TODAY

JD and Usha Vance welcome a baby boy, the first child born to a sitting vice president in more than 150 years.

United States Vice President JD Vance and his wife, Usha, have announced the birth of their fourth child.

In a statement, Vance and his wife said their son was born on Sunday at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

“We are excited to announce that our baby boy, Alec Neel Vance, was born this morning,” the statement said.

“Usha and the baby are happy and healthy, and our kids are overjoyed to meet their little brother,” it added.

Vance, an Ohio native, and Usha, the daughter of Indian immigrants, met while attending Yale Law School, where they graduated in 2013.

Their first son, Ewan, was born in 2017, followed by another son, Vivek, in 2020. The couple’s daughter, Mirabel, was born in 2021.

Alec Neel Vance is the first child born to a vice president in more than 150 years.

The last time a sitting vice president became a new father was in the 1800s.

Schuyler Colfax and his second wife, Ellen Wade, had a son, Schuyler Colfax III, in 1870, when Colfax was serving as vice president, according to the White House Historical Association.

Vance, a former US Marine, is a passionate advocate for Americans to have more children. He repeatedly expressed alarm about declining birth rates in the US as he launched his political career in 2021 with a bid for a US Senate seat from Ohio.

As vice president, he said in Washington at the 2025 March for Life anti-abortion rally, “I want more babies in the United States of America.”

The newest addition to Vance’s family was part of a recent mini baby boom among top members of President Donald Trump’s administration.

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller’s wife, Katie, recently gave birth to the couple’s fourth child, and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt had her second child with her husband, Nicholas Riccio, in May.

Ferran Torres scores the only goal of the game as Spain win their second World Cup.

Ferran Torres scored ‌in the 106th minute to lift Spain to their second World Cup title with ⁠a 1-0 win ⁠in extra-time over 10-man Argentina in the final.

Torres’ deserved winner on Sunday came 16 years and eight days after Andres Iniesta also scored in extra time ⁠to lift the Spaniards to their first World Championship with a 1-0 victory over the Netherlands.

It came on La Roja’s 20th shot on the contest against a defending champion Argentina ⁠that failed to manage any to that point and struggled to wrest possession away from their superior Iberian opponents.

That was true at even strength and became more difficult when La Albiceleste’s numbers were reduced when Enzo Fernandez’s late challenge of Pau Cubarsi left referee Slavko Vincic no ‌choice but to produce a second caution just before the end of normal time.

Spain remain the only nation ever to win a European Championship and World Cup in successive tournaments, having now done so a second time. They are also the first World Cup champion ever to concede only once across an entire tournament.

Lionel Messi’s Argentina failed to earn a title for the first time in three major tournaments, having also captured the ⁠2021 and 2024 Copa Americas either side of their 2022 World ⁠Cup triumph.

The 39-year-old, eight-time Ballon d’Or winner Messi finished the competition with eight goals and four assists, but had little time on the ball until Spain finally took the lead and never seriously looked like lifting his ⁠side to another great moment as he has so many times in the last two World Cup cycles.

Emi Martinez made 11 ⁠saves for La Albiceleste, who fell short in their ⁠bid to be the first consecutive World Cup champions since Brazil won the 1958 and 1962 titles.

What had felt so difficult for the first 105 minutes suddenly looked easy after 37 seconds of play in the second period of ‌extra time.

Pedro Porro curled in an outswinging cross from the left to the back post, Nico Williams won the header and nodded it back into space, and Torres hammered a ‌half-volley ‌at last past the flailing Martinez.

It was his only goal of the tournament, making him the seventh player to score during a tournament in which his side never trailed.

Asked about his goal, Torres said after the game: “Honestly, I didn’t think too much. I just saw the ball coming to me, and I just shot with the power of all the Spanish people.”

The win made Spain coach Luis de la Fuente, at 65, the oldest coach ever to lead a team to the World Cup title.

“We are world champions,” de la Fuente said. “It was together we reached this stage.”

There was some pushing and shoving after the final whistle, which was quickly cleaned up and Spain commenced its celebration as most Argentina players sat on the turf in disbelief.

Cooler heads prevailed, and Spain’s players lined up minutes later to form an honour guard of sorts for Argentina’s squad to walk through on their way to the stage for the runner-up medals.

Argentina coach Lionel Scaloni admitted Spain were the better team.

“They were the better side – that’s the truth – but I’ll cherish the memory of them [his side], of what they achieved, and of the value of making it this far,” Scaloni said.

“We have to place immense value on this because it takes so much effort.”

Hundreds gather near the border as coalition figures push to rebuild communities evacuated in 2005.

Israeli cabinet members and parliamentarians have joined a march towards Gaza to call for the rebuilding of Jewish settlements in the besieged Palestinian territory.

The march on Sunday defied a military order that restricted their route at the last minute over concerns that some participants planned to cross the fence into the besieged Palestinian territory.

The rally is the latest sign of how calls to resettle Gaza have moved from the political margins into Israel’s mainstream political discourse.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party was listed among the rally’s sponsors, despite his insistence that Gaza will not be resettled.

Earlier, the Israeli army designated the surrounding area a closed military zone for 24 hours, saying it was meant to stop marchers from crossing into Gaza.

Nachala, the settler group behind the event, called it the “March of Thousands” and said more than 10,000 attended, although Israeli media reports estimated the crowd at only a few hundred.

Nachala is led by Daniella Weiss, who has long advocated Israel resettling Gaza. Speaking at a Likud party conference, she said Palestinians would “disappear” from the territory.

Some marchers bypassed checkpoints through nearby hillsides to reach the Gaza border. Video verified by Al Jazeera’s verification unit showed dozens of Israelis gathered at the border fence.

Also on the march were Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who also oversees settlement affairs, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and more than two dozen ministers and legislators, Israeli media reported.

Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have been sanctioned by several European countries.

Marching under the banner “returning home after 21 years,” they demanded the reconstruction of Elei Sinai, Dugit and Nisanit, three settlements evacuated when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

Ben-Gvir, a member of Netanyahu’s cabinet, posted a video of himself among the marchers with a caption: ‘Gaza is ours’. Fellow cabinet minister Smotrich also a called on Israelis not to miss a “historic opportunity” to rebuild settlements in Gaza.

Palestinian lawyer and analyst Diana Buttu told Al Jazeera that Israel’s settlement drive has been enabled by a lack of accountability.

“Because Israel has never been punished for its crimes, it’s only natural that a country that commits genocide and ethnic cleansing feels emboldened to steal more land”, she said.

In December, a group of Nachala activists briefly crossed into Gaza and planted an Israeli flag before soldiers brought them back across the fence.

All the biggest talking points and stats from the first 45 minutes of a goalless World Cup final in New Jersey in the US.

After a star-studded tournament ceremony and the logistical delays caused by the arrival of US President Donald Trump, the World Cup final between Spain and Argentina ended in a goalless scoreline at half-time.

The match at the New York New Jersey Stadium on Sunday has been a cagey affair, with Spain enjoying greater possession and Argentina looking to make the game into a scrap.

The final kicked off six minutes late in New Jersey following a pre-match show that included singer Robbie Williams and actor Tom Cruise.

Once the football actually began, Spain looked to control the ball and force Argentina to chase the game. The South American giants were mostly restricted to their own half and looked to make it a physical battle.

Here are some of the biggest talking points from the first half.

A cagey affair in New Jersey

It all started so promisingly, with Lamine Yamal forcing a save from Emi Martinez after just five minutes. The teenager shot from a tight angle inside the box following some brilliant link-up play with Dani Olmo.

Since then, chances have been at a premium, with just three shots at goal in the entire first half, all by La Roja, with Argentina yet to register an effort.

Spain striker Mikel Oyarzabal tested Martinez on 39 minutes, but his shot from just outside the area was easily saved by the Argentine keeper. Marc Cucurella also dragged an effort wide late on.

While Spain saw more of the ball, Argentina looked to get stuck in and make it a scrappy final. So far, the defending champions’ game plan has worked.

Referee keeps his cards in his pockets

Slovenian official Slavko Vincic declined to brandish a yellow card until the 40th minute, despite some hefty challenges in the first half.

Spain were furious when the referee didn’t penalise Alexis Mac Allister after a late challenge on Olmo just 15 minutes into the final.

The Argentine midfielder dived in, missing the ball entirely as he wiped Olmo out. The Spanish bench erupted, but the referee decided not to book the Liverpool man.

The first yellow card was eventually shown when Lisandro Martinez dragged Oyarzabal down from behind.

Martinez heads off injured

Argentina suffered a late blow in the first half as key defender Lisandro Martinez was forced off with an injury.

Martinez has played a crucial role at the heart of defence for Argentina in this tournament, but they will now have to cope without him for the second half of the final.

Veteran defender Nicolas Otamendi is now tasked with keeping the likes of Yamal and Oyarzabal quiet.

What were the head-to-head stats in the first half of the Spain-Argentina final?

Spain saw a lot more of the ball and enjoyed 64.6 percent possession. They also had three shots at goal, compared to none for Argentina.

The South Americans committed two more fouls than their opponents and picked up one yellow card.

Spain have been awarded two corners so far, whilst Argentina have had none.

Hundreds of Argentinian fans packed Boca Juniors steakhouse in the Elmhurst, Queens neighbourhood of New York City’s Little Argentina hours before the World Cup final kickoff against Spain. The steakhouse, known for its festive atmosphere, has been a “temple” for the Argentinian diaspora during the 2026 World Cup.

A message attributed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has promised “unforgettable lessons” to Washington during their escalating conflict. But it also homed in on another theme that tempered some of the fire of his warnings against the US, amid eight nights of renewed fighting between the two countries.

Khamenei, who has not been seen or heard from since being made supreme leader in March, said Iranians must uphold “sacred unity” as a fundamental imperative, particularly against the United States.

His message also stated that it was a duty for the Iranian population and officials to refrain from “division, political disputes, and increases in social differences”. Iran’s enemies, he said, likely referring to the US and Israel, “must not detect any sign of weakness from us”.

The call for national unity comes against the backdrop of events in June, when another Khamenei statement stirred debate and controversy among some of the most hardline supporters of the Islamic Republic regarding the recently signed memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US.

Khamenei said that although he “held a different view” about the agreement to pause four months of fighting, he approved it after President Masoud Pezeshkian, as chairman of the Supreme National Security Council, accepted responsibility for the deal.

This fired up unyielding supporters of the Islamic Republic who continue to take to city squares and streets at night with backing from armed security forces, angered about the deal.

Critics believe Khamenei was being forced into accepting a bad deal, and hardline clerical lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian even resorted to reading from classified material on live television in an apparent attempt to derail the arrangement. He was removed from the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee earlier this month.

Others went as far as accusing officials of treason, and the president and other officials linked to the deal were heckled during the funeral ceremonies for assassinated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei earlier this month.

The MoU has been suspended by Tehran but was already effectively on the verge of collapse after Iran and the US traded fire over control of the strategic Strait of Hormuz over the past week.

Projection of military and political unity

Since Mojtaba Khamenei’s statement on Saturday, other officials have strived to present a united front between armed forces and the political and diplomatic apparatus, each with their own views on the MoU.

Ali Abdollahi, the head of Iran’s wartime joint command, vowed that the armed forces will heed Khamenei’s directive for “sacred unity and national cohesion”.

But he also warned the US, which he referred to as a “big Satan and criminal enemy”, that it will face a “decisive and destructive response” for its recent attacks on Iran, which has seen bridges, roads, and other civilian infrastructure destroyed.

President Pezeshkian thanked the supreme leader’s “wise” message and highlighted the part where he urged “trust” in the heads of government, parliament and judiciary.

“Adherence to the means of sacred unity and refraining from division and discord is the key to victory at this historic juncture,” he wrote on X.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the parliament speaker who has faced harsh criticism from hardliners as chief negotiator in talks with the Americans, said following Khamenei’s directive is critical to Iran’s success.

“We must regard obedience to this religious and national decree of the supreme leader of the revolution as an important part of our historical role in national resistance and governance of the country,” he also tweeted in Persian on Sunday.

These messages appeared aimed at foreign audiences, coming shortly after senior US officials, anonymously briefing media in Washington, tried to blame the Hormuz escalation on an “errant” hardline faction inside Iran seeking to obstruct negotiations.

The state-linked Khorasan newspaper published an editorial on Sunday saying that Khamenei’s latest statement carried the message that “criticism is accepted, but never accusations” against officials.

“To those who claim to be revolutionaries, the supreme leader’s message was an ultimatum for you: Stop telling lies about the authorities,” the article read.

Iran’s military and political officials did not directly address the claim earlier this month, but released more statements proclaiming a unified view on how to address the conflict and regarding control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Speaking during an interview released on Sunday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi continued to back a negotiated end to the war, which has seen Iran’s civilian infrastructure systematically targeted in US air strikes over the past week.

“If we had reached the [April] ceasefire 10 days earlier, we still had Larijani, Khatib, Asaluyeh and Foolad Mobarakeh,” the chief diplomat said in reference to assassinated security chief Ali Larijani, intelligence minister Esmail Khatib, and the country’s heavily bombed petrochemical facilities and steel plants.

But as tit-for-tat strikes continue between the two sides, there is no sign of both parties returning to the negotiating table.

Rohit Sharma becomes the first Indian to score a one-day century at Lord’s as he scored 138, in an innings that included 22 boundaries, to give India hope of chasing down a record 388 in the decisive third and final One Day International against England.

FOLLOW LIVE: England v India – 3rd ODI

Available to UK users only.

The Asia Pacific’s geopolitical balance is under change. While the U.S. remains the main architect of the plan, it is Australia that is becoming the executor of the strategy in the Oceania region. Through the signing of multiple defense agreements with the small island states, Canberra is transforming itself from a middle power to a regional security player in the South Pacific region. 

Australia, being the most trusted ally of the United States and a member of the two most important defense cooperations, i.e., AUKUS and QUAD, makes it suitable to provide security to its neighbors. By signing the bilateral agreements in the defense domain, Australia, particularly, and the United States, generally, want to counter China’s rising military presence in the Pacific region. The defense deals signed with Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and Fiji collectively demonstrate that work on a broader security plan is under process. Instead of deploying American military bases directly in these states, Washington is relying on Canberra to expand its security footprint in the South Pacific region.  

The recent signing of the Australia-Fiji agreement named “Ocean of Peace Alliance” on July 6, 2026, is the latest in the series. This agreement marks Fiji’s first mutual defense treaty and Australia’s fourth, following treaties with the United States, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea.   Secondly, the announcement of the Pukpuk Treaty entering into force between Australia and Papua New Guinea by PM Anthony Albanese and PM Honourable James Marape MP on July 8, 2026, also showcases a mutual defense commitment. Thirdly, the signing of the Nakamal Agreement between Australia and Vanuatu in June 2026 prevented China from creating military bases in the country.

In addition to this, the new PM of the Solomon Islands, Matthew Wale, has also shown interest in reducing the country’s dependence on China. He stated that the Solomon Islands-China pact, signed in 2022, needs to be revised, which would allow China to deploy its military and police personnel. By signaling on revising the agreement, it clearly demarcates that the Solomon Islands do not want to allow their land to be used for Chinese military bases. This statement proved a silver lining for Australia’s hegemonic designs in the region, as it was fearful that the Solomon Islands would be a foothold for China in the Pacific.

The momentum and process of acquiring a broader Pacific security strategy are extending, as New Zealand PM Christopher Luxon has also shown interest in joining the recently signed Ocean of Peace Alliance. This also marks Australia’s victory in that these Pacific states are gradually turning away from China and moving towards Western allies. This also shows defense cooperation, military exercises, information sharing, and maritime cooperation. In such a case, when there is an attack on any ally in these domains, then others will come to aid and rescue.

Also, the opening of the US Embassy in the Solomon Islands back in 2023 and the agreement between another QUAD member, i.e., Japan, and the Solomon Islands also strengthen Australia’s position in the Pacific region.

Now, the bigger question here is why this change in geopolitical balance is happening and why the regional players are taking the lead despite having the hegemon, i.e., the United States. Rising interference of China by expanding its naval capabilities has drawn concerns of the states in the Oceania region. The recent firing of a long-range ballistic missile in the South Pacific region on the same day that Australia and Fiji signed the treaty sends a clear message that China will not remain quiet on these expanding relations. Although Chinese state media have stated that this firing was just a mere test using dummy warheads. But the concerns of the government officials of the Pacific countries and their rising apprehensions have clearly shown that concerns for Australia and its allies are increasing against China. This fear has enabled them to move towards a securitization strategy and maximize their security capabilities.

Along with benefits, there are various risks for Australia and partnering nations as well by entering into these defense deals. The original plan of keeping the Indo-Pacific free and open for trade for all is gradually turning into a hub of militarization. Therefore, strategic competition between China and Australia will increase more than ever before, compelling Canberra to engage in more economic and defense treaties in the broader Indo-Pacific region to maintain its central position. Additionally, small island states are also in turmoil as they are caught between China and the Western bloc.

Thus, it is clear that the US is expanding its network in the South Pacific region by making Australia a regional security player. This also sends a signal to China that its growing capabilities and tactics will not go unanswered. Moreover, Pacific Island countries are also diversifying their options by signing defense agreements and are not predominantly relying on China. These agreements also reduce the possibility of Beijing having a military presence in the Oceania region. Therefore, whether Australia’s expanding defense network succeeds or not depends on mutual trust. By not compromising the sovereignty of these states, Canberra can only become the regional security provider on its own terms.       

On Tuesday, the Chairman of the Knesset’s Education Committee, Zvi Sukkot of the far-right Religious Zionist Party, arrived at a Palestinian school in East Jerusalem for a “surprise visit” – his second in two weeks. He did not come to evaluate pedagogy or classroom conditions or needs. Instead, he smashed the school’s entrance sign because it featured a Palestinian flag and publicly pledged to shut it down.

This storming of the school was more than just a publicity stunt meant to appeal to his political base ahead of Israel’s October 2026 elections. It was the physical embodiment of a sweeping state campaign targeting Palestinian education in unlawfully occupied and annexed East Jerusalem.

Sukkot is using his position to physically police Palestinian schools. This move comes on top of the Knesset’s aggressive legislative campaign to destroy Palestinian education in East Jerusalem that lawmakers have pushed in recent years.

One such law, passed in January 2026, bars graduates of Palestinian universities in the West Bank from working as teachers in Israel and in East Jerusalem. This law is based on racist ideology and extremist claims that graduates of these universities are inherently dangerous and morally unfit to be educators.

The motives of the law’s proponents were made clear during Knesset deliberations: advancing what several MKs called the “Israelisation” of the educational system and of the students, even at the expense of access to education. In a May 2025 Education Committee session, one Likud MK claimed that this law is needed as teachers who graduate from Palestinian universities “do not cultivate Israelisation” among their students.

The law passed despite the devastating consequences it is bound to have on the already fragile and disadvantaged Palestinian education system in East Jerusalem. This system is largely dependent on graduates of West Bank universities – who are overwhelmingly women – and it already has a serious shortage of teaching staff and classrooms.

Another law, passed in November 2024, which is widely referred to as the “Silencing Law”, gives the Israeli Ministry of Education full discretion to suspend or dismiss teachers through a fast-track administrative process. It targets speech the ministry deems to be “incitement to terrorism”, based on the ambiguous and arbitrary clauses of the Israeli Counter-Terrorism Law, which has become a catch-all mechanism to criminalise Palestinian speech.

The 2024 law also gives the ministry the right to revoke funding from schools on these same grounds, potentially leading to their closure.

Here too, the Knesset Committee’s deliberations on this law revealed an explicit targeting of the Palestinian education system in East Jerusalem and lawmakers’ views that this system is a security threat that must be dealt with. As a Likud MK said during an early 2024 Education Committee discussion on this proposed legislation: “It’s very important that they become Zionists… If I was an Arab from East Jerusalem, the first thing I would be is a Zionist. Above all”.

MK Sukkot’s pledge to shut down the school he attacked is not an idle threat. It follows the closure of six schools in East Jerusalem and its outskirts in 2025, which left 800 Palestinian children suddenly without access to formal education. These closures were the immediate result of the 2024 and 2025 anti-UNRWA laws passed by the Knesset.

The legislation and MK Sukkot’s physical vandalism of a Palestinian school demonstrate the state’s efforts to impose “Israelisation” on young Palestinian students living under occupation, and to erase any trace of Palestinian education and identity, even at the cost of trampling on every legitimate pedagogical need along the way.

Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel – is currently challenging all of these laws before the Israeli Supreme Court, with pending petitions against the ban on Palestinian university graduates, the “Silencing Law” targeting teachers’ political expression, and the anti-UNRWA laws.

We will continue to do all that we can to legally resist the campaign against Palestinian education. But the state’s assault on Palestinian schools will not stop until there is genuine international pressure on the Israeli government to stop its violations of nearly all the human rights of the occupied Palestinian population in East Jerusalem, including the right to education and the right to dignity.

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

So as Argentina prepares to face Spain in the World Cup final why is the team so white in comparison to its South American neighbours? Al Jazeera’s Rahul Pathak explains.

For the first time in U.S. military history, uncrewed surface vessels (USVs) were used as a strike weapon in combat. The use of Saronic Corsair USVs took place July 12 during a series of attacks against “dozens” of Iranian targets, according to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). It came as the U.S. and Iran have continued to trade strikes primarily related to control over the Strait of Hormuz, with President Donald Trump proclaiming he wants to take over the strategic chokepoint and reinstate the naval blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, Iran has also been launching attacks against several Arab nations in the most recent flare-up of hostilities as a shaky ceasefire continues to disintegrate.

“Yesterday, using multiple one-way attack surface drones, CENTCOM forces successfully struck a submarine and ship maintenance facility in Iran,” the command stated on X Monday morning. “Three Corsair unmanned surface vessels hit the port at Bandar Abbas Naval Base, marking the first time American forces have employed sea drones in combat operations. Last night’s strikes degraded Iran’s ability to continue attacking commercial shipping.”

This attack is the latest iteration of the U.S. Navy’s use of drone boats in combat. Last month, a Saronic Corsair USV rescued the crew of a U.S. Army AH-64 Apache that crashed in the Gulf of Oman after it was downed by Iran. That was the first known instance of a drone boat being used to recover personnel as part of a search and rescue mission, and has major implications for these operations going forward. 

“The surface drone that assisted in last night’s rescue of the Apache crew off the coast of Oman was a U.S. Navy Corsair unmanned surface vessel operated by U.S. 5th Fleet’s Task Force 59,” U.S. Navy Capt. Tim Hawkins, a CENTCOM spokesman, told TWZ at the time. “The task force began fielding these drones in theater in late March.”

Historic sea drone rescue near Strait of Hormuz for Apache helicopter crew members

Established in 2021, Task Force 59 is a testbed unit that is tasked with experimenting with the integration of new uncrewed and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities into day-to-day naval operations across the Middle East. It appears that the task force is starting to operationalize those technologies more broadly. Using USVs in an attack role could help reduce the burden on aircraft and crews for strikes, at least against certain targets out to sea and along the coast. Above all else, it creates another vector for kinetic operations against the enemy, which complicates their defensive plans.

In a recent interview with TWZ, Saronic co-founder Rob Lehman declined to provide any details about this mission set or any others Corsair was conducting in the region. However, he did say its success will reverberate across the USV industry.

“I think the tangible impact to the industry is that autonomous systems are now perceived as real credible capabilities rather than a science and technology kind of sideshow where we’re desperately trying to prove that the tech can play a role in these types of operations,” Lehman told us. “So my hope is that not just for Saronic, but all of our partners on the commercial side, that it’s an accelerant to getting more of these capabilities in the war fighters’ hands.” 

As we have frequently reported, Ukraine has used USVs to devastating effect on the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The Magura line of drones, among others, has played a key role in this campaign.

Many successful attacks have been recorded against Black Sea Fleet vessels and facilities, forcing the general evacuation of Russian naval assets from occupied Crimea to bases in Russia proper.

The Houthi rebels of Yemen actually pioneered the operational use of kamikaze USVs years ago. We first reported about this capability in January 2017, when an explosive-laden Houthi USV struck a Saudi frigate. Before that, Iran developed various crude kamikaze USVs and those capabilities soon migrated to their Houthi proxies, which put them to use in the Red Sea for the first time.

You can see the January 2017 attack in the video below.

فيديو يؤكد الهجوم الانتحاري على الفرقاطة السعودية

As we have frequently noted, the U.S. and Iran signed a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on June 17. The MoU provided a 60-day extension of the ceasefire to iron out an agreement to end fighting throughout the region, including Lebanon, prevent Iran from seeking nuclear weapons, end U.S. sanctions and resume the flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, among other points.

Control over the Strait has proven to be the biggest flashpoint, as evidenced by the aforementioned flare-up of fighting.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has continued to claim it controls the Strait.

As we noted earlier in this piece, Trump just proclaimed that the U.S. would take over the Strait.

“We hit them very hard last night,” Trump told Fox News. “Every time they send a drone, we hit them very hard. But we had a deal. What nobody knows, we had a deal. It was a done deal, and then they broke it. They always break it. We’ve had 10 deals with these people, and so we’re just going to hit them very hard, and we’re going to keep the Strait, and we’ll probably run it.”

“We’ll become the guardian of the Strait,” the American leader added. “Maybe we’ll call it the guardian angel of the Strait.”

Trump suggested that the U.S. be paid for this effort.

“And we should be reimbursed for that,” he posited. “When we do that, we’re going to be reimbursed because the other nations are very wealthy.”

Trump also took to his Truth Social network to say that he is reinstating the naval blockade on Iranian ports that was removed when the MoU was signed last month. He added that the U.S. will impose a toll on shipping.

“The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as “THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,” but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World,” the president proffered. “The process and formation will begin immediately.”

The U.S. military using drone boats in a kinetic strike role sets a new precedent not just for operations in the CENTCOM region, but also those in other flashpoints, including the Pacific. It comes as the Pentagon has adopted a number of other capabilities that have been ‘borrowed’ from other conflicts, including the first use of one-way attack drones loosely based on Iran’s Shahed-136, for instance. But it is interesting that these kamikaze drone boats were not deployed at the start of the war, when sea and shore targets were plentiful. That points to the Pentagon still racing to catch-up with some weapons developments from conflict zones overseas or at least at opening the aperture for how and when those technologies are used operationally.

UPDATE: 12:26 PM EDT –

The video released by CENTCOM this morning appears to show one of the Corsair USVs attacking what looks to be a Ghadir class diesel-electric midget submarine.

Given the frequency of U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s key naval base at Bandar Abbas during this conflict, it is unclear how Iran still had any of these vessels left.

As we previously reported, U.S. forces apparently sunk another Ghadir class boat in March. It was struck by an AGM-114 Hellfire missile, a U.S. official told TWZ. At the time, we questioned how many Ghadir class submarines were in Iran’s inventory before the current conflict. However, prior estimates had generally put the size of that fleet at between 16 and 20 hulls.

The Ghadir class boat in the new CENTCOM video was sitting on the dock, so it is possible Iran pulled it out after the ceasefire went into effect. 

UPDATE: 1:01 PM EDT –

Saronic released a statement.

“The U.S. military has confirmed that Saronic Corsairs were used by U.S. Central Command in operations against Iran. According to CENTCOM, three military variant Corsair unmanned surface vessels (USVs) struck a submarine and ship maintenance facility at Bandar Abbas Naval Base — the first time American forces have employed sea drones in combat operations,” the company stated. “We are proud that our technology supported this mission and helped degrade threats to commercial shipping. Saronic remains committed to delivering autonomous maritime systems that strengthen the security of the United States and its allies.”

UPDATE 2:38 PM EDT –

CENTCOM provided an update on the blockade.

“At the Commander in Chief’s direction, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces will resume blockading maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports on July 14 at 4 p.m. ET,” the command stated on X. “CENTCOM forces will enforce the blockade against vessels transiting to or from Iranian ports and coastal areas. The U.S. military continues to support traffic flow through regional waters for all vessels not violating the blockade.”

“The resumption of the U.S. blockade against Iran follows the initial implementation from April 13 to June 18,” the command added. “CENTCOM forces redirected more than 140 compliant vessels, disabled nine non-compliant ships, and allowed over 50 commercial vessels supporting humanitarian aid to pass through the blockade during the two-month period.”

“All mariners are advised to monitor Notice to Mariners broadcasts and contact U.S. naval forces on bridge-to-bridge channel 16 when operating in the Gulf of Oman and Strait of Hormuz approaches,” CENTCOM noted. “Additional information will be provided to commercial mariners through a formal notice.”

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Controversial influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan have been arrested in the US after British authorities issued 38 new charges against the pair.

The UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said Andrew was being charged with seven further counts of rape, as well as charges relating to sex trafficking and indecent images of a child.

Tristan’s charges include two counts of rape and three counts of arranging or facilitating trafficking for sexual exploitation.

The total number of charges against the brothers is now 59, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire police said.

The alleged offending is said to have taken place between July 2010 and August 2017. The Tates have previously denied any wrongdoing.

Following their arrest, prosecutors will begin legal proceeding to extradite the brothers, who are dual British-US citizens, to the UK, the CPS said.

“These charging decisions followed receipt of a further file of evidence from Bedfordshire Police and bring the total number of alleged victims in this case to seven,” Malcolm McHaffie, Head of the Special Crime Division at the CPS, said.

Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire police have been investigating a number of offences in what it called a “complex investigation”.

As a result, 38 new charges were authorised against the brothers, meaning Andrew, 39, faces a total of 42 charges in the UK and Tristan, 37, faces 17.

New Jersey, United States – Tobin Heath knows everything about winning a football World Cup and defending it successfully.

As a key member of the peerless USA women’s football team of the late 2000s and 2010s, Heath won the FIFA World Cup in 2015 and 2019, as well as Olympic gold medals in 2008 and 2012.

But it is not just the medals and honours that elevated her to the pantheon of football greats. Instead, it was Heath’s role in revolutionising the women’s game as a skilful and gifted forward that set her apart.

From mazy runs around defenders while running down the flanks to jaw-dropping assists and finishes inside the penalty area, Heath is often regarded as one of the most technically gifted playmakers in football history.

It is no surprise, then, that Heath’s analysis of World Cup teams as a member of FIFA’s Technical Study Group went viral on social media and prompted questions about why she has not been seen on popular football shows prior to the tournament.

The 38-year-old hung up her boots in 2025 after career-ending injuries forced her into retirement. Her 181 international appearances brought her 36 goals but left an indelible mark on the game.

Having followed the knockout matches as the only female member of an elite panel of analysts at a men’s World Cup, Heath’s insights stood out as the tournament progressed towards the final.

As a World Cup replete with goals – 307 in 103 matches, at an average of nearly three goals per match – the ongoing tournament has left some fans questioning whether more scoring equates to a better overall spectator experience.

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera Sport, Heath shares her thoughts on the goals, players, styles of play and teams that stood out at the FIFA World Cup 2026 and the tournament’s legacy:

Al Jazeera: Have more teams and more matches led to a record number of goals at the World Cup? Is it correct to rank this tournament as the most entertaining edition?

Tobin Heath: Yeah, that’s the biggest factor. For me, this is the evolution of football. It’s an evolution of football that the fans are obviously enjoying.

There are multiple factors [behind the high goal average] that we are analysing. But the top one is where these teams are winning the ball back, how they’re counter-pressing and the use of attack in wide areas. The use of the full-backs in the attack has been a key theme and a big positive for football.

We always want to see more goals. So we have to look at the increased team format and the diversity of the teams that are being matched up with each other. Personally, I love seeing diversity in football.

Stylistically, it makes for very interesting matches, and I think we saw some of those most interesting matches in the group stages and towards the beginning of the knockout rounds, where we saw teams that typically play different styles going toe-to-toe with the giants of football.

Al Jazeera: What impression did the likes of Cape Verde, Egypt, DR Congo and other African teams leave on you?

Heath: It was fantastic. Cape Verde are top of my mind in terms of their results. If you look at their result against Spain in particular, and then the thrilling game against Argentina, it’s basically the two finalists. There’s a direct correlation there, which is fascinating to see. And just the bravery with which they played – with so many low blocks – is very rare.

And then in the Egypt game, another outstanding match against Argentina. The result, very well, could have gone either way for me. It was just a beautiful display of football.

I remember watching the African club teams in the Club World Cup last summer and enjoying African football. I’ve enjoyed playing African teams in the World Cup, too. For me, as a football player, it gives you a different problem to solve.

Another team that stood out for me and that I thoroughly enjoyed this tournament was Ivory Coast. I loved their football, I loved their style, I loved their individual brilliance.

For African football, this is a big positive, and another step in the growth of football on that continent with various styles. And I hope to see more of the same in the Women’s World Cup next summer.

Al Jazeera: Having been a big exponent of attractive football in your playing days and a proponent of it after your retirement, how would you rate the different styles on display at the World Cup? And did you think it was an entertaining World Cup?

Heath: Oh my gosh, 100 percent! What we have seen in the level of creativity in this tournament has been nothing short of inspiring.

I became a huge fan of France because at any given moment on the pitch, you could see something that has never been done before in football. You’d see innovative football, innovative individual players.

Creativity has been at an all-time high. When you see the best players in the world performing at the top level, being highest in all the metrics. You look at (Jude) Bellingham, (Kylian) Mbappe, (Lionel) Messi, (Erling) Haaland – these are the best players that were showcasing their best football in this tournament.

There’s something in the water in the US that we just love our stars, we love putting them on a platform and the stars showed up big time at this World Cup.

Al Jazeera: Which young players have impressed you the most and what do their performances mean for the future of football?

Heath: The most incredible name that stands out for me is (Pau) Cubarsi.

To be so young, to play so many minutes and be so effective with this Spanish defence, it highlights an incredible way that Spain is generationally able to really connect the ideas and implementation of the type of football that they want to play.

I hope and pray that we see Lamine Yamal perform in a supersonic way in the final. He’s due for a moment. The anticipation has been there all tournament.

We talked about these young players, but we also have to highlight what Messi is doing and the age at which he’s doing it. It’s nothing short of extraordinary. I was laughing that we should give out a veteran award, but he could also win player of the tournament.

From the young superstars to the old, football is in good hands for generations to come.

Al Jazeera: What do you think about the future of football in the US and what this World Cup has done for it?

Heath: It’s so interesting because I’ve been thinking about this a lot. Our culture and society move fast. There are so many things that capture the attention of Americans at any given moment, and the World Cup captured the audience.

We put on a fantastic event; we showcased incredible stadiums and what the different parts of our country look like in the summertime, from the Pacific Northwest to the Miami heat. Stadiums with roofs to uncovered stadiums.

And yet, I’m left wondering how it affects football for us, especially men’s football in our country.

We talk about stars and the importance of stars in our country, but when I think about the players who had a good tournament, including Malik Tillman and Folarin Balogun, there’s no stardom. It’s a little lacklustre for what the USA team and the World Cup have done in terms of the popularity and interest in this country.

I hope that there is a direct correlation with players to come, both girls and boys, who can point to this World Cup as their inspiration. It will be the greatest indication of whether this tournament was a success.

Our country has been captured by the moment of watching the World Cup, but no one knows if they’ve been captured with it in their soul. It feels a little bit like a flash in the pan.

Al Jazeera: What is the biggest footballing aspect that stood out for you at this World Cup?

Heath: The gap between the possibility of winning a World Cup and actually winning a World Cup. It’s still extremely wide.

We had competitive matches, smaller teams going toe-to-toe with the biggest giants in the world, but it still seems that the closer you get, the bigger the gap between the top teams that can realistically go far in the tournament and the ones we enjoyed watching in the beginning.

I always say, winning is a muscle. It’s no surprise that we have two teams in the final that have enjoyed a lot of success in international football.

We see this both in men’s and women’s football. It will take something truly special to be able to break into that group.

Note: This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

On July 14 the crews of the Mombasa and the Al Bahiyah found out. Two UAE-flagged tankers were hit by Iranian cruise missiles in the southern lane, inside Omani territorial waters, according to the Emirati defense ministry. An Indian sailor was killed and eight others were hurt, six Indians and two Ukrainians, and India summoned Iran’s deputy ambassador the same day. The Revolutionary Guard said the ships had run dark and ignored repeated warnings on a mined route. They had been following the other government’s instructions.

This is what a diplomatic technique looks like when it fails in public.

The technique has a name, and for fifty years the profession has been proud of it. Constructive ambiguity, Henry Kissinger’s phrase, is the art of writing a sentence that lets two enemies sign the same page while believing opposite things. Resolution 242 called for Israeli withdrawal from “territories” occupied in 1967, and the missing definite article has been argued over for fifty-nine years. The Good Friday Agreement left the sovereignty question deliberately unfinished. Ambiguity is not a drafting failure. It is often the only reason a war stops on the day it stops.

The Islamabad Memorandum, signed on June 17 by Donald Trump and Masoud Pezeshkian and brokered by Pakistan, used the same tool. Read Paragraph 5 and you can watch it happen. Iran undertakes to use “best efforts” for the safe passage of commercial vessels “with no charge, for 60 days only,” and to open a dialogue with Oman on the strait’s future administration “in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states. ” Tehran reads that as recognition that Iran determines safe passage and will price it when the clock runs out. Washington and the Gulf states read best efforts as an obligation to facilitate passage and nothing more. Fourteen points. One waterway. Two meanings, both sincere.

Here is what the drafters missed, and it is the reason the strikes came back and the market is repricing this week. Constructive ambiguity works on questions that can sit still. A border can stay contested for six decades because a border does nothing in the meantime. Sovereignty over Northern Ireland is not exercised on Tuesday at 4 p.m. by a specific person who has to make a call.

A strait is not like that. Before the war, roughly 130 vessels crossed Hormuz every day. That is one ship approaching the disputed sentence about every eleven minutes, each one requiring somebody to physically wave it through or turn it back. Paragraph 5 does not get to be undecided. It gets decided, hundreds of times a day, by a coastal battery commander at Bandar Abbas and a watch officer on a destroyer, neither of whom has the luxury of interpretation.

The memorandum deferred two questions to a second phase. One of them, Iran’s nuclear program, can wait, because centrifuges do not require a daily ruling. The other cannot wait an afternoon. The drafters treated them as the same kind of problem, and only one of them is shooting. JD Vance, who runs the American side of the file, conceded the point on a podcast Wednesday without appearing to notice he had made it: the nuclear negotiations he leads have stalled over the strait.

Everything since follows from that. Six consecutive nights of American strikes. A naval blockade of Iranian ports has been back in force since Wednesday, with a Curacao-flagged tanker disabled by Hellfire missiles fired into its smokestack near Kharg Island. Iran’s ambassador filed a letter at the U.N. listing 42 American violations of a text Trump declared dead on July 8 and Tehran stopped complying with on the 13th, which tells you the memorandum has become useless as a truce and indispensable as a claim. Both capitals still cite Paragraph 5. Neither will be governed by it. They are both telling the truth about a sentence that says two things.

Trump’s week makes more sense in this light than in any other. On Monday he declared the United States “guardian” of the strait and announced a 20% charge on cargo passing through it. By Tuesday the fee was gone, swapped for promises of Gulf investment, after the International Maritime Organization said there is no legal basis for mandatory tolls simply to transit a strait and shipowners refused to play. On Thursday, IRNA reported that Tehran is preparing environmental compensation fees on transiting ships. Both governments have now tried to invoice the same water in the same week, and neither can collect. That is not a strategy, and it is not a neoconservative plot. That is what happens when the document you signed does not contain the authority you thought you had bought.

He said on Tuesday that next week come the bridges. The bridges came Friday. American strikes hit six of them around Bandar Khamir and a railway junction outside Bandar Abbas, cutting Iran’s main port off from the roads inland, and collapsed the control tower at Chabahar. Iran’s health ministry counts 38 dead and more than 400 wounded since the strikes resumed. Even Trump’s own deadlines are now being decided faster than he sets them.

The market is the only participant being paid to read Paragraph 5 honestly, and its verdict is arriving. Brent touched $86 on Tuesday, a one-month high, and held above $85 through a week in which the peace was formally alive. Traffic tells it better than price. Eleven ships crossed on the day Iran declared the strait closed. Seven crossed on Wednesday. Three crossed Thursday, the fewest since May, against 130 a day before the war. One ship every eleven minutes has become one ship every eight hours.

Rory Johnston of Commodity Context makes the harder point, and it deserves more attention than it has received. The stock cushion that absorbed the spring’s supply shock has been drawn down, which means the next shock will not be padded the way the last one was. The price is not high because the war is bad. It is high because the peace is unreadable.

Americans are paying in a currency the ceasefire never touched. Thirteen of the fourteen U.S. service members killed in this war died in March, before any truce existed. What has climbed through every pause is the wounded count, now 414, most of them with traumatic brain injuries. Truces here have reliably stopped the funerals and never stopped the concussions.

The mediators still working the phones in Islamabad, Doha, and Cairo do not need a grand bargain by August 16, when the memorandum’s sixty-day clock runs out and Iran has promised to start charging. They need something duller and much harder. They need to convert one sentence into a procedure: who physically waves the ship through, on whose radio frequency, under whose flag, and with what recourse when someone gets it wrong. Not sovereignty over the strait. Traffic control of it. The nuclear file can keep. The lane cannot.

Iran released an American detainee on Wednesday, which some in Washington read as a hand reaching for a rail. Nobody has set a date for the conversation that would matter. If none is set, the war will not restart in August. It will simply stop pretending to have paused, and a ship’s master off Oman will keep making a sovereign decision on behalf of two governments that refuse to make it for him.

Constructive ambiguity is a loan against the future. Most disputes let you pay it back slowly. Hormuz charges interest by the hour.

The 2026 World Cup final will feature two live performances: one before kickoff and another at half-time.

The match will be played at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey on Sunday, July 19, with some of the world’s biggest musicians taking the stage as part of the celebrations.

Here is what to know:

When is the World Cup 2026 final?

The World Cup final between Spain and Argentina will take place on Sunday, July 19.

Kickoff is scheduled for 3pm local time in East Rutherford, New Jersey, which is 19:00 GMT.

The match will be played at MetLife Stadium, home of the NFL’s New York Giants and New York Jets. During the tournament, the venue has been temporarily renamed New York-New Jersey Stadium.

The multipurpose stadium can hold up to 82,500 spectators for football matches. It also hosted the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup final and both semifinals.

What time does the World Cup closing ceremony start?

The World Cup closing ceremony will begin at 1:30pm local time (17:30 GMT) in New Jersey on Sunday, July 19.

Jennifer Hudson will also perform the United States national anthem before kickoff.

The ceremony will celebrate the 48 teams that competed across the three host countries and 16 host cities during the tournament.

When does the half-time show start?

Unlike the closing ceremony, which takes place before kickoff, the half-time show will be staged during the interval between the first and second halves. With kickoff at 3pm local time (19:00 GMT), it is expected to begin just after 3:45pm local time (19:45 GMT), depending on stoppage time.

The half-time performance is expected to last about 11 minutes, although FIFA has not officially confirmed the length of the interval. Reports suggest the break could be extended beyond the standard 15 minutes to between 20 and 25 minutes to allow time for the stage to be installed and removed.

Under the Laws of the Game set by the International Football Association Board (IFAB), half-time should not exceed 15 minutes. However, competition rules can allow a longer interval with the referee’s approval, and FIFA has not explained how the extended break will be implemented.

Although this will be the first half-time show in a World Cup final, FIFA tested the concept at last year’s Club World Cup final at MetLife Stadium. That performance took place on a stage above the stands and the interval lasted just over 24 minutes.

Unlike the Club World Cup final, Sunday’s stage will be built directly on the pitch before being removed ahead of the second half. Organisers say it has been designed to be assembled and dismantled within minutes.

Longer half-time breaks are not unusual in major sporting events. Shakira’s performance at the 2024 Copa America final delayed the restart by about 26 minutes.

Who is performing at the World Cup closing ceremony?

On Wednesday, football’s governing body said American rapper-singer Post Malone will headline the ceremony.

The World Cup closing ceremony will also feature performances by Italian singer Laura Pausini, American singer Nicole Scherzinger, British pop star Robbie Williams and YouTube creator IShowSpeed. Actor Tom Cruise is also set to make a special appearance.

Produced by Balich Wonder Studio, the ceremony is designed to celebrate the tournament’s defining moments and the global appeal of football after a month of competition across the United States, Canada and Mexico.

FIFA has said additional performers and special guests will be announced closer to the final.

“Echoing the spirit of the opening ceremonies, which welcomed the world to the greatest stage in Canada, Mexico and the US, the closing ceremony will bring the FIFA World Cup 2026 full circle through music, culture and football, before we kick off the highly anticipated match that will crown the champions of this groundbreaking tournament,” said Heimo Schirgi, chief operating officer.

Who is performing at the half-time show?

Justin Bieber will join Madonna, Shakira and BTS as headliners of Sunday’s halftime show.

They will be joined by Nigerian singer Burna Boy, Venezuelan conductor Gustavo Dudamel and New York’s PS22 Chorus, with the performance curated by Coldplay frontman Chris Martin.

The show will support the FIFA Global Citizen Education Fund, which aims to raise $100m to expand access to education for children.

“The FIFA World Cup brings the world together in a way nothing else can,” Bieber said in a statement. “I’m grateful to be part of this half-time show, and even more grateful knowing it’s already helping expand access to education for children around the world.”

Burna Boy, who collaborated with Shakira on the tournament’s official song, Dai Dai, said performing at the final was “a privilege and a responsibility” and an opportunity to represent Africa on the global stage.

How can I watch the World Cup final and shows?

In the US, the match will air in English on FOX and in Spanish on Telemundo and Universo, with streaming available through the FOX Sports app, FOX One and Peacock.

In Canada, viewers can watch on CTV and TSN, while audiences in Mexico can tune in through TelevisaUnivision, TV Azteca and ViX.

Across the Middle East and North Africa, the match will be broadcast live on beIN Sports.

‘King [Messi] abdicates, but the prince [Lamine Yamal] takes the throne!’
Spain fans filled the streets of New York with chants and songs ahead of the World Cup final against defending champions Argentina. Spain’s supporters are confident a new generation can bring the trophy home.

The Pentagon has reached new framework agreements with three defense contractors as part of a strategy to acquire thousands of lower-cost air-launched cruise missiles in the coming years. The deals are directly in support of the U.S. Air Force’s Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program. The Air Force has already said that it is aiming to buy nearly 28,000 FAMM munitions in the next five years.

Under FAMM, the Air Force plans to acquire multiple types of lower-cost cruise missiles in different configurations. This will include ‘lugged’ types (FAMM-L) designed to be launched directly from hardpoints on aircraft, as well as ones intended to be employed from cargo planes via palletized munitions systems (FAMM-P). The service is also pursuing extended-range FAMM-BAR designs, with BAR here standing for “Beyond Adversary’s Reach.”

“Through [FAMM] agreements with Anduril, CoAspire, and Zone 5, the DoW will accelerate rapid validation of a new family of low-cost, air-launched cruise missiles – capabilities that will strengthen the Arsenal of Freedom,” according to a press release from the Pentagon today. “The agreements are a direct outcome of several Acquisition Transformation Strategy initiatives, including stabilizing demand signals, procuring industry-driven solutions, and maximizing flexible contracting.”

Anduril, CoAspire, and Zone 5 were also among the companies to receive framework deals from the Pentagon in May as part of plans to buy 10,000 lower-cost ground-launched cruise missiles through 2029. This is under a separate program called Low-Cost Containerized Missiles (LCCM). Leidos is part of the LCCM effort, as well. At that time, the Pentagon announced an additional agreement with Castelion regarding the production of 12,000 Blackbeard lower-cost hypersonic missiles. It’s also worth noting here that, since then, Norwegian defense contractor Kongsberg has aquired Zone 5.

“A key feature of these [FAMM] deals is the establishment of seven-year, multi-year agreements which, subject to congressional appropriations and enactment of all necessary authorizations, will be awarded upon the successful validation and competitive selection of the munitions,” today’s release adds. “The Department was granted 5-year authorization for FAMM in the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and is actively seeking congressional approval in the FY27 NDAA and Appropriations Bill for a 7-year multi-year procurement program to provide stability to new entrants.”

The Pentagon’s press release does not name any specific munitions.

Anduril has confirmed that its contribution will be versions of its Barracuda-500 design, and that it is aiming to start making deliveries under FAMM next year. The company will also be delivering a surface-launched version of the Barracuda-500 for the LCCM effort. Anduril first unveiled the full Barracuda family, which includes several tiers of what it calls “expendable autonomous air vehicles,” back in 2024, as you can read more about here. There are reports that at least one version of the Barracuda-500 has received an official U.S. military designation, AGM-189A.

Introducing: Barracuda-M Family of Cruise Missiles

“We joined the FAMM-L program in February 2026 and will execute the first ground and flight tests for Lug-Launched Barracuda-500M in the next several months,” Anduril noted in its release. “We completed the first successful flight test of Pallet-Launched Barracuda-500M in September 2024 and have since conducted dozens of successful flight tests that have further validated the maturity, performance, and modularity of the Barracuda-500 system, including Networked Collaborative Autonomy flights, terminal engagements, and payload performance validation testing.”

Zone 5 has also confirmed that it will be supplying its AGM-188A Rusty Dagger missile.

“By leveraging modern manufacturing and commercial technology, we are breaking the traditional cost curve, enabling the Department of War to field scalable, affordable capacity. The AGM-188 Rusty Dagger will deliver thousands of weapons per year for fighter and cargo aircraft employment but importantly without sacrificing exquisite performance,” Zone 5’s CEO Thomas Akers said in a statement. “Modern conflict has made one thing clear – the ability to rapidly scale production without sacrificing capability is critically important for air superiority. Rusty Dagger is built to deliver affordable, adaptable, highly survivable, incredibly lethal and rapidly deployable weapons that give the U.S. and our allies the ability to outpace and overwhelm evolving threats without being constrained by cost or production limitations.”

The deal with CoAspire is for that company’s Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile.

“The inclusion of CoAspire in this groundbreaking FAMM program multi-year agreement underscores CoAspire’s ability to revolutionize our country’s strike capabilities, offering a long-range solution that can be deployed across multiple platforms,” Doug Denneny, CoAspire’s CEO, Owner, and Founder, said in his own statement. “We, and our 56 first-tier suppliers across almost every state are excited to support the Air Force’s need to affordably procure thousands of FAMM cruise missiles over seven years. We applaud the Department’s inclusion of CoAspire as the only small business in this historic production opportunity. This is a true commitment to expand the defense industrial base while growing jobs across the US and bringing affordable cruise missile capabilities to the Air Force.”

RAACM Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile

Rusty Dagger and RAACM were both developed initially under the Air Force’s Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) program. ERAM’s main initial focus has been on delivering lower-cost air-launched strike capabilities to Ukraine. Zone 5 has previously confirmed that AGM-188A deliveries to Ukraine have begun, but it is unclear whether they are now being employed operationally. ERAM is known to be feeding into the FAMM effort, as well.

Overall, “offering both lugged and palletized variants, the FAMM provides the Air Force with flexible logistics, handling, and deployment options,” the Pentagon’s press release today notes.

“The multi-year approach utilizes firm-fixed-price contracting with a minimum quantity floor. Shares are split among all qualified vendors to ensure multiple production lines are positioned to surge,” the release further explains. “Contractors that meet or exceed production schedules will be eligible for additional procurement quantities – pending congressional appropriations – fostering a competitive environment that rewards efficiency and speed.”

These latter points highlight the fact that the FAMM program, as well as the LCCM effort, has a larger goal of addressing the critical need for strike munitions that can be produced at scale and in a cost-effective manner. TWZ has been calling attention to this broader reality for years, which has only been underscored by the latest conflict with Iran and a succession of other global crises. As we previously wrote after the announcement of the LCCM framework deals:

“Expenditures of critical air-to-surface and surface-to-surface munitions, as well as anti-air interceptors, by the U.S. military, as well as its allies and partners, in conflicts in recent years have only underscored the vital need to bolster these inventories. Demand for stand-off munitions, in particular, would be far greater in any future high-end fight against a near-peer adversary like China. That is a scenario where American forces could easily find themselves tasked to prosecute tens of thousands of targets, just in the opening phase.”

“Furthermore, existing munitions are often exquisite in design, and take months, or more often years, of lead time to produce. The Pentagon’s focus on “disruptive new entrants and commercial innovators,” rather than any of America’s long-established prime defense contractors, with its newly announced framework deals, is extremely significant in its own right. This is the latest example of a major shift away from awarding high-profile contracts to large legacy providers, helping to diversify the industrial base and promote competition. This also means moving away from companies accustomed to very long lead procurement and production arrangements.”

The Pentagon has also made clear that the FAMM framework agreements with Anduril, CoAspire, and Zone 5 do not preclude other companies from being brought into the program in the future. “The Department will also preserve competition opportunities for new vendors to be onboarded for additional quantities and new capabilities in the future as technology continues to advance,” per today’s release.

The market space for lower-cost cruise missiles has exploded in recent years in the United States and elsewhere globally. Relevant designs also occupy a space where the defining lines between these weapons and long-range kamikaze drones, as well as decoys, are increasingly blurry. Overlap between the FAMM and LCCM programs also highlights how many of these weapons are being adapted for launch from air, land, and maritime domains, which can help streamline production and supply chains, as well as offer operational benefits.

Taking deliberate steps to leave the door open to future competition reflects a larger push to avoid so-called ‘vendor lock’ in the U.S. defense contracting space. This has also been punctuated by moves to ensure greater government control of intellectual property rights and a focus on modular, open-architecture systems across major U.S. military acquisition efforts.

With the FAMM framework deals announced today, on top of the LCCM agreements back in May, the Pentagon is continuing to lay a vital foundation for the procurement of thousands of lower-cost strike munitions for years to come.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently launched a public attack on the International Criminal Court (ICC), vowing to “dismantle the ICC—brick by brick.” Washington’s position is that the ICC has no authority to try officials from non-member states—such as the US itself—or their allies, and that it will not accept any international court exercising jurisdiction over American citizens without US consent. Washington therefore intends to use diplomatic pressure and sanctions to counter the Court.

If one still believes in the international community’s definition of war crimes, this looks like a political move to absolve the United States and Israel of war crimes committed in the Middle East. To that end, Washington is pressuring allies — including states that are parties to the Rome Statute — to withdraw from the ICC.

“Trump said in January, ‘I don’t need international law’ to highlight his ‘America First’ policy. He is now keeping that promise, and the ICC is just one example.”

The day before Rubio announced his intent to dismantle the ICC, fourteen countries, including the United States, publicly reaffirmed their support for the ten-year-old ruling in the South China Sea Arbitration—a decision handed down by another international arbitration body: an ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Ironically, of the fourteen countries, only the Philippines—the actual party to the case—has a direct stake in South China Sea rights. The other five countries with genuine interests in the South China Sea did not join this “cheerleading squad”: Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, and Indonesia. Of these, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei are, like the Philippines, “principal claimant states.”

Aside from the US and the Philippines, every other country among the fourteen marking the tenth anniversary of the ruling is an ICC member state: Australia, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Romania, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom.

These 12 ICC member states have no stake whatsoever in South China Sea affairs, yet they support an international arbitration body — and are now being pressured by the United States to boycott another international arbitration body they themselves belong to. Fourteen countries are happy to use international law to pressure China, but when international law becomes inconvenient for the US and Israel, is that suddenly a different matter?

The Philippines finds itself in the most awkward position of all. Manila withdrew from the ICC in 2019, yet after Ferdinand Marcos Jr. took office as president, it allowed Interpol and Philippine airport authorities to arrest former president Rodrigo Duterte in 2025 and hand him directly over to the ICC for trial.

The real story behind this episode is domestic political rivalry within the Philippines, combined with Washington’s long-standing displeasure with Duterte. International institutions have played the role of “witch-hunt enforcer,” helping the US and Manila nail a political opponent to the cross.

In the past, the international community could invoke Rome Statute standards to brand Duterte’s “war on drugs” a crime against humanity. But what now?

The ICC cannot prosecute non-member states, but it can prosecute individuals—such as Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover, under the Rome Statute’s territoriality principle, the Court has jurisdiction if the alleged crime occurred on the territory of a member state. In the Middle East case, Palestine is a state party. In the Philippine case, although Manila withdrew from the ICC in 2019, crimes committed before that withdrawal remain within the Court’s reach.

The reason the US can attack the ICC so freely is that other international arbitration bodies do not follow this same “detour through territoriality” to claim jurisdiction over non-member states, nor do they try individuals—they adjudicate sovereign states (or transnational corporate entities). As such, they strictly adhere to the most fundamental principle of international law: the principle of state consent.

Interestingly, the tribunal that presided over the South China Sea arbitration itself violated the principle of state consent by ruling on a case brought against China, which refused to participate. This is precisely why China has never recognized the ruling as having any legal basis. Yet the fourteen countries that support the ruling seem untroubled by this violation of a core principle of international law.

In other words, both the ICC and the ad hoc tribunal behind the South China Sea arbitration suffer from the same flaw: overreach. The ICC has been accused of an “idealism” that oversteps state sovereignty, while the South China Sea tribunal has been criticized for “procedural overreach”—under UNCLOS, an ad hoc tribunal has no authority whatsoever over land territorial sovereignty, yet the tribunal accepted the Philippines’ framing that “downgraded” what were really sovereignty and maritime-delimitation questions into a simple matter of “the legal status of islands and reefs” and used that framing to assert jurisdiction for itself.

Taiwan was an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire of the South China Sea arbitration. Itu Aba (Taiping Island), which is under the actual control of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and has both fresh water and the capacity to sustain human habitation, was nonetheless ruled to be a mere “”rock”—stripping it of any 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone.

Given that both international arbitration bodies suffer from the same problem of overreach, if one follows the US in opposing the ICC, shouldn’t one logically also oppose the South China Sea ruling? This month, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs launched an “urgent assessment” to awkwardly grapple with exactly this dilemma, since Manila has skin in both games—the Duterte case and the South China Sea ruling.

If Manila agrees to help dismantle the ICC, what happens to Duterte, still awaiting trial in The Hague? And if China then uses that same logic to reject the South China Sea ruling, what then? The other twelve member states that joined this “witch hunt” find themselves in an equally awkward spot.

Second only to the Philippines in embarrassment is Japan. Tokyo is the ICC’s largest financial backer; the Court’s current president, Tomoko Akane, is Japanese; and Japan has long been one of the ICC’s staunchest supporters. Is Tokyo now expected to help the US dismantle the ICC or to withdraw from it altogether?

Japan also finds itself in a glaring contradiction over the South China Sea ruling. If Taiwan-controlled Taiping Island—with an area of 510,000 square meters (roughly the size of 71 standard football pitches), fresh water, and the capacity to sustain habitation)—was ruled a mere “rock,” then how can Okinotorishima, an outcrop Japan claims sovereignty over that covers just 9.44 square meters (about the size of a double bed), possibly qualify as an “island”?

By that logic, Tokyo’s support for the South China Sea ruling effectively concedes that Okinotorishima has no exclusive economic zone at all — a self-inflicted contradiction that China has been quick to mock.

One could, therefore, say all fourteen countries backing the South China Sea ruling are applying a double standard, and that thirteen of them have no connection to the South China Sea whatsoever. Aside from the Philippines, the only country with any real claim to South China Sea interests is the United States — and the US holds international law in contempt, going so far as to vow to destroy an international arbitration institution outright.

This episode symbolizes the unraveling of the international order—a world reverting to the law of the jungle. The United States is dismantling the very international order it built, and the ones hurt most are precisely its own allies.

The Philippines and Japan have been given the responsibility of encircling China on the front line by the United States, but the footholds of the two countries are also being dismantled by the United States. In front of them, there is only the risk of opposing China and the weakening guarantee.

Above all, the United States has proven, by its own actions, that the so-called international order was never fair and never operated on a fixed standard — it was merely a temporary tool for an empire to rule the world. And when the tool stops being useful, it gets discarded, leaving its followers staring, embarrassed, at the tool still in their hands.

The US has launched a new wave of strikes on Iran after two American soldiers were killed by Iranian strikes in Jordan. President Donald Trump called it ‘swift punishment’, as Al Jazeera’s Heidi Zhou-Castro reports.

San Juan arrives at the Cruz de Mayo Wake

For this second installment of our work on Venezuela’s life cycle festivities (click here for part I), we present an in-depth conversation with the renowned Venezuelan musician, cultural practitioner, and percussionist Rolando Canónico. Together, we reflect on the immense responsibility of preserving Venezuelan traditions, specifically during festivals such as Cruz de Mayo and San Juan. From his dual role as a professional musician and cultural worker, Canónico addresses the tension between the commodification of music or competitive virtuosity and absolute respect for ancestral rhythmic and melodic patterns, defending the playing of the drum as an act of genuine devotion rather than a spectacle. He further delves into the powerful spiritual and syncretic connection he experiences when “dialoguing” with the instrument, underscoring his firm commitment to protecting and passing on this invaluable family and cultural heritage to new generations in Caracas.

A percussionist, drummer, and cultural creator, Canónico has participated in Fundación Bigott and renowned musical groups such as Caracas Sincrónica and Francisco Pacheco y su Pueblo. His trajectory is intertwined with a more discrete, yet vital, task: safeguarding Venezuelan musical memory. What began as a conversation between friends turned into a deep discussion about ethics, spirituality, and the responsibility of honoring the legacy of our ancestors in the twenty-first century.

Family and heritage: the weaving of a music lineage

To understand Rolando Canónico, one must look back at his ancestry. “My paternal grandparents passed away many years ago: Luisa Amelia Aponte de Canónico and Benito Canónico,” he recounts. Benito Canónico was the author of “El Totumo de Guarenas,” an important folk music composition. A musical heritage that flows through Rolando’s veins. However, as we delve into his role as a “host” of these festivities, Rolando turned his gaze toward his maternal lineage –to the women who, through the energy of daily life, kept the flame of devotion alive.

His story takes us to the Afinque Marín in the densely populated Afro-Venezuelan community of San Agustín, Caracas, where his maternal great-grandmother became a cultural bridge. “When that wave of people from Barlovento arrived –that migration boom from Barlovento to Caracas –she had the opportunity to be there when all these cultural expressions arrived,” he explained. It was there that, without any artistic pretensions, driven solely by faith, his great-grandmother began to adorn the Cruz de Mayo.

This responsibility passed to his grandmother, Rosa Emilia Pérez Sanz. “She embraced it as such,” Rolando told us, describing a pedagogical-community learning process where knowledge wasn’t taught in classrooms, but rather through observation and habits shared with neighbors. Music, for its part, was naturally incorporated through his mother, the founder of local band Los Tucusitos, blending Christmas carols with the fervor of the Cruz de Mayo vigil. For Rolando, that early exposure to music, combined with the discipline of his musical training, allowed him to turn a family passion into a profession.

A double celebration: a rite of transition and coming together

The celebration that Rolando Canónico holds at his home in La Pastora is not a one-off event, but rather part of a 43-year tradition that has been formally recognized by the Culture Ministry’s Institute of Cultural Heritage for the past 15 years. Every last Saturday in May, the house becomes the setting for a symbolic transition: the farewell to May, dedicated to Cruz de Mayo (May Cross), and welcoming June, the month of San Juan.

The logistical effort is monumental. “It’s not just a matter of sitting there, shouting some stuff, and that’s it,” Rolando emphasized. The process begins days in advance, with the presentation of newborn children and spiritual cleansings. Rather than merely attending as spectators, the community becomes an active participant: “People already know when it is; they don’t even ask anymore –they just show up with a small bouquet of flowers, a candle, fruit, or even a kilo of vegetables for the soup.”

The masterfully designed altar serves both festivities. “We make one, but it also serves as decoration for both,” explained Rolando, describing a symbolic overlap where the Cross is moved aside to make way for San Juan. This is the moment when devotion becomes tangible.

One of the most tense and beautiful moments of the night is the ritual procession. When San Juan arrives, the Cross, guarded by its devotees, seems to resist the change. “That encounter there, that clash, there comes a moment when San Juan announces that he’s going to come out, and the Cross doesn’t want him to,” Rolando tells us with the intensity of someone who has deeply witnessed that “struggle.”

To manage this tension, Rolando delegates to a decimista [poet], who acts as a mediator. He not only sings but also has the authority to say “He said it right!” at the precise moment when the euphoria outside the house reaches its climax. It’s a necessary exercise in control: “I have to do it this way because otherwise the whole thing turns into a conflict.” As the sirens* and golpes de tambor** intertwine, the cross at the altar gives way to the triumphal entry of San Juan, closing one portal to open another.

Rolando Canónico narrates the intensity of this coming together:

That encounter there, that clash, there comes a moment when San Juan announces that he’s coming out, and the Cross doesn’t want him to. So the devotees of the Cross hold their ground. It’s something beautiful, truly beautiful. Right there in that moment, with San Juan already coming down the stairs and the fulía [traditional rhythm] playing at the altar, the devotees form a circle so the fulía doesn’t stop. In the end it’s not a struggle but a meeting. The meeting where San Juan rises as he descends the stairs, already looking toward the Cross, and he’s trying to leave the house to welcome those who are coming. It’s as if he’s saying, “I’m letting you know that I’m on my way here.”

Regarding the energy that is unleashed when the festival reaches its peak with the arrival of the San Juan statues, Canónico adds: “That’s the moment when the altar of the Cross begins to be dismantled, when all the crosses are removed to make way for San Juan.” “That clash there between the Cross and San Juan gives you a powerful feeling,” he continued. “And when the three San Juan statues meet in front of the house, I can’t even describe it…”

Responsibility toward our ancestors and their legacy

If there is something Rolando Canónico is known for, it is his intransigence toward shoddy work. In a world where the commodification of traditional music threatens to sever it from its roots, he stands as a bulwark.

“In my house, I don’t accept things done poorly.” For him, the drum is not an instrument for competition or for displaying empty virtuosity. “I’m not putting on a show. I’m fulfilling a family promise,” he emphatically clarifies. His authority within the festival doesn’t stem from arrogance, but from a deep understanding of and respect for the musical codes, styles, discipline, and rigor that his teachers instilled in him.

This rigor extends to his training of new generations. Rolando is fully aware of his role as a guide and seeks to prepare his nephew and other young people so that the tradition is not diluted by stage “improvisations.” It is a pedagogy by example: he inaugurates each drum, ensuring that the rhythmic foundation is consistent with what has been passed down for centuries.

Finally, the conversation heads into more intimate territory: the relationship between the musician-artist and the divine. When asked if he experiences an altered state of consciousness while playing, Rolando responds with overwhelming sincerity. “I am a devotee of San Juan the Baptist; I am a santero… my spirituality is deeply connected to the drum.”

For Canónico, there is no separation between the musician who reads the score and the practitioner who offers his prayer through the drum’s vibrations. “That’s the best spiritual cleansing there can be here –playing the drum the right way,” he affirms. “I say ‘the right way’ because with the drum, you have to communicate with it.”

This dialogue, this meeting between the sacred and the profane, is what makes the festival in La Pastora, in Rolando’s own words, a “formidable experience.” By the end of our interview, it’s clear that his work is not merely a tribute to the past, but a strategy for cultural re-existence. As our interviewee aptly summarized at the end of our meeting, the true responsibility of a cultural artist is to ensure that, when San Juan arrives at his doorstep, the drum sounds exactly as it should: with the truth of the ancestors and the strength of a future that, thanks to people like him, is guaranteed a place in Venezuela’s collective memory.

Notes

*Sirenas are a cappella songs with an octosyllabic quatrain meter used to express devotion to both the Cross and San Juan.

**Golpes de tambor refers to multiple rhythms where drums, usually in sets of three, are the main protagonists. From a melody standpoint, singers take turns between solos and choruses.

See below for more details on the festivities and the surrounding music.

Fabiola José is a Venezuelan singer. She has performed in countries across South America, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Her singles and albums are available on all digital platforms. She hosted and produced “Cantante y Sonante” for Radio Nacional de Venezuela. In 2018–2019, she created a series of videos for social media, published on her YouTube channel #HechoEnCasa. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Music from IUDEM, Caracas (2005); specialized under Maestro Tom Krause in Spain (2007); and an M.A. in Arts and Cultures of the South from UNEARTE, Venezuela (2020).

Fidel Barbarito is a Venezuelan musician and researcher, with a bachelor’s and master’s degrees in music and history, respectively. He teaches in the undergraduate and graduate programs at the National Experimental University of the Arts (UNEARTE). Together with Fabiola José, he promotes several musical projects aimed at disseminating traditional folk repertoires, integrating them with contemporary compositions inspired by these sounds. Joropo llanero. Parranda de reexistencia is one of his published essays.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

The Sounds of Celebration

To gain a deeper understanding of the rich soundscape that defines the festivities at the Canónico family home, we break down how the musical universe of these celebrations is organized. It is not merely a decorative sideshow, but rather the ritual language through which faith is expressed.

The music in the Cruz de Mayo wake: a devotional geography (drop-downs with more info)

The Cruz de Mayo ceremony, which precedes the arrival of San Juan, features a structure that honors various regions of Venezuela. Canónico explains that this part of the festival requires specific discipline and respect for the different genres according to their geographic origin.

The order of the genres

Devotional music follows a set pattern that begins with the “Salve Llanera.” Afterward, songs representative of various regions are performed: Lara, Oriente, Falcón, and finally Zulia.

The poet and the sirenas

The mediator plays a crucial role. He recites poetry (“décimas”) and also has the authority to sing sirenas. This person is responsible for maintaining the choir and the performance during the most intense moment, when the altar of the Cruz is being prepared for the transition.

Interpretive rigor

There is a strict hierarchy. Although the community is invited to participate, the singers are committed to specific roles. For example, those responsible for the salve must perform it with the rigor that tradition demands, avoiding any “improvisation” or inappropriate mixing with other genres.

Music for San Juan Bautista: the strength of the drum (drop-downs with more info)

Once the ritual procession takes place and San Juan enters the house, the soundscape changes radically. Canónico explains that, unlike the Cruz, San Juan marks the beginning of a sequence in which the drum takes center stage.

Performance spaces

There is a geographical distinction within the house. The genres permitted to be performed inside the home, directly in front of the altar, are limited and sacred: sirenas, culo e’ puya, quitiplás, and San Juan de Guatire. All other musical performances take place outside the house.

The main reference

Rolando Canónico, as the host and a cultural leader, inaugurates each drum. He performs the Afro-Venezuelan section—specifically the Miranda fulía—alongside his nephew and his godson, ensuring that the rhythmic pattern remains true to tradition and does not veer toward competitive or show-oriented styles.

Ethical guidelines

At the Canónico household, a clear policy has been upheld: to play not for the sake of competition or virtuosity, but out of devotion, tradition, and beauty.

Talking to the instruments

For Canónico, playing the drum is not a technical performance, but a dialogue. He asserts that, in this context, the saint dwells within the drum and that playing it is a form of spiritual cleansing. When the instruments sound, the performer seeks to “detach” himself from rigid patterns in order to let a powerful energy flow, especially when several San Juan statues gather in front of the house.

This musical framework is, in Canónico’s words, a “system” in which every drumbeat and every décima has a specific place and time to ensure that the legacy of the ancestors remains alive without being corrupted by trends or commodification.

Rolando Canónico is a prominent Venezuelan percussionist, educator, and cultural practitioner, recognized as a key figure in the preservation of traditional community music and Afro-Venezuelan percussion. Initially trained at the Bigott Foundation’s Popular Culture Workshops, he has built a prolific musical career by joining iconic groups such as Francisco Pacheco y su Pueblo, Pomarrosa, and Caracas Sincrónica, as well as accompanying important Venezuelan artists, including Cecilia Todd, Cheo Hurtado, Betsayda Machado, Fabiola José, and Luisana Pérez, on recordings and on stage.

Beyond his virtuosity as a session musician, Canónico stands as an active guardian of Venezuela’s musical tradition, demonstrating a deep ethical and spiritual commitment to organizing community festivals, ensuring that historical accuracy and the identity of the ancestors remain alive for future generations.