NEWS

It was a Capitol Hill mystery. For nearly a month, United States Senator Mitch McConnell was not seen or heard from in public.

Little was known about the 84-year-old’s condition, other than that he was hospitalised on June 14. Conspiracy theories began to bubble online. One prominent right-wing influencer, Laura Loomer, even spread rumours that the Republican leader was brain-dead.

But after weeks of silence, McConnell confirmed on Sunday that he was on the mend after suffering a fall.

Still, the Kentucky Republican has increasingly appeared frail on Capitol Hill, freezing in front of cameras and walking unsteadily when not in a wheelchair.

Members of Congress are typically on the older side. The average age for a US senator is around 65.

McConnell’s poor health — and the sudden passing of his Senate colleague Lindsey Graham, 71, on Sunday — have reignited the question: What would happen if McConnell were unable to serve the remainder of his term?

The answer is the subject of intense scrutiny, as Republicans seek to preserve their majority in the Senate.

Who is Mitch McConnell?

A seven-term senator from Kentucky, McConnell is the longest-serving party leader in the history of the Senate.

He first entered the Senate in 1985, and in 2007, he became the head of the Republican Party in the chamber, a position he held until 2025.

He continues to serve as a senator, though he is not seeking re-election in November’s midterm elections. His term ends in January.

What is wrong with McConnell’s health?

On Sunday, McConnell said in a statement that a fall on June 14 rendered him “briefly unconscious” and landed him in the hospital. The senator also said he had dealt with a mild case of pneumonia.

But McConnell has long struggled with health and mobility challenges. As a toddler, he survived a severe bout of polio, though it left one of his legs partially paralysed.

McConnell indicated his condition was improving, but that he would not return to the Senate yet.

“With signs of continued progress, I’ve been able to move from hospital care to a rehabilitation center where I’ll keep regaining my strength,” he wrote.

His statement was accompanied by a smiling photo of the senator in a hospital bed, with what appeared to be a copy of Sunday’s Washington Post newspaper.

Has McConnell been hospitalised before?

This is not the first time the senior senator’s health has been a source of concern in recent years.

As recently as February, the veteran lawmaker was hospitalised for flu-like symptoms.

Also, in 2019, McConnell tripped and fell in his Louisville home, fracturing his shoulder.

According to reporting from the Louisville Courier Journal, he also collapsed three times in 2023, suffering a concussion and a broken rib that ultimately led to him using a wheelchair.

It was during that period that McConnell had several instances where he inexplicably appeared to freeze while speaking in public, prompting questions about his fitness to serve.

Why does his presence in the Senate matter?

Republicans have a controlling majority in the Senate — but only by a few seats.

With McConnell absent, the number of Republicans available to vote shrinks from 53 to 52 in the 100-seat Senate.

That could influence the outcome of divisive bills, when every Republican vote matters.

McConnell’s absence has already helped Democrats pass a resolution against President Donald Trump’s war on Iran, with four Republicans crossing party lines to vote for it.

McConnell also sits on the all-important Senate Appropriations Committee, which helps decide discretionary government spending.

The US government has a looming funding deadline on September 30, and McConnell’s continued hospitalisation could muddle efforts to pass funding measures.

What does McConnell’s absence reveal about Republican Party unity?

The Republican majority in the Senate has weakened over time, according to Stephen Voss, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky.

Moderates like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — alongside wild cards like Rand Paul — have shown willingness in the past to join with Democrats during critical votes.

But that small proportion of “swing” Republicans has grown during the midterm primary season.

A number of lame-duck Republicans have lost their re-election bids to party rivals, backed by President Trump. That makes them more willing to buck their party leadership from time to time.

“McConnell’s absence could become inconvenient depending on what sort of policy battles we see in coming months,” said Voss.

What has been the reaction to McConnell’s absence?

News of McConnell’s hospitalisation sent alarm rippling through the US political sphere.

Republican leaders attempted to reassure the public that the senator would soon return to his post. But as the weeks stretched on, questions about McConnell’s condition mounted.

Ultimately, on July 8, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear sent a letter to McConnell’s office, requesting an update on the senator’s health status.

Beshear has since called McConnell’s written statement on Sunday a “step in the right direction”, but he continues to push for more transparency, suggesting the Republican senator release a video update instead.

Some critics have called on McConnell to step down altogether, questioning his fitness for office. They include Democrat Charles Booker, who is running to succeed McConnell in the midterm elections.

Tres Watson, a Republican strategist and host of the Kentucky Politics Weekly podcast, sees no reason to doubt McConnell’s ability to serve, despite the recent health scares.

“I’ve been around the senator several times in the last year. His brain is functioning fine, his wit is there, his intellect is there, but the body is failing him, and he made the understandable decision not to run for another term,” Watson said.

What happens if Mitch McConnell is unable to serve the rest of his term?

If McConnell were to vacate his senate seat before his term ends, it may be tempting for Democrats to think Beshear, the Democratic governor of Kentucky, could appoint someone from his own party.

That’s not the case, however, because of a recent change in state law. Kentucky is now one of four US states where the governor does not have authority to fill Senate vacancies.

In 2024, Kentucky’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a law requiring Senate vacancies to be filled by a special election, which must be called by the governor.

But experts say holding a special election this year would be fraught with challenges, one of which is timing.

The new law says the governor must give 63 days’ notice before the special election. Senate hopefuls would have to file their candidacy no later than 56 days prior to the vote.

Even if McConnell’s Senate seat were vacated immediately, the earliest a special election could occur is September.

But experts say that cobbling together a special election would not make sense, since November’s midterm elections are barely three and a half months away. McConnell’s Senate seat is up for grabs in that race.

“Setting up the process would take time, so we wouldn’t get a senator in office very quickly, even if this process kicked off soon,” said Voss, the political science professor. “The probability that we’d get a replacement ahead of time is pretty low.”

Watson, the Republican strategist, agrees. He questions the efficiency of rushing to hold a special election, when the midterms are on November 3.

“We’re getting pretty close to Election Day,” Watson said. “They’re not going to put the commonwealth through the expense of having another special election just so someone could be a US senator for effectively one month.”

Could there be challenges to filling McConnell’s seat?

Yes, a significant challenge could be litigation. Kentucky’s 2024 law is largely untested, and it would almost certainly attract legal challenges.

“I think there’s a decent chance the issue could end up in the courts,” said Joshua Douglas, a University of Kentucky law professor who teaches election law.

Douglas believes there may be a contradiction between the new law and parts of the Kentucky Constitution.

“The 17th Amendment says the legislature may authorise the governor to appoint a temporary replacement, Section 152 of the Kentucky Constitution says the governor appoints one, and the Kentucky legislature now says there must be a special election after the new law,” Douglas said.

Voss explained that the legal challenges could delay any special election to fill McConnell’s seat.

“This is the sort of thing that lawyers know how to tie up in litigation,” Voss said. “There would be people involved who know how to slow walk the process.”

Why can’t the governor pick McConnell’s replacement?

The 2024 law stripped the governor’s authority to select a temporary replacement for a US Senate seat.

Governor Beshear vetoed the bill, but the state legislature, which has a Republican supermajority, overrode his opposition.

The measure is part of a broader strategy of Republican lawmakers to shift powers away from the governor since Beshear’s election in 2019.

“We’ve seen an overall attempt by the Kentucky General Assembly to shift power from the executive to the legislative branch,” Voss said.

But the 2024 law was not the legislature’s first attempt at limiting the governor’s ability to fill Senate vacancies.

Initially, in 2021, Republican lawmakers passed a bill that required the governor to choose a temporary replacement from a list of three provided by the executive committee of the former senator’s party. After filling the vacancy, a special election would be held.

According to Watson, Republicans passed a new version because they were concerned about legal challenges to the 2021 law.

Republicans in the state argue that the 2024 update is more democratic and aligns with the process for filling other vacancies.

Beshear is the only Democrat to hold a statewide office in Kentucky. The state has not elected a Democrat to the US Senate since 1992.

Who is running to replace McConnell in the midterms?

In the general election, Democrat Charles Booker, a former state legislator, is running against Republican Representative Andy Barr to succeed McConnell.

Khartoum, Sudan – A senior Sudanese minister says more than three years of a devastating war in the country have “profoundly reshaped” its demographic makeup.

Minister of Human Resources and Social Development Mutasim Ahmed Saleh told Al Jazeera Arabic that his ministry was working with several partners to strengthen population policies and link them to social protection programmes.

Sudan has been embroiled in a brutal civil war between its army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary since April 2023. The war is estimated to have killed about 200,000 people and displaced more than 11 million, creating what the United Nations calls the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.

The war has also affected Sudan’s demographics.

Before the war, the North African country’s population was expected to exceed 64 million by 2035, according to official data. In 2020, the population stood at about 44.4 million, with forecasts of a growth rate of about 2.39 percent – one of the highest rates globally.

The war has not only displaced millions of people internally in South Darfur, North Darfur and Central Darfur states, it has also forced tens of thousands of others to seek asylum in neighbouring countries, including Egypt, South Sudan and Chad.

Saleh said the most significant demographic changes caused by the war included a general increase in poverty levels, a large segment of citizens losing their income, the deterioration of basic services in a number of areas, and a decline in the labour market and human capital.

To mark World Population Day on July 11, the minister said his government would work for the people – “the focus and ultimate aim of the state’s attention” – and strengthen social protection programmes.

Saleh said his ministry, through the National Population Council and with other state partners, would strengthen Sudan’s population policies and link them to social protection, the voluntary return of refugees, the reintegration of displaced people, and human resource development to contribute to rebuilding the country’s human capital as the “cornerstone of national recovery and sustainable development”.

He said that investing in people was “the real investment in Sudan’s future”.

“The more we succeed in restoring population stability and empowering citizens economically and socially, the closer we come to building a more stable, just and prosperous homeland,” Saleh said.

Population imbalance

Experts say Sudan is distinct in its demographic structure – it has a large youth population, with about 70 percent of the population under the age of 30, according to data from the last census conducted in 2008.

They say that its large youth population gives Sudan a demographic dividend that could drive economic development. But Saleh’s ministry said young people have faced challenges such as limited access to education, scarce job opportunities and widespread poverty, even before the conflict turned them into one of the worst-affected groups.

Khalid Saad, director of the Sudanese Center for Development Communication, told Al Jazeera that Sudan’s population crisis did not begin with the war.

Despite the country’s vast territory and abundant natural resources, it has suffered for decades from a clear imbalance in population distribution, he said.

“The war came to deepen this imbalance, redraw the demographic map through displacement and asylum, empty some areas of their populations, burden other cities with numbers beyond their capacity to absorb, while large numbers of people have returned to areas retaken by government forces,” he said.

Saad said the likely return of people does not mean the end of the demographic crisis, because returnees often go back to areas that have lost a large part of their economic infrastructure.

“The challenge therefore remains in rebuilding an environment that ensures their stability and prevents renewed displacement,” he said.

The war, Saad added, raises questions that still require precise answers: the actual scale of human losses; how the war has affected mortality rates; how it has changed patterns of marriage and childbearing; the impact of displacement and migration on birth rates and age structure; and how the emigration of skilled professionals will affect the size of the workforce in coming years.

Answers to these questions form the basis for any economic or social planning in the post-war phase, he said.

Data released by the National Population Council also points to a demographic imbalance.

Sudan’s urban population rose to about 17.9 million in 2020, with Khartoum alone accounting for about 42 percent of the country’s urban population, indicating a pattern of internal migration driven by uneven development.

The International Organization for Migration said that about 4.1 million people have returned to their areas of origin across Sudan. The vast majority — more than 80 percent — returned from within Sudan to nine states, led by Khartoum, Gezira and Sennar.

According to the organisation, the number of internally displaced people has fallen by 23 percent compared with the highest level recorded in January 2025, when the number of people displaced within Sudan stood at nearly 12 million.

Sudan has entered its fourth year of conflict amid a complex political and military landscape, with little hope of a resolution. Infrastructure has collapsed, and essential services remain disrupted.

Meanwhile, local and international warnings are mounting over a worsening humanitarian crisis, driven by shortages of food and medicines, and the difficulty of delivering aid to affected or besieged areas.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio is hosting more than 65 countries for a conference focused on political violence from the far left, a designation that a number of critics say is being used to target legitimate opposition.

The “Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism”, taking place on Thursday, brings together government representatives from around the world to coordinate on what the US Department of State calls a “renewed threat”  that has “remained a blind spot in the international community’s counterterrorism focus”.

Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Reuters news agency that “the far-left terrorism designations could be used to target lawful protest activity and political opponents rather than genuine security threats.”

Here’s what’s driving the summit and who’s attending:

What is this summit about?

The Trump administration’s 2026 counterterrorism strategy identifies three primary threats: “Islamist terrorism”, “narco-terrorism”, and “violent left-wing extremists, including Anarchists and Anti-Fascists”.

The strategy states that the third category of left-wing “extremists” has been traditionally ignored, and notes that Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September 2025 was executed “by a radical who espoused extreme transgender ideologies”.

The counterterrorism strategy omits right-wing extremism and white supremacist groups, despite growing instances of violence that some of these outfits have been accused of – including several of those who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2020, in an attempt to overturn the US presidential election that Donald Trump lost.

Thomas Renard, director of The Hague-based International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, said the summit reflects a fundamental shift in how the US sees the threat.

“What we are seeing now in the United States is that counterterrorism has been completely politicised, instrumentalised,” he told Al Jazeera. “For instance, the threat from far-right terrorism, which was for decades considered as the primary domestic threat, has now completely disappeared from the US counterterrorism strategy.”

Who has been invited?

Invites went to more than 70 countries as the State Department wrote on social media that countries had shown “overwhelming interest”. It is reported that Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Saar will be present alongside representatives from multiple countries. The stated aim is to “expand coordination, enhance information sharing, and strengthen international law enforcement mechanisms”.

The summit follows a series of smaller meetings held earlier this year, including one in The Hague with law enforcement officials.

Renard says many European nations are expressing their unease with this ministerial meeting by sending relatively junior ministers.

“They are not particularly convinced that this is a topic that justifies this type of gathering, but at the same time, they don’t want to antagonise the United States either. And therefore, this is the compromise they found,” he said.

In November, 2025, the US designated four European groups as terrorist organisations: The German Antifa Ost, the Italian Informal Anarchist Federation/International Revolutionary Front (FAI/FRI), the Greek Armed Proletarian Justice and the Greek Revolutionary Class Self-Defense.

What is “far-left terrorism”?

The term is usually used by governments to describe movements accused of violence and driven by left-wing ideologies, including Marxism, socialism, or anarchism. Such movements usually describe themselves as anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist.

Latin America saw several left-wing armed movements during the Cold War, a number of which carried out sustained campaigns of political violence, such as Colombia’s Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMNL) in El Salvador and the Tupamaros in Uruguay. Throughout the 20th century, Washington repeatedly backed hardline right-wing regimes that opposed left-wing movements across Latin America.

India has been dealing with the Naxalite rebellion, a far-left Maoist movement that started in the 1960s and claims to fight for the rural population. The group is seen as one of India’s most serious internal security threats. At its peak, about the year 2000, thousands of people were killed due to the conflict with the Naxalite rebellion.

During the 1970s and 1980s, Marxist groups like the Red Army Faction in West Germany were behind several assassinations, abductions and bombings that they argued were aimed at weakening the capitalist state.

By contrast, the Antifa movement, which the Trump administration has consistently tried to portray as a major violent threat, is a loose, decentralised collection of socialist-leaning individuals opposed to far-right extremism, white supremacy and authoritarianism. Several individuals described by prosecutors as Antifa members have been indicted on accusations of violence in US courts, especially in states like Texas that are ruled by Trump’s Republican Party, since he returned to power. In June, eight such individuals were sentenced to several years in prison: Benjamin Hanil Song, convicted of the attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, was sentenced to 100 years in prison.

Far-right political violence and terrorism in the US

But the same Trump administration has pardoned all those charged with violence during the January 6, 2023 insurrection, including individuals accused of beating police officers.

This week’s summit also specifically focuses on far-left political violence but does not include the threat from far-right ideology and terrorism, similar to the counterterrorism strategy.

This, even though the Oklahoma bombing, which killed 168 people and wounded nearly 700 in the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in the US, was carried out by the right-wing hardliner Timothy McVeigh.

The Cato Institute, a US think tank in Washington, DC, stated in February that of politically motivated terrorism on US soil between 1975 and 2025, excluding the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11, “right-wing terrorists account for 45 percent of people murdered, Islamists are responsible for 32 percent, left-wing terrorists are responsible for 16 percent.”

Renard says the summit creates the very problem it claims to solve: “The United States, with this summit and with its strategy, is creating, actually, a blind spot about far-right terrorist threats, as that threat is strongly anchored and rooted in the United States.”

In Venezuela, the focus has shifted from rescue to rebuilding three weeks after devastating earthquakes killed at least 4,829 people. But for many affected communities, uncertainty remains over how and when the government’s reconstruction plan will take shape.

Mykhailo Fedorov has been credited with reforming defence procurement and tackling corruption.

Hundreds of people have gathered near the Ivan Franko National Theatre in central Kyiv to protest against the dismissal of Defence Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, calling on President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reverse the decision.

According to local media reports, protests also took place in several other cities on Thursday, including Lviv, Odesa and Dnipro, while in Kyiv, protesters chanted “Shame!” and carried placards reading “The Russians are celebrating”.

The theatre is close to the presidential office, the site of last July’s so-called “cardboard protest”, when public pressure prompted Zelenskyy to reverse a widely criticised measure that stripped Ukraine’s anticorruption agencies of their independence.

The demonstrations came as Ukraine’s parliament prepared to vote on a new wartime government on Thursday following Fedorov’s departure as defence minister. The wider overhaul also saw Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko leave office.

The move forms part of Zelenskyy’s second cabinet reshuffle in a year. Lawmakers expect Minister of Internal Affairs Ihor Klymenko to replace Fedorov as defence minister. Parliament is also expected to approve the appointment of energy executive Serhii Koretskyi as prime minister, along with new defence and foreign ministers.

Writing on X, Fedorov said it had been “a great honour to serve the Ukrainian people” as the minister of defence, before outlining what he described as the ministry’s key achievements during his tenure, including disabling “Starlink access for Russian forces” and launching programmes to expand Ukraine’s domestic drone production amid the ongoing war with Moscow.

The 35-year-old technology specialist, who previously served as Ukraine’s first minister for digital transformation, has been credited with streamlining bureaucracy and introducing a more data-driven approach to the war against Russia.

Supporters say his efforts to reform defence procurement and tackle corruption won him enemies within parts of the political and military establishment. However, critics say he failed to deliver quickly enough on promises to overhaul military recruitment.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Zelenskyy said he wanted the Ministry of Defence and military leadership to work with greater unity, appearing to acknowledge reports of tensions between Fedorov and other officials.

The United Kingdom’s surprising decision to buy a dozen conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A fighters has taken another turn. According to a U.K. Royal Air Force official, “We did not buy those aircraft for their dual [nuclear] capability, we bought them for our conversion unit. At the same time, we stated we would get back into the [nuclear] role supporting NATO. The two are separate functions.”

The official, Air Vice-Marshal Jim Beck, the Royal Air Force’s Director Capability and Programs, was speaking today at the Global Air & Space Chiefs’ Conference in London. Their words were reported by Gareth Jennings, aviation desk editor at Janes.

As you can read about here, the United Kingdom announced in June last year that it would buy 12 F-35As alongside the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B models it already uses.

At that point, the U.K. Ministry of Defense specifically highlighted the F-35A’s ability to join the NATO nuclear mission, which would see the jets armed with U.S.-owned B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs. The F-35B, with its smaller weapons bays, is not able to carry these weapons.

B61-12 test drop by an F-35A

“The U.K. will purchase 12 new F-35A fighter jets and join NATO’s dual-capable aircraft nuclear mission in a major boost for national security,” the U.K. Ministry of Defense announced. The ministry described this as the “biggest strengthening of the U.K.’s nuclear posture in a generation, complementing the U.K.’s existing sea-borne deterrent.”

Earlier in June 2025, the Strategic Defense Review, published by the U.K. Ministry of Defense, had suggested that the future Lightning Force could comprise a mix of F-35As and F-35Bs.

At the same time, however, the Royal Air Force had noted that the F-35As would be assigned to a training unit and would primarily be used in that role.

As the F-35A is cheaper to operate, it is considered a better option to use for training sorties, including keeping pilots current on the F-35B. The ministry said buying the 12 jets will bring a savings of 25 percent per aircraft over the F-35B.

“Day-to-day, the F-35As will be used in a training role on 207 Squadron, the Operational Conversion Unit (OCU),” the Royal Air Force said. “As the F-35A carries more fuel than the F-35B variant, it can stay airborne for longer, extending the available training time in each sortie for student pilots. As F-35As also require fewer maintenance hours, there will be increased aircraft availability on the OCU. These factors combined will improve pilot training and reduce the amount of time for pilots to reach the frontline squadrons.”

The tradeoff is that the F-35A can’t be used to train for STOVL missions, but this part of the F-35B profile can be trained in the simulator, while an F-35A training unit frees up more F-35Bs to deploy aboard the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.

Now, the words of the Royal Air Force official today cast doubt on whether the F-35As will actually take on the nuclear strike role, something that was specifically highlighted in the U.K. Defense Investment Plan published last month.

As well as today’s underscoring of the priority of the training mission, it should be noted that the new F-35As will be based at RAF Marham, in eastern England, and it’s unclear whether the airfield retains the underground weapons vaults for nuclear bombs. Some reports suggest the vaults that existed there in the Cold War have been dismantled or even filled in completely. In the past, we speculated that the jets might have to make use of nearby RAF Lakenheath, where there is evidence that the United States has brought nuclear bombs back to the United Kingdom, for its own use.

At the same time, as we have explained in the past, while the nuclear-sharing program provides access to U.S.-owned weapons, it still requires the United States and NATO to approve their use.

U.K.-operated nuclear-capable F-35As would not offer the same sovereign capability as the Royal Navy’s ballistic missile submarines, around which the British nuclear deterrent is based.

Then there is the issue of how much training, and other resources, would have to be assigned to the nuclear mission to ensure that it could actually be executed. Certainly, this would be nothing like the Cold War era, when a handful of jets stood fully armed, round the clock, on each assigned RAF base, with their crews waiting for the alert to sound.

The reality would likely involve the unit switching to focusing on the nuclear mission in times of crisis. This raises a question about how long this would take, and to what degree it would provide a real deterrent, bearing in mind the need to spin it up to be combat-ready.

These are all questions we have asked before in relation to the U.K. F-35A’s proposed nuclear role.

Now, the Royal Air Force itself is dialing back expectations in this regard.

Ultimately, the best chance of the Royal Air Force having a meaningful dual-role nuclear mission would be to buy more F-35As. As it stands, the 12 F-35As are part of the core buy, not additional to it.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense has long said that it still expects to procure 138 F-35s over the lifetime of the program. So far, 48 F-35Bs have been delivered, and the government is committed to buying 15 more F-35Bs and the 12 F-35As for delivery by 2033.

The lack of numbers has seen the United Kingdom rely on U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs to make up the required aircraft numbers during carrier cruises.

The F-35A argument would become much more compelling, and more cost-effective, if it were to be bought in larger numbers.

The F-35A is more capable in general, with superior range and payload, and it can maneuver at 9G, while the F-35B is cleared for 7.5G.

One unresolved issue as far as the British are concerned is the F-35A’s refueling receptacle, which is incompatible with their fleet of Voyager tankers. Modifications could provide the British F-35A with a probe, but would likely only make sense on the back of a bigger buy.

While many senior Royal Air Force officers might favor getting more F-35As, the jet is now also competing with the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP), at the center of which is the Tempest crewed stealth fighter, as well as emerging drone programs.

In the meantime, the British are struggling to find money for more basic elements of the F-35B, which still critically lacks a standoff strike capability. A report late last year found that a history of “cost-cutting” throughout the U.K. F-35 program “has caused significant problems in its use,” which have affected the jet’s “capability, availability to fly, and value for money.”

The U.K. Ministry of Defense also needs to spend more than $83 billion over the next four years to fund its  nuclear-powered submarine programs, which include a true sovereign  nuclear capability of the kind that the F-35A is unable to provide.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The US military has continued strikes against Iran, hitting targets further to the country’s north as well as close to capital Tehran for the first time in the latest round of violence.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) said early on Thursday it struck several military sites and assets in a bid to “further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten innocent mariners” in the Strait of Hormuz. The unit also said it disabled an oil tanker in the passageway.

At least 35 people have died, and more than 300 have been wounded in the latest wave of attacks that began last Wednesday after CENTCOM launched strikes on Iranian port cities close to the Strait of Hormuz. The US says the attacks are in retaliation for Iran hitting three commercial ships in the Strait.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it targeted US military assets in neighbouring Gulf countries.

Here’s what has happened in Iran and the US on Wednesday and Thursday and what both sides are saying:

Where did the US hit?

CENTCOM said in a statement early on Thursday that US air strikes targeted Iranian command centres, air defence sites, missile and drone capabilities as well as coastal surveillance facilities.

Multiple locations were hit, CENTCOM said, including Bandar Abbas on Thursday.

An earlier wave of strikes late on Wednesday hit coastal defence and cruise missile sites on Greater Tunb Island in a 90-minute bombing wave, CENTCOM added. The small, strategically located island sits near the Strait of Hormuz and is believed to hold a naval base, although details are not publicly available. It is also believed to be a point from which the Iranian military has disrupted shipping routes.

Meanwhile, Iranian media reported attacks in Bandar Abbas, Qeshm Island, Sirik, Chabahar, Konarak, Rask, Khondab, Khorramabad and Semnan.

A hospital in Ahvaz was forced to evacuate 211 patients after reportedly being hit in the strikes.

Air defences were activated in Tehran and neighbouring Pakdasht and Parchin on Thursday.  The Iranian military said an MQ-9 drone was downed over the city of Andimeshk.

CENTCOM, in a separate statement on Thursday, said it was enforcing a naval blockade reimposed on Tuesday by disabling a “non-compliant” oil tanker that was attempting to sail towards Iran’s Kharg Island using Hellfire missiles.

How has Iran responded?

Iran’s army claimed retaliatory attacks on US military assets in Kuwait and Bahrain on Thursday.

Kuwait: The Iranian army said in a statement it targeted radar systems, the Patriot defence system and fuel tanks belonging to US forces at the Ali Al Salem airbase in Kuwait. In an earlier statement, it said it hit a radar and gathering point for US soldiers in Kuwait, as well as US communications systems and fuel depots in Jordan’s al-Azraq airbase.

Bahrain: Drones also targeted US Super Hawk radars and Patriot defence systems at the Sheikh Isa airbase in Bahrain, the army added.

Jordan: Meanwhile, Jordan said it intercepted eight Iranian missiles on Thursday.

Iraq: Iraqi authorities said five drones attacked the city of Erbil, with two crashing near a US base and one shot down near the US consulate. Iran’s army has not claimed the attacks.

What are both sides saying?

Iran’s parliament speaker and lead negotiator, Mohammad Ghalibaf, said on Wednesday Iran is prepared for a fuller military confrontation if the US does not live up to the terms of the interim deal. The country is fighting an “existential” battle, he added.

The IRGC has, meanwhile, threatened to halt all energy exports from the Middle East over the US’s naval blockade, which was reimposed on Tuesday.

“The export of oil and gas from the region will be either for everyone or for no one,” it said in a statement.

Speaking at the US Army War College in Pennsylvania on Wednesday, President Donald Trump reiterated his claims that Iran was pushing to strike a peace deal behind the scenes but did not provide details.

“They don’t like what we’re doing, and they do want to settle. We’ll find out whether or not we settle with them, or we just finish it off,” he said.

However, in a rare show of gratitude on Wednesday, Trump thanked Iran via his Truth Social platform for the release of Dena Karari, an American citizen the US says was “wrongfully” jailed in the country since 2024.

Meanwhile, US Vice President JD Vance, in an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan released on Wednesday, defended the war on Iran but added that an agreement was needed between the two sides to end the conflict.

The latest government measure aimed at curbing digital harm comes after an under-16 social media ban was announced last month.

The United Kingdom has proposed an overnight social media curfew for older teenagers as part of the government’s latest push to protect minors from digital harm, though users will be permitted to bypass the restrictions.

The Labour administration announced the plans on Wednesday, outlining a six-hour default lockout from midnight to 6am for 16- and 17-year-olds on platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube.

Under the proposal, highly engaging mechanisms, such as autoplay videos and infinite scrolling, would also be deactivated by default for this age group to encourage better sleep and focus.

The initiative follows a June announcement by outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who unveiled a blanket ban on social media for children under 16 slated to take effect in 2027.

While the younger cohort faces a strict prohibition on major networks, ministers chose a softer approach for older adolescents.

The UK’s restrictions reflect a rapidly growing global crackdown on young people’s social media access. Australia made waves in December by enacting a world-first ban on social media for under-16s, which its government is already looking to tighten following studies showing that many teenagers easily bypass the restrictions.

The ban, which came into force on December 10, made Australia a global test case for countries trying to curb children’s access to social media.

Defending the voluntary nature of the curfew, UK Secretary for Online Safety Kanishka Narayan rejected criticism that teenagers would simply disable the restrictions. He told Sky News that the government wanted to avoid outright bans for older teenagers, aiming instead for a “smooth slope” into adulthood.

“We want to empower our teenagers,” Narayan said, citing data from a pilot scheme and previous voluntary platform trials where more than 90 percent of teenagers kept the restrictive default settings active.

“The evidence base is clear, the motivation is very clear, and I wouldn’t do the disservice to teenagers of saying they’re all going to switch it off.”

However, political opponents and child safety advocates expressed scepticism about the policy’s efficacy.

Laura Trott, the education spokesperson for the opposition Conservative Party, dismissed the plans as illogical.

“Either they think 16- and 17-year-olds should be on social media or they don’t, but curfews they can simply switch off won’t achieve anything,” Trott said, according to the Associated Press news agency.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a prominent UK children’s nonprofit, welcomed the development, but warned that it was a temporary fix.

Chief executive Chris Sherwood cautioned that unless the government implements “further, stronger measures”, the policy will act only as a “sticking plaster” that fails to address the deeply addictive algorithms driving excessive screen time.

The proposals must still be formally legislated. Because they represent some of the final legislative steps of Starmer’s administration, the responsibility of implementing them is expected to fall to his anticipated successor, Andy Burnham.

Caracas, July 15, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) –  The Venezuelan National Assembly (AN) and a group of former opposition lawmakers who served in the 2015–2020 legislature, led by Dinorah Figuera, announced the launch of a joint working agenda on August 1 aimed at “strengthening democracy” in the country.

National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, who is also the Venezuelan government’s lead negotiator, made the announcement on Tuesday via an official statement, reporting that both sides had agreed to “jointly confront the consequences of the twin earthquakes that have plunged the country into mourning.”

“Only in unity can we move forward with the reconstruction while keeping the peace,” the text read.

For its part, the opposition group said in a separate statement that the initiative constitutes a “roadmap to promote stability, democracy, and national recovery,” with the goal of beginning “the construction of a new stage that will lead to a Venezuela of progress and freedoms.” According to the document, the agenda will prioritize “strengthening democratic institutions, reinforcing the electoral system, and restoring guarantees for political participation.”

Figuera told media that the talks will involve 10-team delegations from both sides and claimed that the opposition faction will be involved in choosing new electoral authorities and Supreme Court justices, as well as in reforms to existing electoral laws.

She confirmed that the opposition has already selected several participants, including lawyers Juan Miguel Matheus and Sergio Vergara, businessman Jorge Millán, and former National Assembly Vice President Marco Aurelio Quiñones. No members of the Venezuelan government delegation are presently known.

Figuera took over the opposition-majority 2015–2020 National Assembly in 2023, despite its period having ended two years earlier. The legislature repeatedly renewed its own mandate as it maintained “recognition” from Washington as Venezuela’s legitimate authority. The anti-government group likewise retained control over several Venezuelan state assets frozen by the US and allies.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reposted the 2015–2020 National Assembly’s roadmap through his X account. US authorities had endorsed the talks when they were first announced in June. Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, Rubio has insisted on a “three-phase plan” that ends with a political “transition.”

The announcement of impending talks contrasted with Rodríguez stating on Saturday that the country “was not in the right frame of mind” to discuss issues related to the National Electoral Council (CNE), the Supreme Court (TSJ), or elections.

“We are concerned about people who have suffered the unimaginable. It would be disrespectful and insensitive for politicians to meet now to decide who should be appointed to the CNE or the TSJ. There will be time for that,” Rodríguez said.

Instead, he urged opposition leaders to work together on responding to the earthquake emergency, including reforms to the country’s housing laws and identifying land for the new constructions.

Just six days before the devastating earthquakes of June 24, Figuera traveled to Caracas with Washington’s backing to head negotiations with the Venezuelan government. During that June 18 visit, she met with Jorge Rodríguez and opposition leaders before traveling to the United States for additional discussions.

Her return took many opposition figures by surprise, as only weeks earlier María Corina Machado, speaking at a meeting of opposition politicians in Panama, had announced her intention to personally lead negotiations with the government over a future electoral process. The far-right leader announced a closed-door meeting with political allies on Wednesday to discuss the upcoming negotiations between the acting Delcy Rodríguez government and a separate opposition faction.

Amid these political developments, Acting President Rodríguez also appointed Johann Álvarez on July 14 as Venezuela’s new Chargé d’Affaires to the United States, tasking him with “representing the country’s interests and advancing a new stage of dialogue, cooperation, and mutual respect.”

Álvarez most recently served as Venezuela’s Minister of Foreign Trade and Superintendent of the country’s Special Economic Zones (SEZs). He replaces Félix Plasencia, who was chosen by Rodríguez to head the Foreign Ministry after merging it with the Foreign Trade Ministry.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

US President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as the nation’s top intelligence official, Jay Clayton, evaded directly stating that Trump lost the 2020 election. During his Senate confirmation hearing Clayton said only that Biden had been ‘certified’ as president, adding ‘I am not an election denier’.

Nightly strikes between the US and Iran have been the heaviest since the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement was signed a month ago. A former US ambassador tells Al Jazeera’s ‘This is America’ that Tehran has miscalculated in thinking that Trump would back down.

European vacation rentals have entered a bizarre era where there’s more municipal red tape than luxury.

The romantic idea of escaping to a restored Tuscan farmhouse or a modernist villa overlooking the French Riviera, perhaps with a glass of local wine in hand while watching the sunset over olive groves that have stood for centuries, has run straight into the cold reality of the European Union’s fight against carbon.

How does that reconcile with holidayers who expect 3m pools heated to an exact temperature? Whole-house air conditioning? Double-door refrigerators? Massive panoramic windows?

We don’t know, but we do know that local councils are staring down energy grids that are already stressed to their absolute limits. Sustainability isn’t just a case of putting a small wooden sign in the bathroom asking guests to reuse their towels anymore.

WTTC Initiatives and the Corporate Push for Greener Stays

The World Travel & Tourism Council has spent the last few years trying to bring about that reconciliation. A massive partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme is pushing circular economy guidelines down the throats of major hospitality operators, hoping that global standards will somehow trick independent luxury property managers into compliance. It sounds great on paper. The industry wants independent certification schemes to look uniform across borders, because global corporations hate dealing with twenty different regional rules when they could just tick a single corporate checkbox instead.

For property managers, it’s trickle-down bureaucracy at its finest. You can’t just call a rental “eco-friendly” anymore because you bought organic cotton sheets, left a bottle of locally sourced olive oil on the kitchen counter, installed a Nest thermostat, and planted some lavender in the garden. The standards are tightening.

The WTTC is pushing for genuine data transparency, which means tracking actual water stewardship metrics, managing real-time grid feedback loops, auditing supply chains, and proving carbon offsets. It’s an administrative headache for anyone who just wanted to rent out a luxury apartment while drinking espresso on a private terrace.

With sustainability metrics becoming a core driver of soft power and local tourism compliance across European markets, consumer-facing tech platforms are reacting by categorizing eco-certified accommodations. Advanced search ecosystems such as Villa Picker are facilitating this transition, allowing travelers to filter properties by energy efficiency standards and regional sustainability benchmarks without sacrificing premium amenities.

Balancing High-End Amenities with Low-Impact Operations

This leaves high-end property operators in a tricky bind. Holidayers don’t want a lecture on carbon footprints when they’re paying thousands of euro a night and retrofitting a centuries-old villa with triple glazing, thick cavity wall insulation, solar roof tiles, and ground-source heat pumps is an architectural nightmare that costs a fortune.

Operators are forced to play a complicated game of smoke and mirrors with smart home technology. They’re installing automated sensors that kill the climate control the second a guest steps outside, investing in invisible greywater recycling systems, choosing low-flow rainfall showerheads that disguise water conservation as a spa experience, and buying electric vehicle charging stations that look sleek next to a rented sports car. It’s a delicate compromise. If Europe’s green transition succeeds, it’ll be because the luxury rental market figured out how to hide the machinery of sustainability behind a velvet curtain of premium comfort.

The State Department has approved a possible $2 billion deal to sell up to 20,000 Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS II) laser guidance kits to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The approval for these munitions comes as Iran is increasing attacks on nations hosting U.S. troops in the Middle East and tensions with the Houthi rebels of Yemen are heating up again. The air-to-air variant has become a critical cost effective weapon to shoot down large numbers of long-range one way attack drones and lower-end cruise missiles. Meanwhile, the air-to-ground variant provides extremely precise low-collateral strike capabilities against a wide variety of targets.

Saudi Arabia wants to buy 10,000 APKWS II air-to-air guidance sections and up to 10,000 air-to-ground guidance sections. The package includes an undisclosed number of LAU-131/A seven-shot 70mm rocket pods, Mk66 rocket motors, Mk-152 high explosive warheads and proximity fuzes.

All versions of the APKWS rocket are made up of three basic components: a laser guidance section inserted between one of a variety of warhead options and a standard 70mm rocket motor.

An air-to-air optimized variant, designated the AGR-20F and also referred to as the Fixed Wing, Air Launched, Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Ordnance (FALCO), was subsequently developed. The FALCO configuration includes a proximity fuze and changes to the munition’s guidance and sensing algorithms.

The deal does not include the rockets themselves, and the State Department notice does not say on which aircraft the Royal Saudi Air Force will carry these munitions. However, they will most likely be loaded onto the RSAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon and F-15SA fighter jets.

As we have previously reported, an air-to-air APKWS capability is being rapidly added to an increasing number of U.S. military aircraft. U.S. Air ForceF-15E Strike Eagle, F-16C Viper, and A-10 Warthog combat jets are known to be cleared to employ the weapon. The USMC’s legacy F/A-18 Hornets can also now use APKWS against aerial targets. Other types, like the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, will likely receive the munitions too. The Eurofighter Typhoon has been recently cleared to employ APKWS, as well.

TWZ was the first to report that U.S. Air Force F-16 Vipers were employing APKWS IIs, originally designed as air-to-ground munitions, as a lower-cost option for downing Houthi drones. Today, Ukrainian F-16s are employing APKWS against Russian drones.

APKWS, The Innovation Continues

As we noted earlier in this story, this all comes as Iran has been lobbing missiles and drones across the region in response to U.S. attacks. In addition, Saudi Arabia and the Houthis recently traded strikes on airports.

“This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a Major non-NATO Ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Gulf Region,” the State Department said in a release. “The proposed sale will improve Saudi Arabia’s capability to deter current and future threats by strengthening its homeland defense, and improving interoperability with U.S. forces, and other regional and NATO forces. The proposed sale will also augment Saudi Arabia’s operational aircraft and enhance its air-to-air, and air-to-ground self-defense capability. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.”

U.S. Air Force leaders have lauded the APKWS II system.

“It’s our primary weapon against a drone,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Derek France, head of Air Forces Central (AFCENT), the service’s top command in the Middle East, told us last year on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2025 Air, Space, and Cyber Conference. “We’ve had multiple shoot-downs with it.”

Since then, APKWS has become the primary weapon system used by American fighters to shoot down Iran’s long-range one-way attack munitions, doing so for just a tiny fraction of the cost of the cheapest available air-to-air missile. The Saudis have the same use case and are keenly aware of just how expensive downing drones can be via a fighter platform after years of fighting the Houthis in Yemen. You can read all about this here. The APKWS II guidance section has a unit cost between $15,000 and $20,000, with the rocket motor and warhead adding a few thousand dollars more to the full price tag. Current generation AIM-120 air-to-air missiles cost around $1 million apiece, while the AIM-9X has a price point around $450,000.

With the APKWS being nearly plug-and-play on both the F-15SA and the Typhoon, the Saudis are clearly preparing to shoot down a lot of drones far more cheaply than in the past with their current fighter force.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Following hints last week and an announcement on Monday by President Donald Trump, the U.S. blockade of Iran is back on in full force. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), in its latest update, stated that two commercial vessels were redirected and one was kinetically disabled in the first 24 hours. More than 20 U.S. warships, depicted in the graphic above, are operating in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, along with hundreds of aircraft dispersed across various bases, vessels, and forward arming and refueling points in the Middle East. “The U.S. military remains vigilant and prepared to ensure full compliance,” CENTCOM said.

The mechanics of the reinstated blockade appear to mirror the first, which CENTCOM outlined in an article published on X. “CENTCOM forces will enforce the blockade against vessels transiting to or from Iranian ports and coastal areas. The U.S. military continues to support traffic flow through regional waters for all vessels not violating the blockade.” Additional information was provided to commercial mariners in a formal notice issued by U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT). “The blockade encompasses the entirety of the Iranian coastline to include but not limited to Iranian ports and oil terminals.” The blockade applies to all traffic, regardless of flag, according to the notice, but “will not impede neutral transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz to or from non-Iranian destinations.”

The U.S. maintains a considerable naval presence, centered around two carrier strike groups (CSG) that have been operating in the northern Arabian Sea for months. Both carriers, USS Abraham Lincoln and USS George H.W. Bush, are each escorted by up to three guided-missile destroyers, with one serving as the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Commander. An additional seven destroyers from surrounding combatant commands are also independently deployed, as well as one guided-missile cruiser, USS Princeton, a littoral combat ship, USS Tulsa, and an expeditionary sea base (ESB), USS Miguel Keith. The independent destroyers serve multiple missions and are often attached and operate with other major naval assets, including the Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG) and ESBs.

Two ARGs with Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU) embarked are also underway in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. Amphibious assault ship USS Boxer, dock landing ship USS Comstock, and amphibious transport dock USS Portland sailed into U.S. 5th Fleet in early July. The Tripoli ARG, which had been operating in the CENTCOM area of responsibility (AOR) since March, moved deeper into the Indian Ocean and entered the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) AOR. The group is composed of USS Tripoli, USS New Orleans, and USS Rushmore.

The U.S. employed several different methods to kinetically disable Iranian-linked commercial vessels that failed to comply during the first blockade. In April, USS Spruance fired shots from her 5-inch Mk 45 gun into the engine room of the Iranian cargo ship M/V Touska. The following month, an F/A-18 Super Hornet launched from USS Abraham Lincoln disabled M/T Hasna by opening fire on its rudder with a 20mm cannon. U.S. aircraft fired two Hellfire missiles into the engine room of M/T Jalveer in June as she attempted to transport oil from Iran through the Gulf of Oman.

“Enforcement actions include disabling and destructive fires upon vessels who do not demonstrate immediate compliance with blockading/boarding forces,” NAVCENT warned in the notice to mariners. On July 15, U.S. aircraft fired Hellfire missiles into the smokestack of M/T Belma, an unladen Curacao-flagged oil tanker in international waters attempting to sail toward Kharg Island, according to CENTCOM.

Additional Navy ships are operating in adjoining regions, and not pictured in the graphic, according to ship spotters, public AIS, and satellite imagery. At least one destroyer, USS Gonzalez, is operating in the Red Sea under U.S. 5th Fleet. Further north, in the Mediterranean Sea, four destroyers are deployed. Three of the four, USS Roosevelt, USS Arleigh Burke, and USS Paul Ignatius, are forward deployed out of Rota, Spain, and USS Thomas Hudner is homeported in Mayport, Florida.

The U.S. submarine force is not shown in the graphic but elements of it are present in the CENTCOM theater. At least two fast-attack submarines are operating with the CSGs, and potentially more are on independent deployments and protecting assets like the ARG. A guided-missile submarine, which can be loaded with 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Navy SEALs, is also often prowling the region, too.

Blockade 1.0 was lifted when the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by both parties on June 17, but the blockading forces never left the region, and U.S. naval force posture has been unchanged since. At this point, however, the MOU is worth little more than the paper it was written on, as both sides have effectively declared it dead.

Note: Positions are general approximations.

Contact the author: ian.ellis-jones@teamrecurrent.io

New Mexico says the withheld records are critical to its criminal investigation into alleged abuse at Epstein’s ranch.

The United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) has said it cannot provide the state of New Mexico with unredacted files pertaining to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

In a social media post on Wednesday, it argued that doing so would violate existing law.

“Federal law, court orders, and privacy protections for victims and witnesses do not allow us to release millions of unredacted documents,” the department wrote.

The post came in response to pressure from New Mexico’s Department of Justice, led by state Attorney General Raul Torrez, a Democrat.

In a letter released to the public last week, Torrez accused the administration of President Donald Trump of obstructing his state’s investigation by refusing to release critical documents.

But the US Justice Department (USDOJ) pushed back in Wednesday’s post, claiming Torrez’s request fell outside its authority.

“We will continue to follow federal law and the court orders that are in place,” the Justice Department said. “To capitulate to their demands would be to break federal law. Is that what the [New Mexico attorney general] is suggesting?”

The Epstein scandal has been a pressure point for the Trump administration since the Republican leader began his second term in 2025.

Critics say the administration has fallen short of its commitment to transparency, with some speculating that officials may be shielding powerful figures featured in the Epstein files.

Trump himself was part of Epstein’s social circle. He has denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

Epstein is accused of directing a sex-trafficking ring whose victims number in the hundreds.

In 2019, during Trump’s first administration, federal prosecutors called on New Mexico to suspend its investigation into Epstein’s activities in the state to allow their own case to proceed.

Epstein, however, died that year while in jail. His death was deemed a suicide.

New Mexico reopened its investigation in February after the second Trump administration released millions of records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

In his letter this month, Torrez explained that his office has spent more than five months seeking the unredacted federal records it needs to proceed with its probe.

But the office has yet to receive all the files it requested, Torrez said. He called the Justice Department’s actions a “deliberate choice not to cooperate”.

“Every day the USDOJ withholds these records, the case that could be brought on behalf of New Mexico survivors becomes more difficult to make,” Torrez wrote.

“Witnesses relocate and become unreachable, memories already strained by years of trauma and silence continue to fade, physical and documentary evidence degrades or is lost.”

New Mexico is examining allegations that women and girls were trafficked to Epstein’s Zorro Ranch, a sprawling property he owned south of Santa Fe from 1993 until his death.

Documents released by the US Justice Department in January include an unverified tip about videos of sexual abuse and the alleged burial of two foreign girls on the property.

Survivors like the late Virginia Giuffre have also made allegations about sexual assault and other crimes taking place on the ranch. State officials say those allegations were never fully investigated.

The dispute comes amid growing scrutiny of the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files.

The administration continues to face questions about whether it fully complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed in November.

It required the Justice Department to publish its Epstein-related records within 30 days, with limited redactions to protect victims.

Millions of files were eventually released, many with heavy redactions, while the identities of some victims were exposed.

Iran’s top negotiator, Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, has declared that the country’s armed forces have “complete freedom of action” against the “enemy’s aggression”, after a day of attacks by the United States killed seven Iranian troops.

The attacks on Wednesday were the latest in days of escalating hostilities between Washington and Tehran that appear to have doomed an interim peace deal they agreed to on June 17.

The US announced several rounds of air strikes on Iran overnight on Tuesday and again on Wednesday, saying its forces hit military targets in Iranian coastal areas near the Strait of Hormuz and on the Greater Tunb island.

Iran’s army said one attack struck a barracks in Bampour in the country’s southeast, killing seven personnel from the 388th Brigade and injuring several others. It pledged to deliver “a decisive response… at the appropriate time”.

Iranian media also reported that an overnight US attack hit a wheat storage facility in the  western Khuzestan province, which the US military denied.

The US announced its latest wave of strikes on Wednesday had begun at 10:30pm Iranian time (19:00 GMT), as Iranian media reported explosions in or near Bandar Abbas, Chabahar and Ahvaz.

Earlier, the US military also said it had redirected two commercial vessels as part of a renewed blockade on Iranian ports, which it began enforcing the night before.

Return to negotiations ‘extremely difficult’

Tehran said the repeated waves of US attacks had voided the memorandum of understanding with Washington that had underpinned the fragile ceasefire. Ghalibaf said Iran was “in an essential and existential war with America” and had no reason to continue adhering to the terms of the peace agreement.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Iran had abandoned its commitments under the memorandum because the US had reneged on its side of the deal.

“Our commitments remain in effect only as long as the other side fulfils its pledges,” Baghaei said.

He said Tehran had no plans to engage in further talks with Washington and was focused solely on defending the country.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar said the latest escalation made a return to negotiations “extremely difficult”.

“There’s now a low-intensity war, new sanctions are back on Iran, and there’s a US blockade again,” Serdar said.

However, he said, “if the Americans commit to the articles of the memorandum of understanding, then the Iranians say they’re open to engaging diplomatically”.

Iran renews attacks on Gulf neighbours

On Wednesday morning, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it targeted the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain as part of a “crushing response”. It said it also targeted a major US military logistics hub in Mina Abdullah, Kuwait.

Kuwait’s Ministry of Defence said later on Wednesday that it had downed at least four cruise missiles and 21 drones from Iran throughout the day.

Jordan’s military said it had downed three missiles from Iran.

Gulf Cooperation Council Secretary-General Jasem AlBudaiwi condemned the latest “treacherous” Iranian attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan, saying they “reveal Iran’s determination to drag the region into further chaos and instability”.

Zeidon Alkinani, founding director of the Arab Perspectives Institute, said that Iran’s continuing attacks on its neighbours had tested the patience of Gulf states, who oppose the US-Israel war on Iran and have staunchly advocated for diplomacy.

“The patience within the Gulf and the view of Iran may fall apart very soon,” Alkinani told Al Jazeera.

Trump says Iran ‘better behave’

US President Donald Trump warned on Tuesday that US attacks against Iran would intensify if the country’s leaders did not return to negotiations, even threatening to “knock out” Iran’s power plants and bridges.

But Trump declined to give Iran a firm deadline when asked on Wednesday, saying: “I don’t ⁠like giving deadlines, but ⁠they pretty ⁠much know; they ⁠know the story… they better ‌behave.”

Ghalibaf said Iran was still balancing diplomacy with military action in pursuit of its national interest.

While Iran has “never welcomed war… we must always be prepared for battle and stand firm to protect our national security and interests”, Ghalibaf said.

“We must also use the tools of diplomacy and negotiation to achieve and solidify our national interests.”

Two men have been shot dead by ICE agents in separate incidents in Maine and in Texas – raising questions about the tactics used by immigration officers and bringing back a big political problem for President Donald Trump.

BBC’s North America Editor Sarah Smith explains the backlash the president is facing on one of the biggest issues he ran his election campaign on.

Video produced by Cai Pigliucci, filmed by Ian Druce, edited by Meiying Wu

Footage shows firefighters extinguishing a massive fire after Russia launched a flurry of missile and drone strikes on Ukraine’s southern port city of Odesa early Wednesday morning. The strikes killed at least six people and wounded 20 others across the country, officials said.

Suspect is charged with ‘preparation of terrorist acts – linked to extreme right-wing terrorism’, say British police.

A 14-year-old boy arrested by British police has been charged with a crime related to “terrorism” over an alleged plot to target local mosques.

London’s Metropolitan Police revealed the charge against the unnamed boy on Wednesday, saying he was suspected of preparing to carry out an “act of terrorism” in connection with “extreme right-wing” ideology.

“This is a very ⁠serious terrorism charge ⁠against a young boy and likely to be highly concerning to the public and ⁠the local community,” said Helen Flanagan, head of ⁠counterterrorism policing in London.

Police said they did not believe the ‌case pointed to a wider threat, but added that they had contacted the mosques, located in south London’s Sutton area, and offered advice and support.

“We know this will be particularly concerning to the Muslim community and we are working closely with the venues affected to ensure they are kept updated and to provide advice, support and reassurance, and this will continue,” said Flanagan.

British police first arrested the boy on July 9 over criminal damage to a car, but later searches uncovered documents that led to a charge of “conduct in preparation for giving effect to an intention to conduct acts of terrorism”, the Metropolitan Police said.

The suspect is set to appear before a magistrates’ court in London on Thursday.

The incident marks the latest of several alleged plots or attacks targeting Muslims in the United Kingdom.

Earlier this week, British police arrested 12 people in connection with an “extreme right-wing” plot to target an Islamic gathering held in Suffolk in eastern England.

Last month, a man was charged with attempted murder linked to “terrorism” after going on a suspected anti-Muslim stabbing rampage in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Detective Chief Superintendent Nick Blackburn, who oversees local policing in south London, said authorities would work to provide “reassurance and support” to the local Muslim community after the latest arrest.

“We should not underestimate the cumulative impact of incidents of this nature on the Muslim community,” h said.

A gas tanker exploded after soaring temperatures sparked a fire near the Lebanese Army barracks in Hermel. The powerful blast damaged nearby homes and vehicles as Civil Defense crews worked to extinguish the flames.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s failure to penetrate Chinese society, particularly after the Arab Spring uprisings, stems from the Chinese Communist Party’s tight security grip, China’s policies of localizing religions, and the Chinese public’s rejection of transnational political ideologies. Despite the Brotherhood’s historical and organizational attempts to build ties with Muslim minorities in China, the rigid nature of the Chinese system and society has formed an impenetrable barrier to any infiltration. The fundamental contradiction between ideologies in China, such as Chinese communism as the ruling doctrine and political Islam as a totalitarian movement from which the Muslim Brotherhood emerged and China’s strict security policies aimed at integrating minorities, has led to the failure of these political ideological currents. Political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood have failed to gain a foothold in China for several structural and political reasons. The most prominent of these is the strict nature of the Chinese communist system, which prohibits any political or religious activity outside the state’s control. This is compounded by the Sinicization policies that impose absolute loyalty to Chinese culture and the Communist Party. Furthermore, the internationalist ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam clashes with Chinese nationalism. Additionally, there is a lack of popular support for such projects among Muslim minorities who follow religious traditions different from those in Arab and Islamic countries and around the world. Despite the existence of an Islamic religious group in China called Yihewani, whose name literally means brotherhood, it is a reformist movement within the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence. It originated locally in China in the 20th century, specifically in the 1930s, but it is a completely independent, traditional Hanafi school of thought with no organizational or ideological ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East.

On the other hand, China harbored apprehensions about the political Islam and Muslim Brotherhood model following the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011. Research centers and decision-making bodies in Beijing closely monitored the outcomes of these uprisings, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt and Tunisia. China viewed the Brotherhood’s ascent to power in some countries, such as Egypt and Tunisia, followed by their subsequent failures and the descent of some into civil war, as evidence that political Islam harbors a project to destabilize nations. This understanding led Beijing to adopt a firm, principled stance rejecting this model of political Islam entirely in order to protect its own stable development model. Consequently, China adopted a policy of strategic alliance with Egypt under President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and other Arab nationalist regimes following the events of the June 30, 2013, revolution in Egypt and the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood and its president, Mohamed Morsi. China strengthened its strategic and economic partnerships with current Arab governments, such as those in Egypt and the Gulf states. Here, China rejects interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Similarly, Arab states support the One China policy and its actions in Xinjiang. This high-level diplomatic coordination between China, Egypt, and other Arab states, following the Muslim Brotherhood’s failed rule, has led to a crackdown on any attempts to finance or subtly infiltrate the banned group through economic or educational channels within China.

Here, the Chinese state pursues a policy of institutional rejection of political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. Chinese authorities classify any political activity with a religious basis as a direct threat to national security and territorial integrity. This has led to the banning and dismantling of any cells or attempts to establish branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. Furthermore, Muslim ethnic minorities in regions like Xinjiang (East Turkestan) face strict security and surveillance measures that prevent the formation of any opposing Islamic religious movements within China. Beijing also imposes the forced assimilation of Muslim minorities into Chinese culture and criminalizes any transnational organizational manifestations or affiliations.  With an emphasis on the dominance of communist ideology, the ruling Chinese Communist Party rejects any religious or political activity or movements that seek to assert identity above loyalty to the state and the party. This is coupled with strict Chinese security measures to combat foreign infiltration of religions, organizations, movements, and Islamic political currents within China, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. Beijing maintains one of the world’s most stringent surveillance systems for monitoring religious and political activities. Following the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011, Chinese security agencies raised their alert levels to ensure that the contagion of color revolutions or ideological movements did not spread within its borders. China considers any foreign organization, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a direct threat to national security and social stability. Therefore, any cells or committees attempting to engage with Chinese Muslims are banned and dismantled.

Political Islam movements have failed to penetrate Chinese society and bring about political or social changes as they have in other countries. This is due to several historical, political, cultural, and social factors imposed by the Chinese state. The most prominent of these factors are the tight security and political grip and the nature of the Chinese communist political system. China imposes a highly centralized system in which the state and the Communist Party completely control the public sphere and institutions. No independent political or ideological organization is permitted outside the umbrella of the Communist Party. Chinese authorities impose strict censorship and implement proactive security policies that prevent any political, religious, or opposition organizations or movements from existing or expanding. Furthermore, the primacy of nationalism over religion in China, where Chinese identity is primarily based on belonging to the nation and the nationality, represented by the culture of the majority Han Chinese population, makes loyalty to the state paramount. This renders the transnational ideologies adopted by political Islam movements unacceptable and severely restricted. Here, the government’s policies toward religions in China become clear. China pursues a policy of Sinicization of religions, meaning that the practice of any religious rituals must conform entirely to Chinese culture and socialism. The Chinese state follows policies of Sinicization on religions, with Chinese authorities implementing strict policies to subordinate religions to Chinese socialist culture and values. This has included systematic campaigns to prevent foreign or Middle Eastern influences on mosque style, clothing, and religious practices. China also adopts strict policies to contain any influence of political Islam and subjects religious bodies to state supervision. Beijing aims to Sinicize religions and requires their integration with the culture of the Han majority and the values ​​of the Communist Party, placing loyalty to the nation above all other affiliations.

This occurs while the Chinese state officially manages and oversees Islamic institutions, such as the Islamic Association of China, thus preventing the emergence of independent religious leaders or institutions that could adopt or disseminate the ideas of political Islam. Herein lies the role of cultural and historical diversity within China. Muslim minorities in China, such as the Hui ethnic group, have absorbed traditional Chinese culture and integrated it with their beliefs over centuries, making their communities well-integrated into the broader social fabric and resilient against external influences. Muslims have been historically integrated into China, and Islam has been part of the Chinese social fabric for over 13 centuries.  Muslim ethnic groups, such as the Hui, have successfully integrated into Chinese society and adapted to local culture. This integration has made political Islam alien to their environment due to China’s strict security measures. The Chinese government deals harshly with any religious or ethnic movements with a political character, particularly in the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang region of northwest China, under the banner of combating extremism and terrorism. Security policies and measures have been implemented to restrict any religious activity outside the official control of the Chinese state. The state adopts a dual strategy: containing practices acceptable to official state institutions while categorically rejecting any separatist or political tendencies that Beijing considers a threat to the country’s unity and stability.

Beijing manages religious pluralism through the Islamic Association of China and views any ideologies that deviate from loyalty to the state with extreme caution. The relationship between the state and Islam in China is shaped by several pillars, including national diversity. China has 56 officially recognized ethnic, religious, and national groups, with the Han Chinese constituting the vast majority at approximately 92% of the population. Regarding Muslim ethnic groups, there are 10 Muslim-majority groups in China, such as the Hui and Uyghurs, with the total number of Muslims estimated in the tens of millions. China officially adopts a policy of Sinicization, whereby Chinese authorities lead campaigns to eliminate transnational religious expressions, prohibiting religious institutions from having ties with their counterparts abroad. Religious institutions are required to adhere to the Party’s leadership and integrate their doctrines with Chinese cultural traditions. The Chinese government pursues a policy of Sinicization of Islam. The Chinese state adopts a firm strategy based on integrating Islam and its culture into the Chinese national identity (in accordance with socialism with Chinese characteristics). As we mentioned, Muslim affairs are officially managed through the Islamic Association of China, which is under the control of the ruling Communist Party. This closure of the religious sphere has thwarted the Islamic internationalism ideology promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood in Middle Eastern countries, as China confines religious teaching and practice to purely local frameworks, preventing the introduction of the writings of Sayed Qutb or Hassan Al-Banna into Chinese territory.

Therefore, we conclude that attempts by political Islamist movements, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, to infiltrate China or penetrate its Muslim communities have failed. Here we observe the cultural and ethnic differences between the Muslim minorities in China and the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned in Egypt and the Middle East. The main Muslim population in China is divided into two primary groups that fail to resonate with the Brotherhood’s ideology: the Hui ethnic group, a Chinese Muslim minority. The Hui are Chinese-speaking Muslims fully integrated culturally and socially into the fabric of the Chinese state. Their primary loyalty is to China, and therefore, the Arab political ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood finds no echo among them. The second group is the Uyghur ethnic group. Uyghurs reside in the Xinjiang region (East Turkestan) in northwest China. Despite the presence of nationalist and religious tendencies, Beijing has imposed extremely strict security measures (including re-education camps and biometric surveillance, which are security systems within China that use an individual’s biological characteristics, such as fingerprints, facial features, and iris scans, to verify their identity), effectively isolating the region from any activism emanating from the Middle East, particularly from the Muslim Brotherhood.