maps

Over the course of Sunday, a dozen B-1B bombers took off from Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford in western England and flew home to the United States. Their departure abruptly ended the base’s role as a launchpad for US strikes on Iran, which began on February 28.

The base, roughly 160km (100 miles) west of London, is the US Air Force’s only European airfield for heavy bombers and a key forward operating location for deployed bombers.

Over the past two weeks, six people were arrested on suspicion of “terrorism”. They were all released on bail.

US President Donald Trump said on Monday the bombers were moved because “there were some threats”, which he believed were linked to Iran. “So we moved them around a little bit, not very far,” he told reporters at the White House.

Hours earlier, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio played down any link to the alleged plot, saying it was “not unusual to see rotations happen” and that he had confidence in the security of US bases.

What happened at RAF Fairford?

On September 27, police arrested five men on suspicion of plotting to plant explosives near Fairford in the United Kingdom. They were released on bail a day later.

Investigators found petrol but no explosive devices in their vans, though UK officials say the men remain under investigation. On Thursday, police arrested a 25-year-old UK-Iranian dual national in London on suspicion of plotting an attack on the airbase. He was also released on bail on October 3.

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham suggested that “Iran played a part” in the alleged plot but declined to give details. Iran has denied any such scheme and summoned the UK ambassador in Tehran in protest at the arrests.

What bombers does the US have?

The US Air Force flies three types of bombers, with a fourth on the way.

The B-52 Stratofortress is the oldest. The B-52H model currently in service was built in the early 1960s. With a wingspan of 56 metres (185 feet), it is the largest US bomber and can carry about 31 tonnes of weapons, including nuclear bombs and cruise missiles.

The B-1B Lancer, which entered service in the mid-1980s, is the fastest of the three. It can reach 1.2 times the speed of sound and has a swing-wing that sweeps back for high-speed flight. It carries the largest conventional payload, about 34 tonnes, but no longer carries nuclear weapons. These were the aircraft that left Fairford.

The B-2 Spirit is a flying-wing stealth bomber designed to slip past air defences. Only 20 were built, of which 19 remain in service. It can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons, including the 13,600kg (30,000lb) “bunker buster” bomb used in US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in June 2025.

The B-21 Raider, a smaller stealth bomber, is still in flight testing, and it remains on track for delivery in 2027. Over the next decade and a half, the air force plans to replace the B-1B and B-2, leaving a future fleet of B-21s and upgraded B-52s.

Where do these bombers fly from?

All US bombers are permanently based in the US, at five main airbases:

• B-52H: Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota
• B-1B: Dyess Air Force Base in Texas and Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota
• B-2: Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri
• B-21: Due to arrive at Ellsworth in South Dakota in 2027

All of these bases have long, wide runways, typically exceeding 10,000 feet (3,048 metres).

That makes bomber runways about as long as those at a big international airport. What limits where bombers can operate is not tarmac but security, weapons storage and support.

For missions abroad, the US rotates bombers through a handful of forward bases. Other important overseas operating locations include Andersen Air Force Base in Guam and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

Beyond these, the air force sends small groups of bombers to allied airbases for a few weeks at a time, in what it calls Bomber Task Force deployments. Recent rotations have included B-52s at Moron in Spain, B-1Bs at Orland in Norway and Misawa in Japan, and B-52s at Tindal in northern Australia, which arrived in September.

The bombers can also go on a strike mission from the US with the help of aerial refuelling. Bomber missions during the US-Israel war on Iran lasted more than 30 hours there and back. Each group of three bombers needed six to nine tanker aircraft to refuel them along the way.

Bosnians are heading to the polls to choose the next government at all three of the state, entity and canton levels. It may seem complicated, but for a country divided into two entities – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, along with Brcko District – this is nothing new.

When do Bosnia’s elections take place?

The general elections are scheduled for Sunday, October 4. More than 3.4 million people are eligible to vote.

What’s different about this election?

This year, new election technology will be used. Voters will be identified using biometric devices, while ballot papers will be scanned rather than simply placed in ballot boxes.

The use of scanners, however, does not mean voting will be fully electronic. Votes will still be cast and recorded on paper, but verification and counting should be faster and more transparent, while voter identification should be more accurate.

Who is running for the Presidency?

Candidates for the Bosniak representative include current Presidency member Denis Becirovic of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Bakir Izetbegovic of the Party of Democratic Action (SDA), Semir Efendic of the Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina (Stranka za BiH), and Fahrudin Radoncic of the Union for a Better Future of BiH (SBB).

Izetbegovic, the president of the centre-right SDA, the biggest Bosniak party in the country, is running for his third term after being defeated by Becirovic in 2022.

Three candidates will run for the Croat seat in the Presidency: Darijana Filipovic of the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HDZ BiH), Slaven Kovacevic of the Democratic Front (DF), and Zdenko Lucic, a candidate supported by a coalition of five Croat parties.

The current Serb member of the Presidency, Zeljka Cvijanovic from the right-wing Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD), is running for a second term. During her term on the country’s top state body, which began in November 2022, just a few months after Russia’s war in Ukraine started, she maintained close and continuous cooperation with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

SNSD is led by Milorad Dodik, the former president of Republika Srpska, best known for his separatist moves and for challenging the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the decisions of former High Representative Christian Schmidt.

Cvijanovic will face Marinko Bozovic of the Serb Democratic Party (SDS) and Nebojsa Vukanovic of the List for Justice and Order.

Who else is on the ballot?

Voters will be choosing representatives for 14 governments, as well as members of the country’s three-member Presidency.

Each entity has its own president, assembly, prime minister and ministers. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is further divided into 10 cantons, each with its own government.

For all this to happen, the Central Election Commission (CIK), the main body responsible for overseeing the voting process, earlier said that 75 political parties and four independent candidates were registered and eligible to participate.

How are Presidency members chosen?

When registered voters go to the polls, they do not elect one president, but choose one of three members of the country’s collective head of state. They are the representatives of the three constituent peoples – Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs.

The Bosniak and Croat members are elected from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while the Serb member is elected from Republika Srpska.

This is because the majority of Bosniaks and Croats live in the Federation, while most Serbs live in Republika Srpska.

The election of the Croat member has weighed on Bosniak-Croat relations for years and has often been used as a reason for political blockades.

Parties gathered around the centre-right Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HDZ BiH) are demanding changes to the Election Law, saying they want to prevent Bosniak voters from influencing the election of the Croat member of the Presidency.

But that would also require changes to the Constitution, which allows all citizens in the Federation to choose whether they want to vote for the Bosniak or the Croat member.

What about citizens who live outside their constituent group’s voting area?

A Serb living in the Federation, or a Bosniak or Croat living in Republika Srpska, who wants to run would not be able to do so, nor can they vote for those they consider to be their own representatives.

That is one of the many paradoxes of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s electoral system.

How is the state-level government chosen?

Citizens elect representatives to the Parliamentary Assembly, which consists of two houses.

Forty-two representatives will be elected to the House of Representatives.

Two-thirds are directly elected from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and one-third from Republika Srpska.

A quorum consists of a majority of all members elected to the House of Representatives.

The second chamber – the House of Peoples – has 15 delegates and is elected indirectly through the institutions. It consists of Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs – five from each group.

What happens with the entities?

The election of entity-level authorities works somewhat differently.

In Republika Srpska, citizens directly elect the National Assembly, as well as the entity president and vice presidents.

They do not directly elect the government – it is confirmed by the National Assembly.

In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, citizens directly elect the House of Representatives of the Federation Parliament and the cantonal assemblies.

Those cantonal assemblies then elect delegates to the Federation’s House of Peoples.

The president of the Federation, the entity government and the cantonal governments are formed after the elections, through parliamentary majorities and political agreements.

Why is it a challenge to form the government?

It is difficult not only because the electoral system is complex, but also because of the lack of agreement among representatives of the three different ethnic communities.

Frequent blockades and obstruction make decision-making difficult at all levels, even though many politicians invoke the politics of compromise.

Elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, therefore, are not only about who wins, but about whether a system designed to represent everyone can serve its citizens.

Why are the elections important?

New election technologies might reduce potential fraud, but much more will be needed for the country’s path towards the European Union.

The outcome of the election could unblock, or further slow down, the adoption of key laws needed for the country’s progress towards EU membership.

The EU granted Bosnia and Herzegovina candidate status in December 2022 and opened accession negotiations in 2024.

However, the country’s progress has since been assessed as very limited and slowed by political blockades.

These elections will also be a test for the ruling coalition, which promised to focus on social and economic issues amid the rising cost of living.

When are the results?

The first preliminary results are traditionally published by CIK late on election night, on October 4, and are updated every few hours.

In the days after the elections, CIK gradually enters votes from the remaining polling stations, mobile voting teams, as well as ballots received by mail and from diplomatic and consular missions.

The official results will be known no later than November 20.

Fighting in Sudan’s Kordofan region has intensified since late 2025, turning it into one of the main battlegrounds in the war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), now in its fourth year.

The vast region, which comprises North, West and South Kordofan states, lies where the two sides’ areas of control meet, between the army-held central region and the RSF-controlled Darfur in the West. In recent months, the SAF has pushed the RSF out of much of North Kordofan.

The battle is increasingly being fought from the air. Drone strikes on towns in North Kordofan are growing more frequent and deadly, and civilian infrastructure has been hit across the region.

Since the war began in April 2023, one in five recorded attacks in Sudan has taken place in Kordofan.

Al Jazeera maps where the fighting is concentrated in Kordofan and across Sudan, and the displacement that has followed.

Who controls what on the ground?

Sudan is broadly divided between the two sides. The SAF controls the capital, Khartoum, and most of the north, east and centre, while the RSF controls the west, including almost all of Darfur and parts of Kordofan. Smaller armed groups, including the RSF-allied Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N), hold pockets of territory in the south.

The army has the upper hand in the north, the RSF in the west, and South Kordofan remains contested.

Where have most attacks occurred?

According to an Al Jazeera analysis of data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), an independent conflict monitor, there were 14,648 recorded attacks between the start of the war on April 15, 2023, and September 19, 2026.

The four most affected states include:

• Khartoum: The capital region has seen the most, with 5,719 attacks, or 39 percent of the total, almost three times as many as North Darfur, the second-highest
• North Darfur has witnessed 1,999 attacks (13.7 percent)
• Gezira state has seen 1,435 attacks (9.8 percent)
• Kordofan emerged as a major centre for fighting. North, South and West Kordofan together recorded 2,876 attacks, or about 19.7 percent of all recorded attacks, putting the region behind only Khartoum when considered collectively.

Who has carried out the most attacks?

The SAF is associated with the largest share of recorded attacks between April 15, 2023 and September 19, 2026, accounting for just over half (52 percent), compared with just over a third (34.7 percent) for the RSF and 13.3 percent for other actors.

The balance of attacks has shifted over time. The SAF was associated with more recorded attacks than the RSF in the first year and a half of the war, before the RSF overtook it in number of attacks from late 2024 to mid-2025.

Since August 2025, the two sides’ monthly attack counts have been closer, with the SAF generally recording slightly more, even as the overall number of attacks has fallen sharply.

Where have attacks in Kordofan occurred?

After the fall of el-Fasher, the last major Darfur city held by the army and its allies, in October 2025, attention shifted to Kordofan. The region sits between RSF-held Darfur and the army-held centre, north and east, forming a corridor between the two sides’ heartlands.

Kordofan’s three states recorded 2,717 attacks: North Kordofan had 1,205 (44 percent), South Kordofan 789 and West Kordofan 723. Adding Abyei, a disputed oil-rich area on the Sudan-South Sudan border that was historically part of Kordofan, brings the total to 2,878.

The concentration of attacks differs from state to state. In North Kordofan, Sheikan locality alone accounted for 497 attacks, or 41 percent of the state’s total. Sheikan is home to the state capital, el-Obeid, a commercial and administrative hub linking central Sudan with the west. Taking the city would open a route east towards Khartoum for the RSF.

On September 9, a drone strike on a college in el-Obeid tore the roof off the building and killed a security guard, the college’s dean, Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, told Reuters.

“As you can see, the entire faculty is destroyed and we feel that our dreams are destroyed, ⁠our future is destroyed,” Omnia Aboul Gassim, a student who had sat her exams at the el-Obeid college just one day before the attack, told Reuters.

In South Kordofan, Dilling locality was the main hotspot, with 242 attacks (31 percent), followed by Kadugli with 107 (14 percent) and Al Quoz with 94 (12 percent).

Attacks in West Kordofan were spread more evenly across localities. Babnusa recorded the most, with 142, followed by En Nuhud (119), Al Khiwai (112) and Abu Zabad (111).

ACLED has recorded at least 12,314 reported fatalities in Kordofan since April 2023.

The SAF was associated with 1,323 attacks (46 percent) across all three states in Kordofan, compared with 920 (32 percent) for the RSF and 633 (22 percent) for other actors.

How many people are displaced?

About 8.6 million people remain internally displaced across Sudan, according to the latest United Nations figures, down from a peak of 11.6 million in January 2025 as millions returned home to areas retaken by the army. New displacement continues in Kordofan, Darfur and Blue Nile.

Darfur hosts the largest concentrations of internally displaced people (IDPs), particularly South and North Darfur.

Returns have steadily increased since 2025, reaching about 5.1 million by August 2026. Khartoum has seen a major return of displaced people, with about 2.7 million returnees.

Despite the decline, millions remain displaced more than three years into the war. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) says the number of people newly displaced in Kordofan since fighting escalated in October 2025 has risen 65 percent in four months, from more than 132,000 in February to at least 219,000 by late June.

The agency has warned that el-Obeid, which shelters about 500,000 people, including more than 83,000 displaced, faces a looming threat of a full-scale invasion.

“The warning signs are impossible to ignore,” said IOM Director General Amy Pope earlier this month. “Across Sudan, families are fleeing violence, losing access to water, electricity and healthcare, and now facing the added burden of destructive floods.”

WASHINGTON — The unprecedented spate of mid-decade redistricting for the U.S. House has changed the congressional districts for one-tenth of Americans and significantly altered the makeup of at least one-fifth of districts, according to a new study.

A report by Protect Democracy found that 34.8 million people — about one in 10 Americans — now live in a different district than they did during the 2024 election cycle. And about one-fifth of all Americans now live in a district where more than a quarter of voters are new to the district compared with the last election cycle.

The findings display the stark overhaul that partisan redistricting fights kicked off by President Trump last year have caused for Americans across the country. The new congressional maps are increasingly drawn in ways that favor partisan politics over factors like geography and shared communities. That raises concerns among scholars about how the country’s hyperpolarized politics are affecting American democracy.

“If this trend continues, it really brings into question whether or not elected officials are really representing their constituents anymore, or if the voters are being randomly picked by mapmakers to squeeze out partisan advantage,” said Ben Raderstorf, a policy advocate at Protect Democracy and one of the paper’s co-authors.

The bare-knuckled partisan redistricting battle for the House began when Trump urged the Republican-controlled legislature in Texas, the second most populous state, to redraw its congressional map to help the party. The highly unusual plan prompted an immediate response from California, the most populous state, which held a successful referendum to tilt its map toward Democrats.

Other states followed, and Republicans are positioned to potentially gain nine seats because of redistricting.

The Protect Democracy report warns that such partisan tactics reduce faith in American elections generally and insulate incumbent lawmakers from public opinion. That can make political organizing more difficult, the report cautioned, potentially worsening the country’s already highly polarized politics. Both parties may also enter a “doom loop” where they embrace more aggressive and frequent redistricting efforts to avoid ceding any ground to their rivals.

In some states such as Missouri, the mid-decade redistricting has created confusion for voters about which district they live in and which candidates will appear on their November ballot. After conflicting lower court rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court last week blocked new Missouri districts backed by Trump that had been used in the primary, leaving the state to revert to its previous districts for the general election.

The report concludes with a call for new electoral structures the authors believe would eliminate the potential downsides of partisan redistricting, like proportional representation or a formal truce between the parties to implement nonpartisan districting plans.

Nine states already use nonpartisan commissions to draw congressional district lines but those provisions have limits. California, for instance, suspended its nonpartisan maps with a referendum last year in response to Texas’ redistricting measures.

Such remedies would face long odds in Congress and statehouses, but scholars believe there are few other avenues to turn down the temperature in the partisan redistricting fights.

“This is only going to get worse until somebody stops it,” Raderstorf said. “The logic of gerrymandering points inevitably towards maximalist partisan advantage on both sides. There is no off-ramp other than reform. It is the only way to break the cycle.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

In a historic move last week, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to encourage the use of new world maps which more accurately depict continents with their true sizes.

The move followed months of lobbying by the African Union, which itself adopted a new map earlier in February. A total of 164 countries voted in favour while six abstained.

The United States was the only member to oppose it. US representative Yaryna Ferencevych said before the vote that the resolution was “the reason this institution is losing its credibility”.

“Instead of focusing on genuine problems … this body is debating map projects from the 16th century,” she said.

But since the resolution was approved, at least three other countries have voiced concerns about the changes: India, Ukraine and Japan.

None are explicitly opposed to adopting a new projection. However, they are raising concerns about how certain disputed territories should be depicted.

Here’s what we know:

Why is there a new world map?

The UN endorsed a resolution promoting the Equal Earth projection of the world map, rather than the Mercator projection, which is currently widely used.

The resolution does not ban Mercator or impose a particular replacement – it merely encourages nations to adopt the Equal Earth version, which was created by three researchers in 2018.

The Mercator projection, which was produced by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569 when the West was busy “conquering” new territories, attempts to show a three-dimensional globe on a two-dimensional surface. That is why countries closer to the poles appear much larger than countries at the equator.

For decades, map experts have pointed out that Mercator’s projection disproportionately shrinks the true size of the African continent and that of other developing regions, while making Europe and the US seem much larger by comparison.

For example, Greenland is shown as roughly the same size as Africa, but, in reality, it could fit into the continent 14 times over. Europe, which is portrayed as bigger than South America, is actually half its size.

Advocates from African countries pointed out that the map is problematic because of the size issues. Importantly, they argued, it reinforces negative perceptions of Africa.

Several cartographers have attempted to develop equal area maps. However, African activists specifically pushed for the Equal Earth projection map, which significantly expands Africa and shrinks Europe and the US.

Experts say while maps are inherently inaccurate because of the constraints of depicting a spherical world on a flat plane, the Equal Earth projection is as close as it gets.

Why is Ukraine worried about the new map?

Ukraine was one of six countries which abstained from the vote at the UNGA, along with Estonia, Georgia, Moldova, Serbia and Lithuania, who voted in solidarity with Ukraine.

Kyiv has complained that the Equal Earth projection depicts the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula in a distinctly lighter shade than mainland Ukraine.

Russia illegally occupied and annexed Crimea in February 2014, a move the UN has denounced.

Although the peninsula is also shaded differently from mainland Russia on the new map, its yellowish tint appears closer to the Russian shade than Ukraine’s.

“Ukraine does not in principle oppose the core issue addressed in this draft resolution,” Andrii Melnyk, the country’s permanent representative to the UN, said in an address to the assembly.

Melnyk said Kyiv had asked for corrections before the vote but had not received positive responses. The new map, he said, could be tantamount to opening a Pandora’s box, enabling the “abuse and distortion” of the world map.

“It would be a truly fatal mistake for all of us, and for this General Assembly, to seek to correct a historical injustice in the geographical depiction of countries and continents by simultaneously allowing a deeply troubling interpretation of the text of this draft resolution,” he added.

What is Japan demanding?

Meanwhile, on Thursday, Tokyo, which voted in favour of the new map, said it had also asked for corrections to the Equal Earth projection because the map uses the same colours and shades for Russian territory as it does for the disputed Kuril Islands.

Russia and Japan have long fought over control of the four islands, known in Russia as the Southern Kurils and in Japan as the Northern Territories. In 1945, during World War II, the Soviet Union invaded and annexed the islands as part of a pact with Western Allies that stipulated the Soviets would take the disputed territory. The islands’ Japanese inhabitants were removed.

Subsequently, Japan and the US have claimed that the islands were not part of the original pact. The islands, however, remain under Russian administration.

In August this year, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin paid his first-ever visit to the islands, drawing condemnation from Japan. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi called the visit “absolutely unacceptable”, saying it “offends the sentiments of the Japanese people”.

This week, Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara said the Japanese embassy in the US has asked Equal Earth’s creators to change the map.

“Displays that contradict the Japanese government’s position are seen [on the map],” Kihara said at a news conference. “We need to prevent incorrect perceptions regarding our country’s territories and geographical names from spreading.”

Why is India uneasy about the map?

India also voted in favour of the Equal Earth projection, but on Sunday, the Ministry of External Affairs published a caveat regarding depictions of the disputed border territory of Kashmir.

Following the Indian partition of 1947, both Pakistan and India lay claim to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir, which had been controlled by the British through indirect rule. The region has subsequently been a flashpoint for tensions between the two rivals and has led to several wars.

Parts of Kashmir are administered by Pakistan, while other parts are administered by India. China, which also disputes some Kashmir territory with India, administers its northeastern portion.

In his statement, spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal noted that the UN vote was in favour of encouraging the use of equal area projections and that it had not made the use of any one map mandatory.

“India’s sovereign territory, including the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, must be depicted in accordance with India’s official map,” he said. “Any inaccurate or misleading depiction is unacceptable.”

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The U.S. Supreme Court again rejected a push to use Missouri congressional maps backed by President Donald Trump on Thursday, a loss for Republicans trying to maintain control of the House in the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision appears to clear the way for use of the old maps.

It comes after a pitched court battle shortly before ballots begin going out for the pivotal November elections. The maps were drawn to help Republicans gain an additional U.S. House seat.

It’s the second time the high court has refused to intervene to keep the Trump-backed maps in place.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.