NEWS

Andriy Yermak, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s former chief of staff and close aide, is now at the centre of the country’s biggest corruption investigation since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Anticorruption authorities named him an official suspect on Monday in an alleged multimillion-dollar money laundering scheme linked to a luxury housing project outside the capital, Kyiv.

Yermak appeared at a Kyiv court on Tuesday for a hearing related to the charges, which are part of a widening probe drawing in other senior figures associated with the president, including his national security chief.

While Zelenskyy is not accused of any wrongdoing, the scandal could potentially threaten Ukraine’s aspirations for European Union membership as it seeks to convince the bloc that its anticorruption drive is on track.

So, what are the charges against Yermak? Are other allies of Zelenskyy also under a cloud of suspicion? And what does this mean for Ukraine’s standing with its Western allies?

What are the charges against Yermak?

Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) say Yermak is suspected of involvement in an organised criminal group that allegedly laundered about 460 million hryvnias ($10.5m) through a luxury real estate project near Kyiv.

Prosecutors are seeking to impose bail of about $5.4m on the 54-year-old while they continue their investigation.

Yermak, who resigned in November, has firmly rejected the claims. In a post on Telegram after a court hearing on Tuesday, he described the accusations as “unfounded”.

“As a lawyer with more than 30 years’ experience, I have always been guided by the law. And now, in the same way, I will defend my rights, my name and my reputation,” he said.

At one point during the hearing, Yermak told reporters that he “owns only one apartment and one car”.

His lawyer, Ihor Fomin, labelled the allegations against his client “groundless” and denied any role by Yermak in laundering funds through the high-end development. Fomin told Ukraine’s public broadcaster Suspilne that “this entire situation has been provoked by public pressure.”

NABU director Semen Kryvonos defended the proceedings, stating that authorities move to issue formal notices only when they believe they possess enough evidence to sustain charges in court. He clarified that Zelenskyy was not subject to any investigation.

But the case has dragged the shadow of corruption closer to the Ukrainian president than ever before. That’s because it isn’t just Yermak who has been caught up in the accusations of fraud.

Have other Zelenskyy allies been implicated, too?

Timur Mindich, a wealthy businessman who was Zelenskyy’s former partner from the entertainment world – the Ukrainian president is a former comedian – has emerged as another leading figure in the scandal. He left for Israel after corruption allegations surfaced last year.

The probe has also brought Rustem Umerov, the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, into the crosshairs of the authorities. Umerov, who until last year was Ukraine’s defence minister, is Zelenskyy’s main representative in United States-backed diplomatic efforts to end Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Prosecutors say Umerov has been interviewed as a witness in the luxury real estate development case.

The case is part of a broader anticorruption operation, dubbed “Midas” and led by NABU and SAPO. The operation was first made public in November, when prosecutors accused Mindich of engineering a $100m kickback scheme at Energoatom, charges the businessman has refuted.

Zelenskyy has yet to publicly respond to the allegations involving Yermak. On Monday, a communications aide said it was premature to comment on the case.

Ukraine’s government in July passed a law in an effort to strip the independence of NABU and SAPO, which were established in 2014 after a pro-democracy uprising against the then-government of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Within days, protests broke out against the move, forcing Zelenskyy to reverse course and sign a new law to restore the anticorruption institutions’ independence.

Why does this matter?

The scandal has emerged at a particularly sensitive moment for Ukraine, as Kyiv continues to make the case for military and financial support from its allies in Western Europe and North America.

Last July, US senators Jeanne Shaheen and Lindsey Graham released a strongly worded statement denouncing the attempt by the government to, at the time, curb the anticorruption work of NABU and SAPO.

“One of the most widely used talking points for ending support for Ukraine is that it was awash with corruption,” they said. “We acknowledge that Ukraine continues to make progress on this front and we urge the government to refrain from any actions that undermine that progress.”

Moreover, Ukraine’s bid to join the EU has increased pressure on Zelenskyy’s administration to demonstrate institutional independence and accountability.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz last month cautioned against a quick accession of Ukraine to the EU, saying Ukraine cannot join the bloc due to several key concerns, including ending the war and fighting corruption.

Ukrainian opposition politician Oleksiy Goncharenko said the allegations had now reached a point that Zelenskyy “personally cannot ignore”.

However, Olena Halushka, a board member at the Anti-Corruption Action Centre in Kyiv, said the case against Yermak and others was a “clear example that the checks and balances system really works”.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Halushka said it proved that in Ukraine there are “law enforcement institutions functioning independently and professionally, exercising their powers in defence of democracy”.

“These institutions were protected by the Ukrainian society and European partners from the political attack last summer, and now we see the tangible results of their activities,” she added.

In a survey conducted on May 6 by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, 54 percent of Ukrainians said corruption was a bigger threat to the country than the war with Russia.

China renewed its strong opposition to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan ahead of the high profile summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing.

Taiwan is expected to be one of the most sensitive issues discussed during the two day meeting, alongside trade disputes, regional security, and the ongoing Iran conflict.

Beijing considers Taiwan part of its territory, while the United States maintains unofficial relations with Taipei and remains legally committed to helping the island defend itself.

China Repeats Opposition to Arms Sales

China’s Taiwan Affairs Office warned Washington against expanding military cooperation with Taiwan and criticized U.S. weapons sales to the island.

Spokesperson Zhang Han described Taiwan as a core Chinese national interest and called on the United States to honor previous commitments under the One China framework.

Beijing argues that Taiwan is an internal Chinese matter and strongly opposes any foreign military involvement with the island.

Record US Weapons Package Raises Tensions

The Trump administration approved an $11 billion weapons package for Taiwan in December, marking the largest U.S. arms sale to the island to date.

Reports have also suggested that another arms package worth around $14 billion could be approved after Trump’s visit to China, though its current status remains unclear.

The United States says such sales are necessary to ensure Taiwan can defend itself against possible military pressure from China.

Taiwan Defence Budget Faces Scrutiny

The issue gained further attention after Taiwan’s opposition controlled parliament approved only part of a proposed $40 billion defense budget requested by President Lai Ching-te.

The approved funding prioritizes purchases of U.S. weapons while reducing spending on some domestic defense programs, including drones.

American officials reportedly expressed disappointment that the budget fell short of what Washington believes Taiwan needs for adequate defense preparedness.

Taiwanese officials fear Beijing could use the reduced spending as leverage during talks with Trump to argue against further U.S. military support for the island.

Taiwan Rejects Beijing Sovereignty Claims

Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit, Lai described Taiwan as a sovereign and independent nation that would not yield to external pressure.

China quickly rejected those remarks, reiterating that Taiwan has never been and will never become an independent country.

Beijing also repeated warnings that it retains the option of using force to bring Taiwan under its control, although it continues to publicly favor peaceful reunification.

Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party responded by emphasizing the island’s democratic system, independent government, and military institutions.

Taiwan Remains Central to US China Rivalry

Taiwan has become one of the most dangerous flashpoints in U.S. China relations, with both powers viewing the issue as tied directly to national credibility and regional influence.

For China, Taiwan represents sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national unity. For the United States, support for Taiwan is linked to maintaining regional stability and reassuring allies in the Indo Pacific.

Analysts warn that increasing military activity, arms sales, and political tensions surrounding Taiwan continue to raise the risk of miscalculation between Washington and Beijing.

Analysis

China’s warning ahead of the Trump Xi summit highlights how deeply the Taiwan issue shapes the broader strategic rivalry between the United States and China.

Despite ongoing diplomatic engagement and trade negotiations, Taiwan remains the most sensitive and potentially explosive issue in the bilateral relationship. Both sides see compromise on Taiwan as politically risky and strategically costly.

The large U.S. arms packages demonstrate Washington’s determination to strengthen Taiwan’s defense capabilities, especially as China rapidly expands its military presence around the island.

At the same time, Taiwan’s internal political debates over defense spending reveal concerns within the island about balancing military preparedness with economic and domestic priorities.

For Beijing, any increase in U.S. military support for Taiwan is viewed as interference in China’s internal affairs and a challenge to its sovereignty claims.

The summit between Trump and Xi may help reduce immediate tensions, but the fundamental disagreement over Taiwan is unlikely to ease. As military capabilities expand and political rhetoric hardens on all sides, Taiwan will remain a central test of whether the United States and China can manage strategic competition without drifting toward confrontation.

With information from Reuters.

British number one Emma Raducanu will make her return to action in Strasbourg after being granted a wildcard, as she seeks match practice before the French Open.

Raducanu, 23, withdrew from the Italian Open on health grounds earlier this month and has not competed since a third-round loss to American Amanda Anisimova at Indian Wells on 8 March.

The clay-court event in Strasbourg begins on Sunday, one week before the start of the French Open on 24 May.

Raducanu is set to miss out on a seeded position at the second Grand Slam of the year following the post-viral infection which has kept her away from the tour.

The 2021 US Open winner is currently ranked 30th in the world but will drop several places following the conclusion of this week’s tournaments in Rome and Paris.

Raducanu was granted a wildcard for last year’s WTA 500 event in Strasbourg, where she beat top-20 player Daria Kasatkina before losing to American Danielle Collins.

The Briton has won seven of her 14 matches this year, with four of those victories coming during her run to the final of the Transylvania Open in February after her second-round exit at the Australian Open.

Raducanu gave no clear indication that she would pull out of the Italian Open in March despite speaking to the media just 30 minutes before that decision was announced, but said she only wanted to return to competition when “100% ready”.

Taipei, Taiwan – Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to seek concessions on Taiwan and US tariffs when he meets United States President Donald Trump for a high-stakes summit taking place in the shadow of the war on Iran.

Trump will arrive in China on Wednesday evening for a three-day visit that will mark the first trip by a US leader to the country since 2017, when Trump visited in the early days of his first term.

Unlike Trump, who is renowned for his mercurial policymaking, Xi is widely seen as predictable in his goals for the summit, particularly as they concern Beijing’s longstanding “core interests” related to national security and territorial integrity.

At the top of that list is Taiwan.

While Taiwan’s government considers itself the head of a de facto sovereign state, Beijing views the island as an inalienable part of its territory.

The US formally cut ties with Taiwan – also known as the Republic of China – decades ago, but is committed to aiding the self-governing democracy’s defence under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.

Under the law, Washington has provided Taiwan with billions of dollars in arms and pursued cooperation in areas such as military training and intelligence sharing, which Beijing considers interference in its internal affairs.

The US government officially acknowledges that China views Taiwan as part of its territory, but does not express a stance on whether it agrees.

Washington is also intentionally vague about whether it would intervene to defend Taiwan if China sought to annex it by force.

In a call with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made clear that Taiwan would be raised at the summit, describing the issue as “the biggest risk in the China-US relationship”, according to a Chinese readout of the call.

China’s embassy in Washington, DC, reiterated that message after Trump’s departure for the summit on Tuesday, naming Taiwan as the first of “four red lines” that “must not be challenged”.

While analysts say it is unlikely that the US will change its position on Taiwan due to Chinese pressure, Trump said this week that the summit’s agenda would include US arms sales to the island, raising questions about the future of a stalled multibillion-dollar arms deal.

The US Congress approved the arms package reportedly worth $14bn earlier this year, but the sale still requires Trump’s final approval.

Xi will use his meetings with Trump to “influence and potentially convince Trump to agree to scale back, if not completely suspend, sales to Taiwan,” William Yang, a Taipei-based analyst at the Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera.

If Trump were to make concessions on weapons sales to Taiwan, he would be breaking with a longstanding policy against consulting with Beijing that dates back to former US President Ronald Reagan.

Cancelling or watering down the deal would be a serious blow to Taiwanese President William Lai Ching-te, who is locked in an intense fight with the opposition over defence spending, Yang said.

“They are hoping to first influence Trump’s decision around this issue and potentially create a situation where it will be much harder for [Lai’s] government to request more special defensive spending in the future,” Yang said.

Restoring the US-China framework

Xi is also eager to smooth over US-China relations after a tumultuous 18 months that saw Trump launch a second trade war with the world’s second-largest economy, according to analysts.

The standoff saw each side roll out escalating tit-for-tat tariffs – briefly sending duties well above 100 percent – and other punitive measures, such as export controls, before Washington and Beijing hit pause in May.

During their last meeting in South Korea in October, Xi and Trump agreed to a one-year reprieve in their trade war, while keeping some trade measures in place, including certain tariffs and export controls.

Over the past month, the US has rolled out several rounds of new sanctions targeting Chinese firms, including refiners accused of buying Iranian oil and companies accused of helping Tehran obtain materials to build drones and missiles.

Earlier this month, Beijing issued a “prohibition order” directing firms to disregard the US sanctions on its oil refineries.

“Beijing wants predictability and certainty for the remainder of Trump’s term through January 2029, because Beijing needs to be able to plan its own economic policies,” Feng Chucheng, a founding partner of Beijing-based Hutong Research advisory, told Al Jazeera.

These policy considerations include understanding tariff levels the US will apply to China and its trade partners, Feng said.

Wang Wen, dean of the school for global leadership at Renmin University in Beijing, said China wishes to return to a relationship based on “peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation”.

“We hope that this meeting will bring the US policy towards China back to these three principles,” Wang told Al Jazeera.

The stakes are high for Beijing, where the view of Trump has shifted from a “predictable transactional counterpart” to a “more action-oriented and harder-to-restrain opponent,” Hung Pu-Chao, deputy executive director of the Center for Mainland China and Regional Development Research at Taiwan’s Tunghai University, told Al Jazeera.

Restoring the US-China relationship to a stable footing is one way to mitigate these risks, Hung said.

Rather than secure concessions, Hung said, China’s priority is “trying to adjust the current strategic position and negotiating pace that are unfavourable to it, and bring US-China interactions back into a framework that it can better control”.

At the summit, Xi is likely to agree to increase purchases of US agricultural exports and Boeing planes, Feng said, and could also back Trump’s plan to create a “Board of Trade” and a “Board of Investment” to oversee US-China economic ties.

But China is unlikely to make compromises on rare earths – a sector it dominates – unless the US makes major political concessions, Feng said.

Calling for dialogue on the war on Iran

The US-Israel war on Iran will loom large over the summit.

Although not a main player in the conflict, China has been hit by the economic fallout of the war and the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of global oil and natural gas supplies usually pass.

Beijing has called for negotiations and a comprehensive ceasefire since the start of the conflict, a message Xi is likely to reiterate in his talks with Trump, according to Jodie Wen, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

“Xi will talk about this issue with Donald Trump and say that we all know that the war has a huge impact on the world, on Asian countries and the US, so we must have dialogue,” Wen told Al Jazeera.

Trump said on Tuesday that he does not need China’s “help” resolving the war, though the White House has pressured Beijing to lean on Iran to reopen the strait.

Xi and his top diplomat, Wang, have met more than a dozen global leaders and high-level officials since the start of the war, playing a behind-the-scenes mediating role.

China has had a “comprehensive strategic partnership” with Iran since 2016, and buys more than 80 percent of its oil.

Wen, the postdoctoral fellow at Tsinghua University, said Xi is unlikely to agree to any involvement except as a mediator, which she described as consistent with China’s longstanding approach to global affairs.

“China’s foreign policy principle is non-intervention,” she said. “This is our principle.”

UK PM, who is battling to remain in his job amid resignations of ministers, is expected to hold talks with Streeting.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, fighting for his political survival after dozens of his own MPs called for him to resign, promised to press ahead with plans to reform the country before an expected meeting with his potential leadership rival Wes Streeting, the health secretary.

Starmer has so far defied calls to quit from Labour MPs, who blame him for heavy losses in local elections last week and say he has failed to deliver reforms since coming to power in a landslide 2024 election victory.

The meeting in Downing Street will take place before King Charles gives a speech at the opening of parliament – a grand ceremony led by him and used by the government to set out its political priorities and legislative agenda for the year ahead.

A public statement is not expected to follow the Streeting-Starmer meeting to keep the attention on the speech, according to British media reports.

Resignations

More than 80, or almost a quarter, of the prime minister’s elected MPs have called for Starmer to go, and four junior ministers have resigned in protest, including prominent MP Jess Phillips, who said she was tired of seeing “opportunities for progress stalled and delayed”; Alex Davies-Jones, who called last week’s election results “catastrophic”; and Zubir Ahmed, who is a Streeting ally.

Miatta Fahnbulleh, who was the first of four ministers to resign on Tuesday, said in a letter to the prime minister, cited by British media: “The public does not believe that you can lead this change – and nor do I.”

Meanwhile, Starmer said in a statement on Tuesday evening: “Britain stands at a pivotal moment: To press ahead with a plan to build a stronger, fairer country or turn back to the chaos and instability of the past.”

Despite the turmoil, Starmer will take part in parliament’s grand opening on Wednesday.

“The British people expect the government to get on with the job of changing our country for the better. Cutting the cost of living, bringing down hospital waiting lists and keeping our country safe in an increasingly dangerous world,” Starmer said.

A package of more than 35 bills and draft bills will focus on measures to improve the economy, strengthen national security and “reform the state to support a more active government that is on the side of British people”, the government said.

After travelling to parliament and donning the Robe of State, Charles will read a speech written by Starmer’s government setting out the planned new laws.

But the implementation of that speech remains as uncertain as Starmer’s political future. If he were to be removed, his successor would not be bound to follow the same plan.

After spending much of Tuesday behind closed doors at his Downing Street office as he sought to rally support, Wednesday’s ceremony will put Starmer’s struggle for power back in public view.

Goalkeeper Bento’s bizarre injury-time own goal denies Al-Nassr a title-crowning 1-0 win over rivals Al Hilal at home.

Cristiano Ronaldo and his Al-Nassr teammates were left frustrated when their goalkeeper Bento scored an injury-time own goal, denying the club their first Saudi Pro League title in seven years.

Riyadh-based club Al-Nassr were leading 1-0 and seconds away from defeating local rivals Al Hilal, who are second in the league, when Bento fumbled an overhead save that sent the ball into his own net in a highly anticipated match on Tuesday.

A win would have sealed the 11th league title for Al-Nassr and the first for the Portuguese superstar since he famously joined the club in January 2023.

Al-Nassr top the league table with 83 points from 33 games, while Al Hilal are second on 78 points from 32 games. Ronaldo, who captains Al-Nassr, cut a picture of frustration on the bench when the equaliser was scored by the Brazilian goalkeeper.

The 41-year-old football icon has not won a domestic title with Al-Nassr since his then-record-breaking move from Manchester United after the FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar.

Al-Nassr’s last league title came in 2019, while Al Hilal won the league in 2024.

Fans of the home team were given free team shirts at the beginning of the match, making the stands a sea of yellow in anticipation of the title win.

Barring a shock result against 15th-place Damac in their final league game, Al-Nassr are favourites to win the league on May 21 .

“The dream is close,” Ronaldo said in his post-match social media posts to his 770 million-plus followers.

Last week, a prominent Saudi Sheikh, Mohammed Al-Issa, visited the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland to commemorate the 75th anniversary of its liberation, which signalled the end of the Nazi Holocaust. Although dozens of Muslim scholars have visited the site, where about one million Jews were killed during World War Two, according to the Auschwitz Memorial Centre’s press office, Al-Issa is the most senior Muslim religious leader to do so.

Visiting Auschwitz is not a problem for a Muslim; Islam orders Muslims to reject unjustified killing of any human being, no matter what their faith is. Al-Issa is a senior ally of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), who apparently cares little for the sanctity of human life, though, and the visit to Auschwitz has very definite political connotations beyond any Islamic context.

By sending Al-Issa to the camp, Bin Salman wanted to show his support for Israel, which exploits the Holocaust for geopolitical colonial purposes. “The Israeli government decided that it alone was permitted to mark the 75th anniversary of the Allied liberation of Auschwitz [in modern day Poland] in 1945,” wrote journalist Richard Silverstein recently when he commented on the gathering of world leaders in Jerusalem for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Holocaust event.

READ: Next up, a Saudi embassy in Jerusalem 

Bin Salman uses Al Issa for such purposes, as if to demonstrate his own Zionist credentials. For example, the head of the Makkah-based Muslim World League is leading rapprochement efforts with Evangelical Christians who are, in the US at least, firm Zionists in their backing for the state of Israel. Al-Issa has called for a Muslim-Christian-Jewish interfaith delegation to travel to Jerusalem in what would, in effect, be a Zionist troika.

Zionism is not a religion, and there are many non-Jewish Zionists who desire or support the establishment of a Jewish state in occupied Palestine. The definition of Zionism does not mention the religion of its supporters, and Israeli writer Sheri Oz, is just one author who insists that non-Jews can be Zionists.

Mohammad Bin Salman and Netanyahu – Cartoon [Tasnimnews.com/Wikipedia]

We should not be shocked, therefore, to see a Zionist Muslim leader in these trying times. It is reasonable to say that Bin Salman’s grandfather and father were Zionists, as close friends of Zionist leaders. Logic suggests that Bin Salman comes from a Zionist dynasty.

This has been evident from his close relationship with Zionists and positive approaches to the Israeli occupation and establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, calling it “[the Jews’] ancestral homeland”. This means that he has no issue with the ethnic cleansing of almost 800,000 Palestinians in 1948, during which thousands were killed and their homes demolished in order to establish the Zionist state of Israel.

“The ‘Jewish state’ claim is how Zionism has tried to mask its intrinsic Apartheid, under the veil of a supposed ‘self-determination of the Jewish people’,” wrote Israeli blogger Jonathan Ofir in Mondoweiss in 2018, “and for the Palestinians it has meant their dispossession.”

As the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Bin Salman has imprisoned dozens of Palestinians, including representatives of Hamas. In doing so he is serving Israel’s interests. Moreover, he has blamed the Palestinians for not making peace with the occupation state. Bin Salman “excoriated the Palestinians for missing key opportunities,” wrote Danial Benjamin in Moment magazine. He pointed out that the prince’s father, King Salman, has played the role of counterweight by saying that Saudi Arabia “permanently stands by Palestine and its people’s right to an independent state with occupied East Jerusalem as its capital.”

UN expert: Saudi crown prince behind hack on Amazon CEO 

Israeli journalist Barak Ravid of Israel’s Channel 13 News reported Bin Salman as saying: “In the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given. It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining.” This is reminiscent of the words of the late Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, one of the Zionist founders of Israel, that the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Bin Salman’s Zionism is also very clear in his bold support for US President Donald Trump’s deal of the century, which achieves Zionist goals in Palestine at the expense of Palestinian rights. He participated in the Bahrain conference, the forum where the economic side of the US deal was announced, where he gave “cover to several other Arab countries to attend the event and infuriated the Palestinians.”

US President Donald Trump looks over at Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud as they line up for the family photo during the opening day of Argentina G20 Leaders’ Summit 2018 at Costa Salguero on 30 November 2018 in Buenos Aires, Argentina [Daniel Jayo/Getty Images]

While discussing the issue of the current Saudi support for Israeli policies and practices in Palestine with a credible Palestinian official last week, he told me that the Palestinians had contacted the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to ask him not to relocate his country’s embassy to Jerusalem. “The Saudis have been putting pressure on us in order to relocate our embassy to Jerusalem,” replied the Brazilian leader. What more evidence of Mohammad Bin Salman’s Zionism do we need?

The founder of Friends of Zion Museum is American Evangelical Christian Mike Evans. He said, after visiting a number of the Gulf States, that, “The leaders [there] are more pro-Israel than a lot of Jews.” This was a specific reference to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, and his counterpart in the UAE, Mohammed Bin Zayed.

“All versions of Zionism lead to the same reactionary end of unbridled expansionism and continued settler colonial genocide of [the] Palestinian people,” Israeli-American writer and photographer Yoav Litvin wrote for Al Jazeera. We may well see an Israeli Embassy opened in Riyadh in the near future, and a Saudi Embassy in Tel Aviv or, more likely, Jerusalem. Is Mohammad Bin Salman a Zionist? There’s no doubt about it.

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

Mérida, May 12, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The US and Venezuelan governments, in coordination with the United Kingdom and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), completed the extraction and secure transfer of 13.5 kilograms of enriched uranium. 

This radioactive material had been stored since 1991 following the decommissioning of a nuclear research reactor of the Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research (IVIC) in Miranda state.

The operation to remove the uranium, enriched over 20 percent, was carried out in late April under strict security and IAEA oversight. The shipment was transported by land to the port of Puerto Cabello, and then by sea on a British vessel to the US Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

The Venezuelan government, led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, released a statement on Thursday, May 7, explaining that it had “repeatedly communicated to the IAEA the need to remove the disused sources and materials that remained in the country.”

The official statement emphasized that the January 3 US military attack, in which two US missiles struck approximately 50 meters from the reactor, had “objectively increased the risk level and urgency” of extracting the radioactive material. Caracas emphasized that the transfer was carried out in accordance with safety standards and international nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

The US Embassy in Venezuela described the operation as “a victory for the United States, Venezuela, and the world.” In a statement released on Friday, the diplomatic mission praised the “decisive leadership of President Donald Trump” and the work of US on-the-ground teams that “completed in months what would have normally taken years.”

According to the official US note, the recovered material will be used for research and the development of new technologies as part of what the Trump administration calls a “nuclear renaissance.”

While the statement did not detail specific uses, the dilution and processing of highly enriched uranium can provide inputs for medical isotope production, experimentation with next-generation reactors, and fuel development for small modular reactors (SMRs), which operate at enrichment levels up to 20%.

The State Department, through Assistant Secretary for Arms Control and Nonproliferation Christopher T. Yeaw, has stated that “working alongside our DOE/NNSA, UK, IAEA, and Venezuelan counterparts, we’ve demonstrated how effective partnerships can eliminate nuclear proliferation risks and enhance global nuclear security.”

For its part, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that it provided “nuclear safety and security guidance, training, and technical expertise.” In a statement, the IAEA highlighted the risk of radioactive material “falling into the wrong hands,” while Director General Rafael Grossi praised “the professionalism of all the parties involved.”

The IAEA has provided details of the transfer of uranium enriched to just above 20 percent of the fissile isotope uranium-235 from the RV-1 reactor at IVIC, located 15 km southwest of Caracas. This level is regarded as the threshold for “highly enriched uranium” (HEU), though it is significantly below the 80 percent required for a nuclear weapon.

The RV-1 was Venezuela’s first nuclear research reactor and a pioneer project in Latin America. The initiative was established in 1960 under the vision of scientist Humberto Fernández-Morán. Its primary function was the production of radioisotopes for medical purposes, as well as for experiments in the fields of physics and biology. Following the decision to close the facility permanently in 1991, the site was converted for use as a Gamma Ray Sterilization Plant (Pegamma).

The old reactor drew renewed attention during the US January 3 bombings, which included strikes that hit IVIC facilities and also saw special forces kidnap President Nicolás Maduro.

The uranium removal marks the conclusion of Venezuela’s nuclear history, which began in the 1950s under the “Atoms for Peace” program.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

FBI Director Kash Patel and Senator Chris Van Hollen had a heated exchange during a Senate budget hearing after Van Hollen questioned Patel about drinking allegations first reported by The Atlantic magazine. Patel called the claims “unequivocally, categorically false.”

Author Oliver Eagleton says British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is fighting for his job because he tried to turn the Labour Party into the ‘new Conservative Party’ and ‘occupy that centre ground’. Dozens of lawmakers are calling for Starmer’s resignation after devastating local elections.

In a United States court, OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman has rejected claims from fellow tech mogul Elon Musk that he betrayed the artificial intelligence company’s original vision.

Tuesday marked the start of Altman’s testimony in a contentious trial unfolding in Oakland, California, between some of tech’s richest and most powerful titans.

Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, has sued Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman on the basis that they “stole a charity” by shifting its purpose.

He alleged that OpenAI’s leader persuaded him to invest $38bn, based on a goal of improving humanity, only to see the company pivot to a for-profit venture in 2019.

On the witness stand on Tuesday, Altman instead framed Musk as a competitor obsessed with exercising control over OpenAI.

“It does not fit with my conception of the words ‘stealing a charity’ to look at what has actually happened here,” Altman told the court.

The two men have long had an acrimonious relationship, driven in part by differing views about artificial intelligence.

Musk — a self-described free speech “absolutist” — currently runs his own AI chatbot, Grok, which has been accused of perpetuating right-wing conspiracy theories and offensive materials.

He is seeking $150bn in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, one of its principal investors.

Altman’s testimony comes more than two weeks into the trial, which has seen him and Musk square off against each other.

In his testimony, Altman argued that Musk knew of the plans to develop OpenAI into a for-profit enterprise when he invested, and he asserted that Musk even petitioned to have a majority stake in the company.

“An early number that Mr Musk threw out was that he should have 90 percent of the equity to start,” Altman told the jury. “It then softened, but it always was a majority.”

The outcome of the trial could determine the future of OpenAI, its leadership, and products like ChatGPT. As part of his lawsuit, Musk is pushing for the removal of Altman and Brockman.

The trial comes as OpenAI prepares for a potential initial public offering that could see it valued at $1 trillion, a historically large sum.

During earlier testimony, Musk portrayed Altman as a liar who could not be trusted with the development of the technology.

“If you have someone who is not trustworthy in charge of AI, I think that’s a very big danger for the whole world,” Musk said.

Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, also sought to undermine Altman’s reliability during questioning on Tuesday.

“Have you misled people when you do business?” Molo asked Altman.

“I do not think so,” Altman replied.

Altman, meanwhile, sought to cast doubt on Musk’s leadership; Musk ultimately left OpenAI’s board in 2018 to pursue his own AI development.

“I don’t think Mr Musk understood how to run a good research lab,” Altman said. “He had demotivated some of our most key researchers.”

The US public, for its part, has been largely unconvinced by high-minded rhetoric about the transformative potential of AI.

A March 2026 poll by the Pew Research Center suggested that a majority of respondents in the US believe AI will worsen, rather than improve, the ability to think creatively, form meaningful relationships, make difficult decisions, and solve problems.

Just 10 percent of respondents said they were more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life.

But the industry has been quick to translate its substantial economic power into political influence as lawmakers consider how best to regulate the technology.

The use of AI has emerged as an election-season issue as the US midterms approach in November, and the administration of President Donald Trump has proposed a “national policy framework” for the technology to avoid a patchwork of state regulations.

The AI industry has become a driver of eye-watering investment in recent years, with the United Nations estimating that the global market could be worth $4.8 trillion by 2033.

Signing off her letter, Phillips said: “I want a Labour government to work and I will strive as I always have for its success and popularity, but I’m not seeing the change I think I, and the country expect, and so cannot continue to serve as a minister under the current leadership.”

Poland has confirmed it is going to arm its M28 Skytruck twin-turboprop utility aircraft for the counter-drone role, a development that is unique for a NATO air arm. This comes after the aircraft from which the M28 was derived, the Soviet-era Antonov An-28 Cash, has found notable success in the same capacity in Ukraine. You can read more about that in our recent coverage here.

Speaking at a panel discussion on air superiority at the recent Defence24 Days event, Maj. Gen. Ireneusz Nowak, the inspector of the Polish Air Force, confirmed that work was underway to modify the M28 for the mission.

“Following the signing of the contract between the Armed Forces Support Inspectorate and the contractor, the first prototype of the armed [M28] will undergo modifications to equip the aircraft with gun armament,” Nowak said. He also referred to the success of the An-28-based solution in Ukraine.

Interestingly, Nowak added that other undisclosed aircraft will also be deployed by Poland in a similar role.

Although the An-28 was manufactured in Ukraine, the production line in that country has long since closed down, meaning that aircraft and spares are limited. On the other hand, PZL Mielec in Poland launched production of the M28 Skytruck development in the early 1990s, and limited manufacture continues to this day. Meanwhile, the Polish Air Force currently operates around two dozen M28s, primarily for transport work.

In Ukrainian hands, the An-28 was initially armed with a six-barrel Gatling-type M134 Minigun, which is pintle-mounted in the cabin door. The aircraft’s high-wing configuration provides a notably wide field of fire for the weapon, which generally fires between 3,000 and 6,000 rounds per minute, or 50 and 100 shots every second.

Subsequently, the Ukrainian aircraft has been adapted to launch two different types of interceptor drones, providing another means of defeating their targets. You can read about this development here.

The primary targets of the Ukrainian An-28 are Shahed/Geran long-range one-way attack drones.

After being vectored to an area where the Russian drones are known to be flying, the crew uses an infrared camera, mounted externally on a turret, as well as night-vision goggles (NVGs), to help engage them.

The An-28 and M28 both offer a significant short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability, making them ideal for operating in and out of shorter and more austere forward airstrips. Ukraine has certainly made use of this capability, and Poland is likely to do the same if it formally adopts the drone-hunting M28.

At this point, it is not entirely clear if there are firm Polish plans to introduce a drone-hunting M28, most likely via conversion or potentially even new production, or if the initial focus will be on testing of the prototype.

As we reported in the past, even before the armed An-28 appeared in Ukraine, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) had explored the possibility of converting an M28 derivative into a small side-firing gunship, a sort of miniature take on the AC-130 concept, to potentially be able to transfer that capability to American allies and partners. This was based on the C-145A Combat Coyote formerly used by AFSOC, and would have been armed with twin 50-caliber GAU-18 machine guns.

The threat posed by drones to Poland was hammered home last September, when around 20 unarmed military drones entered its airspace after allegedly being launched from Russia. The unprecedented incursion led to the Polish Air Force and other NATO militaries scrambling aircraft. Up to four drones were confirmed to have been shot down, most by the Royal Netherlands Air Force, operating from a base in Poland.

The Polish government concluded that the drone incursion was a deliberate provocation. But it also underscored the vulnerability of Poland’s military and civil infrastructure and cities were it come under full-scale attack by armed drones. In such a scenario, Russia would likely employ them alongside ballistic and cruise missiles and decoys, making an even greater challenge for the air defense network.

There is also the fact that fighter aircraft and surface-to-air missiles offer a very expensive, albeit high-end solution to the drone threat. Compared to missiles, a gun-armed tuboprop comes with a much lower cost-per-engagement and offers greater magazine depth, and potentially a far lower chance of major collateral damage.

Of course, as in Ukraine, Polish counter-drone M28s would be operated as part of a networked air defense system.

Nowak noted that the Polish Army’s forthcoming AH-64E Apache Guardian attack helicopters and its new AW149 combat support helicopters are also expected to be used to counter drones. Of these, the AW149 is already being adapted to use European 70mm rockets with laser guidance, and will also be fitted with guns. Meanwhile, the counter-drone mission is one of increasing importance for U.S. Army AH-64s, and for attack helicopter operators at large.

Nowak said that the U.S.-made laser-guided 70mm Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) rockets will meanwhile be integrated on Polish Air Force F-16 fighters and FA-50 light combat aircraft. The APKWS could potentially be an option for the M28, too.

Within its air defense branch, Poland plans by 2032 to introduce new air and missile defense systems procured under the Narew and Wisła programs, which cover the short-range and medium-range air defense segments, respectively. Directed-energy systems will also be a focus of future planning and could be harnessed for air defense roles.

In terms of air defense sensors, Poland is also making significant investments. It acquired two Saab 340 airborne early warning & control (AEW&C) aircraft under a crash program, and is also planning to field a new airborne early warning system based on an aerostat — a type of uncrewed tethered airship. In the past, Poland has said that the main focus of the aerostat system will be detecting various tiers of drones, as well as helicopters and potentially other lower and slower-flying crewed aircraft. Of critical value here will be its persistent look-down capability that will span the border, keeping watch for incursions from the east.

Once again, while the long-term Polish plans for the counter-drone version of the M28 remain to be confirmed, the fact that a major NATO air force in Europe is taking the drone threat so seriously is worthy of note in itself.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The Strait of Hormuz has become the central strategic battleground in the ongoing confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and regional Gulf powers. What initially appeared to be a military conflict is increasingly evolving into a struggle over maritime control, energy security, and geopolitical influence.

Since the outbreak of hostilities following the joint United States and Israeli strikes on Iran in February, Tehran’s near closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Washington’s retaliatory naval blockade have severely disrupted global energy markets. The conflict has reduced the movement of oil and liquefied natural gas through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints, creating economic instability far beyond the Middle East.

Recent tanker movements coordinated through informal understandings with Tehran suggest that Iran may now be shifting from blocking Hormuz entirely to selectively controlling access. This emerging dynamic could fundamentally reshape Gulf security and international energy politics.

Hormuz Is No Longer Just a Trade Route

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most strategically important waterways in the global economy. Before the conflict, roughly one fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments passed through the narrow corridor each day.

Its disruption has exposed the vulnerability of global energy markets to geopolitical conflict. Asian economies have been particularly affected because of their heavy dependence on Gulf energy exports. Oil supply disruptions and rising transportation risks have intensified inflationary pressure, energy insecurity, and market volatility across multiple regions.

The recent passage of a limited number of oil and gas tankers with apparent Iranian approval demonstrates that Tehran may now be exercising selective authority over maritime transit rather than enforcing a complete blockade.

This distinction is critical because it suggests Iran is attempting to transform military leverage into long term political and economic influence.

Iran’s Emerging Strategy of Selective Access

The limited reopening of shipping lanes indicates that Tehran may be developing a new model of strategic control. Rather than permanently shutting down the strait, Iran appears to be determining which countries, companies, or shipments can safely transit through the waterway.

This selective access system gives Tehran several advantages.

First, it allows Iran to maintain pressure on global energy markets without fully halting trade flows that could trigger overwhelming international military intervention.

Second, it creates potential economic benefits through informal transit arrangements, leverage over energy dependent states, and indirect influence on oil pricing.

Third, it positions Iran as a gatekeeper within one of the world’s most important strategic corridors, expanding its geopolitical relevance despite sanctions and military pressure.

The reported coordination involving Pakistan and Qatar also demonstrates how regional diplomacy is becoming intertwined with energy security and conflict management.

Gulf States and the United States Face Strategic Risks

For Gulf Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, any arrangement that allows Iran to regulate maritime access poses a direct strategic threat.

Their economies depend heavily on uninterrupted hydrocarbon exports, and Iranian control over transit patterns would increase Tehran’s regional influence at their expense.

Asian importers are equally vulnerable because selective access introduces political uncertainty into global energy supply chains. Countries dependent on Gulf oil and gas would become increasingly exposed to Iranian political calculations.

For the United States, accepting Iranian dominance over Hormuz would undermine Washington’s broader strategic objectives in the region. The Trump administration has repeatedly emphasized restoring unrestricted freedom of navigation as a core war aim.

Allowing Iran to effectively manage maritime access would signal a major geopolitical shift and weaken perceptions of American regional dominance.

Why the Current Situation May Become More Dangerous

The most concerning aspect of the emerging situation is that temporary wartime arrangements could solidify into a long term strategic reality. Even if a ceasefire is eventually reached, Iran may resist fully restoring unrestricted navigation because Hormuz now represents its strongest source of leverage against the United States and regional rivals.

This creates the conditions for a prolonged state of instability rather than genuine conflict resolution.

A system based on selective transit rights would likely produce repeated confrontations as regional powers, Western navies, shipping companies, and energy importers challenge or negotiate the limits of Iranian control.

Such a situation would institutionalize uncertainty in global energy markets and increase the likelihood of future military escalation.

Analysis

The battle over the Strait of Hormuz reflects a broader transformation in modern geopolitical conflict where control over trade routes and economic chokepoints can become more strategically valuable than territorial conquest.

Iran appears to recognize that its greatest strength lies not in conventional military superiority but in its ability to disrupt the global economy through maritime leverage. By controlling the flow of energy through Hormuz, Tehran can influence oil prices, inflation, international diplomacy, and political stability in rival states.

This gives Iran asymmetric power against economically stronger adversaries.

The United States faces a difficult strategic dilemma. Military escalation aimed at fully reopening Hormuz could deepen regional conflict and further destabilize global markets. However, tolerating selective Iranian control risks weakening American credibility and altering the regional balance of power in Tehran’s favor.

The current situation also exposes the limits of military power in resolving structural geopolitical disputes. Even if active fighting declines, the underlying contest over maritime control, energy security, and regional influence will likely persist.

Ultimately, the future of the Gulf may increasingly depend not on battlefield victories, but on who shapes the rules governing the movement of energy through the Strait of Hormuz. If selective Iranian control becomes normalized, the region could enter a prolonged era of economic coercion, strategic competition, and recurring confrontation.

With information from Reuters.

The ‘Blue Wave’ – the enviable nickname given to Curacao’s national football team – will soon be surging across to North America.

The tiny Caribbean island of just over 150,000 people and covering only 443 square kilometres (171 square miles) will become the smallest country ever to compete at a FIFA World Cup when the 2026 tournament kicks off on June 11.

Curacao, a self-governing entity within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, scripted a fairytale story to secure qualification. Now, as one of four debutants at the tournament, the island nation will look to give its people more reasons to celebrate as their team plays in football’s most prestigious global competition.

Here’s everything you need to know about Curacao in Al Jazeera’s World Cup minnows series:

Where is Curacao?

It is 60km (37 miles) off the coast of Venezuela.

Willemstad, in the south of the island, is the capital.

How did Curacao qualify for the World Cup?

Curacao endured two challenging qualification rounds to punch their maiden World Cup final ticket.

They played 10 matches, won seven and finished their campaign unbeaten.

Curacao’s journey began in the second round of the CONCACAF qualifiers. They upset Barbados, Aruba, Saint Lucia and Haiti, scoring 15 goals to remain unbeaten.

In the third and final qualification round, they were in Group B alongside heavyweights Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Bermuda.

Curacao drew 0-0 in Trinidad and Tobago in the first match before defeating Bermuda 3-2 on their home turf. Playing at home, they beat Jamaica 2-0, sending an unequivocal warning to their opponents that World Cup qualification was their clear goal.

In the next game, they drew 1-1 with Trinidad and Tobago before thrashing Bermuda 7-0.

Defying the odds in a crucial final fixture against Jamaica last November, goalkeeper Eloy Room and a resolute Curacao defence kept the Reggae Boyz at bay, holding on for a goalless draw. But the stalemate was not without drama; in stoppage time, Jamaica were awarded a penalty, only for a VAR review to overturn the decision that proved decisive.

The resulting draw secured Curacao top spot in Group B and sealed the most remarkable chapter in their World Cup journey.

“It’s an impossibility that is made possible,” winger Kenji Gorre told the Guardian newspaper. “It’s literally impossible for such a small island, such a small 150,000 population, and now to go to the biggest pinnacle of football is unbelievable.”

Curacao are by far the smallest nation ever to qualify for the World Cup, which is being expanded to 48 teams for the first time. Previously, the smallest country to qualify for the tournament was Iceland in 2018, with a population of around 350,000.

Have Curacao played at a major tournament?

The nation state successor to the Netherlands Antilles in international competition, it only began competing as Curacao after 2010, and first appeared in FIFA World Cup qualifying under the new name before the Brazil 2014 tournament.

With many of their players based in the Netherlands but boasting heritage from the southern Caribbean island, Curacao quickly became a footballing nation on the rise in the CONCACAF region, winning their first World Cup two-legged qualifying tie against Montserrat in 2015.

Two years later, the team qualified for the CONCACAF Gold Cup for the first time, though they crashed out in the group stage, losing all their fixtures. But in 2019, they bounced back in style, reaching the quarterfinals, where they lost to the eventual runner-up, the United States.

Curacao came close to reaching the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, only to be eliminated by Panama in the penultimate round of qualification.

What is Curacao’s FIFA ranking?

Ten years ago, Curacao were 150th in the FIFA world rankings. Now they have jumped to 82nd.

Who will Curacao face at the World Cup?

Curacao are in Group E, alongside former champions Germany, Ecuador and African heavyweights Ivory Coast. They will play all group games in the US.

Curacao’s World Cup 2026 matches:

• June 14: Germany vs Curacao – Houston Stadium
• June 20: Ecuador vs Curacao – Kansas City Stadium
• June 25: Curacao v Ivory Coast – Philadelphia Stadium

Curacao’s head coach carousel

Veteran Dutch coach Dick Advocaat led Curacao to their first-ever World Cup, calling it the “craziest thing” he had achieved in a managerial career spanning nearly four decades.

But four months before the tournament, he stepped down from the post due to his daughter’s ill health.

Fellow Dutchman Fred Rutten, who previously managed Feyenoord, PSV Eindhoven and Schalke 04, was later named the replacement and looked set to lead them at the World Cup.

But there was another twist: on May 11 – exactly a month out from the tournament – Rutten stepped down to protect the squad’s professional environment after calls from players ⁠and sponsors to reinstate Advocaat.

A day later it was swiftly announced that the 78-year-old would return to the head coaching role following improvements in his daughter’s medical condition, according to reporting from ESPN. Advocaat’s reappointment makes him the oldest manager in World Cup history.

Who are Curacao’s key players?

Forward Gervane Kastaneer was Curacao’s top scorer during qualifying with five goals in six matches, which included a hat-trick against Saint Lucia.

Striker Rangelo Janga, Curacao’s all-time leading scorer with 21 goals, bagged a hat-trick against Barbados, while Juninho Bacuna and Gorre scored three goals in total during that phase.

Livano Comenencia, a 22-year-old right-back and Tahith Chong, a 26-year-old midfielder who is a product of the Manchester United academy, are promising players in Curacao’s squad.

What is the Dutch connection in Curacao’s squad?

The majority of the squad are Dutch-born, but have family links that make them eligible to play for Curacao.

Many represented the Netherlands in age-group teams, such as central midfielder Juninho, who played for the Dutch U-18, U-20 and U-21 teams. His older brother, Leandro, also played for the Netherlands’ youth sides before representing Curacao at senior level.

Juninho, who switched allegiance from the Netherlands to Curacao in 2019, said it was a “big decision”.

“At that time, I was only 21 and had a lot of years in front of me to see my chances for the Dutch national team,” he told the BBC. “But I made a choice early to play for Curacao. One of the reasons was that I could play in the same team as my brother, and for the family to see us play together.

“We’re seeing more players that are still young and able to play for Holland, and they come to play for Curacao – and make the team even stronger,” he added.

Chong, who plays for second-tier Sheffield United, is the only squad member born on the island.

How are Curacao preparing for the World Cup?

Curacao played two international friendlies in March, losing 2-0 to China in Sydney before being thrashed 5-1 by Australia in Melbourne. They are due to face Scotland in a friendly in Glasgow in May before heading to the World Cup.

Both Australia and Scotland are also competing in North America this summer.

What can we expect from Curacao?

An uphill task awaits Curacao at the World Cup, beginning with their opening match against four-time champions Germany. Although the Germans suffered a shock group-stage exit in 2022, they remain favourites to top the group and reach at least the quarterfinals.

Curacao fans, however, can expect a determined fight from their team – and perhaps a few goals too. The Caribbean side scored an impressive 28 goals in 10 matches while conceding just five during their World Cup qualifying campaign.

“Generally, if it’s a world championship or European championship, there are always surprises,” coach Rutten told reporters in March. “And why not this year for us?

“We have a team of fighters and they never give up.”

You can follow the action on Al Jazeera’s dedicated FIFA World Cup 2026 page with all the latest news, match build-up and live text commentary, and keep up to date with group standings, real-time match results and schedules.

The U.S. Navy says its future Trump class battleships are now set to be nuclear-powered. This is a huge development that will impact the cost and complexity of the design. With those issues in mind, now-former Secretary of the Navy John Phelan had said this was “unlikely” to happen just four weeks ago.

The Navy announced its intention to fit a nuclear propulsion system to the Trump class warships in its latest annual shipbuilding plan, which was released earlier today. The document also refers to these future large surface combatants as BBGNs, or nuclear-powered (N) guided-missile (G) battleships (BB). USNI News was first to report on this development.

The only nuclear-powered surface vessels in the Navy’s fleet today are its Nimitz and Ford class aircraft carriers. The service has not had a nuclear-powered surface combatant since the 1990s, when the one-of-a-kind cruiser USS Long Beach and frigate USS Bainbridge, as well as four Virginia class cruisers (not to be confused with the subsequent Virginia class of attack submarines) left active duty. Nuclear propulsion offers functionally unlimited range, as well as a major boost in onboard power generation. It also comes with cost and complexity, in terms of a ship’s core design, and what it takes to operate and maintain it. We will come back to those issues later on.

The Navy has now outlined plans to acquire 15 Trump class BBGNs, one virtually every other year, between Fiscal Year 2028 and 2055. Two are also set to be ordered back-to-back in Fiscal Years 2030 and 2031. An initial official estimate has put the price tag of each of these ships at $17 billion. This is more than what the service expects to spend on each of the next three Ford class aircraft carriers, the projected unit costs of which range from roughly $13 to $15 billion.

“Our Fleet deserves and our national security requires the most comprehensive capability a surface combatant can provide, not just what we can make do with tradeoffs. The nuclear-powered Battleship is designed to provide the Fleet with a significant increase in combat power by longer endurance, higher speed, and accommodating advanced weapon systems required for modern warfare,” the Navy’s new shipbuilding plan declares. “Adding capability at the highest end of the high- low mix, the Battleship’s primary role is to deliver high-volume, long-range offensive fires and serve as a robust, survivable forward command and control platform, it is not a destroyer replacement.”

The shipbuilding plan highlights various aspects of the planned arsenal on each of the Trump class warships, including its ability to launch a mix of nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, loaded into large vertical launch system (VLS) arrays. Each one of the vessels will also have an electromagnetic railgun, a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns, laser directed energy weapons, and various additional weapons for close-in defense.

“Vastly increased power generation capacity provides warfighting capability across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including through electronic warfare tools and high-output lasers that allow us to reduce reliance on high-cost single-use munitions for both attack and defense,” the shipbuilding plan also notes. “The internal volume and capability to embark a fleet command staff allows us to take the Maritime Operations Center concept to sea. As a tactical command-and-control platform, the Battleship can lead a Surface Action Group (SAG), integrate its systems with a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) for layered defense, or operate autonomously, possessing the organic capability to defeat advanced threats and distributing our force capability.”

The Navy has said in the past that each of the Trump class warships will displace approximately 35,000 tons, very roughly three times that of the newest Flight III subvariant of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. They are also expected to be between 840 and 880 feet long, have a beam (the widest point in the hull) between 105 and 115 feet, and be able to reach a top speed greater than 30 knots.

As noted, as recently as four weeks ago, the Navy was pushing back on the idea, at least publicly, that the Trump class warships could be nuclear-powered. The service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, which was rolled out last month, describes the vessels as non-nuclear BBGs that will feature “diesel generators, gas turbines, [and] propulsion motors.”

“That [the $17 billion estimated unit cost of a Trump class warship] is the early initial estimate. We’ll see where we really settle down as we get through that and start to rationalize some of the costs. So let’s see where we land on that first ship, and then what the economies of scale get us to as we move through it,” former Secretary of the Navy John Phelan had also told reporters at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2026 exposition on April 21. “I think a little bit with those numbers, they’re still moving around, because this question is it nuclear-powered, is it not nuclear-powered?”

“It could be [nuclear powered], but it’s unlikely, but it could be,” Phelan said at that time. “I think we’re trying to understand all the proper trade-offs.”

Phelan was fired unexpectedly and with little explanation the following day, with veteran Navy officer Hung Cao taking over as Acting Secretary. On April 23, The New York Times, published a report, citing anonymous sources, saying former Navy Secretary’s sudden exit was tied to disagreements with President Donald Trump over plans for the Trump class battleships, including efforts to accelerate their production and entry into service. There have been reports pointing to other factors in Phelan’s dismissal, including friction with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, as well.

“He’s a very good man. I really liked him, but he had some conflict with, not necessarily with [Secretary] Pete [Hegseth], but with some other[s],” President Trump himself told members of the press on April 23. “He’s a hard charger, and he had some conflicts with some other people, mostly as to building and buying new ships. I’m very aggressive in the new shipbuilding.”

“I think it’s a logical question to think, hey, here’s a big capital ship. It’s going to be carrying a lot of load, you know, in places that we don’t necessarily need a strike enforcement air wing as a large ship there that’s in command of a flotilla,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle also said at a roundtable around the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) main annual symposium back in January. “Wouldn’t it be logical to be nuclear powered? And that brings a tail to the construction of that that [sic] just really fell outside the scope of what we want to do on the speed to get this thing in the water. And so what you trade off with, with persistency that only nuclear power can do, is you end up having, you know, the ability to go produce that — it pushes the battleship into a timeframe that just didn’t meet the operational need of the ship.”

TWZ has reached out to the Navy for any more information it can offer about when and why the decision was made regarding nuclear propulsion for the Trump class. We have already raised numerous questions about the plans for these warships in the past, including their exact operational utility, as well as the costs and risks involved. As Phelan and Caudle previously indicated, nuclear power can only add to the design’s complexity and up-front price tag, as well as what it will take to operate and maintain the ships once they enter service. These were factors in the Navy’s past decision to move away from nuclear propulsion on surface warships. Russia’s Kirov class battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov is the only nuclear-powered surface combatant in service anywhere in the world today. Nuclear-powered surface ships of any kind remain a relative rarity globally, as well, even among nuclear powers.

The choice now to use nuclear reactors to power the Trump class comes at a time when naval shipbuilders in the United States are already under heavy strain, and have been struggling in many cases to stay on budget and schedule. Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, is the only yard in the country currently building nuclear-powered surface vessels of any kind, which are the Ford class aircraft carriers. While the USS Gerald R. Ford is in service now, work on subsequent ships in the class continues to be beset by delays and cost growth.

There is also immense pressure on U.S. shipyards that built nuclear-powered submarines. This has been magnified by plans to provide Virginia class boats to the Royal Australian Navy as part of the trilateral Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) defense cooperation agreement. The same yards are also responsible for producing the new Columbia class nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Those boats have to be delivered on a tight schedule to ensure there is no gap in the ability of the leg of America’s nuclear triad to meet operational requirements, and there is little, if any, margin left.

The Navy has other shipbuilding plans, as well. Naval shipyard capacity in the United States, or the lack thereof, has been an increasingly worrisome issue for years now, and remains concerning despite U.S. government efforts to reverse the trend in recent years. The Navy’s new shipbuilding plan does underscore the service’s determination to avoid past shipbuilding pitfalls with the new battleships.

“Learning from the lessons of prior shipbuilding programs, the Battleship acquisition plan is a prime example of how we are changing the way the Navy does business. This will be the first clean-sheet surface combatant designed in more than 30 years, and we are deliberately incorporating modern digital engineering, advanced production practices, and AI [artificial intelligence] enabled design tools to reduce cost and schedule risk from the outset,” the shipbuilding plan states. “To strengthen this approach, we are adopting proven best practices from foreign partners with advanced shipbuilding techniques. This includes front loading production engineering to ensure high design maturity before construction begins, using precision modular construction methods, and tightly integrating design, planning, and production teams to minimize rework and accelerate throughput.

“We are also applying long term production planning, rigorous process control disciplines, and deeper supplier integration to stabilize the industrial base and improve quality across distributed construction sites. Modeled on commercial shipbuilding, this digital-first approach will accelerate design, reduce manual rework, and create a direct link between design and production,” it continued. “The Battleship will employ a highly modular architecture that enables distributed construction across the industrial base while allowing U.S. shipyards to focus on final assembly, integration, and testing. This strategy strengthens workforce stability, increases industrial base resilience, and delivers a more predictable, affordable path to fielding the capability.”

As it stands now, the Navy is still planning to order the first Trump class warship, set to be named USS Defiant, in Fiscal Year 2028. The current expectation is that it will not enter service until Fiscal Year 2036. This underscores an additional point that the program will carry over into the next presidential administration (and potentially beyond). Further major changes could well be made to its scale and scope, or it could be outright cancelled, in that timeframe.

For now, at least, the Navy has settled on its future Trump class battleships being powered by nuclear reactors.

Update: 5/12/2026 –

A U.S. Navy official has now provided the following statement in response to TWZ‘s queries for more information about the decision to use nuclear propulsion on the Trump class battleships:

“The Battleship requirements entail the appropriate balance of survivability, lethality, affordability, endurance, operational flexibility, and industrial feasibility. The FY27 Navy Shipbuilding Plan’s inclusion of a nuclear-powered Battleship will provide the Fleet with a significant increase in combat power by longer endurance, higher speed, and accommodation of advanced weapons systems required for modern warfare.“

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

After successfully launching Nigeria’s only operational oil refinery in 2024, billionaire businessman Aliko Dangote has set his sights on East Africa as the next location for another mega refinery project, according to recent reports.

It comes as African countries are actively seeking ways to make energy more secure, following huge global disruptions amid the US and Israel’s war on Iran and Tehran’s subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas is shipped.

Dangote, Africa’s richest man, appeared to be one of the winners from this fallout when his newly operational refinery, located in Nigeria’s commercial Lagos State, began selling large volumes of crude oil across the continent as the war on Iran escalated in March and global oil prices soared.

At present, West, South and East Africa rely primarily on importing refined petroleum products from the Middle East, meaning they are highly vulnerable to disruptions there.

Neighbours of Nigeria – Cameroon, Togo, Ghana and even Tanzania, further to the east – are among the countries that have turned to Nigeria as supplies from the Middle East dry up.

By the end of March, the refinery, which has the capacity to produce 650,000 barrels per day (bpd), reported it was also receiving orders from beyond the continent, especially for severely scarce jet fuel as hundreds of flights were cancelled across regions.

Supply from Dangote’s refinery has cushioned the impact of the war in terms of fuel supply for Nigeria and neighbouring countries, analysts say.

Nigeria is Africa’s largest oil producer, and the $19bn project in Lagos is currently the world’s largest single-train refinery, meaning it employs a single processing line rather than multiple units. But it hit full production capacity in February 2026, the same month the war with Iran started.

Nigeria has no functional state-owned refinery, so Dangote’s refinery is now positioning the country to be a net exporter of jet fuel and diesel.

Here’s why more refining capacity in Africa matters for the continent:

What is Dangote’s plan for an East Africa refinery?

In April, Kenya’s President William Ruto announced that East African countries were in talks to build a joint oil refinery at Tanzania’s Tanga port, which would have a similar capacity to Dangote’s Lagos operation.

“We do not want to be held hostage any more by the Strait of Hormuz,” Ruto said at a Nairobi business event in April, which Dangote was present at.

“We do not want to be held hostage by wars that are started by other people. We have our resources here, and we are saying we are going to use our African resources to industrialise our region.”

In an interview with the Financial Times on Sunday, however, Dangote said he would prefer to build the new operation in Kenya rather than Tanzania.

“I’m leaning more towards Mombasa because Mombasa has a much larger, deeper port,” the billionaire told the UK newspaper.

“Kenyans consume more. It’s a bigger economy,” he said, adding that “the ball is in the hands of President Ruto … Whatever President Ruto says is what I’ll do.”

He has projected construction costs of between $15bn and $17bn.

But venturing into East Africa, which has a very different commercial landscape from West Africa, could prove a challenge, analyst Dumebi Oluwole of Lagos-based intelligence firm Stears told Al Jazeera.

“Dangote has proven it [his operation] can build at scale,” she said. “The East African test will be whether it can also navigate the political and logistical landscape of a fragmented, multi-country market.”

Why aren’t African countries already producing more oil?

Despite having sizeable crude reserves, African countries only refine about 44 percent of the total oil consumed themselves, with imports making up the rest, according to a 2022 African Union report.

The top producers of refined oil are Algeria, Egypt and South Africa. There are about 21 refineries in North Africa.

Southern Africa has another seven, while West Africa has 14. However, most refineries in the two regions are either not operating or are producing below the capacity they are equipped to.

East Africa’s only existing refinery is in Mombasa, but it stopped operating in 2013 due to a combination of slow government policies and exiting investors, who deemed it commercially unviable as a result.

There is currently no refining capacity at all in East Africa, despite the region having about 4.7 billion barrels of crude reserves, according to the African Union, mainly in Uganda, South Sudan, Kenya and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Kenya imported 40 million barrels of petroleum in 2025. It regularly buys oil from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, India and Oman, all of which have been hampered by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Nigeria itself is Africa’s biggest net crude producer with a 1.5 million to 1.6 million bpd capacity. The country has not refined meaningfully since 2019.

What difference will local refineries make for African countries?

Exporting most of its crude to then import refined products is expensive and puts Africa on the back foot, analyst Oluwole said.

More oil refined on the continent would mean lower petrol pump prices, lower transport costs, and more energy available for people and businesses, in theory. It would also mean greater access to by-products like fertilisers for farmers, for example, or petrochemicals for manufacturers.

“Dangote has demonstrated that a viable, scalable, intra-African energy supply option is possible – that proof of concept matters enormously,” said Oluwole.

“It reflects a growing continental conviction that Africa can provide for itself, and that this is no longer wishful thinking,” she added.

In Nigeria’s case, Dangote’s refinery is yet to ease pressures, though. Local airlines, for example, have complained about having to pay high prices for jet fuel even with improved local supplies. Analysts say that could be because Nigeria’s government removed fuel subsidies in 2023. Bureaucracy within the state oil company also forced Dangote’s refinery to import crude.

Still, the refinery is contributing to “a more transparent and competitive market”, Oluwole said, adding that results should eventually show.

Other countries are stepping up. Last week, Angola’s $470m Cabinda refinery began supplying domestic as well as foreign markets. The project is owned primarily by the United Kingdom’s Gemcorp Capital and has a capacity of 30,000bpd, with plans to double by the end of 2026.

Dangote’s planned refinery in Kenya, if completed, could also help to reduce East Africa’s reliance on the Middle East.

A separate, government-funded refinery project in Uganda’s Hoima region is also in the works. Authorities expect the project to be able to refine 60,000bpd when it starts operations in 2029. It will be fed by the joint Uganda-Tanzania East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), an ongoing project which will transport crude from Uganda’s Lake Albert to Tanzania’s Tanga Port.

Uganda also plans to produce diesel, jet fuel, kerosene and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG).

With big plans in place, Oluwole says it’s now left to African governments to create enabling business environments for the private sector.

“Dangote has opened the door,” she said. “The question now is whether African institutions and governments will walk through it.”

Who: Manchester City vs Crystal Palace
What: English Premier League
Where: Etihad Stadium in Manchester, England, United Kingdom
When: Wednesday, May 13, at 8pm (19:00 GMT)
How to follow: We’ll have all the buildup on Al Jazeera Sport from 16:00 GMT in advance of our live text commentary stream.

Second-placed Manchester City kept themselves alive in the Premier League title race with their solid home win over Brentford on Saturday, but league-leading Arsenal’s controversial win at West Ham United the following day again pegged City behind in the two-team fight for the trophy.

Al Jazeera Sport previews City’s delayed Matchday 31 contest against Crystal Palace on Wednesday and breaks down the Sky Blues’ championship hopes as the season draws to a close.

Where does the Premier League title race stand?

• Frontrunners Arsenal are in a favourable title position on the Premier League ladder; they enjoy a five-point lead over Man City, with the Gunners having two matches remaining in the 38-round season.
• City have three games to go, including their home tie with Palace.

What happens if City win against Palace?

If City beat Palace on Wednesday, they will reduce the gap on league leaders Arsenal to two points. Both teams will then have two games remaining.

A victory against Palace would keep City alive in the title hunt, but they would need to beat Bournemouth in their penultimate match to continue the title fight to the final round of matches on May 24.

What happens if City draw or lose to Palace?

If City draw, they will end up four points behind Arsenal, and in the event of a defeat, the gap would remain at five points. Dropping any points against Palace would mean City all but bowing out of the title race, even if they still have a mathematical chance to contend heading into the penultimate round.

In such a scenario, Arsenal can be crowned Premier League champions as early as Monday, May 18. A win over already-relegated Burnley in Matchday 37 would mean Arsenal would be at least seven points clear, with City only having a maximum of six points available in their last two fixtures.

If the Gunners are crowned champions of England, it would mark the end of the North London club’s 22-year wait for the honour.

How does City’s and Arsenal’s run-in look?

After hosting Palace on Wednesday, City face sixth-placed Bournemouth on May 19 before facing fifth-placed Aston Villa in their final game of the season on May 24. Both fixtures will be challenging as City’s opponents will be fighting to secure European football qualification next season.

Arsenal, on the other hand, have a much easier run-in to the end of the season. They host already-relegated Burnley on May 18 and play away to Palace on the final day of the season. Palace will likely name a weaker side for that fixture, with their eyes certainly on their first European final: The Conference League final vs Rayo Vallecano on May 27.

Is the Premier League trophy Arsenal’s to lose?

Yes.

Arsenal’s dramatic win on Sunday against their London rivals, West Ham, means they already have one hand on the trophy. Should they win their final two matches of the campaign, they will be crowned champions, regardless of Man City’s results.

But any slip-up would allow their title rivals back in.

Opta’s supercomputer has given the Gunners an 87.2% chance of winning the title from hereon.

Can City and Arsenal end the season on equal points?

Yes, it is possible.

If City win all three remaining matches, and Arsenal draw one of their two games, both teams will end the season level on points.

What happens in this case? Rule C.17 of the Premier League Handbook says the final table placings would be determined by the following criteria, in this order:

• goal difference
• goals scored
• points won in head-to-head matches
• away goals scored in head-to-head matches
• a playoff match.

Currently, the goal difference between Arsenal and City is very close. Arsenal have a +42 goal difference, and City’s is +40. It could come down to goals scored across the season: City’s current tally is 72, Arsenal’s is 68.

If the clubs finish level on points, goal difference, and goals scored, City would claim the title on the next criterion – points won in head-to-head matches – because they have won four points against Arsenal this season, thanks to a win and a draw.

The odds of such a scenario are very low, given City are lagging in the title race, but if this were to happen, it would go down as the closest title race ever. The previous closest race was in 2011-12 when City edged their rivals, Manchester United, on goal difference following Sergio Aguero’s stoppage-time winner against Queens Park Rangers on the final day.

City still in the hunt for domestic double

While City’s odds of winning the league title are very slim, they remain on course to complete a domestic double. City, who won the League Cup in March, face Chelsea in the FA Cup final on Saturday. They are bidding for their eighth FA Cup, having last lifted the trophy in 2023.

Manager Pep Guardiola has backed striker Omar Marmoush, who scored off the bench in the last game, to have a key role in the closing stages of the English season.

“We’ve talked many times,” said Guardiola. “I know it’s not easy for them [fringe players], but I’m pretty sure in the next games they’re going to play.

“I want to rotate the team because otherwise we cannot arrive in the final or Bournemouth a little bit (fresh).

“Especially Omar. It’s not easy because normally you just want one striker. He’s a proper striker but Erling (Haaland) is there.

“Erling is so important for us, but the contribution of Omar – the amount of goals for the minutes played – is so high.”

‘I love it’ – Pep Guardiola relishes title run-in

Guardiola said he is “loving” the Premier League run-in, despite his ⁠side no longer controlling ⁠their own fate in the title race.

“It’s ⁠not in our hands now,” Guardiola said. “They have to drop points. The only thing we can do is win again and see what happens.”

Guardiola said win or lose, the thrilling race to the finish has been thoroughly enjoyable.

He pointed to his team’s consistency, as their unbeaten run in the ‌league stretches back to mid-January. With another major final still to come, City have had plenty to celebrate this season, regardless of how the Premier League finishes.

“I love it. I love to be here again, we’ll finish second again in this season, minimum,” Guardiola said. “Last season, we were fighting to qualify for the Champions League, was so ⁠difficult.

“I love too Carabao (League Cup) in our pocket. We play an FA ⁠Cup final in Wembley, it is the most beautiful game of the season.”

What happened the last time City played Palace?

In their reverse fixture at Selhurst Park in December, City won 2-0, thanks to two goals from Haaland, including a penalty, and another by Phil Foden.

Head-to-head

Palace and City have faced each other in 75 games in all competitions since 1921.

City have won 40 of those encounters, while Palace won 18. A total of 17 matches ended in a draw.

Man City team news

Defenders Josko Gvardiol and Abdukodir Khusanov, along with defensive midfielder Rodri, are out injured.

Predicted Man City lineup

Gianluigi Donnarumma (goalkeeper); Matheus Nunes, Marc Guehi, Nathan Ake, Nico O’Reilly; Bernardo Silva, Tijjani Reijnders; Antoine Semenyo, Rayan Cherki, Jeremy Doku; Erling Haaland

Palace team news

Edward Nketiah, Cheick Oumar Doucoure, Evann Guessand and Borna Sosa are sidelined with injuries.

Predicted Palace lineup

Dean Henderson (goalkeeper); Chris Richards, Maxence Lacroix, Jaydee Canvot; Daniel Munoz, Adam Wharton, Daichi Kamada, Tyrick Mitchell; Brennan Johnson, Ismaila Sarr; Jorgen Strand Larsen