting twist for an industry already getting the axe. Like Andy, I started writing for newspapers a few years after Craigslist decimated the classified page. My personal version of “The Devil Wears Prada” would be closer to a grindhouse flick. At least the Runway employees look killer at their own wake.

Twerpy MBAs force Miranda to fly coach. Of course you snicker — her character hasn’t gone past the first-class curtain since everyone onboard got served a hot meal and plenty of legroom. But there’s no schadenfreude watching her squeeze into a middle seat, no glee in her comeuppance. If Miranda Priestly can get thrown in steerage, we’re all screwed.

The movie is simultaneously more depressing than the original and more saccharine, with a repellent amount of affection between characters who should know better. Tucci’s endearingly steadfast Nigel is finally applauded for his years of service to Runway, and I was dismayed to find myself rolling my eyes at how corny the moment felt. Frankel and McKenna were geniuses to keep things callous on the first go-round, but they now add a romantic subplot between Andy and an Australian apartment contractor (Patrick Brammall) that detracts from the platonic workplace relationships — it’s fan service that I’m not sure fans actually want. Miranda, too, has found love again, and her new husband’s part is so small that I kept trying to convince myself that the actor couldn’t really be the great Kenneth Branagh..

Justin Theroux has a showier, funnier part as the billionaire Benji Barnes who, every time you see him, is holding court about another inane idea or giggling about how a civilization-destroying Pompeii disaster is on the horizon. Terrifyingly, he refers to “humans” in the third person, as if he no longer considers himself one of our species. Given the film’s interest in the figures gutting journalism and how his character’s ex-wife (Lucy Liu) refers to their marriage as being like “a rocket ship to a hall of mirrors,” he’s Jeff Bezos with a sprinkle of Elon Musk. It’s pointed timing, given that Bezos is sponsoring May’s Met Gala, wrapping the Wintour-chaired event in his brand like a giant cardboard box.

But enough about what “The Devil Wears Prada 2” has to say about the economy. How are the clothes? Aesthetically, I dug Andy and Miranda’s sleek menswear looks, lots of vests and blazers with panache. Narratively, their characters — a heroine and her nemesis — shouldn’t dress as though they could swap wardrobes. Then again, they’re here aligned as champions of art, beauty and the press, standing shoulder to shoulder in the all-but-hopeless fight to protect Runway from the philistines. The real devils wear Fitbits.

April 29 (Asia Today) — Instability in South Korea’s fertilizer supply is growing in the aftermath of the war involving Iran, as the prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz disrupts routes for importing raw materials used in fertilizer production.

The Korea Pork Producers Association said Wednesday the price of urea, the largest component among chemical fertilizers, has surpassed $700 per ton, the highest level since October 2022.

“South Korea has a structural limitation because it depends heavily on imports for fertilizer raw materials,” an association official said. “Rising chemical fertilizer prices and supply instability caused by uncertainty in international affairs are directly increasing the burden on crop farmers.”

Amid the pressure, compost and liquid fertilizer made from livestock manure are emerging as alternatives.

The association said resource recycling of livestock manure into compost and liquid fertilizer could gradually reduce dependence on chemical fertilizers while helping stabilize food security.

According to an association survey, the potential fertilizer value of livestock manure is high enough to meet 46% of the nitrogen needs and 100% of the phosphate needs of farmland.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has pursued measures to improve the quality of compost and liquid fertilizer and change perceptions among crop farmers since the Cabinet decided in 2006 to ban ocean dumping of livestock manure. A key measure was the July 2006 plan to promote natural circulation agriculture using livestock manure compost and liquid fertilizer.

A decade after the plan was implemented, production facilities and technology for livestock manure recycling have improved significantly. Liquid fertilizer made from livestock manure is now being used as a substitute for chemical fertilizer at greenhouse farms.

Compost quality has also steadily improved, leading to a sharp increase in exports to Southeast Asian countries.

Livestock manure compost and liquid fertilizer have shown strong effects in reducing fertilizer costs and greenhouse gas emissions. In an experiment by Sangji University, the use of filtered liquid fertilizer instead of chemical fertilizer at a greenhouse farm reduced fertilizer costs by 600,000 won ($406) per hectare and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 382.6 kilograms of carbon dioxide.

Most greenhouse farms using the fertilizer also showed major improvements in soil electrical conductivity, indicating the role of livestock manure compost and liquid fertilizer in soil improvement.

The alternatives also contributed to higher crop output and income. A spinach greenhouse farm using liquid fertilizer produced by the Pocheon Livestock Cooperative’s natural circulation agriculture team saw early harvest output rise 53%, while income per 10 ares reached 7.56 million won ($5,118), up 247% from an average year.

Despite those benefits, livestock manure compost and liquid fertilizer remain less convenient than chemical fertilizer in terms of labor and usability. Experts say policies are needed to develop products that crop farmers can use more easily.

“To promote the recycling and use of livestock manure, we will prepare and pursue policies to remove institutional and structural barriers, including restrictions on spreading and the burden of transport costs,” said Park Jung-hoon, head of the ministry’s food policy office.

Livestock farmers also plan to work with crop farmers to help establish a circular farming system linking livestock and crop production.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260429010009418

Caracas, April 29, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government signed new energy agreements with energy conglomerates British Petroleum (BP) and Eni in separate ceremonies at Miraflores Presidential Palace.

On Wednesday, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to develop the Cocuina-Manakin field, an offshore natural gas project shared between Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago.

“The return of BP [to Venezuela] is a ⁠clear sign of the future we want to chart for Venezuela and for ​international energy relations,” she said during a live broadcast. “May we have cooperation grounded in a win-win approach and ​shared benefits.”

BP was represented by its Trinidad and Tobago director David Campbell. The Cocuina-Manakin field holds an estimated 1 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas, split 34-66 between Caracas and Port of Spain.

Following Wednesday’s agreement, the London-based multinational will additionally explore opportunities in the 7.3 Tcf Loran field, which is also part of a cross-border reserve shared with Trinidad. Both Cocuina and Loran are part of Venezuela’s Deltana Platform, a largely unexplored gas deposit on the country’s eastern maritime border.

Venezuela had suspended all energy projects involving Trinidad and Tobago over its neighbor’s support for the US military escalation in the Caribbean. Following January 3, the acting Rodríguez administration reengaged with Port of Spain, while extending overtures to BP and Shell in an effort to reopen the projects.

The BP agreement came on the heels of another high-profile ceremony at Miraflores on Tuesday that saw Rodríguez extend a “special welcome” to Eni CEO Claudio Descalzi and other executives. In what she called a “milestone in the relations” between Venezuela and the Italian corporation, Rodríguez announced that Eni is planning “one of the largest investments” in the Venezuelan oil sector. 

The contract establishes conditions to relaunch the exploration of the 425 square-kilometer Junín-5 block of Venezuela’s Orinoco Oil Belt. The Junín-5 is estimated to contain 35 billion barrels of extra-heavy oil in place, though only a fraction will be recoverable.

For his part, Descalzi indicated that the signed deal created conditions to “accelerate development” of Junín-5 activities and that the company would finalize its investment plan by the end of the year.

The Junín-5 block was assigned in the late 2000s to Petrojunín, a joint venture where Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA and Eni held 60 and 40 percent of shares, respectively. Crude extraction began in 2013 but did not hit the established targets, hovering around 10,000 barrels per day (bpd) by the end of the 2010s.

The BP and Eni agreements were crafted under Venezuela’s recently overhauled Hydrocarbon Law, which introduces a series of pro-business incentives while curtailing state control over the energy sector.

Under the new law, minority partners can directly manage oilfield operations and sales, whereas in the prior framework that was PDVSA’s exclusive prerogative. Additionally, private companies can have royalties, income tax, and other fiscal contributions slashed at the government’s discretion as well as bring eventual disputes to international arbitration bodies.

In March, Eni, alongside Spain’s Repsol, inked a contract to further development of the Cardón IV offshore natural gas project. The European companies each own 50 percent stakes in the venture and recently announced plans to increase output by roughly 10 percent in the short term.

Eni, which has around 30 percent of its shares owned by the Italian state, is also a minority stakeholder in Petrosucre, a joint venture that operates the Corocoro offshore oilfield. In 2025, the ventures with Eni participation produced an average of 64,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Alongside BP, Eni, and Repsol, Chevron and Shell have likewise struck new deals in recent weeks under the favorable conditions of the hydrocarbon reform. Chevron increased its stake in the Petroindependencia joint venture, while its Petropiar project with PDVSA was assigned a new drilling block in the Orinoco Belt. For its part, Shell will take over light and medium crude projects in Eastern Venezuela and several offshore natural gas initiatives. The company had also expressed interest in the Loran field.

The acting Rodríguez administration has actively courted foreign investment into the South American country’s energy and mining sectors, with leaders openly acknowledging the incorporation of “suggestions” and “recommendations” from Western conglomerates into the recent reform.

Alongside multiple delegations of corporate executives, Rodríguez has also hosted Trump officials, including Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, ahead of the recent hydrocarbon and mining reforms.

Last week, newly appointed US Chargé d’Affaires John Barrett stated that Washington’s goal is to “place the private sector at the center of Venezuela’s transformation” during a meeting with the Venezuelan-American Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VENAMCHAM).

Since the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has issued multiple licenses to facilitate the return of Western conglomerates to the Venezuelan energy and mining sectors.

The licenses mandate that all royalty, tax, and dividend payments be made into accounts run by the US Treasury. Caracas and Washington recently announced the hiring of external auditors to oversee the flow of the US-controlled Venezuelan resources.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

Note: The report was amended on Wednesday night to incorporate the BP agreement.

The Other Bennet Sister proved to be a massive hit with period drama fans last month.

A star of The Other Bennet Sister already has two major new projects lined up.

BBC audiences were captivated by the Pride and Prejudice-inspired period drama The Other Bennet Sister, which retells the classic story from the viewpoint of Mary Bennet (portrayed by Ella Bruccoleri).

While the series predominantly centres on Mary’s individual journey, it does track some of the Jane Austen novel’s more central characters, including snobbish social climber Miss Bingley.

In this BBC adaptation, she is portrayed by none other than Sex Education star Tanya Reynolds, who now has two exciting productions on the horizon.

The first of these ventures is dark comedy Dog Person, a film which the 34 year old is not only appearing in but marks her directorial debut.

She will assume the role of Sally, a dental receptionist who is “overwhelmed by life’s pressures and develops a desire to relinquish control, leading to a dark, unsettling fantasy”.

Reynolds won’t be the sole recognisable face to appear in Dog Person either, as she will be accompanied by the likes of Happy Valley villain and Grantchester legend James Norton.

Completing the principal cast is ITV Downton Abbey and Twenty Twenty Six star Hugh Bonneville.

Dog Person isn’t Reynolds’ sole forthcoming project, with Ted Lasso enthusiasts thrilled to learn that she will feature in the highly anticipated fourth season.

Three years have passed since fans last caught a glimpse of the award-winning Apple TV comedy-drama, and a handful of fresh faces are set to join everyone’s beloved football coach.

Little has been revealed about Reynolds’ character, though she is set to play a new assistant coach for a women’s football team.

Fortunately, the wait is almost at an end, with Ted Lasso season four due to make its debut on Wednesday, August 5, on Apple TV, with episodes dropping on a weekly basis.

The Other Bennet Sister is available to watch on BBC iPlayer.