TODAY

The loudest question in Washington right now is whether Donald Trump is going to invade Venezuela. The quieter, and far more dangerous, reality is this: he probably won’t. Not because he cares about Venezuelan lives, but because he has found a strategy that is cheaper, less politically risky at home, and infinitely more devastating: economic warfare.

Venezuela has already survived years of economic warfare. Despite two decades of sweeping U.S. sanctions designed to strangle its economy, the country has found ways to adapt: oil has moved through alternative markets; communities have developed survival strategies; people have endured shortages and hardship with creativity and resilience. This endurance is precisely what the Trump administration is trying to break.

Rather than launching a military invasion that would provoke public backlash and congressional scrutiny, Trump is doubling down on something more insidious: total economic asphyxiation. By tightening restrictions on Venezuelan oil exports, its primary source of revenue, Trump’s administration is deliberately pushing the country toward a full-scale humanitarian collapse.

In recent months, U.S. actions in the Caribbean Sea, including the harassment and interdiction of oil tankers linked to Venezuela, signal a shift from financial pressure to illegal maritime force. These operations have increasingly targeted Venezuela’s ability to move its own resources through international waters. Oil tankers have been delayed, seized, threatened with secondary sanctions, or forced to reroute under coercion. The objective is strangulation.

This is illegal under international law.

The freedom of navigation on the high seas is a cornerstone of international maritime law, enshrined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Unilateral interdiction of civilian commercial vessels, absent a UN Security Council mandate, violates the principle of sovereign equality and non-intervention. The extraterritorial enforcement of U.S. sanctions, punishing third countries and private actors for engaging in lawful trade with Venezuela, has no legal basis. It is coercion, plain and simple. More importantly, the intent is collective punishment.

By preventing Venezuela from exporting oil, which is the revenue that funds food imports, medicine, electricity, and public services, the Trump administration is knowingly engineering conditions of mass deprivation. Under international humanitarian law, collective punishment is prohibited precisely because it targets civilians as a means to achieve political ends. And if this continues, we will see horrific images: empty shelves, malnourished children, overwhelmed hospitals, people scavenging for food. Scenes that echo those coming out of Gaza, where siege and starvation have been normalized as weapons of war.

U.S. actions will undoubtedly cause millions of Venezuelans to flee the country, likely seeking to travel to the United States, which they are told is safe for their families, full of economic opportunities, and security. But Trump is sealing the U.S. border, cutting off asylum pathways, and criminalizing migration. When people are starved, when economies are crushed, when daily life becomes unlivable, people move. Blocking Venezuelans from entering the United States while systematically destroying the conditions that allow them to survive at home means that neighboring countries like Colombia, Brazil, and Chile will be asked to absorb the human cost of Washington’s decisions. This is how empire outsources the damage. But these countries have their own economic woes, and mass displacement of Venezuelans will destabilize the entire region.

Venezuela is a test case. What is being refined now—economic siege without formal war, maritime coercion without declared blockade, starvation without bombs—is a blueprint. Any country that refuses compliance with Washington’s political and economic demands should be paying attention. This will be the map for 21st-century regime change.

And this is how Trump can reassure the United States Congress that he is not “going to war” with Venezuela. He doesn’t need to. Economic strangulation carries none of the immediate political costs of a military intervention, even as it inflicts slow, widespread devastation. There are no body bags returning to U.S. soil, no draft, no televised bombing campaigns. Just a steady erosion of life elsewhere.

Trump’s calculation is brutally simple: make Venezuelans so miserable that they will rise up and overthrow Maduro. That has been the same calculation behind U.S. policy toward Cuba for six decades—and it has failed. Economic strangulation doesn’t bring democracy; it brings suffering. And even if, by some grim chance, it did succeed in toppling the government, the likely result would not be freedom but chaos—possibly a protracted civil war that could devastate the country, and the region, for decades.

People in Venezuela celebrate Christmas and New Year’s gathered around the table to eat hallacas wrapped with care, slices of pan de jamón, and dulce de lechoza. They will share stories, dance to gaitas, and make a toast with Ponche Crema.

But if this economic siege continues, if Venezuelan oil is fully cut off, if the country is denied the means to feed itself, if hunger is allowed to finish what bombs are no longer politically useful to accomplish, then this Christmas may be remembered as one of the last Venezuelans were able to celebrate in anything resembling normal life, at least in the near future.

Polls consistently show that nearly 70 percent of people in the United States oppose a military intervention in Venezuela. War is recognized for what it is: violent, destructive, unacceptable. But sanctions are treated differently. Many people believe they are a harmless alternative, a way to apply “pressure” without bloodshed.

That assumption is dangerously wrong. According to a comprehensive study in medical journal The Lancet, sanctions increase mortality at levels comparable to armed conflict, hitting children and the elderly first. Sanctions do not avoid civilian harm – they systematically produce it.

If we oppose war because it kills, we must also oppose sanctions that do the same, only more quietly, more slowly, and with far less accountability. If we don’t act against economic warfare with the same urgency we reserve for bombs and invasions, then sanctions will remain the preferred weapon: politically convenient but equally deadly.

Michelle Ellner is the Latin America Campaign Coordinator at CODEPINK. Born in Venezuela, she holds a bachelor’s degree in Languages and International Affairs from Université Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV). Her work focuses on U.S. foreign policy, economic sanctions, and solidarity with Latin America and the Caribbean.

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

Source: Code Pink

United Nations experts say the threat of al-Shabab remains the greatest immediate threat to Somalia and the East African region, especially Kenya.

The al-Qaeda-linked group controls significant parts of southern and central Somalia, carrying out attacks on government and security forces, as well as civilians.

Over the years, the group has claimed responsibility for attacks in Kenya, Uganda and Djibouti.

Despite efforts by Somali and international forces to combat its operations, it still has the ability to strike.

So why has the fight against this group failed over two decades?

Presenter:

Dareen Abughaida

Guests:

Ismael Tahir – Research fellow at Hilin, an organisation committed to development, governance and politics in the Somali Peninsula.

Afyare Elmi – Research professor at City University of Mogadishu.

Abdullahi Halakhe – Horn of Africa security analyst.

Mexico City, Mexico, December 11, 2025 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuela accused the United States of committing “international piracy” after US authorities seized an oil tanker in the Caribbean, denouncing the action as part of a long-running US campaign to strip the country of its energy resources.

US President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that Washington seized an oil tanker sanctioned by the US off Venezuela’s coast. He described the vessel as the largest oil tanker ever seized and indicated that the United States would retain the crude aboard. 

The move was met with a sharp rebuke from Caracas.

“The Bolivarian Government will appeal to all existing international bodies to denounce this grave international crime and will defend its sovereignty with absolute determination,” read the communiqué. “Venezuela will not allow any foreign power to take from the Venezuelan people what belongs to them by historical and constitutional right.”

According to Reuters, the “Skipper” tanker loaded an estimated 1.8 million barrels of crude at Venezuela’s José terminal early this month before unloading 200,000 to a Cuba-bound ship. The remaining cargo was believed to be destined for Asian markets. The move was viewed as aggression against Cuba as well, which relies on Venezuelan oil shipments for energy and income.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parilla condemned “the vile act of piracy” as a violation of international law.

Michael Galant, member of the Progressive International Secretariat, said that calling the US seizure an act of piracy fell short.

“This is the deliberate immiseration of the Cuban people, already suffering debilitating fuel shortages, blackouts, and a chikungunya outbreak thanks to the US blockade,” wrote Galant on social media.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi posted a video on social media on Wednesday evening showing armed US forces boarding the vessel. There was reportedly no resistance from the crew nor any casualties. The assault involved Coast Guard members, Marines, and special forces who were seen in the video descending from helicopters onto the ship’s deck.

The seizure of the tanker comes only days after Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark approved the sale of Venezuela’s US-based refiner CITGO to Amber Energy, a process that Venezuela called a “barbaric theft” of a Venezuelan asset via a “fraudulent process.” 

In past years, the United States has intercepted shipments of Iranian fuel bound for Venezuela, ultimately taking control of the gasoline and selling it at auction. While US-led sanctions have created significant challenges for the sale of Venezuelan oil on international markets, Wednesday’s seizure marks the first time the US has directly impeded a crude shipment of from Venezuela. Reuters reported that buyers in Asia were demanding further discounts on Venezuelan crude as a result of the seizure.

Trump’s latest move is a significant escalation in the latest US effort to oust the Nicolás Maduro government from power. Since September, the US has built up its forces in the region, including the mobilization of the Gerard Ford Carrier Fleet, and has carried out deadly strikes on boats that the administration claims are tied to drug trafficking. 

Washington’s decision to seize the tanker drew scrutiny from US lawmakers who have questioned the true intentions behind military mobilization and campaign in the Caribbean.

“If Trump’s aggression in the Caribbean is about drugs, why did he just seize an oil tanker?” asked US Representative Nydia Velázquez. “This is yet another dangerous escalation that brings us closer to a regime change war.”

Senator Mark Warner, who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, questioned how the US was able to seize an oil tanker but has opted to strike alleged drug smuggling boats from the skies without an effort to arrest the occupants or seize the purported contraband. 

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen spoke Wednesday on the floor of Congress to call on lawmakers to stop Trump’s ”regime change war” against Venezuela.

Caracas maintains that the US attacks are motivated by a desire for regime change in order to secure access to Venezuela’s natural resources.

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, speaking from Oslo where she traveled to receive her Nobel Peace Prize, publicly endorsed the seizure of the tanker as a “very necessary step.”

Juan González, Joe Biden’s former chief Latin America adviser and the architect behind the former president’s Venezuela policy, said that a US Naval blockade was “potentially a viable option” despite admitting that it would constitute an act of war against Venezuela.

The White House has repeatedly threatened further escalation, including land strikes. The New York Times reported that US officials expected additional seizures in the coming weeks. This action would constitute an act of force and place additional pressure against Venezuela’s oil industry.

The United Nations (UN) Charter expressly prohibits all Member States from using or threatening force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Blockades imposed without a declaration of war or that are not sanctioned by the UN Security Council are not considered legal. Likewise, UN independent experts have consistently maintained that the extraterritorial application of unilateral sanctions is contrary to international law.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

On October 19, the Venezuelan people celebrated the sanctification of José Gregorio Hernández, the “doctor of the poor.”

With his beatification process launched under Pope Francis, the first Venezuelan to hold this honor was in a way an “exception” to the Catholic Church’s rules: the threshold is two “miracles” attributed to the candidate, and Hernández only has one. 

Now, during the holiday season and with the year drawing to a close, a second miracle comes to mind: halting a foreign military operation against our country and staving off the collapse of the Venezuelan economy in the wake of the US naval blockade.

Why turn to José Gregorio for this? It actually makes perfect sense. In December 1902, German, British and Italian ships joined forces to blockade Venezuela’s coasts. It was a tactic to force the Cipriano Castro government to pay back exorbitant debts accrued by its predecessors.

In response, Castro issued his famous proclamation, “The foreigner’s insolent boots have desecrated the sacred soil of the Homeland!”, and called for national unity. His call was overwhelmingly backed, even by his adversaries.

Students, professionals and even doctors like José Gregorio Hernández were quick to enlist in a voluntary militia. Nationalist fervor, inspired by the memories of the independence struggle and figures like Bolívar and Ayacucho, contrasted with Venezuela’s military shortcomings in facing the powerful foreign fleets. History does have a way of repeating itself.

In spite of his pacifism, commitment to medicine and strong religious beliefs, Hernández did not waver for a second in answering the nation’s call.

After a lot of “gunboat diplomacy,” the Venezuelan government held its ground and ensured that the debts were subjected to international mediation. 

The doctor of the poor, fortunately, did not have to change his stethoscope for a rifle. In contrast, he managed to do what we all want to do today: continue working for our country and its people.

Hernández studied in Europe and was a pioneer of experimental medical research in Venezuela. He created the histology, experimental physiology and bacteriology branch in the Central University of Venezuela. He introduced the use of the microscope and promoted modern scientific methods in the country.

Still, it’s not so much these achievements that have him worshiped by Venezuelans. Rather, it was his immense generosity, which included seeing patients free of charge and even leaving a little bag with money outside his office so that the poorest patients could buy medicines and food. Hernández saw medicine as a tool at the service of the majority.

Therefore, after his death in 1919, former president and writer Rómulo Gallegos wrote: “It wasn’t the common pain of losing a dedicated and eminent citizen, but a deeper, nobler feeling, something that poured in generous torrents.”

As time went on, this feeling would only grow. Thousands of faithful began to attribute “impossible” medical feats to Hernández; they printed out prayer cards with his face, built little statues to put on bedside tables, placed him on personal altars and filled churches with plaques and candles to acknowledge the “divine favors” bestowed.

The myth began to spread amongst the people. In contrast, Catholic authorities spent decades grappling with the phenomenon. But he was already a saint for the masses. Unlike the Church, he actually delivered…

In fact, Venezuelan religious authorities tried to undermine their believers’ wishes by claiming that Hernández could not be a saint. They claimed his figure was used by “sorcerers,” they disparaged him by claiming he was gay, forbade priests from naming him in public events, and even attempted to censor a song by Puerto Rican musician Daniel Santos dedicated to him.

But Venezuelans don’t really care that José Gregorio had no known love relationships, that he liked to dye his grey hairs or that he dressed outlandishly. On the contrary, we think that is awesome. There is nothing more Venezuelan than ignoring the norms!

The Venezuelan people looked at his virtues and, just in case, made up new ones, until he was consolidated as a religious, kind and serene myth, one who was dedicated to the common good. In the “popular pantheon” he stands alongside figures like independence hero Simón Bolívar, a military genius who traveled the entire continent on horseback several times.

Some historians posit that the peoples create myths that work as role models and express their inner beliefs. I think that’s a correct and very inspired conclusion. In that light, we have quite a spectrum of heroes. It goes from Bolívar, a republican warrior, all the way to José Gregorio Hernández, the pacifist healer. On one hand, a man who fought to liberate people from colonialism, and on the other, a man who heals them; one who proffered great victory speeches and one who triumphed quietly in a laboratory. But one thing they, and all our other heroes, have in common is that they never hesitated to defend the homeland against outside threats.

It is worth clarifying that the peoples, and not “miracles,” are responsible for turning the wheels of history. But with a bloodthirsty maniac like Trump in the White House, there is no harm in reaching out to divine entities as well…

José Gregorio Hernández, like Bolívar and so many others, bequeathed us a lot more than statues and official celebrations. They left us the example of fighting for something bigger than us, a nation that belongs to everyone. And facing a real imperialist threat, resistance is not optional. The struggle continues.

Jessica Dos Santos is a Venezuelan university professor, journalist and writer whose work has appeared in outlets such as RT, Épale CCS magazine and Investig’Action. She is the author of the book “Caracas en Alpargatas” (2018). She’s won the Aníbal Nazoa Journalism Prize in 2014 and received honorable mentions in the Simón Bolívar National Journalism prize in 2016 and 2018.

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

A few locals gathered in an open area around 10 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 25, when they saw a projectile hovering above them. Within minutes, a blast sent panic through the town, igniting a hail of fire and fury in Birikini, a rural settlement in Jabo, Tambuwal Local Government Area (LGA), Sokoto, North West Nigeria. 

The explosion threw the community into chaos, with locals running towards the site of the strike to find out what had gone wrong.

“I was sitting at a joint when we saw a reddish item falling from the sky, illuminating the community. Suddenly, we heard a loud bang. I thought a car tyre had burst and caught fire at the same time,” said Ismail Umar, a local in Jabo town. “When we moved, we saw many people shouting and rushing towards the scene. Some thought it was an aircraft that fell. This raised tension, and people couldn’t sleep throughout the night. I went home around 12 a.m., but when I woke up for the morning prayer around 5 a.m., people were still outside, discussing the incident.”

The heavy artillery shell landed on an expanse of cultivated farm field in the area. When locals arrived at the scene, they found shrapnel scattered in the community and wondered where the strike had emerged. No casualties were recorded, according to locals who spoke to HumAngle. They noted that such an incident was unusual to them, as the area has not witnessed any terrorist attack in years. 

Musa Dandare, an elderly man in the community, said he saw the projectile descending towards the town before it hit the ground with a loud bang. Although it was a bloodless attack, villagers insisted they were disturbed because they had never experienced such a military-grade airstrike. 

Later that night, Donald Trump, the United States President, announced that the country’s military “launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorists in North West Nigeria…” He claimed that terrorists were dead and pledged that many more such attacks would happen. The US Africa Command (AFRICOM) and the US Department of War also confirmed the strikes. 

Kimiebi Imomotimi Ebienfa, a spokesperson for the Nigerian Foreign Ministry, stated that the “precision hits on terrorist targets” were the result of a joint security and intelligence collaboration between the two nations. 

“It was a successful operation,” said Yusuf Tuggar, Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, though he did not disclose specific damage assessments. “We will have to wait for those who handled the operational aspects of the episode to return with the details.”

In November, President Trump threatened military action against Nigeria, accusing the government of failing to protect Christians from Islamic State terrorists. He also designated it as a country of particular concern. Although existing data and conflict show that the country’s security challenge cannot fit into a religious tag,  Trump’s claim has drawn the attention of the international community to the insecurity in Africa’s most populous nation and has also deepened polarisation within the country. 

ISIS in northwestern Nigeria?

Nigeria is home to several armed groups, including two that are associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). One of these groups is the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), which emerged from the Boko Haram extremist faction and operates mainly in the northeastern region. Another is the Lakurawa terror group,  which is active in the northwestern region. While the US forces have stressed that they were targeting ISIS fighters in Nigeria, security analysts suggest that they likely targeted the Lakurawa terrorists, a group that has become increasingly dangerous in Sokoto and Kebbi states in the past year.

The Lakurawa terrorists have operated in many communities in Sokoto State, including Tangaza, Gudu, and Silame, but they have recorded no activities in the Tambuwal LGA. The terrorists thrive in towns located along the permeable borders of Sokoto State, allowing armed groups to move easily between Nigeria and the Niger Republic. After crossing the border, they set up camps in the area’s vast bushland. 

Exactly a year ago, on Dec. 25, a military airstrike targeted at the Lakurawa terror group killed up to ten civilians and injured several others in the Silame area of Sokoto State. 

At the time, the Nigerian military said those killed had been “positively identified as associated with the Lakurawa group”. Military authorities later attributed the civilian deaths to secondary explosions, explaining that the strike hit a terrorist logistics hub and arms cache, triggering detonations that sent stored munitions exploding in multiple directions. 

The aftermath

Meanwhile, locals in Jabo who spoke to HumAngle stressed that the locality targeted by the US forces is not controlled or infested by any terrorist group like other areas in the region. “It’s a peaceful place,” one local told HumAngle.

The locals said they have combed the entire Birikinin village and have found no civilians or terrorists hit by the US strike. 

However, locals fear that this singular strike might cause the terrorists to beam searchlights on them. Unlike places like Isa, Sabon Birni, and Gada, which have had deadly terrorist attacks in the past, Jabo seems to be a haven for locals seeking calm and tranquillity in the state. The locals wondered why the US strike ignored terrorist enclaves in the state to target a thriving civilian community.

“It was the first time we heard what a bomb sounded like in this community,” Musa said. “Many of us couldn’t sleep throughout the night.”

Aliyu Garba, a local chief in Jabo, expressed concerns over how some locals have collected the relics of the explosive materials from the strike scene, saying some of the shrapnel might detonate or harm them. “It was as big as a car’s gearbox,” he said, describing one of the broken explosives found on the ground. 

Garba added that they have lived in the community peacefully for years, praying that this new event would not bring calamity to them. Locals reiterated that they have not noticed any form of terrorist activities in the area for years, let alone the Islamic State operations that might call for such an airstrike.

According to Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) records covering 2010 to 2025, Tambuwal LGA has experienced only a handful of violent incidents, primarily involving small-scale attacks and abductions by criminal groups. The dataset records no previous incidents involving airstrikes, heavy artillery, or aerial bombardment in the area. In the past 15 years, for instance, only seven significant events were recorded in the LGA, and none happened in the Jabo town.

HumAngle has obtained videos of civilian activities after the airstrike. The videos showed locals panicking and asking government officials to assure their safety. Another video showed the presence of security operatives in the community, with officers barricading the scene of the airstrike. HumAngle also observed that many residents are fleeing the area in fear of similar incidents, and this could cause widespread displacement. Local authorities tried to hold them back and assure them of their safety. 

Ukrainian president highlights ‘significant progress’ in talks, but Moscow says Kyiv is working to ‘torpedo’ deal.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is to meet with his United States counterpart, Donald Trump, in Florida on Sunday to discuss territorial disputes that continue to block progress towards ending Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Announcing the meeting on Friday, Zelenskyy said the talks could be decisive as Washington intensifies its efforts to broker an end to Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II. “A lot can be decided before the New Year,” Zelenskyy said.

Territory remains the most contentious issue in the negotiations. Zelenskyy confirmed he would raise the status of eastern Ukraine and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which has been under Russian control since the early months of Russia’s invasion.

“As for the sensitive issues, we will discuss both Donbas and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. We will certainly discuss other issues as well,” he told reporters in a WhatsApp chat.

Moscow has demanded that Kyiv withdraw from parts of the Donetsk region still under Ukrainian control as it pushes for full authority over the wider Donbas area, which includes Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine has rejected that demand, instead calling for an immediate halt to hostilities along the existing front lines.

Territorial concessions

In an attempt to bridge the divide, the US has floated the idea of establishing a free economic zone should Ukraine relinquish control of the contested area although details of how such a plan would operate remain unclear.

Zelenskyy reiterated that any territorial concessions would require public approval. He said decisions on land must be made by Ukrainians themselves, potentially through a referendum.

Beyond territory, Zelenskyy said his meeting with Trump would focus on refining draft agreements, including economic arrangements and security guarantees. He said a security pact with Washington was nearly finalised while a 20-point peace framework was close to completion.

Ukraine has sought binding guarantees after previous international commitments failed to prevent Russia’s invasion, which began in February 2022.

Trump has previously voiced impatience with the pace of negotiations, but he has indicated he would engage directly if talks reached a meaningful stage.

Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said his country is the only mediator that can speak to both sides to secure a peace agreement. At the same time, he downplayed the importance of the conflict for Washington.

“It’s not our war. It’s a war on another continent,” he said.

Zelenskyy said European leaders could join Sunday’s discussions remotely and confirmed he had already briefed Finnish President Alexander Stubb on what he described as “significant progress”.

Despite Zelenskyy’s assertion, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov accused Ukraine of working to “torpedo” the peace talks, saying a revised version of the US peace plan promoted by Kyiv was “radically different” from an earlier version negotiated with Washington.

“Our ability to make the final push and reach an agreement will depend on our own work and the political will of the other party,” he said during a television interview on Friday.

Ryabkov said any agreement must remain within the parameters set out between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin during a summit in August, which Ukraine and European partners have criticised as overly conciliatory towards Russia’s war aims.

On the ground, Moscow has intensified strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and the southern port city of Odesa while an attack on Kharkiv on Friday killed two people.

Mohamed Salah has scored as 10-man Egypt have beaten South Africa 1-0 in Agadir to become the first qualifiers for the knockout stage of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations.

The Liverpool star converted a penalty on 45 minutes on Friday, and South Africa were denied a spot kick late in the second half when Yasser Ibrahim appeared to handle the ball inside the box.

Salah came to Morocco after not starting in five Liverpool matches and his omission leading to an outburst against manager Arne Slot.

Egypt were reduced to 10 men in first-half added time when right back Mohamed Hany was shown a second yellow card for a stamp, followed by a red.

After two rounds in Group B, record seven-time champions Egypt have six points and are guaranteed a top-two finish in the group stage and a place in the round of 16.

South Africa have three points and Angola and Zimbabwe one each after they drew 1-1 in Marrakesh earlier on Friday.

The first chance fell to Salah after 11 minutes, but he could not move forward quickly enough to connect with a low cross from Hany.

That the majority of the crowd were supporting the Pharaohs became obvious soon after when the Burundi referee ignored Zizo’s appeals for a free kick and loud whistling enveloped the stadium.

When Salah delivered a free kick into the heart of the South African area, three Egyptians darted forward, but none could connect with the ball.

Midway through the opening half, a pattern had developed. Egypt were pushing forward regularly while South Africa defended with calmness and solid tackling.

When South Africa’s Teboho Mokoena fouled Omar Marmoush just outside the D, he was yellow-carded. However, the Manchester City striker fired the resultant free kick wide.

As the first half progressed, the sun broke out in the southern coastal city – a welcome sight for players and spectators with many earlier group matches staged in torrential rain.

A rare South Africa attack ended disappointingly as Lyle Foster struck a weak shot that was comfortably saved by 37-year-old Mohamed El Shenawy.

Awarded a free kick close to the touchline, South Africa performed an intricate, multipass move that ended tamely as El Shenawy clutched a cross.

Salah was being closely policed by Aubrey Modiba, and as half-time drew near, the Liverpool star retreated into the Egyptian half to retain possession.

Then, as the Egypt captain chased a loose ball with Khuliso Mudau, the South African right back raised his left arm, striking Salah’s left eye.

Amid Egyptian protests, the Burundian referee viewed the incident on a VAR monitor and pointed to the penalty spot.

A lengthy delay before the kick was taken could not have eased the nerves of Salah, but he comfortably converted the penalty as Ronwen Williams dived in the wrong direction.

More drama erupted in added time when Hany stamped on Mokoena, leading to a second yellow card for the defender.

South Africa, with a numerical advantage, attacked more as the second half progressed, but Egypt came close to a second goal with Williams foiling substitute Emam Ashour after a quick free kick.

El Shenawy displayed his agility with 15 minutes remaining, using his right hand to tip to safety a low shot from Foster. It was one of several saves that kept Egypt ahead.

Angola and Zimbabwe keep alive AFCON hopes

Veteran Knowledge Musona scored as Zimbabwe came from behind to draw 1-1 with Angola in Marrakesh to kick off the second round of AFCON matches earlier in the day.

Gelson Dala put Angola ahead midway through the first half, and recalled Musona levelled deep in first-half added time.

A draw in Group B suited neither team, leaving both two points adrift of joint leaders Egypt and South Africa after having played one match more.

Only the top two finishers in each group automatically qualify for the knockout phase. The best four third-placed teams from the six mini-leagues also will advance.

Bill Antonio wasted a good chance to give Zimbabwe an early lead when he blazed wide from close range before a small crowd.

Angola recovered quickly to establish control and took the lead after 24 minutes through Qatar-based striker Dala.

A superb lobbed pass from To Carneiro dropped in front of Dala inside the box, and he squeezed the ball between the near post and 40-year-old goalkeeper Washington Arubi.

Musona, one of four changes to the Zimbabwe lineup after a 2-1 loss to Egypt in Agadir four days earlier, became increasingly involved as the Warriors sought an equaliser.

Musona wasted a free kick opportunity by hitting the ball into the defensive wall, then shot wide, much to the frustration of Romanian coach Marian Marinica, who repeatedly shook his head.

Hugo Marques, the 39-year-old Angola goalkeeper, had his head heavily bandaged before continuing after a collision with an opponent.

The perseverance of Musona finally paid off six minutes into added time at the end of the opening half when he equalised.

After Angola were dispossessed in midfield, Zimbabwe counterattacked swiftly, and a superb pass found Musona inside the box.

He struck a slow shot between the legs of Carneiro and just wide of the outstretched right leg of Marques into the net.

As both sides sought a second goal and the lead, Marques rescued Angola 12 minutes from the end of regular time with an acrobatic one-hand save of an attempt by substitute Tawanda Chirewa.

Attack comes a day after an Israeli army reservist in civilian clothes rammed his vehicle into a Palestinian man praying on the roadside.

Two people have died in a stabbing and car-ramming attack in northern Israel, officials say.

Israeli police and emergency workers said a Palestinian from the Israeli-occupied West Bank attacked and killed a man and a woman on Friday before he was shot and wounded.

The attack came a day after an Israeli military reservist dressed in civilian clothes rammed his vehicle into a Palestinian man who was praying on a roadside in the West Bank after earlier firing shots in the area.

“Footage was ⁠received of an armed individual running over a Palestinian ​individual,” the Israeli military said in a statement about Thursday’s attack, adding ‍that the Israeli reservist’s military service had been terminated. The Palestinian man went to hospital for checks after the attack before returning ​home.

In Friday’s incident, Israeli police said the attacker first crashed his vehicle into people in the northern city of Beit Shean, killing a 68-year-old man, and then sped onto a highway.

Later, he fatally stabbed a 20-year-old woman near the highway, “and the suspect was ultimately engaged with gunfire near Maonot Junction in Afula following intervention by a civilian bystander,” police said, adding that the attacker was taken to a hospital.

Both the victims were pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics, Israel’s rescue services said. A teenage boy was hospitalised with minor wounds sustained in the car-ramming, according to bystanders.

The Israeli military said the attacker had “infiltrated into Israeli territory several days ago”.

Since Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza began in October 2023, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed there.

At the same time, Israeli settlers have escalated violence in the West Bank, seizing Palestinian land and harassing civilians while Israeli forces conduct regular raids and arrests.

More than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank ‌since October 7, 2023, mostly in operations by security forces and some by settler violence, according ‍to the United Nations.

In the same period, 57 Israelis have been killed in Palestinian attacks.

After Friday’s incident, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said he had instructed the military ​to respond forcefully in ‌the West Bank town of Qabatiya, where he said the assailant came from.

The Israeli military said it was “preparing for an operation” ‌in the area.

Suspect is in police custody; no information about potential motive.

A man has carried out a mass stabbing attack at a Japanese tyre factory, also spraying victims with a chemical substance, according to local officials.

Eight people were stabbed and seven others were injured after being sprayed by a bleach-like agent at the Yokohama Rubber Co tyremaker in Japan’s Mishima, southwest of Tokyo, on Friday, said the Fujisan Nanto Fire Department.

Japanese media named the suspect as a 38-year-old who is now in custody. He is being charged with attempted murder, reported Japan’s Asahi Shimbun newspaper, citing the Shizuoka prefectural police.

The suspect was carrying a survival knife and wearing what appeared to be a gas mask, according to investigators cited in the Asahi report. He is believed by police to have acted alone, the report added, though there was no immediate information about a potential motive.

The Associated Press news agency cited the fire department as saying five of the stab victims are in serious condition, but conscious.

An employee of a nearby car dealership said she was “shocked” to learn of the attack in what is generally a “quiet” area.

“I’m scared, but I’m also shocked that it could have happened in a place like this,” the unnamed employee told Asahi Shimbun.

Violent crime is relatively rare in Japan, which has a low murder rate and some of the world’s toughest gun laws.

However, there are occasional stabbing attacks and even shootings, including the assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2022.

In June, Japan executed a man dubbed the “Twitter Killer”, after he was convicted of killing and dismembering nine people he met on social media. The execution was the country’s first use of capital punishment in nearly three years.

A Japanese man was also sentenced to death in October for a shooting and stabbing rampage that killed four people, including two police officers, in 2023.

Tensions are flaring along the Tajikistan-Afghanistan border in Central Asia with the Tajik government reporting multiple armed incursions this month, straining its fragile relationship with Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders.

More than a dozen people have been killed in attacks by men whom Tajik authorities call “terrorists” and the resulting clashes with Tajik forces, officials in Dushanbe and Beijing said. Victims include Chinese nationals working in remote areas of the mountainous former Soviet republic.

In the latest fighting this week, at least five people were killed in Tajikistan‘s Shamsiddin Shokhin district, including “three terrorists”, officials said.

Tajikistan has long opposed the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a country it shares a largely unsecured 1,340km (830-mile) border with.

Despite cautious diplomatic engagement between the two countries to adjust to new regional realities, analysts said, the frequency of the recent border clashes risks eroding the Taliban’s credibility and raises questions about its capacity to enforce order and security.

Here is all we know about the clashes along the Tajik-Afghan border and why they matter:

What’s happening on the Tajik-Afghan border?

The border runs along the Panj river through the remote, mountainous terrain of southern Tajikistan and northeastern Afghanistan.

On Thursday, Tajikistan’s State Committee for National Security said in a statement that “three members of a terrorist organisation” crossed into Tajik territory on Tuesday. The committee added that the men were located the following morning and exchanged fire with Tajik border guards. Five people, including the three intruders, were killed, it said.

Tajik officials did not name the armed men or specify which group they belonged to. The officials, however, said they seized three M-16 rifles, a Kalashnikov assault rifle, three foreign-made pistols with silencers, 10 hand grenades, a night-vision scope and explosives at the scene.

Dushanbe said this was the third attack originating from Afghanistan’s Badakhshan province in the past month that has resulted in the deaths of its personnel.

These attacks, Tajik officials said on Thursday, “prove that the Taliban government is demonstrating serious and repeated irresponsibility and non-commitment in fulfilling its international obligations and consistent promises to ensure security … and to combat members of terrorist organisations”.

The Tajik statement called on the Taliban to “apologise to the people of Tajikistan and take effective measures to ensure security along the shared border”.

Tajikistan has not suggested what the motive for the attacks may be, but the assaults have appeared to target Chinese companies and nationals working in the area.

How is China involved in all this?

Beijing is Tajikistan’s largest creditor and one of its most influential economic partners with a significant footprint in infrastructure, mining and other border-region projects.

China and Tajikistan also share a 477km (296-mile) border running through the high-altitude Pamir Mountains in eastern Tajikistan, adjacent to China’s Xinjiang region.

Two attacks were launched against Chinese companies and nationals in the last week of November. On November 26, a drone equipped with an explosive device attacked a compound belonging to Shohin SM, a private Chinese gold-mining company, in the remote Khatlon region on the Tajik-Afghan border, killing three Chinese citizens.

In a second attack on November 30, a group of men armed with guns opened fire on workers employed by the state-owned China Road and Bridge Corporation, killing at least two people in Tajikistan’s Darvoz district.

Tajik officials said those attacks had originated from villages in Afghanistan’s Badakhshan province but did not disclose any affiliation or motive behind the attacks.

Chinese nationals have also come under attack in Pakistan’s Balochistan province and along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

China’s embassy in Dushanbe advised Chinese companies and personnel to evacuate the border area. Chinese officials demanded “that Tajikistan take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of Chinese enterprises and citizens in Tajikistan”.

Who is carrying out these attacks?

While the attackers have not been identified, analysts and observers believe the attacks carry the hallmarks of the ISIL (ISIS) affiliate in Khorasan Province (ISKP), which, they said, aims to discredit Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders.

“The ISKP has attacked foreigners inside Afghanistan and carried out attacks on foreigners inside Afghanistan as a key pillar of their strategy,” said Ibraheem Bahiss, a Kabul-based analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank.

“The aim is to shatter the Taliban’s image as a security provider with whom the regional governments should engage,” Bahiss told Al Jazeera.

How has the Taliban reacted to these attacks?

Kabul expressed its “deep sorrow” over the killings of Chinese workers on November 28.

The Taliban blamed the violence on an unnamed armed group which, it said, is “striving to create chaos and instability in the region and to sow distrust among countries”, and it assured Tajikistan of its full cooperation.

After this week’s clashes, Sirajuddin Haqqani, the Taliban’s interior minister, said Kabul remains committed to the 2020 Doha Agreement, its deal with the United States for a phased foreign troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in exchange for Taliban commitments to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for attacking other countries.

Addressing a police cadet graduation ceremony at the National Police Academy in Kabul on Thursday, Haqqani said Afghanistan posed no threat to other countries and the door to dialogue remains open.

“We want to address problems, distrust or misunderstandings through dialogue. We have passed the test of confrontation. We may be weak in resources, but our faith and will are strong,” he said, adding that security had improved to the extent that Taliban officials now travel across the country without weapons.

The Taliban insists that no “terrorist groups” are operating from Afghanistan. However, in a recent report, the United Nations sanctions-monitoring committee cited the presence of multiple armed groups, including ISKP, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, al-Qaeda, the Turkistan Islamic Party, Jamaat Ansarullah and Ittehad-ul-Mujahideen Pakistan.

Jamaat Ansarullah is a Tajik group linked to al-Qaeda-aligned networks and active primarily in northern Afghanistan near the Tajik border.

How are relations between Tajikistan and the Taliban?

For decades, the relationship between Tajikistan and the Taliban has been defined by deep ideological hostility and ethnic mistrust with Dushanbe one of the group’s fiercest critics in Central Asia.

In the 1990s, Tajikistan aligned with the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, led by Afghan military commander and former Defence Minister Ahmad Shah Massoud.

After the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan in August 2021, Tajikistan stood as the lone holdout among its neighbours in refusing to officially recognise the new government.

However, pragmatic diplomatic engagement quietly began about 2023, driven by economic necessity and shared security fears over the presence of ISKP. Stepping up the restoration of relations, a high-level Tajik delegation visited Kabul in November, the first such visit since the Taliban’s return to power.

But the two governments continue to trade accusations that the other is harbouring “terrorists”, the major thorn remaining in their bilateral relationship, and that drug smuggling is occurring across their border.

The Tajik-Afghan border has long been a major trafficking route for Afghan heroin and methamphetamine into Central Asia and onwards to Russia and Europe, exploiting the area’s rugged terrain and weak policing.

“The rising frequency [of the clashes] is new and interesting and raises a point: whether we might be seeing a new threat emerging,” Bahiss said.

Badakshan province, from which Tajik authorities said the attacks on Chinese nationals originate, presents a complex security situation for the Taliban as it has struggled to stem the threat from armed opposition groups, Bahiss added.

This security issue has been further complicated by the Taliban’s crackdown on poppy cultivation in the province, he said. The Taliban has faced resistance to this policy from farmers in the north. This is largely because the terrain of Badakshan means poppies are the only viable cash crop.

How is the Taliban faring with other neighbours?

Since the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan in 2021, some of its neighbours have maintained a pragmatic transactional relationship while others have not.

Relations with Pakistan, previously its patron, have particularly deteriorated. Islamabad accuses Kabul of harbouring fighters of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, also known as the Pakistan Taliban. Tensions over this issue boiled over in November when Pakistan launched air strikes in Kabul, Khost and other provinces, prompting retaliatory Taliban attacks on border posts.

Dozens of people were killed before a ceasefire was brokered by Qatar and Turkiye. However, both sides have engaged in fighting since, blaming each other for breaking the fragile truce.

The Taliban denies Islamabad’s allegations and has blamed Pakistan for its “own security failures”.

Meanwhile, the Taliban is now invested in developing a new relationship with Pakistan’s archrival, India, with delegations visiting Indian cities for trade and security discussions. New Delhi was earlier part of the anti-Taliban alliance. However, that approach has changed with the deteriorating ties between Pakistan and the Taliban.

EXPLAINER

In a revamp of the 1973 mixed singles match, Aryna Sabalenka will play Nick Kyrgios on Sunday in Dubai.

Who: Aryna Sabalenka vs Nick Kyrgios
What: “Battle of the Sexes” exhibition tennis match
Where: Coca-Cola Arena in Dubai, United Arab Emirates
When: Sunday at 7.45pm (15:45 GMT)
How to follow: We’ll have all the build-up on Al Jazeera Sport from 13:00 GMT in advance of our live text commentary stream.

Women’s world number one Aryna Sabalenka will take on Australian maverick Nick Kyrgios in a “Battle of the Sexes” exhibition tennis match in Dubai on Sunday.

Sabalenka, 27, will face the 30-year-old former Wimbledon finalist in a modern rendition of tennis icon Billie Jean King’s 1973 showdown with fellow American Bobby Riggs, which turned out to be a watershed moment for both tennis and the women’s movement.

Here is all to know before their much anticipated showdown:

How did the Sabalenka-Kyrgios match come about?

Kyrgios, who was ranked as high as 13 in the world in men’s singles, threw down the gauntlet to Sabalenka during the US Open in September, saying in an interview he would easily dispatch the Belarusian without having to try “100 percent to win”.

He said women cannot return professional men’s serves and claimed he would defeat the world’s top-ranked female player.

Sabalenka responded by saying she was ready to “kick a**”, which eventually led to Evolve, the marketing agency that represents both players, organising this weekend’s matchup.

What’s the history behind the ‘Battle of the Sexes’?

The original “Battle of the Sexes” took place in 1973 between King, then 29, and Riggs, 55, at the Houston Astrodome.

King, a 12-time singles Grand Slam champion, made history when she defeated the former men’s world number one amateur player 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 in a matchup that drew an estimated 90 million TV viewers worldwide.

King’s straight-sets victory was considered a pivotal moment for women’s sport at the time and solidified her status as a sports and feminist icon of her generation.

What are the rules for ‘Battle of the Sexes’?

Sabalenka, speaking on the Piers Morgan Uncensored YouTube show on December 9, said it would be “really tough” to compete against a male player of Kyrgios’s standard using a full court and standard rules.

As a result, there are several rule modifications for this match:

• The players will be limited to just one serve instead of two.
• Sabalenka’s side of the court will be 9 percent smaller than a normal tennis court.
• It will be a best-of-three-sets contest – with a 10-point tiebreaker in the final set if required.

What has Sabalenka said about the match?

“I’m proud to represent women’s tennis and to be part of this modern take of the iconic Battle of the Sexes match,” Sabalenka said in a news release.

“Dubai is my home, and I know this city loves big, entertaining events. I have a lot of respect for Nick and his talent, but make no mistake, I’m ready to bring my A-game.”

What has Kyrgios said about the match?

Kyrgios said he’ll defeat the four-time Grand Slam champion without having to try hard.

“I think she’s the type of player who genuinely thinks she’s going to win,” Kyrgios said.

“She is not gonna beat me. Do you really think I have to try 100 percent? I’m gonna try because I’m representing the men’s side. I’d say like 6-2 maybe.”

“I think I’m going to be OK. I’m going to go there, and I don’t want her to win. That’s for sure,” he added.

Is oft-injured Kyrgios planning a return to professional tennis?

Kyrgios will compete at ‍next month’s ‍Brisbane International after receiving a wildcard entry, organisers said on Sunday, as he works towards a potential ​return to the 2026 Australian Open.

His career has been ravaged by injury over the past couple of ‍years, and ⁠he played only five singles matches in 2025, the most recent at the Miami Open in March.

Kyrgios, the 2018 Brisbane champion, is now ranked ​673rd in the ‌world with no protected ranking and will also need a wildcard to compete at Melbourne ‌Park.

How to watch the ‘Battle of the Sexes’

The match is being broadcast live and free in the United Kingdom on BBC 1 and streamed on BBC iPlayer.

Please check local guides for access in other countries.

Al Jazeera will provide live text commentary of the match.

Beijing urged the US to cease ‘dangerous’ efforts to arm the island, which it claims as its own.

China has sanctioned a group of United States defence companies and senior executives over weapons sales to Taiwan, the latest move against Washington’s support for the self-governed island that Beijing claims as its own.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the measures on Friday, targeting 20 US defence firms and 10 individuals. It said the sanctions are retaliation for the US’s newly announced $11.1bn weapons package for Taiwan, one of its largest ever for the territory.

“Any provocative actions that cross the line on the Taiwan issue ‌will be met with a strong ⁠response from China,” said a statement from the ministry, urging the US to cease “dangerous” efforts to arm the island.

The sanctioned companies include Boeing’s St Louis branch, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, L3Harris Maritime Services and Lazarus AI.

The measures freeze these companies’ assets in China and bar domestic organisations and individuals from working with them, according to the ministry. They also seize the China-held assets of sanctioned individuals and ban them from entering China.

Targeted individuals include the founder of defence firm Anduril Industries and nine senior executives from the sanctioned firms. The measures take effect on December 26.

The US is bound by law to provide Taiwan, which rejects Beijing’s claim to the territory, with the means to defend itself. But US arms sales to the island have deepened tensions with China.

The latest US weapons deal with Taiwan, announced by President Donald Trump on December 17, includes the proposed sale of 82 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, and 420 Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS – worth more than $4bn.

The defence systems are similar to what the US had been providing Ukraine to defend against Russian aerial attacks.

The deal also includes 60 self-propelled howitzer artillery systems and related equipment worth more than $4bn and drones valued at more than $1bn.

Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defence praised the US for assisting Taiwan “in maintaining sufficient self-defence capabilities and in rapidly building strong deterrent power”.

Drone attacks hit fuel market in city that serves as headquarters for RSF’s alternative government.

Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group says the country’s army struck a fuel market in the city of Nyala, the RSF’s administrative capital, as part of an intensified aerial campaign against its positions in South Darfur.

For three consecutive days ending Thursday, military drones and warplanes pounded strategic RSF sites across Nyala, including the international airport, military positions and training facilities.

The strike on the fuel market triggered a huge blaze as barrels of fuel exploded, according to footage circulated on social media, sending thick plumes of black smoke into the air.

Youssef Idris Youssef, who heads the RSF’s civil administration in South Darfur, accused the army of deliberately targeting civilians. He described the attack as part of “a systematic policy” to punish Darfur residents for not resisting the RSF presence in their communities.

The Sudanese military has not issued any statement regarding the strikes.

Casualties were reported among both civilians and RSF members involved in the fuel trade.

In the aftermath, RSF intelligence services conducted mass arrests near the targeted site and Nyala’s main market, detaining civilians and military personnel on accusations of providing coordinates to the army, according to local sources.

Nyala holds particular strategic importance as the seat of the RSF’s parallel government, known as TASIS, which the group declared in July. Led by RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, the alternative administration has been widely condemned as possibly fracturing Sudan, but controls significant territory across Darfur.

The city was struck by the army in October when it targeted the RSF and Nyala airport, which has been reportedly used by the RSF as a logistics hub for its forces.

Fighting continues across Darfur

Fighting has raged across Darfur since the RSF captured el-Fasher in October, an offensive marked by atrocities documented by rights groups.

The United States has said the RSF has committed genocide in Darfur.

This week, the RSF announced it had seized the Abu Qumra region in North Darfur and claimed advances towards Um Buru, though joint forces allied with the army disputed RSF assertions that they had also taken the town of Karnoi.

The attack on Nyala came just two days after Sudan’s prime minister, Kamil Idris, presented a peace proposal to the United Nations Security Council calling for RSF withdrawal from captured areas, disarmament in camps, and eventual elections.

The RSF rejected the plan, with spokesman Alaa el-Din Naqd telling Sudanese outlet Radio Dabanga it amounted to “wishful thinking”.

Sudan’s de facto leader, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, was in Ankara for talks on Thursday with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at which Erdogan expressed his support for peace efforts and his opposition to dividing Sudan.

Hours earlier, a senior official in Sudan’s Transitional Sovereignty Council ruled out any negotiations, declaring there could be “no truce and no negotiation with an occupier”.

The war, which erupted in April 2023, has killed more than 100,000 people and displaced nearly 14 million, in what the UN describes as one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

Since the RSF seized el-Fasher – the last major army stronghold in Darfur – the conflict has shifted to Central Kordofan, splitting Sudan between territories controlled by the military and the RSF.