TOP NEWS

The attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis on Saudi Arabia have pushed the war in Yemen to a new level. The targeting of civilian infrastructure, including airports, which has killed at least a dozen people and injured hundreds, has left no room to maintain the “red lines” that previously outlined the limits of escalation.

This is a reckless gamble by the Houthis which is not in their interest. They are aware that the retaliation will be fierce, yet they continue to attack Saudi Arabia to fulfil Iran’s agenda that seeks heightened tensions before the United States midterms.

Given the motivation to escalate, the present situation has the potential to develop into two scenarios: A major region-wide operation against the Houthis or a war of attrition.

Scenario one: A united front against the Houthis

In response to the Houthi escalation, Saudi Arabia is striving to garner maximum international support while deepening its regional and international alliances. The aim is to come up with a united front capable of taking on what has become a regional threat.

Riyadh is certainly looking to its Gulf neighbours who, themselves, are impacted by the continuing conflict in the region. There is a collective realisation that everyone is in grave danger, not just Saudi Arabia.

Therefore, Gulf states – perhaps with the exception of Oman – will support Riyadh both directly and indirectly in the fighting in Yemen.

Pakistan and Turkiye are also likely to join the front, having signed with Saudi Arabia a defence agreement known as the Mecca Pact. The pact is to be ratified by the Turkish parliament in the next few days, opening the way for Turkish military deployment in support of Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, indirect involvement by Turkiye and Pakistan, along with logistical and intelligence support, appears to be already well under way.

A US intervention is also possible, although it seems unlikely before the US midterms, as military engagements in the Middle East remain unpopular among US voters.

A region-wide coalition can help support the counteroffensive of the forces loyal to the internationally recognised Yemeni government already under way. This could give the necessary push to retake the western coastal region, including areas beyond Bab al-Mandeb and Dhubab.

Such gains could ease pressure on Red Sea shipping and potentially shift the military balance in favour of the government. The opening of additional fronts across other Yemeni cities and governorates could stretch Houthi forces, disperse their resources, and increase the likelihood of further government advances.

Retaking Sanaa could also be on the horizon. The primary obstacle delaying the Yemeni government’s recapture of the city is internal discord among the various factions within the government itself, compounded by negative external interference that exacerbates these rifts and weakens the collective effort to confront the Houthis.

Recent measures taken by the government, specifically efforts to unify its decision-making and consolidate its military operations command, have yielded noticeable progress on the ground. However, achieving the ultimate objective of retaking Sanaa requires sustained effort and focused determination.

If government forces make substantial gains, that could force the Houthis to offer concessions in exchange for a pause in fighting. They have done that before. Their purpose would not be to seek peace but to get enough breathing room to regroup and eventually go back to fighting. Negotiators should keep that in mind when approaching talks with the Houthis.

Scenario two: A war of attrition

If the Saudi-led coalition and the Yemeni government succumb to internal divisions and disagreements, this may slow progress against the Houthis. This would allow the Houthi fighters to hold on to their positions while increasing their pressure on the strategic town of Taiz and maintaining the campaign against civilian targets in Saudi Arabia.

Such a development could further complicate the conflict, increase civilian casualties and displacement, and prolong the war without producing a decisive military outcome.

This will have a significant economic impact on Saudi Arabia and complicate the implementation of its development goals, as it would have to prioritise defence spending.

The rest of the Gulf economies will also be negatively impacted because Saudi Arabia plays such a central role in the region. What is more, losing ground to the Houthis would mean that the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz would also continue, disrupting energy exports from the region.

In this scenario, there will be “no victor, no vanquished” deadlock in Yemen, but Iran would emerge as winner. A war of attrition along the Red Sea coast would provide Tehran with significant breathing room, allowing it to alleviate pressure on its own war efforts.

This would enable Iran to use the Houthi card as leverage in the intermittent negotiations it conducts with the international community, emboldening it to raise the bar regarding its conditions and demands during those talks.

This means that the only way to resolve the crisis in Yemen is decisive military action led by the Yemeni government and supported by a region-wide coalition. For that to happen, the government has to get its internal affairs and its relations with allies in order.

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

The woman’s young daughter was rescued from a large fire inside the apartment caused by the attack.

An Israeli air strike on an apartment block in Gaza has killed a woman and wounded two other people, hospital officials said.

Reem Asaad Awad, 33, was killed in the attack early on Wednesday in the Al-Rimal neighbourhood of Gaza City, the Turkish state news agency Anadolu reported, quoting a source at Al Shifa hospital.

The source said the strike caused extensive destruction to the targeted apartment and nearby buildings.

The daughter of the woman who was killed was rescued from a large fire that broke out after the attack.

Israel says it is investigating the strike and claims it targeted a member of Hamas, without providing evidence.

Reporting from Gaza City, Al Jazeera’s Ibrahim al-Khalili said the strike happened at 4am (01:00 GMT).

Israel has killed 1,501 Palestinians in Gaza since it agreed a “ceasefire” with the Palestinian group Hamas last October. The truce was part of a wider United States-backed proposal to end Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza.

Talks aimed at advancing to the second phase of the US plan, which includes the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the disarmament of Hamas, have stalled.

The agreement states that 600 trucks of humanitarian aid are to be allowed into Gaza each day, but Israeli authorities have continued to impose severe restrictions on supplies entering the enclave, and reconstruction of the war-shattered territory has not begun.

German authorities briefly closed an airport and scrambled fighter jets to escort a passenger plane on Tuesday following an emergency alert indicating a hijacking was taking place on board. However, the alert had been accidentally triggered by a radio “malfunction”.

Corendon Airlines said its Boeing 737-800, which was en route from the Greek holiday island of Corfu to Nuremberg, Germany, sent out an emergency code while it was flying over Croatia “due to a brief malfunction in the radio communication system”.

In a statement, the airline said that “no emergency situation occurred”, and the 178 passengers, flight crew and aircraft had not been in danger at any point. The plane landed safely in Nuremberg.

What happened?

German police said Corendon Airlines flight XR456 “inadvertently” sent out an emergency “squawk” alert with the code 7500 while flying over Croatia on Tuesday.

A squawk is a four-digit code a pilot sends via the jet’s transponder to air traffic control. The code 7500 tells air traffic controllers that a hijacking is in progress.

However, air traffic controllers were unable to make contact with the pilots or crew, causing the alarm to be raised further. It is unclear why this happened.

“The aircraft could no longer be reached by radio to clarify the situation”, prompting warnings to be activated in several European countries, police said.

A Rafale fighter jet was scrambled from Croatia to intercept the Boeing passenger jet, while the German military also dispatched warplanes.

Police cordoned off the Albrecht Dürer airport in Nuremberg as a precaution until they knew the reason the pilot had sent the hijack alert.

Police spokesman Michael Petzold explained that authorities had “received a code directly from the cockpit that suggested a hijacking”.

“Since we were then unable to reach the cockpit, and the tower was also unable to contact the cockpit, we had to assume the worst – that it might indeed be a hijacking,” Petzold said.

The incident disrupted flights, with six flights delayed and two inbound flights diverted to other airports as a precaution, a Nuremberg airport spokesperson said.

Why are aviation authorities so concerned?

The hijack scare has come amid heightened concerns about aviation security after the copilot on board a Flydubai jet bound for Israel from Dubai attacked the captain with an emergency crash axe, forcing the flight to make an emergency landing in Saudi Arabia on September 30.

On Friday, the United Arab Emirates’ prosecutor general said the copilot was on a “suicide” mission to crash the plane at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv and called the incident a “terrorist attack”.

Also, before the false hijack alert in the early hours of Tuesday, flights had been briefly disrupted at Nuremberg ‌airport after pilots reported suspected drone sightings.

Authorities across Europe have already stepped up surveillance of the skies in recent weeks after a series of mostly mysterious drone incidents and concerns about Russian hybrid warfare.

Western nations, including Germany, have accused Moscow of launching a campaign of sabotage, espionage and disruption to undermine European support for Ukraine and destabilise the continent.

Several German airports have had to suspend operations for brief periods in recent months due to drone activity, with suspicion often falling on Russia.

Last month, the German government blamed Russia for an attempted attack at Leipzig/Halle airport in August using a drone laden with explosives. Berlin closed the Russian consulate among other measures.

Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed the allegations, saying Berlin “fabricated” the evidence. However, in light of the concerns, NATO’s top general told the Warsaw Security Forum earlier this week that the alliance has a new war plan for countering a Russian attack on its members, embedding lessons learned from the Ukrainian front lines.

How common are radio glitches and false hijack alerts?

Radio glitches are common, but incidents rarely escalate to major security events because pilots use back-up radios to communicate with air traffic controllers when they lose communication signals.

In 2019, a pilot flying an Air Europa jet from Amsterdam to Madrid accidentally transmitted hijack alert 7500. For half an hour, aviation authorities thought the alarm was a genuine emergency and followed safety protocols, which disrupted flights and led to the evacuation of part of Schipol airport in the Netherlands.

In 2011, a flight from Chicago to Germany was diverted to Toronto when a pilot spilled coffee and accidentally set off a hijack alarm. The spill caused distress signals to go out, including the 7500 transponder code.

More than three years into the war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Sudan is desperately in need of a political settlement. The fighting has caused immense suffering, and a military solution alone cannot rebuild the state or reunify its fractured society. Under such circumstances, any effort aimed at encouraging Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue deserves serious consideration rather than outright rejection.

In August, a self-appointed committee of 19 Sudanese public figures, chaired by Ahfad University President Qasim Badri, launched an initiative to prepare the ground for national dialogue inside Sudan. Its members had earlier met SAF chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and called for legal restrictions on opposition politicians to be lifted. The authorities subsequently issued a decree to drop certain politically motivated charges against Sudanese abroad returning for dialogue and grant participants temporary legal protections. These are limited but important confidence-building measures.

The initiative has nevertheless faced strong opposition. The civilian coalition Sumoud, led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, and Ta’sis, an alliance that includes the RSF, have opposed the proposed internal dialogue. They question its independence and warn that holding talks in army-controlled areas could legitimise al-Burhan’s authority and entrench the country’s divisions. These concerns are legitimate and deserve serious attention. But the committee says it is not seeking to negotiate Sudan’s future or determine the agenda of a national dialogue. Its role is to help create the conditions for Sudanese political actors to engage one another directly. The question is whether it can fulfil that role without allowing one side of the conflict to dominate the process. Dismissing the initiative before it has had an opportunity to demonstrate its value would be premature.

The country’s political actors and civil society organisations remain deeply divided, previous mediation efforts have faltered, and the war continues to make comprehensive political engagement increasingly difficult. The committee’s initiative is an attempt to break the deadlock. Efforts to prepare for political dialogue should not be postponed until the fighting stops. Securing a ceasefire and ensuring humanitarian access are urgent priorities, but preparations for political dialogue can proceed alongside efforts to achieve them.

The committee’s members were not elected, and they do not represent every political constituency. Yet the committee’s legitimacy cannot be judged solely by how it was created. It must also be judged by whether it can help bring a broader range of political actors into a national dialogue.

Good intentions alone cannot resolve concerns about credibility. Political dialogue can succeed only if participants believe the process is fair and independent. The legitimacy required to facilitate a political opening is not necessarily the same as that required to negotiate a national settlement. But even a preparatory initiative must earn the trust of those it seeks to bring together.

The committee’s meeting with al-Burhan was a practical necessity. As army chief and head of the Sovereignty Council, he was in a position to respond to the committee’s demands for legal protections. Engaging with al-Burhan does not in itself amount to an endorsement of his authority. But if the initiative becomes too closely associated with the army, other political actors may view it as an extension of al-Burhan’s political agenda rather than an independent facilitator. The committee must therefore demonstrate that its engagement extends beyond the military authorities and that it is prepared to work with political forces that oppose them.

The initiative was launched in Khartoum, which is under army control. This raises a genuine concern about whether a process beginning in territory controlled by one side of the war can attract the confidence of political forces across the country. A national dialogue cannot be confined to one geographical or political constituency. Entire regions have experienced different realities of war, governance, displacement and insecurity. The committee must find ways to reach those living outside army-controlled areas, including Sudanese displaced by the fighting, and ensure they can participate freely and without intimidation.

Sumoud and Ta’sis’s decision to reject the initiative does not automatically invalidate the process. Their concerns deserve consideration, but outright rejection at this early stage risks closing off an opportunity for political engagement. At the same time, their absence matters. Sudan’s crisis is too deep and complex to be addressed by any single political current. The committee cannot expect every stakeholder to endorse its initiative immediately, but it must create conditions that persuade reluctant actors to participate. If it fails to do so, the initiative itself will have failed.

The African Union Commission and the Arab League have also welcomed the initiative, providing an important measure of regional support. Their endorsement lends weight to the effort to revive Sudanese-led political dialogue, although external backing cannot substitute for the confidence of Sudan’s own political forces.

The committee’s initiative should therefore be judged without excessive optimism or automatic suspicion. The legal measures announced following its engagement with al-Burhan are an encouraging first step, but the real test lies ahead. Does it help remove legal and political obstacles facing opposition actors in practice, not just on paper? Can it win the confidence of those who have rejected it? Can it ensure that Sudanese across the country’s political and geographical divides have an opportunity to participate freely?

What is clear, however, is that Sudan’s crisis will ultimately require Sudanese actors with profoundly different visions of the country’s future to sit together and engage one another politically. No committee can do that on their behalf. No external actor can do it for them. At best, a preparatory initiative can help create the conditions under which such engagement becomes possible. The concerns raised by its critics should not be dismissed, but neither should they be grounds for rejecting the initiative before it has had an opportunity to address them. Those who have rejected it should remain open to reconsidering their position if the committee demonstrates that it can build an independent and inclusive process. If it succeeds, it will have rendered an important national service.

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

As a London borough moves to cut ties with Haifa, test your knowledge of the world’s twin cities.

Hackney, a borough in east London, is consulting residents until October 14 on whether to end its twinning with Haifa, Israel’s third-largest city, a link that dates back to 1968.

The Green Party-led council voted on July 28 to end the partnership in principle, citing its values and human rights commitments amid Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Councillors will make a final decision after the consultation and a review of the borough’s twinning policy.

What are twin cities?

Twin cities, also called sister cities, are places in different countries linked by formal friendship agreements. These relationships can support school exchanges, cultural events and civic visits, though many become inactive over time.

Can you guess which cities are twinned? Take our quiz below.

How twin cities began

Modern town twinning grew after World War II as a way to rebuild trust and foster peace. Coventry and Stalingrad (now Volgograd), both heavily bombed during the war, established a friendship link in 1944, often cited as the first modern city-twinning relationship.

The US city of St Paul and Japan’s Nagasaki established a sister-city partnership in 1955 to promote reconciliation after the atomic bombing of the latter in 1945. Cities have since formed links because of shared histories, similar roles as capitals or ports, or communities with roots in both places.

Why do cities cut ties?

Because twinning is often symbolic, ending a link can allow a council to make a statement. Several UK councils suspended or ended links with Russian cities after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Prague’s relationship with Beijing also ended in 2019 amid a dispute involving Taiwan, after which the Czech Republic established a partnership with Taipei. Hackney’s proposal is the latest example of cities reassessing their international ties.

The long-delayed bridge will formally open on Thursday, according to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency.

China and North Korea will officially open the New Yalu River Bridge to traffic on Thursday, China’s state-run Xinhua news agency reports.

China completed its side of the bridge in 2014, hoping to boost trade ties. However, North Korea left its side unfinished for years as relations soured after Beijing supported United Nations sanctions over Pyongyang’s nuclear tests.

The first bridge connecting Russia and North Korea also opened earlier this month.

China-North Korea Relations  

China’s exports to North Korea rose to a six-year high of $2.3bn last year, a 25 percent increase from the previous year. Chinese President Xi Jinping was welcomed in Pyongyang in June for the first time since 2019.

Since 2018, Beijing has tried to repair ties with Pyongyang, which also briefly began improving relations with Washington around the same time.

The China-North Korea relationship was forged during the Korean War. In 1961, the two countries signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, which remains China’s only formal military alliance.

The treaty contains a mutual defence clause committing either side to assist the other if one comes under armed attack.

Although China was North Korea’s main diplomatic partner and protector for decades, relations strained after Beijing in 2017 supported tightening sanctions on Pyongyang for its nuclear weapons programme.

Analysts say North Korea’s recent growing relationship with Russia may have changed the balance of Pyongyang’s diplomatic dependence, reducing its reliance on Beijing.

North Korea and Russia signed a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty in 2024, including a mutual defence provision. Military and political ties between the two countries have grown considerably stronger, with North Korea deploying thousands of troops to fight in Russia’s war on Ukraine.

United States President Donald Trump also signalled an interest in repairing relations with Pyongyang last month, after his talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un abruptly ended in 2019. In his second term, Trump has floated meeting Kim again, though no official meeting has been set.

North Korea has not yet resumed issuing tourism visas to Chinese citizens, who once made up the bulk of its overseas visitors.

While North Korea’s trade with Russia largely involves military supplies, exchanges with China could arguably involve goods North Korea needs to develop its civilian economy, analysts have said.

The cultural exchange comes amid strengthening ties between the two countries.

Israel has returned 22 ancient artefacts stolen from Greece, a cultural exchange that comes as the two countries strengthen ties.

Greek and Israeli officials did not provide details on Tuesday on how the artefacts were discovered in Israel or the circumstances surrounding their illegal removal from Greece.

The Israel Antiquities Authority’s Theft Prevention Unit had located the items, Pninat Yanay, Israel’s ambassador to Greece, said.

Greek Minister of Culture Lina Mendoni accepted the objects from the Israeli Antiquities Authority at a ceremony held at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens.

“It is the first time that Israel has returned antiquities to Greece, marking the starting point of closer cooperation between the two countries for the protection of cultural heritage,” Mendoni said.

“Every return of a cultural object to its place of origin has a broader symbolic and moral dimension.”

The collection includes 15 Attic vases, six Corinthian vases, and a bronze female statuette.

The objects are dated between 700 BC and 320 BC.

Yanay said the return of the antiquities created “the conditions for further strengthening cooperation between Greece and Israel”.

Greece-Israel relations

Greece and Israel have strengthened energy and defence ties in recent years.

In August, Israel signed a $3.5bn defence deal to build a multi-layered air defence system in Greece, called the Achilles Shield. It is the largest defence deal between the two countries, and one of the most significant export agreements in Israel’s recent history.

The Caribbean country of Jamaica has received its first third-country deportations from the United States, as part of an expanding set of international agreements under President Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, 22 deportees from the US arrived at Norman Manley International Airport in Kingston, Jamaica.

Media reports indicate they were subsequently boarded onto a bus and taken to an undisclosed location.

Such deportations – which often involve non-citizens who have no ties to their destinations – have faced widespread condemnation from human rights groups and advocates who have questioned their legality.

But Jamaica is among a growing number of countries to accept third-country deportations, as part of Trump’s effort to implement the largest mass deportation campaign in US history.

At least 35 countries have entered into third-country deportation agreements with the US, according to Third Country Deportation Watch, an advocacy project affiliated with the groups Refugees International and Human Rights First.

The Washington Post reported last month that the Trump administration has earmarked roughly $410m to support such efforts.

Jamaica signed a bilateral memorandum of understanding in June to receive third-country deportations. Under the plan, Jamaica will transfer any deportees to their home countries or other destinations after their arrival.

The country’s government has also pledged not to accept any deportees with criminal records.

“The government reiterates that this is a transit arrangement intended to facilitate the return of Third Country Nationals to their country of origin or other receiving countries,” Jamaica’s Ministry of National Security and Peace and its Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade said in a joint statement.

It added that care for the deportees will be supported by the International Organization for Migration, a United Nations organisation.

“The arrangement will not be funded by the Government of Jamaica,” the joint statement added.

Opposition leaders in Jamaica, however, spoke out against the deportation, framing the deal as a threat to the island’s security. They also questioned why the agreement had not been debated publicly.

“Jamaicans are being asked to trust a secret document that touches their security, their communities and their public services,” said Fitz Jackson, the opposition spokesperson on national security.

In response to Jackson’s statement, Foreign Minister Kamina Johnson Smith argued that any questions about the deportation deal “have all been answered”. She also indicated that the US has not agreed to make the deal public.

“As I explained before, some countries have agreed to receive criminals, we have not,” she wrote on social media.

“Some countries have had their agreements made public, but our partner has not agreed for this one to be.”

Legal challenges against the third-country deportations are ongoing in the US, where advocates have argued that deportees are being removed from the country without due process of law, the constitutional right to a fair hearing.

Critics have also argued that third-country deportations sometimes send immigrants to countries where they may face danger.

Some of the recipient countries, such as South Sudan, are in the midst of ongoing conflict or have faced accusations of serious human rights abuses.

Opponents have even said the third-country deportations are being used as a backdoor method for circumventing court protection orders.

Such orders may prohibit the US government from returning certain immigrants to their home countries, for fear of violence and persecution.

But by sending immigrants to third countries, critics say the Trump administration avoids violating such protection orders – though in some cases, the third country has then returned the deportee to the country identified in the US protection order.

In a February report by Democrats on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one official said anonymously that the purpose of such far-flung deportations was to instil fear.

“The point is that the administration can threaten people that they will literally be dropped in the middle of nowhere,” the official said. “The point is to scare people.”

The second-largest US bank faces record penalties for failing to comply with sanctions and money laundering laws.

The US Treasury Department has imposed more than $1.21 billion in penalties against Bank of America, the second-largest bank in the US, for violating anti-money laundering and sanctions laws.

The fines announced on Tuesday include the third-largest penalty in the department’s history, the US Treasury said in a statement.

“When a bank of this size fails to meet its anti-money laundering and sanctions obligations, the consequences extend far beyond its own walls, exposing the entire US financial system to significant illicit finance risks,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

He added that these “actions send a clear message that even the biggest financial institutions are not above the law”.

Enforcement actions

According to the Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) assessed a $1.2 billion penalty over the bank’s failure to mitigate and report “priority national security risks, including Chinese Money Laundering Networks and illicit finance along the southwest border”.

The failures identified by FinCEN involved deficiencies related to the bank’s suspicious transaction identification and reporting and customer due diligence processes. According to the statement, “the Bank effectively outsourced to third parties a substantial portion of its proactive detection and reporting obligations”.

“Bank of America failed to timely report to FinCEN over $5 billion dollars in suspicious transactions”, the Treasury said in the statement.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) assessed a $750 million fine, the largest in its history, for the bank’s deficient and ineffective anti-money laundering compliance programme. FinCEN’s $1.2 billion penalty includes credit for the OCC fine.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) also announced an $11.6 million settlement agreement over apparent violations of numerous sanctions programmes, including on Iran, Russia, narcotics and global terrorism.

Bank of America agreed to settle 475 apparent violations of multiple sanctions programmes, and the settlement includes “significant compliance commitments regarding training, testing and audit, and future communication and cooperation with OFAC”.

In the statement, the Treasury said the actions “underscore the importance of effectively complying” with US anti-money laundering and sanctions requirements.

In response, Bank of America said in a statement: “Financial crime compliance is serious, and we are responsible for getting it right.”

“We have invested billions of dollars in technology and dedicated thousands of employees to combat financial crime, and our team is far along with and committed to completing the work required to address the issues raised by our regulators.”

US President Donald Trump has accused Houthi rebels of targeting Saudi infrastructure to inflate energy prices before the US midterm elections.

Manchester United beaten 2-0 at Atletico Madrid, but defender Lisandro Martinez slams club’s failure to invest in team.

Manchester United defender Lisandro Martinez blasted the club’s board for a perceived lack of investment this summer, after the team were beaten by Atletico Madrid in the Champions League on Tuesday.

United are winless in five games across all competitions after the 2-0 defeat in the Spanish capital and have made their worst start to a league season in 40 years.

“Really poor,” Martinez told Amazon Prime when asked about the team’s performance against Atletico.

“I have to control myself a lot but sometimes is a reflection… [or] mirror of how our club is at the moment.”

Martinez said he “100 percent” expected more investment in the squad over the summer after United finished third in the Premier League last season and returned to Europe’s top competition.

“I expect more from our technical director [Jason Wilcox], I have to be honest, as players we have to do more, but it is also important when you make a strong squad to be ready for these kind of nights,” he continued.

Martinez said last season the club had “created the base to create an amazing team”, but they did not follow through.

Pressure is mounting on coach Michael Carrick after five games without a win, but Martinez suggested sacking the Englishman was not the way forward.

“You can’t keep changing, changing, changing the manager. What about other areas? I can’t say more,” said Martinez.

“Tonight it is easy to say the coach [is to blame], easy to say the players, but also we have to see other areas.”

Red Devils minority owner Jim Ratcliffe was at the stadium to watch the league-phase defeat by last season’s semi-finalists.

Man United spent around 140 million pounds ($185m) this summer on midfielders Carlos Baleba, Youri Tielemans and Andrey Santos, but fans were upset the club did not reinforce other positions, including left-back and striker.

Speaking to reporters after the game, Carrick said he had not heard Martinez’s comments and so could not judge them.

“I think it’s a little bit on the emotions of the game as well, of coming here and being disappointed not to get something from the game,” said the coach.

Former Manchester United and England striker Wayne Rooney said Martinez’s criticism was excessive.

“I think he’s maybe gone a bit too far, and that should have stayed internal,” Rooney told Amazon Prime.

“You can clearly see that he cares and he wants the club to invest more money in more players, and to do that he’s probably one of the players who’ll be out the door if I’m being honest.”

Who: Manchester City vs Paris Saint-Germain
What: UEFA Champions League, matchday 2
Where: City of Manchester Stadium, Manchester, United Kingdom
When: Wednesday, October 14, at 8pm (19:00 GMT)
How to follow: Al Jazeera Sport will bring you all the build-up and live updates from 16:00 GMT.

After being found guilty of an unprecedented breach of the Premier League’s financial rules, Manchester City turn their focus to the Champions League this week, as they host two-time holders PSG on matchday two.

Fresh off a defiant league win over Liverpool at a hostile Anfield, City have momentum on their side as they welcome PSG in a clash of two of Europe’s finest teams.

Fans will have a golden opportunity to witness a mouthwatering battle between Erling Haaland, City’s lethal striker, and forward Ferran Torres, who is enjoying his new spell at PSG after helping Spain win the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Haaland has eight goals across all competitions; Torres has seven. On Wednesday, more could be added to those tallies in this round of the UCL.

After Tuesday’s league matches, PSG are ranked fifth while Man City are ninth.

Here’s everything to know about the clash:

Which financial rules have Man City breached?

An independent commission found City guilty of almost all of the 115 charges relating to breaches of Premier League financial regulations between the 2009-10 and 2017-18 seasons, as well as three of four charges relating to failures to cooperate with the investigation.

City have denied wrongdoing and lodged an appeal.

No sanctions have been decided yet, but if City’s appeal fails, potential punishments include a significant point deduction and expulsion from the Premier League.

There is even the prospect of three Premier League titles being stripped from City, who won them from 2009 to 2018, the period to which the charges relate.

How have Man City played this season?

Man City have maintained a perfect record in the Premier League, winning all six matches.

Their only defeat across all competitions this season came in mid-August, when they lost to Arsenal in the Community Shield, the traditional curtain-raiser to the English football season.

How have PSG played this season?

PSG, who usually dominate Ligue 1 having won a record 14 titles, are fifth in the table, three points adrift of leaders Barcelona.

What happened in the first round of Champions League matches?

Reigning champions PSG thrashed Slovan Bratislava 6-1 at home in their first UCL match of the season, while Man City won 2-0 away to Porto in their campaign opener.

That keeps PSG fifth and Man City ninth in the league phase of this year’s Champions League.

The top eight teams at the end of the league phase qualify directly to the knockout rounds, which begin with the round of 16.

Man City vs PSG: Predictions

The Opta supercomputer has made City the favourites, with a win probability of 44.1 percent. PSG were given a 32 percent chance of winning, while a draw was estimated at a 23.9 percent likelihood.

Man City vs PSG: Head-to-head

(In the Champions League)

• Matches: 7
• Man City wins: 4
• PSG wins: 2
• Draws: 1

Man City vs PSG: Form guide

(Last five matches across all competitions, latest match first)

Man City: W-W-W-W-W

PSG: W-W-W-W-L

Who are the top players to watch?

Erling Haaland and Rayan Cherki (Man City): Haaland’s six goals make him the Premier League’s leading scorer this season. His excellent form follows an equally impressive World Cup debut with Norway in North America. Haaland’s teammate Cherki is another vital City attacker with five goals and two assists in all competitions.

Ferran Torres and Marquinhos (PSG): Torres, whose extra-time goal guided Spain to the 2026 World Cup triumph, has made a quick start to life at his new club PSG, scoring seven goals in all competitions. That includes a hat-trick in PSG’s first UCL fixture. Meanwhile, captain Marquinhos has been an important presence in defence and has also scored three times.

Did you know?

• City are unbeaten at home against PSG (W3 D1), winning each of the last three games – most recently 2-1 on matchday 5 in 2021-22.
• City also defeated PSG in the 2015-16 quarterfinals (2-2 away, 1-0 home) and the 2020-21 semifinals (2-1 away, 2-0 home).
• City have lost only two of their last eight matches against French opponents (W5 D1), although they have won only one of their last four (D1 L2), drawing 2-2 at Monaco on Matchday 2 last season.
• PSG are unbeaten in their last 11 matches against English teams (W8 D3), beating Aston Villa 2-1 in August’s UEFA Super Cup. Last season’s Champions League final against Arsenal is the only fixture in the last six they did not win in normal time.
• A 2-0 victory at Liverpool in last season’s quarterfinal second leg was PSG’s third in succession in England.

Team news and predicted lineups

Man City team news

City have a fully fit squad for the match.

Predicted starting XI:

Gianluigi Donnarumma; Matheus Nunes, Marc Guehi, Ruben Dias, Josko Gvardiol; Ayyoub Bouaddi, Enzo Fernandez; Phil Foden, Rayan Cherki, Antoine Semenyo; Erling Haaland

PSG team news

Senny Mayulu is out until late October with a thigh injury.

Predicted starting XI: 

Matvey Safonov; Achraf Hakimi, Marquinhos, Willian Pacho, Nuno Mendes; Dro Fernandez, Vitinha, Fabian Ruiz; Maghnes Akliouche, Khvicha Kvaratskhelia, Ferran Torres

The 71-year-old is recovering in Rome’s Gemelli hospital after surgery to remove a cancerous growth on his lung.

Pope Leo XIV has been diagnosed with cancer after an operation to remove the lower lobe of his right lung, according to a medical bulletin published by the Vatican.

Tests confirmed a diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma, the Vatican added, noting the diagnosis had been suspected by preoperative tests. It did not provide details on the recovery outlook or course of treatment.

In a statement released Tuesday, the Vatican said the procedure lasted 90 minutes and that the surgery “was successful, and there were no complications”.

The 71-year-old has returned to his room at Rome’s Gemelli hospital, where he is expected to recover for a week, with all his audiences through October 20 cancelled.

The Vatican said doctors are not currently discussing chemotherapy or other therapies pending the results of other tests.

The Holy See’s press office noted the medical statement spoke of the “radical” removal of the lobe as an indication that doctors removed all suspect tissue in the hope of eliminating any lingering traces of the cancer.

Before the procedure, Leo waved to dozens of well-wishers gathered at the hospital’s main entrance.

In an unusually transparent update on papal health, Leo first revealed that doctors found a small nodule during his Sunday noon prayer in St Peter’s Square.

“The doctors believe it’s best to take action, so, following their advice, I’ve decided to have surgery to remove it,” he said during remarks delivered in Italian.

Latin American tour

The pope has no reported history of serious illness and is considered physically active, routinely swimming and playing tennis.

The surgery comes ahead of an official Latin America tour scheduled for November 6-17, with stops planned across Uruguay, Argentina and Peru.

It is unclear whether his recovery will affect the ambitious itinerary, which includes a dozen flights, two helicopter rides and significant altitude changes in Peru.

The pope told reporters on Sunday that he intends to make the journey.

The call comes as polls cast doubt on political leaders’ ability to manage AI risks amid US midterm elections.

A group of more than 300 scientists from around the world is calling for urgent changes to how artificial intelligence is developed and deployed amid growing concerns about its unpredictable behaviour.

The letter, released on Tuesday and signed by researchers representing universities and research institutes in 32 countries, warned that failures to follow basic cybersecurity practices could lead to damage to critical infrastructure.

Many recent incidents in which AI models escaped secure environments could have been prevented with stronger security systems, the scientists said.

They recommended that organisations developing and testing advanced AI systems capable of carrying out cyberattacks do so in more tightly controlled environments, including “air-gapped” systems that are not connected to the internet.

Growing concerns

The letter comes amid growing concerns about AI’s capabilities and its potential impact on everyday users. On Monday, Anthropic warned that its AI models could soon be capable of creating self-spreading malware that could affect everyday internet-connected devices, including smart TVs, security cameras and smart appliances such as ovens.

The report found that AI systems could identify unfamiliar devices without human intervention. The company, led by Dario Amodei, warned that smaller AI models could be capable of carrying out autonomous attacks by the end of the year.

The malware could also be difficult to contain because it might take days to infect a device and could spread across multiple machines rather than remain concentrated in a single, controlled location.

Taking control of internet-connected devices can have immediate consequences. In France, for example, hackers compromised cooling systems across hundreds of supermarkets, raising temperatures and causing more than $220,000 in damage.

Meanwhile, Axios news organisation reported on Friday that Anthropic, OpenAI and other major AI company executives are privately preparing for the possibility of a catastrophic AI-related incident that could disrupt access to major financial services, the internet and potentially critical infrastructure such as water and power systems. Several industry insiders believe a major incident could occur within the next six months to a year, it said.

The scientists also called for more safeguards, including the creation of an international organisation to establish a set of best practices for AI alignment and containment along with timely reporting of incidents.

One of the signatories, David Lie, a professor at the University of Toronto’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, said his concerns began after OpenAI’s AI agents bypassed controls and hacked into servers at the tech company Hugging Face.

“One is that OpenAI, in setting up its test environment, didn’t appreciate how capable its agents were,” Lie said.

“These were the AI agents that they were designing. Second is that the AI agents independently found each other and chose to collaborate on this attack, and third is that they also intentionally tried to deceive and mislead their human creators.”

Political pressures

The letter underscores growing public concern about AI, including in the lead-up to the US congressional midterm elections. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 57 percent of voters said President Donald Trump’s administration was not taking AI risks seriously enough, while 54 percent said the same of Congress.

An AP-NORC poll echoed those findings, with about 80 percent of respondents saying the government should keep AI under human control. Respondents also expressed little confidence in either party’s ability to manage the technology: 39 percent said neither Republicans nor Democrats could be trusted to do a good job of reining it in, while 23 percent expressed greater confidence in Democrats and 21 percent in Republicans.

Advisory comes amid growing concern about the devices being used to secretly record girls and women.

The European Union’s data watchdog has called for smart glasses to clearly show when they are recording, saying bystanders have the right to know when they are being photographed or filmed.

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) issued the non-binding recommendation on Tuesday, amid mounting concern about the devices being used to secretly record girls and women.

It said the use of smart glasses – which can resemble ordinary glasses but also take photos and videos, make phone calls and translate text when connected to the internet – raises “serious privacy concerns”.

EDPB chair Anu Talus said the glasses should have clear signals when they are recording, such as “bright LED lights, audio signals or voice activation cues, privacy-friendly smartphone notifications, or unique designs”.

“These warnings need to be reliable, hard to ignore, and always up to date,” said Talus. “Even in public spaces, bystanders should clearly understand that someone is filming or photographing them.”

The devices carry greater risks in “sensitive” spaces like schools and hospitals, as well as public spots like beaches, and raised concerns about children who are “more vulnerable to covert or intrusive processing of their personal data”, the EDPB warned.

The advisory comes amid campaigns in several European countries to ban or restrict smart glasses over privacy concerns.

Norway’s government said last week it was also worried about privacy invasions and wants a temporary ban on the use of smart glasses in certain public places. The capital Oslo already opted to ban glasses equipped with cameras in schools.

France’s e-Enfance association, which operates the national hotline for victims of online abuse, has also sounded the alarm about videos recorded with camera-equipped glasses and shared online.

Last month, French prosecutors said they had opened a criminal probe ⁠following sexual harassment complaints related to a social media trend of using smart glasses to film women on the street, without their consent, and posting the videos online.

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, a “Stop Smart Glasses” campaign has launched a petition and call for supporters to contact stores to stop their sale. It reached more than 10,000 signatures, which means the UK government must respond.

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from freedom of information requirements.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a watchdog’s lawsuit seeking public records about trillionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The high court is intervening on Tuesday for a second time in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington’s case, which seeks access to DOGE records from its operations in the early days of US President Donald Trump’s second term. The Trump administration asked the court to hear the case.

Last year, the high court reined in a district court’s order for the government to produce DOGE-related records to CREW. The high court’s conservative majority concluded in June 2025 that US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents to be turned over to the group.

CREW claims DOGE is a federal agency and therefore is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from FOIA’s requirements as a presidential advisory body.

Cooper ruled in CREW’s favour and ordered expedited processing of the group’s records request. An appeals court panel also sided with CREW.

The Trump administration claims the panel ignored the Supreme Court’s direction to consider separation-of-powers concerns and intruded on the “autonomy and confidentiality” of presidential advisers.

“Subjecting advisory bodies to intrusive discovery triggers the very concerns that Congress sought to avoid by excluding presidential advisory bodies from FOIA’s reach,” US Department of Justice lawyers wrote.

The administration also says the appeals court impermissibly authorised the plaintiffs to take a sworn deposition of DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason.

CREW says the appeals court fully complied with the Supreme Court’s previous order. The group also asserts that the public has a right to know how DOGE helped the administration carry out a sweeping overhaul of government operations in 2025.

“Undisputed facts in the public record — including the President’s statements — confirmed that (DOGE) was wielding enormous independent authority across the federal government,” CREW lawyers wrote.

In a statement Tuesday, CREW lawyer Nikhel Sus said the lower courts have uniformly ruled that it is entitled to records that could help the court determine whether DOGE wields the type of authority that would make it subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

“We will continue to pursue transparency for the American people, who deserve to know the details of the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally remake the federal government,” Sus said in the statement.

DOGE said it had slashed tens of billions of dollars in expenditures, but its claims were difficult for outside financial experts to verify.

Federal auditors found that some of DOGE’s reported savings across contract, grant and ⁠lease terminations were incorrect, lacked supporting evidence or included terminations that were already under way when DOGE was established, according to ⁠a report by the Government Accountability Office.

Yemen has reported 8,034 suspected cases and 27 deaths this year, with a quarter of cases from the last four weeks.

Suspected cholera cases in Yemen have tripled in the past three weeks, the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned, as civilians have fled renewed fighting and sought safety in unsanitary camps.

Ramped up combat, which has pushed more than 200,000 people to flee their homes, the WHO added in a report on Tuesday, driving suspected cases from 217 in the week of September 6-12 to 647 in the week of September 27 to October 3.

“Families fleeing conflict are now facing another threat from diseases that can be prevented and treated,” said Annette Heinzelmann, the UN agency’s emergency director for the region.

“Without urgent funding and unimpeded access to safe water, vaccination and essential health services, outbreaks could spread rapidly among already vulnerable communities.”

This year, the global health watchdog said, Yemen had reported 8,034 suspected cases and 27 deaths, with a quarter of the suspected cases occurring in the last four weeks.

Five governorates hosting large numbers of displaced people in the southwest – Abyan, Lahij, al-Dhalea, Taiz and Aden – account for 92 percent of reported cases, they reported. The disease has also reached remote displacement camps in Hadramout in the country’s east that are particularly difficult for medical teams to access.

Emergency response underfunded

Cholera has ebbed and flowed for years as the conflict in Yemen has continued. In 2024, the WHO warned that the country was facing the “highest burden” of a global cholera outbreak. In 2017, a wave of the disease infected hundreds of thousands and killed at least 2,000.

Yemen was already suffering one of the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis” and has seen an escalation of circumstances since fighting reignited between the Houthis – an armed group known as Ansar Allah (Arabic for Supporters of God), and the internationally recognised Yemeni government.

Cholera is an acute intestinal infection that spreads through food and water contaminated with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae, often from faeces. It causes severe diarrhoea, vomiting and muscle cramps.

Contracting the illness can be deadly when not treated with oral rehydration or antibiotics for more severe cases.

The Geneva-based WHO said it had only secured $3.78m of the $31m needed for its 90-day emergency response in Yemen.

The funding is intended to help expand disease surveillance in displacement sites, deploy rapid response teams, strengthen cholera treatment and improve infection prevention in health facilities and cholera treatment sites.

A majority of US adults say President Trump and his family have inappropriately profited from presidency.

Most US adults believe President Donald Trump has placed his personal financial interests and those of his inner circle ahead of the country’s since returning to the White House in 2025, according to a new nationwide poll.

The poll, conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and released on Tuesday, suggests that public perception of the Republican president leans heavily critical: Over half of surveyed adults view Trump’s second term as self-serving by investing in his own business and commercial pursuits “a lot”. Roughly one quarter believe he focuses on national interests, but only 11 percent feel Trump represents regular Americans. Fifty-five percent of Republicans surveyed said that Trump has prioritised his personal business interests “a lot” or “some”.

Half of the respondents report that Trump has placed zero priority on people “like them”.

As Trump’s family business pulls in record funds from new ventures helped by his policies, the poll results suggest that most US adults think growing his own finances has been the north star of Trump’s presidency, at least to some extent.

Trump’s June financial disclosure revealed massive post-election influxes of foreign and corporate capital into his business empire, stemming primarily from over $1bn in cryptocurrency ventures after he loosened regulation on the industry, as well as from international real estate.

During his first year as president, the Trump Organisation – Trump’s multinational family-owned enterprise dedicated to property development and global brand licensing – made eight real estate deals with authoritarian or one-party foreign states. Some speculate these countries were highly motivated to maintain favourable relations with the US to keep Trump happy on fronts like trade tariffs, military protection and private business dealings.

The administration, meanwhile, has repeatedly dismissed concerns over Trump’s business conflicts of interest, maintaining that he acts solely in the interest of Americans.

In late September, a separate Reuters/Ipsos poll found that Trump’s approval rating has fallen to 32 percent – the lowest of his ⁠political career – as his fellow Republicans soured on his handling of the cost of living crisis amid the deeply unpopular Iran war.

The dip in performance and approval ratings follows a high point in January 2025, when the newly inaugurated president boasted a 47 percent approval rating right after taking office.

According to the AP-NORC poll, which surveyed more than 2,000 US adults in late September, general sentiment around the administration’s ethical conduct is highly polarised, with far more citizens feeling that the president has neither prioritised the country as a whole nor everyday Americans.

Just over 40 percent of respondents believe Trump has “done something illegal” vis-a-vis allegations of personal enrichment while in office, with another 18 percent viewing his financial dealings as “unethical but not illegal”.

Opinions surrounding the lawfulness of the president’s financial practices split sharply along party lines, with Democrats overwhelmingly viewing the actions as illegal, compared with about three in 10 independents and about one in 10 Republicans, who largely see his behaviour as justified.