Discover the latest happenings and stay in the know with our up-to-date today news coverage. From breaking stories and current events to trending topics and insightful analysis, we bring you the most relevant and captivating news of the day.
Nine people have reportedly been rescued from the rubble of a collapsed five-storey building in New Delhi, India.
Some victims’ families are still awaiting news of their relatives as rescuers continue searching.
Published On 31 May 202631 May 2026
Share
The TWZ Newsletter
Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is about to kick off the search for what it is calling a Flyweight Assault Machine Gun (FAMG). This will be a new 5.56x45mm caliber belt-fed machine gun to succeed the Mk 46, a lightweight special operations-specific cousin of the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW).
Lt. Col. Alan Wood, SOCOM’s Program Manager for Special Operations Forces (SOF) Lethality, touched on the FAMG briefly in an exclusive interview with TWZ‘s Howard Altman during the annual SOF Week conference last week. Readers can find the bulk of the interview here.
There are “three separate machine gun programs within SOCOM: Lightweight Machine Gun-Medium, Light Machine Gun-Assault, and soon to be FAMG, which is the Flyweight Assault Machine Gun,” Wood explained. “The Medium is your .338 [Norma Magnum], the Assault is your 7.62 NATO [7.62x51mm], and then the FAMG is a 5.56[mm]. All belt-fed machine guns.”
We subsequently reached out to SOCOM for more information about the FAMG, an effort that does not appear to have been previously disclosed.
“The Flyweight Assault Machine Gun (FAMG) will be a 5.56mm belt fed weapon that will replace the MK46 Light Machine Gun,” a spokesperson for the command told us. “Details on the requirement will be published on SAM.gov in the near future.”
While we do not know yet what SOCOM is looking for specifically in the FAMG, beyond its caliber, we do know what the command wants to replace. The Mk 46 traces back to the early years of the Global War on Terror. It is based on the M249 SAW, which is itself a version of the Minimi light machine gun from Belgian gunmaker FN (and later its American subsidiaries).
FN had initially developed what it called the Special Purpose Weapon (SPW), a significantly lightened version of the Minimi with a shortened barrel that also had a thinner profile. The gun, which was marketed heavily toward special operations forces, featured the collapsing stock that had already been used on short-barreled ‘paratrooper’ versions of the Minimi and the M249, as well.
The standard Minimi design also has a secondary magazine well that allows it to fire ammunition from NATO-standard box magazines like the ones used with AR-15/M16-series rifles, as well as belts. This feature was carried over to the M249. It was omitted on the SPW to further cut weight.
The baseline Mk 46 Mod 0 was a direct evolution of the SPW concept. It most notably used the polymer buttstock found on standard Minimi and M249 light machine guns, which is fixed in length, but also lighter than the collapsing paratrooper type. It also came with a new handguard with rails on four sides for optics, laser aiming devices, lights, and other accessories. The handguard design is very tall on the top side to bring it in line with an additional rail on the gun’s top cover.
An improved Mk 46 Mod 1 variant was subsequently developed, which “incorporates improved receiver pins, a feed tray with retention pawls and a vented hand guard with improved heat shield and three MIL-STD-1913 rails,” according to the entry on FN America’s website at the time of writing. “The MK 46 MOD 1’s cold hammer-forged MIL-SPEC barrel has a hard-chromed bore for longer life and improved accuracy, and serves as the mounting point for the carry handle.”
To make a more direct comparison, the Mk 46 Mod 1, with its 16.3-inch barrel, weighs just under 15-and-a-half pounds empty with no accessories, per FN America. The version it shows on its website currently does also has a more traditional handguard configuration. A current-generation M249 with a full-length 20-and-a-half-inch barrel tips the scales at 17 pounds without any ammunition, optics, or other attachments.
After years of the U.S. military, including SOCOM, increasingly moving away from 5.56x45mm in favor of calibers that offer longer reach, for rifles and machine guns, there is something of a question as to why the command is now pursuing the FAMG. It had already been relatively rare to see variants of the Mk 46 in actual operational use. For decades now, U.S. special operators have also been using a succession of lightweight 7.62x51mm machine guns, as well, including compact versions of the M60 and a derivative of the Minimi/M249 designated the Mk 48. The aforementioned Light Machine Gun-Assault is a replacement for the Mk 48.
The U.S. Army is also moving to replace at least a substantial portion of its standard M249s with new 6.8x51mm caliber M250 machine guns, which might also make their way into service elsewhere across the U.S. military. The 5.56x45mm M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) has also largely supplanted the M249 in the U.S. Marine Corps.
All this being said, U.S. special operators routinely conduct missions in close-quarters environments where the added firepower of a belt-fed machine gun can be beneficial, but the added range offered by a heavier design is not necessary. A design that cuts as much weight as possible is very attractive to fast-moving special operations teams that typically use belt-fed machine guns for brief periods of suppressing fire, as well.
SOCOM is now separately pursuing new hypervelocity 5.56x45mm ammunition that could significantly extend the reach of weapons chambered in that caliber as part of an effort called the Hypervelocity Improved Carbine (HICAR).
In addition, there is value in having commonality in ammunition with other existing rifles and machine guns, as well as those in use with allies and partners. The latter point is especially relevant for special operations forces, which are often forward-deployed alongside their foreign counterparts in locales where access to traditional supply chains is not guaranteed. There are training benefits to being able to use more readily available, less specialized, and often less expensive ammunition, as well.
SOCOM’s Lt. Col. Wood highlighted all of this while speaking more generally during his interview with us last week:
“So, HICAR’s got me excited. Back in the late teens, the Army went down this higher velocity [route], and I’m intentionally using the word velocity and not pressure in what they’ve done with the M7 and M8 rifles. They’ve been able to increase the velocity and therefore create a flatter shooting rifle as well as a rifle that has greater energy on target, and that does incredible things for barrier defeat in a lot of situations. Now we’ve had 10 years, almost, for that technology to mature, people have learned things, and the question then becomes, what could we do for special operators in calibers that are not new?”
“The advantage for SOF [special operations forces] operators is I’ve got, say, the Green Berets who do a lot of partnering with foreign SOF operators, but there’s no [6.8mm] ammo running around central Africa, or you know, pick your favorite spot where we like to do partnering operations around the world. But there’s a lot of 5.56mm and other common cartridges of that nature, and so what we want to…achieve is maybe not the same effect as what the Army’s done with the M7 and the M8 and that high-velocity ammunition that they have, but where could we get close to that in 5.56 and potentially other calibers in the future.”
5.56x45mm could turn out to be just the baseline caliber for FAMG, too. SOCOM has long had a fondness for guns with interchangeable calibers, allowing for different cartridges to be used as appropriate for specific missions. As a tangential example, the command just recently confirmed to TWZ‘s sister site Task & Purpose that its new Mid-Range Gas Gun-Assault (MRGG-A) rifles, now also designated the Mk 24, will be able to be configured to fire either 6.5mm Creedmoor or 7.62x51mm.
It is also worth noting that the U.S. Army’s elite 75th Ranger Regiment has already begun using the 5.56x45mm Light Assault Machine Gun (LAMG) from Knights Armament Company (KAC), at least on a limited level in recent years, alongside current-generation versions of the M249. KAC’s website presents a typical LAMG configuration featuring a 15-inch barrel and weighing 11.4 pounds empty, which is more compact and lightweight than the Mk 46.
The LAMG also has what is known as a “constant recoil system,” which is designed to significantly reduce felt recoil and, by extension, improve accuracy during sustained autonomous fire. KAC says this makes the gun “more controllable than other similar machine guns that weigh nearly twice as much.”
There are other 5.56x45mm machine guns on the market today, which could be adaptable to meet the FAMG requirements, as well. This includes FN’s own newer EVOLYS design, which is available in 5.56x45mm, as well as a variety of other calibers.
As SOCOM has said, more details about its requirements and plans for the FAMG are set to come soon.
Contact the author: joe@twz.com
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia – Ethiopians vote on Monday in a general election to choose members of parliament, who will in turn select the next prime minister. The National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) said 47 political parties and more than 10,900 candidates are in the race, including 2,198 for the federal parliament, 8,736 for regional and city councils and 73 independents.
More than 50 million voters are registered, with official voter registration figures showing women account for around half of the electorate. Young Ethiopians make up a large share of the population, with a median age of about 19 years, according to United Nations population estimates, giving them a substantial presence in the country’s electorate.
The contest brings together ruling, opposition, regional and independent politicians under Ethiopia’s federal parliamentary system, where the government is formed through a parliamentary majority and MPs select the prime minister.
Here is a closer look at the main political parties, coalitions and independent candidates.
The Prosperity Party is the ruling political party in Ethiopia, led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. It was formed in 2019 following the merger of several regional parties that previously made up the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). The party holds a majority in the House of Peoples’ Representatives following the 2021 general election.
According to the Prosperity Party programme and public statements, it emphasises national unity, economic reform and state-led development within Ethiopia’s federal system.
The party is fielding candidates for seats in the House of Peoples’ Representatives and regional councils across almost all federal and regional constituencies under Ethiopia’s parliamentary system.
The National Movement of Amhara is a regional political party operating mainly in Ethiopia’s Amhara region. It is led by Belete Molla and participates in Ethiopia’s federal parliamentary elections through constituency-based contests.
According to party statements, NAMA focuses on political representation, security concerns and cultural and regional rights of the Amhara population within Ethiopia’s federal system.
The party is fielding candidates primarily within the Amhara region for federal and regional council seats under Ethiopia’s electoral framework.
The Ethiopian Citizens for Social Justice is a national political party led by Berhanu Nega. Formed in 2019, it has participated in national elections since 2021 and operates across multiple regions.
According to party statements and its leadership, EZEMA promotes liberal democratic governance, the rule of law, market-oriented reforms and broader national unity.
For this vote, the party is contesting seats in both the House of Peoples’ Representatives and regional councils across multiple federal and regional constituencies.
The Peace for Ethiopia coalition is an alliance of smaller regional parties, including the Agew National Council, Gamo Democratic Party, Gambella Peoples’ Freedom Movement, Kaffa Green Party, and Tigray Democratic Cooperation.
According to coalition statements, the alliance brings together member parties to improve coordination and representation of diverse regional interests within Ethiopia’s federal system.
The coalition coordinates candidate lists across its member parties while allowing each to retain separate regional identities. Members are contesting seats in both federal and regional councils.
Regional parties contest seats across Ethiopia’s federal system, including in Oromia, Somali, Tigray and southern regions. They operate within their respective states and are registered with NEBE to field candidates in federal and regional constituencies.
According to their public positions, these parties generally focus on regional governance, local autonomy, and development priorities specific to their constituencies.
They participate in the House of Peoples’ Representatives and regional councils under Ethiopia’s parliamentary electoral system.
A total of 73 independent candidates are registered to contest seats in the 2026 elections.
According to political observers, independent candidates tend to focus on local governance issues and constituency-level concerns rather than formal party platforms or national ideological positions.
They are running for both federal and regional council positions under Ethiopia’s constituency-based parliamentary system.
The election will determine the composition of Ethiopia’s federal government and which party or coalition controls parliament. Elected MPs will select the prime minister, who then forms the federal government.
The results will shape the distribution of power between federal and regional authorities under Ethiopia’s constitutional system. The vote is part of the country’s regular parliamentary electoral cycle under the 1995 constitution.
The allocation of seats in the House of Peoples’ Representatives will determine legislative authority at the federal level.
The election is being held under Ethiopia’s federal parliamentary system, in which executive power is derived from a parliamentary majority.
The National Election Board of Ethiopia oversees the administration of voting and candidate registration across all regions. Polling arrangements have been established nationwide under Ethiopia’s electoral framework.
Voting will take place in constituencies across urban and rural areas in all federal member states.
Electoral procedures are implemented under national electoral law, which defines the responsibilities of federal and regional election authorities.
NEBE is responsible for coordinating polling operations, voter registration, and ballot administration across constituencies.
NEBE reports that more than 50 million people are registered to vote in the election.
Young people make up a large share of the population, with a median age of about 19 years, according to UN population estimates.
Registered voters include both first-time and returning voters participating in federal and regional elections across the country.
Voting is conducted under Ethiopia’s legal framework for universal adult suffrage, which grants citizens aged 18 and above the right to vote.
According to NEBE voter registration figures, women account for around half of registered voters.
They are eligible to vote and contest seats at both federal and regional levels under Ethiopia’s electoral law, and female candidates are participating across multiple regions.
Both sexes are subject to the same voter registration and candidacy requirements under Ethiopia’s electoral framework.
Female candidates are contesting seats in both federal and regional races across the country.
The star, whose real name is Olajide Olatunji, has been part of the YouTube group since 2013.
Source link
The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has vowed not to shut down schools in Ituri province, despite the ongoing Ebola outbreak, which has already killed five schoolchildren since the epidemic began. The government announced the decision on Thursday, May 28, during a press briefing by the Minister of Public Health, Roger Kamba.
Roger noted at the press briefing that the government’s focus is on enhancing preventive measures in schools rather than shutting them down.
“We are not going to close schools. Our priority is to implement preventive measures to avoid further hardships for the children,” the Minister insisted. He expressed concern over the five schoolchildren who lost their lives, noting that many of these fatalities were related to self-medication and delays in accessing medical care.
Meanwhile, Congolese health officials had urged families to refrain from treating suspected cases at home and to seek medical help promptly. The officials warned amid heightened health monitoring in Ituri, where local authorities and partners are ramping up awareness campaigns to curb the spread of the virus.
The current outbreak spans three provinces: Ituri, South Kivu, and North Kivu, affecting 13 health zones. As of May 26, Ituri province reported 16 new confirmed cases, bringing the total to 121 confirmed cases and 17 deaths. “We know the outbreak in the DR Congo is more extensive, with over 900 suspected cases and 220 suspected deaths,” stated WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus.
Tedros had earlier warned that the current Ebola epidemic affecting parts of the DRC is attributed to the Bundibugyo strain of the virus, stressing that there is currently no approved vaccine or treatment available. While discussing the troubling elements contributing to the Ebola outbreak in the DRC, Tedros said that, unlike earlier strains such as Zaire Ebola, which have effective medical solutions, the Bundibugyo strain poses a significant challenge due to the absence of preventive vaccines and effective treatments.
The lack of medical options raises serious epidemiological concerns, with the WHO director reporting around 600 suspected cases and 139 fatalities. The numbers are likely to increase, as the virus may have been spreading undetected for some time.
The virus has infiltrated multiple urban areas, and healthcare workers have also been impacted, increasing the risk of transmission nationwide. The situation is further complicated by regional security issues, particularly in Ituri province, which has faced significant violence since late 2025, displacing thousands of people. This area is a resource-rich mining zone with a highly mobile population, contributing to a heightened risk of virus spread.
Given the lack of validated treatments, however, the WHO is investigating potential vaccines and therapeutics for widespread use. Tedros has called upon the international community to take action, stressing that the five identified risk factors, including population movement, transmission within health facilities, and urban expansion, could collectively worsen the epidemic’s impact on public health.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) government has decided to keep schools open in Ituri province amid an ongoing Ebola outbreak, focusing instead on implementing preventive measures to avoid further hardships for children. Health authorities urge families to seek immediate medical help instead of self-medicating and are enhancing awareness campaigns to contain the virus spread.
The outbreak, affecting the provinces of Ituri, South Kivu, and North Kivu, has resulted in 121 confirmed cases and 17 deaths in Ituri alone. The WHO highlights the difficulty posed by the Bundibugyo Ebola strain, which currently lacks an approved vaccine or treatment. The virus is spreading in urban areas and impacting healthcare workers, compounded by regional violence and population mobility in the resource-rich Ituri, increasing transmission risks.
The WHO stresses the need for international intervention, with ongoing investigations into potential vaccines and therapeutics. The identified risk factors — including population movement, transmission in health facilities, and urban expansion — threaten to exacerbate the epidemic’s public health impact.
Environmental activists in Rome built a mock rocket with caricatures of Giorgia Meloni and Donald Trump, calling for ‘fascists’ to be launched to another planet. The protest condemned government inaction on climate change and the global rise of authoritarian politics.
Published On 31 May 202631 May 2026
Share
AN old and decrepit man is under the mistaken impression that you and he are contemporaries.
While talking to friends and acquaintances at social events, Michael, not his real name, from Bexley has been insisting they are old fogies well past their prime like him – something that is clearly not true.
Norman, not his real name, said: “Michael and I were getting on fine in the pub. We agreed on a lot of things, like the state of the roads, how much we hate e-scooters and our dislike of loud teenagers on the bus.
“I’d started telling him about how I did my back in jogging – jogging, which is what young people do – and he clearly said ‘Well, that’s what happens to people our age’. Where the f**k did that come from?
“Michael’s got grey hair and wears boring M&S shirts, whereas I wear trainers and like to think I am quite fashionable in a sort of ‘ageless’ way. I mean, yes, I have a few flecks of grey but that can happen in your 30s. Although I’m not in my 30s, I’m in my 50s, obviously.
“So I’m not sure how he got this insane idea we’re in the same over-the-hill age bracket, just because he was in the year above me at school.”
Michael said: “I distinctly remember Norman from school, so he’s not much younger than me. Also I saw how big he has the text on his phone. It’s good to know he’s socially and sexually irrelevant too.”
Just over the Litani river line, the IDF has confirmed it has captured one of the key strategic prizes in the area – Beaufort Castle. It was built as a fortress commanding views from high on the cliffs above the Litani river by the Crusaders some 900 years ago, and has been fought over many times since.
WONDERING if you’re outstaying your welcome in your job? Look out for these telltale signs.
All your colleagues openly hate you
Co-workers don’t have to be your friends, but you shouldn’t have to come into the office knowing they all despise you either. It’s also not normal for your colleagues to be openly vying for your job, or for a bunch of people to barrage you with insults when you try to answer their questions each week. Maybe move into something more cushy, like coding?
The papers are begging for you to leave
It’s unusual for the British press to focus on random employees, but if they’re united in their call for you to step down then maybe you should give it some thought. Yes, it’s a little confusing because a couple of years ago some of them were backing you, but that’s just how things go. Don’t take their new scathing attacks on your character personally.
It’s totally unclear what you’re meant to be achieving
You may find most people are unsure about what you’ve actually accomplished in the last two years. Have you in your job somehow been the mastermind behind soaring petrol prices and the surging popularity of fringe parties? If so then well done, you can retire safe in the knowledge that you accomplished something, even if it’s shit.
The public is calling for you to go
The average worker generally doesn’t have to deal with every man, woman and child hoping you’ll piss off soon. A shelf stacker would pack it in out of frustration if people were lining up to tell them how crap they were and to give their job to Andy Burnham, and you shouldn’t feel any different. Don’t be upset though, just think of it as the universe’s coy way of telling you you’ve done your whole life wrong.
You’re kind of shit at it
Two years is an impressive amount of time to blag a job you’re clearly not cut out for. You can take pride in that, and even add ‘exemplary bullshitting’ to the CV you’re hopefully polishing. Sadly though, being good at a job is often a prerequisite to keeping it. Walk away from the flaming wreckage you’ve created and pray that nobody can trace it back to you.
Weekly protests in Dublin are growing as people demand justice and accountability for Yves Sakila, a Congolese man who died after being restrained by security guards outside a shopping centre.
Published On 31 May 202631 May 2026
Share
Both the US and Iran have recently signaled progress on efforts to reach a deal to end their conflict, though their accounts of its terms differ on some issues across respective media narratives, Anadolu reports.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.
On Sunday morning, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency also published a report on the details of a potential agreement. However, certain aspects of what has been agreed seem to diverge.
Here is a comparison of the US and Iranian versions of the deal by key issues.
Strait of Hormuz
Citing a US official, Axios said the deal that Washington and Tehran are close to signing would extend a ceasefire by 60 days, during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened.
During the 60-day period, the Strait of Hormuz would be opened without any tolls, and Iran would remove the mines it has placed there to ensure unrestricted maritime passage.
In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports, added the report.
The New York Times also said it was informed by three senior Iranian officials that Tehran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding to halt fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said on Sunday that the agreement could, if successful, result in a “completely open” Strait of Hormuz, with no tolls or restrictions on passage.
“They don’t own it. It’s an international waterway,” Rubio told reporters of the strait, in remarks that came during his visit to India.
A report by Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim, however, said that the Strait of Hormuz will not fully return to its pre-war status if the agreement is reached.
Instead, the number of ships allowed to pass would be restored to pre-war levels within 30 days, the outlet added.
Tehran also demands an end to the US blockade on its ports, arguing that no changes will be made in the strait if the blockade remains in place.
For its part, the US argues that the quicker Iran removes the mines and allows shipping to resume, the sooner the blockade will be lifted.
READ: Iran ready to reassure world it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, president says
Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets
Iran was seeking the immediate unfreezing of funds and a permanent lifting of sanctions, but the US position indicates these measures would only be granted after Iran made concrete concessions, according to the Axios report.
As part of the proposed 60-day agreement, the US is offering temporary sanctions waivers that would allow Iran to sell its oil freely. These waivers are explicitly linked to Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, removing mines, and ending restrictions on maritime traffic. Once these steps are taken, Washington would also lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.
Tehran, however, says no agreement will be reached unless at least a portion of the frozen Iranian assets is released immediately. Iranian media confirmed the discussion of temporary oil sanctions waivers in the latest US proposal but insisted on broader and more permanent sanctions relief.
Nuclear file
The Axios report said the draft deal includes commitments from Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, along with provisions to negotiate a suspension of uranium enrichment and the removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
The Iranian media reports, however, indicate that Tehran has not yet accepted anything on its nuclear program.
A potential deal would involve a 60-day negotiation window on Iran’s nuclear program, according to Tasnim.
Extent of ceasefire
Both US and Iranian media reports suggest that the cessation of hostilities would mean a halt to fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon.
This was also highlighted by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei on Saturday, when he said Tehran was prioritizing an end to hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon.
Context
Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel, as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely. Washington and Tehran also held rare direct talks in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on April 11-12, but have failed to reach an agreement.
Trump’s Saturday remarks came after Pakistani army chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran. The visit was the second of its kind in recent weeks, as Munir is directly involved in Islamabad’s mediation efforts.
READ: Trump says Iran talks ‘constructive’ but blockade will remain until final deal is reached
Both the US and Iran have recently signaled progress on efforts to reach a deal to end their conflict, though their accounts of its terms differ on some issues across respective media narratives, Anadolu reports.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.
On Sunday morning, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency also published a report on the details of a potential agreement. However, certain aspects of what has been agreed seem to diverge.
Here is a comparison of the US and Iranian versions of the deal by key issues.
Strait of Hormuz
Citing a US official, Axios said the deal that Washington and Tehran are close to signing would extend a ceasefire by 60 days, during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened.
During the 60-day period, the Strait of Hormuz would be opened without any tolls, and Iran would remove the mines it has placed there to ensure unrestricted maritime passage.
In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports, added the report.
The New York Times also said it was informed by three senior Iranian officials that Tehran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding to halt fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said on Sunday that the agreement could, if successful, result in a “completely open” Strait of Hormuz, with no tolls or restrictions on passage.
“They don’t own it. It’s an international waterway,” Rubio told reporters of the strait, in remarks that came during his visit to India.
A report by Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim, however, said that the Strait of Hormuz will not fully return to its pre-war status if the agreement is reached.
Instead, the number of ships allowed to pass would be restored to pre-war levels within 30 days, the outlet added.
Tehran also demands an end to the US blockade on its ports, arguing that no changes will be made in the strait if the blockade remains in place.
For its part, the US argues that the quicker Iran removes the mines and allows shipping to resume, the sooner the blockade will be lifted.
READ: Iran ready to reassure world it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, president says
Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets
Iran was seeking the immediate unfreezing of funds and a permanent lifting of sanctions, but the US position indicates these measures would only be granted after Iran made concrete concessions, according to the Axios report.
As part of the proposed 60-day agreement, the US is offering temporary sanctions waivers that would allow Iran to sell its oil freely. These waivers are explicitly linked to Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, removing mines, and ending restrictions on maritime traffic. Once these steps are taken, Washington would also lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.
Tehran, however, says no agreement will be reached unless at least a portion of the frozen Iranian assets is released immediately. Iranian media confirmed the discussion of temporary oil sanctions waivers in the latest US proposal but insisted on broader and more permanent sanctions relief.
Nuclear file
The Axios report said the draft deal includes commitments from Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, along with provisions to negotiate a suspension of uranium enrichment and the removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
The Iranian media reports, however, indicate that Tehran has not yet accepted anything on its nuclear program.
A potential deal would involve a 60-day negotiation window on Iran’s nuclear program, according to Tasnim.
Extent of ceasefire
Both US and Iranian media reports suggest that the cessation of hostilities would mean a halt to fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon.
This was also highlighted by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei on Saturday, when he said Tehran was prioritizing an end to hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon.
Context
Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel, as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely. Washington and Tehran also held rare direct talks in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on April 11-12, but have failed to reach an agreement.
Trump’s Saturday remarks came after Pakistani army chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran. The visit was the second of its kind in recent weeks, as Munir is directly involved in Islamabad’s mediation efforts.
READ: Trump says Iran talks ‘constructive’ but blockade will remain until final deal is reached
Both the US and Iran have recently signaled progress on efforts to reach a deal to end their conflict, though their accounts of its terms differ on some issues across respective media narratives, Anadolu reports.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.
On Sunday morning, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency also published a report on the details of a potential agreement. However, certain aspects of what has been agreed seem to diverge.
Here is a comparison of the US and Iranian versions of the deal by key issues.
Strait of Hormuz
Citing a US official, Axios said the deal that Washington and Tehran are close to signing would extend a ceasefire by 60 days, during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened.
During the 60-day period, the Strait of Hormuz would be opened without any tolls, and Iran would remove the mines it has placed there to ensure unrestricted maritime passage.
In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports, added the report.
The New York Times also said it was informed by three senior Iranian officials that Tehran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding to halt fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said on Sunday that the agreement could, if successful, result in a “completely open” Strait of Hormuz, with no tolls or restrictions on passage.
“They don’t own it. It’s an international waterway,” Rubio told reporters of the strait, in remarks that came during his visit to India.
A report by Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim, however, said that the Strait of Hormuz will not fully return to its pre-war status if the agreement is reached.
Instead, the number of ships allowed to pass would be restored to pre-war levels within 30 days, the outlet added.
Tehran also demands an end to the US blockade on its ports, arguing that no changes will be made in the strait if the blockade remains in place.
For its part, the US argues that the quicker Iran removes the mines and allows shipping to resume, the sooner the blockade will be lifted.
READ: Iran ready to reassure world it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, president says
Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets
Iran was seeking the immediate unfreezing of funds and a permanent lifting of sanctions, but the US position indicates these measures would only be granted after Iran made concrete concessions, according to the Axios report.
As part of the proposed 60-day agreement, the US is offering temporary sanctions waivers that would allow Iran to sell its oil freely. These waivers are explicitly linked to Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, removing mines, and ending restrictions on maritime traffic. Once these steps are taken, Washington would also lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.
Tehran, however, says no agreement will be reached unless at least a portion of the frozen Iranian assets is released immediately. Iranian media confirmed the discussion of temporary oil sanctions waivers in the latest US proposal but insisted on broader and more permanent sanctions relief.
Nuclear file
The Axios report said the draft deal includes commitments from Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, along with provisions to negotiate a suspension of uranium enrichment and the removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
The Iranian media reports, however, indicate that Tehran has not yet accepted anything on its nuclear program.
A potential deal would involve a 60-day negotiation window on Iran’s nuclear program, according to Tasnim.
Extent of ceasefire
Both US and Iranian media reports suggest that the cessation of hostilities would mean a halt to fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon.
This was also highlighted by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei on Saturday, when he said Tehran was prioritizing an end to hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon.
Context
Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel, as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely. Washington and Tehran also held rare direct talks in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on April 11-12, but have failed to reach an agreement.
Trump’s Saturday remarks came after Pakistani army chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran. The visit was the second of its kind in recent weeks, as Munir is directly involved in Islamabad’s mediation efforts.
READ: Trump says Iran talks ‘constructive’ but blockade will remain until final deal is reached
Syrian commission confirms the deaths of Rania al-Abbasi’s six children, missing since 2013 under Bashar al-Assad’s rule.
Published On 31 May 202631 May 2026
Syria’s National Commission for Missing Persons (NCMP) says the children of dentist and former chess champion Rania al‑Abbasi, who disappeared with their parents more than a decade ago under then-President Bashar al-Assad, are likely dead.
“We have reached reliable and corroborating results that allow us to conclude with a high degree of professional certainty that Dr Rania al-Abbasi’s children are deceased,” the NCMP said in a statement on Saturday.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The fate of the children, unknown for years, became a symbol of the plight of other missing children of detainees and those forcibly disappeared during al-Assad’s rule, which ended with his ouster in 2024.
Al-Abbasi went missing along with her husband, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and their six children, aged three to 15, in March 2013 after government forces raided their home in Damascus, according to rights groups.
The commission, set up by the country’s new rulers in May 2025 to investigate missing and forcibly disappeared people, said its findings were “based on multiple verification and analysis procedures” conducted in coordination with national authorities.
“Efforts to find the remains … are still ongoing,” it added.
Hassan al-Abbasi, Rania’s brother, confirmed the children’s deaths in a video posted on Facebook.
He said the family had been able to view video recordings linked to the main suspect in a 2013 massacre in a Damascus district, including one showing him accusing children in a dark room of being “major financiers of terrorism”.
“They turned out to be our children,” Hassan al-Abbasi said. “We finally saw them … but they were martyred.”
The fate of Rania and her husband remains officially unknown after all contact with them was lost following their arrest on accusations linked to opposition to the Assad government.
Rights groups and media reports suggest they may have died, though their bodies were never found.
The issue of missing people remains one of the most pressing in Syria. They include detainees who vanished in government prisons as well as people who went missing during fighting, at checkpoints or while fleeing their homes over the years of civil war.
Tens of thousands of people were detained or disappeared during the war, which erupted in 2011 after a brutal crackdown on antigovernment protests by al-Assad.
The NCMP said last year that the number of people who went missing over decades of al-Assad family rule may exceed 300,000.
Separately on Saturday, the Syrian Ministry of Interior said its investigation into the disappearance of al-Abbasi’s children had uncovered evidence linking Amjad Youssef – a notorious figure during al-Assad’s rule and the perpetrator of the 2013 Tadamon massacre – to their killing.
In a statement, it said interrogations of detainees, together with videos and information shared by the NCMP, had helped strengthen the case.
Youssef was arrested in April, prompting many Syrians to demand “just punishment” for a man they say carried out the massacre in cold blood.
The Tadamon case drew international attention after footage surfaced documenting the killings.
In 2022, The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom published footage it said had been leaked by a conscript in a pro-government militia showing members of the Assad-era Military Intelligence Branch 227 killing at least 41 people and burning their bodies.
The video showed an intelligence officer, identified as Youssef, shooting blindfolded and bound detainees.
The TWZ Newsletter
Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.
Members of Congress are moving to push the U.S. Navy to develop a containerized version of its High-Energy Laser with Integrated Optical Dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) system. Containerized designs could help accelerate the service’s fielding of laser directed energy weapons on a wider array of ships, providing added layers of close-in defense. The Navy has already been experimenting with palletized designs as part of its larger laser development efforts, which have faced continued hurdles in recent years.
An early draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2027 Fiscal Year, would authorize the addition of $5 million to the Navy’s budget for work on a containerized HELIOS. It would also add $2.5 million for a “Containerized Maritime High Energy Laser Weapon System,” which does not otherwise appear to be mentioned, at least by that name, in the service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. The House Armed Services Committee released this draft NDAA earlier this week.
The Navy’s proposed budget for the next fiscal cycle does already include a request for $75.6 million for a separate Joint Laser Weapon System (JLWS) effort. The development of a containerized 150-kilowatt-class laser directed energy weapon, along with work toward 300 and 500-kilowatt-class designs, are part of the stated plans for JLWS. It’s unclear whether the Maritime High Energy Laser Weapon System mentioned in the draft NDAA is related to JLWS.
HELIOS, which the Navy has also designated Mk 5 Mod 0, is a 60-kilowatt-class laser directed energy weapon. At that power level, it is able to destroy or at least damage certain targets, such as drones or small boats, a capability that has now been demonstrated in multiple tests. There has been talk in the past about scaling HELIOS’s power rating up to 150 kilowatts.
Currently, the Navy only has one HELIOS laser, installed on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Preble. Despite integration on an operational warship, the service describes this system as a “Non-Program of Record (POR) Research & Development (R&D) asset” in its most recent budget request.
As an aside, another laser system, the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN), is currently found on seven other Arleigh Burke class destroyers. An eighth example was integrated on the USS Kidd, but has been temporarily removed while that ship is completing a two-year maintenance availability. That ODIN system is currently being used for land-based training at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division, in California. Designed as a “dazzler,” ODIN is lower-powered than HELIOS, and is intended to blind or confuse electro-optical and/or imaging infrared systems, including seekers on incoming munitions, sending them off course rather than shooting them down.
As noted, HELIOS offers demonstrated capability now, and a containerized version is something the Navy might be able to field more widely in the near-term. This, in turn, could help provide a bridge to future developments under JLWS. Containerized systems, as well as palletized ones, inherently offer valuable flexibility, especially in a maritime context. Integration can be more readily achieved on a broad array of ships – including carriers, amphibious warfare ships, sea base-type vessels, and sealift ships, as well as certain surface combatants – as long as there is sufficient deck space and available power.
In April, the Navy disclosed a test of a palletized version of AeroVironment LOCUST laser counter-drone system on the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush, underscoring exactly this kind of flexibility. For that test, AeroVironment leveraged a palletized configuration of LOCUST it had already developed for the U.S. Army. However, various changes were made to adapt it to shipboard use, including “hardened electronics for salt fog, humidity, vibration, and long deployments” and the addition of “stabilization hardware to manage ship motion,” according to a company press release.
Counter-drone defense has emerged as a critical priority for the Navy, both at sea and on land. This has only been underscored by experience gained during the latest conflict with Iran, as well as operations in and around the Red Sea in recent years. The service has already been adding counter-drone systems that use physical interceptors as their effectors to an ever larger number of ships, something TWZ has been closely tracking.
When it comes to a containerized version of HELIOS, which could also be used to bolster defenses ashore, would benefit from having been developed for maritime use from the start. It might still be less hardened against environmental conditions, as well as battle damage, than its more deeply integrated counterpart on the USS Preble. There are also questions about how the system might be integrated onto the host ship and its combat system, if it has one at all.
In general, as long as there is sufficient power and cooling capacity, laser directed energy weapons like HELIOS offer essentially unlimited magazine depth. This offers cost benefits, especially when compared to employing traditional surface-to-air interceptors. As one comparative example, the latest versions of the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), which many Navy ships are armed for point defense, have unit costs in the $1 million range. All of this could also help in addressing long-standing concerns about the sufficiency of stockpiles of critical anti-air interceptors (as well as other munitions), and the ability to readily replenish those inventories, which have only been reinforced by the latest conflict with Iran.
USS Porter Conducts SeaRAM Test Fire
Laser directed energy weapons do also have limitations, especially when employed in the maritime domain, as TWZ has highlighted in the past:
“A single laser can only engage one target at once. As the beam gets further away from the source, its power also drops, just as a result of it having to propagate through the atmosphere. This can be further compounded by the weather and other environmental factors like smoke and dust. More power is then needed to produce suitable effects at appreciable distances. Adaptive optics are used to help overcome atmospheric distortion to a degree. Altogether, laser directed energy weapons generally remain relatively short-range systems.”
“In addition, laser directed energy weapons, especially sensitive optics, present inherent reliability challenges for use in real-world military operations. Shipboard use adds rough sea states and saltwater exposure to the equation. There is also the matter of needing to keep everything properly cooled, which creates additional power generation and other demands.”
Overall, the Navy’s current top leadership is already very supportive of containerized systems and directed energy weapons, including both lasers and high-power microwave types. In March, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Daryl Caudle, the service’s top officer, unveiled a formal Containerized Capability Campaign.
“From towed-array-systems, to drone swarms, to electronic attack systems, to high-powered lasers … I want to containerize everything,” Caudle said at the annual McAleese Defense Programs Conference in March. “Tailored capabilities give our combatant commanders something they value above all else: options.”
Containerized systems are particularly central to the Navy’s current vision for future fleets of USVs, as well as its new FF(X) frigates.
Laser directed energy weapons are also central to the current plan for the Navy’s future Trump class battleships, but they are expected to be deeply integrated into that design rather than containerized. Adm. Caudle has been outspoken more broadly in his view that laser-directed energy weapons are key to bolstering close-in defenses on his service’s warships going forward, including against the growing threat posed by drones.
“My thesis research at [the] Naval Post Graduate School was on directed energy and nuclear weapons,” the CNO told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable at the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) annual symposium in January. “This is my goal, if it’s in line of sight of a ship, that the first solution that we’re using is directed energy.”
In particular, “point defense needs to shift to directed energy,” Caudle added at that time. “It has an infinite magazine.”
Even before assuming his current role as CNO, Caudle has been a vocal supporter of Navy directed energy weapon developments. At the same time, as mentioned, the service has faced continued stumbling blocks to more widespread fielding of these capabilities. This is, in many ways, reflected just in HELIOS, which remains a largely experimental effort despite years of testing and previous talk about expanding it into a broader operational capability. The Navy has integrated other one-off lasers onto other ships in the past. This includes the Laser Weapon System Demonstrator Mk 2 Mod 0 installed for a time on the San Antonio class amphibous warfare ship USS Portland, which is seen being tested in this video below.
USS Portland (LPD 27) tests LWSD laser system
Several U.S. Air Force and Army laser directed energy programs have also been realigned, curtailed, or outright cancelled in recent years due to technical hurdles and other factors.
Despite it adding funding for containerized system development, the draft NDAA that the House Armed Services Committee also proposes to cut $5 million from the Navy’s Directed Energy and Electric Weapon Systems line item due to what it simply describes as “unjustified growth.” The bill is also very likely to change in substantial ways in the coming weeks and months before it is ever put to a full vote, let alone sent to President Trump’s desk.
Whether or not the extra funding for a containerized version of HELIOS, or the Maritime High Energy Laser Weapon System, comes across in the end, the Navy is already heavily committed to new developments in this arena despite the continued challenges.
Contact the author: joe@twz.com
Jaua defended the importance of national unity in the struggle to reclaim sovereignty. (Venezuelanalysis)
Elías Jaua is a Venezuelan intellectual, university professor, and politician who served as vice president under Hugo Chávez in addition to several ministerial roles in the Chávez and Maduro administrations. He currently heads the Center for the Study of Socialist Democracy (CEDES). In this exclusive interview, Jaua discusses Venezuela’s post-January 3 conjuncture, the anti-imperialist struggle to reclaim sovereignty, and the role to be played by Chavismo.
Venezuela’s reality changed on January 3 with the US strikes and kidnapping of President Maduro. How would you describe the current situation? And regarding the US, there is talk of “conditional sovereignty” and “tutelage,” while officials speak of a “cooperation agenda.” What is your take on this?
Sovereignty is a comprehensive concept. You either have it or you don’t. Sovereignty means not depending on anyone. It is the foundation of a republic. A republic means independence from others, something distinct from liberal, individual freedom. Venezuela today is a state under tutelage, overseen by the Donald Trump administration. This was officially declared by Trump and White House officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
This is also clearly reflected in oil production, which must be sold primarily to the US, and the proceeds from those exports do not enter directly into Venezuela’s coffers but instead into a US Treasury account. From there, the Venezuelan government will make requests and have certain amounts necessary for the country’s basic functioning disbursed. That is a complete loss of economic sovereignty. We have also seen how reforms to strategic laws, such as those governing hydrocarbons and mining, have been rushed through. Today, there is immense pressure on labor legislation, both from the Venezuelan business community and from transnational capital, which views labor laws as yet another obstacle to attracting investment.
And finally, we have seen that Venezuela’s foreign policy – which was openly supportive of Palestine, Iran, and Cuba – has been significantly toned down. This is another clear sign that Venezuela is no longer an independent state. Its status as a republic is entirely relative.
In light of all this, how do you feel the government and other national political groups should respond?
I view the decision made on January 3 not to respond to the US military attack as a responsible one, because the enemy clearly had military superiority and the capability to control the entire airspace using high-tech means. A response would have resulted in significant destruction of the country’s infrastructure and armed forces, as well as the killing of thousands of civilians.
Now, four months later, the Venezuelan government and all political forces should clearly denounce to the international community the coercion to which we are being subjected. On the one hand, as a public denunciation, but also to have it formally recorded before international bodies such as the International Commission on Human Rights. What occurred in January were war crimes, a fact supported by United Nations rapporteurs. Next, a complaint should be filed with the International Court of Justice to restore control over national revenues to the Venezuelan state.
One might argue that this is ineffective at the moment, that international law is irrelevant and international organizations are incapable of acting – and that is true. But the country must establish a legal precedent because these institutions still exist, and as a result they are a source of rights. These complaints set precedents so that the country can, in the future, claim the rights that have been damaged by the occupying power.
Finally, it is important to reach out to the international community, and above all to the peoples of the world, so that they know there is a nation that refuses to be placed under tutelage and subjected to these conditions, in order to build international solidarity. An internal political stance must also be established, because this attempt to conceal the gravity of the coercion to which the country is being subjected numbs popular consciousness, undermines patriotic morale, and that is contrary to what is expected of the leadership – not only of the government, but of the entire political leadership of the nation.
But what if that triggers another US military attack?
I don’t think a repeat of the January 3 incident is imminent because it would have repercussions in the US domestic political landscape. The political cost for the Trump administration would no longer be zero, as it practically was on January 3, but there would be greater resistance, especially for attacking a country that has simply exercised its rights before international bodies to claim sovereignty over resources and political self-determination.
Put another way, the option of not denouncing this, of not activating available mechanisms, is to accept and normalize this situation of neocolonialism, and I believe that is a very dangerous path that could even lead to Venezuela’s annexation by the US. I believe there are moments when peoples, nations, and their leaders must take a firm stand for the sake of history. Here it is no longer a matter of defending a party or a political movement, but rather the existence of a nation that was born free. We have a historic responsibility to ensure it remains that way for future generations.
US officials repeat their “three-phase plan,” which ends with a political “transition,” on a daily basis, while the extremist opposition demands immediate elections to seize power at any cost. From your perspective, what is the path forward, and what should the priorities be?
The priority is to regain independence. If we hold elections, that is with candidates for what? For governor of the colony? Anyone who truly wants to hold the presidency of the Republic of Venezuela must first raise their voice in favor of the immediate restoration of the country’s sovereign rights over its resources and revenues and the assertion of political self-determination.
In any case, I argue that any eventual electoral process should be the result of a national agreement, renationalizing politics and not waiting for a call from the White House one day announcing that there will be elections in six months. That would be very shameful. I believe that Venezuelan political forces would be obligated, as part of that strategy to reclaim and demand the restoration of Venezuela’s sovereignty, to also commit to the international community and the Venezuelan people to seek a political, democratic, and electoral path forward.
In a recent article, you spoke of an inability to manage the internal political conflict, which paved the way for foreign intervention. Could you elaborate on this idea? How has that situation changed since January 3?
Foreign meddling began on the very first day of the Bolivarian Revolution, and there were agents that facilitated it. The first concrete example was the April 11, 2002 coup d’état, with the open participation of the US and Spanish governments, and from that point on, that interference never ceased. But there was always a degree of autonomy that allowed, especially after 2004, for the democratic resolution of the conflict through national agreements. For instance, the recall referendum that ultimately ratified Chávez’s mandate.
But starting in 2014, after the right-wing insurrectionary attempt known as “La Salida” and its failure, the US began to intervene directly by declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” and from that point on, the opposition lost any capacity to make decisions. I was a member of the dialogue delegation in the Dominican Republic in 2018 and saw how an agreement signed by everyone was overturned by a phone call from the US embassy.
I also believe that later, over the past five years, the Venezuelan government chose to engage in dialogue with the US and bet that the conflict would be resolved directly with Washington. Therefore, everyone put all their eggs in the White House’s basket, and the decision slipped completely out of the control of the country’s internal institutions until the game came to a standstill. And indeed, at the behest of the far-right opposition, Washington intervened and attacked on January 3. That is why I say that reclaiming internal political control in order to resolve the conflict would be an act of dignity and courage on the part of the entire Venezuelan political leadership. Conflict is not going to vanish, because today the calls for a conflict-free Venezuela come alongside a set of measures that deepen it. For example, labor deregulation, social disinvestment, political exclusion, etc.
In recent years, you have analyzed and debated the direction of Chavismo amid sanctions and the implementation of orthodox macroeconomic adjustment policies. Since January 3, we have seen a drastic overhaul of key pillars of the Bolivarian project, such as the Hydrocarbons Law, and critical voices growing louder, including Mario Silva and Luis Britto García. What is the current state of Chavismo, in your opinion?
First of all, the revision and change of course regarding fundamental aspects of Chavismo’s historic program did not begin on January 3 but much earlier. It was formalized starting in 2018 with the Program for Economic Recovery, Growth, and Prosperity, aimed at halting the advance of the transition to socialism and restoring the private sector’s hegemony in managing the economy, with clear consequences for social rights and the fight against social inequality. This was also accompanied by increasingly undemocratic mechanisms, from the political leadership, to impose a change of course in economic and social policy.
However, a fundamental core of Chavismo’s programmatic unity – the struggle for independence and national sovereignty – remained intact, and that kept Chavismo cohesive despite major differences. Today, I believe Chavismo must be situated within different spheres. There is a Chavismo within the United Socialist Party (PSUV) – no one can dispute that – but I believe there is a broader, and much larger, Chavismo, with a cultural, political, and symbolic identity rooted in a metanarrative that exists outside the PSUV and the Great Patriotic Pole. That sector currently lacks clear leadership and organizational structure, but it retains its values. It may have circumstantial views of the situation, but essentially it continues to uphold the principles that launched this process: sovereignty, participatory and protagonist democracy, democratic pluralism, freedom, political ethics, debate, speaking the truth, and social equality. It also holds a vision of a multipolar world, in solidarity with international struggles. These were, in essence, the core tenets of Chavismo from its inception and remain relevant for a significant portion of the Venezuelan population that is Chavista or was once Chavista.
You have talked about building national unity at this juncture, but also about upholding Chávez and his legacy. Are these two paths compatible?
This is a difficult and painful reflection because the figure and the project of Hugo Chávez have been burdened with a series of deviations. Practices that run completely contrary to the principles and values he defended, and upon which he built the Chavista project. For example, the case of Víctor Hugo Quero and his mother is deeply outrageous (1). It is a truly shameful incident, yet international news outlets report, “Chavismo admits to the disappearance of a detainee,” “Mother of prisoner killed by Chavismo dies.” Is it Chavismo or just a few individuals responsible? What about the men and women who, for over 25 years, laboriously dreamed, built, and dedicated part of their lives to creating well-being and the common good in their communities, to building a national project called “Chavismo”? It is very unfair because Chavismo, as a movement, is being accused of things it did not do. Chavismo is not this or that leader; it is the men and women who gave up the only thing they had – their time, their effort – to build community, a national project, to plant crops, to learn to read and write or to teach others to read and write, to study, and so on.
I stand by Chavismo as the men and women who dreamed, who continue to dream, and who have given their all to build a more humane society. For me, that will continue to be Chavismo. And those of us who have held leadership posts in this process must assume their responsibilities for the good and the bad. But it is unethical to blame a popular movement, a popular ideal like Chavismo, for the mistakes, deviations, and vile acts that some leaders may have committed.
I believe that the call for national unity, to paraphrase [revolutionary communist leader Alfredo] Maneiro, will spring from the most authentic Chavismo, but will transcend it. It will converge with other currents of the left that were not Chavista, with social democratic sectors that broke away from the extremist opposition, and with people who never took a stance on the political conflict the country has experienced in recent decades. It will be the plurality of opinions, of people, of organizations, that will provide the foundation for a necessary movement, which I see as unstoppable and already feel in the streets, in this struggle to regain independence and sovereignty.
(1) Victor Quero died in state custody in July 2025 but his family was not notified. His mother, Carmen Navas, continued to search for him until his death was publicly acknowledged in May 2026 after a judge denied an amnesty request. Navas passed away shortly afterward.
Thousands of officers tried to quell unrest as crowds of fans – some firing flares – celebrated PSG’s victory over Arsenal.
Source link
The former health secretary has been distancing himself from policies pursued by Sir Keir Starmer’s government.
Source link
Lebanese prime minister describes Israel’s attacks as collective punishment as US warns Iran of strikes if no deal is reached.
Published On 31 May 202631 May 2026
Share
Shakyamuni Buddha, the historical founder of Buddhism, was born in what is present-day Nepal over 3,000 years ago. There are various opinions concerning the exact dates of his birth and death, but according to Buddhist tradition, he is said to have been born April 8, 1029 BC and died on February 15, 949 BC, although other Buddhist scholars place his birth five hundred years later.
His mother, Maya, was the wife of Suddhodana, king of the Shakya clan. According to Buddhist lore, when she conceived, the queen dreamed that an auspicious white elephant entered her womb. A number of texts recount the child’s miraculous birth, detailing how the baby was received by the gods Indra and Brahma, and took seven steps soon after he was born. He is then believed to have received a cleansing bath from the gods, or dragon kings, depending on the country or culture where the legend originated.
Even though many Buddhists observe Buddha’s historical birth on 8th April, the exact date remains in question. Although modern archaeological and historical research confirms that Prince Siddartha Gotama lived around this time.
On Buddha Purnima, people dress in white clothes and give out kheer (a rice pudding) as, according to legend, a woman named Sujata once offered Gautam Buddha kheer on his birthday and it has since become a tradition.
The dharmacakra or dharma wheel is a symbol often seen during Vesak. It is a wooden wheel with eight spokes. The wheel represents Buddha’s teaching on the path to enlightenment. The eight spokes symbolize the noble eightfold path of Buddhism.
As Cuba heads into another month of blackouts due to the near-total fuel blockade imposed by the US, many say their lives now revolve around these power outages.
For Ana Rosa Romero, a 70-year-old widow living in a high-rise building, the constant power cuts have transformed her daily life.
BBC’s Will Grant spoke to her about the impact of the blackouts.
Video edited by Blanca Estrada