NEWS

This Valentine’s Day, chocolate prices are no longer at last year’s peak, but cheap chocolate has not made a comeback, and it probably never will. Last year’s cocoa price crisis, driven by a combination of extreme heat, drought and disease in key producing regions, may have eased. But the aftertaste remains: A market that no longer behaves the way it used to, because the landscapes that grow cocoa are no longer the same. And the world’s unwitting appetite for cheap chocolate at the expense of biodiversity is part of the reason.

Cocoa is one of the most rainfall-dependent crops in the tropics, grown mainly by smallholders with few safety nets. Because cocoa production is concentrated in a handful of regions, a bad season in one place can quickly ripple across global supply. That fragility was laid bare in 2024, when the Ivory Coast and Ghana, which produce nearly 60 percent of the world’s cocoa, were hit by climate extremes that slashed harvests. Prices surged by more than 300 percent, squeezing some farmers, enriching others, and leaving consumers paying for the uncertainty.

The problem is not simply that cocoa is vulnerable. It is that we have built a cocoa economy that magnifies the vulnerability. For decades, the world has chased low prices and high output, and too often that has meant converting forest landscapes into farmland, from West Africa to parts of Latin America and Southeast Asia.

But forests are not optional. They regulate rainfall, protect soils, and create the microclimates on which cocoa depends. Full-sun cocoa farms can produce higher yields in the short term, but the sugar rush is followed by a costly crash: Depleted soils, limited protection from heat and drought that is on the increase, and little for farmers to fall back on when the monocrops fail. Yields fall, farms expand deeper into forests to compensate, and the cycle repeats.

This is why cocoa’s price volatility is not a temporary blip. It is a warning sign: We are weakening the natural systems cocoa depends on at the same moment that climate change is making harvests less reliable.

Research by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) shows how extreme heat undermines agriculture, reducing both the quantity and quality of crop yields and increasing pest and disease pressure. A recent study modelling cocoa under mid-century climate change finds that warming could wipe out as much as a third to half of today’s suitable cocoa area in some core producing zones, while shifting production towards new regions. Without safeguards, that transition risks trading climate stress in one place for forest loss in another. The details will vary across regions, but the implication is global: As climate change alters weather patterns, the geography of cocoa production will shift, and a stable supply will become harder to take for granted.

Unless we build resilience now, future Valentine’s Days may come with less chocolate and higher prices.

But we can eat our chocolate and keep forests too, by changing how cocoa is grown. It starts with bringing trees back to cocoa farms, reversing the damaging practices that are ultimately undermining production. Change can be made through climate-resilient agroforestry practices that rebuild shade cover, improve soil health and moisture retention, and reduce cocoa’s exposure to heat and drought. Cocoa grown under shade trees can stabilise farm conditions and support biodiversity, while producing higher-quality beans that meet premium market standards, giving farmers stronger incentives to maintain tree cover rather than clear more land.

Sceptics argue that growing cocoa with trees means accepting lower yields. But when it comes to unsustainable practices, high productivity today comes with a high cost tomorrow. A farm that exhausts its soil, loses shade, is exposed to drought, and needs ever more chemical inputs to maintain production is not a success story. It is a trap.

In a changing climate, the point is not how much cocoa a farm can produce in a year, but how reliably it can produce year after year. That requires resilience built into the landscape, now more than ever: More tree cover, healthier soils, and diversified farm systems that protect livelihoods when climate extremes hit.

This is not theoretical. It is already happening.

In Ecuador’s Amazon province of Napo, a project financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and supported with technical assistance from the FAO has helped strengthen a sustainable cocoa value chain built around the traditional Chakra agroforestry system used by Kichwa communities. Put simply, it is cocoa grown as part of a forest garden: Kichwa women known as Chakramamas help steward these farms, cultivating cocoa under shade trees alongside a diverse mix of other crops and native plants, rather than clearing land for a single crop. Recognised by FAO as a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System, the model is still expanding more than a decade on, helping Indigenous producer families earn more from premium cocoa through stronger processing, marketing, and partnerships with high-value buyers. High-end chocolatiers continue to source from Chakra producers, showing that cocoa grown alongside trees can deliver world-class quality while keeping forests standing for biodiversity, climate and land benefits.

There are more examples. In the Ivory Coast, FAO-backed efforts supported by the Green Climate Fund are already delivering results, restoring 1,084 hectares (2,679 acres) of degraded land and converting 3,527 hectares (8,715 acres) of conventional cocoa into improved agroforestry systems while reducing pressure on forests. Meanwhile, 234 farmers now have access to cocoa cooperatives, ensuring access to international fair-trade and organic certifications and a better price for their products. In Sao Tome and Principe, FAO has supported cocoa agroforestry through the GEF-funded Restoration Initiative, helping restore nearly 10,000 hectares (about 25,000 acres) of forest and improve land management across a further 23,000 hectares (about 57,000 acres). These are not boutique experiments. They are working models for stabilising supply, supporting farmer incomes, and reducing the forest loss that fuels cocoa’s growing volatility.

But projects alone will not be enough. Scaling them will take serious investment: From governments, companies, and consumers. It will also require rules that shift incentives across the entire cocoa economy, such as a new European Union law that requires cocoa and chocolate entering the EU market to be deforestation-free. By tying market access to how cocoa is grown, these rules are pushing governments, producers, and companies to rethink production models, improve traceability, and strengthen zero-deforestation cocoa systems.

Governments will also need to invest in farmer adaptation and long-term productivity, not just short-term output. That means accessible finance, practical support on farms, and policies that reward sustainable production instead of expansion into forests.

And chocolate companies need to promote resilience across their supply chains, not just chase volume. In a world of climate disruption, the cheapest cocoa is not necessarily the best bargain if it comes at the expense of farmers’ livelihoods or the ecosystems that keep cocoa viable in the years to come.

Paying farmers for chocolate that keeps forests standing is not a luxury. It is part of what makes cocoa more available and keeps farmers in business in a warming world. Chocolate is sold as a simple pleasure, but cocoa is no longer a simple crop: Its future depends on whether we treat forests and biodiversity as essential infrastructure for stable and resilient agrifood systems.

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

Welcome to Bunker Talk. This is a weekend open discussion post for the best commenting crew on the net, in which we can chat about all the stuff that went on this week that we didn’t cover. We can also talk about the stuff we did or whatever else grabs your interest. In other words, it’s an off-topic thread.

This week’s second caption reads:

U.S. Air Force Airman 1st Class Lucas Keka, left, munitions operations technician assigned to the 726th Expeditionary Mission Support Squadron, and Staff Sgt. Daryc Fliginger, 726th EMSS Munitions Flight production supervisor, secure a munitions storage bunker at Chabelley Airfield, Djibouti, Aug. 25, 2023. The 726th EMSS provides security forces, satellite communications, munitions support, vehicle management, contracting, finance and logistics in support of USAF personnel in East Africa. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Dhruv Gopinath) 

Also, a reminder:

Prime Directives!

• If you want to talk politics, do so respectfully and know that there’s always somebody that isn’t going to agree with you. 
• If you have political differences, hash it out respectfully, stick to the facts, and no childish name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. If you can’t handle yourself in that manner, then please, discuss virtually anything else.
• No drive-by garbage political memes. No conspiracy theory rants. Links to crackpot sites will be axed, too. Trolling and shitposting will not be tolerated. No obsessive behavior about other users. Just don’t interact with folks you don’t like. 
• Do not be a sucker and feed trolls! That’s as much on you as on them. Use the mute button if you don’t like what you see.  
• So unless you have something of quality to say, know how to treat people with respect, understand that everyone isn’t going to subscribe to your exact same worldview, and have come to terms with the reality that there is no perfect solution when it comes to moderation of a community like this, it’s probably best to just move on. 
• Finally, as always, report offenders, please. This doesn’t mean reporting people who don’t share your political views, but we really need your help in this regard.

New opinion poll finds seven in 10 US adults disapprove of President Donald Trump’s handling of Greenland issue.

Denmark’s prime minister and Greenland’s premier met ⁠with United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio and agreed that talks would be pursued on the running of Greenland, the semi-autonomous Danish territory that President Donald Trump has threatened to take over.

Rubio held a 15-minute meeting with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland’s Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on Friday.

Greenland’s leader Nielsen said in a post on social media that during the meeting with Rubio, “it was emphasised that the conversations being made are the right way forward and the interests of Greenland were once again clearly highlighted”.

Prime Minister Frederiksen said on X after the meeting: “Constructive talk with Secretary of State Marco Rubio together with Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Chairman of Naalakkersuisut, at the Munich Security Conference.”

“Work will continue as agreed in the high-level working group,” she said.

The meeting between the Danish and Greenlandic leaders and the US state secretary comes amid severely strained ties between Europe and Washington, and NATO allies, amid President Trump’s repeated threats to take over Greenland and criticism of European nations as “decaying” and “weak”.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump said, “We’re negotiating ‌right ‌now for Greenland.”

“I ‌think Greenland’s going to want us, but we get along very well with Europe. We’ll see how it all works out,” he said.

After months of bellicose language regarding the US’s necessity to acquire Greenland, Trump abruptly stepped back from his threats last month, saying that he had reached an understanding with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte that would give the US greater influence in the mineral-rich Arctic territory.

Late last month, the US, Denmark and Greenland also launched talks to find a diplomatic path out of the crisis.

Poll finds most US adults disapprove of Trump’s Greenland plan

The US administration has cited key national security concerns related to Russia and China to justify its demand to take control over Greenland and has accused Denmark, and Europe more broadly, of being unable to defend the strategic territory.

But, according to a new opinion poll conducted by The Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, Trump’s push to seize control of Greenland has gone down badly with the US public and members of his own party.

The survey, conducted between February 5-8, found that about seven in 10 US adults disapprove of how Trump is handling the Greenland issue – a higher disapproval rating than the share of those who dislike how he is handling foreign policy generally.

Even among Republican supporters, about half disapprove of his attempt to turn Greenland into US territory, according to the poll.

Sweden said on Thursday that it would send fighter jets to patrol Greenland as part of a newly launched NATO mission in the Arctic aimed at placating Trump’s concerns over the threats posed by Moscow and Beijing.

The government said in a statement that Swedish-made Gripen fighter jets would patrol Greenland as part of the newly-launched NATO mission, Arctic Sentry.

“As a NATO ally, Sweden has a responsibility to contribute to the security of the entire territory of the Alliance. The Arctic region is becoming increasingly important from a strategic perspective,” Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said.

In a separate statement, the Swedish Armed Forces said the fighter jets would be based out of Iceland, where six aircraft have been stationed since early February as part of the rotating incident response force, NATO Air Policing.

Swedish special forces would also be sent to Greenland to take part in training exercises for a couple of weeks, the military said.

The debate comes as Jeri, who is not running for re-election, faces allegations of bribery and influence-peddling.

The head of Peru’s Congress, Fernando Rospigliosi, has announced a special plenary session to weigh the removal of the country’s right-wing president, Jose Jeri.

The session will take place on the morning of February 17, according to a statement Peru’s Congress posted on social media.

The debate comes as Jeri’s short tenure grows mired in scandal, just four months after he took office as interim president.

In October, Jeri — the leader of Congress at the time — took over as president following the unanimous impeachment of his predecessor, Dina Boluarte, on the grounds of “permanent moral incapacity”.

Boluarte herself assumed the presidency after her predecessor, Pedro Castillo, was impeached for attempting a self-coup.

Next week’s debate about Jeri’s future is the latest chapter in the ongoing instability facing Peru’s government. The country has seen eight presidents within the last decade, with several of them impeached or resigning before their term expired.

In recent months, Jeri has become increasingly embroiled in scandal, including one colloquially known as “chifagate”, named for the Peruvian-Chinese fusion cuisine known as “chifa”.

The scandal started when local media outlets obtained video of Jeri arriving late at night at a restaurant to meet with a Chinese businessman, Zhihua Yang, who previously received government approval to build a hydroelectric plant.

Their meeting was not listed in the official presidential agenda, as is required under Peruvian law. Critics have questioned whether Jeri’s outfit — which had a deep hood that rendered him nearly unrecognisable — was meant to be a disguise.

Additional footage placed Jeri at another one of Yang’s businesses days later. Jeri also allegedly met a second Chinese businessman, Jiwu Xiaodong, who was reportedly under house arrest for illegal activities.

Jeri has dismissed some of the off-the-books meetings as planning for an upcoming Chinese-Peruvian friendship event. Others, he said, were simply shopping trips for sweets and other food. He has denied wrongdoing but has acknowledged taking the meetings was a “mistake”.

“I have not lied to the country. I have not done anything illegal,” Jeri told the news outlet Canal N.

But critics have accused Jeri of using his position for influence-peddling at the unregistered interactions.

Similar accusations erupted earlier this month when Peruvian media highlighted the irregular hiring of several women in Jeri’s administration and contracts he awarded as possible evidence of bribery.

The debate over Jeri’s removal comes as Peru hurtles towards a general election on April 12, with the presidency up for grabs. Jeri will not be running to retain his seat.

The Federal Constitutional Court, the highest Court in Germany, has spoken. That sentence is the centre of gravity. It signals judicial restraint. It confirms that the Federal Government retains broad discretion in determining how it complies with its constitutional duty to protect fundamental human rights, including in the sensitive area of arms exports contributing to a warfare that is deemed genocidal by the United Nations.

This assessment is embedded in the legal framework governing German arms exports, including the relevant provisions of the War Weapons Control Act and the Foreign Trade and Payments Act, which define the procedural and substantive prerequisites for export authorizations and directly inform the court’s evaluation of the complainant’s standing. Beneath the formalism in its decision lies an act with profound political weight. The Court states: “However, how the state authorities fulfil their general duty of protection and any specific duties of protection is, in principle, their own responsibility to decide.”

The case concerns German-made transmission components for Israeli Merkava and Namer tanks, widely deployed by Israeli forces in Gaza and reportedly used repeatedly in violations of international law. Germany is one of the largest arms suppliers to Israel.

The Court notes that “[t]he specialist courts have determined – in a manner that is not objectionable under constitutional law – that the legislature and the executive have not remained inactive, but have created a general protection regime to effectively counter the risks of arms exports with regard to the protection of human rights and compliance with international humanitarian law, and that they have also taken concrete measures with regard to the Israeli military offensive and the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.”

In concrete terms, this means the judiciary will not substitute its own assessment for that of the executive. It does not examine battlefield realities in Gaza – on the contrary, it states that it is unclear whether, when, and how the exported goods would be used in a way that directly affects the complainant, and therefore the complainant lacks a sufficiently concrete legal interest to claim constitutional protection. It will not determine whether particular weapons systems might contribute to violations of international humanitarian law. As long as the government can demonstrate that it has established a system to “effectively counter the risks” and has taken “concrete measures”, the constitutional threshold for intervention is not met. It remains unclear how the government counters risks. Just yesterday, Julia Klöckner, President of the German Bundestag, emphasised the friendship between Israel and Germany.

This evidently shows that the protection system referred to by the Federal Constitutional Court is ineffective in legal practice. When arms exports continue despite numerous indications of serious violations of international law, and affected parties are unable to challenge these decisions in court, the protection regime fails to provide meaningful legal safeguards.

“The Court acknowledges the duty to protect but only in the abstract and refuses to ensure its practical enforcement. For people whose lives are endangered by the consequences of German arms exports, access to justice remains effectively closed,” says Dr. Alexander Schwarz, Co-Director of the International Crimes and Accountability Program at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.“Especially when life and death are at stake, the rule of law must allow for judicial oversight. Instead, this decision largely removes state action in this sensitive area from review. This is not persuasive.”

If courts do not intervene unless the state has entirely abdicated its duty of protection, then the decisive arena becomes merely political. This represents a discourse in Germany that constantly places Palestinian matters and rights in a political frame, even when they concern fundamental human rights.

The ECCHR is supporting the complainant together with Palestinian human rights organizations Al-Haq, Al Mezan, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR). Shawan Jabarin, General Director of Al-Haq, commented:

“Germany remains bound by international law, including the Genocide Convention, and must not export weapons where there is a clear risk that they will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law or contribute to genocide. Israel’s conduct throughout Palestine clearly violates international humanitarian law and the Genocide Convention. Germany’s continued adherence to a policy of ‘reason of state’ that defends Israeli crimes regardless of their scale and impact and trivializes the cost in Palestinian lives must be challenged. We will continue to pursue justice for the Palestinian people.”

Neither the legal landscape nor politics are abstract or neutral. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges of crimes against humanity. The International Court of Justice, in proceedings concerning Gaza, has indicated that states have obligations to prevent genocide where there is a plausible risk and to ensure that their conduct does not contribute to such acts. In addition, proceedings have been brought before the International Court of Justice against Germany itself, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention in connection with its support and arms exports — directly linking Germany’s conduct to the duty to prevent genocide under international law.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling does not negate these developments. Nor does it declare German exports compliant with international law. It simply affirms that the assessment of risk lies “in principle” with the political branches.

If the government alone decides whether its general protection regime is sufficient in light of allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, then accountability becomes a matter of parliamentary oversight and public scrutiny rather than constitutional adjudication.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Trump says he believes negotiations with Iran will be ‘successful’ as he confirms USS Gerald R Ford deployment.

President Donald Trump says that he is sending a second aircraft carrier to the Middle East as the United States increases pressure on Iran over its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

Speaking at the White House on Friday, Trump confirmed that the USS Gerald R Ford would be leaving the Caribbean for the Middle East “very soon” as tensions remain high following indirect talks in Oman last week.

“If we need it, we’ll have it ready, a very big force,” said Trump, adding that he believed negotiations would be “successful” while warning it would be a “bad day for Iran” if the country failed to make a deal.

Later, Trump said a change of government in Iran would be the “best thing that could happen”.

“For 47 years, they’ve been talking and talking and talking. In the meantime, we’ve lost a lot of lives,” he said, in an apparent reference to Tehran’s crackdown on recent antigovernment protests that left thousands dead.

The imminent departure of the Gerald R Ford is part of an ongoing buildup of military hardware in the region, with the Abraham Lincoln carrier, several guided-missile destroyers, fighter jets and surveillance aircraft sent in recent weeks.

Trump’s comments come days after he met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, with the latter saying a “good deal” was expected while voicing reservations if any agreement did not also curb Iran’s ballistic missile programme. Tehran has publicly rejected US pressure to discuss the missiles.

Netanyahu has repeatedly called for further military action since Israel’s 12-day war against Iran in June, which the US briefly joined by attacking three Iranian nuclear sites, in a military operation dubbed “Midnight Hammer”.

Trump at the time said the US attacks had “totally obliterated” the nuclear facilities.

The indirect US-Iran talks were the first to be held since the June conflict, which halted previous rounds of negotiations between Tehran and Washington over potentially replacing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Trump ditched during his first term in office.

Risk of escalation

The JCPOA, a deal reached between Iran, the US and several European powers, saw Tehran curtail its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

Following Trump’s unilateral withdrawal in 2018, Tehran subsequently began enriching uranium beyond the limits set out in the agreement, though it has repeatedly denied Western claims it is seeking a nuclear weapon.

Upon taking office for a second time in January, Trump initially sought a new nuclear deal with Iran, but soon adopted a zero-enrichment policy long dismissed by Iranian negotiators as a non-starter.

As the latest attempts at negotiations continue, United Nations nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi has had trouble getting Iran to agree on inspections of sites targeted in the 12-day war.

Grossi, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the Munich Security Conference that inspectors had returned to Iran after the 12-day war but had not been able to visit any of the sites targeted.

Grossi said dialogue with Iran since the inspectors’ return last year had been “imperfect and complicated and extremely difficult, but it’s there”.

The US president’s comments on Friday confirm his earlier indication that he was considering sending the Gerald R Ford, which has a nuclear reactor on board and can hold more than 75 military aircraft, to the region.

Gulf Arab nations have warned any attack could escalate into another regional conflict in a region still reeling from Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, says the UK government’s ban has backfired after the High Court ruled that proscribing the group as a “terror” organisation was unlawful.

US President Donald Trump says a second aircraft carrier strike group will deploy to the Middle East, increasing pressure on Iran as negotiations over its nuclear programme continue.

Tudor has been out of work since being sacked by Juventus in October 2025 and is set for his first spell in England, after previously taking charge of clubs in Italy, France, Turkey, Croatia and Greece.

He is tasked, first and foremost, with easing Tottenham‘s relegation fears, after a 2-1 loss to Newcastle in Thomas Frank’s final match on Tuesday left them five points above the bottom three.

Having earned a reputation as a no-nonsense defender during a playing career in which he won 55 caps for Croatia and made more than 150 appearances for Italian giants Juventus, there is one certain non-negotiable for Tudor as a manager.

“He asks his players to run a lot. In a previous interview he said ‘If you don’t run, you don’t play’,” says L’Equipe journalist Pierre-Etienne Minonzio.

“In his one season in Marseille it was always the same way of playing – 3-5-2 – and it was great to watch.

“It was not easy because Marseille’s best player was Dimitri Payet, a very gifted player but not well-known for running, and he didn’t play.

“It was a joke in L’Equipe – if Igor Tudor had Lionel Messi in his squad, Messi would not play!”

Tudor’s sole season in France saw Marseille finish third behind Paris St-Germain and Lens, despite surpassing the club’s points total from the previous campaign when they finished second.

“He did pretty well in Ligue 1. What I liked is that he doesn’t try to be liked. He is very direct, says what he thinks and doesn’t try to be attractive. There is no seduction,” says Minonzio.

“It is the same with the players. He keeps his distance and his obsession is to make training intense with a lot of running so they can be physically fit for the game.”

London, United Kingdom – The United Kingdom’s ban on Palestine Action has “backfired”, its cofounder said, after the High Court ruled that proscribing the group as a “terror” organisation was unlawful.

Critics from the United Nations human rights chief to the Irish author Sally Rooney decried the UK’s ban last June as an illiberal overreach, since it put Palestine Action on par with ISIL (ISIS), al-Qaeda and dangerous far-right organisations.

On Friday, High Court judges dealt a massive blow to the government of Labour leader Keir Starmer, saying, “The decision to proscribe Palestine Action was disproportionate.”

“Today is a victory for Palestine,” Palestine Action cofounder Huda Ammori told Al Jazeera. The ban has “backfired on [the government] massively. They’ve made Palestine Action a household name.

“They have spread the message and the power that ordinary people have to shut down weapons factories across the country and across the world. So for that, I thank them.”

Founded in 2020, Palestine Action’s stated objective has been to counter Israeli war crimes – and what it says is British complicity in them – by targeting weapons manufacturers and associated companies.

Its main target is Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms company, which has several sites in the UK.

“Rather than ask somebody else to stop those weapons going and being used to commit genocide, we go to the source, and we stop those weapons ourselves,” said Ammori, a 31-year-old Briton of Iraqi and Palestinian heritage.

“That is what direct action is about. If you saw a building burning down with children inside, you wouldn’t hesitate to bang down the door to save those children’s lives. It is exactly the same principle. You don’t care about the value of the door. It is about those lives. It is about the liberation of Palestine. And so we do our bit to shut down the Israeli weapons trades from Britain.”

The group has been a thorn in Starmer’s side since Israel began its genocidal onslaught in Gaza.

Palestine Action-linked activists have carried out several raids, often leaving their mark in red spray paint intended to symbolise blood.

Dozens are currently being held on remand in relation to two actions.

Some prisoners, known as part of the “Filton 24”, are alleged to have participated in a break-in at a UK subsidiary of Elbit Systems in Bristol.

Others are accused of involvement in a break-in at the UK’s largest air base in Oxfordshire, where they were alleged to have spray-painted two Voyager refuelling and transport planes. It was after this raid that the government banned Palestine Action.

They all deny the charges against them, such as burglary and criminal damage.

Six of the “Filton 24” were recently acquitted of aggravated burglary; five of them were bailed.

“At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality. A very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action,” the High Court judges said.

Tens of thousands of people have protested against the ban. Almost 3,000 of them have been arrested for raising placards with slogans such as: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

“The government committed a huge crime against its own population,” said Ammori. “It was unlawful for them to ban Palestine Action, and when they banned Palestine Action, they subsequently did thousands of unlawful arrests against their own citizens and tried to prosecute them through the courts for terrorism offences, for holding up signs.”

Despite Friday’s ruling, the ban remains in place pending appeal.

The UK’s Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said she was “disappointed” by Friday’s ruling and intends to appeal – earning further criticism from rights groups and some fellow Labour politicians.

John McDonnell, an MP who voted against the proscription, said on X, “I thought it was unjust. We have a right to protest, to assemble, and to speak freely in this country – that has been secured largely by direct action over centuries. I am urging the government to abide by that tradition and not to appeal this judgement.”

“Shabana Mahmood needs to take a step back,” said Ammori. “She’s completely betrayed the Palestinian people since she’s become minister … it’s only going to backfire on her.

“Palestine Action’s ban will be lifted … We won today in the High Court … If they try and appeal, we’ll beat them again.”

Ukraine’s Vladyslav Heraskevych had his appeal dismissed as images on his helmet breached an Olympic ‘sacred principle’.

⁠The Court of ⁠Arbitration for Sport on Friday dismissed an appeal by Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych to be reinstated in the Milano Cortina Olympics after he was disqualified over his “helmet ⁠of remembrance”.

The 27-year-old was removed from the Olympic programme on Thursday when the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation jury ruled that imagery on the helmet — depicting athletes killed since Russia invaded Ukraine ⁠in February 2022 — breached rules on political neutrality.

“The CAS ad Hoc division dismissed the application and found that freedom of expression is guaranteed at the Olympic Games but not on the field of play which is a sacred principle,” CAS Secretary-General Matthieu Reeb said, reading from a statement following an eight-hour ‌hearing.

Heraskevych, who was seeking reinstatement or at least a CAS-supervised run, pending a decision by sport’s highest court in advance of the final two runs set for Friday evening, said he would look at his legal options now.

“CAS has failed us. We will consider our next steps,” Heraskevych told Reuters.

The case has dominated headlines in the first week of the Olympics, with the International Olympic Committee President Kirsty Coventry meeting the athlete on Thursday morning at the sliding venue ⁠in Cortina d’Ampezzo in a last-minute attempt to broker a compromise and ⁠have him race without the specific helmet.

The IOC instead offered that he wear a black armband and display the helmet before and after the race, but said using the helmet in competition breached its rules on political protests and slogans ⁠in the field of play.

In a statement, CAS said the IOC guidelines for athletes’ expression in the Games were fair.

“The Sole Arbitrator found these ⁠limitations reasonable and proportionate, considering the other opportunities for athletes ⁠to raise awareness,” CAS said.

“The Sole Arbitrator considers these Guidelines provide a reasonable balance between athletes’ interests to express their views, and athletes’ interests to receive undivided attention for their sporting performance on the field of play.”

Ukraine’s Olympic Committee has backed their ‌athlete, who is also the team’s flagbearer for the Games and also displayed a “No War in Ukraine” sign at the Beijing 2022 Olympics, days before Russia’s invasion. Heraskevych has also received support ‌from ‌Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

CAS was established in 1984 by the International Olympic Committee as an independent judicial authority to settle sports disputes worldwide.

The case has dominated headlines in the first week of the Olympics.

Before the ruling, Heraskevych accused the Milano-Cortina Games as acting as “propaganda” for Russia.

The armed forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have deployed drone technology against several positions of the M23/AFC rebels around Mpety of Walikale territory in North Kivu.

According to local administrative sources, the first explosions from the drone attack occurred around 1 p.m. on Feb. 11, causing widespread panic among villagers and forcing families to leave their homes.

The strikes occurred 48 hours after similar operations aimed at rebel positions in Mindjendje, close to Mpety in the Banakindi area. According to various sources in the region, the earlier missions resulted in multiple non-fatal injuries among the M23/AFC forces.

In the past month, the Walikale territory, particularly the Pinga-Mpety-Mindjendje axis, has been the theatre of violent clashes between the army and the M23/AFC rebels. This strategic area is highly sought after by both parties, intensifying regional security instability. 

The ongoing airstrikes are part of a strategy by the DRC army to reclaim control of key areas around Pinga, which is regarded as the security hub of Walikale territory. The growing arms race between the Congolese government and the M23 rebels has necessitated investments in drone warfare by both parties.

DRC has particularly invested heavily in acquiring military drones, especially the China-made Wing Loong 2 combat drone. In 2023, the country purchased nine Chinese attack drones to strengthen its military capabilities amid the war against the M23 rebels. 

The drones are recognised for their precision strike capabilities and long endurance. They are expected to give Congo’s armed forces a tactical advantage as they work to counter the M23’s advances, which Kinshasa classifies as a terrorist organisation.

An AeroVironment LOCUST laser directed energy weapon owned by the U.S. Army was central to the chain of events that led to the recent shutdown of airspace around El Paso, Texas, according to Reuters. Though many questions still remain to be answered about how the flight restrictions came to be imposed, LOCUST was designed to respond to exactly the kinds of drones that regularly fly across the southern border from Mexico.

Readers can get caught up on what is known about the clampdown in the skies above El Paso on Wednesday in initial reporting here.

Multiple outlets had already reported yesterday that the use of a laser counter-drone system was a key factor in the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) sudden decision to impose the temporary flight restrictions over El Paso. Reuters‘ report says “two people briefed on the situation” identified the laser system in question as LOCUST. TWZ has reached out to AeroVironment and the U.S. Army for more information. U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), which oversees U.S. military operations in and around the homeland, declined to comment.

Last July, the U.S. military released a picture, seen below, showing Army personnel assigned to Joint Task Force-Southern Border (JTF-SB) conducting sling-load training with a LOCUST mounted on a 4×4 M1301 Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) at Fort Bliss. This had prompted some speculation that LOCUST systems might be in use along the U.S. border with Mexico. JTF-SB was established in March 2025 to oversee a surge in U.S. military support to the border security mission. Fort Bliss, situated in El Paso, is a major hub for those operations. It is also home to the 1st Armored Division and a significant number of Army air defense units.

As of December 2025, the U.S. Army was known to have taken delivery of LOCUST systems in at least three different configurations, including the ISV-based type. The service has also received 4×4 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV) equipped with the laser and a palletized version. In 2022, the Army confirmed the operational deployment of two of the palletized systems to unspecified foreign locales. The full extent of the service’s operational use of LOCUST since then, abroad or at home, is unclear.

The U.S. Marine Corps has also moved to acquire JLTV-based LOCUST systems, and other configurations have been put forward in the past. AeroVironment completed is acqusition of BlueHalo, the original developer of LOCUST, last year.

At LOCUST’s core is a 20-kilowatt-class laser directed energy weapon. This is at the lower end of the power spectrum for this new era of laser directed energy weapons, and the system is explicitly geared toward the countering small drones mission set.

The turreted system also includes built-in electro-optical and infrared video cameras for target acquisition and tracking. It can be cued to threats by tertiary sensors, including small-form-factor high-frequency radars and passive radio frequency signal detection systems mounted on the vehicles themselves, as well as traditional radars, and other capabilities positioned elsewhere. The Army’s ISV and JLTV-based configurations both feature small radars.

LOCUST Laser Weapon System

As a relatively small system itself, LOCUST offers additional benefits in terms of mobility and flexibility. Road-mobile versions can readily deploy and redeploy to different locations in response to shifting threats. As the sling load training picture shows, versions of the system can be readily airlifted by helicopters, allowing for rapid movement to remote locales. Palletized configurations offer different types of flexibility for providing point defense at sites on land, and could potentially be installed on ships, as well.

In general, laser directed energy weapons offer the promise of functionally unlimited magazine depth, as long as there is sufficient power and cooling capacity. They also present a drastically lower cost-per-intercept proposition compared to traditional anti-air interceptors. This is all advantageous for engaging drones, particularly smaller and cheaper designs that can still present very significant threats. The dangers posed by uncrewed aerial systems are only set to grow as networked swarming and automated targeting capabilities, enabled by advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning, become more accessible. Defenders already face real risks of just being overwhelmed by attacks involving volumes of drones.

Depending on their power level, laser weapons are envisioned as being employed against larger, as well as higher and faster flying targets, such as cruise missiles, in the future. As already noted, LOCUST is not in that power category and is focused on going after small drones, like quadcopter.

With these promised benefits in mind, the Army has been very active in its pursuit of multiple tiers of ground-based laser directed energy weapon systems, with power ratings ranging from 5 to 300 kilowatts, for years now. This includes the 50-kilowatt Directed Energy Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (DE M-SHORAD) system based on the Stryker light armored vehicle and a truck-mounted 300-kilowatt design for the Indirect Fires Protection Capability-High Energy Laser (IFPC-HEL) effort. Many of these systems have been primarily intended to serve as stepping stones to future operational capabilities. In recent years, there have been a number of additional laser directed energy development efforts, often focused on the counter-drone mission, across the U.S. military, and for use in the air and naval domains, as well as by forces on land.

As mentioned, the Army received its first versions of LOCUST in the early 2020s, as part of a rapid prototyping effort called the Palletized-High Energy Laser (P-HEL). The service tested multiple laser weapon designs under P-HEL. The Army has acquired the ISV and JLTV-based configuration through a follow-on effort called the Army Multi-Purpose High Energy Laser (AMP-HEL).

At the same time, a laser like LOCUST can only engage a single target at once. Lower-powered lasers need to dwell on their targets for a longer period of time in order to cause significant damage by burning a hole in them, as well. This limits the number of targets a single system can engage in a given window of time.

In addition, the power of any laser beam drops as it propagates through the atmosphere further and further away from its source. Weather and other environmental factors like smoke and dust can also distort the beam and reduce its power. All of this only adds to the aforementioned dwell time. Adaptive optics, and just more power overall, can help produce useful effects at greater distances, but laser weapons continue to have short ranges, typically measured in handfuls of miles, as a general rule. As an aside, LOCUST was originally described as a 10-kilowatt system and a version has at least been demonstrated with a 26-kilowatt power rating. How much more can be scaled up within the existing form factor is unclear.

The Army, as well as other branches of the U.S. military, have repeatedly acknowledged challenges in fielding laser directed energy weapon systems. Sensitivity to vibration, humidity, dust, and sand, as well as fragile optics and cooling demands, have all created further complications for operating and sustaining these systems in real-world environments. In 2024, Doug Bush, then Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, did tell members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that unspecified laser weapons emplaced at fixed sites “are proving successful” for “some” users. This was seen at the time as a likely reference to the overseas deployment of the palletized version of LOCUST.

U.S. military officials regularly stress that lasers are not a ‘silver bullet’ solution to the problem of drones or other aerial threats, and they expect to field them as part of layered defense networks. High-power microwave directed energy weapons and electronic warfare systems have also steadily emerged as key parts of future counter-drone ecosystems, especially for responding to swarm attacks. The pursuit of lasers, specifically, to defeat drones, as well as cruise missiles and potentially other targets, is a growing trend globally, as well. In the naval domain, lasers are also seen as valuable additions to ships for point defense against small watercraft.

Drones, especially smaller types, present their own additional challenges, in general, when it comes to detection and tracking, let alone engaging them with any effector. This has been underscored in reporting surrounding the recent temporary flight restrictions over El Paso.

Official statements so far from the Trump administration have said that the clampdown on the airspace around El Paso resulted from the response to a cross-border incursion of drones operated by Mexican drug cartels, something that happens on a near-daily basis. Questions have since been raised about exactly when the incident the administration has cited may have occurred and whether any drones were actually involved in that particular case.

“The [laser] anti-drone technology was launched near the southern border to shoot down what appeared to be foreign drones,” according to a story yesterday from CBS News, which was among the first to report on that detail. “The flying material turned out to be a party balloon, sources said. One balloon was shot down, several sources said.”

Other outlets, also citing anonymous sources, have since reported on the use of a laser directed energy weapon to down one or more innocuous balloons along the southern border earlier this week. However, the exact relationship between those engagements and the temporary flight restrictions remains murky.

However, “the Mexican cartels have been running drones on the border lately, the sources said, but it was unclear how many were hit by the military’s anti-UAS (unmanned aircraft systems) technology this week,” CBS News‘ report yesterday had also noted. “One official said at least one cartel drone was successfully disabled.”

It has also now been widely reported that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel have been the ones actually operating the laser systems along the border through an agreement with the U.S. military. This speaks to additional ongoing complications surrounding domestic authorities for responding to drone threats, something TWZ has explored in detail in the past. This is despite significant changes to policies that allow for broader and more rapid responses within the United States, at least on the U.S. military side, just in recent weeks.

Furthermore, a breakdown in coordination between the Army, CBP, and the FAA over the use of lasers along the border, operationally and/or in testing, looks to have been a central factor in the decision to shut down the airspace around El Paso based on the reporting to date.

“My team has been working with the FAA, DOW [Department of War], and others to gather more information about this morning’s temporary airspace closure in El Paso,” Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, wrote in a post on X yesterday. “I’m hopeful more details can be publicly shared in the coming days on interagency coordination.”

“The amount of misinformation being spread – including by the White House – is alarming and unhelpful,” Veronica Escobar, the Democrat who currently represents the El Paso area in the House of Representatives, also wrote yesterday in a series of posts on X. “To be clear: this was the result of incompetence at the highest levels of the administration.”

More details are yet to come about the exact circumstances surrounding the flight restrictions imposed this week around El Paso. What has already emerged points to a growing use, or at least desire to use, laser directed energy weapons like LOCUST to challenge the current flow of uncrewed aerial systems across the southern border from Mexico.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

DP World appoints new chairman and group CEO following departure of Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem over ties to sex offender.

United Arab Emirates-based logistics giant DP World has appointed a new chairman and CEO, after coming under pressure over former company chief Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem’s ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein

The UAE government’s Dubai Media Office said Friday that Essa Kazim had been appointed chairman and Yuvraj Narayan as group CEO of DP World, one of the world’s largest logistics companies, which claims to handle about 10 percent of global trade.

The roles were previously held by bin Sulayem, one of Dubai’s most powerful and well-connected people, who has led DP World – which operates more than 60 ports and terminals worldwide – for more than four decades.

Sulayem’s lengthy tenure at the helm of the logistics giant came to an end in a firestorm of controversy over his links with the disgraced financier, after recently declassified documents showed the pair had exchanged messages for years before and after Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting a minor for prostitution.

Salacious exchanges

The friendly exchanges between the two include discussions about deals and also mention bin Sulayem visiting Epstein’s private island while sharing contacts in business and politics.

The two men also shared salacious comments about women, with bin Sulayem’s email address featuring a correspondence in which Epstein remarked, “I loved the torture video.”

Bin Sulayem’s name was blacked out in documents released by the Department of Justice, but on Tuesday, Democratic Representative Ro Khanna identified him in the House of Representatives, along with five others whose names had been redacted, saying the government had shielded their names “for no apparent reason”.

Since Khanna’s speech to Congress, the Justice Department partially unredacted some of the files he pointed to.

Partners suspend ties

While the files referenced by Khanna did not appear to implicate bin Sulayem or the other men in any specific crimes, the revelation of bin Sulayem’s years-long friendship with Epstein prompted the ‌United Kingdom development investment agency, British International Investment, and Canada’s second-largest pension fund, La Caisse, to announce they had paused future ventures with DP World in response.

La Caisse, which in 2022 invested $2.5bn in Jebel Ali Port, the Jebel Ali Free Zone and the National Industries Park, three of DP World’s flagship assets in the UAE, said on Tuesday that it would not carry out further investments until it shed light on bin Sulayem’s links to Epstein and took “necessary actions”.

On Friday, British International Investment welcomed DP World’s appointment of a new ⁠chief executive and said it would resume investment alongside the company.

“We ‌welcome today’s decision by DP World and look forward to continuing our partnership to advance the development ⁠of key African trading ⁠ports to unlock the continent’s global trading potential,” a ⁠spokesperson for the agency said.

Epstein was convicted of procuring a minor for prostitution in 2008, spending about a year in prison before his release.

His contacts with a network of wealthy and influential figures continued in the wake of his conviction until an investigation into the wealthy financier was reopened in 2019.

Epstein died in prison that year while facing charges of sex trafficking underage girls.

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has claimed victory in the country’s first election since a student-led uprising that ousted longtime leader Sheikh Hasina in 2024.

Unofficial results confirmed by election officials to Al Jazeera on Friday showed the BNP winning 209 seats, easily crossing the 151-seat threshold needed for a majority in parliament.

Its leader, Tarique Rahman, the son of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, is now set to become the country’s next prime minister. BNP officials said the party expected to form a government by Sunday.

The BNP was followed by Jamaat-e-Islami, which secured 68 seats in Thursday’s polls – its highest-ever tally.

The party, which is led by Shafiqur Rahman and contested for the first time since a 2013 ban that was lifted after Hasina’s ouster, said it is not “satisfied” with the vote count and raised “serious questions about the integrity of the results process”.

The National Citizen Party (NCP), led by youth activists instrumental in toppling Hasina and part of a Jamaat-led alliance, won just six of the 30 seats that it contested.

The Election Commission has yet to formally announce the final tally, which is expected either later on Friday or on Saturday.

Turnout stood at almost 60 percent of registered voters, according to the Election Commission, well over the nearly 42 percent in the last election in 2024.

The election featured a record number of parties, more than 50, and at least 2,000 candidates, many of them independents. The parliament comprises 350 lawmakers, with 50 seats reserved for women.

More than 127 million people were eligible to cast their votes, with many expressing enthusiasm for what was widely seen as Bangladesh’s first competitive vote in years.

An interim government led by Nobel peace laureate Muhammad Yunus, 85, has been in office since Hasina fled to India in 2024 after widespread protests led largely by young people, who were killed in their hundreds by security forces.

Tarique Rahman, who has never held government office, returned to Bangladesh in December after 17 years of self-imposed exile in the United Kingdom. The 60-year-old has yet to comment on the unofficial results but on Friday, he waved from his car as he left his house in the capital, Dhaka, for a mosque.

In a statement, the BNP asked people to refrain from large celebrations and offer special prayers instead.

“Despite winning … by a large margin of votes, no celebratory procession or rally shall be organised,” the party said in a statement.

‘Litmus test’

The 78-year-old former leader, Hasina, was sentenced to death in absentia for crimes against humanity for the bloody crackdown on protesters during her final months in power, and remains in hiding in India. Her Awami League party was barred from the election.

BNP members have said the party would formally request Hasina’s extradition from India. In its manifesto, the BNP promised to prioritise job creation, protect low-income and marginal households and ensure fair prices to farmers. Tarique Rahman has also promised to revive a stagnant economy, reset ties with countries in the region and crack down on corruption.

Abbas Faiz, an independent South Asia researcher, said the election was a test of how Bangladesh was “ready for democracy”.

“Also, a test of the political parties which have been able to take part in the elections. They have actually understood the aspirations and the wishes of the people of their country for the removal of corrupt practices in the administration and parliament,” Faiz told Al Jazeera.

He added the election is the “litmus test” which puts responsibility on the “shoulders of the new government”.

But Faiz explained that the election would have been “fairer” if all parties, including the Awami League, were allowed to participate.

“But in a way, the problem lies with the Awami League itself, because it did not reimage itself as a party that could be trusted by the general populace in Bangladesh,” he said.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the US ambassador to Bangladesh, Brent T Christensen, were among the first to congratulate Rahman on his party’s victory. China’s embassy in Dhaka also congratulated the BNP over its election showing.

The election commission also said some 48 million ‌voters chose “Yes” ‌while about 23 million said “No” in a referendum on constitutional reforms held alongside the election, though there was no official word on the outcome.

The changes include two-term limits for prime ministers and stronger judicial independence and women’s representation, while providing for neutral interim governments during election periods and setting up a second house of the 300-seat parliament.

Fahmida Khatun, an economist and executive director of the Dhaka-based Centre for Policy Dialogue, told Al Jazeera that early signals support the perception of a credible election.

Although heavy security was reported across polling stations, “broadly, the voting was peaceful”, Khatun said, pointing to the voter turnout figure as an indicator of healthy participation.

“This indicates citizens wanted to exercise their voting rights and they wanted to choose their own people,” she added.

Several hundred international observers monitored Thursday’s voting, with the European Union’s Election Observation Mission expected to issue a preliminary report on its findings on Sunday.

Iraq says more than 3,000 Syrians are among the ISIL-linked detainees transferred to one of its prisons by US military.

More than 5,000 ISIL-linked (ISIS) detainees have been transferred from Syrian jails to a prison in neighbouring Iraq so far, according to Iraq’s Ministry of Justice.

In comments to the Iraqi News Agency on Friday, ministry spokesperson Ahmed Laibi said the transfers and ongoing detention of the prisoners had been carried out at the request of an international coalition led by the United States to combat ISIL, of which Iraq is a key member.

In separate comments on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein gave a lower figure, telling Reuters that about 3,000 ISIL-linked detainees had been transferred.

He told the news agency that the process was ongoing and that Baghdad was in discussions with various countries about repatriating their nationals who had been transferred.

Iraq would need more ⁠financial assistance to ⁠deal with the intake, he said, adding that there had been a recent ⁠uptick in ISIL activity in Syria.

The US military has been transporting thousands of ISIL-linked prisoners from jails and detention centres previously run by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in northeast Syria.

The transfers have come as control of the prisons has been handed over to the Syrian government, amid a push by Damascus to assert its authority over the full extent of a country still fragmented in the wake of a brutal war.

Deadly clashes with SDF forces broke out amid the Syrian army’s advance in recent weeks, including in and around key prison sites, resulting in some ISIL detainees escaping and raising fears the armed group could exploit any security vacuum to regroup.

A ceasefire has since been struck between the government and the SDF.

Detainees mostly Syrian nationals

Laibi, the Iraqi Justice Ministry spokesperson, said that of the 5,064 ISIL detainees transferred so far, more than 3,000 were Syrian, while at least 270 were Iraqi.

He said the detainees were being held in a single prison, in a section separated from other prisoners.

The detainees would all be investigated and prosecuted under Iraqi law, he said, while the responsibility for feeding the thousands of detainees was being handled by the international coalition, rather than Iraq.

Last month, lawyers for a group of French ISIL suspects who had been transported by the US military from Syria to Iraqi prisons in an earlier series of transfers claimed the inmates had been subjected to “torture and inhumane treatment” there.

Damascus becomes US’s main anti-ISIL partner

The US military has previously said up to 7,000 people with alleged ISIL links could be transferred to Iraqi-controlled facilities.

US Admiral Brad Cooper, the head of US forces in the Middle East, said last month that facilitating the secure transfer of detainees was critical to preventing mass breakouts that could pose a direct threat to the US and regional security.

The statement came shortly after the US special envoy to Syria said that Washington’s main partner against ISIL in Syria would be the Syrian government, rather than the SDF, which had held that position for years.

The shift followed Syria – under new President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the former leader of the armed group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, who was once deemed a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” by the US – joining the anti-ISIL coalition in November.

US departs Syrian base

The ongoing transfers of the detainees from Syria have come as the US military reduces its presence in the country, where it has conducted operations against ISIL for years.

On Thursday, Syrian ⁠forces ⁠announced they had taken control of the al-Tanf military base, a strategic garrison near the border with Iraq and Jordan, following the withdrawal of US forces.

Cooper, the commander of US forces in the Middle East, said the departure was “part of a deliberate and conditions-based transition”, and that US forces remained “poised to respond to any [ISIL] threats that arise in the region as we support partner-led efforts” to prevent the group’s resurgence.

While ISIL was largely defeated in 2017 in Iraq and in Syria two years later, sleeper cells still carry out attacks in both countries.

The UK’s High Court has ruled that the government ban on the pro-Palestinian campaign group Palestine Action as a ‘terror group’ was unlawful. The case was brought by the group’s co-founder Huda Ammori. Rory Challands is outside the court in London.

The U.S. Air Force has now denied taking delivery of any F-35A Joint Strike Fighters from the latest Lot 17 production batch without radars installed. This comes a day after TWZ published a detailed piece examining a recent unconfirmed report that the U.S. military has been receiving radar-less F-35s since last June due to issues tied to the new AN/APG-85 radar. Earlier this week, the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) had declined to confirm or deny whether that was the case, citing “enhanced security measures.”

“USAF F-35A lot 17 aircraft are delivering with APG-81 radars,” an Air Force spokesperson told TWZ today in an unprompted statement. “The Air Force is working with the F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office to deliver F-35s with APG-85 radars, and actual modernization plans, capabilities, and schedules remain classified to maintain program security.”

Since at least 2023, Northrop Grumman has been developing the APG-85 as a replacement for the existing AN/APG-81 radar used on all F-35 variants. The new radar is one part of the larger critical Block 4 upgrade package, which has been beset by delays and cost growth. Block 4 is also supposed to eventually include replacements for the Joint Strike Fighter’s AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), as well as a new electronic warfare suite and a host of other improved capabilities. In the past, the Air Force has described the electronic warfare package, which will be directly tied in with the APG-85, as a top priority.

“Lockheed Martin has been delivering F-35s to the military services since last June without radars, including all F-35As,” Defense Daily had reported last week, citing an anonymous source. “F-35 deliveries to U.S. units in the field since last June have had the APG-85 mountings, which do not fit the APG-81.”

“The radar-less F-35 deliveries have not affected sales to foreign partner nations which have the APG-81 on their jets, the source said,” that story added. “Without a radar, there had to be additional weight added in the nose for aircraft balance during flight. Radar-less F-35s have been able to fly, as long as they are accompanied by other F-35s, data linked and equipped with the APG-81, the source said.”

As mentioned, TWZ reached out earlier this week to the F-35 JPO with queries regarding the details in the Defense Daily piece.

“F-35 Lightning II aircraft are being built to accommodate the F-35 advanced radar (APG-85) for [the] U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps,” an F-35 JPO spokesperson had told us in response. “Initial fielding for some F-35 aircraft is planned for Lot 17, which began delivery in 2025 and continues through September 2026.”

“Due to program security reasons, we are protecting any additional information with enhanced security measures,” the spokesperson added.

In addition, Defense Daily‘s report last week said it received a statement from the Air Force that was similar to the response we subsequently received from the JPO.

“This advanced radar [APG-85] will be compatible with all variants of the F-35 aircraft,” an Air Force spokesperson told that outlet. “Due to program security reasons, we are protecting any additional information with enhanced security measures.”

What has now changed regarding these “enhanced security measures” and why is unclear. There are still questions from our story yesterday that remain unanswered, including whether or not jets configured to accept the APG-85 can have the APG-81 installed for the time being. If modifications are required for this, it is not clear how substantial or invasive they might need to be. As we previously noted, a separate report last year from Breaking Defense had also pointed to a backwards compatibility issue and potential need to redesign the entire forward end of the fuselage to be able to accommodate both the APG-81 and the APG-85.

TWZ has followed up with the Air Force to see if more information may now be available.

As we detailed in our piece yesterday, there are additional questions about the general status of work on the APG-85 and the rest of the Block 4 upgrade package, and the timeline now for the delivery of any of those capabilities. The integration of the APG-85, as well as the new electronic warfare suite and many of the other improvements, are all directly intertwined with the need for more auxiliary power-generation and thermal cooling capacity. These demands are supposed to be addressed, at least in part, by an engine upgrade effort that is itself now running behind schedule.

The goal had previously been for F-35s with a complete suite of Block 4 improvements to begin arriving this year. A September 2025 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, said that those plans had been revised to focus first on a truncated portion of the upgrade package, but that schedule had still been set back at least five years.

The F-35 program continues to stare down growing costs associated with operating and maintaining the jets. Altogether, the total cost of the program from the start of development in the 1990s through the end of the type’s expected lifecycle in the 2070s, is now estimated to be approximtely $2.1 trillion. The JPO has stressed that inflation is expected to account for roughly half of that figure.

Altogether, even if F-35s are not being delivered now without radars, there are still significant challenges facing the Block 4 upgrade package and the rest of the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The recent use of a laser directed energy weapon to down an aerial object near El Paso, Texas, and its chaotic aftermath, highlight the policy challenges and impediments the U.S. still faces in defending against drone incursions over the homeland. These are major national security concerns and a topic The War Zone has been reporting on for years.

The latest chapter in the ongoing saga of U.S. efforts to begin countering small drone incursions over the country began last week. Reacting to what they thought was a drone operated by a Mexican drug cartel, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel reportedly used a laser directed energy weapon to take down the object, which multiple reports say turned out to be a Mylar balloon. The system, which Reuters identified as a AeroVironment LOCUST laser counter-drone weapon, was lent to CBP by the U.S. Army. This is the first publicly known instance of an object being shot down over the U.S. with a laser in an operational setting.

You can read more about LOCUST and how it works in our story here.

The use of the LOCUST came as the FAA was working on “a safety assessment of the risks the new technology could pose to other aircraft,” The New York Times reported. “F.A.A. officials had warned the Pentagon that if they were not given sufficient time and information to conduct their review, they would have no choice but to shut down the nearby airspace.”

The tug of war between the Pentagon and FAA – which led to a shutdown of airspace over the nation’s 23rd largest city – is a glaring example of the convoluted and conflicting authorities the U.S. relies on to deal with the increasing threat posed by drones.

The FAA did not respond to our request for comment. We also reached out to U.S. Northern Command and AeroVironment for comment.

However, safety concerns about using directed energy weapons, and especially kinetic ones, to take down drones in the U.S. have been a major factor in why they aren’t employed in this role. 

A little less than a year and a half ago, officials at U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), which has coordinating authority for counter-drone efforts in the U.S., said the use of such weapons was not yet on the table. The reason is that they can create dangerous or otherwise serious collateral effects that are not a concern in a war zone.

“The biggest thing right now is the impact of the laser when it moves beyond its target,” NORTHCOM Deputy Test Director Jason Mayes said of laser directed energy weapons for counter-drone use. “You know, how far is it going? What’s that going to do? How long does the laser need to remain on target before it begins to inflict damage and so on, right?”

Mayes, speaking to a small group of reporters, including from The War Zone at Falcon Peak 2025, a counter-drone experiment at Peterson Space Force Base in October 2024, also raised questions about whether the laser beam could impact aircraft or even satellites passing by, as well as things on the ground like “hikers up on a hill.”

The military has been working to mitigate those concerns, Mayes proffered at the time.

“I think that we could get to a point where we have approval for that here in the homeland,” he posited.

The video below shows a test of a U.S. Navy shipboard laser directed energy weapon capable of being employed against drones.

USS Portland (LPD 27) tests LWSD laser system

It is unclear when the approval to use laser counter-drone weapons came or how extensive such permissions have been. We also don’t know if the LOCUST system, understood to have been stationed at nearby Fort Bliss, was sent there under a pilot program established under the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It calls for at least four military installations to be used to speed up the development of counter-drone efforts at bases across the country. The measure includes systems “capable of destroying or disabling a small unmanned aircraft by means of high-powered microwave, laser, or other similar technology.”

Fort Bliss is also home to a significant portion of the Army’s air defense units, which are increasingly charged with the counter-drone mission. The base is also a major hub for border security operations, which the U.S. military often conducts in cooperation with law enforcement agencies, as well.

The future domestic use of laser counter-drone weapons remains an open question, but the NDAA pilot program gives the military additional authorities under existing statutes to at least test them. Still, as we have frequently noted, a confusing and often competing set of federal laws governing the use of counter-drone systems domestically impacted the ability to defend against these threats. The El Paso situation is a case in point of how challenging this can be.

NORTHCOM has authority over the troops and equipment, in this case a laser system, to take down the drones. However, federal laws limit where and when the military can use these systems, which is a large reason why CBP was involved.

In advance of the U.S. hosting the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympic Games, the Trump administration pushed to expand counter-drone authorities. Congress granted that when it passed the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Under a federal law known as 124n, “the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ, including CBP, have limited authority to mitigate drone threats domestically to protect covered facilities or assets,” Scott Shtofman, Vice President & Counsel, Regulatory Affairs for the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), told us. “That authority has been extended and expanded, under the Safer Skies Act of the NDAA, to certain certified state, local, Tribal, and territorial agencies operating under federal training and oversight.”

Still, “it’s not a blanket nationwide shoot down power and only applies in defined threat situations,” he added. 

Meanwhile, under another federal statute commonly referred to as 130(i), “DoW can mitigate drone threats to protect military installations and missions inside the U.S., but it does not have general domestic airspace policing authority,” Shtofman posited.

However, the Pentagon is working to expand its counter-drone capabilities. 

In January, the recently created Joint Interagency Task Force (JIATF) 401 announced updated guidance for counter-unmanned aerial systems (UAS) operations. The move empowered installation commanders “to take decisive action to protect military facilities, assets, and personnel within the homeland,” according to a press release at the time.

“The guidance, signed by the Secretary of War on December 8, 2025, streamlines and consolidates existing policies for detecting and mitigating UAS under the authority of 10 U.S. Code § 130i,” the release added, referring to another one of the laws governing domestic counter-small drone efforts. “It addresses the direct and growing threat posed by the proliferation of inexpensive and capable UAS. This updated framework provides commanders with the expanded authority and flexibility needed to dominate the airspace above their installations.”

Among other things, the new rules eliminate restrictions on defense perimeters that reduced installation commanders’ abilities to protect against drones.

“The previous ‘fence-line’ limitation has been removed, giving commanders a larger defensive area and greater decision space to protect covered facilities and assets,” the new rules state.

In earlier reporting, we noted that not all installations were considered “covered” to take down drones. The new rules permit service secretaries to determine which installations should be covered, to increase the number.

Beyond that, the Pentagon is now allowed to share “UAS track and sensor data among interagency partners, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). It also allows for the use of trained and certified contractor personnel as C-sUAS operators.”

“Every commander has the inherent right to self-defense,” the Pentagon told us. “The Department of War will defend its personnel and assets from illicit UAS activity in accordance with our authority under title 10 Section 130i, and the standing rules for the use of force.”

In addition to the numerous drone incursions over U.S. installations that we have frequently covered, cross-border cartel drone operations are a chronic issue, and we have been calling attention to the growing dangers they pose for many years now. Controversy over the El Paso incident was magnified after the White House insisted that the U.S. shot down a cartel drone flying over the border, which was later contradicted by the reporting that it was a mylar balloon.

Regardless of what it was, small drones remain a clear and present danger to the U.S. Whether new technology and additional authorities to use them will make a difference is an open question.

Update: 8:31 PM Eastern –

A U.S. official responded with answers to some of our questions.

1. The limit on the distance installation commanders can counter drones is the capability of their counter-UAS systems and the ability to coordinate with local authorities and communities.
2. No sites have been chosen yet for the counter-drone pilot program.
3. To his knowledge, the El Paso incident was the first time a directed energy weapon had been used against illicit drones in the homeland.
4. There are no statutory preclusions to using directed energy weapons against drones in the homeland.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Gezani is forecast to return to cyclone status when it strikes southern Mozambique on Friday evening.

Nearly 40 people have been killed and more than 12,000 others displaced after Cyclone Gezani slammed into Madagascar’s second-largest city earlier this week, as Mozambique braced for the storm’s arrival.

Updating its tolls as assessments progressed, Madagascar’s National Office for Risk and Disaster Management (BNGRC) said on Thursday it had recorded 38 deaths, while six people remained missing and at least 374 were injured.

Gezani made landfall on Tuesday at the Indian Ocean island nation Madagascar’s eastern coastal city, Toamasina, bringing winds that reached 250km/h (155mph).

Madagascar’s new leader, Colonel Michael Randrianirina, has declared a national disaster and called for “international solidarity”, saying the cyclone had “ravaged up to 75 percent of Toamasina and surrounds”.

Images from the AFP news agency showed the battered city of 500,000 people littered with trees felled by strong winds and roofs blown off buildings.

Residents dug through piles of debris, planks and corrugated metal to repair their makeshift homes.

More than 18,000 homes were destroyed in the cyclone, according to the BNGRC, with at least 50,000 damaged or flooded. Authorities say many of the deaths were caused by building collapses, as many give inadequate shelter from strong storms.

The main road linking the city to the capital, Antananarivo, was cut off in several places, “blocking humanitarian convoys”, it said, while telecommunications were unstable.

The storm also caused major destruction in the Atsinanana region surrounding Toamasina, the disaster authority said, adding that assessments were still under way.

France announced the dispatch of food aid and rescue teams from its Reunion Island, about 1,000km (600 miles) away.

Thousands of people had been forced to leave their homes, said the United Nations’s International Organization for Migration (IOM), describing “widespread destruction and disruption”.

The cyclone’s landfall was likely one of the strongest recorded in the region during the satellite era, rivalling Geralda in February 1994, it said. That storm killed at least 200 people and affected half a million more.

Gezani weakened after landfall but continued to sweep across the island as a tropical storm until late on Wednesday.

It was forecast to return to cyclone status as it reaches the Mozambique Channel, according to the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre La Reunion (CMRS), and could from Friday evening strike southern Mozambique.

Mozambican authorities issued warnings on Thursday about the approaching storm, saying it could cause violent winds and rough seas of 10-metre waves and urging people to leave the area of expected impact.

Both Madagascar and Mozambique are vulnerable to destructive storms that blow in off the Indian Ocean. Just last month, the northwestern part of Madagascar was hit by Cyclone Fytia, killing at least 14 people.

Mozambique has already faced devastating flooding from seasonal rainfall, with nearly 140 lives lost since October 1, according to the country’s National Disasters Management Institute.